Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

I could be missing something, but I didn’t find the tone of the review condescending.  The reviewer had even read The Saving Graces and makes several comparisons between the books.  Granted she didn’t think the book was flawless, but I also didn’t get the impression that she felt embarrassed to be reading/reviewing it, either.

I especially liked this sentiment, in part because I think it’s spot on:  “Gaffney has a blunt and convincing insight into her characters, particularly the women.”

I found it ironic that WaPost reviewer and I thought the same scene was worth quoting.  Hee.  I thought it was a very good review and, unlike the reviewer, though Andrew was well developed as a character although Dash was the driving force behind the book.

I don’t think it’s condescending at all. It’s not totally rah-rah-go-Gaffney, but it’s awfully positive, and the one negative sounds like a normal comment. The “easy to get exasperated” paragraph sounds like something I would say without intending any condescension.  I wonder if all my reviews have a “somewhat reserved tone of ‘This isn’t bad’”.  Probably.  I don’t often fall head over heels for a book.

It’s actually been a decent week for romance press. The NYT blog at least nodded toward Nora Roberts’ High Noon (though Laura V and I sniped back and forth about the actual review they quoted). Inside Bay Area ran a very positive article on RWA National. And then the Wash. Post reviewing Pat Gaffney.

Well, I loved it!  I’m thrilled and all gooey inside that as august a publication as ye olde Washington Post, with which I grew up and which is still delivered to my door every day even though I live in Pennsylvania, reviewed Mad Dash and—basically—LIKED IT!  Yippee!  And I now LOVE Brigitte Weeks and will not hear a word against her.  St. Brigitte.  Brilliant, brilliant woman.  :)

Meljean Brook’s Demon Moon was also reviewed in Entertainment Weekly and got an A-.  Not exactly the WaPo or NYT in terms of literary regard, but nothing to sneeze at either.

However, that could easily be something I’d say if I thought that about a book. . .

I wondered if that was the passage that set you off, Sarah.  Had any of those criticisms been linked to a derisive comment about women’s fiction, I would agree they were condescending.  But like you said, they’re critiques any of us has probably leveled at books we’ve reviewed.  In a way, I’m glad the reviewer didn’t treat the book with kid gloves, because that REALLY seems condescending to me.  Yeah, it’s tough to imagine Gaffney slighting any character’s development, *g* but at least it’s a reasonable book critique (as, IMO, are the rest of the points of criticism). Actually, I think the remarks show the reviewer’s depth of connection with the book in that she *responded emotionally* to the characters—she was engaged enough as a reader to care.  Which, in its own way, is a positive reaction, I think.

Not exactly the WaPo or NYT in terms of literary regard

Considering that EW has 9 million readers, I’m sure Meljean Brooks is happy with that trade-off!

I haven’t read the Gaffney review yet, but playing off iffygenia’s mention of Entertainment Weekly, I thought I’d mention that the book review section routinely runs mini-reviews of four books in a rotating list of genres; the ones I remember are mystery, thriller, graphic novels, comic books, and romance. The last romance-focused genre spot was a couple of issues ago. I can’t remember which authors and books got reviewed, but it’s cool that EW regularly reviews romance, and they’re not derisive about the genre.

I read the book and I can’t say it’s on my to re-read list, but it was good. I related to both sides of the story (Dash and Andrew’s)

Yes, I do agree the tone is what set me off. As if the reviewer is saying, “I read this book because I had to.” Or more like another woman’s fiction novel. Why does this genre even exist.

Yes, Dash’s moods changed but not her decision to walk away from Adam until she figured out why she left him.

AND,

Dash cried whenever she was talking about her dead mother who(m?) she was very close to. What woman wouldn’t?

I say the only point I agree on is Andrew’s decison not to have an affair, but that’s the stereotypical assumption that every man would take the next offered vagina. Andrew’s character wouldn’t. It’s that simple.

So the reviewer can bite me.

The only reference to women’s fiction—and it comes several paragraphs into the review—is this one: 

Gaffney’s most successful novel to date, “The Saving Graces,” was an early entry in the now well-established genre of “women’s group” fiction, and those four Graces got to mix a lot of fun with their concerns, wrinkles and cancer. They quarrel, make up and understand each other’s failings and gifts. Gaffney has a blunt and convincing insight into her characters, particularly the women. She doesn’t let Dash off lightly on her journey back to Andrew, and the tone of this novel is darker than “The Saving Graces.”

How is any of that condescending or patronizing or suggestive of sufferance in reading the book?  What am I missing here?

Me too, Robin.  My condescension-o-meter never budged. 

She didn’t love everything about my book—they only do that in my dreams—but she was careful and respectful, and that’s about all you can ask for. 

I only wish she hadn’t given away so much of the plot!

I hink the reviewer is giving Gaffney credit for helping create the genre.  Quite different from “another woman’s fiction novel. Why does this genre even exist.”

Regardless, Pat Gaffney’s happy with it, and it’s in a big-name, big-circulation paper, and it’s a positive review.  And that’s on top of the other acclaim. The book’s a Booksense pick, and got other great reviews:
http://patriciagaffney.com/maddash_acclaim.html

The Post quote rounds out the list nicely.

It hink Jenny Crusie’s saying applies.  Nothing but good times ahead.

I only wish she hadn’t given away so much of the plot!

I’m probably in the minority, but I don’t really read books for plot.  That is, I don’t read primarily for plot, so summary type reviews don’t deter me, because I enjoy the whole storytelling experience, and invariably even the biggest chunks of summary don’t capture the entirety of the book, anyway. Of course, I tend to read books by skimming forward and backward as I’m reading along (flipping back and forth, checking out various passages and scenes, even as I’m following the narration as it’s written), so that shapes my view. 

My main objection to a lot of summary in a review is that it can take up space I’d rather—as a reader—be used for more reflective response by the reviewer.  A thoughtful review—positive or “negative”—will sell me on a book as much or more than even a friend’s recommendation.

I’m just relieved that Mad Dash is coming out in ebook.

I read the review again. It was this part of the paragragh I may be reading too much into.

“Andrew almost begins an affair with Elizabeth O’Neal, also a history professor, who “always wears black” and conveniently lives alone in a mansion she inherited from her rich uncle.”

The way her character was set up it wasn’t surprising that she had a mansion. I won’t go into detail ruining the book for those that haven’t read it. Anywyay, the house reflected who this character was and it didn’t seem like a conveniet way to have her living in a mansion.

The above paragraph and the one that follows about Dash just sounds to me like “this would only happen in WF.”

But hey that’s just my opinion.

The way her character was set up it wasn’t surprising that she had a mansion.

I haven’t read the book yet, so I don’t have that same insight you do, Melissa, but could the reviewer just be referring to the convenience of having the mansion for the purpose of having a good (cushy, private) place to carry on the affair? 

You know, now that I go back and read it again without the filter of just having read a thread of anti-romance-reader bashing on Gawker, I think my brain was askew and unduly influenced by what I’d just read.

I could certainly be under-reading for condescension, but regardless, I think that for readers of a popularly derided genre, it’s gonna be difficult for a while to accept that mainstream press outlets CAN be serious about women’s fiction books, whether they be Romance, “women’s group” fiction or whatever.  We’re so used to defending that it’s not so easy to put the weapons down and back away, lol.

could the reviewer just be referring to the convenience of having the mansion for the purpose of having a good (cushy, private) place to carry on the affair?

True, but sexual affairs have also been known to happen in apartments with the same amount of privacy.

We’re so used to defending that it’s not so easy to put the weapons down and back away, lol.

You may have hit the nail on the head. My point isn’t that they should review romance or women’s fiction with kid gloves so that we (the folks who love both genres) won’t start a riot or write angry e-mails.

I’m glad Pat liked the review. I’d also be pleased not to get trashed by The Washington Post and mention another one of my bestselling books(if I had one of course.) One small step for (wo)man, so on and so forth.

My point is the undertone of the review igged me. It may just be me. I’m okay with being the lone wolf. It’s why I write.

BTW: Yes, I know igg is not a real word.

True, but sexual affairs have also been known to happen in apartments with the same amount of privacy.

Can’t argue with that.  My point was really more that I couldn’t locate the genre stereotype in that reference, Melissa, especially since it seems more often that it’s the man who’s financially stable and the woman who isn’t.  Now I’m even more anxious to read the book to see what the reviewer is referring to, though.  Your objection may be clear to me then.