In the UK Mills & Boon has created a new line: "Launching in January 2011, Riva is a vibrant, exciting new stream of editorial" which promises "sparky, sassy stories." I'd like to share my thoughts about the line after having read 25% of the first month's output. Admittedly that's only one book, and "Our top editor tip" is that "there is no better way to fully understand the Riva experience than to read as many of them as possible!" but at the moment there have only been 4 novels published in the line, and I have to assume that the editors were very careful when choosing them. After all, these four novels introduce the line to Mills & Boon's readership. One would hope, therefore, that for this launch month the editors selected novels which were representative of the line. There are apparently two main types of Riva novel, but both share a focus on "today's young woman":If you like your stories hot & steamy...Kelly Hunter is an author in the "hot & steamy" group, so With This Fling ... should provide some indication of what the editors mean when they write that these novels "reflect the life experiences of today’s young women, within a chic, glamorous, and usually urban setting."
Then you’ll love the Rivas written by original, fresh authors such as Heidi Rice, Natalie Anderson, Kelly Hunter, Kimberly Lang, Anne Oliver, Anna Cleary and Lucy King, formerly published in Mills & Boon Modern Heat. These entertaining romances reflect the life experiences of today’s young women, within a chic, glamorous, and usually urban setting. The[y] offer international glamour, passion and alpha male heroes you expect from Modern, with a flirty young voice and a whole load of sass. The heroines are often your twenty-something girls-about-town but there's no compromising on the hero: he must be very alpha and absolutely to die for. There’ll be sparks flying when these two meet – and nothing short of fireworks once they get to the bedroom!
If you like your stories flirty & sweet...
Then you’ll love the Rivas written by flirty, young voices such as Liz Fielding, Nina Harrington, Fiona Harper and Jackie Braun, formerly published in Mills & Boon Romance. These stories should reflect the experiences of today’s young women – whether it be dating disasters, juggling a work/life balance or overcoming a broken heart. Each story should have an emotional core with believable emotional conflicts but told in an up-beat, fun, contemporary way. The hero should be sexy, aspirational and the romantic tension should sizzle, but when it comes to the bedroom – the door should be firmly closed. We are open to romantic comedies, first person narratives and interesting twists on classic romantic themes.
Charlotte Greenstone is an exceptional archaeologist: "when it came to worldly possessions Charlotte had more than enough for any one person" (7-8) and she has "more publications than most archaeologists three times your age" (14). Not only is she young, wealthy and a big name in her academic field, but she also has "The kind of voice that slid down a man's spine and reminded him that he hadn't had a woman in a while" (35-36) and looks like Lara Croft:Slender, she was that, but she had some generous curves and an abundance of wavy black hair currently tied back in a messy ponytail. She also possessed a heart-shaped face and a creamy complexion that would put Snow White to shame. A wanton's mouth. One that turned a man's mind towards feasting on it. Big doe eyes, with dark curling lashes. 'Are you really an archaeologist?'I have serious doubts that Charlotte really "reflect[s] the life experiences of today’s young women"; it would seem that, rather than providing a realistic portrayal of young women's lives, the emphasis in this half of the line falls rather more heavily on the side of depicting "glamour" (i.e. wealth, power, beauty).
'Yes,' she said grimly. 'And before you start making comparisons between me and a certain tomb-raiding gun-toting female gaming character, I've heard them all before.' (47)
According to Fiona Harper, who writes for Riva and has blogged about the first four novels in the line,
While the sensuality levels vary between the two lines, the types of stories and the 'voices' of the authors are very similar. Riva is the home of sparky, sassy stories of life and love - from first flicker to burning flame.This presumably means that readers can expect all the novels in the line to deliver "a whole load of sass," which can be defined as "impudence; cheek" (OED). Here's an example of some of Charlotte's:
He brought the car to a standstill. [...] Charlotte [...] bent down and smiled at him through the window, showing even white teeth and an abundance of free-spirited cleavage.It seems a pity Charlotte's understanding of feminism is so flawed. On the topic of bras, for example, she'd have benefited from reading this post at "Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog."1
She made no move to get in the car.
Gritting his own teeth, Grey slid from the car, strode around it and hauled the door open for her. 'Why couldn't you have been a feminist?' he said.
'Why on earth would I want to be a feminist?' she muttered as she slid into the seat and waited for him to close the door. 'Where's the power in that?'
He shut the door. Gently. He got back in the car.
'You'll notice I'm not currently wearing a bra,' she said briskly.
Oh, he'd noticed.
'That's because the bodice of this dress fulfils that function, not because it's a feminist convention of the late last century'.
'Noted,' he said.
'I would, however, have made a wonderful suffragette,' she told him. 'There are many principles of equality that I adhere to.'
'Wonderful,' he said dryly. 'Power-based selective feminism. Can't wait to experience that.' (66-67)
It transpires that Charlotte might also have benefited from doing just a little bit of research into safe sex. Her views of sex are presumably "sassy": "I'm reasonably in favour of flings as a legitimate means of providing temporary companionship and sexual satisfaction" (90) but there is no mention of condom-use when she and Grey begin their sexual relationship. Since they had previously engaged in a discussion about the ground-rules for the relationship which left Grey pondering Charlotte's need for psychological "protective barriers" (92) and complaining that "What with all this arranging of events, we seem to have lost a bit of spontaneity" (96), it seems ironic that she does not negotiate the use of physical "protective barriers." Certainly when Charlotte discovers she's pregnant she doesn't mention a split condom, so presumably she was relying on the fact that "I'm on the pill [...] because of irregular periods" (149) to ensure that she didn't conceive. Maybe it's supposed to seem sassy of her to have unprotected sex with "a man she barely knew" (95)?
As I mentioned earlier, this is only one book and one has to be careful about extrapolating from a small sample, but I'm nonetheless left wondering how often "sassy" in the Riva line will mean "prone to exhibiting 'Power-based selective feminism' and ending up accidentally pregnant."
- Hunter, Kelly. With This Fling ... Richmond, Surrey: Harlequin Mills & Boon, 2011.
1 And while we're on the subject of feminism, you may be interested in this little example of Charlotte's sassy approach to monitoring gender norms:
He'd dressed casually in old jeans and a white linen shirt with a round neck. The shirt could have looked effeminate, but not on those shoulders, and not with that face.
No, with those shoulders and that face and that lean and tight rear end of his, the metro shirt served only to emphasise the blatant masculinity of the body beneath. (70-71)
The image of Lara Croft came from Wikipedia.
O.M.F.G., as us sassy young gals about town like to say.
ReplyDeleteWell, I won't be reading the Riva line if this example proves to be the norm. I already have serious, serious problems with the way in which beauty is depicted as the main virtue and character trait of--and I'm clearly making up this percentage--87% of romance novel heroines over last 100 years.
What I'd like to see are some more heroines a la Lucy Sullivan in Marion Keyes is lovely book Lucy Sullivan is Getting Married which is a much more accurate depiction of what life for young women in an urban setting is like. Even Bridge Jones is more accurate.
The word sassy itself is rather condescending and brings to mind the kind of 1950's based Girls'Guide to Romance, like Helen Andelin's Fascinating Girl, which encourages women to be sassy during in argument. Translation, toss your curls and stomp your foot.
When I think of sassy, I think of the Sassy Gay Friend. SGF save Ophelia. SGF saves Eve. SGF saves Juliet.
ReplyDelete"What I'd like to see are some more heroines a la Lucy Sullivan in Marion Keyes is lovely book Lucy Sullivan is Getting Married"
ReplyDeleteWell, interestingly, Keyes is mentioned in the description of the Riva line. To quote a bit of the guidelines which I didn't quote before:
Riva is a vibrant, exciting new stream of editorial for readers who enjoy authors such as Louise Bagshawe, Tasmina Perry, Marian Keyes and Sophie Kinsella. Upmarket, glossy and sharply contemporary, these stories sparkle with humour, passion and emotion (emphasis added)
I was somewhat encouraged by the statement in the guidelines that "We are open to romantic comedies, first person narratives and interesting twists on classic romantic themes" because it suggested that, at least in the "flirty & sweet" half of the Riva line, they might be hoping to be a bit innovative.
However, if their idea of humour is often going to be dependent on gender stereotyping and/or being anti-feminist, then it's not going to appeal to me.
"The word sassy itself is rather condescending and brings to mind the kind of 1950's based Girls'Guide to Romance"
As it happens, the title of the other "hot & steamy" novel in this month's output is Girls' Guide to Flirting with Danger. I haven't read it, so I don't know whether the content evokes the kind of guide you're thinking of.
Sarah, I like the Sassy Gay Friend's kind of sassiness. He's not the kind to stand for supposedly romantic Big Misunderstandings.
I'm also wondering about the implications of Riva being focused on "today's young woman."
ReplyDeleteJessica Hart, the author of Juggling Briefcase and Baby, another of this month's titles, has previously written a number of romances about somewhat older heroines (in their late 30s to mid 40s, I think) which I've really enjoyed. I don't suppose novels like that will find a home in the Riva line.
I think it's going to take me some time to get used to this reorganisation and rebranding of the lines in the UK. For example, I think I've been largely steering clear of the "Cherish" line because its name and the soft pink colour on the covers makes me expect saccharine-sweet stories, even though apparently the Cherish editors are looking for
Vibrant, heart-wrenching, exciting, uplifting, unexpected, intelligent, warm… [...]. We welcome a variety of settings, characters and themes, from the unusual to the classic, but at the heart of each story should be a strong emotional conflict and an unpredictable story that will have the reader turning the pages in anticipation.
Argh! FFS, Mills & Boon! Here's another vote for Sassy Gay Friend to intervene and set that pinhead straight, er -- well, force her to read a definition of feminism anyway.
ReplyDeleteArgh! Every time I try to tell people, "Aw, romance isn't like you think, it's really innovated, it's taken women's real lives into consideration!" something like this comes along. Help me, Sassy Gay Friend!
[It seems the height of irony that my word verification is "unifyi"]
Riva is a vibrant, exciting new stream of editorial for readers who enjoy authors such as Louise Bagshawe, Tasmina Perry, Marian Keyes and Sophie Kinsella. Upmarket, glossy and sharply contemporary, these stories sparkle with humour, passion and emotion.
ReplyDeleteIf these stories are supposed to be re-named Modern Heats and Romances, whoever wrote the above sentence is, at best, unaware of how far they've wandered away from reality. Chick lit is not the same as romance, not at all, and anyone who read that would have a right to expect the former when reading a Riva.
Though I must say that I read Juggling Briefcase and Baby the other day and did quite enjoy the fact that after the heroine and hero had broken up, she'd actually had and enjoyed sex with other men. The baby in the title was the result of a fling that she indulged in, if I remember correctly, because she felt like it, not as a response to some horrible event in her life. The fact that the author didn't feel the need to give her an excuse for sex put me in a good mood, especially since there wasn't a hint of baby-as-repayment-for-daring-to-have-sex.
Back to the Lara Croftalike: Well, that's one author I'll never read. You know, I understand that some authors a) obviously don't understand a damn thing about feminism and b) dislike it, sometimes quite a lot. I'm fine with that. But what I find baffling is that editors don't remove the anti-feminist remarks those authors make from their books. Most feminists are women. Most romance readers are women. These two groups are obviously related: popular romance bloggers have identified themselves as feminists and discussed feminism in the genre, and those posts often have dozens, if not hundreds, of commenters who agree with said bloggers. I simply cannot understand why editors don't get that allowing authors to insult feminists in books which will likely be read by feminists is a really bad idea.
"Here's another vote for Sassy Gay Friend to [...] force her to read a definition of feminism anyway."
ReplyDeleteI was seriously unimpressed by Charlotte's "Why on earth would I want to be a feminist? [...] Where's the power in that?" but I wasn't sure whether or not she had entirely misunderstood all of feminism's aims. After all, she's an extremely privileged woman (really wealthy, well educated, in employment, white, heterosexual, able-bodied, cisgendered, young, beautiful by conventional standards.....). Perhaps she recognises that feminism isn't about increasing her privilege and power but "is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression" (hooks, viii).
Although Charlotte's youth and beauty sometimes cause problems for her at work because it makes it more difficult for her to be taken seriously, it hasn't stopped her becoming a professor or being highly influential in her field. From a selfish, individualist perspective, she's probably right that being a feminist will do nothing to increase her personal power. Sexism, on the other hand, does bring her benefits because she can demand the sexist privileges often accorded to young and beautiful women.
So, as a reader, I wasn't sure how to interpret this passage. Is Charlotte just ignorant of what feminism is really about? Or is she so selfish that she rejects it because it won't help her maintain, or increase her own, personal power?
And Lynz identifies another puzzling aspect of this:
"I simply cannot understand why editors don't get that allowing authors to insult feminists in books which will likely be read by feminists is a really bad idea."
I wonder if the editors haven't realised how many young women are feminists. Or perhaps they think that feminists wouldn't read Mills & Boons, though that, as you say, would require them to be ignorant of the many "popular romance bloggers [who] have identified themselves as feminists and discussed feminism in the genre" and also of the many Mills & Boon authors who've said they're feminists.
----
hooks, bell. Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge MA: South End Press, 2000.
Argh! Every time I try to tell people, "Aw, romance isn't like you think, it's really innovated, it's taken women's real lives into consideration!" something like this comes along.
ReplyDeleteYes, and for a line that's supposed to have "fresh" voices, it does seem particularly ironic that the explicit rejection of feminism here is not dissimilar to the kind I found in White Hibiscus (1979), by Rosemary Pollock.
I read Juggling Briefcase and Baby the other day and did quite enjoy the fact that after the heroine and hero had broken up, she'd actually had and enjoyed sex with other men. The baby in the title was the result of a fling that she indulged in, if I remember correctly, because she felt like it, not as a response to some horrible event in her life. The fact that the author didn't feel the need to give her an excuse for sex put me in a good mood, especially since there wasn't a hint of baby-as-repayment-for-daring-to-have-sex.
