'Chick-lit'

[kelby_lake]

If you look at the romance novel though, the people who best undermine the genre are women, writing for other women (since it generally is women who read books and not men), and for critical audiences. So, for instance, "The Beggar Maid" from Alice Munro's Who do you Think you Are? works to undermine the romance, but that doesn't undermine the gender of the genre, merely the genre in itself.


The plot of the Romance has essentially been boiled down to 3 things. The man, the virgin and the whore. The man is rich, sexually dominant, and good looking, and ends up needing to choose between the two women. The virgin is not interested in the money, is beautiful but doesn't know it, and is ultimately helpless against the power of the man, yet fights to beat the whore, who she beats by being true to her feelings, and being the "virgin". The whore on the other hand, has sex, loves money, and flaunts her sexuality, and as a result, does not capture the eye of the man, even though the virgin may think at one point that he has taken up with her, we always learn that he has been in love with the virgin the whole time.

That is essentially the romance novel in a nutshell - now, add some different sets of scenery, some names, articles of clothing, and some events where the characters meet, and you've got yourself a novel.

But they're so funny! You get a lot of doctors in them too- and don't forget the mysterious exotic foreigner. Mostly Italian or Meditteranean but can be French or Russian...'romantic' countries.

And you've got the 'tamed whore' as well.

I've only read one, on a holiday.Count the cliches! The plot was:

The woman was married to her male gay best friend, Chris. Chris died of cancer. Jessica was mourning...in comes Carlos Santini (or something like that)! He is rich, seductive, and arrogant, and he is going to take over Jessica's father's business. But for some reason, she cannot stop her attraction and she is reawakened sexually. At the end, they have sex in an elevator.

[thelastmelon]

I've been reading quite a lot of the threads on this forum and I've noticed that you're all very serious readers, in that you only appear to read the classics or books that are considered 'deep'. Out of curiosity, does anyone ever read chick-lit, or the male equivalent? What're your thoughts on it, either way?

I read a lot of chick lit, Veho. I am actually taking a summer class in the genre, so this summer I've been reading loads of it, and a lot about it as well. I think I need the mix of the "heaver" literature, and the literature that is written to entertain, like chick lit, and not just artistic literature or deep literature. I do love chick lit, and I just got acquainted with a sub genre called bit lit, which is chick lit but with vampires! I'm currently reading "Undead and Unwed" by MaryJanice Davidson, and before that I finished a book by Nick Hornby. Do you read chick lit or lad lit yourself?

But the male equivelent? I don't know if there is one.

There is one, and it's called lad-lit.

[Veho]

It's been interesting to read all the replies. My brother reads modern war books; they're usually entitled 'Commando' or something similar. I guess these might be read by males, predominantly.

I do love chick lit, and I just got acquainted with a sub genre called bit lit, which is chick lit but with vampires! I'm currently reading "Undead and Unwed" by MaryJanice Davidson, and before that I finished a book by Nick Hornby. Do you read chick lit or lad lit yourself?

I have read a few in the past, but I recently just bought another called 'Smart Casual', it's part of the Little Black Dress series. I've been reading Madame Bovary recently and have found it rather dull, so I fancied something more fast paced and lighter.

Mathor, it sounds quite egotistical to assume that someone must be mindless and unintelligent if they read Gossip Girl. Reading, to some, is just a hobby and is not done in pursuit of academic superiority or to boast who has read the most 'classics'. I've never read a Gossip Girl book but the TV series is quite entertaining.

[Drkshadow03]

Have you read Goodkind?

Yes, it is filled with misogynist sado-masochist undertones. No disagreement there. However, that doesn't make every reader or even most of the readers of Goodkind's novels sado-masochist towards women, nor have I developed the ability to tell whether someone is dating another human being or can't get laid by what books they read. Since you seem to have apparently developed this technique you'll have to teach me sometime; I imagine that would be a very useful skill.

[Drkshadow03]

Yeah, it's certainly pushing it. All science fiction has the possibility of going either way. I think the only books that truly push into the realm of boy-lit are graphic novels

Girls read Comics and They're Pissed.

1) there are graphic novels and Manga geared towards female audiences (such as Shojo Manga). One example would be Fushigi Yugi, which also appeals to males.

2) You're correct in saying that many graphic novels are geared towards boys, and consequently because of this contain over-sexualization of female characters (my point, not yours), but one of the reasons I linked to the blog above was to note that Girls read comics too. Comics that in theory appeal and are written towards boys: X-Men, Spiderman, Batman, etc.

So although, yes, comics are marketed towards a male audience. I'm not sure they are solely boy's lit.

[Dark Muse]

I will say as a woman I am reading Goodkinds Sword of Truth series, and I do not find anything offensive about it personally. I enjoy the books thus far.

[JBI]

I will say as a woman I am reading Goodkinds Sword of Truth series, and I do not find anything offensive about it personally. I enjoy the books thus far.

How far are you?

[Dark Muse]

Stone of Tears the 2nd book

[JBI]

Stone of Tears the 2nd book

Give it a bit longer - they progress more and more (supposedly, this is partially heresay) toward a more violent treatment of women, though the end of the second book supposedly isn't to mild.

[Dark Muse]

We shall see, maybe I will find offense in it, but than I suppose I do have something of a thick skin when it comes to that sort of thing. I know I am often left unoffended by things other women tend to take offense of.

I know a lot of women really did not like, and greatly criticized Ken Follet's "The Pillars of the Earth" because of the treatment and portrayal of women in the book. But personally I loved the loved the book.

Others have also complained about Kathleen O'Neill and Michael Gear's First North American series because of violence against women in the books, but I am on the 3rd book in the series now, and I enjoy the books.

[Dark Muse]

In some ways I find Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time books more sexist, even though thus far there has not been any real graphic violent treatment against women, and the majority of the characters are in fact women, and they are strong characters, but at the same time there are a lot of stereotypes woven into how they are portrayed.

I can only stand a handful of the women characters in the book, the rest just grate upon my nerves, and even the one's I like have a tendency to at times irritate me because of their behavior.

The main male character has 3 women hopelessly in love with him, and there is this other character, who is just so handsome that any woman he walks past, cannot help herself from flushing and becoming weak in the knees *rolls eyes*

And the way the women walk sometimes just makes you want to strangle them. Jordan does enforce a lot of stereotypes in the development of his female characters. But I still enjoy the books and though irritated at times, I am not truly personally offended by it.

[JBI]

In some ways I find Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time books more sexist, even though thus far there has not been any real graphic violent treatment against women, and the majority of the characters are in fact women, and they are strong characters, but at the same time there are a lot of stereotypes woven into how they are portrayed.

I can only stand a handful of the women characters in the book, the rest just grate upon my nerves, and even the one's I like have a tendency to at times irritate me because of their behavior.

The main male character has 3 women hopelessly in love with him, and there is this other character, who is just so handsome that any woman he walks past, cannot help herself from flushing and becoming weak in the knees *rolls eyes*

And the way the women walk sometimes just makes you want to strangle them. Jordan does enforce a lot of stereotypes in the development of his female characters. But I still enjoy the books and though irritated at times, I am not truly personally offended by it.

That isn't sexism, by my wager, I just think that Jordan didn't know too much about women, and that is the flaw - his perception was perhaps limited, and, the women getting on one's nerves is a fair criticism, but it isn't a feminist criticism, it just shows his failure in creating characters.

The actual Jordan landscape though - the world - is dominated by Matriarchal forces - any sort of misogynist undertext is usually undercut as absurd, rude, or evil. The flaws all are in the rendition of the characters - not in that they are unequal, but that they are less realistic.

In concept, the whole thing is built upon the Yin and Yang binary - but they aren't unequal, merely, they are more poorly drawn.

The so called man who is so good looking that everyone stares is counter balanced by an equivalent of the opposite sex, whose has the same peculiar quality.

And, as for polygamy, well that is rooted in Jordan's source material as a mythological intertext - the purpose of that is perhaps to add conflict, but I don't think it as being misogynist, since all three women clearly dominate the man.


Now, Goodkind is another story - I don't think there is one female character in his series that doesn't get brutally raped somewhere throughout the course of the text.

[Drkshadow03]

That isn't sexism, by my wager, I just think that Jordan didn't know too much about women, and that is the flaw - his perception was perhaps limited, and, the women getting on one's nerves is a fair criticism, but it isn't a feminist criticism, it just shows his failure in creating characters.

The actual Jordan landscape though - the world - is dominated by Matriarchal forces - any sort of misogynist undertext is usually undercut as absurd, rude, or evil. The flaws all are in the rendition of the characters - not in that they are unequal, but that they are less realistic.

In concept, the whole thing is built upon the Yin and Yang binary - but they aren't unequal, merely, they are more poorly drawn.

The so called man who is so good looking that everyone stares is counter balanced by an equivalent of the opposite sex, whose has the same peculiar quality.

And, as for polygamy, well that is rooted in Jordan's source material as a mythological intertext - the purpose of that is perhaps to add conflict, but I don't think it as being misogynist, since all three women clearly dominate the man.


Now, Goodkind is another story - I don't think there is one female character in his series that doesn't get brutally raped somewhere throughout the course of the text.

You mean all the women sniffing (read: women are annoying, especially to men) or the way half the Aes Sedai act like spoiled 13 year old girls despite being 19 or 20 in certain cases (read: women act like little girls) or the endless descriptions of women caring more about how pretty they look in front of men, despite some of them being insanely powerful Channelers, doesn't seem a tad bit sexist to you? Not at all? Really?

Oh, no doubt there are good elements too. A work can be liberating in one way and stereotypical in another. It's not an either/or proposition.

[Dark Muse]

But I think the way that Goodkind portrays women is a lot more mature and fair (in the way in which the characters develop) then that of Jordan.

The women in Goodkind's work are a lot less high school girlish than Jordan. They are much more rational and by far more likeable.

Well for me the issue with Rand and his women is beyond just the idea of polygamy, I accept that a part of the Aiel culture, but rather the fact that you have this group of women, and men who are completely wishy washy, and cannot decide who they really do love, and all of them playing childish games to try and manipulate each other.

I think the way in which women view and treated men within the books is to a degree sexist. While they may have the upper hand, they do so in an underhanded way. Men and women don't have any real communication with each other. But are constantly trying to undercut each other and trick each other into getting what they want. No one really speaks up front and honestly.

It is like in the middle of this fantasy background, you have this whole high school drama playing out among the characters.

And I am not really trying to criticize the books, I am a fan, just giving my impression about the female characterization.

[JBI]

You mean all the women sniffing (read: women are annoying, especially to men) or the way half the Aes Sedai act like spoiled 13 year old girls despite being 19 or 20 in certain cases (read: women act like little girls) or the endless descriptions of women caring more about how pretty they look in front of men, despite some of them being insanely powerful Channelers, doesn't seem a tad bit sexist to you? Not at all? Really?

Oh, no doubt there are good elements too. A work can be liberating in one way and stereotypical in another. It's not an either/or proposition.

Cross examine that with the male characters - are they any less stereotypical - ones obsessed with chivalry rather ironically, or with gambling, or with horses? Do the men act any less spoiled or selfish? Some of them, I would wager, probably are portrayed as conscious of their looks as the female characters. It isn't sexism, merely bad characterization - the question is about equality, and, quite simply, if anything one should be arguing the other way, and condemning Jordan for mistreatment of men within his fantasy society.

As for the obsession with clothing, for instance, that is part of Jordan's schtick - he is obsessed with culture, and clothing is perhaps the best visual way to demonstrate differences.

Lets be honest - are the male characters any more mature, and are they any less self centered, and preoccupied with issues that aren't related - such as drinking, gambling, as apposed to fashion, dancing - the definition of feminism is essentially a desire for equality between males a females - clearly Jordan doesn't sketch them as being neutered, or ungendered, but that doesn't imply that he sketches them as being unequal - there are more "powerful (in the fantasy sense" female characters than male characters - Jordan, as I have said before, merely doesn't know anything about women, and guesses what he thinks women would do, and gets it wrong too often.

There are gender issues, but not built on sexism, but rather perhaps a too peculiar gender divide, based on one man's inability to understand characters.

At any rate though, I've met female readers of the texts who like the particular episodes obsessed with such things as fashion - I know someone who thinks that the most interesting aspect of the series - the different things people wear. But, when it comes down to it, in terms of equality, there isn't really one instance of men being portrayed as somehow "better" than women, or even in higher places of authority because of their gender, whereas there are plenty of examples in the opposite way, of women, because of gender, being higher than men.

So in a sense, it is a sexist text, but not a misogynist one.

It is fair, for instance, to fault Jordan as being unable to effectively draw female characters with rounded personalities and realistic attitudes - that is fair criticism, but I'd be weary of labeling that as sexist - one could, for instance, apply similar criticism to G. G. Marquez's Macondo women and men, but would we call that sexist? IS it a sexist text, or merely an intensely gendered one?


I wouldn't make that claim - I just think Jordan lacks as a character author and developer - he certainly doesn't seem to make his characters such stereotypes intentionally, he merely doesn't seem to understand women at all, and I guess his wife/editor doesn't either, or doesn't fix the problems.


It's been a long time since I've read Jordan, so I'm merely going with memory - but I don't think that women are given a particularly "misogynist angle" and I don't think Jordan had any intention of showing them as lesser, or even believed them to be in any way lesser, he just isn't that great a characterize - his real talent lies within drawing and manipulating distinct cultures into a fabric - that is where the real power of the series comes from, in my opinion, since he makes the countries be at war with each other, but, at the same time, isn't too divisive over who is better or worse - only the evil Other types are, and that is intentional, and they are intentionally either not human, or from everywhere within humanity, no matter what gender, race, or class.


There are gender problems, I would wager, but I don't think it comes from a gender binary imbalance - more from an imbalance of the author's knowledge, and an inability to draw characters with definite personalities - after all, the male characters are pretty stereotyped too. It's just, the stereotypes of males don't seem to get deconstructed as quickly, because generally female stereotypes, although not in this case, are used to reinforce a binary of power.