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.
Shit, people, I have to take the freaking Bar exam in less than a week and you’ve made it very difficult to study!
Eva, when you say that the authors have taken a “public spanking,” can you reference the comments to which you’re referring?
You remember the Anna Campbell controversy, right? When some were offering the opinion that Campbell herself was advocating rape? THAT was a public spanking, IMO. Opinions that her book was victimizing her heroine—NOT a public spanking of Campbell, IMO. And I can think of fewer than five comments here containing things that might be construed along those spanking lines. So I’d honestly like to know where else you’re seeing that.
I have not had any issues with anything you’ve said before, Eva, but I have to say that I’ve watched two conversations on another blog go by over the past few days, in which you’ve participated, that IMO are among the ugliest I’ve seen in this community. And nary a word of criticism from you, despite the fact that the level of giddy meanness (and I mean that in EVERY sense of the word, high and low) is IMO downright stupefying. So maybe we all draw our own lines differently. Because compared to what’s going on out yonder in your neck of the bloggy woods seems FAR more of a shooting party to me.
Wow! What an amazing discussion. Thanks to all the really smart people who have contributed. I think this is the internet at its best! I feel really privileged to be able to participate in this really high level of discourse.
A few thoughts:
I really agree with the posters who see this as a feminist issue. Romance is a genre that is written for women, and nothing women do gets respect in a man’s world. (A friend of mine believes that the reason that the medical profession gets less respect these days is because women have been allowed into the profession. I think that theory is likely an oversimplification, but the fact that she even has suggested it says something about what it can mean and how it can feel to be a woman.)
Some of us have been luckier in this regard than others. By virtue of my birth year and the geography of my birthplace, I have had to fight fewer battles and push less relentlessly to be taken seriously, because other women did that before me. Chris, this is something I don’t think you can ever understand, because you are not a woman. By virtue of your sex, you have never had to defend your fundamental validity (unless you are a person of color or one who leads an alternative lifestyle, in which case you do know what that experience is like). In all likelihood, you have never had to insist that people take you seriously. They just do. This is not about self-esteem. My self-esteem is just fine, thank you. And I can’t imagine there is anything wrong with Nora Roberts’ self-esteem. It’s about continuing to have to assert your validity in a society which still does not automatically grant it to you.
Despite the tremendous advances and gains that we have made (and we have, I don’t dispute that at all, and I didn’t make them. Nora Roberts and women like her did.) women who have any relationship at all with their own sexuality are even more familiar with the experience of having to defend themselves and their sexuality and its expression. So women who read and write romance novels, most of which contain fairly graphic representations of sex, are marginalized and disempowered by calling that reading/writing “trash” or “porn”. It is, in essence calling the readers and writers of this work sluts, and it is disrespectful.
NR is a phenomenal author. She is among the best there is, and even she continuously is forced to maintain a defensive posture. Despite her success and her talent, she is forced over and over again into the position of asserting her validity and the validity of the body of work that she has produced. If you step back to really think about that, it’s outrageous! She is not silly, she is not trashy (no offense to present company intended :-)), and neither is her work. And yet attempts persist to marginalize her and her work (and the work of all the rest of us as well, although she takes more of the heat because she’s the most successful) by characterizing her in these ways. It’s no wonder that she’d like a little help from the rest of us in keeping the heat off.
There are two ways to deal with people who diss you. One is to convince them that they are in error, by your manner, your comportment, and your dignity. The other way is to refuse to allow people to dictate to you what is dignified and valid. Each road has costs. It may be personally freeing, but you ignore the disrespect of the powerful at your peril.
{Transition needed. Can’t think of one. Okay I’ll do without it…}
What’s really disrespectful of women are the mantitty covers. And as many writers have already stated, authors have little to no control over those. Call me paranoid (it’s been done before), but I think that those covers will never go away, because they reflect the patriarchal value system which insists that women’s work (and by extension the women themselves) be marginalized and belittled (although way less so than at almost any other time in history or in other places around the globe).
I think it was great that M&M and SK felt free enough to be themselves that they felt able to play. What is says to me is that they are confident enough of their work being granted sufficient validity and respect that they can ease up a little and get goofy. In that way, they are standing on the shoulders of giants, who seem to be looking up at them and saying “Are you crazy!?!”
NR and JC are right. It’s a man’s world, this is no joke, and if we want our work to be taken seriously, we need to comport ourselves with dignity. M&M and SK are right that our identities and our work belong to us, as women, as authors, as readers, and as a community, and we lose something important when we allow our identities and our work to be shaped by the rules of an overarching organization that fundamentally has contempt for us.
