well behaved women

Disney FAILS. So hard.

I'd just like to quote randomsome1 on this--I don't think I could put it better if I tried--from here.

Also, it appears the publisher Harlequin has shot themselves in the nuts. They added on a new vanity publishing wing--a wing towards which authors who are rejected from their commercial branches will be funneled. Reactions seem to vary from "But self-publishing isn't bad!" (which completely ignores how this isn't self-publishing, it's vanity publishing, and yes it fucking is) to the hardcore, as the RWA (Romance Writers of America) has (have?) revoked Harlequin's recognized publisher status.

I'll be the first person to mock the romance novel section, sure--but that's still one hell of a shitty thing to do to potential authors: lure them in with an established name, reject their novel, then flip them over and shake them for whatever money may come out while telling them that this is really the best way for their career to start.

Fun times, people. Or not.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/60420.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

I'm disappointed.

I can't say I expected miracles from the book. Indeed, my first and strongest motivations were the cover, by an artist i am very fond of. Hey! It looks awesome! I am shallow.

Unfortunately, it looks like the ride isn't promising.

John Clute at SciFi Wire

That, on the other hand, Lake’s savagely pollarded heroine never seems to shut her mouth should come as no surprise either, I guess: because it is clearly not part of Lake’s belief system, or of his writerly strategy over the long consolatory pages of Green, to treat the savageries of immurement Green suffers as a child as ultimately deforming. Wolfe, whose example has clearly shaped Green, may be the only contemporary author of American fantastic literature consistently to treat damage as damaging; Lake adheres to a sunnier version of the costs of being born in prison: that spunk will unlock the barred door.
[...]
It is here we come to something of a sticking point, which is rage. The young peasant girl Green (she refuses to use the name her owner gives her), who has spent most of her life in a deep Skinner Box being shaped, refuses to accept her destiny. After all her travails, she tells us, “I was still me“, and my heart sank. The person we have thought she was—the aleph self gaining some dark noumenousness from her immurement in the heart of the Wolfean world she had been selected for as an infant—turns out to be a cloak that only half conceals a moderately sophisticated Liberal Humanist teenager from California with anger issues. Made berserk by the thought that she—a simple illiterate peasant lass from a subsistance rice paddy—has been bought and educated by immortals whose nature and purpose on the plate of the world we have not yet learned, Green kills one of her teaching Mistresses, scars her face so she cannot become a concubine, and escapes with Dancing Mistress into the City.

Kyra Smith at Strange Horizons:

Specifically, there are two ways in which we can interpret Green’s sadomasochistic lesbianism. We can see it as the sort of empowering lesbianism practiced by apparently kick-ass fantasy heroines or we can see it as yet further evidence that Green has been completely broken by her time of enslavement. Either reading is discomforting, the former because it strikes me as a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of homosexuality to view it as more legitimising than heterosexuality, and the latter because it implies a direct causal relationship between abuse and ‘aberrant’ sexual behaviour. In both cases, Green’s sexual preferences are reduced to something illustrative rather authentic. The upshot is that there is no sense of emotional reality to her attractions beyond shared orientation and the possibility, perhaps, that the author finds the idea of two girls getting it on a bit hot. Or one girl and a catgirl. I’m not joking.
[...]
I think I would have had less of a problem with Green had I been able to shake the suspicion I was meant to think she was awesome. She does kick-ass fantasy heroine things like kill people, sleep around, win fights and be Chosen By The Gods (yes, she’s that too) and her only flaws are the sort of flaws it is acceptable for a strong woman to have—i.e. she is a little bit impulsive, a little bit ruthless and just too gosh darn stubborn sometimes. Because of this, and her general disinclination to give a damn about anyone else, she never felt like a real person to me.

I am especially tired of this. I am tired of being fed the archetypes, either the Girlfriend or the Tough Chick (or fascimilies thereof). And yes, even today they dominate, though simply having the Tough Chick can be seen as a step forward. In more varied, subtle forms--and in their base forms, both are stories that very much deserve to be told, and that I want to read--but they dominate the field. Either the woman is the love interest, or she is the Faux Action Girl, possessing traditional "male" skills, almost always portrayed as emotionally ackward, lacking or wounded, with a tragic past or downright inhuman callousness. Now, I love these kinds of girls--but the point is that largely no other kind of Action Heroine is allowed to be. She can't be chirpy and happy and still kick ass. She can't be a soldier, tough and dangerous on the battlefield, that comes home and is just an ordinary human. There must be something wrong with her for her to be dangerous and tough in a physical (or mental) way.

She can't be strong as a woman, with only traditional "female" traits; if she is, critics and readers (usually female readers) alike revile her. If she does posess traditional "female" traits, she is relegated to the role of the girlfriend, who can't "understand" what the hero goes through, and is generally relegated to unfailing, selfless support on the sidelines. (There are exceptions! I know there are exceptions! But that is exactly what they are--exceptions to the rule.)

Either way, all too often I'm given stereotypes, or archetypes. I want to read about people. Female people.

There are a variety of reviews. Some are very good. But the good--and this is key as I consider them as a whole--simply do not address the important issues that the critical reviews do, or if they do they gloss them over.

Daniel Hemmens at FerretBrain:

It gets worse, considerably worse, when she returns to her home. Suddenly Copper Downs goes from being not merely more affluent than her homeland but objectively better. Green states, quite clearly, that:

My captors had been right. Rather I should have been on my knees thanking the Factor for what he had taken me from.

Now I know that this is partly Green giving in to despair, but nothing in the text challenges this conclusion. It’s rather an object lesson in the dangers of taking on too many genre stereotypes at once.

Had this been the story of a white man who was taken away from his pseudo-European farming village and conscripted into the armies of the Dark Lord of Evil then I would have been overjoyed to find him returning home to realise that his long lost homeland was a poverty stricken shithole and his father was a bastard who never cared about him. It would challenge the assumptions of a genre that frequently glamourises poverty, and it wouldn’t have any creepy overtones (unless you want to make a big thing about militarism).

Make the white man a south-Asian woman, however, and you start getting into difficulties, because now you’re not saying “being poor sucks” you’re saying “being foreign sucks”. Turn conscription into slavery and you’re not saying “you might be better off in the army than on a farm” you’re saying “you might be better off as a slave in Europe than as a free man in your own country.” Add in the courtesan angle and you’re saying “it is a good thing for south-Asian women to be sold as sex slaves to European men.”

I hope I don’t need to point out that this really isn’t okay.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/59924.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

- Take four books off your bookshelf.
- Write the first sentence
- Write the last sentence on page fifty
- Write the second sentence on page one hundred
- Write the next to the last sentence on page one hundred fifty
- Write the final sentence of the book
- Let your friends guess what book it is.


BOOK ONE
- Dear Diary,
something awful is going to happen today.
- Sometimes, right after the funeral, she had come out here to rage at them, angry with them for being so stupid as to get themselves killed.
- "I guess we ought to go after her."
- I'm not going to press criminal charges against Tyler.
- Just one word, but the one she knew would bring him.

BOOK TWO
- The wolf awoke.
- "Pay...pay...you talk about payment."
- And besides, there are things that make you seem young as children; the rocks, the sea, and the stars.
- All members, subject to their fear of hunting or surviving alone, were free agents.
- He shivered as the pack closed in.

BOOK THREE
- The cavernous maw of the warehouse was like the throat of some huge beast, and even though it was large and airy claustrophobia still tore at my throat.
- Paper stirred uneasily on her desk, stroked into motion by the tension in the air.
- What possible difference could it make?
- "Thanks for the compliment," I managed, my jaw set tight as I bent down to wrench my knife free of a werecain's ribs.
- It didn't matter.

BOOK FOUR
- Jenny glanced back over her shoulder.
- But it isn't, Tom, it isn't...
- Audrey was lying in a ball beside Jenny near the bottom of the slope.
- The one of a painting in front of an open window, matching the landscape outside exactly.
- One of them flicked out a knife and slit the tape.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/58570.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

On Hating Female Characters.

For a while now I’ve been thinking about how many readers seem to hate female characters more than they hate male. Or rather that the same behaviour from a male character is okay but someone inexcusable in a female.

NO KIDDING. I read and enjoyed this post a while back, but a link popped up on my flist, and I returned to it and decided in light of some recent comments I'd read that it needs to be sung from the rooftops.

She also has a very good post here: The Advantages of Being a White Writer Highly recommended.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/55794.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Wow I actually cannot believe Joss Whedon ever had the sheer gall to call himself a feminist. GUESS WHAT. YOU'RE NOT. END OF STORY.

Spoilers within, but they're warned for before they're reached.


I was remembering Nalini Singh's novella in her Angel's Blood series, one about Ashwini and the vampire she hunts on and off. In this, the angel--who is pretty much a carbon copy of Raphael--is treated the way a sane person would treat them. She's creeped out by his come-on, spooked, and hopes to interact with him as little as possible. At the time I didn't put much thought into it, but the only difference I can really come up with between the angel and archangel is that one--the one acknowledged as negative--is black.

Mm. Well.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/54705.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

One of--actually, a couple of--my female classmates today informed me that sexist romance novels were actually sexist against men, because they're portrayed as thinking with their dick.

Oh, yeah. Being portrayed as stronger, smarter, more capable, more important, more justified in all things and more deserving--and hey, not being portrayed as if only one of your gender (the one the man is interested in) is not evil!--and completely essential to any woman's happiness or feeling of completion in her life is so sexist! Gee, thanks for educating little ol' me.

(And yes, I know that--presumably--not all romance novels are that bad. But a frighteningly high percentage of them are jaw droppingly sexist.)

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/52647.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

I forgot how much I loved Anita Blake back in the day.

Back when she was a solid stone-cold badass, a professional and an Executioner who had no patience for enemies, squeamishness that endangered others, or ridiculous ~sex appeal~ vampires in general. The woman who promised she'd kill anyone who hurt her friends and never, ever bluffed. The woman who loved stuffed penguins, was a little too sarcastic for any hope of social graces, and was actually pretty well adjusted, all things considered. Confident, dangerous, with close and badass female friends and a love interest that knew he was less dangerous than her and didn't really mind.

Back when she honestly had no patience with overdressed vampires, and the author actually understood the meaning of consent and textually supported her, 'just 'cause I think you're hot doesn't mean I actually want you' stance. Because seriously? After so many romance novels with their 'if you find him attractive you're meant to be no matter how much of an ass he is!', that was really good to read.

I have most of her books right up to the brink and just a little over where L.K.Hamilton really goes downhill (her eyeroll worthy character derailment of Richard when she broke up with the man he was based off of started long before the full Shark Jumping) and nostalgia makes me sad. It's one thing to know a writer isn't going to be able to write more of a series you love, and an entirely different thing to know she's still writing them, but they have no actual resemblance to the ones I loved.

I've never found another female character that I love quite as much as Anita in the early days, nor any who were so convincingly ruthless, lethal and human at the same time.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/51181.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

So, remember that book by Jory Strong? The one that I read because I'd gotten its sequel for free? Yeah, that one. Oh my god, the sequel is even worse.

Spider-Touched: Set in the same world, a post-apocalyptic world where supernatural beings have risen to prominence, countered by a pretty stereotypical evil church in power. The main character is a thief named Arana, traveling with two other thieves, men who are lovers and adopted her. Naturally 'teh gays' die immediately. She's pretty badass; she has an angsty past concerning her family, revealed throughout the book, but isn't inclined to dwell on it, being more inclined to being tough, ruthless and intelligent as she pursues vengeance and freedom. She ends up being captured, escaping, and rescuing the hero when she has a vision of him imprisoned. Good start, right? She's pretty awesome, and I was full on liking the book when the hero and heroine were separate.

The good trend does not linger.

First of all: can you stop talking about his sexual organs? Please? He has the same problem as the hero for Ghostland, in that whenever he thinks about the heroine--before he's even met her face to face--he gets hard. Like, it's actually progressed to a comical stage, though I'm pretty sure the author is convinced that it's hot. Sexual attraction doesn't really work that way--which wouldn't be so bad if she didn't use it as a substitute for actual character interaction. She says her characters are in love, but they never do anything but have sex. No conversation, no learning about each other--the hero threatens the heroine every time she does anything of her own volition, but that's about it. Oh wait, there's some hilarious porn-talk. But other than that, nada.

And the whole bit where he threatens her whenever she does anything he hasn't told her to, or does something he tells her not to, or wants to keep something private--seriously. THREATENS HER--is just so, so awful, and even worse in this one. And the book expects us to find it oh-so-hot.

Oh, and he's an angel. He's actually like several prominent characters in Angel's Blood by Nalini Singh, only much worse--more like Dmitri, actually, whom I hated--which in retrospect makes the fact that I considered them defensible both embarrassing and worrying.

Now I just have to figure out what to do with this book, since I'm not finishing it and don't particularly want to keep it. I'd donate it to the library, but I'd like to refrain from exposing anyone else to this if at all possible.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/44664.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

I read everything a bit too literally, I think.

For one thing, if the main character doesn't have a problem with something, I usually don't pick up on it as an issue. Even if there's something blatantly wrong, and even if the text is suggesting to the reader that the character may be off. I was realizing this as I read a book and compared the behavior of two different heroes--because one heroine not only didn't mind but pretty much stayed in character, I didn't pick up on it, even though both hero's behavior was reprehensible. I've also experienced this in books where a heroine dislikes a character because of some past experience or betrayal. I dislike them too, because I empathize with my heroines, even when her reaction is emotional and biased and what he did was not actually reprehensible in context (and this is acknowledged in the text). I only forgave him when the heroine did--and more grudgingly than she did, at that--and only really acknowledged this when I reread it.

I have been trying to pay more attention to the nuances of the text and the realities of actions, not just perceptions. I'm very reactionary in real life, as well.

The spacebar is sticking on this keyboard.


In other news: on the school computers, when someone leaves a computer without logging out, it 'locks'. People do this sometimes on purpose, to 'save' a computer, and pull the chair away so people will pick another instead of simply rebooting as we are instructed to do. Someone tried that today, but it was the only computer available in the lab so I went and fetched a chair. As I came back, the person had returned and begun to log in again, saying something to his friend beside him. When he left to get a chair, I sat down. She helpfully informed me that it was locked. I responded, "oh?" and pressed the 'off' button.

Sometimes I think I am just not a very sympathetic person.

ETA: I was irritated because they're not supposed to do it, they know they're not supposed to do it, and there aren't really enough computers to go around. So, you know, I wasn't just being spitef--er, not spiteful without provocation.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/40424.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Fanfiction/online fiction informs me that popular opinion has it that two people going out together is not a date unless the man pays...? What...? Since when?


I purchased a handful of Charlaine Harris novels at the bookstore--two Aurora Teagarden, one Lily Bard and a Harper novel--and am enjoying them immensely. Normally I don't find straight up detective stories very interesting, since a story means little to me if I'm not attached to the characters and often they focus more on the plot than the people, but these are lovely. I hope to buy more as soon as possible.

It's so wonderful when an author you love turns out to have a whole treasure trove of books you haven't yet touched.


Tomorrow my school quarter begins!

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/39419.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

I am astonished by how clearly Vampire Diaries is trying to imitate Twilight.

They've white washed the cast, which pisses me off. And then what they did to them on a simple characterization level; no longer is Elena the fierce, intelligent young woman who pursued her love interest and worked to solve crimes and rule her school; no longer is Stefan the intelligent, gracious Italian gentleman. They've destroyed Elena's character in order to make her life revolve around Stefan. She is passive and bland; he is now the only reason she looks forward to the day--literally. They've destroyed Stefan's character to make him a 2D Edward ripoff, only with even less personality, and compounded this by whitewashing him into an actor that is a painful imitation of the movie's Edward, whatever that actor's name was. Damon is now a blustering, featureless bully that somehow manages to be totally disgustingly evil at the same time. Damon was a predator. Not totally evil.

Oh, and Stefan gives Elena a copy of Wuthering Heights, which she loves.

Also? No woman with brains would fall for the snide, ham handed remarks about an ex from some stranger who claims to be a close relative. Some stranger who is obviously an asshole.

They've erased her female friends in order to make room for extraneous male characters, replacing them with a couple of girls completely lacking personality who are only there to egg their bland relationship on. Seriously. The only thing they get to do; the only reason they exist. They completely destroyed the tight, complex female relationships that were so interesting. THEY DON'T HAVE MEREDITH, YOU GUYS. WHAT THE FUCK. And Caroline is now a sex-obsessed groupie of Elena's. They gave Elena a little brother instead of a little sister, and he's a total asshole. Not to mention what they did with the parental figures.

And....they have a daddy!figure now! How precious! How stupid. Just because Meyer's vampires act like adolescent assholes does not mean that ancient vampires in a competent narrative do. Oh--wait, there's my mistake. Calling it competent.

"Texting is an important step in every relationship!" Yes. We get it. You're ~gritty~ and ~hip~. Now please, let it rest.


They've turned it into a) a sitcom and b) a Twilight ripoff and completely obliterated any trace of original characterization that ever existed.

So: if you liked the book's originality, characters, freaking badass girls and female friendship, suspense and romance and adventure? Don't watch. For the first time, Matt is more appealing than Stefan. Vastly so.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/37611.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

I was just reading one of the Aurora Teagarden novels and thinking that what I really appreciate about Charlaine Harris's books is how human her protagonists are.

They have silly fantasies and selfish urges and ignoble thoughts--and actions--just like any human being, and sometimes even when you know you're being unreasonable you are anyway (or at least I know I am) and it's realistic. You can sympathize. Overall she takes a rather unromantic view of people in general, I think--but not one that's cynical to the extent of being without hope.

Of course, since they're women, any little flaw gets a ridiculous amount of venom directed their way (someone called Sookie stupid for having a Word A Day calendar) but, well, whatever. I hope they don't hold the women they encounter in real life to the same unrealistic standards.


In other news: IT'S TOO DAMN HOT.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/35245.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Holy crap I just saw a Bertrice Small book in my library. I feel vaguely soiled just from proximity.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/31806.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

I'm going to try to explain exactly what bothers me so much about True Blood--one serious matters, rather than the tawdry, terrible and constant sex and the abysmal writing--to try and put it down on, so to speak, paper. If you have issues with the points I raise--as in, valid discussion points--please do. I am not experienced at this kind of thing.

( season one spoilers )


( season two spoilers )

I reread some of book three of the Sookie Stackhouse novels, and my strongest thought on Bill is now; 'oh boy, I wish Sookie had gotten to slug you in the face. Or shoot you. Whichever gave her the most emotional catharsis.' I mean, he would've healed, but it would've been nice to read.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/23149.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Just to be a further downer, I would like to link you to this, which compares all the ways Meyer pretty blatantly ripped off Charlaine Harris. I knew she had, of course, but I hadn't bothered to compare it to this extent.

Meyer’s lead squee-inducing male character, Edward, is a telepathic vampire who hears people’s thoughts all the time & who’s driven nuts by them. Then he meets Bella, whose thoughts he can’t hear. Then he saves her life a few hundred times and they get together.

Harris’s lead female character, Sookie, is a telepathic waitress who hears people’s thoughts all the time & who’s driven nuts by them. ...Then Bill the vampire walks into the bar, and . . . miracle of miracles, she can’t hear him thinking. Then they save each other's lives, fight crime, and get together.

Quote is just the stuff I noticed. How much more there is is sort of hideous.

Hopefully my last Twilight post! Like, ever!

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/21631.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

I always liked Bill better in the books.

I like the quiet ones, I guess. I liked his controlled danger better than Eric's flamboyance, how he was trying to fit in for his own enigmatic reasons--not so enigmatic later on--but just looked at everything so different. I found his sweetness and concern for Sookie--especially flashing from his ruthless reserve as it did--naturally so much more appealing than Eric's manipulation and attempted mindrape. My interest in the book series decreased as Sookie became more and more of a Mary-Sue, so I don't have much emotion over their breakup. I found her increasing bitterness interesting because it's actually the more rational way to respond to all of this being forced into your life, but I couldn't continue buying them because of the way the book's other characters changed around her.

In True Blood, when I can force myself to endure its skankiness and stereotypes, I have no such fondness for Bill. They've stripped everything I liked about him in the books away, turning him instead into a non-endearingly-awkward angster who whines and angsts and is a domineering shit. Eric I found boring initially, but am warming up to; Anna Paquin I like as an actress, but cannot stand in the role, possibly because of how they've changed Sookie as a character.

So: I had ditched this show, when three things brought me back. Jessica--I cannot even describe how much I love her, unsure vicious sweetheart child that she is, not to mention Deborah Ann Woll, damn.--Godric, and Sarah Newlin shooting Jason Stackhouse in the crotch. Goddamn, lady! Fucking awesome! I forgive you everything!

Sadly, I don't think it was an actual bullet. I just saw a clip. But. Still. Yes.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/20312.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Ever have a series or book/movie/etc that you thought was pretty cool when you were young, and then you go back and read it/watch it later on and think, "....wow, younger self. Wow. I mean, really?"

Vampire Knight is mine. I went and looked at some the chapters today and went "!!!" I mean, I think most of this was my exceedingly jointed reading of it; back when I was getting Shoujo Beat by issue, years upon years ago, I skimmed it occasionally, so I was passingly familiar with it by the time the art improved somewhat. And then it sort of creeped me out, so I took a break, and then I checked in again at onemanga at the point that the heroine was finally cutting down bad guys left and right and my memory of creepy stuff was comfortably fuzzed. So. I don't know that I'd even seen the incredibly creepy chapters when I first formed the golden opinion.

You know, I like strange relationships. I adore relationships that wouldn't be healthy unless you were dealing with rather broken people but it just works for them in a surprisingly healthy way, and I enjoy seeing creepy and unsettling relationship dynamics--especially in supernatural fiction--explored and dissected. And I...I do believe the mangaka knows this relationship is creepy. I'm pretty sure Yuuki states that flat out a couple of times. But it still stays, and stays prominently, and there's just these chapters that hit my NO button so hard it nearly dents.


"Well then, younger self! Just....well then. I have no other comments available at this time."

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/20196.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

I really loathe it when authors put the fail out there where it will reach the public when real information might not.

A Critical Review of Ann Rinaldi's My Heart Is on the Ground: The diary of Nannie Little Rose, a Sioux Girl. I find this incredibly rage-inducing because we read about this in my IDS class, we read actual accounts, and they were heartbreaking. And this--this is just obscene.

ETA: For bonus gross: the author adds plagiarism to their list of accomplishments!

Then there's this: Seale and Dow essay on DARKNESS UNDER THE WATER, by Beth Kanell. This appalling piece of exploitative fiction is compounded upon by the author appearing to try to blame it all on the reviewers. Uh, what the hell?


I'm just going to go off and console myself with gazing upon Uhura, since I'm having trouble with actual episodes. (And her miniskirt. Damn those things were short!! I don't know whether to be exasperated--ETA: I am assured that the fashion was, indeed, that short. Rock on, impracticality. Rock on.--or just let my overheated brain gently dribble out of my ears as I die happy.)

"....female made for a man's pleasure. His pleasure."

"Strength of purpose gave Aisling the courage to stand up to [the hero]..."

This book is like a trainwreck. An unattractive one.

I'm trying to slog through it, since I now own the second one in the series--won it in random draw, as mentioned before--but it's really, really bad. The main characters have no real interaction beyond sex and irrational, unnatural sexual obssession. As there is in poor romance novels, there is occasionally a token mention of attractive nonphysical characteristics, and it's unconvincing. When she says 'no' to a sexual advance he makes, he ignores her and overpowers her. When she tries to make her own decisions and use her power, he gets furious. It's horrible.

For a bonus, there's some rather suspicious similarities to another series that make me roll my eyes.

Also, Aisling thinks about how terrible it would be to have sex without love. What, really? This coming from the woman who leapt in bed with someone a day or so after meeting him? Which I have no problem with--but way to be a hypocrite, honey. It kind of drives home how the author really thinks that the instantaneous overpowering lust actually is a substitute for that pesky writing-actual-emotional-interaction thing!

My summary of this book so far: congratulations! You've actually managed to make a relationship more unhealthy and much more unpleasant to read than Twilight's Bella and Edward.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/19494.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Strange snippets of my life: I've been listening to Samuel's YuGiOh anime (I'll try not to share my opinion of the Yugioh anime. Hint: it isn't good, especially since all he gets are dubs) going in the background all day. The name Noah is used, and variants of the term, "I WANT YOUR BODY!" and "I WILL HAVE YOUR BODY!" have been cycling. I swear, they don't go thirty seconds without it!

In other news, I got Ghostland from the library, actually checking it out only a day before the second book, which I won in a random draw, arrived. Unfortunately--it looked so very cool--it seems to be very so-so fare; the writing is mediocre, the characterization consisting of long and cliched descriptions of her loveliness and his godlike beauty and throbbing cock. They have instant overpowering sexual attraction for each other, blah blah blah. Then there's a scene--the morning after sex, she's having second thoughts, he comes into the bathroom and she tells him no. He ignores her. At this point I gave a convulsive shudder of horror and skimmed on flinchingly to see that he arouses her against her will until she asks him for it, and this is supposed to be romantic and somehow indicative of how romantical his forcefulness is and how strong their attraction is, sexual attraction meaning, in bad romance novels, true love.

Just--augh.

ETA: Also, every time he thinks of her, he gets hard. Seriously. He'll get hard, go on for a couple of paragraphs, think of her and get hard again. So presumably it comes and goes--all the blood coming to and fro must be getting whiplash. If there was a drinking game based on it...well, it would be a very successful drinking game.

To any who likes vampires--or, for that matter, doesn't like vampires but likes a good book--I would like to recommend Vivian Vande Velde's Companions of the Night. It's a fascinating story, and well written, and it doesn't really romanticize the vampires at all. It's a look at a modern predator through the eyes of a teenage girl, and Kerry is just lovely, scared but brave and tough and smart.

I was idling around looking at icons for Kerry, and I found this post of Natalie Portman. Not only is Natalie Portman a big name/face, but normally she's a much too polished type of gorgeous for Kerry. But those first icons, from Where the Heart Is, I think work temptingly okay.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/19431.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Mary Sue is not always about how she has radiant purple hair, a perfect seven octave singing voice, and can slice Superman with her katana. It's about what she does to the story. There's a fine line between a well developed character and Mary Sue, and it's certainly not defined by her appearance, justification (or lack thereof) for her abilities, or how fantastically improbable her backstory is. It's about how the character is defined exclusively by external traits and her actions to the point of shallowness, and about how all other characters are defined by their attitude to her (or him, as examples will show, this trope applies to both sexes). It's about how, in Fan Fiction, she completely overtakes the canon characters in importance. It's about how people act wildly out of character around her and elevate her to a status well above what she should realistically be able to obtain. In original fiction it's a character who can get away with almost anything, about whom no one can shut up, or a character who is flawed, sure... but seems to live in a topsy-turvy world where flaws function like virtues and are fetishized accordingly. Above all, it is about wish-fulfillment, and wish-fulfillment comes in many forms. There's nothing wrong with a little or even a lot, but when the wish-fulfillment a character embodies starts to warp the narrative and characterization around it, then you may be looking at a Mary Sue, even if she's in disguise.

Thank you!

My attendance to TVTropes is relatively sketchy; I've never had it swallow hours of my time like people say is normal, but I wander in now and then. My problem is that a lot of the entries are hideously biased. The most notable one I found devoted several paragraphs to how Orihime was a Mary Sue because a) she got kidnapped and b) she was getting more screentime that arc than Rukia. That was their argument. Couched in rather malicious terms. I mean, really.

But I get fun stuff out of it sometimes.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/16599.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

Goddamn I got like nothing done this porn_battle.

Probably because I've been feeling like shit all week. I keep forgetting to hydrate and forgetting to eat until my stomach's cramping-empty and not getting enough sleep and my foot, which had just dialed down on the PAIN settings just got whacked again and now HURTS LIKE A FUCKING BITCH sorry please excuse my language **hides**

Also, I think Kishimoto sucks just a little bit--we get a chance to see her involved in a fight again and she gets kicked away? And Naruto catches her? REALLY, MAN? The lady who kicked the ass of an Akatsuki member?--but man, I still love Sakura madly. Most of his girls, actually. For all her human flaws, for all her dramatics and passion and temper and stubbornness--man, made of AWESOME.

I almost forgive you, Kishimoto. ALMOST. I mean, you're excluding her again, so not really, but damn.

And Naruto fandom, would you please shut up about Karin? So she likes Sasuke. She's also a sharp-edged, extremely intelligent, so far exceedingly competent and probably equally badass combat-wise kunoichi that suffered experimentation since she was young and um yes is kind of gorgeous. (I am shallow! So sorry!) She can punch a man's face off! She is not a crazy jealous bitch. (So far. And none of her attitude has really hinted at it. Crushing on Sasuke--whatever, he's attractive. Tricking Suigetsu--whatever, he would be annoying if you actually had to deal with him.) ALL characterization given so far suggests she would evaluate Sakura as an opponent, not immediately lose all brain power in order to make Sakura look better. All you really seem to be saying with that particular piece of OOC goodness is that Sakura couldn't stand up to an IC Karin. She can, so stop demeaning them both.

Also, my computer will no longer properly play my Baccano! discs. The sound you hear is the resounding noise of my heart exploding into itty bitty pieces of panic and torment.

You know what kind of vampire I want to write about?

There was this ghost story in one of my books where a vampire was an evil magic user/warlock, whatever after they'd died--except 'vampire' meant skeleton that first tore people's throats out and then gobbled them up. (At first I mixed up my ghost stories and thought that there was a version of the vampire myth that was the great Flying Head. But no, now that I check that was just the story right after the vampire skeleton. Bummer.)


BTW: This message is mostly brought to you by Lynn Viehl. Her heroines are awesome, badass, smart-mouthed surgeons. Her heroes kidnap them, rape them, mind-control them, wipe their memories whenever they disagree with them, and yet are physically attractive vampires and therefore must be LIEK OMG AWESOME, AMIRITE? Her vampire series isn't quite as bad as her next-to-most recent Cherijo Torin book, which has the honor of being the first book to be flung away from me with a squeal of 'GETITOFFGETITOFFGETITOFF' but is sort of loathesome.

I haven't been taking proper care of my sprained ankle--only iced it initially for 24 hours, elevated it at night, generally hobbled around. I don't take well to being immobile/trapped by my own inability. I tend to just try to work through the pain.

And a result--completely predictably--it hasn't healed quite as quickly or well as it could have.

On the bright side, a couple of days ago I went out and purchased:

(1) omnibus edition of the Black Jewels trilogy with that lovely dragon on the front
(2) compilations of Nightworld books, No.1 and 3
(1) A Hat Full of Sky

I'm beginning to remember that I'm not particularly fond of L.J. Smith's heroes. They're fairly well written, and feel like actual characters, but I don't honestly like Damon or Quinn or Delos, or that guy in Kellen's book. Or the guy in Gillian's.

I think the only one I really like is Morgead, and Ash simply because of the way his soulmate deals with him.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/14708.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

I took out a selection of Celeste Bradley's books from the library on recommendation, because I wanted some light summer reading. Ultimately they were tolerable, and fairly well written; the little things that put me off were big reasons for why I read so little romance in the first place.

First: the whole 'suspects women' thing is supposed to be a manly romantic trait, I guess because you're supposed to want the heroine to convince him otherwise. You know, where he looks at a beautiful woman and immediately assumes that she uses her wiles and sexuality and any innocence or charm is all an act. Firstly, what the heck is wrong with a beautiful woman using her wiles and sexuality, especially in a society where she doesn't really have many other options? Secondly, someone making sexist assumptions like that makes me want the heroine to punch him in the face, not valiantly prove him wrong.

Second: the habit of deriding women--always the villains or previous mistresses--who actually are sexually confident and sensual. He likes their "lewdness" only until a properly innocent heroine comes along, at which point he realizes--oh woe!--all this sinful excess isn't really what he wants, leaving her in the dust or in a caricaturized villain role. He can't just say, "sorry, I'm in love/engaged now" at which point the woman in question, always stunningly beautiful and boldly sensual, would probably say, "well, sorry, it's been nice knowing you," and look for conquests more interesting and interested. No, they're always obsessed with the hero. It breaks their heart! If they're ever seen again.

Then there were the decent books, and the awful ones. One of the awful ones had the 'hero' stab her--um, figuratively--in the back. Then there's no real closure to the betrayal, he just rapes her in the forest, she likes it, suddenly she's forgiven him everything and they're madly in love. What? And the other one--Fallen--features a hero that is such a selfish ass he might have been a caricatured villain in any other book.

This, I suspect, is why I'm not cut out for romance novels.

This entry was originally posted at http://shiegra.dreamwidth.org/14406.html. Please comment there using OpenID.

You know, contrary to pretty much every romance novel on the face of the earth? A guy who ignores you when you say 'no' to his advances is not romantic. It is not sexy. It is not a pleasant experience in any way, shape or form. It's called sexual harassment, and in some cases stalking. Please, romance actually, writers in general, stop it. Your 'hero' is a creep. Specific author: the cumulative effect was that I couldn't even stand to finish your story, because I remembered being in high school and being harassed by some guy that would not leave me alone, and your story put me through it again. I could not bear to read the ending, where the heroine--okay, I skipped and scanned a little from a vestige of futile hope--the heroine jumps him on the beach. Just no. You are trivializing something ugly by presenting it as romantic and explicitly rewarding the behavior.

GTFO my planet.

(This has been building up for a long time.)

The Shadow Queen: reminding me with every page why a) I love Anne Bishop and b) Jaenelle/Daemon were, have been and always will be my ultimate be all and end all OTP. Also, why Jaenelle is still, hands down--and this is a difficult choice--my favorite female character. Ever.

Though Surreal comes close. And damn, but I do find Saetan and Sylvia interesting. I was so hoping it was Surreal Theran ran into, partly because I wanted to see her knock him on his ass verbally or otherwise, but also because damnit I just wanted to see Surreal.

And I got Valor's Trial, the next Torin Kerr book, though I thought it wasn't going to be out in paperback for months. And The Etched City which, while gruesome, is fascinatingly written. And I read Ilona Andrews new book and frothed over it--for second place female character there are about thirty neatly tied, but Kate Daniels is definitely in there and edging up on first--and read Lilith Saintcrow's YA book. It was creepy and enjoyable, though definitely not my favorite.

**cuddles my bounty**

Oh, and I got vicious cramps and a really major dentist's appointment this morning, where they did two quandrants. Um. It pales it comparison!

"....the gist of it being whatever a woman enjoyed wearing was feminine and whatever she didn't enjoy wearing wasn't."

-Anne Bishop "Heir to the Shadows"

...for such a little line, a throwaway paragraph roughly in the middle of the book, damn that hit hard. Because, you know, even though I should know better, on a certain level I bought into the myth of 'feminine'. Dresses. Pink. Society's carefully sculpted mould.

Anne Bishop! ♥♥♥♥

It's funny because in the Black Jewels world I think the relationships--besides the bad ones, which are really bad and acknowledged as such--are some of the healthiest I've seen in fiction. And she is very clearly saying something; along with a story and characters I love, there's a strong and very welcome commentary on gender roles and interactions.

And it's set up explicity, the Protocol and Queens and Warlords, taken to exaggeration in fantasy, and yet doesn't for a minute come off caricatured or as slapping us in the face with it.

Anne Bishop, so much love. **fangirls like mad**

I'm reading Michelle West's Hunter's Oath, and not finding it as appealing as I hoped.

Oh, it's very well written, and I enjoy it, but there are certain things that irritate me a bit. Sand in the sandwich, as it were. The whole thing about the Ladies 'never being able to understand', and Norn pitying Elsa for it just sticks in my craw, and since I get bored easily with male-dominated perspectives, the whole 'ultra-speshul manly friendship' thing is getting old, fast. Yes, even though they're still kids.

I don't intend to stop reading it. It's just a bit exasperating, and it probably doesn't help that I just came from reading Tanya Huff's--one of my favorite writers of heroines ever ever ever--Keeper series, and am used to getting Michelle West's awesome heroines.

I'm spoilt and I'm happy about it.

I....I want to shoot someone for this. THOSE DRAWINGS. GNRRRRRGH

On other news, I heard a song today...Taylor Swift...? I think my aunt called her? And snickered in a rather rude way. Seriously? You're holding up Romeo and Juliet as a romantic ideal? The asshole who macked on a sheltered young girl five seconds after passionately proclaiming love to a different woman and couldn't find a spine to save his life, and the poor sheltered girl in question, who was convinced to throw away her life over aforementioned moron? You think that's romantic?

On other news: jesus christ, tell me they did not actually PRODUCE A SELF INSERTION FANFICTION ON TV FOR PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. For the last fucking time, people, Darcy is not some great romantic hero. He's an ass. He's ultimately a very decent ass, but he is an ass. In the immortal words of klmorgan (HERE, in an in-depth review of the new movie that really is an exploration of the characters and rather fascinating even if you haven't seen the movie or book in question):

I mean real, meaty faults -- the kind Austen's Darcy admits to, of being proud and resentful, deceptive and vindictive. The beauty of this love story is that Elizabeth helps Darcy to realize these faults exist in him, while everyone else was falling over backwards to sing his praises.

And I don't know what happens to the glorious Elizabeth Bennett in this TV show--and I don't want to know--but let's have some Lizzie-love right here anyway, from the same review.

....what I like about Lizzy, what makes her such an enduring, appealing character: she's people-smart. It's Jane Austen's trait, really. It's what makes her such a brilliant writer, and she bequeaths it to her first heroine: the ability to summup people, to understand intimately what they are about and (for the most part) forgive them for it. And she uses her power for good instead of evil. Lizzy's a charmer. She tries to make people laugh, or feel more comfortable, or even subtly puncture egos that may be out of line -- but usually it's for the common good. (Darcy is one of the situations when it's not, which again, is what makes their story so interesting. Don't you love it when lovers bring out the best AND worst of each other?) To save Lizzy from being insufferable, Austen makes sure she's also very aware of her own flaws. (Which make for some of the best lines -- her remark she might have forgiven Darcy's pride if he hadn't wounded her own, her love for him growing with the sight of Pemberly.) But -- and this was a very good move of Austen -- when she gets it wrong, she gets it really wrong. She completely ignores some of her biggest flaws, is overly forgiving of those in people she likes, and too vindictive with people she does not. But it's all tied into how well she reads people, and whether she wants them to be happy or suffer horribly.

And just for good measure:

Which is part of the problem. I don't feel that many people understand her stories were, among many other things, acts of extreme bravery. They're given the careless label of Regency chick-lit (which, no. really, truly -- no. chick-lit is not known for its bleak view of human nature.) because of the romances, without anyone taking into consideration how radical those romances were. Her lovers are equals. Elizabeth and Darcy, Anne and Frederick, even Emma and John Knightly. All of them recognize each other's faults and rejoice in each other's virtues, share the same values, can match ambitions and intelligence. And all this? This was a far cry from the reality of her time -- which she well recognized. Austen did a lot to shape our concept of love and relationships, and for the most part gets repaid by being repackaged as a Juvenile Classic. (OH GOD I HATE SEEING THAT IN THE KIDS' SECTION.)

I loved the new Mercy Thompson book, but I can't count the number of times I wanted to roll my eyes like a distressed horse at Patricia Briggs' editor.

Typos shouldn't be in published work! I'm not supposed to have to grit my teeth through this like a decent-but-poorly-edited fanfic! Isn't this the stuff you're supposed to catch? If I had less respect for Patricia Briggs and the normal quality of her work, I wouldn't be so bitchy exasperated, but really.

There were flaws in the books--places where I didn't feel the suspense/danger/need came through strong enough before a drastic action. An author is often too close to their work to catch this stuff. They feel what's going on for the characters, they know the urgency, they sometimes forget they have to elaborate for their readers. Once it came into its stride, later through the book, I had no such problems, but the pace of the earlier part of the book felt choppy.

Still loved it, though.

MATH TEST NOW.

EDIT: to amend my flounce-ish remarks with a little explanation.

Hey hey, can I just agree with this.

Ooh, or you know what would make a good movie? Gail Carson Levine’s Ella Enchanted. Why, they could show her budding romance with Char and her struggle with the curse and the way she always comes out on top with her cleverness despite her curse and they SURE WOULDN’T MAKE IT SOME BULLSHIT ANNE HATHAWAY VEHICLE WHERE ALL THE PEOPLE WERE CARICATURES OF THEMSELVES AND IT ONLY VAGUELY RESEMBLED THE BOOK IN CHARACTER NAMES AND CURSE STORY BUT THEN INSTEAD OF THE COOL STORY ABOUT ELLA AS A STRONG CHARACTER DEMONSTRATING WITS AND SPUNK AND ALL THAT THEY DECIDE TO DO A BUNCH OF TOTALLY STUPID EXTRANEOUS FUCKING SHIT WHERE THE FAIRY TALE CREATURES ARE ENSLAVED BY CARY ELWES AND HE LIKE FRAMES HER FOR MURDER OR SOMETHING BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY STUPID AND NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD DO THAT.

I liked Sookie Stackhouse. I loved her character, I loved her world, I loved her narrative. I ate up the books with delight.

( but I'm not going to be able to read them anymore. (spoilers for what happens to Bill, but only if you haven't gotten past the third book) )

To summarize, because man that became long:
- Harris gave us good solid female cast members and then systematically went, 'tee-hee! don't be silly, female friendships don't really exist!'
- she wrote Sookie evaluating her relationships by how useful other people were to her and then ignoring what they'd done for her so she could get on a high horse, and finally
- she treated the issue of rape with appalling casualty.

I just got Angels' Blood, by Nalini Singh, from Third Place Books. I was looking forward to it so much I called over the weekend to special order a copy, and I got it the day it came out.

And I just--

EEEEEEEEE

It goes so beyond my farthest, dearest hopes and expectations! And I'd been building it up in my head, trust me. So much lovely, lovely fun. This isn't even a guilty pleasure, it's just a pleasure.

I'm reading The Phantom of the Opera right now, and I'm enjoying it a lot.

I cannot believe, however, that some moron actually had the nerve to romanticize the Phantom. He's a sleazy bastard who spies on Christine and preys on her precious memories of her father in order to manipulate her into depending on him, causing her considerable strife, displeasure and distress.

That new Phantom of the Opera is almost as much a travesty as the Dracula film with Gary Oldman. (Gerard Bulter? Seriously?) In general I'm pretty enamored of that kind of dynamic/relationship--moral ambiguity, beauty and the beast, etc--but this is just handled so wrong. I'm really tired of Hollywood's obsession with romanticizing characters that prey on women.

Also, Raoul and Christine are so cute! When he was itty-bitty he ran into the sea to fetch her scarf, they grew up together loving music, they snuck out at night to search for phantoms and she pretended she saw them and he remembered...how can anyone believe she's better off with a petty psycho stalker who psychologically abuses her?

Although the tone of the text irritates me sometimes with its condescension towards Christine, I suppose it's a product of that time period.

You know....I tried to read Libba Bray, even after mekosuchinae warned the general public off. I found her boring, stopped after a few pages, and put the book back no the shelf. After rousing recommendations, I later looked up reviews.

Oh, boy.

meganbmoore had polite things to say, but she can be quite tolerant of certain factors--that is, unlike me she doesn't get really, really disinterested if she doesn't like character and prose--and is an analytical reader.

apintrix had a more in-depth and also less flattering review.

And then deepad not only makes me determined never to read this idiotic authors works but also points out that hey, if you don't do research you will get called out on your shit.

I don't care what kind of book you're writing. You do research. You investigate. You make an effort or it isn't quality writing, I don't give a damn whether you're writing YA, adult or children's fiction.

It's really too bad, because that title is awesome. I hear writers aren't always allowed to come up with their own titles, which explains it.

ETA: A Great And Terrible Beauty: A Busy Reader's Guide. Hee! Very nice.

Oh--and she's married to her agent, who also represents Cassandra Clare. Whoo boy.

So I was reading a review of Lilith Saintcrow's Working for the Devil, just about my favorite book in the world. They didn't like it much. Okay. Among other perceived flaws, they thought Dante was a Mary Sue. Bwuh? Baffled, I read on in hopes of discovering their rationale.

It was this: she has friends.

....okay, let's go over that again. Because Dante has two old friends that like her despite her "bitchiness", she's a Mary Sue. Both of whom have no problem calling her on her shit; one of whom she has every right to be bitchy to, the other who knows and verbally acknowledges that searching for the murderer of her dead lover puts Dante on edge. It's not like these are the only sample of characters, either; Eddie doesn't seem to fond of her and he's a primary protagonist and a great guy, and Japh isn't too impressed with her on first sight. Right! Having friends makes a heroine a Mary Sue. Color me educated.

The second complaint? They couldn't understand why the hero had fallen in love with Danny. Okay, demon assassin, valued because he kills his brethren for the Prince of Hell, probably not a real appreciated fellow down there. Meets a woman who, despite being cranky and bristly and short tempered shows him respect, apologizes when her temper takes her out of turn, moves to protect him and defends him against her friends. And shares her fresh-ground non-synth coffee with him of course, always a bonus. Boy, I can't imagine why anyone would like her.

Still, that's my opinion. If they can't see it, too bad. But there's one big flaw in this.

Why should Danny fall in love with him? He stuck a gun in her face, manhandled her, forced her into Hell, compromised her hunt, insulted her. The insults were more along the lines of "WHY ARE YOU SO DAMN RECKLESS CRAZY WOMAN" and there's a lot more to his actions but since these reviewers aren't paying attention to subtleties neither will we. So I'd say Dante has a whole lot less reason to fall in love with Japh than he does to fall in love with her. Is this mentioned?

HA. Of course not! He's a man, of course she'll fall in love with him, why wasn't she fawning over him sooner irrational bitch. They also talk about how they don't believe that someone as angry as Danny could be a great martial artist, but it's pointed out several times in the book that hunting for Doreen's murderer puts her badly on edge and that's not acknowledged in the review.

I'm so goddamn tired of this attitude, constantly favoring heroes over heroines with no reason whatsoever, calling their trauma or distress 'whining' while a hero's is 'angstOMGSOHAWT'. Yeah.

Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, you lost every credit for intelligence I ever, ever gave you. And made me want to vomit. Nice work!

I was surprised by how impressed I was with this author's work. They're romance novels, which I've had bad experiences with in terms of quality, but they seem to have solid characterization, interesting and really dang neat protagonists (the guys bore me a little so far, but the girls are awesome and the clip of the new book promised a fascinating hero) as well as good writing.


Cramps are being really friendly bitches.

Savage Moon (review)

I laughed so hard I nearly suffocated.