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

I was reminded of why I avoid visiting the AAR messageboards yesterday. They’re a wonderful avenue of lively discussion, but OY, they’re such a time suck--and not only that, they sometimes contain some of the most jaw-dropping sentiments. Not only do I disagree with them, but I think they’re quite astoundingly silly.

For example, from this message on the AAR Reviews board (the thread started out as a discussion about Lisa Valdez’s The Passion):

Political correctness is diluting and changing our language, and in its name, there are many traditional behaviors that are no longer PC. Classic romance is all about “When men were men and women were women.” Today, the heroines have an edge--they banter with the men, they are as aggressive as the men--they might as well BE men. And the heros are drawn to them because they are “different” and “more exciting and stimulating” from the usual women they meet? What rubbish! Who wants a wise-cracking, sarcastic virago who doesn’t need a guy for anything because she can handle it all herself? With these tougher heroines, there is nothing much left for the men to be, except “gentler,” more “sensitive,” and the heroine’s “best friend.” More rubbish! I like your descr1ption: “A contemporary romance set in 1812.” I live in 2005 and I read historicals to get AWAY from contemporary life.

I wrote a reply, as did someone named Lisa. Go read ‘em if you like. Myself, I’m staying far, far away since I’ve said all I wanted to say on that board. There was, however, an issue that was brought up in this post that I didn’t address in my reply, and that’s the issue of political correctness.

Robin, one of our regular visitors, has mentioned in one of her comments that political correctness has come to mean something bad, but “something is only ‘PC’ based on your own subjective standards of conduct.” She hit the nail on the head. Nowadays, when a powerful figure makes a blatantly racist, sexist or otherwise repugnant statement, any attempts to point out the shitfulness of said statement are immediately labelled attempts to be PC, therefore wrong or suppressive or unrealistic. Shit, ifeminist.org has labelled The Vagina Monologues as PC, and while I do think that parts of it are disturbingly anti-male (something other friends of mine picked up on as well), a play in which a roomful of women are encouraged to scream out “Cunt! Cunt! CUUUUNT!” with almost orgasmic fervor could hardly qualify as politically correct without twisting around the definition of PC quite a bit.

I’m not saying that it’s impossible for political correctness to go too far. People squealing when someone uses the word “niggardly,” for example. That’s not just PC going too far, it’s just plain ignorant. See that dictionary? Learn to fucking use it. The etymological portion of the definition might be of especial interest. I might even start up a society: The Association for the Preservation and Appropriate Use of the word “Niggardly.”

But back to historical romances. Blaming the departure of old-skool romances featuring alpha assholes and simpering ninnies on modern political correctness is grossly inaccurate. First of all, I think the answer is as simple as this: The market changed. I read those old-skool romances as a young child, before I’d even HEARD of the term “political correctness"--hell, this was before the PC movement gained steam--and before I learned what feminism was. The stories still bothered me. All I knew was, I really didn’t like the way the heroes were rewarded for being mean. I’m going to guess that a great number of women felt much the same way, and started glomming romances that featured heroes who were actually, y’know, NICE once in a while, and publishers, who are in it for profit, after all, perked up and took notice.

Look, if old-skool type romances were still overwhelmingly popular, d’you honestly think publishers wouldn’t be pumping out new titles the way they are vampire romances and chick lit? I’m not going to be simplistic and claim that publishers sell exactly what all the readers want, all the time, but they do generally respond to market pressure. Hey, I wish there were more medieval romances and romances featuring heavily-tattooed atheist heroines; you won’t catch me blaming this lack on political correctness, though.

Second of all: Why in the everloving fuck are some people so eager to label strong, capable, independent women with a sense of humor as mannish and undesirable? Hey, I’m not especially fond of unrealistic superheroines who are capable of taking over Daddy’s floundering company before she’s out of leading strings, either, but honestly, I encounter far more heroines of the exact opposite kind in romance fiction: heroines who fuck up consistently and require the hero to save their fucktarded little asses. And even then, I don’t think of the unrealistic heroines as being unfeminine. Frankly, romance doesn’t have a problem with masculinizing its heroines. It does have a problem with feminizing and idealizing the heroes, but this happened even in old-skool romances. What, you think any self-respecting guy, much less a tough-ass captain and rapist extraordinaire, would say some of the absolutely mortifying things the hero does in The Flame and the Flower?

