Has anybody read This Is Not Chick Lit, a new anthology of writing that is supposed to be literary as opposed to commercial?
I was just reading an interesting interview on Alternet with Elizabeth Merritt, the anthology’s editor. Merritt argues that there is a need to defend and spotlight what she calls serious fiction by women, because the influx of Chick Lit, all started by Bridget Jones’ Diary, has taken away from serious writing by women. She states that these days, the only books written by women that are given spotlight and table space (that is, space on the big tables at the front of book stores like Chapters and Indigo) are the ones with purses and shoes on their covers.
But a scandal is raging now: chick lit writers have put together their own anthology called (can you guess?) This is Chick Lit, edited by Lauren Baratz-Logsted. These writers say they are hurt and angered by “serious women writers’” dismissal of their work as fluff. They ask - what’s so wrong with escapist fiction, especially in these hard times? And they contend (to be honest, I find this a leetle hard to believe) that chick lit does deal with pressing issues that women face, like class issues, racism and homophobia. Read contributor Rachel Pine’s thoughts on Elizabeth Merritt here.
Here’s a question for society at large though: why is it that there’s only space for one type of women writers on those sacred tables? Why is it that an increase in book sales for one group of women writers means a decrease in sales for another group of women writers? You never see Dan Brown and Jonathan Safran Foer cat fighting on the internet. I REJECT the answer that its because women naturally just love back-biting each other.
I think that it’s because while the book selling world is happy to make space for both Dan and Jonathan, they’re only willing to squeeze in one kind of lady. (And why is that? Is it because our culture is STILL inherently sexist? Aha! See! Feminism is still relevant!) It’s not surprising that publishing prefers to make room for the women who write about trying to balance bake sales with corporate ladder climbing, rather than the women who want to write deconstructions of class and gender issues.
Does anybody else here feel like women are totally set up to cat fight each other for the table scraps? Damn that patriarchy.
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
nine comments
As the editor of This Is Chick-Lit, as well as a contributor to the anthology, I'd like to point out that we're not cat-fighting on our end; we actually recommend 18 literary authors in the appendix to our book. We love all kinds of well-written books. We merely wanted to showcase a collection that would contain the wide spectrum of styles and themes addressed in Chick-Lit.
Posted by Lauren Baratz-Logsted
August 15, 2006, 1:20 PM
Here's another question: why do books by women ("chick lit" or not, but usually that's how "chick lit" is marked) so often have to have that annoying curlycue font?
Posted by Nicole
August 15, 2006, 3:36 PM
No Lauren, you don't need to catfight when you're the ones taking the shelf space away from ambitious literary authors who also happen to be female.
Then you can afford to be magnanimous and use faulty arguments to defend your "art." Because Thea's right--there's only so much room on the bookshelves for so many women. Your genre has made sure of that in the last decade. What's dangerous about chick lit is that it fills trade slots at publishing companies that used to be given to literary fiction. Unlike romance or sci-fi or westerns, chick lit is in DIRECT competition with literature because of it's price point and packaging.
Not to mention the fact that it has deeply weakened the American public's idea of what is quality trade fiction.
And, by the way, if arguing for the importance of art in our culture and especially women's voices in that art is "catfighting" well, I guess I'm a petty little girl.
Posted by Screwsan
August 16, 2006, 9:41 AM
Here's an interesting piece in In These Times by the wonderful Lakshmi Chaudhry:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main...
While she doesn't touch on the chick-lit vs. other female writers debate, she raises some interesting points. Historically, writing fiction has been considered the domain of women (and women read much more fiction than men), which of course means that it took male novelists a long time to be taken seriously as writers of fiction. Against this backdrop, Chaudhry argues, that "the novel seems to be reverting to its origins as a feminine hobby, and hence is in danger of being toppled off its high artistic perch." This means trouble for all women writers.
Posted by Nicole
August 16, 2006, 2:44 PM
Screwscan, whoever you are, your argument is laughable. I don't know where you and Elizabeth Merrick and Jessa Crispin shop that you can't find lit fic for all the pink covers in your way. The other day when I went shopping for something to read, I had no problem finding the Jennifer Egan, Andrew Hollernan and Peter Ackroyd books I was in the mood for.
Posted by Lauren Baratz-Logsted
August 20, 2006, 2:43 PM
Oh dear. The point of my post was not to encourage Chick Lit fans and Non-Chick Lit fans to have bitter arguments with each other.
I'll be the first to admit I don't like Chick Lit. I don't like the way I'm supposed to consume it, and I don't like the way it's supposed to be a representation of me. But those two dislikes, I'm realising, stem from how Chick Lit is marketed and packaged, not from Chick Lit writers themselves.
The process of writing the post made me question how I think about Chick Lit. I do totally disparage it, and don't respect it. And maybe that's not ok. Even if I don't like Chick Lit books, maybe I hate Bridget Jones and her stupid diary, and the curlycue font makes me feel like yakking - but I should still be able to say, these women are writing and putting their voice out there, and that's cool, because I'm a women and no one has wanted us to speak for so long. We should at least have each others' backs, even if Chick Lit books are not my bag.
The most important thing I wanted to put across in my post was that in the end, the problem is not Chick Lit writers. It's not non-Chick Lit writers either, who are too angry to be able to support their counterparts. It's the publishing industry, because
1) They take one representation of women and generalise it. I don't think that any Chick Lit writer is trying to say: this IS what it feels like to be a woman, anywhere in the world. BUT the industry has chosen to see Chick Litters as the only women. That is the publishing industry's fault, not the Chick Lit writers.
2) I said it once and I'll say it again: WE ARE NOT GIVEN ANY SPACE. There's only space for one kinda lady and one kinda group (and didn't bell hooks teach us in the 70's how wrong that is?), and publishing has chosen the Chick Lit writers. And I can't help but feel that it really lets sexism off the hook if we spend all our time fighting with each other, and instead of recognising our true enemy, and fighting it.
I agree that as much as it is important for non-Chick lit writers not to ridicule Chick Lit writers' achievements, it's important for Chick Lit writers to recognise their privilege, and hopefully, if possible, to recognise that their privilege is rooted in pretty messed up things.
And then, it's important for us to support each other. Because if we ain't with each other, we're alone. And nobody wants that.
Now please, stop saying mean things about each other.
Posted by thea
August 23, 2006, 9:42 AM
I've read some defenses of chick lit, and people say there's nothing wrong with light entertainment. I have no problem with that kind of lit being sold. But then they go on to say that chick lit sends an important message that empowers women. This is where I have trouble.
I fail to see any "depth" in these books, and yes, I'd say that if they were given a more dignified packaging. The women in them have only two things on their minds: sex and shopping. They are as fluffy as the Sweet Valley High books of my teens.
The secondary characters are all stereotypes - and no, I don't recognize myself or my friends in these books. We all have a lot more on our minds than sex/shopping, we don't perpetually make idiots of ourselves, and we care about social issues (and not just because the guy of our dreams does, too).
These books do not feature heroines who care passionately about the war in Iraq or Hurricane Katrina, they care only about their Prada and Gucci, and the Office Hunk with the dreamy green eyes and what their bathroom scale reads. They make me want to hurl.
Posted by Macon
August 30, 2006, 12:03 AM
"These books do not feature heroines who care passionately about the war in Iraq or Hurricane Katrina..."
And you've seen literary novels that DO feature women who care passionately about such things? Wow. Can I have your time machine when you're done, please? I'd like to get an inside track on next year's Oscar pool.
On a more serious note, books written by earnest self-styled progressive liberals about earnest self-styled progressive liberals frequently make ME want to hurl. So do the same types of books written by conservative fundamentalist Christians, so it's not a political thing, it's a bad writing thing. And if you think chick lit is only about sex and shopping, it just goes to show how limited your experience is. (Likewise, Thea, I'd respectfully suggest that a world where the New York Times Book Review puts Jennifer Egan, Marissa Peshl, and Claire Messud on its front page in the space of a month is not a world where women are having *excessive* difficulty gaining attention for serious writing.)
Posted by Ron
September 1, 2006, 9:54 PM
What the scholars and "serious" literary fiction writers have yet to acknowledge is that there is a serious disconnect between mainstream women, feminism, and even many third wave feminists.
As a professor, most of my female students do not and will not claim "feminism," which connotes radical faminism and a distrust of heterosexual women (sleeping with the enemy notions -- see Mary Daly and other cultural/radical feminists for that one)to them. As Ariel Levy in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs:Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, points out, mainstream young women have created a backlash culture that has twisted the meaning of "sexual liberation," into something "raunchy," to use Levy's words. Dancing on a stripper's pole at a local club is now a testiment of how liberated you are. No matter that this "freedom" has its roots in prostitution, a kind of servitude. This is where Chick Lit comes from, the somewhat revisionist idea of sexual liberation.
Moreover, the plots of Chick Lit take us back to the 19th century,when finding a man was the most important thing, not to the 1960s when women fought to separate themselves from all male connections in novels (see Atwood's Edible Woman). That Romance Plot of the 19th century is what is reconsituted in most of the Chick Lit genre, with the exception of some fine writers like Wiener.
Another important cultural fact is that a lot of people are buying the books, and they are mainstream women. I don't recognize myself in these books, but my younger sister seems to. There is something about reclaiming one's singlehood and transforming what used to be a frightening future (spinsterhood to use the 19th century term) into something exciting. That's what Sex in the City did for women who were over 30 years old. No need to lament your singledom, embrace it and have lots of great sex. Yet for all its sexual taboo-breaking, there is something sad and elegeic about a book like Sex in the City. Even with all the fabulous careers, these women are willing to trade real happiness for any guy who can support their lifestyle. That harkens back to Jane Austen. So how far have we come?
Women's fiction can't be just one genre. As one of the earlier posters wrote, it's not about being just one lady. When the dust settles, we will be able to weed out the good from the average. Until then, we need not, should not attack each other's "worthiness" to be heard.
That's what these Chick Lit novels do -- they offer another perspective, another voice. It might not be a voice that you want to hear but it does represent a voice that heretofore has been silenced. Women writing literary fiction have just as many venues open to them now as they did before 1997. Romance novels were all the rage then and Margaret Atwood never wanted to claw Danielle Steel.
Most of the women writing "chick lit" won't be competing for a Pulitzer. But some of them might be. People in the 19th century thought Austen was fluff too. How history can change one's perspective.
Posted by Florida Prof/Writer
October 2, 2006, 11:19 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.