Printable View
eeeee hummm well I dont know Im the type that would be cringing if I had to actualy lisen to one of them. But I like to laugh and that is the thing about romances they take themselves soo seriously you just want to sit there and laugh.
:D anyway see yu simon nice talking but work calls
:wave: :D
I have never read one by myself, if anything else that incident in volleyball put me off them, but at the time you could do nothing but laugh.
Enjoy the real world Nightshade.
She's Come Undone is straight up mainstream and a bloody brilliant book at that. I never thought I'd hear someone refer to A Farewell To Arms as chick-lit, wonders never cease. Amy Tan writes immigrant fiction and the Bronte's lie squarely in the Victorian category.
Chick-lit is no better or worse then the other romance sub-genres.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajoe
Don't feel bad, I read modern romance novel by Julia Garwood, (some very good works in there :nod: ) and I feel no shame.
In my mental outlook a book is meant to be read, and can be read by anyone.
Yes some books will target certain age groups, and members of a singular sex, but it doesn't mean any pleasure cannot be derived from a book, from anyone regardless.
Hence the reason, I have my Artemis Foul collection right next to my Grimms fairy tales, and War and Peace. :D
Be Brave and continue the good fight.
The Authors gathered on the battlefield, standing defiantly, gainst their Censorship/Publisist foes.
Forward a book was thrown with the outward cry.
"Literature!"
haha i was in the library the other day and i kinda was pondering in my own little world, and i thought "would it be sooo bad to take out a babysitters club book? NO, DAMMIT NO, STEP AWAY FROM THE BOOKSHELF" and then i kept trying to convince myself "its about broadening your orizens, refinding your youth, market research". its like an addiction. chick lit is like those old worn socks you cant quite throw away. you know novelty socks went out with glitter and hair crimpers in the '90s, but you cant help but love em.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajoe
My sister talked me into reading the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon by telling me it was historical fiction. :rolleyes: She seemed quite shocked when, after reading them, I suggested they were more romance than historical fiction and I was backed up by Barnes and Noble, they were placed in the romance section but then I was betrayed, last time my sister and I went book shopping, they had been moved to the fiction area. She was not particularly gracious about it either. :lol:
I hear you! I remember walking up to the circulation desk at the library holding A Walk to Remember and The Notebook under my arm. I was comforted by the simple fact that Nickolas Sparks is after all a guy! I wasn't able to get more than 25% of the way through The Notebook (probably because I saw the movie, which I didn't feel was any much better), but I did finish the former in a sitting, and took a liking to the movie (Mandy Moore) quite a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajoe
A Walk to Remember is considered a chick flick by many, I guess mostly the people who watched the movie, but never gave the book a chance. I felt there was a nice message behind the story that eliminated the light-heartedness you might be expecting.
Still, every girl I know has read it. Unless they hated it (1 person!), they look back on it as chick-lit.
Someone did that to me as well, except she told me it was science fiction! I guess because of the time travel. I thought Gabaldon would have benefitted a great deal from pruning those books from 3 to just one. (yes, I ended up reading all the darn things) Not my usual cup of tea, I have to say...Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
I also enjoyed "A Walk to Remember", I thought it was very touching. The Stephanie Plum novels by Janet Evanovich are hysterical, I love Grandma Mazur! I can't believe a thread about chick lit doesn't mention such notables as Barbara Cartland and V.C. Andrews, queens of the summer beach reading trash type novels. :brow:
/me shudders...
So, is there such a thing as "guy lit"? It seems almost like the prevailing attitude is "guy lit" is the real literature and "chick lit" is fluff. I mean, some of it is genuine fluff, but I can't include literary works by the Brontes and Austen in that category.
I read them all too, well, I read the first 5 because my sister gave them to me. She had bought them all in paperback and then loved the series so much that she went back and bought them all again in hardcover so she brought over all the paperbacks to my house and since I had them, I read them but I didn't buy anymore so I haven't read the last 2 or 3. They were weird, the 'love scenes' were so bizarre, graphic yet vague. You knew something sexual was going on but you weren't quite sure about the details, even though they would be described but it was in such a way that you had no idea what they were doing, or better yet, how they could be doing what they were supposedly doing in the positions they were supposedly in. A friend of mine and I would read them over and over again, giggling, "Well, if his leg is over there, how can he be doing that? Wait a minute, wasn't she just over there doing that? How did she get in that posistion?" :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by kathycf
On the other hand, that torture scene with Jamie in the first or second book was horrendous. I could only read a sentence or two at a time because it was so intense and unpleasant. You wonder how an Arizona housewife is capable of writing such violence and depravity.
You mean there was more than the first 3? I am out of the loop. :lol: I read them about 10 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
Agreed. ;) I had to skip over a lot of that, it was too silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
I remember some quite graphic scenes with Jamie and some English soldier. Jamie has flashbacks associated with the scent of lavender. Is that what you were referring to? It was very intense and disturbing. As to how she wrote it; who knows what demons someone may be purging via their writing? Or maybe she just has a vivid imagination...Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
A Walk To Remember isn't chick-lit - it's a romance (read: quality book), there's a huge difference. :p
The Notebook can be categorized in a smiliar vein without the quality part.
I am a guy and enjoy dipping into chick-lit now and then. Gabaldon is actually a pretty good writer though the ammount of time Claire spent being banged against the head-board was disturbing!
I thought the torture scene was pretty run-of-the-mill, romanticized, if you will, to a large extent.
I suppose you can call Tom Clancy and Dean Knootz 'guy lit', doesn't change the fact that they are as crappy as the majority of chick-lit.
Edit: The only thing worse then chick/guy lit? TEENAGE chick-lit!
Or against a church wall. :lol: There was one line in that first book that sealed it's "romance novel" title in my mind...I can't repeat it here because it's a little saucy but no legitimate historical fiction would ever contain such a sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by EAP
The torture scene really was almost too much for me, but then again, I am notoriously thin skinned when it comes to things like that, I'm a serious wuss. :blush:
Agreed!Quote:
Originally Posted by EAP
This probably isn't what you were expecting in a definition of "chick novels," but I don't think I'm ever going to bother with all the 19th century romantic stuff, as much as classics as they may be said to be. By which I mean all the Jane Austen and Emily Bronte kind of stuff. I've always thought that was much more of a woman's thing.
I've always thought of Jane Austen as essentially romance that just maskerades as literature because of it's age but I do think there is Victorian literature that goes a little deeper and appeals to a broader audience but then again, maybe I just think that because I'm a girl. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by superunknown
You should check out the Angelique books by Anne & Serge Golon.
It has absolutely everything. You would love them.
S.