In which the dismissal of romance gets personal.
After the Popular Culture Association meeting in April, I approached editors for two series in popular culture and philosophy about doing an edited collection on romance and philosophy. We went back and forth, back and forth, as I responded to questions and concerns, and eventually neither panned out.
I want to emphasize that all my interactions were very positive and professional, and I believe everyone I dealt with acted in good faith. Maybe I do suck, or the idea sucks, and I am just too stupid to figure out why. It would not be a first. But it got me thinking about perceptions of romance and about these series’s gender biases in general.
These series on pop culture and philosophy are not written for other academics, and they are not peer reviewed. Rather, they offer a fun chance for philosophers to connect their love of some aspect of popular culture with their interests in philosophy. They are purchased mainly by pop culture fans. I have contributed an essay to one in the past, and had a lot of fun doing it. They sell really well compared to scholarly monographs.
When I first pitched a book such as “Romance and Philosophy”, I was told it was too broad. I argued that “the romance novel” is considered a single discrete cultural product (unfairly, I might add, but I was using what I had to work with) and that romance readers read voraciously, across the subgenres. A: No, too broad.
Ok, so how about a subgenre in romance, like paranormal romance? A: No, we already have a book on the undead, or we already have one on vamps, weres and mummies.
Hmm. Those seem pretty broad. But whatever.
Ok, so how about historical romance? We can call it “the bodice ripper and philosophy”. A: No. Our readers do not want “sprawling academic treatises”. We need something “iconic”.
Ok, iconic. Harlequin Romance? That’s as iconic as it gets in western culture. A: No. (no reason given)
Hmmm. I see you have a book on Neil Gaiman coming out. How about Nora Roberts and Philosophy? A: Probably not, but let’s see how the Gaiman volume does first.
Ok, now here’s what I don’t get. Between these two series, they have volumes on the following:
Anime/manga
Hip/hop
Martial arts
Food (yes. Just “food”)
Supervillains
Superheroes
Yet, “romance novels” is too broad? Isn’t “food” kind of, uh, broad? Isn’t anime/manga kind of broad?
They also have volumes on …
Monk, Breaking Bad, and The Onion
Yet, all the variations I proposed were somehow less iconic than these? Had less appeal?
I pitched this to two series in pop culture designed for a nonprofessional audience, not to Oxford University Press. I recognize that romance is not considered high culture. But if romance is not high culture, and it’s not pop culture, then what the hell is it? Are we saying romance novels are somehow outside of culture altogether? Are they not a cultural product?
We can argue about how to define pop culture, but on any definition I can think of, romance novels are it.
Here are some definitions:
1. Pop culture is whatever is popular –er, romance is popular
2. Pop culture is whatever is left over after you subtract high culture –certainly there are few who would put romance novels in the latter category
3. Pop culture is mass commercial culture — romance is very commercial writing, see guidelines for Harlequin lines
4. Pop culture is culture which comes from the people — romance writers are always readers first. An MFA and academic post are not necessary prerequisites.
5. Pop culture is an area of negotiation between dominant imposed mass culture and oppositional subordinate cultures — this is exactly how a feminist reading of popular romance often goes
I think romance novels are pop culture no matter how you slice it.
You might notice something about the various texts in these series. Most of them are the kind of cultural products that attract fanboys. Star Wars, Star Trek, The Matrix gets TWO books, Battlestar Galactica, The Dark Tower, Transformers, Word of Warcraft. Catching a trend?
All the books on musical acts are of male artists — Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Radiohead, Rush, Brice Springsteen, Johnny Cash. etc. Seeing a trend?
Sports? We have baseball, The Red Sox, basketball, and soccer.
As far as I can tell, for all of the dozens of books that feature pop culture products produced and consumed mostly by men, we have only two — Twilight and The Atkins Diet — that may be of special interest to women.
I found it amusing that a project on Gaiman was greenlit, but a project on Nora Roberts, whom I am guessing outsells him by a good deal, was not, for fear of low sales. (In fairness, I was told that I may come back and ask about the Roberts volume later.). I would think Roberts has so many more readers than Gaiman that she is a surer bet even if a much smaller percentage of her readers would buy the book.
But why even assume romance readers would not be interested in such a book? Why assume poker players and Red Sox fans want to buy a book on philosophy but romance readers do not? Any guesses? I have a few, none flattering to romance readers or women.
I talked about this at some length with my husband, who donned a bulletproof vest, stood 20 paces away, and tried to defend the editors’ decisions.
He said maybe there wasn’t a sense of what philosophical topics you could cover in a romance volume. But no, I gave the editors long lists of the possibilities, and anyone who has read this blog for the past year knows that issues of free will, identity, political structure, love, emotions, gender relations, sexual ethics, etc. can just as easily be found in romance novels as in the Atkins diet, for Pete’s sakes.
He then suggested that maybe they want topics considered “cool”. I readily admit that Nora Roberts does not have the coolness factor to many people that Neil Gaiman does. Romance is not cool.
Ok, they want cool. But then what explains the fact that they have volumes on Seinfeld, wine, Jimmy Buffet (!!??), Facebook (which both my 75 year old aunt and 77 year old mother use more than I do), and bullshit?
In fact, that’s a good way to end.
Related posts:
- Romance Novels as an “Addiction” I was looking for reviews of Mary Jo Putney’s The Rake, when I found a 2004 AAR Interview with her...
- Romance Novels in The Journal of Sex Research I reviewed Patricia Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold, which led me to consider the question of Rape in Romance....
- Polyamory, Menage, Erotic Romance, and Culture In this post, the word “menage” refers to a sexual activity involving three people, not primarily to a long term...
- Two JR Ward Papers at the Pop Culture Association Conference This was an 8:00am session at the Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association Annual Meeting (April 2009) with 4 papers, 2...
- Capitalism and Sexuality in the Romance Novel Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association Annual Meeting April 2009, New Orleans These are my notes, and may not reflect with...
- Romance Blogging Resolutions for 2009 So I remember what I planned to do, and can berate myself appropriately next year at this time. [I am...
#1 by katiebabs on September 1, 2009 - 9:39 pm
Quote
Romance bigots.
I bet if you decided to write about Harry Potter, Dan Brown or even Twilight they would have said okay. I just don’t get it.
Are there any woman in charge or only men?
#2 by Edie on September 1, 2009 - 9:58 pm
Quote
There is a million and one things that you could look at with romance with the philosopher hat on, and hello isn’t romance the biggest selling genre fiction there is?
Because we are women, we are too “stupid” to be interested in buying such a book on it?
They suck!
#3 by KristieJ on September 1, 2009 - 9:59 pm
Quote
My guess, sad as it is??? It’s simple and short. Romance is written mainly by women and for women.
#4 by Maili on September 1, 2009 - 10:05 pm
Quote
I think I can see where they are coming from. The romance genre is a genre that doesn’t have an iconic image.
Anime/manga – Naruto, One Piece, Bleach as well as specific figures with massive eyes (which doesn’t do the actual manga any justice);
Hip/hop – Uh, I don’t know their names but I know when I see iconic figures.
Martial arts – Bruce Lee and the like
Food (yes. Just “food”) – heh, Jamie Oliver, Julia Childs, etc.
Supervillains – Joker, etc.
Superheroes – Superman, Daredevil, etc.
Soccer – David Beckham, etc.
Romance – … can’t think of one. You tried with the bodice-ripper image, but I don’t think it’s enough, though. Did Barbara Cartland have an impact on the US culture?
I suspect they might accept it if the focus were on romantic films, e.g. Brief Encounter, Gone With the Wind (even though I don’t consider it a romantic film), Witness (which was written by a published romance author, incidentally), Romancing the Stone, and so on.
But yeah, I agree that it sucks.
#5 by Edie on September 1, 2009 - 10:09 pm
Quote
I would have thought Mills and Boon/Harlequin would be a big enough “face”.
ie. I was at the accountants the other day, the other acc’t popped his head in and asked what my business was, when I said selling romance books, he said uhh Mills and Boon, and now he has a Mills and Boon joke every time he sees me. *headdesk* And that is a pretty standard reaction from males and females from about 15-70.
#6 by lk on September 1, 2009 - 10:44 pm
Quote
Hahahaha.
So you never said if these editors were male or female.
Iconic image? Fabio?
#7 by azteclady on September 1, 2009 - 11:05 pm
Quote
Bullshit, indeed.
Harlequin is not iconic? For the love of … mantitty!
I think you need some chocolate. Or ice cream.
Or chocolate ice cream, with chocolate sprinkles.
In fact, I think I’ll go get some in your honor.
#8 by Robin on September 1, 2009 - 11:25 pm
Quote
Okay, so the prospective audience is not academics but pop culture fans. So I guess the decisive question for these editors was whether a volume on Romance would sell. And . . . would it?
I’m not excusing the prejudice here, and I’m not buying the idea that there’s no gender or genre bias. But I also have to wonder how many people beyond Romance readers would buy such a volume — I mean, we *know* the bias against Romance, even by fans of pop culture more generally. And even more uncomfortably, I wonder how many Romance fans would buy it. That last is an open question, actually. I’ve been frustrated sometimes by what I perceive to be an anti-academic bias in the community, so I wonder how many readers would dismiss such a thing in the same way those editors did, but for completely different reasons. Or maybe I’m wrong and Romance readers would snap a volume like this up with similar rapidity to that which we purchase Harlequin and Roberts novels.
None of this means that such a volume should not be written, that it would not be wonderful, nor that the editors are enlightened or knowledgeable in their rejections. I just worry that they might see more clearly the extent of the anti-Romance bias because they share it.
#9 by Kaetrin on September 2, 2009 - 2:37 am
Quote
I think your hubby is a brave man and he must love you very much!!
What about Sookie Stackhouse/TrueBlood – is that iconic enough? (or are you over it because you’ve already done work on the SS books?)
(Not being a philosophy person, I can’t say for sure whether there’s anything you’d like to explore in there but they are certainly popular and have an “image” which would sell…)
Then again, what do I know!
FWIW, I agree with you, romance is definitely pop culture and just as valid as any other. Those editors suck!
#10 by Laura Vivanco on September 2, 2009 - 2:44 am
Quote
I agree that Mills & Boon is certainly a very well-known brand in the UK. As M&B point out on their website:
Given the huge number of authors writing for Mills & Boon, and the number of editors they have, I suspect there would be significant interest within the group involved in producing M&Bs. Obviously not all romance readers would want to buy it, but the popularity of the Smart Bitches, whom I’m sure have the kind of audience who would appreciate a romance and philosophy book, suggests to me that there would definitely be a readership for this kind of book. Not that I know what the sales figures are for Beyond Heaving Bosoms.
Maybe they’re not interested in a non-US audience, though, so haven’t thought of the possibility that Harlequin Mills & Boon have international appeal. I’m not sure that the Red Sox have international appeal.
#11 by Laura Vivanco on September 2, 2009 - 2:48 am
Quote
Thinking this over a bit more, I wonder if the bias against romance should, in some ways, work in your favour. I mean, all these volumes are pairing philosophy (seen as elitist/difficult/high culture) with something very popular and low culture. I think quite a few people who aren’t romance readers, but who believe all the cliches about romance, would buy this as a joke item to give to their romance-reading and romance-writing friends.
#12 by Tumperkin on September 2, 2009 - 3:27 am
Quote
Interesting post. I suppose my immediate question is (not having seen any of the books in question) who buys these books? IS it Red Sox fans? Or is it a different audience who nevertheless understand a bit about the sport, enough to read philsophical essays about it?
You see, the thing that strikes me about the list you gave is that most of the things on the list have a certain cultural visibility. I may not be a huge Johnny Cash fan but I’ve seen that Jaoquin Phoenix film and I’ve got two albums. I don’t know much about soccer but I watch world cup games and it’s just everywhere. I may not be a chef, but I know about food. Even things like Battlestar Galactica and Transformer are on my cultural radar.
I don’t think the same can be said for romance novels. The romance genre is like a dirty little secret. New-to-the-genre readers often talk about it in terms of discovering a secret world. Its outer appearance is the very essence of generic . Few romance writers have any sort of individual cachet in wider cultural terms. I suspect Nora Roberts may be the only romance name widely known to non-romance readers and she may be pretty much onlynassociated with the sort of made-for-TV movie that they show during the day on UK TV.
I wonder if pop culture is actually something that achieves a profile and clear identity even amongst those who don’t share a specific interest in that thing?
Having said that, I have no doubt that you are absolutely correct about what you say re the gender bias. And coolness.
Personally, I think a book along the lines you’ve outlined would be a wonderful thing and that it would have an audience but I’m trying to think from the perspective of the people you spoke to.
#13 by Violet on September 2, 2009 - 4:02 am
Quote
Oh no, that is so sad. For me Nora Roberts is cool and Harlequin is definitely Iconic.. Hello? Can we hold a strike or sign a campaign or something?
#14 by Jessica on September 2, 2009 - 5:42 am
Quote
Kristi(j) — yes, I do think that has to be part of the answer, especially looking at what else is published.
Ik — yes, the editors are men. Maybe Fabio would work, but even I have my limits.
Azteclady — for the love of mantitty is right!
Maili and Robin — thank you. I think both of you have made points that help me see where they are coming from.
Maili – I see what you are saying, and had never thought of the iconic images in the other books that way.
Robin — I agree that’s what they think, but why assume that, say, Red Sox fans are more likely to by a philosophy book? Have you ever been to a Red Sox game? Not an obviously philosophical group, any more than romance readers.
I wonder how many romance fans bought the Smart Bitches book? I actually mentioned it in my pitch, calling it a “runaway best seller” but it would be interesting to know if it really did sell well. If not, it might bear out the idea that romance readers aren’t interested in exploring other aspects of romance. (So I agree with Laura there)
Kaetrin wrote:
This was one of the ideas, but no, because they already have volumes on Twilight and the Undead. I do see their point on that one.
Laura Vivanco wrote:
Yes, it SHOULD work. I can see initial hesitation of a nonromance reader, absolutely. My husband said, “If this was you two years ago you would have agreed with these editors” and he’s right. So I wrote very long emails with sales numbers, reader data, and conceptual arguments. But it didn’t work.
I want to add that the gender bias in the series themselves did not hit me until I pitched a romance volume. Once you look at the books that way, it is really evident.
#15 by KristieJ on September 2, 2009 - 6:14 am
Quote
My husband said, “If this was you two years ago you would have agreed with these editors” and he’s right.
*g* Well – at least we’ve brought you to see the light on romance novels. You have joined us now in recognizing that romance is a genre that should be respected for what they are – well written stories, often empowering for women and just a damn fine way to spend a few hours needed to unwind from a tough day. And I dare say your hubbie is now enlightened too
And it’s in large part to you and other such wonderful and intelligent bloggers that I’ve now come completely out of the closet as far as my own romance reading is concerned. And I’m now sharing my books with quite a number of coworkers!!
#16 by Laura Vivanco on September 2, 2009 - 6:44 am
Quote
I’ve had another thought: Harlequin recently had an exhibition of its cover art which included some pretty serious analysis and Mills & Boon had an exhibition like that too, which led to the publication of a book about M&B’s cover art. It wasn’t published by Harlequin, and I don’t know what the sales figures were for it, but it does suggest that Harlequin thinks there’s a group of people in the US and UK who’d be interested enough in HM&B to go to exhibitions about them and read some relatively serious analysis of the cover art. Maybe you could ask HM&B if they have any details about the attendance figures at these exhibitions?
#17 by Jessica on September 2, 2009 - 7:49 am
Quote
Laura Vivanco wrote:
This is a great point.
I guess the crux of it is that the editors assume that other kinds of fans want to engage with their “hobby” outside the normal channels, but romance fans don’t.
So sports fans don’t just want to go to games, or watch games on TV, but they also want to read a book about sports and philosophy. And Monk fans don’t just want to watch Monk on TV, they want to read a book about Monk. Etc.
But if there’s anything we can learn about Romanceland, it’s that many, many romance readers DO want to engage with their “hobby” outside of the original form of reading a romance novel.
#18 by Maili on September 2, 2009 - 8:10 am
Quote
You should focus on this angle when appealing against their decision. You could point out that the anime/manga crowd rarely spend their time outside the boundaries, e.g. Japanese-related sites, conventions, cosplay events, blah blah.
In spite of its impact on the US culture, it’s still largely an underground movement. If you ask a typical everyday person in a street if they could recognise this name: Naoko Takeuchi. I’m wiling to bet £500 they don’t recognise that name of comic artist/author of Sailor Moon. Do they even know who Junji Ito is? Hell, no. I don’t believe casual manga readers would know those names, either. What I’m thinking is, although some people may be familiar with manga titles, they aren’t necessarily familiar with those creators’ names. So one could argue that from an everyday person’s POV, manga is as same as romance: Manga = big eyed short people. Romance = a couple in the GWTW-style pose. In short, the majority of everyday people might be familiar with the concept of manga, just like they are with romance genre, e.g. covers.
I’m curious, though, how would editors react if you went for Japanese genre prose/fiction instead. I think their reaction to this will truly reveal their stance on the romance genre.
(sorry for editing the heck out of this. Am bleary-eyed.)
#19 by Victoria Janssen on September 2, 2009 - 8:46 am
Quote
I sing the song of patriarchal oppression! Maybe if you emphasized the sexual exploitation of women they’d be more interested.
*irony*
#20 by BevBB on September 2, 2009 - 11:16 am
Quote
You want a simple, meaning not broad, but iconic image for romance novels? Two words-
Cover art.
As unpalatable as it might be to us as modern readers, that will get your toe in the door in this sense and show them that people do both talk and read about romances as popular culture aside from simply reading them. And as Laura has already mentioned, there are decades and decades of cover art to illustrate how the books have changed over time.
There are books on this topic already but those don’t necessarily dig into the philosophy behind things. So, once they’re curious about the cover art aspect, the rest of it is pretty wide open.
Even collectors are just now starting to turn to vintage romance novels.
#21 by Janine on September 2, 2009 - 11:40 am
Quote
Jessica, I totally understand your anger.
If you’ve got your heart set on this project though, why not pitch it to other editors? Couldn’t it be published on its own? I don’t see why it has to be part of a series.
#22 by Sarah Frantz on September 2, 2009 - 11:45 am
Quote
I see what Robin and Maili are saying, and sort of agree with them, but I don’t think that’s what the *editors* were thinking when they rejected Jessica’s proposals. I don’t think they thought that deeply about it and I think if they were accused of gender bias, they’d be pissed. I don’t think they’re being really conscious about this decision.
But I think THAT reveals more about our culture than anything else. I still think they’re wrong, though.
And Jessica, would you really have agreed with them, or even in your unenlightened status, would you have looked at the list of other topics and thought, “Well, I guess Romance novels kinda fit?”
#23 by Sarah Frantz on September 2, 2009 - 11:48 am
Quote
Janine, I’m (obviously) not Jessica, but as an editor of other books, it’s really easy to slip into these types of series if they’re on-going and you have a helpful series-editor. There are well-established guidelines, well-worked avenues of distribution, and marketing happens as a series (much like M&B and HQN, TBH, which markets the brand name rather than the individual book), so pitching to another press would make it a lot more difficult because it doesn’t have that stuff set up, especially if they’re not interested *in* establishing a series like that.
Not that I don’t think it a good idea–I do and I’d love to see a volume like that anywhere. But it’s much more difficult a prospect if not at an established series.
#24 by azteclady on September 2, 2009 - 11:54 am
Quote
I don’t know how I failed to mention Beyond Heaving Bosoms, but there you have one example. And the Harlequin cover art is another–how about the fact that they are going to sell paper goods? memo books, notepads, etc.
Plus, seriously–all I know about manga is that it exists. Same about the Red Soxs. But people all around the planet have heard about Harlequin and romance.
#25 by Jessica on September 2, 2009 - 12:47 pm
Quote
Janine wrote:
I think Sarah explained it. This would be a labor of love (har har) for me. It would not help me with my next promotion (to full) for example. So I thought it would be easier just to get something in an established series. And I thought it FIT really well with those series, and still do.
Sarah Frantz wrote:
Of course not. As a philosopher I consider it a professional obligation to change my beliefs when they no longer correspond to reason.
azteclady wrote:
I know! That’s my point!
@ BevBB:
This is worth thinking further about.
#26 by Carolyn Crane on September 2, 2009 - 12:54 pm
Quote
This is really interesting! I had the same thought as your husband, romance is not cool. Or more, it’s not cool to like it.
Part of me thinks that, well, can it be so uncool that it gets cool eventually? I mean, even garden gnomes had their day recently. But part of me thinks that, because of the gender thing, no. I still think it’s just not as cool to like girl things as guy things.
But part of me thinks on another level things are shifting. I, too, came late to romance, and wouldn’t have appreciated it some years ago. I think more readers are converting over. One of the reasons is that there are more gateway genres, like urban fantasy and paranormal. Part of it is, well, did you see the Wall Street Journal article this weekend on the rise of plot, and books getting more reader-centric? I think it’s in the air.
Go forward with your book! I like the idea of a specific philosophical focus for it. Find another publisher, like commenter says above. I think those editors will be sor-ry. And then you will laugh haughtily in their faces.
Oh,on the iconic thing, well, I hate to say it, but Fabio, anyone? Though, yikes.
#27 by Carolyn Crane on September 2, 2009 - 1:06 pm
Quote
Oh, looking at your response above which came while I was writing this, yeah, I can see why you’d prefer to slip into an established series.
#28 by SarahT on September 2, 2009 - 2:15 pm
Quote
Were the editors thinking romance novels were lower than pop culture? If so, what are they?
As for the assumption that romance readers would have no interest in a book on philosophy: unfortunately, I think this harkens back to the belief that we’re all uneducated and of low intelligence. They probably believe you’re the exception which proves the rule.
#29 by AQ on September 2, 2009 - 3:28 pm
Quote
I do think “romance” is too big. Unlike food where I can imagine well all of my favorites, romance is just one great big blob. That’s not to say that the genre is a big blob. No, there are many different sights, sounds, textures and feelings to be found inside the genre. But that’s part of the problem, there’s nothing that just jumps out and screams “romance.”
Unlike the Matrix or Battlestar Galatica which have their own tag lines and high concepts known by a mass consciousness, I’m not sure that romance hits the same consciousness frequency. Also there’s something in the above visual stories that is there for everyone from interpersonal philosophical questions to ethnical questions about war, governement and morality. I take away from romances message is that love is the end all be all. Which would make a fabulous study but I’m not sure that romance novels really make a good argument.
Maybe. I’ve been trying to think of what might grab me or what I might like to explore.
Why not look at some of the tropes/characters?
Fated Mates
Secret Babies
Virgin Widows
Amnesia
Cops, Navy SEALS, military/warriors, cowboys, tycoons, aristocracy
The Rise of erotic romance
–BDSM, polyamorous couples, etc.
Beastly Love (a take-off of Beauty & the Beast as well as paranormal shapeshifters)
The Romance Heroine’s Journey: The Modern Woman Facing the Door of Razors
Journey Through the Abyss
Twisting Fairytales
I’m just throwing a bunch of stuff on the wall to see if anyone can take it and run with it. Or better yet, if it prompts some tangential ideas. That, and well, it’s fun.
RE: Sookie: But are those books really romances? I haven’t read them but I thought they fell squarely into mystery genre with romantic elements.
#30 by Laura Vivanco on September 2, 2009 - 3:49 pm
Quote
On the subject of what’s “iconic,” I think it would be fund to adapt the Harlequin logo for the cover of Harlequin Romance and Philosophy by swapping a cover model in The Thinker’s pose for the little Harlequin figure.
#31 by Robin on September 2, 2009 - 3:55 pm
Quote
@ Sarah Frantz:
What do you think the editors were thinking when they rejected the idea, Sarah?
@ Jessica: Were you responding to me or Tumperkin in that comment on the Red Sox? I’m only asking because I don’t want to ignore you if your comment is directed at me, but since I didn’t mention the Red Sox in my comment, I’m not sure it is.
#32 by Sarah Frantz on September 2, 2009 - 4:44 pm
Quote
@Robin, I have insider information, having seen some of the emails going back and forth. So, srsly, I think they were thinking, “Ew romance, girl cooties” or “LOL: romance?!” However subconsciously, or unconsciously, or whatever, that response, I really think that’s what they thought. And once they thought that, anything Jessica said was going to be shot down, one way or another. I also don’t think they know the potential audience they had and refused to actual process what Jessica was telling them about it. JMO. From not all the information. And probably my own prejudices.
#33 by willaful on September 2, 2009 - 5:10 pm
Quote
Great post, especially the very first and very last words.
#34 by Jessica on September 2, 2009 - 5:15 pm
Quote
More later, but quickly.. regarding what Robin and Sarah are discussing … if either series had a decent number installments devoted to pop culture icons gendered female, such as Madonna, or Janis Joplin, or Aretha Franklin, or Barbie, or Wonder Woman, or Xena, or the Williams sisters, or Prime Suspect, or I don’t know, Jackie Kennedy, then I would not jump to the conclusion that gender plays a role in this. But when you have roughly 40 titles, and at most 3 on subjects that can be considered gendered feminine, with dozens that can be considered gendered masculine, well… I don’t think it’s a big stretch.
Of course, no one says “think I’ll discriminate against women today” (well , some do). Rather, these attitudes are nested in androcentric ideas of what counts as “cool”, what counts as “culture”, and what counts as “worthy of study”.
People also tend to look at what will sell through their own lenses, as romance writers trying to sell their novels say over and over. If someone is not a consumer of romance, and couldn’t remotely picture themselves as such, it may be a harder sell.
It’s not the whole thing, and they certainly do have a vast knowledge of what will pass the editorial board and what will sell that I lack, but I do think gender is part of the story.
#35 by Nicola O. on September 2, 2009 - 5:20 pm
Quote
@ AQ: Oooh, I like that list. In the US anyway right now, I bet you could get some real traction with the military sub-genre.
#36 by AQ on September 2, 2009 - 6:11 pm
Quote
Jessica, why not go after the women of Battlestar Galactica since that was already an “acceptable” topic.
I would’ve love a Xena book or Wonder Woman. You’d think the Williams sister would be up there since they’re still playing high level tennis, writing movie scripts and generally promoting themselves. Heck, Venus is one of the women who pushed for equal prize money. Very iconic and they changed the face of women’s tennis.
Another show that was a cultural event for a while was Alias. How about Oprah? Rosie O’Donnell? Angelina Jolie? Desperate Housewives? Hey, maybe you could get that tv series that was a book series by James Patterson. I have no idea what it’s called though.
Okay, now me want a book with one of the topics touched in this post. There has got to be something that will make them give you the green light.
Nicola O.The military hero does nothing for me personally. Cops either. But turn them into warriors and I’m okay with it. Still don’t seek them out but I can lose myself in the story easier. That said, I would love to explore that character trope and the cultural consciousness behind it. Even if it’s only/mainly a US consciousness.
#37 by BevBB on September 2, 2009 - 6:15 pm
Quote
I’m not sure how it is in academia but in terms of actually collecting the items, quite a lot of this stuff is still skewed towards males. Still sold towards males. Is it possible that’s affecting their thinking?
I guess what I’m getting at is that it’s incredible that the romance genre exists at all when one thinks about it in terms of popular culture. I know that in the research that I’ve been doing on vintage paperbacks, it’s amazing how little acknowledgement that this genre actually gets from collectors.
And it’s the one that kept most of the publishing houses alive.
However, that may be what’s working against it in many ways. The very fact that romances have outsold all the other books, i.e. are actually more popular than all the other genres, means that there are literally-at least potentially anyway-thousands more of them out there to collect. Maybe. And in collecting terms, more does not create demand. Less does.
So the fact that the genre is so huge is a problem in terms of popular culture. As others have said in different ways, it’s about focusing in on things that create that sense of culture for the fans and turning them around into questions of philosophy to explore.
My personally favorite would probably be something along the lines of WTH is wrong with a “happily ever after” in a, cough, lurve story? And why do those stories have to be labeled romantic comedies to deserve them in so-called “popular culture”? (raised eyebrows)
#38 by Robin on September 2, 2009 - 6:18 pm
Quote
@ Jessica:
I also think gender plays a part, as well as genre prejudice, which is why I asked Sarah the question, because I thought that’s what I was saying in my original comment. So I wasn’t sure if I was unclear (not uncommon) or whether I didn’t understand what either you or Sarah was saying (also not uncommon for me to misunderstand what someone else is saying).
The interesting point of tension here for me is centered in my own question about whether some Romance readers don’t have an anti-academic bias that’s as entrenched as the anti-Romance bias you see in some corners of academia. NOT that the editors were necessarily thinking along these lines, just that there seems to be a certain mutual suspicion here that I find both interesting and troubling. Like you, I’d love to know how the SB book has done, both inside and outside the Rom community. That might be a good bellwether.
Also, I hope you don’t take my questions as resistance to the project, because I’d love to see such a volume and think that there are many avenues such a study could take (I think the cover evolution would be rich with possibility. In fact, have you seen The Look of Love (http://books.google.com/books?id=7ONpEbYVz-MC&dq=the+look+of+love&source=gbs_navlinks_s)?
#39 by Janine on September 2, 2009 - 8:02 pm
Quote
@ Jessica:
Jessica wrote:
I hear you on that. I would love to read such a book, and I’m sure it would kick ass if you wrote it. I hate to see it taken off the table, but I understand if you don’t feel you can undertake the effort it would require to get it published outside of a series.
#40 by Janine on September 2, 2009 - 8:07 pm
Quote
Robin wrote:
I’m not convinced that there’s an anti-academic bias among romance readers that is more pronounced than in the general population. Sure, there are people in the online romance community who don’t like long posts, uncommon words or intellectual discussions (none of which necessarily connote that the poster is an academic), but aren’t there such people everywhere? It seems to me that there are just as many people online, if not more, who do like them.
#41 by Jessica on September 2, 2009 - 8:23 pm
Quote
Carolyn Crane wrote:
thank you. I needed that.
AQ wrote:
I agree with you until the last three sentences. I actually do think there is a lot more going on than “love is the end all and be all”, although the love thing is front and center.
Thank you for the great suggestions.
And you’re right, Sookie is not romance genre, but has been embraced by many romance readers for the strong heroine and strong romantic themes.
BevBB wrote:
I think you are on to something here, Bev.
Robin wrote:
I agree totally that there is a suspicion there, although many readers have it, don’t they? This idea that when you analyze something you “kill it”. (what @ Janine said). Maybe the issue is the TYPE of analysis. Fanboy parsing of minutia is ok, but academics are not.
And no, I did not think you were resisting the project, but I would be totally cool with it if you were.
#42 by Janice on September 2, 2009 - 8:26 pm
Quote
I expect that they already have a “True Blood” and Philosophy volume in the works. And that they’re gearing it up for the hopeful release of season three of the series. If not, proposing that would definitely be a big hit with the series editors and the publishers.
I am irked that they can’t see how great the “Romance Novel” and Philosophy mix would be. As people are pointing out here in your blog, there are an endless array of topics. But I suspect that they imagine that women who read romance novels just buy their books at the local grocery store and wouldn’t ever buy something like that. As you say, given the long and varied list of other topics they’ve covered in these two series, it smacks of something unseemly, anyway you interpret it.
#43 by Robin on September 2, 2009 - 9:01 pm
Quote
@ Janine:
You’re probably right, Janine, about a general anti-academic bias, but I was focused on the notion that Romance readers would be a target audience for the book, thus my specific focus. Sorry I didn’t make that clearer.
@ Jessica: The subversive in me thinks it might actually be interesting to investigate the way Romance uses and abuses, constructs and disassembles, embraces and resists, writes and rewrites particular iconic images, from the gaze to the male body as it’s displayed on covers (remember that RWA survey that claimed “muscles” as the top hero trait?) to particular types like the femme fatale, dynamics like that in the virgin/whore dichotomy (and I’ve been thinking about Octavio Paz’s The Sons of La Malinche in this context lately), even the hero/heroine constructs. It just seems like there’s so much there, because of the way Romance is, in its way, all about the iconography of love and desire.
#44 by Sarah Frantz on September 2, 2009 - 9:11 pm
Quote
@ Robin: yes, can someone please write a brilliant article on the honest-to-goodness female gaze in romance: in the story and on and around the covers. THAT would be a seminal piece (so to speak).
#45 by Robin on September 2, 2009 - 9:25 pm
Quote
@ Sarah Frantz:
There’s so much there, too, that it would not be difficult to attempt. Except in the narrowing, maybe. But yeah, Romance is all about the female gaze, especially as it registers, interprets, and translates the male gaze. Which goes back to why the genre is subversive, of course.
#46 by AQ on September 2, 2009 - 9:49 pm
Quote
Jessica wrote:
I do think that there’s a lot more going on and that there are some absolutely amazing insights to be found within romance. However, when I think about romance in the most general of terms, “the end all, be all” part is the only way for ME to convey the umm entire blob. I’d try to explain that further but I fear I’d stray too far off topic.
Robin, I’ve wondered about this myself but from a slightly different perspective. I’ve noticed that when I read certain romances back to back to back that I find some disturbing (for me) underlying themes repeated over and over again. Now I know these books are fantasy just like any other genre of fiction and yet I’m a little leary of exploring what I see as a negative aspect of the genre because it’s already bashed so much and it’s so easy to be labeled as a detractor instead of someone who’s interested in fully exploring/discussing what I’m receiving from the stories. Actually, the other side of the coin is that if I think about some of these aspects that “disturb” me then I can’t/won’t allow myself to fall into the next story.
I perceived the publisher marketing to be geared toward more academic readers than the romance community at large. Of course that was only a perception based on a couple of radio interviews the publisher set up and how the book got categorized at the book sellers. If I hadn’t already been a fan of the SB site, I would not have purchased the book because I would not have heard about it or seen in the book store.
As a tiny aside: the young man who helped me find the book at my local Barnes & Noble was quite lovely and not condescending about the title or subject matter. Fun in fact. But when I went to the register the lady who checked me out rolled her eyes. I almost laughed because her entire body language changed when she saw the book.
…
So we need a book geared toward romance and women that can still be pitched to men. That sounds like sex. You could build a lot of arguments around sex and in the romance genre the whole sex/love “thing” is wrapped around trust. And…
Sorry, I distracted myself. Great discussion, folks!
#47 by Janine on September 3, 2009 - 1:03 am
Quote
Robin wrote:
You actually did make it clear, but what I was trying to get across with my comment on the general population was that I don’t think the audience for books about food, hip hop, or superheroes is necessarily any less anti-academic than the audience for books about the romance genre.
#48 by heidenkind on September 3, 2009 - 2:18 am
Quote
Romance isn’t cool? *cries*
I don’t want to defend the editors’ decision at all, because I do think they’re being asshats, but I read a post once where someone pointed out that while romance readers usually read across a lot of genres, other readers don’t read romance. E.g., someone who identifies themselves as a romance reader will still read mysteries, lit, non-fiction, etc.; but someone who doesn’t identify themselves as a romance reader won’t read romance. Maybe that’s part of the reason they won’t publish a book on philosophy and romance–yeah, romance readers will read it, but will philosophy readers?
Maybe it just needs to be marketed differently. Like the philosophy of the feminine popular novel (?).
#49 by Robin on September 3, 2009 - 1:33 pm
Quote
@ Janine:
Oh, I get it. Then we might very well be in disagreement, although it would take a more comprehensive discussion about the constitution of prospective readerships to hash it out.
@ AQ:Mimesis in genre fiction is definitional, to some extent, but I think what you’re talking about is more the repetition of characters, plot devices and themes that socially, politically, or emotionally make you feel uncomfortable. Yes?
That’s certainly something I’ve been very vocal about over the years I’ve read the genre, and at the beginning, there seemed to be much more resistance to the conversation than there is now. Or at least there are more venues now that will entertain those discussions, that want to have them, than when I started online in the Rom community. And it was disconcerting at first because I kept thinking it would be like my experiencing as a teaching assistant in grad school for a Science Fiction course. My professor was collegial, even close friends, with a number of SF authors, there seemed to be a lot of interaction between the academic and writing/reading communities, and the longtime readers of SF/F I encountered were conscious of the larger cultural and political issues as they filtered through the genre (in other words, they were consciously reading the genre as a cultural phenomenon, as well as a literary genre). And I expected the same thing in Romance.
Now obviously there’s a difference in the way that Romance has consistently been marginalized, and the way it’s been mistreated by the likes of Radway, which I think has instilled a certain defensiveness, especially in the generation that had to deal directly with the fallout from Radway’s book. Now I think we’re seeing some internecine struggled inside the Romance community about how the genre should be read and/or studied and/or regarded, but clearly the resistance to reading it “too closely” are still being registered.
IMO the mimesis itself is not an issue, but the way we see the persistent use of certain devices and tropes w/in the genre can be disconcerting, IMO, when the tropes and devices don’t necessarily match what’s going on in the story. That’s where IMO It’s beneficial to really take a look at what’s going on — is the mimesis automatic at that point, or is it thoughtful and deliberate? Do certain tropes become outmoded in the genre, or are they always purposeful no matter where they’re used? There’s a lot there to talk about, IMO.
#50 by Robin on September 3, 2009 - 1:39 pm
Quote
@ heidenkind:
I think your point about Romance being somewhat insulated is a good one. And IMO it’s further solidified by the way that Romance, like all genres, requires some understanding of the
“codes” we use in the genre without even being conscious of them many times. If people pick up a Romance already suspicious, and then they don’t automatically understand the way the genre works, it can discourage further exploration. All it takes is one book you don’t like to turn you off to something you didn’t want to try in the first place.
#51 by willaful on September 3, 2009 - 1:56 pm
Quote
Robin wrote:
I made something of the same point over at (IIRC) “the Book Smugglers,” when they had a non-romance reader review a romance. IME, it can take a while to get how romances are written and fully appreciate them. I tossed many, if not most, of the first romances I tried; later, with more understanding of the genre, I retried some of the same books and loved them.
#52 by Robin on September 3, 2009 - 2:48 pm
Quote
@ willaful:
Me, too. OTOH, I think it can be refreshing and instructive to see how a non-Romance reader finds the books we take for granted as worth reading. OTOH, it can translate into certain misunderstandings. But still, I do like the check on my own reading, because I think I’ve become more accepting of things in the genre than at times I think I should be.
#53 by BevBB on September 3, 2009 - 5:54 pm
Quote
Robin wrote:
But isn’t that because SF in particular takes on the political and cultural issues of society in a lot of the stories while romances are a lot more internal in the first place? I mean don’t romances have a tendency to only reflect the issues of the society they’re placed in because they’re primarily focused on developing the relationship between the pair?
I’m not sure it’s an equal comparison in the first place because of that. Not every fandom is the same or comes together for the same reasons to begin with. What attracts people to one “product” might not be what attracts them to something else that could be seen as very similar.
Can we even compare even mystery fans as a whole to romancelandia? Seriously? I mean knowing what all of you know about the discussion romance readers get into online, just how much do various reader fandoms have in common? Really?
They all buy books. But they buy them for very different reasons. Sometimes those reasons crossover but even that can be tricky and we all know it. Possibly we know it more than most because someone in this very thread was talking about how many romance readers are known to read across many genres.
So, just because romance readers read the books for the relationships and not how the greater culture and society could be affected by them long-term doesn’t mean they can’t sustain long and extremely in-depth discussions about what’s in the books on occasion. It’s just that different triggers get their motors going. Literally.
And that’s as it should be. The question is – what are those triggers?
#54 by Alanna Coca on September 3, 2009 - 8:39 pm
Quote
Love the post. I write romance novels, and I admit to lowering my chin a bit when I say that in public. Will there always be a stigma attached?
#55 by AQ on September 4, 2009 - 12:01 am
Quote
Robin wrote:
Yes. But I’d also like to take it even deeper and discuss what I refer to as cultural whispers. The stuff that everyone knows but no one says out loud because everyone knows. I think if we look for it, there’s a lot of it in romance novels as it pertains to cultural/socioeconomic/ethnic background of the authors and the readers.
But romances don’t generally insert those types of overt arguments directly into the text. I remember Heretics of Dune by Frank Herbert. The author explored themes regarding democracy, religion, scapegoating, genetics, environment, etc. He got up on his soapbox and said, “there are no innocents.” A very interesting concept that the reader got hammered with over and over again.
I just can’t imagine those type of threads being woven so directly into a “romance” novel.
YES!!!
Off the top of my head, why do many romance heroes display classic behaviorial patterns of domestic abusers? Oh, I know they don’t physically abuse the heroine but some of them are emotionally abusive and very controlling. Stalkers even. Why is virginity used as a plot device to prove innocence? Why are romance heroines generally given reactionary story roles? etc., etc., etc.
—-
Okay, Robin, since you mentioned SF and political/cultural conversation, I’m taking a brief segue. I just read Kiss of a Demon King because of the commentary from Jessica & Tumperkin. If I were to try to discuss that book in terms I would use to discuss a SF novel, I’d have a really hard time. The characterization is off. The author tells us one thing and shows another. Example: Author tells us Sabine is a plotter/manipulator. Umm…sorry, no. She’s reacting almost the entire time, doesn’t have contingency plans, isn’t aware of the true political situation or players around her.
There was also a great opportunity to discuss sacrifice, love and the potential ramifications from such a choice when Rydstrom decides to sacrifice himself for Sabine. There’s no real angst, it’s a reactionary decision (essentially what I call a reader manipulation/plot device). The kingdom wouldn’t really suffer any more than it already was since Rydstrom was deposed centuries ago and how important can that empire be when after all these years he’s willing to sacrifice it for a woman he’s been sleeping with less than a month even if she’s supposed to be his mate?
Emotionally, the thirteen year-old inside me buys it. There’s a cord that struck. Intellectually, it doesn’t play and it’s a major turning point to the story. The perfect opportunity for direct political and cultural commentary. What’s more important high concepts of ruling others and saving the kingdom or family, love, personal connection? Is a man fit to rule who would sacrifice his kingdom to save the woman he loves or vice versa? etc.
If this were scifi and that was one of the final turning points, I’d expect to have that conversation. The whole book should be setting the stage to have this conversation. Romance? Not so much because it’s a given that the sacrifice will be made and that generally there won’t be any ramifications.
Which is a real shame because most scifi novels would have the protag sacrificing love for the greater good. It would be interesting if romance made the argument that love was in fact the greater good.
Anyway, sometimes I wonder if romance doesn’t shoot itself in the foot by using the larger political/cultural issues as turning points but treating them so superfiscially/as story props. It makes it just that little bit easier to scoff at the whole without looking at the parts.
(Wow, I have to admit that I’m hestitating with hitting the submit button. Okay, I’m going to suck it.)
#56 by Laura Vivanco on September 4, 2009 - 3:28 am
Quote
I don’t think all romance authors do this. Jo Beverley, in North American Romance Writers, for example, writes that
and
Miles Vorkosigan in Lois McMaster Bujold’s Komarr has to make a decision about how to deal with terrorists who’re holding the woman he loves captive. He puts the needs of his country/planet first. Admittedly the whole series isn’t exactly “romance” and this is the only book in the series that I’ve read, but this book is the beginning of Miles’s romance with Ekaterin.
In a non-political context, there’s sacrifice for the sake of honour/duty in Mary Balogh’s A Precious Pearl, where the hero has to send the woman he loves away because he feels he cannot abandon his wife.
One might have to dig a bit deeper into the romance genre to find books like this, but they do exist and they make me think that there’s lots of scope for a book about philosophy which takes romances as a starting point. The authors of the philosophy essays wouldn’t be limited to discussing the most obviously romance-genre topics such as love, but would actually be able to write about lots of other issues which do come up in the genre and are explored in considerable depth by some of them.
#57 by AQ on September 4, 2009 - 8:20 am
Quote
Laura Vivanco wrote:
Neither do I. I was talking broad generalizations but the fact of the matter is that with the sheer number of romance novels published that the likelihood that a non-romance reader would pick one off that shelf that dwelved deeply into the mentioned topics is rather small, isn’t it?
No argument from me there but you really hae to get past the preconceived biases, not just of the editors but also the book buyers and the general public. I think DocTurtle from SBTB is pretty good example of someone who’s been amazingly open and fair about exposing himself to the romance genre. But how does he compare to the either the editors or the masses?
—
I once belonged to a weekly Socrates Cafe group. There was a criticism by one of members that the conversation/questions always swung around to WWII, The Nazis, etc. She flat out challenged us to see if we could manage a night without defaulting to “high” concept arguments and stick with arguments that were more personal and/or directly related to our more immediate surrounding/conditions.
I bring this up because I think as a whole a romance philosophy discussion has a similiar vein to it. It’s much more personal and immediate. And in our group there was a tendency to “flinch” away from the personal and move toward the “big” positions. It’s sometimes easier to turn the mirror away from ourselves and I think romance asks us to look in the mirror on a much more direct personal level.
