Add a Comment

Comment by Pamela Strange on January 25, 2012 at 18:51

Each to their own. I think he's just making a statement to create publicity -rather tongue in cheek - I love all sorts of romantic fiction. And I am still waiting to hear back from M & B. I would love to write for them and most readers love them but won't admit it. 

I've also submitted one book to My Weekly pocket library. Meanwhile ebooks downloading fast but haven't a clue how many people actually buying -I'd like to contact the cheerful chicken at the festival Maggie Baggott.

Anyone know how to contact her? I lost her card.

Comment by Sarah Tranter on January 23, 2012 at 23:09

did u use naughty words Susan?!

Comment by Liv Thomas on January 23, 2012 at 23:04

I can't see Susan's comment now either - how strange.

Comment by Sarah Tranter on January 23, 2012 at 23:02

Am I missing Susan's comment here?

Comment by Liv Thomas on January 23, 2012 at 22:22

Great spot there, Susan - I missed that one. Might have to take a look at his blog and comment if the option is there.

Comment by Liv Thomas on January 22, 2012 at 18:11

How arrogant - and disrespectful itself  - to the millions of readers of romance. Everyone who reads books deserves to be catered for.

Comment by Isabelle Goddard on January 21, 2012 at 12:16

Romance is such a wide ranging genre that McCaskey's criticism may well apply to some titles - I don't know the US market well enough - but it also encompasses gems such as du Maurier's Rebecca which is often taught as part of a uni syllabus.  Once dismissed as romance and not worth a second look, the book is now read as a brilliant psychological study of a disturbed man and a fierce critique of gender relations in the 1930s!

 

It's the same with some sci fi novels - Philip Dick's for example - which are now on academic programmes.  That's the trouble with labels - they never really fit.

 

 

Comment by Nell Dixon on January 20, 2012 at 21:28

Single eh, methinks somebodys not getting any - just saying.

Comment by Aniko Eva Nagy on January 20, 2012 at 20:41

Oh boy. I meant 'infuriating.' Oops - typo!!

Comment by Francine Howarth on January 20, 2012 at 20:28

Hi Ruth,

No, I didn't think you were getting at me. ;)

Hi Elle, and no, likewise I wasn't getting at you. 

The interesting aspect of all this, is that when something is aimed our way, romance writers do seem overly sensitive and defensive. I guess that stems from camaraderie with fellow romance writers plus we tend to feel collectively under attack when someone hits out at romance writers as having lesser writing abilities. I don't think other genre' (except crime writers) have the same connection via forums and chat web sites as do romance writers. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm biased in favour of meeting with like-minded romance writers, which includes all romance sub-genre'.

Hi Aniko,

When it comes to book reviews I really don't give a damn what someone else thinks about a book, I choose books on  content and whether it's to my personal taste in reading. Ironic really in that I've been a book reviewer for a famous magazine. The truthis I've had books recommended by friends that I wouldn't waste my time reading let alone purchase, equally I've raved about a book someone else thought was a drag to read: bored them senseless. Must say though, the day my youngest daughter passed Stieg Larsson's trilogy into my hands  as a gift "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" etc., I thanked her heartily afterwards. But that's because she knows what I like, and it's a given we have similar reading tastes.

The greater picture is in trying to see the world through others' eyes, while the truth is we all see something from our own perspective. Whatever, McCaskey has been noticed and is being talked about, and to slam romance is an easy target: we're giving him air time.           

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page