Lisa Carver reads around a dozen pieces of "chick lit" and lives to tell the tale:
Have you seen this girl? She shops, talks, slogs through life, wielding her sense of humor like an itty-bitty knife. She specializes in the small: the muttered joke, TV references, lipstick names, and the analysis of every hilly rise and dip of emotion. She is the second- or third-best-looking girl at the party. At work, The Bitch (a.k.a. the best-looking woman) takes credit for her hard work. But it's just as well because, as it turns out, only a second- or third-best-looking girl is decent enough for an intelligent, funny, dark-haired man to make her whole with his love, and show her that her true voice is the one she's always had — small, cute, neurotic, basically incompetent and not so ultimately important, but still good.Posted by Dr. Frank at June 6, 2005 03:43 PM | TrackBack
i read the same article. while i do hate the genre of chicklit (and its apparent emphasis as the knee / lower leg as the ultimate book cover art) it does seem rather odd that she takes issue with accepting yourself even if you are "small, cute, neurotic, basically incompetent and not so ultimately important".
Posted by: kate at June 6, 2005 11:36 PM
its what i've been saying recently kate,often there's no honor among dorks. those that once might have fit this description feel the need to superficialize themselves and look down upon those who don't feel that need. while of course being so kind as to offer their better way.
or at least that's my current mantra...
...i could be wrong.
Posted by: just me at June 7, 2005 01:02 AMcouldn't you write almost the exact same article about any genre fiction?
Posted by: jodi at June 7, 2005 06:18 PMI hate that genre. The point of the entire thing seems to be getting out how woman really feel. Speaking for myself and all woman close to me, we don't actually think/feel/appear the way/do the same things as the females in ChickLit books do.
Posted by: Megan at June 25, 2005 03:57 AM