Please Remove Your Assumptions, They’re Sitting On My Genre
There’s a huge hoo-ra (not Hoo Ha) going on right now about rape in romance, spurred by a book whose title I will not mention because I’ve never read it and neither, I think, have a lot of the people who are outraged by it. What they’re outraged by is the apparent imminent return of the rape romance. So outraged that they’re arguing that rape should be barred from romance fiction because it’s not romantic. This is where I make my disclaimer: I hate rape romance. I also hate those romances where the hero is emotionally abusive to the heroine; those aren’t romantic, either. And I loathe baby romances; anybody who’s ever had a baby knows what a kid will do to romance. Also I don’t like badly written romances; I think people should learn to write well and publishers should only publish books with good writing. And while we’re on this, any romance novel that makes God more important that the romance story is not a romance, it’s an inspirational novel with a romance subplot, and I don’t like them, either. And you know that romance plot where the heroine fights another woman for the hero? Catfight novels. Hate those. And . . .
Where was I?
Right. The return of the rape romance. Not the best news I’ve had all week, but not the end of the genre, either. I heard about the book, heard from friends of mine who loathed it and friends of mine who loved it, and then I pretty much shrugged and moved on. Until people started saying, “Anything with rape in it should not be sold as a romance.” Then I came out to play because as much as I loathe the abusive hero-baby-hack-proselytizing-catfight novel—there’s a nightmare for you—I will defend to the end of my laptop battery the right of romance authors to write it. I don’t like that stuff, but that doesn’t mean that my personal squick meter gets to define romance.
The argument that everybody’s using is an old one: rape romances are a bad influence on romance readers. I find this inexplicable. Yes, of course our books influence readers, but I’m not seeing the Armageddon here. If romance readers read books in which the hero rapes, they’ll come to see rape as acceptable? How? Bob and I just finished a book in which the hero is a hitman. I don’t see anybody coming after us and saying, “You know, women will read that book and think that men who kill for a living will make great husbands.” How dumb do these people think romance readers are? This is a cousin to that old paternalistic argument that romances are bad for women because they can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality. What disturbs me is that so many romance writers are making it in the name of feminism. It’s not; it’s anti-feminist in that it assumes a child-like reader who absorbs whatever we put in front of her. I don’t think an argument can be more wrong.
First of all, the impact on readers will depend on two things: their own squick meters/fantasies and how well the book is written. To bar rape from romance is to bar a very common fantasy for women. (If “rape fantasy” makes you twitch, try “surrender fantasy” or “lack of responsibility fantasy” or “Alan Rickman Showed Up At My Front Door and Even Though I’m Happily Married With Two Kids He Ravished Me and There Was Nothing I Could Do About It fantasy.”) Very few women fantasize about being attacked in a parking garage by an overweight drug addict with a bad skin rash and an STD. It’s always somebody gorgeous who smells good: Russell Crowe/Brad Pitt/Daniel Craig/Sex Object of Your Choice Here. It is, in short, a fantasy, and women know that. They know that when they think about it, they know that when they play the game with their lovers, and they know that when they read a freaking novel. The best comment on this one came from Susie Bright years ago. I’m paraphrasing here because I’m too lazy to go find the source, but she was playing games with a lover and suggested that he dominate her and force her. He was appalled and said he couldn’t possibly do that, that it was wrong. Bright pointed out that it was only wrong if she didn’t want it, if she asked him to do it, it was okay. In the same way, for us to say rape shouldn’t be part of the genre is essentially telling that reader that her fantasy is appalling, wrong, and doesn’t belong in the genre she loves. That’s a bias in the observer and has nothing to do with what happens between a reader and her book; she gets to read what she wants.
But the hell with the readers, I’m really upset about what it would do to writers. You’re telling me that if I put rape in a book, I’m not writing a romance? How do you know that? You haven’t read my book. The modern historical genre was founded on the rape romance, Kathleen Woodiwiss’s 1972 novel The Flame and the Flower. People can rant about the dangers of the rape romance all they want, but a novel that stays in print for thirty-five years is doing something right. I’ll confess I’m not a fan of that book, but Patricia Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold is one of the finest romances I’ve ever read, and reducing it to “a rape romance” because the hero rapes the heroine would be a travesty of narrow-mindedness and an insult to the author. And what about all the novels with heroes who try to rape and are thwarted? Do they get a free pass just because something stops their heroes, even though their intent is clear? Vidal in Georgette Heyer’s Devil’s Cub has every intention of raping Mary Challoner; the only reason he doesn’t is that she shoots him (read that excerpt here). Heyer leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind, Vidal intends to rape. And yet he’s a much-beloved hero (I must have read that book at least a dozen times and I plan to read it a dozen more in the future) precisely because he has so far to rise through the romance. He’s a rotter, but Mary’s going to reform him just by being Mary. And by shooting him. Georgette Heyer was my biggest influence as a beginning romance writer in large part because she never took the safe route, never did what was politically correct, always went her own way. But if the people who want rape out of romance are honest, that would include any hero who intends to rape, and there goes Vidal. I know I’ll never be as good a romance writer as Heyer or Gaffney, but give me the same clear playing field, please.
But in the end, all of the hoo-ra won’t matter because the readers will have the final say. Glen Turner from Queensland University of Technology, in his excellent paper delivered at the Pop Culture conference last week, pointed out that all the hand-wringing over what romance does to readers (he was referring to the abysmal Radway study and other critics who argued that romance novels were a bad influence on women) was pretty much backwards. Romance novels do not determine what readers think; readers determine what romance novels get published. Glen pointed out that the romance industry is more responsive to reader feedback than any other genre. Through reader boards and blogs, listserves and e-mails, and even snail mail, readers let publishers know what they think, but the biggest message they send is what they buy. Readers determine what a successful romance novel is, not writers with a political or moral agenda, and they do that by reading. The books they buy in stores, the books they check out of the library thereby encouraging the libraries to buy in great numbers, send a clear message in the only language publishing speaks: Sales. So I’m annoyed by the people who want to make some topic off bounds for me as a romance writer; they should get their cotton-pickin’ hands off my genre. But I’m not worried about it. I know romance readers too well to think they’ll let anybody push them—or me–around.
Although I might argue for some restrictions against the abusive hero-baby-hack-proselytizing-catfight novel. (I can’t help but think of titles, though: That Bitch Is Trying To Take The Secret Baby Some Arrogant Asshole Left Me With But God Is On My Side!!!! Hmmm. Needs to be pithier.) No, no, asking for restrictions would be wrong. My personal tastes do not define my genre, even if I feel passionately about them. Romance is bigger than me. And I’m really happy about that.
Amen!!! Can I get a witness?????
I want to read the That Bitch Is Trying To Take The Secret Baby Some Arrogant Asshole Left Me With But God Is On My Side!!!! When is the publication date?
gina
“I don’t like that stuff, but that doesn’t mean that my personal squick meter gets to define romance.”
I really like that . I like this better :
“Readers determine what a successful romance novel is, not writers with a political or moral agenda, and they do that by reading. The books they buy in stores, the books they check out of the library thereby encouraging the libraries to buy in great numbers, send a clear message in the only language publishing speaks: Sales.”
Off to re-read To Have and To Hold so I can get a handle on this whole thing. ‘Rape’ was a big part of early romance . Why the fuss now ? I don’t see myself as being warped by romance novels. I am in charge of my own morals ,thankyouverymuch.
I have a friend who firmly believes that the pyramids in Egypt were built by aliens or using alien technology because she doesn’t think that humans could have done it. I, on the other hand, think humans can accomplish pretty much anything they want given enough time and expendable slave labour.
It all boils down to not giving anyone else credit for having a brain and knowing how to use it.
To say something shouldn’t be marketed as a romance based on your idea of the squick factor of the plot is like saying that Celtic/Viking type historicals should be marketed as fantasy because none of the main characters stink to high heaven or have bugs.
No one threw open the doors and let all the convicted rapists out of jail after the ratings for General Hospital went sky high while they were doing the Luke and Laura thing.
It’s fiction and people know the difference. I’m an adult, don’t pat me on the head and tell me you know better than I do what I should be reading and what genre it should be in. Rape romances don’t interest me so I’ll express that view the best way possible - I’ll buy That Bitch Is Trying To Take The Secret Baby Some Arrogant Asshole Left Me With But God Is On My Side!!!! instead.
My 2 cents: I think rape was important in earlier novels because it gave the heroine an excuse to have premarital sex. At that time any female having sex before marriage was a slut, but a rape could be forgiven. Then the two became lovers, and that was ok because of the earlier rape.
Ya know, one might think Jenny is pro-freedom of speech. Yep, sales. Sales forgive any writer. Lack of adequate sales leads to unforgiveness.
Sounds like the same group of people screaming that you can’t have any erotic content in romance and all references to actual sex must fade away to waves crashing on the beach, Slot A must be referred to as “dewy folds”, and Tab B must only be called a “manhood”.
Since “rape” is no longer allowed in romance, does that mean that Gabaldon’s Outlander series is no longer romance. As I recall, it was the hero who was raped in that one.
There’s something out there for everybody. If it’s not your thing, don’t read it. But don’t tell me what it must or must not contain in order to be officially recognized in a genre.
This is an awful high wire for me to walk with ease, but I’ll step out anyway. I am adamantly opposed to any medium that promotes, or seems to promote, the idea that there’s a lighter side to rape. There isn’t, and to suggest there’s a romantic side to rape ought to be considered criminally negligent.
Yes, we have the right to free speech, but there’s a flip-side to that coin. It’s called responsibility, something in damned short supply these days. It’s our responsibility to make certain in exercising our own rights we don’t infringe or compromise the rights of someone else.
On the other hand, how does romanticizing rape differ from romanticising war? Or some other crime? Unless your actively advocating rape, there is no difference. Rape just seems sleazier than war. Lois McMaster Bujold handles the real ugliness of both in Shards of Honor, and an unlikely but fitting resolution in Warrior’s Apprentice.
What I want to know is why romance novels were targeted on this issue. The soaps went down that road back in the seventies with Luke and Laura, and they haven’t come back since.
No matter how repellent the subject, how the author handles it makes the difference between whether I sniff in distaste and turn my back, or come after them with a torch and a pitchfork. An example of the latter occurred in February when our local state college newspaper ran an op/ed piece titled ‘Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It’ about the glorious experience of rape and its benefit to society, prisoners, and ugly girls. The author was John Petroski.
I don’t think most rape romances look at “the lighter side of rape,” (actually, I’ve never read any that treated it lightly), but I’m with you on everything else especially that college newspaper article. I’m just not sure that writing about rape in romance novels is automatically irresponsible.
Romance novels are the at the core of the argument this time because there’s a new historical out that features a lot of rape. Somebody whose opinion I value very much and who is definitely a feminist said she read it and it was fantastic, beautiful writing exploring really dark themes. Another friend read it and was very vocal about how appalled she was. That’s where the storm center is. I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment on it, but when people started saying all rape should be barred from romance, I joined the argument.
And thanks for the dissenting opinion. We need both sides for a dialogue, so it was great of you to step up to the plate.
What I can’t wrap my mind around is the concept that any man who would consider forcing himself on a woman could still be called a hero.
I guess its one thing if the villain does the raping but a hero who rapes is no longer a hero to me.
I’m playing catch up since I’ve been on the road for two weeks and all I have to say right now is, well…love the posts I missed and wished I could have joined in the fun on the last ones. HooHa! Go Lani (I love Lani! You’re the best babe.)
Okay, now about “rape romances” Hmmmmm, can’t say I’m fond of rape and not sure I think it’s a characteristic that is redemiable, but it’s been done, many times. I’ve seen it in historicals, but mostly on soap operas. General Hospital did it with Luke and Laura when he raped her in the disco to the song Rise and their TV wedding was like as popular as Princess Dianas - how screwed up is that. One Life to Live did it with Todd - his character never got together with the girl he raped, but in order to keep him on, they’ve made him good guy, bad guy, good/bad guy all in one. But I think the key here is IT’S NOT REAL! It’s for entertainment and the point is to envoke emotion form the reader/viewer.
I read a lot of books and some of them might be considered a bit different, but it’s my choice and has to do with me and what I enjoy reading. I’m living outside my “life” in a “fantasy” world. There are many things in life I wouldn’t do, like hurt someone, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy the movies SAW or the book HANNIBAL. I actually liked Hannibal in a weird way, not that I’d ever want to be alone with the man, but he had his interesting points.
Now, I do not enjoy reading books where people are getting raped and the rape is okay with the world. Rape is wrong. I do however enjoy other books that bring me outside my life and propell me into my own fantasies. I have a close friend who writes erotica and I love her stuff. She has one book where the hero uses brute force to control his lifemate which includes hitting and taking. It’s a bit harsh, but in the world she created, it works really well. It doesn’t fit in the “real” world, but there you go, back to IT’S NOT REAL. I think the people who read romances know that. It’s fantasy. It gives us a break from the real world.
Now I’m just talking in circles. Must be that 15 hour drive home that we did straight through.
Shawn, I would have said the same thing. And then I read To Have and To Hold and Devil’s Cub. There’s a temptation to say, “Well, they change so they’re not really rapists,” but yeah, they are.
Having said that, I have the same problem. A hero who rapes should be shot in the first scene by the new guy who takes over as the hero. I don’t like rape romances.
Except To Have and To Hold and Devil’s Cub, neither of which is a romance about rape. They both just have heroes who are capable of it (one does it, the other gets shot or he would have). So they should hit my squick meter hard, and yet they were both great books. I can’t explain either. No is no.
But those two books . . .
It’s FICTION, as in not real. Characters are aloud to have quirks and do things that may not be acceptable in real life because it’s not real life.
I love books with ultra dominating/bad boy heroes and there are a fair number of rape books on my bookshelf with my favs. I guess I fit into the surrender fantasy/rape fantasy area. But I know that it’s not real. Books are the place that you go to escape the place that you are.
When I read I may fall for the burglar in the night, but in reality I double-check the locks on all my doors to keep the burglars out.
Its not a theme I’m comfortable reading, but as you said, Jenny, its pretty much how romance got its start so its silly to ban it now. I think GP had it right. If you look at the genre back when, they were usually historical. You couldn’t have a virtuous heroine from the 1800s who slept around so the authors came up with the domination theme. What I was opposed to, more than the rape theme, was the dumb-as-rocks heroine who put herself in stupid situations all the time (yeah, months crossing the ocean in a male-only vessel filled with obvious lowlifes … and she really expected to remain virginal?) but somehow always seemed pure and virtuous.
And Jenny, I’m with you on the lost baby books. Talk about a theme driven into the ground, stomped on and buried.
I hate rapes in books, but i’m not for censorship (because sooner or later i will be barred and me not talking is like the end of the world).
however, one of things discussed at…ummm…blanking on the name of the blog is when books that have rape, especially when the “hero” repeatedly rapes the heroine, and the back cover/review/etc never mentions it. i have a problem with that. i don’t like reading rape scenes at all, no matter how well written the book is, so i like to be warned when there will be one. haven’t read the book everyone is talking about and don’t plan to, but i’ve read books that are fine, maybe don’t like the hero that much but i’ll give it a try, and then there is a rape scene. i am unprepared for it, and i get a sick feeling that stays with me.
so can there be romances with rape out there? sure. i don’t like it and i don’t understand why others do, but they have the right to it. but i want to be warned so that i don’t have to deal with it.
ummm, baby books?
oh, and marta, i really agree with on the flip-coin thing.
with you.
geez. need to review more.
I would vote with my wallet on this one. I don’t buy books where the “hero” is a rapist. Maybe I read too many of the type in the early 80’s Harliquin Romances, but they always treat rape as so easily forgotten and forgiven. My ass. I loathe those books but play domination games with my hubby … the human is such a complex animal.
But I agree that authors have the right to write that crap. And other have the right to read it and even enjoy it. I also think Marta is right and people who write about the ‘fun’ of rape should be chased with pitchforks and torches.
In my opinion, women can be influenced by cultural clues — including what they read — just like men. Women are more likely to report date rape now, but not so much in the 70’s and 80’s where they assumed they had somehow asked for it. And romance novels did promote this ideology then. And studies have shown repeatedly that rapists usually start out on violent rape porn. Rapists interviewed in prison also insist that their victim really liked it. Even when they had murdered the victim. Really.
You know, I would have never dated a guy I knew enjoyed rape porn. Men who watch that are icky icky icky and I will stand buy that. Sweet Babou just pointed out (reading over my shoulder) that domination requires permission of the submissive and rape is involuntary and degrading. One of many reasons I adore him.
But long live the first ammendment and free speech. Even if gross and icky media come from it. I just won’t buy it, and in the end that’s where you fight back.
See, now I WANT to have your baby, Jenny! Anytime! Thank you for this.
Great post. And yes to Alan Rickman, particularly if - in some bizarre hopelessly-lost-while-filming accident - he appears at my door in Snape’s shape.
Sitting on the fence. Yes, I think authors should be able to write almost anything - but I feel there is a place for outraged readers. As Kyrathered said, the romance genre did, in the past, condone some unacceptable behaviours. If readers were outraged by that, and therefore pressurised writers and publishers for change, wouldn’t that have been a better course than simply withdrawing their financial support from the genre?
I can’t see it as censorship. If an author writes a book where the hero is a misogynistic stalker, and a reader says ‘this shouldn’t be sold as romance’ then that’s not censorship, that’s a valid opinion.
I don’t think it’s censorship, either. I don’t think this is a free speech argument. I haven’t heard anybody say, “Those books shouldn’t be written” or “Burn this book.” The argument I’m concerned about is the one that says rape shouldn’t be in romance novels.
And I absolutely agree, readers should express their outrage if they feel it. If a lot of romance readers express the opinion that rape is not a romance topic, the publishers will listen–as long as a lot more silent romance readers aren’t buying the rape romance novels. This really is a place where the real vote is what the reader buys. And I keep going back to The Flame and the Flower. I’m really proud that a romance I wrote in 1993 is still in print. Woodiwiss has me beat by 21 years.
But I definitely don’t want to squelch any dissenting opinions, either, because both sides have really valid arguments. My take on it is not that it’s a free speech issue–it’s not–but more of an issue of who gets to define the genre. We’ve had some real nightmare people in RWA try to define out of it things they don’t like, and this strikes me as the same twisty road.
And thank you, Sarah!
i agree jen erik.
i was just thinking about JR Ward’s Zsadist book. i guess i should amend what i said that i hate reading rapes, but if a character was raped and it was in their past, i like when authors deal with that.
yep, humans are complex weird-dos (among other things).
jen erik: i meant about the second paragraph.
what is with you all and Alan Rickman? i like him but geez.
and again, will someone clarify what is meant by “baby books”? because i can think of a couple different scenarios that involve babies…and now i’m really curious
Okay, I can’t help but add my two cents here. First, freedom of speech dictates that we allow people to write/read whatever they want, and I fiercely support that. Once you start deciding what’s unacceptable, you’re off and sliding down the slippery slope to censorship hell on a greased toboggan.
