Of course, if this review were correct, quite frankly I wouldn't give a damn...

I honestly think the authors are on to something, even if it's not a particularly beautiful or readable something. Dismissing the juvenile self-absorbtion of American males between the ages of 22 and 30 is an unwise idea. The transition from boyish gratification and self-absorbtion to manhood traditionally progressed along the lines of career, marriage, fatherhood. I don't think those well-trod paths have quite the same pull as they did in generations past. I think lad lit is the outgrowth of a society in which men are powerful yet directionless, with nothing more to guide them but the satisfaction of individual desires. In fact, as much as I hate to say it, Cartoon Network, the penis monologues and rotisserie baseball teams are not nearly as scarce as Laura Miller would like to believe. The review comes across as the protest of a stodgy academic against a genre that, for better or for worse, has its roots in an atomized social reality that truly exists.

The best male lit seems to be written by military veterans, rather than snotty little boys from fancy schools.

IMHO, of course.

I disagree with the review; I thought Kunkel and especially Lipsyte were hilarious. And hardly chick lit, though Kimmel's right about the unsteadiness of the transformative moment in all of these books. But perhaps that's because there isn't an obvious transformative moment like that big wedding or a bang-you're-mature-now in psychic lives of most guys. It's a problem for plot, but it doesn't mean that the small victories vel non can't be interesting too.

"bang-you're-mature-now in psychic lives of most guys."

Well, no, since for women it's actually "bang-your-pants-are-bloody" and it requires absolutely no effort or personal growth for it to take place and complete itself.