Dammit.

Jane, I’m playing next time, erm, actually, the time after next would suit me better.

“the text of some comments are no longer there even though the responses are.”

Ah. I’d not noticed that. Thanks for putting me right, Growly and Jia. I think I probably saw the now-vanished comments before they vanished, but I can’t exactly remember what their contents were.

the comments to which I was reacting so negatively by an author who commented on Jules’ blog post are now gone.

I never had an issue with Jules’ post, just the reaction by that one person which was the tired old ‘reviewers are all mean and especially DA, who are only interested in making fun of people’s hard work’ (paraphrased).

Since I consider DA one of the few places with very analytical reviews, that are well thought out even, or especially, when they are critical, I got rubbed really the wrong way and that’s why I brought my frustration here.

There was another conversation going on at Jules Jones’s blog, which I think prompted Jane’s comment on DA. Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely), some of the most provoking comments over there have disappeared, though.

Has someone edited the comments? There still seem to be the same number of comments on the thread. I don’t think Jules Jones’s second post on the topic ever had more than three comments attached to it, and they’re still there.

If you read a book a month, or less, tropes don’t really seem like tropes. They may even be exactly what you have a yen for.

That’s very true, and it certainly reflects my own experience when I started reading genre Romance. I would pick up books that I thought were unusual only to have my long-time Romance reading friend inform me that they made use of tired tropes in an entirely tired way. But to me, of course, they were new. And depending on how one goes about learning genre, they might be introduced to tropes in different books, thus one of the sources of disagreement about whether a book is doing anything new.

I don’t know how publishers appeal to readers, as I doubt I will live long enough to understand publishing at all, either the business model or the overarching artistic philosophy (yeah, I’m assuming there is one).

Regarding Jane’s comment at the top–as I said, it went up before anyone posted saying they hadn’t read the transcript. I’m not really sure how anyone could seriously post w/o reading the transcript–what would you comment on?

There was another conversation going on at Jules Jones’s blog, which I think prompted Jane’s comment on DA. Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely), some of the most provoking comments over there have disappeared, though.

Your comments on Claiming the Courtesan are comparable. To me, the Duchess was pretty clear on consent issues. It wasn’t explicitly adressed (for which I thank the gods–I hate kink where people go through the whole Safe, Sane and Consensual recital–I want fantasy, not reality, people. The joy of kinky fantasy is that you can have non-con AND have it be erotic and satisfying for both parties (I am not into realisticly portrayed rape in stories). I get that it only works if that is your kink, if it’s not, it will probably be creepy or bizarre. But I digress. In any case, I thought it was made pretty clear that that everyone who served her adored her and/or wanted her and they didn’t view the opportunity to please her as a bad thing. Whether or not she deserved this adoration…

I actually thought that her maid was a bit cynical about the whole thing, but in any case, IMO when you have characters falling all over themselves to sexually serve their mistress, that’s it’s own kind of fantasy, open to all sorts of critical interpretations.

To your general point about consent, though, I have learned the hard way that what looks like clear consent to me is not always to other readers (and vice versa). I believe that there is a continuum on which consent moves from an unequivocal statement on the part of the involved characters to consent given only by the reader on behalf of the submissive character (and beyond that, no consent given by either). Where any scene falls on that scale (which will, of course, vary from reader to reader), will determine the character of the scene (total mutual consent to rape fantasy to outright rape) for the reader. And depending on how a reader tolerates the more hardcore end of that continuum will make a difference in how each reader accepts what’s going on.

If the reader is willing to consent on behalf of the heroine, she may not see what’s going on as rape at all, while another reader who refuses to grant consent might. Other readers might see it as rape fantasy, etc. And some readers might crave that rape fantasy scenario, to be empowered to consent where the heroine doesn’t, etc. IMO it’s an extremely complicated and very fascinating issue that goes waaayyyy beyond the traditional “stressed women want an excuse to give up control’ explanation.

I think that’s an important difference between snarking covers and books: with covers, because the entire object is present for both the snarker and the snark-reader to view, all parties start out able to judge the snark against the object. That’s not the case in snarking a book, and even less so when *no one*–including the snarkers–has read it.

It’s common for the review-reader to be unfamiliar with the book–that’s part of what reviews are for–but when the snarkERs are unfamiliar with the object they snark, of course there’s some outcry. Just as there are “Has he ever even READ a romance?” complaints about non-romance-readers who snark the genre.

In this case by starting the snark simultaneously with the reading, and doing that reading in what looked like a pretty distracting public setting, the snarkers open themselves up to the perception that they aren’t sincerely engaging the text. It’s one thing if the whole thing comes across as a riff on the object, but I read those opinions as seriously meant, despite the jocular tone. In other words, it came across as a very negative review, and one in which the reviewer didn’t set the stage with any preparatory remarks (that I remember), e.g. this is erotica, not romance; this is a fantasy historical period; etc.

The only thing this can tell us is an honest reader reaction to the book, uncensored, not prettied up, just out there and raw.

That’s precisely where I disagree. As I said above, I didn’t get the impression it was what you’re describing. The multitasking and commenting and “WTF”ing over details started immediately, which seemed like a signal that the readers’ focus wasn’t really on the book.

I have a tremendous respect for your patience, civility and fortitude from this thread. :-) Also was really fascinated by the allusions to Claiming the Courtesan and rape fantasy.

Just a few comments, that really aren’t meant to be divisive or argumentative, but this conversation has spawned a lot of interesting thoughts for me.

Well, I could argue that you’ve come to this discussion with some pretty disdainful perceptions about Romance readers vis a vis what they want out of a book. Your perception, my perception. Maybe we should just call this one a draw. ;)

Ironically, it’s more of a “draw” than you perhaps realized, as the “not believe…” line just popped out. It was my first gut reaction to the “we want different” line. So I guess I have to lend more credence to the assertions that the liveblog was the result of a lot of thoughtless remarks, since this was itself just an off the cuff remark about my perception of how mass media works.

There were two bases to that remark: 1) Personal experience reading reviews. I don’t have a catalog of all the movie, tv and book reviews I’ve read over the years (btw, that comment related to all media consumers/reviewers, not just Romance), but my basic impression is that I’ve read a lot more, “What were they thinking?” then I have praises for going out on a limb. It seems when someone does something risky, unless it’s executed near perfectly, they are in trouble with most consumers, even if they are “critically praised.” There is a reason “Critical hit” is code for “flop;” often it’s code for “flop that only intellectual wannabes like.” For producers of media, the message is go perfect or go home. Needless to say we get a lot of medocrity as a result.

The second half of that equation comes from the ‘mass’ part of ‘mass media.’ Media producers are’t stupid, they aren’t banking on pleasing the top 10-15% of prolific readers, they’re banking on the majority who read less than 15 or 20 books a year (granted all numbers are tweakable, to wit: http://writtennerd.blogspot.com/2007/08/link-mad-response-american-reading.html). If you read a book a month, or less, tropes don’t really seem like tropes. They may even be exactly what you have a yen for.

Regarding Jane’s comment at the top–as I said, it went up before anyone posted saying they hadn’t read the transcript. I’m not really sure how anyone could seriously post w/o reading the transcript–what would you comment on?

As for your frustrations while reading, I’ve been there too, but the liveblog response seems a lot less reliable? (I think “reliable” is the right word), when the person is struggling with technology and trying to entertain a cadre of listeners. Yet, because of the reputations of the hosts, their statements are treated as highly reliable. As I’ve pointed out there were a couple of basic errors made by the interpreters, that have been cemented and repeated as the hard and fast truth by certain members of the group. The Maxime thing, also what GC said in this thread about the Duchess abusing her power over the eunuchs et al. That scene was one of the more unerotic for me (”clinical” is the term that comes to mind).

Your comments on Claiming the Courtesan are comparable. To me, the Duchess was pretty clear on consent issues. It wasn’t explicitly adressed (for which I thank the gods–I hate kink where people go through the whole Safe, Sane and Consensual recital–I want fantasy, not reality, people. The joy of kinky fantasy is that you can have non-con AND have it be erotic and satisfying for both parties (I am not into realisticly portrayed rape in stories). I get that it only works if that is your kink, if it’s not, it will probably be creepy or bizarre. But I digress. In any case, I thought it was made pretty clear that that everyone who served her adored her and/or wanted her and they didn’t view the opportunity to please her as a bad thing. Whether or not she deserved this adoration…

Well, I guess having a Duchess actually act like a superior instead of one of the people is one of those risky writing moves that are rarely well-received. There’s a reason nobly born hero/ines are usually out of character for their station and time–to make them likeable to the reader.

I wasn’t using the phrase as a rhetorical device. I do agree that it’s counterproductive to keep going at this. I think I have made my initial point about different genre definitions, and as I said last night, I don’t have much new to add to the conversation.

Regarding the question of whether hybridization is transformative or not, that is something that I judge on a book-by-book basis, and also, within a context of what else is being published at the time. It seems like something that could be an interesting topic for another day, but I’m talked out here.

Check your email; I responded to a couple of your points privately.

I also tend to see a comment of “that was my impression but I could be wrong” as a rhetorical device for “that’s what I think but I’m not going to press the issue.” That’s my interpretation, of course, but it’s honestly how I was reading that statement. And the reason I’ve been arguing with you is that I’ve not felt understood and not really understood where you were coming from and why, either (I’ve spent a lot of time puzzled over your comments, which I’m sure surprises you because you feel that you’ve been clear and don’t understand why you’ve been misunderstood, but that’s where I am). But I’m done now. I think we’re basically doing the same thing to each other, wondering why the other keeps on, and it’s clearly counterproductive at this point, since I now understand you’re not still asserting that initial impression, but merely trying to offer a different perspective on the book and on erotica in general.

On a slightly different note, I absolutely believe that Hart’s first novel is hybridized (as are, IMO, a lot of Holly’s erotica books, which I think is why she’s being marketed as ER, even if it’s not quite a true characterization of her work), and had I read it this year instead of whenever I did (two years ago, maybe?), I would have a different sense of that hybridity, because I’ve spent the last year or so reading more erotica (because of my interest in understanding the rape in Romance trope) and have been studying the captivity trope in genre Romance, which has changed my perspectives about the relationship between hybridity and genre transformation (in other words, I now think that there’s much more hybridity within genres than there is transformation, and that genre thrives on that hybridity). I’m not saying my views are correct, only that they are driving my interpretations, which are themselves changing somewhat as I study genre structures more.