And here's where nothing's changed.
Readers have been talking about what the potential results will be of HarperCollins/NewsCorp's acquisition of Harlequin most of the day. What does it mean for libraries, digital readership, international romance readers, and the people who work at both companies? All logical questions.
And while Harlequin and HarperCollins have composed appropriately worded press releases and are making statements like “business as usual” and about fourteen thousand lawyers on both the US and Canadian sides are like GAME ON, there's the part that actually sucks right now.
The media response to the acquisition is as expected. Which is to say, it's so awful, I can't even describe it adequately. There are no gifs or emergency cute baby animals strong enough to dull the pain.
Harlequin has fallen for a charming billionaire along with the primary headline, Harlequin Swooped Up by NewsCorp.
“Swooped?” “Charming?” For real?
“Charming” is not the word describe Rupert Murdoch. Or was he tapping your phones and you had to be kind?
Also vying for first place in Completely Offensive Hogwash: the first sentence of Stetler's article:
News Corp (NWS), the publishing company chaired by Rupert Murdoch, said Friday that it would pay $415 million to acquire Harlequin, best known for romance novels sometimes nicknamed “bodice rippers.” (Murdoch is, coincidentally, newly single.)
Instant replay! Let's look at that again:
(Murdoch is, coincidentally, newly single.)
YES. Because Rupert Murdoch's marital status is absolutely relevant.
Also: bodice rippers. Everyone, that means 25 tricep dips. GO!
And then there's this steaming pile of crap, from the Globe and Mail, which is not (I checked) a TorStar publication.
Michael Babad writes about the signing of legal papers for a nearly half-billion dollar (CAN) acquisition, turning a Canadian company into an American subsidiary, as… a sex scene.
No, I'm not kidding.
Have a look: Make Me Melt: The sale of Torstar’s Harlequin as a bodice-ripper.
In the corner of the room, on this warm spring day cooled only somewhat by the breeze from the lake, stood the Harlequin, arms crossed and still in shock that he wanted a divorce after 39 years.
True, her sales had sagged, and he was desperate for money to pay his $160-million in debts. And, she had to remember, it was News Corp. that courted Torstar. The wandering eye wasn’t his. Not at first, anyway.
But it chilled her to her very core to become just another member of the News Corp. harem. And obviously, he had forgotten the good times, when she was younger and more attractive, before her revenue and operating profit gave way.
She understood it, of course. It was a hard decision for him – he even said so in a statement to the press – and the $455-million was good money he so craved for his shattered industry. Which is why his hands were so lovingly stroking the paper that would seal the bargain. Intimate, really, like he used to be with her.
I'm embarrassed for everyone at Harlequin and HarperCollins after reading that. I'm embarrassed for all of Canada. I haven't cringed that hard in a long time.
This rage is too powerful, even for emergency kittens. I tried.
Whether or not the figures of billion-dollar annual sales for romance are accurate (as Jane Litte has outlined several times, they include books that aren't romance, e.g. Sparks, Steel, et al), romance is a business.
No, really. I swear. An actual business, with actual money that employs actual people and supports an industry that is in fact actually global.
A business that is, in the case of Harlequin for the time being, Canadian and apparently worth $455+ million dollars and will become – did you miss this part, Mr. Babad? This is kind of important, given that you're writing for a Canadian newspaper and this is a Canadian company we're talking about here – a subsidiary of an American publisher.
As I said on Twitter, do all nearly half-billion dollar acquisitions that change a Canadian company into an American subsidiary get written up as sex metaphors in The Globe and Mail?
No, of course not.
I know to expect the standard lines of media coverage of romance. I expect muscle pain and eye rolling.
I am not surprised.
But I'm so pissed off. Because Rupert Murdoch, whose ethics, political influence, and business decisions are part of a whole network of Wikipedia articles about him, is a “charming billionaire.” CEOs in charge of a merger are reduced to sweating caricatures in a badly written parody.
One dull side note: at least we were spared the portrayals had Donna Hayes still been CEO of Harlequin. Imagine those articles.
No, better yet, don't.
It's better this way.
Pretend I didn't say that.
You'd think that this was enough of a story with very wide reaching ramifications that business reporters would be able to take it seriously.
But instead of examining the differences between the two companies, how Harlequin has often led the way in digital transitions in romance, how readers perceive the different publishers as brands, how each publisher has markedly different approaches to reader cultivation, library relations, and community building, and how each has followed very different timelines for all of the above plus many other initiatives in digital and print publishing, it's much easer and a well-worn path to just make sex jokes and call it a day.
One reason why I'm particularly disappointed is that this is an area of the publishing world I know little about, except to watch what happens when Random House and Penguin merge (so far: press releases, meetings, email address confusion, then layoffs and redundancies).
It's really that difficult to see this as a business transaction that has considerable ramifications – global ramifications – for writers, employees, and readers?
Apparently. Because, as usual, when the business is about women, it's not worth the time to come up with something new or even interesting. Thanks for the reminder.
I’m not certain if you’re aware, but it turns out that Harlequin writes these books that are commonly referred to as “bodice rippers”. The term was in EVERY article that I read.
Reading this news was like hearing that an old friend died. Reading the article excerpt from the Globe and Mail made me nauseous.
Even my beloved (hur) New York Times has succumbed – and they quote you Sarah at the very end.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/business/media/news-corp-to-acquire-harlequin-enterprises.html?ref=todayspaper
The picture was HUGE in the business section. What a bunch of asshats.
Holy shit. Seriously – the WTFery is flying. Rupert – charming? I just threw up in my mouth.
One of the big problems with reporting (and books) these days? The lack of editors. The smart lady in the back office who has to initial everything before it goes to press. The one with taste, good sense, and the ability to squash bad writing.
“…money he so craved for his shattered industry. Which is why his hands were so lovingly stroking the paper that would seal the bargain. Intimate, really, like he used to be with her.”
Someone really needs to be bitch-slapped.
@SBSarah
…any chance we could get an insider interview about this, or the affects of publishing house mergers in general, for a future podcast?
We live in a time when everything is fair game, including our leaders and government. I’m afraid you’ll have to get in line if you’re shocked about the coverage of an acquisition of a publishing company. For me, it’s more shocking at how little we hear about how most food today is poison. ::shrug::
I wonder what the news stories would have been like if Gold Eagle, Harlequin’s “men’s adventure” division, had been the primary focus of the company. Probably not much better given the way comic book oriented stories are covered, as jimthered noted above.
My very FAVORITE (RAGE) part was after I tweeted my fury, I received the following delightful mansplaining replies: “Oh come on, it’s at least emo-porn when it’s not being proper porn” and “Might as well embrace it. People aren’t going to quit giggling about sex in the US any time soon.”
I can’t even.
Now I feel a little guilty about laughing at the Onion A.V. Club’s article… but then, they also have the excuse of being an entertainment news site and not a major news agency like the NYT or CNN.
@Christy – the Canadian government will only get involved in a foreign takeover regarding a company of “national significance” e.g. telecommunications hence when Lenovo (a Chinese company) was trying to take over Blackberry last year the Canadian government reportedly stepped in nixing the deal.
I’ve already let The Globe and Mail know why this former subscriber won’t be paying attention to their renewal deals.
The term bodice ripper is overplayed, but I think awful pun headlines are one of the best parts of journalism.
I think for some of these you are overreacting a little bit since working in a bodice ripper reference doesn’t mean they’re taking it any less seriously than any other merger or acquisition. (Except for the Globe and Mail bit, which was hella cringey.) It’s pretty par for the course IMO and they would be making the same pun/reference headlines for any other merger where they could work one in.
@Lulu. Yes, puns pass for the highest form of wit these days. They can’t be avoided. It’s the patronizing attitude behind the puns that most people here object to. As has been pointed out, it’s not something uniquely suffered by this section of the genre world.
I suspect the reason people keep using “bodice ripper” is that “historical romances” is not as catchy a term. It’s a shame these sloppy journalists haven’t done enough research to learn that the majority of Harlequin’s publications are contemporary romances, no bodices in sight.
Jeebus…what decade was this written in!?
The irony of bodice-rippers is that Harlequin is stronger in contemporary romance than historical.
@MissB2U, at least Carla Cassidy got some publicity with that NY Times photo. But couldn’t they have mentioned SBTB, instance of just saying “a romance blog’? And they said avid readers consume “as many as 100 books a year”? That’s way under. However the Times gets to have their cake and eat it, by using the term “bodice ripper” in the header, and then calling it “a cheap joke”.
What gets me is that it goes a lot deeper than disrespect for the romance genre.
Apparently it’s not ok to be racist or print racist hate speech but it is ok to mock women and womens’ interests; underneath it all it’s hate speech against women.
June (fangs showing)
Here’s a relevant link where Greil Marcus talks of the perceived differences between so-called high art and low art. Enjoy! June. http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/05/13/greil-marcus-sva-commencement-address/
@Irene: I think you are being a bit unfair. Personally, I don’t really see most of the titles as that patronizing even if they are cliche (what’s wrong with “swoop”?) and most of the people writing about the merger will be journalists who care more about the legal/financial aspects of the deal than necessarily researching romance. Calling them “sloppy journalists” is incredibly unfair and kind of bullshit. Also, a lot of headlines are written not by the writer but by editors/people who lay out pages/etc. and part of the consideration is for the headline to both fit the page and succinctly and snappily convey the gist of the story.
Plus, romances are associated with bodice rippers in the public imagination so when they write headlines they tend to aim for references the general public will understand and, even though a lot of people read romances, IDK if they general public knows that Harlequin does more contemporary romance.
Honestly, what kind of reference would you have preferred? Or would you have preferred no pun at all? (Although that’s kind of a killjoy attitude to take.)
I mean, I don’t think there is anything wrong with reacting to cliche headlines and bemoaning the fact that there are a lot of shitty stereotypes about romance, but I think it’s unfair of you to expect the journalists writing ABOUT A FINANCIAL MERGER to also deeply research romance novels.
@Lulu: I don’t disagree with you in the larger sense, except for the puns. I think they’re obvious and nowhere near witty. But they are the norm these days, and so be it.
Re the rest, if you’ll notice, I’m not complaining in a big way, as other posters here are, merely explaining. If somebody could come up with a sexy term (and I mean that in the attractive, succinct, journalistic sense) that is descriptive of historical romances as they are today, maybe we could be done with “bodice rippers.” It took a fairly long time for the non-genre-aware to stop calling all women’s fiction “Gothics,” but not this long.
But as a person who went to J-school, I do look down on other journalists taking the cheap road. Journalistic inaccuracy with the excuse that it was just a minor detail in a bigger story is still inaccuracy. We were taught to be entirely accurate and also not to needlessly give offense. What most of the people are complaining about here (and note again, I do not say that I am complaining, although I do agree with them) is the offensive stereotyping of romances and the underlying misogyny that stereotyping reveals about our society—or at least, about our journalists. Additionally, in their rush to make jokes, these journalists in many cases have buried the lead. The big story is this huge sale, not the huge bodices.
I don’t think we are very far apart, Lulu, except as regards puns.
Look, it’s clear that dude just wants to write a “bodice ripper” so badly but he’s just not good enough. Let’s not get angry; let’s take pity on the poor soul instead.