I couldn’t agree more with this, and I think you’ve brought up a good point, which is that the point of critique should NEVER be to influence authors as to *what* to write. Although I would argue that the fan system that has been in place for so long in Romance, at least, does that more powerfully, because there has been an artificial personalization in the genre through which readers feel connected to authors sometimes rather than books. And they have no problem communicating to authors what they’d like to see in books. On top of which is the tension between genre concerns and industry concerns, which can also play into what authors choose or feel pressured to write. I like to think — coming from this tradition myself, of course — that true critical examination is not *for* the author or even for his or her benefit, but for the GENRE as a whole, and for those who find value in the exercise. Moreover, I think that true critical discourse is much less about what’s *good* or *bad* and more about how things work, what things mean within different reading contexts, why style impacts theme, etc. It’s not about determining the *value* of books or authors or tropes, but rather about the hows, whys, and wherefores of generic evolution. IMO it’s actually the strong attachment to the idea of fans rather than readers that endangers artistic independence.

1) External influences (especially negative ones) can stifle artistic expression. It is sad, but it is also a reality.

2) If authors paid attention to reviews it would channel writers toward creating status quo. I believe it is a writer’s responsibility to push the boundaries and play in that gray zone of what has not yet been lauded.

As for writers acting as reviewers, I’m in Justine’s court (or should I say Cricket field?). I like to root on books that I love, but I don’t think it’s my place to critique the ones I don’t. That’s someone else’s job. Anyhow, people don’t read nearly enough. Why give them a reason to NOT pick up a book?

Eric
http://www.ericluper.com

Loved those links! Thanks for writing this.

More than ten years ago, as a graduate student, I TA’d for an undergraduate science fiction course at a top ten school. The prof was highly respected, and it was clear that already there was a great deal of communication and respect between SF authors and scholars who did SF work, and there was nary a hint of disdain for the genre, at least not on the part of the professor. The core element of social critique in SF fiction was stressed, and during that semester I read some kickass books, as it was my introduction to the genre, as well. I had nothing but respect and love *as a reader* for SF as a genre after that class. Critical examination of those books only made me love the genre more, in other words.

Some say that Romance is disrespected because it’s written primarily by and for women. Some argue that it’s because the literary ranks sneer, while others point to the fact that a genre featuring so much sex and such a strong focus on sexuality can’t be taken seriously in the mainstream. I disagree with all of these assessments even as I believe they cannot be dismissed entirely. Mostly, though, as someone who has been a literary critic, a teacher, a student, and a voracious lifetime reader of almost every type of fiction and prose, what persistently sets Romance apart for me is the internal resistance to critical examination of the genre as something natural and even desirable.

Will a culture change make Romance “better”? I don’t know. Will is gain the genre mainstream respect? I don’t know, and frankly, I don’t know if I care. I certainly don’t think every reader or author should feel pressured to participate in genre critique, because that would be repressive in another way. But at the very least, acknowledging that critical examination isn’t unnatural or useless will indicate that the genre takes itself seriously, which IMO is the most important thing of all. Because seriously, if no one really cares whether Romance gets any respect, why the heck do we keep having these conversations at all? If it weren’t an issue, NO ONE would feel the need to talk about authors not needing to review and readers not needing to defend the genre and whether or not critical attention is necessary, desirable, or good for the genre.

I read recently an article where Science Fiction was being touted as the new mainstream literary fiction. There is no comparable claim for romance fiction despite it being read by a greater number of people.

In comparison with other genre fiction, romance is often discussed in terms of heaving bosoms, naked men, and sex without giving any nods toward the difficulty of working within the HEA parameters and still delivering a fresh story. Simply because romance fiction is escapism doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taken seriously as a form of literature. That is what the entirety of the discussion is about.

Give me an example of “not being taken seriously”. What in the world do you mean? Do the authors get paid in monopoly money? Do they get paid less than other GENRE books?

Romance doesn’t get taken seriously because it is escapism — as is Fantasy or (most)Science Fiction.

What I’ve noticed is that most Fantasy people recognize that and don’t care “to be taken seriously”. SF on the otherhand whines about the same thing.

Mystery, I assume, doesn’t have this problem because it is considered drama or something.

In part, this whole “taken seriously” thing is absurd. That’s like Jerry Seinfeld complaining that Sitcoms aren’t taken seriously. And isn’t it lame when they try? Like Roseanne or Family Ties when they had those ‘dramatic serious’ episodes? Weren’t those the worst episodes?

The giving of a negative opinion is akin to airing one’s dirty laundry in some of the genre’s eyes. I have had one publisher refuse to work with me, in any way, because I gave a mediocre (not even a negative) review of one of the books despite having given several positive reviews of other books published by that house.

It was clear from the Dixieland mafia event, that negativity spoken about an author by another author or would be author can be damaging to that person’s career. I commented to one blogger the other day that I was glad to have no desire to be an author because I felt like that way I could be free to voice whatever opinion I wanted, whether it be positive or negative. It’s a shame that authors don’t have that freedom in terms of giving expert analysis in their own field.

Mainly, I am seeking excellence. I’m looking for great storytelling, great writing, books I would be happy to press into the hands of my own readers and friends. And I’m doing it because I love the genre and want to participate in the dialogue over it. I am an expert, after all–I’ve been reading romances since I was twelve, and writing them since my early twenties. Why not me? I have at least as much to say about books as anyone else.

I do think we need to be less sensitive about criticism. It’s not about being accepted by some outside body–it’s about growing up and realizing that there is a standard within our own ranks. We know great romances when we see them. We know bad ones. We all have different opinions–and hey….here’s an idea: that’s perfectly okay! We do not have to create one monolithic body of approval or disapproval. That way lies stagnation.

As I writer, I would avoid reviewing books because
1. I don’t think I am very good at reviews. Even at school I was lousy at it. I would serve neither the public nor my own profile by doing it in public.
2. My writing time is too precious to spend doing something I don’t like and am not good at.
3. I am not interested in analysing books I read for fun. I like em, or I don’t. I’m much the same with wine. I am happy to listen to others talking about he cigar-box overtones, or the grassy and herbaceous character, but I limit myself to taking a note of the name so I can buy it again.

As Miss Snark says: write well: that’s all. That’s how I see my job as a writer.