I just read 5 Reasons Romance Novels Aren’t Trashy, by Liz Abinante. I had never heard of BitchBuzz, but some undercover investigation (ok, clicking the About page) revealed that it’s a “privately owned, independent, global women’s lifestyle network”, which shoots for “the happy medium between hardcore feminism and the fluffy, out-of-touch women’s magazines that dominate the internet today.”
I admit I puzzled for a moment over the notion that women’s magazines dominate the internet, but I was excited about finding another romance booster.
In this short piece, Ms. Abinante offers “five great reasons to head on down to the bookstore and pick up a romance novel”.
Now, I’m an attentive reader, so the second sentence, “Don’t look at me like that – they aren’t all bad” prepared me for a qualified endorsement. By the end, I found myself pondering the difference between a qualified endorsement and an unqualified insult.
Consider the 5th reason, “The Writing Is Actually Not That Bad.”
?
And then…
“You have to admit, writing a well crafted sex scene takes an immense literary gift – either that, or a thesaurus of euphemisms.”
You mean, I could write a hot, non-giggle-inducing sex scene if I just surf over to Thesaurus.com? Thanks for the tip!
The 4th reason is simply “Paranormal Romance” which Abinante credits for being less formulaic and having better covers. Anyone who reads across romance subgenres would hesitate to compare them like that. You know I could have you crying blood tears in 3 bad paranormal covers flat. And what exactly is the relationship between a book and its cover? I know there’s an idiom in there somewhere…
3. “The ability to explore sexual fantasies in a safe atmosphere.”
Unlike pornography, which can sometimes feel overproduced and artificial, reading allows the imagination to wander, and you can experience sexual acts exactly how you desire.
This sentence confused me on so many levels. For one thing, “experiencing sex acts”, involves, um, actually having sex. It’s a slightly different activity from reading, at least the way I do it. But more to the point, lots of romances contain no sex at all (Something tells me Christian inspirational romance authors rarely begin describing their writing with, “unlike pornography…”) . And many women — even women who read romances — enjoy porn. Gasp! Even artificial and overproduced (?) porn.
And then, this…
It may seem like something small and pathetic, but for some women, romance novels are a way for them to express their sexual agency and learn about their own desires and fantasies.
“Small and pathetic”. Abinante has captured my self-image perfectly! Sign me up for that Twibe!
Second, “There’s a little something for everybody.”
Phew. This is fine, and true.
Abinante name checks Discreet Young Gentleman, and I must say the entire post is worth it for a look at this restrained cover. Who knew Wolverine was so into Gambit?
Finally,
1. “Sometimes you just need to let go.”
Again, so far so good. Many of the recent major press articles about romance novels refer to the escapist element to explain the genre’s growth in the midst of a recession.
But then, the fine print bites us in the ass again…
Despite their trashy and salacious content, romance novels can be enjoyable reads
Stop. Refer to Abinante’s post’s title. Vaguely recall something from your undergrad logic class about P and not P. Scratch head.
Moving right along…
You can relax, let go, and allow the overly formulaic plot to take over you.
Read that sentence again. Have you ever been subjected to a sentence like that in a romance novel? I rest my case.
In closing, I realize that my view is not shared by everyone who has read Abinante’s “endorsement”:
“This is a great article about the genre. I’ve always said that today’s erotic romance is so post-feminist – emotional erotic content written by women for women. BTW, I’m the editorial director of raveneousromance.com, one of these erotic romance epresses.”
I’ll leave you to decide whether Abinante speaks for you.
Related posts:
- Interview With A Croatian Feminist, Anarchist, Speculative Fiction Writer, and Avid Genre Fiction Reader Milena Benini, a regular reader of this blog, won my last contest. When I realized I had to send her...
- What is Romance Really All About? [Tumperkin's first post at RRR, and RRR's first guest post ever!] I’ve always believed there is more to romance than...
- Menstrual Cycles in Romance Writing and Reading Yes, I am going there. Mainly as an excuse to post one of my favorite scenes from one of my...
- If Romance Novels are Neither High Culture nor Pop Culture, What the Hell Are They? In which the dismissal of romance gets personal. After the Popular Culture Association meeting in April, I approached editors for...
- Review: Bad Brad, by Cheryl Dragon and Eight Nights, by Keira Andrews *Note: This review contains material not suitable for minors. Bad Brad, Cheryl Dragon This 2007 erotic m/m short from Loose-Id...
- Nathan Kamp: He’s Got Us Covered. And We’re Suffocating. Look at the front cover of the romance you are reading right now. Did you know that there is a...
#1 by limecello on May 6, 2009 - 5:15 pm
… *blinkblinkblinkblink*
#2 by Aoife on May 6, 2009 - 5:25 pm
Well, she doesn’t speak for me, which is a relief, since with sentence construction like that, I’d rather do my own talking and/or writing. Pretty much everything she says gives the lie to the title of her article: she seems to think that romances really are trashy. At least, she presents little evidence that she thinks they aren’t.
And, how interesting is it that all the early commenters seem to have moved, en masse, over from the recent kerfuffle on RtB?
#3 by Marianne McA on May 6, 2009 - 5:58 pm
Tries to be Smart Bitches, fails to be Smart Bitches.
#4 by BevBB on May 6, 2009 - 6:13 pm
Hmm, I’ve seen that cover before. Actually, I’ve seen that picture before and I don’t believe it was attached to that title. I shall have to think on this.
Oh, and I must’ve truly been busier than I thought lately because I have no idea what kerfuffle ya’ll are talking about. And I get the RtB feed. (blinking)
Anyway, I’m not even sure I want to dignify any of that with a response except for the description:
“privately owned, independent, global women’s lifestyle network”
Do they know how many of those have popped up in the last decade or so in various forms? More or less. They should check out Jane’s “history” post over on DA.
#5 by kaigou on May 6, 2009 - 6:24 pm
“For one thing, “experiencing sex acts”, involves, um, actually having sex. It’s a slightly different activity from reading, at least the way I do it.”
OMG. *dies laughing* You owe me a keyboard, woman!
As for the rest: wow, you could use the entire post as a guide in Creative Writing 101 for How To Damn With Very Faint Praise. Jeebers, people. Are you sure this isn’t a parody?
#6 by Ann Somerville on May 6, 2009 - 6:25 pm
“Women need more than just a man to complete their lives — they need to find comfort knowing they are complete within themselves. A hot man just adds extra spice to the dish! ”
Odd then that the novel I was invited to read by the author of that remark, had as its plot the distinctly unmodern idea that a woman who lived according to her own rules and desires, had to put them aside, dress up in expensive lingerie and have her hair cut tastefully, before she could be allowed to have her man of the man’s choosing. For not only was she not allowed to dress how she liked, she was not allowed to decide which of two handsome men she preferred. No, that was sorted out by the masterful creature who just knew he was the right one for her.
Just the kind of story line which sent me screaming away from het romances in my twenties.
As for ‘Discreet Young Gentlemen’, interesting the poster chose from a genre of m/m whose appeal is based on mimicking as many of the least progressive tropes of het romance under the guise of being so edgy cos it’s about them gay people.
I don’t like it when people pretend that Romance isn’t trashy – there’s a lot of trash, and bad writing, and stereotypes etc, just as there is in any genre and anyone who reads it exclusively and uncritically is as brainless as Romance readers are considered to be. But you’re right – this is bashing dressed up as praise. Ironic the RR commenters don’t notice.
#7 by Ann Somerville on May 6, 2009 - 6:32 pm
@ BevBB:
That cover is original artwork for that novel. The author wasn’t pleased with the ‘I has elephantitis of the cock’ style.
#8 by Jessica on May 6, 2009 - 6:56 pm
Ann Somerville wrote:
That doesn’t surprise me in the least. I should clarify that while I think that’s one of the worst covers I’ve seen, I have no comment on the quality of the book. In fact, that’s my point.
Ann Somerville wrote:
I agree with you. But I felt the post did not strike this middle ground.
BevBB wrote:
Well, it was probably a misjudgement on my part to include that last bit, because my objections to the Bitchbuzz post have nothing to do with any other kerfuffle at RtB or any place else. But I couldn’t help it. I just couldn’t.
#9 by Kaetrin on May 6, 2009 - 7:02 pm
Oh puleeze. I am a smart, professional woman. I love reading romance novels. They are my entertainment of choice. My husband, on the other hand, likes World of Warcraft on the computer. There are good books in each genre as well as bad, just like in computer games, movies, tv shows and you, know, EVERYTHING!!.
I do not apologise for reading romance novels and I don’t need anyone to “defend” me that way.
grrrr
Pingback: Twitted by jane_l
#10 by BevBB on May 6, 2009 - 7:31 pm
Ann Somerville wrote:
Then I must’ve seen the book somewhere and I have no absolutely idea where. One would think that would stick in the memory.
Wonder how recent the copyright is on it.
#11 by Ann Somerville on May 6, 2009 - 7:37 pm
@ BevBB:
2006
http://www.amazon.com/Discreet-Young-Gentleman-M-Pearson/dp/0971708959/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241656505&sr=8-1
I don’t care for the genre or the writer’s style but like Erastes’ Standish, it has popularity/notoriety in excess of its quality. If you want good m/m, this ain’t it, IMO, but historical m/m is gaining popularity through the relentless whoring of the aforesaid Erastes and her friends.
#12 by Sarah Frantz on May 6, 2009 - 8:23 pm
I haven’t read your post yet, because…GAH! “It may seem like something small and pathetic, but for some women, romance novels are a way for them to express their sexual agency and learn about their own desires and fantasies.” You have to be fucking kidding me!!! This is a “feminist” site? Good God.
Anyway, slightly more calm and I think you say it all. Thank you! Or not. Or something.
#13 by azteclady on May 6, 2009 - 8:24 pm
I’m laughing too hard to be coherent.
#14 by Margie on May 6, 2009 - 8:39 pm
It’s interesting that someone from ravenous romance endorsed this very negative romance novel bashing. It gives a lot of support for Jane’s assertion on Dear Author that ravenous romance should NOT be the voice of the “modern” romance that they are trying so desperately to become. It’s just so obvious that these people have absolutely no real knowledge of what they are talking about. Better book cover??!! WTF?
#15 by BevBB on May 6, 2009 - 8:46 pm
@ Ann Somerville:
2006, huh? Well, then since I’m sure I saw it more recently than that, I suspect it was on Bam’s site when she was doing her cover riffs/spoofs. Those were hilarious and that one certainly deserves one. I doubt she would’ve been able to resist the Wolverine temptation either.
Jessica wrote:
Heh, don’t worry about it, because it only took a quick glance at the feed for me to “calculate” the probabilities on which recent post would most likely generate a controversy. Hey, I did say, I’ve been doing this for a looonngg time. I just wasn’t paying enough attention when it went through or my internal alerts would’ve gone off on the title to begin with.
OTOH, real academics invested in the genre do add an interesting new dimension to the various brouhahas nowadays. Not so much that they automatically shorten the wars, but I love the way word lengths tend to noticeably increaase when they get their dander up.
Yeah, I know. I’m weird. But considering what we’re talking about here, one has to have a sense of humor about it or it raises the blood pressure. It’s just too whacky otherwise – unless it’s all a con of some type.
#16 by Margie on May 6, 2009 - 9:19 pm
Oops, I totally missed the whole argument/kerfuffle on RtB. I did not realize I was a bit late to the party at this point.
Thanks, Jessica, for making me laugh so hard. At least I got some enjoyment out of reading your responses to the article; it wasn’t a complete waste.
#17 by Ann Somerville on May 6, 2009 - 9:31 pm
@ BevBB:
The Smart Bitches snarked Discreet Young Gentlemen’s cover here:
http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/comments/those_fish_are_in_the_barrel_again/
“Not to mention they’re usually very affordable, written by and for women, and are often published by women as well.”
Which means you’re not a FEMINIST if you don’t buy Romance, or you happen to think RR is not the be all and end all of romance publishing. Shame on you, sistahs!
#18 by Nicola O. on May 6, 2009 - 11:05 pm
Let’s see, poor writing, logical failures, sophomoric rhetoric, backhanded insults, front-handed insults, to romance readers and women in general… conclusion: I give it five out of five eye-rolls.
Though I give it a certain value for the snark fodder, of which you took masterful advantage, Jessica.
#19 by Nicola O. on May 6, 2009 - 11:06 pm
ps, what do you want to bet she has a HUGE pile of categories hidden in her closet, literally and figuratively? She sounds like someone dying to admit that she LOVES romance but is afraid of being mocked for it.
#20 by Marianne McA on May 7, 2009 - 4:58 am
Just to clarify my comment at #3 – I had intended to say that the blog you linked to struck me as trying for a Smart Bitchesque tone (the use of the word ‘Bitch’ in the title, calling romance novels ‘Trashy’, the idea that romance covers are snarkworthy). And I felt that it had failed to achieve that aim.
Sorry I wasn’t clearer: I’m going to blame it on the fact that it was late when I posted.
#21 by Sherry Thomas on May 7, 2009 - 7:45 am
Ack! Somebody please go tell them that RR isn’t exactly a conveyor of romance.
#22 by BevBB on May 7, 2009 - 8:39 am
Ann Somerville wrote:
It’s possible I saw it at SBTB, but I still tend to think it was at BAM’s. The impression I have in my head “sounds” more like one of her book blurbs than one of their snarks. If that makes any sense.
I as going to ask for the Ravenous Romance link because I didn’t see it in the RtB article then realized it was in her sig – odd. All those chances to put it in there and not use them? Definitely amatuers no matter what they say.
Although there are certain aspects to the whole thing that bother me. I’ll comment about that a little later after I get my thought together.
#23 by Victoria Janssen on May 7, 2009 - 8:40 am
“The writing is not actually that bad.” Why, thanks, Liz Abinante!
I feel so empowered now.
#24 by azteclady on May 7, 2009 - 9:32 am
See, if she had said, “Not all the writing is bad” or “There are some very well written romance novels”, I would have less to seethe about, because both are true.
As the Smart Bitches say in BHB, there is writing in romance novels that will uncurl one’s hair, but there are also wonderfully written books, as good or better than pretty much anything else. So this tepid (damning with faint praise indeed!) “not that bad” just irks me.
#25 by BevBB on May 7, 2009 - 10:05 am
Okay, thought about it some more. Here’s some observation in general about that BitchBuzz site after using the search feature there:
1) the article quoted seems pretty typical of the tone on the site when one searches for “romance novel”
2) from everything I can see about the author of it from her bio on credits page and a search for her other articles, she never claims to even like much less have actually read romances any more than the rest of them do – except as “guilty little pleasures” that they just want to giggle about and point to when they think it’s needed on the site
They are not claiming to be romance readers or fans by any stretch of the imagination.
Unless, of course, it helps with an article.
Not sure what more we can expect there in that case. (rolling eyes)
#26 by Sela Carsen on May 7, 2009 - 10:21 am
BevBB wrote:
I think that’s what puzzles me most. Why would you bother writing an article about it if you KNOW you’re clueless? So, it’s ignorant, pointless and insulting. Quite the trifecta, there.
#27 by Jessica on May 7, 2009 - 10:31 am
Bev,
It does seem like an attempt to get some traffic by piggybacking on the recent major media stories aboiut romance and the recession. But who knows.
#28 by BevBB on May 7, 2009 - 10:47 am
Sela Carsen wrote:
When has not knowing what one is talking about ever stopped anyone from giving an opinion on it? Or from telling someone else what they should be reading or thinking?
Hmmm?
Particularly when those someone already see themselves as enlightened to begin with.
Plus, are you quite sure they know they’re clueless?
#29 by BevBB on May 7, 2009 - 10:55 am
Jessica wrote:
Oh, I think you can be quite sure about that part. Website subsist on search engine traffic nowadays and they build that traffic by imbedding keywords that pop up on said engines. So, just out of curiosity, how did you even find that article on a not-so-romance-friendly site?
See where I’m going?
#30 by Jessica on May 7, 2009 - 11:27 am
Oh, I have a very clear answer to that. I was working on a post about sexual fantasy in romance. I was actually trying to track down a paper I had stumbled across several days before, that was presented at the American Sociological Association in 2006:
Wu, Huei-Hsia. “Romance Novels and Female Sexuality: Vicarious Participation?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Aug 10, 2006 . 2009-03-05
It turns out that the Bitch Buzz comes up a few entries before Wu’s paper.
#31 by BevBB on May 7, 2009 - 12:05 pm
Yep, that’s about what I thought. In reality, though, just how much do the two things have in common? Or maybe a better way of asking that would be, how valid a source would the BitchBuzz article be for the topic? Or pretty much any topic related to romances?
The truly regrettable thing is that you’d have to be “one of us” to know that, though. Therein lies the problem with respect to both what they’re playing on and counting on. It’s done all the time and certainly not truly a bad thing. At worst it’s simply about being uninformed. It’s certainly no different than what newspaper, magazine and journals have been doing for centuries in many ways.
There is one major difference, though. Before those institutions couldn’t link to the articles in ways that we could find them instantly, so, conversely, they also couldn’t hook someone into picking them up and reading them by using keywords under false pretenses instantly either. Thereby making money off advertisements through webhits.
So, again I ask the question, just how clueless are they?