The Bookhouse Boys discussion
File Under: Misc.
Mod
True! I would be in favor of doing more topic based shows here and there, and this would be a great one.
Jason, I totally agree that there are genres of books targeted at (and enjoyed by) women - and I am certainly not above enjoying them! Some are "chick lit" meaning they are sort of light-hearted, comedic romances; some are "women's fiction" meaning they are deeper and usually emotional (and sometimes emotionally manipulative). I said this on my FB post to clarify a bit, and I think it's fair to say here as well:I like chick lit as a genre; I dislike that there's no guy equivalent in terminology (Tom Clancy novels are just "thrillers", not "dude lit"). And I really dislike that it's "OK" to hate on chick lit but not on books that appeal to a mainly male audience. That's my real issue - not that he called the book chick lit. He is wrong about that; it's more literary fiction than chick lit. But the dismissiveness of it because he presumes it's chick lit is what really got under my skin.
I similarly dislike that there's no "men's fiction" counterpoint to women's fiction. Actually, no, that's not true. I'm annoyed that any books are marketed by gender categories, regardless of who enjoys them most. But if we absolutely HAVE to categorize books by gender, why are there only female categories?
Mod
One, do publishers ever categorize books are "chick lit"? My instinct is that they don't, but I'm not 100& sure. It's a popular term created by audiences, and as such, not under the control of publishers. If one wanted to create such a term for books targeted at and about men, ostensibly one could do so, and it may or may not catch on.
Second, if a publisher ever did identify a book as for men, I believe there would be a general outcry that it was a sexist designation. Individuals who might be tempted to identify books in that manner might also be afraid of such a backlash.
Books (and most things) are generally assumed to be for everyone first, and then specific groups second. There is no "male lit" for the same reason as there is African-American literature, but no "white person" literature. It's not considered okay to name the traditionally dominant group as the target for something, but it is considered okay to do so for smaller or less traditionally well represented groups.
I don't think there's anything wrong with targeting products at men or women, because there are undeniably things that are disproportionately appealing to one gender or other, and that's how marketing works. How that targeting is handled, however, is on a spectrum, and it can absolutely be done in a condescending, reductionist fashion, which is unfortunate. I definitely believe this works both ways. Calling superficial action extravaganzas "books/movies for men" is just as socially acceptable as pegging romantic comedies as being for women, and is equally false if one is meant to infer that all men automatically enjoy such books/movies.
The trick, and it IS tricky, is to appeal to your demographic without simultaneously reducing them to a generalized bunch of attributes. Humans haven't figured out how to do this very effectively yet, and it may be a while.
I'm not sure about the chick lit designation (I may have to go look on the publishing info pages of some of my chick lit at home), but there is DEFINITELY a "women's fiction" designation in publishing. Printed on the book and everything.I think my issue is that I feel, as a woman, that it's not OK for me to call a superficial action extravaganza stupid or worthless or state that people who watch them are stupid, but it's perfectly OK for me to make those generalizations about romantic comedies (the chick lit of the movie world). It feels much more acceptable to write off or dismiss as unimportant books/movies/whatever designated as "for women" than it is anything that's "for men."
I don't mean that you guys do this - I'd consider many of my male friends well above the simplistic reductionist thinking you accurately describe above. But in American culture, at least, it definitely feels as though books/movies/whatever that women enjoy is devalued compared to things that men enjoy. As an American woman, that is how I am made to feel by pop culture and by the attitudes I see on Facebook and Twitter (and apparently Meetup), and I know many a woman who would agree with me.
Mod
Just for myself, as a guy, I've been told by lots of people over the years something to the effect of "You probably like X action movie, right, cause you're a guy." Or, "Really, you didn't like X? I would have thought it would be right up your alley!" I've also heard both of those movie categories(because I absolutely don't disagree about the generalizations about romantic comedies and would have to cop to giving in to that lazy thinking myself), described in that reductionist fashion.
Don't get me wrong: I think a lot of action movies and romantic comedies are "stupid," and I also think that's perfectly fine! Pacific Rim was kinda stupid, but I enjoyed it plenty as entertainment. I think the danger comes in when someone who likes a "stupid" movie somehow becomes stupid for liking it...and when that generalization is extended to an entire gender, that's even worse.
I always tend to champion balance...I tend to look down my nose at anybody, of either gender, who chooses one genre and sticks to it to the point of excluding anything else. I feel like those folks are limiting their world in an unfortunate way. You kind of have the opposite problem vis a vis your commenter: you're chosen a wide array of books to cover, and he's managed to lump them all together in some nebulous "books for girls" category that would fall apart instantly if one applied one iota of critical thinking.
I think it's a common if unstated assumption in almost all popular culture that the default audience member is male. That's why media targeted specifically to women needs its own label - "chick lit" or "chick flicks" or what have you. It doesn't just affect the perceived audience either but also the producers of said media, which is why some wikipedia editors felt it necessary to create a specific label for "Female Authors" besides the general one for "Authors" (http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/...). It's a sad state of affairs, but at least now it's something that people have started to call out.
Mod
I do this all the time. O_O
Mod
Mod
Mod
I'd love to, but we only have one mic, and you guys usually stay up too late for me! It's fine for Dave; he's an insomniac anyway :) Should we continue this discussion over email? I'm sure we can figure something out.
Mod
Pleasant dreams!
Mod
Those people who are 10 feet away from 100 rats, though...sucks to be you.
Jason wrote: "Ha! Good thing that's an average, and doesn't mean much to most of us.Those people who are 10 feet away from 100 rats, though...sucks to be you."
I live in New York. That would be me.
It's a good thing you aren't speaking metaphorically.Right?
Mod
They're basically anywhere leftover food/waste is to be found. So, anywhere there's people.
Mod
And there we have the real reason for skyscrapers and highrises. It's not because of overpopulation; it's to get as far from the rats as possible!
My second apartment (more of a room really) in NYC was a tiny place in the East Village, a block away from the late CBGB and Mars Bar. It was two doors down from a vacant lot, which had been vacant for a long time, and it was common knowledge on the street that if you came home an evening where the garbage was put out, you literally had to kick your way through hungry rats when you came near the lot. That was still much better than those days where the public rat catcher did his rounds with poison and a steel spear. Blood in the streets.
Mod
Mod
Granted.
I can see the rat catcher coming back. Get some hipsters dressed like Mumford & Sons to wander the streets with a spear and a gunny sack. They'd probably go in for the ironic old-timey-ness of it.
Matt wrote: "Dave wrote: "Permission to repost this next time someone gets in my face about NYC being the greatest city in the world? ;)"Granted.
I can see the rat catcher coming back. Get some hipsters dres..."
I like this idea, but only if the wandering minstrels are on constant mute!
Among some of the various jobs I've had through life, one was keeping maintenance at a well established restaurant in Milwaukee. One of the less appealing aspects of my job was to go on rat patrol, which usually found me crawling in often too tight cracks and crannies while arming and "reloading" rat traps! Yea!!!
Mod
Mod
Mod
Thanks, brother.
Just lost my grandfather two weeks ago, so I feel you. Sending good karma her way.
Mod
Mod
I'm sure she will recover more fiery than ever, Matt!
My best to you and yours, Matt. I send you many good thoughts (and if some bad ones slip in there by mistake, they weren't meant for you, I just have so many that I can't keep them all in hand).
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
So sad. He was very positive, and so talented.I encourage readers to check out Mike's work on his website.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Matt, how did you know...? I bought Dave Darkness Rises for his birthday! Scrolling through the reviews, I'm fairly certain Dave will be the first man who's ever read the book.Happy birthday, Dave! Keep blazing new trails!
Mod
Happy birthday, Dave!And because I know I'm going to forget,
HaaaaaaaAAAAAAAaaappy Birthday, Matt!
Emily, even here, 140 characters is clearly your milieu.And of course, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MATT!!! Get presents!
Mod
Happy birthday, Matt! I hope you managed to murder mosanthropy and moroseness with delicious noodles!
Mod
Happy first birthday to Margot Alluisi!!!... who I'm sure is already reading this and rolling her eyes at my crappy syntax and misuse of punctuation. *sigh* Editors.
The Bookhouse Boys
Books mentioned in this topic
Pontypool Changes Everything (other topics)The Private Eye (other topics)
The Bronze Age of DC Comics (other topics)
The Private Eye (other topics)
The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room, the Greatest Bad Movie Ever Made (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Tony Burgess (other topics)Russell Banks (other topics)
Amitav Ghosh (other topics)
Mary Roach (other topics)
W. Somerset Maugham (other topics)
More...
1 - I think there are entire groups/genres of books that are specifically targeted at, and enjoyed by, women. I agree that "chick lit" has a negative connotation, but I think it exists in some form. If I was trying to work up a definition for it, 40 Shades of Grey would probably figure in there somewhere.
2 - Whatever list of books my definition generated, your book club books would not be on it.
I'm not a mind reader, but I wonder if that member's exasperation wasn't even focused enough to be targeted at books by or about or involving women. There are plenty of folks out there (men and women) who only read thrillers and crime and sci-fi/fantasy that touch on emotions and weighty themes only tangentially, if at all. I'm reasonably sure that such a person would be colossally bored by the Bookhouse Boys list of books too.