Sometimes It's a Matter of Preference
Feb. 4th, 2014 06:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxSo I hit "Good Reads" to read some book reviews and it's a singularly strange experience sometimes to realize how much tastes differ.
I ran across one scathing review of Judith Ivory's "The Proposition." I actually enjoyed that book... though of course, it wasn't perfect. There were legitimate criticisms that could be made of it. For instance, the ending truly is pure deus ex machina and I can easily see how that could annoy someone (I personally just shrugged that part off. a) Because it's a romance and a 'happily ever after' has to occur somehow and b) because the whole thing is a gender swapped "My Fair Lady" so there's an almost fairytale-esque aspect to it. Deus ex machina away. As long as it is enjoyable, I'm game.
So, when I saw a scathing 1-star review, I figure that it's going to be about the deus ex machina conclusion that, admittedly, is both unlikely and too easy (and I didn't care that it was. I prefer the fairytale-esque happy ending). However, I don't even know whether the reviewer got as far as complaining about the ending because the reviewer hated everything about the entire novel. She hated the BLURB SUMMARY of the novel, saying that it wasn't something she wanted to read (at which point I wondered why she had read it) and that she hated everything about the story and its leads, who spend entirely too much time in their heads. I could only go, wow, do we have different tastes (and I thought the 'time in their heads' was 'character development').
Also, over the last decade I've seen a bazillion recs for Loretta Chase's "Lord of Scoundrels" claiming it's the best thing ever. And, honestly, it may well be. I don't know. I've never read it. I enjoyed Loretta Chase's "Mr. Impossible" quite a bit, so I can see how it could be a highly enjoyable book. Still, every time I try to convince myself to read "Lord of Scoundrels", I read the summary and the whole 'dissolute rake' thing puts me off. Plus, the summary seems to imply that it may go down the well-worn path of 'bitter alpha hero has all the power and treats the heroine like crap.' The reviews on Amazon and Good Reads, no matter how glowing, never assure me that this isn't the story and so I always hesitate to commit to purchase (that said "Mr. Impossible"'s blurb reads like its hero fits the 'dissolute rake' template and the actual character in the novel doesn't. He's just an impulsive, funny, 19th century slacker. He's neither dissolute nor particularly rakish, just constantly getting himself into scrapes due to a good heart and irrepressible sense of humor. That's the sort of hero that I can often enjoy. And, here's the thing -- both Ivory's "The Proposition" and Chase's "Mr. Impossible" share heroes who DO NOT BROOD and ARE NOT ANGST RIDDEN. I often gravitate towards those.)
I'm not judging the quality of Chase's "Lord of Scoundrels" (again, I have not read it). It's just that I never quite get around to reading it because it sounds like it may live in an area of tropes that are not my usual preference. (And please tell me if the reviews are misleading and it isn't a dissolute brooding rake who behaves like a dick and treats the heroine like crap. It's always been praised, so if it's not that, I might want to read it. I'm not constitutionally resistant to angst or to damaged heroes, it's just that it will then heavily depend on execution.).
It's somewhat surprising to realize that people really, truly WANT different things from a story. And I do think that's what it tends to boil down to in the end.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
shadowkat67 even mentioned some people on Good Reads hating Sherry Thomas' "His at Night," which I thought quite fun (again, not perfect. Plenty of valid criticisms, but mostly fun), so I do know that sometimes it's just that people react and interpret differently.
It's funny sometimes to realize that though we may read the same book, rarely do we read the same books in the exact same way. One person's "ooooh, I likey!" is another's "WTF is this?!"
I ran across one scathing review of Judith Ivory's "The Proposition." I actually enjoyed that book... though of course, it wasn't perfect. There were legitimate criticisms that could be made of it. For instance, the ending truly is pure deus ex machina and I can easily see how that could annoy someone (I personally just shrugged that part off. a) Because it's a romance and a 'happily ever after' has to occur somehow and b) because the whole thing is a gender swapped "My Fair Lady" so there's an almost fairytale-esque aspect to it. Deus ex machina away. As long as it is enjoyable, I'm game.
So, when I saw a scathing 1-star review, I figure that it's going to be about the deus ex machina conclusion that, admittedly, is both unlikely and too easy (and I didn't care that it was. I prefer the fairytale-esque happy ending). However, I don't even know whether the reviewer got as far as complaining about the ending because the reviewer hated everything about the entire novel. She hated the BLURB SUMMARY of the novel, saying that it wasn't something she wanted to read (at which point I wondered why she had read it) and that she hated everything about the story and its leads, who spend entirely too much time in their heads. I could only go, wow, do we have different tastes (and I thought the 'time in their heads' was 'character development').
Also, over the last decade I've seen a bazillion recs for Loretta Chase's "Lord of Scoundrels" claiming it's the best thing ever. And, honestly, it may well be. I don't know. I've never read it. I enjoyed Loretta Chase's "Mr. Impossible" quite a bit, so I can see how it could be a highly enjoyable book. Still, every time I try to convince myself to read "Lord of Scoundrels", I read the summary and the whole 'dissolute rake' thing puts me off. Plus, the summary seems to imply that it may go down the well-worn path of 'bitter alpha hero has all the power and treats the heroine like crap.' The reviews on Amazon and Good Reads, no matter how glowing, never assure me that this isn't the story and so I always hesitate to commit to purchase (that said "Mr. Impossible"'s blurb reads like its hero fits the 'dissolute rake' template and the actual character in the novel doesn't. He's just an impulsive, funny, 19th century slacker. He's neither dissolute nor particularly rakish, just constantly getting himself into scrapes due to a good heart and irrepressible sense of humor. That's the sort of hero that I can often enjoy. And, here's the thing -- both Ivory's "The Proposition" and Chase's "Mr. Impossible" share heroes who DO NOT BROOD and ARE NOT ANGST RIDDEN. I often gravitate towards those.)
I'm not judging the quality of Chase's "Lord of Scoundrels" (again, I have not read it). It's just that I never quite get around to reading it because it sounds like it may live in an area of tropes that are not my usual preference. (And please tell me if the reviews are misleading and it isn't a dissolute brooding rake who behaves like a dick and treats the heroine like crap. It's always been praised, so if it's not that, I might want to read it. I'm not constitutionally resistant to angst or to damaged heroes, it's just that it will then heavily depend on execution.).
It's somewhat surprising to realize that people really, truly WANT different things from a story. And I do think that's what it tends to boil down to in the end.
shadowkat67 even mentioned some people on Good Reads hating Sherry Thomas' "His at Night," which I thought quite fun (again, not perfect. Plenty of valid criticisms, but mostly fun), so I do know that sometimes it's just that people react and interpret differently.It's funny sometimes to realize that though we may read the same book, rarely do we read the same books in the exact same way. One person's "ooooh, I likey!" is another's "WTF is this?!"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-02-05 12:47 am (UTC)What's also distinctive about Lord of Scoundrels is that Chase goes deeply into his POV, including as a child, and he really has been scarred -- but Jessica knows how to deal with him.
Still, it might not be to your taste. More to your taste might be Last Night's Scandal, which follows Olivia and Lisle (the runaway teens of Lord Perfect, now all grown up). Lisle has been practically raised by Rupert and Daphne, so there's still some Egyptology going on in the background even though it's set in England and Scotland.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-05 01:55 am (UTC)So, is Lord of Scoundrels worth it? I can take some angst and a bit of dickishness. I just tend to have a low tolerance for hyper-controlling behavior and inequality of power.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-05 12:04 pm (UTC)For me the crucial thing about Lord of Scoundrels is that Chase has a really light hand with the material, with wit and humor scattered throughout. But that still might not be enough for you. As you say, preferences and tastes differ.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-05 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-05 01:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-05 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-05 01:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-06 03:21 am (UTC)For example? If a specific character pushes your buttons, you may hate a tv show or book. And you can't always explain why.
Also, or so I've found, the internet can turn you off of a book, a character or a storyline. The hype can ruin it, or fans reactions to it. I've met a lot of people who despised Spike - because of interactions with fans who adored him or fanfic, this is true of Angel as well. I know that a few interactions I had with an Angel fan - made it difficult for me to like the character for a bit. It's ironic really - how professing your love for something can turn off the very people you want to persuade.
I think this happened with quite a few Good Reads reviewers - they read the "glowing reviews" or "hype" - and were either prejudiced against the book because of it or had high expectations and got angry that it didn't live up to the hype.
Oh, and if you want to read a heated review thread - go read the one for Whitney, My Love - there's fans who think it is the best thing evah, and fans who want to burn it and stomp on its ugly corpse, and are incredibly angry at the fans who love it. Another is Eat, Pray, Love and of course 50 Shades of Grey.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-06 02:53 pm (UTC)And poor Xander really does have a way of attracting misogynist fanboys who see Xander as their personal avatar. Sometimes it became difficult to divorce the sexism spewing fanboys from the character because they were constantly pronouncing him to be 'just like them.' Um... guys, maybe you should give Xander a wee bit more credit. He's actually better than you (but he's not a flipping SAINT. Seriously, there are those who see him as the parfait genteel knight as well and...er... no there are clay feet attached there too.)
As to "Whitney, My Love" I think I read it way back in high school and my memory is so jumbled on that score that I honestly don't remember what my original reaction was. Reading what's in the novel NOW, I'm sort of apalled. Then again, remembering what was in Kathleen E. Woodiwiss' "Flame and the Flower" I am apalled as well, and I actually liked that book as a naive fifteen year old so I cannot really trust my teen self's reactions anyway.
At any rate, I'm a bit more fascinated by what makes people really enjoy the scenarios in those books, because that's got to be a hinky bit of psychology because a lot of people (incuding my fifteen year old self) do and there's a lot that's problematic in there. It must tap into something pretty deep or they wouldn't sell.
As to 50 Shades (and Twilight for that matter), I've only ever experienced those through the websites that mock them, so I have a perverse sort of joy in them in that they provided hours of hilarity on the internet. I can't imagine reading the genuine thing because I suspect I would be reacting the exact same way I reacted to the Pretty Pink Princess monstrosity from the other week.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-06 10:38 pm (UTC)Well, it's really not all that different than the reasons people loved Spuffy in S6 and S7, or adored Bangel at the tail end of S2 and beginning of S3. OR for that matter - why over 10 million people skipped work and school to see Luke and Laura's wedding on GH.
The forgiveness trope has massive appeal for folks, even when it is done rather poorly as in Whitney, My Love or Flame and the Flower.
If you look at the story from narrow perspective - ie. only see the scene where Spike attempts to rape Buffy in SR or only focus on the scene where she beats him up in Dead Things, the appeal of the relationship will be completely lost on you. You'll be appalled. But keep in mind, the people who loved the relationship didn't focus on those episodes - they focused on Spike getting his soul, the scene at the end of Beneath You, or the scene at the end of Showtime and Sleeper.
This is true with books as well. Whitney, My Love is 734 page book. The rape scene takes place over maybe three pages, and afterwards the hero acts more or less the same way as Spike did - he's devastated. (Now, a quick caveat here - I had issues with that book - because while the hero is devastated that he took her virginity, he doesn't appear to see what he did as rape, nor does the author, (this was admittedly the revised version - but it's rape, just not quite as obvious as it was in the first edition). Also he feels justified until he figures out she's a virgin...and not a "slut" like he previously thought. In short - it's slutshamming. Granted the book was published in the 1980s and the story takes place in the Regency period - but that's make it no less disturbing.) I also felt the plotting was off - and the hero's actions seemed to come out of left field, as did the heroines.) But the people who loved it - saw a S6-S7 Spuffy tale, that's why they liked it. It wasn't because they get off on rape. Or authoritative men. They just like the conflict and banter and forgiveness bit.
Granted there are people out there who do get off on authoritative or controlling men, and there is a weird infantizing of women going on - but I doubt most readers pick up on it or they just ignore it and focus on the bits they like.
It's sort of like how I read 50 Shades (the first novel), I ignored the bits that most people focused on (the whole inner goddess/conscience bit and the heroine's funky cursing (which felt like a parody of online fanfic discussion boards)), and focused on the bits that no one did. (ie. The BDSM contract which the two characters rip apart over email of all things. And the banter via text-messaging and email, after they've signed a Non-Disclosure agreement. You may have to know something about contracts to appreciate the humor here. And the fact that the heroine beats up the the bad guy who attempts to rape her, then shoots him - which never happens in those books.)
no subject
Date: 2014-02-07 06:06 pm (UTC)What I was referring to is domination. There seems to be some form or attraction to either not having control or being dominated in some respect. It happens a lot when fictional alpha heroes are involved. Sometimes, it seems to relate to allowing someone to act the way they want but don't feel free to, but other times... I'm not entirely sure what the attraction might be. But, there is something that shows up from time to time whick makes clear that there's something about domination.
