If we were to say, oh, literary fiction sales suck because all literary fiction sucks, not only would people scream, but we’d have to admit to a slight exaggeration. Only some literary fiction sucks — the law of averages prevents all books of any genre from being the best ever. There is excellent literary fiction and there is bad literary fiction.
From a consumer perspective, which is presumably the purpose of writing reviews as they come a little too late in the process to help the author craft a better novel, knowing which books are worth reading and which books are not is a good thing. And, not suprisingly, consumers enjoy a wide range of options when it comes to pleasure reading. Which is why we find the following declarative statement to be wildly amusing:
Chick lit is not reviewed in the New York Times for the same reason that Nora Ephron movies do not win Best Picture Oscars. It’s because they both suck.
Now don’t get us wrong. We love elitism, so much so that we practice it wherever and whenever we can. The statement does, however, beg the question — is it true that the New York Times does not review chicklit because it sucks? Does the NYT refuse to review other books that suck, or just this particular genre? If that is the case, then, wow, those editors must have had one fun policy and procedures meeting. We imagine the following inserted into the manual:
Section 6, Paragraph 7: The New York Times Book Review (“NYTBR”) will not publish reviews of any novels that fall into the genre of “chicklit.” For the purposes of this paragraph, the genre will be defined as the following:
- The cover contains shades of pink, blue, green, or anything in the pastel family. Books with covers depicting shoes, purses, hats, or female figures (except those reminiscent of classical sculpture) will also be defined as chicklit.
- The narrator or protagonist does not possess a Y chromosome.
- The character(s) experience difficulties with romantic relationships, work, parents, or airline attendants.
- The author is female or knows a female.
Note: When applying subsection 4, use only the best available information.
Yes, it is true that the Wellesley Center for Women’s Women’s Review of Books ceased publication (though due to new funding, said publication will resume later this year) due to lack of funds, in part due to low subscriber rates. It logically follows that another review publication dedicated to women’s fiction would meet the same horrific fate. After all, when one member of your team strikes out, everyone strikes out. Then again, it’s possible that subsequent batters will take a different approach and meet with success.
19 responses so far ↓
Tod Goldberg // Jul 8, 2005 at 3:37 pm
But the NY Times does review chick-lit, especially hot or buzz worthy chick lit like Washintonienne or The Devil Wears Prada or that book about those loveable nannies, and as such I think fills a fair amount of space to the genre, more so than it does for fantasy or sci-fi, I’d wager. Book reviews are not a public trust — they are subjective to the wills of the editors and therefore inevitably show the bias or preference of the person selecting the books to be read based on what he or she thinks is most interesting to the readers of that newspaper. Do readers of the NY Times demand more clinical reviews of chick-lit? Lauren Baratz-Logsted seems to think so and that’s fine — I think they should review more short story collections by frumpy jewish guys, and by October, preferably. But the fact remains that what either of us wants is personal and until we get to edit the NYTBR, it’s going to remain that way. If you want chick lit to respected by a larger audience, to be be reviewed in the top papers in the land, make it more relevant to the audience you wish to reach, which, it would seem, would be people not yet reading chick lit.
Lauren Baratz-Logsted // Jul 9, 2005 at 8:35 am
Tod, the NYTBR actually does have a regular feature for Sci-Fi & Fantasy where several books get reviewed at a clip, just like they have a regular Crime feature written by Marilyn Stasio. In fact, the only large genre not represented by a regular feature is Romance. From this you can make your own inferences, or not. Finally, I do hope that, by October, the NYTBR ups its reviews of short story collections by frumpy Jewish guys – I read eclectically and I’d happily read that book.
Booksquare // Jul 9, 2005 at 9:43 am
Tod, I absolutely agree that book reviews are, ultimately, subject to the biases of the section editors. This will likely lead to their demise — I would imagine that from an advertising dollar perspective, the NYTBR comes closer to earning its keep, but other dedicated sections? I don’t the LA Times Book Review is bringing in that much advertising. At some point, someone is going to do a survey and find out that these sections are not being read by a large portion of the subscriber base. It will be a business decision, and that’s why I think it’s important for book reviews section to embrace diversity.
In another comment, Lauren noted something I was thinking about last night: it is only book review sections that seem to exercise a high degree of editorial bias. In a way, it’s quaint and old fashioned. Movie and music reviews tend to be more broad. Even Robert Hilburn steps outside his Springsteen/U2/White Stripes obsession to listen to new music and different genres. Nora Ephron movies are reviewed alongside Jim Jarmusch films — Ephron doesn’t make the critics swoon, but the fact remains that Sleepless in Seattle touched a broader audience than Mystery Train.
The two so-called chicklit books that you cited aren’t, in my opinion, chicklit as much as they are opportunistic. I am just going to persist in my belief that the writing in each is as bad as I imagine, and not bother reading them. There is a lot of really bad chicklit out there — in their rush to glut the market, publishers went out their way to throw a lot of ill-conceived books onto trucks. Eventually, the market will settle and mature.
I think a short story collection by a frumpy Jewish guy is more likely to be reviewed by the NYT than a short story collection by a frumpy Jewish woman. And you should be reviewed (you forgot to mention the title: Simplify — repetition is very important!). My worry is that because so many readers aren’t turning to traditional book review sections, your full audience won’t be reached. Maybe this is fine — I’m not entirely sure the NYTBR’s audience is readers as much as it is literary tastemakers (and by that, I mean the publishing industry), and from that perspective, a good review is very important, possibly just as important as brisk sales.
I’m willing to concede that certain books will not be considered by certain book review editors. But the fact remains that a large portion of the book-buying audience is being neglected.
Dee J. // Jul 9, 2005 at 12:19 pm
–Does the NYT refuse to review other books that suck, or just this particular genre?
By your own admission the Times reviews Helen Fielding’s chick-lit work. So it doesn’t ignore the genre. Your excuse is that it is only done because it is unavoidable, but really this is no different than the NYTBR reviewing Steven King’s pulp or Tom Clancy latest.
The NYTBR may have problems, but these won’t be solved by reviewing chick-lit. Chick-lit already gets more attention and reviews than it probably merits, so I wouldn’t worry too much about that. If you want to find new chick-lit to read, you can turn to fashion magazines, USA Today and average local papers for reviews. I buy the New York Times (at some small expense) in the hope that it will return to reviewing books with passion and insight. I can’t turn around without seeing a review or advertisement in some magazine or newspaper for one of chick-lit’s interchangable tales of womanhood which bear little resemblence to the experiences of a living breathing human female.
And btw, Helen Fielding already did the rip off Austen thing. That’s so last decade. Get your own thing. I would say she should have done the same, but at least it was somewhat less stale when she did it. If you are going to honour Austen, find your own funny offbeat way like Ruyard Kipling, though not exactly like Kipling if you can help it.
Sincerely,
Dee J.
KathyF // Jul 9, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Hey, off-topic, but I saw this in the Guardian today and thought you might be interested. Kate Duffy is quoted 1/3 way down. It’s about the rise of Christian fiction in the states. The cover of the insert was interesting. A tank with a US flag and a cross, and the words “Onward Christian Fiction.”
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1524121,00.html
Cheers.
Booksquare // Jul 9, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Thanks Kathy — interesting article (I really do love the Guardian’s coverage of fiction. I wonder if the editor is interested in moving to Los Angeles; I don’t they’ve filled a certain open position yet).
Dee, it’s clear that chicklit isn’t your cup of tea. That’s perfectly fine — I would agree that there’s a lot of bad stuff being pushed onto the market, making it tougher to discern what’s good, bad, and just okay. Publishers have this annoying tendency to believe that success should immediately be copied until everyone screams “enough!”
But your comment that chicklit should confine itself to fashion or gossip magazines (or, oddly, local newspapers), leaving the NYT free for other books, is both condescending and unfair. I don’t read fashion magazines. I don’t read People. I don’t read Us or any other tabloid. The implication that someone who might read chicklit (and I’ve been known to in the past and might do so again in the future.) possess a fluffy and insubstantial mind is bothersome. I am not a fluffy or insubstantial person. My reading tastes are very broad — as are the tastes of my personal friends, all of whom are well-educated, professional women. There’s plenty of room on our bookshelves for diversity, and I will say, again, that many dedicated book review sections are in danger of pushing themselves into irrelevance.
As for the Jane Austen comment, I’ll presume that one was for Lauren, so I’ll merely say that homage to past masters is a time-honored artistic tick. It’s been done before, it will be done again, there’s an excellent chance that Jane Austen will be involved. I’ll note that we rarely say that ripping off Shakespeare is so last century (not to mention last last century). How many updates/revisioning of Othello or Midsummer’s Night Dream or Romeo and Juliet have been done over the years?
Fiction written by women has been marginalized since women began writing fiction. According to a recent study and other unrelated articles that I’ve read, males avoid books geared toward women. This disturbs me greatly. It doesn’t help that the NYT reinforces the notion that female authors are lesser through editorial bias. I’m not convinced this is intentional — there’s a theory that indicates people turn to those who are most like them. Schoolchildren are raised on a curriculum heavily weighted toward male authors. It will be a long time before there’s regime change at the NYTBR and I’m not holding my breath that the new LAT books editor is going to be female and/or fiction-oriented.
We need alternatives. That’s what we’re talking about here — not the merits of chicklit, romance, or any other type of fiction. It’s not a competition. I’m just asking for thoughtful consideration of a topic that particularly interests me — since I’m not getting it from mainstream publications, I’m thinking I’ll need to do it myself.
Dee J // Jul 9, 2005 at 4:25 pm
—–Publishers have this annoying tendency to believe that success should immediately be copied until everyone screams “enough!â€
Why should you be annoyed by publishers? They simply fill a market. You admitted to being that market. You don’t have to read the these books. No screaming is necessary. Just as publishers can decide what the market will tolerate, the NYT can decide what its desired market wants. I’d hope it wants more from the books section. I do.
—But your comment that chicklit should confine itself to fashion or gossip magazines (or, oddly, local newspapers), leaving the NYT free for other books, is both condescending and unfair. I don’t read fashion magazines. I don’t read People…
I nver said ‘tabloid’.BUt you seem to know what is in People better than I do. I never considered that they had articles on books.
I never said ‘should’. I said it does. I also mentioned USA Today, which I don’t read, but is a national newspaper. My mentioning of local papers was not odd, it was an assessment of my experience. Chick-lit is not ignored by these outlets. USA Today and many local papers regularly cover these popular books and their authors. So even if you don’t read fashion magazines, you can still get your chick-lit update. The fact that the NYTBR is not inclined to review this genre, doesn’t meant it is ignored.
Or if those outlets are still not to your taste, you could buy it based on the cover, title and blurb. Unless you incapable of picking out your own books.
—- I’ll merely say that homage to past masters is a time-honored artistic tick. It’s been done before, it will be done again, there’s an excellent chance that Jane Austen will be involved.
Filtering Austen is one thing, badly recycling Fielding is another. The idea is to make your homage unique and distinct from the pack so that it is worthy of notice. What Kipling gives us is an artful (and hilarious) homage to Jane Austen. Simply butchering Austen’s opening line is a waste of paper and ink. Just because you love a master, doesn’t mean you should adapt her. Some should try loving from afar and standing on their own.
Dressing all this blog marketing as an essay promoting women’s fiction and review of women’s fiction is both silly and transparently self-serving.
Booksquare // Jul 9, 2005 at 4:34 pm
I think we’re talking at cross-purposes on all levels here — you’re missing my point(s) and I’m clearly not getting yours. Publishers replicate success and by everybody, I meant authors and readers. They will drive the process. I don’t need a chicklit update — I need consideration of all forms of literature. My particular bias is fiction written by women, but I read everything. I get my news everywhere.
We have very different viewpoints — and you still haven’t addressed the salient point: is it time to have a serious review publication that focuses on all aspects of women’s fiction? That’s the question on the table. Bookslut’s snarky comment made me laugh because it was so absurd.
This comment, however, made me curious:
Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t market my own blog? That I should invite others to write essays about topics that interest both me and my audience? This is really unclear. Are you suggesting that guest shouldn’t promote their own work? That’s why I invite them here (that and the fact that even bloggers get lazy).
barefoot jim // Jul 9, 2005 at 4:39 pm
What’s “chick-lit?” Is it like “emo?”
Dee J // Jul 9, 2005 at 5:33 pm
I’m suggesting that dressing self-serving marketing up as anger on behalf of women is insulting to female authors producing books worthy of interest by the NYT. The essay, if it can be called that, is nothing but a transparent attempt to promote a book that was never going to be noticed by the NYT for good reason.
Yes women don’t get the literary attention they deserve, but chick-lit doesn’t need or deserve more attention. It gets plenty. Bemoaning the lack of promotion outlets for female authors in the same breath as the lack of attention paid to chick-lit is dishonest. Female authors and readers of women’s fiction deserve better.
Booksquare // Jul 10, 2005 at 12:14 am
Dee, I’m going to give you a bit of slack because you’re clearly not a regular reader of this blog. If you were, you’d realize that Lauren’s essay was written after long discussions on the topic at hand. It came about because we both have a very particular interest in this topic. You came in late to the game and clearly missed what went before.
You don’t like chicklit however it’s defined (and, in my mind, it remains a highly elastic concept). That’s fine. You don’t have to read it, like it, condone it, accept it, or acknowledge it. But the fact is that it is a major market force, and a serious look at modern fiction needs to acknowledge its existence. Just as a serious look at modern fiction needs to acknowledge and discuss romance, mystery, science fiction, fantasy, Westerns, literary, and other types of fiction. Labels are marketing concepts.
KathyF // Jul 10, 2005 at 12:46 am
I can’t help but react to this (on-topic at last!) comment: “I can’t turn around without seeing a review or advertisement in some magazine or newspaper for one of chick-lit’s interchangable tales of womanhood which bear little resemblence to the experiences of a living breathing human female.”
Can anyone name another fiction genre, including “quality” literary fiction, that actually DOES bear a resemblance to the experiences of living breathing human females?
(In fact, even some biographies bear no resemblance to the living breathing human females they’re supposed to resemble. Hillary Clinton comes to mind.)
Like it or don’t. But don’t hold chick-lit to higher standards than other forms of fiction.
Saundra // Jul 10, 2005 at 6:27 am
I’m suggesting that dressing self-serving marketing up as anger on behalf of women is insulting to female authors producing books worthy of interest by the NYT.
Whoa, stop the presses- you mean people who blog talk about issues that affect themselves? OMG NO WAY!!
The essay, if it can be called that, is nothing but a transparent attempt to promote a book that was never going to be noticed by the NYT for good reason.
And you would know that because you read it?
Booksquare // Jul 10, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Jim – I have carefully considered your question, so much so that I went to the vast Booksquare music collection. After carefully reviewing the categories of “music I like” and “music I don’t like” (the latter being something subject to change as my tastes and moods change), I realize I do not have an appropriate context for emo. Thus, I cannot compare it to fiction. I’m sorry.
However, I have an analogy that might work just a well: chicklit is to literary fiction as yoga is to running. Some people practice both equally, finding that each form of exercise/meditation offers something beneficial; others practice one or the other at various points, but the two practices don’t necessarily overlap, the reasons remain the same; others practice one or the other exclusively and believe their practice is superior to the other. These people often avoid chances to widen their horizons or re-examine their belief system.
Carrie // Jul 11, 2005 at 12:45 pm
— Whoa, stop the presses- you mean people who blog talk about issues that affect themselves? OMG NO WAY!!
Like, oh-MY-god! I cannot believe the NYTBR, like, doesn’t take women seriously. Like, that is soooo unfair. This is so like suffrage and stuff. I mean discussion of the contents of my stomach contents and my datebook are, like, so gritty and interesting. Here, wait, I’ll tell you about all the men I’ve had sex with and you’ll see. I mean, like, chic-lit, is, like totally the representation of the modern,like, liberated, female. I mean, like, haven’t these guys, like, seen sex and the city? I have to be noticed! If not I’ll just die.
Pam // Jul 12, 2005 at 6:58 am
I know that you are a strong advocate for Chick lit, but something in your post stuck out,
The two so-called chicklit books that you cited aren’t, in my opinion, chicklit as much as they are opportunistic. I am just going to persist in my belief that the writing in each is as bad as I imagine, and not bother reading them.
See this is the key problem with Chick lit, and you are even guilty of it yourself here. You have judge that these books are bad and opportunistic, without reading either one! This is what happens across the board with Chick Lit in general. The good books suffer because people assume that all chick lit books are like the one or two they’ve read or heard about that are poor examples of the genre.
Booksquare // Jul 12, 2005 at 8:31 am
Pam, you’re right, to a point. I don’t consider the Washingtonienne book to be chicklit. This book was clearly written to make a fast buck after a scandal — and I read her original blog stuff (because I was curious) and didn’t find her style to be particularly engaging. Maybe she writes better when it comes to fiction, but I suspected not.
As far as The Devil Wears Prada, comments from friends indicated that it was interesting from a gossip perspective, but not especially satisfying as a book. I have a vaguely uncomfortable feeling when it comes to people being so obvious in their depictions of real people — this is an unfortunate bias I have, and maybe I’m wrong about the work.
Meg // Aug 16, 2005 at 5:22 am
You are misusing “beg the question.” Look it up.
Booksquare // Aug 16, 2005 at 7:41 am
Uh, thanks for the comment — you’re right, it’s not used correctly in the traditional sense. But since I’m pretty happy with it (and not likely to go back and rework and old post), I’ll just take it under advisement.