In recent weeks, authors Karen Templeton and Diana Peterfreund have stated that reviewing romance novels is “not their job”. They are to write, others are to review. You know, I kind of almost agree with that position. If we can all agree that most reviews are written for the customer, then, yeah, authors may not be the best choices. On the other hand, who better than romance authors to review the genre? Subject-matter experts are critical to the review process.
If we expand the notion of review to include literary criticism — and both authors seemed to take that approach, then I say it is their job. Okay, maybe not them personally as neither seems interested in doing the critical thinking required (this is not a slam, it’s an acknowledgment that not all writers are suited to this kind of work; I get that). The romance genre is sadly lacking in serious critical analysis, and who better than the genre’s authors to explain and expound upon romance novels. I strongly disagree with Karen Templeton’s assertion that
…precious little of it’s going to stand up to the type of nitpicking many of us had to slog through in our college literature classes. Nor should it be expected to, frankly. Not when 99.9 percent of romance authors don’t have the luxury of taking two, three, seven, fifteen years between books, as do many of our literary cousins.
Mostly because I disagree with the thought that literary authors have the “luxury” of taking their time between books. It’s a sad truth about out world that most authors don’t make enough money to live on. There are better ways to get rich than by writing novels. This so-called luxury time is filled with day jobs and eking out time to write, just as is the case for most romance authors.
And to think that literary authors don’t suffer when they don’t have new product on the shelves is just plain silly. As with genre fiction, for many authors it’s out of sight, out of mind. Templeton says, “Done is the goal here, not deep.” (emphasis hers).
I was flabbergasted by this statement, and I really can’t imagine that Templeton believes this. The implication is that the reader doesn’t matter, pride in work doesn’t matter, and that turning in a half-assed novel is just okay. Karen Templeton is not that kind of author, though I completely agree that precious little of what is published these days could withstand serious scrutiny. When was the last time the genre produced a knock-your-socks-off must read? Too much crap is being published under the name of romance; I firmly believe that while no author wants to write a bad book, there are publishers who believe in quantity over quality. This is a bad thing for romance and if the authors aren’t willing to stand up and talk about what makes for good and bad fiction, then the trend will continue and readers will state their case.
By walking away from the genre entirely.
If it’s not your job, then whose job is it?
Neither author offers a solution. If it’s not their job, it’s even less my job. Who, pray tell, puts “Romance Reviewer” on his or her resume? Who pays the bills reading and analyzing romance? Even if you get a cushy Romantic Times gig, is it your job? If so, let’s discuss benefits.
Let’s talk about reviewing romance fiction. We need to stop acting precious about this and face the facts. If you’ve been paying attention, you know that newspapers are cutting back on book reviews and book coverage (and they offered scant at best coverage of romance fiction during the best of times). They’re heading for more syndicated coverage. To me and you, that means the same stuff will be covered around the continent. Don’t count on local column inches when syndicated content is cheaper. If you’re looking to traditional press to save you, better to try the lottery.
Romance authors constantly whine about lack of respect. They complain about lack of column inches. They decry the fact that their work is referred to as “bodice rippers”. If you don’t wanna help the cause, then stop complaining about not being taken seriously. And please don’t bother to complain about lack of reviews. If it’s not your job and it’s not my job and most publications aren’t covering romance, then, well, you can see the problem.
You know who you’re depending on to sell your genre? Fans. There are very few professional, trained reviewers who target the romance genre. You’re putting all the work on the shoulders of people who love your work. Not people who can effectively market your work, not people who can necessarily write about your stories beyond reciting the basic plot, and not people who have the name recognition that falls under what Diana Peterfreund calls “stunt casting” (or what the rest of the literary community calls “normal”; my feeling is that if it’s good enough for Kurt Vonnegut, it’s good enough for most romance authors).
You’re putting a lot of weight, expectations, and hope on the shoulders of the genre’s fans. I agree with Peterfreund when she says, “I do not think an author has an obligation to publicly review another author’s books.” But, boy, if educated, smart, strong writers aren’t stepping up and this fan or that fan gets bored or gets a new obsession, well, maybe someone else will step up. Or not. It sounds likes the authors of the genre don’t care enough to offer their opinions, their analysis.
You gotta give credit to other genres, including literary: at least those authors are out there, talking it up and making a case for their work. They do the necessary reviews and they do the necessary literary criticism when warranted. It’s not stunt writing, it’s marketing. It’s important.
Of course, doing this type of heavy lifting requires more than the romance community seems willing to give. There seems to be real fear in the community about intellectual honesty. Peterfreund referenced being popular at the banquet table, and I believe the fear of hurting feelings silences romance authors more than most are willing to admit. I’ve said it before and I’m sure I’ll say it again: sisters are vicious and yet they love each other. It’s okay to tell the truth.
The world has changed — the media has changed — and readers demand more honesty, more realism, more authenticity than ever before. Give it to them. Diana Peterfreund cited the example of Curtis Sittenfeld and her review of Melissa Banks’ The Wonder Spot and takes away a far different lesson than I did. There is no doubt that Sittenfeld’s “review” was a personal attack, and, boy, was it fun around the blogosphere for a few days. It made Sittenfeld look petty and childish (so much so that I almost convinced myself that Banks and Sittenfeld had cooked up the scheme together). It also brought on the kind of discussion and publicity for both authors (and their respective novels) that money can’t buy. You never know when buzz will translate into sales, but, hey, it sure beats being buried on a shelf with a lot of other books, feeling anonymous and not knowing how to find someone to read your work.
Authors can say that reviewing — either for readers or as part of a wider critical analysis — is not their job. Weird thing is, for the life of me, I can’t figure who punches the clock on this one. I mean, it’s not my job, either. But if not me and if not you, then who?
Related posts:
Kassia, Terrific post, and I agree wirh you 100%.
Romance authors do still complain about the lack of respect for their genre in the literary world, but if, as you say, quantity is revered more than quality (which does seem to be the case), then that battle remains an uphill one. How can you be “deep” if you (or your publisher) want(s) to churn out 3+ books a year? But then again, how can you afford not to be?
Thanks for your candor and insight!
First off, there’s a huge difference between reviewing (which is a special skill very different from writing a book, neither of which I can do) and literary criticism. While not meaning to disrespect anyone here, I’ve had almost as much training as a surgeon in order to be a literary critic. That doesn’t mean I’m better than anyone else by any measure–I can’t write a novel, remember, and I envy those of you who can–it just means that I’ve been *trained* to have a different skill set. So while people like Margaret Atwood can write novels, write literary criticism and some theory, and (I assume) review, she is multi-talented AND multi-trained, rather than doing three things that anyone who writes any one of the three should automatically be able to do. Writing books does not make you either a reviewer or a literary critic. Even as a literary critic, I’m terrible at writing reviews. Because they’re all different *skill* and *talent* sets, rather than necessarily inter-related.
So, I write literary criticism. I think I’m good at it. I am also part of what we hope is a new wave of romance-positive literary criticism. Teach Me Tonight is one web manifestation of this new wave of criticism. While we have a lot of authors who read and comment there, I think most people who read it recognize and understand that what we’re doing there is fundamentally different from reviewing or, of course, from writing the books in the first place.
This is not to say that no authors should do literary criticism (or reviews). We had Mary Bly/Eloisa James and Jennifer Crusie at the Popular Culture Association conference and they gave wonderful, theoretical papers about romance. But then, they’re both trained literary critics. And while Jayne Ann Krentz’s Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women is an invaluable tool in the romance critic’s toolbox, it shows to those with the training that it is a book of literary criticism written by authors. We like to have author discussions of craft and plotting and characterization, etc., available to us–we almost couldn’t do our job without them–but discussions of craft are still fundamentally different from literary criticism.
So, we’re out there, I promise. And we’re fighting the good fight for romance novels as we speak. We’re planning conferences and books and articles and we’re trying to take the *academic* literary world by storm. But this is a very different prospect from taking the reviewing world or even the romance publishing world by storm.
Secondly, when online book reviewers in the romance world DO review a bad book honestly, if with a little bit of snark, they invariably, without fail (and I’m not exaggerating), get at least one, but usually multiple comments, berating them for being so mean and for tearing down the author and her hard work and how COULD they. Recent examples can be found on Dear Author and Karen Scott’s blog in which they both review what they claim is an intensely bad book. If you go to Karen’s blog, there’s an incredibly strange post towards the end of the comments that may or may not be from Kathryn Falk (consensus is probably not) that discusses how bad book reviews make authors think of suicide. While an extreme example of ridiculousness when it comes to review anxieties, it’s an example nonetheless and shows us why more authors don’t review. Even if they write honest reviews of bad books with NO snark, don’t you think they’re going to get the “How could you?!” response from rabid fangrrls that might affect their own sales?
And one last point: literary critics don’t often get into discussions of a “good” book vs. a “bad” book–we even put quotes around the terms. So I might be able to mine as much juicy literary criticism out of that truly awful book as I’ll be able to get out of a Laura Kinsale or a Crusie or an SEP. I doubt it, but I could try. Because I’m doing literary criticism, not reviewing. And whether it’s a good or bad book might not come up in my discussion. Although if it’s truly as bad as Jane and Karen say, it probably would.
While some of the stuff that Karen Templeton said in her RTB blog sounded off to me (about craft vs. speed) from the authors I know either personally or over the web, I think this post demonstrates a focus on idealism that seems to ignore or misread some realities on the ground.
I’d like to comment on Karen’s comment that ‘precious little of it’s going to stand up to the type of nitpicking many of us had to slog through in our college literature classes’ and your response that ‘I completely agree that precious little of what is published these days could withstand serious scrutiny’.
Maybe I just blank some of the not-so-good romances from my brain (quite possible
), but I can find a lot of romances that do ’stand up to [...] nitpicking’. That’s not to say that I don’t come across typos in published romances, or that there aren’t some mixed metaphors from time to time, but I think that perhaps part of the reason why we think that romances in general couldn’t ‘withstand serious scrutiny’ is because there hasn’t been much scrutiny of romances which is both serious and sympathetic to the genre. And by ’sympathetic’ I don’t mean that we should fall over backwards to ignore any problems, but rather that we should be willing to take the genre seriously. Any line from literature, when read in a silly or mocking tone of voice could sound ridiculous. And if people start with an assumption that something is ridiculous or badly written, then that’s what they’ll see when they read. But what I’ve found, when I’ve been reading romances and commenting on them, is that there are many which work on a variety of levels and are thought-provoking. To give one example of the difference between my mindset and that of a critic like Radway’s here’s a post I did a while ago about fashion in romance. Radway was reading the novels in a way which confirmed her prejudices. I read them a different way, so I find meaning and importance in the same types of descriptions. Which, no doubt, says something about my prejudice/bias in favour of the romance genre 
but I don’t think it makes my analysis invalid. I think Radway was missing a lot of the nuances because she wasn’t open to seeing them.
I’ve tried three times to post this, and it doesn’t seem to be appearing, so apologies if something turns up later. I’ve taken the hyperlink out this time, in case that’s what’s causing the problems, though Sarah’s comment got through and it’s got several.
I’d like to comment on Karen’s comment that ‘precious little of it’s going to stand up to the type of nitpicking many of us had to slog through in our college literature classes’ and your response that ‘I completely agree that precious little of what is published these days could withstand serious scrutiny’.
Maybe I just blank some of the not-so-good romances from my brain (quite possible
), but as Sarah says, ‘good’ is a subjective term and one that I wouldn’t tend to use while doing criticism, though I might use it if I was describing a book to my friends. That said, I can find a lot of romances that do ’stand up to [...] nitpicking’. That’s not to say that I don’t come across typos in published romances, or that there aren’t some mixed metaphors from time to time, but I think that perhaps part of the reason why we think that romances in general couldn’t ‘withstand serious scrutiny’ is because there hasn’t been much scrutiny of romances which is both serious and sympathetic to the genre. And by ’sympathetic’ I don’t mean that we should fall over backwards to ignore any problems, but rather that we should be willing to take the genre seriously. Any line from literature, when read in a silly or mocking tone of voice could sound ridiculous. And if people start with an assumption that something is ridiculous or badly written, then that’s what they’ll see when they read. But what I’ve found, when I’ve been reading romances and commenting on them, is that there are many which work on a variety of levels and are thought-provoking.
To give one example of the difference between my mindset and that of a critic like Radway’s, a while ago at Teach Me Tonight I wrote a post about fashion in romance. Radway was reading the novels in a way which confirmed her prejudices and saw descriptions of clothing as filler fashion details which appeal to the readers but don’t add anything much to the story. I read them a different way and find that this sort of description can include symbolism and hints about characterisation, so where Radway sees something unimportant, I see meaning and significance. Which, no doubt, says something about my prejudice/bias in favour of the romance genre
but I don’t think it makes my analysis invalid. I think Radway was missing a lot of the nuances because she wasn’t open to seeing them.
