I Wonder What Laura Ever Did To Her?
Monday, February 4, 2008Posted in: Adventures with Blog people, Authors behaving like twits
Harlequin finally got around to officially launching its Paranormal Romance Blog. (There were some posts in October and December.) Other than inflicting those obnoxious Nocturne covers on you, someone named “Laura…the Digital Production Coordinator at Harlequin” inflicts some obnoxiously shallow and poorly written opinions on anyone dropping by. (Clue #1: Anyone not providing a full name or at least a witty nom de Web is hardly to be trusted as a blogger.)
Oooooh, handbags! The above post was by the editor of Juno Books, Paula Guran.
I read the Harlequin Paranormal post that seemed to be the cause of Guran’s angst, but it was just a simple commentary on why she (Laura) felt that vampires were sexy. Nothing really to get one’s knickers into a twist about.
Anyway, Guran continues:
What do I find so terrible about “Laura’s” posts and why won’t I comment if I take such umbrage? Because I don’t have time to tear apart each sentence. Let me give one example of an opening paragraph: “Vampires are sexy. The question is—why?”
Are vampires sexy? Not all vampires are sexy. To ignore this fact is to ignore the basis of any discussion of erotically potent vampires. Even if one needs to be simplistic, one should acknowledge. For example: “Most vampires we read about these days are sexy even though the traditional folkloric vampire was not a pleasant creature. Some writers (and readers) prefer the “monster” version of the myth. But for those of us who love paranormal romance, the vampire is sensual rather than truly sinister. Why do we think of the vampire as sexy?”
At this point I can’t get over the fact that she’s getting all deep and heavy about the sexiness, or lack thereof of vampires. Do you think she knows that vampires aren’t actually, um ya know… real?
I won’t even go on the the next paragraph, let alone essays on “works which have helped shape the [paranormal] genre over the years” or “what defines paranormal vs. sci-fi vs. fantasy”. (Yes, “sci-fi”.)
I just don’t have time.
Perhaps she coordinates digital production well, but couldn’t Harlequin find someone else to write these things?
I kept re-reading Laura’s post to see what Guran could have possibly found offensive about it, but I can’t for the life in me, find anything vaguely rant-worthy.
I can only conclude that Guran is perhaps a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks everybody is out to get her, and that she is the expert on all things vampiric?
I’m kidding of course.
Bram Stoker was the expert on all things vampiric.
Shiloh Walker
February 4
12:45 pm
I kinda like the Nocturne covers. Most of the ones I’ve seen are very eye-catching.
And I’m rather partial to vamps, but I didn’t much see of anything wrong with Laura’s post.
Barbara B.
February 4
2:03 pm
“Are vampires sexy? Not all vampires are sexy. To ignore this fact is to ignore the basis of any discussion of erotically potent vampires. Even if one needs to be simplistic, one should acknowledge.”
I find the above passage particularly pompous and hilarious. Paula Guran is INTENSE!
No doubt this “Laura’s” comments are inane, but shit it’s Harlequin! Did Guran expect a scholarly treatise from last year’s Bram Stoker Award recipient?
Jane
February 4
2:59 pm
Every time I turn around Paula Guran is shooting herself in the foot. Didn’t she say at one point that she publishes crap because she has slots to fill and can only pay a short amount of money.
Lauren Dane
February 4
4:06 pm
Jeebus. It’s a blog entry, not a doctoral thesis. The woman needs some chocolate and to lighten the fuck up.
CJ England
February 4
4:49 pm
I like the covers too. At least most of them. And I can’t for the life of me figure out what there is to rant about. Like Lauren said…it’s a blog, not a thesis.
Robin
February 4
5:23 pm
I found Guran’s comments offensive, and it seems that ever since the tussle over the term “paranormal romance” that Guran has been striking out at Romance folks, either for being too stupid to want good books, or, in this case, as unintelligent and shallow. I don’t think it’s a great strategy to encourage cross-over buying, especially coming from an editor/publisher type.
As for the substance of Guran’s complaint, it seems to me the only difference is that the Harlequin blogger started from the POV that vamps are sexy. That’s not stupid, that’s simply one POV. So Guran can start elsewhere with her parsing — that doesn’t by any means make Guran smarter (let alone more tactful, heh). And the slap at how she should stick to digital whatever was just plain insulting.
OTOH, I also get really uncomfortable with ye olde “she needs to lighten up/get a life/take it easy/get a good lay/take a valium/whatever” rebuttals. Besides the obvious personal insult, those volleys completely screw up the chart I’m trying to keep on who is and isn’t a mean girl these days (authors, readers, bloggers, editors, publishers????) and what the damn rules are around what is permissible and impermissible criticism.
B
February 4
6:35 pm
*pictures Bram Stoker reading a paranormal romance about vampires, watching Buffy and watching spoofs of his Dracula novel*
…
*giggles at the thought of his possible reactions*
One example: ‘Sexy? SEXY? They are demon’s spawn, I say, evil! For that matter, I am not homosexual and there are no implications that vampires are erotic in my novel. I deny it absolutely!’
azteclady
February 4
6:39 pm
Robin, I have a feeling that chart is going to be a)really complicated, b)really long, and c)full of revisions, corrections, addenda, and amendments.
Karen Scott
February 4
8:03 pm
The only thing one needs to remember is that the word Fucktard is an equal opportunity word, and can be fairly levelled at anybody who surpasses mere stupidity.
Stupidity being in the eye of the beholder, of course.
Robin
February 4
8:09 pm
BTW, Karen, did you come up with the word “fucktard”? I’ve seen Tod Goldberg use it, too, but I hadn’t seen it at all before you used it.
Karen Scott
February 4
8:15 pm
Nah, I stole it from Tod Goldberg just over two years ago, and it’s come in handy ever since.
Angela James
February 4
8:17 pm
Heh. Fucktard’s in the Urban Dictionary as a 2003 entry. Much as I love Karen, I don’t think she gets props for inventing that one 😉
veinglory
February 4
11:23 pm
Just honing it to a fine and glistening point.