Bitchin' Blog Posts
HaBO: Beasty Romance
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | August 21, 2010 | Saturday at 5:31 pm | 63 CommentsCaroline remembers a lot of this book - I know someone is going to recognize this one.
Ok, I have been driven insane remembering this book, and really hope someone
can help. I think it is based on Fairy Tales and such, and was a time travel
romance. I can remember it being written by a man, which, when I read it,
surprised me, since, like, dudes don’t write romance, do they? (and yeah,
they do, and its awesomesauce.)Here goes:
It is set in Europe somewhere (I am thinking Eastern Europe), and a young
man remembers a fairy tale his grandparents told him about a guarded
princess or something. For some reason Babba Yagga springs to mind as a
villian in the fairy tale. Grown up, he goes back to the farm they spent
summers on for some reason and finds some weirdness goin’ on in the back
forty. There is some random woman on a pedestal, sleeping away, and in a
moat surrounding the pedestal is some type of beast.The man runs around and around and around the moat tiring the evilnastyroary
beast out, who follows him, so that he can jump over the moat and get the
girl, who it turns out is a absolute, genuine, one of a kind princess
(Disney copyright not applied). She thinks, in part of their introduction
that he didn’t smell bad, just sweaty, but clean (I guess dude was cleaner
than the old-timey warriors who never bathed?) They return to her time
through a portal at the site of the Amazing Running Rescue, and he’s
questioned on his weirdo factor (being tall, clean etc) and I think
eventually helps stop a rebellion or something, and becomes the non-smelly,
sweaty, tall hero. The princess and he fall in love in the book, but really,
I can’t remember if there is any smuttiness in the book (hence why I wanna
read it again, O_o).The end of the book has them with kids, spending half their year in the
“present”, and half the year “in the past” ruling their kingdom
together. They travel safely through the portal where the hero defeated the
beast to save the princess.OK, so have at it! Tell me what this book is! Please! Its driving me crazy
not being able to remember it better!!!
Time travel with moats and beasts? This sounds terribly intriguing. Anyone remember this book?
Filed: General Bitching, Help a Bitch Out
Tagged: wtfery, romance, help a bitch out, habo, awesomesauce
Polly said on 08.21.10 at 05:39 PM • [link]
It’s Enchantment, by Orson Scott Card.
Kay Igo said on 08.21.10 at 06:00 PM • [link]
Yes, Enchantment by Orson Scott Card
I remember it best because our hero is a long distance runner, and has the long lean greyhound build. He looks like a complete wuss in her world, where all the men are mighty thewed warrior types. She thinks he is a pansy for much of the book. She doesnt really appreciate him until they return to his world, and she can see his positive qualities. Not much smut - OSC is pretty tame, although there is some implied kinkiness for Baba Yaga.
Sarah W said on 08.21.10 at 06:06 PM • [link]
I didn’t have a clue, but I wanted to say that I’ve put Enchanted on my (really, really long) reading list.
So thanks, Caroline, for the interesting HABO book talk! :)
Rebecca said on 08.21.10 at 06:47 PM • [link]
@Sarah W: Save the time and money. I skimmed Enchantment because the premise was so great, and a friend highly recommended it. I wanted to like it, but hated the writing, and thought the characters were utterly implausible. (I actually am from the ethnic group that the hero is supposed to belong to and while the author had clearly done his “homework” in terms of concrete ritual, there were lots of little subtle worldview issues…it was the equivalent of Renaissance Faire garbe instead of actual renaissance clothing, for mindset.) Also wasn’t crazy about the idea that the signal that the hero’s non-princess fiancee was THE EBIL was that she (gasp) didn’t want to have as many children as possible.
Barb said on 08.21.10 at 08:35 PM • [link]
Well, rats, for once I know the answer and everybody else did too! I am sorta in Rebecca’s camp. I wanted to like it, I really did. I am fairly sure I did not even finish the book. There was just some indefinable thing that put me off. (I have a lot of trouble with Card—I keep trying because he gets raved about. I should just cut my losses).
Spam word: told77—I’ve been told 77 times that he’s great, but I just don’t get it.
Laura K Curtis said on 08.21.10 at 08:52 PM • [link]
Barb -
I don’t know Enchantment, but there are only certain Card books I’d recommend to the “general readership.” For the most part, people who read a lot of fantasy like him, but very often people who don’t…don’t. The books I’d recommend to anyone are Ender’s Game and The Lost Boys. As a person, I like the man, but I’d hesitate to recommend some of his books to people because a couple of them I find just downright…odd.
meretricula said on 08.21.10 at 08:54 PM • [link]
please get this book from a library instead of buying it. I used to really like Orson Scott Card’s scifi books, but I just can’t bring myself to give money to a raging homophobe who in all seriousness thinks that homosexual acts should be illegal. he’s a popular author and your local library will probably have a copy of this book - please don’t spend your money on it.
(you can find articles on OSC’s views on homosexuality easily by googling, but I thought this article from Salon pretty much summed up my reaction when I discovered them:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html )
Lisa said on 08.21.10 at 09:42 PM • [link]
I enjoy Enchantment, but every time I read it, I am bothered by the sophistry that he uses to be Jewish “Itzak” in the 20th century and Christian Ivan in Tania.
Kirsten said on 08.22.10 at 12:35 AM • [link]
It’s Enchantment, by Orson Scott Card. As far as his world view, you have to keep in mind that he is a devout Mormon… When I discovered this, a lot of things that seemed kind of wonky made more sense to me. He’s also pretty politically reactionary.
Most of the stuff I have read by him I’ve checked out from the library, but he is really a master of his craft.
Betty Fokker said on 08.22.10 at 12:41 AM • [link]
I agree that it’s Enchantment by Orson Scott Card. I especially liked the part where Baba Yaga gets the idea for her house-on-legs from the “chicken-legs” that come out of an airplanes underside.
Deb said on 08.22.10 at 01:03 AM • [link]
I read ENDER’S GAME and thought it was OK (I don’t read a lot of fantasy or sci-fi, so perhaps the issue was with me as a reader rather than with him as a writer), but it didn’t make me very eager to read more of his work and many years passed before he made another blip on my personal reading radar. After I read some of his incredibly homophobic statements in the wake of Prop 8, I decided I didn’t want enrich his bank account. Sure, he can write what he wants—and I can decide to purchase and read what I want. Once you discover Card’s positions, it really is a case of “Can you separate the dancer from the dance?” I find I can’t and I leave his work alone.
Betty Fokker said on 08.22.10 at 01:13 AM • [link]
I just read the article posted by meretricula & some other things where Card makes it clear homosexuals are deviant life forms. Now I am sad, because his books were really good.
I hate it when authors I like are craptastic in real life.
Poop.
kit said on 08.22.10 at 02:22 AM • [link]
This subject came up in 2008 when Card won the Margaret Edwards award for young-adult literature for Ender’s Game and Ender’s Shadow. The committee didn’t know about his batshit insanity when they gave him the award, and ultimately the sentiment seemed to be that since the award was for the books, which don’t mention homosexuality (although others of his books do, and *boy* are they batshit) and not for his personal views, it was OK to stand.
You can read about it here: School Library Journal
I especially liked the quote from the editor of Horn Book who said that the award was not for the fact that Card is an idiot in real life. You just don’t get people from Horn Book calling other people idiots every day. It’s like the Queen of England telling someone he’s a tool.
Carrie said on 08.22.10 at 02:55 AM • [link]
I love Card - got into him much before I knew his political views. As sad as they make me, I continue to like most of his writing. Some of my favs by him are actually the most forthrightly Mormon books. I think it’s because I use those books as a window onto a very strange, disturbing world that I don’t know much about but am constantly affected by. Orson Scott Card makes me sad and angry - but he forces me to deal head on with different perspectives without using the crutch of perceiving the person with whom I disagree as stupid or uneducated. Having said that, I would think most people would like Enchantment with the exception of the EVIL financee who doesn’t want kids and is the only cartoonishly written character. Many things that seem insulting in one half of the book appear completely different in the other - and I also liked that the athlete hero is seen as wimpy in the medival world. Having said that, prepare, Orson, as I crush you at the ballot box etc - HA!
Ella D. said on 08.22.10 at 03:15 AM • [link]
I read Enchantment when I was much younger. The ending was pretty good because I ironically remember religious tolerance- the kids mentioned aren’t forced to choose between Judaism and Christianity; their parents leave that decision to them while educating them on both religions.
...so the fact that OSC is homophobic in real life after reading that was extremely disappointing.
(There was one itty-bitty “sex” scene after the characters are married.)
geekgirl said on 08.22.10 at 09:52 AM • [link]
This goes way off topic, and I’m sorry, but it bugged me enough to come back so…
Can I just say that while I agree Card is bat shit insane, and just wrong on so many levels, the woman who wrote that article comes off as a pretty big bitch herself in my book.
Nothing hurts more than finding out you idols suck. She’s fine with the art of fascists, anti-Semites, and the KKK but she baits a raging homophobe? I guess it’s a good thing she never had to interview any Nazis in person.
The whole thing reads like sour grapes. She doesn’t like the guy; not because he’s a jerk, but because he doesn’t interpret HIS abuse how she thinks he should. She’s convinced herself that in order to write about violence you MUST have been subject to it in the extreme and have it scar you for life. That he didn’t grow up and put it in perspective, but that he’s suppressing it, or dismissing the abuse of others. That a nasty older brother is somehow equivalent to smashing baby skulls against brick walls. Gee, I guess I’m supposed to be pretty pissed at my older sister about now. Hide the babies.
able66: Able to give you 66 reasons I dislike them both.
Jeanne said on 08.22.10 at 02:20 PM • [link]
I also loved Card’s works when I was younger and was very disappointed to find that he was so bigoted. One of the things I keep coming back to is that so many of his books are about very talented children who are used and manipulated for political/religious ends. The system that nurtures them also pimps them out, sometimes quite literally. I suspect on some level he knows just how twisted it is that his amazing imagination has been constrained and controlled by this rigid, hateful worldview that is required by a religion he to which he is dedicated.
JennyD said on 08.22.10 at 02:42 PM • [link]
I happened to like Enchantment… a lot. Not as much of a fan of Card’s other works though.
And really, if I refused to read books by people whose political/religious/whatever beliefs I disagreed with… I certainly wouldn’t read at all. There are so many classic (and contemporary) authors who were terrible, terrible people who believed and did awful things. I can still read and enjoy their books. I’m not quite sure why people single Card out this way.
Randi said on 08.22.10 at 03:34 PM • [link]
JennyD; I think it’s it’s because he’s so vocal about it.
Re Card, I read the first four books of Ender’s Game and really really liked them. Especially the one where Ender become the Speaker for the Dead. I thought that was a really interesting idea, since I’ve always despised the idea that only good things are spoken about the dead at a funeral.
What turned me off of Card was actually an intro he wrote for an anthonoly he edited. It was really really pompous. He basically said, “Everyone in this anthology writes like me and I like them, therefore they are all great writers. Everyone else sucks.” I didn’t even read the anthology, even though it had a number of authors I like, because I was turned off by his stance. I never read another Card book after that.
Kilian Metcalf said on 08.22.10 at 03:36 PM • [link]
Sooo, should we invite OSC to our Teen Lit Festival? or not?
Lil' Deivant said on 08.22.10 at 04:00 PM • [link]
*snort* You made me spew tea on my keyboard!
*high five*
Jeanne said on 08.22.10 at 06:14 PM • [link]
JennyD: for me, it’s partially that I think his writing has suffered. Over the years his prejudices have become more visible and his female characters infuriatingly boring and one-note (Babies!Babies!Babies!). I still love, and occasionally reread, some of his early books, but I stopped reading the new stuff when his politics overwhelmed his ability to tell a good story. YMMV.
Jeanne said on 08.22.10 at 06:51 PM • [link]
Also, kit:
Ha! Well put.
John said on 08.22.10 at 06:56 PM • [link]
I am going for Library on Orson Scott Card.
I have no problem with his religion, and I understand that religion affects some people’s viewpoints. They are still prejudiced and such, but at least I know that they were often raised in that faith and have a very deep issue with said prejudice. Plus…religion, like politics, is still very personal, and people like Christians/Mormons don’t always have a homophobic streak.
Card, however, does. That makes me annoyed. And hurt. And frankly, I don’t want to support him. He’s allowed to have his views, but as a FRIGGIN HUGE AUTHOR THAT MANY, MANY PEOPLE READ AND RESPECT, he should learn to keep his big, homophobic mouth shut about this. He should not be saying something so blatant and offensive - he’s a public figure. It’s like Mel Gibson talking about Jewish people. It’s offensive, and obviously overstepping boundaries, even if the prejudice against said people may still be evident in society.
What’s worse is I know Mormon authors who aren’t remotely vocal about this stuff. They don’t feel the need to stress this stuff, and they instead focus on core values that, um, AREN’T sexist and homophobic.
Needless to say, finding out about Card was a blow to someone who loves Teen Lit. And Enchantment will be on my TBR….but at the library’s expense….
soviet25 - Card mentioned the Soviet Union in the interview - Tis a sign!
Rebecca said on 08.22.10 at 07:16 PM • [link]
Thanks for validating my perception of reality, Barb!
This! I read a lot of writers whose politics I find painful. BUT Card set out to do a very specific thing in Enchantment and he failed. The CHARACTERS are wrong. A Russian Jewish professor (who studies medieval Christianity) is a whole lot more interested in intellectual debate than in a comfy home. A grad student who used a “little girl” voice with him when she was losing an argument would lose his respect a LOT faster than a grad student who argued a theory of the Bible that he thought was completely and utterly wrong. He would NOT tune out someone he thought was stupid. He would take precise and deliberate pleasure in arguing that person to a standstill. (That’s what Talmudic - or Casuistic, or Sophist, if you like - debate is.) When Ivan’s father thinks that maybe his “good” students were just parroting him, that’s COMPLETELY the wrong mindset for someone of his upbringing and character. (Although it does sound like a “professor” of the kind of religious college where people are taught to spout a party line.) Furthermore, Ivan’s back story is given a cursory sketch in 40 pages, when the traumatic experience of immigration and learning a new language takes up entire memoirs in real life. Then the book slows down for places where it should speed up. The pacing is off. And the attitude toward Christianity in the “medieval” parts is just weird. Ivan gets all upset about clinging to the Jewish roots that he’s not even sure that he has, when anyone with his background would know that being an “anusim” (forced convert) is a long and honorable tradition for Jews. Again, the emphasis of the book is very much on outer forms, instead of the much more torturous and contradictory aspects of Jewish identity. In short, being Jewish seems like a convenient plot device, instead of an actual part of the character. This is not a political flaw, it’s a failure AS A WRITER. I read a fair amount of fantasy, but I won’t be picking up more Card books based on his writing, NOT his politics.
