Get a Load of This Crap

Alert Bitchery reader JMC was forced to change seats on the DC Metro this week. Why?

Because she didn’t want to face this crapful advertisement.

The Greater Washington Initiative, creators of that lovely ad, is an organization attempting to market the greater DC area to businesses looking to expand, touting high percentages of residents with advanced degrees and other hallmarks of smarthood. They’d love that expansion to land in the VA/DC/MD area, but I guess the romance novels will have to be part of the yard sale before the businesses move on into town.

Oh, the rage. JMC said, “Romance readers are uneducated and less desirable employees, apparently.  And having a degree or an advanced degree obviously makes people smarter, too, in their minds. Forget the fact that I’ve known some people with advanced degrees who are dumber than a bag of rocks and utterly unproductive human beings.”

I know those same people – I think I was in grad school classes with some of them.

Once again, the romance reader is portrayed as dumb, uneducated, and – get this – economically undesirable. Well, it will be my pleasure to make sure that Smart Bitches, LLC, never expands into the DC metro area.

Categorized:

Ranty McRant

Comments are Closed

  1. dl says:

    Since the romance section of most bookstores is by far the largest, one assumes alot of readers.  How many of those majority readers have they alienated with this dumb ad?  Somebody needs a new advertising agent. 

    Visited DC 15 yrs. ago.  Besides the usual historic sites, my main impression was the poor quality of services.  Employees apparently hired based qualities other than their service skills.  The airport staff had me in tears (I was pregnant at the time).  Fortunately, everyone else we met, was MUCH nicer than expected.

  2. “And yes, I totally want to know what Kaitlyn O’Connor thinks about all this.”

    As a writer from the same publishing house as the book in the pic, I’m betting she wishes the logo was bigger. *snicker*

  3. Kaitlyn will probably giggle her way to the bank. Can you get better free advertisement? Your book blown up really big on a subway, viewed by tons of people. I looked at the ad and my first thought was to buy the romance novel.

    I, too, work for the same publishing house. I agree, my first thought was, Why couldn’t they have made the logo bigger? Hmm, I wonder if they’ll take submissions for their next ad, *laughing* (joke)

  4. Okay, apparently I had two first thoughts, lol.

    Oy! Time to brew another pot. 🙂

  5. Lia says:

    When I read them I don’t consider the quality of my experience as a “thinking” issue but rather how it makes me “feel.”

    But… when something is written so badly it looks like mistakes have been edited in, to the point where I can’t follow the story because I keep hitting the speed-bumps of bad English, it makes me feel irritated.  And when such a book gets tons of praise in reviews, I feel incredulous and annoyed.  I am a picky bitch when it comes to plunking down good money for a book and I feel annoyed that reviewers don’t do a very good job.

    But the “Our Riders are Readers” slogan—fabulous.  And probably too good for advertising.  (I think a “National Enquirer” reader vs a “Scientific American” reader would be a close second.)  I dislike most advertising even more than badly-edited books… most of it is either trying to make people feel threatened & inadequate, or appealing to the lowest common denominator snob-factor.  But I expect advertising to be obnoxious.

    And I still think the shoddies writing in the romance genre is at least as bad as the shoddiest of almost any other genre.  And it comprises 40% of the total, so numerically, there probably is more of it than there is of any other single genre… so odds are if someone only picked up ONE romance book, there’s a good chance it would be a lousy one.  That was my own experience some 20 years back and my clinker-to-gem ratio is still at least 3-1.  Saying there are wonderful books doesn’t mean there aren’t crummy ones.  If I’d been stuck with doing that ad, I would’ve used an over-the-top fake title by some author like Luridly Savage, to make it clear that this was not a selective reader.

  6. Robin says:

    But… when something is written so badly it looks like mistakes have been edited in, to the point where I can’t follow the story because I keep hitting the speed-bumps of bad English, it makes me feel irritated.  And when such a book gets tons of praise in reviews, I feel incredulous and annoyed. . . .

    And I still think the shoddies writing in the romance genre is at least as bad as the shoddiest of almost any other genre.  And it comprises 40% of the total, so numerically, there probably is more of it than there is of any other single genre… so odds are if someone only picked up ONE romance book, there’s a good chance it would be a lousy one.

    I have no idea how the shoddy editing and rough writing in Romance compares to that in other genres, so I can’t comment on that part of your argument, but I DO agree with you that there are no small number of writing clunkers in the genre.  And I have to figure that there ARE quite a few, because, as you say, some of them actually get high star reviews.

    And this is the one area of the genre that probably frustrates me the most, not only because it interrupts my reading experience and speaks poorly of the genre, but also because published writing is too often viewed as “model” writing because it’s professionally published.  Seriously, when I think of those teenage girls reading Romance, I don’t get one bit nervous about the sex (except in so far as it sets up unrealistic expectations, of course), but it irritates me that they’re absorbing some of that writing as the standard for professional published material.  And while I will accept reluctantly but respectfully that Romance readers can adore clinch covers, the virtues of John DeSalvo, and a few other things I wish would exit the genre, I can’t accept the IMO too low standards of composition and editing that seem to pass through the genre (and I’m not referring to any particular book or including all books).  I understand that people might disagree about what constitutes good writing, but I really do think there are some basic standards of competent and correct writing and that (analagous to that lovely little obscenity standard) ‘we know it when we see it’ and when we don’t.  I want to make it clear that I’m not talking about good v. bad writing so much as correct v. incorrect composition.  Because we could argue all day about what constitutes “good” writing in the genre and likely all be right at some level.

    I’m not suggesting that all Romance copy needs to be clean as a whistle; we ALL make grammar, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, and other assorted writing and editing errors.  And I realize that Romance novels aren’t written for use in the classroom as writing aids.  But sheesh, it’s frustrating when a book is so error-ridden or so poorly edited or so rough that you have to re-read sentences and paragraphs two and three times.  That any of us might not spot these errors doesn’t make their inclusion defensible, IMO, at least beyond a certain point of frequency.  When I can pick out more than one or two errors a PAGE, I think that’s excessive.

    I actually envy readers who can look beyond rough writing, and I appreciate the fact that not every writer will be as good a technician as she is a storyteller (I definitely make allowances for this, and tend to look toward the editor when composition seems especially rough).  I know editors are overworked and that time constraints are very tight in publishing.  So this is one problem I actually place at the feet of publishers, and see it as a failure to take the time or feel it is important to encourage, foster, and support higher production values.  This is probably the largest area where I infer Romance publishing’s lack of respect for readers.

  7. Diana says:

    I take the metro almost every day. I live in Silver Spring. I saw this ad. I rolled my eyes. It was right next to an ad for the latest David Baldacci, another for the Festival of Books, and yet another for the latest Noire novel. The contradiction of messages on teh metro was pretty incredible.

    I tend to keep my subway reading to the “fun reads” variety, because it’s distracting. I tried to read The Trial once on the metro, and by the time I got “into it,” I’d be at my stop.

    All last summer, I remember watching men in business suits with Pentagon tags dangling off of their clothes standing in the metro and leaning against the wall because they needed both hands to hold up Harry Potter. All the female lawyers had their briefcases out and were reading the latest Travelling Pants or Emily Giffin. I saw a very interesting conversation once between two booklovers, one who was reading Gilead but wanted the advice of the girl who was reading L.A. Banks about some good vamp romances.

    I read YA and erotic romance and everything else on the metro. I have never once been sneered at for my choice of reading material. I think that the riders on my metro are smarter enoughto realize that one should best not be judged by their choice of reading material.

  8. SB Sarah says:

    ‘our riders are readers’

    My first thought: Wow. Imagine erotica writers could do with that tagline!

  9. DofAM says:

    I think you guys need to take media training classes.  Your kvetching about the Board of Trade (which is a great organization) makes you look moronic.

  10. SB Sarah says:

    Oh, happy day, our first hater comment.

    Welcome! Enjoy.

    We’re not moronic, and we’re not kvetching about the Board of Trade. We’re upset at their choice to malign a large portion of the reading public by saying we’re less intelligent. I’m sure the Board of Trade is a good organization, and we never said otherwise. Insulting a large group is a poor way to start building commerce and we said so. Loudly.

    And yeah, any publicity is good publicity. We know that one very well. But still, we’re not going to take it laying down on our pink chaise lounges when someone calls us dumb.

  11. Candy says:

    …as opposed to your kvetching about us, which makes you look like the pinnacle of wit and knowledge?

    Nobody’s saying the ad doesn’t get its message across—what we are saying is that the ad is counter-productive because it’s alienating a good portion of its intended audience, i.e., smart, educated people. It may be hard for you to grok this, because you obviously have your prejudices firmly in place, but a good number of romance readers are college educated—in fact, many are either working on or already have post-graduate degrees. If nothing else, the false dichotomies the ad presents (which you’ve bought into, hook, line and sinker) are untenable, and that’s what many of us are pointing out here.

  12. DofAM says:

    Hah, so you look at a book written by Plato, and assume it means that your moronic?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Yeah.

  13. SB Sarah says:

    No, I looked at the juxtaposition of reading material, looked at Plato under “Greater Washington subway reading,” and then read beneath where they wrote that DC has the “most educated workforce” with “45% [having] a bchelor’s degree or higher.”

    So the established dichotomy demands a counterbalance that the other half is… poorly educated and unintelligent. Or, moronic.

    Interpretations notwithstanding, for an ad person, you don’t read too closely. Or proofread. “Your” is a possessive. “You’re” is a contraction for “You are.”
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Yeah.

  14. Candy says:

    Hah, so you look at a book written by Plato, and assume it means that your moronic?

    Can’t say as any of us have done that, though some of us may make that assumption when we encounter somebody who attempts to call other people morons while displaying an inability to distinguish between “you’re” and “your.”

  15. Amanda says:

    I take the Metro every day and have yet to see this ad. Granted, I was out of town last weekend. But I think this is a Red Line ad campaign…I take the Orange and Blue Lines. We don’t get a lot of the same ads. Apparently the riders in Maryland and downtown DC have a different demographic than in Virginia? Dunno.

    Anyway, I normally read this blog, but last week was the end of the fiscal year here at work (government attorney, here…yup, that means I have at least a law degree, so apparently I should fall right into the demographic that GWI is courting…except for the fact that I read and write romance) so I’ve been in absentia.

    I only learned about this ad campaign when it was discussed in this morning’s edition of Express, the free daily put out by the Washington Post. Just so you know, it brightened my day to see SmartBitches quoted in the Post (well, kind of the Post), even if the ad campaign itself pissed me off.

    According to the ad, 45% of the greater Washington area has a bachelor’s degree or higher. According to RWA, 42% of romance readers have a bachelor’s degree or higher. 3% is well within the standard deviation, so you do the math…

  16. Kathryn Anderson says:

    Sigh.  I’m yet another over-educated DC resident who is appalled, but not surprised, by that misguided attempt to make DC residents seem entirely more pretentious than they are with this “we are so much smarter than any other city” advertisement.  Story of our lives. 

    I live in downtown DC and have been riding the subways for twenty years.  I sometimes amuse myself by looking to see what people around me are reading.  It sure isn’t Plato.  They read the free papers distributed at the metro stop, magazines, catalogs, cookbooks, “serious” newspapers (the Post and the NYT), and fiction that runs the gamut from the latest Zane to whatever is on the New York Times bestseller list this week, which includes plenty of romances, mysteries, thrillers, and all the stuff people read everywhere else.  Then there are all those people doing blackberry mail, playing video games, watching videos and listening to music on their portable devices. 

    However, the most common BOOK I see people reading, particularly in evenings, is the Bible.  Not Plato.  Whether the reader is studying a weekly lesson, seeking solace after a tough day at work, or just praying nothing goes wrong during the commute home, that’s what I see lots of people reading on the Metro.  But it wouldn’t make the same ad that you get with a reader holding Plato.

    Don’t let that ad fool you.  In the last few years, DC has begun to develop a real downtown culture that is unique to the city and separate from the “traditional” Washington this ad apparently wants to preserve.  Cool art.  Cool music.  Real people who read and write the books average people read.  These elements of culture have always existed in DC, but now they are achieving critical mass.

    This ad is trying to preserve a “Washington braintrust” myth none of us who really live here want any more.

  17. Annalee says:

    :ohh: I am a little amused they pictured a guy as the “average romance reader” too.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top