Subject: I did that once ...
Author:
Posted on: 2009-10-24 11:51:00 UTC
... except the female character did it because she was suffering from a Sex Or Die scenario and her husband-by-arranged-marriage wouldn't do it. He killed her when he found out. It was damn hard to get the balance between "she had reasons" and "just because she's the woman doesn't make it a good thing".
I've just found the reason for why the crappy romance novels seem alike.
http://romance.fictionfactor.com/articles/romance101.html
*headdesk*
It's practically showing a sign to budding original fiction writers saying, "Write Original Suefics! Get Rich!" Maybe this is why I don't read many romance novels? I know this is original fiction and all, but... Erg. Does she even realize what she is saying?
I actally played this at one gathering. Works especially well at library book sales.
Go to the romance section and gab a random book. Points
Decription of the Sue or Stu:
First sentence: 10 pts
First paragraph: 8 pts
Firtst page: 6 pts
'lit' aspect:
Urple Prose: 5 pts
Key words (have to pick before the game): 10 pts.
The other part of the game is grabing a random book, opening to a random page and reading a random line outloud one at a time around the group. Keep going until you can't stand due to laughter.
Any other games out there?
Leto
…where they would take turns reading a really bad book and whoever kept a straight face the longest won. Verification or corrections, anyone?
I have a newspaper cutting about a re-enactment of the Inklings' readings at a literature fair on the noticeboard above my desk. Just a sample from her book Irene Iddlesleigh: "Speak! Irene! Wife! Woman! Do not sit in silence and allow the blood that now boils in my veins to ooze through cavities of unrestrained passion and trickle down to drench me with its crimson hue!"
I think it was mostly stuff written by Amanda McKittrich Ros.
It looks like fun. I don't know any other games like that, though.
There is money in it!
My friend and I wrote a Mills and Boone style short story. The beautiful heroine, and the devestatingly handsome (actual words from the text there) hero ended up with tongues down each others throats before actually exchanging a word of dialogue... No we are not sure how that happened either!
that sort of story can be amusing if read out in a silly voice!
to read romance stories that way, isn't it? In fact, I crack up when I try to read online romance fics that don't have a trace of logic in them. Or if they have purple prose. I can't really help it. They just doesn't make any sense to me. (Either that or the years of being roommates with a sister who read romance novels aloud to her boyfriends have finally caught up with me.)
I stopped when I found one in which the HERO mistakes the Mary-Sue for his brother's mistress, who he wants to punish for... something... and decides that the best way to punish her is to rape her. Yes. This is the hero, who thinks that women should be punished by RAPING THEM? So he does, and finds out that she is a virgin b/c she bleeds (like they always do) and then says, "Oh no! I guess you're not the woman I wanted to rape after all! I'll make it up to you by continuing to rape you!" and does, and then she decides she likes it...
And then John was a zombie.
Oh, this travesty really exists? Shit, merde, scheiße, mierda, and stercus! Do not want! Divide by zero! TO THE MUSÉE DES UNIVERS PERDUS WITH IT!
*takes a deep breath and counts backward from twenty by threes*
and also 粪, 배설물, and дерьмо.
but that's normal in Romance Novel Land. Some, ahem, "experts" of writing romance novels say that that sort of thing shouldn't be shied away from; the others say that those sort of things shouldn't be and the book should be happy and care-free. As someone who used to be addicted to online romance novels until I realized their cute little way of taking over my life, I don't care for either view point. Either the book is logical, or it isn't.
... is that kind of crap is usually written by women, who really should know better than to glorify violence against women. I won't say that anyone who thinks that kind of thing is a good idea should experience it and learn differently, because NOBODY deserves that (though I maintain that that principle should be applied to the writers who inspired the Wiki's Dubious Lube page, or similar) but they really ought to be told why there's a problem. Or at least there should be disclaimers on books like they have on fanfics saying "I know things don't work this way in real life but fetishes don't necessarily have to bear any resemblance to real life and I'm aiming at that particular market", because otherwise I can't help but worry if they're actually that oblivious.
while it disturbs me that people write about it, I couldn't give a toss about the whole "violence against women" stuff. For a start, it's like racism in that the card is being shown far too often for every minor offence (or even when nothing happened). Secondly, in my experience, ninety-nine percent of people dedicated to stopping violence against women are completely ignorant of or don't give a toss about violence towards men (and I'm not sure which is worse).
Yes, violence against men is probably not as bad, but without anyone commenting on it (when was the last time you heard someone say a case would "help raise awareness about violence towards men"?) we won't know exactly how bad it actually is. I mean, how many shelters are there for abused women? How many rape advice clinics? Hundreds? Thousands per country (or state, for the Americas)? Now, how many are there of either for men? I've only ever seen one rape advice clinic, which had about zero funding.
One shelter nearby allows abused women and their children inside, but not men, at all, ever. So is it only female children? Or do they kick male children out when they reach puberty? Because I am really, really f*cking pissed off with the "penis equals rapist" camp.
The whole point of feminism was that it was supposed to gain equality. While in some aspects, it's still trying, in others, it's gone entirely the wrong way and overshot its mark. Take rape trials nowadays. Once, the woman barely got any support (by my understanding). Now, the woman can sometimes get total anonyminity and the man's name is released, whether he's guilty or not. Pulling two cases from my head, take Craig Charles being accused of rape. He lost his job at the BBC even though he was completely innocent. When that was finally discovered, the woman was charged with perversion of justice but was her name ever released? No. Her reputation was fine. Take the Yorkshire Ripper last year(?). One guy was falsely accused and he was instantly named by papers. Even though he was later acquitted, that's his reputation ruined right there. Even if it's later reported that he's innocent, some might not get the memo, some might be suspicious anyway. That is just not right.
While I hate the politically-correct name, I'm probably a "humanist" in that I want mostly equality (true equality wouldn't ever work for our species and we shouldn't strive for it) for everyone, male or female, black or white.
Sorry for the off-topic and meandering rant, but I've been getting more and more angry over the past few years and if I don't blow off steam once in a while, I'm going to go nuts.
Remind me to sit you down and have a chat about the concept of privilege sometime.
if you were ever online at the same time I am. :P
Lies. We're both online right now. :P
I was just going by what was mentioned in the context. Romance novels never feature a woman raping a man who instantly falls in love with her. Some fanfics do, though, and I'm just as freakin' disturbed by those ...
planned to write a scene where a woman tried to rape her husband (before being knocked out), but the fic got cancelled before I got there, the rewrite isn't as Sueish as the original and no other fic I have fits (barring one, possibly, but I've got a ton of other stuff in that series already).
And why don't romance novels ever have a woman be the hero? Saving the man? That's yet another stupid thing I find about them.
... except the female character did it because she was suffering from a Sex Or Die scenario and her husband-by-arranged-marriage wouldn't do it. He killed her when he found out. It was damn hard to get the balance between "she had reasons" and "just because she's the woman doesn't make it a good thing".
What's that?
My excuse was that she was a recently turned werewolf and, in the days leading up to and just after the three days of full moon, werewolves have an overpowering urge to mate (I think I based it off a few legends I read somewhere, but I'm not sure).
Exactly what it sounds like. You have to have sex or you'll die, for whatever reason.
How widespread is this?
Of course, I can't mock it. I have a "Have Sex Every Few Hours or Go Completely Loony" but she's a nymph (all nymphs, male or female, have the issue), so it's possibly okay.
In Laburnum's fic, it's based on real life ferret biology. I don't know about others that use Sex or Die in their fics, since I usually avoid them.
My mistake for not specifying - if he was conscious he couldn't really fail to notice.
There is violence against men as well, but men don't come forward about it as often. They are embarrassed about being victims. There's never going to be any funding if victims don't come forward. And victims are probably not going to come forward if there isn't a place for them to go.
Bashing women only shelters is not going to rectify that situation. Some of these women are so traumatised that they do see every man as a potential abuser, and it is not going to help them any if they are forced to share a shelter with men (even abused men). I don't know how it works with male children reaching puberty in such shelters, but since shelters are supposed to be a temporary situation, I doubt it poses much of a problem.
Your comments about Craig Charles seem to make false implications. Wikipedia says he was remanded on a rape charge in 1994. Wikipedia also says he appeared in Red Dwarf from 1988 tot 1999 and several other BBC shows since 1994. If he was fired at the BBC for the rape charge, he was rehired shortly after, and the false charge did not cause as much reputation damage as you seem to allege.
Also, you confuse two issues here: that women are more often seen as victims of rape has nothing to do with the fact that in Britain there's the habit of putting the full name of suspects (of rape) in the paper. That latter one has nothing to do with feminism overshooting its mark. I'm pretty sure that female suspects are named relatively as often as male suspects. (I say relatively, because for crimes such as rape and murder men are more often listed as suspects). The practice is that victims get anonymity and suspects don't. Which I think is a wrong practice; suspects should get anonymity too (in the Netherlands only first name and last initial are given to identify them, unless the suspect wavers the anonymity).
"There's never going to be any funding if victims don't come forward. And victims are probably not going to come forward if there isn't a place for them to go."
That's exactly the problem. But no-one gives a toss to open, say, one a county and give it enough money to keep it up and running long enough to find out how many they actually need.
"Some of these women are so traumatised that they do see every man as a potential abuser"
Yeah, you'll find I have zero sympathy with that viewpoint. Same if a man thought all women were whores from the actions of a few (slightly faulty analogy, but whatever).
"shelters are supposed to be a temporary situation"
I think I read that a few people have stayed in the local shelter for at least two years.
By my understanding, Craig Charles lost his job for about a year. That's about a year too long in my view, especially since the lying cretin didn't get her name revealed. Suspects should never have their name revealed, whether they are guilty or not until they are actually found to be guilty.
"(in the Netherlands only first name and last initial are given to identify them, unless the suspect wavers the anonymity)."
That's smart. What do they do about teenage suspects (in Britian, they always seem to have anonyminity, which is, again, wrong in my view as the law says that, barring mental illness, people are capable of distinguishing right from wrong by the age of ten).
Yeah, you'll find I have zero sympathy with that viewpoint.
Nice to see that you don't feel any sympathy for victims. It's trauma that caused that view and when they get over the trauma they probably will also change that view. (Note: it's not a view that I think should be encouraged, but there are circumstance in which I think it's not the first priority to fight it either).
Money is not going to places were there doesn't seem to be a need for them (well, that's what the government claims anyway). So first, the government should be made aware there is a problem.
Interesting that you should find that all suspects should have anonymity, but teenagers shouldn't. (although you probably meant to say that for teenagers the same rules should apply as for adults).
Well, if teenagers had the same mental capacities as adults and would be able to tell right from wrong in the same degree as adults are supposed to, all age limits should be dropped to the age of ten as well. If a ten-year-old is considered mature enough to overlook the concequences of a crime he/she commits, he/she is also mature enough to determine which politician best represents their interests in parliament, is mature enough to buy alcohol and cigarettes, and is mature enough to consent to sexual relationships.
I doubt the law expects teenagers to distinguish right from wrong and the consequences of their actions in the same degree as adults. That's why teenagers are trialled in different courts than adults and receive different penalties (in most countries). In the Netherlands teenage trials are behind closed doors (no public admitted) and at least the same anonymity as adults.
"Nice to see that you don't feel any sympathy for victims."
Not ones that are that stupid, anyway. I've read a story in a paper once about a woman who had been raped and then refused to even talk to her husband or two sons (one of whom was five) because "ZOMG men are evil!" A five year old. Let me repeat that: five. *sighs* Unsurprisingly, I think the man requested a divorce and custody of the three children (and I hope he got it, too). If I ever find myself feeling that, for instance, all women are evil monsters because I was tortured by one (or something. I'm pulling hypotheses out of my rear here), I'd do whatever I could to rid myself of that view as soon as possible or, failing that, something extreme because I'd feel wrong somehow because I know it's not true and I wouldn't want to live feeling like it was.
"Money is not going to places were there doesn't seem to be a need for them"
It doesn't go anywhere else, either.
"(although you probably meant to say that for teenagers the same rules should apply as for adults)."
Sorry, that's what I meant. I should have been clearer.
"If a ten-year-old is considered mature enough to overlook the concequences of a crime he/she commits, he/she is also mature enough to determine which politician best represents their interests in parliament, is mature enough to buy alcohol and cigarettes, and is mature enough to consent to sexual relationships."
I think that crime is a different thing from, say, voting. Crime is obvious that it's wrong. It's wrong to steal. It's wrong to murder. Voting, however, has all sorts of gray areas and, frankly, I wouldn't want a bunch of hyperactive ten year olds swinging the balance of power (though they'd probably vote the same as their parents or for whoever's at the top of the form at that age).
Alcohol and cigarettes, no, because they pose a health risk. I think the age limits should be lower (I can't buy cigarettes for my house-bound, severely disabled mother because I don't feel I should have to pay for photo ID to prove I'm over eighteen), but not down to ten. Maybe sixteen, like they used to be. Of course, the government also needs to get off it's rear and tackle binge drinking and everything before that could happen.
Sex, I won't comment on. I don't know enough about the myriad laws to say anything (though ten year olds generally aren't functioning anyway, so it wouldn't matter). I will say that, based on the fiction I've read and write, I'm fine with fifteen-year-olds having sex (fourteen, pushing it, but okay depending on what's happening (say, a nervous first time)).
"I doubt the law expects teenagers to distinguish right from wrong and the consequences of their actions in the same degree as adults."
For minor offences, I think I agree. But for some of the things that yobs have been doing lately, I think they need to be punished as adults, regardless of age. Then again, I also think that British law needs to buck up it's ideas and actually punish criminals properly.
You say 'I've read a story in a paper once about a woman who had been raped and then refused to even talk to her husband or two sons (one of whom was five) because "ZOMG men are evil!"'
Er, just one little thing here, but ... trauma is not rational. Fear is not rational. The little gut, knee-jerk reactions you have to things are not rational.
I got followed home from the bus stop in the dark once by a drunk man who would not take hints to leave me alone. It sounds minor, doesn't it. Trivial.
I wasn't able to walk home from the bus on my own for two months after that, because I was afraid. I knew it was minor, and trivial, and irrational, but the fact of the matter was, I was too scared to do it.
So if you tell me that a woman who was *raped* was too scared to have contact with men, any men, even her own male child, afterwards, I'm going to tell you that I am not surprised. In fact what surprises and humbles me every day is to hear stories of people who have survived traumatic events and can still function - women who were raped, yeah, but also people who've been in earthquakes, or burning buildings, children who were abused. Hell, dogs that were beaten.
Trauma. It's called 'trauma' because it's traumatic. It affects you. It messes you up. You cannot expect someone who's been through major trauma to just get up the next day and move on with their lives like nothing's happened.
not rational and then there's not rational. He was five. What the hell was he going to do?
And I'd like to say sorry if I've offended anyone. I have very extreme views. I either really agree or really disagree with something, rarely anywhere in the middle. I've been told (though not quite sure if it's true or not) that it has something to do with my Asperger's Syndrome. Regardless, sorry if I've offended anyone. I don't mean to do that.
You do know having Asperger's doesn't give you a free pass to speak without engaging your brain, right? And your "extreme" views could actually be construed as pretty offensive?
Also, I apologised as well.
Apology accepted for the time being, but I'd like to make a sweeping general statement for the future.
Most people on here see my livejournal; they've an idea of who I am. They could tell you without batting an eyelid that I am an angry drunk. (hS I know will back me up here as we're still Not Speaking; I expect others could too.) Anyone who follows my lj will also know very well that one of my Rage Buttons is sexual abuse in any form. Though I'd rather not, I know full well I've a reputation in these PPC parts for being an obstreperous and argumentative drunk.
You've already denied the legitimacy behind the primary source of my obstinacy and obstreperousness. According to you, I should have just "got over it". I could fill several dozen posts about why, quite simply, you're WRONG in that these things can simply be "got over". However, I feel this is a conversation for another day, and a conversation that does not need to be had in such a public forum.
I will, however, ask, quite sincerely, that you NOT use your Asperger's to excuse your total lack of trigger warnings, and to not exculpate yourself of all blame for the cuts and bruises I currently sport after having innocently clicked your first post in this thread without due warning. Yes, it was satisfying, beating the shit out of a wall and ripping my knuckles to shreds and causing myself enough physical pain that I couldn't focus on anything mental. But I don't want to be in that head state. And, so far as you've said, I've no ...ing business being in that head state, I should have got over this shit twenty years ago.
I have not yet got over this shit. According to you I should have, and I am sorry to disappoint, but until you can handle the fact that I am not, alas, able to fit your pretty happy view of all the world's weirdnesses in boxes, then I am not going to happily smile and nod while you use your Asperger's to accuse me of crying wolf, belittle a ridiculously large percentage of the world's population, walk into the standard privileged white male trap, and while you tell me that I should just suck it up and deal with it because you poor boys have so many problems too.
tl;dr: Will you put a ...ing trigger warning on it next time? Because I do not need to read this bile over breakfast.
*is cowed*
Sorry. I wasn't saying my Asperger's was a catch-all excuse. I said I wasn't even certain if it was to blame.
I'm... I'm sorry. *vanishs*
Don't use it as an excuse. Have the courage of your convictions, and argue them as your own. If you want to argue, I'll happily have that row. But don't use your Asperger's as an excuse for your own thoughts.
... wanted to point out that where you're erring is assuming that someone in this situation can make the same rational judgements as someone not in this situation :)
a general statement to everyone.
I post regularly in the "Battle of the Rapefaces Redux" thread on Twilightsucks.com, but really. RapeIsLove doesn't exist...
am I the only one nauseated and hypnotized by the icon at the top of the screen? Weird.
There is a market for them.
Get over yourselves. Not everyone wants to read high-brow literature for their entertainment. Some people like to read romance novels because they know exactly what these are going to give them.
Doesn't mean you have to read this stuff. Doesn't mean you have to write this stuff. Doesn't mean you can say that someone else can't read or write this stuff.
And yes, I think this person realizes very well what she is saying.
but the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think people should always expect them to be formulaic. (And I'm ranting. :| Oh well.)
Think about it. The more generic, formulaic Mary-Sueish romance books there are, the more fanfiction writers who write the same can say "but they do it and no-one complains and they get paid for it".
I'm perfectly fine with romance novels, but the issue I have is that none of them are interesting because they're all the same. Wow. Locations and character names change. Nothing else does. If the authors could simply even try to make theirs different, I wouldn't have a problem at all. I mean, even making the hero or heroine ugly would be interesting. Or the heroine a prostitute rather than shy virgin or seductress or some such other crud that all women should be according to these books. I once read an essay that said, with proof, that these books just set feminism back to the 1800s and it's accurate (the essay was scarily well written).
Romance novels are formulaic because that is what the reader wants. If the authors tried to be different they would not sell (at least not to publishers of romance novels; those set the standards or formula).
And I very much doubt they set feminism back to the 1800s. No romance novel will achieve that women have to give up the vote. I think that whoever wrote that essay was very much overstating the cultural impact romance novels have. (Would like an author's name and essay title if you have it. So I can see for myself).
I once read a book (too many pages to be called an essay) by a feminist who reads romance novels in which she tries to find out why she reads these. Which I think is a good indicator that romance novels don't squelch feminism; feminists have their guilty pleasures too. That people like to read about something doesn't mean they like to live it. (Foute fantasieën by Marjan Slob; I don't think there's an English translation)
As for the fanfiction authors taking romance novels as their examples: as long as they keep the canon characters in character I have no beef with them. Probably wouldn't finish reading their story though.
I read the essay three, maybe four, years ago. When you also know that I can't remember what I had for supper last week or that I can walk into a room and instantly forget what I had planned to say five seconds before, you'll understand the chances of me remembering the essay title and author name from that long ago.
I object to the Secondary Character and Story Basics bits!
No story should be formulaic! None, I say! None!
Now you got a /theme song/ playing in my head. Again. At least it's a good theme song, or selection thereof.
Now you got a /theme song/ playing in my head. Again. At least it's a good theme song, or looping selection thereof.
What sucks is that there's only about 23 kinds of stories out there (correct me if I'm wrong), so all stories follow some kind of formula.
I must say, though, they should be kept as original as possible.
Now that I think of it, calling it "original" fiction is giving them too much credit. Let's just call them the cliché-over-sappy-formulaic-Mary-Sue-infested Romance novels, alright?
So with you on that, I don't think there is a single romance book in my shelves!
I do own some romance novels. However, they both are the tamer, quieter, more original versions of their wild cousin romance novels. They are also both written by Meg Cabot, the only romance novel author I can generally trust to write good fiction, even though she does tend to ramble and have pretty characters. However, I don't think her plots are all that formulaic, because at least she puts a thought behind her stories and usually doesn't just make them about Main Character A and Main Character B. And she writes stories in different ways, tends to make her stories lovably funny, and she leaves out the graphically nauseating romance stuff! Yay! Needless to say, these books keep me sane after I see book after book in the bookstore romance novel section (as I pass it on my way to the fantasy section) entitled with something like "His Baby", "Fire and Ice" or "The Handsome Stranger". :)