Comments | stacia_kane: Women’s Books

stacia_kane

Women’s Books

Jan 12, 2011 17:44

Before I start I want to make something really, really clear. This post is NOT about any specific review outlet/magazine/blog/website. It is NOT claiming this is the case for all reviewers, in all places, or that this is a constant. And most importantly it is NOT saying reviewers can’t feel about a book however they want to, or view it through any ( Read more... )

stuff that bothers me, sometimes people lie on the internet, moral outrage, what do you think, urban fantasy isn't just for chicks, my opinion for what it's worth, of interest to me

Comments 2

dubious_virtue January 13 2011, 01:51:12 UTC

In a climate where Wuthering Heights -- which was neither envisioned nor executed as a genre romance* -- can be eviscerated because it doesn't meet the current standards of romance fiction, I can't be all that surprised by these revelations, well-made though they are. Saddened? Sickened, even? Hell, yes. But surprised? Not so much.

*Pardon my off-topic rant, but a little cursory research about Emily Bronte and the milieu in which she wrote would not have gone amiss in that case, but half-assed "literary" controversy makes for more visitors to one's little corner of Romancelandia, doesn't it, and who are we to deny anyone her right to an ill-informed opinion?

Next up, was Captain Ahab a yummy alpha male, or just an obsessed freak with a aquatic mammal kink? And does man-on-whale-shifter romance unfairly fetishize blow-holes, or can we all just get along?

fadetogrey02 January 13 2011, 20:21:21 UTC

*Most* of the time I find my SFF books in that section in the bookstores I frequent ( ... )