response 1 of 65:

Oct 10 22:42 UTC 1997

This item is linked between Femme Item 77 and Books Item 66.

response 3 of 65:

Oct 11 07:10 UTC 1997

  I'd like to read it, having already read her other books, and not just for
the fantasies, which I might add are something to learn from. I think she has
a lot to say to women and men. I like her work.

response 5 of 65:

Oct 13 07:41 UTC 1997

I haven't read this one, but I did the other about dreams (I haven't got it
at hand, so I don't know the title in english-->read it in Dutch).
Her views can add, and broaden, the perception of men towards women.
I haven't read yours, though.

response 7 of 65:

Nov 9 13:32 UTC 1997

is it later yet misti? (hint)

response 9 of 65:

Jan 30 08:39 UTC 1998

The titles by her that i am familiar with are "My Secret Garden" "Forbidden
Flowers" "Men in Love" "My Mother Myself: How real life has changed Women's
sexual fantasies" the first two are collections of Womyns sexual fantasies
with analytical discusions of them.  The first one is unique in that it
includes taped interviews.  Men in love is a collection of men's sexual
fantasies with the same insights into them I am not however familiar with her
new book.  If it is anywhere as insightful as her earlier novels I am sure
it will be fascinating reading. I recomend any of these novels to dislodge
any feeling that any fantasy is abnormal.

response 11 of 65:

Jan 31 14:07 UTC 1998

Well, I can't comment about romance novels because I've never
read one but I have read chunks of "Forbidden Flowers" and 
"Men in Love", both of which are interesting enough if
you aren't offended by soft-core pornography and are open
to hearing about how some men and women use sexual fantasies
as part of a healthy sex life.

response 13 of 65:

Feb 1 06:32 UTC 1998

Her first two books are collections of women's fantasies.  On second
thought, I'd maybe consider them more hard-core than soft porn. 

About romance novels - if the available selections are demeaning and
boring why don't women write better ones?  Why don't women demand stronger
heroines by not buying millions of paperbacks based on women as victims
waiting for men to make it better? 

The books are not the problem.

response 15 of 65:

Feb 1 23:56 UTC 1998

Actually, there are lots of romance novels that Don't fit garima's plot
outline. I have read them since my teens off and on (really good as mind
candy/popcorn when you're feeling depressed, I find), and the strong
heroine who doesn't have sex and who tells the hero off for being stupid
and macho is now a stock character as well. Erm. There are as many romance
types as there are sf novel types -- there are regencies (usually those
are less heavy on the sex and more heavy on the comedy of manners and 
the social scene in the 1810--1825 era of England -- often in these, the
heroine is an unconventional woman who is chafing under social restrictions,
and I quite enjoy them, on the whole), contemporary (modern day, usually
in subcategories of single-mom-meets-eligible-guy, angel falls in love with
person they're supposed to help, um, fantasies about sheiks, Italians,
Spainish men (all supposedly very hot-blooded) and a thousand more I can't
go into -- most of these have strong heroines these days, independent
women, though the more Mills&Boone types are fun to read, since they are
both totally innocent and totally ridiculous (no real sex in the Mills&
Boone types, anything of that nature is OFF-screen) -- and the more, um,
advanced lines can be quite steamy), supernatural (ghosts, goblins, vampires,
etc.), futuristic (usually very very bad sf/fantasy about really stupid
space opera, I'm sorry, but I *hate* this type, since I like sf, and this
isn't sf!), erm, then you have the "historicals", which can be bodice-
rippers of the really disgusting he-rapes-her, she-falls-in-love kind (Sweet
Savage Love is a prime example!) or actually reasonably well-researched
novels that just happen to have a love scene or two and thus get marketed
as romances or medievals (which I think are also quite stereotyped and 
have more he-rapes-her-she-loves-him plots, for what reason I'll never
know!) and probably a few more kinds that I haven't mentioned.

I have thought about writing a romance or two, and I have actually gone
through and analyzed several of the books I have, both the ones I absolutely
hate and the ones that work for me, and it's really quite a stylized and
signifier-full language that the writers use -- very much an art, rather
than supermarket-fodder....

response 17 of 65:

Feb 3 04:45 UTC 1998

You read a lot of romance novels, orinoco? I thought the readership was
99.99% women.

I remember the Mills & Boons, and the Barbara Cartlands....
Really silly and demeaning. 

So Mary, are you saying the women thrive on this treatment of the 
subject (he-rapes-her-she-loves-him-like-a-wimp-that-she-is) ?
You're saying that women secretely like being dominated, being passive?

response 19 of 65:

Feb 4 03:31 UTC 1998

A few points to add to what mary's saying...

It's possible to fantasize about something without wishing it would actually
happen to you - to enjoy the idea but not the real thing.  So I think it makes
perfect sense that the sort of romance novels you describe would be popular
even among women who don't want to be dominated and men who don't want to be
dominant.

I don't know that I've read a _lot_ of romance novels - I've read my share,
certainly.  (I think part of it is that my friends and I were all extreme
geeks in middle school, so rather than learning about sex from my friends I
was learning about it from cheesey paperbacks.  I must admit, they don't
really hold much appeal for me anymore)

response 21 of 65:

Feb 4 10:40 UTC 1998

What's a #73, Mary?

response 23 of 65:

Feb 4 23:29 UTC 1998

#73 is smoked turkey, Muenster cheese, guacamole, tomato slices, Russian
dressing, on farm bread, grilled.

And don't forget the pickle (old dill).