If I’d known that Jan W Butler was an Inspirational author, I’d have understood a bit better where she was coming from. Clarity has enabled the scales to fall from my eyes, and I understand her viewpoint a bit better now. She’s a fucktard, pure and simple.

The fact that she’s a religious fucktard, is of no surprise to me. Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Afghanistan anybody? There are plenty of religious fucktards in those particular parts of the world aren’t there? Yes, I said it, and what of it?.

Religion is the scourge of the world, and some of the most religious people I ever met, were amongst the most intolerant. The fact that this particular inspirational author has a thing against gay people (yes bitch you do, and don’t fucking deny it), doesn’t surprise me in the least.

She responded to Kate’s original post, and this is what she had to say in its entirety:

Never mind. If you can’t effectively attack the truth of an assertion–which is, in fact, that legally we cannot bar anyone from writing virtually anything, calling it “romance,” and wanting to be represented by RWA, as long as we preserve the current “two people” definition–then attack the writer’s intelligence, her publisher, her website, her links, her blog, and anything else you can find.

Fact is, ladies and gentlemen, RWA used to stand for something. Now, it falls for anything, out of fear of being labeled “bigoted.” Most of you won’t remember a time when you could buy a romance and it’d be about emotion, not about body parts. Unfortunately, in most cases in the ABA market, that simply isn’t the case. We are surrounded by plotless wonders in which people know where to find the “provocative” scenes…because the publishers put the ad cards in those pages. And then we wonder why so much of the fiction world makes fun of us?

As for the “majority” of RWA not feeling the way I expressed? We’ll never know this, one way or the other, for a fact, because RWA has never posted the results of their poll about defining romance as one man, one woman. Even when directly asked, they won’t answer. (I know. I asked, and the e-mail was ignored.) This tells me the organization got an answer it didn’t want, one it was afraid would be politically incorrect, and so it’s not about to post that up on its website and “upset the children.”

If not, I’d love to see the results of that poll. Most of the people I know in RWA voted squarely on the side of the viewpoint I expressed. They aren’t stupid enough to put it out in public and get vilified for it, but hey…sometimes a little more’s at stake here than a writer’s ego.

It really doesn’t matter what you say about me, in the long run. It really doesn’t matter what you think about what I said. It really doesn’t matter how mad you get. Just don’t blame those of us out here attempting to “cry out in the wilderness” when you can’t find a book that expresses your idea of romance anymore…because the inmates have taken over the asylum.

Which asylum is she talking about? The one that let her out to preach her version of the truth?

She’s written about the reaction to her RWR essay in her blog, here are some snippets into her psyche.

Yes, I’m the infamous writer of the latest missive which apparently has gotten certain members of RWA’s drawers in a knot. In it, I dare to infer that because we’re not placing a definition on romance fiction, that it could be open to exploitation. (Which it could. And probably will.)

I mention that one-man, one-woman romance has been around for centuries (which it has), and that it’s supposed to represent RWA’s claim to be its main demographic. I advise RWA to stand for something, for a change, and this being a prime example of something they could stand for which would actually please most of the membership.

Is it me, or does she seem to take a little bit of pride in the fact that she’s a bigoted idiot? Smug arsehole.

Anyway, this was my fave bit:

But I find it both funny and very UNfunny that many of the people who are slinging the most vituperous arrows at ME are the same people who *claim* to stand for Free Speech in this Country, By Golly. You can’t censor us! How dare you! The culture demands diversity!

Oh, yeah?

You know, free speech? First Amendment? The one that enables them to make a book or a website or a movie or a joke as smutty as they like, and I don’t dare tell them they can’t?

Yeah, THAT First Amendment. But what has happened to MY First Amendment protection?

That whole statement calls for a huge fucking, BITCH PLEASE.
When white supremacists were preaching hatred and burning black people back in the day, I bet they too were moaning and bitching about people infringing on their rights to give those niggers what they deserve.

The woman is allowed to say what she wants, but she seems to have completely missed the fucking reason why people were schitzing out over her essay. This isn’t about defending crappy, plotless, character-deficient, sex-and-nothing-but-sex, romance books. The outrage is due to her One-Man-One-Woman-Is-The-Only-Way Rant.

The world isn’t as simple as that anymore, if it ever was. What part of the word ‘change’ does she not understand?

The fact is, it’s viewpoints like hers that encourage homophobia, and make it ok to exclude and terrorise people who don’t conform to ‘societal norms’.

I consider myself a moral person, but I guarantee that my idea of morality and hers are poles apart. Whatever happened to love thy neighbour? Does that only count if your neighbour is exactly like you, believes in the same things as you do, and isn’t in the habit of indulging in same-sex relationships?

I said it once, and I’ll say it again, FUCKTARD, FUCKTARD, FUCKTARD.

If I needed another reason to avoid inspirational romances (which I didn’t), then Butler certainly did her bit in convincing me that anything remotely religious is to be avoided at all costs.

Anyway, work calls, but Smart Bitch Candy has some interesting things to say about some of the points that Butler raised in her blog, so go read.