Debating the Definition
In the battle to define something we must understand what pre-conceived notions we bring to the struggle that may guide or hinder this definition. I have a specific understanding of Chick-Lit that is brought on somewhat from my previous experiences of modern Chick-Lit, and partially from class discussion. This definition recolves around having a young, female protagonist (20's, maybe 30's), who is somewhat hip to modern trends and fashion, and mostly new to the adult way of life. In this I mean that they are out of school and starting new careers, as well as expoloring adult relationships. Work and romance are central.
So, now being in a course that explores the roots of Chick-Lit, as well as some of the current manifestations of the genre, I am forced to either re-evaluate what I understood and currently understand to be Chick-Lit, or to argue against certain texts as being included in the genre.
the first dileema, chronologically, is Cranford. Is Cranford Chick-lit? According to my understanding, it cannot be. The women of Cranford share many concerns similar to those of Chick-lit protagonists, but there is a very different feeling to the text. rather than being at a new, fresh yet troubling time of life involving new careers and new relationships, the women of Cranford are middle aged and (seem to) have nothing to do with either work nor men. Is there something else in Cranford that makes it Chick-lit, then?
Perhaps I need to add to my definition. Instead, could Chick-lit be w ay of writing rather than a sort of topic (e.g. the young single, working woman)? As mentioned in class, modern Chick-lit and the historical texts, including Cranford hav ea certain flavour to them that is lacking in Rob Roy and She. This has something to do with things like conversation and communication, a focus on what could be seen as more trivial and/or domestic specificities in contrast to grand, epic adentures. So perhaps Cranford is Chick-lit.
The modern example of Chick-lit written by a man, How to be Good, suffers from many of the difficulties facing Cranford when we hol dit up to my original understanding of the genre. We have a woman who is already very established. In many ways she has won the usual Chick-lit battle already! she has a career, a man, and a family. Can a woman lik ethis be lumped in with the Bridget Joneses of the literary world? It is troublesome. Yet, despite having everything a woman could want (note sarcasm), Katie is not content. In fact, she faces many of the same concerns that face the protagonists of Chick-lit. These concerns surround the validity of her career, and seeking romance.
Are Cranford and How to be Good Chick-lit? If so, what does this mean for the definition of the genre? What isn't Chick-lit then? Or can everything be defined as either Chick-Lit or Lad-Lit? This should not be the case. Perhaps then, we need a narrower definition even if may exclude something that may seem like it should fit into the genre.
So, now being in a course that explores the roots of Chick-Lit, as well as some of the current manifestations of the genre, I am forced to either re-evaluate what I understood and currently understand to be Chick-Lit, or to argue against certain texts as being included in the genre.
the first dileema, chronologically, is Cranford. Is Cranford Chick-lit? According to my understanding, it cannot be. The women of Cranford share many concerns similar to those of Chick-lit protagonists, but there is a very different feeling to the text. rather than being at a new, fresh yet troubling time of life involving new careers and new relationships, the women of Cranford are middle aged and (seem to) have nothing to do with either work nor men. Is there something else in Cranford that makes it Chick-lit, then?
Perhaps I need to add to my definition. Instead, could Chick-lit be w ay of writing rather than a sort of topic (e.g. the young single, working woman)? As mentioned in class, modern Chick-lit and the historical texts, including Cranford hav ea certain flavour to them that is lacking in Rob Roy and She. This has something to do with things like conversation and communication, a focus on what could be seen as more trivial and/or domestic specificities in contrast to grand, epic adentures. So perhaps Cranford is Chick-lit.
The modern example of Chick-lit written by a man, How to be Good, suffers from many of the difficulties facing Cranford when we hol dit up to my original understanding of the genre. We have a woman who is already very established. In many ways she has won the usual Chick-lit battle already! she has a career, a man, and a family. Can a woman lik ethis be lumped in with the Bridget Joneses of the literary world? It is troublesome. Yet, despite having everything a woman could want (note sarcasm), Katie is not content. In fact, she faces many of the same concerns that face the protagonists of Chick-lit. These concerns surround the validity of her career, and seeking romance.
Are Cranford and How to be Good Chick-lit? If so, what does this mean for the definition of the genre? What isn't Chick-lit then? Or can everything be defined as either Chick-Lit or Lad-Lit? This should not be the case. Perhaps then, we need a narrower definition even if may exclude something that may seem like it should fit into the genre.
posted by Angela @ 11:44 p.m.
1 comments
