Marvel Comics and the Male Gaze

One thing that may have contributed to the growing popularity of Marvel Comics in the 1960s was specialization on a particular reader: the teenage male. Unlike DC, which continued into the 1970s to have strong lines in other genres besides male power fantasies, the main focus of Marvel by the mid-1960s was on their superhero line. Occasionally new titles outside that genre would be introduced, but they would be downplayed as lesser titles by Marvel itself. Marvel was a male space; the reader was presumed to be male and addressed as such.

In THE SUPERHERO WOMEN (1977), which focused only on Marvel's superhero output, Stan Lee acknowledged that more males read comics, but presented this as a "chicken vs. egg" situation. "Do less females read comics because they seem to be aimed at a male audience," he writes, "or are they aimed at a male audience because less females read them?" Lee pleads ignorance: "If you're expecting an answer, forget it. I've spent years waiting for someone to tell me!"

Elsewhere in the book Lee claims that none of the comics in the book "were written primarily for female readers, or male readers, or anything in between." This contradicts the statement quoted above (on the previous page in the book) where he acknowledges that comics "seem to be aimed at a male audience" and that fewer women read them.

However, Lee has no suggestions for how to change that situation or evidently any desire to do so. "Y'know, over the past few years," he writes, "many people have asked what Marvel's policy is in regard to women. Basically, we have no policy at all -- just as we have no specific policy toward brunettes, or tap dancers, or podiatrists. In fact, I've always been rather proud that Marvel avoids setting policies where none are needed. Why should we have a policy regarding women when we have no such policy regarding men?"

And yet, the gender bias reflects a male POV, whether Lee regarded it as "policy" or not. For example, in 1969 Marvel dipped its feet into the romance genre (a genre that competitors like DC and Charlton had not abandoned, unlike Marvel) with two new titles: MY LOVE and OUR LOVE STORY. At the same time, Marvel also got into the mystery/horror genre again. Both genres were treated in the Bullpen Bulletins as secondary (or in the case of the romance titles, dead last) in importance to what was going on in their more popular superhero titles.

Shown below are some of the 1969 Bullpen Bulletins items about the romance titles. The reader of the Bullpen page is presumed to be a young male, so when the romance titles are announced, the pitch is: "Think of the bread you'll save buying THESE for your gal friends instead of diamonds and Rolls-Royces!"  The implication of this joking remark is that women are expensive to please, so buying them these romance comic books are a cheaper alternative.

The Sept. 1969 Mighty Marvel Checklist entry for MY LOVE #1 reads "...if you like to look at gorgeous gals -- this is the place to find 'em, Charlie!" The reader is presumed male, and the added "Charlie" name emphasizes this.

MY LOVE #1, being a bimonthly title, is still at the bottom of the next month's Marvel checklist, and described simply as "For everyone who loves to look at groovy chicks -- and who doesn't?" Once again, the typical male gaze is given prominence while the female reader's POV is ignored.

The next month, MY LOVE #2 is listed at the bottom of the Nov. 1969 checklist. (The non-superhero titles were always listed at the bottom of these checklists, and the titles aimed at female readers were always listed dead last.) MY LOVE #2 is described in full this way: "Don't knock it, guys! Wait'll you get a look at these chicks!"

This is what I meant at the beginning by saying that Marvel at this point was a male space. The reader of the Bullpen Bulletins page was presumed male. The presumption also was that this male reader was not inclined to like these "girl" comics. There is even the sense that Marvel itself was a little embarrassed to be doing them, or that their only value was for looking at them from the perspective of the male gaze ("gorgeous gals," etc.). This is in line with Stan's comments in THE SUPERHERO WOMEN where he doubts that "there's an artist anywhere who can draw lovelier ladies than Jazzy Johnny Romita."

Incidentally, THE SUPERHERO WOMEN book is a great example of how these Lee-authored Marvel history books are slanted and self-serving.  To begin with, one would think that a book about superheroines would at least give a passing mention in the text to the two most famous ones, Wonder Woman and Supergirl.  Perhaps even Mary Marvel or Batgirl.  But nope, they are not even mentioned anywhere in the book.

If one had no knowledge of comics, one would assume that it was Marvel who pioneered the concept of the female superhero.  Check out this paragraph from the chapter on the Invisible Girl:

"Let me tell you right up front why I'm still frankly fascinated by the concept of the stunning Ms. Storm. At the time that Jack Kirby and I put our noggins together and decided to come up with a new team of super do-gooders, there wasn't much happening in those circles. What few heroines there were all seemed to follow the same pattern. They weren't actually heroines at all; they were just the heroes' girlfriends. They worried when their man went off to fight the ferocious foe, and they usually spent the rest of the time tearfully imploring him to give up his dangerous calling...." (etc, etc)

The chapter on Shanna admits that "Shanna is but one of a long list of leotard-wearing lovelies who have been industriously attempting to tame the savage jungle since comicbooks were in their infancy."  No mention is made of Sheena, the most famous one, but Lee does mention Marvel's 1950s character Jann of the Jungle in the next sentence. 

Each "chapter" in this book is only two pages long. So, although the book runs 253 pages, the actual text by Lee totals only 24 pages.  Due to the paucity of superheroine comics written by Lee, some of the comics reprinted within were written by others, and it's there where Lee's ignorance about anything outside his personal involvement is most evident.  

For example, in the chapter on THE CAT, he admits "I had forgotten about The Cat until recently when I was looking through our files, trying to select the stories that would comprise this volume."  Newly enthused about the character, Lee says "Sooner or later, when we get the time, I'll discuss the subject of Greer Nelson with Amiable Archie Goodwin, our Editor par excellence. And it's a pretty good bet that, if the right script and art team is available, you haven't seen the last of The Claws of the Cat!" Somehow this musing aloud got published without anyone telling Lee that Greer Nelson already had a new identity (Tigra) and that her costume was being worn by Patsy Walker as Hellcat. 

