Re: Comment #41 - There are lots of heated discussions all over the internet about the term bodice ripper. Generally within the romance genre it's used to describe the historical romances from the 80s with rather lurid covers and seemingly dubious sexual politics (ie. rapey heroes). However, when you look at these books through the lens of sexual agency and women's sexuality, it makes a lot of sense in terms of women being "allowed" to claim and enjoy their own sexual experience. This is part of the spectrum that's led to strong female characters who enjoy sex unapologetically (for the most part - yes, there are still issues here and there). Mostly, though, calling romance books "bodice rippers" is an insult.
Also, comparing all romances to Mills & Boone is like saying all SF is pulpy Del Rey paperbacks. M&B/Harlequin are one part of the romance publishing industry, but play an increasingly smaller role. ALL large publishers (and merged large publishers) have romance imprints. Several smaller publishing houses survive on romance. It's a mighty, multifaceted genre.
]]>