tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post2645046273565904614..comments2024-03-26T01:10:13.720+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: The Berlatsky Affair: a Close Reading (1/?)E. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-27306265330158201362014-04-27T18:42:25.270+01:002014-04-27T18:42:25.270+01:00Thanks, and I know how common it is to wish one ha...Thanks, and I know how common it is to wish one had said more or different things, when reflecting on a conversation in hindsight, whether email, online, or in person. For me, the issue is whether the piece offered a fair representation of the kinds of voices in the conversation about canon, and I think he could easily have alluded to the presence of other sources of critical discussion in addition to you/JPRS and Janine. I also think recent discussions have demonstrated there is substantial interest and activity in critical discourse that occupies the "space between" fandom and scholarship (Olivia Waite, Liz/Something More). As I know you are already aware, lots of really interesting work is going on in that space, including discussions that touch on canon, though without attempting to construct a static definition.Pamelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08936142916159442590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-26045674107278884572014-04-27T18:07:24.107+01:002014-04-27T18:07:24.107+01:00Well said! There are years' worth of critical ...Well said! There are years' worth of critical discussions about the good, the essential, the "important" in romance fiction, and there are indeed "major communities" where one might easily gain insight into the issues and trends that are shaping an informal canon even as many critical readers probably would prefer to reject or at least to deconstruct the notion of canon. There is an abundance of riches when it comes to substantive critical discussion that might have illuminated the conversation about the relationship between romance and canon, and I think this conversation can and should be linked to recent discussions about the interesting intersections, and tensions, between romance fandom and romance scholarship. There is a broad territory in between where people are actively engaged in creating a robust critical discourse about the genre, and have been for years.Pamela1740http://badassromance.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-57517632817110848412014-04-27T17:33:29.136+01:002014-04-27T17:33:29.136+01:00Canon develops after a period of study. Poetry and...Canon develops after a period of study. Poetry and literature have been studied for a couple hundred years now-- plenty of time for discussion about what's significant and why. The study of Romance is new, and what's more, study of the genre as literature, as opposed to a social and gendered phenomenon to be de-facto denigrated, is shiny new. There hasn't been time to develop an Academic canon.<br /><br />Berlatsky says ::what I said in the piece — that being that romance seems really reluctant to create a canon along the lines in which other genres have created canons (like comics, to point to the thing I'm most interested in.) I don't think that means that romance is backwards or wrong.::<br /><br />Here's the thing -- we cannot separate the impact of gender on anything. The problems of gender in Comics is vicious; that canon can, and is, seen as quite hostile toward women. What, precisely, is the value of a canon when canon, almost across the board, omits and elides women? <br /><br />The danger in canon is exactly what so many romance readers and authors reacted to: it's almost inherently male-view. Every day of our lives women see themselves erased, misrepresented, and reduced to our ability to please men. As a man coming into a community that has operated for years without the slightest notice from the male view, it's vital to set yourself to identifying and understanding ingrained prejudices.<br /><br />The article, which I read, came across as "hey, I'm awesome because I'm trying to read romance! NOW romance matters." And all the women who have been critically discussing the genre for years can't help but roll their eyes. Here we go again. <br /><br />Romance is not reluctant to create a canon -- Academics who are only now beginning to study the genre are struggling to figure out what might be canonical -- without being widely read in the genre. In fact, it's not all that hard, after some lurking in the major communities to discover books that might qualify for canon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09858789421494610124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-63545221212809891452014-04-27T17:30:16.752+01:002014-04-27T17:30:16.752+01:00I feel partly responsible for that gap, Pamela1740...I feel partly responsible for that gap, Pamela1740. My email, which Noah quoted, could easily have said more. That's part of my job as JPRS editor, in a way: getting the word out when asked.E. M. Selingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-24524058557975810802014-04-27T17:27:17.545+01:002014-04-27T17:27:17.545+01:00Not "off-putting" exactly, but certainly...Not "off-putting" exactly, but certainly puzzling. I wasn't sure what you were wanting from a "canon" (at the points when you did want one) and I couldn't work out why other people's lists weren't what you wanted even though some of them are relatively similar to the one you make at the end. <br /><br />Your "<a href="http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2014/04/romance-as-criticism-criticism-as-romance/" rel="nofollow">Romance as Criticism, Criticism as Romance</a> puzzled me too, partly because I haven't read the Seidel but also because you were using different definitions of "romance" at different times.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-7794583023760013572014-04-27T17:22:16.854+01:002014-04-27T17:22:16.854+01:00I am overall in favor of dismissing insider/outsid...I am overall in favor of dismissing insider/outsider policing of who gets to talk about a particular genre, but I admit I had hoped for better from this prominently positioned commentary on romance fiction. Are you saying that because you mentioned Janine's recommendations and the website she writes for, Eric is wrong to suggest that the piece did a disservice in missing, omitting and/or dismissing the rich and diverse network of widely read and recognized blogs and conversations that constitute an ongoing and fluid discussion of that which is "canonical" and/or controversial in romance?Pamela1740http://badassromance.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-63198552951768372832014-04-27T16:57:49.106+01:002014-04-27T16:57:49.106+01:00Thanks Laura. I'm relieved that you didn't...Thanks Laura. I'm relieved that you didn't find the piece off-putting.<br /><br />Noah Berlatskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224228101183148043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-12190238069775077322014-04-27T16:36:47.884+01:002014-04-27T16:36:47.884+01:00I agree that there were plenty of problematic elem...I agree that there were plenty of problematic elements in the piece. For instance, I'm not keen on labelling things as having "dreadful prose" unless it's incomprehensible, which Nora Roberts's certainly isn't, and I got rather puzzled later on by the whole "canon" thing since I couldn't work out exactly what Berlatsky meant by "canon" even before he did a rhetorical pirouette and said he didn't really want one after all.<br /><br />However, I had a more positive than negative response when I first encountered the piece. In large part, that's probably because I'm favourably disposed towards any article on the genre which is broadly positive about it and doesn't describe romances as "mommy porn", "porn for women" etc.<br /><br />I also think it's because of how I read the opening lines/paragraphs. You're critiquing the bit about "Romance is the hardest genre to read, and not because of the stigma. It's because critics don't take it seriously" but I read that as very similar to a point made by Pam Regis and, before her, by Jayne Ann Krentz. Pam writes that "Women admit that they cover a romance novel if they are going to be reading in public" (xi) and <i>Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women</i> opens with the words "Few people realize how much courage it takes for a woman to open a romance novel on an airplane. She knows what everyone around her will think about both her and her choice of reading material" (1).<br /><br />Looking back, and taking into account what Berlatsky has to say about the canon, he was probably discounting this sort of discomfort (as due to "stigma"), but I thought maybe Berlatsky was suggesting that the stigma was due to critics' lack of knowledge of the genre and so the two were linked.<br /><br />The list of authors which you read as partly a "rhetorical strategy, [...] aimed mostly at establishing camaraderie with a reader who also likes those dead, respected authors, or at least knows that you're supposed to like them" actually did resonate with me because, with the addition of authors such as Georgette Heyer, Victoria Holt, and the Lymond Chronicles, that's how I came to romance too. So while I can see your point, that's not how I read that part of the piece.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-83325059200912955352014-04-27T16:34:49.904+01:002014-04-27T16:34:49.904+01:00Noah's comment, part 2:
6. The single most i...Noah's comment, part 2:<br /> <br />6. The single most infuriating thing in your essay though, is this:<br /> <br />"Smart, sophisticated, incredibly well-informed readers, women who know the genre far, far better than I do, went out of their way to suggest books that he might like, based on his tastes and interests. But he doesn't mention them, or tell his reader that these networks and conversations exist. That's profoundly disrespectful, and it's bad journalism, too: a missed opportunity for Salon readers to learn where they can go, other than to future pieces by Noah Berlatsky. "<br /> <br />That's absolutely false. Allow me to quote:<br /> <br />"So, in the absence of critical consensus, which of the gazillion romance novels with nearly identical covers featuring nearly identical flexing pecs and/or heaving bosoms do you choose? As I say, I was at a loss for years — but, eventually, I ended up doing what I think most romance readers do. I got some recommendations. Janine Ballard, who writes for dearauthor.com, in particular, has led me to Cecilia Grant, Judith Ivory, Laura Kinsale and a bunch of other wonderful authors."<br /> <br />Did you not read to the end of the piece? Did you just skip over it because you assume that I'm such an asshole that it can't possibly be there? Or what, Eric? <br /> <br />I understand that anyone can make mistakes, but you've systematically distorted my essay, to the point of actually misrepresenting it. I'd appreciate a correction, at least to the last point, which is simply flagrantly false.<br /> <br />Finally, I guess I'd say that in terms of Wendy's piece, I think there's a difference between a canon and a list of historically influential works. There's overlap...but her adamant insistence that historical influence is the only way to make a canon for romance pretty much dovetails with what I said in the piece — that being that romance seems really reluctant to create a canon along the lines in which other genres have created canons (like comics, to point to the thing I'm most interested in.) I don't think that means that romance is backwards or wrong. I do think it's interesting though and worth discussing. It would be nice if discussing it didn't involve using me as a rhetorical punching bag, but if it does, it does.E. M. Selingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-40943947433787160172014-04-27T16:34:27.265+01:002014-04-27T16:34:27.265+01:00Noah Berlatsky tried to comment, but it didn't...Noah Berlatsky tried to comment, but it didn't get through, so he sent his response to me. I'll post it here, and in a separate post as well. I'm going to post it in pieces, here in the comments. It's a bit too many characters, otherwise.<br /><br />Hey Eric. I appreciate you taking the time to write this, and how helpful you've been with your time and interest as I've started to write and think about romance writing. <br /> <br />Having said that...as I said on twitter,, this seems like a pretty ungenerous reading in a lot of respects. Just for starters:<br /> <br />1. there's no indication in your reading that I actually criticize canons for *exactly the reasons you suggest* in the piece itself. Like, I say, "don't trust canons; they're silly" just about verbatim. <br /> <br />2. Along those lines, the piece ends with me saying, not having canons seems like a good thing for romance. The piece is about how romance doesn't need a canon, not about how it does. There is not a flicker of a suggestion that this is the case in this essay, presumably because if there was I wouldn't be the evil bro, which would cause rhetorical confusion. <br /> <br />3. You assume that talking about Austen and Trollope means that I'm signaling to people who aren't readers of romance novels. Why would you assume that? Do you think that romance novel readers don't know those authors? I don't assume that at all. On the contrary, my assumption is that many romance novel readers are very familiar with those authors, and enjoy them for the same reasons they enjoy romance novels. (And why should my use of Anthony's first name be any different than Jane's, exactly? Because the use of Anthony doesn't fit with this piece's interest in painting me as a sexist jerk? Or what?)<br /> <br />4. Of course, no one would know from reading your piece that I say in mine that austen and trollope are continuous with other romance writers, because you make no mention of it in your discussion. You point out that I don't like Nora Roberts, but there's little indication that I say in the piece that there are a lot of other romance novels I do like, and that I don't actually see any reason to separate Austen and Trollope from the romance field more generally. <br /> <br />5. The assumption here seems to be that every romance reader who read the piece reacted as one with loathing at my condescension and sexism. That really is nothing like the case. Many readers responded as if I had rhetorically positioned myself as a newbie, which I did, and provided recommendations (read the comments to the piece.) Many romance readers and writers said they liked the piece and found it interesting and worth thinking about. Are those folks deluded saps who need you to explain to them why I'm really an awful person? Are you speaking for all romance readers when you denounce me? Who are you protecting exactly, and from what? <br />E. M. Selingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.com