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

I think poor Chrstine here thinks she must suffer when she reads and not enjoy anything. Sad. And a bit stupid to my way of thinking.

Dude, I’m with Michele-- when did “I Read, therefore I suffer,” become de rigueur?

What I don’t understand, is where the heck does it say, that you can’t enjoy BOTH “literature” AND “romance.” Who says that you can’t enjoy One Hundred Years of Solitude by GGB, Kaftka and Jo Beverly, Lori Handerland or Karen Marie Moning.  Why do some people have to be so narrow minded that they can only enjoy one type of reading?  And where does it say that you have to put down your fellow reader for what he / she chooses to read?  OR what a “must read” list should look like?  The arrogance!

Whatever happened to reading for enjoyment and escape? Why do it all have to have “meaning”? As for silly- I usually enjoy a book that makes me laugh, or at the very least, giggle. Is that what she meant by silly?

Oh come on, Sarah, we all know that love, sex, commitment, and personal growth are silly!  A book isn’t worth reading unless someone important dies or is miserable!

What I don’t understand, is where the heck does it say, that you can’t enjoy BOTH “literature” AND “romance.”

I think there’s this very deep need for humans to slot other humans into some easily labeled box.  It makes life easier than if an individual were multi-faceted.  Easier for who, I’m not sure, but I’ve been told it makes life easier.

This type of thing always brings to mind the time I interviewed for a job at Barnes and Noble and made the mistake of mentioning that I had a graduate degree in literature. The first question out of the manager’s mouth was whether I was a ‘book snob’. To which my response was that I’d read anything if it was put in front of me and I was convinced I’d enjoy it. Which includes romance novels, fantasy, YA (I’m That Person who strolls into the YA section of the library all the time despite patently being in my twenties), children’s lit, etc.

I didn’t get the job in the end, ironically. But I’ve never been able to understand why people want to take all the fun out of reading.

(I also really didn’t like To Kill a Mockingbird when we had to read it in school. I have been told on multiple occasions that this makes me a bad person.)

Sometimes people need silly.  If they don’t get it they get as puckered as their assholes.

And no one wants to be a puckered old asshole right?  Right.

I think poor Chrstine here thinks she must suffer when she reads and not enjoy anything. Sad. And a bit stupid to my way of thinking.

Where do you get that? It read to me like she wasn’t enjoying mysteries or romance, so she was going to try something else. Romance novels are not actually enjoyable to everyone. *gasp!* Not everyone who says they don’t like them is doing it just because dissing romance novels is cool.

I also really didn’t like To Kill a Mockingbird when we had to read it in school. I have been told on multiple occasions that this makes me a bad person

I loved To Kill A Mockingbird, but I will say here that I tend to find Dickens annoying, Lewis Carroll does not appeal to me at all, and no matter how hard I tried, I could not get into any of the Tolkein books...the movies didn’t do it for me, either.  Two of the best books I’ve ever read didn’t show up on that list--The Once and Future King, by TH White and The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara.

Who says that you can’t enjoy One Hundred Years of Solitude by GGB

I do. But this is because I’ve read the book 3 times and it just doesn’t ever get more enjoyable for me. The damn book haunted me from high school and through 2 years of college. Objectively I think it could be an enjoyable book but once you’ve had to read it 3 times and write 2 papers on it all the fun is sucked right out of it.

As for the prevailing belief that romance novels are silly dreck or, and this is my favorite still, girl porn . . . I’m too tired to get really annoyed.

What’s with the need to pigeon-hole people? Does it make it easier to make judgments about that person’s character if you know what type of book they read most often? You can dismiss a person’s opinions if you know them as “that romance novel reader” because clearly that’s the only thing they’ve ever read and if they don’t spend their time reading Dickens and Hardy and all those other old dead white guys then you’re opinions aren’t worth the paper your $8 romance novels are printed on?

I probably just answered my own question, I think.

Why do some people have to be so narrow minded that they can only enjoy one type of reading?  And where does it say that you have to put down your fellow reader for what he / she chooses to read?  OR what a “must read” list should look like?  The arrogance!

The thing is, it may have less to do with arrogance and more to do with fear.  Fear of appearing to be less intellectual and less sophisticated.  Fear that whomever is the pinnacle of intellect and sophistication in your sphere will find out that you actually enjoy romances or sci-fi/sci-fantasy or thrillers or whatever it is that you read just because you enjoy it.  Fear that said person will then mock you in front of all and sundry for your light-mindedness (and do so while using really big words and a really mean tone of voice).  And quite honestly, it’s not like that’s not likely to happen in a discussion about the best 100 books in the English language, right? 

Sadly, a great many people are so worried about what someone else (often someone they don’t even know) will think of them that they fall into whatever they think the party-line is.  From what I’ve observed over the years, Great Literature (per far too many “intellectuals") equals horrible suffering, hateful characters, and a depressingly bleak ending.  This causes some (possibly younger and definately less secure) people to reply, “Well, of course, that’s what I read!” as they frantically shove the books they actually do read under the couch.

Now, me?  Hell, I’m in my 40’s now.  Anyone doesn’t like what I read, they are welcome to not read it.  They are not welcome to comment on it unless they want the full rant that such comments inspire.

First there was Goth Kids, now we got the Emo Readers.

I read to suffer.

I think it’s kinda like caviar.
Lots of people say they hate caviar. Some on principle because of what it is. Some because the only caviar they’ve ever had was the cheap stuff at their cousin’s wedding. And for some no matter the quality it’s not to their taste. The latter can’t be helped but I believe if you were to give the others some high quality Russian sturgeon eggs with the perfect Blini and some creme fraiche or one of La Nora’s best they’d change their minds.

I loved To Kill A Mockingbird, but I will say here that I tend to find Dickens annoying, Lewis Carroll does not appeal to me at all, and no matter how hard I tried, I could not get into any of the Tolkein books...the movies didn’t do it for me, either. 

Right there with you! 

Looking at the list, I’ve read a lot of these.  Some I enjoyed, some I thought were meh.  The one that really caught my eye, though, was The DaVinci Code.  Number 46 on a list of 100 best books ever?  Really?  Really? Hmmm.  I’d love to see the justification for that.  Personally, I’d only give it a C or C+.

I love me some Lewis Carroll.

I run a B&B;. I have all kinds of books on my bookshelf for guests to read. All of them either my husband or I have read...and since we read quite a variety, at least a guest or two will take something off the shelf to read during a stay.

One woman took a look at my bookshelf, saw the handful of historical romances and said, “Oh, let me recommend some *really* good books for you.” And then proceeded to tell me about this important female writer and that important female writer. As if I’d never heard of them and was somehow ignorant of these great marvelous books I was missing.

I tried to tell her I was an English major and had read all kinds of books/poems/plays and enjoyed many kinds of reading. But she glossed over that and gave me a look that said, “Oh, how I pity you for not having these great works of literature on your shelf!”

I didn’t have the heart to tell her that I was a writer, too, and wrote romance and paranormal suspsense...sigh....

“Well, of course, that’s what I read!” as they frantically shove the books they actually do read under the couch.

Heh, this reminds me of what someone told me when I questioned the reading habits of 2 professors I used to babysit for. They had a lot of books. A wall of bookshelves in the hallway, books in the office, books downstairs in the guest room. Being who I am, when the kid was napping I’d look at these books and I noticed that they were almost all school text books, or books relating to their specialties (both history profs), or those great works of literature every one says you should read. I didn’t see a single romance novel, mystery novel, sci-fi/fantasy novel. Nothing you’d see in the grocery aisle while trying to decide on which frozen pizza to get. Someone told me that perhaps they hid these books under the bed and that just baffled me.

I don’t think they did because, but it still baffles me because I don’t know if they just didn’t read those genres or just didn’t buy them. And if you do buy them, why hide them? I don’t think any one would make judgments about their intelligence if they had Nora Roberts next to the latest monograph on Mongol expansion in the 12th century.

Romances were just silly beyond words and now mysteries are getting that way, too. Where next? Back to the classics. Back to Dickens, back to Twain.

Can’t speak about Twain, but Dickens was the bestseller of his day, with books published in weekly episodes for a mass audience, and with plenty of mystery and romance (although granted not much of your actual sexxoring).

I suspect that most of the classics which are still read for pleasure, rather than just by academics, are the popular fiction of the past.  Time changes the view - it’s a bit like all those tasteful classical white marble statues and plain medieval church interiors which at the time they were made would have been covered in gaudy painted colours.

Thanks for the WTF moment first thing in the morning. I haven’t had coffee yet (Yes, I learned not to drink until AFTER checking SBTB) so not sure how coherent this will be.

I had this discussion with an acquaintance. She fancies herself a literati (not sure that’s a word but you get the idea). She was dissing category fiction in general and romance in particular, talking about how simple it was to write a romance and get it published. I choked as in the next breath she bemoaned the fact that she couldn’t submit her great masterpiece under her own name because....wait for it....she’s writing a WESTERN and WOMEN don’t write WESTERNS! As if a western isn’t category? Pah-leese!

Dammit! I read AND write romances and I’ve read a goodly number of books of that freaking list and disliked a large proportion of them. I’m personally of the opinion that we start flame wars with those who dis our genre! *passes out flamethrowers* If we taught kids to enjoy reading and let them read things that appealed to them, school test scores might actually go up.

And after that quantum mind leap, I need coffee. I’ll flame after the first pot. But yeah. From now on, whenever I come across stupid people, I’m going to remind them of it.

The NYT had an article a while back (did I read about it here?  can’t remember) that addressed people who were either not entering into or ending otherwise promising relationships based on the other party’s reading habits.  As in, “Oh, I could love him - he’s perfect for me.  But how could I spend my life with someone who reads Not Acceptable Author’s Name/Not Acceptable Genre?  I’d be so embarrassed at all those cool readings and cocktail parties I love to attend so.”

Let me preface my remarks by saying I’m old enough to have pretty much seen the birth of the current romance fiction industry. I’ve also been an ardent SF/F fan since the day I was ten and stumbled on an Ace Double. Neither genre, back then, was viewed by anybody but the people who read it as worthy of the ink and paper used to print it.

