What is Chick lit?

[Michelle]

We do have a previous thread 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 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!

 

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

[Weave]

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.

 

[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

[Karen1]

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

[Purple Poppy]

Oh my goodness, chick lit, git lit and then...???

Don't even go there!

Pp

[Freewheeling Andy]

Oh my goodness, chick lit, git lit and then...???

Don'y even go there!

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.

[~Andrea~]

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.