Huffington Post invited me to submit a rebuttal to the article by Alan Elsner that I mentioned in passing late last week. Mr. Elsner took a stack of romances from the library, read them, and pronounced the entire genre as absolute crap.
My response is now up over at Huffington Post’s book section: Pride and Prejudice and Pedantry. An excerpt:
In response, I refer to that book he holds in such high regard, “Pride and Prejudice”, by Jane Austen:
“You have insulted me in every possible method. You can now have nothing farther to say.”
A shabby, patched-up survey of books with no curation involved, let alone curiosity, does not an expert make. I invoke Smart Bitch Law #1: Thou shalt not diss the reading material of another person merely to elevate one’s own. By doing so, thou art passing the buck, and verily thou art being a douchebag.
I wonder if the comments will be as intricately moderated for mine as for Mr. Elsner.
Excellent rebuttal, Sarah! I’m a researcher and if ever I tried Paul Elsner’s methodology, I’d be out of a job. It’ll be interested to see what sort of response you’ll get.
I’m a bit surprised you chose Smooth Talking Stranger out of Kleypas’s contemps – it seems as though most people (myself included) preferred the first two.
WOOT! I was hoping that this would happen—including the reading list, which I will be fascinated to see if Mr. Elsner actually bothers with. I think you got it spot-on when you diagnosed his “research methods” as the result of a guy waking up in the middle of the night panicked by
the prospect of genre-writing-related girl cooties
the thought that people might—gasp!—think that he had written a romance.
Oh, well played, Sarah. Well played indeed!
*Applause*
Do we know if Elsner has read a romance and what type he read?
Oh yes, Lord of Scoundrels definitely is a must. I would have picked Blue-Eyed Devil also to read due to the emotions felt as I read.
You go, girlfriend.
I’d have gone with Passions of Emma by Penn Williamson for an Austen snob. But I have no quibble with an article that can be summarized – “you sir, are a tool.”
On a more serious level, it is the Right Of Men to have confidence on the Lack Of Value in things that Are For Women, because Woman Are Vapid Creatures, and learned men are Knowledge Laden.
Perfect response, Sarah—a dignified bouquet of diplomacy with a refreshing hint of snark. We couldn’t ask for a better ambassador for the genre.
Elsner has a comment up – the first one – and he has already very loftily elevated himself above the fetid swamp of femininity that is the Romance genre.
Sucks to him!!
(And I notice that he didn’t mention just what books – or even how many – he had read)
I’m stuck in moderation, I’m being oppressed. 😉
Great job.
I think that he’s listed as a journalist is one of the things that fascinates me the most. What a different piece it would have been with research and talking to some folks. He probably still would have had some issues, but it would have been a more interesting piece.
I wonder if dissenters will have an easier time in the comments…
I’m glad they put up a rebuttal, not so glad I had to read Elsner’s article in the first place. I like debate; I do not like having to read the same uninformed drivel each time someone wants to boost themselves up.
Way to go Sarah. I have to say that your article came across as being put together by a much more thoughtful and intellectual person than his did.
Oh, I love the tone of your response Sarah! I mean, while you totally call out his faulty approach and reasoning, you elevate the discussion to a spirit of thoughtfulness and open-mindedness. I love your last bit:
@orangehands,
With guest bloggers, it all gets moderated.
That’s a comment, it’s a quote from his original article. I made the same mistake at first.
Excellent rebuttal, Sarah. Thanks for stating the case for romance novels so eloquently.
NOT. That’s NOT a comment. Sheesh.
done22: Yeah, maybe I shouldn’t click “submit” until I’m sure I’m done.
@becky
My bad! It _looked_ like a comment! I now wonder if Elsner is going to dare to stick his head out… 😉
Elsner has shown a certain avoidance of the wimmenfolk—he probably fears we have cooties.
Did anybody read the Twitters at the end of the article?
Ahahahahahahaha!
Captcha: I KNEW it!
AND, wonderful rebuttal, Sarah. You do the Bitches proud.
(I meant to say that before. Guess I was laughing too hard)
Great post, Sarah!!
I’d just thought I’d point out that his first name is Alan, not Paul.
Poor Elsner. Not just rebutted, but annihilated… and in a far more engaging writing style than his own. Oh the cruel hand of fate.
Thanks for writing that, Sarah! I finally got so grumpy and fed-up about the whole thing I just had to put it out of my mind and go drink hot chocolate.
I’m all better now.
Great article, Sarah!
know64: as in Sarah knows 64 different ways to express disdane, without being profane!!!
Hey, Smart Bitches, make sure you comment on the HuffPo blog. If there’s enough traffic then it’s possible that HuffPo might run more entries that are romance positive. Who knows maybe we’d find our very own SBSarah with a regular column. From my POV, that would be the best possible “revenge” and outcomes for that romance negative article.
Nice job, Miss Sarah.
Off to create an account.
Excellent response! Eloquent and to the point… take that all ye haters of romance!
For all that Mills & Boone/Harlequin is a powerhouse in the field, there are lots of “romance” novels that are not formulaic, and even in the “category” section most are not plot-less drivel or thinly disguised she-porn. The perception still seems to be, if it is well written and I like it, it can’t be “romance” because all “romance” is trash.
If romance is defined by the HEA, would Pride and Prejudice have been a book more worthy to be called “literature” if Darcy never got together with Elizabeth and she ended up a bitter and impoverished old maid, because, god-forbid, a happy ending would make it a “romance” and we can’t have any of that trash cluttering up the classics?
The only thing that a “romance” genre novel has to have is a couple and a happy ending – or at least the expectation of a happily ever after for the people involved. How they get there is up to the author. Following Clarke’s Law, 90% of it is still crud, but then, you know, 90% of everything is crud. To point to the bottom 10% (like the worst sex scenes awards – is that writing actually definitive for the class “literature”?) and say “that poorly-written she-porn over there defines “romance”, therefore I will dismiss the better 90% that can be included in the genre” is ridiculous and pretentious at best.
i think you misquoted pride & prejudice. i’ve never read it myself, but thought it was curious ms. austen had used “farther” when she should’ve used “further”.
and with reference to your community in defense of the genre—just ‘cause smart ladies also like book porn doesn’t in any way elevate it, it just means it has broad appeal. but i have no problem with it, chicks need porn too.
That’s Miss Austen to you, bucko.
Hey Nate, thanks for your fucking permission!
I guess I’ll allow your need for porn too, or is that assumed?
Nate,
Let us know when you’ve read the books on Sarah’s list. We’ll talk then.
I know I should resist feeding the trolls, but this provides the added benefit of allowing me to follow the conversation easier so I’ll just throw this petting zoo pellet and let it lay…
Dear nate,
Just because you know the difference between “further” and “farther”—even if you admit that you haven’t read the book in question and don’t know if it’s a misquote or not—and can use “genre” correctly in a sentence doesn’t make you any less of a hate-baiting troll if you don’t actually offer more than the usual cheap insult without the slightest attempt to back it up with, oh, I don’t know, actual proof and/or reasoned argument.
Y’all, don’t feed the troll.
I know, I know. *hangs head in shame*
Well, I know it’s difficult to resist. They’re just so sad and pitiful. But it’s like feeding squirrels. Little bastards will then become utter pests and just gnaw their way through every damned thing. Then they chew on an electrical cord, electrocute themselves, and you have a crispy corpse to have to dispose of.
LOL Could always bury ‘em under a pile of discarded DNFs. That way, if they zombified, they’d have to read themselves free.
okay, shouldn’t’ve ended with a (rather) cheap shot, even if it was genuine—yes, i honestly support whatever you do to make your life more fulfilling & stimulating (mentally/emotionally/etc, wink-nudge). i do have a bit of a distaste for the fabio-covered books, and took the opportunity to tease. perhaps someday i will give the list a shot (and if i were to give the genre a shot, i’d certainly take the recommendations of this site over amazon ratings).
and, yes, it was a misquote. i checked before i posted, but thought my approach was gentler than including citations…
this is getting a little feisty, so i’ll take my leave (i.e. run for my life). have a nice evening, ladies!
I created a HufPo account just to comment on the awesome Sarah’s rebuttal. The first, and I think most important, comment I can make on Sarah’s rebuttal is that it’s so much more well written than Eisner’s. It’s well thought out. It doesn’t mud sling. It’s got catchy phrases. Purely on literary merit, it kicks his ass.
I’m hanging my head in shame on this, but I used to feel just like him. I’d read some romances when I was younger (Flame and the Flower, Sweet Savage Love) and my god, the squickiness of those books – the “I’ll rape her until she’s in love with me” theme, revolted me. Then I found this site while tooling around on the web and seeing this bit they had on awesomely tragic romance novel covers. I started reading a bit and taking up some of the suggestions. Lord of Scoundrels. Oh my freakin’ God! The best book ever! I worked my through more of the suggestions. Most I agreed with, some I did not. That said, I learned that Romance, like every other genre in the world, had a lot of crap but it also has a lot of brilliance.
But you know, the romance thing, I don’t know when it’s ever gonna be the sort of thing that one can recommend without a certain level of groveling. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve tried to get to read Lord of Scoundrels. They sneer, they mock. It’s the title. It makes me cringe, and I LOVE the freakin’ book.
Has anyone else commented at HuffPo? My comment made it through, but only one other after mine and that was several hours ago. I’m just wondering if comments are being rejected or if the Bitchery is being quiet. 🙂
I continue to be amazed by people who think there’s nothing romantic about sex, and especially by writers who don’t see sex scenes as a fantastic opportunity to show, not tell, the deepest, most vulnerable, and most intimate aspects of their characters and the relationship they share.
In my comment to the original Elsner article I quoted a blog post I wrote in summer ‘08. Because of HuffPo’s length restrictions I had to cut most of what I’d said, but here’s another quote, if anyone’s interested:
[referring to/answering people who call sex scenes in romance “unromantic”] Because there is apparently nothing remotely romantic about the joining of two bodies into one, especially not in the most literal sense when the act creates another human being; when people call it “making love” they do so in the spirit of bitterest irony. Don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t have to be romantic—I kind of like it best when it’s not, actually—but the idea that it never can be is ridiculous.
I’d quote more but I’m beginning to think perhaps I quote myself too much and thus am acting like a pretentious git. It’s just, I wrote this whole post about why sex scenes are important in romance novels, and why they should be considered valuable tools in any book, especially those with romantic subplots, and why they are—if done well—really the epitome of “show vs. tell,” which is the basis of good writing!! So I want to share it, lol! But I really apologize if I’m boring people by doing it or if I seem like I’m just trying to plug myself.