Chick lit is getting too literal

I completely agree with you.  Besides, doesn't Chick Lit just remind you of gum? 

...it's just one more example of women not being taken seriously. Don't get me wrong, there have been times I have been looking for a lightweight book to read, but I don't think they should be shelved by themselves. Is it really any easier to write a "fluff" book than a "serious" book? And who gets to decide which category it falls into?

Just because a book is written by a woman does not mean that it is in a class by itself. Women are just as capable as men as understanding and conveying the complexities of humans and life. On a similar note, what message are we sending men who want to read books by women?

I have often compared books on similar subjects, where the main difference was the sex of the person who wrote it, but I had never considered what the impact of a "classic" book would have been if it had been written by a woman instead. Good commentary.

I totally agree with you about serious contemporary books by women being marketed as "chick lit." That's absolutely maddening.

However, nowadays there are quite a lot of books by women writers that are taught outside women's lit courses. The Awakening, for example, is widely taught in university American lit survey courses (like mine), and I also find that many of my students have already read it in high school. Would guys read it on their own if not forced to in a class? No, but I find that most college-aged guys don't read much of anything they're not forced to read for a class.

However, I also have a really good example that supports your complaint. Recently I taught a course on Jane Austen--arguably the greatest writer in the English language other than Shakespeare--and not one guy took the course. I attribute that to the fact that film adaptations of Austen's works are marketed as "chick flicks," so Austen has become identified as a "chick lit" author. Not that I minded having a class of all girls, and in this case I don't even that I think the association with "chick lit" is going to damage Austin's literary reputation--since women dominate English departments, that is unlikely. Mainly it's sad for the guys who don't read it. They are really missing out.

I don't have a problem with the label "chick lit" per se, just like I don't have a problem with the romcom genre in cinema. That being said, it is disconcerting to see a book seemingly far from being "lightweight" getting the chick lit marketing treatment, just because it was written by a woman.

At the same time, I'm for the rehabilitation of traditionally feminine hobbies. It sucks that activities such as... crocheting or romance novels are thought of as "light" or "cute" or even "stupid". It sucks that chick lit is not only viewed as a genre, but as a sub-genre. Comic books have been rehabilitated, so have fantasy novels... but chick lit books are still frowned upon. 

You mentioned the issue of representation. That is what bugs me the most about Chick Lit, actually.  The characters in such novels are overwhelmingly white, with the occasionnal token Asian/lesbian/[insert other form of marginalization] friend. But there are some refreshing exceptions out there. I'm currently reading this book called The Bermudez Triangle. The main character is a Latina and her two best female friends fall in love. So far, so good! Although, technically it's not Chick Lit. It's YA. I'm a big, big YA reader. Probably because books written with a teen audience in mind tend to tackle more issues. I dunno. I generally find them... slightly less problematic on that front.

Maybe I spend too much time scouring the sci-fi shelves, but I have honestly never come across this label in a book store, haha. Maybe things are different where I am? (I was pleasantly surprised when I found Sarah Waters' novels not in the separated LGBT section of my local Borders, but in the fiction section...small steps, I suppose.)

But anyway...as an upcoming English major/teacher/hopefully-future-author, there are quite a number of beef burgers I have to fry with whoever it is that somehow decides these things. For instance - why do I always come across a separate "Literature" section in book stores? Why is this section filled with Shakespeare, Twain, Hawthorne etc.? Why is it that it's only the 'old classics' which are considered literature? Why does it have to predate my grandparents' existences to be termed as good 'literature'? Maybe I'm just a contemporary snot, but it rubs me the wrong way.

I personally wouldn't tend to read fluff novels, but a novel is a novel and I have a deep respect for any author who publishes one, enough that it pains me to see their work being written off in manners such as these. It seems to have gotten so out of control that they're now labeling books incorrectly. I have to wonder who's at the top 'deciding' where these books go, 'deciding' what they should be labeled as (the thought of which really grates on my nerves), but I really don't know much about the process.

Oh - and kudos to my high school, I guess. The Awakening was part of every class's junior curriculum. And I would personally take The Bell Jar over Catcher in the Rye any day, but maybe that's just me (by the way - you made a typo with the word "catcher"...not to nitpick or anything! it just looked like "catheter" to me the first time I saw it and I had to double-take).

Luckily for us, there seem to be some female authors that even the public at large can't ignore - ie Toni Morrison, Alice Sebold, etc. for modern ones, and then of course the Brontes, Austen, etc. in terms of more classic novels (all of these authors were part of my high school curriculum, though some were class-based choices in my AP class). It's just such major suckage that a woman has to basically be mind-blowingly groundbreaking to get awarded any literary presence/consideration.

"This is a tree on fire with love, but it's still scary since most people think love only looks like one thing instead of the whole world."

I had a very similar discussion about 'lesbian literature' a while back; why are some books that feature lesbians deemed fit for mainstream to read, while others are considered only 'good enough' for lesbians? We came to two conclusions:

1. The labeling system does suck, and there is a very definitive hierarchy as to what is considered universal - only for women - only for gay women, and so on. Extensive labeling is theoretically discriminatory, and undermines the credibility of writers who belong to a group that is not at the top of the hierarchy.

2. Despite the fact that we all agreed it sucked in general, the majority of us still appreciated the labeling system. Personally, I tend to prefer female writers to male writers, and it makes it easier for me when browsing if I can easily distinguish between the two. Also, back to the 'lesbian literature', I tend to prefer lesbian protagonists, be it romance, action, sci-fi, or whatever, and again it makes it easier for me when browsing if I can just stay in the 'lesbian fiction' section of the book store, even if, theoretically, certain books had ended up there that might be well-served being marketed to the general mainly straight public without that 'lesbian fiction' label on the back that, I'm assuming, turns away a lot of straight readers.

I guess...

When I was a kid, I was a weekly reader subscriber. The would send me books, and I would fill out their little questionaire about what I liked, what I didn't, what I wanted more of and what I never wanted to get again. Before long I was getting books labeled "Just For Boys" on the cover.

My Mom had something of a shitfit, "Don't they know you're a girl?!" (She was always trying to turn me into a lady, and this did not help.) I'm sure they knew my gender though, 'cause that was part of the questionaire. Maybe they ran out of options for girls who read Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Action and Horror.

I would probably skip anything labeled Chick Lit. So, it does indeed suck that they would stick anything written by women in that category. Amber Benson is coming out with a book that she self-describes as Chick Lit. I think maybe it isn't since it sounds like a Fantasy genre novel to me. (What is Chick Lit again?)

I admittedly read a lot of what is probably considered light weight or at least lowbrow. Stephen King describes his work as the literary Big Mac and Fries. But, it's not Boy Lit. eh.

Although Sylvia Plath wasn't required reading in my English class, my teacher did pull me aside and recommended her to me. He had a habit of recommending literature that I think he actually wasn't allowed to cover in class.

I completely agree with the complaint against current promotion trends, but... Breakfast at Tiffany's "the breezy tale of small town girl-trapped-in-the-big-city"? Sounds like chick-lit marketing to me.

My main complaint with current novels is the lazy editing. Editorial duties have been completely replaced by duties to promote and publicise.

As one of those authors who write lesbian literature, let me say that yes, I realize that choosing to write about lesbians for lesbians will consign my work to a smaller audience. There is no writer who wouldn't want to have a bestseller, (and there have been a few lesbian novels that have made the bestseller lists) but I have to write what I have to write, if you follow.

Serious readers may sometimes dismiss lesbian or chick lit as too lightweight, too concerned with romance and love. My own first novel is sometimes considered a "romance" though that didn't effectively shape my thinking as I wrote it. I thought I was writing a novel about the civil rights movement.

There are talented, serious writers of lesbian literature. I won't start a list of my favorites.

