Well. I made the rather bold assertion in Reader's Advisory tonight that perhaps ChickLit is the quintessential feminist literature, in that it endorses choice. Not all novels end with a marriage, or a baby. Mine (for class) ended with the main character leaving her life behind to pursue herself on some islands in Greece. And for a genre that supposedly was born out of romance, that's certainly not a romance-novel ending. Certainly, I've read chicklit where the main aim of the heroine was to find love. But I've also read some great chicklit that doesn't end conventionally like that, novels that endorse the idea that maybe we can forge our own paths however we want to.
I have a hard time buying the idea that Chicklit is post-feminist, and that it all boils down to the fact that regardless of feminism, girls just want a good man (and some good sweaty sex, apparently). Chicklit proves itself better than that all the time--my assignment was proof, and I can think of at least a few other books that don't end with the boy and the girl riding off into the sunset together. Yes, some women will find their satisfaction with the man. Some need to move to Greek islands to find themselves. Some find themselves through their children. Some women learn to love themselves through a career. And I do think that you will find all of these scenarios in Chicklit. It runs the gamut of womens' experiences, and in this way, it is that much more broad of a genre than romance, where point blank the story is: girl meets boy, girl and boy fight, girl and boy fuck, girl and boy fall in love and stay together forever; the end.
If anything (and oh it pains me to say this, being an avid romance reader myself), romance is the original anti-feminist lit, because it doesn't allow us for any choice at all. I know many, many people who have disdain for romance as a genre; whatever their reasoning, it is a fairly limited genre. The boy and the girl must end up together forever at the end. If that isn't present, the book is simply not a romance. So if you want to object to a genre as a backlash to feminism, romance has always been there quietly counteracting the feminist movement, by quietly insisting that the only true way for women to be fulfilled is through men. At least chicklit, by and far, has removed itself from that rubric.
I don't have a shred of embarrassment though, admitting that I love romance. I can't tell you why I love it, but I do. Chicklit, however, I am far more selective about. I like some, hate others. But I can tell you that part of the reason that I love chicklit is because it allows for nuanced female leads, in a way that romance, in its anti-feminist way, never can. In romance novels, no one ever thinks they are ugly and actually IS ugly. They're all gorgeous, skinny girls with image problems. In chicklit, the world is far different. Chubby girls exist in chicklit. Girls with crooked noses. Real girls with real image issues. Girls with flaws. Girls like me.
I can't quote my professor directly, because I just can't remember how she phrased it, but the idea is this: When she first discovered chicklit, she was so excited, because there was a whole table of books ABOUT HER. No one ever really identifies with romance novel heroines, do they? All I know is that chicklit allows for a range of female emotions and behaviors and is universally accepting of all of them. If that's not feminist, what is?
I think romance is anti-feminist because the girl almost always ends up needing to be rescued by the man at some point, not because they fall in love. As chick lit proves, feminists can be romantic too.
Posted by: M | May 26, 2005 at 10:28 AM
Hmmm. I'm trying really hard to think of a romance novel that doesn't fit the rescue paradigm, but I'm having a hard time. It's true that in a lot of romance novels, the men end up saving the women. But likewise, in many of them, the woman ends up saving the man from something, be it inner demons or an unhappy family situation.
So yes, on the one hand, you're totally and completely right. I can't think why I didn't think of it sooner. It's quite brilliant.
But on the other hand, there are some shining examples of the woman doing the same thing. But possibly in a more traditional way. So that's not very feminist, even though it does somehow (to me) make the woman appear stronger.
Hmmm. Thanks for bringing that up. More fodder for thought.
Posted by: manogirl | May 26, 2005 at 11:46 AM