The genre that about which I've heard the most naysay is romance, without a doubt. Harlequin stuff. What I want to know is why? 

I know why I don't like many romance novels. Ordinary plots with stock characters, impossible situations portrayed as real-life situations, and (ladies pardon me for this one) I've always hated the 'strong, independent, modern woman who is in control of her life' character. That's usually the main character, of course. The reason I dislike them so much is because they're manipulative and egotistical, sexist, and rude. 

What do you think?

I don't like harlequin-stuff mainly because of highschool: we actually spent almost an entire month to the subject in which we were taught to despise those books. So basicly I now know what's wrng with them without ever read one...

As for strong independant women: I like them more than the 19th century women in literature who were nothing but frail creatures to the men to look after

Sweet! Tell me why, be detailed, let's discuss it. ^_^ What was wrong with the 19th century woman in literature? They were often symbolic of purity and virtue, generally put on a pedestal as being 'better' than the average man, and other than occasionally becoming a vampire snack they did pretty well. 

Ohoh the exams are just over and you want another essay :p
Ok funny you mention vampire-bait because that was exactly the thing I was aiming for.
Bram Stoker's Mina annoyed me in the most irritating way. Women are not like that. It's like he combined every virtue he believes a woman must have and created the "perfect woman" always obeying, never speaking her mind (maybe not even having an own mind) and always feeling guilty for bringing trouble.
WWomen are not weak-hearted creatures.
The main reason for women to be in those books is so that men can save them.

Three words: Pride and Prejudice. There is nothing weak-willed, frail, easily manipulated, or even, for that matter, masculine and disdainful about the the main character, Elizabeth Bennet. She's quite independent, and as witty as heck. ^^

I'd have to agree with [Mister Saint] on this one. While I do enjoy females being cast into strong, central roles, the convoluted, hypocritical rules of political correctness have made sexism against the male half of the species quite the hip undercurrent in popular literature. And that's just not cool, not to mention completely contrary to the "gender equality" that the vast majority of these writers preach.

(Also, to better understand where [Mister Saint] is coming from, do understand that he very often writes females into quite strong, central roles. ;) )

Hmm yeah but I didn't mean that kind of books. I should have sais "some 19the century literature"

I don't like the hyper-political-correctness either .. not at all. But if I had to choose between those two. I know it's in the spirit of the time and so but personally it irritates me.
And I'm not at all the strong feministic type of girl either :p

The generalization's actually kind of my point. ;) You really have to think back to the time...things were just building up to Europe's suffragist movements, which took place much earlier than they did in America. A lot of the literature that we see is, in a very real way, one side of the debate or the other, even when the author wasn't consciously thinking of that. Instead of taking offense to older literature, it's much more fun to analyze it in its historical context. *nods* Even when women seem submissive to us, they might have been quite cheeky in their own time. Going back a little further, like Eponine in Les Miserables. Fawn-eyed over a cute guy or not, that was one tough missy. ^^

Actually, I am a pretty darned strong feminist, but I work from the standpoint of genuine equal treatment, not "all men can go hire themselves out as crash-test dummies!" ^_^

Yeah, I'm just trying to spark some debate or discussion in these forums. I figured that posting something with a high probability of pissing people off would at least stir up some movement. ^_^

I don't necessarily see Mina as a character to be saved by the men. I kind of see her 'perfect woman' image as more of tool to make the vampire and his type all the more evil. 

Think of a thief wandering around a shopping center. If said thief pockets a packet of bubblegum, we don't see the act as all that bad. However, if he steals a sackful of precious jewelry, he's suddenly a dastardly criminal. Even better, if he steals the collection jar for a homeless-charity function.

A villain in all contexts is judged not only by villanousacts, but by the target of said acts of villainy. If Mina had been crass, abrasive, unkept, loudmouthed, unattractive, and mean, her violation at Dracula's hands wouldn't have meant as much to the readers.

Hm yeah, I understand people that days didn't think the way we do now... but that doesn't mean I have to like it :p
And there sure are books from that time with strong women, such as Zola's Gervaise in l'Assommoir.. too bad things don't often turn out allright with them..

I liked Eponine, but I doubt she was meant to be likeable.

lol that would be just cruel

Hehe I see.

Yes you're right ofcourse. I guess he never meant his book to be read by 21st century women because it has the opposite effect on me: "God she's irritating; if he's not going to suck her dry, I will!"

Of course he didn't write his book to be read by twenty-first centruy anybody. He wrote it for people to read in his own day.