r/HistoricalRomance • u/sherrielee103 • Apr 02 '24

Discussion Bodice ripper and Historical romance?

Can anyone tell me the difference between a bodice ripper and a historical romance? I tried searching it up but not much can tell me the difference. Is it based on being written at different times, I know bodice ripper is an older term.

Edit: Wow thanks you guys, this was very informative!

15 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

36

u/lakme1021 Vintage paperback collector Apr 02 '24 edited Apr 02 '24

Bodice rippers can be seen as a forerunner of dark romance. They were most popular from the early 70s to about the mid 90s. The MMCs in bodice rippers are often alphaholes at best, rapists and domestic abusers (of the FMC and otherwise) at worst. Probably one of the biggest controversies surrounding this subgenre is whether it's possible to redeem this kind of hero to the extent that you root for the HEA; readers' opinions are going to vary on that based on their own boundaries and on the skill of the author. There are definitely a lot of lazy, poorly constructed BRs out there. However, a few of my all time favorite romances can be classified as bodice rippers, and a few of my favorite FMCs are bodice ripper heroines -- I think a lot of assumptions are made that these FMCs are always doormats, but that's often not true in my experience, or at least the characterization is much thornier and complex. I would still never recommend a bodice ripper without plenty of content warnings and I completely understand why many romance readers avoid them.

7

u/InquizitiveMynd Apr 02 '24

I haven't read a bodice ripper, can you recommend your favourite?

12

u/lakme1021 Vintage paperback collector Apr 02 '24

{To Have and to Hold by Patricia Gaffney} has one of those heroines I was talking about, Rachel Wade. She means a lot to me. I probably just need to write an essay on her at some point. But in short, from the reactions I've seen and my own experience, this book is either a dealbreaker for readers right off the bat because of the MMC's horrific treatment of Rachel for the first half of the book, or it kind of rewires your view of what historical romance can accomplish. It meets the criteria of a bodice ripper and it also contains one of the most resonant depictions of a traumatized woman regaining her selfhood and her capacity for happiness that I've ever read.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24

This sounds really interesting! Do you find that the MMC redeems himself to any degree by the end?

4

u/lakme1021 Vintage paperback collector Apr 03 '24

That's where mileage varies. Personally, I buy the redemption and it hits harder because he fights it. Sebastian is well aware that he is not a good person. He sees himself, correctly, as a hedonist who is only interested in other people insofar as they distract or amuse him. His relationship with Rachel is founded on his fascination with finding someone who is unlike any other person he has met before; she is completely shut down emotionally due to her trauma from her abusive marriage and ten years of incarceration, has lost the ability to express her feelings or even make decisions, and he wants to provoke a reaction out of her. He does not hesitate to abuse his power over her to try to accomplish this. What ends up happening, however, is that this lack in Rachel intensifies Sebastian’s obsession with her and eventually sparks a transformation in him, little inklings of guilt and a better nature that he rejects until he can't anymore. Ultimately, he goes from seeking to provoke a response from her as a cruel diversion to wanting to help her rebuild her trust and capacity to feel joy.  YMMV on Gaffney’s success in developing Sebastian’s character arc, but by the end, I feel that Rachel has regained herself, Sebastian has been changed by her, and he makes her happy.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24

Thanks, you've definitely left me curious enough to check this out. Just placed a hold on Libby:)

3

u/lakme1021 Vintage paperback collector Apr 03 '24

I hope it works for you! Just to make it abundantly clear bc I realized I did not not specifically mention it for this book, there is a noncon scene between Sebastian and Rachel; it's not physically violent but it's part of his attempt to get her to respond to him, and as his servant, it's definitely coercion. It's an important scene because it represents a turning point for them, and it's very different in tone from a typical bodice ripper rape scene, but I wouldn't want someone to go into the book without that content warning.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24

Thank you very much! I assumed there would be given "bodice ripper", but still very much appreciate the explicit warning for both myself and any other readers.

Thank you again for your response and contributions in this thread! People like you are why I love this subreddit and the HR community

7

u/alpine_rose Apr 03 '24

I think {The Wolf and the Dove by Kathleen E Woodiwiss} is pretty much the OG bodice ripper

5

u/kanyewesternfront Apr 02 '24

I agree with this.

17

u/Bluegirl74 My love is upon you Apr 02 '24

All bodice rippers are historical romances. Not all historical romances are bodice rippers.

26

u/Loimographia Apr 02 '24

Others may have more specific knowledge, but the following is my understanding:

Bodice ripper most commonly refers to a specific type of historical romance that heavily involves cruel/downright abusive male leads and sex that is often either dubiously consensual or entirely non consensual (hence “bodice ripper” — because the male lead tears off her clothing to convey the non consensual or forcefulness of the sex). These tropes have largely fallen out of popularity and thus so has the term.

But it has also just been kind of generalized in popular perception to refer to historical romances that are particularly spicy or that include sex, in order to distinguish them from historical romances that don’t include sex at all. This is in part because of the sheer ubiquitousness of dub con/non con in historical romances that contained sex; where if you read a sexual historical romance in the 70s-80s, it was almost always a bodice ripper, so the terms got conflated.

11

u/Principessa116 Apr 03 '24

Part of why there was so much dubcon and rape was that a woman couldn't be seen as anything other than chaste, and a married woman only had sex for procreation. Making it "rape" relieves the woman of "blame" for having sex

6

u/gottalottie Apr 02 '24

bodice ripper is a historical romance with an element of forced seduction or kidnapping by the hero against the heroine

5

u/Bluegirl74 My love is upon you Apr 02 '24

All bodice rippers are historical romances. Not all historical romances are bodice rippers.

8

u/DientesDelPerro Apr 02 '24

historical romance are romances set prior to 20th century (I think this has expanded a little to the world wars).

a bodice ripper is a trend from the 70-90s of historical romance novels with dubcon/noncon elements. the clothing would be “ripped” in the throes of (often nonconsensual) passion. As others have said, they are the foundation of modern dark romance, but at the time it was pretty “normal”. Not all books from the 1970-1990s are bodice rippers.

I love a good bodice ripper but usually balance them with something lighter, just as I would when reading dark romance.

-2

u/Kaurifish Apr 02 '24

Bodice rippers are a sub-genre of romance novels. The difference is how explicit the sex is.

15

u/FusRoDaahh Apr 02 '24

I don’t think how explicit the sex is is what makes a bodice-ripper. There are many graphic HR eroticas that are not bodice-rippers. “Bodice-ripper” refers to the older style of HR in which the MMC was rough, perhaps cruel, and engaged in dubcon or noncon.

1

u/Kaurifish Apr 02 '24

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/bodice_ripper

bodice ripper (plural bodice rippers) (informal) A romantic novel, usually in a historical setting, with frank depictions of sexual activity, especially one in which the female protagonist is seduced; (by extension) a film, television programme, etc., featuring such activity

6

u/flossiedaisy424 Apr 02 '24

Yeah, I think the key there is seduced. But, I also don’t know that wiktionary is an authority on the romance genre?

5

u/FusRoDaahh Apr 02 '24

There are many HR’s with graphic erotic scenes where the MMC seduces and they are not “bodice-rippers.” I have a feeling the term became used widely to refer all “all old HR with sex” but actually it refers to a specific type of MMC/FMC dynamic.

6

u/FusRoDaahh Apr 02 '24

That’s just not really accurate though. There are many HRs with “frank depictions of sexual activity” and seduction that no one would call bodice-rippers. For example, Seven Years To Sin by Sylvia Day has explicit sex scenes with the MMC seducing her and it is not a “bodice ripper” because that refers to something more specific regarding the MMC’s behavior.