And men have a direct equivalent in lad culture, Trainspotting, Loaded, Oasis,

But aren't these viewed as seminal artists, unlike the chicklit authors? Err with the exception of Loaded maybe...

Is the male equivalent of a 'chick' perhaps a 'cub'.

That's the equivalent of a 'Brownie', isn't it?

It's interesting how these terms often seem to require a lack of knowledge of animals by whoever first dreams them up. Chicks, as in baby birds, consist of both sexes, not just females.

Alex

Well okay then, if that's what you think.

But Snowbell, Nick Hornby and T**y P**sons are unfortunately seen as seminal writers I think. They are the male equivilent. They aren't writing hard edged blokey fights and blood and sex, they are showing the sensitive male, trying to find purpose in the world etc etc. It's just love stories marketed differently. But what I'm getting at is the fact it was alluded to, and as always never qualified, that girls, yes girls, that's how I term the opposite sex, are demeaning themselves by using the word chick and, indeed, should not expect to be taken seriously.

I think the point is they are colloquial terms, and not made up by one person, so they are not directly associated with the animal itself, just the same as using the term bird.

I was asking the question - are the male equivalents taken more seriously? After all Nick Hornby and Tony Parsons are read by women too, but men don't read Marian Keyes.

However, I hold my hands up with this argument as I am completely ignorant not having read any Marian Keyes myself. I jsut heard her on the radio and she sounded really sparky. Perhaps I should read some first.

Is the male equivalent of a 'chick' perhaps a 'cub'.

Or 'puppy'? I've certainly seen that one used in pejorative contexts. 'You, sir, are an insolent puppy' and so forth

'You, sir, are an insolent puppy' and so forth

'An ill-conditioned cub!' comes out of the same stable - that's what I was thinking of, I think, rather than small boys in green(?) caps.

Emma

Snowbell, I think that's exactly what Keyes is saying here:

Different, of course, if it had been written by a man...Suddenly there would be talk of 'courageous tenderness' and 'fearless exploration and exposition of emotion'. And women who normally made fun of 'women's fiction' would read it with pride in public places.

Yes, I can confirm (sadly, from personal experience) that the caps are - or used to be - green. It's so long since I saw anyone dressed up as a Cub, I've no idea if they wear anything other than a kerchief and a woggle, these days.

Mind you, I quite like the idea of someone responding with "Thank you, sir! Dib-dib-dob!", when told off by some pompous brigadier.

Alex

Lammi - your books are very much about women's experience across generations. Do you feel these issues are taken as seriously or do you think this is irrelevant? I seem to remember you saying somewhere (was it on your website?) that your books didn't get many reviews - but became bestsellers through word of mouth. Do you think it relates to their being about family and generations of women or do you think that's a red herring?

And I was also wondering whether the chicklit phenomenon has done a disservice in this way. I remember reading a lot of Margaret Forster as a teenager who writes really well about the relationships between women and family, which i really related to at the time of trying to break away a bit from my own. I don't remember her stuff being looked down on in any way. Would that be called chicklit now? Or am i completely barking up the wrong tree?

I don't feel I have a wide enough industry view to comment much on the blog that started this thread. Two things here concern me, though: the fact that in general men avoid reading novels by women, which makes marketing female writers that much harder, and that women who write about the domestic landscape are sometimes dismissed (on occasion by other women!). I don't have solutions to either issue, though it saddens me that 150 years after the Brontes were forced to publish under men's names, women novelists are still sometimes having to resort to the same ruse.

Snowbell, I've never seen the 'familyscape' of my novels as a problem; my agents and publisher have always been encouraging too. The fan mail I get and the people who turn up to events show there's a large age-range of TBMH readers, which makes sense as the story's shared between three generations. And the subjects I tend to cover are ones which most people have experience of, so that makes the books accessible. But I'm probably more a reader's author than a critic's, if that makes sense.

Yes that makes sense. Thanks for answering Kate. At the risk of a bit of a generalisation I think there still just basic prejudice about men's stuff being more important than women's stuff. Its like the continual idea bandied about that men are funnier than women. But the number of standup shows i've been to about wanking and bollocks and kebabs...I'm not convinced.

An issue for men and women writers is that once you have a successful novel, everyone really wants you to write the same book again. And this is true for all areas of art and entertainment, I should think.

I'm just about to change direction for my fourth novel (quite a bit darker) so I'll be interested to see how the marketing goes. I certainly haven't been told I'm not allowed to do it, though.

I've obviously got really good marketing judgement.

It's interesting what's being said about who reads what. When I look around for fiction to read that's a bit different from my normal fare, I tend to look for female authors. I've never thought of men as being intrinsically more interesting than women; quite the reverse, in fact.

Alex

women who write about the domestic landscape are sometimes dismissed (on occasion by other women

!).

Yes. Does anyone remember Ali Smith, when judging New Writing 13 complaining that the majority of entries by women were depressingly unadventurous, stuck in a domestic something-or-other? (I can't remember her exact words.)

I think there is, for genre/marketing purposes, a male equivalent of chick lit, which is sometimes called 'bloke lit' and includes the man who wrote My Legendary Girlfriend. I think his surname was Gayle.

I'm not sure that Trainspotting is a part of 'bloke lit', although certainly it is masculine and gritty. It is also very good, unlike My Legendary Girlfriend.

I wouldn't like my book to be called 'chick lit' because it does, unfortunately for many chick lit writers, sound 'not serious.' However, I definitely consider my novel to be female in its subject matter and themes, probably to the point of excluding male readers. I feel quite happy with that, though (and not just because my username is Sappho). I was extremely pleased when my agent told me she was submitting to Virago, because that is the kind of writer I want to be: an Intelligent Woman Writer Saying Intelligent Things About Women.

So I don't know what I'm saying now. I suppose what I'm saying is that chick lit does sound derogatory. It won't attract male readers, but neither will a book published by Virago.

So what's the difference?

Agh. Now I'm confused.

By the way, I'm sure the reality of my book falls far short of my ideals for it.

<Added>

Sorry - posted this in response to last page. I did this on anotehr thread last week. Have just realised I've said what everyone else has already said - it was Hornby who wrote the Legendary girlfirend Book. Was it?

Sorry. What a twat. Must read these things more carefully.

Can I comment from a chick lit perspective?

Firstly, as regards the Marian Keyes/ Amazon review thing, I believe someone once reviewed her 'Rachel's Holiday' and slated it as a bunch of fluff about a woman who goes on holiday- when in fact is a book about a woman overcoming an addiction loosely based on Keyes own battle with alcoholism.

As for men reading Keyes...my 50 year old editor, a stalwart of the old school of fiction, typical swearing round the office big brute of a Donegal man borrowed Rachel's Holiday from me and said he never laughed as much in his life. He also said Keyes wrote sex scenes the way men would like to see them written!

And to comment on the term 'Chick-Lit', personally I wear my badge with pride these days. I know I'm never going to win any major accolades, but I'm hopefully writing stuff women want to read. That's good enough for me.

And yes, if you take the Chick Lit premise to its natural conclusion, Jane Austen was the first of the chick lit authors.