As a resident of New York State, I’ve been reading about an awful lot of sex in the news lately. Scandalous politicians. More scandalous politicians. And a flurry of follow-up articles to feed our curiosity on the difference between a one diamond prostitute and a five diamond prostitute. I’ve been bombarded with sex in the morning paper for the last week.
So I found it a little curious this morning when a reader in Australia contacted me about the opposite problem. She’d read an article in her paper detailing the hundred-year era of Mills & Boon books and noted a reference to language used in romance. After citing novels from 1911, 1944, 1961 and 1976, the article’s author pulled this quote from my Blaze book, Don’t Look Back:
He **** his**** and then ***** the **** *** on her ****.
The reader who emailed me was curious—what words could have been missing from this so-called quote? The rampant use of asterisks suggests offensive or very sexually overt language that couldn’t be printed. Moreover, the use of varied numbers of asterisks suggests the possibility of matching up letter count. And we have less than one sentence to go on. While the out-takes for the older books offer two and three sentences or portion of sentences, here we are offered one half of a line missing the nouns and verbs.
I’ll admit I was curious too. I couldn’t envision writing this snippet and had to do a computer search of the document based on the small amount of text at hand to uncover the mystery. As it turns out, the article omitted some fairly innocuous words along with one more racy term. In the Mills & Boon version of the book, the mystery is solved on page 79:
He licked his thumb and centered the damp pad on her ****…
Okay, I’m going to keep the asterisks here with the assurance that the last bit is a female body part. We’ve just set foot into the bedroom in the middle of a highly charged love scene with no precursors or emotional connection. But even so, I’d like to think the licking of a thumb is no more suggestive or scandalous than the offerings of a prostitution ring. Was the paper afraid of offending readers?
In author Glenda Cooper’s defense, the snippet ran in more colorful detail in its original home, the
U.K.’s Telegraph. The bleeping comes from the Telegraph’s web version and a reprint in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Is the licking of a thumb too much detail for you over the morning news? Or are we, as genre fans, too immune to the steam factor of our books to be properly shocked?
****I’ll be giving away an advance copy of my equally colorful May Blaze, UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL, to a random poster.
-
Hi Joanne,
I have to say, I’m very surprised about the “***” maybe they felt if it wasn’t done like that the meaning/action of the sentence would be too obvious and *that* would be scandalous? Newspapers don’t normally talk about sex, as in describing the act or a “how to” - but I think the bleeping was a bit excessive. The article was very interesting, and I can see how Violet Winspear’s quote haunted her and M&B.
Some of how the article was written made me go “huh.” I’m still going to have to process it. At least you got a mention, right? I think the sentence would have been fine as you posted it -and if they were that nervous, blanking out the second to last word would have sufficed.
by limecello
on March 25th, 2008 at 7:23 am
-
You know, I think that it’s really interesting, from a sociological perspective, how so many people can read about all sorts of sexual violence, from rape to incest to sexual murders, both in the news and in literature *ahem* and feel it’s okay–because the purpose of showing or describing these things is to shock them.
Yet, when sexuality is used to emphasize or describe positive feelings, it’s considered scandalous and taboo.
Doesn’t make a lick of sense to me, but I’ve seen it happen–first hand–in four different countries.
by azteclady
on March 25th, 2008 at 7:43 am
-
I never thought of myself as jaded by sex, until recently. I don’t pay attention to the context of sex the same anymore. My husband had picked up a book that I had been reading and actually blushed, I find this hilarious. Of course, sex is so much of society now that when we were discussing the difference between cheating with a prostiute verus your everyday woman I didn’t think twice to talk about it in front of my children. My 11 yr old daughter had an opinion and that’s when I realized that sex is no longer shocking to me. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or not.
by Patty L.
on March 25th, 2008 at 8:15 am
-
Incredible, isn’t it? You hear and see (almost) more suggestive acts/terms than this on television after 9 p.m.
by Laurie
on March 25th, 2008 at 9:04 am
-
By omitting the less explicit words, the author of the article made the quote seem much more salacious than it was. When I see asterisks, I assume the words are extremely graphic. As you’ve shown, other than one word (which didn’t offend me!) they weren’t. I think the writer was misrepresenting your work.
By the way, if your word had referred to a male body part, would you have been quoted? I wonder.
-
A day or two after the Spitzer scandal the Today show had interviews with a call girl and a Madam which I thought seemed inappropriate for an audience that could very well have young children in it. Then they show a young boy on a couch waiting for his interview and he was there the whole time they were talking about prostitution. But they have to remove thumb from your sentence?
by Maureen
on March 25th, 2008 at 10:06 am
-
You see these thing everyday on TV, articles and everything else. I am just suprised that these words were omitted in the paper. Sex just seems to be a fact of life these days and people don’t think much about what they see. What was the big deal?
by Virginia H.
on March 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
-
That is an interesting tidbit to hear!!! I can understand placing the quote in the way you typed it, but the other way makes you wonder more about the content!
by Colleen
on March 25th, 2008 at 11:00 am
-
Maureen said it very well.
Unfortunately not too much shocks me anymore. Sad state of affairs. We heard recently a priest from our parish - is being investigated for sexual misconduct. It is one thing if adults are abused, but it is really horrific if it is a child.
by Pat L.
on March 25th, 2008 at 11:25 am
-
I don’t think that sentence is too explicit and needed that level of bleeping. There is a lot more explicit stuff on tv and the radio at most anytime of the day.
by Katie B.
on March 25th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
-
I agree with the ladies that nothing shocks us anymore. Sometimes less info is better. I didn’t need to know that our governor didn’t like to wear condoms. That’s an example of TMI.
by Jane
on March 25th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
-
I think they censored so much of the sentence to make it seem more salacious than it was. The good news is you got mentioned by name. Great free publicity! It will be interesting to see if UK sales increase because of it. 
-
Good grief! The tv has racier language on the soap operas every day.
by Estella
on March 25th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
-
Good grief! That is really taking something fairly innocent and trying to turn it into something racy.
by Joyce
on March 25th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
-
I think that by leaving out those words they made it sound a lot worse than it actually was. It’s hard to say if they did it on purpose or they just were being ridiculous!
by catslady
on March 25th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
-
I agree that it seems like they wanted to make it seem more racy than it was–how ridiculous, especially given the type of stuff they do routinely cover! And honestly, I’d much rather they censor violence and descriptions thereof a bit more judiciously!
by Fedora
on March 25th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
-
I don’t think it was that explicit. The last word might have been but the word itself could have been substituted with something less bold. I mean, look at the news we watch daily on Tv or even some of the regular shows out there.
by April
on March 25th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
-
It seems that a lot of us agree that they “bleeped” out the words to make the sentence seem much more salacious. Why must people knock romance. Also, it’s interesting how sex is so taboo, but violence is ok - you can describe it in graphic detail - or even print pictures of it.
by limecello
on March 25th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
-
i dont care one way or the other, if u dont like dont read it.
by kim h
on March 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
-
Thanks for chiming in on this! I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who felt the censorship was — at least in part– unnecessary.
***Winners*** Congratulations to byrdlover, the thread winner. I’ve sent you an email privately and as soon a I hear back, I’ll send you off a copy of Up Close and Personal. Thanks to everyone who participated!
-
Congrats, byrdlover!
by azteclady
on March 26th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
-
Thanks so much, Joanne. I’m looking forward to reading Up Close and Personal. Got any wet thumb pads in it? 
-
I think it’s safe to say wetness plays a role!! LOL. I’m shipping the book off today…
-
wtg bryd
by kim h
on March 27th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
