So, the Washington Post had is having some sort of signing with La Nora earlier this week TODAY. One of my colleagues received an automated invite because of a subscription and offered it to me, but I couldn’t go. [I’m assuming it was public? I dunno. I figured it was timed for this week because of RWA.] Anyhow, I find this review of Black Hills to be rather unfortunately timed and a slap in the face, given the RWA presence in DC this week, which surely is going to bring a lot of tourist dollars, and the sponsorship of whatever the event.
Could Corrigan have been any more pompous and condescending? Cultural gatekeeper, my ass.
While Black Hills will not be in my Top 10 Nora Roberts books, it was by no means a bad read. Nor did it merit so much speculation about the lives and expectations of romance readers, or the snide aside about Roberts’ "Dickensian" success.
You know, there is a reason that people don’t read newspaper book reviews: because reviewers who presume to be cultural gatekeepers (pretentious literary snobs) don’t review stuff that people are actually interested in reading (and buying).
Shuffling through a book-less desert 
How about this quote: Black Hills” is synthetic mind candy. It’s not even very satisfying synthetic mind candy, like, for instance, Clive Cussler in his prime or Patricia Wentworth’s soothing Maud Silver mysteries.
*sigh*
That made me roll my eyes. You know, if the review had been about the book, I would not have minded a negative review, but it wasn’t about the book, it was about the reviewer’s opinion of this particular genre of fiction.
Pfft!
That’s why women read Nora Roberts: to live out vicariously the fantasies that real life doesn’t provide.
Erm, NO. That is not why I read La Nora. I read her b/c she spins a damn good yarn. I’m not trying to escape some horrible or mundane existence. Guess what? I HAVE a guy who sexes me up and takes out the garbage. So do many other women. I am so SICK of the stereotype of romance readers as downtrodden housewives who do nothing but fantasize about the perfect man in a book. Gah!
Don’t even get me started on the fact that she dragged out “bodice ripper.” GRRR.
Re: Pfft!
Exactly.
She even makes it like romance readers will descend on her in madness. Ugh. She’s not worth the time. It was the speculation on Nora Roberts herself that I found appalling. You want to discuss the book, bring it but all the other stuff, is it even necessary in this day and age.
She was talking of courage or something but I would have preferred she just go to the review. Who cares that NR fans might burn you a new one. Step up and give your opinion without all the slams.
Dang. I just got all het up 😉
Cindys
I haven’t noticed a particular dogpile. But I haven’t been back.
The speculation and the all-about-me-as-reviewer were what bothered me, not the fact that it was negative, per se.
I thought it was par for the course for a negative review in the mainstream press. I’ve read worse (about non-genre fiction). I actually think the reviewer tried to be kind.
The fact that it was a negative review didn’t particularly bother me. But the reviewer’s obvious disdain for the genre made me wonder why she bothered — was this assigned? was no one else willing to review it? And frankly, I felt like the review was more about the reviewer than the book itself.
I admit, I liked the way the review is written, so I’m probably not the best person to judge her tone. That said, I obviously interpreted it very differently to you guys. I’m not a Nora reader, though, so maybe that’s why it didn’t bother me as much. Corrigan also talks about some of my peeves when it comes to romance, and I found myself agreeing with her–not necessarily about this book in particular because I haven’t read it, but in terms of what I’ve found lacking in romance books I’ve read but not liked.
Also, I think it was a self-conscious review precisely because, as she says in the second paragraph, the reviewer felt that it was a no-win situation for her.