So I remember what I planned to do, and can berate myself appropriately next year at this time.
[I am sure there are already answers to a lot of the questions below. I will probably in most cases just adopt one of the answers already proffered.]
1. Read some African American romance (have just ordered a Brenda Jackson and an Adrianne Byrd)
1b. Figure out if there is non African American black romance
2. Read some m/m romance (have just ordered a JL Langley and a Josh Lanyon)
3. Read some gay romance that is not written by straight women or for straight women, that is shelved away from the Romance section, in the Lesbian/Gay section [possible #2 fits this bill. I don't know. Would save me some time if so.]
4. Figure out the difference between (2) and (3)
5. Figure out why there is such a demand for m/m romance and erotica among straight women
6. Think about why romance is the only genre where “escape” connotes something weak or bad
7. Read Neil Gaiman
8. Keep blogging at least 3 times a week until my one year anniversary in August
9. Avoid the one or two romance blogs that specialize in fallacious reasoning and make my blood boil.
10. Post on objectivity in the evaluation of literature and how I define it
11. Figure out if any feminist theorists have engaged seriously with romance in the last 15 years.
12. Attempt to refute bad quasi-feminist arguments in favor of romance
13. Write a post entitled “Why feminism is not ‘about choice’”
14. Read more Patricia Gaffney and Judith Ivory
15. Revisit (maybe even reread) an olde skool romance, like Rosemary Rogers
There’s more, but I’m already way over my head with this list.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!
Related posts:
- Monday Morning Stepback: Books, Blogs, and Things I Loved in 2009 It’s time to say goodbye to 2009. Here are a few terrific things about the year that was: Romance reading...
- Blogging At Borders True Romance: The Results I’m up early for my flight home and thought I would let folks know what the Borders blogging experience was...
- Monday Morning Stepback: Vlogs, holiday tipping and travel blogging The weekly links, opinion and inanity post. Extra inane version. 1. Links of Interest I have been writing posts so...
- Top 10 Lies of the Romance Blogger This is just a goofy autobiographical meditation. I’m sure it has no applicability to any of you. 10. “I’m just...
- Blogging: Public or Private? By Tumperkin I’ve been pondering the extent to which blogging is a public or private concern. The answer might seem...
- Fuzzy Thoughts on Promotion and Book Blogging I’ll start with three quotations: 1. In an interesting post called “The Reviewer/Promoter Hat“, Mrs. Giggles wrote, I found myself...
#1 by RfP on December 31, 2008 - 6:55 pm
Happy New Year! And I selfishly hope you’ll keep some of those resolutions, because I would love to read about your discoveries.
#2 by Julia on December 31, 2008 - 7:30 pm
1b. I recommend CAFE AU LAIT by Liane Spicer, about a black Londoner whose roots are in Trinidad.
3. Louis Bayard’s FOOL’S ERRAND is a wonderful gay romance with a delightfully old-fashioned feel that you’ll find in your GLBTQI section.
#3 by Jessica on January 1, 2009 - 10:30 am
Julia wrote:
I just ordered both. Thanks!
And Happy New Year to you RfP — hope you get a break from the edits.
#4 by Laura Vivanco on January 1, 2009 - 12:43 pm
1b. Figure out if there is non African American black romance
There’s some written in French, though I haven’t read it. It’s described by Lydie Moudileno in this article (in French) and very briefly in this abstract (in English).
Some more secondary items about black, non-American romance are:
Morgan, Paula, 2003.
“Like Bush Fire in My Arms”: Interrogating the World of Caribbean Romance, Journal of Popular Culture 36.4: 804-827.
Muhomah, C, 2002.
‘What do women want?: Versions of masculinity in Kenyan romantic fiction,’ English Studies in Africa, 45, no. 2 (2002): 77-90.
and various articles by Whitsitt, including this one:
Whitsitt, Novian, 2003.
“Islamic-Hausa Feminism Meets Northern Nigerian Romance: The Cautious Rebellion of Bilkisu Funtuwa.” African Studies Review 46.1: 137-53. Unofficial, unpaginated version here.
Figure out if any feminist theorists have engaged seriously with romance in the last 15 years.
Lynne Pearce has been writing a lot about romance, though her interest is split between romance as a modern genre, the many previous types of romantic fiction and general ideas/feelings/responses to romantic love.
She’s written in:
Romance Revisited, ed. Lynne Pearce & Jackie Stacey (New York: New York University Press, 1995).
Fatal Attractions: Rescripting Romance in Contemporary Literature and Film, ed. Lynne Pearce & Gina Wisker (London: Pluto, 1998).
“Popular Romance and Its Readers.” in A Companion to Romance: From Classical to Contemporary. ed. Corinne Saunders, (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004) pp. 521-538.
Pearce, Lynne, 2007.
Romance Writing. (Cambridge: Polity Press). Historical treatment looking at romance broadly. Does touch on popular romance, but it is not the whole focus of the book.
#5 by bookwormom on January 1, 2009 - 9:36 pm
I’m interested in #3 #4 & #13. I hope you’re able to keep a few of these, I’m very interested!
Happy New Year!
#6 by Robin on January 1, 2009 - 11:59 pm
I want you to read Christine Monson’s Rangoon in fulfillment of #15.
#7 by Jessica on January 2, 2009 - 7:29 am
Laura — thank you for those suggestions. I hadn’t even considered the question of whether there was academic analysis, and now I know where to look!
Bookwormom — #4 is so fraught, but I am deeply curious about it.
Robin, Ok, I just ordered it. It looks … interesting.
Anyone want to help me with a Gaiman rec?
#8 by Laura Vivanco on January 2, 2009 - 10:54 am
Laura — thank you for those suggestions. I hadn’t even considered the question of whether there was academic analysis, and now I know where to look!
The only problem is that it might not be very easy to get hold of any of the romances described in those articles.
As for academic analysis, the bibliography at the Romance Wiki keeps growing as I and others come across details for items and I’ve found it very helpful.
#9 by Maya M. on January 2, 2009 - 1:44 pm
Hello,
first time here, found you via the Book Smugglers(whom I love).
I’m especially intrigued about what your conclusions about #10 and #12 will be.
Myself, I’m setting my blogging resolution bar much lower – to learn how to include graphics, for one, and to increase the sheer quantity of reviews, for another. Setting the bar low means I’ll have no excuse not to achieve it, I figure.
Am reading ‘Broken Wing’ right now and enjoyed your review.
#10 by Jessica on January 2, 2009 - 2:58 pm
Laura — good to knoe about the wiki. Thanks AGAIN!
Maya M. wrote:
You and me both, Maya! Welcome!
Those conclusions are foregone, actually …I just need to get myself to type them up. I have some very specific targets in mind for #12, and #10 is a follow up to my post on Why a book review is not just one person’s opinion.
And this explains the difference between a sane person (you) and an insane person (me).
Thanks! I can’t wait to see what she comes out with next.
#11 by Ana on January 2, 2009 - 3:12 pm
“Anyone want to help me with a Gaiman rec?”
I do! I do!
Jessica, you can start with Stardust which is where Thea and I started with our Gaiman adoration. It is a great point to start specially to a romance reader…although Good Omens (funniest , smartest book ever) or Coraline are good places to start as well. Or the Graveyard Book. er…am I helping?
A few months ago we had a Gaiman Appreciation Week where we talked about/reviewed loads of his books:
http://thebooksmugglers.blogspot.com/search/label/Gaiman%20Week
#12 by RfP on January 2, 2009 - 6:47 pm
All I have is an anti-rec. I thought his Fragile Things collection was terrible, and Neverwhere amusing but insubstantial. I was sorely disappointed, after all the raves I’d read. American Gods was on my to-read list, but it’s now pret’ near the bottom; after two disappointments I suspect he’s simply not my style.
Ever hopeful, I’m about to try Terry Pratchett.
#13 by Kristen on January 2, 2009 - 9:41 pm
I also recently found your blog through The Book Smugglers and wanted to help out with the Gaiman recommendation.
My favorite by him is actually the Sandman series of graphic novels (although it does take a couple of volumes for it to get really interesting). They are very diverse and incorporate various mythologies from around the world. It is very dark, though.
Of Gaiman’s novels, my favorite I have read so far is The Graveyard Book, which is creepy but charming. For a humorous tale about the apocalypse, you can’t go wrong with Good Omens, co-written with Terry Pratchett.
#14 by Jessica on January 2, 2009 - 9:44 pm
Thanks Ana — I knew you would come through. I just discovered Gaiman’s books are all on Audible and he narrates them himself. I may go that route for the first one.
RfP — Thanls for the anti-vote. But forget Pratchett, you really need to move Borges to the top of your list.
#15 by Maya M. on January 2, 2009 - 11:09 pm
Someone above mentioned Christine Monson’s ‘Rangoon’. There is an uncomfortable scene of (IMHO) forced seduction, but the rest of the book is very well written and touches on topics like colonialism and racism in a thought-provoking way. Her favorite book of mine though is ‘A Flame run Wild’ (I think), an interesting, well-written and thoughtful look at the Crusades, among other topics. And no forced seductions! Though there is a virgin widow… I really loved it, and I have very little patience with a lot of old skool stories.
#16 by bookwormom on January 2, 2009 - 11:36 pm
Stopped by again to put in my votes for American Gods or Good Omens as Neil Gaiman reads to start with. I read Stardust &, while good, as time has passed I increasingly think of it as mostly *meh*.
#17 by Jessica on January 3, 2009 - 7:58 am
@ Kristen: Thank you for those recommendations. I am just starting to get interested in graphic novels, having read both the Buffy, and, with my son, the Bone series.
@ Maya M.: Rangoon has forced seduction? My favorite! After I kill Robin, I will look into your other recommendations.
@ bookwormom: Thank you for those additional suggestions. This is interesting to me, the overlap of readers in romance and Gaimon. I get the Sookie Stackhouse and Sharon Shinn overlap — they both have romantic elements — but I didn’t think Gaiman did. Guess I will discover it for myself.
#18 by RfP on January 3, 2009 - 1:00 pm
If you mean Labyrinths, I almost finished it and then left it on a plane. H’ever, you remind me that I need to (a) replace it and (b) update my to-read list!
I think a lot of romance readers also read mystery and/or fantasy. Probably every other genre as well (and RWA’s surveys indicate that too), but mystery and fantasy or historical fantasy are the genres I notice most often in romance readers’ LibraryThings and on AAR.
#19 by Tumperkin on January 3, 2009 - 3:29 pm
Great – and ambitious – resolutions. I read your post at Dear Author with great interest (and posted a comment that seems to have disappeared *sigh*). The (disappeared) comment that I made there sort of relates to your no.5. I think there is a view (which I think there is some truth in**) that romance readers are more interested in heroes than heroines; that perhaps the best romance is the one in which the reader actually ‘falls in love’ with the hero. Ergo, the lure of M/M romance is the doubling-up of the hero quotient.
** i.e. I think that is true of some readers, although it is not of me.
#20 by Kate on January 3, 2009 - 4:03 pm
I started my Pratchett obsession with Good Omens, and have since found that a lot of people read Good Omens and either fell in love with Pratchett or Gaiman. Myself, I’m a Pratchett girl (he’s a modern Swift, a brilliant satirist who gets shelved in fantasy.) The only Gaimans I’ve read are American Gods, which I enjoyed greatly though it wouldn’t make a top-ten list for me, and the first graphic novel in the Sandman series, which Ana and Thea made me read
for a guest post on The Book Smugglers. I’d still default to Pratchett any day and twice on Sunday, but American Gods is definitely worth reading.
#21 by Jessica on January 3, 2009 - 5:00 pm
@ Tumperkin: No, your comment did not disappear. I read it, quoted it, and responded to it. I agree with it!
@ Kate: And so I am educated about another rift in Romancelandia. Thank you! Ok, maybe I will also try a Pratchett.
#22 by Jill Sorenson on January 3, 2009 - 5:26 pm
Loreth Anne White’s Seducing the Mercenary (SRS) is set in Africa. Hero is African, not sure where the heroine is from.
#23 by Kate on January 3, 2009 - 6:09 pm
Jessica, I wouldn’t call it a rift, really, but I think a lot of readers have really refined preferences between Gaiman and Pratchett. I tend to think Good Omens is a good place to start, and you can suss out which author you might prefer by focusing on the parts of the book you like best – it can be really telling. But I think there’s a lot of mutual respect between the camps, and liking one doesn’t preclude liking the other.
I still prefer Pratchett, though!
#24 by Laura Vivanco on January 3, 2009 - 6:11 pm
Jill, it says on Loreth Anne White’s page about the book that the heroine’s from Manhattan.
