The Wayback on Wednesday: Loving Problematic Books
originally published on June 13, 2013
Grading books is not always straightforward. For me, there is no rubric, no checklist of Do’s and Don’ts. I have a few deal-breakers, but not many. When I assign a book a DIK grade, though, I often feel like it has to be perfect — or at least very, very close. The writing must be flawless. The characters, well-developed. The plot, exciting, believable, and interesting. But I’ve found that some of the books I go back to, the ones I re-read over and over again (the true test, in my opinion, of a DIK), are objectively problematic in some way.
“Problematic” can mean a lot of different things. Maybe there is a pretty huge logical fallacy upon which the plot hangs. Maybe there’s something that should be totally unromantic, unhealthy, or taboo. Recently, my fellow AAR reviewers and staff members got to talking about our favorite books that have some flaw or problem.
I recently revisited The China Garden, by Liz Berry. It is a British YA semi-paranormal novel that I first read when I was probably about 11 years old. The main character, Clare, graduated from the British equivalent of high school and goes with her mother to a mysterious old estate. She soon discovers that her mother was born there, and was meant to marry the heir and become a “Guardian” of the “Trust.” Clare doesn’t know what the Trust is, or its significance, because it’s all one big secret. But it’s something hugely important, and she — along with a local “bad boy” Mark — are supposed to be the next Guardians. The book is steeped in history — millennia worth of history — and symbolism and has an air of mystery surrounding it. Mark and Clare are great together and have really strong chemistry.
Oh yeah, they’re also half-cousins.
That’s weird enough, and then you think about the implications of their family lines. Their respective families (the Aylwards and the Kenwards) have been intermarrying for hundreds of years. Basically since the middle ages. Somehow, Mark and Clare have defied genetics, and are two fully-functional, attractive, intelligent human beings. I should be totally grossed out by this and throw the book across the room. But I just tell myself, “Don’t think about it. Just enjoy the story.” Some questionable relations also appear in Linda Howard’s Shades of Twilight, a book Lauren Onorato enjoys. The hero and heroine are distant cousins. Wendy also likes Someday Soon by Joan Wolf, and The Grand Sophy by Georgette Heyer – two more romances that bring together cousins. As Wendy points out, part of it is historical. “I know the idea wasn’t taboo back in the 1800s, the setting for both books, but when I think of my own cousins… No way.”
Another book I read recently had some red flags that I ignored, to my benefit. Overseas by Beatriz Williams was a thoroughly romantic book. It was the type of romance that I felt in my gut, and the type of book that had me re-reading passages as soon as I finished it. But it is not without its flaws. Overseas is a time travel novel in which Julian, a British military officer in WWI, goes forward in time. To summarize: WWI-era Julian meets Kate, who tells him that they’re in love. They spend a couple days together, then part ways. Modern-day Julian has spent years searching for Kate, in love with her, because she told him that future-Julian loved her. Yeah, that’s a bit confusing – time travel romance in which the characters know each other or meet in both time periods tend to be that way – but once I started thinking about it, the less sense it made. While I adored the romance, I also struggled with some of the flimsier plot premises.
And then there are the codependent and emotionally abusive relationships, the ones that in real life, we would do our best to get our friends out of. Overseas has tinges of that; Julian is controlling and secretive in a way that reminded me of Twilight – probably the most famously unhealthy fictional relationship. LinnieGayl says, “I am afraid to say how many times I’ve reread Linda Howard’s Sarah’s Child. On paper it’s a book I should hate. And it’s clear many, many readers do hate it. The heroine will do basically anything for the man she loves, Rome Matthews. He treats her horribly, and then when she becomes pregnant and has a child — a child he didn’t want — he pretends the baby doesn’t exist, makes her keep it in a room he never enters, etc., etc. Horrible, horrible man in his treatment of her. But I still love it…sigh.” Jenna Harper also loves a sometimes controversial J. D. Ward book. “I absolutely love (and often reread) J.R. Ward’s Lover Awakened, but when you boil down the actual plot, the heroine gets rescued by the hero and then spends almost the entire length of the story in his bedroom. In my head, that’s not exactly the kind of heroine that I respect and enjoy – Bella really doesn’t do much of anything except eat, sleep and have sex with Zsadist. But I love the book all the same.” Beautiful Disaster by Jamie McGuire was similar for Jenna. “I found myself staying up until the wee hours absolutely transfixed by this book, but there are so many problems with it that it’s frightening. The hero has major anger management issues and is the walking example of a future wife abuser. He’s obsessive and controlling and jealous, and when he gets upset, he gets violent. The relationship between the hero and heroine is majorly co-dependent and unhealthy. But darned if I didn’t absolutely love this book. I actually felt bad about liking it so much because I really shouldn’t.”
Rape, “forced seduction,” and other power dynamics are often where this discussion leads. Lynn Spencer brought up a classic Patricia Gaffney novel, To Have And To Hold. “The initial sex scene between hero/heroine is very much a rape/forced seduction scene that can be truly uncomfortable to read. Even so, I thought the romance in the book was amazing overall.” Dabney also loved Price of Innocence and Prisoner of my Desire, despite some very forced seductions.
There’s a theme here. “I shouldn’t like this book,” “I’m afraid to admit that I enjoy it.” Whether the reason we are embarrassed to admit we like a book is that is poorly written or weakly plotted, or it is because we like it despite (or perhaps because of) some questionable relationship dynamics, we all seem to have at least a few of these problematic book loves. As romance readers, we get enough criticism as it is, even if we’re reading an unquestionably great romance novel. But throw in something controversial or troublesome, and to still admit to reading and liking it? That takes some guts.
Do you have a book (or books) that you love, despite or because of some flaw? Which ones?
written by AAR reviewer Jane Granville
I’ve found that the trick with GoodReads is to develop friends and followers there and to follow others whose taste I find compatible. It’s an open and democratic site for posting reviews and so, of course, with that type of platform, you can get almost anything, and there are plenty of people who post fluff. But, there are many thoughtful, critical reviewers there and it’s a site that easily allows you to filter out noise by blocking people. I make handy use of that feature all the time because I’m happy to filter out people I”m not interested in reading. Many of the reviewers here post their reviews there and reviewers from other popular romance sites like SBTB and Dear Author post there as well. I personally love it because it gives me so many reviews to read for any particular book I”m following. It allow reviewers to link their reviews to their blogs and review sites like Edelweiss and Netgalley as well as to Amazon. If I had to give up all social media except one site, I would keep Goodreads. Plus, I’m obsessive about organizing my books!
I’ve definitely not put the time needed into understanding Goodreads and navigating it. It’s just so much going on at once, things flashing etc. (I know I sound like I am 100 years old or a technophobe and I promise I am neither).
I love reading reviews but I have run into so many on Goodreads that are 5 stars for a book that doesn’t even have advanced copies yet because people are “so excited to read it! Or about books I really liked that someone gave 1 star to because they didn’t like the first page, or people with brown hair or some other nonsense reason.
I confess I am spoiled here because although there are certainly reviews that I don’t agree with the grade given, or felt differently about the book but I have never seen a flippant unfair or irresponsible one. And unfortunately I have seen those other places, and not just Goodreads.
I’ve found Goodreads to be quite user friendly and a pretty easy site for filtering out noise. It’s actually easy to find a few friends or reviewers you trust, including the AAR reviewers, and then build on your trusted friends list over time and that way you do end up with access to far more critical opinions on any given book than just one review. Also if you are someone who reviews books, then you’re probably more likely to appreciate GRs. I regularly post my reviews there and have never had a problem with flippant or snarky responses to my reviews. If I did, I would most likely simply filter that person out because life is short and I have limited patience on social media for negativity. Also, if you are dedicated to organizing your books, I’ve found GRs to be the best site out there for that activity.
One final thought about the marking or grading of a book. I used to post a lot of reviews on Amazon and felt strongly that if I was leaving a highly critical review I needed at least 2, preferably 3 or more examples from the text to back up my complaint. I always accepted that not everyone would agree with me. I feel the same about the reviews I read here. I like it when reviewers give justifications for their gradings though I may not agree and I may not be put off the book because it hits other buttons for me such as a plot device, a particular type of H or h. If I feel strongly one way or the other about a review, then I will leave a comment. That’s what’s so great about AAR – comments are left, we can have a conversation about them and everyone can have a say. No reviewer should ever be slagged off for what they say as long as the review is clear, isn’t overtly biased or prejudiced but points out what the reviewer sees as the positives and the negatives for she/he is entitled to express their opinion. I will always make up my own mind and usually check reviews elsewhere before making a purchase but trust, in the first instance, for AAR to give me the best guidance.
Thank you. That is LOVELY to hear.
@Elaine: I like everything about your comment—especially about having two or three textual examples to back up an assessment of a book in a review. I dislike and distrust reviews that essentially say, “I can’t tell you anything about this book—it’s so good, you just have to read it!” No—that’s not a review, that’s a blurb. I want to know why the reviewer thinks a book is great/good/so-so/dreadful/DNF and that would include discussion of problematic elements in the story and content/trigger warnings. We can’t all like the same things (“No two people ever read the same book” is one of my favorite sayings), but we can find reviewers whose tastes generally align with our own and make our decisions to read or not read a book from there. I find quite a few new-to-me books & authors through AAR because the reviews are well-written and thorough. For example, I’ll always be grateful to whoever here wrote the review for THROWN OFF THE ICE by Taylor Fitzpatrick—I must have reread it ten times since last December.
@DiscoDollyDeb. Agree with finding “compatible” reviewers. When I first started posting Amazon reviews in 1999 (eeeek!) there were a number of people posting reviews in the genres that I liked and I followed them to see what they were reading. This is how I found authors like Mary Balogh to name but one. I found others following me as well and using my preferences to guide their own reading. That was such a nice feeling – to know that what you said, even when you were very critical, was taken seriously. I stopped reviewing much almost 10 years ago when I felt overwhelmed by the “fan girls” who simply, as far as I could see, fail to approach anything with what could be remotely discerned as a critical eye. And then along came the one sentence reviews like: “loved it” or stupid postings like: “Arrived late and a page missing” as this sort of rubbish was to do with delivery from Amazon or their sellers and NOT the book. At this point I felt that Amazon had taken its eye off the ball to allow this sort of cr@p. There are a few reviewers at AAR that I usually agree with, one that I often feel sorry for as she seems stuck reviewing the absolute dross and some who review books in genres that I really don’t want to read so I don’t tend to read their reviews as closely as I probably should though I remain grateful for their efforts.
This is a big part of my problem with Goodreads, it’s all flashing pictures and squealing and OMG!!!!
I also dislike overly cutesy, trying too hard to be funny reviews some other sites have. I’m looking for honest and thoughtful reviews not someone’s amateur comedy routine.
For many reasons romance is a genre that doesn’t always get the respect it deserves, so while I do enjoy humor and a clever turn of phrase in a review I also want an author’s work to be respected and evaluated honestly. That is why I keep coming back here. Simply put, I think the reviews here are the best written, honest and cover the most books and the most types of books.
I certainly have reviewers I favor whose tastes are most compatible with mine but I think there is also a real gamut of ages and tastes that review for the site. I understand my taste may be very different than a twenty-something person so it’s nice to see a lot of different opinions. And on top of that I truly relish coming to the comments to see the ideas of the readers. I think AAR is blessed to have a large amount of thoughtful, well read commenters who bring another level to the reviews and opinions here and I think this is a testament to the open and welcoming nature of the comment section here.
I have a very soft, squishy place in my heart for Tamara Lejeune’s book Simply Scandalous, but I don’t feel right recommending it to others because it is so half-baked. I had to read it a second time to really understand the foundation of the character’s relationship. It’s too much reading between the lines. It’s like the love story is hidden among all the Regency-era hijinks but the author couldn’t be bothered to express it.
I really do love it, though, because it gives me all the emotional highs a romance novel should. I just wish it were as good a novel as it could have been.
I really disliked the forced seduction books of the 1970s. I read the Flame and the Flower and one or two others and didn’t pick up another romance for about 30 years. Then I stumbled across Elizabeth Lowell’s westerns and began exploring the genre once again. Lowell’s books aren’t perfect by any means, but they are such a departure from the ‘rapey’ books of years earlier that I was captivated. Her Beautiful Dreamer will always be on my keeper shelf.
I’m still picky about romance; I don’t enjoy BDSM much at all, cannot abide mafia romance, and much of the paranormal genre is a bust for me. Not all, but most. I like my hero to be honourable, kind, and eager to make his lover happy. I want my heroine to be smart, understanding, and tough. They can be grumpy and have issues and argue, especially at first, but I need them to be good people trying to do the right thing. Otherwise, the stories often don’t work for me.
The essential problem with these kind of romances is people’s sexuality. Often, people’s sexual fantasies are situations and people that, in reality, no one would want to happen, but somehow, they’re exciting. I read somewhere where most women have rape fantasies, yet how many women would want to be raped, even by a handsome stranger? Romances tap into that dynamic for its readers, thus horrifying those people who don’t share that particular kink, and often shaming the readers who secretly love the book..
Part of the problem, especially with old romances, is that THE FLAME AND THE FLOWER set a template of abusive men that was followed for far too long in romances. I remember reading it and the tons of romances afterwards, and yearning for a decent, loving man. Fortunately, romances changed.
For me, the essential problem with a lot of “abusive” romances is not so much that the hero (and somehow, it’s almost ALWAYS the hero) is cruel, unaware, uncaring, and someone in real life I’d detest. The major disappointment to me is that the heroine usually forgives him without his thorough reform. He needs to suffer at least as much as she does and looks long and hard at his own cruelty. Having the heroine forgive and forget because she is such a “good” person is unsatisfying and IMO a betrayal of victims everywhere. If you look at Rochester from JANE EYRE, he’s a terrible man who manipulates (dressing up like a gypsy) and lies to Jane to trap her because he wants her. What makes this novel appealing nearly 200 years after it was written is that Rochester truly suffers so that you have no doubt of their love for each other. Jane is so strong and so committed to her values that the ending is believable and satisfying, but without Rochester’s suffering when Jane leaves, the imbalance of suffering minimizes his behavior, and almost endorses it by the implication that “it wasn’t that bad.”
I guess I don’t see people’s sexual fantasies as a problem. Studies have shown that a majority of women fantasize about being forced into sex. And studies show that those fantasies have nothing to do with how women wish to be treated in their real lives. So, I’m fine with readers who like forced seduction.
As for men who are overly easily forgiven, I tend to trust the heroine. If a heroine like Aislinn says, yes Wulfgar was an utter jerk but I understand his behavior and I believe he loves me and I am happy, I am fine with that. Now, when the story is written in a way that I don’t trust the heroine, that I think the guy is way too big an asshat to ever be a reliable partner, then I am less to enjoy the love story. I definitely feel this way about The Flame and the Flower.
Yes I agree, no one should be policing fantasies. What’s more, these books are written for adults not small children.
I can understand being concerned about what messages are being conveyed in children’s literature in particular. Most kids don’t have the experience or maturity to understand if bad messages or standards are being subtly inserted into their literature (although I would argue a lot are much savvier than we give them credit for). Even standardized tests creators have had to examine what they were saying with their test examples for kids.
As far as adult literature is concerned, I’m certainly not interested in policing people (especially women who get told what to like and do too much already) if they like a pushy alpha male in their romance or want to experience a fantasy situation on paper they never would want to in real life I say “Enjoy!” It’s like people’s dreams and fantasies- unless it’s so off it’s messing up your life in some way- I say hands off.
To misquote Yukon Cornelius “you read what you like and I’ll read what I like.”
But of course I always reserve the right to comment on it, especially if I don’t care for it.
You bring up a lot of great points. One thing to also remember is back in the 60s and 70s, (and even beyond perhaps) those kind of forced or even “forced seduction” books were a workaround for a lot of women who wanted to read about a heroine having those experiences but needed her to be “blameless” (and it also made the reader blameless if the heroine was a place holder for them). Society wasn’t at a point where every woman could enjoy a fearless heroine who actually enjoyed sex or even worse, sex outside of marriage or fill in the blank with whatever behavior/activity/proclivity you like.
These jerky guys were not only a product of the time, they were to pass the blame so the heroine and the reader could partake in sexual behavior because it was all “the guy’s fault”.
It doesn’t make them any less irritating though.
Yes. I was born in 1961, part of a generation of women that was right on the cusp between good girls didn’t and liberated women did. I remember wondering, as a college student, what the OK number of men to sleep with was before you became a “slut.” Romances where women didn’t pick sex but enjoyed it anyway worked for me in my youth.
It’s funny because Barbara Cartland books are often held up as the worst, most banal and outdated stories. The heroines are all breathless virgins who speak…….in……ellipses… and are blue eyed, golden haired beauties who are completely ignorant about anything to do with sex before the hero instructs them- and yet,, I will say this for Barbara’s books: when they finally do have (lawfully married) sex they all enjoy it. Every single heroine. So as backwards and odd as they are in some ways the books are still are wayyyyy better in some ways than tons of others from 70’s etc I read where the heroines have no choice and are often don’t like it and are shamed about it if they do.
There’s an episode of the Mary Tyler Moore show where Lou Grant is dating a woman who is sophisticated and sexually experienced and the other men tease him about it. There is a discussion of exactly the question you raise: What is the acceptable number of men to sleep with before you became a “slut”. Mary and Rhoda think the question is ridiculous and sexist, but the men say the answer is 7 (IIRC) and Lou is embarrassed into breaking up with her.
I do though have a problem with the sort of analysis you describe, Lynda. For one thing characters are not real people and so many readers describe characters as if they have a mind of their own. They are fictional constructs that serve the purpose of an author’s narrative. What messages is an author trying to convey in any text is the question? In your example, why is forced seduction being sold to so many women over and over through decades of romance literature as a sexy or even romantic plot? It’s not because women have inherent rape fantasies and we’re born desiring rape as an outcome. We are not. Instead, it’s because of social ideas that many are invested in promoting. One of the best critics on this topic is Jean Kilbourne, Killing Us Softly. Her videos on how women are represented in pop culture are crucial viewing. She covers all sorts of popular representations of women, especially in advertising to show why society is invested in depicting women as objects of rape. They are online and most are free, I believe.
I think there are social ideas that permeate the literature of the time-but I also think it’s human nature to be intrigued by the forbidden and the taboo.
There’s something about reading or doing something “naughty” that gives people a thrill.
That being said, people want a fantasy, pretend thrill within parameters that make them also feel comfortable and safe.
It’s the same reason why people go to “haunted houses” or watch thrillers or even slasher movies. It’s not because people want to be murdered or murder people (I hope). It’s because people like a controlled scare or thrill. You know no one on the screen lunging out with a knife can hurt you- but you jump all the same.
Maybe “human nature” explains a desire for self-harm, though there really isn’t evidence to support those ideas other than pseudo science or popular belief. I’m always cautious though whenever I hear the words “human nature” because I am an evidence person. We do have mountains of evidence to show how ideologies of control over specific groups and classes are effective in maintaining social control over groups of people, and there is mountains of evidence to demonstrate connections between the effects of objectifying groups and the internalizing of inferiority and a sense of powerlessness that results.
“For one thing characters are not real people and so many readers describe characters as if they have a mind of their own.” Characters may not be real people, but many writers- myself included- will tell you that they do behave as though they have a mind of their own. This is especially true for those of us who are what Brandon Sanderson calls “Discovery Writers.” Stephen King is in this category. He believes strongly in creating characters and situations rather than plot and that a good writer is not God but a secretary faithfully recording the characters’ actions. I don’t completely agree with this analogy. Personally, I think it’s more of a combo of God/secretary than one or the other. But every writer has a different style.
“They are fictional constructs that serve the purpose of an author’s narrative.” This may be true in some cases. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” is an excellent example of the phenomenon you are describing. But it is grossly inaccurate to ascribe this motive to all storytellers or even the vast majority of writers. As far as I’m concerned, the best stories start with well-rounded characters, not social issues. This is not to say social issues cannot or shouldn’t be addressed, but stories that place messages or morals in a more prominent position than the characters themselves are bound to come across as flat, forced, or preachy.
“What messages is an author trying to convey in any text is the question?” This question precludes the strong possibility that the author in question is just telling a story. I’ve found that people outside of field of fiction tend to have a poor idea of how authors’ minds work. Just like the Ancient Greeks said poets suffer from a kind of divine madness, so do modern writers. Most of us do not write to advance a narrative. We write because we suffer from an inner compulsion to tell stories and weave a world with words. Do our unique perspectives influence how we write? Certainly. But it is a huge mistake to pick apart every work of literature looking for hidden motives when the author may have had no intention other than telling a good yarn.
As for myself, I never sit down and think, “XYZ is a critical social issue. I’m going to write a story about that and plop in some characters to suit my narrative.” Oh no. To do so would be bad storytelling and probably not entertaining to the reader (or even me!). Instead, I start with the inkling of an idea or the vague outline of a character comes to me. Then I follow the character around on the page and discover what happens. Any words that come out of the character’s mouth or his head are not necessarily my viewpoints. Heck, I might even find some of my protagonists’ thoughts and feelings offensive. But my job as storyteller is to be true to the characters rather than try to shoehorn them into a plot. I think you’ll find a good deal of writers follow the exact same pattern.
Oh, thank you for your post. I wanted to write up almost exactly that, but you already put it succinctly. I enjoy very much a total bastard hero as long as as he a)changes his tune and b)expresses remorse. It’s also ruined if the heroine just forgives him and gets upset when he expresses guilt and won’t let him apologize.
Great discussion, everyone! Ms. Grinnan, thanks for hosting the Wayback Wednesdays. So many topics are perennial, it’s great to breathe second life into them.
Now for my example of a problematic story I like. I’ve mentioned James Kirkwood’s 1970s novel “P.S. Your Cat is Dead” a few times on AAR as a fun campy romp with an HEA. Heck, I would even consider it a proto-m/m romance, sort of. But thinking back, it definitely has some problematic content. For refreshers, Jimmy Zoole, a failing actor and wannabe author, is having a lousy New Year’s Eve that includes getting burgled twice, having his manuscript stolen, losing two acting jobs for reasons beyond his control, getting dumped by his girlfriend, and being strung along by a wealthy elderly aunt who keeps threatening to cut him out of her will if he doesn’t cater to her every whim. So, bad day, right? Oh, and now he’s caught Vito- the burglar responsible- tied him to the kitchen table, and wonders how the heck he should take his revenge on this person who has stupidly come back to burgle him a third time.
Well, you can tell from the setup that this story is just plain silly and over the top. But there’s definitely some iffy stuff beyond the weird premise. For one thing, Jimmy threatens to bring over a kinky acquaintance of his to rape Vito. (Yikes!) In all fairness, Jimmy verbally runs through a host of scenarios he might inflict on the intruder like chopping him into hamburger meat. Mostly, he’s trying to freak the guy out- but the rape threat gets pretty serious at one point in the story. Plus, Jimmy’s pretty ethnically abusive toward Vito, taunting him to the point where he cries. Yeah, you can argue he’s a burglar and is getting everything he deserves, but some of it is pretty harsh.
Despite all this, once Jimmy calms down a bit and gets to know his captive, they actually have a heart-to-heart that is oddly charming and leaves you rooting for them to run away together to start a new life. Stockholm/Lima syndrome much? Somehow, it all works out for me and I find the overall story a lot of fun and, dare I say, charming in places.
@Nan: thank you for bringing to my attention the concept of Lima Syndrome (which I’d never heard of before). I read quite a bit of “dark romance” where there is often abduction & captivity (talk about problematic!) and where the abductor/captor begins to develop feelings for the victim. Obviously the reverse of Stockholm Syndrome, but I never realized it had a name before I saw your reference to Lima Syndrome and then took a trip down the Wikipedia rabbit hole.
You’re welcome! I first heard the term Lima syndrome when I did some research on a favorite movie of mine “Dog Day Afternoon.” Sometimes, when I watch an amazing film, I just *have* to learn some of the behind the scenes stuff. And the term “Lima syndrome” came up to describe some of its main tropes. If you haven’t seen the movie, which is based on a true story, I highly recommend it!
As for “dark romance,” maybe “P.S. Your Cat is Dead” (long out of print, unfortunately- got it via ILL) would be too silly for your tastes. I don’t recommend the play it is based on, especially the revival version, as it removes most of the darker elements that made the novel so intriguing. It is probably the only case of a novelization I liked better than the original source material- maybe because the original author penned both.
Not to beat the grammar topic to death, but in self-publishing – phase and faze are different words! … And I think I didn’t make an error in that sentence. I think…..
@K: As are “rye” and “wry.” I almost did a spit-take when I read the line, “He gave her a rye smile” in a romance novel.
And don’t get me started on use of nominative-case versus objective-case pronouns, because—between you and I—those mistakes are rage-inducing. (Did you see what I did there?)
“And don’t get me started on use of nominative-case versus objective-case pronouns…” I had no idea what any of those grammatical points meant until you provided an example. I definitely understand grammar intuitively, but throw some terminology at me, and I’ll probably draw a blank. It’s the same with music theory. I don’t know what the heck a key is or what it means, but I can sight read sheet music reasonably well (even though my piano playing skills are lousy due to coordination problems, but I digress…)
Getting back to grammar, I definitely blame our modern day lack-of-education system for these foibles that wind up in self-published- or even traditionally published!- titles. Most of everything I’ve ever learned of any use took place outside of school. English classes in particular need to get practical. For example, I never learned in school how to write a query letter, write a business letter, find opportunities for publishing writing, and so forth. It took me years to realize that, yes, short stories still exist and there are markets for them. Rant over.
A new side to this issue that has become more prevalent with the rise of self-publishing, is the lack of, or need for more editing. There are some self-published ebooks that are amazing stories, but contain so many grammar errors and awkwardly worded phrases that you know it would be sent back for revisions if you turned it in to your high school English teacher. There a few books by Mariana Zapata that I love and have read or listened to multiple times. However, if I had to give them a grade, I’d struggle with whether to mark them down due to this problem, or give them the A that I feel the content deserves.
Ok, so I noticed some errors of my own after I submitted this. Oh irony…
@Sarah: There’s an internet rule that states: If you are posting a correction to someone else’s grammar, you will inevitably make a grammar mistake yourself. I have always found this to be true. Lol
I’m sure we could all share stores of our “favorite” grammar/proofing mistakes, but the lack of adequate proofreading and editing in romance is beyond annoying and, unfortunately, contributes to the notion that romance is designed for fluffy-brained, empty-headed gals who don’t know the difference between “whirlwind” and “world wind” or “feudal” and “futile” (both are mistakes I’ve seen). Someone once said that writers are willing to spend $3,000 for advertising and promotion of their books, but won’t shell out $1,000 for a thorough proofreading & copy edit.
