From Byronic to Sparkly

A few weeks ago, a post titled From Byronic to Moronic popped up on my radar because a few people thought I might be interested in it. The author, Christine Spines, draws a deep and meaningful connection between Stephenie Meyer and her production of Austenland. To wit: she thinks Twihards and Janeites are all crazy people.

The sanity of these two groups aside, several of Spines' statements in this article makes me think she has never actually read any of these books--most especially her conclusion that women find the characters she gives as examples (which are all over the map, by the way--from Mr. Darcy to Heathcliffe to Jay Gatsby; why not just say every male character evar?) is that they're... wait for it... bad boys!

Mmkay. Bad boys ARE quite appealing, I think we can all agree, but Mr. Darcy and the Sparklepire? I'm not seeing it. Even Spines argues against herself, saying,

Above all, what Darcy, Wentworth, Heathcliff, Rochester—and to some degree [sorry, I just have to intervene here--some degree? This describes Cullen more accurately than any of the other characters she lists here! And Heathcliffe and Rochester really shouldn't be grouped with any of these other guys, especially in this context. Okay, back to the quote], Edward Cullen—all share is a powerful strain of high-minded morality and a stubborn unwillingness to be conniving or mercenary enough to follow (or flout) the social codes of conduct necessary to unite them with the plucky heroine they so desire.

Wait, so bad boys have high-minded morality and are unwilling to break social codes of conduct now? I think you're searching for the Wickham and Willoughby characters in Austen's novels there, who are most definitely not the romantic leads. Has Spines even watched the movies, one wonders?

In any case, there's no need to scratch our heads over this anymore, as I have found the answer to Spines' question of why heroes like Edward Cullen and Darcy and all the rest have this "powerful strain of high-minded morality" and are "torment[ed] over their own imperfect nature." I discovered this long-searched for key through a pioneering research method I developed called LET ME GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU.

You see, the roots of romance novels can be found in chivalric romances such as Le Morte d'Arthur or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, wherein a knight errant goes on a quest to prove his worthiness, which may or may not include courtly love. These medieval romances were eventually reworked into several literary genres, including Gothic novels of the 18th century and "novels of education," which focus on the character development of the protagonists and were popular among romantic artists like Goethe. Both of these types of novels influenced Jane Austen and continue to hold strong sway over our definitions of literary romance.

In other words, the thing that Darcy, Cullenpire, and even Heathcliffe and Rochester all have in common is that they're knight errants, NOT that "They are the ne plus ultra female fantasy embodiment of bad boy and marriage material," whatever that's supposed to mean. Hence the morality, code of conduct, and concern over their imperfect nature.

Everyone's looking for a knight in shining armor, yo.

Read More

TSS: Genre Ruminations and NaNoWriMo

Two of the biggest events in book blogging are behind us, BBAW and Dewey's Readathon; and while I had fun participating in both, I couldn't help but notice that both had a noticeable lack of romance bloggers. Only two romance blogs were shortlisted for Best Romance Blog during BBAW; and of the 249 participants in the Readathon, less than a handful were dedicated romance blogs (that I recognized, anyway). In other reading events and memes, romances seem to be taking a back seat, as well--FridayReads, for example, doesn't have a single romance blogger on staff and the closest thing to a romance novel I've seen on the "Best Read" list is Jane Eyre.

All of this would make one think romance was a small portion of the publishing market and that romance readers and book bloggers were a minuscule and inactive part of the community, but I think even people who don't read romance know that isn't true. Two of the most successful book blogs out there, Smart Bitches Trashy Books and Dear Author, are dedicated romance blogs; and some of the most prolific, well-read, and smart writers I know are romance bloggers.

Are romance bloggers being marginalized in the community, or are they just doing their own thing? I don't know, although I think it's probably a combination of both. If the bloggers running these events specialize in literary fiction or young adult, naturally the prizes and marketing for the event are going to be more prolific within those genres. But the main reason I'm concerned is because, among the more ridiculous things I worry about (aside from what job I'll be qualified for in our dystopian future) is if romance as a genre is dying.

Have you been to a bookstore lately? I admit I haven't because I don't have the monies; but the last time I was in one, it seemed like the romance section was taking a serious hit in shelf space. Even what was there wasn't necessarily romance, but YA and UF. Where haz all the romance gone? Are the sales all digital nowadays? Are people even capable of believe in romance anymore? I'm not sure I want to live in a world where truly romantic novels have to struggle to be noticed even among their own genre.

ANYWAY. I'll be the first to admit that although I still self-identify as a romance reader, I haven't been reading a lot of romance lately. Of what I have read, only a few in the past year have been "really like" books for me. This might have something to do with blogging--other books seem much more shiny when the people you know are also excited about them--but I don't think so. In 2008, I took a bunch of new releases I was really excited about with me on vacation. They included the new Mercy Thompson book, a Christina Dodd novel, and several other romances. On that vacation, my grandfather died and we wound up attending his funeral instead of doing any vacation things. When I got home, I put all those new releases on the shelf and I never finished a single one. I picked a few up and tried to read them but wound up DNF'ing them, and others I just gave up on and donated to the library. I also haven't pre-ordered a single new release since then.

That was really the start of my extended break-up with romances. It's not that I don't like them anymore or aren't interested in them, because I still do want to read romantic stories; and when I do go to the bookstore I buy a lot of romance. But once I have them here, on the shelf, I can't force myself to actually read them.

But the recent lack of romance representation within book blogging in general has inspired me. In the near future, I plan to read a lot more romances and do a lot more features about them here on my blog. I have several ideas in the works, so stay tuned for announcements pertaining to that in the future.



In other news, I plan on participating in National Novel Writing Month this year for the first time. Since I don't currently have a full-time job and aren't in school, I thought this was the perfect time to try something different. What this means for you, my lovely blog readers, is that I probably won't be posting very much this month. I will try to have at least one post a week (even if it's just Schnauzer Saturdays), but I will be focusing mainly on getting my 1600 words a day (cough cough cough) in. Don't worry, though, I'll be back in December with a vengeance!

Are you participating in NaNoWriMo or any other special projects in November?

Read More

Early Gothic Showdown: THE CASTLE OF OTRANTO versus VATHEK

For the Classics Circuit: Gothic Lit Edition, I thought it would be fun to read two of the earliest examples of Gothic literature and compare them. I first heard about these crazy 18th-century kids when studying Gothic Revival architecture--Horace Walpole (right) built Strawberry Hill, arguably the first Gothic Revival house. The much more elegant William Beckford (left), built Fonthill Abbey and Lansdown Tower. Both were mad for collecting--Walpole, medieval art; Beckford, items from the Orient and Italian Quattrocento paintings (many of which you can now see at the National Gallery)--and were full of more than little hubris, which is reflected in their respective books.

All of this makes the novels sound hoity-toity, doesn't it? Let me assure you, they're not.

The Castle of Otranto by Walpole (1764)

It's difficult to summarize this book because it doesn't really seem to have a plot, but essentially it's purported to be a translation by Walpole of a 16th-century manuscript he found in Naples that recounts a story from the 12th century--or earlier!--about a prince named Manfred who was a total dick and eventually got hoisted in his own petard.

This is honestly one the most bizarre books I have ever read IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. If you want a story that'll give you the OMGWTFBBQ's, then you should definitely pick Otranto up, because it is alllll over that like sticky in honey peanut butter. It's like Walpole was sitting around writing and thinking, "Hey, you know what this story needs? A prophecy! A murder! A shrieking virgin! A lost son returned! A lost father returned! A secret passage! Knights! Saints! Clergy! A convent! Sword fights!" and on and on, every other paragraph. I've heard some people explain this by saying Walpole was writing a parody, but I really don't think so. This was apparently the first book of its kind, so what was he parodying? I think it just reads like a parody because it's utterly ridiculous.

Basically, the one redeeming factor of this book is that it's short and you can skim through it. The idea that Otranto sparked the creation of an entire genre of literature is MIND BOGGLING to me. Because I was thinking something like that would be, you know, good-ish. Is this what 18-century avant-garde writing looks like?

Vathek by Beckford (written in French, 1782; published in English, 1786)

Compared to Otranto, Vathek is pretty good (the key words in that sentence being "Compared to Otranto"). Written in a much different style but with a similar theme, Vathek tells the story of a caliph who's a sensualist and wants to know ALL THE THINGS. But the gods, they don't want the people to know ALL THE THINGS; that's the gods' job. Everything is going great until a few deities take notice and send a djinni to lure Vathek into a trap made mostly of his own ego. Ensue abuses of power, renouncing of Islam, foolish escapades, mass murder, etc., until Vathek eventually gets what's coming to him.

Vathek reads like a tale from the Arabian Nights (quite deliberately), and would actually be readable if one was able to root for Vathek at all. Instead, he's totally unlikable and TSTL to boot. It makes a lot more narrative sense than Otranto, but since I knew exactly where it was going and didn't care about the character enough to find out how it was going to get there, I got bored. I also don't know why this is considered a Gothic novel. I do have to say the ending where Vathek gets his just desserts was pretty satisfying, though.

Overall

Even though I wouldn't call it good, Vathek definitely wins over Castle of Otranto. I think Beckford's Ideas about power and human limitations, which really reminded me of Frankenstein, were much more elegantly and effectively conveyed than whatever Walpole was up-chucking. I find it REALLY interesting that both of these men--who were incredibly rich, knew everyone who was worth knowing (Beckford took music lessons from AmadeusfreakingMOZART, for god's sakes), and spent lavish amounts of money creating a world for themselves that reflected their fantasies--wrote books about self-centered egomaniacs who needed to be taken down a peg. That being said, from the viewpoint of literature, whyyy are we still reading these books???

Beckford and Walpole were fascinating men, but as far as the Gothic is concerned, their architectural contributions seem more successful to me than their literary ones.

Read More

Book Review and Discussion: MUMMY DEAREST by Josh Lanyon

Drew's boyfriend/boss (awwwkward) tells him he needs to publish more if he wants to get tenure, which is how Drew finds himself in Walsh, Wyoming, trying to inspect the mummy of Princess Merneith on the same day Frasier Fortune, host of the TV show, The Mysterious, is filming a segment about the mummy's supposed curse. Sparks fly between Frasier and Drew on their first meeting--the sparks of annoyance and dislike, since Frasier is refusing to let Drew inspect the mummy. But after the two compromise, Frasier changes his mind about Drew and vice versa, and then they solve the mystery of the walking mummy.

This is a fun book, although I would have liked a little more from it. It's unclear exactly what Drew teaches (what is with Lanyon and academic characters recently, anyway?), and I felt certain elements of the plot--well, really all of the plot--were not fleshed out. But whatever weaknesses the novel might have, this was a sure bet for me from the start because:

1. There's a mummy--I love mummies! There needs to be more mummies in fiction.
2. The Mysterious is like those shows on the Discovery Channel--Destination Truth or Legend Quest--which I'm a total sucker for.
3. There are a lot of old movie references.

After starting this novella, I realized it was something Colette from A Buckeye Girl Reads would really enjoy, so I loaned it to her. It was her first m/m romance! (I may not have initially disclosed this.) Below is our discussion about the book:

What did you think of your first m/m romance?

Colette: I was pleasantly surprised by my first m/m. I don't know what I was expecting, because this was just like a normal romance novella-except the romance was between two guys. I will definitely be reading more from this genre.

How does this book compare with a traditional romance?

