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.

Identity in Chicklit

I have read a few modern examples of Chicklit and it seems that the protagonists rarely have children of their own. As I discussed previously, this is often related to the fact that they are just embarking on new relationships, and that part of their life still lies ahead. Yet there is often a parent-child dynamic. In Bridget Jones' Diary there is a great emphasis on her relationship with her mother, and how the dynamic between mother and child changes when the child becomes an adult and the mother has to re-identify themselves. The mother can no longer identify themselves soley as mother, and the child must learn to be an adult.
How to be Good offers a different view of motherhood: right from the middle. However, like a Bridget Jones-type character, Kate is still learning (or more aptly, relearning) how to be an adult. However in her world, this involves learning how to be a wife and a mother. Perhaps this is the link to Chick-lit that I have been searching for. Chicklit is about forming the identity you are already supposed to have. For Bridget Jones this is becoming a responsible, career oriented adult that has a stable romantic relationship. That is the position that society expects a 30 year old to have, and so that is what she must gain. As mentioned, this is complimented by the journey her mother must take to finding what she needs to be now that her children are grown up. Similarly, Kate must come to terms with her place in life as a mother, and a wife. She clearly sees herself as a Doctor first; how many times does she say "I am a Doctor"? Many; yet, how many times does she say "I am a Mother" or "I am a wife"? I had difficculty finding any. So, once
so if Chick Lit is about forming identity, as my thought-tangent is currently leading me to believe, then how does Cranford relate? Cranford is more similar to Bridget Jones' Diary. Matty is like Bridget, having to form her own identity once the stabalizing force that was her sister, Miss Jenkyns, is no longer there to rule her, just as Bridget must learn to function without parents guidance; as an adult. After Miss Jenkyns dies, the story clearly becomes about Matty, and specifically how Matty learns to/ continues to function within Cranford. Despite the overwhelming feeling of stability that exudes from Cranford, there is subtle change. A man comes into the the confined world (Peter), and Matty learns how to bend rules when necessary (allowing Martha to have a suitor). Matty and Cranford must develop beyond the rule of Miss Jenkyns, and that is what they do.

Cranford and the Darwinian Model--Up for debate...

We have used the Darwinian model of sexual selection rather fruitfully for discussion of Villette and Rob Roy as Chick-Lit and Lad-Lit genres. However, I found that this model was not as easily applicable to my analysis of mating behaviour in Cranford, particularly because Cranford is a novel more invested in the importance of female bonding and female relationships than in mating behaviour. As we are told right from the beginning of the novel, Cranford is “in possession of the Amazons”—it is a society of women.

This is not to say that mating doesn’t happen, but I would argue it is secondary to the female relationships and subject to scrutiny by Cranford society. The couplings and near-couplings in the novel— Jessie Brown and Major Gordon, Miss Matty Jenkyns and Mr. Holbrook, Lady Glenmire and Mr. Hoggins, Martha and Jem Hearn —do not follow the model of sexual selection that we have discussed thus far. For one, the males have very few other males to compete with. Instead the males are in competition with Cranford’s society of women. While Jessie Brown and Miss Matty certainly appear to fulfill the role of the passive female in the Darwinian model, their matches are subject to the approval of a third party female and upstanding member of Cranford society, Miss Deborah Jenkyns. In the case of Martha and Jem Hearn, Hearn certainly pursued Martha to begin with, but her having a gentleman caller is also subject to the approval of Miss Matty. Moreover, it is Martha who persuades Jem Hearn to marry her (or at least speeds the process)—when Miss Matty goes bankrupt.

Next, I would like to do a brief close reading of how the Cranford women cut down male competition as they speculate upon the marriage of Lady Glenmire and Mr. Hoggins. When the two are first engaged, the narrator (later named as Mary Smith) describes the Cranford ladies' opinion of the engagement:

Had he ever been to see Lady Glenmire at Mrs. Jamiesons? [...] Or had thier interviews been confined to the occaisional meetings in the chamber of the poor sick conjurer? [...] And now it turned out that a servant of Mrs. Jamieson's had been ill, and Mr. Hoggins had been attending her for some weeks. So the wolf had got into the fold, and now he was carrying off the shepardess. (115).

Here, the ladies of Cranford write a familiar gender stereotype: the male as stocking and preying on the female. the wolf waiting to prey upon an innocent passive female.
Maggie suggested to me the other day that Cranford is a light-hearted satire on English small town life, aristocracy, and social society. Perhaps we could also read this scene as a lightly satirical nudge at the way Cranford women construct male identity to bolster their own society. I find it hard to take Mary Smith's comments seriously when she has told us before that Mr. Hoggins, despite his name, is a decent man and a good doctor. She says that the Cranford women consider Mr. Hoggins “a very worthy man, and a very clever surgeon” (103). However she is careful to point out that Mr. Hoggins reputation as a good man is only good in so far as his identity “as a doctor” (103). Having come from a family of farmers and proven no aristocratic ties to Cranford society, Mary Smith highlights the point that Hoggins’ reputation is limited by his class position. Mary’s subtle critique of Cranford’s societal judgements force me to rethink her framing Hoggins as a wolf-like male preying on Lady Glenmire--an unsuspecting passive female.

In short, Cranford complicates the Darwinian model of sexual selection. Male suitors are not competing with one another but with a society of women. Moreover, the the satirical tones of the novel poke fun at old stereotypes and gesture towards a rethinking of Darwins model as we have studied thus far.

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.

"Briget Jones's Mandate"- A Critique of Chick Lit...

Hi everyone! I know we should be talking about Cranford (and I'm working on something to comment upon), but I stumbled upon this article and I think it's quite interesting. I partially agree with Lisa Carver's scepticism towards Chick Lit--especially the message that it is sending young professional women--that they are simply not whole until they find a man...a good man. While Carver's critique can be digressive, her suggestions to make Chick Lit less sterotypical and more subversive make me rethink the genre. Enjoy!

C.

Writing Gender

I have just finished reading Cranford and one of the things that interested me the most is the way that the female author (Gaskell) writes men. The men of Cranford are, in many ways, feminine. Captain Brown lives a rather domestic life, looking after his daughters, and Peter goes so far as to dress as a woman. This made me think back to our class discussions and blog discussions regarding Die Vernon in Rob Roy. Die Vernon is a masculine female written by a male (Scott). By writing gender this way, are the authors commenting on what the ideal member of the opposite sex would be like, or are they falling back on the ideals that they know and are simply placing these ideals on members of the opposite sex out of lack of understanding? Is this a trait of gender specific literature (e.g. Chick Lit and Lad Lit)? Is the 'Colin Firth' character of Chick Lit a true example of masculinity or is he a female ideal of what a man should be? I tend to think the latter is true. In the same way, I expect many of the females portrayed in Lad Lit will similarly be some kind of a male ideal of what a female should be.
I wanted to put this out there before we approach Hornby's How to Be Good, since all I know going into the novel (having not even read the back cover yet) is that it is Chick Lit written by a man. I don't know what to expect of the major female character(s). I am interested to see how a man writes a woman in Chick Lit, and how this differs from how a man writes a woman in Lad Lit.

Our Texts

We've decided! We'll be commenting on Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford and Nick Hornby's How To Be Good (hence our catchy blogger name!)