This week's Guest Dear Abby is mark monday, a public policy director and "confirmed bachelor" from San Francisco. Mr. monday will be answering your questions about the yuletide offering from Josh Lanyon entitled The Dickens with Love.
_________________________
Dear Abby,
You were assigned to read this and report on your thoughts quite a while ago. Why are you always lagging behind? Your review is overdue.
Disappointed,
RBRS
*****
Dear RBRS,
my apologies. well, here's the review:
i was surprised at how much i enjoyed this pleasant little novella. the writing was swell. several notches above my expectations actually. the two lead characters were well-developed, interesting, sympathetic. i really liked how Lanyon wove God, an orphan, a love of literature, his clear knowledge of Dickens, an ocelot, some food & hotel detail-porn, and of course Christmas into the romantic mix. not much really fell flat for me and all the different elements were smoothly and naturally incorporated. my only real caveat is that i didn't particularly care for the very ending - specifically the gift (really? just like that?) and the apparent tossing aside of a remarkable goal for that gift (really? just like that?). but other than that, overall this was a pleasant and diverting although very brief affair. i will attempt to make this review approximately ten times as long as the reviewed book in question. why not? i have nothing to do for at least a couple hours.
_________________________
Dear Abby,
I also found Dickens to be diverting, frothy in fact. But I am concerned that the use of the one night stand in a gay m/m romance may be substituting one negative generalization (a woman who has one night stands is a slut) with another (those gay men are always having one night stands and it is no big deal). I also had some issues with the tone, which veered from absurd (ocelot attack) to perhaps overly-prosaic and maudlin (orphan protagonist who hates his job). Am I wrong?
Perplexed,
Ceridwen
*****
Dear Ceridwen,
first of all, no - you are not wrong! don't play the blame-game on yourself! and yet, well, i feel you are wrong. the idea of the easy one night stand in the gay world, the ease of sex in general, the lack of judgment around brief encounters... well, if i may be so bold as to make a broad generalization on behalf of my peers: as far as attitudes towards sex goes, it is just different for most of those who live in Gay World. and by "different", i actually mean "better". very few tedious hang-ups and self-hate around sexual connections. sex is a big thing - and it is not a big thing; it ain't no thing. there are many monogomous (or open but committed) relationships as well, of course. but having a hook-up in Gay World isn't the tremendous mind-fuck that it can be for the denizens of Straight World. poor Straight World. however, there are obvious downsides to this, including high rates of STDs, HIV infection, an obsession with sex, a potential of losing yourself in perpetual tricking instead of trying to develop meaningful relationships (both romantic or platonic). so perhaps "better" isn't the right word after all. so let's stick with "different".
as far as your second point... isn't that randomness a part of life? can't a fellow suffer a surprise ocelot attack in some cheesy champagne bar also be a guy with a lot of angst about being cast-out, an orphan, working at a job he doesn't like? i appreciate that mixture of tones. if this was just a dippy book featuring lots of ocelot attacks & the like, i would have been annoyed. the protagonist's personal story, his angsty bits, sorta anchored the tale for me.
_________________________
Dear Abby,
I did not enjoy the mix of tones either. I wanted frothy romance trash and there were various comments that annoyed me. For example, I did not appreciate the attempts at so-called deepness from a character that I see merely as "jolly old saint condom clause". It particularly irritated me when comments that I found to be sentimental claptrap were noted as popular highlights by other readers. And I hated when they brought God in between the sheets. I was really just looking for some funny lines to laugh at, and well I suppose I found some here and there. But overall, the experience just rather bugged. Am I wrong to feel this way?
Annoyed,
Jen
*****
Dear Jen,
first of all - no, you are not wrong! we all have our own truth. we are all right and we are all wrong. that is the nature of the human condition. but actually, in this case, i do think you are wrong. doesn't the inclusion of jarringly "deep" (although, admittedly, a rather hackneyed and cliched version of "deep") comments actually make the character a bit more than a "jolly old santa condom clause"? why did you merely see him as a "jolly old santa condom clause" when he is clearly a character who has been fairly well-developed, at least for a novella of this scope? i think this is a case of missed expectations rather than any flaw of the writing. and didn't you find the inclusion of God at various points to be an interesting surprise? it was certainly an unusual and striking decision on the author's part, particularly in what is clearly designed to be a disposable bit of fluff. the straightforward and non-condescending inclusion of spiritual discussions sort of sets this bit of fluff apart. it makes it a bit less fluffy. i think that is a good thing!
_________________________
Dear Abby,
I appreciated the use of condoms. I thought this book was adequate. Am I wrong?
Didn't Laugh Myself Sick,
Miriam
*****
Dear Miriam,
first of all - no, you are not wrong! what is "wrong" anyway, and what is "right"? they are both merely constructs, figments of imagination that this poor human race enjoys obsessing over. back home on Robot Planet, we laugh at these silly human delusions. and we'll still be laughing when my people come to join me here on Earth, to colonize and to turn you humans into our silly meat-based workforce. ha! i dare say you all will no longer have the time to worry about what is "right" or "wrong"!
i do have to add that i also appreciated the condom use. but a condom for oral sex? that felt strange. i know that that must happen, and it is certainly encouraged in safer-sex messages, but my experience has been that this is rare. very rare. and yet it was so nonchalantly depicted in Dickens. hmmm, well perhaps it was needed, if only to offer more of the colored-condom jokes that i felt were a bit too present in the novella.
_________________________
Dear Abby,
I liked this book. It surprised me. I liked the protagonist, the food porn, the God, the boning. Given the season, this hit the spot. Am I wrong?
Besides Myself In Worry & Anticipation of Your Response,
Karen
*****
Dear Karen,
first of all - no, you are not wrong. you are actually never wrong! that is why you are the #1 reviewer.
_________________________
Dear Abby,
I also liked this book. It sure had some come in it. Or should that be "cum"? Whatever, I wrote a poem about it to get it off of my chest. So to speak. Was I wrong to do that?
Ecstatic,
Caris
*****
Dear Caris,
first of all - yes, you are wrong. there was a surprising lack of sperm in this book. however, that was a splendid poem that you wrote. i really enjoyed it. you are a talented young man. you should write a book!
__________________________
Dear Abby,
I thought this novella was cute for what it was. However i was reminded of several things that disturb me, among them female representation in the media and the female audience/female writers of slash fiction. But does this have anything to do with Dickens or its male author? I also had issues with the realism of the ocelot attack. Am I wrong?
Increasingly Agitated But Not Really,
Kat
*****
Dear Kat,
first of all - no, you are not wrong. the world is wrong! stupid, stupid world. an ocelot attack, as if! feh!
but you make some excellent points, points to consider. i am actually unsure about Dickens place in this discussion of female representation because the idea that Dickens was written for a female audience is news to me. the novella seemed tailored to the gay male audience - although it was certainly a lot less sex-tastic than other sorts of romantic gay novels, with deeper characterization and more realistic behavior in general. perhaps therein lies the appeal to the female audience? i don't know. well, actually, from my limited experience with romantic novels, i don't think so. but the idea is very interesting to me. ever since i first learned of it in college, and in many conversations since then, i have always been fascinated and continually surprised by female interest in m/m romance and even gay porn. both straight and queer women. i just have never figured that one out. some might say it is due to the idea of reclaiming roles, and/or of putting yourself (a woman) into a role (a gay male) that perhaps has less automatic - and less queasy - issues around power and control. or maybe some ladies just like to imagine themselves as dudes because it is not just transgressive, it is fun, it is freeing. i dunno. food for thought.
_________________________
Dear Abby,
I thought this was okay. Blessedly brief. The sex scenes were odd but okay, and - fortunately - did not work for me. My ass shall remain unscathed - Exit Only! Am I wrong?
Fearful of Lasting Damage,
Eh?Eh!
*****
Dear Eh?Eh!,
first of all - no, you are not wrong. much like choosing a faith, a career path, or a life partner... the decision of whether to have or not to have ass adventures is a very personal decision that we all must eventually make in our lifetime.
but yes, actually, you are wrong! c'mon, it's the bomb! don't let Dickens scare you away! i say Go For It! it's what all the cool kids are doing these days.
_________________________
Dear Abby,
So none of your little jokes, okay? I do have a serious issue. Reading this novella, commenting on it, writing reviews for a book group, and thinking of the community that Dickens was intended for... well, after considering it all, it makes me uncomfortable. Am I somehow fetishizing this community, am I guilty of being a kind of leering, voyeuristic, mocking Outsider-Looking-In, oh look at this silly community, let's all laugh at it now? That is not who I am. I am reminded of the many ways that women are fetishized and objectified, and the comparison is unsettling. Am I wrong?
Concerned,
Elizabeth
*****
Dear Elizabeth,
first of all, you are not wrong. i do think that RBRS skirted this uncomfortable issue, and as a queer man, i have to admit to feeling a little anxious, a little am i going to get pissed off about this?. but in the end, i felt the reviews didn't turn out to be a problem, at least not for me. hell, i'm not even sure if you were talking about the m/m audience for romantic fiction, or for the female audience who appreciates m/m fiction. well, either way, i really appreciate your sensitivity. it is so easy to mock and condescend to things, as an outsider looking in. your mining of your own reactions, your uneasy contemplation of the gap between the goals of critical or even just plain snarky reviews and the goals of the community who enjoys novels like Dickens... impressive. i understand your discomfort. it is something i've struggled with as well when reading various genres. i really just loved your review and your perspective.
____________________
Dear Abby,
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SEX SCENES? MY GOD, ENOUGH ABOUT GOD & BEING WRONG & BEING SENSITIVE TO OUTSIDER COMMUNITIES & ALL THAT BLITHER-BLATHER... WHAT ABOUT THE SEX??
About to Shoot Off Here Unless You Answer This Very Important Question,
Josh Lanyon's Editor
*****
Dear Josh's Editor,
well, they were okay. for the most part, well-done. they didn't particularly amaze me, nothing to add to my personal spank bank, you know. but they felt real and they weren't corny, so good job. except maybe in the future, avoid the oddball metaphors please. for example, semen should never never never be referred to as "starfire". please, never allow that to happen again.
