Ah Ms. Louboutin, but how can you effectively criticize something you don't seem to be familiar with? For instance, if you'd read a bit more of Stephanie Lessing's interview on Gothamist, you'd have seen this:

I thought I was writing a tongue-in-cheek, over the top, spoof on chick lit-hence the shoe on the head (although don’t get me wrong, I love chick lit) but I’m not sure it came across that way.

Personally, I think it's absurd to complain that people are READING. Why not complain about JK Rowling and Stephen King and Dan Brown? They're not so high-brow, and they've each launched a movement akin to the chick lit phenomenon.

I suggest a new post titled "Eight Reasons Why Marginally Funny Hipsters with Oversized Chips on Their Shoulders Should Be Kicked to Death." Hell, I'll even write it.

droapy (or should I address you as Ms. Lessing?)-

If you, as a writer, need to explain that you're being ironic or whatever, then you've failed at what you set out to do in the first place.

I hate that.

PS We've gotcher screed against hipsters coming up later on this afternoon. If only I had known you were available, I'd have commissioned you.

Stephanie Lessing would NEVER say "akin." I refer you again to her interview on Gothamist.

Also, parody's not ironic. It's parody.

I really don't care if that book is parody or irony or what. I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it.

(Perhaps Ms. Louboutin will weigh in?)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to play the part of your mother here and insist that you at least TRY the spinach before you declare that you hate it. That's my only quibble here. Give it a shot, I dare you. It's funny as hell.

"If you, as a writer, need to explain that you're being ironic or whatever, then you've failed at what you set out to do in the first place."

In this regard, Morrissey's "The National Front Disco" is more/less clever than Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." Discuss.

Personally, I've always felt that if you don't have to explain that you're being ironic at least once, you're only mucking about with sarcasm.

(But I appreciate the link-check just the same. Every little bit helps make my blog that much more attractive to advertisers, at which point I should be kicked to death!)

Droapy, does only Stephanie Lessing's work deserve defense because it's "parody"? What about the other authors I mention?

However, seeing as you seem to know and love Lessing's novel, what is the feminist message in it that she speaks of?

And, just to get this straight: Lessing creates a book about a stupid person - as a spoof. So she finds the protagonists in chick lit stupid?

Well, obviously, you can't cite a parody as an example of the very thing it's parodying. I mean, if you were complaining about the mainstream media, you wouldn't include The Onion in the discussion -- because it's subverting the very thing you're complaining about in the first place. So on those grounds, I feel SHE'S GOT ISSUES does deserve special defense. (Also it's the only one I've read. I confess I don't read much chick lit and only read this one because a friend gave it to me and made me swear to read it.)

I don't claim to know Ms. Lessing's intentions, and I'm not sure I fully understand the connection between fashion and feminism she refers to in her interview (good job on reading it!). I did, however, think the book did an excellent job of laying bare the toxic relationships that women often have with each other. The book's more obvious "chick lit" elements (which are ridiculously over-the-top -- another sign it's a parody) seemed to me to be the author's way of highlighting these issues. After all, what better place to observe the sometimes shocking way women treat each other than at a fashion magazine?

So, yes, I'd say there's a good chance Ms. Lessing does find the protagonists in chick lit stupid. In fact, I'd say that's the whole point.

Droapy: Before you leap to Ms. Lessings defense, why not read what she has to say about chick lit in the very interview Haitlin linked to?:

Q: What role do you see chick lit books having in the lives of young women?
A: I think chick lit is extremely therapeutic and we shouldn’t let people who think books that aren’t painful or depressing guilt us into feeling if we read something that makes us laugh, or worse yet, happy, that we’re not reading something that’s worthy. For the most part, chick lit is fun and light and refreshing and hopefully inspiring.

No doubt Ms. Lessing's got a soft spot for chick lit, and there's also no doubt her book shares some characteristics of the genre. Heck, her publisher publishes some pretty notable chick lit authors. That doesn't mean she can't make fun of it, for crying out loud.

Obviously someone wasn't on the high school debate team....

Thanks, Droapy, I get it now - shallow women who work at fashion magazines are mean to each other. I think the next Yale Journal of Women's Studies will be devoted to papers on that very issue.

