Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
I think by definition chicklit isn’t high art. And yes, there was probably an element of baiting as well as misogyny in the opinion, so no need to rise to it.
And on the (misapplied) appellation of Austen as chicklit, the more I read her, the more I think it’s not about the romance, it’s about class and money. She’s got serious things to say on both topics; the romance is just dressing.
|
I would agree with that (your comment about Austen's work/class & money). Vis:
chicklit, that term, which started out derogatorily, has more or less come to mean
more-humorous (than less, I mean) LitFic aimed at women. Yes, it can have situational humor or comedy, even slapstick if done remarkably well, but it's still MOSTLY LitFic (a woman managing her life, navigating life's obstacles, and working on her interior development) primarily targeted to/at women readers.
So...happily, I think that Austen would find the entire discussion pretty funny. :-)
Hitch