From the NYT article ‘The New Bodice Rippers Have More God and Less Sex’:
To satisfy that demand, several leading publishers, both Christian and secular romance houses, are rolling out what they call “Christian chick lit” lines. These novels typically feature Bridget Jones types looking for the right man, the right chocolate, the right friends – and the right relationship with God.
I have no problems with religion (well I do, but I don’t want to get into it here. Some people have faith and some don’t. I am in the latter category.) but I find this mix of relgion and chick lit cringe inducing. The Yada Yada Prayer Group makes me shake my head. I feel like such a snob for writing this, but I just don’t get the appeal. Since I am going to hell, it’s no wonder. Just not my cup of bourbon.
Bookdwarf 
Okay, I think I’m the only person in the world who had an entirely different response to this article. No surprise there. Christian chicklit? Not my thing (not into the religion and reached my quota of chicklit). I screamed (very politely, in a letter to the Times’ ombudsman) about the patronizing and sexist tone of the article. Bodice ripper followed by comments about the ages of the women (but not the men, though there were apparently few) — gee, that’s respectful. Now had they twisted the knife over a bunch of adults having vapors over the mention of thongs in so-called Christian literature, that would have been okay. As far as I know, undergarments aren’t proscribed in the bible.
LikeLike