More surprising is the chapter on Ms. Marvel where Stan suggests that he was the driving force in the creation of the character. "I kicked the idea of such a heroine around with Roy Thomas for a while," Lee says. "Finally, we came up with the name MS. MARVEL,,,"  Lee then spends the next paragraph talking about John Buscema, who drew the first issue. The next paragraph has the only mention of Gerry Conway's contributions: "Scriptwise, we selected Gerry Conway to weave a web of words, both because of his experience in writing 'most every type of superhero yarn, and because he was also a socially-aware young scrivener. You see, we wanted Ms. Marvel to be treated like any other dramatic do-gooder in our merry Marvel menage; and we also wanted a sense of relevancy -- a sense of a woman's thoughts, emotions, and reactions while facing the same problems and threats as any male adventurer."  

So naturally, when one wants a woman's perspective, one selects a male writer for the job.

The problem with the above creation story of Ms. Marvel?  On the next page of the book is the splash page of Ms. Marvel #1, and the credit box says: "Conceived, Written & Edited by Gerry Conway" (a footnote adds "With more than a little aid and abetment from Carla Conway").

In the chapter on The Cat, Lee felt it was important to have women actually involved in the creative process.  "Wanting to really do it right," he says, "I asked Marvelous Marie Severin to pencil our premiere Cat strip, and Liltin' Linda Fite to write the script. Since we had the considerable talents of two such fabulous females available to us, it seemed only fitting that they write and illustrate our newest superhero series -- which would feature a gorgeously garbed girl."

Unfortunately, according to Lee, "our titanic little team began to fall apart."  Marie Severin got too busy coloring to do more penciling, inker Wally Wood "struck out for fame and fortune elsewhere, and we totally lost track of him" (did they contact the Missing Persons Bureau?) and Linda Fite got married to Herb Trimpe, and therefore "left the ranks of Marveldom for the brave new world of Motherhood!"  (Evidently once a woman has children, it's all over for her writing career.)  So, without a writer, penciler or inker available anymore "the decision was made to cancel the entire project."  Oh well!

Romance: A Genre Without a Past?

Goodreads posted a list on the site's blog today of "The 100 Most Popular Sci-Fi Books on Goodreads." The list was compiled by selecting "the most reviewed books on our site" which had secured "at least a 3.5-star rating from your fellow readers."  For "multiple titles from the same series," the book in the series "with the most reviews" was chosen.

The list contains a lot of classic literature novels with a science fiction element that were published prior to the establishment of the genre in the late 1920s, as well as some later novels by non-genre writers like George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.  (Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" are books #1 and #2 on the list, and Huxley's "Brave New World" is #4.)  Several of these novels are assigned reading in high school and college classes.

Out of curiosity, I took the trouble to write down the years published of the SF novels in this Top 100 list and arrange them chronologically.  (The point of all this will be revealed momentarily.)  The publication year of each novel is shown below, along with the placement of each novel for that year.

1818 - #7

1869 - #36

1895 - #19

1897 - #47

1898 - #28

1932 - #4

1938 - #79

1945 - #2

1949 - #1, #35

1950 - #25

1951- #20, #67, #74

1953 - #3, #51

1959 - #38, #55, #65

1961 - #24, #80

1962- #16, #40

1963 - #21

1965 - #13

1966 - #17, #56

1968 - #22, #27

1969 - #8, #32, #54

1970 - #57

1973 - #49

1974 - #48, #64, #71

1977 - #68

1978 - #15

1979 - #6, #53

1984 - #26

1985 - #5, #9, #52

1986 - #77

1987 - #61, #78

1989 - #39

1990 - #12

1991 - #81

1992 - #30, #75, #86

1993 - #60

1995 - #37

1996 - #62

1999 - #58

2002 - #69, #82

2003 - #33

2004 - #34

2005 - #18, #44

2006 - #14, #50

2010 - #59

2011 - #10, #42

2012 - #11, #43, #70, #89

2013 - #88

2014 - #23, #31, #45, #63, #73, #87

2015 - #66, #76, #84

2016 - #29, #46, #85, #90, #95

2017 - #41, #83, #97, #98, #100

2018 - #91, #92, #99

2019 - #72, #93, #94, #96

So, as can be seen above, the list contains 5 novels published in the 19th century (long before the genre was formed or its name coined); 53 novels published in the 20th century; and 42 novels published in the 21st century (i.e., within the past 20 years).  

Looking at these numbers, this appears to be a relatively balanced list when it comes to representing various eras of the genre.  The list is understandably heavily leaned towards "newer" (21st century) releases (nearly half the list), but not at the expense of ignoring the previous century (which comprises a little more than the other half of the list).  Emphasis on recent books is only to be expected given that the site is geared towards reader-reviewers and given the importance that authors today put on promoting their new books (and encouraging positive reviews) on Goodreads.

One may quibble or differ with individual choices, but one cannot say that the list has ignored the past since there are more 20th century novels on the list than there are 21st century novels.  This is a genre that appears to recognize and respect its own past.

Now then: Let us turn to the genre of romantic fiction.  Back in February, a similar list titled "Top 100 Romance Novels on Goodreads" appeared on the Goodreads site's blog.  This list was compiled by excluding YA (Young Adult) novels and limited to "books with at least a 3.9 average rating" (which explains why Fifty Shades of Grey, currently rated 3.6 stars, is not on the list despite its popularity).  Unlike the SF list, this one doesn't have numbers next to each book (#1, #2, etc.) although in my chronological version of the list below, I have given each book a number based on the order in which they are shown on the list.  So, here's how the romance novel list looks when arranged chronologically; I have provided the author and title for all books on the list that were published prior to the year 2000.