(That's showing up in the Lisa Kleypas novel I exchanged the Pretty Pink Princess novel for. In fact the Pretty Pink Princess novel with its infantalized heroine and its distant authoritarian hero had that domination thing going on (even though there was nothing the least bit rape-like in it.) Similarly, there's nothing rape-y in the Lisa Kleypas novel, but there's quite a bit of very subtle domination going on. (It's not exactly to my taste but it's not to the point where it actually bothers me to the point of disliking the book. It's more of a .... curiosity. )
no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 05:07 am (UTC)What I was referring to is domination. There seems to be some form or attraction to either not having control or being dominated in some respect. It happens a lot when fictional alpha heroes are involved. Sometimes, it seems to relate to allowing someone to act the way they want but don't feel free to, but other times... I'm not entirely sure what the attraction might be. But, there is something that shows up from time to time whick makes clear that there's something about domination.
Okay, I agree with you on this. It's been fascinating me as well. I've admittedlyread a ton of them now - across four different sub-genres of romantic fiction in attempt to figure it out, and I have to state - I find the trend disturbing. I've even read various reviews. Smartbitches had a fascinating podcast discussion regarding the trend - wondering if it is the result of an internalized misogyny on the part of the women writers or the fans?
Personally, I don't like the domination theme. And have worked to ignore it in various books - the one's that I don't succeed, I give up on. (Story of O took the domination theme to extremes, but Anne Rice subverted it a bit in Exit to Eden and the Claiming of Sleeping Beauty - by having women be the dominatrix). It's why I had issues with the Angel character in both Buffy and Angel at various points, and fans of Angel at various points. It's also why the whole Twilight series turned me off. (I admittedly have issues with male domination and authority...which is why I find the fantasy fascinating, it's a turn off for me. I tend to cringe. I like equals - such as Aeryn/Crichton or Spuffy).
It's quite popular in paranormal/gothic horror romance, I've noticed. It's why I gave up on it. Well that and the silly character names.
TI can't help but wonder if it's similar to the kink that Twilight hit in many women? The idea of having everything taken care of. To only have sexual pleasure. To not have to worry about anything else. No decisions. Etc? Then of course there's the wealth fantasy - which is a common them in romance literature and chick-lit. Notice most of the heroes are wealthy.
There was another disturbing trend in some of the Good Reads reviews for Whitney, My Love, Flame and the Arrow, and various others - they used a big "H" for hero and a small "h" for heroine. That was their short hand, the H falls for the h. Took me a while to figure it out, then when I did, I was offended. Then fascinated.
And...a rather disturbing sub-genre that I have nicknamed "Stockholm Syndrom" - where the hero kidnaps the heroine and tortures her until she submits to his will. I accidentally discovered this genre on Amazon and Good Reads. I personally find them unreadable. Me and torture are unmixy things. It makes me cringe and want to leave the room. I had troubles with A Dance of Dragons and American Psycho...this stuff sort of makes that seems tame in comparison - for ahem, reasons I won't go into.
That's showing up in the Lisa Kleypas novel I exchanged the Pretty Pink Princess novel for.
Which one? I've read Kleypas...and find that odd. Of course I've only read two. Dreaming of You (a gambler and novelist), and Friday Harbor novel about an glass artist. I think she wrote Buffy fanfic, so too did Sylvia Day. But am not positive. (Am hoping neither is on lj.)
In fact the Pretty Pink Princess novel with its infantalized heroine and its distant authoritarian hero had that domination thing going on (even though there was nothing the least bit rape-like in it.)
The book that I just gave up on...had a similar issue, except she was low-rent version of Pretty Pink Princess...and the hero was domineering, wealthy, yet in a wheel-chair and wanting to end his life, so that helped.
Is it just me or are a lot of these heroines written as dumb? Or inferior to the male hero? And why? Why are the heroines always wet-behind-the-ears, dumb or inferior? And the heroes...much older, and smart?
Will state - the boddice rippers didn't have that problem (as far as I recall, I admittedly don't remember them that well)...they had other problems, but not that one.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-05 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-06 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-05 02:16 pm (UTC)Re the review from the person who hated even the blurb: Why would you read a book that you had no interest in unless you were forced to because of a school reading list? Or maybe book club? I don't understand that. I've been horribly disappointed in books, but they've been books I've *wanted* to read. And if it's so bad that I hate every single word, I stop reading and move on. Geesh.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-06 03:00 pm (UTC)Such is a problem with genre stuff. They tend to sometimes merge in ones memory... which is why I hate when the re-release with different covers. A couple of months ago I bought a Brockway novel on Kindle only to realize later that, damn, I read that book way back in the 1990s. It just had a different cover then! (And the only thing that prevented me from picking up a Julia Quinn one recently was that I know good and damn well that I recognize that cover. I owned that book (may still own it... somewhere)... I just have no memory of it at all. :)