The Economist: Is "chick-lit" dead?

[wizwor]

I thought this was about keyboards...

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

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

What will you miss.......

I will survive ...

[theducks]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I thought this was about keyboards...

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

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by theducks

My TI 99-4 had one of those chick-lit keyboards. 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?

[voracious71]

Originally Posted by Skydog

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

Same here.i also despise chick-flicks.

[Xanthe]

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

[Kumabjorn]

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.

[jehane]

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 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.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

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.

[spindlegirl]

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.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by jehane

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 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.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

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.