To understand what happened, you must understand Writing for keeps‘ initial purpose. My intention was for it to be an author’s blog. Since I am unpublished and unknown, I hoped it would help me reach new readers, both as an incentive to write more, and a preparation for my future published status (it’s always a good idea to start promoting before your book is actually out). Writing about the romance genre and what I read was also part of this strategy: being a nobody, I couldn’t expect to hook people by simply talking about my own writing. So I talked about it in a roundabout way. I talked about romance, what it meant to me, why I liked it, what was good and what was bad in it, and what could be done within its boundaries.

I don’t think I have betrayed my original intention. But as often is the case, reality didn’t exactly meet my expectations, for better and for worse. Here are the good things I received from this blogging experience:

1. I discovered so many fascinating blogs and bloggers. The networking part of my plan worked, and to my greatest enjoyment.
2. Writing about all these topics made me develop and clarify my thoughts on them. I think I should write a nonfiction book on dating.

Here are, on the other hand, the bad things that blogging caused:

1. I wrote this blog mainly in English, but eventually decided to focus on writing in French for now. Most of my “new readers” won’t be able to follow me to the next step.
2. Writing on average 3 posts a week (and finding pictures especially!!) took up a lot of time I could have used writing fiction.

I don’t regret a single second I spent on this blog. But you know how some people realize that their relationship is going nowhere, and still they remain in it, because it’s safe, and they’re used to it? Yeah. I’m not that kind of person. At all. The moment an idea crosses my mind, I have to act on it. The moment I realize it’s over, it’s over. I’m not a phony, and I couldn’t pretend nothing’s changed to save my life.

Why now? Well, some weeks ago I had something like an epiphany. It was October 1998 all over again. A moment in my life I had quite forgotten, in spirit if not in facts. I think we all have stories about how and why we started writing. Mine actually goes back earlier than ’98. But it wouldn’t be complete without the mention of ’98, and what happened to me some weeks ago, even though it has nothing to do with writing proper. It has to do with me.

There’s an implicit rule for us writers who want to go pro that we have to be humble. I can definitely be humble if we’re going to talk about my ideas or my “talent”. But again here, I think that’s only a part of what makes me a writer, of why I want to write. I don’t actually write because I feel like I should share my wonderful talent and incredible writing skills with the world; I don’t think I ever did. I write because I have a drive to do something public. Not necessarily writing, though at eleven years old, it looked like the easiest and most immediate medium of expression, and it has remained so since (our past choices determine us that way).

That is why I can be very humble about what and how I write; but I cannot be humble about what I want to achieve for myself through writing. I keep reading all these books and blogs and testimonials in which writers say things like, “It’s long and hard―and not what you’re thinking―and don’t expect much.” Or, “You can’t make a living by being a writer.” I’ll be frank: it bugs me. It’s like they’re talking to an abstract average writer, when I feel anything but abstract, and not particularly average. Maybe that’s the “top-of-the-class syndrome”: all your life you’ve been doing better than the “average” student your educators’ speeches were directed to, so you’re used to waving warnings aside and waiting for everything to turn out for the best for you.

So, granted, maybe there’s a part of self-delusion in that, but whether you like it or not, there is also truth in that simple statement: an average is only an average, and it always implicitly suggests that there are people below it, and people above it. As a matter of fact, the average often doesn’t exist in reality. There is also truth in the statement that you couldn’t really make a decent living as a coal miner in 19th-century Europe, but these days are over. It bugs me that writers are such bad economists, historians and philosophers all at the same time. I have already (once) addressed the problem of remuneration for writers on this blog, because it’s really quite staggering to realize that most would-be writers are ready to dive into the “system” and accept all of its limits without the least amount of critical thinking…

Anyway, I’m not. I don’t have a fixation on being published by a publisher. I don’t need official recognition, or a status. That’s not why I write. What my little “epiphany” reminded me of, though, is that I have quite a fixation on doing this―writing―for real, not as a hobby, and I want all you guys who are not publishers to know about it. When I was seventeen, and people asked me what I wanted to do later for a job, I always said, “I’m going to do whatever I please, and people will pay me for it.” I’ve tried as I could to change my mind and choose a “reasonable career”, but it’s now eight years later, I’m jobless, and I still feel exactly the same. So, you know, let’s get to work!

That is why I won’t be able to post on this blog much anymore. It took me a year to fully realize what I want, and what I want isn’t to write reviews, or to keep a blog in which I say that I write. I want to go “underwater” for a while. People who read French will be kept up to date with what my “next step” consists of, anyway.

Am I ever afraid that it may not work? No, not really. I mean, it may not work, but I’m not afraid of it.

J

Le 31 mars 2010, il y a près de deux ans, le gouvernement libéral du Québec a annoncé son intention d’augmenter les frais de scolarité, en accompagnement d’un ensemble de mesures sociales régressives qui se traduisent toutes par le désengagement de l’État des services publics. La mauvaise nouvelle était attendue, et dès le lendemain, nous étions dans la rue pour protester… 12 000 étudiant-e-s, mais aussi membres de syndicats et d’organismes communautaires.

Les actions, occupations, journées de réflexion et manifestations continuent en automne 2010 et à l’hiver 2011, mais rien n’y fait: en mars 2011, la hausse des frais est confirmée et précisée. Nous savons désormais qu’à partir de la session d’automne 2012, les frais de scolarité vont monter à chaque année pendant 5 ans, pour atteindre 3793$ par année en 2017, soit 1625$ de plus que le montant actuel. Loin de se décourager, les étudiant-e-s se mobilisent de plus belle. Nous commençons aussi à envisager la possibilité d’une grève générale illimitée si le gouvernement continuait à faire la sourde oreille… Le 10 novembre 2012, malgré la pluie, la manifestation nationale étudiante à Montréal compte 30 000 participant-e-s.

Toujours rien? Le gouvernement nous force donc à prendre les grands moyens… Dès la fin de la session d’automne 2011, les associations étudiantes du Québec se mettent à voter en faveur de mandats de grève pour l’hiver 2012, dans une dernière tentative d’attirer l’attention du gouvernement. Évidemment, ce n’est pas du bluff… Depuis mardi dernier, le 14 février, je suis en grève aux côtés de plus de 18 000 autres étudiant-e-s d’universités et de cégeps de tout le Québec. 3 000 de plus vont nous rejoindre cette semaine, en plus de toutes celles et ceux qui voteront sur la grève durant la semaine.

La question “pourquoi nous sommes en grève” a donc deux réponses: l’une concerne la cause (pourquoi nous sommes opposé-e-s à la hausse des frais de scolarité), l’autre le moyen lui-même (pourquoi une grève générale illimitée). Les raisons pour lesquelles nous refusons la hausse des frais de scolarité sont nombreuses, et je ne vais pas les énumérer (une recherche détaillée sur le sujet est disponible ici). Je voudrais simplement dire qu’en ce qui me concerne, les raisons qu’on nous amène pour justifier la hausse sont des mystifications, et ne serait-ce qu’à ce titre, la société québécoise ne peut les accepter de la part d’un gouvernement élu (j’étudie en science politique, vous vous souvenez?).

La société est globalement de plus en plus riche, mais la majorité de la population (les classes moyennes et pauvres) doivent “contribuer” toujours plus… Cherchez l’erreur! Où va l’argent que nous payons, où va la richesse que nous produisons? Le gouvernement avance la dette publique comme excuse pour se désengager de services publics tels que la santé, l’éducation, Hydro-Québec. Mais qu’est-ce que cette dette publique, au juste? D’où vient-elle, à qui la devons-nous, et quel espoir avons-nous de la rembourser? Est-il juste qu’après avoir fait l’erreur de s’endetter auprès de marchés financiers privés, l’État nous demande de subir les conséquences de ses actes?

Avec des mesures telles que la hausse des frais de scolarité, le gouvernement se cherche simplement des moyens alternatifs à l’impôt pour faire payer davantage la population… à commencer par celle qui, en raison de la faiblesse, voire de l’absence de ses revenus, ne peut pas payer d’impôts: les étudiant-e-s! Et comment obtenir de l’argent d’une personne qui n’en dispose pas? Par le crédit, évidemment; en lui créant une dette. La crise de 2008 ne nous aurait-elle donc rien appris sur ce qui peut arriver à une économie qui fonctionne grâce au crédit? Si l’État n’a pas le courage et la dignité de faire face à ses responsabilités, nous les aurons, nous, pour lui faire face…

Que ce soit clair: ceci n’est pas une bataille mesquine de chiffres ou d’intérêts (même si la pauvreté existe, et pour l’avoir vécue, je ne peux exprimer avec assez d’éloquence le mépris que m’inspirent ceux qui la ridiculisent ou la minimisent). Ceci est un combat politique que nous menons au nom de la démocratie, de la justice, de l’égalité et de la transparence. Sous le couvert de nous remettre entre les mains la responsabilité de nos études, de nos dépenses et de notre futur, l’État nous charge en réalité de la responsabilité de ses propres dépenses et (mauvaises) stratégies budgétaires… Va-t-on se laisser fourrer et traiter comme des carpettes, ou bien préférons-nous nous tenir debout et résister?

Mettons que vous êtes convaincu-e-s. La hausse des frais de scolarité est une aberration, une arnaque qui peine à dissimuler un problème systémique d’une toute autre ampleur. Mais pourquoi la grève? Parce que ce n’est pas en restant bien à l’abri dans nos salles de classes et en payant les factures qu’on nous envoie que nous réussirons à faire changer d’avis le gouvernement. Cela fait près de deux ans que nous multiplions les actions et les messages argumentés contre cette hausse, et là-haut personne n’écoute… Puisque le pouvoir ne semble pas de lui-même décidé à tenir compte de la société, alors il est temps pour nous de l’y décider.

Une GGI est le moyen d’acculer le gouvernement. En effet, contrairement à ce que veut la légende urbaine, la perspective d’une annulation de session (si la grève se poursuivait trop longtemps) menace principalement le gouvernement, qui aurait à faire face à la désorganisation du système d’éducation québécois dans son ensemble. Bien sûr, personne ne veut perdre sa session, mais le gouvernement serait dans un tel merdier si cela arrivait que, peut-être, le sacrifice de n’avoir pas validé de cours pendant quatre mois de sa vie en vaut la peine… En second lieu, être en grève, c’est énormément de travail. En effet, une grève générale illimitée se prépare, se propage, se maintient…

Et surtout, une GGI ne consiste pas tant à nous faire manquer nos cours (cela, c’est plutôt la partie sacrifice) qu’à nous permettre de devenir militants à temps plein. Établir un bras de fer avec un gouvernement réticent prend beaucoup de temps et d’efforts, et quand les moyens que nous avons déployés sur deux ans pour nous faire entendre tout en restant aux études ont failli, cela signifie qu’il faut passer à la vitesse et à l’intensité supérieures. Or cela n’est possible que si, pour la durée nécessaire, on nous autorise à ne plus aller en cours, à ne plus faire nos lectures et à ne plus écrire nos travaux.

Notre lutte s’inscrit dans un mouvement mondial contre le système capitaliste et ses conséquences néfastes. Vive la grève générale en Grèce!! Vive la mobilisation des travailleurs, des travailleuses et des jeunes en Egypte! Vive la lutte étudiante au Chili!

- Contre le courant #01, bulletin de lutte à l’initiative des étudiant-e-s latinoaméricain-e-s de l’UQAM

En somme, voilà pourquoi nous sommes en grève. Voilà pourquoi, que vous soyez ou non Québécois-e, que vous soyez ou non aux études, que vous soyez riche ou pauvre, la question de la hausse des frais de scolarité vous concerne. Parce que si le discours qui appuie cette hausse s’impose, si nous maintenons le cap vers un monde où la majorité doit travailler de plus en plus pour augmenter sans cesse le capital d’une minorité, vers un monde où la contestation politique est de plus en plus délégitimée et criminalisée, ce ne sera pas juste les étudiant-e-s qui vivront dans ce monde-là… Vous aussi y vivrez et devrez en payer le prix.

http://1625canepassepas.ca/
http://www.bloquonslahausse.com/
http://www.tuitiontruth.ca/

In the meantime, here’s my experience. When I sent my supervisor the first version of the paper, which was explicitly unfinished (I was basically asking for directions), he got back to me with some general advice, and a bunch of comments within the text itself. My first reaction was one of dismay. Is there really that much to fix in what I wrote? As for the more general advice, it made me feel like maybe I should have tried harder before I sent him my work. Shouldn’t I have thought about it myself? It was a bit of a blow to my self-confidence, and I even found myself thinking, “Am I even qualified for this job? Can I do it? Apparently I’m quite wide of the mark…”

But the show must go on, so I had to stop wallowing in self-pity very fast and start making sense of my supervisor’s comments, rather than see them as criticisms. First of all, I thought, yeah, maybe I should’ve put more effort in the version I sent him… But I didn’t. Bygones, water under the bridge. Move on. Secondly, questioning my ability to write a master’s thesis was probably over the top: didn’t this prof accept to supervise me? Would he have done so if he hadn’t thought me capable of achieving the work it required? And isn’t he also, like, the only prof who gave me an A+ in a graduate course?

The other thing I considered when it was time to approach his comments was that I may be the work’s author, but I wasn’t the author from A to Z anymore. This wasn’t like a paper which you write entirely on your own, and maybe the prof will give you an A+ because s/he thinks you couldn’t have done it better as a student. A thesis is a collaborative effort. A supervisor is supposed to supervise and guide you. When the committee sees your work, they will also consider your supervisor’s work: have you been well supervised, well guided, well assisted? Your supervisor will sometimes pick on details, because they want the result to look as nice as possible; and yes, they will certainly use their superior knowledge and experience in academia to do so. If they had nothing to say about your work, it wouldn’t so much mean that your work is perfect, as that they’re not doing their job.

I think a novelist’s relationship with their editor must be kind of similar. Sometimes their demands to fix this and that seem overwhelming, and you could start wondering whether you even have it in you to write a good, readable novel. But you must not forget that if your editor’s working with you, it’s because they chose you in the first place, because they saw your potential. Then you should also remember that it is their job to turn your raw potential into a publishable novel, and that the former never equals the latter. After all, although your name is on the cover, they also have a reputation to uphold in front of the readers: only publish the very best. And the very best rarely is the work of just one person.

What do you think? How do you boost your self-confidence in the face of negative comments? Wouldn’t you rather work with a supervisor/editor who challenged you to work harder, than with one who would leave you to your own devices?

Let’s get back on track with a review… of a book which is an interesting illustration of how a good novel can be a bad romance. Or, if I don’t wish to be judgmental, a romance which didn’t work for me at all. Remember how I was complaining about the lack of truly antagonistic heroes? My prayer’s been answered with Practice Makes Perfect. Except I forgot to mention that there was a corollary to this rule. Among the many soft constraints of the romance genre is a plot point we like to call the Grovel. The more of a jerk the hero is at first, the more he is supposed to grovel…

The unforgivable problem with Julie James’ book is that its gigantic jerk of a hero never comes around. Instead, we are expected to accept that his asshattery wasn’t that bad after all, and the heroine was just hostile, hence her perception of it all as asshattery. But let me put that in context for you: Payton and J. D. have entered their law firm at the same time, and are now both senior associates, waiting to be made partners anytime in the coming weeks. Incidentally, they hate each other’s guts. Neither can remember exactly how it started, but for the past eight years they’ve been engaged in a mean and ruthless competition with each other. Little do they expect to be asked to work together… let alone that only one of them can make it to partner.

“The playing field isn’t level―that’s the problem. Now maybe you’re comfortable accepting that, but I’m not. You know as well as I do that these days, if a man and a woman are equally qualified for a position, the woman gets the job. It’s this socially liberal, politically correct society we live in. Men have to be twice as good at what they do to remain competitive in the workplace. Women just have to stay in the race.”

- Practice Makes Perfect, Julie James (Berkley, 2009)

Actor Rainn Wilson in The Office

And this outrageously ignorant piece of sexism is brought to you by… J. D. Jameson, romance hero! (Doesn’t quite sound right, does it?) By the way, if any of you are familiar with the TV sitcoms The Office and Modern Family, I had the hugest difficulty trying not to picture J. D. as Dwight and Payton as Claire. The way they come across in dialogues is just that intense and insane. Obviously, Dwight’s comical aspect essentially relies on the fact that he takes himself so seriously, though he’s only got a crappy office job; at least J. D. does have a “serious” job that somehow accounts for his thinking so highly of himself. Unfortunately, that makes him distinctly less funny, but no less exasperating.

J. D. and Payton’s hostility is often explained by their political differences: he’s a macho conservative, she’s a feminist liberal. Good concept. It could have worked. Except for two major reasons: 1) I can accept anti-feminism in some clueless white trash dude, but in a hot-shot Harvard lawyer? 2) I couldn’t wait for the moment when the truth would shatter his whole worldview, and this moment never came. Turns out that his disgusting male chauvinism is an integral part of his personality, kind of like an endearing quirk. At least that’s what Payton seems to think, since she actually has all the arguments to prove him wrong. Blinded by sexual attraction is the only explanation I’ve found, but it doesn’t really fit in with a HEA.

I remember a post on SBTB in which a reader wanted recs for books with (initially) prejudiced heroes. Like, he’s a racist; she’s of a difference race. He falls in love and changes his mind. I liked the idea, because for me, nothing is too wild for romance. SB Sarah, on the other hand, wondered whether prejudice could make it into a romance at all. It seemed too unromantic to her. IMO the key element is character growth. And in Practice Makes Perfect, J. D. shows very little of it, although he is prejudiced in possibly the worst way for a het romance to work: against women who voice their oppression. I am sad to see how easily sexism is dismissed in popular culture and discourse, compared to similar issues such as racism, although sexism concerns over 50% of the population.

Think this is strictly political? That James’s hero rubs me the wrong way only because I’m a feminist? No, but there’s more. First of all, consider the way I pick on details in Judith McNaught’s books because I find them biased and conservative, yet cannot help but looooove those very same books. The reason is that, although her worldview may occasionally show in her writings, Judith McNaught does not write political novels. She writes romance novels. The political undertones stay safely peripheral, and most of all, they cannot spoil the magic of the romance at play.

Ignoring this, J. D. pointed to the dust on his sleeve. “Take it easy on the suit, cupcake. This was hand-tailored in London.”

- Practice Makes Perfect, Julie James (Berkley, 2009)

Practice Makes Perfect, on the contrary, sounds preachy. Ms. James doesn’t just show us how love can grow between two people in spite of their differences. She very forcefully tries to convince us that conservative is good, that one day you have to grow up and forget about ideals, that people who make money deserve it, and all other sorts of BS that were really hard to swallow while all I wanted was to lay back and enjoy the romance. Another thing which may be personal taste, is that I love most romance for de-dramatizing money. Most romance heroes (and sometimes heroines) are well-off, when not downright obscenely rich. Yet they’re usually also one of two things: 1) curiously down-to-earth, simple guys with ordinary tastes; 2) rough, unpolished, physical guys.

Actress Julie Bowen in Modern Family

J. D. is one of the very few romance heroes I’ve met who was proud of his privileges, and indulged in all the stereotypical luxury tastes of his social class: playing golf, smoking cigars, wearing designer suits, driving a fancy car, eating in expensive restaurants, etc. I honestly have nothing against money, but you don’t need to shove it down my throat, either. And while Payton initially mocks him about that, too, the climax falls flat when it turns out that she only did so out of spite or revenge, but never really meant a word (since it suddenly ceases to bother her at all). I cannot for the life of me imagine that she ever really was a feminist/liberal, or that the two of them will last longer than a few months together. All in all, Practice Makes Perfect is not a bad story as such, but quite a bad love story, which is a pity for a romance.

If you’ve read it, how could you stand J. D.? As a woman, could you date a man who puts more effort in his dress than you? Why is it so hard to accept that women are still oppressed on a massive scale in our “democratic” societies and that nothing but positive action can change that fact? Doesn’t it upset you when a romance novel misses such a brilliant opportunity at groveling?

Je traverse une mini-crise depuis environ deux semaines, qui pourrait se résumer en une phrase: j’adore la routine et l’idée de m’installer (settle down), mais j’ai par-dessus tout peur de finir prisonnière d’une vie qui ne serait pas à la hauteur de mes rêves d’enfance. Comme l’a écrit Léon Blum, “Réaliser dans l’âge d’homme les rêves de la jeunesse, c’est ainsi qu’un poète a défini le bonheur.” Eh bien, je veux être heureuse, moi!

Mon chum m’encourage en me disant qu’être le premier ou la première à développer un concept est un avantage à ne pas sous-estimer. J’avoue que je détesterais me faire passer devant juste parce que j’aurais attendu d’avoir terminé mes études ou bien d’avoir des enfants pour commencer à bosser sur ce projet… Cet après-midi, j’ai donc publié cette annonce sur deux sites:

Bonjour,

Je suis à la recherche d’écrivain-e-s d’expression française pour un projet éditorial à but lucratif. Pas d’expérience de publication requise.

Vous devez être à l’aise avec les codes et l’écriture de romances, par quoi j’entends:
- des oeuvres de fiction dont l’intrigue principale est une histoire d’amour entre deux personnes de n’importe quel sexe,
et qui répondent aux critères suivants:
- l’amour doit triompher des obstacles (fin heureuse),
- l’amour doit se construire ou se conquérir,
- le désir sexuel, notamment féminin, doit apparaître sous un jour positif.

Tous les sous-genres sont acceptés, dont: comédie, drame, historique, fantasy, fantastique, science-fiction, policier, suspense/thriller…

Je ne souhaite pas (encore) en dévoiler davantage sur ce blog… Mais n’hésitez pas à vous renseigner, je suis beaucoup plus loquace en privé!

J

Fans usually write what they know they would not get otherwise. What is not part of the original work’s tone, content, or purpose, or in the case of real person fiction, what is not part of these people’s public life. Very often, this means “shipping”. (Shipping, to be fair, even exceeds mere fan fiction, and is found in fandom in all possible forms.) For those unfamiliar with the term, shipping is the idea of two characters (/real persons) being romantically involved. Shipping can be said to be canon when it uses a pairing established in the original source material, or AU (alternative universe) when it strays from the original. But really, what is shipping in fan fiction if not romance?

Sure, it isn’t modern romance as I would usually describe it, which implies at least a novella-length story with a beginning and a happy end. Fan fiction is mostly short, and does not guarantee a HEA. Still, if you ship characters or people, chances are you’re going to write about feelings, attraction, maybe sex. Apparently fans love it, whether the original work was already romantically inclined or not at all. If the canon featured a relationship, then they want more of it. If it didn’t, then they want it anyway. Now there’s food for thought, isn’t there? Romance is a very popular genre in fiction, and romance appears to be a very popular topic in fan fiction as well. The interesting part is that people who engage in fan fiction writing or reading aren’t necessarily romance readers, and vice versa.

I wish I could say that this is proof that everybody likes a good piece of lovin’. That, in a way, romance is the most natural and human theme in the world. That people who discount romance are denying an essential truth of the human condition. Unfortunately, I don’t think “shippers” are held with any more regard by outsiders than romance readers are. It is just as easy to scorn their attachment to fictional characters, as it is to pretend that romance readers believe their books to be reality. My response to that? Unite and take over! Love will conquer all! At least intimacy will. There is so far no human experience I can think of which connects people like intimate ‘ships, whether they include true love, or maybe just some kinda love.

Some kinds of love, Marguerita told Tom
Between thought and expression lies a lifetime
Situations arise because of the weather
And no kinds of love are better than others

(lyrics from the album version, by Lou Reed)

Do you write fan fiction? Are you a shipper? Do you think there’s an affinity between fan fiction shipping and romance?

The Xyians and the Firelanders, or the people of the Plains as they call themselves, are at war. Xylara, though half-sister to the King of Xy, has chosen the path of a healer. As her oath is to take care of all men in need, she insists on tending the prisoners as well as her own army. Meanwhile, the Xyians are losing ground, and the enemy is soon camping at the city gates. Keir, Warlord of the Plains, offers peace in exchange for a warprize: Xylara. Though terrified at the idea of becoming a slave to an unknown man, Lara is determined to save her people…

1) The writing

Fantasy settings are often inspired from the Middle Ages, and the Xyian civilization is no exception. Where most fantasy authors see a reason to make their character’s mindset and language similarly old-fashioned, Vaughan, on the other hand, only does so in a few instances of formal speech. Most of her novel, told in first person by Lara, sounds oddly modern and familiar, especially for a king’s daughter… Which makes it hard for the reader to imagine and believe in either her world or her character. Add to that a writing without colour, without elegance, and a tendency to digress into meaningless details, and you get an idea of what Warprize sounds like. Minus the numerous mispellings (including in the hero’s name, who switches from being called “Kier” to “Keir”) that look really, really bad and unprofessional.

I had been a bit surprised when he said I could go, but now that I had seen the size of the camp, I understood. There would be no escape, even if that had been my intention. (p. 81)

- Warprize, Elizabeth Vaughan (Gollancz, 2005)

2) The plotting

I was ready to overlook the poor writing as long as the story promised to be exciting. And in the first two thirds of the book, it kind of does. There is proper conflict: someone seems to be trying to sabotage the peace, while Lara has to deal with her new life in the Warlord’s camp and bed. It’s all common enough, but it could have worked well. Unfortunately instead of a climax, we get a lame turning point near the end of the novel that has everything fall flat. After that, there was no salvaging the story… I finished it, but I was immensely bored, and unsatisfied.

For those who aren’t afraid of spoilers, we basically learn what a “Warprize” actually means for the people of the Plains: far from being a slave as Lara was made to believe, it is a person whom the Warlord claims but who nonetheless remains free (not sure how that works), and who has the power to bring historical change in her new people’s traditions and customs. Does that make sense? Not to me. I think it’s an utterly nonsensical and forced concept, created for the sole purpose of resolving a conflict the author hadn’t imagination and courage enough to bring to a proper conclusion.

He met my eyes calmly. “You are not property. If you choose to leave, no one will stop you.” (p. 241)

- Warprize, Elizabeth Vaughan (Gollancz, 2005)

3) The characterization

I already said something of Lara’s voice. Let me just add that, all throughout the story, she appears as totally selfless, disinterested, open-minded, liberal, hard-working, and altruistic. Yet, despite all these incredible qualities, she didn’t manage to touch me. She didn’t manage to convince me. I can’t believe that a woman who was raised by a king could so easily dismiss all her royal privilege and her patriotic bias. And while these may seem like flaws out of context, I think they would have actually made Lara more human, more loyal and more intelligent, given her situation. Lack of prejudice can be fairness, as it can be stupidity.

The hero also didn’t ring true. As a feminist, I used to think I could do without heroes who were too alpha, domineering, and forceful. Yet I find myself consistently disappointed with many romance heroes’ lack of edge and ambiguity. They are too nice, too good, too perfect. Too corny. But the worst thing yet is that authors think they can compensate those traits with a cliche: the brooding, black-wearing killing machine (also known as the Whippet, a marshmallow in dark chocolate coating). Ms. Vaughan, no. It only makes it worse. The scary-ass warrior and the love-sick dog are not natural sides of the same coin: more in-depth characterization is required.

4) The world-building

I don’t have the time and place to go into details here, but just know that weak world-building is the reason why I read so little fantasy. I have very specific standards, and while I can make excuses for a lot of things in the books I read, fantasy world-building is not one of these things. I cannot tell you why; I am simply touchy about it. Lara’s anachronistic voice, her inconsistent characterization, and the Warprize plot trick are examples of what makes the “Warlands” a poor fantasy world IMO. But the main issue I’d like to address in this review is the racist undertones that nagged me while I was reading this story.

Xy is built on the model of European feudal kingdoms, while the tribes of the Plains are clearly inspired by primitive societies. But while at first the author seems rather critical of the Xyians (who in today’s liberal world isn’t critical of the Middle Ages? it’s actually so easy its reeks of ignorance), by the end of the novel almost none of their cultural practices―sexist, patriarchal, hierarchical―are discounted; only concrete persons are―namely the King and some wicked lords. Everything bad in Xy actually happened because there were bad men in power. The fact that people are married off as virgins, that there is a hereditary nobility―all that is not really a problem. It even seems as if Xylara would like to introduce these weird ideas to the people of the Plains…

… who, noble savages that they are, are quite open to new ideas! They cannot read or write or heal broken limbs, but boy, can they ride horses! They are free to have sex with each other (not something Lara envies them), and though men and women fight as equals in the army, all are expected to produce five children each before going to war―does the author have no knowledge of the biological process that brings babies into the world, or is she missing the meaning of the word “equality”? They are also a people of mixed races. Why, then, must the Warlord be blue-eyed, and the only woman Lara gets close to, tall and blonde? Is that a way to make them look appealing, and beautiful? (Because black skin is all good in theory, but it’s not a measure for beauty?)

I stifled a smile, for Simus out of uniform was a sight to behold. He seemed to prefer gaudy colors, and shone like a peacock among drab pigeons.

- Warprize, Elizabeth Vaughan (Gollancz, 2005)

The only black dude in the book, in truth, is a stereotype for black dudes―which is all the more absurd in fantasy, where nothing accounts for racial identities such as they developed in our world. He’s big, jolly, and loud, but with a temper; likes to fight, eat, and dress up in “gaudy colors”. He’s the perfect sidekick, the perfect foil. I think it wouldn’t have bothered me so much if Simus hadn’t been the only black dude in the book. But he is, and a stereotype at that. Otherwise I quite liked him. When they first brought him in, I wished he was the hero (but they had to leave that role to a blue-eyed guy, right?). And later I wished he would maybe engage in some gay action with Joden―anything to make the story less boring. But no, he doesn’t get his own story or his own feelings. He’s just a foil, remember?

Have you read that book? What did you think? Do you read a lot of fantasy romance? Do you agree with my assessment of some of the book’s elements as racist, or does it seem like I’m overreacting? Is Simus a more successful inclusion of black people in fiction than Jack Harkness is of queer people?

1) Jeeves and Wooster

Adapted from P. G. Wodehouse’s “Jeeves” stories, the show was filmed in the early 90′s and features Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie in the title roles. You may also know the double act for their sketch comedy show A Bit of Fry & Laurie…

Jeeves and Wooster tells a series of events, adventures and accidents in the life of Bertie Wooster, a rich idle young man, and his valet extraordinaire Jeeves. Most stories involve Wooster’s friends trying to attract a lady’s attention, or one of his aunts asking him for a service, or various people trying to marry him off. Wooster always comes up with plans that end up failing or making the situation worse, while Jeeves is there to save the day and make it all better again. Though the show is funny enough, it’s the context I like the most, the atmosphere of the 30′s and all the little details that used to make up these people’s lives. It is really well done, especially in the first season. The second season so far hasn’t been as appealing to me… One of the reasons may be Laurie’s slight change in acting style (Bertie has gone more “shrill” all of a sudden).

2) Sherlock

You’ve probably heard about this one, though it’s only a year or two old. I was very skeptical at first―how does Sherlock Holmes work in a contemporary setting? Am I happy with the technological side they added to the character? It’s all about smartphones, tracking devices, cool apps, and Internet search nowadays. The thing that bothered me the most, though, was the cast. Not only did this 2010 Sherlock look completely different from what I used to have in mind, but I found the actor’s looks disturbing and unpleasant (actor’s name is Benedict Cumberbatch, for the record). I guess I eventually got used to it. It’s not like I ever was a Sherlock Holmes fan and knew much about the original stories, anyway.

The second season is what really convinced me. They’re not showing us how Sherlock works as much anymore, as delving deeper into his character, in his relationship with Watson (Martin Freeman) and revealing higher stakes. I’ll definitely be there for the third season.

3) Torchwood

Okay, now comes the explanation of the blog title. Just so I don’t have to go into the details of what this show is about and what it’s like, I’ll link you to an article that does it well enough: Why is ‘Torchwood’ so boring? I know, it’s a critical piece. The worst part is, I mostly agree with its author. He is a Doctor Who fan, and Torchwood didn’t live up to the expectations he’d based on the former. I’ve never watched Doctor Who―it’s on my life’s to-do list―but I knew it was cult, and Torchwood‘s first episodes didn’t live up to my idea of a cult show, either. In fact, the only thing I can’t support is his opinion on the use of sexuality, simply because it didn’t come across to me that way. Not that I would notice, as I still haven’t even watched most of the first and second seasons.

So what’s left to love, you ask? To be honest, I’m not sure. It doesn’t seem like the first show that gains a cult following in spite of being semi-interesting and semi-well done. (I’m thinking of Battlestar Galactica, or Merlin. Couldn’t watch past the first few episodes of either, different as they are.) Except this time, I am part of the following. And this leads me to address another point our Torchwood reviewer makes:

And while the British press raved about the show’s controversial inclusion of an openly bisexual character (Captain Jack), he was a chronic sex addict who wanted to sleep with everyone! I wouldn’t necessarily call that good PR for the GLBT community.

Like I said, haven’t watched all the episodes. I still feel like Captain Jack’s “omnisexuality” was toned down in Torchwood. What, in the end of the second season and the entirety of the third, he could have passed off as a regular gay! (Which I initially assumed him to be when I caught up on the show.) Sure, like he’s made to say in Children of Earth (season 3), he’s “lived a long time; [he has] done a lot of things”. But right then and there, he’s caught up in a relationship with one man, and it feels kind of serious. Not exactly the sort of attitude you’d expect from someone who’s always intent on shagging everything he meets. But of course it made the fans rave…

As I’ve suggested in my post on supporting/secondary characters, they are often more likeable, because more caricatural and simple. But make them into the MC, and it becomes almost necessary to reveal their many layers or facets. As they become more human, so they often become more normal, therefore more boring. On the other hand, one has to wonder if it’s even possible to keep people interested in the adventures of a clown without feelings… Torchwood‘s Captain Jack Harkness (played by John Barrowman) may not be exactly the same as the one who originally showed up in Doctor Who, but viewers don’t seem to mind very much. I know I don’t.

Regardless of his dubious morals (which are clearly not limited to his sexuality), just the fact that they showed him getting involved with another guy has triggered a whole lot of questions regarding the sexual orientation of my own characters… There’s a part of me that also thinks: just because we’ve finally got a non-heterosexual lead character doesn’t mean he should be perfect and realistic. The whole GLBT community’s image should not have to rely on him.* I mean, getting rid of heteronormativity also implies that we get non-heterosexuals who aren’t necessarily the upstanding type. Putting him centre stage is already damn cool. There is an insidious and patronizing sort of discrimination that always wants “minorities” to both be impeccable and stay on the sidelines. But you’re going to hear a lot more about that next week…

What’s your fangirl heart breaking over these days? Any other good TV shows to recommend us? How do you really feel about Captain Jack Harkness?

* Maybe the “British press” were all secret shippers, who either campaigned for Gwen/Jack, or couldn’t get enough of him and Ianto getting it on!

couldn’t get enough of him and Ianto getting it on

Same goes with my writing, of course. I am very scattered. Some people can tell you what they write rather easily. Fantasy, romance, mysteries, or lit fiction. Or maybe they don’t write fiction at all. Me, I want to write everything. I have ideas for everything. Recently I have attempted to narrow it down to genre fiction if I couldn’t limit myself to romance… Hell, even when I know that novel-length is what I like best, who’s going to stop me from writing short stories? But you don’t know the latest news. I’m thinking of writing nonfiction, as well as autofiction. What’s the idea?

As you can see from this blog, I love writing, and not just fiction. I love making points, arguing, disagreeing with everybody else, and playing devil’s advocate. I have a lot of opinions I’m willing to share with the world, and I’m slowly accumulating material to back them up and connect them together within a bigger picture. Writing an academic thesis isn’t bad practice in that respect. As for autofiction… I’ve traveled some. More than many people. I’ve seen some funny things. Lived them, too.

I may have a bit of a problem telling reality from fiction. (But then, postpositivism explains how it’s impossible to single out “reality” as such. Everything we observe, we interpret according to symbolical, one could almost say fictional patterns.) When I was younger, I made more choices based on “how interesting a plot twist it may be” than ones based on my or other people’s interests. This probably made me appear quite selfish to the people who had to suffer the consequences of my plotting fancies. If there was an experience to be had, then I went for it. Whether it would turn out for the better or the worse seemed irrelevant.

I have deliberately dramatized my life, and as a result it is more dramatic than some. Writing fiction is definitely a way to dedramatize my life; I can fulfill all my plotting needs and fantasies without hurting anyone, including myself. But what about the past? It’s still a part of me. I feel like finally putting it on paper would be a way to recognize and reclaim it. Right now I am thinking of keeping it centred on my experience in and with Poland. I used to have a name for it: the Promised Land. More generally, I think I want to talk about the sense of escapism I got every time I went there. It was so very heady…

Do you write across genres? Do you go from fiction to nonfiction? Which is the hardest to write? Do you ever find yourself behaving like a character in a story rather than like a rational human being?

Sometimes what I see through this window angers me. Recently I was given to read these two articles: When She Codes, The Revolution’s Coming and Happy National Girls and Women in Sports Day! They’re both very interesting and cool. Too many of the comments they received, on the other hand, are not. They are disturbingly sexist, misogynistic, or simply ignorant. Of course the two initial posts deal with slightly different topics, but in the end they are related. They both raise the question of whether it’s fair to give women more opportunities in order to reach a more equal representation of sexes in male-dominated fields (the first asks not only if it is fair, but if it’s “feminist”).

I was unpleasantly surprised to see how often gender equality was mistaken for the status quo. Actual equality as it is understood by many people would mean to not do anything. To not do anything special. Because, let’s face it, that’s where they’re wrong: we already do something. In fact, our whole society down to its most subconscious roots does something. It conveys and reproduces gender inequality, and sexism against women. Western democracies are too PC to engage in massive outward sexism―though a lot of individuals unfortunately still do. But the way they work, the way they’re built, their culture and traditions―they’re implicitly sexist for a large part. Once that is acknowledged, then the only way that’s left to promote equality is to change the content of what we do. There’s no other solution than a positive, active one.

That’s what feminism says. That’s what feminism is. Feminists will tell you that feminism simply equals believing in gender equality. That’s true, of course. (And that’s why, you know, there’s no reason to feel uncomfortable with the notion…) But the difference between feminists and simple gender equality advocates is that the former understand the issue, while the latter don’t seem to. Like I said before, many people will overtly admit that men and women are equal, but they mistakenly think that equality is achieved, and that recognizing equality implies leaving things as they currently stand. These people are not feminists. They agree with a concept, but they have no practical grasp whatsoever of what it means in reality. In reality, it means actively working to reverse the sexist patterns entrenched in our everyday habits and thoughts.

It’s not easy. Wait, how can you even do that? Well, over time feminists have developed different means to achieve that. One of them is a women-only space, also referred to as a “safe space”. Since the normal, general world is entirely build on gendered, often sexist dynamics, the easiest way to start working against them is by temporarily and instrumentally removing oneself from that world, and those dynamics. Women-only spaces offer that temporary and instrumental respite. They work to recreate a feeling of solidarity between women, as well as to give them a break from the male gaze.

I was very happy to find this article on sexism because it explains how sexism is different from gender prejudice. A woman can be prejudiced against her own sex. But she cannot be sexist, because sexism implies a power relation based on that gender prejudice. A woman cannot have gender-prejudice-based power over another woman. In that respect, though power dynamics can also happen among women, at least sexist dynamics can’t. It also helps understanding why, while men-only spaces can have some interest in a specific context, they are much less needed than their opposite. The world is men’s safe space! (I’m obviously generalizing here. The world is less safe for certain men than others. There are many kinds of oppressions, not just one based on sex/gender.)

Now onto the title of this blog. My purpose isn’t to claim that romance is feminist, or even that the romance community is. But it’s still interesting to note that, through its dominantly female participation, modern romance is unwittingly recreating some of the conditions feminists were looking for when they started their women-only spaces. This clearly states that being a “women-only” genre isn’t an end unto itself. I’d love it if more men ultimately read romances (and openly confessed to it). But in the meantime, I appreciate the fact that the romance genre is developing under the influence of women alone. That it is not subconsciously trying to reproduce a male vision of the world. That women are portrayed the way they see themselves, and not through men’s eyes (though the hero’s POV implies some speculation on that point).

If I ever become a romance writer, I know I will consider it a feminist move. Feminism isn’t just politics; it’s a lifestyle. Then again, the personal is political, remember? Writing as a woman, writing for women, has and will continue to hold meaning for as long as we live in a men-dominated society.

Did you know of women-only spaces as a feminist tool? If you are a woman, does the fact that romance is women-dominated make you feel more confident and free? Within the community, or also outside? What do you do for equality?