Yes, the line's attitude towards women's sexuality has definitely moved on from the 1970s. As I mentioned in my post, Charlotte is
"reasonably in favour of flings as a legitimate means of providing temporary companionship and sexual satisfaction" (90)
So Charlotte's taking a pick-and-mix attitude towards feminism, and I wonder if the line is, too. Both want the sexual freedoms feminists have helped win for many women, but perhaps for some authors and editors it doesn't seem fun, flirty and sassy to stand up for other aspects of feminism. I really don't want to make sweeping assumptions about the whole line. However, the fact that this book came out does seem to give some indication of what the line's editors find acceptable, and even appealing.
Oh dear. This sounds horribly like the chick-lit trope of a gorgeous but practically half-witted heroine who is claimed to be at the top of a demanding scholarly profession when only in her twenties! Not a lot of connection with real life, then.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can state with absolute confidence that archaeology is neither 'glamorous' nor likely to make a person rich; it is an academic profession.
The story-line of the fake fiancé/boyfriend who materialises in real life seems less than original, too. In short, nothing new here for M&B, I fear.
However, I haven't read it, so have no right to comment in any detail. What kind of archaeologist is the heroine supposed to be? I suppose she can't be any less convincing than the ghastly heroine of Nora Roberts' Birthright.
Tigress, she's Associate Professor of Archaeology at the University of Sydney (34) but she's rich because "My great grandfather was in shipping. My grandmother added luxury liners to the mix" (87).
ReplyDeleteHere's a description of her job:
'How long have you worked at Syndey Uni?'
'Five years.'
'And this associate professorship, it allows for the kind of travel you're used to?'
'No, it's a desk job. [...] I like the stability. I like the people I work closely with. I even like the routine, and I can usually tolerate the politics. And what with communications these days, field teams can get photos and data to me and I can make comment within minutes if required.' (88)
At the university her "usual working attire" (110) is
smart trousers, plain shirt, boring shoes - and she'd kept the make-up light, aiming for elegant minimalism. [...] 'Why the disguise?' he asked finally as she she [...] began smoothing back her wayward hair in readiness for a hairclip. [...]
'I'm a relatively youthful female giving undergraduate lectures and gunning for tenure within an antiquated and patriarchal employment system," she said with a shrug. 'Respect comes a little easier to some if I look the part.' (110-111)
Charlotte's parents (who were archaeologists) have been dead "over twenty years" (9). They "died in a light aircraft crash in Peru when I was five" (87) and after that she was cared for by her godmother, Aurora, who "was an archaeologist like my parents. [...] From then on, I went where Aurora went and that was everywhere" (88). This is presumably how Charlotte, despite being about 25, or perhaps a few years older, has "Over twenty years of hands-on fieldwork and analysis" (111).
On the other hand, she might be nearer 30, because "somewhere in my mid twenties I started wondering what it might be like to stay in one place for a while. So instead of scraping away at how other people lived, I took the Sydney uni job" (127).
Grey Googles "Charlotte's family name to see if he could get a better feel for this brand she'd inherited. A glamorous brand, by all accounts. The Greenstones were to archaeology what the Kennedys had been to government. Dazzling, immensely successful and supremely ill-fated" (119). It's because of this background that her boss, Professor Mead, says that her "family name engenders a great deal of goodwill. God knows, I've never seen an archaeologist pull funding from the private sector the way you do" (15).
As far as I can tell, she doesn't specialise in any particular area of archaeology and neither did Aurora, because they kept travelling all over the place: as a child she was taught via the "New South Wales distance education system [...] Tailored for children who travelled. [..] I studied the Battle of Waterloo by walking the battlefield. I sat in the Colosseum and dreamed of gladiators and the roar of a Roman crowd" (129).
In the end she leaves the university and sets up the "Greenstone Archaeology Foundation", which will be a foundation "that finances and manages archaeological projects and gets key people working together" (177).
As for her attitude towards archaeology, when Grey murmurs "Has anyone ever told you that your grip on reality's a little shaky?" she replies "Hello [...] Archaeologist. It's part of the job description." (47)
Thanks for all the information, Laura! I didn't mean or expect you to go to all that trouble! All I can say is, 'huh'. Or possibly 'cripes'.
ReplyDeleteI realise that the author is an Aussie, but hey, they have some pretty good real archaeologists in the antipodes, so that's no excuse. She could surely have done a teensy-weensy bit of research about archaeology, rather than watching fantasy films like Lara Croft.
It seems the heroine's wealth is adequately accounted for, but not her status. I don't need to tell you (or many others here) that these days, you have to have your doctorate before you get started in your career (things were more relaxed 40 years ago), and that makes you at least 25 before you start in at entry level; any preferment in an institution depends to a considerable extent on your PUBLICATION record, and the speed of academic publication is stately, to say the least -- always at least a year between submission of manuscript and publication, and often a lot more.
And as for the non-specialisation: it just doesn't ring true in archaeology. People do sometimes switch, or have more than one major area of expertise, but you simply cannot build a reputation that would earn you a chair or other senior appointment without several years' worth of significant published original research in a specific area of study.
I know this seems nitpicking. But I would be just as irritated by a character of 30 or so who was already a major figure in any other academic profession. The story is obviously not about real life and real situations, but why not? It is perfectly possible for authors to create enjoyable romances that do bear some recognisable relation to reality, and those are the ones that many of us enjoy most: stories about things that could actually happen in the real world.
Laura, I thought that your theory about Charlotte's anti-feminist sentiment stemming from the fact that she's already quite privileged was a good explanation, but that quote about her "usual working attire" made me change my mind.
ReplyDeleteI can see an author creating a female character who rejects feminism due to the reasoning you propose, but I don't think it would serve the creator of such a character to show us that the character is aware that the sexism in "an antiquated and patriarchal employment system" has an effect on how she is treated. Eliminating sexism would help her increase her power, so a wholehearted rejection of feminism wouldn't be in her best interests.
I suppose it is possible that the author actually does understand feminism but has purposely created a character who doesn't, but based on my previous experiences with contemporary feminism-bashing heroines, I think it's probably just the author's personal prejudices coming through.
I wonder if the editors haven't realised how many young women are feminists. Or perhaps they think that feminists wouldn't read Mills & Boons.
I could buy that explanation for any other publishing house, but one of Harlequin's selling points is the amount of reader input they acquire. I know that Harlequin regularly asks for reader feedback, and that the editors often interact with members of the on-site community. I'm assuming that the information collected is applied, at least in part, to M&B as well.
Yes, the line's attitude towards women's sexuality has definitely moved on from the 1970s.
I don't think I expressed myself well in my original comment. The point I was trying to make is that there may be hope for the line yet. Hart's heroine was much more balanced about sex (and in general) than Charlotte seems to be; though I don't believe it was stated outright, I was left with a rather strong impression that the baby's conception was quite a surprise. Hunter's previous books were published under Modern Heat, whereas Juggling Briefcase and Baby was a Romance. So while both authors are now writing for Riva, I'm assuming that Hunter's books are the "hot & steamy" ones, and Hart's are "flirty & sweet," and that distinction may be a cause for hope.
that quote about her "usual working attire" made me change my mind.
ReplyDeleteYes, it did make me stop and think, too, because it demonstrates that Charlotte uses feminist language when critiquing "an antiquated and patriarchal employment system" yet has previously rejected feminism because it won't give her "power."
This discussion between Grey and Charlotte, about the clothes she wears to work, was in my mind when I wrote earlier that
Although Charlotte's youth and beauty sometimes cause problems for her at work because it makes it more difficult for her to be taken seriously, it hasn't stopped her becoming a professor or being highly influential in her field. From a selfish, individualist perspective, she's probably right that being a feminist will do nothing to increase her personal power.
For me, that impression was strengthened by the fact that she concludes the conversation like this:
[Grey] 'What do you do about the ones who don't respect your abilities, no matter how you dress?'
[Charlotte] 'They get to learn the hard way.' (111)
It gave me the impression that she'd take an individualistic approach to dealing with sexism. And as a Lara-Croft-alike, she's presumably capable of doing the academic equivalent of bursting in, all guns blazing, to get what she wants. In fact, she does: she resigns and sets up her own Foundation.
"Eliminating sexism would help her increase her power, so a wholehearted rejection of feminism wouldn't be in her best interests."
Possibly, but I'd imagine that it's a feature of "Power-based selective feminism" that the person who believes in it will complain about sexism when it affects her personally, but won't necessarily be bothered by sexism that affects other women. Or at least, she won't be bothered enough to (a) identify as a feminist and (b) actively work to challenge sexism which doesn't directly affect her.
I could buy that explanation for any other publishing house, but one of Harlequin's selling points is the amount of reader input they acquire.
In that case, maybe the editors know that the majority of readers will find feminism-bashing perfectly acceptable?
The point I was trying to make is that there may be hope for the line yet. [...] I'm assuming that Hunter's books are the "hot & steamy" ones, and Hart's are "flirty & sweet," and that distinction may be a cause for hope.
Oh yes, the line will definitely include a range of different authors, with different views. But if a proportion of these "stories sparkle with humour" of a kind I don't find funny, then I'm not going to trust the editors or the line to reliably deliver humorous novels that I'd want to read. Here's another example of something that I can only assume was meant to be funny, but didn't read that way to me:
Greyson Tyler didn't strike Charlotte as a particularly cavalier individual. Not when it came to his research. Not when it came to his relationships. He was, however, male - which probably went some way towards explaining his limited thought processes when it came to bedding a woman and walking away. (94)
To me, that last line is incredibly sexist about men, and I don't find sexist humour funny.
I have a limited book-buying budget, so I'm not likely to take a risk on a line in which 25% of the launch books contain anti-feminist and sexist humour. So, unless I end up reading the line for research purposes, I'm likely to restrict my purchases in the Riva line to authors whose books I read and liked before they became Riva authors.
Just saw that Eloisa James has written that
ReplyDeleteI actually think there are very few non-feminist romances [...]. Current academic scholarship credits romance for its focus on what a woman wants and deserves in life. They’re all pretty feminist – even historical heroines (who couldn’t hold a job) are forthright, strong women.
As With This Fling ... demonstrates, however, it's perfectly possible for a heroine to be strong, forthright, hold down a job and still be anti-feminist.
If my female students are any indication, Laura, the "strong, forthright, anti-feminist" combination has an audience. Many of those students are unwilling to call themselves feminists or think of themselves as feminists--"I'm not a 'feminist,' but...," they'll often say--yet they like to think of themselves as strong and forthright young women.
ReplyDeleteIn the US, at least, the negative stereotyping of feminists has been extremely successful.
Laura wrote - "I was seriously unimpressed by Charlotte's "Why on earth would I want to be a feminist? [...] Where's the power in that?" but I wasn't sure whether or not she had entirely misunderstood all of feminism's aims."
ReplyDeleteOkay, here's something maybe nobody here seems to have considered. Maybe, just maybe, when she utters the above, Charlotte isn't actually giving chapter and verse of Every. Single. Thing. she believes in. Maybe she was speaking tongue firmly in cheek. And maybe, just maybe, as every good heroine should, she was simply out to mess with the hero's head?
The way I read the scene, she certainly succeeded. The way this blog reads, Charlotte clearly managed to mess with a few other heads besides.
I have to admit, I'm an unabashed fan of Kelly Hunter books. They are fun, clever, witty reads with dialogue rich with subtext, and more often than not, they are laugh out loud funny - all in all, an amazing feat to jam into the fifty or so thousand words that the short category romances are restricted to.
Yes, I'll admit it now I'm also a romance author and I know Kelly Hunter both personally and professionally (and yes, AgTigress, you can rest assured Kelly is a professional, unlike your comment), and no, Kelly didn't put me up to this. She'd no doubt be horrified. I just thought a little balance was called for.
Thanks for posting, Trish. I'll admit, you have me curious now. I wonder if I can download an e-book version here in the States. It doesn't look like it's for sale yet over here. Does anyone know whether I can just buy the e-book from Mills & Boon and read it on a US Nook?
ReplyDeleteEM, I'm not sure about a Nook - I have a Sony, but you might find what you need on this page -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.adobe.com/products/digitaleditions/
Otherwise you can download to your computer. Not so flexible, but doable.
Well, that should work with the Nook, then. I'll give it a try, and see what I think--
ReplyDelete"I just thought a little balance was called for."
ReplyDeleteTrish, I've read a lot of Harlequin Mills & Boons and I've written an article which analysed how some books in both the Modern/Presents/Sexy line and the Romance/Sweet line either explicitly or implicitly expressed support for feminism. It could therefore be argued that I was bringing "a little balance" to my research by pointing out that romances written in the 21st century can also include sexist and explicitly anti-feminist statements.
"Maybe she was speaking tongue firmly in cheek. And maybe, just maybe, as every good heroine should, she was simply out to mess with the hero's head?"
That's a possibility, of course, but generally in a romance if a protagonist makes a statement which is subsequently reinforced by other statements and behaviour and is never retracted, readers will tend to assume that the character was sincere.
Readers could read a romance in an ironic, questioning way, always alert to the possibility that the narrator is unreliable, and careful never to take the characters' statements at face value, but if we did adopt that mode of reading we would have to question whether statements such as "I love you" are just another way of messing with someone's head, and we would have to ask ourselves whether, when a hero grovels, he does so cynically, to manipulate the heroine's feelings.
Generally, romance readers don't read romances that way because it would make it very, very difficult to believe in the happy endings.
"and yes, AgTigress, you can rest assured Kelly is a professional, unlike your comment"
AgTigress is an archaeologist, Trish, and she's therefore commenting on the issue of Charlotte's professional background from a position of considerable expertise.
I've taken a look at the webpage of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Sydney and of the 18 members of academic staff, only 4 are Professors. One, who is an Associate Professor, was born in 1955, gained her undergraduate degree in 1977 and didn't become an Associate Professor until 2006. In the intervening years she got a PhD, worked as a Research Fellow, then a Post-Doctoral Fellow, then a Lecturer, and then a Senior Lecturer.
That seems like a normal career progression. Others may well advance more rapidly in their careers but it does seem highly unlikely that anyone could become an Associate Professor in their mid-20s.
Trish: I did not question Ms. Hunter's personal professional credentials, nor did I make any comment on or criticism of her style, as I have not read any of her books.
ReplyDeleteBut since she chose to make the heroine of this book an archaeologist, I questioned her understanding of the usual career paths of professional archaeologists from the plot synopsis given by Laura, who has read it. I admit to being particularly sensitive to flippant and wildly unrealistic representations of archaeologists — and other academics — in the media. On the other hand, I relish novels in which the occupations of significant characters are described with insight and understanding. I like to be able to trust that a novelist has researched a job or profession in some detail, so that what I learn when reading about it is true.
Realistic representation of any kind of work, however mundane or however rarified, is interesting because it is part of that fascinating issue of the ways in which we are all similar and the ways in which we are different. If I think I am being misled about a particular way of life, a culture, a period in history, this undermines my pleasure in a story.
I think that Laura's notes on the relevant archaeology department speak for themselves.
Thanks Laura, clearly I should have been more specific. This is the part of AgTigress's comments that I took umbrage with -
ReplyDelete"I realise that the author is an Aussie, but hey, they have some pretty good real archaeologists in the antipodes, so that's no excuse. She could surely have done a teensy-weensy bit of research about archaeology, rather than watching fantasy films like Lara Croft."
I'm sorry, that actually doesn't sound professional to me.
"Readers could read a romance in an ironic, questioning way, always alert to the possibility that the narrator is unreliable, and careful never to take the characters' statements at face value, but if we did adopt that mode of reading we would have to question whether statements such as "I love you" are just another way of messing with someone's head, and we would have to ask ourselves whether, when a hero grovels, he does so cynically, to manipulate the heroine's feelings."
Readers are actually very savvy at working things out and knowing when a character is teasing as opposed to being deadly serious. I do believe it's a mistake to underestimate romance readers that way.
Trish: the Lara Croft comparison is apparently overtly made in the book, so my reference to that fantasy was not random. Otherwise I might have mentioned the equally ludicrous Indiana Jones as an example of a profoundly false, indeed, insulting, popular image of an archaeologist.
ReplyDeleteA brief glance at the website of any major University archaeology department or major national museum would reveal that it is not customary, or usually even possible, for young adults in their twenties or early 30s to have reached the higher ranks of the profession.
I am not questioning Ms. Hunter's ability to do such a basic piece of research, but evidently she did not choose to do so. That leaves me with the conclusion that she is deliberately treating archaeology and its practitioners flippantly and dismissively. Why choose an occupation for a central character and then deliberately get it wrong? It makes no sense to me. Would the heroine of this book be less sympathetic if she were a believable archaeologist?
"I'm sorry, that actually doesn't sound professional to me."
ReplyDeleteTrish, it is a fact that the depiction of Charlotte owes something to Lara Croft because the resemblance between the former and "and a certain tomb-raiding gun-toting female gaming character" (47) is mentioned in the novel itself.
The facts I mentioned about academic career paths and development are readily available to anyone who does, as AgTigress suggests, "a teensy-weensy bit of research about archaeology."
In stating that "they have some pretty good real archaeologists in the antipodes" AgTigress has supported the reputation of Australian colleagues.
So what aspect of her statement do you consider unprofessional?
"Readers are actually very savvy at working things out and knowing when a character is teasing as opposed to being deadly serious. I do believe it's a mistake to underestimate romance readers that way."
Trish, I am a romance reader. I pretty much read nothing else at the moment and I began reading romances when I was a teenager, long before I started studying them. My colleagues are romance readers, the readers of this blog are romance readers, and I do not underestimate either their or my ability to understand the books we read.
I'm aware of the genre's conventions and I know there are certainly times when characters in romances tease each other or even lie to each other. However, in my experience authors invariably make sure that the readers know this by leaving textual clues which alert the reader to the characters' true feelings or background. So, for example, a heroine may say that she's a gold-digger, but it will have been made clear to the reader, via the heroine's actions or her comments to other characters, that she's not. Or a hero may lie to a heroine and tell her that he doesn't care for her, but he will then retract that statement and the reader will accept that the retraction is a truthful one.
In this case there was no retraction of the statement and no indication that Charlotte was really a feminist. She does say that she works within "an antiquated and patriarchal employment system" but this just suggested to me that, as she herself said, "There are many principles of equality that I adhere to" (67) without identifying as a feminist.
In addition, the comment about how
Greyson Tyler didn't strike Charlotte as a particularly cavalier individual. Not when it came to his research. Not when it came to his relationships. He was, however, male - which probably went some way towards explaining his limited thought processes when it came to bedding a woman and walking away. (94)
seems to be a mixture of the narrator's voice and Charlotte's opinions, but it definitely can't be an attempt to "mess with the hero's head" since it's not part of a conversation with him.
Laura, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the story but I do hope you give the RIVA line another try, even if you borrow rather than buy.
ReplyDeleteThere wouldn't be much academic rigour involved if you based your assesment of an entire editorial line on a subset of one.
AgTigress: I wonder if the overt reference to Lara Croft might not be meant as a sort of signal to the reader that we're not dealing with real archeology here, but rather with the fantasy of it (however ludicrous) in popular culture.
ReplyDeleteAn actual archeologist might well find that that version of the profession "profoundly false, indeed, insulting," just as an actual lawyer might find the versions of her profession in popular culture false or insulting (or simply absurd). But I suppose there are lots of readers and viewers unlike yourself, who don't ask for anything like realism in the portrayals of professions--what they want is a variation on an established pop culture representation, perhaps with that sort of wink from the text as part of the game.
(Haven't read the book yet--just hypothesizing here. And I have had books ruined for me when they've gotten basic facts about a profession wrong, or even just the terminology, so I know the sort of response you mean.)
Thanks for coming over and commenting here, Kelly.
ReplyDeleteThere wouldn't be much academic rigour involved if you based your assesment of an entire editorial line on a subset of one.
In general, such a small sample would not be deemed very representative, which is precisely why I was at pains to point out that while your novel constituted 25% of the total number of Rivas published, that was only because this was the line's launch month. I also acknowledged that the guidelines point to differences between the "hot & steamy" and "flirty & sweet" novels, so I hope readers of my post will bear those caveats in mind.
I've read this book, and all of kelly Hunter's other books-- and declaring up fron't Kelly's a friend and colleague -- I think it's a pity to dismiss a fresh, funny and original romance by focussing on a throwaway line by the heroine about feminism.
ReplyDeleteI regard myself as a feminist and I think Kelly Hunter's really nailed the attitude I see in so many young women, that they prefer to disassociate themselves from what they think is "feminism", and at the same time they take for granted the equality and opportunity feminism has gained them. And it's a throwaway line, not a hidden agenda.
But if you read Kelly Hunter's books, you'll see that there is a very strong balance of power between her heroines and heroes. In fact I believe she's carving out a niche for herself in creating strong, confident young heroines who know what they want and are unapologetic about demanding it, and who are at the same time, fun, flirty and very appealing. They're not the slightest bit antifeminist -- in fact I think they're a pretty good role model for young women.
But more to the point, these are romances -- fun, escapist fantasies, and this RIVA launch book is fresh, original and funny. I mean -- for heaven's sake -- the heroine invents a fiance, and then disposes of him with rumours of "long pig" (cannibalism) -- how serious do you think this is meant to be? It's a comedy, not a realistic treatise on the Status of Young Female Academics Today.
Anne Gracie
I think Eric's point is probably right: that the reference to Lara Croft is actually intended to alert us to the fact that the heroine depicts a cartoon archaeologist, not a real one. That, to me, puts the book into the 'chick lit' category, which tends to favour caricature in the texts as well as the cover art, and indeed, to depend on caricature for comic effect. The comments above by Anne Gracie (e.g. 'escapist fantasies' and the cannibalism reference) seem to confirm this.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy humour in novels as much as the next person, but sense of humour is very variable indeed, and elements that will make some readers chortle happily may leave others stone-faced.
I think the discussion has been helpful, because I took the premise of the book at face value, and I think Laura did too, even after reading it: it seems that we may have been mistaken.
This comment by Anne strikes me as significant:
ReplyDelete'...the attitude I see in so many young women, that they prefer to disassociate themselves from what they think is "feminism", and at the same time they take for granted the equality and opportunity feminism has gained them.'
There is much truth in this. I have certainly come across young women who are dismissive of what they see as over-earnest, old-fashioned feminism, but who are outraged if the equal treatment they have come to expect does not materialise. At the expense of seeming far too serious again, dare I point out that this attitude is fraught with danger. Social advances can be undermined or completely overturned, and often are. Taking anything for granted is unwise.
I think Kelly Hunter's really nailed the attitude I see in so many young women, that they prefer to disassociate themselves from what they think is "feminism", and at the same time they take for granted the equality and opportunity feminism has gained them.
ReplyDeleteThanks for confirming that I'm not the only person who has (a) read the whole book and (b) read Charlotte's character that way.
"it's a throwaway line, not a hidden agenda"
I never suggested Kelly Hunter had a "hidden agenda." I've been extremely careful not to make assumptions about the author on the basis of her character's statements. I didn't suggest that Charlotte had a "hidden agenda" either.
They're not the slightest bit antifeminist
I think we'll have to disagree on this because in my opinion if a character explicitly states that she's not a feminist because "Where's the power in that?" that makes her more than a little bit anti-feminist.
more to the point, these are romances -- fun, escapist fantasies
Of course they're romances, but there are a wide variety of romances and some are more realistic that others. In your own subgenre, for example, the so-called "wall-paper historicals" exist alongside romances by authors who take great care to make sure that even the smallest details about travelling times, coaching inns etc are correct.
As far as Riva is concerned, the guidelines for the line state that Rivas will "reflect the life experiences of today’s young women" so I think it's fair enough for a reader to try to understand what M&B actually mean by that, in order to determine whether the novels are likely to be realistic or whether they're likely to be "escapist fantasies." After all, some readers prefer "escapist fantasies" while others, like AgTigress, prefer "stories about things that could actually happen in the real world."
I think Eric's point is probably right: that the reference to Lara Croft is actually intended to alert us to the fact that the heroine depicts a cartoon archaeologist, not a real one.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think the reader is just supposed to think of her as a cartoon. Charlotte herself doesn't seem very pleased about the comparison, presumably because she would prefer to be taken seriously as an archaeologist, and it seems to me that her characterisation is somewhere between total cartoonish-ness and reality.
There's a similar feel to Grey:
She'd been expecting a scientist - a no-nonsense man of formidable intellect and optional physical prowess. Instead she'd encountered Action Man in the flesh. (53)
but I think we're supposed to assume he's considerably more complex emotionally than a plastic action figure.
As for the fictional fiancé, he too is a mixture of reality and metafiction:
Charlotte sped back in time to a hospital waiting room, and an old waiting room copy of New Scientist magazine with an article on water weeds in it. There'd been a picture of the weeds. A picture of this man. She'd skimmed the article while waiting for the specialist to finish with Aurora.
Gil Tyler - fictional fiancé extraordinaire - hadn't been a figment of her imagination at all.
The parts of Gil that hadn't been based on movie superheroes and a long dead father had been based on this man. (41)
----
I think the discussion has been helpful, because I took the premise of the book at face value, and I think Laura did too, even after reading it: it seems that we may have been mistaken.
I take comments about feminism and gender seriously, regardless of whether or not they appear in a light-hearted context and even though the issues may be raised in a jokey way, I would agree with Anne when she says that
Kelly Hunter's really nailed the attitude I see in so many young women, that they prefer to disassociate themselves from what they think is "feminism", and at the same time they take for granted the equality and opportunity feminism has gained them.
'...an old waiting room copy of New Scientist magazine with an article on water weeds in it'.
ReplyDeleteArgh, I'm sorry to be prissy and literal again, but the tone of that quotation grates on me. Serious articles on aquatic plants do not refer to them as 'weeds'. 'Weed' is a perfectly legitimate gardener's or farmer's word for plants of the wrong species in the wrong place, but it is not a scientist's word. I'm not even a botanist, but it makes my hackles rise in that context. I imagine that the flippant, dismissive tone is supposed to be funny, but it really does not work for me. It seems to me typical of everything I dislike about the chick-lit genre. Maybe this is the 'sassy' tone alluded to in M&B's publicity?
I take any remarks on feminism seriously, too. I worry about the future, when too many young women think that feminism is passé, because they think that all the old battles have been won. Each generation has to deal with the conflict afresh, and cannot rely on past victories to sustain them.
I just read the first chapter of the book, which is available in a recent interview with the author on this blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://lizfielding.blogspot.com/
Incidentally, thank you, Sarah, for introducing me to the Sassy Gay Friend. Loved him.
Anne Gracie: it's precisely the fact that Hunter has "really nailed the attitude I see in so many young women, that they prefer to disassociate themselves from what they think is "feminism", and at the same time they take for granted the equality and opportunity feminism has gained them" in a "throwaway line" that makes this book worth analyzing. And, it seems to me, that defending the book by implying that because it's just a light, fun, entertaining read and therefore not worth analysis seems as dismissive as you think Laura and AgTigress are being. Literary critics do exactly this: take texts that say something about our culture--and romances sure do that--and figure out what it is they say. So, this book seems to be saying that despite the strength of the female characters, despite the fact that they're "strong, confident young heroines who know what they want and are unapologetic about demanding it, and who are at the same time, fun, flirty and very appealing. They're not the slightest bit antifeminist -- in fact I think they're a pretty good role model for young women," they still explicitly disavow feminism. That's worth noting, commenting on, and speculating about. Which is precisely what Laura did.
