Anonymous Musings: Fans Shouldn’t Criticize Writers? How come?

An author who would like to remain anonymous asked me:

As a romance outsider, I’ve always been surprised by the attitude that romance fans shouldn’t criticize romance writers.  And it reminds me of the attitude a lot of minority people have—that there’s enough criticism from outside so you don’t openly criticize your own.

It’s an attitude I don’t quite agree with since it seems to show support for corruption and mediocrity.  [Criticism is] actually showing solidarity against the biases of the majority.

But it reflects the mentality of those who are in the minority of a larger group.  And the difference is that romance readers and writers are the single largest block of readers and writers.  So why do these fans hold onto this attitude?  I think it’s because most romance fans are women and women and our society treats our opinions as inconsequential, not as worthwhile as a man’s opinions.

Anyway, just a thought.  If I were in the majority of a group, I’d be exercizing my power quite capriciously and arbitrarily.  But that’s me.

First, I have to say, before anyone levels the accusation, no, I didn’t write this and attempt to deflect attention by posting it attributed to an anonymous source. I never remember to use the word “capriciously,” even though it is a GREAT word.

Second, I have to also say, yeah, what is up with that? I lot of the ire I see directed at Candy and at me is based on the idea that as fans, we hurt the genre by criticizing it in any way. And that by calling our site “Smart Bitches” we’re denigrating women – and if you do think that, please take a look at the concept of reappropriation of pejorative lexicon – so we’re both anti-women and anti-romance. And thus we hurt the genre, and should be Banned from the Internet.

But anonymous’ ability to connect to a question of majority/minority cultural habit is curious: romance readers are among the most powerful consumer groups in a book buying sense, so why is it a bad thing to criticize the genre from the perspective of a consumer? I haven’t the faintest idea, though I suspect it has a great deal to do with the culturally-enforced group habits of women, which further muddles the question of “are romance readers a minority inside a majority, lurking in a crunchy taco shell?” There is a definite pressure to be nice within groups of women, even as the biting behind one’s back is even more, dare I say, savage than what could be said to one’s face.

So what do you think? Why is there a backlash against romance criticism, ours or anyone’s?

Categorized:

Random Musings

Comments are Closed

  1. TracyS says:

    For me the difference comes down to this: criticize the book not the author.  Nora’s two examples way at the beginning were good.

    For example, I could say, “A favorite author of mine is no longer a favorite because in her most recent books the characters. . . . .” (give examples of what I didn’t like about the characterization) or “she is spending too much time trying to convince me of . . .. “(whatever continual theme I am noticing in book after book)  That is constructive criticism IMHO. 

    If I would say, “A favorite author of mine is no longer a favorite because she is an idiot that writes stupid characters whose ideas I find idiotic. Therefore, author must then be idiotic”  Yeah, that’s a personal attack on the author and not constructive at all.

    It’s up to the author on what to do with the constructive criticism.  Some read it and pay attention.  Their writing may get better because of it. Some say they will not read ONE “bad” review. NOT ONE. (I’ve actually seen an author write this!) I think that is their loss, because if their sales are dropping, maybe the “bad” review will give them a clue as to why.

  2. JaniceG says:

    And the difference is that romance readers and writers are the single largest block of readers and writers.

    I have to disagree with this statement. As a couple of other people here have alluded to, the science fiction genre is both larger and has a history of writers engaging with readers for a lot longer than the romance community. Also, from what I understand, most romance conventions tend to be a bit more commercial in terms of primarily being a venue for promoting and trying to sell work (which was confirmed by the Bitches recent reporting where I think a couple of times they said that people were surprised that actual fans were attending an RWA convention).

    That being said, I agree with people on here who have said that impersonal criticism targeting the work itself is helpful (if painful) to an author—it’s when the criticism gets personal that it’s poisonous. And also, that the larger question of whether fans should not criticize the genre because the genre is so beleaguered from the outside enforces the attitude that it’s not strong enough to take criticism, which contributes to a bad self-image (if something as big as a genre can be said to have a self-image :-> )

  3. Kinley says:

    “I find enjoyment and escape in said Avon historicals, I am not somehow “less” of a person than you who was carting David Copperfield around in fourth grade.”

    Oooh, no, that is not what I meant. I am sorry I came off that way. I wasn’t judging you as a human being by your reading materials. If you want to spend all your cash on romance, great. That is entirely your call. I don’t think you are a bad woman for choosing to do that. And isn’t that what we are talking about here? Taking criticism of what we choose to read as criticism of ourselves as worthwhile human beings? I am not criticizing your worth as a person, just because I don’t want to see romance novels becoming the sole reading material of everyone I know, or to see kids having no exposure to great works of literature. And no matter how I sounded in my last post, I am really not a literary snob. I read everything, anything and everything. I just think a little variety doesn’t hurt anyone, and I would hate to see classical and contemporary literature become completely obscured by pop fiction.

    And I am not talking about “forcing” kids to read certain things. I agree, I would love to see kids reading anything, as long as they are reading, but also in the hopes that their reading of pulp fiction would inspire them to broaden their horizons. I don’t think there is some sort of virtue in reading nothing but classics and literature and that sort of thing, no more than I think it is a virtue to eschew it all together. Of course, we have “the right” to read whatever we want, and we have the right to do what we like, eat what we like, watch what we like. I am just saying that I would hate to see everyone reading nothing but romance, any more than I would like to hear someone saying they read nothing but Plato. I think it is good to read whatever we can get our hands on, and it isn’t snobbish to think that there is merit in reading Dickens, or wanting kids to read more than Archie comics or Harry Potter. Not that there is anythign wrong with either of those choices. I am simply saying that they are not the only choices. Why do we have to defend one or the other? Why can’t we defend it all, Plato and Christina Dodd?

  4. Barb Ferrer says:

    But it gives me a sort of….I don’t know, a mirror, I guess, to my own work—something to compare it to. When I write romance, I have an Ideal Audience in mind, and I like to measure my work against what I think their reaction would be.

    Ah, okay, explained like this, I completely get it.  *g*  I guess for me, since I’m not writing romance in the traditional sense, either with the YA or the women’s fic, I have to assume I have no Ideal Audience at the ready—rather, that mine kind of develops and evolves over time.

    But I see where you’re coming from.  Thanks for clarifying.

  5. When the novel was invented, it was invented by women who wanted to be able to communicate with one another, to record their point of view […]  It was a medium that was slagged off my the intellectual elite (read: MEN) as insipid, worthless, only for women to read in secret. Not long after, the medium was absconded with, and then women were relegated to only being capable of writing narrow-minded, soppy pieces of fluff.

    Kinley, I think the history of the novel is more complex than your summary would suggest. The Tale of Genji dates from the 11th century, and was written by a woman. But at least some of the ancient Greek “novels” were written by men (I’m saying “some” because so many have been lost, so one can’t be sure who all the authors were). And “In 1605 Miguel de Cervantes y Saavedra published the first part of his novel El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha” (Cervantes Digital Library). Moving on to the 18th century, you’ve got Richardson, Defoe and Fielding.

  6. Didn’t James’ first book get a great deal of criticism from romance readers, some I think because she was perceived as an outsider.  I’ve never read it so I can’t comment about how justified the criticism was but I have the impression she might have made some substantial changes before it appeared in paperback—-?

    DS, I got the impression that it was because the novel included a lot of historical errors. James has a “Mea Culpa” section on her webpage for Potent Pleasures and in it she says that:

    Monsieur Careme, Charlotte’s modiste, is male in the hardcover version of Potent Pleasures and female thereafter; this is due to my finding out, rather belatedly, that modistes in England during this period were all female.

    Similarly, Alex wears pajamas in the hardcover of Potent Pleasures and goes commando style in the paperback; he attends a Hookers’ Ball in the hardcover and is relegated to a Cyprians’ Ball in the paperback.

    Potent Pleasures was my first book, and I had a lot to learn.

    Kinley, re

    I value classical literature highly. Romance is fun, it can be serious, and informative, and historically accurate. But it isn’t the only thing out there, you know what I am saying? I would hate to reach a point where it is all I read.

    It’s a point I’ve reached in my fiction reading and I haven’t found it as bad as you seem to think it would be.

    I hope we are spending our hard earned cash on more than Avon historicals.

    Oh yes, I mostly read Harlequin Mills and Boon romances 😉

  7. R. says:

    I have to say I’m in full agreement with Kinley, at least for my own choices of reading material—and it has nothing to do with any kind of snobbery.

    I read more non-fiction than fiction, but the fiction that I do read is all over the map.  The greater the variety of my reading selections, the greater my perspectives become—and the better grasp I have on my own life because of it.

