"We Shall Overcome?" Wouldn't the chick-litterers be more likely to be belting out, oh, Vonda Shepardesque takes on '60s Motown?

Sorry. I was so wrong. I thought to myself, WWSKD? and Googled Greek Hangnail for "Theme Song."

Looks like the world is a hipper, blander place, now. Gack.

Dana, I know you closed the thread on the original post, but only just now am I sober enough to write something, and this post is somewhat related I figgered.

Chick-lit is to literature as Britney Spears is to music: a disposable money-making device (as Dana said in closing). It is formula. You say chick-lit tomes have positives: dealing with eating disorders, learning one may not need a man on one’s life to make it complete, etc. Feh. FEH I SAY. Go watch The Facts of Life. Or Small Wonder or an ABC After School Special. This adds nothing to adult culture in a time when the culture is starved for substance. Publishers perpetuate it because it keeps the black from turning red, pure and simple (I know because I’ve been working in publishing for the last 8 years). There will always be people to eat it up because there will always be intellectually lazy people accepting whatever vapid drivel that's put in front of their faces. The whole chick-lit glut mirrors all of bubble-gum pop culture in its herd mentality. It’s for those with no discernable identity of their own and little desire for one, and if by the time you’re an adult you haven’t figured out that just because it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s good, then you should be up for promotion at Us Weekly right about now.

The Washington Post just did a piece on those too. In fact, it looks like they're doing a live chat about it this afternoon. Clearly this is a cultural phenomenon that cannot be denied.

Dana: "And because some of us don't consider this candy-coated pre-fab nonsense marketing gimmick a legitimate literary movement, we're ANTIFEMINIST?"

Dana, you need to consult the list of logical fallicies yourself, you've constructed quite a few strawmen in your various posts below.

You & your pseudonymous Louboutin did not attack a so-called marketing gimmick. You attacked the authors of certain types of books. The authors, specifically the authors. The post is not called "Why publishers who create stupid mass marketing gimmicks that could be construed as offensive need to die," it's directed at AUTHORS. Female authors.

Through your attacks, you implied that women who are interested in such things as shopping, relationships, etc., are inferior to yourselves.

Then, when challenged on it, you screamed about being offended (after doing your best to offend many others), took your ball, and ran home.

One word: Waaah.

Through your attacks, you implied that women who are interested in such things as shopping, relationships, etc., are inferior to yourselves.

Actually, what I *meant* to imply was that women who think there's something novel and print-worthy about such things as shopping, relationships, etc., are inferior. Thanks for pointing out the error.

come on, "N", i've seen you in the airport with that copy of bridget joneseses diary.