Comments on: Yale Joins In The Chick Lit Debate http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/ SEXY, SASSY, SMART ROMANTIC FICTION Wed, 16 May 2012 20:41:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Contact Paper  http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/#comment-108156 Contact Paper  Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:36:22 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/?p=297#comment-108156 i can say that most mens issues arise from women, ego, money and power. it always revolve around those things;'` i can say that most mens issues arise from women, ego, money and power. it always revolve around those things;’`

]]> By: Jocelyn Peterson http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/#comment-107753 Jocelyn Peterson Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:46:07 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/?p=297#comment-107753 Mens issues are sometimes always concentrated on the ego of men.-': Mens issues are sometimes always concentrated on the ego of men.-’:

]]> By: Samantha http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/#comment-1700 Samantha Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:51:18 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/?p=297#comment-1700 Men read less than women. But what’s out there for today’s modern male reader? American publishing is loopy for books on “men’s issues” – chicks, cars, spies, and booze. A display window at the revered Chuck’s Bookstore & Body Shop in Moose Holler shows an old carburetor, a faded Playboy from 1967, and a six-pack of Pabst Blue-Ribbon. This encapsulates “dude-lit” writing that is raging at NASCAR rallies. Although I haven’t read the label on a six-pack of Pabst, I am familiar with “It’s Miller Time” and thus can speak with great authority on seminal works like “Juiced: the story of Jose Canseco” and every book that involves spies, sports, political malfeasance, fishing, physics, philosophy, and other sneaky guy stuff. These works offer a despairingly depressing view of guys. The man, dressed like a schlub, drinks his Pabst and wishes to be left alone with his big-screen TV except that he has to do some important spy stuff. Luckily for the safety of the world, he knows all about weapons, Kung Fu, and sex with hotties. His adventures are called “thrilling.” Dude-Lit heroes are generally emotional loozers. They wallow in their macho, macho manhood without wondering about butterflies and the laundry. Publishers are totally loving books about violent stuff that guys do, but how different are these books from pictographs on cave walls of Org spearing a dinosaur? The passion for these books squashes any place for serious male writers, who don’t know much about weaponry or spies or Pabst. You can look at Chuck’s Bookstore & Bodyshop’s Top 10 Bestsellers and see how bad things are. What woman is going to want to read “Babes, Balls, Beer & Betrayal," anything by Michael Critchton or any IT guy? The cult of the “intelligent woman author” is largely responsible. These people, who think that a lot of guys are totally clueless, idolize women writers for understanding the human heart and soul. Women are routinely described as “insightful,” “sensitive,” and “thoughtful,” while men are disparaged as being thoughtless pinheads. Talk to any woman reader today, including Wanda who does the billing at Chuck’s Bookstore and Bodyshop, which books by men she’s read and she just glares and lights another Malboro. Ask her which male writers she’s read ever and she’ll say, “Call of the Wild in junior high. It sucked.” Do not despair! Chuck himself is launching a reading group that will meet every Tuesday at the Moose Holler Grill for “men who can rebuild an engine and know most of the alphabet.” Men read less than women. But what’s out there for today’s modern male reader?

American publishing is loopy for books on “men’s issues” – chicks, cars, spies, and booze. A display window at the revered Chuck’s Bookstore & Body Shop in Moose Holler shows an old carburetor, a faded Playboy from 1967, and a six-pack of Pabst Blue-Ribbon.

This encapsulates “dude-lit” writing that is raging at NASCAR rallies. Although I haven’t read the label on a six-pack of Pabst, I am familiar with “It’s Miller Time” and thus can speak with great authority on seminal works like “Juiced: the story of Jose Canseco” and every book that involves spies, sports, political malfeasance, fishing, physics, philosophy, and other sneaky guy stuff. These works offer a despairingly depressing view of guys.

The man, dressed like a schlub, drinks his Pabst and wishes to be left alone with his big-screen TV except that he has to do some important spy stuff. Luckily for the safety of the world, he knows all about weapons, Kung Fu, and sex with hotties. His adventures are called “thrilling.”

Dude-Lit heroes are generally emotional loozers. They wallow in their macho, macho manhood without wondering about butterflies and the laundry. Publishers are totally loving books about violent stuff that guys do, but how different are these books from pictographs on cave walls of Org spearing a dinosaur?

The passion for these books squashes any place for serious male writers, who don’t know much about weaponry or spies or Pabst. You can look at Chuck’s Bookstore & Bodyshop’s Top 10 Bestsellers and see how bad things are. What woman is going to want to read “Babes, Balls, Beer & Betrayal,” anything by Michael Critchton or any IT guy?

The cult of the “intelligent woman author” is largely responsible. These people, who think that a lot of guys are totally clueless, idolize women writers for understanding the human heart and soul. Women are routinely described as “insightful,” “sensitive,” and “thoughtful,” while men are disparaged as being thoughtless pinheads.

Talk to any woman reader today, including Wanda who does the billing at Chuck’s Bookstore and Bodyshop, which books by men she’s read and she just glares and lights another Malboro. Ask her which male writers she’s read ever and she’ll say, “Call of the Wild in junior high. It sucked.”

Do not despair! Chuck himself is launching a reading group that will meet every Tuesday at the Moose Holler Grill for “men who can rebuild an engine and know most of the alphabet.”

]]> By: HelenKay Dimon » Blog Archive » Yale Chick Lit Debate Revisited http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/#comment-1696 HelenKay Dimon » Blog Archive » Yale Chick Lit Debate Revisited Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:17:30 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/?p=297#comment-1696 [...] A few months ago I drafted an entry and linked to an article by Dayo at Yale. The article was one which, in my view, gave the standard chick-lit-ruins-women argument based on what appeared to be the reading of a few chick lit offerings and the reviewing of back cover blurbs. The argument struck me as dated and uninformed. [...] [...] A few months ago I drafted an entry and linked to an article by Dayo at Yale. The article was one which, in my view, gave the standard chick-lit-ruins-women argument based on what appeared to be the reading of a few chick lit offerings and the reviewing of back cover blurbs. The argument struck me as dated and uninformed. [...]

]]> By: Dayo http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/#comment-1692 Dayo Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:42:13 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/?p=297#comment-1692 Interesting. I'm glad to see the self-important blogosphere rear its head once more. I am the female author of the above article, which--poorly excerpted--the lot of you have decided to rip apart for a number of reasons. A bit late in the game, I'll offer this as a reply: Firstly, the intentional delusion of "escapist" meaning in literature presupposes an apolitical slant to the printed word. Reading geared toward females, and in the cutthroat world of publishing, "reserved" for female writers, takes on the burden of REPRESENTATION for women to BOTH sexes. Men dismiss it; women are only hurt by the presumptions inherent in the most "known" tropes of chick lit. Why must she shop, and pout, and hover by the scale, and be dependent on males? That the stereotypical, privileged, gum-chewing female bimbo "speaks" for women as the only ambassador in print ignores the stratified and unbelievably diverse nature of female reality in the world today. What image, other than that of a spoiled brat, might the prototypical lovelorn London press agent offer to a woman anywhere in the so-called "third world"? Or in the first world? Women struggling to live through childbirth, abuse, and facing a host of other socio-political oppressions are fully uninitiated into the cult of material personality so prevalent in these texts. Further, the excerpt failed to mention my critique of the system of generating "good" literature, which is related to both publication and habits of interpretation. These "airy" novels are not considered alongside those of (what I call) "the cult of the young, male author". This system of valorization for young, snarky 20-etc male writers is utterly underused for females. The female author is taking a gamble on her gender with each word; and I agree with some posters that the cloisters of " high" art are closed to many women on principle. My point is the reductionist perspectives such literature promotes about the modern "woman" are both structural and contextual. If a woman writer (of whom so many are so talented) chooses to stake out territory for equal representation in print, she is walking a thin wire, sacrificing sales for the sake of political truth. Pointless dating chronicles not only make for ho-hum reading, they engender prejudices against marginalized women, not to mention a pretty talented half of civilization. This is a shame, that's all. Enough already. the FULL text can be found here: http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=31698 DFO 4/10 Interesting. I’m glad to see the self-important blogosphere rear its head once more. I am the female author of the above article, which–poorly excerpted–the lot of you have decided to rip apart for a number of reasons. A bit late in the game, I’ll offer this as a reply: Firstly, the intentional delusion of “escapist” meaning in literature presupposes an apolitical slant to the printed word. Reading geared toward females, and in the cutthroat world of publishing, “reserved” for female writers, takes on the burden of REPRESENTATION for women to BOTH sexes. Men dismiss it; women are only hurt by the presumptions inherent in the most “known” tropes of chick lit. Why must she shop, and pout, and hover by the scale, and be dependent on males? That the stereotypical, privileged, gum-chewing female bimbo “speaks” for women as the only ambassador in print ignores the stratified and unbelievably diverse nature of female reality in the world today. What image, other than that of a spoiled brat, might the prototypical lovelorn London press agent offer to a woman anywhere in the so-called “third world”? Or in the first world? Women struggling to live through childbirth, abuse, and facing a host of other socio-political oppressions are fully uninitiated into the cult of material personality so prevalent in these texts.
Further, the excerpt failed to mention my critique of the system of generating “good” literature, which is related to both publication and habits of interpretation. These “airy” novels are not considered alongside those of (what I call) “the cult of the young, male author”. This system of valorization for young, snarky 20-etc male writers is utterly underused for females. The female author is taking a gamble on her gender with each word; and I agree with some posters that the cloisters of ” high” art are closed to many women on principle.
My point is the reductionist perspectives such literature promotes about the modern “woman” are both structural and contextual. If a woman writer (of whom so many are so talented) chooses to stake out territory for equal representation in print, she is walking a thin wire, sacrificing sales for the sake of political truth. Pointless dating chronicles not only make for ho-hum reading, they engender prejudices against marginalized women, not to mention a pretty talented half of civilization. This is a shame, that’s all. Enough already.

the FULL text can be found here:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=31698

DFO 4/10

]]> By: Jay http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/#comment-1499 Jay Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:49:40 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/?p=297#comment-1499 <i>“Life, Love and the Pursuit of Hotties” is a young adult novel, not an adult chick lit novel, and doesn’t belong in this study.</i> oh, ha! I thought s/he was just making up a bimbo-like title to further illustrate his(er) point. “Life, Love and the Pursuit of Hotties” is a young adult novel, not an adult chick lit novel, and doesn’t belong in this study.

oh, ha! I thought s/he was just making up a bimbo-like title to further illustrate his(er) point.

]]> By: Beverly Danae http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/#comment-1489 Beverly Danae Tue, 21 Feb 2006 02:01:52 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/?p=297#comment-1489 It never surprises me that this type of article gets written, but it does surprise me when someone from Yale can't be bothered to get basic facts straight. Not only did they misspell "Stephen" King's name (one of the most successful and visible writers ever) but "Life, Love and the Pursuit of Hotties" is a young adult novel, not an adult chick lit novel, and doesn't belong in this study. It never surprises me that this type of article gets written, but it does surprise me when someone from Yale can’t be bothered to get basic facts straight. Not only did they misspell “Stephen” King’s name (one of the most successful and visible writers ever) but “Life, Love and the Pursuit of Hotties” is a young adult novel, not an adult chick lit novel, and doesn’t belong in this study.

]]> By: Jaynie R http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/#comment-1486 Jaynie R Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:28:14 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/?p=297#comment-1486 "From Sappho to Mary Wollstonecraft to Jhumpa Lahiri to Rita Dove, women have written well, and about socioeconomic, cultural and situational realities far broader than the narrow world of the Chiclet chewers" big fat yawn. I don't want that kind of real life in my fiction. I read chick lit and romance because they aren't real - they're an escape from reality, and a damn good one too. “From Sappho to Mary Wollstonecraft to Jhumpa Lahiri to Rita Dove, women have written well, and about socioeconomic, cultural and situational realities far broader than the narrow world of the Chiclet chewers”

big fat yawn. I don’t want that kind of real life in my fiction. I read chick lit and romance because they aren’t real – they’re an escape from reality, and a damn good one too.

]]> By: trisha ashley http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/#comment-1479 trisha ashley Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:22:20 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/?p=297#comment-1479 I agree entirely with your points, HelenKay, this sort of grabbed-from-the air, unjustified criticism of the type of novels that paint a very real picture of what it is like to be woman right here, right now, is infuriating. In fact it was probably critics like this Dayo that made Sappho jump off that cliff in the first place (and maybe Dayo should read my novel The Urge to Jump, in which my Sappho is the absolute opposite of everything he thinks a chicklit heroine is like). I agree entirely with your points, HelenKay, this sort of grabbed-from-the air, unjustified criticism of the type of novels that paint a very real picture of what it is like to be woman right here, right now, is infuriating. In fact it was probably critics like this Dayo that made Sappho jump off that cliff in the first place (and maybe Dayo should read my novel The Urge to Jump, in which my Sappho is the absolute opposite of everything he thinks a chicklit heroine is like).

]]> By: Diana http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/02/yale-joins-in-the-chick-lit-debate/#comment-1478 Diana Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:00:23 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/?p=297#comment-1478 I agree with you, Jordan. I'm embarrassed on behalf of my alma mater. First the travesty of journalistic ethics that is Louise Storey and now this pap. The chick lit genre aside for the moment, I guess Dayo has never heard of little bestsellers like Jodi Picoult, Zadie Smith, Elizabeth Kostova (who is an alum, dammit!), Audrey Niffennegger, and Alice Sebold. That's right. Women's literature has gone to the dogs. And the chick lit titles she chose are not exactly the meatiest of the bunch. Shopaholic books are SUPPOSED to be extreme saitre. All you have to do is pick it up once to be aware of that. Stephanie Plum is slapstick comedy. Did she think that the Three stooges were making a statement about men of their time? Sheesh. I should send Dayo a copy of "Do Me Do My Roots," "Starting From Square Two" or "And She Was" to show how deep this supposed "froth" actually gets. I agree with you, Jordan. I’m embarrassed on behalf of my alma mater. First the travesty of journalistic ethics that is Louise Storey and now this pap.

The chick lit genre aside for the moment, I guess Dayo has never heard of little bestsellers like Jodi Picoult, Zadie Smith, Elizabeth Kostova (who is an alum, dammit!), Audrey Niffennegger, and Alice Sebold. That’s right. Women’s literature has gone to the dogs.

And the chick lit titles she chose are not exactly the meatiest of the bunch. Shopaholic books are SUPPOSED to be extreme saitre. All you have to do is pick it up once to be aware of that. Stephanie Plum is slapstick comedy. Did she think that the Three stooges were making a statement about men of their time? Sheesh. I should send Dayo a copy of “Do Me Do My Roots,” “Starting From Square Two” or “And She Was” to show how deep this supposed “froth” actually gets.

]]>