Question of the day: If you call a corn cob a twinkie, is it really a twinkie? Will it then taste like a twinkie?
I’m rather easily amused, and the last several weeks of blog hopping have definitely not disappointed. Ask anyone in the romance world, perhaps the two hottest topics right now are the definition of romance and erotica, romantica, erotic romance. (whatever you prefer to call it) I won’t, however, call it porn, despite many objections to the contrary.
Why won’t I call it porn? Well, because it isn’t. Simple enough. If you want to see an example of porn, go to any XXX rated movie rental place, pick up a few titles and tune into real porn. Heck, I don’t even write erotic romance, and I’m rolling my eyes at the comparisons.
It’s an old subject. One that’s been nearly beat to death, and yet it won’t die. Why? Because for whatever reason, people who don’t and won’t ever read the genre strongly object to it, and because we have become a society that is all about our preferences and rights trumping others, it makes sense to them to prevent other people from reading and enjoying the genre.
The solution is so very simple. If you don’t like it, are offended by it, don’t read it. No one is forcing you to buy erotic romances. But don’t try to prevent me from reading one just because your delicate constitution shudders at the thought. And don’t make arrogant assumptions about why others read them.
Then we arrive at the RWA and their attempt to redefine the definition of romance. To me this is like herding cats. I don’t know about you, but when I started reading romance, I didn’t know or give a flying flip who the RWA was nor did I care what they labeled romance and what they said wasn’t romance.
Tell me, if the RWA decided tomorrow that your favorite author or favorite romance genre wasn’t “really†romance, would it make a difference to you? Would you drop the book in shocked horror and refuse to ever read anything that wasn’t romance again? I’m thinking probably not.
The average reader doesn’t even know who or what the RWA IS. I know I didn’t until I started writing. So the idea of this organization single handedly deciding what is or isn’t romance, seems rather absurd. Shouldn’t the reader decide? Don’t they decide every day with their hard earned dollars? Somehow I don’t see them scouring the bookshelves for the RWA stamp of approval before they commit to buying a novel.
For that matter, it seems to me that no one is asking the important factor what they think. The reader. It’s debated ad nauseum between the authors of various genres. They argue, snipe, publicly trash, and skewer authors of those books, but no one’s asking the people who buy said books what they think.
So, I’m asking, dear readers. What do you make of all the hoopla? Do you think calling erotic romance porn makes it porn? Do you care whether the RWA might deem the book you’re reading now “not a romance,†and will it make a difference in your buying habits? And if you don’t read or care for erotic romance, are you of the opinion it should be run out of the genre on a rail?
No related posts.
Speaking as a published author of p_rn, (“The Chastity Belt” Pinkflamingo) I’d say there is a big structural difference between a romance with explicit bits in it, and an explicit story like mine, which just happens to have a romantic backbone.
In short, Romances deliver romance, whereas P_rn delivers, well, p_rn. RWA is being absurd.
I guess we’ve been reading the same blogs Sharon.
It never fails to amaze me that mass published authors like Elizabeth Bevarly, (who should really know better) feel that they can make sweeping genralisations about genres they quite clearly know very little about.
In her squawking column, she wrote:
“I’ll get right to my point. Erotica doesn’t belong in RWA, and RWA never should have approved Ellora’s Cave as an RWA-recognized publisher. The reason? Ellora’s Cave doesn’t publish Romance any more than Playboy Books publishes Romance.”
The laughable thing is that having made the above comment, Ms Bevarly went on to admit that she in fact hadn’t actually read many EC books (I’ll be surprised if she’s read any quite frankly). How does that work?
The fact is, Erotic Romance is here to stay, it may not be your thing, you may prefer reading sweet romance’s, which are full of emotion, and very little sex, but hey, guess what, it’s a free world, but for God’s sake, don’t try telling the rest of us who may unashamedly want something more, that what we read is trashy, and cannot be put in the same stratosphere as romance novels.
I’m not sure whether her inflammatory statements were an effort to promote her new Blaze book (read irony) or if she actually meant every word she said, but as a reader, she sure pissed me off.
Why won’t the subject die?
“Because people who don’t read the genre … ”
That’s me. I don’t read the genre. So, to summarise, my fault it won’t go away.
Why do I do this?
Because “it makes sense to them to prevent other people from reading and enjoying the genre.”
That’s still me, I’m one of them. And this is what I want? Cool.
What’s the solution?
“Don’t try to prevent me from reading one just because your delicate constitution shudders at the thought.”
Oh, okay. I never thought of letting other people read what they like. I suppose in our delicate way, we right-trumping, non-erotic romance readers are pretty stupid.
Anything else?
“Don’t make arrogant assumptions.”
What is in a name? I think the title conecpt says it all, if we call erotic romance by a different name, it does not make it other than what it is. And, it doesn’t matter what someone else calls it, or tries to hide it under, if the reader truly wants it, they will seek it out. I, for one, never read erotic romance, yet my novel is blend of dark fantasy and erotic romance. I certainly don’t think that anyone has the right to ‘chase it out.’ We don’t need a Tipper Gore in here trying to save us from ourselves. Great fiction is just that, great fiction.
“So, I’m asking, dear readers. What do you make of all the hoopla?”
The readers don’t know about the hooopla any more than they look for the RWA stamp of approval, lol. Love your imagery–good chuckle and reality check.
There is an underlying dialogue in this issue that is really beginning to bother me. That is the assumption that anyone who is uncomfortable reading erotica is somehow ignorant, closed-minded, or prejudiced.
Consider this: If a person is uncomfortable with interracial marriage, does that make him a racist? If a person is allergic to sausage, does that make him a card-carrying member of PETA? If a person dislikes alcohol, does that make him a teetotaler? If someone hates spiders, does that make him an arachnophobic? No. Then why is someone who opposes erotica stereotyped as closed-minded? Just because a person doesn’t like something does not mean they’re prejudiced against it and wants to eradicate it from the universe.
I’ve never read Ellora’s Cave, but I’m a huge fan of Black Lace. For years, I’ve ordered my BL books online because that was the only place I could find them. Now I can get them from the corner bookstore. Yes, they are in the adult section and not the romance section, but ya know what? That’s fine by me. When I want to buy a BL, I go looking for it. Shelf placement or inclusion in the romance section does not prevent me from buying the books I want. If the majority of romance readers is uncomfortable having explicit books such as BL in the romance aisle, what’s wrong with that? Who exactly does it hurt? If customers want books, they’ll go look for them. That includes new customers. I found out about BL because I *wanted* to read sexier books, not just because I happened to come across them. Ever seen a commerical for a new product at the grocery store? Nine times out of ten, that commercial will state “look for new XX in the XX aisle” or “in your grocer’s freezer” or whatever the case may be. If erotica writers and publishers are concerned about loss of sales from *not* being on the romance aisle, tell customers where to get them.
Also, is anyone honestly trying to prevent anyone else from enjoying erotica? Is there a movement out there that I’m not aware of campaigning to banish the publication of erotica? If there is, what have the erotica authors done about it other than complain?
As far as the steps RWA has taken, I don’t agree with them. However, I do understand where they’re coming from. For years, romance has fought the stigma that romance novels are porn. Well, Ellora’s Cave’s slogan is “Got Sex?”. Not Got Romance. Got Sex. At RT, all the EC models wore t-shirts with that slogan. “Got Sex?” on the front, “We Do” on the back. At the EC party, they had condom lollipops on the tables. You can even buy these items on e-bay. Personally, I thought it was all really cute and I stocked up on those lollipops.
But. I do understand how the PTB at RWA would be uncomfortable promoting them when they are so blantantly advertising that they sell sex. Especially when that is *exactly* what RWA is trying to tell the world that’s not what romance is all about. How can RWA state that romance is not about the sex and then turn right around and promote a publisher who says, yes it is?
