Entry tags:

good little girls, just go away, words like violence

how women turn to misogyny
Me being the woman turning to misogyny.

Harriet Evans, who writes books like these, complains in the Guardian Book Blog that "an extraordinary amount of bile and patronising comment" is directed toward "commercial women's fiction" which is always labeled "'chick-lit': often a derogatory term used to mean books by young women drinking chardonnay and being silly about boys, without the thought that novels by women about women might accurately reflect their lives and thus have merit or, at the very least, relevance." And that books by men written "in the same vein" are not exposed to bile and patronising comment. [Her examples of this phenomenon, you have to see to believe.] Or, more succinctly: "It winds me up that books about young women are seen as frivolous and silly, while books about young men's lives that cover the same topics, are reviewed and debated, seen as valid and interesting contributions to the current social and media scene."

So what are these books about young women about? Oh, "the diversion it gives hardworking people who want a good read," mostly.

A lot of people did not like various aspects of this post, with quite a few of them focusing on how it's the publishing industry that sucks for making all books by women fitted in pink covers and swirly font. But here are a few of the supportive comments:

Perhaps we should use 'prick lit' for all those bangs and bombs books with the dark as opposed to pink covers?

And please, commenters, don't say sci-fi is patronised or forgotten - I've seen many a serious review of cyberpunk and many a reverential article about the likes of Philip K Dick - well deserved, mind you, but you don't see the same seriousness given to women's work. By the way, Jane Austen - now so revered - was considered lightweight and chicky-chick in her own time.

In reply to the people who object to the pretty covers, please understand that commercial publishing is a business. And in order to appeal to the most readers possible, women's fiction jackets need to actually LOOK LIKE women's fiction. And you're right - there are key markers for this: swirls, confetti, glittery hearts and flowers - to name but a few. But why is this such a bad thing? They might put off a Guardian reader or two, but the fact remains that there are likely several hundred thousand people a year who they delight - because, as any proper chick-lit /women's fiction fan will tell you, when you see those swirls and pretty illustrations, it usually means a novel which'll make you giggle, recognise yourself and people in your life, and maybe even give you that magical bit of escapism. And really -- even if the content is not personally your cup of tea -- what on earth could be wrong with letting other women enjoy that?

This comment is the winner though:

Most strikingly of all, when you take a good look at books from women who have gotten the nominations for big awards in the last few years, you'll notice that the ones by women are almost uniformly either a) in the voice or point of view of male characters or b) self-consciously "about" male themes: war, genocide, revolution. This is not bad, per se. But it does show how deeply ingrained our biases are.

Dear Christ Jesus is all I can say. The same commenter also says, "I would not want to be a young female writer these days." Yeah, sure - because of people like you, bud. This is called shooting yourself in the damn foot. Guess I'll go back to the kitchen now and have me a glass of chardonnay to go with my James McAvoy fantasy, because god knows that's what accurately reflects my life as a woman.

If you need me, I'll be giggling.

There's another post written by one of the writers that Harriet Evans holds up as someone who ought to be taught for A-Level - Joanna Trollope is her name - that compares Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary to today's chick lit (dear God help her), then unleashes this whammo of a get-back-in-your-place piece of reactionary social engineering: "get your relationships right and most of the rest of life assumes its proper proportion."

Damn, so that's all we needed to do to get rid of genocide? Oh, no, wait, I don't care about genocide. Forgot.