2004 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?

Jane Feather: I don't see how one can stigmatize a genre that arguably outsells most of the other forms of popular fiction. If there was a stigma it would attach as much to the readers of these books as to the authors and the industry itself. If I remember rightly, Stephen King spoke to this a couple of months ago. His point, as I recall, was that those who despise popular fiction are closing their minds to significant aspects of their own world. They're out of touch with the way their world works. It's like saying I only ever listen to Mozart; who are these Beatles? I have been asked on several occasions when I'm going to write a "proper" book. It's a question I dismiss with the contempt it deserves. If the questioners had ever written a work of fiction they would never even formulate such a question, and if they haven't, they don't have the right to ask it.

I'm assuming that subgenres are a useful marketing tool. They enable the industry to tell which aspect of the genre is the particular flavor of the month. I have my doubts as to how reliable that is. My first historical was initially declined on the grounds that it was "essentially a Regency, and you can't give Regencies away nowadays." It didn't take long for that to turn around, and I spent the next few years writing nothing but Regencies because someone believed that that was what the market demanded.

Kimberly Raye: I think there is a stigma attached to romance novels and the writers who write them. But I feel it's less fierce than it was ten years ago. Publishing is a business and the bottom line is money, and romance novels make money. They represent an overwhelming share of the paperback industry, so much in fact, that their value is impossible to ignore. I feel publishers have embraced romance as the cash cow that it is. To be honest, I think the stigma itself isn't perpetuated by the industry so much as by a small majority of the public --- those literary snobs who bash romance novels but have never read one. They are fewer and less vocal than they were years ago, but they're still out there. Will they change their minds about romance? Maybe. Does their opinion matter to the overall popularity of the genre? Not at all. The romance industry is alive and well. Thankfully.

As for subgenres of romance, no I don't think the subgenres are an attempt to eliminate the stigma attached to romance. Subgenres are all about making money. While the romance market is huge, it is also diverse. Readers want different things, and by marketing romance in subgenre form, publishers are attempting to target these specific market segments.

Susan Crandall: Oh, you found my hot button! I DO think romance novels (and authors) get little respect (mostly from those who have never read a romance). I find it maddening that, in general, books are singled out for ridicule if they're categorized as romantic. Do you see that happening in music? Where would the Beatles be without Love, Love, Love? In movies? Seems to me there's a romantic relationship in almost all movies. I've been voicing this everywhere I go, to anyone who will listen. Maybe someday we'll make headway and eliminate the raised eyebrow and the comment, "Oh, you write those."

As far as the subgenres go, I'm not sure they're an attempt to remove the stigma (but I have been known to be very naive about such things). It seems to me that it simply gives romance readers a way to narrow down their choices when selecting a book.

Lisa Jackson: Are you kidding? No way! These subgenres are simply a way of letting readers know what kind of story to expect between the covers. Besides it doesn't matter if you're writing romance or science fiction or horror or mystery --- there is always going to be someone who looks down his nose and sneers at it. Big deal. Not everyone likes the same thing, whether it be books, movies, food or clothing.

I think it's important not to get too worked up about the whole respect thing. Not to say that we should all just roll over and accept any prejudices, but we should at least put them in perspective. I've been interviewed by some of the best/worst, and I've found it's better to roll with the punches, laugh and point out the interviewer's misconceptions. Sign a copy of the book for her or, if a guy, for his wife. Show the interviewer that you're bright and witty and NORMAL.

Laura Lee Guhrke: To be honest, I have seen very little stigma against romance novels. Most people I have met either read them or don't, but even those who don't have usually been positive and encouraging. The romance is a particular type of novel, like the mystery or the western or any other genre fiction. Yes, some people turn up their noses, but I don't pay any attention to them. Maybe that's why I don't feel a stigma.

As to the subgenres, I believe it is not so much about stigma as it is about the craving among readers for a variety of romantic stories. Romance readers are voracious readers, and they are loyal. They expect and deserve what is fresh and unique. I think the subgenres are a way for authors and publishers to fulfill that expectation.

Nicole Jordan: Oh, certainly romance has always suffered from a stigma! One of the most embarrassing moments in my career has to be several years ago when Jay Leno pretended to read from my book, Touch Me With Fire, on The Tonight Show as part of his ongoing romance writer's skit, which poked fun at our genre. I wanted to say, "Wait a minute, all that gosh-awful purple prose you're reading isn't in my book!"

But popular fiction authors have always garnered less respect than our literary counterparts. And my response to the snobbery has always been: Readers read our books. In very large numbers. And enjoy them. And eagerly await more. So frankly, I don't mind the stigma.

And if you think about it, Shakespeare and Dickens were hacks who wrote for a living. So I consider myself in very good company.

