You know, sometimes I'm truly appalled at how bitchy women can be. You'd think by now women would have figured out that being a nasty bitch isn't the best way to further your cause, but it seems that there are still women out there who think that the only way to get their points across is to put down other women, as if doing so makes them appear somehow better. Guys just don't do this.

I usually don't even pay attention to what "critics" have to say about authors and books because a writer writing to please critics is like a gourmet chef cooking to please a dieter on Atkins - their ability to comfortably digest anything is so narrowly defined it just isn't worth the effort. Reviewers get their books for free and their job is to sit there and read, so, really, it's not like they've got any skin in the game. And, they're also a lot like the Russian judge who has to find flaws lest he be rendered obsolete. Ultimately, it's readers who matter, they're the ones who plunk down their hard-earned money to actually buy a book and who take time out of their busy lives to read the book. Their opinion matters a hell of a lot more than a critic sitting at his/her laptop trying to come up with multi-syllabic words that make them sound like their opinion is somehow worth more than the opinions of the rest of us.

But, in this case, because this panel of "chick lit experts" was just so obnoxious and condescending, I couldn't resist responding. And when I posted my response on a board for writers I received so many e-mails saying, in essence, hell yeah, I've decided to repost it here. If you'd like to read the original article I responded to, check it out. Otherwise, here are my two cents:

The misinformed women on the "expert panel" aren't just doing themselves a disservice with their inaccurate view of the way the publishing industry works,but their obvious disdain for an entire population of readers who enjoy the very books they decry is surely not the way to further their "cause" (and by "cause" I mean their utter lack of understanding at how their oh-so-important work is being looked over in favor of books that women actually buy). Contrary to the panel's assertions, writers who choose to write chick lit aren't holding guns to publishers' heads forcing them to publish our work. Publishers are publishing our work because readers are buying them. It's actually quite simple: while critics are bemoaning chick lit as the downfall of civilized literature, readers are reading books they enjoy. Too bad that's not good enough for the people who'd rather spend their time informing the reading public what they should be enjoying, as if only they are qualified to determine what should be read.

Besides the obvious chip on these women's shoulders, other things that annoy me:

• I find the entire concept of convening panels of women to "debate" the merits or legitimacy of their writing to be insulting, and not because I write chick lit, but because these are so obviously bitch sessions designed to give female purveyors of intellectual superiority an opportunity to perform public mental masturbation more than anything else. I'd love to know how many panels bring male science fiction writers or suspense writers together to throw barbs and insults at "inferior" writers because they believe they lack the intellectual where withal to write anything worthy of meeting their standards. It doesn't happen, and it's pretty sad that these women and others like them have reduced themselves to public whining and completely overblown egos. They could learn a thing or two from men.
• The very idea that these women are "experts" who are competent enough in the genre to call it into question. And why? Because they've read a few books they didn't like. Because they don't like the artwork on the covers. Because they're under the impression that if only chick lit wasn't getting published, those "slots" would go to their own fabulous attempts at writing? But, if you get down to the true root cause of their reasoning, it's really that chick lit authors are getting published and they're not. That's not "scholarly expertise," that's sour grapes.
• Saying characters don't converse about politics or art is like saying characters don't brush their teeth or take a crap. Women obviously talk about a whole range of topics. The dialog in a book isn't there to show every single conversation its characters have, it's there to further the plot and characterization. If politics or art aren't central to the plot or characters, it isn't included. That's not shitty writing, that's common sense.
• Jessa Crispin is so obviously bitter, I truly don't know how she can be taken seriously. Her website claims: "Bookslut is a monthly web magazine and daily blog dedicated to those who love to read." What it should say is: "Bookslut is a monthly web magazine and daily blog dedicated to those who are enlightened enough to love what I love to read. And if you don't? Well, I'll participate in panels and tell you why you're wrong and why my view of what you should read is right. " Really, Jessa, it's so transparent.

I truly don't know why these women even care what other women are reading or how they can claim to be "standing up" for women's fiction when they find it so easy to dismiss books that explore a certain part of the female experience. Do they also tell other women how to eat, walk, or talk in addition to telling them what they should read?

Honestly, the arrogance is truly too ludicrious to take seriously.They should get the chip off their shoulders instead of trying toget others to haul it around with them.