Editor Article: Who does Polly Courtney think she is?
So, Polly Courtney did something dramatic this week. You could also say Polly Courtney did something stupid this week and you’d be correct. On the night of the launch of her new novel It’s A Man’s World, Polly Courtney announced to the world (if Courtney can be dramatic, so can I) she was “firing” her publishers Harper Collins. That’s actually rubbish. She isn’t “firing” them. She’s at the end of her three-book contract and one can presume she hasn’t been offered another so… out comes an outburst so ridiculous it’s actually laughable. To add to the drama of the night Polly then said this about her reasons for leaving: “[That her novel covers are] ‘patronising [to] women’ with ‘fluffy’ marketing campaigns.” That the book cover and title of her new book is “racy” and “inappropriate” and then to top it all off, she went and insulted the very same women who will (or, rather, won’t) be buying her book by saying this: “A lot of chick lit patronises women. There’s intelligent writing out there and I don’t know why it has to be sold in such a fluffy package.”
Let’s start with Polly’s dramatics. Firstly, what she did was unprofessional. I’m sorry, but if you have a problem with the title of your novel or the cover of your novel, is the best thing to do really to speak out loud? No, I didn’t think so. What’s worse is that there’s nothing wrong whatsoever with the title or the cover of her book because the cover isn’t “racy” and the title isn’t “inappropriate”. In fact the only argument she has in relation to her books cover is that it’s a rip-off of the Morning Glory movie poster. It’s A Man’s World. Wow, it just makes me bristle with indignation. Oh, wait, no it doesn’t because it actually makes sense. I see that the title is obviously because the novel is about, wait for it wait for it, A WOMAN GOING TO WORK AT A LADS MAG. A lads mag that is MALE-DOMINATED. A Man’s World, then, no? I have no words if Courtney thinks the cover is “racy”. It’s hardly a Mills and Boon type cover. In fact it’s, again, entirely appropriate. It’s a woman sitting presumbably on a desk or that’s the idea. Oh dear Lord, how racy. MY EYES. MY EYES. Not that you see that every day at work places up and down the world. Not that women regularly wear (gasp!) skirts and (gasp!) might perch on a desk and (gasp!) might have a bit of leg showing. Totally inappropriate. I think skirts should be banned forever, miles too racy for me. My poor eyes may never recover. (In fact, the only thing that DID hurt my eyes was seeing Courtney with her legs akimbo on a pole which is miles more racy and inappropriate than anything in or on or about her book. I mean, I ask you. This is someone who is so ardently feminist yet she goes and poses on a pole. A pole that women dance on in strip clubs where seedy men give them money for lapdancers. Very empowering, pole dancing… Say all you like about Polercise but at the end of the day when I hear pole dancing, I think of half-naked women swinging around in greasy, dank bars for drunk, horrible men. For the record, I’m aware it’s up to Courtney what her hobbies are but it’s a bit rich of her to complain about things like a racy cover and inappropriate title and then for pictures to come to light of her on a pole).
Second, lets address the Chick Lit issue. I’d really rather not, because I am sick and utterly tired of discussing just how Chick Lit is not patronising. I’d first like to point out that Polly Courtney writes Chick Lit. I don’t care what she thinks, she writes Chick Lit. It’s not about how her publishers dress it up, it’s not about the covers the publishers put on, it’s not about the title, it’s about the content. I’ve only read It’s A Man’s World, but I’ve read Chloe’s review of The Fame Factor and both(!) would fall into the Chick Lit category. Chick Lit has come a long way since it started and covers a vast range of topics and things. I have never felt patronised by reading a Chick Lit novel, pink or fluffy cover or not. What Polly doesn’t realise is that her comments are patronising. Women aren’t fooled by beautiful pink covers. For someone who advocates women as being intelligent and perfectly capable of doing so-called “men’s” jobs, it’s a bit rich she presumes because a publisher gives a book a pink cover it’s going to be patronising or a fluffy read and that it may just contain a heroine capable of not going nuts over a guy. To clarify: No matter what Polly says, she writes Chick Lit. That’s the long and short of it and if she doesn’t like it, well, she can go and write the next great British literary novel.
