






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
85 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.






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.
21 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.




by Candy • Thursday, June 23, 2005 at 09:44 AM
HelenKay pointed out today that chick lit is being blamed for all sorts of ills. Now, mind you, the few chick lit books I’ve read have annoyed me (for which I got lots of flack), but I certainly don’t think they’re destroying all that is good and right with civilization.
Few things annoy me more than some self-righteous douche trying to blame some undesirable social aspect or another on fiction. In the case of so-called feminists who get their panties in a massive wad about the pernicious influence of chick lit or romance novels, I feel the overwhelming urge to shake them while bellowing “HOW STUPID AND IMPRESSIONABLE DO YOU THINK WOMEN ARE, YA CONDESCENDING ASSMUNCH?” I mean, please. For people who are supposedly all rah-rah women’s rights, we deserve equal treatment and equal respect yadda yadda yadda, they have a pretty low opinion of the average woman’s ability to think, reason and distinguish reality from make-believe. But THEY’RE not average, of course. They’re brilliant, and are able to discern which works are dangerous to our impressionable little minds and which ones aren’t.
If this sort of attitude sounds suspiciously similar to the asshats ranting and raving about how dangerous Rainbow Party is to children and how reading about teenagers engaging in oral sex will turn 13-year-old Joanna into a godless, ravening whore who constantly craves hot, hard cock, that’s because it is.
So the two articles HelenKay links to are pretty interesting, but the one that really got my hackles up was the Nerve.com article Monica Jackson linked to a while ago. Alas, the article is now subscription-only, but thanks to the magic of Google’s caching technology, the article can still be viewed in its entirety here, though there are no guarantees how long the cached page will remain. Anyway, I’d forgotten about it, then reading HelenKay’s article reminded me, and re-reading it--gah gah gaaaaaaaah I can’t even express to you MUCH this self-righteous douche annoys me.
Let’s start with some choice quotes, shall we?
I’d heard how racy and sex-obsessed the genre is, but it seems to me the race is entered and exited at exactly the same points each time. Chick-lit heroines talk about sex, and occasionally they have it, yet it’s never because they want it, never because they have to have it or they’ll die, even though it’s wrong and there will be hell to pay. Nor is there no hell at all to pay — the kind of sex you just wanted and took, then zipped up or fell unconscious. Nor is it married sex: predictable, satisfying and scheduled. No, chick-lit sex is some sort of subtext for societal temperature-taking. Brr!
Hey, everyone, let’s play a game! Let’s play… Spot the False Generalization! Chick lit is filled with nothing but girls who have sex even though they don’t want it? Well, hell, and here I thought Old Skool romances were bad when it came to rape.
And also: married sex is scheduled? Shiiiit. Nobody ever told ME.
[Chick lit is] not literature; nor is it pornography, which is unoriginal but at least it’s hard and wet, not safe lunchroom gossip lust.
Ooooh, another fun game! Let’s play… Spot the False Dichotomy!
Bitch, please. A book has to be either literary OR pornographic? The mind boggles at what this person would think about the vast majority of books printed, sold and read, which tend to be neither literary nor pornographic NOR chick-lit (which is worse than porn, according to this person’s assessment, and hey, she wrote for Hustler and Playboy, so I guess she’d know).
No literary movement before this one has ever made me angry. People’s taste is none of my business. But this shit is being marketed to young girls, who are already getting weak enough ideas from other media about what being a girl means — why should the few who read be plowed under, too?
OH NOS THINK OF OUR CHILDREN!!!!111 PH3AR TEH CH1CK L1T!!!!
Anyway, that bapping sound you hear? That’s me hitting my head on the desk. WHY do people so consistently underestimate the reasoning abilities of teenagers--especially teenagers who read a lot? I mean, these teens tend to be smarter than average and a bit more introspective than average, right?
Train that impressionable girl right, give her a rock-steady foundation in critical thinking, and I can just about guarantee you that she won’t be too easily swayed into thinking that she needs [insert stupid cultural message about what being a woman means] to be happy or a good human being.
I’d like to take all these books, pile them up and throw gasoline and a lit match onto them. And let my daughter, and all the other girls, see if they can walk into the fire barefoot. Maybe they can’t do it, and maybe they’ll cry and get hurt and go to the hospital. But some of them will succeed. Either way, they deserve to see what they are made of, before they lay down their fierceness and accept what the rest of the world tells them they are, and more debilitatingly, what they are not.
Right. Does this sound like a bunch of self-serving, pseudo-literary horseshit about how Girls Are Precious And Need A Trial By Fire? Or is it just me? Because she starts out like she has a point, then she goes straight into a truly godawful metaphorical conceit and I kinda lost her there. But then, I read romance novels, so I can’t be all that bright.
These are the books I want a young girl to find, all on her own — not clustered together on Barnes & Noble’s Young Girl section, shoved down her throat by a manager shitting out what was shoved down his throat by an army of publicists who know where their bread is buttered: Me by Brenda Ueland; Scribbling the Cat: Travels with an African Soldier by Alexandra Fuller; and Dune Life by the National Audubon Society.
Newsflash: Young girls who like to read will, in general: a) read widely; b) find a lot of different things that they’ll enjoy; and c) enjoy them despite what you think is Good For Them.
And I have to tell you, in all my years of bookstore browsing, I have yet to experience a manager shoving a book down my throat--or any other orifice, for that matter. Bookstore managers are too busy, well, managing, and frankly, I’m lucky if I can catch the attention of a lowly clerk to help me rummage through the C shelves of the romance section to see if Mr. Impossible had been released yet.
Here’s a thought: raise your girls to be strong. Raise your girls to defy expectations. Raise your girls to think independently. And if she likes to read chick lit, it’s not the end of the fucking world.
People who impart fiction with this magical, all-encompassing ability to Educate and Edify--and in fact, expect fiction to do as much--annoy me. Not that allowing fiction to impart Social Messages of Significance is a bad thing (ref. The Jungle, 1984, Animal Farm), or an unworthy endeavor, but shouldn’t the primary instruction come from the home, the family? If your teenager is so weak-minded that she instantly buys into everything she reads, you need to sit her ass down and explain the difference between real life and fiction again, ‘cause I don’t think that first lesson stuck.
Fiction that has a pointed social message: OK, I can dig it, and mostly if the message it tries to provide jives closely with my personal worldview. But I don’t care if most my fiction doesn’t contain Big, Meaningful Messages. I mostly want my fiction to entertain me, and to not insult my intelligence while it’s doing so. Because at the end of the day, it’s not really a fictional novel’s job to teach me life lessons. It’s my job.





26 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.




by Candy • Thursday, June 23, 2005 at 08:50 AM
Kate Rothwell has a totally bitchin’ contest that you should enter. If you don’t participate, she has a list of threats, and I have no doubt--NO DOUBT--that she will have no trouble carrying out all of them in the inimitable ruthless Rothwell fashion.
So please. Think of the doughnut, and those lonely Bosnia socks.
4 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.













by SB Sarah • Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 06:28 PM
Queens, Princesses, Duchesses, Marchionesses, Countesses, Viscountesses and Baronesses, and members of the Court of Bitchery, We have a Winner in the haiku contest!
In a stunning and slightly amusing tie, PC Cast and her Phabulous Daughter have won the haiku contest, garnering equal numbers of votes for their haikus, number #4 and #5:
Ode to Mantittyfruit
4.
Succulent, firm flesh
Manfruit waiting to be plucked
Nipple dew…so sweet
5.
Hair on man titties?
Nay! (gasp) Abomination!
My Dear Sweet Lord – WAX.
So without further ado, we hereby crown PC Cast and her daughter:
We also had a number of honorable mention votes for E. D’Trix’s #11 and #12, so congratulations on fine efforts as well. We seem to all be suckers for anything that makes the baby Jesus cry.
4 comments •
Trackback •
Categories: Go Ahead, Win Some Shit
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.