Madeline Hunter: I think that there is a stigma of sorts on all mass market genre fiction within the industry. Original paperbacks don't get much "literary" respect in general. On the other hand, romance has a huge readership, and that gives the genre some economic clout in the industry. Readers and writers of romance often complain about the unfair stigma, but they are speaking of a prejudice in the media and in the culture at large, where romance is not understood and is too often reduced to the "bodice ripper" cliche.' I don't think that the subgenres have anything to do with an attempt to eliminate the stigma. I think that they are marketing labels, so that readers who prefer one type of romance can find it easily.
Nora Roberts: First, romantic suspense, etc., are hardly new. Mary Stewart wrote marvelous romantic suspense starting with Madam, Will You Talk way back in the 50's. And there was Victoria Holt, Dorothy Eden, Phyllis Whitney and more. You can trace the roots for all the subgenres back. Romance has always been fluid, always accepted and embraced elements from other areas of fiction.
As to the stigma, there's always been - and likely always will be - some who dismiss or snicker simply because it's Romance. It's emotions, it's female power, it's sex. That sort of thing makes certain people view the genre as trashy or causes them to assume all the books are the same. Most of those who view Romance this way haven't actually read any of the books, or have read one or two.
Some of these minds will never be changed. And some of the stigma is perpetuated by some of the writers themselves who pander by giving interviews giggling about how much they love doing that research or bragging that they write really hot books.
The best way to deal with the stigma, in my opinion, is to write really good books, and speak intelligently, professionally, when giving interviews on the genre.
Jacquie D'Alessandro: Unfortunately I think there is a stigma still attached, one that is perpetuated most specifically in the media. Every time I read a story about the romance industry written by someone who is not in the industry, the writer uses "that phrase." (I don't even want to repeat "that phrase," but for clarification, I'm referring to "bodice ripper"). Grrr. I just get so aggravated. I wish I could call the journalist and say, "Hello - have you read a romance that's been published in the last decade?" This "that phrase" thinking perpetuates the myth that romances are "those books" with "those scene" written by "those people" (that would be women). Sadly, because the romance industry is predominantly women, I think it tends not to be taken as seriously, which I just don't get. How can a billion dollar industry that dominates nearly 50% of the market still get bashed? So many people look down on romance readers (and writers) because it's not "serious" writing. It's not "meaningful." Why? Because romances have happy endings? Because they make you feel good? Because the hero and heroine don't die? Because killing off the main characters with a disease or suicide is more "real life?" As a reader, I don't enjoy those sorts of "real life" stories. They depress me. I like happy endings. I read to be entertained, not traumatized. I get enough of that by watching the news and reading the newspaper. I do think that, because of the all the mergers and tightening of the publishing industry as a whole, the caliber of books available has never been higher, and more and more romances are hitting the NYT and USA Today lists. I think this higher level of writing and storytelling is slowly changing the perception of romances, and I am hopeful that will continue in a positive direction.
As for subgenres being used to define novels today, it could perhaps get rid of some stereotypes and the stigma. If a spine declares a book "romantic suspense," a suspense reader might pick it up thus giving the book a broader appeal. I think there are many books out there that are romances, but because they're published in hardcover, or because of the marketing strategy of the publisher, "fiction" or "women's fiction" is printed on the spine, no doubt in hopes that this will attract a broader reading base-that a reader who wouldn't normally read a romance might pick up the book.
On that note, I am amazed at the number of women I've met who tell me they've never read a romance. Or haven't read one in twenty years. On two separate occasions, I was invited to speak at local readers' discussion clubs-the sort of thing where the group all reads the same book, then they discuss it (these were not romance reader groups). In both cases, more than half the women claimed my book was the first romance they'd ever read. When I asked why, the general consensus was that they read more "serious" novels, or whatever Grisham/King/Patterson book was on the NYT list. I think I managed to convert them - they all had very positive things to say about my book. Mostly I was struck that they were all so surprised that they liked it!
Shana Abe: Hmmm...a stigma...attached to romance novels, and thus...to *me.* Nope. Never happens. Geez, of course there's a stigma. Romance novelists deal with it all the time, but it's usually from laypersons, not from anyone actually in the industry.
I don't believe the use of subgenres has anything to do with stigma. They help us define our work, and by extension help the fans better discern the type of novel they are about to read. That's not to say the subgenres necessarily define the book itself; it's just a very general form of identification, like horror vs. medical thrillers. Most people understand and appreciate that.
Brenda Joyce: There used to be a terrible stigma attached to our profession fifteen twenty years ago. I NEVER encounter anything but respect now. I think it's because of all the publicity the world of romance publishing has received - that is - everyone knows we make seriously good money! I also think it's a matter of how one presents oneself - I have always been and will always be a professional, and strangers respect that. As far as sub genres go, I don't think it has anything to do with creating more respect, I think it has everything to do with publishers trying to create more sales-the bottom line in our business, unfortunately.
Elizabeth Thornton: I think we romance authors are beginning to be respected because we're hitting the N.Y.T.'s list in astonishing numbers. I don't think it was anything to do with sub-genres. I think our publishers have wakened up to the fact that if they give us tasteful covers (no clinches) and respectable titles (no "Ecstasy") more and more people will buy our books, not just romance readers. Of course, the die-hard literati will never respect us, and it's astonishing how many of them have never been published. I should know. I've met them!
Donna Kauffman: I think all genre fiction is stigmatized in that manner - popular fiction generally is and has always been. But that's exactly the kind of fiction - popular! - I strive to write. So I don't get too hung up on labels and how other people (read: non-genre readers) want to characterize my work. The audience is already there for it, and will always be. I don't feel any particular need to explain their popularity to those whose preferences lay elsewhere. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla. As for subgenre labeling helping to eliminate the stigma, I'm not so sure it does that as much as it helps to direct the already enormous audience of romance readers to the type of romance they enjoy most.
Lauren Bach: The stigma is dead. Yeah, there are a few die-hards out there, clinging to outdated opinions, but that's okay.Some people still think rock and roll will die. Romance dominates the mass-market field. Study the bestseller's lists. Look at the statistics published by Romance Writers of America. It's hard to argue with cold, hard, numbers. Per RWA, romance comprises 37.2 percent of all popular fiction - hardcover as well as paperbacks - sold in North America. The figure jumps to an astounding 55.9 percent when you look at popular paperbacks only. I believe that makes us an 800-pound gorilla. And only romance could make an ape look so blasted enticing. I think subgenres are a reflection of the market's exponential growth. As more and more people discover for themselves that the writing, the storytelling, in romance is phenomenal, our ranks have swelled. The umbrella called "romance" is too small, too generic for a genre so multifaceted.
Kat Martin: There is definitely a stigma attached to romance novels and the authors who pen them. We are often overlooked at book fairs and festivals and treated like stepchildren at regional book conferences (I'm speaking from experience here). People like Nora Roberts and Jayne Ann Krentz have been wonderful for our image in that regard. It's tough to overlook huge best-selling authors like those two, and by extension, harder and harder to overlook the romances hitting the New York Times. The sub genres may be trying to help the problem, but I don't think it's had much effect.
Susan Wiggs: I think the publishing business has a healthy appreciation of the fact that romance is one of the most powerful categories of fiction. When USA Today names Nora Roberts, a romance author, the #2 best-selling author of the year (after J. K. Rowling), you know it's huge. Publishers know that romance readers are active book buyers, and they want to get in on the bonanza. So actually, the subcategories mentioned above are an attempt to broaden rather than narrow the category.
I will say that there is a lot of misinformation about the genre in some segments of publishing. At the Maui Writers Conference, I had a conversation with a very high-powered agent and editor, both of whom believed Harlequin authors worked for a flat fee per book, for example. In reality, the vast majority earn regular royalties.
Betina Krahn: I tend to see the proliferation of sub-genre identifications as positive... we're branching out, pulling broader audience. But, yes, there is still a stigma attached to pure "romance." For instance when publishers and even editors talk about something seeming like a "big book" they invariably mean: not "just a romance."
Amanda Scott: If there is a stigma, it's no big deal when you consider the market for romance compared to markets for anything else. When one category controls over half the book market, as Romance does, there is bound to be criticism. And, truthfully, there's plenty to criticize just because there's so much out there. Sheer volume means there are lots more great books and lots more not-great books. That's just fact. The mystery and thriller markets also have great and not-so-great books, but their market share being smaller, the roar of their critics is not nearly as loud. Also, don't forget the only other category to draw the sort of criticism Romance has been known to receive (that it's bad for women to believe what they read, that perfect men exist or that life can have a happy ending, for example) is the children's book market.
Sue-Ellen Welfonder: I don't see a stigma at all and certainly not to myself as a romance author. On a practical level, these books make up a huge section of the market. If readers weren't embracing them -- pun intended -- well, then the volume would dwindle wouldn't it? On a personal level, I can tell you I see these books as a wonderful way to escape the cares of our daily grind, and why should there be a stigma attached to that? Real life is trying enough. Why read about tragic outcomes just because that's 'closer to reality?' The readers I hear talking want to escape that reality and romance novels give them that escape. A few hours spent forgetting their woes and a sigh of satisfaction when they close the book. Nope, I don't see a stigma in making people happy.
Re: the various subgenre titles, I don't see any connection to a stigma there either. I'd say that is just a practical way to let readers know what they are getting. Some love Scottish medievals, thank goodness, others want Regency England while some want Americana or contemporary US settings. These subgenre titles are just a way to offer a broad palate for readers to choose from according to their reading tastes.
Sharon Robinson: I find that most of my professional women friends find romance entertaining. For some, Still the Storm is their first time reading a romance book. They all seem to appreciate the fact that there was a compelling story line in addition to the development of the relationship between my heroine and hero. As an avid romance reader, I tend to enjoy romance with interesting subplots as well. They support the fact that our lives are complex and that love must flourish in spite of the busy, often complicated things happening around us. Occasionally, I meet someone who frowns upon the romance genre thinking it degrades women. Usually, they haven't read contemporary romance and are surprised to learn that the characters are often professionals who faced real life issues.
Glenna McReynolds: No. I think there used to be, but no more. We have completely overwhelmed the industry with the quality of our work and the quantity of our sales. Romance still isn't everyone's idea of a good read. It never will be, but I feel we get equal billing with every other genre. What I love about romance, is I think because of what we deal with in the books - emotional bonding and incredible sex - people can be a little bit leery of us. We know their primal needs and aren't afraid to lay it out on the page.
Sherri Browning: I don't think subgenres are an attempt to eliminate stigma as much as to inform readers of what they are getting in a book. Historical romance used to be the norm, what people thought of when they thought of romance novels. And now romance has grown so that there are so many different tastes and types of books. I do feel that romance isn't always taken as seriously as other genres, but with the reading public in general and not just in the publishing industry. The fact is that there are so many authors producing so many great romances now - and so many readers picking them up.
