Selah March

June 25, 2005

Second Verse, Same as the First

Filed under: blah blah blah — Selah March @ 6:14 pm

ETA 7/29/08: This one’s getting a lot of hits lately, too. Double-hmm. Might as well make it legible by fixing the text color, huh?

I knew the very second I embarked on our family’s full frontal assault on the state of Montana, those cunning vixens on the RWA BoD would pull a fast one. Not that the whole “definition of romance” thing comes as a surprise–that’s been simmering for some time now. But one must really take a moment to enjoy the irresistibly bold flavor of this dish they’re attempting to serve us. No pussy-whipped little Cobb or Caesar salad is this month’s special…no, indeed.

“Would you like your charred-to-a-lifeless-and-smoldering-crisp hunk-o’-cow-flesh with or without a parsley garnish?

What’s that you say? Medium rare? Sorry, no can do. Poultry or seafood? No, sorry, if you’ll check your menu, you’ll see those choices are not listed.

VEGETARIAN?? Ewwwwwwwwww. You must write for EC.”

Some folks seem to think we should be thankful we’re being given a choice at all–the choice between a definition of romance as being between “a man and a woman” and “two people.” I suppose they’re the same folks who think gay people should shut up about the right to marry and just be grateful they’re not being rounded up and jailed for breaking sodomy laws.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–the folks the BoD are listening to don’t give a rat’s ass that publishers are starting lines specifically for erotica, that threesomes and moresomes are hot and getting hotter, and that sales of gay and lesbian romance are on the rise. What they want is to be able to look the president of their local PTA/Junior League/Ladies’ Auxiliary in the eye and tell her they write romance, and not flinch because of whatever that president, in her ignorant, ill-informed, tight-assedness, might assume about the genre.

These are not businesspeople. They are hobbyists, who are more concerned about image than financial success. Woe unto them when they begin actively getting in the way of people who are here to earn a buck–and that would include the publishers the organization was in part set up to court.


  1. I’m sorry…I’m a little lost. If I’m reading this right, the RWA is now endorsing an exclusive definition of the term “romance” and will not endorse works that do not fit within the parameters covered by thier definition. Which is pretty much exactly the position they backed away from a couple of weeks ago, isn’t it? Am I missing something? Is this the same argument again?

    Comment by Donald Francis — June 26, 2005 @ 10:40 pm | Reply

  2. Selah wrote:
    “Would you like your charred-to-a-lifeless-and-smoldering-crisp hunk-o’-cow-flesh with or without a parsley garnish?”

    It does my heart good to see such stunning one liners first thing in the morning, lol!!

    RWA are showing themselves up to be quite a bigoted lot. It’s good to see that they’re still shooting themselves in their own foot huh?

    Comment by Karen Scott — June 27, 2005 @ 5:42 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: