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

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'.

IzzyWizzy

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.:)