I’ve been emailing with different authors about the “controversy” of Caridad Ferrer’s book Adiós to my Old Life winning the RITA® for Best Contemporary Romance, and I have to say, I’m befuddled.
I honestly do not get it. I was frankly disgusted by the anonymous commenters calling it bullshit on this blog and others, but not because they disagreed with the decision. Hey, if you are bummed because your favorite book didn’t win? Ok. Whatever. Plenty of people are pissed when Oscars® are announced, so you’re in good company.
What blows my mind is the anonymity – I guess the nicey-nice culture of romance novel readers & fans & authors is alive, well, and reducing any valid criticism into ultimatums issued by people with no balls. I’d have a lot more respect for all those anonymous opinions if, say, the person writing them had the stone ovaries to say WHO THEY WERE for God’s sake. One on our site called it bullshit; another anonymous ball-less commenter says it’s a “‘fucking’ disgrace.”
“Controversy” not withstanding, the nicey-nice seems to be rearing it’s perfectly coiffed head again. If you can’t say you’re happy for a winner, then you hide behind a fake name and announce that a YA novel winning Best Contemporary is the end of the world and a sign that the RITAs mean nothing? Why the hell is there no room to say publicly that you disagree and are bummed out that your favorite book didn’t win? The nicey-nice culture makes no room for disagreement unless it’s gutter-trash style hidden in the safety of anonymous driveby comment? Yeesh.
I totally disagree that there’s something inherently wrong with any YA novel winning the RITA® Best Contemporary, but I’d be interested in hearing from someone who thinks it’s wrong – but I’d prefer that someone be a person with the basic sense of cluecake to identify him- or herself and say why they’re disappointed with the decision.
Ironically, I had a few people in publishing, including authors, say to my face that the RITA feels great as an acknowledgement but means little to nothing in terms of sales and future contracts. It’s not like people in acquisitions see “RITA-winner” and up the advance by 10k.
Now, controversy, on the other hand, that’ll up your sales by 10k easy, so I’m sure there’s plenty of folks in Ferrer’s publishing house who are saying, ‘Oh yes, please! Keep talking! Disgrace? Oh, tell me more!”
I’m not pissed off because people disagree. I’m disappointed because people can’t disagree without being anonymous sniping buttmonkeys. Have some stones people. If you’re disappointed, say so and be a grown up. Big girl panties are in aisle 4. Head on over and get yourself a pair.
Maybe I have to re-adjust my idea of romance – but when I think of teenagers – I don’t think of a HEA. Too much growing to do.
As opposed to adult-hood where most of the growing is over with and the HEA is just over the horizon…?
This criticism holds very little water for me. Neither does the “straight romance” argument because how many books, of any romance genre but especially contemporary, are “straight” anymore? Isn’t there always a mystery, some local town conflict, vampires/werewolves/furry aliens, mad murderer out to get me, vulnerable female psychic-involved-with-local-police-investigation, poor girl from the small side out of town making it out on her own and blah blah blah?
For that requirement I would look more to certain Harlequin lines, or even historicals which, funnily enough, don’t seem to be making the waves they used to, which could have something to do with the fact that they tend to play it “straight”. (I’m speculating, of course.)
Now that is interesting.
So there is a YA Romance or YA With Romantic Elements category! But… since that category did not have enough entries this year she put it into Single Title to qualify for inclusion in First Book.
Now, I can see where people might be slightly miffed since that does look to be a bit manipulative even if it is allowed by the rules. Thus I can see members asking for clarification of the standards for each category.
Maybe the way to go is to open the First Book category up or maybe even add another “Wild Card” category.
First, my disclaimers:
1. Robin is my real name
2. I love YA
3. I have not read Adios
4. I (still) think the RITAs constitute a contest without rules
There are almost no guidelines for this
This, I think, is the issue it always comes back to for me.
Here’s mostly what I hear people saying about Adios: that it should have won because it’s a wonderful book.
To which I immediately think: Won what?
Because I think the controversy over Adios is inevitable given the way the RITAs are (not) structured. I have no beef with the book being recognized as outstanding, and I think it’s a terrible shame that the YA category was canceled. I have no beef with what Ferrer did, because the (non) structure of the awards allowed her to enter her book as she did. But still, what I’m primarily hearing from people who support the book’s win is that it was first and foremost a wonderful book. Then there are the defenses of the book as a) a Romance, and b) a YA book that *really* is like an adult book.
Is Adios a Romance as some claim, or is it a book with romantic elements as I have seen others claim? If the book is Romance, is YA Romance the same as adult contemporary Romance?
