by Candy • Thursday, September 08, 2005 at 10:59 AM
There’s currently a very interesting discussion going on right now about narrowing the definition of romance in the comments section of our Gayle Wilson interview. Go check out the whole discussion, but I’ll excerpt the bits that interest me most here.
Reia kick-started things by saying this:
If there are no boundaries as to what may be included in the genre called “romance,” what exactly are asking for? A non-genre genre?
I replied:
Come, now--that’s engaging in some slippery slope reasoning. Nobody’s calling for the RWA to be completely inclusive and without boundaries. The thing is, the RWA already has a definition of romance that I think does the job quite handily:
“A romance is a book wherein the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.”
And then Robin stepped in and kicked ass all over the place:
(…) I think sometimes in Romancelandia there is a confusion between what constitutes a Romance novel and what’s romantic to a particular reader. If it’s not romantic to us, we may not see a book as a Romance. Of course all sorts of ideological considerations play into this judgment (from the race and sexual orientation of the protagonists to questions of how dark is dark in Romance, etc.), but in terms of generic definition, I think it’s essential to divorce the notion of what’s romantic to each of us from what constitutes the genre of Romance, if for no other reason than basing the second question (what constitutes Romance) on the results of the first will, ironically, defeat the fundamental need for formulaic coherence in the genre, since so many of us find different things romantic.
Robin has articulated something very, very important: just because it makes you go “ick” doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong.
Oh, hey, a chance for me to come up with a really silly analogy that hopefully illustrates the point:
What we consider a “cake” is usually defined by a combination of sugar, eggs, flour, leavener, and liquids in very specific ratios and baked for a certain amount of time. We know what a cake is, what it’s supposed to look and feel like. A cookie isn’t a cake (though if you drastically decrease the amount of water for just about any cake recipe and dab the resulting batter on a cookie sheet, you’d get a cookie). A loaf of bread isn’t a cake. A pie isn’t a cake. Some quickbreads like muffins tread the twilight zone between cake and non-cake.
But let’s say somebody decided to do something sort of wacky to a conventional cake recipe. Instead of using chocolate, vanilla, lemon zest or any of the other flavoring agents we normally associate with a cake, somebody decided to use curry paste, kaffir lime leaves and garlic. For whatever reason, they wanted to make a curry-flavored cake.
Now, the thought of a curry-flavored cake makes me go “Ick.”
Is it edible? Not to me, but hey, there may be others who love it.
Is it still a cake? Well, yes. It’s gross as all hell (just the thought of mixing kaffir lime leaves into cake batter makes me want to cry at the sacrilege), but hey, it’s still a cake. It has a cake-like crumb, and it was made and baked as a cake. Dude. IT’S A CAKE.
Things took a really interesting turn when bondage was brought up. Reia said:
(…) [A]n almost identical debate popped up on the old AOL Pet Peeves board. The subject was whether or not RWA was being too vague in it’s definition of Romance. I only lurked since I was more interested in the debate about whether or not Fabio helped or hurt the industry, so I’ll recap as best I can.
There was concern that without firmer definition of the genre, RWA was not setting a clear boundary between romance and erotica and/or bondage stories. The opposing view was similar to your slippery slope reasoning comment with a slight difference. It was believed that the approved publisher’s requirement would prevent erotica or bondage stories from blending with romance.
And further down, after I explained how one would be able to distinguish bondage erotica from bondage romances, Reia said:
And even if there are sixteen bondage scenes, some nonconsensual, or even some bondage scenes that would be considered rape, you still have a genre romance according to the current RWA definition. Is that best for RWA?
And at this point, thoughts started percolating in my head about what’s “best for RWA” and this instinct many, many people share about excluding what are perceived as undesirable elements from the romance definition—all in the name of “what’s best” for the genre and the association that is allegedly the genre’s greatest advocate. And since I’ve waxed on and on and on in the comments already—seriously, check out my comments, they’re, like, HUGE! (said the size queen)—I thought I’d make this into a full-length article.
First of all, like I said in the comments, if the concern is with non-consensuality, why bring up bondage at all? After all, we have plenty of non-bondage romance novels that feature rape.
What I didn’t say was: if it’s not the non-consensual nature that’s freaking people out (and if it were, then Ye Olde Bodice Rippers should’ve been brought up, not bondage stories), then let’s be honest and say up front what is.
The sex toys? The whipping/spanking/finding pleasure in pain? The restraints used? The (oftentimes willing) abdication of physical control?
Second of all, once somebody starts asking questions like “is it best for [insert organization/country] if we allow so much openness in a definition?” I almost always get a massive case of the heebie-jeebies. For a long, long time, people have used questions like these as a prelude to excluding and marginalizing groups, from women to people whose skin color registers as something darker than “khaki” on a paint chart to gay people wanting to marry.
Not that what’s been going on in the RWA is even close to the Civil Rights movement in terms of importance. Not remotely close. But I think the desire to exclude certain elements as inherently undesirable or distasteful stems from a similar urge that causes people to want to exclude groups that are viewed as somehow undesirable. The desire to practice a species of literary eugenics is overwhelming for many people, and frankly, I think that’s the impetus behind the whole “tighten up the definition of genre Romance” thing. It’s not a unique impulse.
There are people who would not consider genre fiction novels as worthy of being considered literature because they’re trashy—junk food for the mind, debased writing that lacks intelligence and insight, etc. ad nauseam.
There are people who read and write genre fiction who think romance novels in particular are not worthy of being considered part of literature for various reasons, not least because of the “ew, girl cooties and mushy crap!” aspect of the stories.
And then there are people within the romance genre who think BDSM romances, erotic romances, ménage romances and gay/lesbian romances aren’t somehow good for the genre and should, therefore, be excluded. Usually, there’s a lot of squawking and squeaking about how these stories are too much like porn, which in turn is oftentimes accompanied by squawking and squeaking about how they don’t want these books to corrupt their wee chilluns. The latter argument always makes me want to say, “HEY! Do you have any idea how many kids found their parents’ stash of stroke magazines and/or videos at a young age and somehow still managed to grow up sane, law-abiding, non-sex-crazed citizens?”
What’s best for the RWA? I can think of any number of things that would help the RWA.
Not throwing a horrorshow of a prize ceremony that becomes the embarrassment and laughing stock of the romance community, for one. All right, that cock-up was due to certain select people in the RWA and not the organization as a whole, but unfortunately, it reflected poorly on everyone.
Ditto not instituting wide-reaching rules such as, ohhhh, graphical standards without consulting the membership at large.
Narrowing the definition of romance so that all icky elements are purged is pretty low on my list of “things that would be best for RWA.”
As always, Robin says it best:
When you think about different genres, you don’t immediately come up with long lists of requirements. Even sonnets, which have notoriously restrictive requirements, aren’t as finely detailed as what some seem to be asking for in the Romance genre. If the RWA wants to arbitrate what they feel to be “romantic” Romance, or morally upright Romance, or ideologically acceptable Romance, then I think as a dues-based organization, they have a right to do that. But outside of that, I think we’re beyond the limits of generic definition and into taste.
46 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by Candy • Monday, August 22, 2005 at 11:00 AM
Unlike my usual M.O., I actually spent all weekend thinking about this issue and talking about it with many different people before blogging about this issue. There are a few things circling my head right now that are bugging the hell out of me, and I want to address them head-on, because being all quiet and shushy and privately bitching about these sorts of things with friends rarely resolves anything. So, to wit:
1. The issue of intelligent dissent (or lack thereof) on Smart Bitches.
2. The “SBTB hates AAR” assumption that seems to be forming among certain people--well, one person I know of for sure, but if there’s anything I’ve learned about discussions on the Internet, if there’s one person who’s willing to speak up about an issue, there are a whole lot more who are thinking the same thing.
3. Netiquette when it comes to debating/disagreeing with someone.
All of this was sparked by Anonymous, who the left the following comment on Bonnie’s blog entry about Monica Jackson:
I would make a suggestion to Candy that if she wants to avoid bringing AAR “catfights” onto her turf, she should stop eviscerating AAR posters, something that inevitably seems to result in a deluge of ass-kissing, sycophantic comments and rampant AAR bashing from the small but dedicated cadre of SB fangirls.
This was in response to my comment explaining why Sarah and I shut down the comments to this Smart Bitch rant when it started devolving into the age-old Monica Jackson vs. AAR feud, which, as I’ve told Monica, makes me want to weep tears of blood when it comes up. It’s a long-standing battle that shows no signs of letting up, and HOT DAMN I don’t want to be caught in the middle of it. Anonymous decided to move it from the realm of the very, very specific (Monica and AAR) to the very general (AAR catfights), a leap in logic that made me go “What the fuck?” But I’ll address this point a bit later.
Further on, Anonymous goes on to say (among other things):
I’ve got nothing to hide, Candy. But the next time you ridicule an AAR poster at your site, have the courage to post a link at AAR so your victim will know exactly what you and your followers say and have the opportunity to defend herself. Not to mention, I daresay, bring along with her those who share her viewpoint. (You’re not accustomed to dissenting opinions at SB, are you?)
OK, I guess I’ll address the points in reverse order, and we’ll see if my thoughts become more organized as I go. Forgive any repetition, because I did cover some of these points in Bonnie’s blog.
The AAR messageboards have very specific rules. Most of them concern what should be discussed on which messageboard, but there are also rules about posting links. None of the boards allow links to other websites that review romance novels--I thought one of the boards did, but I was wrong. Don’t believe me?
The Reviews Board, Reader to Reader board, At The Back Fence messageboard, Potpourri Messageboard all contain this sentence in the “What Posts Don’t Belong Here” section:
Posts including links to other romance review Web sites.
This would include Smart Bitches, no? I mean, I know we provide a lot random crap like rants (a.k.a. “What sand has gotten up Candy’s vagina this morning?"), mad libs and man-titty, but a decent chunk of our content is taken up by book reviews.
But even if the book reviews didn’t exist on this site, it would never have occured to me to provide links on the message boards to my three blog entries about specific posts on the AAR messageboards (please, PLEASE note: specific posts on AAR boards != AAR).
Why?
Because that’s not the way it freakin’ works. Do newspaper columnists notify politicians about upcoming editorials and opinion pieces disagreeing with their policies before publishing their articles? Do the people at Snarkywood or Go Fug Yourself notify celebrities before shredding them to a fare-thee-well? Did the Nielsen Haydens e-mail Vox Day when they ripped him a new one for being a stupid, sexist asshole? Shit, does anyone, anywhere on the Internet warn people they disagree with that hey, they’re about to do some disagreeing?
No. The only courtesy that needs to be extended when talking about opinions you disagree with is to provide links to the source of your disagreement. By doing so:
1. It allows the people who read your article to view the source material, complete and in context; and
2. In some cases, it allows the person being disagreed with to track down the discussion via their referrer logs. This latter point doesn’t apply for messageboards and forums, of course, since posters don’t have access to referrer logs unless they’re also admins.
If you put something out there on the Internet--or hell, in any sort of medium that can be publicly accessed--you can expect someone to comment on it. Sometimes you’ll be able to track the person down, and other times you won’t. C’est la vie. Frankly, I’m curious about what a host of closed-off sources are saying about Smart Bitches, because there’ve been days when we get a flurry of referrals from sites that aren’t available to the general public, but ultimately, it’s no big deal. Sarah and I put out our opinions (though of the two of us, I’m by far more scrappy, bitchy and just all-round ornery), and people will disagree. If they don’t want to be found out, that’s their bidness.
And now on to the second point: the “SBTB hates AAR” vibe I’ve been getting.
Again, I say, “What the hell?”
I linked to three very specific posts on the AAR messageboards. All three addressed issues that made me feel like ranting--the sand in my vagina, if you will. (Sorry for the mental picture this provides you. This is the risk you run when you read this website on any regular basis.)
If there’s any doubt about how I feel about AAR, here it is now, in black and white, forever and ever amen:
1. The reviews are an invaluable resource. When there’s a book I want to check out, I go to Amazon.com first to see if the title in question has that nifty “Look Inside!” feature so I can check out an excerpt on-line. If it doesn’t, I’ll give a quick look at the Amazon reviews, then head over to AAR to see if they’ve reviewed it.
2. Smart Bitches are not trying to compete with AAR. We are trying to fill a niche in the on-line romance community. To be honest, there weren’t any romance websites out there that said “cuntmonkey,” “queefweasel” or “buttpirate,” and Sarah and I set out to correct this tragic lack.
3. In no way do we think the AAR boards are full of wacky-ass religious fundamentalist kooks. Not even close. If anything, AAR seems to lean a bit left compared to other romance messageboards. I happened to link to ONE post from someone who made what was (in my opinion) a really retarded assertion about Smart Bitches. A few of our regular commenters think differently about the AAR = full of assholes issue, but their opinions are their own, not Sarah’s or mine.
4. Here’s my opinion of the AAR boards, quoted verbatim from a comment I made: “Actually, the AAR boards are the site of some of the most interesting discussions around. The only reason I don’t visit them is because I don’t have enough friggin’ hours in the day. The few posts I’ve linked to here are not necessarily representative of the usual content on the messageboards. Yeah, there are some kooks there, but that’s sort of the unavoidable consequence of having a public messageboard on a site as big and popular as AAR.” This was in response to Bam, who commented on how AAR seems kinda scary.
But in case that’s not clear, I’ll say it YET AGAIN: AAR boards in general, awesome and full o’ much good stuff. A few people on it? Their views, as expressed on the board, chapped my ass. I’m really sorry if the impression given has been a place of scary wildnerness, but really, it’s not. The people there are mostly polite and reasonable, but sometimes a few go off the deep end (like the person who compared Robin to a member of the KKK for enjoying and defending To Have and To Hold). This is an immutable law of the universe, to wit: Some people are assholes. Oh well.
What I don’t get is how me addressing a few specific AAR posts by very specific people becomes conflated into me attacking AAR messageboards, or AAR in general. Or even how my leeriness about the AAR/Monica Jackson brouhaha translates to “AAR catfights.”
This is, in fact, directly analogous to my post about people getting their panties twisted about Smart Bitches’ alleged anti-Christian slant. I was addressing specific posts made by specific people on a public messageboard. How this translates into disdain for AAR in general, or even all of the messageboards in particular, I have no fucking clue.
Well, OK, I did say this in the heat of the moment, while feeling really fucking pissed off at Anonymous: “...I couldn’t give a flying shit about most of the posters on the AAR messageboards, especially dumbasses who make sweeping statements that can’t be backed up adequately...”
OK, that? Was a stupid asshole statement. I apologize for said stupid asshole statement. Well, not for the not giving a flying shit about dumbasses who make sweeping statements, but that applies for all dumbasses, all the time, regardless of forum. Really, I don’t know a fraction of a fraction of the people who post on AAR regularly any more, so I don’t have any opinion on them, period. I do know that some SB regulars are also AAR messageboard regulars, like Sunita and Robin (everybody join in the refrain: When I grow up, I want to be like Robin!).
I just want to nip this weird SB-against-AAR pissing content in the bud RIGHT NOW. We think the AAR site as a whole rocks, and there’s no rivalry on our part. If this imaginary contest did exist, then AAR wins, hands down. If you’re a romance reader and have to pick only ONE romance-related site to visit regularly, I recommend AAR over Smart Bitches. Seriously.
So on to another point: the “deluge of ass-kissing, sycophantic comments and rampant AAR bashing from the small but dedicated cadre of SB fangirls.”
Was there really a deluge of AAR bashing? The statistician in me wants to know. In the blog entry about AAR that generated the most dialogue (the “We Hate Christ, Not Just Man-Titty!” post), here’s a breakdown of various topics covered by the 119 comments:
Comments that straight-up agreed with Sarah and me without bashing AAR: 27
Comments about (the Church of) Man-Titty: 15
Monty Python References (mostly to man-titty): 3
Negative comparisons of AAR to SB, or negative comments about AAR: 18
Defense of AAR, or comments about AAR without bashing: 9
Negative comments about specific posts or posters on the thread I linked to (NOTE: NOT AAR): 6
Hell, and which level various among us belong to, plus how we think we got there: 19
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism: 5
Monica vs. AAR: 15
Assorted miscellany (mostly related to assorted politicians and/or the nature of religion and religious fundamentalism and/or fangirl squealing over Doug): 36
Please note that many comments overlapped in terms of topic; for instance, Robin noted that she was likened to the KKK by an AAR poster, which counted towards “negative comments about AAR,” but then in the same comment she noted that many of the people there are awesome, which counted towards “Defense of AAR.” Some of the “Monica vs. AAR” posts counted towards AAR negative comments and defense of AAR, too.
From my tally, there were more posts that talked about which level of Hell we’re going to end up in than posts that bash AAR. Unfortunately, it did seem that the defense of AAR was outweighed 2 to 1 by AAR bashing--but people DID defend AAR. I was one of them. Did it twice, actually. And two of the people who made negative comments about AAR were people who had never commented on SB before, namely ADWOFF and Sunita, so I’m not sure how they qualify as fangirls. And Monica made about half of the negative comments about AAR, and she made those comments not necessarily because she’s a fangirl of SB, but because of the bad blood in the past between her and LLB/AAR.
So anyway: deluge? What freakin’ deluge?
But much as I hate to admit it, Anonymous had a point: the issue of dissent on Smart Bitches.
Personally, I think there’s a pretty healthy amount of dissent. Check out our Chick lit rant, Sarah’s F review of The Demon’s Daughter, our post about love triangles, or hell, even Sarah’s B+ review of Time Off For Good Behavior.
But I talked to other regular readers this weekend, and they agreed that yeah, there’s been a decrease in dissent on Smart Bitches. People who disagree just don’t speak up as often any more.
And that worries me. One of the aims of Smart Bitches was to provide an open avenue of discussion, and disagreement is welcome. Rampant idiocy WILL be poked at, of course, but it’s always so much more interesting (and enriching, and educational, and oh gag me now I sound like some kind of after-school special) when people have a lively, snarky but largely polite debate.
So to encourage dissent, we’re going to try a little experiment today: The comments to this post are open only to people who disagree with us. Today is your free pass. Vent all your bile here, or express your ladylike disagreement, and do it about anything. Think we doth protest too much? Think we look ugly? Hate the layout and color scheme? Disagree violently with our reviews or rants? Think we just suck in general? Go right ahead and have your say. No repercussions, and we won’t try to rebut any of the comments made, nor will we use them as fodder for future blog entires or rants. Any non-dissenting and assent-disguised-as-dissent comments will be deleted.
The ONLY condition is that the comments can’t be anonymous. I mean, hell, make up a fake name on the spot if you have to, but if you want to mouth off, have the balls to post it under a name. We want only a name; e-mail address and website are strictly optional.
Sarah and I are interested in what people think we’re doing wrong as well as what we’re doing right, and even if we think someone is tres, tres full of shit *waves to Anonymous*, they might very well have a point.
59 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by Candy • Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 10:25 AM
Someone on one of the AAR messageboards has accused us Smart Bitches of having an anti-Christian slant.
Candy’s Take:
Confession time: Organized religions in general give me a mild case of the heebie-jeebies. Organized religions in particular that make a very stark distinction between the saved and unsaved, those who Got God and those who Don’t Got God, tend to give me even more heebie-jeebies. The latter claim I’m going to burn in Hell and/or am Satan’s minion for the lone fact that I don’t believe in the right deity, regardless of how good or bad a person I actually am; would you blame me for feeling just a teeny bit uncomfortable?
But the people who identify themselves as belonging to a certain religion? They’re such a varied bunch that I can’t make blanket judgments about them. It’d be impossible. As with anything else, I take ‘em on a case-by-case basis. If they deserve to be made fun of or taken to task, then I try to call it as I see it.
For example: A Christian pharmacist who won’t prescribe birth control to someone because he believes it’s “chemical abortion” is an asshole (as well as deserving of having his degree yanked--what kind of shit chemistry and biology classes did this motherfucker take?). The same pharmacist who does this AND refuses to return the prescription to the customer so she can fill it elsewhere is a super-duper, grade A, mecha-Streisand stupid asshole; the fact that the asshole’s opinions are informed by his religious values also makes him a religious asshole. That doesn’t change that he’s an asshole, first and foremost. He could be ANY religion. In this particular case, he was Christian. I’d call him a Christian asshole.
But some people insist on reading that as me calling all Christians, alla time, assholes.
So let me make this clear once and for all (even though I’ve said this many times before on this blog): Assholism is a major religion in and of itself, and its practicioners range far and wide. Assholism is oftentimes caused by fundamentalism: the belief that you have the inside line to God (or non-God, as the case may be), know what’s best and everyone else needs to live only according to your values. Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, Zoroastrianists, Scientologists, Pagans, Worshippers of the Puckery Purple Men of Uranus, whatever--all of these have their share and then some of assholes.
I’ve said some inflammatory things on this blog before, but I’d like to know: were any of them attacking Christians and Christianity as a whole? I’d like to think I’m careful enough to make it clear that I’m usually talking about specific individuals or sub-groups, and not the Christian population as a whole.
There’s a difference between talking about the group, and talking about individuals. Perhaps we all need to learn to read more carefully when it comes to these sorts of statements?
Unless y’all want to argue that asshole fundamentalist Christians are the only true Christians around. I certainly don’t.
Now, if you want to talk about a group of people that us Bitches have consistently and ruthlessly attacked, I can tell you exactly who they are: Cover models. We’ve called them everything from child molesters to gym monkeys. If Fabio ever wants to take us to task for making unkind statements about him, he’d have a rock-solid case.
I seriously doubt you’d find the same level of hateration for Christians on this site.
Sarah’s Take: Since my blog was mentioned in that particular conversation over at AAR, I have been tempted to respond. But for the life of me I can’t figure out what I’m being called on the carpet for, there. It seems the complaint is that my strong feelings of Christianity might bleed...somewhere. Aside from the biohazardous nature of my alleged opinion, I have to wonder: Do I have strong feelings about Christianity?
Sure I do. I think that the teachings of Christ as depicted in the gospels are some damn fine code of human behavior, and a marvelous demonstration of fair ethics that everyone could do well to emulate.
Heck, you could say that because I liked those ethics of Jesus’ so much that I converted to Judaism in 1999. I used to be Christian, now I’m a homie of Christ. And last time I checked, Jesus was not down with harming other people in his name. Moreover, the tenets of Judaism and Christianity advocate for treating everyone with respect, honor and kindness.
So am I anti-Christian? No. Like Candy, I am anti-fundamentalist. I think the root word of “fundamentalism” is Mental, and that people who hurt others in the name of religion need some serious cans of whoopass cracked in their vicinity. I think ostracizing anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe is like revisiting 6th grade gym class every day of your life.
Furthermore, I do not have any problem with people who achieve peace and happiness through great devotion to their religion.
I do have a problem with people who, having achieved their own peace and devotion, seek to bend me to their will and force me to adopt their ways. If it works for you, great. But do not force your religion down my throat, even if it is my own. So I’m not going to hold your little Scientology cans in the middle of 42nd street, nor am I going to tie t’fillin (which I wouldn’t be asked to do anyway since I’m a girl and all), I’m not going to shake the lulav with you, and I’m not going to kneel and recite the rosary because you think I ought to do so.
I wonder if the root of the comments regarding our alleged anti-Christian bias lies in our personal dislike for inspirational romance. I personally do not enjoy it, because I feel that the underlying rhetoric of those few inspirational romances that I have read is that as a non-Christian, I am not saved. I find shades of the exclusive rhetoric that permeates orthodoxy of all religions in the structure of inspirational romance, and I feel that it does not apply nor appeal to me.
