Archive for September, 2010

I read this and went, Huh?

Monday, September 6th, 2010

Do NOT read this post if you are a girl-editor or don’t care for swearing. You’ve been warned.

So Susan, in the comments to another post here included a link to this Writer’s Digest article entitled 5 Tips to Polish Your Fiction by G. Miki Hayden. The tips given in the article, while definitely useful, don’t fit the kind of thing I do when I’m polishing. I would even say I don’t think any of those things really qualify as polishing but there’s some good stuff there. Number 5, however, threw me for a loop. Like this:

This sheep is named Thirsty. She looks puzzled

Thirsty the Sheep Looks Puzzled

5. Limit your use of possibly offensive language.
Reasons exist for characters to swear. But remember that, nowadays, most books are bought by women and many women don’t like swearing for swearing’s sake (even in gritty or naturalistic novels).

WTF? (Um, that stands for What the FUDGE, okay? It DOES NOT mean What the Anglo-Saxon-word-for-copulation.) Oh, all right. I meant What the fuck. Sorry. Okay, I’m not really sorry.

Number one, that is not advice about polishing your novel. That is advice about what you should consider doing to sell your soul novel.

Could we please dispense with stereotypes like this? It’s not even true. I am reminded that someone over at some review site said of my RITA finalist paranormal My Forbidden Desire, something along the lines of (paraphrasing) my hero was foul-mouthed. She actually hated the book for that reason alone. In fact, she did not touch on one single plot element of the book. She just hated my foul-mouthed hero. But she was a reviewer. Not an editor. And not my editor, who happens to be a woman.

It’s true that most books are bought by women. But “many women don’t like swearing for swearing’s sake” — But men do? Is that what the author means? And even if it’s true, what does that have to do with buying a novel? “(even in gritty or naturalistic novels)”

Huh?

In other words, women who acquire books will impose their personal moral dislikes on a book and make their buying decisions accordingly. The subtext, of course, is that a male editor would not do such a thing and that books, as a result of this this imposition of feminine delicacy, are in danger of too many rainbows and unicorns. And cute kittens.

Here’s a rejection letter such an editor might send:

Dear Author:
Thank you for sending us your novel THE WEREWOLF’S BAD HAIR DAY for consideration. This is one of the finest novels I’ve ever read. Even Marketing agrees this book will sell millions and that the publisher stands to make millions more from licensing and movie rights. Unfortunately, your delicious and tortured werewolf protagonist says “fuck” 37 times and “bullshit” 50 times. Also cock, penis, petaled folds, and asshole. Sadly, for this reason, we cannot offer you a contract. Best wishes for your future success.

Ellen Editor.
P.S. Please let us know when your novel is published!

Oh, for fuck’s sake. That’s really stupid advice. If your characters are the swearing type, they should swear. If your book is great, an editor will buy it.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterShare

An Academic Paradox

Sunday, September 5th, 2010

Here’s some facts

  • women read more books than men.
  • women read across genres

And yet, whenever academics get going about how women, when they read romance, are unable to separate the subject of their reading from the reality of their lives, they conveniently forget the incredibly high likelihood that these same women are reading other genres. As soon as as woman reads a romance, she is reconstructing her real life with the fantasy of the romance. Her husband isn’t a stinker after all because romance allows her to reconstitute him with the fantasy of the hero. I guess when I read a Fantasy, I am reconstituting my (nonexistent) husband as a magic elf. Or a mage who will solve all my problems with housework that doesn’t get done by itself. And when I read a political thriller, I reconstitute the hero as an assassin who takes care of all those pesky people I don’t like In Real Life. Jesus, I wish that worked.

But guys, they get to read a Thriller and enjoy the story. If they read a mystery, they’re not psychologically infantile enough to transfer the story elements to their lives and relationships, right? Huh.

For crying out loud.

A bit of intellectual rigor suggests the blazingly obvious conclusion that first you must establish the role of story in our lives. Is it really the case that fiction readers reconstitute the fiction they read and thereby transform elements of their real lives? If that’s the case, would not that transformation be highly individual? Is there a link between one’s choice of fiction and one’s psychological make up? But wait! Oh my God. Women read across genre! We are so fucked up that we can’t even figure out what’s wrong with us and read the right books to get us all fixed up. Do women really read romance after romance because their husbands are jerks and they require the fantasy of the romance hero to tolerate the horror of their daily emotional lives? But wait! Oh my God! Not all women are married or in a relationship. Ack! [Hand waving. DO NOT LOOK THAT DIRECTION!]

People are social creatures. We form relationships all the time. People who grow up without the ability to form relationships end up damaged and disfunctional. Fiction is about our relationships, some of which are intimate and sexual. Exactly why are stories about sexually intimate relationships not about the excitement and satisfaction of such a relationship but about a woman’s inability to separate fact from fantasy?

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterShare

Update on Freedom

Sunday, September 5th, 2010

I am nearing half way through this book and the thought of reading more is giving me hives. I dislike this book. It’s boring. I don’t like the characters, I hate Patty Bergland, who I find completely unconvincing as a human being — she’s cardboard; constructed to fit the author’s needs. I don’t believe for a nanosecond that Franzen bothered to ask himself whether he understands anything about being a woman. Five minutes on Google would have sent him to dozens of sites where women speak cogently about what it’s like to be a woman in America. He doesn’t understand that rape is about more than the physical violence, it’s about the emotional damage. My God, I hate this book. I don’t understand how anyone can call this a work of genius. I really don’t.

I also hate Walter Bergland. And Richard Katz. They are effing boring me to DEATH. And please don’t mistake my use of the characters’ names for some kind of subtle suggestion that they are fully realized characters. They’re as cardboard as Patty. Oh god I just don’t care about this book and I don’t want to keep reading.

It isn’t brilliant. Not in any sense of the word. I’m still spitting mad. And now I’m also spitting mad that books that DO represent a woman’s life are “Chick Lit” and populist and not worthy of critical assessment. I’m starting to agree that Franzen is right ;Mikiko Kakutani must be the stupidest person in America to call this book brilliant.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterShare

Saving the world, one poll at a time

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

While I continue to slog through Freedom, here’s a couple of polls.

You must choose between one of two superpowers . . .

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

There's a huge fight involving monsters. Who wins?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Which Magical Creature Is Mostly Likely to Save Carolyn's Life?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

It’d be awesome if you left a comment about your choices

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterShare