As far as The Devil Wears Prada, comments from friends indicated that it was interesting from a gossip perspective, but not especially satisfying as a book. I have a vaguely uncomfortable feeling when it comes to people being so obvious in their depictions of real people — this is an unfortunate bias I have, and maybe I’m wrong about the work.

The two so-called chicklit books that you cited aren’t, in my opinion, chicklit as much as they are opportunistic. I am just going to persist in my belief that the writing in each is as bad as I imagine, and not bother reading them.

See this is the key problem with Chick lit, and you are even guilty of it yourself here. You have judge that these books are bad and opportunistic, without reading either one! This is what happens across the board with Chick Lit in general. The good books suffer because people assume that all chick lit books are like the one or two they’ve read or heard about that are poor examples of the genre.

Like, oh-MY-god! I cannot believe the NYTBR, like, doesn’t take women seriously. Like, that is soooo unfair. This is so like suffrage and stuff. I mean discussion of the contents of my stomach contents and my datebook are, like, so gritty and interesting. Here, wait, I’ll tell you about all the men I’ve had sex with and you’ll see. I mean, like, chic-lit, is, like totally the representation of the modern,like, liberated, female. I mean, like, haven’t these guys, like, seen sex and the city? I have to be noticed! If not I’ll just die.

However, I have an analogy that might work just a well: chicklit is to literary fiction as yoga is to running. Some people practice both equally, finding that each form of exercise/meditation offers something beneficial; others practice one or the other at various points, but the two practices don’t necessarily overlap, the reasons remain the same; others practice one or the other exclusively and believe their practice is superior to the other. These people often avoid chances to widen their horizons or re-examine their belief system.

Whoa, stop the presses- you mean people who blog talk about issues that affect themselves? OMG NO WAY!!

The essay, if it can be called that, is nothing but a transparent attempt to promote a book that was never going to be noticed by the NYT for good reason.

And you would know that because you read it?

Can anyone name another fiction genre, including “quality” literary fiction, that actually DOES bear a resemblance to the experiences of living breathing human females?

(In fact, even some biographies bear no resemblance to the living breathing human females they’re supposed to resemble. Hillary Clinton comes to mind.)

Like it or don’t. But don’t hold chick-lit to higher standards than other forms of fiction.

You don’t like chicklit however it’s defined (and, in my mind, it remains a highly elastic concept). That’s fine. You don’t have to read it, like it, condone it, accept it, or acknowledge it. But the fact is that it is a major market force, and a serious look at modern fiction needs to acknowledge its existence. Just as a serious look at modern fiction needs to acknowledge and discuss romance, mystery, science fiction, fantasy, Westerns, literary, and other types of fiction. Labels are marketing concepts.

Yes women don’t get the literary attention they deserve, but chick-lit doesn’t need or deserve more attention. It gets plenty. Bemoaning the lack of promotion outlets for female authors in the same breath as the lack of attention paid to chick-lit is dishonest. Female authors and readers of women’s fiction deserve better.