I read an article yesterday about ChickLit, specifically the label of "ChickLit". The article is from Jezebel and is based on an article from The Guardian. I read the both and skimmed the comments. There seem to be two main reasons that people (mostly women) don't like ChickLit: the notion of frivolous reading (whether preceived or actual frivolosity) and the term "ChickLit". I'm going to address the second part first.
ChickLit, the term. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term. I think it is a fun word to say, shorter than "Light trashy fun book" and has a nice ring to it. Many women have an issue with the word "chick" as it supposedly implies a flighty, stupid woman? Maybe? I'm really not sure. I'm young enough that chick always sounded fun and 70s to me. I refer to myself as a chick sometimes...specifically an awesome, badass chick. I'm not sure what else you would call a genre of books geared more toward women...FemLit, WomanLit, BitchLit...which incidently, I kinda love. I shall start a new trend of books called BitchLit. It will be for awesomely powerful and cool bitches like myself. Anyway...I also read something about how "Lit" is a deragatory term of sorts because the books aren't good enough to be "literature" so instead they are "lit". However, I think that is a rather weak argument, as lit is just an abbreviation for literature. If you go to Borders, you find Meg Cabot, Hester Browne, and Helen Felding in the "Literature" section, so whatever.
The other issue people seem to have with ChickLit is the "light", "frivolous", "frothy", "fun" nature/perception of it. I know when I see words like "light" and "fun" I ofter associate them with crap! Oh wait...no. I associate them with things that are light and fun. As most of my reading is. I mean, "frothy"! That makes me think of a delicious hot chocolate in the middle of winter, which is about the best thing ever. Why wouldn't I want to read a book just like that. Mmmmm...frothy book! So tasty. So light. So fun. Why do all books have to be serious or thought provoking. What is wrong with something that is entertaining, has a happy ending, has some silly things that happen? Let's take Hester Browne's Little Lady Agency books. The main character, Melissa, runs an agency that provides dates, party planning, girlfriend breakups, presents for mothers...anything the socially inept guy in England might want. Sure, it is silly and Melissa is girly and likes to shop, etc. And...I like to shop sometimes and I enjoy silly things. I guess I just don't see what is so wrong with a genre of books that caters to that.
Can someone explain to me what is bad about a genre of books that is written primarily by women geared primarily toward women? Yeah, mostly the books involve some sort of "get a man" plot line and shopping and shoes and fun clothes. That is not necessarily my goal in life, but neither is solving murder mysteries, yet no one complains about mysteries being stupid (or maybe they do and I conveniently ignore it). So ChickLit is mostly for women; there are lots of authors that write geared more toward guys. I shall borrow a term I've heard somewhere and call it DudeLit. Things that are actiony, thrillers, and have violence. More geared toward men. Mostly written from a male perspective with a male main character. I like DudeLit too. I have lots of Stephen King, Robert Ludlum, and Michael Crichton on my bookshelves...right next to Meg Cabot, Hester Browne, and Helen Felding...right next to Lillian Jackson Browne, Joanne Fluke, Louise Rennison, Phillip Pullman, Douglas Adams, and Nancy Martin. They are in many different genres and I like them all for various reasons. None of them are better than others, no matter what genre they are in: ChickLit, DudeLit, Mysteries, Teen, etc.
Anyway, now I have to go finish my Cat Who book I'm reading so I can start reading a Blackbird Sister book, which incidentially I would classify as ChickLitMystery...Mmmmm...murder mystery combined with sweet clothes and hot guys.
No comments:
Post a Comment