Chick Lit

I wasn't going to write about Chick Lit today. However, I caught the very end of a CBC interview today with an author who objected to the term "chick lit" and the subject caught my attention. Should women be offended by the term "chick lit"?

The author in question suggested that the term "chick lit" be replaced with the phrase: "modern women's literature". Not quite as catchy as "chick lit"! Further, she was annoyed that men didn't really have the same type of literature ascribed to them - there is, in the UK anyway, as I understand, "lad lit" - the same type of books as "chick lit" but for men. However, the author contended that there was no equivalent male term for chick. Chicks are soft, fluffy, and juvenile and she resented those sorts of stereotypes being placed on modern fiction about women.

I am a woman, but I am not offended by the term "chick lit". In contrast with the author's definition of "chick lit" as "modern women's literature", I see "chick lit" as its own separate subgroup of fiction. Just as there is mystery, romance, thriller, adventure, there is "chick lit". For me, a "chick lit" book features a modern heroine trying to overcome the dilemmas of modern life and find an attractive partner along the way. The woman in question is often fluffy and scatterbrained, but ultimately relatable. Examples of these include Bridget Jones's Diary, and Confessions of a Shopaholic; both of which I own and quite enjoy upon occasion. The books are well-written and easy to read - enjoyable by the general public but primarily written for, and appealing to, women. Generally, I believe, these books are written by female authors as well.

This does not mean that all fiction featuring a female protagonist should be classified as "chick lit". To do that narrows the scope of literature in general. Are Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next books "chick lit" because they feature a female protagonist? No. How about Laurie R. King's Mary Russell series? Or Mercedes Lackey's 500 Kingdoms series? These all feature female protagonists and I would argue do not fit the "chick lit" model that I have described above. Not all books written about women are "chick lit". If "chick lit" is then equated with "modern women's literature", the definition becomes too narrow and exclusive and restricts writers and readers to a very narrow variety of literature. Do we really still have to get fussed over the definition of a certain kind of literature? Not all women writers write "chick lit". Not all books featuring female protagonists are "chick lit". Not all women read "chick lit". In short, "chick lit" is not the be-all and end-all of literature these days.

Further, how does one define "modern women's literature"? Are these books written by women? Books written for women? Books with female protagonists? What then is "modern men's literature"? Is that everything else that doesn't fall under the "modern women's literature" ambit? Are books that feature a female protagonist only for women readers? What about books featuring a male protagonist - are these books only for male readers? I do generally tend to read books featuring more female protagonists, but I am not adverse to reading books with male protagonists either. What I get annoyed about is that excellent and interesting books will be ignored by placing them in the category "modern women's literature", thereby restricting the readership to modern women. Shouldn't anyone who likes a good story read the book if it is good, no matter what the label? Labeling something as "modern women's literature" may then restrict the readership of that book.

On the other hand, labeling something as "chick lit" may also restrict the readership of the book. But in this case, it is more descriptive. I don't like reading horror books, so I avoid books in the horror section. If you don't like reading fluffy modern fables about women searching for love in the big city, don't read "chick lit". By calling "chick lit" "modern women's fiction", you risk alienating an audience from readers who are looking for something beyond the usual boy meets girl premise. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that "modern women's literature" seems like too scholarly a title for something as light and fluffy as I find most "chick lit" books. (Or at least the ones I've read.)

Your turn, my faithful readers. What are your thoughts on "chick lit", "modern women's literature" and books in general? Do you agree with my definition of "chick lit"? How would you define "chick lit" and "modern women's literature"? Let's argue it out in the comments below!