'....would be filed under "Chick Lit" because they are character driven and explore the emotional rather than intellectual aspects of things.'

So does Jane Eyre; so does Wuthering Heights; so does A Midsummer Night's Dream; So does Tess of the d'Urbevilles....'etc

Playing Devil's Advocate, Phaedosia, that's all. Let's think about it.

Dido

Dido--it would make me cringe to place any of those titles under the heading of 'Chick Lit.' But, in the article I referenced Jane Smiley mentions that some really great things are being pawned off as 'Chick Lit' because 'the payoff is emotional rather than intellectual.'

I also read an article along these lines (link below) where Jennifer Weiner comments that Jonathan Tropper and Nick Hornby are covering similar themes in their writing, but (most likely) because they are male, they don't have to choose between commercial and critical success. Again, if they were female authors, would their books be relegated to commercial 'Chick Lit' and be passed over by traditional review sources?

Plus, you have to wonder how poor Jane and Catherine would fare in today's publishing scene. Already, they've started reissuing the classics with very 'Twilightized' covers (Austen Meets Twilight). Do you think theyÂd get a fair review from a source like the New York Times? Or do you think their agents/publishers would slap a Twilight-y cover on them and label them as YA or Chick Lit or Romance and hope to turn a profit?

Here is a link that might be useful: Jennifer Weiner Quote

I'm sure "chick lit" means different things to different people. To me, it means a light, fluffy, fun novel about things such as shopping and boyfriends;-). I, personally, would not consider anything by Jane Austen chick lit...to me, it's a bit deeper than that. I wouldn't even classify Jodi Picoult, Anne Tyler, or any of that crowd chick lit; I've heard them referred to as "women's fiction", and (again, this is just IMO) I consider that different from chick lit. When I think of chick lit I'm thinking of Jennifer Crusie and Sophie Kinsella (isn't she the Shopoholics author?) and books of that ilk. Books you can breeze through in a day or two and don't require much thought process, and don't have anything "deep" or upsetting in them.

Let's clear up one thing:

Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights were NOT written by Jane Austen:

The first was written by CHARLOTTE BRONTE and the second by EMILY BRONTE, bless their hearts. So how did Jane Austen get into this discussion? I know she wrote nearly everything (according to the media - films and TV) but in fact she didn't.

And I already know one (male) teacher who dislikes the Bronte sisters' writing and actually does consider it to be 'chicklit'.

Incidentally, I recently saw, on the blurb of a 50s classic reprint that the novel was a forerunner of today's 'Ladlit' novels. So there is a male equivalent.

Dido

With regard to Lad Lit: I have also heard of "Hen Lit" which are books for middle-aged (so they say) women...

Nick Hornby is a good Lad Lit guy. Would you put David Nicholls in there? I am thinking his books appeal to both genders...

Dido, I know. Sorry, if I sounded confused. When I was talking about "Jane" and "Catherine" I meant the Bronte characters, not authors. The Twilightized covers link included "Pride and Prejudice" as one of the cover they've updated with this gothic black/red rose cover (bleh) so that's why the link was called "Austen Meets Twilight."

Please know, these aren't my opinions. I don't think Bronte and Austen are "Chick Lit." I was just surprised that some contemporary female authors think their books are being passed over by reviewers because they are too commercial when they are covering themes that are found in books by men which are being reviewed by traditional review sources. Then, after your comments about the Bronte sisters, etc. it got me wondering what kind of "critical" reception they would have enjoyed were they published today. I'm hoping they would still be receive the accolades they deserve, but it seems the publishing industry isn't what it was. Do you think that these classic manuscripts, if written today, would have gotten reviewed in something like the New York Times? Or like I mentioned earlier, would they be given a "Twilight-ized" cover and sent straight to the shelves with some ridiculous genre label?

I should really check before I say this, but wasn't Jane Austen received somewhat dismissively during her own time? I know she published at least some of her work anonymously, and I seem to remember she was not taken very seriously at least partly because she was "A Lady." I think the literary distinction came much later, after her death. A nephew stubbornly promoted her work, and this lead to her fame today. (I could be wrong, need to check but I have an appointment.) So even Austen was dissed as writing "chick lit."

Phaedosia: I read the link and it made me wonder just how we readers choose our books. I have occasionally requested a book from the library which has been favourably mentioned in a magazine or newspaper but have mostly been disappointed. I get suggestions from the sykm website newsletter and pick up interesting books displayed on the "New Books" library shelf or in a book shop window.
I have read Jennifer Cruisie, her books are amusing and I do like humour with my murder mysteries!
Chic-lit is all about fun for me and I indulge in a light-hearted book now and again. Why not?

Are lowly males allowed to comment on this thread?

I agree with Kren250's comment about the shifting definition of "chicklit". For myself, no book falls into this category merely because it is by a female author, or mainly concerned with the experiences of a female main character.

My own sense of "chick lit" is that it is a type of commercial fiction, mostly concerning the lighter themes of casual sex and name-dropping consumerism. The heroines are usually young, white, urban dwellers whose financial means allow them enough leisure time to be "fabulous", usually in the company of other women exactly like themselves. I'm sure these books are harmless fun.

Ironically, I suspect that Franzen's critical praise has a lot to do with having an exceptional literary agent and publicists. So really his success is really just another variation of the commercial base of contemporary fiction, high-brow, middle-brow, or low.

Austen and Bronte, in contrast, have stood the test of time, consistently appealing to readers of all kinds. Critical cliques come and go, but a good book is a good book.

The idea that male white writers are overpraised based on their race and gender, strikes me as peculiar as the majority of contemporary fiction readers are women. Most male fiction writers can only dream of earning as much money as Jodi Picoult.

Most readers are unaware that Douglas Coupland, a successful, white, male writer is also openly-gay. Why? Because this aspect of identity would negatively affect sales.

I think it is a great pity that fiction has to be categorised like this. There are obvious genres that attract specific readers, and are fairly easily sorted, like crime and science fiction (although at work we do have problems with thrillers, some being in crime and some in general fiction). But who sorts literature from general fiction, chick lit from contemporary fiction?
Tim, I think your definition of chick lit is fine, but a lot of people consider it to be any book with mainly female protagonists and not weighty writing. Consider Marion Keyes. Her books follow a family of five sisters, each of whom has particular personal problems, and one book is centred on a drug addicted woman in rehabilitation. Many consider these chick lit, but the women in them are not rich and fabulous, with nothing much to do with their time but shop.
Certainly Jodi Picoult is not a writer of chick lit, although her books all have women as the main protagonists. I personally think in many cases she has become bogged down in making her books about 'issues', to the detriment of the story.
I think this categorisation is a pity because I think many people are put off reading a particular book because it is not from a category they generally like to read, and may be missing out on something they would enjoy.

Astrokath, I agree with your observations. I personally feel that "chicklit" is a category created by marketers interested in selling "units" (as books are described by the major publishing firms).

(Just got back from a week away which is why I 'disappeared') Let us not forget that, when the Brontes published their novels, it was as 'Ellis, Acton and Currer Bell' ie, as 3 brothers. And when Charlotte and Anne went up to London (from a blizzard-stricken Haworth - I know it well) to meet their publishers, the men couldn't believe, at first, that these novels had been written by women. But their judgement had already been given so they couldn't now dismiss them and their works. Wuthering Heights, in particular, they found difficult to believe as having a female author.

If you like character drive stories about intelligent women, I recommend a new novel called "Primal Whispers." Its about a woman who trades a successful Hollywood career for marriage, then realizes she is too late to pursue her dream of motherhood. Her longing for children and lingering guilt over selfish choices of her past are inflamed when three people disrupt her life with secrets that shake her very core. One is a childhood playmate she hasnâÂÂt heard from in twenty years. Another is her former lover, and third is a college student with whom the woman forms a special bond.
Emotional entanglements transport the characters from the Colorado Mountains into the volatile demands of Hollywood, to San Francisco, and the Napa Valley. It is a very enjoyable read.

Here is a link that might be useful: Amazon Books

Lily, looks like you are a new member? If I may give a friendly word of warning, it is not necessary to give such a lot of detail when recommending books or you could be suspected of being (Yuk!)a professional book-plugger :-)
Welcome!

What about Nic Sparks? I've read a couple of his books but feel no urgency to read another. Also, all those beach books by various authors from the southern coast leave me cold. These are best sellers so I must be missing something.

". . . most readers unaware . . . Douglas Copeland . . . openly-gay . . . would negatively affect his book sales" Really ! ? ? ?

How about the enormously successful GAY author, David Sedaris ? ? ? In his (non-fict.) books he speaks very openly about his gay-ness. And believe me, a LOT of heteros. buy his books! I don't know why anyone would be unpopular in the general book market just because they're gay. So why would an author try to play it down, since there are gay authors whose works sell like hot cakes ? ?

Humorists are allowed to be gay as their books are not part of the serious literary establishment. If sexual orientation is irrelevant, why do so many gay and lesbian writers remain in the closet? Two examples come to mind: Bret Easton Ellis and Alice Walker. As far as I know, neither have addressed the rumors about their sexual orientation. It took a messy court case to force Patricia Cornwell out the closet. Most gay and lesbian writers with large heterosexual readership are writers of non-fiction (Augusten Burroughs, Sedaris, even Suze Orman). Successful fiction writers who are openly gay or lesbian are rare.

There are numerous example of gay or lesbian writers who have been told to stay in the closet by their agents, or have had gay material removed by their editors. For example, Andrew Solomon's book on depression, The Noon Day Demon contained a whole chapter on the relationship on depression in the LGBT community. This chapter was removed because of its "limited appeal".

My point is that publishing is a business, one dependent on literary agents and editors whose bottom line is to make a profit. My opinion is that "Chick Lit" is a category created by marketers to sell their wares as efficiently as possible to particular subset of the reading public. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this process. But that doesn't mean that it isn't artificial.

Hi Timallan -

Sorry, I didn't know you were ONLY referring to fiction writers. (Also, I noticed I spelled his name wrong -- it's Coupland, not Copeland.)

I never had contact w/the publishing industry except a couple of office temping assignments; so I wasn't privy to any of their deep, dark secrets ! Your post just above has opened my eyes. There's so much openness about sexual identity now adays, that I took it for granted that there wasn't any prejudice by publishers re gay novelists (as long as they're good writers, of course!). But, saying that, I just remembered --- what about the popularity of Alan Hollinghurst, the British novelist? He writes wonderful, serious novels about gay men, gets very good reviews from top critics. Even though not gay myself, I like his books. "The Line of Beauty" was the first one I read, and have read another one since. Both good, and definitely NOT funny.

Re "chick-lit." -- I agree w/one of the posters way above in this thread ... to me it's light, frothy stories about -- usually -- young women looking for love and designer clothes! Some of these writers are more deep -- at times -- and, also, may feature one or two "older women" besides the young ones. Cathy Kelly is one of the few of these genre that I've really liked. Her stories are exciting, with depth of thought and feeling -- she makes me care what happens to the characters. To me that's the sign of a good writer, whether of the "Literary" or "Chick-lit." genre.

Hi Lauramarie,

I have not read Cathy Kelly, though it sounds like you enjoy her writing. A good book is a good book, regardless of what category the publishing industry assigns to it. I admit to being a crank when it comes to the publishing business.

My sister left a book club because every title chosen was exactly like your description of "Chick Lit": frothy, fun, materialistic, but ultimately shallow.

The openness about sexual orientation, or lack thereof, will probably change how the publishing industry deals with LGBT writers. The commercial success of Sarah Waters, for example, is an interesting example of a commercially-successful "crossover" writer. Maybe one day things like that won't matter.

I have not read The Line of Beauty, though I really enjoyed. Hollinghurst's The Swimming Pool Library.

Hi Timallan -

Glad we finally seemed to reach a meeting of minds on these topics !

BTW - I read Sarah Waters' "The Fingersmith" ,,,, thrilling suspense-mystery kind of book. When I reached a point in the story I did wonder what the author's sexual orientation was. But that was only curiosity .... really enjoyed that book!