“It’s not chick lit” – Cecilia Ahern at Mrs. Whippy photocall
By
Now that she’s rich and successful, Cecilia Ahern is getting all antsy about her craft.
She was at a photoshoot yesterday to promote the stage adaptation of her book “Mrs. Whippy”. Someone asked her if she socialised with other chick-lit authors.
According to the newspaper reports, she couldn’t contain her contempt for being labeled in such a way.
“Please don’t call it that, it’s not particularly flattering to call it chick lit. What I write is called women’s fiction. I don’t like it being called chick-lit. It is not particularly respectful for the people who read it or write it.”
Come on now, seriously? Who cares how a book is labelled? In fact, why label books along gender lines anyway – even as women’s fiction?. It’s a book, you read it, you get something out of it (or not), your life is enriched for a short while. Life goes on (or not). Same goes for blogs. I don’t care if it’s a man or a woman writing, photographing or photoshoppping. If I get pleasure out of viewing it, that’s all that matters.
I’ve often heard the book reviews on The Last Word with Matt Cooper. Nadine O’Regan is usually on the panel and it irks me no end the way she goes on about “women’s fiction” and how it doesn’t get the same respect as “men’s fiction” when it comes to awards.
Outside of the navel gazing world of the literati (is that the word?) she so obviously lives in, the majority of people neither notice nor care. We read for the enjoyment and the enrichment. Who is on the latest Booker prize list is of no consequence.
Back to Cecilia and the chick-lit debate though. If you don’t want it to be labelled that way, stop writing about ice cream, maltesers, bad hair days and GHD’s. Maybe people won’t be so quick to label you? Until then, get over yourself and be happy with the fact you’ve made it into print at all. K? Thanks.
PS – I love you really. xx mwah
Photo owned by Andy Field and adapted for use under the terms of a CC License.
Any articles/blog posts/photos/stuff of interest I could blog about here ? Send the link direct to my iPhone now
5 Comments
September 18th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
AJ, it’s not the first time I feel like kissing you. You said it, and there is little to add.
U
September 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Labels like “women’s fiction” are invented to get away from the negative connotations of previous labels, then they in turn are adopted by shit writers and necessitate yet another label being invented. And so on.
As you say, it’s nonsense. I can see where it comes from though… the sheer amount of awful, stereotypical rubbish churned out by people like Ahern gives a bad image to female writers who deal with contemporary life. For instance, Sex and the City bears a fair amount of similarity to, say, Jay McInerney’s Bright Lights, Big City, which is a book I love… but I still felt faintly embarassed when I went to buy Sex and the City. If I’m honest the only thing that gave me the courage to do it was Bret Easton Ellis’s endorsement on the cover. I mean, it must be all right if a well-regarded male author likes it, right?
September 21st, 2008 at 2:14 am
If I were Bertie’s daughter I’d get published too.
Shame I’m Cowen’s daughter instead.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I dunno…I can kind of see her point. It is a bit of a disparaging label, and you confirm that by saying:
If you don’t want it to be labelled that way, stop writing about ice cream, maltesers, bad hair days and GHD’s.
So you do admit it is a dismissive way of labelling that genre, so she, as a practitioner of that craft is perfectly allowed to say, no, don’t call it that.
The Question i would ask is, if you are OK with chick-lit, why can’t you be OK with women’s fiction?
September 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I don’t see it as being dismissive. When I say “stop writing about ice cream…” – that’s my advice to someone who has a problem with the label. As I said, if something gives pleasure, that is what matters.