Bitchin' Blog Posts
On the presence of bloggers and costumes at the RWA Nationals
by Candy | by Candy | July 17, 2007 | Tuesday at 11:48 pm | 634 CommentsKate Rothwell posted some rather interesting reactions to the presence of bloggers and reviewers at the RWA this year. One author noted:
...that kind of bothered me at this conference. Stuff like [the costumed writers] and all the blog reviewers being there. It just started to feel like it was maybe turning into a fan conference rather than a professional organizations’ annual meeting.
I just think the two should be kept separate. You want to have a time for authors to meet the press (or reviewers)—like the librarians thing or the booksellers thing, great. But being a part of everything just didn’t seem appropriate to me. Like a conflict of interest. It’s our conference and a time for us to discuss our industry.
Conflict of interest was a rather interesting term to use, and I don’t think it’s accurate. Us bloggers (OK, I can speak only for Sarah and me specifically) went to the conference to a) report back on what goes on behind the scenes to the readers, and b) meet a whole bunch of people we’ve been interacting with on-line for ages, both authors and readers. I’m not sure what sort of conflict of interest there’d be in what we did, especially because all of us were pretty up-front about who we were and what we did. A lot of readers are curious about what goes on at Nationals, and they want to see it from the perspective of other readers, and that’s what we tried to provide. And to my mind, engaging the readers is a GOOD thing.
The authors-vs-reviewers divide is not a new one, but I really wish authors would see that we’re the biggest champions of the cause they could ever, ever have. Lookit, we love the books, and we love the genre. We love them SO MUCH, we’re willing to fly hundreds of miles to MOTHERFUCKING DALLAS in JULY just so we can observe and report on another aspect of the enterprise.
I can understand wanting to avoid turning the RWA into a circus, but despite my Ebil Plan to completely disrupt proceedings with my purple-streaked hair, my magnificent rack and my army of invisible midgets, things were pretty tame. Not even a single explosion, and certainly no limbs severed, nor any blood spilled. (Note to self: next time, more dismemberment, less re-enactment of silly Youtube videos for the benefit of people at the bar.)
And come, now: how many bloggers/reviewers were there vs. published and aspiring authors? Jane, Sarah, me, Sybil, Kristie, Wendy the Super Librarian and a couple of reps from AAR (I finally got to meet Anne Marble) were the ones I knew about; I doubt there were a whole lot more, because it’s a pretty small community. We’re a pretty small gang, folks, and unless you knew what to look for, we didn’t even register as a blip on the radar.
The overall impression I got from what was expressed on Kate’s blog was that the author wanted the conference to be more of a writers’ retreat than anything else. I know it feels like we’re invading a sort of safe haven, but based on the fact that the RWA allows non-members and associate members to join the conference, it’s a good bet that this isn’t what it was meant to be in the first place.
There was also a bit of a to-do about people like Marianne Mancusi dressing up like the characters for their Shomi books. I looked at the photo, and I honestly don’t see the big deal. The costumes look tarty and fun, and frankly, I want to steal those pink thigh-high stockings from Liz Maverick, because I have a similar-looking pair but they refuse to stay up. I wish I could grab the people who are worried by the cosplay, shake them gently and say “LIGHTEN UP. They’re having fun. A mini-skirt and flashing a bit of cleavage ain’t the end of the world, and we’re honestly not expecting this from everybody.”
We bitch quite a bit about how the genre is afraid of change, how much stagnancy there is, how we’re not drawing in the next generation of readers—but when somebody does something that will actively engage younger readers, that will help explode the myth that romance authors and readers are middle-aged housewives in terrycloth bathrobes and curlers in our hair, people throw up their hands, go “Lawksamercy!” and cluck worriedly. I know, I know, there’s a lot of anxiety regarding publicity and marketing, and the PR machine is indeed an ugly beast sometimes, especially for the authors who just want their books to speak for themselves without them having to put on any sort of a spectacle, but seriously: LIGHTEN UP.
Selah March said on 07.18.07 at 12:17 AM • [link]
So…does this mean you’ll be in Pittsburgh for RT this year? I want my shot at having my photo taken with your magnificent rack.
I mean you.
I mean you and your magnificent rack.
Yeah.
Chicklet said on 07.18.07 at 12:31 AM • [link]
Color me confused. I thought the complaint from a few weeks ago was that romance wasn’t getting reviewed in mainstream book-review sections in newspapers—now the plan is to get all hinky about online reviewers being at RWA? The people who are actually, you know, reviewing romance novels?
Do these authors want me to read their books or not?
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 12:38 AM • [link]
The authors-vs-reviewers divide is not a new one, but I really wish authors would see that we’re the biggest champions of the cause they could ever, ever have. Lookit, we love the books, and we love the genre. We love them SO MUCH, we’re willing to fly hundreds of miles to MOTHERFUCKING DALLAS in JULY just so we can observe and report on another aspect of the enterprise.
Afuckingmen! (I have a serious potty mouth in RL, but try not to carry it over into blogspace—apologies to all who dislike swearing).
I would only add to this that readers who review—at least the ones at issue in this community—DO IT FOR FREE. Truly, I understand how some authors might feel uncomfortable with reader bloggers around, especially if they might not feel real comfortably disposed to us to begin with, but if RWA wants a “professional writers” only conference (and if that’s what they want, go for it, I say), it will need to look very different from National. I LOVED reading all the posts from Dallas, and one of the things that heartened me the most was the sense of real community among so many different folks who—despite their different roles—LOVE THE ROMANCE GENRE. Nobody (okay, practically nobody) reads and reviews Romance because they hate the genre or want to take it down. But man, I sure do feel sometimes that there’s some palpable resistance around readers wanting the best from a genre they invest a great deal of time and energy reading. And how sad is that. OTOH, kudos to those authors who graciously celebrated with the non-authors—at core, I really do think that the interests of readers and authors are or should be aligned, at least at the level of appreciating the genre and wanting to see it thrive.
Barb Ferrer said on 07.18.07 at 12:50 AM • [link]
Personally, I like seeing the reviewers at our conferences. I like talking to them about trends and books we like or dislike or what they might perceive as a potential flaw in something I wrote and I like doing it face to face because oftentimes, things can get skewed in cyberspace. I also like seeing readers and talking to them. Yes, I like having Writer Time too, but that’s why there are various tracks offered and of course… the bar.
Color me confused.
Rosemary Clement-Moore said on 07.18.07 at 12:52 AM • [link]
I own a pair of thigh highs like Liz’s. Check out http://www.sockdreams.com I LOV.E mine.
This is only my 3rd RWA National. I’m more used to SF and Fantasy Cons, which are all about reader/writer interaction. I understand that the Romantic Times convention is much more like that. I’m going to Pittsburgh next year, and I’m jazzed.
If a blogger is serious enough about reporting about Romance books to pay the conference fee, I’m all for their presence. Nationals is (apparently) where stuff gets done and gossip gets going. I’m not really in on any of it, so I don’t know. :-)
Teddy Pig said on 07.18.07 at 01:10 AM • [link]
Step 1: Readers infiltrate RWA Writers Conference
Step 2: Blog about it
Step 3: Profit
Our Ebil Plan requires an entrance fee ohnoes!!111111 we needs fundage!
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 01:10 AM • [link]
you see Nora’s response to the issue of costumes? In my blog? (I have to get over the pathetic little thrill of writing “nora’s response in my blog”.)
Anyway, it’s in the post above the one you’ve linked to.
Hey, easy enough for you to say lighten up you gorgeous creature. I have, thanks—I’m down 40 lbs. Turns out after that, there is no way I will display any part of an upper leg. When I saw those costumes, which do exactly that, and thought MISTAKENLY it was something the publisher really liked and wanted, something died inside. Not a little feathered birdy called hope, but close enough.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 01:12 AM • [link]
btw in my last post “liked and wanted” is a euphemism for “required authors to do or perhaps not get another contract”
Turned out the costumes were the idea of couple of writers having fun.
Victoria Dahl said on 07.18.07 at 01:35 AM • [link]
Personally, I feel a lot more pressure about what I’m saying and how I’m behaving when I could be in the presence of editors and bookbuyers, etc. People with power in the industry, unlike you two. PAH-hahahahaha!
Seriously, I loved getting to know the Bitches, and it was even more relaxing knowing they might still eviscerate my sweet little red-satin baby. I didn’t have to kiss up, because that shit won’t work anyway. As to any other VIPs… I guess I was too ignorant to make note.
Katidid said on 07.18.07 at 01:36 AM • [link]
Just a quick comment. I crossed the Pacific to attend the RT conference this year, which ostensibly is meant to be a readers conference, and was absolutely shocked at what they thought readers wanted. Booklovers’ charades? Unscramble the book title? Hardly. Readers want to interact with authors, ask questions, gush about books, get things signed. But the RT programming was completely geared towards authors and aspiring authors, with sessions on how to find an agent, POV, and others. I (not an aspiring author) attended the writer-geared sessions because otherwise I wouldn’t have seen most of the authors I wanted to meet, but ended up bored and doodling through most of it. Even the evening entertainments were very segregated, with long tables set aside for certain publishers, authors, etc, and the readers marginalised to the edges. If you’re an author attending the RT conference, may I make a humble suggestion? Grab a couple of people in the same genre, and run a Q/A for readers. I would have loved to see a bunch of historical authors together so I could ask how hard it is to find out what medieval underwear looks like (just an example :) ), or find out how suspense authors know how a bomb works. Or even which movie stars they think their heroes most resemble.
Until there’s a proper reader/writer conference (like they do with the SF/Fantasy conferences), I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to expect readers, reviewers, bloggers, and others intertwined in the romance industry to want to attend the RWA.
word: hope66 ... ‘cause I hope that one day we’ll all just get along :)
Teddy Pig said on 07.18.07 at 01:37 AM • [link]
Forget books, I wonder what Janet Evanovich would get on EBAY?
I say we think bigger, we need to stay ahead of the riff raff.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 01:38 AM • [link]
Selah: Sarah and I are contemplating going to RT. We’ll see if we can swing it. I’ll be in school then, and Sarah will have a new baby to take care of. If we do make it, photo ops with the Wonder Twins will happen fo sho.
Rosemary: Oh, yes, I know allll about the Sock Dreams. That’s where I got those thigh highs I mentioned. I need to get ‘em a size smaller or something. Sigh.
Kate: Saw the response. I responded in return, but I’ll reiterate here for the benefit of those who haven’t read it yet: Nora sez costumes are silly and tarnish the image of the genre. And she has a point—I remember laughing in horrified amusement when I saw those pictures of Rebecca Brandewyne dolled up like her cover art, and Laurell K. Hamilton and her posse posing with pistols Anita Blake-stylee while wearing mom jeans. But there are costumes, and there are COSTUMES. Man Faye is one thing; Mancusi and Maverick having a bit of fun with short skirts and thigh highs is another. It’s all about knowing what looks stylish vs. what’s ludicrous, and in my opinion, Mancusi and Maverick stayed well within the bounds of good taste. But then y’all have seen that I enjoy tarty, loud and colorful, which is something to take into account.
And yeah, I can totally understand you feeling doomy and gloomy over the prospect of publishers pushing authors towards dressing like their characters. If that truly had been the case, I would’ve been right there, grumbling and growling with you.
Nora Roberts said on 07.18.07 at 01:58 AM • [link]
I’ve already commented on this on a couple of blogs, so I’m not going into detail here. But I think if there were some writers uncomfortable with readers/reviewers/bloggers they were in the very small minority. Most loved it, interacted and had a great time.
As for costumes, I stand by my previous statements. The young girls were very, very pretty. And very inappropriately attired—imo—as writers in a public, media-attended event. But it was the big-ass black swan that really got me.
Sherrilyn Kenyon will hate me forever for picking on this. But, I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.
Lighten up. Easy to say when you’re not CONSTANTLY called on to defend the genre and its readers and writers to the media, then have the media focus on the costumes so the image projected is silly women rather than interesting professionals who write Romance.
Candy, as a blogger—even a blogger with a book deal—I thought you were adorable in every way. It’s a different kettle, entirely.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 02:03 AM • [link]
bah.
so the theory that maybe romance is getting a bit more respect these days (I mentioned it over at my blog) isn’t real?
KellyMaher said on 07.18.07 at 02:03 AM • [link]
I urped a little at those Man Faye pictures. Thanks, Candy. And now you’ve got me contemplating showing up to a conference wearing my plaid flannel robe and curlers in my hair. I really won’t though ‘cause I like to dress up at conferences since I don’t dress up that much in real life. I still have that princess complex, hence, why I chose a basket with a tiara in it at a recent fundraising raffle ;)
KellyMaher said on 07.18.07 at 02:05 AM • [link]
Oh yeah, and when I say dress up, I mean somewhat formally…I pull out my devil horns for my library conferences :D
Nora Roberts said on 07.18.07 at 02:11 AM • [link]
I just homed in on something. Why does a professional writer want to look ‘tarty’, any more than she wants to look like a housefrou with curlers? These are sort of polar opposite ends of imagery, and both are not flattering or complimentary.
Allie said on 07.18.07 at 02:20 AM • [link]
You what was worse then that. Being there as a used bookstore seller. I felt so out of place.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 02:21 AM • [link]
Nora: the biggest part of the reason why I adore you is because you do call it as you see it, and how you can disagree with panache. That, and your awesome freakin’ shoes.
I didn’t get to see Kenyon’s giant swan hat, but it sounds like it was as magnificent as Björk’s dead swan dress.
I was thinking some more about the Mancusi/Maverick costumes, when I realized that if they’d pulled this at an SF/F con, I wouldn’t feel any particular way about it, good or bad, but because they did it at RWA, I’m all “Woo hoo, awesome.” It is, in essence, a dorky thing to do—mind you, I love me some dorkiness—but I think my positive reaction had to do with the way they subverted the romance author/reader stereotypes. They were being dorks, yes, but they weren’t being dorks in a way that people typically expect romance authors to be dorks. There was, in short, dork cross-pollination, and I’m all for that, because I want people to realize that more people than they realize, with interests wider than they could ever imagine, read romance novels. I love subverting people’s expectations that way.
I was thinking it’d be great to have an ad in which there’s a collage of faces of all colors and types. A heavily pierced, tattooed girl wearing heavy eyeliner. A middle-aged woman with colorful a mohawk and a spiked labret piercing. A grey-haired woman dressed in an expensive suit. A high school girl. A woman in an army uniform. A man in an army uniform. A woman dressed in Renn Fayre drag. Etc. And underneath all that: “I’m a romance reader.”
Lighten up. Easy to say when you’re not CONSTANTLY called on to defend the genre and its readers and writers to the media, then have the media focus on the costumes so the image projected is silly women rather than interesting professionals who write Romance.
That will hopefully change once the book comes out, ha. (The constantly being called on to defend romance readers and authors to the media, I mean. We do plenty of it on this tiny slice of the Intertubes, but hopefully the book will shoot us to a wider audience.)
Candy, as a blogger—even a blogger with a book deal—I thought you were adorable in every way. It’s a different kettle, entirely.
I think I was a different kettle of fish because I am, in essence, the court jester. And the court jester can get away with a lot. As long as we keep the royalty entertained and laughing even as we lay out unpalatable truths.
*starts juggling flaming batons. adorably.*
Arethusa said on 07.18.07 at 02:28 AM • [link]
Colour me unconcerned about the cosplay; the women looked cute and fun. But then I’m also largely uninterested in “improving” the romance genre’s image for anyone in particular.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 02:29 AM • [link]
Why does a professional writer want to look ‘tarty’, any more than she wants to look like a housefrou with curlers?
By “tarty,” I meant “edgy and sexy”. It’s almost a term of affection with me, which is probably a non-standard way to use the word. To confuse things further, I do occasionally use it pejoratively, just like I use “motherfucker” affectionately sometimes, and other times, not so much.
I haven’t thought all of this through yet, so I’ll likely change my mind as I work through all the implications, but right now, if I had to choose between “edgy and tarty” vs. “frumpy hausfrau” as a media image for romance readers/writers, I’d go for the former. My true preference, however, is for people to abandon the truly appalling misconceptions about what romance readers and authors look like and sound like.
Nora Roberts said on 07.18.07 at 02:40 AM • [link]
~if I had to choose between “edgy and tarty†vs. “frumpy hausfrau†as a media image for romance readers, I’d go for the former.~
As would I.
Any reason we can’t be normal? Attractive, interesting, intelligent, blah blah blah? Must we feel we have to push ourselves into some out-of-the-box image—and let’s be honest—must we feel we must do that to get attention?
What does that say about the work?
I don’t want to harp on these girls. They’re young, awfully cute, and they weren’t that outrageous.
But I do feel that dressing up like your characters is silly, and it smudges the lines. Why not be who you are—because that’s exactly what it’ll come down to anyway.
PC Cast said on 07.18.07 at 02:52 AM • [link]
As I think most authors are, I’m cool with reviewers and bloggers attending RWA. They are part of the industry’s professionals. Costumes do skirt the line of professional behavior, many times falling face first over that line, at least at something like RWA.
On a side note – it was awesomeness to meet the Smart Bitches! I loved pressing Sarah to my bosom and ogling Candy’s bosom. And I wish my schedule hadn’t kept me from hanging in the bar!
MaudeClare said on 07.18.07 at 02:58 AM • [link]
I agree with Ms Roberts on the costumes. I thought they were a bit much, and sometimes, we need to remember *tone* when we discuss issues.
We don’t have to be tarts or frumpy. Just be natural.
Are romance writers supposed to be sexy in real life? Or always making satire on the romance.
I don’t think so.
Angela James said on 07.18.07 at 02:58 AM • [link]
*wants more pictures of Candy’s cleavage AND Candy in feather boa and/or funky cowboy hat some awesome editor gave her.*
Oh, and to add to the respectability of the RWA conference, where’s the video of the Threesome Dance? *insert evil cackle here*
Seriously, if RWA did start to go the way of RT, with cover models and costumes for every event, I’d be a bit put off, I think. I can understand that concern. But in moderation, yeah it was/is fun. I can see Nora’s…Ms. Robert’s…Nora’s…(so not comfortable with the first name, as if I know her) point, though. What is it that we want the face of romance to be? It’s a hard question, with no easy answer, especially as the genre changes to include erotic romance and its covers and titles. Eek!
I don’t really get the whole upset with blogger/reviewers being there. They’re as much a part of the industry as booksellers are, in their own way. Jo Carol from Romantic Times was there and I don’t hear anyone crying foul over that, or am I missing it? I think it’s just another component of the conference and, all sucking up aside, I thought you all added a nice dimension to the conference.
And on that note? I’m off to visit that Sock Dreams website because…fun!
Kristie(J) said on 07.18.07 at 02:58 AM • [link]
Candy: As one of “those bloggers” I say hear hear on your post about us. We ARE lovers of the genre above all else. That’s why I flew from so far away and why I was willing to pay a bundle to do it. Of course I need special stuff for my Lisa lunch.
I attended a RT convention a few years ago and I felt much more comfortable and had a much better time this year at the RWA conference.
Poison Ivy said on 07.18.07 at 03:51 AM • [link]
How many of you attended the RT convention around 25 years ago at which Dame Barbara Cartland made a grand entrance wearing a full-length pink ball gown, about twenty pounds of diamonds (real or fake, who knows?) around her neck, full makeup laid on with a trowel (she was in her eighties then)—and THIS WAS AT 9:30 IN THE MORNING!?
It scarred me for life.
Seriously, Nora was around at the time, and we would show up at conferences and find writers dressed as southern belles and worse. It was demeaning and depressing, and it made for patronizing, scathing commentary in the newspapers. Cartland was a genius at self-promotion, no doubt about it, but she also was shamelessly vulgar. Some people in the romance world do not want anybody to get the idea that romance writers are just girls being silly, or worse, tarts. This is a profession, and it’s not the oldest one.
That said, if a certain program at an RWA conference is advertised as including silly dress-up, then fine. But we do not need people wearing the romance equivalent of Klingon ears prowling the halls. Really. As it is, I’ll probably never recover from the sight of Gene Roddenberry in lederhosen. Talk about scarred for life!
iffygenia said on 07.18.07 at 04:10 AM • [link]
NR: Lighten up. Easy to say when you’re not CONSTANTLY called on to defend the genre and its readers and writers to the media, then have the media focus on the costumes so the image projected is silly women rather than interesting professionals who write Romance.
C: That will hopefully change once the book comes out, ha.
Candy, I hope you do succeed in saving the world with your book. But I’m not sure that addresses Nora Roberts’ point. Swanhats will still be swanhats. (It was a swanhat, right? Not a full-on demonic possession?)
Jenny Crusie said on 07.18.07 at 04:10 AM • [link]
I wasn’t there so of course I have an opinion.
Bloggers: You’re journalists. Any ink is good ink. Plus there are well over a thousand people at that conference every year, usually over 1500, so I don’t where anybody gets the “private writers retreat” idea. There’s always been press at the conference, hell, we have a press room, so unless this makes no sense.
Playing Dress-Up: That part I get. There’s a difference between having a great time at a costume party and showing up for a professional booksigning dressed as one of your characters (well, assuming the character doesn’t dress like you do already). Why, yes, I do believe in fun. I believe I’m also part of a multi-billion dollar business, that I respect what I do and what I am, and I choose to present myself as a professional. Since the reason for dressing like that is to call attention to oneself, it’s pretty much making yourself a marketing ploy and it’s very low-rent marketing; you become the person dressed in the chicken suit selling Colonel Sanders, and the fact that you’re Colonel Sanders doesn’t undercut the fact that you’re in a chicken suit.
I don’t think it’s even about respect and the romance industry, I think it’s about respecting yourself as an artist and a business person. If my publisher asked me to dress in costume to sell my books at a booksigning, my agent would be having words with them. My publisher, being a class act, would never do that.
Having said that, I wasn’t there and half the time, I’ve spilled something on my shirt and my jacket is hiked up in back, so my commenting on the suitability of others’ wardrobes is probably asking for it. Plus, I really do believe in fun. It’s just not something I’d ever do.
dillene said on 07.18.07 at 04:12 AM • [link]
Cosplay is de rigeur at sci-fi conventions, but you have to be careful if you’re going to do that at a romance convention: Jaid Black cosplay could get you arrested.
Caroline said on 07.18.07 at 04:23 AM • [link]
I didn’t find their costumes too outrageous. It was just regular clothes—not ewok outfits or anything. They wore them for a booksigning, yes? In which they interacted with readers? If they were wearing them to workshops, okay, I’d say that’s a little weird. But it’s kind of a fun promotional thing for fans.
But I come from a SF/Fantasy background, and we tend to be more geeky and less apt to give a damn about what type of image we promote.
Re: reviewers being at RWA—Hasn’t AAR been sending reviewers there for years? The fact is, RWA isn’t a closed authors convention. There are booksignings for fans and unpubbed authors are allowed to attend. I guess I just don’t get the beef.
Celina Summers said on 07.18.07 at 04:31 AM • [link]
I would just like to state for the record that if any reviewers or or bloggers or readers (oh my!) ever wanted to sit with me, I would probably wriggle in excitement like a weiner dog with a lamb chop.
Bad analogy, but you get my point. As a new writer, I’d be so thrilled with the attention that I wouldn’t have a thought about complaining about said people. Then too, if I was sitting next to Nora Roberts or a giant swan hat I’d probably be totally overwhelmed and spill something on my tarty dress.
*grin*
I’m storing all this up for RT next year. This is proving to be invaluable advice.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 04:39 AM • [link]
another costume I heard about but didn’t find on the interwebs was something to do with two people dressed as slippery when wet.
Sounds like that could be verging on the Jaid Black.
Oh speaking of browsing, and I just read what was probably the epilogue of HP:DH, photographed straight from the book. Hmmmmm.
Rinda said on 07.18.07 at 04:53 AM • [link]
The two young writers were doing this for promotion on a new line of romances targeted to a younger crowd. I attended their workshop on “branding yourself as an author” to see what it was all about… and because I’m DYING to write that edgy sci-fi romance stuff—they said they were like Matrix romances, which would just plain float my boat.
I will say, I felt a bit old and frumpy in comparison and and guessed I’d need to be a bit younger and cuter to get into that line—bummer.
Marjorie Liu said on 07.18.07 at 05:17 AM • [link]
I will say, I felt a bit old and frumpy in comparison and and guessed I’d need to be a bit younger and cuter to get into that line—bummer.
Rinda: Trust me, don’t you feel like that for one single moment. Appearance has nothing to do with it. Age has nothing to do with it. Just the quality of your writing. I know both the editors of the Shomi line and that’s all they care about.
Corrina said on 07.18.07 at 05:26 AM • [link]
I think this thread is remiss if someone doesn’t mention how lovely Anne Stuart looked at the booksigning in her originality. Loved the headband.
I think that’s the key—if dressing up is putting out your inner self, go for it. No one could wear what Anne Stuart wears besides her and she’s fabulous and looks perfect in her choices.
Now, I’m not sure what Sherrilyn Kenyon’s inner self is, if she’s wearing a black swam….. Mostly, it looked like “is that really a black swan on her head? Really? Omigod, it’s a black swan.”
I was reminded of taking my kid to a local anime convention and she stared at someone dressed as Sailor Moon. She asked if it was polite to stare. I told her if one dressed up like Sailor Moon, that pretty much said ‘stare at me.’
Kenyon’s photo, btw, became the one photo of the RWA Literacy signing published in the Dallas Morning News the next day.
Rinda said on 07.18.07 at 05:27 AM • [link]
I’m sitting here now looking over the Shomi booklet and quickly changing my mind. I may just give it a try. I have a manuscript that could fit with some rewrites.
Anyone who has read Valen Greer on my site knows I’m into the sci-fi. Oh, and that I normally refrain from doubling my ands.
Thanks for the tip, Marjorie. I briefly met you at the conference and am sooo thinking you’d easily fit into that promotion of theirs. :)
Walt said on 07.18.07 at 05:35 AM • [link]
I think Anne Stuart was partial to wearing feather boas to conference—I attended one of her seminars and recall her wearing a feather boa when she started throwing me kisses* during the question and answer period. That’s probably as gussied up as I’ve seen any author at RWA until the swan and veil act (Large pic of swan)
Aside from the obvious jokes as to how something like this could get out of hand, it does bring up an interesting point—would this kind of stunt work for a lessor known author? Did it work out for Ms. Kenyon?
/
* They were Hershey Brand chocolate kisses, and gently tossed ones at that.
Wry Hag said on 07.18.07 at 06:11 AM • [link]
AN OUTSIDER’S VIEW
So I’m sitting here lapping at chocolate ice cream in Balingwire, Wisconsin, wondering why crop dusters never crash and what exactly to make of all the spew from the RWA conference. Why the latter? Because I am an alienist! (I was just recently reminded of that word, which I really like, so I decided to use it.) Anyway, damn it, I still don’t know what to think.
First there was much bilious indignation over some PAN/PRO/EIEIO stuff, about which I’m still utterly confused. And there was more bilious indignation over something having to do with epubs and advances and unworthiness. Ditto.
Then the tide reversed, and there were vast amounts of that fourth-runner-up kind of jubilation and congratulation over awards…although not much of it came from authors who aren’t allowed to enter these competitions because of the PAN/PRO/EIEIO stuff. Or something.
Now I’m hearing the conference was, in some people’s eyes, a combination sorority bash for the sisters of Delta Delta Venus and a Trekkie con. I more or less anticipated the former, but carnie hucksterism—or is it runaway egotism, or is it “I’m having a psychotic episode of identity confusion with my characters”...or, then again, is it just a manifestation of that sorority-party mentality?—now that floored me. (Wow, that was a fairly complicated parenthetical expression, and I didn’t fuck it up!)
So what was Kenyon wearing? A dead bird on her head? Well, hey, at least the dead ones don’t shit—not, that is, unless they’re gulls and you’re wearing glasses.
Wry Hag said on 07.18.07 at 06:23 AM • [link]
Oh, lordy, and then there’s a blog about cart ladies gobbling up books! (Were they wearing eBay t-shirts?) My brain is really in overdrive now.
Doug said on 07.18.07 at 06:31 AM • [link]
*wants more pictures of Candy’s cleavage AND Candy in feather boa and/or funky cowboy hat some awesome editor gave her.*
I’m not sure which I would prefer: pix of Candy’s magnificent rack or Candy and Sarah dressed up like their Aiya vey! characters.
Congrats on the book deal, Candy :)
Teddy Pig said on 07.18.07 at 06:37 AM • [link]
Vanity Press they name is alienist!
And it is not those drugs you took in college either.
EIEIO heheheheheh
Oh dear.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 10:14 AM • [link]
Candy, I hope you do succeed in saving the world with your book. But I’m not sure that addresses Nora Roberts’ point. Swanhats will still be swanhats. (It was a swanhat, right? Not a full-on demonic possession?)
I thought I addressed it in this comment:
And [Nora Roberts] has a point—I remember laughing in horrified amusement when I saw those pictures of Rebecca Brandewyne dolled up like her cover art, and Laurell K. Hamilton and her posse posing with pistols Anita Blake-stylee while wearing mom jeans. But there are costumes, and there are COSTUMES. Man Faye is one thing; Mancusi and Maverick having a bit of fun with short skirts and thigh highs is another. It’s all about knowing what looks stylish vs. what’s ludicrous, and in my opinion, Mancusi and Maverick stayed well within the bounds of good taste.
I’m not willing to issue a blanket condemnation of the costume thing. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it looks stupid. Personal judgement, y’all. Short skirts and thigh-highs at a signing are NOT the same thing as strapping a leftover prop from Swan Lake on your head.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 10:35 AM • [link]
Any reason we can’t be normal? Attractive, interesting, intelligent, blah blah blah? Must we feel we have to push ourselves into some out-of-the-box image—and let’s be honest—must we feel we must do that to get attention?
Looking normal is just fine, too—it is, in fact, the way most authors are, and I don’t think the less of any authors who don’t dress up. Eileen Dreyer, who was definitely one of my favorite people at the conference, confessed that she never wears make-up, and as somebody who almost never puts on the stuff, I just about cheered. I don’t think that if somebody wants to dress every now and again and have fun that it automatically constitutes rank unprofessionalism.
Here’s a question to ponder: whose version of normal are we talking about, anyway? What if somebody’s version of normal is a Chelsea, tattoos and hooker-red lipstick? Should authors who look like this be required to put on what would constitute a costume for them, then, for these conferences? Publishing is big business, and when networking and the like, there’s quite the pressure to look professional in a conventional sense, but as people have been pointing out, the words are the most important thing, no? I’m seeing a big push towards conforming to a certain type of appearance, a sort of IBM-ization of the wardrobe. Believe me, I cringe, too, at the over-the-top excesses of costume. But what about costumes that don’t especially go over that line? A big part of the reason why the Mancusi/Maverick costumes didn’t strike me as especially awful was because they reflected what I see myself (and a lot of my friends) wearing on a daily basis. They stood out in a sea of suits; they looked young, and sassy, and gorgeous. They looked like they were being themselves and having a whole lot of fun.
So, to break it down:
Swan on head: OW OW THE BURNING.
Looking bad-ass in a short skirt and knee-high boots: Yay.
It sucks that the media latches on to the sensationalistic and the silly as the representative image, but they’re there to make money, and they go for the most eye-catching images and movements. (If we romance readers think we’ve gotten the short end of the stick in terms of unfair media coverage, let’s talk to the feminists and Socialists some time, eh?) We can do our best to not provide them with fodder, but odds are high they’ll find something—and if it comes down to it, I’d rather have the occasional person parading around with dead bird roosting on her cranium if that’s what she REALLY wanted to do than pressuring everybody into a sort of sameness.
Complete side-note: I am so sad I never got to say hello to Anne Stuart. Ah well. I’ll have to stalk her at next year’s Nationals.
Lani said on 07.18.07 at 10:44 AM • [link]
I wasn’t there, either, but god I love post-national deconstruction, so I just have to kick off my shoes and wade in.
Regarding upset over bloggers and reviewers - this I don’t get. We need bloggers, reviewers, booksellers and readers. This isn’t a writer’s retreat, it’s a professional convention, and as such, anyone involved in the business should be welcome. This blows my mind that anyone would think to have a problem with that. The luncheon chicken must not have been that bad this year if this is what people are thinking to complain about. Damn wow, that’s just stoopit.
As for the costumes… I’m torn. I’m not big on judging the marketing tactics of others. This business is insane, and what someone does in order to stand out is really between her and her God. Would I wear a big swan on my head for attention? Hell no. Not my style. Sherilyn Kenyon wants to wear a big swan, go ahead, babe. Life’s short. Do I think that being on the cover of the Dallas Morning News with a big swan on her head sold her some books? I tend to doubt it, but then what the hell do I know?
Now, Nora, I get it that you’re pretty much the romance poster girl, and so any time a romance writer does something questionable, you share in the raised eyebrow. That sucks, and it’s not fair, but the fact that you choose to present yourself professionally does all of us far more good than SK could ever do damage. I think you’re the best thing that ever happened to a romance writer wanting to be taken seriously, and god bless you. TIME took you seriously, and that was fabulous. So thank you for not being into swans, but baby, you don’t have to be.
The weight on my shoulders is considerably less. I choose to present myself professionally because that’s my style, and I couldn’t pull off costumes if I wanted to; even on Halloween, I dress up as me. Marianne and Liz are gorgeous and stylish and while I didn’t personally see the shortness of the skirts, my guess is that they looked great and were having fun, and I have no problem with that. I think the sweet spot lies somewhere between Anne Stuart’s feather boa (which I adore) and, you know, the big swan. I think there’s a line to ride between fun and patently ridiculous. Rule of thumb: If your gimmick is going to require six weeks in a neck brace afteward… maybe rethink.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 10:55 AM • [link]
I think the sweet spot lies somewhere between Anne Stuart’s feather boa (which I adore) and, you know, the big swan.
EXACTLY! Oh, man, you just summarized my many tedious paragraphs of argument in one neat sentence. It’s almost as if you wrote for a living, or something.
Rule of thumb: If your gimmick is going to require six weeks in a neck brace afteward… maybe rethink.
HahahahaYES. That was gorgeous. Can we call it Lani’s Law?
Liz Maverick & Marianne Mancusi (The Rebels of Rom said on 07.18.07 at 11:04 AM • [link]
Liz says: “You know you’ve made it when your thighs are being discussed on the Internet.†Heh.
Okay, seriously. The entire point of our marketing campaign for our books is this: We’re the Rebels of Romance and we’re going to give you a kind of romance novel you’ve never seen before. We want to expand the fan base for the romance genre and attract readers (young and old) who have never before been willing to give romance novels a chance. We want to show that romance novels can be cool and relevant to an entirely new generation of readers.
You can check out the media site we developed at http://www.rebelsofromance.com It h.as all of our messaging. The bottom line: Who knew the romance genre had a cutting edge?
On the issue of professionalism. Dressing up as manga-inspired characters was a fun way to promote our manga-inspired books. Obviously, it’s not for everybody. (It is, however, completely normal at SF/F events and SF/F readers are also a target readership for these books.) But it happens to suit our personalities, our image as “rebels†and the kind of out-of-the-box books we write.
Meaning, we don’t feel forced to do something “unnatural.†Dressing up and having fun is part of who we are. And we certainly don’t believe short skirts and thigh highs equate to being unprofessional. It seems unnecessarily pompous to go on about the advanced degrees, Emmy awards, etc that we have between the two of us, but seriously, we understand what it means to be professional. We’re not “silly women†or “tarty†in the worst senses of the words. (It’s not always bad to be silly or fun-tarty.) We just understand how to market ourselves and our books, we’ve taken a strong approach to branding, and we’re working it.
In any case, regarding concerns about the image we are projecting to the media and readers, this “Liz Maverick Q&A†with Publishers Weekly http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6444597.html?industryid=47159
should ease your mind. We think it’s a nice example of how articulate and effective we can be as ambassadors for the romance genre rather than the reverse.
Whether the costumes turn you off or on, we hope you’ll give the Shomi books a chance. After all, as pointed out, great books speak for themselves. Marianne’s August book, MOONGAZER, received a fabulous review from RT and Liz’s July book, WIRED, received a starred review in Publishers Weekly. Again, these are really fresh, edgy takes on romance novels and the launch features a line-up of fantastic writers: Eve Kenin, Colby Hodge, Michelle Rowan to name a few. We should point out that every one of us is different and none of the other authors chose to don character costumes.
Yours in good humor,
Liz Maverick and Marianne Mancusi who are…The Rebels of Romance
http://www.rebelsofromance.com
P.S. Liz says: “If you see me at a conference or other event, definitely stop and say hi. I love to meet new readers and writers and you can tell me what you think of my new socks.â€
Joanna said on 07.18.07 at 12:18 PM • [link]
In my real life, I am a lawyer. I attend lots of conferences. Everyone is very professional and dignified.
These conferences are very very boring.
What I would give for a dead bird on someone’s head.
Oh and Barbara Cartland? Totally being herself in that outfit.
DS said on 07.18.07 at 12:36 PM • [link]
At first I thought I didn’t have an opinion then I decided that I did after looking at a couple of pictures. I don’t think I would have recognized what the Rebels of Romance were wearing as a costume. The swan hat was an eye-roller.
Nora Roberts said on 07.18.07 at 01:16 PM • [link]
~Kenyon’s photo, btw, became the one photo of the RWA Literacy signing published in the Dallas Morning News the next day.~
That’s what I’m talking about.
If the photo had been a couple of pretty girls in short skirts I wouldn’t have blinked. And, I guess, if it hadn’t been for the black swan, I wouldn’t be having this conversation anyway.
Nora Roberts said on 07.18.07 at 01:33 PM • [link]
~I’m seeing a big push towards conforming to a certain type of appearance, a sort of IBM-ization of the wardrobe.~
That’s certainly not what I’m talking about, and in fact, I said as much.
I suppose if you’d dress like your characters or wear a bird on your head and vampire teeth to—for instance—go to a business meeting or dinner with your editor or agent, then that would be normal for you.
SandyW said on 07.18.07 at 02:36 PM • [link]
Now, to me, Mancusi and Maverick’s short skirts and cool socks don’t look like costumes. They’re more the equivalent of Ms. Robert’s (totally awesome) leather coat portrait on the back of the J.D. Robb books. Cool and hip and evoking the atmosphere of the books, without looking like a freak. Then again, the stacks of manga take up as much room at our house as the stacks of romances, so I’m used to the look.
Maybe it’s the ‘would you go to the mall in this outfit’ test. If the author of historical romances shows up at an event in a calf-length skirt and a frilly blouse, it’s a theme and clever marketing. If she shows up in a full Civil War era ball gown, complete with hoop, it’s over the line because the ball gown and hoop look really wouldn’t work at the mall. Same with short skirts and striped socks. That would work at the mall, even here in the wilds of Southern Illinois.
The swan hat? Maybe not so much.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 02:46 PM • [link]
Sandy, really? They look straight out of Sailor Moon to me—very costume-y. I’d even do a double-take if I saw them in NYC. Okay maybe not there, but Hartford, CT, definitely.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 02:48 PM • [link]
uh oh, how outdated is a sailor moon reference?
Rosemary said on 07.18.07 at 03:55 PM • [link]
My perspective: I work for an uber-Baptist organization, and their beliefs do not coincide with mine in the least. I have to tone down my personality when I am at work to the point that I have to be someone else completely. BUT, when I am at a professional event with other librarians, I can be myself. I’m still in “professional” mode, but I don’t have to worry that I’ll be written up for saying damn or having an second or even *gasp* third button undone on my shirt.
I see that you’re saying that job-interview level of professionalism (in both demeanor and dress) is appropriate, but I think that in this instance something a little more causal can be allowed. It’s a way for them to “brand” themselves, and they did it in an interesting, but not absurd *cough* swan hat *cough* way.
Carrie Lofty said on 07.18.07 at 03:56 PM • [link]
The swan hat: Kenyon said in the PRO retreat that she’d received a cover one time that was hideous—the only thing she liked about it was a black swan on the back. So it became her totem animal. Much like Kleypas’s armadillo handbag, I suppose, but one she decided to wear on her head. That’s the leap.
The self-styled Mavericks are getting positive notice because those styles are cute. If they showed up in Barbara Cartland hoopskirts, there would be more general ridicule. But the gimmick is the same.
Oh, and why must JR Ward always wear the rock star sunglasses? She even wore them in line at the desert reception, which looked nearly goofy. Are they prescription, maybe like Bono? Is she deep into the method acting?
And dude, I expected more blood and dismemberment. After talk of boob grabbing in Hotlanta and the whole Reno fiasco, I wanted guts and catfights. Granted, I was at the AGM…but that was a bit heavy on legal speak for a true throw-down. Mostly, conference featured a lot of enthusiastic and nervous and professional fans of the genre. Go figure….
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 04:06 PM • [link]
I’m already on record that I’m uncomfortable with what I see as the overidentification of authors with their characters, especially for marketing purposes, and for me that does extend to the Shomi-dress at National (and SandyW, you made my morning). OTOH, I respect what Maverick and Mancusi are saying about rule-breaking, and I have no sense that they actually think they’re the characters from their books (although I have all sorts of ambivalent feelings about author branding). BUT, if they were each 50 pounds heavier and ten degrees less attractive, how would this conversation be going?
Maybe it’s just that I don’t think the genre/industry is yet at a point where the swan costume and the Shomi costumes can be distinguished as to degree of credibility. Or maybe it’s because I’m just as uncomfortable with the author branding model of corporate Romance as I am with the “I’m my own heroine” model of overpersonalized Romance.
Yeah, I recognize that they’re supposed to be based on different models, but I’m not a big fan of either, in part because I’m not sure Maverick and Mancusi aren’t simply exploiting a rule long in place in Romancelandia (i.e. that authors representing their characters is effective marketing shtick). In other words, except for the nature of the getup, how is what Mancusi and Maverick are doing new to the genre (is it the fact that they’re in charge of it and not a publicist or publisher marketing dept.)?
Despite the fact that I’m not convinced the branding technique is particularly revolutionary, though, I am interested in seeing if the books themselves are more rebellious, since that DOES appeal to me.
Darlene Marshall said on 07.18.07 at 04:08 PM • [link]
Oh my god. The swan. I think I need therapy. And I wear hats.
I’m reminded of that SF truism: Cons and Fandom means never having to say “But where would I wear that?”
shaunee said on 07.18.07 at 04:11 PM • [link]
Am at the day gig furtively catching up on my Smart Bitches news and had to relate the costuming aspect of RWA to one of my co-workers. Did I mention that I just started working for an international women’s association for insurance professionals? No? Well I did.
“So,” said I to my co-worker, “the whole thing about costuming kinda bugs me. I mean swan head is on the cover of the Dallas Morning Whatever—it just reflects badly on the industry.”
She said, “Well, there’s is this one group of our members who dress up at our national convention every year. One year they dressed up as the heavy metal band Kiss. One year they looked like Chiquita Banana Vegas showgirls and one year *drum role* they were Playboy playmates.”
“Shut the fuck up,” said I. “At a national insurance convention?” (Background info: major women’s insurance association with about 10,000 members and a ginormas annual convention that was in Puerto Rico last year and will be in Scottsdale next year. Sound vaguely familiar?)
So maybe the annual convention IS a fine time to put a swan on your head whether it be for fun or promotional purposes. After hearing about insurance playmates on parade I really have no idea anymore.
Lani said on 07.18.07 at 04:20 PM • [link]
HahahahaYES. That was gorgeous. Can we call it Lani’s Law?
Oh, sure. I’ve got a million of them. Never argue with readers is a big one; also, Always wear clean underwear to a literacy signing in case a big swan head falls on you is another classic. I’m gonna pitch a book of Lani’s Wisdom someday. You just wait.
I suppose if you’d dress like your characters or wear a bird on your head and vampire teeth to—for instance—go to a business meeting or dinner with your editor or agent, then that would be normal for you.
I don’t know, because an agent dinner and a literacy signing are two different animals. I think there’s a point where a person is quirky and interesting (like Liz and Marianne) and a point where they’re just desperate for attention - which is where the big swan head comes in. I mean, it’s not like she was wandering down Fifth Avenue one day and saw it in a store window and had to have it. You have to hunt down the big swan head with a mission in mind. That was not an impulse buy. I think the forethought that went into it with everyone still saying, “Yep, GREAT idea!” is what disturbs me the most. You’d think somewhere along the line, SK would have had a buddy who cared enough to gently say, “Baby, no.”
I think, like Nora said, it’s when the Dallas Morning News runs the picture of the big swan head that it makes us all look crazy. But the thing is, we’re an easy target for most mainstream media outlets because they either don’t read us or don’t want to admit it, and they go into stuff like this keeping an eye out for the big swan head. If it had been a reader, it would be less damaging to our image, but only marginally so, because the people whose eyes flicker over it while drinking their coffee digest only “Romance Writers” and “Big Swan Head.” Me, I’m just grateful that most of the big media surrounding the romance industry focuses on women like Nora, Jenny Crusie, Pat Gaffney, Susan Elizabeth Phillips, and the like. Let’s face it, most of the really big hitters in our industry are wonderfully smart, tough, brilliant women who make the rest of us look good, and I’m thankful. As someone relatively new to the industry, I’m benefitting greatly from what women like the above are doing, which makes the occasional big swan head less of an irritant to me. But then, I try to bright-side stuff over which I have no control.
But if any of the Bitchery are friends with a romance writer who wants to wear a big swan head or a southern belle outfit or something equally ridiculous, start practicing now: “Baby, no.”
Najida said on 07.18.07 at 04:22 PM • [link]
I confess that I have a room in my home dedicated to the construction and storage of costumes.
I confess that I have a collection of metal dance bras, Afghani tribal belts, full caberet costumes, sequined shoes, tackle boxes full of costume rhinestones, 3 tiaras, 10 to 20 yard skirts, about 20 veils and 10 saris…..to start with.
I confess that I have and still use on occaision my half-sister’s anti-bellum hoop skirt from the 50’s.
I confess that until recently, I had and still wore on occaision my ballet tutu from my 20’s.
I also confess that I have at one time attended the Sweet Potato Queens St. Patricks Parade in Jackson, Mississippi dressed in a different bustier every day.
So, what’s the problem with a Swan hat?
Angela James said on 07.18.07 at 04:26 PM • [link]
You have to hunt down the big swan head with a mission in mind. That was not an impulse buy.
I think (think being the key word that means I’m passing on a rumor I heard) that she was sent that hat by a fan. And it reminded her of the previously mentioned bad cover, but a part of the cover which she had actually liked. So she adopted it as part of her signing attire.
I have no idea if that’s true or not, so take with a grain of salt, but it seemed at least feasible, so I thought I’d mention it.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 04:47 PM • [link]
I said: “I’m seeing a big push towards conforming to a certain type of appearance, a sort of IBM-ization of the wardrobe.”
And La Nora replied:
Ach, perhaps the IBM-ization was a bit of a low blow to get in—but your comment about dead swans and vampire teeth at an agent’s meeting also doesn’t address the nuances of my point, yes? In terms of certain costumes being over the line, and others not so much? And also whose version of “normal” we’re subscribing to? Because being, say, a Punk is also a different thing from strapping the dead bird to your head.
This is perhaps an indicator of how clueless I am when it comes to fashion, but I’d totally wear a similar get-up to Mancusi/Maverick to lunch with an agent. Not what I’d wear to a wedding or a super-formal occasion, or even to work at a conservative company (like I do now), but very similar to I’d wear to something like an editor’s meeting. *shrug*
BUT, if they were each 50 pounds heavier and ten degrees less attractive, how would this conversation be going?
This is true. If the clothing fit them properly, I still wouldn’t blink. The Shomi outfits really don’t look all that out of the ordinary, to my eyes.
They look straight out of Sailor Moon to me—very costume-y. I’d even do a double-take if I saw them in NYC. Okay maybe not there, but Hartford, CT, definitely.
Their outfits wouldn’t raise a single eyebrow in Portland.
In other words, except for the nature of the getup, how is what Mancusi and Maverick are doing new to the genre (is it the fact that they’re in charge of it and not a publicist or publisher marketing dept.)?
Sometimes a difference in degree is so large that it ends up being a difference in kind, y’know? I think the Mancusi/Maverick schtick (and it very much is a schtick) didn’t give me the jibblies because I perceived it as being done well, and with a sense of fun. That makes alllllll the difference between “awesome” and “holy crap creepy.”
SandyO said on 07.18.07 at 04:47 PM • [link]
A few random thought. 1) Bloggers and reviewers at National. I so totally enjoyed the reports back from the conference. While the reports centered mostly on fun aspects, they also touched on the importance. The workshops, the networking, the meetings with agents and editors. 2) Big ass black swans—you know someone is going to do something stupid and you know they’ll be the one making the front page. It’s maddening, it’s infuriating, and it’s a fact of life.
All in all, the Conference sounded like one of the most fun and least controversial in a long time.
spamword men27, don’t know what that means, but it could be fun figuring it out. ;)
Lani said on 07.18.07 at 04:48 PM • [link]
So, what’s the problem with a Swan hat?
Hey, Najida! I think the difference is… do you wear your crazy outfits when you’re in public in a professional capacity, representing your industry and your co-workers? I think that’s what it comes down to. If SK had chosen to hang out with the swan hat during her private time, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I think (think being the key word that means I’m passing on a rumor I heard) that she was sent that hat by a fan.
Okay. Well, that would mitigate it a bit. Still, there should have been someone saying, “Baby, no,” I think. Like, for instance, I’m big on daisies. They’re kind of my signature flower, they end up in my books and on my covers, I love them. If I were to bring a daisy purse to a book signing, or wear a daisy print dress, or a daisy pin, I think everyone would love it. As a matter of fact, I might just start collecting.
If, however, I were to do this:
I can’t think of a single close friend who wouldn’t immediately say, “Baby, no.” I have to say, even the fact that I went through the trouble of creating that image doesn’t say a whole lot of good things about me.
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 04:56 PM • [link]
I think the Mancusi/Maverick schtick (and it very much is a schtick) didn’t give me the jibblies because I perceived it as being done well, and with a sense of fun. That makes alllllll the difference between “awesome†and “holy crap creepy.â€
It may also be because you see the Shomi-wear as much closer to street wear, Candy. Which goes back to the issue of what people wear *normally* and what is a costume. If Maverick and Mancusi dressed that way *normally* then I say, go for it. I have no problem with people not conforming to some business dress model if that’s their norm. But I think that’s substantially different than costuming oneself as a branding mechanism. That I just don’t get into. And even more, in this discussion, at least, I find it not rebellious or revolutionary—as Mancusi and Maverick want me to believe—but same old shtick in a shiny attractive new package. To me what Kenyon is doing and what Maverick/Mancusi are doing is basically for the same purpose, and therefore whatever differences manifest in terms of extremity or taste are only of degree and not kind. If that makes sense.
Stephanie Doyle said on 07.18.07 at 05:00 PM • [link]
“...Any reason we can’t be normal? Attractive, interesting, intelligent, blah blah blah? Must we feel we have to push ourselves into some out-of-the-box image—and let’s be honest—must we feel we must do that to get attention?...”
Oh my god… I’m going to be disagreeing with Nora. Somebody please help me and remind me that the internet is NOT my friend…
That said - I think we as writers are being PUSHED to do more outrageous types of marketing, self promotion and publicity. If you read what their agent says about how GREAT and creative they are about marketing their books - it’s no wonder that they think dressing up is a cool thing.
(Personally - I thought they were cute too - I want their SHOES. The hat was over the top.)
But to answer Nora’s question - No. I don’t think we can be JUST intelligent, attractive and interesting. I don’t think we can JUST write great books - not for people starting out, trying to make a name for themselves or promoting a new line of books.
IMO this is a result of the tremendous pressure being put on writers by the publishing industry and agents too - to PROMOTE. Just look at how many workshops were dedicated to that at this years conference.
The more this goes on - the more outrageous people are going to get.
Corrina said on 07.18.07 at 05:02 PM • [link]
I am so sending that photo to the Dallas Morning News, Rich. :)
Oh, just to set the record clear, the swan hat in all its dubious glory was in the Dallas Morning News but not the front cover. It was on the back cover of the Entertainment Section. I saw it because I read newspapers front to back. Old print reporter. Can’t get that newsprint out of my blood. :)
I do understand that SK is a big SF convention goer and has a more elaborate costume for those cons. To her, the swan was mild. But…you know…swan on your head?
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 05:06 PM • [link]
IMO this is a result of the tremendous pressure being put on writers by the publishing industry and agents too - to PROMOTE. Just look at how many workshops were dedicated to that at this years conference.
Oh, great. It’s not enough that publishers are pimping the genre through clinch covers and the like, now they’re pushing authors to do so? Oh, yeah, mainstream respect for the genre is just around the corner . . . of Never Never Street.
Gail K. said on 07.18.07 at 05:13 PM • [link]
I love lurking on this site but oh boy now I just can’t keep my mouth shut.
I have mixed reactions to the whole costume thing.
1) I had never heard of Shomi or Mancusi/Maverick before this contro. Now I will be going out to buy their books. After all my kvetching (over at AAR, usually) about genre death by HEA and stagnancy, how could I not? Also, I kinda *know* people who dress like Mancusi/Maverick only they’re, um, not in costume. I find that at times both ridiculous and refreshing. Certainly entertaining, as I hope these Shomi books will be.
2) The old school vs. new school tension between the manga costumes and the grand-diva Black Swan Sherrilyn Kenyon hat. I don’t like the distinction I’m hearing in these comments that one is acceptable and that one is not. If we’re going to embrance feminine power via marketing, let’s embrace it in all ways.
3) Much as I am impressed by Maverick and Mancusi, I am uncomfortable with how they have set themselves up as “The Rebels of Romance.” Um, what does that say about most of the other ladies who write romance? Boring, old, fat housewives. Sorry, sometimes what is left unsaid or implied is as important as what the explicit branding message is.
Hope I am making sense. Have enjoyed the pix and posts from RWA!
Barb Ferrer said on 07.18.07 at 05:14 PM • [link]
To me what Kenyon is doing and what Maverick/Mancusi are doing is basically for the same purpose, and therefore whatever differences manifest in terms of extremity or taste are only of degree and not kind. If that makes sense.
It makes sense, however, I’m going to politely disagree.
Disclaimer the first, though—I’m friends with Liz and Marianne so take that as you will.
I think what Liz and Marianne are doing are drawing attention to their books—to the idea that this line and their books within the line are different and fresh takes on romance. Their dressing to rep the covers wouldn’t have drawn more than a sidelong glance or a “cool.”
An enormous swan worn on the head at a romance conference where such things aren’t the norm is done for no other reason than to garner attention. I also happen to think that she’s very smart and I have to think she knew that. Now, don’t get me wrong—I LIKE Sherrilyn Kenyon. I think she’s overcome tremendous obstacles and I think her success in the face of really adverse odds is amazing. Additionally, she’s never been anything but nice in our few brief exchanges and I love seeing how great she is to her fans and how much she appreciates them. That’s the thing though—she’s made it—her fans are going to find her regardless. The lines are going to form, and be long, and they’ll stay for her even if she’d been wearing her exact same outfit sans swan.
Rinda said on 07.18.07 at 05:15 PM • [link]
I’ll confess, my only thought when I saw the swan hat was to wonder how she was keeping her head up. That sucker looked heavy!
I liked the Shomi clothes. I wish I were young enough to get away with those socks!! I heard through the grapevine that it was promotional and for a line I was very interested in—so I checked them out.
But then…I normally run around with four colors striped in my hair—I just goofed it up right before the conference. Plus,I get a kick out of wearing my “Feeling evil today. Be glad my weapon of choice is a pen.” shirt to elementary school meetings. Sometimes it’s fun to stir things up. ;)
Larissa Ione said on 07.18.07 at 05:16 PM • [link]
Personally, I loved Maverick’s and Mancusi’s outfits…but then, I know people who really dress that way on a daily basis—so I saw nothing outrageous about it.
The swan hat scared me a little, mainly because by the time I saw it, I was nose-to-nose with it. I swear, I nearly yelped right in Ms. Kenyon’s face. ;)
And it was awesome meeting the Smart Bitches! :)
fiveandfour said on 07.18.07 at 05:17 PM • [link]
The “image” of the romance industry will likely always come back to things like Kenyon, I fear. I think of it in a way similar to how I think of actors: there’s a certain kind of personality that’s drawn to writing romances as opposed to any other kind of writing - and that kind of personality rejoices in Black Swans. And since the Black Swan image is how the general public sees the romance industry anyway, the 9,999 other people who write in the industry and who wouldn’t be caught dead dressed like that will continue to fade into the background of the general consciousness. That’s probably a defeatist or cynical kind of attitude, but then again I think it’s one that points to the importance of those 9,999 not worrying too much about it and just continuing to be their more professional selves.
Costuming of any kind in this context would make me a bit nervous, though. The positive and negative aspects of it are all in the same statement which is that it automatically defines you to whoever sees you. Obviously Kenyon’s costume defines her as something altogether different than the Rebels’ costume, but even still - forevermore that’ll be their identifier. Perhaps long after they’d prefer for it to be their identifier.
Oh, and why must JR Ward always wear the rock star sunglasses? She even wore them in line at the desert reception, which looked nearly goofy. Are they prescription, maybe like Bono?
lovelysalome, I’ve been giving Ward the benefit of the doubt on this since I’m a Bono fan and “get it” in his context. Of course, most people don’t even “get it” for Bono and think of it as an affectation, which will likely be the case for Ward, too. Especially since, to my knowledge, she’s never commented publicly on the topic.
And shaunee you TOTALLY made my day. As someone in the industry (though I’ve only ever taken classes from the group you mentioned, I’ve never joined the group) I’ll be cracking myself up for a good long while (and shuddering, too, I must admit) picturing the women I know dressed up like Playboy Bunnies. I can’t wait for the colleague in the cube next door to get back from vacation next week so I can quiz her on Puerto Rico. I’ve been around long enough to remember days when the booze flowed freer and deals were made with a handshake so it’s actually kind of nice to know in some small way there’s a little life left in these people.
SandyW said on 07.18.07 at 05:20 PM • [link]
Kate R, Sailor Moon works very well as a reference. It says ‘Japanese schoolgirl look’ to just about everybody. My kids are 18 and 25; I see a lot of teenagers, most of them big fans of anime, manga, gaming, etc. So I’m used to the look. But, yeah, I see folks dressed like this at the mall or the movies occasionally. They don’t seem to get stared at too much.
Najida, I just have to say that I want to come play at your house some time. Even if I haven’t danced in years.
Having thought about the swan hat some more, I believe it doesn’t really matter, image wise. The photographers would have found something else just as eye-catching to put in the paper. I’ve done American Civil War living history for a long time. A hundred women in sedate cotton dresses and bonnets, looking like they stepped right out of a time machine and the reporters will head straight for the one neon pink Scarlet O’Hara Goes to the Prom dress. They come looking for news of the weird and they are determined to find it.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 05:24 PM • [link]
Okay.
I finally figured out what squicks me about the clothes. Women dressing like sexy little girls gives me the willies—even though it’s all the rage in Japan.
This is entirely a *personal* response and, no, I don’t actually think the cute costumes encourage pedophilia or anything horrible. But at least I understand why I had a shiver of yick (unrelated to my own thighs).
Gives me the creeps to see little girls dressing as sexy women, too. Those little girl beauty contests? eewww.
Funny to learn how conservative I actually am.
Jane said on 07.18.07 at 05:25 PM • [link]
Let me preface my following possibly incendiary comments by a disclaimer. I want romance to be taken more seriously however . . .
Swan hats? This is what we are getting excited about? I thought the swan hat was over the top and was certainly noticeable and if your job is to get noticed, to get people to pay attention, to get publicity, god that just seems like savvy marketing to me.
Not unlike the author photos in both the Eve Dallas and the new Christina Dodd paranormal series, where the photos are edgier, more fitting with the tone of their books (both are wearing leather if I recall correctly and looking fiercely into the camera).
I do understand where Nora is coming from when she is tired of answering the constant barrage of questions as to the respectability of romance and she feels like what is the point of standing up for the genre when no one else will.
I guess I wonder whether we are seeking validation/approval/acceptance from people who will never give it, swan hat or no. There is so much else about the genre that plays to the idea that it is frivolous and worthless and very little of it has to do with the swan hat.
Also, As for whether Shomi authors have to be young and cute and play dress up, Eve Kenin is also a Shomi author whose book Driven is the best of the three and comes out in September. She dressed up not at all so Dorchester is not requiring this of anyone.
Carrie Lofty said on 07.18.07 at 05:26 PM • [link]
...forevermore that’ll be their identifier. Perhaps long after they’d prefer for it to be their identifier.
I am reminded of what George Michael sang in “Freedom 90”: “When you shake your ass, they notice fast. Some mistakes were built to last.”
Who knows how it will turn out? But I’m curious—not about the books, actually, but about the ploy. After all, I didn’t see Sherry Thomas running around wearing thigh highs or a swan, but Private Arrangements is getting plenty of buzz anyway.
Jewell Mason said on 07.18.07 at 05:30 PM • [link]
Bwahahahahahaha, Lani
That was ABSOLUTELY precious, and a great way to make a point.
Kudos
shaunee said on 07.18.07 at 05:30 PM • [link]
“And shaunee you TOTALLY made my day. As someone in the industry (though I’ve only ever taken classes from the group you mentioned, I’ve never joined the group) I’ll be cracking myself up for a good long while (and shuddering, too, I must admit) picturing the women I know dressed up like Playboy Bunnies. I can’t wait for the colleague in the cube next door to get back from vacation next week so I can quiz her on Puerto Rico. I’ve been around long enough to remember days when the booze flowed freer and deals were made with a handshake so it’s actually kind of nice to know in some small way there’s a little life left in these people.”
And here I thought I was being so discreet. Guess the con mention in P.R. gave me away, huh? Oh well. Still, if staid insurance folk can dress up like playmates, then I suppose it’s okay to turn yourself into Swan Head the Amazing.
Nope. Swans on the head feels very Copacabana to me, not really RWA.
Lani said on 07.18.07 at 05:31 PM • [link]
But to answer Nora’s question - No. I don’t think we can be JUST intelligent, attractive and interesting. I don’t think we can JUST write great books - not for people starting out, trying to make a name for themselves or promoting a new line of books.
Stephanie, I absolutely agree that writers are being pushed to do whatever they have to do to get attention in order to sell more books. There is a lot of pressure on writers to market, market, market, and sometimes desperation breeds crazy. That said, however, I disagree that a writer can’t be intelligent, professional and write good books and still get ahead, as long as they’re willing to wait. Some writers hit it big on the first book, but most don’t. If you’re patient and willing to build your following slowly, I believe good, professional writers will rise to the top. Maybe I have to believe that because otherwise I’d be checking out the classifieds right now, but I do believe it. I think there’s a misperception that writers have to be outrageous to get noticed. I think the best thing you can do to get noticed is consistently put out quality work, and the kind of notice you then receive will be the kind of notice you want.
I am so sending that photo to the Dallas Morning News, Rich.
I’d expect nothing less, Cory. Smooch.
Najida said on 07.18.07 at 05:43 PM • [link]
Ahhhh, Ok,
I get it! (Damn that swan is BIG!)
I think part of the problem (granted, I’m looking at this from the outside) is that writing is a creative art….and you are in the profession of creating fantasy. Even in reality, it’s a fantasy.
So I can see how costumes/boas/hats would flow from the books to the authors….sorta, kinda, yaknowaddamean.
I work in a very ‘stick up the butt’ medical profession and our meetings are borefests. You either see powersuits or birkensocks/crinkle skirts. So, no, no costumes would be appropriate.
Needed? Hell yeah, but you’re dealing with women who argue about mg of sodium in a bag of potato chips for fun. A costume to them would be blue birkenstocks.
Maybe if RWA held a party where costumes were encouraged, that might do it. However, how folks dress, especially in creative arts is often, well, hard to tell if its a costume or their usual dress.
Then you do find yourself with your foot in your mouth—- “Nice costume!” “It’s not a costume.”
Lani, if you wore that Daisy, I wouldn’t say a word.
Kate R., it’s normal to be conservative about protecting kids.
Melanie Hayden said on 07.18.07 at 05:52 PM • [link]
Reviewers at RWA? OMG, the world is ending!!!
If RWA intended the conference to be all business, all the time. . .well, I tend to think there would be a significant drop in attendance. How exactly would one determine who should be at such a conference, anyway? Would unpublished writers be allowed? Because if not, agent and editor appointments would be fairly pointless. And what criteria would you have to meet to be considered “a writer?” Because frankly, you Smart Bitches have done a damn site more writing than I have this year. It just doesn’t happen to be fiction.
On costumes, I guess that I come from a pretty uptight industry in my day job because I would never have dreamed of wearing those outfits to an event at which I was appearing in a professional capacity. To one of the parties? Definitely - and now I really need those pink thigh highs, btw. However, if someone had to do a costume (and someone ALWAYS has to do a costume), I’d rather it be something hip and young than uber-goth madness. Paranormal authors who dress like their creations are a special pet peeve of mine. It makes the rest of us look like role playing weirdos.
fiveandfour said on 07.18.07 at 05:52 PM • [link]
Guess the con mention in P.R. gave me away, huh?
No, no and don’t worry about it shaunee…I imagine there’s very few people who’d know what you were talking about, including me if I didn’t happen to work in close proximity with people who run the local chapter of the group in question.
Alesia Holliday said on 07.18.07 at 05:55 PM • [link]
aargh!! I wrote a long post and my computer ate it! Okay, to summarize, since I should be packing, anyway:
Disclaimer: I’m the one with the blue hair, so maybe I am less than objective. I had readers write to let me know they were driving ridiculously long distances to see me at the Literacy Signing and I wanted to do something fun and creative to celebrate that and say thank you and I got a few blue streaks in my hair, in honor of one of my characters. Does that make me less professional? Less focused on quality work? Hardly.
I worry that we are so afraid of the marginalizing influence and denigration of mainstream media and the literary fiction establishment that we’re afraid to be creative in our business. I’ve seen mystery authors, sci fi and fantasy authors, and of course childrens’ book authors, dress up in character. I’ve been on TV with Sandra Boynton who carries a giant stuffed chicken with her wherever she goes. Sure, her demographic is children, who appreciate giant stuffed chickens, but good for her!
Liz and Marianne wanted to engage readers and booksellers in conversations about the edgy new line they’re launching. Certainly they’ve achieved that goal - beyond their wildest dreams, I’d guess, now.
We’re artists. We’re allowed to have a little creative fun.
Michelle Rowen said on 07.18.07 at 06:14 PM • [link]
If I had a body like Liz and Marianne, forget the short skirts, I’ll show up in a bikini to promote my Shomi book.
I think they looked cute. And they certainly got people talking about the new line! Mission accomplished. ;-)
Deb Smith said on 07.18.07 at 06:14 PM • [link]
For every perky little author who dresses like a pedophile-luring schoolgirl or wears a swan hat or shows her rack or whatever in the vague hope of becoming a bestselling author that way, there are a hundred who a)don’t wear costumes, b)are fat, middle-aged and flat-chested c) don’t even go to conferences, in costume or not, and d)are hugely successful. So, like everything else in the world of extravagant self-promotion, the message continues to be: the best self-promo is sitting yo’ ass at home and writing another good book.
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 06:16 PM • [link]
An enormous swan worn on the head at a romance conference where such things aren’t the norm is done for no other reason than to garner attention.
If Kenyon wore that hat all around National, I’d totally agree with you, since that would clearly be about garnering personal attention and nothing else. But it’s my understanding she wears it as part of a “signing outfit” and that it relates to one of her covers, so I’m still not seeing the big distinction between her and the self-styled Rebels.
Gail K. drew the distinction as old school v. new school, and as a member of the new school (chronologically, at least), that comment really seems on target to me, because my first reaction to M&M was along the lines of Candy’s response. Then I started to think more about it, and the ground shifted.
Also, as counterintuitive as it sounds, the idea of an author simply garnering attention actually feels less objectionable to me than an author using something I think we need to jettison in Romance—the overpersonalization of the author—to market the genre. Like “Dear Reader” letters, dressing up as one’s characters feels like the genre is using certain stereotypes about women (and the nature of fantasy) to market the genre to us, and it squicks me out. The calculated business model of M&M’s outfits actually works against my desire to embrace it, especially since it doesn’t seem all that new as a strategy.
Alesia made a comment about being so tight about “professional standards” that we end up squelching creativity, and I think she has a really good point. And it brought even more into focus what I think is basically the interesting comparison between Kenyon and M&M—in M&M’s case they have admitted that they are engaged in a calculated branding effort. Is it creative? Not in the same sense of writing (at least as I like to see it). It may be creative marketing, but it’s less about paying homage to the genre or one’s characters and more about moving books. And in that, maybe Kenyon is the more authentic in her expression, even if I think the overall dynamic is the same—that is, to create an overt and IMO overpersonalized association between author and book. And yes, I know the same thing happens in sci fi, but as someone pointed out, the culture is quite different, and it’s largely the fans who are dressing like that, isn’t it?
Michelle said on 07.18.07 at 06:28 PM • [link]
The thing about marketing is sometimes it wins and sometimes it backfires. The whole “rebels of the romanceworld” is a big backfire to me because I view it as insulting to other romance writers. Completely different issue than the costumes. But to some it might make them pick up the book. But in the end I would rather read a good story than a mediocre story with a gimmick.
Jonquil said on 07.18.07 at 06:29 PM • [link]
” But the thing is, we’re an easy target for most mainstream media outlets because they either don’t read us or don’t want to admit it, and they go into stuff like this keeping an eye out for the big swan head.”
This is what a friend of mine refers to as “the naked guy at the Pride parade.” There will always be one naked guy at the Gay Pride parade. The reporters will *always* interview and photograph (discreetly) that guy. And all the gay people pushing strollers, or doing drill-team routines in their business suits, or flaunting their respectable professional status, will be mentioned, if at all, as a sidebar. Because the frame for that story is “weird people”, not “normal people having fun”. And until the frame changes, it really doesn’t matter what you do.
Liz Maverick said on 07.18.07 at 06:34 PM • [link]
Just wanted to mention that I personally loved the swan hat. It seemed to me a communication between author and readers. A kind of in-joke for her audience. Lots of authors cultivate reader groups with themes. Off the top of my head I can also think of Jenny Crusie’s Cherries. So to me, the swan hat was a kind of homage to her readers. It was fun, it got people’s attention, and I’m sure her readers loved it. I say: Oh, baby, rock on! But that’s just me.
As for calculated marketing effort thigh highs versus swan hat authenticity. Well, *shrug*. It seems irrelevant to me.
New button for next year: I HONK FOR SWAN HATS
:)
Liz
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 06:37 PM • [link]
I guess I wonder whether we are seeking validation/approval/acceptance from people who will never give it, swan hat or no. There is so much else about the genre that plays to the idea that it is frivolous and worthless and very little of it has to do with the swan hat.
I think this is a very good point, even though I do think that some of these images of Romance, as they filter outside of the community, do help maintain a certain taint to the genre. Even more, though, the associative marketing reminds me of those letters Karen Templeton was talking about that Harlequin authors were expected to write and that were supposed to make a personal connection between the author and the book. Which, of course, has nothing to do with mainstream acceptance of Romance, but instead with how the genre is marketed to its own audience. And I think there’s a subtext in the genre that readers connect to the books because we project ourselves into the fantasy world of the novels, feeding that stereotype of the genre as emotional femme porn. OTOH, I think it’s fabulous that M&M are trying to reach a younger readership—IMO, the more diverse the readership, the better for the genre. And if younger readers associate that costuming as positive, then mission accomplished, I guess. But if a whole new crop of historical authors came dressed in period wear, don’t you think the reaction would be different? (and FWIW, I don’t like the suggestive author photos, either, and I know they’re done in other genres, as well).
fiveandfour said on 07.18.07 at 06:40 PM • [link]
Pardon me while I think out loud for awhile…
Like “Dear Reader†letters, dressing up as one’s characters feels like the genre is using certain stereotypes about women (and the nature of fantasy) to market the genre to us, and it squicks me out.
Robin, this articulated better than I ever could another part of the costuming that makes me uncomfortable. This is similar to me to how I’ve heard there are romance-genre conventions where drinks (or whatever) are catered to the crowd of mostly women by bare-chested men. This is obviously what some women want and like, but for myself that’d be a big, fat NO.
I don’t like the concept of mostly nude men catering to me any more than I like the concept of mostly nude women catering to my husband (a la stripjoints, of which my neck of the woods reportedly has the most per square capita in the nation). There’s too much of an element of usury to it for my comfort, even if the people doing it volunteered for the job (and even like it). I realize it’s not the same thing - dressing in a costume to sell something and undressing in a costume to sell something - but there’s something in there that feels the same, and that something isn’t in my comfort zone.
It’s also very possible this is nothing more than the fact that I don’t like the assumption that I’m supposed to fit a stereotype just because I read books in this genre and therefore this or that tactic should appeal to me. Yes, that’s undoubtedly *quite* possible since I can’t help feeling insulted when even thinking that’s a possibility.
Alesia Holliday said on 07.18.07 at 06:45 PM • [link]
>>For every perky little author who dresses like a pedophile-luring schoolgirl<<
This is flatly offensive. Also the premise of your post is unsupported - writing good books is not a bar to being an effective marketer, as Liz’s starred review in PW attests.
azteclady said on 07.18.07 at 06:49 PM • [link]
Except that, to change said frame, you need more people visibly being normal (whatever normal is defined to be) than people being weird or outrageous.
Personally, and while I get the whole “professional doesn’t equal staid/stodgy/stiffling” bit, I still think that professional behavior and dress are better in the long run than any other kind—both for individual authors and for the entire industry at large.
(and to think that my spam foiler is “forward22”!)
iffygenia said on 07.18.07 at 06:50 PM • [link]
Mancusi and Maverick’s short skirts and cool socks don’t look like costumes.
One doesn’t look like a costume. Two standing together is clearly a costume. They said as much themselves. They chose their clothes to be costumes, to create an image, to market their books.
I’m not saying it’s an outrageous getup. But to me this is too general a standard:
Maybe it’s the ‘would you go to the mall in this outfit’ test.
What I’d wear to the mall is not what I’d wear to a conference. Is it what I’d wear for a press event? That depends.
The book signing sounds like it’s all about author exposure—to fans and to the press. So again, mallwear isn’t appropriate—but what is appropriate depends on the image you’re after. Exposure to fans is about presenting yourself to people who already love the genre. Exposure to the press is about a broader audience.
why must JR Ward always wear the rock star sunglasses?
I think Sarah Frantz posted that Ward is severely photosensitive—camera flashes, etc, can put her out of commission.
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 06:51 PM • [link]
This is similar to me to how I’ve heard there are romance-genre conventions where drinks (or whatever) are catered to the crowd of mostly women by bare-chested men.
Yes, exactly. And since I already feel like the factory farming model of Romance publishing privileges things like marketing over writing and editing, the synergistic effect of that type of marketing is doubly frustrating to me. How much of an author’s work is directed at writing and how much at marketing these days? And when the marketing is—to me, anyway—same old same old (despite the updating packaging), it doesn’t help. Of course I’m the dork who would buy a book marketed with the strategy of “this book has no cover because we spent all our marketing budget on editing,” so I’m not immune to marketing by any stretch of the imagination. I’m not that naive, just better manipulated with a different approach. I wish Romance publishers at least *pretended* to respect me and my money, even if they don’t. ;)
Jane said on 07.18.07 at 06:53 PM • [link]
Robin, this articulated better than I ever could another part of the costuming that makes me uncomfortable. This is similar to me to how I’ve heard there are romance-genre conventions where drinks (or whatever) are catered to the crowd of mostly women by bare-chested men. This is obviously what some women want and like, but for myself that’d be a big, fat NO.
I don’t like the concept of mostly nude men catering to me any more than I like the concept of mostly nude women catering to my husband (a la stripjoints, of which my neck of the woods reportedly has the most per square capita in the nation). There’s too much of an element of usury to it for my comfort, even if the people doing it volunteered for the job (and even like it). I realize it’s not the same thing - dressing in a costume to sell something and undressing in a costume to sell something - but there’s something in there that feels the same, and that something isn’t in my comfort zone.
Usury? How did we jump from manga styled costumes to nude male chests? Cosplay is very accepted within the anime industry. The covers of the Shomi books are intentionally manga like to attract a broader and possibly newer, younger audience. The Shomi costumes are not at all akin bringing a bus filled with male cover models or selling a calendar filled with bare chested men.
It’s this industries slavish devotion to the male chest that is more responsible for it being labeled porn more than anything. Authors dressed up in short skirts and ponytails are nothing compared to the imagery that is innudating the public on an hourly basis at the grocery store and the bookstore.
These women aren’t selling themselves. They are selling an idea. A concept. A package. It was done for the public signing to attract readers to their table, to stand out in the masses. At least they were there and personable instead of signing their books and leaving or looking like they didn’t want to be there and turning away readers.
Teddy Pig said on 07.18.07 at 06:57 PM • [link]
I think Nora’s observation on professional attire is right in line with the other question brought up of “Is this RWA convention for writers or readers?”
If it is for Romance writers and industry insiders and the dissemination of career building information and services then why even have free books and the whole book signing thing (for readers)or these costumes and advertising etc etc etc?
Except maybe in the context of showing writers the advertising power and ideas a publisher will provide for their books.
If it is a professional environment meant to serve the purpose of focusing on only Romance writers, their careers and the marketing of their next books and talking with their editors and meeting publishers and agents.
Then is catering to readers and wearing costumes and just doing the whole promotion thing off focus?
I think that is an interesting question.
From what I have heard so far it sounds like the convention is very similar to RT which supposedly is for promotion to Romance readers.
Jane said on 07.18.07 at 07:00 PM • [link]
Wednesday is the literacy signing and it is open to the public. This is where the costumes where worn by three authors of the 450 that were there.
Thursday through Saturday, this convention is for workshops, networking and author to author publicity. The only thing that a reader would benefit from is authorial socialization which would merely be by happenstance or individually preplanned meetings.
It is a writer’s workshop and business place. I went with the purpose of providing myself and the readers of DA insight on the industry’s convention. If I made it seem like RT, I am sorry because I think RT with its cover models and costume balls is part of what is wrong with our image and I don’t see RWA’s National Convention doing that.
Kerry Allen said on 07.18.07 at 07:10 PM • [link]
I might buy your book if you conduct yourself at all times in a business-conservative manner, but I’m not standing in line for an hour to meet you any more than I’d do the same just to say “hi, love your work” to an IRS agent.
But that’s just me. The divide between the “lighten up, it was fun” crowd and the “they’re inflicting irreparable damage to the image of the genre” crowd is never going to be bridged here or anywhere else.
Kalen Hughes said on 07.18.07 at 07:10 PM • [link]
Lots of authors cultivate reader groups with themes. Off the top of my head I can also think of Jenny Crusie’s Cherries. So to me, the swan hat was a kind of homage to her readers.
Somehow I can’t see JC showing up at the literacy signing (let alone just wandering around the conference) with a giant cherry on her head.
I write historicals and am a costume historian. I certainly own the right clothing to show up dressed as one of my heroines, but the idea of doing so at the RWA convention just seems out of step with my purpose for being there (it’s a professional conference, not a reader con like RT where costumes would totally make sense).
Perhaps my distaste for it all comes from growing up in the sci/fi/fantasy world where my parents’ friends were frequently squicked out by having fans show up dressed as their characters? I don’t know. The costumes just struck me as “off†somehow. They certainly didn’t inspire me to want to read any of the books associated with them.
iffygenia said on 07.18.07 at 07:14 PM • [link]
If it is for Romance writers and industry insiders... then why even have free books and the whole book signing thing (for readers)or these costumes and advertising etc etc etc?
That’s why I made the distinction between the booksigning being for readers or for the press. “Insiders” (including fans of the genre) will see costumes, stunts, and in jokes differently than the press and the general public.
Sounds like the swanmonstrosity is an in joke to Kenyon’s readers and the manga chic is more focused on the press? (I’m guessing as it doesn’t seem likely a branding like “Rebels of Romance” would be a hit with an internal audience—witness the offended responses in the comments here.)
Either way, though antagonistically expressed, I think Deb Smith hit on the core of the issue: this whole debate is about attention-getting in its various guises.
Jonquil said on 07.18.07 at 07:16 PM • [link]
“Except that, to change said frame, you need more people visibly being normal (whatever normal is defined to be) than people being weird or outrageous.”
Alas, no. Otherwise, the picture of the *one* (of three total) costumed person at the convention wouldn’t have been the teaser for the article.
When people go to RWA National with the attitude of “look at the weird women” (which has happened in many forms over the years) there’s always going to be somebody who can be used to illustrate and uphold the stereotype.
Liv said on 07.18.07 at 07:17 PM • [link]
“This is perhaps an indicator of how clueless I am when it comes to fashion, but I’d totally wear a similar get-up to Mancusi/Maverick to lunch with an agent. Not what I’d wear to a wedding or a super-formal occasion, or even to work at a conservative company (like I do now), but very similar to I’d wear to something like an editor’s meeting. *shrug*”
I think this kind of sums up the “anti-costume” point: why do you treat a business meeting with your editor (where a Shomi outfit is OK) differently from the company where you work now (where the outfit is not OK)? Aren’t they both professional business meetings? That seems to me what people are getting at: that the Romance industry is a professional business, the convention is essentially a professional business meeting, and the authors should treat it as such - by behaving and dressing like professionals.
Now the question is: is the convention truly equivalent to a professional business meeting? I don’t know - I’m still making up my mind - but it seems that many people view it as such, others don’t, and that’s the rub.
jody novins said on 07.18.07 at 07:19 PM • [link]
I wonder if any of the people commenting about Liz and Marianne’s outfits have read their work. I have. Wired is a fresh, original, amazing piece of work, and I’m not the only one who thinks so:
Starred Review. If Maverick’s fast-paced, genre-bounding novel is any indication, Dorchester’s new imprint, Shomi—which aims to hook a younger generation of readers—should catch an audience quickly. Maverick grabs readers from page one, throwing together romance, science fiction and cyberpunk. (From PW)
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’d kill to have a review like that.
A book like Wired deserves a strong sell through, the author deserves to be picked up again, but we all know that doesn’t happen if there’s no buzz about the book or the author. (Sorry Marianne, haven’t read your book yet.)
No disrespect meant to Jennie Cruisie and Nora Roberts, but they have publishers willing to extensive marketing behind their books. Newcomers like Marianne and Liz have to generate buzz themselves. (And let’s be honest, a bunch of bookmarks and a website won’t do it.)
Would any of you be talking about these writers or their books if they hadn’t dressed up? They are creating a brand that works effectively with their covers and the material they are writing—fresh, edgy, futuristic, and anime-influenced. An image, I might point out, that has gotten them interviewed by PW, picked up by mediabistro, Borders electronic newsletter, and highlighted at BEA.
(And tarty? Please, there’s more cleavage in most of the Rita gowns or in the bustiers sported by erotica authors—and I don’t hear anyone dissing them.)
I’ve run the green room at BEA (where authors come through before signing) for over five years. There are quite a number of bestselling authors who wear what might be considered costumes to promote their brands—Tom Wolfe in his over-sized white suit, Neil Gaiman in black and leather and with a haircut like his Sandman character, RL Stine who always wears black, Iris Johansen whose entourage carries big vases of irises for her wherever she goes. Fans LOVE this.
Liz with her MBA in marketing and Marianne with her Emmy award, are two very smart, talented women. With their Rebels of Romance campaign they are reaching out to a new generation of romance readers. Young readers who are embarrassed to be seen with a book with half-naked men and women on it. (And that’s not a dis of those kinds of covers, just a fact.) YA fans are the next generation of adult romance readers. If Liz and Marianne succeed in drawing them in and showing them that romance can be smart, funny, and empowering (and not “trash” as it’s often labeled)then, like the rest of us, aren’t going to care about the pink/cartoon/naked people covers publishers put on the books. They are going to care about the writing. And all of us, fans and writers alike, profit.
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 07:20 PM • [link]
The covers of the Shomi books are intentionally manga like to attract a broader and possibly newer, younger audience. The Shomi costumes are not at all akin bringing a bus filled with male cover models or selling a calendar filled with bare chested men.
I think it depends on whether you’re looking at the particulars of this image and concept or the way the genre more generally uses certain images and concepts to sell itself to readers. At a certain distance, it’s all the same to me, Jane, even though I understand how people are drawing the distinctions. Like I said, my first reaction to the photo was positive, and I still have no negative reaction to the *content* of the outfits. I think I understand Kenyon’s swan hat, too. It’s at the big picture level where the distinctions between M&M and Brenda Novak dressed in a toga and judging similarly clad (or unclad) cover models on Mr. Romance break down for me.
Liz Maverick said on 07.18.07 at 07:22 PM • [link]
Hmmm…who said the Rebels of Romance were anti-romance? We’re anti-stereotype and that should be a good thing. Again, check out the http://www.rebelsofromance.com website to ease your mind. We’re pro-romance genre and we’re not afraid to go out to the press and the public and say it.
:)
Liz (who really should be WRITING, LOL!)
Lauren Dane said on 07.18.07 at 07:23 PM • [link]
Well, I think I’d ask why anyone cares if reviewers or bloggers attend RWA. I mean, at a conference as big as Nationals, you’re dealing with thousands of people milling around (same with RT, etc) so, and it might just be me, but I spend more time thinking about my own interactions with people than who someone down the hall might be and if they’re acceptable or not. My assumption is, if people want to spend the money and time to go to Nationals, more power to em and all that.
Secondly, I’m just sort of stupefied by the tinge of nastiness in some of the reactions to costumes at signings. It’s a signing, some people tend to view it as a fun, promotional event. It is promotion. It’s not a pitch meeting, it’s marketing. I tend to like comfortable clothes at a signing but I am loving how Liz Maverick and Marianne Mancusi are taking the idea behind Shomi and making it fun and accessible. The anime/manga type covers is related to what they did and the “pedophile luring” comment made me very uncomfortable.
Dressing appropriately is something you do as a professional. If I’m at a dinner party at a conference, I’m going to dress for one. If I’m meeting an editor or an agent for the first time, I’m going to dress appropriately. If I’m sitting on a panel, etc. But a signing, a book release party, etc - these are things where appropriateness has wider boundaries. If people want to have a little fun and dress up, why should that bother anyone else?
I guess the bottom line is, I don’t get why everyone seems to be so obsessed with what everyone else does at these large public events.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 07:23 PM • [link]
Lani: Holy crapperdammer, that photo made me laugh.
Gail: The old school vs. new school tension between the manga costumes and the grand-diva Black Swan Sherrilyn Kenyon hat. I don’t like the distinction I’m hearing in these comments that one is acceptable and that one is not. If we’re going to embrance feminine power via marketing, let’s embrace it in all ways.
Whoa, slow down, there. The whole point of this thing isn’t new school vs. old school. I’m talking swinging to extremes. The swan hat was extreme. If Mancusi/Maverick HAD gone in full anime-style drag instead of their toned-down get-up, which conformed pretty closely to what I view as streetwear, I’d be going “AIEEEEE.” What Maverick/Mancusi did ain’t even CLOSE to what many the get-ups you can see at SF/F and anime cons.
I still stick by what I said: some of these costumes work. Some of them kind of backfire. All of them garner attention. The Mancusi/Maverick schtick made me pay attention to the Shomi line and I’m going to check ‘em out and see if they pass my 15-page test the next time I get to a bookstore. The Kenyon Swan O’ Death? Eh. If I really liked her books, it wouldn’t deter me from getting more, but as a new-to-me author, I don’t feel especially interested in looking her up. But you know what? That hat indicates a sense of humor, and I really, really appreciate that, because damn, the romance community could use a good shot of that a lot of the time.
Much as I am impressed by Maverick and Mancusi, I am uncomfortable with how they have set themselves up as “The Rebels of Romance.†Um, what does that say about most of the other ladies who write romance? Boring, old, fat housewives.
That’s setting up another false dichotomy, don’t you think? (The old school vs. new school is also falsely polarizing, in my opinion.) There’s plenty of middle ground between “rebel” and “fat hausfraus with a serious bonbon habit.”
And let’s face it: what they’re doing, in terms of crossover, theme, etc. IS pretty different from mainstream romance. They may be overstating the countercultural rebel thing, I’ll give you that, but what they’re doing with the books really does seem to be something new(ish) in the genre, and focused more on young and edgy—for certain values of “young” and “edgy,” anyway.
Kate: I finally figured out what squicks me about the clothes. Women dressing like sexy little girls gives me the willies—even though it’s all the rage in Japan.
A large part of my befuddlement over this is driven by the fact that Maverick/Mancusi are wearing what *I* would wear, and what I see a lot of people my age wearing. (It ain’t a Portland thing, I think. I mean, Portland prides itself in being colorful and weird, what with the Zoobombing and March Fourth and the Plunderathon and the Zombiewalk and the Naked Bike Ride and the Public Pillowfighting, but we ain’t that special, and many other cities have similar scenes going on.) I don’t think my friends and I are trying to dress like sexy little girls; I don’t think Mancusi/Maverick were, either. Since when were short skirts, shiny tops and thigh-high stockings primarily little-girl wear? Whuh?
Robin: Also, as counterintuitive as it sounds, the idea of an author simply garnering attention actually feels less objectionable to me than an author using something I think we need to jettison in Romance—the overpersonalization of the author—to market the genre. Like “Dear Reader†letters, dressing up as one’s characters feels like the genre is using certain stereotypes about women (and the nature of fantasy) to market the genre to us, and it squicks me out. The calculated business model of M&M’s outfits actually works against my desire to embrace it, especially since it doesn’t seem all that new as a strategy.
Hmmm. Now THAT’s something for me to chew over. I think this is one of the first arguments I’ve seen that have made me feel more ambivalent about the whole costuming thing, because the overpersonalization creeps me the hell out, too. I’ll have to think about this more before I can come up with anything coherent.
Michelle: The whole “rebels of the romanceworld†is a big backfire to me because I view it as insulting to other romance writers.
How is it insulting to other romance writers? I’m not sure I get it. They’re positioning themselves as doing something different and fun; this does not automatically imply that everybody else is boring.
Jane said on 07.18.07 at 07:27 PM • [link]
But professional for writers seems to mean something else to me than professional for a lawyer, doctor, etc. These people are creative right? Maybe even artists? I guess my expectations are that creative types get to where costumes and big ass swan hats on their head because that is what I expect from creative types.
I don’t see it as a bad thing. I should be working but I think I need to print out the comments and really distill the pro/cons because I do respect the opinions of people who are arguing against as much as I respect my own opinion and I want to evaluate it fully.
Lauren Dane said on 07.18.07 at 07:28 PM • [link]
And to Liv’s question about why you’d wear something to a business meeting in one profession but not another - that’s about the cultural norms of professions.
When I worked at a large law firm, the cultural norms were not the same as the ones when I worked at a non-profit. Both were unquestionably professional jobs - they just had different expectations.
The first time I met my agent, I dressed up but now that I know her and she knows me, I dress more casually. If she and I were to meet with an editor for the first time, I’d dress up. It’s about gauging your audience and understanding the norms for that particular situation. Professional means different things in different professions and even at different meetings within those professions.
Celina Summers said on 07.18.07 at 07:30 PM • [link]
The way I portray myself as an author may not be the same way that other authors portray themselves. I get that—I understand it—I embrace it. No, I won’t wear a swan hat. No, I won’t do knee-high boots and short skirts (outgrew that phaze about ten years ago) but then again, no, I probably won’t do the business suit thing either. It’s very easy for any of us to sit back and criticize the route one of our peers has taken. The fact of the matter is that in American society in particular, the lines between ‘professional’ attire and ‘casual’ attire is now blurred. If e were talking about someone who showed up smelly, with gnat-infested hair and drunk off their gourd THEN it might be an issue. *shrug* but then again, I worked in a gay bar for years. Being the only little princess in a room full of queens immunizes you against excesses of dress. NOTHING surprises me any more, and after zipping up the gown of a seven-foot-tall man, a swan hat or anime-inspired clothing isn’t likely to even register on my radar.
azteclady said on 07.18.07 at 07:32 PM • [link]
jonquil, I totally see what you means, hence the key words would be “visibly normal”—again, however you define normal.
As a reader who has never attended a con of any kind, I’m talking completely out of my ass here (how’s that for a disclaimer?), but…
Seems to me that Jane is hitting the nail in the head: there are parts of RWA National that are geared towards readers/fans/general public, and parts that are exclusively for industry professionals—be these reviewers, agents, writers (both published and not yet), etc.
Color me extra conservative (which would be funny, actually), but I keep feeling that if the romance publishing industry, as a whole, wants to break the “soft porn”, “porn for women”, “trash” stereotype, then individuals should perhaps make an effort to fit how they present themselves to this overall goal. I.e., dress and behave in a professional manner.
Now, some people are naturally more casual in their professional lives—jeans and a nice shirt wouldn’t make me look twice. Costumes would—let alone the oft mentioned swanhat.
Of course, my only interest here is as a reader who keeps hearing (from my intellectually snobbish family, friends, coworkers, neighbors, heck, strangers at the bookstore!!) that romance novels are, by definition and with no exception, trash. I’m tired of that, and long for some public respect for a genre I love love LOVE—as well as some peace and quiet from well meaning souls bent on rescuing me from my “poor” reading choices.
[the SB’s spamfoiler is scary today! “personal43”—yup, this is my personal opinion, nothing more]
Liv said on 07.18.07 at 07:35 PM • [link]
I agree that professional means different things in different contexts - which is why I really do think the real question is “what is the point/expectation of the conference” rather than just “is it OK to wear costumes.”
I honestly don’t know - but I can see the point that the conference is more like the first meeting with an editor is some ways. The romance industry is one that is already maligned, dismissed, and condescended to - so I can see the argument that a conference is one place to highlight the professionalism of the industry - that romance authors are real business people deserving of recognition and respect.
On the other hand - I can see the argument that the conference is a time for people to get together and have fun. Like I said - I honestly don’t know where I fall on this yet.
Corrina said on 07.18.07 at 07:35 PM • [link]
Jenny Crusie with a giant cherry on her head? Um…I’m thinking ‘no.’ The cherries actually named themselves, though, and Jenny was nice enough to go along with something that mainly started as a dirty joke related to a cover that was changed from apples to cherries. So far, though, we haven’t ventured much beyond t-shirts.
I totally understand the wanting to dress up similar to characters. When I finaled in the Golden Heart a few years back, I made sure to wear a black leather jacket (a classy one) in honor of the main character. Plus, I also happen to love black leather jackets. So I’m not particularly bothered by the idea.
The questions raised in this discussion are interesting, mainly: How much marketing is too much? Is there pressure from publishers to do this?
But, I’m sorry, the giant swan hat? SK seems a very nice person with a great sense of humor but if, say, Lani wanted to wear it, I’d snicker at her too and when I stopped laughing, I would, of course, say “Baby, no.”
Because it’s a Giant Swan Hat!
Jonquil said on 07.18.07 at 07:36 PM • [link]
Because “professional” differs by context. At my current job in Silicon Valley, a business suit would be unprofessional and in fact might get me dinged at a job interview. In Charlotte, NC, where I used to live in the 90s, a red mid-thigh suit with gold embroidery on the lapels was routine business dress in the downtown financial district. (I have no idea what’s routine now.) When I lived in New England, a subdued business suit was de rigueur for interviews.
There honestly isn’t one “professional”. If I worked for an investment bank (I once did, and I’ll tell you that was a trip), I wouldn’t consider my daytime “professional” gear to be “professional” when talking to my agent.
What’s “edgy” for the East Coast is routine in Northern California; what’s “edgy” for Northern California would probably make everybody else faint.
laurad said on 07.18.07 at 07:36 PM • [link]
I’m just a lurker and reader, jumping in to the conversation but…..... 3 out of 450? Four thigh-highs and a swan hat don’t equal the end of whatever leap toward respectability romance has made.
As for all the talk about how demeaning costumes are, either petition your organization to ban them, or let individual authors decide what is right for them.
Teddy Pig said on 07.18.07 at 07:37 PM • [link]
“I don’t like the concept of mostly nude men catering to me any more than I
like the concept of mostly nude women catering to my husband (a la
stripjoints, of which my neck of the woods reportedly has the most per
square capita in the nation).”
I fully disagree here. If “mostly nude men” wish to cater to me at an RWA event I will not only join I will become their greatest supporter EVA!
I am sorry but I am weak and easily swayed to sell my integrity for cheap thrills.
Gail K. said on 07.18.07 at 07:38 PM • [link]
Ms. Maverick,
I am really excited to buy read your new release, Wired, the more I hear about it. As a fan of SFF, anime, AND romance, it seems tailored made for me and “my” crowd. Yours and Ms. Mancusi’s Rebel of Romance campaign is exactly the kind of shock paddle I think this genre needs. And I’m *all* for drawing in the younguns.
However, from your branding, I still get an pervasive, uncomfortable sense of “we’re cool and the rest of ‘em are not,” be they other romance writers or readers. Sorta like the message is: Buy our books. You won’t be ashamed to read *these* in public.
I guess it the inner nerd in me still getting oddly drawn to yet intensely irritated by the cool chicks at the “other” lunch table, LOL.
Like I said before, I got mixed feelings about this issue. Fascinating discussion though. This genre needs more of this type of dialogue between authors, reviewers, AND readers.
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 07:40 PM • [link]
I’ll have to think about this more before I can come up with anything coherent.
Please do, Candy, because there’s a part of me that would like to be talked out of my objections—especially the part that thinks that pursuing an analysis of target audience might be a good start. But I have such a strong aversion to the overt business model of Romance publishing AND such a strong aversion to the way IMO Romance is marketed to conflate author, reader, and characters (because as women we can’t connect to the genre unless we are projected into the role of the heroine, right?) that I can’t get past the way those two things seem to dovetail here. So if you can come up with a way to get me out of that bind, I’m definitely open to it.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 07:44 PM • [link]
Hey, Candy, it wasn’t obvious to me, either—no little girl I know would dress like that. Probably that’s why it took me until today to figure out what the eff my problem is.
Little girls don’t dress that way, but there are some women in Japan who do because they want to imitate school girls—who are considered way hot. (Grown women = not as hot. Did you know you can buy school girls’ used panties from vending machines in Japan? http://www.snopes.com/risque/kinky/panties.asp)
I remember reading an article about Lolitas in Japan and it was illustrated with pix of desperate single women in their thirties dressed costumes similar to what these authors are wearing. The women were clutching big teddy bears too, just to really put the icing on the yick cake (like clue cake only way too sweet).
I wish I could find the damn article. I can’t but clearly remember the women wore the the thigh highs, the short skirts the gap between skirt and stocking—and hello kitty underwear. There are also Goth Lolitas—I can find pictures of them.
lolitas = school girls = desirable = squick for Kate. But clearly if an entire nation doesn’t mind, it’s a cultural thing on my part. I think the true threat or reality of pedophilia wouldn’t get a free ride in any modern country.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 07:44 PM • [link]
I think this kind of sums up the “anti-costume†point: why do you treat a business meeting with your editor (where a Shomi outfit is OK) differently from the company where you work now (where the outfit is not OK)?
Because they’re different industries. It’s all about context; some people have hard and fast rules about what constitutes acceptable professional wear, a sort of “one powersuit to rule them all and in the darkness bind them” stance, but I think it depends entirely on the industry you work in, the department you’ve been assigned to, the relationship you have with your co-workers and supervisors, etc. As a tech writer for a heavy manufacturing company, if nothing else, I might be required go down to the shop and clamber on machinery, so sensible, close-toed shoes and clothing that allows me freedom of movement is somewhat important; the conservative atmosphere in general also puts a lot of pressure on me to tone things down and mute my look. If I worked as a tech writer for an Internet start-up, or a copywriter for a small advertising firm, I’d wear the Shomi-style clothing, too, because those sorts of workplaces have much more relaxed standards, and when given a choice, my preference is to dress more closely to what I think of as “me”.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 07:47 PM • [link]
hey, that snopes piece refers to the whole buru-sera thing (school girl as sex object) not just the underwear. No pix, though.
Charlene said on 07.18.07 at 07:50 PM • [link]
It seems to me that one of the problems is that the standard of what is normal clothing and what is a “costume” is wildly different in different parts of the world. If Liz and her partner wore that in my hometown (of over a million people, and culturally very similar to Dallas), not only would traffic stop but I can guarantee someone would try to have them arrested for prostitution. Yes: those outfits are that out of the norm. Yet in other parts of the world nobody would raise an eye.
So perhaps we’re all bringing our own ideas to their costumes.
Marianne Mancusi said on 07.18.07 at 07:52 PM • [link]
The Rebels of Romance campaign is NOT anti-romance or even anti-old school romance. Our mission has always been to bridge the gap between YA readers and adult romance readers. Break through the stereotypes and show young people that romance can be relevant for their generation. A lot of people our age turn up their noses at the romance genre because they assume it’s something old housewives read.
We’re trying to, through this campaign, prove them wrong. Instill in them a love of romance. Be the gateway drug, so to speak. And I hope a lot of athors will ultimately benefit from our work.
You can read any of our interviews and you’ll get the same message everytime. We are proud to be romance authors. We embrace the genre. We are excited about all the great books that are out there and we want to convince the younger readers they may really find something they like if they just give it a try.
As for the costumes, we wore them as icebreakers, mostly. You may not believe it, but we are actually pretty shy and aren’t always sure how to meet readers and other writers—which was a goal of ours at this RWA. This way, we had people come up to us and inquire about our outfits. And we were able to use that intro to meet new people and introduce RWA to the new Shomi line.
As for the (rather offensive, imo) pedaphile comment, I could see your point if this were a conference filled with men. But we weren’t trying to look sexy—who would that even be for? The costumes are manga inspired and pretty commonplace in the sci-fi/fantasy world. We totally toned them down from RT and from what we’ll be doing at San Diego Comic Con next week. ;-)
Oh and just FYI - you’d better believe when I had meetings with my agent and editor I dressed very professionally. I also wore a very conservative dress to the RITAS. (You can see a pic on my blog.) The costumes were for events like the booksigning and our workshops and reader/bookseller events.
And lastly, I doubt anyone could think of a time during conference when Liz and I acted in a manner not befitting an author at this professional event. If we were seen getting wasted and dancing on tables, I could see the outrage. We wore mini-skirts. That was the extent of our real rebellion.
Jonquil said on 07.18.07 at 07:54 PM • [link]
Heh, heh. I once wore a hat from this company to work and total strangers came up to me all day to say how fabulous it was.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 07:55 PM • [link]
Kate: What Mancusi/Maverick are doing ain’t even CLOSE to the Lolita movement in Japan—which, from what I understand, isn’t necessarily about looking like a little kid so much as the Japanese putting their wonderfully weird spin on Victorian and Edwardian clothing. And as always: let Wikipedia be your fast-n-dirty Internet guide on these things.
Hello Kitty underwear ROCKS. But then I have a thing for Hello Kitty, and have since I was a wee ‘un.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 08:01 PM • [link]
My comments were about my response to the costumes that were obviously cute and that I think you look good in. In fact I love the damn stockings yet for some reason, I got the kohlrahbis. It took me quite a while to figure out why I had that peculiar response.
No way in the world do I think you’re promoting pedophilia. I think you’re having a good time and promoting your books, nothing else. I’ve made that clear.
But the fact is that there are Lolitas out there and they are women dressed like little girls to look sexy. I only read about them—I didn’t invent them. (No one but a man could invent those damn vending machines.)
So far I seem to be the only one who’s had that response so I think you’re safe. Besides, it wouldn’t stop me buying your books. I’m looking forward to it because I have nieces who are crazy about Japanese amime
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 08:03 PM • [link]
well, dammit, candy, now I have to go find that article and those illustrations and I wanted to have a life.
I’d go for the days of the week underwear myself.
Rinda said on 07.18.07 at 08:03 PM • [link]
Used underwear in a vending machine. Ew.
Seriously, short skirts and thigh highs aside, I for one am thrilled with the sound of the line. Maybe the focus needs to swing back to the edgy, cyber feel of the books instead of pedophile aspects, which frankly never once occurred to me. But then, I’m used to the world of Manga/anime. Saiyuki anyone?
To me, the swing has been moving this way for awhile. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s swinging away from any other type of romance. I have all kinds on my shelves. I don’t even see the Rebels of Romance as something that puts down other types of romance writer either. Nah, it’s just something new and different and catchy.
I write urban fantasy and freaking love the genre, but I also have manuscripts like one called, uh… Wired (which will obviously have to be changed)... that recently placed first in a romance contest. In times before that, I was told that no romance reader would ever want to read about a computer hacker heroine who used her fists.
In with something new doesn’t mean out with the old. And what’s old anyway? Love is love, right?
Should I shut up and find coffee or what? Sorry, this conversation is toooo interesting and I should be working.
Manda said on 07.18.07 at 08:05 PM • [link]
As a blogger/writer/reader, I’m not sure which of my hats should be banned from the convention. Didn’t most romance authors start out as fans at one time? This was my first RWA conference ever and I went as a general member, but I would have been disingenuous if I’d gone and pretended not to be a member of my group blog. Especially because our Blog, Romance Vagabonds, is about romance writing.
We rarely review and when we do it’s a goody goody nicey nice review anyway because that’s not what we’re about (and frankly there are plenty of straight shooting review sites out there already *tips hat to SBs*, why reinvent the wheel?)
Our blog is there to offer tips and encouragement to other aspiring romance writers. We don’t do ads and when we invite authors we ask them to talk about the writing process. Sometimes we lapse into fangirlishness but how can you not? It’s exciting to meet authors you’ve been reading for years and whose talent you respect. And you don’t give up your reader enthusiasm when you get your RWA membership.
People are multi-layered and complex and to reduce the conference to only those who write in lone solitude would not only be disservice to aspiring authors who attend the conference to figure out how to navigate the treacherous waters of the publication process, but also to the authors who can use the conference to get the word out to the romance community about their upcoming publications.
It’s a finely balanced ecosystem, the romance world, and even the giant swans have their place in it. (Though I could never in a million years pull that off with a straight face, nor would I want to. It’s hard enough to go through the bloody conference in a conspicuous wheelchair that keeps you at everyone’s crotch level!)
And I don’t know how one could tell readers from writers or reviewers anyway. I missed NR and the SBs and I was actively searching for them (when I could remember to and wasn’t having Chris Farley moments).
Perhaps next year they should tag reviewers and fans with scarlet letters?
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 08:06 PM • [link]
aha, you’re finding the GOTH Lolita fashionistas. Not the buru-sera women.
Goth lolita is hysterical. Wonder when it’ll show up here…And will it hit California first, like most fashion trends do?
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 08:07 PM • [link]
Jonquil: those top hats are totally hot! Damn, now I want one. It’d go so well with my black polka-dotted dress.
Charlene: it is very much a cultural thing—it’s driven not just by location, because I think age, social class and how much of a geek you are all play into our perceptions, I think.
By the way, can I just say that I’m enjoying this discussion hugely? I’m not agreeing with most of you, but I really enjoy bashing all these ideas around just to see what falls out, not to mention reading all this reasoned (if occasionally snippy) dissent.
Liz Maverick said on 07.18.07 at 08:07 PM • [link]
Gail K.
I’m just another writer, ya know? So come sit at my lunch table anytime…and I’ll come sit at yours. :)
That goes for all of you. Well, except maybe for the women who called me a prostitute and pedophile bait. I don’t think lunch would do it—I’d need a stiff drink first. ;)
Cheers!
Liz
Julia Quinn said on 07.18.07 at 08:08 PM • [link]
I’m staying out of the swan-debate, but I did want to pop in and scold Candy (in the nicest possible way, or I suppose, if she’d prefer, I could get mean) for making it sound like the SB’s et al weren’t welcome. I suppose there were a few people who didn’t want bloggers there, but everywhere I went, people were throwing their arms around Candy and Sarah and saying, “OMG! That’s YOU!”
I don’t always agree with everything here, and I’m sure I’m not meant to. It’d be a damned boring site if no one looked at it and said, “Now that’s just WRONG.” And I almost never post because, frankly, I don’t have the time to get involved in many online discussions and there’s nothing more annoying than starting an online discussion with someone and having them just disappear.
But as a reader I enjoy a lot of the posts, and as a writer, well, yeah, I sit and watch the train wrecks, too, and it was really fun to have faces and smiles and laughs to put with the SB online personas. That goes for Jane and Sybil, too. (I didn’t meet the other bloggers.) And it seemed to me that most authors felt that way.
Oh, and as for costumes, well, duh, weren’t we ALL in costume? I mean, do you really think I wear a skirt every day? That said, I want NORA’s costumes. Her shoes, too.
JQ, currently in sweats.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 08:12 PM • [link]
damn, no, I could be talking through my hat again. Not just goth are shown at wiki—all Lolitas are there.
And there’s no picture but it doesn’t sound like erotic lolita would fit either. well, is it only my fevered brain then? I have to go help kids, but later on I’ll look, and if I don’t find what I’m talking about I will say yeah, it’s just me.
Got to love wiki:
sounds like a Victorian etiquette guide I’m reading.
Teddy Pig said on 07.18.07 at 08:16 PM • [link]
Japanese Goth Lolita Goodness
I saw this book at Different Light. Wow!
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 08:26 PM • [link]
But the fact is that there are Lolitas out there and they are women dressed like little girls to look sexy. I only read about them—I didn’t invent them. (No one but a man could invent those damn vending machines.)
You mean like this: http://www.zoogstercostumes.com/products/la8879.html
I kept thinking about a slew of rock videos featuring the naughty school girl theme, but I had a fleeting moment of parallel recognition, too. But it didn’t squick me out because I knew that wasn’t the image they were trying to invoke. But it’s out there, for sure, so I don’t think the association was inexplicable. Also, I think I remember the article with those photos you’re referring to, Kate. And IIRC, there was some sort of post here at one point about erotic Japanese dolls (does this ring a bell for anyone), with a link trail that yielded some pretty interesting stuff.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 08:29 PM • [link]
back for only a moment..
okay so the skin between skirt and socks is a *teeny tiny* echo of buru sera. Apparently enough to set off distant alarms in me.
here’s a work safe picture:
http://www.b4hamut.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/burusera.gif
To be strictly accurate, it shouldbe a traditional school girl uniform. No doubt solemnly described in wikipedia, but I do need a life and not just at the moment, apparently.
Should I restate that you’re not peddling anything like porn and that this connection is my errr kink? Thanks.
I think I want a swan hat.
Kerry Allen said on 07.18.07 at 08:29 PM • [link]
I’m also a little confused over the brouhaha over “overpersonalization” and “branding” of the author issue. If the author is not being marketed right along with the book, what is the point of an author doing book signings, interviews, lectures, or even voicing an opinion in a blog comment? Is the author supposed to be invisible? Why not take all the authors’ names off the books, in that case, and let them sink or swim on the basis of story alone?
Because it’s ridiculous, that’s why. The author is the one with the voice to call attention to the product, and the more distinctive the voice, the more attention received. The writing is ultimately the most important thing, but if the fabulously written book sits quietly on the shelf and then quietly fades into obscurity, no one will ever find out about the writing. If that happens to your first book, good luck getting another contract. There is no time to build a fan base anymore. You get a good sell-through or make a list the first time, or you’re replaced by the next new thing who’s willing to stand on the corner and handsell her book at red lights if need be.
fiveandfour said on 07.18.07 at 08:32 PM • [link]
Usury? How did we jump from manga styled costumes to nude male chests?
Admittedly, this is probably a leap that could only occur in my mind. It was inspired by something I heard (NO proof that it’s true) that Mick Jagger said. Commenting about his reputation as a user and denigrator of women, he replied that most of the time it’s hard for him not to when the women do such a good job of denigrating themselves. In this context, he was speaking of women who have done such things as dance on tabletops in front of him without their underwear as a means of attracting his attention.
As I said, I do understand that there’s quite a difference between these two scenarios. But there is a key similarity in these situations which is related to the marketing of oneself. I market myself as reliable, among other things, when I dress conservatively for work. A woman markets herself as sexually available, among other things, when she undresses in most public situations. Dressing as a character or in relation to a creation markets one in a different way. It doesn’t say “I’m reliable” or “I’m sexually available” per se since that all depends on the costume, but it does say something in relation to a blurring of the line between art and commerce. And how far one is willing to go in the selling or marketing of self for that commerce.
For myself, I’ve always been uncomfortable in this zone, which is probably another reason why it gave me pause and one reason among many why I could never be a celebrity. (Or if I were, I’d be like Sean Penn, wanting to punch in the nose anyone who came near me with a camera.) As Robin said, it’s not the content of the costumes of M&M that makes me uncomfortable (they looked awfully cute to me and as Candy has said, there are plenty such people around Portland whom I see all the time so in person and at the time I imagine it wouldn’t have struck me in any particular way), it’s just that with time to reflect on it the concept of doing anything along those lines at all takes me a bit aback. At heart, it makes me wonder what stereotypes are being catered to and makes me resent the implication that I’m supposed to fit those stereotypes. And resent the implication that I *don’t* fit those stereotypes if it doesn’t appeal to me.
But as pointed out, we’re about 3 people in a cast of thousands here, so the reality of how authors are marketing themselves in the wider sense says a lot more about the industry than speaking of these 3 people does.
Candy said on 07.18.07 at 08:32 PM • [link]
I’m staying out of the swan-debate, but I did want to pop in and scold Candy (in the nicest possible way, or I suppose, if she’d prefer, I could get mean) for making it sound like the SB’s et al weren’t welcome. I suppose there were a few people who didn’t want bloggers there, but everywhere I went, people were throwing their arms around Candy and Sarah and saying, “OMG! That’s YOU!â€
Whoa! I did not in any way mean to imply that at all with this post. Didn’t even occur to me. I only had ONE person tell us we’re scary, and everybody was wonderfully fun and enthusiastic. So many fantastic conversations, like damn and like whoa. It was wonderfully weird to encounter so many people who think I’m cool and worth meeting solely because of what they’ve read on the website. The RWA was fun from start to finish for me, and nobody snubbed me or made me feel anything less than completely welcome—that I know of, anyway, because I have the ability to be hideously oblivious to these sorts of things. Anyway, all the glowing and squeeful posts that precede this one spoke pretty loudly about how much I enjoyed the whole thing, but that would be assuming y’all read our 2,967 posts about the conference, hee.
fiveandfour said on 07.18.07 at 08:45 PM • [link]
Teddy Pig, that book must mean there are men that get off on Little Bo Peep? I…I don’t know what to think of that. I just…wow…didn’t see that coming, despite knowing about things like furries and giant, life-like dolls as girlfriends.
And if ever it looks like I’ll be in a situation involving nearly naked men catering to me, I’ll be sure to invite you as my “and guest” so at least those poor, pitiable, miserable men (ha!) wouldn’t have waxed their chests for nothing.
December Quinn/Stacia Kane said on 07.18.07 at 08:50 PM • [link]
I think Sherrilyn Kenyon can wear whatever she wants and be fantastic. I think the costumes are fantastic. These women aren’t bankers, they’re writers.
While writing is a professional business, if I wanted to be forced to look like a banker all te time, I wouldn’t have left my job at the bank. Wearing a suit for an editor/agent appointment is one thing, but why are writers not allowed to dress creatively and have fun at signings and other times? I used to dye my hair every color of the rainbow; can I not do that anymore because I’m a Professional now?
I also think nobody ever told Ernest Hemingway he was being unprofessional and bringing down the image of literature when he got drunk and started fights and shot at stuff. In fact, to my knowledge the eccentricities of dress and appearance of just about every male writer who has them are applauded as evidence of their creativity and artistic temperament.
Perhaps I’m biased, though, because I wear short skirts and thigh highs (with bows at the top!) in my everyday life.
Teddy Pig said on 07.18.07 at 08:51 PM • [link]
Now see living here in San Francisco I just took it for an Ultra-Femme Lesbian thing.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 08:53 PM • [link]
last note from me about costume neurosis: Once I traced the source of my squick, it went away. Find the source of the discomfort and thus eliminate it. The article about pathetic women and the having-a-fun-time costumes went their separate ways.
Clothing therapy takes on new meaning.
Clothing is all sexual connotations. (Bustles, for god’s sake.) But it’s worth knowing there *might* be others who make the association, many for good, I’ll bet.
kate r said on 07.18.07 at 08:58 PM • [link]
backs too? I’m flashing on that damn man faye picture Candy put up. I’m not linking again.
Julia Quinn said on 07.18.07 at 09:03 PM • [link]
Candy—
Whoops, sorry! I could tell what you really meant, and I should have made that clear. It was just that after your post (and before the whole thing veered off into costume-world) it seemed that we were going to get into the bad authors! they don’t like readers/bloggers/small kittens! thing again. Which just ain’t the truth.
I love you, your funky hair, and the fact that you took a pic of me posing like the Statue of Liberty.
JQ
TaraGel said on 07.18.07 at 09:04 PM • [link]
I wonder how you all feel about Janet Evanovich’s signings…where she regularly has a six-foot drag queen character and WWE wrestlers and various other interesting folks showing up on stage. Is that professional or “sending the wrong message”?
Either way, I think someone would be hard pressed to make the case that the perennial #1 New York Times Bestselling author is not a savvy businesswoman.
fiveandfour said on 07.18.07 at 09:11 PM • [link]
Oh yes Kate, let’s pray the backs are waxed, too.
Limited experience with my local lesbian scene has brought no Bo Peep costumes to my attention, more the philosophical opposite actually, so my mind went directly to that scene from Tapeheads involving the Senator, the mistress, and the riding crop.
Either way, I find it difficult at best to associate little girl frilly things with adult sexuality - which is likely the appeal for those that like it - so it’s wince-worthy at the least for me regardless of whether it’s a straight person that goes for it or not.
fiveandfour said on 07.18.07 at 09:41 PM • [link]
TaraGel, here’s where I’m going to prove Scott Adams’ point that people make no sense at all. In the case of Evanovich, the WWE thing strikes me as funny. Yes, it’s over-the-top like the swanhat, but it’s a different brand of over-the-top and it makes me laugh. I think it’s similar to here
, where U2 riffed on a familiar image in an ironic way.
My only (admittedly shaky) defense is that I think it has something to do with playing TO the stereotype and playing AGAINST the stereotype. In the case of U2, they were playing against their widely presumed persona of being somber, humorless, crusading know-it-alls. (Though I’m certain doing this annoyed as many people as it amused.) In the case of Evanovich, one has to dig a touch deep to get a connection between WWE and a romance book - and in this case, that connection is ONLY her books - so there’s no obvious romance-industry-wide stereotyping involved.
In relation to the RWA costumers, for me, it seems they were playing TO the romance-industry-wide stereotypes and that struck me in an uncomfortable way.
And I totally get that anyone else’s mileage may vary.
Teddy Pig said on 07.18.07 at 09:42 PM • [link]
“I find it difficult at best to associate little girl frilly things with adult sexuality”
Then I will never tell you about this older man I dated well built, salt and pepper hair and beard, or the fact “Yes Daddy! Oh Yes Daddy!” was heard from his bedroom quite often.
*My sick sick sick sordid past.*
Emma said on 07.18.07 at 09:47 PM • [link]
Am I the only one troubled by the fact that this debate on the “costumes” and how an author should present herself keeps boiling down to the issue of professionalism, of all things? We are talking about are people who write fiction for a living—yes, they are businesswomen, but first and foremost they are artists—creative writers. The fact that so many people here (including authors!) find it natural and self-evident that professionalism should trump creative expression suggests to me that some of the more troubling accusations cast at genre fiction (by writers of literary fiction, for instance) might, in fact, be true. It’s pretty sad.
Corrina said on 07.18.07 at 09:51 PM • [link]
I don’t think anyone is saying professionalism trumps creative expression. I think what we’re discussing is the balance between them and where the line is drawn and if we can choose that line for ourselves or if the publishers will decide its so important that they’ll choose it for us.
Manda said on 07.18.07 at 09:57 PM • [link]
Julia Quinn said: It was just that after your post (and before the whole thing veered off into costume-world) it seemed that we were going to get into the bad authors! they don’t like readers/bloggers/small kittens! thing again. Which just ain’t the truth.
I didn’t mean to imply that either, JQ. Really, the conference was one of the most positive, affirming professional events I’ve ever attended so I was surprised and a little sad to hear that some attendees were grousing already. But it’s the nature of the beast I guess. And I’ll take the spontaneous joy of the RWA convention over the soporific conventions of my “real” job anyday. The jokes are better and the workshops are a lot more fun.
Jane said on 07.18.07 at 09:59 PM • [link]
I think what we’re discussing is the balance between them and where the line is drawn and if we can choose that line for ourselves or if the publishers will decide its so important that they’ll choose it for us.
And this is what the crux of the argument is. When publishers spend so little on the promotion of their books, the onus is on authors to create their own buzz. To be not only writers, but marketers and publicists. To be personalities so that their books sell enough to actually be able to write another book rather than go back to accounting or underwriting or the law or whatever it is.
Some authors don’t want to be pushed into that. Some authors want to be able to write the best book and just have their work stand on its own. In today’s market with a burgeoning publishing schedule, a decreasing market, and increased entertainment avenues, authors cannot simply write.
A good book, on its own, will not sell itself. A good book with a gimmick might.
The fear is that if Mancusi and Maverick succeed with their marketing strategies, to become successful the burden for creative marketing becomes exponentially higher and more terrifying, particularly the more introverted the author is.
It is not Maverick and Mancusi’s fault for dragging romance down to the point that they need to a gimmick to sell their books. It’s the publishers fault and their failure to properly fund marketing for the books.
Romance and respect is one thing, but the personal attacks on Maverick and Mancusi seem to stem from the fear that this is what will be demanded of an author to be successful, that their work cannot stand alone.
I believe that, except for a tiny few, this is true. It is not enough to write a good book.
Najida said on 07.18.07 at 10:18 PM • [link]
I have a question—-
If you were to go to a mystery writers convention, or a sci-fi authors convention, or a DIY-Gardening writers convention——
What would they be wearing?
Najida said on 07.18.07 at 10:20 PM • [link]
IOW, I think we found a use for Lani’s daisey :)
Robin said on 07.18.07 at 10:21 PM • [link]
It is not Maverick and Mancusi’s fault for dragging romance down to the point that they need to a gimmick to sell their books. It’s the publishers fault and their failure to properly fund marketing for the books.
No matter what I think about the marketing of Romance, I TOTALLY AGREE with this statement. I find it so very, very sad that authors who are already selling at the top get the lion’s share of promo (classy promo, too) and marketing, while the authors who need the boost to climb the ranks are printing their own ARCs and marketing themselves. Again, a byproduct of the factory farming model of publishing that I find so utterly offensive and derogatory to the genre (can we talk about how the industry doesn’t value editors, next?).
Am I the only one troubled by the fact that this debate on the “costumes†and how an author should present herself keeps boiling down to the issue of professionalism, of all things?
That isn’t an issue for me in this discussion, but then again I actually had to buy a suit my first year of law school and resented the hell out of it. So my own professional model is more academic than corporate to begin with.
What I do think, though, is that there might be a confusion between the idea of being a professional writer and professional dress and conduct. And maybe what we haven’t really addressed yet, but is lurking behind some of these issues, is the question of what it means to be a professional writer in Romance. And does it now mean something different for new authors than it does for established, best-selling veterans? To what extent have the market imperatives for authors, especially newer authors, corporatized the Romance industry AND, perhaps, the genre, and is that a good, bad, or neutral thing? And again, are we losing the distinction between Romance as an industry and Romance as a genre?
Nora Roberts said on 07.18.07 at 10:22 PM • [link]
~If Maverick and Mancusi dressed that way *normally* then I say, go for it.~
Yep.
Again, there is a HUGE distance between costumes and looking like a banker.
Again, this event was open to the public and the media, and the authors were there, hosted by RWA, at a charity event. Yes, yes, YES, have fun. Nobody will shoot you for not wearing a suit. Casual is just fine.
But for me, a costume belongs at a costume party.
It’s not anywhere close to the author photos—mine or Dodd’s. The clothes I wore for the JD Robb shoot were my clothes—ones I wear often.
I agree, the girls looked cute and pretty—how could they not? But they weren’t just wearing minis. If so, my only reaction would likely have been a wistful: God, I wish I had those pins.
It’s also true that my publisher will promote my books. It wasn’t always the case, but it is now. In the dim dark past I still didn’t wear a costume—except at a costume party. My choice, absolutely.
We aren’t our characters. And just because we’re in a creative field doesn’t mean we put a big bird on our head and slide the vampire teeth into our mouth.
We can and should be who we are, conservative, artistic, edgy, sexy, sophisticated, hip whatever—without pretending to be a fictional character.
cindy said on 07.18.07 at 10:36 PM • [link]
Wow, you’re away from your computer for a day and all hell breaks loose. I have to comment because someone mentioned feeling too old and frumpy to write for Shomi. Shomi is not a look, its an attitude. I’m writing for Shomi, my book Twist comes out in February. And I was the one with the Rebels of Romance who was not dressed up. Why? Because for one thing my thighs couldn’t carry it off, for another I was traveling light. And I am older that the Romance Rebels. Do they care? Nope. Not a bit. Because like I said, it’s all about the attitude. Would I have done the costumes? You betcha and I totally did it at RT and probably will again this year.
So now that you know where I’m coming from I’d like to know what the big deal is. Mar and Liz pretty muched dressed the way they usually do. I’ve seen Liz wearing stuff that I consider more outlandish than pink thigh highs. And she can carry it off. I’ve seen her at a formal in a shiny camoflauge skirt and army boots. Worked for her. I usually have some cleavage going. Works for me. Marianne has the fairy sprite goth look down to a T. Works for her. And if big swan hats are your thing then I say go for it. It doesn’t work for me but then again, did anyone see the line at her table?
Yes we’re a professional organization but we’re also artists. We’re creative. We go to work in our pajama’s. What’s wrong with having a bit of fun? With saying, hey its cool to read romance. Which is being said by emmy award winning news producers and highly educated marketers with successful careers away from the romance industry.
Besides, I like hanging out with the cool kids. Anyone is welcome at our table. We get rather silly at times but hey, that’s our schtick.
And Lani, that flower face totally works for you.
Karmela Johnson said on 07.18.07 at 10:39 PM • [link]
Emma wrote:
Am I the only one troubled by the fact that this debate on the “costumes†and how an author should present herself keeps boiling down to the issue of professionalism, of all things? We are talking about are people who write fiction for a living—yes, they are businesswomen, but first and foremost they are artists—creative writers.
Word.
Walt said on 07.18.07 at 10:45 PM • [link]
If SK’s swan wasn’t on her head, but was on the table next to her books, it would have been against the Literacy signing rules. She wore the beast and it was legal. The rest of the costume she wore was interesting, but the swan stole the show not because it was a giant swan that was featured on one of SK’s covers, but because of where it was perched.
The idea of regulating authors dressing up as one of their characters at the signing is a bit of a slippery slope, but the concept of a Carmen Miranda styled advertisement balanced on top of the author’s head is probably a place to draw some lines—should this actually be addressed formally. Otherwise, there’s nothing keeping some aspiring author from acquiring a large picture of her next cover, embedding it in a giant hat/wig and balancing the whole thing on her noggin…
I mean, what’s costume and what’s promotion?
/posted a pic of Nora at one of the signings for comparison.
Kate Duffy said on 07.18.07 at 10:51 PM • [link]
Not for nothing but anywhere the smart bitches aren’t welcome then you won’t see me either.
Just saying.
I saw Cartland. She looked like George Washington in drag. It was glorious.
Kate
Nora Roberts said on 07.18.07 at 10:51 PM • [link]
Emma wrote:
~Am I the only one troubled by the fact that this debate on the “costumes†and how an author should present herself keeps boiling down to the issue of professionalism, of all things? We are talking about are people who write fiction for a living—yes, they are businesswomen, but first and foremost they are artists—creative writers.
Word.~
Obviously, I come from a completely different viewpoint on this. I strongly believe in professionalism—in the work, in the public image, in attitude toward readers, other writers, editors and the media. That doesn’t mean stodgy and staid.
Why is being in a creative field a license to be or appear outrageous? And I’ll qualify that quickly by saying I didn’t find M&M especially outrageous. But by their own statement they wore costumes, and it was a marketing tool.
I certainly didn’t imagine this topic would generate this much interest, or so many opinions—or go down so many avenues.
It’s interesting.
Nora Roberts said on 07.18.07 at 10:53 PM • [link]
~Otherwise, there’s nothing keeping some aspiring author from acquiring a large picture of her next cover, embedding it in a giant hat/wig and balancing the whole thing on her noggin… ~
Oh. My. God.
Liv said on 07.18.07 at 10:54 PM • [link]
Publishing may be a creative field - but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything goes in the name of artistic expression. Just ask anyone who “let their creative side show” by submitting queries on pink scented paper with glitter and hearts how well that went over. A certain level of professionalism is still expected in the industry.
Gail K. said on 07.18.07 at 10:59 PM • [link]
Sh*t,I only have time to sneak back here for a quick read-through and post so probably I should continue to shut up until I can do more research. But I wanted to respond to one of Candy’s terms from *way* upthread.
The term POLARIZING. Exactly. I clicked on this website and others briefly and *immediately* the old school vs. new school, “cool” vs. “un=cool” dichotomy jumped out at me. I admit it could very well be a false of faulty dichotomy. But, in marketing, I don’t think it really matters, just that that yin-yang, hot-cold is blatantly apparent and exists. And Jane Q. Public would probably have the same reaction.
I’m not in the business field but living in LA, I do have good friends IRL who work for major studios and let me tell you, POLARIZING, is a marketer’s instant wet dream. Clearly and sharply defined labels. Easy sorting of consumers. Perhaps Ms. Maverick with her MBA and degree in marketing would agree? Everything about branding is calculated and staged for max effect.
As for lunchtime, for most of high school I could be found in the journalism room pumping out layout pages on Ye Olde Pagemaker on old-style Macs. :)
Carry on. I hope this comment board doesn’t overflow and crash because I want to catch up on the discussion later!
-Gail
Lauren Dane said on 07.18.07 at 11:02 PM • [link]
Now, I love me some Nora and when I think about the epitome of what it means to achieve success in this business it’s her face I see. She’s classy, writes fabulous books, is smart, open to her fans and other authors, etc. But I disagree that a costume for a book signing is any different than a pretty dress for a cocktail party. They’re both costumes. (athough, if you like Heather Lockear, that’s totally fine with me!)
We’re all dressing up and taking on a character when we’re in public as authors. At home I might be in a messy ponytail and flip flops but when I’m at a con I’ll be in makeup, my nails will be done nicely and I won’t snark at my kids. Who I am at any public event is a character because it’s me without all the context and more manners most likely.
It’s not unprofessional to wear a costume to a signing because the costume has a swan on it instead of a leather jacket or dark sunglasses or whatever your “thing” is. The difference between those two things is a matter of degree and comfort for the individual author but it’s marketing yourself nonetheless.
To me, the issue of whether or not I’d wear something to the mall isn’t the crux, nor is professionalism. I turn in my manuscripts on time, I don’t paw waiters, I don’t get falling down drunk, I love my readers and try to write books they enjoy, I respond to my editor, agent, publishers and readers in a timely manner - that’s professionalism.
Kalen Hughes said on 07.18.07 at 11:04 PM • [link]
Goth lolita is hysterical. Wonder when it’ll show up here…And will it hit California first, like most fashion trends do?
Been here; done that. This has already come and gone in the Bay Area at least twice (ok, maybe it never really left at the Academy of Art). My all time fav quote from one of these girls? Big head. Little body. Is cute!
Nora Roberts said on 07.18.07 at 11:10 PM • [link]
~But I disagree that a costume for a book signing is any different than a pretty dress for a cocktail party. They’re both costumes.~
I don’t see this. I have several pretty dresses and would never consider them costumes. I wouldn’t write in them either. I’m not writing in public. I wouldn’t wear my writing attire to a professional event because . . . God, did I wash these pjs recently?
It could certainly be argued that anything we put on is a kind of costume. But that’s way too philosophical for me.
Let me say when I first saw M&M in the second floor lounge, in minis and knees boots, etc, I thought: What’s up with that? And it never occurred to me they were writers. I thought—and again when I saw them at the signing, thought—they were a couple of really pretty women hired by a publisher for promotion.
When someone filled me in I thought: Huh. And that’s about it. Until the swan. The combination was, apparently, just too much for my sensibilities.
Jenyfer Matthews said on 07.18.07 at 11:19 PM • [link]
I hope that someone will send Sherrilyn Kenyon a black swan lapel pin because that thing looked heavy and an accident waiting to happen. Think of the liability.
If she hadn’t worn the hats and the rebels hadn’t worn their short skirts, the press just would have found something else to plaster all over (like all the bitch cleavage, LOL) It’s their job to find something and sometimes it’s just easier than other times. It’s always more fun to target the exception than the rule.
As for dressing like my own characters -might be fun for some special event like a costume party or a signing, but since all of my characters to date are pretty “normal” people no one would notice anyway :)
Jenyfer Matthews said on 07.18.07 at 11:21 PM • [link]
PS - I didn’t get to squee to Nora at the conference about how much I love her books (my daughter finds them in the book store and points them out to me now that she can read) so I’m basking in the fact that my comment follows hers…
December Quinn/Stacia Kane said on 07.18.07 at 11:29 PM • [link]
So, is the problem skimpy/unusual clothing, or that it was worn in the name of marketing?
Katiebabs said on 07.18.07 at 11:38 PM • [link]
I look at it this way, whether you are an author, blogger, reviewer, like to wear a costume or knee high socks, isn’t the conference held for fun regardless of who shows up?
I am jealous, I wanted to go! Waaaa…
Lauren Dane said on 07.18.07 at 11:47 PM • [link]
I can’t help but love this discussion, I don’t know why but the way people apply meaning to words fascinates me.
But for instance - costume - to me a costume is an outfit you wear for a particular occasion. So in essence, what one wears to a dinner party is a costume the same as what one wears to a halloween party or any other special or singular occasion.
I think the issue isn’t costumes themselves, but what people feel are appropriate costumes for events perhaps.
Lani said on 07.19.07 at 12:02 AM • [link]
Oh, wowza. This is what happens when a bunch of smart bitches get together, huh? I love it.
I’ve been away for a few hours, so I can’t address everything, but quickly I wanted to say…
... the pedophile thing is out of line. I know Liz and Marianne, and they’re both extremely professional. Dressing up little girls as women is offensive. Grown women dressing how they want is fine. Plus, in no way does their mission as rebels of romance say anything derogatory about the rest of us, and I think that position needs some rethinking as well.
... just because you’re a creative professional doesn’t mean you can throw out the “professional” part of the equation altogether. Somewhere between powersuits and big swan heads, that’s the sweet spot. There’s a lot of all-or-nothing arguing going on here that clouds the issue. The fact is, when someone wears a big swan head, that person is going to be the poster child the mainstream will point to in order to dismiss the rest of us.
... back to my original point, which goes to all this “no one respects us” stuff - live and let live, even in the big swan heads. Yes, it’s unprofessional and yes, it reflects poorly on the rest of us, but you can only control what you do. You don’t like costumes? Don’t wear them. But you can’t stop Sherrilyn or anyone else because it’s a free country, so arguing about it seems rather pointless, except for you to decide how you want to comport yourself publicly.
As for bemoaning the lack of respect from the mainstream media, I’ve never really understood that. I mean, yes, it’s wrong and insulting, but who sells more books than us? We are available to our readers, they have free and open access to us, and honestly, I think most romance readers could give two craps what the mainstream media thinks anyway. In one genre, we command 50% of the business. Far as I’m concerned, we win.
Emma said on 07.19.07 at 12:05 AM • [link]
I’d say there’s a very significant difference between enclosing glitter in your query letter, and choosing to dress in a manner that you feel conveys the spirit or tone of your books—and using that manner of dress to attract readers’ and colleagues’ attention to you and by obvious extension, your books. In fact, in one sense, that’s the very definition of professionalism, isn’t it? They were doing something to get their “product” noticed. Of course, it would be many writers’ nightmare if they all had to wear costumes, but why should their scruples act as a bar to other authors who are willing to do so and who feel that this would speak to their fan base and perhaps lure new readers? (Since we’ve already established that M&M thought of the idea themselves, it seems a moot point to debate about any what-ifs related to publishers’ expectations).
In short, I find it amusing that people are expressing qualms about the professionalism of ‘dressing up’ when the purpose of M&M dressing up was to create opportunities for networking and to draw attention to the books—aims that are eminently professional in the classic sense of the word. When I pointed out that this is a creative field, what I meant to highlight was the fact that a different sort of “product” is being moved than on, say, Wall Street, and perhaps the credentials for “producing” this “product”—in this case, cutting-edge urban fantasy/sci-fi romance—may in fact be better suggested or evoked through the donning of fanciful clothing than through slacks and pearls. Not necessarily—but perhaps.
But where we all keep tripping over each other is in our very vague use of the term “professional.” Above, I use it to reference strategies and decisions motivated by a desire to advance in one’s career. Many people here are using it as a stand-in for what is actually a normative set of sensibilities about what is “appropriate” at the workplace. I’d suggest that RWA is not the same sort of workplace as the Transamerica building, nor is it advertising the same skill sets, and therefore, intuitively, it seems to me that different sensibilities should apply.
That said, I see where y’all are coming from, and I in no way mean to suggest that I’d be totally comfortable with the prospect of authors showing up in fairy costumes or princess ballgowns to the next RWA. Which leads me to another point: when I first saw pics of M&M, I didn’t actually think they were wearing costumes; I thought they looked young and hip, much like any number of twentysomething hipsters I see when walking through Brooklyn or Berkeley. It definitely intrigued me enough to lead me to go check out their books, because I’m a little dazzled by authors of my own age. I wonder, then, if what they were wearing were indeed costumes insofar as they were dressing LIKE someone, or if these outfits were simply construed as costumes because they diverged so sharply from what a certain set of sensibilities (“professionalism”) has decreed to be appropriate work attire. Which leads me back to my previous points. And I’m stickin’ to ‘em. :)
Lani said on 07.19.07 at 12:12 AM • [link]
OMG. I just saw a pic of Liz and Marianne in the full outfits. THAT’s what we’re arguing about? Seriously? They’re cute, and the skirts aren’t THAT short. I love the thigh-high socks, they’re adorable! Okay, the swan head, I get the discussion. The offense that Liz and Marianne showed a VERY little thigh, that I just don’t get.
kate r said on 07.19.07 at 12:29 AM • [link]
The difference between Rowling and Evanovich and other authors? R and E don’t have to dress up—they have fans or hirelings to dress up for ‘em. I say everyone needs fans for that.
Bring on the hired dancing girls! and boys! and some wine, too. I need some wine about now.
I’d always pictured Cartland as Dame Edna Everage and I always will. http://www.davidallenstudio.com/includes/portfolio/img_zoom.php?id=85
Deb Smith said on 07.19.07 at 12:52 AM • [link]
Hey, you wanta go to a fan convention and dress up, no problem. But to go to a conference specifically for your professional peers and dress like a self-promoting cheescake is, well, like a pediatrician showing up at the AMA conference wearing a bunny suit. One could argue that said pediatrician is just promoting the business of being a kiddie doc, right? No. He or she is at a professional conference for other doctors. Not appearing at the local Chucky Cheese to drum up business.
To the someone who said “pedophilia” is out of line when connected to grown women dressing like school girls. Nope. A fetish that depends on infantilizing adult women is about promoting sex with underage girls.
DS said on 07.19.07 at 12:53 AM • [link]
It is time to invoke Snacky’s Law?
Marianne Mancusi said on 07.19.07 at 12:57 AM • [link]
For the record, RWA wasn’t the first author event Liz and I cosplayed at. We also dressed up for our Dorchester signing at the Book Expo of America and we made a little video about it.
I’m posting this because I think maybe it will give you a better idea of what the Rebels are about—more so than one photo of us in thigh highs. We’re having fun, promoting the romance genre, and finding our own little niche in this highly competitive field.
:)
Marianne
kate r said on 07.19.07 at 12:57 AM • [link]
Skip Snacky and go straight for Godwin.
Emma said on 07.19.07 at 01:03 AM • [link]
But to go to a conference specifically for your professional peers and dress like a self-promoting cheescake is, well, like a pediatrician showing up at the AMA conference wearing a bunny suit.
I’d find this argument more convincing if RWA really were specifically for published authors’ professional peers. However, there are also aspiring, unpublished writers, and fans, fans, fans everywhere—hence the signing ops. Additionally, your analogy doesn’t work because there’s much less chance a pediatrician would find new patients at a medical conference, but at an RWA conference, everyone is a potential new reader/customer. This goes back to my earlier point about whether different settings might call for different sorts of professionalism.
Jane said on 07.19.07 at 01:04 AM • [link]
Since when are thigh highs and mini skirts the uniform of school girls?
Nora Roberts said on 07.19.07 at 01:09 AM • [link]
~I look at it this way, whether you are an author, blogger, reviewer, like to wear a costume or knee high socks, isn’t the conference held for fun regardless of who shows up?~
No, it’s not held for fun. It’s held for professional reasons, for networking, education, connections, information.
Fun in a happy by-product.
It’s not a vacation. It’s not a few days away to play with girlfriends. It’s a professional writers convention, and it’s lovely that most who attend enjoy each other and have a wonderful time. But it’s also WORK.
Marianne Mancusi said on 07.19.07 at 01:12 AM • [link]
I didn’t wear that when I was a school girl, fer shure.
And Emma’s totally right. In my mind most romance writers are also readers. And they come to the conference not only to learn about their trade but to mingle with people in the industry. There was a bookseller’s tea, a book signing, a goodie room stocked with promotional stuff, a readers’ tea, etc. etc.
I doubt many people attending a medical conference are looking for a new doc…
Marianne
Nora Roberts said on 07.19.07 at 01:17 AM • [link]
Lani, I agree with you almost straight down the line, I really do.
But the mantra `we get no respect’ is constant. And as one who is often (my choice) on the media front lines, dealing with the cliches and the snickers, it’s tiring and frustrating to constantly explain, defend, cheerlead. Then see the press focus on a big black swan hat.
Lani said on 07.19.07 at 01:17 AM • [link]
To the someone who said “pedophilia†is out of line when connected to grown women dressing like school girls. Nope. A fetish that depends on infantilizing adult women is about promoting sex with underage girls.
I couldn’t disagree more. First of all, whether Marianne and Liz were actually dressed like schoolgirls is up for debate. They were dressed in the style of manga, which is promotional for what they write, and accusing them of supporting pedophilia is galactically out of line. It’s like saying Playboy bunnies support bestiality - that’s one hell of a slippery slope you’re employing there.
kate r said on 07.19.07 at 01:30 AM • [link]
Lani—you are probably right in that it is now mainstream.
A lot of things that are mainstream have odd roots and there is no doubt that the responses I have (and Deb, perhaps?) are based on something real and rather sad. Read the snopes thing. Look it up.
Luckily, Liz and Marianne’s audience aren’t going to give a damn about that. . We’re like the ol’ ladies shaking our heads about that crazy ragtime music that had its origins in whore houses. (May not lose its original association for us, but that’s not Scot Joplin’s publisher’s problem.)
Liz Maverick said on 07.19.07 at 01:30 AM • [link]
Hmm…I’ve had the relative fat content of my thighs analyzed on the internet AND been called a prostitute, pedophile lure, and promoter of sex with underage girls.
It’s marvelously absurd, isn’t it?
On the other hand, I’ve always wanted an excuse to start a sentence with, “Thighs and pedophiles aside…”
(Huh. It has an almost poetic lilt. Kind of inspires one to haiku…)
:)
Liz
jody said on 07.19.07 at 01:30 AM • [link]
It is not Maverick and Mancusi’s fault for dragging romance down to the point that they need to a gimmick to sell their books.
Say what? Dragging romance down?
Since when do a pair of miniskirts drag a genre down? Crap writing drags a genre down. Cliched, derivative, rule-bound concepts drag a genre down.
Between them, Liz and Marianne/Mari, have written for Avon, Berkley, NAL, Dorchester, Red Sage,and Dutton. (Not to mention sold screenplays and manga scripts) I’m guessing that combined they’ve written around twenty books and they’ve only been in the business for a couple of years.
I’ve traveled with Liz, done workshops with her, and spent time at conferences with Marianne. Are they scary? You betcha. Rarely have I met two writers who work as hard as they do. They’ve got talent, smarts, and drive. To put it simply, they are workaholics with mad skills. They build their own websites, they make their own videos, they literally knock on editor, agent, publisher, and publicity department doors. They don’t wait for things to happen the make them happen.
It issue isn’t how short their skirts are, it’s how high a bar they set.
Looking at what they’ve accomplished raises a frightening question every writer faces in this market. How bad do you really want it?(And I’m not talking about what you wear. Those costumes were designed to generate buzz about the Shomi launch and that’s just what they’re doing.)
I’m talking about how much of your life and energy and creativity are you willing to put into this business to succeed?
I’m not saying you have to do what they’ve done. But you do have realize that this isn’t just an artistic endeavor. It’s a business and if you want to succeed you’ve got to develop a strategy. Not Liz’s strategy, or Marianne’s strategy. Your strategy. You can’t just write the best book and hand it off to a publisher in the hopes that the house will do right by it. (It would be nice…but…)
Are they scary? You betcha. But if you can’t get past the “aggghhhh do I have to do all that?” you can learn a whole hell of a lot from them.
Jody (who has been energized, inpsired, and kicked back into gear by Liz more times than she can count and more than she can ever repay.)
Nora Roberts said on 07.19.07 at 01:30 AM • [link]
~They were dressed in the style of manga, which is promotional for what they write, and accusing them of supporting pedophilia is galactically out of line.~
Completely agree with this, too. That’s way too far a stretch, imo. I never thought of them as looking little girlish, or even especially sexy. Cute, yes. Odd—to me in that particular arena—very. But that’s it.
kate r said on 07.19.07 at 01:31 AM • [link]
Liz, your thighs? They are nearly as cute as Candy’s rack.
Lani said on 07.19.07 at 01:33 AM • [link]
Lani, I agree with you almost straight down the line, I really do.
But the mantra `we get no respect’ is constant. And as one who is often (my choice) on the media front lines, dealing with the cliches and the snickers, it’s tiring and frustrating to constantly explain, defend, cheerlead. Then see the press focus on a big black swan hat.
You know, I think if anyone has a right to complain, it’s you, because you are in in the unenviable position of being the very public poster child for the entire industry, and you do us all a great service by being the professional you are. And every time one of us dons a black swan hat, it’s more work for you. I get it. But the bottom line is, the behavior can’t and shouldn’t be legislated, and the best any of us can do is behave to our own standards. I think SK’s big swan hat was a mistake, but she has the right to wear what she wants, and there’s no controlling it. So I guess I’m stuck between principle and practicality; there’s nothing to be done, so my approach is to just move forward and behave the way I think is appropriate and try not to sweat the big swans. But I do get where you’re coming from, and I don’t envy you. It can’t be easy.
Lani said on 07.19.07 at 01:36 AM • [link]
Since when do a pair of miniskirts drag a genre down? Crap writing drags a genre down. Cliched, derivative, rule-bound concepts drag a genre down.
Sing it, sister. Amen.
jody said on 07.19.07 at 01:37 AM • [link]
The press will always find a way to bash romance writers, swan hats and minis or no. At RWA in New York, which was very conservative and professional, a writer from the New York Post described the “air of white linen and hummel dust.”
Bleh.
Wry Hag said on 07.19.07 at 01:40 AM • [link]
Kate R., I now understand your point(s).
Liz and Marianne are clearly (very clearly) media- and computer-savvy (very media- and computer-savvy) young women who also know how to look fabulous. ‘Tis the shape of things to come. As Tower of Power sang, “Hipness is..what it it is.”
In Romancelandia, this is what it is…or is becoming.
I’m a bleating but no longer bleeding ewe who has no fucking clue what “anime” or “manga” are or what the bloody hell striped knee-highs have to do with either. I do, however, know what good writing is. And I can only hope beyond hope that all the hype is ultimately about the writing and not the way-cool freakiness.
(By the way, Liz, have you ever read Twain’s The Mysterious Stranger? You might find that the premise of your book has its roots therein.)
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments