Mending the Bodice?

I must admit, after all these years of reading romance—and more recently—of writing romance, I still wince when I see the term “bodice ripper.”
As historical authors, we bear the brunt of the stigma associated with this term. How many times have I heard historical romance writers, as the authors of the bodice ripper, are not serious writers, we write by formula (please, someone tell me what it is so I can use it), and that we have cardboard characters who swoon, fight and—well, you know—rip bodices?

I googled the phrase bodice ripper and found this discussion as the first link (from the Phrase Dictionary):

Romance Novels known as Bodice Rippers: “These books owe much in style to the work of English romantic novelists like Jane Austen and Emily Bronte. Nevertheless, the term itself is American. The first reference in print is from The New York Times, December 1980:
"Women too have their pornography: Harlequin romances, novels of 'sweet savagery,' - bodice-rippers."

It soon caught on and appears numerous times in the US press from that date onward. Here's an early example, in a story about [then] emerging novelist, Danielle Steel, from the Syracuse Herald Journal, New York, 1983:

"I think of romance novels as kind of bodice rippers, Steel says."

The genre is commercially highly successful, but isn't taken seriously by most literary critics. Most examples are judged by more base criteria than the classic works of Austen or the Brontes. Bodice Rippers are strictly formulaic and the plot usually involves a vulnerable heroine faced with a richer and more powerful male character, whom she initially dislikes. Later, she succumbs to lust and falls into his arms. The formula requires the books to be fat 'page turners', i.e. a plot device, usually a seduction scene, must happen at frequent intervals. Depending on the author or publishing house style, the principal characters must marry. It is virtually obligatory for the cover picture to show the swooning, ample-bosomed heroine.”

I’m sure Ms. Austen and the Brontes would be appalled. And Gasp! A romance writer helped define exactly what a bodice ripper is.

But thank heavens, someone made a decent current post on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_novel) all about romance as a genre, showcasing how many different lines of romance their really are, most of which do not fit the classic description of a bodice ripper as defined above.

I haven’t read a real bodice-ripping romance in years—except maybe a few recently where the heroine ripped her own bodice or she ripped the hero’s shirt. Different ball-game entirely. Yet the phrase “bodice ripper” persists, used by the uninformed and those who turn their noses up at what they think is romance. We are so much more than bodice ripper writers.

I was pleased to find this description of the romance genre in a crafts book.
From MAKING SHAPELY FICTION (by Jerome Stern):
“Writing successful genre fiction demands serious professional craftsmanship….It demands an understanding of such matters as optimum length, best ages for main characters, desired number of subplots, satisfactory endings and so forth….Some writers, though they neither enjoy nor know much about a genre will cynically try to turn out a romance…The effort usually ends up being a waste of time, their lack of belief in what they’re doing shows through. A sellable genre novel has to have its own freshness, its own originality, its own integrity . . .”

This was written in a book intended for “literary” writers and it’s one of the few discussions of genre where there’s no put down here, where bodice ripper isn’t even mentioned. This is refreshing.

The term will probably never go away, but maybe someday we’ll view it like we do those goofy outdated and often politically incorrect comic books from the 1940s.

In the meantime, what do you think it will take to mend the bodice? The abolishment of clutch covers? Or a new generation of readers who can’t remember Rosemary Rogers?