Bitchin' Blog Posts
Controversy
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | July 17, 2007 | Tuesday at 2:46 pm | 97 CommentsI’ve been emailing with different authors about the “controversy” of Caridad Ferrer’s book Adiós to my Old Life winning the RITAâ„¢ for Best Contemporary Romance, and I have to say, I’m befuddled.
I honestly do not get it. I was frankly disgusted by the anonymous commenters calling it bullshit on this blog and others, but not because they disagreed with the decision. Hey, if you are bummed because your favorite book didn’t win? Ok. Whatever. Plenty of people are pissed when Oscarsâ„¢ are announced, so you’re in good company.
What blows my mind is the anonymity - I guess the nicey-nice culture of romance novel readers & fans & authors is alive, well, and reducing any valid criticism into ultimatums issued by people with no balls. I’d have a lot more respect for all those anonymous opinions if, say, the person writing them had the stone ovaries to say WHO THEY WERE for God’s sake. One on our site called it bullshit; another anonymous ball-less commenter says it’s a “‘fucking’ disgrace.”
“Controversy” not withstanding, the nicey-nice seems to be rearing it’s perfectly coiffed head again. If you can’t say you’re happy for a winner, then you hide behind a fake name and announce that a YA novel winning Best Contemporary is the end of the world and a sign that the RITAs mean nothing? Why the hell is there no room to say publicly that you disagree and are bummed out that your favorite book didn’t win? The nicey-nice culture makes no room for disagreement unless it’s gutter-trash style hidden in the safety of anonymous driveby comment? Yeesh.
I totally disagree that there’s something inherently wrong with any YA novel winning the RITAâ„¢ Best Contemporary, but I’d be interested in hearing from someone who thinks it’s wrong - but I’d prefer that someone be a person with the basic sense of cluecake to identify him- or herself and say why they’re disappointed with the decision.
Ironically, I had a few people in publishing, including authors, say to my face that the RITA feels great as an acknowledgement but means little to nothing in terms of sales and future contracts. It’s not like people in acquisitions see “RITA-winner” and up the advance by 10k.
Now, controversy, on the other hand, that’ll up your sales by 10k easy, so I’m sure there’s plenty of folks in Ferrer’s publishing house who are saying, ‘Oh yes, please! Keep talking! Disgrace? Oh, tell me more!”
I’m not pissed off because people disagree. I’m disappointed because people can’t disagree without being anonymous sniping buttmonkeys. Have some stones people. If you’re disappointed, say so and be a grown up. Big girl panties are in aisle 4. Head on over and get yourself a pair.
Filed: RWA National - Dallas 2007
Julie Leto said on 07.17.07 at 03:24 PM • [link]
Amen!
I also think that people who think this is a “disgrace†have simply not read the book.
ADIOS TO MY OLD LIFE, honestly, was one of the best written books I read all year. So the heroine was a teenager…so what? She was still a woman (albeit a young one) who was experiencing first love. Yes, the romance was somewhat secondary to the overall exploration of self that was the focus of the book, but it was still a romance with the requisite happy ending and the romance was intricately tied into the plot of the book. In fact, I found the romance even more compelling because the heroine wasn’t experienced, wasn’t jaded and needed the trust between her and her guy even more than an older woman would have in the same circumstances, making the ending even sweeter.
As for the anonymous posters…who cares what they think? I think the blog world discounts them out of hand. I know I never put any stock in a post that is anonymous, even if the post agrees with my sentiments. If you have no name (or a fake name…I do click on links for people who post) then their words mean nothing. Big fat waste of time to post anonymously, I think.
SB Sarah said on 07.17.07 at 03:30 PM • [link]
Yes, the romance was somewhat secondary to the overall exploration of self that was the focus of the book, but it was still a romance with the requisite happy ending and the romance was intricately tied into the plot of the book.
I totally agree Julie. I said as much in my review, that the romance is not the primary storyline and if you’re looking for straight up YA romance where ALL that the characters talk about is their growing feelings, this ain’t it. BUT considering that most contemporary romances deal with a sense of self actualization or fulfillment on the part of the heroine AND the hero, in addition to the romance between them, Adiós isn’t that different in my opinion, aside from the heroine’s age and the manner in which self-fulfillment arrives for the characters.
However, I am still curious to hear from those that disagree with the decision, and why. I am bewildered by the idea that disagreement, especially in the “romance community,” can only be done in whispers or private email or anonymous comments. Time and again we have knockdown discussions here, and there’s plenty of room for disagreement. So bring it.
Eva Gale said on 07.17.07 at 03:32 PM • [link]
Anytime somebody wins something, there will always be those that discount the winner. Sour graes? Who the hell knows or cares.
Bring on the controversy, though. ‘Cause I thought it was a great book and if she sells a gazillion, more power to her.
Eva Gale said on 07.17.07 at 03:33 PM • [link]
I meant grapes, but graes sound pretty juicy too.
Teddy Pig said on 07.17.07 at 03:38 PM • [link]
Well being I hate nicey nice borg like thought…
I just wish the people saying it was a disgrace would say why. I am not opposed to bitching. I just wish it was clear on what grounds people felt upset about it.
Is it because YA gets tons more support in mainstream critical circles than Romance ever will? I know I see them reviewed constantly in the papers.
Is it because people feel the RITAs categories are not well defined?
It would be great to know what the issue was.
Rhonda Stapleton said on 07.17.07 at 03:47 PM • [link]
I think it’s AWESOME that a YA won the RITA. AWESOME!! YAYYYYY!!!
Stephanie Doyle said on 07.17.07 at 03:56 PM • [link]
I’ll bite. I disagree.
I didn’t post before anonymously or otherwise but I will say on the record that I’m disappointed a YA book won for best single-title romance.
Not because of the book. I haven’t read it. But knowing that it had to get through 5 judges and then another 5 judges - I don’t think there can be any doubt that this must be a freakin A good book.
My disappointment comes from the idea if that if the BEST that single title romance had to offer all year was a YA -then I think that reflects poorly on single-title romance.
I don’t think anyone is to blame. I’m sure the judges based their scores on the book and not the controversy. And I’m glad that YA as a category survived and I hope Caridad’s win encourages others to submit their books.
It’s not sour grapes on my part. I actually didn’t read any of the other books nominated. I read Caridiad’s blog and totally understood her frustration because she wanted a chance to compete for best first book, but I just wish she’d had the opportunity to compete in the category she intended.
Maybe I have to re-adjust my idea of romance - but when I think of teenagers - I don’t think of a HEA. Too much growing to do.
SB Sarah said on 07.17.07 at 03:58 PM • [link]
Well being I hate nicey nice borg like thought…
Is it because YA gets tons more support in mainstream critical circles than Romance ever will? I know I see them reviewed constantly in the papers.
Is it because people feel the RITAs categories are not well defined?
I suspect, Mr. Teddy Pig, that you are more like your first name than your last, and are in real life very cuddly and frequently wear fuzzy sweaters so people will be compelled to rub their cheeks on you. Both sets.
That said, I think it’s one of the two issues you defined. Either it’s underlying jealousy that YA is treated as a more legitimate genre by mainstream newspapers (though they lose their worth as book reviewing entities a bit each year, thanks to us evil bloggers types, mwahahahaha) and is reviewed and discussed as reading material with value and importance whereas romance, which is equally popular, is not. Or it’s that the RITAs are now flooded with a lot of genres that this person or the other person doesn’t like, be that YA or erotica or whatever.
But either way, I’m not sure what the issue is myself.
SB Sarah said on 07.17.07 at 04:04 PM • [link]
if that if the BEST that single title romance had to offer all year was a YA -then I think that reflects poorly on single-title romance.
....but when I think of teenagers - I don’t think of a HEA. Too much growing to do.
Stephanie: Thank you thank you for articulating the disappointment. Now, prepare for questions!
Are the above two statements related? That a YA romance - which has an implied not-entirely-happy-ending within the HEA because of the youth of the protagonists - is not *really* a romance and ergo shouldn’t have won Best Contemporary Romance?
I admit to having the same reservations with HEAs in YA romances, but then, I met my husband in high school so I have to tell myself that it could happen that their HEA is permanent.
Or is there some specific difference between YA romance and adult romance that makes the two insufficiently able to compete against one another accurately?
bookworm said on 07.17.07 at 04:16 PM • [link]
I seem to find some excellent reading in that place where genres blur and overlap, so “Adios To My Old Life” was the only RITA winner that went straight onto my must read list. Criticism of having a very young heroine is patently absurd considering the long history of very young heroines in romance novels.
I do not agree, however, that posting anonymously or with a fake name instantly invalidates an opinion. Posting a very harsh opinion without giving good reasons does invalidate it, IMO. I spent years claiming my identity back from the bastards who stole it, and have become somewhat phobic about the precious commodity that is my real name. Does the fact that I’m not willing to use it invalidate all my opinions? I hope not. And I certainly don’t appreciate being lumped in with that small group of people who think that being anonymous is a good opportunity to be vicious.
Melanie Hayden said on 07.17.07 at 04:16 PM • [link]
I haven’t read the book (though I am partial to YA in general - more so than traditional romance) but I suspect this type of thing was bound to happen simply because the RITAs and RWA as an organization has resisted changing even though publishing has. I was at Nationals last year and sat there in disbelief as the categories were read - Regency? Really?? A whole category for Regency? Coming from a fantastic local chapter that *has* kept up with the industry, it was a rude awakening about the national organization.
If RWA is to continue being a resource for writers and for publishers, they need to realize that they can’t run the industry, and they can’t ignore the changing market. I give them credit for allowing a YA into the running, but the category structure of the RITAs and GHs are as frozen in time as my grandma’s white leather living room set.
Julie Leto said on 07.17.07 at 04:24 PM • [link]
Again, I have to return to the book being discussed specifically and not in generalizations of YA as a whole. ADIOS was not so much about teenagers, but about young adults. This isn’t HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL and I seriously doubt that any other book could have topped this category. The heroine had a maturity about her that trascended the YA genre…and the subject matter and setting also lent to a more mature feel to the book. ADIOS was more about reality television and the music industry than it was about high school crushes or prom. I’m not knocking YA. I love YA. I’m just saying that this particular book wasn’t a typical YA. It, IMO, crossed the line between young adult and adult fiction. Had the heroine been 19-21, the book could have still worked…though not quite as effectively…particularly within the hispanic, namely Cuban-American culture where this book is set.
