Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by Candy • Friday, June 24, 2005 at 08:17 AM
Update! Alison Kent has the full text for the survey typed out on her blog. Go, read! (If you haven’t already.) I didn’t think it was possible, but the full text is even more retarded than I thought it would be.
I just checked out Monica Jackson’s blog and she noted that this month’s RWR has the following items on a ballot:
A. The romantic relationship is between one man and one woman
B. The romantic relationship is between two people.
I’m not sure what the question is, but from the looks of it, it seems as if it’s part of the ongoing attempt to re-define romance novels.
I agree with Monica: I’d be just as offended if the two items had been presented as “between a white man and a white woman” and “between two people.”
This is RETARDED. So retarded, that.... Ugh. No words to express the retardedness. Sorry.
Furthermore, I don’t see why it has to be restricted to only two people, either. Is a loving relationship only possible between two people? A bunch of polyamorous couples would probably beg to differ. This seems to be a tactic to exclude yet again the people who choose to write love stories that involve threesomes or more, like Emma Holly and various authors of erotic romance.
Some people would probably say “Those stories are erotica. They aren’t romance!” Well, what if somebody writes a story about two boys and a girl who fall in love, but doesn’t spend much time in the bedroom with them and instead focuses on other aspects of being in a threesome? It’s not erotica because it doesn’t focus on the sexual aspects, but apparently it’s not a romantic story either because it involves more than two people.
Now, mind you, what I’m talking about here isn’t cheating. I don’t find cheating particularly romantic because it involves lying and breaking somebody’s trust. Polyamory involves the knowing consent of ALL parties.
I also find it ironic that threesomes involving consenting adults are not romantic, but the hero raping the heroine (usually because he’s pissed off at her and wants to teach her a lesson, or because he mistakes her for a prostitute or a slut) is a-OK. Personally, I think that’s one of the least romantic scenarios, and the thought of the heroine falling in love with her rapist squicks me to no end, as does the idea of a rapist getting an HEA. But hey, this type of romance turns a lot of people’s cranks, and I’d never dream about coming up with a ballot that said:
A. The romantic relationship is between one man and one woman, both of whom engage only in consensual sex
B. The romantic relationship is between one man and one woman, consensual sex optional.
Anyway, I guess love stories apparently have to be all about strict monogamy, preferably between hetero couples. I’d love to see the SFWA attempt to define SF in as restrictive a manner: “Story must take place in outer space, in a time when superluminal travel is possible.”
Addendum: Whoops, can’t believe I forgot this golden opportunity to pimp the Romantic Bitches Association! Anyway, tired of exclusionary dipshits? Check us out. We’re fun, we’re open to readers and reviewers (not just authors), and we promise not to define “romance” in inexplicably narrow and asshatted ways. In short: we rock! Or we will rock--we’re still in the very, very early stages and are in the process of deciding on mission statements, dues, an appropriate logo and tagline, designing the website, etc. But sign up for the mailing list, and we’ll keep you updated on what’s happening with us.
Love,
Vice President of Vices Candy
Amen, Candy. I don’t know about you, but I am getting ready to pop some popcorn, get comfy on the couch, and watch the fur fly again.
Word.
BTW, are vampires and werewolves people too? Or are they simply corpses and wolves? Should we be worrying abou tundead and paranormal descrimination nexT?
Yes, but is the RBA open to pre-published Romantic Bitches? Inquiring minds have to know.
Oh, and what will be RBA annual award be called? And the statue? The mind boggles at the possibilities of the statue, Candy.
said on...Are they trying to refer to homosexual romance? I.e. two men, two women, one werewolf, a partridge, and a pear tree?
RBA it is. I said it on my blog, and I’ll say it here: Why worry about defining the top selling genre when the present lack of definition isn’t hurting sales?
Romance’s clout and power is in the sales and money it brings into the publishers, not trying to get people to approve or like it, or pandering to conservative tastes.
What the hell is RWA thinking?
said on...Yes, but is the RBA open to pre-published Romantic Bitches?
Why yes, yes it is. And if you do decide to grace us with your illustrious presence--well, I just might swoon.
Oh, and what will be RBA annual award be called? And the statue? The mind boggles at the possibilities of the statue, Candy.
Oooooh, we haven’t even gotten THAT far yet. More fun things to figure out, heh heh heh.
BTW, are vampires and werewolves people too? Or are they simply corpses and wolves?
Look, bestiality and necrophilia are OK as long as they’re monogamous and not gay, OK? Humping the blood-sucking undead and people who are part wolf = romantic, humping someone of your own gender or more than one person = perverse. Notice how the RWA very cleverly avoided mentions of species or living status in that ballot.
On “polyamorous couples”:
Interestingly enough, when I was interviewing LKH for RT, she said she researched this extensively and found that there realy aren’t that many. We are talking about committed relationships, BTW. She said that while polyamorous couples may seem like a perfect mix, people who choose this lifestyle all want jobs outside the home. No one is willing to play the houseperson role and eventualy the division of labor is just too complex.
It is easier to divide by two than by three four, five, etc.
I wanted to ask if success in a polyamorous couple situation actualy hinged less on the sex and more on math skills.
I didn’t. I had already received six “corrective silences” (one for a post-it note question that still seems valid, dammit!) and I can be taught—eventualy—not to ask stupid questions like that.
[Begin pointless rant]But these romance definitions are societal litmus tests, people! We need to weigh in and be counted! Our children are growing up with absolutely NO standards for relationship parameters. I am doing my part. Since the interview, I have stopped doing my son’s math homework in the hopes that he will have more options that a two person relationship.[/End pointless rant]
If anyone out there is or ever takes me seriously, I have to know. I have many “You have already Won!” spam mails that I need to forward to you.
Please return to your regularly scheduled rants on polyamorous orgies as they relate to the RWA.
And yes, I expect that eventually Candy and Sarah are going to kick me off their board. ;-)
k, I give. I can’t find this ballot in my RWR. Mind you the latest copy I have is June, and all I can see is the proxy form.
Help, where is this ballot?
X
I was informed by an email once that I was perpetuating bestiality with one of our werewolf series. Apparently, there are guidelines during the change as to when it’s OK and when it’s not.
Were in human form and human--OK.
Were in were form and human--bestiality.
Were in were form and other were in were form--OK.
Weres in wolf form--bestiality.
I thought the guy was nuts, but more than one person has told me they were told the same thing.
Yeah, it is sort of an unspoken rule at my pub that we watch out for wolfie/human combos. (Not to be mistaken for a humanoid-wolfman and a human.)
A few make it through (I edited one in which a wolfie--with psychic communication skills intact--1)talked the heroine into a mind-blowing orgasm while she was riding on his back and 2)gave her fantastic oral sex. Apparently that extra long tongue came in handy!
Can’t speak without a blood vessel bursting. Urgh.
In short, I agree with you, Candy. There is no earthly reason why erotica, romatica, and werewolf-on-human can’t be called “romance”. Banning them only makes them ultra-attractive; anyway, if we didn’t give a flip what consenting adults did even in our fiction the world would be a better place, in my humble opinion.
As for polyamory: I’ve only seen one situation where it worked; most of the time it doesn’t work. But as long as everyone’s being told where the genitals that are currently touching their own naughty bits have been, I don’t see a problem with people attempting to live that dream. Polyamory good, cheating BAD. Duh.
There’s a word for this “vote”, it’s three syllables and one of the nastiest words in the language. It’s called “censorship”, no less stringent because it’s implicit instead of explicit.
Wasn’t, like, that TV show Beauty and the Beast uber popular and of the oh-so-dreamy-and-romantic type? Except he wasn’t all human, right? I never watched it because I always use the RWA guidelines to determine what I should read and what I shouldn’t. I hate the idea that I might stray off the straight and narrow romance path.
Note the extreme sarcasm in my fingers as I type that last little bit while watching my Queer As Fold DVDs to get a little man-on-man romance fix.
Um...that’s Queer as Folk. Sarcasm does something to my typing ability.
How about love between two hermaphrodites? What’s that classed as?
I LOVED Beauty and The Beast. Cool show.
“We are talking about committed relationships, BTW. She said that while polyamorous couples may seem like a perfect mix, people who choose this lifestyle all want jobs outside the home. No one is willing to play the houseperson role and eventualy the division of labor is just too complex.”
That’s assuming that the polyamorous couples decide to live together. The ones I’ve heard of have worked out thusly:
1. Two or more established couples decide to strike up a committed relationship with each other. Co-habitation is, as far as I know, fairly rare. I know of a six-way consisting of three different poly couples who are in a committed relationship right now. They don’t live with each other, but they spend a lot of time with each other the way a non-cohabiting bf/gf pair spends a lot of time with each other.
2. An established couple brings in someone else, making up a threesome.
And the division of labor got too complex? I find that weird. If four or more people can live in the same house and share the chores as roommates, lovers can’t do the same? And someone HAS to stay at home to take care of household crap? That’s just bizzare, and I’m not sure I buy it.
It is easier to divide by two than by three four, five, etc.
This is why having tables up with who’s supposed to do what on which day are so useful.
Now, what’s true about poly couples that I’ve observed is that it’s harder to work out personality conflicts, especially when there’s one squeaky wheel who’s not quite fitting in, and the squeaky wheel is attached to someone everyone else loves. VERY hard to work out. Much harder than deciding who’s going to do the dishes.
But then again: have not done research on this, unlike LKH.
The squeaky wheel is common in all kinds of relationships, then. I don’t know how many times I’ve been restrained from trying to kick one of our friends’ SOs butt.
What’s funny is I can tell my male friends I hate their GF and female friends their BF, but my dh will not do it. Must be a guy thing.
The squeaky wheel is common in all kinds of relationships, then.
Oh yes. Absolutely. I’ve gone through the same thing. Unfortunately, our friends are the ones who have to learn the hard way that the SO is a jerkwad.
And the division of labor got too complex? I find that weird. If four or more people can live in the same house and share the chores as roommates, lovers can’t do the same? And someone HAS to stay at home to take care of household crap? That’s just bizzare, and I’m not sure I buy it.
That mystifies me too. LKH says that polyamorous relationships break up because no one will do the dishes? Where does that leave all the ‘conventional’ two-person heterosexual relationships where both people have full-time jobs? Ain’t no ‘houseperson’ at my house.
The nonsense about romance only being possible between two people of the opposite gender is so moronic as to not require any comment.
I looooved Beauty and the Beast - and that show definitely fell outside of acceptable RWA boundaries.
Quote: Candy I know of a six-way consisting of three different poly couples who are in a committed relationship right now. They don’t live with each other, but they spend a lot of time with each other the way a non-cohabiting bf/gf pair spends a lot of time with each other.
[pretending that phrase “poly couple” doesn’t confuse the hell out of me and soldiering on]
I may be reading that wrong but that sound more like roommates, “wife-swapping” and friends than committed, multi-person, relationship. LKH went to the boards and interviewed quite a few—oh what’s the phrase?? “Family Units”. Most managed for a few years to work out domestic sharing but when children entered the picture, division of duties got iffy. People paired off leaving someone or several someones out of the mix.
An open relationship is not the same as a closed family unit and neither is a commune style system.
You guys aren’t distilling the role of homemaker to “doing the dishes” are you? Please say that you aren’t. There is a great deal more to managing a home and a family than doing the dishes. Am I the only person who posts here who has children? If so, that clarifies a great deal for me.
pretending that phrase “poly couple” doesn’t confuse the hell out of me and soldiering on
Poly couples = polyamorous couples = couples who practice polyamory. Jennifer and Jason, a poly couple, decide to start a relationship with Todd and Tanya, another poly couple. Clearer now?
I may be reading that wrong but that sound more like roommates, “wife-swapping” and friends than committed, multi-person, relationship.
If the couples essentially date, remain committed and faithful within their group and do just about everything together, how is this different from a non-cohabiting, monogamous bf/gf? I mean, would you define only couples who live together as being really, truly boyfriend and girlfriend?
Most managed for a few years to work out domestic sharing but when children entered the picture, division of duties got iffy.
Children would complicate things, agreed. Still not sure why they couldn’t sit their asses down and come up with an organized way to divide labor, but maybe that’s much easier said than done.
“An open relationship is not the same as a closed family unit and neither is a commune style system.”
Yup, and I know the difference between all three (and the difference between polyamory and an actual open relationship, and the difference between those two and a swinging couple, etc.). The people in the six-way poly relationship I was talking about are not in an open relationship. They’re three separate couples, and they’re committed and faithful to each other and to the group.
You guys aren’t distilling the role of homemaker to “doing the dishes” are you?
1. Did not know you were talking about polyamorous family units with children, as you didn’t clarify.
2. Well, yeah, isn’t that alllll a stay-at home spouse does? Well, that and eat bon-bons and watch daytime soaps.
p.s. I believe I was the only person who made the crack about washing dishes--and I was using that as a synecdoche (or metonym, take yer pick since synecdoches are a type of metonym), for what it’s worth.
And yes, the comments are separate because I couldn’t remember the term “synecdoche” so I had to Google “metaphors part substitute whole.”
You guys aren’t distilling the role of homemaker to “doing the dishes” are you? Please say that you aren’t. There is a great deal more to managing a home and a family than doing the dishes. Am I the only person who posts here who has children? If so, that clarifies a great deal for me.
Of course, there is a great deal more to running a house than just doing the dishes. For the record, The Man of The House and I have been married for over 23 years. We have 2 children, 22 and 16. But the only times that there has been a ‘houseperson’ in our house is either when one of us has lost a job or when our children were very young. Both these situations were accompanied by a stunning and scary lack of money. I don’t know any families that have had the financial ability to have one person stay home and ‘run the house’ full-time. Most of us seem to muddle by anyway.
Sorry for the confusion.
Next up: Ferfe is going to argue that the pen is SO NOT mightier than a sword, because dude, a sword is totally bigger and has a cutting edge and all, while all a pen can do is write and maybe poke a hole in someone if you get close enough and stab really, really hard.
I give up
I can’t get past the whole transmogrification of the prefix “Poly” and the adjective “amorous” and the noun “couple”. It’s hurting the few brain cells left in my head.
How d’you think polyamorous units start? Like, three or more people fortuitously meet at the same time and decide to get together--AT THE SAME TIME? Most start out as a couple and add others on as they go.
I’m not sure what’s so mind-boggling about this.
“Dish washing” as a metaphor for homemaking.
Got it.
Hey, I didn’t say it was a particularly GOOD metaphor. But then authors nowadays still use “ink” and “pen” as metaphors for what they do even though keyboards, computers and toner come a lot closer to what the average author uses as tools nowadays.
**“Dish washing” as a metaphor for homemaking.**
Not particularly PC, but when is this site ever? (Says the woman who witnessed the crowning of the Grand Duchess of Poots earlier today...)
And this ...
Quote: Candy
Next up: Ferfe is going to argue that the pen is SO NOT mightier than a sword, because dude, a sword is totally bigger and has a cutting edge and all, while all a pen can do is write and maybe poke a hole in someone if you get close enough and stab really, really hard.
is another way of calling me stupid.
I get that, too.
I have no idea what the argument is about, but I do know when to end it.
I’m here to play devil’s advocate. The survey was sent to all members of RWA, which is an organization whose sole purpose is to ‘advance the professional interests of career-focused romance writers through advocacy and networking.’
There are over 9,000 members of RWA, and clearly, there’s bound to be some differences of opinion about which direction the organization should take. With the market exploding with stories which the founding mothers in the 80’s could never have imagined, it makes sense to reevaluate the mission of the group, and set goals and make plans. That’s the purpose of the survey.
RWA doesn’t publish books - so if the members decide they don’t want writers of homosexual love stories to sit at the table, that doesn’t mean homosexual novels will not be published. The definition is important primarily because of publisher recognition. When a writer’s publisher is recognized by RWA, their books can be entered in the national contest, they can participate in the published author network, and there are some other perks, not the least of which is industry advocacy.
It’s important that the definition of romance be determined, because there have to be parameters to the oganization.
Let’s say, for example, that the definition of a romance was simply ‘a story of love between beings.’ That would cover gays, the undead, supernatural beings, aliens, threesomes, foursomes, plants. Whatever. It could also be argued that this covers childrens books about love between a couple of spiders, or love between a child and her Grammy.
I read on one of my lists an argument that romantic love doesn’t necessarily include sex, and Christopher and Dana Reeve were given as examples. True love - no sex. Well, yeah, but I’m bettin’ they had sex before his accident, and most romances cover the courtship of two peple, (or three or four or...)or a reunion, or something similar that includes sexual attraction. Do we include ‘sexual attraction’ in the definition? If so, will that exclude some stories? I don’t know. That’s the point.
RWA has its problems, just as every large organization has its problems. But to my mind, this survey is important because it will be the stepping off place for where we go in the future. And just like the good ol’ USA, it’s a democracy. Everybody gets a vote, and whichever way the majority goes, that’s the direction RWA will take.
Does it really matter? In the big scheme of things, books will get published, with or without RWA. It’s been a tremendous help to me in my career, and it will be to others - it’s just a question of which ‘others’ it will help.
I’d be curious to know how loudly people would scream if the board made these decisions without any input from the members. Looks like people are screaming because they DID ask for input. So what should they do? Redefine romance as ‘Whatever the hell you want it to be’?
Stef
“Not particularly PC(...)”
Careful, you’re kinda sorta getting close to accusing Ferfe of being PC, and I have a feeling she’s put people in hospitals for lesser offences.
Grand Duchess Pootenbergen would make a good title, too. Thanks for ze inspiration.
And this ... is another way of calling me stupid.
Nope, I don’t think you’re stupid. Just poking a bit of fun at you for being a wee bit obtuse when Sandy and I were talking about the household chores thing--dude, you seriously thought we were talking about washing dishes, and ONLY washing dishes?
I do admit, looking it over, that what I wrote was pretty mean. (But then, saying “Am I the only person who posts here who has children? If so, that clarifies a great deal for me” was not exactly kind either, was it? That statement implies that Sandy and I are stupid.) At any rate, I apologize for the unwarranted bitchery.
And back to smacking the RWA pinata instead of each other!
Well hell. Just went to Alison’s blog and checked it out…
I still hold that the intent is valid - and I suppose the only way to rectify the limiting choices is to write to the board. Maybe they need a new survey person?
Aw shit. I’m going back to writing. I always always regret opening my mouth…
Stef
Day late and several posts short, but I have a daughter. Do I win something?
said on...Stef, RWA already *has* a definition; it’s on the Website. “According to RWA’s official definition, a romance is a book wherein the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.”.
Why is it suddenly a pressing need to rewrite this (IMHO) perfectly clear and meaningful definition?
“Why is it suddenly a pressing need to rewrite this (IMHO) perfectly clear and meaningful definition?”
Exactly. This looks like an attempt to narrow the definition down because certain people are not comfortable with certain elements this open-endedness has introduced.
Quote:I do admit, looking it over, that what I wrote was pretty mean. [...]
At any rate, I apologize for the unwarranted bitchery.
And the problem with being such a complete bitch myself is that it’s impossible for me to take the high road.
::Sniff::
I’m sorry. It’s not even that time of the month. I have no excuse. Forgive me?
Quote:(But then, saying “Am I the only person who posts here who has children? If so, that clarifies a great deal for me” was not exactly kind either, was it? That statement implies that Sandy and I are stupid.)
That was not intended to make you feel stupid. That was me feeling like an alien, yet again, in a group. My bad.
Quote:Just poking a bit of fun at you for being a wee bit obtuse when Sandy and I were talking about the household chores thing--dude, you seriously thought we were talking about washing dishes, and ONLY washing dishes?
Literal - not obtuse. Annoying none-the-less though, isn’t it? I am flawed that way.
Jonquil-
Hell if I know. I think I just had a kneejerk reaction because I tend to be defensive of RWA, and the board. Don’t know why - loyalty? blind stupidity? I do think the board gets a lot of undeserved shit, and it IS a volunteer position.
It really all comes down to a question of where we want our limited resources to go, and how thin they can be spread. With so many new types of stories out there, it makes sense to me that they want to redefine the parameters.
But I do think they need to hire a new survey writer. There should be a choice c) None of the above, and here’s my take.....
Stef
‘That was me feeling like an alien, yet again, in a group. My bad.’
People with kids are aliens? I KNEW it. They don’t call it the mother ship for nothing.
Taking a whack at the RWA.
It sounds an awful lot like they are circling the wagons. Working hard to be exclusionary. Drawing a defining line to safeguard the Current Membership (people who do things the Way We’ve Always Done Them) and keep out all those New People, with their chick-lit and their same-sex couples and Lord knows what-all.
Don’t more members = more dues paid? And more variety = new readers = more money?
Or am I missing something?
*certain people are not comfortable with certain elements this open-endedness has introduced*
God, I hope that’s not the case, Candy. I really, really hope not. But to be fair, that may be some people’s angle. I just don’t think it’s a collective thing. It’ll be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Stef, who appreciates that no one threw inanimate (or animate) objects at my head....
I’m sorry. It’s not even that time of the month. I have no excuse. Forgive me?
Quick note: This thread has been the site of more good ideas, honest discussion, and honest apology than I’ve seen in months in the RWA. Part of being a True Bitch is knowing when you’re wrong and admitting it, as well as knowing when to apologize. Candy and Ferfe just did that splendidly.
Kudos to all, and a case of virtual champagne!
*Squeeeeee* Fluffy bunnies used in heartfelt apologies!
I *heart* you guys…
(If only I could find that unholy throbbing heart smiley...)
I sent an email off to get a copy of this survey. Not sure if they’ll send it. If not it will be late July before I actually see what this is about, and how it’s being presented.
X
said on...My opinion on RWA’s attempt to define “what is romance.” I’ve been reading historical romance for 25 years. I have been reading less and less in the last 5-6 years. The problem for me is that it is becoming so narrowly defined by publishers. There are so many rules on what can’t be in a book and still call it romance that I’m slowing moving into other genres just for something interesting and different.
I was a huge fan of Rosemary Rogers (including her very kinky contemps when I was a teen). She incorporated multiple partners, rape, anal sex, drugs, you name it. I still consider them romances. In the end they remain about a couple’s relationship and how they end up together. I think RWA’s original definition is as defined as it should be.
Finally, I haven’t read many books with multiple partners at the same time in romance, however, I do consider Emma Holly’s Menage a romance.
But to my mind, this survey is important because it will be the stepping off place for where we go in the future. And just like the good ol’ USA, it’s a democracy.
True. Except the US has three different branches of the government to help balance things out, and the judicial system is in place to help save the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Straight democracy can oftentimes mean a “mob rule” mentality. The majority of people wanted to ban inter-racial marriage when it became a really hot issue in the 50s and 60s, which just goes to show that the majority isn’t always right.
But then romantica/gay romance authors being excluded from the RWA isn’t the end of the world, of course, and not as serious as an honest-to-God civil rights issue. It does mean that they’re denied the significant resources the RWA is able to provide (guidance, contacts, collective bargaining power, advocacy, etc.), which means the playing field isn’t quite even for them, but you’re right, they’ll probably still get published, and people will still buy their books.
I think the RWA is acting on the urging and advice of some. The timing for this question was horrendous as the same sort of question is being forced in the ballot in all sorts of places in an attempt to stifle gay rights.
They were trying to ask the membership to vote on something that a large number of members want redefined and restricted.
The leadership needs to be strong and see the big picture and be willing to say hell, no instead of bowing to pressures that might tear apart the organization.
As far as polygamy, it was portrayed in the Bible as an acceptable relationship choice way back when.
In some places it’s still practiced with good results.
I don’t know anywhere the woman with multiple male spouses thing works as a stable relationship choice though. Does anyone?
polyandry? Yowza, monica!
Quote: I don’t know anywhere the woman with multiple male spouses thing works as a stable relationship choice though. Does anyone?
LKH said that there were very few. I think she said she only found three that had lasted more than ten years.
I’m new to the “politics” of all of this - I’ve always just bought and read what I wanted and never really considered that there might be those out there attempting to restrict the publication of certain books not because there was no market demand for them, but because there was censorship in place from organizations such as the RWA.
This is the same organization, isn’t it, that recently decided to implement some new standards on graphics - then decided to put that on hold once a loud hue and cry went up from the public at large? These two actions in such close proximity to one another seem to imply that they are attempting to narrow their focus quite dramatically. [Maybe it’s just a case of an unfortunate coincidence in timing, but I’m a bit cynical so I doubt it.] Personally, their standards or lack thereof will have absolutely no affect on what I’ll want to buy. My concern is, though, that what I’ll want to buy might fall outside their strictures and it will be harder to find such things.
Is that a possibility, or does the RWA have no influence at all on what’s published? Even if they have no influence on what’s published, I presume they do have influence on which authors will get recognition for excellence in storytelling, and it would be a shame to have some great books out of the running for recognition due only to narrow mindedness.
Robin said on...Someone on another board posted the following link to a Connie Brockaway interview, which clearly addresses the definition of Romance. The whole thing left me feeling nauseated. I need to remember NEVER to read about the personal views of authors:
I need to remember NEVER to read about the personal views of authors.
That’s probably really good advice, Robin. Sometimes their personal views are all too obvious from the stories they tell, but sometimes it really puts me off to find I disagree with a lot of an author’s personal views on things when I’ve enjoyed things they’ve written. I suppose I should be able to keep the concepts separate --book over here, author over there—but it just doesn’t happen that way for me.
The woman (Connie Brockaway) confuses Christine Feehan with Sherrilyn Kenyon (sp?) Was enough to make me sigh and roll my eyes. If one is going to be a romance writer, one should at least not make such a blatant gaffe. when it comes to fellow authors. Tho’ to be fair, it might have been the interviewer who was the complete dumkopf.
And besides, when we read books, if the author is being true to him- or herself, it isn’t any big surprise when the interview comes out and we find out about them. At least, that’s what I think. (kaff, kaff.)
Stepping down off soapbox now…
Thanks for the link, Robin. I’ve never read Connie Brockway before but her interview pretty much solidified my stereotypical thinking of the successful, privileged, husband-supported, soccer-Mom, sheltered, lily-white, pseudo-liberal, intellectual-elitist historical romance writer.
That’s how that type of historical romances read to me also, so there’s not a lot of dichotomy between what I enjoy to read (not historical romances) and my impressions of their authors.
But reporters do spin interviews the way they want people to perceive the subject.
... stereotypical thinking of the successful, privileged, husband-supported, soccer-Mom, sheltered, lily-white, pseudo-liberal, intellectual-elitist historical romance writer.
Yo woman! I am aspiring to someday be one of those! Only I don’t have an SUV. I have to actualy work for a living. I could have been privileged but I was born to mutts—lovable mutts but so racially mixed I have no freaking clue what we are other than mostly human. Neighbors have questioned the human part. I could lose the tan though, and I have been known to write historicals that get rejected—repeatedly. I’m kind of a Soccer-mom. I could be liberal but I have this wicked-assed mean streak. The pseudo part—I can do that.
*sniff*
Awww nevermind. As you were.
successful, privileged, husband-supported, soccer-Mom, sheltered, lily-white, pseudo-liberal, intellectual-elitist historical romance writer.
FrefeLaBat, Never give up! It’s a hell of a good job if you can get it. (grin)
The SUV helps but a husband bringin’ home much bacon works better.
I’m none of the things in that list.
Sigh.
Hmm. I’m battin’ five for nine. Guess that’s why I can’t write decent romance for shit.
Oh Lord. I’m an author and I’m going to actually post my personal views (clearly demonstrating that being published doesn’t equate to having particularly good sense). Here goes...The RWA survey annoys the shit out of me. Yes yes yes. I realize that the board members are volunteers who are paid even less than teachers (well, unless they teach in my fine state of Oklahoma, then they probably do make more). But that doesn’t excuse idiocy or passive-agressive attempts at censorship. What’s wrong with the definition of romance as it stands, unless it’s too open for increasingly narrow minds? Please. Do these women never orgasm? Are they sober too often? What? What? It makes my ass hurt. I think someone needs to send them each a copy of Bradbury’s FAHR 451 for get-your-heads-out-of-your-asses reading. I’m finishing my 8th book right now (well, not right NOW - but I should be writing instead of ranting here...). Out of 8 “romances” (yes, all published) NONE of my hero/heroine relationships have been between two humans. Centaur-human, 1/2 centaur-human, demon-human, merman-human/mermaid (that one was confusing, and gods-humans. The one I should be working on right now is a retelling of Beauty and the Beast. I’m really going to be fucked about that one. My beast doesn’t changed into a foppish prince. Uh, he also has horns and hooves. My heroine is 100% human and is digging on some rough sex with her beast. Whatever. It has a HEA and it focuses on a relationship. Ergo - it’s a romance. Leave it the hell alone.
And for yet another author’s unsolicited pov on the subject, let me quote Mr. Bradbury’s rant when he told people who wanted to censer FAHR 451 to fuck off: “..."Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine, the life, the soul of reading! Take them out and one cold eternal winter would reign in every page. Restore them to the writer - he steps forth like a bridegroom, bids them all-hail, brings in variety and forbids the appetite to fail. In sum, do not insult me with the beheadings, finger-choppings or the lung-deflations you plan for my works. I need my head to shake or nod, my hand to wave or make into a fist, my lungs to shout or whisper with. I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book. All you umpires, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It’s my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I’ve won or lost. At sunrise I’m out again, giving it the old try.”
Holy shit I love that guy - even with his use of sports analogies.
Back to bestiality…
Duchess Baldenmonte
Shit. I spelled censor “censer.” Sorry. Jeesh. Shouldn’t have taken that xanax before ranting…
Brockway is staunch in her belief that politics have no place in the labyrinthine boudoir that is the subconscious mind. “Just like you can’t legislate morality, you can’t tell people what fantasies should or shouldn’t work for them.”
What’s wrong with that?
I mean other than the ultra-bizarrs image of a labyrinthine boudoir. (dammit, can’t find a thing to wear for my latest fantasy. I know I left that leather catsuit somewhere in my brain)
But that’s not Brockway’s fault. CB might have screwed up the details, but I thought the basic idea was fine. Fuck them if they can’t take a joke.
Three days later and I finally have a hissy fit. Honestly, I wish I could be au courant like you bitches.
“Brockway is staunch in her belief that politics have no place in the labyrinthine boudoir that is the subconscious mind. ‘Just like you can’t legislate morality, you can’t tell people what fantasies should or shouldn’t work for them.’
What’s wrong with that?”
Nothing, IMO.
It was her assertion that to call Romance “literary” is to insult it and deny what it really is; it was her assertion that Romance readers who object to rape in Romance have a “PC” agenda; it was her admission that she’s “always amazed” at how intelligent Romance readers are; it was her insistence that monogamy in Romance reflects a “biological imperative” for women.
I’ve actually defended the use of rape in Romance, even though it doesn’t work for me as an erotic fantasy (I think it’s a device that has to do with the empowerment of women). But you know what? Some of the strongest objections of its use that I’ve seen have come not from mutant feminists (I’m assuming this is what Brockway meant when she talked about readers trying to “jam PC stuff down romance readers’ throats") but from people who work with rape victims or who have been victims of abuse and/or rape.
As to the literary thing, beyond the classics like Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre, I think the Wyckerley Trilogy by Patricia Gaffney and many, many of Judith Ivory and Laura Kinsale’s books can compete as “literary fiction” any day. I have a friggin’ phd in literature, and I’m not even sure where the “literary” boundaries are.
It’s not that I don’t understand what she’s saying in terms of embracing Romance unapologetically; I think that’s a wonderful message to be delivering. But sometimes I sense a counter-defense in Romance, where looking at the genre too closely is discouraged with assertions like “it’s only entertainment and not to be taken seriously.” I don’t read Romance with the same expectations that I have for Shakespeare, for example, but in both cases I expect to be entertained, and I pay attention to what’s going on in both the primary and subtexts of whatever I’m reading.
The real reason I linked the interview, though, was the comment about the Carpathian books and how that segues into a definition of Romance: “‘I think it’s interesting that in romance, the relationships are always totally monogamous,’ she says, refilling our teacups. ‘Once the hero and the heroine get together--if we’re talking romance, not erotica--that’s it. There’s no one else in the world.’”
That’s clearly the subject of debate on this blog and others.
Obviously I was disingenuous in saying I don’t want to hear the personal opinions of authors—it would have been better to admit that I don’t like to read them when they offend me. And for some reason, when I read an author’s personal voice before I read their books, it’s a whole different dynamic for me. And of course, as Monica pointed out, the interviewer could have had an agenda that was different from Brockway’s. Brockway didn’t indicate that, though, when she wrote in on the other board and clarified that she does know who authored the Carpathian books and thinks that was a mix-up on the part of the interviewer. Of course, what’s most interesting to me is the fact that Brockway’s jumping ship from Romance to contemporary “women’s fiction”—I don’t know if that makes more or less sense after reading this interview.
Brockway said some things that made sense in that interview.
I was airing my personal opinion (ahem) on my overall impression of her (characteristics I don’t think many people find all that negative) and I admitted was stereotypical (never a good thing).
I don’t read that sort of book, but in light of how many she sells, Brockway’s doing something right.
One man/one woman declarations need to be challenged now, when RWA’s status quo, more inclusive definition, of romance was just fine.
I guess I’ve been reading so many quotations that strike me as far nastier and plain stuuuupid and that’s way I couldn’t get worked up about Brockway’s actual words.
My indignation buttons are all pressed out.
sheesh I mean that’s WHY I couldn’t get all wrought up.
Also been squawking so much lately, my fingers are not functioning.
said on...I am now convinced that the money I paid to join RWA this year was a complete waste of hard-earned cash.
Wow. What a bunch of idiocy.
I guess RWA wouldn’t consider the early 90s TV show, Beauty and the Beast a romantic show. I loved it, personally.
At the risk of sounding smug...I told ya so. I knew this graphical standards shit was the tip of the “definition of romance” iceberg, and I knew when it finally reared its white and frosty head, it would be just about as tragic as it’s turned out to be.
And what a finely nuanced choice they’ve given us, eh?
“Would you like your charred-to-a-lifeless-and-smoldering-crisp hunk-o’-cow-flesh with or without a parsley garnish?
What’s that you say? Medium rare? Sorry, no can do. Poultry or seafood? No, sorry, fresh out.
VEGETARIAN?? Ewwwwwwwwww. You must write for EC.”
“I don’t read that sort of book, but in light of how many she sells, Brockway’s doing something right.”
I DO read historical Romance, including a couple of her books, which is why her comments shocked and, to some degree, depressed me. The heroine of All Through The Night is a cat burglar, for example, while the hero of As You Desire is severely dyslexic, so her characters are often cut from a more complex cloth.
I have no idea how much they took out of context, and like you said, some of what she said made sense to me and even had me nodding my head. I liked that she defended Romance against the “ivory tower” prejudices and that she defended readers who embrace certain taboo fantasies. I just don’t want it all tied up in a neat little bow at the end with the heroine married and procreating, and all the subversion along the way neatly undoing and reversing itself so that we can return to the “natural order” of things for men and women. Because although I personally practice monogamy, I do still get nervous around phrases like “biological imperative” and “maternal instincts” when it comes to defining the parameters of Romance.
Is that a possibility, or does the RWA have no influence at all on what’s published?
-------------------
None, whatsoever. Nadda. Zip. Zero. Publishers choose what to publish according to marketing departments. RWA’s purpose has never been to influence what’s published.
------------
Even if they have no influence on what’s published, I presume they do have influence on which authors will get recognition for excellence in storytelling,
---------------
RWA isn’t the only writers organization out there, nor the only organization that gives out awards for books or great storytelling.
RWA’s main purpose, since its founding, was to be a support group for romance writers (the whole advocacy part is really limited).
There are mystery writers organizations, SFF writer organizations, and writers organizations that encompass every genre out there.
There’s really no reason for any writer not to be able to pay their dues and join a writers organization, be part of a crituqe group, get advocacy (other orgs do it much better than RWA anyway), get a newsletter, get a group rate on health benefits, and get awards.
Also, for all I may not agree with RWA about, one poster’s suggestion that they are trying to prevent gay romance from being published - or erotica romance - is pretty far out there. RWA could care less what gets published in any genre, whether it’s gay or straight erotica or erotica romance or whatever. They aren’t trying to prevent any type of book from getting published.
To me, it seems like they want to hear from members about whether the traditional definition of the genre (implied and otherwise) should be changed. Is it about a man and a woman and a happy ending, or is it just about any two people (did anyone note that more than two people wasn’t an option?)
I have nothing against any book that readers want to read or authors want to write. But isn’t gay romance a genre unto itself? Do they even want their books to be considered part of an all-encompassing romance category?
Did anyone bother asking them? Did anyone stop to think that maybe the gay romance writers out there, and the gay romance readers, are perfectly happy with their own organizations? Are we being presumptuous? Or have I missed something?
Seems to me, there have been a lot of gay romances written and published, with substantial success. Why would they want to change *their* definition of their genre to be part of our club? (because it’s important to note that if the two genres set up housekeeping, they BOTH will have to change the definition of their genre to accomodate the other.)
I could be all wet here, but I think a lot of writing organizations don’t welcome unpublished authors. Or if they do, the unpublished members are associate, nonvoting members who can’t hold office, or have any say in the organization. That’s something that’s always set RWA apart. Everyone who joins has an equal vote, and the opportunity to sit on the board. The only position not available to unpublished is the presidency.
Maybe advocacy isn’t such a big deal to the unpublished, but networking certainly is, and the opportunities afforded to members to meet editors and agents, at regional conferences, as well as national, is pretty awesome, in and of itself. The thing is, RWA can only support so many editors at the conferences. As it is, a small army shows up at National. If we have editors from other genres, other than traditional romance houses, the law of physics says some traditional romance editors won’t be able to attend. It might come down to first come, first served.
I seriously believe this whole thing is precipitated by logistics and money. I serve on the finance committee for RWA - so I know how much it costs to invite editors. Granted, we could become like some organizations, who have to hold their conventions in five hotels and a convention center because the numbers are so huge - but every single survey of the membership has indicated that no one wants that. They like the ability to all stay in one hotel, to hold all the workshops and lunches and meetings in the same hotel. Attendance is generally around 2,000, so there are 7,000 members who don’t show up at National. If we have editors from other, nontraditional houses, those numbers might go up, but who will the new people be? Existing members of RWA, or new members, who write nontraditional romance?
That’s not to say there’s anything wrong with growing, with diversifying. The whole point, the whole reason for the questions the RWA board is asking is - where do we want to go? Sitting on our hands is clearly not going to accomplish anything.
Now is the time to speak up, and frankly, any member of RWA who doesn’t speak up, who doesn’t write to a board member and let their opinion be heard, has no right to carp and bitch when things don’t turn out how they want. I have a friend who I regularly tell to shut the hell up about George W., because the moron didn’t vote. I say, he’s got no beef.
Stef, who’ll probably regret this post, but I’m desperate, DESPERATE to procrastrinate from the manuscript that WON’T DIE!!!!
said on...Okay, way off topic but seriously, you guys have to warn me before posting cute bunny pictures in responses to apologises! I got all teary-eyed and everything but, I am hoping I got tears in my eyes because it *is* that time of the month. Man I hope so. Either that or I have become somewhat unglued.
As to RWA - I’m bored.
You’re telling me that they already have a perfectly good definition that does not exclude anyone and they have decided that they need a new one? It sounds like certain people have the ear of someone who is trying to make all these changes while they have power. It’s just not right. I am only a reader so my eyes start to glaze when I see the latest on RWA but, man, it seems they have really been stepping in it lately. May be time to elect a new president and board.
CindyS
06.24.05 at 09:10 AM |