Tuesday, July 30, 2013
I do get tired of people taking pot shots at chick lit. For example a recent Huffington Post article that said "We're not deriding the chick-lit genre" but then went on to say that what women should really be reading is books that are about "fearless female protagonists realising their dreams in the face of adversity" and "witty social commentaries on the female condition".
Newsflash dipshit, that is pretty much a definition of chick lit. It has a lighter end which is embedded on conventional western aspirations, but those are the aspirations of many of the people that read them.
So I think that certainly counts, unless wanting love, professional success and family harmony is to be deemed somehow improper for proper post-feminist womanhood (the rules of which make Jane Austin social mores seems simple)
And there is also chick lit that tackles what the intelligensia might recognize as serious issues worthy of their respect like Fat Chance (body image), Little Coffee Shop in Kabul (acceptance of Muslim culture), Courting Samira (the immigrant experience), and Rachel's Holiday (drug abuse).
So, yes HuffPo, you are deriding chick lit -- the fact you felt the need to disclaim it was your first clue.