I read a really interesting - and depressing - article the other day on the recently deceased novelist Elizabeth Jane Edward.
But it brought up an all too common point about chick-lit; how it is often viewed in a derogatory fashion. How the term itself is demeaning. I often hear the same derisive opinions about the romance I read (paranormal and regency romance). That somehow, it is less worthy because of its genre. And that the authors are less deserving of praise as a result.
I know other writers who've told me as much.
It takes a lot of work to write a book, any book, and do it well enough to have someone publish it. And then to have people read it and enjoy it. To say it is shit because it focuses on how two people become involved in a relationship is bullshit. Sadly, most of those who criticize the genre are men. And yes, there are women who knock it, but I don't come across them anywhere near as often.
And I find the romance bashing by men rather ridiculous. A; because lots of the men ridiculing the genre have yet to pick up a real romance novel (not just something with romantic elements) and B; I've lost count of the number of men I know in real life who were extremely keen to find a partner settle down and have their own HEA.
And so we come to dick-lit, defined in the article linked above as 'pulsating action novels' and stories driven to highlight the plight of a tormented hero (read Aicha's description, it's worth it).
So, if we have chick-lit, it stands to reason there's dick-lit. After all, the action books I've read are stories you read for fun, like chick-lit. So unless we get rid of the term chick-lit, we should embrace them both.