Chick lit?

[Michelle]

We do have a previous thread (http://bookclubforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1117) about chick lit, but it was more focused on discussing the authors etc.

What I'm more interested in here are questions such as how do we classify 'chick lit', what do you think makes for a good chick lit book, what do you personally enjoy.. that sort of thing.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_lit) says "Chick lit" is a term used to denote genre fiction written for and marketed to young women, especially single, working women in their twenties and thirties.
Chick lit features hip, stylish female protagonists, usually in their twenties and thirties, in urban settings (usually London or Manhattan), and follows their love lives and struggles for professional success (often in the publishing, advertising, public relations or fashion industry). The books usually feature an airy, irreverent tone and frank sexual themes.

This is the way I've also seen chick lit.. books that are about younger women, usually single, and usually working. Their love lives, and indeed, sex lives, usually revolve around young single guys.

However, there are lots of books that I've recently read which go beyond this. They deal with women already married (often unhappily), or divorced. There are children to deal with, sometimes young, sometimes teenagers. They may work, but often they are 'stay at home mums'.

These are usually labelled as chick lit, but I'm not sure that they are.. I would personally call them 'women's fiction'. One that I'm reading at the moment features a mum who has an alcohol problem. Whilst I feel it's well handled, it's not exactly the 'an airy, irreverent tone' mentioned above.

Pure, light chick lit, I'm not personally keen on.. probably because I'm jealous that I'm no longer young and single! :lol:

So how about others here who enjoy this type of genre? What do you classify as chick lit, what do you personally like?

[Freewheeling Andy]

Well, initially it was purely the sub-Bridget Jones genre, creating the slightly humdrum normal life and building on the fantasies that lots of 20-something women had/have; but lots of the "chicks" who were reading that have grown up a bit and have slightly different real and fantasy worlds involving families and children.

But the principle seems to be the same. A bit of humdrum every day, a bit of comedy-lite that has lots of familiar reference points, a little harmless drama, and some romance. It's really, to me, just a recent sub-genre of the old romantic Mills & Boon stuff, but with a bit of a modern edge and a hint of humour.

Obviously there's overlap with serious fiction (Jane Austen often referenced on this stuff), and anything with a romantic central theme and female main character can be pointed at as chick-lit. But I think that's missing the point. People have been writing good literature with romance in it for a very long time. Chick-lit is, almost by definition, not particularly literary or intellectual. It's just light-weight, throwaway, trashy entertainment.

Which, by the way, is not a criticism - trashy, lightweight fun has its own merit, in the same way that bubblegum pop does.

[Freewheeling Andy]

And, by the way, I used to love the Bridget Jones column in the Independent, long before it became a book or film. But that was about the amount of real chicky chick-lit I could take. Not surprising as it's hardly aimed at me.

[~V~]

I often see Marian Keyes talked about as chick-lit but to me she isn't as her books are generally very humorous with dark moments

On the whole I'd say chick-lit is generally aimed at younger women, they also tend to be quite aspirational with romance, friendship or whatever as the plot

[Michelle]

Chick-lit is, almost by definition, not particularly literary or intellectual. It's just light-weight, throwaway, trashy entertainment.

Which goes back to my earlier comments.. I've read books that have been classed as chick lit, but they're not 'light weight', but rather deal with lots of important issues.

(As a personal point, I don't think trashy should be used at all..
trashy - worthless; of poor quality. (Chambers definition))

[Freewheeling Andy]

I'm using trashy in the sense that I would with pop music. Music with no real substance or depth but which is still fun to listen to. I feel that chick-lit, like lots of SF or action thriller stuff, doesn't have a lot of literary merit but is still enjoyable to read.

[Purple Poppy]

Strange you should start a thread here this am, as I was pondering this as I read my book last night (Reading in Bed by Sue Gee). It's gentle, and feminine and unlikely to appeal to men, obviously written for women, but with two female central characters who are in their 60's. I am not far enough in it to comment about depth and content, but it isn't what I'd call chick lit, although it has some similar qualities.

I also worried about my own novel, when I edited it a little while back, and thought that because of the chatty tone and the romance that runs through it, that I'm creating a chick lit work, but it isn't meant to be, because it is about taboo subjects (child abuse), rape and murder, as well as the lighter sider, so for Nano I had classed it as general fiction. I think there are lots of crossovers, and I think both Michelle and Andy's comments are about right.
Crickey, if I thought I was writing trash, I'd give up now!
Pp

[Gyre]

I think chick-lit has its place, it fun to read and not to be taking too seriously and the beauty part is that anyone can read it. I go through phases of just light reading which for me is chick lit.

:D

[Michelle]

Pp, looking at the Wiki definition, and the comments that people make (fun, light weight etc), I'm beginning to think that we're labelling far too many books as 'chick lit' these days. There seems to be this tendency to think that if a book is written by a woman, and is about women, it's going to have no depth!

I much prefer the books about people in an age group I can identify with, in realistic situations. And as we know, real life isn't always fun and light weight! ;) However, that doesn't mean to say that these books are gritty and/or depressing. In fact, I like the way they do keep the humour.. they're still enjoyable to read, whilst keeping some depth.

[Purple Poppy]

I agree, and why does everything in this world have to have a label? Ok, so for quick identification it's useful, but different things mean different things to different people. I'm enjoying my present read because the protagonists are nearer my age and relevant to my experience, but I do enjoy some of the stories on younger women just as much. I have to say though that is gets irksome reading about some of the 'frivolous' life styles of some of these characters. That's why Blossom's Karma was such a breath of fresh air. I think it would be an absolute best seller if only we could get the marketing for it.
Either way, when you just want a gentle read for relaxation purposes, chick lit is quite good.
Pp

[Janet]

I think it would help if there weren't so many pastel covers with big writing on them - they always say 'chick-lit' to me!

[Purple Poppy]

Yes, or covers with handbags and shoes and lippy. Girly stuff in fact. For a definite market.
(That was the only thing I didn't like about Karma --- sorry Kerri:friends0:)
Pp

[Karen]

I have to admit to being a chick-lit fan and I'm proud of it. I know they're not the most intellectual books on the market but I like them because they're easy to read and more often than not are fluffy and light-hearted - perfect for me to read after a hard and quite often stressful day at work. Don't get me wrong I like a good thriller or whatever too but I don't necessarily want anything too heavy in the evenings and want something that I don't have to think too hard about. I like escapism and chick lit is easy to do just that.

I do think Michelle is right though. The term chick lit is used to describe books too often. Not all books that are classed as a chick lit are light-hearted, funny and about 20-something, single, career women. I read a book recently about a happily married woman struggling with post natal depression. It was a fantastic and very insightful read and it was classed as chick lit and had the brightly coloured cover too. I mean how many people would have been put off by that and in the process missed out on a good read because of it?

[Purple Poppy]

Covers...back to the influence they have. Just been proved again. Publishers, take note!

[Echo]

I've never really enjoyed chick-lit all that much because generally I have found that the women portrayed have lives that I either can't relate to or that sort of disgust me. I would never be friends with these women. I've read Confessions of a Shopaholic by Sophie Kinsella, and I know she's popular, but I think it's just not for me. When I'm in the mood for some light reading, I go for a mystery or a fairy tale, something which, in my opinion, has a bit more substance.

[~V~]

I'm wondering if 'A Spot of Bother' (for instance) had been written by a woman it would be classed as chick-lit

Thinking about how many books are classed as such, but don't really fulfill the quite narrow brief, I'm thinking we may be reverting back to the days of George Eliot

[Kell]

There's the flip-side too - the opposite of Chick Lit is Lad Lit - written by men, for men, usually with a bit of a comic slant and always with a male lead. I'd never even heard of it till I read I, Lucifer by Glen Duncan. Apparntly Nick Hornby is also considered Lad Lit.

