tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post7420596262809710751..comments2024-03-18T00:59:28.260+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: Review of a Review of EIKALE. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-35490855988097724662012-02-14T02:15:56.572+00:002012-02-14T02:15:56.572+00:00Laura:
Expanding a bit on what I said in my previ...Laura:<br /><br />Expanding a bit on what I said in my previous comment, I'll add that I think one of my central issues with the review is reflected in this sentence:<br /><br />"But her major strategy throughout the text is to concede that romance readers do learn from romance novels, while denying that what they learn is false or harmful."<br /><br />I think this statement is fundamentally incorrect and not representative of the stated purpose of EIKAL, which is to "celebrate all the wonderful things we've learned about real-life love and romance that are hidden and not-so hidden inside the average romance novel." I am not suggesting that EIKAL shouldn't be subject to a critical examination, only that I think such an examination should at the very least begin with what the book is and/or purports to be. Or if Miller wanted EIKAL to be a different book, then be up front about that. Because suggesting the book is other than it is sets up, as Ed Champion put it, a straw man. "Denying" something suggests that the author explicitly rejects the premise that Romance can model bad stuff or whatever. But Wendell doesn't do that, either. And I don't think anyone who reads SBTB regularly would view Wendell as someone who is in "denial" of some of the more problematic aspects in the genre. <br /><br />Now, SHOULD EIKAL have been written as a book that points out the good and the bad? I don't know, but I do know that would have been a very different book than the fan letter to the genre EIKAL is. And perhaps Miller could have made an argument for that other book. Does Wendell fail mission in her stateto "celebrate" the "wonderful" in the book? I think the mission is accomplished pretty consistently, but certainly someone might make an argument to the contrary. But again, that's a different argument than what Miller undertakes in her review.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-46692857678442378112012-02-12T22:42:51.912+00:002012-02-12T22:42:51.912+00:00I'm confused by some of the points in both rev...I'm confused by some of the points in both reviews, maybe because I don't know much about philosophy or feminist criticism. I'll agree that Wendell's book was meant to be positive/affirming, and that "Everything" shouldn't be taken literally. I'm a fan of the column and the premise, although I haven't read the actual book. <br /><br />It sounds like you're saying that Miller "read it wrong," or that feminist criticism can't be applied to this text. It also sounds like you're saying the entire review is biased because of an insignificant timeline issue. Who cares why or when the book deal (for a book that wasn't even being reviewed) happened? Even if there was a suggestion of judgment, which I didn't see, how would it color the review? I'm not sure what you're implying here. Miller never said that Tan and Wendell engaged in unethical behavior by calling out a plagiarist. There is no accusation of ulterior motives, such as...scoring book deals. If she did believe that (which I highly doubt) why would it impact her feminist reading? <br /><br />"Miller often refers to Wendell when critiquing the book, another aspect of the review I find troubling."<br /><br />You refer to Miller in this review. Is that troubling?<br /><br />"The tone of these paragraphs cradles and contextualizes the rest of the review, almost implying that the review hinges on an incorrect view about Wendell’s history and success more than it rests on the merits of the book itself."<br /><br />The tone implies that the review hinges on...you lost me. Again, I don't see how Wendell's history or success is an issue. Miller's opening paragraphs in regards to Wendell's background are given as context, and seem very complimentary.Jill Sorensonhttp://www.jillsorenson.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-89936485561617323612012-02-10T20:42:23.561+00:002012-02-10T20:42:23.561+00:00In her article, "A Poethics of Love: Poststru...In her article, "A Poethics of Love: Poststructuralist Feminist Ethics and Literary Creation," Margaret E. Toye provides an interesting discussion of intertextuality and love, which perhaps works well with the formalist discussion taking place here:<br /><br />Some postmodern writers have responded to the resistance that love has posed in terms of it being a matter of stigma and more in terms of it being a matter of crisis in representation around this particular signifier. A number of writers have called attention to the problem of love's deep intertextuality and the inability to talk about 'love' in a new way. Jeanette Winterson asks "Why is it that the most unoriginal thing we can say to one another is still the thing we long to hear? 'I love you' is always a quotation." Similarly, Umberto Eco indicates that one can no longer say "I love you madly," but must say "As Barbara Cartland would put it, I love you madly." (42-43)<br /><br />This perhaps presents an interesting challenge about the relation between intertextuality and love, a challenge that Toye certainly considers, "the crisis in meaning is more complex than one of heavy intertextuality. As I will explore below, there is something about the phenomenon of love as experienced by embodies subjects that seems to bring language itself into crisis." (43)<br /><br />--<br /><br />Toye, Margaret E. "Towards a poethics of love: Poststructuralist feminist ethics and literary creation." _Feminist Theory_ 11.1 (2010): 39-55.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09577417918428286900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-27580698584650639602012-02-10T19:02:08.756+00:002012-02-10T19:02:08.756+00:00Laura: I'll respond in more detail (using both...Laura: I'll respond in more detail (using both Miller's review and Wendell's book) later, when I have more time, but I just want to quickly point out that in addition to the portion you quoted from Wendell's book, she also points out very explicitly that there is are allegorical and fantastical elements to the genre that make the lessons learned extractive rather than literal. Moreover, she announces the intention of the book right up front: "In this handy little book, we can celebrate all the wonderful things we've learned about real-life love and romance that are hidden and not-so-hidden inside the average romance novel." So if the purpose is to "celebrate" the "wonderful," should we expect the book to address the "negative emotional impacts"? This is an open-ended question, but one that I think is extremely important both to the analysis Miller undertakes and the issue Sarah has with the book's purpose and its relationship to Miller's review.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-24320481179896913932012-02-10T18:11:04.366+00:002012-02-10T18:11:04.366+00:00"Seriously, though, that straight-faced readi..."<i>Seriously, though, that straight-faced reading struck me as kind of insulting</i>"<br /><br />Why? Sarah Wendell's written advice columns at her site in which she draws on romance novels, too. Yes, she's being humorous, but she does write in EIKAL, quite seriously, that "There are specific lessons to be learned from romance novels" (10). So I took her claims at face value because she seemed to me to be saying that romance novels can teach you everything you need to know about love.<br /><br />"<i>it spilled over onto Romance readers, IMO (especially when combined with that argument about negative influences from the books). As if learning isn't also about making those value judgments about real life, informed by what one reads, but not merely telegraphed from a novel to RL.</i>"<br /><br />But Miller is herself a romance reader, so if she's insulting romance readers, she must also be insulting herself. I suspected she was writing from her own experience of the mixed effects of reading romance novels. I'm a romance reader too and I think they can have both positive and negative effects. They certainly have had both on me. For one thing, even though I'm entirely capable of spotting and analysing bits which, intellectually, I know should not be "telegraphed from a novel to RL," they can still have a negative emotional impact on my RL.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-32080675445622586732012-02-10T17:39:46.272+00:002012-02-10T17:39:46.272+00:00"Or does all analysis of the formal structure..."Or does all analysis of the formal structures of texts, their use of intertextuality and metaphor etc come under the heading of "cultural phenomena"?" <br /><br />The romance novel is both simple (structurally) and complex (formally). A novel may very well be formally quite complex, but if the novel lacks a point of ritual death, or the happily ever after (or any of Regis's eight requirements, or Radway's thirteen, or Frye's, etc.), then the novel, despite its formal complexity, is not a romance novel, that is, it didn't satisfy the simplicity of the structural requirements, the law of genre, etc. In this regard, the structure of romance will transcend the "cultural phenomena," but the formal complexity of the novel will be intrinsic to the "cultural phenomena."Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09577417918428286900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-33502717729015109642012-02-10T17:24:02.619+00:002012-02-10T17:24:02.619+00:00Well, hell, if you take every single Romance book ...Well, hell, if you take every single Romance book ever written and put them end to end, that might well be true, given the sheer number of words produced over however many decades, lol. Seriously, though, that straight-faced reading struck me as kind of insulting, and while I think the insult was directed at Wendell, it spilled over onto Romance readers, IMO (especially when combined with that argument about negative influences from the books). As if learning isn't also about making those value judgments about real life, informed by what one reads, but not merely telegraphed from a novel to RL. And I know that Miller makes a statement about not simplifying that kind of analysis, but in application, I think she does just that. <br /><br />Part of the issue for me is that the review was kind of all over the place and no place at once. Although one of the parts of the review I found most interesting and persuasive was the discussion of audience. That's a compelling insight and one that could be applied to SBTB and BHB to some degree, as well. And it's directly relevant to the gift book (and love letter to the genre and its readers) classification issue, as well. Plus, I think focusing on that more directly would have eliminated some of the more WTF moments in the review (like that second shift comment and that bizarre feminism v. conservatism dichotomy), and allowed Miller to really hone in on the gift book concept relative to her critiques of the book itself.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-37840303049632137792012-02-10T17:00:15.246+00:002012-02-10T17:00:15.246+00:00I got that part. It's the quotes that made it ...I got that part. It's the quotes that made it seem ironized. I mean, it's not like gift book is a trademarked phrase or anything.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-73634065540924794272012-02-10T16:23:01.330+00:002012-02-10T16:23:01.330+00:00"In her review, Miller consistently uses the ..."<b>In her review, Miller consistently uses the term "gift book" in quotes, which gave me the impression she really didn't believe that's what it was and/or that she was using the term sarcastically or ironically (although for what purpose I'm not sure).</b>"<br /><br />I thought she was using this term because it was the one used <a href="http://sbsarah.com/books/everything-i-know-about-love-i-learned-from-romance-novels/" rel="nofollow">on Wendell's website</a>:<br /><br /><b>Straight from the heart of influential romance blogger Sarah Wendell, this inventive gift book provides the best wisdom about love that the romance genre has to offer. </b>Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-62373285945362878822012-02-10T16:17:03.325+00:002012-02-10T16:17:03.325+00:00Given that inside the book Wendell writes that &qu...Given that inside the book Wendell writes that "Inside those stories is everything you need to have a happy, loving relationship" (4) I thought that the title was a (humorously worded) truthful claim.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-19890178624003283212012-02-10T16:11:53.557+00:002012-02-10T16:11:53.557+00:00For me, the complexity thing is lit crit 101 -- so...For me, the complexity thing is lit crit 101 -- something I tell my first year students by way of explaining that we've moved from a measure of "good or bad" to one of "how is this significant" and other questions related to how a text works and what it's drawing on, etc. <br /><br />It's like the 'take the text on its own terms' v imposing your own expectations on it distinction. Obviously there are going to be subjective differences of opinion on the former, but the articulation of those differences will be supported in the analysis by an explication of what the critic believes the text is, so that conclusions drawn from those suppositions can be evaluated within the context the critic establishes.<br /><br />In her review, Miller consistently uses the term "gift book" in quotes, which gave me the impression she really didn't believe that's what it was and/or that she was using the term sarcastically or ironically (although for what purpose I'm not sure). NOT that such a book shouldn't be subjected to critique and criticism -- just that it always seemed like there was a "yes, but" attached to that label in the review.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-37363713762459786292012-02-10T15:52:09.246+00:002012-02-10T15:52:09.246+00:00Laura: Like Sunita, it had never occurred to me to...Laura: Like Sunita, it had never occurred to me to take the title at face value (there's a whole EIKA title franchise -- I remember 'everything I know about life I learned in kindergarten' vividly, but I don't know if it was the first), but now you've got me wondering. Do you think Miller took it seriously? Because that doesn't seem like a claim someone within the Rom reading community would really make earnestly. Or are you saying it was just a philosophical exercise for Miller, which makes me wonder what the point of it would be.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-32607376328212394262012-02-10T13:32:02.603+00:002012-02-10T13:32:02.603+00:00Honestly, no. I think everything (our value of com...Honestly, no. I think everything (our value of complexity, for example) is a type of cultural phenomenon. Can one demonstrate complexity without CONSCIOUSLY "analyzing cultural phenomena"? Sure. But if you want to get into the weeds of it, *I* would use Selinger's argument about FftS to demonstrate the cultural phenomenon *of* the literary complexity of romance in the early 1990s.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-25159143006799813542012-02-10T13:26:20.749+00:002012-02-10T13:26:20.749+00:00"demonstrating complexity is not necessarily ..."<b>demonstrating complexity is not necessarily making an argument specifically about merit, although it may be the underlying justification.</b>"<br /><br />And in your opinion can one demonstrate complexity without "analyzing cultural phenomena"?Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-86187788872190042972012-02-10T13:21:35.533+00:002012-02-10T13:21:35.533+00:00Regis, in her Keynote speech, used rhetorical anal...Regis, in her Keynote speech, used rhetorical analyses of literary criticism that argue that one of the values we as literary critics look for in "good" literature is complexity. So, yes, Selinger's piece in <i>New Approaches</i> is all about exposing the complexity of Kinsale's <i>Flowers from the Storm</i> as a way to demonstrate that romance novels can have complexity. <br /><br />But then, I did the same for <i>Coelebs in Search of a Wife</i> by Hannah More in my dissertation, and I really REALLY don't think anyone would argue that that's a "good" book.<br /><br />There's a difference between demonstrating a novel's complexity and outright arguing for or against literary merit. One of the values that make up literary merit is complexity, as the rhetoricians that Regis used argue. But complexity does not necessarily equal merit. And demonstrating complexity is not necessarily making an argument specifically about merit, although it may be the underlying justification.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-11965575678049710202012-02-10T12:59:40.478+00:002012-02-10T12:59:40.478+00:00Since Regis mentions formal elements, I think her ...Since Regis mentions formal elements, I think her analysis of complexity is not solely centered around analysis of "cultural phenomena" as I'd understand the term "cultural phenomena."<br /><br />When Eric analyses Kinsale's <i>Flowers from the Storm</i> in the context of Milton's <i>Paradise Lost</i>, is that not something different from analysis of "cultural phenomena"?<br /><br />Or does all analysis of the formal structures of texts, their use of intertextuality and metaphor etc come under the heading of "cultural phenomena"?Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-40065270585555760122012-02-10T12:26:03.742+00:002012-02-10T12:26:03.742+00:00I am not entirely certain I understand the logic a...I am not entirely certain I understand the logic at play here. I don't see a contradiction between complexity and cultural phenomena. Or, is it because complexity makes romance good?Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09577417918428286900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-74070233802945927482012-02-10T11:37:59.944+00:002012-02-10T11:37:59.944+00:00"she had to establish [...] the purpose/goal..."<b>she had to establish [...] the purpose/goals/aims of EIKAL for an audience unfamiliar with both</b>"<br /><br />What were the purpose/goals/aims of EIKAL, in your opinion? As far as I can recall, they weren't stated anywhere in in EIKAL itself in an unambiguous manner.<br /><br />If the purpose/goals/aims of a work aren't entirely clear to a reviewer, it seems to me it's a lot more likely that reviewers/readers will differ in their assessment of whether the work achieved its purpose/goals/aims.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-23249154129550184662012-02-10T10:01:50.746+00:002012-02-10T10:01:50.746+00:00Literary criticism is not about picking the good n...<b>Literary criticism is not about picking the good novels from the bad. It’s about analyzing cultural phenomena.