More Updates, More links!
Selah March has more delicious scuttlebutt on this thing. Ah me, my schadenfreude when it comes to this knows no bounds.
Jorie rounds up some interesting linkage on this issue.
LLB blogs about this and writes a column on AAR.
Jonquil describes some of the horrorshow on her Livejournal.
Selah March has a post on the RITA/Golden Heart awards ceremony.
Instead of a celebration of RWA and romance fiction over the past 25 years, the RITA/GH awards ceremony included the following:
* a video and audio rehash of every national and international tragedy that’s taken place since 1980, set to a back-drop of kicky tunes from each year represented.
Imagine, if you will, footage of the tanks rolling through Tiananmen Square with “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” playing in the background. Apparently, only a last-minute edit managed to save the ceremony attendees from being forced to watch the shuttle Challenger explode in mid-air and…AND…the Twin Towers fall.
Think about that. All those NYC agents and editors in the audience. Think about it some more.
Yee-HAW. We’re celebratin’ NOW, baybeee…
** images of political leaders flashed on the screen, looking handsome and honorable.
Okay…wait. Let me rephrase. Images of REPUBLICAN political leaders—specifically Presidents Reagan, Bush I and II—flashed on the screen, looking handsome and honorable.
(…)
*** virtually no positive images of women. Lewinsky was there, as noted. Lorena Bobbitt made a showing. Donna what’s-her-name…the one that sunk Gary Hart’s political career? She was pictured. Princess Diana got the full treatment, and—GET THIS—they called her story a FAIRY TALE.
(…)
**** virtually no positive images of people of color. O.J. in his white bronco they got, ad nauseum. Bill Cosby flashed by once, so I’m told, and, as I said, Oprah got a brief mention.
Please, y’all. Please tell me this trainwreck didn’t actually happen.
Is anyone who was there willing to confirm whether this actually happened?
Update! On Monica Jackson’s blog, a couple of people confirmed that this did, indeed, take place.
That dull, thumping sound? The sound not unlike that of a ripe cantaloupe hitting the sidewalk? That’s my head hitting the desk.
My question is: why aren’t more people who attended blogging about this? Or did none of this strike them as incredibly asinine and/or inappropriate?
Or maybe I just need to expand my blog rounds more? Hmmm. If you have linkies, put ‘em in the comments! Eyewitness accounts too.
Until I read all of this, I was disappointed that I didn’t attend due to lack of funds. Now, well, I’m rather glad. It sounds like the awards show was so tasteless ti was embarassing. I really feel for the winners. To have your bright moment defined by such a fiasco as that must have been a real let-down.
“Robin, I agree that it was probably never an articulated goal, but that sounds very much like their unstated, perhaps even unconscious goal: romance is apple pie, not anal sex.”
This was my thought when I first read the report of the RITA ceremony – only not so well articulated. RWA seems to want to redefine itself so that its morals and goals are more closely aligned with those of the Red States. Isn’t that the traditional demographic of the romance reader anyway?
What I don’t understand, exactly, is why writers like Nora Roberts and Jennifer Crusie, etc. remain within the organization.
What I don’t understand, exactly, is why writers like Nora Roberts and Jennifer Crusie, etc. remain within the organization.
I would guess it’s because they want to give to the writers in a way that they were given to when they were starting out.
Jenny wasn’t always Jenny, Nora wasn’t always Nora, at least, not in the way we see them. Jenny, in particular, is first and foremost a teacher and she genuinely digs hanging out with other writers.
Remember—20 (approx) board members, 9200 general members. Many, many more general members than board members.
And the sad fact is, there just isn’t another professional (using the term loosely in the wake of the debacle) organization that supports romance the way RWA is meant to. For all its issues, it’s ours. We just need to reclaim it from those who have hijacked it for their own personal purposes.
Barb
I didn’t mean to be critical of those two authors. It just seems to me that RWA is not an organization that seems to be fostering writers these days.
One more comment and then I have to go. Is anyone else disturbed by the lack of commentary on certain authors blogs/boards on this issue? Do we make the assumption that those who are silent on it are supportive of it? Or is that unfair?
Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.
As someone said on LiveJournal (a post which has now mysteriously disappeared), the real problem with RWA is Allison Kelley. Look deeper people. DEEPER.
Not to mention that a percentage of the current board has the maturity of 6th graders.
Say what you like about Quinn, but with a board like this, who needs enemies?
As for the women who stepped in to fix the script, kudos to them for caring enough about RWA to try to make the best of a bad-ass situation.
Pick on the people responsible for picking the crappy script and crappier film content, not the people who tried to fix it or the people who refused to let Nora rain on the finalists’ parade.
And Nora is NOT a goddess. She puts her panties on the same way we do—one leg at a time.
Annie
I understand—I had problems too, problems we tried to fix but didn’t
have time. -Alicia Rasley
My thought: How much freakin time does it take to pop the tape out of the player? Or as Zaza said, to pull the plug?
I’m sure the audience would have been greatly relieved to have had the ceremony over with and spent the rest having a great time celebrating and spending time with friends.
It sounds like Nora was trying to stop the RWA PTB from raining on the finalists’ parade, from the montage scenes, to the politics, to the attention paid to presenters over winners.
About Allison Kelley, the ED – the ED is a hired position, right? Retained by the board of directors? If so, AK might be a problem, might not be – I don’t know and it depende more on whether she works on fundraising/development or internal relations/external PR.
For all its issues, it’s ours. We just need to reclaim it from those who have hijacked it for their own personal purposes.
This is all well and good and I don’t disagree, but neither do I see it happening. There are 9200 members and there was not a quorum at the AGM. Meaning there aren’t even 920 (10% right?) members who care enough to send in their proxies.
Yep, Alison, you’re right—on both the ten percent required and on the fact we didn’t make quorum. And I was highly disappointed. Almost as disappointed as I’m sure TTQ was relieved that they hadn’t made quorum.
As a chapter president, I tried. I tried my best to encourage all my members who weren’t attending to send proxies and I’m grateful to those who did. I’m grateful to the members of my chapters who cared enough to attend.
It was… illuminating, to say the least. Someone got up to ask about possible future inclusion of an erotic romance category in the Ritas and GH and was shot down so harshly and coldly by Ms. Quinn, that I think they were still scraping the ice off walls some time later.
I don’t write within that particular genre, but I’ll be damned if I want one individual saying that our organization will not consider including it as part of its most prestigious contest.
What kind of message does that send? It’s okay to include the numbers for our percentage and marketing purposes? It’s okay to take their money for ads, but hey, when it comes to showcasing your ability… uh, no, sorry, go to the back of the bus and don’t dare speak up again.
I think the reason most people aren’t blogging about it is because we’re all writing to the board – which is exactly where these comments should go first. Then, if there’s any excess venom, blog it. But the board needs to hear these things first.
Excellent point, Lani.
Someone got up to ask about possible future inclusion of an erotic romance category in the Ritas and GH and was shot down so harshly and coldly by Ms. Quinn, that I think they were still scraping the ice off walls some time later.
Haaa.
Just.
Haaaaaa.
Those graphical standards? They’re to IMPROVE the image of romance, see.
And that survey about what romance means to you? That’s just to comply with anti-trust laws.
This? Well, aren’t there ENOUGH categories in the RITAs? Sheesh.
I’m completely stunned by the insensitivity. Images of tragedies like Tienanmen Square don’t belong in a ceremony of celebration. How could anyone, anyone have thought it was appropriate?
And yes, people did try to repair the damage, but the fact is, the whole thing should have been scrapped once the nature of the images was discovered.
They could have just focused on the awards.
I can’t wrap my head around this at all. Are there any responses from the board? I’ve looked and can’t find them. Miss Quinn’s message board on her website isn’t working either.
Perhaps we need to change our masthead:
“Smart Bitches: Embracing sexuality and celebrating romance since 2005.”
Candy: why don’t you join the RWA and we’ll run for office? HA!
>One more comment and then I have to go. Is >anyone else disturbed by the lack of commentary >on certain authors blogs/boards on this issue? >Do we make the assumption that those who are >silent on it are supportive of it? Or is that unfair?
Oh, please don’t make assumptions. Lots of us are appalled—we just aren’t blogging about it. We’re writing the board. Or just writing—so many things are more important than RWA’s latest self-sabotage. Like deadlines.
Someone said that maybe RWA wants to align itself with the Red State values. Please skip that assumption, too. RWA isn’t exactly a monolithic organization—there are Red Staters, Blue Staters, and Blue-minded folks like me who live in Red States. No doubt there are Red-minded folks who live in the Blue Zone, too . . . which is a discussion that shouldn’t even come up, dammit, in relation to our awards ceremony. (Or the definition of romance, for that matter, but that’s a whole ‘nother controversy.)
Eileen
Perhaps we need to change our masthead
Dunno ‘bout that, ladies… is “masthead” a graphically approved term? It could be taken the wrong way, y’know. If you’re lucky.
;-P
Barb
No one who worked on fixing the script had the authority to pull the tape. It is my understanding that pulling the video was suggested, but that suggestion was not taken.
While Nora may have been the first to suggest pulling the tape, she wasn’t the only one. That is no slam to Nora, btw! 😉
So while Alicia is trying to get the focus back on the GH and Rita winners and off the controversy, neither Alicia nor anyone else involved in script doctoring had the authority to pull the tape.
You have two issues here. The tape and the script.
I was told some edits were able to be made on the tape, but don’t know who did them.
[[[[About Allison Kelley, the ED – the ED is a hired position, right? Retained by the board of directors? If so, AK might be a problem, might not be – I don’t know and it depende more on whether she works on fundraising/development or internal relations/external PR. ]]]]
Are the RWA board member Lisa Kamps?
“RWA seems to want to redefine itself so that its morals and goals are more closely aligned with those of the Red States. Isn’t that the traditional demographic of the romance reader anyway?”
Keeping Eileen Wilks’ important caveat about judging the whole of RWA from this presentation in mind, I do think that the presentation itself reveals a genuine anxiety that this is no longer the whole demographic picture of Romance readers. And I think the overt political messages of this presentation are defensive in the true sense of the word—they reveal a fear that the genre is diversifying too much, that “traditional” Romance values are changing, and that the audience is changing, to the extent that a counter-response was required. And while the response might have been a very bad thing, I think the anxiety speaks well for the future of the genre as more diverse and more inclusive. So TTQ quashed the erotic Romance GH; as I kept having to tell people I met at an international higher ed conference in England last month, the current president does not represent the views of the entire nation (or in RWA’s case, membership), and no elected president is forever. And let’s face it; sometimes it takes someone in power going too far before those in the middle (the majority, usually) catch on and say enough. When people are that harsh, that defensive, they’re anxious and worried. Look at the sales of historicals (which apparently attract the most conservative Romance readers); look at Candice Proctor’s rant and RWR’s refusal to print it; look at the blogs popping up on Romance; look at the expansion of erotic Romance and e-publishing—I think that the signs of change are arriving, even if they’re a bit early to the awards ceremony (this makes me think of Demi Moore’s character in GI Jane for some reason). I only hope that the forces that speak to change in the industry continue to grow, are willing to ally for greater cache, and keep pushing for broadening, rather than narrowing in the industry.
