In which I attempt to explain romance novels, pop music and Twilight...

Except that this time, I don't have the assistance of a mojito (product plug: Rose's mojito mix is THE. GREATEST. THING. EVAR. Thanks to Jenno for introducing this goodie to me. Sidenote to Rose's: I expect a crate of this stuff at my house for this little shout-out.), but instead some old coffee. I will also warn that I'm a little sleep-addled since Benevolent Dictator decided to get up before 6 a.m. to get her day started.

I was reading my friend Katie's blog where she asks what the hell is the appeal of Twilight:

The problem is that I work in a bookstore and see people gush over this series every day. The sheer number of women who seem to be totally entranced by this series is ridiculous. I’ve had more teenage girls than I care to think about tell me that they want to be Mrs Edward Cullen or that they think he/the story is the most romantic thing ever. I’ve even had middle aged women who should know better tell me they think it’s one of the most riveting romantic stories (until the fourth book - the middle aged women seem less fond of that one). It’s really horrifying. I kind of want to direct these women to the self-help section, but I don’t think they’d get it.

So the question is, how do I escape from the crazy world where shiny marble vampires stalking vapid girls devoid of personality constitutes great romance?

And I started thinking and linking it to historical romances of yore, where it was not uncommon to have a woman fight with a man and then SUDDENLY be naked and having sex with him. As I told Katie, it's the idea of power and lust. The idea that someone would want you so badly that they lose control of themselves. The fact that they want you so badly that they do stuff they know they shouldn't.

It's the same side to the coin of boy band pop music. When a girl starts thinking about relationships and love, they want a guy who's basically safe, who will love them forever and is willing to sit on their bed for three hours talking about whatever the girl wants to talk about (while hiding his boner behind a stuffed animal).

In both cases, it's a wish fulfillment thing I think. On the one hand you have someone who's willing to do whatever you want because they're close to you. But in the case of Twilight, historical romances, et al, it's the whole idea that you have such a strong power over someone that they lose their fucking mind. They start doing stuff no sane person would do. They just want you that much.

The problem is when this wish fulfillment fantasy overrides reality, or when people take this as a template as to how real relationships should be. Real relationships aren't like that. Real relationships can't keep up that intensity on either side. You're not always going to be so rapturously interesting that your beloved is going to hang on every word that comes out of your mouth like diamonds. To become familiar is to lose some of that crazy lust power.

To take a riff from Nick Hornby's High Fidelity (which also applies to women too, despite what some guys say), the look of love isn't always lust, longing and intense passion (be it with vampires or teen idols). It's often that look of benevolent humor as your beloved thinks, "Oh hell. You're acting like a raving loon again. But you're cute when you rant like that."

But who's to blame for that? I don't think that Stephanie Meyer deserves that really (well, she deserves some blame for writing a series that made a lot of people go "WTF?"). A heaping helping of blamesauce needs to go to well, parents, friends and family who don't offer a counterpoint to these messages or emphasize that this is merely escapism. Not reality.

There's a reason why these books are in the fiction aisle. It's all about wishes. There's nothing wrong with wishing. Just that the reality is rarely as perfect as what's going on in your dreams. But sometimes, the reality can be better.

Oh noes! Save teh children frum teh ebil komix!

Trolling around Strollerderby the other day, I stumbled on this post blasting librarians using comic books to get kids to read more:

Must we dumb everything down?

Like teaching babies about numbers using Baby Einstein, or learning about vegetables by feeding them Lean Cuisine. Seems like the best way to teach kids to read, is to read to them. Failing that, how about the good old reward system? For every book you read, you get a star (which might not work in today's video game/movie preschooler set), or how about a new car?

The only thought that went flying by in my head (well after I finished reading my Hellboy books and BPRD) was "WTF?"

Who's to say that parents aren't reading to their comic-loving kids? Having pictures with the words isn't necessarily a bad thing -- all of Benevolent Dictator's books right now have pictures on every single page and little text. That's because she's a baby -- reading Moby Dick would make no sense to her right now.

It's almost like the writer didn't take into account some great and classic comic books such as Maus, Persepolis and even the stereotypical superhero comics which can be great works of art at times. It's ghettoizing of writing in my mind similar to when people deride science fiction, romance, mysteries and other genres.

Five unpopular literary opinions

Inspired by both Co-Ob and Present Tense -- who blogged about some of their literary thoughts, I thought I'd create my own "Top Five" list about books. Except mine's about unpopular literary opinions. I'm curious to see what people think, so feel free to leave your comments in the peanut gallery.

1. I've never read Jane Austen. Never cared to. I'm not a huge fan of the Regency era and all their manners, class problems and the fact that they spend a lot of time not saying the things that should be said and instead, talking about the the things that don't need many words. Really, I'm of the opinion that a lot of Regency problems would be solved by Steve, the Wise-Cracking Time Traveler, who would force people to say what's on their minds because he has a boomstick. Steve, of course, would be played by Bruce Campbell.

2. I don't care to read the Harry Potter series. I've never read a single book. I just like watching the crazy fans. I've heard that they're fantastic from EVERYONE, but I've never had the desire to crack open one of the books. If I had to choose between things -- I'd rather read Prachett than Rowling.

3. If you look on my bookshelves, you'll notice I have more male writers than female writers. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the subjects, maybe its the writing styles. I just don't read a lot of women writers. Nothing against them -- there's plenty I like (Anne Tyler, Amy Tan at times, etc.) -- but there's more testosterone on my shelves than estrogen.

4. Growing up, I didn't read a lot of children's literature. My mom wouldn't really encourage it because she thought it was below my reading level. What's funny is now I feel like I'm missing out on something in a shared, collective sort of way.

5. Hemingway IS overrated in my eyes. The sparse tone of writing can be important to learn, but for Pete's sake, it's not like the man reinvented writing. I hated having to read him in high school. Actually, looking back, I think some of the "classics" we had to read in high school were crap. Lots of dead, white male writers for me, which wasn't as interesting in my book. At least James Joyce was a challenge to the eyes.

Bugger

Terry Prachett has a rare form of early Alzheimer's. Damn. So. Not. Fair.

However, it doesn't seem to have affected his sense of humor:

I would just like to draw attention to everyone reading the above that this should be interpreted as 'I am not dead'. I will, of course, be dead at some future point, as will everybody else. For me, this maybe further off than you think - it's too soon to tell.
I know it's a very human thing to say "Is there anything I can do", but in this case I would only entertain offers from very high-end experts in brain chemistry.

For HP fans:

Cover art! Let the conspiracy theories begin!

(Thanks to Alan and Keller)

*Cue happy Snoopy dance*

I found out about this before we left for Gen Con, so I haven't had time to write about it, but big up to Keidra for being published in a real, live book -- BITCHFest:
Ten Years of Cultural Criticism from the Pages of Bitch Magazine.

She's got a killer article that she published a while ago called "Sister Outsider Headbanger: On Being a Black Feminist Metalhead," which was EXCELLENT! I've always thought that Keidra was a good writer. She's funny, smart and an excellent writer.

I gotta say that I'm extremely proud of my girl. I need to buy this book when I get back AND EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD TOO YOU BITCHES!

A love before, during and after time

I recently finished The Time Traveler's Wife, the debut novel by Audrey Niffenegger (Thanks Kat!). Sweeping, epic and chock-full of excellent writing, I have to say that I did enjoy the book -- even though the end was a bit melodramatic for my tastes.

The title pretty much says it all -- it's the story about a couple, Henry and Claire Detamble. Henry's a time traveler, against his will, and Claire's the woman that loves the hell out of him.

Niffengger's got a great eye for descriptive and lyrical writing. It's been awhile since I've read something like that (being that I've been reading comic books, books about U2, computer games magazines and Pottery Barn catalogs) and it's pretty refreshing. But I think that what was vaguely disquieting for me is how fucked up Henry and Claire's relationship is.

Claire's always waiting for her husband to come back. He leaves and then bounces back and she waits for his return. She never truly knows what's going on all the time (there's the moments when she's with him as a child, teen and adult, but those are different). While the relationship may seem strange and magical, the one annoying factor is the end. I won't give it all away, but basically Henry gives the details of a future visit with Claire in a letter. However, he doesn't give the date.

To me, that's messed up. In the letter he tells her that in the case of his death, she shouldn't wait for him and continue living her life. But to give her that hope -- without definite details of date and time, it forces Claire into the position of waiting for him yet again. She can't have closure because there's the possibility that he'll pop up again in her life. She's left in a perpetual holding position, waiting for him to return.

Kat loaned me the book after I gave her Jitterbug Perfume, which features one of my favorite literary couples -- Kudra and Alobar (who are also kind of time travelers -- but more of people seeking immortality). The similarities of the couples is that both couples are split by circumstances beyond their control. But the big difference for me is that Alobar slowly moves on with his long, long life, wreaking havoc and bouncing around the world after his wife disappears. Claire, on the other hand, waits for her husband.

I'd like to think that if I was in the same circumstances with Jeff, I'd be more like Alobar than Claire. I'd also like to think that if Jeff was in the same circumstances, he'd be more like Alobar than Claire. The one thing I wish for him is the ability to move on (with me tucked away in his memory like a favorite pair of pants) and not be stuck in a holding pattern, should we part.