adly, I just don’t see the same amount of brainpower in the female-penned novels available today, especially in the softer subgenres like romance and chick lit, where characters are often too busy being neurotic and meet-cute-ish and marveling at the size of their partner’s appendages (“Well, lordy, I jus’ never seen one soooo big!”) to actually seem realistic and intelligent. Romantic suspense heroines are too frequently paper tigers, saved at the last minute by their FBI agent lovers, and women still are rare protagonists in the fantasy and science-fiction genres (although Elizabeth Haydon’s Rhapsody series is a great example of a female-driven epic saga). So until women fully come into their own in the softer side of fiction, I’ll be over at the shooting range—literaturely speaking of course.
---
I guess I don't see how I misinterpreted the last paragraph.
I don't think you did. And I don't think I did, either.
I think Tara has the right to her own opinion, and if non-romance books work better for her, that's fine. But like I wrote over at RG, the sweeping statement about gender (and linking it to intelligence) was what smacked me in the face.
Yes, and I didn't really understand the discomfit? that she expressed about her opinion being discussed on other blogs. Am I getting something wrong? Isn't that the point of the blogosphere?
I guess I would expect anything I blog about to possibly become fodder for other bloggers...assuming I wrote something interesting or thoughtful enough to be noticed and linked.
But I think Tara's discomfit? was more to the fact that instead of posting or arguing with her directly at RG, that site stayed very still and silent. I don't mean that in the sense that she wanted traffic at RG, but in the sense that she was frustrated that no one brought their perspective to the original post, but instead to a blog siting that post.
Well, as you've probably seen, there's a reason why I didn't keep responding at RG last time. I stuck with it this time and she probably wishes I hadn't. She did ask oh so nicely again, though. Sigh.
I agree, though, that I'm still not sure what she is actually saying or asking for. That's why I "tried" to pin her down some specifics. It'll be interesting to see if she answers.
I'm not sure either. Reading the first post through the filter of the second, I think she's saying that she's discontented with the romance genre because of its heroines, which aren't strong enough or smart enough (yep, loaded words there) to suit. Fine. The heroines in romance are written to certain genre expectations based on the lowest common denominator (and the highest seller), with the focus more on the hero. Also fine.
Where I get lost is the jump to women writers aren't (don't? can't?) write smart, strong heroines. Because Tara's silent as to genre, I assume she means all genres, which is a statement I oppose. I think that there aren't many being written in romance because they aren't being demanded vociferously. But I think they are being written by women in related genres.
I suppose what confuses and/or frustrates me is the avoidance (in the original posts) of the unspoken expectations of the average reader and the business of publishing. Because I don't think you can separate them from this discussion. And as much as it would be great to have the strong, smart heroines that Tara wants in every book, in order to get to that, there needs to be a wholesale change among readers and their demands. Because I'm sure that for every reader who bemoans the lack of SSH, there is another who is perfectly content and doesn't feel the need for change. While there are authors who write the story that speaks to them (with a SSH), there are as many who write to the market to make a living. Why would an author or a publisher shift models unless/until market forces demand it?
I know what you mean about authors not changing until the market demands it. And beyond that I've gotten into too many discussions over the years with people who want to talk about all the things "wrong" with romance without actually wanting to talk about what they read in it for me to go round that merry-go-round again.
I can see her being upset that no one posted at RG about the problem with her post but I was too confused by it to figure out what she was really trying to say.
I have had the complete opposite reaction when reading male authors. I find the woman in the books are nothing but something pretty to look at and love? - meh. Lust, sure. If that isn't the case then I find the woman is on some sort of pedestal and is forever perfect. Meh.
I'm also getting tired of people calling romance brain candy - F***off already. There is crap in every single genre ever written - the secret is to try and avoid it.
Also, any time I have tried a best seller I find the whole book a watered down version of a story that could have been great if maybe something more had happened. I know there are people who loved the Da Vinci Code but am I ever glad I never read it because the movie proved to me just how pissed I would have been over info dumping. Oh!! Let's have one character that knows absolutely everything the protagonists need to know - blergh.
