The weekly links, opinions and personal updates post. Now with 25% more opinions.
1. Links of interest
Why Girly Jobs Don’t Pay Well, from the New York Times
A Kinder Gentler Vampire, from Smart Pop Books, which offers free essays daily from their books on pop culture. In this essay, author Vera Mazarian contends that True Blood’s Bill Compton breaks the following mold:
Because, face it,” they concluded, “He’s one of a kind, a noble, nice-guy vampire, with a Scary Dangerous Façade. But underneath, he’s controlling himself—unlike all those other amoral crazy vamps. Okay, maybe he’s a bit on edge. Maybe his psycho brakes need new pads and drums and rotors. But—just look at all that sexy willpower!
“Furthermore, he loves—truly, madly, deeply. But his love is always problematic. Even when our heroine is willing (as a rule, the leading lady fantasizes about jumping his undead bones even while putting up her own Scary Dangerous Façade), he absolutely must deny himself any pleasure. Because what better way to torture a hero than to introduce sexual repression, or even insist on abstinence?”
From Teleread, would you like a vintage book cover for your ereader?
I have been very remiss in failing to link to the excellent series of posts on Georgette Heyer over at Austenprose which is running all month long with reviews, discussions, the works. Check out Why We Love To Read and Re-Read Georgette Heyer: A birthday Tribute.
I have also been remiss in not notifying any of you who haven’t heard that the first issue of the Journal of Popular Romance Studies is out. Laura Vivanco at Teach Me Tonight has links and other info. One neat thing is that you can read all the articles for free online as well as comment. I serve as a peer reviewer and write book reviews for the JPRS, and hope very much to submit an essay to before the year is out.
This Wilson Quarterly article has been making the rounds in my circles: America: Land of Loners?:
Americans, plugged in and on the move, are confiding in their pets, their computers, and their spouses. What they need is to rediscover the value of friendship.
Friendship has also suffered from the remorseless eroticization of human relations that was bequeathed to us by Sigmund Freud. The culture stands particularly ready to sexualize men’s friendships since the gay liberation movement mercifully swept away taboos against discussing same-sex relationships. In 2005 The New York Times laid claim to coining the term “man date” in a story—under a woman’s byline—about the anxiety two straight men supposedly experience if they brave a restaurant or museum together and run the risk that people will think they are gay. The “bromance” theme, once strictly a collegiate sport among scholars scouring the letters of passionate 19th-century friends for signs of physical intimacy, has since made its way into popular culture. The pathetic state of male friendship—and the general suspicion that men who seek close friends might be looking for something more—was captured in last year’s film I Love You, Man, in which a guy decides to get married, realizes he has no one to be his best man, and must embark on a series of “man dates” to find one.
I must be the last person in the world to hear about the Smart Chicks Kick It tour, consisting of 18 YA writers whose books feature strong capable heroines, including Melissa Marr, in September, starting in Texas and ending in Ontario (from Arts and Letters Daily). I had a long talk with my friend this weekend, who is a national expert on literacy, especially adolescent literacy, and we kept having this disconnect, where I would say “YA/girls/romance/genre/UF/SFF” and she would be talking about books I had never heard of, many with male protagonists. Clearly we were coming from two very different places. She has promised me that I can interview her for a post, so that’s forthcoming.
Lurv a La Mode is asking Where Do You stand on Rape in Fantasy and UF?
Sandy’s All About Romance column, Speaking of Audiobooks, is excellent. Check out Romance Audio Bests By Author. I am currently listening to — and loving — Jo Beverley’s The Dragon’s Bride, narrated by Simon Preble, who has the virtue of not trying to mimic female voices.
My Experiences with Disability in the Kink Community, at FWD (Feminists with Disabilities). Did you know that some people think the leather community is not as accommodating of chemical sensitivities as it could be? Or that the post author would actually have to warn commenters that this is not the place to talk about how kinky it is to have sex with people who are disabled? I didn’t until I read this post.
At Critical Mass, word of a review of a book I want to read: Bring on the Books for Everybody: how literary culture became popular culture, by Jim Collins, a professor of film and tv at Notre Dame. Here’s part of the blurb:
Bring on the Books for Everybody is an engaging assessment of the robust popular literary culture that has developed in the United States during the past two decades. Jim Collins describes how a once solitary and print-based experience has become an exuberantly social activity, enjoyed as much on the screen as on the page. Fueled by Oprah’s book club, Miramax film adaptations, superstore bookshops, and new technologies such as the Kindle digital reader, literary fiction has been transformed into bestselling, high-concept entertainment. Collins highlights the infrastructural and cultural changes that have given rise to a flourishing reading public at a time when the future of the book has been called into question. Book reading, he claims, has not become obsolete; it has become integrated into popular visual media.
The Washington Post on how writers today use transparent pesudonyms. (h/t Literary Saloon)
2. Opinions
a) Like anyone with a book blog, I get offers of free books. I usually delete these emails without comment. But the one I got today was so clueless, I had to share.
Clearly not realizing that everyone else just offers you the damn book, she writes:
I have a challenge for you. It involves writing, reading, and communicating. If you rock it you get a free book. The challenge? Check out my website. Subscribe to my blog. Email me.
You get a free book, my novel.
And how does she entice me? By telling me “you’re my friend, obviously” (I have never heard of this person), and then informing me that “this novel is not available anywhere but my hard drive”.
SOLD!!!
b) A review at All About Romance really annoyed me recently. It was a C+ review of Victoria Dahl’s historical A Little Bit Wild. Apparently the heroine likes physical pleasure. The reviewer is having none of this:
Being unapologetically lusty is bizarre enough
and
Double standard or not, I didn’t like it when she reveals she has dallied with more than a few men for no particular reason – luckily this eventually comes back to bite her in the butt.
I’m tempted to say those comments had no business being in the review, because they have little to do with the text. When I read an AAR review, because it is more of a professional website, I expect to read about the book, not the reviewer’s personal sexual ethics. On the other hand, maybe it’s just down to my distaste for the reviewer’s opinion.
c) The Linda Howard thing. After a spate of bad reviews. Linda Howard went on Facebook to say that she has been ill and that her books have suffered. I first learned of this through this discussion at Book Lovers Message Board, and then Jane at Dear Author posted about it.
Three things: (1) it is awful when anybody is sick, (2) but Howard’s claim that she is not talking about her health troubles to deflect criticism strikes me as disingenuous, and (3) the point of a review is to review books, not authors. Imagine how reviews would look if we had to take all these causal connections into account (not something Howard is suggesting we do, I realize)? “Sally Smith’s latest book really shows the effects of the fantastic sex she has been having with her new husband! Those sex scenes are hot!” or “Well, I met that author at RWA, and she’s a real asshat, so I am not surprised her heroine is a bitch.”
d) A comment in the DA thread by Devon annoyed me:
For what it’s worth, menopause can also do a number on creativity and writing style. Maybe that would explain–in part–why many of the older writers we used to love have dried up creatively?
Yeah, they shoot horses, don’t they?
On the blog this week
A guest post on Twitter dos and don’ts for authors and others (maybe I should have called this “Rant Week!!”)
Tuesday, the Dracula post, which promises to be long and unwieldy.
Then… who knows.
HAPPY WEEK!
A guest post on Twitter’s do’s and don’ts – well, that post should be interesting! I’ve been on Twitter for ugh I think 2 years and enjoy it for the most part. I haven’t had any issues with authors or other readers for that matter.
As for the Linda Howard thing, I felt the same. I wouldn’t have disclosed the health issues as it sounds like what it is: an excuse for her bad writing to deflect those bad reviews. I wish her well health-wise but I wish she wouldn’t have went there. Seriously.
I was surprised by the DA readers’ comments that tended to sympathize with Ms. Howard as this is very uncharacteristic of them – maybe they are stiil have a beating heart?!?!
But I agree with you that a review is focused on the book, not the author. I wish the best to Ms. Howard as she copes with her health issues.
And then there was the menopause comment – probably made by a young reader who has no idea what to expect in “old age.” I am firmly in middle age but do not feel my life is over yet. I have a few creative cells left in me.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kenda Montgomery, ReadReactReview.com. ReadReactReview.com said: Read it: Monday Morning Stepback: Hasty, rambling and ill advised edition. http://bit.ly/dhelbV [...]
Wow, I sound unsympathetic to Linda Howard but I’m not. Many writers I’ve enjoyed seem to be going through real life things that affect their creativity, too and yes, I’ve noticed a change so it’s understandable but like you said, it’s just disingenuous to not link the two together. I think it’s time for me to stay off the internet for awhile.
I was about to bloviate about the menopause crack, then I read Romance Reader’s mature and measured response. What she said. Anne Stuart claims she’s enjoying a post-menopause creative surge. Judging by her new historical, Ruthless, I’d agree.
Thank you for the link to Speaking of Audiobooks. I’m not a big AAR fan, but that column looks appealing. I’m enjoying listening to favorite romances on audio–and discovering a few new authors along the way.
