We Thought We Put A Stop To This

February 2nd, 2005 · 4 Comments
by Booksquare

Now, correct us if we’re wrong (though we’re not), but didn’t we put a ban on any new genre ending with “lit”? Though our memory is fuzzy on the subject, and we’re too lazy to pull out the old search engine, it seems we demanded this practice cease around the time “lad lit” hit the scene. As with all our magic, it appears something backfired: the lads left, but the lit stayed. Probably this is because we can’t twitch our nose without squinting.

So after sifting through the discovery that women of a certain age like to read about women of a certain age (we do not believe this is news, but why would the Christian Science Monitor publish the story if it weren’t?), we discover that nobody likes the name “matron lit.” Well, hello, would you? If ever a horrible label existed, this is it. Please. This is a creative industry — can we all accept that “lit” is over and use our imaginations? (Via TEV)

File Under: Books/Mags/Blogs

4 responses so far ↓

  • Brenda Coulter // Feb 3, 2005 at 6:17 am

    Joan Marlow Golan, Executive Editor of Steeple Hill Books, calls it “hen lit”. Which is only marginally better, if you ask me, than “matron lit”.

    Ick. Why do we have to call it anything? Can’t it just be fiction?

  • booksquare // Feb 3, 2005 at 9:45 am

    I agree. Who are these cute names for, anyway? Do you think the consumer is going to walk into a bookstore and ask for the hen lit section? Yeah, and then she’ll follow along as a teenage boy escorts her to books on poultry.

    The madness must stop. They are books. They tell stories.

  • Karen // Feb 3, 2005 at 11:59 am

    Matron lit is about as offensive as it gets. Not to mention weirdly inaccurate — especially if it’s intended to appeal to a certain demographic. The online Webster’s defines “matron” as — 1a : a married woman usually marked by dignified maturity or social distinction b : a woman who supervises women or children (as in a school or police station) c : the chief officer in a women’s organization
    2 : a female animal kept for breeding

    That last one is especially charming, eh?

  • booksquare // Feb 3, 2005 at 3:10 pm

    Oh my. Oh my. That’s just awful. I was ready to ban the term based on connotation…hitting the dictionary makes it so much worse. Truly, the madness must stop.