I’m working on a ranty bit about feminism, romance novels and social responsibility in fiction. Until I’m done, here’s some link pimpage:
Kassia Krozser tells it like it is.
Categorized:
Comments are Closed
Comments are closed.
By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.
Hey, for once I’d actually read all the linkage. I liked them all, too.
Hey, I vote you go and read one of Lilith’s books. Though I dunno how much you guys like urban fantasy. And then I liked them, but dunno if someone else would…hmmm…decisions, decisions.
I like urban fantasy quite a bit. Actually, there are few romance sub-genres I DON’T like. I mean, there are lots of plot devices I’m not too crazy about, but I don’t think there are too many settings I’d flinch at. Indian/white woman romances are one of those settings, and Civil War romances in which one of the protagonists is a big plantation owner with lots of slaves is another, but otherwise most of it’s fair game.
Any recommendations on which book to start with?
Well, since she only has two books out and they’re in a series, I’d start with Dark Watcher. They’re from Imajinn Books. I have a print you can borrow if you want, actually. I wouldn’t say they’re perfect, but I came away with a good feeling when reading them.
I’m joining Lilith in the RBA.
I have a print you can borrow if you want, actually.
Oooh, ooh, yes, pretty please, Nicole! You still have my mailing address, right?
Also, I finally mailed those Ranney books to you. Enjoy!
And yes, if there’s an RBA, I’d like to join the Reader’s/Reviewer’s Auxiliary, please.
Either I am misreading the rant’s or I am going to have to disagree with almost everyone on this one. Reading, like food, should be for fun and for your health. It is a basic human necessity. Quite frankly, if I want to put salsa on my Swiss cheese omelet I could care less if someone thinks that’s pathetic, ucky, gross or bad for me. If I want to read a hot romance, I could care less if anyone disapproves. I’m a grown up. I’ll damn well read and write what I want.
I have seen this group get excited over every kind of fiction and even a few non-fiction books. Every single incident in my life where someone denigrated romance novels was scripted by a person who does not read. Every*single*time.
People who read, read a wide variety. They read newspapers, magazines, technical books, fiction and non-fiction. Why this guilt?
A well read, educated individual would not insult romance for being smut. They might say they’ve never read any. They would probably say they prefer some other genre. But you would never hear them run it into the dirt and stomp on it.
Allowing narrow minded, uninformed individuals to label romance as “smut” or to tell you that reading it is “rotting your brain” is a pointless waste of valuable reading time.
If I’ve missed the point completely, explain it again? My head doesn’t work the way most people’s heads work. Some of you may have noticed. Then again, if you had noticed you would have already tossed me out on my ass. So … I’ll shut up now and slink back into the bat cave.
Candy, I haven’t mailed your box yet, so I’ll just add this one in.
Actually, one of the friends who looks askance at my romance reading is one who does read quite a lot. I might try to bring her over to the dark side yet, though.
And yeah, I think I want to join the RBA in the Reader/Reviewer thing. 🙂
FerfeLaBat:
I can’t speak for the other posters – but I was hoping to convey in my blog that I’ve given up on “defending the genre.” There will always be people who sneer at romance (and genre fiction in general). Frankly, romance is such a jugernaut, we should just be content to laugh all the way to the bank – so to speak.
I like to read romance, and I don’t feel I should have to defend that to anyone. RWA’s efforts to “redefine” romance seems like a huge waste of time to me. If they want the genre to flourish, and be taken seriously, the organization should lead by example. Readers (and writers) need to stop apologizing for their choices and just give these narrow-minded naysayers the collective finger.
At least that’s what I was trying to say.
Every single incident in my life where someone denigrated romance novels was scripted by a person who does not read. Every*single*time.
Your experience is considerably different from mine, then. The people I know who diss hardest on romance that I’ve met have been extremely well-read, extremely over-educated people who *may* have picked up a romance novel back in the 80s and were thoroughly squicked by the raping and pillaging and heaving bosoms—and that’s just the hero. They look at my crazy collection of books and scratch their heads; friends of mine who praise my taste in fiction, movies and music to the skies kind of look at me with pathetic puppy eyes and say “But why do you like these BAD books?” It seems to rock their world that someone who regularly kicks people’s asses when they try to defend Intelligent Design theory as scientific, who listens to Tool and Grandaddy, and who has pretty scathing opinions of most romantic comedy movies also has Fabio bursting out of his breeches on her bookshelves too.
(Which, incidentally, was part of the reason why I was so excited to start this website with Sarah. Above and beyond loving the sound of my voice, I wanted to meet more romance readers who love Sealab 2021 and immediately understand what I mean when I tell them I named my cat Eric after a Monty Python sketch.)
A well read, educated individual would not insult romance for being smut.
Guess those PhDs my friends have (and I have a disproportionate number of friends whose names are preceded by “Dr.”) must’ve been from some on-line diploma scams, then, and their bookshelves bursting with books a sham.
In this world, opinions matter, acceptance matters, and appearances matter. They may not matter *to you*, but they matter to other people. It’s a personal thing. Many examples of genre fiction have been gentrified: SF, mysteries, thrillers and even erotica. Why not romance? I think that’s partly what some people are trying to address. And people like Super Librarian Wendy are actually agreeing with you: They’re fucking tired of defending it.
Me? I’ve still got some energy to burn, and I’ll keep on saying my piece and doing what I can according to my very, very limited abilities to improve the image of romance. Somehow man-titty haiku factors into this. Somehow.
I agree. Heh. I even made a flag.
I do think part of it, however, was a call for readers/reviewers/authors to speak honestly about the genre (which includes admitting that there’s some crap out there—I think the defensive circling of the wagons gives the impression that there is something to hide/be ashamed of) and for authors to write the best damn books possible. Which isn’t at odds with what you said, by any means—just that there are aspects of romance that many readers want to see change from within. And instead of flipping the birdie at someone on the outside, there’s a lot of flipping the birdie at each other (sometimes, with reason).
I don’t think it makes romance readers self-hating (although there are certainly many of those), but recognizing flaws and pushing for self-improvement. I can totally get behind that.
Oops, that was in response to Wendy, btw. Just to make the “I agree” part clear.
Ahh well. My PhD friends are all marine biologists and obstetricians and love me for all my smut reading ways. Maybe when the Doctorate is in ucky mucky stuff?? They’ve got less room for delusions of grandeur. I’ve read their dissertation books btw. A little more oomph to the reproduction scenes and they could have a few best sellers.
Thanks for the linkage. I read Kassia’s column but hadn’t seen the other two yet.
Alyssa
I fully agree with Meljean here. It has to start with the within. Definitely. To be honest, I don’t know why I even bother commenting on this particular topic. It’s the same old f. story that has been repeated over and over for years.
In fairness today is a lot better than it was ten years ago. It was unbearable back then. So perhaps we are seeing good changes now, so I’m feeling a bit optimistic. I have to be. 😀
Maybe when the Doctorate is in ucky mucky stuff??
One in chemistry, one in physics, one in sociology, one pending in geography. Also: two masters in engineering. No ucky-mucky stuff there, though my English profs were also mildly squicked by my smut habit.
And by the way, it’s not that I’m embarrassed to admit I read romance novels. I mean, godsakes, it’s not as if I tried to hide my identity or anything when I started this site, and many of my friends know about it. My friends have also learned not to underestimate my intelligence simply because I’m a romance novel reader. I AM, however, horrified by how unprofessional certain aspects look—like the book covers, and the RWA website, etc.
And like I said on RTB, it’s not that I find sexual covers oogy. I find the cover for Taboo very attractive and I think romance novel cover artists can learn a thing or twenty from studying its composition. What offends me the most is how the covers look shoddily and unprofessionally designed, or are just BAD from a design standpont.
Candy—while you’re looking at what other people have written on this topic, too, I hope you haven’t missed Jenny Crusie’s essays? ‘Cause they are good.
Oh and a question: I have a PhD in linguistics (though I don’t use the title Doctor, because I’m afraid somebody will grab me and ask me to save a life in public). Is that oogly moogly, or am I For Real?
I think romance reading is changing. I worked with a gal who always had her nose a bit in the air when it came to romance novels. I never made any bones about my reading preferences. But the biggie was one day about ten of us were sitting together at lunch. The “snooty” gal announced that she had actually started reading a romance and it was pretty good. I asked what it was. She said she couldn’t remember the author, but she gave us the plot.
I swear! At the same time, three of us said “Garwood.” No hesitation, no shame.
Oh and a question: I have a PhD in linguistics (though I don’t use the title Doctor, because I’m afraid somebody will grab me and ask me to save a life in public). Is that oogly moogly, or am I For Real?
Ahem. I believe the phrase is “ucky-mucky.” And since you don’t deal directly with the ucky-mucky bits the way an obstetrician or marine biologist does (check out Monica Jackson’s blog for pictures of scientiests handling some truly, erm, massive ucky-mucky), and your PhD presumably doesn’t require that you think/analyze/discuss the ucky-mucky in detail the way a literature prof might (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, of course, since for all I know your linguistics degree had to do with studies in scatalogical language), I’d say your PhD would lean more towards “less ucky-muck.”
‘I do think part of it, however, was a call for readers/reviewers/authors to speak honestly about the genre (which includes admitting that there’s some crap out there—’
That’s a big bit of the problem. When someone dares mention there is crap out there, as you said, the wagons are circled. Mainstream authors blame persecution of the genre. E-book authors blame persecution of the format: Mainstream publishers are “jealous”.
Everyone gets snippy, and misses the basic point: If you’re offended, you’re lumping yourself in as part of the crap. Otherwise, it doesn’t pertain to you.
Personally, I step back and look at my own stuff, and implement changes. I admit there is crap, and I do my best not to add to it, as a publisher AND an author.
If you’re looking for a little source material for your rant (and really, what is a rant without source material???), I’ve done a couple of small(ish) posts on this topic. At the risk of coming off like I’m pimping my own blog (I’m not—these are old babies), here are the links. Maybe they’ll give you additional ideas…yeah, I know, like you need additional ideas!
In the meantime, I’ll eagerly anticipate a rant on this topic…
The Argument For Gender-Neutral Fiction
me me me me me me too…