http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/03/contemporary-fiction

IT WAS fun at the start, like every romance. But ten years on, the bloom is off the “chick lit” rose. This sparkly slice of women’s fiction has more or less officially expired. Reports abound from either side of the Atlantic: publishers rebuff new titles; supermarkets barely stock them; authors can no longer make it pay. Sophie Kinsella, the reigning queen of light amusing urban romance, must feel a little like Mark Twain. She ain’t dead yet: her newest novel, "I’ve Got Your Number", is a current top seller on British fiction charts.

A decade after "Bridget Jones’s Diary" and "Confessions of a Shopaholic" unleashed a tsunami of stiletto heels, chick lit isn’t as much dead as transformed. The genre has grown up and moved on. If anything should be laid to rest, many women in publishing argue, it’s the dubious and denigrating label that has hung on it like an albatross from the start.


Hmm, I dunno...
(Literally: My idea of "chick lit" features a 6ft2in eurasian protagonist with a 6-limbed cat-like sidekick on her shoulder.) ;)

It isn't dead for me. I love chick-lit. Some of my favorite books are in that category.

10 years from now, I look forward to articles like "Is Vampire fiction dead?" and "Is YA Dystopia dead?" We will always have all kinds of books, it's just the bandwagon and glut of "me too" titles that will change. And if only the strongest books of an out-of-favor genre get published, maybe it's better to read that genre.

eP

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/03/contemporary-fiction



Hmm, I dunno...
(Literally: My idea of "chick lit" features a 6ft2in eurasian protagonist with a 6-limbed cat-like sidekick on her shoulder.) ;)

That is an HONORable idea.:)

It isn't dead for me. I love chick-lit. Some of my favorite books are in that category.

I agree. I love it!

Books just need need something fresh to come along now and then. I expect that people will be telling vampire stories for a very long time, for example. Stories can get worn out, but something always seems to come along to make it fresh again. Sometimes that new and fresh idea is simply to go back and revive an older idea.

The biggest current obstacle to chick lit, that I can see, is that the genre tends to revolve around shopping as escapism. That's a little harder to sustain, fantasy-wise, in the current economy. There's a fine line between "escapism" and "being shown things I can never have".

I consider chick lit to be romance novels without the sex.

That is an HONORable idea.:)

It fits the genre, no?
"Young career woman gets a promotion and discovers her new deputy wanted her position and resents her, her staff doubts her competence, and her immediate superior is the entitled jerk who tried to rape her when they were students and saddles her with an impossible job before going on vacation."
:D

Dead? I hope so. And I'm a "chick."

Finally a death i can be happy with :rolleyes:

It's dead until the next one comes along that becomes a best seller and pop culture phenomenon, then everyone else will rush to imitate its success.

Nothing's ever really dead -- just in hibernation.

I consider chick lit to be romance novels without the sex.

This.

Oscar Wilde might have been tempted to say " I shall certainly be at the funeral..............."

I never figured out exactly what constituted chick lit. Oh well.

I consider chick lit to be romance novels without the sex.

Romance with the sex is still chick-lit.

I consider chick lit to be romance novels without the sex.

And a LOT more angst...and overindulgent shopping...and obsession with designer shoes.

And a LOT more angst...and overindulgent shopping...and obsession with designer shoes.

A lot of that tends to whiz right by me. I go straight for the stock formula of

Leading lady is engaged to a guy who is totally and obviously wrong for her, OR has been burned once and has resolved to never. get. involved again.....

Meets leading man and they hit it off....

One or the other of them have a deep dark secret which threatens to break them up, or some slapstick comedic circumstances lead to hilarious misunderstandings which threaten to break them up....

it gets resolved and they live happily ever after....

I can take or leave the explicit bedroom scenes, but I do tend to prefer "implied"....

It fits the genre, no?
"Young career woman gets a promotion and discovers her new deputy wanted her position and resents her, her staff doubts her competence, and her immediate superior is the entitled jerk who tried to rape her when they were students and saddles her with an impossible job before going on vacation."
:D

Bet Weber never realized he invented the chick lit genre. :rofl:

A lot of that tends to whiz right by me. I go straight for the stock formula of

Leading lady is engaged to a guy who is totally and obviously wrong for her, OR has been burned once and has resolved to never. get. involved again.....

