Comments on: Chick Lit

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:06:52 +0000

Oh I see! Beg pardon, Doug. I just noticed the ‘think’ bit, I didn’t realize you had all that evidence. And I do agree (as I said somewhere, early in this discussion) about the excessive prestige given to ‘literary’ fiction. In fact that’s something I’ve been droning about for years. Only I tend to want to see it demoted by good non-fiction more than by genre fiction. I think fiction in general has too much prestige, really.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:58:08 +0000

All this is just what people think about how the publishing world sees things. It?s all a bit squishy, frankly. Well, I did work at the largest independent bookseller in the Southeast for three years, the second half of that in an advertising and promotions section that, some years, did more author events than any other store in the United States. So I’ve seen a fair amount of the inside of the sausage factory – decisions about shelf space, what sales reps get excited about, who gets co-op ad money, what kinds of authors get a publisher’s backing for touring, what buyers like and what they hold their nose and buy because they know it’ll sell like ice cream. And when I think about the prestige and resources assigned to different genres of fiction, contemporary lit’rary rules the roost. Now I’ll grant it’s been about ten years since my time at Oxford Books, so maybe there’s been a cultural transplant in the publishing business. There are some regular readers here more currently involved in the business end of bookmaking, so if they’ve made it this deep into the comments, anything recent is certainly welcome. So maybe my list is a little soft around the edges because it’s been out in the rain a little longer than the manufacturer recommends. But it didn’t come out of nowhere. Y’know we could also go after this question like the social scientists that populate this blog. Agree that contemporary is a genre and not some meta-thing (or debate that position), come up with metrics for measuring prestige (I’ve tossed out a slew of them in my comments), and see if we get a list very different from mine. Then pool our knowledge and see if there’s a correlation between quality in the several genres and their position on the list. Contemporary lit’rary will show up again as a sink of prestige and resources all out of proportion to its quality.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:10:26 +0000

“I submit that no one knows that that is in fact why some people don’t read genre fiction, and that given that they don’t know that, it’s an obnoxious accusation.” I know in fact that some people don’t read genre fiction for this reason. When you write things like this: “I look within, I seek for any trace of a bad conscience about not reading romance novels. Whaddya know – it’s not there.” …it’s hard not to read that as sneering and to believe you when you claim to discriminate purely on the basis of quality with no bias against genre fiction whatsoever. I suppose the test would be if you took some of the recommendations that other people—”intellectuals”, you’ve granted and obviously many erudite—have made in these two threads as an opportunity to discover some new good books. I’m curious to know if you’ve done so.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:29:00 +0000

A couple of further thoughts. (Someone mentioned procrastination. I have all kinds of work I ought to be doing, including a review I have to write. So naturally it’s urgent that I do this instead.) (Then again, it really is an interesting subject, and one that raises a lot of interesting issues – I think.) “My little list was just how I think the publishing world sees the genres.” Wull that was part of my point in the heavy breathing comment. All this is just what people think about how the publishing world sees things. It’s all a bit squishy, frankly. Which would be okay, except there is quite a lot of righteous indignation simmering underneath. In other words there’s a lot of railing, beginning with King, at people for thinking things that no one really knows they do think. “You horrible snobs! You think you’re so special! You think you’re smarter than everyone else because you don’t read genre fiction! And the only reason you don’t read genre fiction is so that you can feel smart and special! So there nyah!” It surprises me somewhat how much of that there is even here. It always repels me to see intellectuals joining in anti-intellectual crusades. I submit that no one knows that that is in fact why some people don’t read genre fiction, and that given that they don’t know that, it’s an obnoxious accusation. “I’m not really sure about the parameters of this genre, anyway. Is Keyes generic in a way that Nick Hornby or Laurie Colwin isn’t?” Yeah. That’s what I’m saying. What is all this genre talk? If the category is so baggy that Elinor Lipman fits, then I’m lost at sea.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:47:09 +0000

Lighten up? Do I have to? Really? I so much prefer to be humorless and earnest. And do I have to take deep breaths? I’d so much rather pant shallowly until I pass out. Anyway, I don’t want anyone to stop, I’m just registering incomprehension of the basic premises. I don’t think King is right, I think he’s entirely wrong – and obnoxious with it. I think what he said at the NBA is classic Tyranny of the Majority, among other things. (Some of the other things would be amateur psychologizing and imputation of unworthy motives and failure to acknowledge or notice non-unworthy motives.)

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:49:45 +0000

Maria—Happened on Sushi for Beginners when visiting a friend in Montreal, read half of it, and to my great chagrin discovered that it wasn’t out in the States yet (though it is now). I didn’t mind Rachel’s entering the caring profession—it seemed like a natural thing after her rehab experience. But I thought that just before the epilogue (SPOILER) I could hear MK say, “Oh shit, I didn’t get Rachel and Luke back together.” Which is the one thing that’s really required by the rules of the genre. I’m not really sure about the parameters of this genre, anyway. Is Keyes generic in a way that Nick Hornby or Laurie Colwin isn’t? All of the above seem to write romantic comedies, where the pleasure is in seeing how the characters are going to attain bliss if they deserve it. (As for my reading habits—when I need to procrastinate, which is always, I like to go for genres that require you to turn the pages quick. I love Hazzard, but she’s not the best person to read while you’re taking an hour off from banging your head against the wall because you just discovered a decisive objection to your own argument.)

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:12:13 +0000

Kudos to Laura for the suggestions. New directions everywhere. Does Mike Gayle qualify as chick-lit? Or does being a he automatically exclude him? My little list was just how I think the publishing world sees the genres. I could well be wrong about the details; I’m wrong on a regular basis. (There was also supposed to be a return between Historical and Espionage, though I originally had Espionage ranked higher.)

By: Maria

Maria — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:19:37 +0000

Christian over romance though? really? that’s just wrong.

By: Maria

Maria — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:18:04 +0000

Thanks for that recommendation Laura – I’ll definitely look Lipman up. Ophelia – lighten up! Deep breaths. We’re stopping it now. But remember, the topic might be all talked out for you (though I still don’t think it we’ve exhausted it), but those of us in different time zones didn’t get to chime in last night. Plus, I thought Laura raised an interesting and worthwhile angle. But yeah, what Doug said. Drapeto – don’t get me started Bryan – I found viriconium hard going but worthwhile, but I also think Harrison’s vaguely crossover stuff is definitely worth your time; try Signs of Life. I still haven’t read Light, butit’s said to re-define (transcend? ;-) ) space opera. Matt – wow, everything else AND you read Marian Keyes too? what a guy. I take your point about the end of rachel’s wedding. she didn’t really seem the caring profession type to me. My out and out favourite is Lucy Sullivan is Getting Married. Though on titles alone, Watermelon carries it. Ouch. Tks Doug. What you said. And Henry. Of course.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:22:34 +0000

Ophelia, the heavy breathing, insofar as I am doing any of it, is about the way that a hierarchy of genres presumes to stand in for a hierarchy of quality. The hierarchy of genres: Contemporary, realistic Mystery HistoricalEspionage Science Fiction Fantasy Western Christian Romance The thesis of King’s speech (it’s not yet on the NBA site) was that the judges should look beyond the first genre when they are looking for winners of what the sponsoring foundation calls “the nation’s preeminent literary prizes.” Hazzard’s retort: fuhgeddaboudit. King is right.

By: dbuhmann

dbuhmann — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:03:10 +0000

I had a student,long ago when I was teaching sex ed, ask about the difference in preference of each sex in their choice of popular novels. As a hetero male, I could barely read through a romance novel without wanting to toss of to the side (to use the polite words). I did come to the reakization that this genre is just another form of fantasy and that these books portrayed various idealizations of what and how romance could be. Most of the women in my classes saw that these books were an escape from the everyday problems of relationships. For another view see: Thurston, Carol ‘The romance revolution:erotic novels for womeen and the quest for a new sexual identity’ University of Illinois Press 1987. It one of the few books that I have seen on the genre.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:41:43 +0000

I must confess—I don’t like Rachel’s Holiday as much as some other Keyeses I’ve read, precisely because of the way it transcends the genre. A lot of the pleasure I get from, say, Sushi for Beginners, is in seeing how Keyes brings her characters home to their rightful destinations—Rachel’s Holiday isn’t as rich in that particular pleasure. (I hope this isn’t a spoiler, but Maria, would you agree with me that the last page of RH seems tacked on to conform to generic expectations?) I guess on the days that I think “transcending the genre” makes any sense, I think of it in terms of particular generic pleasures. The generic pleasure of a mystery is often in seeing how the puzzle is solved (or in the suspense of the plot); something like a good Inspector Wexford novel can provide that pleasure, and also the more art-novelly pleasures of, well, emotional weight; and then there are mysteries that transcend the genre so much they break its rules, like some Nicolas Freelings where he never bothers to make clear who did it. I suppose I ought to allow that some art-novels transcend their genre by providing the good old thrills you get from genre fiction, too.

By: bryan

bryan — Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:40:51 +0000

the M. John Harrison’s are probably left at the gate cause they suck, at least M. John Harrison himself does, I have Viriconium Nights, when I tried reading it I had visions of a poe-faced genius at interpretive dance distending their body into an expression of an absolute twat at interpretive dance distending their body into an expression of either beauty or stomach pains, it was hard to tell. but I remember there were all the qualities of the horribly seventh rate fantasist that le Guin identified some years ago in Languages of the Night, so that’s cool.

By: drapetomaniac

drapetomaniac — Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:30:16 +0000

I was sure that this was going to be about Jane Austen.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:32:24 +0000

I’m still baffled by all this – in fact I only get more baffled as the discussion proceeds. What’s all the heavy breathing about? A good novel is good, and a bad one is bad, is what it seems to boil down to. Well who disagrees with that? The trouble with what King said (well, part of it) was that he picked such horrible examples to make his point. There is every reason not to want to read Grisham, Clancy and Clark, so claiming that it’s mere snobbery not to want to is just – well is just yet more of the obnoxious anti-intellectual coercive pseudo-populism that is such a feature of US culture these days. If it’s good it’s good, if it’s bad it’s bad, and both popularity and genre are irrelevant to quality. What else is there to say?