As for the Linda Howard thing, it’s understandable to want to defend yourself. Especially when you know there’s a reason your work has sucked lately. But admitting it sucks and linking it to illness in a public way can come across as asking for special treatment. The work stands on its own–good or bad–regardless of what’s going on in an author’s personal life.
I don’t think Linda had to explain to anyone why some readers think her last few books haven’t been winner in their eyes.
I wonder if the hero had found such wonderful pleasures in the bedroom in Dahl’s book would the reviewers be upset about it? How I wish more heroines in books were open how much they enjoy sex and make no qualms about it.
I’m looking forward to your long and unwieldy Dracula post. Hopefully it’ll inspire me to dust it off for an autumn outing.
I didn’t take offense at the menopause comment, mostly because I have indeed noticed that a number of authors I used to love don’t write the books I enjoy any more. Whether or not menopause had anything to do with it, I can’t say, but I don’t think anybody would debate that life experiences, including health related issues, do shape writing output.
The author who comes immediately to mind for me is Mary Balogh who said somewhere that the type of earlier, angstier, darker books I love just aren’t in her any more. I’ve also noticed a trend to pontificating and prudery in the last few books.
Menopause may not have had anything to do with the shift in focus, but life experiences, age and where writers are in their lives, seem to have.
I read the reaction to Linda Howard’s news with some cynicism, considering the vicious mocking I’ve received on certain blogs for talking about being a depression sufferer (which I don’t use, by the way, to excuse or explain anything about my books.) Looks like charity and understanding in the Romance community towards chronic illness is very much on a case by case basis.
That AAR review is vile. I really despair of my sisters when I see garbage like that being spouted. In m/m at least, being sexually experienced is never a minus for a character.
“this novel is not available anywhere but my hard drive”
Gosh, Jessica, how did you resist that offer?
About the AAR review, heh, I give higher points if the heroine is sexually liberated and unabashedly lives her sexuality. Bonus points go to those who work in the sex trade industry and make no excuses, but really enjoy what they do. Even more bonus points for those who aren’t doing it for some reason to make it acceptable like getting through college, or supporting a baby as a single mom, or has been abused in the past.
At first I was inclined to give the AAR review some benefit of the doubt. In a historical heroine, unapologetic pre-marital lustiness is rather anachronistic (if not “bizarre”) and a heroine who never considers the consequences of her sexual behavior–although bizarrely common in Regencies–could be seen as TSTL. But the more I read, the more it seemed like a moral judgement not based in the text. I think it can be hard, though, to separate one’s personal views from an evaluation from the text–heck, I know it is hard, because so many of my students cannot do it. And it does affect the reader’s enjoyment/response, which is part of a review.
The “girly” (ugh, glad commenters called them on that) job link was interesting. I teach at a community college whose student body is 65% female, with lots of “girly” programs (health, social services). A big chunk of our uni transfer students want to be elementary teachers. For a lot of our students–many working-class and immigrant young women–those traditionally female careers represent a secure toe-hold in the middle class. They don’t necessarily have the resources to consider 4 years of uni + med school instead of a 4-year nursing degree. There was kind of a tone to the column and comments that anyone could just opt for a high-paying field like engineering, that all options are open, that strikes me as elitist. And no, “anyone” cannot be a kindergarten teacher, for sure not a good one.
I liked this Rakehell review of the new Dahl: it was much more reflective of the book I read — and enjoyed. http://rakehell.com/article.php?id=1500&Title=A-Little-Bit-Wild So I’ve been thinking: was Lydia Bennett lusty and curious? When Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice, wouldn’t that have been the equivalent of a contemporary?
I thought the heroine’s soul-searching and journey to maturity was fascinating. I certainly didn’t think she was TSTL … curious, careless, captivated by manly beauty, but no, not TSTL. Not in my estimation.
popping in from my internets sabattical-
artists change. They grow, they dry, life happens. The book is the book, but life changes your voice. Every time your chair gets moved the smallest fraction, your perception changes with it. Every word for her might have been sheer hell-apart from being the sheer hell of writing the damned book in the first place, but she’s a professional and it had to get done. So it got done no matter HOW horrible her health was.
Was it Monet that took his paintings off client’s walls to fix them? To the point where one person chained the painting to the wall so he would stop? Writers don’t get that. It’s like reviewing a racehorse. We get one crack at it, damn life and what is going on, and we get judged on it. Yes, the book is the book, and she did the best she could. But at least painters have periods. Picasso and his grey period. Hopefully Howard is allowed to grow into a rose period gracefully. She’s an amazing woman, totally professional and I can totally see her separating the two and why she did it.
