I came across this blog earlier today, and I thought this particular post was interesting enough to post snippets from it.
The Blogger starts by writing:
I touched on the issue of bodice rippers over the summer, but digging through some old emails in my computer reminded me of a few other points I wanted to make about a literary genre that does a lot of crying about no respect, but precious little analysis about why that is.
Rather than considering the validity of allegations of being lightweight prurient fluff, romance fanatics lash out at any and all critics, even those offering constructive criticism. I have so many examples of this, it’s not even funny. Let’s start with my favorite:
I think we all know of a few authors who have gone haywire over a bad review or two, I’m sure we don’t have to name names now do we?
Anyway she goes on to talk about everybody’s fave reviewer Harriet Klausner. Methinks she’s not too fond of the great dame herself. Who is?
This bit had me a bit confused though:
Anyone who ever tried to speak out about Klausner’s incompetence in a romance forum immediately heard howls of dissent. “She’s wonderful, what’s wrong with you?!” It didn’t take long for things to get personal. “You’re just jealous of her success!” is a frequent battle cry. Sorry, I’m not jealous of her success–I’m disgusted with it. Klausner is proof that it’s not talent, but literary diarrhea, that succeeds (a la Robert Jordan).
I must admit, I’ve never seen anybody defending Harriet Klausner since I’ve been online, and I can’t think of any romance forum which would defend her so fastidiously. The woman is a crock, and I should think that most romance readers know this by now. The intelligent ones anyway.
This was the most interesting point that she had to make:
At the risk of sounding sexist, I believe it has everything to do with the way most women interact in large groups, on the surface. They’re nice. They’re polite. They don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. They don’t like ugliness and conflict. They want to give the impression of being hospitable and inclusive. We were all taught that if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all, at least not in front of a group. And this is where the dark side of women comes into play
You don’t say nasty things about a sister to the group…you do that one on one, A tells B who tells C who tells D, and so on. If you do say it publicly, boy, does that “don’t say anything if you can’t say anything nice” get abandoned faster than a politician’s campaign promises.
Even though, she’s obviously dissing the romance genre (yes she is) I gotta say, I agree with most of the above points. Although, I must also point out that, she’s obviously never been to an AAR message board. Those ladies are happy to rip you apart if they think your book stinks, best selling author or no. (g)
Apparently Stephanie Bond got ripped to bits by readers when she included a phone sex scene in her book, Too Hot To Sleep. Is that true? Did readers really go crazy over a little dirty talk on the phone? Surely not?
Anyway, the blogger continues:
The Bond controversy raises another interesting point: The average romance reviewer is leery, if not downright frightened, of brave new ideas, such as phone sex. A writer who is TOO daring, TOO original, is cause for alarm, not celebration. Reviewers are also hypocritical. It’s okay for Catherine Coulter to write book after book with a marital rape plot device; it’s okay for Susan Johnson to have a hero use knitting needles as a sex toy on the heroine. But phone sex? Oh my goodness gracious, cover the children’s eyes!
The average romance reviewer is leery, if not downright frightened, of brave new ideas, such as phone sex? Hmmm I’m not sure if that statement is quite right. You’d think she’d know that the average reader is no longer all about keeping the bedroom door shut, and that phone sex is down right virtuous in comparison with some of the freaky shit that goes on in books these days.
She concludes:
The Romance industry craves respect. Unfortunately, they paint themselves into a corner by not realizing that what will get that respect is looking at their books and authors honestly AND objectively. I won’t even go into the near-incestuous relationships that reviewers have with authors in romance, rather than the invisible wall that needs to separate them. As it is, without honest feedback, romance cannot aspire to more, in a literary sense. The books will never become good enough to win over opponents. Until these problems are resolved, too many readers look at romance and find it lacking.
I know I like to have a pop at romance authors for sport, but it kinda grates on my nerves when other people do it. I’m ornery like that
As for winning over opponents, authors shouldn’t really care about what people from outside the genre think, but I think we all know by now that actually, they do care. A lot. Some have even gone to the length of distancing themselves from the genre that made them famous in the first place.
Ingrates
Oh, by the way, the bit where the blogger talks about incestuous relationships within the romance genre, sounds remarkably like something I once posted on the AAR group list when I was feeling particularly feisty
Just sayin
Right, enough pontificating, I’m off to bed. Night all.
Jackie
December 5
2:48 am
The average romance reviewer is leery, if not downright frightened, of brave new ideas, such as phone sex.
Huh.
Then what’s the verdict on an AWOL succubus pulling a stint on Earth as an exotic dancer while avoiding the minions of Hell? Too much of a stretch? Or is this on the same level as…phone sex?
Anonymous
December 5
12:13 pm
I wonder if she’s seen some of the reader blogs today? I think the blogging community of romance readers is a lot less forgiving of bad writing than, and more accepting of new ideas than that blog post suggest.
Also, I don’t like it when people diss romance authors in general but give examples using anonymous, wanna-be authors. (I’m sure there are many, many wannabe authors who go ballistic at the mere thought of their babies being ripped to shreds.) Let’s look at how the best sellers conduct themselves – most of them seem quite able to handle criticism.
Bam
December 5
3:25 pm
As it is, without honest feedback, romance cannot aspire to more, in a literary sense. The books will never become good enough to win over opponents. Until these problems are resolved, too many readers look at romance and find it lacking.
Ooooh… just wait till the other bloggers get a hold of this. There’s blood in the water! I can’t wait for the feeding frenzy!
Then what’s the verdict on an AWOL succubus pulling a stint on Earth as an exotic dancer while avoiding the minions of Hell? Too much of a stretch
I think the one who came up with that idea should be stoned to death, Jackie. What honorable Christian woman can come up with such a plot. I’ve never! 😛
Jackie
December 5
3:31 pm
I think the one who came up with that idea should be stoned to death, Jackie. What honorable Christian woman can come up with such a plot. I’ve never! 😛
::giggle::
Actually, I’m Jewish. 😉
Wendy
December 5
4:31 pm
The average romance reviewer is leery, if not downright frightened, of brave new ideas, such as phone sex.
Uh yeah, sure, OK.
Actually the Too Hot To Handle controversy is way old news – even factoring in when the blogger wrote that piece (October 2005) THTH hit store shelves in late August 2004.
And for the record, TRR and AAR both gave it “B” ratings while RT gave it 1 star and cited an unheroic hero and some offensive scenes. So not all reviewers are afraid of “brave new ideas” like phone sex.
Bam
December 5
5:09 pm
Actually, I’m Jewish. 😉
I’m almost sure Mel Gibson has something to say about Jews writing smutty novels and whoremongering.
Bam
December 5
5:11 pm
By the way, I reviewed that Stephanie bond book here.
Jackie
December 5
5:41 pm
I’m almost sure Mel Gibson has something to say about Jews writing smutty novels and whoremongering.
Heh. No doubt. I shoulda sent him an ARC. Back in the 1980s, I seriously crushed on Mel. Today my crushes are more of the Matt Damon variety. (He played a fabulous Loki in DOGMA.)
Jane
December 5
7:00 pm
I’m guessing that this girl does not get out and about in the romance world much cuz the foundation of her arguments are specious. I love that word specious.
Karen Scott
December 5
8:15 pm
Personally, I think she’s making half of this shit up anyway. I’m still reeling from her claim that she was accused of being jealous of Harriet Klausner by readers, when she dissed her.
There’s no way and no how that could have happened.
Anonymous
December 5
11:54 pm
I read somewhere that Harriet only posts reviews for books she liked. That explains why she seems to like everything, although not why she occasionally gets her facts wrong.
As for literature vs romance, I wouldn’t want romance getting uppity and having “redeeming value.” It’s supposed to entertain me, that’s all I want out of it. I did a degree in English Lit and I’ve read a lot of classics. The one thing most of them have in common is a lot of depressing shit, where bad stuff happens to people who make stupid decisions. If I want a morality play, I’ll hunt one up, thanks. At the other end of the spectrum, there’s literary nihilism, where bad and depressing stuff happens to characters you don’t give a shit about, and there is no reason why, because life is like that. By and large, “literature” makes me want to hang myself or check out the inside of an oven. So fuck that noise.
I like my romance just as it is, and I don’t care about R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
sallahdog
December 7
2:32 am
I read somewhere that Harriet only posts reviews for books she liked. That explains why she seems to like everything, although not why she occasionally gets her facts wrong.
A few months ago, I went throught Harriets reviews and just counted the numbers, she averaged something like 14 book reviews a week… No way in hell someone reads critically (if at all) 14 books a week and could write good critical reviews of them… Her reviews are useless..
I think the blogger obviously was only focusing on the narrow ‘traditional’ romance crowd(ie Harlequin Presents) rather than the broad umbrella of books that have romance in them,but could be paranormals, suspense, mystery, etc, etc…. Maybe my Mother would be ‘shocked’ by a phone sex episode, but her daughter isnt.
Sandy
December 7
5:34 pm
Okay, I am going out on a limb here a bit.
I have never understood why so many are up in arms because of this notion that romance fiction is not getting respect. Are we talking about recognition from critics or are we talking about money here? I can understand the later. Romance is a good portion of the mass market dollars and in listening to some authors, they are paid a pitance.
But if we are talking about recognition from the critics, romance as a genre is never really going to get that. No genre really does. Mystery, scifi included.