Stephanie Bond: Not in the publishing business because publishers realize how much money is at stake. But I do feel that stigma among reviewers, the media, and the general reading public.

As to your question about subgenres, I don't believe so; subgenre designations are simply proof of the immense diversity within the romance genre, and a way to help romance readers zone in on their particular interest. Women don't have time to browse these days --- any cues the publisher can provide as to the story's content is much appreciated!

Jill Marie Landis: I think that anytime you love your work and you are prolific at it, as most romance writers are or have become, it's not valued as "art." Let's face it, we don't act like suffering, melancholy artists. We believe in happy endings or we wouldn't be doing this. How can anything be "art" if we don't suffer for it and it doesn't take ten years to write. Give me a break.

My husband is an actor and I see the same kind of stigma attached to daytime television (soaps) actors and actresses. They are the hardest working actors in the business. They digest and perform hours of script every day all year long. And yet, they aren't even acknowledged at the Emmy Awards. They are relegated to a "Daytime" Emmy Awards show. Because they are creating daytime drama, much like our romances, shows for women, day after day, they are constantly working, but they aren't considered as "talented" as primetime or film actors/actresses.

We have friends who are on soaps. Just like romance writers, they have devoted fans who appreciate their work. I think we need to hone our craft, appreciate ourselves, and enjoy our work. There are people out there who need the escape and entertainment we provide. We don't have to defend ourselves, but we should be taken seriously.

Linda Lael Miller: Any stigma against romance usually comes from ignorance and prejudice, as far as I'm concerned. I'm amazed by the number of pseudo-intellectuals who posture themselves against romance novels without knowing what they're talking about, just to look smart. Guess what? They don't look smart. Romance novels have evolved to such an extent that the old images are laughable. The genre has grown, and some of the writers have become household names. Respect? I like to say, "When somebody puts down romance, I cry all the way back to my seven-figure horse farm."

Karen Rose: I've never felt any stigma whatsoever in the publishing business. Then again, I've consciously surrounded myself with those who love romance as much as I do. The subgenres as an attempt to eliminate stigma? I've seriously never considered the option. I love suspense, I love the methodical search for the wrongdoer, I love romance. For me, it all naturally goes together.

Lisa Kleypas: Having been published since I was 21 (and I will turn 40 next year!) I have seen a wonderful change in peoples' attitudes toward the romance genre. When I graduated from Wellesley College, many of my classmates were heading into the banking and legal professions, and my decision to write romance was not then considered as important as those other jobs. However, I have always known that there is nothing more important than writing about love, and my hope is to reaffirm other peoples' faith in the possibility of happy endings.

Beverly Jenkins: Personally, I think part of this so-called stigma is a by-product of the fact that the majority of people who write and read romance are women. When has anything that is female-based been valued by society?

Cherry Adair: There is definitely stigma attached to most genres, or popular fiction, be it romance or anything else. I don't believe the subgenres have anything to do with that stigma one way or the other, however.

Linda Francis Lee: I'm the wrong person to ask. I love being a Romance Novelist, and I've yet to encounter anyone who has made a rude comment about it. I think, however, this notion was started because some reviewers/readers/people have used some poorly executed romance novels as an example of the whole. But every type of fiction has poorly written examples. I've read plenty of really bad good fiction --- along with amazing good fiction. The same is true with romance. I've read bad romance and I've read romance that wows me with the beauty of the writing as well as the life's themes it explores.

Susan Elizabeth Phillips: Jeeze! We're well-organized, but not that well-organized. The authors are simply following their imaginations. Labeling subgenres was invented by publishers and booksellers to simplify selling books. As for stigma … I used to feel it, but not much anymore. We're just too successful. And (modestly) we're also too nice. There's no more generous community of writers than the women of romance.

Mary Balogh: In the publishing business itself? If there is, I have not felt it. I have always been in the romance program with editors of romance. The fellow authors I tend to meet are romance authors. So I suppose I would not know what the overall house attitude is. I suppose in the reading world in general there is some stigma on romance --- perhaps because it is primarily a woman's genre and anything that is heavily feminine is still seen as intrinsically inferior and irrelevant to the "real" world. My answer is always that romance and happy marital love are as real as all the horror stories we watch on the news each evening. It is just that the emphasis, the perspective, is different. And I far prefer my perspective!

Judi McCoy: Hmmm, that's a difficult question. Yes, romance authors are still fighting the stigma of 'bodice ripper' novels. The subgenre divisions help, but I think the one thing that we can do is show the relationship between our hero and heroine in the most positive light possible. We write relationship stories of total commitment between one man and one woman. That's the thrust of our books, and we need to make sure our work is publicized that way.