Well I assume you don't work at a fashion magazine, and I'm SURE you're not shallow, but you're doing an excellent job being pretty mean, now aren't you? I think the point, dear Ms. Louboutin, is that our time as women (and as human beings, for that matter) would be better spent supporting each other's successes than cutting each other down. It's not a terribly complicated concept, but it's one you seem to have trouble grasping nonetheless

Oh, okay, so she finds the protagonists in chick lit stupid, yet inspiring?

Part of the problem with publishing and the country in general is that the likes of you actually did spend time on the high school debate team. There's something called logic. Try it sometime.

There's certainly one concept I'm having a hard time grasping: how creating fiction that depicts women as stupid - unintentionally, as spoof, or otherwise - is something to be celebrated. And you're right: I have trouble accepting that I should support another woman's success just because she's a woman - or another human, whatever - because it's a ridiculous notion. Do you support your neighbor's roaring trade in racist bumper stickers?

Why oh why can't you read the whole interview??

"Chloe doesn’t play dumb. She is dumb. In real life, however, it’s better to be smart—but there’s something to be said for giving people the benefit of the doubt and for looking for the good in people—even when you know they’re trying to hurt you. Meanness, I’ve found, is usually a byproduct of fear. If someone is afraid of you, they are going to be on the defensive. If you understand that, you can help them. This is especially true in the workplace where people are scared to death of being replaced. The most valuable person in any office is the one who supports those above her and beneath her. That’s what it’s all about. I was hoping Chloe would teach Ruth that but, unfortunately, she never caught on."

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal of some kind?

Break it down for me, O Logic Queen.

Oh Patently,

You said, "Oh, okay, so she finds the protagonists in chick lit stupid, yet inspiring?"

Stephanie Lessing said, in reference to Chloe's overwhelming idiocy "there’s something to be said for giving people the benefit of the doubt and for looking for the good in people—even when you know they’re trying to hurt you."

Hence, stupid protagonists CAN be inspiring. Get it now?

And Haitlin, are you REALLY comparing chick lit to racially charged bumper stickers? Really?

You'll have to forgive me if I don't find these empty Hallmark bromides entirely convincing, Ms. Lessing.

To recap: Lessing finds chick lit characters stupid, so she parodies them. But she also finds their stupidity instructive, in a 'life is like a box of chocolates' kind of way, so she makes sure to feature a character who's dumb but innocent. Kind of like a child. I'm so sold on this woman's approach to life and literature.

Actually, I didn't "compare chick lit to racially charged bumper stickers". I used the example of racist bumper stickers to illustrate my opinion that not all successful endeavor should be supported. Chick lit is less dangerous than the example I offered, but that's known as making a point.

Clearly, we've gotten off message here. My initial point was that it's unfair to slam something you're completely unfamiliar with. As you seem intent on continuing to do just that, so I'll leave you to it.

Can I just interrupt to say HOW COME I CAN'T GET A FUCKING LINK FROM BOOKSLUT WHEN I'M THE ONE WRITING THE POSTS? Sheesh.

The problem with chick lit is that it squeezes out other stuff off the shelves. Have you been to a suburban bookstore recently? Between chick lit, home design and tax advice crap, there's no room for anything actually worth reading. And really, who reads this shit? Essentially, chick lit is just another name for Harlequin Romance novels (with the occasional reference to Blahniks and cock).

gmb, I think that comparing chicklit authors to romance novelists is an insult to romance novelists.

Of course, given the widespread scorn for chicklit, home design, and tax advice books, you should consider yourself lucky to still have a suburban bookstore at all. Really: any bookstore that's still got tax books on prominently display in August deserves to go bankrupt and be replaced by a Barnes & Noble.

Ron: Tax advice is a year round concern, darling. I forgot to mention "____" for dummies (fill in the fucking blank).

Such as may be, but no bookstore ever got rich catering to self-employed freelancers and their need to pay quarterly estimates. Featuring a tax book in August is about as brilliant a marketing concept as creating a haggadah display in, well, August.

Of course, if your local bookstore simply only has three sections--chick lit, home design, and tax prep--no, wait, four sections if we count the Dummies as one section all to itself--your problem isn't with chick lit but with a badly-managed bookstore. Maybe you should order your books online.

Haitlin Louboutin = Curtis Sittenfeld.

While I agree with your comments about Plum Sykes, I disagree with your comments about Jennifer Weiner. Her characters are real, funny, and people you care about. Take for instance her character Maggie Fuller. A dyslexic, she could easily be referred to as "dumb" and she herself thinks that in the beginning of Weiner's novel "In Her Shoes" But Fuller decides to change herself. She audits classes at Princeton, she learns to retrain her brain to read literature, and she learns that she doesn't need a man in her life and her self worth is not based on her looks.
Hmm. That just sounds terrible,if you ask me.
And calling a baby girl "spawn?" Lovely. Just lovely.

Obviously, you haven't read Jennifer Weiner's books. I'm sure it is beneath you to consider opening one of her books. The only comment you can make is that the book covers are in pastel!?! How about taking the time to READ her novels before you lambaste them as some sort of frou-frou drivel for the ignorant masses? Haitlin Louboutin, you are a snob for snobbery's sake alone. You remind me of a kid who refuses to eat something because of how it looks. Ah well; there's more for me, then. Bugger off, Louboutin. I'll read every one of Jennifer Weiner's books 10 times over before I reach for anything you penned.

God, I hate the Jane Austen defence. She wrote social satire in the structure of light romance. And "Northanger Abbey" is a parody of the Gothic horror genre.

And there is never, ever a description of the heroine's shoes.

All fiction is formulaic

Sounds like the author of this piece took an overdose of bitter pills...NEXT!

jeez people, didn't you get the memo? TV is the new literature, you dinosaurs! you might as well be arguing the best way to defend the maginot line. humbug!

Why doesn't anyone ever distinguish between good chick lit and dreck romance trash? I always thought the term was short for "literature," as in something worth reading. That's what differentiates Jennifer Weiner from a grocery market bodice ripper, to name one example. Then again, I thought her suburban parent novel had a lot in common with literary darling Tom Perrotta's suburban parent novel. I guess that means reading is bad for one's intellect.

Haitlin, please. Your rant is nothing more than evidence of your complete ignorance on the topic you clearly feel so passionately about. Which is hilarious. Ok, pumpkin, here it is in a nutshell. You're only entitled to have your opinion taken seriously if you're educated on the topic. You don't just get to make up an opinion because you're so sure you'll hate something that you aren't even going to bother experiencing it.

Placing Plum Sykes and Jennifer Weiner in the same category is akin to placing Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Kidman in the same category. Try reading some of their sure-to-be-loathsome-to-someone-of-your-obviously-limited-taste tomes in their entirety, then feel free to spew bile all you want. Just do it intelligently. Until then, seriously doll, thanks for the much needed laugh.

Incidentally, Jennifer Weiner is a public figure, so fair enough on your snarky opinion of her photo op. But extending your comments to include her family is in unspeakably poor taste. Show a little bit of sense.

www.stephanieelliot.blogspot.com
Beware--it's pink

Sara: what's with the pseudo-condescending terms of endearment? Seriously, what is that? Because you say that what I wrote is evidence of my ignorance on the topic, but a real counter-attack would be presenting actual arguments to the contrary, rather than simply telling me, in an embarrassing style which I can only guess is supposed be superior, that I'm wrong. If you want to be superior, tell me precisely and factually how my statements conflict with reality.

And why is it in poor taste to point out that Weiner posed with her family in a tabloid? Again, enlighten me.

Isn't it obvious? First you take the gutless approach of attacking people by name without revealing your own -- the likely sign of an aspiring "literary" writer who can't get a book deal and is looking for someone to blame other than herself -- and in making the attacks, you make clear that you haven't read the books yourself, as others here have pointed out.

Seriously, can you point to an example of this alleged "anachronistic belief system" being the message of anything Jennifer Weiner has ever written?

I simply don't understand why a person would care enough to write such an essay. People can read what they want to read...who cares.

Hey, check it out, another literary wannabe who can't succeed so she (he??) takes an uneducated potshot at chick-lit. Yawn. This game is getting old.

Oh, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're another CHICK-lit wannabe. That would explain why you're using the surname of the best shoe designer in the world. Trying to out-Manahlo the rest of the crew, huh? Let us know how it goes.

Q: What role do you see chick lit books having in the lives of young women?
A: I think chick lit is extremely therapeutic and we shouldn’t let people who think books that aren’t painful or depressing guilt us into feeling if we read something that makes us laugh, or worse yet, happy, that we’re not reading something that’s worthy. For the most part, chick lit is fun and light and refreshing and hopefully inspiring.

Chick lit books tend to flow around the same plot, so they aren't light and refreshing, they're dry and repetitive. And no, I don't read chick lit either. Real womens lit would support womens choices and for being themselves. Not pastel consumers who need some kind of makeover and find the right man.

There are some excellent books lumped in with "chick lit," but I've read a lot of these books for a thesis and my overall assessment is...it's retrogressive crap which places women in kind of voluntary purdah where they are oblivious to anything happening in the larger world. Jane Austen is surely rolling over in her grave with every bimbo heroine on the bookshelves. Comedy is one thing, idiocy is not so defensible.

It's also worth noting that Jennifer Weiner has also posed in lingerie, with her back to the camera and her face reflected in a hand mirror, in a photograph that depicts her 3/4 of her body in People magazine.

In a society that is FREAKING. OUT. about the so-called "fat models" in Dove's latest advertising campaign, the publication of *that* particular promo photo in People was a radical act for all involved. Her contentment with her body is downright subversive.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm so inspired by the first chapter of Weiner's latest novel GOOD NIGHT NOBODY, in which the Neighborhood Alpha Mom/ ringleader of the local Muffia/ Desperate Housewives Bree van de Kamp-like charater ends up facedown in her kitchen with a knife in her back, that I need to run to Anthropologie to buy a retro-50s ruffly apron before I sign onto eHarmony an an attempt to find a soulmate with whom I can spawn as soon as possible.

Or, you know, not.

You know what - this is what is ridiculous about the relationships among women today. Some woman, any woman, had her book published and has the possibility to make a wild amount of money. Who the fuck cares what the book is about - we should all be congratulating her. The 'worthless' chick-lit you all disparage so much is part of the evolution of fiction. Deal with it. If you don't like it, don't read it. Don't attempt to tell other women what to read. For the record, I read 10 pages of a Plum Sykes novel and threw it in the trash. Intelligent women won't waste their time with or without you spewed hatred.

Attacking chick-lit for its literary failures (one-dimensional characters, cliched plots and an ending wherein happiness is found through the acquisition of fashion items and a good man) is not the same thing as saying all literary books and all literary writers are better. As a literary writer AND a chick-lit/romance editor, I've read plenty of books, good and bad, in both genres. The unfortunate truth about the marketplace is that often women writers are shoved into the chick-lit category to increase sales. Novels by women writers that are not even remotely chick-lit are made to look it: the pastel, hetero-happy trade paperback cover for Thisbe Nissen's THE GOOD PEOPLE OF NEW YORK is a prime example. Curtis Sittenfeld's public attempt to distance herself from the chick-lit category could have something to do with how chick-lit the cover of PREP looks. The difficult thing about chick-lit is that it seems to be overtaking the publishing world.

No one thinks that the people who are reading chick-lit would be reading A.M. Homes if the genre didn't exist, although some folks probably read both. Chick-lit is an outgrowth of the romance novel, marketed towards a younger audience that tends to have a lot of disposable income and wants a glamorous, fun read. What causes so much anxiety about chick-lit is not so much the message (which is essentially the same as romance) but the fact that a woman can write a novel she views as literary, and have it dismissed by reviewers and critics at face value because her publisher has put a fluffy cover on it.

The truth is, technically crafted literature written by women that addresses serious topics is difficult to find if you don't know where to look because it's not what gets the big marketing bucks.

Anon, I agree. There is some wonderful comedy, as well as more emotionally complex books, classified as "chicklit." But publishing being what it is, there is a lot more banal bimbo blather, derivative, formulaic and outright imitative writing put out there to cash in. This is true of cultural corporations in general. I would not put jennifer weiner in the bimbo category. Her work is more emotionally complex and addresses real issues, such as body image in American culture.

Has the author of this essay read anything by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez? She just made the cover of Time magazine, and is a bestselling chick lit writer. Her characters don't do any of the things you say they are supposed to. You should read some books in the genre before bashing it. Either that, or accept the fact the no one in publishing wants YOUR manuscript, and it has nothing to do with the writers people actually like to read. More than likely it has to do with the fact that you are a bad writer.

Why in the world is anyone commenting about what this writer has or has not read. It is exceedingly obvious that the coward has read only the back covers of most of the current chick-lit books, googled a few of the authors and formed an opinion.

I find it sad that someone would write off an entire genre, but the thought that I should even try to win this person over makes me want to up my dosage.

For whatever reason, the anti-chick-litters want to make it the reader's fault. Oh POOR US.. we are SO SAD that we WANT HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS with men... OH how SAD that we feel a healthy relationship is important, or, GOD FORBID, a PRIORITY in life. How DEPRESSING that we want to read a novel based on relationships that have heroines who are fallible or even *gasp* not Rhodes Scholars.

I BEG the chick-lit fans to stop defending their genre in the comment section of inane blogs such as this. Vote with your wallet. The more chick lit books that are purchased... the more that will be written.

karen,
Jennifer Weiner is certainly chick-lit. And chick-lit novels are as described: low-moderate prose quality, generally predictable plot arc, faux-empowering message to women, happy ending. That's the genre. Anything that deviates is an exception. Some publishing companies have formulas that chick-lit authors are bound to adhere to, to this effect. I've read good work in the genre. But I would not compare chick-lit to technically skilled and well-crafted literary fiction. The people here who say things like "it's chick-literature" and try to cast Jennifer Weiner out of the category probably don't read much literary fiction. Which is fine. All I'm saying is: be aware of the marketing scheme at work behind every book you buy.

Some people like silly books. Explain half of Mark Twain and P. G. Wodehouse's careers otherwise. Mimi Smartypants got published as chicklit, with pink and shoes on the cover. I wouldn't classify her as one of the Great and Meaningful authors of our time, but her writing has humor and substance.

What I hate about the anti-chicklit faction is the degree to which it lumps together and then attacks books written by women about women's lives. Is there trash in there? Oh yeah, and there's complete crap written about war and athletics and love and crime and every other topic on earth. Choose good books out of the genre, any genre, and then move on.

Alexia, like most of the other chick lit defenders on this page you've made a comment that doesn't actually engage with the substance of what I say. Lumping together and attacking books by women, about women's lives, is about as far from what I'm doing as it's possible to be. As anon touches upon, one of the problems with the category of chick lit is that it trivializes and demeans high quality novels by women because they get tarred with the same brush. Which means that male literary authors will continue to get the lion's share of review coverage, awards, and so on.

Jennifer Weiner fans: I just read some of the first and last chapters of 'In Her Shoes'. The part I read from the end of the book seems to be set at the fat sister's wedding, with her saying how pleased she is that the skinny sister finally found a good man.

Brilliant, brilliant blog entry. Could not agree more (exception to Austin however, which I tend to think are wonderfully crafted)

Haitlin, you just read In Her Shoes, but only some of the first and last chapters, but now you feel competent to talk about the book?

Thank you for proving everyone's point -- you believe it's perfectly legitimate to judge a book by its cover . . . and some of the first and last chapters. (With Weiner's other books, I guess you just stuck with the covers.)

You demanded "evidence of my ignorance on the topic", and then supplied it yourself.

Now had you even read the entire last chapter, you'd have recognized that Maggie's real success came from (a) opening her own business; (b) overcoming learning disabilities, learning to read and appreciate poetry; and (c) getting past anger and grief about her mother's suicide . . . but that would have taken effort on your part, and you only had time to read some of the chapter.

In other words, you wrote what you did with no basis whatsoever, and are completely unapologetic about having done so. Brava.

The fat sister's wedding??
Wow, don't do anything like, I don't know, call the sisters by their names or anything. Heaven forbid!! No, resort to just calling her "the fat sister."

I've just come back off holiday, where I read Franz Kafka's The Trial, and Running in Heels by Anna Maxted. As an intelligent 16 year old, I enjoy Kafka for his intelluctual insanity, and Maxted for her sensitivity in dealing with issues (for example, in Running with Heels she discusses eating disorders, which I found particularly potent, having friends currently trapped in them, and a minor experience with one myself). Maxted's "chick-lit" tales of women realising that they're broken and deciding to fix themselves have romance only as a sideline - the main focus is on the character's personal progress.
Still, I do enjoy reading truly fluffy chick-lit, if just for a little light reading. I understand that the love lives of others may not interest some people; in which case, why bother to read the genre, let alone comment on it? I personally do not find sci-fi very interesting, so I don't read it. I wouldn't dream, therefore, of mouthing off about something I have little knowledge of.
I'm not condemning the author of this post for writing it - everyone on the Net, if anywhere, is entitled to their own opinion. I'm merely commenting to point out that one can enjoy the possibly less intellectual side of fiction without instantly being zapped into a brainless zombie.
This argument reminds me of the feminists who complain that all their hard work is for nothing when they see teenagers walking around in dresses and makeup. Surely having the freedom to wear what you like, choose what you like, read what you like, means you can choose to look pretty if you so wish? Similarly, you can choose to read whatever you wish.
Chick-lit differs hugely, from the ones dealing with issues confronting women, to those which are just a soppy love story. Let's allow everyone their own decision on what is or isn't "good" literature - and just be grateful we have so much choice in the book world.

I think the most disturbing part about venom-filled critiques, such as the one above, is that they insist that things many real women are interested in are frivolous and unworthy of attention. That is what is demeaning to women, not chick lit. This genre can be considered feminist in that it is not afraid to portray women as they are, instead of portraying them as some ideal type of woman who is only interested in purely intellectual pursuits. God forbid someone should portray women accurately, as being interested in things such as shopping and good relationships. Many of the women depicted in these books also have satisfying careers and other responsibilites, yet authors like the snob above assume that all of this is negated because-*gasp!*-the woman also likes to shop for shoes. Obviously, in order to be classified as "serious" literature, you must omit all references to shopping, TV, relationships, etc. After all, no SERIOUS woman is interested in these things! What complete elitism and utter crap.

I have a PhD, and a successful career as a college professor. I enjoy some chick lit, particularly Weiner's books. Good in Bed not only adresses things like body image and complicated family relationships, but has an incredibly realistic and moving portrayal of depression. It is, in fact, the most realistic portrayal of depression I have ever read. I enjoyed the book immensely because I could relate to it--the emotional development of the character was REAL. What, exactly, is so heinous about that? I read plenty of "literary fiction" as well. Does my reading of chick lit decrease my IQ? No. Does my reading of chick lit decrease my standing as an intellectual? No. I see no real objection here, other than a deluded sense of superiority on the part of the anonymous reviewer.

What kills me about this post and others in the "Chick Lit must die" vein is that the authors who are more often than not bemoaning the underrepresentation of women in the world of serious literature are themselves perpetuating the problem. Instead of wasting valuable time and energy attacking other women and their efforts, why not try attacking the (presumably male) publishing execs that seem to insist on presenting all novels by women between pink covers?

Moreover, the attackers of chick lit are actually perpetuating the problem of under-exposed female writers of literary fiction. Some of the comments here, for example, claim that chick lit is evil because worthy books by women writers are dressed up as chick lit in an effort to attract readers, which means that people will refuse to read those books and/or take them seriously. These same people, one imagines, are the ones who seriouly believe that ALL chick lit is crap, and should not even be considered, let alone read, by anyone with an I.Q. in the triple digits. How is this in any way the fault of chick lit as a genre, or of chick lit authors?

I'm astounded by how many comments here essentially offer the exact same lamebrained arguments. I would like to direct the chick-lit enthusiasts to the Index of Logical Fallacies so that you might bone up before you find your next target.

You know what I hate most about chick lit (I'm not the author of the post, btw, merely the #1HS proprietress; some of you can't seem to keep these things straight)? It's not a literary movement. It's a MARKETING STRATEGY. And the typical American consumer can't even see what's wrong with that. It's like your favorite band being used to sell candy or soda or cars: A normal, intelligent person would call bullshit on that. Instead, because you're a CONSUMER, you feel proud and special to be lumped into some target audience.

Same goes for people who buy familiar theme-based books with easy-to-identify covers. If you like them, that's fine. But please don't come here, to my site, and try to argue OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that it's some sort of trangressive ur-feminist stance because--and I can't believe one of you actually wrote this--[chick lit] is not afraid to portray women as they are, instead of portraying them as some ideal type of woman who is only interested in purely intellectual pursuits. Again, I shall direct you to the Index of Logical Fallacies, because not only is that one of the more blinkered arguments here (from a Ph.D. no less!) it is also fucking offensive.

Has feminism deteriorated so much that all the author has to do to be considered feminist is actually feature women in her novel? And because some of us don't consider this candy-coated pre-fab nonsense marketing gimmick a legitimate literary movement, we're ANTIFEMINIST?

I give up. Go post your pink bromides elsewhere. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

PS Lest some of you accuse me of censorship because I've closed this thread, let me remind you that it ain't censorship when it ain't a public forum. Get your own blog.