Literally Geeky discussion

Most of us love 'so-bad-they're-good' films? Why not books?

The idea of dinosaur-shape shifter HOT men is patently ridiculous, but is it more ridiculous than a tired old squid faced god capable of unparalleled destruction that just wants a kip under the sea?

Does romance automatically make something scoff-worthy? Or is just the dinosaur love-making. Because it is love, not porn.

For me, 'so-good-they're-bad' films are over in 90 minutes, and if you really hate it you can just switch off.

Books require an active involvement and investment that I wouldn't have the time or will to carry on with. I'll give up on a book much faster than a film if it isn't doing my brain a service.

Is time really a factor though? Films you sit down and watch in one sit-through granted, but ever since Aliens 90 minutes time-frame has gone out of the window.

Does reading a book take that much longer than something like Avatar? Or do we perceive it as longer because it requires a bit more concentration?

A book can be trashy but still a fun read, just like a bad film, it seems to me that when romance is involved that free pass to be unashamedly silly gets taken away.

I mentioned this on twitter, but I think these types of books fall into that 'bored housewife' cliché, which makes them easy targets for ridicule. The overall theme and title here (not to mention the author's pen name) make me automatically write this one off.

Eternal Pleasure could be the greatest literary romance since Romeo and Juilet, but I can't take it seriously when he's a shapeshifting dinosaur. That gif you posted proves my point.

That being said, I think it'll make for an interesting hangout later this month.

So Sharknado ... (view spoiler)[ in which a man chainsawing his way out of an airborn shark's guts - pulling a barely dishevelled woman out after him (hide spoiler)] ... is celebrated as the height of trashy, and everyone should watch it but a man with the soul of a T-Rex is over the top?

I guess there's two things to address here: why do other genre books get a free pass for being silly (silly genre films are even celebrated), and romance doesn't? Two, why are all romances tarred with the same brush? Don't get me wrong, I love a daft romance, the more ridiculous the better, but there's more to the genre than being shagged senseless by a were-hedgehog.

I'll answer part of my own question and say that romance has an image problem (even though it's the best selling genre by a country mile). The Fabio men on some of the covers certainly don't help, but not all sexy books are about naughty Dukes or lusty pirates waggling their peg legs.

The first book I read with sex in was Clan of the Cavebear: book one of the Earth's Children series, exploring prehistoric life from the point of view of a young woman. I was about 12 and after chapter upon chapter of leather scraping techniques the sex came as something of a surprise! The entire series is heavily drenched in prehistory research, including the then radical notion that neanderthals were humane and communicative. It even contains flint knapping tips!

Yet Earth's Children isn't typically considered a 'romance' series: they're (pre)historical fiction. Despite the fact that the books tick all the right boxes (no pun intended): the series has sexual themes and exploration, a strong romance between its central couple, and it uses the word girth. There are other books out there that are romancy without being all heaving bosoms too - Kushiel's Dart immediately springs to mind. Much like the Earth's Children books, Kushiel's Dart part series that brand itself as fantasy and therefore escapes the romance ghetto.

Romance might sell, but only as a guilty pleasure. There's more to some of them than that. Conversely the silliest ones ... well, they're no more silly than the Star Wars novels.

I'm not discrediting the marketability or success of the genre. I'm just saying I don't fall into the demographic for which these books are written, which is older females (no offense to anyone, but it's true).

A human woman falling in love with a shapeshifting dinosaur is just as silly to me as a human girl falling for a sparkly emo vampire who plays baseball in the rain. Yet Twilight was written and filmed in a serious manner and there were millions of people out there who were legitimately moved by it. Don't ask me why.

The makers of Sharknado didn't try to convince us that a whirling vortex of great whites and hammerheads is something we should actually be afraid of. They knew the entire premise was silly and made an appropriately silly movie that frightened no one.

The difference is all in the presentation. If Eternal Pleasure tries to be Twilight, chances are I won't like it. If it tries to be Sharknado, I'll at least enjoy its camp factor.

[Edited] I'm going to take some issue with the older female comment, especially as I don't have my blue rinse yet.

According to the Romance Writers of America stats in 2008 74.8 million people in the US read romances (http://www.rwa.org/p/cm/ld/fid=580), and a 2011 reader survey put the majority of US readers at ages 30 -54, twenty percent of whom were men.

I'm not perfect, I had the same demographic opinions: I even heartily mocked an ex for reading romances back in the day. I perceived them to be intellectually lazy (in all fairness lots are). He'd caught the addiction from a friend of his - these were both scientists in their early 20s.

I'm speculating here, but the discretion afforded to e-readers has probably seen an increase in guys reading too... because y'know, no one has to see those terrible covers.

But straight up, unashamed romances are one of the few genres where you are guaranteed to get a female perspective - and maybe that's as appealing as the titillation.

For what it's worth I think Eternal Pleasure is very, very much a Sharknado.

This book does not take itself seriously at ALL. If you're expecting a Twilight-esque book... no. Just no.

I honestly wasn't expecting this pick to be such a big deal, or for it to be taken so seriously. I personally hate Valentine's Day, and I wanted to pick something that fitted the theme, but without depressing any of us (me). Yes, it's ridiculous, but my intention was to have a bit of fun.

I'm not claiming that it's a masterpiece. It's definitely a Sharknado type book. But I'm looking forward to rereading it, and I notice that despite all the complaints, we've got more people reading along with us, which I think is great! While I doubt we'll be able to have any serious discussions about it, I think we'll have a good, silly hangout, with hopefully lots of Twitter participation.

So... yes. That's all I'll be saying about it until the hangout. I'll be there with my winosaur, a daft hat, and a list of dirty sounding names.

Once again, not discussing the popularity of the genre. The numbers speak for themselves.

The survey, however, just proves my point: 80% of the readers are older women.

Find another genre of fiction that's so lopsided when it comes to the audience's gender.

They're not older, sorry there's a missing comma (which I will edit in): to clarify, 20 per cent of romance readers are male, and the majority of romance US romance readers readers are aged between 30 - 54.

Is there any other genre of fiction where the readers ages and genre are even remarked upon?
Perhaps sci-fi? Even then there are scifi classics that are acknowledged as masterpieces beyond the genre. Philip K Dick was considered to be a pulp writer until he died. Now's he's got serious literary respectability.

As for romance, the books can be the worst tripe ever committed to the page (50 Shades of Grey), they can be silly but fun, like Eternal Pleasure, but there are also gems, though they tend to take their sexy times and put it under a different label, one associated with less negative connotations.

Sorry Ez, but in terms of consumer age groups, over 30 is considered the older crowd. It goes children; young adult; adult.

Twilight would be a young adult romance. It features a teenage lead and a high school setting.

If the romance features a lead over 20 and is set on a boat full of sweaty muscular pirates, it's for the older women.

Consumer gender and age is something that is tracked and analyzed for basically everything, so of course it matters in the context of book genre. And when it comes to books like Eternal Pleasure, the numbers prove they are written for and read by older women.

I think you're treading dangerous waters here.

YA romances aren't YA soley because of the age of their lead characters, but rather because of the lack of wobbling members, (sometimes a) more limited vocabulary and a simplified literary style.

When it comes to the characters respective ages the young ingenue is a trope of the romance genre, no matter how much sex is involved. Though more modern romances have heroines in the late 20s, there are plenty of adult aimed historicals involving teenagers romping with rakes - and not the gardening tools.

Secondly, and more pertinently: the point I'm making outside of marketing information is that you can't take a demographic as diverse as 30-mid 50s and label them "older woman", especially when twenty percent of those readers are male. The "bored housewife" stereotype is inaccurate, it's also as unflattering as suggesting that comics are the provenance of nerdy teenage boys.

The stereotype of the romance audience and the genre itself is so staid it puts off potential readers. Or becomes something to ridicule or shy away from before even reading a book. As I said, I've done that myself.

Passionate shape-shifting dinosaurs are ridiculous. However the pick generated a lot of flax, and I suspect more so than a non-romance novel with an equally absurd idea - though like Lara I'm pleased that some of the groaners are now reading along!

If you took the sex away would people still complain about apocalypse averting were-dinosaurs? Are they any more daft than four man-turtles who live in a sewer and eat unhygienic pizza?!

Here's the thing with clichés: they're usually based upon a truth. Granted they take that truth (or elements of it) and stretch it to ridiculous lengths, but they're centered around fact. Here, the fact is that any book with Fabio (or a male 'beefcake' in general) on the cover holding a swooning damsel is predominately read by older women. And yes, in the eyes of the publishers, older is defined by 30+.

Look closer at the survey. 20% of the readers are men. Twenty percent. That means 8 out of every 10 of these books are purchased by women over 30. You won't find another genre of fiction with such a big gender difference. Even comic books. Therefore I'm perfectly comfortable saying I'm not in the demographic this story is made for.

As for the turtles, they didn't cook the pizza themselves. They ordered them. They are just as sanitary as what comes from your local pizzeria.

Those pizzas are eaten in a sewer. Gross.

... You know I'm going to go and research comic books stats, right? There are as many stereotypes about nerdy guys and comics as there are women and romances, and they do a disservice to everyone.

Stereotypes shouldn't dictate anyone's interests; in terms of entertainment publishers (and studio exes) focus on what they think the market wants, and they (and we) miss out on interesting stories or fresh perspectives.

As a woman squarely in the "older" demographic, I feel I should weigh in here. This book pick is way outside my usual arcs, but for the fun of Literally Geeky hangouts, I'm willing to read something completely different. Who knows? Maybe I'll like it.

Yes, I'm the exception of my demographic, not the rule. I visit a comic shop weekly for myself, not my teenage boys.