Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

But they are all feeling oh, so SO superior to us romance readers!

Superior enough to equate Silhouette Desires with erotica. Who needs accuracy?

All of the above—-

gee….

Now, see… I look at that and say, “You’re too stupid to converse with.” I don’t understand why it bothers people. Does it tie into “peer pressure” (which I always thought was another load of crap)?

Since when does a romance novel automatically equal erotica or porn. Geez. Learn something about which you speak before spouting off about it.

Argh. It makes my brain hurt when people do this type of thing. And like SB Sarah said, oh so tired.

No one flips out when someone is reading a sexy slasher book, a forumla murder mystery, a “_____for Dummies” or something so dry and boring it would make you comatose.  There is a lot of stupidity being expressed by the writer and posters on this piece.

I vote that Candy should go over and make mincemeat of the Gawker - and feed her/him? some cluecake while you’re at it.

Stef

I don’t understand why the observer was so concerned with the age and dress of the reader. Just because a woman is middle aged and frumpy, they’re at odds with reading a romance? What should the woman have been reading that would have made sense to the observer? “Martha Stewart Living,” perhaps. And who wouldn’t have been at odds being seen reading the Harlequin? A lanky, big breasted college student?

I think the fact that the Gawker was so tuned into the reader’s physical characterists makes the Gawker seem pretty shallow. It says a lot more about her than romance books or the reader.

Note to self: Appear glamourous while reading romances in public.

Not.

Definitely “e.”

Harlequin as erotica?  Either they’ve never read a Harlequin or they’ve never read erotica.

The comments are more offensive than the post.  This one, though, caught my eye, because I hope it’s true:

i am always fascinated by people who read erotica in public. no shame!

Exactly!  The day women don’t have to apologize for our own desire and have no shame about embracing all the wayward turns of our sexuality, the world will shift on its axis and peace will reign in the kingdom (any more cliches I can throw in there for good measure?).

And what, pray tell, were *they* reading?  And what gives them the right to 1) comment on anyone’s body or clothing or 2) criticize their reading material.

They have obviously just proven how ignorant and classless they are.

And you know what?  I just read through the comments and they pissed me off even more than the post itself.

OMG, none of these people have an effing clue at all.  What’s more, probably none of them *read* at all, unless it’s in tiny, blog-sized increments.

Judgmental people just push all of my buttons.  And they really need to know that someone’s size or appearance has ABSOLUTELY FREAKIN’ NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR READING CHOICES.

(spam word = lost28, which is how many times I’ve now lost it about that post and comments)

Self-Defense for Romance Readers

Well, the most unforgivabel sins a woman can commit are—

a.  Get old.
b.  Gain weight.
c.  Dress ‘frumpy’ (or comfy)
d.  Read romance.

Well I’m pretty dang screwed!

Gawker poses the theory that a choice in literature affects the weight and fashion of a reader…so, whenever I read romance I encase my 101 pound muscular, yet delicate body in the latest fashion by Dolce and Gabana.

At my age, I don’t give a crap what anyone thinks of what I read or not. In fact, I do the same with cigarettes and liquour. I live my life in my terms, carry my books everywhere I go, reading them between flights, doctor’s appointments, and a couple of times at a boring job. I don’t buy books to put them on a coffee table so everyone can oooh and ahh over them. I buy books because I read passionately. I buy books that give me pleasure, books that make me feel. I don’t seek approval or acceptance from snobs who stereotype, generalize or critize any topic just to feel superior…and what makes it sad is that probably everyone that posted on Gawker’s blog has a mother, sister, daughter, family member or a friend that “shamefully” reads romance. I wonder how you can say “up yours” politely?

I was so distracted by the multicultural asses flashing by on the side of the page I had trouble focusing on the article.  I think it was an add for a toilet. lol

Seriously, people who look down their noses at what other people read are just looking for something to make themselves feel superior, since they obviously have too little self esteem and have to bash other people.

All of the above and really, how intelligent can you be to make the same tired stereotype ridden “joke” entry over and over?

Didn’t someone go to rehab or fuck someone else’s boyfriend? Did Gawker suddenly run out of topics so they had to dig back to 1998 or something?

I’d rather read romance than make myself look better by cutting other women down through making fun of their clothing and weight.

Kerry, you are my hero(ine).

“Romance novels are required reading material at whore school. I’m the valedictorian.”

I am so going to use that one.

I’d second Stef’s vote that Candy go make mincemeat out of everyone over there, but they’re so small-minded that they probably wouldn’t understand what she wrote.

I love shocking people by telling them I read romace obsessively. I think it makes people nervous that they might have to reveal something that’s more socially taboo than reading books!

Kerry, it doesn’t bother me, at all, what strangers think of me.

But when a close family member, in the middle of an argument, throws out, “go hide your head in your stupid romance novels again” it does make me grit my teeth.

Because, frankly? I don’t think many people would substitute science fiction, fantasy, or “classic literature” of any stripe in that phrase, and get away with the same derogatory intent.

In that sense, a less negative/dismissive/condescending/whatever public impression of romance novels would be a good thing—for ME.

And it would certainly improve the chances of getting new readers for authors.

IMO, YMMV

(there’s intelligent life in this spamfoiler!!! “reason74”)

I laughed at It gets racier when you learn that the protagonist is self-employed.

I think books are fair fodder for the funny. If I didn’t, I never would have discovered SB. Derogatory comments about a stranger’s appearance? Petty, whether you’re calling someone frumpy or a whore.

The comments pissed me off too. The guy who says his wife reads those by the box full, but hey, he won’t stand in the way of what gets her motor running! Well, buddy, she just might be reading them to escape your butt for the moment (or box full!)

Does this mean Harlequin is the “Big-assed-swan-hat” of Romance publishers?

But when a close family member, in the middle of an argument, throws out, “go hide your head in your stupid romance novels again” it does make me grit my teeth.

Because, frankly? I don’t think many people would substitute science fiction, fantasy, or “classic literature” of any stripe in that phrase, and get away with the same derogatory intent.

Well…

I actually have slammed someone for having his nose always stuck in a fantasy novel.

Mind you, he was a sexist jerk who liked to give opinions on what women want, and I was making the point that it was unlikely that he knew what women want, given how seldom he interacted with live ones.

Thank you, Gawker, for furthering a second stereotype: that all New Yorkers are vapid, parochial, image-obsessed snots. You make me embarrassed for my chosen city.

Not only do you have to audition, but they execute (take away your registration basically) commenters once a week - last week they got rid of anyone who was excited about Harry Potter (on Gawker. I actually enjoy reading Jezebel, Deadspin and Idolator - the last two of whom seem not execute commenters? Weird).

I dunno. I couldn’t read past the first few lines of the post. There’s something about the general style and tone of Gawker posts that make me feel as I lost 50 IQ points. Can’t do it.

*as “if” I lost. <—- See? Already happening.

Amazing.  As others have said, only the elite may comment.  Subject to their approval.

“Audition to become a commenter. To become a registered commenter on this site, you first need to be approved by our team. We’re looking for comments that are interesting, substantial or highly amusing. So write a comment, polish up your words and choose a username and password below. Your comment will only appear once (or if) you’re approved.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ.”

What’s really funny is that I was going to leave a comment about them being “condescending”.....

Oh, and the blurb from the sidebar?
“Gawker, daily Manhattan media news and gossip. Reporting live from the center of the universe.”
Wow.

I don’t understand why it bothers people. Does it tie into “peer pressure” (which I always thought was another load of crap)?

Nope.  It doesn’t have to affect me directly to piss me off.  I get pissy over principles all the time.

Gawker knows how awful they are and they revel in it. Hence the snotty tag line about the center of the universe. I don’t think it’s all that different from “smart bitches who love trashy novels”. Self-directed irony is part of the postmodern condition. The problem is, the post itself has no irony whatsoever to it.

A few weeks ago I did a whole big blog essay on how wrong it is to deride anyone’s choice in reading. But the situation keeps popping up, because insulting women is a world pastime.

I usually respond to bashing of specific romance comics (since that’s an area of expertise) on the original blog/site by posting a comment. What then usually happens is that a couple of people from the blog/site doing the insulting “follow me home” and get snippy. Meanwhile, they post on their own place that I “have no sense of humor” or “don’t get it.” And their sycophants cheer them on. 

But I get it quite clearly. Laughing at women who like romance is a cheap shot. Enclosing yourself in a bubble (not allowing free access to respond) is an even cheaper way to pretend that you are right and that the entire world agrees with you. But you guys aren’t fooling anybody but yourselves. And yours isn’t a “members only” club I want to join.

Bronwyn must be real disgusted to know her first romance title is still out there being read and enjoyed. I’d say so on the Gawker site, but somehow I doubt I’d pass their quality control test. After all, like Bronwyn, I write embarrassing fiction that people might read in public wearing bad clothes.

Go the lady reading the book. If I knew her name and addie, I’d send her one of mine.

Jennie

Enclosing yourself in a bubble (not allowing free access to respond) is an even cheaper way to pretend that you are right and that the entire world agrees with you.

Good point. They rip apart a certain group of people, but those people are not allowed to respond b/c of their silly “audition” system.

Oh no. No no no.  I just realized what I wrote about Gawker knowing they’re awful and be snotty could be taken as a slam on SBs.  No.  No no NO.  I’m having serious brain-keyboard disconnect lately.

What I meant was something like:
The redeeming feature of Gawker is that they have *some* self-directed irony.  Witness the sidebar thing about the center of the universe.  Which, in its self-directed irony, reminds me of the SBs’ site name. Which I like.

However. Gawker revels in being mean so their posts are unfunny and lacking in irony. UNlike the SBs.

Oh hell.  Just spank me.

I think I should shut down the computer for the night.

More power to Ms. Office Worker. There she is reading whatever she wants wherever she wants.

Well…just fuck. I am that stereotype.

it amuses the ever loving hades out of me that the site that ‘auditions’ commentators and searches for ‘substance’ didn’t bother to check for accuracy, most specifically the name of the bookstore now located in grand central…that proudly sells many harlequins to very happy customers of all sorts:)  the store’s called ‘posman’ books ...;)

“Because, frankly? I don’t think many people would substitute…“classic literature” of any stripe in that phrase, and get away with the same derogatory intent.”

It’s quite simple, just takes different words.  My favorite variation is ‘lit-snob.’ Example:
“So what do you read?”
“Romance.”
*sneering reply*  “I don’t read that stuff.”
“Oh.  What do you read?”
“Litrachure.  Better works of fiction.”
“Oh.”  *sneering reply*  ” You’re a lit snob.”

(e) all of the above.

(e) all of the above. Posted by Bronwyn Jameson on 08/02 at 12:42 AM
*snort* (((((Bronwyn Jameson))))

I was going to (try) to write something witty about myself being fat, frousy and in a boring job…. but just about half-way through the commentators er, comments I started to feel sad… just really sad. It’s 2007 and this is what the folks in the center-or-the-universe see as interesting insights? It’s just incredibly sad.

Now I have to go look at archived covers from the SBs to get out of this funk and into the day .... which includes a stop at the bookstore for the August Harlequin and Silhouette titles..

I have a problem with this (other than the obvious problem of the whole rude article) in that nothing happens when I click “Read More”, neither in Firefox nor in IE. Am I too stupid and middleaged to notice some cool icon or button or something, or do I have a technical problem?
And, my goodness, if that’s the standard of comments they get with auditioning, I’d hate to see the rejects.

Jezebel has also (sort of) gotten into the act (but not in a mean way and I generally love that site). It will be interesting to see what their commenters say, since they have far more women as readers.

I find it funny that comments like these always have to do with Harlequin=romance novels. This is definitely not meant as a knock against the big H; I just think that people who know nothing about romance other than the word “harlequin”...obviously don’t know much about the wide world of romance other than what they’ve heard in passing.

Was the turbo charged dildo comment really called for? Really? God forbid a woman enjoy her own sexuality. What makes it turbo charged anyway?

I recently received my BA in English. I was all honor society and smart and stuff. It was always fun when people would find out I read romance. They couldn’t assume I was stupid, so I guess they just thought I was a pervert. And when they critisized romance it was always Harlequin bringing the real literature down.