Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

For me it’s all about context.

A scene where it doesn’t matter if the woman sincerely says no is going to turn me off, regardless of how well it’s written. If it’s more of a role-playing thing, where the woman has made it clear she wants to be “tamed” and the man is obliging, then I don’t have a problem with “forced seduction.” I guess for me it crosses the fine line between consentual play and rape her til she likes it. I simply can’t find the latter appealing under any circumstances.

I think there is definitely a line between the titilatingly taboo and the offensive, but it’s highly subjective.

I can’t stand old movies where the more the hero is an alpha asshole, the more the heroine loves him, and I’m the same way with books. I don’t think it’s political correctness - I think that implies the superimposing of values from outside - but my own idea of what is right and wrong. If it reeks of “wrong” to me, I’m not enjoying it, I can’t get into it. 

Of course, I may just be an old, withered prude.

I’ve noticed this discussion going on often.  I’ve heard over and over from lots of die-hard romance readers that there just isn’t anything good to read anymore. 

I don’t agree, but I do think that in the new popularity of the “kick-ass” heroine, some think that a strong heroine needs the balance of a weaker hero. 

Uh no.  I’ve put down many a book because that just doesn’t ring true for me.

Now, this is a personal preference, but I love a book with two strong character finding balance.  I love the push and pull of that strong attraction and see nothing wrong with either character going after what they want-- or letting them take turns. (g)

But it does sometimes feel that we are PC-ing our fiction to death.  I can agree on that one.

I know this makes me un-PC, but I sometimes like a well written “seduce her til she likes it” scene.  Yeah, it’s a fine line to rape, but if an author plays it right, it’s a great pay off for me. 

I’m also one of those who’s had a problem finding stuff to read in main line publishing lately.  As a result, I’ve moved to reading a lot of e-books.  It seems like the online publishers just take more risks.  It doesn’t always work out, but sometimes it’s great.

Don’t ask me why I have this double-standard, but if it’s flipped, if it’s the hero saying, “No, no, we can’t,” and the heroine seducing the hell out of him, I am so there. I love that almost as much as a cross-dressing heroine and “am I gay?” angst on the part of the hero.

Even better would be a man in dress being seduced by a woman.

...Or is that not PC?

First, hi! Am a relatively new reader both of romance and of this site, and it’s been great to find out that the genre is discussed seriously (IRL, I’ve pretty much only encountered the stigma).

I agree with what was written above - there’s a big difference between the hero sweeping a heroine off her feet, and actual non-consensual sex. And the novel is the ideal medium in which to make that difference. The reader is privy to the heroine’s thoughts, emotions and actions, so we can be sure that she consents. Even if the scene is a man pulling a woman to him - an action that can fit both the non-con rape and consensual seduction scenarios - we know which one it’s meant to be because her choice can be written in.

Also, the hero can know perfectly well whether she consents or not. Part of the ideal is this sort of connection between the two lovers, both caught up in the same moment - so again, it can be made clear by the author as to whether he chooses to force himself on her, or whether he does it only with her consent.

One of the classic romance-type stories (from what I’ve seen anyway) is the couple who get carried away by the force of their passion, even if they’re “unwilling” in any of the usual ways: don’t want to trust someone, don’t want to give up independence, don’t want to give up single lifestyle, object of lust is entirely unsuitable, etc etc. So the unwillingness is part of the deal in those scenarios. The above reasons are all good ones, and for the character to work, their objections have to ring at least partly true. I don’t want to read about an annoyingly coy heroine who only pretends to want independence: for the scenario to work, she has to really feel she’d be giving something up, and she has to maintain some part of that independence by the end.

Am not sure if I’m making it clear but I guess what I’m saying is that the “swept off your feet” archetype story means the heroine has to believe herself unwilling to some extent, else there’s nothing to sweep away. But the important thing is that another part of her - a fully conscious and active part - IS willing, and will convince the whole of her to let go. It’s not that the hero knows best, it’s not “rape her till she likes it”, it’s that she DOES want it and the novel allows us the vantage point to see that she does, that it’s her CHOICE to allow herself to get swept away even if it’s not logical.

It is being able to have your fantasy cake and eat it too ... it seems to me that the romances I’ve read have that element of mind-reading where the lovers instinctively know what they want from each other and so all the embraces can be consensual even if they seem rough, even if the heroine isn’t exactly consulted in words, even if she delights in feeling “overwhelmed” or “helpless” (as happens in some of the Nora Roberts clinches I’ve read) ... Because she isn’t helpless, and everyone knows it (both inside and outside the book).

For an author to go out of their way to make it non-consensual, to make it rape, is to destroy that fantasy connection, the wish-fulfillment ideal where emotions and wishes are exchanged without having to be carefully thought out or verbally expressed. The hero DOESN’T know what the heroine wants, not truly, not even if the story has her fall in love with him later, because some part of her really didn’t want him to do that and that part has been ignored rather than convinced by strength of feeling.

Have no idea if that was expressed clearly, and in any case it’s just my own opinion and preference, but well. =)

Erotic desire, Perel argues, thrives on mystery, unpredictability and politically incorrect power games

I think different people will find different things erotic. While some people may think mystery is exciting, others will find it offputting. Some people thrive on unpredictability and uncertainty, others don’t. Some people like power games, whereas for others this might recall real-life situations of abuse (whether physical, emotional or verbal). It’s like some people think of a candle-lit dinner and red roses as romantic, whereas for others this might seem trite and therefore insincere.

Similarly, when it comes to romance novels, different people will have different fantasies and enjoy reading about different types of relationships. I don’t know that it’s got to do with ‘PC’; while there are some people who long for the novels of the past, I’ve also read plenty of comments by people who say that, when they’ve gone back to read old favourites, they no longer see their appeal. It could be that nostalgia is affecting some people’s recollections (though of course that won’t be true for all people). And I also wonder if readers are becoming more demanding. Each reader, with her/his different preferences can email authors, post on message boards etc and so the authors, like Laura Kinsale, will receive mixed messages, because they’re getting different messages from different readers.

Just one other comment on Kinsale’s post. I noticed that she says:

So now we have scads of safe Regency settings, while the erotic drive has been channeled over to vampire and fantasy books where realism is a non-issue.

I thought there were quite a lot of erotic romances set in the Regency?

For me, rape is never ok, but I’m still not sure what “forced seduction” is (though I know we discussed it into the ground on this site a while back). The length of that discussion leads me to believe that it’s not a term with a clear definition. The entire concept of “seduction” implies that you have to overcome some kind of resistance on the part of the suducee (ok it’s not a word, but I’m gonna use it that way anyway!). If some of that seduction is physical does it cross the line into “forced” seduction? I have no idea.

I only know what I’ve experienced and what turns me on. And a guy I like being a little forceful WORKS for me. It makes me feel feminine, sexy, desirable. A guy I think is an asswipe doing the exact same thing makes me want to grab his dick and twist. A woman’s response to the overtures of the seduction are a red light/green light that most guys on the planet seem to be able to read (the ones who can’t are the dudes who end up in jail).

Sex in a public place? Naughty and fun, and even more fun when one partner is a little hesitant . . . Sleeping with someone you KNOW you shouldn’t (brother’s best friend, best friend’s brother, sister’s ex, etc.)? Totally dirty, and kind of fun when it involves someone really having to stretch to achieve the seduction.

And I don’t see any reason why this kind of thing has to be limited to erotic romances. Seduction is a mental thing. It can be achieved in a perfectly chaste way. After all, it’s true when they say the most powerful sex organ is the mind . . .

I don’t have an answer to the whole rape/forced seduction thing and usually find I know where a scene falls for me personally on a case by case basis.

However I have wondered if the motivation is a factor.  If the hero’s actions are about power rather than love, then it’s definitely rape imo.  When it really is about love, it gets a lot less clear cut.

Someone commented above that being able to see inside the characters heads makes a difference and I think that’s true.  But for me the motivation should be positive on both sides for the sex to be a positive act.

Don’t know if this makes any sense.  Just throwing out a thought that came to me after the big discussion finished the last time, so I missed out on tossing in another idea.

I only know what I’ve experienced and what turns me on. [...]

Sex in a public place? Naughty and fun, and even more fun when one partner is a little hesitant . . . Sleeping with someone you KNOW you shouldn’t [...] ? Totally dirty, and kind of fun when it involves someone really having to stretch to achieve the seduction.

But like you’re saying, these are your personal feelings about what’s erotic. It’s not going to be everyone’s idea of what’s erotic. For example, if someone has had a negative experience of coming across strangers having sex in a public place, that person might not consider sex in a public place ‘erotic’. They might, instead, think of it as a public nuisance and an eyesore for other people who are going past. Or with the example about sleeping with someone you shouldn’t - say the best friend’s ex. That might be sexy to you, but if you were someone who’s best friend had slept with your ex, and the result was emotional heartache, you might find that scenario extremely unsexy.

So it seems to me that what’s ‘erotic’ to one person may not be to another, and so authors are bound to upset some readers for whom the particular scenario the author has written is unappealing.

First off - I second what Tonda said.

Second - I’ve thought long and hard about the concept of “rape” fantasy and I think that a lot of people are confusing the basic premise of the fantasy aspect of it.  (I missed the first discussion, so I apologize if it seems I’m plagiarizing someone else.)

There is a HUGE amount of space between “not being in control of a situation” and “not having any control of a situation.”

There can be excitement in the mild amount of fear that can be brought about in thinking, “Ooo!  He’s holding down my hands and licking me just right!  Will I like what he does next?” There is NO excitement to be had (for me, at least) in thinking, “Oh God, this is going to hurt and leave me bleeding and crying and feeling ashamed and dirty and vomiting and not wanting to be touched in even the most innocuous manner even by my own damn mother.” That is rape in the truest sense of the word for me.

I’ve read books that have both of these scenarios, and ANY situation that has the heroine having the second thought process SHOULD NOT BE PRINTED.  The first scenario?  Rock on.

Fucking a woman who’s crying out of fear is never hot.

Yawn. Blaming political correctness is so damn lazy.

If the hero’s actions are about power rather than love, then it’s definitely rape imo.  When it really is about love, it gets a lot less clear cut.

But then you’re saying no sex, lust, or desire without love, and I just can’t go along with that. So much of human interaction is about power. Power over ourselves. Power over others. Power over where our life is going. I can see understand that some readers would prefer that love come before seduction, but if we all stuck to that golden rule what a homogonous world it would be (to use Candy’s term).

So it seems to me that what’s ‘erotic’ to one person may not be to another, and so authors are bound to upset some readers for whom the particular scenario the author has written is unappealing.

Obviously no one writer is going to be able to match their kink to everyone else on the planet’s kink. That’s impossible, and I don’t think I was implying that everyone had to buy into my kink, just that one person’s “forced seduction” might be someone else’s aggressive demonstration of attraction. I guarantee that every book on the planet has upset or disappointed someone, somewhere. Just as every book has delighted someone, somewhere. There are plenty of writer’s whose books I don’t read because our world views simply don’t overlap enough for me to enjoy them (e.g. I don’t buy “Inspirational” romances as overt godliness is something I can’t identify with, and I skip over a lot of erotic romances cause anal sex is a real turn off for me, personally).

There is a HUGE amount of space between “not being in control of a situation” and “not having any control of a situation.

EXACTLY! This sums it up perfectly for me. Big honken difference between being convinced to do something and being forced to do it.

I’m going to have to disagree with Kinsdale here.

If PC is the reason we’re not seeing the romanticization of rape, go PC.

Sorry, rape isn’t romantic. Forced sex isn’t romantic. Rough sex within boundaries? Oh yeah, very sexy. A man seducing the hell out of the woman? Very sexy.

Even studies about rape as fantasy fail to really get at the underlying issue - which is letting a woman put the responsibility for her desires that she’s deemed unacceptable or inexpressible onto the man. That’s not rape. That’s something else entirely and it’s really exciting if it’s written right.

Strong characters of both genders are sexy and compelling. A strong character can be vulnerable too. Blaming the lack of compelling characters on PC does nothing to convince me that it’s anything other than lazy writing that creates cardboard characters in some romance novels.

I don’t bemoan the good old days when heroes were asshole rapists and if the heroine got uppity he’d give her a little what for to put her in her place.

Just write a good story with strong characters who don’t abuse each other. It’s not that complicated and PC isn’t stopping that from happening.

But then you’re saying no sex, lust, or desire without love, and I just can’t go along with that. So much of human interaction is about power. Power over ourselves. Power over others. Power over where our life is going. I can see understand that some readers would prefer that love come before seduction, but if we all stuck to that golden rule what a homogonous world it would be (to use Candy’s term).

Very fair comment.  Clearly, what I said didn’t come out quite as I meant it.

I’m perfectly happy for there to be sex if both parties want it and agree to it.  (Oh yeah, I’m there.) So using “love” was incorrect terminology in my example.

I’m not quite sure now how to say what I was trying to.

So I take the whole statement back.

If I can figure it out better at a later date, I might try again.

Maybe I’m thinking in terms of all negative reasons for the act as opposed to positive ones, whether it’s that the characters want to have a good time, if they’re madly in love or anything in between.

I’m not sure and since I obviously didn’t make myself clear - and I guess that’s difficult when I don’t have it clear myself - I’ll just shut up and sit back and read everyone else now.

P.S.  I knew there was a reason why I’m usually a lurker.  You’re all much better at this than me.

Aw, don’t say that, Kerry. Your view is just as valid as anyone else.

There’s some debate on the whole sex vs love thing. Like purists say that sex shouldn’t have anything to do with the process and it comes as a result of falling in love. But in my books, the h/h enjoy lots of bouncy-bouncy for its own sake, just for the pleasure of it, because they find each other hot, on the way to discovering that there could be more.

Thanks Ana.  But it does help if I can actually manage to put across my view rather than something that isn’t clear enough to show what I’m trying to say.

When I have something to say that I’m sure I can say clearly, I promise I’ll jump right in and contribute to the conversation.

I think the loss of control on either side, or on both sides, can be both romantic and erotic if written well--as suits the characters.

I also think there’s a wide, wide difference between being convinced to do something, and being pressured to do something. Forced takes it to another level entirely.

Losing control, emotionally or physically can be part of the rush and thrill. Being convinced, seduced, persuaded, can be very sexy.

I don’t consider it a matter of being PC not to want a hero who would physically or emotionally force the heroine--or visa versa--to have sex or perform a specific sex act.

It may work within the framework of the book if the writer is really skilled, and it fits the characters and the storyline. But redeeming a character who’s used force is, for me, damn near impossible.

I didn’t like it back in the day either.

~So using “love” was incorrect terminology in my example.~

Maybe respect is a better term. To my mind, one doesn’t abuse--and forcing sex is abuse--someone one respects.

I’m with Candy and have to say that I grit my teeth whenever someone (even Laura Kinsale) blames lack of quality/excitement/variety on “PC”.  I’m one of those who generally finds relationships far sexier if the H/H achieve some kind of balance.  I’m not talking about her hymen and innocence balanced against his strength, wealth, and power.  Nor do I mean that the H/H are always equally strong or smart or whatever.  I just mean that my personal fantasies aren’t fulfilled by young girls overpowered by men twice their age and size but instead by H/H who are smart (but may make mistakes) and strong (but may have periods of doubt and uncertainty).  It’s telling that my favorite romances include Loretta Chase’s “Lord of Scoundrels”, Taylor Chase’s “The Thief’s Mistress”, and (yes) Laura Kinsale’s “For My Lady’s Heart”.

Kerry, please don’t leave me feeling you’re lurking cause we disagreed. You expressed how you saw it (or thought you saw it). I responded. You came back with “Ok, I wasn’t clear” and tried again. BRAVA! That’s how this discussion thing works. LOL!

From your last post it sounds to me like we actually agree on this one, and that Ana’s (and my) characters are free in your opinion to play “bouncy-bouncy” as much as they want as they want so long as both parties want to (and that was really all I was saying . . .).

But to digress back to Kinsale’s comments, I really don’t get the “safe Regency settings” comment. I think there is much of a muchness in ALL the subgenres. And, yes, the rampaging alpha hero of the past is not much in vogue currently (unless he’s fanged). You don’t see a lot of “fuck her till she likes it” books being published today (maybe you do in epubs, I have no idea), and if that’s the thrill the reader is looking for I don’t know where to send them (and I’m grateful not to know). What I do see is a lot of “tease her, or manipulate her, or paranormally seduce her until she admits she wants you” books.

I think that the attitudes that readers like/accept at a certain point in time are much like the hairdos of historical films: They say more about the time the film was made (or book was written) then they do about the time when the film or book is set. Those classic “bodice rippers” were being penned at the same time that Warren Beatty and Clint Eastwood were tossing their costars around on screen and the women sighed over it.

Men, in our books and in real life, struggle with their identities (maybe they always have, but certainly not so vocally and so obviously as they do right now). Much as women struggle with the virgin/whore dichotomy, and the working woman/SAHM dichotomy, and the good girls don’t like sex stigma, or good girls don’t like THAT kind of sex stigma, etc. Men struggle with conflicting messages, too: Be a MAN, but be gentle; Defend your woman, but don’t be a raging jerk; Never hit a girl, but what to do when the girl is the one hitting you?

It’s hard to be people (so ungrammatical, but I can’t think of any other way to say it).

I think it’s hard for people to figure out who they are, how they’re supposed to act and react, what is ok and what isn’t, and I just see the grey area getting larger and larger . . .

It seems to me that the real issue isn’t what the characters do--it’s how the author handles it afterward.

Back in the day, a hero could force himself upon a heroine, and the author seemed to be saying the heroine really didn’t want to, and the hero wasn’t doing it as point of power, but rather as sex (I hope I don’t need to explain to the Bitchery that rape is a power thing, not a sex thing). However, the authors didn’t necessarily make this clear. I think it stemmed from what Lauren was saying: “...letting a woman put the responsibility for her desires that she’s deemed unacceptable or inexpressible onto the man. That’s not rape.”

No, it’s not. But it looks a whole lot like it in the hands of a writer who isn’t spelling it out. I suspect the audience of the 70s and 80s already knew the subtext and didn’t need to have it explained, or at least felt the same way he author and/or heroine did, even if they didn’t quite understand the underlying reasons for what they felt. I’ve read those books. They never bothered me; I understood what was really going on.

But the fact is, this is the 21st century, and one hopes that women today are allowed to own their sexuality, allowed to say, “Yes, I wanna!” and not be thought less of. If it’s PC-ness that demands that women be allowed to have sexual feelings, then hoo-rah for PCness.

Does this mean there’s no place for the “forced seduction” in today’s writing? I dunno. I like to think that no options should be outlawed, and despite my hopes, there are no doubt plenty of women who still need that fantasy because they are not comfortable saying “Yes, I wanna!”

I think I would just like to see it handled...better. More smoothly? More attention paid to the underlying psychology? More repercussions, more consequences?

Sometimes I think authors, despite all their head-hopping omniscient POVs, really fail to show character psychology...or perhaps they just fail to make characters as complex and contradictory as real people. Too many authors have a very neatly mapped out profile of the hero and heroine’s psychological baggage, and how to deal with it--but real people are just not that simple.

Real people have twelve reasons for everything they do, not one. Real people don’t “heal” from psychological injury--they learn to cope, they learn to work through or past, they develop into different (hopefully better) people. But as anyone who’s broken a bone knows, it’s never, ever as good as it was before. 99%, maybe, but never 100%. Why should the mind be any different?

Feh, I’m blithering. I guess what I’m saying is, if an author tackles a complex, serious, psychological scenario, then she owes it to her readers to not simplify it and diminish it.

-----------

On a lighter note,

He of course, had no idea what I was talking about but was pleased that I’d mentioned both “cake” and “humping.”

and

Next time you read Kathleen Woodiwiss or Rosemary Rogers, try to picture the heroine as an administrative assistant and the hero as the manager of Purchasing and Inventory Control.

both made me spit half-chewed, expensive Leonidas chocolates onto my monitor. You wasted chocolate! Bad, naughty, wicked Bitches!  ;-)

Thank you Nora.  Yes, I think respect does work better.

Tonda, yes I’m all for the bouncy-bouncy.  And don’t worry, I won’t back off because I disagree wth someone (although I think we’re actually on very close pages if not the same one), only if I feel saying more isn’t going to advance anything.  I struggle to get what is in my head out into words that show it clearly - that’s partly just me and partly the fact I have CFS and my brain doesn’t stay focused as well as I could like.

Okay, going to read the nice, long comments above this one that I skipped to reply.

So what happened to the intrepid author who presented such unconventional heroes as the one in Seize the Fire where the hero was on his knees to ther heroine not once but twice! 

I have to agree that I think she missed the boat with the hero in Shadowheart.  The relationship did not work for me.  I have no idea if she watered the character down at the urging of her editor/publisher or if it was just too long between the time she conceived him in the first novel and when she trotted him out again in Shadow Heart.  Maybe it would have been better for the story if she had created an entirely new character.

I have to say, that when Kinsale says:

Perhaps, like in a modern marriage, readers have begun to insist on getting “everything” from a romance novel...[including] elements that are mutually contradictory and exclusive of one another.

My instant reaction is to ask, is it readers who want everything, or is it Kinsale who’s running around in circles trying to please everyone> because honestly, if there’s one thing the recent rash of posts at this site has taught me, it’s that the romance readership is a pretty wide and varied group of people. It seems to me that what Kinsale is finding frustrating may actually just be the diversification of the genre, and the fact that while individuals may know what they want, there is no one way to please the whole romance audience since there are so damn many of us.

I think it’s ALSO making a difference that now *everyone* has access to a computer, so the author is much more likely to hear (or seek out, or stumble upon) feedback from someone other than her immediate circle and the loyal fans who write in; in that sense she hears criticism that the hero was too much of a fop (read: not to my tastes) or the heroine suffered too much (read: not to my tastes), and thus tries to please the casual reader as well as the loyal one. Suddely there’s a lotof reader-author interaction where before there was very little, and a whole bunch of the new stuff is coincidental rather than direct. Now it’s way way easier for a reader to voice an opinion publically, and the author has a much wider range of opinions to read and consider.

