47 Replies Latest reply on Jan 12, 2015 9:03 AM by captainnook

    Free books mostly for women

    nlstein

      Is it me or does everyone find that most (not all) of the "free book" offerings are for women? Or, they are older, public domain books you can get anywhere.

       

      I realize the books are free and I shouldn't complain, but aren't there some non-romance books that B&N could offer?

       

      Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong.

        • Re: Free books mostly for women
          keriflur

          There's no such thing as "books for women", there are just books. Men read romance too, just not in the same numbers. All the genders read all the genres.

           

          That said, B&N could offer more genres. I think they get into a rut sometimes.

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
            • Re: Free books mostly for women
              nlstein

              I 'm sorry but there are most definitely books written specifically for a female audiance. Sorry if you find my definition incorrect. What I was talking about was "romance" novels written mostly for that audiance which apparently you understood. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding but not for the question - still unanswered.

               

              The "rut" as you call it has been going on for a long time. Makes it hard for me to call it a "rut". You are absolutley correct in one point, "All the genders read all the genres". I'd just like to see some other genres more often.

               

            • Re: Free books mostly for women
              Froide

              Two bits:

              1. Wikipedia: Chick lit
              2. MobileRead Forums > E-Book GeneralReload this Page Deals, Freebies, and Resources (No Self-Promotion)

               

                • Re: Free books mostly for women
                  nlstein

                  Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately I am not talking about "Chick Lit" but books with covers showing men with their shirts off - commonly called modern romance. The books I'm discussing have little if anything to do with female self improvement and mostly to do with female gradification.

                   

                  I think kamas716 has it right. B&N, in their infinite wisdom, is courting "Julie" and not me.

                    • Re: Free books mostly for women
                      Froide
                      • The Chick Lit link addresses keriflur's statement, "There's no such thing as 'books for women'", and your reply, "there are most definitely books written specifically for a female audiance[sic]".
                      • The MobileRead link addresses your stated desire to find "some non-romance books".
                      1 of 1 people found this helpful
                        • Re: Free books mostly for women
                          nlstein

                          Thanks for straightening me out on the Wiki link although , as I said, while it does help prove my point it's not actually the description of the type of books I'm talking about - but close enough to help kerifiur understand that there are indeed books written for a female group.

                           

                          I was already aware of MobileRead (I've been reading ebooks for more than10 years and ran across it years ago) but thanks for pointing it out. Although I can always go there for "free" books I was more interested in B&N's offerings and why they seem aimed at a certain audience. Maybe that's the only type of book they can offer "free". I'm sure they have a wide audience.

                           

                          Thanks again.

                            • Re: Free books mostly for women
                              keriflur

                              Again, there's no such thing as "books for women." The statement is inherently sexist. There are men who like romance. There are men who like pictures of other men with their shirts off. There are men who enjoy reading about sex. To state that these books are "for women" implies that they are "not for men" and that's a sexist falsehood. All books are for everyone who wants to read them.

                                • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                  nlstein

                                  Guess that makes me sexist. Oh well, now everyone knows.

                                    • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                      bobstro

                                      So is "bodice ripper" a sexist term, or a term to describe sexist (but apparently popular) sub-genre? If a sexist sub-genre is primarily read by one demographic, what do we call that?

                                      1 of 1 people found this helpful
                                        • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                          bobstro

                                          and why is my 1st response being moderated while my 2nd seems to have gone right out?

                                            • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                              nlstein

                                              You may be new to this forum, or not, but one thing you will learn sooner or later. There are people here that have nothing better to do than point out even the smallest mistake you might make, and if they don't agree with you, try to destroy you. What ever you do, don't get involved in an argument with or try to express a view to these people that they don't agree with. You'll get no where.

                                               

                                              It's better to just ignore them and move on. I still have trouble understanding this after all these years and sometimes get caught up in these discussions. It's fruitless and both you and I have to learn this. Just ignore them.

                                               

                                              I stick to my original question and won't let distractors move me. There are plenty of people here that know there are books written specifically for a female audience. Some non-females might read them but they are not the main, intended audience.

                                                • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                  keriflur

                                                  Um, no one in this thread is new to this forum, and no one here, and definitely not me, is trying to destroy you or anyone else. Maybe crank down the hyperbole? If you want to go around being offensive to women, that's your business, but you should at least do it with your eyes open, knowing that you're being offensive. And if you don't want to be offensive (as I'm sure lots of folks here don't), and didn't know that you were being offensive,now you know that these phrases are some you probably shouldn't use.

                                                    • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                      nlstein

                                                      Thanks for the lesson again.

                                                       

                                                      I don't, however, find that calling books written for a female audience offensive to anyone, except maybe you. I have not heard one women complain. Books have always been written for certain audiences and always will be. Some people like Si-Fi, some people like non-fiction, some people like biographies - and some people (yes, mostly women) like romance novels.

                                                       

                                                      Reading through this discussion I find that you are the only one offended and feel the need to correct the rest of us. Your opinion counts - buts it's only your opinion.

                                                       

                                                      If you want to express yourself, fine but let the rest of us do so without chastising us.

                                                       

                                                      Just my opinion - live with it!

                                                        • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                          keriflur

                                                          nlstein wrote:

                                                          I have not heard one women complain.

                                                          Dunno who the women in your life are, but in the writing and publishing communities this is a regular topic of discussion, especially in the realms of romance, SFF, and kids/YA.

                                                           

                                                          nlstein wrote:

                                                           

                                                          Books have always been written for certain audiences and always will be. Some people like Si-Fi, some people like non-fiction, some people like biographies - and some people (yes, mostly women) like romance novels.

                                                          Generally, books are written for readers. SciFi is written for people who like SciFi, Non-Fiction is written for people who like Non-Fiction, and Romance is written for people who like Romance.

                                                           

                                                          nlstein wrote:

                                                           

                                                          Just my opinion - live with it!

                                                          Always nice to see you're part of the problem.

                                                  • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                    keriflur

                                                    Yes, "bodice ripper" has always been an offensive term.

                                                     

                                                    I'm sorry if you guys are just learning this now, if no one has told you these things were inappropriate or offensive, but the fact that this is the first time hearing doesn't make it untrue.

                                                      • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                        bobstro

                                                        Hmm. "Bodice ripper" was used humorously in several threads here in the past by some notable community members. I'd certainly never encountered it before, nor cared much before or since. I thought it was a disparaging term for literature that itself is sexist, a back-handed way of calling crap crap.

                                                         

                                                        So I guess there's a PC way that one needs to talk about bad literature now. Is Naughty Nurses offensive? We need to start a list of rules.

                                                          • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                            keriflur

                                                            "Bodice ripper" is a derogatory term for romance novels in general. Maybe you just misunderstood the common usage of the term?

                                                             

                                                            I don't see anything sexist about Naughty Nurses.

                                                             

                                                            ETA:

                                                            Yes, I've seen bodice ripper in the forums a few times and while it makes me cringe, I didn't feel the need to say anything because it doesn't press my buttons in the same way as "books for women" or "books for boys"  (and their related companion terms) do. There's been (and continues to be) lots of industry discussion on why these (books for girls/women/boys/men) terms are awful and need to go away, and lots of cringing and tongue-biting when industry professionals use them (because some still do). There's been a LOT of discussion in SFF lately about sexism in general, and there's always discussion in kids/YA about categorizing books in a way that make boys in particular feel like they're supposed to only enjoy certain types of books.

                                                             

                                                            We have a problem in the US where boys stop reading earlier than girls and men read less than women (and reading in adults is abysmal in general). Anything that discourages reading is problematic IMO, and terms that tell people what they are and aren't supposed to enjoy do just that.

                                                             

                                                            The problem I see with the free books, and IMO it is a problem, is that they are continually in one genre, not in a breadth of genres. I've always seen it as a problem that B&N is targeting "Julie" because the truth is that there is no Julie - there are just a lot of customers with their own interests. I've specifically called out the Julie profile as sexist multiple times in the past, and if all the free books being romance is due to targeting of "Julie" then that's just another example of it. Realistically, though, I doubt B&N puts that much thought into targeting the freebies.

                                                            1 of 1 people found this helpful
                                                              • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                javabird

                                                                Sorry but I disagree. "Bodice ripper" is a term that's been around a long time, and in the vernacular refers exactly to that type of romance book - you know the type, period Romance with lots of well, ripping of bodices. I think it's a perfect term and in no way derogatory or sexist. Yes, it is marketed mostly to women because that is the target audience.

                                                                 

                                                                I'm a woman and I don't happen to care for "romance".  Give me a good sci-fi, fantasy, historical fiction, classic or murder mystery, but I'll pass on the bodice rippers.

                                                                1 of 1 people found this helpful
                                                                  • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                    keriflur
                                                                    You'll notice that while I said that "bodice ripper" was offensive and derogatory, I never said it was sexist. It's a term used by those who don't like romance to mock it. There are similar, albeit less popular, terms used to denigrate cosy mysteries (another genre with a high percentage of female readers) and some other genres.


                                                                    And you've made my point - people of all genders read all genres. Romance books aren't for women any more than SFF books are for men (no matter what some SFF writers will tell you).


                                                                      • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                        bobstro

                                                                        The definition offered up at Goodreads is consistent with how I've interpreted it: "... Bodice ripper is a pejorative term for romance in general that has been recycled to refer to a specific sub-genre of historical romance. Epic in scope and usually featuring more violent sexual content, bodice rippers are the books that ushered in the era of the modern romance novel. Generally published in the 1970s and 1980s."

                                                                         

                                                                        Other definitions have described "non-consensual turning into consensual sex". Much more specific than just mushy romance, at least as currently used. I won't pretend to be up on what's PC in publishing or writing, but there's a group on Goodreads specifically dedicated to fans of the sub-genre which cautions that "... Books read and discussed by this group may contain overbearing heroes, unruly heroines, drama galore, big misunderstandings, long separation of H/h, bucket loads of sexual tension, kidnapping, possible cheating and/or possible forced seduction and/or rape."

                                                                         

                                                                        Perhaps I'm naive, but "forced seduction" sounds a tad iffy.  Personally, I find the genre itself to be a bit detestable, but I don't go preaching about it. To me, the term "bodice ripper" is a euphemism used in polite company to refer to a specific type of lit.

                                                                         

                                                                        I agree that readers can read what they like, but I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out that some titles are written specifically targeting a specific audience. I can't imagine that "Mommy & Daddy Open Carry" was meant for a global audience. Adults may read YA, but "The Industry" still calls it YA without setting off alarms of impropriety. Should I scream about the Agism pervasive in the genre?

                                                                         

                                                                        I don't like a genre, please don't go telling me that I'm attacking the audience. Or worse, infringing author "rights". Asking for a broader selection is perfectly reasonable. It's B&N that have the preconceived notions about what is wanted. I don't think it's out of line to say I don't like books that are written targeting women any more than saying I don't like books targeting children. The OP may have expressed this clumsily, but I think the accusations are a bit overblown. A simple "hey, did you know..." would've been more productive.

                                                                         

                                                                        nlstein, weren't you involved in the legendary "last" thread on the old forum?

                                                                          • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                            keriflur

                                                                            Jeez, Bob. What you personally like isn't the problem. It's the idea that what you (colloquial) like applies to all men, and what you think women like applies to all women that's problematic, and frankly doesn't sound like something you'd say. 


                                                                            You do get what "I don't like stuff targeted toward women" means, right? That as soon as you know a product is marketed to a woman, you're judging it as something you won't like, in a blanket statement that doesn't consider the actual product. You get how that might be a little gross, don't you? And maybe a bit sad also. We're not talking about tampons here, these are books.


                                                                            I though you were a lot more open minded than that. 


                                                                            Would you stop reading SFF if marketers start targeting women? Because in all seriousness, if guys don't start reading more, women are who EVERYTHING will be marketed toward. 


                                                                            And as for the definition of bodice-rippers, read that first sentence again. It's exactly what I said, a derogatory term for Romance in general. It may have been recycled for a specific subgenre, but the way it's still used in the general population is to insult romance books and, of course, those who read them. It's like any other pejorative term.

                                                                              • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                bobstro

                                                                                keriflur wrote:

                                                                                 

                                                                                Jeez, Bob. What you personally like isn't the problem. It's the idea that what you (colloquial) like applies to all men, and what you think women like applies to all women that's problematic, and frankly doesn't sound like something you'd say.

                                                                                I'd have posted the original comment differently, but nlstein did clarify in the 2nd post.

                                                                                You do get what "I don't like stuff targeted toward women" means, right? That as soon as you know a product is marketed to a woman, you're judging it as something you won't like, in a blanket statement that doesn't consider the actual product. You get how that might be a little gross, don't you? And maybe a bit sad also. We're not talking about tampons here, these are books.

                                                                                Uhm... I think you're describing taste. Surely you don't pick up a book without caring about the topic, or having some reason to do so? I have no problem saying I have zero interest in reading romance titles. I'm not saying that they're not good, nor that those who prefer them are wrong. I just don't like the stuff. I've seen enough to make that opinion, and as an adult, can make my own decisions without worrying about being correct in doing so. I you find that gross, that's you making the judgement about a human being.

                                                                                I though you were a lot more open minded than that.

                                                                                I also have years of experience that I've learned to trust above all else.

                                                                                Would you stop reading SFF if marketers start targeting women? Because in all seriousness, if guys don't start reading more, women are who EVERYTHING will be marketed toward.

                                                                                I think you're reading something more into this than is really there. The objection, at least in my case, isn't the fact that it was marketed to (or at) women, but that the material being offered up by B&N falls into a category, typically marketed at/to women that I do not enjoy. In the same way that I pretty well disregard the tentacle porn category, yeah, I avoid romance titles. If you enjoy either, good for you. I can understand being offended by a publisher using the term to peddle tripe, but not a customer who is describing that publisher's actions.

                                                                                And as for the definition of bodice-rippers, read that first sentence again. It's exactly what I said, a derogatory term for Romance in general. It may have been recycled for a specific subgenre, but the way it's still used in the general population is to insult romance books and, of course, those who read them. It's like any other pejorative term.

                                                                                Except for the self-described body of enthusiasts over on Goodreads. You'd best go correct them, not me. That group chose to include "involuntary seduction" in their criteria. You have, however, implied that I am gross based on the narrowest interpretation of "targeted towards". I'm not saying that it's the fact that a title is marketed to/at women that decides it for me. It's the fact that a lot of publishers seem to think they can push out crap for/at specific demographics and ride on the coat tails of successes that decides it for me. (See many of the low quality vampire horror, BSDM, epic fantasy and wee people titles for examples.)

                                                                                 

                                                                                What I find odd is that you have no problem disparaging self-published titles without having read them all. I believe you've described 50 Shades as poorly written fanfic riffing on the Twilight theme. How is that any different? You've (presumably) tried some, consistently found them not to your taste and made a conscious buying decision. Is that gross? Are you sure there are no gems out there that you might like?

                                                                                  • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                    kamas716

                                                                                    Bob George wrote:

                                                                                     

                                                                                     

                                                                                    What I find odd is that you have no problem disparaging self-published titles without having read them all. I believe you've described 50 Shades as poorly written fanfic riffing on the Twilight theme. How is that any different? You've (presumably) tried some, consistently found them not to your taste and made a conscious buying decision. Is that gross? Are you sure there are no gems out there that you might like?

                                                                                    Speaking of self-pubbed, one of the best books I read last year was originally self-pubbed. The Martian by Andy Weir I found quite thrilling and am eagerly awaiting the movie starring Matt Damon. While I generally tend to find self-pubbed works lacking, there are the occasional gems.

                                                                                • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                  keriflur

                                                                                  Also, I don't think I said anything about author rights. 

                                                                                    • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                      keriflur

                                                                                      (Sorry, I can't edit in he Jive app *sigh*)


                                                                                      Also, there is a HUGE difference between "marketed toward" and "for." Brooms are marketed towards women, but only the most staunch sexist would say they are "for" them with any seriousness. If the post title was "free books mostly marketed toward women" I wouldn't have had a problem. 

                                                                                        • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                          bobstro

                                                                                          keriflur wrote:

                                                                                           

                                                                                          (Sorry, I can't edit in he Jive app *sigh*)

                                                                                           

                                                                                          Also, there is a HUGE difference between "marketed toward" and "for." Brooms are marketed towards women, but only the most staunch sexist would say they are "for" them with any seriousness. If the post title was "free books mostly marketed toward women" I wouldn't have had a problem.

                                                                                          I do think a more informative response would have been less confrontational, and definitely less preachy. You can't judge a person's values based on a single post. Not accurately anyhow.

                                                                                           

                                                                                          Whatever criteria is being used for the free book selections mostly misses the mark with me, whoever they're "intended for", "targeting" or whatever you want to call it.

                                                                                           

                                                                                          And yeah, Jive's driving me nuts lately. The formatting goes all to hell when I post from my tablet.

                                                                                            • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                              bobstro

                                                                                              No idea why some posts get moderated. Let me try pasting this...

                                                                                               

                                                                                              keriflur wrote:

                                                                                               

                                                                                              (Sorry, I can't edit in he Jive app *sigh*)

                                                                                               

                                                                                              Also, there is a HUGE difference between "marketed toward" and "for." Brooms are marketed towards women, but only the most staunch sexist would say they are "for" them with any seriousness. If the post title was "free books mostly marketed toward women" I wouldn't have had a problem.

                                                                                              I do think a more informative response would have been less confrontational, and definitely less preachy. You can't judge a person's values based on a single post. Not accurately anyhow.

                                                                                               

                                                                                              Whatever criteria is being used for the free book selections mostly misses the mark with me, whoever they're "intended for", "targeting" or whatever you want to call it.

                                                                                               

                                                                                              And yeah, Jive's driving me nuts lately. The formatting goes all to hell when I post from my tablet.

                                                                                               

                                                                                               

                                                                                              1 of 1 people found this helpful
                                                                                            • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                              kamas716

                                                                                              "Also there is a huge difference between "marketed towards" and "for"."

                                                                                               

                                                                                              Methinks you are splitting hairs unnecessarily here. Several of the definitions of 'for' make it clear that it is an appropriate, if less than precise, term used in place of 'marketed towards'. nlstein even clarified his/her meaning in the response to your original response.

                                                                                            • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                              bobstro

                                                                                              keriflur wrote:

                                                                                               

                                                                                              Also, I don't think I said anything about author rights.

                                                                                              Indeed, but more than one thread in the past discussing filtering or otherwise allowing customers to refine search results has gone down that path. Just getting out in front of it.

                                                                                            • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                              nlstein

                                                                                              Yes, that was me and it had to do with a way out of hand discussion that I had enough with. Didn't know it was "legendary".

                                                                                               

                                                                                              I'm done with this discussion too. It's gone way out of hand. I thought I asked a simple question but apparently it has blown up into a huge discussion that has fallen just short of the "Jane, you ignorant slut" line from SNL.

                                                                                               

                                                                                              I "think" I got the answer to my question someplace in this mess so I'm done following it.

                                                                                               

                                                                                              Those of you that think I'm "legendary" - thank you. Those that don't, thank you too. In MHO, my point has been made.

                                                                                              • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                                javabird

                                                                                                I would be careful about using a post by an unnamed author in a Goodreads, without any supporting references, as an authoritative source. I've not seen it described as "pejorative" anywhere else (although I was first heard the term about 30+ yrs ago by some friends where were fans of the genre.) "Bodice ripper" is simply a slang term, and IMO  it's a good one because it defines a specific genre (like "pulp" for example). It also tells you exactly what it is (along with the book cover) -- and I think people buying the books have a right to know exactly what to expect when they purchase them.

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                Incidentally, here's an interesting article about the evolution of feminism in the "bodice ripper"

                                                                                                  • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                                    bobstro

                                                                                                    It's probably more like "bronies": Used dismissively by some, with pride by others. As you say, slang, with all the malleability that implies. Tell me a book fits that sub-genre, and I'll know exactly what you mean in any case. Definitely not one I'll likely enjoy.

                                                                                                    • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                                      Froide

                                                                                                      Thank you for the article (Beyond Bodice-Rippers: How Romance Novels Came to Embrace Feminism - The Atlantic).  Here's the opening paragraph:

                                                                                                      "Bodice-rippers," the most famous term associated with the romance genre are, according to the book Beyond Heaving Bosoms: ""typically set in the past, and the hero is a great deal older, more brutal, and more rapetastic than the heroine." The heroines were young, virginal women whose purity was of paramount importance to their worth. The rapist-turned-true-love hero was a standard character.

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      Bodice-rippers aren't just set in the past; sometimes the setting is contemporary. And they don't just play out on the page; such storylines are also scripted for the silver screen.

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      The most glaring example, for me, is the awful, infamous rape-to-supercouple storyline from the television soap opera General Hospital. Here are photos and the first paragraph from Luke and Laura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, about the popular General Hospital duo who inspired the term "supercouple":

                                                                                                      LukeLauraReturn.jpg

                                                                                                      Luke Spencer and Laura Webber are fictional characters and the signature supercouple from the American daytime drama General Hospital.[1]Luke is portrayed by Anthony Geary, and Laura is portrayed by Genie Francis. Though other supercouples came before them, Luke and Laura are the best known outside of the soap opera medium and are credited with defining the term supercouple and leading other soap operas to try to duplicate their success.[2][3][4]

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      Despite having been raped by a drunken Luke, Laura falls in love with him. Originally, critics of the soap opera genre panned the choice of having a rape victim fall in love with her rapist,[4] an example of forced seduction.[5] The unlikely pairing became popular in spite of Luke's past misdeed when the story shifted to focus on love and redemption.

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      The couple wed at the end of the hour-long show on November 17, 1981; the event was watched by 30 million viewers and remains the highest-rated hour in American soap opera history.[1][6][7][8] Viewers watched as the show followed their marriage through two decades and gave them two children. Today, their union still has a presence in fictional town Port Charles. In 1996, TV Guide included the wedding of Luke and Laura as part of its "100 Most Memorable Moments in TV History," ranking it number 35.[9] On Internet message boards, the couple is often referred to as "L&L" or "LnL" (for Luke and Laura).

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      And here's the paragraph from that same Wikipedia article, about Luke's rape of Laura:

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      Rape

                                                                                                      Pat Falken Smith replaced Marland as head writer of General Hospital in 1979 since he wanted to go slower with Luke and Laura's story than Monty had.[21] Smith wrote a controversial rape storyline between Luke and Laura.[12] To prepare for the story, Geary and Francis both met with a social worker before taping the rape scenes.[20] Originally intended to be a brutal attack, Monty rechoreographed the scene's blocking in order for the encounter to come off as a seduction. She also took strong language and violence out of the scenes.[20] General Hospital's music director at the time, Jill Phelps, chose to use the song "Rise", written by Randy Badazz Alpert and Andy Armer, performed by trumpeter Herb Alpert during the rape scene and ensuing scenes that recalled the rape.[13][22] "Every time Laura thought of the terrible rape by Luke, it was played to evoke that memory," Phelps said. "Consequently, we used it constantly for a while. Then we turned the story around so that he was no longer the rapist and that was no longer the appropriate piece of music."[22] The song already ranked on the Billboard Hot 100, but the exposure "Rise" gained from appearing on General Hospital helped bring it to number one.[22] After the story aired in October 1979, it was looked back on as a rape and Laura was shown getting rape counseling.[19] However, the writers decided to have the characters look back on the incident as a seduction instead of a rape because the pairing resonated with the audience.[10][13] "From that point on, we played [Luke's] regret and his total devastation," Geary said. "That's a story nobody wants to tell—that the rapist's life is as devastated as the person he rapes. His great love and regret and guilt are what caught the audience so off guard."[12]

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      The rape was revisited in 1998 when Luke and Laura's son, Lucky, finds out about the incident.[23] This time, the writers scripted it as rape instead of a seduction. Lucky struggled to come to terms with the revelation while Luke and Laura dealt with the unresolved issues surrounding the rape.[23][24][25] In a 2000 interview with Soap Opera Digest, Geary said, for the taping of the scenes, "Alan Pultz, who had directed the rape originally, used his original notes and directed me that day to recall all of that. I was able to finally put out what I think is Luke's definitive statement: that it was rape, it was ugly, he'd probably never recover." He added, "I was grateful that the directors and the writers were interested in what Luke's experience was and didn't try to spin it for audience control."[25]

                                                                                                      I dislike bodice-ripping storylines no matter what medium they're presented in.

                                                                                              • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                                captainnook

                                                                                                Yes, I've seen bodice ripper in the forums a few times and while it makes me cringe, I didn't feel the need to say anything because it doesn't press my buttons in the same way as "books for women" or "books for boys"  (and their related companion terms) do. There's been (and continues to be) lots of industry discussion on why these (books for girls/women/boys/men) terms are awful and need to go away, and lots of cringing and tongue-biting when industry professionals use them (because some still do). There's been a LOT of discussion in SFF lately about sexism in general, and there's always discussion in kids/YA about categorizing books in a way that make boys in particular feel like they're supposed to only enjoy certain types of books.

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                We have a problem in the US where boys stop reading earlier than girls and men read less than women (and reading in adults is abysmal in general). Anything that discourages reading is problematic IMO, and terms that tell people what they are and aren't supposed to enjoy do just that.

