An author who would like to remain anonymous asked me:
As a romance outsider, I’ve always been surprised by the attitude that romance fans shouldn’t criticize romance writers. And it reminds me of the attitude a lot of minority people have—that there’s enough criticism from outside so you don’t openly criticize your own.
It’s an attitude I don’t quite agree with since it seems to show support for corruption and mediocrity. [Criticism is] actually showing solidarity against the biases of the majority.
But it reflects the mentality of those who are in the minority of a larger group. And the difference is that romance readers and writers are the single largest block of readers and writers. So why do these fans hold onto this attitude? I think it’s because most romance fans are women and women and our society treats our opinions as inconsequential, not as worthwhile as a man’s opinions.
Anyway, just a thought. If I were in the majority of a group, I’d be exercizing my power quite capriciously and arbitrarily. But that’s me.
First, I have to say, before anyone levels the accusation, no, I didn’t write this and attempt to deflect attention by posting it attributed to an anonymous source. I never remember to use the word “capriciously,” even though it is a GREAT word.
Second, I have to also say, yeah, what is up with that? I lot of the ire I see directed at Candy and at me is based on the idea that as fans, we hurt the genre by criticizing it in any way. 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 – so we’re both anti-women and anti-romance. And thus we hurt the genre, and should be Banned from the Internet.
But anonymous’ ability to connect to a question of majority/minority cultural habit is curious: romance readers are among the most powerful consumer groups in a book buying sense, so why is it a bad thing to criticize the genre from the perspective of a consumer? I haven’t the faintest idea, though I suspect it has a great deal to do with the culturally-enforced group habits of women, which further muddles the question of “are romance readers a minority inside a majority, lurking in a crunchy taco shell?” There is a definite pressure to be nice within groups of women, even as the biting behind one’s back is even more, dare I say, savage than what could be said to one’s face.
So what do you think? Why is there a backlash against romance criticism, ours or anyone’s?
“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.â€
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…
Penny Marshall
Carrie Fisher
Hillary Clinton
Whoopi Goldberg
Diane Feinstein
Nora Roberts
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 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?
This goes back to what I was talking about last week, about how text lacks empathy. If somebody who knew me well heard that I’d helped create a website with that name, they’d get it—immediately, no question. If somebody came to the website and saw the name on the banner title, they’d probably have an inkling about how we’re using the words. If somebody came to the website, saw the banner and read some of our posts, their opinion would probably evolve even more (in terms of where we stand vis-a-vis “trashy” and “bitches”). The problem comes when the name is mentioned without any context whatsoever, and I’d argue that the biggest problems with interpretation lie with attempting to parse the words without context. Just about any interpretation would valid, sure, but that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t benefit from a little tweaking with context.
“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.