Today's Book Review
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Shiver
400pp. Scholastic Press.
9780545123266
Maggie Stiefvater's third book debuted at no. 9 on the NYT Bestseller list and is already generating speculation re: its movie franchise, sequels, and product spinoffs. We are always optimistic when approaching the Next Big Thing of YA; after all, Phillip Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy did spectacularly well and is as complex, beautifully written, subversive, and brilliant a triad as any lover of literature could hope for (although DEAR GOD do not subject yourself to the UNFORGIVABLE film version of The Golden Compass , which was so bad we actually walked out in the first half-hour, SHRIEKING (really; just ask the people sitting in front of us, who changed seats to get away from us before we departed the theater in a frenzy of ire)).
Alas, we were sorely disappointed. In a nutshell: Shiver is the story of a young lady who is attacked by (were)wolves as a toddler and is rescued by a young (were)wolf pack member who is Mysteriously Drawn To Her and subsequently lurks about her premises for a few years until! lo and behold! she Hits Puberty and the Impassioned Forbidden Werewolf Romance begins. Under ordinary circumstances, we wouldn't bother to mention this book; there are so many magnificent books out there that it seems a far better use of our energies to expound upon their virtues rather than tromp down the path of intellectual disdain and public evisceration of hardworking authors, etc. etc. But our dislike of Shiver served only to remind us of a certain displeasure we have been feeling lately with young adult fiction in general and YA aimed at teenage girls in particular; namely, the Enfeebled Heroine.
There is a particularly misogynist school of romance critique which we are not interested in espousing; no, Maggie Stiefvater is not a great prose stylist, but neither is Tom Clancy, and we have yet to read a book review elaborating on what silly and addlepated creatures men are for their biological yearnings toward homoerotic narratives of exploding submarines and menacing Russians. We certainly do not think an affinity for romance is some tragic weakness of femininity, nor do we have any interest in writing off an entire (and hugely significant) segment of the reading population.
What we are heartily sick of, however, are feeble and inept teenage-girl main characters, whose lives come into focus only through the addition of some melodramatic attraction to a charismatic male figure who seems to carry all the personality in the relationship. Stiefvater's heroine Grace is even more insipid and insulting than Stephenie Meyer's Bella, who at least manages to commence Twilight with a predilection for the Brontes and an occasional demonstration of feistiness, even if she almost immediately devolves into a sobbing mess who hangs about in the more sordid corners of Forks awaiting rescue and who states repeatedly that she cannot live without vampire-beau Edward after spending all of a biology period with him (Grace thinks, I need this to live , the very first time her werewolf paramour kisses her). Yes, adolescence is a volatile time, and yes, adolescents (of ALL genders, thank you) develop obsessive and incredibly intense romantic attachments to all kinds of people who do not have their best interests at heart, and no, we don't have a problem with books willing to tackle those kinds of relationships head-on. But love that is self-abnegating, all-consuming, and totally erases any kind of independence looks a lot more like domestic violence than fabulous romance, and doormats aren't actually very interesting as protagonists. Grace has literally no interests outside of her werewolf boyfriend and COOKING; if Shiver were set in the fifties, it might make a little more sense (parody? meta-commentary on heteronormative romantic narratives via the fantastic? something? something?).
So what gives? Why are we settling for the same old crap tied up in a paranormal package? Is this really what the ladies want? To hang out moping over some dude all day, occupying ourselves in the kitchen, hoping he does something exciting like get hurt or have a temper tantrum so we can engage in some high-stakes caretaking? Can we maybe aim a little fucking higher, please? Don't try and tell us This Is What Sells; plenty of books with toughass young ladies at their hearts have blown up all over the place. Pullman's (NYT bestselling) Lyra is as fierce and complicated a wee heroine as a reader could ask for; likewise Katsa of Kristin Cashore's (NYT bestseller) Graceling , who is an UNDEFEATABLE ASSASSIN, for pete's sake, and who refuses to marry her tasty morsel of a manfriend because she's worried about cramping her style; Clary of Cassandra Clare's (NYT bestselling) Mortal Instruments trilogy manages to harbor a salacious forbidden passion for a hot Bad Dude while having, you know, a rich inner life, worrying about her family, and delivering sassy one-liners; even Ever, the heroine of Alyson Noel's (NYT bestselling) supremely trashy (and not exactly infused with a feminist politics) Immortals series manages to cultivate a few hobbies whilst pursuing her Monosyllabic Tormented Demon Man.
So all we can say is: KNOCK IT OFF. Knock off buying this shit, and knock off cranking it out. It is tough enough being a lady in this world, Author-friends, without having it hammered into our goddamn heads that we're STILL supposed to sit tight, shut up, and look pretty. We are NOT HAVING IT. If anybody around here gets to be a werewolf, it's gonna be US. And we will eat you right up, believe it.
Posts
Thank you!
This is my gripe with much fiction, YA and otherwise, mainly aimed at women. Romance does not have to be misogynistic, does not need a weak-minded or weak-willed protagonist because these characters are boring as shit.
If I wanted whining I wouldn't be reading for entertainment, I'd just call a relative and ask how he/she is doing today!
Allow me to point out that plenty of "romance" novels ranging from Lauryn Willig to Eva Ibbotson to even Meg Cabot on occasion can crank out a heroine with personality, guts, purpose (beyond moping suicidally after a man). Give me a thinly-plotted but spunky Janet Evanovich chick any day over these YA paranormal lamesters.
yes, i said lamesters that's how upset i am
I think I just fell a little more in love with you.
Hunger Games has a pretty badass MC, if you haven't read it. And it manages to have romance without turning her into a pansy.
Hear hear. I read Shiver, and Grace kind of drove me nuts. Also, how come the woman is always the fragile human who should Just Stay Away because that supernatural hottie is Dangerous and loves her too much to put her at risk? I'm sure there are some YA paranormal straight romances out there where the girl gets to be the werewolf (and I think the adult paranormal Sharp Teeth does this), but as for the vast majority, it is all, "No, Bella, I'm not good for you!"
I'm automatically resentful of Shiver, since it came out the same week as my book and pwned my sales into the ground.
(My lead chick is a dirty badass with a video camera.)
Ahhh... the leaves on the cover look like little hearts. How cute.
And just for you, General Kael, I shall ban the book from my store! For all two and a half weeks it continues to exist. Take that, Stiefvater!
(Admittedly, that's sort of fun to say. I'm gonna go around saying "Take that, Stiefvater!" all day now.)
My big problem was how "made up" the solution of the plot seemed. Fevers? Really? I would have much rather Grace turned into a werewolf and they ended up losing their human selves in great sorrow etc.
No one gives me sad endings anymore.
(Yeah, and I'm getting tired of this misogynist YA too.)
THANK YOU. I started this book, and got about forty pages into it before I gave up. (I forced myself through the first Twilight book after three tries, and I'll be damned if I'm making that mistake again.)
The thing is, I think a lot of authors just really enjoy fangirling their own male creations, and they use their female protags/narrators as a means to do so. They can be shameless about it, because "that's what SELLS!!1!" and as Twilight-y things get more popular, the more justified they feel in focusing their protags' entire lives on their Impossibly Beautiful Beaus.
Makes me want to sneak away and read more Kelley Armstrong.
Or even Charlaine Harris, who actually manages to balance a strong, thinking heroine with the anti-feminist culture in which she lives.
Bella is the reason I never read past the first book of the Twilight series. She pissed me off. I hated her willingness to give up everything she was - including being a live human - just to be with a guy. That isn't love in my opinion. I've seen too many women in real life give up who or what they are for men only to see them get dumped later. And there they sit on their butts asking "who am I now?"
Hates it.
I would never buy this book, because it is not lady-colored in pink. Yes, there are hearts on it, but that's to subtle. Give me a stiletto or something to go on! Now I have to go get a wax: Cosmo told me to.
So I know I'm asking for it here, but--
While this trend has its annoying points, it is also realistic when you consider the psyche of many teen girls. The YA genre is about growth and finding out where one fits in. If anyone made it to the 4th book in Meyer's series, Bella discovers she has a powerful talent that's been there the whole time and she just never recognized. So as long as the book shows some kind of personal growth in self-awareness, then I really don't have a problem with the MC starting out as weaker. Books that have 17-yr-old girls who have it all together and don't take crap from anybody annoy me b/c it's largely unrealistic.
Haven't read Shiver, tho.
Bravo! I've been ranting about this aspect of Twilight since my college-age students have been smitten with it. I have to agree with Jill that growth comes eventually--but my opinion is that it's too little, too late. I've got eighteen and nineteen year olds in love with Edward, and I'm terrified. The message is: Your own life is worth nothing compared to the value of finding the love of your life. How many ways can we spell "hogwash"??
Protagonist Lainey in my first book (Jake Riley: Irreparably Damaged) holds the dangerous main male character at bay. I had a few teens tell me, "I thought they'd get together at the end." OHMYGOD. Thankfully, most of them identified and applauded Lainey's strength.
A-freakin'-men.
As a writer, I've received the advice that interesting main characters ACT rather than REACT. The very idea of BS doormat wimpy chick MC seems to directly contradict that advice.
ha - so now we know you don't work for Andrea Brown . . .
Love, love, LOVE this write-up. Oh GOD I thought that all women loved the Twilight books. My girlfriend and her friends all go ape-shit over that thinly-veiled mysogynistic trojan horse: Bella. I'm sure they will SQUEE just as much with this pile of filth. (I'm taking your word here, Rejectionist, I won't read it)
What's weird about this is that my girlfriend and her friends are very strong women. They all don't want to be stay-at-home moms and they are all in some stage of getting their advanced degrees, but for some reason, they all love these books. So what gives? Why do they read this drivel when it preaches such a dumb message?
I DON'T GET IT! As a male who has to live with this crap, why do such strong women get caught up in this just as much as mousey little 14 year old girls with Cosmo-complexes? Just seems daft. Why would you actively cheer for a character that embodies the exact opposite of (and is more of a step back if nothing else) what they seek to be themselves?
Ok, im done. Love all of you.
Character growth.
It's what's for dinner.
First, Ken - I'm sure you are a wonderful human being, so don't think I'm all upset and offended, but do want to point out that strong, intelligent women who love books, have an education, and have done well in the workplace also make fabulous stay at home mom's. ;)
Second, Rejectionist - would your distaste for Shiver have overpowered your hunch that it would sell well if the query came across your desk? Would you have rejected it out of princple or passed it onto Steve? Just curious!
Mystery Robin,
I really am sorry, I didn't mean it that way at all! My mother was a stay-at-home mom and I love her for it. What I meant (although I didn't put it across well) was that they are just very career-driven people, and I commend them for that. At the same time, though, we have talked about marriage and have decided that someone should stay home with kids... but still being somewhat young (23 and 20) we're not crossing that barrier quite yet. (One of the plusses of me being an author is that I could stay home with the kids, so there you go... sorry for the hate on stay-at-home moms. I love them for their sacrifices)
Now I'll sit here with my foot in my mouth for a while.
I. Love. You.
I also wish I could express my absolute loathing of this kind of writing as eloquently as you just did. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
As a mother of a barely teen girl, I gnashed my teeth at her Twilight obsession. I don't argue with my daughter over hair, clothes, make up, choice of music or friends, but I had her in tears over my disappointment in her book choices. One does not blow off their friends for their boyfriend. One does not go catatonic because a boy breaks up with them. These were mandates I could not help stating. I kept reading the series thinking Myers would end up showing what a useless life Bella and most of the Cullins were living. (At least do some good with all this power and time!!! Save the rainforest- something.) I kept thinking Bella would eventually choose Jacob and a sort of normal life, but alas no.
Happily, though my daughter got into Scott Westerfeld's Uglies. Why can a man write such a better heroine?
Dear Ken, if we had the answer of why smart ladies do mysterious and self-sabotaging things we would no longer be an assistant; we would be sailing our yacht about the Caribbean.
Dear Mystery Robin, We told "Steve" the other day that we would have rejected Twilight, and "Steve" said, "That's okay. Me too." (Who DID discover Twilight, BTW? THE ASSISTANT, that's who. And SOMETHING TELLS US SHE DIDN'T GET THE COMMISSION ON THAT ONE).
I love it! Thank you.
That being said, this is my take one why there are so many books about pathetic women: some authors use this ploy to play to the fantasy of a strong, manly-type man who will sweep us off of our feet and make us feel like the perfect princess.
In actuality, a good catch likes a girl with goals. Not just dreams, but goals, and plans on how to reach them. That's what my mom told me a long time ago (and she's not one to dole out advice), and she was right.
Jill,
I agree with what you said about character growth. Not many 17 yr olds do have their stuff *that* together. Give me someone I can grow with.
However, what drives me crazy about Bella and her ilk is the I-cannot-possibly-live-without-this-person kind of "love" that is put out there. It's just not healthy. Not the message I want my 15 yr old daughter, or any other young woman, to be fed. Or young man for that matter.
I see far too many young women who think having the attention of a young man increases their inherent value as a person. Boo to anything that promotes that kind of thinking.
SusieJ, I also adore Tally Youngblood, but there are plenty of WOMEN writing excellent women as well. Look at a few of the rejectionist's suggestions: Clary of Clare's Mortals Instruments, Katsa of Cashore's Graceling. I would also recommend The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, the Gemma Doyle trilogy by Libba Bray (Victorian set!), The Vampire Academy series by Richelle Mead (the girl in that is a bodyguard to a far weaker vampire), the Blood Coven series by Mari Mancusi (twin girls, one a vampire, one a slayer), Dull Boy by Sarah Cross (male AND female superheroes), *anything* by Tamora Pierce... there really is some remarkably good stuff out there that fights the tide. And almost all of these have a STRONG romance in them.
One of the things I specifically set out to do in RAMPANT was write a girl with superpowers and a mission in a romance with a normal boy. Change it up a bit. :-) (he, of course, has his own interests. Fair is fair.)
Please be my best friend.
I would kick that werewolf's ass and then maybe I would go out with him...maybe if he was hot and I wasn't busy.
Verification Word: taters...ummmm 'tators, fried in bacon grease.
Love this - thanks. I also loved Graceling for all the reasons you mentioned and more.
Yes! But I'm hoping the likes of Katniss Everdeen will change things. My heroines are proactive-- even if they don't always do the smart thing. And they don't fall in love with guys simply because they are HOTT. *sigh*
I do think this is not a review of Shiver so much as a diatribe against Twilight. I think that's totally unfair to Ms. Stiefvater - whom I feel is a good writer. After reading this review, I read this review - http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2009/11/shiver_by_maggi.shtml - which is much more on target and actually all about Shiver.
I agree with those who bemoan the plethora of weak little "oh love of my liiiife, I need a man to saaave me" heroines. Where did feminism go? Is there no happy medium? (No, she's unhappy because she sees the future--*rimshot*)
My YA, _Camille's Travels_, stars a strong, active young woman who doesn't have the illusions these Bellas have. I'd be happy to send The Rejectionist a free Kindle or PDF edition (with no obligation) just to give you some relief from the wimpy women!
Hey...This [crap]Is What Sells [to dumb-asses]!
Think about it, my dear.
Here's a true story. When Gilligan's Island was on the air, the studio would get calls and mail from fans who believed that the show was really being shot on an island, and that Gilligan and his fateful crew were really "lost".
The world is full of idiots with money to spend.
Does this mean you think strong female protagonists are the new vampire?
I'm really hoping so - I have a couple of those . . .
Holy Lord, that's a lot of words. Is this what happens when you drink fruit water? I'm so sorry ...really ... what was I thinking?
Okay, seriously now. Awesome review. Me likes the crankiness today. More, please. For payment, click HERE. Pick up shot glass. Drop into big glass. Slosh it all down.
Perhaps you can watch the rest of Golden Compass now. Quick. Before the buzz wears off.
Wow. Tell us how you really feel. I will agree to an extent. The bookstores are flooded with books like that right now. But I have to admit, I buy into all those wimpy teenagers that need to be saved by strong men. I know, I suck.
But vent all you want, I find your rants amusing and you've alerted me to a book I will probably buy.
Don't hate.
I disagree. But it's your opinion and I can respect opinions.
I buy into those books too. I'm all for women who want to be kicking-ass and taking names of they want to, but I subscribe to the camp that is woman who wants to be taken care of.
I've read Shiver from my local library and will be taking out the sequel as soon as it's available.
Just my opinion.
Cleavage or not, I must have you now.
I'm officially bookmarking this post to read time and time again AND linking to it off my blog : )
Amen sister!
I'm a big fan of this blog, and I always think you're hilarious, but I have to admit that both myself and another member of my critique group are not fans of this post. We agree with the main point -- enfeebled heroines have no place in YA -- but we disagree with the manner in which you carried it out. You can check out our full opinion here. I'm still a loyal reader, just not too fond of the post.
Well, I didn't dislike Shiver as much as you, but all the same, I thought it was over-hyped and quite disappointed when I read it. Overall, I thought it was just an okay book -forgettable at the least.
I truly don't understand people's obsession with these books either. I read the synopsis of shiver months ago and thought "Gee, sounds like a Twilight knockoff but without the vampires."
I hate Twilight, I'm sick of these types of books and I want the world to realize how stupid they all are for obsessing over crappy writing, anti-feminist ideology and just pure...shit. Ugh.
I have to disagree on the aspect of Shiver. I enjoyed this book very much. My review can be read on my blog.
I agree about the point of which you were trying to get across. Your mention of Alsyon Noel's Immortal series redeemed you. You can read my review of her books on my blog as well (Evermore,Blue Moon> Terribly dreadful books.
Also you mention "Grace has literally no interests outside of her werewolf boyfriend and COOKING". If I recall they went to the bookstore quite often. Grace had a passion for books. She and Sam made a few stops there.
Also, the Twilight books are forever long. Shiver was rather short because Maggie didn't dwell on the unnecessary BS filler details. I think her writing style in Shiver was awesome.
I haven't read Shiver yet, but it's on my list of things to be read. It still will be because I like books of all kinds.
I agree with the sentiment that of the enfeebled heroine, but I don't think this is the platform to do it. This isn't really a review, it's more of a platform to rant about a specific type of character. Maybe this should have been separated into a different post, but the post was hardly about the subject at hand.
I posted earlier but didn't say anything of consequence, just a silly joke and a publicity plug for my book, but...while I agree with the sentiment of this post, I'd be in tears right now if people were tearing my book apart this way. (I guess that makes me a weak female.)
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I tried to read this book a week ago, tried, and got halfway through it before I had to put it down. I really thought there was something wrong with me for not liking it, because it did get really good reviews. I thought her writing was good, but it was sooo slow, like a snail crawl, and way too predictable. Because I'm working on a manuscript for YA, I've read about thirty in the past month and thought I couldn't finish this because I was suffering from burn out. It feels good to know I'm not crazy after all.
Dear Rejectionist,
I think I would like to marry you. THANK YOU for bringing the rage.
love,
The Upstairs Girl
Excellent post!
I think you might be interested in this article by Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/nov/11/dont-patronise-popular-fiction-women
I read Shiver and loved it. I'm not a fan of enfeebled heroines in the least, but Grace didn't strike me as feeble. Her hobbies included cooking, hanging out at the bookstore, researching wolves, and taking pictures of nature. I didn't find it upsetting when she fell madly, passionately in love with Sam and thought being with him was life itself because hello? Teenage girl? Been there, done that.
As for feeble, sit around waiting to be rescued by the big tough werewolf? Not so much, actually. Grace fights for Sam's life. She fights for her friend's life. She figures out a possible "cure" and does everything she can to make it happen. Nothing about that says feeble, I-can't-function-without-a-man heroine to me.
I understand and appreciate differing tastes in books and am grateful for it since it helps fill up the shelves with so many delightful offerings. But in my opinion, Shiver is an excellent book and I can't wait to read the sequel.
Well...
I can only say: you just got yourself a new follower.
ENFEEBLED HEROINES MAKE ME SICK!!!! Absolutely, completely sick. I can't stand them, I even feel insulted!!
And among the strong heroines, you just forgot Katniss, from the Hunger Games (I don't know if you have read the book), who's very much like Katsa.
My only regret? I already bought the book (expecting much more, I guess), so I will have to read it :(
I haven't read Shiver yet. And I did read Twilight (but never finished the series) and I do have reservations about "feeble" heroines (in fact, I always try to write mine to be far more kick-butt than I am).
But I have to say...I have never read your blog before and have no idea who you are (which I don't think anyone does, given that you post anonymously). Would you say these things to the author's face? In person? Would you say these things at all if people knew who you were?
Quite frankly, I can understand getting worked up. I've gotten worked up over books before. But you know what? I can either manage to say it in such a way that it isn't a personal attack on the author or I don't bother at all.
And yes, I can see from the comments that you've got some like-minded supporters who have poured on more vitriol (some of whom haven't even read the book). But you've turned many more people off based on things I'm seeing on Twitter and Facebook and other blogs. You chose to rant instead of educate and have muddled your message. If you really want the majority of people to hear and listen to what you say, try saying it with a littl grace.
And given that I'm not posting anonymously and for all I know you'll be the assistant to the editor that winds up getting my next manuscript at whatever house my agent sends it too, I probably shouldn't be saying any of this. But if no one stands up against bitter diatribes that hurt more than educate, then I think we all suffer.
Oh yeah, wait, I know. It's the Internet. That's always the reason it's okay, right? Freedom of speech and all that.
Yeah, I know. And I support your free speech and even the (rather buried) message that stronger heroines are awesome. But seriously, does it have to be about HATE? You could have written a post about the heroines you LOVE and made a bunch of authors and readers happy instead of bashing the heck out of two.
Just a thought.
Wow. It's a good thing you chose to go into publishing instead of say ... acting. You aren't good at hiding your bitterness or jealousy at all.
I guess that's why you're ANON.
Yet, you don't allow anonymous comments? Dish, but can't take, eh?
Wow... this started as a book review / opinion of the state of the YA fantasy market... followed by discussion (yay!), agreement (yay!), and dissention (yay!)... which devolved into accusations of personal attacks on Maggie Stiefvater (what? where?)... and then into actual personal attacks on The Rejectionist! It's like Lord of the Flies on this blog. How interesting to watch.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't know when people (teen girls and adult women) decided that misogyny that was romantic, but i'm glad i missed that memo
If this is really your viewpoint, that's great. However, you titled the post as a review. A real review consists of an overview, as well as high points and low points. This was just a rant. Not only did it come across as a diatribe instead of a helpful review, you managed to push your own brand of censorship. I may not like every book that is on the shelf, but that's a matter of taste. Your suggestion for books like these to never exist and for people to stop buying them is your call for censorship in the truest form.
And I don't agree with your examples of ideal heroines. Lyra? Who lies her way through every obstacle? How is that heroic or exemplary? And the reason you give for Katsa being ideal is that she's an assassin. Is she strong simply because she holds a position that is primarily given to males? Is she strong simply because she can do what a man can do? Is an ideal female protag one who does what no other woman can, or is it someone who does what every woman can, only to a noble and heroic degree? I happen to enjoy female protags who are strong because of the choices they make, not because they can perform equally with, or better than, men.
Also, a tip: shorten your sentences. They are far too long to be taken seriously in the writing world.
Drat, I thought I commented on this last night, did it not go through?
Anyway, I am right there with you, Rejectionist. And that is why my (winning!) entry in a fellow blogger's recent "Rename Twilight Contest" was: Because Buffy Had Too Much Backbone.
Lindsay - if you're referring to my post, I haven't personally attacked The Rejectionist. I nowhere mentioned their credentials, their appearance, their skills...all I said was that he/she could have chosen to present his/her message framed in a positive light rather than a negative one (though after reading through more of the blog, I can see that that's not something that generally occurs around here and my message is likely a complete waste of time, but oh well).
Like I said, I agree that kick-butt heroines are awesome. But when you call someone's writing shit and say it is insipid and feeble, etc., that's not constructive. It's *destructive*. Purely my own opinion of course. Of which (heaven knows) we all have one.
Kimberly -- No, I wasn't saying that you were personally attacking The Rejectionist. (In fact, I was referring to the post made by "WTF," right below yours.) However, yours WAS one of the ones that mentioned the original post contained a personal attack on the author, and while you made your point eloquently and without rancor, I don't see the basis of that part of your argument!
Rejectionist, I totally agree!
There are some great YA books out there with kick-ass heroines. GRACELING by Kristin Cashore and Suzanne Collins' HUNGER GAMES series are just a few.
My blog is all about such books.
www.addictedtoheroines.blogspot.com
Wow! I'm new to this blog having only come over from N.Bransford's
link to the form letter contest which was absolutely hilarious- thank you to all who participated.
I can see this a spicy place, so glad I found it.
Diana, I do know there are women who write strong females and in defense of Maggie, I do believe women can be strong without being the kickass type- internal strength and all that. There's a good reason God made the women have the babies (not because of Eve and the snake and all that). Even so I applaud Westerfeld for making the entire series about strong females, not just Tally and Shae but the scientists too and giving us romance with by no means wimpy, although sometimes physically disabled men. It was just a brilliantly done series.
And Rejectionist, I am fascinated by your long sentences. Kidlit.com has a recent query contest winner who also rocked at long sentences and big words. Not easy to do well, but I'm glad to see they're still alive and kicking. Fact is I've never thrown a punch or wielded a weapon, but I do like a good mental challenge
Lindsay - perhaps it's where I'm coming from as an author. We live our characters and put our heart and soul into them. It is impossible to completely distance yourself from your writing; it's like having someone call your baby a monster...or, perhaps, more like someone calling *you* a monster.
The "worst" thing that The Rejectionist said about Maggie personally is that she's "not a great prose stylist, but neither is Tom Clancy" but then she goes on to basically say Maggie's writing looks like an excuse for domestic violence rather than romance and calls it both "crap" in a paranormal package and "shit" and that she should be aiming higher (implying that she obviously wasn't, when I'm quite sure none of those things were on her agenda).
To me, that feels pretty personal. (and yes, I've had my share of bad reviews as well; we all do, but this one really wasn't a review. It was a diatribe and that's why I've been commenting.)
And I do agree with the Joel & Mandy post as well. I thought she/he/they said it quite well. It is a call for censorship, even though I'm willing to bet that the Rejectionist, whoever they are, didn't think of it that way when they started writing.
Kimberly -- I do understand where you're coming from as an author. I'm trying to get my first book (a YA fantasy) out there as well... and the extensive rewriting process involved dealing with a LOT of criticism from my first readers. Some was more harsh than helpful, and I had to examine it from many angles before I determined that it wasn't criticism that I could use -- and some was both harsh AND helpful. That is my favorite kind of crit.
But meanwhile, my 9-5 job is pretty darn similar to The Rejectionist's. So I do understand both sides of the argument. We'll have to agree to disagree about how The Rejectionist's criticism of Maggie was intended, but I'll say again that to me, it looks much more like a criticism of her work than a criticism of HER. I won't call anything a personal attack until it actually attacks her as a person.
Where is there a call for censorship? The closest I can see is "So all we can say is: KNOCK IT OFF. Knock off buying this shit, and knock off cranking it out." The first part is a call for consumer not to help perpetuate the trend (which, in its most extreme form, is boycotting, not censoring, since they still have the choice of whether or not to buy it). The second part is a call to industry people to stop publishing as many of these books. Since agencies and publishers spend most of their time signing certain manuscripts and rejecting others... should we call it censorship every time a manuscript gets rejected?
Dear Rejectionist,
Shame on you for not following the 4th grade book review formula (overview, high points, low points?!) How dare you use a review to discuss larger genre issues! We feel certain that had you shown this to your mommy before turning it in (posting it) we would not have to be having this conversation now. We have just been informed that it is 'nap time' so we will have to cut this short but in the future if you can find nothing positive to say you will please restrict your posts to the condition of the roads or the weather.
Sincerely.
I haven’t read this book, and while I am unsure as to whether or not I'll like it, it seems like your whole review was bashing the book. I can respect that you didn’t like this book, but was really necessary to go on a hate rant against it? In my opinion, even the most ‘despised’ book on my list will have some good points. I have a never written a review, but it is an implied assumption that a review should include the high and the low, both sides of the coin, not just one. And while I DO think it would be nice to have more GIRL protects helpless GUY scenarios, surely Grace has her bouts of strength and bravery. The harshness with which you judge this book is your opinion, this I understand and respect, but again, was really necessary to go on a hate rant against it? I think you should tone it down, at least a little. After all, everyone is different, and everyone will have different opinions, and as a reviewist, it should be important to consider that some people will not see things your way, and that someone may be upset/angry/offended by your blunt harshness.
Dear Rejectionist:
Funny as always! I just read Shiver two weeks ago, though, and had a completely different reaction to it. First, there was a quiet quality to Maggie's prose that appealed to me. It matched the season, longer days, winter coming, chill in the air.
I also found Grace to be a particularly appealing heroine. She saves Sam after he is shot, stands up to the hospital staff, figures out the "cure", and her not-really-a-friend-but-turns-out-to-be-okay compatriot, also female, executes the plan with her. She's ballsy. And in the end, she saves Sam's humanity and not through some stupid plot twist where he has to cling to his human side to save her.
I don't think it's misogynistic that Grace isn't the werewolf. In this story, the werewolf isn't the hero.
There was one stereotype in the book that got under my skin. As a plot device I am tired of self-involved, un-involved parents and/or boarding schools. It might be tricky to write around parents who actually care for their progeny but it would be nice to see one or two.
Overall, I really liked this book and look forward to reading more from Maggie Stiefvater. Which confirms a long standing suspicion of mine: No matter how far I think I've come, I will never like the same things the cool kids like.
I would take a bullet for my husband. Does that make me enfeebled? :)
Jill-- Au contraire. Enfeebled would be if you were constantly (because OOPS! you don't know any better, innocent thing that you are!) getting yourself into situations where your husband might have to take a bullet for YOU! ;)
I would just like to say that this blog belongs to the Rejectionist, and while I don't share the Rejectionist's views on this issue, she can say whatever the hell she wants on her own blog. If you don't like her rants than there are numerous other blogs you can read.
Not if it is a SILVER BULLET. Hee, hee.
I'm so tired of the lame heroine trend. When did it become cool to be useless, I mean helpless? Both Twilight and Shiver I tossed. And I only made it to chapter 10 in Shiver.
Amen.
Actually I liked SHIVER. Grace didn't particularly bother me at all. Sure, I'd love more kick ass action, but that wasn't the point of the story. Where I enjoyed SHIVER, I couldn't handle TWILIGHT, so it's all in the eyes of the beholder (or reader in this case).
We wouldn't have had all this trouble if vampires and werewolves hadn't started brushing their teeth and getting all sociable. Give me a proper paranormal beast any day.
Rejectionist,
I have to agree with some of the other commenters: That's not a review. That's a rant. Please don't call it a review when you're singling out an author to bash.
While I'm not a fan of Twilight and couldn't quite get through the series, I loved SHIVER. Maggie's writing has grace (pun intended) and beauty. And I thought Grace kicked ass when she came up with the idea for Sam's cure and helped him through it. K.M. Cruz: if you gave up at Chapter 10, you missed the best parts.
For all of you getting irate about so-called feeble heroines, this is FICTION, people. It's not life. Even the strongest female occasionally likes to kick back and read something romantic.
I whole-heartedly agree with you on this review/rant. Can we just all agree as ladies that this stuff is crap, and we shouldn't support it in the least?
Romances of that style ARE abusive. It's setting tween girls up to become accepting of abusive relationships, and honestly...women as a whole don't need any encouragement there.
Though many took exception to TWILIGHT because of Bella's wimpishness, the series was used as a platform for dialog between adults and teens. TWILIGHT allowed discussion of love, obsession, stalking, etc. I know parents who took advantage of that "teachable moment." So to believe that Ms. Meyer's series only had negative consequences is incorrect.
I don't necessarily want all my heroes and heroines to be spunky, butt-kicking folk. I like to read about tormented people making mistakes and not necessarily learning from them. I do hope that by the end of the book/series they've made some personal growth, but that doesn't always happen. In that regard fiction mirrors reality.
Victimization/Damsel in Distress fantasies seem to be very popular among women--perhaps especially among women who are strong in real life. (But this is an untested theory. I don't know if it's true.)
The fact is, many women and girls love engaging in fantasies of victimhood, which is why these stories are so popular. I recognize that just because a woman indulges in the fantasy, that doesn't mean she thinks victimization is right or wants it to happen in real life.
HOWEVER, I do find it disturbing that these stories are sold to teens, who have less ability than adult women to distinguish a fantasy avatar from a role model--emotionally, even if not intellectually.
Keeping all that in mind, I'm working on a fantasy novel in which the two female leads (teen girls) indulge in victimization fantasies--one out of loneliness and one in manipulation of a man--until they figure out what they really want and what makes them truly happy. Both are flawed and immature, yet empowered females who end up rescuing their own selves, and other people--including a helpless werewolf--along the way. I hope my story will unite the fun of fantasy with the excitement and joy of empowerment.
For a hilarious interpretation of the terrible "moral" lessons embedded in beloved Disney movies, check out this article: http://www.cracked.com/article_16905_7-classic-disney-movies-that-taught-us-terrible-lessons.html
A quibble: you might correct the spelling of Kristin Cashore's name.
Firstly, let me express in no uncertain terms that I applaud this post and this call to reason.
You are to be commended.
Let us not fool ourselves. Culture is still chronically misogynistic, and in some very frightening ways, it seems headed even more in this direction.
Each time that this type of pulp-fiction becomes popularized by the marketing machine that backs it, it destroys strong women's icons and turns heightens the Ophelia archetype, encouraging young women, still in their formative years to convert to victim mentality, rather victorious mindset.
Encouraging strong women to be the norm rather than the exception, is essential to society. As Plato suggested, thousands of years ago, a society that has equally strong men and women is invincible.
That is at the very heart of this discussion, and all people, regardless of gender; anyone who values strong, secure, well-balanced individuals running the planet, should be concerned that this toxic message is becoming so virally prolific.
I cannot help but read the critiques of this article being a call to censorship as tongue-in-cheek. (To avoid calling it outright cynical. Or perhaps simply blind ignorance.)
Certainly no one believes the writer of this piece has the power to censor anything. Furthermore, there is nothing in this post that suggests censorship. It merely expresses (in a free society we have the right to express) disagreement and disgust with the trend.
This is a rightful indignation. The rational response of a rational mind confronting irrational behavior and prejudice.
Consider this. If the trend were blatantly damaging to any other minority on earth; to ethnic minorities, to religious minorities, to the physically challenged, would there not be an out-cry of all people around the world against it?
If the trend were to indoctrinate racism, or ethnic bias, or other bigotry, would the producers of the work not be labeled as dangerous fanatics promoting a dangerous thinking?
Why is it that women, who have consistently been the most maligned minority of all history, deserve less outrage when our icons and our stereotypes are thus manipulated?
Why can we not protest our Auntie Tanias?
It is high time we woke up and realized that there may be all the free speech on earth, and long may it reign, but it can only remain useful and positive, when those who are truly devoid of all hatred speak as loudly as those who cunningly and cynically present a bias as the norm.
Congratulations on being a voice of reason, and a courageous voice at that.
I support you. I applaud you. I encourage you to rage against the dying of the light.
Regards,
Penny Bloom
hear hear!
or should i say: "hear FUCKING hear!"
sorry for the profanity, but REALLY.
Thanks, Nancy, and oops. Taken care of.
Amen. Just...AMEN!
Thank you, Rejectionist.
And, Penny Bloom - very well said!
I know I'm a little late here, but I just have to make this point because I didn't see anybody else specifically mention it.
Shiver is a romance. By the nature of that genre, it is supposed to focus on the relationship between Grace and Sam and how their lives are affected by this new relationship. Romances typically start with the couple meeting for the first time and end when the couple has finally overcome all the problems keeping them apart, as Shiver does. A lot of your criticism seems to be based on you wanting this book to be something that it isn't. Some of the examples of strong heroines (in your main post and by others in the comments) are from books that are not primarily romances. They may contain romantic elements/subplots, but the romance is not the main focus of the story. Criticizing a romance because the book concentrates mainly on the romance seems a bit unfair.
Also, why is Grace considered "enfeebled" because her life becomes focused on Sam (which seems natural in any new relationship), and Sam is not? He is at least as obsessed with/dependent on her as she is him, and yet he is not criticized for it. In fact, in the end, he is the one that gives up part of who he is (and risks dying) to be with her, not the other way around. When Grace's (girl) friend is not willing to risk her life in the same manner, Grace says she probably wouldn't make that choice either -- basically saying she would rather live without Sam than not live at all. She also saves/helps Sam much more often than he rescues her. Just because she uses her intellect and creative thinking rather than brute strength or a paranormal ability does not mean she isn't as worthy as Sam or all those "kick-ass" heroines.
I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy Shiver and I hope your post doesn't discourage anyone who was interested in this book from reading it. I thought it was beautifully written and the story was everything I expected and wanted it to be. Next time I'd suggest taking a little more care when choosing books so you don't get a romance by mistake, since they obviously aren't to your taste.
(By the way, I've always enjoyed reading your blog and of course you are entitled to your opinion. After this post, I'll just be taking those opinions with a bit more grain of salt.)
So let me get this straight:
1) Don't write this sh*t
2) Don't buy this sh*t
3) This book is a pile of filth (even though the poster has never read it)
4) Dumb asses buy these books
5) If you don't like the book, ban it
6) These authors have a "cunning and cynical" bias against women.
Wow. I'd say the books did what they were meant to do -- engender conversation. Pity some of it wasn't more respectful of the authors' efforts.
Shiver is a romance. By the nature of that genre, it is supposed to focus on the relationship between Grace and Sam and how their lives are affected by this new relationship.
Melinda, I haven't read Shiver so I won't talk about the merits of the book. But I will say just one thing before fleeing into the night: I believe you're making a very troubling assumption - the implicit assumption that Shiver being a romance, must naturally feature a romance like the one apparently potrayed in this book. As though the type of romance that Grace and Sam are depicted as having is entirely natural and representative of the way romances are and should be in romance books and maybe even real life. Thus, if Shiver is a romance, it must necessarily have the kind of romance that the author has chosen to represent.
Not true.
There are many types of romantic relationships men and women can have. There are many dynamics possible between a man and a woman in a romantic relationship. A man and woman being in love does not HAVE to have the woman being entirely co-dependent, helpless and domesticated (the claims I think the Rejectionist is making). So no, the Rejectionist is not criticizing the book because it is a romance. I'm pretty sure when you read the back of the book, you'll know that it is a romance and so that aspect shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone, nor would any reasonable person pick up a romance and say "ew! I hate this book because it's such a friggin romance!" However, I do believe that the Rejectionist is simply criticizing this particular romance book for the type of romance it portrays. Again, I'll have to read the book to form concrete opinions about it, but regardless, I do think it's very worth taking a critical eye to how romances are potrayed in books and how, as you've unwittingly revealed in your post, many people seem to take such types of romances as the natural definition of romance in general.
Hot damn, that was awesome!
Best thing I've read on a blog since... Well, maybe ever. Your last two senteced summed it all up perfectly and deliciously. I want to kiss you!
Exactly, thank you! I am the product of this 'romantic culture' and two marriages later I've finally found myself and I am just as passionate about cranking out powerful young female protagonist as you are.
I am currently in query hell trying to sell my urban fantasy with a free thinking atheist who doesn't take shit off anyone and the 'dear Edward' in my story makes the sacrifice.
Hi Sarah,
I just wanted to clarify my point since I think it was misinterpreted. I am not trying to defend books that portray unhealthy romantic relationships or that feature enfeebled heroines. I simply don't agree with the Rejectionist's opinion that Grace is enfeebled. When I read Shiver, I saw Grace as a very strong and independent person. Just because Sam is the one with the paranormal ability does not mean that Grace is the weaker character, and in my opinion, she was not portrayed that way. Sam and Grace both come to depend on each other through the course of the novel, but I didn't see it as unhealthy and it was completely logical considering the story and their circumstances.
My original comment was mostly intended as a rebuttal of this statement of the Rejectionist's: "whose lives come into focus only through the addition of some melodramatic attraction to a charismatic male figure." It seemed to me the Rejectionist was complaining that the book focused only on the aspect of Grace's life that involved her relationship with Sam, when in fact that is the point of a romance. It doesn't mean that Grace is a weak and unworthy person without him, just that the aspects of her life that didn't involve him did not serve a place in this particular story. And since the examples of 'strong' heroines given by the Rejectionist and some commenters were not from books I would consider strictly romances, I believe this was not taken into consideration.
i loved this book, and i thought it was the greatest book out there. i can not stop reading no matter how hard i try.. so dont be insulting the book when u havent even read it.. u choose to review a book, that dosnt even match ur taste or intrest.. so u simply have nothing to say about it.. u cant have anything to say about this wonderful, magical book.
This book disappointed me. For the first hundred pages I was truly engaged, but after that I felt like I was o.d.ing on the sappiness of it all. It was really overdone. In the end, I couldn't wait to be done with it and I won't be reading the sequel.
When you first posted this review, I skipped over it, because I didn't want to spoil the book for myself. All of my friends are crazy for it, so I knew I would eventually want to read it.
I'm in the process of listening to it now on my daily commute, and I have to say...I don't really see what all the fuss is about. The story is nice enough, but I agree, I'm tired of characters like Grace and Bella who seem to be defined by their boyfriends (though I disagree that Edward is more interesting than Bella...I didn't really find him particularly interesting at all).
I loved Lyra as a character so much that my husband and I are seriously considering that name for our first daughter, when the time comes. She is so kick-ass and sassy, but she still has a beautiful relationship and falls in love. I'm hoping that my female lead is one fraction of the awesome that Lyra is.
Without having read Shiver myself, I have to admit I find it rather odd that you say the romantic relationship "looks a lot more like domestic violence than fabulous romance" and then point to Katsa's romantic relationship in Graceling as more appropriate. Katsa's relationship with Po doesn't look like domestic violence, it is domestic violence. The two enjoy regularly fighting each other - kicking, punching, leaving scratches and bruises. It's highly disturbing to me that you consider that a more appropriate relationship for young girls to emulate.
I don't really understand where you are coming from in this. Is this a review or a rant? It looks like it's supposed to be a review, but then it became a rant. Shiver is an amazing book. I respect that some people disagree with me, but it's really unnecessary to bash on it by using it as an example.
Grace, for one, is not feeble or week. Shiver is a romance, not an action or horror! Notice how she saves Sam many more times then Bella saves Edward, even Sam saves Grace! And her emotions are normal for a teen girl. She had many interests and loved Sam! Is there something wrong with that?
Although I agree with you on the whole 'Female heroins need to be strong and hold themselves on their feet', that does not mean they have to be Superman!
Post a Comment