Danger! Danger! Chick Lit!

[PennLady]

So I found this and had to pass it along while kind of rolling my eyes.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/19/chick_lit_may_be_hazardous_to_your_health/

 

[Stella_Omega]

This one is better; http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/the...wson_refuses_to_let_abc_airbrush_her_stomach/

 

[Handley_Page]

This one is better; http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/the...wson_refuses_to_let_abc_airbrush_her_stomach/

But she does not like people photographing her bum! Her TV programmes' instructions are littered with such instructions apparently. Camera-men are very firmly told "NO" and directors advised in no uncertain terms.

 

[3113]

But she does not like people photographing her bum! Her TV programmes' instructions are littered with such instructions apparently. Camera-men are very firmly told "NO" and directors advised in no uncertain terms.

That's because...you can't handle the bum! It's too powerful a weapon to be let lose on the public.

 

[PennLady]

Well, props to Miss Dawson, but I was kind of bothered by the original article. I haven't ever been party to such a post-reading survey, of course, so I don't know what my thoughts would be after reading a "chick lit" book. I'm also not entirely sure what makes up that genre, although I guess it's things like Bridget Jones and the Shopaholic and not the traditional romance genre.

Truth is, I am not attracted to reading those books in the first place. From what I read about them, I find the heroines tedious and hard to relate to. For example, I am not a shopaholic, so seeing that in the title is not going to entice me to read (even though the books may be quite good; in that case, it's my loss).

But I wondered after reading the article, suppose they'd waited a week or so to quiz these women after they'd read the books. Maybe they'd feel differently.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Loves me some Nigella

 

[Lien_Geller]

I tried to read some chick-lit once. It actually did provoke outbursts of extreme nausea.

 

[3113]

So I found this and had to pass it along while kind of rolling my eyes.

I get why this annoys you--as it focuses on chick lit and women in particular, as if a bunch of guys are shaking their heads saying, "Dude, I'd never be that gullible..." or whatever.

So in that the article is eye-rolling. But what it's pointing out is nothing new. People have always been influenced by fictional characters, to the point where we writers get taken to task for creating or not creating good role models. I mean, come on, let's head on back to The Sorrows of Young Werther, a book published in 1787 that had Goethe's on the best seller's list and dozens of young men dressing like Werther and, supposedly, committing suicide because that's what their hero in the book did.

So is it really news that readers of the Brigit Jones' type character might identify enough with her to care about weight and looks as she does? Easy enough for a woman to fall into that mindset--and if the heroine she loves does it, why not?

The only eye-roll I see here is that it's focusing on a certain type of fiction appealing to women (and supposedly having admirable heroines) rather than fiction in general.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I'm not going to look up the study, since I heard it on NPR, but here's what was said: Women's magazines that show skinny women tend to prompt women to work harder on their appearance. Meanwhile, the opposite doesn't work well for men's magazines. In a men's magazine (egads, is that good grammer?), apparently what spurs a man to take action regarding his personal appearance isn't seeing a buff guy... it's seeing a hot chick checking out the buff guy.