I say this because regardless of the outcrys, most romance books are all about entertainment and quick reads. They are not meant to be extremely thought provoking. They are meant to be fast enjoyable books about love, family, relationships etc.
Now that is not negating that there are extraordinary books in romance which should recognized with literary esteem.
Will many stand the test of time? Or be talked about in 100 years? I doubt it.
Jackie
December 7
6:31 pm
I say this because regardless of the outcrys, most romance books are all about entertainment and quick reads.
You could say this about all genre fiction, no? Westerns, science fiction, mystery, horror, thrillers, fantasy, romance…
As for standing the test of time…well, only time will tell. Seems to me that genre fiction does pretty well. (Jane Eyre, anyone? Or Frankenstein?)
eggs
December 7
11:57 pm
All I want to know is how the hell do you use knitting needles as sex toys? Has anyone read the book?
I’m not spooked by phone sex, but I do start rolling my eyes and running for the exit when an erotic romance heads for the compulsory anal scene. I’m talking ebooks here. I don’t mind a bit of rogering in a romance, but these days it’s starting to look like Bumhole Mania is taking over the world.
A lot of the time it’s written in a way that makes me think the author isn’t particularly turned on by it, either, and is only writing the scene because it’s required by her contract. That leaves me with a scene that’s about as interesting as driving a car across the Nullabor Plain.
Stop it authors! If it doesn’t turn *you* on when you’re writing it, there’s a good chance it won’t turn *me* on when I’m reading it, and that’s just a real waste of everyone’s time. Every now and then I read one that is really good, but most of the time it’s even more boring than reading about phone sex.
eggs.
Karen Scott
December 8
12:18 am
Eggs, I tend to skip right over anal sex scenes in erotic romance. Some times less is truly more.
Aquaria
July 2
2:35 pm
I’m the one who wrote that review. Would have been nice if you’d addressed any of the salient points in a rational manner.
And, if you must know, I’ve had long discussions about writing and publishing and public perceptions of genres with numerous writers, many of them romance writers.
I know what the pitfalls are with the business. I know what the demands are. And I know what the view of romance is.
Answer one question: How many romance writers have the reputation of Ian Rankin, Dennis Lehane, Michael Connelly, Peter Robinson or George Pelecanos, just a few of the mystery writers who are considered top-notch by any reader, no matter what the genre? If you’d read any of these authors you would understand why they aren’t just thriller writers, but serious artists as well. Or how about Ursula K. Le Guin, Arthur C. Clarke, Neal Stephenson, William Gibson, Terry Pratchett, Jim Butcher or Neil Gaiman from Sci-fi? How many romance writers have been nominated for book of the year awards, or even a Pulitzer like, oh, mystery’s James Lee Burke?
Romance doesn’t get a fraction of the respect that those two genres get. But, as postulated in my blog, writers and fans in those two genres also don’t get raving lunatic hysterical if you point out flaws in their genres. They have some semblance of critical analysis going on.
Just look at the reactions here. Rather than confronting the issue honestly, the vast majority of responses are “Uh uh! We’re not like that! That blogger obviously hasn’t read any of the stuff LATELY! What about X or Y or Z?”
Look, I left the genre and came back to it. It took only six months to realize that things had changed–but for the worse. I see no mention here of the increasing dumbing down of the heroines of these books. The writers are so inept that they think TELLING us their heroines are smart is the same as having a smart heroine. It’s not. It’s pretty dang sad when one of the dumbest heroines of the 70s is a frickin’ rocket scientist in comparison to the average romance heroine of today.
It’s sad when most of the writers keep trying to re-write Pride and Prejudice, and can’t begin to have characters as smart, strong and fully-developed as Jane Austen did 200 years ago, when women were literally chattel. I don’t expect every writer to have her skill at the craft, but, jeez, can’t they give their characters some backbones and brains?
By the way, why do so many romance writers leave the genre? Publishing is rife with them–Tami Hoag, Sandra Brown, Catherine Coulter, Janet Evanovich, and so forth? Could it be because it limits them as writers (Janet Evanovich says as much, outright)? That they have to adhere to a ridiculous formula with very little wriggle room, book after book after book? Could it be that they hate having their books taken from truly beautiful and poetic stories of 200,000 words and shoehorned into bare-bones formulae of 80K? Do any of you even understand a fraction of how this business works?
Another thing: Do you think I haven’t been to AAR and all the other places? I have. I’ve seen the female pack mentality at work when discussing romance books. Criticize anything, and it’s hysteria all around. It doesn’t take too many instances of that before someone just leaves thinking that romance readers are a bunch of immature Heathers.
Karen Scott
July 3
12:26 am
Aquaria, this post is nearly two years old. You certainly took your time getting here.
By the way, I decided to post my response here, seeing as my comment was getting as wordy as yours.