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

Awesome Bitchery reader Erika sent me this link - I can’t believe I missed this when I was on the People magazine site a little while ago: Guess That Man Titty!

I got six out of eight. What’s your score?

Tawny Taylor is reporting on her blog that Siren Publishing has won the bid for the rights to Triskelion’s contracts, but no official word has been posted on Siren’s website. As per her entry, which cites an unnamed author loop, “All the contractual rights that were included in the bid are now returned to the former Triskelion authors, unencumbered.”

Anyone out there got confirmation or details? 

Marta Acosta, in a desperate attempt to have her name associated with something other than the great vulva puppet website, sent me the following info. Seems after People Magazine named their sexiest men (with Matt Damon topping the list - yawn), Salon countered with their own list, Jon Hamm landing as #1 of their sexiest men. While I’m not sure I agree with the idea that Owen Wilson’s suicidal depression ups his hotness factor, I do love the not-the-same-old-homogenized-hot-dudes of their list.

Especially because StrongBad totally makes their list. Dudes, form a line to my left for high fives!

There are so many romance reader stereotypes that we fight against: we’re dumb. We wear sweatshirts embossed with puffy paint kittens with really big sad eyes. We’re in the midwest of the USA. We buy mindlessly because we’re dumb. And we’re dumb. And prone to repeating ourselves.

And we Smart Bitches know that’s horsepucky.

But there is one romance reader stereotype that needs to be addressed: we’re sexually repressed creatures. We need our romance novels to give us ideas of what sex is like because we can only accept it within the confines of a romance. Orgasm? What’s an orgasm? The dance as old as time? Dude. Sounds crusty.

Adding to all that sexual repression we try so hard not to talk about, we also have NO IDEA what to buy ourselves for the holidays. With Hanukkah sneaking up and spanking my ass on December 5 (WTF, yo? Can the holidays just STAND THE HELL STILL FOR ONCE!?!) and Christmas and Kwanzaa and New Year’s all lined up behind it, there’s a lot of gift giving potential for us sexually stifled readers of romance.

Now Jane over at DearAuthor has been writing the gangbusters hellagood guide to eBook readers and your technology options therein, since our gift-giving befuddled selves might appreciate the technological portability of eBook readers.

But what about our sexually repressed, frigid, unhappy selves, who seek out our girl porn romance novels for safe and cozy consensual sexxoring? The Smart Bitches Guide to Holiday Gifts is here to help! eBook readers? PAH! Only if they VIBRATE at the crucial moments!

Thanks to Bitchery reader Sherri, who sent me the link, we have vibration options. You can get off literally and emotionally if you’re listening to audio recordings of romance novels. The OhMiBod vibrator hooks up to your iPod and, well, allows you to Sing Along with Colin in a whole new way, if you know what I mean, and I think you do. There’s also a cellphone option that allows your cell phone to help you answer The Call more joyously, using the cell signal to trigger a vibration that lasts so long as you’re on the phone. The site even has videos where you can check out the OhMiBod in action.

No, no, don’t thank me. It’s the least I can do to help.

But wait, there’s more!

Marta Acosta sent me the following link, and I have to say, I’m profoundly grateful. This entire site is a treasure trove of gifts for every occasion. But let’s start with the obvious gift for those of us who are unsure of what the author means when there’s a reference to the “love grotto,” the “womanhood,” the “moist canal of her lovliness:” The Wondrous Vulva Puppet. Screw Lamb Chop. We need to hear our bodies talk and read aloud our favorite romance passages (hur), and what better way than with a velvet and silk vagina? From Divine Wine to Passionate Purple, your vulva can also be the centerpiece of your bedroom’s decor.

Should you be writing your manuscript (while listening to your vibrating iPod no doubt) don’t forget to familiarize yourself with the center of your universe which you can do with just a glance at your pussy pen. A jewel encrusted phallic writing implement with a diamond-enhanced vagina at the top? What more could a writer ask for?

And for that night out exploring your sexuality at the book store (in the romance aisle, obviously) there are two options for you. One: a crochet vulva pin which, should you forget what your vagina might look like rendered in a soft knotted string sculpture, will help you recall the wonder that is your woman’s center.

But what about formal nights? Clutch a little subversion under your arm with the fluffy Pussy Purse. Red ruffled lips inside feathers that will make your cat drool with anticipation of a gourmet snack, with a soft pink lining inside.

No, really, don’t thank me. The looks of wonderment and awe on the faces of your gift recipients is thanks enough for me. Happy Holidays!

A little editorial bird told me that the origin of the clinch cover is rooted, as with anything involving boobs hanging out of tight corsets, with men. Seems men were the buyers at stores selling romance novels, and they bought more of the clinch covers, so that’s what was sold. I don’t know how true that is, but it doesn’t seem too far fetched. I mean, there’s no doubt that when I leave the buxom clinch covers around the house, Hubby tends to pick them up and take a closer look. The hetero male mind comes to complete synaptic arrest at the sight of boobs.

Whether or not the story of the Origin of the Clinch Cover is true, the fact remains that they seem to sell even now. Floral-drenched landscapes, close ups of women’s shoes, and headless torsos haven’t really made the marketing impact that the clinch has - go to the bookstore and there’s plenty of that classic clinch image on sale in the book rack: buxom mantitty grasping at half-naked women.

So I ask myself: which came first, the romance or the clinch cover? Are readers of romance trained to head for the clinch cover when shopping for reading material because so much of romance is and has been housed in that image? Or is that image preferred by enough readers of romance that the clinch continues as a iconic image of romance that will sell copies of whatever book it adorns?

In the discussion of the “Ravished” cover on the Seattle Weekly issue last week, iffygenia made a very apt comment:

I’m equally insulted by the hideous covers and *their* use of “ignorant, easy shorthand that plays into insulting stereotypes”.... It’s true, many people have a negative image of the genre.  Not surprising, given the genre actively works to put that image out there.

In the cover survey yesterday, a lot of commenters echoed that sentiment - that the clinch covers don’t really do it for them. Chicklet, for example, said she preferred covers that “don’t depict people, either in paintings or in photographs” and that she “abhor(s) clinch covers.”

Tracy said, “I don’t think we need half naked people or people practically having sex on the covers for people to know what’s inside. I don’t like covers that scream ‘there be sex in here’” and given that I’m often reading on my lunch break while I eat, I agree with her. There’s a certain amount of professional image that one loses in a glance if there’s Fabio and a nameless model humperating on the cover of one’s lunchtime reading material. I admit: I get a little thrill reading paper-bound ARCs because they are often entirely without art, and therefore completely genre-neutral.

Teddy Pig pointed out that the older Coulter and Lindsey covers, on the other hand, “gave those books a specific character,” and he does have a point. The lurid image was a sign of the times - and may be part of what trained me as a reader to look for the clinch when it comes to shopping for romance, especially if I’m shopping for romance quickly, such as when I finished a book on a flight and grabbed something fast while I changed planes. I ended up buying a book featuring two empty beach chairs, and man oh man was it not a romance. I loved it, I thought it was beautiful, and it was marvelously well-written, but it was sad and definitely not a romance. It was in the mini-bookstore’s collection of romance mixed in with ‘women’s fiction,’ and it occurred to me that if I’d gone for a clinch cover, I would have ended up with a romance. Maybe not a GOOD one, but definitely a romance.

Perhaps that’s why clinches sell. It’s the Marketing Image of Romance Novels, and if you’re shopping without a specific title or author in mind, it’s the cover image that most likely guarantees a romance novel inside. Perhaps we are like the buxom woman on the cover: stuck in the clinch. 

First of all: thanks for the many recommendations for new books to surprise and delight my jaded palate. Interestingly enough, many of the recommendations were either books I’d already read and loved (Pat Barker’s WWI trilogy, for example) or already on my TBR (like the Pam Rosenthal and Sherry Thomas novels). I’m currently reading a shockingly, awesomely trashy novel involving lots and lots of BUTTSECKS. I’ve so far managed to predict every goddamn so-called twist and turn in the story, and the prose is atrocious, but my god, it’s weirdly compelling. Review to come (hur hur hur) whenever I’m done with it.

But one comment in particular caught my eye. Darlynne wrote:

Many readers say they want to be surprised and then run up the red flag of outrage when a writer does just that. I do not count you in that very broad generalization at all, Candy, but lately I’ve seen series authors pilloried when characters and plots don’t behave exactly as fans have come to expect. One person’s vision of surprise is another’s version of jumping the shark, or worse, that the author has abandoned her principles or her marbles, and those lines don’t blur so much as shimmy.

First of all, I certainly agree that many readers don’t especially like being surprised. No, scratch that--it often goes beyond surprise. Most readers don’t like being made uncomfortable, or to have their fictional world threatened, but they really, really enjoy being excited. There’s a reason why bestsellers often are a paradoxical amalgam of bland writing and highly titillating storylines.

I’d also like to say that this simultaneous desire to be stimulated in a safe setting and under familiar circumstances (quote this out of context for fun and profit!) is not a good thing or a bad thing. It’s just how a lot of people seem to be wired, and I certainly don’t exclude myself from the ranks of those sorts of readers, depending on my mood.

I also think the desirable sorts of surprises and subversions of expectations can drastically vary from person to person. For example, I’d probably be delighted no end if the pervy homogay character in a romance novel turns out to be the hero or the heroine instead of the villain. I can imagine this wouldn’t delight other people quite as much.

But there’s also a difference between crafting a clever plot twist and pulling a tank out of your ass labelled “GOD: INSIDE HERE” to blow away the bad guys and solve all the problems; there’s also a difference between taking the time and trouble to subvert a character archetype and introducing jarring character arcs at the last minute in an effort to maintain momentum and interest. I wouldn’t be able to tell you precisely why the authors did what they did, but I do know that the stories that lose control and sort of start Making Shit Up (which I differentiate from carefully crafting a fictional world) come across as sloppy, as if the writers ran out of time or ideas (or both) and threw shit on a page just to get the words out there. The unexpected plot twist should make me go “Holy shit, I should’ve seen that coming, but I didn’t!” instead of “What the fuck is going on here? Why are the wolves and vultures suddenly talking to the hero for no goddamn reason?” The character subversions should make me clap a hand over my mouth with scandalized delight, not wonder why in the hell a previously beloved character is suddenly acting like a crazy bitchbag.

I think ultimately, we need consistency in world-building and character-building. A good fictional world operates by rules, and the rules for a truly excellent fictional world have to consist of more than “Because I own the magic wand, and I damn well say so” (which is partly why the Harry Potter magic system--at least, what I saw in the first and second book, which were all I bothered to read--kind of bug me, but that’s neither here nor there). A fictional world can break every known natural law we have, whether they concern energy and mass (werewolf novels) or aerodynamics (any book in which dragons as big as houses can fly and/or hover) or basic biology (most stories about the undead). The key is that the rules established in the world are adhered to consistently, and when they’re broken, they’re broken for a damn good reason, and are accompanied by an utterly convincing explanation.

The same holds for character-building. Consistency is important, but even more important is motivation. Motivation is what allows a consistent character to behave with what, to the casual observer, would be inconsistency. Whether it’s the Magic Hoo-Hoo or a life-threatening illness or fear or a desire for control, you need to create credible motivation when you make a character change tacks. Otherwise, it’s just Making Shit Up.

Sorry for sounding like a hackneyed Intro to Fiction Writing seminar, but sweet baby Jesus in a sidecar, it’s astonishing how many books out there don’t obey these very simple rules.

So to go back to Darlynne’s comment: she mentioned that she’s seen authors being pilloried for not taking the stories and characters in the directions the readers want or expect. I have three things to say to that:

1. Once a series becomes popular enough, that’s only to be expected. As the readership expands, the sample is going to get more diverse, and it’s going to become exponentially harder to please everybody all of the time--or even most of them some of the time.

2. Some of the reaction could certainly be readers disliking change, and feeling discomfited or threatened by the fresh new directions taken by the authors.

3. On the other hand, the authors could just be undergoing series exhaustion and are Making Shit Up to keep the dollars rolling in.

So what do you think, dear Bitchery? Have at it in the comments.

Bitchery reader Tracie is getting her Master’s degree in Publishing, and she’s writing a paper on book covers and sales, and wrote to ask for our help. It’s a different kind of HaBO request - one that asks you to take a quick survey and perhaps write a small bit on how covers affect your book buying habits. To quote Tracie:

My topic is “book covers and sales,” so I have a lot of room to maneuver. In general, I want to find out major trends that attract people to books. And I want to prove that while covers may not ultimately make someone buy a book, they can definitely be the reason someone doesn’t buy a book.

[M]y professor suggested that I go stand in a bookstore one afternoon and interview random customers. As much as the idea of flying-squirrel-tackling people into taking a survey appeals, it’s just not going to happen. This is really an exploratory survey. Because I used a free survey system and could only ask 10 questions, I’d also love to see what people say in the comments. Do they worry about what people will think about them based on the covers of books they are reading? Have they ever bought a book based on the cover alone? And in an internet age, do covers even matter that much anymore? The first in that list of questions really intrigues me. I think of it as the “train factor.” If you’re embarrassed to read it on the subway, are you going to buy it? If that’s the case, then maybe bodice-ripping, werewolf-humping covers are good for quick reads and ebooks, where you don’t have to face your shame out to the world, but are a bad idea for longer books that will take more than a lonely Saturday afternoon to finish.

If you’re interested in helping Tracie out, her survey can be found here, but her thesis is really intriguing me, especially after the discussion about the Seattle weekly cover.

Updated to add:

Tracie has added two more survey links since the first one maxed out.

Option #1

Option #2

Bitchery reader Nancy asks for help:

I’ve recently been loving your help a bitch out service and I was hoping to submit a request. Unfortunately I don’t think these have enough detail for anyone to figure out what book this is, but I hope you and your readers will rise to the challenge.

It was one of those Harlequin historical type romances that was about 190 pages. Not sure of the exact time period. There’s an army retreating across Russia - or somewhere in Europe and they come upon an inn where there’s a dead old lady and her young companion. The girl goes with the army and falls in love with the captain/major/guy in charge.

That’s about as obscure as a description can get. Reads like one of my “Guess That Lonely Heart” ads, almost. Anyone got an idea?

My actual voice, you would like to be hearing it?

If so, head on over to RomanceNovel.tv for a video review of Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist featuring yours truly.

After the highly scientific tally using the accounting firm of My Pen and My Paper (let me show you them), the votes from the comments and from the lurkers who emailed me (hi lurkers!), we have teh winnahs of The Suzanne Brockmann is Awesome Happy Ending Contest.

If you read all those contest you now know that Bert + Ernie+ Fanfic = WIN! The runaway winner in the vote tally was #3 by Leslie.

Second place went to #8, by JenC.
Third place went to #9 by Luisa
Fourth place went to #5 by Cathleen
Fifth place went to #7 by Kari

Free books ahoy for the intrepid winners. Congratulations!

And an alert and word of warning to all you editors of erotica out there: your next anthology might need to be Big Spankable Muppets.

Bitchery reader Susan asks for help again, because you are so good at this, it’s scary:

This one is a mystery, in both the literal and book genre sense! The book is about a rich young woman in either the mid to late 1800’s or the early 1900s, who does some detective work on the side and has aspirations of going to college. Needless to say, her parents are not happy about such lofty goals for their little darling, wanting instead that she settle down and get married, and preferably not to the married detective, nor the rich rapscallion-playboy, both of whom Rich Sleuth Woman has met and fallen in love with in her numerous adventures (this book is in a series, but I never read the first few books).

Soon, Rich Sleuth Woman teams up with Married Detective Man to solve the murders of several women in the town. All of the women have been strangled with ladies’ stockings (ooh la-la!), though none appear to be ravished. Along the sleuthing trail, our heroine finds that Married Detective Man is unhappy with his wife, and either she wants to leave him, or he wants to leave her. Rich Sleuth Woman’s heart is all a-flutter at this news, but doesn’t really believe that the marriage will dissolve.

Meantime, Rich Rapscallion-Playboy re-enters the picture, and has scintillating intentions for Miss Rich Sleuth Woman! He seduces her with kisses and promises of dirty-skank sex in his office, though he refuses to consummate the deal until she agrees to marry him. This confuses the now hot and bothered Rich Sleuth Woman, because Rich Rapscallion-Playboy usually screws anything that moves.

So who does Rich Sleuth Woman choose? Does she follow her heart or her naughty bits? And who is strangling the women?

I don’t remember! I need your help so I can re-read it and find out!

I have a confession. I don’t always shop at local bookstores. An email this morning from NJ My Way, which is sort of a newsletter of “Hey! Jersey’s cool, yo!”, reminded me that there are some great bookstores near me, even if the parking around them is a hassle, and that maybe this year I ought to drive down and shop personally rather than clicking all my gifts for the holidays.

So that’s my goal: buy as many books as gifts as possible, and do not use my mouse to do it.

What books are on your gift list this year?

(Note: Hubby and people who actually know me: This is below the fold for a reason. So don’t go clicking down here, k? Thx.)

Two videos for your viewing pleasure, both salutes in their own way to different Asian cultures, specifically those of Japan and South Korea.

First: from Charlene, RoboCock a Japanese sex toy video demonstration - SWEET LORD ALMIGHTY it is not work safe. Be ye warned! (Is it wrong of me to want to try to use it as a blender/mixer?)

Second: not the greatest video quality, but still fun to watch. Samsung employees doing an amazing coordinated dance involving a heaping crapload of people wearing shirts with different colored panels creating an incredible synchronized visual fiesta for your eyeballs. I’m a big fan of the maniacally dancing bandleader on the podium at the bottom, the strangely blond uberhappy cheerleaders, and the unintentional comedy at about :55 in, left side of the screen.

So here’s a controversy nested with a smaller, second controversy, brought to my attention by Bitchery reader Tessa. She sent me a link to Lacey Kaye‘s blog, where she highlights the romance-novel-esque cover of this week’s Seattle Weekly .

The romance novel cover is secondary to the article itself, which examines the “no-contact order” between spouses in pending domestic abuse cases. The article profiles two women, both of whom were victims of an abusive incident, and both of whom called the police. As the abuse charges move through the courts, both women are forbidden to contact their husbands, and vice-versa, and both wish they’d never called 911 because of the no-contact order’s interference in their lives and the lives of their families.

In the article, Merril Cousin, executive director of the King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, says:

“We don’t want to say it’s up to the victims for a number of reasons.” For one, she says, domestic violence is a crime and it’s the community’s responsibility, not the victims’, to hold criminals accountable. “On the other hand,” she says, “there are often very good reasons why victims don’t want cases to go forward.”

That’s a big issue with no easy solution, and a lot of arguments that can circle around and bite each other on the behind until reasoning goes in a dizzying circle.

But the smaller, less life-threatening but still irritating part: the use of a romance-novel-style cover to publicize the issue.

Once again, the bodice-ripper cover is used to illustrate the weakness and subjugation of women, and what may have been an attempt at irony misses by a good bit, and comes across as ignorant, easy shorthand that plays into insulting stereotypes. Let’s wrap an important issue regarding women in the US behind an image that mocks and denigrates them. Or sends a mixed message about cops shaving their chest hair inefficiently. I’m so proud. Not.

Behold, the writing power of the Bitchery, it knows no limit. I snorted several times as I formatted this entry.

Please post your votes in the comments, and we’ll have a casual round of voting. The top five entries will receive a copy of Brockmann’s book, plus her free guide for writers, and some mad props from yours truly.

Voting ends in 24 hours. Enjoy the happy endings!