@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.

#PuritanWank #Publishing
#GenreRomance
https://pudding.cool/2023/10/romance-covers/?mc_cid=714e175360&mc_eid=8bf78c98f8

What does a happily ever after look like?

We looked at over 1,400 romance novel covers featured in Publishers Weekly from 2011 to 2023 and evaluated each cover based on its raunchiness (or level of undress), art style, and representation of racial diversity.

The Pudding

@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.

#PuritanWank

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 their complicity.

it is ALL politics and religion, it's ALL #PuritanWank #WhiteSupremacy and #Christofascism

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"

@romancelandia @tuphlos

@herhandsmyhands @romancelandia @tuphlos

Oh wow, I've only read the first page and I'm ticked off at the smarmy tone. UGH.

@herhandsmyhands @romancelandia @tuphlos

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.

@herhandsmyhands @romancelandia @tuphlos

This is like a super cheaply and crudely done K-Lytics cover report, with added smarm and anti-romance-genre bias smeared all over it like mud.

WTF.

@herhandsmyhands @tuphlos @romancelandia

We won't mention the lack of interest in *queer* romance, of course.

:screams into the void:

@JoanGrey Indeed.

total #PuritanWank

one can only hope they choke on their self-righteousness.

@herhandsmyhands

Here's hoping. :grrrrrr:

@JoanGrey (okay, it's more like "actively wishing" but, you know)
@herhandsmyhands @JoanGrey That article reads like a badly written, didn't-really-understand-what-they-are-doing assignment of a first-year student. 😬😬😬