I know there are way more important things in the world to get upset about, but sometimes little things can really get under my skin. My latest pet peeve is the term “hen lit”. Have you heard this term? It’s used to describe books aimed at older women. Here’s a nice description by someone who does a better job at explaining these sort of things.
It comes from the term chick lit, which to tell you the truth I was never crazy about anyway. Chick Lit, in case you’ve spent the past decade or so living in a cave is fiction that centers on young women of which Sex in the City is a pretty good example. No not all chick lit is Sex in the City, some of it’s way more complex and some of it’s way more vapid. Generally, though, these are light-hearted fun books. They’re not really my cup of tea and for some reason whenever I heart the term Chick Lit I translate it to Chiclet which makes me think of that gum my grandmother always had at her house.
Still, there was always something cute and fun about the term Chick Lit. Plus Chick sounds like Chic which is a good thing, and since most of the characters in Chick Lit books are all about being Chic it sort of works. There is something slightly demeaning about the term if you think about it too much, but these aren’t books you are supposed to think about too much anyway.
But now I am seeing the term Hen Lit all over the place and it is really, really annoying me. It’s a stupid term. It doesn’t really fit the type of books, and when I hear the term all I can think of are, well, hens.
The term Hen Lit doesn’t make me think of gum. It doesn’t make me think of French words that describe the act of being stylish and trendy. The term only makes me think of a bunch of not very intelligent birds ambling about in some farmyard. It’s hard for me to not see the term as demeaning and a put down to the books that it describes, which again, for the record, I don’t usually read, but still it seems like these books deserve better.
So, here’s a challenge to you, if not the dreaded Hen Lit, what should we call these books?
My Books
I see Lorna Landvik is among the “hen” books. I’ve read all of her books and don’t think they should be “target” marketed. I’m thinking of authors, who happen to be women, who write in a manner that rises above what I’m thinking would be considered “light” reading: Anne Tyler, Elizabeth Berg, Gail Godwin, Joanne Greenberg. Lorna Landvik’s could have very serious moments, too. What I’m trying to say is, I agree with Alissa that to keep compartmentalizing everything actually makes everything the same which isn’t what reading is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be about finding subjects and writing styles that appeal to YOU as a reader and not what publishing honchos want to push down your throat. I’m of an age that remembers when books were read before they were published rather than published and then marketed to the hilt whether they were any good or not. In my mind, people who would be in the “hen” age should be making their own decisions and telling the “roosters” and “brood” who are running the publishing houses to take their genre nickname and sell it somewhere else! We ain’t “chicks” but we’re certainly not “chickens!”
I HATE all the chicken related terms as well. I’m not much of a feminist but that’s one thing that really bothers me. It should be called women’s lit, plain and simple. Then again, we don’t have a man’s lit. That almost sounds laughable doesn’t it?! Perhaps it should just be called literary.
Aunt B: I completely agree with you. I am opposed to constantly categorizing things in general. I mean I an understand a little bit of organization in a bookstore or library, but too much is more confusing than helpful. Plus, I’ve alway been partial to things that defy categorization.
Heather: This made me think of what the male version of chick/hen lit would be and realized it would end up being called cock lit, which brings with it a whole different connotation. So, there’s one more argument for doing away with these silly chicken labels.
I’m not sure if I could come up with a good alternative, though I do hate the term. Thing is that I’ve heard around writing boards that chick lit is supposed to be dead, so maybe the term will fade away with time. *shrug*
Great post! I laughed at the term cock lit – can you imagine?? Too funny. While I hate broad categorizations in reading, what about calling it “cougar lit” instead?
How about Fe-lit (pronounced feel it) which tentds to be more emotional and mal-lit (prounounced mallet) which tends to hit you a little harder? Either way I tend to just like good lit, or fun lit, or light lit, just as an escape from reality.
Angie: I hope it does fade away!
Samantha: Here’s a case of animal discrimination on my part. While, I don’t really feel so bad for chickens for getting mixed up in this whole literary mess, I do feel sorry for the poor cougars who now have to share their name with a stereotyped group of women.
Way to be creative with the fe-lit and mal-lit, and clearly it must have been a very slow day at work!
LOL! Great post. When I think of hens I think of a cartoon group of chickens clucking away with gossip unable to do anything but lay eggs, eat, and make noise. I also see them as helpless without a rooster or dog to save them from a wolf. Not something I think females should be compared to.
I totally agree with you, although I can’t think of a good name for it. Carolyn’s idea sounds good. I like ‘Fun Lit’ the best.
Sarah
Sarah: I like animals, but I agree being equated with chickens isn’t a good thing!
I never heard of Hen lit until seeing your post. Why are women always defined by some sort of animal? Chick, cougar, hen…it’s just really annoying and rather demeaning in my humble opinion.