I was surprised and disappointed that there was no award given in 2007 for the “Veritas Award from the Romance Writers of America for outstanding journalism related to the romance genre. Surprised and disappointed because, well, not only is there a lot of incredible writing about romance fiction being done today, but some of the best writing and analysis about the publishing industry in general is coming from blogs with a decidedly romance bent.
How is that not a single winner could be found? In addition to Booksquare — which I humbly include in the category of great writing on industry issues (hey, if I can’t toot my own horn and all that) — we have, obviously, Romancing the Blog (which you obviously know about), Dear Author, Teach Me Tonight, and Smart Bitches, Trashy Books (or if you’re old school, Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books).
At least three of the sources cited above are read regularly by industry types who appreciate the forward-thinking, tech-savvy, well-considered thoughts being produced. For all of our hand-wringing about bringing respect to the romance industry, something wonderful is happening in the post-Romantic Times world: serious writing about the romance genre coupled with serious reviews of our novels (and some not-so-serious writing and reviews). Oh, and broader industry issues brought home to the romance business.
If you’re wondering what’s happening in the publishing industry and how it affects you — authors — the last place you’re looking is the RWA. The monthly magazine, RWR, doesn’t cover serious industry issues in a timely manner, and eNotes (the email newsletter for members) is hampered both by the publication schedule and, for lack of a better term, no-compete clause with RWR. I mean, Amazon just told POD publishers to use their service or else? How is RWA covering this issue? Given the lead time, can it cover this issue and offer something that hasn’t already been done?
Informed members of RWA are learning from other sources. Let’s consider some major issues being covered by these sites (these are recent items, not necessarily indicative of what was published in 2007): the Cassie Edwards plagiarism discovery (which was scary due to Edwards’ apparent cluelessness about stealing words, her publisher’s initial “meh” reaction, and the fact that her editors didn’t notice a shift in style and tone in her work), the Deborah Anne MacGillivary author/reviewer intimidation scandal (as a lagniappe, there’s the fact that she was apparently violating RWA rules by functioning as a publisher), and the recent Amazon decision regarding print-on-demand and BookSurge.
Sure there might have been a little schadenfreude associated with one or more of those stories, but, c’mon, these are big things impacting romance authors and readers, and while the process didn’t always meet the standards of traditional journalism, it sure beat silence on the topics.
I’m guessing it’s the process that lead to the “no award given” for 2007. This isn’t a high profile award, and, I suspect that most RWA members aren’t even aware that they are responsible for submitting articles for consideration. It’s a shame that we finally have reached a point where smart women and men are covering the romance genres from a variety of angles — academically, journalistically, analytically, and even humorously — yet the one award designed to recognize this effort will not be awarded due to lack of entries.
Maybe it’s time for the RWA to consider a better way of identifying and honoring this great work being done.
I think the problem is that quite a few RWA members think that blogs like DA and the SBs are there to denigrate the genre by highlighting some of the more negative aspects of Romanceworld. Close scrutiny makes them uncomfortable. Criticism, makes them rabid.
They don’t want the genre to be analysed, because analysis often leads to people poking fun at some of the less attractive qualities of the industry. To some members, this is an unforgiveable sin.
On the one hand, a lot of these people call for respect of the genre, but they still stand by the old-fashioned notions that keep the genre swimming against a tidal wave of external bias and anachronistic stereotyping.
The genre is a veritable Ladies Club, where speaking out is seen as most unladylike, and excessive tinkling of the cups, gets you banned from the tea party.
I think for some RWA members, and some authors in general I guess, praising the very people who have been responsible for the demise of these good old fashioned values, as they see it, is a bit too much like sleeping with the enemy.
Interesting column.
by Karen Scott May 7th, 2008 at 6:06 amKassia, I admit to being one of the clueless, and not paying attention to the nomination process in this award.
I won’t be next year. And really appreciate you letting us know.
by Nora Roberts May 7th, 2008 at 8:43 amFrankly, much of the “analysis” and “criticism” taking place lately on some of the sites mentioned has degenerated to “10,000 Reasons I’m Ashamed To Be Seen Holding A Romance Novel, And So Should You Be.” I haven’t read anything in that vein of such outstanding journalistic merit that I’d be willing to overlook the condescending tone and give someone an award for it.
If that makes me “rabid,” you’ll have to come up with a new diagnosis for the hugely higher degree of snapping and foaming at the mouth that goes on elsewhere.
by Kerry Allen May 7th, 2008 at 8:50 amPersonally, I can’t say I’ve ever witnessed either the SBs or the DA gals foaming at the mouth. Some of their readers, perhaps, but never them, themselves.
If you can point to some examples of them ‘foaming at the mouth’, I’ll be happy to concede the point to you.
by Karen Scott May 7th, 2008 at 9:25 amIs this a negative vs positive thing
or
a blog vs print thing?
‘Cause as a blogger
in the non-romance blogosphere,
we are only now starting to get recognition
from the non-internet world.
We have our own awards
(The Bloggies)
to compensate.
And as a blogger,
by Kimber Chin May 7th, 2008 at 9:37 amthe only recognition I truly care about
is readership.
I don’t write for awards
(or even cash though many of my buds do).
I write for readers.
Karen, I did not once mention DA or SB or Sarah or Candy or any of the Ja(y)nes by name, but I do find it telling that you immediately made that association.
Likewise, if you can point to some examples of “quite a few RWA members” becoming “rabid” over legitimate “criticism,” I’d be happy to concede that point.
by Kerry Allen May 7th, 2008 at 9:42 amI am strictly a reader, and a novice reader at that, having started on Romance only a couple of years ago. As such, I am extremely grateful to sites like DA and SBTB (and AAR). Without their comments and suggestions — and the comments and suggestions of those who respond — I would never have found the books that I have enjoyed so much.
by Jane O May 7th, 2008 at 10:13 amIn addition, the kind of criticism they provide strikes me as useful and beneficial to the industry as a whole. It is hardly a betrayal to denounce plagiarism and harassment. To say such behavior should not be denounced or even mentioned is like saying a crooked politician should not be exposed because it makes all politicians look bad.
What?! I had no idea RWA members were supposed to submit Veritas nominations. No idea whatever and that’s a failing of RWA.
by Carolyn Jewel May 7th, 2008 at 10:16 amI didn’t even know this award existed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
by Victoria Janssen May 7th, 2008 at 10:43 amRWA has an agenda. They’re not going to draw attention to anything that isn’t in line with their agenda. They don’t care about the Amazon/Booksurge thing, for example, because that’s an issue that primarily affects small presses. And RWA is all about the big presses.
That’s not a commentary on their agenda, by the way. Love it, hate it, whatever. Just recognize that they’ve got it.
by Em May 7th, 2008 at 11:15 amOn the one hand, a lot of these people call for respect of the genre, but they still stand by the old-fashioned notions that keep the genre swimming against a tidal wave of external bias and anachronistic stereotyping.
This is sure what it looks like sometimes. Respect for the genre *on certain terms* that don’t include certain types of critique, because, as you point out, it can make people uncomfortable. Everything is fine and dandy when someone gets a positive review or a story they want to see broken gets broken, but if things veer in a certain direction, the recoil begins. Sometimes it amuses me, sometimes it frustrates me. But since I’m on no one’s payroll, I don’t have to toe a party line.
Overall, I think that blogging about Romance has come such a long way in such a short time, and the level of discussion on quite a few blogs is really impressive. I learn a lot by reading other people’s views, ESPECIALLY those who have provocative and controversial views. I don’t have to agree with them, sometimes I even wince a little. But it strikes me again and again that the conspiracy of silence of the good old days hasn’t itself yielded an overload of civility, because as soon as you pull the cork on certain topics, the bottle practically explodes from all the pent up stuff. I kind of figure it’s going to take a good long while to let all that pressure off, before the community stabilizes and discussions that are routine in other reading communities become so in Romance, too.
by Robin May 7th, 2008 at 11:36 amI’m absolutely floored that you’d name us as an option for the Veritas Award, because while I strongly believe that criticism makes the genre, any genre, stronger, I’d never expect that award to be granted to a blogger, simply because, as Karen said, blogging carries with it the reputation for rancid, rabid evil deeds.
Though I don’t think I’ve ever foamed at the mouth. If I did, I trust someone would say so. I’d need to see a doctor. It would be messy.
I’ve been a member of RWA for a long time (well, relatively speaking) and while I’m sure our site drives some members nutso, I don’t look at RWA as having a nefarious agenda or as a crooked organization. I think it’s a constantly evolving and developing writer’s organization that has to adequately represent a genre that is so diverse and often so deeply at war with itself that taking one step in any direction requires a great deal of preparation and care. They can’t react to things as fast as, say, a blog can, and they can’t detract as fast, either. Picture the giant robot Megazord made by the Power Rangers. That’s RWA. Very big, rather powerful at times, many moving parts. Do I agree with everything they do? Oh, heck no. But I like RWA just fine. (I, for the record, would like to be the Pink Power Ranger. Obviously).
Anyway, I’m immensely flattered - and still floored - at the connection. So thank you.
by SB Sarah May 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pmI am so glad about this response (and even happier that RWA members are realizing that they can support this really cool, really important award). Also, count me as one who doesn’t believe there’s a nefarious agenda in RWA — a lot of competing interests, yes, but I see less of a cohesive anti-this or pro-that agenda. The entire business is changing, and it’s hard to meet the needs of such a diverse membership.
Sarah’s comment highlights something that I believe needs to be emphasized: I see blogs as vehicles for the sauce. Blogs have democratized a publishing process that was previously expensive and excessively time consuming for ordinary people. We are now able to publish information quickly and inexpensively.
Blogs take on many forms, from the very personal to the extremely professional. Most of the ones I visit regularly tend to skew toward the latter because of the level of writing and analysis. In days gone by, we might be lucky if a newspaper or wire service assigned a resource to look at the business of romance novels (and even luckier if the phrase “bodice ripper” didn’t appear). Today, we have so many people writing and analyzing, with varying degrees of skill and depth, this business.
In this regard, I don’t differentiate between “blogs” and regular news websites (ie, The Huffington Post). A blog won a Polk Award. I believe that good writing about romance can be found anywhere and the person doing that writing can come from non-traditional venues…actually, it’s already happening!
by Kassia Krozser May 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pmI’m very happy you think Teach Me Tonight features “great writing on industry issues.”
As far as recognition by the RWA for TMT is concerned, TMT was set up by Eric Selinger as part of the work he did after he’d been awarded an RWA research grant. And Sarah Frantz, who also blogs both here and at TMT won the 2008-2009 RWA research grant. So although work posted at TMT hasn’t been rewarded with a prize, I do feel that the RWA has put its money where its mouth is (literally with regards to the money, non-literally with regards to the mouth
) with regards to encouraging academic research into the genre.
The criteria for awarding the Veritas Award are rather specific: “RWA’s Veritas Award may be given annually for the article that appears in print or in another medium that best depicts the romance genre in a positive light.” I wonder if both the “positive light” part of that description would tend to exclude the coverage there’s been on blogs of the major issues you mentioned. I wholeheartedly agree that these issues needed to be discussed and brought to light, but I can see why it might be thought by some that the coverage didn’t cast the genre in “a positive light.”
Maybe the criteria need to be changed? Or maybe there needs to be a new category for Romance Blog/Website of the Year, to go alongside the Librarian of the Year and Bookseller of the Year awards? Or perhaps some bloggers/website owners could have their achievements recognised via the RWA Vivian Stephens Industry Award which “is presented to one or more professionals in the romance-publishing industry, who is not a writer, who has contributed to the genre or to RWA in a significant and/or continuing manner”?
RWA members can nominate people for the Vivian Stephens Industry Award in the same way that they would nominate an article for the Veritas Award (i.e. via the RWA website). I can think of at least one romance website which has been around for over ten years, which I think would count as contributing “to the genre […] in a significant and/or continuing manner.”
by Laura Vivanco May 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pmIn this regard, I don’t differentiate between “blogs” and regular news websites (ie, The Huffington Post).
