Alexis’s review of Ice Planet Barbarians (Ice Planet Barbarians, #1) > Likes and Comments
472 likes · Like
This review is <3 <3 <3
Kat, short for Clara wrote: "This review is <3 <3 <3"
Thank you <3
Amazing review!
Sos todo lo que está bien, Mr Hall! ❤️
Rhosyo BW wrote: "Amazing review!
Sos todo lo que está bien, Mr Hall! ❤️"
Muchas gracias <3
Thank you so much this review. I have been curious to try this series for a while, I have seen a lot of praise for it (some make the caveat for the rape tbh). I got the ARC but I don't think I will be reading it now. I don't think it will work for me and I have way too many ARCs to read that I hope to enjoy.
Omg book one was good I had stop read but must continue with the series
Ellie wrote: "Thank you so much this review. I have been curious to try this series for a while, I have seen a lot of praise for it (some make the caveat for the rape tbh). I got the ARC but I don't think I will..."
As I hope my review communicated there's a lot to admire in the book (and presumably the series as a whole) and I genuinely enjoyed my read - but I can also see prioritising a book that erases queer people and is harmful to sexual abuse survivors over books that, um, don't do that? Might feel like A Choice TM ;)
Isolette wrote: "Omg book one was good I had stop read but must continue with the series"
Must be lovely to live in a world where harmful portrayals of sexual abuse survivors & the total erasure of queer people in no way hinder your untrammelled relish in a book. Have fun.
Excellent, thoughtful review of a book I would term a guilty pleasure I. e. Problematic but I enjoyed it anyway.
Marti wrote: "Excellent, thoughtful review of a book I would term a guilty pleasure I. e. Problematic but I enjoyed it anyway."
Ah thank you. I am kind of wary of the term 'guilty pleasure' because I think if something genuinely makes you feel guilty then, uh, it's probably not right you're doing it? To me I think it's more about being comfortable to acknowledge the problematic elements of a thing you enjoy, rather than just, err, insisting it's FINE, it's GREAT, WHY ARE PEOPLE SO SENSITIVE. Obviously there are limits here but, in general, I don't think there's any need to feel guilty about what's fun to you. I had fun with this book too.
I love your reviews. I really want to be you when I grow up. (ugh, that's such a stupid joke, but still, I think you're awesome)
Raluca wrote: "I love your reviews. I really want to be you when I grow up. (ugh, that's such a stupid joke, but still, I think you're awesome)"
Aww, thank you. That's super kind <3 (although I'm very bad at being a grown up).
Honestly, I think being a bad grownup is probably more fun than being a good grownup.
Chris wrote: "Honestly, I think being a bad grownup is probably more fun than being a good grownup."
Less laundry gets done than one would like.
Thanks for this review. I requested this ARC a while back because I heard so much about it. Now I'm glad I didn't get it because it sounds like it would not have been for me. I enjoyed reading your review though - as always!
Alexis wrote: "Raluca wrote: "I love your reviews. I really want to be you when I grow up. (ugh, that's such a stupid joke, but still, I think you're awesome)"
Aww, thank you. That's super kind <3 (although I'm ..."
Well, same. This grown up thing doesn't suit me at all. But I didn't write all those beautiful books (that I've ordered and can't wait to arrive so I can binge read them), did I? Ha. I rest my case, thank you very much.
So I fell down the Ruby Dixon rabbit hole and I'm pretty sure that I read all of the Kindle Unlimited books set in this universe (the literal universe she created, there has to be at least 40 set in various parts of the galaxy). Overall I liked the series, and agree that some of the consent issues were problematic, especially in some of the later books (lots of kidnapping). The emphasis on slavers and how humans who were taken from Earth were treated was more than a little squicky for me as, and unfortunately I don't think the author thought too much about it, ESPECIALLY when she wrote Black MCs. However, she does address some of the LGBT concerns in her author notes in the later ebooks, and her more recent books have more representation.
Senetra wrote: "So I fell down the Ruby Dixon rabbit hole and I'm pretty sure that I read all of the Kindle Unlimited books set in this universe (the literal universe she created, there has to be at least 40 set i..."
I guess I feel addressing LGBTQ+ concerns in author notes isn't quite the same as, you know, not writing a queerphobic book? It's a bit Dumbledore is Gay for me. But ... well. I suppose the fact she's aware is ... nice? But since I read the Berkley edition, where the author had significant opportunity to revise, expand, do what she wanted, she could have, you know, changed the really problematic elements without significantly impacting the book (unless we all feel that death of sexual abuse survivors and erasure of queer people are the mot je n'sais quoi that really MAKE these stories).
I agree with you there. Dominque was definitely fridged in service of Georgie's storyline. I definitely had moments of 'was that necessary?' in both early and later books in the series, and early on, I wondered what would someone who wasn't straight do on a planet where the whole goal was to repopulate a dying civilization.
I feel like there is a bit of disconnect in what she says in her notes about liking happy endings with lots of babies, and how some of the characters got there. Some of the trauma her characters undergo is very serious, and I think the balances with how she writes their stories is off.
I came to the series recently, so I can only reference what she said in her story notes, and she mentions the pushback from folks in her author FB group (not being apologist, just my frame of reference), so I don't know why she didn't work that feedback into the mainstream pub version.
Senetra wrote: "I agree with you there. Dominque was definitely fridged in service of Georgie's storyline. I definitely had moments of 'was that necessary?' in both early and later books in the series, and early o..."
Oh God, of course. I hope I didn't come across as overly aggressive and/or defensive. I'm definitely not attacking the right to fantasy, even to problematic fantasy: I think I acknowledged myself that I genuinely had fun reading this and I even enjoyed the slightly dubcon oral scene because it was fully contextualised *as* fantasy.
But as you say, there are things that just don't feel *necessary* to the fantasy or to the story--and that's complicated, and odd? And, obviously, it wasn't on the writer to make her world queer-friendly because the fantasies the books are indulging are fundamentally quite heteronormative. But I think the way she justified the exclusion of queer people was more problematic than just not mentioning them at all. And also it just weirds me out that this is a world where people are kept alive by their relationship with a vibrating parasite. And yet the sex and procreation happen in massively gender essentialist ways?
*side-eye*
I didn't take it as agressive/defensive at all! I mentioned earlier, I had issues with the way she wrote the slavery aspect of it, especially in the context of Black MCs, and at least one character felt a little stereotypical and not reflective of her age. I'm of a similar age to the character, and it felt 'off' in a way that probably would not be noticed by someone who doesn't come from a similar background, so I get it!
I find her writing very readable or else I wouldn't have inhaled all the books, but I also have some things that I side-eye as well, mainly the way the humans refer it it as a cootie, and throughout all the series they call the sa-khui (and later the mesakkah) 'aliens', like bitches, this is THEIR planet. You're the alien! Those two things feel very othering in a way that people who have never been othered might not pick up on.
Senetra wrote: "I didn't take it as agressive/defensive at all! I mentioned earlier, I had issues with the way she wrote the slavery aspect of it, especially in the context of Black MCs, and at least one character..."
Oh God, yes. The slavery aspect gets about a gazillion times more complicated when you start to factor Black women into the equation. I mean, it's complicated in general, as fantasies go, but ... yeah. And, honestly, I hadn't considered the colonialist implications of the humans still referring to the sa-khui as the aliens.
I think the reason why you don't find same sex couples in this series is that all the couples get their own story, and perhaps Dixon didn't feel qualified to write an MLM romance. Most female romance writers don't write about same sex couples, and the ones that do take a lot of guff for writing MM love scenes for the titillation of het women. Perhaps Ms. Dixon thinks it's better to leave it in the hands of "own voices" authors, rather than try to write it herself, and perhaps do it poorly.
It seems a little unfair to make accusations of homophobia, which can be career damaging for any author these days, especially as a fellow romance writer and thus a competitor. Perhaps you're not trying to damage anyone's reputation, but if you are truly just interested in helping your fellow readers avoid upsetting content, perhaps you should reserve it for cases of actual homophobia, and not just books that don't have any gay characters?
Stephanie wrote: "I think the reason why you don't find same sex couples in this series is that all the couples get their own story, and perhaps Dixon didn't feel qualified to write an MLM romance. Most female roman..."
This feels a little defensive. I suppose I should be flattered you see me as a competitor for a NYT bestselling author whose books have sold hundreds of thousands of copies, but I think it's, frankly, a little disingenuous of you.
How about, when I have sold as many copies of my (non-existent) heteronormative m/f barbarian SFF fantasy romance series as this author has we can, at that point, discuss my potential competitive bias?
I also feel it's rather telling that you feel it is worse for an author to be accused of homophobia than to write a homophobic book. Maybe you could consider thinking about that?
Although I should clarify that I did not say the author was homophobic. I didn't even say the book was homophobic: that's the word you've used, which, again, says more about your worldview than mine. I pointed out some elements of the work that I personally considered heteronormative, gender essentialist or otherwise problematic - including, killing off a rape survivor to no purpose.
To me, I don't think there's any problem in authors not including queer people within the worlds they create or write about (although your conviction that it is impossible for a straight person to write a queer person authentically and sympathetically also comes across as bizarrely homophobic) but I think *explicitly* creating a world that renders same-sex attraction/interaction *biologically impossible* is a choice. And it's not wrong of me to point that this choice was made, and how such a choice makes me feel as a reader. In the same way that subjecting a secondary character to violent sexual abuse and then letting her die in the snow is a choice, and some readers are going to feel certain sorts of way about that choice too.
I do admire your desire to leap to the defence of this highly successful and beloved author though. She is lucky to have fans like you, but I do think you'd be better off supporting her work than insisting to other readers any problematic elements of the text that you do not personally see therefore don't exist. That's ... not how reading works?
Well, at least it shows how popular your books are that all these people think you are on the same level of sales as Ice Planet Barbarians? I mean I hope you are! I'm really looking forward to your new books and the Spires series re-issue (first time reader for that one!). Anyways, I really enjoy your reviews and I always think you are fair, and they are super helpful to me!
I've seen raves about this series and the Amazon algorithm is more-than-usually invested in me starting it, so -- thanks for saving me the time, money, emotional energy, and inevitable rage outburst. Slavery plus survivor snow death plus erasure-of-queerness-as-canon? Nope nope nopeity nope!
I'm grateful for this review, because it's exactly the type of book I might've picked up on a whim, and I've reacted badly to this type of heteronormativity in science fiction before. I also appreciate the distinction you made between neutral and deliberate types of erasure. I don't really mind the first type, but I try to avoid the second.
Bookish wrote: "I definitely struggled with the biological imperative that is a pre requisite for this alien romance series. Thank you for sharing your review, definitely agree and gave me more food for thought.
..."
I think the question of an author being receptive to "criticism" is a complicated one; obviously no author (I think?) should want to dismiss aspects of their work that are hurtful but ultimately you still have to produce a work, and you can't do that by consensus. On top of which I don't see this review as like ... criticism for the author. That would be fucked up, if I had to deliver feedback to an author I'd do it way, way differently. It's just written for me, and for readers.
I should add that I don't think anyone is *obligated* to represent queer people or queer relationships in their world. I don't that their absence is inherently problematic or queerphobic. It was just, as you say, the biological imperative aspects of the world-building had elements in common with particular aspects of fundamentalist Christianity which, err, definitely *are* queerphobic.
Totally agree, though, that critique is not attack, disrespect or evidence of lack of enjoyment.
Thesincouch wrote: "Well, at least it shows how popular your books are that all these people think you are on the same level of sales as Ice Planet Barbarians? I mean I hope you are! I'm really looking forward to your..."
IKR. *preens* Seriously, though, I know I'm joking about it but I'm beginning to be slightly weirded out by the fact readers keep claiming I'm in competition / have ill-will towards other authors, especially authors who are writing in completely different genres. I always try to listen and respond fairly when people give me feedback but this is start to feel like a silencing tactic. And I'm not okay with that.
Kathleen wrote: "I've seen raves about this series and the Amazon algorithm is more-than-usually invested in me starting it, so -- thanks for saving me the time, money, emotional energy, and inevitable rage outburs..."
To be fair to be the book, it's very much a suspension-of-disbelief-indulge-your-fantasies type text, and it's also very aware about being that. Of course, what is a fun, indulgent fantasy to one person is ... not that to another. I'm definitely not encouraging to pick up the book if the elements I've discussed are deal breakers to you, but I do think it's got a lot of merit in terms of its world-building and story-telling and it's compulsive readability.
I know you had a bad experience recently with a book that included some of these elements as, like, selling points of the book. But I do want to emphasise that slavery is definitely definitely bad in this universe: it's there for peril, not for titillation, and the women get de-slaved when the ship crashes at about the 20% mark. And the book, in general, is very consent-positive.
In terms of the ... non-ideal plot elements, my sense is that they were accidental, rather than ... intentional. I mean, there's no excuses for poor Dominque, I don't know what that little arc was bringing to the text at all. But I definitely don't think the author sat down and was like "how can exclude those icky queer people from my sexy barbarian sex fantasy" - I think she was looking for a SFnal twist on fated mates and didn't think the implications through.
Hart_D (ajibooks) wrote: "I'm grateful for this review, because it's exactly the type of book I might've picked up on a whim, and I've reacted badly to this type of heteronormativity in science fiction before. I also apprec..."
Thank you for the kind words. I just want to say, though, when I said the erasure was *deliberate* I definitely didn't mean it was ... malicious or intentional. I don't think the author did her world-building with the express intent of excluding queer people. I just think she wanted to set up certain gender dynamics and creating a world that made queerness impossible was a side-effect.
This review! You doing the lords work here. Bless your heart :)
browngirlreading wrote: "This review! You doing the lords work here. Bless your heart :)"
*laughs* Thank you - I mean, I can't sincerely play the hero here. Reading a broadly fun book with some problems is not a hardship.
Alexis wrote: "Bookish wrote: "I definitely struggled with the biological imperative that is a pre requisite for this alien romance series. Thank you for sharing your review, definitely agree and gave me more foo..."
Agreed with the silencing tactic. It does feel very odd to me otherwise, because your reviews are always very clearly your own opinion and you take care to explain what something didn't work for you. Also I very much think that bad reviews do get readers as well.
Thesincouch wrote: "Alexis wrote: "Bookish wrote: "I definitely struggled with the biological imperative that is a pre requisite for this alien romance series. Thank you for sharing your review, definitely agree and g..."
Yes, I'm finding it ... increasingly troubling that readers want to shout at a small-time, mid-tier queer author for DAMAGING THE SUCCESS of massively successful cishet folk.
Normally I have a "if there's controversary take it down" policy but ... err. I think I'm going to have to re-think it because I don't think much of it is good faith.
Thank you for this awesome and extensive review! I just read it a couple days ago and to be honest, your review made me reflect on the book more than I would have and made me articulate my thoughts about it better. Especially, of course, the queer erasure (props to you for “That’s some conservative Christian values for a glowing worm to have, isn’t it?” – couldn’t have put it better myself) and the part about Dominique. The dialogue after they’ve found her in the snow literally made me flinch. I also found the whole back and forth between ‘this blue alien is kinda hot’, ‘I’m going to offer him sex to save other women’ and ‘I actually wanted to have sex with him all along’ a bit weird and unnecessary.
Nonetheless, the world-building was well thought-through with some fun solutions (like the spaceship AI with the… laser translator?), the ‘alpha male’ trope was handled in a self-aware manner, and the book was actually quite sexy. All in all, a fun read, but I probably won’t be delving back into this world either.
nikica_k wrote: "Thank you for this awesome and extensive review! I just read it a couple days ago and to be honest, your review made me reflect on the book more than I would have and made me articulate my thoughts..."
Ah, thank you kindly - I'm glad it was useful.
I totally agree with your positive comments on the book too, though. As you say, the world-building is solid and intriguing, and I feel the author did an excellent job of balancing what's attractive/sexy about the alpha male trope without leaning too heavily into its toxicities - like the fact, he's super protective and generally does what the heroine tells him, while also giving off major manly (blue) vibes.
I genuinely had fun too - but I feel my comments on rest of the series would probably be the same as for this one? As in, I like some of what this is doing, but these issues bother me (especially since the biological imperative worms are built into the setting), and that doesn't necessarily feel like an experience I'd get much out of as a reader, and isn't fair to the books.
As usual, your review is hilarious and spot on. I just finished listening to the audiobook for this because… if everyone else was jumping off a bridge I certainly wouldn’t want to be standing up there all alone. This review articulates a lot of the things that bothered me. For instance, I know there are a million of these books so I was excited to see what kind of healing Dominique would get to do in her book with some sexy alien telling her how amazing she was… until they found her dead. Because healing her mental chaos would have been too much. She just served the purpose of being brutally traumatized and then dying… but it’s okay. She was better off (sarcastic eye roll). Also, I’m just that great with guys who act like King Kong. “Grunt you are mine and I own you” and everyone else thinks it’s adorable because he just doesn’t know any better. Still. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t enjoyable at times. I felt a bit conflicted about the whole thing and you laid out my frustrations perfectly… thank you for that.
Crystal wrote: "As usual, your review is hilarious and spot on. I just finished listening to the audiobook for this because… if everyone else was jumping off a bridge I certainly wouldn’t want to be standing up th..."
Ah, thank you kindly. I really did have a positive experience with the book, and enjoyed being along the ride, despite the concerns I raised in the review.
In terms of Dominque, my personal headcanon is that she doesn't really die in the snow - she's assumed dead, but she's close to death. And she gets found by two exiled lady barbarians who have rejected the resonance in order to be with each other. They nurse Dominique back to health, and she slowly recovers from her trauma, ultimately come to live in poly Sapphic bliss with her two barbarian lovers. I'd need to find some way for the symbiotes to agree to it, since they specifically want to reproduce, but without the symbiote everyone dies: maybe they find some left over technology that allows them to keep warm or something. Yes. There we go.
HEA all round.
Ok I've just bought this book because it's sounds like a lot of fun err ish. But now I'm warned about the worst (Dominque? Dominique ?).
I need a good laugh these days and hopefully this will provide some. Fingers crossed. And I'm a sucker for HEA 😂 Also, what was it again? Blue guy dick lol? Hilarious.
Anyway thanks a lot for the review/ recommandation and you're way too modest. I only read two of your books and I loved them. So much so that I bought both kindle and 'hard copies' so there's that. 😉
Alexis wrote: "I pointed out some elements of the work that I personally considered heteronormative, gender essentialist or otherwise problematic - including, killing off a rape survivor to no purpose."
I didn't bring up your comment on the killing off of Dominique, because while I didn't agree with it, it seemed like a valid point to make. There are actually two other rape survivors in the series that suffer through the process but ultimately find their happily ever afters. I can certainly understand your take on Dominique's unfortunate ending, or rather the reaction the other characters have to it.
I admit that I am a fan of this series, but I am really not that big of a Ruby Dixon fan. I bought the first three books of Ice Home, and read one of the Corsair books and one of the dragon shifter books on Kindle Unlimited, but that's as far as I went in those series. I even gave one of her books two stars, and I didn't comment on any of the numerous one or two star reviews she's gotten. My only beef with your review was the accusation of homophobia.
If you had labeled it heteronormative and left out the q****phobic comment, I would have agreed with you. And while I can think of ways that she could have introduced gay and lesbian couples within the context of her original premise of baby-making fated mates, I still don't think she's homophobic for not doing so. Not all het cis-gendered women can write homoerotic love scenes. That doesn't make those who don't bigoted against the LGBTQ+ community.
I don't make the distinction between a book being homophobic (or sexist or racist) and an author being those things as a book cannot itself have those prejudices, it merely gives voice to the author's own biases.
Sure, some women authors can write MLM romances, and often do so in a way that appeals more to other women. I think those who choose to do so, should do it freely and without guilt, rather than having to hide behind a gay male alter-ego, or partnering with someone who doesn't truly collaborate with the writing, solely for the purpose of creating "own voices" cred.
Dannie wrote: "Ok I've just bought this book because it's sounds like a lot of fun err ish. But now I'm warned about the worst (Dominque? Dominique ?).
I need a good laugh these days and hopefully this will provi..."
Oh thank you - I hope you have lots of fun with this book, because it is lots of fun.
Stephanie wrote: "Alexis wrote: "I pointed out some elements of the work that I personally considered heteronormative, gender essentialist or otherwise problematic - including, killing off a rape survivor to no purp..."
Oh joy. You've come back to argue fruitlessly with me. How blessed I am.
Firstly why on earth have you asterisked out queerphobic. You know it's not a slur, right? Although I suppose treating a term used to describe damaging behaviour towards a marginalised group as a slur kind of explains why you feel it's worse to mention the existence of queerphobic ideas than implicitly or explicitly support those ideas.
I don't think it's inherently queerphobic of this author not to explicitly include queer characters in her books. I do think it's queerphobic to create a setting that makes the existence of queerness *literally impossible* because of the whole fundamentalist biological imperative bullshit upon which the world is built. You can, I hope, see a difference there.
Also in writing a review, I will use the language *I* feel is appropriate. Not the language *you* feel is appropriate. We are, thank God, not the same person.
I'm also intrigued you view queerness entirely through the lens of "love scenes". You know there is more to my identity than fucking, right? If you wanted to put someone like me in a book, I would still be a queer character if you didn't write me actively engaged in a sexual act. I find it profoundly reductive and, honestly, kinda gross that the only part of queer identity you feel is represented in queer romance is sexual behaviour.
You seem to be saying: this author isn't queerphobic because she might not, as as (we presume?) a cishet woman want to write queer love scenes. I'm saying this book is queerphobic because it literally creates a world where any manifestation of queerness cannot exist. Again, those are different things and the fact you conflate them is bizarre and ... I am once again falling back on gross.
Finally, I don't know in what world you're living in that you believe cis women writing mlm are brutally "forced" to catfish as queer men or to non-consensually collaborate with them (because apparently no cis woman would collaborate voluntarily with a queer man except for something you have unpleasantly described as "own voices cred" - interesting perspective, there, on how you see queer men in the romance community). There are many cis women (who may also be queer identified, btw) who are celebrated for writing m/m - and only a subsection of those writers view cishet women as their primary target market, which is, by the way, totally fine.
But thank you for this spirited defence of cishet women writing m/m who are in no way under attack here. Again, it feels like you've conflated one specific point I made here. Which, I *reiterate* is "this author has knowingly created a world that renders queerness literally impossible, regardless of whether she chooses to write about queer people or not" with "AJH thinks this author is queerphobic because queer sex is not explicitly depicted on page" and from there it's just a short step to "cishet women are being attacked for writing m/m." However, these latter two points exist solely in your mind; they are certainly not part of my thinking, nor are they part of this review.
PS - you didn't clarify how raising one negative point in a broadly positive review of this book in a totally different genre to the one I write in was me attempting to boost my own sales at the expense of this hugely successful author. Can you please explain? I am interested in this sales strategy.
Wow! Your review....was money! Can't wait to read more of your other reviews. Cheers!
Agreed about it being fun (and problematic), very straight, and the whole Dominique subplot highly problematic. I was so angry with how they treated her because it wasn’t her fault the shitty things kept happening to her and the other women treated her trauma as inconvenient for them personally. As a side note, it sucks that people jump down your throat when you offer any critique. You can like something without liking 100% of it, that doesn’t detract anything. For people who get massively triggered by the Dominique plot, I’d want to know about it before reading. It’s mostly a thoughtful, fun romp but there are definitely things that could be done better, like a lot of other books.
Stella wrote: "Wow! Your review....was money! Can't wait to read more of your other reviews. Cheers!"
Thank you ... I think?
Natalia wrote: "Agreed about it being fun (and problematic), very straight, and the whole Dominique subplot highly problematic. I was so angry with how they treated her because it wasn’t her fault the shitty thing..."
Yes, I don't know why people are so angry that I said some mildly ... err ... true things? about this book. I'm not saying the author is a bad person or anyone who enjoyed the book is a bad person (I mean, I enjoyed it myself for fuck's sake): but here we are. Normally I'd take down the review after this much hassle but ... I'm kind of stubbornly sticking to my guns here because, I don't know? I legitimately don't think I'm causing any harm.
I wonder if the people who are so upset at your reviews that don't align with their feelings about the book are taking it as disapproval of things they enjoy or of them personally, and it makes them feel some type of way. Or they have such a high opinion of themselves that they can't believe anyone would have a different opinion from them. Or maybe they see themselves as the author's self-appointed attack readers. Who knows?
I just know that I feel anger on your behalf when you delete reviews because I (selfishly) enjoy them so much and no one can write reviews like that without putting a lot of work and thought into them. I know, because I can't write reviews for shit.
Senetra wrote: "I wonder if the people who are so upset at your reviews that don't align with their feelings about the book are taking it as disapproval of things they enjoy or of them personally, and it makes the..."
I don't mind deleting reviews, honestly.... I'd rather not, but I don't necessarily worth think they're worth getting into fights over, especially if people telling me they're genuinely hurtful/harmful. I've been pushing back a bit, though, because sometimes that can also feel a bit bad faith.
I am, however, a bit sad/uncomfortable/concerned that my reviews could make people feel judged. I do my absolute best to present what I'm saying very much a personal perspective, rather than a broad statement about the author, the book, or other readers. I mean, reading is so subjective and so interpretative, and everyone is going to feel differently about different things.
Noooooo, don't think that your reviews make people feel judged. We as people judge each other and ourselves all the time. It's probably like a shark swimming, we'd die if we stopped. Kidding.
I meant that they take them personally because if someone doesn't like something they like, blah, blah, blah some point I'm trying to make and failing, but your last sentence exactly.
I understand though, if you feel that it's not worth the effort to fight with people, but I hate to think that you feel like your reviews are harmful or hurtful. That war has been fought since internet book reviews became a thing (I've seen it all) and it all boils down to your last sentence. Ideally people who have problems with your witty, thoughtful, enjoyable reviews will stay away on e they realize you're not their type of reviewer.
Looking forward to your next review!
Senetra wrote: "Noooooo, don't think that your reviews make people feel judged. We as people judge each other and ourselves all the time. It's probably like a shark swimming, we'd die if we stopped. Kidding.
I me..."
Ack, thank you for the reassurance (that GR totally failed alert me about). I agree there's always debate about who should review and how, and I do try to be aware of power dynamics. But I think I am struggling with the idea that me (or authors in general) reviewing is causing harm to either the books, the authors, or the industry. Like, if it was, publishers wouldn't let me have books in the first place.
But, as you say, I think some people don't like what I say or how I go about things ... and that's okay, but I don't think it necessarily means I should stop what I'm doing? Or that what I'm doing is broadbrush harmful. I don't know, I mean, I'll keep an eye on, err, myself.
Erin Marie wrote: "Brilliant review"
Thank you so much <3
Just fyi... not everyone has a desire to read anything queer. That's why there are billions of books so everyone has their choice. It has nothing to do with it being "bad" or anything else. We all have our preferences on what we read. I feel your comment above bashing someone for loving the book that normalizes non queer books is honestly disgusting. You're bashing someone for what they are and what they prefer to read but demand inclusion for your ownself??? And it explains in the book that resonance isn't for "fated mates" so much as it is for "procreation" last I checked that happens only one way. I am not commenting to disparage your review. We all have different opinions as I previously stated. And that is totally fine to not like it, be offended or triggered etc. What I am replying to is SOLELY your passive aggressive attack on another reader who merely said they loved the book. They didn't even bash your review. Why did you feel the need to take it there?! What if someone went and left horrible, bashing reviews on a queer book??? That wouldn't be okay to you. So why bash someone for liking it and putting a label on them as someone who promotes heteronormativity??? You don't know their personal life or what other books they may read. Just because they enjoyed this one and didn't take offense to it like it was personally out to attack you.
And I quote : "Must be lovely to live in a world where harmful portrayals of sexual abuse survivors & the total erasure of queer people in no way hinder your untrammelled relish in a book. Have fun."
Wow. Yeah. Attack much?! every author and every book not only cannot, but do not have to cater to every individual. And for you to assume another person's stance, opinions, identity or anything else because they merely enjoyed a book.. you yourself said you enjoyed btw... it is ignorant and puts you in the exact category you tried to stuff that individual into. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Just because an author doesn't include every race in their books doesn't make them or the readers racist. Or because they don't include queer couples. Doesn't make them or the readers hateful, phobic, normalizing or anything else. In one response you managed to negate your own review. Congratulations. Though I am sure my words don't matter one bit, because you are clearly high on your own pedestal.
RomanceInLavender wrote: "Just fyi... not everyone has a desire to read anything queer. That's why there are billions of books so everyone has their choice. It has nothing to do with it being "bad" or anything else. We all ..."
Oh, take your bigoted apologia out of my comment section.
I'm a bigot???? 🤣🤣 yeah. That was my point when I responded. Your ASSUMPTIONS about others. Your pretentiousness impresses no one. I love how you take only negative out of something when I never once stated my personal stance or business. Yet.. here you are, like with the initial innocent comment... spewing presumptuous hate.
I see you want to spew your opinions but don't want anyone to comment on them. That's both mature and intelligent. Please, continue to show your colors.
back to top
message 1:
by
captain raccoon.
(new)
Nov 14, 2021 09:07AM
This review is <3 <3 <3
reply
|
flag
Kat, short for Clara wrote: "This review is <3 <3 <3"Thank you <3
Amazing review!Sos todo lo que está bien, Mr Hall! ❤️
Rhosyo BW wrote: "Amazing review!Sos todo lo que está bien, Mr Hall! ❤️"
Muchas gracias <3
Thank you so much this review. I have been curious to try this series for a while, I have seen a lot of praise for it (some make the caveat for the rape tbh). I got the ARC but I don't think I will be reading it now. I don't think it will work for me and I have way too many ARCs to read that I hope to enjoy.
Omg book one was good I had stop read but must continue with the series
Ellie wrote: "Thank you so much this review. I have been curious to try this series for a while, I have seen a lot of praise for it (some make the caveat for the rape tbh). I got the ARC but I don't think I will..."As I hope my review communicated there's a lot to admire in the book (and presumably the series as a whole) and I genuinely enjoyed my read - but I can also see prioritising a book that erases queer people and is harmful to sexual abuse survivors over books that, um, don't do that? Might feel like A Choice TM ;)
Isolette wrote: "Omg book one was good I had stop read but must continue with the series"
Must be lovely to live in a world where harmful portrayals of sexual abuse survivors & the total erasure of queer people in no way hinder your untrammelled relish in a book. Have fun.
Excellent, thoughtful review of a book I would term a guilty pleasure I. e. Problematic but I enjoyed it anyway.
Marti wrote: "Excellent, thoughtful review of a book I would term a guilty pleasure I. e. Problematic but I enjoyed it anyway."Ah thank you. I am kind of wary of the term 'guilty pleasure' because I think if something genuinely makes you feel guilty then, uh, it's probably not right you're doing it? To me I think it's more about being comfortable to acknowledge the problematic elements of a thing you enjoy, rather than just, err, insisting it's FINE, it's GREAT, WHY ARE PEOPLE SO SENSITIVE. Obviously there are limits here but, in general, I don't think there's any need to feel guilty about what's fun to you. I had fun with this book too.
I love your reviews. I really want to be you when I grow up. (ugh, that's such a stupid joke, but still, I think you're awesome)
Raluca wrote: "I love your reviews. I really want to be you when I grow up. (ugh, that's such a stupid joke, but still, I think you're awesome)"Aww, thank you. That's super kind <3 (although I'm very bad at being a grown up).
Honestly, I think being a bad grownup is probably more fun than being a good grownup.
Chris wrote: "Honestly, I think being a bad grownup is probably more fun than being a good grownup."Less laundry gets done than one would like.
Thanks for this review. I requested this ARC a while back because I heard so much about it. Now I'm glad I didn't get it because it sounds like it would not have been for me. I enjoyed reading your review though - as always!
Alexis wrote: "Raluca wrote: "I love your reviews. I really want to be you when I grow up. (ugh, that's such a stupid joke, but still, I think you're awesome)"Aww, thank you. That's super kind <3 (although I'm ..."
Well, same. This grown up thing doesn't suit me at all. But I didn't write all those beautiful books (that I've ordered and can't wait to arrive so I can binge read them), did I? Ha. I rest my case, thank you very much.
So I fell down the Ruby Dixon rabbit hole and I'm pretty sure that I read all of the Kindle Unlimited books set in this universe (the literal universe she created, there has to be at least 40 set in various parts of the galaxy). Overall I liked the series, and agree that some of the consent issues were problematic, especially in some of the later books (lots of kidnapping). The emphasis on slavers and how humans who were taken from Earth were treated was more than a little squicky for me as, and unfortunately I don't think the author thought too much about it, ESPECIALLY when she wrote Black MCs. However, she does address some of the LGBT concerns in her author notes in the later ebooks, and her more recent books have more representation.
Senetra wrote: "So I fell down the Ruby Dixon rabbit hole and I'm pretty sure that I read all of the Kindle Unlimited books set in this universe (the literal universe she created, there has to be at least 40 set i..."I guess I feel addressing LGBTQ+ concerns in author notes isn't quite the same as, you know, not writing a queerphobic book? It's a bit Dumbledore is Gay for me. But ... well. I suppose the fact she's aware is ... nice? But since I read the Berkley edition, where the author had significant opportunity to revise, expand, do what she wanted, she could have, you know, changed the really problematic elements without significantly impacting the book (unless we all feel that death of sexual abuse survivors and erasure of queer people are the mot je n'sais quoi that really MAKE these stories).
I agree with you there. Dominque was definitely fridged in service of Georgie's storyline. I definitely had moments of 'was that necessary?' in both early and later books in the series, and early on, I wondered what would someone who wasn't straight do on a planet where the whole goal was to repopulate a dying civilization. I feel like there is a bit of disconnect in what she says in her notes about liking happy endings with lots of babies, and how some of the characters got there. Some of the trauma her characters undergo is very serious, and I think the balances with how she writes their stories is off.
I came to the series recently, so I can only reference what she said in her story notes, and she mentions the pushback from folks in her author FB group (not being apologist, just my frame of reference), so I don't know why she didn't work that feedback into the mainstream pub version.
Senetra wrote: "I agree with you there. Dominque was definitely fridged in service of Georgie's storyline. I definitely had moments of 'was that necessary?' in both early and later books in the series, and early o..."Oh God, of course. I hope I didn't come across as overly aggressive and/or defensive. I'm definitely not attacking the right to fantasy, even to problematic fantasy: I think I acknowledged myself that I genuinely had fun reading this and I even enjoyed the slightly dubcon oral scene because it was fully contextualised *as* fantasy.
But as you say, there are things that just don't feel *necessary* to the fantasy or to the story--and that's complicated, and odd? And, obviously, it wasn't on the writer to make her world queer-friendly because the fantasies the books are indulging are fundamentally quite heteronormative. But I think the way she justified the exclusion of queer people was more problematic than just not mentioning them at all. And also it just weirds me out that this is a world where people are kept alive by their relationship with a vibrating parasite. And yet the sex and procreation happen in massively gender essentialist ways?
*side-eye*
I didn't take it as agressive/defensive at all! I mentioned earlier, I had issues with the way she wrote the slavery aspect of it, especially in the context of Black MCs, and at least one character felt a little stereotypical and not reflective of her age. I'm of a similar age to the character, and it felt 'off' in a way that probably would not be noticed by someone who doesn't come from a similar background, so I get it!I find her writing very readable or else I wouldn't have inhaled all the books, but I also have some things that I side-eye as well, mainly the way the humans refer it it as a cootie, and throughout all the series they call the sa-khui (and later the mesakkah) 'aliens', like bitches, this is THEIR planet. You're the alien! Those two things feel very othering in a way that people who have never been othered might not pick up on.
Senetra wrote: "I didn't take it as agressive/defensive at all! I mentioned earlier, I had issues with the way she wrote the slavery aspect of it, especially in the context of Black MCs, and at least one character..."Oh God, yes. The slavery aspect gets about a gazillion times more complicated when you start to factor Black women into the equation. I mean, it's complicated in general, as fantasies go, but ... yeah. And, honestly, I hadn't considered the colonialist implications of the humans still referring to the sa-khui as the aliens.
I think the reason why you don't find same sex couples in this series is that all the couples get their own story, and perhaps Dixon didn't feel qualified to write an MLM romance. Most female romance writers don't write about same sex couples, and the ones that do take a lot of guff for writing MM love scenes for the titillation of het women. Perhaps Ms. Dixon thinks it's better to leave it in the hands of "own voices" authors, rather than try to write it herself, and perhaps do it poorly.It seems a little unfair to make accusations of homophobia, which can be career damaging for any author these days, especially as a fellow romance writer and thus a competitor. Perhaps you're not trying to damage anyone's reputation, but if you are truly just interested in helping your fellow readers avoid upsetting content, perhaps you should reserve it for cases of actual homophobia, and not just books that don't have any gay characters?
Stephanie wrote: "I think the reason why you don't find same sex couples in this series is that all the couples get their own story, and perhaps Dixon didn't feel qualified to write an MLM romance. Most female roman..."This feels a little defensive. I suppose I should be flattered you see me as a competitor for a NYT bestselling author whose books have sold hundreds of thousands of copies, but I think it's, frankly, a little disingenuous of you.
How about, when I have sold as many copies of my (non-existent) heteronormative m/f barbarian SFF fantasy romance series as this author has we can, at that point, discuss my potential competitive bias?
I also feel it's rather telling that you feel it is worse for an author to be accused of homophobia than to write a homophobic book. Maybe you could consider thinking about that?
Although I should clarify that I did not say the author was homophobic. I didn't even say the book was homophobic: that's the word you've used, which, again, says more about your worldview than mine. I pointed out some elements of the work that I personally considered heteronormative, gender essentialist or otherwise problematic - including, killing off a rape survivor to no purpose.
To me, I don't think there's any problem in authors not including queer people within the worlds they create or write about (although your conviction that it is impossible for a straight person to write a queer person authentically and sympathetically also comes across as bizarrely homophobic) but I think *explicitly* creating a world that renders same-sex attraction/interaction *biologically impossible* is a choice. And it's not wrong of me to point that this choice was made, and how such a choice makes me feel as a reader. In the same way that subjecting a secondary character to violent sexual abuse and then letting her die in the snow is a choice, and some readers are going to feel certain sorts of way about that choice too.
I do admire your desire to leap to the defence of this highly successful and beloved author though. She is lucky to have fans like you, but I do think you'd be better off supporting her work than insisting to other readers any problematic elements of the text that you do not personally see therefore don't exist. That's ... not how reading works?
Well, at least it shows how popular your books are that all these people think you are on the same level of sales as Ice Planet Barbarians? I mean I hope you are! I'm really looking forward to your new books and the Spires series re-issue (first time reader for that one!). Anyways, I really enjoy your reviews and I always think you are fair, and they are super helpful to me!
I've seen raves about this series and the Amazon algorithm is more-than-usually invested in me starting it, so -- thanks for saving me the time, money, emotional energy, and inevitable rage outburst. Slavery plus survivor snow death plus erasure-of-queerness-as-canon? Nope nope nopeity nope!
I'm grateful for this review, because it's exactly the type of book I might've picked up on a whim, and I've reacted badly to this type of heteronormativity in science fiction before. I also appreciate the distinction you made between neutral and deliberate types of erasure. I don't really mind the first type, but I try to avoid the second.
Bookish wrote: "I definitely struggled with the biological imperative that is a pre requisite for this alien romance series. Thank you for sharing your review, definitely agree and gave me more food for thought. ..."
I think the question of an author being receptive to "criticism" is a complicated one; obviously no author (I think?) should want to dismiss aspects of their work that are hurtful but ultimately you still have to produce a work, and you can't do that by consensus. On top of which I don't see this review as like ... criticism for the author. That would be fucked up, if I had to deliver feedback to an author I'd do it way, way differently. It's just written for me, and for readers.
I should add that I don't think anyone is *obligated* to represent queer people or queer relationships in their world. I don't that their absence is inherently problematic or queerphobic. It was just, as you say, the biological imperative aspects of the world-building had elements in common with particular aspects of fundamentalist Christianity which, err, definitely *are* queerphobic.
Totally agree, though, that critique is not attack, disrespect or evidence of lack of enjoyment.
Thesincouch wrote: "Well, at least it shows how popular your books are that all these people think you are on the same level of sales as Ice Planet Barbarians? I mean I hope you are! I'm really looking forward to your..."
IKR. *preens* Seriously, though, I know I'm joking about it but I'm beginning to be slightly weirded out by the fact readers keep claiming I'm in competition / have ill-will towards other authors, especially authors who are writing in completely different genres. I always try to listen and respond fairly when people give me feedback but this is start to feel like a silencing tactic. And I'm not okay with that.
Kathleen wrote: "I've seen raves about this series and the Amazon algorithm is more-than-usually invested in me starting it, so -- thanks for saving me the time, money, emotional energy, and inevitable rage outburs..."
To be fair to be the book, it's very much a suspension-of-disbelief-indulge-your-fantasies type text, and it's also very aware about being that. Of course, what is a fun, indulgent fantasy to one person is ... not that to another. I'm definitely not encouraging to pick up the book if the elements I've discussed are deal breakers to you, but I do think it's got a lot of merit in terms of its world-building and story-telling and it's compulsive readability.
I know you had a bad experience recently with a book that included some of these elements as, like, selling points of the book. But I do want to emphasise that slavery is definitely definitely bad in this universe: it's there for peril, not for titillation, and the women get de-slaved when the ship crashes at about the 20% mark. And the book, in general, is very consent-positive.
In terms of the ... non-ideal plot elements, my sense is that they were accidental, rather than ... intentional. I mean, there's no excuses for poor Dominque, I don't know what that little arc was bringing to the text at all. But I definitely don't think the author sat down and was like "how can exclude those icky queer people from my sexy barbarian sex fantasy" - I think she was looking for a SFnal twist on fated mates and didn't think the implications through.
Hart_D (ajibooks) wrote: "I'm grateful for this review, because it's exactly the type of book I might've picked up on a whim, and I've reacted badly to this type of heteronormativity in science fiction before. I also apprec..."
Thank you for the kind words. I just want to say, though, when I said the erasure was *deliberate* I definitely didn't mean it was ... malicious or intentional. I don't think the author did her world-building with the express intent of excluding queer people. I just think she wanted to set up certain gender dynamics and creating a world that made queerness impossible was a side-effect.
This review! You doing the lords work here. Bless your heart :)
browngirlreading wrote: "This review! You doing the lords work here. Bless your heart :)"*laughs* Thank you - I mean, I can't sincerely play the hero here. Reading a broadly fun book with some problems is not a hardship.
Alexis wrote: "Bookish wrote: "I definitely struggled with the biological imperative that is a pre requisite for this alien romance series. Thank you for sharing your review, definitely agree and gave me more foo..."Agreed with the silencing tactic. It does feel very odd to me otherwise, because your reviews are always very clearly your own opinion and you take care to explain what something didn't work for you. Also I very much think that bad reviews do get readers as well.
Thesincouch wrote: "Alexis wrote: "Bookish wrote: "I definitely struggled with the biological imperative that is a pre requisite for this alien romance series. Thank you for sharing your review, definitely agree and g..."Yes, I'm finding it ... increasingly troubling that readers want to shout at a small-time, mid-tier queer author for DAMAGING THE SUCCESS of massively successful cishet folk.
Normally I have a "if there's controversary take it down" policy but ... err. I think I'm going to have to re-think it because I don't think much of it is good faith.
Thank you for this awesome and extensive review! I just read it a couple days ago and to be honest, your review made me reflect on the book more than I would have and made me articulate my thoughts about it better. Especially, of course, the queer erasure (props to you for “That’s some conservative Christian values for a glowing worm to have, isn’t it?” – couldn’t have put it better myself) and the part about Dominique. The dialogue after they’ve found her in the snow literally made me flinch. I also found the whole back and forth between ‘this blue alien is kinda hot’, ‘I’m going to offer him sex to save other women’ and ‘I actually wanted to have sex with him all along’ a bit weird and unnecessary.Nonetheless, the world-building was well thought-through with some fun solutions (like the spaceship AI with the… laser translator?), the ‘alpha male’ trope was handled in a self-aware manner, and the book was actually quite sexy. All in all, a fun read, but I probably won’t be delving back into this world either.
nikica_k wrote: "Thank you for this awesome and extensive review! I just read it a couple days ago and to be honest, your review made me reflect on the book more than I would have and made me articulate my thoughts..."Ah, thank you kindly - I'm glad it was useful.
I totally agree with your positive comments on the book too, though. As you say, the world-building is solid and intriguing, and I feel the author did an excellent job of balancing what's attractive/sexy about the alpha male trope without leaning too heavily into its toxicities - like the fact, he's super protective and generally does what the heroine tells him, while also giving off major manly (blue) vibes.
I genuinely had fun too - but I feel my comments on rest of the series would probably be the same as for this one? As in, I like some of what this is doing, but these issues bother me (especially since the biological imperative worms are built into the setting), and that doesn't necessarily feel like an experience I'd get much out of as a reader, and isn't fair to the books.
As usual, your review is hilarious and spot on. I just finished listening to the audiobook for this because… if everyone else was jumping off a bridge I certainly wouldn’t want to be standing up there all alone. This review articulates a lot of the things that bothered me. For instance, I know there are a million of these books so I was excited to see what kind of healing Dominique would get to do in her book with some sexy alien telling her how amazing she was… until they found her dead. Because healing her mental chaos would have been too much. She just served the purpose of being brutally traumatized and then dying… but it’s okay. She was better off (sarcastic eye roll). Also, I’m just that great with guys who act like King Kong. “Grunt you are mine and I own you” and everyone else thinks it’s adorable because he just doesn’t know any better. Still. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t enjoyable at times. I felt a bit conflicted about the whole thing and you laid out my frustrations perfectly… thank you for that.
Crystal wrote: "As usual, your review is hilarious and spot on. I just finished listening to the audiobook for this because… if everyone else was jumping off a bridge I certainly wouldn’t want to be standing up th..."Ah, thank you kindly. I really did have a positive experience with the book, and enjoyed being along the ride, despite the concerns I raised in the review.
In terms of Dominque, my personal headcanon is that she doesn't really die in the snow - she's assumed dead, but she's close to death. And she gets found by two exiled lady barbarians who have rejected the resonance in order to be with each other. They nurse Dominique back to health, and she slowly recovers from her trauma, ultimately come to live in poly Sapphic bliss with her two barbarian lovers. I'd need to find some way for the symbiotes to agree to it, since they specifically want to reproduce, but without the symbiote everyone dies: maybe they find some left over technology that allows them to keep warm or something. Yes. There we go.
HEA all round.
Ok I've just bought this book because it's sounds like a lot of fun err ish. But now I'm warned about the worst (Dominque? Dominique ?).I need a good laugh these days and hopefully this will provide some. Fingers crossed. And I'm a sucker for HEA 😂 Also, what was it again? Blue guy dick lol? Hilarious.
Anyway thanks a lot for the review/ recommandation and you're way too modest. I only read two of your books and I loved them. So much so that I bought both kindle and 'hard copies' so there's that. 😉
Alexis wrote: "I pointed out some elements of the work that I personally considered heteronormative, gender essentialist or otherwise problematic - including, killing off a rape survivor to no purpose."I didn't bring up your comment on the killing off of Dominique, because while I didn't agree with it, it seemed like a valid point to make. There are actually two other rape survivors in the series that suffer through the process but ultimately find their happily ever afters. I can certainly understand your take on Dominique's unfortunate ending, or rather the reaction the other characters have to it.
I admit that I am a fan of this series, but I am really not that big of a Ruby Dixon fan. I bought the first three books of Ice Home, and read one of the Corsair books and one of the dragon shifter books on Kindle Unlimited, but that's as far as I went in those series. I even gave one of her books two stars, and I didn't comment on any of the numerous one or two star reviews she's gotten. My only beef with your review was the accusation of homophobia.
If you had labeled it heteronormative and left out the q****phobic comment, I would have agreed with you. And while I can think of ways that she could have introduced gay and lesbian couples within the context of her original premise of baby-making fated mates, I still don't think she's homophobic for not doing so. Not all het cis-gendered women can write homoerotic love scenes. That doesn't make those who don't bigoted against the LGBTQ+ community.
I don't make the distinction between a book being homophobic (or sexist or racist) and an author being those things as a book cannot itself have those prejudices, it merely gives voice to the author's own biases.
Sure, some women authors can write MLM romances, and often do so in a way that appeals more to other women. I think those who choose to do so, should do it freely and without guilt, rather than having to hide behind a gay male alter-ego, or partnering with someone who doesn't truly collaborate with the writing, solely for the purpose of creating "own voices" cred.
Dannie wrote: "Ok I've just bought this book because it's sounds like a lot of fun err ish. But now I'm warned about the worst (Dominque? Dominique ?).I need a good laugh these days and hopefully this will provi..."
Oh thank you - I hope you have lots of fun with this book, because it is lots of fun.
Stephanie wrote: "Alexis wrote: "I pointed out some elements of the work that I personally considered heteronormative, gender essentialist or otherwise problematic - including, killing off a rape survivor to no purp..."
Oh joy. You've come back to argue fruitlessly with me. How blessed I am.
Firstly why on earth have you asterisked out queerphobic. You know it's not a slur, right? Although I suppose treating a term used to describe damaging behaviour towards a marginalised group as a slur kind of explains why you feel it's worse to mention the existence of queerphobic ideas than implicitly or explicitly support those ideas.
I don't think it's inherently queerphobic of this author not to explicitly include queer characters in her books. I do think it's queerphobic to create a setting that makes the existence of queerness *literally impossible* because of the whole fundamentalist biological imperative bullshit upon which the world is built. You can, I hope, see a difference there.
Also in writing a review, I will use the language *I* feel is appropriate. Not the language *you* feel is appropriate. We are, thank God, not the same person.
I'm also intrigued you view queerness entirely through the lens of "love scenes". You know there is more to my identity than fucking, right? If you wanted to put someone like me in a book, I would still be a queer character if you didn't write me actively engaged in a sexual act. I find it profoundly reductive and, honestly, kinda gross that the only part of queer identity you feel is represented in queer romance is sexual behaviour.
You seem to be saying: this author isn't queerphobic because she might not, as as (we presume?) a cishet woman want to write queer love scenes. I'm saying this book is queerphobic because it literally creates a world where any manifestation of queerness cannot exist. Again, those are different things and the fact you conflate them is bizarre and ... I am once again falling back on gross.
Finally, I don't know in what world you're living in that you believe cis women writing mlm are brutally "forced" to catfish as queer men or to non-consensually collaborate with them (because apparently no cis woman would collaborate voluntarily with a queer man except for something you have unpleasantly described as "own voices cred" - interesting perspective, there, on how you see queer men in the romance community). There are many cis women (who may also be queer identified, btw) who are celebrated for writing m/m - and only a subsection of those writers view cishet women as their primary target market, which is, by the way, totally fine.
But thank you for this spirited defence of cishet women writing m/m who are in no way under attack here. Again, it feels like you've conflated one specific point I made here. Which, I *reiterate* is "this author has knowingly created a world that renders queerness literally impossible, regardless of whether she chooses to write about queer people or not" with "AJH thinks this author is queerphobic because queer sex is not explicitly depicted on page" and from there it's just a short step to "cishet women are being attacked for writing m/m." However, these latter two points exist solely in your mind; they are certainly not part of my thinking, nor are they part of this review.
PS - you didn't clarify how raising one negative point in a broadly positive review of this book in a totally different genre to the one I write in was me attempting to boost my own sales at the expense of this hugely successful author. Can you please explain? I am interested in this sales strategy.
Wow! Your review....was money! Can't wait to read more of your other reviews. Cheers!
Agreed about it being fun (and problematic), very straight, and the whole Dominique subplot highly problematic. I was so angry with how they treated her because it wasn’t her fault the shitty things kept happening to her and the other women treated her trauma as inconvenient for them personally. As a side note, it sucks that people jump down your throat when you offer any critique. You can like something without liking 100% of it, that doesn’t detract anything. For people who get massively triggered by the Dominique plot, I’d want to know about it before reading. It’s mostly a thoughtful, fun romp but there are definitely things that could be done better, like a lot of other books.
Stella wrote: "Wow! Your review....was money! Can't wait to read more of your other reviews. Cheers!"Thank you ... I think?
Natalia wrote: "Agreed about it being fun (and problematic), very straight, and the whole Dominique subplot highly problematic. I was so angry with how they treated her because it wasn’t her fault the shitty thing..."
Yes, I don't know why people are so angry that I said some mildly ... err ... true things? about this book. I'm not saying the author is a bad person or anyone who enjoyed the book is a bad person (I mean, I enjoyed it myself for fuck's sake): but here we are. Normally I'd take down the review after this much hassle but ... I'm kind of stubbornly sticking to my guns here because, I don't know? I legitimately don't think I'm causing any harm.
I wonder if the people who are so upset at your reviews that don't align with their feelings about the book are taking it as disapproval of things they enjoy or of them personally, and it makes them feel some type of way. Or they have such a high opinion of themselves that they can't believe anyone would have a different opinion from them. Or maybe they see themselves as the author's self-appointed attack readers. Who knows? I just know that I feel anger on your behalf when you delete reviews because I (selfishly) enjoy them so much and no one can write reviews like that without putting a lot of work and thought into them. I know, because I can't write reviews for shit.
Senetra wrote: "I wonder if the people who are so upset at your reviews that don't align with their feelings about the book are taking it as disapproval of things they enjoy or of them personally, and it makes the..."I don't mind deleting reviews, honestly.... I'd rather not, but I don't necessarily worth think they're worth getting into fights over, especially if people telling me they're genuinely hurtful/harmful. I've been pushing back a bit, though, because sometimes that can also feel a bit bad faith.
I am, however, a bit sad/uncomfortable/concerned that my reviews could make people feel judged. I do my absolute best to present what I'm saying very much a personal perspective, rather than a broad statement about the author, the book, or other readers. I mean, reading is so subjective and so interpretative, and everyone is going to feel differently about different things.
Noooooo, don't think that your reviews make people feel judged. We as people judge each other and ourselves all the time. It's probably like a shark swimming, we'd die if we stopped. Kidding.I meant that they take them personally because if someone doesn't like something they like, blah, blah, blah some point I'm trying to make and failing, but your last sentence exactly.
I understand though, if you feel that it's not worth the effort to fight with people, but I hate to think that you feel like your reviews are harmful or hurtful. That war has been fought since internet book reviews became a thing (I've seen it all) and it all boils down to your last sentence. Ideally people who have problems with your witty, thoughtful, enjoyable reviews will stay away on e they realize you're not their type of reviewer.
Looking forward to your next review!
Senetra wrote: "Noooooo, don't think that your reviews make people feel judged. We as people judge each other and ourselves all the time. It's probably like a shark swimming, we'd die if we stopped. Kidding.I me..."
Ack, thank you for the reassurance (that GR totally failed alert me about). I agree there's always debate about who should review and how, and I do try to be aware of power dynamics. But I think I am struggling with the idea that me (or authors in general) reviewing is causing harm to either the books, the authors, or the industry. Like, if it was, publishers wouldn't let me have books in the first place.
But, as you say, I think some people don't like what I say or how I go about things ... and that's okay, but I don't think it necessarily means I should stop what I'm doing? Or that what I'm doing is broadbrush harmful. I don't know, I mean, I'll keep an eye on, err, myself.
Erin Marie wrote: "Brilliant review"
Thank you so much <3
Just fyi... not everyone has a desire to read anything queer. That's why there are billions of books so everyone has their choice. It has nothing to do with it being "bad" or anything else. We all have our preferences on what we read. I feel your comment above bashing someone for loving the book that normalizes non queer books is honestly disgusting. You're bashing someone for what they are and what they prefer to read but demand inclusion for your ownself??? And it explains in the book that resonance isn't for "fated mates" so much as it is for "procreation" last I checked that happens only one way. I am not commenting to disparage your review. We all have different opinions as I previously stated. And that is totally fine to not like it, be offended or triggered etc. What I am replying to is SOLELY your passive aggressive attack on another reader who merely said they loved the book. They didn't even bash your review. Why did you feel the need to take it there?! What if someone went and left horrible, bashing reviews on a queer book??? That wouldn't be okay to you. So why bash someone for liking it and putting a label on them as someone who promotes heteronormativity??? You don't know their personal life or what other books they may read. Just because they enjoyed this one and didn't take offense to it like it was personally out to attack you. And I quote : "Must be lovely to live in a world where harmful portrayals of sexual abuse survivors & the total erasure of queer people in no way hinder your untrammelled relish in a book. Have fun."
Wow. Yeah. Attack much?! every author and every book not only cannot, but do not have to cater to every individual. And for you to assume another person's stance, opinions, identity or anything else because they merely enjoyed a book.. you yourself said you enjoyed btw... it is ignorant and puts you in the exact category you tried to stuff that individual into. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Just because an author doesn't include every race in their books doesn't make them or the readers racist. Or because they don't include queer couples. Doesn't make them or the readers hateful, phobic, normalizing or anything else. In one response you managed to negate your own review. Congratulations. Though I am sure my words don't matter one bit, because you are clearly high on your own pedestal.
RomanceInLavender wrote: "Just fyi... not everyone has a desire to read anything queer. That's why there are billions of books so everyone has their choice. It has nothing to do with it being "bad" or anything else. We all ..."Oh, take your bigoted apologia out of my comment section.
I'm a bigot???? 🤣🤣 yeah. That was my point when I responded. Your ASSUMPTIONS about others. Your pretentiousness impresses no one. I love how you take only negative out of something when I never once stated my personal stance or business. Yet.. here you are, like with the initial innocent comment... spewing presumptuous hate.
I see you want to spew your opinions but don't want anyone to comment on them. That's both mature and intelligent. Please, continue to show your colors.
