Ugh, pink. Via kpishdadi@flickr.
Over at the Guardian women’s pages Mary Fitzgerald has taken up the question of whether one needs to write differently for women than for men. I would recommend you read it, except by the third paragraph the perils of a British education and relatively literate reading public start getting her into trouble and she is off talking about Hélène Cixous and “écriture féminine.” Not to make assumptions about the vast amount of women writers working today, but I doubt that even when they conceive of themselves as “writing for women,” they do so with Cixous in mind. At any rate Fitzgerald proceeds to saddle Cixous’ (let’s face it, kind of obscure) brand of French feminism with responsibility for the Anna Wintours and Sophie Kinsellas of this world. One imagines Cixous in the great beyond saying (with my French Canadian grandmother’s tobacco-soaked rasp, natch) “Ferme ta gueule.“
Fitzgerald does, however, have a point. When I was a young and less jaded feminist I too would rail against what I saw as the excesses of “chick lit.” Surely you all recognize this stage of feminist awakening: one day you are reading a women’s magazine or a novel in which a character has gone on an extended shopping trip (fuck you, Sweet Valley High) and a small lightbulb suddenly appears over your head and alights itself. “I am not like this.“ And suddenly, the very appearance of the colour pink is like a red flag to you, enough to make you rend your (ethically-made, 20% hemp fiber) garments. And then your rage begins to snowball. Not only are you offended by the reductive stereotypes employed by the authors, you’re offended that this is what they think women want! Not all women want the same things! Don’t they know all women are different?
Well, of course they are, and I certainly resist any narrative the patriarchy tries to tell me about myself – how soft and nurturing I am, my apparent weakness for fruity cocktails (okay, true, but screw off, “manly drinks” that taste like last month’s unwashed socks), my love of velour. And I don’t believe, in any way, that any characteristic I have is directly biologically related. My affection for kitties does not keep a pied-à-terre in my ovaries.
But there is this thing known as the socially existing woman. There is something to the argument, and I know we’ve all felt it, that the female experience, in this culture, in this time, before the revolution and after somebody decided to publish our work, is distinctive. It is not immutable or unchangeable because it is different from the male experience, but it is there. And it is worth talking about.
Thus I cannot subscribe to a wholescale rejection of “writing for women,” because I am worried that it means uncritically accepting that the literary canon is already sufficiently imbued with (socially constructed, but nonetheless extant and real) women’s perspectives. It seems obvious to me that this is not the case. As our regular readers know, the Dudely Literati are the leading cause of ass-twitch in the PilgrimSoul household, not least because they conceive of themselves as writing about People or Humanity when in fact, they are mostly writing about themselves.
Sometimes I think we as women forget that so much of our attitudes about what it means to “write well” or “be insightful” are conditioned by the patriarchy, and the literary world is no exception. So allowing the supposedly “universal” standard of Good Writing to stand unchallenged by other voices – arguing, for example, that women can, should be, and are, just as interested in Benjamin Kunkel’s brainfarts as they are in Jane Austen’s – misses the fundamental point. Our idea about what makes Good Writing has traditionally been written by men, for men, about men and male concerns. When women (and here I do not mean the corporate-write-by-numbers un-self-aware “chick lit” – I mean Margaret Laurence and Toni Morrison) write about women, they should be applauded, not criticized, for adding to the range of perspectives out there.
And like it or not, the inclusion of diverse perspectives means that we are going to have unthinking female writers (hello Kinsella) out there just like we have unthinking male writers (I would like to kick Kunkel’s butt). But let’s be clear: their problem is their lack of critical awareness, not their desire to have a literature that speaks about and for female perspectives on life, the universe, and everything else.
And I guess what I’m saying is that I’m willing to pay that price for a single Alice Munro story. Shouldn’t you be?
But are you allowed to criticise Toni Morrison if you just find her overrated and not that good?
More seriously interesting piece. I liked Fitzgerald’s piece but I agree she does get a bit carried away and I think she’s unfair to Cixous.
On a personal level I am willing to pay that price but that’s because I enjoy a range of literature and I cannot deny that my heart holds a soft spot for bonkbusters (not chick lit which I loathe but the old fashioned and utterly ridiculous doorstoppers involving sex, drugs, more sex and usually some sort of dark secret and complicated revenge driven backstory). I know that I should reject these consumer driven tales of generally unbelievably and silly rich people but I can’t help but feel that everyone needs a bit of escapism now and then and this is where I take mine.
My favourite comfort novels are actually written by a woman – Dorothy Dunnett – who remains the finest historical novelist of all. Mind you historical fiction is traditionally a genre where women are allowed to compete (possibly because men often unreasonably dismiss it).
Wow, calling Cosmo ecriture feminine is quite a move, Mary! Aren’t Cosmo writers really writing more for advertisers and women-as-consumers than women as women?
Totally agree. I don’t love chick-lit but, to me, its not about writing “for women” its about putrid writing period and there are PLENTY of men who fit that bill as well (um…James Patterson?).
I can’t believe you are knocking Toni Morrison! Whoa. Maybe it’s an American thing. Is it a sign of a seriously degraded set of expectations about the world that I can’t knock chick lit because it’s still better than watching tv or reading hag mags?
I’m knocking Toni Morrison?
no, Emilyanne!
I write a lot of fiction but I almost never read it — an odd juxtaposition that I am endeavoring to change. After reading Austen for the very first time last month, I was thinking a lot about what it means to write for a female audience and how to make it enough about the human condition as well as specifically female issues that it feels fresh and relatable after 200 years (as it did for me when I read “Pride and Prejudice”). I have written short stories from male POVs, but right now am working on something that’s very much about having a female narrator. God help me if anyone ever calls it chick lit. That would speak less to the fact that it deals with relationships from a woman’s POV and more to the fact that it would suck.
JD: i agree with that, I will pick up chick-lit from time to time to divert myself, say on a plane, as opposed to Vogue/Cosmo etc
Toni Morrison is chick lit?! I think we need to define our terms.
jdregent, I like Beloved a great deal but I have seriously struggled with a lot of her novels. And I found the latest one utterly turgid and somewhat repetitive. Sorry. I do think she’s become sort of untouchable so that you’re not allowed to say yes she has written two great novels, Beloved and Song of Solomon, but not everything she writes is beyond reproach.
Bluebears, I feel like even if I read a really crappy book (my personal weaknesses being cheesy sex filled heathen “historical” fiction a la Clan of the Cave Bear) I have paid attention to a narrative and characters in a concentrated way, whereas after a chick mag or tv show I feel vaguely toxic and hung over.
Actually I agree with you that her novels are inconsistent. But Beloved is so amazing, I sort of forgive the rest.
Wait no one is saying that Morrison is chick lit – wtf? I merely commented on Pilgrim Soul’s comment that Morrison should be applauded not criticised for writing about women, because I don’t believe that subject matter places you beyond reproach.
SarahMC: I am assuming you didn’t take lit classes in college? I had dudes complaint about Morrison and Laurence that they did not write about “real issues” like Hemingway did. And I went to a really politically correct college.
We can talk about what chick lit is and isn’t, but to me the more interesting question is: is there a place for women’s writing by and for women?
JDRegent, hmm you have a point, Beloved is one of my top ten favourite books. Maybe that’s why I’m being a bit harsh on Ms Morrison. I didn’t really express my initial point well which is that I don’t think that subject matter should give you a bye – which seemed to be what Pilgrim Soul was suggested re Morrison. But on rereading the piece, I’m no longer sure that’s what she was saying. So er perhaps I should just shut up.
Are you KIDDING, P.Soul? Wow. Yet another moment my womens college education has protected me. What did they say about men who write about women? wait, are there any?
JD, sometimes I think we must have been separated at birth. (I got the radfem genes.) I used to be obsessed with those Sex-Among-the-Cave-People epics.
Emily I’m so sorry if you are feeling picked on, please read my all caps indignation with a heavy dose of good humor. I just enjoy literary fisticuffs! I’m just playing with you.
Oh P.Soul, I’m going to email you my current faves, I’m not going to write it here because anyone who knows me remotely would be able to ID me based on the titles alone.
Heh, JD.
Most dude lit students I knew were either Hemingway obssessives or Ondaatje emo-dudes. In both cases, they were always making comments like, “I’m not sexist, but, I get grossed out by literary descriptions of women’s periods…”
Ha ha ha ha. Imagine how grossed out we are having to read about nocturnal emissions!
Pilgrim Soul – yes there is – Jean Rhys, Elizabeth Taylor, Rosumund Lehman to name three women who tackled interesting and uniquely female viewpoint. And yes women writers do perhaps view a subject differently to the accepted male eye. However I remain wary of giving people a pass simply because they are writing for women. I don’t actually mean chick lit and other such fare here, I mean the idea that because someone is a female writing icon her work is beyond reproach, because surely that is the take that so many men take with the Updikes of this world and if I dislike the unquestioning acceptance of Updike then I must also dislike the unquestioning acceptance of, for arguments sake, Morrison.
JD: this is why I prefer plain old trashy romance over “chick-lit,” sometimes the stories are pretty involved and involving.
JD, oh don’t worry, I’m not feeling picked on (or no more than normal I am grossly over sensitive at the moment). I like the literary roughhousing, it’s fun.
Bluebears, it’s why I prefer bonkbusters. Chick Lit seems pale in comparison.
Also, emilyanne, don’t go away! But I wasn’t trying to say she should get a pass. I don’t think women should. But I do think that the definition of literary quality is gendered – that men get away with a level of unreflectiveness that women never do. I mean, if anyone has ever tried to read that Kunkel novel: it is seriously horrible! But Michiko Kakutani gave it a rave???
emilyanne: so true
as to toni morrison, I def. think her books can range from amazing to meh. But her great books are just so unparalleled. My personal favorite is Song of Solomon.
“is there a place for women’s writing by and for women?”
I think so, but it’d be nice if it were recognized that women are interested in more than shopping and men. And that we don’t all work “in advertising” or “at a magazine.”
Pilgrim Soul – did she? Christ that book is unreadable. Seriously it’s worse than 90 per cent straight-up chick lit (Is it dick lit?) Honestly I gave up 40 pages in. Then I took it to sell to local bookshops to try and get money back if not time – and none of them would buy it. That’s right the Brooklyn bookshops that were prepared to give me money for Jackie Collins, would not pay me for Kunkel. I gave it to Housing Works in the end. It is still there, nine months later.
DICK LIT! Did you make that up? Why is it not common currency already. LOVES IT.
I am not much of a fan of chick-lit myself, but having a few close contacts in the publishing industry, I can say with confidence that we would all be remiss to overlook or admonish the genre as a whole. The publishing world is getting smaller for writers, particularly new ones, and more and more stories that are simply about women, or featuring women are getting funneled into the chick-lit genre. It isn’t a good thing and I’m not happy about it, but it is increasingly true. We can really miss out on some great writing if we spend all of our time judging books by their genres.
But Sarah, we do all do that don’t we? I know my day isn’t complete until I’ve tried on a variety of impractical shoes, wafted along fifth avenue pretending I was Audrey Hepburn and then had a number of kooky mishaps with good looking strangers before setting down at my desk to make pointless phone calls for the day. Are you telling me the rest of you don’t live like this? I am stunned, literally.
Non-specific media jobs FTW, SarahMC!
I get ya, but the point is, there are a ton of writers out there, female ones, writing about these other things. But they somehow never get mentioned when the Dudely Literati gets all up in arms about chick lit. The reason unreflective chicklit is so prominent, IMHO, is because it serves the patriarchy’s view of what women are.
See, PS, I think it’s because chick lit SELLS SHIT. I swear sometimes Diet Coke is paying chick lit writers for product placement.
I read a lot of female authors but none of it is “chick lit.” Seems like they’re made invisible by the Dudely Literati.
PS, I think that’s a really valid point actually. I can name a huge number of male authors who are truly terrible and who all write the same book (sensitive young soul attends Ivy league university, becomes confused by life, searches for unattainable other girl, ends novel as writer. In the 80s this format used to be drugged up young man works in hip job in NYC sells his soul, loses his girlfriend, undergoes personal tragedy and abandons drugs to find soul again. Unless the book is by Bret Easton Elis in which case he just kills and possibly eats people in a metaphor for how New York will destroy us all).
Right now that detour is out of the way – they all write the same book and yet they garner serious reviews for novels that really are no less fluffy than the dismissed chick lit.
@SarahMC: God forbid my writing EVER turns out like that. I’m writing something semi-autobiographical right now and it does involve things like relationships and motherhood and working in a fashion-oriented industry because, well, that’s been part of my life. But if I ever write a whole paragraph describing a pair of high heels or how a man’s engorged member makes me feel…then I’ll give up and junk my laptop.
P.Soul, SarahMC: I think a big part of the problem is that publishing, and reviews, and the Dudely Literati – they all shove pretty much ALL non-genre female writing under the pink umbrella. I read a shit ton of books from the chick lit section when I was in grad school (fluff to clear my mind of the intricacies of information science), and several of the books I read…well, I wouldn’t call it chick lit. They were GOOD, but they weren’t remotely fluffy, they dealt with experiences/issues that weren’t all about finding the guy, they were extremely well-written…they were shelved with New Chick Lit at Borders. (My favorite of these was The Dive from Clausen’s Pier by Ann Packer, and I was so displeased when they cast Dawn from Buffy to play Carrie Bell in the tv movie)
Anyway, I feel like if women have to put up with the monolith-like label, so should the guys. Dudely Drivel, anyone?
@JDRegent: Chick lit does sell shit: books. And the money made from those books funds all kinds of writing.
I always think of the whole “ZOMG why are women reading chick lit when they could be reading Virginia Woolf?” to be reductionist to the point of ridiculousness. The two are not mutually exclusive. Like many readers, I read Sophie Kinsella because there are times I like light entertainment. When I want serious beautiful literature, I read Marilynne Robinson. The key is I READ BOTH, the same way I eat at dive-y shacks on the beach and at temples of haute cuisine.
And I’m totally with emilyanne–Toni Morrison is overrated. She’s one of those writers who has done a couple of spectacular books, but also a bunch of mediocre ones. Also, she’s is not pleasant in person.
I solve this problem by 1) reading mostly non-fiction, and 2) only reading fiction that is at least 50 years old. Of course, it creates the secondary problem of having no idea what’s going on in contemporary letters, but I’m getting the sense that I’m not missing much.
JD: she certainly didn’t coin Dick Lit. I’d classify say, Nick Hornby as one of the prime examples of Dick Lit.
Favorite term coined in one of my lit classes in college, to describe “All the Pretty Horses:” cowbohemian.
Also, there’s a book review up on salon today that also deals with this issue: http://www.salon.com/books/review/2009/02/24/elaine_showalter/index.html
FunnyFace, Ha I like that. Cowbohemian that is. And you are right I didn’t coin it (damn you for pointing it out). I was thinking of a British author named Mike Gayle rather than Hornby but both qualify.
Hey hey, what are you saying about the perils of a British education, hmmm??? (Asks the British-educated girl).
(I’m not offended, but I am curious what you mean!)
I agree with you, PS, I do think ‘women’s writing’ is worth something.
And…can I just say that I don’t think the idea of ecriture feminine should just be pooh-poohed like that. Cixous did say that men could write ecriture feminine (and gave Genet as an example of someone who had), I don’t think it was ever intended to be exclusively by or for women, it was just a different mode of writing which captured women’s experiences better. And although there was undoubtedly some bad 70s French feminist writing, there was a lot of good stuff that drew on these ideas (Cixous herself, Duras…)
I’ll read either women or men if the book is good. But I’ll admit that I don’t think going back and putting women ‘back into’ the canon wasn’t a bad thing (George Sand!), a lot of them had been popular at first and forgotten because they were women.
There was a story about a mother-daughter pair of writers in 19th century France I read once, I can’t remember where, sorry! But they were praised by contemporaries because you never saw an inkstain on their fingers, they kept their writing private. Awful, huh? We have come a long way.
Holy novel, Batman.
Sorry!
Well, when I was in college, I was the only “guy” (pre-transition, so socially seen as a dude) in my french feminine literature class and 18th century french novel class which was taught by a feminist professor. We analyzed “Madame Bovary” from a feminist perspective, which was eye-opening.
As for chick-lit, sure there is some that is dreck, but I think the term is used to dismiss a lot of literature just because it is written by, for or about women. Marian Keyes is considered Chick Lit, but I think she’s great… She writes about all sorts of issues, professional, relationships, drug abuse, etc… It’s not all about shopping, marriage, blah, blah, blah. Sure, there is some of that in there, but that’s because that is all part of life. But it is labeled Chick Lit so the important critics, i.e. men, can ignore or mock it and belittle women’s issues and concerns by labeling it as inconsequential fluff and I think it’s an insidious term because it even makes women feel like they have to agree with them to be taken seriously. Yeah, Sophie Kinsella is formulaic, but sadly I get a vicarious emotional kick reading some of her books. So, in summary, if women authors have to have cutesy pink covers to get published, blame the publishers and the industry and not the authors. Don’t punish them for doing what they have to do to get their books out. FIGHT THE LITERARY PATRIARCHY, DAMMIT!
You’ve made me curious: For what reasons would you like to kick Benjamin Kunkel’s butt? And could you point me to an example of this “unthinking” perspective of his you refer to?
[...] Soul wrote And She Writes (Just Like a Woman) on 24 Feb at The Pursuit of Harpyness. It’s about reading and writing as a [...]