The more I read about awesome organizations like WisCon and the Carl Brandon Society, or blogs like FeministSF, and awards like the Tiptree, I wonder why the romance genre, this genre that is purported to be “for women, by women,” shies away from in-depth discussion and deconstruction of the romance novel and the society that influences it. Here we have two forums for discussion between readers and authors (RT and RWA), and instead of utilizing it to the fullest, the emphasis seems to be on how to write sex scenes (rather than how to use sex as a piece characterization), creating “yummy” heroes (instead of creating unique male leads that don’t feel like a repeat of one another from book to book), and other topics that serve to increase the formulaic texture of the romance novel.

A part of me believes that feminist critique and organizations within the sf/f genre exist because women are marginalized within that genre; the romance genre is dominated by women, there is a subconscious attitude that there is nothing to fight (that opens a whole ‘nother can of worms) and that the genre is feminist because it supposedly frees sexual shackles and gives women a safe place to explore their fantasies.

Okay, a valid assertion. However, it never ceases to amaze me that many within the genre want respect, yet the moment a conversation veers towards critical discussion, the tone heats (I call it the “hater” syndrome wherein opinions are invalidated and misconstrued as someone tearing the other down; having a personal opinion is not applicable) and ye olde arguement: “It’s just a romance novel/entertainment/fantasy, it isn’t literature.”

The latter part always shocks me. Isn’t a bound work of writing literature? And on that note, weren’t a significant portion of works we consider to be “classic literature” originally popular/pulp/penny-dreadful/written for money? Not to mention that viewing the romance genre and “classic literature” as sitting on opposite ends of the literary spectrum is an insult to one’s intelligence–and isn’t very feminist at all. It seems sort of on par with the RT convention turning into bachelorette party disguised as a romance genre meet-and-greet to lessen the stigmas placed on both female sexuality and the image of the average romance reader being a middle-aged, sexually-deprived housewife.

When people do engage in critique of the romance genre, they are accused of “ripping the romance industry a new one” [1]–also an insult to women. It implies that women are sensitive creatures who need a “positive,” “nurturing,” and “sweet” atmosphere to produce their wonderful works. This leads me to assume that many view critiquing the genre, or gasp, reviewing a book with no holds barred as somehow “masculine,” therefore unwelcome within the genre. Really doesn’t leave room for the multifaceted being that is woman (and in fact, just human), and really buys into the myth that being “opinionated” equals being like a “man.”

Because of this, I feel “women’s issues” are handled with kid gloves by the romance industry. We’ll get the occasional debate on forced seduction/rape in romance, but the discussion hardly ever evolves into the issues of rape and female sexuality, instead turning into a slugfest over defending individual “fantasies.” Don’t get me started on the topic of fetishism within the romance genre. (another “fantasy”). Certainly tastes are subjective, but discussion should not be about likes and dislikes, nor “right” vs “wrong.”One wouldn’t read a “classic” without analysis of the author, the background and the history behind the novel. Why isn’t a romance novel allotted that same respect?

Perhaps the romance genre needs to be seasoned, the way sf/f and mystery was–perhaps within twenty or so years, we’ll be ready to view the genre objectively and honestly.

But that feels like a cop-out, doesn’t it?

YouTube APIA Month Tribute: “Asians Rock: What’s Your Story?”

Asia Society YouTube Page
[Source]

ONE MAN

A Chinese monk striding down the aisle was the first shock at countess-to-be Evelyn Stanton’s wedding. To watch him dispatch three groomsmen, unarmed, and to learn that he was white and the long-lost heir to the Earldom of Warhaven, was the second. He would be her husband?

ONE MISSION

After the slaughter of his family in far-off China, Jacob Cato found sanctuary. In a Xi Lin temple he learned to be strong, but now he had a grander goal: to reclaim his English heritage and the woman he’d left behind.

ONE DESTINY

Revenge. It poisoned everything he’d learned, everything he’d done, and yet every fiber of Jacob burned for it—just as he burned for the beautiful but very English Evelyn. Long ago, the conspiracy to kill his family had stranded him, lost Jacob in the exotic East and made him unrecognizable to his countrymen…and women. He had not forgotten that past. It was to make peace that he had returned. The manner was yet to be decided.

Here are a few posts about the conference!

Slam Jam: Evening One - Seressia Glass

Write Black:
Romance Slam Jam: Celeste O. Norfleet, Lisa G. Riley
Romance Slam Jam: Swagalicious
Romance Slam Jam: Keynote Luncheon/Speech
Romance Slam Jam: Author Beverly Jenkins talks about conference
Romance Slam Jam: Day Two

Black Authors Network
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

OMG! Beverly Jenkins has a pirate romance in the works?! Publish now!

