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

Okay, but isn’t it just a little intriguing that a guy is pictured for the average subway Romance reader?

If they want to improve the image of greater DC, maybe they should clean out a few of the slums.  Build some decent housing, improve the schools. . . .

You know, when I see someone reading something like Plato on the subway, my first thought is not how smart they must be; it’s how smart they’re trying to look by reading Plato on the subway.

They didn’t want to portray a woman reading a romance for fear they would look stupid AND sexist.

Um, my copy of Plato’s Republic is about three inches thick.  How smart can this guy be if he’s reading the Cliffs notes version?

I remember reading an article last year about how there were very few romances set in DC.  Seeing as it’s a place that pretty much sucks your soul drier than a stale raisin, I can understand why.

I googled Kaitlyn O’Connor’s Abandon.  It’s a real book, I wonder how Ms. O’Connor feels about the Initiative’s use of her book.

That’s quite an ad for O’Connor.

I have never been under any misguided belief that reading romance novels will make me appear smarter, but damn, that ad is really insulting. 

Aren’t they aware that paperback romance novels make up over half of all paperback publishing sales?  Don’t they realize that is a HUGE demographic they are alienating?  Or do they assume that all romance novels must be read by uneducated, barely literate, mouth-breathers?

You’re right Robin, it is especially strange that they show a man reading the romance novel instead of a woman.  I’m all for gender equality but let’s be realistic.

Seriously.  Is there a subway somewhere full of romance-reading guys?  Because if so, I know where I’m going on my next vacation!

And yes, I totally want to know what Kaitlyn O’Connor thinks about all this.

Only in DC, some idiots think Plato’s Republic is a great thing to read right before work.  If I were that guy, I would’ve fallen asleep and missed my stop!

If I saw a guy reading Plato on the subway, I’d probably think “What a pompous ass.”

I’m all for the classics, but much like those awful 80s bodice ripper covers, I don’t trot them out in public for all to see.

Actually, I know lots of people with advanced degrees—they’re some of my best sources for swapping romance novels!

With all due respect, I kind of get where that ad’s going.  There is a difference between real literature and popular novels.  I don’t read much romance, but I would feel the same if the ad featured comics or mysteries or sci-fi or Harry Potter books.  Those are all relatively passive entertainment—the author tells a story and you’re along for the ride.  With literature or scholarly nonfiction you’re required to be much more active, following multiple arguments, picking out flaws, and generally wrestling with the text on many more levels.  Which isn’t to say that you can’t delve into the craft of a comic or romance, just that there’s less depth to them.  They’re meant to entertain, not to challenge/educate you.

Although with that said, I couldn’t imagine appreciating something like Ulysses in the reading environment of a subway, and I’d be surprised to find anyone there reading something other than a newspaper/magazine/popular novel, given all of the jostling and constant distractions.  And I totally agree with Jaded and Jennie that anyone who publicly flaunts the fact that they’re reading Great Literature is almost certainly a pompous idiot.  But the premise of the ad (books that challenge & educate you vs. books that entertain you) seems pretty logical to me.  It’s unfortunate that they drag people into it, since smart people read a whole slew of things, but as a quick visualization of smart vs. less smart, the books work really well.

I haven’t read Ms. O’Connor’s book, but obviously I enjoy much Romance.  I also have a fondness for Plato, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Derrida, Foucault, and many other dead but serious types.  I wish this kind of discussion didn’t have to turn into an either/or, philosophy or genre fiction, although I totally understand the resentment toward the elitist judgments this “campaign” seems to make.

But here’s the thing:  how many of us educated, smart, successful, articulate, independent, sassy women are actually out there publicly talking about how intelligent some Romance is, and how legitimate a fictional enterprise it is?  Although I understood why she kept it under wraps until she got tenure, at least Eloisa James is talking far and wide about her roles as Romance novelist and Shakespeare scholar (of course the fact that her father is Robert Bly might help a bit, too, in her gaining some respect).  But she’s the minority, I think.  How many mainstream press people or just plain people are reading some of these blogs where we talk about the philisophical underpinnings of rape in Romance and sexuality and eroticism as it relates to political correctness? And how many of us are really advocating publically for a different take on the genre?  Sometimes I doubt editors and publishers even know we’re here.  And for every one of us on the Internet, I know there are hundreds more who aren’t.  And many of us are crying for more intelligent Romance, as well, which complicates matters even more.

It’s ironic because the friend who introduced me to the genre is a respected academic, while most of my friends who don’t hold BA’s or advanced degrees don’t read Romance, and I think it puzzles them a little that I do.  These are smart, sophisticated, successful, independent women, but they still walk into a bookstore and see a clinch cover or a shaved male chest and get ideas about the genre.  And you know what—I can’t blame them.  I can’t explain any of that away, either, and I know that many, many Romance readers like those covers—especially the readers who don’t give a flying fig if the genre gets mainstream respect. 

I know that there are different elements of the Romance reader community—different expectations and interests on the part of readers, and many readers who don’t pay attention to what critics say about the genre or about what whether forced seduction means anything in the genre.  Then there are those readers who do, and there are writers who are writing books that invite us to ask those questions and have those conversations.  It’s a big genre.

But the element that’s represented here—authors and readers included—isn’t the element that gets most noticed, even though we might be the ones bitching about derisive attitudes toward the genre.  But what are we doing to give a different face to the genre, to change the view of people who think it’s trash or otherwise unworthy somehow?  I struggle with this, too—I’m guilty of not asserting my reading preferences around certain people, even while I complain about the bad opinions.  I’ve gotten better, and I’m forcing myself to make more public statements about Romance in a positive way, but I still think that the more serious connections between the genre and readers aren’t being made so public in big numbers.  And I think it’s even harder to get acaross the idea that smart women could be reading Romance and enjoying it as it is WITHOUT all the analysis, as well.  Because that’s part of the experience, too.  Even I get caught in that trap of feeling like I have to justify my enjoyment of the Romances I read with some intellectual interest instead of just saying that sometimes it’s a fun or entertaining reading experience.

I don’t read much romance, but I would feel the same if the ad featured comics or mysteries or sci-fi or Harry Potter books.

I think the rage comes from the fact that it’s not comics or mysteries or sci-fi and it pretty much never is.  People have certain conceptions of what reading material says about a figure in an ad or on television.  Want to show a geek?  Toss a few comics around.  Want to show an uneducated idiot?  Have ‘em read a Romance novel.

I don’t read much romance, but I would feel the same if the ad featured comics or mysteries or sci-fi or Harry Potter books.

I think the rage comes from the fact that it’s not comics or mysteries or sci-fi and it pretty much never is.  People have certain conceptions of what reading material says about a figure in an ad or on television.  Want to show a geek?  Toss a few comics around.  Want to show an uneducated idiot?  Have ‘em read a Romance novel.

Umkay, no idea why that posted twice.  Sorry.

I wonder why they didn’t go whole hog and have a woman reading Plato’s Republic. 

Or the not-so-bright dude reading “Mr Perfekt.”

There is a difference between real literature and popular novels. [...] Those are all relatively passive entertainment—the author tells a story and you’re along for the ride.  With literature or scholarly nonfiction you’re required to be much more active, following multiple arguments, picking out flaws, and generally wrestling with the text on many more levels.  Which isn’t to say that you can’t delve into the craft of a comic or romance, just that there’s less depth to them.  They’re meant to entertain, not to challenge/educate you.

I think they very often do both: ‘aut prodesse aut delectare’, and they can be read on different levels/for different purposes. Is watching a Shakespearian play ‘passive’? After all, you’re just sitting there watching a good story. But then, it might just get you thinking about issues too. Certainly at the time they were written these were seen as popular entertainments.

How many mainstream press people or just plain people are reading some of these blogs where we talk about the philisophical underpinnings of rape in Romance and sexuality and eroticism as it relates to political correctness? And how many of us are really advocating publically for a different take on the genre?

Pamela Regis interviewed a number of romance authors at the Smithsonian Institution at the end of last year/beginning of this year. Eric Selinger is teaching university courses on romance novels. We’ve got a blog going that’s explicitly written from an academic perspective and there are articles and books published and in the works on romance which are appreciative of the genre. I think there’s gradually going to be more awareness of this type of academic interest in romance novels, but it’ll take a while for perceptions to change, so those of us who want it to change will have to be persistent.

Even I get caught in that trap of feeling like I have to justify my enjoyment of the Romances I read with some intellectual interest instead of just saying that sometimes it’s a fun or entertaining reading experience.

A well-written novel or play should be fun to read/watch, I think. Which takes us back to that quote from Horace. The fun is usually the bit that’s most obvious and which attracts the reader. The education/analysis part doesn’t have to be recognised, but it’ll be there. Lots of readers say that romance has helped them think about difficult issues, improved their self-esteem etc. That’s ‘education’ in the broadest sense.

The really great thing is that just down the same train you have an ad for Tyson’s Corner Center (a really overpriced mall) that features a male’s torso from collar bone to hips in a tight tank and jeans that is turned in such a way as to give him a more endowed chest than most the women on the train.  Talk about man titty.  The only time in my life that I have wished for a camera phone.

~But here’s the thing:  how many of us educated, smart, successful, articulate, independent, sassy women are actually out there publicly talking about how intelligent some Romance is, and how legitimate a fictional enterprise it is?~

Um. I’d be one.

I think the ad projected the either/or stand. It’s also something I’m pretty used to, so I don’t get enraged by this kind of thing. Usually. This particular ad pushed a button because it’s so blatant, and so insulting--and once again so freaking LAZY. Shorthand: Reading Romance novels is silly, they’re mindless fluff, and we’re so much smarter, so much more sophisticated than this we read Plato.

Anyway, I bet that guy’s got the box scores inside Plato’s Republic.

JMC might consider e-mailing the GWI with her thoughts on the ad. I just did.

I don’t bother with this sort of thing often, but I happen to live in MD, so that makes this close to home on a couple of levels.

I don’t think the kind of attitude or the kind of message the ad projects is going to go away. But that doesn’t mean we have to turn the other cheek every time we’re bitch-slapped.

Oh, you mean the guy reading Plato is supposed to be employed? I thought *real* Arts students refuse to sell out to big corporations by accepting their wages.

*grin*

Oh, relax. I’m kidding. If they can take the piss outta me, I can take the piss outta them.

Seriously, I thought it was an ad for removable book covers to put on top of trashy romances (I use the term lovingly) with Fabio covers. ;-) I’d really love one of those…

JMC might consider e-mailing the GWI with her thoughts on the ad. I just did.

I do have an email drafted—I wrote it immediately after seeing the ad. I’ve been sitting on it for a couple of days, because I wanted to cool off and make sure it was coherent, not a babble of frustration and outrage. 

Beyond the implication that romance readers are uneducated, less desirable members of the work force not worthy of being part of the Greater Washington community, I was frustrated by almost everything in the ad.

First:  a guy reading romance?  The vast majority of romance readers are women.  Why not use a woman in the ad?  Unless the implication is that fewer women are smart enough or educated enough to read Plato or be the target employee of the GWI. 

Second, a guy reading romance on public transit?  With a lurid cover?  Not utterly impossible, but highly improbable.  DC commuters (like much of DC IMO) are amazingly pretentious.  In three years of using the MARC commuter train and the Metro, I’ve only ever seen one guy reading a romance:  a guy in a Navy uniform reading Brockmann’s Flashpoint, which has a cover that looks like suspense and not romance.  Women reading romance novels on the Metro?  I’ve seen chicklit and historicals and best sellers, but I seldom see another reader with a clinch cover or even a category book.  Are other readers out there?  Yes, I’m sure, but I think they hide their books in public.  Metro readers are more likely to read the Express (free daily short pub’d by the Post) or the paper or a magazine, or have the laptop open, working, or read work material.  The people who are most likely to read “classics” of literature: students on their way to class.  The vast majority of people on Metro are zombies, starring off into space while waiting for their stop, or fiddling with their Crackberries.

Third, the way the reading choice was presented.  Someone earlier posted that it was the either/or situation.  I don’t see reading (romance or any other reading material) as an either/or choice.  I read romance.  I read classics.  I read non-fiction.  I read literary fiction.  The ad implied (to me) that a smart reader should or will always choose “literature” over entertainment, and that entertainment has no redeeming value.  Am I reading a lot into that, bringing my own baggage to it?  Probably, but that’s part of the art of marketing, isn’t it?  And this particular piece of marketing strategy just really pissed me off.

~I do have an email drafted—I wrote it immediately after seeing the ad. I’ve been sitting on it for a couple of days, because I wanted to cool off and make sure it was coherent, not a babble of frustration and outrage.~

Always wise. Cool-headed, reasoned arguments have more impact. Even if venting frustrated outrage is more fun. 

Re another comment: I don’t consider reading a passive form of entertainment, not if the story is well-crafted, and have certainly found popular novels challenging and thought provoking. Even educational.

With all due respect, I kind of get where that ad’s going.  There is a difference between real literature and popular novels.  I don’t read much romance, but I would feel the same if the ad featured comics or mysteries or sci-fi or Harry Potter books.

But it doesn’t. And it doesn’t feature The Da Vinci Code. The reason is that the ad packs a one-two punch. The dumb guy reads not just popular novels, but popular novels for women. It’s a wonder he can put on his pants by himself.

I remember reading an article last year about how there were very few romances set in DC.  Seeing as it’s a place that pretty much sucks your soul drier than a stale raisin, I can understand why.

As someone who lived in Washington, DC for twenty years (I now live in the suburbs), I can tell you there isn’t a lot of romance happening around here. Washington DC was voted the worst place to date in a a few polls, and as a single woman, I’m not surprised. People who spend their time talking about nothing but politics and the politicians they work for aren’t the most interesting people on the planet.

As for the ad on the subway, I’m sure it pisses off every romance novel carying woman on the train.

And don’t be so quick to judge that person reading Plato on the subway - it’s my goal to read all of his works before I die, and I get a lot of reading done on the subway! :-)

Wow, so much hate for people who read classics in public!  As I apparently have a different background than some who have commented, I would have made a different assumption about Plato-reading-dude.

Before I graduated last December, I spent 14 years being an increasingly middle-aged, part-time student, cramming a course or two into the corners of my life whenever I could.  Which means that I spent a lot of time sitting around in company lunch rooms and other unlikely places, reading lots of books with $5 words.  Not Plato, granted, but Beowulf and a substantial number of Shakespeare’s plays, not to mention the two solid years that I carted Wheelock’s Latin around everywhere I went.

So if I saw this guy, I would probably assume that he was a lawyer (or engineer) who decided that his profession sucked and was going to night school to get an engineering (or law) degree.  Poor guy just probably got stuck having to take some stupid course that has *nothing* to do with his major, but the university has this crazy new requirement....  (No really, ask me about my “Introduction to the Mind” class. I dare ya.)

Oh WAIT, I get it now!  He’s wearing a suit

...he’s in Washington

... he’s reading Plato’s Republic

... so he must be a Republican!  No wonder he’s so economically desireable!

Sometimes I just slay myself.  I really do.

I work in the DC area at a publisher of romance.  It’s a job I took, because I needed a job.  And my background in journalism was good enough to qualify for an editorial assistant position. 

Previously, I had never read romance or knew anything at all about the genre.  And needless to say, I carried all the negative stereotypes about what romance is and what kind of woman would read what I saw as mass produced mindless crap.

Smart Bitches and the women (and men) who comment here can take some pride in totally changing that opinion.  Having read this blog for a couple of months, I now know that women who read and write romance can be clever, witty, deep, and even handle a raunchy fart joke.  And they know the difference between crap and intelligent fiction.

I live right off the Silver Spring Metro Station.  And when I got on the train today, I saw that ad.  I was in a hurry (as is life in DC), so I only glanced at the ad.  And I thought, “Did I read that right? Surely they aren’t saying what I think they’re saying.”

Yep.  Pretty messed-up ad.

It’s early enough in the morning that the most intelligent response my brain and advanced degree can come up with is “Grrrrr.”

I have no grudge against someone that wants to read philosophy on the commuter train, but what’s wrong with wanting to be entertained by a good story on my way to work?

And one last thought—In my experience, people that regularly read anything at all tend to have a better vocabulary than those that don’t read.  I’d love to have a team full of readers of “trashy fluff”.

~I live right off the Silver Spring Metro Station.~

Hey! I grew up in Silver Spring!

Just doing the small world thing.

When ever I see some in public reading something like “The Republic” in public all I can think of is this exchange in the movie, “A Fish Called Wanda"…

Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it.

Yup… that about sums it up.

I used to live in Silver Spring while I was in law school, and I took the Metro all the time.  There were many a day that I almost missed my stop because I was lost in a book.  And it was ALWAYS a romance (and frequently a Nora Roberts).

Wait a minute… if they are all so clever in DC why are they advertising in the DC Metro?  Shouldn’t this message be used to attract business from outside DC?  Or are they trying to prove something to businesses that are considering getting the hell out of Dodge?

Okay that ad is just frustrating. I just can’t understand how people keep thinking that reading romance novels should stay a dirty little secret in ever intelligent woman’s home!!

I’m fairly new to the genre and I’m completely addicted! You know why?? because it lets me escape from the dredges of the office world that surround my life.

How ignorant and narrow minded is this ad? geez. *huffs in frustration*

You guys rock!  I love your rants, discussions, remarks, humor, etc.  I read just about anything that is entertaining.  Contemporary Romance, Historical, Mysteries, Thrillers…
I went to college and had to read Plato.  Give me a good romance any day!

In my experience, people that regularly read anything at all tend to have a better vocabulary than those that don’t read.  I’d love to have a team full of readers of “trashy fluff”.

People never believe me when I tell them that reading “trashy fluff” really helped me on the vocabulary section of the GRE. 

And what really makes me laugh is that I caught more crap for reading Harry Potter on the train than I ever did for anything published by Ellora’s Cave.  (Scary Christians are...scary.  Apparantly witchcraft bothers them much more than the deep dickin’.)

And what really makes me laugh is that I caught more crap for reading Harry Potter on the train than I ever did for anything published by Ellora’s Cave.  (Scary Christians are...scary.  Apparantly witchcraft bothers them much more than the deep dickin’.)

On behalf of my religion, I apologize. Seriously, when you see someone you don’t know reading a book, the only acceptable comment is, “I loved that book! How do you like it?” Make a new friend that way. But if you have anything else to say, keep it to yourself. It’s rude, and absolutely none of your business.

Apparently I fail at quotes… How do you do them, anyway?

There is a difference between real literature and popular novels.  I don’t read much romance, but I would feel the same if the ad featured comics or mysteries or sci-fi or Harry Potter books.  Those are all relatively passive entertainment—the author tells a story and you’re along for the ride.  With literature or scholarly nonfiction you’re required to be much more active, following multiple arguments, picking out flaws, and generally wrestling with the text on many more levels.  Which isn’t to say that you can’t delve into the craft of a comic or romance, just that there’s less depth to them.  They’re meant to entertain, not to challenge/educate you.

Wow, so many directions to go with this.  How about, Shakespeare was as much mindless entertainment for the masses as he was Great Literature (said with snooty accent).  I’m sure Eloisa James would back me on that one.  Oh, and Shakespeare was an unabashed plagiarizer, for what it’s worth.

Trash for the masses, off the top of my head:  Byron, Frankenstein, Richardson’s Pamela, Dickens, Tolkein.

It’s only in the 20thC that we started to separate “trash” from “Great Literature” to the extent that we do nowadays.

Oh, and speaking of Eloisa James (or Laura Kinsale or Jenny Crusie or Nora Roberts), did you fully understand the literary references and layers of meaning in their books?  Laura Kinsale’s novel written in frigging MIDDLE ENGLISH that was a rewriting of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” that had the hero make up an Old English poem out of his head?!?!  Or what about Eloisa James’ use of Shakespeare in her novels.  Or Jenny Crusie’s rewriting of the fairy tales?  Or Loretta Chase’s brilliantly researched, layered books about Albanian history, for heaven’s sake.

Yeah, some of it is “trash,” but if it’s entertaining trash, hey, maybe in 500 years it’ll be studied more than, say, A.S. Byatt.

It’s all about perception.  SF/F doesn’t have as much a reputation of being trash as romance because the academic critics latched onto it in the 70s.  Well, academics are latching onto romance now, so maybe in 30 years, we’ll be taken seriously.  But if we all stand up for romance now, it’ll take much less time.

I saw that ad a few days ago and felt the outrage, and then kept reading my romance novel.

As to not seeing other riders reading romance, that is true in the Metro system. I get looks based on what I am reading. I just look back, smile and keep on reading (it unnerves people).

~But here’s the thing:  how many of us educated, smart, successful, articulate, independent, sassy women are actually out there publicly talking about how intelligent some Romance is, and how legitimate a fictional enterprise it is?~

I do on a regular basis to my girlfriends and coworkers.

~ With all due respect, I kind of get where that ad’s going.  There is a difference between real literature and popular novels.  I don’t read much romance, but I would feel the same if the ad featured comics or mysteries or sci-fi or Harry Potter books. ~

I am a bit offended by the implication that romance novels are not ‘real’ literature. What we now consider ‘real literature’ were at one point just popular novels that have endured time and many readings. And as for being as equally offended if HP or sci fi etc were featured, I don’t buy that. When HP came out every other person had a copy of it, sci-fi and comics are perceived to be read only by nerds/geeks etc (confession I love hard sci-fi and any comic book work by Neil Gaiman) and that kind of person is seen as being bookish and smart and we all know how romance readers are perceived.

I think the ad projected the either/or stand.

Which is why I don’t understand (well, I think I understand it, but I find it frustrating as hell) why the response to that logic is often to reverse the terms from Romance bad, classics good to Romance good, classics bad.  Beyond the fact that such an equation is as untrue as the first, it’s a response whose logic mirrors the offense itself. 

Pamela Regis interviewed a number of romance authors at the Smithsonian Institution at the end of last year/beginning of this year. Eric Selinger is teaching university courses on romance novels. We’ve got a blog going that’s explicitly written from an academic perspective and there are articles and books published and in the works on romance which are appreciative of the genre. I think there’s gradually going to be more awareness of this type of academic interest in romance novels, but it’ll take a while for perceptions to change, so those of us who want it to change will have to be persistent.

Thanks for pointing out these examples, Laura—I had actually forgotten about the Smithsonian series (in DC, nonetheless—and I have to say I adored Seidel’s Mirrors and Mistakes, some of which takes place in DC, IIRC), but I should have included Pamela Regis, you, and Eric Selinger in my examples. I had just finished reading an interview with Eloisa James when I clicked here and saw Sarah’s post.  I also think you’re right that it’s going to take some time.  And seriously, I often feel like I’m fighting against some long-standing aspects of the genre itself in this endeavor, namely the COVERS!  Yeah, I know in the ideal world that we should be able to proudly display those covers regardless of how bad they are, but IMO they often do cheapen the genre, making it even more difficult to get that whole “don’t judge a book . . .” thing across in any convincing way.  And given the fact that a couple of years ago the RWA publically declared that according to its “research” that the number one quality Romance readers looked for in a hero was . . . muscles . . . I wonder how many readers would be disappointed if the clinch cover disappeared.

First:  a guy reading romance?  The vast majority of romance readers are women.  Why not use a woman in the ad?  Unless the implication is that fewer women are smart enough or educated enough to read Plato or be the target employee of the GWI.

I agree with the poster who suggested that GWI was afraid of pissing more women off by placing a woman behind the Romance novel.  Which is sort of an interesting thing, in and of itself --- no less condescending, perhpas, but intriguing to me.  Frankly, if more men read Romance on the metro, I think it would be a huge sign that they’ve become better educated.

It’s ironic because the friend who introduced me to the genre is a respected academic, while most of my friends who don’t hold BA’s or advanced degrees don’t read Romance, and I think it puzzles them a little that I do.

I think this is part of the problem, actually. There is a respected section of academia that has a vested interest in reading romance critically. Romance as a genre is a wonderful place to look at sociology, at how publishers and readers interact, at women’s expectations and how fiction can reflect that--and that’s just off the top of my head.

But. That acceptance has not filtered out of academia. The majority of public intellectuals seem to be focused on...well, not literature, and certainly not “women’s” literature. It seems the only nat’l commentary on literature tends to focus on the wildly popular faddish things like The DaVinci Code and Harry Potter (which, for the record, I love and have presented on at academic conferences). None of these so-called “intellectuals” really tries to revise the public image of romance novels. And that’s a problem, from where I’m sitting.

(Of course, even in academia, romance readers are looked at a bit askance. When I admit to/am found reading a romance novel, I always do that kind of half-disparging laugh and shrug and say that it’s a “break” from my dissertation.

But here’s the thing:  how many of us educated, smart, successful, articulate, independent, sassy women are actually out there publicly talking about how intelligent some Romance is, and how legitimate a fictional enterprise it is?

Not enough of us. That’s for sure.

There is a difference between real literature and popular novels.

No, there’s not. That’s the thing. Yesterday’s popular fiction is today’s literary classic. Take Dickens. Dickens was the Dan Brown and the JK Rowling of his day. Getting novels--ANY novels--accepted as anything more than trash was an uphill battle all the way. The difference now is the size and scope of the publishing industry. And don’t think the industry doesn’t have the power to define what we think “literature” is.

I’ve never understood the concept of “real literature,” though.

Also, re: men reading romance, I admit that the one and only time I remember seeing it outside of a university environment, I nearly fell off my chair.

Mall food court. Height of the Christmas shopping season. Middle-aged man at the table next to mine was reading a Fern Michaels novel in all of its flowered-cover glory.

I nudged my mother, and we both tried not to stare.

Okay I read something in a blog that similarly attacks romance in a rant. Here’s the site. http://gunshyvw.wordpress.com/2006/09/21/rant-watch-it/

~Okay I read something in a blog that similarly attacks romance in a rant. Here’s the site.~

Wherein the ranter states he/she has never actually read a romance novel because he/she KNOWS exactly what they are.

Which corresponds precisely with a comment I made this week on Dear Author, stating that those who denigrate the genre very often haven’t read it.

Those are the people I can’t be bothered with.

Ok, I can’t find the image online, but BART has a whole series of “thank you rider” ads up right now (Thank you KNITTING Riders; Thank you SPORT FAN Riders) and one of them is Thank you ROMANCE READING Riders. It totally made me smile.

It’s not my intention to insult anyone.  I read this site, after all, because I like to read what intelligent readers think.  But it’s admitted in the site’s title – romances aren’t highbrow literature, they’re “trashy books.” And that isn’t a bad thing, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’re valueless.  If a romance can help a woman figure out what she wants and inspire her to go out and look for it, that definitely has value.  If a romance can provide an escape from the tedium of daily life, that has a value, too.  But the vast majority of romances aren’t works of art.

And as for being as equally offended if HP or sci fi etc were featured, I don’t buy that.

Ah, but you missed my point.  I wouldn’t be offended.  I’m saying that today’s romance and sci-fi and comics and all that are roughly equivalent, art-wise, but that “real” literature (I’m sorry, I can’t think of a better term) is something else.

Yesterday’s popular fiction is today’s literary classic. Take Dickens...

To clarify that, yesterday’s lasting popular fiction is today’s literary classics.  A lot of Dickens’ contemporaries wrote worthless books, and they’ve been forgotten.  A lot of today’s romance (and sci-fi, and comics) are worthless, and they’ll be forgotten, too.  In 100 years, what survives will be the best of the genre, which I’d agree is equivalent to “real” literature.  But right now romance (and sci-fi, and comics) are so awash with mediocre stuff that trying to equate the whole genre of romance with time-tested, time-sorted “real” literature is just silly.

I agree that the ad is a cheap shot at one of today’s least respected branches of writing.  I agree that the ad wouldn’t have the same punch with anything other than a romance – suspense is too mainstream, and these days comics indicate geekiness and corresponding intelligence.  I agree that the ad is going to insult a lot of romance readers.  But despite all that, I still think the ad works – it gets its point across immediately and clearly and even amusingly.  I understand that’s hard to appreciate when its punchline rests on one of your favorite genres of writing, especially one which is routinely belittled, and I understand why most people here feel insulted by the ad, but I still get where the ad’s coming from.  And I still think it’s kind of funny.  If the ad inspires all of you to go out and get the world to accept romance as a legitimate art form, I’m all for that.  But if I were in the DC area, I would still smile whenever I saw the ad.

I think we are all a little biased here.  My grandmother and many of my coworkers would see nothing wrong with the ad.  I blatenly (have no clue if that’s spelled correctly) read romance, scifi, fantasy and comics on the metro.  Of course, I wear an oversized hot pink faux-fur pea coat to keep people from sitting next to me but when they do, I am rather surprised at how many people read over my shoulder.  I’m also surprised at how many men I’ve seen reading Laurell K. lately.  I’ve also known many a man who will read romances, normally caue they picked up their wife’s book and got hooked. 
The really funny thing is that the people who actually look at and read these posters are the ones who don’t read.

Kat said: Seriously, I thought it was an ad for removable book covers to put on top of trashy romances (I use the term lovingly) with Fabio covers.  I’d really love one of those…

Hey Hey Kat! Why not trashy clinch book covers to put on your copy of Plato! I did that to all my textbooks when I was in collage.

~But right now romance (and sci-fi, and comics) are so awash with mediocre stuff that trying to equate the whole genre of romance with time-tested, time-sorted “real” literature is just silly.~

All fiction is routinely `awash’ in mediocre books. And always will be. And as such things are subjective, what is mediocre to one will be art to another.

While I enjoy this site tremendously, and appreciate the tongue-in-cheek name of it, I don’t consider Romance a genre of trashy books.

I don’t write trash. (And that, too, is subjective.)

And while it’s silly to equate the entire genre with “real” literature (whatever that may be), it stands, imo, to be equally silly to dismiss the entire genre as low-brow.

So to single out Romance remains, imo, lazy and cliched.

I also emailed them.  I lived in the DC area for 28 years and graduated from college there.  I find the ad insulting and told them so.

Kat said: Seriously, I thought it was an ad for removable book covers to put on top of trashy romances (I use the term lovingly) with Fabio covers.  I’d really love one of those…

Actually, I think it would be great if someone produced removable covers like these:  Aristotle and the Billionaire Sheikh’s Virgin Daughter, or Sex and The Single Philosopher, What a Dickens Little Dora Was, or A Side Plato of Love with that Republic, please.  Well, someone who could actually write funny would have to come up with some.  But if they did, I’d buy ‘em for sure.

When I was in grad school, I had a very wise professor who told us “Never apologize for the book you are reading. At least you *do* read.”

And you know, she’s right. I can read the stuff with $5 words, but really, when you get down to it, I think I get a lot more out of a book when it’s a really good story.

To clarify that, yesterday’s lasting popular fiction is today’s literary classics.  A lot of Dickens’ contemporaries wrote worthless books, and they’ve been forgotten.  A lot of today’s romance (and sci-fi, and comics) are worthless, and they’ll be forgotten, too.  In 100 years, what survives will be the best of the genre, which I’d agree is equivalent to “real” literature.  But right now romance (and sci-fi, and comics) are so awash with mediocre stuff that trying to equate the whole genre of romance with time-tested, time-sorted “real” literature is just silly.

But if the genre isn’t read today, the good books will never get filtered down to be the classics of tomorrow. Hell, they won’t even get written--nothing is produced if there is no market. And even some of Dickens’ stuff is crap. How can you tell and only write the ‘good’ books if you don’t at least write a few of the bad? If people hadn’t read all manner of crap in the earlyl to mid-19th century, we wouldn’t have our Austen, our Dickens, our [insert name of your favorite classical author here]. If people hadn’t been going to lots of plays in the 16th and 17th centuries, we wouldn’t have our Shakespeares, our Johnsons. So why do we pick on people who participate on the natural gleaning process, who read books and then toss them aside or tell others to read them and so make them immortal? Reading is reading, whether you are simply participating in the brownian motion of creating the next generation’s classics, or reading the books that have already been elected classics based on their merits. It’s completely unfair to compare the two processes, and you really can’t have the classics without the dross.

I also think the ad is rude, condescending and just plain old incorrect in its assertion that those who read classic literature would wear a dark red tie (good, God, it looks like it’s knitted! Tell me that’s an image quality problem!) with such a bright electric blue shirt! They have much better fashion sense!

Honestly, they’ll never attract new business to the metro area if they continue to portray lovers of Plato as such fashion disasters....

;-)

I went to the website of the Greater Washington Initiative and emailed the executive director the following:

“I find your advertisement on the DC Metro contrasting “Average Subway Reading” with “Greater Washington Subway Reading” to be offensive and insulting.  I am not only an MFA graduate of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, but I also hold an MA in Literature as well as a BA in Literature.  I am also a reader and writer of romance.  The implication that romance readers are somehow less educated and a less desireable demographic is insensitive and uninformed.  Simply go to http://www.rwanational.org and you can view statistics there that directly contradict your slander of romance readers.  Must we denigrate any form of literature?  Is that really a valid basis for determining someone’s sociological and economic viability?  You should be ashamed for perpetuating a stereotype that has no basis in truth. 

My one consolation is that I am not a DC resident, and do not have to view your derogatory, narrow-mided ‘work’ as I ride public transportation.”

I’m not usually an outraged letter writer (okay, once I did email Fox because they were showing a “humorous” film clip of an obese cat trying to navigate around its home, including the stairs), but this really got me.  Maybe it will show up in my FBI file one day.  I can only hope.

I had a rant ready, but it’s already been most beautifully said.

I live 40 minutes from downtown DC, in Virginia. 20 minutes away from the nearest Metro station. I am an erotica/ romance publisher.

I will be making my opinion known.

Sorry, just noticed I forgot to capitalize Brownian motion, not to mention put an “l” on the end of early.

When I get passionate about something (ie, reading for reading’s sake leading to reading for edification) I tend to forget things like rules of grammar, spelling, etc.  :-)

Oh, God, and now I’m going to have to give Nora’s regular stand-alones *not* set in New Orleans another shot (I always read the NO ones, if only because she gets the aura right.) I think I picked up the one non-New Orleans book that wouldn’t be to my tastes and tossed it too early. Now the intellectual and well-written aspects of her arguments have me thinking perhaps I have formulated a faulty hypothesis on the basis of an inadequate data set.  :P

Step 1: to GWI:

I’m sure you’ve received several comments on a certain advertisement concerning a comparison involving romance readers, so I’ll be straightforward.

I’m an erotic romance/ romance publisher, and I live in your marketing area. While you may consider my company beneath your notice, it’s never wise to alienate possible clients.

I am not a publisher of these tomes because I lack the capacity to read--or publish-- anything else. I publish them because I enjoy working with talented writers in a lucrative market. Despite the erroneous position many take that romance is ‘easy money’, it requires the same hard work, honing of skill, and committment as any other genre.

To insinuate otherwise in a media repesentation of your company is not recommended, and we are not amused.

Sincerely,

Nora - No offence meant. Years ago, after being subjected to numerous derisive comments from friends about my addiction to “trashy romance novels”, I decided to reclaim the term for myself and refuse to apologise for my reading habits. Personally, when I use it, I don’t mean to imply that romances are trash. (Much like “queers” who have reclaimed the term don’t really think they’re queer at all.) My friends ask what I’m reading, I tell them I’m reading a trashy romance, they roll their eyes and I tell them, “It’s SUCH a good book!” It makes them question their use of the term “trashy” and it gives me at least half a minute to talk about the book while they’re speechless. I’ve convinced a few friends to give the genre a chance using this method.

BUT I can see how others may be offended, particularly authors, and so I shall try to refrain myself in public. :-) (I did say TRY.)

Miri - OMG, that would have been perfect for Philosophy 101. “Oh, you mean this? I’m reading Plato but I don’t want my mother to know.” *lol*

Robin - I love it! Freuda’s Penis Envy? I’d consider buying that. *grin*

(opening umbrella to deflect decomposing vegetables)

I’ve read probably a hundred or so outright genre romances--I like mysteries more.  Some of the romances I’ve read, especially those written in the last decade, were damned good stories (and yes, at least one was a Nora Roberts given to me by a friend who knew I didn’t like cheesy formula because it was ‘different.’) There are some terrific books out there, in print and in download.

But dear lord, there is also a mind-boggling mountain of rubbish.  I’ve bought only a handful of downloads because I can’t struggle through the horrible grammar in 80% of the sample excerpts, and when a writer promos her own book with commas and apostrophes flung around like so much confetti, I don’t even look at her excerpts.  It’s not just e-books, either--I have tried to read Kat Martin’s highly-blurbed books and can’t get past her faux old-timey dialog, and I’m willing to put up with a certain amount of oddness because I like historicals.  (It’s not only Martin. Her name comes to mind because I recently tried three in a row and just gave up.)

And yet these books seem to sell well and are praised to the heavens on the lists.  Maybe the authors have friends shilling for them, maybe not.  But it’s clear that there are many, many completely uncritical readers out there who will consider any writing wunnerful if it has an ‘alpha’ guy with big muscles and a heroine who looks sexy even when she wakes up after a drunken orgy.  Or if there are vampires, it’s deep and penetrating, pun intended.  If there’s a cowboy involved that pushes the fantasy button, that also seems to override whatever critical sense may exist.  I think romance readers are more willing to overlook even major faults if the formula fits their craving.

I’ve worked with some of the lasses who are stereotypical romance readers, and there are a lot of them, and many of them do not read anything else.  Are they “average?” Of course not.  After all, an “average” IQ of 100 means that there are people far above and far below that mark.  One of my sisters lives in a small town where about two-thirds of the library’s fiction section consists of romance books.  She can’t get the library to consider buying SF or mysteries because they say the majority of the patrons aren’t interested.  I guess this is good news for romance authors and the sci-fi and mystery book clubs, but it doesn’t make for literary diversity.

Romance has its formulas, and it has a high-demand market, and that combination means that the average product is not likely to be of superior quality.  Most of the romances I’ve read partway through were McFiction--filling, if you can digest the grease.  I’ve skimmed and tossed a couple that I swear were written by a computer program.

I think the ad is obnoxious, using a man as the ‘typical’ reader was lily-livered and silly, and using Plato’s Republic was even sillier.  But I would bet that most of the people who read romances would not tackle Plato voluntarily, just as I suspect most of the people who read Plato without being required to would not pick a romance as their first choice for light reading. 

I have thoughtful, intelligent friends who happen to enjoy college football.  They aren’t ‘typical’ football fans.  Along that line, I don’t think the readership of this list could be considered ‘typical’ romance fans, either.  The kind of conversations you have here would be banned from the ‘typical’ list--if member numbers are any indication--because you actually dare to ridicule the Sacred Cover Art and discuss story content in a thoughtful manner. 

I’m curious as to what books you all would prefer to have seen in place of the ones used in this ad.  Because every genre has its rubbish, and no matter what you put in the dodo’s hands, it’s going to offend somebody, even if it’s a porny skin mag. (Or, in DC, maybe that should be the journal of the man-boy-love pervs, if they publish such a thing.)

But seriously--if you were creating that ad, what books would you have used?  Never mind that it’s pandering to the obnoxious sort of snob who would never read Plato himself--what books fit the concept?

But seriously--if you were creating that ad, what books would you have used?  Never mind that it’s pandering to the obnoxious sort of snob who would never read Plato himself--what books fit the concept?

I can’t think of a juxtaposition of books (or books genres) that wouldn’t be insulting to someone.  But why does it have to be this invidious-comparison, snottier-than-thou type of ad anyway?  Why not an ad that has a car full of Metro riders, all reading, all reading something different, with a title that says something like, “Our riders are readers” or something far more effective than I can come up with. 

I think others have countered your arguments better than I can by rehashing them, but I’ll just close with:  why is it that when we get into the argument about how literary or non-literary romance novels are, someone has to point out that there is tons of dreck surrounding the really good stuff.  In what genre, or form of expression, for that matter, is that NOT the case?  When someone gives me a convincing example of an art form that is all high quality, then I’ll start to worry about the ratio in romance. Which is just a wordy way of saying what Ms. Roberts already put much more succinctly.  Which is why she’s a best-selling writer and I’m an academic.

~But seriously--if you were creating that ad, what books would you have used?~

I wouldn’t have created this kind of ad, because it’s elitist and insulting whatever type of books are used. It just sends a snotty message, period.

~I think romance readers are more willing to overlook even major faults if the formula fits their craving.~

I think avid readers of ANY genre are willing to overlook even major faults if the formula fits their craving.

It’s really, REALLY past time to stop pointing this finger at Romance, as if only Romance readers tolerate crappy books--or what others deem crappy (and which I may very well think crappy myself.)

There’s a lot of dreck out there, paper and e--in every genre, in every area of fiction. Unless it’s self-pubbed, SOMEBODY didn’t consider it dreck and bought it for publication. The reader who buys it and enjoys it is entitled. The reader who buys it and thinks this sucks out loud is entitled. The sheer volume of Romances published very likely means there is more dreck, and there are more gems, than in other areas of fiction. And a lot more than fall somewhere between.

But the Romance reader, the ones on-line, or the ones who aren’t, don’t deserve to be constantly smirked at or considered low-brow because of their choice of reading entertainment.

And the genre itself doesn’t deserve to be constantly ridiculed and measured by what you--or I--might consider its lowest water mark.

And seriously, I often feel like I’m fighting against some long-standing aspects of the genre itself in this endeavor, namely the COVERS!

Are these mostly on single-titles? Like I’ve said, in the UK the most visible type of romance are the Mills & Boons, and they don’t tend to have snarkable covers. There is nonetheless a lot of prejudice about M&B romances. So while the covers may play their part in creating negative impressions of romances in the US, changing the cover art wouldn’t necessarily raise the status of the genre as much as you hope.

Sunita, our last comments must have crossed.

I thought you said it perfectly.

Good question, Lia. I actually don’t have an insurmountable problem with the ad. I just think it’s a little silly and, as Nora said, lazy.

So...as to alteratives. Well, let’s compare like with like. A person reading a tabloid versus one reading a well-respected broadsheet or Forbes. But these play to stereotypes and are therefore bound to offend some sections of the community. I can’t think of book examples that wouldn’t alienate big groups of people or lose its impact, precisely because of the stereotyping required. I mean, a person reading Dan Brown or Stephen King next to someone reading Nietzsche just wouldn’t have the effect.

Why not an ad that has a car full of Metro riders, all reading, all reading something different, with a title that says something like, “Our riders are readers”

Very good point, Sunita.  The thing is, successful advertisers, like successful politicians, make bold, not nuanced statements.

Here’s a bold statement: Have the DC Metro guy reading a book and the NYC subway guy picking his nose.

(Anyone else like the word “douche” as much as I do? It’s so satisfying to say. Srsly.)

Candy, that’s so bizarre.  An hour ago I was trying to blog about the Napoli thing, and the post wouldn’t, well, post.  I kept saying, “Blogger’s being such a douche today,” even though I’ve never used that word as a slang in my life. 

It is satisfying to say, but odd that it came to me just as you were writing this post.  Get out of my brain, woman!!

(running to fetch my tinfoil hat)

I love reading these comments because it reconfirms what we have always known: most romance readers are intelligent, thoughtful and positive people who are passionate in a world where cynicism is the only world view which isn’t derided as naiveté.

I really wish someone would explain to me why it is considered more acceptable to read about a gruesome murder in a hard-core mystery or suspense novel then it is about the triumph of the human spirit in romance. No one would blink at me reading a P.D. James on the train, but if I have a paper back romance, especially an erotic romance or a Harlequin, I would get sideways looks and snickers.

Well joke’s on them because clearly they are dead inside.