And third: lamenting the departure of alpha asshole heroes in historicals because they’re no longer PC somehow assumes that some of the things these jerkwads did (such as repeated, unremorseful rape of women) was condoned in ye olden tymes and somehow some sort of historical fact. The idea that these types of heroes are somehow more convincing for their time period makes me want to bang my head against the desk. The idea that these types of heroes are real men while the heroes who refrain from doling out physical, verbal and emotional abuse are watered-down pussies makes me want to bang my head even harder. I guess having a Y chromosome and a set of cock and balls is not enough to make someone a real man. Ye have to RRRRRAPE the wee lassies, mon!

Political correctness, while occasionally verging on silly, has made people think about the language they use and re-evaluate cultural attitudes, and that’s always a good thing. No, I don’t believe that changing the language will change societal attitudes--witness what’s happened to the word “special” once people started using it to describe retarded kids instead of calling them, well, retarded. And “retardation” and “retarded” were (still are) bona fide medical terms before being co-opted by assholes everywhere (including me) as an especially pejorative synonym for “idiot.” But in terms of effecting greater cultural change, thinking about the language we use, the attitudes we carry and why we say things the way we do is a decent first step. Yes, some people go off the deep end, but them’s the breaks. In my opinion, someone who uses PC as some sort of all-purpose whipping post is engaging in lazy thinking. It usually stands in for “my opinion is unpopular, and it’s not unpopular because it’s wrong, or because the majority of people just simply hold opinions different from mine--it’s because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.”

p.s.: Blame Sybil for providing the initial link to the discussion.

I carry this big honking leather bag to and from work because it holds the phone, wallet, train tickets, MetroCard, umbrella - and book or magazine with no trouble zipping up over all that junk. The book/magazine part is key. I have a few bags that will hold a paperback, but the slighty-larger sized books (I can never remember which is trade and which is that other thing) or a magazine or catalog? Fuggedabahadit.

So I have this awesome bag. And I get on the bus with my awesome bag. And I have...no book! I finished my book over the weekend (review pending) and forgot to put ANOTHER BOOK IN THE BAG. I had nothing! Nothing! (Nothing....if I don’t...have...youuuuuuuu!).

I read the internet as long as I had a signal to my phone, but Lord have mercy that dial-up speed gets tiring. So I need your help!

I need something I can read on the bus home - either printed out or on my Palm as a text file. So: gimme your recommendations for an e-book, or a pub story to print and read on paper. I’m not adverse to paying for my pleasure (heh) but please, nothing over $5-$6 since I already have a monthly budget set aside for my Books(not)Free - so I don’t want to spend anything in supreme amounts. Heck, if I wanted to do that, I could go to the Duane Reade and buy something the color of candy hearts with some chick’s cartoon legs on the cover.

So - break my e-book maidenhead and give me some ideas! 

Do you hear that soulful sucking sound? That slurrrrpy noise of happy indulgence? It’s not me eating ice cream; it’s the sound of corporate task forces sucking the creativity out of individual artists. Individual creativity, it is taking the nose dive, and it’s making me cranky.

The trend I speak of isn’t so much new as it is a development of an established trend. Did anyone else notice how the Sweet Valley High books were “Created by Francine Pascal” but “Written by Kate Williams?” Whatever happened to Kate Williams, anyway? She’s the one who spent years writing about the Pacific-blue depths of Jessica and Elizabeth Wakefield’s eyes, and how they were a perfect size six (ugh ugh ugh). And yet the series was marketed as “Francine Pascal’s.” Ya think ol’ Kate ever got bitter about that?

And of course we know that V.C. Andrews’ books were written by committee after her death, thus enabling the ATF, or Andrews Task Force, to continue sucking the teat of majestic royalty. If she’s going to sell, she’s going to keep writing books - death can’t stop a profit.

