SBD: well-written vs. well-liked
Jun. 4th, 2007 07:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmc_bksI heard Jimmy Buffett's Come Monday in the car today while bebopping around town and thought briefly that I should take the tune and write lyrics for SBD. Instead, I am drinking a margarita in Mr. Buffett's honor. And singing Cheeseburger in Paradise at the top of my lungs. Yep, good thing the neighbors aren't home.
Okay, so what do I have to say about Romance today? Well, I was reading Candy's review of Lilith Saintcrow's Working for the Devil (which is languishing in my TBR mountain) over at Smart Bitches and then the comments, and something Robin said grabbed my attention. She appreciated that although the book didn't work over all for Candy, she explained why, and separated her irritation with the characters from the writing of the book. She went on to speculate about romance readers' and reviewers' habit of giving bad grades because they don't like a how a hero/heroine is characterized.
*shrugs guiltily* Um, had Robin recently skimmed my very brief blurb on Games of Command? I did exactly what she was pointed out. [Bad girl, jmc.} Usually I *try* (may not succeed) to explain my rating, what I liked and didn't, including whether the writing and craft worked, but didn't in that particular case, other than to say that my primary irritation was that the book was labeled as a romance when I didn't think it was one. I'd like to think that if I was writing a full review, I would have spent time on Sinclair's plotting, world-building, and how although I didn't *like* -- or, wait, maybe a better word would be *trust* -- her POV characters, they probably would've been more interesting with a bit more development. (IMO, plot took over and left little space for it.)
I agree with Robin -- it's important to acknowledge what's good in the execution of a book, even if it doesn't work for you as a reader. But this got me to thinking about the chasm between a book being well-written and being well-liked (or even well-loved). Every student who has ever read Anna Karenina and said That was a well-written book but so fucking depressing that I wanted to throw *myself* in front of a train is doing the same thing. Readers who think that Ernest Hemingway's spare prose in The Old Man & the Sea is beautiful but that the story is an outdated, ridiculous expression of machismo by a guy with Small Dick Syndrome are doing the same thing. On the other hand, while I love Nora Roberts (in a totally platonic, trying not to be an RFG way), I think that her mechanics, especially in some of the older books that are being reissued, are not always the best. (My pet peeve: comma splices and dropped conjunctions, especially in dialogue in the In Death books.) But she's got an amazing voice and creates incredible characters, so I keep reading her books, and they work for me consistently. Same with L.M. Montgomery: I fell in love with her books as a child, as millions of readers have, and I still love them even though as an adult I see all kinds of weakness in some of her books.
I dunno. What was my point? I guess that Romancelandia isn't the only place where one can go and find opinion about books that aren't based on execution alone. And that while the writing part of romance is a craft, the storytelling is important too. 'Cause if a writer has excellent craft but her characters and her plot don't work for me as a reader, I'm going to put the book down.
And my other thought was that short of creating a two scale rating system (artistic vs. technical merit), I'm not sure how to avoid this problem.
Today I delivered several posters for YAMd's upcoming fundraiser to several restaurants (must try Cazbah on Charlest St. and the Lebanese Taverna on the corner of Lancaster and President), so I drove around the city and up into Baltimore County. I love Baltimore. The neighborhoods are so different. Downtown, Charles Village, Homewood, Timonium, Towson, Canton, Dundalk. Each one has its own character. And I love my neighborhood, too. Ms. Margaret's sons were out on the stoop today, enjoying the sunshine. She's living with one of her granddaughters and won't be coming back to the home she lived in for 76 years (she's 99 btw). We got to chatting about the neighborhood and how it has changed; they grew up there, so they remember who owned my house way back when, and they are scandalized by the shoddy work on the house nextdoor and the price the reno guy wanted for it (still not sold, being rented) and by the price of the "luxury apartments" down the street.
At the library, I picked up a copy of Riverbend's Baghdad Burning, a compilation of her blog entries. The most recent one, of course, was published before she announced that her family were leaving Baghdad.
And that is all. Back to drinking my margarita.
Okay, so what do I have to say about Romance today? Well, I was reading Candy's review of Lilith Saintcrow's Working for the Devil (which is languishing in my TBR mountain) over at Smart Bitches and then the comments, and something Robin said grabbed my attention. She appreciated that although the book didn't work over all for Candy, she explained why, and separated her irritation with the characters from the writing of the book. She went on to speculate about romance readers' and reviewers' habit of giving bad grades because they don't like a how a hero/heroine is characterized.
*shrugs guiltily* Um, had Robin recently skimmed my very brief blurb on Games of Command? I did exactly what she was pointed out. [Bad girl, jmc.} Usually I *try* (may not succeed) to explain my rating, what I liked and didn't, including whether the writing and craft worked, but didn't in that particular case, other than to say that my primary irritation was that the book was labeled as a romance when I didn't think it was one. I'd like to think that if I was writing a full review, I would have spent time on Sinclair's plotting, world-building, and how although I didn't *like* -- or, wait, maybe a better word would be *trust* -- her POV characters, they probably would've been more interesting with a bit more development. (IMO, plot took over and left little space for it.)
