|
Romance Author Roundtable
7.
AOTW: In the publishing business, do you feel there is a stigma attached to romance novels and, by extension, romance authors? Are the subgenres that are being used to define novels today --- romantic suspense, historical romance, romantic mystery --- an attempt to eliminate any stigma attached to the romance genre?
Christina Skye: Stigma? No. Stratification? Yes. It could be our Puritan heritage showing through. Or, as many others have pointed out, it could be bias against a form of writing that is predominantly created by and for women.
Are the subgenres that are being used to define novels today --- romantic suspense, historical romance, romantic mystery --- an attempt to eliminate any stigma attached to the romance genre?
I'd say they simply reflect the real growth and diversity of the genre.
Judith McNaught: Of course there's a stigma attached to romance novels, and by extension, romance authors. As romance writers, we've all correctly attributed the ridicule of our genre to the fact that the books are written by, for, and about women. But I wonder if there isn't more to it than that. Consider this: The term "romance novel," automatically suggests a novel about soft, sentimental things like love, traditional values, sensitivity, etc. Therefore, reading (or writing) a romance novel constitutes a public declaration of sentimentality, and many people --- particularly men --- are reluctant (and/or terrified) to be perceived as sentimental. They may be comfortably sentimental in private, but to openly admit to it in public is to risk being ridiculed, and that's a risk they're unwilling, and even afraid, to take. They protect themselves from ridicule by ridiculing that which is sentimental in others. An even sadder contingent of people react with heartfelt cynicism to anything that approaches sentimentality.
Women who proudly admit to reading (or writing) romance novels subject themselves to ridicule. They do it with the same courage and determined sentimentality that has enabled us to thrive on this planet despite our inferior physical strength --- and also to civilize and soften the other half of the population while we were at it. Having accomplished all that, it's understandable that we would want books that finally showcase women in primary roles, but why is it surprising that we also expect our heroines to act with courage, love, and abiding faith --- even blind faith --- in the men they choose to love? After all, that has been women's reality since the beginning of time. No one can diminish that or denigrate that except us, ourselves. For that reason, I feel a sense of deep frustration and sadness whenever I hear a woman who does read romance novels embarrassedly refer to them as "trashy books," or "little escape novels." There is nothing trashy about the books we read, or who we are. There is nothing "little" about anything we do, from the challenges we face in our everyday lives to the feats we accomplish for the people we love.
As to the question about all the subgenres that are being used to define our novels today, I suspect that's simply an effort to subdivide and classify what is otherwise an enormous genre with a vague-sounding and often misleading general title. I think "Women's Fiction" would be a far more apt overall title for our genre.
Carly Phillips: In my personal opinion, I don't find stigma the reason for sub-genres within romance. I find the distinctions i.e. romantic suspense, romantic comedy, etc., are a way to let readers know what they are buying. A happy reader comes back for more. An unhappy reader is less likely to pick up that author again. For this reason, publishing houses may delineate lines between what their authors write, but the purpose is to target the correct audience ... and keep readers coming back for more.
I'd like to think we're evolving beyond the stigma, though I know it will always exist in some manner. Romance is becoming more mainstream. For example, I did the Kelly Ripa, "Reading with Ripa" round table discussion on LIVE! with Regis and Kelly this past summer. The Bachelor was the first romance picked for a nationally televised book club. The one thing romance readers and authors picked up on was the woman LIVE! put at the round table as the "sample" reader. They were upset a real romance reader hadn't been picked, as this lady had never read romance before. I disagreed with everyone's assessment with this being a mistake. Why? Because when she said, "I'd never read romance before and I LOVED The Bachelor," it was tantamount to legitimizing romance on national television. In essence, she said to all those who do hold onto the stigma, "Hey give romance a chance! If I liked it, you may too!"
Dorothy Garlock: All of the above come under the heading of Romance, so what's the difference? I read a lot of mystery, so if I come across a Romance that is listed as a mystery, I'll be more inclined to give it a second look.
Shirlee Busbee: Oh, yeah. No doubt about it. Romance writers are the bad girls from the wrong side of the tracks and I doubt it will ever change, because we're women writing for women. Remember Frank Slaughter? Frank Yerby? I grew up reading their books and their books weren't all that different from what's labeled Romance today. But men wrote them and so they were called Historical Novels, not Historical Romance, but Historical Novels --- big difference. Even books written in the same manner by women in those days were called Historical Novels. It wasn't until The Flame and the Flower and Sweet Savage Love were released that the media started calling them Historical Romances. Oh, and didn't the media have fun sneering at us! Bodice rippers. Rape sagas. Purple prose. Ha! As for the subgenres, I don't know if it's an attempt to eliminate any stigma attached to the romance genre, or just making it easier for readers to find the particular type of book they want.
