Previous Entry | Next Entry

Does it matter if the author is a new author?

  • Apr. 18th, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Book on table
SB Sarah has reviewed Anna Campbell's Claiming the Courtesan, a book that has provoked a huge discussion in the romance community about rape and/or forced seduction as a plot element, along with a bit of a brouhaha about what romance should be. Lots of coverage over at DA and SBTB if you want to check it out, but I'm not linking to the author who thinks that romance should be all happy and light just because that's how she writes.

SB Sarah's review focused more on the power differential of the relationship and the problematic plotting and characterization than the rape scene, which I appreciated. (Seriously, how many times can readers have the same conversation? Is it rape? Is it a forced seduction in a BDSM context?** I haven't read it, so I can't say, but the majority of readers seem to say that it is rape.) The comments seem quite mixed.

One commenter wrote:

It has a few first book flaws, but remember, it IS a first book.
I'm intrigued by the fact that nearly all of the reviews and discussion threads I've read make a big point of the fact that the flaws of the book are typical first book flaws. And I'm wondering if readers would excuse those same flaws if this was the third or fourth book of a writer. I guess I'm trying to figure out how/why the fact that this is a newbie author pushing readers' buttons makes a difference...because it seems to in the minds of most readers and reviewers.

For me, as I read, I don't care if it is the author's first book or fortieth; if the book doesn't work for me, relative inexperience isn't going to be an excuse. 

Does it make a difference for other readers?  Inquiring minds want to know...


**I'm still working on my review of Natural Law and will come back to this point when (if) I ever finish it.

Tags:

Comments

( Leave a comment )
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 18th, 2007 02:09 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I've been noticing that too, the "First Book" comment.

Which is weird, really, because by the time I'm reading any author's First Work, I've usually read her thrid or fourth book already and am coming back for a backlist glom. And most of my copies of Debut Novels on my bookshelves are reprints wherein the author's later works are spelled out inside the front cover.

I think the "First Book" comment is an unconscious method of setting the book aside, as in, "Dear little author, didn't she KNOW that we don't like to talk about these things? Now, in your second book, why not try a good secret baby plot."

(Also, just because this is the first PUBLISHED book, it does not mean that this is the first novel, raw and unpolished, that this author has written.)

Anyway, in general, I'm staying away from the discussions on this book. It's taking on tones of indignant morality that I don't do well with.

Suisan.
| Reply | Thread
[info]jmc_bookrelated wrote:
Apr. 18th, 2007 11:21 pm (UTC)
Anyway, in general, I'm staying away from the discussions on this book. It's taking on tones of indignant morality that I don't do well with.

The moral tone bothers me, but doesn't keep me from lurking, I'm afraid. But otherwise, I'm not participating, primarily because I find it to be another chicken & egg argument that the romance community likes to engage in. ::shrugs:: Maybe if I felt more strongly about it on a personal level I'd jump in. Or maybe not. ;)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]rosario001 wrote:
Apr. 18th, 2007 06:35 pm (UTC)
It doesn't make a difference in my appreciation of the book itself (a flaw is a flaw, no matter how much experience the author has), but it might affect whether or not I try something else by the author. Like, if it's the author's 20th book and the writing is awkward, I will have no hopes that she might improve in the next book. If it's her first, I might.
| Reply | Thread
[info]jmc_bookrelated wrote:
Apr. 18th, 2007 11:22 pm (UTC)
That makes sense. And actually isn't inconsistent with my opinion, now that I think about it. The newbie status might make me willing to try that author again, but it wouldn't influence my opinion of the original book.

Cheers,
jmc
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]sarahf wrote:
Apr. 19th, 2007 03:48 am (UTC)
You know, forced seduction in a BDSM context implies consent at some level and from what I've heard, that's sorely lacking, so bringing BDSM in at all is beyond me. It might be a sort of BDSM relationship between reader and book, but not between characters in the book, and b/t reader and book is a leetle more difficult to theorize.

Bugs me, that's all.
| Reply | Thread
[info]jmc_bookrelated wrote:
Apr. 20th, 2007 11:50 pm (UTC)
I found the comments about BDSM to be a bit out of context, TBH. They were consistent with what I know know about it, although I can't claim a vast knowledge, but didn't seem really relevant to the situation as it has been described by various reviewers and bloggers.

A BDSM relationship (heavy on the M) might explain the reader-book relationship I'm having with some of the books I've read lately. They are either so bad that they are wallbangers or so infuriating that my blood pressure escalates....yet still I read.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 19th, 2007 03:44 pm (UTC)
Re. the first book comments, IMO those are coming from those of us who *liked* the book, but can hardly get around to what we liked and didn't because of all the focus on *that scene* and its backlash. The book does have what seem to me to be first book-type flaws related to pacing, to a weaker second half, to some carry-through issues related to character development, and to the clumsy handling of a couple of Romance-plot staples. In fact, I noticed some of the same issues with Campbell's book as with Meljean Brook's debut, which I tagged the same way (as 1st book type stuff). Now, whether these will always be *first book flaws* or not remains to be seen. I do know that Campbell's next book also features a captivity plot (but not her third, I don't think), so the risks don't seem to be accidental. I just wanted to say that there are sort of two conversations going on simultaneously about this book (one about the propriety of rape in Romance and one on the book itself), but it seems to get all jumbled together because of the magnetic pull of *that topic*.
| Reply | Thread
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 19th, 2007 03:45 pm (UTC)
oops, that was me: Robin.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]jmc_bookrelated wrote:
Apr. 21st, 2007 12:13 am (UTC)
Hi, Robin.

I guess my frustration stems from what you pointed out -- in this case, the First Book label is getting wrapped around *that scene* and all of the discussion and baggage that comes with it. Maybe I'm reading into the comments, but I get the feeling that a lot of the people saying that are also saying, however subliminally or unconsciously, that the next book should conform to romance standards re: forced seduction better, now that the author knows what she's doing.

In terms of the discussion of any book, do you find that your opinion or rating of a book is influenced by the First Book label? Or does it merely influence the possibility that you may look for the author's follow-up, hoping that she will have worked out the New-Author kinks?

Cheers,
jmc
| Reply | Parent | Thread
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 19th, 2007 05:39 pm (UTC)
I agree with Rosario--if a first book is a little awkward in the writing/plotting/pacing/whatever, I'm willing to overlook it if it has other strengths (interesting plot, engaging characters). Because often those problems are something that an author can get better at with time.

But I think that some authors' first books can be their best--a lot of authors probably work longer/harder on their first try. And now I can't think of any examples. I was thinking Nalini Singh's StS, but then I remembered that that wasn't her first book (though it was her first BIG title). Kelley Armstrong's Bitten?--though I like all her books, I think Bitten is the best.

-jennie
| Reply | Thread
[info]jmc_bookrelated wrote:
Apr. 21st, 2007 12:15 am (UTC)
Jennie,

I often think that Bitten is Armstrong's best book, too, although other readers may disagree. But then I wonder if it is the best *to me* because it was the first werewolf book that I can ever remember reading, and it made such a huge impression.

jmc
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]dogzzz2002 wrote:
Apr. 20th, 2007 08:23 am (UTC)
I'm still sticking to the sidelines because I haven't read the book yet - I'm trying to keep other's opinions from influencing the way I experience the book.

Like Rosario, first books usually get a bit of a pass but only if I thought it was an almost keeper AND I know it's their first book - if I go in not knowing it then the book stands on it's own. I have heard this is AC first book but for some reason I keep thinking her name is a psuedonym and she's written before - not true I'm sure but I can't shake that perception out of my head which might impact my opinion.

CindyS
| Reply | Thread
[info]jmc_bookrelated wrote:
Apr. 21st, 2007 12:19 am (UTC)
At this point, I doubt I'm going to read CTC. Historicals aren't my favorite genre to begin with, and European historicals, bleh. Followed by the exposure in blogland, it's just not interesting to me. Maybe it's the voyeur in me, but I find observing the blogland convulsions much more interesting than the thought of reading the book. ::shrugs::

| Reply | Parent | Thread
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 22nd, 2007 04:53 pm (UTC)
I *think* I understand what you're saying, JMC, but I'm not sure whether people are talking about her risk taking or about other things. I hope not, because it seems to be the risk taking that drew in those of us who did enjoy the book. Maybe some are thinking that if Campbell pulled off what she was trying better there'd be less controversy? I think there would still be controversy, and me railing about Linda Howard and Anne Stuart probably won't make a difference to people who have such hatred for CtC (especially since reading the book doesn't seem to be a pre-requisite for commenting on it). In regard to Barbara Samuel's comment on SB, though, I thought she might be partially suggesting that Campbell wasn't totally successful at pulling off the risks she took, and that had she been a more experienced writer she likely would have pulled it all off better. But I'm coming to think that no matter how well a book is executed that there are just some readers who find sexual force totally unacceptable in their Romance, and that perhaps a *more* convincing love story between two people who shared this experience would cause that much *more* anger.
| Reply | Thread
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 22nd, 2007 04:55 pm (UTC)
I *think* I understand what you're saying, JMC, but I'm not sure whether people are talking about her risk taking or about other things. I hope not, because it seems to be the risk taking that drew in those of us who did enjoy the book. Maybe some are thinking that if Campbell pulled off what she was trying better there'd be less controversy? I think there would still be controversy, and me railing about Linda Howard and Anne Stuart probably won't make a difference to people who have such hatred for CtC (especially since reading the book doesn't seem to be a pre-requisite for commenting on it). In regard to Barbara Samuel's comment on SB, though, I thought she might be partially suggesting that Campbell wasn't totally successful at pulling off the risks she took, and that had she been a more experienced writer she likely would have pulled it all off better. But I'm coming to think that no matter how well a book is executed that there are just some readers who find sexual force totally unacceptable in their Romance, and that perhaps a *more* convincing love story between two people who shared this experience would cause that much *more* anger.

Robin
| Reply | Thread
( Leave a comment )