I... don't think I'd consider Jane Austen to be chick lit. Sophie Kinsella is kind of awesome. I used to refer to her as guilty pleasure reading, but then I realized I legitimately liked her. She has consistent, realistic characters, she doesn't make any flaming Bad Writer mistakes common to the rest of the genre, like coming to a halt to describe someone's appearance. And she's bloody amazing at first person narrative. And she's just fun.
The thing about those labels is that you're forgetting that you're a person, with interests that (hopefully) vary across the spectrum of what might be mainstream or academic. I like sci-fi, but I also like chick lit and nonfiction. Sometimes I wear grungy comfy clothes, sometimes I wear spikes and chains, sometimes I wear classy coordinated outfits, but I always like the way I look. I have some characteristics that society would call "manly," and some that people would consider "girly." What does that make me? Does that make me an androgynous Gothgeek with a preppy twist? Or can I just be a person? Why define yourself by wrapping your broad scope of interests into a tiny little box? Moreover, why use a tiny little box that came from the opinions of the masses? The main point of labels in high school is to try to feel like you're a part of something bigger because you haven't grown into your own identity yet. But once people have grown up a bit, it tends to be like those lesbians who pretty much do nothing with their lives except Be Lesbonic. You're more than your sexuality or the movies you watch.
Besides which, it's pretty much impossible to have interests "outide the mainstream culture." There are different streams, lots of them, most of them resorting to that label thing again. If tons of people didn't like something, how would you find out about it?
There are a few things I recommend to everyone ever. The book Jane Eyre, Richard Brautigan's poems, Isaac Asimov's robot stories, Seinfeld, the book I Know This Much Is True, the book Next of Kin, Sopor Aeternus and the Ensemble of Shadows, Assassins, the movie Mean Girls, the movie Heathers, the movie Killer Klowns From Outer Space, Charlie Chaplin, Disney movies... this is getting to be rather long. Anyway, you get the idea.
no subject
The thing about those labels is that you're forgetting that you're a person, with interests that (hopefully) vary across the spectrum of what might be mainstream or academic. I like sci-fi, but I also like chick lit and nonfiction. Sometimes I wear grungy comfy clothes, sometimes I wear spikes and chains, sometimes I wear classy coordinated outfits, but I always like the way I look. I have some characteristics that society would call "manly," and some that people would consider "girly." What does that make me? Does that make me an androgynous Gothgeek with a preppy twist? Or can I just be a person? Why define yourself by wrapping your broad scope of interests into a tiny little box? Moreover, why use a tiny little box that came from the opinions of the masses? The main point of labels in high school is to try to feel like you're a part of something bigger because you haven't grown into your own identity yet. But once people have grown up a bit, it tends to be like those lesbians who pretty much do nothing with their lives except Be Lesbonic. You're more than your sexuality or the movies you watch.
Besides which, it's pretty much impossible to have interests "outide the mainstream culture." There are different streams, lots of them, most of them resorting to that label thing again. If tons of people didn't like something, how would you find out about it?
There are a few things I recommend to everyone ever. The book Jane Eyre, Richard Brautigan's poems, Isaac Asimov's robot stories, Seinfeld, the book I Know This Much Is True, the book Next of Kin, Sopor Aeternus and the Ensemble of Shadows, Assassins, the movie Mean Girls, the movie Heathers, the movie Killer Klowns From Outer Space, Charlie Chaplin, Disney movies... this is getting to be rather long. Anyway, you get the idea.