Meets leading man and they hit it off....

One or the other of them have a deep dark secret which threatens to break them up, or some slapstick comedic circumstances lead to hilarious misunderstandings which threaten to break them up....

it gets resolved and they live happily ever after....

I can take or leave the explicit bedroom scenes, but I do tend to prefer "implied"....
No, this is the stock formula of romance novels: the leading lady finds out that her life isn't complete without Mr. Right. In chick lit the leading lady's life is complete as long as she can still shop for shoes. If she knew before the story starts that shopping makes her happy, then it's just a matter of having enough money for it. If she didn't know, then she finds out.

No, this is the stock formula of romance novels: the leading lady finds out that her life isn't complete without Mr. Right. In chick lit the leading lady's life is complete as long as she can still shop for shoes. If she knew before the story starts that shopping makes her happy, then it's just a matter of having enough money for it. If she didn't know, then she finds out.

I must be confused about the ranges that fit. I read "Confessions of a shopaholic" and was mildly amused by all the crap this girl was buying, and enjoyed it for what it was. I found the sequels, however, extremely painful to get through. It was all the same exact story, only with a sister, a baby, a husband, yada yada....

But the definition of "romance novels without the sex" I tend to find a lot of - Maybe all the shopping stuff whizzes by me because that's not something I am drawn to in my real life (I'm not a fashion connoisseur, and I buy one pair of sneakers every 3-4 years.)

So does this mean chick lit is always contemporary? Or can there be such a thing as historical chick lit?

Romance is a story in which two people engage in courting activities and by the end of the story have fallen in love and maintain a relationship. Often they end in marriage and/or some other type of permanent bond.

Chick lit is focused on a woman's life and whatever happens in said life. Shopping is often included, lol, but doesn't have to be there. This woman is often single.

As women tend to fall in love, you can find romance like things happening in chick-lit. BUT...romance - as it's own genre - focuses on the relationship being built between two (or more) people. This genre ends with what is called a HEA or Happily Ever After. Occasionally you get a HFN or Happy for Now ending, but the end result is the same.

So does this mean chick lit is always contemporary? Or can there be such a thing as historical chick lit?

If think that for chick lit the reader is supposed to identify more with the main character than other genres.

Chick Lit promises to be bright and colorful.

http://nativeamericanjewelrytips.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/chiclets-gum.jpg?w=500

In the end Chick Lit is hard to chew and loses its flavor quickly.

Just let it die already...

So does this mean chick lit is always contemporary? Or can there be such a thing as historical chick lit?

I consider Pride and Prejudice to be Chick-Lit.

I consider Pride and Prejudice to be Chick-Lit.

On reviewer on Amazon called it the "Bridget Jones of the 18th Century". At least the reviewer knew which one came first, if not quite understanding the difference between a copy and an original.

Here is a quote:

Many readers are indeed turned off by the implicit marketing message. “It’s sort of like, admit it ladies, it’s all a ruse, this professional thing. The prince and the ring are really out there,” says one. That underlying sexism in packaging still grates . .

This article grates! It is like Science Fiction - we know it isn't real, but it is fun to read anyway. I read the tax code and cases all day long - I resent that anyone thinks they can look down on me because of what I read on the train. I admit, I read a lot more of this now that I have an ereader. The covers are just crazy! I find it difficult to go to sleep reading anything heavy - but I fall right off when I am reading a romance. Doesn't tax my brain in the least. Pure fluff. And my husband has benefited from some of the more explicit parts (can I get banned for this?):o

I never figured out exactly what constituted chick lit. Oh well.

And now you have missed it!

I never figured out exactly what constituted chick lit. Oh well.

You're obviously not changing the future course of your cultural life in a bid to find out more.

What will you miss.......:cry:

I thought this was about keyboards...

You're obviously not changing the future course of your cultural life in a bid to find out more.

What will you miss.......:cry:

I will survive ...

I thought this was about keyboards...

My TI 99-4 had one of those chick-lit keyboards.:eek: Never again, fingers kept sliding off the keys

My TI 99-4 had one of those chick-lit keyboards.:eek: Never again, fingers kept sliding off the keys

I made do with the membrane keyboard on the Atari 400.
Easy to clean, though.

Okay, so "chick lit" isn't focused on romance, but on the other things that happen in the lives of single (young) women. And publishers think there is no market for it? :blink:

Dead? I hope so. And I'm a "chick."Same here.i also despise chick-flicks.:)

Chick-Lit was just an excuse to market books in trade-size paperbacks at higher prices.

If it wasn't for Chick-Lit I'd never be able to go out on a date at my age. Need something to get the juices flowing before the inevitable let down.

I'm disturbed by the number of posters cheering the supposed death of a genre. Just because *you* don't enjoy reading a particular genre (whatever that may be - romance, science fiction, mystery, literary, etc) doesn't mean it is without worth. I read widely across most genres (I confess that westerns have never held my interest) and found that Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law) holds up pretty well.

To look at it another way, 10% is worthwhile reading. There are great stories to be found in any genre, which will often be the ones described as transcending the genre. To refuse to read an entire genre will leave you the poorer for it. I know people who won't read speculative fiction because it's "not real" [1]. So they miss out on some of the great spec fic works of our time. Some hold up a fantasy world as a mirror to ourselves, like Terry Pratchett's Discworld. Many SF - especially near-future SF - works explore big ethical ideas as well as scientific ones.

Romance, chick-lit and women's fiction all have their great works as well. Pride and Prejudice goes without saying, but there are others. Most works in these genres look at the nature of human relationships, both romantic and otherwise, which I think would be of interest to most people.

And finally, the 90% that is crud may not have long-term societal impact, but if it accomplishes its primary mission, to entertain the reader, then I count it a successful work.

PS I look forward to suggestions of good westerns to read... :)

[1] They didn't understand how "real fiction" is inherently an oxymoron.

Chick-Lit was just an excuse to market books in trade-size paperbacks at higher prices.

And Valentine's Day is just an excuse to sell flowers and chocolate.

I like trade paperbacks, since, as far as printed books go, they feel most comfortable in my hands - and one of the reasons I enjoy chick-lit so much is that I often find real gems and stories about people in books that are often disguised as "junk literature".

I like it because it "goes down easy". And I am glad there is something out there for practically "everyone", for all tastes and moods. So I put '44 Charles Street' on hold at the library.... it looks like a fun read.

I'm disturbed by the number of posters cheering the supposed death of a genre. Just because *you* don't enjoy reading a particular genre (whatever that may be - romance, science fiction, mystery, literary, etc) doesn't mean it is without worth. I read widely across most genres (I confess that westerns have never held my interest) and found that Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law) holds up pretty well.



my annoyance with particular genres is that publishers are perfectly willing to kill other genres in order to pump/pimp out more titles in the genre du jour.

i'm particularly annoyed with urban fantasy because for all intents and purposes it single-handedly killed off horror, science fiction and (to a somewhat lesser extent) epic fantasy in one fell swoop. those genres are pretty much dead at retail. publishers stopped publishing straight werewolf novels in favor of sexy werewolf chicks with ninja swords. space ships have been replaced by necropolises filled with ghoulies and beasties. vampires have been replaced by sparkly abercrombie models.

my annoyance with particular genres is that publishers are perfectly willing to kill other genres in order to pump/pimp out more titles in the genre du jour.


Sounds like your issue is more with the publishers than the genre or the authors.
Or maybe the place you buy your books? I dunno.

Me, I see no significant shortage in the SF arena; the established authors keep rolling along with the same output they've always put out and new notables seem to be popping up as frequently as for the past few decades. If the bandwagon followers are stampeding towards a new fad, I don't see that as terribly bad (Sturgeon's Law, again). The other traditional genres seem to be doing well enough; I don't see much moaning there.

One thing I do know; urban fantasy existed and prospered long before twilight and the current fad, just as juvenile fantasies predated and survived Potter-mania. And the current publisher fad seems to be more a matter of YA variants of existing genres than anything else, which isn't necessarily bad either; drawing in young readers can hardly be a bad thing, however it is done.

The only place I've noticed any real shift is at the B&M storefronts and those are hardly representative of industry trends anymore.