?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Boy Fiction?

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.

Comments

( 379 comments )
Page 15 of 23
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] >>
pandarus
Apr. 17th, 2011 03:11 am (UTC)
Oh, lord, HOW boggled and furious was I? And all the more so by the fact that although it looks like the article is set up to accept comments, I've found it impossible to get the site to accept any of mine. (Or indeed to let me rate the review, although happily other people have managed to give it a pretty tellingly low rating.)

I'm sure I won't be the only person in your comments linking to my own blog post on the matter - and, yes, had it been a matter of the reviewer saying that fantasy wasn't her cup of tea, or indeed coming up with something that sounded like a cogent critique, I'd simply have shrugged.

But positing that real women prefer 'Sex And The City' to a complex narrative with multiple plot threads dealing with power and politics and relationships, and because we're too squeamish to enjoy action or violence...

DO. NOT. WANT.

On a much cheerier note - my God, I am SO excited about the TV show! It looks like a wonderful adaptation, and I've been getting increasingly psyched watching the teasers on YouTube.
writer_jena
Apr. 17th, 2011 03:39 am (UTC)
Absolutely disgusting
My name is Jennifer. I am a young writer in both prose and screenplays. I first read martin's novel series when I was 13. I mean that. Ethics aside, these novels taught me almost everything I know today about writing. From complex character development, to spoon feeding exposition to the audience, to even little rules, like how to never have your characters answer a direct question without dire need, else dialogue gets boring.

One thing I did not read it for was for the sex. In fact, I found that sex had it's own set of themes in the novel, and that it showed character development, only in a more honest, brutal way. When Dany was first taken by Drogo, we saw her character change. When we saw how Tyrion interacted with Shae, we saw his character come through in ways that we wouldn't have seen in less intimate scenes. We even saw characteristics of Ned and Catelyn that we wouldn't have otherwise seen.

This bigoted chauvinistic reporter CLEARLY has no idea what women read fantasy for, and I'm sick of it. I've heard this for years, and I'm only seventeen. I simply don't understand it. Sigmund Freud's theory that women have "penis-envy", when brought up, is almost always considered a load of crap by the general public nowadays. Yet, this reviewer seems to think that the only reason women are into fantasy series is for the sexual endeavors.

Not only that though, I've heard this from people the other way around - that women get turned off by the book because it's so sexual. And I just...I don't get that either. Martin has a very good, level comprehension of the female psyche. Not all of his females are strong go-getters. Just ask Sansa. Or Margaery. And even the ones that are exhibit their femininity often and well. This book isn't misogynistic, or clearly "boy fiction". I've READ "boy fiction", and wrinkled my nose at it. The women are always beautiful, always fall to men's desires in the end, or they make a man succumb to them. Either way, it's flawed, flat, and glorified porn.

Not every character in Martin's novels is pretty. Ask Brienne the Beauty. Ask Asha. or Shagga. Not all of them want to be women roles. Not all of them want sexual relations, and NONE are flat in character - even when they are flat in chest. That's the draw of his novels, as a woman. He's not afraid to make his world more realistic for the sake of story.

I am a woman. I am a nerd. I have read fantasy all my life. And I firmly say to whatever narrow-minded pig, male OR female, that wants to stereotype me or any other female fantasy nerd as some sexually deprived, ill-informed airhead: Try me. I will GLADLY prove you, and the rest of your kind, wrong.

...I will now dismount from my soapbox. Thanks. I had to vent about this one!
metalprophet
Apr. 17th, 2011 03:41 am (UTC)
It's one thing to write a negative review of something. I'd have been perfectly willing to accept a negative review of GoT, as much as I love the series, as long as it was well-written and made fair points. But this review is full of a bunch trite stereotypes of fantasy fans that hasn't even been accurate for 30 years now. It's true that fantasy used to be very male oriented and had a lot of works written by hacks. And even Tolkien, as great of an author as he was, barely made any mention of women at all. But, in the past 30 years or so, both male and female fantasy authors have made interesting, three dimensional female characters, in addition to telling stories that are far from lame sword and sorcery cliches that made literary types hate fantasy novels. And not to be a shameless sycophant or anything, but ASOIF is about as far from all those old fantasy cliches as it gets. So, basically, this reviewer wasn't even focusing on the merits (or lack thereof) of the plot, the acting, and the source material. It's a very weak review when a reviewer tries to show you how clever they are and not comment on most of the elements of something. I got nothing out of the review about any of the actors' performances, the reviewer's take on the plot, or anything useful, for that matter. Just a bunch of lame stereotypes about fantasy fans. I mean, seriously, maybe in 1980 she might've had a point. But this? This doesn't make any sense.
megmca
Apr. 17th, 2011 03:49 am (UTC)
We love you too!

This woman has no idea what she is talking about. This review sounds like she was reading a book or something while she was watching. A bad book. Like Twilight.
daystarclarion
Apr. 17th, 2011 03:54 am (UTC)
we love you too, sir! don't listen to those morons.
lunylucy
Apr. 17th, 2011 04:25 am (UTC)
Compelled to comment as a "boy with breasts" myself :D I've read a lot of the rebuttals and they have been great. I think some geek girls might even start reading the books now just because that review angered them so much.

Also it was great meeting you at the food truck last week!
Bess Cozby
Apr. 17th, 2011 04:26 am (UTC)
George, oh dearest, genius George, reading this forced me to get angry on my blog. It's the first (and hopefully the last) time, but I'm glad to do it on your behalf.

Keep swinging. They're small fish compared to you.

http://www.bessweatherby.com/2011/04/n-is-for-new-york-times.html
lugajetboygirl
Apr. 17th, 2011 04:35 am (UTC)
<----geek girl and scifi chick who likes your books

Just wanted to add my support to the deluge of comments :)
kendric
Apr. 17th, 2011 04:50 am (UTC)
Geek boy married to a geek girl here. That review was painful and frustrating. It's a reminder that no matter how much books like yours and other mainstream SF and Fantasy series have helped make the genre more openly acceptable, there's still a long way to go.

I read the review and hated it. I'm glad you responded. Your response and all these comments have made my day.
nycfalcon
Apr. 17th, 2011 05:00 am (UTC)
What is the point of the review?
I'm confused by that review. It seems to me to be mere ramblings. Once I read "...HBO’s forgettable “Rome” (predictable betrayals spiced up with toga parties)...", how could I take anything else she wrote seriously? I wonder what she thought of I Claudius? No doubt because it was a BBC production and shown on PBS she absolutely loved it.

In one of my favorite movies (didn't see the play) Biloxi Blues there's a scene wherein Eugene has his journal read aloud and at that point he realizes that people will believe whatever is written. That was one of those milestone moments in my life. A candle in my consciousness which continues to shine to this day. What she wrote was bunk. No need for it to upset anyone. Although, the fact that she wrote if for a prestigious publication is, upsetting.

vita_ganieda
Apr. 17th, 2011 05:05 am (UTC)
Not commenting on reviews is good policy, but that thing wasn't a review, it was a few hundred words of unfiltered brain-to-page nonsense published under a reputable banner. A "review" would require engaging with the weaknesses of the show, rather than the critic's dislike of an entire genre.

But I'm willing to let the "Fantasy? Quality? Surely not!" attitude pass with an eye roll because it's boorish, but kind of expected. I am PISSED OFF about the gendering of an entire sub-genre because you'd think an NYT critic would know better, and because darnit, I have had this argument one too many times this week, and my thesis remains the same: this kind of brainless stereotyping screws over everyone.

I also can't help but wonder what the review would be like were the books written by a woman. Same plot, /maybe/ a slightly different tone, maybe not. Would the emphasis on families and relationships, the amount of talking that goes on, and the prevalence of women in positions of power have then made it a show "for girls" with some nudity thrown in to avoid scaring off the straight guys? There are a lot of things that need to be said about gender and speculative fiction. This? Not helping the conversation.

Okay, enough ranting from me. I need to go flip through some books looking for sexytimes, since my ladybrain just can't seem to handle plot.
koft2009
Apr. 17th, 2011 05:13 am (UTC)
NYT Review
I had written in another LJ my thoughts on this article, but it was the most ridiculous, narrow minded review ever. First, it insults my intelligence and all the other fab geek chics, and women out there who love fantasy. Hey, if I wanted to read about sex and romance,I'd go to the romance novel isle.

Personally, these books, to me, are for those who enjoy complex writing. What do I mean? I mean that they have a lot of characters, places, grudges, etc..to remember, and you need to be smart and want to engage in that type of reading. Most people are not able to follow, nor do they want to. I do not like simplicity in my TV or my reading, so I am a huge scifi geek. No shame here people! I am even going to an event to celebrate Judgement Day! And I am a sorority girl, former ad girl, and now teacher; believe me, I am the most unlikely scifi/fantasy geek, and I have always taken pride in it.

So that's it for here, I shall write in my blog as well, aggh!
But tomorrow night is the big night!! I have to go finish my reread now
K
frontdoorangel
Apr. 17th, 2011 05:35 am (UTC)
I just read the review and I guess I'm not a real woman since I don't know who Lorrie Moore is...
dedalus681
Apr. 17th, 2011 05:47 am (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Ginia Bellafante only considers herself and her circle of friends to be real women. What a strange world that would be to live in.
(no subject) - pandarus - Apr. 17th, 2011 10:52 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - frontdoorangel - Apr. 18th, 2011 02:57 am (UTC) - Expand
dodger_winslow
Apr. 17th, 2011 05:52 am (UTC)
Amen.
akirakitano
Apr. 17th, 2011 05:53 am (UTC)
I will not express how insulted I am at the review posted by the New York Times here, but I wanted to say that yes, I am a Geek Girl, yes, I read Game of Thrones, and as a Geek Girl, I love you too <3
Page 15 of 23
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] >>
( 379 comments )

Profile

Spain
grrm
George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

April 2018
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner