Bev, I hardly knew ye! come back!

Well, don’t worry about it ’cause I’m already back to posting on blogs again. It only lasted about 24 hours, apparently. Seems I just needed some time away from the computer proper to do some thinking and planning. I had some ideas but could never find time to get them in any kind of order. Sometimes you just got to shut the technology off, ya know.

I shall now go take a nap then head into complete lurk mode in an attempt to get my site back up and running. I have decided that absolute withdrawal from you other crazy Internet people is the only way that’s going to happen.

Bev, I hardly knew ye! come back!

dharmagirl wrote:

From your description here, I’m not sure I would classify this as chick lit, at least not chick lit in its current iterations. While this novel seems to have the urban setting and the coming-of-ageness that seems to thread through much chick lit, it also seems to be heavier and more serious than even some of the heavier chick lit I’ve read

That was my sense. Thanks for backing me up.

And yes, I do often feel of two minds when I read. there’s the fiction-enjoyer, and then the academic-analyzer. I am not sure I have the time of inclination to divide up my reviews this way in the future but it might be nice for readers who only want one or another perspective, not both!

carolyn crane (CJ) wrote:

It’s amazing that a book like this, which is apparently neither fish nor fowl, got published in the first place. But I’m glad.

I hadn’t thought of that until you mentioned it, but I agree. I enjoyed it!

Janine wrote:

but I think of the genre as a humorous one, often humorous and serious at the same time.

So, it sounds like I am on to something by rejecting the chick lit designation, now that a few of you have mentioned this.

And yeah, the situation in philosophy is improving more slowly than I would like.

RfP wrote:

Chick lit can be either too frothy or too angsty and depressing for me–and sometimes both frothy and depressing at once. I find Jennifer Weiner’s books beyond depressing, and the original Sex and the City stories were pretty grim.

And here’s the dissenter on chick lit!

As for the philosophy, honestly, I get more philosophically out of Borges or Kundera or Mann or Achebe or Woolf than any novel written by a philosopher (with the important exception of the existentialists).

Regarding genre, the heroine of Emily Giffin’s Something Blue, one of my favorite chick lit books, also has to deal with an unplanned pregnancy and the father of her child is also unsupportive. But the book has a happy ending. I don’t think all chick lit ends so happily, but I think of the genre as a humorous one, often humorous and serious at the same time.

The quote from the Hypatia article is interesting and saddening at the same time. What a shame that progress is so slow to arrive, and sometimes at those very places that we think should be more enlightened.

I’ve been sort of enchanted by the title of this, and it’s a kick to see you review it. I really actually love that passage you put up, and reading about students of that time period does sound cool.

It’s too bad the philosophy is used weirdly – I like to pick up little pieces of understanding in my reads, and I sure am clueless about philosophy, much as I long not to be.

It’s amazing that a book like this, which is apparently neither fish nor fowl, got published in the first place. But I’m glad.

Chick lit can be either too frothy or too angsty and depressing for me–and sometimes both frothy and depressing at once. I find Jennifer Weiner’s books beyond depressing, and the original Sex and the City stories were pretty grim.

Thanks for the comparison to Sophie’s World. I’ve circled around A Girl’s Guide a few times at the bookstore, but if it’s less successful than Sophie at getting inside its philosophers’ worlds, I’ll give it a miss.

From your description here, I’m not sure I would classify this as chick lit, at least not chick lit in its current iterations. While this novel seems to have the urban setting and the coming-of-ageness that seems to thread through much chick lit, it also seems to be heavier and more serious than even some of the heavier chick lit I’ve read (I’m thinking of Jennifer Weiner’s books in particular, and *Tolstoy Lied,* which I just reviewed). And–wow–*love* the promo line about “intelligent chick lit.” Jeez. As if chick lit itself is *not* intelligent…but, you know, that’s a typical, familiar battle with chick lit and romance and outsiders, huh?

I’m going to add this to my summer reading list–thanks for including!

Can I just say that this sentence caught my eye and I immediately started giggling like a loon. Loved it for some strange reason.

Ahem. Okay, once I stopped with the attack of the giggles, I did read the review. Er, reviews. You should feel, um, honored because I rarely read reviews of books I haven’t already read or aren’t interested in in the first place. I guess I felt honor bound to read the rest.

Interesting contrasts, too. Fascinating if you want the truth. And not just because of the split personality thing going on with the revew itself. I am more and more convinced every day that people have truly weird concepts of what’s in romance. I suppose they always have but sometimes it’s simply startling to confront over and over.

I shall now go take a nap then head into complete lurk mode in an attempt to get my site back up and running. I have decided that absolute withdrawal from you other crazy Internet people is the only way that’s going to happen.