Branded as "chick-lit" - Page 3

ProfCrash · 09-19-2011, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Because women aren't supposed to like that stuff. We're supposed to like romance, shopping and baby stuff... *shudders*

And I was the only girl in my school who read those books and watched the movies. HEck, most the women I know today only went to the last two Bond flicks because Daniel Craig is hot and he was naked and in really short swim trunks in Casino Royale....

I actually liked the plots and twists and turns and action.

I know I was the only girl in my school who read Nick Carter and Matt Helm. I love that type of stuff.

elizilla · 09-19-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

an insecure, uncertain protagonist who learns to be strong and independent.

Ever notice the resemblance between this type of women's fiction, and the serious stories marketed to teenage boys as "coming of age" stories? They use the same plots, just change some names and pronouns and a little of the furniture. The character's emotional life is the same.

tompe · 09-19-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm a little curious why you feel that it makes you abnormal to like the James Bond books?

It is actually not so common that people like these books. I really like them but I have a hard time convincing my book reading friends that they are worth reading or if they have read one book that all of them are worth reading (except maybe the last book).

TFeldt · 09-19-2011, 05:09 PM

Alright, I would normally slap on a disclaimer here but I doubt it's particularly controversial with the crowd on this forum. I'm extremely thankful for the fact that publishers are inclusive with their chick lit tags. Please don't consider me an insensitive chauvinist but I just can't stand coming-of-age, emo-teens, metrosexual romance-suspense-dramas. Does this mean I look down upon the genres? Absolutely not, my better half regularly reads me passages she considers particularly enticing and I can derive just as much joy from a well crafted, romantic paragraph as anything I choose to read myself. It's just the whole 300+ pages of the stuff that make me run screaming from the room.

I enjoy science fiction and, to a lesser degree, horror. Mostly because it doesn't involve anything I encounter in my day to day life. Escapism? Probably, but that's just the way it is. Thanks to the publishers' (quite possibly erroneous) stance I can easily avoid most books I know I won't like. But, and here's the paradox, I entirely sympathize with the OP.

They're doing the same to the fantasy and sci-fi genres. These days it's hard to find a book that isn't -both- sci-fi and fantasy, according to the publishers at least. To make matters worse it seems the horror tag is added to everything containing a single line with the word "blood" in it. Genres don't mean squat anymore, tags even less so. I go with recommendations from fellow readers and that's that.

Nyssa · 09-19-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Because women aren't supposed to like that stuff. We're supposed to like romance, shopping and baby stuff... *shudders*

Says who?

I love watching James Bond movies (I have not read any of the books as, yet), I've read maybe 10-15 romances, ever, I do love babies, and I can't stand shopping...I in no way shape or form see myself as weird or abnormal...not in that sense anyway.

ProfCrash · 09-19-2011, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Says who?

I love watching James Bond movies (I have not read any of the books as, yet), I've read maybe 10-15 romances, ever, I do love babies, and I can't stand shopping...I in no way shape or form see myself as weird or abnormal...not in that sense anyway.

Read the books. Most are better then the movies.

Nyssa · 09-19-2011, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Read the books. Most are better then the movies.

So I've heard.

I wonder which Bond I'll see while reading..LOL. Roger Moore was my first Bond, Sean Connery is my favorite Bond, and Pierce Brosnan is my "dream" Bond.

Sweetpea · 09-20-2011, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

And I was the only girl in my school who read those books and watched the movies. HEck, most the women I know today only went to the last two Bond flicks because Daniel Craig is hot and he was naked and in really short swim trunks in Casino Royale....

Ok, I admit, I went to some Bond movies simply because of Pierce Brosnan!

(ok, I lie, I like the James Bond movies, and having Pierce playing Bond was a big pre! Didn't care for Daniel at all, though...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Says who?

I once had a physics teacher who thought that females shouldn't do any beta subjects, such as math, physics and science... Seriously. I sooooo put him on his place by getting a 9 on my final national exam (from 0 to 10) and having an average of 8 for the total year. And that was the highest in class

But seriously, ever seen those "women" stuff? All pink, all drama and all baby goo over it... Oh, there's a new phone out and we'll market it for women: 1) we remove all good functionality so it's simple to use, 2) we'll make it pink, 3) we'll put glitter all over it.

I can't stand that...

DMB · 09-20-2011, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

But seriously, ever seen those "women" stuff? All pink, all drama and all baby goo over it... Oh, there's a new phone out and we'll market it for women: 1) we remove all good functionality so it's simple to use, 2) we'll make it pink, 3) we'll put glitter all over it.

I can't stand that...

I can't stand all that either. But presumably market research shows that enough women like this girly stuff to outweigh those like us who are repelled by it.

ProfCrash · 09-20-2011, 07:58 AM

And to think, I avoided the Pierce Bond flicks because I thought he was too soft. I really liked Timothy Dalton's Bond. He played Bond closer to the books and is not too far off from the much edgier, dangerous Bond that Daniel Craig plays.

M is afraid of Bond in the books. I liked that Dalton was intense and very, very dangerous as Bond. They made the move from goofy Roger Moore Bond to overly intense, dangerous Bond for Dalton. And they gave him a couple of poor scripts to work with.

Looking Daniel Craig. They M/Bond dynamic is more interesting and Bond is far more dangerous. And Daniel is simply hot. And they made him naked.

(giggles)

kennyc · 09-20-2011, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

.And Daniel is simply hot. And they made him naked.

(giggles)

Is that "Naked Bondage?"

ProfCrash · 09-20-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Is that "Naked Bondage?"

heheheh

Yes it was.

And I was thrilled that they kept that scene from the book.

DMB · 09-20-2011, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

And to think, I avoided the Pierce Bond flicks because I thought he was too soft. I really liked Timothy Dalton's Bond. He played Bond closer to the books and is not too far off from the much edgier, dangerous Bond that Daniel Craig plays.

M is afraid of Bond in the books. I liked that Dalton was intense and very, very dangerous as Bond. They made the move from goofy Roger Moore Bond to overly intense, dangerous Bond for Dalton. And they gave him a couple of poor scripts to work with.

Looking Daniel Craig. They M/Bond dynamic is more interesting and Bond is far more dangerous. And Daniel is simply hot. And they made him naked.

(giggles)

I agree with liking Dalton and Craig as Bond. I didn't really like any of the others much but rated Connery ahead of Brosnan ahead of Moore.

=X= · 09-20-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

HEck, most the women I know today only went to the last two Bond flicks because Daniel Craig is hot.

Who'd a thought Alfred E. Neuman with blue eyes and blond hair would be considered "hot"

BrowseTheStacks · 09-20-2011, 12:27 PM

I remember a bookstore that had a "men's fiction'' section. Consisted of Remo Williams and Nick Carter books and Zane Gray/Max Brand westerns with a smattering of Indiana Jones and the Spider.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Recipes for "Dilema Veche" and "Observatorul Cultural" - weekly Romanian magazines	song2	Recipes	8	02-24-2012 07:22 PM
Feature Request: configurable space setting for "Insert blank line" in "Look & Feel"	therealjoeblow	Calibre	15	07-25-2011 03:14 PM
Woher bekomme ich "Infinite Jest" oder "Unendlicher Spaß" von David Foster Wallace?	bitschnau	Erste Hilfe	3	11-01-2010 01:22 PM
PRS-600 "Best" format to convert to (from .lit)?	sp00ki	Sony Reader	22	05-22-2010 12:48 AM

09-19-2011, 05:09 PM	#34
TFeldt Connoisseur Posts: 75 Karma: 166880 Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Sweden Device: Asus Transformer, Galaxy S	Alright, I would normally slap on a disclaimer here but I doubt it's particularly controversial with the crowd on this forum. I'm extremely thankful for the fact that publishers are inclusive with their chick lit tags. Please don't consider me an insensitive chauvinist but I just can't stand coming-of-age, emo-teens, metrosexual romance-suspense-dramas. Does this mean I look down upon the genres? Absolutely not, my better half regularly reads me passages she considers particularly enticing and I can derive just as much joy from a well crafted, romantic paragraph as anything I choose to read myself. It's just the whole 300+ pages of the stuff that make me run screaming from the room. I enjoy science fiction and, to a lesser degree, horror. Mostly because it doesn't involve anything I encounter in my day to day life. Escapism? Probably, but that's just the way it is. Thanks to the publishers' (quite possibly erroneous) stance I can easily avoid most books I know I won't like. But, and here's the paradox, I entirely sympathize with the OP. They're doing the same to the fantasy and sci-fi genres. These days it's hard to find a book that isn't -both- sci-fi and fantasy, according to the publishers at least. To make matters worse it seems the horror tag is added to everything containing a single line with the word "blood" in it. Genres don't mean squat anymore, tags even less so. I go with recommendations from fellow readers and that's that.

09-20-2011, 07:58 AM	#40
ProfCrash Tea Enthusiast Posts: 8,554 Karma: 75384937 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Somewhere in the USA Device: Kindle1, Kindle DX Graphite, K3 3G, IPad 3, PW2	And to think, I avoided the Pierce Bond flicks because I thought he was too soft. I really liked Timothy Dalton's Bond. He played Bond closer to the books and is not too far off from the much edgier, dangerous Bond that Daniel Craig plays. M is afraid of Bond in the books. I liked that Dalton was intense and very, very dangerous as Bond. They made the move from goofy Roger Moore Bond to overly intense, dangerous Bond for Dalton. And they gave him a couple of poor scripts to work with. Looking Daniel Craig. They M/Bond dynamic is more interesting and Bond is far more dangerous. And Daniel is simply hot. And they made him naked. (giggles)

09-20-2011, 12:27 PM	#45
BrowseTheStacks BrowseTheStacks Posts: 127 Karma: 24316 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Tampa FL Device: Kindle 3 3G + WI-FI	I remember a bookstore that had a "men's fiction'' section. Consisted of Remo Williams and Nick Carter books and Zane Gray/Max Brand westerns with a smattering of Indiana Jones and the Spider.

Advert

Advert