    Mame said it best: Life is a banquet, and most poor bastards are starving to death!

    spamfoiler: basis51 – damn!  how does it know??

  8. Robinjn says:

    I am not criticizing
    your worth as a person, just because I don’t want to see romance novels
    becoming the sole reading material of everyone I know, or to see kids having
    no exposure to great works of literature.

    Oh don’t worry, my worth does not feel impunged! Please don’t think I was in turn criticizing you, I think we’re both arguing the same point just in different ways.

    I think what I was saying is that too many kids do have the classics rammed down their throats at an early age, often far too early for them to truly appreciate them. And for many kids (I was one) this forced reading list was dreadful. I hated it, and I was even an already passionate reader. I just looked at high suspicion at anything other people saw as worthy because I often found it horribly boring. Frankly, I still do.

    I just don’t think anyone should limit anyone else’s reading choices in any way. Absolutely I would not limit a child’s reading choices to romance (or sci-fi, or graphic novels). My point is to give kids some choice in what they read and don’t sweat it if it’s torrid romance. Romance novels sometimes are very well researched and kids can learn things from them. I learned most of my vocabulary from romances, and a fair amount of geography and even some history as well as current events.

    Oh and I’m still a person who despises pretentious novels by authors who seem to be writing more to show people how clever they are than to entertain. Which is why I stick pretty exclusively to genre novels.

  9. Kinley says:

    “Oh yes, I mostly read Harlequin Mills and Boon romances”

    Ha ha, touche.

    Okay, I am the big jerk of the day. I don’t mind. I have been called elitist before, and I will be called so again. I don’t mean to be that way, but I suppose if thinking it is a good idea to read more than one genre of literature makes me a snob, then I will submit, rather bewildered, it must be said, to that label.

    But answer me this: If the writers of romance novels read nothing but other works in their own genre, would they write better novels, or not? I mean to say, if one is writing historical romances, for instance, to write a good one, why would need to delve into other works in order to get, at the very least, a feel for the setting of their story, not to mention a grasp on basic accuracy. So if a writer needs to be well-read, why can’t a reader be well read too? Why is it so offensive of me to say that? Am I really being a total judgemental bitch, here? And if so, how does anyone really go about being non-judgemental? Or perhaps I am supposed to judge things quietly, and say nothing, so I won’t be unnice.

    I guess that we all read for our own reasons, and I should not assume that other people read the way I do, or that the way I read is virtuous. I am not trying to be virtuous, or holier-than-thou. I am truly trying to understand what people read for, how they read, why they read, what they read….and well, why they do it! So bear with me, or not! You can criticize me all you like, and I promise not to think you ae saying I am a bad person. If you think I am, go ahead and say that too. Don’t be nice on my account 🙂

  10. Kinley says:

    “I think what I was saying is that too many kids do have the classics rammed down their throats at an early age, often far too early for them to truly appreciate them.”

    Oh, I absolutely agree! I was lucky enough to actually LIKE the classics. I know that is not the same for everyone. Nor do I think they are the only things worth reading.

    “I just don’t think anyone should limit anyone else’s reading choices in any way. Absolutely I would not limit a child’s reading choices to romance (or sci-fi, or graphic novels). My point is to give kids some choice in what they read and don’t sweat it if it’s torrid romance.”

    And I agree with that too! I am not a literary fascist! I really am not! I think the school system has really harmed a lot of potential passionate readers out their by labeling some genres as worthy and others as substandard. I love comic books! I love romance novels! I love murder mysteries! I also love Plato!

    Okay, Think I am going to go do some work. I am getting way too involved in this thread 🙂

  11. MoJo says:

    Oh and I’m still a person who despises pretentious novels by authors who seem to be writing more to show people how clever they are than to entertain. Which is why I stick pretty exclusively to genre novels.

    Derail alert:

    This reminds me of the scene in

    when Melanie Griffith’s character is publicly embarrassed at a white-tie state function that she doesn’t know (about) the book Democracy in America.  So, in her knowledge-grasping fashion, she acquires it and reads it.

    Later, she asks a semi-sympathetic Nora Dunn’s character about a concept in the book and she can’t answer.  When Melanie Griffith is perplexed, Nora Dunn finally admits that nobody actually READ the book.

    Also reminds me of the angst-ridden Nietzsche-quoting semi-goth freshmen in the student union cafeteria.

    Mental masturbation without an orgasm, really.

  12. azteclady says:

    Kinley, I think a couple of people simply disagreed with you, which not necessarily meant that you are being a jerk.

    Obviously, neither are they.

    And I don’t believe you were called a snob for “thinking it is a good idea to read more than one genre of literature.” It was called to your attention that doing so is not required to be intelligent, a critical reader, or any other good thing you can come up with.

    Some people will only read one particular genre through their entire lives, so what? Some writers will read only what they write, so what? Others will write one thing while reading everything else but that, so what?

    I happen to agree with you that being widely read tends to widen one’s horizons, but I also believe that if you help someone become a reader (in the sense of addicted to reading, like my kids and I), by making what they enjoy reading abundantly available to them, they will be much more likely to enjoy other, “loftier” literature eventually.

    Or at the very least, to be able to read it, analyze it, understand it, and move one—if it turns out that they simply don’t enjoy it.

  13. Kinley says:

    Oh, the literary snob makes a grammatical error: I used “their” when I should have used “there”, further proof that I get waaaaaay too excited writing on this site. I think I should slink away now, mortified tail betwixt my legs.

  14. azteclady says:

    My last comment probably comes off as snarkier than I meant it—apologies!

  15. Jo Leigh says:

    We anthropomorphize our pets, our movie stars and our authors, giving them all qualities that are completely a reflection of who we are.  Therefore an attack on one of the above, and we feel it deeply and personally.  I do believe it’s the nature of the beast. (pun intended)

  16. JaimeK says:

    Spinsterwitch: “However, meeting the lovely Octavia Butler (may she rest in peace) was a highlight of my life. “

    Oh I love Octavia – cannot use past tense..

    I agree with what has been posted so far, but thought I would just add my voice.  It is pretty cut and dry for me..giving your opinion of a book, good or bad, is a far cry from critiquing the person that wrote it.  If I write a review and I don’t like the book it doesn’t mean, automatically, that I don’t like the person that wrote it (or that I even know them) and if it is construed that way then shame on the person doing the construing.  That goes for any genre not just romance.

    Peace –

  17. Kinley says:

    Okay, points taken all around. Thank you, ladies. I don’t feel attacked, nor was I attacking anyone. I think I get over excited when (attempting) to make a point. I have nothing but respect for all of you, so I apologize if anything was said out of turn. I think I am just a little embarrassed, because some of the things I said came off wrong, and i can’t seem to iron them out properly.

  18. JaimeK says:

    Spinsterwitch:  sorry, not a complete thought – what I meant was I love Octavia so much that I have yet to be able to put her in the past with “loved” instead of “love.”

    Peace –

  19. Robinjn says:

    So if a writer needs to be well-read, why can’t a reader be
    well read too? Why is it so offensive of me to say that? Am I really being a
    total judgemental bitch, here? And if so, how does anyone really go about
    being non-judgemental? Or perhaps I am supposed to judge things quietly, and
    say nothing, so I won’t be unnice.

    Why you judgmental bitch! How dare you come on this forum and express an opinion that doesn’t agree with MINE. **I** am the only worthy opinionator here! If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all!

    Okay. Whew. Now that that’s over! There’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting people to read more than one genre or category of books. Where I think we (global we) get in trouble is if and when we tell people what kinds of books they should be reading and what they should enjoy.

    I read romances pretty darn exclusively from about 1972 to about 2000. Thousands upon thousands. Now I very rarely if ever read one. I’m pretty much romanced out. But I don’t think that I harmed myself mentally during that time. Trust me, those occasional face twitches mean nothing!

    I was often made to feel guilty for reading romances. What’s fascinating is that if my choice is a mystery or sci-fi I am somehow far more socially acceptable. And I think the heart of it is that people should read what they love, regardless of whether anyone else will judge them poorly for it.

  20. FrancisT says:

    Robinjn again:
    I’ve often thought that if I was teaching an English class to middle schoolers my assignment wouldn’t be to read Steinbeck or Hemingway, but to read any darn thing you want.

    Actually I disagree in part. I think we could skip many of the classics (and definitely skip forcing them on children too young to appreciate them) although having said that some Hemingway (for example) is extremely readable and extremely good as something to study.

    What I would most certainly do is pick mostly cheerful books that are well written and have a plot, lively characters etc. One modern writer who would fit niche that very well would be Lois McMaster Bujold but there are certainly others. An older one might be Kipling or George Orwell.

  21. Kinley says:

    “I think the heart of it is that people should read what they love, regardless of whether anyone else will judge them poorly for it.”

    Agreed. That is a very sensible opinion. It is at times so hard to be sensible when the passions are aroused, as all who read romance can avow, am I right?

    Anti-spam code: cent58

    As in, Kinley, you have had 56 more than your fair 2-cents worth, now can you PLEASE shut the hell up!

  22. I have been called elitist before, and I will be called so again. I don’t mean to be that way, but I suppose if thinking it is a good idea to read more than one genre of literature makes me a snob, then I will submit, rather bewildered, it must be said, to that label. […] why can’t a reader be well read too? Why is it so offensive of me to say that? Am I really being a total judgemental bitch, here?

    I haven’t called you an elitist or a snob. I think your comments perhaps don’t take into account the variety that can exist in people’s situations. While I’d agree that it’s a good idea for people at some stage of their life to have access to/be encouraged to read across a wide range of genres of fiction and non-fiction, including the classics, I also think that at particular points in a person’s life they may choose to read within just one genre. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, and one can’t assume that they haven’t read widely in the past, or that they won’t ever read outside the genre sometime in the future.

    It’s also worth taking into account the fact that the romance genre is a very large and very diverse genre. Someone who is “only” reading romances may well be reading historicals, contemporaries, romantic suspense, science fiction romance etc. So in a way, reading across the sub-genres of romance is not so very dissimilar to reading across a range of popular genres.

    In addition, some people’s definition of “romance” might include all novels which have “a central love story and an emotionally-satisfying and optimistic ending” (RWA). That would include the works of Austen, Anne Bronte and many other “classics.”

  23. Kassiana says:

    I have had significant contact with romance novel authors on-line whose works I dislike intensely. To a person, they are very nice people, and I would enjoy having tea with them. I don’t doubt that Christina Dodd or Laura Kinsale or Judith Ivory are all people I’d like on a personal level. (Doesn’t make their books any better, though.)

    I don’t like it when people dislike things I think are Good (objectively good/classics). However, I recognize people do dislike them, and would rather have them say so honestly than say they like Kill and Tell or Shades of Twilight (two Linda Howards that are often dissed…and I like them).

    I wish more people would give me the same courtesy when I dislike the things they like, whether it’s romance novels or religious books or science fiction.

  24. Robinjn says:

    If I may interrupt my own posts on this….

    I think this discussion which started between Kinley and myself is a perfect example of how we can get ourselves into trouble and grey out the line between differences of opinion on subjects and differences between people. When we have an opinion on something it often is connected to us personally. Therefore Kinley is feeling that maybe people perceive HER as an elitist snob because of her OPINION that people should read more than “avon historicals.” And I responded that **I** existed on romances for many years and consider myself pretty well read.

    In both cases we were using personal anecdotes to support our positions. And from there, it’s easy to see why critiques can get out of hand and move from “I disagree with your opinion,” to “you big doo-doo head how could somebody be so stupid?”

    I don’t think there’s an easy answer here because everything we do and every opinion we hold is colored by personal experience. However, I’ll say that for me, writing in many capacities on various web lists since 1994 has been really helpful in learning how to grow a thick skin and not take things personally for the most part.

    And no, I do not, not, not think Kinley is an elitist snob.

  25. Rhonda Leigh says:

    Wow, that reminds me of a professor of mine who lectured me on the evils of using the word “chick.” I thought that, for an intelligent, strong woman, she sure did seem thin-skinned. So, bitch away, bitches! You have my full support. As for genre criticism, that is the only way to strengthen the genre. Criticism is necessary in literary circles. It’s all about communication. Stifling communication is no good for anyone. Of course, just because someone says something about a book or an author doesn’t make it correct, but the author should be able to discern between useful criticism and the other kind. ~ Rhonda

  26. SusanL says:

    Kind of off topic, but not really 😉

    I was just reading AAR’s new ATBF.  This edition’s topic is “One More Headache for Editors”, and is (of course) inspired by the CE situation.

    In the article are links to articles on four previous acts of palgiarism and I recommend checking these out.  Under the Janet Daily link is a link to a 2007 interview with Nora Roberts.  Nora addresses the Sunshine Happy Land where everything is joyful and no public criticism of writers or their work is welcome issue and online/internet behaviour.

  27. SusanL says:

    for those who don’t visit AAR

    AAR = All About Romance
    ATBF = At The Back Fence

  28. Wry Hag says:

    “Reappropriation of pejorative lexicon.”

    Wow.  Now I’ll be spending the rest of the evening trying to figure out how to work that into a conversation.

  29. Wry Hag says:

    Now that I’ve slogged through all these posts, I get the impression that some of youse are trying to have it both ways. 

    On the one hand, everybody seems to be defending the need for appropriate criticism and the universal right to opine.  On the other hand, many are quick to take umbrage when anybody says anything that can be interpreted as remotely disparaging of the romance genre.  And that’s not just in this thread.

    Come on, fess up.  How many times have we gotten all huffy over some “elitist” or “snob” launching smart-turds at our beloved books?

  30. Barb Ferrer says:

    Come on, fess up.  How many times have we gotten all huffy over some “elitist” or “snob” launching smart-turds at our beloved books?

    But there’s a huge difference between crit of a single book and a denigration of an entire genre based in incorrect assumptions and on what it supposedly represents.  I think that’s what tends to raise people’s hackles—it’s like I said in my email to Paul Tolmé:  In romance as in any genre or type of writing, there’s going to be exceptional, good, mediocre, and flat-out crappy.  The key is where the criticism is based, don’t you think?

  31. snarkhunter says:

    (I swear, this comment will be 100% free of that dark-haired kid with the interesting facial scarring.)

    So much to respond to here! First off, I like scathing criticism. There is a fantastic tradition of it, going at least back to the late 18th century, and probably further (but that’s out of my field), of nasty, biting criticisms of literary works (and, yes, of authors). And they were taken seriously enough that Percy Shelley was able to perpetuate the rumor that it was, in fact, a bad review that killed John Keats (and not tuberculosis).

    (Got that ladies? Bad reviews kill. Lanaia Lee would like to remind us all of the same point.)

    The difference, of course, is that those reviewers were largely men. (With a few notable, usually pseudonymed or anonymous exceptions.)

    ARgh. I’m really stressed out and am not saying anything at all. So I’ll respond to this, adding my point to Laura Vivianco’s:

    When the novel was invented, it was invented by women who wanted to be able to communicate with one another, to record their point of view, because they knew it was valid, valuable. It was a medium that was slagged off my the intellectual elite (read: MEN) as insipid, worthless, only for women to read in secret. Not long after, the medium was absconded with, and then women were relegated to only being capable of writing narrow-minded, soppy pieces of fluff. Nothing was expected aout of women writers, just like it isn’t expected out of romance writers now. But I say, we should expect everything, as readers and writers.

    This is a pretty reductive reading of the genre. Tom Jones—written by a man—is (or maybe was?) considered the first English novel. I think. Women wrote novels, among other reasons, because novels were lucrative. Men wrote novels for the same reason, particularly after the collapse of the poetic market in the 1820s. For all of our feminist myths about the origins and descent of the novel (some of which are truer than others), it’s a very complicated history, and I would be loathe to say that it was ever solely a “female” form—though certain aspects of it were at different times…

  32. Lindsay says:

    Well, anything I had to add to this has been said, more eloquently, by others at this point. But I did enjoy the article on reappropriation of pejorative lexicon at Wiki. One my my favorite classes as an English major was Linguistics and this phenomenon has always interested me. I had forgotten how interesting the process is. Thanks for the reminder. *off to find more articles on reappropriation in language*

  33. Chrissy says:

    I do find it interesting that romance seems to have a set of rules for both fun-poking and legitimate criticism outside all other mores. 

    Consider, when I briefly taught middle school the trend was to “encourage them to read, no matter what they read.”  Stine (sp?) was popular, a lot of horror for kids, etc.  Everyone was doing the “just thank gawd they’re reading” thing.  Which, honestly, was cool with me. 

    Why is it that romance gets the constant harsh, spank-em-til-they-get-it attitude from without?  I mean it’s not as if mainstream fiction, horror, suspense with absolutely NO romantic elements isn’t just as full of crap as we are. 

    I firmly believe it’s sexism and fear.  I recently bloggged about this, in fact.  People LIKE to bitch about bodice-rippers and trashy novels for weak minded women because remaining that determinedly clueless about the genre allows them to continue to view women as repressed and oppressible.  If they allowed themselves to consider the romances, and the romance readers, of today—strong women who are allowed to like and demand good sex—there would be a universal whoosh of pee trickling down many, many legs.

    Looking down one’s nose at romance is a defense mechanism.  It’s a fear impulse rooted in sexism.

    Just my 2 cents.

  34. Lucy Temple says:

    I just finished reading through all the comments. I think there are over 100 at this point!

    I’m all for intelligent, well-grounded criticism of a book—or even simply a “this book wasn’t for me,” because sometimes it’s not that a book is badly written, but for some reason it just doesn’t grab you.

    The only thing I’d like to add to this discussion, and hopefully I won’t be flogged for it, is that I have noticed that the relative anonymity that the comments section of a blog or the internet in general gives people often emboldens them to be ruder and nastier than I think they would be if they were face to face with the person they were discussing. That is my biggest quarrel with the internet/blogs/emails etc. and I think that does come into play when people discuss an author’s work. I was on a list once and I was pretty shocked at how free people felt just to rip at an author’s book and the author themselves.

    One may think a book is badly written, with no plot or cardboard characters and I think it’s fine to say that but hey at least the writer had the courage to put their bum in a chair in front of a computer day after day to write and then on top of that put their work out in the world for everyone to bitch at! Whatever anyone may think, writing is an act of courage.

  35. azteclady says:

    If I may be so bold…

    Lucy Temple said

    One may think a book is badly written, with no plot or cardboard characters and I think it’s fine to say that but hey at least the writer had the courage to put their bum in a chair in front of a computer day after day to write and then on top of that put their work out in the world for everyone to bitch at! Whatever anyone may think, writing is an act of courage.

    I do not disagree that it does require courage (otherwise called “a thick skin”) to know that your name is on a book out there for people to read, analyze, like AND dislike—because if something is guaranteed, is that not everyone will like any one book.

    Hence the extreme need for that thick skin.

  36. Meggrs says:

    Lucy wrote:
    One may think a book is badly written, with no plot or cardboard characters and I think it’s fine to say that but hey at least the writer had the courage to put their bum in a chair in front of a computer day after day to write and then on top of that put their work out in the world for everyone to bitch at! Whatever anyone may think, writing is an act of courage.

    I certainly don’t disagree with the underlying sentiment, Lucy, and this is the main reason why literary criticism need remain professional, and not personal.

    However. Doing the work is not license to be shielded from thoughtful, honest criticism. No matter how heartfelt, how labored over, how personal a book is for an author, it cannot be the reason why people have to avoid saying anything to hurt an author’s feelings.

    If you don’t like my book? Hell, yes, it’s gonna hurt my feelings on a fundamental level. But by putting my writing into the world to be read, digested, and discussed, it is NOT my place to dicatate that those painful, hurtful criticisms be avoided, and your argument is exactly the defense that people who want us all to “play nice” employ.

    We’re grownups, folks. The world ain’t polite and charming—she’s a (sweet)savage bitch ready to let us know exactly what she thinks.

    And as long as she couches her opinion in my work, and not my fundamental worth as a human? Bring it on, baby.

  37. Bethany says:

    If you are involved in any creative field (writing, acting, artist, etc.) you will always be subjected to criticism.  My mother always told me, “You cannot please everyone, so only please yourself.”

    There will always be someone who does not care for your work, and may even be mean-spirited about voicing their opinion.

    But that’s life.

    You must be able to take criticism to survive in a creative field.  Period.

  38. Traci says:

    I am new to this site and really wish you both would move on and do some book reviews. Not being snarky but I am sick of hearing about CE, and want to read reviews, it is why I came to this blog in the first place.

  39. xatya says:

    Criticism is viewed as a negative attack on an individual—not as an informed exploration of somebody’s work.

    As a struggling (and not very adept) writer, the best lesson I ever learned was to separate the Me from my writing. Criticize my work? I’ll listen, take whatever you have to say seriously, and say thank you very much. Criticize me?  Yeah, whatever.

    The wholesale acceptance of anything without question guarantees a lot of mediocre work out there. Better and better should be the mantra. Better and better.

  40. azteclady says:

    Traci, there are links to the reviews by grade on the right hand side of the site, under ‘recent comments’—you know, to tide you over for the nonce.

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