Pages

▼

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Calling for Crusie

Call for Papers:

Nothing But Good Times Ahead: the Novels of Jennifer Crusie

Edited by Eric Murphy Selinger and Laura Vivanco

Contributions are invited for a collection of critical essays on the work of Jennifer Crusie. Nothing But Good Times Ahead: the Novels of Jennifer Crusie will mark a turning point in the critical study of romance fiction, even as it demonstrates the richness of Crusie’s work as both an innovator in, and theorist of, her chosen genre.

Crusie is widely loved and deeply respected in the world of romance fiction. Her series romance and single-title novels have won numerous awards from the Romance Writers of America, and in a genre where most books go out of print quite soon after publication, hers have been repeatedly reissued. Crusie’s essays in defense of the genre articulate a theoretically sophisticated, ardently feminist argument on its behalf, and her novels, too, engage in cultural critique, subtly challenging readers’ expectations about what romance heroines, heroes, plot structures, and love scenes can be, while affirming the deeply-rooted optimism of the romance novel as a form.

We invite critical essays on Crusie’s novels, whether read individually, comparatively, or in connection with the work of other authors.

* Don’t Look Down, 2006 (with Bob Mayer; St. Martin’s Press)
* Bet Me, 2004. (St. Martin's Press)
* Faking It, 2002. (St. Martin's Press)
* Fast Women, 2001. (St. Martin's Press)
* Welcome to Temptation, 2000. (St. Martin's Press)
* Crazy for You, 1999. (St. Martin's Press)
* Tell Me Lies, 1998. (St. Martin's Press)
* Trust Me on This, 1997. (Bantam)
* The Cinderella Deal, 1996. ( Bantam)
* Anyone But You, 1996. (Harlequin)
* Charlie All Night, 1996. (Harlequin)
* What the Lady Wants, 1995. (Harlequin)
* Strange Bedpersons, 1994. (Harlequin)
* Getting Rid of Bradley, 1994. ( Harlequin)
* Sizzle, 1994. (Harlequin)
* Manhunting, 1993. (Harlequin)

All critical, theoretical, and methodological approaches are welcome; indeed, we encourage critics who do not ordinarily work on popular culture or romance fiction to submit abstracts for our consideration.

Here is a suggestive, but not exhaustive list of possible topics:

  • Crusie’s engagement with popular culture (film, music, fashion, food, popular psychology)
  • Crusie’s engagement with other texts, notably fairy tales and the Bible
  • Crusie’s debates—both explicit and implicit—with the literary canon and with previous feminist accounts of romance fiction (for example, Janice Radway’s Reading the Romance)
  • Crusie and the genres of romance and comedy, broadly and theoretically defined
  • Crusie’s artistry, whether in particular novels or across her career
  • Crusie as theorist of romance; or, theoretical approaches to Crusie
  • Crusie and developments in romance fiction and feminist thought since the 1990s
  • Crusie’s innovations within the conventions of romance fiction, and her explorations of the boundaries of the genre (e.g.., its intersections with non-romantic women’s fiction, with mystery and detective fiction, and most recently with men’s adventure fiction)

Nothing But Good Times Ahead has the potential to reach audiences both inside and outside the academy. Our intended audience includes not only professors of popular culture, women’s studies, American studies, and literature, but also the intelligent, well-educated, and enthusiastically literate community of romance readers.

We will consider abstracts (approximately 500 words), conference papers, and full-length essays. All submissions should be e-mailed to Eric Murphy Selinger (eselinge@depaul.edu) and Laura Vivanco (nothingbut@vivanco.me.uk). The deadline for consideration is September 30, 2006.

For more information, including a fuller description of the book, visit http://www.vivanco.me.uk/modern_romance_scholarship/nothing_but .

at

8 comments:

  1. Jennifer07 July, 2006 20:27

    Can I write about how "Welcome to Temptation" and "Bet Me" are basically the same book with different characters? Instead of a dog, there's a cat. Instead of a little girl, there's a little boy. Instead of Dove Bars, there's chicken marsala... I mean, I enjoyed the books, but academic criticism? Seems like putting more thought into Crusie's books than she did herself!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Laura Vivanco07 July, 2006 21:34

    Just off the top of my head, and trying to give a quick answer, I can think of some really obvious fundamental differences:

    Bet Me - obvious allusions to fairy-tales, deals with family expectations re success, weight issues, self-esteem

    Welcome to Temptation - references to movies, deals with family responsibilities, how to con people (and relates this to politics), pornography, small-town life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. E. M. Selinger07 July, 2006 22:33

    To give you an earnest answer to a snarky question, J, I'd say that in my experience, essays on how two novels or poems are "basically the same" are rarely as interesting as essays that show how two things that seem at first to be the same are subtly and interestingly different. I mean, every carpe diem poem is basically the same as every other one, right? But having said that, you've lost your chance to dwell on how they are slightly different, each from another. And that means, I think, that you've enjoyed each one a little less than you might!

    As for putting more thought into things than the author did--how the heck would I know? And what difference would it make, really? I just think about things as much and as long as they seem to reward my attention, and try to find them as interesting as possible. If that means I make a fool of myself sometimes, I can live with that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jennifer08 July, 2006 15:45

    Sorry if my comment seemed snarky. I just finished reading both novels. "Welcome to Temptation" was my first Crusie novel, and I really enjoyed it. But I enjoyed "Bet Me" less, even though I also have weight issues and should have enjoyed it more, because now I have identified the formula, and I would expect a more skillful writer to make the formula less obvious. Why introduce the ugly animal at all? To bring the two lovers together, to show the heroine has a tender heart. Why bring a child into the story? To bring out the maternal side of the woman, the soft side of the man. If a child/animal does not love a character, he or she cannot be love-worthy/trustworthy. These devices are as old as the romance genre itself and have become frankly trite.

    Now, I am hesitant to read any more of her novels because I will be waiting for these devices to be marched out to manipulate me. I guess these books are stimulating my intellect, just not in a good way! At least the class issues in "Bet Me" were not so obvious. I am interested in reading works of hers in which the hero is not from an "aristocratic" and cold family.

    As to pop cultural references, I understand that these are meant to help us identify with the heroine, but I am not sure I understand why they are significant or noteworthy. Do they serve a greater purpose, or are they just the stuff single girls talk about now?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Laura Vivanco08 July, 2006 17:14

    now I have identified the formula, and I would expect a more skillful writer to make the formula less obvious. Why introduce the ugly animal at all? To bring the two lovers together, to show the heroine has a tender heart. Why bring a child into the story? To bring out the maternal side of the woman, the soft side of the man. If a child/animal does not love a character, he or she cannot be love-worthy/trustworthy. These devices are as old as the romance genre itself and have become frankly trite.

    I think each author has a particular style or 'voice' and certain themes which appeal to them, possibly even some trademark motifs, but I wouldn't call that a 'formula'. Animals and children can be used in the way you describe, but I think that in Crusie's works the animals and children have individual personalities. They're not interchangeable. It may seem that way initially (and I'm not all that keen on cats and dogs, so I can understand the impulse to think 'oh no, yet another cute pet') but the children and pets are made unique (at least, I think so). This being so, I think they're in the stories because animals and children are part of life, just as gay people, single friends, parents etc are part of life, may affect the hero/heroine relationship, and also appear often in Crusie's works.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jennifer09 July, 2006 02:29

    I am not criticizing her use of pets and children. Of course the pets are cute and need rescuing, and naturally the children are loveable and need rescuing. That's what the heroine is for -- to rescue the weak and helpless. And then to be rescued herself by the hero with his sweet kiss.

    The other day I was reading an Amazon review of one of her books, and found the comment "First off, where were the dogs?!" Okay, it's every reader's right to expect love and romance from Crusie, but must our author also deliver canine companionship, as well?

    I suppose if I had to write a paper on Crusie, it would be on the topic of women's tendency to seek comfort in familiarity. Time and time again I read women's comments that they read a certain author because "they know what to expect." It's the key to Nora Roberts' empire, I think.

    That stated, I reiterate that I enjoy the books; I enjoy the cute little pets that never seem to make nasty puddles on the heroine's carpet or chew her favorite shoes; I enjoy the children who are never hideous, spoiled brats. The writing is funny. But is it more than an entertaining and comforting formula. Is it "important"? Does it challenge us in any way?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Laura Vivanco09 July, 2006 09:51

    And then to be rescued herself by the hero with his sweet kiss.

    I always get the impression that Crusie's heroines rescue themselves, or that there's a mutual rescuing going on between the hero and heroine. In Bet Me, for example, Min rescues Cal just as much or more than he rescues her.

    I have a feeling that Fast Women is one of her books which people find a lot less comforting. It takes a long look at divorce and I think many people did feel quite challenged by it. I found Crazy About You quite disturbing in its portrayal of stalking/domestic violence. It's presented with the usual Crusie lightness, so it doesn't get too dark, but that theme is there. Strange Bedpersons is a lot more overtly political than many of her other novels, as is Charlie All Night which deals with marijuana and its uses. I don't think there are any pets at all in Trust Me on This and one of the themes there is female/feminist role models.

    The thing about Bet Me is that it's a deliberately 'fairy-tale' romance, and I think that is why many people like it best of all her works, and Welcome to Temptation is another that people often give as their favourite Crusie, so perhaps these two do have more of a comfort factor, but I don't think that just having dogs and children renders all her works comfortable or formulaic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jennifer09 July, 2006 17:40

    It is obvious to me that I will have to read more of her novels in order to make a fair judgement. But based on the three I have read, "Welcome...", "Bet Me", and now "Faking It," which I have almost finished, the heroines begin the novels thinking their lives pretty much suck (even if it's only because Min doesn't have a date to her sister's wedding), while the heroes are unaware that there is anything wrong with them or missing in their lives. However, I know that part of the fantasy is that the woman "rescues" the man, as well. "Where have you been all my life?"

    I find I am liking "Faking It" better than "Bet Me," probably because it has a more interesting plot, and not a redhead in sight yet, thank you, Jennifer! Also because I don't believe in fairy tales. They have much to teach us, like don't eat houses made of candy and don't expect your birth parent to keep your wicked step-parent from tormenting you. But if you lie around waiting for your prince to come and rescue you, you'll end up sleeping for 100 years.

    So I guess I have a couple of weeks' worth of reading to do to catch up with y'all. I'll draw up my Crusie list and see how many I can check off: cute pet, cute kid, list of rules to observe or follow, favorite food obsession, terrible secret, musical artist of the day, etc. At least I won't be bored, and I'll try to Learn Something.

    ReplyDelete