Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

Surely criticism and discussion are about oxygen for the genre?  Isn’t silence/Coventry worse?  And why should it be assumed that any genre is immune from critical analysis or discussion?  Why should women always be nice about things?  And surely the sizeable sales figures of romance mean that it deserves critical attention?

My favourite film reviewers are those who deal with films on their merits.  They don’t expect a popcorn weekender, or a meringue movie, to be Immortal, but they do expect it to respect its audience (whoever its audience may be).  Romance doesn’t have to be Nobel prize-winning, but decent criticism, among other things, does analyse it on its merits.

spamkiller: surface51, chortle.

I don’t know why for sure, but I have several theories. In no particular order, they are:

- Attacking the hive is bad. Always bad, for whatever reason. Even if there’s a bee in there not doing her damn job, or stealing other bees’ honey, no one should attack The Hive. Period.

- Members of the online romance community “turning on” the genre are viewed as traitors, giving ammo to the detractors, no matter if the concerns or issues raised are legitimate or not.

- Don’t show division in the ranks so as not to reveal our squishy insides.

Remember the movie (and the real story behind it) The Insider? How the dude who spoke up against what he felt was The Bad Stuff became the object of threats, of attacks aimed at discrediting him as a scientist? I can’t help but feel that, in a sense, the same is being done to the Smart Bitches and/or others who voice their concerns.

Frankly, I don’t see the problem with airing out our dirty laundry once in a while. How do you learn when everything is always nice and fluffy bunnies? How do you know you have a huge piece of broccoli in your teeth if everyone is nice and polite and lets you walk around with it instead of pointing and saying “Eeeww!”

Criticism is hurting that which you love?! Come on.

I wonder why people don’t see the difference between criticism and attack.

Sally Author stumbles through mine fields of adjectives, setting off a massive explosion of adverbs that leave her story buried and gasping under the tangled pile of modifiers.

As opposed to: Sally Author’s books suck, and so does she. Everyone who reads her books sucks, too. Sally Author should stop writing so there’d be more room on the shelves for writers I like.

Hey, my general opinion is that if you enjoyed my book you should tell me, and if you didn’t you should program your satnav to drive you off a cliff.  But that might just be me.

Srsly, I’ve no problem with honest criticism (well, that’s a lie, it makes me bawl like an infant), but I can’t bear it when a fan gets personal against an author, because she damn well knows the author can’t defend herself without fear of being flashmobbed.  Now, with extra abuse!

But here’s the thing: it’s not the authors, so much as the fans, who promote this.  In an orgy of fangirl squeeing, you stick your neck out and dare to criticise, the rest of the fans will come round to your house and kill your poodle.

Plus, criticising an author does decrease the likelihood of her inviting you over for tea and dedicating a book to you.  Just sayin’.

But I don’t *want* to have tea at an author’s. I don’t *want* to be friends with an author whose work I enjoy. I want to read her books. It’s all about the books, not what she might do (or not do) as a result of what I or anyone else said.

I might take immense pleasure in reading a certain author’s work, but that doesn’t mean I’m a fan of her. Just her books in general, or a particular book. There’s always been a line for me. Maybe I could be friends with an author whom I admired. But there’s always the risk that, just like mixing money with family and friends, something could happen to sour both.

I know many authors (both romance and non-romance authors) who have critique partners because we don’t want to have people tell us blindly how wonderful our work is: we want people to truly read it and give us meaningful feedback. That desire for honest feedback—for true criticism—doesn’t fade when we become published authors. (For blind adoration, I turn to my mom. She loves my writing, period. And I love my mom.)

Sure, I get all warm and tingly when people tell me they loved my books. I get even happier when they tell me why.

And yeah, getting a negative review, whether in print or online, stings. But if it explains why the story didn’t work for the reviewer, then it’s very helpful. I want to keep growing as an author. I can’t do that if all the feedback I get is “I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS.”

As other commenters have said, there is a world of difference between a critique (snarky or not) and an outright attack against the author. I appreciate all meaningful feedback of my work, even when the reviewers clearly didn’t like it. I have yet to come across a reviewer (snarky or now) who was blatantly rude to me as a person.

sigh

now = not

I need coffee

Oh hell yes!

But about this tea thing… I am available next Wednesday.

It’s really just a variation on the “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything” mantra we were all raised by.

As a private school teacher, I was instructed that for every criticsm I had of a student, I needed to level it with THREE (the school was specific) positive comments on their grade reports.

So this is why I live in a Pollyanna world and only say good things—-but only if I mean them. There’s lots of stuff I think is crap, but it’s not my duty to warn the world. That’s yours. ;)

I think this problem is bigger than romance.  Some people consider it a downright sin to criticize any author like if they are so form of God. 

Take a look at the HP fans.  As much as I liked her books, some of J K Rowling fans are scary and she isn’t perfect.  When anyone gives her a bad review, a bad grade or throw hard criticism her way, the fans are sure to go absolutely crazy.  Accusations of jealousy and mediocrity, among others things are sure to fly back to the individual. Vitriol of the worst kind follows anyone who dare give this woman a bad review.

Authors aren’t Gods.  An author that can’t handle criticism is in the wrong business.  Now, I’m totally against personal attacks and ridiculing anyone, but a little of criticism never hurt anyone.  On the contrary I think criticism is the only way to help you grow.  Nobody likes hearing bad things about themselves, but if you want to be better then the only way to go is hearing some hard criticism about your work.

Nathalie and Cat,

You both raise some interesting points here, and ones I’ve been mulling over for some time now.

It seems that in the Romance genre, the line between author and fan easily gets blurred.  In fact, it seems to be encouraged; romance authors put themselves out there personally, apart from their work, to connect with the readers on a more intimate level.

On the one hand this is good as it can really encourage reader loyalty and help the author’s sales.  And when things are good, it’s all sweetness and light.

On the other hand, things can get rather overly personal, which can lead to all manner of nastiness.

Seriously, the WaPo wants to photograph romance writers in their bedrooms fer chrissakes, to promote the Romance Writer as Glam Love Goddess image. This IMO, is a rather overly personal approach that helps blur that line between fan/author.

Can you imagine them doing the same thing to, say, Dennis Lehane?  “Hey, Dennis.  Wassup?  Can we come take some pictures of your gun cache, perhaps get a shot of your drug paraphernalia and where you bury your victims?  Thx.”  Uh, no.

So readers then closely associate themselves with the author (and perhaps even that author’s lifestyle), and when that author’s work gets criticized, the reader, ipso facto, is criticized.  Then the readers must defend the author (and by extension themselves) from the terrible, horrible mean girls who say nasty things just to be mean and now those bitches have just gone too far and … ad infinitum. 

My gawd, sorry for the unholy and incoherent ramble.

“Authors aren’t Gods.”

But if someone asks if you’re a god, you say “yes.”

(Sorry, couldn’t resist a little Ghostbusters as I wait for my coffee to brew.)

:)

Nora’s got a lovely pair of examples there. The problem is that a lot of people see the first, and read it as the second. For many people, criticism of something they enjoy is felt as criticism of them for enjoying it.

Eventually it gets to the point where being neutral about something, or even liking it but not as much as someone else does, is seen as criticism of that person for liking it more than you do. Saying “For example, I liked this story because it’s about Y, whereas I didn’t get much out of that story about X even though I can see it’s better written, because X doesn’t hit my drool buttons”, in a fanfic forum discussion about the difference between objective quality and the story just hitting your personal on or off buttons, can result in “See! You people who hate X, you’ll seize *any* excuse to slam X and his fans.”

And yes, that’s a real example of something that happened to me, if heavily censored. And the thing is, I don’t hate X. I like the character, and I can see why other people find the character sexy. I just don’t find that particular combination of looks and age a turn-on myself. People have different tastes in eye candy.

It seems to be over-identification with the thing being fanned, or with the group that fans it. The group bonding mechanism gone into overdrive. And it’s exacerbated by the Cult of Nice, which says that Nice Girls must not say anything bad about anyone ever; at least not openly, as passive-aggressive nastiness is apparently perfectly fine.

This behaviour annoys me, as you may have noticed over the last fortnight.

Spaminator: hope22. Um. Yes.

TeddyPig, next Wednesday sounds fine. You’re actually on my list of “wish the gene pool would make more of those”.

And I know, Dak, as much as, say, R.A. Salvatore has devoted fans (yes, I am a D&D geek), can you see newspeople asking him about swordfights and the fine art of assassination?

I cringe every time someone mentions a romance author being asked for their input around Valentine’s Day. La Nora, she must get that a LOT.

I’ve found some of the recent “Why aren’t you playing nice?” blogs to be puzzling.  As a writer, I value a good, honest critique.  I hope I will learn something from it and become a better writer. 

As others have pointed out, there’s a world of difference between saying “You suck and your dog is smelly!” and “I would have enjoyed this book more if the author had not written the villain as a cardboard cutout from central casting, and here’s an example…”

Take a look at the HP fans.  As much as I liked her books, some of J K Rowling fans are scary and she isn’t perfect.

Not to derail the thread here, but OMG IAWTC. (Hee. Acronym overload!) However, I think HP fen are an interesting example in this case, b/c in terms of dissention in the ranks…well, HP has had the ugliest ‘shipper wars I have *ever* seen, and I’ve been in fandom for 11 years. In the end, it usually comes down to personal attacks on Rowling—including attacks on her wealth, her intelligence, the fact that she was a single mother, etc.—followed by wildly misogynistic statements about the female characters and their author. And don’t even get me started on some of the Snape fen.

In short, crazy fans is an understatement. Scary, scary fans who, if you run into them at one of the symposia, you’d be better off to hide from than to speak to, is probably more accurate.

But the reaction to Harry Potter critics varies. Because while legitimate criticism (someone who says that Rowling could use an editor to tame her adverbs, for example) does get a certain amount of flaming, I think HP fen are also reacting to a similar disdain from the larger intellectual literary community as romance readers face. I have never forgiven Joel Stein of the LA Times for his idiotic “grown-ups shouldn’t read Harry Potter. I read 30 pages of the first book and it was lame” article, for example. And don’t ask me about William Safire or Harold Bloom or any of that Old White Guy mafia, unless you want to see my ears steam (and see me result to personal attacks on Bloom).

Some adult HP fen (the worst breed) tend to get really up in arms about that, and then every kind of HP criticism, no matter how legitimate, winds up feeling like those same denigrating comments. “This is a CHILDREN’s book. You are an IDIOT if you enjoy it.”

So…what does this have to do with romance? I think romance readers feel much the same way. And the infighting…well, actually, the more I think about it, it seems that HP is probably the best example. Because the infighting tends to get very misogynistic, as well, and the personal attacks are just as catty.

Now all we need is people marrying fictional characters on the astral plane, and we’ll be right up there with the HP fen.

My mom always told me “if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all,” but this particular lesson I choose to apply or not depending on the circumstances. Criticism (even negative feedback?) helps us improve.

I think we see this problem of non-criticism or critical comments as taboo beyond the romance category. Newspaper book reviewer editors have been known to say they have so little space that they choose not to print negative reviews of books. This seems to miss the point, which that is a thoughtful, critical discussion of a book doesn’t necessarily turn off a reader—what one person dislikes another may like a lot. If the critiquer (is that a word?) offers substantive commments about why they like or dislike it, then the reader can make a decision of whether to pick up the book (and maybe an author can choose a different path in their next book. Or not.).

Part of the problem, IMO, is that people say “I like it” or “I don’t like it” and don’t ever offer the why behind their opinions. It’s the why that’s interesting. At least to me.

And back to the “if you don’t have anything nice . . .” lesson. I choose to interpret that as, don’t be mean, petty,  or vicious.

Guess the coffee kicked-in; hope that was coherent.

“Authors aren’t Gods.”

“But if someone asks if you’re a god, you say “yes.”

LOL - my morning coffee is now all over my files.

My word: firm69 - Holy shit, on a Monday?

“If you haven’t got anything nice to say…

then come and sit next to me”

I *think* Alice Roosevelt Longfellow said that.

This site is one of the healthiest things to happen to the romance genre.

Frankly, I think this attitude reflects our current society as a whole and is far beyond romances. I do think women are expected to always be nice and not do anything so horribly crass as criticize anything for fear (as my mother told me once) “people won’t like you, dear.”

However, I also think our society is extremely intolerant of any criticism. The supreme example for me being that anyone who questions some of our current administration’s actions is told “This is America. if you don’t like it, leave.” I certainly don’t want to make this any sort of political discussion but I find it horrifying that some people are saying that intelligent discourse and disagreement are unamerican. The ability to disagree publicly and loudly with the government is a what the Constitution is all about.

I also think these days our society is so overly concerned that everyone feels included and everyone wins. To the point where when we hold 4H dog shows, all the kids get blue ribbons regardless of whether or not they ever worked with their dogs. It teaches kids that they get something for nothing. It also teaches the kids that do put in the work that it doesn’t matter.

So it’s no surprise to me that any sort of criticism of anyone’s work should be treated with horror. How *dare* you point out faults in an author’s work. That’s mean. They should all be honored the same and nobody should ever criticize, and if you don’t like it, you should just not read it but for Lord’s sake keep your mouth shut because it’s not nice to take money out of their hands even if their work is awful.

I agree with Nathalie on the intermixing of author and fan. I love meeting my inspirations, but I don’t have to be friends with them. I am friendly with one or two, who, under major duress I can email and ask a question, but I prefer the books, not the author. To me, it boils down to a working relationship. I work to produce a product that (hopefully) they want.

As for fans knowing me, I am out there, but I don’t hunt them down to have a fan. I’m sure it’s appreciated too. LOL I will say, I enjoy interacting with readers, because they give me insights that might be missed otherwise.

I hope this even makes sense—no caffiene yet.

spaminator-months22-exactly the difference between me and my DH. Kewl!

As my southern aunt recently told my toddler cousin, “I want to see a nice face and hear nice things.”

Women in this country—on this planet—are constantly made to feel inferior.

“If you haven’t got anything nice to say…

I *think* Alice Roosevelt Longfellow said that.

I believe she even had it stitched on a throw pillow that sat on her couch. *g*

Alice is a new biography that was just released in October.  It’s on the teetering TBR pile.

Honestly, I think a great deal of this comes down to two things: the “Nice Girl” syndrome that has been far more eloquently alluded to further upthread and the growing inability for people to engage in debate where a disagreement doesn’t automatically mean “You’re a brainless idiot and I hate you.”

Logic and reason have sadly gone by the wayside, especially behind the relatively anonymous veil of the internet.

I agree with many of the above comments re. “niceness”, and defensiveness re. criticism.  Which is funny, because surely the only thing worse than being a consumer of trashy womens’ emo-porn is being an undiscriminating consumer of trashy womens’ emo-porn. 
If readers of romance are so self-conscious about it, then they should welcome people setting standards within the genre and saying that it’s possible to be an intelligent, critical reader of romance.  It’s not a girls’ club, it’s a profession, and has professional standards.

Logic and reason have sadly gone by the wayside

Oh hell, I think our current administration took it out behind the woodshed and shot it.

I love a good on topic debate and even the occasional well placed “You suck bitch!” and “Who’s your daddy now?”.

But I find people do not spend a great deal of time on the practice of analyzing their likes and dislikes and proving or at least researching their own view points. Even analyzing the bias of the sources they get their information from.

That’s been going on for a long time though based on social clique, tradition, religion, politics or even how they were taught. So I find it hard to blame the Internet.

It seems to be only those who have been honestly effected or harmed or had their loved ones effected or harmed by this type of behavior that finally recognize it.

Then you end up with the opposite problem of people in a type of radical backlash.

I agree with much that has been said already, but would like to point out that for authors, reading reviews, even the good ones, *can* be harmful to the writing.  Letting readers and reviewers into my head while I’m writing early drafts shuts me down cold.

Laura Kinsale wrote eloquently about this a while ago on this site. It’s my favorite SBTB post.  Here’s the link.

But the answer isn’t in making all reviews “nice” or getting rid of criticism.  The answer is to not visit review sites while at a vulnerable stage of writing.

It gets harder when searching for good review quotes to promote a new book.  You risk finding the ones that make you cry and want to give up on the next one.  But every job has its tough parts.  Professionals find their ways of dealing with them.

I myself am all about the “radical backlash”.

Harder please, a little to the left.

There are, I think, two different things under discussion here. One is book reviews, which are essentially internal to the “romance community.” As we all know, romance novels are not reviewed in The New York Times or the New Yorker, but only on websites or in publications visited only by readers of romance. It would be hard to produce a convincing argument that bad reviews are impermissible. If all reviews are good, they are utterly useless.
This does not mean that authors should come under personal attack. In fact, I find the less I know about the author the better. (I found it far easier to enjoy Philip Larkins poetry when I knew less about him.) As long as reviewers confine themselves to rational analysis of the quality of the book under discussion, I don’t see that anyone has cause for complaint.
But the plagiarism issue has pitchforked us all into a whole new arena, the one in which romance writers and readers are generally treated with sneers and contempt. Rather than withdrawing and demonizing those who brought the issue into the open, should we not be grateful for the opportunity to show that our genre is as worthy of respect as any other, and we too have standards that we expect to be upheld?

Hey, if anyone wants to criticize me, go ahead.  You won’t be the first or the last.

Do I have to like it?  Of course not.  Might I take offense?  Sure.  I’m human.  It’s the natural order of things.  But such is life.

As for Harry Potter fandom…and I’m in that group…it’s important to remember that a lot of the fans are KIDS.  They react as children do, with a lot of nana-nana-boo-boo.  Whatever.  I personally love the way Rowling writes.  To me, her use of adverbs, for instance, keeps the storytelling simplified and in keeping with her intended audience.  Plus I get a laugh whenever Sirius says something seriously.

Look, no one LIKES criticism.  Well, I like it from my critique partner and my editor, because at the stage they are criticizing, I can usually do something about it.  It’s hard to hear after-the-fact because if the author feels they should have made a change and they now cannot, it’s frustrating.  I got a review from Dear Author last summer that brought up a really good point—somethig my CP, my editor and I missed.  (Actually, I thought I’d addressed the situation in revisions, but clearly I missed it.)  So I didn’t mind the criticism.  I didn’t exactly love it, either, but there you go.

I guess I take a pretty zen approach and most authors should try to do the same.  We put ourselves out there—or at least, we put our words out there.  Not everyone is going to think we’re brilliant.  Whatever.

And as a gentle counterpoint to Laura Kinsale’s eloquent post, Lilith Saintcrow has had several posts on her site about criticism, including this one:

http://www.lilithsaintcrow.net/journal/index.php/2008/01/16/i-can-has-dungeon-pleez/

I have nothing intelligent to say about the issue of why people become so upset…in fact, my thoughts are running along the “Oh, FFS!” line of things.  If you are going to publish, you need to be able to take the heat.  And I think that most authors can, and what folks are on to about the fans is really the main issue.

As for authors and fans getting to know one another, that can be a tricky thing.  I had my love of a particular author’s work squelched when he showed up drunk to a signing an hour late, then proceeded to be a complete ass in his comments and actions.  It was completely disenchanting and I’ve never been able to read his books the same again.  However, meeting the lovely Octavia Butler (may she rest in peace) was a highlight of my life.

I chalk it up to blame transference. It’s easier to spout off that the Smart Bitches are harming the genre, when it’s low standards (like, um, plagiarism???) that harm the genre. And addressing those standards requires a long, hard look at the genre as a whole, when it’s so much easier to just point the finger and dismiss a couple of gals who proudly call themselves bitches.

I’m bitter and mean, and therefore believe that there is nothing that doesn’t need to be criticized in some way. Romance? Yep. Last year’s Nobel pick? Absolutely.

When it comes down to it, romance readers have tremendous power. Have you ever looked at Harlequin’s sales figures? We waste that power when we choose to keep silent about problems we have with the genre and attack people who don’t. Market researchers look at places like this for ideas. If they see honest, intelligent criticism, it gets back to the people who make changes. Remember once upon a time when they actually *stopped* making clinch covers? Sure, the new art was boring, but it wasn’t embarrassing! Remember when *every* book had that alpha male rape is awesome scene? Now they’re all but extinct because the readers said that it was offensive and perpetuated acceptance of violent behavior. And of course we’ve all noticed how romance follows every trend in pop culture and beats it to death.

Whose voice is louder, the people who are requesting change or the ones who snap at anyone who dares recommend it? The latter might intend to create solidarity, but all “outsiders” see is a large group of readers who want romance to stay exactly as it is, and that’s not going to help the genre at all. And really, hasn’t the disallowment of criticism historically indicated that something is wrong (generally within the ruling regime, but the idea is the same)? I say go ahead and give honest, constructive criticism: it means that there’s nothing to be embarrassed about.

Robinjn:
However, I also think our society is extremely intolerant of any criticism.  [SNIP]

I also think these days our society is so overly concerned that everyone feels included and everyone wins. To the point where when we hold 4H dog shows, all the kids get blue ribbons regardless of whether or not they ever worked with their dogs. It teaches kids that they get something for nothing. It also teaches the kids that do put in the work that it doesn’t matter.

I think the two are possibly related in a different way. Because we (the younger folks that is) don’t get real criticism as we grow up - all those parenting books and teacher guidelines about not ruining a child’s self-esteem etc - we don’t know how to handle it when we encounter it. And we tend to think that even mild criticism is some sort of evil plot to defame us and so we lash out back and so we get flame wars etc etc.

On the internet this is exacerbated by the fact that we can’t see the grins, winks and other gestures that people use to show sarcasm or regret while offering criticism etc. etc.

Finally WRT romance, I think romance, like my beloved SF feels put upon because the newspapers and intelligentsia look down upon it. We know that Romance (or SF or Westerns or Mysteries) are sometimes (often) read for relaxation and to unwind from stress. We think that is good. But the intelligent elites who get worked up with politics and who seem to be the ones who write in general interest magazines and newspapers don’t seem to think that reading books relaxation is an acceptable thing. It seems that if it isn’t angsty/edgy or involves a “black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged lesbian lorry driver” then it isn’t worth reading by anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

Well of course a lot of us tend to react negatively to that impression and also, because we’re not used to ciritcism (see above), interpret all other criticism in similar light. Hence screaming fights. There may be a “woman” thing there too but I’m seeing considerable crossover from the more male worlds of SF so I’m not sure that is the real issue.

And of course, having said that many of us read our genres for relaxation, there is something else. Some of this genre work which is so derided by the elites actually turns out by golly to make us think, teach us lessons and so on. Hence we get even more peeved when it is derided as non-intellectual filler by a bunch of people who’ve never read any in the first place. To go back to the infamous CE. I think one reason why it hurt when it was learned that her “meticulous research” was accompanied my meticulous use of the keys CTRL-C and CTRL_V was because we liked the idea that by golly this may not be intellectually stimulating but at least we learned something about ferrets, the Lakota or whatever.

I find two issues really interesting here.  First of all, within the problem of to criticize or not to criticize, I think it’s really interesting that the idea that we ought not to criticize even exists.  For me, it ties into a view of romance as a second-class genre, even by a significant portion of its readers.  For people who view the books the books as ‘female porn’, there seems to be a feeling that there’s no point to improving it - that, perhaps, it cannot be improved.  Yet, when I look at what an intelligent writer combined with a set of smart, outspoken readers can do, I know this is not the case.  In my opinion, the best example of this is Eloisa James, a New York Shakespeare professor who writes Regency and Georgian novels in her spare time.  She has several critiquing partners, some from outside the world of romance, who criticize and re-criticize what she writes—it shows in her adept writing, realistically flawed characters, and substantial plots.  Her books have made me laugh and cry more than all other romances combined.  Still, even she is not perfect—no one is, and as a result, all should be open to criticism.

Secondly—and I’ll keep this rant pint-sized as you already got a full quart of it earlier this week—I find the characterization of romance and its readers as a majority quite interesting.  Though the numbers support this, the behavior of booksellers—and yes, even some librarians—does not.  Many booksellers choose to completely ignore this portion of the population, and others only support them as second-class customers.  There seems to be a very clear idea of who/what a romance reader (or author) is, and if you don’t fit into that mold, it’s something open for comment.  “So, these must be for your mother, huh?” “Miss, our literature section is over here.”  “Is this for a class you’re in?  Tough luck.”  “You must be writing your thesis on this.”  And don’t even get me started on what happens if you try to get romances through interlibrary loan from a university library.  If anyone knows of a place with better service in Central Jersey, I’d be thrilled to hear about it.

Well, that was…not pint-sized.  Sorry.  But seriously, if you haven’t read Eloisa James, do it.  Now.

What’s with the Down-With-Criticism Movement? I’ve always felt that criticism is the true test of someone’s ability.  No matter what kind of criticism: nice and gentle or harsh and unrelenting. It’s the writer, the athlete, the artist, the singer, the plumber, the waitress, whoever that takes that criticism and makes of it what they will.

We can discount it out of hand as an all out unfounded attack or we can get past the hurt and take a look to see if there’s anything of substance in there to help us along the way in life. 

I think this aversion to airing criticism of any kind is a mixture of the old “if you don’t have anything nice to say” mentality and the new “up w/self-esteem no matter what the basis” wave.  I find that new wave of self-esteem to be more the root of this criticism backlash than anything. 

Even though we have reality shows, etc that show criticism, down here in the trenches of everyday life, very little criticism is tolerated.  Within the last year, I’ve heard tales of people calling their kid’s college professors to complain and others reporting their kids bosses for yelling at their kids.  We’re becoming a nation of crybabies. Nobody likes criticism, hell, I hate it, but it’s a part of life.

I’m sorry, but, IMO, the jibes directed toward CE’s writing were no more than she deserved.  And I’m also sorry to say that I think some of the authors that are tiptoeing around the issue are just wondering if us meany-ass bitches are gonna direct our ire at them next.  Well, I can’t speak for the whole of the bitchery, but writers beware: I will comment loudly, and possibly snarkily, if you write subpar stuff and I pay good money for it.  It’s my opinion and prerogative. Use it to your advantage, make lemonade or something. Or ignore the hell outta me, IDC.

Enough of the who and why CE’s actions were exposed! She stole stuff. She passed it off as her own. I’m actually in shock that this blaming game is still going on weeks after things have been exposed.  And I’m even more shocked at where some of the blaming seems to come from.

“For many people, criticism of something they enjoy is felt as criticism of them for enjoying it.”

THIS is, I think, the root of the backlash against romance criticism. 

Romances are written, I think for the most part, to suck readers in to an emotional story in which they identify with a character (or characters) who go through a lot of funny/crazy/scary/out-of-this-world (depending on genre) stuff, overcome it, and end up happy.

Romance works. The books we love we tend to make ours—in a small way or sometimes in a very big way.  Some readers REALLY get sucked in. 

They have favorites they read over and over and over and over.  These books help them get through layovers, cancer, divorces, lonely evenings, soccer practice, teenage angst, or a shitty day. 

So when you’re negatively critiquing Cassie or Nora or JR Ward, etc., you are slamming the author/book who got Jenny from Iowa through six months of hell with a colicky baby.  And it’s hard for Jenny not to defend (on a personal level) the author or book she considers as her own special talisman against pain. 

Yeah, a lot of people just don’t understand the nature of criticism.  And I think some folks are never gonna get it because they’re looking at critiques (no matter how spot-on or wittily written) through a haze of emotion. 

Is this trait a “culturally-enforced group habit of women”?  Maybe.  But I think it’s more likely a plain old human trait. 

Because if it’s a thing humans are emotionally invested in—a sports team, a TV series, an author, a politician, whatever—then some folks are gonna defend it in fashions that are downright nuts (ever listen to sports radio or hang out at a political convention lol?).

I think that the backlash for romance is worse, precisely because of the genre’s reputation.  The negative attitude perpetuated-“you choose to read romance, and now you’re complaining about it?!?” is that romance is so badly written, it is not worthwhile (and perhaps goes without saying) to critize it.  The very fact that you can critique these novels and have an intelligent conversation speaks well of the genre and the readers’ expectations.

Because we (the younger folks that is) don’t get real criticism as we grow up - all those parenting books and teacher guidelines about not ruining a child’s self-esteem etc - we don’t know how to handle it when we encounter it.

Exactly. Though as a 70-something, CE would not have grown up in this generation.

I swear I think one of the best things parents can do for their kids is get them involved in the dog or horse show world. Boy does that teach you to deal with criticism (and also embarrassment, humility, the fun of making a total idiot of yourself in front of hundreds of people, joy, hard work, triumph, and true accomplishment).

I think our general inability to accept critical review is just focused and amplified by the genre and the fact that most of us are women who are supposed to simper and be nice—at least to a person’s face.

I really think people are forgetting there’s a line between constructive criticism and the negative kind of criticism that’s designed to hurt.

The way I see it, you guys provide VERY constructive criticism. Any writer, of any variety—not just genre, but variety—can learn much from reading your reviews.

Yes, these are the opinions of a few, but as someone who is always reaching to improve, your opinions give me a starting point from which to approach my own work—and the books I, too, review.

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

I think that this is nothing new. The readers of romance have been criticizing romance and the authors for a long time. Before there were popular blogs, there were yahoo loops and boards from popular authors and/or publishers that had their fair share of discussion, fighting and scandals. Sorry the SB’s didn’t discover this. We as fans have been adoring, gushing, nice, mean, clueless, intelligent, dumb, dazed and confused, funny, oh-so-tender forever.

I’m never going to forgive the ferrets for this.  Because of the ferrets, I now have another must-read blog~that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. I used to just able to glance here from time to time and then click away in two minutes.  Not anymore and it’s on the ferrets.  :)

My opinion about the criticism deal is that if a reader spends their money on a book, they are entitled to not like it, to love it, to set fire to it and dance the hula over it, to dip in gold to forever preserve it, they are entitled to rant about it, they are entitled to rave about it in whatever venue they see fit.

My issues would come into play when a discussion about a book turned into personal attacks.

Things like…

Man… did you read her latest one? She’s so damn stupid, she couldn’t write her way out of a wet paper bag.

Are there writers this applies to?  Possibly (knowing human nature, the answer is yes, but I’m shooting for diplomacy)

But a lot of comments in the above vein will boil down to personal opinion.  One reader will think the book is stupid and another won’t.  What one person loved, another will hate and vice versa.

A person’s opinion of a book, however negative, doesn’t mean the same as an insult to the author~unless there’s an insult to the author within the opinion.

It’s when the insults to the author start appearing that I get turned off. 

Now granted, if an author comes in, acting like an ass and somebody calls her on it, hey, that’s different.  I have no problem with that.

I’m all for critical discussion.  I have no problem reading reviews where I’m ripped to shreds.  I’ve actually worked on improving my writing through some points made in reviews. So as long as the discussion is on the book and not me, I’m fine with it.

That’s my two cents.

Meg, when I read this sentence, “In my opinion, the best example of this is Eloisa James, a New York Shakespeare professor who writes Regency and Georgian novels in her spare time.  She has several critiquing partners, some from outside the world of romance, who criticize and re-criticize what she writes—it shows in her adept writing, realistically flawed characters, and substantial plots.”

I wondered if you were implying that Ms. James’s works were somehow more literate because some of her critique partners are from “outside the world of romance”. Which may be exactly what you meant to say but it just struck me the wrong way. Like theirs would be a more objective viewpoint. Which is probably a vast exaggeration on my part.

I have every sympathy with the way you’re being treated by your local libraries. In NorCal where I live, romance novels in some branches are not even listed in the on-line catalog. They’re just put out on wire shelves. Very annoying!

I’m mostly with dukeofavon here, but none of this is new, it’s just internet ready now.

I think one aspect that hasn’t been touched on much is low self esteem in the readership. While cultural ‘nice girls’ and victim mentality and all that play a part, it’s also a big slice of secret unworthiness.

If romance really respected itself, if we did take ourselves seriously as a genre, we’d be more assertive. But we know, in the tiny corner of our heart, that we aren’t good enough, that we don’t qualify, that there is no modern day Austen writing (all bunk of course) and that we really are skipping ahead to the naughty bits because we can’t get the nerve up to buy some porn. So please, please please don’t look and don’t talk about it and we’ll just shove this under the sofa if anyone walks in…...

Romance covers everything from historical fiction to historical wallpaper, paranormal, character studies and yea, there’s plenty of softcore out there.  The attitude that you have to value all of it to value any of it is born of fear of inadequacy, which is not surprising in a group comprised largely of women. Women can only be taken seriously when stripped of ALL sexuality and made more like men.

Which is ironic, given the treatment on sex or relationships in men’s fiction. Just saying. (If you want your heaving whatsis and your slutty whosies.) I think there is more tolerance of critique than there was. Ten years go this site would have caused boycotts and effigy burning the moment it arrived. Ten years from now I hope we’ll all feel better about ourselves and be able to call a badly written book an unpublished draft.

Janet - I don’t know if she meant to say that or not, but I don’t know why it would bother you?

It’s true of anything you do artistically that the more diverse the viewers are the fresher the response will be. I think it would serve romance more to step outside and open ourselves to other people.

Diversity is important everywhere, but especially in romance where it can help break self imposed limits. And we’ve got a lot of them in romance, for many reasons. I think what James is doing (while not perfect, I agree) is breathing new life into historical - I fond the first book almost shocking because it reminded me how long it had been since a historical had really surprised me. Guhrke is doing it too - Ivory used to put put books like that - but I can see someone bringing any of those books strictly to romance ‘insiders’ and being told it’s risky, or it’s not formula, or it’s a great idea but it doesn’t work in the context of the genre - or lots of other things I’ve heard people kick about.

You’re saying exactly what a very wise friend of mine just said to me in IM ... “so what, what was said that bothered you ... why wouldn’t any writer benefit from an outside point of view”. Not to mention that James is really turning, imo, the genre a little bit upsidedown, in a very good way, with her latest series. Altho it’s killing me, I am so enjoying the completely unresolved threads and relationships in her Georgian series. So I think I might have misinterpreted what Meg said. I should have checked in with my critique partner, LOL.

