Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

I wanted to make the books relevant to those issues that women really face today, otherwise they would be romances.

I. AM. SPEECHLESS.

Utterly.

Somehow, I am not surprised.

Just confirms my impression that Chicklit is written by snobs. 

Way to go girl…be offensive to potential readers.

...

In my experience, I’ve found that chick lit is often a hell of a lot less relevant than romance. (With a few notable exceptions—Marian Keyes self-identifies as a chick lit author, but her books are deep and thoughtful and absolutely relevant.)

Well, I suppose getting yourself into deep debt and then hiding from it is relevant, but Confessions of a Shopaholic made me ill. Not sure if that’s actually a recommendation.

Clearly, she hasn’t spread the word to all the romance writers out there that their books shouldn’t have any relevance regarding issues in their characters’, and by extension, their readers’ lives. All these years, all those issues that the characters have faced have just been getting in the way of all the sexy times and the happily ever afters.

Quick, give me irrelevance! I can’t stand all of this relevance I’ve been given.

Maybe if the “chick lit” writers said “I don’t’ want my mother fucking cover in pink with a stupid skinny cut out girl in high heels on it!” then we wouldn’t be dismissive of THEIR writing like they are of romance writing.

Either way in the end they are just biting the hands that buy them.

I’m not surprised, either.  We get a lot of this in the fantasy genre, too.  Consider this excerpt from an interview with best-selling fantasy author Terry Goodkind:

First of all, I don’t write fantasy. I write stories that have important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. It’s either about magic or a world-building. I don’t do either.

Because most fantasy is about world-building and magic, a lot of it is plotless and has no story. My primary interest is in telling stories that are fun to read and make people think. That puts my books in a genre all their own.

Uh . . . okay.

People are egocentric.  Some moreso than others.  Ever met a pregnant woman or young parents who act as if they are they first human beings who ever reproduced?  I’ve run into writers who act pretty much the same way about their books.  It’s unfortunate.

I really despise that term “chick lit.”  It’s demeaning and lame.  It’s especially stupid when people seem to elevate “chick lit” above romance and also disregarding romance novels.  I find quite a lot of romance novels with better/relevant themes and higher quality of writing than those chick lit crap.

Nothing against Polly Williams, but thanks for predicating the continual misgivens of romance novels and chick lit.

Seriously, what am I-a chicken? A baby bird?

Flo, for the record, very few authors have much say about the cover design.  Covers are frequenly designed to evoke one of the opular writers in that subgenre.  Trends occur:  skinny cutouts with stilletos becomes a signifier of chick lit;  women in tight pants photographed from behind means urban fantasy.

Well, at least I now know who not to buy or search out. The title didn’t really do it for me, but I don’t usually let titles stop me from a potentially funny/enjoyable book. However, I’ll be putting this title in the NTBR pile. And boy, am I relieved I disliked Goodkind’s books so very much. It always sucks when an author I already like says something so egocentric and—dare I say it, why yes I do—asshated.

The temp is getting up 110F (43C) here and my blood pressure isn’t hight but my blood is boiling so, SBSara, you have my sympathy. And my thanks. Now I can be angry at this silliness rather than my AC. =)

So, let me see if I’ve got this straight:
Chick-Lit (the label on her book) = relevant, about the real world.
Romance (the label on those other books) = irrelevant, yucky escapist fantasy.

Gotcha. So glad Ms. Williams has cleared this up for us.

ec wrote:

I’m not surprised, either.  We get a lot of this in the fantasy genre, too.  Consider this excerpt from an interview with best-selling fantasy author Terry Goodkind:

First of all, I don’t write fantasy. I write stories that have important human themes. They have elements of romance, history, adventure, mystery and philosophy. Most fantasy is one-dimensional. It’s either about magic or a world-building. I don’t do either.

And in most fantasy magic is a mystical element. In my books fantasy is a metaphysical reality that behaves according to its own laws of identity.

Because most fantasy is about world-building and magic, a lot of it is plotless and has no story. My primary interest is in telling stories that are fun to read and make people think. That puts my books in a genre all their own.

Oh dear.

And I used to think so much of him. And that he wrote fantasy to boot.

As for Ms. Williams, never heard of her before, but what a way for potential new readers to find out about her.

manner25: Their manners stopped developing at 25?

Wow, ec, I hadn’t seen that Terry Goodkind quote before.  What an ego!  Although I’d agree that his primary interest probably isn’t world-building, and perhaps that’s why I don’t like his stuff much.  But “my books [are] in a genre all their own”?  WTF???

I wish we had a less demeaning label for “chick lit” if we must have labels.  And I REALLY wish that authors could manage to promote their work without bashing that of others, either individually or by sweeping “genre-lizations.”  The classy authors can do that, and can even be grateful to the genre that has given them their readership.

What’s weird about her statement is that most chick lit writers I know (myself included) also write and/or read romance. Most of us started out reading romance, but because we have snarky voices were labeled chick lit (that’s pretty much what happened to me). Williams is biting the hand that feeds her, really, considering the cross over appeal between the two genres.

Perhaps I’m alone in this. I love romance with all my heart and dislike when folk demean it. I also recognize that there are many authors whose writing is indeed relevant, challenging, interesting, etc. That said, most of what I’ve read is very fluffy. The same can be said for fantasy and sci-fi or any other genre writing—most is not very good and there are a few gems. Why get riled when some of what people say is true?

On the other hand, maybe I’m missing something.

I am way beyond those “issues” allegedly so eloquently covered by chick lit books. I hate the term. I hate the demeaning tone and the thrust of the marketing. I’m not a libber but dang, this type of tripe could make me burn my bra. And trust me, at my age, that would be an ugly sight!

*growls* Now my blood pressure is up, I’m all pissed off and wanting to go mug a cheerleader. Maybe I’ll plug in “Clueless” and just throw spitballs at the screen instead.

Go Romance and those of us who love it!

Not the chick lit debate again!  Okay, let’s try this one more time.  Chick lit was a title that the MARKETERS came up with, not to demean books, but to sell them.  Putting a label on things helps sell them.

However, the marketing term gets used by critics as a generic term of dismissal.  Therein lies the confusion.  One group is marketing just like they’d market anything (cereal, cars, furniture) and the other group is assuming that the marketing is 1) accurate, 2) connotes something of a lesser quality.

Authors have no or very little say on our covers.  We often don’t have control over our titles, our marketing, or even where our books are categorized.

When a woman writes humor, she’s frequently thrown in the chick lit category.  There is no “this bitch is hilarious!” category.

Sophie Kinsella has said that she wishes there was a “romantic comedy” category.  She writes the Shopaholic series, which are comedies and I think they succeed as comedies.  No, they’re not relevant to anyone’s life, but that bitch is hilarious.

“Maybe if you write in such a way that is really difficult to read or you’re a woman author not writing about those kinds of issues.”
****

So not only is she insulting romance, she’s insulting HER OWN genre. Gosh those pesky readers of chick lit just couldn’t handle a well crafted deep story about something other than shoes and the E channel! Oh woes!

Way to go genius, way. to. go.

Somebody give this girl’s brain a sammich.

Oh dear.

And I used to think so much of [Goodkind].

Er, why? From the excerpts of his writing I’ve seen, he’s pretty appalling.

There does seem to be a very large group of chick lit authors who feel that they’re in a special clique - err, club, that is quite above the likes of romance. 
And I’ve noticed that they object to non-readers of their genre who ‘stereotype’ them.
Ironic, isn’t it?

Oh dear.

  And I used to think so much of [Goodkind].

Er, why? From the excerpts of his writing I’ve seen, he’s pretty appalling.

Maybe because at one time I enjoyed his writing? Which I did, though it’s been many years since reading it. What is appalling to one isn’t necessarily to the next.

Why is it so hard to believe that someone can enjoy what another did not?

Oh bother. Just a rhetorical Q. Pay no mind.

*sigh*

What a twit.  She’s dismissing an entire genre.  She’s dismissing her own genre at the same time she’s trying to elevate it by saying, “Well, if it’s going to be called anything… and at any rate, my stuff is relelvant and… and… meaningful and… and… you know, deep.” 

Because that’s exactly what a title like Yummy Mummy is going to bring to mind.  (Although to be fair, I’m the type who’d at least pick it up and read the back cover copy and a page or two.)

Wonder how Ms. Williams would react to S.E. Hinton who dismissed the entire Chick Lit genre as One fictional genre she knows enough about to despise: “chick lit.”

“It’s just another version of `Mary Jane goes to the prom,’” she says. “It’s all about the boys.”

Which, for the record, I found to be as ignorant and uninformed a comment as Ms. Williams’. 

When the hell are people going to realize that in every genre there are great books, good books, meh books, and downright shitty books?  Say a genre’s not to your taste, that’s fine, but to dismiss an entire genre out of hand shows appalling ignorance and arrogance.

< /soapbox>

Hey, the only thing worse than writing romance is writing erotica.  I should know—I’ve written both (and, oddly enough, have heard both referred to as “smut”).  As long as the authors writing genre fiction insist on pretending their romance, chick lit, mystery, erotica, fantasy novel is not like those “other writers,” genre fiction will continue to be marginalized and socially unacceptable.

I don’t think, however, that will keep anyone from buying it. :)

:snerk:

It’s not often you see a writer making a complete moron of herself in public like that—I mean when it doesn’t include three quarts of Vodka, a cross-dressing Cher impersonator, an all-night Karaoke bar, and Homeland Security.

Now someone needs to write a book with THOSE elements, which would make it more relevant to ME.

long42—yes, this is a longass debate that’s taking up waaayyyy too much of my precious reading time.  TTFN!

i think it’s time i admitted… i was dismissive of romance novels until i stumbled upon this website. (blush)

but but but now i have them on my bookshelf (where any visitor can see them!) and am a georgette heyer fangirl.

and am also, i hope, a little less of a snob.

(can i still play with you guys?)

The title is awful and so demeaning. Yummy Mummy? Blech.

Here’s the description of the book from Amazon:

“London-based journalist Williams writes for In Style, and her debut novel features flawlessly chic celebrity moms who go deep into Gwennie-and-Apple competitive territory. Thirty-one-year-old Amy Crane, six months postpartum, is stuck between two groups of mommy friends. On one side are the women from her childbirth class, dedicated mothers whose chubby figures and comfy clothes declare, “We now put someone else’s needs before our vanity.” On the other side is Amy’s new friend Alice, a so-called “yummy mummy,” who, with her similarly slim and elegant West London friends, takes Amy on as her newest project. Soon, Amy is caught up in a whirlwind of designer shoes, fad diets, Pilates classes (complete with a troublingly handsome instructor) and Botox injections, all of which alienate Joe, her longtime boyfriend and the father of her daughter. Amy’s misadventures are, for the most part, endearing, and her comic attempts to regain her pre-pregnancy lifestyle stay just this side of satire. Williams weighs in on nearly every maternal controversy (from extended breastfeeding to the return to paid employment), further prolonging Amy’s inevitable decision as to the kind of mummy she wants to be. Fortunately, Williams’s wit and Amy’s appealing foibles will make readers stick around for her occasionally laborious journey.” (Jan.) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

She sounds really smug in that interview.

The reader reviews seem to be all positive.

Whenever I see an author say something like

I wanted to make the books relevant to those issues that women really face today

or

I write stories that have important human themes…. My primary interest is in telling stories that are fun to read and make people think. That puts my books in a genre all their own.

my first thought always is: Boy howdy, had you better be right, or you have just opened a can of whoop-ass on yourself.

And strangely enough, they’re usually wrong.

Alice, I agree. I don’t think of romance novels as being particularly relevant to real-life issues, but I don’t think that saying so is a bad thing. I don’t think fantasy or sci-fi are, either, nor do I think people read them for that reason.

Terry Goodkind does not do world-building?  Has he forgotten his first 3 Shanarra books?  FFS, people just need to get over themselves.

As for “chic lit”...isn’t that just the code word for romance for those who “wouldn’t touch romance with a six foot pole.”  Although, I must admit, it never has good sex scenes.

I’m cracking up over the interview myself—“I just wanted to make something relevant to what women are facing today”—OMG—it’s back to teaching HIGH SCHOOL again, and damn, oh gee, I thought I was on summer vacation.  Seriously—that phrase appears in more BAD papers than any other—it’s the cure all, the auto-vomit of any idiot who doesn’t REALLY know what to say, and in the absence of an independent thought starts spewing Orwell’s most acute and heinous newspeak nightmare. 

I’m over and done with labels.  I may have mentioned the abominable prickweenies in my staff room who will randomly shout ‘vampire porn’ in the middle of lunch to see if I’ll look.  (You want me to look, motherfucker, consider my traffic finger a periscope whydoncha!)  But ask them to give a logical, reasoned argument against PNR or even regular romance—you know, the kind of concise, logical arguments we spend YEARS trying to get the dumbass kids to make and all I can get from them is, “It’s *stupid*.  It’s not real.”  Which, again, is what the dumbass kids say about classic literature.  It all speaks to me of the same ailment—minds bloated on their own self-importance with itty-bitty-teeny-tiny openings for all things not associated with the mind-bearer’s ego.  (Their egos, of course, have their own openings—a nether orifice the size of frickin’ Los Angeles.) 

But that’s okay—really, because when it all comes out in the wash it boils down to:  Polly fuckin’ who?  We don’t know her.  And now, we don’t want to.

over68—as in, I’ve been over this whole ‘disdain the label thing’ about 68 millennia ago.

Perhaps I’m alone in this. I love romance with all my heart and dislike when folk demean it. I also recognize that there are many authors whose writing is indeed relevant, challenging, interesting, etc. That said, most of what I’ve read is very fluffy. The same can be said for fantasy and sci-fi or any other genre writing—most is not very good and there are a few gems. Why get riled when some of what people say is true?

On the other hand, maybe I’m missing something.

I think most people are contentious about the fact that she’s painting the entire genre of romance as un-relevant, not just the fluffy novels. I agree that all genres have the fluff, but this sort of vast generalization infuriates me too. Is just like the discussion in academics about what is literature, except whereas the labels on the book shelves in bookstores gets decided by the marketing team, it’s the academics of each generation that decide what is literary and what is not (despite their general inability to define it very well). Not to trash academics or marketing teams, labeling is a useful ploy to some degree, but why do we need to go about bashing entire categories?

http://www.pollywilliams.com/contact.php

If you’d like to leave her a comment, which I’m very tempted to do to let her know how many potential readers she has lost by her thoughtless words

p.s. Spinsterwitch, Terry Brooks wrote the Shannara books, Terry Goodkind wrote the Sword of Truth books

Yeah, Polly needs to work on her delivery.  Clearly she does not understand there is a crossover audience between chick lit and romance, and that pissing that audience off is a bad idea.  I can only assume it’s her way of saying her work is more relevant than someone else’s work.  Since chick lit gets that all the time from other genres, you would think she’d be a bit more aware and a lot less demeaning.

I gotta say that the chick lit label does not bother me at all.  Like Marta said, it’s a marketing tool.  I think it’s one of those things we should embrace and take ownership of rather than despise.  Why buy into the dismissal of an entire genre?  If we treat the genre with a “look, a cool chick lit title” response rather than anger maybe that would take some of the sting out of it.  I’m thinking it’s a negative because we let it be a negative.

What I interpret her comment to be is that a romance can contain nothing relevant for women today.

I agree that a lot of the romance is fluff.  But even the fluff is arguably relevant.  Why else would category romances be so popular?  Having a fantasy life, sometimes manifested through reading romances, can be an integral part of a woman’s sexuality.  And most women read authors that have characters that they can identify with.  So the characters must be facing at least some of the same issues that real women are.

Consider this excerpt from an interview with best-selling fantasy author Terry Goodkind
ec

Lord, don’t even get me started on Goodkind. The man is incomprehensible—his first two books were good but it’s all been downhill from there. If I get started on why I hate his writing we’ll be here all damn day.

I was a police procedural girl all the way, until I tried a book by Jennifer Weiner.  That foray into “chick lit” led me into many subgenres of romance (a much happier world than that of the police procedural, btw!).  I got Polly Williams’ book thru paperbackswap, and the first chapter was pretty good.  Unfortunately, however, it has vanished in the swamp of laundry and toys that is our house, so I may never know if it lived up to its promise.  I have to say, though, that while “mom lit” does usually try to be honest about the chaos that is motherhood, those women generally have lives that are much more prosperous and fabu than mine, or those of pretty much anyone I know.

spam detector:  felt66, as in, I am only 41, but after running after the dog and the kids all day, I felt 66

Regarding the origin of the term “chick lit”, it first showed up as the title of an anthology of post-feminist writing in 1995, the contents of which had very little to do with what would eventually become known as the “chick lit” genre. The following year, an article in the New Yorker applied the term to a specific type of newspaper columns by women, such as the Sex and the City columns by Candace Bushnell. Eventually, the marketing types got hold of the term and used it to designate fiction in the Bridget Jones style (and of course Bridget began her life as a newspaper column). So we have two post-feminist anthology editors and a New Yorker journalist to blame for the silly term.

As for Terry Goodkind, his interviews - including the “I don’t write fantasy, cause my stuff is relevant” one - are infamous in the SFF community.

I wish we had a less demeaning label for “chick lit” if we must have labels.

How about “bitch lit”? I wear the SB label with pride.

Polly baby, you are: Too. Stupid. To. Live.

Q: Is it possible to get rid of the “chick lit” tab?

A: “Maybe if you write in such a way that is really difficult to read or you’re a woman author not writing about those kinds of issues. ....

Duh. Gosh Dang Polly!  I jus can’ read all dem der words!

say Polly? Bite. Me.

Chick lit?!! Insulting in just sooooo many ways!

I’m super sensitive to how Romance novels and Romance readers are categorized - but when I first read this author’s quote I thought she meant romances as in “fanciful stories” generally and not Romance novels in particular.  Like how some people use “romance” as synonymous with “fairy tale.” (playing on the old meaning of romance) I could just be giving her a benefit of doubt, though, that she doesn’t deserve.

Um, two things about fantasy:

1.) If Terry Goodkind doesn’t ‘do’ worldbuilding, then why are his books so darn long?

2.) I can’t think of very many fantasy novels in which magic doesn’t behave according to the author’s rules.

I wrote a frickin’ essay that got me into college on why fantasy books are just as relevant as ‘realistic’ fiction. I see no reason why romance novels aren’t the same. (I just wasn’t reading them in high school.)

