Bitchin' Blog Posts
Bloomberg BusinessWeek Blows
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | August 07, 2010 | Saturday at 10:31 am | 77 CommentsAt the romance panel at WORD Brooklyn a few weeks ago, one of the audience members asked why romance takes so much crap from everyone. Hope Tarr said she thinks it boils down, every time, to the fact that romance is written by women, edited and published by women, and read by women. As we said in the Bosoms, look in your pants. That’s why.
So grab your nearest alcoholic beverage, and play along as we look at the state of romance after an appearance in Bloomberg Business Week.
In an article that mentions bodice ripping not once but Twice, Spencer Morgan treats romance to a wonderfully assmunchy examination, citing high sales and profitable growth against the decline of publishing, and then making fun of knitting, romance readers, fans, the genre as a whole, quilters, military families, and your grandmother.
There’s so many crimes of douchitude in this article, I’m having trouble selecting the right lines to examine. Every other sentence is a steaming pile of misleading patronizing ill-informed supercilious twatbaggery.
What absolutely drops my jaw is that just after this article was published, TorStar, parent company of Harlequin, posted a 22% profit in their last earnings report, a large portion of which was due to Harlequin itself.
After a paragraph of one impressive statistic after another citing the growth and profitability of romance, Spencer Morgan then lets loose with the following:
To satisfy as many lust-filled imaginations as possible, the romance fiction industry has ripped the bodice from seemingly every niche group. Nascar and transgender-themed romances are finding their way to shelves already packed with Amish, Mennonite, quilting, knitting, paranormal, and military subgenres.
Yes. “Lust-filled imaginations.” Let’s play along at home with the “Asshat Reporter Writing About Romance Drinking Game.”
Romance readers are really only interested in fluffy literary porn to satisfy their sexual inadequacies and frustrations: 2 sips!
The most popular microtrends of the moment are Amish- and Mennonite-themed romances, which covered the best-seller lists last fall like a giant head scarf.
Oh yes, nothing says lust like Amish romance.
Open demonstration of lack of understanding that romance isn’t all sex: 3 sips!
Paranormal romance, which continues to enjoy a boost from Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series, remains a popular subgenre. Yet vampires, werewolves, and shape-shifters now have competition from knitters, which are part of the “home crafting romance” subgenre—itself part of the “small town” subgenre.
Yes, paranormal romance is popular. So, it seems, are half-brained articles by someone who wouldn’t know actual, insightful business and financial analysis if it bit him on the 10Q.
Stating the obvious: 2 sips!
Insiders insist that knitting is distinct from another ascendant microgenre: quilting.
The industry would seem challenged to find greater mundanity (bridge games? Wheel of Fortune reruns?), yet that’s what the public is demanding.
Not only are romance readers sex-crazed but we’re dumb and mundane, too: 3 sips!
You can begin beating yourself on the head with your liquor bottle now. I mean, really. Do you honestly want to piss off knitters, Mr. Morgan? Have you SEEN a knitting needle? They’re sharp. Which, I might point out (ha ha) you are not.
Then Morgan moves on to a quote highlighting this “mundanity” from…Debbie Macomber. Oh yes. 75 million books in so mundane, as are profits in the millions, a successful multimedia franchise, and one’s own line of knitting products.
Macomber even has a successful line of companion books—Knit Along with Debbie Macomber—on the joys of the domestic arts.
I don’t know about you, but I think he was sneering at “domestic arts.”
Open sexist dismissal of women: 3 sips!
Such substratification might suggest, as one book agent stated privately, that readers have gone insane.
No, but that agent has if word gets out as to whom exactly said that. Gotta hate it when readers clamor for a book that an agent might possibly get 15% for selling. Oh, profit and success, what complete lunacy you are.
Sneering at profit because said profit comes from lowbrow plebeian entertainment: 2 sips!
Twitter feeds, author blogs, and other forms of social media are providing limitless opportunities for virtual Ya-Ya Sisterhoods of like-minded readers to develop.
God help them if they discuss the joys of domestic arts.
Moar Sexism: 3 sips!
Well, at least Morgan can now franchise his own specialty: a complete lack of insight and thoughtful analysis about romance as a profitable industry.
Oh, wait. Journalists all over have managed to do exactly that (and, as one commenter pointed out, get paid for it) without his help, and this is yet another example. Presented with surprising profits and detail-specific examples of entrepreneurial success, Morgan went for patronizing, sexist, and ill-informed dismissal of romance.
Now that’s mundane.
Really, Bloomberg Business Week? That’s the best you could do?
Filed: General Bitching, Ranty McRant
Tagged: wtfery, spencer morgan, romance, publishing, make the burning stop, lamesauce, harlequin, bloomberg, assmunch, asshat
ghn said on 08.07.10 at 11:13 AM • [link]
Has that guy ever cracked open a Romance of any kind?
interest99 - I am certain at least 99% of the Bitchery would be interested in the answer
Babs said on 08.07.10 at 11:53 AM • [link]
Wow. Just wow.
Who is Bloomberg hiring now?!?!
Miranda said on 08.07.10 at 12:20 PM • [link]
I’m almost sure that no-one’s lust-filled imaginations feature Spencer Pratt, poor thing.
I don’t even think he has his sub-genres straight. I know there are several lines of mysteries that feature crafts, but romances? Is there a knitting-based romance?
BTW, Spence, other genres of literature that have sub-genres:
Mystery: hard-boiled, police procedural, cozy (can feature crafts, beware!), supernatural, religious
SciFi: hard-science, future dystopia, mystery, military I haven’t seen knitting-based sci-fi, although I remember a side character who beaded. If anyone does, let me know so I can snap it up.)
Fantasy: paranormal, romance cross, mystery, urban, alternate earth
password: got25 I got 25 reasons that this guy is a sexist jerk
Brigid Kemmerer said on 08.07.10 at 01:07 PM • [link]
What page is this on? Because I have the latest issue right here and I didn’t see that?
And, um, do you think this guy would be surprised to find that a romance reader and writer would also be reading Bloomberg Businessweek? Clearly I’m not the only one…
Brigid Kemmerer said on 08.07.10 at 01:09 PM • [link]
Never mind. I clicked on the link. It was last week’s issue. What a tool. I’m sorry I missed this the first time around!
phoebesmum said on 08.07.10 at 01:17 PM • [link]
You take my lust-filled imagination away from me when you tear it from my cold, dead hands. You can take my knitting needles at the same time, since I won’t be using them any more.
Joanne said on 08.07.10 at 01:38 PM • [link]
Screw him, figuratively, of course.
Romance readers are not responsible for the high unemployment rates, the gloomy financial future, recession, inflation, the descending federal reserve, bad health care policies, the war in Iraq, falling retail sales, the swine flu epidemic, lack of affordable housing, the defaults in the credit market, the Lehman Brothers (just because I never leave them out of any discussion of ass-hattery) or any of the other economic woes this world faces.
We put money into circulation so that cut & copy ‘writers’ like Mr Morgan can be kept off the streets and behind a computer screen where his attendant can keep an eye on him.
Drinks on the house for all Romance Readers and Writers.
Lynne Connolly said on 08.07.10 at 01:43 PM • [link]
Would they take an article about, say, the thriller spy genre, where spies who have no relation to what happens in real life go around shooting anyone who gets in their way, screwing the women before they kill them, to culminate in a big High Noon showdown somewhere eye-catching like Times Square?
Throw in a few references to management clones, off-the-peg suits shiny with artificial fabric, wine bars and pseudo-macho attitudes, just because they’re easy targets?
I want to know how this article is received. Not by us, the romance community, but by other people. Maybe the spouses of romance readers, or people who prefer thrillers or horror as their relaxing reading of choice.
Cara McKenna / Meg Maguire said on 08.07.10 at 01:58 PM • [link]
This article smacks of another flavor of patronizing criticism, one that doesn’t have as much to do with gender as it does with popularity. And ignorance, on the part of outsiders.
I’ll admit, I don’t “get” any of the things I’m about to list, but I suspect their enthusiasts made be our compatriots; their passions probably receive similar scorn as our beloved romances, simply because the critics distrust the popularity of “the other”. I’m talking about things like Dungeons and Dragons, World of Warcraft, pro-wrestling, Star Trek, beauty pageants, Civil War recreation… Basically, anything with a rabid group of people willing to invest their evergy and money in an activity or a celebration of something that outsiders don’t understand. Different + Popular = “the people who are into that must be lonely, gullible, desperate, or all three.”
Anybody who isn’t into something can handily take on the task of writing up analysis that underscores that ignorance. “The people who play World of Warcraft are too ugly to leave their basements and make real friends so they hide in a world where they get to be attractive and powerful.” See? That was easy! I can has a weekly column, pleez? Why not ask me to write about the war in Afghanistan, since I know nothing about what’s like on the other side? I’m clearly qualified.
Anyhow, that article is just one example of outsiders (and there’s nothing wrong with being an outsider—we can’t be into everything) all having a good laugh about the ways in which stupider people are surely wasting their time doing something they enjoy. News for you, folks—they’re having a good time. You clearly aren’t. We’re all getting too old for wedgies and stolen lunch money, so do consider growing up.
Ginny said on 08.07.10 at 03:02 PM • [link]
Well said Cara!
Tina C. said on 08.07.10 at 03:20 PM • [link]
I’m sorry, but this article just has pea-green envy written all over it. I suspect that part of Morgan’s vitriol may be due to a certain someone trying to publish his great literary masterpiece and being rejected over and over again. He’s all pissy because he can’t believe that so-called “Amish bodice rippers about quilting” are getting published and he’s not. In fact, I bet that the agent who said that “readers have gone insane” was his agent, attempting to placate him when he had a temper tantrum over yet another rejection.
Or maybe he’s just another lazy, condescending, sexist tool who he is oh-so-very witty and cool.
Diatryma said on 08.07.10 at 03:37 PM • [link]
I can’t think of any knitting romance, but there’s Wrede’s and Stevermer’s Sorcery and Cecelia trio, which includes a knitted code, though not in the book with the romance, and Mary Robinette Kowal’s Shades of Milk and Honey treats magic like a textile art with folds and stitches.
Obviously, knitting is for sad lonely women, so books about knitting must be for sad lonely women, which means they must be romance. Congratulations, you’ve pissed off the knitters. DO NOT PISS OFF THE KNITTERS.
Becky said on 08.07.10 at 03:39 PM • [link]
If this genius thinks it’s safe to make fun of knitters, he’s got another think coming. There’s a massive online knitting and crochet community, Ravelry, with over half a million members the last time I checked. As I type this there are over 1,800 members online, right now, talking and checking out patterns and who knows what all. I know it would blow his little mind, but most of us are not grandmothers. We’re men, we’re women, we’re socially conscious, we’re politically active, we’re readers (and not just of knitting romances), and we don’t appreciate one more asshat making fun of our beloved hobby, even if it’s only a quick potshot while making fun of a whole different group of people. And yes, we have the pointy sticks to back it up. I personally prefer Addi Turbo lace needles for defense of hobby, reading habits, or self. They are very, very sharp. Like most of the readers, writers, and knitters I know.
SandyW said on 08.07.10 at 04:06 PM • [link]
Sigh. Just another pinhead staring at a deadline and looking for a target. ‘Oh look, silly girls, doing girl things and reading girl books.’ And contributing girl money to the economy. I’m betting Debbie Macomber can’t even hear his whiny little rant over the sound of the cash register.
The big question is, where are all these transgender romances flooding the shelves?
Keven Lofty said on 08.07.10 at 04:15 PM • [link]
Even though his sexist, lazy journalism is annoying and reprehensible what I find most disturbing is this “business’ journalist’s lack of understanding and appreciation for a successful business model.
As a marketer my ultimate goal would be to provide you EXACTLY what you personally would want at the highest price you’re willing to pay for it. The best way to achieve this would to give you an individually customized product just for you, but due to economic realities that’s generally not possible as I have to make a certain number of items in order to keep my costs down.
The existence of a multitude of highly specific niche genres in romance is therefore not a sign of its weakness and inanity, but of it’s strength. The genre sells enough copies to make it worthwhile for companies to produce inspirational, Amish, quilting, romances set in Indiana, AND gay hardcore erotica set in 23rd century Shanghai and everything in between.
Abbie said on 08.07.10 at 04:23 PM • [link]
The man is obviously an ass in every sense of the word. Let me also say “a steaming pile of misleading patronizing ill-informed supercilious twatbaggery” made me completely crack up. Twatbaggery is my new favorite word. Do you think we can get that one added to the dictionary?
Abbie said on 08.07.10 at 04:37 PM • [link]
I just noticed the awesome graph he posted here to help you select a romance. http://images.businessweek.com/mz/10/31/1031etcfringe71.pdf
nature69- Something to explore for a new romance subgenre?
dick said on 08.07.10 at 04:45 PM • [link]
Yeah, the content of the article was silly; perhaps deliberately so. But the best response to ignorance is to ignore it or dismiss it. Invariably, each year, some student would indignantly tell me that requiring him to read the Odyssey was a waste of his time. Just as invariably, I would ask him what deficiency in character he attributed his attitude to.
Sascha said on 08.07.10 at 05:08 PM • [link]
Way to go, Sarah! Morgan wouldn’t even know romance if it bit him in his assinine head. Methinks he quilted his “analysis” from a patchwork of articles by equally clueless and sexist men. Equating romance novels with sex sums up the cerebral capacity of these Neanderthals—they can only think with their stick. Shame to BusinessWeek for publishing the flaccid piece.
Sadly, it seems men—at least those I’ve met—generally think romance lit is all fluff. When I told my guy friends that I was planning to write fiction, they automatically assumed it was romance. I had no problem with that (even if I had a different genre in mind), but their reaction however was dang irritating: they had this mocking, scornful, superior look. Since then, I’ve thrown them the same look, accompanied with a raised “Oh please, grow up” brow, when they get all excited about their favorite sports team.
Kilian Metcalf said on 08.07.10 at 05:13 PM • [link]
The only romance I have read where knitting was a significant activity was Tale of Two Cities. Mme deFarge rocks!
Kilian Metcalf said on 08.07.10 at 05:20 PM • [link]
The only romance I have read where knitting was a significant activity was Tale of Two Cities. Mme deFarge rocks!
Nothing says “lust-filled” imagination like Amish/Mennonite/Amana community romance. That’s the first place I head to get my lady parts all tingly.
Jan said on 08.07.10 at 05:37 PM • [link]
Way to go Sarah. I knew this article needed your special and knowledgable touch. I hope he reads it. In fact I hope he sticks it up his…... well, anyway, THANKS.
Nialla said on 08.07.10 at 05:44 PM • [link]
I wonder if he thinks the Amish bodices being ripped are quilted with knit trim? He’s ignorant yet douchey enough to believe anything about a genre he’s obviously not interested in.
I wonder why they never have anyone who actually likes romance write an article on the success of the genre? I’m assuming it’s either because no “real” journalist would read romance, or at least not admit it in public due to harassment by their fellow journalists.
Anon76 said on 08.07.10 at 05:55 PM • [link]
What an arm-farting, dick-scratching neanderthal.
Mister, you better go in a for a wax again, cuz your suit sleeves aren’t covering those increasingly hair-covered knuckles.
HelenK said on 08.07.10 at 06:23 PM • [link]
While I have nothing to add about the article that hasn’t already been said, I do know of a knitting romance. The Sweethearts’ Knitting Club by Lori Wilde. It came out late last year. The next one in the series deals with a quilting club.
It was a fun romance.
Amber said on 08.07.10 at 06:28 PM • [link]
Yes, I adored the Sweethearts’ Knitting Club by Lori Wilde. Why this asshat chose to pick on that emerging subgenre when cozy mysteries have been a staple for decades escapes me, though.
I can’t even summon the outrage. Misogyny disguised as journalism strikes again.
Kim in Hawaii said on 08.07.10 at 06:36 PM • [link]
Thanks, Sarah, for your humorous response to this ridiculous article. I found it interesting that the editor had to insert:
(Corrects spelling of Nancy Berland’s name and her title in the fifth paragraph.)
No doubt that Nancy and her high profile clients, including Debbie Macomber, are smiling all the way to the bank (they are not vulgar to laugh all the way to the bank).
Interesting that Debbie referenced Nancy in her acceptance speech at the RWA Awards Ceremony - Debbie encouraged Nancy to start her own business. As we all know, it was initiative and innovation that built our country.
I thought this paragraph was especially indicative of the author’s bias,
“Such substratification might suggest, as one book agent stated privately, that readers have gone insane. However, Harlequin’s Orr sees the trends as befitting the times.”
Pray tell, who created the sad state of our times that would lead to “readers’ insanity”? Our economy has run amok under the male, pale, and stale leadership.
At the same time, I find the callous article to be unworthy of my energy - I’d rather read a bodice ripping romance.
Anna the Piper said on 08.07.10 at 06:43 PM • [link]
As a reader whose formative genre was, and whose genre of choice continues to be, SF/F… yeah, I know from getting grief about my reading choices. The whole “geeks have no life and live in their mothers’ basements” thing drives me SPARE.
As an epubbed author who knows several people who’ve written romances of one flavor or another now, I’ve also developed a healthy respect for the work it takes to write a really good one. As with any book, really.
So I very much feel for the grief romance readers and writers get, too. What particularly vexes me is when I see people over in SF/F snarking on romance readers, too. You’d think we’d know better. :<
As for this article and its writer, I applaud SB Sarah’s pithy and succinct description of ‘twatbaggery’. Well done! And I console myself with the knowledge that for every twatbag article writer who vomits up a ‘let’s snark on an entire genre’s worth of fans’ diatribe, there’s a Doc Turtle who’s open to having his mind changed—and giving us awesome reviews in the process.
Nina said on 08.07.10 at 07:27 PM • [link]
you gotta give the romance readers credit- even if romance readers somewhere out there are reading about romance kindling over a pair of knitting needles, unlike the reality tv the masses out there are absorbed in, romance novels have PLOT!! And romance readers are intellectually minded, literate people who are keeping reading in forms besides twitter/text messaging alive.
but yeah, I can just see it, a romance novel with knitting…
hero pulls at the heroine’s bodice lustily, in the heat of the moment attempts to tear it off until she shouts, Hey! This bodice took hours! Use the hooks!!
( my grandma taught me to knit when I was a little girl, and I have yet to see a pattern for a knit bodice, and suspect it would be kinda itchy if one made one. anyone ever try to make one?)
and speaking of no plot…back to studying for me :(
Ridley said on 08.07.10 at 07:39 PM • [link]
I guess I’m a triple-bonus loser, since I not only read romance extensively, I also have a dresser full of yarn, needles and crochet hooks as well as a well-worn World of Warcraft account.
Funny that, like Harlequin, Blizzard is making money hand over fist with WoW. I guess losers aren’t such losers after all. There must be an awful lot of us for those sales numbers to happen. And if what we’re doing is popular how can we be outcasts?
Ridley said on 08.07.10 at 07:44 PM • [link]
Also wanted to mention that, back when my hands let me knit, I attended a weekly knitting circle that included a Harvard educated doctor, a few professors, a woman who ran her own market research firm, a city councilor, a housewife or two, grad students, and so on. None of us were over 50 and most of us were between 25 and 35.
That’s a pretty wide swath of the workforce he’s dismissing outright because of a hobby they enjoy.
Cyranetta said on 08.07.10 at 08:11 PM • [link]
Not only can knitters wield pointy-ended weaponry, but they’re not half-bad at crafting garrotes—many a knitted project needs a cable cord as a finishing touch. That knitter smiling on the subway may not smile at what you think she does.
“Hope93” I certainly hope it won’t take until I’m 93 for this sort of nonsense to be worn away from disuse.
Kim said on 08.07.10 at 08:27 PM • [link]
For all my fellow knitters, Christie Ridgway wrote a trilogy of knitting romances - Dirty Sexy Knitting, Unravel Me, and How to Knit a Wild Bikini. There were no (knitted) bodices being ripped ;)
I wondered how the smug Spencer Morgan spends his spare time. Do you suppose he’s reading Dickens or Tolstoy in his spare time? It would be hilarious/ironic if he were a fantasy football fanatic or sports watcher. ‘Cuz, you know, that’s far more mentally stimulating and important (and obviously a far superior business model) than romance. /snark
JoAnnarama said on 08.07.10 at 08:45 PM • [link]
For many years I sat in the press box in a county supervisors’ Board Room, watching a number of local ladies ply their needles and yarn, making colorful socks (ever try to turn a heel, Mr. Morgan?) while waiting for the opening of public comment on burning questions of the day. Things like, should the county cut pay for deputies (some already on food stamps to feed their families) in order to pay the chamber of commerce to “brand” the county to attract business, or, can we close libraries three days a week in order to afford the salary and benefits of a guy who demanded a new Lexus be leased for his transpo… the real needles came out when the ladies of the club stood up to deflate the tired thinking that resembled (a lot) the BloomBoy’s take on a successful business model that doesn’t depend on financial gamesmanship, war games for profit or the media’s Where’s Waldo luge race to the bottom…
Ken Houghton said on 08.07.10 at 08:52 PM • [link]
And people who don’t know the difference between knitting and quilting should not be allowed to reveal such ignorance in a magazine that keeps begging for subscribers.
I pay for things where the writers know more than I do (non-fiction) or tell a better story than I can (fiction). The new owners of BusinessWeek need to remember this.
Dana said on 08.07.10 at 09:01 PM • [link]
Kim beat me to it—I’ve read How To Knit A Wild Bikini, and enjoyed it. Unravel Me is in my TBR pile.
I’ve come across a couple of articles lately with this same tone: arrogant, dismissive, meant to give non-romance readers an opening to laugh freely at those of us who enjoy a good book that happens to feature one of the most powerful driving for es of human nature, while simultaneously shaming us for reading these books. What is up with this driving need to mock people who’ve found something they love and have the means to access it.
LG said on 08.07.10 at 09:48 PM • [link]
The professor of my reader’s advisory class told us that he used to sneer at romance, too, until he actually read a few and realized that he liked them. If journalists like this were actually serious about the articles they were writing, they’d find and read a romance novel or two that had something in common with books in other genres they’ve liked. Or, they limit themselves to a report of the trends in sales and general profitability, leaving out commentary about the actual genre, its readers, and its writers. Or maybe they could actually talk to some romance readers - no, wait, they think our brains are too filled with fluffy cotton candy to hold intelligent conversations.
Alexis Harrington said on 08.07.10 at 10:01 PM • [link]
Honestly, I’m surprised the man was willing to admit that we can even read, lusting, pea-brained, knitting troglodytes that we are. Is he certain we don’t just buy the books for the pictures? ;-)
Maria said on 08.07.10 at 10:35 PM • [link]
I’m new to your blog and so vapid and lust-filled that I can’t think of anything clever to say that doesn’t involve knitting.
I hope that knowing this won’t make my gratitude for both this article and the comments meaningless.
I came for the reviews. I stayed for the wit, support, and remarkable wisdom I find here. Thank you doesn’t even come close.
Sharon said on 08.07.10 at 10:37 PM • [link]
Thanks for the wonderful term “twatbaggery” (I bet it has already hit urbandictionary.co).
The dismissive, sneering tone in the article reminds me of the way people treat any fan-activity, particularly fanfiction. While there may be many arguments both pro and con to bring to bear, most commentators simply pick away at the same tired old cliches, rather than exploring the genre and trying to find something new to say. It is lazy and demeaning, and I hope that Bloomberg Business Week and Mr. Morgan hear the response (although I would be shocked if they took it seriously).
I’m with Hope Tarr - this is about women’s fiction, written by (and primarily, though by no means exclusively) for women. Well, Jane Austen is snickering now - and it only took 200+ years!
Thanks, Sarah - you always make the douchebags squirm!
Jess Granger said on 08.07.10 at 11:06 PM • [link]
I haven’t read the article yet, but just wanted to say, I love it when you do a rebuttal like this. I just laughed so hard. You guys are brilliant. And I am now tipsy.
Miranda said on 08.07.10 at 11:22 PM • [link]
Annie Modesitt
http://www.anniemodesitt.com/
Makes a fine knittied bodice.
And if I got around to making one, woe unto the hero who tried to rip it off!
costs92: Yeah, it would probably cost around 92 (if not more) to get enough yarn for a bodice.
Joanna S. said on 08.07.10 at 11:52 PM • [link]
Hmmm…Well, on the one hand, as a woman with a PhD in late medieval literature (with a particular emphasis in Chaucer), I suppose I would get literary street cred from this “author” because I deal almost exclusively with canonical literature. And, on the other, as an avid Romance reader (although of mostly historical, futuristic and paranormal as opposed to knitting, cozy, etc.), I suppose I am a failure to all of the hard work it took to rise above my disadvantaged Otherness (that is, womanhood), and so what I will say next will probably read to Mr. Morgan as “blah, blah, blaaaaahhh.”
Regardless, I am going to solider on by saying, do not EVER underestimate women and speak pejoratively about what we like to read. In medieval times, noble women and the clergy comprised the largest populations of literate citizens, and because noble men were often at war or overseeing huge estates, they saw reading as exclusively a domestic activity. Consequently, women often determined what authors wrote about because few men were literate. I’ll say it again, women determined what author’s wrote about because even medieval authors wanted to sell books, and they wisely knew that they had to appeal to either women or the Church in order to do so. Therefore, many canonical authors, such as Dante and Chaucer wrote exclusively in the vernacular (the language women would have been taught to read in), in forms like Arthurian Romance (because, even then, women wanted to read stories of love, conflict and happily-ever-after), and at the behest of female patrons, such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and Anne of Bohemia. And, often, it is not the male characters we remember, but the female ones - do perhaps Beatrice or the Wife of Bath ring any bells? In sum, women have had power over the subject matter and commerce of books since ancient times, and I guess we can learn from Mr. Morgan’s article that no matter how far we’ve come since medieval times, we still have a long way to go when it comes to gaining respect of any kind, much less for our literary tastes.
Lucy Woodhull said on 08.08.10 at 12:03 AM • [link]
Can we combine this asshat with the pooping HaBO and see how long it takes him to swallow a crochet hook and have it come out the other side?
MaryK said on 08.08.10 at 12:37 AM • [link]
On a side note, I listened to the recording of the WORD Brooklyn panel and really enjoyed it. The panelists all had very interesting things to say. It wasn’t as good as being there, of course, (someone would say something really cool and I’d be all “I should try her books, wait who was that?”) but it was nice to be able to “experience” an actual Romance event.
Leslee Borger said on 08.08.10 at 01:07 AM • [link]
I’m ONE of Debbie Macomber’s six agents. She’s been a friend and client for almost twenty years. I’ve worked with Harlequin books for almost 30 years.
Debbie writes from the heart—for the women who love her books and those who will still be discovering her in the next millennium. She’s the real deal. And all of those extras—the new yarn line, the knitting books and accessories. All of her profits from those items go to charity. To help children in need.
Does the mainstream media “get it?’ Not a hope. Does a business writer “get it?’ Don’t make me laugh.
You just can’t sweat the small stuff. These poor guys (and some really conflicted women) don’t like romance or women’s fiction. They never will and it irritates the hell out of them that the industry makes over a billion dollars a year. Even more around the world. And those big-time publishers actually have to play on our playground. Darn. Otherwise they’d go broke publishing “literary” books.
How could something they don’t understand be so successful? Well, doesn’t that just say it all?
M E 2 said on 08.08.10 at 01:12 AM • [link]
Wow! A TALE OF TWO CITIES is a romance?? Really???
spam-a-lot filter word : lower39
Betting the author of the Bloomberg article has an IQ lower than 39 :)
Kilian Metcalf said on 08.08.10 at 01:35 AM • [link]
@ M E 2
Well, there’s a lovely, vulnerable heroine, an intrepid hero, mortal danger, knitting, and a happy-ever-after ending. Yep, smells like romance to me. I guess that’s why TOTC is the only Dickens I’ve ever been able to enjoy. It even stands up to a reread, something I can’t say about any of the other Dickens I’ve forced myself to read. I keep thinking that there must be something there that I’m missing because he is so popular, but whatever it is, it isn’t there for me, except for this one book.
hear34: I hear that there are at least 34 people who like Dickens, but I don’t know any of them personally.
Michele H. said on 08.08.10 at 01:50 AM • [link]
While I am annoyed with Morgan’s lame, unimaginative slams on the romance genre and romance readers, I am more irritated with the article as a whole. Since when does drivel like this get to be called journalism? From what I remember from school, journalistic articles are supposed to be unbiased, “just the facts, ma’am” accounts of events or information. If you want to color your writing with opinions and fluff, write an op-ed piece.
THIS is what is wrong with mainstream media- rather than report the facts and let people make their own judgments about what it means, we get facts wrapped in crap that the author thinks is popular opinion in order to look good. It’s lazy journalism, and I have a hard time believing that this is what is being taught in journalism programs.
Flo said on 08.08.10 at 02:55 AM • [link]
If we actually played this drinking game… we would all be in the hospital due to alcohol poisoning.
I’ve come to the viable (in my mind) conclusion that people, no matter the sex, will take a shit on anything they see you enjoying that they don’t understand or enjoy themselves. Is this fair and logical? No. But it’s human. The best thing we can do is mockingly go buy our romance novels and completely ignore their feeble bleating. It’s all they really deserve.
*runs off to finish Loretta Chase’s “Last Night’s Scandal”*
Carrie Lofty said on 08.08.10 at 02:57 AM • [link]
I think this is the first SBTB post my husband has commented on. Men with brains = sexy. *proud*
Jess Granger said on 08.08.10 at 03:41 AM • [link]
I just wrote a rebuttal on my own blog. My thoughts can’t all fit here. I’m afraid they aren’t quite as witty as this rebuttal, but I put them out there anyway.
http://jessgranger.blogspot.com/2010/08/rebuttal.html
Another Sarah said on 08.08.10 at 03:46 AM • [link]
You know, I’ve read quite a few of these pieces that irritated the Bitchery, but never one that was just so…. dumb. What on earth was he doing? His job is to provide investors with useful information about potential trends (or so I would think). This was just figures and judgments. I object to the judgments being sexist, but most importantly, THEY WERE NOT ILLUMINATING. I would finish reading this and wonder what exactly I was to make of this, other than invest in HQN.
Andrew Shaffer said on 08.08.10 at 04:05 AM • [link]
He could have at least spelled Stephenie Meyer’s name correctly. That should have been easy. But no…
Andrew Shaffer said on 08.08.10 at 04:10 AM • [link]
Also, I didn’t think that the RWA conference was open to “fans,” as he suggests in the article?
Theresa said on 08.08.10 at 04:19 AM • [link]
I’m a little behind on my Business Weeks and read this earlier today while at the car wash a few days ago. It felt like the magazine ran short of articles and someone put this together in 15 minutes. Not only is it demeaning but it completely skips some major genres of romance. Um, where’‘s historical romance in there…. Very poor quality work and doesn’t shed any insights. I don’t understand what the point of the article was. Was it to talk about the influence of ebooks on publishing? No. What about how romance has grown during the recession? Not really - I think it mentioned this but in a ‘how could this happen way’. Just shoddy work overall.
Peach said on 08.08.10 at 04:31 AM • [link]
Kudos, Sarah!
JamiSings said on 08.08.10 at 04:46 AM • [link]
I have to say, this is why I sometimes have a hard time saying what I like. It’s hard enough to be a 33 year old who’s iPod contains people like Barry Manilow and Glenn Miller, loves Star Trek, and even reads comic books and plays Dungeons & Dragons - you throw the fact I also like to read romance novels into the mix and it’s like I’m just a giant bully magnet. (As if being fat wasn’t reason enough for people to make fun of me.)
I’d really, REALLY like to switch places with people like Spencer Morgan and let them see how it feels to have people judge and stereotype and bully them the way I and many others like me are.
Is it just human nature to want to hate? We keep making it wrong to hate certain groups and it seems like the hate, instead of going away, gets transfered to some other group instead.
Delphine Dryden said on 08.08.10 at 04:55 AM • [link]
I’d be immensely surprised if somebody, somewhere, hasn’t already written a novel that revolves around bridge. But as any good writer or interested reader knows, the subject matter - no matter how mundane - isn’t nearly as important as the quality of the writing. I suspect Mr. Morgan hasn’t read much in the genre, though, and he’s probably singularly unqualified to judge whether or not any of these books might actually be well written.
I think Mr. Morgan misses the greater point of these “mundane” topics by many, many miles. I could discourse here about a literary tradition that spans hundreds of years and whose enduring popularity is (I think) based largely on good, solid storytelling and a level of insight in character analysis that puts many a therapist to shame. But I won’t. Because despite my law degree, my graduate degree in educational psychology, and my successful career as a published novelist, I “only” write erotic romances. So Mr. Morgan would no doubt assume I’m simply too lust-addled for my opinion to count. Darn, I should’ve gone for that career in becoming a professor of Shakespearean literature…HE certainly never wrote about romance.
Melissa said on 08.08.10 at 05:10 AM • [link]
Perhaps Spence should hire himself a hooker to KNIT him a tiny pink sock for his lonely little…well, you know. I’m guessing he has a secret knitting fetish with as many times as he brought the topic up. His tirade has “I wish I were a sexy and interesting romance hero character getting lots of booty” written all over it. What an ass…
chandra said on 08.08.10 at 05:12 AM • [link]
I’m not sure why Bloomberg hired Spencer Morgan - he’s not a business writer by any stretch of the imagination. He’s best known for covering the New York party scene for The New York Observer, making him pretty much a shallower male version of Carrie Bradshaw. Carrie is even referenced in this article about him here: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/05/when_party_reporters_turn_30_t.html
He’s not exactly knows for his enlightened views on women, despite trying to walk in Carrie’s Manolos: http://www.mediaite.com/online/sexism-and-the-city-another-cringer-from-the-new-york-observer/
In fact, Morgan is best known for bitch-slapping in public another “man about town” writer Hudson Morgan (no relation) http://gawker.com/5003426/two-morgans-walk-into-a-bar -
- and for marrying the daughter of Anna Wintour’s boyiriend.
In other words, dude doesn’t know a single thing about business, book publishing, women or life outside of tragically hip Manhattan hotspots. His daily blog reading list bears that out: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/02/my-sites-man-ab.html
Perhaps Wintour has some embarrassing photos of Bloomberg and wanted to throw some work to her boyfriend’s daughter’s husband. Or Bloomberg BusinessWeek, leaving the serious business reporting to the Wall Street Journal and Fortune, decides what they really want to be is Gawker.
Anyway, thanks for the great smackdown.
Karla said on 08.08.10 at 02:53 PM • [link]
Nothing irritates me more than seeing the term “bodice ripper” slapped on anything that has romance in it. I love the old bodice rippers, where bodices really get ripped. Seeing it become a catch-all term used by ignant idjits like this assclown is one of my increasing pet peeves.
Kiersten said on 08.08.10 at 06:43 PM • [link]
@Carrie Lofty - you’ve got a gem there. Add brave to your list for wading in with the Bitchery. :-)
twatbaggery is my new go to word. Though perhaps not at church.
I wish I was more surprised by this type of attitude towards romance and those who read it. But I’m not. Because the ignorance, it is plentiful and petty and mean spirited. Which is why people like Sarah and groups like the Bitchery must do exactly what we are doing: call them out, line them up, and smack them the hell down with wit, wisdom, and inventive word choice. Way to go, Bitchery
(Also, @Joanna S: Phd in medieval literature? Way flippin’ cool)
password: trouble47 Hey Spencer (really?!)! Here comes it…
Kit said on 08.08.10 at 08:33 PM • [link]
@Nina:
Gorgeous knitted bodice pattern right here! http://knitty.com/ISSUEsummer04/PATTvicky.html . I love Knitty, and this is from their “Sex and the Knittty” issue (check out the other patterns - hee!).
And it goes without saying that Spenser Morgan is an idiot.
Liz said on 08.08.10 at 08:59 PM • [link]
it seems to me that whenever someone says or writes something that puts down anything someone else (or a group of someone elses) likes it is because they need to feel superior. When I first began reading historicals everyone i knew criticized me for reading something so tawdry (not that they could even spell the word), claiming that if i wanted to read something that took place in the past all i had to do was go over to the classics section. Even my mother, who had always been my romance reading companion, couldn’t believe that i would read a “bodice ripper”. After that, she wouldn’t share books with me because she thought that i wouldn’t be able to handle romances with more substance than lust, despite the fact that for years I had been reading the exact same books as her and that i had never had a problem understanding them. Now, whenever we’re together and someone asks me what I’m reading she gets this disgusted look on her face and tells them that they wouldn’t want to know. To this, I tell them that she is absolutely right because they wouldn’t want to know that I just finished a book on criminological theory—yet another thing upon which my mother look down because how could i possibly be interested in criminals. (btw, ever since my mother discovered my bodice ripper fetish, she has made a point of reading classics. Most recently, she read “Pride and Prejudice,” and I just laughed as she slogged through all the old British terms she had never heard of. My favorite was when she complained about how the only proper color for unmarried women was white, and I got to tell her that I already knew that because of all those fluffy “bodice rippers” that I read.)
Jez Morrow said on 08.09.10 at 12:43 AM • [link]
I don’t really need the respect of ignorant people, but it is fun to read the bitches calling a spade a shit scooper when they read one.
You want respect? Below is an excerpt of mainstream prose from I Curse the River of Time,” by Per Petterson. According to this morning’s Plain Dealer, this language is “vivid and lyrical” and “gorgeous.” Put down your knitting needles and take notes.
“She had traveled there in haste with my brother like a shimmering fish in her belly, and it bound them with an ease which did not embrace me. He had sunshine and pain in his body inside the foamy blue and glittering room where he was safe and so unwanted, like an outlaw, and the first thing he saw in his life was a sheepdog roaming the heath and gulls soaring above the port and the vault of blue sky above the island.”
SonomaLass said on 08.09.10 at 03:56 AM • [link]
I had to give up the drinking game; WAY too many sips! Thanks for making this painful piece more amusing, SB Sarah.
I read a knitting romance recently that was really sweet, How to Knit a Love Song: A Cypress Hollow Yarn by Rachael Herron. She has a very popular knitting blog called Yarn-A-Go-Go. I don’t knit or spin (although I do crochet), and I enjoyed the book anyway. Is anyone surprised that traditional women’s work, like women’s literature, is dismissed and de-valued? Less so by men who aren’t idiots, of course.
Mary Anne Graham said on 08.09.10 at 02:07 PM • [link]
I’m not surprised if Mr. Morgan couldn’t see beyond the surface. Unlike macho reads that Morgan is likely used too, with romance what you see isn’t all - or even most - of what you get. My hubby says all the time that men are literal creatures. I’m not giving Morgan’s idiocy a pass here, but my hubby (who blogs occasionally on my site) has actually used the term bodice ripper.
We had a whale of a row over it and to this day I don’t think he understands why I was upset. I also think that even some of the books of yesteryear that people think deserved the term really didn’t.
I think there is a vast difference between male power and female power. I think male power is more obvious but I think the subtle and lifechanging force of female power is much stronger and much more eduring.
I think Mr. Morgan is guilty of thinking that romance is more about the story than the relationship. Personally, I read romance more for the ripples than the waves. Undercurrents are much more interesting.
Keira Soleore said on 08.09.10 at 08:35 PM • [link]
What BusinessWeek should lament is the lack of journalistic standards of its publication. No matter the topic, poorly researched, written, and copyedited (see Stephenie Meyer’s name) articles reflect the poor state of affairs in their newsroom, not on a flourishing business that’s the romance publishing industry.
Paranormal romance was flourishing well before vampires were a twinkle in Meyer’s eyes. And Morgan’s PDF chart, that someone in the comments linked to, shows a miniscule range of the HUGE variety of sub-sub-sub genres and combinations thereof within the romance genre. HALF AN HOUR of chat with even one savvy reader would’ve given him a far better idea of the state of the industry that would’ve had him choosing far better quotes from his experts, such as Orr and Jaffee.
@chandra: I had to laugh at your detailed googling of Spencer Morgan’s sparse resume.
@CarrieLofty: Hats off to Keven.
Joanna S. said on 08.09.10 at 09:03 PM • [link]
@Kiersten - Thanks! *blushes* I appreciate your kind words.
Asperity said on 08.10.10 at 07:35 AM • [link]
@Melissa:
Oh, no. If you hire a hooker, you’d presumably be getting crocheted goods, not knit. :)
Trish said on 08.10.10 at 04:26 PM • [link]
Asshat reporter is too kind a term. Not too sharp, also an understatement.
As for me, I know how to spot a hot market in an crappy economic environment. As such, the answer to the esssay “how I spent my summer vacation”—after, I might add loosing my job like everyone else—is: writing a too hot to handle romance novel that I hope to sell profitably to Ellora’s Cave in September when I project it will be done. (Chapter 8/12 is nearing completion.)
So, to all you romance fans…I adore you. I adore this blog. And I hope to turn many of you into fans for whom I can sign books at next year’s RWA conference where I one day hope to win an award.
Mr. Idiot Reporter can put that in his jockey shorts and munch!
Brooks*belle said on 08.10.10 at 09:33 PM • [link]
I’ll volunteer to show him the difference between knitting and quilting.
I think I shall read Spencer’s article in it’s entirety. Just for fun. For added entertainment, I shall play twatwaddle roulette, and read the paragraphs in random order.
angryoldfatman said on 08.11.10 at 02:07 AM • [link]
Hello Bitches! Mary Anne’s “hubby” here, helping to translate my wife’s comment to any other hairy-knuckle-draggers who might happen to wander in by accident.
Yes we are! My self-chosen pseudonym is a wonderful example of that very fact.
Why is this, you vagina-endowed creatures may ask? Well, it all has to do with brainpower. Penis-owners have little of it, so we can’t keep track of all the layers of metaphor involved in telling another member of our species that we absolutely hate their guts and want them to die in a fire, but making it sound like we wish them nothing but joy and happiness.
Of course, we devote what little energy we have in that department to thinking and talking about our favorite appendage and where we may utilize it to its full potential, however small or large that may be. This is why Viagra exists but a pill that cures cancer doesn’t.
“whale of a row” = Wife throwing a childish pissy fit.
“upset” = How my wife feels towards me while telling me she’s not upset, then proceeds to tell her relatives, her coworkers, her pharmacist, innocent bystanders in line at the bank, and complete strangers on a blog with “Bitches” in the title that she was upset.
“I don’t think he understands” = Me not giving half a rat’s ass about my wife throwing a childish pissy fit.
Upset over insults to a literary genre = a desperate need to HTFU.
Male power = Work your whole life; strive to meet all the demands from every weeping pussy on the planet; fail; wearily accept the sweet embrace of death - have a hug!
Female power = Throw childish pissy fit in attempt to get sympathy from male; fail; repeat; cry at male’s funeral; get new male; throw more fits for sympathy; fail; die unsatisfied with men. Empowerment!
Maisey said on 08.11.10 at 05:27 AM • [link]
First of all…do the Amish wear bodices?? I just…I mean…I don’t know. Maybe they do.
It’s really too bad that such an ignorant article is given any credibility. What’s been selling more in the recession? Romances. Which means there’s something valuable for other industries to learn there. Learn? *gasp* no! Let’s snark instead…because where there’s success, there will always be jealousy. And the romance genre is just a *little* bit successful.
But we romance fans are secure enough in our love of Amish transgendered knitting romances to deal with this kind of crap.
Jamie said on 08.11.10 at 07:15 AM • [link]
Nah, Kim- he’s not reading Dickens- A Tale of Two Cities has KNITTING in it, don’tcha know? Clearly Dickens was a lame loser who spent all his time at home crying into his wool, not at all a famous and fun guy who was busy making ten kids with his wife and hanging out with the greatest minds of his age. After all, anyone who’s into handicrafts, or writes about them, is a hermit who can’t have a life!
/sarcasm off
Gah. This man would make me angry, but he’s really not worth spending the energy on. I have better things to do, like knit beautiful scarves for myself, and read my newly enriched collection of romances. (Ten for a dollar! Yes, library book sale! I love you so much I would allow you to rip my bodice.) As a sci-fi/fantasy fangirl since birth, a recent convert to the cult of anime, and a gamer girl, I am thoroughly used to boring assholes trashing the stuff that I adore. It’s the whole lame-ass “normal” dichotomy, where they comfort themselves about how “awesome” they are in comparison by assigning arbitrary respective values to other people’s activities. Ex:
Someone who spends 30 hours a week playing Warcraft: Lame loser who needs to take a shower and get a life!
Someone who spends 30 hours a week playing fantasy football: Fun-loving gentleman who pursues his passion and exercises his imagination while interacting with others on a global scale
Someone who spends $300 on a Klingon costume: Basement-dwelling mama’s boy who’s never had a date (CANNOT be female, as ovaries preclude you from liking sci-fi! Any woman claiming to like science fiction is lying.)
Someone who spends $300 on an “official” sports team jersey/memorabilia: Dedicated fan exercising his spare income in a way that allows him to show his devotion to something that brings him great joy
Man reading Fleming/Clancy/Dan-Brown-esque thriller: Hairy-chested specimen of awesomeness enjoying a well-deserved fun, literary escape from his difficult daily grind
Woman reading romance novel: Sad-sack old plain spinster cat lady who can’t get a real man but is too shy to buy porn
And so on and so forth. For fun, try pointing out these dichotomies to “normal” people such as the guy who wrote this article and ask for a reasonable explanation as to the double standard. Sit back and laugh as the “But it’s JUST DIFFERENT because it IS, that’s WHY!“s come rolling in.
(No, I haven’t been putting time and energy into this explanation for the past twelve years, ever since my first-grade classmates first mocked me for loving something as “stupid” as Star Trek. Why would you think that?)
Herself46: This girl has defended herself to way, way more than 46 pedestrian losers with nothing better to do than bug her about her interests.
MaryHS said on 09.25.10 at 11:16 PM • [link]
There is not only one knitting romance, there’s a series of them. A very successful series, and it even has a pattern in it.
http://www.amazon.com/Shop-Blossom-Street-Debbie-Macomber/dp/0778328821/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285448935&sr=1-1
A fun read, plus it actually encouraged me to give crochet a try since knitting always eluded me. And now I need to look for AUDIO books because my hands are occupied. LOL!
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments