Nora Roberts, RWA, Readers, Reading, and Jezebel: So Many Links

Seriously, my inbox asplode. Let’s get started with the a-to-the-href, shall we?

First: hear that sound? That’s the sound of champagne vendors wailing at the news that Nora Roberts will not be attending the RWA National Conference in New York this year, as I learned this morning. I’m a little bummed about this info, as her Q&A is awesome and who doesn’t love bumping into Nora Roberts in the bar? Alas, not this year. Maybe next year, I hope.

*

Benjamin Alsup in Esquire takes a look at sex in fiction, saying: Writing about sex is hard. Some writers claim the best way to do it is by not doing it at all. Focus on the furniture and leave the bodies out of it. But I think that desire is easy and bodies are what’s difficult. We need more bodies in our fiction. We need bodies on bodies in all the wack configurations that consenting adults will allow. Fucking matters. And when we ignore it or pretend it was something that can only be elided, or joked about, the joke is on us. Let’s stop kidding ourselves. Besides, it’s only sex. Which is to say, it’s only the most important thing in the world, and nothing to get hung about.

Sing it, sir. Sing it. (Graceful curtsey to Melanie Greenberg for the link.)

 

Every now and again at a conference I’ll hear someone say that YA readers don’t read digitally – but this NY Times article seems to suggest differently: In their infancy e-readers were adopted by an older generation that valued the devices for their convenience, portability and, in many cases, simply for their ability to enlarge text to a more legible size. Appetite for e-book editions of best sellers and adult genre fiction — romance, mysteries, thrillers — has seemed almost bottomless.

But now that e-readers are cheaper and more plentiful, they have gone mass market, reaching consumers across age and demographic groups, and enticing some members of the younger generation to pick them up for the first time.
In 2010 young-adult e-books made up about 6 percent of the total digital sales for titles published by St. Martin’s Press, but so far in 2011, the number is up to 20 percent, a spokeswoman for the publisher said.

Do you know a young reader? Do they use an e-Ink device?

(Graceful curtsey to my mother in law for the link.)

*

Author Jenyfer Matthews was, until a few days ago, living in Cairo. Her blog for the past few weeks reveals an intimate (and scary) view of the current situation in Egypt. Matthews and her family was evacuated to the US, and I’m relieved they are all safe, as the State Department has advised all Americans in Egypt to leave now.

*

Here: spend some money! Out of Print Clothing has awesome t-shirts featuring out-of-print books, and I totally covet half of them.

You’re welcome. (Graceful curtsey to Courtney for the link.)

*

Harlequin, as usual, is doing funky things – and has good designers, too. Check this out: Patent Your Kiss – where you select two people (of either gender! Thanks Harlequin!) and arrange them into different types of kisses. I tried to create two men with long hair, but it was actually kind of difficult. Hair does get in the way.

(Graceful curtsey to Thalia for the link.)

*

And finally, in this stellar gleaming poo-fest of an entry, Morning Gloria on Jezebel writes a breathtakingly ignorant and insulting entry about a USA Today article profiling romance novels, questioning whether the romance heroes described by authors in USA Today really are models of behavior worth admiring. 

Act more like dudes in romance novels? Aren’t dudes in romance novels kind of… rapey?

I’m not a consumer of erotica or romance novels by any stretch of the imagination….

So why are you still talking? Wait, you have more to say? Oh, great. I cannot wait to read.

I am, however, passingly familiar with some of the plots of some of the more ridiculous romance novels floating around in the backpacks of America’s embarrassed readers right now, and it seems like what romance novel dudes actually are deviates sharply from how men who are functional members of any society should act.

You don’t read them but you’re passingly familiar with the plots? No, you’re not.

Romance readers are embarrassed about their reading habits? No, we’re not.

Here are a few of the plot summaries from Romance Club, a blog of sometimes embarrassed but always funny consumers of erotic literature who write book reviews summarizing their paper conquests….

Oh, yes, by all means, let’s go to a single blog about a single sub-genre of romance and look at plot summaries of books to determine whether heroes today are evolved from heroes past and worth emulating, or if they’re still rapey assnuggets – and by extension that the women who read them are dumb, embarrassed, and eager to be beaten down by only the most alphole men of them all.

Really? That’s the best you could do? You hit a trifecta of Bad Romance Journalism without even trying: Romance readers are shamefully embarrassed, the heroes are rapey so who knows why those readers like them, and here, let me cherry pick some examples to prove that theory right.

Many a romance author has come in swinging the WTF with a backup of OH NO YOU DIDN’T, not the least of which is is author Zoe Archer who brought the noise, the funk, and the smarts with her response. (Thanks for the link, too, Zoe.) Her blog entry contains what may be my next tattoo:

Deriding the choices of millions of women because it does not fit your conceptualization of feminism defeats the purpose of feminism. 

Morning Gloria, I see your shoddy piece of crap examination and your complete lack of knowledge, and I raise you some very, very fine examples of romance heroes indeed. Now, go away, and please, read a few excellent romances before you speak of the genre again.

ETA: but soft! What update through yonder Jezebel breaks? It is Sadie Stein with a counterpoint defending (some) romance heroes. Oh, thank heavens. Stein says, “[R]ather, the good ones — and there are a lot of good ones — are nuanced, intelligent and widely divergent. I hesitate to make generalizations about heroes today — that was one of my biggest peeves with that asinine USA Today piece — but the truth is, if you can generalize about today’s romantic hero, he’s kind, he’s honorable, he respects the heroine’s independence and intelligence, and he always, always goes down on her.”

I agree that generalizations can’t be made across the board (the comments to this entry bear witness to that fact) but this is a much better perspective on current romance heroes – from someone who clearly reads them. (Also – thanks for the compliment, there, ma’am).

The part that cracks me up? The number of people talking about RWA conferences and how awesomely welcoming they are.

 

Categorized:

The Link-O-Lator

Comments are Closed

  1. Moriah Jovan says:

    You know, the whole defend-the-romance-genre-by-saying-its-not-like-it-used-to-be is kind of a slap in the face on its own. Those novels (“rapey” aka forced seduction) flourished for a reason or six and now that romance found a way to have its cock and eat it too (vampire/fated mates), it’s fair game for mockery.

    Well, to quote TeddyPig: Fuck you. I like it. And so do a lot of other people, who aren’t any happier about having THEIR choices derided as anybody else.

  2. SB Sarah says:

    I disagree, Moriah. I don’t particularly enjoy Old Skool romances, for the most part. But the genre is not at all like it used to be. Judging romance novels by what was published 20-30 years ago is inaccurate and unfair, both because the books HAVE changed, and because Old Skool romance and the sexuality contained therein are related to the female sexual ambivalence of the time in which they were published.

    There are reasons Old Skool romance was the way it was, and it is valuable and valid and important to look at it in context, but it’s also important to look at how it’s changed and why – and it’s just as important, I think, to stand up and say something when the genre as a whole is judged based on antiquated, outdated, inaccurate information.

    And any book, any time, any place, in any moment of the genre’s history, is fair game for mockery – or examination, or celebration. Or all three at the same time.

  3. Moriah Jovan says:

    Judging romance novels by what was published 20-30 years ago is inaccurate and unfair

    Oh, I agree COMPLETELY with that. And judging romance novels by a current one that might be badly written is also unfair.

    And any book, any time, any place, in any moment of the genre’s history, is fair game for mockery – or examination, or celebration. Or all three at the same time.

    Isn’t that what Jezebel did? And we’re calling foul. I just don’t see the difference.

    There’s a hierarchy of socially acceptable reading material. There always was and there always will be. Unfortunately, romance is at the bottom and its foundation—the Old Skool, as it were—is underground.

  4. teeloncar says:

    Wow.  Do I ever heart this blog.  Bless to you SB’s and even the haters since we at least know the kind of mentality we’re still dealing with out there.  Subjectivity exists regardless of the conduit (USA Today or maybe USA Yesteryear in this case.  I love the genre, old skool, new skool, future skool and all its deviations.  That’s what is great about romance as a genre I feel because it has such a unique history. 

    Speaking of YA kindle users, my 13 year old daughter got a kindle for Christmas last year and of the 150 titles only about 35 are mine.  And gasp she loves the romance aspects of the YA titles so you know what they say… apples make applesauce.

  5. Moriah Jovan says:

    And any book, any time, any place, in any moment of the genre’s history, is fair game for mockery – or examination, or celebration. Or all three at the same time.

    Isn’t that what Jezebel did? And we’re calling foul. I just don’t see the difference.

    Ahhh, lemme correct that. Think first, then type, Mojo.

    Yes, I agree. Jezebel trashed an entire genre, and did not examine one book.

    Apologies.

  6. I can’t contribute anything to this discussion because I still can’t string two thoughts together, but I just want to say I love all you Smart Bitches. I learn something every time I come to this site and I love that people can have a serious discussion without resorting to name calling and nastiness.

  7. Janelba says:

    I’m a young reader (for 21) and I recently got a Kindle (the my birthday…I love it! So far I’ve read like 5 books in like 2 month’s time. Oh!, and it’s helping reduce the cost of books. I’ve gotten all my reading books on my Kindle….LOVE IT!

  8. Zoe Archer says:

    I’m glad my comments have engendered discussion—especially to disprove the common misconception that romance readers are passive creatures happily swallowing whatever pablum is shoved down their throats with nary a thought beyond escapism.

    In other words: RÖKK ON!

  9. Pam says:

    Every time one of these articles “critiquing” some aspect of romance novels pops up, all I can think of is certain types of comedians (usually male) who continually recycle the same jokes about women.  You know the kind I mean:  “I don’t know why my wife/girlfriend says she has nothing to wear when her wardrobe is 10 times the size of mine” or “Why do women always go to the ladies room in groups?”  It’s not always toxic, but it’s incredibly snore-inducingly booooorrrring.  Yet they keep popping them out, perhaps because stereotypes are always easier than doing real research or exercising real creativity.  I don’t need to reiterate all the excellent responses to Morning Gloria’s essay, but I would like to say that that spouting trite stereotypes from the soap box of ignorance would be way more embarrassing to me that getting caught reading a romance.

  10. Tracy says:

    if you can generalize about today’s romantic hero, he’s kind, he’s honorable, he respects the heroine’s independence and intelligence, and he always, always goes down on her

    LOL and holy shit.  Ms. Stein said a mouthful (no pun intended).  I don’t know where Morning Gloria (really??) gets off (oops, another pun), but clearly she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.  And I don’t know what kind of guys she’s used to hanging around, but around here are a bunch of self-absorbed rednecks.  Give me romantic fiction males any day. 

    Great to know that there are industry and mainstream people willing to stand up against this kind of baloney.

  11. “if you can generalize about today’s romantic hero, he’s kind, he’s honorable, he respects the heroine’s independence and intelligence, and he always, always goes down on her”

    Oh my God, I want THAT on a tee shirt.  There’s a Moonlight Madness bestseller for Ms. Stein.

  12. willa says:

    Wow, it’s been so long since I’ve commented here that I’ve forgotten my handle. Is it willa or lydia? Can’t remember!

    Anyway, I just want to comment on Jennifer Armintrout’s comments. Thank you for posting them. I agreed almost categorically with what you wrote.

    As for this:

    Deriding the choices of millions of women because it does not fit your conceptualization of feminism defeats the purpose of feminism.

    This is disingenuous. If millions of women choose to, I don’t know, stab adorable puppies to death with kitchen knives, then deriding that choice is not at all anti-feminist. Feminism does not equal women doing whatever they want. Feminism does not apply to everything a person chooses to do, unless you are a radical feminist or believe that society is so structured that women stabbing adorable puppies is symptomatic of the Patriarchy, of feminist revolt, etc.

    Blah. I just find the above quoted statement very disingenuous. And wrong.

    As for romance novels, they can be feminist, they can be anti-feminist, they can have nothing to do with feminism (theoretically): the Romance genre is not a monolith!

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

↑ Back to Top