Recently one of my writing pals was hurt when some comments she made to a newspaper reporter were twisted to support the reporter’s obvious agenda of belittling romance novels and the people who read and write them. I hated to see my friend’s distress, but I had to wonder why she was so surprised by the snide tone of the article. That bias, especially by media types, is nothing new. Haven’t we been hearing the same tired assertions for years?
Romance readers lead dull lives. They feel unloved and they’re sexually frustrated. They read romance because they’re not clever enough to understand real literature. Besides, pretending to be the romance heroines they read about is the only thing that makes their pathetic existences bearable. As for romance writers, they lack both the intelligence and the talent to write real literature. Romance is the best they can do. It’s easy, because the books are written to a formula. The publishers all but hand out templates and encourage the authors fill in a few character names and change a setting here and there. Any real writer could dash off a romance novel in a weekend–but of course she would never stoop to writing trash just to prove that point.
While romance critics aren’t always quite so blunt, anyone who reads between the lines and listens to vocal inflections has received those messages loud and clear. Haven’t we all seen TV personalities smirk when they mention romance novels? Haven’t we seen them roll their eyes? And can anyone even count the number of times we’ve seen romance novels ridiculed in newspapers, in magazines, and on the internet?
Romance novels comprise well over half of all adult paperback fiction sold. Each year, romance publishers rake in more than a billion dollars from book sales. Women (and men!) of all ages and income levels read romance–and the bulk of those readers are very well educated. Romance readers tend to feel good about their lives. It’s their exuberance of spirit and their healthy, unfettered imaginations that draw them to romance novels. These facts are abundantly clear to anyone who is honest and observant, so why are we so desperate to shout down the smug critics who stubbornly cling to their prejudices against the romance genre?
Those people aren’t hurting us. They haven’t affected book sales. And they can’t make us feel bad about ourselves unless we allow them to do that.
Most romance readers are confident and well-adjusted. We know what we’re reading and why, and we have nothing to be ashamed of. So what’s the point in protesting when some troglodyte attempts to make herself look witty and wise by bashing our genre? Unreasonable people can’t be reasoned with. I am not aware of a single instance in which a defensive romance lover has convinced a shrill critic to recant.
Every time we allow mean-spirited romance bashers to see our frustration, they’ll crow that they’ve made their point. They’ll say our heated denials prove we’re ashamed of what we read–and that’s all the encouragement they’ll need to continue their insidious attacks.
Let’s stop giving our critics the attention they crave. Stop writing letters to editors. Stop arguing on the internet. Stop whining about how romance novels never get a fair shake. If we want to promote respect for romance novels and those who read and write them, we would be wise to stop drawing the world’s attention to the foolish rantings of our detractors.
why are we so desperate to shout down the smug critics who stubbornly cling to their prejudices against the romance genre?
Those people aren’t hurting us.
I suppose I tend to think that, on principle, it’s worth countering prejudice, of whatever sort, because prejudices tend to come in groups e.g. a prejudice against romance readers might be paired with a few other kinds of prejudice and snobbery. For example, if someone calls certain books “trashy”, might they also think of some people as “trash”?
I am not aware of a single instance in which a defensive romance lover has convinced a shrill critic to recant.
You’re right that sounding “defensive” probably isn’t the best tactic, and as Jenny Crusie said, when it comes to dealing with the media “We need to pick our fights intelligently”. Or, to put it another way, there’s “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.”
by Laura Vivanco October 5th, 2007 at 7:41 amYou can tell a lot about a person not by what they say about themselves but by what they say about others. Usually someone who speaks so rashly about a subject will end up hanging themselves with the rope they’ve put out to snare others.
by Sara Thacker October 5th, 2007 at 7:52 amIt’s difficult to complain of slander and libel if one spreads it oneself.
by Bernita October 5th, 2007 at 7:55 amCrusie’s correct.
Every industry, company, or person that does well is picked on.
It is one of the prices of success
(and an alpha motto).
I guess I’m lucky
by Kimber Chin October 5th, 2007 at 8:25 ambecause being a businesswoman first and foremost,
all I have to say is…
it is the number one selling genre
and my business buddies go “ohhhh….”
(which is not why I write
but you sell based on the values of the buyer,
not the seller).
So well said, Brenda! Who gives a shit what these people say?
by Bettye Griffin October 5th, 2007 at 9:05 amI’m of two minds about this. Yeah, I get that it’s pointless to try changing people’s minds, esp. on a one-to-one basis, but I’m not sure we should give up trying to educate the world at large. After all, prejudice is always based on ignorance — how can we eradicate that ignorance if we remain silent and acquiescent to the insults/misapprehensions?
I recently joined MySpace, and decided to go trolling the membership for “friends” who read romance novels. What really struck me was how often a disparaging adjective is used in front of the term — romance novels are “trashy” or “smutty” or “cheesy” or “horrible” or “stupid.” And it’s not just the people who hate them (and anyone who reads or writes them — the distaste often goes waaay beyond personal preferences to downright visciousness), but the people who LOVE them who feel they have to somehow justify their choices. “Yeah, I read those trashy Harlequins — wanna make something of it?” or “And I have to admit, I love me my cheesy romance novels.”
That’s not only sad, it’s wrong.
I don’t write smut, or trash. I’m not stupid, my READERS aren’t stupid, and I refuse to simply sit there and take the bashing. Nobody’s saying we need to convert the world, but neither does that mean we should turn away from an opportunity to correct misconceptions about who we are and why we write/read what we do — not defensively, but proudly, calmly and graciously.
by Karen Templeton October 5th, 2007 at 10:35 amone of my writing pals was hurt when some comments she made to a newspaper reporter were twisted to support the reporter’s obvious agenda of belittling romance novels and the people who read and write them
I’m with your pal. It’s one thing for the reporter to spray her ignorant prejudice around, but making it sound like your friend was helping her aim the hose is not cool. She has every right to be hurt, and angry and offended, and to complain loudly to this idiot’s editor. At the very least, I’d send a Letter to the Editor to the paper or magazine stating that my views had been grossly misrepresented in the article.
Angie
by Angie October 5th, 2007 at 10:52 amMaybe if we stopped tossing snide comments to each other inside the industry itself that would translate outside it.
Respect has to start from within.
by Vivi Anna October 5th, 2007 at 11:39 amThat is very true, Vivi Anna.
Well said.
by Chessie October 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pm:grin:What’s to get upset about? The Romance genre is the hottest selling genre in the United States. When someone derides it, just walk away laughing and don’t stop until you make it all the way to the bank.:wink:
by Kimber An October 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmHaven’t we been hearing the same tired assertions for years?
Yes, but people don’t stop to think WHY, perhaps.
Templates did exist. I had one from Mills & Boon, and much more recently I got one from Black Lace.
That doesn’t make writers feel good because how many mystery writers are giving rules to write by? Other writers dislike this because they have to come up with their own plots.
The sticks and stones stuff about “unloved” and “sexually frustrated” I shall gloss over but I can’t ignore the fact about “real literature.”
Many books classed as “real literature” are based on Romance – But the fact that has always driven me mad is that the so-called-“real literature” is allowed to have any ending it likes and yet “Romance” (some amorphous term categorized by a bunch of women in America) set rules.
My stories can’t be Romance because Romance is heterosexual only, faithful love only, happy ever after only and so on.
Then there’s the escapism. I understand about the escapism, truly I do. Some people DO want fancy Romance Names and Barbie Wallpaper historicals, but please - don’t try and pass them off as HISTORY. If you are going to have categories, then have an “alternate universe” category because so many so called Historical Romances are nothing but Disney-land England
It’s not surprising Romance Novels are ridiculed, because so many are badly written, badly edited (especially the e-publications) as well as historically inaccurate (Kilts, Woad, Viking Horns – every bad Hollywood inaccuracy is faithfully recreated)
Writer after writer copies and copies Heyer and no-one stops to say “this is unoriginal, derivative – Chinese whisper writing.” Shifters are popular, so everyone writes about shifters. Vampires are popular so everyone writes about Vampires. And so on and so on. Each generation becoming weaker as writers copy the canon from other writers until you are left with books which people will laugh at.
Where are the communities that are attempting to raise the bar? The Sci-fi community has them, the Mystery community has them. The Historical community is RABID about improving and maintaining a standard. Even the Erotic community is trying its hardest.
But all the Romance community seem to do is re-write The Harlot’s Brigand, The Chief’s Harlot, The Busman’s Holiday – over and over and over again.
Those people aren’t hurting us. They haven’t affected book sales.
They don’t need to. People will still buy tripe. That’s fine. Let them. But lets give them some real quality too.
I am not aware of a single instance in which a defensive romance lover has convinced a shrill critic to recant.