Could I put in a plug for a WONDERFUL critical analysis of the Romance Genre, Pamela Regis’s study of the romance novel over the centuries. Since I still am completely cracked on Heyer, I so enjoyed Regis’s comments about her books.
  http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/English/faculty/pregis/naturalhistory.htms

I got to Jules Jones’ comment and had a flash of insight (well, flash of something, we’ll see if it makes sense). 

I’ve been participating in a few debates online, not only on this but on some other touchy subjects including politics (shudder). I’ve noticed that the people who react so negatively to criticism (and sometimes people on the other side trying to defend it) often try to discredit the points being made by polarizing the argument.  It’s as if you can’t say anything stronger than “It wasn’t my cup of tea” without them reading it as “This book/show/person is the root of all evil and all its readers/watchers/fans should go diaf” (that’s die in a fire in interwebz speak). 

Why does this happen?  Perhaps to make it harder to argue against - if they can make the original comment sound extreme, than OF COURSE it’s not valid and they’ve won the argument. I think it’s a dangerous trend because it makes people think in black and white, that something is either good or bad, and nothing can be in-between. In reality, most of us (I hope anyway) recognize that most issues have a grey area, and having different perspectives will change what you think of as the ‘right’ answer.

But I find people do not spend a great deal of time on the practice of analyzing their likes and dislikes and proving or at least researching their own view points. Even analyzing the bias of the sources they get their information from.

That’s been going on for a long time though based on social clique, tradition, religion, politics or even how they were taught. So I find it hard to blame the Internet.

Teddy, I’m going to go all Carrie Fisher from When Harry Met Sally and say “You’re right, you’re right, of course you’re right.”  However, I think the relative anonymity of the Internet has given people cojones of which they might not otherwise be in possession.  There’s this freedom to say “you suck, bitch” (among other commentary) with little to no repercussion or any obligation with which to back up the claim.

And y’all think writing fandom is scary?  Music fandom is downright terrifying.  *g*

This is a great discussion.  IMO, women are still struggling with the difference between making nice so people will like you with finding our inner voice and standing up for ourselves.  I’ve been told I wouldn’t be a good manager because I’m too direct. I’ve noticed that being upfront about something isn’t appreciated in women as much as men.  IMO, when we are criticized we tend to hear that we are awful people and take everything personally.  Men tend to not take criticism personally. 

When one of my favorte authors is criticized, I think of why I like them.  I do appreciate an honest reveiew, but not an attack on the author.  IMO, that’s just weak.

I’m going to read, watch, and think what I want.  If someone wants to criticize it. Oh well.

I have yet to read all the comments posted so far, but I’ll spew mine first.

As many other women, I was told countless times “if you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing.” In fact, to this day my mother sings odes to her late mother in law, who could spend an entire afternoon silent in the midst of a family visit—because she had nothing nice to say about the topic!

I shake my head about that one all the time.

My version of it is this: when I have something critical to say about something or someone, I try to make it as non-personal/derogatory/negative as I can. (Emphasis on try, ‘cause I don’t always manage it to my own satisfaction, let alone the people on the receiving end.)

What I don’t do is keep quiet for the sake of some nebulous concept of ‘nice,’ particularly on something I am passionate about.



spamfoiler: specific11—yes, I do try to be specific, though not always 11 times.

I’m going to go all Carrie Fisher from When Harry Met Sally and say “You’re right, you’re right, of course you’re right.”

My idea of a dinner party I would so go to…

Penny Marshall
Carrie Fisher
Hillary Clinton
Whoopi Goldberg
Diane Feinstein
Nora Roberts

Things might not go well, but oh man…

Janet—Wow, you critiqued yourself before I got to it!  I definitely fall in with your second reading of my comment—that I appreciate James because she doesn’t allow herself to be dictated to by ANY genre.  I love that there is a successful romance author out there who is ale to use outside points of view and outside sources within what are, in my opinion, some of the best romances on the market today.  It isn’t a matter of those sources being better, but of reading a romance from several points of view, and making it readable for so many different groups of people, which is not, in my opinion, something a lot of romance authors do.

I totally agree with you on the new Georgians—that there are leftover storylines at the end of the book, that there are questions still up for debate, that there are no (or few) perfectly good or perfectly right characters are all reasons why I really like where she’s taken the romance genre. (gets slapped by the grammar police) The fact that I don’t know where everything’s going - think of Villiers and Beaumont and their health, in particular - makes the ‘emotional story’ dukeofavon mentioned that much stronger for me.

I honestly don’t understand when people get mad at others for expressing their opinions in this or other blogs. They’re BLOGS, people’s rantings and ravings for crying out loud! Granted, not everything that is said here is very flattering but I don’t remember being held at knifepoint being made to read anything here.

We all have a choice. We can open up this page or not. We can go on reading what we love to read even if it has been tagged as brainfood for the terminally stupid by everyone and their mother, or we can let other people keep us from something we truly enjoy.

I’m not saying that comments like that are vaild critiques on authors abilities or books merits, they aren’t at all, but even then they shouldn’t be able to sway someone away from a particular author or genre. If they are, then I think there is a deeper issue.

This is just my opinion =)

“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”

0r

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it
  means just what choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

I thought all the ‘and look what they call themselves’ posts were silly, but equally, I find this argument disingenuous.
I accept that you intend to use the word non-perjoratively, but your hope that the word will be reclaimed isn’t embedded in the text. If someone, reading the words ‘bitches’ and ‘trashy’ reads them as words that denigrate - isn’t that a valid way of reading them?

My idea of a dinner party I would so go to…

Things might not go well, but oh man…

Add Nora Ephron to that one and I’d pay good money and provide the popcorn.

I spent a good chunk of my weekend judging rounds at a speech tournament, so the balance of criticism and what’s professional in criticism was already on my mind.

The most useful thing a judge can do at a tournament is write lots and lots of stuff on the kids’ critique sheets.  The rankings are virtually all subjective – a kid could do a really good job but still be ranked 3rd or 4th in the room because the competition was so tough in that group.

I always try to write some positive things on the sheets because let’s face it: public speaking is one of the most common fears among American adults, and these kids are spending their free time after school practicing that and getting up at the crack of dawn on Saturdays to spend all day at tournaments.  What they’re doing is a good, constructive thing, and I don’t want to discourage any of them from continuing.  In fact, I want to encourage them to improve!  But in order to do that, I have to give them concrete information, both on what they’re doing well and what they need to work on.  Sometimes, quite frankly, what they need to work on is more extensive than what they’re doing well.  It would be inappropriate for me as a judge to try to sugar-coat everything, because my criticism is intended as a tool for them to use to improve their performances.

While I’m not a romance reader (I came upon this blog because of the Edwards scandal), I see this kind of mentality in other creative circles as well.  Some people have a fundamental inability to separate the art from the artist.  Even the most professional criticism is seen as a personal attack because the writing is seen as an extension of the writer.  The kids I was judging this weekend might not be able to separate themselves from their performances (which is why I try to be as nice as possible while being honest), but a professional has to be able to accept criticism as a reflection of her work, not herself.

Several people have mentioned the old saying “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”  I would submit to the audience here that saying something nice and pointing out flaws in someone’s work are not opposites.  In fact, pointing out flaws in someone’s work is one of the nicest things you can do.  Otherwise no one learns anything.

“opinions are like assholes, everyone has one” dunno who to credit that saying to.

I agree with NellyF above.

I don’t understand why online criticism is such a problem for some people.. have fun debating or hit the x and find a website that agrees with you.

Still reading comments, but to Hotflashes: the question is not new, but we can still wonder at answers that address its different nuances, no?




spamfoiler: past32—*sob* yes, a full decade ago *sob*

Some of this genre work which is so derided by the elites actually turns out by golly to make us think, teach us lessons and so on. Hence we get even more peeved when it is derided as non-intellectual filler by a bunch of people who’ve never read any in the first place.

That.  What she said.

I was cutting my teeth on Woodiwiss and Rogers and Sherwood when I was barely in Kotex, then I moved on to the wonders of John Jakes, Margaret Mitchell (okay, that was my Civil War period), and Stephen King.  I was in and out of romance for years until that thing called college turned my brain to mush and required me to read LITrachoor.

What was the best thing I ever got out of reading romance? A killer vocabulary.  For that alone, I’ll suffer any affront to my IQ, implied or overt.

Don’t like what I read?  Screw you, too, pal.  I don’t see any book at all in your hand.

Add Nora Ephron to that one and I’d pay good money and provide the popcorn.

OK Barb,

Fine by me but to even it out again we should add Linda Ellerbee.

I think it is really important, as romance-readers and writers, that we take the genre seriously enough amongst ourselves to criticize it, to expect more from it than the same old hacky, corny, hokey crap everyone expects from the gentre. Expects, and in that way justifies bad writing, weak plot structure, two-dimensional characterization. When we refuse to criticize, what we are in effect saying is that we didn’t expect anything better to begin with, that it doesn’t matter when a writer drops the ball, because, after all, it’s only romance.

I don’t know about other writers of the genre, but I want to write a bloody good book. I don’t spend my time writing, investing myself, my time, my life, my emotion, into a book to have it come out as a lazily written, half-assed, mediocre piece of crap so full of holes that you feel a draft every time you open its pages. I write because I love to write. I write romance because it is fun, because I need somewhere to put all my useless historical trivia ;-) I write it to make readers happy, to make myself happy, to accomplish something. And contrary to popular belief, writing a novel, even a much belied romance novel, IS an accomplishment. 

I welcome criticism, even if it’s bitchy, rude, and personal. It helps me to write a better novel. Of course, who doesn’t prefer praise? I do. But I also think that I have to work hard enough to earn it. I don’t see it as my entitled due, just because I string a few thousand sentences together. There has to be merit. I want to do my work well. I don’t want to receive the same accolade for a shitty novel that I would for a really good one. What is the fucking point? Where is the motivation?

As a writer, I have a responsibility. If I want my readers to shell out their hard earned cash to read my work, I want to give them at least their money’s worth—and hopfully much more.

Th thing I love about this site, and reading the comments written by such intelligent, cerbic, witty and hilarious women, is that it turns the stereotype of the mousy, insipid, sub-intelligent romance reader on its ear. I love discovering that there are other women who enjoy reading rmance like I do, who expect more from the genre than is the stereotype. Who spurn the stereotype, and are not ashamed that they love what they love. We should also be proud enough, smart enough, brave enough to admit that there is room or growth, that romance is not a stagnant, useless genre.

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.

Okay, wow. I have gone on FAR too long. I hope you ladies have skipped over most of my rant. I am embarrassed now, heh. But this discussion gets my blood up, you know?

Wow, please forgive all the typos.
I get so bloody EXCITED when I write on this site, and I forget to check what I have written over. Blah.

Criticism is something we can avoid easily by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing ~ Aristotle

I think other posters are right when they point to the current mentality (at least in the US) that any criticism will somehow shatter psyches and shred self-esteem.  I also wonder if there isn’t bit of “victim” mentality thrown in by some about certain genres, as well. 

When my eldest was in the 2nd grade, I was recently divorced and extremely poor.  The kids had medical cards and they had free lunch at school because of that.  About month or so into his school year, I began to notice that the eldest’s schoolwork was looking pretty bad—the writing was worse than when he was in kindergarten, for example.  However, he was still getting “GREAT JOB!” and smiley faces stamped all over the page. (Mind you, they don’t give grades in the early grades here—to not discourage them.  No lie.)  So I scheduled a teacher’s conference to find out why the quality of his work had plummeted to drastically.  There I met an earnest, new, young teacher who proceded to tell me all about how my son was “disadvantaged” because of his “situation”.  How it was common for “less-advantaged” children from single-parent homes to do poorly in school.  How he was going to need remedial reading and remedial math because it was also common for children in his “situation” to struggle academically.  (I found this surprising news, since he was doing math in his head at the age of three and was, at that time, reading me the sports page aloud while I made dinner.)  When I asked why he was receiving “Great Job!!” and smiley faces for what was obiviously sloppy, poor quality work, she told me that she wanted to encourage his “effort”.  When I told her that he’d done better work in kindergarten, she implied I was confused.  When I told her I didn’t understand why he needed remedial anything, given his reading and math skills, I was told it was because he “tried so hard, but obviously needed extra help”.  I told her, “Lady, you obviously don’t know the difference between “trying so hard” and “knowing that you can turn in anything and you’ll get a pat on the head, a big smiley face, and plenty of time to do something else you’d rather be doing”.”  I told her that he read the paper to me every night and, as proof, sent him over to grab any book off the table.  He opened it up and read the first page out-loud.  That’s when she told me that just because he could sound out the words didn’t mean he could understand it.  So I had him explain what it meant.  This time, she looked confused.

You see, she’d already decided that that he was a victim.  Poor kid, living with his single mother, victim of divorce—he couldn’t possibly be expected to perform on the level of a child who wasn’t “less advantaged”.  He had her figured out in less than two weeks—she didn’t expect anything and still gave him good grades?  Cool!  So he turned in literally anything and moved on to something he’d rather be doing.  I had him moved over to the “mean” teacher the next morning.

I see so many elements of that situation here.  Don’t criticize—you want to make them feel encouraged and you don’t want to hurt their self-esteem.  Don’t criticize—romance (or Harry Potter) can’t be expected to be as good as the other, loftier genres anyway, so don’t ask them to perform there.  But, as with my eldest, without constructive criticism and an unwillness to expect less than the best effort, we (the consumers) are going to see a lot of sloppy, poorly written schlock.  Frankly, I’m not willing to put up with that.

Are your criticisms sharp, snarky, and often screamingly funny?  Hell, yeah!  But they always include, in detail, why something did or didn’t work.  That is the nature of true criticism, as opposed to personal attacks or fawning adulation.  Frankly, I think that criticism it’s important because it’s a necessary part of any process, whether it’s writing or government.  Anytime you just have blind, unreasoning acceptance of anything, the quality of it will diminish.  It’s the nature of the beast.

As for Harry Potter fandom…and I’m in that group…it’s important to remember that a lot of the fans are KIDS.  They react as children do, with a lot of nana-nana-boo-boo.

Except they’re *not*. Not the online fandom. Sure, kids are the most visible portion of the Harry Potter fandom, but the fen? The ones who read fic, write fic, draw fan art, participate in cons and symposia, and carry on insane discussions about the whorishness of fictional 15-year-olds who’ve had two boyfriends? Those are adults. Some are teenagers, but are adult enough in their thinking that they qualify. And those are the ones I’m talking about.

The “nana-nana-boo-boo” in fandom (all fandom—not just HP) is certainly juvenile, but it’s not b/c fans are kids. It’s because they’re acting like spoiled brats. IMHO, of course. :)

Criticism is something we can avoid easily by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing ~ Aristotle

Agreed, Teddy Pig—

I rather be a failure than a coward.  But if I don’t get those critiques, how will I ever know where I’m screwing up and what needs fixing??

spamfoiler: near69—then move a little closer, honey!

Sorry, Kinley.  You posted while I was writing my epic and said pretty much the same thing in your first paragraph that I said in my whole post.

I’m all for constructive critcism as it has helped me grow as a writer.

I admit this ‘let’s play nice’ mentality is wearing thin on me. We live in such a whitewashed society where parents never want their children to lose a game and instead of being unpublished it is pre-published.

Women are raised to be gracious and accomodating. Why is it such a surprise that we would be asserting ourselves and destroying some of the antiquated sterotypes our society has burdened us with?

This bumper sticker on the car of someone I know—“Life is a bitch so why would I vote for one?”, printed over a picture of Hillary Clinton—made me as sad as the depressed LOL cat over at Dear Author on a similar topic. (Sorry, can’t figure out how to link to somewhere else.)

I don’t expect people to play nice, I don’t want platitudes in place of earnest and intelligent discussion. What I can’t abide is the laziness of thought, the failure of language that responds to reasoned and articulate criticism with name-calling or “your stupid and your opinion sucks.”

It’s so much easier to dismiss a person or diminish an idea with a convenient label than it is to rebut or refute an intelligent argument. I agree with Lijakaca that part of it is to discredit the points being made by polarizing the argument, and will wager there’s a good dose of laziness as well.

I have to go stare at the LOL cat some more.

First comment.  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—-?

Second, the idea that people read romances to learn this to be long standing.  I remember noting that in Radway’s Reading the Romance a few years back and her study was done preinternet where a woman defended reading historical romances by saying that they were educational—I guess she was too nice to tell an ethnographer, screw you, I’m reading them because I enjoy them. 

I hoped when I read this that this woman checked her facts with another source before spouting off what she had learned in romances as fact. 

On a personal note, I had always wondered where my mother got the idea that in the Greco-Roman era women ran around with one breast exposed.  Then it was mentioned as a [pomt in a comment about an early Virginia Henley novel set in Rome.  So either my mom and Virginia Henley found it at the same source or my mom had included Virginia Henley in her inspirationsl reading—which tickles me somewhat.

