Kate Rothwell posted some rather interesting reactions to the presence of bloggers and reviewers at the RWA this year. One author noted:
…that kind of bothered me at this conference. Stuff like [the costumed writers] and all the blog reviewers being there. It just started to feel like it was maybe turning into a fan conference rather than a professional organizations’ annual meeting.
I just think the two should be kept separate. You want to have a time for authors to meet the press (or reviewers)—like the librarians thing or the booksellers thing, great. But being a part of everything just didn’t seem appropriate to me. Like a conflict of interest. It’s our conference and a time for us to discuss our industry.
Conflict of interest was a rather interesting term to use, and I don’t think it’s accurate. Us bloggers (OK, I can speak only for Sarah and me specifically) went to the conference to a) report back on what goes on behind the scenes to the readers, and b) meet a whole bunch of people we’ve been interacting with on-line for ages, both authors and readers. I’m not sure what sort of conflict of interest there’d be in what we did, especially because all of us were pretty up-front about who we were and what we did. A lot of readers are curious about what goes on at Nationals, and they want to see it from the perspective of other readers, and that’s what we tried to provide. And to my mind, engaging the readers is a GOOD thing.
The authors-vs-reviewers divide is not a new one, but I really wish authors would see that we’re the biggest champions of the cause they could ever, ever have. Lookit, we love the books, and we love the genre. We love them SO MUCH, we’re willing to fly hundreds of miles to MOTHERFUCKING DALLAS in JULY just so we can observe and report on another aspect of the enterprise.
I can understand wanting to avoid turning the RWA into a circus, but despite my Ebil Plan to completely disrupt proceedings with my purple-streaked hair, my magnificent rack and my army of invisible midgets, things were pretty tame. Not even a single explosion, and certainly no limbs severed, nor any blood spilled. (Note to self: next time, more dismemberment, less re-enactment of silly Youtube videos for the benefit of people at the bar.)
And come, now: how many bloggers/reviewers were there vs. published and aspiring authors? Jane, Sarah, me, Sybil, Kristie, Wendy the Super Librarian and a couple of reps from AAR (I finally got to meet Anne Marble) were the ones I knew about; I doubt there were a whole lot more, because it’s a pretty small community. We’re a pretty small gang, folks, and unless you knew what to look for, we didn’t even register as a blip on the radar.
The overall impression I got from what was expressed on Kate’s blog was that the author wanted the conference to be more of a writers’ retreat than anything else. I know it feels like we’re invading a sort of safe haven, but based on the fact that the RWA allows non-members and associate members to join the conference, it’s a good bet that this isn’t what it was meant to be in the first place.
There was also a bit of a to-do about people like Marianne Mancusi dressing up like the characters for their Shomi books. I looked at the photo, and I honestly don’t see the big deal. The costumes look tarty and fun, and frankly, I want to steal those pink thigh-high stockings from Liz Maverick, because I have a similar-looking pair but they refuse to stay up. I wish I could grab the people who are worried by the cosplay, shake them gently and say “LIGHTEN UP. They’re having fun. A mini-skirt and flashing a bit of cleavage ain’t the end of the world, and we’re honestly not expecting this from everybody.”
We bitch quite a bit about how the genre is afraid of change, how much stagnancy there is, how we’re not drawing in the next generation of readers—but when somebody does something that will actively engage younger readers, that will help explode the myth that romance authors and readers are middle-aged housewives in terrycloth bathrobes and curlers in our hair, people throw up their hands, go “Lawksamercy!” and cluck worriedly. I know, I know, there’s a lot of anxiety regarding publicity and marketing, and the PR machine is indeed an ugly beast sometimes, especially for the authors who just want their books to speak for themselves without them having to put on any sort of a spectacle, but seriously: LIGHTEN UP.
ask if it’s likely you’ll be lumped in with what you dislike. And then ask yourself if you value the opinions of people who will make those unfounded judgments.
Chris, as Robin has pointed out, this isn’t really a discussion about particular individuals. As I see it, they were simply a starting point for a much broader debate about how romance is perceived and what authors, editors, publishers, booksellers, reviewers etc do or don’t do to contribute to the stereotypes.
From that perspective, when you say ‘ask if it’s likely you’ll be lumped in with what you dislike’ the answer is clearly yes. Nora has been asked why she writes ‘porn’. She doesn’t. The stereotypes persist and they very obviously affect the way the genre and its authors are perceived.
As for ‘ask yourself if you value the opinions of people who will make those unfounded judgments’, it’s clear from what Maverick and Mancusi have said that they do care, otherwise they wouldn’t be trying to bring readers to the genre who might have misperceptions about it. The other authors on this thread also care, and so do many of the readers. Quite apart from the issue of sales and bringing in new readers, some authors and readers of romance face rude questioning of their choices to write and/or read romance novels and that can be tiring/demeaning/embarrassing.
So the question is, how do authors (and to a lesser degree those of us who blog or write about the genre) bring new readers to the genre without creating new images/reinforcing old stereotypes which might put off potential readers?
ultimately I decided that the truth will out.
And yet, sadly, for the romance genre this is still not the case, despite all the work that many authors have done to try to dispel the stereotypes.
Be honest and kind, and that’s mostly what you get back. Mostly. The rest you can’t help.
I suppose some people are arguing that costumes are not necessarily ‘honest’ in presenting the genre in particular ways. Barbara Cartland’s pink dresses etc may have been honest for her, or they may not have been. Even if they were honest, was it a good decision to wear those clothes? Maybe it was for her personally, but maybe it wasn’t for the genre as a whole. In that case is it better to be a little less honest and instead choose a particular image?
In other words, we’re discussing precisely what authors ‘can help’. They mostly can’t change the man-titty covers, but they can control how they dress, the way they interact online, the way they put together their websites and the way they choose to describe their books when interviewed by the press.
Someone asked about Regency authors dressing up for the Literacy Signing, so I thought I’d answer that. There is a chapter of RWA for Regency-era writers, and we have a (private!) “soiree” as part of our own mini-conference just after the Lit. Signing at Nationals. Some of us *do* don Regency-era garb for that (private!) party, but I don’t remember seeing any of the published authors wearing their Regency garb to the signing. I change into my “costume” after the signing and then hurriedly scuttle to the soiree as anonymously as possible (my own “I feel like a dork” baggage).
I think we have, in the past (but not this year), had some of our unpublished members present in Regency costume, at the Lit. Signing, passing out promotional brochures (as in, a listing of authors present at the signing who write Regency-set books), but I don’t remember seeing ANY of my colleagues actually SIGNING in costume.
Not making any value judgments—just answering the question!
Regarding authors who “dress the part,” I am assuming that the commenter meant that authors often dress to create a persona related to the books they are selling. For example:
http://www.johnearlephoto.com/assignment/currentwork/cw03.html
I realize these pictures weren’t taken for a book signing event, but it’s the general idea of “dressing the part.”
~look at WHY you find these things so threatening, and then ask if it’s likely you’ll be lumped in with what you dislike.~
Don’t find them threatening, therefore there is no why. I just believe costumes aren’t the appropriate attire for an RWA sponsored, massive multi-author signing, for literacy.
But yes, many of us are often lumped in with what we’ve had nothing to do with—whether we dislike it or not.
Costumes for a Manga workshop given by the same authors. Fine and dandy. A signing specifically for these authors, also fine, if they choose. A spotlight seminar for the line, okay. That’s my non-threatened, honest opinion.
And the example from Ferris Beullar doesn’t apply. It wasn’t a matter of `not getting caught’, it was a matter of not liking the COSTUMES in this venue, most especially.
This is so clear—no undercurrent, no hidden agenda, no need to examine my self-worth.
I believe mostly anyone—not just a writer—‘dresses the part’ when having a professional photograph taken. I’d wager most of us want to look our best
Those outfits were not costumes. And I have worn both suits to signings and workshops. The coat’s not appropriate for a signing. Unless it was outdoors. Though I have worn a leather blazer to a fall event.
I don’t see, honestly, how this applies to the topic.
Ms Roberts, I’d say the socks are alive and well, because the photo session has nothing to do with the topic here and now:
Is the RWA sponsored Literacy Signing an appropriate event for costumes/costume play?
To which this reader, for reasons stated a couple of times above, and repeatedly elsewhere, says: Hell, NO.
But it’s easier to derail the conversation that way—or to make it about “the thighs”—than it is to say, “Yikes, this was not a good idea, I wasn’t thinking about *that*”
And by *that* I mean:
I wasn’t thinking that this was not MY event, where I have no other obligation than to represent myself. I wasn’t thinking that by doing the sartorial equivalent of shinning a stage light on me at an RWA’s event (be it through the swanhat or the thighs or whatever), perhaps I was doing the organization at large a disservice.
It’s interesting to note that it would be awfully convenient for some if the debate were mischaracterized as such.
I think it already probably has, Lynne. And what’s so sadly ironic is that such derivative generalizations are the very thing this discussion has been objecting to and interrogating. But whatever—as numerous people have said, the scope of personal control is only about as wide as the wingspan, anyway.
I totally appreciate the broader debate here. It’s not about individuals…and yet it is. Individuals make up the whole. Individual romance writers create the spectrum that is RWA. And that’s beautiful. Some people aren’t the type to dress up; some are. I seriously doubt (personally) that anyone dictating how to dress is going to change the perceptions of the nation regarding a book genre. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Didn’t someone say that sci-fi is being reviewed in the NY Times now, after how long? Do we really think it’s because Neal Stephenson put the kibosh on vulcan ears or sci-fi writers ever wearing them?
I think variety of expression is one of the wonderful things about this country, and it’s slowly fading. Instead of everyone being allowed to say what they think, people are starting to say what’s allowed. People have distasteful views (sadly—and by “distasteful” I mean hurtful) and some have (subjectively) distasteful methods of getting attention. Do we address and dissect the views and the reasons for the views or actions, or do we tell them to shut up and hide? I think it’s the latter, unfortunately. I don’t believe Liz and Marianne (to make it personal again) or even Sherrilyn violated any ethical codes here, and I think putting the blame on them is misguided. It’s focusing on the wrong thing, telling people to shut up instead of asking why we’re uncomfortable. Romance is ghettoized because the importance of emotional connection is minimized in today’s society. That’s wrong. Is it going to be fixed by the way its authors dress? Um, I doubt it. Blame the media. Get someone to write a story that says: “Among X writers, media outlets chose to write about the 3 in costume.” That’s much more relevant than blaming people for being individuals or trying new ideas. At least in my opinion.
When something’s not directly hurting anyone, should that really be stopped by a majority mandate? Moral majorities scare me, especially when they don’t involve condemning anything directly harmful to others. I could see complaints if anyone was dancing around in a thong saying “I am the face of romance!”—and that only because they didn’t say “I am A face of romance!” Erotic romance is as valid as a chaste Regency…unless we think sex is something that negates all literary value. Do we? Along similar (if not exactly parallel) lines do personal variations in expressions of dress make authors less professional?
I say again, people who have concerns and are posting them must be “threatened”—at least in some sense. You may not think the people threatening you are likely to get what they want or be taken seriously, I’ll grant. Maybe this is all semantics. I don’t know. I’ll admit I’m threatened by people wanting to dictate dress codes to the point that it removes the ability to have fun and try something new. To say that one readership and one face/way of presentation is the only one acceptable to RWA. That threatens me.
To say posters are “threatened” is not to say anyone is insane, ranting or illogical. I thought everyone expressed themselves well. I just personally come to different answers with my logic, and wanted to make sure everyone was arguing the real reasons they had issues. That was the thrust of my comment. If you (the *general* you) are comfortable you’ve addressed them, kudos. I think a lot of you are. I’ve heard some thoughtful arguments which I commend…if not entirely agree with. I respect your opinions, your rights to have them, and I hope you respect mine.
What I’m arguing for is the right of others to dress how they like, especially when it’s in the spirit of the thing. To have individuality, and to believe that collective individuality is what makes RWA great, and not one unwavering view. That the collective individuality of writers and readers is what makes literature great, the freedom of personality and expression—and because individuals are connecting with like individuals in the love of storytelling. I encourage those who want to dress in suits and present a reserved demeanor to do so. That’s just as commendable as a miniskirt.
And, ultimately, won’t your books speak for themselves—at least to the people who matter?
Best,
Chris
PS – Before anyone mistakenly harps on this, I made the erotic romance/Regency comparison because of the uninformed media apparently accusing Nora of writing “porn.” There is a lot of literature that was called “porn” in its day, and my point is that the oversimplification of anything is always a mistake. Sex or no sex? To me that’s about as valid a debate on literary value as lumping the genre’s self-respect on its authors dressing in suits rather than miniskirts. Just my opinion.
~Instead of everyone being allowed to say what they think, people are starting to say what’s allowed.~
You say this, but assume that those who say what they think who dislike, disapprove of, find inappropriate costumes (not mini skirts) at this event `must be threatened in some way’. It can’t be accepted that some of us simply dislike, disapprove or find inappropriate.
