Mostly link-u-lator
Sep. 24th, 2005 11:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shalannaI tend to agree with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fantabulous when she writes:
As soap operas are what actors do when they can't act, so are trashy romance novels what writers do when they can't write.
I look at some of the flavor-of-the-month novels and think, "Why? Why? WHY? Why was this published and not something else that would be more lasting, more interesting, not so derivative?" But it's all so complicated. Dr. Robert Nelsen, one of the sharpest professors of writing I had when I was in graduate school, said that he could write a romance novel or a horror novel (which was "in" at the time), but he wouldn't be proud of it, and that was why he was working on his literary novel. I thought he had a point. But then the market seems to want the pulp fiction, so there is something to be said for feeding the market. And an easier sale. Editor Christopher Keeslar said in a recent interview that it's easier for a mediocre writer to sell a book that's like what is out there, so that probably explains why these books aren't the pinnacle of prose. (He actually said, "A mediocre storyteller who’s writing what everyone else is writing is much more likely to get picked up than a mediocre storyteller writing something that no one understands." It's an interesting interview. Since I'm waiting to hear back from him, I was REALLY interested in reading it.)
But people LIKE the books that seem trashy to me--the erotica/romantica that just tell the same old story of the ol' beast with two backs, the "Lifetime For Women" movie fodder, the empty ones about shopping and shoes. They sell. It's work that reaches an audience. An eager audience. So who are we to judge? Would we not like to have so many people hearing our voices in their heads? We would be lying if we said otherwise, and there's a reason I'm using the royal "We" here.
There's also the entire screed that I'm gonna skip, the one about how trash isn't trash and to each her own and the French version of that and the Latin version. It's all too much for me after hearing of a recent death in fandom, being all upset about Hurricane Rita, seeing the burned bus where the elderly nursing home residents died only a few miles away from the home here in Plano (just north of here) that was waiting for them . . . it's all getting too much. Andbrentsbrain's cat, and just everything. So I don't want to have to argue with people about the relative merits of romance novels. If you like 'em, just page down to the next entry. It might be interesting to hear why you like 'em, but not if it's just because they give you a tingly feeling Down There. (GRIN) 'k.
And now for something IMPORTANT. Crayola crayon colors--a timeline (for those of you who remember Carnation Pink and Cornflower/Prussian Blue fondly)
I'm doing my part in the gas crisis. I invented a car that runs on martinis! The only problem is you have to stop every 20 miles . . .
to add OLIVES.
(grinning, ducking, and running)
fantabulous when she writes:As soap operas are what actors do when they can't act, so are trashy romance novels what writers do when they can't write.
I look at some of the flavor-of-the-month novels and think, "Why? Why? WHY? Why was this published and not something else that would be more lasting, more interesting, not so derivative?" But it's all so complicated. Dr. Robert Nelsen, one of the sharpest professors of writing I had when I was in graduate school, said that he could write a romance novel or a horror novel (which was "in" at the time), but he wouldn't be proud of it, and that was why he was working on his literary novel. I thought he had a point. But then the market seems to want the pulp fiction, so there is something to be said for feeding the market. And an easier sale. Editor Christopher Keeslar said in a recent interview that it's easier for a mediocre writer to sell a book that's like what is out there, so that probably explains why these books aren't the pinnacle of prose. (He actually said, "A mediocre storyteller who’s writing what everyone else is writing is much more likely to get picked up than a mediocre storyteller writing something that no one understands." It's an interesting interview. Since I'm waiting to hear back from him, I was REALLY interested in reading it.)
But people LIKE the books that seem trashy to me--the erotica/romantica that just tell the same old story of the ol' beast with two backs, the "Lifetime For Women" movie fodder, the empty ones about shopping and shoes. They sell. It's work that reaches an audience. An eager audience. So who are we to judge? Would we not like to have so many people hearing our voices in their heads? We would be lying if we said otherwise, and there's a reason I'm using the royal "We" here.
There's also the entire screed that I'm gonna skip, the one about how trash isn't trash and to each her own and the French version of that and the Latin version. It's all too much for me after hearing of a recent death in fandom, being all upset about Hurricane Rita, seeing the burned bus where the elderly nursing home residents died only a few miles away from the home here in Plano (just north of here) that was waiting for them . . . it's all getting too much. And
brentsbrain's cat, and just everything. So I don't want to have to argue with people about the relative merits of romance novels. If you like 'em, just page down to the next entry. It might be interesting to hear why you like 'em, but not if it's just because they give you a tingly feeling Down There. (GRIN) 'k.And now for something IMPORTANT. Crayola crayon colors--a timeline (for those of you who remember Carnation Pink and Cornflower/Prussian Blue fondly)
I'm doing my part in the gas crisis. I invented a car that runs on martinis! The only problem is you have to stop every 20 miles . . .
to add OLIVES.
(grinning, ducking, and running)
