Outlander
discussion
Is anyone else disappointed?
Well I'm not American, I don't have to follow them. And luckily many authors don't follow any "definitions", I prefer to read them.
What does being American have to do with understanding proper uses of words and their meanings?
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "What does being American have to do with understanding proper uses of words and their meanings?"Because I don't care how American authors define romance. They can define it for themselves but that's it, others don't have to comply. Why should we?
LMAO! Seriously, I'm still wiping my computer screen.To each his own, but "American authors" haven't cornered the definition of the romance genre or the definition of a novel. You can call an apple an orange all you want, but it's still an apple.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Let me be clear. I did not say I CONDONED the bad behavior. I said it was difficult to read, but it was very HUMAN. It was a realistic representation of the sexism of the time. Claire goes on t..."nicely said
I enjoyed the basic premise of the book but feel that some scenes could have been eliminated.(like 200 pages worth) On the whole I did enjoy it.For a early twentieth century woman to enter a eighteenth century world it would be culture shock. I would have handled things differently than Claire! She had the sexual freedom attitude of whatever goes. Yes, she was married to Frank, but who is to say that she would ever make it home. She made the best of a bad situation---it was self-preservation.
After thought!! The Scots of the time period were portrayed as barbarians. I feel they would have been more modernized.
Tytti wrote: "I don't have a definition for romance, I just know when there is too much of it. Whose definition that is anyway? I certainly don't want to know beforehand how the book ends. And a "full-blown" novel is something that isn't just romance (or something else), that doesn't concentrate on just one couple. ..."Well, it is the definition of the Romance Writers of America, Wikipedia as well as a host of other romance writer groups. Most books that are "full blown" concentrate on a few main characters. Most books focus on some type of relationship between the main and secondary characters. Is the "romance" part you find distasteful the sex?
Tytti wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "What does being American have to do with understanding proper uses of words and their meanings?"Because I don't care how American authors define romance. They can def..."
How about the Romance Writers of Australia? or Romance Writers of Canada? or the Romantic Novelists' Association of the UK? The definition I gave is almost universal.
Mary wrote: "Is the "romance" part you find distasteful the sex?"I wondered if that might be the case. Romance and sex aren't the same. I can understand not wanting page after page after page of coupling. I don't mind adult content as long as it doesn't dominate the story. Some of the best books I've read don't have a lick of physical contact (pardon the pun), but that emotional element is present throughout.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "I wondered if that might be the case. Romance and sex aren't the same. I can understand not wanting page after page after page of coupling. I don't mind adult content as long as it doesn't dominate the story. Some of the best books I've read don't have a lick of physical contact (pardon the pun), but that emotional element is present throughout. .."I agree Becky.
Mary wrote: "I am not a big fan of women using sex to punish, so I would have been annoyed if after she forgave him, she DID punish him by refusing to have sex with him. How long would have been a sufficient interval in which to hold on to her anger? ..."That argument kind of implies that sex is a right for men, not something that they need to earn. It's "punishment" only if Jamie has an expectation of sex with her whenever he feels like it and she's depriving him of that because she's angry. When she basically forgave him and had sex with him after only 2 days (which, honestly, her bottom would probably still be sore, which must have just proved as a constant reminder during the whole thing of what he'd done to her), that was too early for me to relate to. It felt like her suppressing her own feelings to appease his carnal needs. She didn't need to completely freeze him out and ignore him for the rest of the book, but a gradual process of forgiveness spread out over a few weeks of him proving that he can be trusted again and her regaining that feeling of trust would have come off as a lot more genuine to me. It just felt like she needed to insert an obligatory sex scene because it had been too many pages without one so she just clunked one in there.
By the way, I just went back looking for the part to try and refresh my memory about how much time elapsed between him spanking her so badly that she could barely sit (seriously? Does it need to be that severe of a beating? Jamie has a sadistic streak in him) and when she let him back into her bed and I was struck again by how many times she is instructed to "obey" him. Ugh, again, as a feminist reader, that rubs me the wrong way. Every single one of my friends have written personal wedding vows and none of them have ever agreed to "obey" their husbands. I know that's part of the traditional vows, but as a feminist reader that makes me see red.
gertt wrote: I can accept if someone says they don't like a book because they don't care for the author's writing style, can't connect with the characters, or don't like the story, but to dislike a book on time travel that takes place in the 1700's because the main character may be carrying bacteria to another time period or doesn't have the same feminist convictions as women in the 2000's, simply doesn't make sense. It's fiction and fantasy.
I actually have said that I dislike this book for all those reasons; the germ theory is just an added pet peeve for me. It's not what ultimately killed the story. Again, if she had just kept that door closed and not introduced the entire vaccination concept, I wouldn't have even thought about it. But she did. Science is one of my great passions, so things like that will get stuck in my brain. I appreciate that it is a story about time travel and is fiction, but that doesn't mean I can't point out the discrepancy. History is not one of my keenest interests (yet another reason why this book was perhaps doomed for me); I don't really care about the historical accuracy of it and that seems to be where she put most of her focus, but I know that for a lot of people that is important. If she had made gross inaccuracies in that area, would people not be allowed to say that those errors bugged them? If she had said that Scotland was broken down into sub-areas that were each ruled by a 26 foot tall cyclops, would you not understand why that would annoy a history major? Obviously that's hyperbole, but those anachronistic bacteria are my 26 foot tall cyclops; a glaring inconsistency that niggled away at my brain.
Also, we exchange blood all the time. It's saved countless lives. Blood banks. We also eat blood all the time. Mmm, rare steak. I was going to say that I'd have to draw the line at eating shit, but actually fecal transplants are an increasingly common medical procedure and are actually quite fascinating! So hey, maybe Claire's foreign bacteria would prove to be a boon to Jamie's bioflora! Somebody please let me know if she integrates that into one of the books! I would for sure read that one!
Becky, thanks for the Dragonfly in Amber spoilers. That actually does alleviate that grievance quite a bit. I guess I didn't get the vibe that Claire herself is special or paranormal. She just kind of seemed like she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
gertt wrote: I find it interesting that someone who hates a book still takes time to write lengthy reviews and comments about that book. If I don't like a book, I'm really not interested in what other people think.
I like debating and seeing other people's opinions. Actually, there have been a few on here that made me reflect on parts of it slightly differently and consider aspects of the story in a different light (the spanking scene especially; it really did make her "grow up" and wise up as a character.) If I like a book, that's enough for me. If I don't like a book but so many others find it so amazing, I want to know what it is that they see that I don't (or vice versa.) Why would goodreads even need discussion threads if people didn't enjoy debating and discussing book themes? There are some books that I just put behind me and pretend it never happened (A Winter's Tale; sooooooo horrid), but for some reason I'm intrigued why others like it so much. Maybe it's because I WANT to like it. It has a lot of the elements that I enjoy in other romance novels (seriously, if "Woman travels back in time and falls in love with a braw Scottish Laird" were its own genre, I would be all over it!)
Perhaps for me the problem is that she simply was too historically accurate. As I said, that doesn't rank high on my priorities (actually, I'm kind of digging the cyclops story idea. I'd read that book!) All I am looking for when I pick up a romance is cotton candy for my brain. I want the warm and fuzzies without all the heaviness (the one exception to that rule for me is the Acheron and Styxx installments of the Dark-Hunter books. Those two books were earth-shatteringly good and soul-wrenchingly hard to read. I cried for days at that level of pain. Reading Styxx literally prevented me from being able to sleep for a whole night. Work the next day was HORRIBLE.)
And I guess I just want women and men to be equals, damn it! We rewrite history all the time, why can't we just do the same with the gender inequality?! :D
Chelsea wrote: "And I guess I just want women and men to be equals, damn it! We rewrite history all the time, why can't we just do the same with the gender inequality?! :D ..."LOL! So do I Chelsea. I think you are missing the parts that tell me Jamie and Claire are equals. He says he owns her early on in the relationship, but that she owns him as well (yes, the "own" part sounds misogynistic, but for that time period, it was a terribly enlightened thing to say that she owned him equally). At the beginning of the story she is more disadvantaged because she is in HIS world. As the story progresses, the dynamics between them change and HE changes his very ingrained attitudes. I understand the need to debate a book you did not like to understand why others did like it. I like to debate as well and find myself delving even deeper into the narrative to understand the characters. I am also a very big feminist and the evolution of feminism is very interesting to me. I think that we sometimes want to see our strong female characters arrive fully formed in their philosophies, but most of us take a journey to get to there. In high school, I was guilty of calling other girls "sluts." I am deeply ashamed that I did that, but societal expectations are very persuasive and it took me a while to understand that "slut shaming" is very wrong. I have judged other women for their clothing choices and promiscuity in the past, but as we read and experience life we have true "eureka" moments that teach us we are part of the problem and need to change our world view. My journey is not finished and I hope that by the time I die, my journey was one of growth and change. To bring this back to this story, a lot happens in the eight books that have come out so far:
(view spoiler)
Nicely stated, Mary. From my perspective, men and women were created to balance each other in every possible way. One was never meant to reign over the other, but then Adam and Eve ate of the tree and all that was good was suddenly "no longer" good. This gets into Christian principles and my personal beliefs, which I've learned go over about as well as politics in internet discussions, so I'll leave it at that.I say embrace the differences. We'll never be equal. Men can't possibly catch up. ; )
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Nicely stated, Mary. From my perspective, men and women were created to balance each other in every possible way. One was never meant to reign over the other, but then Adam and Eve ate of the tre..."Except Eve was literally made from Adam. The bible, yet another book I'd like to rewrite as a feminist. ;)
EDIT: I didn't mean that as an attack on your religion. I reread that immediately and realized that sounded bad. I would just like to tweak the bible to reflect what you said; that man and woman should be equal. That just because we have some differences, it doesn't make one sex "better" than the other sex.
EDIT2: Very well said Mary. Yes, it is particularly tragic when it's women that hold other women down. That's what I mean about sexism being so pernicious and sneaky now. You really police your own thoughts for a little bit to break yourself of the habit. We are trained from such a young age to judge and condemn ourselves and other women, and it just keeps the problem alive. So many of the insults hurled at people are feminine based; pussy, c*#@ (I can't even type that one!), bitch, slut (though technically can be male I guess, that is definitely not the common usage), douche (I admit, I'm guilty of using this one a LOT. I'm working on it.), girl ("don't be such a girl" being thrown at a man when he's not "manly" enough)...I could come up with more I'm sure, but you get the point. So not only are these words referring to feminine characteristics or ideals that we're adding negative connotations to (douches ARE pretty bad for you, so maybe that's fair ;)), but we're actually using them AGAINST females. That's messed up.
And why are boy babies often described as "smart" while girl babies are "cute." Why are we teaching girls at such a young age that their looks decide their value? My best friend just had a baby girl in January, so I have been training myself to not fall back on that lazy "cute" adjective.
But that's kind of my point. If you don't force yourself to think about this stuff, then it will never change, because everybody will just keep unconsciously repeating the patterns. I'm sure I've pissed off a lot of people in this thread, but hopefully a few people thought about how pervasive sexism still is and became a little more aware of it in general.
Chelsea wrote: "Except Eve was literally made from Adam. The bible, yet another book I'd like to rewrite as a feminist. ;)..."I look at Adam as the experimental human and Eve as the perfected product ;0)
Chelsea wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Nicely stated, Mary. From my perspective, men and women were created to balance each other in every possible way. One was never meant to reign over the other, but the..."I understand and I won't go into detail with it, but being made from Adam wasn't a bad thing. It just "was". Eden was perfection for both of them until the big fall. I believe God intended them to be equal partners that showed full respect for the other.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "I understand and I won't go into detail with it, but being made from Adam wasn't a bad thing. It just "was". Eden was perfection for both of them until the big fall. ..."Well, I don't want to get into a deep religious discussion, but the creation story is a myth (or the 4 creation stories imbedded in Genesis). If there is anything that has had the most impact on having a patriarchy society, it is religion. That is kind of why I like Claire being a "lapsed Catholic."
