Now we’re not going to be all disingenuous and pretend we didn’t know that Eloisa James was a pseudonym. We knew she (the real person) was a highly regarded scholar, etc, etc. In fact, the only surprise we felt upon reading this article was…hmm, no surprise at all. How peculiar.
Actually, it’s refreshing when a romance author addresses the realities of writing in the genre — especially when those realities butt up against academia and, shall we say, fear of the unknown. James makes an interesting point: denying what she writes shames her readers. And, of course, we wouldn’t be us if we didn’t take special delight at this:
“Bodice-ripper” is a term still used frequently by the New York Times, for example, although it’s hopelessly out of date. But it inculcates a distaste toward women’s sexuality that lies at the root of the disapprobation of romance.
Which is (almost) exactly what we’ve been saying all along.
Ms. Bly had an op-ed piece in today’s NYT. I blogged about it, but you might not want to look, Booksquare, before you’ve had a couple of glasses of wine. She used the term “bodice-ripper” four times. 😉
http://brendacoulter.blogspot.com/2005/02/no-no-dont-say-it-too-late.html
I saw the NYT piece last night — and it was an acceptable use of the term. Unacceptable uses, of course, relate to putting down women and/or their reading choices. I think Bly faced that issue square on…heading off to your place to read your take on the matter…
And never fear, I did have my ration of wine before reading the op-ed piece! A girl must keep her priorities straight.