1811 - #82 (Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen)

1813 - #73 (Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen)

1847 - #43 (Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte)

1855 - #63 (North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell)

1936 - #36 (Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell)

1954 - #44 (Katherine by Anya Seton)

1977 - #90 (The Thorn Birds by Colleen McCullough)

1979 - #50 (Love Comes Softly by Janette Oke)

1987 - #64 (Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami)

1989 - #13 (The Bride by Julie Garwood)

         - #45 (A Kingdom of Dreams by Judith McNaught)

         - #47 (A Knight in Shining Armor by Jude Deveraux)

1991 - #69 (Outlander by Diana Gabaldon)

         - #77 (Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers)

1994 - #12 (Born in Fire by Nora Roberts)

         - #41 (It Had to Be You by Susan Elizabeth Phillips)

1995 - #61 (Naked in Death by J. D. Robb [Nora Roberts])

1996 - #65 (The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks)

1997 - #54 (Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden)

1998 - #1 (Addicted by Zane)

          - #40 (Into the Winderness by Sara Donati)

1999 - #11 (Beyond the Highland Mist by Karen Marie Moning)

         - #21 (Dark Prince by Christine Feehan)

         - #96 (A Walk to Remember by Nicholas Sparks)

2000 - #14, #28, #46, #57

2002 - #24, #33, #87

2005 - #20

2006 - #42, #84, #98

2007 - #3, #56, #85

2008 - #19, #23, #38, #72, #100

2009 - #4, #91, #94

2010 - #6, #22, #25, #51, #62, #74, #99

2011 - #2, #9, #16, #27, #34, #35, #37, #48, #59, #67, #71

2012 - #7, #17, #26, #29, #30, #31, #39, #53, #55, #58, #60, #66, #68, #70, #75, #80, #81, #83, #88, #89, #93, #97

2013 - #8, #10, #18, #32, #49, #76, #78, #79, #86, #92, #95

2014 - #5, #15, #52

Like the SF list, the romance novel Top 100 list contains some pre-genre (Jane Austen) and outside-the-genre (Nicholas Sparks) works.  One can see at a glance, however, that the most notable difference is how heavily weighted the romance list is towards more "recent" (21st century) releases.  

The romance novel list contains 4 novels published in the 19th century (the SF list had 5 novels); 20 novels published in the 20th century (the SF list had 53); and 76 novels published in the 21st century (the SF list had 42).  Moreover, only five of the twenty 20th century romance novels on the list were published prior to 1989. (In comparison, forty-three of the fifty-three 20th century SF novels were published prior to 1989.)

This list indicates that older romance novels are not well-regarded by romance readers today. In the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s, romance novels were derided by critics (when they bothered to think of them at all) as poorly-written junk, and it appears that today's romance readers agree with that damning verdict.  Because there is no body of criticism supporting old romance novels as worthy literature (as literature, not just for its potential cultural or historical interest), they are easier to dismiss and deride since there is almost no positive critical consensus surrounding them.

Okay, so perhaps that Goodreads Top 100 romance list is a fluke and doesn't really represent what the majority of romance readers think about the merit of 20th century romance novels.  

And yet, when lists of the greatest romance novels of all time are put together by fans (i.e., people knowledgeable about the genre) the entries often slant heavily towards more recent releases. For example, in the most recent AAR Top 100 list in 2018, there were only a few books on it published before 1990. Whereas when science fiction fans have compiled lists of their favorite SF and fantasy books, the lists are usually dominated by "classics" by long-dead authors. 

The existence of a body of criticism that takes the genre seriously means that even people who have not read certain novels will still hold them in some regard based on their reputation, despite the book's age. Therefore one needn't have read Frank Herbert's "Dune" (1965) or Ray Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles" (1950) or Robert A. Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" (1961) to recognize and understand their importance. They aren't swept away and forgotten simply because they are old. In the case of romance novels, the older books were widely considered to be "trash" by the critics back then and are still thought to be "trash" today. Older romance novels are left undefended, even by the genre's fans.

There may be another explanation, other than lack of critical appreciation, for the disregard of old romance novels and that may be the changing times. Romance novels are dependent on the establishment of fulfilled relationships among their protagonists, and as societal norms change about what is fulfilling or acceptable behavior, one's judgement of older attitudes is necessarily revised, resulting perhaps in a diminished regard for work that reflects those less enlightened times. In other words, what may have been thought highly of in 1975 may be hard to enjoy or defend today.

Of course, other genres were written back then, too, as were old movies and TV shows, many of which are still unapologetically enjoyed today, many decades after their release. Entire TV channels are devoted to old TV shows from the 1960s and 1970s, some old programs even revived in new versions for today's viewers despite the inherently problematic content reflecting the times in which they were made.

There is good and bad about the lack of regard for a genre's past works. It suggests that the romance genre today is not "stuck in the past" or a genre in decline, with its better days long behind.  The lack of an exalted "canon" of older romance works (aside from a few early giants like Jane Austen, who was pre-genre like H. G. Wells was to science fiction, and Georgette Heyer who gave the Regency romance novel much of its language) means that romance has fortunately avoided the oppressive lionizing of dead white authors at the expense of living diverse authors. The old "canon" that was built up in other genres was largely built up by white men and can be seen as another form of oppression of diverse voices. The romance genre is not burdened by the past's prejudice in the same way those genres are, if its own past's prejudiced works are more easily ignored or avoided. Romance has the chance to remain forever new.

On the other hand, it becomes complicated when the lack of celebration of older authors means the lack of celebration and acknowledgement of women, who wrote the bulk of 20th century romance novels. It also raises the question as to whether today's authors will be subject to the same treatment as their predecessors in another generation or two, as societal trends continue to change.

This focus on the present at the expense of the past reinforces the idea that romance novels are ephemeral, merely "beach reads" that are momentary diversions, soon forgotten after falling out of fashion.  Perhaps today's romance novels will have no more lasting worth than 20th century romance novels have had.  Today's favorites -- the 21st century novels which score so high today on these lists -- will eventually be forgotten as well, if history is any guide. 

However, if romance novels are appreciated for their literary value, for their significance to the evolution of the form and the enduring pleasure that they give to readers (and not just high sales), then perhaps they will be able to resist the tide that threatens to sweep them aside.  Hopefully a future Top 100 romance list won't treat so many books and authors as if they never happened.

Stores I Shop at in Dreams

Had a dream last night where there was a comics shop/bookstore/thrift store (it kept shifting) on Eureka Ave. just west of Fort Street.  I often have dreams about such hidden or unknown stores around that area, perhaps because in real life The Record Exchange (used record/CD store) used to be located there, which I semi-regularly stopped at until it closed in the mid-2000s. (Not sure of the exact date it closed, but I know it was still there in May 2002, since I bought some 1970s magazine-size B&W comics there on May 24, and the store was gone by May 2006, when I mentioned the store in an email to someone in the past tense.) 

I also have had dreams about such non-existent stores being located in Trenton on West Jefferson Ave., around the Trenton Theatre area (a couple blocks north of where the Trenton Book Store used to be) as well as in Grove and Fort Street strip mall in Wyandotte where Danny's Foods used to be (a strip mall that is pretty much dead space these days, with just a dollar store and a small Chinese restaurant surrounded by empty storefronts). 

I have also had a couple dreams where a 7-11 type store is located in Trenton off on a side street, which I discover while walking by the old neighborhood (which I used to do back in the 1980s when I lived there) and when walking inside I find that the store still has a spinner rack of new comic books, including defunct publishers like Charlton and defunct titles like Marvel Two-In-One, priced around 75 cents each -- brand-new comics, but somehow unchanged since the 1980s which is when I last bought comics off the spinner racks.  This imaginary 7-11 type store may be inspired by the 7-11 on King Road near Fort Street in Trenton, which I sometimes (but not often) bought comics at back then.  The "off on a side street" aspect of the store may be inspired by a local Circle K (a 7-11 type store) located in my area at the corner of Sibley Road and Pennsylvania Ave. that I've passed many times but have almost never gone in.  They certainly don't carry comics, but back in the 1980s the store probably had a spinner rack. Back in the 1980s, this particular store was a Lawson's (later Dairy Mart) which is the same chain that I bought a lot of my comics at in the 1980s.  I bought mine at the Lawson's/Dairy Mart in Trenton at the corner of King and Grange.  That store closed in 1989, and I never went to this Circle K (previously Lawson's/Dairy Mart) in the 1980s.  I moved to this area where it's located in May 1992, but don't recall going inside -- and back then my interest in new comics was non-existent anyway. I didn't perceive the comics spinner rack as an endangered species in the 1990s so paid less attention to such things until I noticed that they were no longer around anymore.

Anyway, back to last night's dream.  So I'm stopping at this store over on Eureka near Fort, where there (as in real life) are located a bunch of nondescript buildings, but it turns out one of them is a bookstore that has new & old comics and used books.  One of the books on the shelf is a hardcover British Annual type comic that reprints three 1980s New Teen Titans comics which I somehow had never heard of before.  One of the issues was written (apparently not drawn) by George Perez, and the other two issues in the book are a 2-parter written by Alan Moore.  (Somehow in all my years of comics collecting I never once considered the possibility of an Alan Moore-written "New Teen Titans" comic, and now after having this dream I'm thinking, "Why didn't that ever happen in the 1980s?") 

There was also a new comic on the shelf that looked like an Annual that appeared to be a co-publication of Marvel and DC, and yet I think it was simply starring Green Arrow and The Flash (co-headlining the comic).  I moved over to a table that had a bunch of paperback books for around 25 cents each, and below the table there were old romance novels priced lower, at 10 cents each.  (I think I know how this part of the dream came about: Around 8 years ago or so, my local library had a long table of used books for sale, and below the table they had used romance novels priced a lot cheaper, like around 10 cents each.  Back then I had no interest in romance novels so I didn't even bother looking at them.  So now I occasionally wonder what romance novels I might have passed up back then in my ignorance.)  In the dream, I decided to save the romance books for last (I woke up before I had a chance to get to them) and instead looked through the books on the top of the table.  Unfortunately I didn't remember any of the titles although I vaguely think I found some 1960s mystery/suspense paperbacks. 

That's about it; I woke up around that point in the dream,  There was probably much more that happened that I forgot.  Still, it got me thinking that subconsciously I must enjoy "discovering" little-known or secret stores that sell things that I like -- places that are hidden and out of the way, or that I've overlooked before.  Perhaps there is this feeling that there is something interesting happening somewhere and I only need to find it somehow -- or that things that I liked in the past may still be there in the present, tucked away in obscure corners.  Or like somewhere time has stood still and it's still 1985 and there are still spinner racks with new Charlton comics in them, and somehow I've stumbled upon this secret store. 

The good thing for me is that in most cases I don't need such dreams, the reality of my used book finds is awesome enough as it is.  Stopped at a thrift store on Friday and bought 45 used paperbacks for only $9.54 (including tax), with plenty of nice finds that I was grateful to have gotten. Life is good, so perhaps my dreams are simply reflecting my enjoyment of life

Marvel's MYSTIC

Shown here is the cover of a U.K. edition of MYSTIC, published by L. Miller & Son in 1964. According to the Grand Comics Database, the series ran 66 issues from 1960 to 1966, consisting of reprints of US comics including a jumbled mix of Marvel's 1950s horror, post-Code giant monsters, and 1960s Silver Age superheroes.

     What makes this interesting is that MYSTIC was also the name of a long-running (61 issues) horror anthology series published by Marvel from 1951 to 1957. (The first issue debuted a few months before another, even-longer running series you may have heard of: STRANGE TALES.) The publisher Martin Goodman must have liked the name because there was even a (short-lived) MYSTICAL TALES series published concurrently, ending its run the same month as MYSTIC (Aug. 1957) due to the "Atlas implosion." Marvel had also published 14 issues of a MYSTIC COMICS during the early 1940s -- more evidence that Goodman must have thought the MYSTIC name had some selling power.

     (Coincidentally, there was another MYSTIC periodical on the stands in the 1950s, though not a comic book. From 1953 to 1956, Ray Palmer edited 16 issues of MYSTIC Magazine, which was similar in style to FATE Magazine, which he had founded in 1948. Palmer's MYSTIC was retitled SEARCH with issue #17 and continued until his death in 1977.)

     Given all that, it's a bit surprising that Marvel dumped the MYSTIC name after 1957. It's only an accident of history that STRANGE TALES was kept alive while MYSTIC was left to die. The covers of some of the later UK issues give us an idea of what a MYSTIC that survived into the "Marvel age" of the 1960s might have looked like.

     According to Steve Ditko, one of his Marvel characters "wound up being named Dr. Strange because he would appear in Strange Tales." If MYSTIC had survived into the 1960s instead of STRANGE TALES, perhaps the character would have been called Doctor Mystic instead!

     Or perhaps Doctor Strange's frequent description as "Master of the Mystic Arts" (which replaced an earlier tagline, "Master of the Black Arts") was Goodman's own suggestion, bringing back a word that he once felt had commercial appeal.

Kamala Harris for Vice-President?

Here's a screenshot of a Democratic Party fundraising email that arrived in my Inbox today. It's spam of course, but I don't mind getting them because I can either delete the emails unread or see what the latest paid promotional buzz is. So here we have another VP poll thing, this time with Elizabeth Warren in the lead in the Veepstakes.

Despite what the email says, Joe Biden probably won't make his announcement until closer to the convention which isn't until August 17-20. I assume he won't make his VP pick until mid-July at the earliest. I'm now leaning towards thinking he will choose Kamala Harris.

I think that Biden himself -- if he didn't have to think about anything other than his own personal preference (and limiting it only to women, which he vowed in the last debate) -- would probably choose someone like Amy Klobuchar who (as this Politico article notes) "has the governing experience and ideological profile to mesh well with Biden."  She has experience, has been vetted by the media and the opposition due to having run for President herself (where she did surprisingly well, coming in third place in New Hampshire) and is not too old or too young (today is actually her birthday; she just turned 60). However many progressives are unexcited by the prospect of someone who will "mesh well with Biden" and he needs an enthusiastic Democratic base in November in order to compete effectively with the raw, unashamed enthusiasm of Trump's voters.

Elizabeth Warren is the best known of the choices and might cause women and progressives to be more excited about voting for Biden, but on the other hand Biden might be afraid that the Republicans could tar her as being "a socialist" who is going to have the government take over every aspect of a person's life. I think Biden wants to peel off some disaffected Republicans from Trump, and having Warren as VP might prevent them from voting for Biden.  Another drawback is her age: she turns 71 next month (June 22); still younger than Trump (who turns 74 next month) and Biden (77) but older than Mike Pence (who turns 61 next month).  In the entire history of the United States, every person was under the age of 70 when they became Vice-President, with the sole exception of Harry Truman's Vice-President Alben W. Barkley who became VP when he was 71 years old in 1949. (He died of a heart attack while giving a speech in 1956.)

I like Stacey Abrams because she is young (46), African-American and isn't currently tied down with a job somewhere else (Senate, Governor, etc.).  But some people might say that she lacks the experience needed for a VP of the oldest President ever elected (if Biden wins).  Obama was a young (47), untested candidate in 2018 and so he chose a member of the old guard (Biden, who was 66 years old at the time) to give some comfort to people who thought he wasn't ready.  Likewise Trump chose Mike Pence who was trusted among the Republicans as a reliable rock-solid Republican and not an unpredictable loose cannon like himself. Biden needs to choose someone who could step into the Presidency if something happens to him, so that people who say "he's too old" would at least feel that the country is in safe hands if he can't finish his term due to health reasons.

Gretchen Whitmer also has youth (48), but experience as well, being a sitting Governor of a swing state.  However, a lot of Republicans have already been criticizing her for shutting down the state (even among people who don't live there, whipped up by Trump), so like Warren she is unlikely to appeal to many disaffected Republicans or libertarian-minded independents.

That leaves Kamala Harris (at least among the choices listed above).  She is young (55), black, and also has experience -- not only in the Senate, but also having run for President and generally performed well in the debates.  She can point to her time as California's Attorney General to show that she is big on "law & order" which might help to attract some Republicans.  So looking at all of the above, that's why I think Biden is now more likely to choose Harris than the others.

We'll find out for sure in July or August, though!

My romance novel wantlist

Here is my romance novel "want list" so that it can be referred to (and updated periodically) for books that come up for sale on the "books for sale" Facebook page.  For a list of romance novels that I already have, see the list of my romance novel collection. My preference is for books that are in Very Good condition, not damaged copies (although occasionally I may not be too picky).

I thought I'd write out a "want list" of romance novels, in case you have any of these at the usual "$1 each plus postage," and happen to run across any of these in your stacks of books.  Some of these "wants" you already know about, and there are doubtless many other books that I don't yet know that I want (because I've not yet heard of them).  I'm listing the "wants" first according to Publisher/imprint/series/line, then after that a list of Authors that I want to get more of. Thanks!

(Last updated on May 26, 2020.)

- Publishers/Series/Lines:

ACE INTERLUDE ROMANCE: The books will have that phrase at the top above the book's title. I have none of these historical romance novels.

ADVENTURES IN LOVE: I have books #21, 26, & 27. (There were 39 books published in this series.)

AVON REGENCY ROMANCE: Interested in getting more of these. I have only three so far: "Rogue's Masquerade" by Margaret Summerville, "The Fortune Wheel" by Valerie Bradstreet and "My Lord Lion" by Rebecca Ward.  The ones in the early-to-mid 1980s have a flowered border on the cover (like the one shown at left).  After that, the books will say "An Avon Regency Romance" on the covers with a flower next to it (like the cover shown at right).  Then by the 1990s the books will simply say "A Regency Romance" on the covers.

