Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5089058" data-attributes="member: 54707">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification