Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

It’s a good thing I don’t drink coffee because spewing out hot liquid this early would be painful. This Jan W. Butler is what Harlan Ellison would call “bone-stick-stone-stupid”-WTF does NAMBLA have to do with romance novels? Is there some sinister secret series of kinky man-boy books out there ,designed to corrupt the young and how involved is Michael Jackson in all of this?:)

I can’t stand it when people lump child molesters in with gays-did everyone not see that Diff’rent Strokes episode about the bike shop pervert,where it was clearly pointed out that kiddie predators are nothing of the sort? And what is all this nonsense about “one woman,one man” tradition in romance literature? I’m not the biggest romance reader but there’s this thing called a love triangle which means atleast three people(sometimes more!)gettting busy with the hook-up. Hell,Scarlett O’Hara had three fellas in her love life before she finally gave into Rhett and still wanted him and Ashley!

It’s such total BS when people play that"oh,things were nicer and purer in the past” game-please!  The main difference is that folks had to hide certain themes under the beard of “conventional” storytelling and now,it’s all out in the open.

Everyone should read some of the elegant responses in my blog. And that’s not *just* to haul people over there.

Comments like Stephen’s calmed me the hell down. Blood pressure.

and thank you, Candy.

It’s all so excellent, but this line
I can assure you, gay and poly romances don’t somehow emit radioactive Immorality Waves in cartoony stink-lines and somehow corrupt all the surrounding books so that alla sudden, the cowboy is slipping his range-raised meat up the sheikh’s dark cavern instead of shagging the amnesiac virgin heiress. is immortal.

a-fucking-men.

THANK YOU.

Just more of the fundy neocon crap we’ve been fed for the past several years—spilling over into our little RWA corner of the world.  The sheeple are will nod & bleat in appreciation.

What happened to the “if you don’t have anything nice to say” sentiment?

Oh, I think the amensiac cowboy who falls in love with the sheik would be a fantastic story.  If one of them is a virgin, all the better.

That’s the problem with the world today, actually - not enough solid, well-written cowboy/sheikh romances featuring a substantial amount of deep kissing and brave experimentation.  I’d love to see the O-face on that cover….

Think about this, folks: next time you pick up a mainstream romance novel, have sex with your significant other or fall in love with somebody of the opposite sex who’s about your own age, you’re ALL condoning pedophilia.

Thank you. If there’s nothing I hate more about the whole homosexuality debate, it’s the people who say “if a tiny little fragment of the homosexual population molest children/have Offensive (To Me) Kink #982/whatever, all of them do!”

As for the slippery slope argument, why am I reminded of Dilbert’s “You Are Wrong Because” list…?

Thank you for your anger, Candy. It’s good to know there are people out there with their heads screwed on straight. Or not so straight.

lovelysalome—hmmm. Raises lots of questions in the set up.

DeSalvo and whom? Which would be the clutcher and which would have his head back in eyes-closed O-face? Would both have lost all the buttons on their shirts or would only one be shirt-free? And would the wind be flowing in one direction to toss their locks or in the traditional two to three?

I thought I’d have to break out a smilie, but there is not one that is laughing hysterically and clapping at the same time.  So, instead, a great big BRAVO.  An excellently worded and totally valid counterpoint to a great big load of hooey.  SmartBitches rock!

Bring on the sheik/cowboy thing.  I’m dying to read it!

I’m so sick of all this crap.  If they don’t like it, don’t read it.  It’s that simple. 

They complain about having others force their ideas on them while trying to force their morals right back.  It’s an ugly, vicious circle.

There are more ugly, more horrifying, terrible things happening out there and this is what people focus on. Makes me ill.

Thank you!

I am so sick of these extreme “slippery slope” examples that have nothing to do with the issue!  Its amazing the way a person will take sex between two(or seven or whatever) consenting adults, be offended, and toss out the, “So you think its okay to have sex with children.”  Huh?  How do you even get there?

Oops, forgot to tap that notify thing.  I want to keep up with the conversation. (g)

kate r - too bad we didn’t come up these vital questions BEFORE the photoshop cover contest.  For my money, it’d be Cowboy DeSalvo with the O-face - at least then we’d find out if he’s capable of SOME SORT of facial expression! 

Let’s see… worldly, bored Sheikh Fabio finds himself in Montana, entranced by reticent Cowboy DeSalvo who owns the local touristy ranch - but the sheikh is interested in the REAL Wild West.  It’s another Longoria novel in the making!

Isn’t it interesting that Massachusetts, the only state in America to allow gay marriage, has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, while them Gawd-fearin, chest-thumpin, “Red” southern states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, abortion… and divorce?

Isn’t there something in the Bible about leaving the speck in your brother’s eye alone and getting the muck out of your own…?

Wait, so only homosexuals can molest children?

Stop the presses - someone tell that to all the stepfathers who ever molested their step daughters, and all those female teachers having babies by their male students. They must have missed the memo.

[/sarcasm]

And I honestly don’t see how publishing gay/poly romance novels effectively oppresses those who like only straight romances.

—>Apparently in the same way that all those illegal immigrant CEOs are ousting the good ol’ boys from the board rooms.

What is it with people in this country? If we get to impose our mores on everyone else, can I force everyone to take classes in logic?

Yes, another Monday.  Wake up, go to work, read again about how morons are trying to hijack our minds and professional communities.

*Sigh*  This person doesn’t speak for all of RWA.  Hell, she doesn’t speak for anyone I know in RWA.  It’s important for open minded writers to continue supporting what is, let’s face it, the only trade organization that speaks for romance writers as a group.

But it’s also important for this kind of fugheadedness to be outed.  Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

If this maroon knew butt-kiss about the history of marriage, she would know that marriage (especially for the middle classes and up) was a treaty involving property and the provision of an heir.  Love seldom came into it—thus all the interesting songs and dramas about the conflict between love and duty.  Hello?  Girls were told to do their duty, not to fall in love!  In France, the woman could then go on and pick lovers; in England she was supposed to close her eyes to the spouse’s shenanigans and devote herself to her children.  Love?  Read the novels of the 18th century and see how many mothers warn their daughters against giving in to “love”.

Also, if Ms Ignorant would actually read some history, she would discover that gay relationships go right on down history to Greek times, when it was more or less expected.  Half the Bourbon kings were gay.

Another vote for the cowboy/sheikh romance.  Can the cowboy be the virgin?

Yes, wasn’t there a time that men got prostitutes because their wives were not supposed to enjoy sex, but rather lie back and think of England?

So those people would think it was immoral to read about sex at all, between anyone.

Actually I’m with Jan R. Butler. I don’t want to read immoral romances. Let’s have a bonfire and burn all those RWA-approved books since they’re filled with flamin’ pre-marital sex every which way, something that all good monogamous, married, middle-class uhhh college-educated (I just graduated!) moral women are against.

Down with homos and sluts!

My alarm bells went shrieking at the word “moral”, too.  Perhaps because it’s an extreme pet peeve of mine that that some people think that their beliefs represent the pinnacle of morality that everyone else should adhere to.  Frankly, it’s an insult to my honor that someone else believes they can think these things through on my behalf as if I’m too stupid or weak to do it myself, decide what’s “proper” and “right”, and attempt to force me to go along with it.

Well my version of morality says I think this kind of thinking makes a person a fuckwit, but everyone has the right to be a fuckwit so I’ll leave it alone so long as there’s no harm done to anyone else. 

I’d love to develop of game show for these people where they need to answer questions like: what’s better, a gay person who’s a loving parent who’d never harm a child or a straight person who has?  I don’t imagine it would actually make them listen to themselves and open their minds to the concept that “there’s more on heaven and earth than dreamt in your philosophy”, but it sure would be entertaining to hear them talk themselves into knots.

Just to be clear. . . Let me point out that people like this are upset because the members of RWA refused to sign onto this shit. Regardless of what the previous small-minded administration were selling, the majority of RWA members weren’t buying.

I believe the CURRENT president said something along the lines of “RWA doesn’t define the genre and shouldn’t try.” Hey, you guys interviewed her, right? Anyway, that’s why the intolerant are foaming at the mouth.

This reminds me of Lewis Black’s “Red, White, and Screwed” comedy routine, in which he goes on a rampage about how with all of the critical national and international problems—war in the Middle East, education, Katrina damage, the national deficit, etc.—the Administration has chosen to focus on gay marriage, as if, he says, keeping gay people from marrying will set the country to rights in every other way (once again, this guy is hysterical and brilliant; if he comes anywhere near your town, GO SEE HIM, and in the meantime, watch him on HBO). 

I don’t think Butler, whoever she is, is stupid; I think her argument expresses fear, and all of her fear is carried by that one word, moral.  Now we could argue all day about why such fear exists and what it’s real source is and all the ways in which the marriage of political ideologies and personal/religious values is affecting American democracy (although I tend to think that more education often makes people more liberal, but whatever).  Strictly in terms of Romance, though, I think Butler’s fear reflects the extent to which conservative values have, for so very long, ruled that particular school. 

We talk all the time about how conservative Romance still is, politically, sexually, and gender-wise.  The archetypal base of Romance reflects that definition of conservative that means preserving continuity, and attaching that to some of Romance’s generic antecedents (the Victorian morality tracts, captivity narratives, the 18th century novel) does not render a portrait of mainstream subversive transformation.  Of course there is subversion within the genre (although I’d be interested to discuss whether there was more in, say, the 80s than there is now, at least in terms of women’s sexuality), and there is slow transformation (thus the fear of those who share Butler’s position), but very honestly, I don’t think there’s been nearly *enough* interrogation or renovation of some of the more stubbornly conservative elements of the genre to justify the backlash.  I wish there was more questioning, more subversion, more transformation, more freedom in what I think will always be a somewhat conservative genre, in so far as it does focus on love and romance.  I’d like to see more gay Romance and more straight Romance in which any form of sexuality beyond straight white male is not subject to all sorts of archaic rules aligning virtue with virginity, etc.  I’m not asking to banish the more conservative Romance; I just want there to be more than that, much, much more.  I want us to stop thinking that heroines who sleep with more than one man are sluts and that heroes who fall in love with other heroes aren’t any more likely to be pedophiles than heroes who fall in love with heroines are.

The thing I find to be most ironic about the current “moral” backlash, is the fact that so often in Romance, the hero acts in ways that would immediately be deemed immoral if applied to the heroine.  All this talk of the moral “slippery slope” goes back, I think, to those terrible fears that if women finally become truly “unloosed,” we will be swinging high and single on appletinis rather than sitting married and at home making apple pie.  And I guess we’ll be bringing all the gay folks with us on our pied piper tour of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Sure it sounds silly to put it that way, but if you look at the way Romance has traditionally created a number of rules around how and when and in what appropriate way women can express their sexuality (i.e., preferably to one many only), as well as the way in which homosexuality is often linked to villainy (Robin Schone and Susan Donovan, for example), it doesn’t surprise me that those who are comfortable with that status quo are getting nervous with some of the emerging markets.  My only concern is that we haven’t really changed the rules enough to move past some of the IMO dangerous reasoning in arguments like Butler’s.  I wish we could hurry up on that.

oops, Candy, my repressed rage and failure to preview screwed up the italics thingy.  Sorry, sorry, sorry.

That’s the funny thing: most fans of historical romance understand that the suspension of some disbelief is a reading requisite.  Romance is a construct of imagination and salesmanship that we try our best to reconstruct (or manage to love without) in contemporary reality, but it becomes even less plausible the father back in history we venture.  Romance novels are for entertainment and escape - hence a thoughtful, understanding Viking hero who seeks a strong, feisty partner (not a slave/possession wife), or modern career women who time travels back to meet said Viking. 

I love historical romances but I cannot stand time travel stories, so I read the former and avoid the latter.  It’s worked for me.  I suggest that the bigoted author of that editorial - despite her “over use” of “quotation marks” - is literate, at least, and can employ the same strategy with regard to her reading choices.

And I’d like the cowboy to be the virgin too.  Like I said, the sheikh is the worldly one - he’d have a lot to teach!

You know I already saw the virgin cowboy thing in a movie recently, so I vote for something different. How about the icy-hawt English duke who wakes up in the opulent confines of a sheikh’s palace. He doesn’t quite remember who he is and doesn’t know that he shouldn’t be having these tingly feelings for a man. But the dark sheikh sees the burning curiosity in the young duke’s eyes and begins to groom him for the position of Official Buggeree. Before the Duke can say, “See here, old chap!” he’s been stripped of all body hair, aroused by the oral attention of three or four skilled eunechs, and lubed within an inch of his life. Or, should I say, within eight inches of his life? Doh!

OMG, we’ve been caught up in some sort of italices windstorm down below! Or is that just my screen?

OMG, we’ve been caught up in some sort of italices windstorm down below! Or is that just my screen?

No, Victoria, it’s just the windstorm that is me (all that hot air, ya know); I keep hoping Candy will help me hide my shame by fixing the problem, but in the meantime, I apologize again (note to self: always preview!).

Whew. Thanks for the explanation, Robin. I thought maybe all the internet tubes had been filled up and were malfunctioning. Damn tubes.

Their logic of how someone else lives their life effects them escapes me. It would be like me complaining that because some one else reads and enjoys science fiction that it will take away from my enjoyment of romance novels.

It completely makes no sense.

Anyway this reminds me of my favorite slogan i saw on a t-shirt

Straight not narrow.

Ah, check you out, my fellow bitches, getting all outraged again. Breathe, alright? Wrinkles are not attractive.

Actually I’m with Jan R. Butler. I don’t want to read immoral romances. Let’s have a bonfire and burn all those RWA-approved books since they’re filled with flamin’ pre-marital sex every which way, something that all good monogamous, married, middle-class uhhh college-educated (I just graduated!) moral women are against.

Down with homos and sluts!

I’m actually with Arethusa on this one. Bush/Cheney 4-EVAH!

I think a shy Amish boy, lovelysalome, who’s never left the farm but is seized and put in a pressgang by sailors when he goes to town to sell his family’s only cow.

Or the duke. Either one’ll be fine. As long as he’s blond to the other dude’s tall dark and handsome.

And what about the women, eh? Battle-scarred amazon and a privileged princess okay with you? Both with long hair or not/

RWA will be fine. As long as sane powerhouses like Nora Roberts stick around, at any rate. (didja see what she said, didja? huh? at my blog)

I would like to read a book about a high-powered WHITE male attorney and the much younger, sassier and distinctly foreign TOKYO twink that he falls in love with.

That would be nuclear

Candy, feel free to scowl. You’re SPECTACULAR when you’re angry. You won’t get wrinkles. Everyone knows that Asian women are impervious to wrinkles.

mwahahahaha.

That’s the funny thing: most fans of historical romance understand that the suspension of some disbelief is a reading requisite.

I prefer historical Romance, but I haven’t found it any *less* realistic than many of the contemps I’ve read.  Now that I’ve taken criminal procedure, for example, I can barely stomach all the law enforcement stuff in Romantic Suspense.  And the sexual politics in so much contemporary Romance just make me dizzy sometimes. 

Some of my favorite Romances are definitely in the more traditional RWA-approved vein, but many of them aren’t.  The bottom line for me is the level of thoughtfulness I can detect in the writing.  I tend to disconnect or get frustrated when I feel like certain motifs or devices or character types, etc. are used mindlessly and without the conscious intention that comes with a certain contemplation of their implications and connotations.

This type of narrow minded steaming pile of crap is unattractive where ever it crops up, left or right, ‘moral’ or any other minority.  But, let’s be careful to not clump these whackos into other groups.  As a conservative & Christian, I don’t claim these people or their views.  I read all types of literature, and believe same as other bloggers…if you don’t like it, don’t buy it.  Don’t tell me what to read, and I won’t tell you what to read.

On the otherhand, I totally draw the line at illegal behavior…pedophalia. Victimizing children is disgusting, not entertainment. 

Otherwise I believe in the free-market system.  But, if nobody wants to read it (or see/buy if it’s art) then don’t subsidize it with my tax dollars.

Things don’t go away because we dislike them.  You can sweep all the books and movies etc dealing with homosexuality and polyamory under the rug all you want.  It doesn’t mean people will stop falling in love with other people of their gender. Or that those people won’t want to be able to read romances about people that are relatable to them.

Also, I notice a lot of people have commented about pedophilia as a topic; and even as that topic being off limits. I’m wondering what about books like Lolita?  Or Confessions of Victor X?

Owowowowow, I think I broke a rib laughing!

I dunno, I tend to be on the side of “As long as you don’t do it in the street and scare the horses….” so my opinion tends to be very broadly liberal.

