Comments on: Corncobs and Twinkies http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/ What's hip, what's now, what's tomorrow in the romance genre world. Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:26:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Natalie http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/comment-page-1/#comment-4719 Natalie Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:53:46 +0000 /?p=265#comment-4719 Jaynie, I don't understand why the "hoopla" affects you and your reading habits. Do you only find the erotic romance books and stories you want to read via RWA? Jaynie, I don’t understand why the “hoopla” affects you and your reading habits. Do you only find the erotic romance books and stories you want to read via RWA?

]]> By: Jaynie R http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/comment-page-1/#comment-4709 Jaynie R Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:57:30 +0000 /?p=265#comment-4709 I'm not going to address the racist comment since I already did so on Karen's blog. "The readers don’t know about the hooopla any more than they look for the RWA stamp of approval, lol. Love your imagery–good chuckle and reality check. Comment by Marty K — 7/27/2005 @ 10:21 am" The average romance reader maybe unaware but the average erotic romance reader is very very aware, because the "hoopla" affects us, and our reading habits. Damn straight we're aware, and most of us are pretty pissed too. I’m not going to address the racist comment since I already did so on Karen’s blog.

“The readers don’t know about the hooopla any more than they look for the RWA stamp of approval, lol. Love your imagery–good chuckle and reality check.

Comment by Marty K — 7/27/2005 @ 10:21 am”

The average romance reader maybe unaware but the average erotic romance reader is very very aware, because the “hoopla” affects us, and our reading habits. Damn straight we’re aware, and most of us are pretty pissed too.

]]> By: Natalie http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/comment-page-1/#comment-4705 Natalie Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:50:31 +0000 /?p=265#comment-4705 What a great discussion. I have avoided it as much as I could because of certain specific individuals who speak inflammatorily and untruthfully and state opinion as fact and incite hysteria. I wandered over here today and happened to read this discussion, and am glad to see it has not been that way here. :) I'm not sure what specific thing led to RWA investigating their definition of romance (which is a definition only to be used inside the organization and has no bearing on anything outside RWA, including where books are put on shelves or what publishers should publish). I suspect it may be the high number of romance writers writing books that are on the edge of or outside the genre. But the most recent issue of RWA's trade journal stated that the majority of RWA members who expressed an opinion to the board want an open and inclusive definition. I don't think there's anything to be concerned about there. The other issue, about erotic romance and graphical standards, was an unintended eruption. There are issues associated with erotic romance that are not associated with almost any other subgenre. There are explicit covers (some of them very beautiful) that could wind up associated with an RWA program, and that could have repercussions. If an explicit cover is in an ad someone wants to put on the back of the RWR, by law that RWR would have to be mailed in an opaque wrapper (if it met certain criteria of the USPS). If a cover was submitted to be part of the RWA theater slide program and allowed to be included, that could cause theaters to not show that slide that all the other authors paid hundreds of dollars to be on. So RWA's board decided that there had to be policy. The wording of the policy caused questions to be asked that showed it was not as well-thought-out as they believed it to be, and the board pulled it and set up a committee. Fine. But the worst result of that situation and the resulting discussion was hue and cry from people who heard things third and fourth and fifth hand and started screaming that RWA was trying to kick out erotic romance authors and publishers and keep them disassociated with RWA, when that couldn't be further from the truth. Are there individuals within RWA's 9000+ membership with extreme opinions in both directions? Absolutely--we are a group of 9000+ humans, after all. :) But <i>generally<i />, those extremes do not represent or impact any official program, policy, or stand of the organization as a whole.</i></i> What a great discussion.

I have avoided it as much as I could because of certain specific individuals who speak inflammatorily and untruthfully and state opinion as fact and incite hysteria. I wandered over here today and happened to read this discussion, and am glad to see it has not been that way here. :)

I’m not sure what specific thing led to RWA investigating their definition of romance (which is a definition only to be used inside the organization and has no bearing on anything outside RWA, including where books are put on shelves or what publishers should publish). I suspect it may be the high number of romance writers writing books that are on the edge of or outside the genre. But the most recent issue of RWA’s trade journal stated that the majority of RWA members who expressed an opinion to the board want an open and inclusive definition. I don’t think there’s anything to be concerned about there.