Complaints and opinions are not a mandate—but the kind of expression you claim to support. And where has anyone said there is one face/one way?
I see a lot of deep thinking and sincerity in your comment, but also a lot of leaps from what the majority who dislike the wearing of costumes at this event have said on that subject, into a wide-spead smothering of individuality.
~lumping the genre’s self-respect on its authors dressing in suits rather than miniskirts.~
And there it is again. This is not a valid argument. No one said suits v minis. No one.
Costumes v clothes—at this venue, specifically is entirely different.
I think variety of expression is one of the wonderful things about this country, and it’s slowly fading. Instead of everyone being allowed to say what they think, people are starting to say what’s allowed. People have distasteful views (sadly—and by “distasteful†I mean hurtful) and some have (subjectively) distasteful methods of getting attention. Do we address and dissect the views and the reasons for the views or actions, or do we tell them to shut up and hide? I think it’s the latter, unfortunately. I don’t believe Liz and Marianne (to make it personal again) or even Sherrilyn violated any ethical codes here, and I think putting the blame on them is misguided. It’s focusing on the wrong thing, telling people to shut up instead of asking why we’re uncomfortable.
Let me preface my remarks by saying that in the midst of a successful career I decided to sink myself $80K into debt and go to law school because so much of my job had become tied up in free speech and academic freedom issues, and because I also feel that our speech rights (and even speech tolerance) is diminishing rapidly. So you’ll get no argument from me.
If I understand what you’re saying, it’s that somehow the commentary here is inhibiting Maverick and Mancusi’s own free expression by disapproving of their dress and through some homogenized standard of dress and personal appearance. And had I been M or M, I probably would have argued the exact same thing. And I’m not so much persuaded by the whole professionalism argument, in so far as I think there’s been a certain conflation of professional writer and professionalism that winds through this discussion and that we have not successfully unpacked. So I think there is still a good deal of room to talk about why certain things make certain folks uncomfortable, although I think many of us have articulated those personal feelings. I am coming at this issue a little different from most people, I think, so I’m not going to endorse anyone else’s particular viewpoint.
But at the same time, is this really an issue of self-expression or marketing (and I’ll gladly spare the distinction between political and commercial speech in terms of the limits of protection)? And must it be that anyone who didn’t go for the outfits has to be hostile to something new and exciting in Romance marketing? I think these are the points of contention where I’m feeling uncomfortable right now (there are more, but I don’t have the time or inclination to detail them right now).
Now to the extent that M&M had the right to sell their books in a way that was hardly outrageous, beyond good taste, or unseemly, you are right that there’s a certain element of autonomy and self-expression in the strategy. But it’s also advertising—it’s COMMERCIAL in nature, and as such, is (as someone already mentioned, I think), sort of a human billboard that M&M represented. Had this been a book cover we were debating, I doubt you’d be here talking about freedom of expression and supposedly avant-garde marketing, even though an individual artist’s work stood behind that, too. If we were talking about the way a bookstore shelves books, ditto. But because we’re talking about a set of costumes, the ante seems to increase. And yes, I’ll admit that I have my own anxieties about discussions that revolve around professional behavior. But I also know that M&M weren’t dressed the way they were because they were dressing as they do for any day—they were self-consciously creating an image. Many have expressed the reasons why they were uncomfortable with that image. If we have not done enough, please express your own view on what else needs to be done. Really, I’m truly wondering, and open to why you see this the way you do.
Before anyone mistakenly harps on this
Does anyone know if the word “harpy” comes from “harp”—or vice versa?
Chris,
I must disagree with a couple of your statements.
>>When something’s not directly hurting anyone, should that really be stopped by a majority mandate? <
<
How can you know for certain that Liz and Marianne’s behavior didn’t impact someone else. If there’s any flak over their costumes or Ms Kenyon’s swan, it will comeback as more proof that romance authors aren’t real authors. And those comments will undermine what Nora and other authors have worked hard to change.
>
>I seriously doubt (personally) that anyone dictating how to dress is going to change the perceptions of the nation regarding a book genre. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.<<
Perhaps not, but I have known people who have attended RWA national conferences for nearly 20 years. People tend to remember the authors who behave in a different manner. The authors are remembered for their big ass swans or anime costumes and not for the books they write.
<
No, but the s/f community has had to work hard to gain the respect they are entitled to. I guarantee you it would have been more difficult if they had been wearing Vulcan ears.