I agree
So instead of being defensive, sticking our fingers in our ears and going LALALALA! Everything’s fine here in Romance-land - lets be pro-active. Let’s encourage people to learn to write well, to study grammar and sentence structure. Let’s give them databases to come to when they want to know whether milady would have had an indoor toilet in 1412 – and let’s encourage them to WANT to know that.
Let’s frown on the sloppy writers who don’t seem to care if they get their facts right, and let’s sidle away from the readers who “DON’T CARE!” if the facts are right, because “it’s only Romance and it doesn’t matter!”
We are shooting ourselves in the foot in this genre, and yes, I mean WE. I’m a romance writer, and I’m proud to be so, but there isn’t a day that goes by when I see some book, or something online to make me wonder if I made the right choice. We are our own worst enemy at times.
by Erastes October 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmSeveral random comments, as they come to me:
Genre fiction has always had rules, or guidelines if you will. That’s what makes it genre fiction. That does not mean genre fiction is something apart from literature (in theory), just another part of the canon.
That said, a lot of readers have no clue about genre “rules,” and call any book with a love story a “romance.” Some, however, will cite mainstream, love story authors (Nicholas Sparks, for example) as “good” romance, as opposed to “those horrible Harlequins”.
Actually, the writing standard for romance is higher today than ever, thanks in large part of all those RWA workshops and contests. There is more opportunity for writers to improve their craft now than there was twenty years ago, and editors have commented on the overall improvement in quality in the material crossing their desks. However, there being no Quality Police, editors are free to publish what they think will sell, and story will always trump writing. Unfortunately, we (writers) have no control over anything but our own work; we can’t control anyone else’s, or what publishers will buy and release to the public. And we certainly have no control over trends.
My biggest beef is with the stigma that “it’s all the same.” We all know it isn’t. The stories aren’t, the quality isn’t. But it’s human nature to tar everything with the same brush. One of the MySpace comments I ran across was from a women who (proudly) declared she’d read “one” romance, just to verify how awful they were. V. tempting to send her a message saying, “So if you saw one bad movie, would you condemn the entire film industry?” But I didn’t.
I do agree the insider bashing is self-defeating. But pretending the entire genre is rife with brilliance is disingenuous. And how does an author — in the effort to find the right readers for her books — let the public know the type of books SHE writes without sounding judgmental?
I have no clue how to address most of these issues, but for sure there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to any of it.
by Karen Templeton October 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmMany books classed as “real literature” are based on Romance – But the fact that has always driven me mad is that the so-called-“real literature” is allowed to have any ending it likes and yet “Romance” (some amorphous term categorized by a bunch of women in America) set rules.
My stories can’t be Romance because Romance is heterosexual only, faithful love only, happy ever after only and so on.
Erastes, I’m sure Mills & Boon were insisting on happy endings long before the company was taken over by Harlequin, so I don’t think you’re right to blame the Americans. In any case, romance, with its requirement that there be happy endings, is like comedy, whereas tragic love stories are, obviously, like tragedy. There’s a long tradition of both, but a comedy isn’t in any way “less literary” just because it has a happy ending:
“to qualify as a comedy. A happy ending is all that’s required. In fact, since at least as far back as Aristotle, the basic formula for comedy has had more to do with conventions and expectations of plot and character than with a requirement for lewd jokes or cartoonish pratfalls. In essence: A comedy is a story of the rise in fortune of a sympathetic central character.” (brief description from here)
As for the RWA definition, which is what I assume you’re alluding to when you refer to “a bunch of women in America”, it actually leaves a lot of room for manoeuvre. The requirement that there be “a central love story and an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending” doesn’t specify that romances be “heterosexual only, faithful love only”. There are gay romances, and romances about menages (though admittedly one could argue that these are “faithful love”, just not monogamous “faithful love”.
by Laura Vivanco October 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmAs Karen said, genre fiction has always had rules. And Erastes, perhaps you’ve not read much mystery fiction, but yes, mysteries do indeed have rules! For an example, this site ( http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/genrefiction/tp/mysteryrules.htm ) explains some of them, and it is a foolish writer who breaks the primary ones, especially who the villain may be, when he or she is to be introduced, etcetera.
ALL writing adheres to some kind of rules if the author wants to be coherent, so all we’re talking about here is how many rules and which ones! Write a sonnet without staying within the parameters and you may have written something, but it won’t be a sonnet.:lol:
by Donna Lea Simpson October 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmSee, I’m a tricksy bitch. I’ve known people who have said things like that before, or said that they hated romance and couldn’t understand why anybody would read it.
“Here, read this. It’s really good.”
They take it without question. Usually, they adore it and start raving to me about it.
“Congratulations, you’ve just read your first romance novel.”
Them: *jaw drop*
Most. Priceless. Thing. EVAR.
(Of course, this doesn’t work for all people. Some have their heads stuck up too far up their arse to see the light of day, much less read a book. Those sort aren’t worth wasting your time on.)
by Nonny Morgan October 5th, 2007 at 4:37 pm:neutral:all a bunch of ragtime jibberish 2 Me.:?::idea::neutral:
by Lola October 5th, 2007 at 4:50 pmPardon me, but blah blah blah. I agree with Erastes. The standards are ridiculously low for a romance novel. And the culprit? “This is just fantasy” and any sign of desiring to “elevate” the genre is seen as people throwing their education around. I’m much more offended by romance readers and writers who use the fantasy bit as a crutch than for outsiders to sneer and snicker at the man-titty and lurid titles. :roll::roll::roll:
by Anonymous October 6th, 2007 at 5:30 amCritics seems to harp on Romance as the font of all things bad in the industry because of formulaic guidelines, poor editing, tired plots etc. The truth is there are plenty of clunkers in all areas of the publishing industry. A few glaringly obvious non- Romance examples: the enormously popular DaVinci Code (Dan Brown cannot set a scene or structure a sentence properly), all early works by America’s favorite ex-lawyer, John Grisham (The Rainmaker, The Client, The Firm - they’re the same story with different names and locations), some celebrity “ghost-written” autobiographies (Confessions of an Heiress, anyone?)and the child prodigy Christopher Paolini’s Eragon (did he really think we wouldn’t recognize Tolkien and Star Wars?).
Those who complain of ridiculously low standards have never tried to get a romance published. It is delusional to think that one can write a romance novel in a weekend and have it published. If that were true, then everyone could count on writing romance as a steady income. But we still have our day jobs, don’t we?
by Melissa Bradley October 6th, 2007 at 10:19 pmThose who complain of ridiculously low standards have never tried to get a romance published. It is delusional to think that one can write a romance novel in a weekend and have it published. If that were true, then everyone could count on writing romance as a steady income. But we still have our day jobs, don’t we?
Who said anything about churning about a book in a short period of time? The argument is about what I consider to be the LCD of the romance genre. Based on my experience, a small percentage of readers actually like to discuss why a book did or did not work for them, while a large percentage of readers only know what they like, an even larger percentage read indiscriminately because it’s a “romance novel” and the other percent refuses to discuss anything outside of squeals and is hostile to bringing the discussion around to dissecting a book or a particular trope because “it’s fantasy!”.
So many people toss around the words “feminist” or “for women by women” when it comes to the romance genre, but I don’t see the books reflecting that, nor do I see anyone caring enough about a lot of important things like historical authenticity, unique and 3-D characters and just plain non-cliched plotting, etc.
Where are the layers in romance novels? For the most part, the majority of what is allowed in the field are the middle -of-the-road books, with a few bad ones smuggled in and then an even tinier, to be blunt, number of really fantastic romance novels that are satisfying emotionally and craft-wise.
It seems that there is a sort of snobbery shown by most readers in the genre towards anything that smacks of “literary pretensions” and causes entirely too many readers to cling to their “I’m a down to earth romance reader” because most non-romance readers use their education or social status or knowledge/love of literary fiction or the classics to put romance novels and its readers down.
So for me, it seems that middle-of-the-road standards and “tastes” are encouraged as a reaction against those lit snobs. Which, IMO, has really hurt this genre and it really disturbs me how resistant most are when anyone (writer or reader) dares to upset the status quo and rock the boat by bringing an “intellectual” discussion into the romance genre.
by Anonymous October 7th, 2007 at 8:05 amIt’s true — many, many readers DO read for the fantasy, and frankly aren’t interested in turning their escape reading into anything even remotely resembling “literature,” which for a lot of people connotes those dry, dull books they had to slog through in high school. Even those readers who regularly read outside the genre, who list classics and heavy-duty mainstream stuff alongside their beloved “trashy/cheesy/smutty” romances very often read romance as an antidote to the meatier stuff.
Who are we to tell them — or the publishers who meet that need — that they’re wrong?
Look, I think we’re banging our heads against the wall if we think there’s some way to “elevate” the genre as a whole, either through more classes on craft or minute dissection of the genre or authors reviewing each others’ books or whatever. The demand for numbers of titles is simply too great, and the reasons readers choose romance too varied, to expect evenness of quality. As is true in EVERY genre, as well as mainstream fiction.
Am I defending mediocrity? Not a bit of it. But neither am I so naive (especially after a dozen years in this business) as to expect anything to change. Were the genre to suddenly only publish those layered, complex, historically accurate, realistically-peopled books you talk about, I guarantee you we’d lose readers in droves because that’s not what *those* readers want. You can’t force readers to read what’s “good” for them (or even what’s good), and moaning ad infinitum about the industry’s lower standards isn’t going to magically cause publishers to stop buying what’s already selling. Extremely well, I might add.
We should probably all stop drinking soda and eating French fries, too, but I don’t see that happening anytime too soon, either.
Which is why I have trouble defending the genre as a whole. But were I a mystery — or any other — writer, I doubt I could say that all the offerings in that genre were brilliant, complex tomes, either. Maybe the overall standard is higher in other genres, I don’t know. But when you’ve got more than 2000 titles published every year, it only stands to reason that most of those aren’t gonna be Pulitzer-worthy material.
And there’s not a damn thing any of us can do to change that.
Still. There are gems in the genre, there are authors and editors and publishers who do care about quality, and well-developed characters, who do their best to craft plots that both push the envelope and still meet readers’ expectations (no mean feat, I assure you.) It seems to me that the best we can do is hold up those books and authors as our best, books and authors who prove — to those readers looking for “more” — that good romance books do exist.
But to expect a segment of the industry this large to universally conform to those standards is absurd. And, yes, futile. You might call that cynical and defeatist; I call it simply being realistic.
I learned a long time ago that all I can control is my own work. Anything else is out of my hands.
by Karen Templeton October 7th, 2007 at 11:00 amAs a reader of romance, I am offended that one would think that most of us show “a certain snobbery towards anything that smacks of literary pretentions.” One can find readers like this in every genre. Furthermore, I belong to a readers group that actively discusses romantic fiction and we do like our stories to have multiple layers.
That being said I know full well that there are romance readers out there who wouldn’t know good literature if it came up and bit them. Taste is subjective. For every fan of the amnesiac cowboy’s secret baby story, there are fans of more high brow work. Romance runs the gamut from good to bad, the same as all the other genres.
I find it terrible that romance readers and the genre itself seem to take the brunt of the criticism aimed at the quality of commercial fiction.
by aeromel36 October 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pmI guess I still live in a free country because boy am I ever offended. As a romance reader who prefers not to read heartwrenching tragedies because they depress the joy of living right out of me no matter how well written the prose is, I’d appreciate a little respect. I can tell a well written novel from crap. However for the more middle of the road books, the things that bother me about a novel might not bother you and vice versa. So having editors weed out the worst and allowing a fair number of people to tell their stories seems fair to me. I don’t love every romance novel ever published, but there are some fantastically written, characterized, and plotted novels out there set in realistic settings.
Having also read a fair amount of science fiction, fantasy, mystery, and thrillers, I can state that there is the good, the great, the indifferent, and the bad published in every genre. Writing for a genre is not the same as writing tripe. It is telling a story that has an audience. It is the very act of writing in a framework that allows for specific creativity. How many people have fantastic rectangular living rooms? Can you only have a fantastic living room if your rooms aren’t the standard rectangle? No. Good design happens within the structure available. Good books do to.
The stories that are told in a special way with a fantastic voice are good stories regardless of genre. The bad books are bad regardless of genre. The romance industry publishes more books, so it stands to reason that there are more books on the low end by sheer numbers, but also more books on the high end. Percentage wise, it probably works out the same for all genres. I think it’s perfectly OK to defend the romance genre without defending every romance ever written as pure spun gold from on high. The authors in this genre provide millions of stories worth telling and reading and that isn’t something to be dismissed because not everyone writes as well as everyone else.
Melissa Bradley pointed out some obvious examples of books that have been sold to millions of readers who will proudly read them in public, but I find to be unreadable. THANK YOU for the corroboration on Dan Brown’s horrific sentences. As soon as I mentioned it to my friends, they gave me a sarcastic “thanks” as they had to struggle to finish the books once those sentence fragments were pointed out. Bestselling does not mean better than romance. Hrm. Better stop before I get too bitter to sleep well.
by CrankyOtter October 9th, 2007 at 3:25 am