chick lit vs. lad lit...
dani gave her patented 10-pages-in review of nick hornby’s latest book a long way down the other week. and one of her comments on her post got me thinking. (and of course, due to a hectic schedule and life getting in the way, i'm only getting those thoughts out here now...)
dani wrote:
now, there is nothing wrong with crushing on a good author, especially either of those boys, whose books i also love. and dani's is a popular opinion towards 'chick lit'. but, her comment got me thinking...
i wonder if some chick lit is dismissed simply because a woman wrote it. i mean, some of it is dismissed because it's simply bad, i won't deny that - i'm currently slogging through Candace Bushnell's 4Blondes, which appeared in my stocking this christmas. it would qualify as bad. really bad. the characters are self-indulgent, over-sexed and flat. i'm still reading it, because a) i ride a bus for a minimum of 2 hours a day and need something to keep me entertained and b) i found the second of the 4 short stories amusing in a stylistic way. however, on the whole, it's bad. i don't like the characters, i don't care about the characters, they have no redeeming qualities and there is nothing in the book to challenge me either emotionally or intellectually.
but this is not indicative of all chick lit. in fact, some chick lit is really quite good...however, that's not my point...
getting back to my original point - that much chick lit is categorized as such simply by virtue of its author's gender - let's take douglas coupland's latest book eleanor rigby for example. the book is about a thirty-something woman, loneliness, and relationships. had the story been told in the same way (in the lead character's voice), with the same themes, plot and situations, but had a woman's name attached to the book, it would be classified as chick lit. (especially if we use wordspy's definition: chick lit - n. A literary genre that features books written by women and focusing on young, quirky, female protagonists.) simply by virtue of its author's gender, does eleanor rigby escape the chick lit label. instead it retains the label of lad lit (n. A literary genre that features books written by men and focusing on young, male characters, particularly those who are selfish, insensitive, and afraid of commitment) although its content really doesn't fit wordspy's definition.
of course, these are all arbitrary classifications anyway - manufactured substrets of the over-riding FICTION category for the purposes of marketing and the like. why can't a story just be a story and be judged on the merits of the actual writing, rather than the cover it's in or the name of its author, or the category to which the publishers have decided it belongs? There is a big difference between the writing of Jennifer Weiner and Sophie Kinsella (both of whom I enjoy for different reasons - jennifer because she can make me cry and tells beautiful, believable tales of larger women, and sophie because she makes me laugh and takes me out of the boring realities of my life) and Candace Bushnell (who is not impressing me with her jackie collins wannabe-esque 4Blondes), yet they're all categorized under that one limiting label. which does a disservice to not only the authors who might be unfairly dismissed (or celebrated) because of the label their books are tagged with, but also the readers who might disregard a book they would otherwise enjoy, simply because of the preconceived prejudices of the genre...
dani wrote:
I officially have a crush on Nick Hornby now, in much the same way I have a crush on Douglas Coupland. (Is it weird that I don’t have much patience for chick lit, but am developing a thing for lad lit?)
now, there is nothing wrong with crushing on a good author, especially either of those boys, whose books i also love. and dani's is a popular opinion towards 'chick lit'. but, her comment got me thinking...
i wonder if some chick lit is dismissed simply because a woman wrote it. i mean, some of it is dismissed because it's simply bad, i won't deny that - i'm currently slogging through Candace Bushnell's 4Blondes, which appeared in my stocking this christmas. it would qualify as bad. really bad. the characters are self-indulgent, over-sexed and flat. i'm still reading it, because a) i ride a bus for a minimum of 2 hours a day and need something to keep me entertained and b) i found the second of the 4 short stories amusing in a stylistic way. however, on the whole, it's bad. i don't like the characters, i don't care about the characters, they have no redeeming qualities and there is nothing in the book to challenge me either emotionally or intellectually.
but this is not indicative of all chick lit. in fact, some chick lit is really quite good...however, that's not my point...
getting back to my original point - that much chick lit is categorized as such simply by virtue of its author's gender - let's take douglas coupland's latest book eleanor rigby for example. the book is about a thirty-something woman, loneliness, and relationships. had the story been told in the same way (in the lead character's voice), with the same themes, plot and situations, but had a woman's name attached to the book, it would be classified as chick lit. (especially if we use wordspy's definition: chick lit - n. A literary genre that features books written by women and focusing on young, quirky, female protagonists.) simply by virtue of its author's gender, does eleanor rigby escape the chick lit label. instead it retains the label of lad lit (n. A literary genre that features books written by men and focusing on young, male characters, particularly those who are selfish, insensitive, and afraid of commitment) although its content really doesn't fit wordspy's definition.
of course, these are all arbitrary classifications anyway - manufactured substrets of the over-riding FICTION category for the purposes of marketing and the like. why can't a story just be a story and be judged on the merits of the actual writing, rather than the cover it's in or the name of its author, or the category to which the publishers have decided it belongs? There is a big difference between the writing of Jennifer Weiner and Sophie Kinsella (both of whom I enjoy for different reasons - jennifer because she can make me cry and tells beautiful, believable tales of larger women, and sophie because she makes me laugh and takes me out of the boring realities of my life) and Candace Bushnell (who is not impressing me with her jackie collins wannabe-esque 4Blondes), yet they're all categorized under that one limiting label. which does a disservice to not only the authors who might be unfairly dismissed (or celebrated) because of the label their books are tagged with, but also the readers who might disregard a book they would otherwise enjoy, simply because of the preconceived prejudices of the genre...
suze rambled off at 1/31/2006 02:42:00 PM
8 Comments:
Susan
I really enjoyed this post for a number of reasons. You're bang-on in the sense that "chick lit" has become any and all mainstream works of fiction (I purposefully did not say literature, well, because I think I might be turning into a snobby english grad student. I've become what I've despised. . .). It's unfortunate that these works are labelled the way they are. I am always surprised at the amount of resistance out there, and in some cases embarrassment, when it comes to those who enjoy chick lit. I had two students this year on two different occasions tell me that *whisper* they too enjoy chick lit but we're too shy to say.
Some of the books out there (like Jane Green and Jennifer Weiner, as well as Sophie Kinsella) are fantastic reads that deserve to be studied in university classes. Try suggesting that in a classroom. Even just saying I liked chick lit pretty much cleared the room.
Well done, I really enjoyed this post. It's unfortunate that our society has such a need to categorize each and every thing out there. What's your musical style? art style? writing style? (As if art - in its different forms and degrees - can be as easily divided as the specializations of medicine.) Here's another fun question: who would you compare yourself to, and why? It's all about the marketing, and many works out there are fixed with an unsuitable (and often inadequate) label for the sake of compartmentalization.
Even I have a crush on Nick Hornby. I think you're right - there's some good stuff written by women that's typically dismissed as chick lit which, actually, isn't. That said, I think a lot of books are marketed specifically towards some niches. Marketed inappropriately.
My thoughts on chick lit are thus: some of it's really good like she Shopaholic series, but most of it is really, really bad because it panders to the shallowist part of every woman. It seems to be assumed in each of these books that all women are secret Paris Hilton wannabes, complete with the lack of intelligence, grace or good sense not to deliberately hurt others -- just like the real Paris! And that all we really want to do is shop, party, gossip and fuck on film that will eventually make its way to the Internest. Again, just like the real Paris.
I'm sorry, if that makes me a chick lit hater, I say bring on the lad lit! I hadn't enjoyed reading books in years till I picked up my first Douglas Couplan novel two years ago, and now I think I have read everything he's put out pretty much save for three coffee table books (one of which I plan to start reading today, Souvenirs 2.) And although I loved watching S&TC, I wouldn't touch a Candace Bushnell book with a 4" hooker heel. Nun-uh.
Lilly
I love that more books are being marketed to women. I personally love most of the "chick lit" I love books in general.There is a huge difference within the genre. And some should not be really included in the genre at all but are labeled such.But that is actually an issue with other genres as well(I mean Diana Gabaldon's Voyageur series compared to some book with Fabio on the front all in the "romance" genre)
Sticking it in little boxes and calling it chick lit. And I think with chick lit is especially divisive.
I can't for the life of me remember where I read this thought to credit it- but it was mentioned in an article that book sales are in general down but "chick lit" is way up. And of course it is easier to dismiss something then actually adress the issue of women's book sales being a force to be reckoned with.
I think that is can be fun--like the Stephanie Plum characters crack me up.
And sometimes, over the top. Sometimes--just right :)
Just popping by to say hi!
You forgot "She's come undone"
Very, very good post, Suze! (And not just because it featured my name in lights!)
To me, it's the tone of chick lit - and that's a bit elusive, because I don't read a lot, so it's more of a perceived tone. (How pejorative is that?) I won't actively avoid something because it's been labelled chick lit (although I do admit to actively avoiding Oprah's book club books, and there is a lot of crossover), but if I sense it's the kind of pandering, shallow books that Lilly mentioned, it's just not worth my time.
And, on a personal level, I've always related to guys more than girls, and it's only since I've become a mom that I've had close friends who were female, so I've always had a better understanding of the guy's perspective.
Thanks for opening up this topic - I might link back to it if I can think of anything more coherent to say.
Post a Comment
<< Home