Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association Annual Meeting April 2009, New Orleans
Again, my (sketchy) notes. Hopefully I did the papers justice!
“The Romance of Pain: Sadomasochism and Power Exchange in Popular Romance Fiction”, Sarah Frantz, Fayetteville State University
[I've been educated. I am totally convinced and am dying to read this book.]
BDSM always figured problematically
Dominant is always sexual top, submissive are sexual bottom.
Fixed axes: D/S, S/M T/B
Villains are bad because they try to subvert this, also because they are real sadists.
Ana Crow. Uneven.
Plays with all of this. Like an onion, a fun house mirror.
Paradoxically reaffirms romance genre, yet reinscribing fundamental nature of what a romance novel is
Violent, dark, but fundamentally a romance
Race, Hero1 is classic alpha in romance – captain of industry
Hero is gay, masochistic, and submissive
In denial on all three counts
Is typical Harlequin hero, and also in some senses the heroine
Gabriel, Hero2 is sadistic and dominant
Experienced in domineering
Crow questions construction of desirable masculinity by genre and avoidance of s/m as legit
Ex. Gabriel relinquishes top.
In 6 sex scenes, each is top 3 times. Balanced. Also, 3 are oral, 3 anal.
Dominant is emotionally ruthless, self controlled (pop cult view)
Dominant lovingly guides submissive into BDSM play, also controlled (yet Gabriel loses control a bit) (this is the view in BDSM literature)
Asserts that violent consensual S/M, is a valid foundation for and expression of romantic love
Reaffirms fundamental conviction that any romantic relationship is based on necessary loss of control by both partners to create a balance of need that allows them to commit to relationship.
In pop cult view of BDSM, novel should be all about maintaining control, but in fact it is all about losing it.
Crow presents counter reading of BDSM, both to the romance community and to BDSM community, and to popular view of BDSM. Frantz reads it as very authentic, with great liberatory potential.
“Transcending the Domestic: Cultural Power and Domestic Identity in JD Robb’s In Death Series”, Tessa Kostelc, University of Wyoming
[I thought this one was so interesting and on target.]
Eve as anti-heroine. Actively resists social role, yet achieves success they are supposed to promise
Personal functions of domestic have been taken over by technology
Food plays large if subtle role
Autochef –flaws, but has reduced time consuming steps of breakfast preparation
Coffee – associated with cops, Eve sees self as a cop primarily
Coffee and who is fetching it marks power relationships
Eve’s identity is sustained by caffeine
Roarke wins her over using caffeine, plays on her domestic weakness, her love of coffee
Expresses feelings through food “for some reason I feel compelled to feed you.”
Roarke is domestic caretaker – puts her gloves in her pockets
On surface she has transcended domestic demands, via technology and wealth
But deceptive: domesticity is also realm of girlness, relationships
But she has resisted this
Roarke notes her apartment – she exists here, she doesn’t “live”
Contrast Eve with women around her
She even asks Roarke not to leave her alone with “all these women”
It actually emphasizes role of domestic on a cultural level – shows what norms of culture are by showing a heroine who does not conform to them
Eve is aware of societal expectations of the good wife
“If I’m lousy at being a wife, you’ll just have to live with it”
Puts her resistance to domestic roles in even greater relief
And shows her love for Roarke – for him she is willing to enter a role she has avoided
Transformation on Eve’s attitude: “a black mark in my column” compared to Roarke’s “bright shiny stars”
Now her domestic relationships are integral to her identity as a cop (Roarke helps her, she becomes friend with other women)
Readers seem to like it when Eve is more traditionally feminine
“Challenging the –isms: Gender and Race in Brockmann’s ‘Troubleshooters’ Series, Margaret Haefner, North Park University (Media Studies professor, and Director of Women’s and Gender Studies)
[Haefner begins by quoting Sarah Frantz, to Sarah’s abashment and the applause and laughter of the room]
Importance of media for understanding of race and sexual orientation for members of the dominant culture who may not have much contact with members of minority racial groups
Brockmann has challenged heterosexism in everyday life
Also confronts normalized male privilege
Challenges to sexism via women’s body types and beauty, strength and capability, male privilege and nonwestern cultures, and male privilege in everyday life
Ex. Alyssa in Defiant Hero, knows not to smile at men for fear of being misunderstood as a come on, knows she won’t be allowed to get into the action as a Seal, because she “doesn’t have a penis”.
Also challenges racism: 8 major interracial and interethnic couples.
Two major anti-racist subplots. Takes on issues of identity and respect, and harassment.
Power to transform the way readers see the world
“Til Death Do Us Part The Institution of Marriage in Megan Hart’s Broken and Tempted, Glinda Hall, University of Arkansas, Fort Smith [Glinda notes she recently finished her PhD and notes that it was her pop culture interests that set her apart from other candidates on the job market and got her job]
She’s a reluctant romance reader – drawn into narrative, yet disappointed with HEA. Doesn’t like the idea of marriage as resolution.
Notes that she has just begun to think about marriage in romance.
Marriage is critical part of conflict in novel but not resolution. Both heroines are already married to page 1.
Hart was not treating sex and marriage as synonyms
Heroine’s sexuality is an individual’s sexuality, not as a role in the marriage
Broken (Sadie’s husband has become a paraplegic): “What happens when the weaker becomes the stronger, when my independence becomes a choice no longer?”
Describes sexual relationship with Joe as “pseudo sexual”.
Romance within a romance.
Discrepancies between their marriage relationships and those needs, versus sexuality and those needs.
Makes reference to My Secret Garden, Nancy Friday, collection of women’s fantasies published in 1973, one year after Woodiwiss’s Flame and the Flower
…someone referenced my work in an academic paper…?! Wha…the..wha?! HUH???
I’m pretty blown away by that. Can you give me more details, please?
And hello, by the way, thanks for this information. I’d be more polite with introduction but I’m frankly a little stunned.
M
Okay…wow…when I first started reading this, I didn’t realize it was just short notes. I seriously thought you’d written the entire post in haiku form. I even started counting syllables. My first thought was “WTF???” My second was “NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!”
It traumatized me so badly I’m going to have to re-read the post.
Sarah’s paper (book??) sounds really interesting. I don’t understand BDSM at all.
Megan wrote:
Hi Megan. No need for an introduction — you have visited once to comment on my post on Dirty:
http://www.racyromancereviews.com/2008/11/14/mad-to-miss-it-sad-to-skip-it-megan-harts-dirty/
Unfortunately, all the information I have is in the post. I’m at an academic conference on popular culture (I also gave a paper — I am a professor), and have been taking notes on the papers relevant to romance. The presentation on your books was pretty sketchy — she hasn’t gone that far into the research, but basically, she is arguing that you are breaking new ground with your take on marriage. The name and university affiliation of the presenter, Glinda, is in the post, and I am sure she would be happy to send you a copy if you emailed her.
JenB wrote:
I don’t understand much about BDSM but have learned a lot from Sarah. Her basic idea is that BDSM is not a kink or an “extra spice”, but a sexual orientation, much like heterosexuality or homosexuality. She argues that in mainstream romance BDSM has been treated as, at worst, a mark of an evil character, and, at best, a weird fetish that the hero or heroine overcome when they meet their true love. she says that even BDSM romance often fails to get the lifestyle right.
I am sorry about the elliptical form of the post. I did my best to capture the main ideas. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to rewrite my notes.
I realized I had been here before after I commented…I was so mind-boggled I didn’t pay attention.
Thanks for posting the info. though!
M
Hey, first, I’ll be hugely curious for your review on that Crow book. I’m intrigued, too.
And I love those caffeine observations on the Eve/Roarke saga. Sometimes little details like that are just huge. Like they’re the things that stick. I only read the first In Death, and the coffee bits really stick. The domesticity of Roarke. I didn’t not that at the time. I’m thankful you brought this to the surface for me with these notes.
Oh, once I realized it was just notes, I was cool. I was gonna have to make fun of you if you wrote a whole post in haiku form though.
Maybe we should have a haiku-review week.
Interesting notes on the JD Robb books. I have been doing a re-read of the series from book 1 on for about 2 months now and am more than half way through. I have noticed lately that there are things about Eve that are really starting to bother me.
Mostly it has to do with her lack of “wifely” feelings towards Roarke. I get that in the beginning this was not her comfort zone. I get that this is not an area of her life that she has knowledge of, or feels adequate in. I understand that and it reads as true to me. What has been bothering me mostly is her lack of effort. These are not areas that are in Roarke’s comfort zone either (not the wifely part – but the domestic/caring parts) but he makes an effort. He makes an effort to change his schedule so that she doesn’t sleep alone as often, he makes an effort to see that she eats and sleeps as needed, he makes an effort to see that she has gloves, or a coat. Eve does none of that.
In the beginning it played well – it made sense. But after nearly two years together the fact that she hasn’t learned to make the effort and in fact does everything she can to get out of playing the role of “Roarke’s Wife” when he asks her too doesn’t look good on her part. It shows a lack of respect for his work, for what he does. The continued digs such as “go buy another planet” show a lack of respect for the fact that he has built this huge company that employs thousands of people and provides income and food for thousands of families.
I understand that her work is hard and not on a schedule, but the longer I read the series, the more it seems she is using it as a crutch rather than making the effort to be the wife that Roarke deserves.
As a whole, I like the series. I like the writing. I like that it reads as one continual story, but that each book is whole in and of itself. I like the small cast of core characters, who grow and change and come together as a kind of family as the story progresses. I like that Eve is not magically healed of her childhood because Roarke loves her – that all plays true for me. What I am finding to be lacking is her growth as a woman, as a wife. Even her instance on not being called “Mrs. Roarke” is troubling to me at times. Sure while she is on a case, it should be Lt. Dallas, but if someone refers to her as Mrs. Roarke otherwise, why is that something to be upset about?
I guess my point is that reading the books back to back over an extended period points out how one-dimensional Eve is at times. I see growth in Roarke, I see growth in Peabody and in McNabb, but Eve seems to be a bit stagnant. I would like to see a softer side, a more traditional side to her more often especially as it pertains to Roarke.
Lissa wrote:
Lissa, I know that Tessa is aware of this concern, which many readers share with you. She mentioned it during the Q&A.
I wonder if there is a way for Eve to grow that does NOT involve turning her into every other heroine?
Even her instance on not being called “Mrs. Roarke” is troubling to me at times. Sure while she is on a case, it should be Lt. Dallas, but if someone refers to her as Mrs. Roarke otherwise, why is that something to be upset about?
Well, if she didn’t change her name when she got married (I don’t know if she did or not, as I haven’t read the series), I can imagine it would be irritating for her to be called by a name that isn’t hers.
Laura – no she doesn’t change her name when they marry, and I get that her cop rank is important to her self image, so I do understand her not wanting to be known as “Mrs. Roarke”. But there are social situations when she is there as his wife, and if someone mistakenly refers to her as Mrs. Roarke, she gets very defensive and corrects them. That is the part I don’t get, especially after several years of marriage. In that situation does it matter how she is addressed?
Jessica – I think it is really just a matter of Eve showing more care towards Roarke, more aknowledgement of his needs and feelings within the marriage. In the 20 books I have re-read, she has only taken the time to set up a romantic dinner or get away twice – while Roarke does it countless times. Even the sex scenes (which I don’t need much at this point in the series) seem to be more about Roarke doing to Eve, than both of them doing each other. (Sorry about the wording, I was trying to get the point across without being crude). The relationship just seems to be a bit one sided.
I don’t remember noticing this the first time I read the series, but then again, I read them as they came out, not all at once. I really like the series and think that Ms. Roberts has done a wonderful job with it. I tend to not read series that are more than 3 books since I think they tend to get lost after that – but this one stays fresh and interesting. I think for me the reason for that is because of the small number of core characters. When a series gets long and new couples/characters are introduced in each book, I get lost and forget who is whom and who they belong too/with. With this one, the core couple reads realistically (with a few minor flaws) to me and the secondary characters are interesting and add to the story as a whole.
All in all, I would recommend the series to anyone who enjoys romantic suspense.
But there are social situations when she is there as his wife, and if someone mistakenly refers to her as Mrs. Roarke, she gets very defensive and corrects them. That is the part I don’t get, especially after several years of marriage. In that situation does it matter how she is addressed?
I think there are at least two parts to this.
(1) Most people aren’t very pleased when someone gets their name wrong. If you’re called Lissa, and someone decided to address you as Elizabeth, wouldn’t it bother you a little? It certainly makes me feel a bit strange when someone calls me Lara instead of Laura. Being called by the wrong surname is similar. Being called by a name that isn’t your own feels odd.
(2) When it comes to surnames, it tends to be the wife who’s assumed to have taken the husband’s name, and not the other way around. There are certain gender issues involved in the taking of the name, or in someone else imposing a husband’s surname on a wife who hasn’t taken her husband’s surname.
I’d guess that Eve takes someone addressing her by her husband’s surname as an indication that the person calling her that (a) hasn’t taken the time to find out what her real name is or (b) hasn’t got the courtesy to call her by her real name.
When I see a woman react to a minor gaffe about a name, I generally assume she’s had some bad experiences. There are people who deliberately use the wrong name to put a woman on the defensive or indicate disapproval.
I agree that Eve seems a bit static, but IMO so does the entire relationship at this point. The series is truly not romance now, but a light mystery series involving a well-established couple. They’re not like Ann Maxwell’s Fiona and Fiddler, who break up and reconcile multiple times during the series. In a stable Eve/Roarke situation, I’m not sure whether, as Jessica said, “there is a way for Eve to grow that does NOT involve turning her into every other heroine?”
It bothers me to think that “growth” means toward a “more traditional” role. Perhaps it’s inevitable that since Eve is cast as a non-”traditional” woman, the reader wants a tonic resolution in which Eve is fully reconciled with self and society. I just don’t like the thought that she has to reconcile primarily with societal expectations rather than with self.
Laura – I understand what you are saying about the name, and about wanting to be called by your correct name. As someone who has both a given name and a surname that is often misprounced, I understand all too well the point you are making. I guess what I am trying to say (and not saying too well) has more to do with Eve’s attitude towards being referred to as Roarke’s wife. She doesn’t even like it when he does it – specifically when he uses the word “wife” and gets testy when others refer to her that way.
But at what point in a relationship do you just smile graciously and accept that in certain situations (such as a social obligation for Roarke’s company) you will be called by your partner’s name and just move on, without needing to correct the other person?
RfP – I don’t think that this series was ever intended to be a romance; it was always intended to be romantic suspense. Given that Nora Roberts used a pen name so as to have them published away from her romance persona, I think that is a given.
I think my point about Eve becoming stagnant has more to do with her personal relationship with Roarke. I want to see her make an effort to make the marriage a partnership, rather than Roarke doing the majority of the work. I don’t think her cop persona should change, I just want to see a softening in her attitude towards the wifey parts of marriage and a relationship. I personally think it would make her a more well rounded character, if we the readers were given the opportunity to see more than one aspect of her personality. I am not sure the character as written will ever mold herself into a traditional societal role as “wife” – I wouldn’t want her too. Part of Eve’s appeal is the struggle she has to reconcile having people who care about her in her life and learning how to deal with them.
Interesting argument– uh, discussion! I haven’t actually read the Robb books so I’m just going on the discussion here, but the women I know who have chosen not to take their husband’s last name correct every single last person who says it wrong, every single time. And they are still doing it 10 or more years after marriage. Graciously, politely, humorously, or crankily and bitchily — being gracious doesn’t mean accepting what people hand you, if you don’t want it.
The question in my mind would be, would you even notice if, after 20 books, Eve had cooked the steaks and lit the candles 18 times while Roarke had only done it twice? And that’s a genuine question, not a snark.
Nicola O. wrote:
I think in these particular books, the way the personal relationship is written, that yes, you would notice if Eve had been the one cooking the steaks and not Roarke.
Mostly because they are both damaged people who have no reference for good, intimate relationships; they are fumbling their way through. So each personal scene between them has impact on the series. There is not a lot of sex and romance and mushy stuff in each book – maybe 2-3 scenes per, so it shows who is doing for who.
I will agree to disagree and put away my irritation with the name thing. I guess for me, it is just not an issue to point out that you have said my name incorrectly, every single time. Though I have been known to purposly ignore someone who does it consistantly especially when I know that they know better.