09-24-2010, 12:50 AM
It's interesting, isn't it, that these misleading blurbs indicate that the publishers clearly understood exactly what Gothic readers wanted? Half the time if they'd honestly described the story it wouldn't have interested the target readership, so they knew just what to say in order to sell it. What I don't understand is why more authors didn't catch on to this, and write books that would live up to typical blurbs. It seems that more of them might have said, "Hmm . . . so that's what these readers want."
I'm not advocating that every Gothic should be the same, mind you. Far from that. But I think we've all had that frustrating experience of blurb-induced heightened expectation resolving only to a sense that we've been had.
I am glad for one thing -- the many helpful reviews and recommendations on this forum. Readers' descriptions make it easier to gauge the "Gothicity" of a book according to one's own personal meter. After reading so many of these books by now, I practically have a mental checklist of what I expect in a good specimen, those elements that make a story in this genre satisfying to read. This "checklist" will vary from reader to reader, but I think we all basically agree on what makes a Gothic a Gothic.
I'm not advocating that every Gothic should be the same, mind you. Far from that. But I think we've all had that frustrating experience of blurb-induced heightened expectation resolving only to a sense that we've been had.
I am glad for one thing -- the many helpful reviews and recommendations on this forum. Readers' descriptions make it easier to gauge the "Gothicity" of a book according to one's own personal meter. After reading so many of these books by now, I practically have a mental checklist of what I expect in a good specimen, those elements that make a story in this genre satisfying to read. This "checklist" will vary from reader to reader, but I think we all basically agree on what makes a Gothic a Gothic.