Chick Lit and Romance?  Now, I just read books because they seem interesting no matter the genre.  But, what is the difference?  It seems that Chick Lit make it very clear that they are NOT ROMANCES.  Why?

Just wondering.

I've only read a little chick lit but I think one major difference is that in chick lit if there's a romance/sex it's not the main focus of the overall story - I mean the woman may be determined to get married before 35 or whatever but usually she goes through some changes/acceptances. some seem to blur together but fo rmost romances the  HEA(happy every after) means the couple is together at the end and the entire book is spent getting to that point. and I dont know why they emphasize they're not romances on that forum..I visit there sometimes but rarely. there used to be a women's fiction forum. a lot of the chick lit I've read has had a mystery element to it or dealt with losing weight, or had some humor in it like the shopaholic series, jemima j, kyra davis..used to you could go by the look of hte book - the bright greens 'happy pinks' etc and tradesize usually translated to a good bet for chick lit. also heroine is usually late 20s to mid 30s though not always.

if you scroll through the chick lit forum you'll see some discussions about 'what is chicklit' and even some of those contradict each other. but to me a romance has to have a HEA and no matter what the storyline it hs to feature at least one couple getting together. I know there are some without a hea but for the m ost part it includes a HEA whereas chicklt for me doesn't have to end up with a HEA for the couple - only the heroine.

"I dont know why they emphasize they're not romances on that forum"

Snobbery.

I find it kind of offensive that it's right there in their forum blurb.  This is a site for book lovers, no ones tastes are more important than anyone elses.

Here is a previous thread on this topic- on the second page, there is a pretty good description of chick lit.

Betsy! Is that Mr. Thornton in your avi? (Sighhhhhhhh...)

I confessed I didn't know what you guys meant regarding the Chick Lit forum mentioning not being about romance so I had to go and check. :)

deleted

Hmm - the forum blurb isn't as bad as I remembered it. Did they change it or am I just remembering wrong?

I think the forum blurb just mentions it isn't harlequin but some of the individual threads have some abrupt IMO responses about what someone was asking for being romance and that it wasn't the place for that, etc.

Yeah, Betsey has the coolest avi ever....I once had a fellow book lover explain that chick lit focused more on her(the main female character) journey rather the focus being on the development of the couple and their relationship.  That seemed pretty accurate in the few chick lit's that I've read. 

Also, I haven't read many chick lit's-but I don't ever remember seeing one set in a historical time period...is there such an animal?  Possibly that would be considered historical fiction??

I agree with Willa ,, i don't understand bashing someone else's taste in book genres. I don't read regency, vampire or paranormal romances but i would never mock anyone for choosing them either. To each their own i guess. What's so horrible about romances anyway?

I think chicklit by its very nature is contemporary... but I did try a Kathryn Caskie historical that read like a Shopoholic book in corsets. Didn't care for it at all, but obviously someone likes her. :-)

Well, they don't all have HEAs, do they?  I don't understand the touchiness about it not being romance though.  But some people are really touchy & defensive about their genres too, so whatever.  I guess it's all good.  A lot hinges on the HEA for me, plus I'm not into contemps, so it doesn't interest me enough to check out the differences myself.  I'd rather just watch a chick flick:P

I guess I can understand people being touchy about their genre being confused with another -- kinda like how romance readers are always saying "it's not chick porn!" But oddly enough, the porn readers never seem to get pissed with us about it. ;-)

D.G. & Jan - Yes, that's Mr. Thornton AKA Richard Armitage. I love that moment when he realizes it's Margaret on the London bound train and his face just totally changes.  SIGH  My husband gave me the North & South DVD for Christmas and I love it.  Now, I am reading the book.  A bit put off that the book describes Margaret as not being very pretty. 

Thanks for all the answers re: Chick Lit.  It just amazes me that some want to distance themselves from the romance genre.  Why?  A good book is good no matter what the genre. 

I don't understand the snobbiness either - harlequins though are picked on a lot..I make f un of the titles 'cause some are so funny like the Harlequin presents but I read my share of harlequin/silhouette myself..I also never could understand reading christian romance since no sex but this past year I've read a lot and finally see how but I've never thought down on someone for reading them. and yep the same with paranormal til I got addicted to them myself! I read what I enjoy and like you said a good book is a good book no matter what the genre.

Betsy - I watched the DVD too and LOVED the book. It made me understand Margaret better...in the book, she's not as indiferent to Mr. Thornton as she  seems in the BBC version. There are some parts of the book where I FELT Mr. Thornton's presence...he's such a forceful man!!

Now I want to watch it again! Maybe this weekend. :)

Just offhand, I'd say a lot of them think that all romances are of the bodice ripper variety, and that's what they don't want to be identified with.  Not that there's anything wrong with bodice rippers either.  Everything has an audience.  I poke a lot of fun at specific books, and a lot of them are bodice rippers, but never at the people who read them, and it's not generalized "they're all trash", but specific books.  Every genre & sub-genre has its share of stinkers, and I think it's a mistake to generalize them as being all bad because of the stinkers.  If you've read it, or have a pretty good idea of the content, then I think, go ahead & trash it if you like.  But it's silly, IMO to say all romance is bad because of some subset of the overall genre.

The difference between chick lit and romance is obvious.  The focus on chick lit is the non-sexual relationship between two or more women with a  strong sub-topic on the main woman's life and career.   The focus on romance is between a man and a woman.  In chick-lit, they give the man a small amount of time on the page......hovering in the background...waiting for air-time.  We're told about him, but he doesn't have too much to say.  In romance........he's all that and more.  We hear his voice, smell his scent, feel his warmth and size.......among other things.  We give HIM more time on the page than chick lit allows.  Chick lit is teasing....romance satisfies.