Reviewing is not my job. Writing books is my job. I’ve chosen a job at which I have some skill, some talent and for which I have a great deal of love and respect. I have no particular skill or talent for reviewing. The two I did–for books I enjoyed tremendously–were incredibly hard to write. I have no idea how I might have structured the reviews if I hadn’t enjoyed the books. I can only imagine it would’ve been a lot harder yet.
I respect those who review, who do it well, and in depth, with details that enforce their opinion. I don’t expect readers of Romance to review–it’s the choice of those who do.
I’ve given up, long ago, whining about the lack of respect for the genre. I don’t know that I’ve ever whined about the lack of column inches. Though I will still snarl at the term bodice-ripper.
But I don’t owe the readers or the genre my time and effort to review. I just don’t. I owe the readers, the genre, myself and my publisher the best book(s) I can write. And, I feel, I owe the readers, the genre, myself and my publisher the respect of behaving professionally in public, on the boards and blogs, in interviews at events.
That’s it, people, that’s what you get from me.
It’s not a matter of being afraid of backlash, but a matter of time, interest and ability. I insist on having an actual life, and I’m not going to squeeze reading analytically, then crafting reviews on books to what’s already in my day. When I read, I read for fun, for pleasure, for relaxation. And I’m happy to leave the reviewing of the genre to those who have the interest and the skill.
I don’t ask any more of a reader than reading. I don’t want to be asked by a reader to do any more than provide a good read, a value for their time and money.
I have to believe the reader-reviewer chooses the job. Why else would she do it? And I’d like to believe the reader would prefer to read a book by me (if they enjoy my work), then a critical analysis or review of someone else’s work.
I’m not sure I would do a great job at reviewing books.
1. I love writing.
2. I don’t have time to squeeze in time for critically reviewing a book.
I do judge contest to help the sisters out but I’m having to cut back on that because I have enough on my plate with one book in edits, trying to sell my second book, and polishing up a third so when I go to nationals the agent that I want will fall in love withe the story and I’ll get an awesome contract. That’s about as much critical thinking as I can do.
When I read I do it to relax, not think about how good or bad a book is. If a book is bad I toss it against the wall and never pick it up again, I don’t want to spend time reading a book that I don’t like. If I were to take up reviewing then my writing would suffer.
About the writers complaining about not being taken seriously – The best thing a writer can do is to act like they are being taken seriously. Stop complaining and start acting the part of a serious writer. It’s all in your thinking.
Think – Be – Do – Have
Wowsers, this discussion explains so much.
You see, I’ve been trying to help novel writers become better bloggers (’cause quite frankly a large percent of them suck at it). Brilliant blogging is a combo of advertising copy meets newspaper reporting. A completely different skill set from writing novels.
I didn’t understand why some writers couldn’t grasp that concept.
But if writers think that writing a book and reviewing a book uses the same brain space, well, I don’t think I have a snowball’s hope in h*** of convincing them that writing a book and blogging daily doesn’t.
No sense selling where the customers ain’t buying.
I am about to go into an IP blackhole, so may not be able to comment again until much later today (unless the IT gods smile on me). Sarah — I completely agree with you, but I also think there are quite a few authors out there with the necessary training and skill (two different animals).
Nora — here’s a sad secret: it is much, much easier to review a bad book. Harder to review something you like because you are lost in the story and not focused on the specifics that make a good review. It’s near impossible to review a middling book. And so many romances are middling.
Authors do not have to review. If it’s not your thing, it’s not your thing. There are other choices you can make: interviews (good interviews) and articles. Even the most hit-the-keyboard author does some kind of publicity. There are other choices.
Kimber An — I couldn’t disagree with you less. I think romance is a grown-up genre and can take public criticism. In fact, as with all businesses, it is better to be in front of the discussion than playing catch-up (see the ridiculous dust-up related to RWA’s recent attempt to apply certain standards). Any business that lets someone start and guide the conversation will find itself on the losing end. Look what recently happened to Dell Computers — they didn’t take serious control of a bad situation and came out looking very bad. It’s far better for romance to control the discussion.
As for the review noted above, I have more to say here, but must go sit on the freeway for a few hours. It’s like meditation but with bad drivers.
In the current issue of Time magazine, there’s an article by movie critic Richard Corliss who says ” Hollywood’s marketers have become tremendously efficient at getting their core audience to see their big movies. They don’t need critics for that. But critics have a larger utility: to put films in context, to offer an informed perspective, to educate, outrage, entertain.”
His argument for film criticism by film critics is (paraphrasing like crazy) the fans do a bang-up job promoting the big films, so the critics don’t matter there. The critics, however, see all the films, even the little ones, and that’s where they’re important. Their job is not to tell you what movie is popular, but to tell you what movie matters.
I don’t see a lot of critiques out there that tell the readers which romance novels matter. Or even consensus on what makes a romance novel matter.
I would like to think it’s the same as what would make any novel matter, but somehow I doubt that will come to pass.
The way I see it is that it’s the rare genre book that is praised as great literature, especially in its own lifetime. That seems to happen in retrospect.
I think it would be wonderful, however, if there was more of an effort across the entire romance community to spotlight the undiscovered gems. That’s where I think the internet and blogs could be brilliant.
I’m rather stunned about Templeton’s statement “Done… not deep” myself. Granted at the moment I am at the moment writing “romances” in a formula, I hope and strive to improve with each book, and maybe maybe one day if I try very hard I’ll write something wonderful that will resonate with people in the way some books have resonated with me.
Churning out pot boiler after pot boiler, one or two a year is not my interest and even if I were lucky enough to be able to write that fast I would STILL want them to be as good as I could make them. Done AND deep, if you don’t mind.
Not push them aside and say “woo hoo” that’s number 15 nailed. On to number 16.”
As to it being our job yes – it is. It’s everyone’s job. Writers and readers. Everyone should voice their views, good and bad on other people’s books. How can you ever know what people think if they don’t.
Jeez they don’t have to be 2000 word essays. They don’t have to have a beginning a middle and an end, but in the same way you’d say to your friends on the phone “I read a great/not so great book the other day and it was great because” you can do the same on your Blog simply by giving a few reasons why you liked it or why it didn’t do it for you. It takes MINUTES. I try and make some kind of public statement about every book I read every film I see.
It reminds me of the fan fiction writers I used to know who got hugely popular and who never bothered to say thank you to their readers for their reviews – and were smugly pleased that they never bothered to review anyone else’s stories.
I’m bloody busy enough myself. Full time job, writer, Blogger, new director of the Erotic Authors’ Association, cats, family, yada yada – not anything that millions of other don’t have. But I volunteered to do m/m reviewing over at The Erotic Readers and Writers Association (ERWA) because
1. The genre needs all the help it can get right now (even more so with the way the Romantic Times treated Laura Baumbach at their recent convention. http://sensualwriter.blogspot.com/) and
2. Because they said they didn’t have a regular m/m reviewer.
I’m getting paid nothing, and I didn’t expect to be, and I never expect to be, but it’s something that needs to be done.
Even if I hadn’t been honoured enough to be given the position I would still review books, I’ve always done so, ever since I was a kid reading the latest Enid Blyton or Noel Streatfield and sharing them with friends at school.
Who doesn’t love to have their book reviewed? I’ve got a lot out of the pleasure of reading. My view is that doing my bit puts something back and makes the writing world perhaps a little better.
I have to say that I am a little confused by Ms Frantz’s comment though and no disrespect to her but how can one set oneself up as a literary critic if one can’t write novels oneself? In comparison to another discipline – you wouldn’t have someone who had never ridden a horse judging dressage.
Hi all,
I’m an author and (probably fairly inept) blogger.
I’ve never reviewed a book publicly, beyond raving briefly when I’ve found a book I love. I might find it interesting to do a ‘proper’ review. But I’m curious – given that I’d be either reviewing someone I may see as the competition, or a friend – would readers really trust my reviews as much as they would a professional critic’s?
I have a suspicion objective criticism may best handled by someone with a little distance from the writing scene, for exactly that reason. I enjoy interviewing authors, and recommending books that I’ve loved. But I think I’ll leave the serious reviewing to those better qualified. Fellow author Mathilde Madden reviews erotica and erotic romance over at Reflection’s Edge, and she’s very good at it.
Although … hold on … reviewing = free books, right?
Okay, I’m sold. Count me in. Reviews ‘R’ us. Where do I sign up?
I have to say that I am a little confused by Ms Frantz’s comment though and no disrespect to her but how can one set oneself up as a literary critic if one can’t write novels oneself?
Sarah’s talking about academic literary criticism, Erastes. While some English professors do write fiction, most don’t. We’re not trained to write fiction, we’re trained to analyse fiction, to look for metaphors, underlying themes, imagery etc, to put works in their literary and social context etc. And yes, that does mean that we don’t tend to look for many of the things that writers discuss as part of writing craft. But we do look for lots of other things.
There are lots of different ways to respond to texts and just as general readers don’t have to be fiction-writers in order to enjoy a text, neither do reviewers or academics.
In comparison to another discipline – you wouldn’t have someone who had never ridden a horse judging dressage.
Well, how many food critics are great cooks themselves? How many wine connoisseurs make their own wine? How many fashion journalists have training in dressmaking? How many racing drivers have worked in a car factory? We have doctors treating people for medical conditions that the doctors themselves have never personally experienced. Astronomers observe planets that they will never personally visit. Historians often write about events that happened hundreds of years ago.
Personal experience certainly gives someone a unique perspective, but it’s not the only valid perspective.
~They don’t have to have a beginning a middle and an end, but in the same way you’d say to your friends on the phone “I read a great/not so great book the other day and it was great because” you can do the same on your Blog simply by giving a few reasons why you liked it or why it didn’t do it for you. It takes MINUTES.~
I disagree. A good review requires time and skill–and more than minutes. And I don’t have a blog. I don’t want a blog. I want to write books, and because I enjoy reading certain blogs and visiting certain sites occasionally, I want to comment on them when I have something to say.
Nobody can tell me what my job is. I choose my work. I am not obligated to do more than what I choose, and not responsible for promoting other books, or critiquing them. Neither is anyone else. This would also be a choice. Expressing my views is a choice, just as keeping them to myself is a choice.
For those who choose to write, to review, to blog, that’s great. And it’s your choice, your right. I imagine I’ve enjoyed your work in all those areas at some point.
In the normal course of things I write six to eight hours a day, I do interviews, I travel for business and for pleasure, often more than I might like. I run a household, I enjoy my family, I communicate with readers on the internet just about daily, do signings and appearances. And now, I should shoehorn in writing reviews on books I decide to read to relax–because the genre and my fellow writers, the readers NEED me to?
Well, they’re going to have to get along with me in that area. Somehow, I think they’ll manage.
“I’ve often wondered why more authors don’t make the time to blog, especially considering the fantastic free publicity”
But its not free, Kimber An.
Good blogging takes time and skill.
Good reviewing takes time and skill.
Good novel writing takes time and skill.
Don’t y’all take specialized writing courses and stuff like that?
Maybe even have your own organization (isn’t that why ya pay RWA dues)?
I know we serious bloggers do.
We have courses and conventions and seminars and such.
Maybe its the business gal in me,
but I like to let experts do
what they’re specialized in.
Suck up aside…
Nora, darling, I am no writing critic (obviously)
but in my area of expertise (business and marketing),
you shine, girl.
I think reviews are great. I appreciate those who take the time and effort to do them.
However, I am of the opinion that reviews will never change the fact that books are written, represented, bought, sold, published and read by people of varying levels of intelligence no matter what the genre. Regardless of how strongly some of us want to garner more respect for romance books, there will always be more who think it’s just fine the way it is, thank you very much. It’s a matter of statistics, like it or not.
Reviews can help make a difference, but they are not the only solution. There may be no solution. Romance is what it is. Sometimes I want a trashy, raunchy romance (even though I may cringe at the badly crafted sentences), sometimes I want a sophisticated one. I’m just glad I live in a culture where I can get both.
Kimber Chin Said: “But its not free, Kimber An.
Good blogging takes time and skill.
Good reviewing takes time and skill.
Good novel writing takes time and skill.”
Hot dang! I was only thinking of money!:shock:
Kimber Chin said: “Don’t y’all take specialized writing courses and stuff like that?
Maybe even have your own organization (isn’t that why ya pay RWA dues)?
I know we serious bloggers do.
We have courses and conventions and seminars and such.”
LOL Kimber An
I think I was using the Royal We
referring to serious bloggers
and maybe that’s also wishful thinking.
Not exactly an A Lister myself.
More like a Z Lister
but then we’re not as uptight
and we go to better parties.
BTW Kimber An,
Keep clicking on your site
and it says you’re down.
You landed some big time publishing deal
you’re not allowed to talk about?
If so…remember us little people.
It now works Kimber Ann,
2,000 a day is a good start.
One of my buddies Jon gets only 200 uniques a day with 400 on feed on one of his baby sites and pulls down with minimal effort $485 a month. He’s got a challenge to bump his earnings up to $100 a day for that site (My name in this comment is linked to the intro post – oh and I post on his site under the blogger name K).
There are easier ways to make money but hey, you might as well get some cash while building a readership and waiting for a publisher (though seriously think about moving onto a standalone platform – Blogger is limiting).
Sorry about hijacking this thread. The blog business is too darn sexy!
You’re way out of my league, Kimber Chin!:mrgreen: I earn no money and have no feeds. I just write something every day.
This is my last hijacking post. Promise.:wink:
Wow. Who knew my little post two weeks ago would get so much mileage?
But while I still stand by everything I said in that original post, I do feel some clarification/further explanation is in order. And hang on to your hats, because this is pretty long.
I know it really gets up some people’s noses to trot out the time vs. quality issue. But to say deadline pressure doesn’t influence quality, at least to some extent, is disingenuous at best. Writing fiction is about more than simply transcribing ideas from brain to page. For the vast majority of us, the real writing – the real magic — happens in the rewriting, when you not only spot the cliches, the repetitions, the blah passages and excise/rework them, but you start seeing themes, possibilities for metaphors, ways to show more and tell less. The tighter the time crunch, however, the less opportunity there is for that magic to find its way to the surface. Or — as is more often the case — for the author to dig for it. Making up stuff is *hard*, and there’s a reason why many authors refer to the first drafts as “crap drafts.”
Ideally, the author should be able to let a book “rest” for a while before editing in order to come back to it with fresh eyes. Unfortunately, the way the industry is set up, very few of us have that sort of resting time built into our schedules. I’m lucky if I can juggle projects so I have a week, or even a few days, between editing passes. Add in line edits, galleys, whatever promo work the author chooses to do(or feels pressured into doing) such as blogs, website, signings, you name it – and some of us already feel as though we’re living our work 24/7. As Nora said, when we do have a chance to read a book we haven’t written ourselves, is it too much to ask that we be allowed to just read the dang thing without feeling we have to pick THAT apart, too?
Not only that, but if things don’t go smoothly – if real life throws a monkey wrench into the schedule, or the book simply isn’t cooperating, and missing one deadline only gets the domino effect going on all those deadlines that follow — sometimes you have no choice but to say, “You know, this is the best I can do for this project, at this point in my life.” Yes, even though you know it could be better, that the final product isn’t quite what you’d hoped it would be. I’m not saying that happens all the time, but I seriously doubt it hasn’t happened to every author at least once.
But to all y’all who took my “done, not deep” comment to mean “Oh, well, it doesn’t matter, it’s only commercial so it’s okay if it’s crap,” that’s not what I meant at all. I was, however, trying to get across that all too often the time constraints of the genre don’t jibe with what may very well be an author’s bone-deep desire to absolutely turn in her very best work. We all write the best books we can, but that doesn’t necessarily mean those books are the best they *can be*.
Does it suck? You betcha. But in this business – and yes, I’m saying it again – getting the book in on time often (not always, but often) carries more weight than quality. Or depth.
That’s why I said I don’t think many of our books – again, not ALL, but MANY – would stand up to the same kind of analysis as much literary fiction. Because the sort of layering – and analysis from OUR end – that produces solidly explored themes and metaphors and above-and-beyond writing takes more time than many of us have. When I remarked about literary authors having the “luxury” of being able to spend a year, three, seven on a book, I wasn’t talking about financial luxury, but rather the luxury of expectation – no one EXPECTS Amy Tan or Toni Morrison or Anita Shreve to write two, three, or more books a year! Sure, they have other jobs, many of these literary types (as do romance and other commercial fiction/genre authors who get to write a gazillion books a year, tend to family AND work a nine-to-five, yee-hah), but their output, quantity-wise, rarely compares with that of the average romance author.
The reality is that very, very few romance authors can sustain a career on less than a book a year – and many of those have definitely been pressured to increase their productivity. Where do those pressures come from? Publishers, certainly. But also, to a great extent, readers. Every time I hear a reader say, “Why doesn’t she write faster?” I cringe – because it’s just those sorts of comments that spur publishers to pressure writers to produce more quickly, which definitely impacts quality. Of course a reader wanting to read more of your work is the ultimate compliment, and hugely appreciated…but one that unfortunately comes with a price.
I also still stand by my assertion that plenty of readers – if not most of them – have no clue about craft. Again, not ALL readers, obviously, but enough that publishers are far more likely to snatch up a book based on story/subject matter they are writing quality. For instance, whenever you see someone posting that she’s looking for books with X, Y or Z element – and rarely do I see “well-written” anywhere as a qualifier – there’s an example of our industry’s target audience. If that sounds harsh…well, considering the number of writers with rejection letters that say, “Loved the writing, loved the book, but there’s just no room in the market for this setting/character type/fill in the blank right now…”
Sigh.
Now. Back to my original premise, which is that *I don’t believe* authors should be EXPECTED to take part in reviewing/literary analysis. Note that I never said they SHOULDN’T (although the backlash thing is something each of us has to deal with in our own way – and believe me, it does exist), only that they shouldn’t feel pressured to do so, for all the reasons already trotted out – lack of time/interest/inclination/training/whatever. Those authors so inclined are probably already reviewing/analyzing, at least to some extent. And I got no problem with that. HOWEVER (and bearing in mind that I’m one of those who really doesn’t care two hoots about what anybody else thinks about romance) I still maintain internal review/critique won’t up our respectability quotient one whit, in large part because the reasons for our lack of respectability stem from issues that go far beyond quality quibbles or author inclinations. We’re talking deep-seated, culturally-based issues steeped in society’s attitude about women and positive outlooks on life and what some would call sentimental pap that all the self-analysis in the world isn’t going to erase.
So I guess my real question is, not whether or authors should critique or not, but what purpose would it really serve? For the genre, I mean? Yes, of course those who enjoy those sorts of discussions would, I’m sure, enjoy them even more if more authors joined in. But as a way to uplift the genre as a whole, to make it more respectable?
I’m still not convinced.
I’ve read romance for years like everyone here, and I haven’t noticed a significant increase in the quantity of books out there or this terrible decrease in quality I keep hearing about (of course, I also forget what I had for lunch sometimes). I read dismal books years ago and found tremendous ones. Same thing now. I gravitate towards the tried and true (see her note above LOL) and once in a while try a new writer. Granted, I’m a new writer. If I feel like it, I’ll blog about a good book I read. With a day job and a household and the need to recharge mentally and physically, I reserve the right to read for pleasure. Crickey. Aren’t we still hearing the stats about romance selling more than anything? Has that changed? Why spend time fighting some notion that non-romance readers have? Aren’t there fights that really require our energy–poverty, genocide, the environment. Maybe I’m simply too new to understand the drama of this.
