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

Lani Diane Rich alerted me to an anti- Harriet Klausner movement taking root on Amazon. According to Rich:

Basically, a group of very vocal people with apparently no lack of spare time are viciously ripping apart her reviews on Amazon in the review comments section. It’s highly bizarre, and not a little bit disturbing.

Not that they don’t have a point. She’s been known to post upwards of 40 reviews in a single day. I don’t care how much your soul is worth to Satan, no one reads that fast. So the contention that Harriet has a Dickensian house full of orphans chained to desks, feverishly penning poorly-worded reviews (I swear, I saw something of that nature posted up there, wish I could remember where) is an argument with some heft. If you take out the orphans. As the frequent victim of drive-by Harriet reviews, I know she’s inaccurate to the point of my sometimes wondering if she’s perhaps confused my book with someone else’s. But here’s where I’m coming from:

People are upset that she’s the all-powerful #1 reviewer on Amazon. I contend that no one really takes her seriously, anyway. Plus, the last time I checked, all online purveyors (not just Amazon) represented something like 4% of the book-buying market; she doesn’t have that much power. Really.

People are upset that she’s lying, and I understand that. No one reads that fast.

Also, she’s in her fifties. I heard she had a stroke. She used to be a librarian. I don’t care what she does, unless she ran over your dog, then backed up to run over him again, people really should just leave her alone. There’s a very special hell for people who beat up librarians. And it involves Celine Dion albums. People should be more careful with that shit.

40 reviews a day? Damn, if being a Smart Bitch was a full time job and my entire day was reading and reviewing romance novels? I still don’t think I could swing 40 per day. 

Bitchery Reader Mary forwarded me to links to a two-part interview at Risky Regencies with Richard Cerqueira, romance cover model.

Part I is Here.

Part II is Here.

My personal favorite quotes are his recommendation that the “models chosen should accurately depict the book’s heroes.” Now how often have we seen than happen - the raven-haired o-faced chick on the front is representing a brown-haired freckled girl who really wouldn’t wear magenta eye shadow, right?

But the part that has me absolutely amused:

Modeling for romance novel covers is much quicker and, dare I say, easier. For one thing, I get to pose with a beautiful girl nearly every time, that’s always a bonus. The shoots typically last only an hour and they do not require much planning nor do they ruin one’s whole day; you can easily hold down a regular job, do a photo shoot on your lunch break and go back to work with no one more the wiser.

That’s just awesome. Thanks to the miracle of digital photography, you can be the man titty cover model on your lunch break? I’m never going to look at lunch hour the same. 

Here’s a contest after my own heart - Anne Dean is hosting a contest on her blog to celebrate her 100th post. The person who posts the 100th comment gets a $50 gift certificate to Amazon, OR a big ol’ box of Godiva, whichever suits your pleasure.

What, you want a link? What makes you think I’m not heading over there to get me some chocolate or books or chocolate or books?

That is a tough decision, I tell you.

There are a lot of somewhat clever questions on Ask Yahoo, such as:

Where does the “g” in “g-string” come from?

What’s the best-selling novel ever written?

and my new personal favorite:

I’ve heard there are only seven basic story plots. What are they?

The Yahoo answer cites a few sources, most specifically the Internet Public Library which says the magic seven are:

1 [wo]man vs. nature
2 [wo]man vs. man
3 [wo]man vs. the environment
4 [wo]man vs. machines/technology
5 [wo]man vs. the supernatural
6 [wo]man vs. self
7 [wo]man vs. god/religion

The Straight Dope cites several other numbers as the total number of basic plots, so there’s clearly plenty of room for debate.

But in terms of the total number of romance plots, Candy and I have come up with 12.

1. [wo]man vs. big misunderstanding
2. [wo]man vs. evil parents and conniving relatives
3. [wo]man vs. evil fiancé(e)
4. [wo]man vs. disparities in social standing
5. [wo]man vs. big secret (often, but not always, a baby)
6. [wo]man vs. massive sexual or physical trauma
7. [wo]man vs. trivial trauma that’s hyped up to appear much more serious than it is (OH MY GOD MY MOM WAS A COLD-HEARTED SLUT WAH WAH WAHHHHHHHHHH I WILL NOW HATE ANYTHING BEARING A VAGINA being a classic for many heroes)
8. [wo]man vs. emotionally constipated man
9. [wo]man vs. angsty undead or lunarly-hairy version of any of the above
10. [wo]man vs. high-powered/high-status male embracing all gender stereotypes and phallocentric expectations of women
11. [wo]man vs. serial killer who ends up wanting to rape and/or kill and/or eat the heroine, because the heroine, she is one tasty bitch
12. [wo]man vs. historically inappropriate urges to break free of societal mold by marrying… socially proper man (*note: can apply to gay romances as well as hetero romances)

Got any more? 

WinterLyre sent me the following link to a NY Times article by Ben Schott: Confessions of a Book Abuser. Seems Mr. Schott is one of those readers who dog-ears, doodles, and bestows marginalia on his books, much to the dismay of an Italian hotel chambermaid.

My late grandmother was one of those whose books were pristine, even after multiple readings. Even the spines of her paperbacks were barely marked or striped in the least. Candy is a reader much like my grandmother - when Candy loans me a book, I feel like I need to keep it hermetically sealed inside a glass podium like in a museum, and certainly far, FAR away from the grabby fingers of Freebird, the Toddler Who Eats Books With Glee. I have a picture of him contemplating the nuances of potential flavor in Candy’s copy of To Love and to Cherish, and I still am hesitant to send it to her, even though I didn’t let him get her paperback anywhere near his growing appetite for edible romance.

I am, alas, not a neat reader. I don’t read compulsively with a pen in my hand anymore, but I do dog-ear pages, most often for review - a fact I’ve mentioned here many times. Lots of teeth at the top = lots of passages or moments that made me irritable or confused. Lots of teeth at the bottom = passages or moments I loved. The amount of top teeth vs. bottom teeth can give you a good sense of the grade at casual glance, yet there are those who would look at the teeth, top and bottom, and scream at me for being a heartless wench who abuses my precious reading material.

Such an accusation would honestly make me chuckle because I harbor immeasurable feelings of guilt for giving away and donating those books sent to me as ARCs or review copies that are far, far outside the realm of romance novels.

Certainly a few dog ears are nothing, as Schott mentions, when compared to book burning parties or cutting into books to create safe places for hiding valuables. But is marking or folding pages a habit that drives you batty, or one that helps you enjoy a book?

What kind of reader are you? Do your books, like mine, show abuse, wear and tear as signs of being real, like the Velveteen Rabbit? Or are your favorite books eligible for resale as “new & unread” because there’s no sign that you or anyone else cracked the pages, even though you could probably quote passages from key scenes?