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?

No related posts.

Last week, Karen Templeton used this space to discuss whether romance writers should indulge in critical analysis of their fellow authors’ work.

“Every once in a while, someone suggests that perhaps the genre would be taken more seriously by Others (and, perhaps, by Us, as well) if more romance authors reviewed/critiqued each other’s work. That lack of critical analysis – of romance by those who write it – is what separates romance from the literary Big Boys (and Girls).”

I did not agree with her argument about the nature of romance novels, but I’m with her on this part. It’s not the first time I have heard this theory that the genre is somehow being materially damaged by the fact that more authors do not engage in open disagreements about what is good or bad.

Are we talking about the same genre whose leading organization held a poll to define romance? The same genre whose organization’s newsletter is regularly filled with invective-riddled diatribes about how sexy vixens/vampires/virgins/Christians/old biddies/gay men are “ruining” romance? Whose members campaign for a complete overhaul of our most prestigious contest due to subgenre bias (and many argue that it would be more prestigious if it was not decided by a small panel of author judges)? I think there is plenty of open debate.

Templeton’s post sparked quite a long comment trail, including drop-ins from many romance authors who do review books. Alison Kent listed statistics from several major newspapers pointing out how many book reviews each had run in a given issue and how many had been written by fellow authors. The percentages were always a majority.

I think this is a misleading stat. Author reviews are to the book reviewing world what stunt casting is to a network sitcom. The more famous the reviewer, the more likely it will draw readers to the newsstand. The more controversial, the better, since everyone likes to be witness to infighting. Does anyone remember what kind of “reasoned critique” Curtis Sittenfeld gave of Melissa Banks’ The Wonder Spot, or do they just remember the part where she said that calling another author a chick lit writer is like calling her a slut? When the queen of genre romance, Nora Roberts, was asked to review Stephen King’s new “love story,” it was part of an effort to encourage a larger female, “women’s fiction” audience than the horror writer usually garners.

Which is not to say that the reviews weren’t valid – no doubt Roberts did love Lissy, and Sittenfeld did dislike Sophie. But these types of bestseller reviews are outliers. Not only are the majority of book reviews not written by other authors, most do not appear in major commercial newspapers (or as official Amazon features). Most reviews for books of any genre appear in trade journals such as Publisher’s Weekly, Kirkus, Locus, and Romantic Times.

In passing, I’d argue that, more than saving the genre, such circulation boosters as celeb reviews might prove handy in saving the book review.

Should authors write professionally vetted reviews for other people’s books? Sure, if they are so inclined. And in doing so, they should understand that they are likely to be less popular around the cocktail party buffet. It’s not their fault—just a professional hazard for all critics, no matter how impartial. They’re the IRS agents of their world: generally disliked through no fault of their own. I made no restaurateur friends during the years I wrote food reviews.

I also do not think there is any harm to the genre if authors don’t review, much as I don’t think the problem with the movie industry is remotely related to the fact that few movie critics are filmmakers themselves.

There seems to be an ongoing call to arms among a certain facet of romance writers and readers. Authors who do not choose to review are often painted as fastidious yes-men complicit in dooming the genre to mediocrity. Not so. Maybe, as Templeton said, it’s just not her job. I do not think an author has an obligation to publicly review another author’s books.

Such disinclination is not a behavior that is exclusive to romance authors, by the way. I know authors in many genres who choose not to share criticism with the public at large. Young adult fantasy author (and speculative fiction scholar) Justine Larbalestier said to me: “I’m not a book reviewer; I’m a book evangelist.” Book criticism, she added, requires an entirely different set of skills than novel writing, and a person who is talented at one is not necessarily talented at the other. Ebert is not necessarily Kubrick, and vice versa.

And yet, do not think that those who aren’t posting book reviews to their blogs or to The LA Times do not participate in criticism of another’s books. Every author I know has a close circle of colleagues with whom she discusses recent releases. Most authors I know work with a circle of first readers, also pros, who help smooth out the rough edges of their work. Not all criticism bent on improving a genre needs to happen in public. Ask the Inklings. The genre does not lack respect due to a dearth of peer review and debate, in no small part because there is no dearth.

When the conversation came up at Access Romance a year ago, one poster compared the need for authors reviewing others’ works to the pattern of peer review of scientific papers. But, indeed, that seems to conform more to the idea of critique groups/beta readers. Scientific peer reviews occur before publication, and the writer is given a chance to address all of the concerns the (anonymous) reviewer raises before her research is made final, public, etc. Concerns raised after publication are also aired in a formal fashion— a response is reviewed and vetted every bit as critically, and is also shown, pre-publication, to the writers of the original article, who then have an opportunity to answer it, often in the same issue of the journal. However, the metaphor disintegrates when you consider the varied needs of scientific fact and critical opinion of a novel, as well as the fact that such articles are written for other scientists, with the intent on relating a repeatable result.

Book reviews are not written for authors. They are not written with the intent to improve the published book, alert the author to her failings, or save the genre. Not one of my restaurant reviews was intended for an audience of restaurateurs. When I visited a restaurant with a friend who is a chef, he noticed entirely different things than I would, and wasn’t bothered by details that bugged me. He might have bee able to give the restaurant a bit of backstage advice, or, barring that, write for a small audience of insider foodies. My job was to tell diners where they could buy a great meal.

The same purpose exists for book critics, and they take it very seriously indeed. Should authors be critics? Only if they want to, and only with a true critic’s purpose in mind.

No related posts.