Nora – you’re just cool. And right. And I think it’s great how accessible you are to our community and readers. That’s a hallmark of the romance community I don’t think you find much elsewhere.
Karen T — see, now you’re going and speaking honestly, and there was some backlash . I think you said some risky things, and good for you. But this just illustrates the point — it’s hard to say something honest from the “inside” view and have a general audience understand. I read your post and go “nod nod nod” to a lot of points but others take offense — I didn’t see any offense in there, frankly. And you are the voice of experience, so I would think maybe people should say “hey, she’s been at this for a while, people like Karen and Nora, so maybe we should sit back and listen and digest what they’re saying…”
I liked the post that made a point about solidarity. Yes. Our books are good. In fact, for books being written at the rate we write them, I’d go so far as to say their damned good. I am constantly in awe of what genre writers produce in the time they have to produce it.
Most film/food/art etc reviewers are journalists, and most lit critics are academics, and it’s not like if you can do one kind of writing you can just do any writing at all. Writing doesn’t work that way. I assume that most authors on the literary scale who review probably get paid for it, as well — they’re not taking that time and effort out of the goodness of their hearts.
If you want quality, professional reviews of romance, someone will have to start paying someone to do it. Fact is, if it’s respect you’re after then you need to respect your time, work, and name enough to not give it away for free. And no, promotion is not pay.
I try to write the best book I can in the time I have to write it so that I can entertain someone and make them happy in some way, and if they never even notice my well-crafted sentence, that’s okay. If someone doesn’t respect my work or romance in general whatever — I don’t have a whole lot of liking or respect for a lot of pop culture stuff that other people love. Let’s stop worrying about who doesn’t like us and just think about the readers who do. There are enough of them, if the stats are true — what do we care what the naysayers say?
What I think is that we need to get back to basics — we write books because we love it, you read books because you love them, reviews are mostly just someone’s opinion which they are entitled to, but to get reliable, professional reviews of the caliber you are suggesting, someone is going to have to pay someone for it, and I don’t see that happening, probably because they don’t figure most readers pay attention — we all just buy what we like.
Sam
Guess what though. Readers would rather get a recommendation from another reader than a professional reviewer. Nothing sells better than word of mouth. While our reviews or Karen S’s review or whomever are not considered professional, we do engage in a critical look at books. I think that any critical discussion or examination is useful, regardless of whom is the originator.
And there are plenty of reviewers who have no “credentials” in literature.
I’ve read many a literary novel in my life and thousands more romance novels. When I sit down with my romance novel, I DON’T CARE about deep. I don’t care about metappor or symbolism or archetype. I just want a good book with characters I know falling in love. I WANT the fairy tale, the fantasy, the belief that happily ever after is possible in spite of all the crap out there. Romance is my Calgon. It takes me away.
I HATE waiting a year for the new SEP or the next Stephanie Plum.
The end.
When I sit down with literary fiction, I want something different. I also know to carry a bookmark in the book because no way will I be inhaling that novel in one sitting. I can’t. It’s too tiresome.
I personally have never bought a book because of a written review. I’ve bought because of cover quotes from other authors and when my favorite book seller says “you’re going to LOVE this,” and when a friend passes a book to me and I decide I absolutely MUST have all of that author’s backlist.
I don’t know if I’m a different kind of reader or not. When I read RT, I’m looking for what’s out there, but I don’t really care about what rating a book gets.
If authors want to review romance, that’s cool with me. If they don’t, that’s great too. But I don’t think it’s an author’s responsibility to review. I want their next book in my hands yesterday.
One more thing that makes me buy a book: A great blog. I’d never read Jill Shalvis before I found her blog. Her books are as funny as her blog and they’re on autobuy now. Karen Templeton’s blog SCREAMS her writing voice. I read it as a “Templeton” fix when it’s too long between books. Same with Crusie’s Argh and Gena Showalter’s blog. And seriously, when Mary from marywritesromance gets published I figure plenty of people will be in line to buy her books because we feel like we’ve been there with her on the journey.
Still, just as with reviews, I don’t think authors should blog unless they want to. I want them to write.
Great post Kassia!
>Guess what though. Readers would rather get a >recommendation from another reader than a professional >reviewer. Nothing sells better than word of mouth.
Actually I think nothing sells better than a good book — word of mouth is just a side effect of an author doing a really good job. Our time is best spent writing, more than anything else, for this reason. Creating a good story is the best promo there is.
However, this blog was about authors reviewing, and my point about professional reviews was simply that if authors are asked/expected to review, then they should be paid for their time and work. We get paid for writing, and reviews are writing. You don’t ask a professional to do their job for free — this really is one of the basics of professional respect, and respect is one of those words that keeps getting thrown around in this conversation.
If the magazines or other pubs aren’t willing to pay me or you, there are probably reasons for that, though we could speculate about why newspaper reviews are going away, why romance has rarely been professionally reviewed, or why pubs aren’t willing to pay for high-caliber commercial reviews, until the cows come home. Until someone is willing to pay for our time, we have an amateur reviewing system that has its plusses and minuses, and we all are grateful for it or irritated by it in turn, but it’s what we have.
Sam
“hey, she’s been at this for a while, people like Karen and Nora, so maybe we should sit back and listen and digest what they’re saying…”
Some of us who DO review have also been at this for awhile, like 14 years . . . but obviously in your opinion that counts for nothing.
And no one anywhere has ever said authors are EXPECTED to review. Those of us who do at Paperback Reader do so because we have a vested interest in and love for the genre. It really is that simple. We may not be paid for what we do, but our reviews are obviously not considered amateur by the Reuters wire service.
Alison, I personally have never seen one of your reviews in a newspaper, etc but hey, good for you. If you enjoy it, then I think it’s great you take the time to do it. And actually I do think the tone of the original post hinted that authors have a responsibility to review, or I guess Nora and the rest of us were reading it wrong.
Perhaps more of the authors who are volunteering professional reviews should join the discussion and shed some light on this other venue of reviews, and it would be nice to do it in a friendly manner.
Sam
I went and took a peek at Paperback Writer — neat site, intelligently presented, and I liked the summary of why you find it important to review. I think this is a great outlet for those authors who want to review, and maybe that should have been the angle to this blog — if authors feel a responsibility or desire to review then here is a good place to do it, come joing us, instead of finger-pointing and accusing and basically putting people on the defensive. I think that’s been another part of this discussion, that when you voice an honest opinion, you set yourself up for attack, and who needs the stress of that? But if we frame discussion more positively, in terms of what we could do, rather than who’s not doing what, or who should be doing what, then maybe we’d get somewhere.
Is there an invitation mechanism for writers to review at the site? Do you have to be a regular? Do you need certain qualifications? Probably a lot of people would be curious, I am, so instead of all the nitpicking and arguing, it would have been great to hear more about this.
Sam
It’s Paperback Reader. Paperback Writer is author Lynn Viehl’s blog.
I never said my reviews had picked up by Reuters. You misread my post. I only joined the site (by invitation) earlier this year, but other reviews have been. Kassia, who authored this post, in fact, had one of hers syndicated just recently.
I have a bunch of comments in response to various comments. Right now more general than not. Still having connectivity issues…also, day job is killing me and I don’t have time to write today.
How can writing good, smart reviews or analyses or articles about the genre help the genre? Let me count the ways… Seriously, it’s 2007 and the New York Times, just about every time it covers the romance genre, uses the term “bodice ripper”. Now, I can scream and shout, but I don’t really have sufficient clout to get my thought across. If an author with the stature of Nora Roberts or Jennifer Crusie (and, no, I’m not saying take on even more work) were to to write an opinion piece for the paper, for the book section, discussing why this is such a negative term, then, well, maybe the NYT might get the hint.
Look at general coverage of romance in the press. The fact that the passing of links to articles is generally accompanied by “generally positive” or “they got it right” suggests that the major media gets it wrong more often than not. Where the romance authors — the subject matter experts — here? Why aren’t more of you (published authors) writing articles about the genre, articles that show a side of romance that is generally ignored by major media?
Let me also take this another direction. The author is busily working on her first, second, third book — trying to get her dream agent, dream contract, dream career. How is she going to break out from the rest of pack, how is she going to differentiate herself?
It’s no secret that editors and agents Google potential talent; those that don’t do it now will be doing it soon. Publishing professionals admit to this all the time. Now, if this author is fairly typical of authors in the romance genre, she’s going to have an okay but not great website — generally circa 1998. It’s going to give some information but won’t really reveal much about that person. Generally these websites follow a sort of cookie cutter approach that hides natural creative instincts.
The author might also have a blog. I am very much in agreement with the commenter who said that authors make for lousy bloggers. I’m not sure why this is the case except that blogging takes a lot of skill and talent. Let me assure you, if you’re good, you really help yourself. But it’s a lot of work. Different skill and talent than that for fiction writing. Most author blogs, I’m really sorry to say, do not reflect well on the person writing them. So, we have a website that doesn’t reveal much imagination and a blog that doesn’t showcase talent.
Publishers and agents are seeking platform, built-in audience. Talent, sure, will rise and be noticed. I have to believe that. But talent isn’t the only criteria weighed by publishing professionals. They want to know that someone out there is going to buy your books. They want to see that you have some name recognition. It’s not quite publish or perish, but having a good body of non-fiction work out there can never hurt your career. If you are able to point to a resume filled with smart, incisive work, you help yourself.
Reviewing or writing about romance fiction will naturally put you in touch with the growing online audience. Creating a positive impression of your work, revealing the person behind the book (so important, I cannot begin to emphasize how important — readers today are desperately seeking authenticity; they see right past chipper phoniness and public relations polish. It simply doesn’t resonate.), showing off your style and voice, these are good things.
In so many ways, I’m baffled as to why more authors don’t pursue these options. Sure it requires openness and honesty, but it seems to me that good writing draws in a wider range of readers than bookmarks. If you focus more on the online venue, you’re also reaching a younger audience. There is a generation of readers — and make no mistake about it, today’s kids are reading like crazy, just not, maybe, the way we like to think of reading — who go online first for information.
Karen — I am so glad you started this! I think it’s great that this debate continues to get the brain cells jumping. While we disagree on part of the issue, we agree that authors don’t *have* to review. It’s not a requirement. But I think more authors *should* review because they bring unique skills and perspective to the table. That it also provides a sly way of self-marketing is a bonus.
This final question is not directed at Karen, it’s for everyone. If we agree that it is the job of authors to write books, then whose job is marketing and publicity? Ostensibly this job falls to the publishing houses, but we all know that’s not happening on a serious level. Authors must do their marketing (yet still take a relatively low royalty even though said royalty rate factors in the cost of house publicists and dollars). Okay, so how and what?
Gone are the days when authors write and books magically sell (if the latter ever truly existed). Marketing, sadly, is part of the author’s job. Tchotckes, for all their popularity, don’t reach the online audience effectively. Cheerleader, puffy, fluffy writing causes reader eyes to glaze over — today’s audience is beyond cynical when it comes to public relations and designed-for-marketing prose. They want authenticity and accessibility. They want to know that a human being, with flaws and assets, is behind the curtain. You might not want to accede to the demands of these readers, but this is the current expectation.
In my previous comment, I talked about websites. This is your most important tool and yet 99.99% of author sites (across genres) are painful to visit. Spend an hour two reading just the bio pages of these authors. This is marketing at its worst. These websites will likely have something about an author’s books and maybe a few articles they’ve written. These articles are generally geared toward other writers and, if you spend enough time looking around, don’t really offer much that is new and interesting.
Then there’s the issue of someone finding you — oh, man, I cannot begin to tell you how rough that can be when so many authors do their best to thwart the Googlebot. Of course, you could go to readers. Work with bigger sites and places where readers gather. You could write something that shows your intelligence, voice, and insight. Doesn’t have to be a review; it just needs to be something that hasn’t been done a million times before. You need to exhibit intellectual honesty and even vulnerability. Make yourself human and make someone want to read you.
I would say that Karen Templeton and Diana Peterfreund accomplished this quite effectively. Karen’s post invited debate and discussion and, best of all, she laid it out there in a frank, open way. Diana continued this approach. Romance authors could learn a lot from the way this debate has unfolded. There are strong, well-considered, personal thoughts from many people; they come off as human and interesting.
Can I be truly academic here and say this seems to come down somewhat to semantics? I think to continue this debate more fruitfully we need to define what we mean by “reviewing” and “critiquing” and “literary criticism.” Kassia, you say above, “If an author with the stature of Nora Roberts or Jennifer Crusie . . . were to to write an opinion piece for the paper, for the book section, discussing why this is such a negative term, then, well, maybe the NYT might get the hint.” I think that’s different again from what we’ve been talking about so far. Jenny Crusie does do this, from her website. Eloisa James DID write a NYT op-ed piece when she “came out” as a romance author. And of course Jayne Ann Krentz edited DMAW.
Then again, I think what Eric Selinger and Laura Vivanco and I (and all our contributors, and all the other academics writing seriously and theoretically about romances) are doing will be part of this process of slow (very slow) acceptance.
But I still think if we’re going to have these debates we need to define exactly what “writing” you think some of the brand name authors should be doing. Because, again, reviewing is different from blogging is different from writing “about” romance in culturally respected venues.
>It’s Paperback Reader. Paperback Writer is author Lynn Viehl’s blog.
Whoops, sorry — no I did go to yours, I clicked on the link, I just typoed.
Kassia, you provide a lot of interesting insights, though I think “Shoulds” are always touchy territory — especially when writers also often work dayjobs, have many other demands, we often can’t absorb one more “should.”
I don’t know if I would do romance reviews, to be honest. As a reader, I don’t read them or use them to buy, however, I do enjoy general interest articles, interviews, and that sort of thing. I might write opinion or academic or analysis pieces for a magazine or newspaper, if they were interested, but I really can’t say I would want to review my peers, or be reviewed by them. I do think visibility in the media is a great thing, though, and several authors of late have really represented us well on TV, radio, and news (Kay Stockham is one who comes to mind, but I know on lists and loops there’s always someone saying they just got interviewed or featured, and several of the spots are very impressive).
Sarah, great point.
Sam
Great column!
On one level I think it’s important to distinguish between literary criticism, reviewing, and commentary, but at the same time, I feel there’s a real baseline conflict over critical attention to Romance, period. That is, the debate doesn’t seem to simply be about reviewing or dedicated literary criticism, but about the value of viewing Romance with *any* critical attention. So at that level, I took Kassia’s column to fundamentally address that larger issue.
Beyond that, yes, it’s important to note that reviews tend to have a sense of recommending or not, an evaluative function that, as Sarah pointed out, academic literary criticism doesn’t. And so yes, authors shouldn’t feel that they’re not doing their duty if they don’t review. Ditto for anyone feeling pressure to do literary criticism. Cripes, it takes a boatload of time and effort to write a proper article, so most of the time I certainly have no ambition to do pure literary criticism, either, and I was trained to do it by some of the best.
As to plain old “critical attention” or “critical examination,” I think these are much broader categories and are more along the lines of stuff that goes on to greater or lesser degree on numerous blogs and boards. It requires no credentials and no special training — Romance readers do it all the time, in fact, although often it’s at the level of dissecting a book to talk about how much one loved X, Y ,and Z. And again, I don’t think anyone should feel pressured into commenting in any extensive way about Romance (or about anything, really). But I do think there is still a fair amount of resistance to and misunderstanding of critical examination of Romance within the Romance culture/community, and that when some of us say more acceptance and more commentary would be good for the genre, that resistance is what we’re largely addressing. At least that’s what I mean by it.
Why would it be good for the genre? At the very least because it would foster an environment in which open discourse about books and the genre as a whole would be respected *within the Romance community itself*, which, IMO would signal a greater internal respect for the genre as substantial enough to warrant open and honest discussion. And over time I also think it would create *more* respectful relationships among readers and between readers and authors, because such discussion would become a genre norm, and not viewed as hostility, personal attack, too serious, or whatever. People only have to worry about being snubbed at the buffet table as long as they’re seen as violating a taboo. That critical discourse should still be seen as taboo is kind of amazing when you think about the sheer extent and enthusiasm of opinions on the part of so very many Romance readers.
Lots to think about…but one thing we haven’t touched on…
Those one line review/reccomendations that go on book covers. Not sure what they are called but “Brilliant!” – NYT Bestselling Famous Author Chick.
Is there a difference between an endorsement like that and a positive review? In the writing community we know that sometimes those can be bought (charity auctions) or are favors (for agents & editors) and it seems only rarely are they the Famous Author Chick going out of her way to celebrate another’s talent because they mentored them. I was surprised to learn at a recent Readers Luncheon that readers see those quotes as just as good as word of mouth from their friends.
I for one like reviewing, but I review for a site that allows me to select the books I want to review. To me, that is going at it like a reader. If I were assigned books that I might never read in real life, then the chances of enjoying them and giving them a great review are slim. Since I can opt in for books that interest me, I generally like what I’m able to review.
This year eHarlequin has their 10,000 book challenge reader blogs – one of the blogs belongs to NY editors and it is interesting to see their take, especially when you compare it to the author blogs there like We Call It Research and NovelChicks, and again to the reader blogs like The Dream Team. Everyone has a different opinion.
What Robin said. Which I guess is like a “me too” post and we all hate those, I know. But I like her discussion of why more general critical commentary. And I totally think that’s what blogs like Smart Bitches and Karen Scott and Dear Author are doing. And look at the backlash from what Robin terms the “Old School” they’re getting for it.
Sarah — you are so right about defining terms. I have been shifting about throughout this discussion and assuming you can read my mind. Robin did a great job of summing up my thoughts, possibly much better than I could. Robin, of course, should be terrified by this — I have been lead to understand that my mind is a scary place.
So this is a “me too” comment as well. Thanks, Robin!
Samantha — I guess when it comes to “shoulds”, I have to return to the question posed in my title. I get the beyond full-time life, believe me. But the marketing authors do — and for some reason, today I have chosen to look at the marketing aspect of some of these ideas because, well marketing fascinates me — needs to be effective. I’m going to be honest: possibly the best “toy” I ever received from an author was a corkscrew. I use when I travel. Author’s name? Not a clue. I’m not sure that was a great marketing investment.
But authors sell words. You need to convince someone to take a chance on you. This seduction process is made more complex by changing demands from the public. Thomas Pynchon can move around in relative obscurity — though he leads a fairly normal human life — but very few authors can afford the luxury of mysterious silence. Selling yourself via your words, an entire breadth of thoughts and opinions and stories and discussion, seems to me to be what an author can do best.
Robin, of course, should be terrified by this — I have been lead to understand that my mind is a scary place.
It can’t be any scarier a place than mine, Kassia!
I have to admit that I get really frustrated at this notion that critical attention shouldn’t be paid to Romance when there’s so much critical energy that goes into explaining *why it shouldn’t*! But I do think that the proliferation of these online hubs and communities is changing the landscape a bit, and that all the discussion over this issue is really a good thing, because it’s a recognition of the fact that the Romance community is evolving, even if it seems sometimes to be happening in slow motion.