Regardless of personal preferences or perceived censorhip, I wish the opposing sides of this issue would quit the he said/she said diatribe and actually converse about a solution. Instead of complaining, why don’t the erotica writers actually make some worthwhile suggestions to RWA for a middle ground? Though they went about it the wrong way, at least RWA has taken a stand. So far, all I’ve seen from the erotica side of the fence is “take my ball and go home”. Instead of complaining or quitting, why not counteract and create a solution? Get a petition going to prove to RWA how important, and romantic, erotica is and can be. Work the system, don’t abandon it. Hopefully, the erotica writers attending RWA National this week will take some type of proactive action. If not, I don’t see how complaining across the net will do any good, to anyone.
I’m an active member of RWA and, over the last 11 years, have received a ton of benefit from my membership. That doesn’t mean that I agree with every decision — not by any means. What I object to most, however, in any controversy that arises, is the full scale vilification of the organization, its Board and anyone who shares an opposing view. This is largely why I’m staying out of the discussions online. I have my opinion. I’ve voiced it to the Board. That’s the end of it for me.
What truly puzzles me, however, is how a situation that began as a writers organization’s attempt to define itself, for business purposes, has now translated into people believing that the organization wants to tell them what they should or shouldn’t read. That is simply not so. Nobody has said, “Don’t read EC or any romantic erotica” any more than they’ve said “Don’t read horror or sci fi.”
Then we arrive at the RWA and their attempt to redefine the definition of romance.
But RWA’s defnining romance has nothing to do with publishers and shelving and labeling or readers. It has to do with internal organizational policies, anti-trust laws, non-profit laws, yadda yadda. Yes, we can poo-poo that all we like (because I’ve had attorneys reply on my blog that much of that is bogus reasoning), but even Mary Stella, a former board member, said in response to the subject
Heh. Mary and I have overlapped each other!
I think the big problem here is not ‘I don’t care for erotic romance, therefore I don’t read it.’ The problem is ‘I don’t care for erotic romance, therefore it’s not romance.’
Apparently the decision rests not on the book itself, or the content, but on the publisher? At least that’s the way it sounds. So, it really doesn’t matter if an author’s work is well-written, concentrates on the relationship between two people (of opposite genders, mustn’t forget that), and ends in a believable and emotionally gratifying Happily-Ever-After. If that author has gotten a contract with the wrong publisher, forget it. None of the networking, support, and all-around assistance that RWA apparently can provide authors.
Does that seem fair?
Pornography n: pictures, writing or films that are intended to arouse sexual excitement. – Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Edition.
Hmmm . . . based solely on that definition, I can come to two possible conclusions. Firstly, I could assume that all Romances with sex scenes in them are porn. Or, that neither Romance, nor Erotica could possibly be porn, because although they have scenes that would match the description for porn, they clearly revolve around the building of a romantic relationship foremost, rather than focus solely on arousing the reader. In otherwords, it’s all a matter of opinion.
The only exception to this I could see, just from the discussion, is in the case of Ellora’s Cave. I don’t read any of their books (restricted book spending, not adverse to Erotica:wink:), yet just from the description of their promotional gimics, it sounds as though they are wilingly leaning towards a ‘porn definition’ to garner attention. In which case, RWA would be very right to stand up and smack their hands for essentially undoing alot of their hard work to change public opinion about Romance in general (as someone else pointed out ahead of me). Personally, I wonder whether RWA is watching how the wave of ‘political correctness’ tends to get out of hand occasionally, and is trying to redifine Romance so that, should someone cry foul of all Romances because of sex-heavy erotica such as that which EC produces, RWA can protect themselves, and their writers through their definition?
As to whether RWA redifining Romance would stop me from reading certain sub-genres, I’d say definately not. It’s like some Science Fiction writers prefering to call their genre Speculative Fiction – at the end of the day it’s still SF. If I have to look on a different shelf, all the better, as I’ll have an excuse to browse a little longer in the bookstore.:grin:
When I say “you” and “your”, I’m refering to writers of erotica, erotic romance and romantica. Since it seems to be important, I enjoy reading Ellora’s Cave and other erotic fiction. I find them in used bookstores, and they’re not shelved with the romance books.
Okay, if selling your book is all that matters, why do you care whether RWA recognizes it as romance? Why do you even care if you’re called romance? In every blog I read, no one can give me an answer that doesn’t smack of wanting to belong to a club that won’t let you in. Who, besides members of RWA, cares?
I don’t see how RWA is keeping people from reading erotica. I don’t see why they’d want to, any more than they’d want to keep people from reading any other kind of book. They’re not trying to keep books from being published, how would they, even if they wanted to?
Lastly, maybe… as well-written as your books are, maybe there isn’t enough romance in your books to be considered genre-romance. I mean, every book out there (mystery, science fiction, mainstream, etc) seems to have romance in it somewhere, regardless of what genre it’s in, but that doesn’t make them “romance novels”. So, what if you DON’T write romance? What if you DO write erotic? Can’t you own that and be proud of it? Is it secretly easier to say “erotic romance” than “erotica”? A HEA alone doesn’t define romance, or else practically every book out there would be a romance.
“Consider this: If a person is uncomfortable with interracial marriage, does that make him a racist?”
Actually, yeah, it does.
If a person is uncomfortable with interracial marriage, does that make him a racist?
Yes, in my book, it does. Sorry. As for the blog topic, it only matters to me in the terms of access. If by redefining romance, RWA dictates what books are sold and where, then I don’t like it as a reader.
“Consider this: If a person is uncomfortable with interracial marriage, does that make him a racist?â€
Yep, it does, or else, why the discomfort?
Do you think calling erotic romance porn makes it porn?
Given how fluid language can be, yes. For example: if enough people decide to call chairs “chiggernuts” and agree that henceforward, all chairs should be called “chiggernuts,” then over time, chiggernuts = chairs. If enough people decide that erotic romance should be called porn, then yes, it will generally be considered porn. I’m certainly free to still call it erotic romance, but most people would probably pooh-pooh me and tell me I’m being unnecessarily euphemistic, call a spade a spade, etc.
Words do matter, definitions do matter. Chinese people generally aren’t thrilled to be called “gook.” But hey! It doesn’t change the kind of person they are, right? So why can’t we call them gooks?
I’m an RWA member and I’ve written the board about the definition thing. I got reasoned responses, and assurances that things are still being decided. So, I’m willing to play wait and see rather than condemn now. But, I do think there is danger ahead depending on what’s decided.
There will always be individual members with strong opinions about what direction an organization like RWA should take. Those members have the right to state those opinions. I, and others, have the right to disagree with them. All this is all pretty obvious.
The reason I strongly oppose the opinions of those who would keep erotic romance out of RWA is that they are looking backward. They are trying to restrict rather than include. This won’t hurt ROMANCE — readers will buy what they want, publishers will follow the lead of those readers, and the people writing what sells will make the money. But, if RWA decides to take a restrictive rather than an inclusive stance, if they chose to placate those who are opposed to including anything they personally don’t like, then the organization will hurt itself. It will become irrelevant to its own genre.
This doesn’t just go for erotic romance, but for chick lit romance and other forms of women’s fiction. I’ve read Romance for 30 years. I remember the last big change in the genre — when gothics died and the modern romance was born. In my opinion, we’re heading for another shift of similar proportions. If RWA wants to stay relevant, it had better shift with the genre rather than gather the wagons and try to protect the old.
This change is likely to bring in a lot of books that I don’t personally like. It’s likely to threaten some of my cherished preferences for Romance. But the genre is bigger than me and my tastes. And the organization has to look to that big picture, not just to those who don’t like this or that element of the new.
RWA has done a lot for a lot of romance writers. I would hate to see it lose its value to the genre. So, I’m still hoping for an inclusive decision here.
–June
I respectfully disagree and I stand by my statement. Just because a person is uncomfortable with interracial marriage does not mean that person feels superior to anyone of a different race, which is the basic definition of racism, or God forbid, would act out against an interracial couple. Also, if you flip that statement around, it would read, a person who is uncomfortable with interracial marriage is a racist. Not true.
Just to clarify, I asked around at work and everyone agreed that it depended on the *context* of being uncomfortable. My meaning in the post above was directed at the unfamiliarity with an alternative lifestyle, which has nothing whatsoever to do with race. However, no one I asked agreed that being uncomfortable automatically makes that person a racist. I should have used a different example in order to keep the discussion on topic.
The point of my examples was that just because a person doesn’t like something doesn’t mean they are the exact extreme of not liking, such as being racist, phobic, attempting censorship, or otherwise. I think that’s where a lot of the confusion in this issue has arisen. Just because some readers and/or writers don’t like erotica doesn’t mean they are trying to censor and tell people what to read or buy.
Sorry for getting the discussion off topic.
As a reader, and not a writer, of romances (among other types of books) I am not privy to the RWA decision and really don’t want the gory details. I don’t normally read books that are touted as erotica, although I do read some books with sexually explicit scenes — I’m thinking of Bertrice Small and Virginia Henley, for example.
The dictionary says that erotica is “literature intended to arouse sexual desire” (American Heritage College Dictionary, 1997 edition), and I think that pretty much sums it up for me, although, granted, my opinion is based upon a very small sample, and not a terribly recent one either. But why do writers of erotica have such a hard time admitting to the main purpose of erotic literature? I agree that unless it degenerates into power struggles and violence, erotica is not porn, but if the whole emphasis of the book is on explicit sexual activity, what conclusion is the reader to draw as to the purpose of the book? If you are going to call you book “erotica” then IMO you have already set your own boundaries as to how the book will be received, by both readers and non-readers of the genre.
I personally don’t have a problem with a body of literature being written for the primary purpose of sexual titilation, and I think that eventually erotic romance will find its natural market. And it already seems to be going that way, with magazines such as Romantic Times giving it big advertising and review space. I think there is room for everyone inside the tent — I may not read your books, but someone else will, and if that is what they want, why should that bother me? But don’t make the mistake of assuming I am a prude who reads nothing but “sweet” romances — I’m just one who doesn’t need to read about all the “humpin’ and bumpin’” as Billy Crystal once remarked.
I know this is kind of veering off topic, but…
I don’t get this. Could you give me a *non-racist* reason why someone would be uncomfortable with it? I can’t for the life of me think of any.
We all have prejudices. Everyone is racist in one way or another. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying to themselves. Yeah, there’s a difference between being uncomfortable with interracial marriage and outright condemning it, but it’s still judging a situation based on the color of someone’s skin. And that’s racism.
To be honest, from what I see of TracyS’s posts, I think she’s referring to “interethnic marriage”, rather than interracial marriage. I may be wrong, though.
[An interethnic marriage is basically an interracial marriage with two sets of different cultural backgrounds, religions, social histories, and/or whatnot. I know 'ethnic' and 'racial' don't seem to be that much different from each other, but to some, there is a significant difference.]
I think what Tracy’s post meant was more about culture (I think Maili’s right). I mean, not everyone is comfortable wih joining their life with someone whose culture/beliefs/religion is so different, when marriage is hard enough when these things are the same. In that case, I wouldn’t judge the person as a being a racist.
Sometimes certain words and phrases act like a spark (like race or abortion or religion, etc), when the person might not have meant anything so drastic.
If anything, Tracy’s clarifying post merely cements my belief that she is racist. Just because you aren’t going to commit a hate crime doesn’t make you a non-racist. Just because you don’t feel superior to those who are non-white doesn’t make you a non-racist. Racism is, as Emma stated, making judgments based on phenotypical, immutable characteristics.
I didn’t realize that there were different contexts of being uncomfortable. If you are disturbed, made uncomfortable, by an interracial couple, that by definition is racism.
“My meaning in the post above was directed at the unfamiliarity with an alternative lifestyle, which has nothing whatsoever to do with race. ”
I don’t even know what this means but I can tell you that interracial marriage is not an alternative lifestyle. I live the same lifestyle as my same race neighbors. At least I think I do. Maybe same race couples do really different things in the privacy of their homes that I, as a part of interracial couplehood don’t practice. Sound silly? It is.
“The point of my examples was that just because a person doesn’t like something doesn’t mean they are the exact extreme of not liking, such as being racist, phobic, attempting censorship, or otherwise.”
So, in essence, you are saying that you don’t like interracial marriages but that does not make you a racist, right?
I had a very good male friend once, an African American, and we found ourselves growing very attracted to each other. (I’m white.) Even though we had been friends for a couple of years, and continued to be friends later, we decided not to follow up on the attraction. We were both uncomfortable with the idea. Uncomfortable because we were realistic about the social climate in the Southern state we lived in. We both knew other interracial couples that had gone through hell, even to physical violence against them by truly racist people. Like each other though we did, neither of us wanted to sign on for those kinds of problems. You can be uncomfortable simply because you’re acknowledging the difficulties that can happen. I don’t think I’m racist for that, but you are of course free to disagree.
If someone was uncomfortable with the fact that my DH and I are married because we are different races, I would say that person is racist. Stop. Period. End.
Thank you, people for picking up on this.
If a person is uncomfortable with interracial marriage, does that make him a racist?
Sure does. Why would somebody be uncomfortable with marriage between any sort of humans without some pretty heavy assumptions? I’m unfamiliar with the lifestyle of redheads, but if my daughter wanted to marry one, would I have the right to feel uncomfortable? Last thing I heard, redheads are as human as I am. Cultural differences, sure, and those freckles they are prone to are quite odd, but I doubt in a human sense they are any different.
Just because other racist people choose to think redheads are inferior to them and are against mixin’ with them (for fear that their offspring will sprout red hairs and Lord forbid, freckles!) and I know they’re are going to make it hard for my daughter and her red headed lover, should I hope they’d persevere rather than giving into rank bigotry or encourage my daughter to find a non-redheaded love of her life?
Warning: NonPC musing follows
Are people against erotic romance and sexual titillation this racist in general? Just wondering.
What gets me is that all detailed romantic love scenes are written for sexual titillation. Even the most florid, feisty, ninnified historical romance. If they have manhoods a’throbbing, nipples perking and womanliness swelling and honey-dewing–it’s about sex. Where is the high ground here?
Maybe the inspirational writers have it, but as I see it, most other romance writers don’t. Pot, meet kettle.
As a reader, I could care less how RWA defines romance. Like TracyS says, you can put the book in any category and I’ll go and find it. One person’s definition may not be another’s. If erotica is placed in “Fiction” and I want an EC title, I’ll go get it. If an inspirational is in “Religious Fiction” I’ll scout it out and if that new regency title is in “Historical Fiction,” well, guess where I’ll head.
As a writer, I’m sure it’s a lot more important, especially (I assume) if you are just starting out because RWA is a deep well of information — but we aren’t in the dark ages anymore. If RWA is not meeting the needs of its members, then maybe a new organization could be formed that could.
I feel labels are just that — labels. I could care less if my favorite author is considered ‘romance,’ ‘fiction,’ or ’sci/fi.’ I’ll still buy them and if I can’t find them to buy them because they have been labeled something unfamiliar, well that’s what the information desk is for or better yet, online ordering!
TracyS wrote:
“There is an underlying dialogue in this issue that is really beginning to bother me. That is the assumption that anyone who is uncomfortable reading erotica is somehow ignorant, closed-minded, or prejudiced.”
Funny you should say that, but isn’t that the same as trying to intimate that people who read erotic romance are basically reading porn? I’m not saying that that’s what you meant, but let’s face it, erotic romance readers are more likely to get the ‘look’ than somebody who reads Diana Palmer stories.
