Comments on: A Rant on Bodice Ripping, Or Why We Think The New York Times is Sexist

By: booksquare

booksquare — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:06:29 +0000

This is the second time in a month that the Times has used bodice ripper in a major article on the industry. That disturbs me greatly. You’re right in saying authors do better research in their novels — is it because of the belief that real life is less insane than fiction? Only the most warped mind can beat reality!

I keep getting back to the fact that the use of the b-r term shows a lack of respect for women. It prejudges an entire genre of books and an entire class of readers. I know far too many lawyers (and academics, etc) who read romance to accept this terminology. Yes, that’s a soapbox you see under my desk (and I bet you thought it was because I can’t reach the ground without it!).

By: booksquare

booksquare — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:00:12 +0000

I will agree that the article was (mostly) courteous in its treatment of its subject matter, but feel that by setting a patronizing tone in the headline, it lost many readers. Had I not been particularly interested in this issue, I probably would have bypassed the story with “same old, same old” attitude. The article was brought to my attention by the first author mentioned and I read it because of her excitement. Normally, I figure the headline informs the content — which is unfortunate.

By: Susan Gable

Susan Gable — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:56 +0000

They didn’t do their research, did they? (Where is my surprised look?) My “favorite” bit was the part about the editors sitting in rooms at the conference, thumbing through stacks of story proposals. Yeah, like that happens at a writing conference where the cardinal rule is: Leave the manuscript at home!

So, they just don’t know how to actually do their jobs and research. In fact, I’d daresay, most romance writers I know probably do a better job of researching their novels than was done with that article.

We also do more to avoid cliches than they do by plastering the term bodice-ripper in the title. I mean, obviously they don’t get what the term means, or else they certainly wouldn’t apply it to Christian romance of all things! (Which doesn’t mean it should be applied to other romances, either, but still…sheesh. Learn what a word means before you use it, huh?)

By: Margo Carmichael

Margo Carmichael — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:27 +0000

While I wish the term and age reference had not been used, I enjoyed the overall tone of the informative article. Joshua Kurlantzick represented our motivation and modus operandi well. And he was, overall, courteous and respectful to Christians, who often are treated as the only group deemed fair game for bashing by today’s so-called pc standards, as if we who worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior didn’t have First Amendment rights, too. Overall, I really liked the article. Had Mr. Kurlantzick attended author Randy Ingermanson’s hilarious talk on Male Point of View, with all the tongue-in-cheek letter terminology re forbidden words, he’d understand that we all agree on avoiding some terms, and I now hereby suggest another such term–BR. : )

By: A. M. Wilson

A. M. Wilson — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:34:30 +0000

Thank you! As one who is not middle-aged and DID attend (as well as help run) that conference for the AMERICAN CHRISTIAN FICTION WRITERS (they even got the name wrong) I applaud what you have said here. While at this conference our board members voted, unanimously, to encompass all genres of fiction in our name making it American Christian FICTION Writers once all the legalities are settled for the change. This article had nothing to do with the change and the reporter had not even gotten to the conference when this meeting took place.

I got to this blog address from a post one of our ALMOST 600 members (NOT over and that was never said) sent.

In Christ,
A. M. Wilson