I seriously doubt that any fan of the Jamie & Claire saga is in any kind of
closet.
Having read a great deal of the sword & sorcery published up to a point in
the early 1980s, I can say without equivocation that Jamie & Claire share
nothing with that venerable old genre. Conan the Barbarian would dispatch
the both of them with one swipe of his north-forged sword. Fafhrd would
pound them, The Gray Mouser would skewer them, etc. <g> I think they're
Diana's own amalgamation of Romance, Fantasy, and Historical, bent toward
Chick Lit, with a fan base that is nothing short of dementedly dedicated.
<g>
--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/20/2016 5:31 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>
>> Exactly. Correctomundo, Your Mooseness. It is an endless repetition. But
>> it is the bread and butter, the essence, the very naked soul of Romance
>> Writing. When the first book came out the first time, it was pigeonholed by
>> the publisher as a Romance. Diana fought long and hard to have it seen as
>> More Than That. It took her a while to be successful. For years it remained
>> in the pigeonholes.
>>
>
> Ah. Can't say I've ever read a 'real' romance novel. I've started one
> occasionally, I think, but quickly lost interest. Mostly, publishers are
> careful to use cover art and catch phrases in the descriptions to protect
> me. ;-)
>
> There are a few authors who had successful Romance careers and then
> transitioned successfully into other forms, mysteries, mainstream womens'
> novels, etc. But they did it by changing their writing, not by lobbying and
> nagging. :-)
>
> Absent knowledge of the genre as a whole, I can't but wonder if Outlander
> isn't at the far edge in the amount and sort of violence it contains? I'm
> sure a couple of women of my acquaintance have commented on their dislike
> of the violence, seeing Outlander as more akin to male sword fantasies. It
> might be interesting to see the demographics of those who love them.
>
> Problem was, it _was_ a romance. A weighty, complex, time-traveling
>> romance, but a romance. The bull-headed heroine is de regieur, despite
>> attendant absurdities. At that time I was hanging out on Compuserve with a
>> gaggle of romance writers whom I found to be delightful company. Most of
>> them didn't take themselves nearly as seriously as Diana. Several were best
>> selling writers. Judith McNaught and Katherine Kingsley come to mind.
>> Katherine (Julia Kendall) once mentioned me in her acknowledgements. <g>
>>
>> But Diana, no. You have pegged the series precisely, but be careful where
>> you say that stuff or you might find yourself being torn limb from limb by
>> modern furies.
>>
>
> I may be safe. I know quite a number of women, but none that are fans of
> Outlander, or at least talk about it in my presence. Are there closeted
> Outlanderettes?
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|