Fiction_L Archives Bodice ripper vs. buster (fwd) Dates: 12/15/99,8:00 AM  through  12/22/99,7:48 PM  (16 postings) Search for: Select one or more indexes to search: 2011-current     2009-2010     2004-2008    1995-2003    (Matches from each index will be displayed separately in the results page.) Return to December 1999 thread menu   |   Fiction_L Archives Menu

FROM: <[removed]@orion.mtgr.mtlib.org>
REC'D: 12/15/99, 8:00 AM

Mary, I don't know if there is a highly technical literary difference or
not; I've heard both terms in reference to the same authors/titles. I
just prefer the "B&B" alliteration. Perhaps if there is a School of
Romance Apparrel Appellations, they could clarify. ;-)!!! BYE!

Marla/Great Falls Public Library/Acquisitions
301 2nd Ave N
Great Falls, MT 59401-2593
[removed]@orion.mtgr.mtlib.org

FROM: "Fiction_L" <[removed]@nslsilus.ORG>
REC'D: 12/15/99, 1:51 PM

Real romance fans hate both terms and find them pejorative. The
preferred term is "historical romance."

Mary K.

**********************************************************************
Mary K. Chelton, Associate Professor

Work: Graduate School of Library and Information Studies
254 Rosenthal Library
Queens College
65-30 Kissena Blvd.
Fllushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718/997-3667 direct/voice
718/997-3790 office
718/997-3797 fax

Home: 35 Mercury Ave.
East Patchogue, NY 11772
Phone: 516/286-4255 or 516/776-2166

nb Suffolk County's 516 prefix was supposed to have changed to
631 on 11/1/99 but when it actually goes into effect is still a
mystery.

*********************************************************************

FROM: "Dennis K. Lien" <[removed]@tc.umn.edu>
REC'D: 12/16/99, 9:48 AM

>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:55:08 -0600
>From: "Fiction_L" <[removed]@nslsilus.ORG>
>Subject: Bodice ripper vs. buster (fwd)
>
>Real romance fans hate both terms and find them pejorative. The
>preferred term is "historical romance."
>
>Mary K.
>
>**********************************************************************
>Mary K. Chelton, Associate Professor
>
>Work: Graduate School of Library and Information Studies
> 254 Rosenthal Library
> Queens College


And real science fiction fans hate the term that rhymes with "hi fi"
(and which I refuse to verbalize or type out other in than in required
direct quotation), but our battle has clearly been lost over the last
couple decades, and I suspect yours will be too. Sympathies, though.

(One problem, of course, is that "real" fans of any genre which becomes
popular soon find themselves in a minority among the new kids and
casual fans....)

Dennis Lien / U of Minnesota Libraries // [removed]@tc.umn.edu

FROM: <[removed]@orion.mtgr.mtlib.org>
REC'D: 12/16/99, 10:21 AM

My apologies (and this is not insincere) to any readers I might have
offended by calling your brand of reading a "bodice buster" or "bodice
ripper."

Now my question is: I understand (or thought I did) what the term "historical
romance" means. I thought this was an historically correct (as much as
possible) story with romance thrown in -- whether it was a romantic relation-
ship between 2 historically real characters or characters that live in a
certain historic era. The settings, plot, etc. follow a thread that has
some basis in credible history.

I thought (excuse please) the "bodice" type romances were those that were not
necessarily historically accurate, real historic characters, etc. I have read
novels labelled "historic romance" that it did not really matter where the
protagonists resided. Any background would serve for the characaters to
play out their love/hate or love/love relationship. Language, morals, etc.
seem to follow whatever would further a physical relationship rather than
what would be acceptable at the time.

So, I have gotten the impression now that any romance set in historic times
is considered a "historic romance." Is this correct? Thank you for your
elucidation. BYE!

Marla/Great Falls Public Library/Acquisitions
301 2nd Ave N
Great Falls, MT 59401-2593
[removed]@orion.mtgr.mtlib.org

FROM: "Deborah T. Walsh" <[removed]@dupagels.lib.il.us>
REC'D: 12/16/99, 11:16 AM

It's my impression that the pejorative term "bodice
ripper" was an attempt to comment on the sexual content
of the books, not the time period, accuracy, etc. The
earlier historical romances used plot contrivances in
which the heroine was often taken against her will
before she began to enjoy warm feelings for the hero.
The bodice of her gown was ripped as he had his violent
way with her. The subgenre has evolved because clearly
this is less appealing in the nineties than it was in
the less enlightened seventies, as more readers pointed
out that they did not fantasize about being raped,
contrary to conventional male psychological theory. The
pejorative has stuck to signify historicals with
explicit sexual description, or any historical with a
cover that includes bare chests and the clinch.

Debbie Walsh
Geneva Public Library District
Geneva, IL
[removed]@dupagels.lib.il.us
----- Original Message -----
From: <[removed]@orion.mtgr.mtlib.org>
To: <[removed]@maillist.nslsilus.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:22 AM
Subject: Bodices apology


>
> My apologies (and this is not insincere) to any
readers I might have
> offended by calling your brand of reading a "bodice
buster" or "bodice
> ripper."
>
> Now my question is: I understand (or thought I did)
what the term "historical
> romance" means. I thought this was an historically
correct (as much as
> possible) story with romance thrown in -- whether it
was a romantic relation-
> ship between 2 historically real characters or
characters that live in a
> certain historic era. The settings, plot, etc.
follow a thread that has
> some basis in credible history.
>
> I thought (excuse please) the "bodice" type romances
were those that were not
> necessarily historically accurate, real historic
characters, etc. I have read
> novels labelled "historic romance" that it did not
really matter where the
> protagonists resided. Any background would serve for
the characaters to
> play out their love/hate or love/love relationship.
Language, morals, etc.
> seem to follow whatever would further a physical
relationship rather than
> what would be acceptable at the time.
>
> So, I have gotten the impression now that any romance
set in historic times
> is considered a "historic romance." Is this correct?
Thank you for your
> elucidation. BYE!
>
> Marla/Great Falls Public Library/Acquisitions
> 301 2nd Ave N
> Great Falls, MT 59401-2593
> [removed]@orion.mtgr.mtlib.org
>

FROM: "Nora M. Armstrong" <[removed]@clsn1269.cumberland.lib.nc.us>
REC'D: 12/16/99, 11:30 AM

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 [removed]@orion.mtgr.mtlib.org wrote:

>
> My apologies (and this is not insincere) to any readers I might have
> offended by calling your brand of reading a "bodice buster" or "bodice
> ripper."
>
> So, I have gotten the impression now that any romance set in historic times
> is considered a "historic romance." Is this correct? Thank you for your
> elucidation. BYE!
>
Marla--

HI! Yes, any romance set in the past is correctly called a "historical
romance." The only exception I can think of offhand would be the "Regency
romance." RR's are stories set in the Regency era, with little or no sex,
and great emphasis placed on the manners and speech of the times. This
differentiates them from "Regency historicals," which do have a higher
level of sexual explicitness and whose characters sound much more modern
to the reader. For example, Carla Kelly writes RR's, and Mary Jo Putney
writes RH's (but she got her start writing "straight-up" Regencies).

There. Now. Does this completely confuse you? And don't worry about the
term "bodice-buster" - my ex-husband used to refer to romances as "smut
books." I'll take "bodice buster" over that any day. :-)

Cordially,
Nora Armstrong
Cumberland County Public Library & Information Center
Fayetteville, NC

FROM: <[removed]@hlc.actx.edu>
REC'D: 12/16/99, 1:15 PM

C'mon guys!!! Have we become so immersed in the cult of political
correctness that now we have to watch the way we address a certain genre???

Amanda Barrera
Amarillo Public Library
(Unrepentant reader of Bodice rippers)

FROM: "Karen Stefanik" <[removed]@hotmail.com>
REC'D: 12/16/99, 1:19 PM

Hi Marla--I just wanted to clarify some of your phrasing below. A
historical romance is a love story set in a historical time period. With
romances, the main focus of the books is on the ROMANCE. If you read a book
that is set in a historical period and a romance story is "thrown in", then
the book is not really a historical romance, it is just a historical novel.

As for classifying a historical romance by its accuracy to the time period
in question, I think these days it no longer applies. Most authors must
thoroughly research their time period, because the readers WILL catch any
mistakes. Some authors are more thorough than others however. The term
"bodice-ripper" had more to do with the attitude of the hero toward the
heroine (i.e. forceful hero), than with any particular time period.

Karen

>From: [removed]@orion.mtgr.mtlib.org
>
>
>Now my question is: I understand (or thought I did) what the term
>"historical romance" means. I thought this was an historically correct (as
>much as possible) story with romance thrown in -- whether it was a romantic
>relation-ship between 2 historically real characters or characters that
>live in a certain historic era. The settings, plot, etc. follow a thread
>that has some basis in credible history.
>
>I thought (excuse please) the "bodice" type romances were those that were
>not necessarily historically accurate, real historic characters, etc. I
>have read novels labelled "historic romance" that it did not really matter
>where the protagonists resided. Any background would serve for the
>characaters to play out their love/hate or love/love relationship.
>Language, morals, etc. seem to follow whatever would further a physical
>relationship rather than what would be acceptable at the time.
>
>So, I have gotten the impression now that any romance set in historic times
>is considered a "historic romance." Is this correct? Thank you for your
>elucidation. BYE!
>
>Marla/Great Falls Public Library/Acquisitions
>301 2nd Ave N
>Great Falls, MT 59401-2593
[removed]@orion.mtgr.mtlib.org

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at <A HREF="http://www.hotmail.com">http://www.hotmail.com</A>

FROM: "Roberta S. Johnson" <[removed]@nslsilus.ORG>
REC'D: 12/17/99, 11:01 AM

> C'mon guys!!! Have we become so immersed in the cult of political
> correctness that now we have to watch the way we address a certain genre???

Well, I'll take up the gauntlet. My feeling is that bodice ripper is not only non-PC but
*inaccurate*, as Mary K. eloquently described. I wouldn't describe science fiction as
Bug Eyed Monsters (BEMs) either! The fact that the term offends thousands of
romance lovers also should be considered, but isn't accuracy dear to the heart of
librarians everywhere? Language changes to reflect cultural views, but always a few
decades behind. Let's lead the fight!

Roberta


Roberta S. Johnson
Adult Services Librarian
Des Plaines Public Library
[removed]@nslsilus.org
Opinions my own.

FROM: "Mary's email" <[removed]@scls.lib.wi.us>
REC'D: 12/17/99, 1:13 PM

I agree--while we should try to be thoughtful and sensitive, there is such
a thing as taking things TOO seriously. Lighten up. It seems almost
impossible to say or do anything without offending someone! We are
humans-NOT perfect.

At 01:22 PM 12/16/99 -0600, you wrote:
>C'mon guys!!! Have we become so immersed in the cult of political
>correctness that now we have to watch the way we address a certain genre???
>
>Amanda Barrera
>Amarillo Public Library
>(Unrepentant reader of Bodice rippers)
>
>
Mary Morris Hutnik
Mazomanie Free Library
102 Brodhead St PO Box 458
Mazomanie WI 53560
608-795-2104

FROM: "Lisa Price" <[removed]@MtLaurel.Lib.NJ.US>
REC'D: 12/20/99, 10:07 AM

I will add my apologies to this, also. I think I was responsible for the first
use of "bodice ripper" in this thread. I certainly didn't mean any offense. I
have heard this term used by others and thought it fairly descriptive -- the
artwork and frequently the text actually often include scenes of bodices being
ripped (either by someone else or because the heroine is well endowed). When I
think of historical romances, I usually think of something "tamer." I do
apologize again if I caused any offense.Whatever you want to call them, I will
keep reading them occasionally. I'm just glad I have small feet, or I'd choke
myself regularly.
Lisa Price
Mount Laurel (NJ) Library
All opinions are definitely my own -- and I've never been accused of not having
any.

Nora M. Armstrong wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 [removed]@orion.mtgr.mtlib.org wrote:
>
> >
> > My apologies (and this is not insincere) to any readers I might have
> > offended by calling your brand of reading a "bodice buster" or "bodice
> > ripper."
> >
> > So, I have gotten the impression now that any romance set in historic times
> > is considered a "historic romance." Is this correct? Thank you for your
> > elucidation. BYE!
> >
> Marla--
>
> HI! Yes, any romance set in the past is correctly called a "historical
> romance." The only exception I can think of offhand would be the "Regency
> romance." RR's are stories set in the Regency era, with little or no sex,
> and great emphasis placed on the manners and speech of the times. This
> differentiates them from "Regency historicals," which do have a higher
> level of sexual explicitness and whose characters sound much more modern
> to the reader. For example, Carla Kelly writes RR's, and Mary Jo Putney
> writes RH's (but she got her start writing "straight-up" Regencies).
>
> There. Now. Does this completely confuse you? And don't worry about the
> term "bodice-buster" - my ex-husband used to refer to romances as "smut
> books." I'll take "bodice buster" over that any day. :-)
>
> Cordially,
> Nora Armstrong
> Cumberland County Public Library & Information Center
> Fayetteville, NC

FROM: "Fiction_L" <[removed]@nslsilus.ORG>
REC'D: 12/20/99, 10:59 AM

----------
From: vlf <[removed]@cloud9.net>
To: [removed]@nslsilus.ORG
Subject: Bodice ripper continued
Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999, 8:37 PM


original message:

Subject: Bodice ripper vs. buster (fwd)

Real romance fans hate both terms and find them pejorative. The
preferred term is "historical romance."

Mary K.

**********************************************************************
Mary K. Chelton, Associate Professor

my comment:

Sometime in the late 1970's I took a reader's advisory workshop with
Dorothy Broderick, who referred to these as "lusty busty" novels.

FROM: "Amal Altoma" <[removed]@monroe.lib.in.us>
REC'D: 12/20/99, 11:54 AM

I agree... don't we have enough mental TERROR around? Sensitivity YES,
terror NO.

On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Mary's email wrote:

>
> I agree--while we should try to be thoughtful and sensitive, there is such
> a thing as taking things TOO seriously. Lighten up. It seems almost
> impossible to say or do anything without offending someone! We are
> humans-NOT perfect.
>
> At 01:22 PM 12/16/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >C'mon guys!!! Have we become so immersed in the cult of political
> >correctness that now we have to watch the way we address a certain genre???
> >
> >Amanda Barrera
> >Amarillo Public Library
> >(Unrepentant reader of Bodice rippers)
> >
> >
> Mary Morris Hutnik
> Mazomanie Free Library
> 102 Brodhead St PO Box 458
> Mazomanie WI 53560
> 608-795-2104
>

FROM: "Fiction_L" <[removed]@nslsilus.ORG>
REC'D: 12/21/99, 1:13 PM

A final comment or two, after ignoring the first go-round on this.

It seems to me that if we want to understand the appeal of books to
certain readers rather than suggest what we would prefer they liked,
we might try to understand where they are coming from. One of the
ways to do this is by examining the language fans used to describe
their preferred genres. Language is not neutral; it is in itself a
form of social action, and using non-fan words to describe genres is
a great way to distance oneself from those who read it. It is a dead
giveaway to the fans.

I also am sick of the term "politically correct" to disparage
somebody who suggests that there may be a different way of saying
something. It is almost never used in a positive sense.

On the other hand, I do agree that it appears that most of us live to
be offended these days, which is a big pain, but there is a
distinction between a messenger who points out something possibly
useful someone saying she's offended. Don't kill the messenger.

Having said that, I would appreciate fan terms for what I termed in
my "books I hate" post to be "prissy" British mysteries. I would
never use the term, "prissy," to a real fan of such books, but I
could stand some terms that made me seem much more professionally
sympathetic to them, and it would make me a better RA teacher.

Thank you for this cathartic moment!

Mary K.

>I agree... don't we have enough mental TERROR around? Sensitivity YES,
>terror NO.
>
>On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Mary's email wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree--while we should try to be thoughtful and sensitive, there is such
>
> > impossible to say or do anything without offending someone! We are
> > humans-NOT perfect.
> >
> > At 01:22 PM 12/16/99 -0600, you wrote:
> > >C'mon guys!!! Have we become so immersed in the cult of political
> > >correctness that now we have to watch the way we address a
>certain genre???
> > >
> > >Amanda Barrera
> > >Amarillo Public Library
> > >(Unrepentant reader of Bodice rippers)
> > >
> > >
> > Mary Morris Hutnik
> > Mazomanie Free Library
> > 102 Brodhead St PO Box 458
> > Mazomanie WI 53560
> > 608-795-2104
> >


**********************************************************************
Mary K. Chelton, Associate Professor

Work: Graduate School of Library and Information Studies
254 Rosenthal Library
Queens College
65-30 Kissena Blvd.
Fllushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718/997-3667 direct/voice
718/997-3790 office
718/997-3797 fax

Home: 35 Mercury Ave.
East Patchogue, NY 11772
Phone: 516/286-4255 or 516/776-2166

nb Suffolk County's 516 prefix was supposed to have changed to
631 on 11/1/99 but when it actually goes into effect is still a
mystery.

*********************************************************************

FROM: "Fiction_L" <[removed]@nslsilus.ORG>
REC'D: 12/21/99, 1:15 PM

Unfortunately, I think she got that term from me before I got my act
together. I'm now working on her, too.

She's the one who taught me the prayer, "God, please forgive the
opinion I held yesterday," or some such. She revised one of her own
books once after a student read a quote out of it she had come to
disagree with.

Mary K.

>----------
>From: vlf <[removed]@cloud9.net>
>To: [removed]@nslsilus.ORG
>Subject: Bodice ripper continued
>Date: Fri, Dec 17, 1999, 8:37 PM
>
>
>original message:
>
>Subject: Bodice ripper vs. buster (fwd)
>
>Real romance fans hate both terms and find them pejorative. The
>preferred term is "historical romance."
>
>Mary K.
>
>**********************************************************************
>Mary K. Chelton, Associate Professor
>
>my comment:
>
>Sometime in the late 1970's I took a reader's advisory workshop with
>Dorothy Broderick, who referred to these as "lusty busty" novels.


**********************************************************************
Mary K. Chelton, Associate Professor

Work: Graduate School of Library and Information Studies
254 Rosenthal Library
Queens College
65-30 Kissena Blvd.
Fllushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718/997-3667 direct/voice
718/997-3790 office
718/997-3797 fax

Home: 35 Mercury Ave.
East Patchogue, NY 11772
Phone: 516/286-4255 or 516/776-2166

nb Suffolk County's 516 prefix was supposed to have changed to
631 on 11/1/99 but when it actually goes into effect is still a
mystery.

*********************************************************************

FROM: "MILLS Kirby D" <[removed]@ci.eugene.or.us>
REC'D: 12/22/99, 7:48 PM

I most often hear them referred to as "cozy" mysteries (and
cozy becomes a noun) although that also has come to
encompass similar stories set in the U.S. I've often found
that what a patron wants is the English village setting as
well as the minimal violence/sex aspect so I fall back on
"traditional English mysteries" for them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fiction_L [<A HREF="mailto:fictionl@nslsilus.ORG">mailto:fictionl@nslsilus.ORG</A>]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 11:17 AM
To: [removed]@maillist.nslsilus.org
Subject: Re: Bodices, smut, and sci-fi--oh my!!! (fwd)


A final comment or two, after ignoring the first go-round on this.

It seems to me that if we want to understand the appeal of books to
certain readers rather than suggest what we would prefer they liked,
we might try to understand where they are coming from. One of the
ways to do this is by examining the language fans used to describe
their preferred genres. Language is not neutral; it is in itself a
form of social action, and using non-fan words to describe genres is
a great way to distance oneself from those who read it. It is a dead
giveaway to the fans.

I also am sick of the term "politically correct" to disparage
somebody who suggests that there may be a different way of saying
something. It is almost never used in a positive sense.

On the other hand, I do agree that it appears that most of us live to
be offended these days, which is a big pain, but there is a
distinction between a messenger who points out something possibly
useful someone saying she's offended. Don't kill the messenger.

Having said that, I would appreciate fan terms for what I termed in
my "books I hate" post to be "prissy" British mysteries. I would
never use the term, "prissy," to a real fan of such books, but I
could stand some terms that made me seem much more professionally
sympathetic to them, and it would make me a better RA teacher.

Thank you for this cathartic moment!

Mary K.

>I agree... don't we have enough mental TERROR around? Sensitivity YES,
>terror NO.
>
>On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Mary's email wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree--while we should try to be thoughtful and sensitive, there is
such
>
> > impossible to say or do anything without offending someone! We are
> > humans-NOT perfect.
> >
> > At 01:22 PM 12/16/99 -0600, you wrote:
> > >C'mon guys!!! Have we become so immersed in the cult of political
> > >correctness that now we have to watch the way we address a
>certain genre???
> > >
> > >Amanda Barrera
> > >Amarillo Public Library
> > >(Unrepentant reader of Bodice rippers)
> > >
> > >
> > Mary Morris Hutnik
> > Mazomanie Free Library
> > 102 Brodhead St PO Box 458
> > Mazomanie WI 53560
> > 608-795-2104
> >


**********************************************************************
Mary K. Chelton, Associate Professor

Work: Graduate School of Library and Information Studies
254 Rosenthal Library
Queens College
65-30 Kissena Blvd.
Fllushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718/997-3667 direct/voice
718/997-3790 office
718/997-3797 fax

Home: 35 Mercury Ave.
East Patchogue, NY 11772
Phone: 516/286-4255 or 516/776-2166

nb Suffolk County's 516 prefix was supposed to have changed to
631 on 11/1/99 but when it actually goes into effect is still a
mystery.

*********************************************************************

Return to December 1999 thread menu   |   Fiction_L Archives Menu

The Webrary® and Fiction_L are services of the Morton Grove Public Library "Webrary" is a registered trademark of the Morton Grove Public Library. All rights reserved. Copyright of Fiction_L postings belongs to their respective authors; postings may only be reused with the author's permission. Compiled lists (compilations of titles or authors from earlier postings on a particular topic) may not be reused for commercial purposes. To use a compiled list for non-commercial purposes, please credit "Subscribers of the Fiction_L mailing list." All other content is ©2012 Morton Grove Public Library, 6140 Lincoln Ave., Morton Grove, IL 60053-2989, (847) 965-4220.