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                The problem I see with the free books, and IMO it is a problem, is that they are continually in one genre, not in a breadth of genres. I've always seen it as a problem that B&N is targeting "Julie" because the truth is that there is no Julie - there are just a lot of customers with their own interests. I've specifically called out the Julie profile as sexist multiple times in the past, and if all the free books being romance is due to targeting of "Julie" then that's just another example of it. Realistically, though, I doubt B&N puts that much thought into targeting the freebies.

                                                                                                Quoted for value, emphasized passage entirely my doing.

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                I'm late to this thread and all I really have to add is that I commend keriflur for forbearance and restraint far above the norm. I don't think I could have been as patient, capable, and intelligent in responding to so many cliches of privilege.

                                                                                            • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                              nlstein

                                                                                              Thanks for the lesson.

                                                                              • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                kamas716

                                                                                They are still courting 'Julie', apparently she's the only one who visits B&N much anymore.

                                                                                  • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                    bobstro
                                                                                    While there have been plenty of freebies for a general audience, I've found damned few that appeal to me. Then again, I'm already buying, so perhaps my demographic just isn't affected by free offerings as much and the publishers don't see a compelling need to "tempt" me. 

                                                                                    Most of what I see are pulpy serials intended to be mass-consumed. I wouldn't necessarily call them "for women" so much as for a mass consumption audience. Romance, vampires, zombies, juvenile fantasy and such. Giving a one-off quality title away doesn't  make sense, whereas giving away a taster for one of a never-ending series does. I'm sure they're all hoping to be the next Harry Potter or 50 Shades. 

                                                                                    Meanwhile, I can find freebies but I have to go look for them. I'm OK with that. It would be nice if B&N had a curated selection available to get one started. I don't need them to drop into my lap, but starting out, I would have liked to avoid wading through a lot of the freebie trash and tentacle porn that came up in searches. I've found the solution is to avoid searching at B&N. This is another area where B&N could provide a significant value-add, but doesn't. 
                                                                                    1 of 1 people found this helpful
                                                                                  • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                    junonia-shell

                                                                                    I have found that Amazon does a little better job at offering more diverse selections on their free book offerings. Over the years, I've picked up books by J A Konrath, Russell Blake, T. Jefferson Parker, Paul Levine, and Bob Mayer, to name a few, that my husband and I both like to read.

                                                                                      • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                        kamas716

                                                                                        junonia-shell wrote:

                                                                                         

                                                                                        I have found that Amazon does a little better job at offering more diverse selections on their free book offerings. Over the years, I've picked up books by J A Konrath, Russell Blake, T. Jefferson Parker, Paul Levine, and Bob Mayer, to name a few, that my husband and I both like to read.

                                                                                        B&N used to have a more diverse offering. It wasn't always my taste, but it seemed like a broader genre selection than what they've offered over the last year.

                                                                                          • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                            Sandikal

                                                                                            I've been with Nook since 2010.  Early on, they used to get some really great books from major publishers for their Free Friday selections.  I still have a lot that I haven't even read yet.  Over the last couple of years, I've become less and less excited about Fridays.  It's not so much that so many of the books are romances, I don't really read the genre, but I do understand that it is the single most popular genre in ebooks.  (Romance readers are often voracious and ebooks are perfect for the voracious reader.)  What gets me is that most of the Free Friday selections lately seem to be self-published or Smashwords books.  When a major publisher does offer a free novel, not novella or short story, I'm more likely to find it through GoodReads or another message board, not from B&N's Free Friday selection. 

                                                                                              • Re: Free books mostly for women
                                                                                                TarHeelGirl00

                                                                                                Sandikal wrote:

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                I've been with Nook since 2010.  Early on, they used to get some really great books from major publishers for their Free Friday selections.  I still have a lot that I haven't even read yet.  Over the last couple of years, I've become less and less excited about Fridays.  It's not so much that so many of the books are romances, I don't really read the genre, but I do understand that it is the single most popular genre in ebooks.  (Romance readers are often voracious and ebooks are perfect for the voracious reader.)  What gets me is that most of the Free Friday selections lately seem to be self-published or Smashwords books.  When a major publisher does offer a free novel, not novella or short story, I'm more likely to find it through GoodReads or another message board, not from B&N's Free Friday selection. 

                                                                                                I agree.

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                And today's Free Friday selection is a Smashwords book that was already free.