Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

Sweet baby Jesus and his pet panda.  Have you read the excerpt?  I want to shoot that bastard “hero” right in the nuts!

The Sheikh’s chosen queen apparently has no lower legs.  SRSLY, look at that picture!

And yes, that other title is just wrong.

Oh, dude.  I just read the excerpt, too.  How’ pitiful is this woman?  Also, how dumb is the premise that throws them back together?  Answer: beyond my capacity to measure.  Let us simply say that the stupidity is immense.

The Sharif dont like it
Rock the casbah
Rock the casbah
The Sharif dont like it
Rock the casbah
Rock the casbah

The king called up his jet fighters
He said you better earn your pay
Drop your bombs between the Harlequin Presents
Down the casbah way

What the hell did that poor baby do that was so shameful??

The Guy on the Sheikh cover is so a white boy. And aren’t all babies innocent?

Spam -foreign47: There’s less an a 47% chance that model is foreign.

Teddypig, ILU.

That first book though…whut? Just…ugh.

That guy’s name is Teddy Pig?
That is exactly as over-the-top as these book titles.

I would be ashamed too if I were hanging out with somebody named Garth.

I’m particularly struck by how much that “sheik” looks like the high school basketball star that I had a crush on. You know, pale, muscular, crew cut?

I’m holding out for “The Sheikh’s Chosen Baby of Shame”.

The title alone is nauseating. Read the excerpt and you will throw up in your mouth.

They’re used the “baby of shame” title motiff several times… truly revolting.

Teddypig you’re so under the top.

Ugh. I threw up a little. Can I kick the so called hero in the nuts? That would really make my day.

Do you suppose that Melanie Millburne threw up a little in the back of her mouth when she got a gander at what the publicity gurus at HQP were titling her book??

Maybe the husband-of-shame gets a horrible comeuppance and must apologize on bended knee?  After which she runs off with a hot doctor, after denouncing him and his mistrustful ways? *is hopeful*

Shameful is the editor who either came up with this title or allowed it to stay.  Yikes!!!!!!

A baby is a wonderful, wonderful thing—sometimes scary and confusing, but ultimately wonderful.  I hate it when anyone, fictional or otherwise, condemns a pregnancy, no matter what the circumstances.

spam detector:  above 92—as in, that title was above 92% insulting

I just about to buy the Harlequin Blaze that Jayne really liked, but after seeing that Presents title up there, the thought of giving money to any division of Harlequin makes me ill.

Memo to Harlequin: STOP DOING THIS SHIT.

Last month, when my company was converting these little steaming piles into eBooks, I was hoping I’d see some righteous snarking go down here.

There are some real screamers coming up next month, but sadly I think I’m contractually prevented from sharing them.

*is hopeful*

Is naive.

the thought of giving money to any division of Harlequin makes me ill.

Chicklet, that’s how it strikes me too.  I’m all for including category romance in critical discourse, and I’m sure someone will (very reasonably) say “Don’t punish the author for the marketing”, but.  BUT.  Every time I see these titles, I’m less inclined to support the company.

I don’t see Harlequin changing their marketing any time soon.  These titles have been on the rise for a decade.  As I said a few weeks ago,

In Harlequin Presents titles from the 1980s and early ‘90s few heroines, and few actions, were “owned” by the hero, and titular “virgins” were fairly rare; Brittany’s Castle was as likely a title as Taggart’s Woman.)

So THAT’s is why HQ sales are down.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94300

I strongly suggest a number of hugely wanking letters directed to the HQ editorial department for putting the words “shame” and “baby” together in the same line.  (Keep in mind it might not have been the writer’s title.)

Let them know they are asshats and you’re not buying any book that indicates such a disgusting concept that a baby is a bad thing.

And tell them to stop recycling those old Harum-Scarum 1950’s movies for their “Presents” line.  They’re bloody insulting to women of the 21st century.

Sure, it’s fine to cultivate a safe read for great-grandmama, but the old girl’s not going to last forever.  Her daughters and their daughters are not interested in turning back the clock to the bad old days when an asshat hero was about the best that could be expected.

Now WHERE did I put my eye-bleach and spork….?

Here’s where to write if you don’t like something.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I suggest being polite, but firm.  Let them know how you feel, just no cussin’ and name-callin’.

Save the more entertaining wankage for here!

(omg—the word I have to put in is “blood64.”  HA!)

It’s not the baby part that bothers me the most.  If anything, surely it’s the mother who’s shamed in that title and blurb.  My outrage is stronger on behalf of the enormous number of “virgins” and “mistresses” than for this fictional baby.  But in all cases, what bothers me is the apparent yearning for the (elegantly fictionalized) bad old days when women were property, women and babies were to blame for everything, etc, etc, etc.

I do believe that what’s *between the covers* of category romances may subvert these awful messages in ways not apparent from the titles and blurbs.  But that doesn’t at all reduce the wrongheadedness of the titles.  It’s pretty difficult to claim that romance is a woman-oriented, woman-friendly genre when the most visible publisher puts out this kind of marketing—and people buy it, by the thousands.

I don’t care what it makes me, I still hope that the ‘innocent wife’ gets together with the guy she had an affair with, finalizes her divorce, and they make a nice, quiet life for themselves in a town where the gossips are few and far between, and he turns out to be an awesome dad.

If she hooks up with the guy who, in the preview, speaks to her like she’s a child, I’ll have to punch something.

I think I’ve just thought of the best romance title ever.

The Shiek’s Virgin Mistresses’ Shameful Pregnancy.

No?  Not doing it for you?

Hunh.

Honestly, what are these people thinking?  Reading the excerpt, all I could think is that this guy is such a jerk, no wonder she had an affair.  And why is an affair catagorized as a “final act of defiance,” isn’t the implication that as her husband, he’s been giving her orders, the further implication being that she was wrong to ever defy his orders in the first place?

That is so wrong.

Hmm . . . what about The Virgin Shiek’s Demanding Mistress?  The CEO’s Boardroom Boytoy?  The Mad Scientist’s Pregnant Husband?

I love you, Molly.

And I hate myself for being so addicted to Harlequin Presents.

*heads to Harlequin’s site, checks current Presents titles*

See, things could be a lot more interesting if just a few pronouns were switched.

The Mad Scientist’s Pregnant Husband

Taken By His Greek Boss

From Hubris to her Husband

At The Billionaire’s Bidding

In Bed With His Italian Boss

. . . why the hell are so many ‘Convenient’?  It’s basically making it clear that the hero has no standards beyond going for a hottie, and just opts for the girl who’s the least trouble for him.

After checking out the backlistings in an attempt to parody more, I want to hit things.  I’m starting to think that at least some of these authors write out all the standard title words on slips of paper, put ‘em in a goldfish bowl, and draw out 1-4 with each new book they start.  Using those, they form a plot.

I read the excerpt for the “Innocent wife” one, and blurk. It’s hideous! Check this bit out:

‘I know…’ she said, fighting back tears. ‘I’m so sorry…’

‘Do not waste your breath pretending you are sorry,’ he said. ‘I am not going to take you back and I am not going to give you the amount of money you are vying for.’

‘But I don’t want—’

‘Forget it, Keira,’ he said, cutting her off. ‘Right now, you and I need to discuss this situation between the boys like two rational adults, although, having said that, I am very much aware of your limitations in that area.’

‘You just can’t help yourself, can you?’ she asked bitterly. ‘You have to have a dig at me every chance you can.’

‘This is not the time to discuss my behaviour, Keira, or indeed even yours,’ he said with implacable force. ‘There is the very real danger of one or both of the boys being expelled during these last critical weeks of school. That is what we need to concentrate on at this point.’

Keira felt ashamed of her outburst; it seemed so petty when he put it like that.

He’s denied her right to speak and to correct his false impressions of her, he’s insulted her, and she’s “petty” and in the wrong here for trying to protest? What the fuck kind of lame message is this? It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Okay, some commentors here clearly are not reading enough Presents. Of course she didn’t REALLY have an affair! No, I haven’t read the book. But I know my Presents.

Danielle,

the passage you quoted was what stuck a fork in it for me.  Imagine me putting my hand on my hip and going, “Oh no he didn’t…”

No Presents for me.  EVAH.

My word: she72, as in “she must think this is 1872”

I think it was supposed to be Shameless Wife: Your Brother Fucks Better Than You Do.  But the verbiage would have detracted from the cover art.

I said to myself, “Self, could Harlequin come up with any worse titles than this one? Let’s see if we can brainstorm any for them!”

Her Vagina is His Property

Take Her—She’s Yours!

Barefoot and Pregnant

Solid-Gold Chastity Belt

The Greek Tycoon’s Secretary is Bent Over His Desk

He Sticks it in Her

She Had His Bastard

In conclusion: Harlequin, please to be joining us in the 21st century, kthxbai.

Spamblocker: times77, I AM NOT EVEN KIDDING. This thing is psychic.

Chicklet, you are funny.  But I think I may have already read some of those!

My word: child 11.  Or is that…child11OFSHAME?

I just about to buy the Harlequin Blaze that Jayne really liked, but after seeing that Presents title up there, the thought of giving money to any division of Harlequin makes me ill.

Oh, no!  Kathleen O’Reilly, who is as innocent as any Presents heroine, should not be made to suffer!  In fact, everyone should throw more money her way, just because what she does is great and hopefully if lots of people buy her, there would be more Harlequins like hers across the board.

All ya’ll:

After reading that excerpt about the Innocent Wife gestating the Baby of Shame, I realized that you could lift that entire excerpt out and place it in its entirety in a Harlequin Presents from the 1960s, 1970s 1980s or 1990s.

I really think that they are just recycling the text.

Do any of you remember reading those books? I remember a few of them and thinking, even at 12, that those women shure were dumb. And that the men were all mean and who would want to put up with that?

I just had a great vision of a world-wide Harlequin boycott.

That’s right! Women will not purchase Harlequins until their demands are met!

Sarah and Candy nailed the Romance-reader’s 95 Thesis to the doors of Harlequin’s corporate HQ.

Oh, what a vision!

I love Molly’s titles.

Actually, those would make GREAT subject lines when writing in about our continued displeasure that such books are even being published and revulsion in the subject matter, characterization, attitudes, well, everything about these books.

Rebecca (no idea how to do that quote thing) - I remember avidly reading them from throughout the teens.  It was a kind of horrified fascination, really.  I couldn’t figure out why the heroines were so completely clueless, despite the fact that they were sometimes twice my age.  It didn’t seem cute to me at all.  Especially funny was when the author would try to make out that the heroine was a bit young and wild - it was like my grandma’s idea of young and wild.  Eg ‘She stayed up late dancing to jazz on the gramophone!’  I’d imagine the authors as these stay-at-home, ageing housewives.  Yet still I read them.  It was an addiction.

I bought the Innocent Wife, Baby of Shame ebook a few days back (along with some other Harlequin ebooks) and hadn’t gotten around to reading it yet. So when I saw this post I decided to go ahead and read it tonight.

So far, 52 pages in… it sounds like the heroine was set up, feels horrible because she can’t remember the “affair” (Roofies?) and the hero is acting like an absolute asshole toward her yet he still desires her.

Mollyscribbles, I would totally read any book entitled “The Mad Scientist’s Pregnant Husband.” Seriously. So seriously I am tempted to remove all of the vowels but “y” from “seriously” in an attempt to convey my seriousness.* Partially because a title like that would grab my attention in its entirety, but also because in the entirety of my nerdy existance I have only ever seen ONE female mad scientist (...that I remember…), and one just ISN’T ENOUGH.

*With apologies to my friend Karen, who coined this phrase. Sorry for yoinking it, ol’ buddy, but it was totally applicable here.

Gee, didn’t everyone get all out of shape when whatserface - Julie Bindel? - made essentialy those same points about Mills & Boon aka Harlequin Presents? What happened to letting people read what they enjoy?

There’s a reason I don’t read series romance.  Can we get a group discount on brain bleach?

Crap, finished the survey and forgot to whine about these awful book titles.  Probably because I refuse to read them.

Was that excerpt actually supposed to sell the book?  she’s a twit & he’s an ass…ick.  I’m appalled (and embarrassed) Harlequin has any regular readers.

and titular “virgins” were fairly rare

Is it just me, or is “titular virgin” totally fucking hilarious?  Makes me picture a chick who goes for titty-fucks to preserve the ever-important cherry.  After all, it’s so much easier than the chocolate highway.

And Chicklet, I’ll have you know that you owe me some Vicodin.  A week ago I had a ruptured ovarian cyst and I’m supposed to be taking it easy.  After reading your titles?  I was HOWLING, but not all the tears were from laughter… ow!!!  Yet knowing it’s gonna hurt, I still can’t stay away from my beloved Bitches…

Was that excerpt actually supposed to sell the book?  she’s a twit & he’s an ass…ick.  I’m appalled (and embarrassed) Harlequin has any regular readers.

Because, of course, all Harlequins are alike.  Right?

Well, they’re not.  But the marketing does its best to make them appear identical—and identical at a lowest-common-denominator level.

I somewhat agree that it’s a shame Harlequin has any readers, but that’s because Hqn needs to get the message about this marketing, not because All Teh Books Is Formulaic Porn And I’m The One To Judge Anyone Who Reads ‘Em.

Gee, didn’t everyone get all out of shape when whatserface - Julie Bindel? - made essentialy those same points about Mills & Boon aka Harlequin Presents? What happened to letting people read what they enjoy?

Outrage is so much more fun.

Is it just me, or is “titular virgin” totally fucking hilarious?

I meant it to be.  Though I didn’t intend “hilarious”, precisely.  More like “amused in a sour, jabbing sort of way”.

Sarah, I agree with you. Baby Of Shame crosses my line, too. I have to wonder at the individual who came up with the title.

In Candy’s post today, and in comments, covers are discussed as being the same, and narrowing the viewpoint, at least for those who don’t read (or don’t think they read) Romance.

I don’t agree with that. But I’d say that the titles in category, the tone of them narrow it for category.

I didn’t have to deal with this when I was writing in category. Those who do have my sympathy.

how much am I willing to overlook? I will blink past Fabio-laden covers, long haired men with their shirts tucked into their pants, corny or silly titles like “What an Earl Wants” and head right for the first chapter. I’m immune to it to some degree.

But I and my post-partum hormones draw the line at ‘Baby of Shame.’

It pushes my buttons too, but it also makes me sad if the outrage is stronger when it’s the occasional baby and mother that are shamed than when it’s countless virgins, mistresses, and women of all stripes being “owned” by these billionaires, etc.  Are we so inured to women being shat on that it takes a “Baby of Shame” to upset us?

I think the line should have been drawn about 10 years and a jillion titles ago.  The umpteen “Mistress” titles are just as bad as “Baby of Shame”, and the fact that they’re tolerated—even enjoyed—says a lot.

For me, Baby is a baby. Completely innocent, defenseless, blameless. When titles start talking about babies of shame, it just crosses all lines.

Mistresses, etc—adults, and can make choices.

I’m not wild about those titles either, but I can mostly shrug them off—or snicker at them.

This one doesn’t get a snicker out of me.

How about Innocent Baby, Publisher of Shame?  (OK, I’m never going to be published by HQ now.)

You all are too funny.  I should be working right now and instead I’m reaching for the Kleenex to wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes after reading most of the comments here.  Unfortunately, now I have to get back to work.  Which is much less fun.

Spam blocker: state72 - I state 72 times that was the worst title ever.

I’ve actually enjoyed a few Nocturnes, because I’m a fan of paranormal romance.  But I’m not about to subscribe, or buy everything they put out—I read the blurb, flip through it, and decide for myself if it’s worth picking up.  More often than not, I leave it on the shelf.

I think Harlequin should increase its standards, put out books that come across as less formulaic (because while the content might not follow a specific format, the titles clearly do).  Help fight the image of romances as being mindless reads.  Sure, I know some enjoy mindless entertainment, allowing their brain to relax, but I don’t think Harlequin needs to put out quite so many titles aimed at this market . . .

Are we so inured to women being shat on that it takes a “Baby of Shame” to upset us?

Quite.

An old fashioned attitude to illegitamacy shouldn’t be that surprising considering how every month a woman is owned, coerced, forced, punished, exploited etc etc. (In fact, I find titles like ‘Forced into the Italian’s Bed” far more offensive than a baby of shame.)

Perhaps it’s a mother thing(?)

I don’t have children, but as a woman I’m routinely frustrated by the titles Harlequin churns out. I would go so far as to say that they are repugnant and sexist and insulting.

See, this is why I have only recently read a few category romances ( and then only the ones who’s author I know already from other books)

Even in my teens,( when we are *supposed* to be young and ignorant) those book titles just made me cringe or shake my head. Not that that’s exclusive to HQ, but it seems that they ( and the other catagory publishers) have the market cornered on them.

They certainly can not be helping the Romance gendre get the respect that they truly deserve. JMHO- I think they are a definate part of why people still think Romance novels are crap/silly/etc. 

And the “baby of shame” title? Wrong.Wrong.WRONG!

And Chicklet, I’ll have you know that you owe me some Vicodin.

Sorry about that, Amelia! I don’t have a prescription, so I’ll have to score some vikes on the street for you, but rest assured, they’re on their way. *g*

I’m not sure what depresses me more: That Harlequin keeps using titles like this, or that women keep buying them.

Sigh. I need a fifty-gallon drum of chocolate mousse.

Please, please, let the daddy’s name be Shame.  I suppose that would be just too convenient.

Please, please, let the daddy’s name be Shame.  I suppose that would be just too convenient.

Well, if The Bold and the Beautiful can have characters named Ridge and Thorne…. ;)

I finished reading IW, BoS… and I’m re-naming it Hypocrite Husband, Innocent Wife. I won’t spoil the ending but out of the HQP ebooks I’ve bought so far? It was the worst!

Mistresses, etc—adults, and can make choices.

In real life, I agree there are different thresholds of concern for adults and children.

But these titles aren’t about women having choices.  The term “mistress” needs to go away because it’s all about women NOT having equal choice in their relationships.  And titles like these are explicitly about taking women’s choices away:

The Italian’s Forced Bride
The Forced Bride
Blackmailed into the Italian’s Bed

Everything about these titles crosses the line for me!!! Did anyone catch the OTHER wretcheliscious titles???
The Billionare’s pregnant mistress (wtf?)
Bought for the Frenchman’s Pleasure (????????????)
Virgin; Wedded at the Italian’s Convienence. Winning the award for not only the most obnoxious title possible, but also the most long winded.
This is so awful it cannot be real….yet…there it is.