BlablablablablaILOVELLOYDDOBLER

by Candy Friday, June 24, 2005 at 11:34 PM

Feel free to laugh, taunt, mock, whatever, but I finally got my mitts on a copy of Say Anything ("I wubs you, Multnomah County Library!” she cried into the good night) and I JUST finished watching it and holy, holy shit.

On one hand: Does a romantic hero get much better than Lloyd Dobler? People, I don’t think so.

On the other hand: I feel dirty, lusting for a fresh-faced, barely pubescent John Cusack. Yes yes yes, I know he’s more than street-legal now, but Lloyd Dobler isn’t.

And on the other, OTHER hand: I feel really, really pathetic right now. Why? ‘Cause I don’t think whatserface (see? I forgot her name already) deserves him, because obviously, only I deserve him.

This is a fictional character, folks. A fictional teenage character, and I’m squeeing like a motherfucking 15-year-old who’s just creamed her panties because she saw someone who was maybe kinda sorta almost definitely Leo DiCaprio shopping at Urban Outfitters on Saturday. Plus I’m about ready to claw the eyes out of a perfectly sympathetic fictional heroine simply because she gets the (equally fictional) guy I’m all hot for. Jesus wept. Grown-up Jesus, even, and not Baby Jeebus.

I need to get to sleep. Lack of sleep makes me rambly and delusional. But be warned: I’m going to watch the movie all over again tomorrow. Do they have this out on DVD yet? Goddamn, they better.

Please, feel free to tell me how sad I am in the comments. You won’t be telling me anything I don’t know already.

Ummm, anyway, so this movie kind of sort of ties in with the whole romance theme of the website, right? Plus I think I just answered the question Sarah asked ages ago about favorite romantic movies.

Picture of {name}
21 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Random Musings

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Emma’sCoronation

by SB Sarah Friday, June 24, 2005 at 11:03 AM

Congratulations to Emma for guessing the heroine, title, and author correctly! Now, kneel and receive they booty, I mean, thy bounty.

The Smart Bitches Dub Thee:

Who hast made the phaerten?

Someone hast phaerten!

Picture of {name}
4 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Guess That Lonely Heart!

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

NamethatLonelyHeart!

by SB Sarah Friday, June 24, 2005 at 09:33 AM

It’s Friday - give us the title, author, and name of the heroine, and win your very own Smart Bitch Title!

Proper Maiden Seeks Perfect Man

Frustratingly perfect heroine, quiet, demure, and circumspect, seeks dashing man to help me spend a summer masquerading my way into independent spinster status so as to avoid endless parade of suitors - and help me overcome deep-seated feelings of rejection due to being left dramatically at the alter in front of my entire well-meaning but meddlesome family. Men of rakish infamy more than welcome - especially if I can help heal your personal demons whilst your charm helps me overcome painful past, evaluate my life and perhaps embark on a more adventurous, and certainly fun future. 

Picture of {name}
11 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Guess That Lonely Heart!

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Romance:It’sOnlyForMonogamousHeteroCouples!

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

Picture of {name}
85 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Ranty McRant

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Wait…areyoualate-80’sromancehero?

by SB Sarah Thursday, June 23, 2005 at 11:01 AM

Check out the manly stud in the first letter in today’s Dear Abby.

Wow. Whatta man. Makes me want to read more romance novels.

Picture of {name}
21 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: The Link-O-Lator

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Page 409 of 463 pages « FirstP  <  407 408 409 410 411 >  Last »