Today's
Guardian has a rant by a woman author about the habit of publishers of classifying all women's fiction as "chick-lit", with the accompanying soppy covers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...womens-fiction
Quote:
On Wednesday night, I launched my sixth novel. In doing so, I unceremoniously ditched the HarperCollins imprint that has published my last three books. Dramatic? Yes. Risky? Yes. Unnecessary? No...
...The term "women's fiction" has been adopted by publishers and retailers alike as a shorthand for fiction that involves shopping sprees, bodily insecurities and the hunt for Mr Right. No – hang on. That's "chick lit", isn't it?
This is the problem. The line that used to define "chick lit" as a sub-genre of women's fiction has blurred, giving publishers the authority to brand huge swathes of fiction in pink and green swirly covers, on the assumption that this is what women want. As Margaret Carroll, a fellow ex-HarperCollins author, put it: "Very ironic to find this is an industry run by women."
|