@romancelandia
Found via @tuphlos on twitter, this piece has some blood pressure-raising bits; the most important is the assumption that changing the covers of genre romances of different heat levels/sexual content, changes the actual content.
"oh, these books that are no longer coded erotic romance are actually good stories/writing/characters, but I couldn't have known unless they had acceptable covers" is a thing said there.
whenever people talk about having "no politics or religion" in their "entertainment", I think of how fucking intellectually lazy they have to be not to come up with a better fig leaf for they complicity.
These people basically say, "if you read these and like them, you deserve violence, so we'll protect your from yourself y controlling your every fucking breath"
Also, they're clearly cherry-picking the more modern covers. The number of covers shown goes way down and they're sticking to a very few, specific, sub-genres.
@JoanGrey oh, absolutely; they claim objectivity, but the slant is visible from outer space.
I know I should read it again, see what I can learn from the data they have (which should be more recent than most of the shit out there), but my blood pressure didn't need it.
@romancelandia I want to note that, once upon a time (within the past couple of decades), some mostly-kisses and fade-to-black romances started to get covers that mimicked the erotica/erotic romance coded covers: monochromatic with a pop of color, high heel and rose, wine glass and rose, etc.
We are seeing the inverse trend right now.
The stories within? The same fucking stories, with the same heat or lack.
Add comment