thesis: See Jane Read

2007-08-21T07:51:00.000-07:00

Preface and Acknowledgements (in true chick-lit fashion)

I would like to start this journey towards understanding what chick-lit means to its readers by answering my own questions (p.28): “What is it about chick-lit that appeals to you? What are your favourite books and why?” My first introduction to chick-lit was a complementary copy of Marian Keys’ Under the Duvet. Her crisp and captivating writing had me hooked right from the start. I could really relate to this semi-fictitious protagonist, I felt understood. Since then I haven’t left the house without a chick-lit novel in my handbag. They are the perfect reading material for any commuter as they really do transport you to another world; a world that is actually quite similar to ours and that’s what makes it so intriguing. My favourite writers: Marian Keyes, Jane Green, Melissa Hill and Anna Maxted have me in stitches with their clever tongue-in-cheek perspective on life and love. But, for me, they offer more than quick wit. These authors write about very intimate (and I don’t necessarily mean matters of the heart) subjects. Reading the book makes you the main character’s best friend. She will tell you everything that goes on in her head, no matter how silly or embarrassing the truth really is. It is this honesty that makes chick-lit ‘unputdownable’ for me in every sense of the word. Chick-lit certainly deserves respect for its openness and its unfaltering optimism. It gives women hope and in this day and age of depression and overall low self-esteem and in my book that deserves some praise.

I would like to thank Professor Alexander Dhoest for putting me on the right track towards the completion of this study. Many thanks to all the chick-lit readers that cooperated by posting or sending me their replies. Without you writing this thesis would not have been possible! Further thanks to my ‘inner circle’ for putting up with me…

Faculteit Politieke en Sociale Wetenschappen

De receptie van een nieuw genre: ‘chick-lit’

Promotor: Prof. dr. Alexander Dhoest

Eindwerk voorgelegd met het oog op het

behalen van de graad van gediplomeerde in de

Aanvullende Studies in de Communicatiewetenschappen

Ester Wellens

Augustus 2007

Ester Wellens

GASCOM 2006 - 2007

See Jane Read

The Reception of Chick-lit

Introduction

What is chick-lit?
The popularity of chick-lit

Method

In theory
Practical
Limitations

Analysis

Scratching the surface
Digging deeper

Conclusion

Reading List

Primary reading
Secondary reading

Attachment

Introduction

What is chick-lit?

In This is Chick-lit (2005:143) Heather Swain defines chick-lit as a marketing label: “Labels in literature exist so publishers can market books. Anyone who believes in her own label too stridently is a victim of that marketing. Chick-lit has expanded so far beyond its original genre definition that the only thing all books with that label have in common is that they’re written by a woman, about a woman, for a woman. So, if you want to call my work chick-lit, fine by me. From Jane Austen to Colette, to the other fine writers in this collection, I believe I’m in excellent company.” This strikes me as a valid point. Rather than try to define the genre I would like to introduce some key factors that are often overlooked when describing chick-lit. Chick-lit mainly deals with twenty to thirty-something young urban professional women that are trying to find Mr. Right and the prerequisite girly things like shoes, cocktails, babies (mum-lit), glamour etc. Still this kind of description does not do chick-lit justice and it would imply listing an endless stream of iconic elements that are to help us discern chick-lit from other literature.

“I know it when I see it”[1] was a phrase uttered about an entirely different genre, but it seems to capture the true defining aspect of any genre. As one immediately recognises a western, a musical, science-fiction or indeed pornography, it may seem pretty straightforward to simply add up the ingredients and achieve a sort of genre recipe, but past efforts have proven that it isn’t altogether that easy. What, for instance, is the real difference between chick-lit and earlier women’s romance novels? One could also quite easily define chick-lit as modern fairy tales, but wouldn’t that be an awfully tight corset to squeeze it in? What is the difference between a Jane Austen novel and Marianne Keys’ chick-lit?

The very specific ‘Zeitgeist’ is probably the key to the only valid answer. While chick-lit embodies, and, in some cases, even blatantly incorporates quite a few elements of fairy tales, Victorian novels and post-war women’s fiction, it is a chronicle of our time. Chick-lit offers us a unique window on our own time and culture. Karen Siplin (This is Chick-lit, 2005:143) believes: “It’s the writer’s job to show people how they’re behaving through the character she creates.” This is essential to the description of chick-lit. The heroin lives in the here and now which makes it all the more easy to identify with her. Her issues and difficulties often resemble the reader’s quite closely. She lives in our world and offers her unique perspective in a very personal relationship with her reader. This introspective form of literature is indeed very restricted when it comes to time and place. This is often regarded as a negative quality as opposed to the more positive universality and timelessness. Then again chick-lit is said to revolve around timeless issues like love and friendship. The definition of my subject remains rather elusive. Like Heather Swain (cfr supra) writes: “it’s literature by a woman, about a woman and for a woman.” I would like to add that chick-lit is contemporary fiction that deals with issues of our times.

It is the latter part of Swain’s definition that I would like to investigate. How is chick-lit received by its readers? Unfortunately I am limited to the present-day reception. There is no way of predicting the reception of chick-lit in the future. The critics that describe chick-lit as a fad that will soon be forgotten might very well be proven wrong. Still, it would be too easy to assume its reception will evolve in the same way as the Victorian romance and gain respect with its readers rather than be categorised as dated literature like the romance novel. The goal of this study is to ascertain the current attitude towards the genre amongst the fans, the readers. I deliberately ignore the literary critics’ reception. It is my primary goal to reveal why chick-lit is so popular despite its dismissal by the literati. It will hopefully provide us with a more detailed perspective on the genre and its audience. It might even allow us to speculate on the future of chick-lit.

The popularity of chick-lit

Chick-lit is an incredibly popular genre. The publishing of Helen Fielding’s Bridget Jones’ Diary in 1998 can probably be described as the ‘Big Bang’ of chick-lit. Soon the chick-lit industry boomed and chick-lit authors like Candace Bushnell, Sophie Kinsella and Marianne Keys are found in every best-sellers top ten list. Suzanne Ferris and Mallory Young (Chick lit. The New woman’s fiction, 2006: 2) write: “Critics and defenders are responding to the genre’s amazing commercial success. Chick lit has been called a “commercial tsunami” (Zernike 1). In 2002, for instance, chick-lit books earned publishers more than $71 million (Cabot) […] Chick lit is big business.”

But why have neurotic, desperate and bizarre creatures like Bridget Jones (Helen Fileding), Rebecca (Becky) Bloomwood (Sophie Kinsella) or the Walsh girls (Marian Keyes) made their way onto so many girls’ bookshelves with such great ease? The most clear-cut theories to answer these questions revolve around a supposed increasing lack of boundaries and social structure in young women’s lives.

Chick-lit deals with a very specific female Angst that ‘having it all” involves. Imelda Whelehan (2005:192) quotes chick-lit writer, Jenny Colgan on this subject: “We really are the first generation who have grown up with education as a right; with financial independence; with living on our own and having far too many choices about getting married […] having children […] and hauling ourselves up through the glass ceiling”. While the chick-lit heroines all seem to be facing the same old problem (how to get a man and hold on to him?), there are some underlying issues that are undeniably much more important in the explanation of the genre’s success. Modern young women are faced with a world of opportunities. Caren Lissner (This is Chick-lit, 2005:159) says: “Women have so many choices nowadays, but the tough part is making the ones that work for the next sixty years. “Chick-lit” […] helps us laugh and think about all the risks, responsibilities and ramifications of our choices.” There are in fact so many possibilities that some women don’t seem to be able to cope with the abundance and are desperate to regain a set of rules to live by. The chick-lit girls and women are invariably trying to live by self-implemented boundaries that restrict food, clothing, life-style and even communication (with men). What to eat, what to wear, how to date are all matters of utmost importance and the rules are followed religiously. Perfectionism is cultivated and often the women with the strictest set of rules are envied for their constraint. Skinny, perfectly groomed and aloof fashionista’s seem to rule the world. Of course most women cannot keep up with this lifestyle, and this can lead to desperate measures. We find all kinds of examples of female protagonists that have trouble finding the right balance. There are chick-lit heroines with eating disorders like Jane Greene’s Jemima J. or shopaholics like Rebecca in Sophie Kinsella’s Shopaholic Series or workaholics like Andy in Lauren Weisberger’s The Devil wears Prada or even drug addicts like Rachel in Marianne Keyes’ Rachel’s Holiday. So one could say that what actually makes us read chick-lit are the main characters that are flawed and going through the same struggle as most of the women of our time: trying to be perfect (and never being able to achieve perfection). Chick-lit’s appeal lies in the fact that the heroines learn how to overcome their imperfections by achieving a clear perspective and maximizing their own assets. Helen Fielding’s (2001: 206) line “To Bridget, who we love, … just the way she is” symbolises the kind of acceptance all yup chick-lit readers supposedly crave more than chocolate biscuits.

Another key factor involving acceptance has to do with family. While the traditional families are disintegrating, the chick-lit characters all feel a strong need to construct their own families. Not only do we live in times where traditional families seldom survive due to high divorce rates, the twenty and thirty-something women are often faced with the loss of grandparents and even parents. As a result friends and especially female friends are practically always around in an attempt to substitute the safety net the traditional family used to provide. One could say that the success of Candace Bushnell’s Sex and the City lies much more in the inseparable bond between the four girls than the intimacies they share over lunch. And of course a great deal of the chick-lit ladies is in the middle of starting a family of their own. A task that has become increasingly difficult as juggling a career and children often proves to be rather too taxing for the new mothers.

Still chick-lit is regarded as a fluffy insubstantial genre, with little more to it than entertainment value. It is cast aside as junk-reading, instant gratification with little nutritional value. This perception is probably fed by the invariable optimism of the main chick-lit writers. There is always some sort of a happy ending and the main character always seems to reach a new stage of equilibrium in the end. Furthermore the quirky characters, the sometimes flimsy, but nevertheless enthralling plots and the practically obligatory sense of humour are probably the main reason for the genre’s popularity as well as its image problem. Of course this image is even reinforced by the marketing of the genre. The funny pink covers with the quirky fonts and the pretty cartoons might be a step up from the somewhat seedy pictures on romance novels, but they do very little to reflect the true contents and value of the book. After all this: hardly looks like a book that deals with cancer and this: is not the kind of cover you expect on a book with a disabled protagonist. One could argue that chick-lit writers don’t take themselves too seriously. Imelda Whelehan (2005: 187) writes: “[…] but on the surface at least those writers who talk about their work seem happy enough not to be taken seriously. In fact some, from Fielding to Jenny Colgan and Jane Green, practically insist that their work should not be taken seriously even when as a ‘phenomenon’ it has been taken very seriously indeed.” And it is exactly this approach that appeals to readers. Still the covers can be considered a bit ‘ott’[2] as are the tag-lines on the back of the books. Marian Keyes’ Last Chance Saloon was being sold as “Accessible and addictive” and “The feelgood queen reigns supreme. A terrific book.”. Melissa Hill’s Not What You Think was accredited with: “Deserves a space in your suitcase” and “Be warned – you won’t put it down”. There was little or no mention of the content and like most chick-lit novels they are put down as holiday reading. Light, funny, exciting, captivating, addictive, unputdownable (sic on the back of Jane Green’s Babyville and other chick-lit novels) are the cliché adjectives that are to sell the books. The quality of the writing, vivid characters and the often profound subjects are rarely mentioned. In a way the critics are often judging the books by their covers. I would like to find out if chick-lit readers can see beyond these marketing strategies or if they have adopted the same marketing terminology to describe their reading material.

Rather than investigating the production of chick-lit I am interested in the consumption of the genre. In theory the lack of boundaries and social structure fit the bill perfectly as subliminal factors that nudge us towards the pink book covers, but these theories are both largely based on the analysis of the text of chick-lit products, rather than the consumption. Can we find evidence in readers’ experiences to back these theories up? Are chick-lit consumers aware of their own needs? What do they pinpoint as their reasons for picking up these books? Are they marketing victims? Do all readers think alike? Are there different books for different needs?

Method

In theory

Investigating a subject that is so close to the researcher is always a difficult task. It is virtually impossible to approach such a matter in an objective way. First of all I am a reader of chick-lit. It is my immersion in the genre that brought on the questions I would like to answer. Furthermore we are dealing with a modern genre that is still expanding and evolving as we speak, which makes it all the more complicated to use it as an academic subject. I hope to think this research can nevertheless be useful as a contemporary reflection on the genre that is primarily based on the readers’ views on the matter.

The preparation of the actual analysis took some looking into earlier reception studies. Having entered the realm of communication studies, popular culture and even fandom, I came across some interesting and useful perspectives. Having read Ien Ang’s Watching Dallas, I admired her qualitative and instinctive approach. She based her findings on letters she received from Dallas-viewers. She admits to working from her own subjective perspective rather than trying to achieve an objective empirical point-of-view. But she doesn’t experience this as an academic failure; she embraces the fact that true objectivity is unattainable and tries to see the additional merit of her personal opinion throughout the book. Furthermore Ang’s research focuses on consumers, which I believe to be a valid restriction. The academic discourse often starts from the outside and keeps too much distance from the subject resulting in stand-offish criticism and far-fetched theories. I preferred Ang’s strategy, starting from the inside of the consumer group. This starting point also implies a positive approach. This does not facilitate matters: it is often much easier to pinpoint reasons for disliking something than reasons for liking it. Pleasure is hard to define, but a positive approach is perhaps more valuable as it offers a more honest perspective than the more distanced criticism would.

For the further analysis of the readers’ replies I was inspired by the findings of Janice Radway’s Reading the Romance (1991). The romance novels she writes about are often considered as the recent ancestors of chick-lit. Radway used interviews as a method of inquiry which offer great potential when it comes to in-depth analysis. I opted not to use questions like Radway’s “Which of the following best describes why you read Romances?” (Radway 1991:61) or “What are the three most important ingredients in a romance?” (Radway 1991:67) explicitly in my own message (cfr infra). I did check the spontaneous answers for obvious similarities and differences in order tot find out whether there is a certain difference between the reception of these two related genres.

Even if this method has its limitations it was probably the quickest and most straightforward way of generating a basis for further research and the deduction of theories. By simply tapping into the experiences of the readers of chick-lit, I could ideally trigger spontaneous responses that would give me a general indication of the reasons for the genre’s appeal.

In conclusion I would attempt to find an honest answer as to why chick-lit appeals to its consumers. Individual opinions would hopefully lead to a more detailed and less monolithic definition of the audience and the genre itself. As Harley Jane Kozak (This is Chick-lit, 2005: 17) states: “There’s good chick-lit and bad, lightweight and profound, highbrow, lowbrow, funny, poignant…”. Like in all other genres there is a great variety of books that are all branded with the same label so one must ultimately strive towards not judging a book by its (pink) cover and jumping to conclusions. I have no intention whatsoever to divide chick-lit into content-based subgenres like one can find on www.chicklitbooks.com (mom-lit, hen-lit, lad-lit, wedding-lit, glamour-lit, mystery-lit, working-girl-lit or even Christian lit, just to mention a few). These subgenres’ existence does little to facilitate the research of its reception and simply causes extreme fragmentation of an already fragmented subject. Hopefully the varied group of readers will also reveal its heterogeneity but with a division based on reader’s needs, opinions and expectations.

Practical

I found myself looking for the most effective way to reach the chick-lit audience. My aim was to limit my research to actual readers’ opinions. Unsubstantiated criticism by people unfamiliar with the genre was of no use to my research. Luckily the internet provided me with a unique database of readers of all kinds of literature all around the world: Library Thing. People can log onto the website and list the books they read. All members can view each other’s catalogs. Users with the same books in their virtual libraries as one’s own are listed and tags attached to the books make readers of a certain genre easily traceable.

I constructed my own chick-lit library consisting of approximately 35 books. Of course this library profile establishes me as a reader as well as a researcher and I hoped this approach would facilitate contact with other readers. I proceeded by posting the following request on my own home-page:

Dear chick-lit reader,

I’m a Belgian university student that loves chick-lit. Would you like to help me with my thesis and write to me why you (personally) like reading chick-lit? What is it about chick-lit that appeals to you? What are your favourite books and why? Your help would mean a lot to me!

Best wishes,

Ester Wellens

esterwellens@gmail.com

With this message I wanted to convey a positive perspective on chick-lit. This might have put critics off and generated a more positive response than a more neutral message could have. Nevertheless I was targeting consumers of chick-lit, readers that had added five or more chick-lit books to their virtual libraries, so a positive approach would probably generate a larger response. After all, I was primarily trying to find out why people love chick-lit, not why they hate it. Asking readers to list their personal favourites would also allow me to distinguish differences within the genre, rather than having to treat it like a monolithic whole.

I was surprised by the large number of people that responded over such a short period of time. In three weeks I received over 50 replies (cfr Attachment). Readers seemed eager to express their opinions. It soon became apparent from the content of the replies too that the readers felt strongly about their preferred reading.

Limitations

I have already mentioned the chosen methodology obviously has its limitations. The qualitative approach implies a modest sample audience instead of a much larger audience the quantitative approach could represent. It also implies that the researcher has a central role as an interpreter. One may argue that empirical objectivity can never be obtained though this method. I have to agree that this work is largely based on my own perspective. Subjectivity is inevitable in reception studies and I have chosen to embrace this fact rather than fight it.

Choosing the internet as a medium may also exclude a large portion of readers. Even if the demographic group chick-lit primarily targets are yup women and they are well represented amongst internet users[3]. Still, using the Library Thing website restricts the consumer group even further. Whereas most young women have found their way to the net, we cannot be sure what percentage of chick-lit readers is actually represented on the Library Thing website. Still with 18526 books tagged as chick-lit by 2164 users there is little chance to find a larger selection to represent the chick-lit readers anywhere else. Thanks to the Library Thing data-base access to this group of readers proved remarkably easy as the tag-system enabled a hassle-free and truthful distinction between readers and non-readers. Library Thing was perhaps not ideal because the readers could read some of the other replies (the ones that were posted on my home page rather than e-mailed directly) and could have been influenced by each other. On the other hand they might also have inspired and complemented each other and their anonymity may have added to their honesty in their replies.

Despite its obvious limitations Library Thing enabled easy access to a large group of readers and offered more possibilities than any other medium could have. Additional data, like eg. the readers’ choices besides chick-lit, could prove useful in order to understand the different functions of the genre. Especially as the virtual libraries already existed before my query and the readers had composed their libraries as they pleased.

Analysis

Scratching the surface

In a way the replies were rather predictable. At first sight they all seemed to share similar views and touched upon the same subjects: happy endings, strong characters that facilitate identification, romantic content, the sense of humour and the escapist easy reading. Stylistically a rather emphatic tone was found in most replies. Most of the readers obviously feel very strongly about chick-lit.

Especially humour and the entertainment value of chick-lit seemed to be a recurrent theme in practically every reply. A lot of readers seemed to find it important to stress that they did not only read chick-lit, but that they used it as a welcome breather in between ‘more serious’ reading. That serious reading can be all kinds of different genres, but with an average of almost two books per reader Jane Austen is a definite must-read for chick-lit fans:

	Jane Austen
herebedragons	7
Tinshee	0
Templesooner	0
Kiki	?
Elaineybob	0
Yvettedownunder	1
Poalina	0
jamie	0
elbakerone	4
Nicole	?
tundra	6
Chicklitwritergirl	0
Kgramer	4
Kate	?
Brooke	1
Yvonne	?
gloomybb	0
Stine	?
Shira E. Schneider	?
Mabes	3
Jenn	2
Genie	5
Marmel	6
NanaboosBookEnds	1
Emily	1+
Kitty	0
stephlee	2
harlequinn	0
Winnowill	4+
patchworkgirl	8
Laura	3
Lisa	3
Melissa	3
Freecycler	0
Melissa M.	?
altog	1
Grownupgirlie	0
Becky	?
Kisscass	?
RT	0
rocknrollfun	3
Moonriver	1
missbookwormy	0

In one reply we even find an outspoken preference for Jane Austen’s novels. Emily writes: “So to really answer your question, I would say that yes, it definitely comes from my love of Jane Austen. Or rather that as a lover of Jane Austen's novels, I'm likely to go looking for more books with a similar "marriage plot," focus on a female character, dramatic moments, but ultimately a happy ending. And really? They're fun and easy to read! I'm not expecting the same quality as Jane Austen, just the same general feel. I'm a fairly literary person, but every once in a while I want a break from heavy reading.” So while pointing out the obvious similarities between Austen and the chick-lit authors’ work, she is still keen to define chick-lit as a watered down (or even dumbed down) version of the Victorian novels. Of course it is not surprising to find Jane Austen, who is considered “the mother of all romance novels” by Jenifer Crusie (Flirting with Pride & Prejudice, 2005: 1) and many others, in the reading lists of our chick-lit readers. Funnily enough Crusie’s description of Pride & Prejudice sounds very familiar: “It’s like a great desert that’s good for you, a guilty pleasure you don’t have to feel guilty about.” Chick-lit is often described as a sugary treat too, only the guilt-factor hasn’t been resolved. Winnowill writes: “But when I want some mindless brain-candy, you can't beat chick-lit. It's fun, it's fluffy, and it has absolutely no nutritional value. Kind of like cotton candy.” She describes the typical duality in the attitude towards a product of popular culture. In fact Jane Austen novels weren’t thought of as ‘nutritional’ either by her contemporary readers and critics. Laura Caldwell (Flirting with Pride & Prejudice, 2005: 23) writes: “Chick-lit is often dismissed for dealing with trivial women’s issues […] much the same way in which Jane Austen was once criticized for not dealing with her political landscape. Austen, however, with Elizabeth Bennet and the surrounding Pride and Prejudice characters, manages a tongue-in-cheek nod to high-class problems while dealing with them at the same time. […]She wrote with a confidence that insists that although some might call Elizabeth’s concerns […] trivial and high-class, they are still legitimate concerns”. Or as Jeniffer Crusie (Flirting with Pride & Prejudice, 2005: 19) puts it “[…], I pointed out that marriage in the nineteenth century was a life or death matter. It was different then, […]. Laura Caldwell has a much better answer: it wasn’t much different then. Relationship problems may have been the problems of the privileged, but they’re still very real problems.” So, while both genres have been frowned upon for dealing with trivial problems, there is a point to be made that marriage and relationships are indeed very ‘real’ problems. While Jane Austen novels have since been upgraded to a more highbrow status, chick-lit is still being dismissed as mass-produced shallow reading material. The readers that want to maintain a highbrow perspective will be likely to look down on chick-lit.

One must wonder however if the focus on the marriage/relationship-plot has not been forced upon the genre. A very large portion of chick-lit tackles much profounder subjects such as addiction, eating disorders, cancer and even death. When Becky writes: “Chick lit is my refuge from the world of academic theology. It's comforting to escape to a world where quirky, crazy women are able to live and laugh and love in a world that treats them better than our world actually treats women. I love Marian Keyes and I've read everything she's written.”, this could be considered a terribly incongruous remark. Marian Keyes’ bestsellers deal with (post-natal) depression (in Watermelon), drug addiction (in Rachel’s Holiday), cancer and mentally abusive boyfriends (in Last Chance Saloon), living on the brink of poverty (in The Other Side of the Story) and the death of a husband (in Anybody Out There). Marian Keyes’ heroines’ world is not exactly a bed of roses. So why is it that quite a few readers maintain that chick-lit is is all fun and games? The aforementioned tongue-in-cheek style that Austen and contemporary chick-lit writers have in common could very well be an important factor in explaining this paradox. Yvette and gloomybb both mention that they appreciate that chick-lit authors don’t take themselves too seriously. It is the down-to-earth but witty approach to serious subjects that makes readers consider chick-lit as light reading material. The ‘happy ending’ factor increases this feel good notion that most chick-lit fans experience. In some cases it even seems to make the readers oblivious of the content of their reading material.

The distance that some readers want to create between themselves and the genre also indicates an awareness of the negative attitude towards chick-lit amongst feminists, literary critics and perhaps even the public in general. Like any other aspect of popular culture chick-lit is often regarded as having little more to offer than its entertainment value. As if its popularity in itself is a clear indication of its lack of literary value. If it appeals to the masses, then surely it can’t be of any substantial value?

In one large group of replies the escapist nature of chick-lit is very much stressed. The glamour and the romantic qualities of the genre are the main focus. We see al lot of comparisons to junk-food and even alcohol in this type of reply. Chick-lit is represented as being fun (like Brookie says: “Maybe it is true: Girls do just want to have fun!”), intoxicating, addictive even, but not particularly good for you. This terminology comes straight off the book-covers and these readers can be described as marketing victims. They are not looking for any thing other than entertainment. It is also not surprising that perhaps the most superficial or glamorised chick-lit titles and authors are indicated as favourites. Sophie Kinsella is a clear favourite with these readers.

This type of reader has a very different relationship with the protagonists. Rather than considering them as a friend (cfr supra) they tend to find pleasure in feeling ‘not as hopeless as’ the chick-lit heroine. Imelda Whelehan (2005: 180) writes about Bridget Jones’s Diary: “The confessional tone draws the readers in, so that our relationship with Bridget is one of complicity, encouraging agreement with Bridget’s world view, even when her utter hopelessness makes us feel superior to her”. RT describes a similar feeling towards Kinsella’s star, Rebecca Bloomwood: “My favorites would have to be the Shopaholic series. It just fascinates me how Becky can continue to delude herself about spending money. But then it shouldn't because I've run up some startling bills in bookstores, clearly nothing to match Becky's debts, but hard to pay down anyway!” There is a form of identification, but in the first place there’s the ‘glad it’s not me’-attitude.

In Reading the Romance (1991:61) Janice Radway points out that escapism can also occur on a different level. The act of reading in itself can be defined as escapist: “[…] I think it logical to conclude that romance reading is valued by the Smithton women because the experience itself is different from ordinary existence. Not only is it a relaxing release from the tension produced by daily problems and responsibilities, but it creates a time or space within which a woman can be entirely on her own.”. Several readers confirm this need. Kate mentions: “chick lit is great for when I am trying to unwind and jsut have fun reading a book”, Shira E. Schneider describes her chick-lit reading experience as follows: “They are just fun. When it's rainy outside and you feel "blah", a good chick-lit book is comforting as you lounge around in sweats and a t-shirt.” and herebedragons describes a slightly different kind of escape “I read chick-lit because it's light reading - easy, and I don't have to concentrate much while I'm reading, so it's great for reading while I'm waiting around for an appointment, or any other situation where I might not have calm and quiet around me.”, but she obviously refers to the escapist possibilities the reading itself provides.

The difference with the romance novels Radway (1991: 61) investigated is the fact that chick-lit revolves around the here and now and not the romance novels’ “faraway places and times”. Readers like Grownupgirlie even mention this as a distinctively positive aspect of chick-lit: “The books these days seem to be a little more contemporary and something that could really happen, in comparison to, say, romance novels.”

This brings us to a different factor and a different group of readers. They value the identification factor more. Of course this aspect is also strongly linked to humour. Recognition is after all the corner stone of humour. Furthermore, in order to sell, it is essential for any novel that the readers can identify with the main character. Shanna Swendson (Flirting with Pride & Prejudice, 2005: 64) calls this female protagonist a “strong, sympathetic and believable heroine – what publishing industry often calls “relatable” – is key to a chick-lit novel. That’s what puts the “chick” in “chick-lit” after all.” This is indeed to be considered a particular strength of chick-lit. The heroines are ultimately flawed, a characteristic female readers seem to crave in a world that entertains impossibly high standards. Chick-lit girls are far from perfect and provide the readers with the antidote they so desperately need being bombarded with imagery of an unattainable body-image. Even their characters’ personalities are quirky and they are prone to making mistakes. For these readers the strength of chick-lit lies not only in the reassurance that nobody is perfect, but also in the depiction of balance and inner harmony that the chick-lit main characters invariably obtain towards the end.

The romantic qualities of the genre are often quoted. Like Elisabeth Fairchild (Flirting with Pride & Prejudice, 2005: 43) says: “Humankind adores a wonderful love story”. The readers that show strong identification patterns genuinely rejoice in the successes of the heroines as it gives them hope for their own (love-)lives. Like tundra says: “I also enjoy reading them because they are often about single girls my own age (twenties) who find happiness and love, which is something I am looking for.” Marian Keyes is a definite winner for these readers.

They are also the type of readers that will mention the social aspect that is portrayed in chick-lit. Yvonne states: “But what appeals to me when I read chick lit books are how the friendships are portrayed. In so many chick-lit books I've read, all the major characters had amazing friendships with minor characters.” and Nicole mentions: “The girls are my age group and often could be one of my friends.” Communication with female (or gay) friends is crucial in chick-lit. In fact it takes up much more space than interactions with (potential) partners do. Communication with men is limited. There are very specific rules about calling men in between dates and how to communicate with them in general. Pretending to be unavailable and aloof and therefore restricting phone-calls, dates and actual conversation are considered essential when dating. Where conversation with friends can be brutally honest at times (Sex and the City), all interactions with men seem to be censored internally. Female friendships seem to provide the security that used to be found within families. Shanna Swendson (Flirting with Pride & Prejudice, 2005: 66) touches upon this subject: “You may find a chick-lit novel without romance in it, but you’ll seldom find one without female friendships in it. Pride and Prejudice devotes more pages to interactions between Lizzy and her sister Jane, her friend Charlotte and het Aunt Gardiner than it does to her interactions with Mr. Darcy, the romantic hero of the piece. Their conversations are very much like what you’d see in a chick-lit novel written a couple of centuries later, […]. The women of Pride and Prejudice talk at length about men. They analyze their every word or action during lengthy post-mortems of every social event.” Indeed these post-mortems are very popular in chick-lit too. Very often the actual conversation is skipped in the book and they go straight to the analysis with friends. The social aspect of the chick-lit novels is a strong plus to increase overall identification. The fictional characters are portrayed in such a lively and realistic way that readers may accept more easily as ‘one of their own’.

In order to get an overview of the most important tendencies I specified the three most important themes: identification, humour and escapism and checked each reply for explicit references for these subjects.

I listed the results here:

	IDENTIFICATION	HUMOUR	ESCAPISM
herebedragons	+
Tinshee	+
Templesooner	+
Kiki	+
Elaineybob	+	+
Yvettedownunder	+	+
Poalina	+	+
jamie	+	+
elbakerone	+	+
Nicole	+	+
tundra	+	+
Chicklitwritergirl	+	+
Kgramer	+	+	+
Kate	+	+	+
Brooke	+	+	+
Yvonne	+	+	+
gloomybb	+	+	+
Stine	+	+	+
Shira E. Schneider	+	+	+
Mabes	+	+	+
Jenn	+	+	+
Genie	+	+	+
Marmel		+	+
NanaboosBookEnds		+	+
Emily		+	+
Kitty		+	+
stephlee		+	+
harlequinn		+	+
Winnowill		+	+
patchworkgirl		+	+
Laura		+	+
Lisa		+	+
Melissa		+	+
Freecycler		+	+
Melissa M.	+		+
altog	+		+
Grownupgirlie	+		+
Becky			+
Kisscass			+
RT			+
rocknrollfun			+
Moonriver		+
missbookwormy

I must stress that there is no strict distinction between the two types of reading we have encountered. In fact they are strongly intertwined and their relationship can better be interpreted as a paradox than a diametrical opposition. Escapist readers also identify with the characters and people that feel a strong bond with the main characters are not always guilt-free readers.

It is not altogether surprising to find traces of high-cultural prejudice in the replies of the readers. Ien Ang exposed a similar self-imposed distance with the Dallas viewers. They were slightly embarrassed by their fascination for Dallas. She categorised this group as Dallas lovers and put them directly opposite Dallas haters. The only group that could genuinely enjoy Dallas and weren’t burdened with the guilt cultural snobbery imposes were the ironic viewers. They love Dallas because it’s bad. The escapist readers are similar to Ang’s ironic viewers, although I find it hard to conclude that their reading is entirely guilt-free. The Dallas lovers show strong comparison to the identifying chick-lit audience, but I cannot be adamant that they are embarrassed by their reading material. So, where Ang chose to categorise her viewers, I propose a continuum in which readers can move more freely.

On one side of the continuum we could find the escapist reader. She uses chick-lit as a stop gap in between other books. She is not concerned with content or literary qualities as she finds literary satisfaction in other genres. She is keen to point out that she also reads books with more literary ‘prestige’, such as Jane Austen novels. The group of readers that were inclined towards the escapist side have a slight advantage (a 1.8 average of Jane Austen novels versus a 1.5 average) over the group that showed more signs of identification. Presumably the escapist reader also displays a different attitude towards Austen. They see chick-lit as a boiled down version of Victorian novels. They are keen to stress the differences (especially when it comes to literary quality) between both genres rather than the similarities.

The escapist reader is looking for entertainment and instant gratification in the first place and insists her reading requires little or no effort. This type of reader is not exactly proud of reading chick-lit and is in some cases eager to describe her reading chick-lit as a craving, an addiction or a phase she has since outgrown. She can even make condescending remarks about the genre. These readers are looking for glamour and excitement, a high-society life style that is very different from their own. They are looking for magazine-like features. Their vicarious living will not make them feel better about their own lives. Their approach is very much a utilitarian one. While she feels for the heroine, she will tend to feeling slightly superior (cfr infra).

On the other side of the continuum one could place the reader whose reading experience thrives on identification. Romance is key to this reader, but she is also deeply involved with the issues that are described in the books. She is very interested in the imperfections of the characters and feels reassured by their presence. While this provides her with a confidence boost it will not lead to her feeling superior to the chick-lit protagonist. She identifies with the female heroine or regards them in much the same way as she would her real friends. She craves acceptance and needs to be assured that mistakes are only human. It is important to her that self-respect and hard work pay off in the end and this makes her own attempts to create a better life worthwhile. She is interested in the emotional evolution of the main characters. Reading is a feel-good experience for this type of chick-lit fan. While her reading is not entirely guilt-ridden she does recognise the intricate value of the books she chooses to read.

It is vital to point out that the two types as I have described them do not exist as such. Readers move between these extremes. Some readers’ opinions will evolve from one side to another. Some readers will adjust their opinions depending on the books, authors or sub-genres they discover within the broad category of chick-lit. Some books will trigger a response towards the first extreme of the continuum; some will tilt the scales towards the other side. Theoretically one reader could place each book she reads on the continuum according to her personal reading experience. Even within the oeuvre of one chick-lit author each book could very well be assigned a completely different place. Or we could even use the same continuum to list the replies we received.

Digging deeper

Twelve of the responding chick-lit readers explicitly mention a happy ending as a reason for reading the genre. This is not surprising as Janice Radway describes a similar result (Radway, 1991: 66-67) when she looked into the reception of romance novels. She concludes “The obvious importance of the happy endings lends credence to the suggestion that romances are valued most for their ability to raise the spirits of the reader.” This primary function seems unaltered if not reinforced by the obligatory humour that is displayed in chick-lit. It seems very important to the fans that the heroin survives the emotional, psychological and even social changes she undergoes successfully. Combined with the make-over or Cinderella-element, that is mentioned in a few replies, these literary aspects lead us to suspect that chick-lit are the modern versions of the Bildungsroman. The evolution of the young female protagonist is essential as is the focus on her adolescence and her journey towards adulthood. This evolution is an important issue nowadays. Women used to be predestined to become mothers and house-wives with only few other options available. In the Victorian age women’s novels usually revolved around the choice of a husband. A matter that was not as trivial as it may seem as it had far going repercussions on the financial and social status of the woman in question. In chick-lit the pursuit of the right partner is further complicated by the choice of a satisfying job or finding equilibrium between motherhood and professional ambitions. The somewhat overwhelming amount of opportunities causes confusion in a large part of the young female population and calls for guidance that chick-lit offers in its quality as a Bildungsroman.

Being a somewhat patronising genre, it is perhaps surprising that these ‘coming of age-novels’ are so popular. What draws these masses of intelligent and independent women towards a genre that resembles the Bildungsroman? Why do they crave the invariable happy outcome?

Maybe the answer lies in the history and developments of feminism. During the second wave of feminism the Margaret Thatcher generation still sported an almost androgynous style as to achieve equality. By the late 1980s career women had a very bad image because of this strategy. Imelda Whelehan (2005: 141) writes about the then reigning attitude towards career women: “they were often portrayed as selfishly putting their own needs before that of their family. There would be no straightforward way for women to gain access to the top of their profession without the perception that their success had cost them dear in personal terms.” But different tactics were soon adopted as post-feminists like Faye Weldon criticised the over- politicizing feminists were prone to. She proposed the exploitation of femininity to obtain equality and even superiority in the workplace. Women soon learned to put their qualities to good use. They capitalised on their female intuition, multi-tasking, ability to listen and negotiate and even their looks.

Whelehan (2005: 158) writes about Weldon’s opinions: “Her view of feminism as itself tyrannical and hectoring to women is not a minority view, of course, and this perspective on feminism’s Second Wave has endured, perhaps even offering an explanation for the birth of the ‘singletons’ in contemporary chick lit.” The singleton epitomises the duality caused by this evolution. In their professional lives they certainly made progress and regained feminine identity, but unfortunately this positive change did not resonate in their personal lives. Popular sitcom characters like Ally McBeal, The Gilmore girls and the women in Grey’s Anatomy and even Friends clearly display this dichotomy. They are successful in their high-powered jobs, but their private lives are often a mess. Hence the birth of the singleton: commitment issues became almost as common with women as with men and with more and more women focussing on their careers a whole generation of twenty- and thirty-somethings remain single. Whereas diehard feminists might have embraced their single status, the chick-lit girl cannot always see the bright side of being on her own. Whelehan writes: “In chick lit, singleness is itself seen as constraining; and this partially identifies the way even contemporary social arrangements militate against singleness […]. Single women in particular are still portrayed in the same way as the have been for the past two centuries, and Bridget Jones and her friends express frustration with this categorization in their coining of the term singleton in an attempt to get away from all the negative meanings of ‘spinster’.” Indeed chick-lit seems to be caught between the celebration of the singleton and the longing for a meaningful relationship. Jane Green’s Life Swap exemplifies this ‘the grass is always greener on the other side’-problem perfectly.

One of the reasons for the failure to maintain relationships might be the stress feminism has put on them. Femininity has been stigmatised as man-oriented coquetterie and can only be displayed guilt-free when it is used to further the feminist cause. Women have fought too long and too hard to relinquish their independence in favour of romance. This legacy of course puts an unreasonable amount of pressure on women’s natural desire to establish a relationship and even a family. Furthermore an over-analytical climate and a strong tendency towards self-destruction continue to compromise any chance of a healthy relationship. Whelehan (2005: 182) argues: “What Fielding skilfully depicted through her representation of Bridget and her friends’ serial use of self-help manuals and lifestyle advice was a society saturated with discourse about relationships[…]. If there aren’t enough strictures to prevent people’s pursuit of happiness, then they have to invent them.”

The problem probably does not only lie in the ‘having it all’, but in the obligation of ‘pursuing it all’. Not only are women expected to ‘want it all’ they also have to execute it all perfectly. Stephanie Lehmann (This is Chick-lit: 2005: 235) describes what is expected of the chick-lit generation: “These days women are expected to be ambitious, yet wear six-inch heels. We’re expected to be supermoms during the day and sex kittens at night. Is it fair to say the ideal woman is both Madonna and whore? It’s not surprising that to be female is to feel inadequate. Chick-lit novels can be a great relief from all this. They’re a dialogue between women. […] My favourite ones [chick-lit characters] […] question all those impossible-to-achieve expectations.”. Beth Kendrick describes a similar struggle of young mothers nowadays (Flirting with Pride & Predjudice, 2005: 9): “This is an age when women can have it all! And we’d better, or we’re going to be branded the weak link in the carpool. Mothers today are expected to work, raise children, fit into those pre-pregnancy jeans plus have a beautiful home and a wonderfully fulfilling personal life… or else. The woman who dares to be a stay-at-home mom? Pathetic leech who sets feminism back fifty years! The woman who works full-time and drops the kids off at day care? Unavailable ice queen who’ll suffer the consequences when little Brianna grows up to be a sociopath!”. In a way chick-lit offers reassurance that these problems can be overcome. Cris Mazza (2000: 9) defines chick-lit as post feminist writing: “It’s writing that says women are independent & confident, but not lacking in their share of human weakness & not necessarily self-empowered; that they are dealing with who they’ve made of themselves into rather than blaming the rest of the world; […] that women can be conflicted about what they want and therefore get nothing; that women can love until they hurt someone, turn their own hurt into love, refuse to love, or even ignore the notion of love completely as they confront the other 90% of life. Postfeminist writing says we don’t have to be superhuman anymore. Just human.”. In a way chick-lit is liberating literature. It urges women to take responsibility for their own (personal) lives and thus their own happiness, but also reassures them that this is not an easy road to travel and mistakes are bound to be made along the way. It acknowledges that women’s lives differ from men’s and creates what Whelehan (2005: 188) calls “an inclusive female sphere of experience”, a community that can deal with the female identity crisis. While chick-lit is often criticised for their fairy-tale endings, women seem to enjoy the reassurance that a quest for happiness, romantic or otherwise, is normal and can be satisfying. In a way chick-lit frees women from their problematic views on pursuing a gratifying relationship and on the whole a fulfilling life. Intact female independence and mutual respect within the relationship are prerequisite for the heroines’ amorous happy ending. Balance and the ability to put things into perspective and prioritise are essential qualities to maintain a happy family and a successful career. That is, íf one would want to combine the two.

It can be argued though that most chick-lit protagonists never really grow up and chick-lit can not be seen as a Bildungsroman. Whelehan (2005: 204) writes: “Chick lit, on the other hand seems more intent on showing how the girl remains inside the woman, to some extent only partly formed and wary of decisions which could change lives.” While this is certainly true for the chick-lit that gravitates towards the escapist end of the proposed continuum, this is not the case for the novels on the other side. It is indeed true that Sophie Kinsella’s Becky will keep running up debts (and only slightly increases her grasp on the management of these debts) and that Helen Fielding’s Bridget will keep getting herself into trouble with her skittish and silly behaviour. But Marian Keyes’ Anna Walsh will certainly not return to mystic readings in order to contact her deceased husband and Jane Green’s Amber Winslow will not feel the need to be single again after her ‘life swap’. They have learned from their experiences and moved on. Of course I do not wish to pigeon hole chick-lit authors. Sophie Kinsella for instance has certainly proved to be able to work on both sides of the spectre with Can You Keep a Secret? This novel has much more of a true catharsis in the end and a less shallow and pitiful protagonist. Additionally I believe it to be the readers that place each chick-lit novel on their personal continua. Trying to call every chick-lit product a Bildungsroman would go against this principle. It would ignore the variation that occurs within the genre and the variation that is imposed on every novel by its particular reader. One could simply consider it as a possible explanation for a part of the success of chick-lit.

Conclusion

This study of the reception of chick-lit has been very limited. It only includes replies of a small section of actual readers of chick-lit which was reduced even further by using Library Thing. Still we managed to reveal a certain love-hate relationship towards this controversial genre. By the construction of the continuum some of the existing paradoxical attitudes seemed less puzzling. By choosing to place readers, authors and books on the continuum, rather than trying to categorise them, quite a few ambiguities could be explained. It has even allowed us to gain insight in the paradox that involved the definition of chick-lit as a contemporary Bildungsroman. The continuum provides a dynamic environment that allows individuality and a variation of attitudes within one reader’s experiences. Defining the extremes was happenend effortlessly by listing the reader’s replies and analysing them. In a nutshell, this is what could be proposed as a possible continuum:

	ßESCAPIST IDENTIFICATIONà

Attitude	Utilitarian Involved
Goal	Entertainment Bildung
Content	Glamour Romance + Issues
(Subliminal) focus	Having it all Social structure
Flawed heroine	Superiority Reassurance
Author	Sophie Kinsella (Shopaholic) Marian Keyes

It must be stressed that not every aspect is equally important for every reader and that attitudes towards every aspect can vary and can very much depend on each individual reading experience. This grid could eg. lead to the following statements. ‘A more escapist reader (or reading experience) is more inclined to a utilitarian reading attitude.’ or ‘A reader that prioritises identification feels reassured by the flawed heroine’.

The continuum does not only list the different attitudes towards chick-lit, but it also points out what makes it so popular. Admittedly no hard evidence has been found to substantiate all of these points; especially the subliminal focus is hard to prove without executing in-depth interviews. This is an intuitive approach to the matter that has hopefully lead to a beginning of the understanding of the complicated reception of a new genre. As a phenomenon chick-lit cannot be overlooked and further studies of its consumption could certainly be useful to understand why this genre has boomed in the past few years. As to the evolution of the reception little is certain. As this genre has been alive and kicking for a decade now, it is hard to believe the critics that predict its deception.

Reading List

Primary Reading

- Austen, Jane. Emma: Penguin Classics (2003), Paperback, 512 p

- Austen, Jane. Persuasion: Oxford University Press, USA (2004), Paperback, 304 p.

- Austen, Jane. Northanger Abbey: Barnes & Noble Classics (2005), Paperback, 288 p.

- Austen, Jane. Pride & Prejudice: Penguin Books (2007), Paperback, 304 p.

- Banks, Melissa. The Girls' Guide to Hunting and Fishing: Penguin (Non-Classics) (2005), Paperback, 288 p.

- Barr, Emily. Cuban Heels. Headline Publishing Group (2004), Paperback, 320 p.

- Bushnell, Candace. Sex and the city: LGF (2002) 280 p.

- Corby, Victoria. Up to No Good. Headline Book Publishing (2001), Hardcover, 320 p.

- Edwards-Jones, Imogen. My Canapé Hell: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd (2001), Paperback, 343 p.

- Fielding, Helen. Bridget Jones Diary: Penguin (Non-Classics) (2001), 288 p.

- Fielding, Helen. Bridget Jones the Edge of Reason: Macmillan General Books (1999), 432 p.

- Grazer, Gigi Levangie. Maneater: Pocket Star (2006), Mass Market Paperback, 464 p.

- Green, Jane. Jemima J: A Novel About Ugly Ducklings and Swans: Broadway (2001), Paperback, 384 p.

- Green, Jane. Mr Maybe: A Novel: Broadway (2002), Paperback, 368 p

- Green, Jane. Bookends. Broadway (2003), Paperback, 368 p.

- Green, Jane. Babyville: Broadway (2003), 406 p.

- Green, Jane. Spellbound: Penguin Books Ltd (2003), 389 p.

- Green, Jane. Straight Talking: Penguin Books Ltd (2006), Paperback, 304 p.

- Green, Jane. The Other Woman: Plume (2006), 402 p.

- Green, Jane. Life Swap. Penguin Books Ltd (2007), 380 p.

- Hill, Melissa. Not What You Think: Arrow (2005), 527 p.

- Hill, Melissa. Never Say Never: Arrow (2006), Paperback, 448 p

- Hill, Melissa. All Because of You:Arrow (2007), Paperback, 464 p.

- Jenkins, Amy. Honeymoon. Flame (2001), Paperback, 320 p.

- Jones, Belinda. Divas Las Vegas: Arrow (2001), Mass Market Paperback, 384 p.

- Keyes, Marian. Lucy Sullivan is Getting Married: Avon Trade (2002), 459 p.

- Keyes, Marian. Rachel’s Holiday: Avon A (2002), Paperback, 592 p.

- Keyes, Marian. Watermelon: Avon Trade (2002), 458 p.

- Keyes, Marian. Last Chance Saloon: Avon Trade (2003), Paperback, 528 p.

- Keyes, Marian. Angels: Avon Trade (2004), 482 p.

- Keyes, Marian. Under The Duvet: Penguin Books Ltd (2004), Paperback, 304 p.

- Keyes, Marian. Sushi For Beginners: Avon Trade (2005), 564 p.

- Keyes, Marian. Further Under the Duvet: Penguin (2006), Paperback, 416 p.

- Keyes, Marian. The Other Side of the Story: A Novel: Avon Trade (2006)

- Keyes, Marian. Anybody Out There? Avon A (2007), Paperback, 464 p.

- Kinsella, Sophie. The Secret Dreamworld of a Shopaholic: Black Swan (2000), 358 p.

- Kinsella, Sophie. Shopaholic Abroad: Black Swan (2001), 362 p.

- Kinsella, Sophie. Shopaholic Ties the Knot: Dell (2004), 287 p.

- Kinsella, Sophie. Can You keep a Secret? Dell (2005), 384 p.

- Maxted, Anna. Being Committed: A Novel: Avon A (2005), Paperback, 372 p.

- Noble, Elizabeth: Alphabet Weekends.Hodder & Stoughton (2006), Paperback, 480 p

- O'Flanagan, Sheila. Anyone But Him. Gardners Books (2004), Paperback, 460 p.

- Pirelli, Pixie. Hard to Choos: New Island Books (2006), Paperback, 350 p.

- Tessaro, Kathleen. Elegance. Avon Trade (2004), 235 p.

- Townsend, Sue. Public Confessions of a Middle-Aged Woman Aged 55 3/4:Penguin Books Ltd (2003), Paperback, 368 p.

- Webb, Sarah. It Had to Be You.Avon Trade (2007), Paperback, 352 p.

- Weisberger, Lauren. The Devil Wears Prada: Anchor (2006), Mass Market Paperback, 448 p.

Secondary Reading

- Ang, Ien. Het Geval Dallas, Populaire Kultuur, Ideologie en Plezier: SUA (1982), 141 p

- Ed. Baratz-Logsted, Lauren. This is Chick-lit. Benbella Books Inc (2005), 272 p.

- Ed. Crusie, Jeniffer. Flirting with Pride & Prejudice. Fresh Perspectives on the Original Chick-lit Masterpiece: Benbella Books (2005), 230 p.

- Ed Ferris, Suzanne and Young, Mallory. Chick lit: the New Woman’s Fiction: Routledge (2006), 272 p.

- Ed. Mazza, Cris and Jeffrey DeShell: Chick-Lit: Postfeminist Fiction: FC2 (1995), 205 p.

- Ed. Mlynowski, Sarah. See Jane Write: A Girl's Guide to Writing Chick Lit: Quirk Books (2006), 192 p.

- Radway, Janice A. Reading the Romance. Women Patriarchy, and Popular Literature: Chapel Hill (1984-1991), 276 p.

- Whelehan, Imelda. The Feminist Bestseller. Palgrave Macmillan (2005), 236 p.

- Ed. Yardley, Cathy. Will Write for Shoes: How to Write a Chick Lit Novel: St. Martin's Griffin (2007), 224 p.

Background on the internet (Juli 2007):

- www.librarything.com

http://www.librarything.com/profile/esterwellens (profile)
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/esterwellens (catalog)

- http://chicklitbooks.com/whatis.php

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-lit

- http://www.authorsontheweb.com/features/0402-chicklit/chicklit.asp

- http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/17/arts/idside18.php

- http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/119/press_release.asp

Attachment

My message

Dear chick-lit reader,

I’m a belgian university student that loves chick-lit. Would you like to help me with my thesis and write to me why you (personally) like reading chick-lit? What is it about chick-lit that appeals to you? What are your favourite books and why? Your help would mean a lot to me!

Best wishes,

Ester Wellens

esterwellens@gmail.com

posted by esterwellens at 5:47 am (EST) on Jan 3, 2007

[1] “Justice Potter Stewart used the phrase in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio.”http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/17/arts/idside18.php

[2] over the top. Abbreviation often used in chick-lit.

[3] “86% of women ages 18-29 are online, compared with 80% of men that age.” http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/119/press_release.asp

seejaneread

thesis: See Jane Read