The truly regrettable thing is that you’d have to be “one of us” to know that, though. Therein lies the problem with respect to both what they’re playing on and counting on. It’s done all the time and certainly not truly a bad thing. At worst it’s simply about being uninformed. It’s certainly no different than what newspaper, magazine and journals have been doing for centuries in many ways.

There is one major difference, though. Before those institutions couldn’t link to the articles in ways that we could find them instantly, so, conversely, they also couldn’t hook someone into picking them up and reading them by using keywords under false pretenses instantly either. Thereby making money off advertisements through webhits.

So, again I ask the question, just how clueless are they?

Wu, Huei-Hsia. “Romance Novels and Female Sexuality: Vicarious Participation?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Aug 10, 2006 . 2009-03-05

It turns out that the Bitch Buzz comes up a few entries before Wu’s paper.

They are not claiming to be romance readers or fans by any stretch of the imagination.
Unless, of course, it helps with an article.
Bev,
It does seem like an attempt to get some traffic by piggybacking on the recent major media stories aboiut romance and the recession. But who knows.

Oh, I think you can be quite sure about that part. Website subsist on search engine traffic nowadays and they build that traffic by imbedding keywords that pop up on said engines. So, just out of curiosity, how did you even find that article on a not-so-romance-friendly site?

See where I’m going?

I think that’s what puzzles me most. Why would you bother writing an article about it if you KNOW you’re clueless? So, it’s ignorant, pointless and insulting. Quite the trifecta, there.

When has not knowing what one is talking about ever stopped anyone from giving an opinion on it? Or from telling someone else what they should be reading or thinking?

Hmmm?

Particularly when those someone already see themselves as enlightened to begin with.

Plus, are you quite sure they know they’re clueless?

They are not claiming to be romance readers or fans by any stretch of the imagination.

Unless, of course, it helps with an article.

Bev,

It does seem like an attempt to get some traffic by piggybacking on the recent major media stories aboiut romance and the recession. But who knows.

she never claims to even like much less have actually read romances any more than the rest of them do – except as “guilty little pleasures” that they just want to giggle about and point to when they think it’s needed on the site

I think that’s what puzzles me most. Why would you bother writing an article about it if you KNOW you’re clueless? So, it’s ignorant, pointless and insulting. Quite the trifecta, there.

1) the article quoted seems pretty typical of the tone on the site when one searches for “romance novel”

2) from everything I can see about the author of it from her bio on credits page and a search for her other articles, she never claims to even like much less have actually read romances any more than the rest of them do – except as “guilty little pleasures” that they just want to giggle about and point to when they think it’s needed on the site

They are not claiming to be romance readers or fans by any stretch of the imagination.

Unless, of course, it helps with an article.

Not sure what more we can expect there in that case. (rolling eyes)

As the Smart Bitches say in BHB, there is writing in romance novels that will uncurl one’s hair, but there are also wonderfully written books, as good or better than pretty much anything else. So this tepid (damning with faint praise indeed!) “not that bad” just irks me.

I feel so empowered now.

@ BevBB:
The Smart Bitches snarked Discreet Young Gentlemen’s cover here:
http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/comments/those_fish_are_in_the_barrel_again/
“Not to mention they’re usually very affordable, written by and for women, and are often published by women as well.”
Which means you’re not a FEMINIST if you don’t buy Romance, or you happen to think RR is not the be all and end all of romance publishing. Shame on you, sistahs!

It’s possible I saw it at SBTB, but I still tend to think it was at BAM’s. The impression I have in my head “sounds” more like one of her book blurbs than one of their snarks. If that makes any sense.

I as going to ask for the Ravenous Romance link because I didn’t see it in the RtB article then realized it was in her sig – odd. All those chances to put it in there and not use them? Definitely amatuers no matter what they say.

Although there are certain aspects to the whole thing that bother me. I’ll comment about that a little later after I get my thought together.