Dan Wright

Dear Dan Wright,

I just read your article, "How the Slapper Became the Saluted: An Alternative Insight into the Chick-Lit Genre" and have to say I was extremely disappointed and a little bit offended. I am an aspiring writer and am nearly finished writing my first novel, which coincidentally, is in the chick lit genre. I find it insulting that you say "Chick-Lit is so popular because it gives the impression that women are in the driving seat; that they can play around with men’s emotions because they’re the centre of attention. Also it may show them that they can sleep around with as many men as they like because it’s okay to do so. Because apparently, men have no real feelings anyway!" As a writer, I made my main character true to life. Many of the women that I know, including myself, have never thought about playing around with a man's emotion. On the contrary, my inspiration came from a time in my life where a man played around with my emotions; so much so that I tried to commit suicide. I dislike the fact that you are hinting that chick lit is meaningless and mindless. My novel, just as many other chick lit novels I've read deals with real-life issues that many women I know have personally dealt with, including depression, grief, heartbreak, self-image, self-worth and financial difficulties. Just because you slap a pink cover on something doesn't mean it takes away the heart and soul of it, nor the brain.

I don't understand why you bring an entire genre down with your generalizations. Just like any genre, chick lit certainly has its good books and bad books. I've read women's fiction and general fiction that bored me to tears or depressed me so much I felt I needed to take some Prozac.

Really, I'm not trying to get personal, but it seems to me that your article comes across as bitter. Perhaps you are taking your personal issues out on an entire genre of fiction that is entirely meant to uplift and inspire women just like me, who've been dumped, abused or kicked around and just want something to make them feel that they're not alone, that things can and will get better.

Just because I enjoy a nice pair of shoes doesn't make me an airhead who cannot write. I have read Jane Austin, William Shakespeare and Maya Angelou among many, many others and consider myself a whole person, in the real world and the literal world. To imply, "Instead of the strong, mothering figures that truly do look for true love and family happiness, are we now left with selfish, indecisive slappers?" is an ignorant and snobby generalization. My central character, just like many that I have read, is a real woman who wants to be loved and learn to love herself. In my view, wanting to be loved and love someone in return is the least selfish thing there is. Demoralizing the work of many successful, smart, funny and soulful woman, on the other hand is selfish.

Read Dan Wright's original editorial on Chick-Lit.

Agree? Disagree? Tell us at editor@writersnewsweekly.com or join the discussion on facebook.com.

By Dan Wright

Okay, this is more a rant than an article, but I think I finally cracked it. I think I finally realised why it is that so many first-time authors never get published. It’s not because their book is bad, nor is it because it doesn’t have an original idea; it’s because Will Smith’s new novel is about to hit the shelf!

Yes, you heard me correctly, Will Smith. The rapper turned actor who suddenly has decided to try his hand at writing a book. Yes, a book! Is it any good? Who cares? It’s written by Will Smith! It’s gonna sell no matter what sort of rubbish it is!

Celebrity writers are my current pet peeves. I’m not talking about writers who became celebrities through their work (like Tom Clancy or Stephen King). I’m talking about the Paris Hiltons, the William Shatners, the Sarah Fergusons and so on. The type of celebrities who made an absolute fortune for their work, then decided to give writing a try. Heck, why not? It’s a chance for them to show their writing skills, right?

Or not, as the case may seem. Most of these celebrities can’t tell a story to save their life! Their books are just terrible! The only reason they sell is because they were written by a celebrity. If it was any other name on this second-rate tripe they call “novels,” they would never sell in a million years!

Over here in the UK, there is a model called Katie Price (Jordan, as she is better known as). She has written a series of children’s books, for which she was nominated for an award by a literacy agency. She didn’t win it, but claims that she deserved to be in that award ceremony. I have to ask, why? What has she done to deserve being at an award ceremony when there are childrens writers who are more deserving of our attention? I even hear Geri from the Spice Girls is writing a book now. A Spice Girl! I mean, where does it stop?

See, the problem I find with these celebrities writing children’s fiction (which seems to be the main target audience for most of them) is that it disconnects a mother or father from their child. Nine times out of ten, the parent is buying the book because of the writer, NOT for their children. As such, the parent is gonna enjoy reading it more than the child, who will probably have no interest in who wrote it at all! Surely the point of reading with your children is to connect with them on a literary level. Isn’t it?

Let’s not forget the other side of the coin. With all these big names clogging up the literary world, it means that the more deserving authors don’t even get a look in! It’s getting to the point where no one can have a book published unless they are famous first! As Jane Yolen, a prize-winning children's book author, says:

"…celebrity children's books eat up all the available oxygen ... I have over 250 books out, have won a great number of awards within the field, have been given four honorary doctorates for my body of work, but have never been on 'Oprah' or spoken to Katie Couric or gotten a $100,000 advance for my work."

So here’s what I have to say to any celebrity reading this: STOP CLOGGING UP THE WORLD WITH YOUR SECOND-RATE ATTEMPT AT WRITING! I mean, for heavens sake, haven’t you already made enough millions with your films and your multi-platinum records? Do you really need the money that badly? Why not sit back and let some of us unknown authors catch a break once and while? Is that too much to ask? Or, if you must get involved in the literary world, why don’t you invest in a real writer?

Okay, rant over. Now I think I’ll just settle down with a nice cup of tea and a nice little read of Paris Hilton’s latest book.

Dan Wright lives in Canterbury, United Kingdom. His favourite authors include Douglas Adams, J.R.R Tolkien and Terry Pratchett, but is also a huge fan of Stan Lee and Brian Bendis.

Agree? Disagree? Tell us at editor@writersnewsweekly.com

By Dan Wright

One aspect of publishing that really interests me is how certain genres manage to sell better than others. I’m not talking about books here, just the genres themselves. For example, Fantasy and Sci-Fi books, despite the commercial success of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, are still heavily based in the cult section. This could be due to many fantasy stories borrowing heavily from each other in terms of story and themes (though I guess all genres are guilty of this).

One genre that I notice is consistently selling well is Chick-Lit. Here in Britain especially, novels such as “Bridget Jones Diary”, the sequel “Edge of Reason” and “The Devil Wears Prada” enjoyed great success. There are agencies and publishing companies especially made for Chick-Lit. Seeing that a vast majority of the book buying public is apparently female (according to JMThurley, a British agency I once submitted a story to), then I guess that makes sense.

Now, I don’t want to discourage anyone who writes Chick-Lit, nor do I want to discourage anyone who reads it, because people should be free to enjoy reading anything they like. What I’m about to say is just my personal opinion of the genre as a whole, not the people who create or read it.

I asked a female friend of mine why she read Chick-Lit and she’s agreed to let me quote her. She says, it’s not too taxing on the brain (as she has kids and has to run a business at the same time), but it’s also very heart-warming and shows you that there is still some romance in the world. Also, and I quote, “People like to be happy.”

Fair enough, that’s her view and I’m not going to criticise it, but between you and me, I personally find the genre stale and lifeless and the characters one dimensional and boring. Sure, there is romance and there are some heart-warming scenes, but the plots as a whole are dull and I do not think they are a good representation of female characters in fiction. I’ll get onto this a little bit later, but first let’s have a little insight into Chick-Lit itself.

Chick-Lit’s origins could be traced back to Jane Austen, where most of her female protagonists struggle to find love in a society where they are considered second rate. Modern day Chick-Lit follows a similar vein to this. They generally consist of a female protagonist, usually fairly young and attractive. In general the novel follows their lives through their professional struggles and their love affairs. By the end they have found at least one (if not both) of their goals. Usually, the protagonist finds herself torn between a rich man, who can give her everything she wants, and a poor man, who only has his love to give. At the end of the novel, these protagonists frequently choose love over money, sometimes even going as far as appearing to marry the rich man, then dumping him at the altar. Sure, because there are a lot of women out there dumping rich husbands to marry poor men, aren’t there?

One could possibly view Chick-Lit as a kind of “post feminist” genre, where the females are the dominant characters and not the “damsel in distress” that they used to appear as in other fiction. This is an obvious boost for female morale, but I have to wonder the kind of message that Chick-Lit sends to its readers.

One example of this is the novel “Sex and the City,” which also spawned the TV series of the same name, about a group of women who basically explore their own sexual desires. This pretty much set the standard for most Chick-Lit heroines, that is, snobby and selfish to a certain extent, seemingly thinking that their own lives are more important than anyone else, even the men that they meet. Another example is “Bridget Jones Diary.” The plot revolves around a woman and two men and how she should decide which man she should go for. Let me ask you this: How do the men feel about being mucked about like this? Are their feelings not important? If she can’t make up her mind who she fancies, then isn’t she really the antagonist of the plot because she’s messing around with two lives just to find her own happiness?

In my opinion, maybe Chick-Lit is so popular because it gives the impression that women are in the driving seat, that they can play around with men’s emotions because they’re the centre of attention. Also it may show them that they can sleep around with as many men as they like because it’s okay to do so. Because apparently, men have no real feelings anyway! Who cares if you’re shallow and people call you a slapper? You’re the one in control, aren’t you girls?

Maybe it’s just my male tendencies that make me look at Chick-Lit negatively, but I did find a really good quote that sums up the kind of points I’m trying to put across. This was said by an anonymous Chick-Lit editor on Boston’s Weekly Dig:

"Chick lit claims to be representative of women’s lives, their hopes, fears, dreams and values. But it’s actually about white, upper-middle-class American and Western European women…—a chance for women of every color and age to be portrayed as annoying, shallow twits… chick lit claims to be the story of the Everywoman, when really, it’s the story of Some Women of a Certain Class. Which is pretty ironic, given that chick-lit authors cry elitism more often than their characters accidentally trip on their own designer shoes and fall into tall, handsome strangers."

Before I get accused of being sexist, let’s have a look on the OTHER side of the scale. The “Lad-Lit.” This is the male equivalent, with a male lead instead of a female one. However, unlike Chick-Lit, the protagonists often don’t have successful jobs or they are seeking to further their own career and find love at the same time. But they are neurotic and horny guys who are more interested in getting drunk and watching football (or soccer as it’s sometimes known). Just like the characters in Chick-Lit, they are often very selfish and care only about themselves, but all it usually takes is the love of a good woman to turn them around.

One example is the book “About a Boy” by Nick Hornby. The central character is a selfish, lazy man who can’t be bothered to do anything if it involves the least amount of work, mainly because he’s living off the royalties to a Christmas song his father wrote. He’s a womaniser and has no care about women’s feelings, often having short relationships. However, through a set of circumstances, he befriends a young boy who teaches him the values of having friends. By the end, the main character has matured and forms a long relationship with a single mum.

The main crux of Lad-Lit is that it is basically about a man who has no real point in life so he spends his time wasting it. At the end the love of a good woman turns him around. Surely this counteracts Chick-Lit, which says that women are the ones in control and they can sleep with any man they want. In fact, it seems that in BOTH genres, the males come off worst, as they are the ones who often get messed around. Is there no hope for the male protagonist anymore? Are people more interested in females that come across as young, vibrant and successful, when in actual fact they are just shallow and spiteful? Would Chick-Lit be nearly half as popular as it was if the central characters were OAP’s (retirees), trying to find love in a retirement home?

I personally think Chick-Lit represents the negative side of feminism, as the Spice Girls were the negative side of “Girl Power”. The romantic plot and fairy tale endings hide the dark subtext that love, marriage and finding the man of your dreams is completely secondary as long as you can get your end away. Or maybe there’s the OTHER side that Bridget Jones puts across, the indecisive woman who can’t decide who she wants to sleep with and spends ages thinking about it at the expense of the feelings of those very same men.

As a writer myself, I do agree that there need to be more strong, female central characters (which is why a vast majority of heroes in the stories I write are female), but is this really how we want to see women in real life? Instead of the strong, mothering figures that truly do look for true love and family happiness, are we now left with selfish, indecisive slappers?

Disagree with Dan? Cast your vote in this week's poll or email editor@writersnewsweekly.com with your own opinions on Chick-Lit.