SB Day -- Chick Lit
Jan. 30th, 2006 02:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmc_bksTo begin, let me first acknowledge that I do read and enjoy books that are purported to be chick lit.
So why bitch about it? Well, my first gripe is the name "chick lit." It seems vaguely derrogatory to me, in the same way that "chick flick" is. Guys use that to classify a group of films that they think are sort of beneath them, and I kinda feel like that's the same thing tha publishers, reviewers and readers are doing to those of us who read these trade paper back sized books about young, urban women. Wouldn't the phrases "dick lit" and "dick flick" be considered a little offensive? But not the feminine alternative? Why not? Is this another case of taking a slur (of sorts) and subverting it, refusing to accept offense? Or am I reading too much into it, and calling a someone a "chick" isn't offensive to most women?
My next gripe: I think the writers and publishers of much of the recent chick lit are writing down to us as readers, dumbing us down. We (and they) are capable of putting better stuff in chick lit books, but they keep sticking to the tried and true, which has fans but also a lot of antifans. A lot of recent chick lit seems to be about shallow 20-30 somethings who live in the city (any city, but often NYC or London, depending on author/publisher), are clothing and shoe obsessed, and are underemployed, marking time in a deadend job with an abusive boss. [Devil Wears Prada, anyone?] Two books that I read recently that are chick lit with suspense were very good...but even those heroines were fashion-obsessed [The Givenchy Code and The Manolo Matrix]. When did owning a pair of $475 thongs become the symbol for coolness? There has got to be a better way of demonstrating youth, vitality, hipness, whatever you want to call it, without making clothing and shoes the main characteristic of a heroine. And why stick the supposedly smart heroines in a deadend job? Yes, we all pay dues with sucky jobs when we are young, but how many assistant editors at It magazine can there be? How many PR/ad goffers who aspire to the leadership position of the marketing group? How many people truly graduate with degrees in the liberal arts w/o recognizing that they need a plan for future employment that relies on more than their good looks or their parents' bank account? Seriously. I don't have to agree with everything that the heroine does or says, but I have to at least think she's got a plan (or is trying to get one together) and is not being TSTL...and buying shoes instead of paying your rent or staying in a job where your ideas are stolen and you are harassed count as TSTL to me.
I've read that the mother of chick lit is Bridget Jones' Diary. Or maybe Sex in the City. Haven't read either of them, although I've caught SitC reruns on TBS. The first chick lit book I ever knowingly read was Rita Ciresi's Pink Slip, which was set in NY in 1985. Ciresi managed to show the life and growth of a young urbanite, dealing with her family, her job, and a work romance, all without there being any significant amount of time spent on clothes or shoes. There were much bigger issues to address, like AIDS, death in her family, taking a step back from the brink of the mess she was about to become on several levels. If Ciresi could do that, why can't other writers? [Note: While I loved PS, I would not recommend the follow up, published 5 or 6 years later, but set in 10+ years later, Tell Me Again Why I Married You. It's WF, and not so uplifting WF at that.]
So, chick lit books that I've enjoyed:
Mean Season
If Andy Warhol Had A Girlfriend
Pushing 30
Imaginary Men
32AA
Speechless
Starting Over at Square Two
The Givenchy Code
The Manolo Matrix
...these last two despite their use of the fashionista as heroine.
Do you have any recommendations for me?
So why bitch about it? Well, my first gripe is the name "chick lit." It seems vaguely derrogatory to me, in the same way that "chick flick" is. Guys use that to classify a group of films that they think are sort of beneath them, and I kinda feel like that's the same thing tha publishers, reviewers and readers are doing to those of us who read these trade paper back sized books about young, urban women. Wouldn't the phrases "dick lit" and "dick flick" be considered a little offensive? But not the feminine alternative? Why not? Is this another case of taking a slur (of sorts) and subverting it, refusing to accept offense? Or am I reading too much into it, and calling a someone a "chick" isn't offensive to most women?
My next gripe: I think the writers and publishers of much of the recent chick lit are writing down to us as readers, dumbing us down. We (and they) are capable of putting better stuff in chick lit books, but they keep sticking to the tried and true, which has fans but also a lot of antifans. A lot of recent chick lit seems to be about shallow 20-30 somethings who live in the city (any city, but often NYC or London, depending on author/publisher), are clothing and shoe obsessed, and are underemployed, marking time in a deadend job with an abusive boss. [Devil Wears Prada, anyone?] Two books that I read recently that are chick lit with suspense were very good...but even those heroines were fashion-obsessed [The Givenchy Code and The Manolo Matrix]. When did owning a pair of $475 thongs become the symbol for coolness? There has got to be a better way of demonstrating youth, vitality, hipness, whatever you want to call it, without making clothing and shoes the main characteristic of a heroine. And why stick the supposedly smart heroines in a deadend job? Yes, we all pay dues with sucky jobs when we are young, but how many assistant editors at It magazine can there be? How many PR/ad goffers who aspire to the leadership position of the marketing group? How many people truly graduate with degrees in the liberal arts w/o recognizing that they need a plan for future employment that relies on more than their good looks or their parents' bank account? Seriously. I don't have to agree with everything that the heroine does or says, but I have to at least think she's got a plan (or is trying to get one together) and is not being TSTL...and buying shoes instead of paying your rent or staying in a job where your ideas are stolen and you are harassed count as TSTL to me.
I've read that the mother of chick lit is Bridget Jones' Diary. Or maybe Sex in the City. Haven't read either of them, although I've caught SitC reruns on TBS. The first chick lit book I ever knowingly read was Rita Ciresi's Pink Slip, which was set in NY in 1985. Ciresi managed to show the life and growth of a young urbanite, dealing with her family, her job, and a work romance, all without there being any significant amount of time spent on clothes or shoes. There were much bigger issues to address, like AIDS, death in her family, taking a step back from the brink of the mess she was about to become on several levels. If Ciresi could do that, why can't other writers? [Note: While I loved PS, I would not recommend the follow up, published 5 or 6 years later, but set in 10+ years later, Tell Me Again Why I Married You. It's WF, and not so uplifting WF at that.]
So, chick lit books that I've enjoyed:
Mean Season
If Andy Warhol Had A Girlfriend
Pushing 30
Imaginary Men
32AA
Speechless
Starting Over at Square Two
The Givenchy Code
The Manolo Matrix
...these last two despite their use of the fashionista as heroine.
Do you have any recommendations for me?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-30 09:18 pm (UTC)Jen
Thanks
Date: 2006-01-31 12:34 pm (UTC)jmc
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:11 am (UTC)I hope you'll do a follow up entry or two about the books you bought the other day.
I'll post about those books...
Date: 2006-01-31 01:03 pm (UTC)As far as the books in this post, I don't think any of them had a huge amount of publicity when they were released. I found most of them through the MB at AAR or from reviews found on reader blogs.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:40 am (UTC)I wish I had kept track of the books I read past last year. I know I've read more chick lit that I've enjoyed but the memory, she is gone.
~Jay, who is probably more forgiving of the fashionista type chick lit
Thanks...
Date: 2006-01-31 12:57 pm (UTC)jmc
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 05:24 am (UTC)Oh wait, and I loved Robyn Sisman's JUST FRIENDS! And, LOL, as I was Googling to find the author's name, I saw this excerpt of the Google search results page:
<<<<<<<<<<<<
just friends - robyn sisman. Fluffy fluff fluff fluff. Sex and the City meets Bridget Jones. But funny, and a fast read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess fluffy and funny are my requirements for chick lit. :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 05:27 am (UTC)P.Devi (http://pdevi.blogspot.com)
Just Friends -- I think
Date: 2006-01-31 12:56 pm (UTC)Re: Just Friends -- I think
Date: 2006-02-01 12:59 am (UTC)P.
Re: SB Day -- Chick Lit
Date: 2006-01-31 06:24 pm (UTC)