Chick Lit....anyone else not like it?

AudreyHepburn

I often wonder if I am the only woman on earth who really really can't stand Chick Lit.

To me it's always the same story reashed in different ways; Gorgeous and sucessful woman with equally gorgeous and sucessful yet rubbish boyfriend meets even more gorgeous guy and falls in love. Throw in much shopping, gossiping, even more shopping, career crisis, unplanned baby etc.

I know it maybe escapism or easy reading to some but for me it just doesn't do it.

I prefer books I can really sink my teeth into....not that I'm a snob, it's just personal preference.

Denerick

I'm a male and a snob. Take a wild guess about where I stand

lemon_sherbert

I think there is a time for chick lit, I don't read it very often, but every now and again I get into a complete reading slump and only easy reads get me out of it. Chick lit is very broad too, there are some talented writers in the genre, but a lot of slush too. Marian Keyes springs to mind, she's sharp and very funny.

As far as I'm concerned, any reading is good reading, and as with every genre, chick lit suits certain people. There are lazy writers and publishers in the genre, but that's true of most, and I wouldn't write it off altogether. That said, if you don't enjoy it, time to pick up something else

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SVG

I hate the term!

There is definitely lots of poor, formulaic chick-lit but it seems that many novels by or about women get automatically saddled with the sparkly pink cover. I'm sure there are good books and writers amongst the dreck but who's going to wade through all that to find them? Not me- to be honest I read mostly male authors ([ETA] not by design but because they tend to dominate the general fiction section) and I think it's a pity (ETA)that I'm probably missing out on some great women writers because they're classified as chick-lit; a section of the bookshop that I tend to walk past.

It's a marketing term, really, more than a genre and it obviously sells books but it also alienates a lot of people (me included) with the fluffy, frivolous presentation.

Denerick

I don't think all women can be regarded as authors of chick lit... I can't imagine, somehow, Harper Lee, George Eliot or Emily Bronte getting pigeon holed in such a manner.

Callan57

SVG wrote: »

I hate the term!

There is definitely lots of poor, formulaic chick-lit but it seems that many novels by or about women get automatically saddled with the sparkly pink cover. I'm sure there are good books and writers amongst the dreck but who's going to wade through all that to find them? Not me- to be honest I read mostly male authors and I think it's a pity.

It's a marketing term, really, more than a genre and it obviously sells books but it also alienates a lot of people (me included) with the fluffy, frivolous presentation.

I never, ever select a book on the basis of the gender of the author & while Chick Lit is not to my reading taste it has it's admirers and IMO it's sheer pretentiousness to scoff at other readers choices.
Anyway, Jane Austen would probably have been classed as the Chick Lit of her day & indeed she, along with many other female authors. did suffer the consequences of literary snobbery.

SVG

I never, ever select a book on the basis of the gender of the author & while Chick Lit is not to my reading taste it has it's admirers and IMO it's sheer pretentiousness to scoff at other readers choices.
Anyway, Jane Austen would probably have been classed as the Chick Lit of her day & indeed she, along with many other female authors. did suffer the consequences of literary snobbery.

I agree with you 100%!

It's not the gender of the authors, or even the genre (though I do really hate that term! chick-lit-argh!) but the marketing that is off-putting for me. I hate pink! I know I'm probably missing out on some good stuff but I do, despite my best intentions, judge a book by it's cover!

I just think it's a pity that a lot of women's writing is automatically classified, marketed and therefore dismissed as chick-lit, whereas male authors tend not to be as ghettoised and are put into the general fiction section which is where I tend to look for books. And that's how I've ended up reading too many stories about intellectual male writers suffering mid-life crises!:)

SVG

Denerick wrote: »

I don't think all women can be regarded as authors of chick lit... I can't imagine, somehow, Harper Lee, George Eliot or Emily Bronte getting pigeon holed in such a manner.

Agreed!

I don't regard all women authors as chick-lit writers but nowadays many are automatically marketed as such meaning that many people, me included, are unlikely to read them. And I think that's a pity!

Sorry, my earlier post wasn't very clear.:)

Darlughda

Absolutely despise chick-lit, its not literary snobbery. I have a bit of an aversion to recommended literary authors and love a good page turner.

But the offensive back lash anti-feminism that gushes out in these dull, dull books by the likes of Marian Keyes and Cecilia Aherne, not to mention all of the author list of Poolbeg press, has me screaming.

phasers

I have to say I'm partial to a pink sparkly book once in a while, it's nice to read a bit of fluff in your jammies with a bar of chocolate sometimes!

The Devil wears Prada is one of my favourite books, along with stuff like 1984 and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

While I think it's annoying that most of them are just the same story with different names, I think it's good that the books appeal to people who may not like more serious literature. I know that PS I Love You got my Mam into books.

Reading anything is better than not reading at all.

(Although the film adaptations are always completely woeful and the "plain" main character is always some absolutely gorgeous movie star wearing glasses or something :mad: )

JohnMearsheimer

The personalities of some chick lit authors like Amanda Brunker would seriously put me off reading it. I'd agree with donegalfella about the cringe inducing standard of writing. I think Alison O'Riordan over at the Sindo has a chick lit book in her, I'd almost read it for the laugh.

looksee

I don't read chick-lit because I never feel drawn by any of the titles/presentation/promises. I was persuaded to go to a chick-flick by a group of women colleagues and they agreed it was a great film and very funny, while I found it totally tedious. On the other hand I read fantasy which would not be everyone's choice, so its just a matter of personal preference I think.

AudreyHepburn

Callan57 wrote: »

I never, ever select a book on the basis of the gender of the author & while Chick Lit is not to my reading taste it has it's admirers and IMO it's sheer pretentiousness to scoff at other readers choices.
Anyway, Jane Austen would probably have been classed as the Chick Lit of her day & indeed she, along with many other female authors. did suffer the consequences of literary snobbery.

I just want to stress that I'm not in any way trying to be pretentious. Why is it that everytime some-one says they don't like Chick Lit people assume they're being snobby or pretentious?

I just don't like it because there's only so many times one can read the same basic story, even it is in a different setting or has different characters.

Nor do I class authors like Jane Austen or Charlotte Bronte as Chick Lit because those stories imo go somewhat deeper than just the gorgeous-girl-with-rubbish-boyfriend thing.

I do like a bit of romance, what woman doesn't. But to me there's a difference between Chick Lit and Romance novels.

And I don't class every female author as Chick Lit either. I've read plenty of crime novels and historical ones by female authors.

A friend likes chick lit kind of books. I borrowed one once to read while waiting for an appointment - she always has one in her handbag. It was alright as easy reading but I wouldn't borrow it or go off and buy one.
The writing in that particular book wasn't cringey as such, but it was a little basic.
You could still see the formula though - "I'm a disaster and my life isn't going anywhere and I don't like work and suddenly there's this amazing man who seems to like me and now everything is ok".
Well I don't know about the everything ok part as I didn't get that far, but... :pac:

Malari

I haven't read any of them, except a couple of Maeve Binchy when I was a teenager and they were pretty much all the same kind of story. I didn't find them challenging. Not that every read has to make you think, so a lot of books I read can be pure escapism, but I like a book that is a bit more exciting.

I'm just not really interested in that kind of story. I've read the brief description on the back of a couple of Jodi Picault and Amanda Brunker books and I just don't find that kind of thing entertaining. I don't know if these would be classed in the same category by the way, but they do seem to market them that way with a picture of a woman on the front and a pastel colour cover.

I've read a Jane Austen or two as well but they actually don't hold my interest that much either.

emeraldstar

I never read them. I hate them.

Eliot Rosewater

emeraldstar wrote: »

I hate them.

If you've never read any how do you know?

emeraldstar

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If you've never read any how do you know?

Mwaha. Well I suppose I've tried to somewhere along the line

TashaMonster

I read ALL types of books, fantasy, thriller, african novels, etc, and I find that in terms of chick lit they all go a little something like this.

Sophie, a married woman with 3 kids and a great husband but things have been a bit difficult lately, her husbands having problems with work and on top of that she has to look after her sick mother.

Fiona is Sophie's friend, she thought Stephen was her soulmate, but it turns out he thought his secretary was his soulmate, so now she's back on the dating scene and trying to get her life back on track, if only she could get rid of her annoying neighbour Max life wouldn't be too bad.

Cara is Sophie's sister, she's always been a high flyer, succesful job, designer clothes and a swanky penthouse apartment, but she's never met her ideal man ....... until now !!!








I just find it really condescending that these authors recycle the same plot over and over with just slight variations. I've no problem with people writing about the issues modern women deal with but I think there needs to be a bit more effort into coming up with a fresh approach.

mikhail

Denerick wrote: »

I don't think all women can be regarded as authors of chick lit... I can't imagine, somehow, Harper Lee, George Eliot or Emily Bronte getting pigeon holed in such a manner.

Wasn't Bronte a huge Yorkshireman with a beard like a rhododendron bush? Perhaps I'm confusing my famous women in literature.

No one is suggesting there are no women authors who don't write chick lit. Well, almost no one. There's usually someone trolling.

I tend to think of chick lit as the female equivalent of Clive Cussler and Tom Clancy and their ilk. There's a market for it, and there are people making a living off that market. I'm not in that target market. I'll get over it.

mikhail

This thread on rom-coms is interesting to compare and contrast with this thread. They're not the same thing; the conventions do differ, but they have more in common than not.

Eliot Rosewater

mikhail wrote: »

This thread on rom-coms is interesting to compare and contrast with this thread.

You could also put action movies in the same category, or the repetitive episodes of TV progammes like House. It's just entertainment, and while I don't like Chick Lit at all, I don't really judge because I myself am open to the odd Die Hard-like film! There's basically a huge difference between what different people want and expect of reading.


I've posted these before, but I dare say they bear reposting. Last Christmas my girlfriend bought me some books, and designed fake book covers which she blu-tacked on. They're quite funny, and I think you can enjoy them even if you like Chick Lit.

PS I Love You Too Bai

Holly is a twenty-something/thirty-something year old women searching for the perfect guy, apartment, job or shoe. Along the way she questions everything, from the way she was raised to the quality of her life, but all in a very neat and non-psychologically intrusive fashion. Her quest leads her to rediscover herself, inner-happiness and an especially gooey, tender kind of love with a rugged yet ultimately sensitive and emotionally available love interest. It all ends in an ecstatically happy flurry of rainbows, unicorns and sparkles as though engineered in that way in order to give hope to despondent housewives enduring their mundane lives but secretly rejecting the crushing tedium...or something like that.

"The novel of fate on love and life" - Glamour.
"A romantic tale of longing and loss" - Daily Telegraph.
"Cecilia who?" - Legitimate Literary Critic.
"Bubbly, sparkling and completely opaque" - Authentic Wine Critic
"Another $200,000 in the bank and a summer house in the Hamptons for me!" - Cecilia Ahern's Publisher.


A Place Called Here Hiroshima

"Magical!" - Journalist who couldn't get a job with a real paper.
"A sensational debut novel that proves true love never dies" - Cosmopolitan.
"I would not permit my cat to wipe its posterior with this trash" - Harold Bloom.
"I would not wipe my posterior with this trash" - Harold Bloom's cat.
"One cannot determine with any certainty whether or not the cat wiped its posterior with this book when placed in a steel chamber as the cat is, according to quantum law, in a superposition of states" - Schrodinger.

goose2005

Callan57 wrote: »

I never, ever select a book on the basis of the gender of the author & while Chick Lit is not to my reading taste it has it's admirers and IMO it's sheer pretentiousness to scoff at other readers choices.
Anyway, Jane Austen would probably have been classed as the Chick Lit of her day & indeed she, along with many other female authors. did suffer the consequences of literary snobbery.

No, she wouldn't have been. Walter Scott and Richard Whately, both leading writers, gave her high praise.

Cavehill Red

Denerick wrote: »

I don't think all women can be regarded as authors of chick lit... I can't imagine, somehow, Harper Lee, George Eliot or Emily Bronte getting pigeon holed in such a manner.

Emily Bronte is total chick lit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

I always wonder when this is raised. Walter Scott was a pinnacle of early 19th century literature and his work certainly wasn't considered to be an outlet for idlers and housewifes. Rob Roy remains one of my favourite books, it has an endearing quality, tricky highland dialect (That you spend hours trying to understand) as well as the clichéd but extremely well done son-trying-to-live-up-to-the-disappointed-father thing...

Dades

mikhail wrote: »

I tend to think of chick lit as the female equivalent of Clive Cussler and Tom Clancy and their ilk...

Do not speak ill of Clive Cussler! (My guilty pleasure )

As least Cussler knows his marine/aviation science and terminology and you tend to learn a few things when not hearing about Dirk Pitt's opaline eyes...

As for chick lit - my missis reads it and whatever floats your boat I say. I read one once in an afternoon by the pool (was written by the sister of a friend of ours) and although it was formulaic and trite I survived the experience.

fionav3

Depends on what you term 'chick-lit.' Truthfully, I have tried a few over the years and found all of them really dull and formulaic so I never finished them. But I also hate anything that centers on romance which most of these books tend to do. I don't mind a little love story on the side but I need something else going on in the plot. Then again, I HATE Sex and the City with a passion and most 'chick-lit' is along the same lines. So I guess chick-lit is trite girl meets boy stuff? I suppose that's how I'd term it and if that's the case, then definitely not my cup of tea.

SVG wrote: »

It's a marketing term, really, more than a genre and it obviously sells books but it also alienates a lot of people (me included) with the fluffy, frivolous presentation.

Good point.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Emily Bronte is total chick lit.

I'm actually in pain reading that! I adore Wuthering Heights, one of my all time favourite reads. Emily Bronte on the same level as Amanda Brunker or Nicolas Sparks? I feel ill!

neveah

I don't like chick lit, would never buy one of those books but if I've been really stuck for something to read I've been known to pick one up (My mother loves these types of books so there are always plenty lying around)

The only one I really liked was 'Rachel's Holiday' by Marian Keyes, I read it years ago but I thought it was a great book, really funny and well written. I've picked up a couple more Marian Keyes books but never enjoyed them as much as 'Rachel's Holiday'.

I read the first couple of chapters of Cecelia Ahern's 'PS I Love you', I abandoned it, hated it. Watched the film at a friends house and I hated that as well, 2 hours of my life that I can't get back
Needless to say I wouldn't be bothered reading any of her other books.

Chick Lit is a big market, to each their own, better to read something than nothing at all, give me a good murder mystery any day though!:)

damselnat

I am not a big fan of "chick lit", as a book hungry teenager who would read literally anything I did nvade my mother's book collection, and it would not be my cup of tea either, for the trite formulaic stories, and I often found myself wondering how some of them ever got published, the quality of the writing was that poor. But like others have said, it's a shame it's all lumped together, as there are actually a few absolute gems out there...Bridget Jones anyone?

r3nu4l

Personally, as a guy, chick-lit is not something I read or would enjoy BUT if it gets people reading then I'm all for it. Reading is important and anything that encourages reading is great imo. Therefore if even 1% of chick-lit readers branch out and widen their reading preferences then that can only be a good thing.

Interesting to see that nobody has yet mentioned Melissa Hill here

She's a 'chick-lit' writer but interestingly she is currently writing a thriller with her husband for publication soon.

I'm looking forward to seeing how that works and how her writing differs between the two types of book.

Also regarding chick-lit as a genre, I see 'chick-lit' as a sub-genre of Romance novels such as those penned by Nora Roberts rather than as a genre of its own.

Linguo

I generally avoid chick lit or anything with a pretty girly cover like the plague but of course there are a few exceptions! I like meatier books in general though

Giselle

Lots of people are fans of chick-lit (or worse, misery-lit) who otherwise wouldn't pick up a book at all, so it serves a purpose.

What really irritates me is the blurb ''She had a fabulous wardrobe, a collection of designer shoes, the lastest fashionable car, but deep down she wasn't happy''

Because thats all it should take after all!

Would 'Lad-lit' offer similar teasers?

''He had a fabulous collection of hoodies, trainers to die for, and the mountain bike of his dreams, but deep down he felt something was missing?'' :rolleyes:

Posy

neveah wrote: »

The only one I really liked was 'Rachel's Holiday' by Marian Keyes, I read it years ago but I thought it was a great book, really funny and well written. I've picked up a couple more Marian Keyes books but never enjoyed them as much as 'Rachel's Holiday'.

I read the first couple of chapters of Cecelia Ahern's 'PS I Love you', I abandoned it, hated it.

Totally agree in regards to 'PS I Love You'. I haven't seen the film (because the trailers I witnessed were horrific enough!) but I read the book because I assumed it would be trashy chic-lit. As I had, literally, judged the book by it's cover I decided to give it a shot. Oh dear God, quite possibly the worst thing I've ever read. Total bullsh*t. "Dear Holly, now that I have passed away, you won't be able to fend for yourself or have any independent thoughts. Today I want you to get out of bed and look at a rainbow.. blah.. blah.." The horror. :eek:

I do not like the 'chic-lit' genre and Marian Keyes is the only 'chic lit' type author that I actually like. Her books deal with topics such as rape, suicide, domestic abuse, depression, miscarriage, grief etc.. They are well written, very sharp and extremely funny; almost a 'dark humour' at times. She mentioned once that a reviewer in the Irish Times described 'Rachel's Holiday' as "forgettable froth." It is a book about a woman who is in rehab after an overdose, dealing with her drug and alcohol addiction. So many people, even book reviewers, will happily dismiss a book without bothering to read it. :rolleyes:

I certainly do not like Cecilia Aherne's writing, but would try not to criticise an author's books without reading at least one of them. Reading 'PS I Love You' certainly falls into the 'hours of my life I will never get back' category but by giving 'Rachel's Holiday' a shot I discovered Marian Keyes and I have enjoyed many of her books.

Dades

Giselle wrote: »

Would 'Lad-lit' offer similar teasers?

''He had a fabulous collection of hoodies, trainers to die for, and the mountain bike of his dreams, but deep down he felt something was missing?'' :rolleyes:

Lad lit would be a lot shorter.

"He had a fabulous collection of hoodies, trainers to die for, and the mountain bike of his dreams, but deep down he felt something was missing... so he bought an iPhone, got drunk and scored some bird in Bucks.''

Ectoplasm

SVG wrote: »

I agree with you 100%!

It's not the gender of the authors, or even the genre (though I do really hate that term! chick-lit-argh!) but the marketing that is off-putting for me. I hate pink! I know I'm probably missing out on some good stuff but I do, despite my best intentions, judge a book by it's cover!

I just think it's a pity that a lot of women's writing is automatically classified, marketed and therefore dismissed as chick-lit, whereas male authors tend not to be as ghettoised and are put into the general fiction section which is where I tend to look for books. And that's how I've ended up reading too many stories about intellectual male writers suffering mid-life crises!:)

Agreed 100%.

Oh how I hate the term chick-lit and if I could find the marketeer who dreamt up the term I'd throw stuff at them. The major problem I have is that what you said about the automatic classification of womens writers under the term is pretty accurate. It's dismissive and cutesy and implies that the contents are fluff. That's just not the case with many, many novels that I know are classified as such.

I'm not into shopping and shoes novels myself but I have read some excellent books that would be in the 'chick lit' section of the bookshop. This may be why I tend to buy my books online at this point

I'm pretty indiscriminate in what I'll read in terms of genre and I've read some godawful books in my time - but they span all of the genres and I'd never dismiss a whole category of books because some of the books that fall into that category are formulaic rubbish.

_Godot_

EMF2010 wrote:

I'm pretty indiscriminate in what I'll read in terms of genre and I've read some godawful books in my time - but they span all of the genres and I'd never dismiss a whole category of books because some of the books that fall into that category are formulaic rubbish.

I'd like to point out that every genre has books that are formulaic rubbish.

I don't read chicklit though. I prefer fantasy fiction.

Ectoplasm

_Godot_ wrote: »

I'd like to point out that every genre has books that are formulaic rubbish.

I don't read chicklit though. I prefer fantasy fiction.

Er...that was kind of my point - that there are bad books in all genres.

I get preferences, and everyone has them. I just go through phases myself. Sometimes all I want to read is classics, then detective fiction, then fantasy fiction...it depends on my mood. I just think it's worth considering that when you say you hate a whole category or genre you may miss out on something by dismissing it wholesale.

I know people who would say they 'hate' science fiction but upon enquiry it turns out they've never really read any. I think that can be the case with books categorised as 'chick lit'.

I think there's a time and a place for it and it also depends on the author. If I have a long plane journey and am wrecked, I want something by Marian Keyes - light, entertaining and easy to get into. I'm not going to sit reading something like One Hundred Years of Solitude in that situation. I actually think some Marian Keyes novels are pretty damn good as well. Others are just pure rubbish - Cecila Ahern comes to mind. Wouldn't even bother with it.

E.T.

I'd put Marian Keyes at the top of the chick-lit pile. Most of the rest of the chick-lit books I've had the misfortune to read have been absolute rubbish, badly written and offensively cliched to say the least. I've ended up snorting laughing at Marian Keyes' books, they aren't heavy going but they're usually very enjoyable, which is exactly what you need sometimes!

metrovelvet

I dont know if I like it or not because I have prejudicial snobbery towards it. I like the Brontes though. Is that chick lit? I know it was considered supermarket trash back in the day..

mikhail

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont know if I like it or not because I have prejudicial snobbery towards it. I like the Brontes though. Is that chick lit? I know it was considered supermarket trash back in the day..

Codswallop. They were popular, yes, but so was Dickens. They weren't critical darlings, but they were assessed as literature.

Posy

So long as the covers of their books weren't pink with hearts and such on them, I don't think they would have been classed as 'chick-lit!'

Giselle

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont know if I like it or not because I have prejudicial snobbery towards it. I like the Brontes though. Is that chick lit? I know it was considered supermarket trash back in the day..

The Brontes aren't Chick lit, but Jane Austin definitely is.:)