The other issue, about erotic romance and graphical standards, was an unintended eruption. There are issues associated with erotic romance that are not associated with almost any other subgenre. There are explicit covers (some of them very beautiful) that could wind up associated with an RWA program, and that could have repercussions. If an explicit cover is in an ad someone wants to put on the back of the RWR, by law that RWR would have to be mailed in an opaque wrapper (if it met certain criteria of the USPS). If a cover was submitted to be part of the RWA theater slide program and allowed to be included, that could cause theaters to not show that slide that all the other authors paid hundreds of dollars to be on. So RWA’s board decided that there had to be policy. The wording of the policy caused questions to be asked that showed it was not as well-thought-out as they believed it to be, and the board pulled it and set up a committee. Fine.

But the worst result of that situation and the resulting discussion was hue and cry from people who heard things third and fourth and fifth hand and started screaming that RWA was trying to kick out erotic romance authors and publishers and keep them disassociated with RWA, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Are there individuals within RWA’s 9000+ membership with extreme opinions in both directions? Absolutely–we are a group of 9000+ humans, after all. :) But generally, those extremes do not represent or impact any official program, policy, or stand of the organization as a whole.

]]> By: Sharon http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/comment-page-1/#comment-4697 Sharon Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:34:45 +0000 /?p=265#comment-4697 Natasha, You said my point perfectly. It isn't going to matter to me what the RWA as an organization deems romance or not romance. I'm still going to pick up a book and read it based on personal criteria. I think a lot of people will do the same. Seems like a waste of time and resources if you ask me. Natasha, You said my point perfectly. It isn’t going to matter to me what the RWA as an organization deems romance or not romance. I’m still going to pick up a book and read it based on personal criteria. I think a lot of people will do the same. Seems like a waste of time and resources if you ask me.

]]> By: Sharon http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/comment-page-1/#comment-4696 Sharon Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:32:46 +0000 /?p=265#comment-4696 "I think the big problem here is not ‘I don’t care for erotic romance, therefore I don’t read it.’ The problem is ‘I don’t care for erotic romance, therefore it’s not romance." SandyW, I could not agree more. Very well said. “I think the big problem here is not ‘I don’t care for erotic romance, therefore I don’t read it.’ The problem is ‘I don’t care for erotic romance, therefore it’s not romance.”

SandyW, I could not agree more. Very well said.

]]> By: Sharon http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/comment-page-1/#comment-4695 Sharon Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:31:26 +0000 /?p=265#comment-4695 Mary Stella, I'm not trying to make the leap from the RWA trying to define romance to the RWA telling you what you should or shouldn't read, or even trying to tie it to the recent furor over erotic romance. It perhaps wasn't well done of me to bring them up in the same post, but separately, they seem to be the two hot topics circulating the romance world at present. To differentiate my views, I merely found it amusing that an organization would try to further expound on their present definition of romance, because the direction they seem to be heading is one of narrowing rather than broadening the field. And for many this is preferable, they want it narrowed. I would argue that their present defintion represents the most encompassing and personally, I don't see why it needs to be tweaked. The erotic romance issue is one completely separate, yet it is pertinent to the definition of romance because if the defintion is narrowed, it could exclude a lot of sub genres and not just erotic romance. Mary Stella, I’m not trying to make the leap from the RWA trying to define romance to the RWA telling you what you should or shouldn’t read, or even trying to tie it to the recent furor over erotic romance. It perhaps wasn’t well done of me to bring them up in the same post, but separately, they seem to be the two hot topics circulating the romance world at present.

To differentiate my views, I merely found it amusing that an organization would try to further expound on their present definition of romance, because the direction they seem to be heading is one of narrowing rather than broadening the field. And for many this is preferable, they want it narrowed. I would argue that their present defintion represents the most encompassing and personally, I don’t see why it needs to be tweaked.

The erotic romance issue is one completely separate, yet it is pertinent to the definition of romance because if the defintion is narrowed, it could exclude a lot of sub genres and not just erotic romance.