Oh, come on, people. It’s not okay to sneer at romances, but it is okay to sneer at people who don’t like them? I don’t think the lady in question was condemning the genre. She just expressed her opinion--she found them “silly.” And she now finds that mysteries seem to be trending the same way. I interpret that to mean she wasn’t happy with the formulaic nature of category romance, an opinion I have to say I share, or the rich-people angst of the Danielle Steel ilk. And now finds that mysteries are falling into the same kind of repetitious “category formula” that offers no challenge to the reader. Ho-hum, yet another serial killer is terrorizing yet another city and yet another angst-ridden copy will wrestle with personal demons while seeking to end the carnage perpetrated by a real-world one.

There are those who read a particular genre, and sometimes a particular segment of that genre, because it’s the familiarity of the material that entertains them. That’s neither a good or a bad thing, although the spinach-literature crowd does like to “improve” their taste. By the same token, there are those who find that exact same genre and/or segment a colossal bore...or “silly.” Which is also neither a good or a bad thing. It just is.

People who are firmly convinced of the rightness of their position don’t feel the need to either constantly defend it or take offense at those who don’t share it or who actively attack it. And when one is defensive there is always the danger one will misinterpret a simple statement of opinion as a personal attack when no such thing is intended.

As several others have said: it has to do with the way one’s tastes change--or don’t--over the years. And some people just don’t care for fiction of a particular kind...because they don’t, not because they believe there is anything inherently “wrong” with the genre.

Y’all know that romance has always been a literary genre; however, it appears that it’s only literature when it’s written by men.  Here are some of the works that introduced me to romance as a genre: Pride and Prejudice (on the list), Jane Eyre (not on her list), and the Taming of the Shrew.  All are classics and all are precursors of the modern romance novel. 

Also, call me a sexist, but I don’t normally read books for pleasure that were written by men.

Oh, come on, people. It’s not okay to sneer at romances, but it is okay to sneer at people who don’t like them?

I was thinking along the same lines.  But still, I think it’s kind of sad that the woman who commented can’t take pleasure in the silly.  I personally love silly romances if they’re well-written.  For instance, I just finished Stephenie Meyer’s last Twilight book and have been reading scores of negative reviews.  I really enjoyed the book, but maybe it’s because I don’t take books about teenage vampires and werewolves too seriously…

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that everyone has a different idea of what “literature” is.  I read a ton of romance novels, but I also enjoy picking up a trade paperback every now and again.  (I find I need the romances to keep from sliding into a deep depression afterwards, though.) Anita Shreve is one of my favorite authors, and I thought for sure most people would consider that “literature.” But there are a lot of people out there who don’t think it’s worthy reading unless it’s Dickens, Twain, etc.  I always find it funny that those kind of people think they are so “well-read” but refuse to read anything modern.  Newsflash!  Our future classics are being written right now!

Romances were just silly beyond words ...

Some were.  Even now, some are.  Check out the titles of recently published ... uh, “dreck” :

- VIRGIN FOR THE BILLIONAIRE’S TAKING
- ITALIAN BOSS, RUTHLESS REVENGE
- THE SICILIAN’S INNOCENT MISTRESS
- THE KOUROS MARRIAGE REVENGE
- AT THE SHEIKH’S BIDDING
- THE TYCOON’S VERY PERSONAL ASSISTANT
- THE MAGNATE’S INDECENT PROPOSAL
- THE CATTLE BARON’S VIRGIN WIFE
- THE GREEK TYCOON’S INNOCENT MISTRESS
- PREGNANT BY THE ITALIAN COUNT
- ANGELO’S CAPTIVE VIRGIN

Easy marks, IMO, for literary snobs to bring forth as proof of their argument.  (Are they good books?  I can’t tell you—the titles ARE turn-offs, and I won’t touch them—wait a sec, let me duck and flinch as the accusations of ‘snob’ assail me!)

That said, I love the Harlequin Blaze books, and anything written by Loretta Chase, and Liz Carlyle, and Jo Beverly.  And give me a Georgette Heyer any day!

As several others have said: it has to do with the way one’s tastes change--or don’t--over the years. And some people just don’t care for fiction of a particular kind...because they don’t, not because they believe there is anything inherently “wrong” with the genre.

I don’t dispute that and I’m not sure anyone here would. Not liking a genre isn’t the issue. The issue is that very often when a person is disliking a genre they dismiss it as “silly beyond words” or they flat-out criticize the people who do like that genre even though, in their opinion, it’s now “all the same”.  And most often that genre is romance novels.

Perhaps we’re taking the above comment too personally, but it’s the latest in a long line of dismissive comments about the genre.

And as someone else said, what’s wrong with the silly? Silly is good. Bad is not and I’ve read my fair share of bad romance novels, and bad novels in other genres (I hate Anne Tyler with a passion but I don’t dismiss every book of that type or the people who do like her), but I haven’t given up on any of them yet because I know that even if some of them seem all the same they aren’t. But that’s just personal preference.

You can give up on a genre if you want and dismiss it as silly but there’s always going to be someone there to say “well, no, they aren’t all like that”.

It read to me like she wasn’t enjoying mysteries or romance, so she was going to try something else.

It’s not okay to sneer at romances, but it is okay to sneer at people who don’t like them? I don’t think the lady in question was condemning the genre. She just expressed her opinion--she found them “silly.”

My issue with the woman’s stance isn’t that she doesn’t like romance novels.  My issue is that she seems dismissive of *everything* she’s been reading.  And more than that, she’s become dismissive after reading various genres for a number of years (a number I must assume is on the higher side, as she’s seemingly uncomfortable discussing it.) Don’t like romance (or insert other genre here)?  Fine.  Put it down and move along.  To spend years reading something you deem silly?  Just doesn’t make sense to me.

That said, I love the Harlequin Blaze books

So they don’t suck? I admit, I’ve never read Harlequins, at least not the easily recognizable Harlequins as I have read a few published under the Harlequin imprint. But someone gave me several Harlequin Blazes and I haven’t had a chance to read them yet and wasn’t sure if they’d be worth it.

It’s funny.  The commenter’s dismissal of romance didn’t get much of a stir from me.  I was still too busy going, “Wait, you tired of all science fiction based on Herbert’s Dune series?  Great googly-moogly, woman!  That’s like not eating italian food because you had a bad pizza once!  Sci-fi runs the gamut from the sharp and loving genius of Samuel Delaney, to the absurdist humor of Douglass Adams, to the fast-paced cybercrack of Neil Stephenson, with a multitude of flavors in between.”

I feel sorry for her.  I think romance has a range of stories that can be told, with a lot of variation and nuggets of gold in there.  I tend to think that speculative fiction has a greater range, with a proportionately greater amount of gold to be found.  It’s sad that a single, deeply problematic series turned her off the entire genre.

password: distance95.  I can see my house from here.

That said, I love the Harlequin Blaze books

So they don’t suck? I admit, I’ve never read Harlequins, at least not the easily recognizable Harlequins as I have read a few published under the Harlequin imprint. But someone gave me several Harlequin Blazes and I haven’t had a chance to read them yet and wasn’t sure if they’d be worth it.

I’ve read quite a few, and I haven’t been disappointed. The heroines are strong, not wimpy; American go-getters attracted to American guys who aren’t necessarily rich, but certainly tops in their field of endeavor.  And contrary to what many people think, the Blaze books are NOT just about sex, though the authors certainly do not shrink from giving their characters a wild good time. 

Enjoy!

I’ve read quite a few, and I haven’t been disappointed.

Personally I’d vote they’re like any sub-section of books.  Some suck, some don’t and once in a while there’s a great one. 

The irony in this discussion is that I used to be pretty dismissive of HQNs in general.  I’d tried a half dozen, didn’t like any and snubbed the whole serial sub-genre in general - quite vocally.  And then I got absolutely schooled on DearAuthor.com about a year ago, tucked my tail between my legs, and wandered off to try a few more - this time ones that had gotten good reviews, not ones I’d randomly pulled off a shelf.  Some success, some I didn’t like. . . but now I’m absolutely red-faced when I think of my previous stance.

I think there are a few different issues here. One is what counts as “good” in a more than subjective sense. Another is purely subjective personal taste. 

I didn’t personally enjoy reading a number of novels considered “good”, but I recognize that they are good.  I would put books by Thomas Pynchon and Don DeLillio in this category.

I also personally love a lot of things (books, TV, movies, music) that are not considered—by me or most other people—“good”.  I would put my enjoyment of US Magazine (especially the column “Stars-- They’re Just Like US!"), and music by Britney Spears in this category.

What I don’t like is branding an entire genre as “silly” or rubbish (i.e. as objectively bad). It’s just false where romance is concerned.

Yes, I guess poor Christine will have to leave dreck like Rebecca, My Brother Michael, and Gone With the Wind off her reading list.

And thinking S/F begins and ends with Dune? My dear, whatever you do DON’T touch anything by Lois McMaster Bujold, Ray Bradbury, or Barbara Hambley.

Maybe she should stick to cereal boxes. Safer. More suitable to her attention span.

Bloody word snob.

(I also really didn’t like To Kill a Mockingbird when we had to read it in school. I have been told on multiple occasions that this makes me a bad person.)

I managed to dodge that one. In one semester, I was required to read The Grapes of Wrath, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, and Death of a Salesman. I am convinced to this day that my English teacher was trying to prove to us the futility of enjoying life.

That said, I read Dickens and Shakespeare on my own - I finished a Tale of Two Cities in a day. I think there’s this deep-seated, pervasive idea that education must be painful and require sacrifice, and that if you enjoy applying yourself to study, you are somehow warped or not studying the right thing. Ergo, true literature is unpleasant, but good for you, like medicine. Also, there seems to be a fetishizing of unhappy endings and things that make the reader uncomfortable in modern times.

I personally think that “good” books shouldn’t hurt - they may require application, or not - and that part of it is the mindset of the reader, personal taste, and yeah, the point in their life they’re at. Ten years ago, I couldn’t get through a paragraph of Jane Austen. Now I read her as easily as my shopping list. I really enjoyed Madeleine L’Engle as a kid; now I can’t read it at all because I notice the Christian theme too much.

beyond58 - the era in which I’ll be able to read To Kill a Mockingbird with glee. Maybe.