Case in point: I tend to think I’m pretty consistent in my tastes - love KA heroines, not real big on dark heroes, and not so much a fan of erotica (not that I don’t read it, but I don’t get overly excited about it often), but compare me against, say, my friend D who loves a good degree of sensuality (I could take it or leave it), prefers Blazes to Bombshells (unlike me), and likes heroes I’d consider darker. Like me, she ALSO has a computer and an opinion and is just as well spoken. If one were to lump us both together as “the romance readership,” when I like combat and she likes an sensuality, well, I can see how “readers” as a whole might come across as a little contradictory.

But the thing is, we have separate buying habits. Our books are all labeled romance, though, and shelved right next to each other. We’ll read the same things sometimes (we both love Lunas), but our opinions do differ quite dramatically at points, and we both have access to a keyboard.

I think part of what people who miss the gold old days miss is that then, when you picked up a romance, you more or less knew what you were getting. You didn’t ten pages in discover that the hero was a sensitive poet with a secret baby, or your heroine’s KA labeling didn’t prevent her from needing to be rescued every 30 pages. I think that the increased diversity (or at least, the shift away from certain elements and towards others), plus the fact that on the internet all arguments hold equal weight, has simply left authors confused about where exactly they’re supposed to go to please the most people, and readers confused about what exactly will best suit their tastes. But, while no-one wants to exlude potential “readers,” and plenty of readers are willing to experiment outside their favorite genre, you can’t exactly please the whole world.

So in short, I don’t know that it’s so much that our tastes are inconsistent as individuals; I think that it’s more a problem of, as an author, separating the people who *will* read you and “get” your stuff from the people whose cup o’ tea you’ll never be, but who’ll stumble across your book and feel free to express their opinion anyway.

These sorts of conversation threads always befuddle me.

What the proponents of “forced seduction” describe is just a BDSM scene without the careful fetish rituals to safeguard everyone’s boundaries.

Which is why I personally find them distasteful.

I also find distasteful the idea that a good romantic conflict = rape, forced seduction or an alpha asshole hero breaking the heroine’s heart and then apologizing at the end, making it all better.

I mean, honestly, which is more interesting and emotionally engaging:

(1) Being kept from love because the objet d’couer is an undead monster who might drain all your blood if he fucks you, or

(2) Being kept from love because the objet d’couer is an asshole.

Not a hard choice for me.

Joyce Ellen Armond said[quoteWhat the proponents of “forced seduction” describe is just a BDSM scene without the careful fetish rituals to safeguard everyone’s boundaries.

Isn’t this just too broad a generalization? I am no expert on BDSM myself, but I live in a world where there are many shades of gray between the extremes. In that world, forced seduction does not BDSM mean.

Well, I’ve only read the first half of the comments, and it’s all devolved into that “rape” thing again, which is NOT ‘effin what I’m talking about.

I was talking about what Ester Perel wrote; her quotes. 

But never mind. 

LK, author behaving badly and going back to writing

P.S.

Yawn. Blaming political correctness is so damn lazy.

This actually offends me.

A writer who writes with a reader--internet, snail mail, fan or critic-- over her shoulder is a writer who will shortly be in drooling in a padded room.

It’s all about the story. Because what Reader A loves, Reader B despises. And both will vocalize it. Both will be absolutely right. Because it’s personal and it’s subjective.

The only voices a writer should listen to are the voices of her characters--then her editor, because every writer needs an editor.

However much we love The Reader, you are legion, you are diverse and you are opinionated. And you cannot, under any circumstances, be inside our heads.

We can’t please all of you, and if we try, we’re fucked.

Maybe, on one level, this is what Kinsale was trying to get across. For me, it’s basic stuff. Certainly it can be frustrating if a writer listens to all the opinions, all the reasons, all the perfectly rational debates--and tries to incorporate them into the work.

PC has nothing to do with it. Trends have nothing to do with it. Character and story have everything to do with everything.

I will say I am the old-fashioned type. I think part of the reason historical romances appeal to me is that the expectation is the woman tends to be very naive about sex. And the man usually is not. I like that. I like the idea of losing one’s innocence about things carnal to a really hot, sexy man.

Alpha *doesn’t* mean asshole, by the way. Alpha just means the hero is a protector, he is more of the ‘traditional’ male, he is action-oriented.

I guess I just like men who are men...who know how to fix things, chop wood, fire a gun, laugh in the face of spiders and bats and mice.

So, I must agree with Laura Kinsale. Part of what makes a romance enjoyable is the giving in to desire...and how can you do that if the woman can take care of everything herself?  Why not just give the heroine a vibrator and a carton of ice cream and call it romance?

My least favorite thing is reading that agents are looking for ‘strong heroines.’ What exactly does that mean?  I want my heroines to have a strong sense of self and to want to be independent, but I also want them to realize the usefulness of having a strong guy around once in a while.  Men and women are inherently different--physiologically and emotionally. Why deny it?

I say bring it on!

Because Ms. Kinsale posted that the conversation here was veering away from her point, I read her original post. One thing struck me in her quote from Ester Perel:

And eroticism thrives on something very different. It thrives on the unknown and the mysterious, on the unexpected. It’s not what you want in a long-term, secure relationship.

I’m a great fan of the In Death books and it seems to me that Eve and Roarke have a long-term secure relationship… and a highly erotic one. Nora Roberts manages to keep the heat up between two strong and independent characters… so it can be done. There’s very real conflict between the characters, in their world views and where they draw the line, and this adds to the romantic tension between them. and so far there’s not a single vampire in the entire series.

So it is demonstrably possible to have dark heros and dark heroines - or at least those with their own demons - without bowing to Political Correctness or feeling the need to stick a vampire into the series to create erotic tension.

What it does require is creativity and thought and effort to break away from the formulaic.

This may not be the type of book Ms. Kinsale writes: I haven’t read any of hers, not being a fan of straight romance in general. I don’t read many paranormal romances, either. Oddly, I rarely feel that I have nothing to read - excpet those times between paychecks when I’m out of money to buy more books.

(I don’t know whether I’m making my point or whether I got distracted by praising my much-loved In Death books - I’m not as eloquent or clear-thinking as most people here, which is why I rarely post.)

Maybe part of the question is terminology here, because I don’t immediately equate “alpha” with “protector,” I equate it to “in charge.” It’s entirely possible that a physically stronger person might be a protector to the person who is more “in charge” of the relationship as a whole, isn’t it?  Because I read more books whose primary genre is fantasy/science fiction or historical than that are romance first, I’m going to have to reach into fantasy for an example: Sir Dog in Sky of Swords by Dave Duncan, whose immediate reaction to his queen and lover complaining of any potential threat is offering to kill the guy for her (even when that would be conterproductive).  He’s the protector, but she’s in charge in every way.  Obviously, first because she’s the Queen, and second because this is a King’s Blades book, and Blades like Sir Dog are enchanted to have absolute loyalty to their wards.  However, also because he has Issues and doesn’t think he’s worthy of happiness or her.  It takes a lot of convincing for him to accept that the queen really is asking him to sleep with her (initially because she’s afraid the council is going to want her to marry this rather nasty noble who has gone through a long string of wives and insists each one be a virgin) and that she wouldn’t prefer one of her prettier or more charming Blades.  Protector, yes.  But I certainly wouldn’t consider him an Alpha.

I’m not sure I’m going to add anything useful to this discussion but I’ll try.

First, I read one Kathleen Woodwiss (sp) romance back in the seventies (Shania, I think). It was so irritating to me I swore I would never read another romance again as long as I lived. (took me over thirty years to get over that book) So I don’t get the term ‘forced seduction’ at all. But it sounds like a date-rape drug is required, I could be wrong. I don’t understand the concept of fluffy heroine falling in love with asshole-hero inspite of the fact that he’s an asshole. Sounds like she needs a lot of therapy.

But I do know that romance starts with attraction, sometimes very intense attraction, sometimes a little complicated, and sometimes a little twisted. Seems to me that’s a good start for a good writer. Maybe I’m naive.

I have noticed by reading these blogs, groups and boards that a lot of readers interject their own issues into romances. I read one comment someplace by a reader that she thought the hero was cheating on the heroine (IHO) and would quite reading a series if the heroine was reunited with the hero. How does the author keep up with that? It’s not possible.

Of course, I do that too. I am sick to death of the victimization of women being used as a plot device in books, movies, and television. That why I don’t rush out and get any more D. Gabaldon books. Don’t mean to make things harder on writers but to me there’s a larger issue.

So there you go…

But, Candy, isn’t that part of LK’s point?  That writers are tryng to veer away from traditional anything in books for PC reasons? 

I was just saying that is what *I* prefer to read about when reading historical romance. And I get annoyed when authors try to bring PC concepts into a book that supposedly took place over 100 years ago.  I don’t need 100% societal accuracy, but the reason I read an historical vs. contemporary romance is that there is something appealing to me about traditional male/female relationships. And why should I be made to feel bad for enjoying that kind of book? or why do writers have to change stories with this dynamic because it is not considered PC in today’s ‘enlightened’ world?

As far as the ice cream/vibrator comments goes, perhaps I bounced around a little too much there. What I meant by that was sometimes women are made to be so strong in books that there doesn’t seem to be a point in having a man around at all. She seems to be able to do everything on her own. I find that kinda boring.  I’d like a little vulnerability and a little bit of acknowledgment that sometimes, you *do* need a man.

Like I said, I’m an old-fashioned kinda gal…

From Candy--“I will say this, though: I am sick unto death of people using the term
“PC” to mean “wimpy” or “modern,” and “un-PC” to describe brutality
that they happen to find sexy. Not everyone does it, but enough do to drive
me up the friggin’ WALL. “

I came back to clarify an earlier statement and comments appear faster than I can articulate here.  Or try to at least.  Like Kerry, I don’t always feel I make myself clear and find it more comfortable to lurk. (g)

This from Becca:
”So it is demonstrably possible to have dark heros and dark heroines - or at least those with their own demons - without bowing to Political Correctness or feeling the need to stick a vampire into the series to create erotic tension. “

This is exactly what I tried to say earlier in my oh-so-inelegant way. I used strong instead of dark.  When I said that it sometimes feels like we’re PC-ing our fiction to death, I didn’t actually mean it to sound as it did.  Oops.  Sorry bout that.  What I did mean is that maybe in an effort to be as politically correct as possible--- to try and please so many readers who are so vocal on the Internet, writers and even editors are taking fewer chances.  I don’t know this for sure—it’s just a thought.  Actually, homogenized is a great term for what I think I was trying to get across. 

Heh heh-- now I’m not even sure of my point.  I’m a way better lurker.

But, I do believe strong heroines are a great thing about today’s books.  I love them.  I had many a romance manuscript turned down in the nineties because my heroines were too strong.  I’m jumping back into the game now because maybe what I write will work now. 

Strong doesn’t necessarily have to mean “kick ass” (even though most of mine can and do)—it can mean so many things.  Strength of character-- of will.  And I think that a lot of readers might be feeling disappointment in their kick-ass heroines because sometimes, the very things that make women strong end up absent.  I believe a woman can kick-ass and still show compassion… and still be turned on by a strong, alpha male. 

I once had a reader point out the strength of my heroine and say I’d have to make the hero weaker to balance the book properly.  Why? 

From this conversation, it sounds as if the real struggle is terminology.  What does alpha mean to each of us?  To me it can mean “in charge” but it can also mean protector or just plain strong-willed with all those great manly qualities.  I see no problem with a well-written romance about two strong alpha characters.  What’s missing, IMO, for some readers is the strong “compelling” elements.  The heavy emotional elements.  At least that’s what I hear in conversations.

Am I even making sense?  I need coffee or something…

I think Nora said it perfectly.  A hero can be an alpha, masculine, arrogant, protective, studly kind of guy without being an asshole or a rapist.  To me nothing sexy or provocative about rape/forced seduction.  Too close to the she means yes even though she says no argument.

In past novels it was often the mans anger and him forcing himself on the woman.
time has passed, we’ve evolved, why dont we see women forcing men in novels?

because… piss a woman off and the last thing we want to do is get naked!If she’s mad enough you may not see her naked for WEEKS!

we don’t force sex on men to assert our dominance. And rape/forced sex in novels are written in for just that reason, to show that MEN are dominant to women and we should submit to them.

However, I realize its all fiction and if the book is good enough and the story can carry the episode well, I can move past it and not hold it against the author.

Rape by villians is another topic all together.. diane gabaldons outlander series included male / male rape and male/female rape. both were handled well i thought and added to the story.

So what happened to the intrepid author who presented such unconventional heroes as the one in Seize the Fire where the hero was on his knees to ther heroine not once but twice!

STF is my favorite Kinsale.  I just hope the author who so passionately wrote not that long ago about how she didn’t care what any of us thought hasn’t gone away.

Actually, I’ve seen Kinsale make some of the points she made in her latest post before, and I think the core of her position is in her comment about the “literalization” of Romance.  If I understand Kinsale’s argument, it goes something like this:  while so many of our fantasies, archetypes, myths (she’s mentioned Leda and the Swan on AAR, which is contributing to my inferences here) relate to the taboo, to violence, to dark eroticism, etc., in our Romance novels, we’ve moved farther and farther away from honoring those symoblic and metaphoric and mythic levels and have instead grounded all this stuff by inappropriately writing and talking about it in the same way we’d talk about real life issues.  So in the issue of rape, for example, instead of looking toward the mythic and symbolic levels and aspects and functions of this trope, we act like “forced seduction” or what I call “Romance rape” is virtually the same as real-life rape, which, in Kinsale’s paradigm (as I understand it) is fully distinct from the trope of forced seduction or rape in Romance.

Based on this understanding of her position (which I stand ready to be corrected on), I don’t fully agree with Kinsale, because I do not think you can choose the either or in the material - mythic relationship.  For me, anyway, taboos, for example, have their power not only because of their long-standing connections with archetype and myth, but because of their material implications.  That rape, for example, has strong symbolic and mythic elements does not, IMO, distinguish it from its real-world counterpart, because IMO part of the power of the mythic derives from the vulernability and threat inherent in the material existence of rape (and vice versa). 

That’s why in my own reading of forced seduction or Romance rape, I tend to think that part of the power of that trope is that it makes safe something that women find terribly unsafe in real life.  And that it allows for a different identification of power, that it touches on all sorts of self-control and responsibility issues (this element, of course, has been well documented by Nancy Friday and others), etc.  But I don’t think it can function symbolically without all of its real-life significance and potency serving as a counterpoint and a conscience. 

I also think that women who HAVE experienced sexual assault have a very legitimate reason to find the device prolematic and objectionable in Romance.  Because while Kinsale tends to take the deep view of these things, I don’t think hers is a universal approach, and so when she laments to lack of imagination, risk, and boundary pushing in Romance, she’s using criteria that aren’t applicable universally across the genre. 

Perhaps because I read calls all the time for more boundary-pushing in Romance, I guess I’m not so imbued with the idea that Romance readers, per se, are guilty of such a glaring double standard (although I’m not saying we’re easy to please or innocent of double-standards in our expecations of the genre at times).  Further, I think there is some Romance for which it IS appropriate to ask the question of whether certain books are romanticizing certain behaviors and values in a real-world material kind of way—in other words, where the mythic and the mystical are not invoked or evoked (however they might function in the individual reader’s imagination—or not).

I do, though, think Kinsale is right about the mystery inherent in understanding all of the nuances of desire and attraction and sexuality, etc.  And I think this even extends to the writing of Romance.  Because while I find some of Kinsale’s comments to be aesthetically conservative, I find her books to be very subversive in certain ways.  And that combination, which remains somewhat mysterious to me as a reader, doesn’t necessarily compute logically, but it does produce some mighty fine Romance.

PC in novels means something a little different for me:  1)Like Suzanne Brockman’s last couple of books she has slipped in snide references to how it’s apparently OK now for the US Military to torture prisoners (like it wasn’t stopped, prosecuted, and punished?) 2)Or Linsay McKenna and her native american heroines that are so full of angst and feelings of be misunderstood, that I doubt they are mentally capable of sustaining a relationship. I don’t want to read about them, I just want to send them to counseling.

Another hot button for me is the same as Kristin...authors who write historical novels, but insist on including modern political correctness.  Totally heave that puppy out in the yard for the dog to pee on.

Rebyh..so true I’m still laughing, “Piss a woman off and the last thing we want is to get naked!  If she’s mad enough you may not see her naked for weeks!”

Another hot button for me is the same as Kristin...authors who write historical novels, but insist on including modern political correctness.

I think I’m less convinced than other people that this is actually occuring; too often, I think the no-PC argument is used to justify heroes of the past who are bulying bastards and heroines who are dainty doormats.  But I don’t think it’s always the case that history bears out our popular perceptions of it, especially when it comes to how we think men and women are being re-written according to current day standards. 

As for Brockman’s side references—having spent an entire semester studying the so-called enemy combatant situation, all I can say is . . . THANK YOU, Suzanne Brockman!

Perhaps the problem of strong heroines so strongly dominating weak heroes is more a problem of the pendulum swinging too far away from the worst sort of hero. This mercifully isn’t the case with all but a very few novels I’ve read. It’s no more a desirable or believable setup than the simpering women with beastly heroes from the past. PC isn’t an excuse in and of itself, but I can certainly see that it would give authors some pause.

Equal partners whose strengths/weaknesses are so lovely to observe, in novels or real life. Like Nick and Nora in the Thin Man movies, the combination of wit and love and play is hard to beat. In comtemporary novels, it seems that this equal partner role is relgated to the Best Friend who brings ice cream and snark. Such inequal M/F matching takes away most of the sex appeal for me because the comfortable, fun outlet for power play has been removed.

The woman can certainly be in the heroic role without having to weaken the male. Nora Roberts’ Key trilogy is a good example of the women being strong, brave and entirely femme. Their men are appropraite matches, all strong and successful. Most importantly, the men are supportive equals and not the ones who come in at the last moment and fix the mess the women made. They’re proud like good boyfriends should be. ;-)

Another hot button for me is the same as Kristin...authors who write historical novels, but insist on including modern political correctness.  Totally heave that puppy out in the yard for the dog to pee on.

I don’t really see much evidence of correctness, political or otherwise, in the vast majority of historical romances that have been published in the past 30-35 years. I’m with Robin: I tend to read “politically incorrect” as code for “hero is a brutal asshole but we’re going to try and pass him off as historically accurate because EVERYONE knows all men of yore were brutal assholes, and y’all are just too politically correct to appreciate his True Manliness.” And look, it’s OK to admit we like brutal assholes in our romance fiction. Hell, I have a huge soft spot for heroes who display distinctly asswipish behaviors, like Sebastian Dain in Lord of Scoundrels and Sheridan Drake of Seize the Fire. To veer into a tangent: I think for me, the extent to which I can buy into and forgive a hero’s bad behavior is often predicated on how well I understand what drives them to act so pathologically. Chase and Kinsale provided fairly detailed looks into their heroes’ pasts, so even while I winced and gasped at some of the things they did, I could sympathize. It’s not about political correctness or incorrectness for me, it’s about how convincing the motivations are for the characters.

Bla bla bla UGH how’d it get so late? More babbling tomorrow. Yeah, exciting stuff. Hang on to your panties.

“You can please all the people some of the time and some
of the people all of the time but you can’t please all the people all of the time”

And that’s why message boards and comment threads are fun.

I guess I just like men who are men...who know how to fix things, chop wood, fire a gun, laugh in the face of spiders and bats and mice....how can you do that if the woman can take care of everything herself?  Why not just give the heroine a vibrator and a carton of ice cream and call it romance?

I like men who can do that, too. But my grandma could do all the things you mention, and she had several husbands (sequentially, not all at once)in her 92 years.  She threw a couple back because they weren’t strong enough to keep up with her.  She was an old-fashioned Southern girl--really old fashioned, born in the 19th century.  But she was a farm girl, not a sheltered lady.  She grew up working hard and expected a man to do the same.  And if he didn’t respect her, he could go look somewhere else for a doormat.  I do think a lot of the women in realistic historicals would have that same attitude.  Those were the frontier gals who survived and raised kids who were survivors.

Physical competence doesn’t have to be ‘unfeminine.’ I think it’s more romantic to be with a guy because you want to be, not because you think you can’t survive without him. 

But that’s where we get into different strokes--different styles of femininity.  My father-in-law would be horrified if his wife invaded his workshop, and she never lets him use her stove.  The gender roles work for them, and that’s great.  They just don’t always work for everyone… variety is spice.

I’m not sure what an ‘alpha’ male really is, but I suspect most of the guys who are always trying to prove they are, aren’t.

Okay, I just posted a huge long reply with links to where I blogged about these topics and it all went blooey. So I’m going to go cry and try again later.

I’m disturbed by the idea that by authors scuttling “politically incorrct behavior” (read: characters abusing one another) we’ve somehow lost the ability to set up genuine conflict in our stories.

Yes, romance IS, by it’s nature, erotic (no matter what certain—not all—Inspy authors would have you believe) but is it impossible to have erotic conflict without one character—usually the hero—humiliating/hurting/disrespecting the other in some way?

I’m not buying it. But I never liked the “politically incorrect” books, anyway. I’ve met enough jerky, macho men in my real life. I don’t need to read about them, too. My definiton of “Alpha” is someone who is so strong, he doesn’t need to be abusive to get the job done. An abusive asshole “Alpha” is just a weak man with a big mouth and a desire to punish those who threaten his sense of self.

And yes, I HATE all this “it’s all the fault of PC” crap, no matter who is spewing it. I’m sorry, Ms. Kinsale, but as an excuse for having trouble coming up with good stories, it rings false. Particularly when you follow it with “I don’t give a damn what the readers think anyway.”

And so long as I’m shooting off my own big mouth…

1)Like Suzanne Brockman’s last couple of books she has slipped in snide references to how it’s apparently OK now for the US Military to torture prisoners (like it wasn’t stopped, prosecuted, and punished?)

Abu Ghraib is one of the incidents we KNOW about, in terms of US military/CIA torture of prisoners. To assume it is an isolated incident is naive, considering how hard the current administration has lobbied to have the strictures on torture as a tool for interrogation eased.

They failed, due to pressure from a bi-partisan coalition that insisted it put our own service-people in considerable danger and produced extremely unreliable information. (Plus...you know...it’s WRONG, and we’re supposed to be the GOOD GUYS. A “Christian nation,” according to the President.)

Pardon my rabid cynicism, but I think the folks that particular “tool” are just working a little harder to not get caught these days. No cameras on the cell blocks would be a fair start, I imagine.

I just can’t WAIT for the hate mail on this one. :)