Most romance readers want to read about a vulnerable heroine. What made her vulnerable was her lack of worldliness in a cut-throat industry. This was made more believable because of her tender age, but might have been able to work had she been older as well.
SB Sarah said on 07.17.07 at 04:26 PM • [link]
I certainly don’t appreciate being lumped in with that small group of people who think that being anonymous is a good opportunity to be vicious.
Good point, bookworm. My apologies. My frustration is certainly directed at people who post anonymously and toss a nasty comment down, then don’t back it up with anything, or a way to reach them to ask, “What do you mean?”
I have no problem with the number of people who use screen names here and don’t use their real names at all - or those who want to remain unlinked and somewhat protected. I get cranky at “anonymous at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)” comments that are vicious and pointless but you’re right it’s not the same thing.
And my sympathies on the identity theft. That freaking sucks.
Janice said on 07.17.07 at 04:27 PM • [link]
Controversy.. hmm.. *goes to look up book*.
:P :P
I actually looked this up already because it won the RITA and was a YA. And that’s sans the controversy. Now its even more interesting.. why would people call BS? *Wants to read it more*. Therefore I agree with this post.
Julie Leto said on 07.17.07 at 04:28 PM • [link]
Melanie, the thing you have to realize about RWA is that change in the national organization is slow. Boards who try to change things quickly and without a lot of investigation and thought and documentation are villified—and rightfully so. I think the changes to the RITA and GH for next year were worth the wait.
And you can’t blame RWA for there being no YA category. They offered it—enough people didn’t enter, something Barb/Caridad lamented in her acceptance speech. All the categories have a minimum number that have to be entered before the category is viable. I think that’s fair.
Julie Leto said on 07.17.07 at 04:31 PM • [link]
Bookworm is right. I’m sorry I said it, too. I didn’t mean people who take screennames that are valid and recognizable and who offer complete opinions, but more the drive-by type of anon posting that says, ultimately, nothing of value.
SB Sarah said on 07.17.07 at 04:32 PM • [link]
Further, to retread something that’s been mentioned countless times, the rules of the RITA stipulate that in order to enter “Best First Book,” you have to enter another category as well. So since there was no YA, Ferrer entered Best Contemporary as her entrance requirement for Best First Book. Thus her win is more significant in that regard.
Stephanie Doyle said on 07.17.07 at 04:39 PM • [link]
“...is not *really* a romance and ergo shouldn’t have won Best Contemporary Romance?”
That’s it. Option A. Again I didn’t read the book but just going on what Julie said about it being more about an exploration of self… also in reading the back blurb… it didn’t come off to me as a straight romance.
When I think YA I think growth, learning and exploration. Just like when I hear Paranormal - I think vampires, ghosts and psychics.
That’s why we have categories. It’s not the BEST BOOK category. It’s the best single-title contemp romance - where the focus of the story should be on the couple falling in love, and living happily ever after.
However the next question can a romance story about teens compete straight on with a romance story about adults… as I said I might have a harder time buying it, but yeah. I think it can.
Of course now that I think about it I KNOW it can because I’m desperately waiting for my Harry Potter copy to find out what happens with Ron and Hermione. (Who MUST have an HEA - Right? Right? JK wouldn’t be so cruel to me.)
Look - I could be dead wrong. ADIOS could be a straight romance about teens in which case it absolutely found the right category. I’m basing my comments on knowing that it was intended for YA and all the expectations that for *me* comes with a YA book.
Stephanie Doyle said on 07.17.07 at 04:50 PM • [link]
See… and I just read Julie’s comment that the book goes beyond a “YA”. And has a very different feel.
Enough said.
That’s all the explanation I needed for why it was able to hold it’s own in this category. (Also I know from another loop that Julie is really smart - and I don’t like to disagree with her :))
My reaction was just a gut reaction based on what I know about YA - which don’t get me wrong - is a great category with great books. But YA is not Single-Title Contemporary.
My hope is that YA writers submit their work next year. I’m not sure why they didn’t this year.
Rhonda Stapleton said on 07.17.07 at 04:52 PM • [link]
They did sub—just not enough…and I know some subbed and got disqualified. :( So it was unfortunate this year, but I hope people try again next year!!
Ann Aguirre said on 07.17.07 at 04:54 PM • [link]
I am curious whether those griping about the book have read all of the books in the category, including AtmOL.
If they have, then it might behoove the critics to offer more substantial commentary regarding why they disagree with the win. Blanket statements and annoyed mumblings don’t do much to support their stance.
Kalen Hughes said on 07.17.07 at 05:22 PM • [link]
Regency? Really?? A whole category for Regency?
Regency-set historicals make up roughly 50% of the historicals published over the past few years according to the board survey of back issues of Romantic Times. The category is not limited to Traditional Regencies, which have essentially ceased to be published by NY.
While MANY of us disagree with board’s decision to create two overlapping historical categories (the other one is any romance set before 1945, which clearly includes the Regency era), I think most of us did think that Regency-set historicals should be separated out from the others. We just thought the separation should be actual, no merely a suggestion.
Chicklet said on 07.17.07 at 05:31 PM • [link]
Then maybe single-title romance needs to bring its game next year, huh?
Okay, that was really snarky, and probably unnecessarily so. But I hate the anti-YA bias that seems to be driving the complaints about ADIOS winning the single-title contemporary award. People seem to think a YA novel just can’t be written as well as an adult novel, and are peeved that someone’s pointing out that just because a novel is about a young person, that doesn’t mean it’s not as valid as one written about an adult.
To which I say, have you heard of this book called To Kill a Mockingbird?
Michelle Butler said on 07.17.07 at 05:32 PM • [link]
I’m definitely going to look up this book.
This may be controversial, but I think a YA winning a Rita for best single-title contemporary romance may beg the question what is “wrong” with single-title contemporaries these days. I used to read so many more of them than I do now. Beyond Susan Elizabeth Phillips, I can’t think of a single-title contemporary author I get that much excited about one of her upcoming releases. I sometimes feel like I get my contemporary romance fix out of the Superromance line.
I do really enjoy Susan Wiggs’ novels, and I belive her books have won single-title contemporary romance Ritas in the past. But, I would argue that in the majority of her books, the romance is more of a secondary plot behind the greater, more women’s fiction, self-actualization of heroine plot that feels more important to the advancement of the story in this reader’s eyes. It may not be that different from the YA that just one the Rita based on previous comments.
So, where are all the great, single-title contemporary romance novels? Am I just missing them?
-Michelle
Jane said on 07.17.07 at 05:33 PM • [link]
I don’t know that I am all upset about the award, although my initial feeling is that a YA book shouldn’t have won the contemporary romance award. I need to think about it more but my sense is that YA is a different animal than contemporary romance and therefore you aren’t judging apples against apples.
I.e., did the Adios book win because it was a fresh story different than all the other contemporaries put in that category?
What I do find is ironic, though, it seems that the same people who are in support of Ferrer’s win are also the same people who were outspoken against the way RITAs are judged/won. I don’t know if I have the time to wade through 300+ comments on the subject, but I remember very vocal critics of the subject here on this blog. As if because a commenter now agrees with the result, the process is validated.
I think, too, that a criticism of Adios winning isn’t the same as criticizing the book itself.
Stephanie Arwen Lynch said on 07.17.07 at 05:36 PM • [link]
Sorry, but if you did not read the book how can you say it didn’t deserve to win? Romance = HEA (for the most part) right?
Adios was a romance. It happened to have a heroine who was young.
Um, read any historicals lately? Where the heroine is 16 and marries a 28 year old?
I am delighted that Barb won the Rita and not just because she is a cool chick. I think she deserved to win. The book is well-written and the story well told.
It was judged by other published authors and it was judged on its own merits not whether or not the RWA members at large would be happy.
Really twists my knickers to see people whining about a book that deserved to win.
On a personal note, I didn’t even KNOW I talked to a SmartBitch! LOL! That polka-dot dress was to DIE for! And where is that picture of the shoe?
Stephanie Doyle said on 07.17.07 at 05:38 PM • [link]
“...But I hate the anti-YA bias that seems to be driving the complaints about ADIOS winning the single-title contemporary award….”
Chicklit - I just want to be VERY clear. I do NOT in anyway think that that YA books are better/worse than a single-title stories.
I’m PRO-YA. Hell, I’m pro good books. Period.
I just think that the two categories are different.
Jane said on 07.17.07 at 05:39 PM • [link]
I admit to not having read the book, but I thought we were discussing the theoretical idea of whether a YA book should be winning a non YA category RITA. This is not dissimilar to the discussion that took place on the blog a few months ago as to whether the RITAs were relevant. It would be virtually impossible to limit a discussion of who should/should not win to those who have read all the entrant books.
Jo said on 07.17.07 at 05:44 PM • [link]
When I read that a YA title had won a catagory, my only thought it was another example of the blurring of the line between adult and YA. It seems to happen quite often in fantasy/sf that books marketed originally for adults are re-marketed for teens,ie David Eddings Belariad series and Trudy Canavan’s Black Magician trilogy and vice versa ie MaryJanice Davidson’s Jennifer Scales’ books now being printed for adults.
I have tended to be a bit warier about letting my 15 year old read my romance books, as opposed to other genres, purely due to the sexual content but after discussing some of her recent teen ‘romances’ one of which involved drugs, rape, homosexuality - both male and female and a HEA and another dealing with child sex abuse, abortion, promiscuity and a HEA, I’m beginning to think that adult romances will be a bit tame compared to YA!
Molly said on 07.17.07 at 05:45 PM • [link]
In cases of awards shows where nothing I’ve read/watched/etc. and enjoyed is a serious contender (and something I enjoyed greatly was overlooked entirely), I pretend to myself that the award is one of those cursed ones, where the winner will never produce anything of worth again.
But then, I’m a vengeful little minx.
So no matter what, I hold nothing against the winner.
Stephanie Arwen Lynch said on 07.17.07 at 05:50 PM • [link]
The point remains that this book is about a young woman’s romance. Historicals are also about young women who are sometimes even YOUNGER than the protagonist in this book.
I see utterly nothing wrong with a college-age YA winning this category. All the parameters were met except for the unspoken one. That one being “A YA shouldn’t be entered because, you know, it’s a YA.”