Now, we have the teen girl series books, a new breed of young adult novels targeted at adolescent girls. From Gossip Girl to The Clique, to the tv show Roswell, Alloy Entertainment, a media force that makes publishing houses quiver in the knees with envy, has discovered the magic formula(s) for creating the new version of SVH serial young adult novels.

Some of our readers wondered if we’d create a special edition of Covers Gone Wild wherein instead of bitching long and hard about covers featuring Lord Mantitte, his immaculate wax-job and his patron saint, Our Lady of the Perpetual Wardrobe Malfunction, we’d discuss the cream of the crop, the best of the best, the covers that actually make us stop and say “Ooooh, pretty!” instead of making us want to claw our eyes out and pray for a swift, merciful death once we gaze upon them. In short: romance novel covers that DON’T suck unwashed, sweaty monkey ass.

We hear, and we obey. This week, I, Candy, will show you some of the covers I really, really like. You’ll notice that most of these don’t feature any men. It’s not that I’m a closet lesbian--not that there’s anything wrong with that--it’s just that most male romance cover models leave me cold. It’s more than their faces, because even the bare torso shots leave me going “meh,” and I like rock-hard abs just as much as anyone else. I think it’s very likely the cheesecake factor. Cheescake is tasty to eat, but not particularly tasty for mine eyes.

For instance, if the cover for Mr. Impossible hadn’t been such a hideous, iridescent pink, I would’ve included it in this list because it gets a lot of other things right: the half-smile, the pose, the period costume, and the miraculous fact that the model was actually allowed to keep his fucking shirt on instead of having it absent or, even worse, tucked neatly into his belt but completely unbuttoned. If the background had been desert sand, blue sky and a pyramid or two, this cover would’ve easily made the list.

Honestly, why aren’t I consulted when it comes to these sorts of things? My taste in cover art is impeccable. IMPECCABLE, I tell you. Don’t believe me? Check these out.

Zebra’s Regency line is putting out some truly lovely covers lately, and this is one of my favorites. It’s demure, it’s sexy, the look is very clean and elegant, and the font doesn’t make me want to weep and call the police to report curlicue abuse. Plus: I want that dress. This is a refrain you’ll probably hear very often in this entry, because damn, I love poofy, gauzy, girly dresses, and I love it when they’re used to good effect on a romance novel cover. Sigh.

Every time I walk by this book, I pick it up. Every time, I remember it flunked the 15-page test, and put it back regretfully. That, folks, is good cover design. I like the scratchy, textured illustration, I love the heroine’s outfit, and the cover just screams “Buy me! I’m a fun book!” Too bad the 15-page test screams “Don’t buy me! I’m mediocre, with the potential to veer into extreme annoyance the more you read me!”

Ooops. So much for not bitching. Sorry.

P.C. Cast is one lucky bitch. Most of the covers for her books are just gorgeous. I had a hard time picking the one I liked best for this entry, but I finally settled on this one because I love the colors, the textures, the expression on the woman’s face, and her kickass dress. I want that dress. Dammit.

OK, not romance, but chick lit, but man, a lot of chick lit books have covers that just kick. ass. The cover looks fun, the design is clean and uncluttered, and having the title and author on the boxes is a pretty nifty idea. And that pink herringbone skirt? Want it. Dammit.

Regulars to this site will have seen me mentioning this cover a bunch of times. That’s because I think it’s sexy done RIGHT. It’s kinky, it’s sexual, yet the cheescake is pretty discreet, and the models’ faces are shadowed so they don’t interfere with my concept of what the characters look like. Too bad the story itself was about as sexy and fun as watching Carnie Wilson getting her stomach stapled.

If I had to choose a favorite style of historical romance cover, I think covers based on old paintings would probably be it. This book, however, isn’t really a romance; from what I can tell, it’s a historical novel. But who cares? The cover is beyoootiful. I love the texture, the curlicued border on the left edge, the rich colors, the discreetly sexy painting, the fonts. Now why can’t more historical romances have more covers like these instead of pumped-up gym monkeys sporting scary eyeliner?

Stay tuned next week for Sarah’s whack at Romance Novel Covers that Don’t Suck!

Congrats to Garianne for guessing today’s “Guess That Lonely Heart.”

The Smart Bitches proudly dub thee: