Feminisms: Chick Lit, Good, Bad or Both
Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 06:27:24 PM PDT
Author's Note: When I initially began thinking of topics for this week, Chick Lit was the first that came to mind. After the Foley incident, the tragic deaths of those girls in Pennsylvania, I reconsidered the topic several times. I decided to stick with this initial topic because I didn't feel we knew enough as I was writing this week about the reasoning behind the murders in Pennsylvania, and I didn't want to write about Foley because there are 300 other diaries about Foley. So, this is the topic. If you're interested in hosting one week, let me know.
"Feminisms is a new series of weekly feminist diaries. Some of my fellow feminists and I decided to start our own for several purposes: we wanted a place to chat with each other, we felt it was important to both share our own stories and learn from others', and we hoped to introduce to the community a better understanding of what feminism is about.
Needless to say, we expect disagreements to arise. We have all had different experiences in life, so while we share the same labels, we don't necessarily share the same definitions. Hopefully, we can all be patient and civil with each other, and remember that, ultimately, we're all on the same side."
When I first thought of this week's topic, it was because I recently bought a short story collection entitled, This is Not Chick Lit. Of course, I also own a collection called, This Is Chick Lit. Ever since the publication of Bridget Jones's Diary, by Helen Fielding, the genre of chick lit has exploded into bookstores with book covers in just about every pastel color that exists, with high-heeled shoes, legs, rings, shopping bags, or cats donning the cover and titles like Confessions of a Shopoholic, Hex and the Single Girl, and Good In Bed. Now, as a fairly avid Chick Lit (and non-Chick Lit) reader, I would argue that there are genres or categories within the category of Chick Lit. For instance, there's "serious chick lit" (which is where I'd put Jennifer Weiner and Marian Keyes), and "fun chick lit" (which is where I'd put Sophie Kinsella, author of the Shopoholic series, and Meg Cabot, who writes chick lit and teen chick lit too. Cabot is the author of The Princess Diaries). There's also "single chick lit" where the main character who we all find so endearing remains single, or at least unmarried and without children, and then there's "newly-wed/new mom chick lit", and I really don't think I need to explain that one. Anyway, you get the point. There's a LOT out there.
To give you some background of the current debate that's being waged over chick lit, I've excerpted a little bit of the commentary from a few places. I'm also going to link you to a Talk of the Nation interview with the editor of the This is Not Chick Lit book, Elizabeth Merrick, as well as a few of the authors that appear in the anthology.
From Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon: Elizabeth Merrick, the editor of "This Is Not Chick Lit," says the genre "numbs our senses" and "shuts down our consciousness," whereas literature "grants us access to countless new cultures, places, and inner lives." Rachel Pine, a contributor to "This Is Chick Lit," counters that Merrick's definition is unfairly blinkered: "The idea that the plot is 'Girl in big city desperately searches for Mr. Right in between dieting and shopping for shoes,' as noted on the back-cover copy of 'This Is Not Chick Lit' is incorrect and shows an unwillingness to really look at the genre with any degree of objectivity."
From Rachel Sklar at HuffingtonPost: "we're in a place where "This Is Chick Lit" and "This Is Not Chick Lit" can coexist side by side, each making their own arguments for why women writers can be funny, serious, smart, goofy, sexy, literary, poetic, or alternatively a guilty or not-so-guilty pleasure. This, as it turns out, is discourse -- and as long as it's showcasing some good, smart, accomplished women writers, then I think it takes us that much closer to turning the chick lit frog into a prince."
When I first tried to narrow down my own position on Chick Lit I felt a little wishy washy about it. This is what I said about it in an email:
"On the one hand I can see that it could be harmful if it's all one reads. On the other, I absolutely LOVE getting lost in those books for a while. And I get a little frustrated when some feminists suggest it's a genre that shouldn't be taken seriously because the covers are pink and purple and the characters like to shop or whatever. I mean, it just seems counterintuitive. Why not celebrate female authors of all stripes? I get the impression some of the frustration with chick lit is related to a bit of jealousy because some of those authors make quite a bit of money."
When I wrote that I hadn't listened to the entire NPR show, I'd only heard part of the show, but upon listening to it later online I was happy to find Michelle Martin (who was filling in) ask the very questions that were jumping into my mind as I listened. I've transcripted the exchanges, trying to be as accurate as possible below. Forgive any errors.
The first important question:
MM: Hasn't this conversation been taking place for a long time between art and commerce, is it really a different conversation for women? What's different on the women's side?
EM: Absolutely, we've always had commercial fiction and literary fiction. The issue here for me is that I saw so many books by women that are stellar and gorgeous that are not getting as much attention as I'd hope and this coincided with the rise of the pink book cover at the front of the store. And I heard from so many friends, readers, that they had stopped buying fiction because they were sort of sick of reading the same story over and over again and they were having a hard time finding the kind of books that they could previously find easily."
I think this is important to point out. As an English Lit Major both undergrad and grad, I'm more than aware that this debate has been taking place for hundreds of years. There has always been division between "high" and "low" culture in literature and other art forms. The Chick Lit debate has just become the 21st century version of that. I'm actually a bit disappointed that Chick Lit has been getting the spotlight, and the discussion has been that it is somehow threatening to female authors in general, while "dick lit" or "dude lit" (think Nick Hornby) seems to be roundly ignored as non-threatening to male authors.
The second important question (this one was directed to Jennifer Egan, one of the contributors to the Not Chick Lit anthology):
MM: How do you weigh in on the question of chick lit?
JE: As a reader particularly and also as a writer, I feel very alienated from the category of chick lit. Unlike other genres, I feel that this category seems to announce itself as being sort of second rate, not serious, and chick lit announces itself as something w/ limited ambition and reach and also something girly. So, a category that presents itself as being trivial and female falls all to close to a prejudice we're still trying to overcome, that the female IS trivial, and that bothers me.
MM: Couldn't we make the opposite argument, why do we demean things just because they are female? For instance, we did a piece on this show about spring fashion, and some people were not pleased, but I didn't find them annoyed when we did a piece about baseball. Fashion is some women's hobby just as baseball is a hobby for some men. Isn't that a problem- that something is associated as being female, so it's lesser, so we need to run away from it?
JE: I agree, but that's why I question the marketing of this category. The stories they are telling have no need to be announced as trivial, I mean, what was Jane Austen writing about? What I don't like is that the assumption that that sort of lit by women is trivial."
Jennifer Egan makes a brilliant point here that I hadn't considered before, and unfortunately (for us all) she's right. Chick Lit does announce itself as being trivial. It is "just a beach read"...it's as if women aren't capable of reading thought-provoking yet fun novels on the beach...at least according to those doing the marketing who are announcing it as trivial.
The third exchange: "Caller: Were the Bronte sisters and Austen the chick lit writers of their time?
JE: In terms of content, yes. But we associate chick lit with something inherently trivial, so I would not like to see those authors categorized as chick lit.
Caller (this was the one male caller during the hour): It's strange that women's literature is something that is packaged FOR women, why don't they present women's lit as something that offers a story about people. It seems like there's more to it than that. The marketing promotes women's literature for women and men's literature for men. The marketing is shallow. Women writers should get access to the market regardless of the commercialism.
MM: The labeling inhibits creativity. Why do people have to be herded into a genre?
Caller: The selling of a book that way...our generation feels that we are commodities. We commodify ourselves. The reading of chick lit plays into that. It's more about selling yourself than it is about anything else. It plays into segregating women more than uniting them.
MM: Is literature just another way to make a fast buck these days?
Caller: I hope not. We can get the same themes in lit as chick lit, but they can be layered and textured."
This is just dead on. The callers in this segment were both on fire. Of course female authors should get access to the market regardless of the commercialism, but that doesn't appear to be happening (although I tend to argue with this a bit. I don't have any problems finding women's literature that isn't categorized as Chick Lit in my local bookstores...in particular (where Chick Lit IS at the front of the store), at our local Barnes and Noble. I also don't believe that its "low" pop-culture status is a reason to ignore it 100%. As a reader of chick lit I firmly believe chick lit can teach us all something. The message may not get across as eloquently as it did when Austen wrote it, but it still gets there. Of course, the point about commodification is the most important one here of all. This is the message young women AND young men are receiving today, whether they get it through reading books, magazines, or through watching tv.
I came across one final article, "Chick Lit Is Hurting America", in Boston's Weekly Dig (or is it Dig: Boston's Weekly? The website isn't exactly clear and I'm not from Boston), written by an anonymous former women's book editor. I don't know if I can believe that the author really held that job since it's anonymous, but the point she makes is important nonetheless: "As America increasingly devalues intellectual rigor, education and compassion, it becomes harder and harder to find a good book. And believe me--the ex-fiction editor--it's not because they're not out there. It's because the market is saturated by bad writers claiming to rep for all women, crowding the bookshelves, making sure their one marginal, vapid story is produced ten million times over, like some pretty pink version of hell."
As I said, when I started, I was a chick lit fan, but I'm an avid reader in general, so I didn't JUST read Chick Lit. Now that I've read all the arguments, I can't help but be a bit more persuaded by the This is Not Chick Lit camp. What are your thoughts? Do you think Chick Lit is bad for feminism, good for feminism, could it be both at the same time?
