Confession time: I have little patience for readers who whine and moan about how romance novels aren’t as “good as they used to be.†You know the type. Stick around any message board long enough and they’re sure to make an appearance. If we’re to believe these readers, every single novel published under the romance novel umbrella today is pure rubbish. Unreadable. They all lack the sheer majesty of a Kathleen Woodiwiss, Rosemary Rogers, Julie Garwood, or Jude Deveraux. They whine. They moan. They gnash their teeth in frustration.
And I close my web browser with a frustrated sigh.
Get over it.
I know this sounds rather two-faced of me. I whine (incessantly) about the lack of western romances being published at least once a week. I think longingly back to the days when the western romance flourished. When you couldn’t walk into a bookstore without getting smacked in the face by a cowboy, schoolmarm or mail-order bride. Oh yes, those were the days. The glory days!
Let’s be honest though. Not every western romance published back then was particularly good. Some of them were hideous. Horrible. Mulch material. But as readers we tend to view our pasts, our reading pasts, with rose-colored glasses. We remember the wonderful westerns written by Maggie Osborne, Lorraine Heath (before her defection to England), and Nicole Jordan (before her defection to England) but forget the awful, stereotypical, poorly written ones featuring bad dialogue, one-dimensional bandit villains, and too-stupid-to-live heroines running off in search of their long-lost grandfather’s gold mine.
That’s the rub. We remember the good books fondly, but over time the ones that were ho-hum, or really very bad, fade to black. So instead of looking at the Golden Age Of Romance with any sort of objectivity, we just see the good. The great books that helped shape the genre. Sure, if you’re only looking back on those, everything does pale in comparison.
None of us are completely immune to this. Readers are currently moaning about the lack of good Regencies, westerns, straight contemporary, romantic suspense, erotica, paranormal – heck, pretty much every sub genre. We can’t help it. It’s those pesky rose-colored glasses. We read the great, and inevitably the rest has to live up to that high standard – an impossible feat that can never be achieved. What we need to do is stop whining about the “good old days†and start looking for the great books, being written now, that will transcend this moment in Romance Novel History. So in another ten years we can moan about how they “just don’t write them like they used to.â€
No related posts.
That’s one thing I like about borrowing from the library.
On my shelf, I only have the keepers.
On the library shelves, there’s everything.
What I also love are first books of now famous authors.
Some of them, frankly, weren’t that great
yet their editors saw something in their writing.
Gives hope to all those wanna be authors out there.
Those of us who have been reading romance for a long, long time lose sight that all things in life evolve and change with time.
I have to wonder how many of the books from “The Golden Age” would hold up to the test of time. I haven’t reread Kathleen Woodiwiss’ Shanna or The Wolf and The Dove in a few years for fear that they’ll now be wallbangers. What was once poetic and lyrical may now seem more like purple prose.
In 20 years the readers discovering romance now may consider this “The Golden Age” and for them it may be.
I have to think change is good, it keeps life moving forward and that can be a good thing, right?
I think my opinion that the romance quality in general has declined since the 90s is by measuring current work against past. I.e., Nicole Jordam, Lorraine Heath, Joan Wolf, Mary Balogh, all seem to have their best writing days behind them.
I’ve had much more success in picking up books at random from the 90s and enjoying them than I have had with current novels.
Additionally, I think that because the output was lower, editors could have greater involvement in making sure that what was published was of a higher quality.
One thing in our favor is that it does seem that the genre is more expansive these days – that anything can be published, albeit some sub genres have greater representation than others.
I just wish that we would have fewer releases and work on polishing up those releases so that the B books could be A books and the C books could be B books.
When my toddler comes to me whining that he’s hungry, even though I’ve just fed him, I know he actually needs attention. I draw him in for a good, long hug and he’s happy. If I shoved him away and didn’t try to find out what was really bothering him, it would have just led to more whining and probably a tantrum.
Adults often don’t know what’s really bothering them either. They only know they’re frustrated. If an author, agent, and/or editor can figure out why, they can fill that need. And boost their readership big time!
I know of only one blog that consistently enshrines the golden age and it’s a goofy blog with a very limited fanbase. My point — and I do have one — is that I don’t think this is a very common refrain.
I’ve been slapped at in real life for daring to suggest this, so I’ll invite a virtual slap, as well. (To my other cheek, please, so I’m not lopsided.)
If you can’t find a good (fill in the blank with your subgenre of choice), try something from another subgenre or, hell, even another genre entirely. I know you like (fill in the blank), but that doesn’t’ mean you’re incapable of liking (different blank), as well.
The availability of “good” books expands dramatically when you expand your field of vision beyond that 2-foot shelf at the bookstore that’s not meeting your needs. Staying entrenched there is self-limiting.
Tara Marie and Kerry: I think that’s my problem. I just don’t trust a reader who claims their “tastes” haven’t evolved. When I was a kid I loved to eat Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. I still happen to like Mac n’ Cheese – but do I still want to eat it at every meal? Um, no.
Jane: I hear you. I think my main beef is with readers who make sweeping generalizations. Everything being published today is crap. Everything published in 1988 was a keeper! Um, no. It wasn’t. It really, really wasn’t.
But it’s all about perception. This time last year I was moaning about how I wasn’t reading that many keepers. In January 2007 I looked back and compared my numbers from 2005 and 2006. I read the exact same number of keepers both years! And they were all fairly recent books. Published within the last couple of years.
So even I’m not above this sort of thing. We all do it, in some form or another. I just have little patience for the readers who claim it’s all crap now, and was all fillet mignon 10 years ago. It wasn’t. It really, really wasn’t.
try something from another subgenre or, hell, even another genre entirely.
IMO, sticking too much to one style of reading is a BIG reason people get so bored and cranky with romance. Too much togetherness makes EVERYone cranky. Just as you can overdose on one author and need a break, you can overdose on a style or a theme or a genre.
And also…. I think people desperate for a book but resisting trying another genre probably account for a lot of the sales of weaker romance titles (weaker = poorly edited, unimaginative, etc). When you’ve finished the good stuff but you still have the craving, you’ll consume just about anything.
I was going to pop in and say waht L. Portnoy just said. LOL!
And it seems to me that Kensington and Harlequin Historicals are both putting out a decent number of Westerns.
I just wish that we would have fewer releases and work on polishing up those releases so that the B books could be A books and the C books could be B books.
As a person who reads 4 to 5 books a week pretty consistently I’m grateful for the proliferation of books and sub genres available. But I do think there is something to Jane’s comment on polishing. I can’t believe that I’ve just become more aware of editing as I’ve gotten older, if anything the opposite is probably true. Yet, I find more and more glaring errors in books and that is troublesome and sometimes downright aggravating. Does the final polish and quality of a book have to suffer in the race to get it on the shelves?
I’ve been reading romance since the early ’70s. Of course there are great books written today but they’re so much harder to find. I actually miss the days when there weren’t so many books and so many writers. This sounds odd even to me. Who doesn’t want more choice. There’s more to choose from, more subgenres, but there’s not more variety within the subgenres. These days I have to go through SO many books to find a good one. To make it even worse so many of these books are depressingly similar. I often feel as if I’m reading AND paying for the same books over and over again.
I wish there were more original voices in romance. Every good or great romance writer seemingly has dozens of imitators. The romance industry encourages this kind of copy-catting and it’s very boring.
My “good old days” are the result of dipping into back-lists of authors out today who wrote in the 90s and seeing that the emphasis in the genre has shifted to “what’s hot” and assumptions that people have much shorter attention spans. I was reading a Harper Monogram from 95 and was shocked by the variety of settings and plots from “upcoming” and “current”(back then) books and compare that to the output today. Does anyone have any back issues of RT who is able to really compare the variety of then to now?
Does anyone have any back issues of RT who is able to really compare the variety of then to now?
Ooh, data! That would be fascinating. Anyone have a student in need of a project?
I love the books put out today. I’ve found a few wallbangers but I’ve read a lot of great books that were published in the last 4 years too. I have some new must buy authors who weren’t around inthe 80’s. Well they may have been around but it was around the school yard not as writers.
“The romance industry encourages this kind of copy-catting and it’s very boring.”
Amen to that. It’s hard to find new voices in romance because by and large the publishers want more of the same. I see very little change since the big shakeup at Harlequin a few years back, when their numbers reflected that readers might be getting a little bored.
Bettye Griffin
http://www.bettyegriffin.com
http://www.chew-the-fat-with-Bettye.blogspot.com
It’s hard to find new voices in romance because by and large the publishers want more of the same.
And even if the book is different on the inside, the cover copy will often make is sound just like everything else on the shelf. *sigh* So finding new authors to glom requires some kind of personal recommendation from someone who you know shares your tastes.
I’ve only been reading Romance for the past four years or so, which means that when I read the golden oldies, I know they’ve been culled from piles of unreadable Romance. BUT, even within the perspective of my short four years — as a lifelong reader of a vast array of books — the two issues that I notice are 1) the similarity of voices and 2) incomplete editing.
Perhaps it’s a big mistake to address current weaknesses in the genre by measuring against the past, for many of the reasons in Wendy’s post and the comments. OTOH, I, like Barbara B., have noticed a startling homogeneity of tone, character, dynamic and setting among books that culminates in what comes across to me in monotone — that is, as a lack of significant variation in narrative voice such that too many books feel interchangeable to me. I have seen several authors (e.g. Alison Kent) suggest that this homogenization is partly the result of critique groups, but I wonder also if it has to do with the “copycat” syndrome (i.e. if one book sells really well, others are written and/or edited to follow in its wake) that IIRC Barbara B. mentioned.
As for editing, I refer to both copyediting and the overall editorial work of helping to shape, strengthen, and focus an author’s manuscript. Both areas need improvement, IMO, and I get the sense it’s more a lack of available human resources than incompetence on the part of the editors already working. And I definitely agree with Jane that I’d rather have fewer books to choose from that have been cultivated for the author’s original vision and carefully edited to preserve and hone that vision. Romance folks who desire more mainstream recognition have IMO a legitimate beef with the state of Romance editing (and perhaps an even bigger beef than that with the NYTBR). I can think of several wonderful Romances that would have been downright incredible with a stronger editorial influence, and frankly, that annoys me more than the IMO sub-par book that would have been moderately good with stronger editing. If it really is “all about the storytelling,” then isn’t that the best argument for the fine hand of a good editor?
Romance readers are among the most loyal of any I’ve ever seen, and as L. Portnoy points out (and if that’s a pseudonym, v. clever) that loyalty can work against the traditional logic of the marketplace. Which, of course, reflects the fact that looking at readership with the same lens that one analyzes and economic market will deliver a somewhat misleading and false analysis. Romance readers may eventually exit the market in large enough numbers to drive substantial change, but I somehow doubt it. I would hope, of course, that simple pride and commitment to stellar production values would push the publishing industry in its entirety to raise the standards, but I doubt that will prevail, either.
The wonderful thing is there are industry professionals who DO listen and encourage their authors’ voices and they appear to be quite successful too. Hopefully, their example will be followed as their success is noticed.:grin:
Romance folks who desire more mainstream recognition have IMO a legitimate beef with the state of Romance editing (and perhaps an even bigger beef than that with the NYTBR).
I absolutely agree. For all the uproar when critics slam romance, in some respects we’re arguing from a position of weakness. It’s hard to sustain a righteous anger when at some point the reality must sink in that much could and should be fixed within the genre.
It’s very telling that certain types of romances are reviewed in the NYT, etc: the more “literary” romances and the genre-crossing romances from non-romance presses. Why? Not always because the plots hold up better than their genre-marketed counterparts; but because when the book comes from a non-genre publisher, the critic can have a little more trust that it will be well-edited; and the cover copy sounds more unique. In short, there are reasons based on painful experience that a reviewer might not pick up a romance, given too much to read and too little time.
Romance readers may eventually exit the market in large enough numbers to drive substantial change, but I somehow doubt it. I would hope, of course, that simple pride and commitment to stellar production values would push the publishing industry in its entirety to raise the standards, but I doubt that will prevail, either.
This is my feeling also. The market for genre romance has an imperfect feedback mechanism reminiscent of markets for necessities (water, basic foods). The consumer may grouse, but will at all cost avoid disrupting the supply.
This is another reason I’d like to see romances get more “external” reviews: reviews by those not immersed full-time in the genre (or the genre’s nicey-nice culture). I imagine some honest critique would particularly benefit those authors and editors producing, as you put it, “wonderful Romances that would have been downright incredible with a stronger editorial influence”. (That is, presuming that for stronger authors, a stronger editorial influence should tend to be a positive thing rather than a homogenizing force.)
L. Portnoy… if that’s a pseudonym, v. clever
[bow]
LOL – I’m split in two ways on this one. While I’ve been known to mourn the “good old days” with the best of ‘em, I’ve also read some Most Excellent Books written lately. So I try not to whine about those good old days.
Any you’re right – there were a lot of stinkers back then. In fact I trade in a lot fewer books these days than I used to.
I think a lot of the problem is the copy catting – and this doesn’t apply to just the romance genre – look at the huge band wagon jumping after Da Vinci Code too, and that was awful to start with! One person has a success and writers think they can do “just as well” and publishers want to give the public “more of the same” which leads to a glut in the “not great in the first place” stuff which gradually gets worse and worse.
I find this with Shifting stories (where the characters change into animals) – a very popular genre for readers but the explosion of the genre has led to a lessening of the quality (in my opinion only, of course, because I get walloped by Shifting lovers)
There’s also the increase in publishing availability, it’s a lot easier to get published these days, self-publishing, print on demand, ebooks, subscription fiction, anyone (it seems) who can string a sentence together these days can get their fiction out to a paying market.
I think that people are too busy writing what’s gone before and sticking to the cliches, knowing what is popular and relying on that, instead of trying to do something different. I like the different.