TTQ’s message board crashed. Heee……
“And I think the overt political messages of this presentation are defensive in the true sense of the word—they reveal a fear that the genre is diversifying too much, that “traditional†Romance values are changing, and that the audience is changing”
Good point, Robin. Yes, I think we’re seeing a lot of anxiety about the way the genre’s growing/changing—and a corresponding need on the part of some to try to squish it back within its traditional boundaries. They can’t do it, of course. Just like I can’t make it grow in the particular direction I want—contemporary fantasy along the lines of LKH & Kelley Armstrong. (Happily for me, some of the market seems to be heading that way all on its own.)
Eileen
This is tangental to the issue at hand – mostly because everyone else is much more eloquent on the subject than I could ever be – but this brings to mind something that’s been discussed here at smartbitches a little bit before: it’s offputting to me to know the political leanings of the authors I read. Once I saw the name of TTQ I had a vague idea that she was the perpetrator of some books I’ve seen on the shelves that I would never willingly choose; I checked out her site and found she didn’t write the ones I was thinking of, but instead seems to specialize in the baby stories. (In the midst of all this, though, I had to laugh at the title of one of her books, “Shotgun Baby”, because it brought an image to mind that was pretty far off of what was intended, I’m reasonaly certain.) The end result of this is that even if I did usually go for the kind of thing she appears to write, I would never ever buy them now that I can surmise her political leanings. The same holds true for other authors, too.
This is akin, to me, of knowing the political leanings of my newscasters: this engenders an immediate loss of trust on my part that the information being broadcast is complete and truthful. In books, it means my perceptions of why characters are acting as they are become tainted – I can’t take them as they are written without attempting to glean whether the author was trying to preach at me on some pet issue or other. I accept that we all have political leanings, so that means authors and newscasters do as well and thus there’s always a likelihood that they leak into their work, but there are certain places where I need to be free of knowing what those leanings are in order to put my trust there and allow that person to impart information to me.
I suppose this whole fiasco – if not all of the events of 2005 that have been so very bizarre – can have a silver lining if it means that the people who believe in the mission of the RWA and that the mission can’t include political partisanship if its to (re)gain the trust of both the members and the public who buy the books of the members become vocal and take the group back to the heart of what it’s meant to do.
This seems to be a critical moment for the RWA. Recent events have allowed focus to shift away from supporting and assisting and honoring writers to other things. If it can open its arms a little wider and allow more sub-genres in, recognizing that there will always be cultural and societal changes that are bewildering and maybe even offputting to some but embraced by others, if it can find a way to support those who find a classy manner in which to navigate the difficult ground where art and freedom of expression meets commerce, if it can allow that moving forward when afraid is the brave thing people look up to, it seems the RWA will have the ability to remain useful and relevant and necessary to its core membership. If it can’t do these things, it seems a more permanent schism is on the way and authors may be in the difficult position of having to think politically when all they want to do is think creatively.
Personally, I’m hoping writers will be allowed to spend their time and energy writing some great stories instead of lots of letters to Board Members and blog entries. It seems to me that would be the best thing for everyone – the authors, the publishers, the reading public – but only time will tell and I, for one, am very interested to see what the next few months will bring.
I find it so interesting that when the RWA tried to define romance so as to exclude certain genres, people were upset. And when they tried to enforce standards of what could and could not be on a cover (and what authors could sign books at their tables – how junior high is that?) there was outrage.
But mess with the awards presentation and the national convention’s gala evening? Gloves ARE OFF, Y’all. It is no-holds-barred bitchslapping time.
Hmmm….
RWA: Gotta keep my pimp-hand strong!
I for one take great exception to the statements like, “The only people not offended were white conservative Christian Republicans.” I do not doubt your take on the political leaning of the montage, but please! I happen to BE white, conservative, Christian, and Republican. While I wasn’t there, I have read all the entries above and I was appalled. It seems to have been at best, tasteless and insensitive, and at worst, hurtful and divisive.
I live near Oklahoma City. Even though the bombing was ten years ago, the memories are still fresh. If I’d been a presenter or a nominee and had to relive it, complete with inane script and senseless pop song before my name was called, I would have walked out. Even as an audience member, I would’ve walked out.
Pick on the people responsible for picking the crappy script and crappier film content, not the people who tried to fix it or the people who refused to let Nora rain on the finalists’ parade.
And Nora is NOT a goddess. She puts her panties on the same way we do—one leg at a time.
Someone who spent that afternoon with Nora just posted to my blog that Nora herself spent hours on a rewrite in order to KEEP the program from one that would rain on the finalists’ parade. Her efforts were refused, and the focus went on to be on the presenters and on historical events rather than the winners and finalists.
I live near Oklahoma City myself and have a fifteen-year-old cousin who still wears the scars from the bombing. I will never forget the terror of her mother not being able to get through to see if her daughter was alive. Hell, I can’t even go to the Memorial. And though I’m considered an oddity in Oklahoma—a Democrat
—I have to agree. Political affiliation aside, it had to have been offensive to all.
Ditto, Robyn.
I’m one of those dastardly “white christian republicans”, and i think the whole thing stinks, too.
Someone made the comment that historical romances are read by mostly conservatives…is that true? And is it true that historicals’ sales are flagging??
I read (and aspire to write) historical romances, and I’m a yellow-dog Democrat happily resident in Seattle, the blue heart of a blue state. I know plenty of other liberals who enjoy a good historical, too. We may be a minority, but we’re there.
First I am not a current member of the RWA and therefore my comments should be taken in that context. Second, as a full-time romantic mystery writer living in the UK I was considering joining the organisation, since I may sell into the US.
Not any more.
Thank you bloggers and authors for giving an outsider your opinions on the event. Yes I do realise that this was a one-off, and the majority of members are professionals, but the Romantic Novelists Association in the UK is so very different, and open, that I am appalled at the right-wing attitudes which seem to prevail in this management team. We LOVE erotica, we LOVE gay romance, we LOVE and welcome any new aspect of the genre which will entertain a new audience of readers. I came from business, as I am sure many of you do. I know the effect of leadership.
Thanks again for saving me a few dollars.
“I happen to BE white, conservative, Christian, and Republican. While I wasn’t there, I have read all the entries above and I was appalled. It seems to have been at best, tasteless and insensitive, and at worst, hurtful and divisive.”
“Tasteless and insensitive” know no political boundaries.
The line between those who are disgusted with the presentation and those who are defending it—or defending its creators—with their last breaths isn’t falling between the Blue Staters and the Red Staters, by any means.
It’s falling between those who can step into another’s shoes for a moment and see things from another’s perspective, and those who can’t—or refuse to try.
Empathy. It does a body good.
“Second, as a full-time romantic mystery writer living in the UK I was considering joining the organisation, since I may sell into the US.
Not any more.
Thank you bloggers and authors for giving an outsider your opinions on the event. Yes I do realise that this was a one-off, and the majority of members are professionals, but the Romantic Novelists Association in the UK is so very different, and open…”
You may very well have no need to join RWA – although I believe it is an invaluable networking tool – but RWA is NOT the ceremony. Nor is it TTQ, Allison Kelley or any other single individual.
Yes, the ceremony was a travesty. Thank God my table drank from flasks throughout the whole thing (well, at least until the flasks ran out). It was ill-conceived, ill-executed, ill-produced (time wasted as the limo drove on and off the stage, needless five minute walks for the presenters from limo to podium that, if cut, could have gotten us out and there – and into the bar – an hour earlier). It hurt to sit through, mentally and physically.
But.
This was a one-off event, by an organization that has given me many personal and professional friends, contacts, help and encouragement. And unlike a business, the management changes over regularly, with a yearly membership vote.
No, TTQ and her pals are not my kind of people. But she’s gone as of 1 November, and the President-elect is reportedly a much more reasonable sort.
And I learned a valuable lesson. I skipped the AGM. I could have given my proxy to Barb, since I belong to her chapter, but didn’t. I could have gone to the meeting, which I meant to do, but when the friend I was with couldn’t find her entrance ticket for the meeting we both ducked out and went to the gym. That was a mistake. I won’t miss the AGM again and I’m sure there are others who feel the same way.
I’m disappointed this is giving some a skewed idea of RWA. I’m a liberal blue-stater who currently lives in the UK and I’m perfectly happy belonging to RWA. I don’t find it exclusionary – to the contrary, I found the membership at this past conference, ceremony aside, to be nothing but inclusive. The sneaky attempts by certain board members to make RWA exclusionary aren’t moving forward from what I know – at least not as their originators intended.
It’s no skin off my nose if people join RWA or not. I would just hate for the bad of the ceremony to overshadow the good of the organization. In fact, this was my fourth national conference and easily the most enjoyable and most applicable to my writing goals – excluding the ceremony, of course.
Chandra
I for one take great exception to the statements like, “The only people not offended were white conservative Christian Republicans.â€
Eeep. Has anyone here said as much? *cries at the idea of re-reading almost 90 comments* Anyway, anyone who has said this: Bad commenter! Assumptions are naughty! No treat for you! *smacks wrist*
Someone made the comment that historical romances are read by mostly conservatives…is that true?
I’m about as lefty and liberal as they come, and historicals are my favorite sub-genre. Ditto Sarah. Anecdotal evidence don’t mean squat, of course; I’d be interested to see what a statistically valid survey would say. My gut feeling (and that’s all, a gut feeling) is that the majority of romance novel readers tend to lean conservative, simply because wacky liberals may be more likely to be leery of picking up romances because of their (mostly undeserved) reputation for being anti-feminist and anti-intellectual—and GOD FORBID a lefty be anti-feminist or anti-intellectual.
And for those of you pointing out that these cock-ups are not due to the entire RWA: thank you. I’m afraid a lot of us are using “RWA” as shorthand for “certain elements of the RWA” and “the current Board of Directors of the RWA.” I’m one of them. I’ll try not to do it any more.
Why did no one send Nora Roberts – the MC – a copy of the script weeks in advance? This would have given plenty of time for negotiating changes to the script. This smacks of disorganization and unprofessionalism.
As for TTQ: she’s the PRESIDENT of RWA, for goodness sake! It’s her job to know the content of the 25th Anniversary Awards Ceremony. Saying she didn’t have time to read the script just doesn’t cut it with me.
Like the whole graphic standards fiasco, this should never have happened.
Sarah
Darn it, I have a very popular name.
I agree with Candy – we have been using “The RWA” as shorthand for referring to individuals who created incidents we disagree with – when really it was a handful of people who, unfortunately, are currently steering the ship. Thank heaven for changing leadership.
I have met the incoming president, Gayle Wilson, and she’s a lovely lady – a class act all the way. Of course, my experience was driving her from Newark International to the NJ-RWA conference three years ago, so it has little bearing on her abilities to lead the train wreck that is currently the RWA. That said, Candy is right: she and I need to single out the current BoD as responsible for the recent events, and give the new BoD taking office this fall a clean slate.
“‘Someone made the comment that historical romances are read by mostly conservatives…is that true?’
‘I’m about as lefty and liberal as they come, and historicals are my favorite sub-genre. Ditto Sarah. Anecdotal evidence don’t mean squat, of course; I’d be interested to see what a statistically valid survey would say.’”
