I got my most recent RWR in the mail the other day, and since my entire job as a giant pregnant lady is to relax, gain weight, and sit around waiting, I read it cover to cover. Usually I skim it, check out the contest winners, look at the articles and who wrote them, and read a piece here or there. But hey, I sit down now, and I don’t move voluntarily for at least an hour, so bring on the reading material.
And hello, page 4’s Letters to the Editor! I laughed out loud. Did anyone else notice this one?
Madeline Baker, she doesn’t like the cussing:
I continue to be shocked by the language in some romance novels I’m reading. It’s unfortunate that more and more authors feel the need to use the “F word” in their books, but even worse, the word “Motherf…” has cropped up in two of my recent reads. It’s bad enough when language like this is uttered by the villain, but when it comes out of the mouth of the heroine… well, I’m just plain stunned. Surely it’s possible to write a gutsy heroine without having her talk like a gang member.
Here are a few choices of response that pop to mind:
1. Bitch, please.
2. Racist and classist undertones aside, I’m as offended by books titled Cheyenne Surrender as you are by the word “fuck.”
3. Fuck that!
4. Gang members? Only gang members say “fuck?” Seriously?
Perhaps the problem is the reading material she’s choosing, which she addresses in her letter:
Lately I’ve read several books that have ‘paranormal romance’ on the spine. In my opinion, a good number of them haven’t been romances at all, and that includes the one I threw across the room just last night….
Demons and vampires and werewolves, especially the ones that want to kill you, will totally stop if you speak nicely and say, “Please.”
I doubt if it will ever happen, but I’d like to see some kind of rating on books so that I’ll know what I’m getting before it’s too late.
Now that there, THAT is an IDEA. Why did we think of that?! We here at the Smart Bitch HQ, we got us some Photoshop. There need to be warnings on books!
Our advisories, let us show you them:
You can Has more!
How many readers, do you think, actually DO skim most of the books they buy?
Would you believe I have started to recently. I used to not do this but I ran into some really bad editing lately.
Sarah, I think that’s all I was arguing, that a word can be unacceptable.
Wouldn’t be in favour of warning labels on books.
Sorry Qadesh, I’m going to quote you at length.
“3. Like Estelle Chauvelin, I had a mother who never, ever censored my reading habits. Mom is a reader and she was bound and determined I would be one too, and I am. Thanks, Mom. So when through my library hauntings I came home with William Peter Blatty’s The Exorcist when I was 12, she didn’t say a word. My college-age brother was horrified that I was sitting around the pool during summer break, reading THAT book. He asked our mother if she had any idea what was in that book? She calmly told him, yes, and to mind his own business. She went on to tell him, I was reading and that was all that mattered to her. I love my mother anyway, but I seriously love her for that one. I think a lot of adults assume kids can’t handle adult concepts. If they can’t handle them, the subject matter won’t interest them. As for the sex scenes? They will read them and move on, it isn’t as big a damn deal as people make out.”
I know you’re not the only person to make this argument in the thread, but I hate the form of this argument.
I did X.
It did me no harm.
Therefore, no person can come to harm by doing X.
I know you’re not the only person to make this argument in the thread, but I hate the form of this argument.
I did X.
It did me no harm.
Therefore, no person can come to harm by doing X.
Why? Because she talks from having personal experiences to draw from to explain her POV?
I mean to mean the POV then is pretty clearly defined…
I did not wear a helmet growing up when riding a bike.
I did not die from it.
I figure most other people riding a bike without a helmet did not die from it either.
I am sure there are exceptions and people have died but I still do not use a helmet. Nor do I think there needs to be safety laws because frankly stupid people can die from doing just about anything.
Actually most reading people—including my beloved 12th Grade English teacher—have similar stories about reading books that might be deemed inappropriate at early ages without harm. Hers was that she could hardly wait for her mother to make the once a week trip to the grocery store because then she could get out her mother’s copy of Forever Amber and continue reading.
Mine involved never having my reading censored by my mother. I was introduced to both William Goldman’s Boys and Girls Together (which is guaranteed to cause some questioning about relationships) and Angelique by Sergeanne Golon at a very early age when my cousin going off to Viet Nam left a box of paperbacks at our house.
My side effect of this? I love long complex historicals.
Oops, and I was spanked also as a child and turned out not to be a serious social liability.
I am blind, so, what, I have to be sheltered from reading something naughty? Oh, please.
Ah yes, the world where disabled people are all really innocent little stupid children, not fully adult humans, and must be protected from thinking for themselves.
Actually most reading people—including my beloved 12th Grade English teacher—have similar stories about reading books that might be deemed inappropriate at early ages without harm. Hers was that she could hardly wait for her mother to make the once a week trip to the grocery store because then she could get out her mother’s copy of Forever Amber and continue reading.
My mother and her friends kept Forever Amber at school, since most of them didn’t have families that were very understanding of reading. First the minister’s daughter got the book, then the RCMP commander’s daughter (there was a real hierarchy among the girls), then the principal’s daughter, and so on and so on. By the end of the year they’d all read it. And oh, the indiscretions they read about!
I did not wear a helmet growing up when riding a bike.
I did not die from it.
I figure most other people riding a bike without a helmet did not die from it either.
The idea that somehow modern safety rules are stupid because “we survived without them” ignores the fact that tens of thousands didn’t survive. They’re just not here to argue the point. And they weren’t stupid for the most part either, although the drivers of the cars and trucks that hit them sometimes were.
One other thing I would like to throw into this discussion—mysteries. Mysteries come in all flavors from hardboiled detective to fluffy cozies to graphic serial killer. And I think I hardly ever hear someone who reads mysteries regularly complain that they bought a mystery and found it objectionable—oh, maybe someone decrying the desensitizing result of graphic violence in general but not in the specific.
Are mystery readers better educated in reading cues from covers and excerpts?
Are mystery publishers better at labeling without explicit labeling?
And I rather thought this worked with romance novels. Is it possible that romance readers are so much less flexible than mystery readers that it takes less dissonance within the book to make them upset? I would hope not but this might be true considering some of the lists of things not acceptable in romance novels I have seen stated by various people.
Also I’m really curious about the possible bleed over from slash fanfic to the romance genre. Slash was once a hidden part of fanfic now it’s all over the place but why the popularity of m/m among women? My earlier thoughts based on reading m/m books by earlier female writers—Mary Renault and MZB—now seem very naieve.
What if the heroine has turrets?
If she looks like a castle, she’s got bigger problems than her language use. Hope the hero can get that pesky drawbridge down!
Like a lot of other people here, I started reading romance when I was pretty young. I remember being 11 or 12 and reading something by Johanna Lindsey—can’t remember what, but I think it involved a Viking and a girl being held captive on a ship—and having to drop it between my bed and the wall when my mom walked into the room.
She caught me, of course, and hoo boy, did I get in TROUBLE for reading that deviant filth. Like there was something wrong with me for being curious about sex.
And let’s not even talk about the cringeworthy erotica I began *writing* after a couple of years. Let’s hope Mom never found any of that.
Romance suffers from enough stigma as it is, labeled “bodice rippers,” always censured. Starting to label for extreme language or content just feeds that stereotype that there’s “evil inside.” And the criticism coming from *within* the ranks doesn’t help at all. It goes back to the perpetual discussion of what constitutes romance! Is it inspies? Historicals? Paranormals don’t count? Contemporaries can only include Secret Babies? The heroine has to be TSTL and say “goodness gracious me” all the time or it’s not romance?
Slippery slope, dudes. Slippery slope.
My Mom used to take me to the library so she could check out Jackie Collins novels for me. They never really censored R rated films for me, either—I was allowed to watch pretty much anything (there were exceptions, of course, but mild nudity and sexual content were okay with them. “Night Shift” was acceptable—“Body Heat” and “American Gigolo” were not).
Of course, now I are a secks writer.
I do see Lady Pyeton’s point. There’s nothing wrong with the idea of being informed as to what content exactly is in books. No, it’s not our job to police our work so the more sensitive readers are protected, but there’s also nothing wrong with giving those who are uncomfortable with sch things a way to know what’s in a book. Personally I think if the “problem” is so “severe”, a cursory flip-through of the book should be enough. But I don’t think LP is arguing for censorship, only that readers be more informed. I’ve read a few books that didn’t seem at all what was promised on the cover (granted, these were books with sexy covers but no real sex, which pisses me OFF.)
But maybe instead of writing letters to the RWA, Ms. Baker should set up a website that lists this stuff, as a resource for people like herself?
Maybe that’s a terrible idea…but I think it’s better than putting label stickers on books, or complaining fruitlessly that adult language is used in books for adults who are presumed to be old enough not to faint at the sight of them.
Robin: I wonder, sometimes, how my book buying habits would change if I didn’t have the disposable income I do to spend on my reading addition. Right now I don’t really care if I dislike a book or not. But if I was really limited in terms of my funds, how much would I rely on the marketing of books, and how reliable would that be.
In my experience, income makes zero difference. I’ve read romances when I had no money, and when I had plenty. I’ve always read library books too, rich or poor. The care I take in selecting a book is always the same whether I’m buying or borrowing it, because reading is about my time and enjoyment, not about bang for buck.
If she looks like a castle, she’s got bigger problems than her language use. Hope the hero can get that pesky drawbridge down!>
Hahahaha. Okay, nice *snort* moment. Thanks!
Robin: this goes back to the point about the stigmatizing effect of labeling, rather than some differentiation between an adult and child sensibility.
Those are two different arguments, and which one is in play depends on framing. The original post was about someone asking to be protected from poor reading choices; that unavoidably invokes the debate about reader responsibility.
Maybe childrens books or young adult books should be censored and rated but not books aimed at adult consumers.
No one else commented on this, and I have to say I found it very, very disturbing.
Obviously, a picture book written for a six-year-old shouldn’t contain graphic rape scenes or colorful illustrations of “FUCK.” But who determines what is “safe” content for a children’s book? King & King, which is a thoroughly delightful picture book about a prince who falls in love with another prince is about the most harmless, charming book imaginable.
And people rage against it.
You get into young adult fiction, and the lines get really, really blurry. The realities of most teenagers are not the realities their parents would like them to have. How many of us remember the kid who was killed in a drunk driving accident in high school, or the girl who was raped, or whatever? And those are just the big dramatic things. What about the kids who were struggling with their sexuality? Should books be labelled for that, thus reinforcing the idea that there’s something “wrong” with being gay or bi or trans or whatever?
Maureen Johnson, author of a number of young adult novels, has been struggling with an attempt to ban one of her books in a city in Oklahoma. What’s finally been decided is that her book, The Bermudez Triangle, will be placed on a “restricted” shelf in the high school library, and kids will need parental permission to read it.
Why? The Bermudez Triangle is about three friends, two of whom have a clandestine and mostly innocent affair with each other. All three friends are girls. There’s no sex in the book, though there’s certainly plenty of implied sexuality, as the characters are all about 17. And this is “restricted.” This must be warned for.
Meanwhile, I’m sure Flowers in the Attic (incest! and incestuous rape, at that!) is probably still on the regular shelves…where it and The Bermudez Triangle belong.
That was beautiful. I needed that laugh. Can you make those as stickers so I can put them on my own book? I think that they’ll do a fantastic job of covering the mullets and oily abs.
Teddy Pig,
“Why? Because she talks from having personal experiences to draw from to explain her POV?”
No, that’s not it. Nothing to do with Qadesh either – just the form of the argument.
Even if the conclusion is true:
I have always breathed,
It never hurt me,
Therefore breathing doesn’t hurt anyone.
It’s just an invalid argument.
Pet peeve, I suppose.
Snarkhunter, I found your comments about the book in Oklahoma most interesting. Being a native Okie myself and having graduated from an Oklahoma HS, I can tell you that last I checked “Flowers in the Attic” was on the bookshelves for any and all to check out.
I won’t comment on the other, many insightful and well written posts here. I think my opinion has been better represented than I could myself do. However, I want to speak to this idea of rating or labeling children’s and young adult books.
I’m not really in favor of warning labels on these books—or on any others. I think that publishers generally self select, and that by the very nature of a book being shelved in a particular genre, one has some earmarks of what to expect. Does that mean everyone is going to be comfortable with every book on those shelves? No, it doesn’t.
I have known people who would not let their children/teenagers read “Dandelion Wine” and other parents who raved about it. My feeling is that ulitmately a parent does decide for their child/teenager what they should read—well to a certain extent.
A little while ago, the SmartBitchery really helped me out with some fantastic recommendations for my teenage sister. I was so touched and excited. So many books to choose from! And even though I thought they were all great recommendations, I went ahead and read everything first before I sent it to my sister. Afterall, it was my job to make sure it was all kosher and that if my step mother asked me why I sent particular works, I could answer that question. If those books had had warning labels, regardless of the content, I might not have been able to send them to my sister. And even if I have vetted those books, my step mom still gets the final veto right? No warning labels necessary, no permissions slips needed, all that’s required is the time to check and make a personal choice. Frankly, I don’t want that choice taken away from me.
I feel like a dope, but I can’t figure out what TSTL stands for. Too Stupid To Live?
The idea that somehow modern safety rules are stupid because “we survived
without them” ignores the fact that tens of thousands didn’t survive.
They’re just not here to argue the point. And they weren’t stupid for the
most part either, although the drivers of the cars and trucks that hit them
sometimes were.
Yeah, they probably will want you to wear a helmet just to walk across the street soon. With that type of cause and effect logic.
TSTL=Too Stupid To Live
HEA=Happily Ever After
HTML tags for italics are
< i >
quote snippet
< / i >
only take out the spaces around the i and /. Obvs, I couldn’t do that or it would have appeared in italic. Bold is b’s instead of i’s. Enjoy your l337 h4x0r skillz, ladies!
(1603; A man and woman are standing outside the Globe Theatre in London, reading the playbill.)
Man: Hmmmm, “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Rated R, for graphic violence, sexual innuendo, and adult themes including adultery and incest.â€
Woman: And look there, “NO HEA.â€
Man (disgusted): And I hear a Norwegian winds up with everything in the end, what a load of rubbish! Let’s go, then, we’re not paying tuppence to see smut like this, Meg! I think Mr. Johnson’s ‘Sejanus’ is playing a couple blocks over.
OMG!!! The Smart Bitch Advisory should be on those t-shirts you were thinking of creating.
LUV LUV LUV it!!
spam check charge59, well I hope they are a little more reasonably priced.
YES.
YESS YESSS…pant, pant.
might want to have a warning for horrifying euphemisms.
The last one is best of all in so many ways, esp. page numbers, dudes.
The original post was about someone asking to be protected from poor reading choices; that unavoidably invokes the debate about reader responsibility.
Maybe you’ve seen the whole letter beyond the excerpts posted here, but where is the obvious “protection” argument in it? I obviously don’t agree with any of Baker’s assertions and found the “gang member” reference troubling, but I’m still trying to discern how the leap to “these readers want to be protected like children” is so easily concluded. And why the question of reader responsibility gets immediately couched in this parent/child language. It just so rubs me the wrong way, because of IMO the nature of the judgment. Why, for example, don’t we say, “well, it’s your responsibility as a consumer to vet the books you buy”? Why aren’t we talking about various publisher responsibilities in these adult/child terms?
I get super frustrated with Romance when, for example, I perceive that the heroine has to “earn” love in some way through good works or virtue. Pisses me off. Offends me deeply. Many times I’ve said to myself, ‘well, I could have done without that.’ Now, I’m not asking for labels, and maybe that’s the crucial difference. But if that’s it, then I think why the ‘grow up’ sentiment really grates on me is I hear it SO OFTEN from those who want to justify harassing or offensive behavior on the grounds that “we’ve gone crazy with the political correctness and everyone needs to loosen up.” It feels like a similar judgment to me if you mute the different contexts. So to me, it’s not only the weakest rebuttal to the label proposal, but it’s also, IMO, not logically sound.
I was watching a gazillion trailers before The Bourne Ultimatum last week, and it struck me how clearly they are sorting mechanisms for movie viewers. We don’t accuse them of acting to protect viewers, but really, they are a form of labeling for films, much more specific, for example, than the general ratings.
