Grab a flask and play along: it’s time to get head-weaving drunk with “Someone Without A Clue Reviews Romance: the Drinking Game!”
While multiple-mullet salutes have been found with increasing frequency, it’s still cheap and easy humor, akin to blonde jokes and snide comments about overweight people, to slap at romance novels, and of course the women who read them. So let’s see how many lame and tired points of insult Kimya Kavehkar comes up with before she runs out of column inches: Judging Romance Novels By Their Steamy Covers!
Comment about the covers: DRINK!
We’re going to judge the book by its cover! Because the covers are SO lame (yes, sometimes they are) and it’s SO funny how they’re all SO LAME.
Except for the part where you’ve already outed yourself as being a steaming pile of imaginationless dookie. Judge books by their covers. Wow. Will wonders never cease.
I need another drink. Hang on.
Ok: let’s read on past the headline, which someone spent copious hours on, I’m sure. It’s a clusterfuck of cliche up in here, up in here.
Reviews that aren’t really reviews but instead plot summaries of dubious grammatical construction: DRINK!
Did you know that any book, regardless of it’s social status and intellectual cache, can be reduced to fascination levels previously achieved only by lukewarm yogurt? So true: just summarize the plot points badly. For example:
Jesus’ half-baked buddy gets all asshurt when he’s forced to live in a motel and write his memoirs.
Three women living in the rural South explore the many layers of life women face living in the rural South.
I think my kid killed someone.
Some guy dies in a cave.
So yeah, doing the same to romances? First, not a review. I don’t think you’ve read the books in question past the back cover copy. Poor dear, was that all you could manage?
Second, still not funny.
Third, that’s the best you got? Come on, I got half a flask left here.
Tangent Question: which is easier to mock, NASCAR or romance? I think it may be a close tie, but both parties are going to laugh all the way to the bank so you have fun with your flaccid humor.
NASCAR and romance have a lot in common, though: dismissed by outsiders as dreck for the unintelligent, yet made up of fascinatingly brilliant people with incredible intellect and creativity.
Reference to nausea as appropriate response to happiness: DRINK!
Yes. Because happiness is, like, so lame. Too easy a target – next!
Obligatory reference to romance readers as lonely, boring women: DRINK!
Equally important depiction of romance readers as women who have many, many cats: DRINK MORE!
Required snide mention of Nora Roberts: DRINK MORE!
This one is just pure chortling gold: Author Nora Roberts is known for her grocery store check-out aisle fame, her books typically picked up by single ladies and accompanied by nine tins of cat food.
WOW. I think Nora’s got some hot marketing potential here: “Nora Roberts: Bigger Than Tic Tacs.”
(I’m going to need some Tic Tacs after all this drinking.)
SWEET DELICIOUS IRONY: this article is from the Berkeley Beacon, the newspaper of the Emerson College, where they’re “Bringing innovation to Communication and the Arts.”
Yes. Because nothing says “innovation” like being uninformed, ignorant and lame! Ms. or Mr. Kavehkar, let me know when you’re ready to bring it, because then I’ll be ready to take you seriously.
Tune in next time for another round of, How many tired cliches of romance snippery can you fit in one lame article? with your host, “Whomever thinks they’ve got a clue about romance but knows jackall about it.
Because I can’t get hammered at 8:00 in the morning, I can’t play along with the drinking game. In addition, I gave up reading “mainstream” reviews of romance novels a long time ago (condescending and patronizing are just two of the adjectives that come to mind). As my mom used to say when I’d complain about something a bitchy mean girl said to me in school (yes, we had those types even back in the seventies), “Consider the source.”
No link to Emerson article 🙁
http://media.www.berkeleybeacon.com/media/storage/paper169/news/2010/02/11/Lifestyle/Judging.These.Books.By.Their.Steamy.Covers-3871080.shtml
That article wasn’t even worth abusing the Shiner. Only Natural Light will do. No research, no analysis, and no logic if she thought those four covers were raunchy.
Maybe this is the review
Not sure I got the right one but I was also curious to read the review so I could properly participate in this early morning drinking binge. 😉
Wait, so… You can get screen-space by writing with supposed authority on subjects you know nothing about and don’t expect you’ll even enjoy? So you’re telling me I could be a successful sports writer? Well hot damn. Suck on that, journalistic standards!
Wow. This gal sounds like all sorts of fun, huh? What a glorious evening out one would have with her. I predict a life full of sadness as she’ll never stoop so low as to read a good romance and won’t want to start building up a cat collection, just in case someone thinks she’s pitiful.
I sincerely hope I never came off as so prissy, self-congratulatory, and ill-informed when I was her age.
Sorry about the broken linkage – is all fixed now.
Drink up!
Apropos of questionable media coverage of romance novels, on Bravo last night SHEAR GENIUS challenged their hair stylist contestants to team up and style models for a ‘romance novel cover shoot,’ with looks inspired by some very bad pseudo-titles.
I can haz late-night annoyance?
See, this is what asshats like Kimya Kavehkar don’t have…the ability to be funny and original.
Great job on your drinking game…LOL!
What Cara said. I know the difference between a review and…well, the best I can label this is snarky synopses that make little sense and are not amusing.
I was a news director/producer who worked with students for many years. Novice college writers who don’t know what they’re doing? No challenge in that game, it’s hand grenades vs. fish in a barrel. I’ll save my single malts for a real game.
As a single woman who does not own cats but loves her two dogs, I feel distinctly discriminated against. I’ve had it with all of the pea-brained writers that act like only cat-people have the taste to also read romance. I might not own every single Nora Roberts book ever written but it isn’t for lack of effort on my part. Good God, the woman writes faster than I can breathe with my heaving bosom. Do you known how difficult it is to keep up with her new releases and still have time to reread old favorites?
But I digress.
I’m a dog lover AND a romance reader. I demand equal recognition.
Frankly, the only thing more annoying than the cheap, unimaginative, trite drivel written by Kimya Kavehkar is the underwire in my bra that snapped this morning on my way to work and is now poking said copious bosom.
FYI, Sarah, you missed a chance to lampoon another cliche. Since most romance critics like to stereotype us as tasteless, cat-loving, BON-BON eating peasants, instead of drinking over each cliche, we should have been popping chocolate truffles.
Me too! Let’s start a club!!!
DOG LOVING ROMANCE READERS, UNITE!! Heck, I even write my dogs INTO my romance novels. Daisy starred in her own book. My imaginary (until I have room for a real one) Irish Wolfhound will be in the next.
Also, publicly displaying ignorance of a genre and then presuming to mock it displays a special kind of moronic.
I think I am more bothered by her stereotypes than by her attack on cover blurbs.
Why should being single be considered bad? I rather am proud of the fact that I did not get married to the wrong person and divorced. I avoided all that BS.
Why should being a pet owner be considered bad? I love my dog. My dog accompanies me on runs. Yeah Pets.
Why should being a reader of ANYTHING be seen as something we should not want to be? In a nation plagued by illiteracy both in children and adults, then I think we should encourage any and all reading. I pick of Foreign language romances to work on my Spanish (because if I am going to have to work at translating, I want to enjoy the story.)
I don’t get it.
OK, I love the bad summaries of books with just plot points. I think you should do that for your next novel. I’m having a hard time figuring out what the books are, though! The first is Lamb by Christopher Moore and the third is almost certainly The Bad Seed, but what are the other two?
I always feel that reviewers act like asshats because maybe… deep deep down… they LIKED IT! *gasp*!!!!! But since no self respecting journalist would EVER say that they enjoyed the frivolity of a romance novel, they bash till they can bash no more.
Its really such a sad situation. Poor reviewers… must you always live in shame and vinegar?
Ugh. This crap only made today’s headache worse. And these people have jobs and get paid in the real world? What a pisser. So insulting to smart women everywhere. Flaccid humor for sure. Great line.
Hells yes! Can we start the game over?
Except reading that dreck again would probably kill off several brain cells. I like my brain cells.
Wait. Those are steamy covers? Seriously? Someone must have had an extremely sheltered upbringing.
Otherwise it’s clueless snark as usual.
Now who has the mad photoshopping skillz to put “Nora Roberts: Bigger Than Tic Tacs” on one of her covers? It must be done!
As a married, cat owning romance enthusiast I too would like to weigh in on the discrimination issue. What about married cat lovers who pop bon bons and read romance novels to maintain sanity while raising three kids currently in diapers?? I ask you!!
And really, the biggest issue is, that if that article were available in the check out line at the grocery store, no one, regardless of how much cat food was in their cart, would spend good money on it.
SB Sarah, you’ve made my day, again. If I’m ever under fire, I want you next to my fourth-degree black belt sister and take-no-prisoners cousin, saving my ass. Tic Tacs are on me.
This writer is a stereotype herself…the oh-so-serious college student, full of her own literary and journalistic aspirations, who feels that she’s not being taken seriously enough by her professors. Therefore she decides to publicly bash an entire genre and its authors in some lame, desperate attempt for scholarly recognition. Wow, such literary prowess, I tell you.
Oh, yay…another person pretending to be clever by making fun of romance.
Wow. Three misnomers before we’ve even gotten past the headline: “steamy,” “raunchy,” and “review.” To which I’d add “writing,” as in, this barely qualifies as writing much less a review. Even for a college publication, this is bad.
Except, I also agree with Darlene. If you’re not a snotty know-it-all in college, ur doing it wrong. Turning the awesome attention of the Bitches on this pathetic “publication” feels a bit like squashing a flea with a sledgehammer. But, YMMV.
OMG, I smell the shit but haven’t seen the fan yet. Sarah my dear you are golden today. Pure gold!
BTW, I got all excited seeing the flask cuz I thought “hell yah! where’s my credit card, I need one of those!”
Perhaps the Nora Roberts fans descending upon Boonsboro this weekend can bring a can of cat food to donate to a local shelter.
(Ms. Roberts is hosting a book signing at Turn The Page Bookstore, http://www.ttpbooks.com with ,Sophia Nash, Cathy Maxwell, Tracy Ann Warren, Linda Barron Heinrich, and Stephen Hunter. The combined talent and sales of these authors puts them in a different universe than Kimya Kavehkar).
As Jessica pointed out, SHEAR GENIUS further promoted romance stereotypes with their cheesy cover shoot. Then again, SHEAR GENIUS is a bit cheesy. I miss the classy Jacklyn Smith).
Frankly, I don’t care what anyone thinks of the books I read. And I’m sure the NYT bestselling authors are laughing all the way to the bank.
Oh Ugh! She is a poor poor wannabe trying to sound like part of the bitchery! A pox on her! I bet you a copious amounts of money that she’s a lurker on this blog.
BTW, Her Colorado Man sounds really good. Wonder if I can get that from Amazon on the Kindle. Oh and I loved Irish Thoroughbred. Boo! You fail Kimya Kavehkar.
I thought about commenting on her blog for about ninety seconds, then decided to do so would just elevate a silly, inaccurate and kinda baffling bit of business. Raunchy covers? Where? Boy, this lady must spell S-E-X instead of having any if the ones depicted could be considered rauncy on her scale.
I like cats, prefer dogs. My husband actually buys the dog food. And since he owns a bookstore, I steal—that is buy—my books there. Gee, so do a lot of other cat or dog loving readers.
I wouldn’t comment at all, but it really was a stupid insult to my readers, and readers of the genre altogether.
What a sad, self-important person this woman with the strange name must be.
I probably shouldn’t have commented on the article but I did, just to counter the stereotype of a “typical” romance reader. I suggested s/he read “Beyond Heaving Bosoms.” I hope for his/her sake s/he does so, and that s/he discovers “a new passion” (and, yes, I mean that in all possible ways).
I just cannot tell if that is a male or female name.
Offended and annoyed? Check. Rolling eyes at the stereotypical snark? Check.
…Thought there was a SBTB flask that would be for sale? CHECK!!! Damn!
Wow…this doesn’t really reflect Emerson College well, does it? Also make me think that the ‘writer’ has some lovelife – luggage…
Once again, Sarah, you have made me snort aloud in public. Thank you.
And to you, Ms. Kavehkar – a giant raspberry. Get a clue.
Wearing my “mommy of 19 & 21 year old girls” hat…I just want to say, “Bless your heart, you poor, brainless little thing, you have no idea the wrath you’ve just brought down on your head.”
As the romance reader, I so don’t give a damn what said poor, brainless twit thinks of what I do.
PS: It appears she is only about 19, and has a fixation with frivolous shoes, fashion and Carrie Bradshaw. So much for the “serious” journalist. Just a little girl talking out her ass.
My advice the author of that article: Stay in school, honey. You still have a lot to learn.
PS I’ve never bought even one tin of cat food—or dog food for that matter. I love animals as long as someone else takes care of them. I guess I don’t get full points on fulfilling the Romance reader stereotype. I do love bon-bons though.
Bitch, if I ever decide to get into a playground fight, I want Sarah backing me up.
Tawa
Oops. Perhaps someone will regret attempting humor by playing MadLibs with the back covers of a few novels and calling the results “reviews”, on account of having garnered a nice, solid block of well-worded negative comments from the intelligent, outspoken and kick-ass-take-names romance community…
Or perhaps not. Perhaps someone will simply buy more shoes. Sigh.
Although I enjoy bourbon on my cornflakes as much as the next girl, this was really too much. I think instead of commenting on the twit-brained article, it would be better to direct comments to this helpfully supplied information:
The editor’s name is Paddy Shea
@ Nora Roberts:
I’m no longer a Nora Roberts virgin…read my first one yesterday thanks to the recommendations of the lovely readers here… Naked in Death. The next one beckons from my Kindle even as we speak. And hell, yeah, you’re bigger than tic tacs! And just as enjoyably consumable 🙂 With the added benefit that I can’t sneeze a book up into my nose. That burns a lot when you do it with a tic tac.
Regarding trashing romance, it’s easy to do if you don’t define the genre. I have never categorized myself as a romance reader. Fantasy, literary, thriller, mystery. My favorites in all of these genres, however, have one common thread: romance. The protag meets his or her soul mate somewhere in the story and by the end of the book or series, they are together.
Allison Brennan posted on a blog sometime last year regarding romance. She said (paraphrased) that she didn’t consider herself a romance writer primarily but technically, what she writes is romance. Two single characters get together by the end of the book.
If you look at it that way, Dean Koontz writes romance, too.
At any rate, I can go into any genre and find examples of poor execution. If you want some truly laughable covers, check out 80’s sci-fi/fantasy. That does not mean that Tolkein was a loser and everyone who reads it is a socially stunted Dungeons and Dragons/Renaissance Fair wannabe.
Extrapolating conclusions about an entire (and huge) portion of literature from the worst book covers you can find is a very poor research method.
I played along with coffee, and am now very, very jittery. So I am inscenced, and caffienated…. ohoh.
And FTR, WTF? Irish Thoroughbred? Steamy cover? Bedpans? *sigh*… I want to beat this “reviewer” over the head with a copy of that book, and then make her actually read it. I will never forget Paddy, he sticks with me, that character.
And another FTR, WTFBBQ? Toxic Bachelors? It was pure, rompy, escapist reading, perfect Danielle Steele. If she’d ever read any of Ms Steele’s work, she’d know just how much fun it can be to check “realism” at the door and just enjoy a good story, which this author has always delivered. Boo-urns to her… Boo-Urns!
I think this “reviewer” will have plenty of shrapnel to dodge as people defend their chosen reading genre, and tell her to actually read the books before offering her opinions. I don’t need to add to it, really. I’ll just do the thumbs on temples finger wag *NYAH* at the web page and then go get another coffee. Oh, and BTW, I am a romance reader, I have no cats, I am married, I have children, and wonders upon wonders, am a full-time professional with a *gasp* education! Ooooh.
One more thing…. a SBTB flask? That would be awesome. Srsly…..