Anonymous Musings: Fans Shouldn’t Criticize Writers? How come?

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?

Categorized:

Random Musings

Comments are Closed

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

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

  2. SonomaLass says:

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

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

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

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

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

  3. Charlene says:

    O

  4. Charlene says:

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

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

  5. Dragoness Eclectic says:

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

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

    Rafael Sabatini
    Alexandre Dumas
    Robert Louis Stevenson
    Jules Verne

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

  6. Jules Jones says:

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

  7. Marianne McA says:

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

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

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

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

  8. DS says:

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

    The only thing I’d like to add to this discussion, and hopefully I won’t be flogged for it, is that I have noticed that the relative anonymity that the comments section of a blog or the internet in general gives people often emboldens them to be ruder and nastier than I think they would be if they were face to face with the person they were discussing. That is my biggest quarrel with the internet/blogs/emails etc. and I think that does come into play when people discuss an author’s work. I was on a list once and I was pretty shocked at how free people felt just to rip at an author’s book and the author themselves.

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

  9. Light says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  10. Chicklet says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  11. Leslie Hubanks says:

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

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

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

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

    Refuse to be afraid. Nolite timere.

  12. Poison Ivy says:

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

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

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

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top