Crasstalk Book Club: Discussing Vivi Andrews' The Sexorcist Comments

deleted2368887

Mon, 30 May 2011 20:42:01 +0000

I was worried.

deleted7247276

Mon, 30 May 2011 16:10:04 +0000

No, Drop Dead Gorgeous is a book by Linda Howard that she wrote in the first person and it (and its sequel) are TERRIBLE mostly because of that I think.

deleted2368887

Mon, 30 May 2011 15:59:19 +0000

Wait, did you just call Drop Dead Gorgeous a terrible movie?

deleted7247276

Mon, 30 May 2011 05:31:39 +0000

UGH! When Linda Howard did it recently for her To Die For and Drop Dead Gorgeous it was a TERRIBLE move.

MareCrisium

Sun, 29 May 2011 22:33:57 +0000

- 2 - I didn't really think the heart transplant was symbolic, but I'm open to the possibility that it was. I just think that it was a convenient way to (1) explain Brittany's sunny personality (which contrasts with Luis' brooding demeanour) and (2) give an reason as to why Brittany was relatively 'inexperienced' (though not making her a total virgin was a refreshing change). - 3 - Um...okay...o_O - 4 - The supporting characters were just a tad bit neglected. But that brings us back to a fundamental question: how much do we really want to hear about characters outside the 'super couple'? In my opinion, describing them more would have made for a richer story. But for others, they may not give a flying fart. - 6 - I mentioned this in the interview thread....I think that part of the fantasy is that women want to know that the man they're interested in is totally into them, and what better way for a man to show his interest by initializing physical contact and fulfilling her ever sexual desire? In a young adult novel, parents may balk at buying them for their innocent daughters when the male character is chasing the tail of the female protagonist like a blasted animal.

PandaRobots

Sun, 29 May 2011 21:58:40 +0000

I get the appeal of the Twilight thing. It's the same reason why tween girls want the Jonas brothers to keep wearing their purity rings and that 10 years ago, other tween girls were convincing themselves that Justin and Britney were living together, but still not doing it. I think for some, it's a religious thing, but for others, it's a reaction to the constant pressure on girls to sexualize themselves from an early age. There are padded bras for 7-year-olds and now they're told that sexting naked pics of themselves in 9th grade is normal, if not expected. So I think stories where the male lead loves the heroine, but isn't actively trying to get in her pants relieves some of this constant pressure many girls feel. It also gives them the upperhand/power over their own sexuality where they can be the one in charge of whether it happens without being prodded into it. As for the playboy/virgin trope - that one is harder for me to figure out. Vivi posted an interesting take in the interview. It just seems like an uneven playing field to me. I get the appeal of emphasizing that the dude is, um, talented, but I guess I don't equate quantity with quality. I don't think the playboy thing will go away, but I do think that there will probably be more novels where the girl is a "playgirl," too. I'm just not sure if the old trope will continue to appeal to the next generation or two of readers. What do you think?

deleted2368887

Sun, 29 May 2011 20:35:54 +0000

Great questions, Harry. I'm going to say that I went into this novel very warily, because I was certain I wouldn't be able to get into it because of the erotica scenes, though that's just due to my homophilia. However, the story was fun and flirty and it kept me on my toes a little bit. It reminded me a lot of Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum series which I really enjoy and I was glsd that Vivi focused more on the story than the sex. It was easier for me to get into that way.

EthologyNerd

Sun, 29 May 2011 20:27:04 +0000

Vivi, I have a question for you (albeit a cliche one): how did you decide to get into writing romance? Do you feel constrained by some of the conventions of the genre or is it kind of helpful to have a template and experiment within it?