Taking the second question first, if YA Romance is the same or substantively equivalent to adult contemporary Romance, why are there different categories for Regency and historical Romance? And better yet, why have two DIFFERENT categories that Regency books can enter? And what about inspy Romance—why does that have its own category, when hey, lots of Romances invoke some sort of faith into the story? Why is it any different to say that religion at the center of a Romance creates a category than to say young adults at the center of the Romance creates a category separate and distinct from Romance with fully grown adults at the center of the Romance? It seems to me that this question goes back to the issue of categorization as part of this process, and more specifically to the question of how these categories are decided. That Adios is a fabulous book doesn’t, IMO, make it automatically appropriate for a certain category, for the same reason that no categorical distinctions guarantee that either the best books will win or that the categories reflect current publishing trends. Which IMO is the problem here.
My sense is that people who are over the moon about Ferrer’s win are celebrating the fact that a great book won. But that IMO does not in any way validate the RITA process, because if the RITAs were just about the best books winning, would those categories look like they do? Think about the categories and about how the books competed against each other *within* the categories, then look at how the categories are constructed. If anything, I think Ferrer’s win just points to the inadequacies in both the categorization and the evaluation process (i.e, lack of judging guidelines). That doesn’t mean Adios wasn’t a wonderful book, that it won unfairly, or that Ferrer shouldn’t be thrilled she won. It just means, for me, at least, that the RITAs is a contest without rules, and that therefore, it doesn’t mean a hell of a lot to me as a reader.
Which leads me to the first question way up yonder about whether Adios is a Romance or a novel with romantic elements. That’s the question that’s really causing the controversy, isn’t it, because it calls out all of these screwy distinctions in the categories and IMO highlights the absolute lack of judging criteria in the process. To be honest, I hear some people who support the win of Adios kind of backing into the question of appropriate category rather than being able to straight on say that the book is a Romance that can compete equivalently with contemporary adult Romance. Unfortunately, that discussion turns into a debate over whether Ferrer’s book should have won, which in turn becomes a potentially ugly fight between people who loved the book and others who have various reasons for objecting to the win. And then it gets bad because people feel that Ferrer is being maligned and her win tarnished. Which is too bad, both because none of this should reflect badly on Ferrer and none of it should take away from a book many people feel is truly outstanding. BUT, IMO, it also doesn’t vindicate the RITA process, and, in fact, to me just demonstrates how eccentric the contest really is, both in terms of categories and criteria. So bottom line, I don’t think it’s unfair at all that Ferrer’s book won a RITA. But I also don’t think Adios’ win validates the RITAs or means that anything was “done right” with that contest this year. To me, it’s still a contest without rules. Two separate issues, IMO.
Taking a cue from SB Sarah (as I do in everything *wink*), I checked out the Amazon page for each book nominated in the category. Let’s see if I can manage to link correctly to all nine!
The Kept Woman by Susan Donovan
Ride a Painted Pony by Kathleen Eagle
Adios to My Old Life by Caridad Ferrer – WINNER
Lucy Gets Her Life Back by Stef Ann Holm
Irresistible by Susan Mallery
Heiress for Hire by Erin McCarthy
Must Love Mistletoe by Christie Ridgway
Aussie Rules by Jill Shalvis
Summer at Willow Lake by Susan Wiggs
Going by just the blurbs, editorial reviews, and reader reviews at Amazon, I think AtMOL sounds very novel—as in “new”—compared to some of the other nominees; it’s set mostly in a reality/talent show, whereas the other books have settings like family stores/restaurants, quirky small towns, a horse ranch, etc.—all locations that I’ve seen done quite a bit before. Second, it’s about a Latina heroine, and I don’t know of a lot of romances like that.
As for the age of the heroines, there are a few in their 30s-40s (single moms) and a few in their mid-20s—and then, of course, seventeen-year-old Ali. One book, Summer at Willow Lake, apparently contains lots of flashbacks to when the hero and heroine were teenagers.
Obviously, I can’t speak to the quality of plotting, characterization, or prose, since I haven’t read any of the finalists. In the interest of knowing whereof I speak, I do plan to read all of them and report back to the Bitchery. However, it won’t be until around Labor Day, because:
A) I’m rereading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in preparation for…
B) My appointment this weekend with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and besides…
C) There are NINE books in the category.
Speaking of Potteriana, this debate reminds me of the late 1990s, when the New York Times was forced to establish a separate best-sellers list for Children/YA, because so many non-Scholastic publishers complained about the Harry Potter books dominating the general best-sellers list. Apparently, people just can’t stand to be one-upped by books aimed at readers under age 18?
Ha! My spamblocker word is “issue.”
This is true, because I’m one of those people, and I’ll tell you why: While some people see this win as Ferrer exploiting a loophole, or a dis on the quality of single title contemporary, I see it as the judges being able to recognize something of high quality and rewarding it accordingly.
And just to clarify my stance (to people in general, not you in particular, Jane): I didn’t ever say that all RITA winners suck, or that the process was completely invalid, or that a win is without worth. Just that a disproportionately large number Of sub-par books (ranging from mediocre to downright bad) have won in the past, which makes it a useless gauge of quality for me. Something like Adiós winning, however, tends to get my attention, because it indicates to me that it crossed some very interesting lines. The ones who tend to view the RITA with a skeptical eye also tend view the genre in general much more critically, and we’re also usually the ones pushing to have the boundaries expanded.
