The radio thing didn't go so well for the
This is Chick Lit contingent. And at the risk of sounding
a tad bitter, I think that's because neither chick on the radio show read the book.
To this I say:
It's better than getting slammed.
Seriously. I'm not saying
they didn't read This is Chick Lit because I believe we're beyond bad reviews. It just seemed like Sara and
the host were doing the dance of avoidance. Not talking about something they didn't know a lot about.
The host did end the piece by saying she preferred
the other collection. But she also admitted to only reading part of that collection. (She hadn't even finished the first story, but knew she liked it.) She never mentioned attempting any of the chick lit stories. Sara didn't mention reading any of the chick lit stories either.
Shouldn't that render the discussion null and void?
I mean, if two dudes on the radio are discussing the rift between Manhattan and Brooklyn, and both dudes spend the entire twenty minutes discussing what's great about Manhattan, wouldn't you assume both dudes don't know anything about Brooklyn? Or that they both came into the discussion preferring Manhattan? Which is fine. You can prefer Manhattan. Or Not Chick Lit. But what good is a
vs. discussion when the people doing the dicussing are on the same side?
Journalists reviewing and discussing things they haven't "had time" to thoroughly research has always been one of my pet peeves. I'm guilty of it, but I don't have my own radio show and I don't edit a major publication. I commit this faux pas at dinner parties and in the privacy of my own home, and I bet I'll do it on this blog. Years ago, I refused to finish watching a play I was meant to write a college paper on. My professor wouldn't allow me to write about a play I hadn't finished watching. Because it would be unfair to the artist. I failed the class. (I had no business taking a theater course anyway.) I should have.
Both women touched on issues worth discussing. Like, aren't the women in the other collection cashing in on the chick-lit phrase? (Something chick-lit writers have been pointing out since news of the other collection came out.) And, what is literary fiction?
The host also pointed out that people who are put in a box by the majority tend to turn on each other. I agree. But both women failed to mention that the
This is Chick Lit chicks didn't start this. We just want to write what we love to write and read what we love to read. Chick-lit writers routinely embrace lit chicks while some lit chicks say they'd like to "stab [our] characters in the eyes with cocktail sticks." (Um.
Okay.)
In
This is Chick Lit, we each choose a "lit book" we want chick-lit readers to try. (I chose
Liquor by Poppy Z. Brite.) The other chicks...didn't. Because "the original short stories in [that] collection touch on some of the same themes as chick lit – the search for love and identity – but they do so with extraordinary power, creativity, and range..."
So why read chick-lit when you can read..chick-lit that's not?
And on a literary note, the
Edward P. Jones story in this week's
New Yorker is wonderful. It's called
Bad Neighbors.