well, this is... awkward...
From the New York Times' Arts Section today:
The “Commencement” characters are savvy about, among other things, feminism and publishing. “When a woman writes a book that has anything to do with feelings or relationships, it’s either called chick lit or women’s fiction, right?” one of them asks. “But look at Updike, or Irving. Imagine if they’d been women. Just imagine. Someone would have slapped a pink cover onto ‘Rabbit at Rest,’ and poof, there goes the ... Pulitzer.”
Yes, exactly! Right on grrrrls, who in this books, "Commencement," which looks really good, are Smith grads and made out to be a fiesty, feminist bunch.
Except, then, the next paragraph:
They’re right of course. But this is the season when prettily designed books flood the market and compete for female readers. It’s a time when literary and lightweight books aimed at women become hard to tell apart. Their covers use standard imagery: sand, flowers, cake, feet, houses, pastel colors, the occasional Adirondack chair. Their titles (“Summer House,” “Dune Road,” “The Wedding Girl,” “Trouble”) skew generic. And they tend to be blurbed exclusively by women.
Is it just me, or is that really awkward? "They, uh, right... but, ya see, we needed a good way to group these lady books, and the lady books, are FREAKIN' LADY BOOKS and we're gonna GO RIGHT DAMN WELL AHEAD AND USE THE IMAGE WE INTENDED FOR THESE BOOKS!" The image, is, of course, practically oozing all the notifiers of "chick lit":
"Girls"? Check!
Fake beach sand? Check!
Sunglasses? Check!
Floppy hat? Check!
The author of Commencement clearly has to be more un-subtle next time she criticizes how women authors and their works are portrayed. Perhaps investing in a billboard outside the NYT Art Section's offices?
While, granted, some of these titles are indeed "chick-litty"--and it is certainly a niche some authors seek out--there are others that have no place underneath this floppy-hat display. Take, for example, the one little "shout-out" to substance that in the "Girls of Summer" article to "Shanghai Girls"-- a "seriously ambitious novel"-- that still about, according to Amazon.com a pair of sisters' "abrupt fall from grace is rife with the most heinous tragedies-rape and murder, betrayal and abandonment, poverty and servitude."
Ooh! Beach read, anyone?
Kidding.
My point is simple--and the same one voiced by the Smithy grrrads in "Commencement": just because a book is authored by a woman and even might have "girls" in the title doesn't mean it's a throwaway. They haven't thrown my personal favorite author (Babs Kingsolver) or favorite books (like Poisonwood Bible) under this cutesy display yet, but I feel like it's coming.Yet, even when this exact sentiment is said in one of the freakin' books being reviewed itself, apparently it's still falling on deaf ears. Reviewers, listen up to your characters. Please. You're embarassing yourselves.
The “Commencement” characters are savvy about, among other things, feminism and publishing. “When a woman writes a book that has anything to do with feelings or relationships, it’s either called chick lit or women’s fiction, right?” one of them asks. “But look at Updike, or Irving. Imagine if they’d been women. Just imagine. Someone would have slapped a pink cover onto ‘Rabbit at Rest,’ and poof, there goes the ... Pulitzer.”
Yes, exactly! Right on grrrrls, who in this books, "Commencement," which looks really good, are Smith grads and made out to be a fiesty, feminist bunch.
Except, then, the next paragraph:
They’re right of course. But this is the season when prettily designed books flood the market and compete for female readers. It’s a time when literary and lightweight books aimed at women become hard to tell apart. Their covers use standard imagery: sand, flowers, cake, feet, houses, pastel colors, the occasional Adirondack chair. Their titles (“Summer House,” “Dune Road,” “The Wedding Girl,” “Trouble”) skew generic. And they tend to be blurbed exclusively by women.
Is it just me, or is that really awkward? "They, uh, right... but, ya see, we needed a good way to group these lady books, and the lady books, are FREAKIN' LADY BOOKS and we're gonna GO RIGHT DAMN WELL AHEAD AND USE THE IMAGE WE INTENDED FOR THESE BOOKS!" The image, is, of course, practically oozing all the notifiers of "chick lit":
"Girls"? Check!
Fake beach sand? Check!
Sunglasses? Check!
Floppy hat? Check!
The author of Commencement clearly has to be more un-subtle next time she criticizes how women authors and their works are portrayed. Perhaps investing in a billboard outside the NYT Art Section's offices?
While, granted, some of these titles are indeed "chick-litty"--and it is certainly a niche some authors seek out--there are others that have no place underneath this floppy-hat display. Take, for example, the one little "shout-out" to substance that in the "Girls of Summer" article to "Shanghai Girls"-- a "seriously ambitious novel"-- that still about, according to Amazon.com a pair of sisters' "abrupt fall from grace is rife with the most heinous tragedies-rape and murder, betrayal and abandonment, poverty and servitude."
Ooh! Beach read, anyone?
Kidding.
My point is simple--and the same one voiced by the Smithy grrrads in "Commencement": just because a book is authored by a woman and even might have "girls" in the title doesn't mean it's a throwaway. They haven't thrown my personal favorite author (Babs Kingsolver) or favorite books (like Poisonwood Bible) under this cutesy display yet, but I feel like it's coming.Yet, even when this exact sentiment is said in one of the freakin' books being reviewed itself, apparently it's still falling on deaf ears. Reviewers, listen up to your characters. Please. You're embarassing yourselves.