Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

Dear god, I think I love you both.

I agree one hundred percent, and have often remarked on my own blog how much I dislike chick-lit. I have a friend who loves it, and when closely questioned, called it pretty much a “bubble gum/cotton candy"-type read. I was musing over that when I realized that chick lit is what she reads when ROMANCE gets too heavy for her!

You are so right about the shallow petty heroines with little to no problems. As someone with more than enough junk in the trunk, reading about a designer obsessed, credit card debt having, borderline anorexic who constantly has 10 pounds to lose is not entertainment.

I am so frustrated by the huge amount of people reading these books (I have to rein in my inner dictator). I want to grab them by the hand in the bookstore and lead them to Romancelandia, the home of spunky heroines and good plots.

Which leads me to my number one peeve about chick lit. No plots whatsoever. Of course they are cotton candy books—nothing ever happens in them until the great and magical deus ex machina shows up to reward the dumbass for skipping blithely through life!

Yes! Oh, that is exactly it - the deus ex machina shows up to reward them for their shallow, insipid behavior.

And to think, romance novels are put down as ‘not worth reading’ but this drivel is encouraged and has the added allure of celebrity attached to the author and the book. Growl.

Hot donkeys, Sarah, you basically hit on alllll the other points that annoy me about (certain types of) chick-lit other than my rather incoherent “I don’t like chick-lit heroines because they remind me of my brother, wah!” ramble.

Stop making me look bad, dammit!

Nah, you hit it smack in the middle - the throwing the cell phone thing in the street? SUCH a Chick Lit Heroine thing to do! It’s like a new heroine category - “TSTL,” “inappropriately stubborn only to get the story going,” and “throws cell phone in the street.”

I don’t really read it. I wouldn’t know a Manolo Blahnik from Emmanuel Lewis, and I don’t particularly care. I prefer Kinsey Milhone myself. Owns one dress, Cuts her hair with nail scissors, and kicks butt on a regular basis.

What’s the basic definition of chick lit, anyway?

What is Chick Lit?

Candy and Sarah,

You have both said it brilliantly, and I am soooooo with you on this whole “What the fuck is with these brand-name shoe-obsessed dumbshits?”

Why should we as readers care about the fates of shallow bimbos who have known no real suffering, and supposedly have very little money but act irresponsibly as though they have a replicator genie in a bottle tucked in that designer Prada purse that they have bought with their rent money?

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for yet another great rant.  I wondered if I were alone in just not *getting* Chick Lit, but this is a relief.

Thank you, Candy. Nope, not my kind of thing.  Better you throw the cell phone at the heroine.

Though I did kinda like Bridget Jones’ Diary.

About the shoes thing. I work in Manhattan. Doesn’t get more shoe-obsessed than that, particularly since I’m on the upper east side. And me? I wear Danskos, which are like nurse clogs with backs, and very round and, well, lesbian-chic, if you ask the arbiters of such chic. I’m comfy. My feet are all about comfy. I couldn’t wear Manolos or Choos during the day if you paid me. There’s no way on earth.

I’ve read about 4 Chick Lit titles because it doesn’t grab me when I’m browsing. I’ve read a couple of Katie Fforde’s books and liked them, but at the same time I found myself wishing the heroine wasn’t quite so bitchy to the hero for no discernable reason. (I don’t mind bitchiness, I just like it to have a purpose.)

The only other book in that genre I’ve read is Coffee and Kung Fu, which I read because a heroine who liked Jackie Chan interested me. Also, she wasn’t interested in everything brand name. I found this a good read, but I don’t think the few examples I’ve read are typical of the genre. And I haven’t been grabbed enough by anything else to read more.

OK, like everything else, I feel compelled now to give chick lit a fair chance and actually read few of the creme de la creme. Anyone have any recommendations? Some notes:

- I dislike Sex and the City (the TV show, not the book--never read the book). Ohhh, the dumb bitchery that permeates that show.

- I didn’t like The Nanny Diaries--I thought it could’ve been done sooo much better because the premise was pretty awesome but the writing and the treatment of the subject matter just turned out to be a big old “meh.”

- As noted in my rant, I couldn’t even last 10 pages into Bridget Jones.

- I still plan to give Exes and Ohs a fair chance. I will pretend the cellphone thing didn’t happen, or at least acknowledge that my peeve is disproportionate to the stupidity ;-) .

LOL about the shoes. I wear flip-flops and slides to work and have my “Editrix” shoes (hence the pen name) which I bust out for conferences. They are pointy as hell but still have a low (2 inch or less) heel and are most often backless slides. That way I can look fancy but still slide the dang things on like slippers.

Also, one more thing about the chick-lit thing here—I think it is important to note that most of our criticisms have to do with the plot and story conventions surrounding the genre. As you said Candy, you enjoyed the chick-lit voice in Undead and Unwed, and there are a few other romance authors who employ the voice successfully (and not so successfully). A kicky first person story about a young woman just starting out in her career is what the author makes it. Unfortunately, the conventions of chick lit often cause the author to add in other annoying things like extremem shallowness and an obsession with very expensive high heels…

Candy -

Try TIME OFF FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR by Lani Diane Rich. Nothing “bubblegum” about that one, believe me--first person, snarky POV, but very edgy, with gritty, real-life problems, plus a believable romance.

Also, ELEGANCE by Kathleen Tessaro--a Brit heroine who’s nothing at all like Bridget.

Finally, anything by Alesia Holliday--I love her voice, though her work tends to be lighter than the two aforementioned books.

E.D’T the conventions of chick lit - that is exactly my problem with the genre.

And I hear you about slides - I just cannot wear them running for a train, and I can’t get my brain around getting dressed in the morning without leaving myself a breadcrumb trail the night before. Having train shoes and work shoes is just beyond my brain. However, pointy slides? With heels? Kick ASS.

Candy et al.,
You might try MY LURID PAST by Lauren Henderson.  (And if you like that at all, try her “Tart Noir” books FREEZE MY MARGARITA, BLACK RUBBER DRESS, CHAINED!, and more.  They’re amazing.)

I have not read a single “chick-lit” book other than this one, so I don’t really know what the deal is, but this one is pretty solid.  And the career is important.  And I don’t THINK the heroine regards herself as “overweight” though it’s been a long time since I read it.

Apparently, young adult fiction now also has a big chick-lit category (Chiclet Chick-lit?) including series like THE GOSSIP GIRLS.  I’m pretty sure these focus on conspicuous consumption, but again, I haven’t yet read them. 

Great rant.  Great site.  I don’t read romances, but I surely do read your blog every day or two.  As a former art historian, I must say I adore your “Lindsey covers” series of, er, formal analyses.  :P

OK, I just checked out Amazon.com page for the Alesia Holliday books, and the premises sound like a lot of fun. A wacky behind-the-scenes look at an American Idol wannabe program? Yeah! That’s going on my Hold list at the library. Also, her latest, Nice Girls Finish First sounds like it might be really, really good comedy if executed just right: a ball-busting bitch of an executive must find somebody to tell her she’s nice or she loses her job.

But that doesn’t come out until July, which is probably a good thing, because God knows I have my reading slate full up until, ohhhh, 2038.

After a great review from Nicole about THE GIVENCHY CODE I’m going to give that a Chick-Lit try (the heroine is quite smart, apparently). I haven’t read many, but I have liked those that I’ve read. I liked BRIDGET JONES (but haven’t read the sequel) which was my first.

RE: Sex and the City—I liked the first couple of episodes (I didn’t see them until they started airing on TBS...Very Funny :roll: ) but then the puns and Carrie got on my nerves. I ended up watching the last episode just because I read on TWoP that she got slapped, and my bloodthirsty little self really wanted to see that, but then I was disappointed when she only got a tiny little unintentional smack. Sigh.

So I guess the Chick Lits I’ve read (all, like, three of them, not counting the U&U books) haven’t been that cringe-inducing.

The Givenchy Code is chick-lit?? Sounded more like high-tech romantic suspense to me, hee hee.

Which reminds me: gotta check and see if the library has THAT book....

Oh my God, I want to read it just for the absolutely hysterical title alone.

That’s my other minor beef with chick lit. The titles are often better than the content.

*g* I just went by the genre coding in the review—I think they called it “Chick Lit romantic suspense”. Now that’s my kinda book. Everything but vampires. 

Those damn blurry genre lines! *shakes fist*

“I just went by the genre coding in the review (...)”

You pay attention to those? Shit, about the time I don’t even remember to set the genre correctly for my OWN reviews, heh heh heh.

Wait, there’s a genre code? I thought we were just supposed to figure it out ourselves! Darn.

I pay attention so that I can avoid contemporary romantic comedy :D

*sigh* I’m getting *really* tired of defending chick lit. *waving a white flag* I give up.  The way I see it - if the romance side keeps bashing the chick lit side on the basis of a couple of books, then I may as well as to let chick lit side to bash the romance side on the basis of a couple of books, too.

Maili: Don’t wave a white flag! Give me some recommendations! (Ones that don’t involve the genre conventions that give me hives.)

And come now--I’ve been MUCH harder on secret baby books than I have been on chick lit.

Ditto. I spoke specifically of the books I had read, and I would really like recommendations - don’t wave the white flag!

This one brought me out of lurkdom!

Here are a handful of titles which, in my opinion, span the genre and are not shallow or insipid:

Rachel’s Holiday, by Marian Keyes

Getting Over It, by Anna Maxted

Good Grief, by Lolly Winston

The Next Big Thing, by Johanna Edwards

A Clean Slate, by Laura Caldwell

I Don’t Know How She Does It, Alison Pearson

As Rian said on the Chicklitbooks site, Chick Lit is about character study.  I find it fascinating.  Of course, I’m biased-- I write it myself!

Erm, I wrote that review of The Givenchy Code.  It’s got a slight chick lit feel, but it was fast-paced and fun.  Of course, now if y’all hate it I’m going to feel bad.  Though there’s a scene at the end where I swear a romance heroine would’ve just waited for the hero to rescue her and I was thrilled at seeing her take action right away.

I liked Exes and Ohs.  And honestly, I have a friend who ruined a cell phone rather similarly to that scene.  I think it involved a boyfriend too. 

Now...I need to go iron, so I’m not going to say anything more right now.

But I DO like chick lit.  I just also realize it’s NOT romance.

Though TGC does have a HEA. 

And it’s Downtown Press, which is a chick lit line, so that’s one reason for calling it chick lit.

I don’t have such particularly passionate feelings about chick lit- on either side of the issue, although I do tend to avoid chick lit because I enjoy romance more and there are so many books out there to spend my time on. That said, if I was going to have to come down on one side of the issue, I’d lean towards dislike or avoidment for the reasons that Sarah stated with a dose of Candy thrown in ;)

And what’s funny is that I just received three books in the “novel with romantic elements” category to judge for an RWA chapter. Chick lits each and every one.

I’m going to make note of the recommendations being given and pick up a few myself. Are these going on the recommendation pages y’all are making?

Hey Nicole, thanks for speaking up--I was actually waiting for you to pipe up because I know you like chick lit and I was hoping you’d give us your perspective. Confession time: I picked up Exes and Ohs because of your review, hee! And now I’m going to check out The Givenchy Code because of your review, too.

And I fully realize chick lit isn’t romance--in fact, I’d be perfectly happy reading chick lit that didn’t have a love story at all. The problems I have with the chick lit I’ve checked out have to do with certain trends, like the conspicuous consumption thing, and the heroines doing dumb things--which, to be fair, would also peeve me in romance novels.

And hey, if somebody were unfortunate enough to have their introduction to romance be a series of secret baby books and they were “WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH THESE GODDAMN ROMANCES?” I’d comisserate with them, then point out loads of books that don’t contain that particular plot device. So like I said in my disclaimer, feel free to let me know when I’m talking out of my ass, and DEFINITELY recommend some books to me.

As usual, I’m a day late & a dollar short to this conversation. I’ve not read any chick lit since Jemima J & Good in Bed came out.
‘Cuz, well, I’ve 2 teenagers & don’t relate to women who wear Prada & Manolos & whine about their manicure. Frankly, I don’t want to read about whiny young women who need to shut the hell up & get a life.

However, I checked the link above & noted the reccs. here & am willing to give it a try. Can anyone recc. good British chick lit? ?

Here’s another question about chick lit? How come it has to be published in those oversize and MORE EXPENSIVE formats. Why can’t they be more comfortable? Both to hold and on my credit card.

I think I mentioned in my blog about the chick lit elements that are in the book, like buying designer clothing, etc.  I think what I liked most was them solving the clues and working together.  And well, it was original in the whole online game into reality thing.  Unless there are some other books out there outside SF that I don’t know about.  Basically, I need someone else to read the book.  *g*

Well, I’ve got a stack of chick lit to go through in the next month.  I’m sure some will be duds, some so-so, and some fantastic.  :-) Just like any other genre.

reading the definiton of chicklit that Candy posted, I wonder if the reason I didn’t like Linda Howard’s “To Die For” is because it has a chick-lit feel to it.

to me, it seems that chick-lit is an extension of the coming of age story (with different conventions, of course), which is another genre that I have short patience for.

Since I’m the friend E.D’Trix referred to (Or at least I THINK I am!), I wanted to respond.

Yes, I find the majority of chick-lit to be a cotton candy type read, but I feel it has a place in fiction. For me, it is a progression from Jackie Collins novels and many of the category lines. Much chick-lit is enjoyable but forgettable, and it serves a great purpose for me. I can totally relax while reading it. I can read it when my mind needs a break. Hmm, that probably tells you everything you need to know about the genre.

Until recently, I had never edited chick-lit and somehow, my internal editor was silenced when reading it. It is so hard to purely read when those voices are yammering about pacing and characterization, etc. I just go with it and don’t analyze. We’ll have to see if this changes now that I’ve edited my first chick-lit.

Very strange because I cannot stand some sorts of chick-lit romance. One book in particular comes to mind--The Royal Treatment by Mary Janice Davidson. I didn’t comprehend the point of that book and I loathed the hero and heroine!

“I think I mentioned in my blog about the chick lit elements that are in the book, like buying designer clothing, etc.”

Man, I breezed RIGHT BY that reference, though I see it after re-reading your blog entry, Nicole. Mostly my inner geek was all swoony at the thought of romantic suspense based on an MMORPG with a math geek/coder heroine, and that’s what I latched onto. Straight romance, chick lit, WHO CARES, romantic suspense with MMORPG elements, gimme gimme gimme.....

I don’t get Chick Lit either and I’ve had a few bad introductions to them. It’s unfortunate yes, that I’ve associated any book that is considered Chick Lit as representing, socially inept but career driven women who are dateless or often dating the wrong men and who are often having to find a man to bring home with them to meet their dreaded mother who almost always tries to set them up or harp on them about their biological clock. And the shopping thing, the girl-buddy-buddy stuff, the designer clothing stuff --not my bag. Sorry Maili (who I know has defended this genre quite splendidly and at some point in my life, I’ll give it another chance.)

Amanda—for good British chick lit you might give “Cause Celeb” a try.  It’s by Helen Fielding of “Bridget Jones” fame, but it was written before Bridget.  Also, for the women who get irked by the conspicuous consumption in most of the chick lit books, this is a great remedy for that, because it’s actually ABOUT that very subject and other superficialities and the lead character makes some big changes.

Also, I don’t know if it’s considered chick lit or not, but I quite like Janet Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum series.  Evanovich can write.

Sorry about that response. I just came out of a long debate with a fellow romance reader over chick lit after we read Connie Brockway’s dismissive attitude towards CL [you are in great company, then!] at her blog.  Last week, I had a similar debate with another reader. The week before that, another debate. When I read this entry, I banged my head on the desk! lol! Hence the white flag [and the burn-out]. :)

I’m not quite sure why romance readers *expect* to like chick lit, considering the fact that chick lit is a sub-genre of Humour/Comedy, not Romance. As with other novels of Humour/Comedy, there are different shades of humour, ranging from lite to dark/morbid and from satirical [more common in British CL] to slapstick [more common in American CL]. And here are sub-genres to consider, ranging from mystery to hen lit and from literary to soap opera.

I’ll put up my list of CL novels [along with Lad Lit] that I enjoyed. Soon-ish. Thanks. :)

“I’m not quite sure why romance readers *expect* to like chick lit, considering the fact that chick lit is a sub-genre of Humour/Comedy, not Romance.”

It’s a hugely popular sub-genre, and my reaction is kind of “Here’s why this isn’t working for me, anyone know any books that won’t get my panties in a twist?” Also, I approach just about any new genre expecting I’ll like it--I mean, that’s why I want to TRY it, right? I wouldn’t knowingly pick up a book in a new genre knowing I will be annoyed. Actually, wait, I used to, but I learned my lesson after trying to read Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, I swear!

And while chick lit has a wide streak of humor, you have to admit that many also feature a wide streak of romance (which, like I said, is completely optional to my enjoyment of chick lit and is not the reason I picked it up in the first place, because why look for romance elsewhere when I have a bajillion romance novels to read??).

Ummm, I’m babbling, and I’ll stop now.

And while chick lit has a wide streak of humor, you have to admit that many also feature a wide streak of romance (which, like I said, is completely optional to my enjoyment of chick lit and is not the reason I picked it up in the first place, because why look for romance elsewhere when I have a bajillion romance novels to read??).

Heh! Oh, chick lit does rely on romantic situations, but these are associated with “woman’s problems”, hence its appearance.
Also, the focus is wildly different from romance genre, e.g. the focus is on the heroine, not the hero[es]. In romance genre, it’s either the hero or both. I find that romance readers tend to enjoy having the hero there from the start to the end, which isn’t always the case with CL novels.
I think if you approach a CL novel without any expectations you may have when you approach a romance novel, it’s easier to go with the flow, e.g. Doris Day films, most romantic comedy films and the like.

Here’s one thing I don’t get: some say that they dislike CL because of first person POV, but gothic romances and quite a few popular ‘romances’ [OUTLANDER anyone?] have the first person POV. It may be worth noting that not all CL novels have the first person POV, anyway.

I still think it’s funny that I should talk about this because I’m not a faithful fan of Chick Lit. :> Then again I’m not a faithful fan of Romance, either, if the truth needs to be told. I don’t know if this makes sense. OK, I’ll shut up.

Well, I’ll open myself up to flaming.

I dislike most Chick Lit (which I would identify as some of the titles above, but also Debbie Macomber’s warm, fuzzy crap and the like).

That having been said, I liked Jemima J when I read it.  Maybe it’s because I am overweight and started one of my best long term relationships online.  Maybe because the heroine discovers that the popculture image is not what it’s all about, after all. 

I also liked Bridget Jones diary.  The conspicuous consumption of fashionable things didn’t bother me so much because it seemed to me that she was in that industry-- and I have a sister who lives similarly (her M.O. consists of pay bills, buy groceries, spend the rest on pretty shinies).

Do any of you ever wonder if a lot of the Chick Lit w/ Romance in it addresses self-image problems because a great many romances don’t?  I could do without the agonizing, but I love a hero who likes a well-fleshed woman.  I concede that you probably just want to get to the HEA, but while Chick Lit w/ Romance takes it to the unrealistic extreme, it still is addressing the difficulty of modern romance.

Of course, i just finished He’s Just Not That Into You and it disheartened me.

OK. Just one more: the deus ex machina shows up to reward them for their shallow, insipid behavior.

How is it different from category romances that have heroines getting the HEA for going out to find a man to take their virginity? And getting knocked up after an one-night stand? Oh, and keeping it a secret.

And to think, romance novels are put down as ‘not worth reading’ but this drivel is encouraged and has the added allure of celebrity attached to the author and the book. Growl.

Well, Chick Lit is widely condemned. So, I don’t see any difference between CL and Romance in terms of public perspective. *shrug*

Goingn off the track [e.g. nothing to do with this blog entry]: Frankly, I consider the pissing contest between these two genres moronic because both genres have their shares of gems and duds; merits and flaws, and originality and cliches. :D

Very Last one: to Reagan, who wrote ‘He’s Just Not That Into You’ and what is it about? Thanks.

It’s by Greg Behrendt (male consultant for Sex and the City), and I’ve put the book’s Amazon page as my URL for this comment. 

As for what it’s about, well, he’s sort of peels back the skin on guys to show what’s really happening when they say they really like you but they don’t want to be in a relationship right now or when he never calls when he says he will but always tells you when you finally do talk that he’s been thinking about you, etc. 

It’s disheartening because even though I know better, it’s nice to think they really have been busy lately, etc.  It’s a more accessible book than the Mars/Venus thing, which was insipid or the Rules book, which was infuriating and made me want to murderdeathkill.  (As a rule now, I no longer -buy- anything promoted on Oprah.)

I also like that he continuously repeats that a guy who’s really into you will call, and hold hands, and ask you about yourself, because-- he’s into you!  He gets a bit stridently cheerful, because he’s convinced that we can all find the person that will be “into” us.

“I think if you approach a CL novel without any expectations you may have when you approach a romance novel (...)”

Oh, I have PLENTY of expectations when I start reading a romance novel. And hell, for six years my opinion of romance novels was “all romances = shit” because I didn’t read any books that convinced me otherwise.

Can’t speak for anyone else, of course, just me.

“How is it different from category romances that have heroines getting the HEA for going out to find a man to take their virginity? And getting knocked up after an one-night stand? Oh, and keeping it a secret.”

Not much difference at all. And the day you see us Bitches cooing about how awesome that sort of plot device is in a romance novel is the day you should bring out your shotgun and put us out of our misery. I’ll say this for the third time: I’ve been a lot harder on romance novel conventions than I’ve been on chick lit plot devices. This is very likely because I’ve read more romances and I have more fuel for my irritation.

“Well, Chick Lit is widely condemned. So, I don’t see any difference between CL and Romance in terms of public perspective.”

When was the last time a mainstream romance novel was made into a blockbuster movie that grossed millions upon millions? Off the top of my head: uh, can’t think of any, actually, but then it’s not as if I’m the biggest movie buff there is. When most people talk about dangerous fiction (you know, the kind that creates unrealistic expectations in our womanly breasts, etc. ad nauseam) and try to use something as a yardstick or verbal shorthand for truly awful literature, what do they use: chick lit, or romance novels? How many derogatory terms are there for chick lit? I can think of at least two for romance novels. And think about it: which would you rather admit to co-workers, that you read romance novels or that you read chick lit? Which genre are they more likely to make fun of, and which genre is more likely to inspire them to say “Oh, but your taste in literature seems so excellent in general! I could never read bad books like those.”

So don’t get me wrong, chick lit has attracted the same kind of flak for the same kinds of reasons as romance novels do, but don’t EVEN tell me that chick lit can begin to approach romances in the “ugly bastard redhead stepchild” category.

“Frankly, I consider the pissing contest between these two genres moronic because both genres have their shares of gems and duds; merits and flaws, and originality and cliches.”

Last two paragraphs excepted, I haven’t been trying to compare chick lit to romances. I think they’re separate though somewhat related genres--you know, the romantic element, books for women by women, and there seems a pretty significant overlap in readership.

And yeah, both genres have their fair share of bad books and bad plot devices. Ask yourself this: How often have you seen me beat up on chick lit on this site, vs. romance novels?

I have to be in the mood to read Chick-lit.  And, I honestly couldn’t care less if the heroine buys shoes or not.

In defense of the cell phone carnage scenario, my last cell phone now lives somewhere off the overpass from Palmetto Expressway down to the median of the Dolphin Expressway.  Normally, suicides occur on I-595 overpasses, but since this was a mercy killing I feel the zen of the location was as close to perfect as anywhere else on the map.  It was insured.  Shit happens.

Even though I occassionaly love a decent Chick-lit read, I adore the snark in this thread on it.  Someone has to love the bad fiction ... but the genre, by its very nature, cries out for abuse.

Oh fuck, there are conventions to chick lit?  And here I am supposed to write one. 

I loved Good in Bed, thought Bridget Jones was all right, but thought the Nanny Diaries and Shopaholics books, and the other few chick lit trades I’ve read SUCKED, but I figured that was because I didn’t identify with narcissistic, 20-something, spoiled, materialistic, silly white girls.  I didn’t much care for Undead and Unwed because I was dying for someone to kick that silly, spoiled, twit of a heroine’s butt. 

Now I hear you have to write those characters--to fit into the “conventions of chick lit?” Well, I can’t.

God, and don’t make me read more either.  I read little paranormal romance before tackling one, because I decided after reading a few that I wasn’t writing suffering, horny vampires anyway. 

I can write young, hip, 20-ish characters with a strong voices and humor, and if I do this with a plot that runs counter to the romance conventions in some way, won’t they slap a chick lit label on it even if my heroine isn’t a twit?

Black chick lit--Black women can definitely be just as obsessed with designer goods and materialism--shoes and the hair thing--but I think a black heroine that acted in a white chick lit way would go over very poorly with the sistahs. 

A lot of black chick lit has a hip hop feel, I hear.  I’ve only read a one or two books of this type. Linda Dominique Grosvenor has a blog and writes black chick lit.

But the twitty heroine can’t be a requirement, can it?  There are variations. 

And if I write black characters, as long as I write with that strong female voice and humor, I think I can pretty much do what I like.  A HEA is required for me, along with a romance thread.  I’ve been told that Too Hot to Handle has a chick lit feel, with four friends, humor, attitude and a flippant premise--these four women (all in their 20’s) all slept with the same guy and were out to get even with him for “dogging” them.

The attitude comes naturally, heh, heh.  I’m far more likely to write a strong bitchy heroine than an insecure, silly one.

I too loved Good in Bed but have never thought of it as Chick Lit. Is it really? I guess it probably is. The Bridget Jones Diaries were the first chick lit I ever read and I thought they were funny. But part of that was the originality in them. If I read them now, for the first time, I wonder if I’d love them as much? After the glut of chick lits on the market.

I haven’t been trying to compare chick lit to romances.

I know you and Sarah didn’t. I did say this line: “Going off the track [e.g. nothing to do with this blog entry] ... “ :)

When was the last time a mainstream romance novel was made into a blockbuster movie that grossed millions upon millions?

Well, it depends on how you view it. I mean: 

a) To whose definition is a mainstream romance novel? Some say GONE WITH THE WIND is a romance novel, and others consider ANNA KARENINA a romance novel. So going on this basis, there is quite a few. I do know what you mean, but see c)

b) there is a huge number of other-genre novels that weren’t made into big-budget films. The biggest avenue for genre novels is television, which is related to DVD/video rental and retail sales [see c)]. In this case, there is a significant number of romance novels and category romances that were made into TV films, successfully or not. Off my head: Kristin Hardy, Sandra Brown, Penelope Williamson, Kristin Gabriel, Diana Palmer, Linda Howard, Barbara Cartland, Nora Roberts, Tami Hoag, etc.

c) I strongly don’t believe that traditional romance novels are ideal for the screen.  If anything, I’m pretty much against the idea. OK, one could hold FIRELIGHT and HEART OF THE WEST up as good examples, but I’m still not that convinced that it could work on the big scale for cinema, because i) the audience won’t be comfortable with it [why else do you think they prefer romantic comedy films to straight romantic films? At least with a romcom film, you can laugh, relieving tension], ii) like it or not, the biggest audience group is male and between 15 and 27, and iii) the biggest DVD/video audience group is female and between 19 and 45, which is why the majority of romantic films were made as TV films or straight to DVD/video. OK, that’s TMI. :D Sorry.

OK. Let me think. Harlequin author Pamela Wallace wrote a story that was made into WITNESS, starring Harrison Ford and Kelly McGinnis. But that’s a cheat because it was a sleeper hit. :)

thought the Nanny Diaries and Shopaholics books, [...] SUCKED,

I agree. I’m not a fan of those novels at all. I don’t even like Helen Fielding’s BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY. Damn. I must write up the bloody list.

OK, I’m definitely shutting up. :D Thanks for bring this topic up, C & S. I had fun. :)

Uh. I should point out that I’m referring to domestic/UK markets. *slaps forehead* Sorry.

My problem with the chick-lit genre is...what IS chick-lit? I know it by the covers of the books I see in stores (although the back cover blurbs often make them sound like romances). But I don’t really “get” the genre.

Also: hated “Sex in the City.” But that’s neither here or nor there.

Well, I’m not going to say anything else.  I can’t think straight.  I’m up WAAAY past my bedtime trying to finish things up.

Oh...I do have a whole shelf of “cat mysteries”. I just love ‘em!  I’m kinda a sucker for books that have cats as main characters.

First of all, my compliments to the both of you for this site. I found it about a month ago and have been laughing my ass off ever since, going through the archives.
I’d almost given up on romance novels as being insultingly stupid while (at the same time!) making me pay for the not-at-all pleasure. Your recommendations have pointed me in the direction of some very enjoyable reads however. I only wish there was a European service similar to BooksFree.

On chick lit. Oh how I agree with you. Sarah especially pointed out some of the things that irritate me the most about typical chick lit heroines. Being ditzy and shallow, waiting for mr. millionairthottie to come make everything meaningful! Am I supposed to identify with this crap?! Bah.
For instance, I liked The Diary of Bridget Jones. I really did. Made me laugh out loud at times. At the same time I found it extremely annoying that this chick clearly couldn’t have a meaningful life unless mr.right showed up to love her and give her social recognition. Bah again.
Fielding writes this kind of heroine very well (as it turns out, this seems to be the only heroine character she writes) and serves it with some irony, which makes it palatable.

On the other hand, I love my Stephanie Plum novels dearly and if those aren’t chick lit I don’t know what is, so I reserve my right to express some quality hypocrisy. Go figure.

This is really starting to turn into a boring trend, defending chick-lit, but here ya go, some excellent reads with only 1 or 2 references to shoes:

* The Year of Living Famously--Laura Caldwell (also “Clean Slate,” a thriller chick-lit)

* The Second Coming of Lucy Hatch--Marsha Moyer (some will argue this is more WF but the line blurs for me)

* Luscious Lemon--Heather Swain

* Summer in the Land of Skin--Jody Gehrman

*Love Like That--Amanda Hill

*Why Girls Are Weird--Pamela Ribon

*Time Off For Good Behavior--Lani Diane Rich

*Dress You Up in My Love--Diane Stingley

*Getting Over Jack Wagner, The Hazards of Sleeping Alone--Elise Juska

Must Love Dogs--Claire Cross

In “Clean Slate,” the character drops a serious load of cash on a new wardrobe and in “The Year of Living Famously” the heroine is a clothing designer. But that’s about all the fashion you’ll get in these. No reference to Manalo that I know of, not a millionaire in sight, no deus ex machinas but quite a few “issues.” (Oh, wait--"Love Like That” might have a few fashion encounters but it’s about a woman engaged to one man and having an affair with another and it’s not treated in a comic manner, although there are some good moments.)

To me, chick-lit is NOT about the shoes or the lipstick or the Blueberry. It’s all about the voice and what the writer has to say. And what I’m hearing (in the books above) is “You’ve gotta get yourself together, there’s no one else who can do that for you.”

Perhaps chick-lit is the starter romance? Regardless, this blinkers-on approach is really getting boring. Yes, there are some Prada-bag-obsessed idiots out there. But there are also some wonderful voices. FEMALE voices. And that’s a good thing.

Agreed that female voices - and female writers - qualifies as a hearty “good thing.” But it’s not like this site is just about holding up all that is good and noble about romance. We harsh on the romance cliches just as much - just ask us about secret babies and heros who have insipid heroines (Adrian from Uncommon Vows, I’m still waiting to hear from you. Dump that wench and call me, k?) and really, a lot of the Chick Lit I’ve encountered is marketed as light romance, or with a strong romantic element. Even the RWA had to figure out a way to include chick lit and women’s fiction in their awards categories, as straight romance is no longer the major plot element driving a story nowadays. We are just as harsh on the insipid in romance as we are on the insipid in Chick Lit, and sadly, I haven’t encountered much outside the insipid range lately in the Chick Lit genre, since it’s being published as fast as those mesh-front slippers with the sequins are being produced in Chinatown.

However, I am all about “You’ve gotta get yourself together, there’s no one else who can do that for you,” and if some of the books recommended prove me wrong, I am more than happy to admit I was mistaken about my impressions of Chick Lit.

Interesting to see The Second Coming of Lucy Hatch recced as Chicklit.  I read it as romance, but I won’t argue.  It did have a strong voice and it was first pov.  Oh, and I liked it a lot.

I don’t loathe chicklit, but I stay away from it since it doesn’t speak to me. Like Candy, the conspicuous consumption of a lot of the heroines annoys me, esp. when the consumption ethos is extended to people (baby-as-accessory, grrr).

I did like Jennifer Weiner’s book about two sisters, In Her Shoes, a lot. I don’t have a sister so I may be wrong, but I thought the love-hate relationship between the two was really well done. As you might guess from the title, one of them has a serious designer shoe habit, but the motivation for it actually made sense to me (plus she’s a lawyer & can afford them). And the book acknowledges the existence of people over fifty; the sisters’ grandmother is a main character.

First person POV - not a fan of this type of POV but then I’ve read some great books with first person POV’s so I can’t use that as an excuse to not read Chick Lit. Some writers can write first person well and some can’t. Simple as that. I am a huge fan of gothics and have had no problems with reading Mary Stewart or Victoria Holt in first person or any other author for that matter that I’ve enjoyed in the past (pretty long list).

I don’t think Stephanie Plum books are chick-lit. However, it does continue to feature a clueless bounty hunter whose vehicles continue to explode or break down on her. It’s like a scratched record player, hitting the same note over and over again. Let me quit as I am starting to go off on a tangent here. Would rather not argue over the Plum series. I’ve wrote and exhaused all my rants on that series.

Later.

sorry for all the typos. Early morning with no cofee. :-)

Okay, I too am joining this debate. It seems that every basher of chick-lit reads the same damn books. You’d think you’d read the back covers first. Here are my top picks for chick-lit:

Temporary Insanity - Leslie Carroll
Time off for Good Behavior - Lani Diane Rich
Couch World - Cathy Yardley
My Life Uncovered - Lynn Isenberg
The Matzo Ball Heiress - Laurie Gwen Shapiro
Do Me, Do My Roots - Eileen Rendahl
A little help from above - Saralee Rosenberg
Goddess for Hire - Sonia Singh
English as a Second Language - Megan Crane

“It seems that every basher of chick-lit reads the same damn books.”

Well, yes, because they’re the most popular and high-profile, which (in my experience with every genre except SF) doesn’t correlate with the best quality. This is where other people come in and suggest the buried treasures and must-read mid-list books. Hence that bit in my disclaimer about letting me know about chick lit books that won’t twist mah panties.

“You’d think you’d read the back covers first.”

The only genre with worse cover blurbs than chick lit is probably romance. The blurbs are probably what fuel a lot of the “It’s ALL the same story told over and over” accusations for both chick lit and romance. The copy tells me, over and over again: Sassy, irreverent young urban chick struggles with her job, her weight, her boyfriend and her addiction to Prada/Manolo/Gucci/[insert brand of choice].

Okay, here are some blurbs that mention 1 or 2 BFs but no weight issues or shoe fetishes.

Blurb for Luscious Lemon:

She’s finally seeing the fruits of her labors.

Chef Ellie “Lemon” Manelli’s hip East Village bistro is suddenly all the rage; Lemon and her staff of wildly talented friends plucked from New York City’s finest eateries can barely keep pace. Good thing she has her loyal, doting, bankrolling Georgia peach of a boyfriend, Eddie, to lean on—not to mention a gaggle of loving relations over the river in Brooklyn. In fact, Lemon’s life is turning out exactly as she planned—except for the fact that she’s late. As in late. Nobody said anything about, you know, labor.

Having a baby right now would jeopardize everything Lemon has worked so hard to accomplish, so the pregnancy test results leave her feeling a little sour. Eddie, bless his heart, wants to just go ahead and get married, but Lemon’s not sure the timing’s right. She’s about to learn a lesson or two about love and loss, though. And in the end she’ll discover that there’s a reason things work out the way they do—and that when life gives you lemons, you can make lemonade, or lemon tarts, or lemon meringue pie. Or, you can just be a plain ole Lemon, if that’s what you were meant to be.

Blurb for Year of Living Famously:

Some girls seek fame, others have it thrust upon them. . . Clothing designer Kyra Felis has never been one to worship celebrities--she’d rather read a good book or make a blouse out of a tablecloth. She marries Hollywood man-of-the-moment Declan McKenna for love, with no inkling of how his notoriety will send her life spinning out of control.

But once Kyra reluctantly becomes a celebrity by association there’s no turning back. And even though she has all the trappings of success, she can’t do the things that make her happy--throw a party; drink a glass of wine (or four) at a quiet café; confide in her friends. When Declan’s fame literally endangers Kyra’s life, she starts to wonder, can she survive more than a year of living famously?

Blurb for Love Like That:

Meet Dalton Moss: quick-witted, impulsive, aggressively unambitious; a halfhearted assistant to a Hollywood events planner, she’s haggling over the price of chicken Florentine and waiting for the workday to end.

Meet Dalton’s boyfriend, Roman: charming, intellectual, worldly; he lands in L.A. just long enough to slip a two-carat diamond on her finger before flying right off again.

Now meet Dalton’s other boyfriend, Jeremy: perfect in his imperfection, surly in his attraction to her and can match her beer for beer; she doesn’t want to love him, but can’t help herself, despite Roman—and despite Jeremy’s other girlfriend.

Confused? So is Dalton.

Now that she’s engaged, twenty-five-year-old Dalton figures she should temper her penchant for dive bars, abusing her mother’s credit card and her fiery, furtive relationship with Jeremy. After all, this is her chance to shed her bad-girl habits and live happily ever after.

But that diamond ring seems to wink at her in defiance, representing everything she’s ever, and never, wanted. Roman’s offering a rescue from her drowned existence in L.A., but Jeremy could be her twisted ticket to wonderland. She’s been holding out for a crushing feeling, a love like that, but will she figure out which man she has it with before she loses them both?

PW review for Summer In The Land Of Skin:

Gehrman’s debut skillfully draws the reader into the mind of 25-year-old, emotionally stunted Anna Medina and the universe of damaged folks she encounters in her attempts to “kill [her] father” ("He’s dead, but he needs to die a little more") and heal the pain left by his suicide. Chet Medina was a luthier who sold his guitars to Bob Dylan and Jerry Garcia; Anna, whose version of living has been observing neighbors through binoculars, decides to go to Bellingham, Wash., to find her father’s old guitar-making partner and see if he can help—i.e., take her on as an apprentice and tell her about her celebrated, distant father. She is taken in by self-destructive, beautiful Lucy and her quiet, distant boyfriend, Arlan, near the “Land of Skin,” a street corner where the faintest hint of sunlight brings out “half-naked natives.” Her new friends fight, drink and smoke themselves into a chaotic spiral, and as Anna witnesses their pain and joy she begins to feel alive herself. Gehrman’s portrait of a woman deadened from years of grief awakening to a world of emotional risk skillfully avoids maudlin sentiment or hollow histrionics. Her characters are confused, believable and utterly human, which is one of the main reasons the book strikes so many lonely, bewildered and true notes.

Three blurbs out of HOW many chick lit books? (No, this is not a request for every chick lit blurb ever published. Please, God, no.) But point taken. I should’ve used “and/or” instead of just plain “and.” But hey--50% is better than most weather forecasters :lol: .

I usually go to http://www.chicklitbooks.com to get blurbs on Chick Lit and see what’s out.  I like their reviews.  They enjoy chick lit there, but are also not afraid to say if they think something sucks.  I’d seen The Next Big Thing by Johanna Edwards there first and then Maili talked about it.  I’m glad I took the chance on it because it was a great book. 

My list for the library this summer has SO many chick lit books on it.  They must be popular for them to consistently buy so many of them.  Though I think libraries like the trades better than mass market paperbacks too.

Hey,

Did someone mention Alisa Kwitney? I liked The Dominant Blonde, in third person POV. I don’t think I’d consider this in the usual chick lit style which was why it worked, hey. Ok. I’m outta here.

You sure know how to make an author with a chick lit story coming out this summer mighty nervous. :)

But I think the reason’s you’ve given are definitely points I’d make myself. I don’t like *any* kind of book--romance, women’s fiction, chick-lit, even mystery, in which the heroine is TSTL. If I wouldn’t befriend her, I don’t wish for her HEA. So I try to investigate that angle before heading to the check-out line.

IMO, Chick lit, unfortunately, has a stereotype that defines only a portion of the books labelled as such. But then again… what genre of women’s fiction doesn’t?

Sarah, Candy, I hope you find CL books to love and those to snark about. I’ll be looking forward to reading about ‘em!

Mel, darling, you have nothing to worry about. I don’t love chick lit but I love your book. Your book has escaped many of the conventions mentioned here. It will be a smashing success

Interesting discussion.  As a reader who is just getting back into the romance genre after an absence of many years, I must say I was surprised to find Chick Lit titles displayed in the Romance section in my local B&N. Well, some of them anyway. Others were in fiction. The people who sell Chick Lit titles obviously don’t know where they go.  It’s confusing.  I was like, “OK, maybe B&N thinks these are contemporary romances”, but I’d hardly call “In Her Shoes” part of the Romance genre.  Yes, there is a love story but that alone doesn’t make it a Romance.

I find the consumerism in those titles I have read, (most of Jane Greene, some Fielding, some Wiener, some assorted whose authors I can’t recall but the blurbs in the used bookstore made them look attractive), unappealing.  We all know people IRL who get their self esteem from their material “stuff”, and those aren’t the people I like to spend time with, much less read about.  At age 55 I see things from a different perspective than I did 25 years ago (inevitable, eh?).  Different strokes.

What I find interesting about this conversation is that the majority of posters who dislike chick lit say, “We have the conspicuous consumption, the vapid heroines, the lack of plots, the deus ex machina HEA” then when told about books that that lack some or all of these elements, respond with, “Oh, well, I don’t think of that as chick lit.”

If you limit your definition of chick lit to a group of books rife with plots and characterizations you dislike, then is it any wonder that you’ve decided that there is nothing of interest in a genre that you’ve defined merely in terms of characteristics you hate?

Y’know, Diana, I re-read all of the comments again, and near as I can tell, most of the people who’ve spoken up in this conversation about their dislike of certain conventions of chick lit haven’t defined chick lit solely by those conventions and went on to say “Oh, THAT book can’t be chick lit.” So far, only two people expressed surprise at a book being categorized chick lit. One was Jorie, and she had no real quibble about the book being labelled as such. Angie said she didn’t know Good in Bed was chick lit, but conceded that it very likely was. Like Sarah and I, she is willing to check out the recommended titles, and unlike Sarah and I, she didn’t express strong feelings about chick lit one way or another. Oh, and Keishon did say she tended to associate those negative conventions with chick lit, then made a reference to one she liked that “wasn’t in the usual chick lit style” (still chick lit, though, she didn’t try to deny that). So I do get your point, but I’m also wondering how you got this specific impression? Because it seems really strong, and I feel like I’m missing something.

I was a little confused about her statement as well, and thought it might have been me that gave that impression, but I didn’t think I came down emphatically on either side of the arguement. I even went back and re-read what I replied. Thank you, Candy, for making me feel better about that!

I know this post is kind of old, but I just wanted to thank you smart bitches for giving me inspiration to write a chick lit novel in which the heroine finds inspiration through a cool job (not some cardboard guy) and kicks her leech brother out of the apartment.

Now to sit my butt down and write it.

Thanks to Maria for the comment on the old thread so that I got to read this. Very interesting stuff.

I never liked chick lit for some of the reasons laid out here, but also because there’s not much sex. I did think Can You Keep a Secret? was funny but it came replete with the Big Misunderstanding, which put me off a bit.

As for the Stephanie Plum series, they’re mac and cheese for the mind. Comfort reads. You know what you’re going to get, every single time. Sometimes that can repetitive but if you’re in the mood it hits the spot.

I do kinda want her to get better at her job, though. Stop having everyone get away or her roll around in someone’s food trying to make the grab. She doesn’t grow as a character and that bothers me.

I love chick lit, I am a massive fan.

And I’ll read all types of chick lit from the fashion lit, to the intelligent lit to the single lit, the baby lit, the lad lit , the fat lit, and to the real chick lit books. (Save Karyn)

It’s contemporary fiction/ non fiction about modern issues and they cover everything especially love, friendship and relationships.

Need I mention work, anorexia, drinking, death, great loss, huge mistakes, terrible break ups, losing friends, losing love, having a baby, getting fired, making a huge choice - these books, all of them have something that a woman somewhere faces .

And if some *snob* who assumes that people who read chick lit are dumbing themselves down, I read newspapers, blogs, follow African politics, read biographies and autobiographies but always always have some kind of chick lit sub genre at hand.

Women should enjoy having a light read and an escape read while reading about modern issues we can all relate to.

And learn from, like I have.