THE AVON ROMANCE: I have only four of these 1980s historical novels (which have a ribbon saying "The Avon Romance" in the top left corner). The four I have already are "Briar Rose" by Susan Wiggs. "Renegade Love" and "Windstorm" (both by Katherine Sutcliffe) and "Windsong" by Judith E. French. (There were 88 books published in this series.)







CAMEO ROMANCE: I only have two books: "The Magic City" and "A Most Auspicious Star."

CANDLELIGHT ROMANCE: I'm only interested in getting the 1967-1982 series, not the "Candlelight Ecstasy" series. Some of the books will say "A Candlelight Intrigue" or "A Candlelight Regency" at the top. They were all published by Dell Books and many will have green page edges.  I currently have 45 books of this series, need more.  Especially want #47 ("The New Nurses" by Arlene Hale), #62 ("Christopher's Mansion" by W.E.D. Ross), #504 ("Cameron's Landing" by Anne Stuart), #523 ("Demonwood" by Anne Stuart), #575 ("Entwined Destinies" by Rosalind Welles), #711 ("The Spinster and the Rake" by Anne Stuart), and many many more.


CHARTER BOOKS (1980s): Any Regency novels. I only have one: "Miss Pennington's Choice" by Megan Daniel.

COVENTRY ROMANCES (Fawcett, 1979-1982): Want any that I don't have.

DAWNSTAR ROMANCE (Golden Apple, 1983): I have none.

FAWCETT: Their "A Regency Romance" books, especially ones from the 1970s-1980s.

GALLEN ROMANCE (Pocket Books, 1979-1982): The novels have a frame around the image on the front covers and will usually say "Gallen Historical Romance" or "Gallen Contemporary Romance" in the corners.  Sometimes they are listed as "Cherish Romance" instead.

HARLEQUIN GOTHIC ROMANCE: I need the first 11 books in the line, published from 1983 to 1986.  The 11 books are: "The Satyr Ring" by Alison Quinn; "The Ravens of Rockhurst" by Marian Martin; "Castle at Jade Cove" by Helen B. Hicks; "An Innocent Madness" by Dulcie Hollyock; "Restless Obsession" by Jane Toombs; "Double Masquerade" by Dulcie Hollyock; "The Fourth Letter" by Alison Quinn; "Legacy of Raven's Rise" by Helen B. Hicks; "Return to Shadow Creek" by Helen B. Hicks; "The Blue House" by Dolores Holliday; and "Shadows Over Briarcliff" by Marilyn Ross.



HARLEQUIN HISTORICAL: Any that were published in either 1986 or 1987. (This was a short-lived series before the current series started.)

HARLEQUIN INTRIGUE: Generally interested in the ones published prior to 1992.  Especially want "Night Moves" by Nora Roberts (Harlequin Intrigue #9, published in June 1985).

HARLEQUIN REGENCY ROMANCE: Want books from the first series, published from 1983 to 1988.  (I already have 5 novels in this series: "The Torpid Duke," "The Imperiled Heiress," "The Grand Style," "Contrary Lovers" and "Miss Dalrymple's Virtue")  The covers will have the same cover design (with the color stripe at the top) as the one shown at left. I'm not as interested in acquiring those published after 1988.





HARLEQUIN ROMANCE SERIES: Want "Ward of Lucifer" by Mary Burchell (Harlequin Romance #1165). (I used to have this book, but no longer do.)

HEATHER BOOKS: The books say "3 Great Romances" on the cover and contain three novels. I only have one book in this line, want the rest.

MACFADDEN ROMANCE (1978-81): Any that I don't already have.

MAGNUM BOOKS: Any that I don't already have.  Some may say "Blue Fire Romance" on the covers.

NOW AND FOREVER (Pageant Books, 1988-1989): There were 7 books in this series. I have none.

PAGEANT BOOKS (1988-1989):  Pageant Books was a short-lived publisher that only existed between July 1988 to April 1989.  They published a total of 120 books, including romance novels (like the one shown at right) and I want them, especially the historical novels as well as the 10-book series "Charisma, Inc." If it says that it was published by Pageant somewhere on the cover, I probably want it.

PRECIOUS GEM (late 1990s/early 2000s): I'm especially looking for the "Precious Gem Historical Romance" books.

RAINBOW ROMANCE (late 1960s/early 1970s): I have none.

RED ROSE ROMANCE (early 1970s): I have none.

ROSEBUD ROMANCE (early 1980s): I have none.

SAPPHIRE ROMANCE (early 1980s): I want any that I don't have.  Currently I only have three books:"Journey's End" by Anna Stanton, "Sentimental Journey" by Stella March, and "Awaken Me" by Angela Noel.

SCARLET RIBBONS: A historical romance line published by Signet in 1983-1984.  There were 10 books in this series; I have none of them.

TAPESTRY ROMANCE (Pocket Books, 1982-1986): I currently need 16 books in this series.
The ones I still need are:
"Marielle" by Ena Halliday (book #1 in the Tapestry series, Oct. 1982)
"Cloak of Fate" by Eleanor Howard (#7, Jan. 1983)
"Embrace the Storm" by Lynda Trent (#14, April 1983)
"Winter Blossom" by Cynthia Sinclair (#27, Nov. 1983)
"Nevada Nights" by Ruth Ryan Langan (#55, Jan. 1985)
"A Loving Defiance" by Joan Johnston (#57, Feb. 1985)
"Captive Hearts" by Catherine Lyndell (#58, Feb. 1985)
"An Unforgotten Love" by Jacqueline Marten (#61, April 1985)
- And the rest were all written by Linda Lael Miller:
"Fletcher's Woman" (#22, Aug. 1983)
"Desire and Destiny" (#30, Dec. 1983)
"Banner O'Brien" (#44, July 1984)
"Willow" (#51, Nov. 1984)
"Corbin's Fancy" (#69, Aug. 1985)
"Memory's Embrace" (#80, Jan. 1986)

TIARA BOOKS: This line apparently came out in the early 1980s, have covers with white borders and say "A Tiara Romance," etc. at the top.  I want any Tiara books; I only have two of them: "Change of Heart" by Leona Collier and "The Moonshell" by Louise Bergstrom.