Courtney has done herself no favours with her outburst. It’s all a big publicity stunt, frankly. Her publisher did nothing wrong at all with the cover (by that, I mean it’s not racy; it’s still wrong it’s a rip-off of Morning Glory) - or the title - of It’s A Man’s World. It adequetly conveys what the novel is about and it’s adequetly targeted to the audience it’s meant to target. Women. At the end of the day, Polly Courtney writes novels for women, so it’s somewhat reasonable the book will look attractive to women. Big whoop. Courtney may feel she’s somehow starting a “revolution” against Chick Lit but that’s rubbish. She shouldn’t be alienating people like me (for the record, I will never pick up another Polly Courtney novel). In what way is her outburst going to realistically sell more copies? It won’t. If Courtney had said all this stuff before I’d read her novel, I’d never have read it. Because she sounds stuck-up and ungrateful. Who’s going to buy a book by someone who talks such utter nonsense? So Polly Courtney can tell herself whatever it is that makes her feel better, but all us readers know better. We know what her novels are, we know that there’s nothing wrong with her book cover or title and we know this is seemingly nothing more than someone who’s at the end of her contract and hasn’t been given a new one and needs a leg-up since she’s now going to self-publish. I hope she doesn’t put a woman on her cover, because it might appeal to women a bit too much for her liking when she wants a more diverse readership.
- Digg
- Stumble it!
- Editor Article: Is there really a downturn in Women's Fiction?
- Editor Article: In Defence of Katie Price
- Leah's Top 5 Female Characters Ever
September 19th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Thank you for writing this, it’s an important issue to address. I particularly like how you’ve pointed out that she’s ungrateful. Does she realise how many people would love to be published by HC Avon?! (& I feel qualified to comment because my ms is on an editor’s desk over there at this very second!)
Even if that option is no longer open to her she could at least go with grace and dignity. I doubt any mainstream publisher will publish her again - unless she changes her name!
September 19th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
This women drives me crazy,so utterly unprofessional and pathetic to stage her dramatic “firing”…and actually as a reader I’m offended by this patronising women.
I read this book (i wasted time and money on this book) and i wouldn’t call it chick lit,because i enjoy chick lit….i would call it one long boring rant!
At what stage did she discuss this with her publisher like a mature “normal” women…this just shouts hormonal tantrum if you ask me!
Get over yourself polly,if your publisher’s fooled me into thinking this chick-lit where do i apply for my refund!! (Oops…finished now…:-) )
As a chick lit reader i must now go search for my prince charming…..ugh!
September 19th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
I’m getting a bit fed up of people denigrating chick lit/women’s fiction. I wish people would stop being so patronizing and realize that women from all walks of life love and enjoy these books. We’re not stupid or lazy, but we just like to read fun and feel-good fiction. What’s wrong with that?
September 19th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
If I had a publisher to fire (looks off wistfully into the distance), I would sack them for a better excuse than the cover, which isn’t that bad. Polly Courtney is a lucky woman who may have just ruined her future chances of getting another book deal elsewhere!
September 19th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
I love that you have written. You are voicing what all us Chick Lit lovers are thinking. I havent read this book yet, I was planning too until I heard about her little outburst but now Im not really sure that I want to. She should have discussed this with her publishers not, not with the rest of the world. I’m sure she saw the cover before the launch, I know I did, so if she didn’t like it, she shoud have said something earlier. I hate how she has said she finds chick lit degrading. As someone who reads a lot of chick lit, I hate that she has said this. If she is going to insult her own readers then I don’t want to read her books anymore either!
September 19th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Leah, I agree with you 100%! Her outburst was really tasteless and unprofessional. And, like everyone else, I’m just tired of having to defend Chick Lit against ridiculous claims of it all being vapid and mindless. Anyone who believes this clearly hasn’t read much of the genre. I haven’t read Polly’s books (nor will I), but from the descriptions alone, I’d sure say they’re chick lit.
September 19th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
“What Polly doesn’t realise is that her comments are patronising. Women aren’t fooled by beautiful pink covers.”
This! Thank you! I watched a clip of her being interviewed on Channel 4 news and Courtney was going on about how she wants the “right” women and not the “wrong” women to read her books. What the hell is that about? How awfully pompous and patronizing!
She practically admits to writing chick lit… just not “that kind” of chick lit. It’s like the women who claim to be feminists but “not those kinds” of feminists so as not not upset the status quo. Barf.
September 19th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
This is so wrong! I wanted to read this book then decided not to when I saw the review. But this has put me off even more. Chick lit is great! nobody should be ashamed to call themselves chick lit authors, its great!
September 19th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I hadn’t heard about this writer before, but after reading this and other stuff written about her I will just never pick up one of her books, no matter how well-written, hilarious, charming etc. they are.
I keep coming back to the question: WHY? Why is she doing this? It is nothing but bad publicity for her.
September 19th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
I couldn’t agree more with everything you’ve written. I think this was a terrible way to get her point across and incredibly unprofessional. I also don’t enjoy being patronized because I enjoy chick lit, which is not all as fluffy as she seems to think … I just can’t explain this. So much second-hand embarrassment. :\
September 19th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
http://www.channel4.com/news/does-the-chick-lit-label-dumb-down-womens-fiction
Just watching this and I have never rolled my eyes so hard before. SERIOUSLY?! So this is a light and enjoyable read about a woman dealing with stuff. It smells like chick lit, but god forbid we label it like that because that’s for stupid, ditzy chicks only. WHAT?! O_o
NOT ALL CHICK LIT HEROINES ARE DITZY! AND THEY ARE NOT ALL ALWAYS & FOREVER SEARCHING FOR MR RIGHT! THEY HAVE OTHER THINGS GOING ON! You know, real, every day things. Some entertain and some are more thought-provoking. Diversity, yo.
Although, excuse me, which woman isn’t looking for Mr Right at some point of her life? Is it really that horrible that books focus on something a vast majority of women can relate too?
I do wonder how many chick lit books this woman has read. Probably just one or two (based on what she’s saying) and now she thinks she’s the chick lit encyclopedia or whatever.
Ms Courtney, you can only WISH you wrote such fantastic books as Sophie Kinsella, the ultimate chick lit queen. YOU WISH. So please don’t be so jealous of her mindblowing and well-deserved success.
On the other hand, there’s Marian Keyes, another author who’s often labelled chick lit queen. I don’t recall her heroines being particularly ditzy and obsessed with shopping and Mr Right. And I think she wears the chick lit crown proudly.
Bottom line: chick lit can be VERY diverse, but yes, the books are often easy to read and rather enjoyable. Horrible, huh? But believe it or not, chick lit can be SRS BSNS too.
ps: There are many horrible covers out there, but Golden Handcuffs might just be the worst one of them all. So if the author is planning to return to that style … then yeeeahh, good luck with that. I sure as hell won’t be picking it up after this fiasco.
September 19th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Spot on article Leah! I’m in agreement with everyone’s comments as well. All Polly Courtney has done here is shot herself in the foot. Of course she’s angry, I’d be angry too if I didn’t get resigned with one of the best publishers out there. But honestly, she needs to have some class. It’s one thing to be upset and tell your best friend, another to rant on internationally watched television. Wow!
Also, like many of the other comments have mentioned, I’d have to say I’m offended. To imply that I’m less intelligent because of my choice to read a so-called “Chick Lit” novel over say “Literary Masterpiece” or even an “Oprah Book Club Pick”. All of that is complete rubbish. She needs to take a few lessons from some of the great ladies and men behind some of the best Chick Lit/Women’s Fiction novels out there: Miranda Dickinson, Sophie Kinsella, Matt Dunn, Cecelia Ahern, Sarah Jio, and more. They all have class and write books that appeal on so many levels. I could be completely wrong, but my guess is they would never dare to insult any of their readers no matter their class, age, sex, reading level, etc. I’m pretty sure, especially considering our current economic climate, that they’re grateful for each and every person who spends their hard earned dollars on their books.
Ms. Courtney needs to take a step back and make a few apologies because I’m not sure a reader anywhere, after seeing this video, would pick up another book from her without feeling their intelligence is being insulted.
ps. Yes I completely agree with Bookalicious Ramblings, if she’s planning on going back to the cover featured on her novel Golden Handcuffs she may as well throw in the towel.
September 20th, 2011 at 1:44 am
For what it’s worth, I didn’t mind the cover at all. I didn’t mind the title either.
What writers need to understand is that it is a business and that business is to sell books.
Once you accept money for your ‘art’ it is no longer art. You must to listen to your editors and marketing teams and be as open as possible to doing the best for your book and your publisher who has faith in you.
Would I have bought that book because of the cover? Sure. It wasn’t racy, it was elegant. The title was ok. I have seen worse in the terms of covers.
As a new writer (I have a book about to be published by HC Avon in 2012) I am aware of being super helpful to my editors to make the book a success. I trust them to make the best decision, they have to sell the book after all. I figure after being in business for nearly 200 years, they know a thing or two.
Great article, great site. Thanks.
September 20th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Wow. Condescending. Just watched some of the video posted above and well, what a joke. So because of a pretty picture, the “right” people might not read her book?
I remember when Alice Hoffman got in a tizz about a critics opinion of her new book, it put me off of reading her stuff for a long time.
September 20th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Great post and I agree with your points. I really don’t see why the whole “chick-lit” thing is a problem it is one of the widest selling book genre’s and if the authors have a problem with the cover or title of a book surely this should be brought up before your contract is coming to an end!!
September 20th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
WOW. first of all this book is being removed from my goodreads to read shelf. Doesn’t the author work with the publisher on the cover? Pls correct me if I am wrong but the author works with someone at the publishing house on the look and design. So this does not make sense to me at all.
September 21st, 2011 at 6:38 am
The video someone posted just confirmed what a snob Miss Courtney is. She talks about wanting the book to be read by the right kind of audience. What rot! There’s no right or wrong kind of audience - she should be lucky her books are being read!
September 21st, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Personally I love chick lit - I love reading it and I love writing it.
And I can see Polly’s point about the ‘right kind of reader’.
This seems to be about expectations, not any indictment of chick lit readers.
Last year a young woman read my book, which is solidly chick lit. It has a swirly pink title and pastel cover (I love them!). It’s about an American woman moving to London to start a new life.
The reader was very disappointed because she expected it to be about the woman’s move to London, not her dating tribulations. The title was Single in the City, although the original title was The Expat Diaries, so maybe that’s where the confusion was. It doesn’t matter why she was confused though. All that matters is that she expected one thing and got another. I hate the idea that my book disappoints, but I especially hate the idea that the reader isn’t getting the book she thought she was. It’s bad for the reader because it’s frustrating and a waste of money and it’s bad for me because that reader is unlikely to pick up my next book, even if it’s one that she’d really like.
So I completely understand Polly’s point about wanting her book positioned so that the ‘right kind of reader’ picks it up.
September 21st, 2011 at 4:03 pm
I’m not going to comment directly on the content of the above article, but rather on the misconception that all authors should feel absolutely and without question ‘grateful’ to be given a moment’s notice by a publisher and should never, ever have the audacity to speak a word of criticism. Does “There are a million girls out there who would kill for your job” ring a bell?!
Please, talented writers, take a moment to think behind what appearances suggest in the Polly Courtney example… Do you really think she only just spontaneously decided to throw a random strop? I wonder if it is at all possible that there is - as with so very many published authors - perhaps a back story of mutual frustration and mutually unsuitable editorial partnering.
In my personal (and reasonably extensive) experience of the publishing world and the related world of literary agenting, I feel that one of the biggest problems in commercial publishing is exactly what Polly has hinted at:
that exhausted writers sign on the dotted line and collapse so gratefully into the bosoms of the prestigious literary agent and the great and mighty publishing house that they will accept literally anything thereafter. Do you really know what that means in real terms? Do you really understand what rights you hand over? Do you fully comprehend that if the editorial partnership is a bad match and your work goes in a direction you do not want it to, how little you can do about it until the terms of your contract have expired? For starters, see http://stroppyauthor.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-to-read-publishing-contract-1.html for a series of articles that explain the very first in a series of steps that will hopefully prepare you for the mild disillusion that invariably kicks in when the magic wears off!
This industry-perpetuated sense of author ‘gratitude’ does everyone a disservice. Authors are not prepared for what comes next and publishers have to deal with managing disappointed egos (and breaking the news about not quitting the day job…)
I have noticed one other thing about the points Polly has made - misquoted wilfully (I might add) again and again by those as furious as the above: contrary to the above interpretation, the existence of chick lit was not the problem for Miss Courtney; the problem for her was that her work has little in common with the successful chick-lit authors who drive the genre image and as such, is unsuited to being packaged similarly. As I understood Polly’s term ‘the wrong sort of reader’, she appeared to be referring to the reader who would pick up her book expecting it to be something it was not and be disappointed. I didn’t feel it disrespected chicklit readers or writers, but I can see how this opinion could be construed to do both.
I would suggest to the writer of this article that rather than taking angry swipes at an author who has - in my view - taken something of a personal risk in raising her head above the parapet to shout a warning down to all those seeking to climb the castle walls, it might be worth considering rather more deeply (and for a moment, rather less cynically) what might have motivated that move. And when the answers come to you, perhaps it is time to start writing pieces that help pull authors together to work for a slightly better deal. The interior of the fortress needs a bit of sprucing up, let me tell you.
September 21st, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Hello everyone,
Polly Courtney here. I read Leah’s article with interest and thought I should probably pop my head up and respond.
Leah is absolutely correct to say that I did something last week that may be perceived as rash, and/or foolish. I don’t mind people seeing it this way. I’ll explain why later.
If I can say only one thing, let it be this:
I like chick lit. I really, really don’t want anyone to think that I’m putting myself above chick lit. I am simply saying that my book does not fit the chick lit mould, and as such, has been mis-sold. Not under-sold, just mis-sold. The reference to ‘fluffy’ was in fact a quotation from the two women in Tonbridge who kick-started this whole debate by objecting to WHSmith’s shelf displays (http://tinyurl.com/3qkynph) and the word ‘racy’ seems to have emerged from the ether - not from me. Bear in mind the way that press can twist words to make a sensational story
That said, I’m not sorry about the way this issue has blown up in the last few days. If the number of messages from authors, readers, designers and small publishers that I have received in the last few days is anything to go by, it would seem that this ‘mis-selling’ issue is one that has been bubbling under the surface for a while now, and one that needs to be brought to light.
I think the best illustration of the issue can actually be found on this site, where Leah and Chloe have kindly reviewed two of my novels, each time finding that the content was not what it appeared to be, and that the style was too heavy, when judging by the cover:
“I really loved the cover when it arrived, the striking blue and white of it really make it stand out, and anyone who enjoys reality shows such as The X Factor will probably be drawn in by the title, although be aware it isn’t based on any sort of talent show.” - The Fame Factor, Sept 2010
“So where I was expecting a relatively lightish read, instead I get something more hard-hitting and something infinitely harder to take than I’d have liked.” - It’s a Man’s World, Sept 2011
I should also say that my titles are not chosen by me, and nor are the straplines or the cover design. The publisher retains control over the complete package, and believe me, I have invested time and money trying to persuade them to reconsider, with every title. This public demonstration is a response to three years of pent-up frustration.
So, whether my books are known as ‘chick lit’ (I agree, an over-used, under-defined term ) or not, I don’t really mind. I simply object to the siloed, gendered visual categorising that mainstream publishers tend to go for when trying to sell books. I believe that a more sensible approach would be to use an accurate portrayal of the themes within the book.
If you wrap up a slab of chocolate as cheese, it might sell well in the short term, but it will sell to the wrong people - disappointing both cheese and chocolate lovers and ensuring that neither will go on to buy the next slab of chocolate.
Do let me know what you think.
Polly Courtney
September 21st, 2011 at 5:41 pm
I wouldn’t have minded this article if the sources quoted here were reliable which having read the like of the dailymail in the UK I know cannot be trusted as they are famous for fabricating and sensationalising the truth to the nth degree. therefore the “reliability” press can provide us with which is absolute zilch.
I do understand where the author is coming from, when I saw this book cover my first response was it was jacked from the film Morning Glory with Rachel McAdams, I thought it was the book of the actual film but then on closer inspection this has nothing to do with the movie and there in lies the issue; there is no originality in the publisher’s vision if this is the slap dash they would promote. I have read this book and the cover does no do it justice, its so well written, with such pace and a wealth of wit. Having read Miss Courtney’s comments, I think it sheds and even brighter light on the issue of just how much control an author should have over their products as they are the ones who have conceived the idea from the very beginning. Chick is a genre that I love but the categorisation by the media on chick lit is what has made it into something not so serious which I think needs to be addressed.
I completely see the point in Miss Courtney’s decision, after all her first book was self published and has received such stellar reviews so why should she have to put up with a publisher who won’t represent her true vision. They might as well have written the book and they didn’t I’m so sick and tired of publishers treating writers like commodities that they own. Whist I get it is a business and they want to make profit they should also trust the voice of their talent which they have chosen to invest in, in the first place.
September 24th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
I’m actually gonna go against the general beliefs on this site and say I agree with Polly. To an extent. Having read her comment above, I now see where she’s coming from. I’m not excusing the unprofessionalism, but I think reports have got what she said wrong. It’s not so much that Polly is worried about the “wrong type” of people reading her book, but rather that the people reading her book are being sold the “wrong type” of book. I read “Fame Factor” over the summer (in just over a day when I should have been writing my dissertation… oops
) and whilst I really, really enjoyed it, it wasn’t what I was expecting. I really thought I was getting a book based on The X Factor, or something along the lines of Ben Elton’s “Chart Throb”. I got the book out of the library, so I wasn’t too bothered that it wasn’t really what it said it was, but had I paid for it, I probably would have been a bit annoyed. And that was in no way Polly’s fault, so I can totally understand her frustrations at that. Perhaps the way she vented them was wrong, but all press is good press, right? Look at how many people are now defending chick lit against her supposed comments. Just shows how popular the genre is.