

by Candy • Friday, April 22, 2005 at 06:37 AM
Another Friday, another personal ad! Guess the character name, title, and author correctly, and find yourself the proud owner of a lovingly-crafted, 100% dairy-free and heart-healthy Smart Bitches title.
SWF, 35 y.o., all alone and hopelessly on the shelf looking for a sexy, hypothermic stranger to pass out on my door. Good-looking illegitimate gunslinger/private investigator with overdeveloped sense of chivalry preferred. I have small farm, cozy house, some livestock; you have requisite equipment to take care of my virginity because damn, I’m sick of this hymen and nobody in the Dakota Territories wants it. Commitment would be nice, but one-night stand also acceptable.
p.s. Am willing to assist in any sort of investigation you’re involved in. I won’t get in the way, I swear.
Addendum: OK, since nobody’s gotten it yet thus far, I offer these hints:
- It’s a book written by a fairly popular author who’s written only historicals with American settings; the worst grade she’s ever gotten at AAR was a C.
- This particular book was published by HarperCollins in 1997.
Ringing any more bells?



by SB Sarah • Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 07:16 AM
MelJean’s musings on homosocial and homosexual under-and-overtones (heh heh) in romance made me ponder the friendships between men, which usually center around common painful childhoods (see: Putney), family connections (see: Quinn) and opportunity for somewhat goofy nicknames for circle of friends (see: Putney, Laurens), and common social habits, i.e. clubs, hunting groups, hooker-hunting groups, gambling, and/or bonding while suffering through endless balls, dances, and social events.
What about friendships among women? I know there are more than a few series wherein older matrons bond together and interfere - sorry, lovingly involve themselves - in young hero and heroine von romanticshire’s lives. But it seems to me that friendships among men, which according to some feminist theorists serve to reinforce heterosexuality and patriarchy, are much more common than true, multi-novel lasting friendships among women. There are a few exceptions that moved beyond “elder character from previous novel giving sage advice to young virgin heroine,” such as The Wallflowers in Kleypas’ Secrets of a Summer Night, the friendships that follow through Julia Quinn’s two early works, Splendid and Dancing at Midnight though there is some of that in each novel. Perhaps there’s an imaginary line that heroines cross when they have sex and settle down into married bliss, because I have much clearer recollections of heroines from previous novels appearing decades older and somehow unable to connect with the younger, virginal crowd anymore, than I do of heroines retaining their personalities and remaining merry friends with heroines of other books in a related series.
What does that mean, from a critical perspective? Is the underlying emphasis of romance novels the reaffirmation of the heterosexual patriarchy, and thus the friendships and homosocial collectives of men are of more importance than the friendships of women, which do little to support that patriarchy, and, in fact, undermine it?
However, as has been established, my memory for these things is quite poo. Do y’all challenge my recollection of female friendships? Shall I stop flexing these flabby fem-crit brain muscles?







by Candy • Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 08:35 PM
And Meljean has constructed rock-solid arguments on why this is so.
Please. Read her article. It will open your eyes--and heal your gout, too, should you be gouty, that is.





by Candy • Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 02:36 PM
Candy’s Part of the Rant:
I have to thank Rebecca Brandewyne for writing the column on purple prose today because I had nothing to talk about; I was planning on quietly working on a few things like, ohhhh, actual WORK, but now I have something more fun to play with.
Purple prose. I hates it, precioussssss. And for those of you who read my comment in Romancing the Blog, I distinguish between lyrical writing and purple prose, which is a pejorative term. It wasn’t originally, but hey, gone are also the days when “gay” was used primarily to mean “lighthearted and happy,” and “anti-semitic” means “hatred of Jews” even though many, many Jews aren’t semitic and many semitic peoples aren’t Jewish and are, in fact, anti-semitic themselves.
Whoops, I digress. Back to discussions of purpleness.
To me, prose becomes purple instead of merely descriptive or lyrical when the author does any of the following:
1. She is a habitual noun- and verb-molester. It’s a sickness. She can’t leave the naked, quivering, defenceless word alone; she must assault it with modifiers, gleefully thrust in multiple adjectives and adverbs, and violate it merrily with superlatives and bad metaphors--not unlike what I’m doing to this paragraph now.
2. The descriptions, while elaborate, are almost always quite painfully mundane. The wind is “cruel and biting,” bare branches are “gnarled, grasping fingers,” the eyes are “sparkling orbs,” old women are “withered crones,” words are not spoken, they’re “rasped passionately.” Nothing new is offered; you’re drowned in a sea of descriptions that have been used so often, they’re well-nigh meaningless.
3. When the prose isn’t mundane, it’s jarring. The phrase “alabaster mounds,” when used to describe breasts, often makes me think of large lumps of cold, dead marble; probably not the effect the author wanted to achieve. And I won’t even tell you what I think when I read words like “slick love grotto” or “passion-bedewed portal,” though the phrase “gag me” does feature prominently in these thoughts.
4. To these authors, more = mo’ betta. The old maxim to make every word count holds no meaning to them, neither does the concept that over-described objects can interfere every bit as much with a reader’s visualization as under-described objects.
Take, for instance, this passage from the beginning of Laura Kinsale’s The Prince of Midnight. In this passage, S.T. first realizes that Leigh, the heroine, is actually a woman dressed as a boy:
He was certain of it. Abruptly and utterly certain. The soft, husky voice that didn’t rise and fall in ordinary tones, but stayed stubbornly gruff; that skin, those lips, the slender build--oh, she was a female, the sly little cat. She had the face to carry it off, too, clean and striking, marvelous, with a full jaw and dramatic brows, and enough height and carriage to pass for a youth of sixteen.
In my opinion, descriptive, but not purple. Now witness what adding and/or changing some modifiers can do to the passage:
He was certain of it. Abruptly and utterly certain. The soft, husky voice that didn’t rise and fall in ordinary tones, but stayed stubbornly gruff and raspy; that creamy skin, those beestung, lush lips, the slender build with the deliciously rounded bottom that was far, far too luscious to be male--oh, she was a female, the sly little creamcat. She had the face to carry it off, too, clean and striking, marvelous, with a full jaw and dramatic, winged brows that soared on her smooth alabaster forehead like angels in flight, and enough height and carriage to pass for a devastatingly beautiful youth of sixteen, a youth worthy of being sculpted by no less a master than Michelangelo.
One paragraph of this sort of writing is one thing, but a whole bookful of it? GAH.
I’m not going to be all PC and say that “there’s no such thing as bad or good, it’s all personal preference.” OK, it’s somewhat personal in that the purple line in the sand is located differently for different people. But once that line is crossed? Purple prose is bad writing. Bad, bad, bad.
I also don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with liking it. Shit, I like Doritos, and it’s certainly not haut cuisine, nor do they have any sort of redeeming nutritional value. I even acknowledge that they look, smell and taste kind of disgusting (especially the Cool Ranch flavor), but I don’t care, I love ‘em anyway.
Same thing with purple authors. When I’m in the right mood and when the author gets the shade of lilac just right, I enjoy reading purple prose, much in the same way I enjoy a really silly blockbuster in which the most taxing thing I have to do is trying to decide if Keanu’s semi-pained frown is indicative of his character’s inner turmoil, or whether he needs to up his Metamucil dosage.
More often than not, though, I can’t stand purple prose. It drives me nuts; the inner editor in me longs to drag out the red pen and slash out all the unnecessary modifiers. With lascivious, wanton abandon, even.
Sarah’s Part of the Rant:
My purple prose master, the author to whom I kneel when I search for the overwrought, overwritten, and overblown, is Beatrice Small. In fact, while going through books to keep or to donate this weekend, I pulled out the sequel to “Blaze Wyndham,” which is hands-down my favorite purple book, which follows the saga of Blaze’s daughter Nyssa. I put it in the ‘Keeper’ pile, as I don’t own a copy of Blaze Wyndham so Nyssa will have to do until I find one.
Hubby asked, “Why are you keeping that book?”
Sarah: “Because it is the most purple book I own.”
Hubby: “Purple?”
Sarah: “Yeah. Purple. The prose.”
Hubby: “Huh?”
Sarah: “Stay right there.” Flips to page where Nyssa has sex. (Of COURSE Nyssa has some sex! What would a purple be without some nookie?)
Sarah: “Ahem: ‘He deposited his love juices into her moist canal.’”
Hubby: “WHAT?! You can’t throw that book away! You have to keep that!”
Phrases like that define the purplest of the purple. To back Candy up, oh yes, nothing turns a book to grape flavoring like overworked words: “huskily” is my personal trigger, along with “redolent.” For some reason, I see “redolent” and my brain reads “corpulent.” Not at all what the author was intending, I imagine.
For example, I have now in front of me said saga of Nyssa and her love juices. Here are some purply examples for your titillating pleasure:
“Your love juices begin to flow, sweetheart,” he said softly, kissing her ear as he spoke. “That is how I know you are ready for me.” The tip of his finger found her tiny love button and he rubbed it....
She cried his name even as the feeling of pressure building within her exploded in a starbust of incredible pleasure… He could feel his love juices gushing forth in a great discharge of sweetness that overflowed her womb. He fell forward atop her body, exhausted, yet filled with a contentment he had never known.
Ah, the golden standards of purpleism: love juices, love button, and, further into the sexcapades of Nyssa in “Love, Remember Me,” we find his raging member.
What bothers me most is that purple prose does little to advance the story or even distinguish it from others of its ilk. I picture the author trying to come up with a masterful adverb or a devastating adjective, and unwittingly using the standby seen in hundreds of other works, even as the author tries to deviate from the pack. It’s sad - it’s like talking to someone who doesn’t express a thought originally, but couches everything in cliche so you feel like you’re not really talking to anyone. Not anyone intelligent, anyway.










by Candy • Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 06:42 AM
Rebecca Brandewyne wrote a piece about how much she misses purple prose on Romancing the Blog. Go check it out; I left a long-ass comment that I probably should’ve posted here, and I have even MORE I want to say, so I’ll weigh in later with even more words. Whee!