This brings up an interesting question, though, that’s been asked repeatedly in reference to blogs (especially during those big issues like the Cassie Edwards situation): should blogs be held to the same journalistic standards as, say, the New York Times?
Personally, I see blogs as inherently editorial, and while bloggers can reach for a standard of integrity with regard to what they post (not the commenters, but the blog owners) and how they represent themselves, they are not reporters in a traditional sense. This isn’t, IMO, a bad or a good thing — sometimes on a blog, for example, you get overt opposing opinions on an issue rather than the *appearance* of journalistic objectivity that is often more appearance than reality — but I do think it provides a distinction. Although perhaps with the growing Internetization of news venues (I mean, think about the way the female lobbyist + John McCain story on the NYT website became interactive, with readers asked to submit questions on its evolution and publication) there are more similarities than there used to be. Interesting.
by Robin May 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pmOh my bad, then I guess you must have meant either RTB, Teach Me Tonight, or indeed Booksquare, seeing as this is what you actually wrote:
Funny, I’ve never witnessed mujch foaming at the mouth on RTB, TMT, or BS.
Wait, didn’t Deborah MacGillivray, an RWA member ask her readers and peers to ‘vote the bitch down’ recently? Referring to an Amazon reader who’d given her a three star review that she was unhappy with?
Or was she a special case?
Looking at the list of authors on the sidebar, I could name a few who have had their moments in the spotlight, but why start a fight on a blog that isn’t mine?
by Karen Scott May 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pmSo, Karen, are you gonna start it on a blog that is yours?
by Throwmearope May 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pmOh maybe, or maybe not. Depends how interesting things get on here.
by Karen Scott May 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pmThe award is for an article that presents “romance in a positive light.”
Perusing back through those websites I’m just not following your logic in this post. By your standards, Perez Hilton should be getting a Pulitzer.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 4:42 pmException to Teach Me Tonight
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm“an article”
Angel, are you saying that you read the archives of the blogs in question (if so, you read incredibly fast, and should take over for Harriet Klausner) and you didn’t find ONE SINGLE ARTICLE that portrays romance “in a positive light”?
by Beverly May 7th, 2008 at 5:04 pmBeverly May,
I would search harder but I’ve been reading those blogs for awhile now and finding an article that portrays romance in a positive light would be akin to picking a gold flake out of two years worth of cow poo. Not a pleasant task. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done. Even Perez has something nice to say every once in awhile.
Cite one and I’ll read it and possibly change my mind.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 5:07 pmI’ve never read BookSquare so I may be incorrect on that score. I shall add it to my Google Reader View.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 5:16 pmAnd here we go . . .
by Robin May 7th, 2008 at 5:17 pmI am thoroughly confused by some of the comments here. I’ve only been reading them for a couple of months, but DA and SB don’t present romance in a positive light? Are you kidding? How about their pointing out that there are quite a few books out there that appeal to literate and intelligent readers? That romance is not for the terminally brain dead? Or are those who write about romance required to be warm fuzzies who think all books are wonderful, all authors are ladies of impeccable behavior, and all is for the best in this best of all possible romance worlds?
by Jane O May 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pmWhat? It’s too much to say that if you are going to say that specific web sites are worthy of a certain award then perhaps you could provide examples from those sites that you believe meet that criteria? That’s a standard journalism thing.
Here’s the format: I think this is true and cite the following as examples of what I am talking about.
Simple.
Then you have something other than overall reputation on which to judge. Then you might show these sites to readers in a positive light they might not otherwise have seen before.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 5:29 pmCite one and I’ll read it and possibly change my mind.
Dear Author has quite a large section on industry news, but I suspect that you and many of their detractors don’t bother reading these segments.
What about the First Sale letters? Or the Query Saturdays? Or the hundreds of reviews? Or the informational posts on e-books and e-readers, or the Agent interviews, or the viral blogging, or he DABWAHA tournament? And I could go on, and on.
Do these not count as positives, or are you only taking into account, their letters of opinions? Hmmm?
by Karen Scott May 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pmAngel,
First of all, May isn’t part of my name, it’s part of the date.
Second, if you really have been reading the sites in question “for awhile now” and STILL can’t think of anything positive about them, then I really wonder what your motivation in reading them is in the first place.
No, theses blogs are not always sweetness and light, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t positive. Critical, thoughtful, discerning, etc. are all individual words with individual meanings and they don’t all mean negative. Sometimes the blog posts are one of these, sometimes they are others, but they certainly aren’t always negative, and they don’t exclude positive opinions.
You also might want to examine whether you are confusing the comments on the sites in question with the actual content of the blog posts themselves. This seems to be a common problem with people who criticize them.
by Beverly May 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pmPick one that you would submit that you believe meets the criteria of the award. You are listing everything but articles. Have any of these sites written an exceptional article that presents the romance writing industry in a good light? If so which articles would you submit? I’ll be happy to admit I am wrong here. The body of work on at least two of those sites is more negative or informational rather than inspriational or positive. Can you pick one of your own articles that you would submit? Your site is very similar in nature and content to the SB’s and DA. Why weren’t you listed?
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pmWow, I messed that blockquote thing up completely. I was trying to quote “Cite one and I’ll possibly change my mind.” What IS in the blockquote is from me.
Oh, and I’ll add something else (since I’m feeling long-winded today). Whenever someone says “cite one”, there’s really no point. Sure, I can find one article that I think is positive, but that doesn’t mean that YOU will agree with me. You’ve already looked at the sites, you’ve already made up your mind. I’m just wasting my time.
by Beverly May 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pmThat was directed at Karen Scott’s comment.
Beverly. Sorry for the name screw up. Entertaining is a different kind of award. A site can be entertaining but that does not mean it deserves an award for showing the romance industry in a positive light.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pmBeverly. The post is about specific sites, some of which are well known for ripping the romance industry a new one, producing at least one article in the past year that shows the romance industry in a positive light. Given the overall majority of the material published on those sites, I don’t think I am the only reader who looks askance at that proposition. I don’t think it’s asking too much to see some sample of an article or two to back it up.
I am ready to eat my words. I’m sure RWA reps are reading this thread also wondering what articles might qualify.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 6:11 pmAhhh I get the subtext now.
The fact that you say that my blog is similar to theirs tells me all I need to know about where you’re coming from.
My style of blogging is nothing like theirs Angel, and if you spent time reading the actual blogs, I think you would know that.
As for the inspirational posts, well I seem to recall that the SBs inspired their readers to raise money for Katrina, as well as the infamous ferrets.
In fact, I think they’ve been responsible for quite a bit of fundraising for various causes, using their power for good, as it were. If you actually read them, you would know these things.
Dear Author started a viral marketing project to promote Nalini Singh a while ago. Over 200 blogs took part. Is that not inspirational, or do you want links as proof?
You trap yourself, because if you truly read them, these are things you would know.
The truth is, you don’t give a rat’s arse about the good they have done, do you? You’re determined to see them as a force of evil within Romanceland, so don’t pretend oherwise, because your comments expose your motivations.
by Karen Scott May 7th, 2008 at 6:18 pmMany people have argued across various blogs that you are romances greatest cheerleader and policeman. Your posts are very much in line with the other blogs.
Helping ferrets and Katrina victims and starting projects to launch a specific authors’ work are not articles exactly. There’s good and bad on all of these sites. Do they have ONE article that is well written and presents the romance industry in a good light. Not the readers. Not the community at large. The industry. RWA is about the business of writing romance. I have read a pretty decent number of posts on those sites and most of what I’ve read are extremely critical of the industry as a whole.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 6:26 pmHere you go, Angel:
by Robin May 7th, 2008 at 6:37 pmhttp://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2008/04/20/signetnal-deserves-a-round-of-applause/
Hi Angel — I’m super-busy today and have just been skimming comments. However, I took your challenge. The following is an article that manages to be analytical and critical (critical being good and bad) while showing the romance genre in a positive way. Please note that I didn’t have time to find an ideal example, but I have yet another in a day of endless meetings to prep for:
The Oversexualization of Romance
I’m sure if I actually put some effort into this process, I could find other examples.
by Kassia Krozser May 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pmYou would submit that to RWA as an article that presents the romance industry in a positive light.
I’m trying to see the thought process here because my first impression of the article after a first read is that it is patronizing and a little snarky to a publisher that has been placed on the “Publishers behaving badly” list. It’s praise in a backhanded way. It’s not particularly inspiring writing. But if there were no other entries up against it I guess it might qualify.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 6:44 pmThe eval above was for the DA post. I am off to read Kassias and then I have to go but I’ll check back later to see if anyone else has any good articles that were overlooked for this award.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pmRe: Kassia’s example. I read that one earlier today and it’s something of a mix. RT is definitely part of the romance industry and it doesn’t come off so well in that piece but it has a nice “feel good” flourish for the fans of romance. If I were holding it up to the award criteria I would say it doesn’t quite fit.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 6:51 pmHere’s one more (and that’s it because I’m LATE for my meeting). Maybe it’s not award-worthy, maybe it is, but it sure meets the positive image criteria:
18 Awesome Things…
by Kassia Krozser May 7th, 2008 at 6:52 pmAll things considered I think RWA might have a problem with the “Cover Snark” and “Dildoes” items but it is positive, definitely. Anyone from RWA want to comment? I suspect you are going to be receiving a lot more entries next year and you may want to clarify the guidelines concerning what qualifies.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pmA while ago, Jane wrote a blog about all the things that were great about the romance industry, I’m not going to link because you aren’t that interested. You know you don’t really care. There are many examples, but you’ve already made your mind up, which is fine, but you should just say so, instead of pretending otherwise.
Have they? I’ve obviously never seen those posts.
You got any examples?
Just kidding of course, because I really don’t care either way.
by Karen Scott May 7th, 2008 at 7:02 pmI’m trying to see the thought process here because my first impression of the article after a first read is that it is patronizing and a little snarky to a publisher that has been placed on the “Publishers behaving badly” list. It’s praise in a backhanded way. It’s not particularly inspiring writing. But if there were no other entries up against it I guess it might qualify.
I don’t know if I believe that you would accept anything submitted from certain blogs. I mean, “cow poop” isn’t the tastiest of phrases.
I don’t care that people dislike particular blogs — to each her own and all that. But the one thing I’m struck by over and over is how many expressions of such dislike tend to be far more hate and invective-filled than the blogs themselves. It’s like shooting someone who slapped you, or swearing a stream at someone who has offended you with their language.
Beyond that, of course, there is the whole concept of what it means to portray the genre in a positive light. I read reviews every day on the blogs that are thoughtful, articulate, insightful, and engaged, and I don’t think you can get a much more positive representation of the genre than that — having books that deserve and garner such considered and intelligent commentary. But some people still think that if a book doesn’t earn an A and a gush, that the review isn’t positive. Again, to each her own.
by Robin May 7th, 2008 at 7:05 pmI don’t think a review would qualify even if it were very well written. Maybe it would, who knows.
You can like a site, I mean, I like Defamer, but I’m not looking at the list of Pulitzers or at any other journalistic awards for it. Some sites are just entertaining or provocative or interesting reads. Frankly I don’t know what site I would comb for an entry for this award. Konrath’s maybe? Because he inspires new writers.
Karen. I would name the site but you already know it and the threads disappear so there’s no way to give you a link.
by Angel May 7th, 2008 at 7:15 pmExamples . . .
Several of Eric Selinger’s columns here. And Robin’s. Barbara Samuels’ on the RITA awards.
Regency Readers Riddle Me This
Love Genre Style
by AK May 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pmRobin, I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t. The words dead, horse, and beating, come to mind.
All I say is thank God for such blogs, otherwise we’d be stuck with fluffy bunny review sites, where the reviewers have apparently never read a bad romance novel, and don’t have a clue what’s going on in the industry.
Until they visit blogs like DA and The SBs anyway. *g*
by Karen Scott May 7th, 2008 at 7:24 pmYou can like a site, I mean, I like Defamer, but I’m not looking at the list of Pulitzers or at any other journalistic awards for it.
But that’s not really what your initial comments focused on. This is what you said (in part):
I would search harder but I’ve been reading those blogs for awhile now and finding an article that portrays romance in a positive light would be akin to picking a gold flake out of two years worth of cow poo. Not a pleasant task.
Now it’s not just that an article has to be positive, it has to meet some criteria as you ascertain them for the award.
I can guarantee you that I don’t blog for the RWA, nor do any other bloggers I know. I can think of numerous articles and reviews I’ve read on blogs that I believe are outstanding and worthy of praise, regardless of what the RWA or anyone else thinks of them. As I said earlier, I’ve seen far more nastiness in the name of criticizing certain blogs and bloggers than I’ve seen on the blogs being criticized, and I’ve seen so much pent up craziness pour forth when the cap is lifted off a particular issue that I’m quite sure that the private face of Romance is not always graced with a peaches and cream complexion. So I’m not outrageously motivated to feel that if the RWA doesn’t approve of what I write that I should hang my head in shame.
by Robin May 7th, 2008 at 7:35 pmI have no idea which site you’re talking about.
by Karen Scott May 7th, 2008 at 7:38 pmSorry to break this to you, Karen, but I think now that Nora Roberts comments regularly on your blog that you’ve crossed over to the dark side, aka the mainstream (well, as mainstream as one can get in an environment where blogs are largely seen as only marginally respectable).
by Robin May 7th, 2008 at 7:40 pmUrrgh. Are you saying that all my efforts to agitate and antagonise have all been in vain?
That’s it then, I must try harder to do more evil in Romanceland. Being mainstream is simply not acceptable, and so not cool. Next thing you know, I’ll be going to church, and humming I Want To Teach The World To Sing.
Anyway, I’ve spent enough time on here, I’m off to bed where I can dream of eating romance authors for breakfast.
by Karen Scott May 7th, 2008 at 8:02 pmMichelle Buonfiglio posts great articles in a postive light (romance (buy) the blog), Jessica Faust from Bookends-her articles in RT are great, so are some other articles in RT. Some of Pam Rosenthal’s articles on The Spiced Tea Party are worthy. Kristen Nelson’s Pub Rants is also a great example.
by Eva Gale May 7th, 2008 at 8:29 pmI’ve read many articles on the blogs mentioned that I felt were very positive regarding the genre. I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through archives and post links.
And I guess I don’t consider reporting or commentary on the bad and ugly of the genre cow poo. The bad and ugly need to be reported for the good to mean anything. And for writers–and readers–to know the many sides and angles of the business.
I wonder how many writers have been spared the nightmare of struggling to get their royalties or their rights back from unscrupulous publishing houses due to this kind of reporting. I, for one, find that very positive.
by Nora Roberts May 8th, 2008 at 8:24 amKassia - Thanks for mentioning DA in your piece and thanks for the links to past articles. While I think any award is a pleasure to receive, it doesn’t surprise me that DA or SB, particularly, would not receive this award. It’s not so much a function of criticism, but journalism.
I, like Robin, think of our blogs more like editorial plus (reviews, occasional news pieces). I view Teach Me Tonight as a peer reviewed journal of sorts.
I don’t know if there is any blogger, other than Kassia’s Booksquare, that serves the function that say a Publisher’s Lunch or Publishers’ Weekly does.
I do believe, though, that bloggers are part of the industry as much as Romantic Times is part of the industry. I also can see Angel’s point in that we don’t provide constant positive coverage of the romance industry and not simply because we are critical of books, tropes, covers, or anything. I view criticism as not being positive or negative. But we do highlight asshattery (or what we perceive to be asshattery) and that can put a negative light on the industry.
I also believe that bloggers like the ones Kassia mentioned and others not mentioned do put the industry in a positive light in other ways. Because we are willing to talk openly and intelligently about our likes and dislikes, our happiness and our disappointments, we show to the internet world that romance genre is read by intelligent and vibrant individuals; that we are greater than the image of the covers, the ocassional asshattery, the percentage of bad books, and so forth.
I would end with saying that if I am to be afforded gossip blog status, can I just get even a portion of the revenue that Perez Hilton is pulling in?
by Jane May 8th, 2008 at 8:51 am