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

I’m working on my review for Falling Free by Lois McMaster Bujold. I’m having a difficult time with it, because it’s one of those so-so books that are so-so to write about. And sometimes, when I’m feeling stuck, I like to look at other reviews, especially on Amazon.com. Seeing what a bunch of other people have found noteworthy can often jar loose unarticulated thoughts in my head and provide me with some much-needed focus.

But while looking up Amazon.com reviews for Falling Free, I found what has to be one of the most hilarious reviews of all time--one that tells you almost nothing about the book, but entirely too much about the reviewer. Seriously; scroll down a little and check out what Antinomian has to say:

If you’ve come to read these reviews, there’s a fair chance that you’ve learned that Falling Free was the 1988 Nebula Award Winner (for novel) that’s supposed to be awarded to the best science fiction of the year. I say `supposed’ because starting in 1987 the novels that received the Nebula award are shocking in comparison to other novels written that year that didn’t win. For four straight years, from 1987 to 1990, the novels ranged from so-so (for this one) to the absolutely mundane and awful (all the others). The organization that awards the Nebula, the SFWA, was apparently trying to assert itself into the field of fantasy (this is giving them the best benefit of a doubt), but you’d think that even award winning fantasy would be better. No, the novels range from mostly overt to blatant feminism, and so these years are the Feminism stage of the Nebula (and apparently it hasn’t subsided completely yet, if ever).

(...)

The Nebula awards aren’t relevant to science fiction anymore after 1987. If award winners happen to be science fiction then that that’s just happenstance. You’re a professional, you have several litigation’s to work through, space shuttles to prepare for launch, satellites to build, lives to save or mend, or heck you’re busy with work, with children, with significant others, with friends, and maybe have time for a novel or two a year and since you so limited and you love science fiction, you want these novels, well, to be science fiction and hopefully to be good. The writers of the SFWA are bored; they’re branching out. They want to read and write about lesbians, feminism, magical amulets, auras, Mayan spirits, etc. So if you’re hoping to squeeze in a science fiction novel or two per year, the Nebulas are no longer a consistent, valid guide.

Think this guy might have an axe to grind with feminists and/or the Nebula committee?

I was so flabbergasted at the lack of focus in this review that I decided to perform a quick analysis. Here are the numbers:

Total word count for the review: 753
Total number of words in sentences that refer to Falling Free: 314
Total number of words in sentences that can be construed as some sort of an opinion and/or summary about Falling Free: 270

Look, I know reviews often necessitate making statements of personal judgment, but I was under the delusion that the focus of the review should be the work in question, not the politics of granting Nebula awards, the state of SF in general, why “chartreuse” sounds like it should be a reddish color than the greenish-yellow it actually is, the lack of easy access to vibrating butt-plugs in Macedonia or whatever the hell other rant I have itching in the back of my brain.

I really want to verb this guy’s username, even though “antinomy” already has a definition. So, seriously, if I ever write a review like that, please feel free to tell me I’ve Antinomianed the book and that I need to knock that shit right off.

Not that I’m placing us in such venerable company as Kos or CuteOverload, but after reading this hysterical article that highlights the author’s idea of the ultimate blog entry for several major sites, I have to wonder: what would the ultimate SBTB entry be?

Candy Travels Back in Time, Finds Corsets Comfortable, as Prince Androgynous Admires her Cleavage

Our Sweet Savage Interview with Cassie Edwards

Sarah Finds Hero-to-Life Technology Working “Very Well Indeed!” in Experiments with Simon Bassett from The Duke and I

Candy Relocates to Laura Kinsale’s Basement, Begins Filching Manuscript Pieces from Wastebasket

Queen Elizabeth II Name Candy and Sarah as Newest Members of OBE; Smart Bitches Immediately Crack up at Use of “Dame”

What’s your idea for our ultimate entry ever?

Some food for thought in this comic regarding achieving brilliance because of, and through, a medium of art’s limitations.

Not sure how much good quoting Cat and Girl would do the next time somebody snarks and snarls about the romance formula, but there you go.

Amidst all this talk about man-on-man love, it was weirdly appropriate that the Very Tall Husband found the following video--which he promptly shared with me, of course. And I had to share it with you, my beloved readers. Because it is so very, very wrong.

Note: Video is accompanied by Nine Inch Nails’ “Closer,” which, if you didn’t know already, contains the line “I want to fuck you like an animal.” Those at the office or who have wee kidlets/relatives with delicate sensibilities running around within earshot, exercise due discretion.

Bitchery reader Lia alerted me to the following item: The Romantic Times forums has a rather interesting discussion and vote going on about male/male erotica. Initiated by a publisher, the discussion asks if m/m erotica is indeed a turn on for women, and whether Romantic Times should review them as part of their book reviews. As of right now 61% of voters say that they love male/male erotica, which I suspected given the responses to and discussion after our male romance and erotica reviews on SBTB.

The ensuing discussion is fascinating, however, with the typical polarity in responses. Either folks say, ‘Oh, hell no,’ or they say, ‘Oh yes yes yes.’ But of course, morality and tones of chastisement towards those who read it and call it romance abound. Be sure to take your blood pressure medicine before you read the whole thing.