#2: Happy Birthday to ladycat777, who has a smile that brightens the room, that is incredibly smart and thinky and loving and tender, and a great friend to have. Andrea blows me away with who she is, and I'm so glad to have met her and call her friend.
#3: I'm leaving on a jet plane, but I do know when I'll be back, which is midnight Sunday. Leaving in the AM for a weekend in NYC which is SO NEEDED. cherusha and I plan on painting the town red, or at least a hue in the red-family, and good times will be had! I need a break so very very much. entrenous88 has given me many options for travel from LaGuardia to Times Square, and I feel brave and capable. (And cabs are PRICEY now. That's eating into my drinking/food budget!) So obviously, radio silence from this space for a few days.
#4: Thoughts on published books, categorizing genres, etc.
Okay, I do not claim to be an intellectual. There are far better essayists than me, this is just something that's been rumbling about in my head for a while. Let me first say that there's a term I HATE. And I don't bandy that word about. I hate the term "chick lit." Can't stand the type of books they are in the first place, can't stand that they are designed with "women" in mind. (Of course, I don't watch "Lifetime" or those channels, mostly because the programs are crap, and Meredith Baxter Burney hasn't been good since she was a Keaton. )
Simpering, vacuous, shallow... that's what I think of with chick lit. "Let's go shopping to work through our issues over this silly man who hasn't realized my (brand name dropped) wearing self is FAB. U. LOUS. Or let's eat a pint of ice cream with some chick and a guitar on the radio and "get deep." About our looks. GAH. Spare me. Does not interest me in the slightest. Sure, someone is going to come along and say that such and such book was okay, even though it was chick lit, and I'm telling you right now: DON'T.
So that's an actual genre now. And my question is, where's "dude lit?" Because there is "dude lit." Oh, it's not called that, they're just New Releases. But they are written by dudes for dudes. An example? "The DaVinci Code." Is any intelligent woman looking at that protagonist and thinking, "here's a smart guy. This guy has LAYERS." Um, all I can think of is a Harvard doctor of religion took fifty million chapters to figure out what the "pagan symbol" at St. Peter's Square was. DOCTORATE? They're just giving them out now, huh? And the schlocky stab at romance? So typical for a guy: he is a man of "power" so the woman falls for him.
Another book I've read recently was decent enough. I mean, the sentences were well formulated and structured, the plot was enough to hold me in place for a bit, but... No layers. Nothing deep. And stereotypical guy response to females: sexy bombshell is Bad, the boring, shapeless girl stands by him. And guess which girl holds his interest? Oh, and the mother dies in a botched abortion, which leads to all of the books Problems. Because she had an abortion. (I'm condensing it waaaaay down, but the point is taken, right?) And the guy was an editor for: Glamor Magazine.
Maybe this isn't making any sense... Just: I know there's been discussion about how women will read a male or female protagonist, but men will only read a male protagonist. If Harry Potter was Helen Potter, it wouldn't be popular.
And my thought is: do women writers have to dumb down material (i.e.: chick lit) in order to get published? guys get published, and frankly, I've read better things online. I know "who you know" plays a huge part in any success in life. But... so many of the books on the New Releases list I see are what I think of as "dude lit." The same as chick lit, but written by a guy and shorter constructed sentences.
Somehow all of these thoughts make sense in my head... (Um, do I get a pass because it's incredibly humid today and pushing 97 degrees and I ran for an hour?)
Okay, gonna step out and get things done, for my to do list is looooooong. And hoping someone has more cohesive thoughts on the lit writer topic, because it is something I find I think about a lot, lately. Hmmmmm.