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.

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.

So this is a “me too” comment as well. Thanks, Robin!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.