Comments on: Romance novel conference in Princeton http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:36:12 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Melissa http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/comment-page-1/#comment-1031157 Melissa Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:27:31 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/#comment-1031157 --"Romance isn’t rubbish because chicks write and like it. It’s rubbish because it’s crammed with purple prose, sentimentality and stereotypes." I have to disagree on this one. A great example is author <a>Ginger Blymyer</a>. You can clearly see by reading her book "Flying Into the Sun," that it is an inspiring novel. One that is not a stereotypical pulse beater, but a life living, chance taking, personal growth romance fiction. It is wonderful and refreshing. –”Romance isn’t rubbish because chicks write and like it. It’s rubbish because it’s crammed with purple prose, sentimentality and stereotypes.”

I have to disagree on this one. A great example is author Ginger Blymyer. You can clearly see by reading her book “Flying Into the Sun,” that it is an inspiring novel. One that is not a stereotypical pulse beater, but a life living, chance taking, personal growth romance fiction. It is wonderful and refreshing.

]]> By: RC http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/comment-page-1/#comment-1030401 RC Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:36:20 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/#comment-1030401 "I’ve never understood the disdain with which the romance novel is treated. It seems to me that this is nothing but pure sexism." Huh. Surely not. Romance isn't rubbish because chicks write and like it. It's rubbish because it's crammed with purple prose, sentimentality and stereotypes. So are books by and for permanent boys, as a rule. Bond, for instance. Bond is a male romance with literal bang-bang thrown in with the figurative. Offering up its slick vision of imperialism, Bond has taught generations to think the west's intelligence services were up to lots of dashing good derring-do rather than the usual mundane mayhem, murder, torture and putsches. Bond's bastard son for our times, the feral Jack Bauer, carries on this tradition with much less joie de vivre. He proceeds right to the thumbscrews, and the fans pant. Romance novelists have it harder. As any one of them could tell Jack's creators, bodices need to be misunderstood, offended, ignored and overcome before being ripped off. “I’ve never understood the disdain with which the romance novel is treated. It seems to me that this is nothing but pure sexism.”

Huh. Surely not.

Romance isn’t rubbish because chicks write and like it. It’s rubbish because it’s crammed with purple prose, sentimentality and stereotypes. So are books by and for permanent boys, as a rule.

Bond, for instance. Bond is a male romance with literal bang-bang thrown in with the figurative.

Offering up its slick vision of imperialism, Bond has taught generations to think the west’s intelligence services were up to lots of dashing good derring-do rather than the usual mundane mayhem, murder, torture and putsches.

Bond’s bastard son for our times, the feral Jack Bauer, carries on this tradition with much less joie de vivre. He proceeds right to the thumbscrews, and the fans pant. Romance novelists have it harder. As any one of them could tell Jack’s creators, bodices need to be misunderstood, offended, ignored and overcome before being ripped off.

]]> By: Rob Preece, Publisher http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/comment-page-1/#comment-1027770 Rob Preece, Publisher Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:49:50 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/#comment-1027770 Most romance books are not written to spec. Most are original works of the author. A few, such as the Harlequin NASCAR series and some anthologies are written to spec. At the time they were writing, the Brontes wrote under male pen names because women were not considered real authors. Jane Austen was definitely considered as pulp fiction rather than literature at the time she wrote. Agree that S.F. also has a bad rep. This doesn't mean that romance isn't unfairly singled out. And, yes, there are bad books in romance--but I suggest there are more bad books published in so-called literary fiction each year (at least as a percentage). Rob Preece Most romance books are not written to spec. Most are original works of the author. A few, such as the Harlequin NASCAR series and some anthologies are written to spec.

At the time they were writing, the Brontes wrote under male pen names because women were not considered real authors. Jane Austen was definitely considered as pulp fiction rather than literature at the time she wrote.

Agree that S.F. also has a bad rep. This doesn’t mean that romance isn’t unfairly singled out. And, yes, there are bad books in romance–but I suggest there are more bad books published in so-called literary fiction each year (at least as a percentage).

Rob Preece

]]> By: Bob Martinengo http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/comment-page-1/#comment-1027760 Bob Martinengo Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:36:45 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/#comment-1027760 Be careful Paul, academics have a way of turning fun into work. Be careful Paul, academics have a way of turning fun into work.

]]> By: Bill McHale http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/comment-page-1/#comment-1027730 Bill McHale Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:57:08 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/03/27/romance-novel-conference-in-princeton/#comment-1027730 Paul, I think your comparison to James Bond is a little off base. You are comparing a whole genre to a a single series that exists as but a subset of a different genre; further it is one that basically created the genre in which it resides. James Bond might be considered literature, but so are some of the books that served to help define the Romance Genre. No one would claim that work of Jane Austen or the Bronte Sisters was not literature after all. The modern Romance genre has its reputation for the same reason that media based science fiction does; more often than not the novels are written to spec, recycling plots, settings, etc. Shoot, they are even treated differently in the publishing industry. This isn't to say that some modern Romance novels aren't real literature, but I will invoke Sturgeon's Law for Romance as a genre. -- Bill Paul,
I think your comparison to James Bond is a little off base. You are comparing a whole genre to a a single series that exists as but a subset of a different genre; further it is one that basically created the genre in which it resides. James Bond might be considered literature, but so are some of the books that served to help define the Romance Genre. No one would claim that work of Jane Austen or the Bronte Sisters was not literature after all.

The modern Romance genre has its reputation for the same reason that media based science fiction does; more often than not the novels are written to spec, recycling plots, settings, etc. Shoot, they are even treated differently in the publishing industry.

This isn’t to say that some modern Romance novels aren’t real literature, but I will invoke Sturgeon’s Law for Romance as a genre.

–
Bill

]]>