Having said that, the words “rape” and “romance” are mutually exclusive. I haven’t read the book, but I hope it’s playing off a domination theme. In domination, the woman *wants* to be dominated, she just might not be willing to admit it. In rape, the woman wants nothing of the sort. Rape is vile, disgusting and painful; no woman who has been raped would feel fondness of any sort for her attacker.
Let me fall back on my favorite subject: chocolate. Now, I love chocolate cake. However, there are many rational reasons why I might reject it: My ass will start to cover the metro area, for one. My pleasure centers, on the other hand, absolutely crave it. While I might be telling the waiter “No,” secretly I’m thinking “Yes, bring it on!”
So, I think it would be sexy for a lover to tempt me, to push past my boundaries, to get me to give in against my better judgment. Because, underneath it all, I really do want the cake. However, do I want someone to start cramming cake down my throat? No.
There’s a huge difference between “against my better judgment” and “against my will.”
Now that society is no longer prudish and heroines need not be raped as a plot device, writers should forgo true rape scenarios in favor of dominance and seduction.
I’m going to shut up now and go eat some cake.
Now after finding out that obesity is killing more people than famine and malnourishment, I think the next step might be to ban cooking in novels. So you might want to change Agnes’ profession, quick, before the book goes into print (or is it already?)
You still insist on your literary freedom? But think of the many readers who will be inspired by the thought of food and open their fridges and prepare and consume much more stuff than is healthy for them. They will gain weight and need new clothes on which they must spend a lot of money which they need to work for very hard and then they get sick and it’s all the novel writer’s fault.
I can’t believe you want that to happen.
Having been a registered nurse for many years and doing my stint in the E.R. I can tell you right up front, right now, there is nothing romantic about rape. NOTHING. Not one damn thing.
For those who need to fantasize rape to get their jolly’s, fine, go ahead, but I’ve seen my sisters shattered, degraded, humiliated, cut, burned with cigarettes, had items inserted deep into their bodies. I’ve seen them torn to pieces … shattered mentally and physically, nothing romantic about it. You want to talk men going to war and post traumatic stress disorder, think women and rape and nightmares for years. Think of all of the women murdered after the act. The families left in pain. Nope. Still can’t quite catch the element of romance.
I’m with OH on this one, you want to write rape fine, as a writer you get to choose, but put a disclaimer on it. Call it general fiction. Call it Rape fiction. I don’t care. Just don’t embed it into something with a hearts and flowers cover and a cute title, making it a story someone like me would rather burn than read. The beauty of romance fiction and its many sub-genres, (at least to date)has been that we can pick and choose, read those we love and ignore the rest.
I gained thirty pounds writing Bet Me. Of course I was also going through menopause, but I blame Krispy Kreme, not my deathless prose. I also got a lot of comments from people who said, “I hate Krispy Kremes. I don’t get it.” None of them started eating them anyway.
The books described as rape romances are romances with rape in them. They’re not bondage games or coded so that the reader knows the woman agrees. She says no and means it, or is in a position where she can’t say no but clearly does not want it. It’s rape. One of the many reasons I don’t like them. Except for To Have and To Hold. Argh.
The book in question puts the rape firmly in a moral context of condemnation. The rape is not romantic, it’s not a forced seduction and the hero is quite clearly wrong. I see no problem with having a rape depicted in a romance. Romance is about life and in life women get raped. The challenge for the writer is making it plausible that the heroine can fall in love with her rapist. In my view the author in question succeeded in doing this, largely because the book is a lot more sophisticated and darker than the bodice rippers of days gone by. BTW no one has condemned Anne Stuart (nor should they) for her hero almost drowning the heroine - he was interrupted - in Ice Blue. Is homicide ok and rape not?
Rape is not a sexual act. It is physical violence. Can you have a romance with violence? Yes, of course. Many women, in fiction and in real life, love and forgive the men who do them violence. Whether physical or emotional. Torture is torture. Yet our society has deemed it more acceptable to inflict emotional torture than the physical torture of rape.
What I find interesting is that women are writing about physical torture, about rape, within the context of a romance. In doing so, they are in a way harnessing some of its power and destructiveness and making of it what they will, saying about it what they need to say. They are telling stories of love that somehow incorporate and attempt to reconcile the reality of this awful physical brutality. Some do it horribly, without skill or sensitivity, and some do it brilliantly, but that inclusion does not make a romance less of a romance.
Intentionally inflicted emotional anguish can be just as devastating as physical abuse; its effects can be just as lasting. Yet we have no trouble imagining the tragic heroine suffering emotional torture at the hands of the hero and ultimately forgiving him for it. We admire her ability to “get past it” and often respect that as strength. Why should the ability to overcome physical abuse be any different?
Of course, I don’t have a lit crit degree and I may be way off base here. But I’ve read an awful lot of fiction over the years. I think it is hypocritical to give a nod to certain types of abuse in romance and screech in outrage over others. Romance and violence are not mutually exclusive concepts. Never have been, never will be. JMO.
The books described as rape romances are romances with rape in them. They’re not bondage games or coded so that the reader knows the woman agrees. She says no and means it, or is in a position where she can’t say no but clearly does not want it. It’s rape.
Robin, over at Dear Author, was arguing that as it’s the reader’s rape fantasy, the reader gives consent. Which still leaves the reader who doesn’t consent because she doesn’t have rape fantasies in a potentially very awkward and unpleasant position.
I have the feeling that sometimes the ‘rape fantasy’ is coded by putting the romance in a fantasy setting (e.g. involving a werewolf, an alien, or perhaps set in a ‘fantasy’ version of a historical period so that it’s in some way distanced from ‘real life’). But when that element isn’t there (i.e. the setting is one that’s clearly intended to be read as ‘real’ or the reader has emotionally accepted it as ‘real’) and the reader isn’t one who has a rape fantasy, then the reader is being told that the heroine can get over what the hero did and that they’ll have a HEA.
Of course, not everyone identifies very closely emotionally with the heroine so they may not be particularly upset by this, and some readers perhaps identify with the hero, so are more ready to forgive him, but if reader identification with the heroine/using the heroine as a placeholder is what makes the rape fantasy work (I don’t know if it is), where does that leave the readers who don’t have a rape fantasy and who identify with/put themselves in the place of the heroine? Potentially quite traumatised.
we have no trouble imagining the tragic heroine suffering emotional torture at the hands of the hero and ultimately forgiving him for it. We admire her ability to “get past it” and often respect that as strength.
If she’s a ‘tragic heroine’ doesn’t she end up dead, like Ophelia? Personally, if a hero is really abusive, either emotionally or physically, I’d tend to be thinking that the heroine should run away from him as fast as she can.
I went on vacation and lost 10 pounds in a week and a half. I had so much fun I forgot to eat, I guess, but I don’t think I could pass up a Krispy Creme if I tried. Those little donuts are awesome. I make a mean german chocolate cake and can eat a whole one too. I guess it’s the sugar because stick a hamburg and french fries in front of me, yuck.
Okay, back to rape romances. I don’t like it when women fall for their rapist, unless it’s one of those pyschological things and in the end, the rapist gets what is coming to them, but I don’t mind a little game playing. Pushing and proding the women into it. That ying, yang, push, pull can be very hot, but in the end, the woman has to say yes, I want this, otherwise, not good.
Rape itself is a hot topic, and one that people tend to be very emotional about, but taking it out of a good book that is well written just because it might distrub someone? No. I disagree. I don’t think anyone has the right (well, the publisher does) to tell someone not to write it. I guess you can compare it to some horror/thriller books. Over at the CherryForums I had been discussing my problems with my twisted antagnoist and how hard it has been for me to write him because he is so sick and what he is doing is distrubing to even me, the author. But damn it, it’s good stuff (I hope). It fits the story, my vision for the story and in the end, I’m hoping that the reader will a tad bit of empathy for my nasty character. I want you to see how he got to the depths of hell.
What’s my point? Rape in the real world, bad, very bad and well, anyone who commits it, well, lets just say I have very strong opinions on the subject. But, we’re talking about fiction and when anyone buys a fiction book, I don’t care what genre it is, we know it’s fiction and if the reader is satsified at the end of the day, well, they got their money’s worth. And if more people buy it, the publishers will continue to publish it.
True.
But it’s not our place to protect the reader.
I know that sounds callous, so let me put it in another context. There are editors–not mine, thank God–who insist that everything in the novel be accessible to all readers, no references to anything anybody might not get. It’s a dumbing-down of content in order to serve one kind of reader.
I think barring rape on the grounds of not traumatizing some readers is the same thing, on a much more dangerous scale, of course.
I once started to read Rumer Goden’s In This House of Brede. At the very beginning something horrible happens to a child. I put the book down and never read on, even though I understand it’s a wonderful book. That scene haunted me for years. But she had clearly begun the book that way to set up her story, the violence was part of the story, and even when I read it, I wouldn’t have said, “She shouldn’t have written this, it traumatized me.” I just wished I hadn’t read it.
There’s another scene that had a similar impact, but this one was excerpted in Janet Burroway’s Writing Fiction, a scene where a boy leaps into a lake full of snakes. It was incredibly powerful writing and I can’t shake that one, either. It’s horrible, but wonderful writing, it really illustrates what Burroway was talking about.
But that’s literary fiction. Nobody would dream of restricting literary fiction in any way. It’s only in romance that we feel we have to protect our reader, which I find truly insulting to the reader. She picked up the book, and she can put it down again.
The book in question does not romanticize rape. It is a dirty ugly act and the author in no way makes this “okay”. It only “romanticizes” rape if the writing of a romance which features a rapist finding redemption and having an HEA.
I started a historical today that featured a man who is a celebrated rake. There is no one that he can’t seduce, be it fair innocent maiden, lecherous madam, or noble woman. (I suppose this character is patterned after the Vicomte de Valmont). There is not real redemption for this character. No comeuppance. He gets upbraided in the second to last chapter but really suffers no adverse consequences for his rakishness.
I find the romanticization of the male slut quite as bit as offensive as some find the redemption of the rapist.
These, of course, are all personal value judgments.
I just think its hard to make a claim for literary respectability when there are some topics just too awful for a delicate woman to read.
Jenny, I wasn’t aiming at romance with the ‘lighter side’ comment. I really meant any medium, and even though I’m still steamed at the ECSC article, I think television has a lot more to answer for.
Flame and the Flower, now, there was a case of too dumb to live. But Devil’s Cub, well, I’ll have to read it again, but I never thought he’d do it.
Well, Laura, I guess I’m not defining “tragic” the same way you are. I’m frankly not the scholarly type.
I just know I’ve ready plenty of romances where the hero completely devastates the heroine emotionally, leaves her in a sobbing heap of hopeless agony, and the reader is desperate for her to give the sadistic SOB a swift kick and MOVE ON already. But ultimately he comes to his senses and grovels, she forgives him and they have their HEA. I figure it lasts about a week. The point is that no one is saying that is not a romance. I’m saying I don’t necessarily see the difference.
And I need to go on vacation with Jen. Ten pounds? Geez.
But that’s literary fiction. Nobody would dream of restricting literary fiction in any way. It’s only in romance that we feel we have to protect our reader, which I find truly insulting to the reader. She picked up the book, and she can put it down again.
But the RWA say that romance is about a central relationship and every romance should have an
Emotionally Satisfying and Optimistic Ending — Romance novels end in a way that makes the reader feel good. Romance novels are based on the idea of an innate emotional justice — the notion that good people in the world are rewarded and evil people are punished.
So if it’s not ‘emotionally satisfying’ for the reader, and the reader feels bad/traumatised, and there isn’t justice because the person who does bad things is rewarded at the end, does that mean the book should be in literary fiction or some other genre, but not romance? Or is it the RWA that’s limiting the genre, and romance shouldn’t be required to have an ‘Emotionally Satisfying and Optimistic Ending’?
I’m not sure this is really about censorship or ‘protecting the reader’ so much as (seeing as we’ve got the food comparison going) making sure that the food matches the packaging. If someone’s expecting an ‘emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending’ and doesn’t get it, that reader will be annoyed and upset (and not just because of the content, but also because she/he will feel as though the ‘contract’ of genre expectations was broken). In a mystery, the reader would be annoyed and upset if he/she didn’t find out who committed the crime. Doesn’t mean that you can’t have books which leave a reader feeling sad, or books in which crimes remain unsolved, but it’s probably best not to market the first as romance or the second as a mystery.
“So if it’s not ‘emotionally satisfying’ for the reader, and the reader feels bad/traumatised, and there isn’t justice because the person who does bad things is rewarded at the end, does that mean the book should be in literary fiction or some other genre, but not romance?”
But justice is often in the eye of the beholder (much like the GHH.) Clearly the rape romances (some of them) do give some readers an emotionally satisfying ending. The book hasn’t been written that gives ALL readers an emotionally satisfying ending. There are a lot of very popular romances that were wallbangers for me. Doesn’t mean they’re not romances because they didn’t give ME an emotionally satisfying ending.
The RWA definition was written for RWA’s purposes; that is, they needed a definition so they could define what they were representing and accepting for the Rita and GH. It isn’t necessarily the industry’s definition and it definitely isn’t all readers’ definition. The “emotionally satisfying and optimistic” part was added to keep out Madame Bovary. No, I’m not kidding, I was on that committee. An unhappy ending in a romance is like an unsolved ending at the end of a mystery. It kind of misses the point of the genre, as you said:
“Doesn’t mean that you can’t have books which leave a reader feeling sad, or books in which crimes remain unsolved, but it’s probably best not to market the first as romance or the second as a mystery.”
Exactly, which is why Flaubert will never win the Rita. But just because SOME readers don’t find the redemption at the end of a rape romance a happy ending, that doesn’t mean it fails for all readers or even a majority of readers.
There are a lot of romances out there that failed to give ME a satisfying ending. They’re still romances.
So if it’s not ‘emotionally satisfying’ for the reader, and the reader feels bad/traumatised, and there isn’t justice because the person who does bad things is rewarded at the end, does that mean the book should be in literary fiction or some other genre, but not romance?
Isn’t this a value judgment - the “emotionally satisfying” part. In Claiming the Courtesan, the two main protagonists are shown to have fallen in love and the implication, of course, is that they have an HEA.
Therefore, the idea of whether the male protagonist is worthy of his HEA is a value judgment on the part of the reader. Other commenters who have decried CtC as not belonging in the romance genre point to other books that do feature rapists and said something akin to the argument that the redemption happens sooner in those other books, or perhaps, as marta argues, you never actually believe the hero would do such a despicable act.
Those sound like reader reaction and reader reaction is so widely varied. The exclusion of certain types of romances at the “gate” (i.e., the editor’s doorstep) seems to smack of a protectionist attitude rather than worrying about whether the book falls within the RWA guidelines and therefore is considered a “romance.”
I didn’t know when I went into the book that there was a rape and I didn’t believe in the redemption either. But that’s my own perception. Other readers felt it worked for them and that it was romantic. I suppose the dynamic at work is that you take the worst possible being (rapist, murderer, thief, liar, cheat, rake), and one woman’s love is enough to redeem him. That’s a powerful concept and I can see it’s appeal. Further it’s a concept that dominates romance books. Whether it is the beast (Rhage in JR Ward’s book) that is tamed by Mary or the Devil in Heyer’s book tamed by, again, Mary.
Hmmm. Perhaps there is some divinity in the Mary Hoo Ha.
While I managed to not comment on the whole GHH discussion (that’s why I’m single, I need to go to the craft store…), I have to comment now.
I completely disagree with banning rape from romances or cordonning them off into their own section. Personally I can’t stand the books by Kathleen Woodiwiss that I’ve read, but back then I didn’t know better. I just read the back cover (which doesn’t mention the cheerful rate scenes) and then got side swiped when I came across the rape scenes. (Didn’t one of her books not only have a rape scene, but a rape scene in front of a crowd? Or am I thinking of someone else? Grrrrr. In either case, I didn’t finish that book.) I was the only one in my crowd who read romances, so I couldn’t get anyone else’s opinion about books I though looked interesting. I don’t have that problem anymore. With the internet I can read reviews, join discussion groups, read the author’s blog, etc, and get a well rounded picture of what kind of book I’m about to read.
And, honestly, rape is not always the worst thing to read in a romance. It all depends on how it’s portrayed. There’s the boy kidnaps girl - boy rapes girl - girl spits in boy’s face and procedes to do mean evil things to boy with weapons close at hand - boy realizes girl is not doormat - boy discovers the GHH - boy spends 450 pages trying to win back girl. Add a pirate ship and stir. Am I offended? Nyah. I just think those stories are silly. Other stories, where boy is an emotionally abusive jacka$$ the entire time make me want to teach the heroine how to use a gun with the hero as target practice. (I love Elizabeth Lowell’s books, but her “Granite Man” just drives me crazy. What an a$$!)
Someone mentioned Gabaldon’s Outlander series. I just love the part where Claire gets raped in one of the later books. Not the rape itself, because I hated that part, but afterwards, when Jamie proceeded to kill all the rapists? Aaaaaaw, how romantic. I want a man who will kill those who hurt me. But I’m a primitive at heart and believe heroes should have to kill lots of people to win the heroine (which means Zsadist and the Brothers are HOT!!)
I was going to bug Jenny for the name of the book, but then she said that it was a historical. I can handle rapes scenes. But historicals? Yuck!
I’m only commenting generally on the issue of rape as a fantasy in a romance novel, since I’ve not read the book in question (and don’t know the title nor the author).
The back cover copy on a romance novel isn’t going to spell out a warning that the book contains a rape by the hero. Can you imagine the reaction of a rape victim when she unknowingly purchases a romance novel with a rape scene? I think it’s safe to assume no rape victim will view it as fantasy.
I think the rape in front of a crowd was Rosemary Rogers’ first book. Damn, can’t think of the name of it. I accidentally bought it for my mother-in-law, a sweet, lovely but very conservative woman. She loved it and asked me for more. I said, “Sure,” and then I read it. Jesus wept. But I bought her more.
LMAO!!! I have a few relatives that can be described as sweet, lovely and very conservative (my mom being one), and if I ever saw that book on her shelf I wouldn’t be able to look her in the eye.
But seriously, maybe that mindset is the one who buys these books? I believe that once a schmuck, always a schmuck, so I don’t believe in the redemptive powers of love. But maybe those who do believe in redemption can feel a certain amount of emotional satisfaction from reading a story about someone whose faith and love can reform a jerk that much? I’m trying to avoid a religious allusion or discussion, but there is a very popular religion out there that is based upon those values.
Isn’t this a value judgment - the “emotionally satisfying” part.
Of course. Someone once posted on TMT that he felt that it would be an optimistic and satisfying ending for some characters to end up dead (we’d been discussing a book with French aristocrats in it, pre-Revolution). I can see his point - if you’ve hated the characters, it might seem emotionally satisfying and just for them to be killed off at the end of the novel. In which case, if someone happened to think that Emma Bovary deserved to die, would that make it a romance?
