Scarred Baddies Are a Stereotype...

Late last week there was an item in a few of the newspapers about stereotyping in movies of those with facial disfigurement- scars indicate a baddie.

If you are interested in the campaign to change this attitude, then you'll find the BBC News article here and the Changing Faces website here, where you can watch their short film that is being shown in 750 cinemas across the UK.

But it got me thinking about how disfigured people are viewed in romantic fiction.

In the classic, Jane Eyre, Mr Rochester is injured and blinded in a fire. Apart from his intention to commit bigamy by marrying Jane, while his first wife is still alive and locked up for her own safety, he's not seen as a baddy, he's just a man in an impossible situation.

In an historical romance context there are going to be scarred heroes and minor villains...

Before guns, men used swords, and in a fight or a battle if you didn't die from the vicious sword wound you'd probably die from blood poisoning. And if you did survive there would be scars- yes they would fade a little in time, but they would still be visible.
Wounds would be sewn with a needle and thread, and the neatness of the scar would depend on how good the doctor (or whoever was doing the stitching up) was with their stitches...

No doubt there were people in past times who turned away from those who suffered disfigurement, or heavy scarring, just as many still do now days.

Certainly in some of the American historical romances I've read over the years, the heroine drags the scarred and/or disabled hero back into the light, and back into society by the healing power of her love.

The baddies in these stories often lack scars, in fact they look just like anyone else- they can even be women!

So no cinema stereotypes there, quite the opposite in fact...

Agency Model Revisited...

It's been quite difficult to keep up with the almost daily changes going on in relation to Apple, the big name publishers, e-books and the 'Agency Model'.

At the moment there's no final news on the results of the investigation being undertaken by the European Commission (on whether any competition laws have been infringed by agency model pricing).

But earlier this week the US Department of Justice filed papers alleging conspiracy, by Apple and five US publishers, over fixing e-book prices.
Obviously the publishers refuted this and Apple's spokesman denied any collusion.

Now, I'm inclined to accept they didn't actually get together and agree to fix prices- after all they're competitors in one way. But obviously once one publisher does something major, the others are bound to look at it and quickly follow suit without reference to their fellow publishers, just to avoid being put at a disadvantage in the market...

And they probably all share the desire to get one up on Amazon, just to get a little control back...

Three publishers quickly settled with the DoJ and agreed terms- read this piece in the Bookseller explaining.

Meanwhile four publishers have apparently offered a deal to the EC.

While there's a split between those publishers who've agreed to their agency terms being modified, and the remainder who are holding out, surely Amazon will take advantage?

You can read Alison Flood's concerns in the Guardian, 'The Apple ebook price-fixing lawsuit has terrifying implications'.

If your head is spinning from all those links, then you'll find this extensive piece, 'Agency is dead, long live new agency' by Phillip Jones rounding up all the information, with essential quotes and links, plus the implications of these changes, useful.

I can see 2012 is going to prove very interesting...