Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read It Ends With Us and rolled my eyes multiple times. I hated most of it. I don't think I'll ever read anything by her again (and I just saw that there is a sequel to that book. Gag.)

I stopped reading after the first few chapters, it was so cringey.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

NP here. I love well-written popular fiction, including many books labeled as “chick lit”. This includes well-written romance and domestic thrillers.

Also, I completely agree with Jennifer Weiner and Jodi Picoult’s arguments re the inappropriate dismissal of women-authored books that are labeled “genre fiction” rather than “literary fiction.” So many of these books are both excellent AND popular!

However …

My opinion is that Colleen Hoover’s books are not in this category. Not because they’re women-authored, “genre fiction,” romances, or popular. But because they’re awful.

Hoover’s books are poorly written, formulaic, and often involve women trying to save/redeem men who treat them poorly. I find this trope to be destructive to women and especially sad - not something I wish to engage via fiction.

Again, there’s lots of good women-centered “genre fiction” out there that is “light” without being destructive or vacant. Readers - you can do much, much better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had never heard of her before. Maybe I live under a rock. Out of curiosity I checked the NYT best sellers list and 3 of her books were on there. I read a few chapters of “It Ends with Us” and felt it was trite. I also couldn’t get over an author writing a book geared towards adults naming a main character Lilly Bloom and she just so happens to own a flower shop. Cute in a kids book but not for a more mature audience. For those that are fans why do you like her work? No judgement or snark intended just curious what was appealing.

I live under a rock too because I had never heard of her until sometime in the last six months. I haven't read any of her books yet, but I'm getting in the mood for something lighter after reading a lot of mysteries and psychological thrillers, so maybe I should give one a try.

PP can you recommend the mysteries and psychological thrillers you've read recently?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I associate her books with low education and women who only read chick lit.

I have a master’s degree and primarily read historical fiction. I’ve read one of her books and loved it. Will read another.

But carry on with your misogyny.

PP isn’t wrong.

Anonymous wrote:I hate them. They are all very similar, boring and redundant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had never heard of her before. Maybe I live under a rock. Out of curiosity I checked the NYT best sellers list and 3 of her books were on there. I read a few chapters of “It Ends with Us” and felt it was trite. I also couldn’t get over an author writing a book geared towards adults naming a main character Lilly Bloom and she just so happens to own a flower shop. Cute in a kids book but not for a more mature audience. For those that are fans why do you like her work? No judgement or snark intended just curious what was appealing.

I live under a rock too because I had never heard of her until sometime in the last six months. I haven't read any of her books yet, but I'm getting in the mood for something lighter after reading a lot of mysteries and psychological thrillers, so maybe I should give one a try.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

Anonymous wrote:I read It Ends With Us and rolled my eyes multiple times. I hated most of it. I don't think I'll ever read anything by her again (and I just saw that there is a sequel to that book. Gag.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I associate her books with low education and women who only read chick lit.

I have a master’s degree and primarily read historical fiction. I’ve read one of her books and loved it. Will read another.

But carry on with your misogyny.

Lol let me just say that I joined Peleton's Moms Book Club on Facebook and it may as well be renamed Colleen Hoover Fan Club. And that crowd is very basic. I took my first trip to an all inclusive resort and saw one person reading while standing in the middle of a swim-up bar. She was reading Verity. I laughed (to myself) because I could 100% see someone posting a picture of themselves reading in the swim up bar and of course it would have to be a Colleen Hoover book. That reading taste is very different than mine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

I'm with you are supporting women in publishing. I pretty much only read female authors. I'm happy when people read, whether it's via books, ebooks, comics, graphic novels, audio, etc. Reading is reading. That being said, I don't think that means problematic female authors get a pass.

However, I think we absolutely can be critical of a woman who is writing books where women are abused and manipulated.


Also, there's the her defending her son (over 21) some shady interactions with a 16 year old. So...yeah. Not a fan.

I'm not disagreeing with that -- I'm upset that women stereotype women who read certain genres and/or denigrate an entire genre. That's it. As I said, women are not a monolith. We are free to like what we like. Again, the problem is devaluing literature of genres that women are particularly drawn to.