And yes, I do think you need to read the book to be able to state that this particular story should not have won the RITA.
I really think it is ridiculous to say that YA can’t be a single title contemporary. Is there an age limit to the hero or heroine that I missed? Is there an unwritten rule that the heroine needs to be gainfully employed to be a good book?
What are the real reasons for those of you who are saying that a YA shouldn’t have won this category?
Is the heroine of Adios less of a heroine because she’s under 21? Is she less of a heroine because she’s struggling with life issues that some of us have finished with and helped our own daughters get through? Is she less of a heroine because her story is being told in a YA category by MTV Books?
What’s the real unhappiness here, y’all? Shall we petition RWA to recategorize by age instead of genre? Shall we say that the substitute category only counts if the book doesn’t actually win that substitute category?
I didn’t hear people yelping about the paranormals that showed up in RS or Historical!
Ann Aguirre said on 07.17.07 at 05:55 PM • [link]
I think the question should really be whether it’s a romance or not. Age shouldn’t dictate whether that’s the case. The story does.
And so, yes, reading the book factors into whether one can proffer an informed opinion on the accuracy of the judging. If someone reads and says, ‘You know, this just didn’t qualify as a romance for me. I didn’t believe in the HEA. The protags were simply too young for me to believe they would be together always, so I’m disappointed this book won’, that would strike me as a valid criticism.
But as Sarah points out, some people do meet their sweethearts in high school, and they make it work. They grow up together, and thirty years later, they’re still together. So I don’t think one should eliminate YA for being YA. It goes on a book by book basis and depends on how full / satisfying the romance is. And yes, one’s response to that will absolutely be subjective. What works for one person will not work for others.
Obviously, it worked for the judges.
Becky said on 07.17.07 at 05:57 PM • [link]
“Chicklit - I just want to be VERY clear. I do NOT in anyway think that that YA books are better/worse than a single-title stories.
I’m PRO-YA. Hell, I’m pro good books. Period.
I just think that the two categories are different.”
They are very different. But YA wasn’t an option this year. So does that mean that the YA authors are SOL? You only get one shot at Best First Book. Given the options available, what would you have done?
Jane said on 07.17.07 at 05:57 PM • [link]
I love Young Adult books. I wax rhapsodic about them on the blog. I urge other readers to read them. But, there is a reason that books are categorized as YA and its not just for marketing purposes and it is not just because of the age of the protagonist. Much of the YA designation has to do with tone, setting, etc. If there is a clear line of demarcation (and maybe there is not), between YA fiction and fiction, then it doesn’t seem appropriate for a YA fiction book to win in the fiction category.
As Doyle said before, there is a reason that there are categories so that like can be judged against like. Can a straight contemporary be entered into a YA contest? Based upon the arguments put forth, such as “Is there an age limit to the hero or heroine that I missed?”, there shouldn’t be any issue with that and neither should there be category definitions.
As for my motives, I have none. What you see is what you get.
stephanie feagan said on 07.17.07 at 06:04 PM • [link]
As usual, I’m a day late and a dollar short when it comes to a new controversy. I should get out more. Damn - and I was so pleased with myself, just for being able to say Caridad and roll the r.
Clearly, I’m far too simple-minded.
Stef
runswithscissors said on 07.17.07 at 06:14 PM • [link]
Out of curiosity, what are the criteria for placing a book in the YA category?
I know, it sounds like a dumb question, but more and more I see books in the YA section that, to my mind, aren’t, or aren’t just for a YA audience. I recently spotted a copy of one of my favourite romances, A Countess Below Stairs reissued as a YA title (with another name - which I can’t remember!). More classic romances (
for one) also seem to be ending up on YA shelves. Is it simply because there’s no sex?
The boundaries seem very blurry to me - and maybe that’s no bad thing, as long as the YAs occasionally wander over to the Romance section, and vice versa.
Though I’m not sure I’ll express it as eloquently, I also wanted to support bookworm’s defence of screennames. Using a screenname isn’t a good or bad thing in and of itself. Much like the internet, it’s good if it frees someone to share her considered opinions, bad if it facilitates stupidity and malice. Would I say the things I write if I met you in person? You betcha. But you’ll have to take my alter ego’s word for it.
Bruce Wayne
Leslie Kelly said on 07.17.07 at 06:14 PM • [link]
I judged both rounds of the RITA’s and while I did not judge this particular book, I did find myself in the position of judging another YA book that had been entered in the “Traditional Romance” category (now defunct.) I assumed at the time that the author had tried to enter it in YA and this was her second choice.
The book was fantastic. I gave it an almost perfect score.
I also marked it “WC.” Wrong category. Because (IMO) it was not a romance. It was a wonderful book about a teenage girl struggling with her life and there was a tiny bit of a romance with a boy, but it was not in any way the focus of the book.
If it had been entered as “mainstream with romantic elements” I probably wouldn’t have had any problem with it…because there were “romance elements.” But it was entered as a romance and I didn’t think it was one.
I made a judgement call, obviously, but that’s what judges have to do. There are almost no guidelines for this, nobody at RWA is sitting there making sure every book ends up in the right category. It’s the judge’s responsibility to decide, and with no direction, you simply have to muddle through it on your own.
I believe that the way the RWA rules are set up, it takes 3 judges to WC a book before it’s disqualified. I honestly had no idea if 2 other judges would see it the way I did, but I had to be fair, both to this author and to the authors of the traditional romances. If the other judges didn’t see it as a problem and I was wrong, I certainly didn’t want to knock it out of contention for an award because it was that good…hence the high score. But I couldn’t just give it that high score and leave it at that.
That book did not final, though because it was dq’d or just didn’t score highly enough, I don’t know.
Situations like this are a tightrope act and I don’t know how other judges handle it. There are no wrong or right answers, just judge’s instincts. In the case of the Ferrar book (which I have been meaning to read ever since Julie raved to me about it several months ago) there simply weren’t three first round judges who thought it might not, technically, be a single title romance. Could easily have gone the other way, it just happened to be those judges.
The final round is different—you don’t have the choice to WC anyone. Once it gets to the finals it’s just rank the books from 1st to last. Period. So it all comes down to whether 3 judges in the 1st round decide it’s in the wrong category.
This was a very interesting situation. And another reason I wish RWA would get a little more specific in its judging guidelines.
SB Sarah said on 07.17.07 at 06:30 PM • [link]
Much of the YA designation has to do with tone, setting, etc.
My brain is going back and forth like Pong on this one. On one hand, there is a difference in tone, but on the other, the casual and somewhat colloquial tone I’m used to in YA has definitely started showing up in contemporary romance, especially those written in first person.
On one hand there’s a growing-up theme that’s inherent to YA, but on the other, there’s a lot of growing up or rebirth in contemporary romance as well, especially the ‘I quit my city job and move to the country/Ireland/both and find myself learning what life is REALLY about’ themes of contemporary romance - definitely a rebirth of sorts.
I’m pondering away over here, but I think there’s a great deal of overlap between expected YA themes, and current themes of contemporary romance. Now I’m going to read the blurbs about the other RITA nominees for that category to see if I’m talking out my ear.
Rebecca said on 07.17.07 at 07:07 PM • [link]
Perhaps people can propose rules changes for clarification.
However, there seems to be almost universal agreement that ATMOL is well written book.
A book that impacted both rounds of RWA RITA judges enough to make it the first choice for a ST Rita.
So if you want a rules clarification, propose it..but to the anon. commenter who just wrote bs…no..it’s not bs ..it’s a well written book, deserving of a Rita.
I also want to add that the readers of tomorrow come from capturing and holding the YA of today. So….excellence in YA romance is a GOOD thing for the future of romance, don’t ya think?
Readers for Life, right? ;)
Rosemary Clement-Moore said on 07.17.07 at 07:08 PM • [link]
I"m de-lurking to say something about the YA category, why it hasn’t made in the past, and why that will hopefully change next year.
The criteria for the YA category up til now has been pretty much exclusionary of anything but old fashioned, squeaky clean, 100% romance books. Very very few YA books (even books published as YA Romances) meet the criteria as defined by this year’s Rita.
Ferrer’s shout out to YA authors is timely, because the category has recently changed. It’s been opened way up to books that have romance as a secondary plot, and concern other themes—paranormal, suspense, coming of age, etc.
It’s about time, and hopefully this “controversy” will be a moot point next year. Maybe, maybe not. There’s a lot of fluidity in categories that are often separated by theme and setting more than the physical age of the character.
FWIW, the conversation on this thread has been considered and considerate. So far. I’ve enjoyed reading it.
Arethusa said on 07.17.07 at 07:14 PM • [link]
Maybe I have to re-adjust my idea of romance - but when I think of teenagers - I don’t think of a HEA. Too much growing to do.
As opposed to adult-hood where most of the growing is over with and the HEA is just over the horizon…?
This criticism holds very little water for me. Neither does the “straight romance” argument because how many books, of any romance genre but especially contemporary, are “straight” anymore? Isn’t there always a mystery, some local town conflict, vampires/werewolves/furry aliens, mad murderer out to get me, vulnerable female psychic-involved-with-local-police-investigation, poor girl from the small side out of town making it out on her own and blah blah blah?
For that requirement I would look more to certain Harlequin lines, or even historicals which, funnily enough, don’t seem to be making the waves they used to, which could have something to do with the fact that they tend to play it “straight”. (I’m speculating, of course.)
Teddy Pig said on 07.17.07 at 07:37 PM • [link]
Now that is interesting.
So there is a YA Romance or YA With Romantic Elements category! But… since that category did not have enough entries this year she put it into Single Title to qualify for inclusion in First Book.
Now, I can see where people might be slightly miffed since that does look to be a bit manipulative even if it is allowed by the rules. Thus I can see members asking for clarification of the standards for each category.
Maybe the way to go is to open the First Book category up or maybe even add another “Wild Card” category.
Robin said on 07.17.07 at 07:45 PM • [link]
First, my disclaimers:
1. Robin is my real name
2. I love YA
3. I have not read Adios
4. I (still) think the RITAs constitute a contest without rules
There are almost no guidelines for this
This, I think, is the issue it always comes back to for me.
Here’s mostly what I hear people saying about Adios: that it should have won because it’s a wonderful book.
To which I immediately think: Won what?
Because I think the controversy over Adios is inevitable given the way the RITAs are (not) structured. I have no beef with the book being recognized as outstanding, and I think it’s a terrible shame that the YA category was canceled. I have no beef with what Ferrer did, because the (non) structure of the awards allowed her to enter her book as she did. But still, what I’m primarily hearing from people who support the book’s win is that it was first and foremost a wonderful book. Then there are the defenses of the book as a) a Romance, and b) a YA book that *really* is like an adult book.
Is Adios a Romance as some claim, or is it a book with romantic elements as I have seen others claim? If the book is Romance, is YA Romance the same as adult contemporary Romance?
Taking the second question first, if YA Romance is the same or substantively equivalent to adult contemporary Romance, why are there different categories for Regency and historical Romance? And better yet, why have two DIFFERENT categories that Regency books can enter? And what about inspy Romance—why does that have its own category, when hey, lots of Romances invoke some sort of faith into the story? Why is it any different to say that religion at the center of a Romance creates a category than to say young adults at the center of the Romance creates a category separate and distinct from Romance with fully grown adults at the center of the Romance? It seems to me that this question goes back to the issue of categorization as part of this process, and more specifically to the question of how these categories are decided. That Adios is a fabulous book doesn’t, IMO, make it automatically appropriate for a certain category, for the same reason that no categorical distinctions guarantee that either the best books will win or that the categories reflect current publishing trends. Which IMO is the problem here.
My sense is that people who are over the moon about Ferrer’s win are celebrating the fact that a great book won. But that IMO does not in any way validate the RITA process, because if the RITAs were just about the best books winning, would those categories look like they do? Think about the categories and about how the books competed against each other *within* the categories, then look at how the categories are constructed. If anything, I think Ferrer’s win just points to the inadequacies in both the categorization and the evaluation process (i.e, lack of judging guidelines). That doesn’t mean Adios wasn’t a wonderful book, that it won unfairly, or that Ferrer shouldn’t be thrilled she won. It just means, for me, at least, that the RITAs is a contest without rules, and that therefore, it doesn’t mean a hell of a lot to me as a reader.
Which leads me to the first question way up yonder about whether Adios is a Romance or a novel with romantic elements. That’s the question that’s really causing the controversy, isn’t it, because it calls out all of these screwy distinctions in the categories and IMO highlights the absolute lack of judging criteria in the process. To be honest, I hear some people who support the win of Adios kind of backing into the question of appropriate category rather than being able to straight on say that the book is a Romance that can compete equivalently with contemporary adult Romance. Unfortunately, that discussion turns into a debate over whether Ferrer’s book should have won, which in turn becomes a potentially ugly fight between people who loved the book and others who have various reasons for objecting to the win. And then it gets bad because people feel that Ferrer is being maligned and her win tarnished. Which is too bad, both because none of this should reflect badly on Ferrer and none of it should take away from a book many people feel is truly outstanding. BUT, IMO, it also doesn’t vindicate the RITA process, and, in fact, to me just demonstrates how eccentric the contest really is, both in terms of categories and criteria. So bottom line, I don’t think it’s unfair at all that Ferrer’s book won a RITA. But I also don’t think Adios’ win validates the RITAs or means that anything was “done right” with that contest this year. To me, it’s still a contest without rules. Two separate issues, IMO.
Chicklet said on 07.17.07 at 07:46 PM • [link]
Taking a cue from SB Sarah (as I do in everything *wink*), I checked out the Amazon page for each book nominated in the category. Let’s see if I can manage to link correctly to all nine!
The Kept Woman by Susan Donovan
Ride a Painted Pony by Kathleen Eagle
Adios to My Old Life by Caridad Ferrer - WINNER
Lucy Gets Her Life Back by Stef Ann Holm
Irresistible by Susan Mallery
Heiress for Hire by Erin McCarthy
Must Love Mistletoe by Christie Ridgway
Aussie Rules by Jill Shalvis
Summer at Willow Lake by Susan Wiggs
Going by just the blurbs, editorial reviews, and reader reviews at Amazon, I think AtMOL sounds very novel—as in “new”—compared to some of the other nominees; it’s set mostly in a reality/talent show, whereas the other books have settings like family stores/restaurants, quirky small towns, a horse ranch, etc.—all locations that I’ve seen done quite a bit before. Second, it’s about a Latina heroine, and I don’t know of a lot of romances like that.
As for the age of the heroines, there are a few in their 30s-40s (single moms) and a few in their mid-20s—and then, of course, seventeen-year-old Ali. One book, Summer at Willow Lake, apparently contains lots of flashbacks to when the hero and heroine were teenagers.
Obviously, I can’t speak to the quality of plotting, characterization, or prose, since I haven’t read any of the finalists. In the interest of knowing whereof I speak, I do plan to read all of them and report back to the Bitchery. However, it won’t be until around Labor Day, because:
A) I’m rereading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in preparation for…
B) My appointment this weekend with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and besides…
C) There are NINE books in the category.
Speaking of Potteriana, this debate reminds me of the late 1990s, when the New York Times was forced to establish a separate best-sellers list for Children/YA, because so many non-Scholastic publishers complained about the Harry Potter books dominating the general best-sellers list. Apparently, people just can’t stand to be one-upped by books aimed at readers under age 18?
Ha! My spamblocker word is “issue.”
Candy said on 07.17.07 at 07:56 PM • [link]
This is true, because I’m one of those people, and I’ll tell you why: While some people see this win as Ferrer exploiting a loophole, or a dis on the quality of single title contemporary, I see it as the judges being able to recognize something of high quality and rewarding it accordingly.
And just to clarify my stance (to people in general, not you in particular, Jane): I didn’t ever say that all RITA winners suck, or that the process was completely invalid, or that a win is without worth. Just that a disproportionately large number Of sub-par books (ranging from mediocre to downright bad) have won in the past, which makes it a useless gauge of quality for me. Something like Adiós winning, however, tends to get my attention, because it indicates to me that it crossed some very interesting lines. The ones who tend to view the RITA with a skeptical eye also tend view the genre in general much more critically, and we’re also usually the ones pushing to have the boundaries expanded.
Robin said on 07.17.07 at 08:02 PM • [link]
The ones who tend to view the RITA with a skeptical eye also tend view the genre in general much more critically, and we’re also usually the ones pushing to have the boundaries expanded.
I’d much rather see the RITAs award the ten (or twenty) best titles of the year, regardless of subgenre, romantic elements, age, time frame, spiritual inclination, length, etc. With judging criteria, of course, that fleshed out the word “best” for the purposes of expressly non-categorical evaluation.
Rosemary Clement-Moore said on 07.17.07 at 08:04 PM • [link]
Sorry, Teddy. I should have clarified that better. There is a YA romance category, but it didn’t “make” because there weren’t enough entries that fit the 2007 requirements. I’m sure that’s why Ferrer’s book was entered in a non-YA category.
Next year the new criteria will go into effect, broadening the YA category and hopefully allowing enough entries that it will make.
As someone pointed out, the category criteria can be confusing and seemingly arbitrary. Right or wrong, it allows authors pick where they think their book has the best chance, or even to hedge their bets.
Some people think that’s unfair. I think it’s a contest, and as such, you do what you think will get you a win. The gamble could backfire if enough judges deem you in the wrong category.
Candy said on 07.17.07 at 08:12 PM • [link]
Regarding defining a book as YA: does it strike anybody that this sub-genre is even MORE tenuous and artificial than most?
I mean, seriously—did anybody here read strictly to their age group? When I was 11 years old, I was reading Agatha Christie, Stephen King, Cervantes, Harper Lee, Charles Dickens, Roald Dahl, Rudyard Kipling, E. Nesbit, C.S. Lewis, Gerald Durrell, Joan Aiken, Sydney Sheldon, Judy Blume, Mark Twain, W.S. Maugham, Graham Greene, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury—and that’s just a very small sample of what I found and devoured.
The Naomi Novik books that I’m burning through at top speed are marketed as YA fantasy, and my library shelves them in the Teen section. I’m not entirely sure why. Because it features dragons?
A lot of stuff gets thrown into the YA category. Once it’s there, adults will still happily read it, and read it with relatively little stigma (nobody ever blinks twice at my shelves of children’s/YA novels, but EVERYBODY’s jaw drops when they see my romance novels), but once a book is labeled as YA, it’s no longer viewed as truly an “adult” book, is it?
plaatsch said on 07.17.07 at 08:13 PM • [link]
I have absolutely no history with RWA and no beef with how they run their contest. I’m mostly ignorant of the machinations of the publishing industry. Someday, I would love to publish a book and at that time I will have to learn a lot. But first, I have to finish a book.
Barb Ferrer mentions on her blog that she would have chosen “mainstream with romantic elements” but her word count wasn’t high enough. She also says that they are changing the word count rule. If this book had been written this year, it would have gone in that category.
I was also “present” on the Crusie group when Barb first found out that YA didn’t have enough entries. Enough people - published (and unpublished) authors of contemporary and historical romance novels and avid readers - were very gung-ho about her finding a category because we loved her book, that she figured she would give it a try and see what happened. She wasn’t performing some evil trick, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of any judges, she was trying to find a place to enter her book for a prize that means something to her.
I do have to say that of the three books on the finalist list that I read, hers was the absolutely fabulous-est. I have read books by some of the other authors on the list, though not the ones up for the prize this year, and have not been as impressed with their work as I was with Adios. Maybe that’s unfair, because I haven’t read those particular books, so I’m not judging apples to apples.
But the romance element was very important to the book. She was growing up and changing and part of that was falling in love. The guy was a bit older and an intern for the music contest, so he was more restrained with her because he was 1) a good guy and knew she was too young; and 2) not willing to lose his job by shtupping an underage contest participant.
Maybe it wasn’t an HEA completely, because they were both so young, but they seemed to have a future together. It is very rare in most romance novels that I have read that I completely believe that the people are going to be happy forever and ever.
Phyllis
Ann Bruce said on 07.17.07 at 08:17 PM • [link]
There are a lot of references to the heroine’s age, so here’s my two cents:
Why do people have such a different mindset between contemporaries and historicals. One of my first books was a historical by Ruth Langan and her herione was only 16.
Ali Montero, the heroine in Adios to My Old Life, is 17.
With the historical setting the heroine’s young age is acceptable, yet not in a contemporary setting.
Seems like a double standard.
Yes, the Langan book was categorized as historical romance and the Ferrer book is YA. But what makes Ferrer’s book YA? The age of the heroine? The age of the audience? Does it matter? Is it a darn good book that fulfilled RWA’s requirements for Best Contemporary or whatever award it won?
Robin said on 07.17.07 at 08:22 PM • [link]
Barb Ferrer mentions on her blog that she would have chosen “mainstream with romantic elements†but her word count wasn’t high enough.
Of all the wacky things about the RITA categories, I understand the word count thing the least. Can anyone explain the wisdom behind these distinctions?
Teddy Pig said on 07.17.07 at 08:33 PM • [link]
I personally do not think the RWA can be trusted to provide “valid” definitions on their own industry.
I mean, look at them defining Samhain as, of all things, a Vanity Press.
I just read in Wiki WHAT a Single Title Romance is considered by most publishers, since they use these definitions for marketing purposes.
Sound reasonable to use those definitions since they are the market.
A Single Title Romance is 350 to over 500 pages.
Adios to My Old Life is 250 pages.
A Single Title Romance is defined as a non Category Romance. In other words they define it based on what it is not.
Adios to My Old Life is labeled by it’s own publisher Simon & Schuster as a Young Adult book.
The RWA has a Young Adult category to handle this issue but as was pointed out that category did not have enough entries this year.
Look like there is some valid reasons to question here.
J-me said on 07.17.07 at 08:40 PM • [link]
I think it’s wonderful that a YA book an RITA. That’s fine and dandie. Helps open readers minds to the genre of YA.
But I also have a very big problem with a YA winning. Maybe it’s from working in retail bookstores and dealing with summer reading lists, but a YA book is direct at the 13-16 market and I don’t feel that something aimed at older KIDS is something that should be recognized by the RWA. The year that Speak (a wonderful book, btw) was on the 7th grade school summer reading list and I had to warn parents about the subject matter after the first few mothers thru fits was enough of an experience for me. Having the mothers who read category romance novels start going thru the teen section and pulling out the same books their daughters might be reading is just too much for alot of women. It’s a topic for the industry as a whole and not just for the RWA. Maybe a new category of pre-teen to separate out all middle school books from the high schooler books.
I dunno. Again tho, congrats whole heartedly on the win cause that book was awesome. I can understand the unease of the win felt by many but it doesn’t stop the fact that out of the nominated books, it was the best.
Also, people who can’t put a name to an opinion do not deserve to be recognized as having an opinion. That’s about as bad a complaining about the president when you didn’t vote.
Candy said on 07.17.07 at 08:42 PM • [link]
Categories are tricksy things, aren’t they? There are certain elements that basically throw the books over the edge into a particular sub-genre. Set a book in 1804 with an ingénue heroine, and it’s a historical romance. Make the heroine a mind-reader or a vampire hunter or a shape-shifter or a witch, and whoa, it’s a paranormal. Makes me think of the “single drop of blood” laws.
What are the dealbreakers that tend to shift books into a specific sub-genre? Some that immediately come to mind are:
1. The presence of the fantastic/paranormal
2. The race of the protagonists
3. The gender(s) of the protagonists
4. The age of the protagonists—if the hero is 30 and the heroine is 17 at the end of the book, it’s a romance. If the hero’s 19 and the heroine’s 17 at the end of the book, it’s YA.
Elements that don’t shift romances into a specific sub-genre:
1. Any sort of a suspense plot—murders, mysteries, spy capers, what-have-you.
2. Hmm, can’t think of any others off the top of my head.
What do y’all think?
Mel-O-Drama said on 07.17.07 at 08:56 PM • [link]
I’m confused. I know, big surprise there.
Was there any controversy over Barb’s (Caridad’s) nomination for the RITA in this category when they announced? I think I would’ve remembered it if there had been…
So, it was okay for this beautifully written book to be nominated in Single Title, but not okay for it to win? Can someone maybe explain that to me?
I’m actually stunned people are turning this into a controversy. It’s a fantastic book and it won. So what if Barb is a nice fashionista. What does that have to do with anything? There are lots of very nice, well dressed authors out there…that doesn’t have beans to do with the contest.
Barb’s book won because it rocks and the judges recognized that. And if it wasn’t a big deal when Adios was nominated, why the hell is it a big deal now that it won?
Candy said on 07.17.07 at 09:06 PM • [link]
Robin: my feeling is—and mind you, I’m prolly talking out of my ass here—that the wordcount requirements were basically a way to differentiate category romances from single title romances, above and beyond distinctions between short story, novella and novel.
Stephanie Doyle said on 07.17.07 at 09:09 PM • [link]
“...Sorry, but if you did not read the book how can you say it didn’t deserve to win? Romance = HEA (for the most part) right?
Adios was a romance. It happened to have a heroine who was young.
Um, read any historicals lately? Where the heroine is 16 and marries a 28 year old?...”
Stephanie - I never said it didn’t deserve to win. I said was I disappointed that a book originally labled as YA and intended for the YA category - won. And that it reflected poorly on Single Title Contemp Romance.
Someone said down further - maybe the ST needs to bring a better game. And maybe that’s true. Or maybe Adios is a romance and the YA label is misleading. I don’t know.
But certainly I’m not suggesting that something as trivial as the age of the herione has anything to do with it.
As I’ve said and Jane also mentioned - YA has a certain feel to it. It tends to be more about self and exploration and less about two people overcoming a conflict, falling in love, and living HEA.
That was my only issue with the win.
I think the “controversy” as some have pointed out really has more to do with legitimizing the RITAs and finding the best way to classify books so that consistently the best books win.
Jepad said on 07.17.07 at 09:17 PM • [link]
Speaking of Potteriana, this debate reminds me of the late 1990s, when the New York Times was forced to establish a separate best-sellers list for Children/YA, because so many non-Scholastic publishers complained about the Harry Potter books dominating the general best-sellers list. Apparently, people just can’t stand to be one-upped by books aimed at readers under age 18?
I was just going to post about this when I saw your comment. It does seem quite reminscent of the complaints about Harry Potter taking up permanent residence on the NYT bestseller list. The implicit assumption seemed to be that a book appropriate for children can’t possibly be literature. In this case a book appropriate for YA can’t possibly be romance?
I might have an issue if the hero and heroine were like 14, but not when she’s 17. As others have said, there are plenty of 17-18 years olds in historicals romances.
Joanna S. said on 07.17.07 at 09:19 PM • [link]
Just to clarify a bit before I start - I’m a different “Joanna” than the one who usually posts who’s of Scottish origins. Though, I simply must give her props for her name and frequently lovely comments!
Now, to the matter at hand…
Candy makes an interesting point here that I have seen validated elsewhere. When I was visiting the UK with some friends a few years ago, I noticed the Harry Potter series shelved in the “Literature” section but with completely different covers-that is, with no YA-esque artwork. They were all black with only the title (excluding any “Harry Potter” designation) and only J. K. Rowling’s last name printed on the cover. They also usually included some sort of weird icon on the front like a floating feather or something. Anyway, these were supposedly the “adult” versions of these books - the content was exactly the same; however, the covers were more “adult” so that us grown-up types wouldn’t have to be ashamed to be seen reading a Harry Potter book on the morning commute. An idea that made me indelicately snort in indignation at the time; however, with the current controversy/debate, I find it to have a significant correlation.
Overall, I find the stigma with regard to reading YA to be fading and at a far swifter rate than the one attached to Romance reading, especially since academics can receive PhDs in English with specializations in children’s/YA literature. Romance-as-specialization has no such distinction or any real academic respect.
As Adios and so many other YA book show (and I would include the “Twilight” series by Stephanie Meyer as another compelling example), these stories/characters/plots, etc. are not the vapid and obviously juvenile Sweet Valley Highs and Babysitter’s Clubs of MY youth. There are real problems, conflicts, and romances (if no hot monkey sex to be had) in these stories. These characters desire, often in the same ways and for the same reasons as adults, and as desiring subjects/objects, they make many of the same poor choices and suffer many of the same obstacles and set-backs as many of their chronologically older counterparts in Romance. And, in reverse, they also receive many of the rewards that come with going after what they want and succeeding, which from what I gather, happens in Adios.
Therefore, I find the more significant question to be whether or not individuals are more perturbed over the age of the protagonist(s), or the age of the marketed audience for these books? If it is the former, then I agree with those who have previously stated that we must recategorize Romances where the female protagonist is under the age of 21 (or whatever age is deemed “proper adulthood”). And, in this respect, there would need to be another addition to the Regency categories because many of the herione’s in those books are only 18 or even younger. However, if the problem is the latter (as I suspect), then the answer lies not with the categories themselves, but with how the categories are dictated by marketing execs, editors, and publishing houses. If Adios had been published as an adult Romance, as opposed to a YA book, then would there be such grumblings over Ferrer’s win? Or if Rowling were to suddenly publish her final Potter book with an swanky adult cover and under the seemingly adult category of “Literature & Fiction,” then would it not be possible for her to submit _The Deathly Hallows_ for a RITA based upon the various romance plots that are admittedly secondary, but nonetheless still present in all of her books?
Robin said on 07.17.07 at 09:28 PM • [link]
Robin: my feeling is—and mind you, I’m prolly talking out of my ass here—that the wordcount requirements were basically a way to differentiate category romances from single title romances, above and beyond distinctions between short story, novella and novel.
That squares with some things I remember reading in other discussions, Candy, but it still seems weird to me, especially because IMO it’s more difficult to write an outstanding short book than one with a huge wordcount. I get the sense there’s some other anxiety around those counts—like whether categories will be read with the same seriousness, or whether the number of categories is seen to skew the odds toward or away from them, etc. If you’re trying for fairness, it seems to me that judging criteria would be more influential than categorical differentiation. Neither is completely objective, but at least one could be focused primarily on quality, with the extension of trust that readers could treat differently oriented works with fairness.
