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

For those of you who don’t know yet: HelenKay and Wendy Duren have teamed up for the ultimate in eeeeeville: Another honest romance novel review site. BWAHAHAHAHA. Anyway, go check out Paperback Reader. I know I’m doing a happy little pee-dance while waiting for them to complete their first review.

What makes a man?
Is it the woman in his arms?
Just ‘cause she has big titties
Or is the way
He fights everyday?
No, it’s probably the titties

- DVDA, “Now You’re a Man”

Ahhh, immortal words from Trey Parker and Co. Apparently, based on some e-books, big man-titties are indicative of manliness, too. Take a look, for example, at these:

Candy: Sha-zam! Behold, I unleash before you… MASSIVE TITTY! This is thanks to my totem animal, the lactating gorilla, to which I bear a disturbing resemblance. That is, if lactating gorillas had breast implants that drove their gazongas towards their collarbone.

Sarah: Berdache, my ass. Backache is more like it, from hauling those mountainous man-breasts around. And sure, they’re firm and perky while he’s young and nubile, but just wait until he’s nursed for a year and middle-aged sag hits him. Then he’ll be kicking around his own man-titties to get them out of his way. Talk to me then, Backache.

Candy: OK, this cover confuses me. Chest: Disturbingly feminine--check out how his left hooter looks disturbingly girly and perky. Abs: Appropriately ripped. Sword: Massive, phallic, yet ouchy and thorny. I can feel my impressionable mind warping already. Unfortunately, overdeveloped man-titty is not on the RWA list of Things That Are Narsty And That We Don’t Want To Associate With. The No More Terrifying Man-Titty Campaign: talk about a cause I’d be more sympathetic to.

Sarah: Word, Candy, it is a total shame that the RWA isn’t more willing to consider the true travesties of the cover-art world: man breasts that aren’t appropriately used to help shade the earth. I mean, if this dude were launched into space, his man-tits could cover up many of the depleted areas lacking ozone and save me from sunburn.

Candy: Poor Axl Rose. It’s not enough that his former bandmates are now making loads of dosh and quite a name for themselves with a new, skank-ass frontman. It’s not enough that he’s warped his face beyond recognition with bad plastic surgery. He’s now gotten pec implants and is posing for e-book covers with an inexplicable garter on his arm. His humiliation is complete.

Sarah: What the hell is THAT? I am totally missing my garter from my wedding - is this where it got to? And how did he end up with it? I bet some art director stole it as an example of an “arm band of manful manliness” for some struggling artist who’d never heard of such a thing, and instead of thinking that lace was too frilly for such a smooth-skinned man-tit-sporting mega-stud, he just put the garter on his arm like he’s a reject from a curious bachelorette party.

Either that, or he’s leaving the bachelorette party because all the bachelorettes kicked him out for having nicer titties than they do. 

Remember when RWA used to defend romance novels, saying positive portrayals of monogamous relationships and healthy, active sexual adventures were normal, acceptable, and even a beneficial influence on their readership?

When I say “monogamous relationship” and “romance novels,” most, like I do, automatically think of Thor and Bettina, Deputy Logan and his biscuit-making bride Felicity, Lord Hawsravensburgkestrel and his fair Lady Amaliana-Georgiana-Freidricheansda.

Well, smack this Bitch up because hello, gay romance. I got an email today from Scott & Scott, who write Romentica - gay romance novels portraying healthy, joyous, monogamous relationships between men that end in happily ever after. They were written up in the New York Times this weekend - quite a feat for a small, self-published operation mostly through their Romentics website and online store.

The full ramifications of gay romance novels is something I will have to ponder, since I’m already of the opinion that half of the ability that women presently have to dream beyond the boundaries they are born into is a credit to the career, relationship, self-development and life exploration they can do through romance and women’s fiction. What does it mean that gay couple would be portrayed not as villains or angsty next-door-neighbors but as protagonists in a commonly accepted fictional venue: boy meets girl boy, boys falls for boy, boy and boy live happily ever after?

Further points of interest - Scott Pomfret, half of the writing duo, analyzes the form and structure of romance as something as real and defined as the format for a legal brief. “It has rules,” he says - which makes this Smart Bitch happy because nothing bothers me than the accusation that romance is a fill-in-the-blanks formula. It has a structure, but it ain’t madlibs, for God’s sake.

You can’t fake the attraction and sexual and emotional tension that make up a romance, and the idea of portraying commonality between how two men in love feel and how a man and a woman in love feel goes a long way in battling social stereotypes of gay relationships, and also, according to their reviews, makes for good reading.

And y’all know, it’s the second part that is most important.

Teri Brown, editor of the Portland/Vancouver edition of Northwest Woman Magazine invited me to a Book Lover’s High Tea this afternoon, which was supposed to celebrate the launch of their book club. The first book they picked? The Frog Prince by Jane Porter, a chick lit novel. I wondered rather nervously if Jane Porter had read my rant on chick lit; Sarah and I discussed whether I should’ve invested in a bulletproof vest.

But no, everyone was completely civilized and super-duper nice, and nobody I talked to other than Teri had heard of Smart Bitches, which was fun because I got to pimp the Smart Bitches and attempt to describe the Smart Bitch aristocratic titles that we give out as prizes. Have I ever mentioned that I love using the term “o-face”? ‘Cause really, I do.

And wheee, all the swag I got: free chocolates! Free books! Plus I won a gift card to Starbucks, which is beyond ironic because I don’t like coffee, but I do like their scones. Mmmmm, scones. Mmmmm, FREE scones. Anyway, I thought I’d pimp the magazine a little bit in appreciation of the fun time I had, and express amazement that someone would invite a potty-mouthed barbarian like me to a high tea. I behaved myself, though. Like I said, if I’m alone and in a strange situation, I’m generally quiet and polite so I can suss things out before sticking my foot in my mouth.

Update and Disclaimer: People seem to be reading wayyyy more into this than I meant for them to. I think a quick clarification of my stance is in order:

1. No, I’m not picking on Brenda because she’s Christian or an inspirational romance author. I’m picking on Brenda because of what she wrote on her blog.

2. Unlike some people out there, I honestly don’t believe that inspirational authors put any sort of pressure on the RWA board of directors to come up with the graphical and language standards. Last time I checked, prudishness, intolerance, a false sense of moral righteousness and general assheadedness are all human traits that are not even remotely close to being exclusive to Christians.

3. That what-if scenario I give below? It picks on inspirationals and Christians only because Brenda writes ‘em. If she’d written in another genre, my example would’ve used THAT. I say this quite explicitly below, but people seem to breeze by the statement and then attempt to make it a godless heathens vs. Christians kind of a thing. IT’S NOT. I’m just pointing out that because Brenda doesn’t have a stake in this, she has the luxury of being extremely removed from everything, hence the ability to finger-wag and tut-tut at all the outrage that has been expressed.

Keep these points in mind as you read the article below. And if you want to rant about the persecution of Christians in this society, by the way, here’s a hint: please don’t. Try living as a non-Muslim woman in, say, Afghanistan, or read about what happened to Kate Rothwell’s Muslim friends in Bosnia, then get back to me about what it means to be persecuted, mmmkay?

---

Brenda Coulter has the word: RWA has suspended the graphical standards, and are now convening a committee to study the issue.

Brenda also does some finger-wagging over the ranty, enraged bloggers who expressed so much outrage over the issue. My take on the big fuss? Good job, girls! I seriously doubt that action would’ve been taken so soon if people hadn’t lit a fire under the RWA’s asses about this.

And I can’t help but think that Brenda is able to take this extremely detached view on all the ranting because of who she is and what she writes. She has no stake in this (though to be fair she has expressed concern about the graphical standards and the way it was implemented without membership input). She finds erotic romances morally repugnant. Though she certainly has no beef with them being published or read (she’s straight but she ain’t narrow), she certainly has no vested interest in ensuring they’re well-represented in the market. I wonder how she’d feel if the following had happened:

Conditions in America are very different. Much of the population is agnostic, if not outright atheist. However, inspirational romances have hit the market and are really starting to take off--a whole bunch of Christian women are eating these up like candy and buying them by the bucketload. A bunch of inspy writers try to start an Inspirational Romances chapter, only to be met with barely-veiled disdain and bizarre obstacles. Some judges sometimes choose to not read these books because they think they are philosophically bankrupt (though they have no problems with inspys being printed or read). Then the RWA comes up with the following graphical standards for covers to avoid offending the non-Christian readers:

No depictions of churches, crosses, crucifixes or Jesus allowed. People on the covers are not allowed to seem as if they’re in a prayerful stance.

And the following words are not allowed on websites that they link to:

Jesus, God, Bible, any Bible verses, Christ, any references to Christianity as the one true religion or the Christian God as the one true God.

All in the name of not offending non-Christian readers, of course, or trying to unduly influence impressionable young people who haven’t decided which religion to believe in yet.

Now lest any of you think I’m a hater of religion or depictions of Christianity in my romances by coming up with this example, I’d like to note that I’m doing this solely because Brenda’s a writer of inspirationals, and I’m trying to come with an example that’ll hit home. If she was a chick lit writer, I would’ve use chick lit as an example, or romantic suspense, paranormal romance, or whatever other sub-sub-sub-sub genre she happened to be writing.

All right, Brenda! Have at it in the comments.