I agree with Robin -- it's important to acknowledge what's good in the execution of a book, even if it doesn't work for you as a reader. But this got me to thinking about the chasm between a book being well-written and being well-liked (or even well-loved). Every student who has ever read Anna Karenina and said That was a well-written book but so fucking depressing that I wanted to throw *myself* in front of a train is doing the same thing. Readers who think that Ernest Hemingway's spare prose in The Old Man & the Sea is beautiful but that the story is an outdated, ridiculous expression of machismo by a guy with Small Dick Syndrome are doing the same thing. On the other hand, while I love Nora Roberts (in a totally platonic, trying not to be an RFG way), I think that her mechanics, especially in some of the older books that are being reissued, are not always the best. (My pet peeve: comma splices and dropped conjunctions, especially in dialogue in the In Death books.) But she's got an amazing voice and creates incredible characters, so I keep reading her books, and they work for me consistently. Same with L.M. Montgomery: I fell in love with her books as a child, as millions of readers have, and I still love them even though as an adult I see all kinds of weakness in some of her books.
I dunno. What was my point? I guess that Romancelandia isn't the only place where one can go and find opinion about books that aren't based on execution alone. And that while the writing part of romance is a craft, the storytelling is important too. 'Cause if a writer has excellent craft but her characters and her plot don't work for me as a reader, I'm going to put the book down.
And my other thought was that short of creating a two scale rating system (artistic vs. technical merit), I'm not sure how to avoid this problem.
Today I delivered several posters for YAMd's upcoming fundraiser to several restaurants (must try Cazbah on Charlest St. and the Lebanese Taverna on the corner of Lancaster and President), so I drove around the city and up into Baltimore County. I love Baltimore. The neighborhoods are so different. Downtown, Charles Village, Homewood, Timonium, Towson, Canton, Dundalk. Each one has its own character. And I love my neighborhood, too. Ms. Margaret's sons were out on the stoop today, enjoying the sunshine. She's living with one of her granddaughters and won't be coming back to the home she lived in for 76 years (she's 99 btw). We got to chatting about the neighborhood and how it has changed; they grew up there, so they remember who owned my house way back when, and they are scandalized by the shoddy work on the house nextdoor and the price the reno guy wanted for it (still not sold, being rented) and by the price of the "luxury apartments" down the street.
At the library, I picked up a copy of Riverbend's Baghdad Burning, a compilation of her blog entries. The most recent one, of course, was published before she announced that her family were leaving Baghdad.
And that is all. Back to drinking my margarita.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-05 07:54 am (UTC)I have much lower expectations for reader *opinions* than full on review sites like AAR, though. IMO, the more formal the review, the more I want some conscious treatment of the book's craftsmanship, not just whether it worked as a Romance for the reader. It may not make the review objective, but it definitely gives me more information, since what's romantic is *completely* subjective, IMO.
Robin
no subject
Date: 2007-06-05 07:55 am (UTC)Robin
no subject
Date: 2007-06-05 12:49 pm (UTC)Your expectations of reader opinions vs. formal reviews make perfect sense to me. I alternate between which I prefer, assuming that the opinion does include enough objective evaluation. My discomfort sometimes with the more formal review or critique (and this isn't limited to romance) is that so much of what I like or love about some of the books I've read isn't about the craftsmanship but the storytelling. And I get the feeling (more in literary fiction than in genre fiction) that the craft is more important than the storytelling to the critic.
Cheers,
~jmc
no subject
Date: 2007-06-05 04:44 pm (UTC)Maybe it's partially conditioning -- that is, what readers/reviewers are conditioned to notice more in a book. In lit fic, the writing is definitely the priority for many readers/reviewers, while in genre fiction, it tends to be the story. I'm not sure one can really thrive without the other, but I also think it takes a certain reader orientation to pay *critical attention* to both in a review. My problem with some of the formal Romance reviewing, I think, is that there's like NO focus on craft. And IMO if more readers commented more on the craft issues then those issues might become more important in the overall editorial and publication process. I agree that it's a drag to read a boring but well-written book, but I downright resent reading a book that is so poorly crafted or copy edited that I can barely get to the story.
Robin
From Carrie http://lovelysalome.blogspot.com
Date: 2007-06-12 04:48 am (UTC)Anyway, historical novelist Tracy Chevalier (Girl with the Pearl Earring) lists the books she's read every month, and she wound up doing a two grade system for them: technical vs. enjoyment. I can completely understand the need to separate the two, because they are often very distinct issues.
And weird: Beth's in Vegas the one day this decade I read and review a book. Silly.