We, the Smart Bitches Candy and Sarah, are proud to present the first in what we hope will be a series of interviews regarding the romance world, and who better to start with than Gayle Wilson, President-Elect of Romace Writers of America.
We asked Ms. Wilson a few questions, addressing recent events and other Very Important Issues, and here are her erudite answers, though she asks that we clarify that she is answering for herself, and not as a spokesperson for the RWA. We Smart Bitches love it when people are willing to speak for themselves, so welcome and thank you, Gayle, for being our first interview!
1. We read your apology and our readers thought it was a very appropriate response. What do you have to say to angered members of RWA who are still very upset regarding the recent decisions of the RWA, aside from the awards ceremony (e.g. the graphical standards policy, the survey of what constitutes romance)? What would you like to say to members who are outraged at the overall direction the organization seems to have taken?
Please understand that I am not the official spokesperson for RWA. What I say here is only the opinion of one member in good standing, albeit one who attends a lot of board meetings.
I believe that one of the biggest problems this year has been our failure to communicate promptly and appropriately with our members. In some cases, like the definition of romance controversy, the board was considering areas in which our financial resources should not be committed. For example, should RWA provide space at our conferences for publishers who don’t publish romance, and if so, how do we define “romanceâ€? In this instance, because we evidently didn’t make that motive perfectly clear to members, some of them came to believe that the board was trying to shut them out of RWA. On the graphical standards issue the board was trying to protect the organization from having extremely graphic ads in our publications that we were told might trigger postal regulations requiring different and expensive packaging for our magazine. In that case, the board’s decision was rushed because we didn’t have complete and accurate information. As soon as we received that, we suspended the standards until a member committee could consider whether there was a need for them.
I personally believe that if the members had been immediately informed of the whys and wherefores of some of the decisions made this year, much of the current distrust would not exist. The board is made up of people who truly have RWA’s best interests at heart. We have, however, made mistakes. We regret them, and we have learned from them. I know that simply saying that will not reassure outraged members, but I hope that by our future actions we can restore the trust that was damaged this year. That’s one of my major goals.
2. Aside from the pressure of addressing decisions made by a previous board, what are your goals for the RWA? What key areas do you feel need to be addressed?
We need to get a handle on the innovations in technology, both for our own uses within the organization (such as the new software mentioned below) and so that we can understand the changes taking place within the industry. We have a new five-year strategic plan which addresses the need for us to be cognizant not only of what’s happening now, but of what looms on the horizon. It also acknowledges that we need better communication with our membership, more education in the form of contract reviews and analyses to help them in their career choices, and perhaps even a for-profit subsidiary to provide them with services we can’t provide under our current tax status. And *please* take note that we are only studying the feasibility and advisability of the latter right now. It may not work out, but again, as an organization we must always be thinking ahead of the curve.
As writers, we’re living in a period of tremendous change in terms of technology, both in publication and distribution. At the same time we seem to be facing an ever-shrinking market for print material of all kinds. Society is rapidly evolving in terms of leisure pastimes. The movie industry is facing some of the same problems we face. Frankly, it’s going to be challenging to continue the great success romance has traditionally enjoyed, but we’re dedicated to doing the best we can to see that happens.
3. Based on reader and author comments, some people are concerned that there’s a communication disconnect between the Board and the rank-and-file members. Do you think there’s a communication issue? If yes, what do you think can be done to address these issues? Would an interactive website that allows members to track issues and proposals be an option?
I think we absolutely must communicate better, and that’s one of our primary goals for next year. We need to use Chaplink, our chapter presidents’ loop, to get information to members quickly through their chapter leaders. We need to use that loop to solicit ideas, as well. The presidents have their ears to the ground, to use a cliché, and they often know what members are concerned about before we do. Communication should always run both ways, and often, as in any organization, people don’t write the board until we’ve upset them. In addition to that, the board definitely needs to do a better job of explaining the reasoning behind decisions and of letting members see, at the very least, the most compelling information we consider when we make them.
