The New York Times reported last week that writer/actor/filmmaker Lena Dunham just scored her first book deal, at the ripe of 26, from Random House for more than $3.5 million, and haters have gone wild.
An article on Salon.com with the headline “Lena Dunham’s absurd advance” boasted a subhead that read, “The ‘Girls’ creator nabbed a staggering advance for an advice book. And we wonder why big publishers struggle.”
The writer of the piece, Rob Spillman, wrote that publishers are scrambling to find the next “Bossypants,” Tina Fey’s bestselling humorous memoir.
“Rough math figures that Random House will need to sell a minimum of 500,000 copies of Dunham’s advice book to break even,” Spillman wrote. “Good luck with that.”
Forbes’s snarky lead for an online article about her deal, titled “Can Lena Dunham Sell As Many Books as Tina Fey? Random House Bets $3.5 Million She Can,” read “Lena Dunham is the darling of the indie comedy world, but there’s nothing indie about the deal she just scored from Random House for her first book.”
Gawker released a short announcement on the deal titled “Congratulations to Multimedia Brand Lena Dunham on Her $3.5 Million Book Deal.”
“Lena Dunham became eligible to vote in 2004, so you should listen to her,” wrote Gawker editor John Cook. “TWITTER TWITTER FACEBOOK INTERNET IPHONE TEXTING. Keep your hate pure, kids.”
I’ve defended my love of Lena Dunham plenty of times to people who bring up the same arguments about why they’re annoyed at her fame. “She’s well connected in the entertainment industry” and “Her show is about a bunch of whiny white girls” are the two dominant (and totally valid) arguments. Another argument against the show I’ve come across is Dunham’s frequent nudity on the show.
I’m sure you’re asking, “Frequent nudity? What’s wrong with that? Have you SEEN ‘Game of Thrones’?” Lena Dunham, however, happens to be a size 10.
During a conversation with the New Yorker’s TV critic Emily Nussbaum at The New Yorker Festival last week, according to a Daily Life online article, Dunham said, “It completely sickens me what our culture is doing to women. Last week I wore a big top and little shorts and a bunch of stuff came out saying I was without pants. ‘The No-Pants Look,’ it said . . . I didn’t go without pants, I had shorts on.”
She said, “If Olivia Wilde had gone to a party in a big silky top and little shorts she might have been told her outfit was cute . . . What it was really is, ‘Why did you show us your thighs?’”
The popular argument of lack of racial diversity in Dunham’s show was also brought up during the talk with Nussbaum.
“The argument there are not enough minority characters to represent New York — that I couldn't argue against,” Dunham said, reported an LA Times article. “What I didn't like was the angle that 'therefore you are a racist, you are raised by racists, you come from a world of class and privilege.'"
As far as the nepotism argument goes, I’d like to remind everyone that well-connected, young white women rising to fame are hardly a new trend. Miley Cyrus, anyone?
However, Dunham happens to be an articulate, intelligent, body-positive young white woman who, rather than starring in her own Disney sitcom or releasing line after line of perfume for Macy’s or made-in-China shoes for Kohl’s, is doing something that’s actually pretty cool. In the tradition of Helen Gurley Brown and Nora Ephron, Dunham is releasing an advice book for young women.
“One chapter is described as ‘an account of some radically and hilariously inappropriate ways I have been treated at work/by professionals because of my age and gender,” wrote the New York Times in a blog post about Dunham’s million-dollar contract.
From what I’ve seen on “Girls” and her various published pieces in The New Yorker, it’s safe to assume her book won’t be another “Chicken Soup For the Teenage Soul” either. Dunham’s writing is raw, powerful, real and flawed. Just like Dunham herself.
