Play It Again, Dowd
Over the weekend Maureen Dowd had an article in the New York Times about the evils of chick lit. You know the drill. For those who do not possess the NYT secret decoder ring - don’t worry. You’re not missing much. There is nothing new or original here from Dowd. The article basically went like this:
Chick lit has destroyed America, bookstores, publishing, motherhood and apple pie…blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah… Chick lit ruins women, blah, blah, blah… Chick lit is responsible for the dumbing down of women…blah, blah, blah. Went into a bookstore and saw all those pink covers and knew the books were crap… blah, blah, blah. “… chick lit…staged a coup of the literature shelves”…blah, blah, blah. [Yeah, that last one is a partial quote and, yeah, the full quote is just as dumb so don't bother.]
In what I can only assume was an effort to wow us with her cleverness, Dowd said this about the chick lit offerings she saw:
Please do not confuse these books with the love-and-marriage of Jane Austen. These are more like multicultural Harlequin romances. They’re Cinderella bodice rippers — Manolo trippers — girls with long legs, long shiny hair and sparkling eyes stumbling through life,
eating potato skins loaded with bacon bits and melted swiss, drinking cocktails, looking for the right man and dispensing nuggets of hard-won wisdom, like, “Any guy who can watch you hurl Cheez Doodles is a keeper,” and, “You can’t puke in wicker. It leaks.”
There for a second I thought she might not take a shot at romance fiction, but no.
::yawn::
How about this theory about what is really wrong here:
(1) the idea that women are too stupid to make reading choices on their own and, therefore, need to be protected from certain types of literature and certain book covers - next women will want the right to vote…oh, wait;
(2) the belief that only some types of fiction written by women should be deemed worthy or even readable, and that women who write or read anything “inappropriate” are uneducated or unenlightened;
(3) the assumption that book covers with the color pink are automatically a piece off crap;
(4) a general misunderstanding of genres preferred by many women (and popular fiction, in general), such that these genres are often maligned but rarely read by those screeching the loudest in horror;
(5) self-important journalists who, when faced with a looming deadline and not a single intelligent idea about which to write, then turn to the time-honored tradition of blaming the ills of the world on chick lit; and
(6) a general lack of lack of originality practiced by those who write about fiction and women’s role in it.
Blah, blah, blah…
February 11th, 2007 at 11:22 am
What utter crap (I’m trying very hard not to us an expletive as that might offend) utter unbelievable crap. How dare one woman take a shot at what she pobably has never read. I’m shaking with indignation right now
February 11th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Making sweeping generalizations puts you in line with those you condemn, no?
February 11th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Maria - She is not alone on taking the shots. In fact, this isn’t her even her first shot.
Wendy - Not sure what qualifies as a sweeping generalization in that list. I think #s 1-6 in any context or as applied to any genre are bad. But, that’s kind of the point of the “blah, blah, blah” at the end.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
How about also:
1) Being six months late to the story?
2) Saying that the new cover of THE BELL JAR, a stark, misty, bluish gray portrait that screams “depression” and has a tiny dash of pinkish gray in the title font, is “chick litty?”
3) Calling the writing of the 12 and up young adult Georgia Nicholson novel Angus, Thongs, and Full Frontal Snogging an example of how immature chick lit writing is. Yep, it’s a book for children in the voice of a young British teenager. I would imagine that indeed, the writing is, I don’t know.. high-schoolish? What’s next, talking about the simplicity of Goodnight Moon?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Well, I believe arguments could be made that each of 1-6 is a sweeping generalization, but most specifically, and offensively, numbers 5 and 6.
And too, I believe Maureen Dowd is well within her rights to dislike chicklit.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I think that she is not the first journalist to express this opinion of the ignorance of women to pick out their version of interesting reading material and she will not be the last. I believe that the fact that the romance genre is so popular and growing every day proves that romance is alive and well. I well continue to support my favorite authors when they release their new romances and will continue to search for new romance authors.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Wendy, come on now. Of course Dowd can have whatever opinion she wants about chick lit. I never said otherwise. My comments were not about her personal views. She was not speaking in her personal capacity at a dinner party. My point is this: Dowd’s professional work here is repetitive. Her comments, while pithy, are recycled versions of what we’ve all heard before. She fails to offer anything new or original. In my view, that’s lazy journalism. Journalism at it’s most uninteresting and unproductive. I believe that is Diana’s point. Well, that and the fact that some of Dowd’s comments do not appear to have a basis in reality.
Dowd’s attack is on a genre that is the subject of seemingly unending attacks. Chick lit has taken most of the popular fiction knocks for quite some time now. The idea hasn’t just been to question certain titles. The idea has been to challenge the genre’s validity and worthiness in publishing, as well as its right to be on the shelves taking up space other genres could fill. Then, as if deeming an entire genre were not enough, chick lit’s detractors tie the genre’s popularity to the poor treatment of women in society. Chick lit is the excuse, the whipping boy and the scapegoat. So, after all that, I am baffled at the (non)reaction of fellow authors to these attacks. It’s as if authors have decided chick lit is always fair game.
If journalists wrote weekly about horror or literary or other fiction, restating old and contrived assumptions, repackaging the same slams over and over about said genre and condemning said genre for the contemporary state of women’s rights and values, I would point those articles out as well and question the writers’ understanding. But, other genres (except romance) do not suffer the same barrage as chick lit. The fact this particular conversation by Dowd is about chick lit is not a battle line I drew. Dowd wrote. I responded here. I don’t even write chick lit, but I do get sick and tired of certain folks telling me what I should and should not read. I am equally annoyed by the idea that an entire genre is written off as slop by people who, for the most part, have never even read a book in the genre.
Now, if something I said was offensive about journalists - even though I was one years ago - I apologize. Unfortunately, this is not the first, and will not be the last time, someone will be offended by something I say. That’s the wonder and danger of having a blog. No one pays me. No one tells me what to write. I don’t purport to be neutral. I just say my opinion. When the unrelenting bashing of a genre works on my nerves, I’ll say that too.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Dowd’s professional work here is repetitive. Her comments, while pithy, are recycled versions of what we’ve all heard before. She fails to offer anything new or original.
So you rail against her for doing that, when exact that is the fault she finds with chicklit.
Hello, Pot.
February 12th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
::sigh::
Actually, it isn’t where she’s finding fault. Dowd condemned a genre based on covers, where the books are shelved and how that shelving demeans other books.
I’m betting most people would concede there is value to, and content diversity in, other genres such as horror, suspense, literary and so on. Would it really be so hard for chick lit detractors to admit that maybe, just maybe, chick lit has some value and content diversity as well? It is this ongoing need to demean an entire genre - again, usually based on never having read the genre - that I can’t fathom. Obviously, you think there’s something hypocritical about my position on this. I actually think I’m pretty consistent on this point, regardless of the genre being bashed.