The idea of an interactive website might be possible with the new software the organization has just purchased. That will be up and running in January, I believe, after all members of the staff have been trained in its use. The software can track committees and their charges and even allow committee chairs to upload their own reports. The office is excitedly trying to figure out all the ways in which the software can make information gathering, storage and dispersal easier and more useful to the organization. I’m very hopeful about its possibilities.
4. Romance genre question: In your opinion, is there room at the table for erotic romance? Gay/lesbian romance?
In my opinion, it’s a very big table. Our market share is the envy of every other genre, and I think that’s *because* of our diversity. Within romance, we literally have something for everyone’s tastes. Besides, as the board said in our statement at conference: The organization doesn’t define the genre; the genre defines the organization. And the genre is vibrant and growing and evolving.
Romance Writers of America is the largest writers’ group in the world because we have always been inclusive. Personally, I would not want us to be any other way. I know that most of my fellow board members feel the same way. When someone joins RWA, we ask them to acknowledge that they are pursuing a career in romance writing. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t free to write in other genres as well. As an organization, we must be concerned with serving the needs of our core membership—those who *are* actively pursuing a career in romance—but we certainly aren’t out to deny to any of our members the incredible array of services that attract so many writers to this group.
5. Recently, some members (including Jenny Crusie) have expressed concern about the public image of the RWA, and some readers of ours have described the inner workings using terms such as “the ladies having tea, the cat-fighting, the country club snobbery.” Others are concerned about the potential decline in credibility after the recent Board’s decisions to address cover art and the definition of romance. Do you agree that the public image is tarnished, and, if so, how would you go about addressing this?
I would hate to think that our image has been tarnished. I think most of these issues were within the membership, but I admit that when there are multiple internal issues, the controversy does begin to spill out into the industry and possibly into the public domain. The internet has some effect on that with the popularity of blogging. Authors talk about their concerns in their blogs and readers, editors, and publishers pick up on them. The days of keeping the organization’s business known only to the organization’s membership are over. But then that’s true for any organization.
“Cat fighting†and “ladies having tea†seem contradictions in terms to me. I don’t believe most of us in RWA engage in those or in snobbery either. In all honesty, most of us are too busy trying to keep abreast of changes in our industry and in making a living.
As far as addressing the image of romance, tarnished or not, I think we continue to do what we’ve done for the last ten years. We publicize our market share, our diversity, and the incredible successes of our members. We’ve just renewed the academic grant program for another year, and I think that will eventually pay big dividends in the area of image outside the community. We’ve made huge strides in the last few years in letting people know the positives of romance. We just have to continue to work as hard as we have been to spread that message.
6. Why do you think romance art departments think we want to read books with covers featuring men whose breasts are bigger than ours?
LOL. I think you’d better direct that question to the art departments. (Hey, something RWA can’t be blamed for!
)
7. Most important question: what are you reading right now? Who are your favorite “auto-buy*” authors and what genres are your favorites? (*An auto-buy author is someone whose books you buy automatically with no inspection of the plot. You already know it’s going to be good.)
Right now, I’m mostly reading e-mails
I really wish I had more time to read more. Before I began writing, I read probably 5-20 books a week, depending on whether it was summer (when I wasn’t teaching) or during the school term. Now, being on the Board of Directors, trying to write, meeting family obligations—well, you all know that drill. Also, after sitting at the computer all day, manipulating my own words and characters and plot, I find that I don’t grab a book to relax into as readily as I once did. It’s harder to get into someone else’s story after being so immersed in mine.
That said, my all-time favorite author is Dorothy Dunnett, who wrote historical fiction and contemporary British mysteries. The six books that make up her Lymond Chronicles and King Hereafter are my comfort reads. I’ve probably read each a dozen times.
In romance, I read very widely. Of course, I have favorite authors and favorite themes and friends who are auto-buys. If I start to name them, however, I’m bound to leave someone out. I know you don’t want me to cause hard feelings.
I also read straight mysteries—people like James Lee Burke, Elizabeth George, and James Patterson. I like Gene Wolfe in Science Fiction, although I’m not perfectly sure that’s the right genre for what he does. I read horror by people like Koontz and King. Sometimes I just get on a reading kick because of a movie I see or an article I read. For example, I read the Hornblower series by Forester because of the A&E movies with Ioan Gruffud. So…I’m actually a pretty equal opportunity reader, but romance is always my first love.
“Anyhow, human form in sexual relations does seem to be a key factor in what is acceptable.”
Evil Auntie Peril: You basically hit the nail on the head, and the rest of your comment has taken care of what I was going to talk abou tomorrow. On one hand: Damn your eyes! On the other hand: Holy crap, you said everything I wanted to say, and did it better than I could’ve.
So: where DID you manage to find those three elves? Did they come (teehee) with the fridge magnet?
“God knows we’ve had a few decades of loads—and
I mean loads—of non-bondage stories that featured non-consensual sex.”
Yes, we did. And removing nonconsensual sex from romance is almost impossible without a strong definition from the RWA that makes it ineligible for the Rita.
“We
add harnesses, dildos and whips to the thing and suddenly it’s all “ACK!
NOT A ROMANCE!” any more? “
Nope. That’s not something that suddenly came under discussion after tack was added, Candy. The discussion about whether or not nonconsensual sex is romance is old. OLD! At least ten or fifteen years old. Why does it go on? RWA has never come out and denounced nonconsensual sex by making it ineligible for the Rita.
“Furthermore, not all bondage stories involve nonconsensual sex”
I didn’t say they did. What I said was, should bondage stories have no RWA boundaries such as rape?
“Again, I’m interested in why you’re picking on bondage in particular.”
I’m not. I’m discussing the RWA’s definition of romance and whether or not stronger boundaries can help or hurt our genre. I’ve used bondage as an example, but picking on bondage? No. I’m flattered that you might think I’m capable of putting together some super secret agenda against bondage fiction but I haven’t. Besides secret agendas are very hard to accessorize. Not many outfits go with the decoder ring and the secret handshake is so complicated that I have to carry note cards in my purse just so I can remember how to do it. If I wanted to rant about bondage fiction, I’d just rant about bondage fiction.
“But I’m willing to bet that the number of non-bondage romances with
non-consensual sex far outweigh the bondage romances with non-consensual
sex. ”
And I bet you’re right!! Because nonconsensual sex is still eligible for Rita nomination, any form of it can be called romance.
“Frankly, I’m interested in reading, not your definition of romance, but
your definition of heavy/detailed bondage. Because your definition seems to
have “rape” built into it, but mine doesn’t. “
No. That’s an assumption on your part. The book I read and referred to as having detailed bondage was produced by a Rita eligible publisher, and contained only consensual sex. I thought the book relied on the separate instances of bondage rather than any emotional relationship to advance the story. So, to me it wasn’t romance, just bondage fiction. And I don’t expect anyone to be all that interested in my personal definition of romance, because my definition does not determine what books are Rita eligible. The RWA’s does, and that should interest all dues paying members.
“They seemed focused on excluding gay/lesbian romances and menage stories, “
Who is “they,” Candy? The RWA does not exclude either of those story types. Has the RWA organized protests outside the offices of St. Martin’s Press? Are RWA members boycotting EC? Has there been an official announcement from RWA stating that those story types are not Rita eligible? What exactly do you see “they” doing to exclude gay/lesbian romance or multiple partner stories?
“But I’d be interested to see any RWA-approved publisher attempt to publish
and market any book featuring hardcore bestiality and pedophilia as a
romance novel. I mean, there’s a layer of protection right there already,
no?
No. There’s already a market for both of those story types and fiction is available to that market. If a Rita eligible publisher someday decides to tap into that market, where is the layer of protection?
“And frankly, I’ve never seen an organization get so het up about a
definition for the genre.”
Really? Attend some other genre meetings if they allow visitors. They make the RWA look as inflexible as Gumby.
“It all strikes me as sort of absurd”
AH!! I forgot, you said you’d never been a member of RWA. If a book meets the RWA definition of romance, is written by an RWA member, and published by a publisher that has been named Rita eligible, that book is eligible for nomination for the Rita Award.
The RWA is financed by the annual dues of the rank and file members. Annual dues is not overpriced, but it’s not cheap either. These dues paying members know full well what a career boost they are handing to the nominees and winner of the Rita.
Understandably, since they’re paying RWA’s bills, the members want a say in what is and is not eligible for the Rita.
“I thought the book relied on the separate instances of bondage rather than any emotional relationship to advance the story. So, to me it wasn’t romance, just bondage fiction.â€
I’m not a Dom or anything, but I do live in San Francisco and I know a couple of professionals (my sister’s old roommate for one). While you might not be seeing the emotional arc in the developing bondage relationship, it is there. It has to be. Bondage is about trust and building relationships. Without those aspects, it’s not bondage as practiced by the S&M community. The emotional arc is displayed by the acts themselves. If this didn’t come through, then what you read was a bad bondage book, or a bondage book written by someone with little or no knowledge about the actual bondage scene.
As for the whole definition/eligibility issue, to me it’s something of a no-brainer. The “layer of protection†for the Rita is the members themselves (of which I am one). Just because something is Rita eligible by the definition, doesn’t mean it will be a finalist (or a winner). First the writer has to be a RWA member, so they have to believe they’re writing romance. Then the book has to be read by a bunch of members and win a nomination. That process is the protection. If the members who judge the Rita read a gay/bondage/rape/bestially story and decide it’s romance and deserves a Rita, then it is, and it does.
I’ve read some of the stuff being epubed on EC and LooseID, and while it’s not to my taste, neither is the stuff being published as “Inspirational.†Yet both are romances, just romances that don’t strike a cord with me. I wouldn’t want either extreme excluded from RWA, the Golden Heart, or the Rita.
“I’ve used bondage as an example, but picking on bondage? No. I’m flattered that you might think I’m capable of putting together some super secret agenda against bondage fiction but I haven’t.”
Oh no, I’m not assuming you’re part of a conspiracy. I was just getting the feeling you have a distaste for bondage romance and as a result, wish to exclude it (whether or not they contain non-consensual sex) from the definition of romance. Please ref. this remark you made, which did NOT differentiate bondage fiction (romance or not) with consensual sex vs. bondage fiction (romance or not) without consensual sex:
Your original argument focused on bondage in general, but now the argument has shifted to rape in romances in general, with or without bondage.
Can you see why I thought what you did? And why I wanted your definition of bondage, since you switched gears abruptly and started talking about rape and mutilation (which can happen in ANY sort of sub-genre, not just bondage stories)?
“What I said was, should bondage stories have no RWA boundaries such as rape?”
This is not what you said in your initial posts. This is what you said only in, oh, the last 2 posts or so?
“No. There’s already a market for both of those story types and fiction is available to that market. If a Rita eligible publisher someday decides to tap into that market, where is the layer of protection?”
The market for these stories is small, and seems to be limited strictly to pornography. These fetishes are really fringe (and illegal to practice in real life), even for people with kinks, and it would alienate a large part of a pub’s reader base if they started peddling stories featuring bestiality and pedophilia.
“Who is “they,†Candy? The RWA does not exclude either of those story types.”
Sorry for not being more clear. I’m referring to this survey that the RWA Board of Directors sent out with an issue of RWR.
If you re-read what I’ve written, I’ve been talking about attempts to narrow the definition of romance, not current restrictions.
[Re: other writers’ organizations trying to define the genre] “Really? Attend some other genre meetings if they allow visitors. They make the RWA look as inflexible as Gumby.”
Can you give examples, with links to discussions or websites? Lee Goldberg, who writes mysteries and is (if I’m not mistaken, but correct me if I’m wrong) a member of the MWA has been following the RWA brouhaha with a lot of interest, and has often said that he can’t imagine the MWA getting its panties in such a twist over defining the genre.
“Understandably, since they’re paying RWA’s bills, the members want a say in what is and is not eligible for the Rita.”
Wait:
Books have to be nominated for a RITA, right?
And I assume they go through an extensive vetting process, and then people get to vote on it, right?
