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

A lot of people have been very, very indignant at Terry Pratchett for his comments on J.K. Rowling, flinging accusations of jealousy, pettiness, etc. Me, I’m just shaking my head.

A little caveat: I enjoy Terry Pratchett’s novels, whereas I think Harry Potter is mediocre at best. At any rate, I’m quoting, in full, what Terry Pratchett wrote:

WHY IS it felt that the continued elevation of J K Rowling can only be achieved at the expense of other writers (Mistress of magic, News Review, last week)? Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with “knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves.”

In fact the best of it has always been edgy and inventive, with “the dark heart of the real world” being exactly what, underneath the top dressing, it is all about. Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to the times. It has also contained some of the very best, most accessible writing for children, by writers who seldom get the acknowledgement they deserve. 

Rowling says that she didn’t realise that the first Potter book was fantasy until after it was published. I’m not the world’s greatest expert, but I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?

Terry Pratchett
Salisbury, Wiltshire

OK, maybe it’s my prejudice shining through, but this really sounds more like a rant about popular (and inaccurate) misconceptions of fantasy than an attack on Rowling. What clued me? This sentence: “Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with ‘knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves.’” That seems to shift the focus from Rowling to what the journalist wrote about fantasy.

Anyway, Neil Gaiman addressed this miles better than I ever could, so if you haven’t yet, go read what he says.

And by the way? If Rowling DID actually say she didn’t know she was writing a fantasy novel (and given the way people are misquoted in the papers, I’m doubtful she said exactly that), I agree with Pratchett’s snarkery.

Some pretty interesting discussions going on today about whether writers reviewing other writers constitutes conflict of interest. Another interesting bit of the discussion is whether reviewers who are slammed for their reviews should take it lying down, and whether honest reviews do anything for the credibility of the genre. Blame HelenKay for starting it all. Other pertinent discussions are going on at Monica Jackson’s blog, Lee Goldberg’s blog, Shannon Stacey’s blog, Alison Kent’s blog, Booksquare and Riemannia.

OK first things first: Writers reviewing writers, is this a conflict of interest?

I think it depends on lots of things. The genre of the book. Whether the reviewer has an axe to grind with that genre. Whether the reviewer has an axe to grind with the author he’s reviewing. Lots of things.

Do I think an author can review another author fairly? Absolutely. I think Tod Goldberg did so for Rainbow Party, for example, and I think Wendy and HelenKay have done so on their Paperback Reader website, even if they’re so damn wrong about The Real Deal. (Because in my world? I am always right, and therefore, the answer to “How badly did The Real Deal suck?” should always be “Massive, unwashed, hairy, sweaty donkey balls, my dear.” And yeah, I’m STILL the only person on the Internet that I know of who’s written a negative review of this book. It’s so hard to be the arbiter of all that is good and right and tasteful, but I do try.)

(By the way, if you can’t spot the sarcasm in the last parenthetical remark, I suggest you try harder.)

I mean, seriously, if I wrote a book, and it sucked massive donkey balls (or even smaller, more moderately-sized donkey balls), I could only DREAM of getting a negative review as polite and measured as what is dished out by Wendy and HelenKay. I’d probably cringe a lot more at the thought of being reviewed by someone like Mrs. Giggles, but if it’s funny… I forgive a lot if it makes me laugh.

Another excellent critique of an author’s work by another author? Those of you who have been with the site from the beginning can probably guess who and what I’m going to bring up now… Mark Twain’s “Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses.” God, I love that essay.

Have other authors reviewed other authors unfairly? Hell fucking yeah. Curtis Sittenfeld’s NYT review of Melissa Banks’ The Wonder Spot, for example, struck me as unduly disdainful and rather suspect, given the squeamishness she displayed about chick lit. Jennifer Weiner rips Sittenfeld a new one in a very entertaining manner for that review.

But I’m not going to automatically write off all authors as reviewers simply because they’re authors. As with most things in life, I prefer to look at this on a case-by-case basis. Dismissing all authors as unreliable reviewers would be like dismissing Christian biologists simply because they believe in God.

And now, on to the other thing that interests me: should reviewers whose reviews are reviewed take it lying down?

That depends. If the reviewer did a shitty job in the first place, then yeah, she should take the lumps. (Again, ref. Sittenfeld, Curtis.) If the reviewer reviewed the book fairly, and the review of the reviewer’s job was also fair, then I would call that grounds for an excellent reasoned, passionate debate. But then I’m one of those freaks who enjoys a good debate.

But if the reviewer reviewed the book fairly, and the review of the reviewer’s job was NOT fair (like some of the e-mails David Kipen received regarding his review of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, or some of the hate mail Mrs. Giggles receives), then shit, gloves are off baby. Let’s see some fucking BLOOD. Or at least some really, really good snarque.

As for whether honest reviews do anything for the credibility of the genre: I sincerely believe they do. Honest discussion--brutally honest discussion, even--can only do good. People who refuse to review any books except those they like are, in my opinion, lying by omission. Honest reviews and discussions are one step, and a small one of many, but it’s something.

By the way, just in case you’re wondering: I don’t particularly think Smart Bitches is doing anything for the credibility of romance one way or another. For one thing, it’s pretty hard to take a website with “Bitches” in the title seriously. For another thing, we’re way too potty-mouthed and irreverent for us to improve the image of romance for sticklers. For another other thing, Sarah and I set out to have fun and make some noise, not have some kind of impact or carry some kind of message, unless that message is “We like to use the words ‘balls,’ ‘ass’ and ‘fuck’ a lot.” Well, OK, we were pretty tired of how goddamn polite people in the romance community were, with the glorious, bawdy exception of Mrs. Giggles, and we were also tired of the misconception of how romance readers are teh stupdi. This is to clear things up for Shannon, who seems under the impression we’re doing this for the traffic. The traffic and the readership we currently have is a major, major bonus, mind you, and I’m not complaning. To this day, we’re mystified at how any of youse stumbled across us, ‘cause we sure as shit didn’t bother advertising our presence, just kept posting our snark and shaking our heads at the people who Googled “Dominican bitches” and kept finding us instead. We’re glad you’re here though, even if you initially came here for the Dominican babes.

That should be part of our slogan. “Smart Bitches: Come here for the Dominicans, Stay for the Man-Titty.”

This book passed the “I have to take it out of my purse and read it at home” test - a sure bet that it’s a good story. Regina Metcalf, the heroine, is a book editor in Boston with roots in North Carolina, a place where roots go down to deeper levels than she would prefer, who lives a very plain-yogurt life. Plain yogurt, as Hubby once said, is even blander than vanilla yogurt. Regina is, however, from the get-go, a Very Good Person. She mines the slush pile of her publishing house for untapped treasures, and anyone with a remedial knowledge of book publishing knows that the editor who wades through the slush looking for a gem is truly a character with a Heart of Gold.

Regina is contemplating the vanilla-plainness of her life, and just as I thought she was going to irk me to no end due to her Heart of Gold, Regina is summoned home by her tearful mother due to Family Drama with her common-law-partner parents. Then I met the rest of Regina’s family in subsequent chapters and felt so almighty sorry for the girl I had to keep reading just to cheer her on.

We here at Smart Bitch headquarters, which I will tell you is uber-cool but I won’t tell you where it is because then we’d have to kill you, received the following press release this afternoon:

ROMANCE WRITERS OF AMERICA ACCEPTS GAY AUTHOR
Co-writer of Romentics Becomes Member of Premier Professional Association

The Romance Writers of America (RWA) has accepted openly gay novelist Scott Pomfret as a full-fledged member.  The RWA is the premier professional association for writers and aspiring writers of Harlequin-style romance novels.  Together with his real-life romantic partner Scott Whittier, Pomfret is co-author of the Romentics series of romance novels for gay men.  In June 2005 Warner Books published the latest Romentics novel, Hot Sauce.

Commenting on his welcome to the organization, Pomfret said, “It’s nice to see that an organization like the RWA is open to recognizing that romance is not a ‘hetero-only’ institution and that gay men have romantic lives—and needs—as strong as any Harlequin heroine.” Pomfret noted that romance novels comprise 48 percent of all mass-market paperback fiction sold in the United States and are read by 41 million Americans.  He added, ”Hot Sauce taps into that popularity by giving an option to a few million gay men and the people that love them.”

Whittier admitted, “Because the RWA has traditionally focused on straight romance for women, is conservative, and is based in Texas, we were apprehensive about Scott’s application, so we were pleasantly surprised to find there was room at the table for Romentics, too.”

Y’all. Y’ALL. Check out PC Cast’s new cover for her next book.

Seriously - she won the cover lottery? She made a deal with a powerful deity regarding her book art? Wow!

I asked Ms. Cast who the artist was, so we could give him squeeful mad props, and she told me his name is Matt Mahurin. I googled him but found several references to photography, but not to cover illustrations, so I’m hestiant to bust out with the linkage.

But I am not hesitant to give a peek at Mr. Mahurin’s latest PC Cast cover - with a special note: Sir! Thank you for lush covers that evoke romance that insult neither our sensibilities nor our intelligence!