It’s October, and we’re still talking about Lena Dunham. The first season of Girls ended in June and the second season of Girls won’t air until January 2013 (assuming that we all survive the Mayan apocalypse where unfinished calendars will apparently rise up and destroy the world), but Lena Dunham still did something worth talking about. She sold a book proposal for 3.7 million dollars.
The book is an “advice” book where Lena Dunham will tell her readers what she’s “learned” in her life. Before anyone could even think the words, “Who needs 3.7 million dollars for a single book?” factions of the Internet feminist blogosphere leaped into action to defend Dunham against predicted backlash. Bloggers asked questions such as, “Why does a wildly successful young woman owe anyone an apology?” (here) and offered “ten reasons not to participate in Lena Dunham backlash” (here).
Last week must have been a slow news week for writers who cover women and gender in media. Maybe the feminist blogosphere didn’t have as much to say about Mindy Kaling’s show as they’d hoped, or maybe they still haven’t caught up on The Misadventures of an Awkward Black Girl and don’t have much to say about Issa Rae’s TV deal.
Whatever the reason for this backlash-against-the-backlash, I’m officially sick and tired of the Dunham defenders, and I’m going to state, for the record, that I don’t like Lena Dunham, and you can’t make me like her.
I officially don’t care that she’s a Woman in Comedy and has to face more criticism than a male counterpart might. Feminism shouldn’t be about lowering expectations for women until they hit our expectations for men. Feminism should be about leveling the playing field and holding all of us to a high standard. I’m not going to give credit to Dunham for “continuing a conversation about racism and sexism on television” by not including any people of color on her show, any more than I would give credit to Daniel Tosh for “continuing a conversation” about rape humor by making rape jokes. Or are we supposed to take this tweet as an important contribution to a discussion about racism?
I officially don’t care that she’s “brave enough” to show her naked average-sized body on television. There was a time when I admired her for that, but I lost interest when she showed up to a public event in a long-sleeved shirt. I don’t turn up my nose at that fashion choice because she’s not a size zero. I turn up my nose at that fashion choice because I am a firm believer in putting on some damn pants before you leave the house. Dunham thinks that if she had the body of Olivia Wilde, no one would have commented on her outfit. I think that if she had worn a short dress instead of a shirt, decent people would have said nothing.
I officially don’t care that she writes about awkward people doing awkward things and it’s so brave of her to write about awkward awkwardness. I’m not interested in how “real” her characters are. Of course they’re real. They’re all versions of herself. I am not very impressed with writers who only manage to write about people who are versions of themselves.
Finally, and most importantly, I officially don’t care that she’s a woman who’s successful.
Okay, that’s not completely true. I’ll amend that last statement: the fact that she is a woman who is successful is not, in of itself, reason enough for me to like her work and want to support it financially. I am glad that many women find her work inspiring and feel that she speaks to them, but I am not one of those women, and I resent the pressure to like her work just because.
The writers of that HuffPo backlash piece would probably disagree with me. After all, as they put it, “Jealously is useless.” (No, that’s not my typo – that’s theirs.) They write the following:
“Jealously is useless.
In all of the cries of nepotism and other attempts to tear Dunham down, it’s hard not to hear a base note of envy. Yes, it would be pretty awesome to have accomplished all that Dunham has by 26, have a cute drummer boyfriend, a book deal and write for the New Yorker. If you haven’t, that is not Lena Dunham’s fault.”
For the record, I am a 28-year-old writer who has not yet accomplished what Lena Dunham has, but I assure you that I have never once blamed her for my lack of success. In the list of reasons of “Why Lady T Does Not Have a Book Deal Yet,” Lena Dunham’s success does not even qualify.
But let’s say that someday, I do achieve some success. Let’s say I get nominated for three Emmys and get a book deal for several million dollars. Let’s say, as I receive international acclaim for this success and people everywhere tell me how great my work is, another group of people decides that they don’t like me or my work very much, and blog about it.
This is just a guess, but I’ll imagine that when I’m rolling around in my millions, I’ll probably be okay.
Articles
Interviews
Novels, Fiction & Silliness
Reviews
“I am not very impressed with writers who only manage to write about people who are versions of themselves.”
I am not sure that I understand what you mean here, but I am curious. Don’t all characters carry some aspect of the writer with them, whether it be in their attitudes, insecurities, questions about the world, or mor basic things like thier race/gender/class, etc.? What constitutes writing only “versions of one’s self”, as opposed to writing characters who will likely have things in common with you simply because they “came” from you? (Or do you view these as the same thing?)
She’s said that she’s half-Jewish and half-WASP, which is why half of her characters are Jewish (Hannah and Shoshana) and half are WASP (Marnie and Jessa), and has made comments about how each character is a different part of her personality.
Yes, all characters carry some aspect of the writers in them, but based on Girls and interviews with Dunham, she seems to have literally based everyone on different aspects of HER individual personality. That doesn’t make her work “bad” or unworthy of anyone’s time, but she’s hailed as revolutionary, and I don’t see what’s so revolutionary or different about her work.
Ohh, I see what you’re saying. Kind of like Ryan Murphy’s habit of writing “characters” that are a lot like the actors who play them. (He’s made several statements about being unable to “write for” certian actors). I can see why that would…fail to impress. It’s kind of like celebrating thier lack of creativity.
Yeah, Ryan Murphy reuses the same tropes over and over and over. Some of his characters have been great, but I’m starting to think that the actors (Leslie Grossman on Popular, Jane Lynch/Chris Colfer/Naya Rivera on Glee, Andrew Rannells on The New Normal) deserve more credit than he does as a writer. Ryan Murphy’s great at turning a phrase and he creates great individual moments, but his overall character work is pretty shoddy.
Am I the only one who doesn’t think her boyfriend is all that much to look at? Am I guilty of objectifying men here by saying that I don’t think her boyfriend is all that cute?
Love it.
I seriously could not agree more. During season 1 of “Girls”, I thought that she was parodying her own life and selfishly silly quest to be a great writer. I thought that she was poking fun at so-called “liberalist attitude” and “forward-thinkers” that turn their noses up at everyone who doesn’t own a beret and a pair of TOMS to save Africa. As it turns out from her plot points in season 2, she is, just like all the rest, under the delusion that she is smarter than everyone and should “Educate” us on racist attitudes, gay rights, and political issues. Well she is not a minority, not gay, and her comedy is certainly weakened for her unoriginal sentiments about social issues. I’m all for acceptance and equality- oh but wait, that doesn’t apply to republicans (aka half the country), men who treat women well (because as soon as they do they get dumped on this show) and people who occasionally like to sit in front of the TV to watch GIRLS rather than go out coke sniffing and humping everything that moves. So when the show inevitably tanks come season 4 when she finally takes it too far by having the girls go lesbian merely for the enjoyment of a man (oh wait that already happened) she will blame it on her round tummy and I will blame it on her tunnel vision of the world. She seems to want to convey the message that she is open to new ideas and experience…. so why is it that a quirky New York struggling writer without a single original thought in her head seems to be the center of the GIRLS universe?
I found her writing insipid from the beginning of the show all the way through to where I couldn’t stand it any longer. Vain, shallow, selfish; definitely the anti-thesis of what an educated young woman should be like.