The ones who tend to view the RITA with a skeptical eye also tend view the genre in general much more critically, and we’re also usually the ones pushing to have the boundaries expanded.
I’d much rather see the RITAs award the ten (or twenty) best titles of the year, regardless of subgenre, romantic elements, age, time frame, spiritual inclination, length, etc. With judging criteria, of course, that fleshed out the word “best” for the purposes of expressly non-categorical evaluation.
Sorry, Teddy. I should have clarified that better. There is a YA romance category, but it didn’t “make” because there weren’t enough entries that fit the 2007 requirements. I’m sure that’s why Ferrer’s book was entered in a non-YA category.
Next year the new criteria will go into effect, broadening the YA category and hopefully allowing enough entries that it will make.
As someone pointed out, the category criteria can be confusing and seemingly arbitrary. Right or wrong, it allows authors pick where they think their book has the best chance, or even to hedge their bets.
Some people think that’s unfair. I think it’s a contest, and as such, you do what you think will get you a win. The gamble could backfire if enough judges deem you in the wrong category.
Regarding defining a book as YA: does it strike anybody that this sub-genre is even MORE tenuous and artificial than most?
I mean, seriously—did anybody here read strictly to their age group? When I was 11 years old, I was reading Agatha Christie, Stephen King, Cervantes, Harper Lee, Charles Dickens, Roald Dahl, Rudyard Kipling, E. Nesbit, C.S. Lewis, Gerald Durrell, Joan Aiken, Sydney Sheldon, Judy Blume, Mark Twain, W.S. Maugham, Graham Greene, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury—and that’s just a very small sample of what I found and devoured.
The Naomi Novik books that I’m burning through at top speed are marketed as YA fantasy, and my library shelves them in the Teen section. I’m not entirely sure why. Because it features dragons?
A lot of stuff gets thrown into the YA category. Once it’s there, adults will still happily read it, and read it with relatively little stigma (nobody ever blinks twice at my shelves of children’s/YA novels, but EVERYBODY’s jaw drops when they see my romance novels), but once a book is labeled as YA, it’s no longer viewed as truly an “adult” book, is it?
I have absolutely no history with RWA and no beef with how they run their contest. I’m mostly ignorant of the machinations of the publishing industry. Someday, I would love to publish a book and at that time I will have to learn a lot. But first, I have to finish a book.
Barb Ferrer mentions on her blog that she would have chosen “mainstream with romantic elements” but her word count wasn’t high enough. She also says that they are changing the word count rule. If this book had been written this year, it would have gone in that category.
I was also “present” on the Crusie group when Barb first found out that YA didn’t have enough entries. Enough people – published (and unpublished) authors of contemporary and historical romance novels and avid readers – were very gung-ho about her finding a category because we loved her book, that she figured she would give it a try and see what happened. She wasn’t performing some evil trick, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of any judges, she was trying to find a place to enter her book for a prize that means something to her.
I do have to say that of the three books on the finalist list that I read, hers was the absolutely fabulous-est. I have read books by some of the other authors on the list, though not the ones up for the prize this year, and have not been as impressed with their work as I was with Adios. Maybe that’s unfair, because I haven’t read those particular books, so I’m not judging apples to apples.
But the romance element was very important to the book. She was growing up and changing and part of that was falling in love. The guy was a bit older and an intern for the music contest, so he was more restrained with her because he was 1) a good guy and knew she was too young; and 2) not willing to lose his job by shtupping an underage contest participant.
Maybe it wasn’t an HEA completely, because they were both so young, but they seemed to have a future together. It is very rare in most romance novels that I have read that I completely believe that the people are going to be happy forever and ever.
Phyllis
There are a lot of references to the heroine’s age, so here’s my two cents:
Why do people have such a different mindset between contemporaries and historicals. One of my first books was a historical by Ruth Langan and her herione was only 16.
Ali Montero, the heroine in Adios to My Old Life, is 17.
With the historical setting the heroine’s young age is acceptable, yet not in a contemporary setting.
Seems like a double standard.
Yes, the Langan book was categorized as historical romance and the Ferrer book is YA. But what makes Ferrer’s book YA? The age of the heroine? The age of the audience? Does it matter? Is it a darn good book that fulfilled RWA’s requirements for Best Contemporary or whatever award it won?
Barb Ferrer mentions on her blog that she would have chosen “mainstream with romantic elements†but her word count wasn’t high enough.
Of all the wacky things about the RITA categories, I understand the word count thing the least. Can anyone explain the wisdom behind these distinctions?
I personally do not think the RWA can be trusted to provide “valid” definitions on their own industry.
I mean, look at them defining Samhain as, of all things, a Vanity Press.
I just read in Wiki WHAT a Single Title Romance is considered by most publishers, since they use these definitions for marketing purposes.
Sound reasonable to use those definitions since they are the market.
A Single Title Romance is 350 to over 500 pages.
Adios to My Old Life is 250 pages.
A Single Title Romance is defined as a non Category Romance. In other words they define it based on what it is not.
Adios to My Old Life is labeled by it’s own publisher Simon & Schuster as a Young Adult book.
The RWA has a Young Adult category to handle this issue but as was pointed out that category did not have enough entries this year.
Look like there is some valid reasons to question here.
I think it’s wonderful that a YA book an RITA. That’s fine and dandie. Helps open readers minds to the genre of YA.
But I also have a very big problem with a YA winning. Maybe it’s from working in retail bookstores and dealing with summer reading lists, but a YA book is direct at the 13-16 market and I don’t feel that something aimed at older KIDS is something that should be recognized by the RWA. The year that Speak (a wonderful book, btw) was on the 7th grade school summer reading list and I had to warn parents about the subject matter after the first few mothers thru fits was enough of an experience for me. Having the mothers who read category romance novels start going thru the teen section and pulling out the same books their daughters might be reading is just too much for alot of women. It’s a topic for the industry as a whole and not just for the RWA. Maybe a new category of pre-teen to separate out all middle school books from the high schooler books.
I dunno. Again tho, congrats whole heartedly on the win cause that book was awesome. I can understand the unease of the win felt by many but it doesn’t stop the fact that out of the nominated books, it was the best.
Also, people who can’t put a name to an opinion do not deserve to be recognized as having an opinion. That’s about as bad a complaining about the president when you didn’t vote.
Categories are tricksy things, aren’t they? There are certain elements that basically throw the books over the edge into a particular sub-genre. Set a book in 1804 with an ingénue heroine, and it’s a historical romance. Make the heroine a mind-reader or a vampire hunter or a shape-shifter or a witch, and whoa, it’s a paranormal. Makes me think of the “single drop of blood” laws.
What are the dealbreakers that tend to shift books into a specific sub-genre? Some that immediately come to mind are:
1. The presence of the fantastic/paranormal
2. The race of the protagonists
3. The gender(s) of the protagonists
4. The age of the protagonists—if the hero is 30 and the heroine is 17 at the end of the book, it’s a romance. If the hero’s 19 and the heroine’s 17 at the end of the book, it’s YA.
Elements that don’t shift romances into a specific sub-genre:
1. Any sort of a suspense plot—murders, mysteries, spy capers, what-have-you.
2. Hmm, can’t think of any others off the top of my head.
What do y’all think?
I’m confused. I know, big surprise there.
Was there any controversy over Barb’s (Caridad’s) nomination for the RITA in this category when they announced? I think I would’ve remembered it if there had been…
So, it was okay for this beautifully written book to be nominated in Single Title, but not okay for it to win? Can someone maybe explain that to me?
I’m actually stunned people are turning this into a controversy. It’s a fantastic book and it won. So what if Barb is a nice fashionista. What does that have to do with anything? There are lots of very nice, well dressed authors out there…that doesn’t have beans to do with the contest.
Barb’s book won because it rocks and the judges recognized that. And if it wasn’t a big deal when Adios was nominated, why the hell is it a big deal now that it won?
Robin: my feeling is—and mind you, I’m prolly talking out of my ass here—that the wordcount requirements were basically a way to differentiate category romances from single title romances, above and beyond distinctions between short story, novella and novel.
“…Sorry, but if you did not read the book how can you say it didn’t deserve to win? Romance = HEA (for the most part) right?
Adios was a romance. It happened to have a heroine who was young.
Um, read any historicals lately? Where the heroine is 16 and marries a 28 year old?…”
Stephanie – I never said it didn’t deserve to win. I said was I disappointed that a book originally labled as YA and intended for the YA category – won. And that it reflected poorly on Single Title Contemp Romance.
Someone said down further – maybe the ST needs to bring a better game. And maybe that’s true. Or maybe Adios is a romance and the YA label is misleading. I don’t know.
But certainly I’m not suggesting that something as trivial as the age of the herione has anything to do with it.
As I’ve said and Jane also mentioned – YA has a certain feel to it. It tends to be more about self and exploration and less about two people overcoming a conflict, falling in love, and living HEA.
That was my only issue with the win.
I think the “controversy” as some have pointed out really has more to do with legitimizing the RITAs and finding the best way to classify books so that consistently the best books win.
Speaking of Potteriana, this debate reminds me of the late 1990s, when the New York Times was forced to establish a separate best-sellers list for Children/YA, because so many non-Scholastic publishers complained about the Harry Potter books dominating the general best-sellers list. Apparently, people just can’t stand to be one-upped by books aimed at readers under age 18?
