ImportMaster: robot: Import articles to fix broken redirects

2022-08-11T09:45:53Z

robot: Import articles to fix broken redirects

New page

{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2021}}
{{Short description| 1990s and early 2000s term for a type of popular women's fiction}}
'''Chick lit''' was a term widely used in the 1990s and early 2000s to describe popular fiction targeted at younger women. Though still in common usage, the term's popularity has declined since the late 2000s:<ref name="googlewordcount" /> it has fallen out of fashion with publishers while writers and critics have rejected its inherent sexism.<ref name=Heike />

Novels identified as chick lit typically addressed issues of contemporary womanhood — particularly romantic relationships, female friendships and workplace struggles — in humorous and lighthearted ways.<ref name="Ferris2005" /> Chick lit protagonists tended to be heterosexual women in their late twenties and early thirties, living in metropolitan areas.<ref name="libraryjournal1" /><ref name="Terry" /> The format developed through the early 1990s on both sides of the Atlantic with books such as [[Terry McMillan]]'s ''[[Waiting to Exhale]]'' (1992, USA) and [[Catherine Alliott]]'s ''The Old Girl Network'' (1994, UK). [[Helen Fielding]]'s ''[[Bridget Jones's Diary (novel)|Bridget Jones's Diary]]'' (1996, UK), wildly popular globally, is the [[wikt:Special:Search/urtext|"ur text"]] of chick lit, while [[Candace Bushnell]]'s (USA) 1997 novel ''[[Sex and the City (book)|Sex and the City]]'' has huge ongoing cultural influence.<ref name="bridget" /><ref name=":0" /> By the late 1990s, chick lit titles regularly topped bestseller lists and many imprints were created devoted entirely to chick lit. By the mid-2000s, commentators were noting that the market for chick lit was increasingly saturated,<ref name="pandemic" /> and by the early 2010s publishers had largely abandoned the category. The term "chick lit" maintains an afterlife as a popular category for readers and amateur writers on the Internet.

==Origins of the term==
{{See also|Chick flick}}
{{See also|Lad lit}}
In 1992, ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' critic [[Carolyn See]] was probably the first to spot that a new style of popular women's fiction was emerging. Though she didn't use the term chick lit, in a review of Terry McMillan's ''Waiting to Exhale'', the critic noted that McMillan's book was not "lofty" or "luminous" but was likely to be highly commercially successful. Carolyn See wrote that, "McMillan’s new work is part of another genre entirely, so new it doesn’t really have a name yet. This genre has to do with women, triumph, revenge, comradeship."<ref name=See />

Chick lit did not become an established term for a style of novel until the second half of the 1990s. "Chick" is American slang for a young woman, and "lit" is a shortened form of the word "literature." There was probably no single origin of the term: [[Princeton University]] students were reported in 1988 to use chick lit as slang for a course on women's writing<ref>{{cite book |title=Alma Mater: Unusual Stories and Little-known Facts from America's College Campuses |last=Betterton |first=Don M. |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Alma_Mater/s_C7AAAAIAAJ?hl=en |page=113 |date=1988 |publisher=Petersons Guides |access-date=12 December 2021 |via=Google Books}}</ref> and, in the UK, ''[[Oxford Reference]]'' report that the term arose as a "flippant counterpart" to the term "[[lad lit]]".<ref name="OxfordLads" /> The parallel term used for movies, [[chick flick]], enjoyed slightly earlier uptake<ref name="googlewordcount" /> (''chick flick'' is said to have been coined after the 1993 film ''[[Sleepless in Seattle]]'' in which a male characters discusses "chick's movie[s]").<ref name=flick>{{cite news | last=Bunch | first=Sonny | title=In defense of the 'chick flick' label | newspaper=Washington Post | date=17 April 2019 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/17/defense-chick-flick-label/ | access-date=4 August 2022}}</ref> In what was probably one of its first major outings, the term chick lit was deployed ironically: a 1995 anthology edited by [[Cris Mazza]] and Jeffrey DeShell entitled ''Chick Lit: Postfeminist Fiction'' contained 22 short fiction pieces in response to Mazza and DeShell's call for "postfeminist writing".<ref name="Mazza" /> Early use of the term was heavily associated with journalism (both ''Bridget Jones Diary'' and ''Sex in the City'' began as newspaper columns) and James Wolcott's 1996 article in ''The New Yorker'', "Hear Me Purr," co-opted the term chick lit to proscribe what he called the trend of "girlishness" evident in the writing of female newspaper columnists at that time.<ref name=purr>{{Cite news | newspaper=The New Yorker |date=12 May 1996 |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/05/20/hear-me-purr |title=Hear Me Purr |last=Wolcott |first=James |access-date=3 August 2022}} {{subscription required|s}}</ref>

In the early years there was some variation on the exact term used: in 2000 the ''[[Sydney Morning Herald]]'' reported the birth of a "publishing phenomenon" that can be called "chick fiction."<ref name="smh">{{cite news |title=A quick fling with chicfic |last=Knox |first=Malcolm |date=14 October 2000 |newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/0010/14/entertainment/entertain10.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20001214045400/http://www.smh.com.au/news/0010/14/entertainment/entertain10.html |archive-date=2000-10-14 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

At the peak of the term's popularity, a slew of related sub-genres were proposed with similar names: sistah lit (targeted at Black readers),<ref name="routledge">{{Cite book |editor-last1=Ferris |editor-last2=Young |publisher=Routledge |via=Google Books |date=2006|url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Chick_Lit/CacsBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22chick+fiction%22&pg=PA7&printsec=frontcover |title=Chick Lit The New Woman's Fiction |language=en-US |access-date=30 July 2021}}</ref> chick lit jr (for young readers),<ref name="routledge" /> mommy lit,<ref name="routledge" /> and chick lit in corsets (historical fiction, and a term only found in one academic paper).<ref name="jprstudies.org">{{Cite web|url=http://jprstudies.org/2015/08/chick-lit-in-historical-settings-by-frida-skybackby-helene-ehriander/|title=Chick Lit in Historical Settings by Frida Skybäckby Helene Ehriander|website=jprstudies.org|language=en-US|access-date=30 March 2018}}</ref> The relationship with the term [[lad lit]] is more complicated; lad lit arose before or in parallel with chick lit.<ref name="OxfordLads" /> Of these parallel terms, mommy lit and lad lit are the only terms to have enjoyed any significant uptake - and that a tiny fraction of the use of the main term chick lit.<ref name="googlewordcount" />

==Writers and critics==
Controversy over chick lit focused at first on the literary value of books identified or promoted as part of the genre. Over time, controversy has focused more on the term itself, and whether the concept of a chick lit genre is inherently sexist.

In 1998, reviewer [[Alex Kuczynski]], writing for ''[[The New York Times]]'', condemned Fielding's novel in particular, writing: "Bridget is such a sorry spectacle, wallowing in her man-crazed helplessness, that her foolishness cannot be excused."<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/14/style/view-dear-diary-get-real.html|title= Dear Diary: Get Real|last= Kuczynski|first= Alex|date= 14 June 1998|work= New York Times|access-date= 1 September 2016}}</ref> In 2001, writer [[Doris Lessing]] deemed the genre "instantly forgettable" while [[Beryl Bainbridge]] called the genre "a froth sort of thing".<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/aug/23/bookerprize2001.bookerprize|title= Bainbridge Denounces Chick-Lit as 'Froth'|date= 22 August 2001|work= The Guardian|access-date= 1 September 2016}}</ref> Author [[Jenny Colgan]] immediately fired back at Lessing and Bainbridge, explaining why, for a new generation of women, chick lit was an important development:

{{Blockquote
|text="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 (while watching our baby boomer parents fall apart), having children (while watching our elder sisters run themselves ragged trying to do everything), and hauling ourselves up through the glass ceiling.

Who reflects this? Growing up in the 1980s all we had to read if we wanted commercial fiction, were thick, shiny, brick novels covered in gold foil, in which women with long blonde hair built up business empires from harsh beginnings using only their extraordinary beauty and occasionally some goldfish...

..With BJD, for the first time, here we were. The first time I read it, it was an absolute revelation to see my life and confusion reflected in print.."
|multiline=yes
|author=Jenny Colgan
|title="We Know the Difference Between Foie Gras and Hula Hoops, Beryl, but Sometimes We Just Want Hula Hoops"
|source=''[[The Guardian]]'' (24 Aug 2001)<ref name=Hula />}}

Two years later Colgan had turned strongly against the term chick lit, being the first to state what is now a mainstream position among writers of women's popular fiction: she rejected the term ''chick lit'' while defending the cultural value of her work. She observed, "Chick-lit is a deliberately condescending term they use to rubbish us all. If they called it slut-lit it couldn't be any more insulting."<ref name=rubbish>{{cite news | last=Gibbons | first=Fiachra | title=Stop rubbishing chick-lit, demands novelist | newspaper=the Guardian | date=21 August 2003 | url=http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/aug/21/books.booksnews | access-date=3 August 2022}}</ref> Much of the debate at this time was between different generations of women writers; Colgan called her critics "hairy-leggers."<ref name=rubbish/><ref name=libraries>{{cite journal | last=Davis‐Kahl | first=Stephanie | title=The case for chick lit in academic libraries | journal=Collection Building | publisher=Emerald | volume=27 | issue=1 | date=18 January 2008 | issn=0160-4953 | doi=10.1108/01604950810846206 | page=4 |url=https://works.bepress.com/stephanie_davis_kahl/1/download/}}</ref>

In 2005, debate continued with the publication of editor [[Elizabeth Merrick]]'s anthology of women's fiction, ''This Is Not Chick Lit'' (2005), where Merrick argued in her introduction that "Chick lit's formula numbs our senses."<ref name=":1" /> In response, self-identifying chick-lit author Lauren Baratz-Logsted published her own anthology of stories ''This Is Chick Lit''<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title= This Is Chick Lit|last= Baratz-Logsted|first= Lauren|publisher= Benbella|year= 2006|pages= 1}}</ref> whose [[project]] was "born out of anger" and aimed to prove that chick lit was not all "[[Manolo Blahnik|Manolo]]s and [[Cosmopolitan (drink)|cosmos]], and cookie-cutter books about women juggling relationships and careers in the [[new millennium]]," but rather that the genre deals with "friendship and laughter, love and death - i.e. the stuff of life."<ref name=":2" />

In 2007, Diane Shipley<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2007/mar/15/indefenceofchicklit|title= In Defence of Chick Lit|last= Shipley|first= Diane|date= 15 March 2007|work= The Guardian|access-date= 1 September 2016}}</ref> came to the genre's defence, arguing that chick lit books increasingly covered serious topics but, anyway, "I just don't see what's morally or intellectually wrong with reading a book you enjoy and relate to, that might not draw deep conclusions about the future of humanity but might cheer you up after a bad day, or see you through your own health problems."

However, in general through the late 2000s and 2010s writers of women's popular fiction increasingly distanced themselves from the term chick lit, while arguing that blanket critical dismissals of their work were rooted in sexism. For example, in a 2010 ''[[The Guardian|Guardian]]'' article, humor writer DJ Connell leads with changing her writing name from Diane to DJ to avoid the chick lit label.<ref name=DJ /> Sophie Kinsella and Marian Keyes, two authors who have enjoyed huge success through and beyond the chick lit era, both now reject the term. Kinsella refers to her own work as "romantic comedy."<ref>{{cite news | last=Aitkenhead | first=Decca | title=Sophie Kinsella: 'You can be highly intelligent – and also ditzy and klutzy' | newspaper=the Guardian | date=12 February 2012 | url=http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/feb/12/sophie-kinsella-highly-intelligent-ditzy-klutzy | access-date=5 August 2022 |quote=I mean, it's not the ideal term; when I'm asked to describe what I do, I say I write romantic comedies, cos that's what I feel they are.}}</ref> Keyes said of the term in 2014,
{{Blockquote
|text="It’s meant to be belittling. It’s as if it’s saying, 'Oh you silly girls, with your pinkness and shoes, how will you ever run the world?' But as I’ve matured (haha) I’ve realised that I'm very proud of what I write about and I know that the books I write bring happiness and comfort to people"
|multiline=no
|author=Marian Keyes quoted in ''[[Chatelaine (magazine)|Chatelaine]]'' article by Laurie Grassi
|title="Marian Keyes on her new book, sex scenes and the term chick lit"
|source=''Chatelaine.com'' (4 Nov 2014)<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.chatelaine.com/living/chatelaine-book-club/qa-marian-keyes-tells-us-about-her-new-book/|last=Grassi|first=Laurie|title=Marian Keyes on her new book, sex scenes and the term chick lit|work=Chatelaine|date=4 November 2014|accessdate=20 October 2017}}</ref>
}}

At an event at the Edinburgh Book Festival in August 2020, Keyes again rejected the term chick lit as dismissive and sexist, as popular fiction written by men is not described as "dick lit".<ref>{{citation|url=https://www.edbookfest.co.uk/the-festival/whats-on/marian-keyes-family-matters/player | title= Marian Keyes: Family Matters| date= 19 August 2020 }}</ref>

== Publishers ==
In 2000, ''[[Sydney Morning Herald]]'' described the "publishing phenomenon" of what it called "chicfic," books with "Covers [that] are candy-bright, heavy in pink and fluorescence. The titles are also candy-bright, hinting at easy digestion and a good laugh... ...Such books are positioned in a marketplace as hybrids of the magazine article, fictional or fictionalised, television...and comfort food digestible over a single night at home."<ref name="smh" />

Through the 2000s publishers continue to push the subgenre because sales continue to be high. In 2003, ''[[Publishers Weekly]]'' reported on numerous new chick lit imprints, such as, "Kensington's ''Strapless'', which launched in April 2003 and has one book a month scheduled through the end of 2004. Kensington editorial director John Scognamiglio explained that the imprint was created in response to requests from salespeople for a chick lit brand." Nonetheless, the same ''Publishers Weekly'' article was already looking back enviously at the massive sales achieved by ''Bridget Jones's Diary'' in 1998 and commenting on the challenges for chick lit publishers in a now-overcrowded market. Already, ''Publishers Weekly'' suggested, chick lit was - if not in decline - at least at a turning point.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20031020/34118-the-chick-lit-question.html|title=The Chick Lit Question|newspaper=Publishers' Weekly|author=Natalie Danford|date=2003}}</ref>

In 2008, editor [[Sara Nelson (editor)|Sara Nelson]] stated that the definition of what's considered to be within the genre of chick lit has become more accomplished and "grown up".<ref name="twsOctJ55f">{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2008-05-27-chasing-harry-winston_N.htm|title='Prada' nips at author Lauren Weisberger's heels|date=29 May 2008|newspaper=USA Today|quote=Nelson says. "The definition of chick lit has expanded to include some things that are a little more accomplished and grown-up and literary than what that term used to mean.|author=Olivia Barker |access-date=5 October 2010}}</ref>

By 2012 news sources were reporting the death of chick lit. [[Salon.com]] reported that "Because chick lit (whatever it is - or was) provoked so many ideologically fraught arguments about the values placed on women's vs. men's tastes, high- vs. lowbrow culture, comedy vs. drama and so on, it's tempting to read particular significance into its decline," but went on to argue that the decline was due to a normal process of changing fashion and taste in genre fiction.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2012/02/23/the_death_of_chick_lit/ |date=23 February 2012|first=Laura |last=Miller |title=The death of chick lit|work=salon.com |access-date=3 August 2022}}</ref>

==Chick lit globally==
Though chick lit originated in the UK and U.S., it rapidly became a global publishing phenomenon - and indeed may have been one of the first truly global publishing trends.

===India===
In India, [[Rajashree (novelist)|Rajashree]]'s ''[[Trust Me (novel)|Trust Me]]'' was the biggest-selling Indian chick lit novel.<ref>[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Sunday_Specials/Deep_Focus/Write_up_their_alley_chick_lit_brigade_grows/articleshow/msid-3286008,curpg-1.cms "Write Up Their Alley"]</ref> The popularity of novels like ''Trust Me'',<ref>[http://www.ibnlive.com/news/trust-me-to-spill-beans-on-bollywood/top/33834-8.html?xml "Trust Me to spill beans on Bollywood"], ''[[CNN-IBN]]'', 18 February 2007.</ref> Swati Kaushal's ''Piece of Cake'' <ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201415.html?hpid=sec-world India's Cheeky "Chick Lit" Finds An Audience]</ref> can be seen in the context of the rise of regional varieties of chick lit.<ref>Asha Menon [https://web.archive.org/web/20121026082326/http://www.hindu.com/mp/2007/02/12/stories/2007021201260800.htm "Indian chick lit?"]</ref> In an interview with the ''New York Times'', [[Helen Fielding]] said, "I think it had far more to do with [[zeitgeist]] than imitation." If the chick lit explosion has "led to great new female writers emerging from Eastern Europe and India, then it's worth any number of feeble bandwagon jumpers."<ref name="pandemic">Rachel Donadio [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/books/review/19donadio.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&fta=y "The Chick-Lit Pandemic"], ''[[The New York Times]]'', 19 March 2006.</ref> Sunaina Kumar wrote in the ''[[Indian Express]]'', "Ten years after the publication of ''[[Bridget Jones's Diary (novel)|Bridget Jones's Diary]]'', the genre of fiction most recognisable for its pink cover art of stilettos, martini glasses and lipsticks, is now being colourfully infused with bindis, saris, and bangles." Indian chick lit is sometimes referred to as 'ladki-lit'.<ref>Sunaina Kumar [http://www.indianexpress.com/story/14234.html "The Rise of Ladki-Lit"], ''[[The Indian Express]]'', 8 October 2006.</ref>

==Chick lit online==
The development and decline of chick lit as a publishing phenomenon coincided with an explosion in internet usage in the developed world.<ref name=internet /> The academic Sandra Folie argues that "Fans and their websites or blogs, online presences of newspapers, magazines, or publishing houses, and also the free encyclopedia Wikipedia" played a key part in defining and shaping the concept of a chick lit genre.<ref name=Folie /> Folie discusses the British site ''chicklit.co.uk'' which was online from 2002-2014 and included information no just on books and authors but also lifestyle issues for young women. The American ''Chicklitbooks.com'' was online from 2003 to 2013 discussing, "Hip, bright literature for today’s modern woman."<ref name=Folie /> As chick lit declined as a publishing category fans online created their own response: in 2012 a website called ''chicklitisnotdead.com'' was reported to have 25,000 users.<ref name=diego /> In 2022 an active chick lit community group on the goodreads.com site had 4,756 members.<ref name=goodreads />

==See also==
* [[Chick flick]]
* [[Feminism]]
* [[Fratire]]
* [[Lad lit]]
* [[Women's literature]]

==References==
{{Reflist|refs=
<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Cosmopolitan Culture and Consumerism in Chick Lit|last=Smith|first=Caroline J.|publisher=Routledge|year=2008}}</ref>
<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title= This Is Not Chick Lit|last= Merrick|first= Elizabeth|publisher= Random House|year= 2005|pages= ix}}</ref>
<ref name="bridget">{{Cite book|title=Bridget Jones's Diary: A Reader's Guide|last=Whelehan|first=Imelda|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic|year=2002}}</ref>
<ref name=diego>{{cite news|first=Jennifer |last=Coburn | title=The decline of chick lit | newspaper=San Diego Union-Tribune | date=11 February 2012 | url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/entertainment/books/sdut-the-decline-of-chick-lit-2012feb11-story.html | access-date=4 August 2022}}</ref>
<ref name=DJ>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2010/aug/04/chick-lit-debate-dj-connell|title=The chick-lit debate: who in Playboy Mansion Hell calls women chicks? |last=Connell|first=D. J.|date=4 August 2010|website=the Guardian|language=en|access-date=30 March 2018}}</ref>
<ref name="Ferris2005">[http://www.jasna.org/bookrev/br231p21.html "In the Classroom or In the Bedroom"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080828133301/http://jasna.org/bookrev/br231p21.html |date=28 August 2008 }} Review of ''Chick Lit: The New Woman's Fiction''.</ref>
<ref name=Folie>{{cite journal | last=Folie | first=Sandra | title=Recovering contemporary genre histories – the development of chick lit as seen through the internet archive's wayback machine and wikipedia's history page | journal=International Journal of Digital Humanities | publisher=Springer Science and Business Media LLC | volume=2 | issue=1–3 | date=11 May 2021 | issn=2524-7832 | doi=10.1007/s42803-021-00031-6 | pages=25–42| s2cid=236552171 }}</ref>
<ref name=goodreads>{{cite web | title=search results for chick lit | website=Goodreads | date=3 August 2022 | url=https://www.goodreads.com/group/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=chick+lit&commit=Search+groups | ref={{sfnref | Goodreads | 2022}} | access-date=4 August 2022}}</ref>
<ref name="googlewordcount">{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=chick+lit%2Cmommy+lit%2Clad+lit%2Cchick+flick&year_start=1990&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cchick%20lit%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmommy%20lit%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Clad%20lit%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cchick%20flick%3B%2Cc0 |title="Google Books Ngram Viewer" |access-date=6 Jan 2022}}</ref>
<ref name=Heike>{{Cite book |last=Mißler |first=Heike |title=The Cultural Politics of Chick Lit: Popular Fiction, Postfeminism and Representation |publisher=Routledge |year=2016 |isbn=9781138648241 |location=London |pages=13–14; 45}}</ref>
<ref name=Hula>{{Cite web|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/aug/24/fiction.features11|title=We Know the Difference Between Foie Gras and Hula Hoops, Beryl, but Sometimes We Just Want Hula Hoops |last= Colgan|first= Jenny|date= 24 August 2001|work= The Guardian|access-date= 12 August 2021}}</ref>
<ref name=internet>{{cite web | title=Individuals using the Internet (% of population) - North America, European Union, Australia | website=World Bank | url=https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS?end=2012&locations=XU-EU-AU&start=1995&view=chart | access-date=4 August 2022}}</ref>
<ref name="libraryjournal1">{{cite web|url=http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA623004.html|title=Collection Development 'Chick Lit': Hip Lit for Hip Chicks|date=15 July 2005|publisher=Libraryjournal.com|author=Rebecca Vnuk|access-date=30 September 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101201234015/http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA623004.html|archive-date=1 December 2010}}</ref>
<ref name="Mazza">{{Cite book|title=Chick-Lit On the Edge: New Womens Fiction Anthology|last1=Mazza|first1=Chris|last2=Jeffrey DeShell|publisher=FC2|year=1995}}</ref>
<ref name="OxfordLads">{{cite book |title=Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms |chapter=Overview Chick Lit |chapter-url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095606915 |access-date=12 December 2021 |via=Oxford Reference |quote=The term appeared from 1996 as a flippant counterpart to the lad-lit fiction of that time.}}</ref>
<ref name=See>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-06-22-vw-526-story.html |title=BOOK REVIEW : A Novel of Women Triumph, Revenge and Comradeship : WAITING TO EXHALE |last=See |first=Carolyn |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=22 June 1992}}</ref>
<ref name="Terry">{{cite journal |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315107400-9/white-terry-mcmillan-erin-hurt |title=The White Terry McMillan Centering Black Women Within Chick Lit's Genealogy |publisher=Taylor and Francis Group |year=2018|doi=10.4324/9781315107400-9 |s2cid=195512533 }}</ref>
}}

==Further reading==
* {{Cite journal | last1 = Gill | first1 = Rosalind | last2 = Herdieckerhoff | first2 = Elena | author-link1 = Rosalind Gill | title = Rewriting the romance: new femininities in chick lit? | journal = Feminist Media Studies | volume = 6 | issue = 4 | pages = 487–504 | doi = 10.1080/14680770600989947 | date = December 2006 | s2cid = 55208553 | url = http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2514/1/Rewritingtherom.pdf }}
*Roy, Pinaki. "''The Chick Factor'': A Brief Survey of the [[India]]n Chick-lit Novels", ''The Postcolonial Woman Question: Readings in Indian Women Novelists in English''. Eds. Ray, G.N. and J. Sarkar. [[Kolkata]]: Books Way, 2011 ({{ISBN|978-93-80145-84-6}}). pp. 213–23.

==External links==
*[https://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2006-06-20-chick-lit_x.htm "Chick lit, for better or worse, is here to stay"]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20101201234015/http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA623004.html "Collection Development 'Chick Lit': Hip Lit for Hip Chicks"] ''Library Journal'' Article on the genre
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201415.html?hpid=sec-world "India's Cheeky 'Chick Lit' Finds an Audience"]

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Chick Lit}}
[[Category:Chick lit| ]]
[[Category:Women's fiction]]
[[Category:Literary genres]]

Chick lit - Revision history

LeoSpragg093: added info

ImportMaster: robot: Import articles to fix broken redirects