1
POPSBarack Obama is Mr Darcy --Maureen Dowd Dowd reports that some women won't vote for Obama because he's skinny, some because he seems haughty. That's no sillier than voting for him because he resembles Jane Austen's most popular hero, Mr Darcy. I'm not wild about the train of thought that says women vote based on fictional heroes. However, it may be an uncomfortable truth, and not only about women. Much of voter opinion is based on looks, style, and media hype--not content. I do give Dowd credit for making an unusual analogy. The "Pride & Prejudice" title fits the current politics in some ways, and Dowd correctly points out that the success of the Austen novel rests of changing the views of *both* sides.
1
POPSAuthors Behaving Badly: Chick lit vs Lit fic Now I've read all 3 books, I agree with Sittenfeld's review of Bank's book (The Wonder Spot). Sittenfeld's and Weiner's books are much, much better. So I don't get why Weiner attacked Sittenfeld that way. I first assumed it was because Sittenfeld criticized chick lit. But a lot of Weiner's attack was about Sittenfeld herself. In the end, I guess I have to chalk it up to personalities.
0
POPSClaire Zulkey: Chick Lit is magazines & Sex and the City Claire Zulkey skewers chick lit for many of the qualities that I dislike about it. I was most struck by her comparison to magazines and Sex in the City. It seems to me that the most visible chick lit books are extended ads for, or paeans to, the air-brushed lifestyles purveyed by so many teen magazines.
0
POPSJennifer Weiner vs Curtis Sittenfeld, 7 June 2005 To summarize: Melissa Bank wrote a chick lit novel. Curtis Sittenfeld wrote a negative review in the NY Times. Curtis Sittenfeld wrote a novel she says is literary fiction. Jennifer Weiner didn't review it per se, but says it's chick lit. She describes it in the same derogatory terms Sittenfeld used about Bank's book. Implications: (1) Sittenfeld is a hypocrite (2) Sittenfeld's book is empty trash Jennifer Weiner writes chick lit herself. Weiner's line-by-line commentary on Sittenfeld's review is startlingly mean, putting words in Sittenfeld's mouth and portraying her as an insufferable, conceited ass. Finally, Weiner concludes by saying meanness is not helping women get published or taken seriously as authors. Cook utensil, meet cooking utensil. What a sad and ridiculous display of bitchery from all sides.
0
POPSSalon.com: Summer Reads ("Chic" lit) What, Salon.com can't admit it reads "chick lit", so it renames the genre "chic lit"? Their recommendations are every bit as vapid as the rest of the genre. The most irritating thing is, there are plenty of great romances -- contemporary, humorous, fast-paced romances -- better than these offerings.
0
POPSSalon.com: Summer reads (overview) I usually like Salon.com's book lists. But why on earth have they jumped on the chick lit bandwagon? They say they're picking books that engage the brain, and don't leave you feeling "cheap and empty". How is "Slummy Mummy" ("a bumbling mommy flirting with adultery") better than, say, a well-plotted JD Robb romantic suspense with a kick-ass heroine?
1
Clips
Latest Pops
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Tags
Print
Save
Turn on live update