I made the comment and although I’m pretty socially and politically liberal and prefer historical Romances, I’ve been told over and over again on AAR that the demographic of historical Romance is largely conservative. I don’t know if there’s “hard” evidence to back this up, but I know it’s a constant refrain, and I’m pretty sure several well-known authors have repeated the claim. As for declining historical sales, YES. In fact, Carla Kelly and Tracy Grant have lost their publishing contracts, Connie Brockway has left historical Romance, Candice Proctor has switched to historical mysteries, and there are others. Everyone has their theories as to why sales are declining, of course, but I think it’s because of the narrowing in historical offerings. One author recently wrote into AAR’s Potpourri Message Board and said she had a manuscript set in France refused because France apparently “doesn’t sell well.” As to the conservative thing, Adele Ashworth made a now infamous change to her book Duke of Sin, changing the heroine from a woman with sexual experience to a virgin widow at the request of her editor. And just look at what’s happened to the so-called “sensual” Romances coming out of Avon—Lisa Kleypas’ last book, for example, has the sensuality rating dialed down dramatically. Ashworth is published by Avon, as well.
Now, I love historical Romance, and frankly believe that much of it is actually far less “traditional” than a lot of contemporary fare, where women are giving up their careers to move to the country with their one true love, etc., and where the sexual politics often strike me as muddled, to say the least. Although I’m politically and socially more liberal (and I think those two things are different and not necessarily combined in individual readers), I adore all sorts of Romances, some of which are very, very traditional. Just give me quality, I say! IMO, the fact that the industry apparently holds the belief that most historical readers are conservative might be tainting what they publish, NOT because it’s untrue (although I don’t know whether it is or not, and I don’t know whether they mean socially or politically), but perhaps because their definition of “conservative” doesn’t accurately correlate to what readers really think and feel about Romance. In other words, maybe Romance readers are much more complex and nuanced than the RWA “research” (available on their site) leads us/them to believe. Or maybe the readership is more diverse than they think or is diversifying. Or maybe a lot of us—from the political left and right—can and do enjoy the same books!
Actually, a good person to ask about this is Maili. Although she was kind of blasted on AAR a while ago when she posted on the moral attitudes of Romance readers she’s followed on the Internet, she has what I think are fascinating insights on this topic, and she absolutely knows a ton more than I do about it.
Good for Nora for spending time trying to fix the situation.
I don’t think this is about Nora. I think she and others involved sincerely wanted the focus on the nominees.
She’s a big brand—she didn’t want her name on something she found personally offensive. I don’t know why anyone would have a problem with that. Nora is where she is because she’s true to herself.
I don’t think that’s the issue here.
I also don’t think this is about others who also tried to help fix the situation and who are getting slapped around for it.
You know what? This whole “are romance novel readers liberal/conservative” thing deserves its own column. You’re right about social and political orientations being different beasts, and to muddle things even further, I’d even throw a third axis, i.e. economics, into the mix; some people I know vote Republican even though they’re social liberals and political moderates, but fiscally they align themselves with conservatives.
I remember reading Adele Ashworth’s column about Duke of Sin on AAR some months ago. Publishers are constantly trying to gauge reader tastes, of course, but given how very, very hot erotic romance is now, I wonder why Avon is dialing down the heat and smoothing over an potentially controversial aspects?
I agree that the death-knell to historical romances was dealt by the narrowing of focus. The massive glut of mediocre-to-downright-awful Regencies has a lot to do with it too. People are kind of sick of Regencies. Me? I want more medievals, more Victorians, more Tudor-era novels, more books set in countries other than America, England or Scotland. Part of the reason why I gobbled up Shadowheart the way I did (besides my Kinsale fangirlishness) was because a) it was a medieval, woot woot, and b) it was set mostly in Italy.
I heard about Maili’s smackdown second-hand. I’ll see if I can lure her over here to talk about this, with the promise of only sweet bunnies and ducklings and kittens. Or at least, only reasoned debate and no unwarranted blasting allowed.
<
>
Does she have a blog? I tried to find it and kept ending up at the same article on Romancing the Blog. Good article.
To the other Sarah:
Yep, our name is popular. I should have signed myself Sarah S to avoid confusion!
Love this site, by the way!
Sarah S
Does she have a blog?
*starts weeping* She accidentally deleted it. She’s now in the process of re-building it. Check out http://mcvane.blogspot.com to see the progress.