The Term "Chick-Lit"

[juneafternoon]

Since I've always thought this would be an interesting debate, here goes:

Does anyone object to the term "chick-lit"? Do you think it devalues a work in any way, and that it's a derogatory term for light fiction veered towards women?

[Cathy C]

No, it's not particularly objectionable, but it does "brand" a book in a way that can be unflattering to a publisher. See, at first, there were a TON of chick-lit books that resembled in tone and style books/television shows like Sex & The City, Bridget Jones' Diary, and others. It includes: 1) an urban setting; 2) a humorous/sarcastic tone; 3) materialism of high order (often involving the quest/acquisition of expensive shoes); 4) a twenty-something woman "finding herself" which included romance and/or sex. The covers of the books were cartoonish, fluffy and brightly colored to indicate the content.

The term later evolved to become any humorous women's fiction title. But publishers have lately found that the readers' tastes have changed and materialism is seen as "shallow." So, the books languished on the shelf and the term itself (rather than the content of the books) is now a bit of a hot potato.

So, offensive---no. Objectionable (to me)---no. Distasterous to the potential sale of the book---yes.

JMHO.

[veinglory]

No. I buy chick lit and am only annoyed if something is branded that way that doesn't meet the brief.

[kikazaru]

The way that "Chick Flicks" is somewhat derogatory "Chick-lit" does have the connotation of being "light weight." However since I'm a fan of books that are for entertainment purposes only, I never let the term put me off.

[juneafternoon]

Cathy, really? The term kills your project? I was under the impression everyone (agent-speaking) wanted a good chick lit project nowadays. Not that I write chick-lit or anything ...

[Gina M]

I don't have a problem with it. I call my husband's reading material and movies 'Dick - Lit' and 'Dick - Flicks' so, no problem at all.


Gina

[ClaudiaGray]

Calling lighthearted books about women's lives "chick lit" would bother me less if books about men with similar tone/humor were not so often taken far more seriously.

[chevbrock]

It's wierd that "chick lit" and "chick flicks" are described as "fluffy", when so often they do deal with some sort of deeper theme - eg: Bridget Jones - don't judge a book by it's cover, the grass is not always greener, etc.

[a_sharp]

A lot of agents are on record as interested in chick lit, among other genres. They seldom qualify the term, but it seems to stay on their list as a category for submission. Has this changed recently?

It seems that if the category is so called because it defines a market segment, there's no disrespect to the term as far as the publishing industry is concerned. Obviously, some agents/editors don't go for it, but that seems more of a preference than a slight.

Being male, I don't understand the sleaze association in comments here, other than the usual objection to the word "chick" as generally misogynist. I don't use the word myself, but the younger generation seems to accept it as indicating a cool or trendy young woman, and certain publishers sell it as such.

[Polenth]

I don't find the term offensive and I'm female. It might be it's more offensive if you're a fan of chick lit and you want it to be taken seriously. I'm not a fan. Chick lit has too much romance and too few robots for my taste.

[EelKat]

I don't find the term offensive and I'm female. It might be it's more offensive if you're a fan of chick lit and you want it to be taken seriously. I'm not a fan. Chick lit has too much romance and too few robots for my taste.

As a girl who reads sci-fi and never reads chick-lit, I must say I agree 100% with what you said.

[Twizzle]

What irritates me is the lumping of all humorous books for women into chick lit. Chick lit originally began as a label for a very specific style/story/plot-young urban single woman looking for Mr. Right who loves a good pair of shoes, blah blah. But now, it's like oh? You wrote a novel that's funny? It has a romantic element? It's geared toward women? Must be chick lit. Nooooooooooo. It's not.

It's not that I don't appreciate chick lit. It's not that I have a problem with chick lit. I've had a chick lit short published. I might even do it again, dang it. I love all genres. But I do get tired of the lumping. It makes me weary.:cry:

[Shadow_Ferret]

Since I've always thought this would be an interesting debate, here goes:

Does anyone object to the term "chick-lit"? Do you think it devalues a work in any way, and that it's a derogatory term for light fiction veered towards women?
I don't object to the term, but I don't read chick-lit for that very reason.

[Cathy C]

Cathy, really? The term kills your project? I was under the impression everyone (agent-speaking) wanted a good chick lit project nowadays. Not that I write chick-lit or anything ...

"Wanted" is the key word. While they're still being published to this day, the projects were purchased by the publisher 12-24 months ago. But sales have been dismal, and NEW sales aren't happening very easily. There are probably still guidelines out there that request the books, because the agent is looking for a diamond that might start the next wave, but not many have actually been accepted. One conference I attended had editors from six of the major houses and it was recommended to the attendees by two of them that they not use the term if they hoped to have an editor take the book seriously. I'd be interested to know if there are any of the agents/editors who hang out here who could comment on it.

[Polenth]

I'd be interested to know if there are any of the agents/editors who hang out here who could comment on it.

My impression from Kristin Nelson's blog is that there's still space for original chick lit, but that it isn't the big thing it was. She did post something about it back in 2006, and there's been nothing since to say "Wow, chick lit is on the rise again!"

http://pubrants.blogspot.com/2006/02/state-of-chick-lit-nation.html

[WendyNYC]

It kind of bugs me, but it's ok. But I REALLY hate the term "hen-lit" for books geared towards older women. Ick.

[Haphazard]

I don't mind the term as long as we popularize the masculine form, 'dick-lit'.

[Gina M]

I don't mind the term as long as we popularize the masculine form, 'dick-lit'.

As long as their main characters are grumpy and last only a minute :)

[lfraser]

I'm not really interested in a book that's referred to as 'chick lit.' I have the impression --- and it my be way off base -- that chick lit novels are about women who are obsessed with their weight and/or clothes and or/appearance and/or finding Mr. Right.

[Thrillride]

A lot of agents are on record as interested in chick lit, among other genres. They seldom qualify the term, but it seems to stay on their list as a category for submission. Has this changed recently?

It seems that if the category is so called because it defines a market segment, there's no disrespect to the term as far as the publishing industry is concerned. Obviously, some agents/editors don't go for it, but that seems more of a preference than a slight.

Being male, I don't understand the sleaze association in comments here, other than the usual objection to the word "chick" as generally misogynist. I don't use the word myself, but the younger generation seems to accept it as indicating a cool or trendy young woman, and certain publishers sell it as such.

I agree. I have never heard it used in a derogatory way. I have always seen it as a viable (and very popular) genre. *shrug*

[juneafternoon]

Did anyone ever read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/books/review/05SITT01.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)? This is where my question stemmed from:

"To suggest that another woman's ostensibly literary novel is chick lit feels catty, not unlike calling another woman a slut -- doesn't the term basically bring down all of us?"

P.S. I realize that it's a book review :) I'm just talking about that sentence ^.

[Thrillride]

Did anyone ever read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/books/review/05SITT01.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)? This is where my question stemmed from:

"To suggest that another woman's ostensibly literary novel is chick lit feels catty, not unlike calling another woman a slut -- doesn't the term basically bring down all of us?"

P.S. I realize that it's a book review :) I'm just talking about that sentence ^.

Kinda feels more like the person who wrote the sentence's problem than anything else.

It's one point of view. I would get a lot more opinions before you truly think of chick lit in this way.

Just my 2 cents.

[Thrillride]

It kind of bugs me, but it's ok. But I REALLY hate the term "hen-lit" for books geared towards older women. Ick.

I know, that does feel bad, LOL!

[Gina M]

[quote=juneafternoon;1988941]Did anyone ever read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/books/review/05SITT01.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)? This is where my question stemmed from:

I just read this and now I feel the term 'chick -lit' is derogatory. Obviously, this is just one person's opinion, but unfortunately, a wide spread one.
I read an interview with an author whose books keep getting labelled as chick lit and her frustration with that label. Her books are funny, focused on a woman who was once part of a couple and for whatever reason is now single, and her day to day struggles with career, friends etc. Basically, a life that a lot of us can relate to.
I am currently querying a book that one week I call it chick -lit and the next, I call it light romantic comedy. As my character is 38 and married (and stays married), she clearly falls out of the chick -lit borders - whew. Guess I'm back to calling it light romantic comedy, or humorous women's fiction, or women's contemporary fiction or ...

Gina - just confused.