Romancers and Raincoaters

Last month I attended a Romance Novel convention is St. Louis, called “The Romantic Times.” I joked that I was going where pornographers fear to tread— but I was closer to the truth that I suspected...

I was asked to speak about erotica, an unprecedented invitation. Even though Romancers know that their genre is soaking in sex, the public impression is that romance is for ladies, while “erotica” is for hussies.

But the Romantic Hussies are getting brazen. Sex IS what drives the Romance field. That’s where I came in.  I was on a panel with Robin Schone, M.J. Rose,  Jacqueline Deval, and Laurel K. Hamilton.

Before I arrived, I quizzed Robin to explain the Romance jargon to me. They have dozens of words to describe their sub-genres. There’s “sizzling,” “spicy,” “sensual,” and “sweet,” — to name a few— which have just as distinct meanings as Gonzo, Pro-Am, and Classic porn.

Because Romances are written so tightly to genre, and the predictability factor is so important to their buyers, they can’t overhaul their image that much. The explicitness of the sex scenes is the only wiggle room they have. Now that every sexual taboo has been broken, they’re a little anxious, because if they add any note of realism or literary feeling, they won’t be “romances” anymore, and the genre will crack. It already has.

When a woman buys a traditional Romance, it’s like a hardcore porn fan buying a XXX video. She wants her money shot. She does not want distractions. She wants familiarity, to connect with "the childhood masturbatory feeling," as my friend and offbeat Romanticist Pam Rosenthal so perfectly described to me. I say this with utmost sympathy, but fans would probably feel exposed by that description. Still, I believe romances are stroke books— they are not so much read as used.

The tension between Erotica vs. Romance isn’t sex, it’s writing style.  Romance publishers are dishing out hardcore. They have fisting scenes and gay couples as major characters.  They are overt about interracial sex, rape, S/M, incest,  and every other top ten American taboo. Harlequin and the others are not shy about finding out exactly what their readers want; they’re notorious for their focus groups.

Let me examine one of these desires as an example: Inter-racial relationships. Even though they are an exploding statistic in American life,  they are still frowned upon- to say the least. There are few places that discuss these relationships outside the alternative media.  In the mainstream, there's nothing except a few Hollywood celebrities who are held up as a lofty ideal.

In real life, when it’s happening to YOU, there are confrontations with various racist hysterics and ultimatums among your family who  swear they’ll never accept you, never speak to you again, etc. etc. Of course,  sometimes it  works out for the best, but those of you with multicultural families know what I'm talking about!  We are not supported by the mainstream media or institutions.

However, in "Romance World,"  everyone is likely to be in bed with someone of a different “color” than themselves. White women with black men, and black women with white men, is a hot ticket. This year, "Mr. Romance" was black, and most of the attendees were white. The specialty line of Romances marketed to black women is also filled with these couplings that would be a total scandal in black literary circles.  Like all Romances, these love couplings completely unrealistic, stories in which the beauty and nobility triumphs... aided by pots and pots of juicy lust.

Another Romance fetish is overt bondage, and domination/submission. Rape/forced sex is de rigeur.

By comparison, “porno” has becom more politically correct over the decades. The mainstream stuff that you see on cable TV avoids the above-mentioned taboos, and the videos that focus on such material keep as low a profile as the naughty romances do.

The next time you are prepared to be scandalized by a  degrading bimbo fest in a X-rated DVD, please consider that the exact same thing is being described, from a female perspective, in Romances.  It’s just that the objectification happens in the opposite direction.

You know how women’s bodes are the ones that always have to be perfect in porn, even if the men are kinda droopy or overweight?  It's the same with romance, in reverse. The men’s bodies are all PUMPED— the women can be whatever. Her imperfections are irrelevant or sympathetic; the hero has to be an oiled stud muffin. Fabio is Jenna is Fabio.

The biggest difference between my Best American Erotica and one of the “Sexxxy” Romances isn’t the sex... it’s the style of the writing (genre vs. literary fiction). Every romance has a ‘happy, monogamous ending” while  BAE stories are more diverse, without that guarantee.

In the same way that sci-fi and mystery novels historically became more psychological and complicated, the same thing is happening to romance, which has been the infantile genre the longest. The women still love their romances-- like loving their Barbie Doll-- but they’re buying other things now too.

Romance readers are not remaining “monogamous;” their reading interests are diversifying.  Even the Inspirational (i.e., Christian) Romance readers read the sexy titles, too.  Romance is losing readers to Chick Lit, and mainstream women’s fiction. Those readers are the types who are likely to like erotic literary fiction as well.

Military, thrillers, mystery/PI/Cop  stories, are making a big splash too—another example of fusion. The most interesting group of writers I interviewed were all female Vietnam vets  who’ve become writers.  There were  lots of PI’s, cops, retired cops, cops’ wives, etc.

One  exception to the Dowdy Look was the goth-vampire crowd, which is openly into S/M. They were small in numbers, but visible.  Laurel Hamilton personifies this group. She appeared in a corset, with bodyguards who were also in corsets. She offered sex-positive encouragements one minute, but then made protective, conservative warnings in the next. She is in favor of S/M explorations, but against what she called “casual” sex. She was delighted to investigate kinky practices for her stories, but she warned her fans not to look at the web pages she’d devoured in her research.

I’ve never heard an author try to protect her fans like that before, while simultaneously titillating them. You’d never hear John Grisham tell his fans, “You’d better not look at the legal files I’ve seen, they’d be too much-- but wow, I can’t wait to show you my racy version.”

We had no dispute about sex— I appreciate their unapologetic fantasy life. It’s funny, no one finds it “dangerous” when women have taboo fantasies, only when men do. There’s this sense that women have realistic boundaries, no matter how cockamamie their fantasy life may be. But if a man reveals a taboo fantasy, everyone assumes that he’s about to run out and perform it.

No, what I found myself advising was rather contrarian— about writing, not about sex. I urged the authors with doubts to abandon ship—  to abandon genre-writing altogether.  When these writers find themselves in struggles with editors and agents over “formula,” I'd ask them to realize the stakes.

If they break formula, they’ll be a better writer. There is no literary future in subservience to cliches.  The commercial choice, to go with formulaic demands, may or may not prove to be a money-maker. You can’t count on it. I don’t know what the path to superstardom in Romance is, frankly.

I do know this:  if you write authentic, emotionally truthful, graceful prose, you won’t experience a moment of artistic regret— and you’ll have a reputation you won’t have to put a corset on to defend!

Comments

[Kristina]

Interesting take on the romance genre, Susie. I reviewed Robin's first book, Awaken, My Love, for a magazine and raved about how different and wonderful it was, only to be told by a dozen readers (and a couple of writers) that Robin had gotten lucky and no one wanted to read about women masturbating in a romance novel. I'm glad Robin proved them wrong.

I found myself disagreeing with you over certain points you make, but that has more to do with being a former RWA member and a one-time published romance writer for Harlequin/Silhouette. I resisted the "formula" (though many romance writers will take you to task over the use of the word) and found that I couldn't sell another book to them. It was, of course, entirely my fault. I'm not a writer who can "write for the market." I write what moves me and I got a lot of resistance from the powers that be for wanting to write a light-hearted comedy romance after delivering a romantic suspense. "Write something like the last book," they insisted. I abandoned ship. Ironically enough, I found a home in erotic fiction that lets me write boy/girl, girl/girl, boy/boy, vamire, ghost, comedy, love, uplifting, sad, unpredictable stories. My heart wasn't in romance writing and it showed, but there are an awful lot of authors who do it very, very well and I admire them for the ability. It would be easier if I could write for the market. Since I can't, I've learned to write for myself.

Sorry to be so long-winded. I have a lot to say on the subject, obviously.

[susie]

Oh no, please go on! I love to hear your take on the Romance/Erotica spectrum.

ONe thing I meant to say was an important difference between female romance fans and male porn fans. Romance fans often feel that they can "write their own" -- it's very encouraged. You are encouraged to realize that writing your own is even more thrilling than reading them, that you get to live the Romance more vicarously than ever.

Porn fans on the other hand, are much more passive... you have to accept what's doled out, you cannot make your own. Even though, frankly, the technology is not that big a deal anymore, and the fun begins as soon as you have an idea, write a script, etc. They think they have convince some actors to be in the movie, but they dont' realize that the excitement actually begins in the conception. Finding someone to be in it is not that big a deal--- creativity is, and the erotic thrill of making something that comes out of your head.

[Kristina]

Do you think the popularity of amateur internet porn suggests that porn viewers are no longer willing to be passive when they can tailor their porn to fit their kinks?

I love LKH, love how she's brought S/M into the mainstream (though I suppose Anne Rice did it first, I just never could get into her writing). Of course, there are an awful lot of authors who do it just as well (if not better), but don't have the proper marketing.

Also, and I will confess I'm not as current on the romance market as I once was, but I think you would be hard pressed to find fisting, gay sex or hardcore S/M in any print publisher of romance (and certainly not in a series romance novel published by Harlequin/Silhouette, where authors still fight to use the words pussy and cock, and cunt will never, ever see the light of day in even the "spiciest" of their lines). I argued with my editor over the use of the word "erection" in 98 and had the words goddamn, clit and bitch cut. This was not in one of the sweeter romance lines, but their Intimate Moments line which was been promoted as being as close to single title, mainstream romance as H/S had at the time. Judging by some of the chatter I hear among the romance writers I know, there are still a lot of author/editor arguments over language and sex.

There are some e-publishers who are catering to the fans of the racier romances (and doing quite well at it), but H/S is not the place to find hardcore sex scenes. Even the mainstream publishers pull their punches when it comes to "erotic romance"-- though they promote their books as if they should be labeled with XXX ratings.

I keep coming back to what you wrote above: there is no literary future in subservience to cliches. I wonder if that's true? If by "literary" you mean lasting artistic merit, probably not-- at least other than as fodder for future pop culture classes in college. If you mean it in terms of financial and popular success, I'm afraid there is a tremendous future there. Romance stardom looks like Nora Robert's writing career-- delivering those formulas time and time again in unique enough ways to keep readers buying. She is the queen of the genre and it has served her well. Being the idealist I am, I want to believe you're right. Of course, while I have no regrets for abandoning the formula in favor of more authentic writing, I wouldn't mind the paycheck of those cliches bring.

One last thing: before I sold my romance, I'd only read three books in the Intimate Moments line. I wasn't writing for the market then, either. I was writing for fun.

Thanks for encouraging me to vent!

[Pam Rosenthal (Molly Weatherfield)]

Ooh, excellent. I love "offbeat romanticist," Susie. Thanks a million.

When I said that, btw, I was describing the impulse that led me to write romance -- or one of the things, anyway -- rather than what necessarily motivates romance readers. But anyone for anybody who wants to jump into that whirlpool with me -- come on in, the water's fine.

"Childhood masturbatory feeling" as in something that hit me when I was too young to defend myself against it. Childlike, as getting swirled up in a whole whoosh of stuff that I didn't understand but knew was true, like that I'd inevitably fall for the bad troubled guy in the movie, and I also seemed to enjoy certain kinds of suffering -- at least in the dark in the movies and then in books as well.

Masturbatory, partly, because it was cherished and private, and you could work over it again and again and again.

Childhood, yes, just a little, as in buddhist "beginner's mind" that was, luckily, too young to psych it out or explain it away until AFTER I had my cherished store of fantasy motifs.

But not so much a child's thing that it doesn't demand a whole heap of grownup pov and syntax from me nowadays, to try to make it a fantasy I can still enjoy.

Great insight, also -- about how interactive romance reading and writing are. But then, also think how implicated with reading the greatest of erotic writing (imo -- Story of O) was.

[Pam Rosenthal (Molly Weatherfield)]

But I'd argue with you, Susie, that "domination/submission, Rape/forced sex is de rigeur?"

I don't read much of that in romance -- of course, you've just come back from a convention where Ellora's Cave was very much in evidence, and their recent success seems pretty phenomenal, but . . . de rigueur seems a little exaggerated, and not a lot like the romance world I know, where the word "bodice-ripper" is generally despised.

[M.J. Rose]

Great posts, Susie. Great comments here. I do agree, breaking the rules makes you a better writer - but more than that - I think it makes you a happier writer.

[DC (in UK)]

Inter-racial sex, a taboo? If so, why do I keep coming across examples of 'Mandingo'-style fiction set in the ante-bellum Ol' South? (Oh, and judging from the number of times there's someone with a whip on the cover, the authors weren't averse to hinting at SM elements either.)

[Nancy Lebovitz]

In re the top ten American taboos: Is there any poly romance?

In re mixing genres: There's also time travel romance, and I think there's fantasy and science fiction romance as well.

In re Laurel Hamilton: Why am I not surprised that she's into control/over-protectiveness and in favor of all kinds of sex as long as it's not casual?

[Pam Rosenthal/Molly Weatherfield]

You've got me hooked, Susie. I'll probably be yammering here long after everyone else has gone on to the next topic. Because romance is such a fascinating world -- the energy and generosity of the writers, the involvement of the fans.

No, not a world, a universe, best described in astronomical numbers: of aspiring writers, of product flooding the shelves every month, of money to be made by a few.

And the moods and vagaries of that hard-to-please lover, the market. . .

Being a romance writer -- working SO hard to produce not only the books but the website and the bookmarks and the tee shirts and the refrigerator magnets -- is sort of a romantic individualist venture of its own, a high-stakes survivor game, a test of mettle on the model of "Pamela," that early-capitalist love story of "Virtue Rewarded." (The Pamela insight isn't mine -- I got it from David Lodge's wonderful comic novel Small World, that also takes place at a romance convention -- this time an academic do, where the characters are presenting papers on another sort of romance, the kinds one read in college, like "The Faerie Queen.")

Even if I hadn't started out as a pornographer I'd find it fascinating, compelling, touching and very tempting on a very person level. Though perhaps I should rephrase the above to say "before I started out as an erotic writer," because it's almost impossible to explain to someone who wasn't writing feminist-inflected porn when I wrote Carrie's Story that the p-word used to be a badge of honor -- nowadays, understandably, people think of pornography in terms of all those horny-slut spam messages.

Oh, and my point?

Well, I wanted to underscore on this excellent set of observations you made:

"I appreciate their unapologetic fantasy life. It’s funny, no one finds it “dangerous” when women have taboo fantasies, only when men do. There’s this sense that women have realistic boundaries, no matter how cockamamie their fantasy life may be."

You're profoundly right -- again, the Virtue Rewarded books of the English 18th century are a touchstone here. Romance writers, romance heroines (and some romance heros as well), are bringers of order to worlds soaked in lust and contradiction. Which demands more attention to the notion of genre. More later about that.

[DTG xxoo]

Jeez, I wish I could write romance---I'd love to bank those big bucks too. But I just can't think in cliches or write to formulae. Everything tumbles out in my own words.

DTG xxoo
Pussy Talk
http://www.livejournal.com/users/nicebluejournal

[Laurie Mann]

Hiya Nancy - not only is there SF romance, there are awards for SF romance - the Sapphires (http://www.sfronline.com/sapphirewins.htm).

While I enjoy reading erotica, I prefer reading a novel with relevant sex in it rather than reading erotica masquerading as a novel. I just read Graham Joyce's The Facts of Life, a book where sex is important but is generally "off scene" but when it's "on scene," it worked pretty well.

One issue about PCness and male porn vs. female erotics, there's still lots and lots and lots of male-centered porn out there of all flavors. Lots of it is "non-PC." But since I don't tend to read "pink books," I didn't realize that yesterday's porn seems to be taking over today's erotica.

[susie]

BTW, i certainly don't mean to imply that Romances are some special case of cliche-ridden writing... it's an affliction that spans every kind of literature. And bad writing can be original, too, not every problem with writing can be blamed on formulaic plot points. One thing that's interesting about ROmance is that it's still thriving as a GENRE, whereas books like 'westerns" adn horror are just barely hanging on by a thread, and even hardcore Sci-Fi has been marginalized. I think crime and romance are the two big genres taht are still racking up the numbers, does that seem fair?

I shouldn't have said rape was 'de rigeur"-- bad use of French!-- what I should have said was that it's super-duper popular. It's one of the highly valued menu items that one can choose from. Here's the fantasy theme list on Ellora's Cave, which I think pretty well sums it up:
Capture/Bondage
Vampire/Werewolf
Gay/Lesbian
Interracial
Ménage à Trois or More
Rubenesque

I think that "Rubenesque' category is so interesting. Now that's different from men's porn, because most men are focused on their desire, rather than being desireable. These stories are all about women who discover the world of dashing, handsome chubby chasers who revel in their curves.

In my fantasies, however, I never think about what I look like, I would find that VERY distracting.

Another note: I didn't use any of the contemporary Romance book covers, because I think they are so dreary and forgettable compared to the retro ones. Why are they so boring now?

[Poppy Z. Brite]

I'm just amused that Laurell K. Hamilton feels she needs bodyguards, and that she makes them wear corsets. Was there an assassination attempt I didn't know about? Are the corsets bulletproof?

[sexyrepublican]

This is what you do best, Susie. Cultural and specific analysis of sexual issues. It's why I keep reading you.

Great post!

[MMWD]

"Porn fans on the other hand, are much more passive... you have to accept what's doled out, you cannot make your own"

While that's probably true for many fans of visual porn, amateur written erotica is alive and well! Most people are familiar with the asstr.org archive and other such "pure porn" venues - that's all amateur porn, though the quality:quantity ratio is quite poor.

I have spent the last two years enjoying erotic fan fiction that is better than anything I've found published yet. The fan fiction community is in it purely for the love of the source texts and the writing, and they are overwhelmingly female. Their writing is often explicit, erotic, and (at its best) incredibly well-done. While the majority of the good fiction I find is m/m homoerotic, there's a lot of good het and f/f stuff out there too. I can't keep up with all the good writing, there's so much of it!

If you're ever interested in finding out about the strange underground of porn-obsessed women writers that exists in fanfiction, drop me a line and I'd be glad to introduce you; poking about my blog might give you some idea, but it's a huge subculture, and it can be nice to have a guide.

[susie]

MMWD, I'm glad you pointed out the fan fiction scene. Did you know that the one "fan" type erotic fiction I published in BEst American Erotica got pulled after the first 30,000 copies, because DC COmix threatened action? It was Je T'Aime Batman, Je T'Adore, a Boy Robin diary entry that was steaming hot and absolutely hilarious, written by Kelly McQuain. I was so upset about that being pulled, because Batman been eroticized by many authors, including Donald Bartholemew, but DC never made a fuss about THAT. But this was homosexual, and I guess that was just too bat-fucking much.

Poppy, I had no idea who Laurel Hamilton was until this convention, and her entourage was quite a shock. They looked like a scene out of the Matrix. The most intriguing part is that she looks like she is in her 50s, and the man she pointed to as her husband was in his 20s. He twirled his cap to the audience with both hands in a Shakesperean manner. It was Vampire Pomp and Circumstance! She would make a sex educator's hair turn white with the nutty S/M "tutorials" she gave from her podium, but her audience hung on every word. It was bizarre the RT people didn't give her a big room to herself, because she was obviously a superstar to the fans.

Why is she so popular? I picked up one of her books later and couldn't make it through a page, which does not mean a whole lot except that it's not easily accessible or instantly enticing.

[Keith M Ellis]

Ooh, more later when I have time--this is a great discussion! Although it's true that I've not ever read a "romance" novel. I should, really, along with "westerns"—which is the other genre I've been allergic to...

...because my childhood fiction was science fiction and fantasy, and I still read it, I've found my way to Hamilton's books. Which is what I wanted to comment on quickly.

Really, Susie, if you haven't read her books, from a sex-positive scholarly point of view, you should. I've been almost as fascinated by her progression from conservative-Catholic-repressed prude to, well, whatever she is now as I've been with her books. Anita Blake is her avatar even moreso than are other writers' series's protagonists; and Blake's journey has been a sexual one more than anything else. Conflicted, too. So, really, Hamilton's words at the convention come as no surprise to me. Really, I'm very sympathetic to her as I watch her morph into someone who is relatively sex-positive.

Reading the Amazon reviews for her latest Anita Blake novel is very revealing and interesting, too. Many of her readers have been very put off by what was 80% non-mainstream explicit sex.

[Laurie Mann]

>Susie wrote:
>I think that "Rubenesque' category is so interesting. >Now that's different from men's porn, because most
>men are focused on their desire, rather than being >desireable. These stories are all about women who >discover the world of dashing, handsome chubby >chasers who revel in their curves.

I've read some of these online and they are MADDENING!

If we look at classic art, we see that women of many sizes were viewed as sexy. Many tended to have lusher bodies than are considered "correct" now. However, even though many women, particularly American women, are much more Rubenesque than ever, fat women are still considered some kind of abberation in popular culture.

Luckily, I'm not married to a "chubby chaser." My weight has varied over 90 pounds in the years I've known my husband, and his weight has varied about 50 pounds (ironically, I always tend to weigh about 40 pounds more than him, no matter what!). While I know that men are more "visually-oriented" vis a vis choosing an "object of desire," weight and "sexiness" are truly irrelevent for the vast majority of people. Now this runs contrary to every bit of pop culture, that generally states a woman must be size 0 with size 40 breasts to be considered a sex object. Oh, and a man must have large muscles, be 6' tall, and have a 10 inch dick to be sexy. *groan*

I had a love/hate relationship with the book "Good in Bed" over this very fact. I loved that the protagonist had a great sex life for some of the book. I hated that she only ever viewed herself as a fat woman. Does every woman spend every waking hour of the day and night just thinking of herself in terms of her size?

[Candy]

"I shouldn't have said rape was 'de rigeur"-- bad use of French!-- what I should have said was that it's super-duper popular."

No, no it's not. Try and name 20 romance novels published in the last 10 years by a mainstream publisher with a rapist hero. Not forced seduction--outright rape, like the kind featured in The Flame and The Flower by Kathleen Woodiwiss. It USED to be de rigueur in certain types of historical romances and certain category romance lines, but the practice stopped being common right around 1988.

"In re the top ten American taboos: Is there any poly romance?"

Check out Emma Holly; she probably comes closest. Strange Attractions has what amounts to a very basic polyamorous love relationship--two bisexual men and a hetero female. I believe Menage does as well, but I haven't read the book yet so I can't say for sure.

"Jeez, I wish I could write romance---I'd love to bank those big bucks too. But I just can't think in cliches or write to formulae. Everything tumbles out in my own words."

Ahhh. That's right. Romance novels are nothing but huge collections of cliches. Romance authors make big bucks too. All of 'em. Enough to keep them in only the finest of bon-bons and feathered boas. Writers who prefer to write in their own style should avoid romance novels entirely, because it's not as if authors who avoid cliches--who, in fact, often stomp gleefully on cliches--like, say, Laura Kinsale, Loretta Chase, Judith Ivory, Jennifer Crusie and Emma Holly can become successful.

Like I've said on my blog, there are only TWO requirements for a romance novel to be a romance novel:

1. It must be a love story and focus on the budding romantic relationship (usually between a man and a woman, but erotic romances are fast changing that).

2. There must be some kind of commitment and happily-ever-after ending.

That's it. SF/F, mystery, horror and erotica have at least that many constraints.

[Aimless]

> I shouldn't have said rape was 'de rigeur"-- bad use of French!-- what I should have said was that it's super-duper popular.

Oh, I have to totally disagree on this one. I've read hundreds of romances of all genres from sweet (i.e. sex-free) up to and including erotic romances (romantica, as dubbed by Ellora's Cave). Apart from a few of the horrible old H/S books and some old historicals that fully earned the name of "bodice-rippers", you just won't see rape in a book that's marketed as Romance. *Old* books, yes. But I'm assuming you were referring to current trends and current releases. A challenge--if you can find 5 romances from recognized, major publishers with rape-as-titillation in them RIGHT NOW on the shelves of any bookstore you care to name, I will be utterly and totally shocked, and will happily and publically recant every single word I've typed on the subject.

Now erotica--real erotica, not erotic romance, because as you know, they are two very, very different things--erotica's a whole different animal, and I've seen rape frequently in those. That's a large part of why I had to quit buying books marketed as erotica, to be honest. Maybe rape's not in all of them, but of the admittedly limited (6-8) erotica books I read, I'd have to say rape occured in 50% of them. It was frequent enough to turn me off the whole genre.

And to take up for Ellora's Cave, publishers of erotic romance, not erotica, they specifically address rape in their writing guidelines for submission. To quote their site:

> "NO rape as titillation. Rape may be used as part of the plot action, especially supporting character development, but MAY NOT be presented in a positive light or with the intent stimulating erotic excitement or pleasure."

Perhaps you're reading different romance publishers than I am. I read tons of them, but no one can read every single thing. I just had to speak up on that point.

Other than that, interesting discussion!

[Jennifer]

I think you're out of touch with romance (not that you should necessarily be in touch except that you started opining as if you were), but Candy's covered that. Also note that your definition of bondage and romance authors' definitions may differ significantly; be careful, since there's a very wide gap between rape and "hold onto the headboard and don't let go while I tease you".

Laurell K. Hamilton's books have had an interesting trajectory. The first few Anita Blake books are straight paranormal PI stuff, no sex. The most recent books are almost straight sex and paranormal, with a tiny sprinkling of PI. The Merry Gentry series is in the mode of later Anita.

I have two major problems with Hamilton's recent work. I started reading her books for the voice and the plot, and Anita being magically compelled to have sex every few hours really gets in the way of whatever mystery she's theoretically working on. When I heard Hamilton at a signing a couple years ago, she said she plans out the mystery very carefully but the relationship stuff just happens as she goes along. Seems to me the relationships have taken over, and I wish they were better balanced within the book as a whole.

My second problem is that there are too many men. Merry has 16 (so far); see http://www.cafepress.com/lkhprem/261513 . Anita... you know, I just tried to count in my head and failed. At least nine. That would be fine if I spent enough time with each to keep them straight. I don't. Anita has the advantage here, because there's that first half of the series that has sane numbers of characters acting in coherent plots. Hamilton hasn't been willing to kill off characters since the first Anita book, so now the books are so bloated by check-ins with each character that nothing has time to happen (other than attaching new men, it seems).

The books flow well enough that I'll keep reading them. I want to know where Hamilton is going with the mythologies (I'm a fantasy reader most, followed by science fiction and romance and anything that catches my attention). But until she whittles down the cast, I'm not buying her books in hardcover, and probably only the old ones in paperback.

[Pam Rosenthal/Molly Weatherfield]

"be careful, since there's a very wide gap between rape and 'hold onto the headboard and don't let go while I tease you'".

Jennifer put it perfectly. Whereas the bodice-rippers really were rape fantasies (and there were lots of pirate rape fantasies out there into the 90s), I don't think there are too many of them now. And even the EC list of fantasies you site, Susie, doesn't really include rape.

What's so interesting about the bodice-rippers to me was that they were a way of talking about women's interest in rough and passionate sexuality at a time when no one had worked out other ways to do so in romance form. It's not done now, I think, for 2 perfectly good and sufficient reasons -- really forced sex rather than pretend forced sex isn't really fun to fantasize about (unless you can really pull off something unusual, which would put you outside romance parameters), and romance has worked out a wider vocabulary for talking about these things. Que viva the free market in ideas here and why (as I asked a month or so ago) wasn't Andrea Dworkin taking notes?

[Shon]

I was a huge fan of Hamilton's but I couldn't make it to the first hundred pages of the last Anita Blake book. Anita used to be this real prude who had a love/hate attraction with a vampire. Yes, not terribly original but for me, I saw a metaphor for a vanilla woman being introduced to a s/m lifestyle. The Vampire had slaves that he treated well. She picked up her own slaves through complicated magical crap. anita came to respect, protect and love her slaves. It was also a series that explored polyamory. For a kinky person like myself, Anita was a coming of Dom story, which I don't find that often in erotica.

Now her stories are just stroke fiction. I caught myself skimming sex scenes to get to the story. Sigh.

As for her entourage, I am a bit shocked. In the Anita books, anytime she had to meet with a big time Vampire, her friends insisted on dressing her all fetishy. She resisted and wanted to go in jeans. They explained that if she appeared looking like someone Vampires normally eat, then they would treat her as such. They insisted she dressed up in leather, cleavage and knives so the Big Vampire would see her as the killer she is. That works in a ficitonal vampire/detective universe. I just never thought she was discussing dressing day to day in the real world.

[Mel]

I used to adore LKH's books. These days, between the lack of humor (one of the things I originally liked), the lack of plot, and the overwhelming amount of gratuitous sex (if I want porn, I'll go read something better-written, thanks), and my personal involvement in S&M...well, her weird attitudes make me very sorry that she's becoming representative of S&M to vanilla romance readers.

[darkamazon]

"MMWD, I'm glad you pointed out the fan fiction scene. Did you know that the one "fan" type erotic fiction I published in BEst American Erotica got pulled after the first 30,000 copies, because DC COmix threatened action? It was Je T'Aime Batman, Je T'Adore, a Boy Robin diary entry that was steaming hot and absolutely hilarious, written by Kelly McQuain. I was so upset about that being pulled, because Batman been eroticized by many authors, including Donald Bartholemew, but DC never made a fuss about THAT. But this was homosexual, and I guess that was just too bat-fucking much."

I remember this story -- I agree, it was hilarious.

DC lets plenty of slash fanfiction exist at ff.net and aff.net -- could it be that it was in a money-making anthology using copyrighted characters, and not the homosexual aspect of it?

The first rule of fanfic writing: THOU SHALT NOT MAKE MONEY

[Beverly]

Susie, the things you are talking about are not normal in mainstream romance fiction. These are things that are either very uncommon or that exist on the fringes of the romance fiction world. L. K. Hamilton doesn't write romance. She appeals to many readers of romance because she puts relationships in her books, but you won't find her books shelved in the romance section at a major bookstore, nor would her own publisher call them romances.

Ellora's Cave is not mainstream romance either. They are new and are visible, but they don't publish in a traditional way or for a traditional audience.

All of the things you mention are things that account for a very small percentage of and influence on romance fiction, yet you talk about them as though that is what romance is now.

Inter-racial relationships are definitely not common in romances (would that people were more open to this). Rape is not common. Overt bondage is not common either. That you talk as though these are all common when they are not is a disservice to romance and the women who read them. As a person who seems to support women's sexuality and women being comfortable with their sexuality, the way you speak about romance seems very dismissive and stereotypical.

[C.S. Lewiston]

They made the pictures on this site just a bit too small to get the maximum impact. Just the same, apropos of the subject being discussed here:

http://www.cherrycomics.com/CHRY_html/ABOUT/ABOUT016.HTML

[Gordon]

Susie, in your comments on replies to your romances column, you destinguished between "female romance fans and male porn fans. Romance fans often feel that they can 'write their own' -- it's very encouraged. You are encouraged to realize that writing your own is even more thrilling than reading them, that you get to live the Romance more vicarously than ever.

"Porn fans on the other hand, are much more passive... you have to accept what's doled out, you cannot make your own."

In response, Kristina asked: "...porn viewers are no longer willing to be passive when they can tailor their porn to fit their kinks?"

I think you both are going in the wrong direction: the universe just ISN'T divided into male porn-fans and female romance-fans, and moreover I really doubt more romance fans (male or female) are interested in writing their own stuff than are porn fans. It'd be interesting to measure (somehow!) how much is written in each genre, and by which gender. (Of course, then you'd have to decide which genders we're talking about -- a stone butch perhaps shouldn't count as a female in this [admittedly narrow] context. And TG's????)

Gordon

[susie]

Sorry I’ve been so late to respond; I’ve been working out of town. I’ve grateful to everyone who posted here, because it spurred me to realize two things:

1. Romance is THE one genre where people emphatically debate its definition on every count. I can remember writing about Romances in the 70s and 80s (I guess I do it once a decade) and the same kind of response arose: hosts of people who disagree about what a Romance consists of, and who want to set the record straight.
But the record never does get straight because honestly, there is no consensus.
I wonder why that is. It says something about the Romance world, but I’m not sure what.
My various opinions from the RT convention— that romances today are more sex-fueled than ever, that they embrace taboo topics that are “hushed up” in more respectable circles (much like porn), and that formulaic cliche-driven writing is the bane of the genre’s existence— may be debatable, but they are as solid and legitimate as anything else that is being claimed about romances. This business that “Susie doesn’t have a clue” is not true— I’ve certainly read enough, and exposed myself to the Romance world enough, to have these opinions.
But here’s another point, and that’s sex. It’s so typical in romance quarrels that everyone wants to not be up front about it... but that isn’t going to be me! Do I need to start a support group for women who are willing to admit they masturbate to romances? Is this some sin? I’m so sick of the shame and pooh-poohing about this issue. When will romance fans take the lead instead of being so embarrassed about this? I guess because it would ruin the ladylike image, that’s it’s all about hoping for marriage and monogamy. Well, I don’t buy it.
I made a mistake in my post by using sexually provocative language that I didn’t define. When I said that rape fantasies are a big part of romance eroticism, I do not mean “rape” as in where a woman who shows up at the ER and they call in the sexual trauma counselor. I do not mean rape in the criminal justice sense, or even the LITERAL meaning of the word.
“Rape fantasy” is one of the greatest oxymorons of all time. The real nature of rape, from the victim’s standpoint, is utter helplessness, lack of consent, loss of control and integrity... But in fantasies of forced sex, or the threat of forced sex, the fantasizer ENTIRELY controls how scared they get, how nasty things get, when it starts, when it stops, how she gets aroused, the climax— all of it! It’s the dead opposite of actually being assaulted.
So when I open a random Romance at the recent RT convention— and I opened dozens of them— it was entirely typical for me to find some male character who was advancing on an unwilling woman... but then they both transitioned, to where he is more sympathetic to her, and she is more turned on to him. This is accompanied by all kinds of props and rituals and language which evoke the forced sex/rape fantasy theme.

By calling it “rape fantasy,” I am extending some of those scenes into places they don’t actually travel to, but it’s not much of a stretch! I am using the “rape fantasy” term to describe the erotic taboo and yearning— where someone takes over and makes you do things you can’t admit that you want for yourself, makes you into a slut, a ravaged, insatiable, spoiled, “bad girl.” Go rent “Duel in the Sun” for the primer on this.. Our puritanical culture makes these topics red hot bait.
Fantasies about rape, or being made to have sex, are enormously taboo AND popular among men and women. Men fantasize about being “made to do it” as well. When sex researchers do fantasy surveys, this topic comes up in the top five, always. It’s not a scandal that erotic rape-scenarios would appear, literally and metaphorically, in women’s Romance reading— it would be unnatural if they DIDN’T.
Romances, like unpolished porn, are “politically incorrect.” They don’t get respect, they are “low culture”. But I don’t disdain them for that reason at all... I like the sexual taboos they reveal; I like that they point to women’s sexual appetites— that’s my favorite part!
But I sympathize with romance writers and readers who feel weary of the lady-like limitations of the sexual descriptions, or the formula rules that inhibit innovation— not to mention poetry, lyricism, or originality! Does this happen in other genres? Of course. But there is more denial in Romance... and therein lies both the sexual and the literary illusion.

[ananke]

I just wanted to say I agree with rape being de riguer. It's not the 'beaten half to death' scenario that seems to spring to mind but the far more insidious being made to do it against your will. A perfect example is Hamilton's work. She's created a power which forces her prviously celibate and anti-sex before marriage character to fuck anything and everything. Including strangers, men she dislikes and in one instance a half-man half leopard. She has a scene where the character has sex entirely against her will, fights but does it and enjoys it. Most 'romances' will have scenes like this where a previously strong woman inds herself loving being overpowered etc against her will.

If that's not rape then I suggest you talk to survivors who've been through similar situations. Like me. It's not sex-positive by any stretch, it's the same old bullshit with a new spin. It's disturbing.

[John Skipp]

Dear Susie!

Thanks for the wonderful piece, and even more entertaining commentary track.

A number of years ago, I found myself in the home of a woman who owned nothing BUT mainstream romance fiction. Honest to God, they were the only books in the house. And she had hundreds of 'em, overflowing from bookshelves into sloppy stacks on the floor.

So I picked one up by default; and after flipping around just a little, I got zapped with the understanding that, "Whoa! This is HOUSEWIFE PORN!"

I loved the physical beauty inversion, where all the men were luscious and dreamy. I also loved the lexicon, wherein "throbbing maleness" replaced "slobbering hardon" as the euphemism of choice.

So now when I see women carrying around dog-eared copies of LOVE'S TRAGIC PASSION, I think it's adorable. Way cuter than guys watching broadband porn on their cell phones, which will be happening a lot in the very near future.

The main difference between romance and porn that I can see -- aside from the art on the covers -- is that romance seems to have a lot more invested in the emotional payoff. You get vicariously wrapped up in the relationships that form around all that panting and moaning. It's almost as if the sex was supposed to MEAN something!

In porn, it's just people fucking people till some other people show up. Then fucking those people, too.

Not that I'm complaining.

THANKS, SUSIE! Between this piece, the ZAP piece, the White House Stud piece, the corporate porn/political piece, and the staggering eulogies for Hunter and Andrea Dworkin (that last one above and beyond, my friend), you are now my favorite blogspot in all the world. And I'm telling all my friends!

[MMWD]

"Did you know that the one "fan" type erotic fiction I published in BEst American Erotica got pulled after the first 30,000 copies, because DC COmix threatened action?"

I'm not surprised. While the DC comics fandom is still quite active (and HOT HOT HOT), very little fanfiction for things not in the public domain ever makes it to press at all. Hey, more free porn for me, though I'm often sad that such amazing authors can't reach a wider audience with their writing.

I'm glad you know about the world of fanwriting though; it feels like essential knowledge for anyone who loves good erotica!

As for romance and rape fantasy, Janice Radway's "Reading the Romance" is a seminal work that touches on this from an academic/sociological perspective. It's a good read, and gives some interesting insights into the way women read romances and why their conventions hold the way they do.

I have a shorter piece here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/makesmewannadie/3967.html.
The analysis is fairly shallow (I was very young), but it's probably a good primer to the scholarship on the genre up until 1995 or so.

[Shar]

Everyone has circled around many of Susie's comments but let's get back to the stroke book aspect. I got hooked on romance novels for only one summer of my life-- the 15th year of my life. My best friend Dawn's grandmother was addicted. She had 5 of those huge green Rubbermaid trash cans stuffed full with paperbacks. No lie, that's alot of books. Dawn said hey let's read these and I said Okay. (Dawn also was the person who said "Let's look at your Dad's Playboys and I said Okay to that as well"). certainly, we were hoping to find sex between the pages, although we didn't say that, as we began by really critiquing each one and trying to pick authors and all that. I dismiss it as "all that" because soon, none of that mattered. We were hooked. I could read a book in a day and got so hooked that I couldn't put it down staying up until all hours. Then the ache of emptiness would consume me. Eat at me until the only way to fill it was with another book. Dawn and I discussed this and we both quit them after the summer. I preach to people about being an aware erotic consumer and often chatise the disembodied porn audience who really is a consumer-consuming ravenously consuming like a monster not able to see the same girl twice the same movie, etc. spending thousands of dollars or thousands of hours getting porn. These characters are always men. (I know there are a countless guys who are NOT like this, some are my fans, but the monster, endlessly hungry porn consumer is always a guy)
Contrary to that in the porn movie world, when women have a favorite scene that becomes their private jill-off money shot it is just that -- a favorite scene that she might play over and over until the tape threads bare or the DVD gets too gunked from lubey fingers. .So she was off the hotseat...or not. that's the movie world. Here we find that ravenous consumer with her hand in her crotch while her other hand holds the book.

I know writing this that so many people will jump on my confessing that I was only 15 and had a 15 year old perspective. But how can you not look at those 5 (and counting) barrels of novels and realize how these books are consumed by hooked readers filling that void?

[Pam Rosenthal/Molly Weatherfield]

>>I could read a book in a day and got so hooked that I couldn't put it down staying up until all hours. Then the ache of emptiness would consume me.

Thanks for coming back to this, Shar. I think there's some truth here, and I'm glad you've focused in on it. I wish I could say why it's true, though -- I can't, and I'm a romance writer, even. Why that hunger, why that void? What's your take?

(Of course the "empty calories" analogy presents itself -- romance writers and readers joke a lot about being chocoholics and you can see where that goes. But I've just finished the wonderful Steve Almond's wonderful book about candy, "Candyfreak," so I don't see why there's not a place in the world for what he, I believe, calls "dependable pleasures" without the letdown. So I'm not 100% sanguine about that explanation, nor am I sure that indulgence can't be satisfying -- I'd love to know what you think.)

[Pam Rosenthal (Molly Weatherfield)]

A private cherished theory of mine is that ALL genre fiction is stroke fiction. Different genres stroke different parts (or tweak them perhaps). Romances stroke a kind of oceanic upwelling emotional center. SM knows where to lay down its stripes. Mystery goes for certain problem-solving brain centers.

If done right, this can be as charming and graceful as a Mark Morris pas de deux, a successful double play thrown to first base, or a farce by Marivaux -- all closed forms that depend upon skill, surprise, and perfect timing. It seems to have something to do with wit -- there's something jokelike about the interplay of the predictability of the form and the uniqueness of the instance (and I love that in On Pornography, Susan Sontag wrote about the Keaton-esque humor of SM).

Literary fiction has developed in a different direction. It's not my skill or ambition -- but I would like to make genre dance.

[Shar]

Yes I think many books can leave you wanting for more so you have to get a new fix. I know I did get so titillated from them and did want to find more "good parts" but I also longed for the places the clothes (when do I get to run around in flouncy things--too many skirts I call it--then maybe because I'm a widow or orphan who needs to buck up for the family farm I'm be forced to get masculine into dungarees where the feminine form of my ass is revealed). Okay that makes it sound like I only read the historical ones which I didn't. There is something physical that happens as we wait on the edge for the next zing to our nerves--especially those nerves between the thighs. I would get tense all over, breathe shallow, fidgit. Like the relaxation after it was done for a few minutes or hours then need more.

[Pam Rosenthal (Molly Weatherfield)]

what a cool post. Yes, it's very physical. And yes, it's the clothes, the places, the moments of bravery and exposure. The zings. But I don't know why it has to have that addictive pattern.