Genre definitions are always difficult to pin down.
I suppose the dynamic at work is that you take the worst possible being (rapist, murderer, thief, liar, cheat, rake), and one woman’s love is enough to redeem him. That’s a powerful concept and I can see it’s appeal.
Yes, but there are still some taboos that probably haven’t been broken or wouldn’t be generally acceptable. How many romance heroes kill pet animals or are paedophiles? How many of them commit adultery after they’ve married the heroine? And I wonder if part of what’s going on here is about expectations and shifting societal attitudes towards male violence against women. Gradually some behaviours/attitudes become less acceptable, and so their depiction in romance will become less acceptable. I’m sure when the age of consent was lower, stories featuring 14-year-old heroines would have been acceptable. In fact, Juliet in Romeo and Juliet is not-quite-14. Nowadays, I’m not sure how many readers would like to see a romance with a heroine who’s that young. And would that be acceptable in a romance because (a) we know it’s a fantasy and (b) we can choose not to read it? Possibly, but maybe not.
Anyway, from some of the comments that I’ve read, such as Eileen Dreyer saying that ‘It yanks us right back to the years when women were powerless and only good for subservience and obedience. And if it’s all the same to you, we’ve worked too damn hard to climb out of that pit to go back there’, I get the impression that a lot of the anger is caused by the suspicion that perhaps rapist heroes in romance reflect wider social attitudes towards rape, like a canary down the mine. It’s certainly true that rape and violence against women are more recognised and condemned now than they used to be in the days when rapist heroes were common in romance. Not that there’s necessarily a direct link, but there may be some sort of correlation, just as there is between attitudes towards 14-year-olds and the lack of 14-year-old heroines in modern romance, and I wonder if that’s why this development is particularly concerning to some readers.
[I know that some people, have argued that this novel is different from the older romances containing rapist heroes, but it still gives him a HEA, and maybe that's enough to set some people's alarm bells ringing. I'm speculating - I haven't read the book. And apologies if I've not worded that clearly. It's rather late here and I feel like I've turned back into a pumpkin.]
Rape “romances” are not for me. That said, I think that to tell someone that they cannot write in a genre they love amounts to violating their free speech rights. For myself, I cannot fathom a heroine who would fall in love with her rapist. That is simply inconceivable to me. Right there with you, Jenny, on the abusive “hero” as well. But, same thing with abortion, just because I wouldn’t do it doesn’t give me the right to stop someone else. (Not trying to engage an abortion debate, just making a comparison. I know not everyone agrees.) I may not like romances with rape storylines, but I can’t stop someone else from liking them. Also, woman are not stupid, they know the difference between a fantasy and a real rape. Jenny had it right when she said they are not imagining the thug on the street corner, they are most often picturing their spouse being an aggressive, alpha male which many men have moved away from as the times have changed. (Stepping away from the soapbox now.)
What it comes down to really, is as you said Jenny, its up to the readers to decide. And if they are reading the rape-romance books, then they consider them acceptable. Others won’t, and they don’t have to read those authors again. Or from that publishing house if they feel strongly enough about it. An author can write any story he or she wants to. We don’t have to read it. And besides which, people living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If its rape-romance today, it might be premarital sex that is targeted tomorrow.
“In which case, if someone happened to think that Emma Bovary deserved to die, would that make it a romance?”
With the lovers parted and everybody in misery? A heroine who takes a WEEK to die of self-inflicted arsenic poisoning? No, even if you think poor brainless Emma deserves the death she deals herself, it’s still not a romance. It has to be a love story, and it has to end optimistically, which pretty much presupposes the lovers will be together. Maybe we should have put that in the definiton: They’re both alive and they’re together. Or in the same state of walking deadness.
IT WASN’T EASY WRITING THAT DEFINITION.
“Nowadays, I’m not sure how many readers would like to see a romance with a heroine who’s that young. And would that be acceptable in a romance because (a) we know it’s a fantasy and (b) we can choose not to read it? Possibly, but maybe not.”
I think the heroine in Elswyth Thane’s TRYST is young. Seventeen maybe? Loved that book.
Krissie and I once did a panel where we talked about what made a hero irredeemable, but then we remembered we’d been talking about the anti-hero of American Gothic, who was literally Satan in the guise of a sadistic small town sheriff, and we’d both been laughing because we were secretly sure the love of a good woman could save him because he was so hot. Krissie and I are not deep.
I’d say pedophilia and animal torture is beyond the pale but I still wouldn’t say, “If you put these in a romance, it’s not a romance.” That’s too slippery a slope. Or the thin end of the wedge if you’d rather. Cliches. I have a million of them.
I really don’t believe this is a free speech issue. Nobody’s saying these books shouldn’t be published. They’re arguing that they shouldn’t be sold as romances. I’m arguing that people shouldn’t tell me what to put in my romance novels since the readers will let me know if I’ve gone too far. Which they often do. I got a lot of grief on the stalker in Crazy for You; people kept saying, “Stalking isn’t funny.” Hey, did I make it funny? No. And she beat the hell out of him at the end with a piece of porch rail.
Maybe that’s why I’m arguing this. Somebody has objected to something in every one of my romance novels. Allie shouldn’t have had a gay roommate. Nell shouldn’t have slept with Riley. Nell shouldn’t have kissed Suze. Sophie shouldn’t have said, “Fuck” so much and Phin certainly shouldn’t have said it to his mother. I could go on but you’re bored. Bottom line: Genre needs parameters not taboos. Tell me I have to deliver a satisfying ending with the lovers together, I have no problem. Tell me they have to say “I love you” and get married and there can’t be any rape or foul language or gay characters or girl-on-girl fooling around or rough sex or a hero that kills people for a living, I’m going to get cranky.
IT WASN’T EASY WRITING THAT DEFINITION.
I got that impression from the essay you wrote about it. I was just pushing the definition to see how far it would go.
people living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If its rape-romance today, it might be premarital sex that is targeted tomorrow.
That’s too slippery a slope. Or the thin end of the wedge if you’d rather.
I understand that, really I do. But I wonder if one could also argue it the other way, that rapist heroes are the thin edge of the wedge and if people don’t protest against them, the next thing will be paedophile heroes, or heroes who mutilate the heroine or…
And again, I’m just trying to see how far these arguments will go, in either direction. Probably on here everyone is in agreement that censorship is bad, rape is bad and people have a right to their fantasies. What the discussion seems to show is that people will have different initial responses to this issue, depending on which of their hot-buttons it sets off first (whether that’s fear of censorship, anger at criticism of particular sexual fantasies or abhorence of violence against women).
Oh, and I’m working on a post about Crazy for You. I won’t be arguing that you make stalking seem funny.
“Probably on here everyone is in agreement that censorship is bad, rape is bad and people have a right to their fantasies.”
I know. That’s what makes this so interesting to me. There are no bad guys here. I really can see the other side. It’s wrong, of course (g), but I can see it clearly.
Your hot button point is dead on: I’ve seen people blowing up on lists about this, but there’s no one central argument throughout the internet discussions. It just seems to have simultaneously pushed all those buttons you talked about, and people are going off in different directions. Which is really interesting.
And good point about the wedge cutting both ways as it slides down the slope.
Thank you for not getting indignant about the stalking. I said he was bad. I punished him. He wasn’t the hero. Although the parallels were there in the hero, of course. And boy did I get complaints about that scene on the stage. Which, for the record, I rewrote and made tamer because my editor said the original version was “icky.” Too close to rape.
Well now my head is spinning. And I didn’t think that was possibly after the GHH.
I guess it’s all in the execution. And a good point about literary fiction being able to tackle any subject. Why not romance?
Actually not really sure how I feel about this now I’ve read all the comments. Rape bad, yes. Very bad. Should it be a taboo subject? Hmmm….fence sitting.
I read a category romance recently that was kind of disturbing for me. The writing was excellent, very tight and technically sparkled but the hero left me feeling conflicted. He was the hero so your supposed to like him, right? And he had many admirbale qualities but there’s a scene where he basically blackmails the heroine into bed. Okay fine, that can work, read it in lots of different books but to punish her (his ultimate goal) he made the sex particularly degrading when he knew she was only doing it to secure something very dear to her. Yes, she’d given consent so technically it wasn’t rape but he knew she didn’t want to do it and never would have if she’d felt like there’d been any kind of a choice. It left me feeling very, very disturbed. I doubt I could have been any more disturbed had he raped her.
Sorry….also talking in circles.
Okay, so think of it this way, if you’re going to see a movie, you get to read about it, maybe see a trailer, if it’s violent, full of bad language etc. and that’s not your bag, you don’t go. Film has a rating system, so therefore it’s your choice. If you don’t like movies with murder and rape, you choose the sweet story, the Disney or the Romantic Comedy instead. What’s so different about fiction? No rating. RWA with its subgenres is the closest thing to rating of a novel. You don’t get it with literary fiction. But that’s why romance sells, the reader knows what she’s getting and she only gets pissed off when the rules change.
Plus, I think writing a violent scene in a book and calling it romantic misleads. We’ve come too far and had too many battles to step backward and say no means yes. Has anyone any idea of how many romance novels make it into the prison system in this country?
I couldn’t make it through all the comments here, wow. For those who believe it will give some ideas, all I have to say is. Really?
Otherwise, if one book has caused this much emotional hype then I now have to say kudos to the author. I read a short story once, that I swear I didn’t know what it was about many years ago, the girl had sex with her dead boyfriend because that was apart of their play. It totally made sense and I even respected the woman still, after the story. To me that’s good writing. No matter what happens it’s believable. Evidentally this rape scene was so well done that people are talking. Good or bad, people are talking.
