Don't know who she is? Neither did I until this morning. Her novel, Inglorious, has just won the Orange Prize for New Writers and Shami Chakrabarti, chair of judges for the award, called it "Dostoevsky meets Bridget Jones".
There's an interview with Kavenna in the Guardian today and, of course, they have to address that Bridget Jones "slur", don't they?
"I don't understand what chick-lit means, and to a degree it's just used to dismiss quite a lot of writing by women," Kavenna says. "It's a blanket term that renders a wide variety of literature frivolous. It's used either to dismiss the writing or to avoid thinking about it."
Blimey. I wasn't expecting that.
Another issue is the cover. The cover above is the UK cover. The American publisher used this cover on the right - a chick lit standard headless woman.
"I begged them not to use that cover but they did, and the reviews in the US were slightly different because of it," says Kavenna in the Guardian. "One said, 'This is the most boring chick-lit novel I've ever read.' They may have felt it backfired, because they did a much more sober cover for the paperback."
That "This is the most boring chick-lit novel I've ever read" comment made me laugh. I love the idea of someone picking up a chick lit book, looking for an entertaining read and being disappointed to find a "literary" novel instead. Or is that just me being perverse?
(It also reminds me that there was some debate about the opposite, wasn't there? I can't find it, but didn't someone complain that chick lit books were being cunningly and maliciously disguised as "real" literature? If anyone can remember, please let me know.)
