Romance Does Not Necessarily Equal Erotica

[Whispersecret]

This thread is in response to a post Tenyari made in the "Has this ever happened to you?" thread. (Her comments are in bold.) I felt a need to respond to her post, but didn't want to hijack the thread away from it's original topic. So, hence, a new thread. I'm going to rant again, so be prepared.

We kid ourselves when we even try to pretend that over 40% of the people here are actually adults...

I agree with you here. If everyone who frequents this site is physically over eighteen, then clearly, a great many of them are severely maturity-challenged.

Pre net erotica took two forms:
1. 'Romance novels', the porn women can view with social acceptance.
2. The stuff you bought in the local skin-store or read in the letters section of a 'Girlie mag'; which was probaly the same stuff sold at safeway by Harlequin, but with different cover art *

I can't disagree more. I've read hundreds of romance novels. They are not porn. Many of them aren't even erotic. In my opinion, explicit sex scenes do not an erotic book make. I won't go into what my definitions of porn and erotica are. There are pages of debate on this here and no clear answer.

If you have a 350 page bdsm story with two to four scenes involving lesbians, does that make it a lesbian story? Of course not. So in a 350 page book, do two to four sex scenes categorize it as porn/erotica? I don’t think so.

Now, I will concede that, of course, women read romances partly because of the thrill you get when you read the "juicy parts." That's a no-brainer. Hell, that's what hooked me on them in the late seventies when the romance genre was just taking off. I was a horny adolescent then. Those pages in my favorite books were frequently re-read.

However, I think that thrill isn’t the reason women read romance. Reading fiction can be a way of entering a world you wouldn't otherwise get a chance to enter. I believe most women look upon romances as an escape, a way of vicariously experiencing what I believe to be a universal human ideal--soul-deep, abiding love.

For proof, consider the ease with which women can find erotic material here on the net. And then consider that romantic fiction still constitutes over 50% of the books sold. If we were looking primarily for sex, then surely the sale of romance novels would decline.

As for example #2, the amount of sex in Harlequin books ranges from NONE (books in which the bedroom door must remain closed) to HEAVY, as in their latest line, Blaze, which I do categorize as erotic in theme. Usually a Blaze plot revolves around sex in one form or another, yet romance and love are always key. Kensington has a relatively new imprint as well, the Brava line, which is advertised as "erotic romance." But this trend toward sexual themes is recent in the romance genre. Yes, there are and were hot sex scenes in romances, but you're grossly misinformed if you think that any so-called “bodice rippers” and stories in a skin magazine could be mistaken for the other, sans cover art.

* (Take the same story, put Fabio on the cover of one copy, and Ginger Lynn on the cover of the other copy... Women take one copy to P.T.A. meetings, and try to arrest men who read the other... gotta love double standards. I've had published lesbian erotica writers tell me that the porn men watch exploits women... pure hypocracy when you look at what's in their stories... )

Perhaps you weren’t intending to make inaccurate comparisons between the PTA and extreme right wing activists, but I took it that way. I don’t think that the majority of people who attend PTA meetings also preach that sexually explicit material is the Devil’s tool.

And sure, porn flicks exploit women. (Exploit meaning “to use for profit.”) Victoria’s Secret exploits women to sell underwear. Sea World exploits killer whales. Exploitation of women isn’t going to change. I don’t think it should I know that’s an unpopular view, but frankly, trying to ban pornography is pointless. There are some eternal truths about human nature, and the fact that men enjoy looking at women as sex objects is never going to change. Personally, I think the only women being exploited are the women who actually appear in those movies. I certainly don’t feel exploited. The men I know and interact with treat me with respect, regardless of whether they have copies of Playboy in their nightstand drawers.

 

[KimberToo]

Micky D's exploits too.

I think Micky D's and the other fast food industry exploites women more than playboy or Literotia could ever. Here and in the "Adult" industry it is honest Mickey D's wants a pretty girls smile to attract customers but only pays below poverty wages. I can flirt with a guy in a club, sit on his lap and wiggle around and make a couple hundred dollars in fifteen minutes. I'd much rather get two hundred in fifteen minutes than work my ass off all week for it.

 

[ehlanna]

LOL KimberToo! here here I wish I had the body to make that money I would jump on doing lapdances in a heartbeat (no pun intended)

I think the reference to PTA meant that was people will accept things that look one way but not the other I think she was just trying to draw a strong contrast not saying they are the same.

My romance novels are well- read in "certain parts" also. Nice thing about erotica here is that you getta skip the "Oh does he love me, no he hates me, wow he does love me" parts when you just wanna read about sex. Sitting prodominatly on my bookshelves is the "Claiming of Sleeping Beauty" trilogy which is definatly extreme and I have gotten some comments about have
them in view of "polite" company.

Porn exploits women, McDonalds exploits women, pet companies exploit cute little dogs. Whoever is making money on things exploits whatever images they are using. Like you said it isn't gonna change. Any man that treats me with less respect because of what he sees in a porn magazine or movie isn't worth the air he is breathing.

I know this post just rambled on sorry about that

 

[ronde]

Romance, erotica, and exploitation

My definition of exploitation is the use of something or someone in an unnatural or demeaning manner towards the end of profit or some intangible gain. If romance novels are viewed in this context, the content does not exploit women; it is just good marketing to the universal need of which Whisper spoke. I would add that this need is not confined to the female of the species. Many men have enjoyed the works of Jean Auel, and her books use romance as an integral part of the plot.

Erotica often uses women to portray people without minds and emotions who exist for the sole purpose of pleasing men. This is the same as the old cartoon of the "perfect woman" which shows a body with huge breasts, wide hips, long slender legs...and no head. Erotica of this type is, in fact, a cartoon of reality, and most does show women in a demeaning manner. It also shows men as mindless organisms who's sole interest in life is fucking as many women as possible in as many orifices and in as many positions as possible. I know, I know..., many of you women think this is merely accurate documentation of the typical male mentality, but this type of erotica could also be said to exploit men. It would appear that most of us don't seem to care all that much.

I think we often confuse feelings against these cartoons of reality with exploitation of individuals. It is highly unlikely (read - when porcine mammals fly over the frozen lava lakes of hades) that I would ever be hired for the male lead in a porn film, but if I were, I would be exploited only if I were not paid to my satisfaction for services rendered. The same is true for my current occupation. I would feel exploited if my salary were not commensurate with my ability and effort.

I would disagree that McDonalds exploits women any more than it exploits men because, to my knowledge, they are paid the same for the same effort. The so-called "managers" of most fast food chains do appear to be exploited when compared to those in most supervisory positions. The "glass ceiling" in business is a real and current example of exploitation of women.

I would also disagree that lap dancers are exploited for Kimber's own reason. If she could be adequately compensated for her skills and effort, she would be earning an acceptable (for her) living and no exploitation is involved.

Just one man's opinion, and if I've stepped on any toes, I apologize profusely. I would be interested in hearing what others think on this subject, because I think it is part of the core of opposition to "erotic" content, including nudity, in films and literature today.

 

[HemlockNredwine]

I hope that this post isn't entirely out of left field. I'm punch-drunk from lack of sleep...

Obviously everyone has their own particular tastes in what they look for in erotica/porn, but I’ve suspected for decades that many people had to not only accept what was given to them, especially pre-net, but also that they were largely dissatisfied by their available choices. The examples of pornography that I found in men’s magazines or in the closely related hardcore paperbacks usually left me starving for substance in both plot and character development. On the other hand, I thought “romance” novels were way too flowery with their sexual description—and that they were just as tired and formulaic as the men’s novels. Boring shit, in other words. (IMHO)

I found that the contemporary mainstream novels could be a little better, because the authors (hopefully) had more interest in literary development, but obviously they fell very short of the sexual explicitness that I think most of us are looking for. Meanwhile, True (pre-net) erotica mostly just got on my nerves. Sometimes I’d finish a paragraph and then belatedly realize that I’d been reading about a sex act between two women instead of about a pair of butterflies dancing on a flower like I’d first supposed.

One of the things that strongly appealed to me about Literotica.com was in discovering that I wasn’t alone. Apparently many others also want more depth and substance in this genre, and while a great number of authors are content with the straightforward, hardcore “get it and go” sort of story (and to each their own,) it’s always interesting to see the others plugging faithfully away at story development. Stephen King once commented that very few people ever actually try to raise the bar of any particular genre, and that most just towed the line. I think a number of people here have risen to the challenge.

 

[ladyphoenix]

just a thought

"Any man that treats me with less respect because of what he sees in a porn magazine or movie isn't worth the air he is breathing."


Okay, I'm gonna step in it here. I know this is the generation of "somebody else made me do it, or my childhood abuse made me do it or my other personality made me do it" and "There is no absolute right or wrong. What's wrong for me may be right for you and what's right for me may be wrong for you", HOWEVER I have to say this:

ANY MAN WHO TREATS YOU WITH LITTLE RESPECT DOESN'T DO SO BECAUASE HE READ SOME PORN OR BECAUSE SOMEONE TOLD HIM TO. He does so because he has little respect for you, and for himself. Therefore, he is not worth the oxygen the plants work so hard to give him WHETHER HE READS PORN MAGAZINES OR NOT. Geez. You say "he isn't worth the air he is breathing" AND AT THE SAME TIME YOU GIVE HIM AN EXCUSE FOR HAVING TREATED YOU POORLY. Don't you see the flaw in your own statement??


IMNTBHO (In my never to be humble opinion)
ladyp

 

[tenyari]

I think the reference to PTA meant that was people will accept things that look one way but not the other I think she was just trying to draw a strong contrast not saying they are the same.

Roughly what I meant yes.

Society accepts Romance literature no matter how racey it gets. The same 'society' looks down on even soft core porn and erotica no matter how much plot it tries to add in.

The right wing connection Whispersecret draws is totally lost on me. It wasn't at all what I was thinking, which just shows that something can read to one person in a very different way than it does to another.

Porn exploits women, McDonalds exploits women, pet companies exploit

Lets not over use the word exploit here when I doubt anyone fails to understand what is meant by the 'porn exploits women' mantra.

The meaning, the half of the statment not included, is that this is bad, or even violent towards women.

Yet often the same people chanting it are reading and or writting explicit erotica or romance novels.

That is where the hypocracy lies.

I grew up in the lesbian community and I used to hear this mantra day in and day out from women who wrote explicit sex for a living.

Women who got just as into making this mantra as the right wing anti-gay anti-sex types.
At least you can understand those right wingers on one score; they're consistant.



SIDE COMMENT (inspired by HemlockNredwine's comments): For those who read my AI Girl story...

The male lead in the story is a man who simply wants to collect girl's dolls. This is a lot like men who want to read romance. It makes a good analogy (I think).

Both are unacceptable concepts in the American mindset.

You don't find many men in the Romance section of the book store unless they're passing through or pretending to pass through. Likewise shopping for themselves in the Barbie section of the toy store (where you will find adult women).

I know quite well however that there are vast numbers of men who wish they could get away with these things.

(At this point I'm sure a number or readers are thinking -ew gross, men who want to play with Barbie-, but there's something satisfied in the human psych from playing with dolls as children that the men in the crowd have missed out on, GI-Joe notwithstanding...)

Getting over this silly gender restrictiveness and double standard on porn and romance could well do us a lot of good.

 

[tenyari]

Re: just a thought

Okay, I'm gonna step in it here. I know this is the generation of "somebody else made me do it, or my childhood abuse made me do it or my other personality made me do it" and "There is no absolute right or wrong. What's wrong for me may be right for you and what's right for me may be wrong for you",

That's the Baby Boomer generation. I'm from the 'half-generation' after them. The one that kept hearing "It's your fault I lost the ability to do cool stuff like my friends when I had you." (never said to me personally thankfully... but it seemed to be the mantra applied to my peers through the 70's and 80's.) or "Your generation is responsible for all this rising drugs and crime." or "Your generation are the deadbeats that ruined our economy by turning 18" (remember -before- the dot-com boom when we were called the -slacker- generation even before half of us had finished college...).

So no... I'm not the generation that tries to blame somebody else. I'm the generation they blamed. (along with their parents from the 50's...)

ANY MAN WHO TREATS YOU WITH LITTLE RESPECT DOESN'T DO SO BECAUASE HE READ SOME PORN OR BECAUSE SOMEONE TOLD HIM TO. He does so because he has little respect for you, and for himself.

I would change that to any person.

But I also have something unkind to say:

Relationship sucks? So did the last man? Maybe it's not them...
Maybe you're doing something wrong.

The number of lesbians who've told me all men are scum, listing off a long line of scummy men they were with before they started dating the abusive woman they're with now...

I just wanna look at them and say "sister, it wasn't the man..."

But then, getting a Baby Boomer to accept personal responsibility for personal tragedy is like getting Arafat and Sharon to go out drinking together...

This goes the other way too. I knew a number of guys when I was in the military who would tell me that women were all cheating sluts... A 3 second look at their dating preferences usually answered that issue for me.

 

[Whispersecret]

True, romance is accepted, but it is not respected. And yeah, as a romance writer and reader, I have a boulder on my shoulder. As if you couldn't figure that out by now.

I'm not sure if you can blame erotica as a genre for portraying women solely as sex objects. There is a lot of erotica here that doesn't. Like all things in life, there are good and bad aspects.

It's too bad that our society doesn't allow men to freely buy romance novels without feeling embarrassed. Still, if I saw a guy browsing the romance section, I would wonder about him. LOL Does this make me a hypocrite?

Every generation is blamed for the ills of the world--another universal truth.

As for viewing women or men as sluts or scumbags...we all see what we expect to see or want (subconsciously) to see so that we can be right.

 

[Blkpoit]

It's too bad that our society doesn't allow men to freely buy romance novels without feeling embarrassed. Still, if I saw a guy browsing the romance section, I would wonder about him. LOL Does this make me a hypocrite?

It's not society that makes men embarrassed to buy romance novels. It's other men. That's a huge generaliziation, however, I think it's accurate. It's accurate because guys, for the most part are terrible at empathizing. And romance novels are huge on the empathizing part.

Feelings and human interaction (often times non-physical) are key to the story. Whole pages can pass without any "action" to speak of. As a reader, you have to be able to place yourself in that persons place and "understand" the situation.

Guys, again, in general will look at a situation and will quickly jump to a solution. They may only see 1/10th of the picture, yet, they'll make a decision anyway. Women, will for the most part, analyze the same situation and try to find out what's in it for all involved.

Just listen to the reactions of Men vs. Women when they see a romantic comedy at the movies. Quite a few men will say they didn't understand why the woman just didn't leave (thereby cutting the film down from 90 minutes to 15 minutes) when they should of known the first guy was a jerk. Especially when she found the second guy who is so not obviously a jerk.

While women, will remember past experiences of being with jerks like that and will emphathize with the woman's situation. They'll remember being blinded by love. Guys won't remember, until their friends remind them that Sarah, the girl he dated for two years wasn't, putting it nicely, "all that great of a human being." And, that he was too much in love to see it. At least till they broke up.

Being unable to empathize, a guy will inevitibaly question another guy's manhood when he's in the romance section. It's all about trying to find love.

And to most guys, while it should take two hundred pages to make it from Boot Hill to Base Camp. It shouldn't take a woman two hundred pages to decide that Bill is the guy for her, when Bill's done about a "thousand things" to prove his worth in the first 30 pages, and in the same time, Jack has done enough to prove that he's a huge ass.

Personally, I've read a few romance novels. (Not a whole lot, but a few here and there. And, as a guy, I freely tell people that I've read them. I have no qualms about saying it.) Don't find them all that appealing. However, I can say that about most genre's I read. Science Fiction and Mysteries are just as repetitive as Romance novels. You've got to have a really good story first and not play your hand to early, or use to many cliches. Do that and I'll stay for the ride.

 

[tenyari]

True, romance is accepted, but it is not respected.

True. Though in literature circles, it's one step above Science Fiction. A small step, but it's there.

I'm not sure if you can blame erotica as a genre for portraying women solely as sex objects. There is a lot of erotica here that doesn't.

I asume you mean erotica and porn as genres?

I hear 'female exploitation' as a cry about porn all the time. But never about Romance and only sometimes about Erotica.

Of course, for many people I've known, the difference in porn and erotica lies in the shape of the genitals of the author / director and nothing else...

Personally I think it's a good thing when we see each other as both people AND sex objects. I don't understand why some people see those two as in conflict.

The past two decades were a time of trying to pretend that sexuality was the root of all evil and greed the root of all merit. Surely I can't be alone in thinking that logic was fully backwards.

Still, if I saw a guy browsing the romance section, I would wonder about him. LOL Does this make me a hypocrite?

No.
The hypocracy comes when you fault a man for his chosen way of fantasy indulgance: be it sports, porn, or whatever it is men do these days.... while at the same time pretending that your activites are somehow a higher form.

Every generation is blamed for the ills of the world--another universal truth.

True. But you made a statement that 'we are the generation that blames everything but ourselves'.

I chose to clarify that this is true of the Baby Boomers, but not those after them nor before them (from what I know of those before). My own generation suffers some difficulty with self blame at times; but not on the mass scale of irresponsability practiced by our predessesors.

(Is this the part where my unfamiliarity with this new laptop keyboard and lack of a spellchecker catch up with me? Some of the words don't look right up there...)

As for viewing women or men as sluts or scumbags...we all see what we expect to see or want (subconsciously) to see so that we can be right.

In life, you will get exactly what you expect to get. So if you don't like the dish sitting before you, it's time to take responsibility for your expectations.

 

[HemlockNredwine]

My only sibling, a sister two years older, is probably one of the major reasons why I played with “girl” dolls growing up. If I wanted to play, then I didn’t have much choice in the matter. I don’t recall arguing over it though. I had GI JOE and Spock and other more male-oriented dolls, but having the Barbie’s at hand always seemed natural. Besides, I’ve always thought women made things much more interesting. I mean, why should ol’ Joe get shot up just so he could sit around the camp with his male buddies? That never seemed like a good reward to me. Most men like to dismiss the whole idea of a boy playing with a Barbie as a budding homosexual tendency, but personally I always wondered about the boys who only wanted to play with the “males.” Their logic seemed to promote a lifestyle that consistently excluded women. Believe me, I’ve always felt the pressure to hang out with the guys around the car with a hood up. My mind was always on the ladies in the living room. I’d always much rather see a skirt up. (Over the years my attention, thankfully, has shifted more toward the conversation itself. Women obviously have more freedom in discussing emotions and such, and that appeals to me. Hey, I’ve even learned to work on cars.)

Originally, I read romance novels simply because I wanted to read something hot and nasty. Mostly I was disappointed, because the books were written with a different focus in mind (despite the covers) and it took me awhile to better understand why that was. This past year I’ve deliberately tried to read books of all genres written by women. One of the easiest things for a male writer to create badly is a female character, and I figured I should go straight to the source if I wanted to fix this problem. I haven’t succeeded, but I’ve learned that I don’t necessarily have to. In the end, women have their interests and men have theirs. We pick and choose what we want to. We aren’t always compatible, but I believe that we could be much more so than most seem willing to believe.

Incidentally, during this past year, in casually polling male friends and acquaintances, I discovered that most men not only don’t read romances, but they mostly ignore female writers in general (in the published world anyway.) Obviously this isn’t always the case, as male fans of Ann Rice would protest, but I think most men’s reading habits are extremely dominated by the male writers. I don’t think I got around to polling any women.

 

[Whispersecret]

It's not society that makes men embarrassed to buy romance novels. It's other men. That's a huge generaliziation, however, I think it's accurate. It's accurate because guys, for the most part are terrible at empathizing. And romance novels are huge on the empathizing part.

Feelings and human interaction (often times non-physical) are key to the story. Whole pages can pass without any "action" to speak of. As a reader, you have to be able to place yourself in that persons place and "understand" the situation.

Guys, again, in general will look at a situation and will quickly jump to a solution. They may only see 1/10th of the picture, yet, they'll make a decision anyway. Women, will for the most part, analyze the same situation and try to find out what's in it for all involved.

Just listen to the reactions of Men vs. Women when they see a romantic comedy at the movies. Quite a few men will say they didn't understand why the woman just didn't leave (thereby cutting the film down from 90 minutes to 15 minutes) when they should of known the first guy was a jerk. Especially when she found the second guy who is so not obviously a jerk.

While women, will remember past experiences of being with jerks like that and will emphathize with the woman's situation. They'll remember being blinded by love. Guys won't remember, until their friends remind them that Sarah, the girl he dated for two years wasn't, putting it nicely, "all that great of a human being." And, that he was too much in love to see it. At least till they broke up.

Being unable to empathize, a guy will inevitibaly question another guy's manhood when he's in the romance section. It's all about trying to find love.

And to most guys, while it should take two hundred pages to make it from Boot Hill to Base Camp. It shouldn't take a woman two hundred pages to decide that Bill is the guy for her, when Bill's done about a "thousand things" to prove his worth in the first 30 pages, and in the same time, Jack has done enough to prove that he's a huge ass.

Personally, I've read a few romance novels. (Not a whole lot, but a few here and there. And, as a guy, I freely tell people that I've read them. I have no qualms about saying it.) Don't find them all that appealing. However, I can say that about most genre's I read. Science Fiction and Mysteries are just as repetitive as Romance novels. You've got to have a really good story first and not play your hand to early, or use to many cliches. Do that and I'll stay for the ride.

Blkpoit, I agree with almost everything you said. However, I think "repetitive" isn't quite the right word. Any genre is going to have a set of rules by which the writers have to adhere, for the most part. Sure, rules can and often are broken, but the general structure remains. Mysteries must offer a series of clues and tell who did it at the end. Thrillers must move along quickly, involve lethal consequences, etc. Romances--girl and guy meet, part, find true love at the end.

But within those loose rules, writers have a huge amount of leeway as to what happens in their stories, and of course, you're going to find plots that end up to be similar. Part of this is because you have an audience that you're writing for. Horror fans expect certain things. Fans of Westerns expect different things. If you as a writer do not live up to these expectations, you ain't gonna last long. So, to some extent the genres exist because of the buying public and what they will buy.

 

[Whispersecret]

True. Though in literature circles, [romance] is one step above Science Fiction. A small step, but it's there.

Really? That surprises me that you think that. I think that Literary People look at Sci-Fi as above Romance. Go figure. It's all about individual perception, I guess.

Personally I think it's a good thing when we see each other as both people AND sex objects. I don't understand why some people see those two as in conflict.

Me either. It happens.

The past two decades were a time of trying to pretend that sexuality was the root of all evil and greed the root of all merit. Surely I can't be alone in thinking that logic was fully backwards.

I disagree. Sex wasn't looked upon as the root of all evil. I think because of AIDS that certainly promiscuous sex and unsafe sex were considered as risky behavior, but only the most extreme people viewed it as the root of evil.

Also, I see the point about greed that you're making, but I look at it this way. People in the 80s and 90s were (and still are to some extent) caught up on acquiring as many possessions as they could. Yes, they were greedy, but they certainly didn't look at themselves as greedy. The possessions were symbols of their success, therefore they looked upon themselves as successful.

True. But you made a statement that 'we are the generation that blames everything but ourselves'.

No, that was someone else. I do think that in general people these days are loathe to accept responsibility, more so now than in times past. Lawyers have helped foster that trend, and the sense of entitlement and "I have a right to ____" contributes as well.

I chose to clarify that this is true of the Baby Boomers, but not those after them nor before them (from what I know of those before). My own generation suffers some difficulty with self blame at times; but not on the mass scale of irresponsability practiced by our predessesors.

Which generation are you talking about? The flower children?

In life, you will get exactly what you expect to get. So if you don't like the dish sitting before you, it's time to take responsibility for your expectations.

Exactly.

 

[Whispersecret]

HemlockNredwine,
Originally, I read romance novels simply because I wanted to read something hot and nasty. Mostly I was disappointed, because the books were written with a different focus in mind (despite the covers) and it took me awhile to better understand why that was.

Thanks for validating my original point. Romance novels are not about sex.

One of the easiest things for a male writer to create badly is a female character, and I figured I should go straight to the source if I wanted to fix this problem. I haven’t succeeded, but I’ve learned that I don’t necessarily have to.

Question: in the romance novels that you read, are the male characters "good?" Or are they completely unrealistic?

Incidentally, during this past year, in casually polling male friends and acquaintances, I discovered that most men not only don’t read romances, but they mostly ignore female writers in general (in the published world anyway.) Obviously this isn’t always the case, as male fans of Ann Rice would protest, but I think most men’s reading habits are extremely dominated by the male writers. I don’t think I got around to polling any women.

Interesting. That's really taking it pretty far. They can't even buy books written by women? Geez. Like a woman can't tell a good spy story?

I read mostly fiction written by women, but that's because a lot of what I read I choose because I want to analyze what makes the authors I admire in the romance genre successful. But I'm certainly open to reading books written by men. I like Grisham, King, Orson Scott Card, Robert Jordan, and many others. (NOT Nicholas Sparks. Gag me.)

 

[tenyari]

Really? That surprises me that you think that. I think that Literary People look at Sci-Fi as above Romance. Go figure. It's all about individual perception, I guess.

Sit in a college English Literature class and look over the reading list and the list the teacher was given by the admins and on up as the official entries. There is no Science FIction or fantasy in the official lists, though some teachers will purposefully add a book in if their school allows them selective freedom due to this. There is however a vast array of romantic literature from plays, poems, and short stories to be read in these lists.

Academia may not respect Harlequin, but it does respect the genre. It scoffs at Science Fiction and Fantasy though.

I disagree. Sex wasn't looked upon as the root of all evil. I think because of AIDS that certainly promiscuous sex and unsafe sex were considered as risky behavior, but only the most extreme people viewed it as the root of evil.

Since the 80's, there has been a marked rise in 'family values', a turn against free love, and a perception that sexual behaivoir is not flirting or fun or healthy but harrassment and innaproriate. Not just in the workplace, but in almost all aspects of life behaiving sexual or expressing oneself is seen as a negative thing.

While in practice we may sleep around more than ever before in modern history, in attitude we have a value system towards it that is in many ways more hostile to sexuality than the Victorians.

Yes, they were greedy, but they certainly didn't look at themselves as greedy. The possessions were symbols of their success, therefore they looked upon themselves as successful.

Evil people do everything they can to justify their behaivoir. Look at how we now define success...

How does that compare to what the teachings of most of our major religions define as success?

You don't have to see yourself as evil to be such or do such.

I chose to clarify that this is true of the Baby Boomers

Which generation are you talking about? The flower children?

As I said, Baby Boomers. I come from the first generation of children they had; people who reached adulthood near the end of the 80s to the early 90s. Known as the -Slacker Generation- or -Gen X- or whatever despite being compossed of people who work longer hours and have had children and marraiges in greater ratios than the generation labeling them thusly...

My generation didn't waste a decade tripping on drugs. And we have yet to turn around and label everything we did in our 20s as decadent or misled. Yet to mount a campaign to tear down all the achievements we may or may not have made.
The flower children of the 60's are the same people running corps like Enron today...

Though who knows, when the reins of power fall our way, maybe we will too. Then again, our grandparents didn't do it either...

One thing about learning to accept responsibility for your actions is you learn to live with their consequences rather than deny them.

 

[HemlockNredwine]

WhisperSecret: Question: in the romance novels that you read, are the male characters "good?" Or are they completely unrealistic?

Obviously it depends on the writer, but I think women generally write male characters better than men write them about women. I’m sure part of this is due to the differences in the way women think from men, their intrinsic desire to get down and observe a man’s character intimately, but a larger part seems to be built directly on top of that: women have access to a much larger pool of resources than men. They have each other as a whole. (Yeah, I’m talking about that damn Sisterhood.) Even as children, girls are instructed and indoctrinated about the ways of men, right or wrong. Men simply don’t have that free network. It usually doesn’t even occur to them to miss it because they’ve never had it. I think that’s sad, but the worst thing to do in competition with each other is to show weakness.

I think Flannery O’Connor had incredible insight into the male psyche. Another very good example would have to be S.E. Hinton (“The Outsiders,” “Rumble Fish”) If the male ego had balls (and some might be confused to think otherwise) then S.E. Hinton delivered one mighty kick to them back in the 80’s when everyone discovered that the “man” who wrote so well about macho male teenagers was in fact a not-so-macho young woman. I personally think that what teenage males were most upset about after her identity was revealed was that it was finally “cool” and “macho” for a guy to write and read about their own inner turmoil. This writer dude had the balls to write it, and obviously he was tough. To find out it was a female writer after all was like a cruel joke. (As far as Susan Hinton was concerned, she apparently got tired of being treated like an inferior in the publishing world because of her gender and decided that if you couldn’t beat ‘em, then join ‘em.) Around and round we go, yes?

WhisperSecret: Thanks for validating my original point. Romance novels are not about sex.

Yeah, I agree with you that romances aren’t about sex, but about love. I think it’s also about something else though. I think women want to know that it’s all going to be worth the effort in the end. Women are forever trying to “fix” men, with different degrees of success. Usually they fail, but sometimes things work out great in the end. Perhaps the loopy plotlines of a woman trying to land her man in many romance novels aren’t so much an attempt to draw the story out, as it is an effort to draw a parallel, and to feed on that hope.

ps-Having waxed authoritative, I simply cheated on the cut-and-paste method here. Maybe I should read the directions or something.

 

[Anais Dahl]

One of my aquaintances is a 300 pound, hairy truck driver and he reads romance novels. He also reads Milton and Chaucer, but he buys up romance novels and takes them on long hauls with him. He has no shame either. He will be sitting in a truck stop, drinking truck stop coffee and some big burly trucker will ask, "Whatcha readin'? and he says something like,

"The Pirate's Maiden"

It cracks me up.

 

[Whispersecret]

Anais, I find that utterly charming. I'd love to chat with that man someday.

 

[Sabledrake]

Ooh, I want a copy of The Pirate's Maiden ...

When I write my first bodice-ripper, it's going to be about the life of Anne Bonney. What a background!

Sabledrake

 

[pinklipstick]

Just thought I'd point out that a lot of romance novels are also written by men under a pseudonym.

 

[Blkpoit]

Just thought I'd point out that a lot of romance novels are also written by men under a pseudonym.

Funny you mention that. When I worked in a bookstore, we had this discussion about the success of what are essentially romance novels written by men. Bridges of Madison County, Message in a Bottle, etc.

Some may not be romance novels in the strictest sense (might categorize some as simply "relationship fiction"), yet, so many of them in the last ten plus years have made it to the bestsellers list in short order. And after that, it wasn't long before they made it to the big screen.

The major point was that the books were never, or rarely, categorized as romance. In fact, the word romance, was always deemphasized in the press kits. It was always a "novel that exlpores the relationship..." If the women was a writer, it would almost always be a "novel that explores the romance..." Or, "a romance about the..."

Movies: if it's about a guy falling in love, it's a Comedy. If it's a woman falling love, it's a Romantic Comedy. If the man and woman have equal parity, then again, it's a Romantic Comedy.

 

[Guest]

I have published two books, both romance novels and I can throw in some observations I have had while doing this.

One book was for Leisure and the other for Zebra, which is essentially the same thing.

1. When I submitted my first manuscript and it was accepted, I was told,
"It's wonderful, but more sex in it please."

2. I was also told,
"You really have to get a feel for the readers. They want lots of sex, but they don't want to feel guilty about wanting lots of sex."

3. At a Romance Writers Of America Convention, I encountered dozens of women who write slash fiction of the X rated sort. But these same women went into a hissy fit when they discovered that one of the male cover models attending had once been in a pornographic film.

4. About the 'romance being one step above sci fi" comment, I have actually found that to be true with publishers. I imagine the public things of them as more intelligent that most romance novels, but publishers have told me they are difficult to sell, while 40% of books sold are romance novels. My guess is that when romance readers buy books, they often buy a full month's line (four books) or more at a time, since many romances are category romances (shorter) and can be read easily in one day.

I am not stating opinion here- just what I have observed or been told by publishers.

Now for some romance novel trivia!

- The romance novels that have the double cover or two page cover where the outside is tex (usually foil lettering and such) and the inside is a shirless hunky guy holding a wilting maiden, are called "Safe Covers." These sell well because people are often embarrassed to take them to work and such.

- The embrace shown often on the cover where the woman is in the arms of the hunky guy is called a "clinch."

- Usually more money is put toward making the often beautiful covers of the books than is paid to the authors.

- The "average" (meaning not Nora Roberts or Diana Gabaldon) romance writer (like me) writing full length books (not the thinner category novels) makes $1500-3000 advance then royalties which arent much and vary widely. Agented writers almost always make more, but then you have to pay the agent.

- The amount of skin shown on the cover really has nothing to do with how much sex is in the book.

- If you write a "typical" romance novel, like a bodice ripper, the writer's guidelines are so strict that the story will pretty much write itself, though the trick is in how to tell it differently and be unique.

_________

On another note- my third book is on the print line for next May. It is about pirates. Surprise surprise. Wish me luck

 

[Anais Dahl]

That was me.

Sorry- I timed out.

 

[NoJo]

Anais, as an amateur, I found your post very interesting.

How long do you take to write a full-length romance? Do you ever get an advance before you've finished it, i.e. for an outline?