Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

What’s this? You need an excuse to bank your head in that nice head-shaped divot on your desk? We here at SB HQ are happy to assist, as is Zumie, who sent me these excerpts from her creative writing textbook, The College Handbook of Creative Writing by Robert DeMaria.

Excerpt the first, from page 16:

“Male-female relationships have become very complex since the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s. Nowhere has the loss of tradition and structure in society caused more confusion than in the relationships between men and women. Romeo and Juliet may have had their problems, but they knew exactly where they stood and what was expected of them. Today’s proliferation of paperback romances may be an escapist reaction to the confusion, or even a simplistic way of dealing with the varieties of interpersonal problems. There are also, of course, many worthwhile literary works on the subject, most of them by women who have been writing with greater freedom in an atmosphere of liberation—writers such as Alice Walker and Cynthia Ozick.

Robin B., Diana Holquist and a few other folks have sent me the link to this article from early August in the UK Guardian about a clause in some Random House contracts for children’s book writers that attempts to dictate behavior. From the article:

If you act or behave in a way which damages your reputation as a person suitable to work with or be associated with children, and consequently the market for or value of the work is seriously diminished, and we may (at our option) take any of the following actions: Delay publication / Renegotiate advance / Terminate the agreement.”

Oh, come on now, and I mean it. What defines acts or behavior that damages value of the work? And what’s up with casting childrens authors as role models for all? The Society of Author’s Children’s Writers and Illustrators Group has advised authors who receive that clause in their contract to ask for its removal, but the idea that its in there in the first place makes my jaw drop for a host of reasons.

If you were hoping for a copy of The Jewel of Medina in Serbian, you’re shit out of luck. Publisher BeoBook pulled the Serbian translation of The Jewel of Medina from bookstore shelves after The Islamic Community in Serbia protested the book’s publication.

Author Sherry Jones published her response in the Serbian daily newspaper Blic today, saying that she wrote the novel “to honor Islam… to celebrate these great historical figures while dispelling misunderstandings about Islam.”

After the discussions here and elsewhere, I personally have come to understand the depth of meaning inherent in any humanization or fictional portrayal of Mohammed, and why that is profoundly offensive and upsetting to Muslim individuals. I get it. I truly do, and I don’t relish anyone feeling that way.

But what protests are we talking about here? The Islamic Community in Serbia protested the book… by doing what? There’s no mention that I can find of the specific actions that were undertaken in protest. And the lack of mention makes me think that shit was not literally on fire. Not a day goes by that I don’t see the 12 foot giant inflatable rat outside some building where a union is protesting work treatment in Manhattan. Protests run the gamut from marching to yelling to rallies to giant inflatable rat (one of the rats has festering nipples. I still haven’t figured that one out) to setting shit on fire, tossing bricks and overturning cars with a backhoe. Since none of the latter were mentioned, is it safe for me to presume that the protest was more of the former? Do they have inflatable rats in Serbia?

And what protest would cause a publisher to remove a book from the shelves? This is getting ridiculous, because the more this book is removed and canceled and blocked from the reading public, the more power it is given, not to mention the repeated underscoring of the “OMG Muslims are angry let’s panic” response. That response is denigrating to Muslims, to say the least, not to mention absolutely ludicrous.

I’m angry. I’m protesting. I want to read this damn book already and draw my own grown up big-girl-panty-wearing conclusions. Do I need to bring the giant rat over to Random House tomorrow? Anyone know where I can borrow a truck?

ETA: Thanks to Rebecca for the link.

Thanks to BB for this link to a discussion on PW regarding an aggregate of the top 100 lists of Best Books in English. The article itself is perfectly apt - that books mark different stages in your life and their quality in your opinion may rest on the context in which you read them.

But commenter Christine wins 2 points in the Online Scavenger Hunt for Commenting Idiocy by saying:

I read science fiction voraciously from fifth grade through college. Somehow, after the first couple of Dune books, I just stopped and haven’t gone back. During college, I felt forced to read the bleak and depressing because it was good for me and seem to have sworn off ‘literature’ ever since. Over the last (uh - hem )years, I have gone from reading romances to reading mysteries. Romances were just silly beyond words and now mysteries are getting that way, too. Where next? Back to the classics. Back to Dickens, back to Twain. Taking refuge in what I’ve read before, knowing I will see it in a different light.

I hereby propose a new rule for our general behavior on the internet: “There cannot be a discussion of literature, particularly the ranking thereof, without a swat at the plebeian dreck that is romance.”

Poor Christine. Hope she finds something good to read. 

Seems this article in the Huffington Post about how blogs cannot possibly replace book reviews in newspapers made KatieBabs’ head spin around on her neck. (With anger, not because she’s possessed by the spirit of Col. Bimbo or anything). Bloggers cannot possibly replace book reviewers in newspapers, cries the author. Oh, they are so solipsistic and self-absorbed, and they use “I” too much.

So would it be snide of me to point out that if newspapers paid attention to the more profitable market share of fiction - that would be romance, folks - and reviewed books such as Kresley Cole’s, Nora Roberts’, or Nalini Singh’s recent novels, they might not necessarily be facing such dire financial straits? What, my economics has flaws? Please. My math skills bring all the boys to the yard, but mostly because they doesn’t don’t make any sense on this planet and thus are entertaining.

Yes, that’s a simplistic analysis and certainly one review of a romance novel would not turn the mothership of the economy around for any given newspaper, but while I try not to pay too much attention to analysis of blogs as writing formats, the bemoaning of the bloggers as the heiresses apparent to the now-dying review pages of newspapers bugs the crapola out of me:

I think book reviews on blogs—particularly those of the Blogspot variety—tend to be self-indulgent. Book reviewing bloggers need to move away from opinion in favor of judgment. How does the book compare to—and fit in with—the author’s previous work? What’s the book’s place in the genre? The canon? Does the writer succeed in doing what he or she set out to do—meaning, is it the book they meant it to be? Whether it’s the book the blogger wanted it to be is of much less importance to me, frankly.

We review romance because no one else in print did so consistently. I hold the books I read to any number of measuring standards as I write a review. Self-indulgent reflections on romance? Try: neglected as a genre too long. Put that in your newspaper and smoke it.