What are the odds of a really kinky book emerging as a RITA winner? Kinky, by definition, means something that’s outside of the mainstream and enjoyed by a relatively small population.
What are the odds that they’d create a category for RITAs that are specifically for fiction that feature, say, bestiality?
Can you understand why I still think you’re engaging in slippery-slope reasoning?
Frankly, it’s the same slippery-slope reasoning many people have used to usher in constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.
“If we don’t specify that marriage is between one man and one woman, what’s next? A man can marry his dog? A woman can marry her mother?”
And frankly, when it comes down to it, I think scenes with non-consensual sex shouldn’t be excluded from the definition of romance. In real life, the odds of a woman falling in love with her rapist and finding an HEA with him has got to be really fucking tiny. In fiction—shit, we have people fucking ghosts in fiction. I don’t have to like it, but as Robin noted, matters of personal taste should be separated from generic defintions where possible.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it yet again: the definition is fine as-is. If people want to get their panties in a twist about stories featuring an eight-year-old girl falling in love with and finding an HEA with her 50-year-old uncle and his bull mastiff somehow WINNING A FREAKING RITA, then OK, close off those loopholes—I don’t think too many people would complain. I just think the effort is pretty much unnecessary, and they should use their energies elsewhere.
“Oh no, I’m not assuming you’re part of a conspiracy. I was just getting the feeling you have a distaste for bondage romance and as a result, wish to exclude it “
Oh, my GOSH! Candy, bless your heart. If you don’t stop twisting so hard on that paranoia dial, you’re going to sprain your wrist. I swear to you that I do not have an anti-bondage fiction rally going on at my house. It’s just me and the dog and she LOVES the feel of a nice leather collar.
You’re starting to remind me of Geraldo standing in Capone’s empty vault. Tears are brimming in those big disillusioned eyes that stare with pathetic desperation at the still rolling camera as you hope beyond hope that a dead body will fall from the ceiling and save you from having to say, “I was wrong, America. I was so incredibly WRONG.”
That’s it. Stick a fork in me and call me done. I have genres to crush and decoder rings to hand out.
Take care!
XXOO
Reia
Sorry, Candy, I didn’t mean to steal your thunder – and thank you kindly for the compliment. Actually, I’d love to get your (and everyone else’s) take on the ideas around plot devices making things permissable. It makes quite an interesting social barometer, especially when you start to look at moral issues like adultery and so on.
But I guess sex in romance hits most people’s hot buttons. Romance is often criticised as “porn for women”. Besides the obvious derogatory associations, perhaps this also puts people on the defensive because until recently outside of certain socially-approved parameters, nice women weren’t supposed to have sex, or if they did, they didn’t enjoy it. A novel’s limitations mean that detailed justifications for many outwardly socially transgressive acts can’t be put across comfortably. So maybe one aspect of a heroine’s virginity is that it’s shorthand for a morally acceptable woman, one the reader can easily identify with.
Virginal heroines frequently go hand-in-hand with rape and non-consensual sex. There’s a theory that these fantasies are sometimes a way to abrogate responsibility for the enjoyment of sex. These fantasies absolve the guilt felt for sexual enjoyement. I think this touches on the interaction between reader, writer and heroine. You have to wonder whose guilt is being absolved. Robin’s interesting point about these fantasies dealing with female empowerment seems to connect with this too. In any case, I think the dwindling of these storylines has a lot to say about the way the average woman’s attitude towards sex has changed in the last 30-40 years, and the mental processes behind these changes.
There’s also the idea that irregular sexual practices are used to fill some emotional lack with physical sensation. In other words, sexual thrills instead of love. As Tonda pointed out, people not involved in a scene find it hard to look beyond the details of the acts involved to the emotions behind it because they believe they don’t exist. All of which may partly explain why people get their knickers in a twist when it comes to sex in romance.
As for the elves, they were summoned by a demonic fridge magnet with world-destroying tendancies that gets its power by feeding off sexual energy. It looks like a bowl of fruit, but has already devoured the all of the Finn family moomintroll… Oh my, I think I’ve just spotted a gap in the “group-sex-with-fantastic creatures” market and must now rush to fill it.