Mary wrote: "Chelsea wrote: "Except Eve was literally made from Adam. The bible, yet another book I'd like to rewrite as a feminist. ;)..."I look at Adam as the experimental human and Eve as the perfected pro..."
That is awesome! So clever. I am totally going to use that! :D
Chelsea wrote: "Mary wrote: "Chelsea wrote: "Except Eve was literally made from Adam. The bible, yet another book I'd like to rewrite as a feminist. ;)..."I look at Adam as the experimental human and Eve as the ..."
Lol!
For anyone interested, I was just looking up a book that I want to read and found this article on "Enlightened Sexism." It's proving an interesting read (and I swear I did not read it before and the "sneaky" sexism thing is just a coincidence.)http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2011winter/2011_winter_Douglas.php
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I'd rather not get into a religious discussion either. Even without my personal belief about creation, in today's society I'm quite content to be a woman and don't see myself as oppressed by men. I've had it all: college education, a challenging and very successful career, enjoyed my youth, cherished my girlfriends. I've been loved by a man who thinks I hung the moon and puts me on a pedestal. I got married, had three children AND kept that job until health issues forced me to step down a few years ago. I vote, I'm active in my community and I'm respected by my peers. I'm very blessed to live in this day and age.
Women do have equal rights in this country. We can't change the way unenlightened people think, but we can make sure it doesn't change US.
Wow, so many things to respond to lol.And as much as I WOULD actually love to get into a religious discussion, this isn't really the place. But I really feel the need to add just a couple things.
1. The bible and science actually do agree regarding how the earth was made. Many Christians believe the bible account says everything was created in 6 physical days, 24 hour days. This is not what the bible actually says although I can see where the idea comes from.
The universe, including earth was already created by the first day (Genesis 1:1). There was just nothing on it.
Often times the bible uses the word "day" to designate various time periods of unknown (or unsaid) length. The creation account is one example. If you look at Genesis 2:4, the bible says "everything" was created on one day. Obviously it wasn't as it just said everything on the earth took six days. And the universe and Earth had already been created before that. Also six 24 hour days can not be put into one 24 hour period. Therefore, the creative days were only figurative.
Evolution, just like Christianity, takes a lot of Faith to believe in. The bible does not conflict with the scientific observation that variations occur within a kind.
2. Christians obviously believe the bible, otherwise what the heck are they doing? lol. So the bible, to them, is a history account. We don't have to like what happened, agree with what happened etc. But why would it be changed to show equality when it didn't exist? Sort of like changing Outlander to be something that just wouldn't happen in that time period even though it's fictional.
History can't be rewritten. And although I personally don't believe man will ever learn from history's mistakes there is always the hope that it's possible. If you aren't told about the terrible history how can you work towards not repeating it?
Jamie wants Claire to obey him. Why wouldn't he? He lives in a time period where women were owned and they obeyed.
How God does tell Man to treat a woman though... well, wow. A husband is supposed to love his wife as his own body. If today people applied that principle I don't believe half the marriages that end would.
Anyways enough said. lol
On to equality though. I don't want to be equal to a man. Don't get me wrong, when it comes to legal things, every person, every human regardless of sex or race should be equal, equal as human beings. That's just common sense right? But as far as being equal, man and woman just aren't. It's like comparing apples to oranges. They aren't the same thing.
I feel like today we are throwing out the sexes. Some schools won't even let you utter words that show the distinctions between man and woman (words like 'She, He, Ladies, Gentlemen, Girls, Boys, Man, Woman, Female, Man', etc). It's not that I don't understand what they're going for but instead of teaching respect and honor to the sexes they're trying to ignore them. Just terrible. I'm proud to be female.
Anyways, thought this picture describes better what I'm trying to say.
Also, I will continue to call babies that are I think are cute, cute. LOL
Mrsbooks wrote: "Wow, so many things to respond to lol.And as much as I WOULD actually love to get into a religious discussion, this isn't really the place. But I really feel the need to add just a couple things..."
Amen!
Mrsbooks wrote: "On to equality though. I don't want to be equal to a man. Don't get me wrong, when it comes to legal things, every person, every human regardless of sex or race should be equal, equal as human beings. That's just common sense right? But as far as being equal, man and woman just aren't. It's like comparing apples to oranges. They aren't the same thing. "That's it in a nutshell! Thank you for stating it so well! We are supposed to be different, to balance and compliment each other. Jamie and Claire's relationship in Dragonfly in Amber goes on to really, really embrace these differences, too. It's a great example of a couple that did not give up their individuality. They argued like normal couples and sometimes struggled with their differences, but they respected one another.
Lack of respect for others, gender and their roles aside, is one of the biggest problems in today's society. Always has been and probably always will be. Without it there will continue to be discord. It's not easy to be a man in today's society either. They don't have it any easier than women do...they just have a different set of problems.
I didn't care for the book. I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or another, just disappointment that I didn't like it more. I like time travel and I enjoy Scottish history, so I was really excited to delve into this series. The book fell into the Romance category for me, which just isn't my thing. It's all good, though. There are plenty of great books out there to choose from!
I want to clarify a point. I do like romance in books, but I don't like romance in what are deemed "romance novels." It's the formulaic romance that I don't care for. A lot of people enjoy that and I'm not knocking it, just not my thing. But actual romance, well, I love that!
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "To each his own, but "American authors" haven't cornered the definition of the romance genre or the definition of a novel. You can call an apple an orange all you want, but it's still an apple. "Maybe not only American but Anglo-Saxons: "Although romance novels are translated into over 90 languages,[68] the majority of authors of these works are from Great Britain, the United States, Canada, or, to a lesser extent, Australia.[97] Even in France, where over 12 million romance novels are sold each year, all of the books are translations.[68] This leads to a more Anglo-Saxon perspective in the fiction, which at times can be much less successful in a European market."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_...
For me the book is romance because the relationship of Jamie and Claire overshadows everything else. Without that there's not much of a story. Not every country and its authors or readers feel the need to define a "romance" genre.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Mary wrote: "Is the "romance" part you find distasteful the sex?"I wondered if that might be the case. Romance and sex aren't the same. I can understand not wanting page after page after page o..."
Heh, I come from a country that has probably one of the most openminded cultures when it comes to sex, it's not much of a taboo here. Kids can see naked people in tv and nobody thinks it's bad for them. I have been reading books with "adult content" (whatever that means because we don't really use that term, either) ever since I was a child, my parents never chose my books. When I said boring I meant boring. I have watched Queer as Folk and OZ (from free channels, like Outlander will be, too) along with who knows how many shows that has heterosexual sex. Very rarely they are that interesting, and too much is too much.
Chelsea wrote: "http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/20... ..."Interesting article. I would agree with it on some points and disagree on others. I think there is a dawning feminist movement in regards to young women (think Beyonce and even Taylor Swift) that is a consequence of the conservative movement to limit female sexuality and control procreation. This attempt to erode rights that our mothers and grandmothers fought for is finally clicking with the generation that has taken birth control for granted. We also have the "Yes means Yes" campaign to clarify consent in cases of rape. This is a huge paradigm shift and is being driven by college age women. I raised my daughters and my son to be feminists and I think this generation is much more enlightened than we give them credit for. Is sexism still pernicious? Yes, but we can see the effects of modern feminism by the extreme blowback from such groups as MRAs and PUA groups. People don't get this upset if attempts at gender equality are not having an impact.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Women do have equal rights in this country. We can't change the way unenlightened people think, but we can make sure it doesn't change US. .."No we don't. When woman are paid the same as men for equal work then we will have equal rights. When men (and women) legislators stop trying to control access to birth control, so that women control their own bodies, then we can talk about equality. When we stop blaming women for their own rapes and treating men as responsible human beings and not animals who cannot control their sexual urges, then we can start to believe equality can become a reality. Until then, there is still fighting to be done.
Mrsbooks wrote: "On to equality though. I don't want to be equal to a man. Don't get me wrong, when it comes to legal things, every person, every human regardless of sex or race should be equal, equal as human beings. That's just common sense right? But as far as being equal, man and woman just aren't. It's like comparing apples to oranges. They aren't the same thing. ..."Equality does not mean to be the exact same thing. It means equal opportunity. It means that students like my daughters should not be steered away from STEM careers because "girls are not good at math and science." Both of them actually are entering STEM fields (Computer design and Osteology) but the numbers of women in these fields are very low and they face extraordinary discrimination (see Gamergate). Women still do the majority of housework and childcare even though they are working the same or more hours than their husbands. That is not equality. Patriarchy is just as damaging to men as it is to women. They are not supposed to show feelings and are told to "man up." They lose out on so much of their children's childhood because they are taught not to be nurturing. Men who do not toe the male line are "feminized" and called sissy or pussy - like being a female is a bad thing. I am so grateful that I married an enlightened man who started his own business at home so he could be there for his three children; who was there for every ball game, gymnastics meet, choir recital and awards day ceremony for all of our children. A man who meets me in the kitchen where we prepare dinner together. A man who meets me in the yard where we do yard work together. A man who understood the need for his son to learn to cook and clean just as his daughters learned. A man who respects his wife and taught his son to respect women. A man who is comfortable enough in his skin to thrive in an egalitarian marriage of over 30 years. My husband and I are not the same, but in our household we are equal and I am glad my children grew up in that environment.
Vanessa wrote: "I want to clarify a point. I do like romance in books, but I don't like romance in what are deemed "romance novels." It's the formulaic romance that I don't care for. A lot of people enjoy that ..."Many books are formulaic and I don't see that romance novels are any more formulaic than say: suspense or mystery. In fact I would argue that mystery and suspense were even more formulaic. The Harry Potter books were one of the more formulaic series to come out in recent history yet they are some of the best children/adult books of this generation. I guess I am not getting what it is about "romance" that seems to be so distasteful to readers. I wonder how many romances people have read to find them so distasteful. I read everything. I read mystery, romance, suspense, fantasy, general fiction, historical fiction, etc. So maybe it would help me if those who do not like romances would define just exactly what they think a romance is.
Tytti wrote: "Maybe not only American but Anglo-Saxons: "Although romance novels are translated into over 90 languages,[68] the majority of authors of these works are from Great Britain, the United States, Canada, or, to a lesser extent, Australia.[97] Even in France, where over 12 million romance novels are sold each year, all of the books are translations.[68] This leads to a more Anglo-Saxon perspective in the fiction, which at times can be much less successful in a European market."..."The US is the highest ranked country for ALL new book titles each year, not just romance. The UK is 3rd. So having a more Anglo-Saxon perspective is inevitable until other countries start publishing more books.
Mary wrote: "So having a more Anglo-Saxon perspective is inevitable until other countries start publishing more books."Well they publish enough for me, especially because I don't care for romance novels. Besides, quantity doesn't equal quality.
Mary wrote: "In fact I would argue that mystery and suspense were even more formulaic. The Harry Potter books were one of the more formulaic series to come out in recent history yet they are some of the best children/adult books of this generation. I guess I am not getting what it is about "romance" that seems to be so distasteful to readers. I wonder how many romances people have read to find them so distasteful."They are boring. I already know in the beginning the couple will end up together. I rarely read other formulaic books, either, though I do like well written mysteries for lighter reading but even then I usually read books from different authors and settings. If I want to read about relationships, I will pick books not labeled as romance so I won't know how it ends.
Tytti wrote: "Well they publish enough for me, especially because I don't care for romance novels. Besides, quantity doesn't equal quality. .."How many romance novels have you read?
Mary wrote: "How many romance novels have you read?"Probably not many. I wouldn't know because well.. nobody has said they were romance novels when I read them (even if I could remember all the books that I have read but I can't).
I think I read one that could be labeled as a historical romance when I was pretty young. When I picked another one of her books I realized that in order to read the book I would also have to read through the predictable romance and the rest of the story didn't interest me enough, even though I am very interested in history. That's how it usually goes when I try to read romance novels, probably. The rest of it isn't good enough to keep me reading and because I already know the couple will end up together and that's the main part of the book, I just read those bits.
But when it comes to those "full-blown" novels I mentioned there are so many other things happening that one can't really predict how the story will develop and what are the "best bits". Then I am careful not to read any spoilers.
Mary wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Women do have equal rights in this country. We can't change the way unenlightened people think, but we can make sure it doesn't change US. .."No we don't. When woman..."
I'll agree that the government needs to stay out of the birth control issue. For many it is a personal choice that varies in tolerance and may or may not be based on religious belief. When the equal rights debate bumps into this Country's religious freedom, there will be more and more backlash....i.e., the Hobby Lobby lawsuit.
Tytti wrote: "Probably not many. I wouldn't know because well.. nobody has said they were romance novels when I read them (even if I could remember all the books that I have read but I can't). .."It is hard to judge an entire genre when you have not read many books in that genre. I "thought" I did not care for science fiction because the few science fiction novels I had read prior to the age of 30 bored me to tears. Then my husband convinced me to read Dune. Then I read Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow and I figured out that every genre has its clunkers. I have read some very bad romance novels, but I have also read some very good ones. You know what you like and obviously you did not like this book. That is fine. We cannot all like the same things. I hate Charles Dicken's Great Expectations because I cannot stand whiny characters and Pip was the epitome of whiny. If I had stopped at Great Expectations though, I would have missed out on Oliver Twist, A Tale of Two Cities, and other Dickens' works.
Tytti wrote: "Heh, I come from a country that has probably one of the most openminded cultures when it comes to sex, it's not much of a taboo here. Kids can see naked people in tv and nobody thinks it's bad for them. I have been reading books with "adult content" (whatever that means because we don't really use that term, either) ever since I was a child, my parents never chose my books."Wow. What a thing to be proud of.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "I'll agree that the government needs to stay out of the birth control issue. For many it is a personal choice that varies in tolerance and may or may not be based on religious belief. When the equal rights debate bumps into this Country's religious freedom, there will be more and more backlash....i.e., the Hobby Lobby lawsuit. .."So do you believe that people should not have to hire someone who is black, hispanic or gay if their religious beliefs dictate that? Or should they be able to deny people service if they are not Christians? Because people are already using the Hobby Lobby decision to do exactly that.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Wow. What a thing to be proud of. .."If that is sarcasm Becky, that is not well done of you.
No, I was absolutely serious. I thought it was a very very sad argument that left me with the impression that our young are just tossed into the pond with very little guidance. Having access to adult material does not make a person open-minded.
I've said I will not discuss my religious views any further. Nor will I be baited into it by inflammatory or racist accusations. My point in bringing up the hobby lobby suit was simple. Both sides are going to push and until there is respect and some degree of tolerance on all sides, the issue of equal rights will get worse.
Edit: To clarify, I believe the Hobby Lobby decision is riddled with problems.
Mary wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Wow. What a thing to be proud of. .."If that is sarcasm Becky, that is not well done of you."
Actually I am very proud of it, I think most of us are. At least we do find funny also those "nudity warnings" etc. Violence and violent sex are different but you don't have to watch/read about that. Then again, I was reading realistic war accounts when I was maybe 11...
Nakedness isn't a taboo for us because most of us see our parents, siblings and even grandparents naked when we are in a sauna together as children. Sex isn't a big taboo, either, because we are taught biology and sex-ed when we are quite young (we don't really have a problem with teenage pregnancies, either, they are rare), and every summer one big, national radio channel has a "summer rubber" campaign aimed at young(er) people and gives out condoms at festivals and other happenings.
There is also one type of youth camp for 15-year-olds where there is a tradition of mixed saunas for those who feel comfortable doing that, and many do. (Those who don't can go with only girls or boys, or even alone.) Among (university) students they are even more popular because people start to be more comfortable when it comes their bodies and everyone knows how to behave respectfully towards others, even when you have been drinking and are sitting next to a naked person of the opposite sex. And no, not even the church(es) have a problem with that, why should they? It wasn't that long ago when the whole household went to sauna together.
We don't also worry about what books are appropriate for what age, children often start reading adult books when they grow out of children's books, I started even earlier. I can't remember reading anything that was too much for me, though I found Uncle Tom's Cabin a bit boring when I was 12. By the time you are maybe 14 you are almost expected to read them for school. Children are taught to be responsible for their own actions and that also includes decisions about what they will read. Not many nine-year-olds will pick American Psycho or erotica (and they can if they really want to from a public library without you or anyone else knowing about it).
Mary wrote: "It is hard to judge an entire genre when you have not read many books in that genre."As I continued later, I have probably read at least a couple and started some more but never finished them. I just can't figure out any reason why I would find them interesting and why I should read them because there are so many books to read that have some romance in them but are not formulaic. Besides, even if I wanted to read a "romance" novel, I probably wouldn't know what to pick because they are not marked in any way. And I generally don't even like genre fiction, I rather read books I can't really label.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "No, I was absolutely serious. I thought it was a very very sad argument that left me with the impression that our young are just tossed into the pond with very little guidance. Having access to adu..."Well, the guidance towards the young in Finland seems to be much better than in the USA. Teen pregnancy rates in the USA are 31 per 1000 (in the more conservative states they average about 65 per 1000). They are 9 per 1000 in Finland. The USA has more than 3 times the amount of rapes per capita than Finland does. Finland has universal sex education. The USA does not. The abortion rate in the USA is TWICE that of Finland and the rates in the USA have gone down considerably - even more since the birth control mandate of the ACA was implemented. Sounds like they are doing things right. The sexual repression the USA favors seems to cause way more problems than it solves.
Tytti wrote: "As I continued later, I have probably read at least a couple and started some more but never finished them. I just can't figure out any reason why I would find them interesting and why I should read them because there are so many books to read that have some romance in them but are not formulaic. Besides, even if I wanted to read a "romance" novel, I probably wouldn't know what to pick because they are not marked in any way. And I generally don't even like genre fiction, I rather read books I can't really label. ..."Fair enough. I just think it is difficult to judge an entire genre when you have only read a few books in that genre. The first Anne Rice book I read was Interview With a Vampire. I thought it was just OK. Louis bugged the hell out of me, but I still liked it fairly well. Just not enough to read another Anne Rice for years. My husband then pressured me into reading The Mummy and I was hooked. I blew through all of the Vampire Chronicles in a week and then started on her witch books. So I guess my rather round about point is...you never know until you try. :0)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Dragonfly in Amber (other topics)
Suddenly a Bride (other topics)
Playing for Keeps (other topics)
Outlander (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Dragonfly in Amber (other topics)Dragonfly in Amber (other topics)
Suddenly a Bride (other topics)
Playing for Keeps (other topics)
Outlander (other topics)
The Romance Writers of America. They go into detail HERE
There is "romance" the genre and "romantic elements." Outlander has romantic elements, but it doesn't technically fall into any one specific genre.
Edited to add: Not sure where you're getting your information on a novel, but the dictionary describes it as: A fictitious prose narrative of considerable length and complexity, portraying characters and usually presenting a sequential organization of action and scenes.