Having read the reviews, which are also available on that page, I wonder if there’s any exploration in the novel of the underlying political situation and whether the US’s involvement constitutes neo-imperialism. The situation, as described in one review, is as follows: “It is up to Emily [the heroine] to determine whether Jean-Charles [Laroque, who's the hero], a former mercenary who arrived in Ubasi [a fictional African state] a year earlier and ousted the dictator, should be captured or assassinated” and Emily “is working with the United States to bring the former dictator back into power, and it will be Emily’s profile that decides what needs to be done with Laroque.”
#25 by RfP on January 3, 2009 - 7:46 pm
I skimmed it last year but didn’t finish; I’d venture to guess that the answer is overall no, or perhaps mixed. It’s a complicated setup for such a short book, so most of it doesn’t get explored.
In some ways I thought it nicely extended the idea of what makes a hero sexy; a black African hero is unusual (and I think the cover model’s gorgeous). On the other hand, I thought it read much like the treatment of “foreigners” in many Harlequin/M&B Presents and so on: just enough of the exotic to excite, and the hero’s really French, reminiscent of sheikhs who are actually white.
In terms of politics, I’m sorry to laugh, but I do a bit when I try to imagine a Silhouette exploring “the underlying political situation and whether the US’s involvement constitutes neo-imperialism” in much depth. Mind you, the heroine isn’t a conscienceless drone, and I appreciate seeing a romance heroine in such a significant position, but there’s not a lot of space for a twist that deeply questions the initial premise. I don’t recall there even being space to explore issues in the romance, except in telegraphic fashion: putting a good-looking black man on the cover, giving him a cold mercenary gaze, etc.
However, I’ve appreciated your ability to tease out subtle subversions in other category romances; perhaps I’m describing the book in overly broad strokes. I think there is an argument to be made that the premise of a woman detecting the truth and changing the course of international affairs makes a statement on several levels, both feminist and political.
Do you disagree with my skepticism on category romance tackling this scale of political theme? I tend to expect that in science fiction more than in romance; and within romance, I expect more in that regard (though I often don’t get it) when I read single-title (i.e. longer) romantic suspense and historicals. Have I missed out on an interesting trend since I don’t read much category romance these days?
#26 by Laura Vivanco on January 4, 2009 - 7:27 am
“On the other hand, I thought it read much like the treatment of “foreigners” in many Harlequin/M&B Presents and so on: just enough of the exotic to excite”
In the excerpt the hero is described as having “exotic cheekbones.” That’s from the heroine’s point of view, of course. I don’t know if, later on, he thinks of her as having exotic physical attributes.
“Do you disagree with my skepticism on category romance tackling this scale of political theme?”
No, not really. I started off trying to reply to you here, in detail, but it began to get very long so I’ve written a blog post about politics and romance and in it I’ve included another couple of examples of Silhouette romances which raise quite overtly political issues.
#27 by Jill Sorenson on January 4, 2009 - 1:01 pm
RfP said:
“On the other hand, I thought it read much like the treatment of “foreigners” in many Harlequin/M&B Presents and so on: just enough of the exotic to excite, and the hero’s really French, reminiscent of sheikhs who are actually white.”
I haven’t read the book, so I can’t respond to White’s treatment of her characters, but I know she’s from South Africa. I imagine that she’s very familiar with the political issues and doubt that she chose an African male character for titillation purposes.
However, there is a (growing, IMO) tendency for SRS to be “hook-y.” At RWA San Fran, the senior editor mentioned that she’d like to see more sheikh heroes. I think Loreth has an SRS like that coming out soon.
#28 by Robin on January 4, 2009 - 1:30 pm
Robin, Ok, I just ordered it. It looks … interesting.
Oh, yeah. IMO Monson wrote some of the most *aware* cultural critique in the genre, and Rangoon is an amazing example of really subtle insights, really clunky writing, fascinating characterizations, and some way over the top plotting. IMO it has lots of genre cliches and lots of undermining of those cliches. Given your comments about self-hood and the heroine in your DA post, though, I’m anxious to see what you think of the book. And I am trying not to drool with anticipation at being able to talk about it again, lol.
Also, I hope you’re going to be posting your review of Dead To The World soon.
#29 by RfP on January 4, 2009 - 1:39 pm
I know a lot of authors are thoughtful about political issues. I’m just not sure that comes across with much nuance in these short-format novels with so much going on. However, Laura’s more generous than I am about that problem. E.g. sometimes I’m inclined to say a text is straight out of a 1950s housewifely handbook, whereas Laura might point out subtly subversive themes that update the female characters’ roles.
The African male character was an aspect I liked about the book. Not only because it’s unusual, but because it has potential to engage national/political issues on a level you rarely get in a more touristic approach (e.g. two foreigners exploring a strange land) or a do-gooder novel (e.g. nice American or British white girl cares for developing-world orphans).
#30 by Jill Sorenson on January 4, 2009 - 2:47 pm
Oh, I forgot that I wanted to plug another author. I haven’t read a lot of AA romance, but I really enjoyed Sweeter Than Revenge by Ann Christopher. She’s a great writer, and the story is very traditional, warm, sexy.
#31 by Robin on January 4, 2009 - 4:37 pm
One of my favorite AA Romances (although I hate calling it AA Romance, as if it’s a subspecies or something) is Seressia Glass’s No Commitment Required. Interesting characters who have depth and real emotional conflicts.
#32 by Jessica on January 4, 2009 - 5:11 pm
Robin wrote:
Right, like m/m romance: Romance with a capital “R” is understood to be white Anglo hetero. Anything else is a “variation”, “not the norm”.
Thanks to you and Jill for the suggestions.
Please, everybody, head over to TMT to see what Laura’s got to say on the question of politics and Romance.
As for my lack of reviews .. let’s just say that
Puppy + kids on vacation = NO TIME TO MYSELF, DAMMIT!
#33 by Sarah Frantz on January 4, 2009 - 10:18 pm
#2: K.A. Mitchell’s “Collision Course.” Anything by Matthew Haldeman-Time, but check out his free short fiction online. Ditto Jaime Samms. If you want heavy BDSM romance: Anah Crow’s “Uneven.”
#3: Apparently Steve Kluger’s “Almost Like Being in Love.” Haven’t read it myself, but it’s on the list. #2 rarely fits bill of #3. I was in The Different Light bookstore on Castro Street in SF last week and all the gay male *romance* that looked interesting was written, I happen to know, by women. I’m not saying they never overlap…but rarely.
#4: Eh, good luck.
#5: Because it’s super sexy. Because any power issues are there on purpose, rather than as a remnant of gender politics, and that’s just refreshing. And it’s super hot: did I mention that?
#34 by Laura Vivanco on January 5, 2009 - 4:17 am
I’ve just remembered, for number 3, you could try E. M. Forster’s Maurice. It’s my favourite novel by him, and although it isn’t strictly a romance it does have a very romantic, sort of fairytale/greenwood happy-ever-after ending. It’s relatively old, too, of course, but if Pride and Prejudice can be considered relevant to the modern romance genre then I don’t see why Maurice shouldn’t be too.
Because any power issues are there on purpose, rather than as a remnant of gender politics, and that’s just refreshing.
In many of the ones I’ve read (which admittedly are rather few in number) there are still power differences because of class, age, employment status, finances etc. So they didn’t seem that different to me. Then again, I prefer m/f romance which doesn’t have big power differentials, so maybe that means the differences between m/m and f/m in that respect aren’t so obvious to me?
#35 by Sarah Frantz on January 5, 2009 - 7:35 am
Oh, Laura, there’s power differences because of all those things, but they’re not compounded by gender as well. So Jules Jones and Anah Crow can play with the “Captain of Industry” and his lowly employee trope in very VERY different ways, and not have to worry about the gender dimension of the trope because both characters are men. The power dynamic is obvious and unweighted by gender expectations as well as everything else. I guess it’s really impossible to separate any one power dynamic from all the others, but I’m just glad not to have to think about it when I’m reading m/m romance. Kinda like Kresley Cole’s paranormal world: it’s all so fantastical, with its own rules and history, that “real” power dynamics don’t make sense mapped over that world. So you can just have fun with the characters.
#36 by Jessica on January 5, 2009 - 3:53 pm
Sarah Frantz wrote:
Right, gay men aren’t gendered: they can’t be masculine because they are homosexual, and they can’t be feminine because they aren’t women.
Thank you Sarah, for the suggestions, and Laura and Kate for the other suggestions and clarifications!
#37 by Keta Diablo on January 8, 2009 - 6:22 am
Enjoyed the blog and this list.
I’ll be back again.