</b><br /><br />You would appear to be setting up some kind of opposition here, as though we can't analyse cultural phenomena and/or take an interest in what <a href="http://jprstudies.org/2011/10/%E2%80%9Cwhat-do-critics-owe-the-romance-keynote-address-at-the-second-annual-conference-of-the-international-association-for-the-study-of-popular-romance%E2%80%9D-by-pamela-regis/" rel="nofollow">Pamela Regis referred to as "complexity"</a>:<br /><br /><b>Wilder found that the special topos she calls “complexity” is an overarching value in all critical work from whatever era. Literary critics—we—all believe “that literature is complex and that to understand it requires patient unraveling, translating, decoding, interpretation, analyzing” (105). Indeed, for some of the critics she examined, simplicity, the opposite of complexity, was nothing less than a “much-maligned state” (110). So fundamental is the idea of complexity, that either by direct statement or by implication, each of us answers the question, “Are romance novels complex?” I think our answer to this question matters a great deal. […] Regis—I—claims complexity for the romance, saying, in as many words, that it is “complex, formally accomplished, vital, neither moribund nor corrupt” (45).</b>Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-7404260258385008782012-02-09T21:29:12.588+00:002012-02-09T21:29:12.588+00:00I just reviewed a story at Dear Author that, if I&...I just <a href="http://dearauthor.com/book-reviews/overall-b-reviews/b-plus-reviews/reviews-master-class-and-sublime-by-rachel-haimowitz%22" rel="nofollow">reviewed a story at Dear Author</a> that, if I'd been reviewing it as erotica would have received a B+, but because I was reviewing it as romance, it got a C+. The difference is, I try to make my review perspective clear. DA is a *romance* review site, so we review books there *as* romance. That's given. <br /><br />Miller, however, was reviewing at a general review site. As such, she had to establish the background and history of SBTB and the purpose/goals/aims of EIKAL for an audience unfamiliar with both. It is my opinion that she misrepresented both, precisely because she reviewed EIKAL from the perspective of something it is not.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-89559837258799755862012-02-09T18:54:39.024+00:002012-02-09T18:54:39.024+00:00I assumed the title was a play on the old book Eve...I assumed the title was a play on the old book <i>Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex*(*But Were Afraid To Ask)</i>. I thought it was kind of clever, since people assume that all readers learn from romance novels is sex. It didn't occur to me that to take it literally.Sunitahttps://twitter.com/#!/sunita_dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-51152277485572157982012-02-09T18:17:04.111+00:002012-02-09T18:17:04.111+00:00There are two points I'd like to respond to, b...There are two points I'd like to respond to, but I'm really rather under-qualified to to do since the first relates to reviewing (and I'm not a reviewer) and the second relates to logic/philosophy (and I'm not a philosopher). I'll give it a go anyway.<br /><br />Re failures to "meet and critique [a] book on its own terms," it seems to me that reviewers often come to books with certain expectations, and those shape their responses. I'm sure I've read quite a few reviews which say something along the lines of "I expected this to be a romance and it wasn't. Perhaps if I'd been expecting it to be woman's fiction/erotica/horror/fantasy this would have worked really well for me but...."<br /><br /><i>First of all, Miller seems to imply that Wendell’s contributing readers/authors must be uncritical readers, because how they “manage to glean the good stuff from the bad” amounts to an utter mystery. But then, in the next paragraph, Miller claims that readers have a “diversity of . . . engagement with the genre” that Wendell ignores. It seems contradictory to claim, on the one hand, that readers are so uncritical and morally naive that they’ll be led astray by immoral representations in the novels they read, and then, on the other, condemn Wendell for not recognizing or for deliberately ignoring the nuances of her contributors’ experiences.</i><br /><br />That's not how I read that part of Miller's review. Miller's a philosopher and I felt what she was doing was responding as a philosopher to Wendell's argument. I thought Miller was trying to say the following:<br /><br />Wendell's title would suggest that<br /><br />(a) it's possible for romance readers to learn everything they need to know about love from reading romances<br /><br />but Wendell also writes<br /><br />(b) “part of the problem with romance novel sex is that it is so impossibly perfect, so incredibly over-the-top wonderful, that real sex can seem messy and awkward in comparison sometimes.” <br /><br />If (b) is true, and if readers know that (b) is true this must mean that (a) is untrue: readers don't learn <b>everything</b> about love and sex from romance novels since they must learn from other sources that some aspects of romance fiction are fantasy.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.com