I think a big part of the problem is that certain people are afraid to teach their children to think for themselves, because then they might actually, you know, do it, and think different things than Mommy and Daddy did. Tough titties, the kids will think what they will think anyway. But a drawback to that mindset is a generation that can’t think for themselves, and therefore must rely on other people to do it for them—making them malleable of thought and easy to lead ‘astray’ (for whatever value of astray you care for.) THIS is what the writer of this is worried about—her daughter, who has been emotionally crippled, being perverted by a book! Because Mommy never taught her to make value judgements on her own to know that the things in the book are not things the child wants to do!

I never understood this way of thinking meself. What’s the point of raising children who never think on their own? That just means you have to do it for them forever, and that’s an awful lot of work.

Addendum to my post above: Scaring the horses also refers to ‘hurting someone who is not-consenting’ (to leave room for those who love the whip.)

I didn’t want anyone to think I supported any of the non-consensual types of lurve out there, whether the dissenting partner is a child or an adult.

I think a big part of the problem is that certain people are afraid to teach their children to think for themselves, because then they might actually, you know, do it, and think different things than Mommy and Daddy did.

It’s interesting, because the newest generation of college freshmen,  the “Millenials” as they’re called, mark a real shift in incoming student profiles.  As a group (and yes, these are generalizations), they are known to be highly ambitious, driven, and focused, comfortable with group work, extremely high achieving, more conservative politically than previous generations, and extraordinarily close to their parents, who have themselves earned the moniker “helicopter parents” for their close monitoring of almost every aspect of their kids’ lives (not so much respect for FERPA there).  I think it’s interesting that this new generation of college-age students is dovetailing with increasingly vocal calls for curbing academic freedom and freedom of speech on college and university campuses.  More and more you’re seeing this alignment of morality, patriotism, and national security in the U.S., and frankly I find it really, really troubling.

“That’s the problem with the world today, actually - not enough solid, well-written cowboy/sheikh romances featuring a substantial amount of deep kissing and brave experimentation.”

This is giving my imagination a very new and interesting twist on Hidalgo. Mmmm ... mmm ... mmmmm!

I won’t even get started on how I feel about homophobia because I could be here all day. I’m a middle class woman in a monogamous hetero marriage and I consider myself very moral. I don’t see how other people being in homosexual relationship/marriage or open marriage in anyway threatens my way of life. Of course, I also happen to be bisexual and my view of what is and is not moral does not always line up with what other people might consider moral.

I don’t know ... it just seems to me that people who get so worked up about a little homo/poly erotica just aren’t too secure in their sexuality or their beliefs. Otherwise they wouldn’t feel so threatened.

I think it’s safe to say that she missed that episode of Diff’rent Strokes ;)

I hate it when people lament that Things Used To Be Better. No, they weren’t, only people used to not talk about the problems. If she doesn’t like some books then she shouldn’t read them. No one forced her to watch that episode of Diff’rent Strokes and no one’s making her read about the amnesiac coyboy and his shiek lover.

is it just the explicitness of the homosexual love?  Because JAK’s books have long contained lesbian lovers.

The first time I submitted a m/m story to a critique group, one of the women told me, “wow, you made it seem so normal.”

I think that’s one of the things that frighten people—that some writers can take something they don’t understand (whether it’s love, hate, fear, anything) and help them connect to it. Suddenly it’s not Other, it’s Them, and they can’t deal with it.

I say in protest of this shite, we should all go buy a gay and or poly romance.

good idea. May I recommend A M Riley?

Along with the ‘moral’ crap, is the assumption that somehow a romance between straight people is somehow more ‘natural’ or normal. 

Grrrr.

This whole pedophilia is more rampant with gay folks thing has been the primary fundie position for a long time—despite numerous studies that say the total opposite is true. The phrase I normally use is talking out their ass, but they may take that as a homosexual reference.

This kind of crap is why one of my authors was told she couldn’t enter her book under the romance catagory in a contest. The sexual content was nothing wilder than you’d read in a Zebra Historical, but OMG IT’S TWO WOMEN. 

I say bring ‘em on. I already put out a call on my pub list for GLBT romance.

Love is love. If both parties are of age and consenting, then it’s none of ANYONE’S business who gets naked with who unless they’re doing it in your damned living room or on the hood of your car. Period. Either grab the lube and join in or shut the hell up.

I agree with every line, Candy. And especially loved the last, which is priceless!

And somehow am reminded of the cartoon posted on my fridge. A helicopter labeled “Right Wing Politics” hovers over a family huddled on a roof surrounded by water in which items with names like “Iraq War” and “Katrina Disaster” and “Rising Gas Prices” float. A man with a bullhorn is shouting from the helicopter “Atheist, flab-burning married homos are going to make us all sing the National Anthem in Spanish.”

The damn thing still makes me laugh. Or cry. Or both…

_I say in protest of this shite, we should all go buy a gay and or poly romance._

I agree :)

Check out the authors at:

http://www.arkwolf.com/manloveromance/

They’ve written some really cool stories.

Bush/Cheney 4-EVAH!

Ha, my personal favorite bumper sticker:

Bush+Dick=Screwed.

Need I say more?

Jan R. Butler sounds like she’s basically a female version of Senator Bill Napoli.

Perhaps it’s a good thing though when they say these totally outrageous things because at the least it does show us their ignorance and how truly lacking in compassion they are for much of the human race.

We can then avoid the mistake of supporting them in other areas where they might have hidden agendas.

What I love is the whole “fringe element” reference. She makes us sound like a handful of wild-eyed, free-loving anarchists with bad personal hygiene, storming the RWA national offices.

Interesting times in Atlanta next week. Yes indeed.

Love is love. If both parties are of age and consenting, then it’s none of ANYONE’S business who gets naked with who unless they’re doing it in your damned living room or on the hood of your car. Period. Either grab the lube and join in or shut the hell up.

Hehehe..I love it. Nicely put, and very blunt.

It is crap like this rant in the RWR that breeds only hate. How can humankind ever hope to find peace when we sit back and find reasons to hate based on pure prejudice?

Since when does “romance” involve defining the sexual preferences of the participants anyway?

‘What I love is the whole “fringe element” reference. She makes us sound like a handful of wild-eyed, free-loving anarchists with bad personal hygiene, storming the RWA national offices.’

I personally am a married woman with a six year old daughter, and my hygiene is just fine.

I was just raised in an openminded and bullshit-free household. Curse you, Mother, for encouraging me to use my mind instead of following the status quo. Now I’m a damned anarchist.

If that’s the worst thing you can complain about, my child, I have done my duty. LOL

It’s interesting this arises just now, as I complete work on a Western historical gay romantic suspense novel by the well-known writer Dorien Grey. It’s not erotic—the two lovers don’t do more than kiss—just a (you should pardon the pun) straight romantic suspense novel in which the h/h both stands for “hero.”

I’m almost tempted to set up a blog about it just to see how many tight-assed bigots like what’s-her-name will come by. ;-)

Liz

Oh please won’t someone think of the children?!

All those “moral” romances featuring premarital sex that result in secret babies.  And of course the heroine is living hand to mouth because she won’t drag the asshole Alpha Neanderthal into court to get some damn child support checks out of his sorry butt.  So you have a dead beat father and a woman endangering the life of a child because don’t you know she’s scrapping pennies together to feed and clothe the tyke.

At least with the gay cowboy and sheik I’d be spared the abhorrent secret baby claptrap.  Unless they adopted or used a surrogate - but that seems like a lot of work to keep “secret.”

Jan Blunt - another one trying to tell me how to think and what to read. Well, fine. Maybe I’ll consider her way of thinking as soon as I finish reading Strange Attractions, Personnel Assets (Emma Holly), Erotic Weekend (Cheyenne McCray), and The Price of Temptation (MJ Pearson). Maybe.

Nah, I don’t think so…

But I will lend them to her if she’d like. People that bent have some very surprsing skeletons hiding in their closets. Remember Jimmy Swaggart?

Just as an aside do you think the fantasy genre is more acceptable of homo/bisexuality?  I highly recommend the Nightrunner series by Lynn Flewelling, a very romantic and touching relationship is developed over 3 books. 

Anyway I love Nora Roberts, she is awesome, she does a good job in her J.D. Robb series dealing with social issues. 

So many people are morons but at least when they are stupid and spew their ignorance and bigotry you can then see them coming, I am more worried about the evil and brillant ones that can hide their true natures/agenda. 

(Go on, go read Lynn Flewelling she is awesome—she also has a second series that deals with gender issues in which the next true queen who would be killed at birth is magically transformed into a male to save her and then later will be returned to her form-talk about gender confusion—go on you will be missing awesome books if you don’t pick them up)

I’m lucky enough to review books.  I just finished two incredible fantasy novels, MELUSINE and THE VIRTU by Sarah Monette.  In my review for each book, I felt compelled to include a line about how ‘readers offended by homosexuality’ should skip the books.  I feel kind of bad about including that line, actually, because it makes it sound like there’s something “bad” or “wrong” in the books that I must warn readers against.  I’m realistic enough to know that some readers, or their book-buying parents, would be shocked and horrified and all sorts of ugly things if they bought a book (even a great one) and found gay characters.  It’s just irritating and sad.

That said, yes, I do think gaiety or poly relationships are seen as more acceptable in the fantasy genre.  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that “fantasy” immediately puts the reader at a bit more a remove from the story?

If anyone’s in danger of being “censored” here, it’s believers in “what comes naturally”

Amen!  Gay is A-OK! Just ask Silo & Roy, Central Park’s gay penguins, or any of the 450 other animal species known to engage in homosexual behavior.

The idea that traditional institutions (or, rather, institutions perceived as having the status of tradition) like marriage are actively threatened by the public acceptance of alternate ways of being is a mystifying one, but it’s very important to the social conservatives who want to force everyone into their desired molds. I think there’s some value to this fact: Our society, more and more, is moving towards rejection of the idea of victimless crime. Several related ideas are all pushing the majority in that direction: the idea of privacy and freedom from state interference, a generally greater inclusiveness, and implicit acceptance of modern liberalism. Conservatives need to argue that most of us will somehow be hurt by a few iconoclastic deviants, otherwise their arguments appear for what they are - purely motivated by personal animus. Now, if only people would see how foolish the argument is…

You’re brilliant, Candy.

Five of us who came to Atlanta yesterday read the letter in RWR with a mix of hilarity and outrage. Then, realizing we were all immoral, shrill and on the fringes according to Ms. Butler’s definitions, we considered embracing our lesbian underpinnings with an all-night girl fest.

But we were too tired to ride the slippery slope.

Nora

Ummm… Someone was saying something about a cowboy and a sheikh?

O, Buck Morningstar rode out of the West
On a quest for revenge in a fringed leather vest
His trousers bulged oddly, his holster, low-slung
Pulled down by the weight of a six-shooter gun
A saturnine sheikh, with a ‘tache and a scar.
Planned to wed his foe’s daughter, heard Buck Morningstar.

He rode in a fury, burst into the hall
‘Mongst kilt-wearing dancers and pirates and all
Then spake the dark bridegroom, a gleam in his eye
(That caused Buck to feel unaccountably shy)
“I’m not going mad, though this may sound bizarre,
“Don’t I know you from somewhere, buff Buck Morningstar?”

Those husky tones lifted the veil from Buck’s mind
His mem’ries returned in a rush to remind
Him of near-fatal head wound and dastardly plot
To take him away from the love he’d forgot.
“It’s you, Ram!” breathed Buck, “Whom I loved from afar!”
Grammar brought back Ram’s feelings for Buck Morningstar.

“Buck, when they hit you, I thought you were dead!
“The trauma then wiped you right out of my head!
“Look, we’ve read the guidelines, and know this should end
“With burned biscuits, and handcrafts* for me and my friends
“Are too studly to kill off - dames like my scar.
“Can you stick endless sequels, brave Buck Morningstar?”

And with that the sheikh called his Zeta Force chums
They summoned a chopper, black, bristling with guns
And flew through the sunset to Buck’s secret den,
While the bride put her comfortable shoes on again,
And left jeans that must zip by aid of crowbar
To the sheikh and his cowboy, buff Buck Morningstar.

*redemptive ones, of course. But it didn’t scan.

...while them Gawd-fearin, chest-thumpin, “Red” southern states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, abortion… and divorce?

jennifer echols said on 07.25.06 at 12:34 PM • [comment link]

As a 31 year old single woman I wonder how I got hooked on romances over 15 years ago if they are supposed to target married folks. Oh no, does this means I’ve learned stuff I’m not supposed to know about? I wonder what she thinks I have been reading.

It’s been coming in stages. Certain folks in RWA have been playing this game for a long time.

First there was the ridiculous amount of sales required for ebooks and POD to qualify that kept rising as the companies grew. No reason for raising the numbers.

Then the content complaints. Romance doesn’t have all that nasty sex in it. Ew. People don’t want that. Unfortunately, sales proved otherwise.

Then there was the complaints about cover art restrictions being required. Ridiculous restrictions that their OWN artists didn’t even follow.

So what’s left? Well, complaining about heterosexual sex blew up in their face, so why not hit a more sensitive area? That should do it.

They don’t want erotica/erotic romance in their neighborhood. Period. Even if it means alienating a huge market that even the big houses finally had to acknowledge. A very VOCAL and computer-savvy market that already has proven they speak their mind.

The phrase cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face comes to mind.

Nora Roberts wrote: But we were too tired to ride the slippery slope.

OMG! Sounds like a euphemism—I’m just not sure for WHAT.

;-)

I’m hetro.  After reading this, I want to make out with you and donate all my money to the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign.

And flew through the sunset to Buck’s secret den,

While the bride put her comfortable shoes on again.

Auntie, I just DIED!

Well, all I gotta say is you’re just brilliant.  Tell all those fuckwads jumpin’ on the hate bandwagon, you tell ‘em, girl!

DebH said: I just finished two incredible fantasy novels, MELUSINE and THE VIRTU by Sarah Monette.  In my review for each book, I felt compelled to include a line about how ‘readers offended by homosexuality’ should skip the books.  I feel kind of bad about including that line, actually, because it makes it sound like there’s something “bad” or “wrong” in the books that I must warn readers against.

—>Deb, the solution I use is just to refer to the relationship in the first paragraph or two of the review. So something like “Character A, along with his (male) lover, Character B, are pursuing [character’s goals].”

Off topic query for DebH: I checked out your review for The Virtu because I read Melusine when it came out (I’d been following the author’s blog so knew of it before it was published).  I see you give both books a 9 - is that out of 10? 

I felt Melusine was a strong story (and that all of the sexual relationships were handled quite well and believably), but also that the author could use some more seasoning (for lack of a better word) - there were some scenes and a few other minor things that I thought could use some more tightening up or polish and I was hesitant about plunging into The Virtu.  I suppose if I were using the 1-10 scale, I’d have given Melusine a 7, or possibly 8. 

Anyway, I was just curious to know if those 9s imply a very good or a moderately good opinion on your part about the books.

That said, yes, I do think gaiety or poly relationships are seen as more acceptable in the fantasy genre.  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that “fantasy” immediately puts the reader at a bit more a remove from the story?

Maybe also the fact that Romance is viewed by some as portraying an “ideal” love relationship.  And befitting the conservative origins of the genre, traditional Romance can sometimes be viewed as promoting the family as the microcosm of society, thus the controversy over what kind of idealized family the genre is representing.  To someone like me, the concept of the family is always politicized, always socially constructed and in flux, but from the perspective of Butler’s argument, morality and politics are separate and society in danger from weakened morals.  I would say that such a distinction is artificial and the appeal to a transparent morality illusory, but nonetheless, the appeal to some folks of Butler’s position seems to be the invocation of the “good” and the “right” as universal concepts.  When people look around them and see so many problems that don’t appear to have easy solutions, the IMO simplistic insistence that loose morals are to blame can seem quite appealing, especially because it necessarily places blame and responsibility on *others* rather than on oneself.

He rode in a fury, burst into the hall
‘Mongst kilt-wearing dancers and pirates and all
Then spake the dark bridegroom, a gleam in his eye
(That caused Buck to feel unaccountably shy)
“I’m not going mad, though this may sound bizarre,
“Don’t I know you from somewhere, buff Buck Morningstar?”

“buff Buck Morningstar”???? Holy crap, EAP, that there is some clever shit!

I can’t add anything to the more serious discussion about hate and prejudice.  It everyone else said it before I got here today.  I would, however say that I would love to read the sheikh/virgin cowboy romance.  Finally, a sex scene in which I could actually believe the virgin had an orgasm!

Oh, and EAP, you are a fucking evil genius!

I would, however say that I would love to read the sheikh/virgin cowboy romance.  Finally, a sex scene in which I could actually believe the virgin had an orgasm!

Maybe this could be the next SB contest. 

Arguments like Butler’s don’t surprise me anymore, especially since I think they’ve become way more common since the 2000 election, but they do make me wish there was more mainstream gay Romance, as well as more polyamory and fewer hetero couples ending up married within the genre.  And then I’d want all the ARCs—thousands and thousands and thousands of them—systematically sent to Anne Coulter.  That’s my shrill liberal fantasy, although I can’t really muster any erotic thoughts about Coulter, no matter how many slippery slides and slippery slopes are involved.

_I would, however say that I would love to read the sheikh/virgin cowboy romance.  Finally, a sex scene in which I could actually believe the virgin had an orgasm!_

*laugh*

Yes! I think it would be fitting if their names were Adam and Steve, too.

Despite Butler, the romance genre is getting larger. Those books she hates will continue to get written, and we will continue to read them.

I think that might be the best way to fight her and others who think like her—read, write, love.

Dunno. I grew up stealing my mother’s Patricia Matthews and Rosemary Rogers novels—I’d take them in the bathroom and find the “good” parts. A Stephanie Blake novel once filled in some blanks from my friend Brandi’s (she was a fine girl) explanation of the ways of men and women. (Oh, it gets hard, and juts out…That makes sense, because without that, um, awkward.) If I were to believe these books you know a hero from a rapist because a hero has a bigger “manhood,” and because the heroine would end up liking ite can treat you any old way until he discovers she’s pure. The bodice rippers only showe. Men and women don’t have tender moments, they have times when they fight less, but they never reach a point of understanding.

Instead, I grew up to marry a good man, and I’ve have been with a few good women as well. Where did romance novels, those arbiters of morals, go wrong?

Let’s not rewrite history, the stuff that went on in novels back then was pervy even by today’s standards. Back then it was hard to imagine these people having an future once passion died, and sex was only good if it hurt and degraded the heroine just a little. Which, okay, still hot, ;) but hardly a blueprint for a relationship.

Gimmee.a.break! Even if you go back to the early Harlequin Doctor/Nurse stuff there’s a whole world of wrong with the way relationships were portrayed. Back then the message was that good girls don’t, and if a hero thinks the heroine does, he gets to treat her any old way until he discovers her to be pure. The later bodice rippers just showed a different kind of disfunction: orgasm both as proof of love and as permission for a man to treat you badly. Remember? The heroine does the hero the honor of moaning his name, he calls her a whore, and proceeds to use her some more…until he calls her bewitching on the last page.

The most loving story I ever penned is the only published story I have to date, and the lovers are two women. I would defy anyone to tell me that’s sick in light of what our fore-mothers penned. Two really nice people having really good, fully consentual sex vs. a guy sticking it to a virgin because he mistook her for a hooker, and then barely giving her an apology before he “takes” her again. (And both deserve to exist if the audience is there, and if one is near extinct it’s because fantasies have changed.)

The fact is this: romances are fantasy novels. Some of the things that occur in them we really want to happen, and some just make us tingly in naughty places. And they change and evolve based on society. To act like they’re lost books of the Bible is ridiculous. Romance and erotica are what people want and need them to be—and for some people that means two people of the same gender, and as long as the books are clearly marked it’s all good. If I can read the back of a book and think, “No Vikings for Me!” someone else can make a decision to only select books with het themes. If enough people don’t want gay/lesbian themes that will be reflected in what gets published. The problem (for some) is that many people do want it.

You raised a lot of neat points, Robin. I always get cranky whenever anyone refers to romance as “those bodice ripper novels” but, yeah, it did have that period.

befitting the conservative origins of the genre

Which origins are you thinking of? The Brontes? Austen? Samuel Richardson’s Pamela? I’m not being sarcastic, it’s just that I’m not sure when the genre originated exactly, and if these are its origins in its modern form, then I’m not sure they were conservative for their time.

People like this make me want to create my own genre of romance. I mean, more and more, there are people who want to write “out-of-the-box” romances. And there are, obviously, people who want to read them. People like reading stories that reflect their lives.

As a polyamorous, bisexual aspiring romance novelist, I can’t even describe how frustrating it is to sit down at my computer to write and go “Okay, now…here’s a character, plot….” and knowing that if I write about a female character falling for another female character, or even having a crush on another female, I’ll never be published.

Love is something wonderful and beautiful, and I’m lucky enough that I’m programmed to be able to share it with many, many people.

I want to share it with even more through my novels, and yet, if I write what I want to write, I’ll be boo’d of the stage because of people like Ms. Butler.

Frankly, this reminds me of a bumper sticker I have that says “How does my marriage hurt you?”

Instead, I’d like to make one that says “How does my novel hurt you?”

Thanks for the post, Candy. It was definately refreshing to know I’m not the only one out there.

befitting the conservative origins of the genre

Which origins are you thinking of? The Brontes? Austen? Samuel Richardson’s Pamela? I’m not being sarcastic, it’s just that I’m not sure when the genre originated exactly, and if these are its origins in its modern form, then I’m not sure they were conservative for their time.

Well, actually I was thinking more of the morality tract and the captivity and conversion narratives, but even Austen’s P&P is a novel, IMO, that very much acknowledges and accepts the idea that social stability is attained and preserved through marriage (i.e. Lydia v Jane).  That Austen sought to infuse the social institution with its fair share of love and passion via Lizzie and Darcy’s courtship doesn’t, IMO, undermine the social value of marriage.  Keep in mind here, too, that I’m largely using the word “conservative” in terms of preserving certain social traditions (I tend to view my comments in one thread in a sort of totality, so I sometimes rely on earlier comments without referring back to them directly).

Maybe also the fact that Romance is viewed by some as portraying an “ideal” love relationship.  And befitting the conservative origins of the genre, traditional Romance can sometimes be viewed as promoting the family as the microcosm of society, thus the controversy over what kind of idealized family the genre is representing.

By Jove, Robin, you’ve hit on something very interesting there. I may have something more to add to this, I may not, but you’ve given me some food for thought.

I really think this is the answer to the apparent conflict between those traditional RWA-approved Romances full of pervy hetero sex and the kinds of Romances objected to as inappropriate somehow.  It even, IMO, goes back to that whole Biblical/religious objection to homosexual sex as “wrong” primarily because it does not produce children (think of some of the states that prevent same-sex families from adopting or fostering children).  Ultimately, I don’t really think it’s about the sex; I think it’s about the idea of the family and traditional notions of societal preservation through marriage and reproduction (think about the controversy over Romances where hero and heroine don’t marry right away and how relatively unpopular adoption or a fatally infertile heroine is).

alla sudden, the cowboy is slipping his range-raised meat up the sheikh’s dark cavern instead of shagging the amnesiac virgin heiress.

I love you.

OT to fiveandfour: My rating scale is 1-10.  So a 9 means I really, really liked the books.

Robin, I, too believe you are onto something in re: the promotion of ‘the family’ and its importance to the romance novel.  When I think about it, this was indeed the expected (required?) goal of every story until some very recent years when things started to open up a little and let some books in where marriage wasn’t the expected outcome and/or a man-woman relationship wasn’t the norm (at least among the books I’ve read).

Thing is, the structure of ‘family’ has been undergoing some radical changes over the course of the last few decades in western society alongside all of the other changes we’ve been experiencing a la abortion rights, gay rights, minority rights, women’s rights, etc.  As one part of society has been moving farther and farther away from the rules and structure and mores that were accepted as the ideal for so many generations, another part has been digging in, doing their best to pull society back towards that former ideal.

I suppose this means to me that going forward romance as a genre will either keep pace with the people who are examining all previously inviolable ‘rules’ about family and society and deciding which to keep, which to adapt and which to ignore or it will continue to promote the old ideals as if they are the only ideals.

As others have mentioned, publishing houses are in it to for the money so market forces will undoubtedly decide for the genre what it’s going to be.  So vote your conscience on what romance should be with your dollars, bitches - it may be crass, but it’ll work more efficiently than any letter to the editor ever could.

Thing is, the structure of ‘family’ has been undergoing some radical changes over the course of the last few decades in western society alongside all of the other changes we’ve been experiencing a la abortion rights, gay rights, minority rights, women’s rights, etc.  As one part of society has been moving farther and farther away from the rules and structure and mores that were accepted as the ideal for so many generations, another part has been digging in, doing their best to pull society back towards that former ideal.

Yes, I agree, and I think this may be part of the reason that Romance is being targeted, even though the overall changes to the genre are, IMO, much slower than those in the general society.  Any cultural or artistic form that some feel is supposed to serve as an exemplum is under scrutiny. 

What’s difficult for me is the assertion that the moral absolutism underlying some of the arguments like Butler’s is apolitical (arguments against so-called political correctness have, IMO, made brilliant use of this conceit).  I, of course, see that very assertion as a politicization of morality through the elevation a social construct to a universal principle of the “good,” and the seemingly broad acceptance of the “anti-PC” position is a little mystifying to me.  Like I said, the only way I can truly make sense of it is to see it as a fear-based response to complex social and cultural problems that otherwise make people feel powerless and vulnerable.

I think it’s about the idea of the family and traditional notions of societal preservation through marriage and reproduction

I definitely think there are a lot of romances which strongly push the idea that the biological family is extremely important. But, to be fair, if some of us don’t reproduce, then society wouldn’t be preserved. The question really is whether, once they’ve produced the children, biological parents are always the best care-givers. Nowadays there’s the possibility of creating families via new reproductive technologies and sperm donation, but that wouldn’t have been possible during most of the history of the romance.

There are actually quite a few romances where a single-parent re-marries, and so you have step-families. That’s the case in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. In Jane Eyre, Jane herself is an orphan, and her biological family haven’t cared much for her, while Rochester is caring for Adèle, who may not be his biological daughter. In Agnes Grey the heroine’s pupil makes a socially-advantageous marriage, and it’s not a happy one. She produces the requisite heir, but then pretty much feels that the child is her husband’s and his mother’s, not hers.

I think the Brontes did explore alternative sorts of family structure than the biological family with mother, father and children, and they critique some society marriages, showing that some biological fathers and mothers are cruel and/or uncaring.

Austen doesn’t mention her heroines reproducing, does she? If she does, I can’t remember. There’s certainly nothing which would be the equivalent of the epilogues in which hero and heroine appear surrounded by their vast brood. And in Persuasion Anne seems to care far more for her nephews than their mother does. Biological families are clearly shown to be problematic in Pride and Prejudice and in Sense and Sensibility. In P&P the Bennett parents aren’t fulfilling their parental role as they should, and Lady Catherine’s family pride is shown to be excessive. In S&S, Edward Ferrars is temporarily disinherited and told he’s no longer his mother’s son, though she’s later reconciled to him to some extent. In Mansfield Park it’s Fanny, who is no blood relation to Sir Thomas who is ‘indeed the daughter that he wanted’.

So I’m still not ready to agree that romance has always been socially conservative (though in many cases it has been). For their times, some romances were really quite challenging, I think (especially the Brontes), and they still raise questions for modern readers about the importance of the biological family.

Just to chuck a thought or two into the mix, I think it’s interesting to consider the way networks of power function in a gendered way at a social and family level.

By this I don’t mean a powerful/powerless dichotomy, but more the way its modalities are gender-classified and negotiated as such. (Physical violence = “masculine”, patient suffering = “feminine”). The “traditional” gendered family roles are linked to biological traits that make them seem natural.

Of course real families contain countless relationships which don’t fall neatly into these divisions, but romances often deal in archetypes. Besides, it’s okay to leave your place, as long as you accept what it should be.

As a thinking point, take the way people in a same-sex relationship are sometimes categorised in a gendered way (butch/bitch). FWIW, I think this “two-by-two” business is one of the reasons why same-sex couples are slightly more acceptable (ie. can feature as secondary characters) than the polyamorous. I truly respect writers that don’t fall into this trap.

Incidentally, I’m running the risk of generalising above because I’m aiming for brevity. For the same reason I’m leaving out a lot of exposition. But just as a last point, I don’t think there’s so much controversy about couples that don’t marry straight away (these days) in romances. But it still is important that they get married or have some sort of legal/social sanction for their relationship eventually.

I definitely think there are a lot of romances which strongly push the idea that the biological family is extremely important. But, to be fair, if some of us don’t reproduce, then society wouldn’t be preserved. The question really is whether, once they’ve produced the children, biological parents are always the best care-givers. Nowadays there’s the possibility of creating families via new reproductive technologies and sperm donation, but that wouldn’t have been possible during most of the history of the romance.

I’m not knocking traditional marriage or childbearing; I’m simply saying that I think Romance is historically interested in norming a certain family structure and connecting that family structure to the notion of social stability.  I don’t think that either Romance or society is seriously interested in questioning the primacy of the blood relationship (courts still, for example, go out of their way to award foster children back to their biological parents, especially the mothers), and I wonder if all the progress we’ve made in reproductive technologies won’t at some level stir a backlash in Romance (back to more of the Romance conception where the heretofore infertile woman magically conceives with just the right hero).

There are actually quite a few romances where a single-parent re-marries, and so you have step-families. That’s the case in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. In Jane Eyre, Jane herself is an orphan, and her biological family haven’t cared much for her, while Rochester is caring for Adèle, who may not be his biological daughter. In Agnes Grey the heroine’s pupil makes a socially-advantageous marriage, and it’s not a happy one. She produces the requisite heir, but then pretty much feels that the child is her husband’s and his mother’s, not hers.

In terms of the step-parent situation in Romance, again, you have this often idealized situation in which the natural parent is a super-parent and the step-parent the moves in to complete the family picture in that traditional white-picket fence kind of way.  The adoptive parent may not be blood, but he/she occupies the paradigmatic role of parent in a super-duper, Kodak moment way.  The key for me is not necessarily that every happy Romance family consists of parents who only have their natural children, but rather that the resulting family structure itself is as close to the “model” family as possible (mother, father, happy and well-adjusted children).  Even Emma Holly, who introduced one of the first sympathetic gay characters in historical Romance (Freddie in Beyond Innocence), gives him the perfect HEA with his partner and a pastoral life making wine in the hills of Italy, a twist but still an affirmation of the divine call to “be fruitful and multiply” (I think this goes to EAP’s point about gender roles being perhaps paramount to the actual gender of the person occupying them).

And IMO books like Jane Eyre make the need for a nuclear family clear, because bad things happen to children who don’t have their families around.  I know that many read Jane Eyre as a triumphant and liberating narrative for Jane, but I see the ending as a powerful narrowing of her independence.  What power Jane has she exercises through her devotion and her role as a Christian example to the wayward Rochester (who regains his eyesight as soon as he cleanses his soul properly) and mother to his son.  Jane’s excruciatingly pious voice at the end of JE undermined for me a lot of the pontential social subversion Bronte was hinting at earlier in the book.

I think the Brontes did explore alternative sorts of family structure than the biological family with mother, father and children, and they critique some society marriages, showing that some biological fathers and mothers are cruel and/or uncaring.

To me, the most interesting Bronte book to look at in this context would be Wuthering Heights, because there is some serious neurotic contemplation of what it is to be a grown-up woman with grown-up sexual desires, and everything in Bronte’s book seems to be rebelling against that.

As for the critical commentary on families that don’t work as they should, I don’t see that as a criticism of the family structure as much as a criticism of how certain individuals do not function as they are supposed to (i.e. the family is supposed to be a place of safety but it’s often not).  In Austen’s case, I think her truly subversive move was to reconstitute the traditional family structure as one in which two people truly are well-suited and well-matched on every level.  Although I do think Austen portrays the Bennett’s marriage as one that works on many levels, even if as *people* and *personalities* they are perhaps not suited to one another (and I think you could argue this, as well). 

Although P&P and JE are often talked about in the same breath, more than 30 years separate them, and right between comes Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a book I think serves as an interesting third point here.  Shelley’s book, IMO, provides a harrowing account of how science unchecked can ruin the family, not only with the mess Victor makes of his “creation,” but also in terms of the one intact family in the book that the “creature” observes, who occupy the dead center of the novel, structurally and thematically.  I think Shelley’s vision and George W. Bush’s objection to stem cell research have a lot in common.

Personally, I don’t have any problem with the model of the family as a microcosm of society; I only have difficulties when a certain constitution of that model is prescribed as more “natural” than others.  I’m not saying that Romance has always reinforced what I would call the Anglo - Christian heterosexual model of the family (and I think we could have some interesting discussions of whether aristocratic of middle class families are preferred), or that there haven’t been plenty of subversive Romances in that regard.  I think it would be interesting to undertake an analysis of the way Romance both affirms and subverts some of the basic tenets around which it seems to be organized.  But I still think that to a large extent, Romance as a genre has and continues to aim at naturalizing a certain model of the family that resembles as closely as possible the Anglo-Christian heterosexual paradigm.  It’s up for each reader to decide how she/he feels about this, but I think it’s there and I think the fact that arguments like Butler’s are being made with more and more frequency and vigor reflect that assumption.