“For years, romance has fought the stigma that romance novels are porn.”
You need to think about that, who exactly were calling romance porn? I think you’ll find that those people probably never read and would never read romance novels, so why do their opinions matter so much? If it bothers you so much, just read something else.
As for EC selling T-shirts with the ‘We Got Sex Slogan’, What’s the big deal? Sex is part of any healthy relationship, all EC are doing are being more upfront about it than other publishers within the same genre.
Blaze readers would argue that they are reading romance not erotic romance, but having read a vast number of Blaze books myself, the line definitely gets kind of blurry.
As for the whole inter-racial marriage thing, I respectfully stand by my point, if the notion causes you discomfort, you are racist.
We can all get people who we know and like to agree with our different points of view, but the fact still remains that the discomfort comes from a place that few of us would want to acknowledge. Denial isn’t just a river in Africa.
Just one more thing: Can we please stop confusing erotica for erotic romance?
Crankyreader created a lovely Venn diagram of what erotic romance is, for those of you who have no idea what the difference is between erotica and erotic romance.
Thank you Candy. I was going to chime in with that too. Erotica and erotic romance are two different genres (and different from porn). In erotic romance, the relationship is still the core, which makes it romance.
Tracey S said, “Regardless of personal preferences or perceived censorhip, I wish the opposing sides of this issue would quit the he said/she said diatribe and actually converse about a solution. Instead of complaining, why don’t the erotica writers actually make some worthwhile suggestions to RWA for a middle ground? Though they went about it the wrong way, at least RWA has taken a stand. So far, all I’ve seen from the erotica side of the fence is “take my ball and go home”. Instead of complaining or quitting, why not counteract and create a solution?”
Actually an erotic romance chapter of RWA was just formed and approved, Passionate Ink. Passionate Ink will give erotic romance writers a bit more of a cohesive voice in RWA and a chance to promote creative solutions to these problems. They have encouraged members to chime in on the definition of romance and graphical standards and other issues. So not everyone is quitting or only complaining, though some have left and hopefully solutions will be found.
Sorry to have posted and bailed on my column day, but I was admitted to the hospital the night before and had surgery. Just wanted to thank everyone who chimed in. I’m sure when I’m more lucid (and not under the influence of some lovely drugs) I’ll enjoy them even more
MarianneMcA, I’m not sure why you’re so defensive in your response, because if you aren’t one of the “people” described in my post, then why would you assume I was referring to you? I merely said people. I didn’t say ALL people or even MOST people who don’t read the genre. I said people. I can certainly back this up with PEOPLE who feel as I described. If you aren’t one of those, fantastic. But I’m a bit puzzled by your reaction. I personally don’t care what you read or don’t read or for that matter, your reasons why. They’re your own. I merely resent when PEOPLE who don’t read the genre (or won’t) make blanket generalizations about which they have no knowledge, and then proceed to try and prevent other people from reading the genre by publicly bashing it. Why else would someone badmouth except to try and influence other people. Make sense?
MartyK, you absolutely cemented my point lol. The average reader doesn’t care and they are the ones shelling out the cash for the books.
Tracy S, I’m very glad you responded, and I enjoyed your comment. To some degree I can see what you are saying “There is an underlying dialogue in this issue that is really beginning to bother me. That is the assumption that anyone who is uncomfortable reading erotica is somehow ignorant, closed-minded, or prejudiced.”
I will agree that I have seen such sentiment on both sides of the fence, however, I’m not one of them. I know some positively brilliant people who wouldn’t touch erotic romance with a ten foot pole. I don’t think them ignorant, close-minded or prejudice. HOWEVER, and you had to know this was coming
My beef is with people who have no clue about the genre, other than their own preconceived notions, making broad generalizations and attempting to persuade other people that it’s garbage, not romance etc.
To me that is the definition of a close-minded, ignorant person.
There are a lot of sub-genres of romance that I positively loathe, but I’m not out on my soap box spouting inflammatory rhetoric and making the case that what these authors write is either garbage or not romance.
To go back to my simple point, if someone doesn’t like erotic romance, historical romance, fantasy or whatever the case may be, that’s great. Don’t read it and let it be.
Mary Stella, I’m not trying to make the leap from the RWA trying to define romance to the RWA telling you what you should or shouldn’t read, or even trying to tie it to the recent furor over erotic romance. It perhaps wasn’t well done of me to bring them up in the same post, but separately, they seem to be the two hot topics circulating the romance world at present.
To differentiate my views, I merely found it amusing that an organization would try to further expound on their present definition of romance, because the direction they seem to be heading is one of narrowing rather than broadening the field. And for many this is preferable, they want it narrowed. I would argue that their present defintion represents the most encompassing and personally, I don’t see why it needs to be tweaked.
The erotic romance issue is one completely separate, yet it is pertinent to the definition of romance because if the defintion is narrowed, it could exclude a lot of sub genres and not just erotic romance.
“I think the big problem here is not ‘I don’t care for erotic romance, therefore I don’t read it.’ The problem is ‘I don’t care for erotic romance, therefore it’s not romance.”
SandyW, I could not agree more. Very well said.
Natasha, You said my point perfectly. It isn’t going to matter to me what the RWA as an organization deems romance or not romance. I’m still going to pick up a book and read it based on personal criteria. I think a lot of people will do the same. Seems like a waste of time and resources if you ask me.
What a great discussion.
I have avoided it as much as I could because of certain specific individuals who speak inflammatorily and untruthfully and state opinion as fact and incite hysteria. I wandered over here today and happened to read this discussion, and am glad to see it has not been that way here.
I’m not sure what specific thing led to RWA investigating their definition of romance (which is a definition only to be used inside the organization and has no bearing on anything outside RWA, including where books are put on shelves or what publishers should publish). I suspect it may be the high number of romance writers writing books that are on the edge of or outside the genre. But the most recent issue of RWA’s trade journal stated that the majority of RWA members who expressed an opinion to the board want an open and inclusive definition. I don’t think there’s anything to be concerned about there.
The other issue, about erotic romance and graphical standards, was an unintended eruption. There are issues associated with erotic romance that are not associated with almost any other subgenre. There are explicit covers (some of them very beautiful) that could wind up associated with an RWA program, and that could have repercussions. If an explicit cover is in an ad someone wants to put on the back of the RWR, by law that RWR would have to be mailed in an opaque wrapper (if it met certain criteria of the USPS). If a cover was submitted to be part of the RWA theater slide program and allowed to be included, that could cause theaters to not show that slide that all the other authors paid hundreds of dollars to be on. So RWA’s board decided that there had to be policy. The wording of the policy caused questions to be asked that showed it was not as well-thought-out as they believed it to be, and the board pulled it and set up a committee. Fine.
But the worst result of that situation and the resulting discussion was hue and cry from people who heard things third and fourth and fifth hand and started screaming that RWA was trying to kick out erotic romance authors and publishers and keep them disassociated with RWA, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Are there individuals within RWA’s 9000+ membership with extreme opinions in both directions? Absolutely–we are a group of 9000+ humans, after all.
But generally, those extremes do not represent or impact any official program, policy, or stand of the organization as a whole.
I’m not going to address the racist comment since I already did so on Karen’s blog.
“The readers don’t know about the hooopla any more than they look for the RWA stamp of approval, lol. Love your imagery–good chuckle and reality check.
Comment by Marty K — 7/27/2005 @ 10:21 am”
The average romance reader maybe unaware but the average erotic romance reader is very very aware, because the “hoopla” affects us, and our reading habits. Damn straight we’re aware, and most of us are pretty pissed too.
Jaynie, I don’t understand why the “hoopla” affects you and your reading habits. Do you only find the erotic romance books and stories you want to read via RWA?