date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Emma Sea
(last edited Oct 11, 2012 10:05PM)
(new)
Oct 11, 2012 10:04PM
eeep, guilt much? Venting is good though. Feel free to guilt me.
reply
|
flag
Sea's liver says, Someone stop her! wrote: "eeep, guilt much? Venting is good though. Feel free to guilt me."Why guilt? o.o
Are you kidding: how about guilt for opening my review of Hockey with the fateful words "Not an m/m romance"? It's like I was reading a guide for how to make you feel sick.Also guilt for DNFing Freelancers, but that's minor compared to the first one.
But I am sorry :(
Sea's liver says, Someone stop her! wrote: "Are you kidding: how about guilt for opening my review of Hockey with the fateful words "Not an m/m romance"? It's like I was reading a guide for how to make you feel sick.Also guilt for DNFing ..."
Pffffttttt.. first of all the you open your review with words "Not an m/m romance; rather a classic bildungsroman with added hot gay sex." ... I'm not talking about comments like that. I'm talking about comments that use my atypical definition of romance as a criticism and imply that my books are not worth reading because they can't be categorized or because they "fail" at being in one genre or another by not following an agreed upon formula for that genre. Simply pointing out that there's a better word to describe something I've written, or maybe it fits better in one genre than another is not something that irritates me at all.
Frankly, warning readers that something I've written doesn't really fit what they're used to in M/M doesn't bother me either, because that's true and anyone who just wants a nice and easy love story probably shouldn't buy anything I've written. But some people are so smug about it and act like they have to take me down a peg for daring to think I could publish something in this genre. How dare I not ask proper permission to write things that involve men fucking other men up the ass!
As for DNFing The Freelancers ... don't feel guilty, it was really good feedback and it will just make it all the more fun to go all Clockwork Orange on you when I'm done fiddling with the final draft >D
I should also add the obvious: if your opinion annoyed me, frustrated me or offended me in anyway Emma I would stop asking for it :DThe fact that I'm getting to the point where I'm always distracted while writing by "What Would Emma Think?" suggests the exact opposite *lol*
Isa wrote: "it will just make it all the more fun to go all Clockwork Orange on you when I'm done fiddling with the final draft"That sounds like a plan :)
EDIT: am still never using that phrase again in a review though. Because I thought about it a lot tonight, and you're right. It's not useful to dicuss a book by pigenholing it, or rather by explaining why it doesn't fit the pigenhole you expected, or why it isn't what you thought it should be. I don't mean in my reviews of your books, specifically, but rather my reviews in general. So I'm going to work on not doing that.
Oooh, I want to read it! *Jumps up and down, waving arms*Isa wrote: "I hate that when you publish something people can fill a review with praise but then caution others against reading because it won't deliver the pre-packaged fantasy they want. It's unbelievably frustrating to be told that good writing is about following the formula."
For the record, when I point out in a review that a book doesn't follow a set formula or conform to certain labels, it's never meant as a slap in the author's face. Like it or not, a lot of readers do want the formula. I like to make sure that anyone following my reviews is informed about what they're getting in a book, just like I want to know when a book contains themes that I prefer to avoid.
Sea's liver says, Someone stop her! wrote: "It's not useful to dicuss a book by pigenholing it, or rather by explaining why it doesn't fit the pigenhole you expected..."
Again, it's useful to readers who want something very specific from their romances. It isn't a criticism to say, "this book isn't X." It's a statement of fact. It's part of a reviewer's job.
No that's true. I do understand that. I dunno I guess it's hard for me to express myself correctly on this topic...probably because I'm in no way objective. I didn't mean to imply that people shouldn't review this way or that way (though rereading it now I suppose I sort of did ... My apologies!) I was just trying to provide context for the decision. I don't want people to think that I'm trying to pull something cliquey and elitist. It's just reviewers do feel an obligation to address reader expectation, if I publish I have to submit to that process but if it's private there's no obligation to address anyone's expectations.
Yes, it is letting other readers know what to expect, but if I'm defining a book as "yes, this is a romance" or "no, this isn't a romance" (just for example) then that boundary-keeping reinforces a politics of inclusion and exclusion. Not that many years ago if a book had actual sex in it then it wasn't romance, it was erotica, and a lot of bookstores (lol, remember them!) wouldn't stock it. Let alone gay sex! In life, there is absolutely nothing I hate more than "X is a girl, therefore X likes shopping and doesn't like maths". But if I'm saying X isn't a romance, because a romance does this and this and doesn't do this, am I not doing the same thing?
The romance genre will grow and change, it should grow and change, so if I am labelling things, isn't that a way of saying "this book shouldn't be like this if it wants to be a romance" and stifling that very change?
I'm still kind of thinking it through.
Sea's liver says, Someone stop her! wrote: "In life, there is absolutely nothing I hate more than "X is a girl, therefore X likes shopping and doesn't like maths". But if I'm saying X isn't a romance, because a romance does this and this and doesn't do this, am I not doing the same thing?"Noted. I realize there is a danger of reinforcing the narrow definition "romance" by stating that certain books are not romances because they don't do X. I tend to call anything that has any sort of romantic thread (or even a hint at the possibility of future romance) a romance. But if I call something like, say, The Condor a romance, I'm creating expectations in some readers that might not be fulfilled by the book. A reviewer needs to be aware of what a term like "romance" will convey to certain readers and address those expectations, even if the reviewer doesn't agree with them.
Frankly I do not give a s**t if book meet certain criteria to be defined as "romance", "horror", "mystery", etc. I care about book being interesting, attention gripping, emotionally moving. Those who worship labels can shove them where sun does not shine. If the book is good, it is good regardless of what genre people what to slap on it, such trivia does not matter.I love your hockey series and I sincerely hope you will continue writing. I am sure I am not the only one who wants to know what happens next. In the meanwhile I am off to read Freelancers and I do not care in the slightest how crowd wants to label it.


