British researcher Joanna Bourke takes a look at the cultural interpretations of rape in her new book Rape: A History From 1860 To The Present. Turns out she's having just as much trouble as the the rest of us in defining "rape" in any definitive manner. Says the Independent: "Bourke's own working definition of rape as whatever anyone - whether 'participant' or 'third party' - thinks of as rape is so broad as to render impossible any general argument about one specifiable crime. The book's pointedly gray cover already makes it seem more likely that Bourke's history of rape will be at pains to avoid simple black-and -white categories of judgment." Even the cover is gray. How's that for literally illustrated ambivalence? [The Independent]