I just had a phone conversation where I was asked to summarize my interest in this topic (i.e. public perception/image of romance writers). Oversimplifying, and skipping a few steps here and there, this is it:
I want more and better romance novels each month, each year.
To get that, I need more writers to write romance.
To get that, I need the market for romance to become bigger—not a bigger percentage of a shrinking pie, but a bigger and ever growing pie.
To get that, I need more people to buy romance.
And to get that, I need the general perception of “that’s trash/porn for women/not real literature” to change at least enough for people who are not already fans not to wince if/when they are recommended a romance novel by a friend, but instead be willing to give it a far shake.
Is it that I feel threatened by “different” and whatnot? or is it that it is a reality that romance is already at a disadvantage in the eyes of the general public—fact—and I have a vested interest, as a consumer, in how romance its perceived?
(Not sure I’m making any sense by now, but this discussion keeps replaying in my head, and I’m happy to inflict… er, share with you all)
I am angry, I am offended.
This debate has been going on since Tuesday and it has been matured, balanced, and intelligent – for the most part. The few inappropriate comments were squelched quickly, loudly. I’ve gotten a lot out of most of the postings and my admiration for several members of this blog has grown. You all were so mature and wise.
Until today.
Chris Keeler, your first post was the first one to offend me. You brought a mature debate down at least twenty IQ points. Now you keep posting in a pathetic attempt to rationalize that “threatened” remark. (Nobody here is threatened) Eat your words. They weren’t appropriate.
Now Liz Maverick, why are you upset over this? This is nothing! M&M did something to get attention and you got it. Wasn’t that the point? Chill. (But do a little more research – I was asking some young women in my area about the way you dressed. They saw things differently.) Inspite of your editor I’ll probably still read and buy your book.
Nora, you are one incredible, rocking person. Jennifer so are you. The rest of you rock. Money spent on your books is money well spent.
Chris Keeler, enough said
Got to go, Smackdown is on.
Sigh.
You know-here is my beef with this whole situation.
Would any of you (and sheeeww there are some huge names on these comments) like to be publicly reprimanded like this in a room of ten thousand or more people? And be so embarassed and humiliated that you can’t even defend yourself?
Some of the points made are rather brilliant, but I still can’t help but see this as two people being paraded around the town square and then flogged. If I were them I would be thinking about never ever going to a RWA function again. And it may have damaged me so much as to not write again. Doubt it? I know authors who struggle to write the next word after spectacles like this. And doesn’t that do the opposite of guiding and teaching? Or they’re just taking one for the team?
I guess the part I don’t understand (and maybe I missed it somewhere in the 500+ replies) is why it’s unacceptable for M&M to dress in cute miniskirts at RWA but it’s ok for women to hang off of the half-dressed Ellora’s Cavemen at RT?
Or to dress up as fairies for the myriad RT costume balls?
Doesn’t this send a bad message about romance’s ‘professionalism’ as well? Why is this acceptable and short skirts are not?
Hey, again:
Hm. So much to address, but only a little time.
1) Sorry if I come across as saying people expressing personal opinions are “smothering of individuality.” That’s not the case. Express away, please. I’ll only be worried if next year there are police in riot gear at the door forcing people into Anne Taylor—or whatever suits ladies wear. (Sorry, I’m painfully ignorant about that..and likely about other things.) I’m not expecting that situation, and really I’m just enjoying fleshing out this debate with some smart women I find engaging, even if we must agree to disagree.
2) Maybe it was addressed in some middle posts, which I missed, but I still haven’t heard why costumes make people feel uncomfortable. Yes, I’ve heard that the romance genre has the wrong image, perpetuated by an unsympathetic and haughty media/public. Costumes are “inappropriate” and project the wrong image. What does that mean? Why do they project the wrong image, exactly? What emotions/conclusions do they invoke that seem so wrong? Here are some options: 1) flighty—because people who dress in costumes are not grounded in reality, are too silly to be taken seriously? 2) hyper-sexualized? 3) overly commercial—because people who write books aren’t ultimately interested in selling them? These are the first options that spring to mind, and I don’t agree with any of them—at least, not based on the costumes I saw. I suppose there are questions of morality that could definitely be addressed about some costumes in some places, but I definitely don’t see those arguments here. I’m more than happy to hear other suggestions of why costumes are wrong and apply those to what I saw. Maybe I’ve got this all wrong.
3) “If there’s any flak over their costumes or Ms Kenyon’s swan, it will comeback as more proof that romance authors aren’t real authors.” Wow. That’s giving some people a lot of power. What some authors wear determines others’ literary credibility. That stinks. Do you really want to give away that power? I don’t. My authors are real authors no matter what they wear. I’m proud of all of them.
4) “The authors are remembered for their big ass swans or anime costumes and not for the books they write.” Wow. That also stinks. Do you really think that’s so? It’s really disheartening—and not impressive about the books. I don’t believe it across the board, myself. I respect your right to your opinion.
5) “But at the same time, is this really an issue of self-expression or marketing?” Hm. Good question, actually. The getups were intended to touch the readers, to get them interested in the books. (Which I need to reiterate are FUN.) Is that trying to connect with your audience or rank materialism/self-promotion? I guess I can’t answer that, any more than I can answer it about Jane Author saying “Hi, would you like to have a bookmark with a naked guy on the cover?” Or even, “Hi, would you like to read a book touching the deepest emotions of the human experience?” The costumes were in the context of the books, and didn’t—as far as I could tell—try to demean or outshine any of the other authors vying for expression. Therefore, my personal opinion is: no harm no foul.
Er, and I think that’s it for now. Gotta run for the night, but I’ll be interested in hearing some replies.
Thanks, Ladies, for the mental exercise. 🙂
Best,
Chris
PS –
harp
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English hearpe; akin to Old High German harpha harp
As far as I know, totally different from
harpy
Etymology:
Latin Harpyia, from Greek
If there’s any flak over their costumes or Ms Kenyon’s swan, it will comeback as more proof that romance authors aren’t real authors.
For me, personally, I’ll be damned if I’ll shape any part of my life around the opinions people who don’t approve of what I do and don’t care to know anything more about it. I understand that everyone else doesn’t feel that way, but I feel very strongly about that.
People tend to remember the authors who behave in a different manner. The authors are remembered for their big ass swans or anime costumes and not for the books they write.
We are talking about grown women. Women with the brains and the ability to make their own decisions about marketing and how they are remembered. They simply do not need your protection.
And, AGAIN, the truth is that marketing IS allowed at the RWA literacy signing. The only thing anybody told me was “No signage”. That’s it. Bookmarks and keychains and fans and lights and candies? Bring ‘em on! And every single one for the purpose of promoting an author, not RWA or even literacy. It’s really not all that pure.
Ms Gale, I have a question…
If (big if, but still) by their actions these two or three authors damaged the overall perception of the genre as a whole… does that mean that it’s okay for the rest of the team to take one for them?
Beyond that, I think that it cheapens the debate to make the peace of mind of the authors in question the responsibility of the people discussing the issue of whether costumes are appropriate at an RWA sponsored Literacy Signing.
Anon: RT is not RWA. Different venues, different goals for the organizations and the events.
To Chris: Costumes per se don’t make me feel uncomfortable, and by themselves they are not inappropriate. Its all about the context/venue.
(spamfoiler: saying66—as in, “just saying”)
“I want more and better romance novels each month, each year.
To get that, I need more writers to write romance.
To get that, I need the market for romance to become bigger—not a bigger percentage of a shrinking pie, but a bigger and ever growing pie.
To get that, I need more people to buy romance.
And to get that, I need the general perception of “that’s trash/porn for women/not real literature†to change at least enough for people who are not already fans not to wince if/when they are recommended a romance novel by a friend, but instead be willing to give it a far shake.” —azteclady
Yes, azteclady, yes. For the readership, it’s all about the BOOKS. And I would widen your comments to a general apprehension I have about the publishing industry in general, *beyond* the romance genre. For myself, I read widely, I read voraciously, and I read fast. Always have since I was taught the alphabet.
I’m 30 years old. If all goes well and if modern medicine keeps apace with my little foibles, I have about 60 years to go. I *need* books to accompany me on that journey. And they had better be good or at least decent books or else I’m going to scratch my eyes out! If the future doesn’t provide them, what am I supposed to do, mine the texts of Alexandria?
-Gail
Bringing gifts—bookmarks, keychains, candy to this event (and yes, without question, these are marketing tools) is not the same as essentially dressing up as a bookmark.
Costumes don’t make me uncomfortable. I simply don’t think they’re appropriate attire for the event—and have stated why I have that opinion repeatedly.
I can’t (won’t) comment on RT—I don’t subscribe, I don’t particpate in their conference—except to say it’s geared toward fans and readers.
Now I’m all riled up, because I finally figured out what’s been bothering me.
It’s one thing to talk about expanding the market to readers who haven’t read romance, or bringing in young readers who are just starting to form their choices. It’s one thing to discuss how to broaden the appeal of our genre.
But to speak of catering to – or worrying about – those people who snigger at our books behind our backs, people who hold up PROOF that romance is stupid, laughable porn… Screw those people! We have our readers and we have our potential readers, and then there are those arrogant bitchipants who can’t be shown anything.
Anybody who’s looking for proof that romance isn’t valid or valuable is not on my radar. And if that means my career won’t be what it should, then I’ll just take my little slice of the pie over to my dark, stanky corner and nibble on it by myself. Don’t be alarmed if I snarl at passersby. Or raise my closed fist to show support for the revolution. *wink*
While I understand the screw them sentiments—very, very well, when you’re being interviewed this is not the sort of response I can give. If I want to present myself, my work, the genre in a professional way in public—on the air, in print—I have to have a reasoned, articulate and compelling response when I’m asked `isn’t Romance just refined pornography?’
Actually, it was a librarian who called it that, quite amused at herself, to my face before I gave the keynote at a library association convention.
But I’ve been asked varieties of that on the air too many times to count. I still get asked, regularly, about Fabio. I’m certainly not the only writer in the genre who gets this.
Victoria, I am not talking about those people whose prejudices are entrenched to the bone. Those I’ve written off myself long ago.
I’m talking about those souls who do care what others think about their reading choices, and therefore would rather not try romance because others think it’s porn/trash/stereotype of your choice.
That segment of the population is a BIG potential market that is, at present, out of reach for romance authors.
Those timid souls whose money, perhaps, would keep romance writers writing, if they weren’t afraid of the condescension of the clerk behind the register at their local bookstore or grocery store, or wherever they don’t dare buy romance.
Nora, even I’m professional enough to get that, believe me. *g* And I do understand that you are the “go to” woman for all that is romance, so this stuff can be amplified for you.
But the idea that I should consider those people, the ones who smirk and mock and snigger, when I’m making decisions about my career or my books or my marketing… That’s a whole different thing than figuring out how to answer their ridiculous questions.
I’m sorry.
Heehee. Funny hat.
People tend to remember the authors who behave in a different manner. The authors are remembered for their big ass swans or anime costumes and not for the books they write.
Azteclady, that’s a really good distinction. Thank you for that. It’s something to think about.
But it seems a very hard idea to pin down. And maybe not worth it.
I mean, should SK be catering to her dedicated readers, her core fan base, or should she be investing something in people who might, just possibly, if they’re feeling particularly daring, pick up one of her books? What if these two marketing ideas are polar opposites? Not saying they always would be, but it doesn’t seem far fetched. Then there are all the points in between, and I’d edge toward the current romance reader every time.
I swear that was not the quote I copied. Weird. Here it is:
I’m talking about those souls who do care what others think about their reading choices, and therefore would rather not try romance because others think it’s porn/trash/stereotype of your choice.
Perhaps my post makes more sense now.
I’m not an author, I’m a reader. And I was just mildly puzzled over the Manga costumes. I understood they were costumes, just couldn’t place them. No big deal. On the other hand, the swan hat…Sigh. I winced at the hat and the dress. I read Kenyon’s books, and yet my reaction was WTF? Nothing about the costume reflected the content of her books. Although I guess there were fangs involved? Sigh, again. The difference in reaction? Degree of costuminess. Period. And totally in my head. Oh, and one choice looked somewhat sane to me, while the other looked clearly like fashion-runway craziness. I’ll let you guess which was which. Again, my head, my baggage.
Look, I like romance. I read romance. I am still frequently embarassed by the attitude of bookstore clerks and friends to the fact that I buy romance genre books, but for me this is not so much about “fuck ‘em if they can’t enjoy romance” as it is “why is this still the face of romance?” I understand the Shomi marketing impulse, whether fellow authors liked it or not. But the swan costume was for marketing to fans? What fans?…I consider myself a Kenyon fan, or did, and found it very offputting to see her in this costume. Maybe it’s a failure of humor on my part. God knows it wouldn’t be the first time. But I just get so very very tired of the titty covers and the silly titles and the goofy photos in the papers that make it easy to dismiss the genre, and by extension me as a reader, as a foufy nitwit.
The artist in me says let your freak flag fly, but the reserved consumer says crap, not the batty broads of romance schtick, again?!!
Just thought I’d add my two cents as a pretty disinterested longtime reader of romance.
If (big if, but still) by their actions these two or three authors damaged the overall perception of the genre as a whole… does that mean that it’s okay for the rest of the team to take one for them?
Three women are being paraded as What Not To Wear. I believe RWA has a membership of over 9000?
I think you need to even out the teams before you take that to it’s conclusion.
Ms Gale, my apologies if I seemed facetious there, but I keep thinking that the debate/discussion here is not about “What Not To Wear” as much as it is about “What, within a wiiiiiiiiiiide range of choices, is appropriate to wear to a professional event sponsored by an organization that represents a few thousand fellow writers?”
Ack!!! That last sentence should read
Time to step away from the keyboard for a bit.
Okay, I lied. Sue me.
Victoria, I got what you meant, even though the quote threw me off for a minute there.
I do understand wanting to keep your current readers happy—I do, and good writing will do that every time, from what I see in my bookshelves, and what I read here and elsewhere in blogland.
I still hope for a better public image of romance as a genre; a bigger market, and a better chance for good mid list authors to continue being published, and for good new authors to get published.
No apology needed.
I don’t know. I’m young(ish) and if I looked like they did I might have gone for the costume. I also understand Nora and Jenny and their wisdom on the subject. And I appreciate it. My problem is instead of commenters keeping it to “Are Costumes Appropriate at Literacy Signings” those three were were the subjects of a very public spanking. (and now some defenders of M&M are taking swipes at Nora? It’s really sick.)
So, again, I don’t know.
What I do know is that getting your opinion across without personal slamming is grease for the skids of humanity.
I would like to retract my earlier (and not so important) statement that I was offended by the tart talk. I was wrong.
I was put off by the pedophile and cheesecake talk.
Cheescake. Tart. See my confusion?
I also stated that I would not have gone M&M’s marketing route. But that is only because I am painfully shy in person. If they made the right decision for them, that is what is valid, IMO.
I’m still going to read Shomi, and Nora, and Jenny, etc…
And as good of a business casual girl as I was at Nats this year, I still received a couple of comments about my “vampire look”. ???
Yeah, I am pale and have long, black hair. And yeah, I do read vampire books and was carrying a ton of them around in my bag from the book signings.
(Hmmm.)
But I wasn’t wearing fangs or a massive crucifix. (Only a small one, but that’s because I’m Catholic.) And I only wore my vampire t-shirt in my hotel room.
So maybe this entire appearance issue has struck a nerve with me because I sort of look like a vampire to some with little effort on my part. (And please let me state that I believe my struck nerve is trivial.)
I’m going out of town with my family for several days, and since I’ve been sort of entrenched in this, I thought I’d . . . sign off.
For me, this wasn’t about M&M or SK, but about an issue—more a spiderweb of issues. Important ones, obviously, to generate so many comments, opinions and viewpoints.
Even so, I have a pretty good idea how tough this has been on Liz and Marianne.
I hope the line does well, and their books sell briskly.
I’d also like to address the question of whether this thread has constituted an attack on Liz and Marianne. Liz and Marianne, it seems clear from your later remarks here that you have felt this to be a personal attack on you. That is regrettable. But after reading through all of these posts in the last two days, I’ve gotta disagree with you.
With a few (admittedly egregious) exceptions, the discussion has centered around whether wearing a costume is an effective and/or wise way to market oneself and one’s books. Again, with a few fringe elements excepted, few here have suggested you are bad people or bad writers. It is unfortunate that a few extremely misguided posts have tainted for you what has been a very wide-ranging and informative thread for me and many others.
Easy for me to say, right? I know it’s excruciatingly hard not to get defensive when one feels one’s been designated this week’s scapegoat. But in this case I believe people when they say that it’s truly not about you guys, or your thighs, or even Kenyon’s big-ass swan. People are also saying that you’ll be remembered only for your costumes. But I think that’s baloney. Your Manga outfits and Kenyon’s swan will be remembered, yes, but I’d bet my swan hat that a year from now you’ll be “whoever that was who did the Manga thing for Shomi last year.” Whether that’s good or bad, only you guys can judge.
Personally, I’ll remember you both as writers who’ve shown an awful lot of grace under fire.