How To Be Good at Chick-Lit

Monday, July 25, 2005

Inconclusive Conclusions

I believe that the previous posts have adequatley summarized many of the topics and debates we incurred over the course of this blog and therefore I do not want to take away from these by adding my own repetitive version. We have already agreed that we are not going to all agree (and wouldn't this be boring if we did?), and therefore I wanted to summarize the points that I believe we may have reached a conclusion on, in comparison to the things that gave us more troubles.

What We Know....

Chicklit is a marketing term that refers to
a certain type of books primarily written
for and read by women.

The Only Trouble is...

Is Chick Lit a real, definable and containable thing, or is it fake and impossible to truely define?

What We Know....

Bridget Jones' Diary is Chick Lit. Cranford
might be Chick Lit.

The Only Trouble is...

Is How to be Good Chick Lit? Can itbe Chick Lit with a less stereo typical narrator and a male author? If not, what is it? Is Cranford ONLY Chick Lit? What else is it?

What We Know....

Gender is complicated. It is hard to set
limitations or expectations on gender,
and therefore it is hard to set limitations
and expectations on genre based on a gender.

The Only Trouble is...

Can gender can be contained in genre? Can genre be limited by gender?

What We Know....


Point of view is significant in Chick Lit.

The Only Trouble is...

How is point of view significant in Chick Lit, and is this a defining feature?

What We Know....

There is Performance by females in the books we have studied.

The Only Trouble is...

What does female performance mean? Does it make Chick Lit not Chick Lit in the Darwinian sense, or is there another answer?

What We Know....

Internal Identity formation and reformation, and particularly independence (usually female independence) seem to be central is Chick Lit.

The Only Trouble is...

What makes this improtant to ChickLit as a genre, and perhaps not as
important to others (such as Lad Lit).

What We Know....

We want to know what Chick Lit is.

The Only Trouble is...

We cannot determine what Chick Lit is.

To conclude, I feel that we cannot reach a difnitive conclusion on what Chick Lit is anymore than we could reach a difinitive conclusion on what a woman is, or what any complex category such as these are. A category is, to borrow Prof. Ogden's phrase to describe Darwin, a heuristic. There will never be a perfect definition or Chick Lit, and therefore we cannot hope to have an answer be it in 8 or 9 weeks, 8 or 9 years or 8 or 9 generations.

Chick Lit + Lad Lit = Reality TV (??)

I have this sense of what Chick Lit and Lad Lit are; I have previously called this a certain feeling to the texts. This is the sort of thing that makes them categories, the ambiguous feeling that there is something about them that is inclusive and something else that is exclusive. So, as one last (silly) attempt to synthesis what this feeling is, I turn to everyones favourite mindless-medium: Television. We all watch it, no matter how hard you try to pretend you are ALL academic with no low TV watching characteristics at all: you have seen reality TV; you know what make a reality TV show 'work'. I would like to suggest that if you boil down Chicklit and Ladlit you get reality TV (just as when you boil down "L"iterature you get Chicklit and Ladlit). Just think of it; you have all the 'romance' of the relationships, self improvement and peaks to the innermost thoughts of the characters (think about the interviews of the single person outside of the group on the reality tv shows...), and all the fantastical and impossible adventures of Lad Lit (trapped on island! must compete and battle for food/prestige/etc.) .
Can't you see a Cranford-esque society being the centre of one of these shows? Follow the characters as they try to live together without actually communicating instead veiling everything in social norms and practices! Or 'How to be Good'; watch as a couple on the rocks has a spiritual guru come live with them as they try to work out their marital woes!
Of course these genres are more than this. The (slightly) more serious point I try to make is the idea that these novels appeal to something particular in our society as a whole. The marketing of Chick Lit (or of Reality TV) would not be so successful if there wasn't some common desire within the audiences they reach. The intentions behind Chick Lit and the "L"iterature that proceeded it will continue to evolve and devolve into new genres that all appeal to this same underlying sensibility.

In Summation...

Since Kristine did such a wonderful job of covering several bases I've taken on a couple other facets of what I believe Chick-Lit is, or is doing. Beginning with Satire (apologies for the repeat section), I think that Chick-Lit illustrates the many difficulties in fulfilling societal roles. If we are to count Cranford and How To be Good as Chick-Lit, I would say that Chick-Lit, also complicates the importance of female relationships, and female independence. In addition, I think How to Be Good actually sheds some light on the complexity of a traditionally masculine role of provider. Seeing Katie's conflict with her role as bread-winner of the family make me wonder, if a guy would have the same conflicts in today's society--being that men are now encouraged to be more emotional or caring as in addition to taking on the role of provider at times. So, read on, and I welcome any comments or suggestions!

Satire

Neither Cranford or How to Be Good can be considered biting satire. Cranford is suggestive of a satirical portrayal of life in a small town and the pettiness of aristocratic society. However we have not been able to identify the direct target of the satire. If small town life were satirized completely, how could Miss Matty be so valourized as a product of the small town? She could not. Similarly, we might recognize How to Be Good as a satirical nudge at the life of working women with families. Katie Carr is laughably frustrated with her familial life. Despite success in her professional life, she finds it next to impossibile to be happy while fulfilling the roles of mother, wife, and provider of the family. Perhaps Chick-Lit is not meant to function as a complete satire--as we might guess by reading Bridget Jones' Diary. Perhaps Chick-Lit uses satire to complicate the roles of women in society--modern or otherwise.

Female Relationships/ Friendships

In Cranford the importance of female relationships takes precedence over everything. One the surface these relationships are superficial and are invested in appearances. However, the book valourizes ‘genuine’ friendship, like the one between Mary Smith and Matty Jenkyns. Also, despite the superficiality involved in the other feminine relationships, the women are able to band together when one of them needs help—like when the Cranford women are able to put money together to aid Miss Matty in her bankruptcy.

In How to be Good, the importance of female relationships is more in the background. Katie’s friendship with her co-worker, Becca, is rather superficial. They go for lunch and talk about each other’s lives, but the communication in this relationship is faulty. Becca doesn’t notice until days after their lunch meeting that Katie confesses to her about her extra-marital affair. Despite that this female relationship is almost completely ineffectual, Katie seems to rely upon the interaction.

It seems then, that female relationships--superficial or otherwise--are integral to Chick-Lit. The women of Cranford, and Katie in How to Be Good, rely upon these friendships. In Cranford, female relationships are portrayed as both a societal convention (the group of Cranford women) and a testament of individual genuine affection (Miss Matty and Mary Smith's friendship). In How to Be Good Katies friendship with Becca is habitual. Habitual to the degree that the relationship's communication falters. Yet Katie still needs that relationship; and, despite the communacative flaw, is able to sort out some of her feelings through sharing.

Female Independence

In Cranford, many of the women appear to have independence. Not all rely upon wealth to make them independent. Some use their ‘good’ aristocratic name—like Lady Glenmire; others turn to the mercantile business like Miss Betty Barker or Mrs. Fitz-Adam. Since Cranford is held by the ladies, it appears that female independence is an issue of the utmost importance. However, it appears that the women are not able to be completely independent, as they rely upon males in the society on several occasions. As the doctor is Mr. Hoggins, the women must rely upon him in the event of sickness. Also, as in the supposed burglaries of Ch. “The Panic”, the women believe they need male presence to ensure their safety. These are just two examples of the reliance upon male figures in Cranford. So, despite the attempt to create an independent, female society, the women of Cranford still must rely upon masculine figures.

As we’ve discussed on the blog before, in How to Be Good, Katie Carr is continuously emphasizing her role as a doctor, and sole breadwinner of the family. Though we might not call this female independence, Katie’s obsession with her role as the provider of the family, sets her up to be a woman whose independence supports both herself, David, and the kids. However, Katie also feels trapped in this position. She regrets sometimes being the working parent, while David spends more time with the children. She also feels limited in her roles. After taking a flat away from home Katie reflects upon her feelings: “[...] when you take away working hours and family suppers and family breakfasts: the time I get on my own is the time I would have spent being a wife, rather than being a mother or doctor. (And God, how frightening, that those are the only options available [...]” (211). Here, despite the former appearance of independence and self-sufficiency, Katie is deeply fearful and conflicted by her roles in life. Initially, we might be tempted to view Katie as the picture of modern feminine autonomy: financially securing life for herself and her family. However, as witnesses to her inner conflict, the picture of female autonomy becomes cloudy, and we are left with the question of whether or not she is really independent when she feels trapped within her familial relationships.

Both novels, then, illustrate the impossibility of complete female independence. In Cranford, the women find themselves relying upon men at various junctures, despite being a society held by the ladies. In How to Be Good, Katie is continually conflicted with her position as an independent women. Moreover, Katie is actually limited in her supposedly autonomous position.