Criticism and the Romance Genre WAS RE: A Lot of Plot

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Eileen Rebstock" <erebstock at c...> wrote:
> 
> > A better appreciation of genre would save a lot of erroneous
> > criticism of the author, not to mention misreading of the text.
> 
> I'm not of the opinion that there can *be* erroneous criticism of the
> author, if we're talking of emotional reaction. If someone says, "This
> is not satisfying to *me*," how can you counter that with "This is a
> legitimate feature of the genre?" That's an explanation of why the
> author is doing what he or she does. It can help understanding where the
> plot is going, which I admit is more often the focus of fan discussion
> than pure reader response. 
> 

I mostly agree.
Hiding behind the fig-leaf of genre as a way to excuse lazy or sloppy
plotting (by any author) is just not on. And it becomes less  excusable
by an order of magnitude when contrivances, unlikely escapes or special 
pleading seem to apply only to a particular character or set of characters.
And I haven't noticed Jo cutting the baddies much slack.

Consistency matters. Otherwise there'll be a "Ho hum, Harry's in trouble
again. Never mind, he always emerges unscathed 'cos the baddies will be
dim or inept - or he, a partly trained student,  will pull out a magical
gem which will totally confound wizards with decades more experience
with (and skill in) magical combat." A slight exaggeration, but not by much.

There's a character discussion (about action films) in a book by a favourite 
author of mine - "one fine day in the middle of the night" by Christopher
Brookmyre, where they critique films with high and low "bullet deadliness
quotients". It's acceptable for the baddies to spray automatic-weapon fire
over the surrounding countryside without hitting a damn thing so long as
the hero is an equally (or nearly) rotten shot. But if he almost never misses
while they wave automatics around like hose-pipes, then it's an insult to
the viewing public. And in HP just one more straw could well break the
camel's back.

Perhaps you think that attitude is too demanding.
Well, look at it this way - we owe it to posterity to keep writers up to
scratch, otherwise the bookshop shelves will be groaning under the
weight of 100% unmitigated tripe instead of the (roughly) 60% we have
now. Of course, it's a different 60% for each reader but that doesn't
alter the principle of voting with your wallet the way your critical faculties
dictate. 
Blaming genre when you suspect that the author could do better is a cop-out. 

I do like Brookmyre. 
Black, black humour, decent (though usually outrageous) plot, lots of gore, 
entertaining characters.
The one above plus "Quite ugly one morning" and "Country of the Blind"
I find particularly enjoyable.
 
Kneasy