Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

I'm with you are supporting women in publishing. I pretty much only read female authors. I'm happy when people read, whether it's via books, ebooks, comics, graphic novels, audio, etc. Reading is reading. That being said, I don't think that means problematic female authors get a pass.

However, I think we absolutely can be critical of a woman who is writing books where women are abused and manipulated.


Also, there's the her defending her son (over 21) some shady interactions with a 16 year old. So...yeah. Not a fan.

I'm not disagreeing with that -- I'm upset that women stereotype women who read certain genres and/or denigrate an entire genre. That's it. As I said, women are not a monolith. We are free to like what we like. Again, the problem is devaluing literature of genres that women are particularly drawn to.

Why can’t we say our honest thoughts, though? If some of us see her books as “basic” (basic formula, in other words), and likely most women who read them like easier reads, I don’t see anything wrong inaccurate with those assertions.

Why do you insist on using "basic"? If you insist that you have to express yourself honestly, it feels dismissive and judgmental. What's wrong with "commercial?" As I've said, that is the industry designation. Can you not see how "basic" is derogatory to the writer and readers? Even "light" or "escapist" is better than "basic."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

I'm with you are supporting women in publishing. I pretty much only read female authors. I'm happy when people read, whether it's via books, ebooks, comics, graphic novels, audio, etc. Reading is reading. That being said, I don't think that means problematic female authors get a pass.

However, I think we absolutely can be critical of a woman who is writing books where women are abused and manipulated.


Also, there's the her defending her son (over 21) some shady interactions with a 16 year old. So...yeah. Not a fan.

I'm not disagreeing with that -- I'm upset that women stereotype women who read certain genres and/or denigrate an entire genre. That's it. As I said, women are not a monolith. We are free to like what we like. Again, the problem is devaluing literature of genres that women are particularly drawn to.

Why can’t we say our honest thoughts, though? If some of us see her books as “basic” (basic formula, in other words), and likely most women who read them like easier reads, I don’t see anything wrong inaccurate with those assertions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

I'm with you are supporting women in publishing. I pretty much only read female authors. I'm happy when people read, whether it's via books, ebooks, comics, graphic novels, audio, etc. Reading is reading. That being said, I don't think that means problematic female authors get a pass.

However, I think we absolutely can be critical of a woman who is writing books where women are abused and manipulated.


Also, there's the her defending her son (over 21) some shady interactions with a 16 year old. So...yeah. Not a fan.

I'm not disagreeing with that -- I'm upset that women stereotype women who read certain genres and/or denigrate an entire genre. That's it. As I said, women are not a monolith. We are free to like what we like. Again, the problem is devaluing literature of genres that women are particularly drawn to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

I'm with you are supporting women in publishing. I pretty much only read female authors. I'm happy when people read, whether it's via books, ebooks, comics, graphic novels, audio, etc. Reading is reading. That being said, I don't think that means problematic female authors get a pass.

However, I think we absolutely can be critical of a woman who is writing books where women are abused and manipulated.


Also, there's the her defending her son (over 21) some shady interactions with a 16 year old. So...yeah. Not a fan.

I'm not disagreeing with that -- I'm upset that women stereotype women who read certain genres and/or denigrate an entire genre. That's it. As I said, women are not a monolith. We are free to like what we like. Again, the problem is devaluing literature of genres that women are particularly drawn to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

I'm with you are supporting women in publishing. I pretty much only read female authors. I'm happy when people read, whether it's via books, ebooks, comics, graphic novels, audio, etc. Reading is reading. That being said, I don't think that means problematic female authors get a pass.

However, I think we absolutely can be critical of a woman who is writing books where women are abused and manipulated.


Also, there's the her defending her son (over 21) some shady interactions with a 16 year old. So...yeah. Not a fan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I tried and hated the two I attempted. The rape and abuse themes she sells in romance books are disturbing. I hate that GenZ has blown her up on BookTok.

Totally agree. I worry that books full of abuse and trauma are marketed as romance and are being gobbled up by young people. There are teens reading that stuff...at least we knew VC Andrews books were batsh!t crazy. Some of these kids think the abusive husband in It Ends with Us is romantic because he has sex scenes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

Oh give me a break. I assume we’re all women here responding to this thread, and it’s a bit sexist of you to lump all women together. As if we all must respond the same way, or have the same opinion. As far as I checked, women are capable of debating and arguing and have spirited differences. I completely reject your claim that it’s misogynistic to dislike Colleen Hoover books! What a laughable idea.

And of course I respect her wild success! Good for her! But that’s not the topic, is it?

Anonymous wrote:I tried and hated the two I attempted. The rape and abuse themes she sells in romance books are disturbing. I hate that GenZ has blown her up on BookTok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.

Oh give me a break. I assume we’re all women here responding to this thread, and it’s a bit sexist of you to lump all women together. As if we all must respond the same way, or have the same opinion. As far as I checked, women are capable of debating and arguing and have spirited differences. I completely reject your claim that it’s misogynistic to dislike Colleen Hoover books! What a laughable idea.

And of course I respect her wild success! Good for her! But that’s not the topic, is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people getting so mad when posters say it’s low brow. It IS low brow. Just own it for godsakes instead of denying it. It’s that’s your jam, fine. But also understand that the books are lower lexile and they aren’t going to satisfy other book worms.

1. "Low brow" is a derogatory term. It would be more appropriate to call it "commercial," since that's the industry designation.

2. PP's have associated it with *checks notes* women with "low education" who are "basic." This is utterly wrong, insulting, and reeks of misogyny. Women scientists can and do wear lipstick and high heels. Women politicians who are wicked smart read romance -- see Stacy Abrams and Katie Porter. Women are not a monolith.

3. Every time we denigrate women's literature in the genre of "women's fiction" or "romance" ("chick lit" is outdated), we collectively hurt women. Women are bigger consumers of literature than men, yet women writers win fewer prestigious awards, get fewer reviews in the NYT, and get fewer press mentions and best of lists. (Google old article by Jennifer Weiner to see her outrage on these omissions.) Thank goodness Colleen Hoover is helping to break the ceiling. Finally, the NYT has to include her in the best of lists because she sold more books than any other author last year, by far. Also, her sales revenues help the publisher take on smaller books that may not have as much commercial success (i.e. likely won't earn out their advance). Even if you don't appreciate Colleen Hoover's work, you might think about applauding her success.

4. Judging a woman by the cover of the book she's reading means that you are missing out on who she is as a full person. It's really your loss.