Why the label 'chick lit' isn't offensive:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/05/chick-lit-debate-michele-gorman?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Emma

This argument goes round in circles and I kind of agree with both sides.

(1) Yes, there is nothing to apologise for about writing feel-good books which appeal to women, and speak to their everyday concerns. If that means being proud to write chick lit, then I'm proud.
But
(2) there is no getting away from the fact that, attempt to reclaim and broaden it as we might, the label 'chick lit' is used by a lot of people (mainly men, but some women, too) as a derogatory term designating the fluffiest and shallowest of the genre.

So, what does a girl do? Shout loud and proud that, yes, she writes mainly for women, and there's nothing wrong with that - embracing the pink covers, and the chick lit label, as necessary? Or deny that she writes chick lit in case everyone assumes she only writes about sex, shopping and the urban 20-something single woman?

It's circular. The 'chick lit is crap' camp use the term to mean only the shallow, fluffy stuff. The 'chick lit is wonderful and meaningful' brigade point more at the well-written, issue-based fare.

Aaaargghhh!

R x

It does go round in circles, doesn't it, which is no doubt why it'll go on forever. I've been listening to Composer of the Week on the 19th century American composer Amy Beach today - I'd say the misogyny in the reactions to her is breathtaking, if I hadn't just heard quoted Baremboim on female conductors, until he met Simone Young. (To be fair to him, he completely retracted them, and mentored her)

It might sound a bit odd, but it seems to me that it's like trying to tackle the way children use 'gay' as an insult: if you tackle it as bullying, you're implying that 'gay' is an insult; if you say, 'Calling someone gay isn't an insult' then you're not tackling the bullying, since it was meant as one...

Emma

<Added>

And I assume that Margaret Atwood's notorious denial that she writes science fiction was based on the same problem: what serious writer wouldn't want to distance him/herself from the rubbish that's published under that label.

It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that people are incapable of divorcing style from substance, and the carrier signal from the real information...

That analogy with 'gay' used as an insult is a very good one, Emma. That's it, absolutely.

I think what irritates me is the way the pink covers and sex-and-shopping image of women's fiction is used as a way of denigrating and belittling women through their presumed reading tastes. It is all assumed to be light inconsequential tripe, and hence (by a breathtaking leap of logic) women are stupid. Somehow, the shallower end of (say) the sci fi or thriller markets isn't used to found the same insinuation that male readers - and hence men - are stupid. Somehow we all know that if a bloke reads a trashy thriller, it doesn't mean that's all he's interested in; we don't think that it somehow defines his whole intellectual universe.

So, which way to jump? Do I try to point out that my books are full of serious issues, from bereavement to mental health to female identity politics to higher education funding, as a way of breaking the stereotype that women only write about trivia - or that commercial women's fiction is only about trivia? Or do I embrace the pink packaging and the chick lit label and point out that there's nothing wrong, in any case, with women wanting to read something light and trivial now and then; it doesn't mean they aren't capable of wrestling with larger ideas - or even that they haven't got Virginia Woolf in their other handbag - it just means they fancy a day off with a box of chocs and some Katie Fforde.

(Where is Casey when we need her? These arguments just aren't the same without her!)

R x

It's the old "love is for man a thing apart, 'tis woman's whole existence" argument, isn't it. A male captain of industry is allowed to relax with a nasty thriller, but if a female captain of industry relaxes with a fluffy chick-lit then she's showing her roots...

Thanks goodness, of course, because otherwise we might actually have to admit that she's good at 'male' things and 'female' things, and that would never do! Otherwise they'd be allowing gay marriage next.

Amy Beach had to let herself be interviewed about how good she was at running a happy household, just in case anyone thought she wasn't a Proper Woman, for writing symphonies.

It's very revealing, how much more widespread misogyny is than misandry...

Emma

Hmm

Not much to add to the previous wise comments, but then I'm probably coming from the wrong place, as I do find a lot of the pink and fluffy cover stuff irredeemably dire, quite frankly.