]]> By: Sharon http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/comment-page-1/#comment-4694 Sharon Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:11:39 +0000 /?p=265#comment-4694 Tracy S, I'm very glad you responded, and I enjoyed your comment. To some degree I can see what you are saying "There is an underlying dialogue in this issue that is really beginning to bother me. That is the assumption that anyone who is uncomfortable reading erotica is somehow ignorant, closed-minded, or prejudiced." I will agree that I have seen such sentiment on both sides of the fence, however, I'm not one of them. I know some positively brilliant people who wouldn't touch erotic romance with a ten foot pole. I don't think them ignorant, close-minded or prejudice. HOWEVER, and you had to know this was coming ;) My beef is with people who have no clue about the genre, other than their own preconceived notions, making broad generalizations and attempting to persuade other people that it's garbage, not romance etc. To me that is the definition of a close-minded, ignorant person. There are a lot of sub-genres of romance that I positively loathe, but I'm not out on my soap box spouting inflammatory rhetoric and making the case that what these authors write is either garbage or not romance. To go back to my simple point, if someone doesn't like erotic romance, historical romance, fantasy or whatever the case may be, that's great. Don't read it and let it be. Tracy S, I’m very glad you responded, and I enjoyed your comment. To some degree I can see what you are saying “There is an underlying dialogue in this issue that is really beginning to bother me. That is the assumption that anyone who is uncomfortable reading erotica is somehow ignorant, closed-minded, or prejudiced.”

I will agree that I have seen such sentiment on both sides of the fence, however, I’m not one of them. I know some positively brilliant people who wouldn’t touch erotic romance with a ten foot pole. I don’t think them ignorant, close-minded or prejudice. HOWEVER, and you had to know this was coming ;) My beef is with people who have no clue about the genre, other than their own preconceived notions, making broad generalizations and attempting to persuade other people that it’s garbage, not romance etc.

To me that is the definition of a close-minded, ignorant person.

There are a lot of sub-genres of romance that I positively loathe, but I’m not out on my soap box spouting inflammatory rhetoric and making the case that what these authors write is either garbage or not romance.

To go back to my simple point, if someone doesn’t like erotic romance, historical romance, fantasy or whatever the case may be, that’s great. Don’t read it and let it be.

]]> By: Sharon http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/comment-page-1/#comment-4693 Sharon Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:04:33 +0000 /?p=265#comment-4693 MartyK, you absolutely cemented my point lol. The average reader doesn't care and they are the ones shelling out the cash for the books. MartyK, you absolutely cemented my point lol. The average reader doesn’t care and they are the ones shelling out the cash for the books.

]]> By: Sharon http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/comment-page-1/#comment-4692 Sharon Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:02:40 +0000 /?p=265#comment-4692 MarianneMcA, I'm not sure why you're so defensive in your response, because if you aren't one of the "people" described in my post, then why would you assume I was referring to you? I merely said people. I didn't say ALL people or even MOST people who don't read the genre. I said people. I can certainly back this up with PEOPLE who feel as I described. If you aren't one of those, fantastic. But I'm a bit puzzled by your reaction. I personally don't care what you read or don't read or for that matter, your reasons why. They're your own. I merely resent when PEOPLE who don't read the genre (or won't) make blanket generalizations about which they have no knowledge, and then proceed to try and prevent other people from reading the genre by publicly bashing it. Why else would someone badmouth except to try and influence other people. Make sense? MarianneMcA, I’m not sure why you’re so defensive in your response, because if you aren’t one of the “people” described in my post, then why would you assume I was referring to you? I merely said people. I didn’t say ALL people or even MOST people who don’t read the genre. I said people. I can certainly back this up with PEOPLE who feel as I described. If you aren’t one of those, fantastic. But I’m a bit puzzled by your reaction. I personally don’t care what you read or don’t read or for that matter, your reasons why. They’re your own. I merely resent when PEOPLE who don’t read the genre (or won’t) make blanket generalizations about which they have no knowledge, and then proceed to try and prevent other people from reading the genre by publicly bashing it. Why else would someone badmouth except to try and influence other people. Make sense?

]]> By: Sharon http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2005/07/27/corncobs-and-twinkies/comment-page-1/#comment-4691 Sharon Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03:41:54 +0000 /?p=265#comment-4691 Sorry to have posted and bailed on my column day, but I was admitted to the hospital the night before and had surgery. Just wanted to thank everyone who chimed in. I'm sure when I'm more lucid (and not under the influence of some lovely drugs) I'll enjoy them even more :mrgreen: Sorry to have posted and bailed on my column day, but I was admitted to the hospital the night before and had surgery. Just wanted to thank everyone who chimed in. I’m sure when I’m more lucid (and not under the influence of some lovely drugs) I’ll enjoy them even more :mrgreen:

]]>