Where Romance and History Meet - www.heartsthroughhistory.com/

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Bodice Rippers, Anyone?

Bodice Ripper. The term’s use (or misuse, as the case may be) by columnists makes me want to gnash my teeth and rend my garments. Recent articles detailing signs of the economic recession have referred to romance novels in a variety of disparing ways, but no term has the power to set my nerves on edge like bodice ripper. One headline actually declared a Bull Market in Bodice Rippers. Ugh! Have the journalists writing these columns checked their calendars recently? It’s 2009, not 1974. Romance novels have evolved during the thirty-five years since Rosemary Rogers published Sweet Savage Love as surely as personal computers evolved from the Commodore 64.

The term bodice ripper generally refers to a historical romance novel in which the heroine is viewed as a sex object by the hero, the villain, and possibly even the man in the moon. The covers of the novels typically featured the heroine is a state of barely-clothed disarray, with heaving breasts that would give Pamela Lee an inferiority complex, and a testosterone-fueled hunk whose lusty stare is rivaled only by Colin Farrell after six months in a monastery. The novel that started it all was Sweet Savage Love. I remember sneaking to read my mother’s copy of this book, and honestly, I never made my way through it. The hero was a brute, an ill-mannered thug who made the teenaged boys I knew seem like regal princes by comparison, while the heroine had the mental capacity of a blow-up doll. I decided to stick to writers like Barbara Michaels, who wrote stories with gothic elements and heroines who actually possessed working brain cells. It wasn’t until years later, when I picked up a novel by Jude Devereaux, The Raider, that I fell in love with the historical romance genre. Her heroines were smart and spirited, her heroes fueled with enough testosterone to be hot and sexy, but not so much that they behaved like the Incredible Hulk in a traffic jam. Best of all, the heroes and heroines actually liked and loved each other for reasons other than their ample bosoms and muscular, furred chests. Was sexual attraction a part of the story? Sure. Isn’t sexual attraction a part of real life romances? But as in real love stories, it’s not the only part, and in a well-written romance novel, sex is only one ingredient in the mix.

Today, the term romance novel is a broad indicator of a story with a heroine, a hero, and a happily ever after. Other than that, there are no hard and fast rules. Historical romances are set throughout human history. Stories of medieval knights, Southern belles, and English nobility transport the reader to another place and time, while paranormal romances create worlds beyond our everyday reality. Vampires, shapeshifters, ghosts, extraterrestrials – the possibilities are unlimited. Contemporary romance, romantic suspense, inspirational, chick lit – all fall under the category of romance novel, though the subgenres are quite distinct. However, there are some similiarities between all of these that distinguish today’s romance genre from the bodice ripper of the 1970s. First, the heroine and hero must each possess gray matter (just kidding here, though if you've read some of the early books, you might wonder if Ira Levin was the only one who’d written about Stepford Wives). Seriously, the hero and heroine are each motivated by goals and motivations, and there are conflicts that threaten their relationship. Any good story has a conflict. Would The Wizard of Oz have become a classic if Dorothy had landed in Oz, taken the tour of the Yellow Brick Road, stopped by to share complexion hints with the Witch of the West (who may not have been so wicked after all), and hopped the first balloon back to Kansas? Would Icabod Crane have become an enduring literary figure if he’d simply graded papers and avoided his confontation with the head-challenged horseman? You get my point. In addition, the hero and heroine each evolve through the story as a consequence of their relationship as well as other factors in the story. This character arc is crucial to a romance. Without it, you’d might as well be reading about June and Ward Cleaver (for the younger readers of this blog, google Leave it to Beaver…smile). Whether the story is taking place in Richmond in 1865, England in 1298, or London in 1820, these elements are critical to the story’s emotional resonance.

In my opinion, the character arc is lacking in many of the 1970s bodice rippers. The hero and heroine each represent a stereotype that remains essentially unchanged from the beginning to the end of the story. Since the characters don’t grow and change, it’s difficult if not downright impossible to develop an emotional connection with the characters. And in reality, isn’t emotion the heart of a romance? Whether a reader is interested in steamy sex scenes or a love story that never peeks beyond the bedroom door, the growing emotional bond between the hero and heroine draws the reader in. The first stirrings of love, the growth of trust, the feeling that one has found a kindred soul…these are the ingredients in a love story that keep me reading. In all fairness, Rosemary Rogers and her contemporaries pioneered a genre in which romance was depicted both out of the bedroom and in it. Those early novels set the stage for romance novels in the twenty-first century. The romance novels I read, and write, feature heroines who stand up to their heroes as fiercely as they love them, women who might need a rescue from time to time, but also run to the rescue when their man is in trouble. In short, heroines who will stand by their man, but never walk behind, heroines who mirror the independent spirit of the women who read and write romances in 2009.



8 comments:

Susan Macatee said...

Great post, Victoria! I hate the term bodice rippers too, but in reading earlier romances, I can understand where that expression evolved from. I didn't develop an interest in romance until the
1990s when the genre had evolved beyond contemporaries and historicals, to paranormals and even science fiction. I was hooked!

I just wish those reporting on the surge in romance sales updated their knowledge of what the romance genre is all about.

Miriam Newman said...

Great article, Victoria. You give some wonderful background.

Victoria Gray said...

Susan,
Like you, I didn't care for "romance" until authors like Jude Devereaux and Teresa Medeiros started writing about heroines I could root for and heroes I'd actually want to be with. One of my biggest issues with the early bodice rippers is the glorification of rape. In some of these books, the hero actually rapes the heroine, and then, she falls for him. Ugh! Seduction is one thing, but rape is another.

I agree that reporters should update their knowledge of the industry. I suspect many of the journalists writing these columns haven't touched a romance since the days of Rosemary Rogers.

Victoria Gray said...

Thanks, Miriam. I've been quite surprised at how many references I've found to bodice rippers in the mainstream media these days. If only journalists would get up to speed on their knowledge of the industry. It's like referring to an MP3 as a record...bypasses the evolution of the genre entirely.

Gwynlyn MacKenzie said...

While I hate the term Bodice Rippers, I read romance back in the days of Rosemary Rogers, Phoebe Conn, Sophie Sommerfied, Laurie MacBain Kathleen Woodiwiss, etc. In fact, I blogged about it some months ago. They were the pioneers of historical romance back when the genre wasn't even certain it WAS a genre, so I appreciate that you acknowledged their contribution, the doors they opened, and the paths they pioneered.

I, too, prefer a smart, strong heroine and am happy to see how the genre has evolved. Young women, like you, are its future and, thanks to the internet, have a much easier time (although I'm certain it doesn't feel like it sometimes) finding the facts that make your work more than a costume drama.

askguru2017 said...

This website has some awesome tips! I've been in the seduction community for about two years and I've learned from many of the top experts. My favorite so far is Mack Tactics because it's so comprehensive and specific. I don't like programs that contain vague advice. I want the actual specifics on what to say to women, and how to close the deal with them. Mack Tactics has a great blog that you can see here: How To Pick Up Girls

Eliza Knight said...

Great post Victoria!

I didn't start reading romance until things had changed a bit too. My first books were by Julie Garwood, Catherine Coulter and Jude Devereux. In fact, I didn't read my first "bodice ripper" until 2 years ago, by Kathleen Woodiwiss. The heroine was raped by the hero within the first couple of chapters and I was actully squirming in my chair thinking, how could this be possible? He is such an a**!!!

So I agree with you 100% that the word is old school and does not apply whatsoever to the romance novels of today, and ever for the last 2 decades I'd say.

I think some people don't even understand what they're saying when they say it. It was called a bodice ripper because the hero literally ripped her bodice off while forcing her to have sex with him. They say it and write about it for the hype. Even though romance is the #1 selling genre of all books, encompassing more than 50% of readership, it is still seen as taboo, and there will always be those who like to exploit taboo. For example, some people have said I write porn...so not true!!!!

Anonymous said...

Enjoyed reading the comments. The term bodice rippers is probably used by those that would think nothing of watching all of the explicit scenes on television that make ones eyes bulge out.
If that is such a degrading term, why is the romance novel such a big seller?
I remember when I was in high school I read Forever Amber and From Here To Eternity-they had a couple of bodice rippers scenes in them. I think the people that use that term are just upset with the covers of those books. They probably never read one of the good ooks by LaVeryl Spencer or Sandra Brown.
Let's not pay any attention to them, shall we?
JOYE
JWIsleyATaol.com