[~V~]

But I love Nick Hornby!!!! And Tony Parsons for that

I always think of bloke's books as having a big shouty name on the front and written by people like Andy Mc Nabb

[Freewheeling Andy]

Ah. The difference between Bloke-Lit and Lad-Lit, or something.There are two different genres. One is friendly and new-mannish, and seems to be the Tony Parsons, Nick Hornby. It's like a male version of the normal chick-lit, but perhaps a little more introspective and less blatant about "I want the right handsome man with the right job and lots of money to come and be lovely to me". They obsess about lost lovers more than about potential future lovers, I think.

The other genre is all about guns and planes and cars and chases and man things.

I'm not sure which is lad-lit, and which is bloke-lit. Traditionally, the Hornby stuff is called Lad Lit, but Lad, as a term, seems more applied to the Zoo and Nuts, football and cars and fake burberry generation; and blokes, to me are more harmless. So I'd like to think of Hornby as being Bloke Lit and McNabb as being Lad Lit.

[Renniemist]

I had hear that the McNabb stuff was called 'Git-Lit':D

[Freewheeling Andy]

Hahaha!

[~V~]

I had hear that the McNabb stuff was called 'Git-Lit':D

Oooh I like that one :lol:

[Purple Poppy]

Oh my goodness, chick lit, git lit and then...???
Don't even go there!:lol:
Pp

[Freewheeling Andy]

Oh my goodness, chick lit, git lit and then...???
Don'y even go there!:lol:
Pp

You do know there's a genre of womens' erotica that is called...

No, you're right. I won't go there. Although I have seen the term used, more than once.

[FishAndChips]

I had hear that the McNabb stuff was called 'Git-Lit':D

LOL

I haven't read much chick lit so I can't really comment as an expert. In total I have read:

Bridget Jones Diary - : pretty good, made me laugh, but she did irritate me in a kind of "oh pull yourself together" kind of way.

The Big Love- Sarah Dunn: Funny, well written, enjoyable. Liked the central character. An easy read. The spin in this book was lots of religious as well as relationship angst which made it fairly interesting.

Karma - Holly Harvey: Funniest book I'd read in ages. Not a highly polished book and flawed in some ways but I just loved the humour in it.

The Wives of Bath - Wendy Holden: Pretty darn awful.

I'm currently reading a Freya North (Love Rules) which I almost put down on page 4 but is actually keeping my interest now.

I would class all of the above as chick lit.
I go with the traditional definition, generally relationship focused, about single women in their twenties. I've never read a book that was classed as chick lit but didn't meet that definition (at least loosely) but then I don't generally read books like that much anyway.

I'm not normally attracted to chick lit but I am attracted to light fun reads now and again. I prefer adventure in my stories to shopping, but I will no doubt read more in the genre, and judge on a book by book basis.

[Kell]

I'm busy reading The Chocolate Lovers' Club by Carole Matthews (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chocolate-Lovers-Club-Carole-Matthews/dp/0755335848/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206740196&sr=1-1). I don't usually go for Chick-lit, but lately I've been completely unable to focus on or finish books, so I thought I'd give something lighter a try and this is proving just the ticket! It's light, funny and heartwarming, and the characters aren't all Bridget Jones-y (i.e. they're not completely incompetent twits - they're very real women with real problems and a love of chocolate). I'm really enjoying it and it's putting me back on track for reading again, which is fantastic, because I was beginning to feel a bit down about not being able to get down to much reading over the last few months!

[Michelle]

I'm glad you like it Kell.. I think it's her best. :)

[Karen]

Yeah I loved that book too and have the sequel waiting to be read.

[Icecream]

I don't usually read chic-lit, but they can make a nice light alternative. I like something with a little more depth than these romance books you see though.

I enjoyed Karma a lot because it had a sense of reality, and showed some real problems, while the main character completely turned herself around and became more independant.

