Secure but Not Safe

When I heard Lieutenant General John Sattler say this in reference to Fallujah sometime in November 2004, I wondered: What the hell does that mean? I still don't know. But it seems disturbingly appropriate for the way I see the world today.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

There's No Such Thing As Bad Publicity...right?

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.

5 Comments:

  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Colleen Gleason said…

    That's a disappointment. I'm sorry it didn't go well.

    I listen to NPR and Terry Gross a lot, and love that she always knows the book/movie/whatever she's discussing inside and out. She pulls such specific things from it that you know she's read it.

    I think if a journalist is going to interview someone on a public show, they ought to have the courtesy to know the item they're discussing.

    But, I do agree--there is no such thing as bad publicity. So revel in it!

     
  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger Karen said…

    Thanks, Colleen.

    It's such a treat when a journalist/reviewer/interviewer is on top of what s/he is doing.

    I loved the book reviewer Daniel Mendelson (New York Magazine) because his reviews were so detailed. You never had to question why he panned something. He gave examples and had ideas.

    My husband loved Bryant Gumbel as an interviewer because he'd ask questions that weren't scripted - making it clear he'd researched his topic and didn't need to follow the questions on the page. He also seemed genuinely curious. (He loves Sam Donaldson for the same reason.)

    I listen to WNYC (NPR in NYC) and agree with you about Terry Gross. I'm sure chick-lit isn't her thing, but I bet she'd read the stories before she discussed them.

    Maybe the women did attempt to read some of the chick lit stories. But the intro to the chick lit anthology is awesome and a true debate on the topic of chick lit vs. lit would have brought some of the points in the chick lit anthology intro to the table. Maybe Sara will write about it in the next issue of PW...

     
  • At 4:28 PM, Blogger Colleen Gleason said…

    I think Terry Gross does a great job, in general, of asking unique, tough questions.

    I love her!

    I hope the "bad" publicity turns into good stuff for you.

     
  • At 7:05 PM, Blogger Karen said…

    I hope the "bad" publicity turns into good stuff for you.


    Thank you! We've had a nice mention in Bust Magazine that "sided" with us. Now we just need everyone else to see the light, too!

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Kelly (Lynn) Parra said…

    Sorry it didn't go so well, Karen.You're right, that is so strange to debate a book they hadn't read. It's leaving a message that they didn't care to take the time.

    On another note, you know I'm rooting for you and the ladies!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home