I was cutting my teeth on Woodiwiss and Rogers and Sherwood when I was
barely in Kotex, then I moved on to the wonders of John Jakes, Margaret
Mitchell (okay, that was my Civil War period), and Stephen King. I was in
and out of romance for years until that thing called college turned my brain
to mush and required me to read LITrachoor.

This is so true. I think what a lot of people who totally dismiss these apparently “lower” forms of written works forget is that these books get children and adults reading. When I was 12 I was reading Flame and the Flower. When I was 13 I read Jane Eyre. Loved them both.

Though I don’t read the romance genre that much any more, romances made me a voracious reader. They expanded my vocabulary and my world view. They took me places I could look up on the map. Roberta Gellis told me about a period of history I fell in love with.

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. Sci-Fi, Romance, mystery, torrid, not torrid. Just be prepared to understand and talk about the characters. The point is to get kids reading, not to decide for them what they should enjoy reading.

Tina,

No, no! That was a great post! You illustrated exactly what I was getting at. Like your son in that situation, we as romance writers and readers, if we are not careful, are getting the go-ahead to get away with sub-standard work. And I am not going to allow myself to lower my own standards simply because no one will criticize me, or even notice, if I do.

This site inspires me to do my best work. As I am writing, I think: “Hmmmm. What would Candy or Sarah say? What would the smart bitches on the site think of this scene? Would they find fault with the way my plot is working out?” I don’t want to have my work torn to shreds on this site! These bitches are smart bitches! I am a smart bitch too! So I am going to do the smart bitch thing, and write a damn good novel!

Tina, you said: “Are your criticisms sharp, snarky, and often screamingly funny?  Hell, yeah!  But they always include, in detail, why something did or didn’t work.  That is the nature of true criticism, as opposed to personal attacks or fawning adulation.”

Exactly. Any writer worth her salt welcomes valid criticism. And she should also, as a token of her good will, allow others to enjoy a good snort of coffee up her nose in the workplace at her expense if she should fall short enough to have one of the SBs tear her novel a new one ;-p

“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.”

Yes, I agree to a point that reading is reading…..but I hesitate to adopt the view that it doesn’t matter what you read, that kids don’t need to be exposed to classics and contemporary literature, that reading a romance novel is just as viable as reading War and Peace. Well, I don’t know. I mean, when I am hard up, I read a shampoo bottle, or the back of a cereal box—but is that really as stimulating as reading Thackeray? Probably not.

I am not saying we have to apologize for reading romance. But in no way is romance the majority of what I read. Nor is it the majority of what I write. To be honest, if it wasn’t lucrative, I likely wouldn’t write it all. That isn’t to say that I don’t take it seriously. I take my work very seriously, both the paid and unpaid.

I was an English Major, as I am sure many of you were. I grew up on classics. I was a precocious child who lugged around David Copperfield in the 4th grade. Okay, I know—I was weird. But 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.

I am not trying to be a snob, or an intellectual elitist. I am just saying, as intelligent, critically thoughtful women of substance, I hope we are spending our hard earned cash on more than Avon historicals.

Also, and I am sure many of you will likely point out, many of our “classics” were written for common people, were the page-turners of their time, much like pulp fiction we read now. Dickens was a pulp-fictionist, his work appeared in serial-form for the working classes. No different, surely, than Stephen King. It makes one wonder what some of the classics of the future will be—surely Mr. King, surely Miss Roberts. I am not denigrating the work of such writers—I greatly respect them. But, as I am sure they will wholeheartedly concur, their purpose is not to replace Hemingway and Steinbeck—but to augment them, to give us a choice, to give us a rollicking good read. Not to become canonized as the only writers worth reading, toss the classics out the window.

Am I out of line, here? Feel free to pelt me with tomatoes :-)

This site inspires me to do my best work. As I am writing, I think: “Hmmmm. What would Candy or Sarah say? What would the smart bitches on the site think of this scene? Would they find fault with the way my plot is working out?” I don’t want to have my work torn to shreds on this site! These bitches are smart bitches! I am a smart bitch too! So I am going to do the smart bitch thing, and write a damn good novel!

I find this really interesting, in terms of process, Kinley, especially since it’s so the opposite of my own.  When I get going on a project and I’m really immersed in it, I tend to shut myself off from the outside world.  I don’t want those influences, I don’t want anyone else’s opinions (other than my CP and my editor)to color my writing and I don’t read anything that might be remotely influential, even tangentially (i.e., I totally forsake the YA when I’m writing YA). 

I think it’s one reason I like writing so much.  It’s something in which the onus lies directly on me and I’m good with that.

If you get the kid to read whatever they enjoy first, it’s more likely they’ll be able to read the ‘classics’ (by whomever’s definition, not getting into that one right now] than if they don’t read at all.

IMO and IME—both as a reader and as a mother.

A personal anecdote fuzzily related to this topic: both my kids are bilingual, but they are both somewhat lazy on the Spanish reading area. I wanted to encourage them to at least try, dammit! So I started reading my very old translation of White Fangs out loud during dinner one evening. After a chapter both kids were completely hooked. At which point I promptly closed the book, and when the cries of, “why what happens now???” started, I shrugged and said, “there’s the book, find out by yourselves.”

Which they did, in Spanish. (What can I say? They were young, naive, and didn’t know that the original was both in English and readily available at their school library. That’s just how I mean a mother I am *grin*)

But the only reason I got away with it is that they were both avid readers before I tried it.

I am not trying to be a snob, or an intellectual elitist. I am just saying,
as intelligent, critically thoughtful women of substance, I hope we are
spending our hard earned cash on more than Avon historicals.

But, but, but…hate to say this, but that does sound elitist. I’m saying, as an intelligent, critically thoughtful woman of substance, that if I want to spend all my hard earned cash on no more than Avon historicals, then that is not an empty or meaningless effort. And furthermore, it’s my hard earned dollars, and if 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.

And I stick to my opinion that maybe allowing kids to read what they want instead of what we think they should read will have more likelihood of producing someone who understands that feeling of story and character transporting them away. It may create passionate readers. And if it creates passionate readers I don’t think it’s our job to judge that kid’s taste in reading materials.

Kinley,

I am not the poster who talked about letting the kids read what they want(I think that was Robinjn), but I agreed with his/her post in that I’d rather have kids enjoy reading Sweet Valley High than try to force them to read Dickens and have them decide never to read again.  Once the kids know they enjoy reading and aren’t intimidated by novels anymore, I’d definitely try to make sure they got a broader range of reading, but first make sure that they have a few books that they’ve read and loved to show them that no matter what, books are fun.

I’m not sure if this is what Robinjn meant, but that’s how I interpreted it.

Why? I think defensiveness is why. We all know that there is a huge market for this genre, and that the supply side cannot possibly all be of a high standard. I think this is just a fact, and something that writers and readers of the romance novel can work towards redressing. If more people admit that there may be too much crap out there, maybe a lot more effort will go into creating better books.

Barb,

Yes, I know what you are saying. I think with my non-romance stuff, I tend to do the same. but I fond with romance, I am very much concerned with my audience. I want to make an impact on them, because there is so much out there, so many writers I am competing with for an audience. And because the romance genre is so maligned. I want to do something fresh, and I want to write an effective novel that doesn’t fall back on cliche more than it must. And so, the reviews and comments on this site lend focus to my work, inspire me to do my best. I can read some of the snarky comments and reviews of other books, and try to see if my own is flawed in a similar way.

That is not to say that anything that Candy and Sarah say about a novel, or anything they don’t like, is gospel to mine ears :-p No, indeed. 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. After all, I am writing for the reader, more than myself. I have fun writing romance, but if there is no audience, for me there is no motivation. This is my livelihood. I don’t do it for my own personal joy and pleasure.

But, yes. For my other work, the work no one pays me very much to do, ha ha, there is a lot less pressure to please. I don’t worry what people will think, I don’t have any audience in mind, and if no one ever read it, I would write it anyway. But romance, I need readers. I want to please them, as my livelihood depends on it. Perhaps that is mercenary, but we all need to eat, to pay our bills, and for me, this is it, this is what I know how to do. I need to know if I am being effective befor eI am at the end of my novel.

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.

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 :-> )

“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?

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.

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.

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.

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 ;-)

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??

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.

“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 :-)

“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 :-)

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

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.

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.

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

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)

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 -

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.

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 -

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.

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.

“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!

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.”

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.

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.

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

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.

for those who don’t visit AAR

AAR = All About Romance
ATBF = At The Back Fence

“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.

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?

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?

(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…

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*

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree entirely with Nora and others that the key distinction to be made is between criticism of the work and attack upon the author. 

I worry, though, that the advent of the internet and the rise of the blog has done a lot to blur that line.  Every time we authors get out there and post a blog, we call attention to ourselves as well as to the finished, detached products that are our books.  If we authors are going to commit the technological equivalent of standing on a soapbox, yelling, “Hey!  Look at me!” we shouldn’t be all that surprised when a few rotten tomatoes fly at us as well as at our books.  I don’t particularly like it, but I feel like we’ve done it to ourselves.

I think that fans of genre writing are in many ways the best people to critique it, including sci-fi, fantasy, mystery, romance, and their various sub-genres.  Fans have other works for comparison and a familiarity with the conventions that an “outsider” (for lack of a better word) doesn’t.  Also, where a non-fan might well be dismissive of the whole genre, a fan can distinguish what’s better (or, if you prefer, just more to his or her taste).

Look at daytime drama—some of us think there are better ones and worse ones, or good ones that make some poor choices of plot or casting sometimes, and if we say so, someone might listen.  Other people dismiss the whole genre; that’s their right, but it doesn’t help those working on the shows to improve their product.

If those of us who enjoy romance don’t have the heart (sorry!) to express honest opinions and offer feedback on what we think works and doesn’t, then who will?  Certainly not the librarians (yeah, here too) who just stick them on the shelves and refuse to list them in the catalog unless they are hardbound, nor the various critics who prefer to dismiss most of the genre out of hand. 

Like so many areas in life, I think it is up to those who care about something, and value it, to offer criticism that will help it be the best it can be.  True for all sorts of things, including political parties ;-)

Of course I agree that these criticisms, coming as they do from appreciation of the genre, should concentrate on the merits of the work and not sink to the level of personal attacks on the authors!

O
‘

(Note to self: before typing, place fingers on correct keys.)

Anyway, as I was trying to say: I’m not sure if this is as recent a phenomenon or as restricted to romance writing as many think. The editor of the book “Rotten Reviews” relates how he was asked to review a book by someone he thought of as a friend some years before (which would likely make it in the 60s or 70s). He didn’t think highly of it, and wrote his review accordingly. The next time he met his so-called friend, the man glared at him, said something like, “Ah. The critic.”, and turned away. They never spoke again.

Ever since I got to wandering around in Project Gutenberg for my casual reading, I’ve been of the opinion that high-school literature classes could be a lot more interesting to the the students by just changing the standard reading lists.

John Steinbeck is a superb writer who can set a scene and show character like few others—but he writes really depressing stories. Instead of Steinbeck and “The Red Pony” as a coming-of-age story, how about Robert Louis Stevenson and “Treasure Island”?  That’s also a classic coming-of-age story, and it’s a lot more fun to read.

Rafael Sabatini
Alexandre Dumas
Robert Louis Stevenson
Jules Verne

Those are just a few classic authors that write stories that are fun to read that don’t show up on lit class reading lists very often for some reason.

And on the subject of old novels, one of the influences on Cervantes: Tirant lo Blanc, 1490. (And now I want to read it again, and my copy is in storage.)

“Ever since I got to wandering around in Project Gutenberg for my casual reading, I’ve been of the opinion that high-school literature classes could be a lot more interesting to the the students by just changing the standard reading lists. “

I’m not sure. Looking back, I do think I was too young to appreciate many of the books I studied at school - but we did also study some entirely age appropriate books in the younger forms - Anne of Green Gables, Moonfleet - and they weren’t fun either.
It’s just such a soul destroying way of reading.

‘Christine, will you read pages 20 and 21?’
Christine obliges, rest of the class start covertly learning their French vocab.
‘Now girls, we’re going to look at the use of metaphor in that passage.’

I’m not sure any book would survive a term of that treatment.

Books at School:  I still hate Silas Marner.  We didn’t even get Steinbeck, it was Victorians and earlier all the way.  Fortunately, I had seen a production of Julius Caesar before I heard it read out loud by my classmates.  Whatever gave teachers the idea that because a work is a play, that 8th graders can comprehend and read with meaning a at least slightly archaic form of English?

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.

Print reviewers have always had this option (anonymity to a degree).  The Internet just made it available to everyone.  I have no problem with reading even harsh criticism as long on it’s entertaining.  Tolkien’s books took some harsh hits but it didn’t diminished my pleasure in reading them.

It’s been years since I’ve read a romance book, but as a fan of another frowned-upon expression of female sexuality—slash fanfiction—so much of what’s talked about here pings so hard with me.

I think the feeling that romance fans are a minority stems from the general common wisdom that “women’s” endeavours, expressions of their sexuality, and traditional roles are somehow lesser than the works, roles, and expressions of men. Emotions and intuition—typically associated with women—aren’t as valid as logic and deduction—typically associated with men. Cooking, weaving, sewing, beading, knitting, needlework, etc. are “crafts” whereas sculpture, painting, and even architecture are “Art”. And the examples go on.

We’ve been told the only works worthy of our attention, worthy of engaging our intellect, are those which do not also engage our emotions or our “baser” sexuality.

So, yes, women’s literature may have the readership, but it is still a minority in that it is Not As Important as the works of generations of Dead White Males.

When something like the CE plagiarism scandal gets raised, it tends to inspire a lot of attacks against and derision of the genre from outside, which in turn causes its fans to close rank and turn the blame for once again feeling marginalised on those who brought criticism to the attention of the outside world.

It isn’t fair, but until we as women can stand up and say, “Our literature, our world, our experiences, our sexuality is valid and valuable,” it’s going to happen whenever the spotlight is shined on the genre.

I’m way late to the discussion, but figured I’d post my two cents anyway.

Coming at this as a participant in media fandom (i.e., TV shows and films, largely centered around fanfiction), I think part of the “don’t let’s criticize anyone” attitude may be people protecting what they view as their “happy place”—that is, an area of their life free of serious thought and bad feelings.

If some romance readers see the genre as their refuge from serious or critical examination, and that critical examination begins to creep in, they may well feel protective of the genre, because they’ve turned it into their personal space.

This kind of thing happens in media fandom on Livejournal from time to time; it’s relatively common to write a review of a recent episode and include at the bottom something like “This is a Doppelganger hate-free zone—please don’t harsh on my fannish squee.” This signals to readers of the journal that if they hated this particular episode, to please keep that opinion in their own journals, and don’t bring it to this one, because the owner of this journal loved the episode and wants this entry to be criticism-free.

This may be because journals are viewed as personal space by their owners, i.e., my LiveJournal is my personal space, and I don’t want your negative energy in it right now.

So, extrapolate this attitude to, say, an entire genre of books, and that defensive stance gains a bit of context.

While I understand this attitude in media fandom, and sometimes evince it myself, I think romance, as a professional endeavor, deserves and needs critical examination; if readers who see the genre as their personal space are offended, they should avoid critical discussions (i.e., the whole of the internet).

If McDonalds put a bad item on their menu, they not only want to know, they want to know asap. If a movie is poorly made, the theater wants to know before the make next week’s commitments.

When a writer puts a scene that is too gory or out-of-place-violent she loses readers in droves. How does she know that it wasn’t the plot, characters or wordplay that tanked her NEXT book?

Citicism is important. Criticism from readers is MORE important than Professional Critics’. The people who actually read and pray God CARE about your work have a vested interest in the quality of your work.

The problem for women is that we worry about even offering it.

Refuse to be afraid. Nolite timere.

I distinctly remember the New York Magazine play critic John Simon’s devastating, vicious criticism of Liza Minnelli’s one-woman show years ago. He was so disgusted by its self-indulgence that he called her physical person ugly, in amazing and well-written detail. It took my breath away to read. At the time, I am sure that there were people like me who thought that Simon had crossed the line between a scathing review and a character assassination. Shortly after it was published, he was banished from that job. But much more insulting and just as condemning words (though not as meticulously composed) have been said about Minnelli in the years since then. Now she is a public joke, and Simon did not cause that, only see and report on it earlier than anyone else.

In the romance world we’re still confused about which is which in criticism. We take simple truth and call it being mean, and being unladylike, and so on. This is nonsense, and I for one want to exercise “reappropriation of pejorative lexicon” until the deliberate, oppressive sting of being called a bitch fades and we can see clearly. I want romance writers, including me, to write the very best they can. And I want people to point out their writing weaknesses and mistakes. I am sick of reading infuriating genre books that were allowed to be published without correction on the theory that the audience was too stupid to notice how illogically the characters were behaving. And I want publishers and published authors to correct mistakes as reprints and revised editions are released. This shows respect for the readers, respect we deserve.

We’re just wasting time and review space when we let the imperative to “be nice” rule what our eyes can see. That’s the whole point of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” after all. As much as we may want to abandon high standards to allow everyone to be a winner, that is not the reality. Some books are in fact better than others. Some writers are better writers than others. Why not say so?