« would you? | Main | a different matter entirely: cascading style sheets »

March 25, 2005

once more, with feeling

filed under on romance | weblogs

Stephanie has directed me to Sarah Weinman's weblog, Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind (with this tag line: "A respected resource for commentary on crime and mystery fiction." -- USA TODAY), for her sidebar list of authors who keep a blog. So I went over there and was immediately drawn in. It's exactly the kind of stuff I like. Wow. Another way to procrastinate. Thanks, Stephanie.

And then I ran into Sarah's post about bodice rippers and romance novels and sex scenes where she quotes somebody else on the ridiculous nature of sex scenes in romance novels.

This blanket condemnation of a whole genre -- often by people who admit (proudly) that they don't read it -- really gets tired. It's as intellectually suspect as universal praise. How about this: There's no such thing as a badly done serial murder spree when it comes to crime novels.

Ridiculous? Of course.

Generalized romance-bashing comes in waves, it seems; Lee Goldberg got into the act, too, and his commenters joined him. There are other examples from other weblogs, but I'm going to stop there. Instead I would just like to point out that the term bodice ripper seems to have some magical power. Maybe because it is such a fantastically evocative put-down and so visual, some people (especially those who are proud never to have read a romance, or to have seen the error of their ways and turned away from the whole genre in disgust) jump at the opportunity to use it, and use it with glee, when talking about love stories with happy endings that are written by women.

So yes, I could have left a comment on both Sarah's and Lee's weblogs with a list of well written, engaging romance novels with sex scenes that commit none of the sins mentioned. I could have, but then I reminded myself that talking people out of preconceptions is next to impossible. More than that, it's a waste of time that could be better used procrastinating elsewhere. Like right here, pointing anybody who has never read romance or who hasn't read it in a long time to novels that might want to have a look at. Those would be: Welcome to Temptation and Bet Me by Jennifer Crusie, Bliss and Dance by Judy Cuevas, Flowers from the Storm by Laura Kinsale, and of course, the ultimate romance novel: Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.

To be clear: I do like what I've read of Sarah's weblog and I was already in the habit of visiting Lee's once a month or so, to catch up. I also appreciate the links on both sites, because I found a few very promising blogs in a quick foray, including Wendy Duren and Smart Bitches.

March 25, 2005 08:48 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tiedtothetracks.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/389

Comments

Because I am currently on a Kinsale glom and a huge fan, I can't help but point out that Laura Kinsale wrote Flowers From the Storm.

Posted by: Jorie at March 25, 2005 10:23 AM

You are absolutely right, and that was dopey of me. I have fixed it.

Posted by: sara at March 25, 2005 11:14 AM

I'm always a little taken aback by people who insist on "realistic" sex scenes or criticize people for "unrealistic" sex or violence. I can't help thinking on those occasions that the critic doesn't know much about the subject. My experience has been that humans struggling in the throes of extreme passion (martial or amorous) are never anything but funny to an outside observer, no matter what the stakes.

Posted by: Joshua at March 25, 2005 04:10 PM

Hi Sara,

Of course, you're right -- blanket condemnations of any genre is a dangerous thing to do, and I get incredibly grumpy when people do the same with crime fiction (that said, I'll be the first in line to admit there are *way* too many serial killer thrillers, and have said publicly several times that when I see a new deal reported as such, it will take a lot to convince me to pick up the book once it's published.)

That said, although I don't read romance novels now (for more complex reasons than the somewhat flippant line I used in that post) when I did I tried awfully hard to find what I considered to be the cream of the crop, and the handful of books you list certainly numbered among them (but would BLISS and DANCE, and even FLOWERS FROM THE STORM, have a hope of getting published now? I suspect not...)

Glad you're enjoying the blog otherwise.

Posted by: Sarah at March 25, 2005 07:15 PM

Sarah --

thanks for stopping by, and also for the clarification. For the record, I do think Bliss and Dance and Flowers from the Storm would get published today. There are some very smart, very savvy editors at various houses who specialize in romance, and I can't see them passing over any of those three. Judy Cuevas is still publishing (but as Judith Ivory) and her work is still top notch.

A question for you (to answer here, there, anywhere, if/when you have time): would you classify John Sandford, Lee Child, G.M. Ford, Dennis Lehane and their like as crime writers? Thriller writers? I never know what to call them.

Posted by: sara at March 25, 2005 07:40 PM

Heh, all these Sara's. ;) Just cruising the feeds late at night, and I came across this comment thread. I'm rather puzzled by the suggestion that FLOWERS couldn't get published now? I'm not having any trouble getting books published in the genre. (The opposite, in fact--my trouble is getting them written! ;) )

Posted by: Laura Kinsale at March 27, 2005 12:19 AM

Sara --

With regards to the writers you mention, I tend to use the catch-all phrase "crime writer" because the lines are pretty well blurred, mostly because of publishers trying to break the mystery genre out and attract more mainstream fiction readers. That said, someone like Lee Child is definitely writing thrillers, but Lehane's writing (at least lately and presumably, from now on) literary fiction with a crime element.

The reason I said that I wasn't sure BLISS or DANCE could get published now is because of economics -- the books didn't sell all that well upon publication (and, IIRC, went out of print fairly quickly) and Cuevas's success only came later when she changed her name to Judith Ivory and wrote historicals set in Britain instead of France, thus "starting from scratch" as too often happens in the business.

FWIW, I'm making the distinction between an author keeping his or her career alive and particular books being published. How many times has the cry "such and such genre doesn't sell anymore" been heard, or trend bandwagon jumping occurred? And then markets change and the cry begins anew...

Posted by: Sarah at March 27, 2005 10:15 AM

Laura -- first, thanks for stopping by. Second, it was Sarah Weinman who raised the question, so I'll leave it to her to clarify.

My position is this: I listed some of the best books the romance genre has ever produced, and that I believe any of them would get picked up and published if submitted today for the first time. Even if the physical setting is out of the primary target area.

On the other hand, I think that Sarah has a valid point about the way publishing works, in terms of fads and bandwagons and wild leaping onto, and off of.

Posted by: sara at March 27, 2005 02:06 PM

PS Sarah -- about Dennis Lehane. I love everything he's ever written, and I wish him well in whatever he wants to write -- I'll be first in line. But I do hope he hasn't given up on Patrick and Angie quite yet.

Posted by: sara at March 27, 2005 02:11 PM

Post a comment






(you may use HTML tags for style)