I was just going to post about this when I saw your comment. It does seem quite reminscent of the complaints about Harry Potter taking up permanent residence on the NYT bestseller list. The implicit assumption seemed to be that a book appropriate for children can’t possibly be literature. In this case a book appropriate for YA can’t possibly be romance?
I might have an issue if the hero and heroine were like 14, but not when she’s 17. As others have said, there are plenty of 17-18 years olds in historicals romances.
Just to clarify a bit before I start – I’m a different “Joanna” than the one who usually posts who’s of Scottish origins. Though, I simply must give her props for her name and frequently lovely comments!
Now, to the matter at hand…
Candy makes an interesting point here that I have seen validated elsewhere. When I was visiting the UK with some friends a few years ago, I noticed the Harry Potter series shelved in the “Literature” section but with completely different covers-that is, with no YA-esque artwork. They were all black with only the title (excluding any “Harry Potter” designation) and only J. K. Rowling’s last name printed on the cover. They also usually included some sort of weird icon on the front like a floating feather or something. Anyway, these were supposedly the “adult” versions of these books – the content was exactly the same; however, the covers were more “adult” so that us grown-up types wouldn’t have to be ashamed to be seen reading a Harry Potter book on the morning commute. An idea that made me indelicately snort in indignation at the time; however, with the current controversy/debate, I find it to have a significant correlation.
Overall, I find the stigma with regard to reading YA to be fading and at a far swifter rate than the one attached to Romance reading, especially since academics can receive PhDs in English with specializations in children’s/YA literature. Romance-as-specialization has no such distinction or any real academic respect.
As Adios and so many other YA book show (and I would include the “Twilight” series by Stephanie Meyer as another compelling example), these stories/characters/plots, etc. are not the vapid and obviously juvenile Sweet Valley Highs and Babysitter’s Clubs of MY youth. There are real problems, conflicts, and romances (if no hot monkey sex to be had) in these stories. These characters desire, often in the same ways and for the same reasons as adults, and as desiring subjects/objects, they make many of the same poor choices and suffer many of the same obstacles and set-backs as many of their chronologically older counterparts in Romance. And, in reverse, they also receive many of the rewards that come with going after what they want and succeeding, which from what I gather, happens in Adios.
Therefore, I find the more significant question to be whether or not individuals are more perturbed over the age of the protagonist(s), or the age of the marketed audience for these books? If it is the former, then I agree with those who have previously stated that we must recategorize Romances where the female protagonist is under the age of 21 (or whatever age is deemed “proper adulthood”). And, in this respect, there would need to be another addition to the Regency categories because many of the herione’s in those books are only 18 or even younger. However, if the problem is the latter (as I suspect), then the answer lies not with the categories themselves, but with how the categories are dictated by marketing execs, editors, and publishing houses. If Adios had been published as an adult Romance, as opposed to a YA book, then would there be such grumblings over Ferrer’s win? Or if Rowling were to suddenly publish her final Potter book with an swanky adult cover and under the seemingly adult category of “Literature & Fiction,” then would it not be possible for her to submit _The Deathly Hallows_ for a RITA based upon the various romance plots that are admittedly secondary, but nonetheless still present in all of her books?
Robin: my feeling is—and mind you, I’m prolly talking out of my ass here—that the wordcount requirements were basically a way to differentiate category romances from single title romances, above and beyond distinctions between short story, novella and novel.
That squares with some things I remember reading in other discussions, Candy, but it still seems weird to me, especially because IMO it’s more difficult to write an outstanding short book than one with a huge wordcount. I get the sense there’s some other anxiety around those counts—like whether categories will be read with the same seriousness, or whether the number of categories is seen to skew the odds toward or away from them, etc. If you’re trying for fairness, it seems to me that judging criteria would be more influential than categorical differentiation. Neither is completely objective, but at least one could be focused primarily on quality, with the extension of trust that readers could treat differently oriented works with fairness.
I’ll have to think some about your category distinctions, but the two categories that really brought some issues home to me this year were the long historical and the paranormal. Looking that those two categories, there is, IMO, INCREDIBLE DIVERSITY WITHIN each category, AND VERY STRONG BOOKS competing against one another. How, for example, Abe’s The Dream Thief could be compared to Cole’s A Hunger Like No Other or Snyder’s Magic Study with nary a complaint doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Then, on top of that, with so many strong books in one category, do votes split among them? For example, in the long historical category, with absolutely no offense intended to Julia Quinn, her book was not particularly well-reviewed and yet it won against books that were, IMO, stronger. I know that’s a completely subjective opinion, but when you have so many strong books clustered together in one category, does the author who has finalled seven times or something win what is basically a career achievement award for those years her book perhaps SHOULD have won but didn’t? I mean, how do you compare Pamela Clare’s Surrender with Quinn’s book and then say you can’t compare Quinn’s book with Dodd’s Barefoot Princess or Stuart’s Devil’s Waltz?
It seems to me—at this stage of my thinking—that you either need to privilege the notion of “best” or of “category,” because the idea of “best in genre by category,” is, IMO, deeply and irreparably flawed, at least as it’s been practiced in the RITAs.
I mean, look at them defining Samhain as, of all things, a Vanity Press.
RWA has not defined Samhain as a vanity press. The def being used is as follows:
To the extent of my knowledge, Samhain does not charge authors $, their books are available though multiple outlets (such as Amazon and Fictionwise), and I’m not under the impression that the owners of the company are responsible for writing 50% of their titles. So clearly RWA is NOT calling them a vanity press.
I think what you’re talking about is the fact that Samhain does not qualify for the new def of an “eligible publisher†because they don’t pay their authors a $1000 advance. This is an entirely separate issue, and whether you agree with it or not (I don’t, just for the record) all it means is that Samhain can’t participate in the RWA conference as an “official publisherâ€.
Personally, I don’t expect this new “eligible publisher†thing to last long, as the howls of protest from the epubs and Red Sage can already be heard . . . much like the graphical standards brouhaha, I expect this to morph or die pretty damn fast.
Joanna and Jepad – it’s not the age of the heroine. It’s a question as to whether it is a romance or a YA with romantic elements.
And maybe I’m wrong – but I don’t *think* there is any type of discrimination in the romance community against YA. At least none that I’ve ever heard. There are amazing, wonderful YA books. I don’t think anyone is questioning that.
But using the example if JK Rowling decided to enter the Ritas – she would enter it in the YA category or yes book with romantic elements. (R & H 4EVER)
She would probably not enter it in Single Title Contemporary Romance.
If she did and won does it change how great her books is?
No.
Would it make me question why it won for Best ST Contemp romance?
Yes.
SB Sarah:
“Big girl panties are in aisle 4. Head on over and get yourself a pair.”
ROFL! Gotta remember this one!
Here’s a thought: maybe someone in Ferrar’s publishing house IS creating the controversy. What an excellent way to get free publicity…
Disclaimer: OK folks, I’m just kidding. I don’t have inside knowledge or anything.
Pssst Kelen,
Did you read what they are saying?
“This definition includes:”
“Publishers whose “primary” means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site.”
Hey, don’t blame me. They wrote it.
I just attempt to comprehend what weird ass shit they claim makes sense this week.
There was a looooooooooooooong discussion of just what the word “primary” meant at the AGM, and while I agree that it is unclear, the board stated in no uncertain terms that this did not mean epubs like Samhain, EC, Loose-Id, etc. who sell through both their own website and through various other legitimate channels (such as Amazon and Fictionwise).
So to recap, RWA has NOT defined Samhain as a “vanity pressâ€.
One point: there is a box when judging the Ritas that says “Not Romance” that the judge can check.
I think if three judges in the initial round of five check that category, the book is disqualified. So there is a filter for books not ‘romancy’ enough for this category and ‘Adios’ made it through. Since the judges are romance writers and readers, what better system is there?
I remember the awards discussion here pretty well and also remember that the process for picking winners for the Hugos, Nebulas, Oscars, Edgars, etc., often made less sense than the Rita process.
Writers and readers judge and that’s subjective and that’s true of any creative work. All the critics said “John From Cincinnatti” was amazing and I watched and thought “what the hell were they smoking?”
So what’s a fairer way to judge? I don’t think there is one better than the imperfect way the Ritas and the GH are done. Five writers is a lot of people to satisfy all at once and for the Ritas, there’s more judges at the end.
Aside: my daughter is fourteen and reads a ton of stuff from YA to adult romances. I often read the YA with her, to check content. I’ve found the concepts tend to be more original and with a fresher presentation than adult books. I’m not sure why, I think maybe it’s because YA editors have the idea that kids constantly need new angles to be entertained and maybe the marketing people in NYC feel adults aren’t the same.
Kalen,
Oh, so they are now defining the word “Primary” too. Well good for them. I am happy that the English language is their arbitrary play ground of fun times.
I heard that cults did this in order to control the minds of the followers.
You know, like in Orwell’s 1984 Double Plus Good speak.
‘Romance-as-specialization has no such distinction or any real academic respect’
We’re working on it! 😉 There were quite a lot of panels and papers on romance at the last Popular Culture Association conference. Sarah Frantz’s summaries are here, here, here and here. Also this year, An Goris, Sandra Schwab and I went to a Feminism and Popular culture conference (and there’s a summary here.
There are quite a few other romance scholars at work too.
One of my RWA chapter members just shared this site with us, and I’ve got to say I love it. I’m one of the few people in my chapter who writes both adult and YA romance. Writing YA within RWA is a bit like entering a lunchroom and having no idea who to sit with as the cool kids are already buddied up. Most RWA contests for unpublished writers lack a YA category. I generally skip them b/c I don’t think that my book can really compete in any other category, and since most contests are as much about the feedback as about winning, I want my YA to get feedback as a YA. With the Golden Heart and the RITA, though, there’s no real feedback, so marking a second category in case your category is canceled makes sense. If people have issues with this, they should eliminate that part of the entry form that allows you to list an alternative category. What would make more sense given the success of Adios and other YA’s by RWA members would be to keep the RITA for YA category even in years where there are fewer entries. Reduce the minimum number of entries. I’m thrilled by Adios’s win b/c it shows the diverse appeal of YA fiction, but in most cases, it makes sense to judge YA’s against each other. The target audience of most YA’s isn’t the same as the target audience of most ST’s, so it makes sense to keep each in their own categories. Adios is one of those rare books like Meg Cabot’s and Sophie Kinsella’s that DOES appeal to multiple ages of readers, and it’s so awesome that a panel of ST judges found it worthy, but I’d still like to see a separate YA category maintained and offered each year. It’s a bit like a documentary winning best picture—sure it can happen, and it shows just how transcendent that documentary is, but there’s still a need for a separate documentary category.
Ella Enchanted is a good YA epistolary romance. I would have no problem with it winning multiple awards for romance. I can’t say I have ever read any of Ms. Ferrer’s books, as (a) I don’t read much contemporary, period and (b) I don’t look for YA to read generally, but I don’t get why anyone would care that it won other than the people whose tails she beat out for the award.
Some YA is better than some stuff intended for adults. For example, I’ve read two Rachel Gibson novels and been vastly disappointed by them as they were exactly the same and weren’t at all funny. I’d reather have read just about anything by Gordon Korman, one of the Bunnicula series, or Josepha Sherman than the Gibson books.
(I hope the fact that my verification word is chief34 doesn’t mean that I’m going to come under fire by Cassie Edwards…)
I was one of those authors encouraging Barb to enter as she did, way back in the long, cold Winter of ‘06. We had similar situations, in that both our first choice categories were dropped. For me it was easy to switch to Short Historical from Regency. But she had to struggle to find the best fit for the book, inside the rules that were presented.
I was thrilled to death to see her get 2 nominations, and even more thrilled when she won. The amazed look in her eyes at the reception, when a friend reminded her who she’d been competing against, was one of the high points of my week.
I read Adios, and thought it was a terrific book. I have no problem with a sweet YA romance competing against ‘adult’ books. Of course, I’m still married to first guy I dated in high school, and it’s been almost 30 years. Maybe I’m biased.
I’d also give her some credit for a secondary romantic line, since I kind of thought the father character was on his way to an HEA as well. Or am I remembering it with my romance writer brain? Anyway, I felt the book was romantically satisfying.
It doesn’t matter who judges, or what they change the rules to in the RITA’s. IMHO there will always be some good books that don’t fit as easily as they could, or end up in slots where critics complain.
But I am not particularly bothered by the way the contest is currently set up.
She read the rules, and entered where the book fit best.
To get where she did, she got 10 randomly chosen judges to give her high scores, based on the quality of her writing.
There was a chance to disqualify her, if the first round judges thought it wasn’t a romance. But they didn’t. Obviously there are people who think this is plenty romantic enough to play in the big leagues.
She got the same shake as the rest of us: a randomly chosen jury. And she won.
The only totally fair way to judge the contest would be for every judge to read every entry, so we could be sure they weren’t missing a better book. It would also help, if we could get people to all agree, all of the time, and maybe weed out anyone with extreme opinions or odd tastes, so nothing risky or out of the ordinary like this would ever come along and upset the category.
Personally, I would be against judging by popular vote, just for this reason. I think it is easier to miss the YA’s, or little books, or category straddlers, and get too focused on the books that everyone has read. This year, 10 judges looked at a book who might not have seen it otherwise, and they felt it deserved recognition.
But that doesn’t sound all that interesting, to me. Of course, I’m biased, because I like Barb, I liked Adios, and I like to see the underdog win.
I’ve always thought that the difference between YA and other genres is that the main theme of the YA is the protag’s beginning forays into, and the actual rite of passage from child to adult. Romance can be a central element, but the meat, so to speak, is the navigation. Lots of romances have themes of protag self-discovery. However, they’ve usually either sucessfully navigated their rite of passage (i.e., they’re grown folks) or they haven’t and suffer angst because of it (i.e., all those lovely, lovely rakes). The meat here is the romance between the protags and a central element is the failed rite of passage.
I’ve not read the book in question or many other YA books because I’m not a big fan of rite of passage stories. I had a hard enough time going through my own to have to relive it with someone else!!! If I have this wrong, let me know so I can fall in love with another genre!
(my password is freedom23, as in freedom from 23 different kinds of dry skin…)
Just a question: Are books given a YA label because of the age of the protags, or the age of the demographic they’re aiming at?
Teddy Pig, all groups, in fact, all discussions, require the defining of terms. Whole fields of study have grown up around this issue. I’m sorry you don’t like their definition, but just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. You’re making unsupported claims, and (as usual) you’re unwilling to listen to what anyone else has to say on the topic. Enough already.
Kalen,
You are having to translate what the intent of RWA in this note.
That’s great but it makes no sense to what they actually wrote.
Just check the reactions from other people when they got that little note. Sorry if I do not think they were wrong in their reaction either. I believe they read exactly the same thing I did.
“This definition includes:”
Vanity Press has a set definition already in the industry.
Small Press has a set definition already in the industry.
I behooves a “professional” organization to at least try to use them correctly not define them however they feel like it.
People seem to think a YA novel just can’t be written as well as an adult novel
That’s obviously silly and has nothing to do with my opinion.
I hate the anti-YA bias that seems to be driving the complaints about ADIOS winning the single-title contemporary award.
I love YA. But I believe it’s a fundamentally different genre from “contemporary romance”. Maybe this book straddles the line. If that’s the case and it’s as fabulous as people say, I can see why it won. Regardless, it *looks* weird from the outside. I can see why it would lead to anonymous bitching. You’re condemning people who may not be in the same position you are.
I’m disappointed because people can’t disagree without being anonymous sniping buttmonkeys. Have some stones people. If you’re disappointed, say so and be a grown up.
I TOTALLY disagree with you on that. The nicey-nice culture of romance is a GREAT reason to post anonymously. In a culture that’s intolerant of criticism, only those with nothing to lose (bloggers, NOT authors) have the freedom to blast away publicly.
Besides, if someone known to the romance community posted that they disagreed, and things snowballed, bloggers would jump all over it as a huge error in judgment. Then we’d have a chorus of “Discretion is the better part of valor” type posts.
Of course, those posters could have just said nothing; but maybe they feel they have a point that needs to be raised about the nature of YA vs adult romance. Those who just say “Wrongwrongwrong!—Anonymous” aren’t really making their point. But I’d rather they speak up.
Sigh. I had an attack of crazy-mouse. That should have read:
I love YA. But I believe it’s a fundamentally different genre from “contemporary romanceâ€. Maybe this book straddles the line. If that’s the case and it’s as fabulous as people say, I can see why it won. Regardless, it *looks* weird from the outside. I can see why it would lead to anonymous bitching.
You’re condemning people who may not be in the same position you are.
. . . .
I TOTALLY disagree with you on that. The nicey-nice culture of romance is a GREAT reason to post anonymously. In a culture that’s intolerant of criticism, only those with nothing to lose (bloggers, NOT authors) have the freedom to blast away publicly. You’re condemning people who may not be in the same position you are.
Is YA fundamentally different?
Michael Hauge defined character arc in his workshop at National as moving from Identity (how a character perceives themselves) to Essence (their true self). The journey comes as they face the fears that caused the creation of the identity and are able to get past them and become their true self.
Granted, a YA would be the first time a character makes that journey but I’m not sure that’s a significant enough difference. Note: that’s if you buy into Hauge’s definition.
There is a difference in novel length and in the age of characters between adult and YA. Also, some YA novels deal with things that wouldn’t interest adults but there are some that do. Harry Potter is a great example of YA concepts appealing to adults.
Idon’t know what the rest of you consider a happy ending, but I consider it the POSSIBILITY of an HEA. I don’t expect everyone to get married and make bebbies together. In a contemp. I expect them to keep dating or even move in or get engaged. So Caridad’s book (which I read) certainly fits this definition for me!
Unlike many YAs, Caridad actually thrust her character into a very adult world. She was competing against adults, and on the verge of adulthood herself.
As to RWA and the damn definit ions *sigh*. . . Blah, blah, blah, it’s all getting slowly worked out. IMHO, huge inroads were made this year, and I don’t doubt there will be more next year. Hopefully the vanity press language will be clarified as there was much discussion of what “primarily” means in the legal sense, blah, blah, blah.
Also, the writer chooses her own category, according to what she thinks will fit. If it’s paranormal and historial and YA, it’s got to be the author’s call. Seems as fair as any other way of doing it.
Last, I find it laughable to think that Caridad had some huge advantage by entering the Single Title category. Maybe her work was fresher. I don’t know. But she was taking a big, big risk. The judges had every right to mark it Wrong Category and they did not. The judges signed up to judge ST, not YA. It seems more likely they would have drawn back in horror at something that didn’t fit, rather than gasp out “Thank God! Something different!!! This MUST be our winner!!!” I mean we are talking about an organization that many seem to find stagnant and unchangeable. It can’t be both.
I was seriously impressed when she won. Seems to me she was fighting an uphill battle.
Btw, I have the right to say “Blah, blah, blah,” because I did my duty and sat throught the General Meeting. I’m glad I did. I got to hear all the arguments and clarifications. I feel I got a good grip on everything. I enjoyed listening to all the truly passionate members who spoke.
And I now have the right to say “Blah, blah, blah,” and not have it be disrespectful. Much. Yea, me!