The other thing I noticed, and this applies more directly to Jessica’s dilemna, is that when topics were proposed, it was generally the ones that geared toward high concepts that got chosen. Here’s a small sampling of the questions we discussed*:
1. Does love really conquer all?
2. Is psychotherapy a reasonable way to handle society’s problems?
3. Is the common good self-evident?
4. Is war ever moral?
5. Is relative thinking hobbling?
6. Are critics good for the art form?
7. What is the purpose of obsession?
8. Are there hierachies of evil?
Our group started out 95% male but by the end we had about a 50/50 split. Primarily white. All different ages (youngest 16, oldest in their 80s) and sexual identities (gay, lesbian, transgender, hetrosexual). Different income and education brackets. Different careers and no philosophy majors. Okay, we had one or two but they drifted away because we weren’t structured enough.
I bring this part up because we were a small group that met weekly. Anywhere from 5 to 10 questions would be submitted each night and yet the list above is pretty typical of the type of questions got choosen.**
So out of the 40 books that have been published what are the deep themes? How do the 3 books that Jessica identified as female topics play into those common themes or maybe they don’t. Maybe the editors don’t even realize how their picks fit a pattern. The question is how can you use the pattern to get the discussion you want.***
* Sorry, I could only remember the phrasing for the short questions and note that even though the question was worded in a certain fashion, the conversation initially got established by question originator so it could veer into totally unexpected directions.
** BTW: My neighbor thought I was nuts. Why would anyone go to a coffee shop to talk with a bunch of strangers about such meaningless drivel? LOL
** If I wanted to discuss a certain topic at the Socrates Cafe, I had to word my question in such a manner that it got chosen with only the question itself. We weren’t allowed to explain what we meant by the question or what areas we hoped to target until after the question was chosen for that evening’s discussion. It was a very interesting lesson in identifying patterns and honing down/packaging concepts with as few words as possible. Something I’ve been failing at within this thread.
#58 by Magdalen on September 5, 2009 - 12:14 pm
Quote
When I was a biology/philosophy major, I was struck by the concept of the universal donor (type O blood) and the universal recipient (type AB blood). Everyone with O blood can donate to the other types, but can only accept type O transfusions. People with AB blood can accept anything.
We have that sort of problem in the chasm between romance (as a genre) and almost all other genre fiction. People who read romances read other stuff — lots of other stuff. People who don’t read romances have preconceived notions about romances that are informed by everything EXCEPT actual knowledge. I’m not an anime/manga fan, but I’ve read one. Good luck finding someone who can say the same thing about romances.
Which still doesn’t get to the very heart of the problem, which has something to do with what I call “potato chip” thinking. That’s the idea that all romance novels are pretty much the same, and you just want to consume them one after another without much concern about flavor/quality/cost, etc. They’re potato chips.
I had lunch recently with an accountant friend of mine. I was surprised to hear that she enjoyed romance novels (we should wear badges or develop the romance novel equivalent of “gaydar” so we can find each other more easily), but even more surprised to hear her say that she couldn’t name a favorite romance author. Here’s an intelligent, educated woman with strong opinions on a lot of topics. And she can simultaneously say she’s a fan of romances *and* that she doesn’t even remember which authors she’s read. I was stunned. She even admitted she read them the way she would eat potato chips.
Whether it’s true or not, there is a perception that one romance novel is pretty much the same as the next, and to start talking about the relative merits of a Nora Roberts vs. a Linda Howard is a bit like comparing Lays with Pringles. Of course we know that’s absurd, but that’s because we’ve read — and thought about — Nora Roberts’ and Linda Howard’s books.
That is to say, those of us who a) read romance novels (and 98% of those who read romance novels are self-proclaimed romance fans) and b) see the differences, uniqueness, relative level of quality in the books we read, we’re the ones who can see romance as pop culture. We’re all type AB — we can read everything and we can tell the difference. I suspect all those editors you were negotiating with were type O — willing to donate their Opinion to the rest of the world. Try giving them a transfusion of AB blood in the form of a Nora Roberts novel, and they’ll have a bad reaction.
As we’ve seen…
#59 by Maili on September 5, 2009 - 12:29 pm
Quote
@Magdalen
Just wanted to say that I found your comment hilarious (the last paragraph had me spluttering on my drink) and tragically true. Thank you.
#60 by AQ on September 5, 2009 - 4:26 pm
Quote
@Magdalen: Great insight
@Jessica
How about something like this or if that wouldn’t work could we start a fund/grant to mitigate risk for the editors/publisher because now I really want to read about Xena, Wonder Woman, and whatever area of the romance genre you decide to tackle. (Notice I said AND not or)
I keep turning this whole thing around in my head. Discussing it with my neighbor, who’s anti-romance because it’s not her thing. But even she agrees the topic has merit. So is there anything that non-academia/non-contributor types can do to help you make this project into a reality?
As an aside: I saw Christine Feehan doing an ad for her latest Carpathian novel on Hulu today.
#61 by AQ on September 7, 2009 - 7:03 am
Quote
Okay, it’s not romance but she is a cultural whirlwind with worldwide recognition and really the magic of her moment defines many aspects of our society.
Susan Boyle
#62 by Sherry Thomas on September 10, 2009 - 1:02 pm
Quote
I didn’t comment earlier b/c I didn’t have idea what to say. But reading something online yesterday, suddenly a word popped into my head.
Sub-culture.
That’s what we are.
#63 by Jessica on September 18, 2009 - 10:10 am
Quote
For anyone who thinks publishing this volume would actually help my career, see these comments from a phil blog (not linking, I do NOT want to draw attention).
” My department met on Friday for a preliminary discussion of the junior search we’ll be conducting this Fall. [One of my colleagues] proposed that “any applicant who has a paper in [such a] book should be immediately placed in the ‘no thanks’ pile.” To my surprise, no one objected to the sentiment.”
“What makes the (overwhelming majority of the) essays in the series harmful is that they present themselves as philosophy, but are in fact incompetent bullshitting. So, the non-philosopher to whom the books are aimed is given a defective and misleading model of what philosophy is.”
“All one has to do is take a look at any of the volumes to find that they’re a haven for the incompetent. ”
Just had to share.
#64 by Sarah Frantz on September 18, 2009 - 10:44 am
Quote
Wow. That’s just….wow. I love our colleagues. Not.
#65 by Magdalen on September 18, 2009 - 1:27 pm
Quote
You know, I have a masters in philosophy (that’s the consolation prize when one discovers that one does not actually want the Ph.D.), so I feel I may be permitted to question one aspect of Jessica’s colleague’s screed: Incompetent bullshit is mutually exclusive of philosophy? Simply because the level of competence is insufficient?
Hey, I was in graduate school in the 70s, so I’m old-school. What we did & studied back then was known as mental masturbation. So it’s “competent bullshit” now? It seems as though standards may have slipped a bit. (Present company excepted, of course!)