ReplyDeleteSarah, I'm not at all suggesting it's not worth analyzing, nor am I dismissing what Laura or AgTigress have to say. I've read the book and have a different interpretation, and so I joined in the discussion. Surely such debate is the essence (and the joy) of literary criticism?
ReplyDeleteI am, however, dismayed by the number of people in the comment stream who, without having read the book, are apparently willing to dismiss the heroine, the author, the book and the series. Now that is a shame.
WITH THIS FLING is a good book with an interesting, intelligent heroine and IMO the writer is a breath of fresh air in category romance. "More please."
Anne, I obviously misread you then and for that I apologize.
ReplyDeleteAnne, I am not 'willing to dismiss the heroine, the author, the book and the series', without having read the book, and I don't think anyone else is, either. In particular, I would not judge a line or an author by a single book, and I did emphasise in my comments that I had not read the work.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think it is fair for anyone to comment on direct quotations from the text, and also on the general synopsis, including the objective summary of the heroine's personal history and character. Those are matters of fact.
I have now read the first chapter of the book, as well as the quotations reproduced by Laura, and have not yet had reason to modify my view that the heroine seems more like a caricature than a believable person. But I acknowledge that reading the rest of the book, and/or other books by the same novelist, might cause me to revise my opinion.
I did not intend to offend you or, of course, Ms. Hunter herself. It may be that the root problem is simply that perennial one of totally different senses of humour.
If foot-stomping and curl-tossing in the name of sass is the worry, then I can safely assure you that GIRLS' GUIDE TO FLIRTING WITH DANGER contains neither.
ReplyDeleteI can't really enter the conversation -- as fascinating as it is -- because as an author for the line and a big Kelly Hunter fan (and I enjoyed this book, too!) there's no way I can be considered unbiased.
But I will say that part of Riva's charm is the wide variety of voices and stories it offers to readers, and I hope that folks will give WITH THIS FLING and the other Riva books a try. (And I also hope that folks who aren't familiar with Kelly's other books will give those a read, too. See, not able to be unbiased at all... ~grin~)
Laura said: 'As far as Riva is concerned, the guidelines for the line state that Rivas will "reflect the life experiences of today’s young women" so I think it's fair enough for a reader to try to understand what M&B actually mean by that, in order to determine whether the novels are likely to be realistic or whether they're likely to be "escapist fantasies." After all, some readers prefer "escapist fantasies" while others, like AgTigress, prefer "stories about things that could actually happen in the real world."'
ReplyDeleteThere has been much confusion over the new RIVA series so I hope I can clarify.
I write for what was previously known as M&B Romance and M&B Modern Heat.
The new RIVA series consists of 2 Mod Heats a month and 2 M&B Romances a month.
The stories are fun, flirty, contemporary.
Authors with this voice will have stories released under the Riva series.
The other M&B Romances will be released under the Cherish series.
So what readers are getting are the same great stories from their favourite authors but under a different branding label.
Hope this helps clarify.
Onto the issue of Kelly's book, I think it's rather unfortunate people passing comment here on a book and a series they haven't read.
Yes, I'm one of the launch authors for RIVA with DESERTED ISLAND, DREAMY EX and proud of it (colour me biased!)
And yes, I'm a huge Kelly Hunter fan. Her characters are rich, vibrant and emotionally complex, with a delightful underlying tongue in cheek. It's part of her charm.
We're all entitled to our opinions. As Anne said, it's what makes debating literary criticism interesting.
But please don't get hung up on labels like 'sassy' and let's concentrate on the 'vibrant, exciting, upmarket, glossy and sharply contemporary stories that sparkle with humour, passion and emotion.'
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm heartily sick of my fellow female 18-25 year olds and their anti-feminism and cannot imagine anything more displeasing than subjecting myself to a fantasy version of their willful ignorance.
ReplyDeleteHarrumph!
I think that Romance novels are a pretty orderly moral universe at heart -- the heroine and hero are supposed to be Good People, right? So when an author has her heroine spout ignorant garbage without comment (either by showing a shift in opinions, or offering another character with a less noxious perspective) moral weight is being given to that POV. The reader is meant to be identifying with the heroine. And the message here is: yes, feminism is YUCKY, all you need is to be rich and beautiful and you won't need such nonsense!
And that's just... ((shakes head)) It's easy. And apparently it sells books. So whatever. Just another brick in the wall.
But I am *offended* to see the author and her friends coming here to shut down discussing using so often repeated and so thoroughly baseless arguments, i.e. "it's just light entertainment!" or "it was just a joke!"
Ugh. Those two appear on countless derailing 101 bingo cards.
No shut down happening here.
ReplyDeleteJust an interesting discussion on romance novels.
At least, that was my take?
Though as an author of 27 romance novels, and a voracious reader of many genres, when I pick up a romantic fiction novel, it is to be entertained.
Long live 'light entertainment'.
I'm not against light entertainment. I object to anyone who tries to act like the entertainment we consume doesn't shape us.
ReplyDeleteAnne's comments wherein she characterizing Laura's thoughtful, nuanced review of the book as a "dismiss[al]" and then said:
"But more to the point, these are romances -- fun, escapist fantasies, and this RIVA launch book is fresh, original and funny. I mean -- for heaven's sake -- the heroine invents a fiance, and then disposes of him with rumours of "long pig" (cannibalism) -- how serious do you think this is meant to be? It's a comedy, not a realistic treatise on the Status of Young Female Academics Today."
Were, IMO, an attempt to shut down discussion. She's not engaging in textual analysis along with Laura and offering an alternative point of view, she's *objecting* to the the act of analysis itself.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, for I don't believe the entertainment we consume shapes us.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Harlan Coben or Jeffery Deaver or Alex Kava, it's for pure entertainment; serial-killing monsters aren't shaping me.
The same goes for Suzanne Collins, Cassandra Clare, J.K. Rowling et al.
Pure escapism entertainment, not shaping me into paranormal, shape-shifting, dystopian, wizards.
Devotees of Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Eric Lustbader, etc... pick up those books to be entertained. I'd be nervous if those books are shaping people!
Yes, let's agree to disagree. But before that I need to take a moment to reconstruct the straw-man you just decided to replace me with: I do not labor under the misapprehension that the influence of pop culture on individuals anything as straightforward and simple as books about the paranormal, shape-shifting, or wizards "shaping [you] into paranormal, shape-shifting, dystopian, wizards."
ReplyDeleteThat's absurd, and I think it's more than a little disingenuous for you to respond to such an absurdity as if *that* is what I was saying.
The influence of pop culture (and the way that it *reflects* norms and values already in existence) is far more subtle than that, from what I understand of the theory. Personally, I think it's largely a product not of individual works so much as the way that a body of cultural artifacts agree with and reinforce certain ideas -- not turning one into a wizard, but interacting with ideas about how we should live, what values we should have, what we should consider important vs. unimportant... really fundamental things shaping our mentalities and approaches to the world. Not directly, but as a congregate.
One example: all the books you mentioned reinforce particular, 20th/21st Century notions of what attractiveness is for men and women. They're not all exactly the same, but they share certain assumed values re: sexuality, attractiveness, and physical looks. They're not the only places those assumptions can be found, but they interact with--reinforcing and expressing--those views.
Okay. Now that there's a living, breathing *me* where a straw-man was, I will agree to disagree with you.
I'd like to point out, however, that this entire site is premised on the idea that studying pop culture objects is a worthwhile pursuit. This place is populated by academics who have dedicated their lives to studying cultural productions because they believe it's worthwhile!
To come into this sandbox and say basically, as you and Anne both have, that sandboxes are shitty places to be and building sandcastles is a stupid and worthless activity is *deeply offensive* and, imo, rather incomprehensible to me.
And when you come to a discussion premised on certain ideas (i.e. pop culture artifacts have an influence on people and are worthy of study) and then summarily dismiss those premises, that's an attempt at *shutting down the conversation*.
ReplyDeleteIt's like someone coming into a conversation about knitting patterns and saying what a worthless pursuit knitting is and how it should be got rid of. The only option for the knitters is to (a) try endlessly to convince you that knitting is rather lovely or (b) accept your assertion and stop talking.
That's not engaging in a discussion. That's shutting a discussion down, or attempting to derail it to the point where it can't go on anymore.
It's offensive. It's bullying. And when it's done to silence people who are voicing opinions regarding justice causes it's *wrong*, imo.
What the author and her friends are attempting to do here is wrong.
"So what readers are getting are the same great stories from their favourite authors but under a different branding label."
ReplyDeleteNo, that's what some readers are getting. Some readers will be getting novels by some of their favourite authors mixed in with novels by other authors. I'm sure M&B are hoping to attract new readers who have never tried any of the authors before. There will also be readers who were hoping for something new and won't get it if these are the "same great stories."
"The stories are fun, flirty, contemporary"
We all seem to be prepared to agree that the novels are "contemporary." They're not historicals, and the guidelines for the line claim that they "reflect the life experiences of today’s young women."
That phrase did require some clarification, because in response to criticism that this novel, at least, did not reflect the career path of young archaeologists, it was responded that these are "escapist fantasies" so we shouldn't expect "a realistic treatise on the Status of Young Female Academics Today." Nonetheless, it was also claimed that as far as young women's attitudes are concerned, these novels can indeed be realistic: "I think Kelly Hunter's really nailed the attitude I see in so many young women, that they prefer to disassociate themselves from what they think is 'feminism'."
I'm still not sure what's meant by "flirty."
As for "fun," that's clearly very subjective. Some people's fun can be extremely "displeasing" to some other people. To quote AgTigress, "sense of humour is very variable indeed, and elements that will make some readers chortle happily may leave others stone-faced."
please don't get hung up on labels like 'sassy' and let's concentrate on the 'vibrant, exciting, upmarket, glossy and sharply contemporary stories that sparkle with humour, passion and emotion.'
That's exactly what we have been doing, because what's "vibrant" to one reader may seem "displeasing" to another. What seems "exciting" to one, may seem a missed opportunity to someone else. "Upmarket" and "glossy" may have positive connotations for one reader and for others imply that the stories are going to reinforce consumerist and capitalist ideals favouring the "rich and beautiful."
Perhaps we can all agree that they rouse "passion and emotion."
"Long live 'light entertainment'"
And long live the analysis of "light entertainment," not least because romances are works of popular culture that, as Sarah said, "say something about our culture" because, to quote mswyrr, they contain "ideas about how we should live, what values we should have, what we should consider important vs. unimportant... really fundamental things shaping our mentalities and approaches to the world."
"I don't believe the entertainment we consume shapes us."
ReplyDeleteObviously you're free to believe what you wish, but I do find it interesting that other authors would disagree with you.
Jennifer Crusie has attested to the ways in which romance reading left her "transformed, feeling more confident and much happier."
Barbara Samuels has written that
READERS need us. Desperately. When I begin, that’s the prayer I always offer: Let me serve the reader who needs me most. Let me get out of the way and serve her needs. Let me say what she needs to have articulated, let me dream a dream she can attain, let me give her peace and rest and joy. Let me serve her, that reader, who needs me.
We all know that books can be transformative. Sometimes a whole society is changed by a book. All I’m ever after is one reader. One. The idea of the person, that I’ve never met and maybe never will, keeps me true to the task. Keeps me from falling down on the job, from doing less than my very best, however short I fall.
Stephanie Laurens goes as far as to claim that
The US sales of romance novels directly parallel the US improving birthrate.
The romance readership is now at a level supporting a birthrate of 2.1. As proved through the 90s, it can't drop - it will need to stay at least at this level to counter the continuing existing threats. Any more threats and it will need to expand again.
If you want women to have children, you need to ensure they view finding love and marriage as worthy goals. [...]
As the guardians of genre fiction in your communities, I hope you take back with you a strengthened belief in the social and biological importance of keeping a wide range of genre fiction, and of romance in particular, on your shelves.
Not only will it improve mental health and enhance your communities' creativity, but it will also insure that your country continues as a biologically stable nation.
As it happens, I don't agree with Laurens that romance reading has a direct effect on the birth rate. But I do think it's interesting that some authors make claims for the genre's powerful effects.
Some effects of reading have also been noted by academics and readers. To quote a an example from the post I just linked to, one study found that "Most of the study participants (75.5%) reported that reading romance novels has had an impact on their sex lives" (Anderton, see more details here).
Laura, that Barbara Samuels post just kind of blew my mind. Beautiful. Thank you so much for linking to it!
ReplyDeleteLaura wrote, "I'm still not sure what's meant by 'flirty.'"
ReplyDeleteI think this may actually be the key word--or at least A key word--in the discussion.
Let's look at the scene that Laura quoted in the post, since we all have that in front of us.
It looks to me like the whole scene is about Charlotte flirting with Grey, which means two things in this context: first, showing off the power she has over him by virtue of her attractiveness; and second, showing the power she has over him by virtue of his being old-fashioned enough to behave "properly," if need be, by opening and closing the car door for her. This seems to be the game called being "flirty."
Grey's summary comment about "'Power-based selective feminism" emphasizes this point: to flirt is to exert power, and to feel free to act in whatever "feminist" or "non-feminist" way accomplishes that goal, and the implication is that although men may complain about it, they enjoy being played with in this way. Grey thinks he's being sarcastic when he says that he "Can't wait to experience that," but it's also a double-entendre: he'd like to "experience" her, and he seems to find her power-plays quite sexy, however he may want to resist.