Hopefully, there is more to come!

A recent article in the WSJ narrarated the journalist’s experience at Duke University, one of the many campuses across America where Senator Barack Obama garners an unprecedented amount of support (70% to Senator Clinton’s 30%) that crosses the lines of color, gender and class. “But after classes — and after the occasional Obama rally — most black and white students on college campuses go their separate ways, living in separate dormitories, joining separate fraternities and sororities and attending separate parties.”

Voting for Obama is an easier choice, a student interviewed said:

“When you’re actually trying to change your behavior, you are putting more on the line compared to voting in the privacy of the booth,” he says. “There are millions and millions of people voting for Obama. In no way are you sticking your neck out.”

I was struck by this article because it rather reminds me of the clash that occurs when the topic of racism and segregation in the publishing industry–the romance genre in particular–is raised. Everyone is whipped in a lather, and the trite phrases: “I don’t see color,” “I have friends/lovers/relatives of all different races,” or the doozy: “I just want a good book” are trotted out, despite evidence to the contrary. For a brief moment in the discussion, everyone is on the same page, patting their backs over having raised awareness of the situation and for their perceived tolerance and love for diversity.

Then along comes the “I shouldn’t be forced to read black romance novels” battle-cry, which signifies righteous anger against attempts to make one feel “guilty” (definition: “Responsible for a dishonest act“). The tide turns and suddenly, the participants trot out any variation of the “Author X writes minority characters and is successful” argument. As though ugh, it is your fault you’re not as successful as Author X, stop trying to pin the “blame” on me. The conversation generally dissipates by then, hackles raised and nostrils flaring, the haves pitting on the side against the have-nots. Then it withers away and a lot of folks feel the last sentiment is justified and go back to ignoring the issue.

And this has happened um…how many times? With the same non-result? Yeah…insanity (definition: “extreme folly; senselessness; foolhardiness.”).

The romance genre closes ranks when outsiders sneer at it and it is ignored by the mainstream, yet within, a group is marginalized and ignored. [x]

And dare I even go as far to wonder why sexuality trumps race within the genre? Very interesting how readers and writers will fight tooth and nail against anything regarding non-vanilla types of sexuality as abhorrent, yet crickets chirp when the lack of color (and even non-WASPs)–and no, those fetishized and offensive “savage Indian” romances, billionaire shiekhs, and Greek tycoons don’t count–is questioned. Or a more realistic scenario: no one even questions the “whiteness” of the genre.

I can go to bat with the best of them. If you were a frequent visitor to AAR, you’d see that 99% of my 500+ posts are just about books and reading, so I can never be accused of failing to put my “race” aside to discuss my enjoyment of the romance genre. But I do however, feel obligated to be conscientious about the dynamics that are in play within this stratified society.

One can say that the online romance community makes up a small percentage of the general romance reading public and has no effect on buzz, but the presence of a review quote from Dear Author (a site but two years old!) on the cover of Meljean Brook’s upcoming novel tells otherwise. If this online community possesses readers who delve deeper than sighing over cover models and gobbling romances indiscriminately, readers who are on the cutting-edge of the genre, why is this issue, a powerful issue, deemed out of our hands?

Via the POC in SciFi Carnival No. 9:

I had the line “It’s Nikki Wood’s fucking coat” long before I had a song or a vidder or a title.

Spike wears the long black duster from his first appearance on Buffy, but we only find out its history in S5’s “Fool for Love.” Spike relates his history to Buffy (in, it’s strongly implied, somewhat unreliable terms) and the viewers see how he came to adopt his Johnny Rotten persona in a series of flashbacks.
…Two of Spike’s physical identifiers — the scar through one eyebrow and the coat he wears — are souvenirs of the Slayers he’s fought and killed: the Chinese Slayer slashes his face during their final battle and he steals the coat off the body of a black Slayer in the ’70s subways of New York after he kills her. Spike responds, ultimately, to rejection by a woman by the murder of other women and by stealing their identifiers–their identities, their stories–for his own.

…Even in “Fool for Love,” it’s clear that Spike misunderstands the Slayers he’s fought as he misunderstands Buffy: he thinks that the Slayers’ lives and thoughts center on him, that they are as obsessed with his Romantic conflation of sex and death as he is. He argues that they died because they didn’t want to live enough; he argues that Slayers are as in love with death as he is….His denial that Nikki’s maternal feelings were as important as her role as Slayer once again erases her personhood–and it’s notable that the only personal aspect of Nikki Wood we ever see is another relational role defining her, that of mother.

Robin strips his mother’s coat off Spike before beginning the fight, but Spike wins and reclaims Nikki’s coat as his own, as a symbol of his defeat of Robin and of his triumph over his own unpleasant memories…the return of the coat by the head of the Italian office of Wolfram & Hart as an acknowledgement that wearing the coat represents the evil Spike’s done: but most of the time I just feel like the show is fucking taunting me, holding justice just out of my reach. And this is the problem, this is where I can’t speak in the detached academic tone anymore, this is not where the understanding of the character breaks down but where the understanding of the text does. Because ultimately the text argues what Spike does: that it’s Spike’s story that counts.

And Spike goes out of the world of Buffy the Vampire Slayer like he came in: wearing Nikki Wood’s fucking coat.

He might as well be wearing her flayed skin.

[Source]

I’m a movie junkie and tend to race to wikipedia the moment I watch a film for any behind the scenes trivia. This usually leads me to spend hours on the site, clicking on the pages for all sorts of actors, producers, writers and movies that were referenced from that initial page. Today my browsing led me to a number of Asian American actors from, surprisingly, the golden age of Hollywood. I also remembered that May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, so I’ve decided to highlight a few Asian-American actors and actresses who succeeded in the movie industry, as far as they could, in the early decades of the 20th century.

The first Asian-American to become a movie star, the career of ANNA MAY WONG spanned the silent film era, talkies, the radio and television, where she starred in her own show, guest-starred on others and hosted one of the first documentaries on China hosted by a Chinese-American. For her contribution to the film industry, she received a star at 1708 Vine Street at the inauguration of the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1960 and is depicted as one of the four supporting pillars of the “Gateway to Hollywood” sculpture located on the southeast corner of Hollywood Boulevard and La Brea Avenue.

Despite her nominal success, Wong nonetheless found her career hampered by American miscegenation laws which forbade nonwhites from portraying physical intimacy with white actors and long-held stereotypes about Chinese peoples. Raised in Los Angeles, Wong became obsessed with the films shot around her neighborhood and when not skipping school to visit the cinema, she pestered filmmakers for roles until she became known in Hollywood as “C.C.C.” or “Curious Chinese Child.” Her first starring role came when she was seventeen, in The Toll of the Sea, a short film written by Frances Marion based loosely on Madama Butterfly. This role, and subsequent ones, earned Wong rave reviews but Hollywood didn’t know what to do with her. Relegated to bit parts as “oriental” characters, studios nonetheless used her popularity to sell any movie in which she appeared.

Her big break came in 1924, in the Douglas Fairbanks helmed The Thief of Baghdad, where she played the stereotypical “Dragon Lady” character but managed to captivate American audiences. Recognizing that her heritage marked her as “foreign” to audiences despite being born and bred in Southern California, Wong deliberately cultivated the flapper persona popular at the time. She also made plans to produce movies based on Chinese myths, starting Anna May Wong productions, but a shady business partner put this dream to rest. After this disappointment, coupled with Wong constantly being cast in second-rate productions as a supporting cast member due to her heritage, she grew fed up with Hollywood and left for Europe. She experienced much success there, and ironically, when producers of 1930s Hollywood cast their eye on Europe for fresh talent, she was singled out. Enticed by a contract with Paramount and promises of lead roles and top billing, she returned to America.

She was granted roles in a few top movies, but lead roles proved elusive and the bitterest blow fell when MGM announced an adaptation of Pearl S. Buck’s popular The Good Earth and Anna was denied the lead role because the male lead would be portrayed by a white actor in yellowface. To finish her contract with Paramount Wong made a string of B movies who, because of their status, were largely overlooked by critics and allowed her to portray non-stereotypical Chinese characters. Wong remained in Hollywood until her death, starring in a few pro-China movies and popular radio shows. In 1951, with a starring role in The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong, she became the first and only Asian-American actress to have a detective serial written specifically for her. Her last movie role was in Portrait in Black (1960), explaining her long absence from the silver screen by a proverb said to be passed down from her father: “Don’t be photographed too much or you’ll lose your soul.”

Passing away a year later, Wong’s career had a lasting impact on Hollywood history. One of the few Asian-American actors in a time where Asians, the Chinese in particular, were viewed as “foreign” and laws were passed to limit their immigration to the United States, her success did much to “humanize” Asian-Americans to the general American public.

Courtesy of What About Our Daughters via Industry Ears:

The Parents Television Council released a damning report tracking BET and MTV’s afternoon programming. They tracked ever expletive, every violent act, every scene with sexual overtones. In other words, they documented what we already knew, its basically soft porn int he afternoon for the kiddies while you are at work paying for the cable that is corrupting the minds of the tots.

Well anyway, you don’t get to be one of the largest consumer goods companies in the world by being slow on the uptake. P&G in anticipation of some public outrage at the fact that they appear to be the largest funder of the Regime of B*tches, Booty and Bling, has set up a special 1-800 number for you to log whether you think they should “change” their advertising on BET or continue with their current funding of the War on Black Women, Men, and Children. If you want to participate in the poll, here are the instructions:

Proctor & Gamble Contact Information

Please call (800) 331-3774.

Then, press 1 for “English”. You will then be prompted as follows:

“Thank you for calling P&G. If you are calling about our advertising on BET & MTV, please press 1.”

(press “1″ here)

The message will then say,

“We appreciate your taking the time out of your day to share your thoughts with us. For your convenience, we’ve set up this quick and easy way for you to register your opinion. If you would like us to change our advertising on BET & MTV, please press 1. If you would like us to continue our current advertising on BET, please press 2.”

(Press “1″ here)

You will then hear - “Your opinion has been counted and is being shared with the appropriate people in our company. For more information on our company, please visit us at www.pg.com. Thank you.” END OF RECORDING!

Read more here about this heinous crime, and the lack of media coverage, lack response from so-called black leaders, and lack of care from feminist organizations like NOW.

Life without black people
A very humorous and revealing story is told about a group of white people who were fed up with African Americans, so they joined together and wished themselves away. They passed through a deep dark tunnel and emerged in sort of a twilight zone where there is an America without black people.

At first these white people breathed a sigh of relief.

At last, they said, No more crime, drugs, violence and welfare.

All of the blacks have gone! Then suddenly, reality set in. The “NEW
AMERICA” is not America at all-only a barren land.

1. There are very few crops that have flourished because the nation was built on a slave-supported system.

2. There are no cities with tall skyscrapers because Alexander Mils, a black man, invented the elevator, and without it, one finds great difficulty reaching higher floors.

3. There are few if any cars because Richard Spikes, a black man, invented the automatic gearshift, Joseph Gambol, also black, invented the Super Charge System for Internal Combustion Engines, and Garrett A. Morgan, a black man, invented the traffic signals.

4. Furthermore, one could not use the rapid transit system because its procurer was the electric trolley, which was invented by another black man, Albert R. Robinson.

5. Even if there were streets on which cars and a rapid transit system could operate, they were cluttered with paper because an African American, Charles Brooks, invented the street sweeper.

6. There were few if any newspapers, magazines and books because John Love invented the pencil sharpener, William Purveys invented the fountain pen, and Lee Barrage invented the Type Writing Machine and W. A. Love invented the Advanced Printing Press. They were all, you guessed it, Black.

7. Even if Americans could write their letters, articles and books, they would not have been transported by mail because William Barry invented the Postmarking and Canceling Machine, William Purveys invented the Hand Stamp and Philip Downing invented the Letter Drop.

8. The lawns were brown and wilted because Joseph Smith invented the Lawn
Sprinkler and John Burr the Lawn Mower.

9. When they entered their homes, they found them to be poorly ventilated and poorly heated. You see, Frederick Jones invented the Air Conditioner and Alice Parker the Heating Furnace. Their homes were also dim. But of course, Lewis Lattimer later invented the Electric Lamp, Michael Harvey invented the lantern,and Granville T. Woods invented the Automatic Cut off Switch. Their homes were also filthy because Thomas W. Steward invented the Mop and Lloyd P. Ray the Dust Pan.

10. Their children met them at the door-barefooted, shabby, motley and unkempt. But what could one expect? Jan E. Matzelinger invented the Shoe Lasting Machine,Walter Sammons invented the Comb, Sarah Boone invented the Ironing Board, and George T. Samon invented the Clothes Dryer.

11. Finally, they were resigned to at least have dinner amidst all of this
turmoil. But here again, the food had spoiled because another Black Man, John Standard invented the refrigerator. Now, isn’t that something? What would this country be like without the
contributions of Blacks, as African-Americans?

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “by the time we leave for work, Americans have depended on the inventions from the minds of Blacks.”

Black history includes more than just slavery, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Marcus Garvey & W.E.B. Dubois.