TREASURES OF LOVE: 3 novels in one book that say "3 Love Stories" on the covers.  I have none of them.

UNIBOOK (Modern Promotions; circa early 1980s): I only have three books, all of them by Peggy Gaddis: "Big City Nurse," "Emergency Nurse" and "Love is Enough."  I want any others.

VALENTINE ROMANCE: I only have two books: "The Sleeping Heart" by Marcia Miller (book #124) and "Karen" by Peggy Dern (book #187).  I want any others.

YOUR WARNER LIBRARY OF REGENCY ROMANCE: I have four books in this series already ("The Aim of a Lady" and "Lord Clayborn's Fancy," both by Laura Matthews, "Man of Honour" by Jane Ashford, and "Countess by Contract" by Juliana Davison. I want all the rest of the books in this series. (There were 32 of them.)







- Various Authors:

ALICE CHETWYND LEY:  I only have one of her books ("The Georgian Rake"). Want the rest.

AMY ELIZABETH SAUNDERS (1990s): I only have one of her novels, "Wild Summer Rose."  I'm looking for the book which preceded it, "Sweet Summer Storm."

ANNE STUART: Especially want her early books like "Barrett's Hill" (her first novel), "Cameron's Landing," "Demonwood," "The Spinster and the Rake," "Heart's Ease" (Harlequin American Romance #39), "Museum Piece" (Harlequin American Romance #52), "Housebound" (Harlequin American Romance #93), "Banish Misfortune," "The Houseparty" (Fawcett Regency), "Rocky Road" (Harlequin American Romance #126), "Bewitching Hour" (Harlequin American Romance #177), "Hand in Glove" (Harlequin Intrigue #59), "Seen and Not Heard." She also wrote a MAGGIE BENNETT mystery series for Dell in 1987 consisting of three novels: "Escape Out of Darkness," "Darkness Before the Dawn" and "At the Edge of the Sun."

ARLENE HALE: I already have 21 of her novels. (See my collection for the list.) Would like to get more, especially paperback editions of two that I already have in hardcover: "Goodbye to Yesterday" and "The Other Side of the World." Also need many that she wrote for the Candlelight Romance line in the 1960s-70s.

BARBARA CARTLAND: Especially want the Pyramid editions (circa 1970s), of which I already have 14 of them. Not wanting to get the editions published by BMI in the 1990s.

BARBARA CARTLAND'S LIBRARY OF LOVE: There were 29 books published. They were written by various authors (not written by Cartland, but condensed & edited by her).
The ones that I have already are:
#6: "The Reason Why" by Elinor Glyn (July 1977)
#14: "The Great Moment" by Elinor Glyn (Feb. 1978)
#23: "His Official Fiancee" by Berta Ruck (Sept. 1978)
#25: "It" by Elinor Glyn (Oct. 1978)

CAROLINE COURTNEY: I need book #3 ("Love Unmasked") and #19 ("The Courier of Love") of her Warner Books series.

D. E. STEVENSON: I only have two of her novels: "Bel Lamington" and "The Blue Sapphire."

DENISE ROBINS: I have none.

ELIZABETH CADELL: I have none.

ELIZABETH MANSFIELD:  I want any that I don't have.
The ones that I have already are: "The Counterfeit Husband," "The Frost Fair," "Her Man of Affairs," "The Magnificent Masquerade" and "The Reluctant Flirt."

FAITH BALDWIN: I only have one of her novels: "Love's a Puzzle."

FRANCES PARKINSON KEYES:  Want any that I don't already have.
The ones I have already are: "All That Glitters," "Blue Camellia," "Dinner at Antoine's" "Fielding's Folly," "The Great Tradition," "Honor Bright," "Joy Street," "Once on Esplanade," "Parts Unknown," "Queen Anne's Lace," "Roses in December," "The Safe Bridge," "Senator Marlowe's Daughter," "Steamboat Gothic" and "Victorine."

GEORGETTE HEYER: Want any that I don't already have.
The ones I have already are: "Bath Tangle," "Friday's Child," "The Nonesuch," "Powder and Patch," 
"The Quiet Gentleman," "Sprig Muslin" and "The Toll-Gate"

JAYNE CASTLE: She wrote a series of four Guinevere Jones books for Dell in 1986. I already have the first book ("The Desperate Game") and the second book ("The Chilling Deception") in the series, so I need the remaining two: "The Sinister Touch" and "The Fatal Fortune."

JANET LOUISE ROBERTS / JANETTE RADCLIFFE: Want any that I don't already have.
The ones I have already are: "Jade Vendetta" and "Island of Desire" (both written by Janet Louise Roberts) and "Vienna Dreams" (written under her pen-name Janette Radcliffe).

JOAN SMITH: Want any historical novels by her that I don't already have.  Need "Flowers of Eden" (1979), "Prelude to Love" (1983), "Love Bade Me Welcome" (1983), and the anthology "A Regency Christmas" (1994).

KATHLEEN NORRIS: Want any that I don't already have. Most were published by Paperback Library in the 1960s and early 1970s.

TAYLOR RYAN: "Love's Wild Wager" (Harlequin Historical #262) and "Beauty and the Beast" (Harlequin Historical #342).  I already have her two other books ("Birdie" and "The Essential Wife").  As far as I know those are the only books she has had published.

(( Note: This list will be updated and revised as time goes on. ))

By the Numbers: Joe Biden's Path to the Nomination

I did a little math this morning. A candidate needs 1,991 delegates to win the Democratic nomination on the first ballot at the convention in July. From today (March 11) until June 6 (when the last primary is held) there are 2,115 delegates remaining to be won.

Joe Biden is currently ahead in the polls in many of the remaining states, but let us imagine that Bernie Sanders received half of the remaining delegates and Biden got the other half. So that would be 1,057.5 delegates (we'll ignore the fraction) to split evenly between Biden and Sanders, to add to the number of delegates that they've already won.

According to the delegate count at the Politico website, Biden currently has 898 delegates and Sanders has 745. (Those numbers will increase for both candidates throughout the week as votes that have been already cast are still being counted, and I will update this blog accordingly. This entry was last updated on 3/17/20 at 11:28am.) (3/18/20 UPDATE: I won't be updating this particular blog entry further.  You can check the link above for the current delegate totals.  As of today, it has been said that Sanders would need to win around 60% of the remaining delegates in order to win the nomination.)

So, if we add half of all the remaining primaries' delegates evenly between the two candidates, it looks like this:

BIDEN: 1,955 delegates (i.e., 898 [current delegate count] + 1,057 [future delegates])
SANDERS: 1,802 delegates (i.e., 745 [current] + 1,057 [future])

Since 1,991 delegates are needed to win the nomination outright, both candidates would fall short in this scenario. However, Biden would be only 36 delegates short whereas Sanders would be 189 delegates short.

In reality, though, it's highly unlikely that Sanders will receive half of all the remaining delegates, given that Biden is favored in most of the remaining states. In the states that Biden has won so far, he has usually won around 10 more delegates than Sanders per state (and sometimes much more than that, like in Michigan where Biden has received 20 more delegates than Sanders).

Next Tuesday (March 17), four states vote: Arizona (67 delegates), Florida (219), Illinois (155) and Ohio (136), for a total of 577 delegates up for grabs.  (Update: Ohio's primary has been delayed and will not occur on March 17.)

Here are the results of the most recent poll taken in each of those states, to give an idea of how they will vote on March 17:

ARIZONA (poll, 3/10-15/20): Biden 50%, Sanders 37%
FLORIDA (poll, 3/11-12/20): Biden 65%, Sanders 27%
ILLINOIS (poll, 3/11-12/20): Biden 57%, Sanders 36%

If these numbers are accurate, Biden could have a delegate landslide on Tuesday, ensuring a comfortable path to the nomination. This development not only would increase Biden's delegate lead over Sanders, but would eliminate the possibility of Biden falling short of the 1,991 delegates needed to win the nomination (as outlined above with the "36 delegates short" scenario).

After March 17, it may become mathematically inevitable that Biden eventually reaches the magic number of 1,991. The question then will be whether Sanders remains in the race once the math makes his own victory an impossibility.

How long will it take for Joe Biden to receive the 1,991 delegates required to win the Democratic nomination? FiveThirtyEight forecasts that he will receive that amount by April 28, when six states hold their primaries (including New York and Pennsylvania).

One of the problems in predicting how each candidate will perform in the remaining 30 states/territories is that polls aren't available in almost half of them. And some of the polls that are available were conducted prior to Super Tuesday (March 3) when many of the second-tier candidates dropped out of the race. Some of the available polling is from last year, when there were around 20 candidates running, and therefore is not reliable for predicting outcomes today.

Here are the results of the most recent polls taken in each of the remaining states/territories to hold primaries after March 17. The name of the candidate ahead in the poll is in bold type. The amount of delegates available in each state is listed next to the name of the state.  It's possible that the coronavirus will impact the amount of delegates awarded to each state (as listed below) due to the moving of primary voting dates.  The DNC has warned that states that move their primaries past June 9 could face “a penalty that would include a state losing at least half of its delegates.”

March 29:
PUERTO RICO - 51 (no poll available) [primary is "likely to be postponed to April 26"]

April 4:
ALASKA - 15 (no poll available)
HAWAII - 24 (no poll available)
WYOMING - 14 (no recent poll available)

April 7:
WISCONSIN - 84 (poll, 3/10-11/20): Biden 55%, Sanders 39%

April 28:
CONNECTICUT - 60 (poll, 12/16/19-1/2/20): Biden 33%, Sanders 19%
DELAWARE - 21 (poll, 11/15-25/19): Biden 35%, Sanders 13%
MARYLAND - 96 (poll, 2/22-28/20): Biden 19%, Sanders 23%
NEW YORK - 274 (poll, 2/16-20/20): Biden 13%, Sanders 25% [primary "may be postponed" to June 23]
PENNSYLVANIA - 186 (poll, 3/6-8/20): Biden 59%, Sanders 31%
RHODE ISLAND - 26 (no poll available)

May 2:
GUAM - 7 (no poll available)
KANSAS - 39 (poll, 3/10-11/20): Biden 59%, Sanders 35%

May 5:
INDIANA - 82 (very old poll, 4/29/19-5/5/19): Biden 33%, Sanders 23%

May 12:
NEBRASKA - 29 (no poll available)
WEST VIRGINIA - 28 (no poll available)

May 19:
GEORGIA - 105 [originally scheduled for March 24] (poll, 2/12/20): Biden 32%, Sanders 14%
OREGON - 61 (very old poll, 3/18-19/19): Biden 26%, Sanders 27%

June 2:
MONTANA - 19 (no recent poll)
NEW JERSEY - 126 (poll, 2/12-16/20): Biden 16%, Sanders 25%
NEW MEXICO - 34 (poll, 1/3-6/20): Biden 27%, Sanders 28%
OHIO (poll, 3/10-13/20): Biden 56%, Sanders 35% ["proposed new date of Ohio primary"]
SOUTH DAKOTA - 16 (no poll available)
WASHINGTON, D.C. - 20 (no poll available)

June 6:
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS - 7 (no poll available)

June 20:
LOUISIANA - 54 [originally scheduled for April 4] (no poll available)

June 23:
KENTUCKY - 54 [originally scheduled for May 19] (no poll available)

As noted earlier: "States rescheduling their primaries past a June 9 deadline set by the Democratic National Committee risk losing half of their delegates to the convention."  So that could affect some of the numbers listed here.