Chick Non-Fiction?
Posted on February 20th, 2012 in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
Is it sexist to call Jodi Kantor’s The Obamas, a book about the First Marriage (if you will), “chick nonfiction”?
As pop historian David Doug Brinkley just did in the New York Times Book Review…
Call it chick nonfiction, if you will; this book is not about politics, it’s about marriage, or at least one marriage, and a notably successful one at that.
I don’t much like the term, especially the first half of it—but then, no one gets very upset about “chick lit,” a term used to describe novels about interpersonal relationships which, it’s generally assumed, are written for (or at least read by) a female audience.
Is it fair to apply that term to a book about the Obamas’ marriage? Well, I can’t imagine that the audience for this book includes many men; to me, at least, his marriage is perhaps the least interesting part of the president. But if you’re a woman who thinks a lot about your professional role when married to a successful man and the sacrifices women make in that kind of marriage, I could imagine it’d be quite interesting.
Curious what other folks think….
One final note: On balance, I’m just surprised to find anything of interest in the New York Times Book Review, the world’s dullest weekly publication.
3 Responses
2/20/2012 4:54 pm
Richard,
Douglas Brinkley wrote the review, not David, and he is no pop historian.
You should be much more careful in whom you slight.
2/20/2012 7:36 pm
Doug Brinkley it is, thank you, Sam. But I stand by my characterization of Doug, who used to write for George magazine during my time there, as a popular historian-which was not meant as a slight.
12/7/2024 3:26 am
There is visibly a bunch to know about this. I believe you made various good points in functions also.
toms http://hi.baidu.com/tomsshoess/item/a273eaa1732dd91c020a4d24