Comments on: Chick Lit? Controversial? http://bookinfo.net/2006/08/25/chick-lit-controversial/ Sat, 19 May 2012 18:22:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Thomasina http://bookinfo.net/2006/08/25/chick-lit-controversial/comment-page-1/#comment-7500 Thomasina Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:13:30 +0000 http://bookinfo.net/?p=232#comment-7500 An excellent point---it's hard to imagine such a sweeping judgment would be applied to other genres. There are good fantasy novels that approach classification as straight 'literature,' and there are bad fantasy novels that make one wish the fluffy unicorns contained therein were real only so that one's eyes might be gouged out with their horns. Likewise, there are gripping mysteries that have become general classics, and there are mysteries that make one wish the butler had killed the author. And I agree, too, that it's almost the FACT of classification that is most irksome. Perhaps as I am part of the postfeminist generation, my greatest frustration is with the fact that a female writer is always that---a FEMALE writer. Regardless of whether or not she wants to write about women's issues, she will frequently be called a woman poet, a woman novelist. Not simply a poet, not simply a novelist. And the difficulty is finding a true gender neutrality, presuming that might be desirable for other (here we are) female writers besides myself, and not self-consciously denying what is feminine, or mimicking the masculine voice that has dominated the vast majority of literary history. It's unfortunate that one even has to say, 'This is Not Chick Lit.' An excellent point—it’s hard to imagine such a sweeping judgment would be applied to other genres. There are good fantasy novels that approach classification as straight ‘literature,’ and there are bad fantasy novels that make one wish the fluffy unicorns contained therein were real only so that one’s eyes might be gouged out with their horns. Likewise, there are gripping mysteries that have become general classics, and there are mysteries that make one wish the butler had killed the author.

And I agree, too, that it’s almost the FACT of classification that is most irksome. Perhaps as I am part of the postfeminist generation, my greatest frustration is with the fact that a female writer is always that—a FEMALE writer. Regardless of whether or not she wants to write about women’s issues, she will frequently be called a woman poet, a woman novelist. Not simply a poet, not simply a novelist. And the difficulty is finding a true gender neutrality, presuming that might be desirable for other (here we are) female writers besides myself, and not self-consciously denying what is feminine, or mimicking the masculine voice that has dominated the vast majority of literary history. It’s unfortunate that one even has to say, ‘This is Not Chick Lit.’

]]> By: Jane A. http://bookinfo.net/2006/08/25/chick-lit-controversial/comment-page-1/#comment-7367 Jane A. Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:49:48 +0000 http://bookinfo.net/?p=232#comment-7367 I'm with Weiner. Chick Lit can be complex and profound, or shallow--it's a category, not a quality. And seems like the bad old days of feminism to divide the troops. I’m with Weiner. Chick Lit can be complex and profound, or shallow–it’s a category, not a quality. And seems like the bad old days of feminism to divide the troops.

]]>