tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post2584108156593237340..comments2024-03-18T00:59:28.260+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: A Case Study on Genre: Rosina Lippi's Tied to the Tracks and The Pajama Girls of Lambert SquareE. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-44902563578996194892008-04-28T09:53:00.000+01:002008-04-28T09:53:00.000+01:00I read very little contemporary romance/women's fi...<I>I read very little contemporary romance/women's fiction/chick lit, etc. But you've convinced me I need to try TTTT.</I><BR/><BR/>As I said, I'm not convinced that any of those labels really suit TTTT. I wasn't arguing that that was a bad thing, though, just that it's something that probably makes marketing the book a little more difficult, because so many people do find such labels useful.<BR/><BR/>Since you like historical fiction, if you get on well with TTTT you might be interested in Rosina's historical fiction, the Wilderness series, which she writes as "Sara Donati."<BR/><BR/><I>give me Henry James, with all the emotional tics and tensions, self-delusion and self-discovery, painful candor and stifling repression. Those characters require every bit as much emotional detective work as a distancing 3rd person POV.</I><BR/><BR/>It's interesting that you should mention him. I tried reading one of his novels for fun and got stuck within a few page because of precisely the issues you mention, and I was thinking of that experience when I wrote this blog post on TTTT and TPGOLS.<BR/><BR/>As you say, "It's definitely all a matter of personal taste and reader expectations."Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-83723937043499099232008-04-28T00:41:00.000+01:002008-04-28T00:41:00.000+01:00It's definitely all a matter of personal taste and...It's definitely all a matter of personal taste and reader expectations.<BR/><BR/>You point to one of my biggest problems with a great deal of romance genre writing. I prefer <B>not</B> to be deeply in characters' heads. Because I'm aware of my preference, I choose my times to read romance. I have to be "in the mood" for a romance novel or I just won't get into the emotional experience the author is trying to achieve. <BR/><BR/>I tend to manage my "risks" by sticking with authors and sub-genres I've found fit my taste. When I try a new author, if it doesn't suit it will be a DKF and I'm unlikely to pick up anything else written by that writer. For example, thank heavens I started with Mary Jo Putney's classic regencies and not her recent forays into magic or I'd have missed some terrific novels. <BR/><BR/>It takes a very good writer -- and by "good" I mean a writer who is in control of prose and narrative structure, not just "what I like" -- and extremely interesting characters with a compelling voice for me to want to read 1st person or very tight 3rd person. And even then, I'd rather be an emotional detective than have the author spoon-feed me what a character's thoughts and emotions "mean" or leave too many signposts. <BR/><BR/>If I'm going to be inside characters' heads and filitering scenes and inter-personal chemistry through the characters, give me Henry James, with all the emotional tics and tensions, self-delusion and self-discovery, painful candor and stifling repression. Those characters require every bit as much emotional detective work as a distancing 3rd person POV.<BR/><BR/>I get more, not less, emotionally involved with a story when I'm actively constructing the character motivations and emotional tone from all the pieces the author weaves together -- narrator's voice, character voices and subtext in dialog, body language, silences, mise en scene, imagery and metaphor, rythmn and timbre of the prose, world-building, etc. The really successful authors who adopt that sort of approach achieve almost a cinematic effect -- it's the external evidence and subtext and below-the-surface meanings that, taken together, pack an emotional punch beyond simply what we share of the thoughts/feelings of a character.<BR/><BR/>Your comparison with Dorothy Dunnet's writing is absolutely on point. I suppose this is fundamentally why I share Rosina's opinion of Dorothy Dunnett as an author -- and I'd add, not just an author of historical fiction. I am totally in awe of what she does in the Lymond Chronicles, and only a little less in the House of Niccolo. <BR/><BR/>The LC, for me, is a true masterpiece of fiction which is unique in terms of both narrative and character study. I have to pay close attention but the effort is fully rewarded. I am more emotionally invested in the central character, and "understand" him more profoundly and suffer with him more acutely, than any other fictional character I've ever met, even though Dunnett only gives us a handful of scenes from his POV over the course of six novels. As a reader, I think that the extreme distancing techniques she uses -- the very theatricality of her characters -- when combined with all the rest of her narrative arsenal, actually contributes to the emotional intensity she achieves, like a great film director.<BR/><BR/>I read very little contemporary romance/women's fiction/chick lit, etc. But you've convinced me I need to try TTTT.dunnettreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01458450047215098334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-86086131882780180092008-04-24T01:02:00.000+01:002008-04-24T01:02:00.000+01:00ANGELA wrote: And speaking of quotes it rather rem...ANGELA wrote: <I>And speaking of quotes it rather reminds me of something Oscar Wilde wrote "Fashion is what one wears oneself. What is unfashionable is what other people wear." I think the same thing can be applied to books. What is 'good' literature is often what we prefer to read or what moves us emotionally (even if we do not admit to such a thing in criticism) and what doesn't is what is 'bad' or 'cliche'.</I> <BR/><BR/>Or, as Bishop Warburton put it: "Orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is another man's doxy."talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-17467688865564401432008-04-23T19:36:00.000+01:002008-04-23T19:36:00.000+01:00I'm just adding a link to your longer post on the ...I'm just adding a link to <A HREF="http://rosinalippi.com/weblog/?p=1026" REL="nofollow">your longer post on the topic of "literary fiction"</A>, so that other people can find it easily.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-69577687243625852092008-04-23T19:26:00.000+01:002008-04-23T19:26:00.000+01:00Rosina, I totally agree with you that it is a matt...Rosina, I totally agree with you that it is a matter of class. There is a hierachal structure to genre definitions that acts like a caste system that authors and readers find very difficult to escape. This is what I meant earlier when I said people use their preferences as a way of defining themselves. When I say "I don't read romance, I only read classics" what I am stating is that I am not one of the unwashed masses. I have moved beyond popular literature. I am a rung above you. I am sophisticated and cultured in my tastes. <BR/><BR/>I do agree with you, Laura, that people read the texts in different ways and therefore different elements of the same text dominate and lend themselves to varying defintions of genre. However, I believe the contempt in which genre literature, especially romance, is held is not just about a different reading of texts. It is about how the association one has with different kinds of art forms is used as a signifier to others indicating what your class and education level are. <BR/><BR/>--Angela ToscanoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-75780370695553287942008-04-23T18:09:00.000+01:002008-04-23T18:09:00.000+01:00The literature/genre (supposed) divide is somethin...The literature/genre (supposed) divide is something I have done a<BR/>lot of thinking about too. In a longer post on the subject I tried to<BR/>summarize thus:<BR/> "the distinction between literary fiction and genre fiction is<BR/>artificial and has more to do with social and class issues than<BR/>anything else. Literary fiction is just another genre, with its own<BR/>set of expectations and history and intended audience. Some people<BR/>would argue that the literary genre is inherently more worthwhile or<BR/>better than the other genres, but I see those arguments as circular<BR/>and self-serving."<BR/> The discussion here -- and especialy the Oscar Wilder quote --<BR/>made me realize that to call a novel 'literary' is the end result of a<BR/>gatekeeping process with very few admissability criteria. It <B>is</B><BR/>a matter of class, an adult version of the 'you're cool because I say<BR/>so, come sit at my lunch table' way of dividing up the world. So the<BR/>idea that literature is what doesn't fit into any genre classification<BR/>is only half the formula for chosing a cubbyhole.<BR/><BR/> I might call any given novel a mystery because it's got the<BR/>elements that are commonly held to be part of that genre. Somebody who<BR/>subscribes to a simplistic definition of 'literature' as serious or<BR/>superior doesn't approach it that way. In extreme cases the question<BR/>is more along these lines: do I feel comfortable admitting that I,<BR/>with my superior taste and understanding, consider this novel<BR/>worthwhile? If the answer is yes, then the justification given is:<BR/>character driven (which is silly, and the subject for another post on<BR/>its own), serious, insightful. Regardless of what elements of<BR/>better-defined genres might be in evidence.<BR/><BR/> It's the BECAUSE I SAID SO genre.Rosina Lippi Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10225088772824782200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-69309374557100566822008-04-23T15:50:00.000+01:002008-04-23T15:50:00.000+01:00What is 'good' literature is often what we prefer ...<I>What is 'good' literature is often what we prefer to read or what moves us emotionally (even if we do not admit to such a thing in criticism) and what doesn't is what is 'bad' or 'cliche'.</I><BR/><BR/>I think that's often true, and I think, as discussed <A HREF="http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com/2008/01/reviewing-literary-criticism-and-bad.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, that literary criticism shouldn't be based on these sorts of personal prejudices/preferences.<BR/><BR/><I>when people say "I don't read chick lit, romance, at all, etc." what they are really saying is not something about their tastes but about themselves. That is "I am THIS sort of person NOT that sort of person."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I can see how people might say that sort of thing, so as not to distance themselves from the stereotypes attached to the readers of particular genres. But sometimes I suspect that people just read the same texts in different ways, and a sub-plot or theme which might seem fairly minor to one person might be the focus of another reader's attention. Jane Austen, for example, might be read as romance, or satire, or social commentary, depending on which aspects of her novels an individual was most interested in.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-48678217633791401392008-04-23T15:15:00.000+01:002008-04-23T15:15:00.000+01:00Wow! I got quoted!Some books are "poorly written" ...Wow! I got quoted!<BR/><BR/><I>Some books are "poorly written" or full of cliches or predictable, of course, but it seems as though in general it's best not to take such criticism too much to heart if the person making them is someone who doesn't like the entire genre (or sub-genre) in which that book is written/perceived to be written.</I><BR/><BR/>And speaking of quotes it rather reminds me of something Oscar Wilde wrote "Fashion is what one wears oneself. What is unfashionable is what other people wear." I think the same thing can be applied to books. What is 'good' literature is often what we prefer to read or what moves us emotionally (even if we do not admit to such a thing in criticism) and what doesn't is what is 'bad' or 'cliche'. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, it occurs to me that authors and readers will define genre in the same way and say very defensively of certain books that "it isn't a romance" merely because they, personally, do not want to be associated with that genre despite the fact that the actual story may have all the elements of romance --or whatever-- in it. How we define what we read, what we like, what we take pleasure is very much connected to the way we identify ourselves. So when people say "I don't read chick lit, romance, at all, etc." what they are really saying is not something about their tastes but about themselves. That is "I am THIS sort of person NOT that sort of person."<BR/><BR/>Which makes me wonder if categories are more a reflection of self than the text?<BR/><BR/>Angela ToscanoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-82284404747568294542008-04-23T03:31:00.000+01:002008-04-23T03:31:00.000+01:00Re: the title. While many people might recognize ...Re: the title. While many people might recognize it, I know if confronted with the title, "Pajama Jones," I'd immediately think "Bridget Jones," rather than "Jonesing for Pajamas." So maybe the marketing dept. was on to something.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-21549383527096707852008-04-23T03:24:00.000+01:002008-04-23T03:24:00.000+01:00Finally, my original title for Pajama Girls was Pa...<I>Finally, my original title for Pajama Girls was Pajama Jones which I still think is a great title. My editor thought that most people are not familiar with the colloquial usage of "jones" as strong desire or unshakable yearning or habit.</I><BR/>and<BR/><I> believe the original meaning of jones/ing is an addict's drug craving; and I think that meaning is still current in the US. And the transferred meaning--"jonesing" for chocolate, or pizza, or a good mystery novel--is also current.</I><BR/>Exactly. And I think many people would recognize it. It's been around since 1975 or so:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIbp5C-5WXM<BR/>As far as a definition of literary fiction goes, Wikipedia (yes) had an interesting definition. Fiction that does not fit into another genre, and is character rather than plot driven.<BR/>I can buy the argument that in order to be literary fiction, it should not be easily placed into another category or genre. I do not, however agree that all genre fiction is plot driven versus character driven.<BR/>I suspect one might just as easily make the arguement that literary fiction is a work written by an author who is not a female.<BR/>JulieBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-57531270387017825282008-04-23T02:38:00.000+01:002008-04-23T02:38:00.000+01:00I believe the original meaning of jones/ing is an ...I believe the original meaning of <I>jones/ing</I> is an addict's drug craving; and I think that meaning is still current in the US. And the transferred meaning--"jonesing" for chocolate, or pizza, or a good mystery novel--is also current.<BR/><BR/>As for cover illustrations, I was thinking not only of Ace Gothics but also of the Charles Geer covers for so many hardcover gothic and romantic suspense novels of that era, by the likes of Barbara Michaels and Mary Stewart. They usually featured a glimpse of an old building and a lot of lush foliage. The Ace Gothics usually had the old building (castle, manor, plantation house) in the background, often atop a hill, with the girl fleeing from it in a filmy nightgown.<BR/><BR/>I wonder how the book I'm currently reading would be classified: DON'T HEX WITH TEXAS by Shanna Swendson, in her Katie Chandler series. It combines chick lit, magic, mystery, and romance. And is a lot of fun. It's a Ballantine TP, and I don't recall any genre tag on the spine.<BR/><BR/>WV---houxtusz<BR/><BR/>Inuit word meaning "chick lit marketed as romance"talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-55857317876256794222008-04-22T10:44:00.000+01:002008-04-22T10:44:00.000+01:00I meant to add the following quotation from Sheldr...I meant to add the following quotation from Sheldrick Ross and Chelton, which may cast some light on the reviewer's use of the words "predictable" and "cliches":<BR/><BR/><I>When readers reject a book as "poorly written," they often mean that the book was successfully written to achieve an effect that they personally dislike - too sexually arousing, too scary, too sentimental, too full of verbal effects, too descriptive, or too literary for them. A fan of the stripped-down Hemingway style might dislike the sensuous language of romance and declare that all romances are "poorly written."</I> (53)<BR/><BR/>Some books <I>are</I> "poorly written" or full of cliches or predictable, of course, but it seems as though in general it's best not to take such criticism too much to heart if the person making them is someone who doesn't like the entire genre (or sub-genre) in which that book is written/perceived to be written.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-36623155757469543362008-04-22T10:26:00.000+01:002008-04-22T10:26:00.000+01:00As soon as I saw the paperback version, I thought ...<I>As soon as I saw the paperback version, I thought of Southern Women's fiction, particulary Joshilyn Jackson's "Between, Georgia" and "The Girl Who Stopped Swimming."</I><BR/><BR/>That's not too bad, then, because that <I>is</I> the setting for the novels, though I don't know if they'd really count as Southern Women's fiction since the main female characters aren't Southerners. I didn't pick up on that clue on the cover because my set of references are different (i.e. as I'm in the UK I've not seen a lot of Southern Women's fiction). If anything, the paperback cover of <I>Tied to the Tracks</I> reminded me a little bit of the paperback, <A HREF="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welcome-Temptation-Jennifer-Crusie/dp/0330482335" REL="nofollow">UK version of Crusie's <I>Welcome to Temptation</I></A>, which has a woman jumping up, against a background of lots of blue sky and fluffy clouds. It's a very different cover from the US versions with a single cherry (<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Temptation-Jennifer-Crusie/dp/0312252943/ref=ed_oe_h" REL="nofollow">hardback version</A>) or an apple with a bite taken out of it (<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Temptation-Jennifer-Crusie/dp/0312974256" REL="nofollow">paperback version</A>).<BR/><BR/><I>I do expect most "Chick Lit" to be lighter, with a humorous edge. When I'm trying to describe a tone of a story to someone, I usually find I don't have enough distinctions.</I><BR/><BR/>That's the sort of problem I was beginning to realise existed when I started thinking about the emotional effect/intellectual effort, and, yes, tone, that I was associating with different genres. It's very, very hard to pin down that sort of thing in a description, so the genre definitions tend not to be able to express a great deal about the feeling that the books produce/are intended to produce in the reader. And yet, according to Sheldrick Ross and Chelton, a lot of readers choose their reading material to match their mood, and they're looking for particular emotional experiences from the books they pick up.<BR/><BR/>And, to return to Barbara Samuel's question, I wonder if that might be one reason why a reader might not follow an author across to a new genre. I've noticed, for example, that since <A HREF="http://www.julie-cohen.com/books/" REL="nofollow">Julie Cohen</A> moved to Little Black Dress (which is more chick lit in tone, though some of the actual plots might fit in a romance novel), there's something a bit different about the emotions they evoke, compared to when she was writing for Harlequin Mills & Boon Modern Extra/Heat. The covers are very different too, of course.<BR/><BR/><I>Finally, my original title for Pajama Girls was </I>Pajama Jones<I> which I still think is a great title. My editor thought that most people are not familiar with the colloquial usage of "jones" as strong desire or unshakable yearning or habit.</I><BR/><BR/>It would have tied in with the nickname that Dodge gives Julia. I have to admit, though, that I had such a vague memory of that usage of "jones" (I must have seen it once, somewhere on the internet) that when he gave her the nickname I knew it referred to something, but I couldn't remember what, since it's not a meaning of "jones" that I'm familiar with.<BR/><BR/>However, what I'd pick up on is probably not very representative of what potential readers in the US would know (as demonstrated by my lack of knowledge of Southern Women's Fiction).<BR/><BR/><I>you've given me a lot to think about so I'll go away and do just that. And thanks again.</I><BR/><BR/>Please do come back again, Rosina, when you've finished thinking/if you reach any conclusions you'd like to share with us. You gave me a great deal to think about too! Before I posted this blog entry I spent quite a bit of time thinking about different genres and how and why we as readers go about choosing the books we read. And I also wondered about what happens when a reader picks up a book expecting it to provide a particular experience, only to find that this book doesn't provide it. I imagine that some readers, who start out in a more adventurous mood, might be quite happy about it, but other readers might feel disappointed, even though if they'd approached the book with different expectations (and when they were in a different mood), they might have really loved it. Publishers' marketing departments obviously have a difficult job to do, particularly for books which don't fit neatly into any one genre.<BR/><BR/>And I'd still like someone to give me a definition of "literary fiction." On the surface of things, it gives the impression of being more diverse in the sorts of plots and endings that it offers the reader. And yet, perhaps it doesn't. One review of <I>Tied to the Tracks</I> (<A HREF="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Tied-to-the-Tracks/Rosina-Lippi/e/9780399153495" REL="nofollow">from Publishers Weekly, via the Barnes & Noble website</A>) seemed to hint that the reviewer, having expected to read a novel of "literary fiction," was annoyed because to him/her <I>Tied to the Tracks</I> felt too much like "chick lit" or "romance": <BR/><BR/><I>Despite earnest attempts to tweak modern romance cliches, historical novelist Lippi (1999 Pen/Hemingway winner for </I>Homestead<I>) falls victim to the predictable plotting of contemporary chick lit in her first present-day excursion, a story of love in a small Southern town. [...] the novel makes no real emotional demands.</I><BR/><BR/>I really wonder what sort of "emotional demands" that reviewer was expecting. Was he/she expecting a tragic ending (or at least a death or two along the way), which would be more "emotionally demanding" and less "predictable"? And notice how this reviewer seems to be implying that all chick lit is "predictable" and that modern romance is filled with cliches.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-69092251910425338362008-04-22T02:17:00.000+01:002008-04-22T02:17:00.000+01:00Laura -- wow. Thank you for taking the time and ef...Laura -- wow. Thank you for taking the time and effort to write this post. It's the best not-quite-a-review I've ever had. <BR/><BR/>A few bits of information that might clarify some things:<BR/><BR/>I hate the hardcover art for TTTT, and I worked hard to get them to reconsider the whole angle they took, without success.<BR/><BR/>I like the trade paper cover, though it has no immediate or obvious connection to the novel. <BR/><BR/>The Australian cover just mystifies me. <BR/><BR/>I don't like the hardcover jacket for Pajama Girls, either. Another big battle that I lost.<BR/><BR/>Finally, my original title for Pajama Girls was <B>Pajama Jones</B> which I still think is a great title. My editor thought that most people are not familiar with the colloquial usage of "jones" as <I>strong desire</I> or <I>unshakable yearning or habit</I>. <BR/><BR/>As in (for example) <I>I've got a chocolate jones I can't shake</I>, or the movie <B>Love Jones</B> or a short story that has influenced me greatly, Bambara's <I>My Man Bovanne"</I> which starts with the line. <I>Blind folks got a humming jones if you notice.</I><BR/><BR/>I really loved that title for all kinds of reasons, many of which you've touched on here. But the marketing department rules in these matters, and thus the Pajama Girls came into being. I don't hate the title, but it does feel a little too -- flimsy is the word that comes to mind.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you've given me a lot to think about so I'll go away and do just that. And thanks again.Rosina Lippi Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10225088772824782200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-17788242480011242762008-04-22T02:05:00.000+01:002008-04-22T02:05:00.000+01:00I too think the hardback cover of Tied to the Trac...I too think the hardback cover of Tied to the Tracks evokes a nod to a historical romance. As soon as I saw the paperback version, I thought of Southern Women's fiction, particulary Joshilyn Jackson's "Between, Georgia" and "The Girl Who Stopped Swimming."<BR/>http://joshilynjackson.com/bio.html<BR/>The Autrailian cover makes me think of Atlantic City and the boardwalk (well, what I think it might have looked like in the 1960s anyway)<BR/>I wouldn't really peg any of these books as "Romance" though, and I wouldn't peg them as "Chick Lit" either. My Chick Lit visual cues are more cartoon characters, or pop colors. I think that it could be completely subjective for me alone though. I do expect most "Chick Lit" to be lighter, with a humorous edge. When I'm trying to describe a tone of a story to someone, I usually find I don't have enough distinctions.<BR/>JulieBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-77627482091602210932008-04-22T01:44:00.000+01:002008-04-22T01:44:00.000+01:00Interesting! There's nothing particularly Gothic i...Interesting! There's nothing particularly Gothic in the atmosphere or the plot, but <I>Tied to the Tracks</I> does involve the heroine trying to uncover secrets (though not about two possible heroes, one or both of whom she thinks may be villains, as happened not infrequently in Gothics). And there might be a tiny bit of that sense of the heroine being an outsider, arriving in a community where the inhabitants possibly want to hide things from her.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-24382264038486575762008-04-22T01:30:00.000+01:002008-04-22T01:30:00.000+01:00I think the hardback cover of TIED TO THE TRACKS l...I think the hardback cover of TIED TO THE TRACKS looks rather like the covers of the old Ace Gothics, except that the colors are brighter.<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/4s2ywttalpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.com