Barbara Samuel: There's absolutely a stigma attached to romance novels and authors, one left over from an era when men mostly ran publishing and set the standards for what sort of story was valuable. The truth is, men and women value different story arcs. Generalizing wildly, men tend to like stories that pit a character against an external villain, and the struggle is one with life-or-death stakes attached; women tend to like stories about internal journeys that lead toward wholeness, wholeness within and wholeness within the community. You can see this in the exaggerated way we label films: for men, there are action-adventure and sports flicks, always about men who have to battle some external force in order to WIN. The stakes are generally pretty high. The world will end, or the villain will kill the girl, or the coach will lose his job and be ruined. In so-called "chick-flicks," the hero wants to find a mate, or help a friend, and even if the stakes are high, they tend to be quieter. Winning in a chick flick isn't about saving the whole world. It's about creating unity --- with a mate, with a friend, helping a child find a home.
There are books and movies that cross over. Both Braveheart and Last of the Mohicans are equally beloved by men and woman --- because both films satisfy the story values of men and women.
Which is a long-winded way of saying the stigma surrounding romance novels arises from judging them by a male story standard. There's nothing wrong with the male standard, either. We just need two methods of judging.
And as time goes by, I think we'll see that. Romance novels aren't going anywhere. As they receive more critical attention from academia and the story values are recognized, we'll see a lessening of that stigma. In the meantime, we (readers and writers) are delighted to have found each other.
Jo Beverley: As I said in a recent article, romance novels are the Cinderella of the fiction world. I'm not sure whether this is more so in publishing, but it would be strange is the widespread prejudice and ignorance wasn't reflected there. Fortunately there are many people in publishing who love the form, and of course, we sell a lot of books and make a lot of money for them, too. I think anyone who takes the time to read the genre knows that there are as many good authors writing romance as any other genre.
I don't think the subgenres are there to try to avoid stigma. Like all genres and subgenres, they are simply an attempt to help readers find the sort of books they are most likely to enjoy. There are, I believe, well over 2000 romance novels published a year. That's about 200 a month, a quantity likely to daze the most devoted and knowledgeable reader.
Kerrelyn Sparks: Most romance authors of my acquaintance do feel there is a negative perception of romance books in the general public. We've all had book signings where customers ask if we write those "trashy" books, or ask when we're going to write a "real" book. Fortunately, we have found that most people with a bad opinion of romance actually know very little about the genre. A few statistics helps to open their eyes. Romance accounts for 55% of all popular paperback fiction. In 2001, the romance industry generated 1.52 billion dollars in sales.
There has also been a long debate on whether the covers of romance books are partly to blame for any stigma. The torrid "clinch" cover with the half-naked hero and heroine locked in an embrace causes some embarrassment amongst the authors and the readers. Some readers admit they don't want to be seen in public reading a romance with a clinch cover. However, some publishers believe the clinch covers sell better.
Romance Writers of America® is always trying to find ways to offset negative perceptions of romance. They did a poster campaign, aimed at bookstores and libraries, showing celebrities and professional people (including men) who read romance.
I think having different subgenres is a very positive evolution for romance. Readers who like straight suspense may discover that they also enjoy romantic suspense. Those who like science fiction/fantasy may find that they also like paranormal romance, and so on. Reaching more readers is always a good thing.
Teresa Medeiros: I think the subgenres are a marketing tool more than anything --- something to tell booksellers where to shelf books in the stores. And I think the stigma is beginning to disappear, just as it eventually disappeared for sci fi and mystery. Those books were also once looked down upon with great suspicion by the "literary" community.
Rachel Gibson: Probably there is a stigma, but I don't pay attention to that sort of stuff. I respect myself and the romance genre. I don't really care what those who don't respect me or the genre think.
There have always been subgenres in romance. I think they are more defined today so that readers can identify them more easily.
Mary Lynn Baxter: Not so much anymore since romance is such a large part of the book selling market. Having said that, I've never recognized that stigma personally because I'm proud to be a romance writer and have always held my head up high.
Brenda Novak: I think the subgenres are a natural outcropping of a genre that has matured a great deal over the past twenty years and not an effort to avoid any type of stigma or stereotype. That said, I agree that there is definitely a stigma attached to romance (some people look down their noses at it, if you will). I've found, however, that most readers new to the genre typically express surprise at the quality of our books. After all, many, many authors who got their start in romance are now consistently hitting the New York Times bestseller list. Surely, they possess quite a bit of talent!
The basic appeal in a romance novel is not the sensuality, as some believe. It's the life-affirming theme of "love conquers all" and the happy ending. There are certainly poorly written romance novels that would fit the bodice-ripper stereotype to a "T," which is probably where the stereotype originated. But there are spectacular romances, as well --- and there's nothing more enjoyable than a well-written romance.
Gaelen Foley: There's a stigma about romance novels, but it doesn't come from the publishing houses, as far as I know. It comes from academia and from the failure of early feminist literary critics to discern the feminist subtext in the romance genre.
I'm glad to report that many academics, both in the U.S. and abroad, are taking a fresh look at romance novels and the old view is beginning to change, but the truth is, the stigma against romance novels can actually be traced all the way back to my time period! --- the Regency or thereabouts --- when the first female novelists like Fanny Burney, the Bronte sisters, and Mrs. Gaskell began writing stories about women's concerns, including love stories.
These early pioneers developed huge audiences among women from all levels of society, from countesses to scullery maids (again, proving the universality of the genre). Many of these women writers became independently wealthy, and in an age when women were the legal chattel of their fathers, husbands, and brothers, you can imagine what a threat they were. This was a genre unsupervised by men (and still is) and it made the guys really, really nervous.
Even the poet, Lord Byron, wrote: "of all bitches, a scribbling woman is the most canine." (Of course, he was upset because his past lover, Caro Lamb, had written a nasty roman-a-clef about him, but his attitude shows the deep hostility and fear typical of most Regency and Victorian men toward these brassy women who dared claim the right to write.)
Most of these early novels written by women were mocked, put down, and called "trash," and the women who wrote them for the most part forfeited the honor of being called "ladies." But somehow their readership just kept on growing. (By the way, I don't include Jane Austen in this group because her novels were so gentle, genteel, and tactful in their manner of presenting strong women that they did not make anyone feel threatened, plus Austen had the patronage of the Prince Regent, which helped saved her from the otherwise universal disapproval of "scribbling women.")
On a more personal note, I myself have experienced --- often --- the stigma against romance writers, even from my own relatives, but I've always been the rebellious type, and the disapproval I encounter rather amuses me. I know within myself that my work is worthwhile and that I'm writing "real books", and my readers know it, too; they write to me and tell me how much my stories have meant to them --- so if some snooty intellectual wants to smirk about it, my attitude is, frankly, Scarlett...
Julia Quinn: There is absolutely a stigma attached to romance novels. Anything written (primarily) by women for women isn't going to get the same respect as something for men. Plus, in the literary establishment, you always get more respect if you don't have a happy ending. And in romance, we're all about happy endings.
Candace Camp: Oh, now you're onto one of my pet peeves. Yes, I think there is a stigma. Unfortunately, I think there is often a stigma attached to anything that is done primarily by women or for women, and romance fits into both categories. I have seen soap operas where the writing is just awful, and one of the characters will make a derogatory comment about a romance novel or a romance writer --- when most romance novels are much better written than soap operas --- indeed, than a great deal of movies or television shows! What burns me up the most, though, is when so-called feminists talk about how terrible romances are --- they've apparently bought into the male knee-jerk response that romances are bad. It's obvious that they don't know what romances are about because they say a great number of things that aren't true. And they are kicking a business in which the writers and editors are women and the product is bought by women. Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.
As for what they call the subgenres, I don't know if it's for that reason or simply to give the reader a better idea of what type of book it is. If they're doing it to avoid the stigma, I don't think it will work, because as long as romance or romantic is anywhere in the title, it's going to be dismissed as "merely women's books."
Leslie Carroll: I very definitely feel there's an unfortunate stigma attached to romance novels and, by extension, romance authors. There is a voracious readership out there and consequently, a tremendous, ongoing need for product, which invariably leads to the occasional sacrifice of quality for quantity. The sub-par work out there does reflect poorly on the well-crafted and well-researched romances. As an author new to the genre, I've encountered a number of "giggle and gag" responses from non-romance readers who are convinced that romances are all cheesy genre fiction and that all the stories are flat and corny and the characters undeveloped and uninteresting. So I'm learning from experience that it's an uphill climb to expand our readership. I think the subgenre categorizations make sense from a business as well as a literary perspective. They give readers a better idea of what's between the covers and have the potential to develop new readership.
|
