January 30, 2012

dear clusterflock

What portion of bodices in literature exist only to be torn, ripped, shredded, or otherwise rent asunder?

comments

  1. Michael Smith on January 30th, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    I’ve not read anything recently that mentions bodices at all. Am I missing out?

  2. Deron Bauman on January 30th, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    All of them? Except as metaphors for repression, in which case: stage one booster rockets.

  3. Dave Vogt on January 30th, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    Michael: As with many academic pursuits, we must restrict our purview to that tiny segment of the field which contains the subject of our discussion, ignoring and sometimes completely forgetting about practical applications of our study within the field and in the world at large.

  4. Michael Smith on January 30th, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    That’s it, I’m writing a novel about a renaissance faire.

  5. Dave Vogt on January 30th, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Zombies.

  6. Joel Bernstein on January 30th, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    The front.

  7. Sheila Ryan on January 30th, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Bodacious.

  8. Sheila Ryan on January 30th, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Bodacious Ta-Tas.

  9. Sheila Ryan on January 30th, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    For Deron: Banana Bag & Bodice.

  10. Deron Bauman on January 30th, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Bag your banana bodice.

  11. Sheila Ryan on January 30th, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    You mean, like, tit-fucking?

  12. Deron Bauman on January 30th, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    For starters.

  13. Joel Bernstein on January 30th, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Did anybody get my joke? Anyone?

  14. Sheila Ryan on January 30th, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Joel: Yes. It went without saying.

  15. Michael Smith on January 30th, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Joel, did you want a LOL?

  16. Joel Bernstein on January 30th, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    I was just curious whether it was as funny on the screen as it was in my head.

  17. Deron Bauman on January 30th, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    Give a man a LOL…. Teach a man to LOL. Um.

  18. Rick Neece on January 30th, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Sheila, I think the correct term is Titty-fuck[ing.]

  19. Sheila Ryan on January 30th, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    Aw, Ricky, gimme a break. I can do it just fine.

  20. Rick Neece on January 30th, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    Sheila, girl, I know you’re equipped and able. “Titty” is funnier, IMHO. Smootches.

  21. Sheila Ryan on January 30th, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    “Titty” is funnier, Rick, ’tis true. However, “tit” (combined with “fuck” — and spoken whilst shooting a direct gaze) is remarkably effective. Or so I’ve found.

  22. Rick Neece on January 30th, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    Girl! You know what works, works. Titty-fuck is funny. Tit-fuck is seriously serious. All in where you’re going with the message. Yes?

  23. Sheila Ryan on January 30th, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    Damn right, son.

  24. India on February 2nd, 2012 at 1:44 am

    Very few, imho. I read a shit-ton of romance, but I prefer it when the bodices don’t actually get ripped. I mean, come on! Nice dresses were hella expensive back then!

    Take the time to unfasten it, gents. Remember: Slow can be sexy, too.

  25. Joel Bernstein on February 2nd, 2012 at 1:46 am

    Fabio unfastened the hook at the top, then Fabio unfastened the second hook from the top, then Fabio unfastened the third hook from the top, then Fabio unfastened the fourth hook from the top…

  26. Joel Bernstein on February 2nd, 2012 at 1:48 am

    i.e. slow can be sexy, but not for the reader.

  27. India on February 2nd, 2012 at 1:57 am

    Don’t write any romance novels, Joel.

  28. Joel Bernstein on February 2nd, 2012 at 2:00 am

    I did, but it was only three sentences long.

  29. India on February 2nd, 2012 at 2:03 am

    That’s what she said.

  30. Joel Bernstein on February 2nd, 2012 at 2:06 am

    The second sentence was “Boy loses Girl.”

  31. Sheila Ryan on February 2nd, 2012 at 8:07 am

    Joel, please write a romance novel — say, a novelization of Jeff & Casey Time.