The Ranting Of A Chick
Yesterday I made my usual jump over to Booksquare to see what interesting and intelligent thoughts she had for the day. And, well, calm and happiness ceased. The problem was not with Booksquare. It was with her link to GalleyCat which linked to a particularly short-sighted and annoying review/commentary by Colette Bancroft at MiamiHerald.com called No Party Girls in This Collection.
Bancroft’s article is one of the more condescending out there, which makes her quote regarding the book This Is Not Chick Lit all the more humorous:
None of the anthology’s 18 stories follows a formula; every one is a surprise. They address women’s lives without condescension and with plenty of intelligence, style and wit. This isn’t chick lit, but maybe chick lit should aspire to be this good.
Let me tell you, Bancroft can speak about condescension from a personal perspective seeing as she appears to be an expert on the subject.
Bancroft praises the new release This Is Not Chick Lit seemingly on the basis that the stories are written by women with MFAs and possess other credentials Bancroft deems acceptable. In case you’re wondering, having an MFA or attending an Ivy League or other prestigious university is not sufficient. No, not for Bancroft. She insists that writers have both the credentials she finds worthy and that these writers produce work she deems worthy. Apparently acceptance, flexibility, support and freedom of choice are not values to be held in any sort of esteem in Bancroft’s world.
Raise your hand if you think Bancroft regularly reads works by authors she calls the “party-girl likes of Plum Sykes and Candace Bushnell.” My guess is she’s decided to condemn an entire genre based on the theory that chick lit somehow lessens women and female authors. My guess comes from her reference to chick lit books having “perky pastel covers and characters who wear all the latest labels.”
Anyone still have a hand in the air for Bancroft’s open-minded approach to reading?
I’ve actually read This Is Not Chick Lit. I’ve also read This Is Chick Lit. Both contain interesting and well-written stories. Most are smart with strong, clear voices. Both include some stories that are stronger than others. A few stories in each feel a bit forced. Both are worthy and worth reading. But that’s not the point. The point is this: how sad and pathetic a statement it is about female authors and their ability to be accepting of each other and each other’s choices that books with those titles ever had to be written.
Both sides claim victory in this odd game of literary Mutually Assured Destruction. Female authors who view themselves as literary writers tend to be rabidly anti-chick lit. Their argument starts with this oddly paternal premise: the “brain candy” nature of chick lit demeans all female authors and women need to be educated as to the genre’s limited value and then be protected from it. This argument then passes into the absurd with its next step: if chick lit didn’t exist, female authors would be taken seriously, and there would be more spaces on the bookshelves for high-minded literature by women.
In the abstract, in a pure classroom-discussion way, these arguments may have some appeal. In reality, they are both baseless and pious. The basic theory assumes publishers such as Harlequin and Avon really want to publish literary works and would if it weren’t for all those dumb girlie books cluttering their lists. And, really, wouldn’t we all prefer a reading situation where women were only allowed to write one type of book and those were all shelved together, but men could write whatever they wanted and have the remaining five floors of every Barnes & Noble?
Think that’s taking the argument too far? Well, when is the last time a bunch of male literary authors wrote article after article about how the mere existence of James Patterson’s books on the shelves make it impossible for all other serious male writers to get published? How many reviews and editorials have you read where the theme was that James Patterson’s writing demeans men and makes it impossible for other male writers to be taken seriously? Doesn’t happen. Male authors may believe Patterson is a hack, may not read his work and may believe the genre should be better than what Patterson writes, but they don’t whine and cry and insist that they could get more respect and sales if books like those Patterson writes were ripped from all bookstores.
Some chick lit writers join the fight. The easy response to the literary crowd goes something like: you’re just jealous because the “popular” in “popular fiction” means someone actually reads our books. If female literary authors are envious of the success of chick lit writers, then the chick lit writers are just as envious of the social acceptance literary writers enjoy. When a chick lit writer ignores the work of an entire set of authors - in this case, the literary ones - they are just as guilty of holding narrow-minded views as their literary sisters. [NOTE: I am not talking about THIS IS CHICK LIT or its writers here. The authors in the book are very respectful of their literary sisters and even include a "reach across the aisle" in recommending literary works. Further, the introduction by Lauren Baratz-Logsted is extremely thoughtful and worth purchasing the book on its own.]
Frankly, only women engage in this childish argument - the “everyone else is to blame for my circumstance” philosophy. Women rightly take umbrage at the idea of having men tell them what to read and write. However, these women then turn around and inflict the same warped sense of superiority on other women writers. The theory seems to be that men can’t dictate what we read, write and enjoy but we, as women, have the moral high ground to dictate to other women and then belittle them and their choices if they don’t match our own.
The unfortunate fact here is that women marginalize women. We don’t need any help from men on this score. Imagine how strong women writers would be as a presence and force if they banded together against critics and naysayers and stood behind the premise of supporting whatever genre other women writers chose to pursue.
My advice to chick lit writers: Stop acting as if the writing world doesn’t understand you. Literary writers aren’t the enemy or, maybe the real answer is, they shouldn’t be. If you want acceptance, give acceptance. Don’t assume literary work is boring. Read outside your comfort zone.
My advice to female literary writers: Grow up and start acting with the level of maturity you purport to prefer. While critics and reviewers jump on the anti-chick lit bandwagon, their alliance with you is illusory. When chick lit ceases to be your excuse for not selling more or having more readers, then what? Try acceptance. If we all support each other and refuse to give into the view that women need to be protected from their reading choices, all women writers win.
My advice to Colette Bancroft: Do your job. Taking the easy jab at chick lit, while a popular sport these days, isn’t good writing. It’s trite. It’s lowest-common-denominator stuff. It’s on the pulling-hair-on-the-elementary-school-playground level. You can do better.
Blame Booksquare. She started me down this road…
August 30th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
[...] HelenKay can rant much better than I can. I originally saw the “This is not Chick Lit” book and the mini controversy around it, but not having picked the book up, I couldn’t really do a blind rant about the topic based solely on the promotion of the thing. After all, I’m not a writer, why should I care that a collection of “literature” gets promoted by using a title to declare that it’s not something? HelenKay starts out by slashing into a review/commentary by Collette Bancroft who has her nose so far up in the air you can see the whites of her pineal gland: Bancroft praises the new release This Is Not Chick Lit seemingly on the basis that the stories are written by women with MFAs and possess other credentials Bancroft deems acceptable. In case you’re wondering, having an MFA or attending an Ivy League or other prestigious university is not sufficient. No, not for Bancroft. She insists that writers have both the credentials she finds worthy and that these writers produce work she deems worthy. Apparently acceptance, flexibility, support and freedom of choice are not values to be held in any sort of esteem in Bancroft’s world. [...]
August 30th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
I’ve seen some of the “Literary is boring” arguments, but from what I’ve seen, they are only a fraction of the “chick lit is bad because the covers are pastel” ones. Mostly, I’ve seen the chick lit writers accept and champion the literary authors, and the latter turn around and say, “Of course you honor your betters.” Isn’t there a section in the “THIS IS CHICK LIT” book where every chick lit author recommends their favorite lit work? Most lit/genre snobbery I’ve witnessed is sadly one-sided. Though there are plenty of people who only read romance or SF or mysteries or what not, I’ve yet to hear a genre lover say, “Faulkner? I never read that trash.”
But I completely agree with you that this sort of backstabbing on gender bases seems limited to writers of women’s fiction. Still, it has to be, because there’s no such thing as “men’s fiction.” the Patterson situation doens’t happen because he’s not represented as “fiction for women by women” but “fiction for reader by writer.” Such is not the case for chick lit, and even romance.
The lit writer’s argument would have held water if it had been tweaked slightly: a few years ago, some lit books were completely misrepresented as chick lit in order to sell to the chick lit-friendly market. I bought some of them, thinking I was getting a funny beach read in — yes — a pastel pink cover, and being shocked when the packaging/cover/blurb/marketing was all wrong. I wish this was the argument that they took. Their beef isn’t with writers of chick lit, or even with publishers of chick lit, but with publishers of lit fiction so hungry for the dollar that they were willing to shove books that didn’t belong there into the chick lit slot. THAT is the problem, and THAT is where a book with a black cover proclaiming that NO, it’s NOT chick lit, might have been cute.
I’m a chick lit author and I love literary books. Did a whole degree on them. And I don’t much care whether my books are characterized as “frothy beach reads” or “satirical feminist tracts.” I can see both sides of that argument.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Isn’t there a section in the “THIS IS CHICK LIT” book where every chick lit author recommends their favorite lit work? There is. THIS IS CHICK LIT also includes a very well written forward by Lauren Baratz-Logsted where she talks about her reaction to the THIS IS NOT CHICK LIT book and her frustrations with this topic. She is smart and logical. She also remains very respectful of literary writers. When I said chick lit writers bear some responsibility in this debate I was not talking about Lauren or about any of the authors in the THIS IS CHICK LIT book. It was a general observation. But, I agree that the vitriol originates significantly more from one side of this debate than the other.
I’m not sure I agree with your point on the covers. I think this is more than just a complaint about packaging. It may have started that way, and the publishers may have done us all a disservice in that respect, but now chick lit stands as the agreed-upon cause of all of the budens female literary writers must overcome in their careers. The “chick lit novels demean women and make it hard for any female writer to be taken seriously” refrain is one I read and hear all the time. That’s really not a cover issue. It’s a content-judgment issue. Every single time I read or hear this argument I have to resist the urge to shake someone. Really, can you think of a single male writer who suffers from the same criticism - that he and his writing choices demean other men and cause men to have difficulty getting taken seriously in publishing? Men’s Adventure? Horror? No.
For me, the “written by women for women label” is not the issue either. A tagline didn’t cause this rift. In-fighting between women caused this mess. True, the tagline has become a generalized excuse for the extreme reaction to chick lit by some women writers. But, really, women should be smarter than this. And more responsible. Instead of screaming and denying, we should all be able to accept that others write and prefer to read different types of books. That would take the steam out of the argument. Control it.
My biggest issue is that the entire chick-lit-is-bad argument carries with it a twinge (more than a twinge, really) of women needing to be protected from certain forms of entertainment. Frankly, I don’t need to be protected. I don’t need female writers and critics telling me I’m being put down. I know when someone is putting me down and, to me, being told what I should read and what books have value is the ultimate in condescension.
August 31st, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I agree with all of your points HelenKay. I even concede the bit about most of the ranting being about the covers. Last week, while viewing some of the rants going on, it DID seem to be mostly about the covers, along the lines of “Chick lit is bad, have you SEEN those tacky covers?” but now everyone seems to be jumping on the “it’s keeping the real books from being published” bandwagon.
I found this little rant to be particularly insulting:
http://www.weeklydig.com/arts/articles/chick_lit_is_hurting_america
(I hope this link posts and doesn’t spam me out.)
Ah, anonymous vitriol. Always something to take seriously.
September 1st, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Thank you for this thoughtful blog and, in particular, for clarifying that THIS IS CHICK-LIT is concilliatory as opposed to vitriolic. (Please excuse any typos in this post, whose author consumed a whopping glass of wine, despite the flu, due to having two books pub in one day.)
September 2nd, 2006 at 8:47 am
Diana - I actually had to wait two days before I could click on the link you provided. I just knew the article would tick me off…and it did. The “real books can’t get published” argument is so silly I almost didn’t think it needed to be addressed but then I kept seeing it over and over. People keep saying it as if it’s valid or as if it makes sense, which is very frustrating.
Lauren - Thank you for putting THIS IS CHICK LIT together. I truly admire your respectful and smart introduction in the book. And, absolutely, there is nothing vitriolic or inappropriate about THIS IS CHICK LIT in my view. It’s in reaction to another book, yes, but it proves by example the point that chick lit is worthy writing. I’ll add a disclaimer in the main test so that it’s clear I am not referring to the book when speaking of the chick lit side of the debate.
The flu in summer - that just stinks. Feel better soon.