**mutter**

[tinhuvielartanis]

At work, one of the ladies taking her break slid in the booth I commandeer every day beside me and piped up, cheerily saying, "Ooh, what good romance are you reading?" referring to the book in front of me.

"There's no romance in this book," I replied. "It's Hannibal."

I think she was fairly horrified. But so was I. Why is it that people assume a woman holding a book has to be reading a romance novel? I have to admit that I do find Hannibal to be kind of romantic. It's the closest thing to romance I can tolerate, I guess. That and Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. My concept of romance is a little different from the conventional understanding and it irks me when it's just a "given" that, since I'm female, I have to be reading some brainless, gooey romantic potboiler. Blagh. Not for me. NOT.FOR.ME.

What bothers me even more is that this misconception wouldn't be thrust upon me if so many women in our society encouraged such a stereotype by placing themselves firmly in that category. There's more to life than romance. There's horror and tragedy, and dreams of conquest, and vast theories that reach beyond the prisons of the average human mind. There are languages yet to be born and philosophies long buried, desperate to be resurrected and committed to paper. Women are more than capable of reading and/or writing any number of these, yet we're relegated to the realm of romance and we allow ourselves to be, brainless bubbleheads that we seemingly are.

Comments

[evansmj.livejournal.com]

I find it irritating enough to be interrupted while I am reading. I think it's fairly offensive that she just assumed the genre of book you were reading. Who does that?

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

Idiots aka people in general.

[rheyamorgaine.livejournal.com]

The funny thing is I only like two people who read romance novels. One is a gay man. The other is an older woman that I work with. The women around my age usually read suspense and mystery and crime novels.

I hate romance novels personally.

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

Good on you! Really, how many times can someone read or write "their love triumphed against all odds" ??

[miintikwa.livejournal.com]

While I will read the occasional romance, I would have been equally offended, and for much the same reason.

I am far more likely to be reading a book about writing, or a fantasy, or any number of other books ASIDE from romance. Who sticks women into categories like that? Or assumes all women who read, read romances? FIE!

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

FIE indeed!

[booraven22.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on considering "Hannibal" kind of a romance.
Romance to me is an element in a story. For the most part, the GENRE that romance has turned into is fairly sad. While there are some books that get mis-categorized and thus lost in the wash, most of the books there are just thinly veiled soft core porn. And not even GOOD soft core porn.
This is why I'm more likely to read vampire/werewolf/horror/urban fantasy to get what I consider my romance fix. Because to me, romance has to have some tragedy, blood and realistic sex in it.
That's why I write what I do.

Speaking of, I was forced at Muse-spearpoint (see icon)to write a non-related smut scene, about 1200 words. Already sent a copy to morriganwind. You wanna take a gander? It's really a rough draft and needs some work, but it'll give you a taste, if you'll excuse the expression, of the Jaden/Angelica scene I'm finishing up.
Let me know and I'll pop it off in an e-mail to you.

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

Really, do you think you even have to ask? Please!!

[booraven22.livejournal.com]

On it's way...:)

Remember-- ROUGH DRAFT!

[morriganwind.livejournal.com]

It's nummy and made me fan myself ;)

[booraven22.livejournal.com]

Hee. Just imagine once I get it fleshed out. If you'll pardon the phrase.

[morriganwind.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm I know...I am imagining it :D

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

WHOA. If it got any fleshier, I might have the bomb squad called on me for going BOOM.

[emerald-ibis.livejournal.com]

There's more to life than romance. There's horror and tragedy, and dreams of conquest, and vast theories that reach beyond the prisons of the average human mind. There are languages yet to be born and philosophies long buried, desperate to be resurrected and committed to paper. Women are more than capable of reading and/or writing any number of these, yet we're relegated to the realm of romance and we allow ourselves to be, brainless bubbleheads that we seemingly are.

Amen, amen, amen.

I love that you're "listening" to Katharine Hepburn's biography ;)

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

:)

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

Books within my line of sight:

Greening Your Office
Sentenced to Prism
Black Dogs: The House of Diamond
Dead Inside: The Roleplaying Game of Loss and Redemption
Introduction to Pagan Studies

Lisa Randall's Warped Passages is out on the coffee table.

Re: Thoughts

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

I'm coming to live with you.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

The last time we counted, there were about 10,000 books in our personal collection, not counting my parents' books upstairs. That was some years ago. Not counting the handful of F&SF books with romantic threads ... I think there are 3 or 4 commercial romance novels around here somewhere that I got for free and kept for Not Like This examples. If they haven't been used to shim a door or table or something like that.

[agirlnamedluna.livejournal.com]

It's so stereotypical, says more about her and her conceptions and the unfortunate state many women find themselves in, willingly even. Nothing wrong with romance but to just assume every book a woman reads is romance? That's downright stupid.

When I was 15 I got more or less kicked out of boarding school (encouraged not to enroll again) and one thing the head nun told my father was that I "read romance novels" as she had once seen a Harlequin novel in my (shared) room. First of all she snooped everywhere and second my friend and I only read those when there was really nothing else left, from a third friend who got them from her sister. But stupid immediately assumed it was all I read - nevermind she was catching up to me!

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

That's insane, the things some people assume about you. 90% of human problems come from what we assume about one another instead of just engaging in honest interaction.

[morriganwind.livejournal.com]

I don't like being interrupted when I have a rare moment to read.

People that worked at the library commiserated and so when we'd have lunch or our breaks, nobody interrupted.

Well, I had to a few times (since I was the practicum dummy) but I felt horrible for doing so...

Anyways. I know what you mean about romance. I like romance elements, but I have to be in a very odd mood to actually pick up an actual romance and read it. I have become better about dealing with romance readers, but it's just not my cup of tea. It also has to do with the fact that there were family members who did nothing more than read romances and watch their stories.

Part of it is I hate the always happy endings. ;) I want something that surprises me. Romances are all about formula.

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

We share a dislike for happy endings. I prefer realistic endings or open endings, as you well know.

[morriganwind.livejournal.com]

Yup...we both seem to write...open with a shred of hope endings ;)

[wikkidpixie.livejournal.com]

I can honestly say I've never read a romance novel. Thank gawd.

I can't imagine someone assuming I was reading one. How bizarre. Again, this is why most people need to be eliminated.

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

I tried to read one of Granny's Harlequin romances back in the early 80s, but I couldn't even make it past the tenth page, it was interminable.

[furnacechant.livejournal.com]

As bad or worse is the people who assume that if you are reading( even if obviously a mystery or fantasy novel), it must be for school( I regularly get mistaken for high-school or even junior high age) and go on to express surprise that you are doing so publicly. Or sympathy for how much "work" they are "making" you do. I even got the sympathy response from a *librarian* once, which in my view should have been grounds for immediate dismissal from her job. Such people get the frostiest killing glare I can manage along with a terse response to the effect that knowledge is and SHOULD be a pleasure.

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

I can't agree with you more.

[evcelt.livejournal.com]

monsteralice reads a fair number of romances. because she likes them. and she is nothing like bubbleheaded. she also reads horror, SF, and fantasy; as well as art and craft books, textile history, archaeology, etc. etc.

sorry that it bothers you that someone made that assumption about what you were reading. but don't assume that other people who like reading what you dislike are somehow letting you or their gender down.

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

You're right, I should have worded that more delicately to indicate those people who read nothing *but* romance novels and, trust me, they're in abundance in this area. If they aren't reading potboilers, they're reading the Bible, and they assume that you should be doing the same thing. Sorry ~ I didn't mean to offend anyone.

[falkenna.livejournal.com]

I wrote one and a half, and was starting to get good comments instead of form-letters from publishers -- when I moved over here and gave up. (They weren't the virginal ones though, but the sexy ones that were brand new in the 80s.)
And yet, I felt ashamed of reading quite a few "for research". I did enjoy some of them, not others, skimmed a lot (and I *never* skim), and hid them in cupboards. A few of them deserved better than to be a standing joke. And I do get fed up with the fact that romances are laughable because they're read by women, while equally vapid and poorly written (probably more so) men's adventure novels (eg the Guy Kingsaver the Human Crossbow series -- yes, it actually exists, or once did) are not ridiculed in anything like the same way.

But over here, it does seem like anybody who opens a book (many don't) is much more likely to be reading something other than complete rubbish -- and that there is no expectation of either sex to read rubbish. That's not just my friends, or even workmates, it's also people on buses and trains.

Does anyone who actually lives there have the impression that the status of women has actually considerably fallen in the States over the last 15 years or so? Perhaps we should take this up in my LJ.

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

It's the influence of the Dominionists in this area. Once they have enough power to turn this country into a theocracy, women will have no rights whatsoever.

[felisdemens.livejournal.com]

I am not sure how I would respond to such a weird remark.

[tinhuviel.livejournal.com]

I was blown away, so I decided to come home and rant here, like I do.

[philrancid.livejournal.com]

I need to get a copy again--it's rapidly becoming my News of the World (keep losing/needing new copies of that particular Queen album) for printed matter.

My take on this

[ms-mathematics.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to read romance novels recently because I was reading nothing but fantasy and I wanted some mindless summer reading. It's difficult, though, because all of the popular romance writers are terrible and the mediocre writers don't make their sex hot enough. If I paid seven dollars for the book, the characters need to have sex more than twice. And none of that "and then they came together . . ." copout, either. :-)