Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Like a book club, except with more sex! ([info]notjo) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2005-10-13 17:52:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Brash

You know why I love the internet? Because the internet is full of niches. I'm all about the niches. and the pr0n

Over on Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Novels (All of the Romance, None of the Bullshit), Candy writes about a growing "dicussion" about peer review and reviewers in the Romance Novel Genre.

It seems that Brenda Coulter thinks that Romance writers are "very sensitive" and shouldn't be critised as harshly as other people. See, they can't take it, they're too sensitive. She keeps quoting Terry Teachout, who says that we need to remember that we're critical of real flesh and blood people, and that they can be hurt.

(He also goes on to say that critics probably should have some experience in the areas they're critisizing, so they know just how hard it is to get a play off the ground. I'll just leave that for the Jurisimprudence people to think on.)

As Brenda puts it: "If you haven't tried writing a romance novel, you can have absolutely no concept of how difficult it is to write even a bad one."

Karen of no-url-or-email tells her that her view is incredibly short sighted, because it means that reviews by readers aren't as valid as reviews by writers. Brenda doesn't like this, and tells her that she's missing the point.

Then, Candy (of the Trashy Bitches) comes along and points out that she's a writer of technical manuals, and she has to put up with this shit, too, and just take it like a woman and grow up.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Romance Novel blogosphere, Booksquare wakes up in a crabby mood, reads this "delicate flower", and decides to hurt her feelings while talking about herself in the first person plural.

Best line:
We do not agree that women need to play nice due to some misguided sense of sisterhood (for the zillionth time, we will note the viciousness that only sisters can exhibit; brothers simply don’t have the inner strength to go that low).

Of course, Brenda comes along and makes comments.

Somewhere else in the limited Blogosphere, the way there thinks that if Romances were held up to any sort of review or standard whatsoever, they wouldn't be the trashy tripe everyone enjoys to read.

If we had critical peer reviews back in the day, would 95% of romance writer’s feelings have been too hurt to write the shit y’all know and love best?

I'll leave it to you to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

My thought? We definately shouldn't let these people anywhere near Pottersues.



(Post a new comment)


[info]the_wanlorn
2005-10-13 05:36 pm UTC (link)
"If you haven't tried writing a romance novel, you can have absolutely no concept of how difficult it is to write even a bad one."

Tell that to the writers on FFN.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]grand_sealink
2005-10-13 08:49 pm UTC (link)
*ahem* Ebert's Law.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kadath
2005-10-13 05:59 pm UTC (link)
That's a lovely icon you're wearing.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]notjo
2005-10-13 06:01 pm UTC (link)
Right back atcha, babe. :)

Favoritest icon evar.

(this week)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]doomsday
2005-10-13 08:34 pm UTC (link)
Seconded. That icon is a thing of great wisdom and beauty.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ashenmote
2005-10-13 08:04 pm UTC (link)
Bah! Everyone who doesn't _live_ a bad romance novel needs to shut up.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]white_serpent
2005-10-13 09:51 pm UTC (link)
Well, they do say you should write what you know. :/

Odd how few novels describe the sheer boredom of commuting everyday to work, working, driving home, fixing dinner, and continuing in this exciting pattern until retirement...

Hmm...

I'm sure the delicate flowers have some reason why that argument's irrelevant, but no one's still allowed to criticize their writing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]tangentialone
2005-10-13 09:14 pm UTC (link)
OOooooo, thanks for the link! Very cool site.

(Reply to this)


[info]platedlizard
2005-10-13 10:34 pm UTC (link)
I'm tempted to send the link to Mrs. Giggles to she what she thinks. Actually, I know what she would think, and it would be the Singaporian equivilant of Bitch, Please.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]kannaophelia
2005-10-14 12:19 am UTC (link)
Hee, yes. My first thought on seeing this is "Where is Mrs Giggles?" It's not a romance fandom bitchfest without people accusing her of shattering dreams. If she can make it to [info]hated_character accused of being mean about Battle Royale characters, she should make it here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]platedlizard
2005-10-14 12:39 am UTC (link)
It's funny, I don't read Romance, but I am addicted to her reviews. The lower the rating, the snarkier she gets. She should be an honorary Fandom Wanker, or something.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kannaophelia
2005-10-14 12:43 am UTC (link)
Mrs Giggles should be a fandom all by herself. My favourite review ever was the one where she wrote that she wished her paper shredder had sound effects so that she could hear the tortured screams of the book as she fed it through.

It's a pity she doesn't seem to have reviewed the sensitive Brenda, but then she doesn't seem to review "inspirational" romance. Whcih begs the question: are the writers of down-and-dirty porny romance as sensitive as those who write inspirational religious romances, or is it okay to risk bruising their feelings?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]notjo
2005-10-14 12:52 am UTC (link)
My favourite review ever was the one where she wrote that she wished her paper shredder had sound effects so that she could hear the tortured screams of the book as she fed it through.

Oh, oh, I am in love.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]platedlizard
2005-10-14 01:02 am UTC (link)
It seems that Mrs. Giggles buys books that she thinks she might like, and I don't think that she likes inspirationals even if they are well writen, so she avoids them, mostly. Although she did review that book by The Master of Light(tm) Whats-his-name (or actually his ghostwriter). Not that I think he cares.

I rather suspect that the 'Romantica' writers have tougher skin then the inspirational writers, simply because there are going to be people who hate their work just because it's porn. On the other hand, I figure anyone publishing their work for all the world to see (whether they are selling a book, or free on teh internets) is open to any form of criticism about said work. And personally I think that goes double for anything that you have to pay to get. What if you bought a book that had nothing but good reviews, and it turned out to be a real stinker? Wouldn't you* have wanted someone to warn to you not waste your money?

I figure, if the author doesn't want to read a review, they shouldn't read reviews posted to review sites. After all, no one is forcing said author at gun point to read all their reviews.

*fhew* that came out a bit wankier then I wanted.

*rhetorical you

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]iczer6
2005-10-14 06:02 am UTC (link)
You're kidding right?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kannaophelia
2005-10-14 06:24 am UTC (link)
Absolutely not. Someone took passionate offence to Mrs Giggles suggesting that Shuya and Noriko are wastes of carbon who would end up being flattened by a bus soon after they escaped the island anyway, and reported her to [info]hated_character.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]iczer6
2005-10-14 06:33 am UTC (link)
Do you have a link to the post? This I have to see.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kannaophelia
2005-10-14 11:26 am UTC (link)
'fraid not, and it was a long while back. It just stuck in my memory because, well, someone reported Mrs Giggles.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]charmian
2005-10-13 10:43 pm UTC (link)
Somewhere on one of the posts it says that this one review site gave all of a publisher's books a five. If that is true, why do people bother to look at review sites in the first place? These kinds of 1-5 star reviews are not for the writers. They are for the readers.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]issendai
2005-10-14 03:40 pm UTC (link)
Nonono, ALL feedback is for the writer. ALL OF IT. Readers are completely secondary to the process. The writer wrote the book for herself, and the circumstance that some publisher thought it was good enough to make copies of and pass around is completely not the point.

Why are you privileging the reader above the author, anyway? You're one of those modern lit-crit folks, the ones who like to analyze the work without keeping the author's complete biography, psychological profile, and blog at hand--aren't you? Don't you know that you're hurting the author's feelings when you're not thinking about her every moment that you read her book? What kind of cruel, miserable bastard are you?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


dracothelizard
2005-10-13 11:12 pm UTC (link)
Dammit, can't we all just mock the worst Romance covers and be done with it?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]charmian
2005-10-13 11:28 pm UTC (link)
Or we could creatively recaption them, like this site

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]esclaramonde
2005-10-14 12:08 am UTC (link)
Thank you to infinity.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ourself
2005-10-14 01:14 am UTC (link)
I would buy "Chili Supper for Satan"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kijikun
2005-10-14 02:36 am UTC (link)
I'd buy "The legended of the tottaly lost mountie"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cleolinda
2005-10-14 03:00 am UTC (link)
I want "For the Love of Scottie McMullet" so bad I can taste it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]notjo
2005-10-14 07:01 am UTC (link)
Sadly, I have actually read the original novel that's the cover art for.

All I recall of it is being so damned annoyed with the cover art because the herione's having glasses is actually part of the plot, and she doesn't have them on the cover.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]khym_chanur
2005-10-14 03:36 am UTC (link)
Bobcat Fabio! Ahahahaha!!!!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]tangentialone
2005-10-14 06:34 am UTC (link)
......

♥!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]phosfate
2005-10-14 03:10 pm UTC (link)
Oh, God.

The Blind, Buttonless Horseman has killed me.




And I think I've actually read Birds Like Crazy People.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]souris
2005-10-13 11:46 pm UTC (link)
I think I need to own a copy of "All Keyed Up" now.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]esclaramonde
2005-10-14 12:08 am UTC (link)
Thank you as well. Though my roommate probably doesn't.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]platedlizard
2005-10-14 01:05 am UTC (link)
Birds Like Crazy People

So true. *is crazy*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]khym_chanur
2005-10-14 03:22 am UTC (link)
Ahahahaha!!! That Rumor Has It cover, I mean... *sporfle*

The man looks like he's either unconcious or dead. And what is that... thing hovering over him which is partially obscured by "Blaze"?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]souris
2005-10-14 12:14 pm UTC (link)
You mean the woman's legs?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]khym_chanur
2005-10-14 01:21 pm UTC (link)
Legs? To me, it looks like a blob of flesh with limbs coming out it; maybe a pair of legs swallowed up to mid-calf by a flesh-blob.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]souris
2005-10-14 03:16 pm UTC (link)
Oh, you mean the red thing at the top of the cover, right? I think that's not a part of the actual picture, but just a part of the general cover design that marks this book as belonging to a certain Harlequin romance subgroup - Harlequin Blaze in this case - so that the fans of the series can easily locate their favourite kind of book at the store, buy it, and go home to read about incredibly limber women having sex in cars.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


dracothelizard
2005-10-14 08:27 pm UTC (link)
We don't know. Nor do the people who voted it for Worst Covers, but I LIKE their ideas!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]khym_chanur
2005-10-14 04:29 am UTC (link)
I once bought a romance novel, just to try to get a taste for the genre; picked one that had gushing reviews, and who's first few pages seemed decently written. It was okay, but it had a few bits that made me wonder where the editor was:
  • The heroine talked about the "tensile strength" of the hero's arm.
  • "Wanton" was used as a verb, as in "he wantoned her".
I mean, the rest of the book seemed to be properly edited, so how did that slip by?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]ladybirdsleeps
2005-10-14 09:09 am UTC (link)
At least he didn't won-won her. That would have been disturbing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]khym_chanur
2005-10-14 10:48 am UTC (link)
At least he didn't won-won her.

Won-won??? *is utterly clueless*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]notjo
2005-10-14 05:00 pm UTC (link)
From Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. When Ron is dating Lavendar, she calls him Won-Won.

Why? I have no idea.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]issendai
2005-10-14 03:34 pm UTC (link)
"he wantoned her"

*brain breaks*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map