This is (Not) Chick Lit
I've been reading a lot of the debates back and forth about the relative merits and, er, demerits about chick-lit. This discussion has come to a head on certain listservs I frequent because of the release this month of two books: THIS IS CHICK-LIT, edited by Lauren Baratz-Logsted and THIS IS NOT CHICK-LIT, edited by Elizabeth Merrick. NOT was announced in the publishing world, and IS is a response to it. (I have purchased both but not yet read either; I'll write more about them specifically in the future.)
I read relatively broadly (even if I read slowly!) About one quarter of my reading is non-fiction. About one third is chick-lit. About (doing quick math here) five twelfths is so-called literature (by which I mean all fiction that isn't marketed or store-placed as genre.)
I've read good, bad, and in-between in each of those categories. I've read non-fiction so dry that I can't muster the strength to turn the page. I've read chick-lit so derivative that I don't need to bother reading after fifty pages (and probably wasted forty of those fifty.) I've read so-called literature so self-absorbed, or so self-indulgent, or so intent-on-showing-me-that-the-author-is-s
And I've read brilliant books in all three major categories.
Chick-lit is a marketing label. It's a way for readers to find like books, when they've enjoyed one in the sub-genre. It's a tool for corporations to brand their products. It isn't monolithic. I'm hard-pressed to say that THE NEW LU (about a 50-year-old woman who discovers that she's pregnant after one last fling with her about-to-be-former husband, after she has a successful career, grown children, and a settled life) is "the same book as" THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA (about a 20-something girl who works in the cut-throat world of high fashion and learns the joys of designer footwear and handbags). Certainly, there's less range in chick-lit than in some other genres (e.g., mystery), but I'd argue that it has a greater range than, say, westerns. And it definitely has a similar range to sub-genres of established genres (e.g., English cozies, or private eye novels.)
While there are authors in the NOT anthology whom I've read, enjoyed, and appreciated for their literary merit, I *am* troubled by the aggressive note of the anthology's title. Reading is a dying field. We're losing readers every single day, to movies, iPods, video games, reality television. No one gains by vitriolic finger-pointing.
Any thoughts on genre boundaries and genre-bashing?
Mindy, looking forward to reading the anthologies for more specific comments
I read relatively broadly (even if I read slowly!) About one quarter of my reading is non-fiction. About one third is chick-lit. About (doing quick math here) five twelfths is so-called literature (by which I mean all fiction that isn't marketed or store-placed as genre.)
I've read good, bad, and in-between in each of those categories. I've read non-fiction so dry that I can't muster the strength to turn the page. I've read chick-lit so derivative that I don't need to bother reading after fifty pages (and probably wasted forty of those fifty.) I've read so-called literature so self-absorbed, or so self-indulgent, or so intent-on-showing-me-that-the-author-is-s
And I've read brilliant books in all three major categories.
Chick-lit is a marketing label. It's a way for readers to find like books, when they've enjoyed one in the sub-genre. It's a tool for corporations to brand their products. It isn't monolithic. I'm hard-pressed to say that THE NEW LU (about a 50-year-old woman who discovers that she's pregnant after one last fling with her about-to-be-former husband, after she has a successful career, grown children, and a settled life) is "the same book as" THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA (about a 20-something girl who works in the cut-throat world of high fashion and learns the joys of designer footwear and handbags). Certainly, there's less range in chick-lit than in some other genres (e.g., mystery), but I'd argue that it has a greater range than, say, westerns. And it definitely has a similar range to sub-genres of established genres (e.g., English cozies, or private eye novels.)
While there are authors in the NOT anthology whom I've read, enjoyed, and appreciated for their literary merit, I *am* troubled by the aggressive note of the anthology's title. Reading is a dying field. We're losing readers every single day, to movies, iPods, video games, reality television. No one gains by vitriolic finger-pointing.
Any thoughts on genre boundaries and genre-bashing?
Mindy, looking forward to reading the anthologies for more specific comments
I have read lit crit that says that *all* fiction is fantasy; I think that pushes the argument too far. But I do get cranky with people who turn up their noses at fantasy and science fiction, and then go about reading Gabriel Garcia Marquez and MY NAME IS RED, and other fantastic "literary" works and raving about the brilliant artistry of the creative force.
(Anonymous)
This Is/This Is Not
While I'm reading (and enjoying) "This Is Not Chick Lit," the most amusing thing to me about Elizabeth Merrick's intro is that she defends her own genre reading (mysteries and comic books) while condemning chick lit as "mind numbing." The woman admits to reading Us Weekly. What could possibly be more numbing then deciding whether to read this week's story about Brangelina breaking up, last week's story about Brangelina breaking up, or last month's story about Brangelina breaking up?
Completely off topic, I visited your website the other day. "The Girl's Guide to Witchcraft" looks like great fun. And it comes out just two days before my birthday. That was so thoughtful of you to time it that way :)
-Stacy (from the chick lit Yahoo group)
Re: This Is/This Is Not
Many thanks for your kind words about GIRL'S GUIDE - I planned it just for your birthday.
Re reading Us Weekly - I, personally, can't imagine a greater waste of time (but I don't know most stars, and I page through a magazine like that and feel totally out of touch with culture.) I don't know why people feel the need to defend or attack reading choices. It's entertainment, folks. Let it be entertaining! :-)
Re: This Is/This Is Not
It's funny, but ever since I got involved with the creation of TICL, I've come across people who essentially say, "I can see why Chick-Lit authors would be offended, but why make such a fuss?" Why, indeed, until it's their own genre being whacked. Several weeks ago the YA writer Bennett Madison was one of those in the "Why give the haters satisfaction?" category. Then Mark Sarvas, at the mostly very good litblog The Elegant Variation, responding to an article in the NYTimes stating that adults were reading more and more YA, said that even though he never read YA, he was certain no adult could ever find as much satisfaction with those books as with adult literary fiction. The next thing you know, Bennett's posting a public apology to me on his blog: now he gets it. I wish, for his sake, he hadn't had to learn the hard way.
It's one thing for a reader to actually read one of your books and tell you they didn't like it - every writer should expect this. It's one thing for a reader to say a particular genre is not for her. What is not OK, at least in my book, is to dismiss an entire genre wholesale. Why diminish an entire genre based on a shallow reading of it, where you've only read one or two books, if any? Can you imagine dismissing all of literary fiction because you found James Joyce's Ulysses a little too dense?
P.S. I'm very sorry about your cat.
I get tremendously frustrated by people who take great pride in NOT reading what is popular. I see most of those people staking out the DA VINCI CODE and the HARRY POTTER territory - "if it's that popular, it can't possibly be good."
I'll admit right here - I loved the DA VINCI CODE. Not as great literature that made me think about the meaning of human existence. But as entertainment. As gut-swooping distraction. And if the book wasn't the best-written one of the year, and if the characters weren't the most well-rounded ones of the year, I could forgive Brown, because I loved the ride he took me on.
Would I recommend DA VINCI CODE for a college course on Great Literature of the Western World? Of course not. But it's fun. And there's nothing wrong with that.
(And I think that some of the chick lit out there has actual *messages* to send, actual *craft* to convey, along with the entertainment.)