And then I was thinking about the EC and Samhain ratings. If they’re just there because readers can’t skim the ebook, why have them on the print copies, and why aren’t readers protesting? And do readers who rely in ANY way on those ratings, even at the epub site, see themselves as being “protected” from things, or do they see the ratings as more information about the book? In other words, regardless of whether those ratings exist in place of the ability to skim, are they perceived as paternalistic mechanisms, and do readers feel stigmatized in using them? And if not, why not—because I don’t understand how relying on that kind of labeling is magically transformed out of paternalistic territory simply because one cannot skim the ebook.
In other words, regardless of whether those ratings exist in place of the ability to skim, are they perceived as paternalistic mechanisms, and do readers feel stigmatized in using them? And if not, why not—because I don’t understand how relying on that kind of labeling is magically transformed out of paternalistic territory simply because one cannot skim the ebook.
Comparing labels on erotica and romance isn’t apples to apples. Romance isn’t erotica even though it has sex. By definition and shelving location, it’s not hardcore enough to be restricted adult material.
The thing is that erotica is what it is—explicit and for the sole purpose of being about sex. If there’s one thing the internet has taught us, it’s that the world of sex is way weirder than you would have ever thought. So noting that there’s BDSM or werewolf sex isn’t paternalistic but more of a useful categorization system.
Labeling fiction is paternalistic because it’s a different animal. Adult material is adult, which is all the stigma it needs. Any labeling of contents beyond that seem more helpful than hindering.
Comparing labels on erotica and romance isn’t apples to apples. Romance isn’t erotica even though it has sex. By definition and shelving location, it’s not hardcore enough to be restricted adult material.
But it’s not just the straight erotica at EC that’s labeled; it’s the Romantic Suspense, too, for example (i.e. the Romance books offered there, as well). They, at least, think they’re selling Romance, albeit erotic Romance. And some of the labels pertain to violence, as well, not just to sexual aspects of the storyline.
Robin, I don’t think I get where you’re coming from here, so I may not be addressing your points at all. Here’s a stab.
I think why the ‘grow up’ sentiment really grates on me is I hear it SO OFTEN from those who want to justify harassing or offensive behavior on the grounds that “we’ve gone crazy with the political correctness and everyone needs to loosen up.†It feels like a similar judgment to me if you mute the different contexts. So to me, it’s not only the weakest rebuttal to the label proposal, but it’s also, IMO, not logically sound.
I agree the paternalism language/attitude is unhelpful. That’s not the same as the whole “reader responsibility” argument being illogical or inapt.
I also don’t think it’s the same argument as the “Grow up and get over PCness” idea. The commonality is sensitivity toward language. But there’s a big difference between the two. “Harassing or offensive behavior” is something done to people. With language in a novel, you can research it ahead of time and make an educated guess as to whether you’ll find it offensive. Being offended in the sense of political incorrectness is generally an involuntary exposure, not something one could have prevented with a little research (or without cutting oneself off from significant parts of life, like work and school). Political correctness (when it’s not being abused) is about civilizing discourse to not create a hostile environment between people. Regardless of whether it does good in everyday life, it’s not necessarily the goal in writing or reading fiction.
Why, for example, don’t we say, “well, it’s your responsibility as a consumer to vet the books you buy�
We have said that. I thought that was the majority terminology in these comments, actually—not the “grow up” language.
snarkhunter:
great comments, all your points emphasize my ” maybe”! and also highlight the fact that ratings do lead to censorship.
If a heroine has turrets, she’s obviously…
A BRICK HOUSE. (Oh, and now I’m chair dancing!)
That’s not the same as the whole “reader responsibility†argument being illogical or inapt.
I agree, as long as we’re divorcing the notion of responsibility from the adult/child analogy. I personally believe that a reader who has specific objections or sensitivities has a higher responsibility to screen books than a reader who doesn’t. In the same way that a diner who has food allergies has the burden to ask whether the offending ingredients are in restaurant food, for example. What I object to is the belittling of those sensitivities, which is why I used the PC analogy.
The commonality is sensitivity toward language.
And also, IMO, the belittling of the sensitivity. I think we could actually break down the whole voluntariness thing with a little prodding, but that’s somewhat of a tangent. Rather, what comes across most strongly to me is that when someone is accused of being the PC-police or “too sensitive” in the presence, for example, of a joke that one perceives to be racist or sexist, that the condescension both censures and informally censors (the implication being ‘grow up and shut up’). Of course we find that condescension appalling in, say, work harassment situations, but IMO it’s quite common in these kinds of discussions. To me, though, in making the argument that labeling is itself a form of censorship, telling someone else to grow up doesn’t exactly encourage free expression of a dissenting view.
That’s what’s really bothersome to me, I think—that the whole notion of what responsibility a reader has in the purchase and reading of books is being entwined with notions of somehow being grown up enough to “handle” certain things. When to me it has much more to do with the incredible importance of literary and artistic expression, and the extent to which ensuring its continuation outweighs the discomfort of individual readers with individual books or groups of books. To me, that’s where the real action is here, and IMO it can accommodate a fair amount of respect for readers who aren’t comfortable with some of what they buy and read, especially those readers who aren’t on the Internet like we are, talking about all these books. That’s not to say there aren’t other issues, or that it’s unreasonable to discuss the infantalizing effect of certain types of labeling, but I think it’s different to view labeling as infantalizing, for example, and calling someone childish, if that makes sense.
I thought that was the majority terminology in these comments, actually—not the “grow up†language.
The overall tone of the thread honestly hasn’t read that way to me. Not that people aren’t making those points—just that the “adult” reference seems to be coming up pretty consistently. I do have to say that my perspective is informed by a few conversations with readers who suffer from clinical depression and really do have to take care in choosing what they read. So Madeline Baker’s call is much less persuasive than those POV’s, but I fear we dismiss all readers with certain sensitivities in the ‘grow up’ language. Also, I don’t know if you were online when Lisa Valdez’s Passion was released, but there were a number of discussions on AAR in which readers who had various objections to some of the sex scenes were basically called prudes—IIRC, by the author as well as other readers. And it was especially fascinating because many of the objections were articulated around issues of believability or purple prose or the physical comfort of the heroine in the presence of the hero’s gargantuan “manroot” (wasn’t that the word Teddy Pig wanted disseminated more? That one’s for you, TP). But knees were jerking all over the place in some of those discussions. And as much as I understand that reflex (danger: censorship), I’m not actually sure it helps in promoting the freedom of expression that’s supposedly being defended.
I think this is an excellent question, DS, and one I’ve wondered about vis-a-vis this discussion. Because I haven’t heard about readers in other genres (mystery, SF/F, thriller, literary fiction) asking for content labels. It seems to me that a portion of the romance audience has a laundry list of elements they want and don’t want in the books they read, whereas my criteria for any book (not just romance) is more like “I don’t want the hero and heroine to be TSTL, and I want the spelling and punctuation to be correct.” Maybe I’m just a bookslut.
Obviously, I can’t speak for every reader of m/m slash fanfiction or gay romance, or every female viewer of gay porn. [/disclaimer]
For one thing, depictions of gay sex are one of the few things that feels at all transgressive to me, in part because it remains relatively rare in mainstream texts (films, television, and movies). Also, there are *two* hot men instead of just one.
(As an aside, I know quite a few women who prefer to watch gay porn over straight porn because have you seen some of the men in straight porn? The men in gay porn are much more likely to be attractive across the board, and the studios are very specific in the types they cast, so you can find videos starring whichever body type or look turns you on.)
Slash fanfiction also has an element of rebellion to it, in that we (writers and readers) are interpreting the text in a way the producers didn’t intend; it feels like getting one over on The Man. *g*
Also, fanfiction, but especially m/m slash, often feels like romance novels and uses many of the same tropes. In fact, one of the most successful challenges in the Stargate Atlantis fandom was a “Harlequin/Mills and Boon” challenge, in which the stories used storylines that often appear in romances, like “Oh noes! We must enter into a marriage of convenience!” There were about 50 stories posted in the two weeks the challenge community accepted them.
Which brings me to another attractive element of fanfiction: It’s free. It doesn’t cost anything to consume, because writers do it because they enjoy writing. In fact, the entire fandom community is one big gift-giving party, because *everyone* does what they do because they like to, from writing stories to leaving feedback to making recommendation sites to creating artwork for other people’s stories. Getting 15 novella-length (or longer) stories posted all on one day (for the SGA Big Bang challenge) is a huge treat for readers (who get big long stories to read for free) and writers (they get to practice writing long works, and they get artwork created for the story before it’s posted). Why would I pay money for a romantic novel when I can read a high-quality one online for free?
Oh, and I almost forgot my original point of this comment: fandom has at least one kerfuffle a year about warnings on stories. Some readers want explicit warnings for things they don’t want to read about (two of the biggies are non-consensual sex and character death), while some writers object to this expectation on grounds both practical (“How can I predict what every reader is going to find squicky?”) and philosophical (“Putting ‘Warning: Character death’ in the header kind of spoils the entire fic.”). Some writers compromise by putting warnings all the way at the end of the story, so readers who won’t read a fic without warnings can scroll down and read them, while readers who feel “brave” enough can read the fic unwarned (and therefore unspoiled).
Um, yeah. I went on for much longer than I had intended, sorry!
Oh and since I am all about people making up their own minds about old nasty arguments like werewolf romance is nothing but bestiality porn.
By the way, I didn’t say “all werewolf romance is nothing but bestiality porn.” I said that I couldn’t tell whether it was or not, so decided to by-pass it if I couldn’t pick up clues.
And another by the way, furry werewolf sex wasn’t pervasive when I first started reading romantic erotica around 3 years ago. It’s become more common as epublishers always try to push boundaries and the boundaries are moving. So when I first started reading it, it wasn’t expected.
When it first started showing up, I tried to check review sites. Only one site – at the time – offered any kind of advisory. If it’s more common now, I think it’s because people have asked for it.
I read tons of shape shifter romance and I have run into stories that were way way too furry oriented for even my taste, but that just meant I stopped reading that particular author or that particular publisher if it happened enough times. I did not stop fully buying eBooks about shape shifters.
That’s fine. My choice was different. Although I’ll admit there are epublishers I’d be more (or less) likely to take a chance on, if a book was compelling and I couldn’t get details.
Rebyj, I know you weren’t recommending the labels. I was just using your comment to make a point about some of the larger issues at stake.
And Robin:
I get super frustrated with Romance when, for example, I perceive that the heroine has to “earn†love in some way through good works or virtue.
Any chance you’re Lutheran? *grin* Salvation (or love, or whatever) through grace alone.
Just to clarify: Count me among the people who were NOT trying to say that a sensitivity to certain content was a sign of immaturity. I completely understand not wanting to read or watch certain things. Trust me, I have my own pet peeves when it comes to content. But these are limits I impose on myself through my own sensibility and tastes.
Whether my tastes are influenced by paternalistic influences is a valid question, but I would argue that such influences are far harder to pinpoint than a straightforward call from an author for warning labels on her fellow author’s books. You can’t get a much clearer call for judgement than that. The word “rating” itself implies something different than simple informational labels. I’m simply not convinced that the kind of assistance Baker is looking for could be provided in any neutral manner. And why should authors or publishers be forced to place what amount to negative warning labels on their products? Does the kind of content she is protesting really represent a danger that the public in general should be protected from? In Baker’s case aren’t we really only talking about a personal distaste?
In cases where people’s mental health is actually at issue, I’m afraid I still say that they bear the responsibility for their own health rather than the author or publishing house. But now that I am aware such problems exist, I’m even more convinced that a detailed book ratings site would be of immense help. Does anyone know if something like that exists at present?
Any chance you’re Lutheran? *grin* Salvation (or love, or whatever) through grace alone.
Oh, yeah, don’t even get me started on the whole notion of “conversion” in Romance. By grace, good works, or tithing, I’m not into romantic love being delivered like some heavenly reward.
And another by the way, furry werewolf sex wasn’t pervasive when I first started reading romantic erotica around 3 years ago. It’s become more
common as epublishers always try to push boundaries and the boundaries are
moving. So when I first started reading it, it wasn’t expected.
When it first started showing up, I tried to check review sites. Only one
site – at the time – offered any kind of advisory. If it’s more common
now, I think it’s because people have asked for it.
Well, I have read bad authors who would never cross that line with you and other very good authors that do so all the time but they do it well.
I personally want ePubs to push. I write reviews and at times like this I will cheer them on with a bias. I also am very blunt on the mistakes I see that are made which is hopefully unbiased and thought out.
But.. I dislike generalizing all ePubs do this or that because there are many I have not read yet.
But honestly, if you want “safe” Harlequin and 100’s of other traditional print Pubs have a line just for you.
I simply want to be surprised, I enjoy the immediacy of ePubs, and if there is some book or author I think has made mistakes, believe me I will not hold back an opinion or reveal any details you think are important if you ask me.
I think a lot of people online here would be glad to help you find what you are looking for. Try not to write off all the pushing ePubs are doing as bad.
Once again I’m too wordy, sorry gang.
1. Marianne McA, that was not my argument. You missed the important part of that comment, “I think a lot of adults assume kids can’t handle adult concepts. If they can’t handle them, the subject matter won’t interest them.” In no way do I argue that it did me no harm, thus it won’t harm other children. If kids don’t have the intellectual development, or vocabulary to read and comprehend a particular book then they won’t want to read it. In one of the other threads on where bodice rippers was discussed I seem to recall members of the SmartBitchery recalling their first forays into sex scenes, some at very early ages. Most of them didn’t have the development to really understand the scenes, sure they might have understood the mechanics, but the scenes themselves didn’t interest them so they skimmed them.
I think it is important to state that one child might be able to handle something that another child can’t, but I also think it is wrong to assume that all children must be protected from the ‘ebil’ words. And just because they might be able to read the “The Exorcist” doesn’t mean they can watch the movie. My brother saw it with a date when they were 16, she ended up sleeping with her parents for the better part of a month after watching the movie. Not all children are created equally and it is up to a parent to decide what a child can or cannot handle.
2. As for snarkhunter’s comment about the restricting of some YA novels, while “Flowers in the Attic” remains on the shelves. I’ve followed some of the posts about those yahoos in OK and I’m always amazed about this. How many more copies of that book were sold in Oklahoma that wouldn’t have been, since those concerned parents gave it so much publicity? Do they not know that their kids can order the book from any bookstore and I bet they won’t require parental permission? As for “Flowers in the Attic”, I remember a classmate reading it during English class when we were probably supposed to be reading something enlightening like “Lord of the Flies.”
3. Chicklit, regarding the actors in gay porn, HBO had a documentary they did on the porn industry last summer entitled “Going Down in the Valley”. For some reason I was pretty fascinated by it, anyway they said that the guys in gay porn are paid substantially more than those in regular porn. Could that be why they look better? Hmmm, I wonder. A lot of the actors viewed it as strictly a monetary issue. ‘If I can make more money doing this, then sign me up.’ Some of them bring their wives on the set while they are filming their scenes. Really odd industry.
4. But Megalith, hats off cause I think your post comes closest to how a lot of people feel about this issue.
5. The biggest point I think we consistently overlook is that Ms. Baker picked up a Paranormal title. The fact that she would be surprised by edgy language in a Paranormal I think is amazing. Hellooooo? They are Paranormals, I would be more surprised if they didn’t have edgy language.
Damnit! I proofed that and it is still messed up. *le sigh* Maybe my pillow is calling. Sorry.
In Baker’s case aren’t we really only talking about a personal distaste?
Absolutely, and I think a number of readers who would like labels would argue precisely on these more practical grounds—as, I suspect, many readers perceive them at EC and Samhain, for example (i.e. not as protection, but rather a quick way to discern whether a book is to one’s taste or not). What the *effects* of such labeling are IMO eclipse even the most sensible of arguments in favor of including them, but I don’t think every pro-labeling reader sees the issue as about morality or bravery or something similar.