Unpopular Opinions

[JustHereForFood]

I find the whole thing about genre literature vs. "serious" literature both laughable and very pretentious. I have read a few books that would probably count as "serious" (or whatever the word is, I know there is some, but I can't remember it right now), but I mostly read genre. And if I know that some writer looks down on genre literature, it is just a sign to me that they are a pretentious dick, so I don't have to bother withwhat they write.

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

I find the whole thing about genre literature vs. "serious" literature both laughable and very pretentious. I have read a few books that would probably count as "serious" (or whatever the word is, I know there is some, but I can't remember it right now), but I mostly read genre. And if I know that some writer looks down on genre literature, it is just a sign to me that they are a pretentious dick, so I don't have to bother withwhat they write.

I’ll go one step further: more than genre, romance stories/novels are held in much more contempt. But I am an unashamed fan of romance, be they category ( of course I stopped reading those when my favorite authors transitioned out but still reread them), romantic suspense-meaning I WANT that romance. I grew up reading those in sekrit, but read King, Saul, Clancy, Austen, Duncan, Ludlum. The serious  “high brow” I read in high school and college.

I know technically, romance is a genre, but critics always seem to treat it as its own separate category.

Edited March 13, 2022 by GHScorpiosRule

[Ohiopirate02]

18 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I’ll go one step further: more than genre, romance stories/novels are held in much more contempt. But I am an unashamed fan of romance, be they category ( of course I stopped reading those when my favorite authors transitioned out but still reread them), romantic suspense-meaning I WANT that romance. I grew up reading those in sekrit, but read King, Saul, Clancy, Austen, Duncan, Ludlum. The serious  “high brow” I read in high school and college.

I know technically, romance is a genre, but critics always seem to treat it as its own separate category.

My reading is alternating between lit fic and romance with an occasional foray into urban fantasy.  I love romance.  I love the fact that when I open up a romance I know what I am getting.  It's the genre of joy, and we all need joy.  

The one thing that always gets lost in the whole genre vs. lit fic debate is how much publishing needs genre specifically romance.  Romance sells, and the profits from those sales get filtered back into the publisher to pay for the advances for more serious stuff. 

[DearEvette]

There is a pretty cool twitter thread that happened in the last week about how much factual, non-romance information people learned from reading romance. 

Someone mentioned that Georgette Heyer's  'An Infamous Army' being taught in classes on war because her battlefield scenes are precisely written.

I once read a romance novel called 'Rose of Rapture' by Rebecca Brandewyne that took place during the Wars of the Roses, that spanned roughly six or so years before the battle of Bosworth field that resulted in the end of the Yorkists reign and the rise of the Tudors.  A lot of that era of history is in that book and it is integral to the plotting.  It also painted a more nuanced picture of Richard the III.  He was still ruthless, but he was more sympathetic that what you get when you read Shakespeare's play where he was just evil inside and outside. And it prompted me to do some research where the reality is that her portrayla of Richard was probably a bit closer to reality that Shakespeare's because of course, history is written by the winners.  And he had to be painted a monster by contemporary writers like Shakespeare to stay in favor with the Tudors.

I once took a course in college called 'Fiction' and the class taught a wide variety of books.  Probably one of the most novel heavy classes I ever had.  But it included a breadth of fiction including genre (romance, fantasy, horror).  The romance book, predictably, got some sneers.  But let me tell you, we read Morning Glory by LaVyrle Spencer and it takes place during the Great Depression running up to the start of WWII.  And it elicited some of the most lively discussion of the whole class because the sense of place, history, character and attitude was so accessible.

So yeah a lot of people dismiss romance and other genre fiction, but so many of the authors are highly educated people who research a wide variety of subjects and incorporate that into their books so the books are a lot more than just sexy times and clinches. And yeah many of the writers are excellent at the craft of writing and are as technically proficient in the area as lit fict writers are. 

[sugarbaker design]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

I once read a romance novel called 'Rose of Rapture' by Rebecca Brandewyne that took place during the Wars of the Roses, that spanned roughly six or so years before the battle of Bosworth field that resulted in the end of the Yorkists reign and the rise of the Tudors.  A lot of that era of history is in that book and it is integral to the plotting.  It also painted a more nuanced picture of Richard the III.  He was still ruthless, but he was more sympathetic that what you get when you read Shakespeare's play where he was just evil inside and outside. And it prompted me to do some research where the reality is that her portrayla of Richard was probably a bit closer to reality that Shakespeare's because of course, history is written by the winners.  And he had to be painted a monster by contemporary writers like Shakespeare to stay in favor with the Tudors.

I remember reading The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey, which paints Richard III in a sympathetic light.  But that was a novel, which spurred me to read The Princes In The Tower by Allison Weir, which painted Richard III in a way different light.  

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, sugarbaker design said:

I remember reading The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey, which paints Richard III in a sympathetic light.

I love The Daughter of Time. It spurred me to read a lot more about Richard III and the Prince's and that time in history. It also showed how what we consider true history isn't always the truth. History can be changed over time by enough winner rewriting what happened until their fiction becomes "truth". 

[Ohiopirate02]

18 hours ago, sugarbaker design said:

I remember reading The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey, which paints Richard III in a sympathetic light.  But that was a novel, which spurred me to read The Princes In The Tower by Allison Weir, which painted Richard III in a way different light.  

It's been awhile since I read Weir's book, was she the one who postulated that Richard did kill his nephews but he did it because Richard knew his brother's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamist and the boys were illegitimate?

[proserpina65]

22 hours ago, DearEvette said:

There is a pretty cool twitter thread that happened in the last week about how much factual, non-romance information people learned from reading romance. 

A lot of what I knew about the reign of Charles II came from reading "trashy" historical romances set during that period.  Heck, my very first encounter with Samuel Pepys was as a character in one; he frequented a tavern at which the main female character plied her trade.  And I was familiar with the most long-term of Charles' mistresses (Barbara Palmer, Lady Castlemaine) from a different romance novel.  Apparently I unintentionally gravitated towards romances whose authors were pretty particular about historical accuracy when it came to their settings.

 

22 hours ago, DearEvette said:

But let me tell you, we read Morning Glory by LaVyrle Spencer and it takes place during the Great Depression running up to the start of WWII. 

That is a really good book.  I don't read a lot of romance anymore, but that one was quite involving.

[sugarbaker design]

4 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

It's been awhile since I read Weir's book, was she the one who postulated that Richard did kill his nephews but he did it because Richard knew his brother's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamist and the boys were illegitimate?

It's been 25 years since I read it but, yes on the murders, no on the motive.  Pure bloodthirsty ambition.  Like the motive matters!  After you kill two kids, does a noble motive make it any less heinous?

Edited March 16, 2022 by sugarbaker design

[Blergh]

On 3/16/2022 at 12:42 PM, sugarbaker design said:

It's been 25 years since I read it but, yes on the murders, no on the motive.  Pure bloodthirsty ambition.  Like the motive matters!  After you kill two kids, does a noble motive make it any less heinous?

Moreover, if Richard of Gloucester TRULY believed that the sons of his late brother were nonmarital (and that everyone else would believe his 'evidence'), he'd have just had them and their sisters thrown out on the street since nonmarital offspring had no claims to the throne or, for that matter, spelled out legal rights to inheritances. 

However, by imprisoning them then having them murdered ( which I truly believe he DID do since  had he spared their lives, all he'd  have had to have done was bring them back from . .wherever he'd left them and shown them publicly saying 'I didn't kill my brother's bastards and here there are!' but he didn't do that! 

Yep, I agree that Miss Weir was wrong to attempt justify literal bloodthirsty ambition as even faintly being noble! 

[andromeda331]

On 3/19/2022 at 1:52 PM, Blergh said:

Moreover, if Richard of Gloucester TRULY believed that the sons of his late brother were nonmarital (and that everyone else would believe his 'evidence'), he'd have just had them and their sisters thrown out on the street since nonmarital offspring had no claims to the throne or, for that matter, spelled out legal rights to inheritances. 

However, by imprisoning them then having them murdered ( which I truly believe he DID do since  had he spared their lives, all he'd  have had to have done was bring them back from . .wherever he'd left them and shown them publicly saying 'I didn't kill my brother's bastards and here there are!' but he didn't do that! 

Yep, I agree that Miss Weir was wrong to attempt justify literal bloodthirsty ambition as even faintly being noble! 

Yeah, that's always been my reason for thinking he did it. Everyone is accusing you of killing your nephews. Producing them would put an end to that. But it never happened. There is no way to justify the murder of children. That's why even for the time period it was too much for people accept. 

 

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

On 3/13/2022 at 4:47 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I’ll go one step further: more than genre, romance stories/novels are held in much more contempt. But I am an unashamed fan of romance, be they category ( of course I stopped reading those when my favorite authors transitioned out but still reread them), romantic suspense-meaning I WANT that romance. I grew up reading those in sekrit, but read King, Saul, Clancy, Austen, Duncan, Ludlum. The serious  “high brow” I read in high school and college.

I know technically, romance is a genre, but critics always seem to treat it as its own separate category.

So this is a bit off topic and I don't know if you listen to podcasts, but the Fated Mates podcast has been doing an interview series called Trailblazers. Today's episode is an interview with Nora Roberts. It has some pretty good Nora quotes in it.

They've done other Trailblazer episodes with people like Beverly Jenkins and Jayne Ann Krentz.

 

 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Rilla-my-Rilla said:

So this is a bit off topic and I don't know if you listen to podcasts, but the Fated Mates podcast has been doing an interview series called Trailblazers. Today's episode is an interview with Nora Roberts. It has some pretty good Nora quotes in it.

They've done other Trailblazer episodes with people like Beverly Jenkins and Jayne Ann Krentz.

 

 

I am too busy at work to listen to La Nora, but I plan on listening to that podcast as soon as I get home.  I loved their other Trailblazer episodes with Ms. Bev. and Sandra Brown.  I don't even read Sandra Brown, but she was so engaging.  

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

41 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I am too busy at work to listen to La Nora, but I plan on listening to that podcast as soon as I get home.  I loved their other Trailblazer episodes with Ms. Bev. and Sandra Brown.  I don't even read Sandra Brown, but she was so engaging.  

Oh Sandra Brown! I can't believe I forgot her. That was a good episode too. I haven't read Sandra Brown in years, but I still have some older books by her, including an 80s category Erin St. Claire that used to be my grandmother's.

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 hours ago, Rilla-my-Rilla said:

So this is a bit off topic and I don't know if you listen to podcasts, but the Fated Mates podcast has been doing an interview series called Trailblazers. Today's episode is an interview with Nora Roberts. It has some pretty good Nora quotes in it.

They've done other Trailblazer episodes with people like Beverly Jenkins and Jayne Ann Krentz.

 

 

Hah! I have a subscription to Nora’s blog, Fall into the Story which is run by her publicist. I got the link to the podcast today.

I’ve met Nora a number of times over the years and we’ve talked about her writing, the disrespectful morons who have accused her of using a ghost writer, and those who go flailing about, asking if Eve will ever have a baby every time she writes scenes with Eve and her goddaughter Bella in the In Deaths at the annual summer signings over the years. She don’t pull her punches! I ADORE her mean streak and honesty. She’s EARNED everything she’s got. I’ll check out the podcast later this week.

5 hours ago, Rilla-my-Rilla said:

Oh Sandra Brown! I can't believe I forgot her. That was a good episode too. I haven't read Sandra Brown in years, but I still have some older books by her, including an 80s category Erin St. Claire that used to be my grandmother's.

I LOVED her Texas! Lucky and Texas! Chase books, plus all her categories and a number of her single titles. But stopped reading them years ago because the romance was featured less and less.

[GreekGeek]

While I wouldn't exactly call it "historical fiction," I thought Valley of the Dolls gave a vivid look at all types of show business from the 1940's to the 1960's: theater, nightclubs, movies (foreign and Hollywood), television. It's not a perfect book (too much attention to the dullest of the women), but it deserves better than the dismissal as "trash" it usually gets.

[sugarbaker design]

On 4/10/2022 at 9:12 AM, GreekGeek said:

While I wouldn't exactly call it "historical fiction," I thought Valley of the Dolls gave a vivid look at all types of show business from the 1940's to the 1960's: theater, nightclubs, movies (foreign and Hollywood), television. It's not a perfect book (too much attention to the dullest of the women), but it deserves better than the dismissal as "trash" it usually gets.

Oh my gosh, VOTD was the first non-kids book novel I ever read, back in 1975 as a twelve year old burgeoning trashy paperback reader.  I think I read it in one day, a long rainy Saturday, and I re-read it several times after that.  It was also my first "oh, the book was much better than the movie" conversation piece.  Good memories!

[peacheslatour]

4 hours ago, sugarbaker design said:

Oh my gosh, VOTD was the first non-kids book novel I ever read, back in 1975 as a twelve year old burgeoning trashy paperback reader.  I think I read it in one day, a long rainy Saturday, and I re-read it several times after that.  It was also my first "oh, the book was much better than the movie" conversation piece.  Good memories!

That movie is one of my husband's favorites. He just loves the theme song, I think.

[dubbel zout]

The end of it cracks me up. The dude insults the woman in her own home and she's the one who leaves!

[GHScorpiosRule]

This always bugs me, and I think I mentioned it before, and I know it bugged when I read the book when it FINALLY came out, and now that I'm re-reading it again, well, ARGH!!!

Johanna gone done and used SORAS'ng in A Loving Scoundrel so that lovable dimwit, Percy isn't too "old" to hang out with Jeremy?

Jeremy was around 11 when James discovered he had a son. And he was 15 when he got hurt during one of the skirmishes with Nick. He was 16 when we met him in Love Only Once, and he'd been with James for a few years. Both Nick and Percy were about 27. So, 11 years.

But suddenly in her exposition in Jeremy's book, Jeremy was 16 when he and James met? Hell's Bells, Johanna! She was usually good at not pulling this shit. And now Percy has been aged down so he's 34 to Jeremy's 25. Again, Hell's Bells!

But I still love the book. Johanna should have ended the series with Jeremy.

Edited June 9, 2022 by GHScorpiosRule

[Anduin]

Scientific papers that have interesting subjects, but are written so damn dry that they're unreadable. Considering how prevalent this is, the target community must disagree.

I realise I'm just an amateur enthusiast of several subjects, but I'd love to expand my knowledge straight from the primary source. However, my eyes glaze over in zero time flat.

Do they teach boring writing in the university courses? I realise not everyone can be [insert author here], but can't they at least try to put a little life into these things?

[EtheltoTillie]

On 6/25/2022 at 3:21 AM, Anduin said:

Do they teach boring writing in the university courses? I realise not everyone can be [insert author here], but can't they at least try to put a little life into these things?

Yes!  I remember learning how to write papers in psychology classes.  It had to be very dry and technical so it appears to be serious.  I ended up in magazine journalism instead.  

Edited July 6, 2022 by EtheltoTillie

[Anduin]

5 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

Yes!  I remember learning how to write papers in psychology classes.  It had to be very dry and technical so it appears to be serious.  I ended up in magazine journalism instead.  

Damn. So I was right. God, it's frustrating. Such interesting concepts just have the life completely sucked out of them.

[Irlandesa]

On 6/25/2022 at 2:21 AM, Anduin said:

Scientific papers that have interesting subjects, but are written so damn dry that they're unreadable. Considering how prevalent this is, the target community must disagree.

I realise I'm just an amateur enthusiast of several subjects, but I'd love to expand my knowledge straight from the primary source. However, my eyes glaze over in zero time flat.

Do they teach boring writing in the university courses? I realise not everyone can be [insert author here], but can't they at least try to put a little life into these things?

Ah the joys of academic writing. 

Academic authors write to share information which is why scholarly papers have all the joy of a technical manual.  It's kind of what they are.  There's a specific structure so readers know where to look for certain things.

Each field has its own language that most people outside of the field don't easily understand. By the time they're getting published in academic journals, they usually have spent years studying, reading and working in that field and default to the same style.  Choosing to write in a high school level vs. a post-grad level would make some things easier to read but it won't solve the fact that authors expect their readers to have a lot of background information.

Another factor is academic papers are often written in groups.  One of the authors will write the introduction and methods section.  Another author will write up the results while another will write up the results, discussion and conclusion. The blander it is, the easier it is to blend.

Academic books are usually more entertaining to read.  There's at least the hope that non-experts are reading.

[Anduin]

28 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

Ah the joys of academic writing. 

Academic authors write to share information which is why scholarly papers have all the joy of a technical manual.  It's kind of what they are.  There's a specific structure so readers know where to look for certain things.

Thanks. It's a real shame that all the information has the life drained out of it, but at least I know it's not just me who suffers when trying to read these things.

[EtheltoTillie]

13 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Ah the joys of academic writing. 

Academic authors write to share information which is why scholarly papers have all the joy of a technical manual.  It's kind of what they are.  There's a specific structure so readers know where to look for certain things.

Each field has its own language that most people outside of the field don't easily understand. By the time they're getting published in academic journals, they usually have spent years studying, reading and working in that field and default to the same style.  Choosing to write in a high school level vs. a post-grad level would make some things easier to read but it won't solve the fact that authors expect their readers to have a lot of background information.

Another factor is academic papers are often written in groups.  One of the authors will write the introduction and methods section.  Another author will write up the results while another will write up the results, discussion and conclusion. The blander it is, the easier it is to blend.

Academic books are usually more entertaining to read.  There's at least the hope that non-experts are reading.

Even in magazine journalism everything is written in groups, interestingly enough--there's a chain of editors that processes everything.  But they are trained to make the writing more interesting and fun!  So junior writers and editors learn from the more senior ones. 

Another interesting thing about academic writing as I see it is that it is designed to exclude outsiders and self-congratulate the insiders. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by EtheltoTillie

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, EtheltoTillie said:

Another interesting thing about academic writing as I see it is that it is designed to exclude outsider and self-congratulate the insiders. 

I completely agree.  Many professions create their own vocabulary solely to exclude the masses from fully comprehending whatever they are writing about--looking at you medicine.  I am in no way discounting the years of study it takes to become a doctor of medicine, but choices were made and those choices were designed to create a divide.  The American public could have learned the term myocardial infarction instead of heart attack.  

[Bookish Jen]

I worked as a research writer for a healthcare company. Oy, it sucked. I tried to make our articles audience-friendly, but the powers that be wanted us to write in a dry, academic style. Here's the thing, we didn't write for academics; we wrote for hospital administrators who probably didn't have the time to read long, rambling passages that took forever to get to the point.

[DearEvette]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Many professions create their own vocabulary solely to exclude the masses from fully comprehending whatever they are writing about--looking at you medicine.  I am in no way discounting the years of study it takes to become a doctor of medicine, but choices were made and those choices were designed to create a divide. 

I don't think it is deliberate as that though.  i think it is simply a case where people tend to write to their intended audience.

I work in data analyses and statistics and coding.  As we use words and terms that are just specific to that and often reference something that colloquial language doesn't quite have the nuance for.  So we throw around terms like 'subquery' or 'select statement' or 'rows unbounded proceeding' that is specific syntax that makes a a lot of sense to us because we are steeped in it daily. 

But I do know that we write to and speak to our specific audience.  When I am talking to other analysts or coders we use our language because it really is a shorthand, but when I am speaking to end users of the data or analyses I send out, I use words and terms they understand,  And a lot of time it is something that is only germane to them as end users, and they don't need the nitty gritty of the inner workings of the code.

I remember when my husband was working on his dissertation, it was 300 pages of proving his thesis complete with multi source foot notes and it was dry as dirt.  But he also knew the only people reading his dissertation was his committee or other scholars in his field who would use it as part of their bibliography.

But when he was asked to excerpt one of the chapters for a encyclopedia that would be read by the masses, he completely changed the tone of it, swapped out the more 'insidery' words, punched it up for funsies.  He did the same thing when he adapted his dissertation into a book.  His intended audience wasn't other scholars but the public.

[Irlandesa]

On 7/7/2022 at 12:12 PM, DearEvette said:

I don't think it is deliberate as that though.  i think it is simply a case where people tend to write to their intended audience.

I mostly agree.

Take medicine, for instance.  There are common terms, like migraines, to describe bad headaches.  But that can refer to migraine with auras, migraines without auras, cluster headaches, ophthalmological headaches...etc. The lay person might just say they suffer from migraines but each distinct migraine might be caused by different things, likely presents itself differently and may be treated differently.  Someone with a migraine may understand what makes their special but many people don't know the difference. 

Scientists performing medical research and writing about it are often studying very specific and precise things.  Being more general runs the risk of not conveying the proper information.  But the more specific and precise the writing is, the more it comes off as gibberish without the right background.  

Edited July 9, 2022 by Irlandesa

[peacheslatour]

I don't know if this is an UO but I thought Anna Karenina was an idiot.

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

I don't know if this is an UO but I thought Anna Karenina was an idiot.

Not unpopular at all! Or if it is, then I share it. Anna threw everything away for a guy that clearly was not worth it.

[DrSpaceman73]

I'd defend Anna by saying she should not have had to sacrifice anything to be with the man she at least thought she loved. 

The men turn out fine no matter what happens.  They have all the power. The women, here Anna, bear the repercussions of the failed relationships.  Whether she stayed with her husband or left him, she was going to be unhappy and the result would be the same. And whether she again stayed or left the men turn out fine with little to no consequences. 

Now Madame Bovary on the other hand, dont get me started on her.  She couldn't have died soon enough. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

10 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Now Madame Bovary on the other hand, dont get me started on her.  She couldn't have died soon enough. 

What makes Emma Bovary so intriguing as a character is that most of us are a little guilty of feeling that dissatisfaction with adulthood and the real world... but most of us wouldn't go to the idiotically destructive lengths she goes to to ease her boredom!

I always had some sympathy for poor, dumb Charles... except for that part with the ill-advised surgery. Dude, know your limitations!

[DrSpaceman73]

11 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

What makes Emma Bovary so intriguing as a character is that most of us are a little guilty of feeling that dissatisfaction with adulthood and the real world... but most of us wouldn't go to the idiotically destructive lengths she goes to to ease her boredom!

I always had some sympathy for poor, dumb Charles... except for that part with the ill-advised surgery. Dude, know your limitations!

You're right most of us do have those thoughts and feeling of dissatisfaction with adulthood

But as you mentioned most of is still grow up and don't act like a love sick spendthrift teen thinking that will fix it. 

Charles.....yep he just kind of a dope putting up with her. 

[Anduin]

On 7/9/2022 at 11:37 AM, Irlandesa said:

Scientists performing medical research and writing about it are often studying very specific and precise things.  Being more general runs the risk of not conveying the proper information.  But the more specific and precise the writing is, the more it comes off as gibberish without the right background.  

I get that. It's just frustrating to have to try and decipher it. Like the format itself is opposed to being readable by the general public.

[Blergh]

On 7/10/2022 at 8:47 PM, DrSpaceman73 said:

You're right most of us do have those thoughts and feeling of dissatisfaction with adulthood

But as you mentioned most of is still grow up and don't act like a love sick spendthrift teen thinking that will fix it. 

Charles.....yep he just kind of a dope putting up with her. 

Emma was too wrapped up in her own fantasies to enjoy even the little things an ordinary life would have had to have offered her while Charles adored her for no good reason so the one I TRULY felt sorry for was their young daughter Berthe who, thanks to her late mother's debts and neither parent considering  her future wound up being sent  by an exploitative aunt to work in. ..  a cotton mill  (which  in the 1850's was known to have been an utter nightmare for the underaged workers)! I'll bet poor Berthe spent her whole childhood wondering what she'd done to have deserved that fate! 

[sugarbaker design]

On 7/10/2022 at 10:14 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

but most of us wouldn't go to the idiotically destructive lengths she goes to to ease her boredom!

Most of us aren't that bored!  It's so difficult to find any kind of empathy for these upper class bitches like Emma Bovary and Anna Karenina, with all the time in the world to do nothing but think about themselves.

[GreekGeek]

On 7/10/2022 at 10:14 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

What makes Emma Bovary so intriguing as a character is that most of us are a little guilty of feeling that dissatisfaction with adulthood and the real world... but most of us wouldn't go to the idiotically destructive lengths she goes to to ease her boredom!

I always had some sympathy for poor, dumb Charles... except for that part with the ill-advised surgery. Dude, know your limitations!

Yes, I don't think she was intended to be sympathetic, at least not entirely. Her tragedy is that she doesn't realize she already has the true love that the heroines of romance novels pursue--except that her husband isn't the mysterious tormented Heathcliff or Rochester type. One of the ironies of the book is that down to earth Charles gets the beautiful romantic death--he literally dies of a broken heart--while Emma dies in agonies of vomiting. 

As for the surgery, if I recall, Charles didn't want to do it but was pressured into it by Emma and Homais (compared to whom Emma is a saint).

[Blergh]

The thing to keep in mind re Madame Bovary is that, while it was set in 1850's France when growing  widespread literacy got a good number of folks who'd been from previously illiterate demographics to read- and some of these were ruining their lives via aspiring to live out their lives following the examples of their literary heroes, it's by NO means irrelevant in our current times considering the number of folks who have done the same re becoming Twilight, Game of Thrones, Harry Potter,etc. stans AND the number of vloggers on that site rhyming with Shmoo Nuub who pretend to have charmed lives via travelling, stunts, pranks, etc. . . then so many of the above  have wound up having wrecked their lives(and those of their actual loved ones)  via cheating themselves from  enjoying any aspects of their actual  lives as they are instead of faking having perfect and happy lives via role playing. Yep, the world's a stage and everyone's a player but many folks have been self-destructing via following Emma's example ( whether intentionally or not) by taking Hamlet's quote ENTIRELY too literally. 

[Spartan Girl]

Could someone please explain to me why anyone would ship Alec and Tess from Tess of the D’Urbervilles? Or why anyone would root for Alec over Angel? Fine, Angel is a hypocritical asshole. I get why people don’t like him.

But Alec raped her. He raped her, stalked her, and emotionally blackmailed her with her family’s needs into becoming his mistress. Unlike Angel, who at least was genuinely remorseful for his actions and tried to make things right, Alec’s “repentance” lasted about five minutes before he started tormenting Tess again. He didn’t love her, he felt entitled to her. He wanted to control her. He used her, didn’t give two shits about her feelings, and would have been more than happy to let her family rot if she didn’t submit to him. That makes him the bigger asshole a million times over. There is nothing remotely redeemable or attractive about his character, no matter what actor gets cast as him in any adaptation—looking at you, Hans Matheson!

Edited July 25, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm putting this here, as I don't know where else to put it, and it's my opinion, even though I haven't and won't read the rest.

I'm so glad I stopped with Dangerous Kiss, I think it was, of what is now referred to as The Lucky Santangelo Series by Jackie Collins.

I was happy with the way that ended. But I found that there are 10 books with these  characters! The "11th" isn't even a book but novella, which, based on readers' reviews, is just plain stupid.

Do I want to read a book with no Gino? No. And the fudging of the ages, just to make the timelines in the books match current popular culture? Changing Maria's name to Max?! THE FUCK? But the worst is reading about

killing off Gino in the most lamest way

and the personality transplant of Paige. Never mind Jackie or whoever edited it or wrote it, forgot that Gino had four wives, not five (Cindy, Maria, Susan, and Paige), and that Paige was the fourth and loved by both Gino and Lucky.

Since I guess there was no story for Carrie, she died off booksville. At least she wasn't murdered, I guess? BAH! The first two books are the best anyway, and the third and fourth superfluous.

[Bali]

I really truly despised Where The Crawdads Sing. I think that the interesting part would have been HOW this abandoned illiterate child becomes the world's most renowned expert on swamps. But no, we don't get that. We get a book that feels like its in love with itself. How many pages about turkey vultures devouring each other do we really need? Ugh.

[scarynikki12]

6 hours ago, Bali said:

How many pages about turkey vultures devouring each other do we really need?

Is it weird this makes me want to read the book?

[Haleth]

I don't remember reading much about the turkey vultures.  LOL  I was on a plane last month and decided to watch the movie.  I had the book on my kindle but hadn't started it yet, read it when I got home.  I liked the movie better.

[Madding crowd]

On 11/4/2022 at 2:33 PM, Bali said:

I really truly despised Where The Crawdads Sing. I think that the interesting part would have been HOW this abandoned illiterate child becomes the world's most renowned expert on swamps. But no, we don't get that. We get a book that feels like its in love with itself. How many pages about turkey vultures devouring each other do we really need? Ugh.

Not to mention how a young child with no access to showers, toothpaste or medical and dental care grows up to be the most beautiful woman anyone has seen is ridiculous. Then she becomes a best selling author and scientist without any education at all.

[Bali]

22 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

Not to mention how a young child with no access to showers, toothpaste or medical and dental care grows up to be the most beautiful woman anyone has seen is ridiculous. Then she becomes a best selling author and scientist without any education at all.

Yep! SO MUCH OF ALL OF THIS!! I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But on the .5 percent chance it could, that THAT would make for some interesting reading. But we don't get that. Nope. We got whatever we got. 

[stewedsquash]

I need someone to solve the mysterious rhyme of Shmoo Nuub before I lose my mind. I am sure it is obvious while also being sure I have no flipping idea.

[EtheltoTillie]

On 1/4/2023 at 11:04 PM, stewedsquash said:

I need someone to solve the mysterious rhyme of Shmoo Nuub before I lose my mind. I am sure it is obvious while also being sure I have no flipping idea.

I don’t understand this post.  Can you explain. 

[stewedsquash]

I can only quote sporadically since the update so wasn’t able to quote @Blergh who posted the rhymes with shmoo nuub. I honestly can’t figure it out.