curtis sittenfeld said that calling something chick-lit was, in a way, like calling someone a slut; she didn’t say anything about chick-lit itself and weiner, like all people who are delusioned, immediately took that as an attack; it’s a kind of patriotism; you must defend your own kind, and it’s retarded

but how come curtis sittenfeld did not get any snobbish treatment?

because she writes differently than weiner

weiner is not sittenfeld

joy williams doesn’t get the ‘chick-lit treatment’

only people who write chick-lit get the ‘chick-lit treatment’

stephen king does not get ‘mad props’

you always exaggerate

this isn’t a matter of gender, it’s just a matter that if you write chick-lit people will make chick-lit jokes about you, and who cares; people make suburbia and broken marriage jokes about updike all the time

It seems there are two issues here. First there’s the question of how badly written the books are. This has nothing to do with sex/gender, it’s a matter of aesthetics. I could recite countless examples of the formulaic, inelegant, predictable nature of most chick lit – including Weiner’s – but I really can’t be bothered (and some can be seen in the piece Maud linked to). What people choose to write and read is of course up to them but Weiner’s attempt to attribute her lack of critical acclaim to sexism or jealousy or whatever ludicrous drum she happens to be banging on a given day is just deluded.

The second issue is a more complex and contentious one, and it has to do with the messages/themes/moral tone of such novels. The majority of them seem to be no more than modern day fairy tales about finding Mr Right. Again, if people want to be reassured and unchallenged in this way by their reading material, then fine. But let’s not pretend there’s nothing questionable about it from a feminist perspective.

Something in the Maureen Dowd excerpt in the NYT magazine yesterday is perhaps food for thought. Currently (according, admittedly, to an “informal poll”) 81% of American women who marry take their husband’s name, an increase from 71% in 2000. I can’t help but see the craze for pink books with happy endings involving the heroine falling into the arms of the man of her dreams and this statistic as part of the same trend.

If Emma doesn’t care for the plots or popular lit in general, that’s one thing. But I still don’t see any qualifying issue here over how any of this makes women dumb, or how any of these female characters are dumb, even if their stories end happily. And besides, everyone knows that there are only five basic plots in the world.

So please enlighten me. Because it seems the hip thing to do these days to declare “chick lit” bad or “dumb” without properly analyzing it, let alone offering a constructive reply. What makes these dismissals any different from a fundamentalist declaring same-sex marriages “immoral” without considering that they might contribute to the economy or preserve family values? (Or for that matter, a liberal declaring religion bad because it does not appeal to him, little considering that some church activities are oriented around chairty work or that churches are often the bases for neighborhood communities.)

If it’s Weiner’s money that’s the issue, then I don’t think this is a fair criticism. Because we’re talking about the books here, not how much Weiner is worth. If you truly think her books are terrible and indeed don’t deserve a single shred of respect, then I challenge you (or any other detractor) to tell me why. I’m genuinely curious.

Personally, as I alluded to above, I suspect that this is more an issue of “popular vs. literary.” In which case, I ask again. Why does Stephen King get a fair pass but Jennifer Weiner doesn’t?

Weiner’s argument that women who attack her work, or her genre, are guilty of anti-feminism is the most self-serving, disingenuous crap I’ve ever heard. Jessa, I’m sure, could give plenty of examples of how chick lit treats women like they’re stupid – it’s BOTH readers and characters and hell, you could write thousands of pages on the subject – but I’m sure she’s got better things to do.

Weiner’s constant whinging is getting really old. She’s making a fortune by catering to populist taste in the most calculating way, and she wants literary respectability too? She should just shut up and count her money.

(Also, can you explain to me what you mean in your sentence beginning “One might dislike…” ? I’m baffled – are you suggesting that, in the case of chick lit, mass art is illuminating hidden repressive forces in women’s lives?!)