Does it make it easier to make judgments about that person’s character if you know what type of book they read most often?

For some reason this reminds me of somethign that happened to me once in a coffeehouse. The guy at the table next to me tried to chat me up by asking what I was reading. It was a history of anarcho-communist collectives in civil war Spain. he blanched a bit, and then I asked him what he was reading. he turned bright red and showed me.

It was Harry Potter.

I also read fantasy and sci-fi, but he was so embarrassed that I let it drop. We both went back to our books without another word.

The NYT had an article a while back (did I read about it here?  can’t remember) that addressed people who were either not entering into or ending otherwise promising relationships based on the other party’s reading habits.  As in, “Oh, I could love him - he’s perfect for me.  But how could I spend my life with someone who reads Not Acceptable Author’s Name/Not Acceptable Genre?  I’d be so embarrassed at all those cool readings and cocktail parties I love to attend so.”

I freely admit that part of what interested me in my ex was that he was reading Kafka on the trolley to and from work when I met him.

Of course, in the end I left him because he could not also read Terry Pratchett. :P

One woman took a look at my bookshelf, saw the handful of historical romances and said, “Oh, let me recommend some *really* good books for you.” And then proceeded to tell me about this important female writer and that important female writer. As if I’d never heard of them and was somehow ignorant of these great marvelous books I was missing.

Not to spam, and I’m not sure what the protocol is on this, but I’ve been thinking about this topic a lot as an overeducated English student, and I’d love some input on a post I wrote today.

One of the biggest bees in my bonnet is the idea that I read romance novels because no one has shown me the panorama of “great” literature out there (8 years of post-secondary education in English Literature say otherwise). Is there a reason why “Kissed By Shadows” and “The Age of Innocence” can’t hang out together on my bookshelf? Heck, they can make out, for all I care.

Honestly. I’ve just been on a Jane Austen reading spurt and I can’t help but think that she’d find rich material to mine from this comment thread, considering her fondness for the ridiculous. A random woman somewhere innocently shares her reading tastes and finds romance to be “silly” (an insult of the most hurtful kind) and here we are to arms.

We damn her for being a snobby literati, insecure and self-righteous...except that she seems to be the opposite, having first found academic litracha to be dull and depressing. (A very common stereotype that literary fiction fans (such as myself) find about as wearying and erroneous as genre fans do the usual accusations.) She is more aspirational than anything else, hoping that in returning to the good ol’ classics she’ll find them more pleasing.

But she was rogue enough to insult the genre’s fans for she pronounced them little more than dull children for imbibing such fluff on a regular basis...except that she did nothing of the kind, judging from that quote, and certainly we would never be so ignorant as to equate a judgement of one’s reading tastes with one on our intellect, character and personality? Not on Smart Bitches, surely.

So perhaps she may not be a snob per se but simply lacks those fine faculties that can appreciate the lighter more sublime things in life. Oh! she is to be pitied. Except that she said nothing of the kind unless one is asserting that the romance genre has a monopoly on silliness. We cannot even accuse her of not giving the genre enough of a chance as she may have read a fair bit, so instead we chide for not knowing her own mind. “Gosh, if you didn’t like the things why did you keep reading them? How puzzling!”

So at last we are left to scold her for not being fair enough in her criticism. “Silly”! How offensive it is for us readers to find that our reading materials are not valued for the serious work there are...except that many of us read romance precisely because it is *not* very serious, occasionally ridiculous, very amusing and even very improbable. And though there may be more ambitious authors who aim to inject more serious notes in their work very few would deny that much of it is wish-fulfillment.

But even us romance fans seem to be ashamed of that fact. Or so I must presume when we get offended by such a common remark. I propose that we send out a notice that any reader who has the temerity of not finding romance to her taste must convey her opinion in the blandest, vaguest, most uninteresting and respectful terms possible lest she be hit smartly in the head with a Nora Roberts hardback. Nothing but our very honour is at stake.

Poor Christine. Hope she finds something good to read.

Maybe she should try one of Frank Miller’s, graphic novels. There are pictures with the words in those ones depicting the blood, gore, violence, general mayhem etc. etc.

That should rock her world, since romance seemingly does not....

Ooops.  Just half a thought.

Insecure people can only overcome their feelings of insecurity by (a) placing their personal preferences on a pedestal as representing a more important level of whatever than everyone else’s and (b) making that clear by attempting to convince those who don’t share those preferences that they are thereby lacking a true level of refinement. As the saying goes, they are “more to be pitied than condemned.”

I’m active in an organization that supports SF/F fandom, which means it was founded and supported by people who are and/or consider themselves experts in the genre and, thereby, qualified to determine what constitutes “real” SF/F. I’ve come to know some truly excellent writers based on their recommendations. I’ve also watched people who don’t share their “educated palate” put off by their “reading media tie-ins is for the hoi polloi” attitudes.

Christine gave up on SF because of Dune. I consider Dune a classic of the genre. Someone else said she couldn’t get into Lewis Carroll, who tops the list of my favorite writers. There are those who consider Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series the modern Lord of the Rings--and then there are the rest of us who never even bothered reading the final “chapter” because by then we didn’t give a rat’s behind what happened to any of those people.

I read what I read because I enjoy it. Sometimes, what I want to enjoy is something like Eugenides’s Middlesex, and sometimes I want to read Star Trek. I also understand not everyone has my eclectic taste in literature. I’ve never read War and Peace and probably won’t--I’m honestly not that crazy about 19th-century Russian authors. I wouldn’t have read Moby Dick on a bet twenty years ago, but when I started it last year I discovered it was actually a lot better than it had seemed back then--and not at all boring.

As for To Kill a Mockingbird, it helps to see the movie first. ;-)

I propose that we send out a notice that any reader who has the temerity of not finding romance to her taste must convey her opinion in the blandest, vaguest, most uninteresting and respectful terms possible lest she be hit smartly in the head with a Nora Roberts hardback.

We could but why do that when we can express our opinions on an open public forum where we can be condescended to by someone obviously more highly evolved than the rest of us?

As for To Kill a Mockingbird, it helps to see the movie first. ;-)

Definitely. Because that way you can picture Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. I think To Kill a Mockingbird was one of the few books I enjoyed reading for freshman English all those years ago.

Heck, they can make out, for all I care.

That is an interesting thought. I wonder what would happen if one of my Crusie’s made out with The Scarlet Pimpernel0? I bet they’d have fun.

Au contraire, Christine.....

I’ve found that a well rounded reading diet is like a grazing from the all food (genre) groups. My mind (and soul) are happiest when I intersperse a bit of romance in amongst the heavier going classics.

BTW, I noticed several Jane Austen novels in the top 100........who says you can’t have your cake and eat it too???

People are happy to read whatever they find that appeals to them, until they have someone diss them over it.  Or they imagine that people all over would make fun of them if they saw.  So they hide what they read.  I love romances, especially paranormal romances, and I get a huge kick out of “Flashing” the book covers at people who might get offended or become interested.  I also like teen fantasy and I could care less if some snob who thinks my reading choices are crud sees.  I bet he’s not enjoying himself half as much as I am!

Definitely. Because that way you can picture Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. I think To Kill a Mockingbird was one of the few books I enjoyed reading for freshman English all those years ago.

Actually, every time I think of the book, I see Gregory Peck. And although I like Gregory Peck, the movie bored the hell out of me, it was sooo slow and dry, and I couldn’t get past the first half hour. Of course, I was twelve at the time, but the feeling I had then is generated when ever I think of the book, which is why I haven’t read it. Go figure!

Generally, tho’, I prefer to read the book before the movie, anyway.

What I don’t understand is why can’t romance novels be “girl porn” or “silly”?  Why is it so important to prove to someone else, someone who really doesn’t give a shit and just wants to be a snob, that what you enjoy is AWESOME AND FULL OF WIN.

Many romance novels ARE intended to fulfill the emotional and sensual needs of the female mind.  That’s not saying each one is a panty wetter.  But the whole point of them is to engage that part of the female brain that sighs happily.  And there is NOTHING wrong with this.

But it’s not everyones cup of tea.

What frustrates me is that people won’t call a spade a spade.  If by page 3 the hero and heroine are already making goo-goo eyes at each other and are on their way to heavy petting there is a damn good chance it’s girl porn.  Again nothing wrong with it.  Just don’t pretend it’s literary genius.  It might be a very well written book but it’s still there, in basic purpose, to stimulate you.

What I don’t understand is why can’t romance novels be “girl porn” or “silly”?

They can be. That is not my problem with those descriptions, at least. My problem is when people dismiss the entire genre with those words without either a) reading a single damn romance novel period or b) not even entertaining the notion that they might not all be like that. I have no problem with “girl porn” or “silly” but I do wish people would stop assuming that’s all every single romance novel ever written is.

You can call a spade a spade all you want but not all my romance novels are spades.

I know it’s not my responsibility to make them see the error of their ways and it certainly doesn’t make me stop reading romance novels but after a while it just gets downright annoying listening to people dismiss an entire genre as one thing and one thing only. It’s not something I’ve ever seen in regards to other genres, at least not as rampantly as with romance. I’ve certainly never had someone look at the sf/f novel, mystery novel, or history monograph I’m reading get a disgusted look on their face and ask “why are you reading that?” as if “that” is dog crap I stepped in.

She was dissing category fiction in general and romance in particular,

I have had this “discussion” more than once with the emo readers (god, how I love that phrase. I am stealing it) at work. Finally told them when they get to be my age, they can read what they damned well pleased and didn’t have to try and impress any one with it either.

I can’t tell you—the titles ARE turn-offs, and I won’t touch them—wait a sec, let me duck and flinch as the accusations of ‘snob’ assail me!)

Warn me if there is incoming! I have to agree with you on that, the books may be good, but I can’t get past the titles. At all.

And thinking S/F begins and ends with Dune? My dear, whatever you do DON’T touch anything by Lois McMaster Bujold, Ray Bradbury, or Barbara Hambley.

Or, for god’s sakes, Mercedes Lackey.

I hated Dune and LOTR. But used to read every Star Trek book that came out, especially those by Peter David. Still do on occassion.

Heck, they can make out, for all I care.

do books mate like bunnies? Cause that would explain why a 5 bedroom house has no room for any more of them.

I would not want to dismiss anything this woman wants to read as long as she is enjoying it, let her be. However, I do get upset when someone dis’ what I like to read because they don’t enjoy it.

I don’t do a lot of fic/lt (where the non sf/f, mystery, romances hide) and know I miss out on a lot of good stuff. Thankfully, I have cutomers who I have turned onto authors and who have done the same for me. Books I would have just ignored. Do I like them all? No. But I am open to something new.

As for War and Peace. I did a paper on it in 8th grade? Why? Because I was told by my Enlish teacher it was too old for me and I wouldn’t understand or enjoy it. If you start with Book 2, then 3 and go back to Book 1, it makes so much more sense. And I got an A+.

But then I loved the Three Muskateers and Dracula at that age too. Everyone else was reading the smallest books they could find. Read my first McCaffrey in 1969. Haven’t missed one yet.

- VIRGIN FOR THE BILLIONAIRE’S TAKING
- ITALIAN BOSS, RUTHLESS REVENGE
- THE SICILIAN’S INNOCENT MISTRESS
- THE KOUROS MARRIAGE REVENGE
- AT THE SHEIKH’S BIDDING ....

Sometimes I just get unbearably puzzled.
A kouros is a statue— Archaic Greek—of a young naked male, generally with a rather unnerving smile.  I can see being married to a statue might call for a little revenge on someone’s part.

Is this one of those paranormal things?

In re the dissatisfied Christine who can find no genre harbor to anchor within ...
perhaps she should try non-fiction.

(I also really didn’t like To Kill a Mockingbird when we had to read it in school. I have been told on multiple occasions that this makes me a bad person.)

I didn’t like it either.  I think we’re supposed to feel guilty about that.

*tries to summon some guilt*

Hmm...nope.  Nothin’.

Two of the best books I’ve ever read didn’t show up on that list--The Once and Future King, by TH White and The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara.

Leah, I loved Killer Angels too!  It definitely should have shown up on the list.  Every few months I pull it out and try and press my husband (who doesn’t enjoy reading) into giving it a try.  One day maybe…

Poor Christine indeed! *snort*

“Two of the best books I’ve ever read didn’t show up on that list--The Once and Future King, by TH White”

A woman after my own heart. Love that book.

I admit I don’t read much romance (I’ve read some, but I’m more into satire, especially Terry Pratchett), but, I agree. All school-required literature is depressing.

Well, not *all*. They put “Good Omens” on the school reading list.

Now if we can just get the Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents on there…

I don’t think they did because, but it still baffles me because I don’t know if they just didn’t read those genres or just didn’t buy them. And if you do buy them, why hide them? I don’t think any one would make judgments about their intelligence if they had Nora Roberts next to the latest monograph on Mongol expansion in the 12th century.

Okay, here we go… why assume that everyone has to read genre fiction? I know quite a few people who honestly don’t. That does not make them snobs, automatically. It just means they have different tastes in books!

Arethusa said..

We damn her for being a snobby literati, insecure and self-righteous...except that she seems to be the opposite, having first found academic litracha to be dull and depressing. (A very common stereotype that literary fiction fans (such as myself) find about as wearying and erroneous as genre fans do the usual accusations.)

Amen to that. I am really tired of being constantly told that nobody could ever enjoy literature because it is dull and depressing. (I am exaggerating, but still). Why is it that many just assume that people who actively like literary fiction (yes, those depressing books with horrible characters and bad endings - it must be a character flaw!) just do it to be pretentious snobs? For me that is as narrow minded as all the literati who assume that all genre fiction is dreck. As far as I am concerned, reading genre fiction feeds a different part of my brain/heart than reading literature… but that’s just me.
As for the original post, it sounds like the person does not really enjoy any kind of books, so I feel very sorry for her and hope she’ll discover what she needs eventually…

Arethusa, can I have your intertubes love child? Being a fan girl of our dear Jane myself, I really related to what you were saying.

The thing I noticed is that we all have so many interpretations of “silly.” The word does have a lot of connotations. Who knows what Chistine meant really herself? Anyway, I do feel bad for someone who seems so put off by so much fiction and is clearly searching for something to enjoy.

And while I do get irked by the many, many dismissive comments about Romance—and genre fiction in general—out there, I must admit I was not always a champion of the genre myself. Just the other night I was laughing about my own high school antics as a book snob.  For a lengthy period in high schoolI had a firm rule to only read “great and important” works. I’m pretty sure I was insufferable to a certain extent. Finally a professor called me on it; he took one look at my copy of “Unbearable Lightness of Being” and told me that only Junior Leagers and poseurs read that dreck. (Offensive, yes, but he had no patience for pretentious teenagers.) The man had a PhD and was really one of the most erudite people I’ve ever known. Anyway, that one comment made me really think about what a “great novel” really was and has stuck with me all these years later.  (For the record I still enjoy “Unbearble Lightness of Being")

Now adays, I read most anything provided it lives up to my own standards of enjoyable and good. This tends to include a lot of genre fiction, but I won’t turn up my nose at anything that holds my attention past the first 10 or 20 pages.

I am curious, however, what kinds of characteristics the Bitchery thinks make up a great novel. All the witty comments aside, I don’t believe being written by a dead white guy author is enough to make a novel great.  For me it’s some alchemical combination of enjoyment and insight, a constant ability to provoke new thought or debate, and maybe even that most elusive of qualities: having a little something new to share on each re-reading.

and maybe even that most elusive of qualities: having a little something new to share on each re-reading.

This reminds me of something I realized last year when I was analyzing me taste for certain types of books and movies - a lot of them are highly formulaic, or just riddled with archtypes, and I realized that I concentrated on certain themes and anchtypes because I was interested in what could be done with the formula. This is esp. true of my taste for satire. I love it when an archtype is turned on its head, just when you are expecting it to come out as usual, or when the author is completely aware of the formula and plays with it. A good example of this is Jane Eyre, where a Gothic novel, with its predictable formula, is turned around so that the stereotypically villainous character (Rochester) becomes the hero and vice versa. Soon I Will Be Invincible (a book about DC-comic-like superheroes) does something similar, and it was awesome. A book doesn’t always have to do this for me to like it, though. I think genre fiction can often be to literature what category fiction is to non-category genre fiction: I tight formula to work within, like a sonnet.

Okay, here we go… why assume that everyone has to read genre fiction? I know quite a few people who honestly don’t. That does not make them snobs, automatically. It just means they have different tastes in books!

I’m not assuming every one does read genre fiction. I wasn’t just assuming they must read genre fiction if they read other things (” I don’t know if they just didn’t read those genres or just didn’t buy them. And if you do buy them, why hide them?” See? if). My bafflement was that if they did read them where did they put them? For all I know they didn’t read genre fiction, although I’m pretty sure I remember at least the female half of the equation discussing genre fiction in the office with the rest of us. I was merely using this couple as an example of people who only had certain types of books displayed. If that’s really all they ever read and owned then fine, but that doesn’t mean it can’t puzzle me and I can’t wonder if, maybe, they did own genre fiction and just didn’t feel comfortable displaying it.

And I never assumed they were book snobs. If anything, I assumed they were leery of other book snobs who might judge them on the books they owned.

I’m not assuming every one does read genre fiction. ... My bafflement was that if they did read them where did they put them?

People enjoy books differently and *keep* books for different reasons.  I keep books that are hard to find, give me something new on each re-read, or are a style of writing I don’t already have a lot of in my collection.  Given those criteria, you might think from my shelves that I don’t read genre fiction, but the bookstore and library bags on my bedside table tell another story.

I think the problem with dismissive comments about all genre reading is that the commentors dismiss the entire genre without engaging the possibility that the whole can’t all be bad. Sure, there are crap romance and sci/fi/fantasy and western, etc., books out there. There are also crap non-genre fictions too. Every “genre” (and I use the term loosely and widely to encompass, well, everything) has its ups and downs. To dismiss an entire genre on the weight of what could well be two bad books is problematic. I’m not saying that one should read every book on the shelf at the bookstore to get a “feel” for a type of book, but perhaps people could try to realize that there are wonderful and crap books everywhere, in every type, in every genre, and not every type of book will appeal to every reader. (And there should be world peace and no nukes and I believe in Santa Claus. I know.) Christine is welcome to think whatever she likes about whatever book she reads - that’s her perogative. The only problem I have is dismissing the entire genre as “silly” as opposed to saying something akin to “I don’t care for them” or “I grew out of them.” No shame in that. There are a lot of genres that I don’t read - I can tick off about six popular ones without thinking too hard - but I don’t read them because they don’t appeal to me, not because I think they’re lesser quality. There’s a difference between that thought and dismissing genres because they’re genres.

It’s not something I’ve ever seen in regards to other genres, at least not as rampantly as with romance. I’ve certainly never had someone look at the sf/f novel, mystery novel, or history monograph I’m reading get a disgusted look on their face and ask “why are you reading that?” as if “that” is dog crap I stepped in.

I agree. I’ve been poked fun of on an airplane for reading Sugar Daddy - Sugar Daddy, for god’s sake - but I’ve never had anyone question my Terry Pratchett. Or Austen, or Gaiman, or anything nonfiction. Is there a solution? I don’t know. I do my best to promote the books I like to my friends, regardless of genre, and I think a lot more people than will admit have Stephen King and Jack Kerouac holding hands on their bookshelves. Half of the reason I started my own blog was to strike my own little blow against people who are dismissive of romance novels. I read anything. Anything. As long as it’s good, and I don’t mind telling if it’s bad. But I’ve got Cormac McCarthy up next to Jennifer Crusie - two of my first posts - as well as anything else that interests me. I think people buy into the stereotype of the romance reader, and some very quality sites like the SBTB help chip away at that.