July 8th, 2009
Never, never, never read the comments sections to online articles. That way lies madness.
Normally, I don't, but I got suckered in this time. Article yesterday on scholarship and romance in the USA Today. While overall a good article, I was irked by the front half, where the writer seemed to need to get all the snarky clichés off her chest before she could settle in to write the article, proper. I also don't happen to think that "scholarly" writers empower romance, nor do I think a writer's individual scholarship legitimizes the genre, in and of itself. However, I can see how it can give the gloss of legitimacy in the eyes of the mainstream and like I said, overall, a positive article, so let's call it a win. Especially since in the print version, there was a page-wide banner running beneath the article for Nora, proclaiming her a New York Times Bestseller and one of America's favorite authors. So let's call it a win.
But then there were the comments.
Some were of the "oh, not again," variety. You know, the women read/write romance because they can't get laid, blah, blah, blah... Ignorant drivel for ignorant readers, blah, blah, blah...
Some were laughable, like the spy novel enthusiast who derided romance novels as "formulaic."
This was the same chump who said romance was unoriginal and formulaic and that he had a professor at a Respected Christian University who wrote romance (a man) and that he used an outline and just filled in the blanks and that it fit the Harlequin mold.
Whatever. Ignorance strikes again. It's tiresome and yes, it makes me grumpy even as I shrug it off.
And I don't know... I think the current state of the world is having a very strange effect on many writers. They're either feeling as if they have to go the humble supplicant route. I mean, thanking a reviewer for a crappy review? Really? Of course, some say that they're doing it to mess with the reviewer's heads, but seriously, not that subtle. Worse still, to me, is the "Oh, I take negative reviews and learn from them." Dude, the only thing you should learn is that the reviews are simply one person's opinion. Maybe the reviewer had a bad day or didn't get it, or *gasp* simply didn't care for the book. It hurts, yes, and you should fume mightily, but move on.
Oh, and don't take to social networking sites to blast the reviewer/critic. Yes, I know it's last week's news, but it's a timeless lesson. That was some seriously bad form.
I mean, writers should just feel free to write their stories the way they want (with their editor's guidance where needed). The same way a reader is free to like or dislike. I had a reviewer absolutely hate my dialogue and sentence fragments. Too bad. I just don't happen to think that First Person should be written in the Queen's English, unless the character is, you know, the Queen. So bite me, Grammar Snoot. I'm not going to take that review and allow it to change how I write. Nor did I feel the need to write a thank you note.
And why does it always have to rain on the days I have to transport my three very large dogs to the boarding facility.
Normally, I don't, but I got suckered in this time. Article yesterday on scholarship and romance in the USA Today. While overall a good article, I was irked by the front half, where the writer seemed to need to get all the snarky clichés off her chest before she could settle in to write the article, proper. I also don't happen to think that "scholarly" writers empower romance, nor do I think a writer's individual scholarship legitimizes the genre, in and of itself. However, I can see how it can give the gloss of legitimacy in the eyes of the mainstream and like I said, overall, a positive article, so let's call it a win. Especially since in the print version, there was a page-wide banner running beneath the article for Nora, proclaiming her a New York Times Bestseller and one of America's favorite authors. So let's call it a win.
But then there were the comments.
Some were of the "oh, not again," variety. You know, the women read/write romance because they can't get laid, blah, blah, blah... Ignorant drivel for ignorant readers, blah, blah, blah...
Some were laughable, like the spy novel enthusiast who derided romance novels as "formulaic."
This was the same chump who said romance was unoriginal and formulaic and that he had a professor at a Respected Christian University who wrote romance (a man) and that he used an outline and just filled in the blanks and that it fit the Harlequin mold.
Whatever. Ignorance strikes again. It's tiresome and yes, it makes me grumpy even as I shrug it off.
And I don't know... I think the current state of the world is having a very strange effect on many writers. They're either feeling as if they have to go the humble supplicant route. I mean, thanking a reviewer for a crappy review? Really? Of course, some say that they're doing it to mess with the reviewer's heads, but seriously, not that subtle. Worse still, to me, is the "Oh, I take negative reviews and learn from them." Dude, the only thing you should learn is that the reviews are simply one person's opinion. Maybe the reviewer had a bad day or didn't get it, or *gasp* simply didn't care for the book. It hurts, yes, and you should fume mightily, but move on.
Oh, and don't take to social networking sites to blast the reviewer/critic. Yes, I know it's last week's news, but it's a timeless lesson. That was some seriously bad form.
I mean, writers should just feel free to write their stories the way they want (with their editor's guidance where needed). The same way a reader is free to like or dislike. I had a reviewer absolutely hate my dialogue and sentence fragments. Too bad. I just don't happen to think that First Person should be written in the Queen's English, unless the character is, you know, the Queen. So bite me, Grammar Snoot. I'm not going to take that review and allow it to change how I write. Nor did I feel the need to write a thank you note.
And why does it always have to rain on the days I have to transport my three very large dogs to the boarding facility.
- Mood:
grumpy - Music:Rachel Portman- Emma
Tomorrow morning I and the entire fam take off for the wilds of Washington, D.C. The Boy is turning into a teenager on Saturday and in honor of the momentous occasion, we allowed him to choose the destination for a family vacation. As it so happened, he chose Washington, which was a happy coincidence, since RWA National is also in D.C., starting next Wednesday. So we have several days of full family fun and then the Hub returns home, while the rugrats stay with me throughout the conference.
Anyhoo, the first several days, especially, I shall be grayish-- perhaps after the conference starts, I'll be updating, at least giving some highlights and of course, if any good kerfluffles erupt, I'll keep y'all posted.
For the record, no gown for RITA this year-- I decided to go the cocktail dress route if only to keep the luggage a bit more controllable. (Evening gowns take up a lot of room, yo.) But still, trés elegant cocktail dress in a fetching shade of deep purple. With any luck, I shall not resemble an eggplant.
So y'all hold the fort and behave.
Roberto will be watching.

Anyhoo, the first several days, especially, I shall be grayish-- perhaps after the conference starts, I'll be updating, at least giving some highlights and of course, if any good kerfluffles erupt, I'll keep y'all posted.
For the record, no gown for RITA this year-- I decided to go the cocktail dress route if only to keep the luggage a bit more controllable. (Evening gowns take up a lot of room, yo.) But still, trés elegant cocktail dress in a fetching shade of deep purple. With any luck, I shall not resemble an eggplant.
So y'all hold the fort and behave.
Roberto will be watching.
- Mood:
busy - Music:Marlins vs. Giants