




by Candy • Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 07:53 AM
Our Grade:
Title: The Coma
Author: Alex Garland
Publication Info: Riverhead 2004, ISBN: 1573222739
Genre: Literary Fiction

Dude tries to stop some young thugs from beating up a sweet young thang on the tube. Dude gets the crap kicked out of him. Dude falls into a coma. Dude enters into an incredibly self-conscious reverie as he attempts to wake himself up from said coma.
And there we have the entirety of Alex Garland’s The Coma. Not all stories with simple plots are brief or insubstantial, but both are true for this book. And when I say brief, I mean brief. It’s only 208 pages, it’s a smaller-than-average hardcover book, every chapter starts with a woodcut illustration, and the font is big. If you’re a book size queen, you’ll barely notice this tiny tome.
That’s not to say it’s a bad book. It’s just that, as a whole, the story was obvious and, well, kind of juvenile. If a precocious high-school kid had been given a writing assignment about the nature of consciousness, she might’ve come up with something like this.
The concept itself is pretty damn cool, but if you were made to suffer through Descartes or Waking Life at some point in college, this book covers much of the same ground. What is being? What is reality? What is the nature of consciousness? What is the nature of perception? Unfortunately, this book doesn’t offer anything new, insightful or particularly interesting.
A few of aspects of the book manage to save the story from being utter drek. The surreal yet concrete nature of the coma patient’s experiences mimic the dreaming state quite credibly. Three scenes in particular—one in the narrator’s bathroom, in which he discovers he’s bleeding, one in a music shop and one in a bookstore—are truly excellent. These scenes, however, are fleeting, and the deeper ramifications are left unexplored.
Garland’s prose style, as always, is gorgeous. If sacrificing shaved gerbils at the altar of the ancient Sumerian god Manititti would help me write sentences as clean and beautiful Garland’s, my house would be well-stocked with really tiny razorblades.
(Don’t worry, the gerbils are safe. I’m content to envy Garland from afar.)
The woodcut illustrations for the story, courtesy of Garland’s father, Nicholas Garland, are also gorgeous. On one hand, they add a certain oomph to the book. On the other hand, I couldn’t help feeling that they were used to pad the pagecount.
After the wonderful stories Garland offered in The Beach (get the British version, the American version seemed to be modified quite heavily), The Tesseract and 28 Days Later, The Coma hath broken my fangirlish heart.
OK, not broken. But it’s dinged quite severely.


by SB Sarah • Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 04:56 AM
Evil Auntie Peril, who cracks me up, wrote in the following: There is the historical association: male long hair = virility. From Samson to those wacky Merovingian reges criniti ("Cut my head off, but no, don’t take the hair!!!") to Fabio, the legend continues. Which begs the question, do flowing locks counteract the girly aspects of man-titty, or enhance it? Or are they subliminally evoking the unbridled passion one is guaranteed to find beneath these covers?
As for those of us with a fancy for the follically-challenged, I think Suzanne Brockman once wrote a hero with a receding hairline, but he never made it onto the cover (sniff). .
So true, the manly hair being a sign of virility. I agree that it is odd that the women on romance novel covers often have long, long, LONG hair and it is possible that they are subliminally echoing the virility of the man with their unbridled manes of peculiarly-colored hair.
But EAP’s comment at the bottom, about Suzanne Brockman’s hero with a receeding hairline made me ponder: how much does it matter to women today whether a man has a receeding hairline? Does it bother any of us? I think this might be the secret equal to women’s obsession with weight. We all worry (well, many of us do!) about our weight and whether the men in our lives notice our cellulite, our saddlebags, our muffin tops.
I’ve had a few conversations with male friends - who are profoundly unwilling to discuss their hairlines until prodded with the stubborn force of Sarah’s Will - wherein they’ve told me it is their biggest personal fear, that they will lose their hair. One friend of mine told me that her husband, who is a tall, muscular, kind, and incredibly talented carpenter, looked at her with a panicked expression when he realized he’d lost some hair and asked her seriously, “Are you going to leave me?”
While this has nothing to do with romance novels, it does touch on romance, attraction, and images of virility - which we here at SBTB like to skewer at least once a week! So - what’s your opinion: if a man loses his hair, is he out to pasture or is can he still be a hotty mc hot hot? Are we all holding on to the idea of a man with thick, luscious hair as the ultimate sign of handsomeness (and don’t forget those mantitties!) or is it ok for a romance hero, or a hero in our real life romances, to have a slighty-less-than-full head of hair?
58 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Random Musings
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.


by SB Sarah • Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 08:28 AM
As we’ve noted many a time in our cover-cranky series, romance covers are being redesigned into solid colored paperbacks with a “belt” of illustration in the middle, be that a flower or a house or a landscape. Much to our sadness and yet joy, the days of the beefy-chested man-titty clinch cover are coming to an end, it seems.
However, a good number of covers are moving toward the more-expensive but still lovely stepback image. I am a huge fan of the stepback (until something sticky gets between the cover flaps and I can’t look at the image any more) because they often feature some truly luscious artwork. (EDIT: Let me clarify. By “sticky” I mean something gooey from a candy wrapper in the bottom of my purse, or when I splutter lemonade all over my book laughing out loud at some historical anachronisms. No masturbatory impressions were meant by the previous sentence!)
Some of the covers below are stepbacks; others are previous versions of rereleased paperbacks. But all of them have one element in common: the hair. Specifically, the Man Hair.
We asked RWA President-Elect Gayle Wilson why some art departments thought we wanted our visually depicted heroes to have breasts bigger than ours. I must amend that somewhat-rhetorical question to now include, “Why do some art departments think that the longer the hair, the sexier the heroine and the hero?” This question especially applies to historicals- am I the only one who gets a little case of the squicks when contemplating the idea that bathing didn’t happen all that often, so those long, shining locks were probably more than a little in need of some Prell?
Sarah: If you search “romance hair” or “romantic hair” you get prom designs, like this one - but I rarely see an elegantly braided and coiffed hairstyle on a romance novel cover, despite the number of descriptions contained in the novel itself of the able abigail styling the heroine’s tresses into some braided, elegant upsweep for one ball or another.
Candy: When I look at that hair, I feel like I’m looking at one of those mazes on kid’s placemats in restaurants. “Help Little Red Riding Hood Get Out of the Forest!” Except this maze is hairy. And highlighted.
Sarah: But instead of an upsweep, you get the long, tangled hair - almost as if the size of the hair is some feminine indication of sexuality. My hair is down past my shoulder blades, and I’m visibly pregnant, so I must be driving the men on the subway into a orgiastic frenzy. But this chick? All I want to do is get her a comb.
Candy: If the stupid cow goes into battle with hair flowing in the wind like that, she’d get killed in no time. Hair: It Makes A Convenient Handle! Unless… maybe before a battle, she oils it heavily, the way Greek wrestlers oiled their bodies in days of yore to make it more difficult to get a grip?
*distracted by images of hot, nekkid Greek men, all oiled up and...*
Wait, sorry, wha? Oh, yeah. Hair. I agree with you, Sarah. She seriously needs a comb.
Sarah: Same with this chick - got tangles? And what’s up with the uber-short Brad Pitt hair? That might be the most accurate depiction of historical man-hair on a cover yet.
Candy: Long-ass hair, floating in the wind, dislodging all the lice that no doubt reside within.... MMM, romantic.
And fuck that dude’s hair. What’s with his creepy skin-tone? Hot damn, that’s a tan gone badly, badly wrong. Something about his face also makes me think of Planet of the Apes. Like, if Cornelius shaved off his monster ape sideburns, that’d be the face underneath it.
Sarah: I mean, really, what’s she saying here? Your hair is better than mine! I bow to you! I am unworthy! Let me just state for the record here, the man titty with long hair look? I am SO over it.
Candy: The only thing that comes to mind when I look at that dude is “I’m too sexy for my hair, too sexy for my hair...”
Great, besides a sinus headache, I now have THAT SONG stuck in my head.
*shakes fist at sky*
Sarah: Today, monsieur, we are going to style zee hair for zee romance cover. We have zee new style, a hot, hot tres sexy coif we call ‘Zee Hasselhoff.’ Zee bitches, zey will do ze swoon, non?
Candy: Oooh, look! The missing Hardy Boy brother, Gaylord Hardy! The one with the embarrassing predilection for disco circuit parties and chunky gold jewelry!
Sarah: Attention, attention. Federal law now prohibits the use of any and all mullets on romance novel covers. Repeat, due to changes in federal penal code 6969.13, any and all mullets depicted on romance novel covers will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Candy: WOW. A perfecta of bad hair: Bad 80s bleach job for the lovely lady, and a mullet with elevated bangs for the be-titted lord.
Sarah: First, this is Beatrice Small’s Intrigued, which is a good name because I am seriously intrigued by that hair. Is it a wig? Is it a toupee? And is he so frustrated at the state of his hairdo that he’s yanking the heroine’s arm off? “You will give me your hair so I can get extensions as long as my man-titties are big, hear?”
And here’s the most awful part: on me? That hairstyle - HIS I mean - would not look too bad. It’s about time for me to cut my hair for donation anyway, so you think if I bring this picture to the hair salon they’ll give me the ‘Intrigued’ haircut? Or will I cause mass hysteria as all the stylists collapse in convulsions?
Candy: Once again, I’m amazed at the preponderance of green eyeshadow in historical times. Just goes to show that bad taste spans history.
And that guy’s hair. Wow. Now we know what happened to the evil toupee that possessed Homer Simpson in The Simpsons’ “Treehouse of Horror IX.”
Edit: Hang on! I know where I’d seen that hair before! Behold!
The Russian mob boss guy from The Boondock Saints! Man, that toupee gets around. It’s the Paris Hilton of nasty wigs!



by Candy • Monday, August 22, 2005 at 01:14 PM
I’m serious about the comments for this post being for dissent only. DISSENT ONLY.
But some of the comments already made make me laugh (especially Stephen’s--expect your “I <3 Smart Bitches 4-EVA!” bumper sticker in the mail soon, fanboyyyyy) so I’m preserving them here.
Don’t make me hurt you.
22 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: News
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.








by Candy • Monday, August 22, 2005 at 11:00 AM
Unlike my usual M.O., I actually spent all weekend thinking about this issue and talking about it with many different people before blogging about this issue. There are a few things circling my head right now that are bugging the hell out of me, and I want to address them head-on, because being all quiet and shushy and privately bitching about these sorts of things with friends rarely resolves anything. So, to wit:
1. The issue of intelligent dissent (or lack thereof) on Smart Bitches.
2. The “SBTB hates AAR” assumption that seems to be forming among certain people--well, one person I know of for sure, but if there’s anything I’ve learned about discussions on the Internet, if there’s one person who’s willing to speak up about an issue, there are a whole lot more who are thinking the same thing.
3. Netiquette when it comes to debating/disagreeing with someone.
All of this was sparked by Anonymous, who the left the following comment on Bonnie’s blog entry about Monica Jackson:
I would make a suggestion to Candy that if she wants to avoid bringing AAR “catfights” onto her turf, she should stop eviscerating AAR posters, something that inevitably seems to result in a deluge of ass-kissing, sycophantic comments and rampant AAR bashing from the small but dedicated cadre of SB fangirls.
This was in response to my comment explaining why Sarah and I shut down the comments to this Smart Bitch rant when it started devolving into the age-old Monica Jackson vs. AAR feud, which, as I’ve told Monica, makes me want to weep tears of blood when it comes up. It’s a long-standing battle that shows no signs of letting up, and HOT DAMN I don’t want to be caught in the middle of it. Anonymous decided to move it from the realm of the very, very specific (Monica and AAR) to the very general (AAR catfights), a leap in logic that made me go “What the fuck?” But I’ll address this point a bit later.
Further on, Anonymous goes on to say (among other things):
I’ve got nothing to hide, Candy. But the next time you ridicule an AAR poster at your site, have the courage to post a link at AAR so your victim will know exactly what you and your followers say and have the opportunity to defend herself. Not to mention, I daresay, bring along with her those who share her viewpoint. (You’re not accustomed to dissenting opinions at SB, are you?)
OK, I guess I’ll address the points in reverse order, and we’ll see if my thoughts become more organized as I go. Forgive any repetition, because I did cover some of these points in Bonnie’s blog.
The AAR messageboards have very specific rules. Most of them concern what should be discussed on which messageboard, but there are also rules about posting links. None of the boards allow links to other websites that review romance novels--I thought one of the boards did, but I was wrong. Don’t believe me?
The Reviews Board, Reader to Reader board, At The Back Fence messageboard, Potpourri Messageboard all contain this sentence in the “What Posts Don’t Belong Here” section:
Posts including links to other romance review Web sites.
This would include Smart Bitches, no? I mean, I know we provide a lot random crap like rants (a.k.a. “What sand has gotten up Candy’s vagina this morning?"), mad libs and man-titty, but a decent chunk of our content is taken up by book reviews.
But even if the book reviews didn’t exist on this site, it would never have occured to me to provide links on the message boards to my three blog entries about specific posts on the AAR messageboards (please, PLEASE note: specific posts on AAR boards != AAR).
Why?
Because that’s not the way it freakin’ works. Do newspaper columnists notify politicians about upcoming editorials and opinion pieces disagreeing with their policies before publishing their articles? Do the people at Snarkywood or Go Fug Yourself notify celebrities before shredding them to a fare-thee-well? Did the Nielsen Haydens e-mail Vox Day when they ripped him a new one for being a stupid, sexist asshole? Shit, does anyone, anywhere on the Internet warn people they disagree with that hey, they’re about to do some disagreeing?
No. The only courtesy that needs to be extended when talking about opinions you disagree with is to provide links to the source of your disagreement. By doing so:
1. It allows the people who read your article to view the source material, complete and in context; and
2. In some cases, it allows the person being disagreed with to track down the discussion via their referrer logs. This latter point doesn’t apply for messageboards and forums, of course, since posters don’t have access to referrer logs unless they’re also admins.
If you put something out there on the Internet--or hell, in any sort of medium that can be publicly accessed--you can expect someone to comment on it. Sometimes you’ll be able to track the person down, and other times you won’t. C’est la vie. Frankly, I’m curious about what a host of closed-off sources are saying about Smart Bitches, because there’ve been days when we get a flurry of referrals from sites that aren’t available to the general public, but ultimately, it’s no big deal. Sarah and I put out our opinions (though of the two of us, I’m by far more scrappy, bitchy and just all-round ornery), and people will disagree. If they don’t want to be found out, that’s their bidness.
And now on to the second point: the “SBTB hates AAR” vibe I’ve been getting.
Again, I say, “What the hell?”
I linked to three very specific posts on the AAR messageboards. All three addressed issues that made me feel like ranting--the sand in my vagina, if you will. (Sorry for the mental picture this provides you. This is the risk you run when you read this website on any regular basis.)
If there’s any doubt about how I feel about AAR, here it is now, in black and white, forever and ever amen:
1. The reviews are an invaluable resource. When there’s a book I want to check out, I go to Amazon.com first to see if the title in question has that nifty “Look Inside!” feature so I can check out an excerpt on-line. If it doesn’t, I’ll give a quick look at the Amazon reviews, then head over to AAR to see if they’ve reviewed it.
2. Smart Bitches are not trying to compete with AAR. We are trying to fill a niche in the on-line romance community. To be honest, there weren’t any romance websites out there that said “cuntmonkey,” “queefweasel” or “buttpirate,” and Sarah and I set out to correct this tragic lack.
3. In no way do we think the AAR boards are full of wacky-ass religious fundamentalist kooks. Not even close. If anything, AAR seems to lean a bit left compared to other romance messageboards. I happened to link to ONE post from someone who made what was (in my opinion) a really retarded assertion about Smart Bitches. A few of our regular commenters think differently about the AAR = full of assholes issue, but their opinions are their own, not Sarah’s or mine.
4. Here’s my opinion of the AAR boards, quoted verbatim from a comment I made: “Actually, the AAR boards are the site of some of the most interesting discussions around. The only reason I don’t visit them is because I don’t have enough friggin’ hours in the day. The few posts I’ve linked to here are not necessarily representative of the usual content on the messageboards. Yeah, there are some kooks there, but that’s sort of the unavoidable consequence of having a public messageboard on a site as big and popular as AAR.” This was in response to Bam, who commented on how AAR seems kinda scary.
But in case that’s not clear, I’ll say it YET AGAIN: AAR boards in general, awesome and full o’ much good stuff. A few people on it? Their views, as expressed on the board, chapped my ass. I’m really sorry if the impression given has been a place of scary wildnerness, but really, it’s not. The people there are mostly polite and reasonable, but sometimes a few go off the deep end (like the person who compared Robin to a member of the KKK for enjoying and defending To Have and To Hold). This is an immutable law of the universe, to wit: Some people are assholes. Oh well.
What I don’t get is how me addressing a few specific AAR posts by very specific people becomes conflated into me attacking AAR messageboards, or AAR in general. Or even how my leeriness about the AAR/Monica Jackson brouhaha translates to “AAR catfights.”
This is, in fact, directly analogous to my post about people getting their panties twisted about Smart Bitches’ alleged anti-Christian slant. I was addressing specific posts made by specific people on a public messageboard. How this translates into disdain for AAR in general, or even all of the messageboards in particular, I have no fucking clue.
Well, OK, I did say this in the heat of the moment, while feeling really fucking pissed off at Anonymous: “...I couldn’t give a flying shit about most of the posters on the AAR messageboards, especially dumbasses who make sweeping statements that can’t be backed up adequately...”
OK, that? Was a stupid asshole statement. I apologize for said stupid asshole statement. Well, not for the not giving a flying shit about dumbasses who make sweeping statements, but that applies for all dumbasses, all the time, regardless of forum. Really, I don’t know a fraction of a fraction of the people who post on AAR regularly any more, so I don’t have any opinion on them, period. I do know that some SB regulars are also AAR messageboard regulars, like Sunita and Robin (everybody join in the refrain: When I grow up, I want to be like Robin!).
I just want to nip this weird SB-against-AAR pissing content in the bud RIGHT NOW. We think the AAR site as a whole rocks, and there’s no rivalry on our part. If this imaginary contest did exist, then AAR wins, hands down. If you’re a romance reader and have to pick only ONE romance-related site to visit regularly, I recommend AAR over Smart Bitches. Seriously.
So on to another point: the “deluge of ass-kissing, sycophantic comments and rampant AAR bashing from the small but dedicated cadre of SB fangirls.”
Was there really a deluge of AAR bashing? The statistician in me wants to know. In the blog entry about AAR that generated the most dialogue (the “We Hate Christ, Not Just Man-Titty!” post), here’s a breakdown of various topics covered by the 119 comments:
Comments that straight-up agreed with Sarah and me without bashing AAR: 27
Comments about (the Church of) Man-Titty: 15
Monty Python References (mostly to man-titty): 3
Negative comparisons of AAR to SB, or negative comments about AAR: 18
Defense of AAR, or comments about AAR without bashing: 9
Negative comments about specific posts or posters on the thread I linked to (NOTE: NOT AAR): 6
Hell, and which level various among us belong to, plus how we think we got there: 19
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism: 5
Monica vs. AAR: 15
Assorted miscellany (mostly related to assorted politicians and/or the nature of religion and religious fundamentalism and/or fangirl squealing over Doug): 36
Please note that many comments overlapped in terms of topic; for instance, Robin noted that she was likened to the KKK by an AAR poster, which counted towards “negative comments about AAR,” but then in the same comment she noted that many of the people there are awesome, which counted towards “Defense of AAR.” Some of the “Monica vs. AAR” posts counted towards AAR negative comments and defense of AAR, too.
From my tally, there were more posts that talked about which level of Hell we’re going to end up in than posts that bash AAR. Unfortunately, it did seem that the defense of AAR was outweighed 2 to 1 by AAR bashing--but people DID defend AAR. I was one of them. Did it twice, actually. And two of the people who made negative comments about AAR were people who had never commented on SB before, namely ADWOFF and Sunita, so I’m not sure how they qualify as fangirls. And Monica made about half of the negative comments about AAR, and she made those comments not necessarily because she’s a fangirl of SB, but because of the bad blood in the past between her and LLB/AAR.
So anyway: deluge? What freakin’ deluge?
But much as I hate to admit it, Anonymous had a point: the issue of dissent on Smart Bitches.
Personally, I think there’s a pretty healthy amount of dissent. Check out our Chick lit rant, Sarah’s F review of The Demon’s Daughter, our post about love triangles, or hell, even Sarah’s B+ review of Time Off For Good Behavior.
But I talked to other regular readers this weekend, and they agreed that yeah, there’s been a decrease in dissent on Smart Bitches. People who disagree just don’t speak up as often any more.
And that worries me. One of the aims of Smart Bitches was to provide an open avenue of discussion, and disagreement is welcome. Rampant idiocy WILL be poked at, of course, but it’s always so much more interesting (and enriching, and educational, and oh gag me now I sound like some kind of after-school special) when people have a lively, snarky but largely polite debate.
So to encourage dissent, we’re going to try a little experiment today: The comments to this post are open only to people who disagree with us. Today is your free pass. Vent all your bile here, or express your ladylike disagreement, and do it about anything. Think we doth protest too much? Think we look ugly? Hate the layout and color scheme? Disagree violently with our reviews or rants? Think we just suck in general? Go right ahead and have your say. No repercussions, and we won’t try to rebut any of the comments made, nor will we use them as fodder for future blog entires or rants. Any non-dissenting and assent-disguised-as-dissent comments will be deleted.
The ONLY condition is that the comments can’t be anonymous. I mean, hell, make up a fake name on the spot if you have to, but if you want to mouth off, have the balls to post it under a name. We want only a name; e-mail address and website are strictly optional.
Sarah and I are interested in what people think we’re doing wrong as well as what we’re doing right, and even if we think someone is tres, tres full of shit *waves to Anonymous*, they might very well have a point.





59 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.