The Chick Lit Challenge
Do trendy novels for young women smother female expression -- or just put a little fun in feminism?
March / April 2004
Anjula Razdan Utne magazine
If Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway arrived on the literary scene
today, she would probably own a cute bag from Prada, a totally
to-die-for SoHo loft, and a string-bean cellphone on which she
negotiated her topsy-turvy love life.
RELATED CONTENT
The year is 2050. America has come a long way during the 21st Century. When I turned on the morning...
Guerrilla Technicians Challenge the Privatization of South Africa September 16, 2002 Issue By Juli...
The Challenge of Terror: A Traveling Essay October 26, 2001 Lindsey Dickenson The Challen...
Street Racers Challenge Each Other And The Cops July 18, 2001 Al Paulson Old Habits Never ...
Well, maybe not. But a lot of people are still worried about the
influence of the popular genre of fiction known as 'chick lit.' You
know, those ubiquitous novels with pastel-colored dust jackets
bearing whimsically retro images of cocktail glasses, trendy
purses, and spiky heels. With titles like Running in Heels: A
Novel, Shopaholic Ties the Knot, and Thirty
Nothing, chick lit relays breezy tales of spunky professional
urban women worrying about their bosses, their weight, their
boyfriends, and their Jimmy Choo shoes. The genre is wildly
successful -- and that, oddly enough, is the problem.
Originating in the mid-1990s with the publication of
well-received books like Helen Fielding's Bridget Jones's
Diary and Melissa Bank's The Girls' Guide to Hunting and
Fishing, chick lit was dismissed by many critics as a flash in
the pan. But today the genre stands as a lucrative niche in an
otherwise struggling fiction industry. 'The mega authors -- John
Grisham, Michael Crichton, Tom Clancy -- all have had a fall-off in
sales,' Sessalee Hensley, fiction buyer for Barnes & Noble,
told ABCNEWS.com's Heather Cabot (Aug. 30, 2003). 'But the chick
lit is growing, and growing exponentially.'
Several publishing houses like Pocket Books, Kensington, and
Harlequin have jumped onto the gravy train, launching imprints that
churn out only chick lit.
Score one for the ladies, right? Not exactly. It seems that many
observers are up in arms about what they perceive to be
antifeminist pabulum. 'Many of these titles really are trash: trash
that imitates other, better books that could have ushered in a new
wave of smart, postfeminist writing, and trash that threatens to
flood the market in women's reading,' writes Anna Weinberg in
recently defunct Book magazine (July/Aug. 2003). Weinberg,
who contends that early chick lit, like Bridget Jones's
Diary, 'navigated the perilous terrain of the modern woman's
psyche with sassy aplomb,' is not fond of the lesser books that
chick lit's popularity has bred. More significantly, she worries
that anything 'written by, read by, and marketed to young women'
will be dismissed as mere chick lit.
'So what would happen if a young woman did write a sharp,
brilliant new novel -- a portrait of the artist as a young woman in
the city?' Weinberg asks. 'Its publishers would wrap it in pink,
slap a martini glass on the cover, and get Anna Maxted to blurb
it.' Jenny Colgan, author of Amanda's Wedding, agrees.
'Everyone, no matter what they're writing about -- be it
dysfunctional families, anorexia, death, or other serious issues --
is being thrown into one big hole marked 'chick lit' and written
off,' she told The Guardian (Aug. 21, 2003). 'Chick lit is
a deliberately condescending term they use to rubbish us all. If
they called it slut lit it couldn't be more insulting.'