Graphical Standards Rant

Well, I promised a book report, but I am tempted to blog about Graphical Standards at RWA instead. Isn't that what blogging is all about? Not happy little "I read this fantastic book" prattle, but mean, lean rants on evil censorship, with a heavy dose of sarcasm thrown in. LIKE THIS.

Ha! I snickered mightily when I read his oh-so-sarcastic comments on the idiocy of RWA's new standard. For those of you who haven't read it, here it is:

With respect to all RWA programs and services, the following shall not be depicted or represented: exposed male and female genitalia, exposed female nipples, cunnilingus and fellatio, hands or mouth covering naked female breasts, naked or g-string-clad buttocks, and beastiality. The following words: cock, cocksucker, cunt, fuck, motherfucker, shit, and tit, will not be displayed.

Okay - let's think here. Before you jerk away from this, which was my natural reaction, start by pulling it apart. Yep, beastiality shouldn't be in romance, in my opinion. And I would rather not be sitting next to an author at a book signing with a cover that has the word fuck on it. (why I felt the need to bold that word, I have no idea, except for the fact that I really didn't want to type it, since I'm a little bit of a prude at heart. I'm like that - if something makes me flinch, I'm going to do it AND put it in bold).

I think a little honesty from me is in order. I am someone who holds a pillow in front of my face during the kissy bits in movies. I'm just, well, embarrassed by naked people and public displays of any kind and I have never used half the words in that list in my books, let alone put it on my covers or in my excerpts. In fact, I fought HARD against the naked people they tried to put on my first cover, then told every cover artist I've dealt with since then that I will NOT have naked bodies on my covers. I just don't feel comfortable with that. I also never want one of those clench covers Dorchester is famous for, either. They embarrass me equally, to be honest (and don't you think those models need a hair cut??).

But ride with me here -- is it my place to dictate the covers of others? Or to say what is or is not appropriate? Just because I don't want these things for me, doesn't mean I have a right to take them from others. If we feel uncomfortable at a book signing sitting next to someone with a cover like that, shouldn't we just MOVE a few spaces away? Or not advertise places where these types of covers are displayed? If I'm the one with the problem, shouldn't *I* be the one to change, instead of changing others? I'm just confused here about why people are censoring instead of just removing themselves.

A friend of mine pointed out that RWA Nationals HAD to draw a line on the continuum to keep out porn – it was imperative, in fact, that we have some measure of ABSOLUTELY NOT ACCEPTABLE.

I don’t know where you draw the line on the continuum - I'm just not sure it's possible. A lot of publishers have erotic work they publish in some of their lines – does that mean that because Random House’s Vintage line published Lolita (a book *I* consider porn), that their romance lines aren’t considered romance? I mean, drawing a line is like lassoing a rain cloud. I have had a couple reviewers claim that my books aren’t erotic romance at all, but merely a romance with extra sex in it. Does this mean that I should be banned from RWA or can I still be a member? Who would be qualified to make that call? It’s a scary prospect, from where I’m sitting, since I am on one side of the line or the other, depending on who draws the line. Then again, if you drew the line where everyone agreed, the line would be so far onto one end as to be meaningless.

So what's the answer to all this? Who knows. Right now I'm just trying to sit back and watch where the cards end up falling, then I'll pick up the pieces, change that one "cock" I have in an excerpt on my website to "erection" and write another book.