Thanks to an anonymous tipster, we have a title that literally makes me ill to my stomach:
Seriously. The title makes me ashamed and nauseated.
And on the flip side, from the same tipster:
Teddy Pig, what’s your comment on that one?
My comment:
Hey!
Categorized:
Comments are Closed
Comments are closed.
By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.
Rebecca (no idea how to do that quote thing) – I remember avidly reading them from throughout the teens. It was a kind of horrified fascination, really. I couldn’t figure out why the heroines were so completely clueless, despite the fact that they were sometimes twice my age. It didn’t seem cute to me at all. Especially funny was when the author would try to make out that the heroine was a bit young and wild – it was like my grandma’s idea of young and wild. Eg ‘She stayed up late dancing to jazz on the gramophone!’ I’d imagine the authors as these stay-at-home, ageing housewives. Yet still I read them. It was an addiction.
I bought the Innocent Wife, Baby of Shame ebook a few days back (along with some other Harlequin ebooks) and hadn’t gotten around to reading it yet. So when I saw this post I decided to go ahead and read it tonight.
So far, 52 pages in… it sounds like the heroine was set up, feels horrible because she can’t remember the “affair” (Roofies?) and the hero is acting like an absolute asshole toward her yet he still desires her.
Mollyscribbles, I would totally read any book entitled “The Mad Scientist’s Pregnant Husband.” Seriously. So seriously I am tempted to remove all of the vowels but “y” from “seriously” in an attempt to convey my seriousness.* Partially because a title like that would grab my attention in its entirety, but also because in the entirety of my nerdy existance I have only ever seen ONE female mad scientist (…that I remember…), and one just ISN’T ENOUGH.
*With apologies to my friend Karen, who coined this phrase. Sorry for yoinking it, ol’ buddy, but it was totally applicable here.
Gee, didn’t everyone get all out of shape when whatserface – Julie Bindel? – made essentialy those same points about Mills & Boon aka Harlequin Presents? What happened to letting people read what they enjoy?
There’s a reason I don’t read series romance. Can we get a group discount on brain bleach?
Crap, finished the survey and forgot to whine about these awful book titles. Probably because I refuse to read them.
Was that excerpt actually supposed to sell the book? she’s a twit & he’s an ass…ick. I’m appalled (and embarrassed) Harlequin has any regular readers.
and titular “virgins†were fairly rare
Is it just me, or is “titular virgin” totally fucking hilarious? Makes me picture a chick who goes for titty-fucks to preserve the ever-important cherry. After all, it’s so much easier than the chocolate highway.
And Chicklet, I’ll have you know that you owe me some Vicodin. A week ago I had a ruptured ovarian cyst and I’m supposed to be taking it easy. After reading your titles? I was HOWLING, but not all the tears were from laughter… ow!!! Yet knowing it’s gonna hurt, I still can’t stay away from my beloved Bitches…
Was that excerpt actually supposed to sell the book? she’s a twit & he’s an ass…ick. I’m appalled (and embarrassed) Harlequin has any regular readers.
Because, of course, all Harlequins are alike. Right?
Well, they’re not. But the marketing does its best to make them appear identical—and identical at a lowest-common-denominator level.
I somewhat agree that it’s a shame Harlequin has any readers, but that’s because Hqn needs to get the message about this marketing, not because All Teh Books Is Formulaic Porn And I’m The One To Judge Anyone Who Reads ‘Em.
Gee, didn’t everyone get all out of shape when whatserface – Julie Bindel? – made essentialy those same points about Mills & Boon aka Harlequin Presents? What happened to letting people read what they enjoy?
Outrage is so much more fun.
Is it just me, or is “titular virgin†totally fucking hilarious?
I meant it to be. Though I didn’t intend “hilarious”, precisely. More like “amused in a sour, jabbing sort of way”.
At this point, having been Shown the Light in the last two months, I have to say I think category romance is like a micro-example of the prejudice against romance as a genre. There are some absolutely kickass stories in category, now, then, and last month. Writing a story that captures the reader, allows that reader to root for the protagonists and loathe the forces working against them, and tie that up with a happy ending within the limitations of length posed by category’s format, that’s some skillz right there.
Would the average reader – romance or otherwise – know it from ‘Baby of Shame?’ Nope. There’s some gold in thar hills, hidden under red-handed women with monster thumbs, behind titles like ‘Baby of Shame.’ And the sad part is, romance readers AND non-romance readers crap on the categories because of it (and I know, because I used to be one of those romance readers who looked down my nose at category).
But how much am I willing to overlook? I will blink past Fabio-laden covers, long haired men with their shirts tucked into their pants, corny or silly titles like “What an Earl Wants” and head right for the first chapter. I’m immune to it to some degree.
But I and my post-partum hormones draw the line at ‘Baby of Shame.’ It’s just…shameful. There could be some great writing behind a title like that or like the other shameful infants that are on the bookshelves. I am having a hard time stepping past my irritation to pick them up, which is a damn shame for the writer who worked on that book, to have it shot in the foot right out of the gate, so to speak.
And that’s just my prejudice. I find myself wondering if I need to get over it like I’ve gotten over so many other things that make romance an easy visual target, or conversely if I’ve drawn my line in the sand too late.
Sarah, I agree with you. Baby Of Shame crosses my line, too. I have to wonder at the individual who came up with the title.
In Candy’s post today, and in comments, covers are discussed as being the same, and narrowing the viewpoint, at least for those who don’t read (or don’t think they read) Romance.
I don’t agree with that. But I’d say that the titles in category, the tone of them narrow it for category.
I didn’t have to deal with this when I was writing in category. Those who do have my sympathy.
how much am I willing to overlook? I will blink past Fabio-laden covers, long haired men with their shirts tucked into their pants, corny or silly titles like “What an Earl Wants†and head right for the first chapter. I’m immune to it to some degree.
But I and my post-partum hormones draw the line at ‘Baby of Shame.’
It pushes my buttons too, but it also makes me sad if the outrage is stronger when it’s the occasional baby and mother that are shamed than when it’s countless virgins, mistresses, and women of all stripes being “owned” by these billionaires, etc. Are we so inured to women being shat on that it takes a “Baby of Shame” to upset us?
I think the line should have been drawn about 10 years and a jillion titles ago. The umpteen “Mistress” titles are just as bad as “Baby of Shame”, and the fact that they’re tolerated—even enjoyed—says a lot.
For me, Baby is a baby. Completely innocent, defenseless, blameless. When titles start talking about babies of shame, it just crosses all lines.
Mistresses, etc—adults, and can make choices.
I’m not wild about those titles either, but I can mostly shrug them off—or snicker at them.
This one doesn’t get a snicker out of me.
How about Innocent Baby, Publisher of Shame? (OK, I’m never going to be published by HQ now.)
You all are too funny. I should be working right now and instead I’m reaching for the Kleenex to wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes after reading most of the comments here. Unfortunately, now I have to get back to work. Which is much less fun.
Spam blocker: state72 – I state 72 times that was the worst title ever.
I’ve actually enjoyed a few Nocturnes, because I’m a fan of paranormal romance. But I’m not about to subscribe, or buy everything they put out—I read the blurb, flip through it, and decide for myself if it’s worth picking up. More often than not, I leave it on the shelf.
I think Harlequin should increase its standards, put out books that come across as less formulaic (because while the content might not follow a specific format, the titles clearly do). Help fight the image of romances as being mindless reads. Sure, I know some enjoy mindless entertainment, allowing their brain to relax, but I don’t think Harlequin needs to put out quite so many titles aimed at this market . . .
Are we so inured to women being shat on that it takes a “Baby of Shame†to upset us?
Quite.
An old fashioned attitude to illegitamacy shouldn’t be that surprising considering how every month a woman is owned, coerced, forced, punished, exploited etc etc. (In fact, I find titles like ‘Forced into the Italian’s Bed” far more offensive than a baby of shame.)
Perhaps it’s a mother thing(?)
I don’t have children, but as a woman I’m routinely frustrated by the titles Harlequin churns out. I would go so far as to say that they are repugnant and sexist and insulting.
See, this is why I have only recently read a few category romances ( and then only the ones who’s author I know already from other books)
Even in my teens,( when we are *supposed* to be young and ignorant) those book titles just made me cringe or shake my head. Not that that’s exclusive to HQ, but it seems that they ( and the other catagory publishers) have the market cornered on them.
They certainly can not be helping the Romance gendre get the respect that they truly deserve. JMHO- I think they are a definate part of why people still think Romance novels are crap/silly/etc.
And the “baby of shame” title? Wrong.Wrong.WRONG!
Sorry about that, Amelia! I don’t have a prescription, so I’ll have to score some vikes on the street for you, but rest assured, they’re on their way. *g*
I’m not sure what depresses me more: That Harlequin keeps using titles like this, or that women keep buying them.
Sigh. I need a fifty-gallon drum of chocolate mousse.
Please, please, let the daddy’s name be Shame. I suppose that would be just too convenient.
Well, if The Bold and the Beautiful can have characters named Ridge and Thorne…. 😉
I finished reading IW, BoS… and I’m re-naming it Hypocrite Husband, Innocent Wife. I won’t spoil the ending but out of the HQP ebooks I’ve bought so far? It was the worst!
Mistresses, etc—adults, and can make choices.
In real life, I agree there are different thresholds of concern for adults and children.
But these titles aren’t about women having choices. The term “mistress” needs to go away because it’s all about women NOT having equal choice in their relationships. And titles like these are explicitly about taking women’s choices away:
The Italian’s Forced Bride
The Forced Bride
Blackmailed into the Italian’s Bed
Everything about these titles crosses the line for me!!! Did anyone catch the OTHER wretcheliscious titles???
The Billionare’s pregnant mistress (wtf?)
Bought for the Frenchman’s Pleasure (????????????)
Virgin; Wedded at the Italian’s Convienence. Winning the award for not only the most obnoxious title possible, but also the most long winded.
This is so awful it cannot be real….yet…there it is.