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

OK - it’s late here on the east coast but it’s Lonely Heart time. Name the heroine, the book’s title, and the author’s name, and you get Le Smart Bitche Title.

Young advertising hotshot, home in Ohio for the holidays, seeks man from way back to sweep my off my feet. You’ll need to light my candles for eight crazy nights before I head back to New York.I’ll pitch you my ideas while you try to sell me on the idea of happily ever after. I’ve got great expectations for your chances to steak a claim on my heart.

Raina writes:

I was told to check yall out for memory lapses such as mine. I read this book a very long time ago and would very much like to read it again, if only I could remember. This is the description I have been posting everywhere I can think of.

"Teenagers get together in high school and wind up falling in love, parents and another girl get in the way and they break up. The girl leaves town and finds out shes pregnant. The story is in the future tense with flash backs from the past. The woman winds up coming back to town and gets back together with her old flame. he has a kid from another marriage and doesn't find out about his first child til towards the end. the thing that connects both father and sons is that they all have a streak of whit in their hair. the book is probably from the early 90s"
If you know what this book is or somewhere else that could help me out it would be much appreciated.

Courtesy of Walt Stone, keeper of the Cuppa Cafe the rap debut of The Todd, from Scrubs. According to the YouTube description, NBC’s Broadcast Standard & Practices said no way it could air. So, behold, the internet. And The Todd, master of the best banana hammock ever.

For those requesting a YouTube link - here you go!

Let it not be said that we here at Smart Bitches don’t address the idea that using someone else’s words without attribution is a big, funk-stanky, bad, bad, bad idea. I know we don’t talk about unattributed usage much at all here, but if you’re interested: if one is a newspaper sex columnist, and one uses someone else’s writing under one’s own byline, it’s not what Martha Stewart would call a “good thing.”

Jezebel has revealed that New York Press sex advice columnist Claudia Lonow used questions from a 2006 Dan Savage sex column in her debut column.

From the Poynter Forums:

It has come to our attention that some of the questions in this week’s debut of the New York Press’s new sex-advice column, “Lip Service,” were taken from past columns by Dan Savage, the nationally-syndicated sex-advice columnist and editor of The Stranger. The author of the column, Claudia Lonow, a television writer based in Los Angeles who had not previously written for a newspaper, used the questions to provide material for her inaugural column, in the absence of real questions from readers. It had been our understanding that the questions for her first column came from friends. She has told us she was unaware that using questions from Savage’s column was a breach of journalism ethics. She has offered her resignation, and we’ve accepted it. We apologize to our readers, and to Dan Savage, for this error in judgment.

Wow. A breach of ethics.

Thanks to Jessica D for the link. 

Remember the news that Harlequin/Mills & Boon was launching a division in India complete with future novels set in India? From Jezebel, via the London Times online: printing begins on 4 February.

Among the first titles? Virgin Slave, Barbarian King.

Gemma sent us the following two covers. In the interest of politeness, I definitely said, “Thank you.” I would not say the same to the art department.

Sarah: Dear Lover England: Apparently I must lie back and think of you, even though I am distracted by the tingling sensation in my womanly parts. Is that normal? Love, your darling Schnookums.

Candy: 65-year-old playboy Humbert England was ecstatic when he snagged what he thought was a nubile 22-year-old playmate...except he found out for himself the advanced state of elective surgery when he discovered not just cobwebs in a Certain Place, but spiders, too.

Sarah: That woman in the middle, Nurse Scratchet, is wondering why these two grinning nimbobs haven’t gotten the message. “The Rose and the Thorn?” The fire in their respective nether parts? What does she have to do, spell it out for them: “YOU PEOPLE HAVE VENERAL DISEASE!”

Candy: Why are there children sitting around a bonfire in these people’s crotches? Seriously. Kids. In people’s crotches. Not cool.

Sarah: “...and the name ‘Rosamund’ will be forever synonymous with mammoth breasts no puffy shirt can hide.”

No wonder the poor thing needs a walking stick. Holy shit.

Candy: Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge...tracts of land.

Sorry for going for the obvious joke, but it’s not as if those bodice puppies are especially subtle.

Got this in the inbox this morning, and it brought the biggest smile to my face:

Dear Nora Roberts and the ladies and gents of Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books,

We at Defenders of Wildlife are thrilled with the outpouring of support that we’ve received concerning the lifting of certain ferret-related passages from “Toughing It Out in the Badlands” in Defender’s magazine.  We appreciate the generous challenge grant of $5,000 from the Nora Roberts Foundation and the quick response from your readers. 

When we were first made aware of this plagiarism incident, we had no idea it would become such a sensation! After several days of answering reporters’ calls, a constantly blushing editor, and fits of giggling breaking out all over the office thanks to the witty banter of a certain group of Smart Bitches, we feel this scandal has had quite a positive outcome. Awareness has been raised for the plight of the endangered black-footed ferret, and we have made some wonderful allies in unexpected places.

Though the ethics and legality of this literary “borrowing” are suspect , we are very pleased that our work inspired someone to write about wildlife, and has inspired so many of you to read about it. We were even more delighted to read your passionate words of encouragement, and to learn of your VERY generous donations! These will greatly aid our conservation efforts, and may even inspire a new romance novel book club here at Defenders!

Thank you again,

Your friends at Defenders of Wildlife

Go, bitchery, go!

So after this discussion about the Washington Post’s desire to see your red hot romantic boudoir, I have a question for those who read our site who are also writers and published authors of romance: What are some of your most ridiculous press questions, and what did you say?

And readers of romance, though we are not as much in the attentive eye of the media, have you ever been asked a stupid or offensive question? How did you answer?

I’m forever fending off the, “But you’re smart- how come you read Those Books?” question. Depending on the asking party, and whether I have to sit with them several times a year at large family gatherings like Seder or Thanksgiving, I most often say, “Because they’re awesome - what do you like to read?” I turn the question back on the asker because (a) as Valerie Plame noted in an interview, there are few things more wonderously conducive to one-sided conversation than saying, ‘REALLY? Tell me more!’ and (b) it’s kind of funny to watch the asker think hard for a title to mention that isn’t remotely open for criticism and is ubiquitously liked and respected.

But the press? If you’re an author being interviewed, you can’t ask the interviewer’s opinions or preferences. So what would you say? 

An awesome librarian (is there another kind?) forwarded me a link to this article from the Reference & User Services Quarterly (THAT IS THE SEXIEST NAME OVER OMG *PANT*) article from “The Alert Collector,” which offers five librarians’ suggestions on building a romance genre collection: Core Collections in Genre Studies: Romance Fiction 101. (Also, the sexiest title ever, and thank you Mr.MS. Wyatt (my apologies) for not writing something that referenced heaving bodices or man-titty).

From the article:

The RUSA Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES) voted to create a new juried list highlighting the best in genre literature. The Reading List, as the new list will be called, honors the single best title in eight genre categories: romance, mystery, science fiction, fantasy, horror, historical fiction, women’s fiction, and the adrenaline genre group consisting of thriller, suspense, and adventure.

I will start composing sonnets to the awesomeness of this decision in a moment, but first, I want to say, HELL YES and FUCK YEAH. I personally loved the genre fiction section - which totaled three shelves - at the library at my college, and only allowed myself to take one book per week, even if I finished it in one night. Otherwise, I’d get no other reading accomplished.

So to the RUSA, with your sexy, sassy name: MMMMMMWAH. Great idea. And to accomplish this task, they gathered five librarians to profile a subgenre of romance: contemporary, historical, suspense, paranormal, and Regency.

And to Ms. Wyatt (I think you wrote this part) I’d like to nominate you for the I-Just-Invented-It Award for Asskickingly Non-Condescending Description of Romance and buy you the beverage of your choice:

Romance novels are built around the relationship between hero and heroine and the conflicts within that relationship. They are ultimately positive and optimistic novels that involve the reader on an emotional level. Fans of this genre love the snappy dialogue, well-crafted scenes, connection between the characters, and details of the character’s lifestyles.

WORD UP TO YOU MA’AM. One note though to Dudesse of Excellence. Ms. Wyatt: You list some great web sites as references, but what about us and Dear Author?! DUDE! Epic fail!

Now, minor hissyfit notwithstanding, let us moving on. Here are the selections recommended for building a balanced romance novel bookshelf representing each of the aforementioned subgenres - with my commentary and assorted linkage.

An alert web surfer, aka my web-addicted friend RB, notified me that Smart Bitches was nominated for a Blogger’s Choice Award in three categories - Best Entertainment Blog, Best Pop Culture Blog, and Best Humor Blog.

SWEET! Thanks for the nomination! There is some very very steep competition in those field so I’m not sure we’ll get that far, especially since you have to register to vote at the site.

But I am full of squee and kvell at two points: one - we got an Adult Content warning! I’m so proud!

And two - I am so curious as to what the puffy dude is doing to our website. Have a look:

Is he caressing our site lovingly? Is he holding it forcibly away from him? Or, is he about to get down and dirty through the back door? The Ladies look on in horror. 

From today’s Publisher’s Marketplace: a book deal for LOL Cats? But of course!

I Can Has Cheezburger’s PROFESSOR HAPPY CAT’S GUIDE TO THE LOLCATS, featuring old and new images from their blog: to Patrick Mulligan at Gotham, in a good deal, for publication in Fall 2008, by Kate McKean at the Howard Morhaim Literary Agency.

Yay for LOLCats!

For all you book lovin’ Mac users, MacZot’s offer today is aimed right at you and your wallet: 73% off Librarian Pro, so instead of nearly $30 US it’s barely $8. Sweeeet.

Sadly, I have no time to devote to cool organizational software, much as I lust after it. 

It seems, as many readers said to me, that NPR cannot get enough of Ferrets and all things Cassie Edwards. The plagiarism scandal was discussed on NPR’s Justice Talking, although when specifically I am not sure, as I haven’t been able to load the mp3. I imagine it’s not directly related to the larger discussion highlighted on that page about the FCC’s “new rules for media ownership.”

And should you be wishing for more of Mr. Tolme, there’s an extended interview with him on the NPR page of their coverage. It’s about 17 minutes long, so it surely doesn’t qualify as a sound bite. At least I don’t think it’s a “bite.” More like a major meal. I hope it brings increased job opportunities to Mr. Tolme, who continues to handle the entirety with class and style.

The Talk of the Nation blog continues the discussion as well.

I’ve received a great many email messages asking me why I am not speaking out about how the news has made me feel, what I think personally about this subject, and why I have been so circumspect in delivering my usually unabashed opinion.

“There is so much to discuss,” people have said. Why am I not providing more of a forum and starting the conversation by definitively revealing my personal opinion, calling the spade what it is and getting on with it already? “Never tell me you’re going to start being politically correct, you wussy,” one reader said.

It has taken me a few days to articulate in any organized fashion my reaction, which until now has consisted mostly of noise. Lots of noise invoking fury, indignation and disappointment. To learn with great disillusionment that someone admired and liked by many is not at all what I thought… well, it did rock my world more than a little.

Some will say this is old news, that I ought to let it die already and not resuscitate it, but this is my forum, my website, and it’s time I revealed what I really think - not that I’ve ever been accused of holding back. 

An author who would like to remain anonymous asked me:

As a romance outsider, I’ve always been surprised by the attitude that romance fans shouldn’t criticize romance writers.  And it reminds me of the attitude a lot of minority people have—that there’s enough criticism from outside so you don’t openly criticize your own.

It’s an attitude I don’t quite agree with since it seems to show support for corruption and mediocrity.  [Criticism is] actually showing solidarity against the biases of the majority.

But it reflects the mentality of those who are in the minority of a larger group.  And the difference is that romance readers and writers are the single largest block of readers and writers.  So why do these fans hold onto this attitude?  I think it’s because most romance fans are women and women and our society treats our opinions as inconsequential, not as worthwhile as a man’s opinions.

Anyway, just a thought.  If I were in the majority of a group, I’d be exercizing my power quite capriciously and arbitrarily.  But that’s me.

First, I have to say, before anyone levels the accusation, no, I didn’t write this and attempt to deflect attention by posting it attributed to an anonymous source. I never remember to use the word “capriciously,” even though it is a GREAT word.

Second, I have to also say, yeah, what is up with that? I lot of the ire I see directed at Candy and at me is based on the idea that as fans, we hurt the genre by criticizing it in any way. And that by calling our site “Smart Bitches” we’re denigrating women - and if you do think that, please take a look at the concept of reappropriation of pejorative lexicon - so we’re both anti-women and anti-romance. And thus we hurt the genre, and should be Banned from the Internet.

But anonymous’ ability to connect to a question of majority/minority cultural habit is curious: romance readers are among the most powerful consumer groups in a book buying sense, so why is it a bad thing to criticize the genre from the perspective of a consumer? I haven’t the faintest idea, though I suspect it has a great deal to do with the culturally-enforced group habits of women, which further muddles the question of “are romance readers a minority inside a majority, lurking in a crunchy taco shell?” There is a definite pressure to be nice within groups of women, even as the biting behind one’s back is even more, dare I say, savage than what could be said to one’s face.

So what do you think? Why is there a backlash against romance criticism, ours or anyone’s?