Tasha: Well, first of all, I'm not sure this is a "romance" in the traditional sense because there's no HEA. It's more of a hook-up. But one of the things I liked, especially after reading Instant Attraction, was that there wasn't any of this bullshit pretending-we're-not-attracted-to-someone-for-no-good-reason crap that I hate. Apparently male characters are allowed to act logically and hook-up with people if they feel like it and women aren't.

Colette: I would say this was a like a traditional romance because all though there wasn't the pretending not to like you part, Drew did fight his feelings for Noah-he just didn't fight them as long as they do in traditional romances. It's also similar because there was one character who thought the other was better then they were and that's why they weren't getting together. But again, unlike in traditional romances, that was wrapped up much faster then it would have been otherwise.

Tasha: Well, Drew did resist hooking up with Frasier because he was already in a relationship, which is reasonable. But almost as soon as he broke up with Noah he got together with Frasier! Like literally three minutes afterward.

What did you think of Frasier Fortune?

Tasha: He was fun! Like a leprechaun.

Colette: I liked him a lot! He made me laugh out loud, and reminded me a lot of Josh Gates, my favorite reality tv boyfriend who chases myths like Frasier does.

Was there anything that surprised you about the novel?

Tasha: There were a lot of and-the-plot-thickens! moments, but I felt like they didn't pay off in the end because the story wasn't long enough. I liked how olde timey movies were integrated into the story and really wanted to read more about that. I also thought the thing about Princess Merneith and homosexuality in Ancient Egypt was really interesting. I'm surprised there isn't more information about that!

Colette: I really liked the twists and turns it took to get to the end, and I also liked learning about stuff about Ancient Egypt that I didn't know. I thought the ending was a little abrupt, and would have like more conclusion with Drew and Frasier, but I'm hoping this means that we'll see more of these two in the future.

How would you characterize this book as far as tone, theme, etc.?

Tasha: This is definitely a light and fun novel. As for theme I think Drew definitely goes through a journey where he has to decide whether what he perceives is authentic and what's "real." Like with the fight with Noah, for example.

Colette: I would characterize the tone of Mummy Dearest as humorous, and the basic theme was mystery, with Drew trying to figure out just who he was.

Was there anything that bothered or annoyed you?

Tasha: You know there's usually some detail that bugs me. In this one I was really bothered that they called Walsh "Matthew Shepard territory." That seemed like a rather broad generalization. It also bothered me that Noah wasn't attached to his phone. I know he's an old fuddy-duddy, but every single department chair I know is glued to their smartphone.

Colette: I think what annoyed me the most didn't have to do with the actual story, but that 20% of the book was for promoting his other books. I can understand doing that for the last 2-3% of the book, but a whole 20%? I always feel a bit cheated with ebooks when that happens.

Tasha: That annoyed me, as well. I thought I had way more in the book to read and then all of a sudden it just ended! Maybe that's why I keep harping about the length with this one...

How does this compare to other books Josh Lanyon has written?

Tasha: As far as his shorter, lighter mysteries are concerned, this was pretty comparable. I remember liking the characters better in The Dickens With Love, but it's quite similar to that. I think his longer, more serious novels, like Fair Game and Snowball In Hell, are better just because there's more character and plot development. I'll say this for Lanyon, though, he always writes very unique characters.

If you want quick, fun, Halloween-related read this week, I'd definitely recommend this novella. And to get you in the right frame of mind, here's the trailer of the The Mummy with Boris Karloff:

Read More

End of Readathon Post

It's the end of the Readathon! I DNF'd three books: Turn Coat, Map of Time, and The Historian; skimmed to the end of Vathek and The Tomb of the Argosa Kings; and listened to a good half of O Jerusalem on audiobook. Unintentionally, my reading had an odd, mid-East and militaristic bent this time around. To be honest, I can't wait to get back to reading "normally" tomorrow (not to mention bed).

Meme!

1. Which hour was most daunting for you? I think it was hour 8, because I started feeling pressure to finish books and it just wasn't going very well. Then I started an audiobook that I could listen to while doing other things, and that calmed me down enough to start having fun again.
   
2. Could you list a few high-interest books that you think could keep a Reader engaged for next year? Even though it was a really odd book, The Tomb of the Argosa Kings was actually pretty good for the Readathon; fast-moving and lots of action.
   
3. Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the Read-a-thon next year? Hm, maybe some sort of live ticker with the number of books or pages read as the Readathon progresses?
   
4. What do you think worked really well in this year’s Read-a-thon? Things went off without too much of a hiccup as far as I could tell.
   
5. How many books did you read? Basically one. This is typical.
   
6. What were the names of the books you read? See above.
   
7. Which book did you enjoy most? O Jerusalem by a landslide.
   
8. Which did you enjoy least? Well I didn't like ANY of the others that much, to be honest.
   
9. If you were a Cheerleader, do you have any advice for next year’s Cheerleaders? I wasn't.
   
10. How likely are you to participate in the Read-a-thon again? What role would you be likely to take next time? Oh, I'll definitely participate next time if at all possible. Not sure what role I'll take, but I think I'll volunteer to do something again; it was fun!
    

Read More

Dewey's 24-Hour Readathon Mini-Challenge: READING ZOMBIES

By now you're probably all feeling more than a little tired. Maybe the words on the page, they aren't sense-making. The thoughts in your head, they're hard to form. Maybe you feel a bit like a zombie. And you know what that means: time to zombify your books!





For this challenge, I want you to take a book you've read during the Readathon and "zombify" or "vampirize" it in the style of Pride & Prejudice & Zombies. You can do this by either zombifying the cover, or providing a synopsis of the zombified adaptation. Then post it somewhere online where I can get to it and provide a permalink.

Zombifying Your Book Cover

The two images above are examples of covers I zombified using Picnik, a free online photo editing program. Simply upload a .jpg of the original cover and go to the featured effects tab to find tools to turn your cover into something spooky. Or you can use whatever editing program you prefer!

Adaptation Synopsis

Your second option is to write a summary for your zombie adaptation. Here's an example of an adaptation blurb for Persuasion by Jane Austen that I made up and put in my review of the novel:

Title: Devil's Persuasion

Sir Walter Elliot is really a demon, using the mirrors in his bedroom to travel to and from Hell.  His daughters, half-demon spawn, have succeeded in spreading discontent and misery throughout the county--all except for Anne, who has resisted the influence of her demon side for many years.  But will the demon remain quiet when Capt. Wentworth returns to Somersetshire?  Or will it emerge to wreak vengence on Anne's innocent cousins and anyone else who dares mess with her man??

As you can see, you don't have to use zombies! Any supernatural creature will do.


This mini-challenge will run until the end of the Readathon, hour 24. One person who posts by hour 24 will be chosen randomly by myself and win one of a select number of "zombied" classics from the Book Depository. This contest is open internationally.

To enter the contest: Fill out the form below or go here.

To share with others: Leave your permalink in the comments!

I'm looking forward to seeing what you creative reading zombies come up with. Have fun and good luck!

Read More

Readathon Hour 12 Update

Good news, everyone: I started O Jerusalem by Laurie R. King on audiobook, which I've been wanting to read for a while, and am enjoying it! I got slightly derailed when my grandparents stopped by, but it's all good cuz they're my grandparents. I gave my grandma some of the cookies I'd baked for the Readathon but she wouldn't join me in a shot of vodka for some reason. *pouts*

As for the read-a-chunkster strategy... not going too well so far. I gave up on Map Of Time, as well. I think maybe I'll just try to finish the book I was reading last night and call it good.

Stats!

Food consumed: One quarter of a fritata and 2 3 cookies, a bowl of beef teriyaki (Japanese take-out, yay!) that Vasilly bullied me into eating, a handful of grapes, and 1 Brötchen (bonus points if you know what that is).
Drinks: A cup of coffee and a 2 glasses of water
Mini-Challenges: I managed to complete two mini-challenges! My Perfect Anthology and Book Trailer

Read More