This Chick Hates Chick Lit Label. Anyone Else?
Therese Walsh on Jul 05 2007 | Filed under: Book Talk, Business
I thought missing a week of publishing news would mean missing a lot, but really, not so much. Catch up by checking out the new entries at the WU Google Notebook HERE. And if you haven’t yet read my titillating late-night retelling of my New-Yorker-goes-west adventures, click HERE. Leave a comment in the bucket before you go, will you? I’m feeling pathetic and lonely without Kathleen.
I also feel the great need to rant about something.
I loathe the label Chick Lit. Am I alone in this? Does anyone else read those two words and cringe? When chick lit was hot–what, five or six years ago?–I read a few books in the genre, and maybe they poisoned me. I didn’t like them. But–to each her own–it’s not the books I have a problem with: it’s the label. Just look at that picture. Does it scream light and fluffy and oh-so-cute or what? You know it does. So here’s my point:
If the book is a poignant, emotional read about coming to grips with alcoholism, it shouldn’t be called chick lit. Even if there’s a chick in it. Even if there are funny scenes. Even if it was written by a woman.
If the book is a sensitive portrayal of a woman’s coming to terms with herself during a fight with breast cancer, it shouldn’t be called chick lit. Even though the breasts come with a chick attached. Even if there are funny scenes. Even if it was written by a woman.
Am I missing something here? I get that the term was originally a spin-off of “chick flick”–which everyone knows determines if we women will have to set up a Girls Night to see a movie–but what does it mean in literature? That no male would want to read about a deeply emotional human experience that involves a female protagonist? Maybe instead of labeling the book chick lit we should just add a sticker to the cover that says, “Not for the shallow minded.”
I like what Curtis Sittenfeld of the New York Times had to say on the subject: “To suggest that another woman’s ostensibly literary novel is chick lit feels catty, not unlike calling another woman a slut — doesn’t the term basically bring down all of us?”
Come on, publishers, and do what authors do when they write in a different genre, when they’re trying to revamp their image: Change the name already. If you don’t like Women’s Fiction, choose another label. I think Damn Good Fiction, Plus Breasts (DGFPB) has a nice ring to it. But I’m just a chick.
How do you feel about the chick lit label? Do you think the industry needs to change it? Do you have a suggestion?
Be sure to tune in tomorrow for the third and final part of Kath’s conversation with Jasper Fforde. Write on, all!
Kathleen Bolton
Therese Walsh
Ann Aguirre
Porter Anderson
Brunonia Barry
Carleen Brice
Sarah Callender
Keith Cronin
Anna Elliott
Jane Friedman
Robin LaFevers
Donald Maass
Juliet Marillier
Sophie Masson
Jael McHenry
Jan O'Hara
Debbie Ohi
Barbara O'Neal
Crystal Patriarche
Ray Rhamey
M.J. Rose
Chuck Sambuchino
John Vorhaus
Yuvi Zalkow
Sharon Bially
Anne Greenwood Brown
Tracy Hahn-Burkett
Suzannah Windsor Freeman
Kristan Hoffman
Jeanne Kisacky
Erika Robuck
Lydia Sharp
T., I started to compose a comment but it turns out that I have so much to say on the subject, I just may have come up with my blog topic for next week! Thanks for a thought-provoking piece. I also recently re-read Kath’s post from a few weeks ago, “Pink Ghetto,” so my hackles are up.
Like?
0
it’s that need to pigeon-hole other people’s work that minimizes the work that goes into writing a novel. we writers want to entertain our readers, but there is always someone that needs to deprecate our work. and it’s not just women’s fiction; it’s horror (stephen king is a prime example) mystery, thrillers etc. yeah, i write romance; no, hell yeah, i write romance.
Like?
0
I thought Chick Lit. and Women’s Fiction were two different styles of writing.
I don’t have a problem with the label because to me it’s just a classification.
My understanding of Chick Lit. is that it is light hearted look at the lives of women. Women read it for a good laugh at themselves.
Whereas Women’s Fiction is more serious and meaty. It is about the serious side of women’s life and family.
But as always, I could be wrong.
Like?
0
Marsha, I’m looking forward to hearing your POV on this!
Thea, you’re absolutely right, especially with regards to the romance genre. That’s a whole ‘nother blog post.
MaryK, I’ve always had the same impression you do: that they are separate. But now reviewers are labeling books I think of as serious and meaty with the “chick lit” label, and it’s driving me nuts. Perhaps I should’ve been clearer in my post just which books I was referring to and what the reviewers had to say, but I really didn’t want to drag those particular authors into my muck; I just wanted to start a conversation. Thanks for joining in. :)
Like?
0
I hate the label chick lit as much as you do, Therese. Here in Australia it is used by reviewers to cover a far wider range of fiction about women than those shoes-and-parties books with the bright pink covers. The label trivialises fiction that focuses on female characters. And it makes the assumption that men won’t be interested in books about women by women. (Most possibly aren’t but I know some are. They probably just don’t read them on public transport.)
Like?
0