Małgorzata Skóra
Between the lines… - female writers off the leash
Blurb:
In the 21st century, with the experiences of the movements of the 1960’s and 70’s, these are not men that order their wives to come to their senses, stop scribbling and go back to cleaning the house they’ve built, watering the tree they’ve planted and changing diapers to children they’ve conceived. These are other women, literary women, who organise witch-hunts for Chardonnay fans – writing about losing a guy and finding a job – aka “the chicks”. Who will win the war? Nobody knows! Both sides don’t mince their words and look charming while going for the kill.
Literature, no matter whether it was just a story about great heroes told by the fire, a medieval propagandist pamphlet, a romantic love poem or a plebeian novel, was predominantly, not to say exclusively, created by men and constituted an essential part of the cultural heritage of a male-governed community. At present, it can be said that literature is not only a cultural phenomenon but it is a subject of constant academic research, and also a thriving business. A novel, a genre[1] used to hold in contempt, nowadays enjoys the greatest diversity and popularity on the market. One of the novelties is a type called “chick lit” defined as “novels that are intended for women, often with a young, single woman as the main character” (Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary) – you certainly now titles such as Bridget Jones’s Diary by Helen Fielding or Confessions of a Shopaholic by Sophie Kinsella. Books by women for women seem to be dreams come true for legions of active feminists and also for ordinary women in want of a book written by an understanding female soul. However, chick lit books are looked down on by, surprisingly, not chauvinistic men but by most of feminist critics and non-chick-lit writers in opposition to readers thanks to whom the books are bestsellers.
The criticism generated by this new genre lays bare the fact that female authors writing about things important to them are still considered more as scribblers[2] than authors. This kind of criticism has its long tradition. For instance, George Eliot’s essay “Silly Novels by Lady Novelists” published in 1845 ridicules[3] her female contemporaries writing in an elevated style about love, home and, what is for Eliot “the most pitiable”, about religion, philosophy and morals. Maybe she was afraid that women would always be referred to, according to Mazza notes, as “women writers” and not simply “writers” (“Who’s Laughing Now?” 28). It seems that these anxieties[4] have become our reality since chick lit authors diminish themselves saying “I sold my first novel, but it’s only chick lit” (qtd. in Davis-Kahl 2). It sounds like a statement of a humble[5] housewife in the 19th century and not of a writer living in the liberated 21st century.” Men are taken seriously when they write about the female half of the world – and women aren't taken seriously when writing about themselves…” (Steinem), therefore feminists, criticizing women writing about their sex, seem to contradict themselves and behave like nineteenth-century matrons guarding the morality of a nation. Virginia Woolf’s statement from A Room of One’s Own can defend a chick lit writer:
Speaking crudely, football and sport are “important”; the worship of fashion, the buying of clothes “trivial”. And these values are inevitably transferred from life to fiction. This is an important book, the critic assumes, because it deals with war. This is an insignificant book because it deals with the feelings of women in a drawing–room[6]. (qtd. in Davis-Kahl 3)
Although the drawing-rooms were abandoned for the fancy downtown offices and fashionable clubs, the war between women is in full swing[7]. John Ezard cites in his article critical opinions of many world-class authors such as: Beryl Bainbridge, who describes chick lit as “froth[8]” and a waste of time; for Doris Lessing (Nobel Prize winner in 2007) the novels are “instantly forgettable” and she thinks that women should write about their real lives and not about “these helpless girls, drunken, worrying about their weight and so on”; Celia Brayfield criticizes publishers for whom an ideal author is “a twentysomething babe … who will look hot posing naked in a glossy magazine”; only Jeanette Winterson has “no problem” with the genre. Being far from undermining their literary authorities, Jenny Colgan is right with her quite sound argument that they are, speaking crudely, too old to understand modern women (qtd. in Guenther). Meeting with such opinions, no wonder that chick lit authors write about heroines lost in the world of still competing feminism and patriarchy. Women expected to be ideally “both Madonna and whore” (Lehmann in Baratz-Logsted 235) deserve to forget about their “everyday reality for a few hours and … smile” (Siplin in Baratz-Logsted 87). If reality is grim, what is wrong with more ironic, humorous look embellished with [9]the “feel-good world of Happy Ever Afters” (qtd. in “Biography”).
Intriguing can also be the question of money and a war between two anthologies: This Is Not Chick Lit edited by Elizabeth Merrick and This Is Chick Lit edited by Lauren Baratz-Logsted. “…Serious books by women were edged further off [10]the front display tables by these knockoffs[11] of Bridget Jones's Diary, and then it just got harder and harder to find literary works by women … there is an amazing flourishing of women literary writers at the moment that is being obscured by a huge pile of pink books with purses and shoes on the cover” - these are the opinions of Merrick quoted by Olen. If a women, an editor, a significant figure in the literary world dismisses other women writers, who do not meet her standards, how it is possible to gain recognition for women’s writing if they - women themselves - do not respect each other. “Publishers Weekly was estimating more than 200 chick-lit tales were being published annually[12]” (Olen). It is true that chick lit is widely published and popular and maybe this is the biggest worry of the “literary writers”. They feel better because their exclusiveness and literariness means elite and not fraternizing[13] with the dirty crowd. Yet this crowd chooses and pays, gives fame and fortune. Possibly, it was the money that provoked the fury of the “literary writers”. They even used “chick lit” phrase to title their anthology taking advantage of its popularity.
I do not claim that every chick lit book will be an adventure to read or unforgettable experience but not every so to say literary book will be either. Chick lit is a significant modern literary female phenomenon and without deeper insight[14] into the matter cannot be hastily dismissed. The genre is hotly debated [15]and ardently criticized [16]nevertheless, “although the literary merit of these novels is questionable, the genre’s status as a media icon is not” (Harzewski 33). The novels are pejoratively called mass culture but “mass cultural texts are both a creation of culture, and create culture (…) [so] the failure to take these fictional characters seriously is a failure to take real women’s similar anxieties seriously” (Slooten). For some it is also a great entertainment and escapism and I do not see a reason to condemn them. I agree with Davis-Kahl that chick lit is a strong part of modern culture and its success should be documented in libraries and on our bookshelves (10). After all, “women burnt their bras” for us (Nathan 134) to be free, to have the right to write and to read whatever we want.
Works Cited
Baratz-Logsted, Lauren, ed. This Is Chick Lit. Dallas: Benbella Books, Inc, 2005.
“Chick lit”. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. 7th ed. Oxford UP, 2005.
Davis-Kahl, Stephanie. “The Case for Chick Lit in Academic Libraries.” Collection Building 27.1 (2008): 18-21. 12 November 2010 <http://works.bepress.com/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=stephanie_davis_kahl>.
Eliot, George. “Silly Novels by Lady Novelists.” October 1856. The Westminster Review. 12 November 2010. <http://webscript.princeton.edu/~mnoble/eliot-texts/eliot- sillynovels.html>.
Guenther, Leah. “Bridget Jones’s Diary: Confessing Post-feminism.” 2006. Bridget Archive. 12 November 2010. <http://bridgetarchive.altervista.org/confessing.htm>.
Harzewski, Stephanie. “Tradition and Displacement in the New Novel of Manners.” Chick Lit: The New Woman’s Fiction. Eds. Suzanne Ferris and Mallory Young. New York & London: Routledge, 2006. 29-46.
Mazza, Cris. “Who’s Laughing Now? A Short History of Chick Lit and the Perversion of a Genre.” Chick Lit: The New Woman’s Fiction. Eds. Suzanne Ferris and Mallory Young. New York & London: Routledge, 2006. 17-28.
Nathan, Melissa. Acting Up. London: Arrow Books, 2008.
Olen, Helaine. “The Trouble With Chick Lit.” 11 August 2006. AlterNet. 12 November 2010 <http://www.alternet.org/story/40170/?page=1>.
Slooten, Jessica L. Van, “A Truth Universally (Un)Acknowledged: Ally McBeal, Bridget Jones’s Diary and the Conflict between Romantic Love and Feminism.” 2006. Bridget Archive. 12 November 2010. <http://bridgetarchive.altervista.org/unacknowledged
_truth.htm>.
