Elise replied: “Jennifer Egan makes a brilliant point here that I hadn’t considered before, and unfortunately (for us all) she’s right. Chick Lit does announce itself as being trivial. It is ‘just a beach read’ …it’s as if women aren’t capable of reading thought-provoking yet fun novels on the beach…at least according to those doing the marketing who are announcing it as trivial.”

The key word in all of this is “marketing.” “C***k l*t” seems to be a phrase dreamed up by publishers as a way to position books within a niche, not something that originated with women themselves (though many have gone along with the publishers).

I can’t link directly to the post on Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/ but you can find the article, “Feminisms: Chick Lit” by Googling “Chick Lit” + “Daily Kos.” The post appeared on Oct. 4, 2006.

Well, at the risk of belaboring this whole thing any more than I already have, to make such a comment — that writers should write better books — within the context of a discussion on use of the term “chick lit” only serves to legitimize the term. The fact that writers should write better books has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I know you think you get it, but I’m sorry Mayra; I just don’t think you do.

What you failed to miss was the original point of my comment; that even though the term should be erased from our vocabulary, writers should push themselves to write better books, not books that limit themselves to simple, superficial storylines; I’ve read these books, and although the initial idea is good, the execution is terrible– Bottom line: you can write an amazing about shoes and fabulous parties; these should be the norm, not the exception.

Here’s why you’re just not getting it. When Steinem made that comment, she was suggesting that because we have the term “chick lit”, it tends to marginalize fiction that would otherwise be regarded as good.

You on the other hand, are guilty of making a distinction. You are saying that good fiction written by women is good fiction, but bad fiction written by women is “chick lit.” (you may have backed off the use of the term, but it sure sounded like you said:

“the way I see it, “chick lit” books are all those shallow ones about women who work in prestigious and fabulously chic city companies and spend all their time worrying about how to get $300 Manolo Blahniks for a fraction of the price.”

You can’t do that and I’ll tell you why. Many Republicans love to make the same distinction with regard to the N word. They are just fine with African Americans who happen to be well heeled and college educated, but they reserve the slur for poor uneducated African Americans. Why can’t they just call them poor blacks? Why can’t you just call it womens fiction?

I wonder if the literary snobbery doesn’t at times reflect a deeper intellectual insecurity … if some people scorn what they see as “c***k l*t” to show others (and perhaps themselves) that they are “serious readers.” And I wonder why they feel this way. Is something in our culture bringing out this trait right now?

I am aware that some ‘disposable novels’ cannot compare to the great books of our time, but that is not my point. My point is that by using the phrase “chick lit” we are not only fueling sexism to a certain degree, but also making those people who enjoy reading such books, feel ashamed for doing so.

It contains the Mother of All Comments on the subject (except perhaps for George Eliot’s famous essay, “Silly Novels by Lady Novelists”), a landmark analysis of the fate that might have befallen a sister of Shakespeare’s, whom Woolf calls “Judith Shakespeare,” had she been a writer. Steinem seems to be nodding towards “A Room of One’s Own” in her comments about “Leah Tolstoy” and “Greta Flaubert.” I don’t know of a book on the subject that’s had more influence … just pure gold.

And the only reason I used the term “chick lit” is for clarification, so you would know what I’m talking about; you obviously don’t. I don’t know if it’s the Internet barrier or what, but we’re obviously misunderstanding each other, because I think we’re making the same points.

Of course good fiction has nothing to do with gender. No reasonable person would say such a thing, and nobody here has. That’s why I don’t understand why you would even bring it up.

“Anna Karenina had a lot more to it than what you say.”

I said it was a Tolstoy classic, and compared it to a Rembrandt painting.

“And I don’t consider all “chick lit” to be bad fiction;”

“the way I see it, “chick lit” books are all those shallow ones about women who work in prestigious and fabulously chic city companies and spend all their time worrying about how to get $300 Manolo Blahniks for a fraction of the price.”

Mayra. The fact that you are still using the term chick lit, and that you now feel there is such a thing as “good” chick lit, tells me that you just don’t get it. I’m a guy, and I figured it out. Why can’t you?

And, honestly, if you read the crap I write, you would call bad fiction “Mayra lit”.

What do you think was the setting for Anna Karenina?

“I don’t know if I’m naive or what, but I think if Leah Tolstoy had written “Anna Karenina”, it would still have been considered a classic.”

I don’t even know what that means. That women can write too? We already know that. And besides, every painting doesn’t have to be a Rembrandt, and every work of fiction doesn’t have to be a Tolstoy classic. Why don’t you just call what you consider to be bad fiction, well, bad fiction? Why do you have to smear all women? When you do that, ironically enough, you’re being every bit as superficial as the books you find so insulting. It’s like me referring to what I consider to be bad fiction, “Mayra lit.” That wouldn’t be right now would it?

For example, just in the past year, we’ve seen the arrival of books like Virginia Ironside’s “No! I Don’t Want to Join a Book Club: Diary of a 60th Year,” the journal of a 60-year-old woman who isn’t vain or shallow. And I’m glad publishers are bringing out books about a wider range of female experience. I’m not sure Ironside’s book would have gotten published — or even written — five years ago. Do you see any signs that encourage you the way that one encourages me? Thanks for your comment.
Jan