Do I rant and rave and yell that inspirationals should not be considered romance? No. I don’t care if RWA devotes an entire award to them; I know that personally, they are not my cup of holy water, so I’m going to find my romance elsewhere. But does disliking inspirational romance make me anti-Christian? No.
However, I refuse to change my opinion on man-titty.
Commenting is disabled, kids.
Read the existing comments Trackback •
Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by Candy • Friday, August 05, 2005 at 10:06 AM
A lot of people have been very, very indignant at Terry Pratchett for his comments on J.K. Rowling, flinging accusations of jealousy, pettiness, etc. Me, I’m just shaking my head.
A little caveat: I enjoy Terry Pratchett’s novels, whereas I think Harry Potter is mediocre at best. At any rate, I’m quoting, in full, what Terry Pratchett wrote:
WHY IS it felt that the continued elevation of J K Rowling can only be achieved at the expense of other writers (Mistress of magic, News Review, last week)? Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with “knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves.”
In fact the best of it has always been edgy and inventive, with “the dark heart of the real world” being exactly what, underneath the top dressing, it is all about. Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to the times. It has also contained some of the very best, most accessible writing for children, by writers who seldom get the acknowledgement they deserve.
Rowling says that she didn’t realise that the first Potter book was fantasy until after it was published. I’m not the world’s greatest expert, but I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?
Terry Pratchett
Salisbury, Wiltshire
OK, maybe it’s my prejudice shining through, but this really sounds more like a rant about popular (and inaccurate) misconceptions of fantasy than an attack on Rowling. What clued me? This sentence: “Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with ‘knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves.’” That seems to shift the focus from Rowling to what the journalist wrote about fantasy.
Anyway, Neil Gaiman addressed this miles better than I ever could, so if you haven’t yet, go read what he says.
And by the way? If Rowling DID actually say she didn’t know she was writing a fantasy novel (and given the way people are misquoted in the papers, I’m doubtful she said exactly that), I agree with Pratchett’s snarkery.
25 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by Candy • Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 09:24 AM
I was reminded of why I avoid visiting the AAR messageboards yesterday. They’re a wonderful avenue of lively discussion, but OY, they’re such a time suck--and not only that, they sometimes contain some of the most jaw-dropping sentiments. Not only do I disagree with them, but I think they’re quite astoundingly silly.
For example, from this message on the AAR Reviews board (the thread started out as a discussion about Lisa Valdez’s The Passion):
Political correctness is diluting and changing our language, and in its name, there are many traditional behaviors that are no longer PC. Classic romance is all about “When men were men and women were women.” Today, the heroines have an edge--they banter with the men, they are as aggressive as the men--they might as well BE men. And the heros are drawn to them because they are “different” and “more exciting and stimulating” from the usual women they meet? What rubbish! Who wants a wise-cracking, sarcastic virago who doesn’t need a guy for anything because she can handle it all herself? With these tougher heroines, there is nothing much left for the men to be, except “gentler,” more “sensitive,” and the heroine’s “best friend.” More rubbish! I like your descr1ption: “A contemporary romance set in 1812.” I live in 2005 and I read historicals to get AWAY from contemporary life.
I wrote a reply, as did someone named Lisa. Go read ‘em if you like. Myself, I’m staying far, far away since I’ve said all I wanted to say on that board. There was, however, an issue that was brought up in this post that I didn’t address in my reply, and that’s the issue of political correctness.
Robin, one of our regular visitors, has mentioned in one of her comments that political correctness has come to mean something bad, but “something is only ‘PC’ based on your own subjective standards of conduct.” She hit the nail on the head. Nowadays, when a powerful figure makes a blatantly racist, sexist or otherwise repugnant statement, any attempts to point out the shitfulness of said statement are immediately labelled attempts to be PC, therefore wrong or suppressive or unrealistic. Shit, ifeminist.org has labelled The Vagina Monologues as PC, and while I do think that parts of it are disturbingly anti-male (something other friends of mine picked up on as well), a play in which a roomful of women are encouraged to scream out “Cunt! Cunt! CUUUUNT!” with almost orgasmic fervor could hardly qualify as politically correct without twisting around the definition of PC quite a bit.
I’m not saying that it’s impossible for political correctness to go too far. People squealing when someone uses the word “niggardly,” for example. That’s not just PC going too far, it’s just plain ignorant. See that dictionary? Learn to fucking use it. The etymological portion of the definition might be of especial interest. I might even start up a society: The Association for the Preservation and Appropriate Use of the word “Niggardly.”
But back to historical romances. Blaming the departure of old-skool romances featuring alpha assholes and simpering ninnies on modern political correctness is grossly inaccurate. First of all, I think the answer is as simple as this: The market changed. I read those old-skool romances as a young child, before I’d even HEARD of the term “political correctness"--hell, this was before the PC movement gained steam--and before I learned what feminism was. The stories still bothered me. All I knew was, I really didn’t like the way the heroes were rewarded for being mean. I’m going to guess that a great number of women felt much the same way, and started glomming romances that featured heroes who were actually, y’know, NICE once in a while, and publishers, who are in it for profit, after all, perked up and took notice.
Look, if old-skool type romances were still overwhelmingly popular, d’you honestly think publishers wouldn’t be pumping out new titles the way they are vampire romances and chick lit? I’m not going to be simplistic and claim that publishers sell exactly what all the readers want, all the time, but they do generally respond to market pressure. Hey, I wish there were more medieval romances and romances featuring heavily-tattooed atheist heroines; you won’t catch me blaming this lack on political correctness, though.
Second of all: Why in the everloving fuck are some people so eager to label strong, capable, independent women with a sense of humor as mannish and undesirable? Hey, I’m not especially fond of unrealistic superheroines who are capable of taking over Daddy’s floundering company before she’s out of leading strings, either, but honestly, I encounter far more heroines of the exact opposite kind in romance fiction: heroines who fuck up consistently and require the hero to save their fucktarded little asses. And even then, I don’t think of the unrealistic heroines as being unfeminine. Frankly, romance doesn’t have a problem with masculinizing its heroines. It does have a problem with feminizing and idealizing the heroes, but this happened even in old-skool romances. What, you think any self-respecting guy, much less a tough-ass captain and rapist extraordinaire, would say some of the absolutely mortifying things the hero does in The Flame and the Flower?
And third: lamenting the departure of alpha asshole heroes in historicals because they’re no longer PC somehow assumes that some of the things these jerkwads did (such as repeated, unremorseful rape of women) was condoned in ye olden tymes and somehow some sort of historical fact. The idea that these types of heroes are somehow more convincing for their time period makes me want to bang my head against the desk. The idea that these types of heroes are real men while the heroes who refrain from doling out physical, verbal and emotional abuse are watered-down pussies makes me want to bang my head even harder. I guess having a Y chromosome and a set of cock and balls is not enough to make someone a real man. Ye have to RRRRRAPE the wee lassies, mon!
Political correctness, while occasionally verging on silly, has made people think about the language they use and re-evaluate cultural attitudes, and that’s always a good thing. No, I don’t believe that changing the language will change societal attitudes--witness what’s happened to the word “special” once people started using it to describe retarded kids instead of calling them, well, retarded. And “retardation” and “retarded” were (still are) bona fide medical terms before being co-opted by assholes everywhere (including me) as an especially pejorative synonym for “idiot.” But in terms of effecting greater cultural change, thinking about the language we use, the attitudes we carry and why we say things the way we do is a decent first step. Yes, some people go off the deep end, but them’s the breaks. In my opinion, someone who uses PC as some sort of all-purpose whipping post is engaging in lazy thinking. It usually stands in for “my opinion is unpopular, and it’s not unpopular because it’s wrong, or because the majority of people just simply hold opinions different from mine--it’s because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.”
p.s.: Blame Sybil for providing the initial link to the discussion.
43 comments •
2 trackbacks •
Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
