Offended.
I think I’m supposed to be. I’m told I should be. My neck twitches just slightly when I know I ought to be. But I don’t think I am. Am I?
I just can’t muster up the outrage necessary to protest the term. I mean, there are seriously a bunch more important things to do in life and better battles to fight and more important wars to wage.
A friend of mine refers to The Proviso as a “Mormon bodice ripper.” To my recollection, no bodices were harmed in the making of this book, but a pair of shorts was. So…shorts ripper? Cause, that’s where the goods are, folks, and Some People’s Hero really needed to get to Some People’s Heroine’s goods. Right then.
Okay. Anyway.
No, sorry. Can’t be outraged today. Try me tomorrow.
December 13th, 2008
December 13th, 2008 at 12:36 am
I don’t think I’d ever refer to the Proviso as any brand of bodice ripper.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Eh, I love bodice rippers. I think maybe the reader is referring to the implied “threat of force” in some parts of the book.
Some readers are HIGHLY uncomfortable with the rape fantasy. But if we can’t explore that in books, where the hell can we explore it?
I say bodice rippers = yay.
Especially since no actual bodices are harmed in the making of the books.
December 13th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I’m ashamed that I use the term bodice rippers. I thought it was funny. Should I stop? Nah. Particularly since I just shelled out mega bucks for a friggin Kindle (which I admittedly have been craving for months)so I could read “The Proviso” and “Waiting for Spring” while being easy on soon to be middle aged eyes (note to self – must go over and make Kel feel guilty).
I can’t wait to read it, MoJo!
December 13th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Yeah, honestly, I don’t have a problem with it. I shake my head at people who get their panties in a wad over it because, well, must be nice to have that much free time, right?
And I just remembered. Same Hero tore same Heroine’s PJ bottoms off of her, too. He’s seriously into her goods.
But I would NEVER harm a bodice, particularly if it was expensive. To wit: He carefully unbuttons the one bodice he DOES take off her.
December 13th, 2008 at 10:22 am
’tis a compliment.
December 13th, 2008 at 11:27 am
“He carefully unbuttons the one bodice he DOES take off her.”
That’s what I was thinkin’ about. I guess I took it too literally. Possibly because I’ve never read a ‘bodice ripper’ myself.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
LMAO @ “must be nice to have that much free time.” hahahahaha no doubt. Funny thing is, odds are, they are bitching about it on their boss’s time.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
It’s a bodice FASTENER. I’m not having much luck mainstreaming that concept.
“I think maybe the reader is referring to the implied “threat of force” in some parts of the book.”
I think people most often use the phrase for books they haven’t read and don’t care to. Doesn’t matter what the content is. But coming from a friend, I’d take it as just a gentle jab.
December 13th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Sometimes I wonder if some people really WANT to read one, but some status/snobbery/elitist thing is holding them back, so they snark in lieu of just reading one and getting it over with.
December 14th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Well, many people want to look at car accidents too. Ditto metaphorical trainwrecks, atrocious book covers, badly-behaved celebrities, and the Darwin Awards. So many things are loudly disdained and madly popular; there’s an element of “I don’t want to be someone who…” in all those interests, just as with reading, not reading, and liking McDonald’s food.
December 14th, 2008 at 7:20 am
That’s kind of what I was thinking when I commented.
I surprised a coworker once when I told her I had a frightening fondness for the crassly commercial. I even like Britney Spears and disco.