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

[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.