Something I've been thinking (probably too much) about lately is standards of judgment. Is it reasonable to compare one novel against all other novels, especially when the author never aspired to compete with the most notable novelists of any period? I've done something akin to what I'm guessing you did: went down the row of paranormal romances, reading a few pages and moving on. In that context, just idly flipping pages, I was... underwhelmed.
On the other hand, some paranormal romances are better than others, and I recently read a few by one author and enjoyed the heck out of them. By most external standards, they're not good at all. I went into them, however, with absolutely no expectations at all of consistency, non-stereotypical characterization, linguistic sensitivity, grasp of subtext, etc., etc. Given that, and that I wasn't holding them to the standards of high stylists of horror or fantasy, they make for entertaining reading.
One of the thoughts is something that I've been saying for many years, that vampires are no longer monsters, no longer an incarnation of the Other.
Oh yes. Somewhere between Buffy and Anita Blake, there rose a large and ever-growing contingent of vampires who are not intended to be scary, or necessarily erotic. In my opinion, they fill roughly the same ecological niche as dark/night/drow elves in extruded fantasy.
And a second thought, I'd be willing to bet you green folding money that a high percentage of the women (and men) who get off on "paranormal romance," who find all this werewolf/vamp/angel/mermaid/fairie/dragon/fluffy-bunny "otherkin" soft core so very titillating are also staunchly anti-GLBT.
Absolutely agreed. Given that books that become bestsellers tend to be aimed squarely at some sort of common denominator, lowest or otherwise, I am not at all surprised.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
But Is It Art?
Date: 2009-07-27 06:48 pm (UTC)On the other hand, some paranormal romances are better than others, and I recently read a few by one author and enjoyed the heck out of them. By most external standards, they're not good at all. I went into them, however, with absolutely no expectations at all of consistency, non-stereotypical characterization, linguistic sensitivity, grasp of subtext, etc., etc. Given that, and that I wasn't holding them to the standards of high stylists of horror or fantasy, they make for entertaining reading.
One of the thoughts is something that I've been saying for many years, that vampires are no longer monsters, no longer an incarnation of the Other.
Oh yes. Somewhere between Buffy and Anita Blake, there rose a large and ever-growing contingent of vampires who are not intended to be scary, or necessarily erotic. In my opinion, they fill roughly the same ecological niche as dark/night/drow elves in extruded fantasy.
And a second thought, I'd be willing to bet you green folding money that a high percentage of the women (and men) who get off on "paranormal romance," who find all this werewolf/vamp/angel/mermaid/fairie/dragon/fluffy-bunny "otherkin" soft core so very titillating are also staunchly anti-GLBT.
Absolutely agreed. Given that books that become bestsellers tend to be aimed squarely at some sort of common denominator, lowest or otherwise, I am not at all surprised.