Oh, dear

[jmc_bks]

Well, that didn't take long. In response to the posts at The Post giving romance recommendations, Dave chimmed in to tell us:

So let me understand this:
We need a happy ending.
And, furthermore, there is much in it that should be considered as "solid lit."
And this is a genre that is languishing out there, needing recognition?
Let's be serious.
It needs recognition in the literary world, but it isn't getting it because it's conforming to a rule that says it needs to end happy and be pleasingly predictable in the end.
I'm sorry.
That's not literature.
There are never any such promises made in literature.
Let's decide something here and now.
When you suspend yourself in a serious novel, there are no promises. Everything can go awry. And it often does.
Go on. Recommend some books with the understanding that nothing is promised and all can go bad. Then we will have achieved something.
Give me some romance novels with teeth.


Posted by: dave | January 21, 2008 11:00 PM

*sigh* I get so tired of this. 

Comments

[jayamei.livejournal.com]

Sometimes people just miss the point don't they? I think the responses to this dave person are good ones.

[menage-a-kat.livejournal.com]

It was inevitable, but at least the blogger took note of the HEA requirement, so I'm optimistic that the final list won't have a high body count. Heh.

[(Anonymous)]

i don't want to be rude, but i have a problem. i love a chewy romance, but when i look for recommendations, i always hear from enthusiastic readers of trashy romances. these people love their books and they think their are "serious literature." i'm not even looking for serious literature, but i don't want these totally formulaic candy books. how can i find what i am looking for?

i'm a fan of georgette heyer. a very big fan. i like austen. i like dorothy dunnett. and i like bujold. possession by byatt was a little too dry for me. but danielle steele, nora roberts, and diane gabaldon, i don't like at all. they seem like junk. the best i can say is that they are sometimes good junk.

do you have any suggestions? and can you tell me how to find the books i want without offending the fans of diane gabaldon?

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's rude for you to want chewy romance...as long as you recognize that not all readers do, and that genre romance runs a huge gamut, from candy to chewy. I do get a bit offended by the characterization of genre romance (as a whole) as junk. Certainly readers dismissing fantasy, science fiction, or mystery wouldn't call those genres junk, even if they felt they were formulaic or that individual works were not up to par. A certain amount of any genre fiction, whatever genre, is going to be not so good. Distinguishing the jewels from the flotsam is often a matter of personal taste.

I can't tell you how to find books, other than by trial and error. As to Gabaldon, she's not my favorite author; in fact, I like her Lord John mysteries but am not at all interested in the Dramas of Jamie and Claire.

Recommendations based on your other likes: *Paullina Simmons' The Bronze Horseman series. (WWII-set historicals)
*Penelope Williamson's The Outsider and Heart of the West (American westerns)
*Philippa Gregory's historical novels (haven't read much by her these but they seem widely enjoyed)
*Lauren Willig's The Secret of the Pink Carnation -- spy historical interspersed with contemporary historical research; only very tangentially similar to Possession, I think. I liked the second book of the series, but haven't felt impelled to read the rest of the books.
*The Time Traveller's Wife by Audrey Niffeneger (contemporary)
*Meljean Brook's Demon Angel and Demon Moon -- these are paranormals with a good chunk of world building; the first book's main criticism was that it was slow to develop.

Not romance:
Nefertiti by Michelle Moran
My Best Friend's Girl by Dorothy Koomson -- British chick/hen lit
The Cubicle Next Door by Siri Mitchell -- American chick lit w/ vague christian theme (very vague, IMO)

[sarahf.livejournal.com]

Also anything Laura Kinsale ever wrote.

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

Yes. How could I forget?

[(Anonymous)]

"their are serious literature"

and i are srs writer. really. no kidding.
sorry about that.

From Carrie http://lovelysalome.blogspot.com

[carrielofty.livejournal.com]

When you suspend yourself in a serious novel, there are no promises. Everything can go awry. And it often does.

Heh. OK, so romantic literature must have an HEA and is derided across the aisle by literary types. Fine. But then there are no promises? I think their fear of being considered romantic drivel pretty much assures the outcome. Tragedy = serious. And that's as much a predictable promise as any HEA. The brave ones (I can only think of one: Helen Dunmore's The Siege) can do happy, but everyone else is afraid to.

Re: From Carrie http://lovelysalome.blogspot.com

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

My frustration ultimately stems from the fact that in "serious fiction", happiness (or some measure of contentment) is not an outcome to be sought. Does not compute.

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

Is this the ferret author? He really seems to have foot-in-mouth syndrome.

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

I don't know; I kind of doubt it since he seems to have learned his lesson or at least pretended to. I'm guessing this is just some guy who reads Book World for depressing book suggestions. Maybe one of those emo guys who aspires to write Serious Fiction that only Serious Book Critics really understand.

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

I double-checked at the Cafe: Black-footed ferret guy is a Paul, not a Dave.

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for the recommendations. I've patched them into the tbr list. You are right of course, that all genres have good books and not so good books. And all genres have been dinged for not being "serious literature." I also think that people who think a good book is a serious book is a DEPRESSING book are not only wrong, they are bad for the world. Too many non-readers believe these people, and that's why they don't read books. They've absorbed the idea that all reading must be The MIll on the Floss, and they just aren't interested.

However, I think Romance has a problem that SF and Mystery don't. I think people in SF know that some of the field is junk, and they aren't so defensive about that. Because there's a social stigma to pulp romances that isn't as severe for pulp SF. Go ahead, take "Attack of the Killer Green Bad Guys from Space," to work. People might laugh at you, but take "Sweet Savage Lick of Lust," to the law office and they won't be laughing, they'll be running away, and taking your promotion with them. So, I've watched Romance from the sidelines for a while and it seems that no one wants to admit that they like junk. "Oh, no, this is a GOOD Romance. It's just as good as any other writing." But, the field doesn't actually agree on what's good. One person's cheesy para-normal is another's "really good writing." So any requests for good books gets a list that goes from 80's bodice rippers to Jane Austen. It's really hard to discriminate what you want to read from what you don't want to read without actually reading everything yourself. Of course, everyone's mileage varies with books, but I think you get more variation with Romance and people in the field tend to be a lot more hostile when you dis their treasures because what you're saying isn't' "this book is no good." It's "You are no good." The result is that, in the interests of solidarity, people end up defending stuff that even they don't think is any good.

This was written in haste, and may not actually have made any sense at all. If babbling, I apologize.

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

I've watched Romance from the sidelines for a while and it seems that no one wants to admit that they like junk.

I have no problem admitting that some of the things I love are junk. Romance and otherwise. Have you checked out the thread over at SBTB (http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/embrace_your_bad_taste/) addressing the taste for junk? Candy addresses the "This book is awful" vs. "You as a reader are dumb for liking bad stuff" distinction, too. Personally, I think romance readers (including myself) are more defensive than other genre readers because of the value judgment that you mention. Observers noting that I read mysteries don't (usually) make any particular value judgments about me as an individual or a professional; that is not the case if the book I'm reading is a romance novel. (See the Sony Reader marketing blitz in the DC Metro system and its tag line about reading romance...discretely.) And it also goes back to the author/reader divide in romance, which seems very narrow to me. I think Robin has addressed this in comments in various places, including SBTB, Dear Author and Readers Gab.