Your opinion on chick lit?

[MorningGlow]

:hi:

[edbermac]

1. If they have pics of nekkid chicks, I'm for it!

;)

[MorningGlow]

2. Hmm...dat'd be "chick lit for men"

The ones that turn sideways, right? ;)

[Dr. Strange]

3. Jack Chick lit?

Those tracts again?

[Blue-Jay]

4. Too small.

It takes four or five Chicklets to even have a good chew.

[kittykatkoffeekup]

9. Astonishing!

I read that sentence five times, it will not sit still. Morphism isn't just math.

[blueraven95]

5. I'd say it's like any other genre

a lot of crap, and some good stuff.

I find it easier to pick up than romance when I'm in the mood for a quick light read, simply because generally women are less insulting (at least with the decent authors anyway).

[MorningGlow]

19. Thanks, BR

My poll isn't entirely frivolous--as a writer, I was doing some research into popular novel formats, and I was astounded at how many different imprints Harlequin has now, catering to Nascar fans, vampire fans, country/western cowboy fans, etc. etc. etc. I read some excerpts and I just wanted to :puke: -- the writing is SO BAD. But then I ventured into the Red Dress Ink imprint, which is more Bridget Jones-type chick lit, and I was kind of impressed--it was better written, much more clever, and not as flat. So I thought I'd toss it out to the DU masses to see what everyone else thought.

On edit: Tch--a riter hoo cant spel...

[buzzycrumbhunger]

25. I think categorizing is problematic

My poll isn't entirely frivolous--as a writer, I was doing some research into popular novel formats, and I was astounded at how many different imprints Harlequin has now, catering to Nascar fans, vampire fans, country/western cowboy fans, etc. etc. etc.

I have a friend who grew up on Harlequin romances and was extremely pissed when she grew up and discovered life doesn't follow their antiquated formula. She just wrote her own monster novel that was so hard to define (romance/mystery/erotic/and (get this) Mormon), no publisher could figure out what to do with it--so she self-published and is really taking off. I think she makes some interesting points about what the economy is going to do to the publishing world, and she's probably on the cutting edge as far as breaking ground. There are still those who think self-publishing is a vanity thing and not to be taken seriously--but OMG, the big houses aren't even necessarily providing publishers and I can't believe some of the shit that's allowed to go to print!

I suspect the vast majority of chick lit isn't worth soiling yourself with, but when women approach it as serious artists for women, the result can be spectacular. (LOL--I was going to compare it to porn v. porn by women/for women, but not being a fan, it made for a silly analogy. . .)

As for the different categories those flaky romance novels have now? WOW. I understand the biggest craze now is that sheltered housewives now want slash fiction. . . I just can't imagine what would be appealing about that, especially given the demographics. :eyes:

[MorningGlow]

26. That's so great to hear, Buzzy

I have several friends who went the Lulu route and their efforts just tanked. So it's great to hear about a self-published author who has seen success.

You're right--just like major music labels, the big publishing houses are quite out of touch. I remember reading a review of Labyrinth, a novel in the vein of Da Vinci Code. The reviewer gushed. Gave it top marks. "Read this book!" So I actually bought the hardcover from Amazon--ka-ching close to $30, I believe--and. it. SUCKED. I was boggled that 1) this disjointed, entirely unbelievable novel with plot holes big enough to drive a Mini Cooper through got published; 2) got published by a big house, no less; 3) was on best-seller lists; and 4) got favorable reviews. My review: PU!

As for chick lit, I consider Bridget Jones' Diary the touchstone of the genre, and everything that's come after it has been an attempt to emulate its formula--some successfully, some not so much. And I thoroughly enjoyed Bridget--even to the point of rereading it every few years, which I usually never do with novels.

Taking it seriously--absolutely. Mr. MG used to say I should write romance novels for a quick buck, but I always refused, because I lacked one essential element of a Harlequin writer: I didn't take the genre seriously. You have to believe in what you're writing or else you end up talking down to the reader and, well, you end up writing crap. Same with chick lit. Absolutely spot on, there.

I have NO IDEA what is up with all those niche imprints. Okay, Nascar, I understand. (But an entire IMPRINT? How many novels can you write about Nascar romances??) I don't even want to know who would be interested in vampire Harlequins. Oh wait...the Twilight crowd, maybe...? :scared:

[blueraven95]

29. okay, just one more thought

or two more really:

1) most of the romance authors I know don't take their work that seriously. That's probably why the writing in general isn't very good. If you want really good, write romance and figure out a way to publish it under fiction.

2) if you do decide to write for these companies, find a good pen name that has the same first couple of letters as an already established author in the same genre - that way your books will be right next to them and are more likely to be picked up.

[buzzycrumbhunger]

35. aha

1. I'm not so sure--at least as far as the ones who hang out online. There are some wickedly rabid fans out there with high expectations. (Yeah, so the bar really can't be that high in romance, can it?) I agree with you--I just like good fiction with a healthy amount of sex to keep it interesting.

2. I wish I'd seen that before, though my friend seems to have picked a suitably romance-y moniker--mainly so the Mormons wouldn't kick her out, though I don't suppose she'll really be able to stay anonymous for long. Maybe they'll put their blinders on for all those fuck words in the same way they're urging their daughters to read the Twilight stuff, playing ignorant about what vampires are really about.

I think her secret is simply that she's got ADHD or something and is single-minded about whatever project interests her. (She has a cross stitch biz online, too, as well as a FT job elsewhere.) She didn't just write a book (actually has six going at once) and slap it up online, but started months before--establishing a blog, flirting with other writers, and whipping up a dialogue about just about everything, just to get people's attention. After years of waiting for that phone call, she threw up her hands and didn't just go the vanity press route--she made her own company and started soliciting other writers, too. It's craziness. I work a graveyard shift (from home), pick away at online classes, and sometimes can't even mastermind brushing my hair every day. . . I shudder to think of the quantity of drugs I'd have to do to keep her schedule.

[MorningGlow]

42. Hey, that's a great tip

Clever way to choose a pen name!

I'm not sure I'm at all capable of writing romances anyway. The standard Harlequins are so nauseating to me; besides, my prose and dialogue is way too snarky and irreverent to fit that format. But then again, I can't do chick lit, mainly because I don't know a big city well enough to write about it, and I don't give a rip about designer shoes.
:rofl:

[blueraven95]

45. well, the pen name trick works in every genre, just so you know

my aunt's last name, which is actually her real last name puts her right near Steven King and Dean Koontz. It's worked well for her.

[blueraven95]

28. well,

I may be a good person to ask about this. A couple of years ago I went through an Austen kick, and read all of her books in a two month period. After that, I started thinking about how she basically created the chick-lit/romance genre and I wondered if I could find contemporary authors who were as fufilling in the same genres. While I, of course, haven't found any as good, I've found a few that are worthwhile.

I think that the romance genre, in general, has much more bad than good. There are a couple authors I will pick up (in the library, never buy) but they are certainly not Harlequin, and they all have decent-to-good reputations.

I have been much more impressed with the Red Dress Ink imprint - there is still a lot of poorly written books and so on, but there are some really well written ones too. I just recently read one called "Deconstructing Brigid" which I thought was incredibly interesting (sorry, I can't remember the author). My biggest complaint with both romance and chick lit is that the female characters tend to be trite, superficial, annoying, and weak, which really bothers me, particularly because most of these books are written by women. We deserve better than what is mostly being written.

On the other hand, I heavily applaud those authors who wrote the short stories in the book "This is chick lit" in response to the book "This is not chick lit". While I did not like all of the authors work, I thought that they made an important point - that writing geared toward women (who are proven to be the biggest purchasers of books) is generally looked down upon and scorned by the writing community as a whole. Many romance authors (those who can write, I mean) are pigeonholed in the genre and can never move. Books written for men, are considered mainstream and literature, even though a lot of it is just as pulpy as anything in romance. That really steams me up. :grr:

A couple authors in the romance/chick-lit genre I am always ready to waste a couple of hours with:
Meg Cabot - she's just fun, and her writing is stressless.
Amanda Quick (but not in her contemporary writing as Jayne Ann Krentz) - her historical romances are formulaic but entertaining, and I think there has only been one that I've read that really, really upsets me.
Shanna Swendson's first two books - chick-lit mixed with fantasy. The other's really aren't very good.

And other authors whom I am surprised and happily pleased are not relegated to chick-lit, even though their books probably could qualify:
Anne Hoffman - "Practical Magic" skip the movie, it's awful, but the book is still one of my all-time favs
Alice Walker - particularly "Temple of My Familiar"
Kaye Gibbons - if you haven't read her, I heavily recommend her writing
Robin McKinley - she generally falls into scifi/fantasy, but most of her books could be considered female-centric. "Sunshine" is my favorite.

and one I don't know where to put:
Shannon Hale - she's written one adult novel, so far "Austenland" which personally I loved, but her young adult and intermediate reader books are excellent too. I highly recommend "The Goose Girl" and "The Book of Days".

Of course there are more, but it would take forever to list them.


Also, there are some really great writers writing in youth fantasy, namely: Tamora Pierce, Diana Wynne Jones (those are two that pop in my head without a lot of thinking) - they write great, strong female characters.

Sorry, this post got way longer than I expected, and went on some tangents. I hope some of it is useful for you.

:hi:


P.S. Don't worry about being a writer who can't spell - almost every author I know relies heavily on spellcheck.

[MorningGlow]

43. Yeppers, Austen and the Brontes

Queens of the modern romance novel. Unfortunately Austen was so brilliant that modern women can't top her stuff and so just constantly rewrite Pride and Prejudice. (If I see one more modern version of P&P, I swear... :eyes: )

I actually read the excerpt of Reconstructing Brigid (Lee somebody, right?) during my visit to the Harlequin site. I liked it. I also enjoyed the excerpts of novels by Carole Matthews--clever without being cloying.

I LOVE Practical Magic! It's one of my favorite books. (I like to pretend the movie is an entirely different story and, as a witch myself, I can enjoy it.) I'm also a huge fan of Alice Walker. I'll check out your other recommendations. Thanks!

:hi:

[elshiva]

6. Viable art form.

Like television, a lot of times it sucks, but sometimes it's great.

[Gormy Cuss]

7. I like'em.

[realisticphish]

8. meh, whatever

not good imho, but whatever people want to read, for god's sake, let them read. I'm a Library Science Master's student, and if there's anything i want to encourage, its reading of ANY stripe

[MorningGlow]

20. Good point

I tried to tell myself that when I was an English teacher 'way back in the early '90s. All the kids (middle schoolers) were reading the Goosebumps series. TOTAL CRAP but at least they were reading words on a page. I drew the line at letting them use that dreck for their book reports, however. :D

[realisticphish]

41. haha

or "scary stories to tell in the dark"

everyone in my class had those basically memorized

[petronius]

10. Does it involve bodices being ripped? If so, I'm there!

But not so much in written form. I'll take mine on video, preferably over the internet, and when my wife isn't around... ;)

[MorningGlow]

21. LOL!

I think we've ventured beyond the realm of chick lit, Petronius...and all in just a few sentences. Impressive! :hi:

[petronius]

44. It's not impossible that I suffer from some minor confusion as to what chick lit actually is

:shrug:

I doubt I've actually read any, but I did think that The Devil Wears Prada was an entertaining movie - is that chick lit? I also liked High Fidelity - that's guy lit, right?

:shrug:

To answer your question seriously, I think any genre can rise to the level of a viable art form. Chick lit is no exception, but I suspect that most entries into the genre are dreck (the mention of Sturgeon's Law downthread is apt), as well as suffering from some pretty offensivy stereotyping. That said, even the shallowest content-free brain-candy can be enjoyable, if it's what you're in the mood for...

[Lavender Brown]

11. It runs the gamut from very good fiction to pure unadulterated crap.

A lot of what has been dubbed chick lit is actually great fiction that happens to be about women and relationships. Most of it, however, is indeed bad.

[Withywindle]

12. Viable art form, but not for me.

If I'm going to read about fantasy worlds that are inaccessible to me, I find spaceships and dragons more interesting than designer shoes and Manhattan lofts.

[OmahaBlueDog]

13. I tried reading "Babyille" by Jane Green. Big Mistake!

[FloridaJudy]

14. Define "chick lit"

Are we talking about Jane Austen or Barbara Cartland here?

I generally prefer science fiction, mysteries (a lot of really good women writers in both genres) and non-fiction books, but I'll read the occasional romance, particularly if it's really, really sexy for a change of pace. Most romances are "meh", but I rather enjoy Diana Gabaldon's Jaimie and Claire series.

I guess it's like any other genre - a lot of trash, some jewels. Sturgeon's law* applies.


*“Ninety percent of everything is crap”.

[MorningGlow]

22. More the modern, Bridget Jones-type stuff

I just posted upthread that I was doing some research on modern fiction and ventured into the murky waters of the Harlequin Web site. Read some excerpts of their standard fare and nearly lost my lunch. But their Red Dress Ink imprint has some pretty clever stuff. It was tolerable, and sometimes it was even amusing. So I was wondering what the DU crew thought. :hi:

[Book Lover]

15. Thatthe acquisitions editor who dreamed up the marketing term

was one lucky SOB. Probably was responsible for making their house a million bucks.

[MorningGlow]

23. True enough

But I despise it. It's so belittling. "Oh, here, you little wimminfolk, go read your cutesy pink-covered stories about husbands and babies and Manolos and leave the REAL fiction to the mens."
:puke:

[MountainLaurel]

32. Those are my main objections as well

They take me back to the days when the only women reporters wrote fluff pieces for the society and lifestyles sections of the newspaper.

[Book Lover]

33. Please understand that I *completely* agree with you!

just pointing out the sad reality of the industry.

You might find this interesting reading:
http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/book_jackets/meet_the_new_consumerfriendly_alice_munro_75416.asp

[SarahB]

16. Out of my realm of interest.

I tend to stick with non-fiction. If someone's into it, as with most anything, my attitude is, "Whatever floats your boat!"

[Lucian]

17. It's about as pleasing as soft core porno.

[Ellen Forradalom]

18. Where's the "sexist" option?

[MorningGlow]

24. True

It can fall under the "crap" option, I guess. I was just asking about its literary merit. I didn't want to get into the sociological aspect. But if you're game, I say go for it!

[BarenakedLady]

27. Not my thang.

:hi:

[Dogtown]

30. ALL their best arguments

printed on pulp.

[nadine_mn]

31. I don't get it... and sadly so many book clubs are centered

around chick lit that I feel like an outcast. But then, I don't get chick flicks either... I do not understand the whole Sex in the City, Bridget Jones Diary, Ya Ya Traveling Pants stuff.

I am no snob, I love me some trashy novels, and when I was in high school I read every Victoria Holt book and several Harlequins myself. Romance novels are one thing but this surge of imperfect women with sassy friends, overcoming the odds to find love and fashion just does not appeal to me.

Its weird for me because so much of my music tastes tend to strong independent women, (its a joke in our house that if its a white male CD, probably my hubbys), yet I am finding so few female authors I can identify with.

[pitohui]

37. i feel the same way

there is no "meat" there in chick lit, it's -- let's be frank -- boring, and the "chicks" in question are whiney

supposedly a good example is the devil wears prada, it was just...weak, lame...boring, i'm like who cares about this? (haven't seen the movie, only read the book and the only good thing about the book was at least i got it at the library so no actual money was wasted on this crap)

much more likely to find a strong woman character in mystery/suspense or even in the SF genre, i just read "century rain," by alastair reynolds, which is a space opera, and it had a terrific female lead, for that matter, iain banks, another space opera writer generally has terrific female characters -- who would have predicted 30 yrs ago you'd get better female characters in THIS genre?

i don't see the interest in reading about shopping for shoes or eating chocolate, if someone's circle of interests is that small, why bother to write or read a book about them?

i was v. disappointed to get a list of novels for a local book club, as you say, after reading the list 1) i wasn't surprised that the librarian mentioned they couldn't get any male members, and 2) i couldn't figure out what they were going to discuss because the books in question just didn't have any "meat"

[Westegg]

34. Jennifer Solow ROCKS!

[Taverner]

36. How about Clit Lick? DOH I AM BAD!!!

[MorningGlow]

38. Zoinks!

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[BlueIris]

39. Waste of paper, ink, and publishers' time. nt

[skygazer]

40. Not something I have ever cared for as a genre

But obviously plenty of people find pleasure in it. Like anything that is subject to the whims of taste, opinions will vary. :shrug:

I never cared for Silas Marner either, for that matter.