Skip to main content

At least it was a library book

I have a pet peeve.

This pet peeve is "Historical" romances with "modern" women who are too stupid to live.

Arabella Blydon in Julia Quinn's novel _Dancing at Midnight_ is truly too stupid to live. It's an older book and I've read a number of romances by Quinn that I enjoyed but this is just painful. Utterly painful.

It's a rather common thing, gives me a rash, but Quinn is certainly not alone. A "strong" woman is not an idiot. A "strong" woman trusts her man to be competent.

Please repeat these two sentences after me all you romance writers! A "strong" woman is not an idiot. A "strong" woman trusts her man to be competent.

Now tattoo it on your forehead.

Thank you.

Comments

Trooper York said…
"Now tattoo that on your forehead."

Hey you stole the plot from "The Hangover 2"
Synova said…
LOL!

I'm told I should see that.
Big Mike said…
Yes. One of my own pet peeves as well. Woman is intelligent, successful (sometimes in a challenging career) and then does unbelievably stupid things.

The romance writers need to follow Ron Howard's advice -- he says he made Conan a bit stupid because no intelligent person would get into the situations that Conan would get into.

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...