by SB Sarah • Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Bitchery Reader Rbelle sent me the following link: seems the presence of the word “scrotum” in this year’s Newberry winner, The Higher Power of Lucky, has caused librarians to reach for the hartshorn and ban the book from their libraries.
Yes. Scrotum. We’re only a few days past slamming our heads on the desks over “The Hoohah Monologues,” and now word comes that once again we must connect our craniums to the desk surface with considerable force. “Scrotum” is cause for book banning.
Seems the main character overhears the word through a hole in the fence when another character details where a rattlesnake bit his dog.
This is my particular favorite quote, and by “favorite” I mean it makes me want to explode with rage in every possible direction:
Dana Nilsson, a teacher and librarian in Durango Colorado, had this to say about The Higher Power of Lucky”: “This book included what I call a Howard Stern-type shock treatment just to see how far they could push the envelope, but they didn’t have the children in mind.”
Yes. Howard Stern frequently would make use of the word “scrotum.” The hell he would. He, Opie, Anthony, or any other shock jock would use “balls,” “junk,” or “nutsack,” but “scrotum?”
I hate to break it to Ms. Nilsson, but that’s the anatomically correct word to describe that part of the human anatomy. It’s not like the book contains the words “spunk factory” or “bag of fuck pucks.”
I have to put my head between my knees now, lest I pass out from hyperventilating rage at the yet-again-so-dismaying fear we have of anything remotely sexual. We can’t even use the proper words for reproductive organs. Perhaps I can’t even say “head” and “knees.” I have to put my desk-slamming-tension-relieving-rotund-appendage betwixt my flexible joints which enable me to walk.
44 comments •
Categories: News •
The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by SB Sarah • Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Here at the Bitchery, we have many an academic hanging out in our discussions, wishing that the Ivory Tower would establish more of an interest in romance fiction, beyond the occasional pop cult conference or Bowling Green-sponsored library.
Bitchery reader Sarah S. G. Frantz, Assistant Professor of Literature at Fayetteville State, has sent me a brand new CFP that she and Professor Eric Selinger of DePaul have issued for a book of academic criticism devoted to the genre we know and love. Proposals are due to Drs. Frantz and Selinger by June 1 - and holy flapjack there’s a lot of focus on which to focus.
Call For Papers
The Mind of Love: New Approaches to Popular Romance
As is well-known by now, mass market romance novels constitute at least half of the domestic paperback market and an increasing percentage of the hardcover market. British, Canadian, and American romances are read all over the world, with many best-selling authors making most of their money from international sales; meanwhile, distinct national traditions of romance writing have developed, or continue to flourish, in Australia, India, China, and elsewhere. In all markets, the romance genre is undergoing substantial external and internal expansion: not only are traditional romance authors branching out into mainstream fiction, but the romance genre is also exploding with new sub-genres, each adding a romantic twist to previous niche markets. Online romance reader communities are power-houses of information and networking, and online erotica publishing houses are pushing sexual boundaries and thriving financially.
Sadly, academic criticism and theory of the romance—whether literary criticism, sociological analysis, editorial theory, or feminist scrutiny—has not kept up with the changes in the genre. Janice Radway’s sociological evaluation of romance readers and literary analysis of the romance genre is more than twenty years out-of-date, written before any of the changes that define the modern romance had evolved. “Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women,” edited by best-selling romance author Jayne Ann Krentz, is an invaluable tool for the romance critic, but is now more than ten years old and never claimed to be academic. It is well past time for a volume of sophisticated, rigorous, and romance-positive academic analyses of romance.
We therefore call for essays for an academic volume of romance-positive criticism and analysis of the romance genre. We welcome essays on romance novels, authors, or the romance genre from any disciplinary or theoretical perspective, to include:
* History of the romance novel
* Heroes and heroines of the romance (construction, history, changes)
* Images of the body, representations of sexuality, and romantic ideals of men and women, masculinity and femininity
* Narrative structures and conventions (i.e., shifts from heroine-centered narrative to narratives shared between hero and heroine to the return of first person)
* Plot structures and conventions (their construction, history, changes, implications)
* Analyses of individual authors or even individual novels
* Non-traditional authors classed as romance (Diana Gabaldon, Laurell K. Hamilton, etc.)
* Romance series (category series like Harlequin Presents, or on-going single or multiple author series)
* Romances in the international market
* Category vs. Mainstream romance
* Sub-genres (history, narrative structure, expectations, formulae, changes): Western, Regency, Medieval, Generic historical, Christian or inspirational, Military, Paranormal (vampire, were, empath, etc.), Futuristic/time travel, Multi-cultural, Erotica, Gay/lesbian, Contemporary, humor, etc.
* Comparison with Chick Lit / Rise of Chick Lit
* A re-evaluation of a canonical text from a romance perspective
* Readings of romance texts as they allude to, incorporate, or ask to be read in light of canonical texts
* Romance using and/or rewriting literary archetypes, mythology, the Bible, fairy tales
* Encounters between romance fiction and philosophy or literary / cultural theory: i.e., queer, new historical, or cultural-studies readings of romance novels or the romance-novel industry; romance fiction and the philosophical study of eros, marriage, and love
* Psychology and romance fiction: are Freudian and post-Freudian models (Chodorow, Lacan, Kristeva) the best for understanding popular romance fiction? What can more recent research into the psychology of optimism, resilience, and happiness (e.g., the work of Martin Seligman) reveal about the genre? What psychological models and theories are visibly deployed by particular novels or novelists, and what do the works do with them?
We also welcome essays on the romance novel industry and the communities of readers that flourish around it, including:
* Professional organizations (Romance Writers of America, Romantic Novelists Association) and Industry conferences (RWA Annual National Conference, Romantic Times Convention)
* Romance reader response, individual reader blogs
* On-line romance communities (AAR, RRA, individual authors’ Message Board communities, etc.)
* Romance review sites/blogs (Smart Bitches, Dear Author), romance review communities
* Transformations in romance publishing since the 1980s
* Rise of on-line publishing houses, especially on-line erotica/Romantica
Detailed abstract or draft essay and a short CV are due by June 1, 2007. Final essays will be due December 1, 2007. We are happy to answer any inquiries.
Dr. Sarah S. G. Frantz - sfrantz@uncfsu.edu
Dr. Eric Selinger - eselinge@depaul.edu
4 comments •
Categories: News •
The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by Candy • Friday, February 16, 2007 at 02:56 PM
Kiku mentioned the in the comments to the ”Love in All Genres” entry that Seventh Sanctum had made a brain-hurting fanfic pair generator.
Boy howdy, have they. With one click of a button, generate a fanfic pair sure to make you cry--either with laughter, or sweet, sweet trauma.
So far, the ones I’ve generated that have made me laugh hardest are:
Lili von Shtupp (Blazing Saddles)/Morpheus (Sandman)
Papa Smurf/Hagbard Celine (Illuminatus Trillogy)
Flash (Justice League)/Dee-ari (The Dark Crystal)
Mr. Wickham (Pride and Prejudice)/General Woundwart (Watership Down)
Cookie Monster/Walter C. Ddollneaz (Hellsing)
Frosty the Snowman/Queen Christine of Sweden
Ones that would ALMOST work: Sue Storm (Fantastic Four)/Westley (The Princess Bride) and Edmond Dantes (The Count of Monte Cristo)/Lee “Apollo” Adama (Battlestar Galactica 2005).
That last one HAS to have been written already. HAS to be.
My friend Katie of Nebula Haiku fame, however, generated possibly the most terrifying pairing of ALL TIME: Mr. Bean/Aramis (The Three Musketeers).
And also, the awesomest: Cthulhu/Jesus.
Have fun with the new toy.
by SB Sarah • Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 08:56 AM
In Valentine’s Days past, we’ve offered wishes for you to treat yourselves nicely, and a collection of sensual and romantic poetry.
This year? We Bitches offer the Valentine’s Gift Guide, for all your shopping needs. Yes, it’s late because buying day-of means a belated gift. But these are tokens of affection that just keep giving.
Well, not “tokens” so much as “token.” Big token. Huge token - of our affection for you. This gift is SO great, it trumps all other Valentine’s offerings, from flowers to chocolate to those hearts that say, “Lick me, Conrad.” If we could, we’d buy one for every single one of you, because this gift is THAT GOOD.
What could it be? Wait no longer for I shall reveal all. The perfect gift to go with all your noble mantittes? Manties. For when your man wants “to be and feel a little special, naughty, and very sexy,” bring out some hot satin lace trimmed man panties. Rwor. Come on, ladies. You know you’re tired of the elephant g-string with squeaker.
Happy Valentine’s Day, with much love and asskicking from the Smart Bitches. And please, if you’ve received a gift that’s better than Manties, and we doubt it’s possible, by all means, share.
by SB Sarah • Monday, February 12, 2007 at 09:29 AM
Maureen Dowd’s column this weekend focused on the issue of “Chick Lit” being shelved among the classical works of fiction under that general heading.
Before I get to my actual point, anyone else notice that in her column she mentions that she bought a bunch of ChickLit to sample that which she found so egregiously shelved next to her more erudite reading choices? Wonder if a purchase for the purposes of writing is expensable? I do think it is. Nice of the Times to possibly foot the bill for what might be her secret reading enjoyment. Methinks she might protest just a bit too much.
Her question of shelving has been in my brain since I read her column, because it is a good question: where do you put the ChickLit? How do you shelve fiction that’s not quite one genre, but not quite another? Looking specifically at ChickLit, is it that oh-so-slightly-snidely-termed “Women’s Fiction?” Is it fiction? Is it romance? Is it popular fiction? Where do you put it?
We romance readers have been spoiled a bit - if we go hunting in a store for our bodice-ripping man-titty extravaganzas, we look for the sign that says “Romance” and head that way. But lately that heading has been crowded, and there’s a lot to be said even within the romance community of where books are shelved, and where they should be shelved. Seems the question of shelving is a very, very big question among authors of various subgenres of fiction, particularly among minority writers.
Coincidentally, while Dowd was ranting, I was emailing an Anonymous Author asking about the shelving of minority romance, from black to Asian to gay and lesbian romance. Where are the minorities shelved? It’s been a long time since I’ve gone brick-and-mortar shopping, and when I do I go to a teeny tiny local bookstore that smells like old books, but barely has the shelf space to get creative with subgenres. Everything is pretty much like a library - fiction, alpha by author. Non-fiction, alpha by author. Gifty little books are in the middle, if you’re looking.
But in larger stores, like Barnes & Noble or Borders, is there a standard rule of where to shelve minority books, much like Romance usually has its own shelves? Are black romance novels shelved with romance or with African American fictions? Is it a store by store decision? I know I’ve seen Adrianne Byrd in the romance aisle, but I think I saw her books in another store shelved among the mystery suspense.
The basic info I received from A.A. was that it’s a store-by-store decision unless the chain has a policy for all outlets. According to A.A., Waldenbooks/Borders shelves their African American romance based on the wishes of their readers, who prefer a one-stop shopping experience with their books in one location. Some authors, according to A.A., find their sales are much higher from bookstores that shelve minority books separately.
A.A. disagrees and would prefer minority authors be shelved according to their genre, not by their race, but shelving becomes more complicated when there’s also separate imprints for minority writers. A.A.’s problem with the imprint and shelf segregation is that the distribution is limited to those geographic areas where there is a decided market for that minority romance. The problem is distribution, in the end, not bookstore real estate.
That said, last month news broke that one author, Millenia Black, has filed a lawsuit against her publisher for targeting the sale of her book toward an African American audience and, in the words of the filing, “classified her book based solely on [the author’s] race and without regard to the subject matter of the novel.”
If you Google the issue, you’ll find a great many comments on the topic on various publishing blogs, and as A.A. mentioned to me, not many of them are supportive of her efforts. Some are mocking her as the author of a frivilous lawsuit, while others are looking at the reasons behind her publisher’s actions, asking if the publisher’s decision was not racial profiling of the author but marketing to a lucrative book-buying public. Others question the wisdom of her efforts. Overall, I didn’t find many online folks at all cheering her on.
But other authors in other genres are talking about the problem: a December 2006 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Wall Street Journal examines the issue that the book industry pays close marketing attention to race, even if the author disagrees with the practice. Publishers are following the money - and books marketed as African American fiction sell. According to the article, Romantic Times divides it’s “Top Picks” by subgenre, but “lumps black writers of all genres into one African-American category.”
Now, clearly, the subject of shelving minority authors is a much, much bigger and emotionally-charged issue whan where to house Dowd’s hated ChickLit. But with so many subgenres emerging, are old methods of marketing and shelving at odds with the variations within each already-established subgenre?
Is the library method the right solution, or would that harm those authors who are “discovered” by being housed alongside an established author on that subgenre shelf? Or will folks hunting for new books using the “if you like X, you should try Y” method use the internet to research as opposed to blind picking on the shelf?
As A.A. said to me, “Somebody said bookshops should all shelve like the library and I’m in completely agreement. The library sometimes has special tables or a new books section, otherwise it’s completely by content.”
What’s your take? Is this much ado about nothing, or something that’s long been brewing in the mysterious world of publishing and marketing? How would you shelve books in your store?
32 comments •
Categories: News •
Random Musings •
The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