It’s a crime, I think quite literally, to tell people what they can and can’t write. However, it isn’t the writers censoring, it’s the publishers. Publishers say what will work or what won’t. Possibly Avon needed some sales and they knew if they brought back the tried and true it would bring them sales.
It’s our responsiblity to decide what we like and don’t like. However, there needs to be writers for everything. If not we’re stuck in the same rut. I’ve read so much of he same lines of romance I think I’d read a good story about a rape just to toss in some creativness.
And now I begin to ramble. Good for the author, good for the publisher. Bad to those who try to say what is and isn’t romantic.
Rape bad.
Fantasy good.
Knee-jerk/proscriptive/censorious reactions bad.
Intelligent exploration of dark themes good.
Historicals good. Mostly. If they’re not too peppered with anachronisms.
So what’s the name of that book? I gotta read it. There’s more good than bad here.
Jenny said “I got a lot of grief on the stalker in Crazy for You; people kept saying, “Stalking isn’t funny.” Hey, did I make it funny? No.”
No, you made it understandable. I expect that pissed some people off, but of course, understanding someone doesn’t mean approving of their actions.
I think - just speaking personally - I’m okay with threatened rape in a romance like in Devil’s Cub but not with actually-happens rape. And DEFINITELY not with scenes that start as rape and turn into fantastic sex. I’ve read a few of those from the 70s. They make me want to spit. But I’m a reader who likes romcom and sweet romances. And freedom of speech. So someone has the right to write a rape scene into a romcom/sweet romance, I’ll just ceremonially throw the book into the rubbish bin (not the book exchange) and never ever touch another by that author.
But that’s just me.
Keziah Hill wrote-> BTW no one has condemned Anne Stuart (nor should they) for her hero almost drowning the heroine - he was interrupted - in Ice Blue.
Spoiler!! that book is next in my to read pile!!
Keziah Hill wrote-> BTW no one has condemned Anne Stuart (nor should they) for her hero almost drowning the heroine - he was interrupted - in Ice Blue.
Spoiler!! that book is next in my to read pile!!
Sorry! But it’s pretty early on in the book! A lot happens after that!
To defend Taka (the hero in Ice Blue) he was supposed to kill Summner, the heroine. It was his job. (Not a spoiler.) It wasn’t some way to punnish or torture her. He hadn’t considered her a love interest, just an assignment.
BTW, ICE BLUE will be up for discussion in the Cherry Forums starting May 1. Please join us.
————
Inkgrrl: WTG on summing everything up in one little bitty reply. I believe a couple of people mentioned the name of the book a few comments back.
————
Thank you Jenny for your thoughtful post and replies tonight on this very difficult subject. I don’t think there’s anything worse than rape, but I agree with you 100%.
This is the first time I thought about writing on this but I really love these discussions so I thought I would try it.
Sorry about this my computer is rubbish. I wanted to say about the rape stuff.
I have read many romances that have the woman who has suffered violence and then falls for someone that is violent and not exactly the nicest guy in the world (practically all of Diana Palmer but the book that I meant was Rage of Passion).
Is this is not more disturbing in a way that the male does not really understand the females plight BUT the sex scenes are really well written.
I could name many more where the female gets raped then falls for the violent guy. But these are okay in my book, as the sex is WITH the woman’s consent after this has happened to them. And no one is saying that rape in the real world is okay.
This is exactly the same arguement that I had with my teacher, who says that women cannot read romance because they are all written by men (Er WHAT?) and that they teach women false ideals. Er what can I say I am not stupid and love romance novels they are escapist but they are really well written novels. Above all I know that they are not the real world.
That does not mean that I cannot enjoy the hot sex and the great writing!
Hope I have not blathered on too long.
Jenny, have you read the Lymond Chronicles? Talk about an evil hero. I almost threw the book across the room. A friend convinced me to keep going. And I was hooked. i
You’re telling me that if I put rape in a book, I’m not writing a romance? How do you know that? You haven’t read my book.
As a writer, this is the core of the argument for me and why it makes me crazy insane when The Objectors come out with their torches and tar and feathers in hand. Without context, and by context, I mean the entire flippin’ book, how on earth make a judgment like that. And even within context, how can they make a blanket judgment, as in “This is not romance.” It’s a matter of individual choice and the squick-o-meter. You can say, “For my taste, I didn’t see this as a romance,” and that’s groovy and wonderful and you can go your own way, especially with so many fabulous books out there to read.
The Rosemary Rogers’ book with the gang rape and crowd rape was The Insiders. I read it when I was 15 and even then I did not get the heroine at all. And the hero, even though he was emotionally traumatized from his favorite aunt (the one he was banging) getting run over by a taxi, was a prick even without the rape. I did finish the book just to see what would happen but I didn’t like it.
I started casting my mind back to romances I have read that had any of that theme I might have enjoyed. Did anyone else read Johanna Lindsey’s Prisoner of My Desire? The heroine, under the threat of her mother’s death, rapes the hero first … and then he rapes her back. The irony is it was plotted so that the characters each had motivations to provide the other person with sexual pleasure. That book was definately encoded bondage with o-goodness-I-can’t-help-myself permission. It was a million miles away from the heorine in The Insiders gang rape while drugged. I’ve also read an 80’s romance … set on pirate ships of course … where the hero rapes the woman for her own good. I filed it under ’stupid’ and pitched it. So writing and context are everything. I would still hate with a passion to see the ‘women really want to be raped’ mindset of the earlier novels to come back though. It is destructive … not because women are more easily influenced … but because humans are influenced by what are presented as mainstream cultural norms. So I would not buy any book if I had even an inkling there was a rapist hero in it.
Jenny you did NOT make stalking funny in CFY. In fact every time I read this book I admire the deft way you handled it. A serious subject shown realistically (they often seem like pillars of the community; the community often sees their obsessiveness as devotion) and didn’t set off my squick meter - which has a very sensitive setting when it comes to violence against women.
Laura V. - people will do their protesting with their wallets. And if they don’t, its because it doesn’t bother them regardless of where it hits on my personal squick meter. Its not for me to say that romance writers can’t include certain things if someone else out there is willing to read it.
This is absolute gold! I don’t read anything with rape in it, period. Nor do I read westerns, or books about NASCAR drivers, but I don’t care if someone else wants to write them or read them or turn them into hit movies. I’ve long agreed that if you don’t like something you read, stop reading it. That’s that. Thanks for the great post!
If someone’s expecting an ‘emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending’ and doesn’t get it, that reader will be annoyed and upset (and not just because of the content, but also because she/he will feel as though the ‘contract’ of genre expectations was broken).
Hmm. I loved Welcome to Temptation, but I was seriously pissed off and left utterly unsatisfied by the ending that essentially lets a murderess continue to walk around scot-free. Does that make Jenny’s book not a romance?
“Emotionally satisfying and optimistic” is in the eye of the beholder, just like anything else, methinks.
As for the wedge that cuts both ways as it slides down the slippery slope, when editors put out a call for pedophile heroes and the women who love them, we can address that. I don’t see it happening, because while the “rape fantasy” is a common one among some women, and one they apparently feel they can safely explore within the realm of Romance (hence the introduction and survival of the trope), the “pedophile lover” would seem to be…not so much. Unless there’s a niche market of which I’m unaware.
In other words, the readers win. Just like Jenny said.
Bottom line: Genre needs parameters not taboos.
I would go even further and say that those parameters should be formalistic and not ideological. Deciding what’s Romance should not be the same as deciding what’s *romantic* and IMO it too often is, especially when we start getting to the margins. Of course it’s tough because the genre isn’t ideologically neutral, but that’s one of the most important reasons for keeping the definition broad, IMO.
I don’t think this is a free speech argument.
And yet what we’re really talking about here is a potential chilling effect, yes? I actually think there are free speech dimensions to the issue, because artists have been long given tremendous latitude in writing provocative and often offensive things without being prosecuted for obscenity (which is not considered “speech” under the first amendment). That’s one of the reasons the whole “reader feedback” mechanism in Romance kind of scares me, because I already think the genre takes too few risks, and is that because publishers and authors don’t want the hassle of hate mail and angry bloggers? And if that’s the case, is Romance really a *genre* at all or simply an *industry*?
Which brings me back to that idea of what’s Romance v. what’s romantic. Oy, it kind of depresses me, because it seems to me that reader feedback has been more successful in *limiting* the genre than broadening it. Which is really sad, precisely because of a statement like yours in which you say you hate rape Romances, except . . . . To me, the important part of your sentence is the “except” because it locates the judgment in the book and not the trope itself. I fear we’re (the reading community as a whole) not paying attention to individual books but instead somehow simply reading certain tropes in a generalized way without even looking at how they’re applied in particular books by particular authors.
That’s a great point that defining the romance genre and defining “romantic” are not the same thing. The association is there, of course, but too many romance novels have non-romantic themes for it to ever have a strong correlation.
The chilling effect is in effect here, or at least an attempt at it, but that takes place in any genre because of editorial and reader demands. There was a time when a female detective was a very hard sell in mystery fiction because editors and readers rejected them. I remember an editor declaring in an essay that the female P.I. was gimmick, like making a P.I. blind. Loved that essay. Then I read a couple of years ago that mystery couldn’t get enough female detectives, that they were almost the only thing editors were buying. I’m okay with the marketplace determing what’s published, because publishing is about selling, so of course the marketplace determines it. What I’m against is writers/editors acting as gatekeepers for subject matter. I love what Selah said about the pedophile lover not being much of a fantasy for romance readers because that nails the whole argument for me: the rape fantasy IS a fantasy for many romance readers and has been for decades (when was The Sheik? In the 20s?) and for people to say, “That fantasy shouldn’t be in romance” when it’s clearly in women’s minds is an attempt to put political correctness in front of reading satisfaction, in effect telling women that their fantasies are unacceptable. I’m against that.
As for whether romance is a genre or an industry, publishing is an industry. Romance is a kind of fiction. The industry shapes the current manifestation of the genre, but the genre stays at heart the same. That’s true of any genre, not just romance.
“I fear we’re (the reading community as a whole) not paying attention to individual books but instead somehow simply reading certain tropes in a generalized way without even looking at how they’re applied in particular books by particular authors.”
I don’t think so. First because readers are very clear about what books they like or don’t like within a particular subgenre. They may read in one particular subgenre because they like that context and kind of community, but they’re still judging each book on its own merits. Readers are not sheep, they’re contrary as all get out because they want what they want, and they know it when they read it.
Beyond that, I think 99% of the reading community doesn’t even know about the controversy because they’re at home reading, not talking about this. Which is why, although I love the debate and think it’s valuable, it’s not going to have an impact on the genre overall. Readers will find that book without the controversy. They’re going to read it. They’re going to love it or hate it, and based on that they’ll buy or not buy the author’s next book. If a lot of them buy, editors will start looking for books with that kind of content. If they don’t, the author’s editor will say, “Maybe not so much with the rape in the next one, okay?” and the author will decide what she wants to do. She won’t be shut out from publishing; everything I’ve heard about that book from both sides carries the comment that it’s beautifully written.
I think it’s absolutely valid that readers determine the market. Writers do not have to write for the market (and IMHO shouldn’t), so it’s not a chilling effect for the writer unless she’s writing solely to sell, in which case, obviously, she writes what people are buying. The thing that endears me to this author without knowing her or having read the book is that she clearly wrote a book she felt strongly about, not one that was politically correct or aimed at the historical market. She’s pushing the envelope because, I’m guessing, that’s where her story led her. Good for her.
Jenny wrote: “the rape fantasy IS a fantasy for many romance readers and has been for decades (when was The Sheik? In the 20s?) and for people to say, “That fantasy shouldn’t be in romance” when it’s clearly in women’s minds is an attempt to put political correctness in front of reading satisfaction, in effect telling women that their fantasies are unacceptable. I’m against that.”
Very well said and I totally agree. This is what bugs me about all this. I have lots of great rape/surrender/submission fantasies and I don’t think they are wrong or unacceptable. I also have a few where the tables are turned and I get to be the one doing the taking. It’s a fantasy people and there is nothing wrong with that. Telling me that I can’t read those fantasies, or put them in my books, or even act them out with a willing partner in my own personal life, well that is wrong.
While discussing this topic with a few friends this morning one asked me if I would let my daughter read some of these rape romances. Well, my daughter is 15 and we’ve had all the talks and then some. She’s a smart girl with a good head on her shoulders. Do I want her reading them at this age? Probably not. Do I have a problem with her reading them? Nope. I read them at her age. I remember stealing my sisters historicals and hiding in my room reading just those scenes. I was probably 14 or so. And the arguement went on that it is sending the wrong message to these young girls and I’m helping to perpetuate this because I just happen to write sex in my books. Now I’m pissed. No I’m not.
One final thought about fantasies. I think part of the idea behind the rape fantasy (at least for me) is to tame the bad boy. To peal away the layers of the man who is a bit rough. A bit unacceptable. To find the “real” man and make him your own. It’s a fantasy and maybe in real life, well not such a good idea to try and find love this way. But lets face it. Many of us like a bad guy. A dangerous man. And again, we’re not talking about making statements here, we’re talking about fiction that at the end of the day is supposed to be entertaining. Nothing more. Nothing Less.
I’m okay with the marketplace determing what’s published, because publishing is about selling, so of course the marketplace determines it. What I’m against is writers/editors acting as gatekeepers for subject matter.
I guess my point is that IMO writers and editors are ALREADY acting as gatekeepers for subject matter, so the marketplace isn’t really deciding what’s being published, because already we’re got a select pool of prospects. For example, no Westerns in historical Romance — isn’t that Avon’s rule? Why? Supposedly because Regencies sell better. Well who would even know when the market is so swamped by Regencies and no one will put that kind of effort into Westerns. That’s why I see the tension point between the genre and the industry in a more cynical light than you do, I guess.
“I fear we’re (the reading community as a whole) not paying attention to individual books but instead somehow simply reading certain tropes in a generalized way without even looking at how they’re applied in particular books by particular authors.”
I don’t think so. First because readers are very clear about what books they like or don’t like within a particular subgenre. They may read in one particular subgenre because they like that context and kind of community, but they’re still judging each book on its own merits. Readers are not sheep, they’re contrary as all get out because they want what they want, and they know it when they read it.
To me this isn’t about readers being sheep, but rather about individual books classed as a “type” and then viewed as either acceptable or unacceptable. Keziah Hill pointed out that in the book that shall not be named, the act of rape is placed very clearly in a “context of moral condemnation” (I hope that’s how she phrased it — too lazy to scroll back up the list of comments). On a purely superficial level of words present on the page, that’s absolutely true. It’s true in the same way that saying the sky is blue is true. Now, that doesn’t mean the book itself is off the hook. It doesn’t mean that people won’t legitimately loathe the book or that Campbell is entirely successful in carrying through the dynamics she sets up with her characters. And beyond that, we can have a legitimate debate on whether portraying rape in a Romance novel legitimates it and excuses it, or whether a rapist hero can be a hero, or whether anyone who rapes is redeemable, or whether an author victimizes a heroine by subjecting her to rape by the hero, etc. But even those arguments require some careful analysis of individual books, don’t they? What I see going on in some places, though, is this huge conflation of the book itself and all these other questions, such that there’s NO consideration of that first level — the level of the book itself, which frustrates and confuses me, because it doesn’t even seem to be about liking or not liking a certain type of book, but rather about making generalized assumptions about the value and effect of a book, without paying any attention to the book itself!
Absolutely, I agree with you that the whole discussion denies the most important part which is that the effect of rape in romance depends on the individual author and story, not on rape as a concept. I think the other side of the argument (not sure since it’s not my side) is that even rape done well with in the context of a story that demands it is Bad For The Reader and Bad For The Genre, so that the fact that rape works well in the context of some stories is moot; rape should not be in romance, period. And we all know how I feel about that, so moving on . . .
The reasons Westerns are being stopped at the gate is because Westerns stopped selling. My editor Jen Enderlin has stated publicly several times that she’s looking for great hot Western romances, so it depends which gate you’re knocking on. I have no idea why Westerns stopped selling, but all markets are cyclical. If your subgenre takes a hit, give it a couple of years, it’ll be back, different but still there.
Completely, totally off-topic here, but in case some of you didn’t notice, Jo Beverley added a lengthy comment to the last post that I found very interesting.
I knew nothing about this particular book until I was referred to Ms. Crusie’s blog at another forum. And it took some time to track down this book. Since then I’ve checked out the author’s website and the book at Amazon.
I agree with all the statements condemning rape. I also agree with Ms. Crusie that romance authors should not be dictated to as to what they can or cannot write in the pages of a novel, whether you love or hate the contents of the book.
At Amazon I couldn’t find any kind of warning that the book contained rape scenes. The warnings came from the reviews posted there. Most of the reviewers did warn potential buyers about the rape scenes. A few glossed over the subject matter of rape.
Since I haven’t held an actual physical copy of the book in my hands I don’t know if the publisher added any kind of warning about the content of the book. I think to be fair to readers something as appalling and traumatizing as rape should be noted so that readers can take a pass on the book if they choose.
The book has a good sales ranking at Amazon. I also see that it’s a debut novel.
The controversy surrounding this book has certainly caught my attention.
At this point I am very curious as to what motivated the author to write this book. Shock and awe? Delving into the dark side of human nature? Big sales? Etc.?
Go Jen! Reality is for people who can’t handle romance novels.
I do like the idea of the Mary Hoo Ha. That just sounds right.
Um, Jenny? You mentioned In this House of Brede as having a scene early in the book where something awful happens to a child. I’m puzzled. In the edition that I read, that scene comes about three-quarters of the way into the novel. I’m wondering if she had originally put it in as a preface and then rewrote the book to place it more toward the climax. Yet another argument against having a preface.
i didn’t read all the comments, so if i repeat something, my apologies. i should be doing homework but the sun is shining and the snow is melting so i don’t feel like it!
back to the topic, i don’t get the whole rape fantasy thing but hey, that doesn’t matter. i read what i like to read and yeah ok, you might not like it but that doesn’t mean i can’t read it or someone can’t write it. i wasn’t even born in the 70s or early 80s so i haven’t read the romances from those days and i’m thinking i never will but that is my choice. i have never liked when anyone has tried to tell me what i can or cannot do and i HATE it when someone tries to tell me what to read. for me, reading is personal. it is something i do because i enjoy it and if someone starts deciding what i can read then i wont enjoy it as much anymore.
jenny, i LOVE CFY!! stalking isn’t funny, and you didn’t make it funny. yes, the book had funny, snarky, entertaining parts, but the stalking wasn’t.
i tried to read Lolita in high school for my AP english class and i couldn’t finish it. yes, i know its not a rape fantasy, but the whole slippery slope and pedophilia thing got me thinking. are people suggesting removing that from bookshelves because it has pedophilia in it? no, it has been around for years, so you know what? back off my romances!
one more thing, i wanted to thank you jenny for writing such a well thought-out and honest post and comments. it is nice to know that i can admire you as a person as well as a writer.
Mary, I read it so long ago that I may even have the wrong book. The little girl in the well? I’m positive I didn’t read three-quarters of the book, though, so maybe this is a different book. I’m hazy on the title and the author, but I remember the rocks.
And thank you, Liz. You might want to hold off on admiring me as a person. I just came back to my desk to find my dog on it, licking the cookies I’d put there for a snack. They were the last cookies in the house. It was a quandary, but in the end, I ate them. See? Never jump to conclusions about people based on their blog entries.
I think context is critical. How the characters arc. I adored Vidal in Devil’s Cub, but he definitely had a lot of growing up to do - and Heyer, in An Infamous Army showed that the alliance of passionate temperament with solid common sense and wealth and high position STILL left family members with a lot of issues who needed to do their own growing up.
I still read Gabaldon, but my sister won’t anymore, because pretty much someone gets raped in all the books. Portrayed as icky (not H/H), in all cases, but she doesn’t want to read about it.
An example of H/H rape is in MM Kaye’s Trade Wind. It is a book that has a lot of really tough, emotional issues - such as slavery and epidemic disease. Both of which are bad, by the way, and I don’t like romances that include slavery in any form, but especially not the heroine by the hero. But that’s just me. Anyway, the hero is in a state of justifiable rage when he commits his unjustifiable act. And the heroine, eventually, forgives him (both suffer, quite a lot, battling the aforesaid epidemic disease). Because that’s what forgiveness is for - not the justifiable, but the unjustifiable things that people do sometimes, as a result of whatever stresses are motivating them.
But it’s not about enabling them to continue the unjustifiable behavior. One of the few Mary Jo Putney books that you never see in used bookstores (and I’ve been looking, because after getting rid of mine, I think I want it again) is The Burning Point. And I may pick it up from Amazon, because there appear to be several used versions available for a penny! Can one “spoil” a 7 year old novel? It’s about domestic violence, and the heroine does not stick around to redeem the hero by her unconditional love and forgiveness. But when he has redeemed and remade himself, she does, eventually, manage to reconcile with him. So, context.
I don’t much like Westerns, though I’m not sure why (or Vikings, or Elizabethans…).
I loved the stage scene in Crazy for You. Very hot.
i firmly believe a little dog spit never hurt anybody! but i will keep your advice in mind while i read your blog (since this one and the unfortunate miss fortunes are the only ones i read).
hope the cookies were yummy!
Jenny wrote: “I just came back to my desk to find my dog on it, licking the cookies I’d put there for a snack. They were the last cookies in the house. It was a quandary, but in the end, I ate them. See? Never jump to conclusions about people based on their blog entries.”
Now I know I’m in love you! Did you know that a human bite is more dangerous (infection wise) than a dog bite? You ask how do I know this? Nevermind. It’s really off topic. Then again, maybe not.
BCB said…
“Intentionally inflicted emotional anguish can be just as devastating as physical abuse; its effects can be just as lasting. Yet we have no trouble imagining the tragic heroine suffering emotional torture at the hands of the hero and ultimately forgiving him for it. We admire her ability to “get past it” and often respect that as strength. Why should the ability to overcome physical abuse be any different?”
I read, well, started, a couple of those old style romances when I was a kid. The rape thing was bad, but that emotional abuse was, even then, a huge hot button with me, enough so that the rape was barely a blip on my radar. That widespread approach to romance was what kept me from getting into romance for a couple decades. Et voila! The romance written in the late 90s was so different, so much saner (at least the first stuff I picked up), that I was hooked.
I don’t believe any sane woman can forgive and forget that kind of behavior unless she believes it won’t happen again. And, duh? Abusers, of whatever stripe, don’t just stop. It’s in their blood and bone. I’m not talking someone who’s had a bad day or is pushed into a corner and verbally, or otherwise, strikes out, I’m talking about the chronic abusers. That is an automatic throw against the wall for me.
Jane said…
“Whether it is the beast (Rhage in JR Ward’s book) that is tamed by Mary or the Devil in Heyer’s book tamed by, again, Mary.
Hmmm. Perhaps there is some divinity in the Mary Hoo Ha.”
The Divine Hoo Ha. Okay, who’s up for this paper? It really does cover a whole range of redemption-type romances.
Okay, having read a few more of the comments, I have to admit that the obnoxious, patronizing, just plain nasty guy who spends 400 pages working to change, while we learn that he has reasons for his rotten disposition, yeah, I can buy his redemption. I can’t think of any right now, but I’ve read a few in the last couple years where, against my natural inclinations, I was brought to believe that he was a changed man, changed in a fundamental way so that he wouldn’t backslide because he has seen the cause and overcome it. Run on sentence, much?
Re: the reader voting with their wallets, the only way for that to work, without “rape” labelling - and can you see that happening? would you really want to see it? - is for the reader who is offended, appalled, traumatized, or whatever, by the content of a particular book to take it back to the bookstore and get his/her money back. Of course, if it’s clear you’ve read the book a dozen times, well… /;+) Otherwise, how would a publisher know that the book was offending people? But how many of us are willing to do that? More like use a pair of tongs to carry it to the garbage.
Judith Ivory, in Untie My Heart came close to having me drop the book very, very early on when the hero’s carriage runs over and kills a baby lamb and goes on as if nothing had happened. What can I say? I’m a sucker for baby critters. BUT I have read everything she’s written and loved all of it. I knew she’d get me past that, so I flinched, made a conscious effort to forget about it, and kept reading. And Stuart turned out to be one of my all-time favorite heroes. But that’s because I trusted the author. Someone I didn’t know, it might have gone in the circular file.
Hmmm. Come to think of it, I was a huge Lovejoy fan until one of the books had a bad thing done to one of his pets. I liked those books a lot and liked the author, but it was many years before I dared to pick up another one. After breaching that barrier, I was afraid of what I’d find in the next one. We all have our own emotional quirks, and I know my level of tolerance for some things is very low, but that’s me. I’m not going to try to tell anyone else what they can or can’t read.
This not about rape in romance but about Jenny’s reference to the Pop Culture conference she went to in Boston. An interesting article by a Philadelphia reporter about Nora’s books but with comments on Pop Culture writing.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/entertainment/books/20070415_At_first_suspicious__but_now_appreciative_of_NR.html
ZaZa - that was me with the wallet line. And yes there will be some books bought by unaware readers. Hey we’ve all bought some at one time or another that we wish we hadn’t. But do you buy another one by that author? I don’t. So if the bulk of the reading public is truly offended it will show up in the sales ultimately.
Also, I rarely buy a new author unless it has come highly recommended by another reader. I do my experimenting through the public library. With a new author, especially romance, I think word of mouth plays a big part in their sales.
I’ve been thinking about this whole question of whether romance novels determine what women think, or whether they reflect it, or neither.
To state the obvious, it doesn’t only apply to rape.
Lately I’ve read a few books from a popular NZ Mills and Boons author in the 60s/70s. Her heroines are paragons. Like a city woman who ends up on a back-country farm and manages to feed umpteen farmers, including working out how to bake bread when a storm cuts them off from supplies, while fixing a bratty child’s problems, and applying her accounting background to sorting out the farm accounts. Waaaaaaaay too perfect for me.
So why the perfection? I’d like to think society was working out that women could be accountants and still cook. Or maybe women just liked reading about how competent, hard-working women got the HEA they deserved. But I really, really, really hope it didn’t just reinforce the expectation that women would be perfect in the kitchen no matter what else they put their pretty little minds to!
Me, I find that portrayal of perfection threatening and harmful to women. I’m very glad society has moved on from that, at least from it being that overt. But does that mean perfection should be banned from romance novels? Of course not, though I’m guessing it wouldn’t sell now.
That’s all theorising about the genre in general - in the particular, one of the things I definitely like about your books, Jenny, is how little they conform. And there are plenty of other authors like that too, even in category. I just think authors who write rape scenes need to make sure their books give a message they’re happy with.
Jenny wrote: They were the last cookies in the house. It was a quandary, but in the end, I ate them.
You know there aren’t that many people who can even spell quandary correctly, let alone use it in the same sentence in reference to dog slobber and cookies. My admiration for you is just growing by leaps and bounds. Hey, going with the dog theme here. I’ll bet you shared those cookies too, didn’t you?
I think your blog entries leave us with much to admire. Or at least a possible resource for dog-sitting next time we go on vacation.
And just to be different, dog slobber is higher on my personal squick level than rape in romance novels. Before everyone jumps on me, that’s rape in romance novels, NOT in real life.
Rape fantasies? Whatever turns you on baby. Dog slobber on food? Yurk, that’s just gross!!
Wolfie is not a very juicy dog. The cookies were dry. If that helps.
Probably not.
Well, at least they were human cookies, not dog cookies.
Deep, dark issues that are handled well can be really useful to people fighting deep dark issues. OTOH, deep dark issues used as handy plot devices can cause people to explode. I once read an article about murder investigation, and a family member of a victim said something about how murder is so trivialized in popular culture. I must say, that comment put me off murder mysteries for quite awhile.
Lois McMaster Bujold’s handling of the psychopathic side-character Bothari is amazing. He’s a rapist and a murderer, but I really believed in his redemption.
So, if there’s a rape in the novel, but the average reader is still left with warm fuzzies at the end, isn’t that the whole point of romance? And if it helps women wor