Romance is historically interested in norming a certain family structure and connecting that family structure to the notion of social stability [...] I still think that to a large extent, Romance as a genre has and continues to aim at naturalizing a certain model of the family that resembles as closely as possible the Anglo-Christian heterosexual paradigm.

But there aren’t that many alternatives to families (whether natural or by adoption), are there?  Foster parents are still called ‘parents’ and although there are some communities where children are brought up communally, and there are children in care, the former isn’t an option in most of the usual historical/cultural contexts that romances are set in. The latter is thought more likely to have negative outcomes (not always, of course) than life in an adoptive/foster family.

As for the nuclear family, I’ve found some of the romances which have multiple generations of the family present, all saying things like ‘oh yes, we could tell instantly that the secret baby was part of the family’ are more affirming of the primacy of biological links than a two-parent and child/children setup, where some may or may not be related by blood.

I think, given the constraints of the romance (happy ending required and the main couple must get together) then children, if present, will tend to end up with the main couple, or a foster family will be found for them (as Mr Beaumaris does for an orphan in Arabella).

Maybe I’m missing something really obvious here. What other outcomes could there be for the children? If the main parent/parent figure remains single, it won’t be a romance, surely? I would imagine that the same dynamic would arise in homosexual romances, if children were involved. I suppose it would be different in a polyamorous romance, but there aren’t so many of them.

If the main parent/parent figure remains single, it won’t be a romance, surely?

This is precisely point.  Why can’t a story be a romance where the ending doesn’t automatically presume a marriage between a male and a female?  Even today, with all of the super sekrit babies and pre-marital sex goin’ down, the assumption is that for the ending to be happy, a marriage between a man and a woman - whether there will or won’t be children involved - is on the horizon.  It may not take place before the story is over, but there’s no mistaking that it’s going to take place.

That requirement for marriage is one of the ideological ideals that is being turned on its head via same sex romances or erotica or polyamorous stories.  And the fact that it’s becoming more possible to see such stories?  Is probably the exact “slippery slope” that Ms. Butler is so very concerned about.  Because from the point of view that marriage=HEA=romance, if there is no marriage, it can’t really be qualified to be called a romance.

Why can’t a story be a romance where the ending doesn’t automatically presume a marriage between a male and a female?

I think it can. Maybe I wasn’t clear, but when I say ‘single’ I mean ‘without a significant other’, i.e. without a boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/spouse. I don’t think the couple (of whatever combination of male/female) need to be married to make the story a romance. I find the plots where virtual strangers marry because a baby must have two legally married parents very odd, unless it’s a historical. To me that seems extremely archaic, and I’m always surprised by it in a contemporary.

That requirement for marriage is one of the ideological ideals that is being turned on its head via same sex romances

Unless the romance is set somewhere like Spain, where gay marriage is legal, or the UK where we have provision for civil partnerships. But that would probably set people like Ms Butler off on another rant.

What other outcomes could there be for the children? If the main parent/parent figure remains single, it won’t be a romance, surely? I would imagine that the same dynamic would arise in homosexual romances, if children were involved. I suppose it would be different in a polyamorous romance, but there aren’t so many of them.

I think where our points diverge, Laura, is basically where fiveandfour picked up; that is, I think we start with different assumptions.  I see the Romance = love + marriage + children equation to be sufficient but not necessary to fulfill the defintional requirements of Romance as a love story with a happy ending.  So I’m actually questioning the presumption that Romance has to end with marriage and a family.  No matter how far women may or may not have come socially, in Romance, very rarely do you see women actively choosing NOT to be mothers, for example.  Why is that?  Clearly there are plenty of couples out there that thrive without the inclusion of children in their unit (frankly, I think too many people who aren’t really parent material are having kids, but that’s a different topic, isn’t it?).  And there are single parent families that turn out just fine, as well.  While I am totally fine with the idea that Romance CAN be a genre that embraces the nuclear family as the ideal social unit, I don’t think it HAS to be, and that’s where my opinion diverges from that of Butler.  And I think Butler’s argument is basically that Romance HAS to be a genre that idealizes the Anglo Christian nuclear family, and I think the history of the genre has been more on her side than mine, for example. 

As for the idea that gay Romance isn’t subversive in places where there are civil union legal privileges, I still see it as subversive in those places, because marriage just has so much more cultural and historical and spiritual privilege attached to it.  I mean, there’s a reason for the campaign to approve (and constitutionally ban) gay marriage in the US that goes way beyond legal standing.  It goes, IMO, to what constitutes the socially accepted definition of the family.

I’m actually questioning the presumption that Romance has to end with marriage and a family.

Oh, well in that case I agree with you. As long as there’s a couple who end up together, I don’t think either a marriage or children are required, and I wouldn’t specify the sex of either half of the couple either. I did say earlier that, as far as I could remember, there isn’t actually any mention of Austen’s heroines having children. I have a feeling that the now rather frequent epilogues in which the characters are shown several years later, surrounded by their offspring, isn’t necessarily something that was so common in the past. In fact, did a lot of romances of the earlier Mills & Boon style not end with a kiss, and not even get to marriage? The explicit mention of a decision not to have children is rare, that’s true, but it is sometimes present.

I see what you mean about homosexual marriages, and I can see how they would be subversive in the current political climate in the US, I was just pointing out that the existence of legal provision for gay marriages in certain parts of the world does mean that it’s possible for a gay marriage to be portrayed in a contemporary romance (given the right setting). It would still be unusual in a romance, of course, but homosexual romances in general are still unusual, since the vast majority of romances are about heterosexual couples.

I think I just fell a little in love with you, Candy. But let’s not tell Jan, might give her a heart attack.

Fantastic responses and well thought out arguments in this comment section. Gives me some hope that this country isn’t as ridiculously homophobic as it appears.

. I did say earlier that, as far as I could remember, there isn’t actually any mention of Austen’s heroines having children. I have a feeling that the now rather frequent epilogues in which the characters are shown several years later, surrounded by their offspring, isn’t necessarily something that was so common in the past.

I wonder if this is because it was simply assumed that a married couple would try for children, whereas now the point has to be driven home, so to speak, with the epilogue.  What do you think, Laura?

That society is itself a reflection of the relationships people share on an individual level requires no leap of logic, of course.  And I don’t think anyone could argue that the family unit hasn’t played a central role in the history of every society.  What I find so interesting about Romance, though, is the way the happily ever after ending seems traditionally and explicitly tied to a certain acculturation of the hero and heroine into a specifically defined family structure.  It’s like Romance isn’t just reflecting the importance of the Anglo Christian nuclear family in social continuity, but that it’s insisting at some level that a woman’s happiness and everlasting love is to be found there (Crusie’s Fast Women is an intersting counterpoint to this idea, I think).  I have to admit that many of my favorite Romances end up with the hero and heroine married with children, and that there are some authors who really create that comforting “all’s right with the world” feeling for me (Jo Goodman, for example). I just get nervous at the idea that a genre written largely by and for women might still be prescribing our ultimate happiness as essentially domestic (a la Catherine Beecher’s American Woman’s Home:  http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6598).

I just get nervous at the idea that a genre written largely by and for women might still be prescribing our ultimate happiness as essentially domestic

I’m not sure how many romance authors have the deliberate agenda of encouraging people to have children. Some people (quite a lot of people, actually) do seem to think, or say that they think, that having children is one of the best/most rewarding things they’ve ever done, so it could be that many writers feel the same. Or maybe they feel that their readers feel that way and they’re responding to that?

I wonder if [...in the past] it was simply assumed that a married couple would try for children, whereas now the point has to be driven home, so to speak, with the epilogue.  What do you think, Laura?

I’m not sure. It could be, but it could be that in the past people perhaps didn’t see children quite the way we do now. I mean, there were no treatments for infertility, and children still died quite often before reaching adulthood, and women died in childbirth more frequently, so perhaps if the author was being realistic, they’d just stop at the happy part and not let potential unhappiness intrude. Nowadays we maybe take children not dying and the possibility of having children when we want them more or less for granted. Not everyone, of course, but for a lot of people this isn’t something they worry about.

I also get the feeling that there’s something almost consumerist about the sheer numbers of children you sometimes get in these epilogues. It’s like the massive fortune, the extreme beauty of both characters and the ducal title isn’t quite enough - they must also have extreme fertility.

“Don’t like gay marriage or gay sex? Then I highly, highly recommend that you not marry or fuck somebody your own gender. “

YOU GO GIRL!!!! I did not stop laughing until this evening… I think you basically broke it all down to this one phrase…  :lol:

Candy said:
“Oh, OK, the gay/poly romance idea is better. Anyone have recommendations, besides Kate?”

I recommend Stephanie Vaughan, Jules Jones, Emily Veinglory, Willa Okati, Ally Blue, Jet Mykles, J.L. Langley, Matthew Haldeman-Time, Rachel Bo, Luisa/L.M. Prieto, and I’m forgetting numerous others because I’m tired.

For an mfm poly relationship (or the start of one, anyway), Vaughan’s “Home for the Holidays” is a great short read.  She branches fully into m/m starting with “Jumping the Fence,” which is a nice take on the budding relationship between a cool computer geek Ben and coworker Kevin—who’s trying to figure out why he can’t stand his girlfriend and keeps daydreaming about other men.  The followup to this story is “Crossing the Line,” one of my all-time favorite books.  Jamie, the ex-boyfriend of Ben (from “Jumping the Fence”) accepts the truth of life—guys like him need to buy affection.  He’s a self-made man who knows his Rolex and nice car gets pretty boys to pay attention, and since that all he can offer, he figures the exchange is fair.  Ben seemed different, but now Ben’s gone and fallen for Kevin, so that’s a lost cause.  Then Jamie meets Ryan, the beautiful waiter who’s so much more than he seems.  Issues gained and ingrained throughout a lifetime don’t magically disappear in this story.  There’s no brilliant scene where Boy 1 takes Boy 2 to a mirror and points out everything beautiful about Boy 2, and Boy 2 says, “Oh, cool. Great, my issues are gone and the self-image is fantastic now. Thanks for the fix.”  (That’s one of those cliched romance novel scenes that drives me bugnuts.) The characters are real in their flaws, and Jamie will break your heart. (Though if you pay attention, Ryan will do some pretty effective, if subtler, breakage too.)

She has several more m/m stories coming out soon, including hot rebel merc boy meets computer genius/politician’s son when both are in some way exiled from their government-controlled, homosexuality-punishable-by-death, corrupt world. I believe the title is “Off World,” but I can’t swear to it.  If male-dom D/s is your thing, try “Dead Man’s Party.”  If fem-dom D/s is your thing, try “Cruel to be Kind.”  Her entire list of pubbed and upcoming titles is on her website (stephanievaughan.com), along with which publishers to look at.

Jules Jones has a decidedly different take on storytelling, but it’s equally enjoyable.  She ranges from fantasy/paranormal to antisocial systems administrators practicing D/s and exhibitionism in space, with many stops in between. I won’t detail it all, since I’m sure 80% of you fell asleep after my comments on the first author. But Jones’s title list is on her website (julesjones.com).

Emily Veinglory (veinglory.com) ranges all over the place, from shapeshifters, to blind artists and incarnate muses, to paranormal coalitions. And gay cowboys.  Well, sort of.

Luisa/L.M. Prieto is a new author, but she has one book out, with more to follow soon.  She thrills me because she works in a relatively neglected subgenre: romantic horror.  (Yes, it works. *G*)  Her first book is a good start-up offering, and its followup (not out yet) improves upon this. In a world overflowing with vampire and werewolf stories, hers is a creative twist. And did I mention the zombies? ...

Willa Okati’s ongoing “The Brotherhood” series offers shortish stories about the relationships begun by a group of men who don’t realize that one of their fellow members in their lonely-hearts club is actually an ancient, romantic-at-heart, incubus who taps into his mother’s (Lilith) influence to steer of his lost friends toward the love that’s right for them.  This ranges *everywhere*, from the pierced-and-inked rebel boy and his vampire lover, to the self-avowed slut and his nifty new alien friend, two cursed guy who’s been stuck in the bar for years, to the two dragon-men in the backroom, to the boy who’s lost all hope and just wants life to stop.  There’s a fascinating journey through vast and varied characters and the relationships they find themselves in. (willaokati.com)

J.L. Langley’s (jllangley.com) first all m/m release is “The Tin Star.” Gay-but-not-loudly-out rancher takes in - and falls for - his best friend’s little brother. A little brother who’s only just now starting to realize what all those tingly feelings about other men mean. There’s some good realistic showing of the sometimes less-than-open-minded reactions of the inhabitants of their small town - and the brothers’ father. Its sequel is coming out soon, along with a werewolf anthology with Willa Okati and Ally Blue.

Ally Blue (allyblue.com) does a great job with the emotional turmoil in “Forgotten Song,” and takes that skill into her other works, as well.

Rachel Bo’s (http://webpages.charter.net/rachelbo/releases.html) “Strength in Numbers” series started with two buddies looking for the right woman to share and then realizing they want to share each other, too.  The next book moves to the father of one of those buddies, a man who discouraged his son’s bisexuality and, in his own youth, turned his back on the man and woman he loved, because of his fear of the world’s reaction. Now, seeing how happy his son is, he finds himself reuniting with his former loves, but all three must fight together and alone to conquer the fears and reservations he still has from a lifetime of hiding his true self.  The third book lets us in on the relationship between a young woman and the m/f married couple she meets.  She’s never had any bisexual leanings, and the development is a bit of a surprise for her.  More surprising to her, though, is the growing realization that she’s deeply submissive and the perfect partner to this dominant couple. The author has an interesting take on the werewolf theme in her “Wolf-bound” series.  Werewolf boys are born in sets of twins, and they find and secure a mate to share.

Matthew Haldeman-Time (http://www.matthewhaldemantime.com) is currently published only by himself.  He has one book in actual print, for sale, but the rest are pretty much all free online.  The book is full-length, but the online stories (except the disturbingly fascinating boy-band saga, which is over a million words long) are mostly shorter bits of various lengths.  The greatest thing about MHT is that he’s a romantic and it shows in almost everything he writes.  Like Stephanie Vaughan, he has the gift of often creating characters so real that you truly feel like they’re someone you know.

Anyway, these are just a few people, but maybe it’s a start.  Just like in traditionally straight romance, their stories cover the spectrum of plots and characters and quirks.  They make m/m no longer a subgenre of the m/f “norm.”  Instead, they create romantic subgenres of the M/M norm.  Horror to farce to high drama, and everything in between.

Thanks for letting me ramble.

And please please forgive the sloppy writing in that post.  I’m ashamed of them, but it’s 7:30 am and I haven’t yet gone to bed, so I claim exhaustion as the root of those bloody typos.  *sigh*

I think everyone who enjoyed this post needs to read Susan Jane Gilman’s “Kiss My Tiara.” In particular, the chapter entitled “So What’s Wrong with a little Lesbian Wedding?”

Fabulous.

Mal: “You called the Feds.”

Jayne: “What?  I got pinched!”

Mal: “Which is what happens when you call the Feds.”
          —Episode #9, “Ariel”
buy cialis online Others are able to wait up to 36 hours after Cialis Promise Program. Cialis testimonials taking cialis medication tadalafil buy cialis  buy cialis online a sex counselor, and links to sexual health organizations by CIALIS® (tadalafil) ... More ED Info and Support. buy order cialis buy cialis online
buy cialis fast shipping  buy cialis tadalafil Cialis or Tadalafil Citrate is used as a sexual aid in men Cialis, approved health professionals. Cialis buy cialis order cialis
buy cialis online Cialis - Warnings & Precautions. Cialis - Clinical Pharmacology. Cialis - buy cialis order cialis online fast shipping Overdosage & Contraindications. Cialis - Indications & Dosage. Cialis order cialis online now The top generic cialis the far East. Cialis info cialis news release Sept buy cialis tadalafil buy cialis
buy cialis order cialis Cialis ® is a prescription medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. ... Cialis Info- Cialis News, information and articles. Cialis official
buy cialis information Deciphers the medication tadalafil (Cialis), a drug used for the treatment of impotence. ... buy cialis Cialis Eases Erectile Dysfunction After Spinal Cord Injury Cialis or Tadalafil Citrate is used as a sexual aid in men
buy cialis info Get all the latest news about Cialis. Latest FDA news and Information. ... the company responsible for developing Cialis, made no bones about sharing this . buy cialis fast
buy cialis buy cialis
buy cheap cialis
Get all the latest news about Cialis

cheap cialis buy cialis Cialis or Tadalafil Citrate is used as a sexual aid in men

cheap cialis online

Cialis, approved health professionals. Cialis

Cialis Promise Program. Cialis testimonials.s

http://buycialis.bigheadhosting.net/ 

buy cialis online buy cheap cialis buy cialis order cialis CIALIS, and therefore until further information is available, CIALIS is not recommended for the following groups of patients: ...