I like 'light'if it's well done, I like humour, but I think what happens is that so much of it is so terribly formulaic and badly written, it drags down the rest. It's a bit like buying a 'Mills & Boon' used to be (are they still popular?) you could practically buy them by the yard and be sure of what you'd get.

On the other hand, it's a bit like my daughter devouring 'Twilight' (ugh). Can't say I'm overjoyed, but at least she's reading ...

I think a lot of the problem is down to the common tendency (in both men and women) to pigeonhole things in general. It's one of the reasons that I've never been very comfortable with the concept of genre. It is, after all, only a marketing device which aims to get books (and music, and films, and magazines, and just about anything else that is mass-marketed) to the attention of the particular demographic group that it is intended for. Unfortunately, that means that it tends to come across as a semi-official label meaning 'this is only for people like x'.

The other problem with genre is that, when you come across an item which crosses more than one of these artificial dividing lines, the marketing people go into a tailspin. Apparently, as writers, we're supposed to decide which genre our story falls into, and then write it to fit that genre. Which is a bit of a creative straight-jacket, sometimes. After all, why shouldn't a love story be set 200 years in the future in another galaxy, and therefore also be a science fiction story (for example)?

I agree with your 'gay' analogy, Emma. It points up something very important about labels and words; namely that insults are not defined by the words used, but by the intention of the person using them. Changing a word from one that is deemed to be insulting to one that is supposedly non-judgemental does not alter this. It just alters the choice of words available to the person making the insult.

I don't think one can ever say of any genre that it is all junk or all amazingly superior. There is a mixture of junk and gems in all genres. People who claim otherwise (in either direction) of any single genre either haven't read enough of it to notice this, or else are revealing their own prejudices.

Alex

I agree about 'genres' being a bit woolly and having just read 'One Day' by David Nicholls, I feel, very interestingly that this sort of modern writing is in a new genre of its own but wouldn't know what to call it! I enjoyed the book very much, love to know who else did? I also would defend Raffaella Barker every time if someone suggests, which they once did, that she's 'light'. I entirely disagree and from
'an Anita Brookner reader'!! I think R.B's writing is truly exquisite. Would love to know what others think.

It is all assumed to be light inconsequential tripe, and hence (by a breathtaking leap of logic) women are stupid. Somehow, the shallower end of (say) the sci fi or thriller markets isn't used to found the same insinuation that male readers - and hence men - are stupid. Somehow we all know that if a bloke reads a trashy thriller, it doesn't mean that's all he's interested in; we don't think that it somehow defines his whole intellectual universe.

That's a great point, and I agree. The shallower end of SF/Fantasy contains some of the worst writing you can find anywhere, and I assume it's this end which Margaret Attwood is so determined not to be associated with rather than, say, writers like Ian R MacLeod or Jeff Vandermeer. But, as you say, any bloke seen reading some space opera junk is not likely to be seen as stupid; while a woman reading chick lit may be.

I also agree that this is a circular argument, for the most part. Having said that, I recall when YA fiction (back in the 70s/80s) was generally viewed as trash, even though there were many superb writers writing it, but it seems now to have achieved more respectability.

I also think there's a reverse prejudice here, in that certain kinds of literary fiction are automatically assumed to be intelligent and 'proper', therefore ditto the people who read it, even when it's shallow, simplistic and badly written. And this particular prejudice is, I believe, largely responsible for the failure to recognise that there is some excellent writing under the 'light' banner. For what it's worth - and it's unmeasurable anyway - I think there is more skill in producing genuinely uplifting, humorous, prose than most of what passes for 'realistic' or 'intelligent' story-telling.

Terry

Isn't it an age thing? I don't read chick lit because I don't see it at being aimed at me. And if anybody starts writing about chocolate I'm out of the room pronto. But I do like Marion Keyes. She is absolutely the only chick lit novelist I can read. I once tired a Sophie Kinsella novel and had to give up after twelve pages. Also, remember, Brigitte Jones began life as a newspaper column. It was meant to be ironic, not a template for young women keen to infantalise themselves and their female friends.

But I do like poplar woman's fiction and the kind of novels we're discussing in the new Facebook group, among them a certain Rosy T.

And I assume that Margaret Atwood's notorious denial that she writes science fiction was based on the same problem: what serious writer wouldn't want to distance him/herself from the rubbish that's published under that label.

Well, I have to disagree here. Margaret Atwood's sci-fi is pretty dire compared to Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut IMO.

I feel that it shouldn't matter what label a book has, surely what's important is that it's well written, and an enjoyable read.

Nothing wrong with writing about chocolate - a large majority of us eat it, so it's bound to crop up in writing somewhere!

I used to like Marion Keyes, but I've just read her latest one - The Brightest Star in the Sky, and it's an absolute load of drivel in my opinion. I don't know how on earth it got published!

If you write chick lit and make a lot of money from it - then be proud

There's good and bad writing in all genres, and I don't think we - as writers - should diss another genre and assume it's all fluffy writing. I agree with Terry's points completely.

Kat x

I think what irritates me is the way the pink covers and sex-and-shopping image of women's fiction is used as a way of denigrating and belittling women through their presumed reading tastes. It is all assumed to be light inconsequential tripe, and hence (by a breathtaking leap of logic) women are stupid. Somehow, the shallower end of (say) the sci fi or thriller markets isn't used to found the same insinuation that male readers - and hence men - are stupid.

Absolutely. Also, it is so annoying when the derogatory label creeps beyond the more formulaic end of the market. Yes, I would agree with Jem, some of the 'chick lit' stuff is just so much candy floss, but the label is used to condemn stuff that is much better than that. I have just read Daisy Goodwin's 'My Last Duchess' and it's very good - a very clever (and enjoyable) reinvention of Edith Wharton meets Daphne du Maurier. But on the back, the blurb describes it as 'a wonderful guilty pleasure'. If I hadn't been at an airport & slightly desperate I would probably have put it back. Why do writers allow themselves to be put down in this way?

I can't get very wound up about this argument any more, strangely enough. If i was published i might. Or perhaps it is because i do write very light and fluffy novels, particularly my present one - it's a fun read, hopefully. NOt many issues in it at all. Let people think what they want to think. Snobism about chick lit has never had an effect on sales. I see myself as an entertainer, end of. If my chick lit was of Rosie's ilk though, ie more literary and with a serious side, then i can see how this generalised label could be annoying.

We all know that light and fluffy doesn't necessarily make it bad writing, as long as the prose is pithy, the characters are rounded and the emotions strike as real.

Mills & Boon are still very popular and you ask anyone who writes them what skill it takes to satisfy that market, like any other.

I think there is prejudice against a lot of the genres. Your average Joe would probably have a few choice words to say about high-falutin literary fiction.

Also, who was that famous male author who recently said that he'd only lower himself to write children's fiction if he'd had some kind of brain injury?

Also, who was that famous male author who recently said that he'd only lower himself to write children's fiction if he'd had some kind of brain injury?

I wonder whether a writer of children's fiction would be more offended by that than someone who had had some kind of brain injury? As a put-down, it manages to offend two possible groups of people.

I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of what everyone is saying: it isn't the label that says a piece of writing is good or bad, but the writing itself. But fans of Terry Pratchett are well aware that, however offhanded non-fans might sometimes be about his style of writing, it has a depth to it which the humour often belies. This must surely be true of many other writers and genres.

Alex

Sam, that was Mr Martin Amis.

I agree a good book is a good book. But I have a thing about pink and fluffy. And chocolate. And cup cakes. And anything by Richard Curtis.

I'm sure that book by Daisy Goodwin is very good and now want to read it plus some RB. I wonder, re Marion Keyes, if she's just under contract to come up with another novel and has written it to fulfil such a contract. She has been crippled with depression for a long while now - not the best circumstances for producing a page turner of the usual quality.