That should so be a button. I think we covered everything now.
Jill covered erotica being the evol. The Blaze chick (whose name I am too lazy to go look up) drew the readers are the evol. St. Giles has amazon is the evol. Karen had a big hand in the covers are the evol. Now Jan W. Butler has the gays are the evol.
Did we miss anything? So is this day seven where we rest?
Wasn’t that the most ridiculous thing you ever heard read in your life?
I’d love to know, how the Queen Bees of romance feel about shit like this. Talk about barely concealed bigotry. She was basically saying that gay people don’t fall in love right?
Seriously, what is going on with these people?
Oh, I never actually said covers were evol, per se, I merely implied that some Changeling covers were heinous crimes against art *g*
There’s a difference right?
Sigh. Kate has a great commentary up at her blog about this.
I get so tired of this backward illogic about how by writing something I’m trying to push something on the RWA when her “take our RWA back” type stuff is intolerant and mixed with harmful and incorrect attempts to make all gays pedophiles.
If you don’t like the boysmut, don’t read it. It’s so easy.
Romance isn’t about the gender of the owner of the heart, it’s about connection.
And so because it’s hot, I didn’t write that well – the first sentence should read, “I read Kate’s great commentary up at her blog about this.”
“Romance isn’t about the gender of the owner of the heart, it’s about connection”.
Amen, Lauren. And I don’t think anyone believes that the definition of romance is including children – it’s only people who even bring the idea of children into the equation that make it into something ugly.
Btw, I read your post over at Kate’s blog and thought it said it all. I also know a few gay couples who have happy and more loving relationship than some of my heterosexual friends, so putting perameters on the definition of romance is excluding some wonderful monogamous unions between consenting adults. Why shouldn’t there be stories about these types of healthy relationship? Doesn’t mean you have to read them if you don’t want to, geez, but don’t turn them into something they’re not – sick and perverted.
Good grief, I can’t blame the heat so my “s” button must be broken – yes, I meant to say “relationships” in both places.
Would I be a Queen Bee? If so–and even if not–I can tell you how I feel about it. The letter doesn’t represent my personal or profession opinions. Ms. Butler is entitled to her opinions, but she doesn’t speak for RWA, its members or for me.
I don’t believe I’m either fringe or shrill–and don’t appreciate being termed so in the text of the letter as I would be one of those who protested the idea of RWA defining romance as one man-one woman love stories, etc.
Stacy, you havent seen the cover over at Bam’s blog yet, have you? It features a man and a young girl and says something about them being destined to be together. ROFL!
And as for Ms. Roberts, we can tell by the very tone of your post that you are one of those left wing! East Coast! liberal wackos that are contributing to the godlessness of this society. (per Ann Coulter). If only you would use your powers for good instead of evol (as Syb would say).
Christ on a crutch. I had no idea that man on man love was so powerful as to bring the romance industry to its knees.
I am, indeed, a left-wing, East Coast liberal wacko. However, I suspect it’s girl-on-girl love that most offends certain people’s sensibilities. After all, RWA is predominately female, and it could lead to a Lesbian Orgy at an upcoming convention.
As I was plagiarized in a lesbian romance novel earlier this year, I may be invited.
Oh, I see it now. It’s like the Seinfeld bit about why men are so homophobic. It’s so easy to talk them into anything that they may be talked into trying out holding the hand of a man and pretty soon they are a couple.
The RWA membership has such strong latent homosexual tendencies that one hot book could tip the whole into an episode of AUTHORS GONE WILD! XXX! I can’t wait to see the report from this years RWA.
Karen, I don’t think she’s saying gays don’t fall in love rather she doesn’t want to read about.
I’m always amazed by people who feel the need to spread their narrowmindedness around. If she doesn’t want to read a gay romance, she doesn’t have to.
Ms. Butler needs to get over herself.
PS Sybil, wake up!!!! Nora’s on your blog.
karen: sure sure but cover blow up happen like clockwork in romanceland and the last one was SO YOUR FAULT. Take a bow baby ;).
Who would be the queen bees?
Lauren: I just went and read your post and it is grand!
stacy: I think the chick is a nutjob. And her saying pedophiles = gay makes her look like nothing more than a small minded twit.
I am all for reading what you like. So put the book down and read something else. Otherwise I don’t like inspirationals, so where do I start a movement to end them all and take over the world?
If we stop ‘allowing’ books that offend, piss off, or annoy a person or group of people, pretty soon there will be no books left.
nora: if you aren’t a queen bee I don’t know who is…
jane: Christ on a crutch. I had no idea that man on man love was so powerful as to bring the romance industry to its knees.
THAT should so be a button… If man on man love can’t bring romance to its knees what can *eg*.
nora: After all, RWA is predominately female, and it could lead to a Lesbian Orgy at an upcoming convention.
omg THAT is too fucking funny, jane someone call Snoop, he will want to get in on the taping of that.
tara: see how powerful you are, from miles and miles away you can wake me up! I really like left coast wackos, my blog needs more of them to come visit.
plagiarized in a lesbian novel? so they took your plot and recast the m as an f?
I have a friend who’s on the side of the butler woman–she doesn’t want any mix ups on the book shelves. She wants to keep her work separate from anything that doesn’t fit her idea of romance. RWA doesn’t organize the bookshelves I said but she thinks they have a lot of influence.
Bah. Worst of all this for me is that I’ll never look at my sweet pal the same way again.
I think I’m going to pout because Nora had girlsmut plagerized! Well, I must admit to having a few fantasies about Eve but Roarke is there too, LOL.
And thanks Sybil! This “take back OUR RWA!” stuff is creepy. It’s got a Pat Buchannan theme to it which is making me feel all nauseated.
Jane, I had to go check it out. Yeah, that’s creepy. And not in a good way. LOL.
Well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but whoever came up with that one obviously never heard about plagarism.
Kate, it’s hard when we learn things about a close friend that change our minds about them. The thing is, I wouldn’t classify same-sex relationships as “my” idea of romance either, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have a rightful place amongst romances. They ARE romances, just not MY romances. So? If everyone got to select what their idea of romance was (babies, no babies, no sex before marriage, test-drive before you “buy”, saying “I love you”, not saying “I love you”, etc), well, well, those shelves would be pretty sparse because no one can agree. That’s why we are given the power of to choose, or not to choose.
Well, I’m off to get ready for Atlanta tomorrow, so you guys have fun 🙂
All I can do is sigh and shake my head. I haven’t seen the entire letter yet because my RWRs arrive so late, but man, what is going on lately?
I’d think it was really sad how threatened these snotty little busybodies are if it didn’t make me so mad.
Not only are there writers out there presuming to tell readers what they can and cannot say about the books they read, there’s writers out there presuming to tell other writers what they can and cannot write and which audiences they are allowed to write for.
I can’t even bring myself to rant about it.