Hey, the only thing worse than writing romance is writing erotica.  I should know—I’ve written both (and, oddly enough, have heard both referred to as “smut”).  As long as the authors writing genre fiction insist on pretending their romance, chick lit, mystery, erotica, fantasy novel is not like those “other writers,” genre fiction will continue to be marginalized and socially unacceptable.

I’m confused. By saying “The only thing worse than writing romance is writing erotica,” you’re telling us that writing romance is basically crap?

Don’t mean to put words into your mouth, but your comment is certainly interesting on a board filled with romance loving women. I wrote what I consider romantic erotica, and then romance that has a lot of erotic scenes, and now I’m writing straight suspense and UF, which include very erotic scenes. I don’t consider writing romance or erotica “worse” than any other genre, and every genre has its place and its audience.

If someone calls what we write “smutt,” whatever. As long as we enjoy it, that’s what counts. Our dollars spent on romance books makes our statement for us.

I’m confused. By saying “The only thing worse than writing romance is writing erotica,” you’re telling us that writing romance is basically crap?

What I got from that comment was, “the only genre you can write that gets more flack from idiots than romance is erotica.”

Although my first impression was the same one you got, I went back and reread it, and I think she was taking a shot at detractors of both genres, not the genres themselves.

I’m confused. By saying “The only thing worse than writing romance is writing erotica,” you’re telling us that writing romance is basically crap?

Oh, good lord, no!  I was saying that erotica is the only genre that receives more insulting and derogatory comments than romance.  Sorry for the confusion, I shouldn’t have assumed the sarcasm would come through.

What’s weird about her statement is that most chick lit writers I know (myself included) also write and/or read romance. Most of us started out reading romance, but because we have snarky voices were labeled chick lit (that’s pretty much what happened to me). Williams is biting the hand that feeds her, really, considering the cross over appeal between the two genres.

Why does anyone feel like they have to put one genre above another? I really enjoy a good book in many genres. While there is *some* crossover readership between romance and chick-lit, I have never really understood the deep chasm that seems to exist between the two camps, each side keeping well on their side of the divide. Just as there are many flavors of romance, there are also many flavors of chick-lit (not all the stories are about kooky 20s obsessed with shoes) and both genres deal with relationships.

Read (and write) what you love. No need to diss someone else in the effort to promote your own preferences.

Oh, good lord, no!  I was saying that erotica is the only genre that receives more insulting and derogatory comments than romance.  Sorry for the confusion, I shouldn’t have assumed the sarcasm would come through.

Gotcha. :)  I guess I’m a little slow on the uptake—sorry about that. And having just finished my second glass of much needed wine in my office after spending the day working on filing and bills—the real crap. I’m much rather be writing. Ugh.

My spam filter is weeks12, and honestly, it’s been that long since I’ve filed or paid attention to my mail. My bills are on autopay, so I just write because of intense deadlines… then find out like today that my insurance company has been denying claims.
::screams::

Thanks for clarifying!

Chick lit is empty calorie contemporary romance. The candy pink cartoonish covers can’t hide the fact that these snacks lack nutritional value.

Romances give me a escape I find very relevant to my every day life, and in them I find women who deal with issues extremely relevant to the real world. 

In chick lit I don’t find relevance.  I don’t even find escapism.  Usually what I find is an obvious morality tale wrapped up in a pretty package.  Now, granted, I started in at the beginning of the chick-lit phenomenon, but I got turned off early on because in every book I read, there was a sense of an author pushing me towards this “realization” with this exaggerated tale of psuedo-life.  The backs of the chick lit I’ve read lately haven’t seen much different.  On top of that, it’s rarely if ever a moral I agreed with.  Look into the subtext of most and you’ll find that there is a strong undercurrent of “ambition leads to a massive smack down courtesy of the universe.” These stories borrow much from the female melodrama of Cinema’s Classic Age - and those were in the 30s to 50s!  Personally, I think women should be encouraged to be more ambitious - not discouraged.

I guess I just don’t appreciate authors like Polly, who sit back smugly smiling because they’ve slipped me a pill of “relevance” with a spoonful of sugar.  Just as I don’t like someone slyly hinting that I’m shallow and doomed to being miserable because I love shoes and want to have a career and watch my weight. 

Let’s dissect the description of Yummy Mummy: 

The mothers who want to keep their figures and stay beautiful are the villains of the story, deranged and unhealthy, while the mothers who put their “children before their vanity” are chubby but happy. 

I’m not saying children should come second, but why should women who try and maintain their figures and continue to have extra-curricular lives be demonized in such a way? 

It encourages a stereotype that once you become a mommy, you are supposed to become this sort of wholesome-earth mother type.  Gender-neutral except to your husband and uninterested in anything beyond the moral implications of what you are teaching your kids.  I hope that the main character strikes a balance between the two worlds in her book, but I’m not holding my breath—or buying it, thanks to the author’s insensitive comments.

In defense of chick lit:  If you haven’t read Jennifer Wiener or Marian Keyes, you’re missing out.  They write about real emotional issues that are absolutely relevant and NOT about tiny dogs or expensive shoes.

The Yummy books sounds like a romance.  And has a classic chick lit theme, IMO.  Image-conscious gal realizes good old Joe is the guy for her after all, yadda yadda.  Too bad the author doesn’t realize she’s insulting her entire reader base.

In defense of chick lit:  If you haven’t read Jennifer Wiener or Marian Keyes, you’re missing out.  They write about real emotional issues that are absolutely relevant and NOT about tiny dogs or expensive shoes.

Second this. I’ll also add Adele Parks to the list.

Saying that there’s only one plot line to chick-lit is just as bad as calling all romance novels bodice rippers. There are better and worse books in every genre across the board and it’s only by reading widely that you find the authors you like.  Sweeping generalizations about any genre aren’t helpful - to anyone

Thirty-one-year-old Amy Crane, six months postpartum, is stuck between two groups of mommy friends. On one side are the women from her childbirth class, dedicated mothers whose chubby figures and comfy clothes declare, “We now put someone else’s needs before our vanity.” On the other side is Amy’s new friend Alice, a so-called “yummy mummy,” who, with her similarly slim and elegant West London friends, takes Amy on as her newest project. Soon, Amy is caught up in a whirlwind of designer shoes, fad diets, Pilates classes (complete with a troublingly handsome instructor) and Botox injections, all of which alienate Joe, her longtime boyfriend and the father of her daughter.

Wow, yeah, I can totally relate to this. So can every new Mom I know, because we’re all like sheep who don’t have any idea what our opinions on raising children are until the baby actually arrives—we don’t think ahead very well, tee hee—and there’s no such thing as a mother who is kind and helpful to other mothers. Really, we women just aren’t capable of that sort of thing. :rolleyes Can we stereotype women a little more there?

Oh, and all new parents can afford Pilates and Botox and stuff. Apparently only freaks make real genuine financial sacrifices to stay home with their children. I bet money that at some point in the book the heroine laments how poor they are now because she can’t buy a new pair of designer shoes, while still being able to afford just about anything else she wants.

How exactly is a story about a bunch of rich spoiled snobs relevent to me, but romance isn’t?

A good writer makes a story resonate no matter what the genre.

I like Chick Lit, but very little of it resembles my life. The devil, I’m told, wears Prada, but I never have; I live on the edge of the woods, and I wear moccasins and mukluks. Most CL has very urban heroines living lives different from my own, but if a writer is good I still relate to the characters.

The writer seems to miss the obvious—all successful fiction is relevant and resonant, or it wouldn’t be successful. Nobody says, “I didn’t relate to any of the characters, nothing in the book reminded me of my own life, the writer utterly failed to engage me… I think I’ll buy more!” Even if a reader is looking to escape, they still need to on some level find a commonality of experience, emotions they can understand, a story that speaks to them.

Any writer who produces the above is doing her job.  She can make the heroine a queen, a pauper, a magazine editor, a woman who lives on the edge of the woods, or countless over variables and women in all walks of life will nod in understanding.

The irony of course is that Chick Lit writers had “literary writers” bitch slap the hell out of them with that “This is NOT Chick Lit” anthology. They retaliated, of course, and most of the stories in their response anthology had the author note explaining why CL has merit which is code for literary value. It seems like this writer definitely took the defensive author notes to heart, but missed the bigger message that maybe women writers ought to be supportive… or something.

This is a woman writing for women, to say romance novels are irrelevant makes me think she has mixed feelings about her role, and perhaps feels a little ghettoized because her daddy, husband, boyfriend, lit professor thinks that romance is all mantitty and heaving cleavage.

“I wanted to make the books relevant to those issues that women really face today, otherwise they would be romances.”

I actually feel a bit sorry for this woman because I interpreted her comment as though she’s saying that in reality “real women” don’t get to face romance.
I did, just this morning. In fact, romance shook me awake, told me we were running late and then gave me a smile and my cup of coffee.
But then again, I may just be totally missing the point she was trying to make. After all, I’m just a silly woman who likes to read romances ;)

I’ve never understood why a writer of genre fiction feels the need to put down another genre.

Chicklit and Romance both address issues and storylines and characters that are relevent to their readers. Just as both genres are often read just for the fun of it.

It’s too bad in order to promote her book she felt obliged to ‘demote’ another genre widely read by women.

ok normally I’m a lurking reading the messages, but this one just got to me. What kind of romances has this person been reading? If any?

What kind of romances has this person been reading? If any?

I vote for the “if any,” Beth.  The more I think about it, the more her words remind me of Curtis Sittenfeld, when she reviewed Melissa Bank’s Wonder Spot and just absolutely shredded it.  (Curtis is the author of PREP and one of the authors behind This is Not Chick Lit.

What was beautiful was in the wake of Curtis’ shredding Melissa, Jennifer Weiner followed along and poster in her blog, the most hilarious deconstruction of Curtis’ review, translating it from “reviewer speak” into what Curtis really meant.

Seriously, even nearly three years later, it’s HYSTERICAL.

To be honest I will avoid her book. I do not think it’s necessary to trash a whole genre of writing because of what you perceive it to be. I think that is wrong.

I wanted to make the books relevant to those issues that women really face today, otherwise they would be romances.”

Well, basically, this author can kiss my ass!!! There are wonderful articulate authors out there who write great romance and erotica - good escapist literature. Call me buck stupid, but I don’t want to read books relevant to those issues tht women really face today for pleasure. I’m living those issues!!! I enjoy a damn good escapist romance that makes one’s toes curl. And, oh gee - there is often wonderful poetry and classical work woven into said romance story.

“I abhor the term ‘chick lit.’ I think it’s pejorative and utterly stupid, and I’m glad I’m seeing less of it. But I’m not so pleased to see yet another author taking a swipe at romance as irrelevant and weightless. You’d think that someone who faces a genre label that dismisses the quality of the writing within it wouldn’t be so quick to toss judgment against another genre.”

I am in total agreement with your statment above. This female writer needs to come down off her high horse and realize that romance has it’s place just like any other literature genre. Further, it would be interesting to see how her derogatory opinion would fair if she was in a panel discussion with a group of good romance authors. As for the term “chick lit”, basically another marketing label that is degrading to authors work. Further, authors who refer to other writers work in that context are basically showing their own jealousy and ignorance.

And what’s wrong with escapism? Most of the chick lit books I’ve read (I didn’t get along with the genre as most of them just don’t strike a note with me) are about aspiration to be better, look better, shag better, whatever. An escape from the boring job and life the main character has.

I don’t always have to read to better myself, I certainly don’t read in order to find a protagonist just like me (for one thing it’d be bloody depressing). If an author shows me human characters with whom I can empathise as a fellow person no matter how different to me as a human then by golly that’s good enough for me. I like my books with space-farers, werewolves, grizzled adventurers and Romans and I’m not sorry if some snotty author seems to think that makes me a shallow, fluff-brained inferior race.

Catchword - reading91, I hope I still will be enjoying books at that age.

There is a series of anthologies in SF that took the chicklit label to another level which I found hilarious. The Chick is in the Mail being one of them. Kickass “chicks” in some great short stories. I like it when they turn the tables on the idiots who coin stupid phrases like that.

Motherchucking fitlickers

wanted61- will I still be wanted then?? Call the postoffice!

I know where there’s a cross dressing Cher impersonator

I love Jennifer Weiner. Has anyone read her newest one, the follow up to Good in Bed. That has to be one of my fave books ever.

period87—not since march 31!!!

I don’t always have to read to better myself, I certainly don’t read in order to find a protagonist just like me (for one thing it’d be bloody depressing). If an author shows me human characters with whom I can empathise as a fellow person no matter how different to me as a human then by golly that’s good enough for me. I like my books with space-farers, werewolves, grizzled adventurers and Romans and I’m not sorry if some snotty author seems to think that makes me a shallow, fluff-brained inferior race.

I’m with you, very well said….

Why is escapism not relevant? I’m confused as to how we’re throwing around the term “relevant” here. I took it as, “Related to issues that women face in their daily lives.” So, yeah. Romance is relevant. I’ve been rereading Nora’s In the Garden books. Maybe I can’t relate to losing my husband and raising my sons alone, but how is that not relevant to women’s lives? Or, I’m a big fan of Julia Quinn—even if the immediate problems aren’t the same, the emotional impact of them can be familiar.

Fantasy’s the same way for me. Sure, I’ve never been called upon to defeat vampires or a Dark Lord or to lead an army, but there are times when you feel overwhelmed by whatever you are called to do, and isn’t that when those stories become relevant? Isn’t that the whole point of fairy tales? They’re about ordinary people overcoming their obstacles.

Just to clarify:  I don’t think stating what I see as a common formula is a sweeping generalization, any more than to say “in romance novels, I find a common theme of two people falling in love” is a sweeping generalization.  Ok, it’s a generalization but so is saying “there are cowboys in Western Novels.”  Genres, by definition, do fall into catagories of generalization.

I never said they were poorly written, or that they were trash, or anything like that.  I’m not trying to trash chick lit - just explain why I find the genre is not for me, and why, as a whole, the books have turned me off.  Because I just don’t like morality tales.  But I’m sure there are people who get bothered by fairy tale aspects of the romance formula and that turns them off. 

I am totally open to suggestions of good chick lit, by the way, because I always love a good, funny, cute read, but if the plot involves the woman giving up a career or ambition in any way, and stereotyping of ambitious women, be forewarned I’m throwing it out the window.

Genevieve,

I haven’t read very many “Chick Lit” books that I managed to finish. I think I kept getting hooked by the interesting story idea and just not finding the execution to my taste. Now adays, I just don’t finish books I don’t enjoy reading. So with that in mind, I really enjoyed In Her Shoes by Jennifer Weiner. Now, not to give too many spoilers but to address a concern, someone does give up a job, but I think she finds one that is more her spead. And! I did not feel like it was a morality tale against female ambition. Rather, I thought it was a very thoughtful look at the sister dynamic. Anyway, I found it a lovely and engrossing read.

Almost just in time for the discussions of the last few days, a Times Literary Supplement review that explains why romance can’t get any respect:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article4179902.ece

I can’t tell if this is supposed to be totally serious or somewhat ironic:

Crucially, romance doesn’t seem dark enough. The geek boys have emerged from their bedrooms and become acceptable, even admirable, because their fantasies are allowed to be nakedly steeped in power, and the misery of not having it, whereas girlish love stories deal with similar feelings under several stifling layers of cotton candy.

I haven’t read the whole of this thread, so I may be repeating something that someone else has pointed out.
I just want to point out that the ghastly title of this book, Yummy Mummy is a downmarket journalistic expression that is extremely common in British English at the moment.  Whether it will have the staying power of, say,  Essex Girl remains to be seen, but its use as a book title may, just may, be deliberately ironic. 
But in any case, the impact on a British reader will be unlike the impact on an American (or Australian) one, because the phrase is currently so common in BE, constantly infesting newspapers and magazines;  it has a clear and widely understood definition, and is widely understood.

Spamword - zebra97:  I knew that animal would come back to haunt me.

Should have edited more carefully.  One mislaid comma, one repetition.  Sorry.

AgTigress, could you clarify the meaning of Yummy Mummy, for me at least? I can guess at a meaning but being an American who hasn’t even been in England to vacation for 6 some odd years, I would like to have a more accurate definition to work with.  Afterall, my inference may be way, way off the mark.

Ah.  The term yummy mummy was originally applied chiefly to celebrities who flaunt motherhood while still retaining immense, very non-maternal glamour;  film stars, models and so on, e.g. Madonna, Gwyneth Paltrow, the ineffable Victoria Beckham.  Princess Diana would undoubtedly have been called the yummy mummy to end all yummy mummies if the term had been invented in her time - she was a perfect exemplar of the breed.
It is now extended to those women who, while not household names, remain elegant, well-dressed, perfectly groomed ladies-who-lunch even though they have young children, and make much of the wondersand fulfilment of motherhood.  A good deal of money is required to carry this off.

AgTigress,

Thank you thank you! I love to know the history of these sorts of terms. It was somewhat as I suspected but not totally so I’m very glad to have it all sorted.  And indeed, a good deal of money would have to be involved in such a process. The trainers and the diet* alone most cost a small fortune.

*And by diet I mean what one eats, not the act of dieting to loose weight. Although I suppose that would be the point for these women.

Jennifer Weiner is in fiction. Why they always throw her into the romance section, I have no clue.

I loved Good in Bed. I think I may have mentioned that. snigger.
And the follow up Certain Girls although it didn’t pack the humor punch Bed did, it was well written and it dealt with some sensitive subjects nicely.

I have a signed arc of Shoes around here somewhere.

I read TO escape. I don’t want to read some of the philisophical crap the kids at work are always reading. I did that years ago and can’t believe how much time I wasted on the jreck.

Not long ago I had an argument with one of those kids about what I read. We always have a contest running to see who has read the most books for the year. I was adding to my list, and she looks over and says something like “Yeah, well, I consider what every book you read to be equal to less than half of mine”. THAT didn’t go over to well.

human18- snigger

Terry Goodkind does not do world-building?  Has he forgotten his first 3 Shanarra books?  FFS, people just need to get over themselves.

Terry BROOKS is the guy who was not permitted to write Tolkien fanfic by the Tolkien estate, and so wrote the Shannara homage that was a major push in continuing the Tolkien-esque trajectory of high fantasy: the elven, dwarven, questy animal it remains today.  His heroes find magical shiny things and defeat dark lords with them, sometimes while angsting.

Terry GOODKIND, on the other hand, is the “Wizards First Rule” guy who wants to channel Ayn Rand into a vaguely Tolkien-y world, whose hero slaughters anti-war protesters and kicks in the faces of bratty eight-year-old girls, and whose chickens are evil incarnate.

Just to clarify.