In a very tongue-in-cheek account of the recent news articles, and I admit I giggled at the idea that “every hoo-ha is worth looking into,” DCist asks if the ad in question made you “angrier than that time daddy took away your beloved wild horse and half your inheritance because you made off with his darkly handsome sworn enemy?”
Snort.
The comment appearing as of this writing asks why we should “walk on eggshells to avoid offending stupid people?” Then, the same person calls us romance readers “illiterate.”
A different kind of snort.
We here at SBTB poke fun at romance. I mean, have you SEEN the cover snark? But we do it because we love it unashamedly, and read our romance with glee and pride. We know we’re not dumb.
But the comment? Pfft. Right up over that one’s head. Perhaps the issue isn’t so much one of intelligence vs. stupidity. It might be more as to whether people are secure about their intelligence in the first place.
*sigh*
We can’t win. We can’t break even. But goshdarnit, I don’t want to get out of the game! I’m proud of what I write, and I’ll put my books up against, well, maybe not Plato, but a whole lot of what’s being marketed as serious literature.
Let ‘em sneer. I dare to compare myself to Mark Twain, Alexander Dumas and Charles Dickens, popular writers who gave the readers what they wanted.
Heh. Wasn’t she charming?
Noelle: This whole “hoo-ha” seems similar to the periodic spats on this site over insensitive condescension toward tourists. Civility is one thing, but why should we have to walk on eggshells to avoid offending stupid people? The world basically caters to them anyway. Besides, part of what makes such mildly mean-spirited humor enjoyable is that (to quote Homer Simpson) “it’s funny ‘cause its true.”
Also, the fact that romance novels comprise 50% of fiction sales (in what market? this seems contentious) is depressing. If the add encourages one person to read Plato, it’s worth pissing off the illiterate.
“the world caters to them anyway.†Unlike our high minded intellectual selves. *barf*
To me the contention has nothing to do with the battle between the high minded literati and the common “illiterate†romance fiction readers. That, of course, is merely a shadow flickering on the wall of a cave, reflecting the great truth that cannot be seen behind our backs: that this is how Washingtonians like to look at themselves—as a high minded elite looking down their noses as the common rabble beneath them. “If the add encourages one person to read Plato…†Cow, please, I doubt you have ever read a word of Plato.
Leave ‘em to heaven.
I intend to laugh, illiterately, all the way to the bank. Royalty checks will be posted soon.
I was skimming a bit too quickly and read that as “every hoo-hoo is worth looking into.” While I found the idea somewhat squicky, I naturally clicked the link. And was so, so disappointed.
I wrote about this in a few places today but seriously – Because we are women who write for an audience that is overwhelmingly female does not mean we are all stupid and fluffy and uneducated. Nor does our offense at being described that way again and again make us “touchy.”
And I may be a fluffy headed illiterate (with a law degree thank you very much) but even I know that the comparison between Fabio – who aside from one regrettable attempt at writing is a cover model and Foucault – a social critic and observer – is totally innacurate.
And the irony of making fun of Nora Roberts in an article where we’re supposed to be admiring the shiny of “successful” businessmen reading Plato when Nora’s personal worth could bury them all forty times over is delicious, no?
Basically, if someone touts their own intelligence, can you trust the source of their information?
I don’t think so.
No, you can’t. Unless it’s us. And ONLY us.
Love,
Smartbitch Candy
Sigh. I taught Foucault today (Discipline & Punish). Yesterday I lectured on Riker’s Minimum Winning Coalition theory. Tomorrow I’ll lecture on the role of junior ministers in a coalition government. And oh yeah, I have the Big Girls Don’t Cry anthology on my bedside table, waiting for me (thanks, Monica J.!). I guess I don’t exist in real life, because obviously I can’t understand and communicate Big Concepts and enjoy a romance novel (well-written or not, they’re all the same, right?).
I thought about contributing to that thread, but why bother? They only want their stereotypes reinforced. Good for you, Candy, for fighting the good fight there.
If they bash Nora, thought, I’m going in with ALL my credentials and beating the crap out of them.
Just thought I’d point out that the commenter who called romance readers illiterate spelled the word “ad” incorrectly.
Just thought I’d point out that the commenter who called romance readers illiterate spelled the word “ad†incorrectly.
And that lovely Ms Goss who wrote that lovely commentary at dcist obviously didn’t learn at law school how to do proper research. Pity. I mean, the cover she used was from 1999, Fabio has long retired from cover modelling, bodice rippers were written in the 1970s, and Nora Roberts might have had locks to toss at the beginning of her career, but today her hair is just a teeny-weeny bit too short to toss over anybody’s shoulder. If this had been an assignment in my English lit class, I would have failed her … But hey, but then I’m just an illiterate fluffhead who reads romance, right?
But wait, if I can read romances, I can’t be totally illiterate … Hmmm. What a big riddle. Definitely too big for stupid little me.
I was skimming a bit too quickly and read that as “every hoo-hoo is worth looking into.â€
Me too! I was really disappointed in the article. Thought I was in for a choice ride-along on the ob-gyn wagon.
People who waste time and energy belittling someone else for whatever reason are pretty damn sad. I want to make a t-shirt with a backwards Nike swoop that says, “Just live.”