Generally speaking, generalizations suck
I strive to be an equal opportunity belittler of poorly written, philosophically vacant, socially inexcusable prose. But it’s hard when the market is flooded with SO MUCH of the crappy escapism this woman wants us to take seriously.
And ignites a minor firestorm in the comments. The upshot of which is that denigrating said genre is not just sexist, and not just snobby, but sexist and snobby. If it’s meaningful to women then we should accept it as being just as valid as any supposed “literary” efforts, etc.
Meanwhile, at The Literary Type, Melissa muses on why women’s magazines suck:
Who decided that women were so boring? I want to read about politics. I want to read engaging short fiction. I want to read about building my own biodiesel generator. And damnit, I want to read about flowers that can kill me, and not how to arrange them. Does this make me less of a woman?
I’m just guessing here, but I’m thinking that perhaps not all women actually like chick-lit. Maybe if we all stopped generalizing….
I was struck by the contradiction in these two discussions. Do womens’ magazines look the way they do because that’s what the audience wants? Or do they, and other media, create their own audience? The snake eats its own tail, thinking all the while that what it really wants is an egg; but if it eats the egg, will there ever be a chicken?
I’m reminded of John Steinbeck’s response to the endless questions of a grad student: “Look. This is too hard. I just write stories.”
I think I’m just gonna write stories, and not really worry about this stuff.