For some smart, young female novelists, having their books branded “chick lit” is the worst imaginable insult. On Friday, author Polly Courtney wrote about her decision to drop her publisher, HarperCollins, after it tried to “shoe-horn” her latest non-chick-lit novel into a “frilly, chick-lit” package. When the pastel-hued cover doesn’t reflect the work inside, she writes, everyone is disappointed: “the author, for seeing his or her work portrayed as such; the readers, for finding there is too much substance in the plot; and the passers-by, who might actually have enjoyed the contents but dismissed the book on the grounds of its frivolous cover.” No surprise, Courtney’s complaints drew ire from those who have more nuanced views on chick-lit, and this debate will undoubtedly pop up again and again.
But isn’t the term “chick-lit” itself a bit passé, very pre-2006? READ FULL STORY »