If I get all whacky writing during menopause, I hope I do it like Pam Rosenthal.
I am lovin’ your ’25% more opinions,’ lol.
I found the AAR review hilarious; it’s just too bad the author didn’t actually mean it to be side-splittingly funny. Honestly, had it not been published at AAR (undoubtedly the most mainstream and prominent romance site where I’ve regularly seen this kind of horrified pearl-clutching over female sexuality), I would have been tempted to call Poe’s Law.
I am loving the 25% more opinions! Your Monday morning stepback is a great/essential start to my week. Re the Linda Howard and DA comments thread I thought a lot of the comments were people with chronic illness saying how it had affected them. I also really agree with incognito’s well said comment above; our voices change as our experiences change. I also have to agree with Ann – depression is disciminated against in the scheme of chonic illnesses, again because of judgements about what we can and can’t control about ourselves and our lives which in very round about way takes me to the Dahl AAR review and the notion of the right to exercise control over another woman’s sexuality and it’s expression that seems to be implied in the reviewer’s comments. There seems to be a real presence of the desire to control others sometimes in romancelandia that just freaks me out – not this blog of course.
To romance reader – as a regular DA reader and commenter I have taken offence at your comment. Over the years of reading DA I have found the threads to be strong and supportive, actually pretty non-judgemental and maybe what disturbs you is they call a spade a spade.
Actually, there’s plenty of the other kind around. If you’re not the target of the bad stuff, or know someone who is, then you can ignore it. But there are plenty of commenters there who feel perfectly free to judge other people’s choices, and who make Glenn Beck look left-wing. I’d hesitate to call it ‘supportive’ unless you are in the right crowd – or the inner circle. It’s not as bad as some blogs, but it’s not what I would call a nice or charitable place.
There are a lot of medications that affect your brain and can therefore affect your cognition, and since depression also has an effect on the brain’s chemistry it’s not surprising that skills like writing are affected by them. And everyone reacts differently, so one person’s experience isn’t necessarily “typical” in terms of predicted side effects. I had severely impaired cognitive skills after a long course of medical treatment, and my doctor pointed out that while most people regain 95% of their pre-treatment abilities in a year, I really needed that extra 5% in my profession, and that took a lot longer to come back. It’s the same for authors. In my experience doctors tend not to lay out all the side effects of treatment, because they have enough trouble getting patients to complete the regimen, and the mental stuff often gets neglected unless you directly ask about it.
And, of course, most people are also experiencing regular daily life at the same time, so it’s hard to disentangle the effects of context, aging, etc. Voices indeed change as interests, experiences, and desires change. Unless you’re Barbara Cartland, of course.
Victoria Dahl’s books don’t really work for me, but I found that review infuriating. I wonder if the reviewer even understood the message she was sending.
@Keishon: I thought your first post sounded sympathetic, and obviously, I agree with you.
@Miranda Neville: I’ve got Ruthless on my amazon wishlist. A lot of women find aging very freeing of creativity.
@Amber: Agreed.
@katiebabs: Of course it would be different, The reviewer herself doesn’t seem bothered by double standards.
@Kate: Keep your expectations low and you’ll LOVE it!
@GrowlyCub: I am not denying the point that life experiences can affect writing. I objected to what I felt was a blanket sentiment that menopause has deleterious effects on a woman’s creativity. Maybe for some it does, but I’d rather not make assumptions that dovetail so nicely with the culture’s view that a woman is only valuable to the extent she can breed.
@Ann Somerville:
I am pretty sure she left out the words “now or ever” after the “anywhere” and before the “but”
We can’t make claims about “readers’ attitudes towards authors”. It depends on the reader and the author, as you know from personal experience.
@Janet W: That Rakehell review is much better. Thanks for the link.
@incognito
:
My point exactly.
@Vi: Yeah the opinions seem to be popular.
@Marie-Thérèse: wish I had thought of “pearl -clutching”
@Merrian: Thanks for tying everything together like that!
@Sunita:
LOL!!
Thanks for sharing, Sunita.
I had to think a lot about my comments on Howard. I have a tendency to be able to argue myself out of any position I hold. But one position I never held was that someone who writes a bad book when they are ill or suffering in some way is to be blamed. If anything, when someone is under contract to get the book done they should be praised.
And of course, especially in this genre, readers and authors feel close. So I can understand an author wanting to share what she’s been going through. And when you are a NYT best selling author, you can’t exactly write 100,00 separate emails, so FB has to do.
The issue I had was with revealing the health problems right after the bad reviews showed up. To me, as I said in the post, it felt disingenuous, whether it in fact was or not.