You may be familiar with Godwin’s Law, an internet adage that states, “”As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” The law has given rise to the practice of declaring dead any thread in which such a comparison is made and, what’s more, pronouncing a forfeit on behalf of the person who made it.
Mike Godwin is a former staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and has written extensively on legal rights and responsibilities for users of electronic networks (such as those who post and participate in discussions on this blog). In 1990, he seeded his “law” into usenet groups as a form of counter attack against what he viewed as a nefarious meme. According to Godwin, “When a meme [a unit of cultural information which can be transmitted, virally, from one mind to another] catches on, it may crystallize whole schools of thought.” In this case, the meme permitted Nazism to be an acceptable metaphor for any variety of political debates.
Godwin “set out to conduct an experiment - to build a counter-meme designed to make discussion participants see how they are acting as vectors to a particularly silly and offensive meme…and perhaps to curtail the glib Nazi comparisons.”
(Read more about memes and the experiment in this 1994 Wired article.)
I hereby propose a new counter-meme.
As any discussion about literature grows longer, the probability of a comment disparaging romance novels (especially Harlequin romances) approaches one.
Like all lovers of the genre, I’ve had enough of the meme positing that romance novels are an apt and automatic stand-in for bad writing and bad fiction. We’ve all seen the assumption that has become acceptable, even in the mainstream media, that every romance novel features Fabio on the cover, every romance novel heroine has a bodice begging to be ripped, and that each and every novel published by Harlequin is the very nadir of the written word.
But defense is for the most part useless against vectors merely parroting an entrenched meme. “Everyone knows” romance=bad. Under its influence, romance novelists and their readers are viewed as equally ill-equipped to judge quality work. I’ve even seen academic and industry heavyweights, who entered the field to provide a critical analysis and wound up writing the stuff instead, dismissed as “going native.”
Think about it: how many of your successes in persuading people to give romance a try started with showing a person how they’d allowed the meme to make their decisions for them? Let’s try holding up the mirror every time we see this meme coming into play.
Heck, it worked for Godwin.
As any discussion about literature grows longer, the probability of a comment disparaging romance novels (especially Harlequin romances) approaches one.
Inevitably.
by Bernita January 5th, 2007 at 8:17 amEven Shakespeare had disparaging remarks made about his populist plays. I am currently reading 1599.
But as I am about to do an interview next week with a regional paper in the UK, I have been gathering a few facts about Harlequin Mills and Boon.
Harlequin is published in 25 languages in over 94 different international markets. In the UK, it enjoys 95% brand recognition as Mills and Boon. Worldwide, it has a readership of over 50 million and sells over 200 million books per year or approximately 6.6 books/second. Over 14 million of those books are sold in the UK. They have a minimum monthly readership of 1.4 million. It is the undisputed market leader of romance with over 74% of the paperback romance market in the UK. Romantic fiction in the UK accounts for over 20.5% of ALL fiction sold.
Mills and Boon has been around since 1908. Its forays into romance started with the publication of Georgette Heyer.
And if you want to talk about Mills and Boon authors — Mary Burchill who helped found the RNA, used the proceeds from her Mills and Boon books to finance her trips to Nazi Germany where she and her sister posed as eccentric opera fans in order to rescue Jews.
Much of what is said is based on ignorance or envy.
by Michelle Styles January 5th, 2007 at 10:20 amYou’re preaching to the choir.
I wonder what ignorance and envy see when they look in a mirror.
by Tara Marie January 5th, 2007 at 10:35 amMichelle, what an interesting story about Mary Burchill. I’d never heard that before.
Tara Marie, who better than the choir to start seeding the counter-meme? I was inspired to write this post after reading a comment posted on the blog of a non-romance writer in response to a post about Anita Blake books (to my knowledge, not harlequin, and in my opinion, not exactly romance) saying that only a Harlequin romance author could put out two large print hardcovers at 20 bucks a pop a year and have self-respect. Um, WTF? What does any of that have to do with Harlequin? What does any of that have to do with the AUTHOR?
Time for the counter meme. Shut it down.
by Diana Peterfreund January 5th, 2007 at 11:12 amYou can read more about Mary Burchill (Ida Cook) at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/alan.myers/lit/m-cook2.html
I learnt about her last autumn and thought it totally fascinating. Real Schindler’s List.
And sometimes, I think the choir needs reminding because it is all too easy to curl up when someone makes a disparaging remark.
Also it is all too easy to think that romance is the only genre that gets knocked. Ian Rankin was complaining about as was Terry Pratchett. Commerical ficition gets the money, not the respect.
by Michelle Styles January 5th, 2007 at 11:39 amOh, definitely Michelle. Everyone gets it. And they give it to one another as well. Chick lit gets knocked (thanks, Malcolm Gladwell), YA gets knocked (thanks Elegant Variation), Science fiction gets knocked, and then they go, well, at least we’re not those horrible [insert genre here.]
When they start “young adulting the blog” we’ll champion the cause there.
by Diana Peterfreund January 5th, 2007 at 11:55 amI’m all for it, Diana. I’m quite famililar (and fond) of Godwin’s law. I say a Harlequin law should go into effect.
Or should we call it Peterfreund’s Law?
by Sara Dennis January 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pmI’m still stuck on the Hardcover/Harlequin thing. Harlequin romances don’t come in Hardcover. The slur does not compute. My brain can’t grasp it.
What’s that quote about a lack of an education being a handicap when one is trying to be rude . . .
by Kalen Hughes January 5th, 2007 at 12:25 pmI know, Kalen! It makes no sense at all. People jumped all over the guy, too. He came back saying he didn’t mean anything against people who write quickly but did NOT retract the badmouthing of Harlequin writers.
by Diana Peterfreund January 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pmRomance gets knocked. It just does. I’m not sure that’s going to end soon. Just about any creative work which is produced in high numbers is going to be perceived the younger step-sister to the “real art” of that genre. Illustration is not considered to be as “artful” as portraiture. Same with Commercial Art vs. Fine Art.
We all know that deep down. And we all know that N. C. Wyeth was a tremendously talented artist AND he was an illustrator. Obviously there are examples of greatness and mediocrity on both ends of the same spectrum, whatever the art form.
However, I think taking the argument “to the streets” so to speak is going to be quixotic enterprise until the gushing and “I must support my friend every time someone says something bad about her work” mentality stops. The circle the wagons thing is truly disruptive to any sort of conversation about our genre or about the books themselves.
I appreciate your offer, Diana, to champion the cause of blogging, but the truth is that the attacks on bloggers has already happened in the larger media, and for the most part ebbs and flows and remains a mild undercurrent. For the most part bloggers don’t really care that much. If there’s something I want to talk about, with some exceptions, I just write it anyway. People are welcome to comment or not to as they see fit.
Discourse at some point gets hopped up with emotions, but emotions seem to run very high in both the Sci-fi and Romance community. It gets tiring, honestly.
I agree that a lot of the times that Harlequin comes up in conversation, the “original poster” really has no idea what they are talkng about, and is using Harlequin as a short-hand lingo for formulaic, awful, hastily churned-out dreck. And that’s not fair to the larger romance writing community.
But come on. You really think you’re going to change the minds of the larger reading public. Really?
Really, REALLY, really?
I don’t see it happening until there’s a whole lot less emotion and a whole lot more honest discussion about what works and what doesn’t. I sepnd a lot of time online talking about horses. Y’all wouldn’t believe the fights I’ve seen over at Arabian Horse breeding messageboards over what bloodline represents the “true Arabian”. People insult each other, call their horses names, threaten lawsuits, etc. And it’s all over whether my horse is “purer” than your horse. Yee gods. It’s a horse. Enjoy it.
But people get so caught up in trying to make everybody else experience the world exactly the same way, that eventually it all dissolves into a wrestling match.
Until the Romance publishers slow down their publishing to focus on a fewer number of “truly great” books (which no one really wants them to do within the community), then a while lot of chaff is likely to go out there. That’s OK. I like a lot of the chaff. But I reserve the right to call it fluff. (Mmm. Marshmallows.) The larger literary community is going to keep right on denigrating the entire genre because all they can see is the chaff. They just are.
In the meantime, I don’t really care what they all say “out there.” I’m trying to find a great Historical set somewhere interesting with some great dialogue and an intriguing interpersonal conflict between the two main characters.
by Suisan January 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pmWell, Mills and Boon do a hardback version — boardbook — for the library trade. The Large Print editions are also in hardback or boardbook.
However, I don’t understand the comment.
Bernard Cornwell for instance puts out two books a year as does Terry Pratchett. And a number of other authors. Didn’t Isaac Asminov write a book a month?
by Michelle Styles January 5th, 2007 at 1:06 pmWish Terry Pratchett put out two books a year…
by Marianne McA January 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pmOh he does, at least in the Uk…one is a children’s book.
by Michelle Styles January 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pm“a lot of the times that Harlequin comes up in conversation, the “original poster” really has no idea what they are talkng about, and is using Harlequin as a short-hand lingo for formulaic, awful, hastily churned-out dreck. And that’s not fair to the larger romance writing community.”
It’s not just unfair to the ‘larger romance writing community’, it’s also very unfair to Harlequin/Mills & Boon authors.
by Laura Vivanco January 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pmI don’t think I’m going to change anyone’s opinion, no. And I don’t think godwin has stopped the silly comparisons, otherwise the law would never need to be invoked (seventeen years later). I’m not trying to defend anything, or circle the wagons, or even have a discussion about the state of the genre, or the state of discourse about the genre, or whether or not reviewing works with this genre. The point of the counter meme is only to show the silliness of the meme. People can then make their own decisions about “truly great books vs. chaff.”
I’m not attempting to talk about the value of romance novels. I’m just referencing another occasion in which the unthinking metaphor was challenged. I love the idea of the Godwin’s Law counter meme. It means you can call someone on how silly the metaphor is without having to get into all the issues Suisan raised above. Because you’re not talking about romance, or Nazis, or libertarians, or any of the other subjects the internet folks have invented “laws” for. Just about the meme.
The NYT article referenced in my post is headlined “the new bodice rippers” but is about inspirational chick lit set in silicon valley. I doubt the heroine of that story has seen a bodice outside of a renaissance fair.
Don’t you think the NYT should be called on that? Do you think they’d write an article about, say, Oryx and Crake, and call it a space opera? Why not? It’s science fiction, right?
by Diana Peterfreund January 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pmLaura Vivanco Says:
“a lot of the times that Harlequin comes up in conversation, the “original poster” really has no idea what they are talkng about, and is using Harlequin as a short-hand lingo for formulaic, awful, hastily churned-out dreck. And that’s not fair to the larger romance writing community.”
It’s not just unfair to the ‘larger romance writing community’, it’s also very unfair to Harlequin/Mills & Boon authors.
Absolutely. That was poorly worded on my part. I meant to say “then entire romance community, including the Harlequin authors.”
by Suisan January 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pmThat was me being a bit nitpicking, Suisan, sorry, and maybe a bit too ready to jump to the defence of Harlequin/M&B authors. I did think, given the context, that you probably didn’t mean to say something which could be interpreted as being insulting to them.
I love the idea of the Godwin’s Law counter meme. It means you can call someone on how silly the metaphor is without having to get into all the issues Suisan raised above
Over the holidays I was in a library and there were lots of M&Bs in a book sale, so I bought some and was asked by a librarian if I really liked them. I said yes, so then she wanted to know what it was about them that people liked, because she could see they were very popular with readers, but as far as she was concerned, she wouldn’t be bothered if they weren’t stocked at all (which made me think she hadn’t really thought that through, because if romances are a major factor in keeping patrons coming to the library, surely it does matter whether or not they’re stocked?). I thought it was sort of brave of her to ask, though. Anyway, I began with an explanation of how I’m working on analysing M&B romances as feminist texts/having strong feminist elements, but then stopped myself when I saw her glazed look and concluded by saying that they’re short books you can read in an evening and which make people feel happy.
It’s hard to know where to begin, really - with describing how many happy romance readers there are (but that might be taken as suggesting quantity over quality) or analysing the contents (which can make people’s eyes glaze over). So yes, I can see how just referring to a meme might be a quick, easy way to stop people in their tracks.
by Laura Vivanco January 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pmDiana Peterfreund Says:
The NYT article referenced in my post is headlined “the new bodice rippers” but is about inspirational chick lit set in silicon valley. I doubt the heroine of that story has seen a bodice outside of a renaissance fair. Don’t you think the NYT should be called on that?
And you’re saying that every newspaper headline accurately reflects the content of the article? Umm, no. Usually the headline is there to catch the eye, often using a fairly ridiculous mental image. And really, you know that. You’re a very smart and accomplished person. I think I’m not understanding why this use of “bodice rippers” is so awful.
Do you think they’d write an article about, say, Oryx and Crake, and call it a space opera? Why not? It’s science fiction, right?
They could very well do so. And sometimes they’ll get “called” on something and sometimes they won’t. Margaret Atwood is incredibly respected and has been picked apart, studied and analyzed by some powerhouse people. Frank Herbert has too. Somehow he ends up as being wholly Sci-Fi and she doesn’t. And I believe that’s the publisher’s decision, not the larger literary community’s decision, to figure out what gets stocked or promoted where.
Personally, I find Herbert’s work to be ponderous. I had a very difficult time getting through the Dune saga. But that didn’t have anything to do with whether or not he’s stocked in the Fiction category or the Sci-Fi category.
Any “genre fiction” is going to get lumped together–that’s kind of the point of the label. In turn, this makes it easier to label all works within that genre or to denigrate the entire canon by denigrating just the label itself.
I’m really not understanding why this is so shocking. People outside the community hate and despise Arabian horses too. Really hate them. So? I also dislike some groups of Arabian horses, or individual examples. Some, I adore. But I’m hardly expecting the larger equestrian community to come around to my point of view. After all, everyone has a preference.
Perhaps the greater problem is that Romance novels are a genre, and are separated out from books like Margaret Atwood’s. It makes every Young Adult, Sci-Fi, Romance, or Western an easy target.
by Suisan January 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pmBecause as Godwin says in the Wired article, it doesn’t really matter about whether or not the metaphor is apt. It’s about the advisability of it being an automatic stand-in.
And it’s not defensive. (Godwin is not, to my knowledge, a Nazi.) It’s an observation.
by Diana Peterfreund January 5th, 2007 at 2:18 pmBut on a whole the choir’s already doing this each and every time we’re forced to ask “Have you ever read a romance?”
Infering that it’s not truly possible to turn out 2 decent books a year, maybe someone should point out to the nitwit that in his arrogance his ignorance is showing.
You could hold a mirror up to this man until the cows come home or hell freezes and he is not going to see he’s wrong.
I’m not saying don’t bother to fight the stereotype, but that we’re already doing it.
by Tara Marie January 5th, 2007 at 2:31 pmBernard Cornwell for instance puts out two books a year as does Terry Pratchett.
Recently on Bernard Cornwell’s message board someone posted about meeting an author (name and genre not specified) who said that BC couldn’t possibly be writing all those books so quickly, it must be the work of assorted hired hacks, etc. Which boggled me and convinced me the author in question hasn’t read any Cornwell, because he has a distinct and consistent voice, and, really, 2-3 books a year just doesn’t seem that excessive for an experienced full-time writer. If I ever get to quit my day job, it’s what I’ll expect of myself.
But it just goes to show that no matter what you write, SOMEBODY is going to diss and/or doubt you.
by Susan Wilbanks January 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmInfering that it’s not truly possible to turn out 2 decent books a year, maybe someone should point out to the nitwit that in his arrogance his ignorance is showing.
FWIW, the original poster in question wasn’t saying that it was impossible to turn out two good books a year, but rather saying that LK Hamilton *hadn’t* done that–that she/her publisher had used large print, wide margins, etc. to stretch novellas into full-size hardcovers. I haven’t read the books in question, so I can’t speak to the validity of his criticism, but that’s what I think he was saying. (I did have a problem with his comments about Harlequin writers, however.)
by Susan Wilbanks January 5th, 2007 at 2:44 pmI begin to think it’s possible that people in the romance community aren’t familiar enough with Godwin’s Law or haven’t seen it put into play often enough to see the comparison between it and this “law”.
Godwin’s Law, to my mind, is a more succinct and less defensive way of saying ‘look here, you’re being an ignorant a$$ and here’s why’. It’s short and sweet and to the point. Someone brings up Nazis, you respond with “I invoke Godwin’s Law”, and that’s that. No more need to fight.
Why would something like “I invoke Harlequin Law” not work the same way? It might help cut down on the perception that we “circle the wagons”. Rather than pages of defense, we respond with the “law” and leave it be.
by Sara Dennis January 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pmSuisan says:
And you’re saying that every newspaper headline accurately reflects the content of the article? ::snip:: I think I’m not understanding why this use of “bodice rippers” is so awful.
I’m not understanding where the comparison comes from. The books aren’t even romance. It would be like an article about Arabian horses with a headline saying “greyhounds.” There are ridiculous mental images and then there are ones that don’t make sense at all. IF the headline said something about the “The Preacher Wears Prada” that would be cute, ridiculous, eye-catching, and much more relevant. I don’t think it’s awful. One saying “God doesn’t like chicks this shallow” would be “awful,” but relevant to the stereotype about chick lit, and so would make sense.
Suisan, I agree with you that genre is genre and some people are just going to be hatahs and there’s nothing you can do about that. Absolutely. (also, that a lot of Dune is really hard to get through. I gave up about two books in.:wink: )
As I said before, I’m not expecting anyone to decide to like romance novels, and I’m not trying to defend them or get into a discussion about genre at ALL. And as I stated in the blog, “defense is useless.” I agree with Tara Marie completely.
I’m simply tired of the meme, aptly used or not, accurate or not. It’s a cliche. It’s overused. And it’s usefulness in an online discussion should be neutralized. The proposed law makes no moral judgment. It merely observes how often such a device is employed. People who are interested in good arguments might then shy away from something so cliche.
by Diana Peterfreund January 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pmWhy would something like “I invoke Harlequin Law” not work the same way? It might help cut down on the perception that we “circle the wagons”. Rather than pages of defense, we respond with the “law” and leave it be.
Thanks, Sara! I think you are right, and that I didn’t explain Godwin well enough as a lead in. As Sara said, it’s actually quite a boon. If the Wired article leaves anyone with questions, Wikipedia has a great entry on it:
by Diana Peterfreund January 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pmGodwin’s Law.
Conceptually I think the whole thing sounds great–claim “Harlequin Law” and the moron who felt the need to insult the genre loses the debate and everything shuts down. How likely is this?? It brings to mind the scene in Field of Dreams “Beulah, you Nazi cow…” or calling for following the “Marquis of Queensbury” rules in the Quiet Man and then having an all out brawl.
The sad thing is we shouldn’t have to defend ourselves or our genre of choice in the first place and there shouldn’t ever be a need for a “Harlequin Law” or “Godwin” for that matter.
by Tara Marie January 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pmAt least on the message boards and uunet groups I’ve frequented, invoking Godwin’s Law never works. I simply causes the original idiot to fight even harder and faster because you’re refusing to hear his eloquent remarks.
Some people really are only idiots.
by Suisan January 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pmI have seen Godwin’s Law work. Someone says blah blah blah just like the Nazis, gets a response of Godwin’s Law, and the original Nazi-spewer stops, reconsiders, and comes at his argument from a different place. I can’t give you ratios of works to doesn’t work, but it doesn’t always fuel the fire.
My hope would be that doing the same sort of thing with romance novels would work the same way, and save us some chest-beating.
by Sara Dennis January 5th, 2007 at 3:37 pmSome people really are only idiots.
True ’nuff. A few months ago, I’d worked myself into a froth over something or other online and I shut my laptop in a huff and was all, “Ugh, the people on the internet!” And my fiance cracked up laughing and now we have a People on the Internet Law in our house.
Blood pressure’s gone waaaaaay down.
by Diana Peterfreund January 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pmDon’t think he writes two straight books, Michelle - though perhaps he used to. I’m just bitter because this was a children’s book year, and I don’t like his YA fiction as much. If you count the extra stuff - like the Science of Discworld books, and the various diaries and maps (which I suppose I wasn’t counting because I don’t buy those) you’re probably right.
by Marianne McA January 5th, 2007 at 4:29 pmI thought all the GOOD Romance novels had Fabio on the cover…
How are we supposed to identify the good ones if they DON’T put FABIO on the cover?
by Patrick January 5th, 2007 at 11:04 pmWhenever someone brings up Harlequin/Mills and Boon novels or chicklit as an example of all that is bad in writing, I usually ask him or her (though most of a time it’s a him), “Well, have you ever actually read any?”
In 99 of 100 cases, the answer is “No”. The remaining one person read some ancient Harlequin romances at his grandma’s house some twenty years ago.
by Cora January 6th, 2007 at 2:43 amOkay. I’m sure a discussion about Harlequin’s Law is so not the place to start this. And I admit, upfront, the last Harlequin I read all the way through probably WAS twenty years ago but I think I’m in Suisan’s camp when she says:
“I don’t see it happening until there’s a whole lot less emotion and a whole lot more honest discussion about what works and what doesn’t.”
I write stories that have a romantic element to them. A lot of my writer friends do too. We seem to fall into two groups, those who call themselves Romance Writers and those who don’t. I’m all for reading (and writing) whatever one enjoys but if we’re talking about laws … What about the Romance Law?
Here’s how it works:
A Romance Writer will pen a short story or novel. She’ll ask for feedback and beg for brutal honesty. Yet when a non-Romance Writer uncovers a clunk in the plot or a disparity in characterization, the Romance Writer will claim:
I HAD TO DO THAT OR IT’S NOT A ROMANCE.
End of discussion.
You get rid of THAT law and I’ll support your Harlequin meme buster.
by Edie January 7th, 2007 at 9:03 am[...] **all icons are ones I use(d) for my livejournal… can you guess which ones were made just for me ;.. and for those wondering… the title is just me being a dork or I miss http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2007/01/05/a-new-counter-meme/#comment-13952)** Posted by Sybil | Categories: Ponderings | [...]
by redwyne.com » Blog Archive » Teh Shiny iz PASTEDE ON YAY!!1111!! January 7th, 2007 at 11:52 amA Romance Writer will pen a short story or novel. She’ll ask for feedback and beg for brutal honesty. Yet when a non-Romance Writer uncovers a clunk in the plot or a disparity in characterization, the Romance Writer will claim: I HAD TO DO THAT OR IT’S NOT A ROMANCE.
End of discussion.
I’m not familiar with that law, or at least, not as belonging strictly to writers of romance. I think any writer is capable of concocting wild defenses for things they don’t want to change for any variety of reasons.
What makes a romance to me is a story about two people falling in love. So I think that yeah, you have to do THAT or it’s not a romance. But if the story doesn’t do that and it’s intended to be a romance, there’s probably a bigger problem than a clunky plot or a weird characterization.
If one of my critique partners used that claptrap on me, regardless of genre, I’d probably recuse myself from further critiquing of their work. If they say, “No I like it and think it works fine,” well, that’s where author veto power comes in (and we’ve all used our rubber stamp at some time or another) but it’s a different argument.
So yeah, I’m totally for negating genre as a get out of jail free card.
At the same time, there should be a recognition of the standards of genre. So, for example, if the story is about two marine biologists falling in love while rereleasing a wounded manatee into the wild and the reader is like, hey, lets follow this manatee and maybe the evil boater who wounded him and wouldn’t that make a much cuter story? Then the writer can say, well, I’m focusing on the biologists because it’s a romance — but then the discussion should turn to how to make the love story more interesting so that the reader doesn’t WISH the whole story was about a giant sea cow instead.
by Diana Peterfreund January 7th, 2007 at 12:23 pmDiana,
The Romance Law is most often invoked when body parts start to throb.
It goes something like this: a prim society girl notices electric shocks in her groin when a man she just met passes her at a crowded gallery opening. Two pages later, Ms. Future Junior Leaguer (who’s never been tainted by so much as a french kiss) is doin’ the nasty with the guy in the elevator.
Because she just can’t help herself.
Because he’s her soulmate, y’know.
And when I say, “Ick,” they say, “Yeah, I know, but this is the kind of thing that is REQUIRED in the genre I write.”
“Erotica?”
“No, romance.”
Really, I’d rather read about sea cows.
by Edie January 7th, 2007 at 7:22 pmThe Harlequin Law
Based on a theme by Mike Godwin, and in my experience at least as valid: As any discussion about literature grows longer, the probability of a comment disparaging romance novels (especially Harlequin romances) approaches one. By Diana Peterfreund, and …
by dustbury.com January 8th, 2007 at 7:45 pm