I agree but its about proportion of detail to action If we take Rough Justice (which i mentioned above) as an example - the basic plot is that after witnessing a bunch of nasty crimes a senior cop DCI Marenko goes rogue and starts killing or hiring hitmen to kill criminals who can't be prosecuted .. we see enough of DCI Marenkos character to care about him as a person (and about his son in law, a probationary constable to care when he gets kicked into a vegatative state by a nasty little scrote who is marenkos first victim) The major sub plot is DI Maddy Fox proving herself in a mans world against the predjudice of her colleagues and marenkos believe that she isn't good enough. She eventually achieves this by solving the 'candy man' case and killing the perpetrator in hand to hand combat - along the way proving to Marenko that the man he had killed for it was actually innocent. Again we see enough of her character to care about her struggle All so far so good Then about a quarter of the way through Fox meets this handsome doctor and starts a deeply tedious (and completely irrelevant) romance with him which would be more at home in bridget jones diary, and not only slows the pace of the book, but also undermines her charecterisation because she isnt a sappy romantic heroine, she's a hard ass cop proving herself the hard way, and her actions in the simon sub plot are completely at odds with that) That is what i mean about irrelevant detail
I don't think anyone else has read these books, so I don't think anyone is going to be able to discuss them with you. And, as a courtesy, could you leave off the qualifiers when you talk about romance novels/characters? I don't personally care for bullshit wish-fulfilment military thrillers, but... I can just call them military thrillers, in the interest of harmony. Can you do the same for other genres?
Joining in the suggestion that a little respect for the world of literature outside the subset that you like would be nice.
to be clear i don't have a problem with romances per se ... but the way DI fox behaves towards and thinks about Dr Simon is "sappy romantic, get me a bucket, fiction" of the sort found in trashy airport novels and the worst sort of mills and boon rip offs ... and is thus completely at odds with her characterisation as a tough female police officer. I am not saying that all romances are sappy , or that all romances are airport trash (nor am i passing any such judgement on the romance work of anyone here) - I am saying that falconer can write good thriller action and police procedural, but really sucks at writing romance and in the process trashes the characterisation he has previously established
It's gotta be about the characters for me. If I wanted to read a mindless, over-the-top action novel, I'd buy a mindless, over-the-top action novel.
I could say, "I avoid soulless pot-boilers populated by walking cardboard cutouts and lit by the flames of exploding helicopters" and then insist that I'm just referring to some action novels. But until this post, I haven't. There was a reason for that.
I've certainly never read the book in question, so perhaps it was done in a bad or heavy-handed way. But I wonder if it's possible the author was trying to go for the idea that even though the cop is tough-as-nails otherwise, because of her relationship with this person, she's found the one safe place where she can be soft and vulnerable. J.D. Robb's In Death procedurals are built pretty much around this entire concept, and I think every one of them has made it onto the NYT's bestseller list.
Returning to this, especially the second quote above. So are you saying that cops never have friendships, family, children, or any other aspect of their lives that isn't about the current murder? Ever? That for any cop to have any such thing is totally unrealistic? Or are you saying that you aren't interested in the inner or private or emotional lives of the characters in the novels that you read?
Actually it kind of sounds like as long as she's being kickass it's okay, but as soon as she displays more traditionally feminine qualities by *gasp* falling in love or bonding with a child (the horror!) that's when the interest wanes. This was one of the major criticism of Black Widow's character in Age of Ultron - I remember a lot of arm waving and flailing about regarding her her having a romantic interest in Bruce Banner and expressing sadness about having been sterilized in the past against her will.
His dark skin glistened in the sunlight, sweat poured in the heat, his muscles so tight any man would desire to have them. She danced in the moonlight... her vibrant pale skin shone practically like the moon itself in the darkness. As she kissed him, she couldnt help but feel her heart pound, she basked in the glory of her beauty, which was a blessing to behold when you saw her. In their struggle after their battle... their eyes met... they knew they were evenly matched, for they loved each other. They embraced. The hell is the difference? Diversity is the spice of life. As long as the story is good. You could have the worst character of all time... Emperor Palpatine... what a bastard right? But there was a big story behind him to tell... The characters dont make story all the time, sometimes they do... But the flavor of the characters is what makes it what it is. Oh wait, those guys are super tiny, have hairy feet? oh wait, that guy wears a grey cloak and does magic? oh shes an elf? oh hes a dwarf?? hes an elf too? hes a human? and so is he! You all know the story i talk about because of the diversity. No tell your story as is. p.s. rings help. XD
No i'm saying that a) in my experience hard ass professional women don't turn into pathetic whiny psuedo helpless girlies because they've met a man, so the way she reacts to Dr Simon is at odds with the character she displays in other parts of the novel, and b) In a novel billed as a police action thriller, the love lives of the characters are less important than the action...
