Yes, I've read some really atrocious chick lit books too. It is depressing when stuff like that gets published.

I think I misunderstood you before Terry - but I think I know what you mean now. Some of my favourite books (I think) have the criteria you mention - Liars and Saints by Maile Meloy is one that springs to mind. I don't think you could class that as chick lit, even though it was tainted by a Richard & Judy recommendation!

I'm tired of defending chick lit, especially when I think a lot of the prejudice against it (in general, pointing no fingers here, I hasten to add) comes from the fact that it is mostly written by women for women...

I'll address Charlotte's question instead. Publishers mostly classify Young Adult fiction as fiction aimed at ages 12+. In reality, a lot of teenagers stop reading, or move exclusively to adult fiction, at around the age of 14. And a lot of 10-year-olds are interested in reading about teen themes. So the reality of 12+ fiction is that it's read by ages 10 to 14, at an estimate. But this is a UK perspective - things are very different in the US, where there has been a YA fiction explosion in recent years, and YA fiction is truly aimed at "young adults" - up to their early 20s (e.g. Megan McCafferty's trilogy). I'm hoping for the same kind of development here, to be honest, although the publishing professionals I've spoken to have told me it's unlikely to happen. Of course, there are 'crossover' books, which in my opinion shows why people probably shouldn't be so keen to label books in the first place. On the other hand, I can see how you need labels for marketing purposes. (And for the purposes of splitting us up into WriteWords groups!)

Terry, I completely agree with you about Joss Whedon's dialogue, and it's exactly the kind of dialogue commonly found in good chick lit. But I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy anything written by Meg Cabot.

Luisa,

On the whole, I think US YA fiction has been ahead of the UK's since the 70s (obviously, with notable exceptions). Part of the reason for this is, I feel, that US writers tend to take genre fiction more seriously. I don't mean as in po-faced, but in terms of putting the best of themselves into it, without holding back out of some kind of conscious or ingrained distance, which UK writers sometimes do. Hence, for example, US TV writing is better than ours (the best of it, that is). We go potty over Dr Who, just because for once it takes itself seriously (in the positive sense), but ignore all the plot faults and bad science fiction. And we're still a long way form producing anything as sophisticated as Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica. But I'm drifting out of genre here. . . . I find it a little hard to believe that dialogue as good as Joss Whedon's is 'commonly' found in good chick lit. If so, I must have been wearing the wrong glasses when I read that Marian Keyes.

Terry

I see what you mean, and I think you could perhaps level the same accusations at US and UK sitcoms in recent years.

When I lived in the US, I also saw the amazing amount of money that went into young adult sections of public lending libraries.

Perhaps the Joss Whedon dialogue comparison is entirely subjective, then. I've certainly found a lot of witty, well-written, 'above-normal' dialogue in the chick lit I've read.

Sorry, just come in here. Back from hols. Who's Joss Whedon?

Joss Whedon was the main writer on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. I often had to replay bits of dialogue because it was so quick and complex, often very funny. He has the skill to produce dialogue that sounds natural but is actually much more interesting and sparky than real life speech. He also wrote Firefly and the film that came out of it, Serenity; and now writes some Marvel comics too.

I've uploaded the first chapter of the novel I'm very close to finishing - it has appeared before in the Children's Group but was never intended for an audience that young (I just happened to be in that group and felt comfy, so...). It's definitely YA (14-16 was my core target) but would it fit into the new group we're possibly-maybe-perhaps talking about forming?

Terry, obviously you are excused. I wouldn't want to make you itch.



Myrtle

For a start when it comes to writing and readig what one person will love another will hate.

FWIW, any fantasy and Sci-fi makes my head hurt, but I don't disrespect it as a genre.
I don't feel any of the chick lit girls need to justify what we write or the genre.
There is some excellent chick lit out there (And I DO believe Marian Keyes falls into that category- but then I am a woman- therefore her target audience) and there is some crap.
We've accepted that now, but what really makes me angry (and yes, angry is the right word) is that "site experts"- people who are here to give impartial advice- seem to have blinkers on full stop when it comes to our genre.

My books take just as much effort, blood, sweat and tears as anyone else's. There is a market out there for them- I don't need to justify any more than that,

Lola,

I don't recall ever signing anything on this site that said I must always give impartial advice. However, when I critique people's work, I try to do so against what I believe are criteria for good writing, taking into account what the writer is trying to do (although, people don't often actually state this on WW). Of course, taste is subjective, and some people argue that so is good writing. But if subjective taste becomes the only criterion, then there's no real point in anyone trying to improve their writing: whatever they write will have an audience somewhere. For me, the clue is in how conscious or not a writer is about their writing. If, say, a they use a lot of passive verbs and redundant adjectives, they're usually unconscious of the fact. And if they're unconscious of it, then they're not as in control of their story-telling as they could be. So, that kind of element in their writing can be pointed out, which gives them the option of improving it. That's the kind of advice I'd call 'impartial'.

But I thought it was fairly obvious that what I said above was just a personal view. And I'll argue with your claim that I'm wearing blinkers. I've read some chick lit and did so open-mindedly. Similarly, I could point to precisely what I don't think is good writing in the stuff I did read, including Marian Keyes' book.

You certainly don't need to justify your writing. I'm not sure how you know it takes as much blood, sweat and tears as anyone else's, or why you mention those things in the context of writing, but that's your view, so fine. But I wouldn't write if it only meant giving blood, swear and tears; there'd have to be passion, love and inspiration too.

Terry

<Added>

Actually, I'm going to withdraw from this thread now. Apologies for my big mouth. One of the reasons I've not taken much part in the forums in recent times, is that I have a tendency to say what I think in such a way that makes some people take personally. Which sometimes leads to them being personal in their response, and then it all ends up being a big waste of everybody's time. But I do want to stress that I take critiquing seriously, and always approach someone's work as impartially as I can. I'm also a bit of a hypocrite in that I recently made some very positive comments on Joanna's 'Pink Sherbert' (in the YA group) which she described as 'light-hearted', and at risk of misrepresenting her, may not be a million miles away from young chick lit. Doh!

Jem, Joss Whedon has also been repeatedly called in as a 'script doctor' on blockbuster films - he really is excellent at writing dialogue. He's written for Speed, Twister, X-Men, Alien:Resurrection and Titan A.E. and he was nominated for an Oscar for his Toy Story screenplay.

He's famous for his feminist themes and he calls himself a feminist - another parallel with chick lit. (In my opinion.)

Terry, I can vouch for the fact there's obvious passion, love and inspiration in Lola Dane's writing, but maybe I shouldn't get personal here. I can understand why Lola Dane mentions blood, sweat and tears, though - you have frequently alluded to Chick Lit seeming like 'first draft' writing, when of course as much goes into writing it as into any other genre.

Myrtle, I've left you a comment!

<Added>

Sorry, Terry, I must have posted just as you posted your additional comment. I don't think you should withdraw from the thread - things haven't got too personal yet, have they? The discussion seems fairly civilised to me, and it's an important one (even though I didn't want to get drawn in) because it comes up repeatedly.

I must admit I haven't read the entire thread (if anything makes my teeth itch it's value judgments on entire genres) but Terry are you really dismissing an entire genre based on reading just one book? Or rather an entire genres - chick lit - and an entire subgenre - YA chick lit - based on two books?

Off to scratch my teeth .. ugh, that sounds disgusting.

Keris x

<Added>

Just read a bit more (couldn't resist). Terry? Have you gone?

I would believe passion and determination to succeed are givens when it comes to writing, but yes whichever of us have written books we have all put our heart and souls into them.


And perhaps none of the site experts did ever say they would be impartial- but I pay the same money as everyone else for use of this site and I think it is sad that we don't have an expert willing to look at our work.

In Terry's support, I think we should leave him alone now, girls. We've had this time and time again and we're not going to get anywhere with it. Men just don't get chicklit and why would you want them to? Bloody hell, I wopuldn't want a bloke who cried at Marian Keyes books. As for moi - I don't like cowboys. I hate them. And science fantasy. And any books with sporting heroes in them. Or War books. Or spy books. And don't try and tell me there's someone out there writes good ones because no matter how you dress them up they're still genres I hate. Like liver - (you know, when you tell people you hate liver and they say, oh, but you'll love it done this way and then you taste it to shut them up and you feel like retching. Or is this just me?) And why do I have to like them - these kinds of books - anyway? There's loads of stuff I DO like. Vive la difference, say I.

Jem, I've left him alone.
I guess I was trying to make the point you have so eloquently. If people have no interest in chick lit then avoid it. Simple really.

<Added>

Frig it...
I think my getting annoyed about this proves I am passionate about it.
Writing what I write is my life's ambition. I have been building to this point in my career all my life and no, it's not Margaret Attwood or Alice Sebold but it is worthy.

Terry, with respect, you came onto this thread as host of the YA group and your Site Expert flag and expressed a personal preference for writers of chick lit not to join the YA group. I don't think there are many alternative ways of interpreting that, though correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you can see why it's easy to take that personally if one is a writer of YA chick lit. I don't even know if I am, but that's what annoyed me, in any case.

Myrtle