'Chick-lit'

[Veho]

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?

This is my first post, so - hi everyone.

[Drkshadow03]

Jane Austen, the original chick-lit! :p

What is the male equivalent of chick-lit?

[prendrelemick]

Hello Veho and welcome.

When desperate I have been known to pick up one or two of my daughters chick lit paper backs, Very entertaining some of them, I particularly enjoyed "Where Have all the Men Gone."

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

[papayahed]

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


Maybe a nice Tom Clancy? Even though I've read someTom Clancy I admit I skip all the technical and military stuff.

[Helga]

when I was 10 years old I read a million love stories, today I don't like those books but there is one that for some reason has stuck with me called 'the girl in the blue dress' haven't read it in a few years but I still have it in my bookshelf and think about it every now and then...

[Allannah]

"the male equivalent"!! what on earth is that supposed to mean?

Yas, i admit to reading Sophie Kinsella, and she's not actually that bad. All the same, I'd rather stick to Tolstoy! (:

[JBI]

Jane Austen, the original chick-lit! :p

What is the male equivalent of chick-lit?

Tom Clancy (or do women actually read that - I don't know anyone who will actually admit to reading one, no matter the gender).

But yeah, sci-fi used to be the "male lit", but I think it has been dead for a while, and replaced with Epic fantasy stuff, like Terry Goodkind, and George R. R. Martin - I think that is pretty much the equivalent. Certainly Goodkind, though perhaps a better stand in for Martin can be found.

[Barbarous]

What is the male equivalent of chick-lit?

Chuck Palahniuk? :lol:

I tease, I tease. But if we take apart what is really 'male-lit', which would include mostly a male cast of characters, dealing with situations that'd in men, why that could be most of American literature. There's one female character in Moby-Dick, and she's merely mentioned. Food for thought...

[amarna]

Here's a producers view: Some years ago I wrote several chick lit paperbacks and booklets. It was stupid piecework and extremely ill-paid. So I gave it up, not because of the intellectual prostitution thing but because I felt really exploited. Privately, I'd never ever touch such silly stuff.

The male equivalent of chick-lit is mainly sci-fi, I suppose. The Star Trek series, Asimov, Kevin J. Anderson, Veynor Vinge etc.

[Nightshade]

Tom Clancy (or do women actually read that - I don't know anyone who will actually admit to reading one, no matter the gender).

But yeah, sci-fi used to be the "male lit", but I think it has been dead for a while, and replaced with Epic fantasy stuff, like Terry Goodkind, and George R. R. Martin - I think that is pretty much the equivalent. Certainly Goodkind, though perhaps a better stand in for Martin can be found.

Sexsist much JBI? ;) :p ( I am just joking here so dont take it the worng way)
Actually Ive read a tom clancy or two all that kind of thing was my teenage and tween reading (I just recycled my mums boosk as books were expensive and we couldnt afford many) So colin forbes Grisham, clancy Ryan, Wilber smith Dick francis, Francome, all of them. They are supoposedly the malke equivlent toi chick lit, although I suppose the real ones would be the westerns that were big in the 70s 80s I think it was.



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?

This is my first post, so - hi everyone.

Hi :wave: I do but then I read just about anything and everything, I have even been known to admit to reading romances, whihc I do and often enjoy inspite of myself ( and often inspite of cringinly awful storylines and or writing - they amuse me. That is not to say that quite alot of prolific bestelletr type writes didnt start with romances, and that alot of romances are well written and genuinley funny good lightheared reads.)

At work today I oevrheard 2 ladies discussing chicklit, the cionverstaion went something along the lines of I really like chicklit thats easy to read it doesnt feel like its trying to educate you or patronise, something thats funny and 'takes you away'for a while.

I should add as a point of intrest I am capable of listing from memory lots of diffeernt forms of chicklit in author and series( as well as where they would be on the shelf in my library if we had a copy and when we are expecting the nexct one but that is irrelevant for now) so if anyone is intrested in picking up a chciklit and dazzled by all the bright colours ask me!
I even ahave a badge that says ask me I am here to help! :rolleyes:

[JBI]

Sexsist much JBI? ;) :p ( I am just joking here so dont take it the worng way)
Actually Ive read a tom clancy or two all that kind of thing was my teenage and tween reading (I just recycled my mums boosk as books were expensive and we couldnt afford many) So colin forbes Grisham, clancy Ryan, Wilber smith Dick francis, Francome, all of them. They are supoposedly the malke equivlent toi chick lit, although I suppose the real ones would be the westerns that were big in the 70s 80s I think it was.

No, not at all - I think it a good thing that women don't read these books - if anything it shows a sort of superiority.

But in another sense, Chick lit as it is called, which is a pretty regionalized form of literature (it is, essentially a Western Phenomenon which is extremely prevalent in The US in particular (I showed some comparative statistics on another thread about it, so if someone wants to dig with the search function)) but, on the whole, exists in countries generally that have a market dominated by female readers, as women, in the US, in Canada, and elsewhere, generally read far more books. The Chick Lit as it is called just fills that gap by providing the most "characteristically gendered" texts imaginable.

So, in a sense, we have "Chick Lit" which is sexist in concept, promoted to females as the "Chick Lit", by generally a group of people who read far, far, more. So, in a sense, we can say the male equivalent is a smaller slice of the cake, and I would think Fantasy, Sci Fi, and Militaristic novels, being generally marketed for males, and portrayed as male texts, would fit in there nicely.

After all, I've read more Jane Austen than most females, and generally read more novels written by women than by men, and have done so since I started reading - but the gender is generally removed in most cases - Alice Munro, for instance, is not writing with "only female's in mind" as an audience. The actual Chick Lit as a concept though is ultimately sexist, as it constructs, just as Cosmopolitan magazine, the Women's Network on TV, and Barbie Dolls the concept of the "female".

But, then again, as you put it, it is common for women to read works written by men. I don't think the reverse exchange really exists in Canadian/American/English society. I think women read books by men, featuring male protagonists, yet men do not read books featuring female protagonists.


But either way, the genre of novel is a traditionally female one - in the early days it was considered "female distraction" whereas real literature, that is, generally what we would call female today, or perhaps homosexual by stereotype, ironically, poetry, and theatre and the like, was deemed as masculine literature.

A male chick lit perhaps doesn't exist, perhaps just books sexist enough that nobody would read them but the most misogynist of men, such as Goodkind, or to a lesser extent Martin, who perhaps has some redeeming qualities.

Of course though, I'm sure Robert Jordan has as many female readers as male (since he generally seemed to be embarrassing a sort of fantasy where male and female characters are given somewhat equal treatment - his world is gendered, but certainly not a misogynist world - both heroes and villains are of both genders), or pretty close at any rate, whereas Tamora Pierce probably has very few male readers.

Who knows though - Hemingway is generally seen as a "Male" author, appealing more to men than women, but I wouldn't be surprised if he has as many female as male readers.

[Helga]

The male equivalent of chick-lit is mainly sci-fi, I suppose. The Star Trek series, Asimov, Kevin J. Anderson, Veynor Vinge etc.

I've read many Star Trek books and enjoyed them very much also 'Dune' is a great piece of sci-fi and many short stories by various writers...

and hey isn't some of H.G Wells books considered sci-fi like 'the time traveller' and 'war of the worlds' and they are classics...

[MANICHAEAN]

Cannot really remember any "chick lit"
Plenty of " boy lit" though.
Started with "Just William" books by Richard Compton & then graduated to everything from Dan Dare comics, Ed McBain detective novels & peaked at Ian Fleming's Bond series when they first evolved.
Not exactly "classics" in the orthodox sense, but enjoyable none the less in those early years.

[kelby_lake]

The male equivilant is called 'lad-lit'. It's things like Jeremy Clarkson, and the like. Stuff about cars and the 'male' point of view.

I suppose Hemingway is sort of sophisticated 'lad-lit'

[Nightshade]

Of course though, I'm sure Robert Jordan has as many female readers as male (since he generally seemed to be embarrassing a sort of fantasy where male and female characters are given somewhat equal treatment - his world is gendered, but certainly not a misogynist world - both heroes and villains are of both genders), or pretty close at any rate, whereas Tamora Pierce probably has very few male readers.

.

Was it you I had the converstaion with a couple of years back abouyt Robin Mckinley? I think alot of it is to do with teh book selling world really and targeting audiances, I have an old man who comes in for mills and boons books, he says they are for his wife with an embarrssed shuffle but I am almost 100% he reads them and thats cool,I just wish he didnt feel awkward about it. Anyway the poiunt I mean to make are there fantasy/schofi books targeted at males and ones that are seperatly targetd at women? At a rough guesstimate I would personally say alot of the increasingly common vampire/things that go bump in the night-fantasy romance things like feehan, Sparks, Arthr, Mary janice davidosn thinsg are aimed at women.
And now that I think about it here is an annoying factoide, the better written more rounded stories and charcters are aimed gender nutral ( like the Kelley armstrong series, yes there is alot of romance and mush but there is also loads of mysterys killeings parnormal mafia and police etc ) huh.

[papayahed]

Maybe a nice Tom Clancy? Even though I've read some Tom Clancy I admit I skip all the technical and military stuff.


Tom Clancy (or do women actually read that - I don't know anyone who will actually admit to reading one, no matter the gender).



No, not at all - I think it a good thing that women don't read these books - if anything it shows a sort of superiority.


Hey!!! I'm right hear, I can hear you.:brickwall

[amarna]

I've read many Star Trek books and enjoyed them very much also 'Dune' is a great piece of sci-fi and many short stories by various writers...

and hey isn't some of H.G Wells books considered sci-fi like 'the time traveller' and 'war of the worlds' and they are classics...

Agree, boy-lit is cooler than chick-lit. :)

Actually, Gaskell, Austen and (sorry, Jamesians...) Henry James are kinda chick-lit as well, and there are classics, too. Maybe the specific about chick-lit and boy-lit is not a general inferior quality but that it is customized to gender-specific needs.

[MANICHAEAN]

Kelby Lake
Your right. Hemingway could be viewed as a sophisticated "lad-lit" if only for: the bull fighting, the love of drink, the casual affairs, the big-game hunting & deep sea fishing.

[Drkshadow03]

I would agree that Sci-fi and fantasy to a degree is marketed towards males, but there are still plenty of female readers in these genres. And within the genre communities the fact that such a population exists, while most of the marketing is still towards men, has created a lot of heated debate and impassioned argument over these and related issues.

[JBI]

I would agree that Sci-fi and fantasy to a degree is marketed towards males, but there are still plenty of female readers in these genres. And within the genre communities the fact that such a population exists, while most of the marketing is still towards men, has created a lot of heated debate and impassioned argument over these and related issues.

Well, I think the reason is female authors have been undercutting genre conventions for a while, in order to open sci-fi and fantasy up for female audiences - Terry Brooks, for instance, is not so marketable toward females, whereas Monica Hughes wrote specifically for females, or Terry Goodkind I would think would have no appeal to females unless they are some sort of sado-masochistic fetishists, but Mercedes Lackey perhaps does.

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 whole genre of novels, as I mentioned before, is dominated by female audiences, and has a strong history of being so - only the literary novel has shown any real sense of not being "women's literature", historically, and now the emergence of the genre novel, the thriller, and the sci-fi, has perhaps begun to undermine traditional audiences - but lets be honest. IF I were to write a feminist narrative, in a fantasy setting, generally it would either be marketed for females, or for both sexes. If I were to write a feminist undercutting of Chick Lit, then the book would be marketed toward females, generally feminists.


In a sense it has to do with agenda - if I write a book that in essence has equality amongst the sexes in mind during the composition, and therefore does not aestheticize any binary, by featuring the women as damsels in distress, or medusas/succubi, and the men as knights in shining armor/ or cruel women-torturing/women imprisoning villains, then it generally would be a text that is marketed to both sexes, if it is from a male perspective, or to women, if it is from the female perspective.

If I were to write a misogynist romance though, if it featured a female as the protagonist, it would be marketed towards females, and generally if it featured a male, depending on the degree of it, it would be marketed to both sexes, or to males.

This is all a rough generalization, but it is essentially how it works - I can't really construct from memory much, on the popular front, of divergence from the pattern - J K Rowling, for instance, took off the actual first name from her book jacket for the sake of not appearing female, in order to scare away male audiences.

Of course, in literary circles, none of this exists - literary novels feature both genders, writing from both perspectives, in many cases. If I read Jane Austen, it is considered normal, but if I read Nora Roberts, it is considered eccentric - I can read Margaret Lawrence, but I cannot with a straight face read Kathleen E. Woodiwiss. The reason is how women are treated in these books.

Take for instance, Nora Roberts. She said herself, "The books are about the celebration of falling in love and emotion and commitment, and all of those things we really want."

So what exactly is she saying - this romance is exactly what women want, or we are creating what women want to sell them this fantasy?

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.

So, in a sense, what is being sold is a sort of 1950s gender conception - a dated sort of post-war preoccupation that essentially blew up in the 60s and 70s, yet still forms itself in these books.

The reason they are perhaps so successful then, can be attributed to the removal of time between now and the 50s. Women's issues have become historical discourse in many cases, rather than contemporary issues - Abortion, for instance, which was seen as a women's rights issue, now is seen as a religious/political issue. Birth control is taken for granted, freedom in the workforce expected, yet the fantasy continues, persisting, suggesting that we can return to the past, and it will be all lovey dovey.

The fantasy reconstructs the gender, outside of the real issues, in order to reshape the perceptions of females - how that works, well, it is an old genre, and people are told reading is good, so they read these, and get all sorts of ideas in their heads, then go watch a Julia Roberts film, or whatever, and read their cosmo magazines, and whatnot, and figure this fantasy exists outside of a frame, and that wouldn't it be nice to have this knight in shining armor come with his money, and go for me, the less pretty, virgin type, who goes to church, where, she is told this is the virtuous way to behave anyway?


Now, if we were to look for a male equivalent, what could we possibly find? Well, for one it would need to play into two things - sports, and violence, the two male stereotypes. For sports, well, we have that - a long slew of sports books and movies, especially football ones, and for violence, well, generally that works in fantasy, sci-fi, and militaristic fiction. IF you throw in some women, behaving in a sort of male misogynist fantasy, constructed out of pornography, and "men's magazines" then you probably have found the perfect formula - of course, men have generally been allowed to develop outside of the gender definition than women for longer, so I guess a single formula doesn't work, and you are left with variants, like Goodkind, who I would argue appeals to males who have a sort of sick perverse concept of the female, since they were probably rejected/lack the ability to capture the attention of any women, and are probably loserish sort of people, whereas something like Tom Clancy could perhaps appeal to a sort of person who thinks of himself as some sort of macho man.

[JBI]

Was it you I had the converstaion with a couple of years back abouyt Robin Mckinley? I think alot of it is to do with teh book selling world really and targeting audiances, I have an old man who comes in for mills and boons books, he says they are for his wife with an embarrssed shuffle but I am almost 100% he reads them and thats cool,I just wish he didnt feel awkward about it. Anyway the poiunt I mean to make are there fantasy/schofi books targeted at males and ones that are seperatly targetd at women? At a rough guesstimate I would personally say alot of the increasingly common vampire/things that go bump in the night-fantasy romance things like feehan, Sparks, Arthr, Mary janice davidosn thinsg are aimed at women.
And now that I think about it here is an annoying factoide, the better written more rounded stories and charcters are aimed gender nutral ( like the Kelley armstrong series, yes there is alot of romance and mush but there is also loads of mysterys killeings parnormal mafia and police etc ) huh.

It wasn't me you had the conversation with, but it makes sense - like I said, more literary books seem to appeal to both genders (with women reading more), and in terms of genre fiction, books that are not misogynist but have a male protagonist generally appeal to both genders. Female protagonists are harder, it would seem, to market to both genders, and I think incredibly strong female characters are harder to market to males, than strong male characters are to women (I doubt there is much difficulty marketing them to women). IT is cultural, but of course, this only really applies to popular novels. I like to think readers of poetry and drama, for instance, don't really consider gender at all, unless again they are part of the rare sort of "gendered" variants of these genres, like The Vagina Monologues, which generally are deliberately limited to one sex (generally female), though The Vagina Monologues in general have received, it would seem more criticism from females than anyone else because of it.

Yes, this vampire bit is generally targeted to females, as the whole vampire mythos is built around a sort of dark eroticism that is prevalent in much of "Chick-Lit". I personally do not see the appeal, but I wouldn't be caught dead reading one, so I'll admit, in terms of gender, I personally wouldn't pick one up. Poetry rarely has any gender problems, unless again it is on the popular sort of level, where the poet has a deliberate sort of female audience in mind, and generally isn't very good at all. Nikki Giovanni, for instance, I would think doesn't appeal much to any poetry readers, except, because of her politics, manages to get exposure in certain feminist circles. Generally though, I think male poetry readers are more accepting, and would read works by Rita Dove, for instance, who is certainly writing from a very female, personal perspective: http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/rita_dove/poems/2201

As for sci-fi and fantasy, I would think generally, the ones targeted at women are either done so by accident, or for a young age. Take Mercedes Lackey for instance, who is generally thought to write for females. I generally think the only thing that puts her apart from any male epic/medieval fantasy writer is the fact that she writes with mostly female characters, and touches on themes that pertain to females, such as sexuality, and coming of age.

Tamora Pierce to has just as many male characters as female, but I think her fore fronting more often than not a female character as apposed to a male one generally makes her a "female" writer, since she I guess writes with feminist issues and female adolescence and coming of age in mind as well.


Even someone like Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea books, I would wager, have had a similar treatment. The second one seems all but ignored, because it generally is the only one to really treat female issues, within a frame of male-dominated society and narrative.

Now, the gender neutral ones, again, seem to have male protagonists. I think Robert Jordan is the best example, because, generally, though I don't consider him by any means to have been a great writer, I think he was a respectable one. I think perhaps he began to really open up to female perspective within the grand narrative frame of epic fantasy. Of course, his works are too long, not so well written, and flawed in their own right, but I think it is safe to say he achieved a balance in perspective and imagination, even though arguably his main protagonist is male (the vast amount of secondary perspectives are female, and he recast Merlin as a woman).


Who knows though - I think the genre itself is crumbling down as fast as it is building up, so maybe we'll see finally the destruction of the post-Terry Brooks era happen sooner or later, and move forward, though I can;t help but think all this "paranormal" sort of Werewolf/Vampire junk to be deterring any real positive development.

Who knows, maybe we can finally have a Harriet Potter one of these days, who male readers are accepting of.

[Nightshade]

OK Im a bit brain numb at the moment should answer before I grab a cup of tea or two but...
the Kelley armstrong ones I was reffering too, the series is called women of the otherworld, all femal protagnists and her duo of books about a vigialti hit woman ( well ive got the second one to read tonight havent read it yet but he first one was good.

Your break down of romancce made me laugh, You pretty much nailed the mills and boons 'pink' series. One of the things I do at work is sort the lists of stock rotation by idetifying the colour and/or location of a book based on its title, as all romances are shelved in romance and then by colour by the computer system doesnt tell us the colour of the book cover ( thank god for photgraphic memories). So yes all the pink ones have what I think of as 'buisnessy' titles. words like Tycoon, bargin, deal, hire, merger, virgin greek, italian, millionaire, Spaniard and sheik all fetaure highly. Some of the titles are so redicouly I just go and stnd in teh romance section if I am having a bad day and read them (the titles) and I am inevitably laughing by the time I look away. Actually Iam suprised no one at work has cottoned on to the main reason Ive had to rearrange the romance Books so I can see them from couter over the shoulder of customers if they are yelling and sweraing at me.
anyway where was my point? Oh yes while that is the one form and actually it shows up more in the older reprints I noticed earlier in the year when I was rating reading masses of romances I genrally wouldnt have gone near that things pre 93 were alot more of the 'you can have a nice little job, voluntary of course I want you to be hme when I get home' deal... ( and I swear that is a quote from a Betty Neels- a woman who was obseesed with Dutch Doctors with aristocratic/wealthy backgrounds.
But there are more plots, ther is the schemeing matchmakers...usually family of somekind, but I did once read one where it was ghosts of two teenagers who had tried to elope hunderds of years ago and neede a match between their familys to be 'freed'. Oh and my flat mate had a book earlier this year where an alligator got it ino its head to match make this couple for some bizzare reason.
Actually nw that I think about it although occasionally you do get the story of the 'whore' as you call it, generally you are right. sweet innocent girl who is ridcioullsy rett meets moody male who in someway needs saving from himself but who protectcs her...phewwy all of it. but thats more than half the fun, laughing at how seriously they all take themselves.

JBI if you do ever decided to try one of those vampy or as I like to call them things that go bump in the night books, I had to catlouge and cross check over 50 authors tis year whihc involved reading a book or part of one by most of them, I could steer you towards the most okis of them. :nod:

[Drkshadow03]

Well, I think the reason is female authors have been undercutting genre conventions for a while, in order to open sci-fi and fantasy up for female audiences - Terry Brooks, for instance, is not so marketable toward females, whereas Monica Hughes wrote specifically for females, or Terry Goodkind I would think would have no appeal to females unless they are some sort of sado-masochistic fetishists, but Mercedes Lackey perhaps does.

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 whole genre of novels, as I mentioned before, is dominated by female audiences, and has a strong history of being so - only the literary novel has shown any real sense of not being "women's literature", historically, and now the emergence of the genre novel, the thriller, and the sci-fi, has perhaps begun to undermine traditional audiences - but lets be honest. IF I were to write a feminist narrative, in a fantasy setting, generally it would either be marketed for females, or for both sexes. If I were to write a feminist undercutting of Chick Lit, then the book would be marketed toward females, generally feminists.


In a sense it has to do with agenda - if I write a book that in essence has equality amongst the sexes in mind during the composition, and therefore does not aestheticize any binary, by featuring the women as damsels in distress, or medusas/succubi, and the men as knights in shining armor/ or cruel women-torturing/women imprisoning villains, then it generally would be a text that is marketed to both sexes, if it is from a male perspective, or to women, if it is from the female perspective.

If I were to write a misogynist romance though, if it featured a female as the protagonist, it would be marketed towards females, and generally if it featured a male, depending on the degree of it, it would be marketed to both sexes, or to males.

This is all a rough generalization, but it is essentially how it works - I can't really construct from memory much, on the popular front, of divergence from the pattern - J K Rowling, for instance, took off the actual first name from her book jacket for the sake of not appearing female, in order to scare away male audiences.

Of course, in literary circles, none of this exists - literary novels feature both genders, writing from both perspectives, in many cases. If I read Jane Austen, it is considered normal, but if I read Nora Roberts, it is considered eccentric - I can read Margaret Lawrence, but I cannot with a straight face read Kathleen E. Woodiwiss. The reason is how women are treated in these books.

Take for instance, Nora Roberts. She said herself, "The books are about the celebration of falling in love and emotion and commitment, and all of those things we really want."

So what exactly is she saying - this romance is exactly what women want, or we are creating what women want to sell them this fantasy?

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.

So, in a sense, what is being sold is a sort of 1950s gender conception - a dated sort of post-war preoccupation that essentially blew up in the 60s and 70s, yet still forms itself in these books.

The reason they are perhaps so successful then, can be attributed to the removal of time between now and the 50s. Women's issues have become historical discourse in many cases, rather than contemporary issues - Abortion, for instance, which was seen as a women's rights issue, now is seen as a religious/political issue. Birth control is taken for granted, freedom in the workforce expected, yet the fantasy continues, persisting, suggesting that we can return to the past, and it will be all lovey dovey.

The fantasy reconstructs the gender, outside of the real issues, in order to reshape the perceptions of females - how that works, well, it is an old genre, and people are told reading is good, so they read these, and get all sorts of ideas in their heads, then go watch a Julia Roberts film, or whatever, and read their cosmo magazines, and whatnot, and figure this fantasy exists outside of a frame, and that wouldn't it be nice to have this knight in shining armor come with his money, and go for me, the less pretty, virgin type, who goes to church, where, she is told this is the virtuous way to behave anyway?


Now, if we were to look for a male equivalent, what could we possibly find? Well, for one it would need to play into two things - sports, and violence, the two male stereotypes. For sports, well, we have that - a long slew of sports books and movies, especially football ones, and for violence, well, generally that works in fantasy, sci-fi, and militaristic fiction. IF you throw in some women, behaving in a sort of male misogynist fantasy, constructed out of pornography, and "men's magazines" then you probably have found the perfect formula - of course, men have generally been allowed to develop outside of the gender definition than women for longer, so I guess a single formula doesn't work, and you are left with variants, like Goodkind, who I would argue appeals to males who have a sort of sick perverse concept of the female, since they were probably rejected/lack the ability to capture the attention of any women, and are probably loserish sort of people, whereas something like Tom Clancy could perhaps appeal to a sort of person who thinks of himself as some sort of macho man.

I think your last comments head into dangerous territory, not to mention are a bit presumptuous about audience. It's one thing to assume a certain book appeals more to one gender over the other, but it is another thing entirely to start making specific claims that Goodkind "appeals to males who have a sort of sick perverse concept of the female, since they were probably rejected/lack the ability to capture the attention of any women." It is impossible to really infer why someone does or doesn't read something or what their relationship life is like from what they read.

[JBI]

I think your last comments head into dangerous territory, not to mention are a bit presumptuous about audience. It's one thing to assume a certain book appeals more to one gender over the other, but it is another thing entirely to start making specific claims that Goodkind "appeals to males who have a sort of sick perverse concept of the female, since they were probably rejected/lack the ability to capture the attention of any women." It is impossible to really infer why someone does or doesn't read something or what their relationship life is like from what they read.

Have you read Goodkind?

[amarna]

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

So, in a sense, what is being sold is a sort of 1950s gender conception - a dated sort of post-war preoccupation that essentially blew up in the 60s and 70s, yet still forms itself in these books.

Sorry, but that is not correct. The specifications for the chick-lit characters are varying very much depending on the target group. The character a 70 year old catholic villager chick identifies with is not the same a tattooed 17year old goth chick wants to read about.
The female characters my publisher wanted were working single mothers about 30 or childless career women about 25, more or less experienced in relations, good-looking, sympathic. The men successful in job, cooperative, virile but not too dominant.

Ask a professional... :brow:

[prendrelemick]

Thinking about it, Mickey Spillane could be the nearest thing to Lads Only lit. Were I a woman I'd hate those books, for their portrayal of women. But then Chick lit often portrays men as pathetic and one dimentional, and certainly as a separate species.

[Mathor]

I do not think that boy-lit really exists. Girls that are not really into reading or expanding their intelligence will read Gossip Girl or whatever it is they choose. However, your typical mindless dude trying to play some Halo and get buff in the gym doesn't really have a book for them. And even if there is a book with lots of mindless action and sex, they probably do not read it.

but Star Wars and Star Trek novels, maybe.

[wat??]

I do not think that boy-lit really exists. Girls that are not really into reading or expanding their intelligence will read Gossip Girl or whatever it is they choose. But your typical mindless dude trying to play some Halo and get buff in the gym doesn't really have a book that could possibly not be seen as boring by such a person.

Just by the way you use terms like "expanding their intelligence" leads me to believe that you could use some expansion yourself.

[Helga]

another thing about Star Trek being boy-lit, many women have written Star Trek books and even series of books. Star Trek is in no way boy-lit!

[Mathor]

another thing about Star Trek being boy-lit, many women have written Star Trek books and even series of books. Star Trek is in no way boy-lit!

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

[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 (http://girl-wonder.org/girlsreadcomics/).

1) there are graphic novels and Manga geared towards female audiences (such as Shojo Manga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shōjo_manga)). One example would be Fushigi Yugi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fushigi_Yuugi), 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.

[prendrelemick]

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.

When I was 14 me and my class mates used to read and swop Sven Hessel novels, with titles like "Wheels of Terror" and "Legion of the Damned". Non of the girls participated. They were reading "Little Women" and The Follyfoot series, (pony adventures.)

[Dark Muse]

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.

I agree with much of what you have said here. The men are in their own way equally stereotyped as the women are in how they are portrayed. There is Rand's view toward women in which while the Maidens of the Spear are just as capable as the men in war, he somehow thinks he has to protect them more so than the men in his ideas of chivalry, and the fact that he cannot even kill one of the most vile women there is, when she would kill him and all his friends, in a heart beat, just because she is a woman, and the ideas some of the men have that they have to deny themselves love because of the lifestyle they live.

The men can be equally hardheaded and stubborn, as well as immature as the women in certain instances, and they can also often be preoccupied with admiring the physical assets of other women.

Yet, at the same time, I find that the male characters on the whole come off as much more likeable than that of many of the female characters, I am often left rooting for or feeling sorry for some of the men because of the way the women are trying to always manipulate them around.

[Mathor]

I read the first 6 books of Goodkind. I found that his descriptions were kind of stale and his writing-style was kind of boring. The first book was great, though it contained many story,character, and plot flaws. I also didn't really care for the overuse of sex that wasn't at all tasteful, given the plot.

It was almost as if he wanted to find any sexual situation in which to put all of his many heroines/villianesses. He writes with much description of the female body in a sexual way, but he does not use the same amount of sexual description for his male characters.

[bounty]

its boggling how threads can just up and die...

I didn't read everything carefully, so I might have missed an operative definition of "chick lit." id like to offer one up just for the purpose of some things I have to say afterwards. chick lit (and its modern cousin chick flick) is writing predominantly focused on romantic relationships through the eyes of predominantly female characters.

its not that men don't like romance per se, or cant or don't read jane austen, or jane eyre, but its not their natural bent (maybe unless we include chivalric romance).

im reminded of the phrase "women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex."

and one from Seinfeld when it comes to how the genders use the tv remote: "men hunt, and women nest."

and this one I surmised: romance novels are for women what playboy magazine is for men.

I think the main reason im posting here after a 14yr lull in the thread is that the title reminded me of an interaction I had a few years ago that's worth sharing. I was talking with someone I knew from high school days and was asking how his kids were doing in school. one of his kids was a boy in 10th grade, and he wasn't liking English class at all. I asked why not---well they were reading jane austen for goodness sake!

if one of the goals in high school English class is for students to develop an appreciation for literature, let me submit that having 16yr old boys reading chick lit isn't the best way to do it!

[tailor STATELY]

"if one of the goals in high school English class is for students to develop an appreciation for literature, let me submit that having 16yr old boys reading chick lit isn't the best way to do it!"

Lol ! "Tragedy, Epic, and Myth" class worked well for me.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor

[Sancho]

I had a girlfriend once tell me Tom Clancy’s books were romance novels for men.

[bounty]

during my high school days, seniors in English took four ten-week mini courses as opposed to one long 40 week class. during my junior year the English dept solicited ideas for new mini courses. I suggested "survival literature" and they adopted it. I took the class the following year but ironically cannot remember what we read! but, to this day I still love survival literature.

at least one or two people earlier in the thread mentioned Clancy. its an interesting consideration. if I had to guess though, I suspect more females read Clancy than males read harlequin.