Having posted my rant of 6/13 in the heat of blinding rage, now that I’ve calmed down I want to make a few clarifications, which I realize means I’m going back on my word a bit, but I’ll try to be brief:
I’m not sure about the origin of the term itself, but I suspect that both the publishing industry and the media are to blame – nevertheless, between the pink covers and the talking about the pink covers and the backlash about the pink covers and whatever might be inbetween the pink covers, at this point, almost any of us who have a public voice about it, including myself, are guilty in some way. (I was once on a panel actually titled “Just Don’t Call it C---k L-t,” and I’m sure that’s not my only infraction. Although I didn’t title it, and wasn’t as irritated then as I am now.) What it seems like to me now, with a few exceptions, is that if you are a woman writing about women in any way shape or form, regardless of the pinkness of your covers (neither of my own have been in any way pink), there’s a chance that these two words will be mentioned in conjunction with your work, whether it’s meant positively or negatively, whether it’s meant to say “You are so much better than that” or “You are the best at that” or “You are just another tired example of that.” Even someone saying something along the lines of: “Joyce Carol Oates and Toni Morrison: what to read if you’re tired of c---k l-t,” is guilty – it adds to the discussion. What I am proposing is an end to the discussion altogether.
So, reiterating what I said previously: Can we please talk about something else now?