@Sarah- It’s a really interesting thing about self-publishing and editing. As a self-published author myself, I realize there are limitations to self-editing, which is what most of us (I believe) end up doing. The big reason for this is finances. Editing costs a lot of money and most writers aren’t rich. For many of us, we are bursting with interesting stories to tell that mainstream publishers don’t want. Since we don’t have the luxury of advances and access to traditional publishing houses’ editors, that’s just the way it goes.
@DiscoDollyDeb- “Someone once said that writers are willing to spend $3,000 for advertising and promotion of their books, but won’t shell out $1,000 for a thorough proofreading & copy edit.” I suppose it depends on the self-published author. I have seen desperate characters sink their entire fortunes into the whole shebang without their books amounting to anything.
As for the lack of editing and proofreading in self-published romance, it is, in many cases, a desperate grab for cash. And I won’t pretend to be above that. A big reason why I self-publish smut is because erotica, not romance, is the one genre where a writer can get away with writing at a sixth grade level, self-edit, choose a generic cover, spend absolutely $0 on advertising or anything beyond a word processor- and still make sales with very little complaint. Are there discerning erotica readers? Absolutely! But I think romance readers overall demand a much higher quality because they are looking for something far more substantial than a quick, fun thrill.
The issues of typos, mindos, and other errors come up again & again among readers. Several years ago I even tracked errors I noticed for 10 years and wrote up my conclusions in http://www.ccrsdodona.org/markmuse/reading/rightword.html.
I’m an English teacher and a Mariana Zapata fan, and I would give most of her books an A. I do see the frequent typos and repetitive wording in her books and know that these issues could easily be resolved with an editor (or better editor). But my rule for grading has always been to use a common rubric where only 10% of any grade assesses writing conventions. I’m accustomed to assessing writing under a “big picture” philosophy.
I feel as if we covered a lot of this same ground on the recent @Ask about “guilty pleasures.” I think all of us like things that can be construed (by ourselves or others) as “problematic.” Based on comments posted, the two most problematic books that I love are TIME SERVED by Julianna Keyes (the hero confesses to a never-acted-upon revenge-rape fantasy, plus there’s some slut-shaming of one of the heroine’s coworkers) and Sierra Simone’s PRIEST (the hero is a Catholic priest and he has taken a vow of celibacy; the book is a romance…do the math). Despite their problematical elements, both books are frequent comfort rereads for me.
And let’s not even get started on my love for the basic template of Harlequin Presents….
This is a similar conversation except for the grading piece which, as a publisher, I struggle with all the time!
I confess, the rape fantasy (I CAN’T EVEN BELIEVE I’M TYPING THAT) was a big turn-off for me in Time Served. I just couldn’t get past it even as I grew to like the character. I think this is perhaps why this book was a miss for me in the series; Keyes gets everything right. I just couldn’t handle the hateful revenge dynamic that marks the start of the novel.
And I’m less bothered by rape fantasies than I am revenge fantasies. Unless you’re Inigo Montoya, I am not interested in you living your life to get back at someone for something. Move on!
Or worse, the old “you haven’t done anything wrong, but you are related to, engaged to, admired by, employed by or just recognized by someone I hate therefore I WILL USE AND DESTROY YOU.”
Words cannot express how much I hate this. It’s jump up and down on the book- levels of hatred for me.
I don’t even mind regular revenge plots if the revenge is justified and targeted specifically at the megalomaniac who did the damage but when it’s the “hero” who decides they don’t care about the “collateral damage” to innocents then I just can’t even.
Coincidentally, TIME SERVED is on sale for 99-cents today and SBTB linked to a previous discussion there had been the last time it was on sale. The comments above about the problematic nature of TIME SERVED were reiterated in the discussion (both pro and con in terms of whether those elements could be overlooked and the book still enjoyed).
A male rape fantasy would be a turnoff, to say the least. I suppose the biggest issue is how to turn a man with a rape fantasy into the hero of a romance? I am though also uncomfortable in general about revenge stories. They aren’t deal breakers in a book but I find myself tense while reading them, which for some reader may be pleasurable, somewhat like enjoying being scared during horror films or books.
I never heard of Time Served before, so of course since it was on sale I had to go and get a copy.
I try to be a critical reader always and think through what messages any text is conveying. On a pure enjoyment scale, I generally tend to like things that accord with my own values and dislike things that do not, but when it comes to grading a book, I have to assess whether the “good” outweighs the “bad.”
