Is there such a thing as "literary chick lit"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

cmi0616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
141
Location
In the aeroplane over the sea
You've clearly not read much of Austen or Bronte—and equally clearly, aren't deeply versed in the contexts in which they wrote.

They were in fact dismissed because they were perceived as writing "women's fiction." That's why Charlotte wrote as Currer Bell and Emily wrote as Ellis Bell. Austen used pseudonyms for similar reasons, and absolutely wrote for commercial reasons. She wanted to be paid, and she made no bones about it. You'll likely have noticed that she ruthlessly mocks the literary critics of her day—especially in Northanger Abbey.

You'll have to take it on faith that I've read and written critically about Austen's entire oeuvre, though I am less familiar with the Bronte sisters' work.

Austen wanted to be paid--she once said something along the lines of "I want to make more money than God" in a letter she wrote. But that's neither here nor there as far as my argument in that particular post was concerned. My point was that genre as a concept--especially from the point of view of the writer--is often hokum. It doesn't hold up under much scrutiny. Is Tristram Shandy postmodern (and if so, the term "postmodern" must be a misnomer)? Is (again I ask the question) Austen's fiction chick-lit.? Did Dostoyevsky write thrillers?

If you'd like to discuss the possibly commercial nature of Austen's fiction, that's fine, but for those purposes please engage with my arguments from the topically corresponding conversation (I realize it's easy to get confused as I seem to be talking to at least 5 different people at once within this thread).

As for your second point, I'm glad to see that you agree with me. Based on your tone, you know as well as I do that "women's fiction" is a ridiculous way to categorize a piece of literature--especially anything Austen's written--and that writers shouldn't concern themselves with what is primarily a marketing device.

I really didn't think "write the best novel you can write" was going to be such a controversial piece of advice.

EDIT: To avoid making three different consecutive posts, let me quickly respond to your remarks about Shakespeare and others. If the argument that the person I was talking to was making (again, your mixing up the conversations I've been having and taking things out of context, which may be an understandable accident) was that the work should be universal and inoffensive--which it was--then clearly Shakespeare fails by this standard. His depiction of Italians as people who were essentially barbarians would no doubt alienate Italian readers of that era, the frank sexuality in his plays may indeed offend the religious (or merely the prudish), etc.

As far as Fitzgerald goes, I was discussing the text in that conversation. The wealthy aren't looked upon very fondly in a lot of F. Scott's work, most notably The Great Gatsby. Again, if a good story is something that is universal and as agreeable as possible, it's not clear to me that Fitzgerald or any other great writer like him was doing this.
 
Last edited:

cmi0616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
141
Location
In the aeroplane over the sea
Wait, are you saying that genre fiction can't have something to say?

(Or rather, that writers of genre fiction *don't* have something to say and aren't choosing popular fiction as the mode in which to say it?)

Again, I'm speaking in terms of literary fiction. The aims of literary fiction and (as in my previous example) the thriller genre are innately different. I'm not saying that genre fiction can't say anything meaningful, or even that it's less equipped to. But it doesn't have to. The thriller's raison is thrilling the reader, making it so that she must know how the story ends, making it so that she must keep turning the page. Literary fiction, on the other hand, by definition, has some sort of profound, usually social commentary that it's attempting to deliver to its reader. It must be engaging but fast-pacing isn't high on the list of priorities--and the differences go on and on. They're incomparable, and there is no saying that one is better than the other. I like Nelson DeMille almost as much as I like Zadie Smith, but I like them for different reasons because they are trying to accomplish different things in their work.
 
Last edited:

cmi0616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
141
Location
In the aeroplane over the sea
Perhaps you should explain this to:
Chaucer
Shakespeare
Milton
Richardson
Defoe
Sterne
Fielding
Austen
Eliot, George
Dickens

. . . oh, heck, most of the English and American canon.

Fitzgerald
Hemingway
Joyce
Woolf

And the winners of the Booker, etc.

They wrote for money; they lived on what they wrote, and in some cases, go to great lengths to promote, protect and market their works.

It's curious that Chaucer was your first example. Admittedly, I don't know much about Chaucer's life, but it's hard to imagine that somebody who was after widespread social and commercial acceptance would have written something as subversive and dirty as The Canterbury Tales.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 42

It's curious that Chaucer was your first example. Admittedly, I don't know much about Chaucer's life, but it's hard to imagine that somebody who was after widespread social and commercial acceptance would have written something as subversive and dirty as The Canterbury Tales.

You really need to read more; a great deal more. First, medieval literature as a whole is generally filthy by modern standards—and yes, that includes the religious literature, where the dirty bits are written in Latin or otherwise masked.

Chaucer was a court poet and a public servant; he was intimately connected to the Edward III and John of Gaunt via his wife, he served as an emissary in marriage negotiations for Richard II.

He rose to his social stature from his birth as the son of a vintner, a wine merchant, in part by dint of his poetry, landing a place as a page, and then eventually, as a courtier and trusted officer of the crown sent to negotiate.

Chaucer wrote with expectation of reward from the crown, and even specifically targeted the wealthy patrons like John of Gaunt; The Book of the Duchess is a commemoration of the death of Blanche of Lancaster, wife of John of Gaunt.

He was the King's custom's officer, he was given a grant by Edward III (a gallon of wine a day, for life, presumably for poetry because of the holiday on which the grant was awarded). He later even complains about not being paid his grant by Henry IV in Chaucer's Complaint to His Purse.

The Canterbury Tales was so popular that we have over 60 complete mss.—and two appear to have been commissioned by Chaucer himself, by his Adam the Scrivener, or Adam Pinkhurst. It produced medieval fan fiction. It was exceedingly popular—to the point that it was chosen by William Caxton as the first book to be printed in England; he chose to write both court poetry and treatises, and popular works, and was known for both.
 

cmi0616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
141
Location
In the aeroplane over the sea
You presuppose a lot of things scholars have been debating for a long time... It may have very well been the case that Chaucer's work remained obscure until his death. It is obvious that he was a courtier but this does not necessarily mean that he was a court poet. And on and on.

And then we have to go back to the conversation I was actually having on page 2, part of which included an assertion on my part that you can't apply cultural standards from one period of time to another. What was socially acceptable in the 14th century may not have been in the 19th, and what was socially intriguing in the 19th is often not as intriguing in modernity. I forgot who I was talking to on the last page who said it was the aim of good fiction to be "universal" but clearly "universality" is nearly impossible to accomplish, because it means anticipating cultural changes to come in the future. So in many respects, Chaucer's work is not universal, and yet I'd be hard pressed to say that it's not good, as would you, clearly.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 42

You'll have to take it on faith that I've read and written critically about Austen's entire oeuvre, though I am less familiar with the Bronte sisters' work.

I don't have to take anything on faith; I'm looking at what you're posting here.

My point was that genre as a concept--especially from the point of view of the writer--is often hokum. It doesn't hold up under much scrutiny. Is Tristram Shandy postmodern (and if so, the term "postmodern" must be a misnomer)? Is (again I ask the question) Austen's fiction chick-lit.? Did Dostoyevsky write thrillers?

You're now attempting to shift goal-posts; postmodern isn't a genre; it's a category. Genre is a specific terms of art, with specific meanings. Eighteenth century literature isn't a genre either; it's a era of literature, just as postmodern literature refers to an era of literature. Some of the typical stylistic markers of postmodern literature are found in all sort of works from other eras, in various genres.

This is not a new thing in literature; the Eighteenth century's "novel of sentiment/sentimental novel" was once a perfectly viable marketing category, with advertisements in newspapers listing the newly published examples with directions for purchase. You'll see The Sorrows of Young Werther advertised there—and later, as the category declined in popularity, you'll see Austen mock the category's excessed in Sense and Sensibility. It's even mocked in Tristram Shandy a bit.


If you'd like to discuss the possibly commercial nature of Austen's fiction, that's fine, but for those purposes please engage with my arguments from the topically corresponding conversation (I realize it's easy to get confused as I seem to be talking to at least 5 different people at once within this thread).

Dude. You need to get with the program. This is a discussion forum. You necro'd a thread with this gem:

As far as I'm concerned genre is first and foremost a marketing tool and in some cases a scholarly tool. Writers ought not to concern themselves with it.

That said, my impression of "chick-lit" is that it's a type of commercial, "pop" lit, which pretty much disqualifies it from being literary.

Is Austen "literary chick lit?" Bronte? I mean the term "chick-lit" is kind of gibberish as far as I'm concerned.

You started to go wrong with this first post: you dismissed genre. Then you dropped this gem:

That said, my impression of "chick-lit" is that it's a type of commercial, "pop" lit, which pretty much disqualifies it from being literary.

1. You're dismissing chick-lit. Something beloved by many members, and written by many members.

2. You're dismissing it in a particularly offensive sexist man-splaining way when you add

Is Austen "literary chick lit?" Bronte? I mean the term "chick-lit" is kind of gibberish as far as I'm concerned.

You are dismissing the books of many members, including some in this thread.

3. You completely missed my subtle hint that you were headed in a very bad direction. I pointed out

You've clearly not read much of Austen or Bronte—and equally clearly, aren't deeply versed in the contexts in which they wrote.

They were in fact dismissed because they were perceived as writing "women's fiction." That's why Charlotte wrote as Currer Bell and Emily wrote as Ellis Bell. Austen used pseudonyms for similar reasons, and absolutely wrote for commercial reasons. She wanted to be paid, and she made no bones about it. You'll likely have noticed that she ruthlessly mocks the literary critics of her day—especially in Northanger Abbey.

That was me trying to point out to you that you are very much not only dismissing other people's taste and writing, you are coming across as one more guy dismissing the writing of women.

You missed that completely and wrenched it around to:

As for your second point, I'm glad to see that you agree with me. Based on your tone, you know as well as I do that "women's fiction" is a ridiculous way to categorize a piece of literature--especially anything Austen's written--and that writers shouldn't concern themselves with what is primarily a marketing device.

I don't agree with you. To be blunt, I think you're being exceedingly sexist and dismissive of your fellow writers and members—which is not in accord with respecting your fellow writers.

You also seem to be under the impression that you may dictate how other members respond.

You may not; this is an online discussion forum; conversation will ebb and flow, and people will assume that you own your own words.

I'm sorry that I offended you, that was not my intention. Keep in mind that since this is the "literary" forum, I am speaking in terms of literary fiction. Based on the links below your posts, you're not writing literary fiction. Which is fine, but I think literary fiction has different aims than, for instance, erotica, and that you can't apply the standards of one genre to another. So I apologize if that wasn't clear.

You'll note that the forum title is

"Mainstream/Contemporary/Literary."

None of those are genres.

They are all marketing categories. Literary fiction is a category—it is moreover a category that was largely invented by twentieth century booksellers and publishers trying to come up with a name for books that while they might very well also belong to a genre, but that were a particular kind of book with various sorts of qualities (which are rarely going to be identical in two people's list, but there's a large enough overlap for a Venn diagram).

In short, literary fiction is a marketing category designed to sell particular sorts of books to particular kinds of readers. That's quite reasonable; we have the concept of novel for similar reasons today; booksellers needed a way to label certain kinds of works.

That said, erotica is a genre, and some of it falls within the category of literary fiction—say, Anaïs Nin.

And finally—and this is a specific warning: when you write:

Based on the links below your posts, you're not writing literary fiction. Which is fine, but I think literary fiction has different aims than, for instance, erotica, and that you can't apply the standards of one genre to another. So I apologize if that wasn't clear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 42

You presuppose a lot of things scholars have been debating for a long time... It may have very well been the case that Chaucer's work remained obscure until his death.

Yeah, you see this ? This is you mansplaining.

Chaucer's work did not remain obscure until his death because we have a large number of mss. that were made in his lifetime.

Moreover, there are references to him by Lydgate and a minor poet not much read now—Hoccleve. Then there are allusions to his works in contemporary works that do not name him by name. Just the fact that Lydgate and Henryson continued works by Chaucer tell us he was already popular.

It is obvious that he was a courtier but this does not necessarily mean that he was a court poet. And on and on.

The 1398 grant of wine pretty much does indicate that—April 23 is St. Georges day, the traditional day for English kings to grant gifts of patronage to artists; so does the Corpus Christi frontispiece of Troilus and Criseyde; many of the people are members of the court who have been identified, including Richard II.

So in many respects, Chaucer's work is not universal, and yet I'd be hard pressed to say that it's not good, as would you, clearly.

I, like others in this thread, am quoting your own words. You keep trying to shift the conversation. I'm looking at what you wrote, I don't have a clue what you meant to say, but I am absolutely looking at what you did say—and the context argument is a poor one because, yes, I am looking at your words in context.
 

whiporee

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
563
Reaction score
77
Location
8700 foot above sea level, 1500 miles from the oce
Website
www.abeachday.com
But what it sounded like you were saying, initially, was that fiction should simply "tell a story" whose purpose is solely to entertain, and that content in the story that people might initially have an aversion to should be edited out.

That's not at all what I said. What I said -- and what I believe -- is that writers write to be read, to get whatever it is they wanted -- their ideas, their story, their beliefs -- to whatever audience they desire. Part of that is writing with that audience in mind. So if you're writing for YA, you're not going to include a graphic rape scene, no matter how well it is written or how powerful it turns out. If you're writing a thriller, you're not going to spend a lot of time describing each individual flower in the vase.

Your original argument -- at least when I jumped in -- was that a writer who considers whether an idea/scene/character makes their book less salable is somehow taking themselves from a literary position into something ... i guess the only word I can come up with is less. And my counter to that was that in order to reach a wide audience, you have to be able to be sold, and to make your point to the widest possible audience, you have to be able to sold to the widest possible audience. Sometimes that might involve editing something out, or including something you hadn't planned on. And then you made the TV comment which seemed to denigrate writing for a mass audience.

But to the point -- you seem to be saying that the distinction is that literary novelists write about those things that are important, and other people do not. I simply disagree. Everything is important -- entertainment is important. Enjoyment is important. And if someone writes about a "serious" subject, it doesn't make their work, by definition, any more important than anyone else's. They may do it better, and it may turn out to be a more interesting read, but that's in the skill of the writer, not in the subject matter they choose to pursue.

One more thing: The underpining of your argument is something I've heard at writer's conferences and writers' groups and back when I took creative writing classes in college, where someone with a serious bent would say "Well, I could have sold 10 million copies, too, if I wanted to write about vampires," as though their lack of success was more about the market than themselves, and if they were willing to lessen themselves and their craft, they'd be he success others have been. I don't know if that's what you mean, but I'll say this -- in my opinion, anyone who gets single dime for putting original words on paper is a f-ing rock star, and their accomplishments shouldn't be denigrated by anyone, ever.
 
Last edited:

cmi0616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
141
Location
In the aeroplane over the sea
I can't keep up with all of these posts, and it seems I've managed to offend more than a couple of people here. With that in mind, I want to clarify some things I think have been misunderstood about my arguments on this thread, and then I'll drop the subject.

1. I consider literary fiction to be a genre. If that's a presupposition I've wrongly made, then let me be wrong, but that's the presumption I've made while making the points I've made on this thread. It's been submitted to me that "Mainstream" is not a genre, nor is "Contemporary," nor is "Literary," although I would point out that this forum is a sub-category under "Writing Genre," so somebody somewhere must agree with me.

2. Specifically in response to Medievalist, I certainly never intended to be sexist. I think both "women's fiction" and "chick-lit" are inherently sexist labels, and I thought I was in fact combatting sexism when I implied (and said outright, I think) that "women's fiction" is a ridiculous thing to call Pride & Prejudice, for instance. Not that the work itself is bad, but that the the connotations of the label are absolutely bad. Again, I maintained in my initial post that there was no "chick-lit," that the term was gibberish. Now that I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, I should have made this clearer, but in my experience, the term "chick-lit" as well as "women's fiction" exists solely to dismiss fiction written by women (e.g. The Corrections is the Great American Novel, but The Interestings is "women's fiction," and men ought not to read it because it is, as the label suggests, for women). In other words, it's not a category or a genre of fiction at all, it's a sexist term used to "keep women out" of literary fiction--and one that works unfortunately well in today's publishing market.

It seems that you don't think "women's fiction" is a derogatory term. I have to admit, you are one of the first people I've met whose espoused that view (and this is why I thought you were agreeing with me about Austen and the Brontes). In any event, I sincerely apologize to you since, under your definition of the term, what I said was very clearly sexist. But I think the way the publishing industry treats women is pretty terrible, and I would hate for somebody to think I'm now a part of that tradition.

And while I'm responding directly to Medievalist, I did not mean to dictate how you may/may not reply to me. As I explained earlier, there are 4 or 5 people talking to me all at once on this thread, and they're not all talking about the same thing. You said you're reading my posts in context, but I assure you, if you go back to page two, some were specific examples I gave to support a specific point that were non-sequiters in terms of the stuff you've been talking about. My point about Austen in my initial post, for instance, is that I don't think she sat down and said "I'm going to write some chick lit. now." I think she wrote the best novels she could, and I think that's ideally what all writers should do, as opposed to worrying about whether their fiction adheres to some genre idyl. That post was in response to OP. What you pinned it onto was a separate conversation I was having about the role of money in the writing process. Again, you're obviously free to use my posts however you'd like, but I think quoting me in context augurs better for having a meaningful conversation, as opposed to simply lashing out at me.

3. Again, because there have been more posts in response to my comments about writing for a mass audience, I was referring to literary fiction. I do not think that other genres are "lesser" (although, admittedly, I see how what I said might be interpreted that way, and I apologize--I think it's great that people are still writing fiction in this day and age, regardless of what they're writing about--and I essentially admit I was wrong). I maintain, however, that a literary novelist can't write a literary novel with the goal of making his work as agreeable as possible. This was the argument made by whiporee as I understood it. S/He as since informed me that this is not in fact what was being argued, and if that's the case, I object to little that whiporee said at all.
 
Last edited:

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
Well -- for what it's worth, here are my 2c.

I have never written for the market, and never will. That doesn't mean that I don't write for readers, or don't want to make money. Just that I don't see readers as a market I need to adjust to; it's the other way around! I want to offer my readers a journey, and take them by the hand on that journey, and hope with all my heart that they will enjoy it. It thrills and delights me that right now at this very minute, someone in the world is probably on that journey. It's a connection with strangers I'll never know, never meet, and yet somehow it's a connection of love. As someone who is almost pathologically shy in real life (well, not so really any more, but as a child I did know pathological shyness and it has taken real effort to overcome it), this is a wonder. Novels, I feel, come from inside me; they are the product of who I am and my own journey through life. My books, I feel, are an open door with which I can share all that. That's just how I do it; others do it differently, I'm aware.
I did, for many years, put money in the foreground and it just didn't work. I couldn't get a contract for a decade of struggling and writing book after book, writing books the way I do, books that didn't necessarily fit the market. Now I have a day job and the pressure to make a living wage is gone, so I just concentrate on getting the books I've written up to scratch.
I think if you write a good and original book, readers will come.

ETA: my publisher has classified my work as Literary Women's Fiction.
 
Last edited:

lise8

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
315
Reaction score
32
Location
UK, Kent
Thank you for posting about this, because I was wondering about the genre for the current WIP.

But for me, the distinction goes thus: literary is about prose and style. It is not only about lightness or seriousness of the topic. I agree with you that Maryan Keyes writes about tough topics (depression included) and does this really well, but in my mind, she classifies as Chick Lit because her style is flowing, it doesn't make your head swirl with 'oh my goodness that sentence was beautiful'. In my humble opinion, her strength is how she makes her readers fall into her stories and care so much for her characters. That is done through style, of course, but not through prose acrobatics...

Not sure I am making sense here....

Barbara Kingsolver, however, does still catch her readers deep in her story, but there is a flavour in her writing that makes the reader pause to savour the words for the words' sake too... or at least, I do.

For this reason, my WIP would be women's fiction, not chick lit because it is that bit too philosophical, and not literary, cause I ''don't write good enough''! ;-)

I think it is also about how you want to market your story: look into a book store or library, look at the cover: chick lit has a very defined style: the cover tends to be shades of pink, swirly writing, illustrations that are drawn... if that's the type of cover you vie for, then your genre might be chick-lit. If you are hoping for photo cover, bolder fonts, bolder colours, then you might be a better fit for women's fiction. Picture your target audience: which cover would entice her?
 

lise8

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
315
Reaction score
32
Location
UK, Kent
And lastly, these categories have been created to help readers choose books that they want to read:
chick lit = aimed at women (mainly, let's face it), for a fun easy read to enjoy. This doesn't mean there won't be hard truths, but that we are pretty much guaranteed an happy ending, generally heavily based on romance.
Women's fiction = once again, as opposed to mainstream fiction, this is meant to appeal more to ladies, because of the topic or main character. Happy ever after are not guaranteed, the topics may be a little less reliant on romance.
Literary women fiction = as above, but now we are talking about a different style of penmanship, the content and topic maybe more reflected still.

This is how I see it, and how I choose my books, as I read from all these (and more), as it takes my fancy.

Genres are there to guide readers to make their choices, for me that is the be all and end all of that question.
 

gingerwoman

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
228
As far as I'm concerned genre is first and foremost a marketing tool and in some cases a scholarly tool. Writers ought not to concern themselves with it.

.
Well writers do need to concern themselves with it, in order to sell their books, one way or another.

Even if you are the sort of person who says they do not believe in marketing their work, aren't in it for the money, blah blah, if they are approaching an agent or editor they still need to say what the book is.
 
Last edited:

The Good Typist

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
72
Reaction score
5
Location
Seattle, WA
Website
thegoodtypist.blogspot.com
I just finished the first draft of my novel, and I have the same question. It was going to be a sort of light-hearted chick lit book, but it ended up taking a fairly dark turn. However, I would still consider it chick lit, as it is overall breezy in tone and has comedic overtones. Maybe it would be considered more mainstream woman's fiction, I'm not sure. I really don't know how to categorize it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.