What is Chick Lit?

[Umbran]

I just spoke with my wife about this (she's got far more exposure to the genre than I), and she gave me some good pointers.

As others have noted, "chick lit" and "women's lit" are not the same thing.

From "What is Chick Lit?" (chicklitcooks.com)

"...chick lit is a genre comprised of books that are mainly written by women for women. The books range from having main characters in their early 20’s to their late 60’s. There is usually a personal, light, and humorous tone to the books. Sometimes they are written in first-person narrative; other time they are written from multiple viewpoints. The plots usually consist of women experiencing usual life issues, such as love, marriage, dating, relationships, friendships, roommates, corporate environments, weight issues, addiction, and much more.

So how does that differ from regular woman’s fiction, you might be wondering? Well, it’s all in the tone. Chick lit is told in a more confiding, personal tone. It’s like having a best friend tell you about her life. Or watching various characters go through things that you have gone through yourself, or witnessed others going through. Humor is a strong point in chick lit, too. Nearly every chick lit book I have read has had some type of humor in it. THAT is what really separates chick lit from regular woman’s fiction."

The essay continues with other good points, but that section hits some of the important bits.

 

[Wycen]

I would suggest The Squatter and the Don. Written by Maria Ruiz de Burton.

And, though it is not fiction, Wild Swans by Jung Chang.

 

[Mark]

But if I'm reading you right then Women's Literature is what we'd call Literary (Capital L) and various incarnations of Chick Lit are more like genre-based, commercial writings.

From my understanding that seems a fair assessment.

That may be nothing more than a regional and/or generational thing. Around these parts ladies is almost always a term of respect for females, though I guess it could be applied differently in a bar. And probably nobody my age would say lady if they really meant, "not a lady."

I meant lady as in the female version or variant of gentleman. Odd to me I gotta explain that (never occurred to me I'd need to) but I guess times and cultures and vocabulary uses do change. Plus meaning connotations vary by region.

If you had posted, primarily I'm interested in the opinion of ladies on this one, gentlemen, I wouldn't have brought it up.

 

[Jack7]

From "What is Chick Lit?" (chicklitcooks.com)

"...chick lit is a genre comprised of books that are mainly written by women for women. The books range from having main characters in their early 20’s to their late 60’s. There is usually a personal, light, and humorous tone to the books. Sometimes they are written in first-person narrative; other time they are written from multiple viewpoints. The plots usually consist of women experiencing usual life issues, such as love, marriage, dating, relationships, friendships, roommates, corporate environments, weight issues, addiction, and much more.

So how does that differ from regular woman’s fiction, you might be wondering? Well, it’s all in the tone. Chick lit is told in a more confiding, personal tone. It’s like having a best friend tell you about her life. Or watching various characters go through things that you have gone through yourself, or witnessed others going through. Humor is a strong point in chick lit, too. Nearly every chick lit book I have read has had some type of humor in it. THAT is what really separates chick lit from regular woman’s fiction."

I was beginning to wonder, if Chick Lit and Women's Lit are different, exactly in what ways are they different? And if Women's Lit is really just literature, then what make sit Women's Lit instead of just regular old literature?

I think this is gonna help me out.

I would suggest The Squatter and the Don. Written by Maria Ruiz de Burton.

And, though it is not fiction, Wild Swans by Jung Chang.

Thanks. Gonna look these up too.

If you had posted, primarily I'm interested in the opinion of ladies on this one, gentlemen, I wouldn't have brought it up.

Now I think I gotcha. If I'm getting what you're implying. Something in the way I said that gave you the impression that I might've been some sort of internet perv trolling for girls, or creating a thread to troll for girls.

Or, maybe you thought I somehow sounded like I might come across that way to the ladies.

Well, personally I'm always one for being cautious and practicing good security on the internet. (Or anywhere actually.) So if that was your motive then I can hardly fault ya there.

No, I said that cause I want to solicit the opinions of women and girls on what they would find interesting to read about. And what they would consider good chick lit and good women's lit. Or maybe just good stories and lit generally speaking.

I appreciate what you gentlemen have said and suggested. That's helped a lot with the study and understanding. You know, on background. I'd also though like to know what a broader (broader than just the gals in my family) group of females might think on these issues.

 

[GSHamster]

I think there is some confusion over which genre you are targeting.

Chick Lit is generally characterized by the tone of the writing. Very modern, first person, very breezy, somewhat sarcastic. It's the kind of book where there's lots of eye rolling. Also tends to have the protagonist often distracted by "trivial" things such as fashion or men's look. It can be fantasy, for example, Mary Janice Davidson's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Betsy-Vampire-Queen-MaryJanice-Davidson/dp/0739461397"]Betsy, Vampire Queen[/ame]. But it doesn't necessarily have to be. I would say it's more a style of writing than an actual genre.

Urban Fantasy, on the other hand, tends to be a bit more serious. It often features a female kick-ass protagonist. But here it often depends more on the author and her world, just like Urban Fantasy written by men.

Then there's Romance and all it's sub-genres. I don't read a lot of Romance, but I like Regency's. These are novels set during 1800-1825, when Prince George was Regent for King George III. They tend to feature English society with very rigid rules and rather outlandish customs, and the fun is seeing the protagonists negotiate their way around society's rules.

Personally, I don't really understand what you are aiming for. Would it be something like Guy Gavriel Kay's work (Fionavar, Tigana, etc)? That generally fits the bill of Arthurian romance, but not so focused on on the trappings of the Romance genre.

 

[Mark]

Now I think I gotcha. If I'm getting what you're implying. Something in the way I said that gave you the impression that I might've been some sort of internet perv trolling for girls, or creating a thread to troll for girls.

Or, maybe you thought I somehow sounded like I might come across that way to the ladies.

Not as such. Merely that when used to refer to women in a colloquial manner, it is often meant in a demeaming way. Best when addressing women as intellectual equals to refer to them collectively as women. I was offering one extreme manner in which it can be taken and suggesting that, should worse come to worse, you would be seen as acting less than respectful using such a diminutive.

 

[Jack7]

I think there is some confusion over which genre you are targeting.

Chick Lit is generally characterized by the tone of the writing. Very modern, first person, very breezy, somewhat sarcastic. It's the kind of book where there's lots of eye rolling. Also tends to have the protagonist often distracted by "trivial" things such as fashion or men's look. It can be fantasy, for example, Mary Janice Davidson's Betsy, Vampire Queen . But it doesn't necessarily have to be. I would say it's more a style of writing than an actual genre.

Urban Fantasy, on the other hand, tends to be a bit more serious. It often features a female kick-ass protagonist. But here it often depends more on the author and her world, just like Urban Fantasy written by men.

Then there's Romance and all it's sub-genres. I don't read a lot of Romance, but I like Regency's. These are novels set during 1800-1825, when Prince George was Regent for King George III. They tend to feature English society with very rigid rules and rather outlandish customs, and the fun is seeing the protagonists negotiate their way around society's rules.

Personally, I don't really understand what you are aiming for. Would it be something like Guy Gavriel Kay's work (Fionavar, Tigana, etc)? That generally fits the bill of Arthurian romance, but not so focused on on the trappings of the Romance genre.

GSH, I'm not really targeting (in one sense - although I am targeting, "what would women like to read about") the forms, so much as gathering information about something I'm more than willing to admit I know next to nothing about. So the confusion is real til I get my true bearings. Even then I reckon many of the details could, and will be, argued among different people.

However between reading some of the internet articles you guys suggested, and some of the things you folks have been saying I think I'm getting a much better view of all of this and what it means.

Now I need to get my hands on a few of the books you guys suggested and that might show me more. Suspect it will.

I've also begun to suspect that rather than writing a chick lit book or a woman's lit book (that is a book not written by a woman, obviously, but targeted at a literate female audience) that with the story I got in mind I'll just write something that incorporates useful elements of all of these forms, plus the others I wanna throw in.

As a matter of fact I think I've already got something figured out about all a' this. What the real difference is between women's lit and men's lit. Not the genres and forms per se, but rather how they are handled, and why they are handled that way. And I don't think it's about romance, but rather that romance and some of the other ideas and issues expressed in woman's lit are symptoms of why women's lit is the way it is, and not the cause. And the same for what might be called man stories. It's just a theory but I think it's probably pretty much on the right track. But I'll bring that up later when I got the time.

I was offering one extreme manner in which it can be taken and suggesting that, should worse come to worse, you would be seen as acting less than respectful using such a diminutive.

That's interesting. I've never thought of the term lady as being a diminutive. Maybe grammatically I can see it, but not linguistically. It just didn't enter my thought processes. Cause I don't automatically think of ladies as a sub-group of females, but rather I assume all females are ladies, unless they demonstrate differently. (I'm not saying you think this way, I'm saying lady is in my mind naturally and automatically synonymous with female and with what I think of as natural female qualities, unless I see proof to the contrary.)

I'm not trying to make too much of the point, just saying it strikes me as fascinating the way people use language not only outwardly, but internally. The associations they make in their own mind. It's interesting the way people not only use language, but seem to have different constructive assumptions about what terms may or may not connotatively or even denotatively imply. But that's really a different matter and a different thread with its own complications. And I kinda wanna stay on the Chick Lit/Women's Lit subject for now. So I'll just say I think I understand your point now.

But it would be interesting to see if Chick Lit and Women's Lit had terminological and linguistic assumptions common to themselves. When I get a'hold of some of the books I'm gonna scan em and see if certain linguistic techniques and terms are shared in common in the forms. I think it would be related to the question of voice types and general language use. I read some internet articles (not that I'm necessarily thrilled with or trusting of internet articles, but it's a place to start) yesterday on criticism and women's lit and some of those ideas struck me as worth ruminating about.

Well, I was gonna get ready for church but one of my kids got sick playing in the snow the past couple of days so I'm gonna stay home with her. Make her some breakfast. Doctor her up a bit.

Maybe I can come back to this sometime later today.

Anywho thanks everybody.

 

[LightPhoenix]

If you'd like to try something like chicklit but written for men, you could try Mike Gayle's novels, which have been described as "the male confessional". I'd recommend starting with Dinner For Two, Turning Thirty, Brand New Friend or His 'n' Hers. They're very funny, and generally deal with the ups and downs in the life of the average bloke.

I'd recommend Nick Hornby as well.

 

[Jack7]

Here's my basic theory. I'll have to make it quick. It's sort of a literary theory, but mainly a psychological theory based on (my) observation of females and what I know of men that helps explain some literary conditions. It's generalizing of course because you're talking about entire sexes, not individuals. But generally speaking I suspect it is true for the most part.

Women establish relationships first, then do things. Or put another way, women consider relationships essential to doing things. By this I mean to say that to women they generally consider it vital to establish a relationship with somebody first, then later "doing things" with that person follows. First there is the relationship (and I don't just mean sexual or romantic relationship, but any and all kinds of relationships - work, friendship, etc.) and then there is the doing things together. So women don't generally do things with people they have no relationship with (remember I'm not just talking about man-woman relationships). Relationships come first and doing things follows as a consequence. So women are relationship oriented (whatever this means, because to tell the truth I don't really understand this idea, that the relationship comes first and the doing later - cause I'm a man) and not action oriented. (Generally speaking that is because obviously there is some overlap in both directions, but with ladies it's the relationship first, the doing later.)

Men are opposite in nature to that. Men do things with others and the relationship grows outta that. Or put another way men "do things" first and how you get along with the other person follows from that. Doing things establishes a sort of bond or brotherhood of mutual interest(s). Doing things cements the connection between you and your buddies. Your friendships arise because you play the same sports, do the same kinds of work, have the same interests, etc. Who you date and how well that all goes comes outta what you're doing together. Doing things comes first, and establishes the bond (be it friend, co-worker, mate), and the relationship develops as a natural result. You play sports with your buddies, go hiking with them, experience the same dangers and close calls, play the same games, watch the same things. You take your kids to watch em play ball or perform or do things with them. To men the relationship is established by the doing things. And that's generally the method by which it (the friendship or relationship) prospers, or fails. So men are action oriented and not relationship oriented. (Or to be more accurate, women are relationship oriented first, and doing things comes about as a result of the establishment of the relationship, but men are action oriented first, and relationships arise out of that action oriented condition.)


As a result of all of this men's books, games, sports, work, the films they like, etc, etc are filled with action and doing things, and the friendships and relationships in them result from shared or mutual action.

The things that women like, be it Chick Lit or Chick flicks or their friendships or work relations etc are all based on whatever constitutes to them the relationship ideal, and doing things together arises out of this ideal.

Because of this talk is a kind of "doing things" to women. (Whereas to men talk is something you do to discuss what you've already done, are doing, or plan to do. Women can talk about "nothing," men usually want their talk to be about "something." To have a point. Women though see talking as a vital part and point of the nature of the relationship. As "a thing in itself." Not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself.) So women's books and films and entertainments and even ideals are filled with "relationship matters". (No matter how they actually define these things in a particular situation.)

That's obvious in chick lit and chick flicks but I'll betcha (and I haven't had time to confirm this as yet) this also generally holds true for so called Women's Literature. And I'll bet it obviously holds true in women's vocabularies and their writing vocabularies and the way they use language.

So in describing most women's literature and chick lit and anything that is of primary importance to a female audience I'd briefly summarize thus: relationship oriented, not action oriented, action arises as a result of the relationship (rather than the other way 'round), talk is considered a "medium not just of communication but as a kind of action to a female," and so matters of work, family, sex, romance, etc. are of immediate and ultimate concern to women in an entirely different way than is the case with men.

As a little side or conclusion note I'd also like to point out that Adventures are of a wholly different character to most women than to most men. Adventures to women are and are about "relationship matters." Adventures to men are and are about "actions and events."

So a pleasing adventure to a female will probably be Romantic or a Romance (or at least heavily involve an element of romance) of some kind (and I'm using those terms, romantic and romance, in the broadest and largest possible senses), and a pleasing adventure to a man will involve action and danger and what men consider as "doing things." (Romance used in the broad sense will also imply an underlying danger or set of dangers, but usually of a different nature than danger as men think of it.)

I'll talk about how I think this all relates to literature and how you go about creating literature later on.

Well, I reckon that's about all the time I've got to spend on that right now.
I'm going back to work.

Anyone else wants to chime in then feel free.

I'd recommend Nick Hornby as well.

Seems like I've heard of that guy from somewhere before. But I can't recall where. Thanks.

By the way for someone that has the interest or the time (or both) it might do some good to start compiling a list of traits or common themes or attributes inherent in Chick Lit and in Women's Lit.

If you know what the traits of a thing are, and you know how they harmonize with and/or are differentiated from other things, then it's much easier to come to a good understanding of the way the thing works and operates.