Chick Lit: The Great Debate

Obviously, Chick Lit is something that is very near and dear to my heart, seeing as I pretty much live and breathe the stuff on a daily basis. I admit that I write / watch it [by watch, I mean chick flicks / romantic comedies] more than I read it because, well, a lot of the legitimately published-by-real-publishing-houses Chick Lit out there is... Trashy at best. But that doesn't mean that all of it is! Or that the genre / label [there is debate over which to call it. For the sake of this blog, I will call it a genre] is completely 100% rubbish on its own. YA Novelist, Maureen Johnson, whom I look up to and adore, happens to be on the other side of this argument than I am personally, and today that topic sparked a Twitter dialogue between the two of us that went as follows:

The problem with Twitter, love it as I do, is that sometimes it's difficult to articulate your thoughts. I think I did a decent job there, but not the best.  So, I've decided to make this blog post to look at them in detail and to see what others have to say. Who knows, maybe we can change some opinions?

First, I think a clear definition of what I see as Chick Lit is in order. Like I said on Twitter, to me, Chick Lit is a nice blend of romance and comedy, wherein the themes and tone of the book are primarily intended for a female / otherwise like-minded audience. The novelized equivalent of a "chick flick" film. I feel as though somehow, the conversion between film and novel of the same general idea was lost. Yes, men will grumble and complain when their girlfriends drag them out to a chick flick, but they are still able to sit back and admit [albeit begrudgingly] when it managed to hold their attention and make them laugh. It's not death for them to experience a chick flick and it happens all the time.  For some reason, in the literary world, that isn't allowed to be the case. 

And this is the part that I don't quite comprehend. Because a book is meant for primarily women readers, men absolutely cannot touch it. In fact, it's not even men. Under no circumstances must anyone who isn't a pink-wearing, purse-puppy toting, card-carrying member of the "GRRL POWER" club allowed to be seeing reading a book that might possibly be considered Chick Lit.  What is the difference? I really don't see one, to be entirely honest.

The worst part is, this is the biggest argument that I see against using Chick Lit as a genre classification. It limits the readership to WOMEN ONLY and therefore must only ever be written by women. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Both halves of it. In fact, I look at it much the same as Young Adult fiction [which, mind, as a twenty-six year-old adult, is my preferred genre of reading]. 

Let's compare, shall we?  My definition of chick lit: romance / comedy + tones and themes intended for female-minded audiences.  My definition of YA fiction: usually younger-than-thirties characters + tones and themes intended for those of a young adult mindset.  Not so different, eh? Which is what strikes me so weird about this whole debacle. Neither is a genre that's constricting to plot elements, or characters, or settings, or anything like that; they're both labels that reference their intended audience. But one is widely accepted and another is treated like the most terrible swear word created.

A second point I touched on was the Chick Lit vs. Fiction classification, which was not articulated well over many tweets, unfortunately. I, personally, don't see the generic "fiction" labeling as bad; I peruse those shelves in the stores just as frequently as I would the YA, romance, or Stephen King shelves. However, I also spend a lot of time sitting in bookstores pretending to write and listening to other people talk about books. The people who aren't big readers and don't know a lot about the inner workings of the literary world? They often comment how the fiction section is "bland" and "lacking content" or are "classics and books to read at school." Most of us know that's not true, but there are people -- a lot of people -- who don't realize that. They see a category like "fiction" and think of it as the [stereotypical] Hufflepuff of Harry Potter houses: that one last place where the things that were good enough to get out there go because they don't fit in anywhere else.

I wouldn't mind being labeled as "fiction," really, and I know that's where my books will be categorized if there isn't a shelf for chick lit. They aren't funny enough to be comedies and they aren't romantic enough to be romance. Some of them are adventurous, but I wouldn't consider them to be action / adventure. And they're definitely not sci-fi, fantasy, thriller, horror, or YA. They would be fiction. But right now, chick lit fits my books and I don't find it offensive, pigeon-holing, degrading, limiting, or restrictive. 

I find that Chick Lit describes my books just how I want it to: funny and quirky and a little bit fluffy romantic. A light read that's going to make my readers smile.  And I'll be damned if I don't defend the genre tooth and nail when people say that it's a worthless label because it doesn't tell you anything about the book. 

Thoughts and opinions?  I'm willing to be swayed to hating the label [speaking of... Women's Fiction? Do not like. It sounds like stuffy grandmother books about women-topics like periods and stockings and douching. Ew. Chick Lit sounds way better than the alternative, don't you think?] like so many others so adamantly do.  Please share.  [:

--erin