Being "flirty" is about female sexual / aesthetic power, the power of beauty, in a particular context: a set of rules which predate second-wave feminism, and which second-wave feminism seemed (to some) to have declared outdated and pernicious. (Don't open doors for women, it suggests that they're too weak to do it themselves, for example.)
Again, I'm the wrong generation here, and the wrong sex, to speak from personal experience. But I've heard from several of my female students that they feel a tension between identifying as "feminists" and their enjoyment of flirting, or of being "flirty." (This comes up whenever I teach Jenny Crusie's "Manhunting," which has a similar scene.)
ME again - After reading With this Fling, I have to agree with my earlier summation that when Charlotte said “Why on earth would I want to be a feminist? [...] Where's the power in that?"
ReplyDeleteI said - "Maybe she was speaking tongue firmly in cheek. And maybe, just maybe, as every good heroine should, she was simply out to mess with the hero's head?" Laura said - “That's a possibility, of course, but generally in a romance if a protagonist makes a statement which is subsequently reinforced by other statements and behaviour and is never retracted, readers will tend to assume that the character was sincere.”
So if the heroine isn’t messing with the hero’s head, what’s this about...
Page 39 of 133
‘He got out and came round to her side of the car and opened the door. He put his hand out to assist her graceful exit. He even managed to hide his impatience with the whole antiquated process. Almost. ‘Thank you, Greyson,’ she said, ;You’ll figure out this game yet.’
There it is, proof positive to the reader that she’s been toying with him. It’s a game and he’s the last to know.
And then there’s this...
Laura: “In addition, the comment about how Greyson Tyler didn't strike Charlotte as a particularly cavalier individual. Not when it came to his research. Not when it came to his relationships. He was, however, male - which probably went some way towards explaining his limited thought processes when it came to bedding a woman and walking away. (94) seems to be a mixture of the narrator's voice and Charlotte's opinions, but it definitely can't be an attempt to "mess with the hero's head" since it's not part of a conversation with him.
No, she wasn’t trying to mess with Greyson’s head. This passage actually needs to be read in context with end of the chapter before - as taken by itself, it can (clearly) be taken out of context, as has been. I won’t reproduce the entire scene here, but it does help to see the entire text. Otherwise it’s so easy to sample pieces that support your own argument.
And this last is just for info... AgTigress quoted '...an old waiting room copy of New Scientist magazine with an article on water weeds in it' and quoted “Argh, I'm sorry to be prissy and literal again, but the tone of that quotation grates on me. Serious articles on aquatic plants do not refer to them as 'weeds'. 'Weed' is a perfectly legitimate gardener's or farmer's word for plants of the wrong species in the wrong place, but it is not a scientist's word.”
Which is kind of funny, because Ms Hunter is actually a scientist.
At 11 January, 2011 05:39, mswyrr said…
ReplyDeleteIt's like someone coming into a conversation about knitting patterns and saying what a worthless pursuit knitting is and how it should be got rid of. The only option for the knitters is to (a) try endlessly to convince you that knitting is rather lovely or (b) accept your assertion and stop talking.
That's not engaging in a discussion. That's shutting a discussion down, or attempting to derail it to the point where it can't go on anymore.
It's offensive. It's bullying. And when it's done to silence people who are voicing opinions regarding justice causes it's *wrong*, imo.
What the author and her friends are attempting to do here is wrong.
I so agree! I love knitting. I hate people who tell me it's worthless. Or hang on, should i hate knitting. God, it's so hard to work out which bullying side I should be on...
"Being "flirty" is about female sexual / aesthetic power, the power of beauty, in a particular context: a set of rules which predate second-wave feminism, and which second-wave feminism seemed (to some) to have declared outdated and pernicious."
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of an excerpt I read recently from Susan J. Douglas's The Rise of Enlightened Sexism:
Here’s the twist that emerged. Some young women wanted sexual equity with men: that’s a claim for equal power. They didn’t want to be mere sex objects, they wanted to be active sexual agents. But while true and total sexual equality between men and women is still too threatening, it has nonetheless proved lucrative to flatter women that they have it. So the media began to highlight this message: it’s through sex and sexual display that women really have the power to get what they want. And because the true path to power comes from being an object of desire, girls and women should now actively choose—even celebrate and embrace—being sex objects. That’s the mark of a truly confident, can-do girl: one whose objectification isn’t imposed from without, but comes from within. You have to admit, this is a very slick contortion.
and, from the same excerpt:
the sexpert is almost always white, young, heterosexual, slim, busty, beautiful, and middle- or upper-middle-class (i.e., the media’s target demographic). She is ideal for the age of enlightened sexism because she is a hybrid of empowerment and objectification.
I’ve held off posting the last wee while for a couple of reasons. Mostly because I wanted to finish reading the book and it seemed unfair to all involved in general and to Kelly Hunter and Laura and to the book in particular to comment until I had and was clear in my own mind about the book and the characters and what they had to say. I’ve finished the book now and loved it. So thank you to this blog for lifting this to the top of the TBR pile, I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteAnd now to the posts, in no particular order...
AgTigress: “However, I do think it is fair for anyone to comment on direct quotations from the text, and also on the general synopsis, including the objective summary of the heroine's personal history and character. Those are matters of fact.”
AgT, I think you’re absolutely right, or at least a bit right. I do think it’s fair to comment on direct quotations, keeping in mind of course, the ever present risk of taking direct quotes out of context (I wager we’ve all seen political advertisements and railed at the telly come election time, right?) Although I am sure there is no danger of such a thing happening here...
Mind you, as far as an “objective” summary of the heroine’s personal history and character, though, I may be missing something, but I don’t believe I’ve seen one of those here. I’ve seen Laura’s summation of issues she has with Charlotte (and it’s certainly nothing that qualifying as a synopsis), but as you were talking objective (aka, free from personal feeling or bias) I’m not convinced Laura’s summary qualifies.
Otherwise, when you questioned Ms Hunter’s research and mentioned that “She could surely have done a teensy-weensy bit of research about archaeology, It seems the heroine's wealth is adequately accounted for, but not her status. I don't need to tell you (or many others here) that these days, you have to have your doctorate before you get started in your career (things were more relaxed 40 years ago), and that makes you at least 25 before you start in at entry level; any preferment in an institution depends to a considerable extent on your PUBLICATION record, and the speed of academic publication is stately, to say the least -- always at least a year between submission of manuscript and publication, and often a lot more.
Already Laura had provided a hint of Charlotte’s publication record and there is more in the story about her record, but you could also have been informed of Ms Hunter’s knowledge of that on page 20-21 of the Sony product (apologies I can’t give you the print equivalent) with...
“This time when he called he got her in person. Same smooth velvety voice. the kind of voice that slid down a man’s spine and reminded him that he hadn’t had a woman in a while. He cleared his throat, nonplussed by the notion that he’d responded to the voice of a woman his mother’s age. Associate professorship took time.”
And again on page 23 of 133, when the hero arrives to collect his belongings, the first time he meets the heroine...
“I’m looking for Professor Greenstone,’ he said.
“That would be me,’ she said. ‘Dr Tyler, I presume?”
‘Yes.” His eyes had narrowed. His mouth twisted wryly. “You’re young for an associate professor.”
So there’s two examples in the text that tell you Ms Hunter realises her heroine’s position is an exception to the rule. Not sure how Laura missed these other than in the flurry of comments but I’m sure she will attest that they are indeed there.
So I think that we can agree that the author has done research to realise her heroine is young for her position. She’s given her backstory to support it and she’s clearly not your average, but while unlikely, it’s possible. And who hasn’t worked in a uni department and seen Bright.Young.Thing as Associate Professor and thought, what the heck happened there? I certainly have. There are exceptions to the rule, exceptions that make the rest of the mortal world seem altogether sluggish. It may be unlikely but having been there, it most definitely happens.
I’ve held off posting the last wee while for a couple of reasons. Mostly because I wanted to finish reading the book and it seemed unfair to all involved in general and to Kelly Hunter and Laura and to the book in particular to comment until I had and was clear in my own mind about the book and the characters and what they had to say. I’ve finished the book now and loved it. So thank you to this blog for lifting this to the top of the TBR pile, I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteAnd now to the posts, in no particular order...
AgTigress: “However, I do think it is fair for anyone to comment on direct quotations from the text, and also on the general synopsis, including the objective summary of the heroine's personal history and character. Those are matters of fact.”
AgT, I think you’re absolutely right, or at least a bit right. I do think it’s fair to comment on direct quotations, keeping in mind of course, the ever present risk of taking direct quotes out of context (I wager we’ve all seen political advertisements and railed at the telly come election time, right?) Although I am sure there is no danger of such a thing happening here...
Mind you, as far as an “objective” summary of the heroine’s personal history and character, though, I may be missing something, but I don’t believe I’ve seen one of those here. I’ve seen Laura’s summation of issues she has with Charlotte (and it’s certainly nothing that qualifying as a synopsis), but as you were talking objective (aka, free from personal feeling or bias) I’m not convinced Laura’s summary qualifies.
Otherwise, when you questioned Ms Hunter’s research and mentioned that “She could surely have done a teensy-weensy bit of research about archaeology, It seems the heroine's wealth is adequately accounted for, but not her status. I don't need to tell you (or many others here) that these days, you have to have your doctorate before you get started in your career (things were more relaxed 40 years ago), and that makes you at least 25 before you start in at entry level; any preferment in an institution depends to a considerable extent on your PUBLICATION record, and the speed of academic publication is stately, to say the least -- always at least a year between submission of manuscript and publication, and often a lot more.
'Which is kind of funny, because Ms Hunter is actually a scientist'.
ReplyDeleteWhy is this funny, Trish? I was making the factual point that the passage deliberately uses an inappropriate word for the context, apparently as a way of denigrating or belittling scientific publication.
I am not implying that the author is unaware that an article in a refereed scientific journal would not speak of 'water weeds': I'm afraid that she probably is well aware of it. For all I know, Ms. Hunter can distinguish a Vallisneria spiralis from an Echinodorus intermedius at a hundred paces, but prefers to call them 'weeds' because that's more 'sassy' or 'flirty'. Just as she is probably well aware that archaeology is a serious academic discipline that takes decades to master, but thinks that a young, rich and beautiful cartoon archaeologist makes a more amusing heroine than one that bears some relationship to reality.
I'm sorry: I really don't wish to be rude (and I have still only read the first chapter and the quotations given here; I looked for the book in a local W.H. Smith today, but no luck, I fear), and like many of the contributors to this blog, I am a published author of both academic and popular books, so I am well aware of the vulnerability one feels when reviewed by others. I do have some sympathy for an uneducated and/or unintelligent person who thinks that 'history is bunk' and that art, culture and the sciences are a waste of time. I am less ready to forgive this attitude in someone who is evidently both intelligent and well-educated (and no doubt a very nice person), someone who thinks it is 'fun' to lampoon and parody those aspects of life. We all suffer from people in places of power, in government, who see little value in pure research, so I can't find it funny, any more than I, and others here, can find the casual dismissal of, not decades, but centuries, of feminist struggle amusing.
I hope that Ms. Hunter will look in again to reassure us, and perhaps explain just why she chooses to take this frivolous tone. There are other ways -- many other ways -- of being funny.
‘He got out and came round to her side of the car and opened the door. He put his hand out to assist her graceful exit. He even managed to hide his impatience with the whole antiquated process. Almost. ‘Thank you, Greyson,’ she said, ;You’ll figure out this game yet.’
ReplyDeleteThere it is, proof positive to the reader that she’s been toying with him. It’s a game and he’s the last to know.
Yes, she's playing a game. I never said she wasn't. It's a mating/dating game. And by getting him to do what she wants, she exerts her power. As Greyson says, this is "Power-based selective feminism."
Here's another example:
'You have my number,' he reminded her. 'You could have called me.'
'Ah, but a lady wouldn't,' she murmured. 'Not before you renewed contact and initiated another meeting. Now I can.'
'What particular book of etiquette are you working from?' he said.
'Mine.'
'Don't suppose you have a spare?'
'It's all in my head.' (120)
However, the fact that the heroine is playing a game to see if she can get Greyson to treat her as a 'lady' to prove her power, does not mean that the reader should doubt every single word she says to Greyson about her life history and beliefs. If anything, this kind of behaviour is indicative of "Power-based selective feminism" i.e. what Charlotte seeks is a very individualised form of female power based on her personal sex appeal. In that context, my previous quotes from Susan J. Douglas seem particularly apt.
This passage actually needs to be read in context with end of the chapter before - as taken by itself, it can (clearly) be taken out of context, as has been.
The statement that
He was, however, male - which probably went some way towards explaining his limited thought processes when it came to bedding a woman and walking away. (94)
does, of course, occur in the context of the developing relationship between Greyson and Charlotte and the fact that his main criterion for wanting to have sex with Charlotte is that he's attracted to her, whereas she requires a lover to fulfill a variety of criteria. Regardless of the context, the sentence implies that there is some strong correlation between being "male" and having "limited thought processes when it came to bedding a woman and walking away." In other words, it's making a sexist implication that when it comes to sex, men are simple creatures who act on their desires, whereas women have more complex decision-making processes in this area.
I agree with the point that several of you have made about young women disassociating themselves from feminism, appreciating the advantages it's given them while dismissing it as silly and unimportant, and purposely distancing themselves from it when discussing sexist behaviour. ("I'm not a feminist, but...)
ReplyDeleteUntil very recently, I was one of these young women, and many of my friends were too.
But the problem I have with assuming that Charlotte is distancing herself from feminism because she is one of these young women is that for them, "I'm not a feminist, but..." is followed by a statement with feminist values. Whereas Charlotte seems to follow a different script, something more along the lines of "I'm not a feminist, and..." followed by a reinforcement of heterosexist assumptions.
Anne, you said:
I am, however, dismayed by the number of people in the comment stream who, without having read the book, are apparently willing to dismiss the heroine, the author, the book and the series.
Fair enough, to a degree. I was discussing the book without having read it, I made a conclusion based limited evidence, and Laura, who actually had read the book, convinced me that I was wrong. It's totally fair for you to be dismayed by my actions in that regard.
But as someone who does self-identify as a feminist and who is in Charlotte's age group, and as someone at whom the Riva line is specifically being targeted, I don't think there's anything wrong with me learning that there are things in this book which will make me extremely uncomfortable, and deciding a) that I will not read the book as a result, and b) that if an author is comfortable with creating such situations, I am not comfortable reading their books. And I did emphasize that I am not planning on writing the line off because of this one book; in fact, I pointed out things I very much enjoyed about another book from the line.
To the authors who commented here, in general: I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what mswyrr has said about the tone of your comments. I don't say this lightly, as the "watch your tone!" argument is an often-used troll card on social justice sites and frustrates me to no end. And it's been really frustrating to see several authors whose books I've read and enjoyed tell me, essentially, that I am in the wrong if I choose to take "light entertainment" seriously enough analyze it the way I'd like to. You've basically come here and told us that we are wrong, period, and now we need to shut up. That may not have been your intention, but that is what came out, and as a reader, I find it both patronising and rude.
And I hope you are happy now that Ms Hunter did do her research re academic rewards. Can see no mention of that acknowledgment here, even though it appeared to be a major flaw in Kelly Hunter's work previously.
ReplyDeleteTrish, I apologise for the fact that multiple versions of one of your comments have ended up in the spam box. I've taken out the latest one which contained the following quotes:
ReplyDeleteAlready Laura had provided a hint of Charlotte’s publication record and there is more in the story about her record, but you could also have been informed of Ms Hunter’s knowledge of that on page 20-21 of the Sony product (apologies I can’t give you the print equivalent) with...
“This time when he called he got her in person. Same smooth velvety voice. the kind of voice that slid down a man’s spine and reminded him that he hadn’t had a woman in a while. He cleared his throat, nonplussed by the notion that he’d responded to the voice of a woman his mother’s age. Associate professorship took time.”
And again on page 23 of 133, when the hero arrives to collect his belongings, the first time he meets the heroine...
“I’m looking for Professor Greenstone,’ he said.
“That would be me,’ she said. ‘Dr Tyler, I presume?”
‘Yes.” His eyes had narrowed. His mouth twisted wryly. “You’re young for an associate professor.”
I think they're relevant to your latest comment, "Can see no mention of that acknowledgment here, even though it appeared to be a major flaw in Kelly Hunter's work previously."
Do you want me to apologise for not correcting AgTigress's comments about Kelly Hunter's research into the career paths of archaeologists?
I felt I'd provided a long enough list of quotations about Charlotte and her career. This is a blog, not a dissertation, and I didn't want to bore everyone by listing every quote which was relevant to the depiction of Charlotte's career and that of her colleagues.
However, I take your point that Kelly Hunter did include some statements which indicate an awareness that Charlotte is young to be an Associate Professor.
That said, these statements don't, in my opinion, really indicate an appreciation of how quite long it takes to complete a PhD and gain the experience necessary to acquire this kind of post. Charlotte isn't just "young" she's implausibly young.
In addition, it was apparently
"somewhere in my mid twenties [that] I started wondering what it might be like to stay in one place for a while. So instead of scraping away at how other people lived, I took the Sydney uni job." (127)
This suggests that she wasn't at all settled while writing her PhD. I can't imagine even a child prodigy would take less than 3 years to research and write one. So why wasn't she settled during at least part of her time doing the work on that? And did she have any experience teaching at a university before she was given the post of Associate Professor and expected to teach undergraduate lectures?
'And I hope you are happy now that Ms Hunter did do her research re academic rewards.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, Trish, I must have missed that. I'm not sure what you mean. I, for one, still do not know whether Ms. Hunter was aware that people do not normally reach professorial rank in archaeology departments in their 20s, in which case she did not do any research, or that she does know it, and for reasons of her own chooses to make her heroine a rather startling exception. My instinct is the latter, but I don't know either way.
Could you set me straight on this?
Oops, Laura just posted and explained this -- I hadn't seen the post of your that she quotes. So yes, I now know that the heroine is being presented as a startling exception.
ReplyDelete'Charlotte isn't just "young" she's implausibly young'.
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly how it seems to me. Now I have seen the relevant quotations, I am more certain than ever that the author, whether inadvertently or deliberately, has written a wholly unrealistic heroine.
If Charlotte decided to settle into a teaching post in Sydney in her mid-twenties, that implies that she had already completed (a) her undergraduate training, (b) her Ph.D, (c) a substantial period of fieldwork, which could, of course, partially overlap with (a) and (b), though not entirely, and (d) sufficient teaching experience and an appropriate publication record, including the publication of her doctoral thesis, to make her a good candidate for a senior University teaching post.
I simply cannot see how that lot could possibly be achieved in less than 10 years, and 12-14 years would make more sense. It would still be a rapid career progression. But even if we go with a decade, that has her swanning off to university at the age of 15. It just does not compute.
So what is Ms. Hunter's aim, here? She has to have a reason for creating such an improbable central character.
Believe me, I shall get hold of this book and read it, if only to try to make sense of what is becoming an increasingly baffling situation.
Going through this now rather long thread, I focused again on Laura's interesting quotations from Susan S. Douglas, especially this:
ReplyDeleteBut while true and total sexual equality between men and women is still too threatening, it has nonetheless proved lucrative to flatter women that they have it. So the media began to highlight this message: it’s through sex and sexual display that women really have the power to get what they want. And because the true path to power comes from being an object of desire, girls and women should now actively choose—even celebrate and embrace—being sex objects.
This seems to me to be an interesting point, and the thing is, it connects rather neatly with the implicit denigration of academic professionalism that seems (I say 'seems', because I have so far read only Chapter I and sundry excerpts) to be expressed in the book under discussion.
In practice, one of the major ways in which women have undermined sexist assumptions and advanced feminism over the last half-century and more was by being very, very good at their jobs. Not by being young, beautiful and rich. Powerful, high-status women are usually successful individuals in their own line of work. Their age and personal appearance are normally secondary considerations, just as they are for powerful and influential males. I am sure that some people here think I am making too much of a casually dismissive attitude towards academic achievement, but combined with the representation of the heroine as young, beautiful and wealthy, it really does seem to me to be a seriously anti-feminist message. Many of the feminist achievements of the last 50 years have been rooted in the academic world. I have seen the changes of the last half-century, and I do not want to see them undermined.
With the flood crisis I'm sad enough and what I see here saddens me further.
ReplyDeleteAuthors have thick skins. Part of the business. We take the good reviews with the bad.
But when we can't enter a discussion and express our POVs, like everyone else for fear of our 'tone' being misinterpreted and coming cross as 'patronising and rude', well, that's just sad.
As to other authors disagreeing with me, Laura, is it really so surprising? Get 100 authors in a room, odds are you'll get many different opinions.
And that's what happening here. People expressing opinions.
It shouldn't be about trying to prove a point.
Nor expecting the author of the book in question to come back and justify her 'frivolous tone'.
A discussion involves freedom of speech and respecting the POV of others.
Sadly, I don't see this happening here.
"Being 'flirty' is about female sexual / aesthetic power, the power of beauty, in a particular context: a set of rules which predate second-wave feminism, and which second-wave feminism seemed (to some) to have declared outdated and pernicious. (Don't open doors for women, it suggests that they're too weak to do it themselves, for example.)
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm the wrong generation here, and the wrong sex, to speak from personal experience. But I've heard from several of my female students that they feel a tension between identifying as 'feminists' and their enjoyment of flirting, or of being 'flirty.' (This comes up whenever I teach Jenny Crusie's "Manhunting," which has a similar scene.)"
Objections were raised to this during the First Wave, too, Eric. In particular, your comment reminds me of a passage from Virgina Woolf's Three Guineas where she critiques the promise of indirect female power through appeals to chivalry. She was writing from a time when "female sexual / aesthetic power" was the *only* power women had been allowed until quite recently, rather than merely the *dominant* form as it is today. She wrote:
"If such is the real nature of our influence, and we all recognize the description and have noted the effects, it is either beyond our reach, for many of us are plain, poor and old; or beneath our contempt, for many of us would prefer to call ourselves prostitutes simply and to take our stand openly under the lamps of Piccadilly Circus rather than use it."
This "power" or "fun" is (at most) a short moment in a woman's life. Sooner or later we are all slapped in the face with its limitations. The consideration one might receive from a straight man for arousing his desire is *nothing* like the respect he'd show another man. It can be withdrawn at any time. It can be used to justify violence against women. It requires that one twist oneself into an image (visually and behaviorally) that some of us simply find horrifically uncomfortable and degrading.
Furthermore, I'd argue that there are ways to flirt which don't require particular brands of sexism.
Oh, my goodness! I am *so sorry*. My browser kept telling me that my comment had not been successfully posted, so I kept trying again and again without looking to see if it *had* posted.
ReplyDeleteCovered in shame! So sorry. Please could someone delete one of the multiple posts?
((facepalm))
Mswyrr: no problem re the multiple posts. I've deleted them.
ReplyDelete"that's what happening here. People expressing opinions.
It shouldn't be about trying to prove a point."
Why shouldn't it be about expressing opinions and trying to prove a point? This is, after all, an academic blog, and academic discussions generally involve making points, trying to back them up with evidence and, sometimes, conceding if others provide enough convincing evidence to prove that one's argument is partially or wholly unsustainable.
A discussion involves freedom of speech and respecting the POV of others.
Sadly, I don't see this happening here.
I haven't censored anyone's comments. I think that's an indication that there has been "freedom of speech."
Respect's a much more subjective issue.
"what I see here saddens me further."
Well, speaking as a romance reader now, and not as an academic, I'll admit that I've not exactly been filled with feelings of fun and joy since reading With This Fling.... It's not because I find it a particularly objectionable book; it certainly isn't. But it has made me stop and think really hard about all the aspects of the romance genre which sadden me. I'm not sure, any more, whether those outweigh the elements which I find admirable, fun and/or uplifting.
Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, depending on one's perspective, as an academic I continue to find the romance genre interesting and worth studying.
Myswyrr said "
ReplyDeleteTo come into this sandbox and say basically, as you and Anne both have, that sandboxes are shitty places to be and building sandcastles is a stupid and worthless activity is *deeply offensive* and, imo, rather incomprehensible to me."
I've never said, or implied any such thing, and deeply resent the accusation.
Nor did I attempt to shut down the argument. My computer did shut down and it's now at the repair shop, which is why I haven't commented for the last day or so, but just to set the record straight, I'm not in the least bit offended by anything AgTigree or Laura has said, and there was no intent on my behalf to offend them, or dismiss the debate. As I'm sure they both know, I respect them both, and believe debate to be a healthy thing.
Re the feminist comment made by the heroine, it's my interpretation that she's rejecting the label of feminism — and that choice is OK by me (and I've worn the label most of my life).
Yes, she rejected the label of feminism. one one page. but if you actually look at her actions, thoughts and other statements throughout the book, I think you'll find she's behaving in a way most feminists would be proud of. She's intelligent, independent, she admits her mistakes honestly and doesn't expect anyone else to rescue her.
As far as I'm concern, all the feminist action I took over the past decades have been so that young women can make choices. I don't expect them to be my choices, or that they ought to wear my label or be grateful.
Frankly I'm amazed that this book has been singled out, when there are so many books that portray women as helpless victims, or emotionally manipulative, or pawns in a masculine power game.
I can't believe people are attacking a writer for creating a heroine who's independent and successful, strong without being aggressive or strident and sexually confident without feeling guilty or ashamed. And the book is funny as well. I say brava, Ms Hunter.
Laura, I'm back here only once, and very tentatively. Hoping I won’t be accused of trying to shut down debate, and quite happy to let specific issues people have with the story stand. I popped in before in defence of the line. I offer limited defence of the story now. It’s a fascinating conversation, particularly for me as the author, but it’s not one I can be part of without bias.
ReplyDeleteOne question that keeps cropping up is that of where I was coming from given the story choices made. I hope I can address that and somehow remain disengaged from the wider analysis of the story.
The briefest summary I can give this particular audience of my thoughts when writing the story is this: Utopia has arrived. You can have anything and everything you want (and more). But it’s going to be a tight fit.
Anne,
ReplyDelete"Attacking"? "Singled out"? When did textual analysis become assault? When did analyzing a book in the context of a site where very many other books have been analyzed become the act of singling out? I do not understand how you could characterize the analysis of the book which has gone on here has either of those things. Certainly using loaded words like that casts doubt on whether you do genuinely "believe debate to be a healthy thing."
I begin to suspect that the fine distinction between the sort of communication you look upon with favor as healthy debate and the kind of communication which you condemn as an "attack" has more to do with your personal preferences than any particular metric.
And here I said I wouldn't be back, but before misinterpretation sets in I'd like to amend those thoughts of mine. In Charlotte's world, the world of the story, utopia has arrived. I'm making no sweeping statements about reality.
ReplyDeleteHesitating to step in here, but, to be fair, mswyrr, Anne might have meant your comments, rather than the blog post itself. While I agreed with the spirit of most of what you said, the tone...was combative.
ReplyDeleteNicola, you came to a blog that is specifically designed to discuss the way pop culture is influenced by, and in turn influences, people and society only to say that you "don't believe the entertainment we consume shapes us." You did not talk about the book itself other than to say that you are "a huge Kelly Hunter fan." I have a hard time seeing your comments as an attempt to enter the discussion, a discussion which is about a book you have barely mentioned, much less as an attempt to express you point of view about Charlotte's character.
ReplyDeleteYou've said that there was "no shut down happening here" and think that I am misinterpreting the tone of previous comments, let's examine why I said that, because I didn't draw that conclusion lightly.
Trish said:
I just thought a little balance was called for.
This implies that the coversation to that point had been unbalanced. According to the Collins English Dictionary, the word unbalanced can be defined three ways:
1. lacking balance,
2. mentally deranged,
3. biased, one-sided
Since a conversation is not something that can physically "lack balance," her comment postulates that the discussion was either "mentally deranged" (and, as such, neither reasonable nor rational) or "biased, one-sided" (and, as such, unfair). Either way, she was saying that there was something wrong with the conversation to that point, not by using the text to refute points that others had made, but by attempting to invalidate the discussion itself.
She was also the first to question the tone of the discussion when she said that AgTigress' comment had been unprofessional.
She later commented:
Readers are actually very savvy at working things out and knowing when a character is teasing as opposed to being deadly serious. I do believe it's a mistake to underestimate romance readers that way.
By saying that Laura "understimate[d] romance readers" and explaining the behaviour of these readers, she removed Laura from this group and questioned Laura's ability to properly interpret the text. Trish was saying that there was something wrong with the discusssion, not by using the text to refute Laura's reading of it, but by attempting to invalidate Laura's ability to read it properly in the first place.
In another of her comments, she said that a certain "passage actually needs to be read in context with end of the chapter before - as taken by itself, it can (clearly) be taken out of context, as has been," though she was fully aware that Laura had read the entire book, and had seen it in context. She did not then go on to provide that context and use it to prove Laura wrong, but rather accused Laura of "sampl[ing] pieces that support your own argument."
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteWhen mswyrr explained why she felt that the conversation was being shut down and derailed and provided an illustration, Trish's response was mocking and rude: "I so agree! I love knitting. I hate people who tell me it's worthless. Or hang on, should i hate knitting. God, it's so hard to work out which bullying side I should be on..."
Kelly and Kimberly both commented was politely and professionally, and if my previous comment implied otherwise, I am sorry. I never thought they was attempting to shut the conversation down, and should probably have specifically stated that.
Anne said:
I think it's a pity to dismiss a fresh, funny and original romance by focussing on a throwaway line by the heroine about feminism... it's a throwaway line, not a hidden agenda.
Laura's post was thoughful and nuanced, not a "dismiss[al]." Furthermore, the post and the discussion following it were clearly focused on more than just one line. It was about Charlotte's character and motivations in general, and when that line was mentioned, it was not analyzed alone, but as a part of her outlook in general. It was not being treated as part of "a hidden agenda," and by using this phrasing, Anne positioned the entire discussion an overreaction to a single statement. She did not use the text to engage in the conversation, but rather attempted to show the conversation itself as an invalid misreading of a single sentence.
In that same comment, Anne also said of all Kelly's heroines, "They're not the slightest bit antifeminist." Though the discussion was specifically about Charlotte, she didn't choose to discuss Charlotte's character and use the book to show that Charlotte was not an antifeminist. She said that none of Kelly's characters are antifeminist, and ended there. No evidence was provided, nor was further discussion invited. This statement is not something along the lines of, "I believe you are wrong, here is why, let's talk about it." Instead, it is saying, "You are wrong."
Furthermore, she asked, "how serious do you think this is meant to be?" This was not discussing the book. This was attempting to invalidate the discussion by acting as though was is pointless and ridiculous to analyze the book at all, though she later asserted that she was attempting to further the conversation. By questioning its legitimacy. Right.
And I'm not even going to touch her lastest comment.
I've actually read all four books in the RIVA line as I was very excited about the promise of fresh voices, new settings, and a more modern tone.
ReplyDeleteWhile I enjoyed three of the four stories, they weren't terribly fresh and could have easily fit into any existing M&B or HQE line.
In regards to the book that is the subject of the blog, there is no question in my mind that this was a fantasy representation (as is often the case of young academics in romance) of a Bright. Young. Thing. as Morey phrases it upthread. Implausible is a good word to describe the heroine's position. What's even more provocative is that the heroine's conflict is that she wants to be taken seriously as an academic/archeologist in her own right rather than for her vaunted family history, familial connections, or great personal fortune. Is the story trying to reach a younger audience? If so, why not try to present the heroine in a more plausible setting?
If anything, I felt that the Hunter book (which I enjoyed by the way) was a throwback in tone, and not modern at all. The dreamy quality in the narrative seemed more like an older HP than a fresh modern voice.
As for Charlotte's feminism/anti feminism position, I think it lent itself to the older throwback feel. She was espousing themes I read in the 80s and 90s HPs but perhaps that is what the modern girl feels now? That feminism is more of a weight than a benefit?
Again, I want to reiterate that I enjoyed the book quite a bit (as I enjoyed the Lang book which was set in Chicago) but it didn't read different at all to me. Lang's book could easily have been slotted into the Blaze line (although I don't think it is as sexy as the Blazes).
The Jessica Hart was a reunited lovers story that could have been an HP (uptight alpha male paired with a free spirit who pretend to be married so uptight alpha male can close a deal that his father could never close).
and I never finished Nicola March's Deserted Island, Dreamy Ex book. I didn't like the setup (two people set on an island for a reality tv show, blergh).
In sum, even though I enjoyed three of the four Riva books, I didn't find them different from the existing offerings and so I didn't buy the next four. I'll wait until they show up at Harlequin in the states and pick them up when and if they become more affordable.
And Eric, anyone can purchase from Mills & Boon. I do with my American Visa.
Oh, there's so much to comment on here, but I'm only going to touch on a couple of points (right now, at least ;D).
ReplyDeleteFirst I want to say how much I admire you, Laura, for your unflappable politeness and comprehensive responses to a number of IMO backhanded insults.
As for the issue of a "combative tone," I must disagree with Sarah a bit, because I think that mswyrr's tone was a response in kind.
Ultimately, I think there are divergent priorities here. Laura and others are interested in analyzing the rhetoric of the line and one specific book, while some of the authors seem to be concerned that this analysis will be perceived as criticism that will discourage readers from picking up these books.
But IMO anyone who is reading TMT knows the purpose of the blog is analysis, not recommendation or even review, per se. Which is why I think some of the author defenses may be coming across as more aggressive than they were likely intended to be.
There are two very different kinds of judgments employed in academic analysis and reader review. I don't see Laura and others asserting good/bad judgment, although my sense is that some of the authors are seeing it that way (if I'm wrong about this, I apologize).
While it's probably frustrating to the authors commenting here to feel that their books or the books of their friends/colleagues are under fire, I think it's also frustrating for those who want to engage in objective analysis of the texts and the rhetoric of the line to have that exercise portrayed as illegitimate in any way.
It seems to me that questions of what women want, who we are, how we define ourselves, what love means to us, how we balance romantic love with other life priorities and goals, how we negotiate social norms and power differentials, etc. are all central to the genre of Romance. And I think that's part of why Romance is so popular.
But let's say that Romance is merely "fantasy" and "escape" -- what does it say about a book that it can function as a fantasy or escape, that is can alter a mood or a focus or a mind? Even the act of picking up a book to take one away from the pressures and the responsibilities of the day, is, IMO, an acknowledgment of the way books *do* affect us.
If cultural products had no influence on us, commercial advertising would be a futile enterprise.
That doesn't mean our culture affects us in a literal one to one way (as mswyrr said), but we all look to art and entertainment to have an effect on us - thus its power and its purpose. Just as we all bring something unique in ourselves to what we read and view, and see/read through our own lens of life experience, book knowledge, cultural context, etc. It's that alchemical relationship between reader and book that makes the act of reading and interpretation so dynamic and so worth sharing, IMO.
As for Laura underestimating readers -- I don't think there's anyone in this community who takes the genre and its readers more seriously than she. She's been respectful, sincere, and informed in all of her comments here, and I frankly cannot find anything she has said discouraging prospective RIVA readers.
I just tried to post a long comment and it was apparently eaten. So let's see if I can make this one shorter.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I have to say how much I admire Laura's unflappable politeness, not to mention her sincere, respectful, and informed engagement in the face of some IMO pretty backhanded insults. As for underestimating readers, I don't think there's anyone in this community who takes the genre and its readers more seriously than she does.
Further, I don't really think anyone who reads TMT does so looking for a recommendation or review, or that anyone will find Laura's comments about RIVA or its books a deterrent to reading them.
But I do think there are divergent priorities here that are causing a perception of aggressiveness/defensiveness on both sides. First there are the proponents of academic analysis who seek to engage the rhetoric of the line and a particular book without judgments of good/bad, right/wrong and who feel their work is being dismissed or belittled. Then there are the authors who it seems to me feel that their books and the line are being unfairly criticized. Frustration is clearly visible on both sides of that line, and I'd say there's no dearth of "combative" tones on either side. That there *are* sides here is too bad, but I think it's a large part of why we need more discussions like this one.
As for whether books "shape" or affect us, I've always believed that even the act of reading a book for "escape" is an acknowledgment of a book's power to influence us, even if it's just our mood or our stress level. We all look to art and entertainment to affect us emotionally, intellectually, etc. -- those its power and purpose.
By the same token, we all bring something unique to our reading/viewing experience, our own lens of personal experience, cultural context, book learning etc. That, IMO, is what makes the process of reading and interpretation so dynamic and worth sharing. That it's never a one-to-one relationship just makes it more interesting and more important to parse out, IMO.
In terms of Romance, IMO questions of who we are as women, how we define ourselves, how we define love, how we balance romantic love with our other life priorities and goals, how we negotiate social and personal power, how we construct images of sexuality and sexual attraction -- all of these questions and more are central the genre and IMO part of why its so popular. I love that there are venues like TMT to engage these issues and make me think more deeply about my own perceptions, assumptions, and values, let alone the books I'm reading.
I find Ms. Hunter's assurance that the book is set in a 'Utopia' fairly encouraging. It is my position, as a reader, that I like to read about representations of real people in the real world, rather than fantasies, but I know many readers enjoy fantasies very much. As long as the book is classified as a fantasy, I feel more comfortable.
ReplyDeleteOne of Robin's points struck me: the fact that authors might fear that discussions such as these will dissuade readers from buying and reading their books. Speaking for myself, I should not have picked up Ms. Hunter's book had I not seen and taken part in this discussion, but I am now looking out for it, and will certainly read it if I get the chance.
I want to reiterate that a high proportion of those who take part in this forum are themselves writers, though not necessarily novelists, and know that having one's own work dissected by others can be painful, because we have gone through it ourselves.
I don't want to say anything more about what I perceive as an 'anti-academic' bias embodied in the book: I need to read it all before I can be sure. But I do want to return to the question of feminism, briefly. Knowing something about the history of anything helps a person understand where we stand today and why. That is why a some knowledge of history is so important. I can understand that there are many young women, or Bright Young Things, who simply accept things as they are, and think of feminism as an old-fashioned movement. But it utterly beggars belief that an archaeologist of all people, an academic who has been specifically trained to understand the evolution of social mores as well as material culture, and the ways in which the past will always continue to affect the present, could have an understanding of the subject as poor, or as perverse, as seems to be indicated in the relevant quotations.
Sarah, I hear you. I don't entirely agree, but I appreciate you pointing out how I could have been misreading Anne's comment. If she feels I was singling her out for attack, that is regrettable. I meant what I said to be a condemnation of behavior I object to, not a personal attack. I chose my words to reflect that. Unfortunately, neutral or positive intent doesn't always come across as we might wish. I understood that might happen when I composed my thoughts. It was worth it to me to call out something I thought was wrong. I stand by my words. At the same time, I'd like to state plainly that I have no ill will toward anyone here. Good people engage in behaviors that other perfectly lovely people consider harmful all the time. The behavior is the thing in question, the problem, and that is what I sought to condemn.
ReplyDeleteI value this space. I respect and admire everyone who does the work that you and Laura do. It was important to me to state bluntly that I will not quietly endure watching this space that I value and these people who I respect treated in a bullying and offensive matter without piping up.
Thanks Laura, for sorting out that posting glitch for me. I wondered what was happening.
ReplyDeleteRobin, “But IMO anyone who is reading TMT knows the purpose of the blog is analysis, not recommendation or even review, per se.”
Thanks Robin. I’m actually a pretty frequent reader of TMT, very rare poster, but I do stop by out of interest and find myself sometimes nodding, sometimes shaking my head, and usually enjoying the links when I have time to check them out. It’s interesting to get an academic perspective of romance novels, even if I can’t always agree with the opinions expressed.
Hi Lynz, you wrote (quoting me at first): “I just thought a little balance was called for. This implies that the coversation to that point had been unbalanced.”
I sincerely thought it had. For example, in terms of discussing one possible interpretation of Charlotte saying, “Why on earth would I want to be a feminist?” as meaning she is definitely anti-feminist. The comments accepted that as fact.
I offered a different possibility, that Charlotte was talking tongue in cheek. Laura prefers to stick with hers. I’m good with that.
I’m not going to rehash every other point because I don’t thing there is anything to be gained by it.
As for “When mswyrr explained why she felt that the conversation was being shut down and derailed and provided an illustration, Trish's response was mocking and rude: "I so agree! I love knitting. I hate people who tell me it's worthless. Or hang on, should i hate knitting. God, it's so hard to work out which bullying side I should be on..."”
Yes, mea culpa. That was a childish response. I do apologise unreservedly.
Lynz and Robin, I'm sorry your comments ended up in the spam filter. I have no idea what Blogger's criteria are for sending comments there.
ReplyDeleteYes, she rejected the label of feminism. one one page. but if you actually look at her actions, thoughts and other statements throughout the book, I think you'll find she's behaving in a way most feminists would be proud of. She's intelligent, independent, she admits her mistakes honestly and doesn't expect anyone else to rescue her.
I don't think anyone's arguing that Charlotte is lacking in admirable qualities but, while I can't speak for "most feminists," I think it's worth noting a couple of points made by Lynz and mswyrr:
the problem I have with assuming that Charlotte is distancing herself from feminism because she is one of these young women is that for them, "I'm not a feminist, but..." is followed by a statement with feminist values. Whereas Charlotte seems to follow a different script, something more along the lines of "I'm not a feminist, and..." followed by a reinforcement of heterosexist assumptions.
and
This "power" or "fun" is (at most) a short moment in a woman's life. [...] The consideration one might receive from a straight man for arousing his desire is *nothing* like the respect he'd show another man. It can be withdrawn at any time. It can be used to justify violence against women. It requires that one twist oneself into an image (visually and behaviorally) that some of us simply find horrifically uncomfortable and degrading.
It seems to me that much of the discussion about Charlotte has focused on the production/reinforcement of gender stereotypes and norms, and on the "flirty" model of female empowerment. There has been considerable discussion in feminist circles recently about "raunch culture" and the way it has "pushed girls into thinking that flaunting their sexuality is a form of empowerment" and feminists have also been observing that "biological determinism – the claim that differences between men and women have a basis in innate biological characteristics – has re-emerged and acquired an astonishing popular currency" and have been arguing that "there is no convincing evidence that our brains are hardwired according to gender, and no such thing as 'biological destiny'."
Frankly I'm amazed that this book has been singled out, when there are so many books that portray women as helpless victims, or emotionally manipulative, or pawns in a masculine power game.
ReplyDeleteBecause the romance genre is such a large and diverse one I prefer, when possible, not to make generalisations about it. I also like to provide textual evidence for the statements I make about the genre. As a result, I often quote from the romances I have read. This means that a relatively high proportion of the romances I've read have been "singled out" and quoted on this blog, while a somewhat lower number have been "singled out" and analysed in more detail. Some of these books, including Charlotte Lamb's Hot Blood tackle particular issues in ways I've found encouraging but I also mention aspects of individual novels which I've found problematic. I have, for example, posted about rape in Elizabeth Thornton's Fallen Angel and race in Betina Krahn's The Book of True Desires. I don't think there's anything exceptional about the way I've analysed With This Fling ....
I can't believe people are attacking a writer
I have very much appreciated Kelly Hunter's comments on this thread and I hope Kelly does not feel personally attacked. I believe that the focus throughout this discussion has been on the text, not on the author, although some questions were asked about the extent of the author's research, and Kelly has kindly provided us with a summary of her "thoughts when writing the story."
Since there were so many comments overnight (UK time) and I've already had to break up my initial response into a couple of segments, I don't think I can respond to everyone in detail so I hope you'll all forgive me if I conclude quickly.
ReplyDeleteKelly, thank you for taking the time to come back and comment.
I've actually read all four books in the RIVA line as I was very excited about the promise of fresh voices, new settings, and a more modern tone.
While I enjoyed three of the four stories, they weren't terribly fresh and could have easily fit into any existing M&B or HQE line.
Jane, I appreciate your view of this, because I've only read one of the Rivas. I suppose it makes sense that they would "easily fit into any existing M&B or HQE line" because that's precisely what they're going to have to do when they're published in the North American market, but, like you, I'd been expecting something that was more of a departure from the existing lines.
Apologies again for the spam-filter problem, Lynz. I'm gratified you think my "post was thoughful and nuanced."
"I don't really think anyone who reads TMT does so looking for a recommendation or review"
I have the same impression, Robin. TMT isn't a review site and I think its readers are well aware that my posts here don't generally attempt to provide a comprehensive overview or summary of whichever novel is under discussion.
That said, for a variety of reasons the posts do sometimes prompt people to read the books for themselves, as AgTigress has said she will be doing.
Mswyrr, I'm very happy that you "value this space." I value TMT's readers and the accumulated experience and differing perspectives which you bring to the discussions here.
This is an interesting discussion and I have no desire to get into the nitty gritty of it, but the bottom line seems, to me, to be that we want the characters in our fiction to reflect our own values and when they don't we find it frustrating or disappointing. Kelly Hunter's views on feminism aside, every author is going to bring his or her own value system to his/her books, whether intentional or not. It's up to the reader to decide if he/she can accept the morals/values of the book he/she is reading and then enjoy it as fiction.
ReplyDeleteI cannot speak for other readers, but I definitely am not looking for characters to reflect my own values. In fact, I often love most those characters whose values are very different from my own. Discussing SEP's Ain't She Sweet with people this past week always brings this up for me, because Sugar Beth is a character I could not relate to *personally* but loved and rooted for and wanted to see her happy. In fact, SEP is one of those authors whose books alternately delight and horrify me, but whose skills as a storyteller and writer can take me places I might not otherwise want to go. And what a delightful experience it is to be taken to those new places, even when they're not places I'd ever want to go in real life.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, if I needed to see my own values reflected in the genre, I fear I'd have very little Romance to read, lol, when the fact is that I enjoy a broad diversity of offerings in the genre, BECAUSE I can enjoy it as fiction.
That said, my enjoyment (or my alignment/disalignment with the values I perceive in a book) is not going to stop me from examining the sexual politics of the genre or its individual books. And doing so is not a reflection of dislike or lack of appreciation -- it's a reflection of my belief that genre Romance (like every freaking genre on the planet) mirrors and expresses many different things about society, about who women are, what we want, how we love, etc.
And I actually don't think we can automatically attribute the values we read in fiction to their authors -- at least I don't really want to go there. In fact, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen an author respond to a reader comment with "that's not what I intended at all!" -- and I can totally see how that's true. When we write, I think we can only control so much of what we say, and I cannot imagine authors incapable of writing books that do not, in fact, conform with their personal moral, ethical, spiritual, or personal values. Otherwise, I'd find a hell of a lot of authors downright scary!
The first course I TA'd as an embryonic graduate student (almost 20 years ago? Lawd do I feel old!) was Science Fiction, and to say it opened up a whole new world of reading opportunities to me is an understatement. How is it that the SF community has been and still is so open to academic analysis and even internal analysis but Romance isn't? (and I'm not directing this query at Kate Hewitt, but am asking/arguing in general)
Shakespeare is "just fiction," too, as is Dickens and Austen and Nabokov and Donne and Toni Morrison. Yet we take for granted that the work of those authors can and even should be more deeply understood. Why not genre Romance? Contrary to what some seem to believe, it's a sign of respect, an acknowledgment that the genre is worth the time and effort.
I've heard some within the genre community suggest and even say outright that they don't believe Romance can stand up to close analysis. And that makes me, well, depending on the day, my hormones, and my general mood, sad, frustrated, enraged, discouraged, amused.
I couldn't agree more that we all bring our particular lens to the act of reading, as I said above. But to me, that's what makes it so much fun -- we read, we interpret, we discuss and disagree and laud the brilliance of those who see things the way we do. That we can do so with a genre we enjoy reading is just the fluffy buttercream frosting on a very delicious cake, IMO.
Wow - fascinating conservation - from all sides! I'm here via Dear Author and I don't have a dog in this hunt as the saying goes. However, I perhaps I can provide another view?
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between literary analysis and a reader's review as Jane said.
Laura Vivanco wrote a literary analysis and the first comment was "I won't buy the Riva line." Eep! I can understand why the writers in this line are upset - one book is mentioned in a blog post and a potential buyer says they won't touch the entire line.
That being said I think some of commentors aren't getting the Mills &Boon "code" for lack of a better word. 'Realistic' in M&B speak means no princesses or overt fairy tale elements - not - um real realism.
No matter how chick-lit they try to be, the novels are still fantasies.
It seems to me that much of the discussion about Charlotte has focused on the production/reinforcement of gender stereotypes and norms, and on the "flirty" model of female empowerment. There has been considerable discussion in feminist circles recently about "raunch culture" and the way it has "pushed girls into thinking that flaunting their sexuality is a form of empowerment" and feminists have also been observing that "biological determinism – the claim that differences between men and women have a basis in innate biological characteristics
Yes - this. I think you hit the nail on the head. And I just want to expand on that. This novel seems to refelct that mind-set (in all of its entitled post-second wave glory), takes it for a spin, and shows the reader what it looks like in fantasy form.
Is that bad feminism - anti-feminist? I don't know. I think it depends on your definition of feminism and how willing you are to acknowledge and indulge in the fantasy of the moment. I think this is one of the fantasies of our moment. Lara Croft in 150 pages.
Why is this a fantasy of our moment? I don't know - maybe Kelley Hunter knows - I think she's brilliant in picking up on it and running with it.
I don't know if I could have thoguht of it. The fantasies of my youth (for example) were the young sweet girls catching the older man. (I blame Princess Diana in part and the anxiety of not fulfilling the feminist credo of doing it all - so doing nothing for love and security was really appealing).
Anyway - fascinating conversation. Thank you.
Kate, that's a really interesting observation. I'd love to find out what other people think about this so I've quoted you in a new post in the hope that we could start a more general discussion there, where more of TMT's readers will see it.
ReplyDeleteRobin, I've quoted part of your comment too.
Goodness me. How did I miss this fascinating dust-up? Interesting post and fascinating comments that demonstrate the difficulties that can arise when readers, authors and academics all swim in the same pond! I thought mswyrr's indignance was rather beautifully expressed and Robin's attempt to reason the multiplicity of responses and agendas as beautifully articulate as always.
ReplyDeleteAnd can I just repeat the oft-quoted sentiment here that Laura is one of the most tolerant and thoughtful people I have come across and the least likely to be inflammatory, unbalanced or any other negative that has been expressed here? Not to mention being a champion for treating romance seriously.
'Realistic' in M&B speak means no princesses or overt fairy tale elements - not - um real realism.
ReplyDeleteIt depends how you define "real realism" but there's definitely quite a lot of variation between lines; some lines have much larger quantities of realism than others. There's also variation within lines.
For example Jessica Hart, who's now in the Riva line, wrote Promoted: To Wife and Mother (published in the Romance line) which had a heroine who's forty and dealing with a mother who's in the early stages of dementia. The hero has teenagers and they're troublesome. The hero and heroine's problems don't vanish by the end of the novel, and neither of them are super-rich, either.
The Medicals are often quite realistic (admittedly not always, and there does seem to be a bias towards particular specialisms) and as far as I can tell, the authors make a big effort to get the medical details right.
The SuperRomances quite often feature more ordinary couples. Again, not always, of course. And Marin Thomas's A Coal Miner's Wife, from the American Romance line is another example of an HM&B which seems pretty realistic to me.
I realize that Laura was not reviewing the line for the purposes of recommending the book for purchase but was rather analyzing it as a literary critic. However, my response that this is not a line that I'm going to buy is based, not upon her analysis, but on the disparity between what the line promises and what it delivered in the first bunch of books. Riva frames itself as "entertaining romances [that]reflect the life experiences of today’s young women, within a chic, glamorous, and usually urban setting". For me, the key phrase in that paragraph is "reflect the life experiences of today's young women". If that is the case, then how exactly is a hot, wealthy, top of her profession or close to, 25 year old a reflection of the "life experiences" of "today's young women"? Hunter herself in the comments above characterized her thinking as "utopia has arrived," but that is not a reflection of life experiences. Rather, it is a depiction of what one wishes things were like.
ReplyDeleteThat disparity is why I distrust the line as a reader. When I hear the words "reflect life experiences" it implies a certain kind of story. It creates a set of expectations, much in the same way that the word "romance" suggests to me a certain set of generic tropes that I except to be fulfilled. When those expectations are not met, I am disappointed because I was led to expect a different kind of story than what was given based on the genre markers. If a line says it is going to reflect the life experiences of young women, then I expect it to do just that. It is not a unreasonable expectation. This is not an assertion of a particular set of personal values, but rather an understanding of how generic tropes operate. I do not, for example, expect Harlequin Presents to reflect the life experiences of today's young women. Or even today's Greek billionaires.
That said, I don't tend to read the Harlequin Presents line for the same reason that I will not be interested in the Riva line based upon the summaries of the books so far offered: because I do not wish to read about beautiful, perfect women whose main flaws are "too much of a giver" or "doesn't realize how beautiful she is". This is not to say that this particular problem is endemic to hese lines. Nor is it limited to them. However, in my experience it seems to be the case more often than it isn't. I have to weed out contenders for my reading time as I have a very limited quantity of it. Plus, I don't have much patience with this particular trope. I know some people really love it. I don't. It is a preference, like hating a particular flavor. I'm never going to like banana flavored Runts either. This is not a reflection on the writers' abilities, but about my taste in stories.
To me, it is not helpful to say it is just a fantasy. Fantasy does not exist in isolation, free from ideological concerns, history, etc. It is a fantasy that "fantasy" exists, like Bubble Boy, in a self-contained sphere, protected from the contamination of reality. Fantasy expresses a certain set of desires or possibilities. How can this not be related to reality--to what we feel we lack? Even if it were true that fantasy is only fantasy, Riva is not promoting itself as a fantasy line, but rather--again--one that reflects the life experiences of today's young women. The promotion of the line suggests that these offerings are substantially different than the other lines. But based on plot summaries and what Jane, Laura and others here have said, that doesn't actually seem to be the case. If it were, I'd read the line as I'd LOVE to read a contemporary that really did reflect young women's life experiences. That would be an undeniably pleasurable and unusual experience.
I find Angela's arguments, above, very convincing. From all we have seen, the book under discussion does not 'reflect the life experience of young women', nor does the author even claim that it does.
ReplyDeleteA romance whose heroine was a young archaeologist of average appearance, attempting to establish her career, could be a great story. It could also be entertaining and even comic. The fact that there seems to be a disparity between the publishers' avowed intent with this line and the actuality is certainly worth noting, especially for boring old realists like me.