Women Who Read Romances are Not Stupid by Vonnie Davis

Hang on to your flip-flops, ladies, because I'm dragging out my soapbox

.
There's been a concept bandied about for some time now that irritates me, and you know how I get. Once something starts bugging me, I can't keep my mouth shut for long. I don't know who started this nonsense, but since I've heard a few preachers "preach the word" into their microphones, I can only guess. (A disclaimer here folks: my brother, an uncle and my late grandfather are/were all preachers). A small part of me will always belong to the religious right and a larger part of me will always think things through for myself. Because I'm of the generation who instinctively thinks, Oh yeah? Who are you and why should I listen to anything you have to say?  So here we go...

FACT: Reading romance will NOT break up your happy home.

   I've also read books on gardening and I can't grow a patch of veggies to save my life. I've read books on cutting hair and, believe me when I say, you do NOT want me near your tresses with a pair of scissors. I love reading David Morell's action, spy thrillers and I have yet to want to kill somebody. I've read books on self-improvement, yet I still feel inadequate in many ways. So WHY would reading a romance make me want to leave my husband and home? Who comes up with this nonsense?

FACT: If you write romance, you are NOT a lonely, frustrated woman who can't get a man on your own, which is why you invent them in your books.

   Pardon me while I laugh until my husband walks in to see what craziness I'm up to now. Have the men, who've made remarks like this, looked at pictures of authors at writers' conventions? There are plenty of hottie writers out there. Not here at this laptop, you understand, but I'm 66 and have been unmercifully attacked by bags of Oreos and potato chips over the years. I've tried to outrun them, I really have.

FACT: If you write romance, you are NOT writing "mommy porn."

   The very definition of porn is fluid. It has changed over the years--and will continue to change. We were told if we listened to Elvis, the pelvis, we'd go to hell. In 1969, when Bob Dylan, one of my favs as a teenager, wrote and sang "Lay, Lady, Lay....lay across my big brass bed," parents went nuts! Now we think nothing of the lyrics. As an older woman I do admit to getting a little tense over song lyrics like "do it in the butt all night long," but, hey, that's me. Remember the collective gasp in the movie theaters when Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn?" Now if a scene doesn't contain the phrase "mother f_cker", the writer wasn't doing his or her job. I've been reading romances for 50 years and have seen trends change. A chaste kiss at the end of the book has morphed to implied sex to detailed wild sex to kinky sex. And yet I've remained faithful to my husband as I've read AND written all the different varieties.

Now, ladies, can we talk a minute or ten about the men?

FACT: Men love to look. Is that cheating?

   Next time you're out in a crowd or at the mall, watch the men watch the women. Even the men traipsing along with the wife and kids will turn their heads to get a gander at the back end of a woman in a tight pair of jeans or a short skirt. Some guys do it overtly...and some have perfected the scratch their neck as they turn their head to take another look. Now, would one say they are about to leave their wives? No, they just enjoy looking.

FACT: Men like to read and watch porn on the Internet. Are they packing their bags?

   Men are visual creatures. Many--not all--enjoy what we've labeled as porno magazines. Many men enjoy watching women giving oral sex and having anal sex on the Internet. It arouses them, yet they are emotionally removed. Now, this is one of the differences between the sexes. We can read a good romance and cry. Men can watch a woman have sex every which way and feel their reaction only in their pants, not their hearts. It's sexual wiring, folks.

FACT: A man watching a woman in a skimpy bikini is not porn, but a woman looking at a ripped man in his boxers or jeans hung low is.

I don't even want to discuss the double standard on this. Okay, maybe I will. Does the man act on seeing a bikini-clad woman? Not if he's mentally healthy. Does a woman act on seeing a few pics of guys with ripped abs? Okay, she may lean against the washer while she's doing laundry, but she's too busy with kids, cleaning, laundry, cooking and saving enough energy to have monkey sex with her mate after devouring a few pages of her latest romance.

Now, having said all that. Here's what really, really bugs me about this whole "women who read romance are prone to leave their husbands" concept.

It implies we are stupid. 

It implies we cannot think for ourselves. 

It implies we are so easily swayed that reading a certain type of book will turn us into wanton women who will leave our hard-working men for fictional men with six-pack abs who can make love like no body's business. As if I'd read a book on brain surgery, I'd rush out to buy a couple scalpels, grab the first person I saw and start operating on them. Same reasoning process...right? That whatever I read, I will automatically want to do. Get a grip, people!

It implies writers of romance can not research, develop and weave an interesting, if not educational story, which revolves around a romantic relationship. 

It also implies that when some men--not all, now, but those who are more conservative or insecure than others--realize they can't control women's likes, our actions, our creativity...by golly, even our thoughts...they seek to belittle us by turning whatever it is we DO enjoy into something utterly degrading. Thus, "If you read romance, you're stupid" philosophy. Kinda leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it?
  

"IS THAT A SAID TAG?" SHE ASKED.

I read a lot. I always have. Granted, I read less now since I'm writing full time, but my Kindle still gets a fair workout every night. And although I normally read romance, I'm currently rereading works by David Morell, author of the Rambo series and The League of Night and Fog. He writes action and espionage thrillers. I tend to take time like this to reread old favorites when my creative spirit needs rejuvenation. Books by Linda Lael Miller, Jill Shalvis and others are often reread simply because keepers, like old friends, tend to calm and soothe.

Every author I read teaches me something. Either a skill they do well or ones they don't. And it's interesting to see how publishing standards change over time. Remember when books began with paragraphs about the weather or detailed description about a house or a room? Ah...back in the day, some thirty or forty years ago. We've steered away from that. Now we start our stories with an action scene and keep on running.

If only we'd veer away from "said tags."

I find them annoying. And I get aggravated with writers who use them. A pet peeve shared only by me, I know. But there you have it. I blame my agent, Dawn Dowdle, for this. "Do you hear me, Dawn?" Vonnie asked.

 

The "asked" said tag is my biggest peeve. Don't we all know the meaning of  a question mark? It has only one legitimate use--to indicate a series of words is a question. So why would a writer insult our intelligence by adding "he asked" afterward, as if we were too dumb to know what that question mark indicated? Drives me bonkers. Simply bonkers.

 

Like all good agents, mine does a strict edit of her clients' manuscripts. The usage of the words "that" and "just" and "up" and "back" are seriously slashed. Also removed are "said tags."

 

Experts claim using "said" or "asked" are non-intrusive and do not annoy. Bet me, buddy!

 

From a reader's standpoint, "said tags" are like rubber soles skidding on a highly waxed floor.

 

They slow movement and reduce enjoyment of the story. 

 

If we are to believe the adage, show, don't tell, then said tags should be avoided. Said tags tell. They tell who is speaking. Action beats show.

 

"Are you serious?" Jefferson asked.

"Quite," Martha said. "Two years is long enough to keep a car. I want a new one."

 

"Are you serious?" Jefferson's stomach clenched. Her demands on his finances was increasing.

"Quite." Martha studied her manicured nails and then arched one finely waxed eyebrow. "Two years is long enough to keep a car. I want a new one."

Cole held her close, his warm lips kissing her neck. "Tell me you don't want this," he whispered.

 

Cole held her close, his warm lips kissing her neck. "Tell me you don't want this." The breath from his whispered words feathered across her skin like a slow, sultry breeze.

 

 Can you see the difference between being "told" who is speaking and being "shown?" Yes, as a writer it takes more work. It takes developing a new skill in our "author arsenal," but the results are so worth it. Our writing becomes more polished. And picky readers, like me, are less annoyed. 

 

 



MAKE ME FEEL, AND I'M YOURS --

I love books that make me feel. If an author can write well enough to make me cry or laugh or have my heart pounding with fear for some scary thing I know is about to happen, I'm going to make note of that writer's name and buy her or him again and again.


Now you know why I have almost every book written by David Morell. Yes, he wrote the Rambo series, but many other action thriller books, as well. Once the professor of creative writing at Iowa University, he is a master story-teller. My favorite of his books is The League of Night and Fog.

Books one and two of Janet Evanovitch's Stephanie Plum series are my favorites for bed shaking laughter (now that I'm writing fulltime, the only chance I have to read is in bed). That woman can write such vivid pictures of her characters that you can't help but laugh.

AJ Neust, one of my sweet online buddies, certainly made me cry as I read Jezebel's Wish. And there are many others.


Still, the question remains. How does a writer suck you into the emotions on the page?

Deep point of view.

When we write in a way that shows, we engage our readers. If I write--Someone was walking behind Gloria, and she turned to see who it was. She saw a man in a dark coat and black ski mask.--that's telling. But notice the difference in overall tone, if I show you. A twig snapped and foilage rustled in the night. Someone was behind her, following her, stalking her. Gloria's footsteps increased as she peered over her shoulder. A man in a dark coat and black ski mask stood not ten feet away. Moonlight glinted off the chrome barrel of his gun, and it was pointed directly at her.

Did you hear the twig snap under his foot? Did you feel the unease creep up her spine? Did you almost gasp when she saw the man and his gun?

When a writer uses "she heard" or "she felt" or "she saw," we are distanced from the story. We're being told the story. There's no chance for us to experience it. But if the writer shows us what the point of view character sees, hears, feels and thinks, we become a part of the experience. We're sucked into the story. We're at one with the point of view character. We're hooked.

My goals as a writer are two-fold. One, I want to tell a good story. Two, I want to hook you from the first paragraph and whisper in your ear, "Hang on, I'm about to take you for a ride." I'm going to introduce you to some great characters, some sweet, some nasty and some quite quirky. I'm going to have you feel a range of emotions between the words "Chapter One" and "The End." Or at least try very hard to do so. I want you "in" my story. And I want you coming back for more.