If you ask me where I'd like my books to be shelved in the bookstore, I'll tell you that there's a certain amount of pride in having my book in the lesbian/gay section. Maybe it would sell more copies if they also stocked it in the historical fiction section. But I wrote it for us. They get enough books written by heterosexuals, about heterosexuals, and for heterosexuals. I'll never get over the slight thrill of recognition, the sense of belonging, the pride of place that I get every time I browse through the lesbian and gay literature section, something I do on each trip to the bookstore, whether I'm there for  a cookbook, a biography, or a magazine.

I can remember when there wasn't a section for our books in mainstream or chain stores. Maybe that's why I write what I write.

www.bettnorris.com

www.bywaterbooks.com

I read The Awakening in high school too. I think we read it my senior year in AP English. I like having a section for Gay and Lesbian books too. Although I can very well remember a time when we didn't have a section considering the fact that it slaps me in the face every time I go to the Books-A-Million in my hometown in north Alabama. Instead they put the gay and lesbian books in a section they label "Social Sciences." There are a few, mostly gay and not lesbian books, near the end of that section right before the just a small "Women's Studies" section. It covers about 2 shelves, sometimes 3. Oh and it is subtitled "Lifestyles" It's very nice. Ha ha! So I prefer to having a section specifically labeled "Gay and Lesbian" rather than stuck in the back corner and not restocked with new or even recent books since the '90's.

As for "Chick Lit" I have read some. Well it was more like YA Chick Lit like Gossip Girl simply because it was hilarious and pathetic the people in those books were. But there were some funny lines and the writing wasn't bad or less because it was about a bunch of snotty rich kids from New York. I'm sure a ton of men have written many novels about jackass rich MEN in New York. But even the YA books like Gossip Girl and The A-List were deemed "Chick Lit" and I doubt are read by anyone but teenage girls and very gay and out teen boys. I think it is ridiculous that the subject of a novel or who it was written by should determine the literary worth of a book. I think the writing, the plot, the story and characters of a book should determine that.

Oh, and The Bermudez Triangle is a really good GLBT YA book. I think it is a very real portrayal of figuring out who you are, who you are attracted to, and how your best friends work into that world. It's a good book written by a straight women for teenagers, gay, straight, boy or girl. Although the fact that it's about girls and has main GLBT issues and characters would probably bump it down the list of "great literary works" even more than it being YA already has and marginalize its audience.

The name isn't the problem but how they group the books together are.

I think the reasoning behind always talking about white women who are straight because it will appeal to a bigger audience (compared to someone with a different race and/or sexual orientation) and you want the book to sell.

Great article. Personally, I stay away from chick lit whenever feasible. I think the closest I've gotten (by your standards) is The Sun Also Rises, which is definitely one of my favourite books. I'd have to disagree with you though, I don't see it as a fluff piece of literature intended as a light read at all. In fact, it deals with many societal issues, specifically the social practices of the Lost Generation.

Regardless, that's not the most important topic of discussion. I'm personally fine with the chick lit label, if used correctly. I think it would be exaggerated to assume that books written by women are automatically at a disadvantage when it comes to labels because modern society is much more inclussive than, say, in the late 50s/early 60s when Breakfast at Tiffany's and The Bell Jar were published. I know that at my local library and bookstores noteworthy literary accomplishments by women are placed in the alphabetized fiction or non-fiction sections respectively along with their male-written counterparts.

As a side note, I'm totally going to check out "All We Ever Wanted Was Everything," it sounds great.

In a real dark night of the soul it is always three o'clock in the morning, day after day.

I try to avoid the section with sweet and cute coloured books with girly pictures at all costs. 

I don't care what might be hiding among the chick lit, a book that looks like that is not getting into my book case.  

- - - - - - - - - -

-Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

I blog, therefore, I am

As a writer, I'm particularly concerned about the way all fiction written by women ended up being labelled "chick lit".

My hat goes to Jannelle Brown for publicly saying she dislikes the marketing of her book. Well done! In fact, I might pick up her book next because it seems like a book I would enjoy, despite its silly cover. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Taking off - the novel, coming soon. Starring Katie, a lesbian in London...

In the meanwhile, you can read reviews of films and books with lesbian/bi characters, or about green issues, or with strong female characters, or taking place in London at www.takingoff.org

As a bookseller and self-confessed literary snob by no-one's standards but my own, I have to point out that there's a major difference between the labelling and the marketing when it comes to chick lit. While it exists as a genre and (according to me anyway) sucks hard, there's also been a recent trend towards marketing non-chick lit books with chick lit covers. Which, distasteful as I find it, makes sense. The biggest selling fiction titles are, usually, terrible books. They're also usually recommended by Richard & Judy, who only very occasionally manage to get it right. These books are bought mostly by women aged 20-40. So for some unknown reason, the most prolific buyers of books tend to buy tat. Iif publishers take good books, and pastel up their covers to sell them to women who would not normally buy them, then more power to all involved (Hell, even Austen got the chick lit makeover treatment.) I wouldn't worry too much about how books by women seem to be marketed these days - the trade is in decline and we need to sell using whatever methods necessary. Even the classics written by men have been re-marketed to appeal to a dumbed down society.

Besides, along with the hard-hitting male writers, the powerhouses of women writers are still leaving their mark. Anne Enright's "The Gathering" won last year's Man Booker Prize. Rose Tremain's "The Road Home" took the Orange Prize for Fiction and Joanna Kavenna's "Inglorious" earned her their New Writer's Award. Doris Lessing was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, and Kate Christensen received the PEN/Faulkner Award for "The Great Man". Not to mention the dozens of others that were long or shortlisted for these and various other awards.

Chick lit is somewhat of a derogatory term - and rightly so. A vast proportion of fiction being published by women *is* simple-minded dross. It's a sad but true fact. That being said, books that are deserving of notice are still being noticed, regardless of the author's gender, so take heart.

And instead of browsing any sort of chick lit/female authors section next time you're in your local bookshop, tell your friendly bookseller what sort of stuff you enjoy and ask them to recommend something. It's that question that makes my day. 

In my A.P. lit class junior year we read The Awakening, To Kill a Mockingbird, and also studied Sylvia Plath when we were doing poetry.  Then in Senior year we read Jane Austen and Emily Bronte, and as our final project we had to choose a novel to do a presentation on, and Woman Warrior was given as a choice and done by one of the groups.

Maybe it just depends on what class you take.  I think for A.P. classes there are books that they have to teach, but I'm not sure about other classes. 

  I think yeah labelling some things as 'chick lit' is fine - if it actually is but its just become one major gimmic. I'm no feminist but where Brown says 'It implies that the male experience is universal, while the female experience is something only other women would be interested in.' I think that is completely true when it comes to any male/female difference in life. Generally, if a woman adopts male stereotypical characteristics eg. strength and determination it is considered positive but because women are so often associated with apparently negative characteristics eg. weakness and being emotional then it is considered degrading for a man to display any of these characteristics likewise the marketers assume that men would not be interested in the 'female experience' and therefore market it in such a way that wipes out all attraction to men - you know maybe they are genuinely not interested, but they should at least be given the option.

Now this has gotta be true, even Madonna thinks so in 'what it feels like for a girl' :D

I suppose to conclude, the term 'chick lit' is a bit daft . . . but then again so are most labels . . .

The 'cool' people rise above them.

God save the Queen

 what a great article. i like chick lit myself (you know, once in a while. don't judge - everyone has a guilty pleasure!).  but this situation is a classic example of reading not only a man's experience, but also a white heterosexual's experience, as universal while basically everyone else is brushed to the side in the "chick lit" or the "gay/lesbian" or some other tucked away corner of Borders or B&N.  its sad, but true, and completely NOT shocking. either way, its worth something to draw some attention to it.

speaking of the "gay/lesbian" section, is anyone else sick of seeing books like best lesbian erotica of 2008 on those shelves?  There is a lot of lesbian literature that is not erotica (duh).  where in the hell is Alison Bechdel or Armistad Maupin on those shelves?  If we're gonna label stuff, we might as well put the right books in the right categories...

I must say that I have found that the majority of "chick li" has been labeled that way because it is written in the perspective of a women that has taken on a generic role of stupidy and emotinal over bearing. Now, that desn't mean that there arn't women out there writing books that havn't been forced into the"chick lit" genera, but I've found that the women who are writing and not being put into this genera are writing form the perspective of a male charcter. I find this extremly frustrating because its like saying that all women are these emotinal blobs that are running around who are to air headed to actully get something right, I think books that have strong female chractesr are extremly undreminde. I say if there going to lure women into reading books why not create a new genera of books that posses positive role modles that aren't constantly worried about there apprence or there boyfriends opinion.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

There is no such thing as Silence

I was thinking about something like this the other day after a reading a quote from Carol Ann Duffy ("I’m not a lesbian poet, whatever that is. If I am a lesbian icon and a role model, that’s great, but if it is a word that is used to reduce me, then you have to ask why someone would want to reduce me?"), at first I thought, what exactly is the problem with being defined as a lesbian poet? But it seems that labels such as these don't define the writer, but instead the content. Anyone who has ever been in love can relate to her book Rapture, not just a certain group.

Anyway, thanks for this post. I understand term when the book is like chewing gum, but other than that it's derogatory.

I'd like to put in my vote for keeping the lesbian lit section alive and well in our book stores. Go, Bett Norris!!! Just like women's music, lesbian literature is designed to speak to the inner voice of the lesbian experience, and quite frankly, that does include the struggles we have all encountered in our lives.

I'm not saying let's go back to the days of "The Well of Loneliness" as our world has surely progressed since then. However, blurring the lines of our experiences as saying they are no different than straight people smacks of internalized homophobia to me. I do not pretend to live a life with the same rights and privileges of straight people, and I can surely site a million ways in which my life is different and, in my humble opinion, BETTER than my straight brothers and sisters.

It's a tough publishing market, I understand, but I beg authors to not blur the lines of our experiences for the sole benefit of gaining marketshare by appearing in the "general literature" section of the local bookstore. There are millions of books out  that fall into the category of "general literature." I want to connect with authors who write about my life and my unique experiences of being a lesbian, of which I am truly proud.

some books deserve to be thrown in the demeaning shelves of chick lit, i have made the mistake of reading many of those atrocities so i wont be considered 'left out' when people talk about them, and they have not enriched me in any way.

but many other books written by female authors need to be in different sections, writers like Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Yasmina Khadra should not even be anywhere close to a chick lit section.

Good article. And as I noted earlier on the board about "Whip It," these classifications have been worsening rather than improving for sometime now. If I had to venture an intuitive guess, I would say since about 9/11 in this country it has been acceptable to openly mock and devalue anything perceived as feminine. But such things tend to ebb and flow.

I have been wanting to read one of the "Chick Lit" novels for sometime, if only because I am very familiar with the women I would guess are their literary grandmothers: Angela Thirkell, Rosalind Lehmann, Barbara Pym, Daphne Du Maurier, Mary Renault (1930's), Elizabeths Bowen and Taylor and Stella Gibbons. To last century (and Virginia Woolf) they were dubbed "middlebrow novelists." There's a really fine survey of these authors called The Feminine Middlebrow and while the author is conscious of certain plot defects germane to the novels (usually to sell more books), she argues that their very mix of literature and pulp created an entirely new form of fiction that was modern and subversive. Most have been recognized as literature (if in hindsight).  But they were the "chick lit" of their day.

If the current books are even 3/4 as good some of the past "women's" writers they may graduate to the vaunted name of literature 50 years down the road. I don't know -- if I could be Rick Moody or Jonathan Franzen with a grant and literary critics but not very many readers, or Elizabeth Taylor with a revenue stream as a "woman's writer" in life and a literary reputation in death, I'd gladly take the latter. True to the law of unintended consequences the label "chick lit" may help the writers in the end.

To add my 2 cents to the debate above, Hemingway is a "boy lit" writer, and not even a good one at that. By age 25 I could not put down his books without stifling a laugh. Zelda Fitzgerald was asked about The Sun Also Rises. She said it was "about bullfighting and bullshit," and I tend to agree.