Though I am a hardcore cynic, I believe in the power of love. Whether I am reading genre or literary fiction, I am more satisfied with the story when there’s something emotionally satisfying in terms of a romantic relationship. I don’t need a traditional happy ending, just the potential for happiness. Thus my problem: I wish I could say that I don’t feel shame when I tell people that I read and write romance.
I can’t, and the industry isn’t helping me.
You want to know why romance novels aren’t taken seriously? Because we (romance professionals, however you fit into the scheme) don’t take them seriously. We consistently present an amateur, unsophisticated image. And then we make excuses for it. If we can’t treat romance novels as grown-up fiction, we’ve lost the battle.
By way of example, let’s look at the leading critical publication for the industry, Romantic Times. I realize the staff puts a lot of effort into writing the magazine, but is this really the best we can do? It looks like a fanzine, and while there’s nothing wrong with that, it makes me sad to think that people judge the genre by RT. And they do. The time has come for a serious (and I don’t mean dry and boring) magazine for romance and other women’s fiction reviews.
Then there’s the Romance Writers of America. I’m not sure what they were smoking when they redesigned their website, but it looks like crap (no matter which browser and/or platform I use). The site looks like it caters to government finance officers (given my day job, I know whereof I speak). That RWA spent money on a booth at BEA but hasn’t hired a professional web designer is a disgrace – especially given the current effort to improve the image of romance. How about less preaching to the choir (booksellers and publishers already know the value of romance) and more reaching out to other audiences?
RWA is an organization for writers and other industry professionals, but it serves a wider customer base than that. The site is in the top five when you do a Google search for “romance.†News professionals, researchers, and even readers make the RWA website a primary resource for the industry. Thanks to poor visuals and lack of depth in information, the site fails to communicate a positive image.
Of course, we can’t forget the covers (Note: I wrote this before recent controversies erupted). Many of them are tawdry and sleazy. There is no way I will sit in a restaurant and pull out a book with a cover I find embarrassing. If I find myself in a situation where (horrors!) I don’t have a book in my bag, yet have five minutes of downtime, I’ll buy one. Despite my preference for the genre, I bypass most romance novels.
Publishers attend the annual RWA National Conference, and I think it’s time they took a hard look at the other attendees. Authors are representative of readers. Can publishers honestly say that their covers speak to the education, sophistication, and social needs of readers? If you want to build sales, do something to stop alienating potential readers.
Let’s face it: people judge books by their covers. They see images, the magazine, the website, and form judgments. They think “those books are female porn” (there’s nothing wrong with that, though the overt sexuality on some covers is false advertising). They think romance novels are fluffy and silly because the leading magazine for the industry is fluffy and silly. They think the RWA isn’t a serious organization because the website looks like it was thrown together in a weekend.
We need to stop trying to define romance – a losing proposition – and focus more on what romance does. Publisher have internal conventions for business purposes, but it’s pretty obvious that “romance” lives in other genres, including literary. We need to stop thinking in terms of building respect and more along the lines of elevating our own work, no matter what our role in the romance industry.
You know what? I’ve spent a lifetime defending the quality of romance novels, and it’s time the industry started helping me. It’s really hard to say that these are serious books when the supporting evidence says otherwise. You want to grow the audience? Give us books that won’t make us turn red if they fall out of a briefcase during a meeting. Give us books that we can hand over to men.
Give us a grow-up genre.
No related posts.
I have to agree with you — the image of romance is terrible. When I check out a book at the library, or purchase one at the bookstore, people look at me as if I’ve dropped an IQ point or ten. This is particularly perplexing for the folks who work at the library and know me well… I’m not a stupid woman, so why (oh why) do I lower myself to read romance?
Additionally, there are many books I simply cannot read anymore because of their covers. I have a very young daughter at home who is quite inquisitive — as young children are wont to be – and finds the overly suggestive covers fascinating. Since she’s not even in school yet, I’m not prepared to discuss what the characters are doing on the front of those books… the birds and the bees can wait a few years. Seriously, why do the covers have to be so suggestive? They don’t make me want to purchase the book, they actually KEEP me from purchasing it.
Glad to know I’m not alone in this!
Well said, Kassia, I agree with you 100%. Thank you.
Kassia, you’ve voiced the opinions of most readers, will anyone actually listen. Thank you.
Kassia, I think the genre is trying to grow up, desperately, and by leaps and bounds, hence this scramble to “define” romance. (Which, like you, I think is a losing proposition.) There are so many of us writing romance, yet with twists and conventions employed that take it beyond those unwritten “rules” that we have to fight against. Or multilayered storylines that make it more than the traditional “boy meets girl.”
So not only are we fighting against the public’s perception of of the genre as fluffy and lacking depth, we’re fighting against our own professional organization who would seek to thrust us into a “One Size Fits All” box with handy carrying straps.
Which makes our task as writers twice as hard.
Barb
You make some excellent points.
I’m not a big fan of the more graphic covers, either. I’ve picked up and put down again several books I might otherwise have purchased, simply because the cover turned me off.
But someone is buying these books, with these very covers–maybe because of these very covers? The marketing departments wouldn’t continue to design them if they weren’t selling, Linda Howard’s latest being a perfect example. Trying to convince publishers to change what they’re doing if it’s bringing in the cash will be a tricky proposition. Their business is the bottom line–not whether we, as authors, can hold our heads up and look people in the eye when we tell them we write romance. And since their bottom line becomes our bottom line, eventually…
It’s a conundrum. I have no answers. But what I’m sure is NOT an answer is allowing RWA to frame arbitrary standards that only penalize individual authors, who have no control over what goes on their covers in the first place.
Yes, I know they’ve been suspended. For now. But I can’t help but think there’s a long road ahead for this issue.
Well said, Kassia. This latest scramble to “define” is, to my mind, surpassingly silly and an exercise in futility. Even if everyone could agree on a definition, what would that accomplish? Would it sell more books? Probably not. Would it build respect for the genre. Doubtful. Would it alienate some conscientious and talented writers and other industry professionals? Quite possibly.
So let’s scrap this ridiculous effort to define ourselves to ourselves and begin acting like professionals writing in a genre that deserves respect.
Great column Kassia!
I read everything. I mean everything: cereal boxes, Pulitzer nominated books, poetry, newspapers, The Thrifty Nickel, books that get big buzz, the classics, horror, fantasy, Times listed, AAR’s Desert Isle Keepers…everything.
But the bulk of my book budget goes to romance. And strangely enough, a hot cover makes me pick up a book.
I know. It’s crazy. I’m caving in to something a ton of romance authors want changed. But Dara Joy’s cover with the sexy naked man got me hot and bothered. And Sherrilyn Kenyon’s covers: yum. And, worse, I like clench covers as long as there aren’t three hands on one man or something off like that.
I don’t want serious for the market. I want the sexy, hot guys, the pretty girls, the fantasy.
RWR is serious. It’s for the professionals.
As a reader, I want what’s out there. Give me a Hot Highland Warrior any day over a plaid kilt and a bunch of heather.
As far as respect: We’re never going to be given respect by the literati. They’re jealous of our sales; they say we pandor (sp?) our talent to the masses. If a story ends in HEA, several people in the industry like to put it down. Shoot they still put Nora down and she’s second in sales to JK Rowling. Or she was. Not sure if that’s still the case. I’ll take our huge sales over respect any day.
I concur with your assessment of RT magazine. I received my first issue last month and I was sorely disappointed. It does look like fanzine and the reviews aren’t critical at all, which was the primary reason I began subscribing. I think I will switch my subscription to Publisher’s Weekly instead.
Hee hee, I’m gonna disagree (please don’t hurt me) – well, with everything exept the butt ugly RWA website.
I don’t read romance for any other reason than to have FUN! If I want to learn something, I read a textbook, if I want to be scared, I read a horror, if I want to be depressed about the state of human existance, I read a literary novel.
If a book is about a man and a woman falling in love (and having the sex) then darn it (!) I want to see it on the cover (well, not the actual sex). I think it’s ridiculous to think that the outside of the book shouldn’t match the inside!
So a bookseller looks at me a little funny when I buy a romance with a clinch cover. Who cares? Why should the industry change what’s obviously working to please a few people who are never going to give romance the respect it deserves?
Romance isn’t going to have respect from outsiders, until people on the inside hold their heads up in public and say, “Yes, I read romance, you wanna make something of it?”
I realize this is only part of your post, but it’s the part I’m picking on
And you’re certainly not the only person to hold the same view, but whether men read romance or not should not be a yardstick for measuring whether we’ve “made it” as a genre. I’m going to be a cynic here, but I just do not believe men will ever as a majority read romances. Heck, I don’t think women as a majority read romance.
I don’t think any amount of image change, cover change, jumping through hoops is going to change that. Men are wired differently, and most just aren’t interested in relationship centered books.
On the other hand, the things you mentioned would make a difference where women are concerned. Not necessarily to me, but there are women out there who don’t read romance because of the reasons you listed.
As for your observations on the RWA? Spot on. I’ve yet to see much professionalism within that organization.
Kassia, I didn’t subscribe to RT until after I sold. And the reason was I wanted to read my reviews and see what books were coming out in the genre. But I subscribed to PW long before RT because of the exact reason you state: seriousness.
I’ve always believed in leading by example. I’m tired of some people in the industry always making excuses for this, that and the other thing. The most respected and successful romance writers don’t stand around lamenting the image of romance in general, they focus on their image and, by default, the entire romance industry is boosted.
But, the feelings are ingrained in readers. For example, I was helping my mom with her garage sale and she was getting rid of hundreds of old books. Someone came over to look at them, I asked what they liked to read. She said, “Oh, everything. Smut. You know, Nora Roberts.” She was sheepish about it. And Nora doesn’t have embarressing covers!
Finally, I agree with the assessment of the RWA website. When they said they were re-doing it, I was excited … and then this? A professional website is an investment in image–and one of the most important.
I like the idea of a professional magazine for the industry. I think the RWR is a great tool, but it’s internal — we need something geared for readers.
Every time the subject of cover art comes up, someone says “why change what works?” Whether or not suggestive or clinch covers work is a question I’ve never seen answered. Anecdotes about a couple of people who do like them and buy because of them are not proof of sales or of something working. I’ve not yet seen a survey from a publisher or from any romance organization asking why we buy the books we do. It could be for the author, the hook, the setting, the premise, the cover, a blurb from another favorite author, a review in a magazine. The cover is only one part of the sales machine, so why is it credited when people say that clinch or suggestive covers sell?
I agree with most of what you wrote. On my blog my “mission statement” (hate that term, but…)included that I feel that romance novels need to be held to the same standard as other fiction. Do I think that is going to happen? No, because romance novels are hampered by the requirement that they must have a HEA ending, and, in addition, the h/h must also meet certain requirements, not the least of which have to do with looks. And hot sex is now a requirement for most books outside the inspirational market. There is only so much romance I can read before I need to go to contemporary or historical mainstream novels,the classics, non-fiction, or even chick-lit, which is not quite romance.
But even if the general public doesn’t take romances seriously, I think the industry should do so. Romantic Times rarely gives a serious critical review of any book (is everything worthy of a 4 or 4 1/2 star review — hardly!). And it is my understanding that then number of reviews of a particular publisher is determined by the amount of ad space purchased in RT. I do not know if that is true or not, but it seems true — Ellora’s Cave and other publishers of romantic erotica are buying a tremendous amount of ad space in RT, and the number of reviews of erotic books has increased dramatically. We do need a more serious type of publication that is easily accessable — The Historical Novel Society, headquartered in England, does review historical romances, but the subscription is expensive, and the journal is quarterly. RWA’s web site IS horrible…what were they thinking?
As to covers, my favorite covers are those that are reproductions of art works and photographs that are in the public domain, but romance novels rarely have those types of covers. I think cover art is a lost cause — either it is boring and bland flowers or a lusty couple!
I’m one of those throwbacks who like to read romances solely for the emotional entanglements and so many thriller types do not appeal. The covers that show a man and a woman in a compromising (in pure Victorian language:wink:) position tell me the book is about the relationship.
That said, I do not always feel comfortable in public situations when reading a romance. It was easier with the early Harlequin titles that had the picture in a small circle on a white cover. Those “in the know” knew I was reading a romance, but from a distance, I didn’t have to be embarrassed…of course those covers weren’t embarrassing either.
I actually wanted to raise a slightly sideways point. Why is it that blatant violence, murdered bodies with blood spilling out around them, women bound to chairs while someone holds a gun to their heads or dismembered body parts are considered “classy” genres when the hint of sex (and therefore presumably love) is not. My two boys are much more disturbed by the covers on my husband’s murder mysteries than the covers on my romances.
Contrary as always,
Margaret
Great comments and thoughtful, too. I agree that our genre lacks respect. That said, I think the average reader (and that was me before I realized there were people criticizing my intellect for reading romances) don’t really think about this that much. There is so much analyzing of the genre among us that sometimes, I wonder whether every reader walks around hiding their books in shame.
I’m not saying that it isn’t happening–don’t get me wrong, I read and heard the same remarks. But overall, before I became a romance-genre addict, I was a romance reader who didn’t know or care about being looked down on. I started writing romance because I wanted to do it, for the love of writing as well as because I wanted to create my own love stories. I was not, like most readers, familiar with all the different “genres” in romance. Today, hanging at UBSes, I often hear readers coming in asking for “Linda Howard type books” or “more stuff like Nora Roberts” or “Who writes similar vampire stories like Sherrilyn Kenyon?”, not romantic suspense, not contemporaries, not paranormals.
I also just want to add that I don’t need people to respect me for what I read. I know that our genre has its critics but I don’t feel the need to be defensive about my personal reading. Of course, you and I don’t hang out with the same type of people
, so perhaps it might be more difficult to be cool about it in certain circles.
I’m probably in the minority but I think the romance genre has been moving up and slowly but surely expanding its audience.
1) We’re making the USA Today and NY Times lists week after week.
2) Men have heard of our bestselling authors. Some even read them.
3) James Patterson joined RWA because he saw a new avenue to explore (whether you’re cynical about that is another topic).
4) Laurell K. Hamilton was at the RT convention in St. Louis to promote her books (again, you can be cynical about her books too but her covers are now definitely more erotic than the first Anita books and her stories have pulled in many new romance readers, besides her horror/fantasy readers)
While I don’t want to make it sound like everything is rosy and great, I have to chime in those few points. RWA changes/amends/adds its policy every few years to accommodate the growth in the industry, and yes, sometimes it sure looks like the organization has become more limiting than growing, but 9400 members with our diverse intellect and talents in so many genres-within-romance just show how much the industry has grown.
As for the RT magazine being a fanzine…LOL…it is exactly that. It’s a monthly magazine to inform fans of their favorite books coming out, with lots of information about their favorite authors. There is nothing wrong with that at all, imho. Of course, it too is a changing magazine, now that it is including lots of writing tips and advice for the beginning writers. But it is not going to be the new PW. I had the chance to check out the very first few issues of RT in its newspaper styles back in the 80s at the wonderful romance collection at Bowling Green University (special collections). RT definitely has grown too! BTW, everyone should visit the BG library if they are able to because their romance collection is simply amazing. They have the very first issue of H/S SIM with all the subsequent early SIMs lining wall to wall. I was very, very jealous at the new condition of these editions!
Lastly, some people might laugh at the sexy covers, but I enjoy the well-done ones (the computer-generated ones have got to go!) and I don’t even mind being made fun of in public for reading romances. I know I’m reading a great story and they are so missing out!
I want to stress that I do respect everyone’s opinions, esp. here on this blog, with so many avid and knowledgeable readers. It’s just fun to be on the other side sometimes
.
Gennita, I agree with you almost completely, but I took something completely different from Kassia’s post.
I think in the romance genre there are great stories and great books. Linda Howard, Nora Roberts and others have done a great service to the image of romance as a whole, not because they went defending their books to the naysayers, but because they wrote great books.
I see Kassia’s suggestions as being a proactive (rather than reactive) step to increase sales across the board for all romance. Also, it’s a way for professional NEW writers to garner respect in the competitive industry (because the bestsellers usually have it.)
Image and impression are very important. All aspects of any business must recognize this, or they will stagnate. Professionalism in all forms (I know. Don’t get anyone started.) is a must. Websites must be friendly and professional. Looking like the equivalent of a trip to the doctor is beyond stupid. Don’t they have focus groups? People who won’t just say “yes”? But those who will stand for the masses and scream “Hell NO! Have you lost your mind?”
You have to appeal to the readers/authors/publishers. Find out what THEY want. You may be shuffling information, but it’s about them. Their work. Their lives. Show a little intelligence.
I’m one of those few individuals who proudly lugged around the “clinch” covers in high school and before.
Yeah. I was reading about sex. What of it? Didn’t bother me a bit.
Men may not want to read about it, but they are sure interested in the content.
Yes. We need to polish the image until it shines. But the fact still remains. Some will read. Some will not. And we won’t please all of the people all of the time. But let’s work on it, shall we?
Grins*
Great past, Kassia! I’ve been a romance reader for almost 30 years and I’ve always hid the covers when reading in public. What I do like about RWA is that they have done wonders for upgrading the image of romance from “those ole smut-books” to one that is worthy of its million dollar industry. I think we have a long way to go still, but the scores of professional, complimentary articles that have come down the pike from mainstream media in the past five years have been a breath of fresh air.
Wow. Way to suck the fun out of my one of my favorite leisure activities – reading romance novels and reading about romance novels. I am inspired, however, to write to Play Girl and demand that they treat the art of displaying male physiques with a more serious bent and stip the magazine of the salacious stories that cheepen the reader. For that matter, I believe Good Housekeeping is still keeping the housewife down and should do more to put a professional cloak over the industry.
God knows we have no business having fun being women. We should homogenize the sexes. We should be writing universal fiction. Blur the genre and category lines and let the chips fall where they may. There’ll be no more funnery on the good ship RT. Arrrr.
Drat. Typo-hell. I wanted to add that BookSlut.com seldom, if ever, reviews “romance” and yet … there it is … “serious fiction reviews” on — BookSlut.com. Kinda lowers the bar for the rest of us.
Great column, and lots of fascinating comments. In response to this from Beverly:
Every time the subject of cover art comes up, someone says “why change what works?†Whether or not suggestive or clinch covers work is a question I’ve never seen answered.
I am so with you on this. The way things stand right now, it’s impossible to tell if a reader is buying a book because of the cover, because of the author, in spite of the cover, and so on. It would be interesting to sell a romance with two covers–one with a more stereotypical romance cover and one with a different cover and see which one sells better.
Covers are what they are, and I’ve discovered that if I want the story, I get whatever cover comes with it. The only choice is whether to buy the book or not. I don’t embarrass easily when it comes to covers because I’ve been reading romance too long, but I’d still love to see improvement.
Alyssa
Bravo! You inspired me to write my own rant about this issue. Thank you for writing this- it crystallizes several things I was feeling but was unable to say.
Yay, Kassia! What an excellent article.
I do want to add a quick word about covers:
I don’t mind sexy covers. I don’t even necessarily mind covers with a man and a woman shown in an embrace. What I do object to is the eye-searing ugliness. I’m not just talking about the excruciatingly unattractive beefcake models, I’m talking what seems to be complete cluelessness about the basics of design, color, font usage and layout when it comes to the covers. The quality of the original artwork is also awful; it’s only occasionally matched by sword-n-sorcery fantasy covers and certain genres of SF.
Until the covers not only ditch the bad beefcake but actually start looking as if they were designed by people who have a clue about what they’re doing instead of 10-year-old kid with his first copy of Photoshop, we’re not going to be taken very seriously.
I don’t read romance for any other reason than to have FUN! If I want to learn something, I read a textbook, if I want to be scared, I read a horror, if I want to be depressed about the state of human existance, I read a literary novel.
See, I think that’s why many readers read romance. Me, anyway. That doesn’t mean the genre should be churning absolute crap. But it also doesn’t imply there’s something wrong with the genre and that “literary” respectability is the only yardstick by which it should be measured.
The fantasy and SF genre seems to go through the same sort of literary angst. Tired of being demeaned as “pulp,” there is a tendency to disparage the elements that bring readers into the genre in the first place. The result is sometimes fiction that is so [bleeping] “original,” it’s dense, weird and impenetrable. This much-lauded fiction is no more accessible to readers outside the genre than novels replete with elves and other so-called tropes.
As far as respect: We’re never going to be given respect by the literati. They’re jealous of our sales; they say we pandor (sp?) our talent to the masses. If a story ends in HEA, several people in the industry like to put it down. Shoot they still put Nora down and she’s second in sales to JK Rowling.
Again, J.K. Rowling has critics within the F/SF community who say she caters to the masses. I’m sure she’s crying all the way to the bank.
That said, I avoid clinch covers because they seem to imply characterization based soley on vapid good looks. (I know this isn’t true; but that’s the impression given.)
Darn it! Just when I thought reading romance was supposed to be fun, and so were the sexy covers. Now I realize I’ve been wrong these past (2,3, I’m not telling!) decades I’ve read romance. I guess I’ll have to start reading and writing romances for reality, instead of the escape I love.
Perhaps some classic literature titles can be combined with romance and maybe then we’ll have books we can give to men to read. Like these:
War & Pecs: The story of one woman battling her hot desire over a man’s muscular bod
Catch Her in the Rye: The rake finally tumbles
Lady Peebles in the field
Moby Dick: Thar he grows!
Call of the Wild Woman: Virgin no longer
Little Men: Size doesn’t matter after all
Great post. I agree with what you said about the genre and its poor image, but I can’t help but suspect that a few romance readers won’t agree at all.
They like the cheesy covers, the whole RT fannish sort of thing and they LOVE their category romances with the predictable plots and characters.
Romance sells, and I fear that the PTB will decide if it ain’t broke, why fix it? The don’t give a pigeon’s hiney about image, what they care about is the moolah.
They like the cheesy covers, the whole RT fannish sort of thing and they LOVE their category romances with the predictable plots and characters.
Well yes, I do love category romances, but I would argue that they certainly aren’t the only genre guilty of predictable plots. All romances are predictable. Boy meets girl, falls in love, dark moment then HEA. What makes a category less predictable than a ST? Mysteries are perhaps the most predictable of all. The very act of placing a story within a genre makes it predictable. When you pick up a book with any label, there comes with that purchase a set of expectations. If the books began to disappoint, or became unpredictable, their fan base would diminish.
Also: Better copy editors. I didn’t run into typos much in any other genre I read [SF/F and mainstream]. But Romance novels? At least 5-10 glaring typos in terms of word used, misspelling and/or dropped words. And I’ve run into more books (from Avon, Harlequin and others) that misspell the H&H’s names, minor characters, or locations. And I’ve had books which had two Sundays in a row or 8 days in a week.
If a person gets past the covers and starts to read but finds this kind of shoddy editing, they are more likely to put it down.
Gennita hit the nail on the head, RT is a fan zine. Their conventions and magazine are for fans, not writers.
Great post. I agree with what you said about the genre and its poor image, but I can’t help but suspect that a few romance readers won’t agree at all.
They like the cheesy covers, the whole RT fannish sort of thing and they LOVE their category romances with the predictable plots and characters.
But that is our version of Trekkies and fan-oriented Sci Fi conventions, isn’t it? [It's not a bad thing, mind!]
Those romance readers who are also fans of authors, cover models [I have two online friends who have an encyclopaedia for a brain when it comes to male models: their names, vital stats, likes/dislikes, which book covers these models appear on, and so on], conventions, autographed books, fan letters, book signings, and the whole thing. It’s harmless fun, and they spend a lot of money on being a romance reader. I mean *seriously* a lot of money.
Is that the group that the genre caters to? In old days it’d make sense because that is the group that almost solely kept the genre going, supporting it whenever they can, especially with conventions and book signings.
But the genre has reached this point where it’s no longer a small genre. We need to make adjustments to allow it to grow more. Keeping it as what it used to be would be cripping everyone, including authors, readers, booksellers, librarians and many more.
That group will always be the original core of the genre [thank you!], but it seems that the group is getting smaller and the ‘new kids’ – the new core of readers, authors and the rest – are demanding changes to allow them to be ‘treated’ as equals to readers of other genres. Maybe we need to recognise that? It’s part of a genre evolution, isn’t it?
Good discussion, Kassia. All I can add is that when I saw the RWA redesign, my first thought was–they’re re-fighting the Civil War (blue & gray) and how can anyone make war so bland and boring
The RWA website has never bothered me because it isn’t primarily intended to be a fan-based site. I go there as a member to check Member news, announcements, etc. (Which reminds me to go renew my RWA dues.) Perhaps if I visited to check it out as solely a reader, I’d feel differently.
When I think of the ongoing efforts to elevate the ‘image’ of romance, I believe the emphasis is to wake-up public opinion so that even more people realize that the books are well-written and entertaining — whether they touch your heart, make it race with intrigue, cause you to laugh out loud, wipe away a tear or trigger any other emotion that signifies you’re caught up in the stories.
As for the ongoing debate about covers — there will always be some that make me shake my head, even while I buy them because I anticipate great reads. I don’t fold over the covers, even when one goes beyond my personal impression of tasteful. Over the years, that’s become sort of a point of honor in that I don’t give a rat’s behind what someone else thinks of my reading choices. I’m proud to write romances and proud to read them.
At the most recent RT Convention, a company was selling cloth covers to go over the books. The sale woman tried to hand me one every time I walked past the booth. I just smiled and said that I wasn’t interested in concealing my reading choices.
Great column and I completely agree with you. I would love to see the end of cheesy covers and to see the romance industry taken more seriously with a serious magazine. I cringe the odd time I pick up RT and look through it. I would love to be able to pull out a romance book and not have to wonder first what the cover is. I think though, even judging by the comments here, there are two completely different thoughts. I don’t know how this issue can be resolved without some meeting of the minds and agreement between both sides.
I agree with Kassia, but the issue isn’t just the RWA website, the fangirl look of RT or even clin covers. It’s what’s going on inside of romance novels that keeps the genre from being taken seriously. I posted extensively upon my opinions of this subject on my own blog, but here’s what I’ll say here: romance writers and readers don’t take the genre seriously. If everyone is content with the status quo of creating generally more well-rounded heroes, meeting the romanceland checklist of when the hero and heroine meet, when they kiss, etc, and saying “I read romance for FUN!” or “it’s just for escape”(because this is a romance novel, when that’s said, it implies that the reader has no love life whatsoever and needs a book to fulfill that hole), to an outsider, it appears that even its readers and writers see the genre as “formulaic” or “fluffy” and “empty-headed”. We of course know otherwise, but actions speak louder than words, and when the actions(the actual romance novel) confirm stereotypes, it’s not hard for everyone else to belittle romance.
I have to agree completely with this article. The fact is as an industry we are not doing as well as we could. Sales are down for many traditional romance lines. The dicontinuation of the Harlequin and Silhouette Romance lines are indicitive of declining sales.
I know I won’t pull out a novel if it sports a traditional (cheesy) cover when I am out in public. I would challenge anyone to walk into a crowded coffee shop and find more than one woman reading an obvious romance novel. It doesn’t happen. I’ll bet though you will find people reading a Nora Roberts or Suzanne Brockmann. The covers on their books are professional and classy and the contents are spicy.
As for the RWA site I agree it looks like a typical goverment data base. boring.
It’s time to get with the times and allow professional women to read the genre of their choice in public without book covers!
I’ve really enjoyed lurking on my own post today (darn insane work schedules!) because the discussion has been great. I cannot possibly respond to each comment, but one thing I really want to say is that when it comes to covers, I’m not sure they sell because readers prefer them; I think they sell because readers have no choice (this is what I felt about the cowboy/baby/virgin glut in category as well — eventually you succumb because there’s nothing else!). I think we need to engage in dialogues with publishers because they need to hear what readers (and writers) feel.
I do think there’s a new generation of romance readers coming and this is a good thing. The genre needs to meet these readers halfway; old school folk like me
had the advantage of major shifts in the genre in the eighties. I don’t think we’ve had a sea change since then. I’m heartened by the responses here — it’s clear others are thinking the same things.
Mary Stella, your comment is interesting because I suspect a lot of RWA members don’t really think about the users/audiences of the website. It should be focused on member needs, absolutely, but we need to remember that it’s a resource for other groups. Also, it really, really, really doesn’t work well in other browsers. That’s a quick fix!
I’m a little late it seems
but I’ll put in my two cents anyway.
Mary Stella had the right idea – it’s time Romance readers stopped allowing non-romance readers to shame them out of openly enjoying their genre of choice. In all honesty, take a minute to ponder why novels that show passionate embraces, or the like, might bother you. (Apart from the really cheesy ones. Obvious answer to that!) Nine times out of ten the answer will be along the lines of ‘I’m worried what people will think of me’. Well, if you respond like a blushing, timid mouse when people look down on you, despite the fact you love reading quality books that just happen to have a graphic cover depiction of the H&H found inside, then of course people are going to think you’re involved in something illicit! These are crafted novels – not porn magazines. Part of taking the genre seriosly, and representing it seriously, has to do with our attitudes towards the genre in public. It also has to do with accepting that these are books written for women, so who gives a damn if a man titters, smirks, or sneers at the covers? I say buy your novels, and read them where you want to. If you’re a confident, inteligent, well-rounded woman who is able to live her life by her own terms, then the opinion of strangers is the least thing that should worry you.
Two more things before I go – I adore RT. I love the way it feels like you’re sitting down to mini-discussions about almost every aspect of the Romance industry with a bunch of savy gal-pals with every edition. Yes, maybe it could be a little more ’serious’. But that’s why I buy Writer’s Digest. *shrug*
Lastly, Kassai, great entry. Nothing like stoking the pot a bit, although I do hope you have a less cranky morning tomorrow.
Kassia wrote:
“Why do so few appear to understand that it’s ludicrous to expect the world to accept romance novels as serious literature when the women who write the stuff persist in acting like giggling schoolgirls peeking through a window of the boys’ locker room?”
Why do you want the world to accept romance novels as serious literature? What other genre can you think of that has over 50% market share of all paperback sold?
Would you rather be a writer in the minority genres such as science fiction? Well we can definitely say that SF authors are taken seriously, but they still only have a 5% market share.
Romance books are fun, if you take the fun element out of it (including the giggling girly discussions on how big the heroes love-stick is) then you’re just left with a bunch of books that are great literary-wise, but not enough people will read. Catch 22 huh?
The fact is, joe public is more likely to read a book on Madonna (representing the ‘not serious’ bunch) than they are a book about Professor Stephen Hawking.
As for romance covers, as I understand it, these decisions are generally out of the hands of the authors anyway, so shouldn’t somebody be looking at how ridiculous that is?
If you are ashamed of what you write, then maybe you should swap genres?
Just a thought.
Karen, I’m not when or where I wrote what you’re quoting, but would say that I’m not ashamed of what I write — but I am frustrated by the fact that something I take great pride in doing doesn’t seem to receive serious treatment from the institutions that support my work. I realize, more than most people, that publishing is, first and foremost, a business, and business decisions necessarily trump art. However, the fact remains that sales of fiction are down, including in the romance genre, and the industry needs to take a serious look at itself to address ways to grow the audience. These are my thoughts on the matter.
As for the giggling schoolgirls (really need to figure out where that came from
), that is the public image of romance, but based on the readers and writers I know, that’s not the reality. Unfortunately, it’s easier to present women as silly that complex.
OMG, those horrible clinch covers. As if it’s not bad enough that they’re so insidiously insulting to women, how about the fact that the art is stunningly *BAD*! Victorian virgins in slinky polyester frocks with elasticized scoopnecks! Bare chested Regency dukes in capes and tighty latex pants! I can’t help but wonder where these cover artists got their “art” education. Avon deserves special mention for ensuring the survival of the Cheesy Romance Art Painters union (CRAP). My favorite artist is the one whose heroes have an oddly simian look. Monkey men don’t quite do it for me, but it must be working for someone.
I believe I can clear up this small mystery: The “giggling schoolgirls” quote is from yesterday’s post over at my blog. I was linking to this entry of yours, Kassia, which is probably how Karen got us confused.
I’m cool with it, though. I’ve always wanted to put words in your mouth.
Brenda — thanks for posting. I discovered the source of the quote when I read your blog this morning. However, I was about fifteen minutes late to be out the door…
I don’t mind being confused with you at all!
Abie’s Irish Rose
In 1922, a little play called “Abie’s Irish Rose” opened on Broadway. It was a trite piece of melodrama — a Jewish boy and an Irish girl fall in love, marry and try to convince their parents this is a good thing. In the fine …
Kassia, you have voiced an opinion that’s shared by those in the fantasy and sci-fi genre.
Do you know how many fantasy and sci-fi writers and readers complain about the book covers? They’re too sensuous, or etc. They blame the covers for not been taken seriously. A friend of mine told me the same goes for suspense and horror. Funny how those inside those genres feel that nobody takes them seriously due to the book covers. 
Lots to say, not enough space to say it.
First – the paperback market,the books you find in bookstores. I’m still glomming, having discovered the US romance market a bare four years ago (I’m English), but I’m loving the backlists, everything from Iris Johanssen to Susan Elizabeth Philips. Great stuff. But I’m just not buying as many new books. Disgruntlement has taken hold. We know there are cliche-ridden, deeply wonderful books out there, so let’s hear about them. I don’t want a thoughtless, rave about a book that doesn’t deserve it, there is too much of that these days, I want an intelligent opinion, and one from several sources, because opinion varies. Once a certain standard of excellence is reached, I want to know what was good about the book. And I want to know when a book sucks, and why.
Publishers are learning not to ask authors to hit certain marks. No, there’s no formula, God forbid, but there are certain things that are expected of a new author, because that’s what always happened.
I’ve learned to trust my own judgement. I write for myself first, always have, through years of writing as a hobby (no less seriously undertaken, I just wrote the books I wanted to read). I went through a phase of hitting the marks. Now I won’t do that any more. I will write what I want to write, because I’ve learned that readers always appreciate honesty, and they can spot when there is a false note.
Second – e-books. This is where you’ll find the innovation, the great new stories and authors (and I’m not just saying that because I am one – most of my new purchases are e-books. We are past being tired of being denigrated by paperback writers – it’s the only market sector that is growing, the one that doubled in volume last year. We no longer need to go cap in hand to anyone. But, having said, that, there’s a lot of ‘Deadwood’ in the e-book market. It’s the wild frontier. There are houses that produce better quality books, both in terms of the look of the book and its contents, and there are the others. The only way readers can learn which is which is to buy some. Reviews are usually very kind, even to the books with grammatical errors in every sentence. But there are dazzlingly good books out there and publishers and agents are now looking to the e-book market for some of their new authors.
Many e-book authors are choosing to remain in the market. With the recent statistics, who wouldn’t? But we don’t need the markets to play off each other, to waste their time denigrating each other. We need them to work together. The paperback market needs the excitement and the innovation the new authors can bring, the younger market the e-book publishers are attracting, and the e-book market needs access to offline outlets and acceptance by industry professionals. Authors in both markets need the higher level of royalties the e-book companies offer.
Could that be why? – No, surely not!
Great work with this one, nicelly done!
Nice website
penis enlargement
In your free time, check out the sites in the field of mobic proactive skin care