I’ll have to think some about your category distinctions, but the two categories that really brought some issues home to me this year were the long historical and the paranormal. Looking that those two categories, there is, IMO, INCREDIBLE DIVERSITY WITHIN each category, AND VERY STRONG BOOKS competing against one another. How, for example, Abe’s The Dream Thief could be compared to Cole’s A Hunger Like No Other or Snyder’s Magic Study with nary a complaint doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Then, on top of that, with so many strong books in one category, do votes split among them? For example, in the long historical category, with absolutely no offense intended to Julia Quinn, her book was not particularly well-reviewed and yet it won against books that were, IMO, stronger. I know that’s a completely subjective opinion, but when you have so many strong books clustered together in one category, does the author who has finalled seven times or something win what is basically a career achievement award for those years her book perhaps SHOULD have won but didn’t? I mean, how do you compare Pamela Clare’s Surrender with Quinn’s book and then say you can’t compare Quinn’s book with Dodd’s Barefoot Princess or Stuart’s Devil’s Waltz?
It seems to me—at this stage of my thinking—that you either need to privilege the notion of “best” or of “category,” because the idea of “best in genre by category,” is, IMO, deeply and irreparably flawed, at least as it’s been practiced in the RITAs.
Kalen Hughes said on 07.17.07 at 09:28 PM • [link]
I mean, look at them defining Samhain as, of all things, a Vanity Press.
RWA has not defined Samhain as a vanity press. The def being used is as follows:
To the extent of my knowledge, Samhain does not charge authors $, their books are available though multiple outlets (such as Amazon and Fictionwise), and I’m not under the impression that the owners of the company are responsible for writing 50% of their titles. So clearly RWA is NOT calling them a vanity press.
I think what you’re talking about is the fact that Samhain does not qualify for the new def of an “eligible publisher†because they don’t pay their authors a $1000 advance. This is an entirely separate issue, and whether you agree with it or not (I don’t, just for the record) all it means is that Samhain can’t participate in the RWA conference as an “official publisherâ€.
Personally, I don’t expect this new “eligible publisher†thing to last long, as the howls of protest from the epubs and Red Sage can already be heard . . . much like the graphical standards brouhaha, I expect this to morph or die pretty damn fast.
Stephanie Doyle said on 07.17.07 at 09:31 PM • [link]
Joanna and Jepad - it’s not the age of the heroine. It’s a question as to whether it is a romance or a YA with romantic elements.
And maybe I’m wrong - but I don’t *think* there is any type of discrimination in the romance community against YA. At least none that I’ve ever heard. There are amazing, wonderful YA books. I don’t think anyone is questioning that.
But using the example if JK Rowling decided to enter the Ritas - she would enter it in the YA category or yes book with romantic elements. (R & H 4EVER)
She would probably not enter it in Single Title Contemporary Romance.
If she did and won does it change how great her books is?
No.
Would it make me question why it won for Best ST Contemp romance?
Yes.
smartmensab-tch said on 07.17.07 at 09:39 PM • [link]
SB Sarah:
“Big girl panties are in aisle 4. Head on over and get yourself a pair.”
ROFL! Gotta remember this one!
Here’s a thought: maybe someone in Ferrar’s publishing house IS creating the controversy. What an excellent way to get free publicity…
Disclaimer: OK folks, I’m just kidding. I don’t have inside knowledge or anything.
Teddy Pig said on 07.17.07 at 09:41 PM • [link]
Pssst Kelen,
Did you read what they are saying?
“This definition includes:”
“Publishers whose “primary” means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site.”
Hey, don’t blame me. They wrote it.
I just attempt to comprehend what weird ass shit they claim makes sense this week.
Kalen Hughes said on 07.17.07 at 09:55 PM • [link]
There was a looooooooooooooong discussion of just what the word “primary” meant at the AGM, and while I agree that it is unclear, the board stated in no uncertain terms that this did not mean epubs like Samhain, EC, Loose-Id, etc. who sell through both their own website and through various other legitimate channels (such as Amazon and Fictionwise).
So to recap, RWA has NOT defined Samhain as a “vanity pressâ€.
Corrina said on 07.17.07 at 09:56 PM • [link]
One point: there is a box when judging the Ritas that says “Not Romance” that the judge can check.
I think if three judges in the initial round of five check that category, the book is disqualified. So there is a filter for books not ‘romancy’ enough for this category and ‘Adios’ made it through. Since the judges are romance writers and readers, what better system is there?
I remember the awards discussion here pretty well and also remember that the process for picking winners for the Hugos, Nebulas, Oscars, Edgars, etc., often made less sense than the Rita process.
Writers and readers judge and that’s subjective and that’s true of any creative work. All the critics said “John From Cincinnatti” was amazing and I watched and thought “what the hell were they smoking?”
So what’s a fairer way to judge? I don’t think there is one better than the imperfect way the Ritas and the GH are done. Five writers is a lot of people to satisfy all at once and for the Ritas, there’s more judges at the end.
Aside: my daughter is fourteen and reads a ton of stuff from YA to adult romances. I often read the YA with her, to check content. I’ve found the concepts tend to be more original and with a fresher presentation than adult books. I’m not sure why, I think maybe it’s because YA editors have the idea that kids constantly need new angles to be entertained and maybe the marketing people in NYC feel adults aren’t the same.
Teddy Pig said on 07.17.07 at 10:00 PM • [link]
Kalen,
Oh, so they are now defining the word “Primary” too. Well good for them. I am happy that the English language is their arbitrary play ground of fun times.
I heard that cults did this in order to control the minds of the followers.
You know, like in Orwell’s 1984 Double Plus Good speak.
Laura Vivanco said on 07.17.07 at 10:05 PM • [link]
‘Romance-as-specialization has no such distinction or any real academic respect’
We’re working on it! ;-) There were quite a lot of panels and papers on romance at the last Popular Culture Association conference. Sarah Frantz’s summaries are here, here, here and here. Also this year, An Goris, Sandra Schwab and I went to a Feminism and Popular culture conference (and there’s a summary here.
There are quite a few other romance scholars at work too.
wavybrains said on 07.17.07 at 10:21 PM • [link]
One of my RWA chapter members just shared this site with us, and I’ve got to say I love it. I’m one of the few people in my chapter who writes both adult and YA romance. Writing YA within RWA is a bit like entering a lunchroom and having no idea who to sit with as the cool kids are already buddied up. Most RWA contests for unpublished writers lack a YA category. I generally skip them b/c I don’t think that my book can really compete in any other category, and since most contests are as much about the feedback as about winning, I want my YA to get feedback as a YA. With the Golden Heart and the RITA, though, there’s no real feedback, so marking a second category in case your category is canceled makes sense. If people have issues with this, they should eliminate that part of the entry form that allows you to list an alternative category. What would make more sense given the success of Adios and other YA’s by RWA members would be to keep the RITA for YA category even in years where there are fewer entries. Reduce the minimum number of entries. I’m thrilled by Adios’s win b/c it shows the diverse appeal of YA fiction, but in most cases, it makes sense to judge YA’s against each other. The target audience of most YA’s isn’t the same as the target audience of most ST’s, so it makes sense to keep each in their own categories. Adios is one of those rare books like Meg Cabot’s and Sophie Kinsella’s that DOES appeal to multiple ages of readers, and it’s so awesome that a panel of ST judges found it worthy, but I’d still like to see a separate YA category maintained and offered each year. It’s a bit like a documentary winning best picture—sure it can happen, and it shows just how transcendent that documentary is, but there’s still a need for a separate documentary category.
Kassiana said on 07.17.07 at 10:56 PM • [link]
Ella Enchanted is a good YA epistolary romance. I would have no problem with it winning multiple awards for romance. I can’t say I have ever read any of Ms. Ferrer’s books, as (a) I don’t read much contemporary, period and (b) I don’t look for YA to read generally, but I don’t get why anyone would care that it won other than the people whose tails she beat out for the award.
Some YA is better than some stuff intended for adults. For example, I’ve read two Rachel Gibson novels and been vastly disappointed by them as they were exactly the same and weren’t at all funny. I’d reather have read just about anything by Gordon Korman, one of the Bunnicula series, or Josepha Sherman than the Gibson books.
(I hope the fact that my verification word is chief34 doesn’t mean that I’m going to come under fire by Cassie Edwards…)
Christine Merrill said on 07.17.07 at 10:59 PM • [link]
I was one of those authors encouraging Barb to enter as she did, way back in the long, cold Winter of ‘06. We had similar situations, in that both our first choice categories were dropped. For me it was easy to switch to Short Historical from Regency. But she had to struggle to find the best fit for the book, inside the rules that were presented.
I was thrilled to death to see her get 2 nominations, and even more thrilled when she won. The amazed look in her eyes at the reception, when a friend reminded her who she’d been competing against, was one of the high points of my week.
I read Adios, and thought it was a terrific book. I have no problem with a sweet YA romance competing against ‘adult’ books. Of course, I’m still married to first guy I dated in high school, and it’s been almost 30 years. Maybe I’m biased.
I’d also give her some credit for a secondary romantic line, since I kind of thought the father character was on his way to an HEA as well. Or am I remembering it with my romance writer brain? Anyway, I felt the book was romantically satisfying.
It doesn’t matter who judges, or what they change the rules to in the RITA’s. IMHO there will always be some good books that don’t fit as easily as they could, or end up in slots where critics complain.
But I am not particularly bothered by the way the contest is currently set up.
She read the rules, and entered where the book fit best.
To get where she did, she got 10 randomly chosen judges to give her high scores, based on the quality of her writing.
There was a chance to disqualify her, if the first round judges thought it wasn’t a romance. But they didn’t. Obviously there are people who think this is plenty romantic enough to play in the big leagues.
She got the same shake as the rest of us: a randomly chosen jury. And she won.
The only totally fair way to judge the contest would be for every judge to read every entry, so we could be sure they weren’t missing a better book. It would also help, if we could get people to all agree, all of the time, and maybe weed out anyone with extreme opinions or odd tastes, so nothing risky or out of the ordinary like this would ever come along and upset the category.
Personally, I would be against judging by popular vote, just for this reason. I think it is easier to miss the YA’s, or little books, or category straddlers, and get too focused on the books that everyone has read. This year, 10 judges looked at a book who might not have seen it otherwise, and they felt it deserved recognition.
But that doesn’t sound all that interesting, to me. Of course, I’m biased, because I like Barb, I liked Adios, and I like to see the underdog win.
Keri said on 07.17.07 at 11:01 PM • [link]
I’ve always thought that the difference between YA and other genres is that the main theme of the YA is the protag’s beginning forays into, and the actual rite of passage from child to adult. Romance can be a central element, but the meat, so to speak, is the navigation. Lots of romances have themes of protag self-discovery. However, they’ve usually either sucessfully navigated their rite of passage (i.e., they’re grown folks) or they haven’t and suffer angst because of it (i.e., all those lovely, lovely rakes). The meat here is the romance between the protags and a central element is the failed rite of passage.
I’ve not read the book in question or many other YA books because I’m not a big fan of rite of passage stories. I had a hard enough time going through my own to have to relive it with someone else!!! If I have this wrong, let me know so I can fall in love with another genre!
(my password is freedom23, as in freedom from 23 different kinds of dry skin…)
Robyn said on 07.17.07 at 11:20 PM • [link]
Just a question: Are books given a YA label because of the age of the protags, or the age of the demographic they’re aiming at?
Kalen Hughes said on 07.17.07 at 11:23 PM • [link]
Teddy Pig, all groups, in fact, all discussions, require the defining of terms. Whole fields of study have grown up around this issue. I’m sorry you don’t like their definition, but just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. You’re making unsupported claims, and (as usual) you’re unwilling to listen to what anyone else has to say on the topic. Enough already.
Teddy Pig said on 07.17.07 at 11:44 PM • [link]
Kalen,
You are having to translate what the intent of RWA in this note.
That’s great but it makes no sense to what they actually wrote.
Just check the reactions from other people when they got that little note. Sorry if I do not think they were wrong in their reaction either. I believe they read exactly the same thing I did.
“This definition includes:”
Vanity Press has a set definition already in the industry.
Small Press has a set definition already in the industry.
I behooves a “professional” organization to at least try to use them correctly not define them however they feel like it.
iffygenia said on 07.17.07 at 11:46 PM • [link]
People seem to think a YA novel just can’t be written as well as an adult novel
That’s obviously silly and has nothing to do with my opinion.
I hate the anti-YA bias that seems to be driving the complaints about ADIOS winning the single-title contemporary award.
I love YA. But I believe it’s a fundamentally different genre from “contemporary romance”. Maybe this book straddles the line. If that’s the case and it’s as fabulous as people say, I can see why it won. Regardless, it *looks* weird from the outside. I can see why it would lead to anonymous bitching. You’re condemning people who may not be in the same position you are.
I’m disappointed because people can’t disagree without being anonymous sniping buttmonkeys. Have some stones people. If you’re disappointed, say so and be a grown up.
I TOTALLY disagree with you on that. The nicey-nice culture of romance is a GREAT reason to post anonymously. In a culture that’s intolerant of criticism, only those with nothing to lose (bloggers, NOT authors) have the freedom to blast away publicly.
Besides, if someone known to the romance community posted that they disagreed, and things snowballed, bloggers would jump all over it as a huge error in judgment. Then we’d have a chorus of “Discretion is the better part of valor” type posts.
Of course, those posters could have just said nothing; but maybe they feel they have a point that needs to be raised about the nature of YA vs adult romance. Those who just say “Wrongwrongwrong!—Anonymous” aren’t really making their point. But I’d rather they speak up.
iffygenia said on 07.18.07 at 12:06 AM • [link]
Sigh. I had an attack of crazy-mouse. That should have read:
I love YA. But I believe it’s a fundamentally different genre from “contemporary romanceâ€. Maybe this book straddles the line. If that’s the case and it’s as fabulous as people say, I can see why it won. Regardless, it *looks* weird from the outside. I can see why it would lead to anonymous bitching.
You’re condemning people who may not be in the same position you are.
. . . .
I TOTALLY disagree with you on that. The nicey-nice culture of romance is a GREAT reason to post anonymously. In a culture that’s intolerant of criticism, only those with nothing to lose (bloggers, NOT authors) have the freedom to blast away publicly. You’re condemning people who may not be in the same position you are.
Corrina said on 07.18.07 at 12:07 AM • [link]
Is YA fundamentally different?
Michael Hauge defined character arc in his workshop at National as moving from Identity (how a character perceives themselves) to Essence (their true self). The journey comes as they face the fears that caused the creation of the identity and are able to get past them and become their true self.
Granted, a YA would be the first time a character makes that journey but I’m not sure that’s a significant enough difference. Note: that’s if you buy into Hauge’s definition.
There is a difference in novel length and in the age of characters between adult and YA. Also, some YA novels deal with things that wouldn’t interest adults but there are some that do. Harry Potter is a great example of YA concepts appealing to adults.
Victoria Dahl said on 07.18.07 at 02:04 AM • [link]
Idon’t know what the rest of you consider a happy ending, but I consider it the POSSIBILITY of an HEA. I don’t expect everyone to get married and make bebbies together. In a contemp. I expect them to keep dating or even move in or get engaged. So Caridad’s book (which I read) certainly fits this definition for me!
Unlike many YAs, Caridad actually thrust her character into a very adult world. She was competing against adults, and on the verge of adulthood herself.
As to RWA and the damn definit ions *sigh*. . . Blah, blah, blah, it’s all getting slowly worked out. IMHO, huge inroads were made this year, and I don’t doubt there will be more next year. Hopefully the vanity press language will be clarified as there was much discussion of what “primarily” means in the legal sense, blah, blah, blah.
Also, the writer chooses her own category, according to what she thinks will fit. If it’s paranormal and historial and YA, it’s got to be the author’s call. Seems as fair as any other way of doing it.
Last, I find it laughable to think that Caridad had some huge advantage by entering the Single Title category. Maybe her work was fresher. I don’t know. But she was taking a big, big risk. The judges had every right to mark it Wrong Category and they did not. The judges signed up to judge ST, not YA. It seems more likely they would have drawn back in horror at something that didn’t fit, rather than gasp out “Thank God! Something different!!! This MUST be our winner!!!” I mean we are talking about an organization that many seem to find stagnant and unchangeable. It can’t be both.
I was seriously impressed when she won. Seems to me she was fighting an uphill battle.
Victoria Dahl said on 07.18.07 at 02:13 AM • [link]
Btw, I have the right to say “Blah, blah, blah,” because I did my duty and sat throught the General Meeting. I’m glad I did. I got to hear all the arguments and clarifications. I feel I got a good grip on everything. I enjoyed listening to all the truly passionate members who spoke.
And I now have the right to say “Blah, blah, blah,” and not have it be disrespectful. Much. Yea, me!
Teddy Pig said on 07.18.07 at 02:22 AM • [link]
HAH! You rock Victoria Dahl!
Now see, if someone had just said oh it’s all blah blah and just whoever wrote it down got it wrong and we are working it out.
I would have gone with it. Shit happens.
Teddy Pig said on 07.18.07 at 02:32 AM • [link]
Oh and Victoria,
About your new book cover… Daaaaaamn girl.
If those two were anymore exposed you would only be able to sell that thing in adult book stores.
I hope it is huge.
Arethusa said on 07.18.07 at 02:40 AM • [link]
Maybe it’s from working in retail bookstores and dealing with summer reading lists, but a YA book is direct at the 13-16 market and I don’t feel that something aimed at older KIDS is something that should be recognized by the RWA.”
But wouldn’t you also know, as someone who works in retail, how arbitrary the YA label can be? The Book Thief was marketed as an adult book in Australia but a YA title in the states. The Curious Dog Night Time whatever the fuck that book is called (pardon moi, I don’t remember) is marketed as adult in North America but adult in other territories. M.T. Anderson’s latest novel won the NBA for YA novel and is marketed as such but there’s a huge discussion on whether the sophistication of the language makes it better for adults. Then there’s Lian Hearn’s Otori Quartet, Garth Nix’s Abhorsen trilogy that’s in YA and adult editions…
do I need to continue? This YA category only sprung up out of nowhere some years ago, it’s hardly set in stone.
Arethusa said on 07.18.07 at 02:42 AM • [link]
Caveat: I know jack shit about the RITAs. As a reader they don’t blip on my radar. I’m just in this for jollies.
KellyMaher said on 07.18.07 at 02:57 AM • [link]
There are a lot of interesting facets to this discussion. The one I’d like to touch upon is the protagonist age issue of historical versus YA. There are a few reasons why reading about an 18-20 year old heroine in a historical does not bother me. The main one for me, “adulthood†was conferred upon persons in their early to mid-teenage years by society at large at the times most of the historicals I read are set. It wasn’t really until the 1940’s/50’s that adulthood was pushed back to those aged 19+. I think, with the recent profusion of historical heroines in their twenties or older, those trying to argue that someone aged 17 today is as mature as a 17-year-old of 1800 is not on as firm debate ground as they could be. When I pick up a historical, I have already bought into an expected level of maturity of the protagonist, solely due to the time setting. I’m not going to touch the debate facets of whether or not a YA should or should not have won an “adult†category as a number of other posters have ably expressed my varied thoughts on the matter. The age point was just something that kept sticking in my craw :)
Victoria Dahl said on 07.18.07 at 03:28 AM • [link]
If those two were anymore exposed you would only be able to sell that thing in adult book stores.
I hope it is huge.
Well, Teddy Pig, as the author, I can assure you that it IS huge. *Victoria descends into hysterical laughter at her own joke. As always.*
Thank you so much. Damn, I do love it so.
I made a video slideshow thing for my MySpace, but Photobucket keeps deleting the little snippets of my cover for being “inappropriate.” I’m rather of pleased with that.
Jenny Crusie said on 07.18.07 at 04:28 AM • [link]
I haven’t read the other comments (sorry!) but these are the same kind of idiots who made the NYT start a children’s book list because Harry Potter was screwing up the NYT bestseller list.
A good book is a good book is a good book. The fact that Barb’s book won in a field of “adult” single titles tells you that it was head and shoulders above the others because there must have been some innate prejudice at work there—look at the prejudice in the comments against it—and yet it made it through to the finals and the win.
As for anonymous, yeah, I hate anonymous posters. Throwing rocks from the underbrush but not taking responsibility? Sorry, no credibility unless your name is on the post.
Kim Ivora said on 07.18.07 at 06:34 AM • [link]
I was surprised to read the sour grapes (on this blog and others) the night of the Ritas. It’s really very simple to me. Adios was chosen as a finalist by 5 judges and then chosen the winner by 5 more judges. As was said before, it could have been disqualified due to wrong category, but it wasn’t.
10 judges read the book and it averaged the highest score of all the books in its category. YA or not, that spells a winner.
Katie Dickson said on 07.18.07 at 06:47 AM • [link]
Anonymous posting annoys the heck out of me, no doubt about it. But putting your name on gutless sniping or name-calling doesn’t make it any better; people use the Interweb as a forum for witless spew and could care less that their names are attached.
These people are obviously not writers.
But I am always faintly suprised when my other blog, which often gets socio-political, illicits these kinds of reactions: “Die, liberal bitch!” and other assorted dingbattery with lots of misspellings and ad hominim attacks. Would these people (lots of upper middle class white dudes in that bunch) say this kind of thing to my sweet, blonde 20 year old face (and ass) while engaged in reasoned discourse?
The obsious answer is no. They’d be too busy trying to look down my shirt, for one thing, and for another these kinds of comments, if made in person, would make them sound criminally insane.
Internet assmonkeys, rawr.
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 08:18 AM • [link]
As for anonymous, yeah, I hate anonymous posters. Throwing rocks from the underbrush but not taking responsibility? Sorry, no credibility unless your name is on the post.
Bypassing the reference to “idiots” for now, I do have to say that I find the distinction between anonymous posters and so-called named posters artificial—breeding, IMO, a false sense of security in a name that is quite often not attached to a real person any more than “anonymous” is detached from a real person. In other words, anyone can pluck a name out of the air and plop it in the comments—and people do it all the time. That I’m too lazy to remember an array of pseudonyms doesn’t, IMO, make my opinion any more valid than an articulate anon, especially given the popularity of ad hominem attacks online. In fact, sometimes I feel the anon posting is more honest than the pseudonymous posting, especially when the alter ego isn’t consistently known to me.
I understand how human nature values a name over an “anon,” but if the name is presented merely for the purpose of artificial credibility, it can, IMO, be transgressive of that very standard. In other words, tell me honestly you don’t want to give your name rather than fooling me into believing you’re someone particular—anyone particular—because in neither case are you telling me who you are, and in the second, you’re actually *pretending* to be someone else.
And even if the choice is between a pseudonymous poster I recognize and an anon, if the anon has something reasonable to say, I’d rather the comment itself be entered into discussion than the poster feel too intimidated to attach their name to it. It’s scary out here sometimes, ladies. There are times I want to post anonymously, too, but I just can’t bring myself to it, because inevitably I’ll screw up somehow and end up so involved in the discussion that I’ll post under my own name and ruin the illusion entirely. But it is sooooo tempting sometimes. And it takes a boatload of live whacko to make me scared of anyone.
jmc said on 07.18.07 at 12:43 PM • [link]
Late to the party, as usual. But I’ll chime in anyway.
I’ve read AtMOL. I picked up a copy of it after reading SB Sarah’s review. And I loved it—it was an A- read for me. But I never, ever thought of it as a YA Romance as I read or even after I finished; I thought of it as straight YA. Yes, there is a romantic thread in the story, but that storyline wasn’t primary or even a secondary storyline; it came in at a distant third place in terms of narrative importance, I thought. It was a bit predictable and a little disappointing in comparison to the other things going on in the book. (JMO—YMMV)
I haven’t read the other candidates for the Best Contemporary Category, so I can’t speak to their quality. And I don’t have a problem with a YA Romance winning…but AtMOL wasn’t a romance. At least, no more a romance than, say, Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum books are. Yes, there’s a love triangle in those books, but I don’t think anyone would label them Romance. Would everyone be as up in arms if Lean, Mean Thirteen won in this same category? Or would it be marked as “Not Romance” and thus disqualified?
Of course, slapping at RITA tag on a book doesn’t make a difference to me, as I’m not sure what the point of the contest is. So who won or not is irrelevant for my reading purpuses.
taybug said on 07.18.07 at 01:43 PM • [link]
I don’t think I have ever read a YA, even when I was a YA myself. I was gobbling up Kathleen Woodiwiss and La Nora by the time I was 14. But I am putting Adios in my Amazon cart right now, just to see what all this hulabaloo is about!
And the word verification isn’t working right! Whaaa!
monimala said on 07.18.07 at 02:00 PM • [link]
I’m a bit late to the controversy and can’t even remember which non-anonymous handle I usually use when I’m here (let’s hope this is the one), but I wanted to throw in a cent and a half as a reader of both YA and contemporary romance.
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Aside from word count being a factor, two of my favorite contemporary romances of all time are A Ring of Endless Light by Madeleine L’Engle and Blood and Chocolate by Annette Curtis Klause. Sure, you could say they’re about finding a sense of self, growing up, blah blah blah, but ask people what they come away with from those books and most of the time it’s “Vicky and Adam,” or “Vivian and Gabriel.” (Heck, Adam is even shirtless on the cover I have!)
There’s romantic conflict, a relative HEA, and both novels are emotionally driven. I’d pick them up for a reread before most “straight” contemp. any day, but I’d also consider them romances if I was asked, because it’s the budding love story running through the core that engages me most as a reader.
I definitely want to read Adios to My Old Life now because it sounds right up my alley. Not to mention the fact that a novel with a Latina protagonist a major industry award is something that should be lauded and encouraged.
I dip into both young adult and adult literature all the time and, more often than not, it’s the books marketed to teens that are fresh, offer a new kind of romance, and often put “grown up” books to shame. That’s clearly what happened in this particular case, if the judges in the category felt like ATMOL was the best of the lot. If Ferrer was able to bring it on, more power to her!
Yay for YA!
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 03:35 PM • [link]
And I don’t have a problem with a YA Romance winning…but AtMOL wasn’t a romance. At least, no more a romance than, say, Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum books are. Yes, there’s a love triangle in those books, but I don’t think anyone would label them Romance. . . . Of course, slapping at RITA tag on a book doesn’t make a difference to me, as I’m not sure what the point of the contest is.
This is why I’m unconvinced by the assertions that if Adios passed the scrutiny of ten judges or whatever that it somehow validates the RITA process. I have absolutely no doubt that the judges scored the book as they did because they thought it was wonderful, and not having read it yet, I can’t dispute that claim in the least (and don’t want to anyway, since to me the issue isn’t at all whether the book was good or not). Had a book that was less strongly supported but just as categorically controversial won that category, how would people be reacting? Because the combination of byzantine categorical rules and invisible judging criteria IMO make the possibility of that happening as likely as anything else. And that’s what I think bothers me about using Adios as an example of ‘what’s right with the RITAs.’ If anything, I see the win as an example of ‘what’s right with Adios but still wrong with the RITAs.’
snarkhunter said on 07.18.07 at 04:14 PM • [link]
Late to the game, but with a question.
But, there is a reason that books are categorized as YA and its not just for marketing purposes and it is not just because of the age of the protagonist.
I’ve never understood this assertion. What is it, then, that categorizes them as such? People have bandied about words such as “tone” (I believe Sarah acknowledged the more casual tone) and thematic content (coming-of-age), but, like everyone else here, I’ve seen novels classified as YA that I would put on the adult shelves, and vice versa. It’s an artificial distinction.
People’s complaints seem to focus on two things: 1) The romance was not the focus of the story. 2) The protagonists were too young for a contemporary HEA to be believable.
I haven’t read the book. But I look at #1, and then I look at Nora’s books, or Jenny Crusie’s, and I think, yeah, the romances are important, but in many ways those books are more about the mystery or the protagonists’ growth as individuals than they are about the romance itself. The romance is part of their growth—at least in a well-written book—not the other way ‘round.
#2 seems silly to me for two reasons. One, how do we define HEA, truly? Is it marriage and babies, or is it just that the protagonists will continue their growth together in a relationship? Sure, the majority of romances don’t start when people are in their teens, but it’s insulting to those that *do* to say that such things never work. (I’m prickly about it as the product of one such romance—my parents married as teens in the late 1970s, and, no, it was not a shotgun wedding, thank you.)
On some level, though, I wonder if the real argument here isn’t about how we define YA, but, rather, about how we define romance. As the genre grows, so do the problems attached to it.
skyerae said on 07.19.07 at 08:56 PM • [link]
Admittedly I know nothing about the RITA’s, so for myself I would have to ask these questions:
Is it contemporary? Yes
Is it romantic? Yes
Is it the best book among the finalists? It would seem so since it won. I haven’t read the other books so I can’t throw my opinion down.
Adios seems to be universally appealing and IMO that is what counts the most.
Also, I agree and disagree with the comments regarding age of the protagonist in romances.
In the 18th and 19th century it was not uncommon for very young women to be considered grown up, get married and have children. Today it is far less common and I agree with that statement. However, that should not imply that 17 year olds today are not capable of being grown up, getting married and having children. In certain circumstances they are.
Cat said on 07.24.07 at 12:42 PM • [link]
I just wanted to chime in a bit on what the category “YA” means, as one of those academics with a PhD. in children’s/YA lit. The answer is: no one really knows where the boundaries of YA versus adult fiction lie. Children’s/YA lit is pretty much the only genre defined by *audience*, rather than content—and moreover, an audience that has no real say in the writing, editing, publishing, and distributing of the books for them. (Compare this to, say, romance, where most of the people who write and edit romances are… romance readers.)
So, some people think YA lit should be limited to books specifically published for teenagers—but that’s problematically narrow, as a lot of scholars are reluctant to cede wholesale genre definition to corporations. Also, recently, there are *way* too many books that are published in both adult and YA forms. Others think that “anything teenagers read” should count as YA, but teenagers read a *lot* of random things, and that’s far too broad a category to be useful. The loose working definition most scholars tend to go with is some version of “books about teenagers with special appeal to teenage readers.” While there are certainly publishing trends in YA—the genre was marked for a *long* time by first-person “problem novels”—I think it’s problematic to claim that YA books differ fundamentally in tone from adult books, because the genre is way too diverse these days, and because the margins are so fuzzy.
As for YA heroines versus historical heroines: the category “teenager” as we understand it today is a very recent historical phenomenon—like, early 20th century. The development of teenager-hood as an extended transition between childhood and adulthood had to do with expansion of industry, greater specialization in education, and the move away from a farming economy. Before that, you became an adult when you were physically capable of doing an adult’s work: a man’s labor, or bearing children. Historical heroines aren’t really “teenagers” as we understand them, because they were considered de facto adults by their societies.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments