Thanks to BB for this link to a discussion on PW regarding an aggregate of the top 100 lists of Best Books in English. The article itself is perfectly apt – that books mark different stages in your life and their quality in your opinion may rest on the context in which you read them.
But commenter Christine wins 2 points in the Online Scavenger Hunt for Commenting Idiocy by saying:
I read science fiction voraciously from fifth grade through college. Somehow, after the first couple of Dune books, I just stopped and haven’t gone back. During college, I felt forced to read the bleak and depressing because it was good for me and seem to have sworn off ‘literature’ ever since. Over the last (uh – hem )years, I have gone from reading romances to reading mysteries. Romances were just silly beyond words and now mysteries are getting that way, too. Where next? Back to the classics. Back to Dickens, back to Twain. Taking refuge in what I’ve read before, knowing I will see it in a different light.
I hereby propose a new rule for our general behavior on the internet: “There cannot be a discussion of literature, particularly the ranking thereof, without a swat at the plebeian dreck that is romance.”
Poor Christine. Hope she finds something good to read.
We could but why do that when we can express our opinions on an open public forum where we can be condescended to by someone obviously more highly evolved than the rest of us?
As for To Kill a Mockingbird, it helps to see the movie first. 😉
Definitely. Because that way you can picture Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. I think To Kill a Mockingbird was one of the few books I enjoyed reading for freshman English all those years ago.
Heck, they can make out, for all I care.
That is an interesting thought. I wonder what would happen if one of my Crusie’s made out with The Scarlet Pimpernel0? I bet they’d have fun.
Au contraire, Christine…..
I’ve found that a well rounded reading diet is like a grazing from the all food (genre) groups. My mind (and soul) are happiest when I intersperse a bit of romance in amongst the heavier going classics.
BTW, I noticed several Jane Austen novels in the top 100……..who says you can’t have your cake and eat it too???
People are happy to read whatever they find that appeals to them, until they have someone diss them over it. Or they imagine that people all over would make fun of them if they saw. So they hide what they read. I love romances, especially paranormal romances, and I get a huge kick out of “Flashing” the book covers at people who might get offended or become interested. I also like teen fantasy and I could care less if some snob who thinks my reading choices are crud sees. I bet he’s not enjoying himself half as much as I am!
Actually, every time I think of the book, I see Gregory Peck. And although I like Gregory Peck, the movie bored the hell out of me, it was sooo slow and dry, and I couldn’t get past the first half hour. Of course, I was twelve at the time, but the feeling I had then is generated when ever I think of the book, which is why I haven’t read it. Go figure!
Generally, tho’, I prefer to read the book before the movie, anyway.
What I don’t understand is why can’t romance novels be “girl porn” or “silly”? Why is it so important to prove to someone else, someone who really doesn’t give a shit and just wants to be a snob, that what you enjoy is AWESOME AND FULL OF WIN.
Many romance novels ARE intended to fulfill the emotional and sensual needs of the female mind. That’s not saying each one is a panty wetter. But the whole point of them is to engage that part of the female brain that sighs happily. And there is NOTHING wrong with this.
But it’s not everyones cup of tea.
What frustrates me is that people won’t call a spade a spade. If by page 3 the hero and heroine are already making goo-goo eyes at each other and are on their way to heavy petting there is a damn good chance it’s girl porn. Again nothing wrong with it. Just don’t pretend it’s literary genius. It might be a very well written book but it’s still there, in basic purpose, to stimulate you.
What I don’t understand is why can’t romance novels be “girl porn” or “silly”?
They can be. That is not my problem with those descriptions, at least. My problem is when people dismiss the entire genre with those words without either a) reading a single damn romance novel period or b) not even entertaining the notion that they might not all be like that. I have no problem with “girl porn” or “silly” but I do wish people would stop assuming that’s all every single romance novel ever written is.
You can call a spade a spade all you want but not all my romance novels are spades.
I know it’s not my responsibility to make them see the error of their ways and it certainly doesn’t make me stop reading romance novels but after a while it just gets downright annoying listening to people dismiss an entire genre as one thing and one thing only. It’s not something I’ve ever seen in regards to other genres, at least not as rampantly as with romance. I’ve certainly never had someone look at the sf/f novel, mystery novel, or history monograph I’m reading get a disgusted look on their face and ask “why are you reading that?” as if “that” is dog crap I stepped in.
I have had this “discussion” more than once with the emo readers (god, how I love that phrase. I am stealing it) at work. Finally told them when they get to be my age, they can read what they damned well pleased and didn’t have to try and impress any one with it either.
Warn me if there is incoming! I have to agree with you on that, the books may be good, but I can’t get past the titles. At all.
Or, for god’s sakes, Mercedes Lackey.
I hated Dune and LOTR. But used to read every Star Trek book that came out, especially those by Peter David. Still do on occassion.
do books mate like bunnies? Cause that would explain why a 5 bedroom house has no room for any more of them.
I would not want to dismiss anything this woman wants to read as long as she is enjoying it, let her be. However, I do get upset when someone dis’ what I like to read because they don’t enjoy it.
I don’t do a lot of fic/lt (where the non sf/f, mystery, romances hide) and know I miss out on a lot of good stuff. Thankfully, I have cutomers who I have turned onto authors and who have done the same for me. Books I would have just ignored. Do I like them all? No. But I am open to something new.
As for War and Peace. I did a paper on it in 8th grade? Why? Because I was told by my Enlish teacher it was too old for me and I wouldn’t understand or enjoy it. If you start with Book 2, then 3 and go back to Book 1, it makes so much more sense. And I got an A+.
But then I loved the Three Muskateers and Dracula at that age too. Everyone else was reading the smallest books they could find. Read my first McCaffrey in 1969. Haven’t missed one yet.
– VIRGIN FOR THE BILLIONAIRE’S TAKING
– ITALIAN BOSS, RUTHLESS REVENGE
– THE SICILIAN’S INNOCENT MISTRESS
– THE KOUROS MARRIAGE REVENGE
– AT THE SHEIKH’S BIDDING ….
Sometimes I just get unbearably puzzled.
A kouros is a statue— Archaic Greek—of a young naked male, generally with a rather unnerving smile. I can see being married to a statue might call for a little revenge on someone’s part.
Is this one of those paranormal things?
In re the dissatisfied Christine who can find no genre harbor to anchor within …
perhaps she should try non-fiction.
(I also really didn’t like To Kill a Mockingbird when we had to read it in school. I have been told on multiple occasions that this makes me a bad person.)
I didn’t like it either. I think we’re supposed to feel guilty about that.
*tries to summon some guilt*
Hmm…nope. Nothin’.
Leah, I loved Killer Angels too! It definitely should have shown up on the list. Every few months I pull it out and try and press my husband (who doesn’t enjoy reading) into giving it a try. One day maybe…
Poor Christine indeed! *snort*
A woman after my own heart. Love that book.
I admit I don’t read much romance (I’ve read some, but I’m more into satire, especially Terry Pratchett), but, I agree. All school-required literature is depressing.
Well, not *all*. They put “Good Omens” on the school reading list.
Now if we can just get the Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents on there…
Okay, here we go… why assume that everyone has to read genre fiction? I know quite a few people who honestly don’t. That does not make them snobs, automatically. It just means they have different tastes in books!
Arethusa said..
Amen to that. I am really tired of being constantly told that nobody could ever enjoy literature because it is dull and depressing. (I am exaggerating, but still). Why is it that many just assume that people who actively like literary fiction (yes, those depressing books with horrible characters and bad endings – it must be a character flaw!) just do it to be pretentious snobs? For me that is as narrow minded as all the literati who assume that all genre fiction is dreck. As far as I am concerned, reading genre fiction feeds a different part of my brain/heart than reading literature… but that’s just me.
As for the original post, it sounds like the person does not really enjoy any kind of books, so I feel very sorry for her and hope she’ll discover what she needs eventually…
Arethusa, can I have your intertubes love child? Being a fan girl of our dear Jane myself, I really related to what you were saying.
The thing I noticed is that we all have so many interpretations of “silly.” The word does have a lot of connotations. Who knows what Chistine meant really herself? Anyway, I do feel bad for someone who seems so put off by so much fiction and is clearly searching for something to enjoy.
And while I do get irked by the many, many dismissive comments about Romance—and genre fiction in general—out there, I must admit I was not always a champion of the genre myself. Just the other night I was laughing about my own high school antics as a book snob. For a lengthy period in high schoolI had a firm rule to only read “great and important” works. I’m pretty sure I was insufferable to a certain extent. Finally a professor called me on it; he took one look at my copy of “Unbearable Lightness of Being” and told me that only Junior Leagers and poseurs read that dreck. (Offensive, yes, but he had no patience for pretentious teenagers.) The man had a PhD and was really one of the most erudite people I’ve ever known. Anyway, that one comment made me really think about what a “great novel” really was and has stuck with me all these years later. (For the record I still enjoy “Unbearble Lightness of Being”)
Now adays, I read most anything provided it lives up to my own standards of enjoyable and good. This tends to include a lot of genre fiction, but I won’t turn up my nose at anything that holds my attention past the first 10 or 20 pages.
I am curious, however, what kinds of characteristics the Bitchery thinks make up a great novel. All the witty comments aside, I don’t believe being written by a dead white guy author is enough to make a novel great. For me it’s some alchemical combination of enjoyment and insight, a constant ability to provoke new thought or debate, and maybe even that most elusive of qualities: having a little something new to share on each re-reading.
This reminds me of something I realized last year when I was analyzing me taste for certain types of books and movies – a lot of them are highly formulaic, or just riddled with archtypes, and I realized that I concentrated on certain themes and anchtypes because I was interested in what could be done with the formula. This is esp. true of my taste for satire. I love it when an archtype is turned on its head, just when you are expecting it to come out as usual, or when the author is completely aware of the formula and plays with it. A good example of this is Jane Eyre, where a Gothic novel, with its predictable formula, is turned around so that the stereotypically villainous character (Rochester) becomes the hero and vice versa. Soon I Will Be Invincible (a book about DC-comic-like superheroes) does something similar, and it was awesome. A book doesn’t always have to do this for me to like it, though. I think genre fiction can often be to literature what category fiction is to non-category genre fiction: I tight formula to work within, like a sonnet.
I’m not assuming every one does read genre fiction. I wasn’t just assuming they must read genre fiction if they read other things (” I don’t know if they just didn’t read those genres or just didn’t buy them. And if you do buy them, why hide them?” See? if). My bafflement was that if they did read them where did they put them? For all I know they didn’t read genre fiction, although I’m pretty sure I remember at least the female half of the equation discussing genre fiction in the office with the rest of us. I was merely using this couple as an example of people who only had certain types of books displayed. If that’s really all they ever read and owned then fine, but that doesn’t mean it can’t puzzle me and I can’t wonder if, maybe, they did own genre fiction and just didn’t feel comfortable displaying it.
And I never assumed they were book snobs. If anything, I assumed they were leery of other book snobs who might judge them on the books they owned.
People enjoy books differently and *keep* books for different reasons. I keep books that are hard to find, give me something new on each re-read, or are a style of writing I don’t already have a lot of in my collection. Given those criteria, you might think from my shelves that I don’t read genre fiction, but the bookstore and library bags on my bedside table tell another story.
I think the problem with dismissive comments about all genre reading is that the commentors dismiss the entire genre without engaging the possibility that the whole can’t all be bad. Sure, there are crap romance and sci/fi/fantasy and western, etc., books out there. There are also crap non-genre fictions too. Every “genre” (and I use the term loosely and widely to encompass, well, everything) has its ups and downs. To dismiss an entire genre on the weight of what could well be two bad books is problematic. I’m not saying that one should read every book on the shelf at the bookstore to get a “feel” for a type of book, but perhaps people could try to realize that there are wonderful and crap books everywhere, in every type, in every genre, and not every type of book will appeal to every reader. (And there should be world peace and no nukes and I believe in Santa Claus. I know.) Christine is welcome to think whatever she likes about whatever book she reads – that’s her perogative. The only problem I have is dismissing the entire genre as “silly” as opposed to saying something akin to “I don’t care for them” or “I grew out of them.” No shame in that. There are a lot of genres that I don’t read – I can tick off about six popular ones without thinking too hard – but I don’t read them because they don’t appeal to me, not because I think they’re lesser quality. There’s a difference between that thought and dismissing genres because they’re genres.
I agree. I’ve been poked fun of on an airplane for reading Sugar Daddy – Sugar Daddy, for god’s sake – but I’ve never had anyone question my Terry Pratchett. Or Austen, or Gaiman, or anything nonfiction. Is there a solution? I don’t know. I do my best to promote the books I like to my friends, regardless of genre, and I think a lot more people than will admit have Stephen King and Jack Kerouac holding hands on their bookshelves. Half of the reason I started my own blog was to strike my own little blow against people who are dismissive of romance novels. I read anything. Anything. As long as it’s good, and I don’t mind telling if it’s bad. But I’ve got Cormac McCarthy up next to Jennifer Crusie – two of my first posts – as well as anything else that interests me. I think people buy into the stereotype of the romance reader, and some very quality sites like the SBTB help chip away at that.