EthologyNerd

Sun, 29 May 2011 20:19:41 +0000

You're very right. Romance has to have a conflict to be interesting, I think. Plus, how many of us would have loved to have some sort of colossal misunderstanding solved after a bunch of conflict romantically? That's the appeal of any romance novel. To that point, yes, there has to be an implicit or explict "marriage" ending, I think. "Happily ever after" still implies something as firm as marriage, not "splitting the bills and getting a cat." I mean, anyone here, regardless of whether you love romance, think that a different ending would have been as satisfying? I think Ms. Andrews made a good point in the interview-- it changes the genre and the whole feel of the book if there's not a resolution.

cocob

Sun, 29 May 2011 19:49:50 +0000

1) As a rule, albeit an irrational one I hate first person. The convenient obstacle is SOP in a romance novel. I feel cheated if there isn't a stupid misunderstanding one conversation could have solved e.g. "You mean you only married my arch rival because he was blackmailing you because your good for nothing father stole money from his company and you didn't want him to go to jail; also, yay, you're still a virgin because my arch rival was impotent due to prostate cancer no one knew he had?" 2) Symbolism in a romance novel? Lemme think about that. Nope. 3) google images turned up nothing, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt 4) adults in a Peanuts comic strip. ha! 5) Unless the point of a book is that the woman realized she didn't need a goddamn man to be fulfilled (which I would be behind 100%) then yes, a happily ever after ending is de rigueur. 6) virginal leads be they male or female hold no great interest for me 7) In case my mom is reading this, no, I have never done anything dumb vis a vis me, a dude and him accessing my pants

PandaRobots

Sun, 29 May 2011 18:48:52 +0000

I actually disagree about first person making the novel better. A lot of romance publishers specifically don't allow first person narratives. I'm sure it can be done well, but to me they often sound like fanfic or someone's diary entry. It's true that many of the misunderstandings could be cleared up by a quick, honest conversation. This is a frustrating characteristic of many romance novels. However, if I'm really being honest, how many times have I obsessed over wondering what a boy is thinking when I could have just asked instead? Probably way too many times. So while not realistic, maybe closer to realistic than we'd like to admit.

badhatharry

Sun, 29 May 2011 18:08:45 +0000

Also, thank you.

EthologyNerd

Sun, 29 May 2011 17:55:20 +0000

I've never risked eternal damnation (although I guess we'll find out, I've done a lot of bad things!) but I have done many, many stupid things to get with someone. I think that's one of the things that appeal to people about books like this-- it's our own follies writ larger.

EthologyNerd

Sun, 29 May 2011 17:50:51 +0000

Yeah. It's fine for what it is-- like I said in the interview, it's basically the escape/easy-read equivalent of a Jonathan Kellerman novel. I can't say I've turned into a romance novel devotee, but it wasn't unreadable and it wasn't Dan Brown; I second you on that jagbag.

Jenna

Sun, 29 May 2011 17:49:05 +0000

"I’m totally as hot as the guy on the cover, right?" You're not around enough for me to answer that, Nate Fischer. One of these days I'll give you an answer. "Have any of you ever behaved so irresponsibly in attempt to get into someone’s pants?" I would not be confirmed if the kid I had a horrible crush in middle school hadn't spent the first class flirting with/shooting the shit with me. I didn't expect anything out of the exchange but more days like that when I notified my parents about the courses and had them enroll (that is, commit) me. It shouldn't have been a big deal, but it sucked afterward; long story short, it'd be an understatement to say it wasn't worth it. (No wonder I'm lapsed, I was a shitty Catholic to begin with.) You, PR and AW make me happy. Good job.

badhatharry

Sun, 29 May 2011 17:46:28 +0000

I would give it like a 4. I wouldn't read it again, but I wasn't mad while I was reading it. It's a book that knows what it is. It doesn't try too hard to be SERIOUS LITERATURE like that fuckhead Dan Brown. I read that guy's books because they're huge, but the fact that he thinks he's writing the next Booker Prize winner makes me want to punch him in his stupid turtleneck-clad throat.

EthologyNerd

Sun, 29 May 2011 17:19:04 +0000

My question is this: be honest. On a scale of 1-10, how much did you actually like this book?

EthologyNerd

Sun, 29 May 2011 17:09:05 +0000

These questions are HILARIOUS. I'm glad you were the one that ran "The Sexorcist."

badhatharry

Sun, 29 May 2011 17:08:59 +0000

It was a quick read, and I didn't want Panda or Assembled to be mad at me.

deleted3029342

Sun, 29 May 2011 17:05:01 +0000

I am dying laughing at this. Badhat, I never thought you'd actually sit down and read this book. WELL DONE SIR.