So here’s a controversy nested with a smaller, second controversy, brought to my attention by Bitchery reader Tessa. She sent me a link to Lacey Kaye‘s blog, where she highlights the romance-novel-esque cover of this week’s Seattle Weekly .
The romance novel cover is secondary to the article itself, which examines the “no-contact order” between spouses in pending domestic abuse cases. The article profiles two women, both of whom were victims of an abusive incident, and both of whom called the police. As the abuse charges move through the courts, both women are forbidden to contact their husbands, and vice-versa, and both wish they’d never called 911 because of the no-contact order’s interference in their lives and the lives of their families.
In the article, Merril Cousin, executive director of the King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, says:
“We don’t want to say it’s up to the victims for a number of reasons.” For one, she says, domestic violence is a crime and it’s the community’s responsibility, not the victims’, to hold criminals accountable. “On the other hand,” she says, “there are often very good reasons why victims don’t want cases to go forward.”
That’s a big issue with no easy solution, and a lot of arguments that can circle around and bite each other on the behind until reasoning goes in a dizzying circle.
But the smaller, less life-threatening but still irritating part: the use of a romance-novel-style cover to publicize the issue.
Once again, the bodice-ripper cover is used to illustrate the weakness and subjugation of women, and what may have been an attempt at irony misses by a good bit, and comes across as ignorant, easy shorthand that plays into insulting stereotypes. Let’s wrap an important issue regarding women in the US behind an image that mocks and denigrates them. Or sends a mixed message about cops shaving their chest hair inefficiently. I’m so proud. Not.
That’s intensely disturbing on many levels, including their choice of the word/faux-title “Ravished.” A part of the reason domestic abuse is perpetually unreported is that so many women are constantly told that they are victims. Not only are they victims, but also rescuers: they have the keys to “cure” their husbands/lovers; they can MAKE THEM BETTER MEN, like OMG, this is every bad romance novel ever. Then the state asks them to be a persecuter. Victim/Rescuer/Persecuter, and on and on and on…
There are a number of issues that can be addressed on this – all of them interesting. But for the moment I’ll stick with the cover and start with
WHAT THE F WERE THEY THINKING!! How incredibly insulting that cover is, the knock on romance, the fact that some hairy covered cop can rescue a poor helpless woman. It’s insulting all the way around.
I agree, the newspaper image doesn’t match the women’s horrible situation. But I don’t take offense on behalf of the romance genre.
I’m equally insulted by the hideous covers and *their* use of “ignorant, easy shorthand that plays into insulting stereotypes”. You really think the newspaper is wrong to skewer those?
This is pretty much how I feel about the covers the newspaper is mocking:
It’s true, many people have a negative image of the genre. Not surprising, given the genre actively works to put that image out there.
Seems like that wasn’t the only potshot Seattle Weekly took at romance fiction. As soon as I visited the site, I noticed the sidebar headline “A
Billion-Dollar Romance Novel Industry, And Its Lonely Black Author.”
It is chock full of negative romance stereotypes from the first two paragraphs…“With hairless pecs bulging from almost every cover, misty castles in the background, and unsheathed swords grasped by virile hands, there is a lingering musk of Fabio…”
I get so tired of the shitty swipes the media takes. It’s just so unnecessary. I recently did an interview with my local paper, which was handled very well by the reporter, who reads and likes the genre. But the big “shoutline” they pulled out of the entire thing and enlarged to the size of a bus was my comment about the sex.
Typical.
Two steps forward, one step back.
I wish this dance would end. *sigh*
Oh, good grief, now I just stumbled over their “slideshow” of romance novel covers intended to increase the snicker factor.
I’m sorry, but we live in a society where a woman has no more self esteem than to get pregnant for a SEVENTH time by a man who becomes violent when he LEAVES HIS DRUGS ON A BUS, and we’re worried about an ignorant slam at romance covers???
I would say the cover is the least of our worries.
Is the cover supposed to be representing the state (the policeman) rescuing the woman (by enforcing a no-contact order) whether she wants it or not?
Or is it that the policeman is her abusive husband and she’s the abused heroine? That’s another possible interpretation given that the article mentions that “the specter of famous cases like the Tacoma murder of Crystal Brame by her police chief husband” is ever present in these cases.
If there’s more than one possible way to interpret the image, does that ambiguity reflect the content of the article itself, which raises “a lot of arguments that can circle around and bite each other on the behind until reasoning goes in a dizzying circle”?
And it’s not as though there haven’t been discussions on here about alpha heroes who forcibly seduce the heroine, supposedly because they know what’s best for her, or who seem to be stalking her. As Colleen Gleeson writes:
Romance writers and readers love those arrogant, persistent alpha males, but in our quest to create them, sometimes we cross the line from sexy to creepy.
I love the take-charge, arrogant alpha hero as much as the next romance reader, but sometimes even I have a little trouble handling the actions of such a character when he’s trying to get to the woman he wants—especially if she’s not interested. (pdf from here)
Or what about the type of scenario in Linda Howard’s Raintree Inferno in which
Dante “brain rapes†the heroine by stealing her magic and leaves her so physically debilitated that she cannot remember anything except her own name. He proceeds to magically compel her to stay with him or stay in his house like an unruly animal. He throws her down on the floor, rips off her clothes and leaves her sobbing and feeling dirty. The next day, however, all is forgiven and Lorna hops in the sack after Dante tells her that they have some connection. (from the review at Dear Author)
And it’s not as though a lot of heroes aren’t members of the armed forces/police force. So I don’t think that there’s a total disconnect between the cover and some of the issues that are raised by some modern romances.
Good points, Laura. And given that Tacoma is a neighboring city to Seattle, I’m sure the Brame case about the police chief is a significant part of the region’s awareness of these issues.
As a resident of this county, I’m not suprised, actually typical of this area. Remember the uproar over “bitch” in the pet store name? Seattle has serious socialist leanings (let the government take care of you).
Hey, don’t let civil rights or common sense get in the way of anybody’s political agenda. The County Sheriff ran on a platform dominated by “fixing” domestic violence, and for the past several years EVERY County police vehicle wears a bumper sticker “There is NO excuse for domestic violence”. As far as I can tell, the only laws currently being inforced in this area are domestic violence, seat belts, and prostitution. I was informed by a local police officer, that we currently have the same number of officers as were in the dept. in 1967, with quadruple or more population growth. Our few police officers apparently have no time to enforce traffic laws, auto theft, property theft (just call in what was stolen folks), or any other violations of the law.
In contrast to years past when people moved into the Puget Sound (Seattle) area for jobs & environment (Silcon Valley North), people are now leaving the area because of the political atmosphere and the rediculously high cost of living it breeds.
I’ll get off my soapbox now, if nobody mentions transit, elections violations, or Queen Christine.
You know, looking at the cop holding the woman … I figured HE was the abuser. (Think of the classic cover of “Gone with the Wind” with Rhett carrying Scarlett, before taking her upstairs.) The statistics on domestic violence in police families are, from what I hear, well above the average. And, being in law enforcement, seemingly many of their colleagues turn a blind eye to it. So I was reading it completely differently.
From iffygenia:
A big plate of WORD with an extra order of AWESOMESAUCE. We can’t complain about the general public dissing clinch covers when readers are buying them.
“I’m sorry, but we live in a society where a woman has no more self esteem than to get pregnant for a SEVENTH time by a man who becomes violent when he LEAVES HIS DRUGS ON A BUS, and we’re worried about an ignorant slam at romance covers???”
That’s another thing that struck me too while reading the article. I try not to be one that judges another person’s life or how they lead it, but EVERYTHING about that first woman’s life was wrong. I was reading and thinking how sad a life that woman must lead.
Thanks, Sarah, for raising awareness on this, and thanks, Tessa, for sharing it.
Yes, of course the real issue here is not the cover itself. I totally agree with that 1000%. There are so many things wrong with this article on so many levels, however, that I preferred to let the readers read the article and form their own opinions.
I guess you might say *I* wanted to use the cover to spread awareness—just not in the way the paper seems to have intended to use it.
Thanks again. I am overjoyed this has made it to a big site like SBTB.
I’m confused; I live in Seattle and my interpretation was that the heroine—in this case the abused wife—had been metaphorically f**cked by the police; the system had let her down by making her a victim. Did I miss something?
In any case, the cover grabbed my attention as I walked down the street—I took a copy from the news stand, saw what the article was about, and said to my husband, “that IS an important issue…”. Surely that was the intent of the cover? I don’t at all understand the venom on here; it seems really misplaced to me.
Since romance novels portray women as wanting the sex, sometimes after resistance, sometimes not, then the cover implies that the woman secretly wants whatever the big, shirtless cop plans to do with her. And yes, given the small print, it can certainly be interpreted as the woman actually wanting/deserving the violence.
Yes, the issues are what is important, but there’s a cultural message around that cover, and that’s important too.
I read the article, and once again it’s a domestic violence article that manages to not place the blame (or even the focus) on the man who beat or threatened his wife. “These are people who are together and who have children together” Maybe he shouldn’t have beaten her then, just a thought.
Yes, women often stay with abusers either through financial need or love because the psyche is a strange thing. It doesn’t remove the fact that the man threatened his partner.
As for Brian Miller’s peice, the only thing I read that was low was the opening “hardly literary” dig. Romance is hardly literary? It was a loosely defined dig, anyway.
Other than that, Miller just described and pointed out the accurate reaction one has walking by the romance section in a grocery store. I read romance and still, I snicker. Smart Bitches snarks on romance covers for a reason; Brian Miller ain’t alone.
I read your blog post before looking at the cover. I agreed with what the post said, but thought to myself: “how bad can it really be?” OOOOH, was I in for an awakening! OH. MY. GOD.
I cannot believe they would use a cover like that for a story on abuse. It’s wrong on so many levels. And NOT JUST to the demeaning way it snarks at romances and their covers.
To show take an abusive relationship and show it as a love-swept romance is bad enough, but then to call it “Ravished” ??? OMG!
Poor judgement all around. I don’t think I can even go back and look a second time.
Ironic – word verification: values53
It’s disturbing that intelligent people would pick a cover like that for such a serious topic! Seriously, where did this editor get his/her journalism degree?!?
On a funnier note, am I the only one who thinks the sleazy “hero” looks like he’s pregnant—or has a beer belly at the very least?
Hooray for romanticizing domestic violence.
I wish I had something intelligent to say, but I’m speechless.
Seems like that wasn’t the only potshot Seattle Weekly took at romance fiction. As soon as I visited the site, I noticed the sidebar headline “A
Billion-Dollar Romance Novel Industry, And Its Lonely Black Author.â€
It is chock full of negative romance stereotypes from the first two paragraphs…“With hairless pecs bulging from almost every cover, misty castles in the background, and unsheathed swords grasped by virile hands, there is a lingering musk of Fabio…â€
But did you read the article? It’s about the racial dividing lines in the genre: And among these coded book covers, where yearning maidens cling to strapping lads with gilded locks, it’s nearly impossible to find an African-American face. Nor any Latina features, nor any Asian figures, nor any sign that love exists for nonwhite women.
More specifically, it’s about Edwina Marin-Arnold, who is, as far as she knows, the only Black Romance author in the Seattle area. And it’s about he struggle to be recognized equally in the genre. In that context, I think the stereotypes mirror back to the genre those images we ignore but, for a Black Romance author, for example, represent a purely white fantasy (and a roided one at that). In the context of that article, I think those stereotypes become an indictment of the genre, one we should perhaps pay attention to.
I don’t care if those covers sell; IMO they demean the genre and invite non-Romance readers to “judge the books by the covers.”
As for the cover shot, I didn’t see that as romanticizing domestic violence at all; I saw it as commentary on the criminal justice system as infantalizing and romanticizing female victims of domestic violence (I actually thought of GWTW, too, because of the flames in the background the appearance/positioning of the figures). But in any case, do Romance novel covers that feature clinch poses do women a similar disservice? Is criticizing a cover the same as criticizing a genre? Is that cover shot really demeaning Romance or is it presenting a take on the covers that might make is uncomfortable to really think about, especially since so many of us readers are so used to ignoring them?
Yes, Robin, I read the entire article. The piece was a valid one, and a topic I’ve followed on the net as well, so of course I read it. And I still think the reporter took his potshots wherever he could, despite the validity of his subject.
Why was it necessary?
I don’t understand why there needed to be the little jabs. Why the “stench of Fabio”? If it was an article about the only African American man in Seattle writing espionage novels, would there have been the jabs at espionage novels and comments about the “stench of Tom Clancy?”
It seems to me those condescensions detracted from the importance of the article itself, which highlight a very real issue—the difficulties African American writers face in this industry. The “where to shelve the books” issue alone is something that really needs to be addressed, and more people need to know about.
Unfortunately, however, this reporter was reporting on the hardships one author dealt with in her career, while at the same time making fun of her career whenever possible.
I repeat: why was it necessary?
And I still think the reporter took his potshots wherever he could, despite the validity of his subject.
I didn’t read the article that way at all. Sure the first paragraph has those horrible titles, but hey, they’re real! In the second paragraph there is this: there is a lingering musk of Fabio that causes snickers among the uninitiated, the cynics who pass the racks by in search of paper towels and TV dinners. I didn’t read that as making fun of the genre so much as pointing a bit at the “cynics” and the “uninitiated”—that is, those who don’t read Romance and don’t see past the covers and titles. And as for the “musk of Fabio”—well, isn’t that true? We may not like to admit it, but isn’t there enough cover snark here and elsewhere to confirm that? But I’ll concede that Miller wasn’t exactly respectful to the images on those covers. Of course, I happen to think he’s right about that—IMO some of the public imagery associated with the genre IS embarrassing and demeaning to the genre and its readers.
Beyond that, though, those images take on a whole new import IMO when viewed through the lens of race in the genre. All of a sudden it’s not just about Fabio and magic castles; it’s about white cover models and Anglo-Saxon history. It’s about airbrushing a cover so that the heroine’s Asian characteristics are muted. About the lack of AA heroes and heroines in mainstream Romance novels and on their covers. And I think that’s part of the point of the article, especially because IMO Miller does quite a good job talking about the racial divide in the genre. He definitely offers critique of the genre, especially of the fact that the RWA, for all it’s statistics, doesn’t offers those on the race of Romance authors:
But beyond those first two paragraphs (which IMO were quite mild), where do you see the potshots?
I was impressed, actually, at the way Miller tried to flesh out some issues that are rarely discussed in the genre, the industry, or the online Romance community, from the way Asian authors are merged with whites, to the way the genre does not reflect the ethnic diversity of our contemporary society. Miller even refers to several other non-white Romance authors and the issues they are presenting in their books, as well as the way their ethnicity reflects a reality not well-represented in the genre. Yeah, there is definitely some criticism of the genre, but I didn’t see it as demeaning the genre, even though the way non-white issues have been (or more accurately not been) treated in the genre and the industry is something that demeans us because of our unwillingness to embrace true diversity as a matter of course. But that’s on the genre and the industry, not Miller, IMO.
Unfortunately, however, this reporter was reporting on the hardships one author dealt with in her career, while at the same time making fun of her career whenever possible.
Again, I saw it quite differently.
IMO Miller presents Martin-Arnold as a successful, intelligent woman, a former prosecutor married to a high tech entrepreneur, and he obviously read the RWA statistics. Miller talked about the increasing realism in contemporary Romance with the change in women’s roles, even addressing the difficulty many educated Black women face in trying to find equally educated Black men as romantic partners. He presented the POV of Kimani’s executive editor Glenda Howard, as well as the perspectives of other authors, including Eilis Flynn and Dona Sarkar-Mishra. Of Miller he says: She is clearly not a woman who can afford to linger for hours over her laptop at Starbucks; her life, like those of her readers, is too hectic for that. I thought the end of the article was particularly strong:
I thought the way Miller addressed the issue of role models for non-white authors was insightful, and I even got some good recommendations for upcoming Romances featuring non-white heroines. To me, that was one of the most serious articles on the genre I’ve read, well, ever—at least in a mainstream media outlet. While I agree with you that he could have left out the Fabio reference, that was really the only bit of snark I found in the article. What else did you find derogatory?
Robin, as I said before, I am not disagreeing with you on the overall content of the article, I completely agree with it. I just don’t think it was necessary to start out of the gate with the Fabio crack, and lines like this…
>>And among these coded book covers, where yearning maidens cling to strapping lads with gilded locks<<
Or to then pull one single solitary quote out of one of Martin-Arnold’s books…about a Navy SEAL crying. Well, I guess we should be glad it wasn’t a completely out-of-context sex scene like one newspaper did to me one time.
My point is, while it is nice to see the issue being addressed, it could have been done without the little bites of snark.
LOL, Leslie, I guess it just comes down to different perspectives. The two words I focused on in that sentence you quoted were “coded” and “gilded” (i.e. racially coded white). Unfortunately, I think the description, even in the terms Miller uses, is accurate. How DO you describe some of those covers without sounding dismissive?
And I liked that I learned about three different Martin-Arnold books, because I kept thinking, see, people will understand that this is just like any other Romance (plus that one quote read to me as a moment of emotional connection).
Maybe because I’ve seen the genre get dumped on so much, I really think Miller did an admirable job treating Martin-Arnold and the genre with respect, more, IMO, than the industry deserves with how AA authors are segregated and non-white authors and characters generally are marginalized. I really, really hope people do read the article, which can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/2udoh3
The cover is the biggest insult – who could take seriously an article about women and abuse when this disturbing cover is the precursor of such a deadly issue? Abuse is not sexy, getting battered by the one who supposedly love and protects you does not make me feel sensual. Living in fear is not sexy. Loosing all sense of hope, all sense of worth is not sexy. God, why am I so sad?