I was sent the article because Marlene was curious as to whether I saw myself as being even remotely a historical writer. By those definitions, no: while my stuff is permeated with history, very little of it actually has a historical setting. Even in the new series, where the historical events that led to the songs and hauntings is vital, the only actual historically set bits are the epilogues, at the end of each book.

Eyes in the Fire jumped back and forth between two eras, modern and pre-Roman occupation of Southwestern England. I researched trhe history, but the book is not a love story, has no romantic angle at all, and very definitely does not have a happy ending.

So she was curious as to where I thought my own stuff fits into the definitions posited in the article. And I'm thinking, no, by those definitions I write neither historicals nor romances.

Magic realism. That's the ticket. Ghosts and Magritte. Or something.

Well, I still think they're more than implying that all romances are crap, and possibly that any novel that follows a formula is crap. And even though I know I can do nothing about that particular brand of snobbery, it still pisses me off. I mean, who the hell gets to dictate you can't have excellent, intelligent storytelling within the bounds of a genre?

who the hell gets to dictate you can't have excellent, intelligent storytelling within the bounds of a genre?

The poopyheads, obviously.

The poopyheads, obviously.

t grins

Well, I still think they're more than implying that all romances are crap, and possibly that any novel that follows a formula is crap.

They are. We are in general agreement that the tone of article is, er, patronising, to say the least.

This may or may not sound odd, but I was unaware that the prime audience for historical novels was male.

As a reader, I get furious when it is assumed by editors, reviewers, etc that I read romance because I don't have a brain in my head and can't handle anything thicker than a Harlequin novel and no words over 4 syllables. No, I read what intrigues and what I care about. I *could* read Tolkein, if I wanted. I can understand it and comprehend it and *get* it, I just choose not to. Tolkein did not write in a way that appeals to me. I would never say he is a shit writer or a hack or a no talent shite, he just has a style of writing that doesn't appeal to me. And he's not the only author I don't care for. There are plenty, and a lot of them are the "GOOD" authors.

Tolkein did not write in a way that appeals to me. I would never say he is a shit writer or a hack or a no talent shite, he just has a style of writing that doesn't appeal to me.

Nodding madly, over here. I also don't care for how he handled his subject matter, but again, that's not a crack about talent or formula; it's just personal taste. I think he's a bore.

Of course, I also think Heinlein is a bore, Ayn Rand is a bore, and Anne Rice is a bore. And F. Scott Fitzgerald - who I do not find a bore - fits the "formula" qualification pretty damned well.

So, I like some formula writers, and don't like some of the greats. Anyone wants to shake their head over that? They can bite me.

This may or may not sound odd, but I was unaware that the prime audience for historical novels was male.

Same here. If anything, I'd have guessed the opposite, as a general trend. But with any category as broad as historical, it's going to depend on the book/author.

As a reader, I get furious when it is assumed by editors, reviewers, etc that I read romance because I don't have a brain in my head and can't handle anything thicker than a Harlequin novel and no words over 4 syllables. No, I read what intrigues and what I care about.

t nods I could be wrong, but I get the impression that many reviewers, critics, etc. think that reading for pleasure and relaxation is somehow inferior. In my own way I'm a picky, snooty, God-is-in-the-details sort of reader--for example, I recently chucked a book by an insanely popular romance writer aside after one chapter for inserting what were to me obvious and intrusive Americanisms in an Irish character's dialogue, because things like that knock my suspension of disbelief right offline. But good writing is good writing, no matter the genre.

t nodding madly at Deb.

MM and I had a discussion about reading a couple of weekends ago when I admitted that I didn't care for the film "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead" because I don't care for Shakespere. After he put his eyes back in his head and closed his gaping mouth (for which I cannot blame him - an English Lit major that doesn't like Shakespere? Does not compute.) I told him it was style. I also reminded him that I don't like poetry and then it made sense.

I get the impression that many reviewers, critics, etc. think that reading for pleasure and relaxation is somehow inferior.

Totally. And I don't get it. And also? I have learned PLENTY from romance novels. So there.

I am a forgiving reader. I don't mind so much if things are wrong or don't fit if the story is tight and I like the characters. If neithe of those things are going on, I'll chuck the book cause I didn't like what colors the heroine was wearing.

And my real pet peeve is how when an author manages to write a romance or mystery or historical sea adventure story that's so good that even the crustiest critic or reviewer has to acknowledge its merit, 99% of the time the critic then engages in all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove that the book in question isn't really part of its genre.

(Yes, I know this is Susan's Irresistible Debating Topic #17.)