Yale Joins In The Chick Lit Debate
Writing for the Yale Daily News, Dayo Olopade weighs in on chick lit with this article. The question Dayo (I’m not sure if Dayo is male or female so I will just say Dayo) seeks to answer is:
Women read more than men. They buy more books than men. But what, precisely, is being offered to today’s female reader? And what “literary standards” are in play?
From what I can gather, the research for this article consisted of looking at covers in a bookstore window and reading a few backcover blurbs. As a result Dayo concludes:
While I will not claim to have read each of these books and thus cannot conclusively judge them on their merits, the content of works like “Pushing 30″ and “Bergdorf Blondes,” also in the display case, seem crushingly geared toward reductionist perspectives on the modern woman.
Once again, chick lit appears to be the death of feminism as we know it:
The post-feminist movement has failed in some critical way. The women in these novels (and who write these novels) are “empowered” and “independent.” They have come so far that they can now revel in the frivolities that fostered stereotypes of weakness in the past. But the joke is on them. The preponderance of female writers who stick closely to such content betrays the storied history of female authorship. 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.
The good news for chick lit is that it appears to be in held higher esteeem than “bodice rippers” but by mere inches only:
But who is attacking the devolving state of “female” literature today? There were a dozen chick-lit titles in the window display and dozens more lurking on the shelves of the store itself. Why? The industry’s return to titles that barely deviate from the often-ridiculed bodice-ripping genre cannot be attributed to any one simple reality.
And, we now know the mere presence of chick lit in the universe destroys the credibility of female authors everywhere and for all time:
Firstly, the diminishing voice of the female author in the circles of literature comes at the hands of a willing audience. Danielle Steele, Janet Evanovich, Sophie Kinsella and others are fabulously wealthy and successful writers, buoyed by the gusto with which female readers devour their faithfully written, ritually published pop novels. I will not begrudge these women the same success as Steven King or Michael Crichton. Nor their readers a quick Jimmy Choo fix. But the perceived demand for such books squeezes out those female writers interested in more “serious” literature. A publisher takes a chance on a work like “The God of Small Things;” “Life, Love and the Pursuit of Hotties” promises greater returns.
This reality forces a segregation of content–and of gender. One need only look at the Modern Library’s list of the Best 100 novels of the past century to see the damage that has been wrought. Two women break the top 50, of only nine in total. This is a representative injustice.
Wonder what other social ills chick lit has caused. Heaven knows a genre written by women and for women can’t be smart, rich, captivating and worthwhile. See, this is what happens when you let women decide for themselves what they want to read and write…they destroy everything. Some would say that right-to-vote thing isn’t working out so well either.
February 18th, 2006 at 10:47 am
I just have to wonder at the gender of the panel that composed the 100 Best Novels of the past century, which, if I can add right, started just slightly before chick-lit and even bodice-rippers(otherwise known as romance)became the rage. I’m sure during those 100 years the 2 that they chose were the only ones of merit written by women during the whole century.
Sheesh!
Women buy more books than men. Men watch more T.V. than women. Maybe that’s why they don’t really have a comparable genre that has more entertainment value. Or would sci-fi qualify? Does Robert Jordan show up in the top 100?
February 18th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I find it strangely disturbing that people keep writing what appears to be the same article over and over again. Is there nothing new to report in the publishing industry? It sounds like someone’s homework assignment. (shaking head)
February 18th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
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.
February 18th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
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).
February 20th, 2006 at 6:28 am
“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.
February 20th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
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.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
“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.
April 10th, 2006 at 12:42 am
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
April 10th, 2006 at 7:17 am
[...] 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. [...]
April 10th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
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.”