Haven't read it. Haven't seen the movie. I have friends who don't read who LOVED the book and keep trying to pawn it off on me. No thanks.
Part of me is sitting back and reading the comments, agreeing that there are a lot of heroines in romance that aren't that smart. But then I stop and think that there are a lot of people in life who aren't smart. So why is smart the most important quality in fiction? And beyond that, deciding what smart is is a tricky thing -- heroines that I thought were TSTL appeared on the AAR poll at Best Heroine. It's her opinion, and she makes no bones about it. But she's making a lot of value judgments that are specific to her tastes, and presenting them like hard facts. :shrugs: I posted, then left it alone.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-03-09 03:00 pm (UTC)---
I guess I don't see how I misinterpreted the last paragraph.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-09 03:37 pm (UTC)I think Tara has the right to her own opinion, and if non-romance books work better for her, that's fine. But like I wrote over at RG, the sweeping statement about gender (and linking it to intelligence) was what smacked me in the face.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-09 03:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-09 04:12 pm (UTC)But I think Tara's discomfit? was more to the fact that instead of posting or arguing with her directly at RG, that site stayed very still and silent. I don't mean that in the sense that she wanted traffic at RG, but in the sense that she was frustrated that no one brought their perspective to the original post, but instead to a blog siting that post.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-10 03:44 pm (UTC)I agree, though, that I'm still not sure what she is actually saying or asking for. That's why I "tried" to pin her down some specifics. It'll be interesting to see if she answers.
Bev(BB)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-10 07:57 pm (UTC)Where I get lost is the jump to women writers aren't (don't? can't?) write smart, strong heroines. Because Tara's silent as to genre, I assume she means all genres, which is a statement I oppose. I think that there aren't many being written in romance because they aren't being demanded vociferously. But I think they are being written by women in related genres.
I suppose what confuses and/or frustrates me is the avoidance (in the original posts) of the unspoken expectations of the average reader and the business of publishing. Because I don't think you can separate them from this discussion. And as much as it would be great to have the strong, smart heroines that Tara wants in every book, in order to get to that, there needs to be a wholesale change among readers and their demands. Because I'm sure that for every reader who bemoans the lack of SSH, there is another who is perfectly content and doesn't feel the need for change. While there are authors who write the story that speaks to them (with a SSH), there are as many who write to the market to make a living. Why would an author or a publisher shift models unless/until market forces demand it?
My expanded opinion, fwiw.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-10 09:59 pm (UTC)Bev(BB)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-10 06:40 am (UTC)I have had the complete opposite reaction when reading male authors. I find the woman in the books are nothing but something pretty to look at and love? - meh. Lust, sure. If that isn't the case then I find the woman is on some sort of pedestal and is forever perfect. Meh.
I'm also getting tired of people calling romance brain candy - F***off already. There is crap in every single genre ever written - the secret is to try and avoid it.
Also, any time I have tried a best seller I find the whole book a watered down version of a story that could have been great if maybe something more had happened. I know there are people who loved the Da Vinci Code but am I ever glad I never read it because the movie proved to me just how pissed I would have been over info dumping. Oh!! Let's have one character that knows absolutely everything the protagonists need to know - blergh.
Whoops.
Looks like I had an opinion.
Not sure on what ;)
CindyS
DaVinci Code
Date: 2007-03-10 08:04 pm (UTC)Part of me is sitting back and reading the comments, agreeing that there are a lot of heroines in romance that aren't that smart. But then I stop and think that there are a lot of people in life who aren't smart. So why is smart the most important quality in fiction? And beyond that, deciding what smart is is a tricky thing -- heroines that I thought were TSTL appeared on the AAR poll at Best Heroine. It's her opinion, and she makes no bones about it. But she's making a lot of value judgments that are specific to her tastes, and presenting them like hard facts. :shrugs: I posted, then left it alone.