ursula | Paladins, Enlightenment, and Romance Novels

Went to hear Lois Bujold read today. The crowd was an interesting split between nerdy university students and nerdy people my parents' age (who presumably can afford more books); there were the requisite annoyances, including the person sitting next to me who hissed when the inevitable cell phone went off despite the fact that she was reading Diane Duane's newest So You Want to Be a Wizard? book while Lois Bujold read, and the people in line for book signing (stood in line for

glasseye, since he couldn't come) discussing which of their friends had brought more books to the signing by "Misty," a.k.a. Mercedes Lackey.

However, I did get to hear unpublished pseudo-German fiction about wolves and sleepwalking. And hear answers to various questions, largely of the "So when will you publish more about MY favorite character?" variety. I write this entry, however, because she remarked that a novella about Miles' marriage is forthcoming in a collection of short stories put forward by a coalition of science fiction and romance authors. This collection was created by Catherine Asaro, who apparently writes both hard science fiction and romance novels. This fact fills me with a deep feeling of enlightenment, since I have stopped reading Catherine Asaro's books due to the general gratuitousness of her plots. (I'd prefer to like the hero for reasons other than how hot he looks in a half-laced velvet jerkin, for instance. And I don't care how beautiful the heroine's red hair is, there are limits to the amount of time I want to watch Hot Blond Android and Hot Dark, Brooding Scientist fight over her.)

I feel somewhat guilty about immediately judging Catherine Asaro by her other genre, since I am tending more and more toward the belief that society is prejudiced against romance novels for reasons that have very little to do with their writing quality or lack thereof. On the other hand, Catherine Asaro did prove to me that I object as much to blatant objectification of men as to blatant objectification of women, and can therefore dislike Heinlein in good faith.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Here here! You could dislike Heinlein in good faith to begin with. ;)

I started out liking Heinlein. Then I read three of his books in as many weeks and decided I couldn't take the number of women tanned as toast.

hot man in half-laced velvet jerkin? where? where?
but in seriousness (as much as i can muster, about a thimble's worth) romance novels do get short shrift. everytime someone around me criticizes one (and being an english major, lemme tell ya, the general topic comes up suspiciously often, even with the men) i think of george eliot's essay on silly women novelists. i have found myself rather pleasantly suprised by the quality of romance novels even if the plots are formulaic. then again... supposedly there are only 4 plots. or 2. depends who you ask. i like the idea of two: 1) person leaves home or 2)stranger comes to town. blah blah blah.
but then again, i watch the man show sometimes. and don't really object to objectification. i see it as another form of flattery i guess. so i suppose i really should resign myself to my special level of hell full of bra burning feminists and shut up :P

And really, how often do you hear people bitching about the fact that mystery novels are formulaic?

I'd say that objectification in novels leads to bad characterization, and that's what really bothers me; but I suspect there's something more subtle going on.

i guess i spend so much time being annoyed at or amused by the romance novel heroine and lusting after (while also annoyed at or amused by) the sexy (usually conflicted)hero that i just don't notice bad characterization..or i don't see it enough to bother me. mind candy good! fantasy candy better! mmmmmmmmmm

If I'm annoyed by both the character who's praised and the character who's praising, my response is often, "Who cares if you're hot? I'm not sleeping with you!"

On the other hand, I think I may be more easily annoyed by literature than you are. There's a certain joy in a good critique.

i am not very annoyed by a lot of things. what is the point? i like enjoying stuff and i suppose would make a terrible literary critic :P

Well, as bad writing annoys me more, good writing becomes more interesting to me, when before I would have shunned it for depressingness or lack of plot. So there is at least no net loss. Besides, I like knowing how things work, even if my noticing means they're broken ;)

but... if you like knowing how things work, and yet find them to be broken... then you really only know how they don't work, don't you? ;)

it is also true that i don't really read a lot of bad writing. i tend to stick to things i either know are quite good from sources i trust or things i have read before.
there is the occasional bit though. like Mark of the Angel. can't recall the author. but she should be shot. in the feet. and left to bleed. and bleed. and then i would pee on her grave. but i beat that book! it tried to stop me from finishing it through sheer terribleness. even i was daunted, but like all true evil, never vanguished! i won! and it was free.

Well . . . I wanted to kill Anita Blake, for instance.

i do too sometimes. one more whining rant about how she is becoming one of the monsters and i was going to throttle her ;)
but the stories have merit beyond that you know... like all the really hot men. undead and were-men no less. hello? priorities? :P
in seriousness, well, more anyway... the anita blake books make my skin crawl. and some of her descriptions and action makes me physically sick or disturbed. it is a rare thing that does that to me... so i stay fascinated.
edward is the best character anyway. but i have a thing for pathological, psychotic men or something...

Well, part of the problem is that I don't find the hot men as hot as I'm supposed to. Jean-Claude in particular is excessively two-dimensional; and no matter how lovely their hair, paper dolls just don't turn me on.

Edward is cool, since he actually seems to have a personality beyond a bad accent, albeit a psychotic one . . . But I heard he ends up with an annoying wife.

he does have an annoying wife. but he cares about her, and mostly about her kids. and they make a great front for him being psychotic and all. actually obsidian butterfly is the book where that takes place i think and is the best one so far of the series. i like the new leopard guy and the rat king as well.

Except for your own bad writing, of course.

well, yes. my own bad writing i read. but only from necesity ;) and sometimes i just write it and set it down. and never read it. or i post it here :P

That comment was aimed at

ursule, about her fanfic ;)

I kinda agree...there are many things I enjoy, like action movies or even halfway decent fic (although if it's really terrible characterization or massive numbers of grammar/spelling errors I'll stop), that I know aren't very good quality, but I enjoy mind candy. :)

I'm just picky about my candy. Sometimes in irrational ways; nobody ever said M&Ms were gourmet ;)

Chocolate is an area in which I'm even less picky than movies or fanfic...(books tend to have to be good writing for me to read them)...talking about M&Ms, I've discovered Minstrels here -- they're kinda like big M&Ms, all dark brown.

Paladins, Enlightenment, and Romance Novels

no subject

no subject

meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy

Re: meandering whimsy