|
|
Post by Rosie on May 2, 2018 19:44:28 GMT 10
Not a post about fowl creatures, but instead about the literature and films produced by women!
On Friday, I attended a panel of comedy writers, discussing women's literature. Kate Mosse chaired, and Viv Groskop, Katy Brand, and Jenny Colgan discussed their favourite comedy books. They mentioned that the only chance a woman really gets to win comedy awards is when it's highlighted separately. This particular event was organised by the Bailey's Women's Prize for Fiction. They said that a woman has never won the Wodehouse Award, which is the major prize for comedy writing.
They also talked about how women's writing somewhat inevitably gets thrown under 'chick lit' if it's remotely funny, but there's no chance of a man's writing being similarly categorised. What do you make of this? Colgan brought up Sophie Kinsella, as somebody who sells books in the millions over several territories, and yet gets brushed aside because of how her fiction is shelved.
It really made me realise that I'm guilty of talking of literature produced by women in this vein. Not the big things, like Arundhati Roy or Margaret Atwood (god forbid!), but the lighter side of it. Once I'd noticed, it felt dismissive both of myself as a consumer, and of the women who'd produced this work.
Do you have any thoughts on this? Have you noticed the difference between content produced by women and men? It's funny that men can produce 'chick flicks' (Richard Curtis), but not 'chick lit' in the same vein - is this because we're so much more aware of who has written something when you're looking at the author's name attached to the book?
Jenny Colgan also mentioned that she writes for Doctor Who, under the name J.T. Colgan - what makes women's names so unpalatable to male readers? JKR faced the same issue when she was getting Harry Potter published.
|
|
|
|
Post by devilinthedetails on May 2, 2018 22:58:41 GMT 10
Excellent topic, Rosie, and an important one to bring up. The panel you attended sounds fascinating, and they seem to have discussed some very valuable ideas.
As to my personal views, I've never been a fan of terms like "chick flick" or "chick lit." Part of that is on an instinctual level, I don't appreciate the word "chick" used to describe women or girls. To me, there's just something demeaning about being compared to little creatures often thought of as weak that aren't typically known for big brains. (Bird-brained isn't usually a compliment, after all.) I understand and respect not all women will agree with that impression, and that's fine with me, since we aren't a hive mind and don't have to reach a consensus on everything.
Aside from my aversion to the term "chick" used to describe women and girls, I do find, as you mentioned, that "chick flick" and "chick lit" can dismiss works by women (or sometimes by men) that are perceived as being more geared toward women. It sort of makes women a second class citizen, implying that things that are seen as of interest to women are lesser than things that are seen as of interest to men and that things that are of interest to women couldn't possibly also be of interest to men. A romance book or movie is not inherently inferior (by nature of genre alone) to an action book or movie. To me, terms like "chick flick" or "chick lit" all too often imply that there is.
I also think that terms like "chick flick" and "chick lit" perpetuate the problem of men not taking an interest in movies or books that might be regarded as traditionally appealing to a more female audience. I could see many men not being particularly eager to watch a "chick flick" or read "chick lit," or if they do read or watch such media feeling they have to hide it as something shameful and subject to mockery. That's not fair to anyone and hurtful to everyone. That being said, I've seen some real hostility from men toward women in fields like sports writing or sci-fi that have to be confronted and changed, as do the perception by too many men that areas that are traditionally interesting or dominated by women are less than the areas often seen as being traditionally of interest to men.
I think there needs to be a broader realization on the part of society that works by females featuring female characters can be of interest to a general audience just as works by men featuring men can be. Also there needs to be more of an awareness that works by women that are more geared toward women aren't inferior to works more marketed toward men.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on May 4, 2018 21:52:26 GMT 10
Yes - for me, it's not that I would ever use the word 'chick' to describe a woman, but it's that 'chick lit' and 'chick flicks' are genre types. But I think from now, I'm going to avoid using them, and politely point people in the right direction if they do  Certainly this low key insinuation that work produced by or for women is somehow lesser is one of the more damaging parts of our society, and I think it's important to self-correct where able. |
|
|
|
Post by devilinthedetails on May 5, 2018 4:36:26 GMT 10
Yes - for me, it's not that I would ever use the word 'chick' to describe a woman, but it's that 'chick lit' and 'chick flicks' are genre types. But I think from now, I'm going to avoid using them, and politely point people in the right direction if they do Certainly this low key insinuation that work produced by or for women is somehow lesser is one of the more damaging parts of our society, and I think it's important to self-correct where able. I think you are right that for a lot of people "chick flicks" and "chick lit" are used as genre types. Even people who wouldn't use "chick" to describe a woman might use those terms as genre indicators. The best solution to that might be what you hint at, politely pointing people to different genre terms (maybe "romantic comedy," or "romance," etc) that perhaps carry a less demeaning or dismissive connotation. I think for a lot of people it's using terms out of habit, not out of malice or mockery, but we can all benefit from exploring the potentially damaging impact of the things we say casually. I'm sure I have my own things that I'm guilty of,so it is best to approach such a conversation more from a place of understanding than judgement. Hopefully we can all get better at self-correcting in instances where we might unintentionally imply work produced by or for women is lesser than that produced by or for men. That is the ultimate goal. |
|
|
|
Post by Rachy on May 7, 2018 21:14:37 GMT 10
I apologise in advance if this causes offence, I’m struggling to put my thoughts in order and also struggling to define how I personally feel about something I take enjoyment in but also view as a guilty pleasure. A lot of what I have been reading is romance, as I have been getting most of my recs from romance novel sites, and so I look at this from the romance perspective of chick lit. I think I’m quite guilty of this dismissive ness, but then I also think that on the whole, they bring me probably more joy and heart warming than other things I read? And yet I recognise that there is a frothyness that I loveingly disparage? Maybe the sort of feeling we get about fandom as we get older, or the guilty pleasure feeling? I kind of feel like if I went out and said, oh, I like reading romance novels, it would be an oh, she reads 50 Shades reaction these days? I think Christina Lauren had quite a different framing for their women’s fiction novel that they recently released vs their previous romance novels. I haven’t quite come across use of chick lit in quite a while, but you both raise good points, and I think I’ve proved your points about looking at chick lit as degrading by my comments above. Hmm. I think I need to have a closer think about it - do I have a similar degrading feeling towards junk food that is also a guilty pleasure? It sounds like a great talk to have gone to Rosie. I admit I don’t tend to go for comedy/ humour chick lit as much, so if anyone has recs, please share I think the last I read was probably a Janet Evanovich, and I think there’s a sort of suspension of belief required after a while? I also don’t know of a ‘men’s fiction’ or ‘men’s humour’ equivalent genre style, or humour as a genre aside from chick lit? Action? I would be interested to read thoughts about a comparison of women funny movies to things like Will Ferrel Jonah Hill etc. ‘frat boy’ style movies. Would they be rooster flicks? |
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on May 11, 2018 20:54:02 GMT 10
Yeah, I think your point about being made to think it's degrading is interesting, because I also watch mindless action shamelessly, and surely it's the same quality but action is seen as more respectable. 'Rooster' flicks would be an excellent name; I guess it isn't a surprise there's no readily available equivalent term for men!
|
|
Certainly this low key insinuation that work produced by or for women is somehow lesser is one of the more damaging parts of our society, and I think it's important to self-correct where able.
Maybe once we'd have seen it during Smackdown!