Myth 5: All romances are a 'bodice rippers'

This fabulously descriptive term is generally used in a derogatory way to refer to romance and using it is about the fastest way to raise the ire in a roomful of romance readers or writers. The term famously refers to one of the most popular romantic forms, historical romance (although with the advent of paranormal romance perhaps the bodice is on the comeback trail). Many bodices have been ripped over the years--within historical romance and without--but no more than other dramatic, impatient, passionate acts like galloping off on a horse, slapping a chiselled jaw or sweeping a heroine off her feet. It's just that passionate clinches between bare-chested heroes and bodice-wearing heroines graced thousands of covers.

Like all clichés, the popularity of the act is what has pushed it into the realm of cultural folklore. Truthfully, the great majority of romance novels are not historical (approx 83% in 2006) and sadly have no bodices to rip. Nonetheless, 'bodice ripper' is still used to demeen the romance genre.

When I mentioned to my local vet that I was going to write a book, he automatically said 'will it have a long haired, shirtless man on horseback?' After I resisted my urge to tell him it would be about a short-haired, bespectacled veterinarian with a scalpel sticking out of his forehead, I thought about it. Chances are he never read a romance novel in his life. But his mum certainly did and his wife probably did and so he'd likely seen a Fabio cover or three. He, quite literally, judged the book by its cover. Only I hadn't even written it yet.

It will take a long time for the industry (and society) to move past those covers, particularly when market demand means they are still very well represented on our bookshelves.