There are a lot of folks, both online and off, lamenting the problem with romances today. Kassia Kroszer, of whom I’m a fan, posted days ago on this site that Romantic Times BOOKclub magazine is part of that problem.
I’ve been at RT for six years, and now as the managing editor, I get to personally decide what fills most of the magazine’s pages. My first instinct was to post a long explanation of RT’s purposes and practices, talk about the amazing evolution of the magazine’s design and content throughout the last few years, and defend our editorial choices. Then I realized there was no need.
Kassia’s complaint was, “It looks like a fanzine.” Well, RT BOOKclub is exactly that, a magazine for fans of romance and other women’s fiction. We promote and support the genre, as we have since Kathryn Falk founded RT in 1981. That being said: we can be critical of the genre and often are. Our reviewers, who are by design avid readers and not professional writers, give many favorable reviews but also many mediocre or negative reviews. Our feature articles often serve to pinpoint and alert publishers to readers’ concerns. I believe we successfully introduce readers to a wide range of interesting authors and books every month. (If you disagree and aren’t satisfied with your RT reading experience, I really do want to know. E-mail me to discuss specific criticisms and suggestions or even just to vent at Tara@romantictimes.com)
But enough about RT. What I really wanted to address was this comment Kassia made: “They think romance novels are fluffy and silly because the leading magazine for the industry is fluffy and silly.” Well, friends, we can only work with what we gots.
IMO, many traditional romances ARE fluffy and silly. I rarely read straight romance anymore because of the attack of the Cutesy Factor. I can’t stand faux-angry bantering designed to propel the leads into bed. I think all precocious kids who make gruff heroes melt and turn every heroine into the perfect nanny should be banished. And if your book stars a modern successful businesswoman, don’t turn her into a clumsy, disheveled, Lucille Ball clone and expect me to find it cute.
Kassia says romances suffer from an amateur, unsophisticated image, but I think they suffer from a lack of honesty. How can we “treat romance novels as grown-up fiction” when authors are writing characters who behave like addle-brained, hormone-fueled teenagers? Don’t tell me your modern heroine is a 35-year-old virgin who’s never even masturbated so she’s completely shocked by her first orgasm. Don’t tell me your “feisty” heroine is happy to put up with chauvinistic behavior and sexist comments from her alpha hero because, “While it would irritate her from anyone else, somehow it just seemed cute when Brock did it.”
And as far as the window dressing goes, the honest truth is that an overwhelming number of readers out there DO like clinches and cover models and purple prose. (RT’s got the letters to prove it.)
So before you blame RWA or RT or clinches for tarnishing the genre, perhaps you should take a real honest look at why we’re so ashamed of our reading choices. Romance is about love, and sexy men and women, and yes, even passionate clinches. And what’s wrong with that? Maybe a little honesty amongst ourselves is the first step to “fixing” romance’s image.
No related posts.
Very well said Wayne. LOL And I’d give you higher than a 4. Reviews are subjective. And I agree with Mary, I’d like less a plot outline and more a “why I gave the book the number I did” review.
I’ve found RT helpful. There is a lot in it that I don’t find “silly and fluffy.” I’ve gotten a lot out of articles on authors and on publication articles. And I enjoy some of the fluffy too.
I just wanted to say WOW! your site is really good and i’m proud to be one of your surfers