Kc said on 08.22.10 at 07:16 PM • [link]
(delurking to step into what’s probably going to be messy…) John, so you think he should not have freedom of speech? He has the right to state his beliefs (right, wrong, or wacko), just as you have the right to not read or listen.
geekgirl said on 08.22.10 at 07:44 PM • [link]
I don’t know. I mean we praise celebrities for standing up and supporting causes we like, or that are popular at any given time. Because they’re using their voice for “good” it’s alright. But if someone says something as a personal opinion that we find offensive; it’s suddenly not their purview, not their place, to opine on politics/religion/colour of the sky and should keep their mouths shut. I think I find the hypocrisy of that mindset MORE offensive than his fucked up world view. We don’t have to like what anyone has to say but I support even his right to say and think it. I think the world has to get over the need not to be offended at all costs. Everyone has an opinion that will offend someone. It’s how we act on those opinions that matter. Being against gay rights is VERY different than actively suppressing those rights.
I disprove of celebrity endorsement of causes in the first place. I don’t think fame is a valid credential as an authority on anything one way or the other. That said, I’m totally willing to not buy his books. I just don’t think it makes them any less of a good or bad read.
John said on 08.22.10 at 08:37 PM • [link]
Oops…hehe. Note: Wait an hour after getting angry. It may prevent cramps. Which I clearly had when I wrote my first comment.
@Kc Oh, by no means will I make this messy! I get freedom of speech, and I went overboard by saying he should keep his mouth shut about things.
My point was that his comments cross over into offensive. Offensive comments are opinions, but they are not tolerated like a graceful, unspiteful opinion. He has a right to be vocal about his opinion, but being offensive about it makes it an issue. I’m not questioning his rights to speech.
Plus, I’d hate to see teen readers learning such offensive comments from him. Because they are offensive, not just for the opinion, but in the tone in which he sets them.
So I won’t buy his books. However, I will read them and take them for what they are. I hear that, at least in Ender’s Game, his themes are very different from his personal views. So, no means to sound anti-rights or anything. :) Just sayin’ that Mr. Card went past a line of decency for me. I think I took the ‘Bitch’ part of the Smart Bitches site to heart today.
church89 - Oh the irony.
Vicki said on 08.22.10 at 10:03 PM • [link]
This is what I love about Smart Bitches. It is so rare to find episodes of such acute literary criticism.
I have to admit, I do struggle with buying/reading books of authors whose politics and/or personal actions I dislike (not just disagree with, but dislike). As was said above, if I read only those people I agree with, I would read little and learn less. On the other hand, do I need to expose myself again to something I already know I find offensive or obscene?
In OSCs case, there are a number of books of his I have enjoyed and learned from, mostly ones where he is open about his Mormon heritage and beliefs. I do not regret reading those. But I have not pursued further reading.
hapax said on 08.22.10 at 11:42 PM • [link]
I dunno. I know so many people who love OSC’s writing, who counsel me to get past his hateful views.
So I read ENDER’S GAME and ... ugh. The wish fulfillment of every geeky kid who was ever beat up in school, I get that. I would have loved it when I *was* that kid. As an adult—not so much. I find OSC’s torturous plot configurations to make it OK for Ender to be a murderous little snot perilously close to apologia.
So I tried one of his early fantasies, HART’S HOPE. Okay, the take on religion as interesting, but omfg, what a bizarre and twisted and effed up portrayal of gender relations!
So maybe I just picked the wrong two books, but both of them made me feel like I had slimy things crawling around in my brain. Although I love fairy-tale retellings with an insane passion, I think I’ll continue to resist reading this one.
(verification: mean25. Was that 25 times too mean?)
MK said on 08.23.10 at 01:26 AM • [link]
I *do* read a lot of fantasy, and OSC is just batshit. It spills over into his writing (I had lots of ‘um, what?’ moments even before I knew the batshit RL stuff) so all y’all who don’t get his appeal and think it’s because you don’t read fantasy, that isn’t it.
ivyleaf said on 08.23.10 at 01:28 AM • [link]
@geekgirl
No.
There is a difference between people who have hurtful opinions towards marginalized groups, and people who have hurtful opinions on matters that don’t carry that weight (say, “I hate the way you cook.”) Judging by your quote above, you’re using this quote to justify homophobia.
