I usually make it a policy not to comment on reviews, especially negative reviewers. When you put your art out there in the marketplace on public view, some are going to like and some are going to hate it. Comes with the territory. And like Superchicken always said, I knew the job was dangerous when I took it.
Normally, I would not even comment on something as spectacularly wrong-headed and condescending as the review of the HBO series GAME OF THRONES recenltly published in the NEW YORK TIMES. There have been dozens and dozens of reviews of the show coming out all over the place, in newspaper and magazines, on television and radio, and of course on the web. Most, I am pleased to say, have been very good, but of course there are some bad ones as well. C'est la vie.
((Okay, I will confess, it does cheese me when I come across a reviewer who simply hates all fantasy. I had hoped that kind of literary snobbism was extinct, or nearly so. Maybe not.))
But the startling assertion in the TIMES review that women could not possibly like fantasy unless a lot of graphic sex was added to it (??) has prompted me to break my "no comment" rule. At least to extent of this post.
I see this morning that legions of female fantasy readers and self-proclaimed "geek girls" and "scifi chicks" have risen up all over the internet to say all the things that I'm too polite and too busy to say. And a lot more besides. I'd link to their blogs and posts here, but it would take hours. Google will lead you to them, if you're interested. It would seem that so many outraged emails and posts poured into the TIMES that they had to shut down the comments section for the review.
I am not going to get into it myself, except to say
(1) if I am writing "boy fiction," who are all those boys with breasts who keep turning up by the hundreds at my signings and readings?
and
(2) thank you, geek girls! I love you all.
Normally, I would not even comment on something as spectacularly wrong-headed and condescending as the review of the HBO series GAME OF THRONES recenltly published in the NEW YORK TIMES. There have been dozens and dozens of reviews of the show coming out all over the place, in newspaper and magazines, on television and radio, and of course on the web. Most, I am pleased to say, have been very good, but of course there are some bad ones as well. C'est la vie.
((Okay, I will confess, it does cheese me when I come across a reviewer who simply hates all fantasy. I had hoped that kind of literary snobbism was extinct, or nearly so. Maybe not.))
But the startling assertion in the TIMES review that women could not possibly like fantasy unless a lot of graphic sex was added to it (??) has prompted me to break my "no comment" rule. At least to extent of this post.
I see this morning that legions of female fantasy readers and self-proclaimed "geek girls" and "scifi chicks" have risen up all over the internet to say all the things that I'm too polite and too busy to say. And a lot more besides. I'd link to their blogs and posts here, but it would take hours. Google will lead you to them, if you're interested. It would seem that so many outraged emails and posts poured into the TIMES that they had to shut down the comments section for the review.
I am not going to get into it myself, except to say
(1) if I am writing "boy fiction," who are all those boys with breasts who keep turning up by the hundreds at my signings and readings?
and
(2) thank you, geek girls! I love you all.
- Current Location:home
- Current Mood:
annoyed

Comments
I've been a Sci-Fi/Fantasy geek-tress since I was a child! "The Outer Limits", "The Twilight Zone", all the B&W monster/horror movies from the 30's on up. I wear my geekness as a badge, proud of it 100%. Just because some people don't have an "imagination" and can't see things from others points of view doesn't make them right.
Don't let what that "bimbo" wrote bother ya none, George. She's trying to hide behind "feminism" when actually she just has a beef with Sci-Fi/Fantasy and no imagination what-so-ever. It probably wouldn't hurt if she got laid from time to time. She sounds very uptight and frigid, to me! :D~
I am one of those geek girls who voiced my opinion here: http://princessandwarlock.blogspot.c
And sent a message to said NY Times writer.
That article was so offensive and had zero journalistic merit.
I have no idea how that "writer" managed to get paid to work.
She done woke the dragon! :D
Can't wait for tomorrow night, love your work! :-D
But I've found this to be a problem with NYT reviewers of all things -- they think themselves so experienced, broad-minded, cosmopolitan... and don't realize that they've got a very restrictive social experience and have no clue what large numbers of people think.
It's fine if they had a bit of humility about how their own thoughts can generalize. I have no problem if they left it at: "Well, this is my opinion, and this is why" rather than trying to rope in countless others.
And then, not everything needs to be about grand themes. Excellent characters and a thrilling story are enough, and I wish more people would recognize that television (or literature, or other media) doesn't need to speak to some lofty subject matter to be worth watching. If it brings you joy and speaks to you, it's worth watching.
I think the offensive icing on the offensive cake is that it wasn't even 'male fiction' but 'boy fiction'. So not only do you have to be male to enjoy GoT, but immature as well.
Thank you for being a great author, from yet another 'boy with boobs.'
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/g
Also, that review is silly. I might say something is "boy fiction" if all the women are weak and purposeless, existing only to be rescued or lamented over by men, but that's not the case in ASOIAF!
Not only are there strong women, but there are also GOOD women who are not so sexy (Brienne, my favorite!!) and sexy women who are not so good (Cersei) .. and everything in between!
Love you too, GRRM! We bought a new flat-panel TV and I sold my soul to the cable company to get HBO, but I know it will be worth it.
To me, what matters is the storyline and if the characters are believable and ones I can relate to.
1)There are many characters.
2)Seasons are long.
3)There's sex in it.
She has a problem with all these things without really establishing why. The author seems to forget that Rome and the Sopranos both had pretty graphic sex scenes themselves and a pretty large cast of characters (not as large as GoT, but you see my point). The review is poorly written, don't take it personally.
The author is simply condescending, which is the greatest mistake a writer of this type can make. She is clearly writing an article she has no interest in. Don't worry, the article's 1.5 star rating from paying subscribers will earn her an angry word or two from her editor.
As for her daft assertion that this type of fantasy is only aimed at boys that like D&D, I'll buy a hat and eat it if we don't get a massive turnout for your talks at Olympus 2012 from both men and women from all walks of life :)