Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

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.

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?

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.

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.

I own a pair of thigh highs like Liz’s. Check out www.sockdreams.com. I LOVE 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. :-)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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?

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 ;)

Oh yeah, and when I say dress up, I mean somewhat formally…I pull out my devil horns for my library conferences :D

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.

You what was worse then that. Being there as a used bookstore seller. I felt so out of place.

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.

~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.

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!

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.

*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!

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.

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!

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*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 :)

Vanity Press they name is alienist!

And it is not those drugs you took in college either.

EIEIO heheheheheh

Oh dear.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

~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.

~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.

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.

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.

uh oh, how outdated is a sailor moon reference?

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.

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.

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….

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.

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?”

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.

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.”

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?

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.”

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.

“...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.

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?

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.

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!

  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.

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. ;)

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! :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

Bwahahahahahaha, Lani

That was ABSOLUTELY precious, and a great way to make a point.

Kudos

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ;-)

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.

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?

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.

” 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.

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

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).

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.

>>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.

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”!)

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.