Whenever this genre comes up for discussion, what usually happens is that everyone rushes to avoid being labelled a literary snob. For politeness' sake, they agree to conspire in the pretence that a book about shopping and trying to snare a two-dimensional man has just as much merit as any other. Not so Ryan Tubridy, who was barely able to conceal his condescension.

Like all writers of chick lit, Scanlan objected strongly to the term, which she said was derogatory. But she said it was a very popular genre.

"Are you in it?" asked Tubridy quickly.

"No I wouldn't call myself a chick lit writer, " she said.

"What would you call yourself?" Tubridy shot back.

"I'd call myself a writer of popular fiction, " she said.

So it seems you can stand up for the genre but still not want to be in it. Tubridy said now he was confused.

Next he took issue with the idea that chick lit writers are made to feel inferior.

"Patricia, who is making people who write these books feel inferior?" he asked her twice.

She thought it was media-driven.

"I'm media, " he snapped.

Well, then, reviewers, she said. Reviewers often say nasty, nasty things, even the women. Scanlan thinks they have tried to write books themselves and failed, and that it's sour grapes.

Tubridy revealed his feelings in a longwinded question about why certain other writers are not labelled chick lit, such as Claire Messud, author of The Emperor's Children. "She is a woman writing about thirtysomething women in a much more - OK I'm going to say it, dammit - cerebral way. Even the cover is dark and gritty, as opposed to a unicorn and a rainbow and saying that if you have enough shopping bags you'll be fine."

The plot thickened somewhat when Michael McLaughlin seemed to be suggesting that chick lit is almost any book written by a woman. He went so far as to say Zo� Heller was "borderline" and threw Jane Austen into the pile as well. You begin to see why people take offence.

Everyone was at pains to point out that just because you read chick lit, it doesn't mean you're incapable of reading anything more challenging. No one was prepared to suggest that, while some people read these books to give their brains a rest, others read them because Cecelia Ahern is all they're intellectually able for. We all know that's true, don't we, but no one wants to be the one to say it. "This is not about being snobbish, " said Tubridy, but it is, of course, and it can't be helped.

Meanwhile, it's Lent, and Radio 4 has begun a new series of Lent Talks, in which six people reflect on the season. Last week, comedian and writer Armando Ianucci talked about the devil and temptation, but the most valuable lesson in Ianucci's sermon was that he has found a loophole in Lent.

"It's six days longer than it says it is, and that's because the six Sundays in Lent don't actually count.

You only have to give things up six days a week, " he said.

Next Wednesday's programme looks more promising. Advertising guru Chris Bayfield talks about Jesus's fury against the dealers in the temple, and whether it was a protest against commercialism, or something more radical. Where did Jesus really stand on shopping, in other words?