My love for Jennifer Crusie is an epic thing. Massive in its scope. When romance-o-philes discover this, I am often asked if I have read Susan Elizabeth Phillips. Shamefully, my response has always been no. Last week, I decided it was about time that changed. I grabbed an SEP tome with the encouraging words "Queen of Romantic Comedy!" quoted on the front and curled myself up for a rollicking good "romantic romp" (as promised by the quote on the back).
The book, First Lady, had a promising comedic premise - mistaken identities! celebrities on the run! non-parental people trying to handle children on a road trip! The blurb, the quotes, the cute little ankle charm on the cover - I was ready for a luscious light read. And then...
The book was good, no denying that. It was NOT however light, funny, comedic, or even remotely rompish. It was serious. Possibly even weighty. It was the West Wing when I'd been led to expect Dave.
Now, perhaps I picked the wrong SEP. If you are a Susan Elizabeth Phillips aficionado and you would like to defend her comedic honor, I am more than willing to take suggestions for books that have more giggles. Guide me, reader-friends!
But, operating on the basis of this book's marketing, I have to ask - what the hell has happened to our definition of Romantic Comedy? Does the second half of that word not apply any more? It seems like romantic comedies don't have to have even a passing flirtation with humor in order to get that title. What is the deal with that?
Funny is subjective, I know, but I don't understand why the ability to make someone laugh isn't considered a criteria for romantic comedy. You guys got any theories? I want this to make sense. I really do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment