You Like What You Like

[shipperx]

It's so funny to read book reviews on Good Reads.  It's great having tons of reviews, but it brings home that people can like wildly different things.  One person's four star review is another's "What the hell is THIS?!"  And some of it really boils down to nothing but preference.   Some of my biggest reactions are when someone flat-out admits to liking and/or disliking a certain trope and their like/dislike is the polar opposite of my own, or one I find the 'dislike' to be something I find to be inexplicable.

Examples of comments that made me go huh:


-- "I don't like it when the hero has been in love before..."
My Reaction: Wha-huh?  Doesn't this cut out a LOT of potential stories and storylines?  That seems terribly arbitrary.



--"I really liked the author's proper use of grammar..."
My Reaction: Um... this is a review of an AUDIO BOOK. What the heck are you talking about? Subject/verb agreement?



-- "I don't like a commoner involved with a titled person stories. I like them both to be aristocrats..."
My Reaction: What kind of classist B.S. is this?  (Admittedly, the commoner/"beneath you"  trope where classes intersect is one of my go-to kinks.)



-- The pervasive love of rich domineering assholes. There are SO many people who seem to love that archetype.  My reaction to it this time basically came from a poll on an author's web site where she was asking which of her stories was her fans' fave, and the winner was the one where I spent waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too much time mentally fuming re: the hero "What an ASSHOLE!!"  The book was good overall (but not because of HIM), but the "hero"  was a terrible asshat who needed to be taken down many a peg, but wasn't.  Meanwhile waaaaayyyy down the poll list was my favorite of the writer's stories, the one where a bonafied nice person was the hero. I probably have a long musing post one day on the Uberwealthy Domineering Asshole archetype that seems so popular. Not today, but someday...

Comments

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

People are so judgmental these days, no one is just satisfied with a good read unless it hits every single point of their favorite points.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

It's just so funny to me when someone comes up with a dislike that I never would've thought of (or which is actually on my 'likes' list.)

It makes reading reviews to decide what to buy next really iffy sometimes.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

What I started doing is clicking on the person's name on Good Reads, then comparing the books we've read. (Which doesn't always work that well - since I've rated over 1400 books on Good Reads, and admittedly several low - because I can't remember them after reading them, so how can they be any good? LOL!)

Over time I've learned to be a bit more careful. For example? If a book gets a high percentage of five stars, and giftastic reviews, chances are? I'll hate it. Smartbitches recommends picking books on Good Reads that the ratings give you the finger. Because clearly the book pissed off the internet in some way. (a lot of people hated it, for the group that loved it.) This has been iffy too though.

ME BEFORE YOU by Jojo Moyes - is an example of a book that got rave reviews, and I hated it. Could not finish.

It's really hard to tell - that's why I prefer the spoilery reviews that give me quotes and a lot of details - then I can attempt to figure it out.
But by and large the reviewers tell me more about themselves and their tastes, than whether I'll enjoy the book.

You're recs and reviews have actually been more on target and more helpful - than Good Reads or Amazon's.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

It's extraordinarily difficult to tell, because, honestly, some people's opinions are so far removed from my own that their reviews are meaningless for me. (And every time I see "clean romance" in a review, I run... which may be unfair to the book (as I really don't care about the level of detail in a love scene, as long as it doesn't vere into the unintentionally funny) but the mindset of announcing "clean" causes a contrarian knee-jerk reaction in me.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I haven't run into the "clean romance" comments..as of yet. But I did read one that blasted "Wicked Intentions" - then I did a book comparison, and realized we didn't share the same taste at all. That reader loved the asshat domineering control freak and the kittenish heroine. (a la Whitney, My Love and most of the New Adult). There's a huge group of Good Reads readers who adore that trope, apparently.

A good bet with reviews is to determine if the reviewer shares your tastes, and if they don't - you might read a book or see a movie they hate. (Actually I used to do that with a lot of movies and tv shows.) Of course if the reviewer is someone like myself who is weirdly moody and whose tastes can change on a whim...this isn't really all that easy.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I don't think the 'kitten' heroine is a new thing though. (I remember LOATHING the female narrator of Daphne Du Maurier's "Rebecca" who spends an inordinate amount of time whining about how damn dowdy she is. All I could think was "You don't HAVE to be dowdy. You married an aristocrat. Go to the damn store and BUY LESS DOWDY STUFF!!)

But, yeah, there is a weird thing going on sometimes with Good Reads reviews. There were several reviews of Hoyt's "The Leopard Prince" bitching about the heroine's decision near the end to consider marrying someone other than the (servant) hero that she loves. I haven't read the book yet but have bought it and have skipped to the end to understand that bit of it and... I can't help thinking that some people just don't get things. There's a point in why things happen that way. The attached fairy tale relating to the title 'The Leopard Prince' refers to an enslaved genie which makes the point perfectly clear (to me), especially in light of the hero's thoughts when he finds out that she's pregnant and that this means that he doesn't get to make a choice re: his future. Circumstances have made the choice for him. (Crux of the problem being that he's a commoner and her servant. If he marries her and lives with her, everyone will always believe that he's her bought lackey and always believe him to be a fortune hunter. Can he live a lifetime of being thought of in this way? Even if both he and she know that that's not the case?) She decides 'to free the Leopard Prince' rather than keeping him 'enslaved' by circumstances by finding a (gay) friend who is willing to marry her and accept the baby as his own thus, storywise, freeing the hero to actually have an opportunity to MAKE a choice. He's no longer optionless due to circumstances. Once the obligation is lifted the hero can make a choice of his own free will to live with people's assumptions about him so as to have the life and family that he could have with her.

It's like this 'point' is being missed by a LOT of reviewers of this book. Some people are just... not particularly insightful.

I also think there's a certain appeal for some that's akin to emo teens (read an emo teen's fanfic and sometimes the persecution complex oozes from the page). Some people LIKE the endlessly saintly martyred heroine, it scratches an emotional itch (and some dislike ones that act...well... a lot like the heroes. And, yeah, I think there's sexism in heroines being cut less slack than heroes)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It's like this 'point' is being missed by a LOT of reviewers of this book. Some people are just... not particularly insightful.

Even when you underline the point to them, put it in Capital letters, and scream it. (I've had a frustrating couple of weeks at work. I'm starting to wonder about people's reading comprehension skills.)

Anyhow..no, after years on the internet, I've discovered there are quite a few people who are metaphor blind. They really wouldn't recognize a metaphor if it came up and bit them. You have to spell it out for them, and even then...Also subtext? Completely lost on them. Discovered that with Buffy viewers and ahem, some television critics.

One of the Good Reads reviewers blew my mind when she complained about the fairy tales that Hoyt puts in front of each chapter - stating: "why are they there? Does anyone even read them?" [Ah, yes, metaphor.]

also think there's a certain appeal for some that's akin to emo teens (read an emo teen's fanfic and sometimes the persecution complex oozes from the page). Some people LIKE the endlessly saintly martyred heroine, it scratches an emotional itch (and some dislike ones that act...well... a lot like the heroes. And, yeah, I think there's sexism in heroines being cut less slack than heroes)

Hee, Hoyt appears to be trying to deconstruct the saintly martyr trope in the first three books of her Maiden Lane series. Have mixed feelings about it so far.

Anyhow..I agree.

They do like the EMO teens - which is rather popular in the New Adult/YA Romance genre (not the paranormal one) - go read the reviews to Jamie Acquirre's Beautiful Disaster (don't read the book - it's ghastly, I did, and hated it). But it's a perfect example of "emo" teen romance. They are extremely popular on Good Reads for some reason.

It's not my trope. So probably shouldn't critiqued the books as negatively as I have - because hello, it's just not my trope. I'm not a fan of the persecuted heroine.

[Confession? I never made it through Dauphne Du Maurier's Rebecca - I could not stand either character. Both drove me bonkers. Oddly, the Hitchcock movie didn't bug me as much...not sure why. Maybe because Hitchcock toned some of that down? Had similar issues with Gone with the Wind - I could not stand Scarlett O'Hara - which may explain my dislike of Lady Mary in Dowton Abbey - they are in some respects similar characters.]

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The only thing good about Du Maurier's "Rebecca" was that the husband really was a murderer (That got totally excused because 'dead wife was evil' *spit*). Other than that, it was a complete waste of time.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Yeah, as I looked to see what the explanation was I couldn't help but think that the only way she could have been any more clear about it was to have a character directly state 'you are doing this because...' Because short of that I couldn't see how she could have made it any more obvious.

And I didn't read the early Maiden Lane stuff. Tell me if they're worth reading. I think I may have skipped them because nothing in the bluebell fell into my story kinks. Our favorite tropes tend to be our go-to tropes. Even if we may like an author they still may not have a novel that falls into our story kinks.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I wonder if its because there's so much content out there? So many books?
The internet has really multiplied the amount of stories, books, tv shows, music and movies that we can access. So as a result - people are pickier?

[silverusagi]

*waits for the domineering asshole post*

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I may yet. Several days removed from the aggravating hero of that book, it doesn't seem as urgent. But it's a pretty universal reaction I have to domineering asshole archetype. (WHY must it be so prevalent?)

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

OMG, that last one. I read so many stories where I'm saying to the heroine “why are you with HIM? Why do you WANT to be with HIM?” And then she ends with HIM and I'm disgusted.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I keep waiting for the writer to justify it or make it work - and they don't.
And I think...okay, writer, you do realize that this doesn't work, right?
Right?

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

This is the weird part for me with Hoyt in that the Batman book had deviations from her other novels.

Not only are her other heroes not usually such domineering douchenozzles(caveat: in the ones that I've read. Given reviews, I suspect the last of the Four Soldiers may be the exact same sort of asshat. It's what keeps me from reading that one despite wanting to know the identity of the traitor.), but stopping to think about it, this is the only one of her books that I've read where the heroine is a inexperienced virgin with very few options open to her due to her situation. Given all the talk about how 'strong' the heroine is and what a 'huntress' the heroine is, maybe she was trying to deconstruct this trope or 'fix' it, but if so, I do not think it worked.

But, the thing is, I think that Hoyt knows better. In another novel she has the "Beast"'s heroine and Lady Vale discussing relationships where they flat out state that for a relationship to work, for there to be genuine love, there has to be equality of power in the relationship. But, that wasn't what was present in the Batman book. She may have wanted to re-work the trope, but I do not think she successfully did so.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

This is the book that shadowkat and I have been speaking of the last several days. I liked the book overall for other reasons. It was interesting as part of the series, but OMG the guy was such an ASSHOLE!

And honestly, he had some disturbing tendencies in his relationship that held the potential for future emotional abuse, and it's all so frustrating because the series as a whole is interesting and because this particular author is more than capable of writing different heroes (the one in the book of hers that I'm reading now is wonderful.) In fact most of her heroes ARE different heroes. And, given the conversation between two heroines in a different one of her novels about for there to be a successful relationship and love there needs to be equality of power in a relationship, the author clearly knows better herself. So why on earth is it the unredeemed ASSHAT not-so-hero voted most popular on her website? He's a jerk! I would've been fine with his love interest, his love interest's brother, his younger sister (given what shadowkat says what takes place in another novel in the series, his older sister too), his aunt, and his valet all kicking his ass... and yet for all that they're allowed to gripe at him, not one of them gets to rip him the new asshole that he deserves.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I probably have a long musing post one day on the Uberwealthy Domineering Asshole archetype that seems so popular.

I think I know why. Although it's hard to put in words. I think it's pure fantasy.

There was this interview with EL James who wrote the 50 Shades books, and she was sort of asked that question. What she said is there's this fantasy of just having everything taken care of, all decisions, etc. But in reality - you do want someone to help you wash the dishes.

So..a lot of people seek out in romance novels the exact opposite of what they'd want in reality. I know my mother did - she adored the boddice rippers. And the edgy heroes - although with the caveat that the woman was just as tough and could rip him a new one.

The problem I have with a lot of the new romance novels is the heroine isn't very strong, the hero is a domineering asshole who is uberwealthy, and she's weak and kittenish. Give me a break. ewww. For it to work for me - they sort of have to be on equal footing. (ie. Spuffy)

But, I've discovered a lot of female readers identify with the kittenish heroine (Bella from Twilight until she becomes a vampire, I'm guessing) and don't like the strong one (who they consider shrewish - which is odd). They are oddly more forgiving of an asshat hero than an asshat heroine. (internalized sexism?)

For myself? I'm intrigued by impossible relationships. It's what I liked about Spuffy, actually, it was impossible. Nasty guys are often more interesting to read about as heroes in a romance novel, less predictable, ...but keep in mind, I'm not necessarily reading it for the "romance" - so much as for the conflict resolution and to see how they overcome their issues. I'm not fantasizing about dating the guy myself or that relationship. So I'm not reading the novel for the same reasons a lot of people are. I trying to figure out something else - something else is pulling me in. Of course if the guy doesn't change and remains an uberwealthy asshat throughout or the forgiveness isn't earned or doesn't come across as believable...and the heroine stays with him...I get annoyed.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

"I don't like it when the hero has been in love before..."

I'd have to think that derives from the One True Love dreck.

Love to hear your thoughts on the last one because it's something I don't quite get either.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Love to hear your thoughts on the last one because it's something I don't quite get either.

The reason I hesitate is the high liklihood of my going very pop psyche, because the uberwealthy domineering asshole archetype ALSO almost universally coincides with older man/younger inexperienced woman plot. You rarely see domineering asshole of equal or lesser age to heroine cast as the love interest (if equal or younger heroes are the love interest they tend to be more the friend/rival archetype or a beta hero type.) If an equal age or younger male is written as wealthy domineering asshole they're usually portrayed as a bad person/bad boyfriend. But if it's an OLDER successful domineering authortarian figure (which is the usual trope)... I just can't help thinking the elusive to near unatainable affection from older male authortarian figure smacks of potential daddy issues, which gets to be a very tetchy subject.