« BOOK REVIEW: Queen of Babble Gets Hitched | Main | BOOK NEWS: Heart and Soul »
June 6, 2008 11:13 AM
Joanna Kavenna on chick lit
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.)
Came straight to this page? Visit www.trashionista.com for more female fiction news, reviews and interviews.
Posted by Aigua Media on June 6, 2008 in Book covers, Prize Winners | Permalink
Comments
Her comment about the term chick lit often used to indicate frivolous literature - to those who sneer at it. When I pick up a chick lit book, I expect it to be smart, funny, and full of fabulous characters I can fall in love with. What about that is frivolous? And I guess because I love chick lit, I would pick up the US cover over the UK one. But I am left wondering...what is Dostoyevsky meets Bridget Jones? Does that mean intelligent and entertaining? Have they not read a single Marian Keyes book???
Posted by: Lucie Simone | June 6, 2008 4:09 PM
I don't think she's saying it *is* frivolous, Lucie, rather that the term chick lit makes it sound like it's frivolous (unless I've misunderstood).
As for "Dostoyevsky meets Bridget Jones" I think that means it's literary, but it's about a single woman.
Posted by: Keris | June 6, 2008 5:06 PM
That's what I meant - that those who sneer at chick lit use the term to indicate frivolous literature. But for those who love chick lit, it identifies a writing style that is smart and fun even while tackling some very un-frivolous issues. I guess it was too early for me to start making sense when I wrote my comment!
Also, in the US, chick lit is shelved in the literary fiction section of bookstores - not romance or other genre specific areas. So, to me, chick lit is every bit as literary as Dostoyevsky. It's just a hell of a lot more fun to read.
Posted by: Lucie Simone | June 6, 2008 7:22 PM
Oh right. Sorry. Yes, I agree! Which is why I thought it was funny that someone expecting chick lit was disappointed to get literary fiction. :)
Posted by: Keris | June 6, 2008 8:45 PM
Apparently the original has been removed, but here's a response to the article I think you're thinking about (Chick Lit Hurts America):
http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/lit_crit/more_stupid_criticisms_of_chick_lit_43063.asp
LKL
Chick Literate
Confessions of a chick lit fanatic
http://www.lklawless.com/chickliterate
Posted by: Chick Literate | June 9, 2008 1:00 PM
Post a comment
Required fields marked by *