I should add, this doesn't seem to be a problem with literary fiction.

Can anyone tell us what proportion of books by women writers have overtly feminine covers (e.g. pink ones)? Do any proportion of books by men have such covers?

The reason I ask is that this has a direct bearing on the likelihood of a man even picking a book up to look at, let alone buying it. Many men, me included, would feel very self-conscious about the appearance it might give to be reading or buying a book with a cover that seemed aimed specifically at women.

Alex

Yes, I know you're right, but I still don't like it. And I'm not sure publishers pandering to it is a good idea either. There is no way most men would ever pick up a book with a pink cover. (And as I've said it would put me off too, but presumably the market isn't concerned about women like me who find the girlification of everything irritating and disturbing.) It is all very well for women to feel empowered by calling themselves chicks and their books chicklit. But when every woman writing comedy has to call themselves chick and chicklit - that is not empowering but marginalising. I admit to be a grumpy old feminist about the whole thing but I think there is this set of assumptions that women think the same way and there should be more messages about being able to be different kinds of women which different kinds of aspirations. It is all very well these messages being inside the cover (like you were saying about Marian Keyes) when the package of the book is still saying you have to be interested in all things girly and pink and silly.

I know people (including myself in a way) will think - is this too much fuss about nothing? But you have to ask yourself - if the marketing wasn't giving out a powerful message it wouldn't WORK. So that message is important too. Particularly if it is contrary to the book.

this doesn't seem to be a problem with literary fiction.

I think this problem does still apply to literary fiction. Jane Smiley, Joyce Carol Oates and Margaret Atwood are all great women writers of literary fiction, and not many men read them. They don't get packaged in pink, but they still attarct a female audience.


<Added>

And there is huge debate over who is 'the great American novelist' and it's usually debated over about three men. Then now and then someone says something shocking about Joyce Carol Oates and it's in the newspapers: 'Maybe, just maybe, the great American novelist is a woman.'

I think I just cross-posted with all of you. Excuse my ranting. It is something I feel strongly about being a woman who HATES bags and shoes and pink.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/books/590760/ref=pd_ts_pg_1/202-7791018-8043013?ie=UTF8&pg=1

Good question alex, and one to which I don't have an answer. But here are the current top Amazon sellers in women's fiction. It would be interesting to know what it is that puts some men off buying a novel. I can see pink probably would, or a picture of a woman carrying a shopping bag, or sparkly bits. But would, say, a photograph of a woman? (I mean a normal one, not a Nuts-style job in a bikini.)

There'll have been plenty of research into this, as there is with all advertising.

Ah, well, I love bags and shoes. I also like pink very much, too. But I also agree with you on every point, Snowbell.

Jane Smiley, Joyce Carol Oates and Margaret Atwood are all great women writers of literary fiction, and not many men read them.

- Sappho, I wonmder what the figures are? More women than men read novels full stop, which will skew the statistics.

But when every woman writing comedy has to call themselves chick and chicklit - that is not empowering but marginalising.

Absolutely agree.

I think what surprised me when I was described as chick lit is that my characters are provincial, lower middle class and range from 17-80. Some of the text is in dialect and there are some gritty issues in there. True, parts of the novel are comic, but I'm surprised that's all it takes to be labelled chick-lit.

To be honest, I'm confused. By everything!

I suppose that's what I mean Lammi about the difference between a label you choose and are happily writing within (and being called), or one applied to you from the outside with implications you may be uncomfortable with. Would you see yourself and your readership as a bunch of chicks? I know it is a casual term, but as such should be chosen to say of oneself, rather than imposed. I would hate to be called a "chick" in person. Why is it okay to call you this as a writer? I know you don't necessarily mind, and I also imagine it opens up a huge market of broadthinking people (who don't get so churned up about these things as I do) that one would like to reach who would enjoy and get a lot out of the book and that's what its about - reaching people. But it must feel strange nonetheless.

Question to the chicklit group: did the original chicklit authors choose this term or was it something imposed on them by the media? Are they happy with the term?

To be honest, I'm confused. By everything!

So am I!!! All I knew before this thread started was that I wouldn't want my book to be labelled as chick lit. Now I'm beginning to think, 'Oh, well. Maybe it will be.' I mean, I have a couple of jokes in there, too. They're not very funny and they kind of get diluted by the death, but jokes they still are. And I have three female MCs and loads of sex.

Would you see yourself and your readership as a bunch of chicks?

No. I'm about as unchicky as you could get (if you could see me you'd know).

As for readers, I can only go by the emails I get and the people who turn up to my talks. Lots of them are pensioners who would probably be surprised to find they're 'chicks'. Other people want to talk about writing and motherhood and disability and social class. I also get the occasional email from a male reader (once from a lecturer in social history at UCLA). I think it would be hard to label the lot en masse as anything other than readers!

Can I ask another question if it isn't too rude Lammi. I was looking at some of your covers online and there seemed to be a toned down yellowish background with some arty childlike writing and a drawing (see I liked the arty look) which didn't seem so chicklitty looking and then a very extreme pink version of BMHB in shocking pink with some people sitting on a bench (is that right?) and then the Queen Mum book looks more pink with a cartoony glove and tiara which looked more Mumlittish. (These are my very quick impressions.)

I was wondering - was the sort of chicklitty style pink push before or after you already had a success on your hands? Because I wonder if it is necessary to market things in this fashion or whether they feel the need afterwards. Yours was a big word of mouth hit originally, wasn't it? Was the arty cover or the shocking pink cover the original one?

If this is too annoying a question just ignore me.

I think most of these labels are complete bullshit. People seem obsessed with categorising everything. Rachel's Holiday might be chicklit to one reader but feminist literature to another. For instance, there are several men and women in my acquaintance who view any book with a strong female MC as 'feminist.'

I rarely listen to labels or marketing when choosing a book. This might be completely uncool and stupid but I generally pick up books with interesting titles. (or, even more stupid, even books written by people with interesting names!).

I avoid books written by authors that have had tons of books published and masses of exposure. I want to read something new and different, which in its way is a type of snobbery, I suppose.

My exception to the above rule is Margaret Atwood as each of her books feels fresh and original to me. But that's obviously just IMHO.