So, with that said, Susan Elizabeth Phillips’s totally bonkers Kiss an Angel is one of my favorite romances, and it’s crazy weird and insanely problematic for so many reasons. Alex, the hero (an erstwhile Russian prince/ivy league, wealthy art history professor/circus performer/horse trainer!) is emotionally abusive and misogynistic from page one. Forced to marry Daisy, the most Perfect Woman ever, and take her with him on his circus roadshow, he terribly mistreats her, accuses her of lying and stealing, mocks her in front of others, flirts atrociously with other women when they are together in public, forces her to have sex with him after she runs away from him, and even suggests slyly that whipping her is within the realm of possibilities. He even keeps the whip under his bed! And low and behold, he “accidentally” whips her pregnant belly as the penultimate moment in their marriage. Why do I love this book so much then and how weird is it to explain my love to others? Daisy is simply amazing. She communes with the animal kingdom better than Dr. Doolittle, which kind of makes sense if you are an angel and happen to live in a zoo. She has a psychic connection with a ferocious tiger, a loving connection with an orangutan, and is a nurturing mother to a baby elephant. And it’s not just animals that succumb to her charms. Everyone who meets her falls in love with her gentle kindness and optimistic nature, including the cynical hero. However, even as purely good as she is, Daisy draws the line when Alex threatens her with a forced abortion. She resolutely says no, and then she simply vanishes – leaving him no trace by which to track her down. Daisy running out on her marriage and leaving Alex to stew in regret for weeks and then forcing him to wait for her to decide if she’ll take him back and give him another chance is just the best part of this crazy book. I’ve never wanted a hero to have to grovel as much as I relish Alex groveling – all while she sits underneath an elephant, as one does!
It’s pretty much accepted in romancelandia that SEP creates books where men hurt women, only to squirm and suffer to win the woman back, and this is the best of that problematic subgenre and the best of SEP’s books, I think. (I’m leaving out Daisy’s father sabotaging his daughter’s birth control so that she is forced to give birth to a royal heir because that’s a whole other level of patriarchal wackiness.)
Jane Feather has some books that are completely bonkers. OTT and Old Skool. I can’t help it. They are catnip.
I have never read Jane Feather but OTT and Old Skool definitely defines many of the aspects of Kiss an Angel.
I love Kissed by Shadows and To Kiss a Spy by Jane Feather. The plots are over the top although maybe not as “problematic” as some of her older stuff you may be referring to.
Every time I think of that book, I think SEP wanted to do a romantic version of La Strada. Doesn’t work for me, understand why it works for others.
La Strada is a great example though I kind of imagine Kiss an Angel as absurdist art.
I do like that book although the animal stuff is a little woo woo for me. My husband once had a patient, a little boy, whose father kept a tiger as a pet and one day the tiger tried to eat the kid. 30 surgeries later….
But I do like that book despite that!
And should reviewers give books lower grades because they have ethical/cultural flaws? Some AAR reviewers do and others don’t. If a reviewer loves a book but knows that its portrayal of something/someone/some aspect of culture is iffy, should that book be downgraded? Or is it enough just to point that flaw out?
I think it is sufficient to point out potential issues, and let readers decide for themselves whether to read or not. I wouldn’t grade down per se for something that may or may not be an issue for some readers – it should only be downgraded if it affects the reviewer’s experience. That, after all is said and done, what a review is: one person’s opinion.
Having said that, I do think there is room for new (or more than one) review of a title. Books that received DIK grades 10 or 20 years ago may or may not get the same review or grade today. I really enjoyed AAR’s review of its Top 100 titles a few months ago for this very reason: the comments from a variety of readers were very interesting. Also, I enjoy when readers take the time to post comments once they’ve read something AAR has reviewed.
I don’t think that what one person thinks is a “flaw” is necessarily what someone else does. This goes back to the discussion about those secret comfort reads that we love even though we are too embarrassed to admit it. To me a lot of this boils down to changing mores with the passage of time so that, for example, The Flame and The Flower, which my mother adored, would today be considered bodice ripping trash fit only for the dustbin. And the focus on foreign lovers from Spain, Greece, Italy, etc. so popular in the 1970s now make us cringe. I have a personal hang-up about getting titles right which I have expressed here many times and that I usually view as hugely significant flaws but, guess what? Edith Layton made a few bodge-jobs of aristocratic titles and rules on inheritance that were simply unbelievable but I loved her writing, characters, plots, etc. so much that I forgave her anyway. And her books remain on my keeper shelf. Time to dust one down now and have a re-read. I have plenty of time on my hands at the mo!
“And the focus on foreign lovers from Spain, Greece, Italy, etc. so popular in the 1970s now make us cringe.” Oh, Elaine S., those stories *definitely* still exist between the covers of Harlequin Presents titles…