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

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

85 comments • Trackback •
Categories: Ranty McRant

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.