I have also read books by men that are very light reads and look a bit like chic-lit, but also have a male perspective and a more rounded view of the world (the world in the story).

I think that a lot of books are classed as chic-lit because they are light reads, but are not strictly chic-lit books. Maybe we need to come up with a few more genres, or have sub genres.

Genre, and the use of it was something I started thinking about when writing my music dissertation. If i had thought of it earlier i could have done my whole dissertation on it.

[Kell]

I'm busy reading The Chocolate Lovers' Club by Carole Matthews (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chocolate-Lovers-Club-Carole-Matthews/dp/0755335848/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206740196&sr=1-1).

I'm glad you like it Kell.. I think it's her best. :)

Yeah I loved that book too and have the sequel waiting to be read.
I just finished it this morning and went straight onto Green Metropolis to order the sequel! Loved it, loved it, LOVED IT!

[Michelle]

:lol: is that meant to be a John Barrowman impression?
(Personally, I didn't think the sequel was quite as good.. but that really is just my opinion.:)

[Esiotrot]

I have just written a wee bit about Poisoned Cherries by Quintine Jardine http://www.bookclubforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=4650&page=2 and described it as Ladlit - I am sure I had never heard the term before - probably have read it somewhere and stored it in my subconscious.
Then I read this thread.... bang goes me being original LOL! :mrgreen:
KX

[prospero]

Well, my criticisms of the genre are well-reported, but I may as well contribute to this thread to make my feelings clear and to show it's not just random hate, but there's a reason for my gripes:

In actual fact, it's not the entire genre I dislike; if it were, I wouldn't read it. What I object to is the heavy reliance on coincidence as a plot device. Chick-lit tends to fall back on this more than any other I read - and I read them all, apart from Westerns. (No reason; such just doesn't grab me). Forgive me for sounding arrogant but I read well over 100 books a year, sometimes close to 150, so I know of what I speak.

Of course we bump into people we know in town when we go shopping. Of course we think of someone and they phone us. Of course we tidy up the house and come across a letter someone wrote months ago which we never got around to reading at the time for some reason.

But not as often as chick-lit would have us believe!

Coincidences happen in real life but when they're used to pull plot threads together, the author takes the responsibility for the progression of the story out of the hands of the characters, thereby turning them into passive Everymen (or Everywomen). If things happen to the characters rather than being caused by them, there's no need for character development. They could be anyone. They're ciphers.

A case in point is Becky Bloomwood in the Shopaholic books - she doesn't change from one book to the next. She doesn't learn anything, or grow. Why? Because things happen to her. She isn't pro-active. She doesn't decide the story resolution - fate does. (Or rather, Sophie Kinsella). She (Becky, I mean!) gets out of her allegedly-hilarious scrapes by the skin of her teeth. Sheer chance provides her with a way out of her difficulties, and an escape from having to actually grow up and stop being so damn selfish!

And this is why I dislike her so vehemently. She's a woman in her late twenties who learns absolutely nothing throughout the course of five books. And that's what characters are supposed to do - they are supposed to change. If they don't change, there's no story to tell. It's just a series of events which mean nothing, have no moral.

Now in fiction, characters should be what (or rather, who) move the action along because unlike real life, fiction must make sense. Random events happen in reality, true, but in a novel? Coincidences signpost the presence of the author and the author has no business showing himself in the story. It has to progress, have a visible story-arc. It's all very well saying, "This happened in real life!" That's all well and good but fiction isn't supposed to closely represent real life - it's supposed to give the impression of truth. In fact you could say fiction is about truth - not cold, hard facts. Not a shopping list of 'this happened, then this happened, then this happened', but the deeper truth about the human condition, to use a wanky phrase.

Now I know - chick-lit is supposed to be fun, light, escapist - that's true. I agree wholeheartedly. We can't read Tolstoy all the time. But that's no excuse for it not to be well-written. 'Escapist', however, doesn't mean 'completely unrealistic' - I'd say it means 'like my own life but jacked-up a notch; could happen to me on a really-good day'.

It's strange, because on the one hand I'm saying it's completely unrealistic to pepper your books with coincidence, and yet on the other I'm criticising authors who say "This happened in real life, so I can write about it." So which is it? Do I want my books to be based on real life, or fantastical?

A combination of both. If you relate weird events which happened to you or someone you know, a reader could think, "Well that's very nice but it could never happen to me because such events are very, very rare." If you write a book which is completely made up and in which coincidence gets the characters out of scrapes, the reader could think, "Well that's very nice but it could never happen to me because such events are very, very rare."

In real life, coincidence happens. We know that. Life is random. Fiction is not. The author should be in control. Life doesn't make sense. Fiction always should.

[Michelle]

Well, my criticisms of the genre are well-reported,

Really? ;)

How do you classify 'chick lit' then? For you, is it only the books about young single women, or most of 'women's fiction'?

I've been reading quite a few books about older women, the ones facing marriage, divorce, children, abortions.. etc. As far as I can see, many of them do seem to have character development. Do you enjoy these sort?

[Karen]

prospero - I know you're a writer and as you seem to like reading chick lit (even if you don't always seem to enjoy it) have you ever thought about trying to write a chick lit book yourself?

The only reason why I ask is that you seem to have a real hang-up with the whole coincidence thing - and in some cases I agree that it is annoying when it happens all the time - but as it annoys you so much maybe you should write a chick lit book without having to rely on numerous coincidences and all that other stuff that you hate about the genre.

I mean there's obviously a market for real chick lit that's more believable than what's out there just now, so why not give it a go? You never know you might write a best seller.

[prospero]

Really? ;)

How do you classify 'chick lit' then? For you, is it only the books about young single women, or most of 'women's fiction'?

I've been reading quite a few books about older women, the ones facing marriage, divorce, children, abortions.. etc. As far as I can see, many of them do seem to have character development. Do you enjoy these sort?

Chick-lit in its purest sense, to me, focuses on young single women, because now there's a whole bunch of named genres which you could say are off-shoots of that - hen-lit, mum-lit, dad-lit, lad-lit...

I always enjoy books which have character development however they're classified; I'm very much on the side of character-driven novels as opposed to plot-driven for the reasons given above; I strongly dislike Everyman characters in novels - I want to believe only this person could live this story.

I've noticed there are a lot more books focusing on older women facing other issues and I'll happily read them - but really, it's not the genre I dislike. It honestly isn't. It's the coincidence thing (again). ;) It could appear in any genre, I admit that. So it's not really a genre issue, but my own personal bugbear.

Chick-lit is generally easier to read than many other genres, and I do read many others; it's just that this thread is about this particular one. I read science, history, biographies, children's, romance, spiritual, self-help, philosophy, psychology, 'how to write', comedy, crime, travel, you name it. So I don't just stick to one category which I appear to dislike so strongly!

But really, it's not the circumstances of the characters which matter to me - I've read books on serial killers before so I don't have to have similar lives to the people about whom I read - it's just this particular plot-device, as you know, pushes my buttons!

prospero - I know you're a writer and as you seem to like reading chick lit (even if you don't always seem to enjoy it) have you ever thought about trying to write a chick lit book yourself?

The only reason why I ask is that you seem to have a real hang-up with the whole coincidence thing - and in some cases I agree that it is annoying when it happens all the time - but as it annoys you so much maybe you should write a chick lit book without having to rely on numerous coincidences and all that other stuff that you hate about the genre.

I mean there's obviously a market for real chick lit that's more believable than what's out there just now, so why not give it a go? You never know you might write a best seller.

I have done, and it got a bite from an agent. ;)

Sadly, a bite was where it ended as he asked for a partial but then knocked me back for the complete manuscript. Still, it was the closest I ever got to achieving my dream and if he liked it, then great! I wrote something aimed at women which a man liked too! Unfortunately not enough, but I can see why he felt the way he did and I'm grateful for that. I know which parts of it need work, so fingers crossed.

[nicnic]

I'll admit, I've never read a so called 'chick lit' book. I have tried a few and never go to the end of them, those have been from the library as I didn't want to waste my money. I imagine there are some very good ones on the market that are written well, but they do not appeal to me. I have very little in common with the characters in the majority of them and the focus on fashion, men, shoes and shopping isn't something I enjoy.

However, if other women emotionally connect and feel that they identify with the characters, fair enough. Nothing wrong with it. There is some artless chick lit the same as there is artless horror, crime etc.

I do think that it's a bit too broad a category though. As someone mentioned, we could include any book featuring young female characters in it into this genre. But the average chick lit reader is unlikely to enjoy some of these books.

[Michelle]

I think it is being used too broadly - if books are labelled 'chick lit', but they go beyond the young single woman, they're going to miss an audience.

[prospero]

Like I said earlier, there are other offshoots which are becoming more well-known these days - Mum-Lit being one. Also, is it just me or has anyone else noticed the proliferation of 'yummy mummy' novels being published recently? Some even have such a phrase in the title!

But I think so much chick-lit is being published that variations on a theme are bound to become so numerous they'll have to split off into their own breakaway genre eventually or so many good books will be passed over by people who are turned off by the umbrella term 'chick-lit'.

[~V~]

That's pretty well what happened with the 'Aga Sagas' isn't it?

[prospero]

And bonkbusters. ;)

[supergran71]

Yummy Mummy what a silly phrase, what on earth does it mean:blush: Its enough to put me off reading a book described as such. Yuk

[Icecream]

Well, my sister said I was a "yummy mummy" when I got a new hairstyle about three months after Katie was born but then I keep trying to convince her there is more to bringing up children than matching them with your handbag, to no avail.:roll: ;)

So what do we classify as chic-lit? There are a lot of different books out there. Plenty of books, I think, fall into a classic style of woman has problem, woman meets man, woman gets rescued sort of thing, and probably not many of those are read. Once you have read one, you have read them all, but there are also lots of books labelled as chic-lit that have something more to say, and do have character development, which as Michelle says, are missing out on an audience.

These books obviously need another/other label(s). As has been said, there are other labels arising, but where does that leave chic-lit? What exactly is chic-lit and where is the cut-off point?

[Kell]

So what do we classify as chic-lit?
Well, I'd say that to qualify as "proper" Chick-lit, a book would have to feature the following:
- Written by a woman
- Main character(s) = single women (although one or two of her friends may be married)
- Must go through at least one cr*p boyfirned during the course of the book
- Must have a dilemma where she must choose one man over another
- Must have a happy ending

[FishAndChips]

I have done, and it got a bite from an agent. ;)

Sadly, a bite was where it ended as he asked for a partial but then knocked me back for the complete manuscript. Still, it was the closest I ever got to achieving my dream and if he liked it, then great! I wrote something aimed at women which a man liked too! Unfortunately not enough, but I can see why he felt the way he did and I'm grateful for that. I know which parts of it need work, so fingers crossed.

Wow Prospero, that's good going. Did you submit it to any others? Or is it still a work in progress?

[prospero]

I submitted it to a few others, but it got knocked back and I got to the stage where I began to think, "It's not the magnum opus/future Booker winner/potential Hollywood blockbuster I envisioned after all." So I began writing something else instead. I might go back to it one day.

And I was advised years ago never, never, never to submit a partially-complete novel, because one day you'll get a letter or phone call asking to see the rest of it and you'll have to say, "Uh...I haven't written it yet," and by the time you have finished it, the agent will have moved on! ;)

[Freewheeling Andy]

What I object to is the heavy reliance on coincidence as a plot device.

...

We can't read Tolstoy all the time.

The funny thing is that having read War and Peace last year, chunks of it (about Natasha) are very much like Chick-Lit. And, really, it's remarkably easy to read.

And it felt like Tolstoy was using coincidence quite a lot as a plot device, too. Particularly out on the battlefield where Pierre keeps meeting up with top ranking military and then accidentally with Andrei, and so on.

(And apologies for being picky).

[prospero]

Haven't read that one - I faltered halfway through. But I've read Anna Karenina. ;)

I had flu at the time and my dad bought me a book to pass the time; bit risky buying me a novel but luckily I didn't already have it. Anyway, I was too weak to lift it so I sat it on my lap, read one page, fell asleep, woke up, read another page, slept again...

Got there in the end, though.

[Nici76]

What do you classify as chick lit, what do you personally like?

My view of chick lit is the modern writers like Louise Bagshawe and Celia Ahern and the like. I don't particually like these kind of books and will avoid them if at all possible.

I don't think of writers like Danielle Steel as chick lit, I quite enjoy these books from time to time when I need something 'easy'.

[prospero]

Chic-lit:
How To Be Lovely (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419D52QP82L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-64_OU02_AA240_SH20_.jpg)

Chick-lit:
Remember Me (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/412IZzDuhKL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

:mrgreen:

[Michelle]

Can I ask what it is you want to discuss.. the difference between the two phrases? If so, perhaps this should be in the Chick Lit? (http://bookclubforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=5041) thread?

Can you also please not link direct to Amazon's images, thanks.

[prospero]

Righto. :D

It was just the common - not even confusion - between the two, but (and this is a real word, promise) interchangeableness of 'chic' and 'chick', which mean two completely different things.

[ChickLitMom]

These are usually labelled as chick lit, but I'm not sure that they are.. I would personally call them 'women's fiction'.


One of the terms that I see often is Mommy Lit for those books that are similar to chick lit but deal with married women and their issues. My very favorite Mommy Lit books are Odd Mom Out and Mrs. Perfect by Jane Porter. Written with the same flare as Chick Lit but for old mommies like me!

[wrathofkublakhan]

Fun thread!
The TV show Sex in the City could be held up as an example of what chic-lit could be; I could only manage to watch a few episodes (hated it) the men were cardboard-two-dimensional-flat. I remember wondering at the time if it was a sort of backlash to men objectifying bimbos for years in the media.

So, anyways, IF chic-lit is the flashy pastel covers like Janet Evanovich then I love this type of writing. It's fun and frothy and entirely disposable. It's not the coincidence that makes it work but rather the circumstance.

One worthy in this thread mentioned lack of character development over the arc of the series, our hero never learns anything for the experiences. I would look fondly over at Miss Jane Marple and see that she really didn't change over a series of books because her character arrived fully developed. Like sit-coms on television, the fun is putting familiar characters in different scenarios; so, we see Marple or Holmes or Nero Wolfe or any cast on a sit-com dealing with circumstance (it's Christmas at the 4077). It's a different style of writing because it's not about any rite of passage but rather the foibles of society, the outer not the inner.

[Kylie]

Fun thread!
Like sit-coms on television, the fun is putting familiar characters in different scenarios; so, we see Marple or Holmes or Nero Wolfe or any cast on a sit-com dealing with circumstance (it's Christmas at the 4077).

Good point Wrath, and good to see you around the forum again!

[flowersarah]

Seems that chick lit isn't always taken as seriously as other genres of books. A bit annoying as the "chick lit" books I've read have been brilliantly and have to be regarded as high as other pieces of work.

[madaboutbooks]

Where did the expression "chick lit" come from anyway? I also find some of them are real page turners and should be up there with some of the classics! :shrug:

[kb.marsh]

Where did the expression "chick lit" come from anyway? I also find some of them are real page turners and should be up there with some of the classics! :shrug:

I agree, I love chick lit. I think it is a solid, good genre, just like all the others.

[Kell]

Where did the expression "chick lit" come from anyway? I also find some of them are real page turners and should be up there with some of the classics! :shrug:
Here you go - from Wikipedia:
"Chick" is an American slang term for young woman and "Lit" is short for "literature".

The term was introduced by Cris Mazza and Jeffrey DeShell as an ironic title for their edited anthology Chick Lit: Postfeminist Fiction, published in 1995. The genre was defined as a type of post-feminist or second-wave feminism that went beyond female-as-victim to include fiction that covered the breadth of female experiences, including love, courtship and gender. The collection emphasized experimental work, including violent, perverse and sexual themes. James Wolcott's 1996 article in The New Yorker "Hear Me Purr" co-opted the term "chick lit" to proscribe what he called the trend of "girlishness" evident in the writing of female newspaper columnists at that time. Works such as Helen Fielding's Bridget Jones's Diary and Candace Bushnell's Sex and the City are examples of such work that helped establish contemporary connotations of the term. The success of Bridget Jones and Sex and the City in book form established chick lit as an important trend in publishing. The Girls' Guide to Hunting and Fishing by Melissa Bank is regarded as one of the first chick lit works to originate as a novel (actually a collection of stories), though the term "chick lit" was in common use at the time of its publication (1999).

Publishers continue to push the sub-genre because of its viability as a sales tactic. Various other terms have been coined as variant in attempts to attach themselves to the perecieved marketability of the work.

Some critics have noted a male equivalent in authors like Ben Elton, Mike Gayle, Paul Howard and Nick Hornby, referred to as "lad lit" and "dick lit".You can find out more about the origins of Chick lit at Wikipedia HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_lit).

[Bronwen]

I'm not as into chick lit as I am horror and exciting stuff such as zombies, vampires, scary things emerging from the sea to eat you etc. and I love Dean Koontz and some comedy too. I like a bit of everything really. Marian Keyes is good.

[Ruth]

Fun thread!
The TV show Sex in the City could be held up as an example of what chic-lit could be; I could only manage to watch a few episodes (hated it) the men were cardboard-two-dimensional-flat. I remember wondering at the time if it was a sort of backlash to men objectifying bimbos for years in the media.



I loved that show - it was one of my very very favourites. But I didn't like the book it was based on very much, it was very disappointing, and an example of bad chick lit.

I don't mind the odd chick lit book, and some of them are very well written. I think it's a genre that does seem to attract a fair amount of dross as well though.

[AnnieM]

I think chick lit and women's fiction are one and the same thing but the former can have airheady connotations. As Michelle said, many women's fiction deal with dark issues - even if the book cover is pink!
For me, chick lit falls into a few categories. The likes of Sophie Kinsella and Louise Bagshaw are pretty light reads, heavily involved in romance, fashion, finding Mr Right etc etc.
Then you have the likes of Marian Keyes who bring in darer themes but still manage a real warmth.
And then, having just read The Pirates Daughter, would you class that as women's fiction? I thought it was a masterpiece and blew me away. Was told from a woman's point of view and was passionate and romantic and emotional - everything good chick lit should be!
I've noticed of late there's a lot of 'mum lit' and I sometimes like that but would love to read a good chick lit sexy, fun book that's a bit naughty and funny...anyone? Kind of Bridget Jones but a fresh take on it.
Thanks:friends0:

[scottishbookworm]

marian keyes is my favourite chick lit writer.

:readingtwo:

[Gyre]

I think there is different levels of chick lit, some that are more serious than others (if that makes sense). I tend to go with the lighter reads :)

[Stephanie2008]

I think there is different levels of chick lit, some that are more serious than others (if that makes sense). I tend to go with the lighter reads :)

It does make sense. There are ones that are really lighthearted (not many characters, not many plotlines, but easy to read) and there are more depth ones.

My favourite chicklit writes include Cecelia Ahern (Where Rainbows End will always be a favourite of mine), Mike Gayle (good to see a man's perspective) and Lucy Diamond (I just read her two books and really loved Over You - very warm hearted, especially dealing with the children).