TKF said on 08.23.10 at 01:37 AM • [link]
Quite simply, if you substituted any other minority for “homosexual”, no one would be publicly defending OSC’s right to voice his “opinion”. Therefore, I will not tolerate or accept such a defense in this case.
Michelle said on 08.23.10 at 02:43 AM • [link]
Dadgum it. The one time I knew the book and of COURSE everybody else knows it.
I’m iffy on Card’s writing. I enjoyed “Enchantment,” though I did spend a lot of time wanting to backhand the heroine (not because she was an idiot, but because she was hypocritical and hypercritical of the main guy when he was really trying his hardest to help her out). “Ender’s Game” remains one of my favorite sci-fi books, and I much prefer the “Shadow” series follow-ups to “Speaker for the Dead” and “Xenocide.”
However, he does strike me as pompous when he’s not doing fiction. He has a book on writing science fiction and fantasy, and there were quite a few parts in it where he came across as rather arrogant. It makes me less inclined to read his fiction stuff.
changes69: Oh, please no. I don’t want 69 changes this year.
becca said on 08.23.10 at 03:04 AM • [link]
OSC was once a reasonable person. I have a copy of his “Secular Humanist Revival” tape, and I agree with it - it’s about keeping religion out of education and the secular realm. Then his son died, and he returned to his religious roots. He’s a major supporter of NOM, the people who pushed Prop 8 through in Ca and who are fighting for “traditional” marriage which is based totally on procreation. Even if I liked his later writing, which I don’t, I am not willing to have my hard-earned money pass over to NOM, even at second hand.
OSC can write anything he wants. Other writers can write anything they want about other minorities. And I can choose not to support them.
Pam said on 08.23.10 at 03:11 AM • [link]
i think free speech is free speech whether it is Card’s homophobia, flag-burning in Texas, neo-Nazis in Skokie or Dixie Chicks in London. If someone has loathsome prejudices, I think I want to know about it, because, the thing is, free speech is a Constitutional right that shouldn’t be interfered with, but it is also an act with consequences if one is a celebrity. Just ask Mel or Howard Cosell or the Dixie Chicks.
ivyleaf said on 08.23.10 at 03:17 AM • [link]
@TFK
Well, he does have the right to express his opinion. The rest of the world has the right to see him as a piece of scum and not support him.
Lisa richards said on 08.23.10 at 04:57 AM • [link]
Don’t think I’ve read it but off to see if it’s in my inventory (as it definitely falls in stuff I’d read) and if not to see if I can get a copy. I was able to snag a copy from PBS so no money wasted if not my cup of tea. I love romances and read some fantasy so should be a good fit.
geekgirl said on 08.23.10 at 05:54 AM • [link]
ivylef: Oh, of course, if I’m not railing against it in all it’s forms, I must be all for it. No, I just refuse to be the thought police. I refuse to dictate what someone else must think or feel about any subject. And yes actually, if he were spewing hatred of any other kind, my opinion on his right to spew it would be exactly the same. Defending his right to say something, is very different than agreeing with it.
Like Pam said, I too would rather know about it, giving me the opportunity to not support someone whose views I find vile.
Isabel C. said on 08.23.10 at 01:21 PM • [link]
I, too, would rather he said it if he thought it, for the same reason that I’d prefer Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise were vocal about their…beliefs: I like to know just what kind of person my eight bucks is helping support. Or, in this case, not—I love the weird alternate history fantasy of the first couple Alvin Maker books, but I get them from the library or secondhand.
I liked his stuff before he went fundie. These days…there are a lot of books in the world, and I might as well read ones where the author’s misogynistic, homophobic, and generally sex-negative views don’t show through the text.
Ben P said on 08.23.10 at 02:40 PM • [link]
LMFAO! I would love to see the Queen say this in her snotty, we-are-not-amused tone. “You, Sir, are a tool.”
Re: Card.
It depends on how we interpret the author’s intention: Is the book a soap box for to express their own views, etc? Then read it as such. Is it just a story with luscious knocking of boots and a HEA. Then read it as such. Is the author misrepresenting his or her work? Then stake them to an anthill and flame them on teh Internetz.
Let’s look at Suz. Brockmann: Her writing has mutated into a platform for political correctness and gay rights, to the point where it’s even beginning to piss off her most devoted readers.
I read the story, not the author. Hunter S. Thompson was a nutcase but I enjoy his work. The Marquis de Sade is a crappy a role model but his 120 Days to Sodom is still a literary classic.
Freedom of speech is a difficult ideal to adequately define and even harder to live up to. After all, whenever someone says something we don’t agree with our first reflex is still generally “STFU or I bash u with my mighty weapon you tool.”
Caroline said on 08.23.10 at 02:56 PM • [link]
Well hey! Thanks for the quick identification! Enchantment was the only Card story I ever read. My father has read more of his stuff, since he is into Sci-fi/Fantasy way more than me. He’s digging through his piles of books, he may still have it! I remember the chicken legs thing! Doesn’t Babba Yagga steal a whole plane at one point? Ech, I think this is officially on the re-read list.
When I read a good story, I tend not to think about what the author is like IRL. The story is a part of their imagination and creativity, and I tend to separate them from that. If an author is really someone that makes people go OMGWTFBBQ, but I like the way he/she writes, then I won’t stop reading them. If their writing gets weird, then, well it changed from what I liked, and I wouldn’t keep reading. But, at the core, what they do with their royalties from book sales is none of my business, so I tend not to worry about giving money to authors who have vocalized beliefs different than my own. Its just like what I do with my paycheques. It is none of anyone else’s business (except hubby, yeah…).
That said, it is important to stand for what you believe in, and if Card makes people uncomfortable with his exuberant (read: zealous) campaigning on abolishment of gay rights and homosexuality, then you have a right to say you will not read his books. I think its vitally important that people can be free to have an opinion in our wonderful country (waves with mittens from Canada to the US), and are able to speak freely and debate their ideals. Without that, we wouldn’t have passions! Lead it not to violence, discrimination, or criminal acts, of course. Because well, that would suck.
Thanks everyone!
redcrow said on 08.23.10 at 03:42 PM • [link]
Yes, all this talk of “gay rights” is sooo boring - we already have all the rights in all the parts of the world, including Uganda, every single country has an openly lesbian president, hate crimes ceased to exist, gay characters in soap operas they have lives beyond being mostly invisible Gay Best Friends/predatory villains/lisping comic reliefs/tragic victims, have exactly the same amount of onscreen sex as straight ones and almost never get killed off… We have officially sanctioned Gay Pride in Mioscow every month. All the celebrities got out of their closets ages ado, because they have absolutely nothing to fear. Can’t this Brockmann support us quietly, not making a big fuss out of it? All this donations, talking about her son… My parents would never ever be so brazen as to tell anyone that I’m a lesbian and they support me!...
Guess I found a new author to read. Now, if only I knew where to get her books offline…
redcrow said on 08.23.10 at 04:33 PM • [link]
(Oh, and just in case someone takes everything I wrote earlier too literally, though I have no idea how would anyone manage it - no, I don’t see what’s so “wrong” about writers, even straight writers - especially straight writers - being all about gay rights all the time. Ben P, do you really think that being a too-vocal-for-your-tastes gay ally is pretty much the same/just as bad as being a hateful bigot? Seriously?
geekgirl said on 08.23.10 at 06:18 PM • [link]
I’m pretty sure Suz. Brockmann’s readers were looking for a fictitious novel, not to be spoon fed a political agenda (any political agenda). Of course authors work changes over time, and they bring their views into their books, that’s inevitable. But it’s not automatically disagreeing with The Cause to stop supporting the author because they don’t like the tangent her books have gone on either. Sometimes people actually pick up novels to escape.
Personally, I want to read an author whose primary priority in writing a novel is to entertain. I don’t need to be handed a guidebook on How And What To Think by a gay rights activist, any more than by a raging misogynistic homophobe.
megalith said on 08.23.10 at 07:01 PM • [link]
So, wait. In Ender’s Game Card calls the evil aliens that are trying to destroy the Earth “buggers”? And no one copped to the fact that he just might be a homophobe?
That must have been some pretty dazzling verbal tap dancing he was doing! I just might have to read this “classic” now.
megalith said on 08.23.10 at 07:15 PM • [link]
Checked out from the library. Of course.
People can spout any damn nonsense they want. Makes it easier for me to vote with my pocketbook, or my feet, or whatever is appropriate. That way, we both get to express ourselves. It’s what they call a “win win.”
Isabel C. said on 08.23.10 at 07:27 PM • [link]
Haven’t read Brockmann, but I’m kind of with geekgirl. I’m a vocal feminist, pro-gay-rights, liberal in most ways…
...but I don’t necessarily need to read fiction that is, as TVTropes would put it, “anvilicious” about these subjects. Some of Mercedes Lackey’s less-well-written stuff, for example, and some of the PSA-y Buffy episodes, just make me want to scream: yes, women are people! Gay is okay! Rape is bad! Abuse is bad! I get it! I, in fact, got it TEN YEARS AGO, so perhaps we could get back to slaying vampires? Maybe?
See also: Captain Planet, oh my GOD.
Ben P said on 08.23.10 at 07:27 PM • [link]
Redcrow, you’re missing the point. Geekgirl summed it up: Suz. Brockmann’s writing has developed into a soapbox for spoonfeeding readers her political views. That’s just as annoying as Card’s own wierdness and bigotry seeping through into his work. Suz’s work was once a daring inclusion of really excellent gay characters, she did a great job of making readers think “hmm being gay sounds hard” and drawing attention to some of the pressures and the level of alcohol abuse on the scene. Something I’m intimately familiar with.
Now her work has become a clumsy facade of romantic suspense wrapped around a political agenda.
I’m happily, proudly and openly bisexual and don’t make a secret out of it. But if I want to write about that, make gay rights or sexuality into a major theme I’m going to write a book called “Things I won’t swallow” focusing on the life and times of Niell Down.
I’ll also make it clear what I’m writing about. I will not, as Suz has done, mislead my readers by promising a romantic suspense but delivering a political treatise. That’s what has pissed her readers off.
Be vocal. That’s good. But be honest, because that is even better.
Ben P said on 08.23.10 at 07:32 PM • [link]
It comes down to what the novel is purported to be about and what the novel is intended to do.
If I’m marketing myself as an entertainer then I promise to deliver entertainment.
If I’m marketing myself as a gay rights activist then I promise to actively promote gay rights.
One of the major rules of writing and publishing is: Deliver what you promise.
Readers who buy a hard-boiled detective novel and get a chic lit story will be pissed off. Readers who buy a paranormal romance but get hard science fiction will be pissed off.
Just as being out is about honesty rather than living in the closet, writers need to be honest about the stories they sell.
redcrow said on 08.23.10 at 08:18 PM • [link]
Well, as tvtropes also say, “some anvils need to be dropped”. You got it. Okay. Someone else doesn’t. After reading the book, they might get it…
...or might scream “Where’s my escapist fiction?!” and run away to never come back. I can understand it. But, you see, I’m not yet sick of people loudly explaining how I am a human being with feelings and thoughts, and don’t need to be “cured”, and it’s not “just a phase”, and I’m not a walking fanservice for straight guys… Unless I visit specific sites, read specific books and only contact with specific groups of people, I don’t hear/see it every day wherever I go. I am, however, sick of people loudly proclaiming just the opposite. So of those two options, I’ll gladly choose the first.
(Incidentally, you can entertain and promote gay rights at the same time. No, seriously. It’s not one or the other. Maybe Ms.Brockmann fails at this - I take your words for it, since I didn’t read anything by her. I’ll have to read her to judge for myself, anyway, and I won’t have any chance to do it any time soon. I also don’t mind genre clashes, but I’m weird like that.)
Isabel C. said on 08.23.10 at 09:44 PM • [link]
Redcrow: Fair enough, and I think it might be different for gay rights issues—and “gay people are people too” doesn’t bug me as an anvil, or at least it’s hard to think of works where it has. And I certainly think that it’s possible to entertain and inform at the same time.
On the other hand, as a woman, I get really tired of ostensibly-fantasy-or-romance books that are all about “women’s issues” (which always boil down to rape or abuse—not that these aren’t serious problems, but there’s more to being female, Lifetime) because…yeah, some people might not get it. But I do, and I have, and I don’t particularly want an After-School Special, no matter how worthy the cause is. And at least PSAs are up-front about their content and intent.
It all depends on presentation, honestly. A skilled writer can present tremendously messagey plots in a compelling way: I avoid the hell out of most rape-or-abuse plots, but McKinley’s Deerskin or King’s Dolores Claiborne are favorites of mine. On the other hand, there are a lot of books where I have to stop halfway and give my friends a sarcastic “...the more you know!” bit.
So it can be done well, but I’m wary unless I know the author’s otherwise skilled.
hapax said on 08.24.10 at 03:33 AM • [link]
Suz. Brockmann’s writing has developed into a soapbox for spoonfeeding readers her political views.
Y’know, people keep saying this, and I’m not sure how. Maybe it’s because I already agree with her political views, but I don’t see the “soapbox.”
Every time I ask for specific example, it usually comes down to the fact that she doesn’t shy away from depicting same sex romance in her books (even, *gasp* as the PRIMARY FOCUS! With sexxoring and stuff!) and has these characters actually reflect how the bigotry they encounter is a major source of conflict in their relationships.
Nobody seemed to accuse her of being “political”, when she featured inter-racial romances and realistically depicted the effects of racism in several of her earlier romances.
But when it comes to Teh Gay, all of a sudden we should just pretend it’s all puppies and unicorns for the sake of our precious “escape”?
Would that the real-life same sex couples I know could “escape” bigotry so easily…
P.S. Izzy, is that you @ 11:44?
Isabel C. said on 08.24.10 at 04:10 AM • [link]
It is! Hey there. :)
This conversation is making me want to check out Brockman’s work, for the record, despite being mostly into historical stuff.
redcrow said on 08.24.10 at 11:40 AM • [link]
Hapax, can I hire you as my spokeperson or something? You’re always so eloquent, and I always fail at it (especially when it comes to Sharing Thoughts On Yaoi).
I can promise not to use your services when it comes to religion and all the other stuff we might have different views on, so you won’t have to say things you don’t agree with.
Ben P said on 08.24.10 at 11:58 AM • [link]
Infamous is a revision of an older work of Suz’s. Over at Suz’s team ten yahoo group there is a partial list of political bits retroactively and, as the analysis there points out, clumsily worked into the text.
In fact, the two main gay characters, Jules and Robin, are among our favourite characters. None of the readers there complain about the gay sex. Most of us agree that the scene with Robin and Jules getting it on in the limousine was HOT.
So hapax, you’re a little off base there.
Nope, no one accused her of being political when she daringly wrote about inter-racial romances or had an african-american romance as the main plot. Because she didn’t flog us with it. The fact that Harvard was african-american meshed perfectly with the story. It wasn’t used as a club to beat us with the fact that *gasp* african-americans are people too.
The topic itself is secondary to the increasingly unsubtle, poorly integrated and inelegant way she addresses it. Head over to the team ten yahoo group and read the various topics about Infamous.
The point of contention among her fans is the fact that she’s writing Trojan Romances: Her political views masquerading as a romance.
Why is it OK to beat up on Card for being a raging homophobe but not OK to be disappointed at the way Suz is increasingly inelegantly pushing her political views in her work?
Isabel C. said on 08.24.10 at 01:32 PM • [link]
Ben: Much as I dislike anyone inelegantly pushing political views in their work, I think the answer to *that* is pretty simple.
Inelegantly pushing political views in your work (and again, I don’t know that Suzanne Brockman does this) makes you a bit ham-handed as a writer.
Being a raging homophobe makes you a craptacular person.
It’s reasonable enough to react to the two things differently.
jeanne said on 08.24.10 at 01:53 PM • [link]
megalith:
That’s because it’s on every school summer reading list ever, which is a whole ‘nother discussion. Google “Ender’s Game fascist Hitler Apologia” and/or “Orson Scott Card has always been an asshat” for that one.
Once school is in session again, you’ll be able to find a copy no problem.
Mezza said on 08.24.10 at 02:24 PM • [link]
I had read the post and the many comments and gone on to make soup and do a job application when I realised that I had to come back and say that I have been disturbed by the conflation of Suzanne Brockmann’s Robin and Jules stories with the Orson Scott Card’s homophobic ravings by some commenters. An honest writer’s attempt to write inclusively is the same thing as the prejudiced thinking and themes that OSC presents to us? I don’t think so. I have read all of SB’s Troubleshooter books and enjoy them for what they are. Like others I stopped reading OSC a long time ago. On one hand we have an author who is writing about the real world and the real people around us in a way that brings hope in both the stories and sense of possiblity for the reader together with the sense of the world becoming or having the chance to be a better place. On the other we have someone who seems to be writing and living a life based on fear and trying to engage us with that worldview. Just because both writers have views that come through their writings doesn’t make them the same.
Cathy said on 08.24.10 at 03:17 PM • [link]
All this reminds me that I haven’t read an Ayn Rand… um, I mean Terry Goodkind… book in a while. :P Talk about soapboxing in mid-series.
hapax said on 08.24.10 at 04:42 PM • [link]
@BenP—
I haven’t read the revised INFAMOUS, so you’re right, I hadn’t heard those specific complaints.
The quotes you mention do sound rather hamfisted, but out of context it’s hard for me to judge. shrug I’ll take your word for it that they were inserted clumsily.
(More clumsily than the obligatory screed against “climbing boys” that used to be inserted into Every Regency Ever as shorthand that This!Heroine!Was!Different! ? Hard to say. Maybe because even Fox News hasn’t been endorsing climbing boys recently?)
Anyways, I haven’t been to Team Ten and probably won’t, because for various reasons I can’t do YahooGroups. But I did used to hang out on the message board at SB’s website (I think she eventually shut it down) and was disgusted at the many many people who posted there who were offended at Suz “shoving Jules’s gayness in our faces” (of course they loved him when he was the perpetually romantically unlucky Gay Best Friend) and at her “sermonizing” and “psychobabble” about BDSM when it was revealed that Decker was a closet sub (of course they thought it was “romantic” when it looked like he might be an uber-alpha control freak!)
So perhaps I am a little over-sensitive to the accusations of “preachiness” that frequently get flung her way.
Ben P said on 08.24.10 at 04:50 PM • [link]
Conflating Card and Suz Brockmann. That would be bad.
Even worse than the unfortunately conflated Jeff Goldblum in The Fly.
My wife thinks Jeff is sexy. I agree, but she can have him. I still want Vin Diesel.
Besides. Kissing tall men gives me a crick in my neck.
bnickle said on 08.24.10 at 10:43 PM • [link]
It is not a famous book by any means, but Silent in the Grave by Deanna Raybourn has one of the best first lines I’ve ever read: “To say that I met Nicholas Brisbane over my husband’s dead body is not entirely accurate. Edward, it should be noted, was still twitching upon the floor.” I bought that book based on that opening line, it made me laugh in the bookstore, right out loud. And it’s not a particularly funny book, but that moment of humor was unexpected and welcome.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments