Wendell, Sarah, and Candy Tan - Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches' Guide to Romance Novels

[oyceter]

The two bloggers behind snarky romance review blog Smart Bitches, Trashy Books wrote this. I don't know if the book matches the expectations of their readers, since I don't read the blog, but it is definitely snarky and full of man-titty, swearing, and double intendres.

I also read this two or three weeks ago and returned it to the library, so I tack on my usual warning that my memory is like a sieve.

Much of the territory in the book is not particularly surprising to me, even though I don't read as many romances as most romance fans. Wendell and Tan go through the origin of the term "bodice ripper," talk about the alpha hero and the TSTL heroine, and mention the problem of rape in romances. They are more feminist and snarky than most romance reviews I have seen in the past, but they are still not feminist and snarky enough to satisfy me. I kept wanting to push them on the alpha hero and "forced seduction" and the status of the heroine, because yes, like them, I am glad of the changes that have been taking place in the genre, but I want it to go SO MUCH FURTHER. Also, I think they are much more tolerant of asshat heroes than I am.

I vaguely remember them discussing sexual agency in the hero and the heroine, but I am not sure if they mention how rarely we get a dominant woman (either in terms of BDSM or just taking the lead in the bedroom).

There's also a chapter on race and sexual orientation in romance that didn't go nearly as far as I wanted. Wendell and Tan talk about bookstore categorization and the way Black romances are usually shelved in African-American fiction, but I don't think they go much into racism in romances themselves, from Orientalism and exoticism to Magical Indians and we-sha-sha to What These People Need Is a Honky. They talk a little about the rise of gay romances, but I wish they would examine the appropriation of gay romance more closely.

I say all this, but I was also very entertained by the book. There's a Choose Your Own Romance game, there's snark at covers, there's poking fun at all the same things I poke fun of even as you can tell Wendell and Tan love romances.

So... a fun and fast read, and with more critique than other books on the romance genre I've read, but I keep wanting a much more radical critique than I get.

Comments

[thistleingrey]

snarky and full of man-titty, swearing, and double entendres

That sounds about par for the blog (which I skim via feed). And yes, though I'm not at all familiar with the romance genre, I wish sometimes that they'd take their critiques farther! I think they're leery of sounding as though they think Romance Is Dumb, since their blog is partly to promote the genre as an acceptable reading choice.

[oyceter]

Yeah! I mean, I understand not wanting to air dirty laundry, but on the other hand, the lack of discussion about these things contributes to my hesitancy about the romance reading community online.

(also, sorry, do you mind not using "dumb"? have been trying to not have ablist language on dw/lj)

[thistleingrey]

(Noted--thanks for the catch.)

[yhlee]

I almost think I want to read this book, but I wouldn't get the referents!

*ObChasteSuccubusIcon*

[oyceter]

You could probably read it without referents! Though only if you want to of course. It's probably not too hard figuring out romance tropes ;).

[sarasusa]

"I keep wanting a much more radical critique than I get"...

Perhaps what is called for here is a Book by You! I'd read that! :-)

[oyceter]

Heh, yeah... given my rate of writing, sadly unlikely to happen! Too bad they can't magically extract something from my head...

[(Anonymous)]

They talk a little about the rise of gay romances, but I wish they would examine the appropriation of gay romance more closely.


I take it they don't talk at all about how lesbian romances don't sell to this particular audience? Even though a new author could possibly make a killing selling directly to lesbians?

I know, crazy talk.

[ladyjax]

Figures I don't sign in to answer the question.

[oyceter]

Ha, yeah, I'm pretty sure they totally skipped any talk of lesbian romances. Well, maybe they might have had a little, but I really don't remember them going into it in any sort of depth.

(btw, do you mind not using "crazy"? i'm trying to not use it on lj/dw to get myself out of the habit...)

[sanguinity]

Lesbians got mentioned, but not until deep into the section, and then more to refer to LGBT shelf of the bookstore than anything else. I remember being puzzled by the section, until I finally realized that whey weren't using "gay" as shorthand for "gay and lesbian", but that they really were intentionally excluding lesbians from the discussion. Urgh.

(The mention of that shelf was off, in my mind: it was all about how horrible it is to ghettoize LGBT books, and how no one knows to go look over there for romances. And I was thinking, "Um, I totally know to go look over there. So do other LGBT people. And what's more, if we go look over there we can find gay or lesbian romances, without having to wade through all the het stuff needle-in-haystack style." However, if they want the fake "gay" romances shelved over in the het section, I'm fine with that -- that much less non-LGBT stuff to wade through in the LGBT section.)

[oyceter]

Yes! I had similar problems with their talk of the African-American romance shelving. Because yeah, maybe it is "ghettoizing" but maybe the bigger problem is that "mainstream" audiences still aren't very accepting of non-White protags.

[ladyjax]

Ha, yeah, I'm pretty sure they totally skipped any talk of lesbian romances. Well, maybe they might have had a little, but I really don't remember them going into it in any sort of depth.


Probably not, but I thought I should ask anyway.

And yes, I'll do my level best not to use that word. Thanks for letting me know.

[sanguinity]

:: but I don't think they go much into racism in romances themselves, from Orientalism and exoticism to Magical Indians and we-sha-sha to What These People Need Is a Honky. They talk a little about the rise of gay romances, but I wish they would examine the appropriation of gay romance more closely. ::

I thought both those sections were severely wanting, too.

[oyceter]

Yeah! I was also a little irritated that they were cordoned off into a single chapter so it felt like "let us talk about feminism and romance!" for most of the book and then "oh yeah let's now think about women of color and gay men for a little."

[sanguinity]

Yeah. And for a book that's allegedly mostly about feminism and romance, I thought it very off that lesbians essentially did not exist within its pages.

Altogether, it was a fairly normative POV -- sexism was getting challenged/discussed, but not much of anything else.

[ladyjax]

Yeah. And for a book that's allegedly mostly about feminism and romance, I thought it very off that lesbians essentially did not exist within its pages.

That's because there's only seven lesbians in the whole world. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.

[lea_hazel]

I know that SBTB did the series on a writer of Native/white romances that copied entire passages from reference books, and I've skimmed a few of their D reviews (the entertainingly bad books dept.) so I got an overall good impression of them. I still feel as though the bar is pretty low.

[oyceter]

Hahaha, yes! They mention the Cassie Edwards thing in the book.

[folklorefanatic]

Their coverage of the Cassie Edwards plagiarism (and her gobs of racism, as well) was great. On the whole, however, trying to address even -isms 101 on romance blogs is asking for trouble, because a large portion of the market consists of centrist/conservative straight white women who pull the Tone Argument in every discussion and think that politeness is more important than truth. (Need I say more?)

There are some progressives, but the bar for being labelled a progressive is set very, very, VERY low. One progressive who was outspoken enough was banned from a number of the most popular blogs, including DearAuthor, among others, which was a massive piece of epic fail on the Janes's part (editors of that blog), IMNSHO.

[oyceter]

So with you there. I read the "meaner" romance blogs, and I still find myself so frustrated because they're never mean enough for me. Especially when it comes to issues like social justice.

The sad thing is that things have actually improved from when I first started checking out romance review sites, and yet, there is still so far to go!