Thing is though i'd agree with you that some , even a lot, of the action/thriller genre fit into that classification (and incidentally i'm not talking about creating cardboard cut out characters i'm talking abut rounding a character out being different to throwing in lots of extraneous detail). Just as some romance is great and some is terrible, so some action is great and some is terrible (because some people can write and some people really can't) I'm not thin skinned enough to consider that the criticism of some action applies to all action, and it hadn't occurred to me that you would be either which is why I didn't feel the need to preface my remark about sappy romance with a long disclaimer about how i know not all romance is sappy.
Its not to do with not liking traditional feminine values, its about the book not being a love story, so the long diversion into her feelings for Simon and his for her, and how they'll effect his daughter etc etc is a pointless diversion from what the story is supposed to be about. If we turned this round what would you think if you'd bought a book that was billed as a story of love, bonding and self discovery, and then discovered that the large tracts of the book were devoted to gunfire and murder investigation
Getting on with the sexy stuff 'Oh, I do like your muscles @123. Wish my muscles were as shiny as your big muscles,' said @Sadmoose, and @Sadmoose laid his tiny dagger at the hearth's edge aside @12's excalibur. Dressed in their bearskins they sat on a barrel together, until slippage became the issue and @12 raised @Moose to his lap, stroked his underchin fur. He were the greatest kitten. Moose purred, noticed a twitch of bearskin above @12's thigh. The next morning they went hunting again
I have gay characters, I have straight characters, I have trans characters. And I focus more on fantasy species than skin color because that's just singling out people and kind of putting them on a pedestal.
You seem strangely obsessed with things needing to be done in-depth. Like, you don't need a ten-page exploration of sexuality in order to mention someone's orientation, and you don't need to preface your remarks with a long disclaimer in order to stop consistently using insulting adjectives when describing a certain genre. There are simple solutions, but you're jumping right past those and making a stand against something much more involved that no one has suggested you do. It's weird.
two points a) I'm talking about it being done in depth because that's the problem - if its done in passing its not an issue (whatever 'it' refers to) incidental inclusion of detail is or at least can be good - lots of irrelevant detail isn't b) one incidence (and a couple of subsequent references to that incidence) does not a consistence make .... also you are missing the key point that I am not using insulting adjectives to describe the genre . Saying that something belongs only in a sappy romance does not say that all romances are sappy - in fact it specifically says that they aren't since it only belongs in a sappy romance rather than any other type. You are reading an insult where none is implied
You actually haven't, as far as I can tell, offered an example of someone's sexual orientation being explained at length. You've complained about a specific book that addressed a woman's relationships and sex life and not just her job. That's really not the same thing. Uh... you've been complaining about a detailed discussion of a woman's relationship and sex life. That's quite likely to happen in romances (and in a number of other genres), not just "sappy" romances. Are you assuming that the non-sappy romances will mostly be about guns and getaway cars?
Yes but I don't mind if its plot relevant as it would be in a romance - my point is about excessive irrelevant detail. What's relevant varies from genre to genre. As I said to Laurin the average romance reader probably wouldn't be too pleased to find a large chunk of the book pointlessly devoted to car chases and gunfire. The point about 'sappy' was directly related to the way the heroine of rough justice behaves towards or thinks about men. That kind of thing belongs in an airport romance trash novel , not in a thriller, and not in a decently written romance either
'Owww, ow, get off me big bird, ow.' 'Phew, now where is my train set?' 'Agghh, aghhhh, wimmin's fiction, aghhh.'
Have you considered just no longer using remarks like "sappy"? That's all that was asked. Is there some reason why it's not possible? Edited to add: Also (big probably surprising secret here) there might be some people that think that books sold in airports are not unilaterally trash. In fact, they might think that an author who has successfully gotten a publishing contract might, conceivably, have some skill, even if the resulting work is sold in an airport. Shocking, I know. My point, in case it's not clear, is that this discussion really doesn't require that we denigrate certain categories of books. It's not an essential part of the discussion. So maybe just..stop?
You don't seem to be able to comprehend the simple point that I'm not using sappy to describe your work or bays or any decent writer... The OED defines sappy as "mawkish or overly sentimental", surely you aren't saying that no romance has ever been mawkish or over sentimental ? Assuming not , i'm only referring to those works that are.
You do really seem to be looking for offence where none is intended - are all books sold in airports trash ? Almost certainly not. Did i say they were ? No I didn't. Does the average poster know what is meant by an "airport novel" ? I'd have thought so but seemingly not From wiki "The description "airport novel" is mildly pejorative; it implies that the book has little lasting value, and is useful chiefly as an inexpensive form of entertainment during travel" ETA apart from romance the other genre that suffers really badly from airport syndrome is thriller - you can easily find any amount of formulaic pap thrillers written with every cliche under the sun that are broadly "trashy airport novels" but i don't take offence at the term being used because it doesn't apply to thriller bovels that aren't trashy formulaic crap