Huh, how do you like that. They disagree, and yet they both are right. Cool.
Ebil plan #2
Notes for marketing book:
1. Thigh Highs and mini skirt and maybe a cute tie.
2. Parade in front of Nora Deb and Jenny at RWA while looking young and vibrant.
3. Profit
I’m way behind in this blog, but somewhere back in the discussion the question was raised, do regency writers dress up for signings and a writer responded:
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).
This made a light bulb go off for me. .
In order to promote your work you need to connect with your demographic and at the same time you want to create an impression that you are fresh/new/special.
As a reader you want to think your favorite author is someone you could sit down and talk to…As a reader, you have an image in your mind of what the writer looks like and who they are—you project.
I suspect fans of Laurell K and Ann Rice would be shocked to see either in a suit. Ditto for Gaiman and Wolfe. Alternatively, fans of Joyce Carol Oates,would probably be deeply disturbed to see her with a waterfowl on her head.
Have you ever read a really hot romance, turned ot the back and see a picture of a woman old enough to be your grandmother? It’s…well…unsettling. It shatters the fantasy.
YA authors have a similar problem. In order to write an insightful book about being a teen, you have to be old enough to look back with insight. But what reader wants to find out that the book they connect with is written by their mom?
(And for the person who said Liz and Marianne there will come a time when they’re too old to dress up in youthful outfits? There won’t. Because in all likelihood, when they get older, they’ll writing about different insights.)
But finally winding back to historical authors,
Historical authors don’t dress up because an author in period gown, no matter how young and beautiful you are, there’s no question you’ll look like a dork. Historical fans might look at you, talk about you, but I doubt they’ll buy your books.
I think all authors struggle to find a way to connect without giving too much of themselves away and to do it in a unique way.
Have Liz and Marianne started a trend in manga style? Doubtful. It worked for them because it effectively relates to the Shomi line and to them as individuals. If all the Shomi authors dressed that way, we’d yawn and say,imitators, been there seen that…
I think most authors struggle with how to effectively promote themselves and their work. And maybe that’s why Nora and others struggle with the idea of costume. When marketing doesn’t work, you may wind up looking like a dork in a costume. When it does, you get readers like the teen who said she liked it and she was going to get both books. If you don’t try, you’re likely to blend into the woodwork.
I think you know you’ve hit it when people feel passionately one way or another about what you’re doing.
Okay, one more and then it’s off to drill Agency and Partnership law:
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.
My own perspective in this conversation has been that Romance marketing has depended on an overpersonalization of the author and an artificial identification of her as either a surrogate for the heroine or a personal acquaintance of the reader/fan. A Harlequin author commented not that long ago that authors in her line were required to write “Dear Reader” letters in which the author made a personal connection between herself and the story. The fan culture of Romance has been so strong, IMO, that we are still at the very nascent stages of welcoming critical examination of the genre as a natural thing. Authors are routinely addressed by their first names. Clinch covers and mantitty are employed to sell the idea of Romance as fantasy fulfillment, not a literary endeavor. Costuming has been employed throughout the history of Romance marketing to—again, still, always already—construct the author as some embodiment of her work, not simply to grab the reader’s attention, but to help blur the line between author and book (and author and reader), to allow the author to serve as a proxy for her heroine, and the reader to be engaged at both an empathetic and a vicarious level with that fantasy. Yes, as Candy pointed out, it’s a tactic used in other sorts of marketing, as well, but in Romance, it’s IMO part of a historic arsenal of strategies aimed at artificially diminishing the distance between authors and readers such that the books themselves appear to be extensions of the authors. And of course, who wants to be critical of a book that is personally associated with an author? It’s still taking far more than a sturdy shoehorn to be able to talk about Romance novels as *books* and not as creative babies that require coddling and personal protection on the part of readers. There is still a very strong sense that readers *owe* something to authors, and that authors *owe* something to readers.
That is the condensed version of a very long string of thoughts and observations I’ve collected about genre marketing, and I have to say that part of my POV comes from the belief that there is already a really blurred line between Romance as a genre (i.e. *books*) and Romance as an industry (i.e. *products*). And my perspective is heavily influenced by my background in academic endeavors, as well.
But to me, when you talk about touching readers, you’ve already moved somewhere that I find uncomfortable in terms of Romance marketing, which, IMO, exploits (and I mean that economically, not as an insult) *gender* stereotypes and *genre* stereotypes. Now, NOT FOR ONE SECOND do I think that was going through any of the author’s minds, or that they intended such a thing, or that what they did damaged the genre or the signing or the state of feminism. I don’t think they did anything wrong or horrible or distasteful. But AS A GENERAL ISSUE, I think that costuming authors is part of an overall dynamic in Romance marketing that encourages and results in an overidentification with authors and a conflation of authors with their books.
That’s where I’m coming from, and what makes me uncomfortable with the idea of costumes. As several people have pointed out, at sci-fi, fantasy, and anime conferences, it’s the FANS and NOT the creators/authors who are costumed, maintaining a distinction that is not supported in the largely female Romance genre. And yeah, I don’t really find that overidentification particularly healthy for the genre, not necessarily because of what mainstream folks think, but because of the effects it has internally (e.g. resistance to critical discourse on the genre and the false sense of acquaintance between authors and readers such that the books themselves become almost secondary in that relationship). I think there’s evidence of that overpersonalization in this discussion in the upset over what some perceive as ad hominem attacks on Mancusi, Maverick, and Kenyon. Because outside of a few well-chronicled exceptions, I don’t think there was ever an intent to call out the authors personally, and that we even moved beyond the specificity of particular costume references hundreds of comments ago. IMO, of course. Please let me know if any why you think that’s untrue.
Romance marketing to—again, still, always already—construct the author as some embodiment of her work, not simply to grab the reader’s attention, but to help blur the line between author and book (and author and reader), to allow the author to serve as a proxy for her heroine, and the reader to be engaged at both an empathetic and a vicarious level with that fantasy.
I don’t think it’s genre specific. Don’t readers of children’s fiction, for example, want to think the writers are kindly people who love children? And isn’t it considered somewhat scandalous that Dr. Seuss didn’t?
We read to be pulled away from our everyday lives, to be pulled into a fantasy, whether it’s about traveling, or cooking, or tracking killers, or finding a great passion.
I don’t think it’s genre specific. Don’t readers of children’s fiction, for example, want to think the writers are kindly people who love children? And isn’t it considered somewhat scandalous that Dr. Seuss didn’t
Okay, but do you really feel comfortable drawing that parallel between marketing toward women and toward children? The fact that we can make that comparison is part of what I’m talking about.
Victoria Dahl wrote:
In light of this thread, I wonder how many of you remember the Atlanta Journal-Constitution left vs right discussion that lambasted romance novels and those that read them from less than a month ago?
Woman to Woman: Harm in Reading Romance Novels?
We can say screw ‘em, but sometimes they have a platform and an agenda. I’m glad Nora spoke out there, and Jackie D’ellesandro, and others. (I did too, but not nearly as eloquently). So sometimes it does matter, especially when they have an audience.
Whoever mentioned LKH earlier: Please, God, someone get her a beautiful, well-fitting suit to wear to signings! I’d wait in line for hours just to see that. I’m not saying she should morph into a “lady who lunches”. I’m just saying…geeze, polite words fail me. The one time I met her, she seemed extremely articulate, bright, generous and patient with her fans, and with a good sense of humor. But, ouch, the publicity photos I’ve seen.
But I digress.
I don’t understand how this got from miniskirts and ugly swan hats to Deb Smith’s pedophile/slavery/rape comments. WTF. Where did this come from? Sure, SK’s swan hat was ugly as all hell, but what’s the big deal. It was an attention getter, but surely caused no readers to go “OMG! I can’t read romance novels any longer because that author over there has an ugly ass hat on her head.” Let her wear the damn hat, I say.
As as for the miniskirts? Those were hardly even mini! They weren’t even close to “lolita,” and barely even considered “trying to be sexy.” For God’s sake, all I saw in the picture was a regular t-shirt, a tie, some skirts, and some thigh-high sock things. Hardly sexy. Now, if the erotica writers had shown up in lingerie to promote their lines, I woulda been worried. But a skirt? Come on. Get over it.
And Deb Smith’s comments? Completely over the top, stuck-up, rude, UNPROFESSIONAL, pointless, irritating, useless, etc. I can’t believe the things she wrote. Pedophile? Hardly. Slut? I don’t think so. Promoting child slavery/rape/porn? Nope. Inspiring people to make stupid arguments for something that will never be settled? Of course.
Note to self:
1. Look up the fun people Candy, Sara, Mancusi and Maverick and Kenyon at next RWA.
2. Take them out drinking.
Yikes! Teddy’s got a point. The longer this thread gets, the more it seems to gain an undue weight for the issue being discussed. I mean, it’s been interesting, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread here get this long—and it’s about…clothing as marketing.
On the other hand, I said “my head, my baggage” earlier in reference to the hat whose name will not be spoken, and because Robin’s latest post touched a chord with me, it has rather belatedly inspired me to attempt to unpack that steamer trunk to discover why.
I have some background in art, and artists commonly construct a personal persona through manipulation of their appearance and dress. Think Andy Warhol. His peculiar sensibility was equally expressed in his art and in his personal appearance. Warhol did not, however, attempt to dress himself as a Campbell’s soup can.
When an artist sincerely expresses his/her sensibility through appearance, the synergistic presentation of both aspects—art and persona—can be quite effective as a kind of viral marketing effort. However, there are pitfalls to this. When an artist is perceived to have constructed this persona as primarily a marketing ploy, (s)he loses credibility both personally and professionally. Or, if the persona is perceived to be either derivative, a desperate ploy for attention, not a true expression of the artist’s sensibility, or otherwise boring, similar loss of credibility occurs. Furthermore, if the persona upstages the work, you’re toast. Madonna’s detractors would say she fits all of the above.
Given this background, it makes sense to me that the outfits would bother me. Not because they were especially weird or inappropriate, but because they seemed artificial and clearly part of a marketing ploy. And, to try to tie this back to Robin’s argument, I would rather see authors express their own sensibilities, not that of the product line, or a Romantic ideal or, God forbid, one of their characters. Because authors who don’t know the difference between themselves and their characters scare me. Seriously. I hear that and I do not think creativity, I think pathology.
So, if L & M and SK were dressed that way because they like to dress that way in their daily lives, or this is the way they wanted to express some aspect of their personalities? You go, ladies. Otherwise, for me, not so much.
Aaaand, I think I just almost talked myself into liking that bad-ass millinery. I mean, you can’t argue taste, right? But marketing?—564 posts and counting.
Sweet sassy Moses! I turn my back for a day and almost 100 more comments accumulate. I give up. I’m not going to read all of them. There are few thoughts swimming in my head, however, that I feel like I need to get down, or they’ll bug me alllll night.
Some anonymous person: If bloggers are “serious enough†to call themselves reviewers and/or reporters, then why not pay for the privilege of attending?
Sarah and I paid the full conference fee. I’m pretty sure Jane and Sybil did, too, though I might be wrong.
There, does that make our opinions more valid, now?
Jenny Crusie: I’m not big on criticizing other authors and I’d sure as hell vote down any attempts to put in a dress code. And the fact that the authors are getting it right in the teeth does not make me happy. I just don’t know how else to say, “This is not a good decision professionally,†when the counter argument seems to be “Lighten up.â€
I think “lighten up” is a disservice to the true counterargument that’s being offered—and it’s really my own damn fault for not articulating it better in the original post. Essentially, it boils down to differing views of what constitutes acceptable professional behavior. To me, what Mancusi/Maverick wore stayed well within the bounds of acceptable author clothing for the literacy signing. They came across as fun, playful and attractive, and I have a hunch that a big part of that is a cultural gap, and that a big part of that cultural gap is informed by a generational gap. This is NOT an attempt on my part to start some kind of ridiculous “scrappy young ‘uns vs. the old guard” war, but merely me pointing out that a good portion of the the younger set, especially the geeky, SF/F-lovin’ set, tends to have more relaxed standards. I’m not saying whether the relaxed standards are a good or a bad thing. They’re just more relaxed, and they inform our perspective.
I was trying to ponder why what M/M did didn’t bother me at all, while Kenyon’s get-up made me go “Aiee!” and the thought of authors of historicals putting on period costumes for signings makes me cringe. I think I’ve finally managed to put my finger on it. It all boils down to:
1. How much of an effort did they go to in order to dress up and look different? For whatever reason, too much effort sets off my personal squick-o-meter for these sorts of things. M/M’s costume look like something you can put together easily and quickly. That swan hat? Like some people have pointed out, that takes effort, baby.
2. How close is the costume to what I think of as street clothes? In short, how overtly costumey do they look? The M/M outfit looked more like really stylish street clothes to me than an actual costume, and from what I hear, is pretty damn close to what the two of them wear on a regular basis.
I’ll say this: their clothing caught my attention in a very positive way, and I’m definitely part of their target demographic: young(ish), appreciative of anime, hopelessly bibliophilic.
Some of the marketing copy for the Rebels of Romance, however, doesn’t thrill me as much. I don’t have a problem with the name, but the bit about the stereotypical librarians and farmers was a mis-step. However, people who immediately read a world of meaning into the name “rebels of romance” alone seem to be bringing an awful lot of baggage and over-interpretation into what I tend to view as a bit of harmless puffery. Look, just because Mountain Dew claims it’s X-Treme doesn’t mean I’m a stodgy, boring old fool for not drinking it, nor does the term Romance Divas immediately mean everybody who’s not part of their community is part of the unwashed, unworthy, unglamorous masses.
And like I’ve said before, some of the negative comments about the alleged unprofessionalism of the M/M look and the blanket condemnation of all costumes makes me squirm just a little in discomfort; for me, whether a costume is OK or not falls more along a spectrum for me—a sweet spot, as Lani Diane Rich said. The “all costumes are bad” and “authors should always dress professionally at signings” (whatever in the hell “professional” means for you) statements, while not legislative, still carry an uncomfortable prescriptive weight with them. Nothing too especially overt; more a constant pressure to conform to somebody’s image of normal, when I tend to view definitions of cultural normalcy with a rather skeptical eye. Nora Roberts asked us why we all can’t just be ourselves, to be natural—but what if part of our character IS to dress up in costume for a good amount of the time just for the hell of it?
And this is admittedly peripheral to the debate, but nobody has really addressed my question to my satisfaction, i.e., how a hard-core punk or goth romance author should dress for a signing. Where’s the line between counter-culture and costume? To somebody on the outside looking into the counter-culture, do they see any difference between a punk woman’s multi-colored mohawk and heavily-pierced face, and the big-ass swan hat?
Robin: Thanks for that awesome reply to Chris Keeslar. You articulated everything I wanted to say to him, only better and with less cussing—as you almost always do. Still trying to grapple with the marketing issue. I certainly wasn’t trying to make the efforts in Romancelandia any more palatable by pointing out that other industries do it, too—the bandwagon argument holds very little weight with me. I was trying to see what these industries had in common, and I’m still tryng to pinpoint why deep in my gut, I really don’t see M/M in the same league as Kenyon, even though intellectually I buy into your arguments that they’re essentially doing the same thing.
Iffygenia: I’ll rumble with you over e-mail, eh? This comment is way too long as it is. It’ll be rad.
I also have to admit that I’m incredulous that a couple of hot chicks in miniskirts and thigh-highs set off this much of a brouhaha. I was e-mailing about this with a blogger-type person, and she said that the costumes may be a stand-in for a lot of issues the romance community has with the image of romance in general. We can’t do squat about the covers, the titles, the terrible back blurbs and the poor quality of the editing, so by God we’re going to vent a disproportionate amount of our ire and energy at author costumes, because that’s something we can have a direct effect on. I think she’s on to something—it doesn’t explain all of it, but I think it accounts for some of the vehemence we’re seeing from so many people.
God, I hope I can resist the temptation to read through ALL the comments, because I know it’ll set me off yet again, and this debate needs to be put to rest.
Robin said:
I have not had any issues with anything you’ve said before, Eva, but I have to say that I’ve watched two conversations on another blog go by over the past few days, in which you’ve participated, that IMO are among the ugliest I’ve seen in this community. And nary a word of criticism from you, despite the fact that the level of giddy meanness (and I mean that in EVERY sense of the word, high and low) is IMO downright stupefying.
For one, if I have a beef, I take it back to my own livingroom (blog). Secondly, you need to post where I was posting, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
And if this wasn’t a public spanking, then why are M&M so devastated by it? Wait-because it’s their baggage to be horrified by being held up as what not to do at a literacy signing, and being called pedophile bait?
Ms Gale, I know your question there wasn’t directed at me, but I’ll venture a guess that MM and LM (and quite likely SK as well), weren’t prepared to have their choice of attire used as an example of something that many *raising hand* thought was not in the best interest of the RWA’s entire membership at an event that does reflect on all of them as a professional organization.
It was their (MM, LM, and SK) choice, and no one is denying them the right to choose how they dress or act. However, as adults, we are all responsible for both the positive (i.e., intended) and negative (i.e., unintended) consequences of our choices.
And with that said (again)…
Personally, I keep hoping that those reading and commenting here will see the issue in a wider light: the public perception of romance novels, romance writers, romance readers. It dismays me when it keeps circling back to individuals.
Go out on the street and ask someone if the big-ass swan hat has changed their perception of romance novels.
Hell, ask 10,000 people.
Nobody is going to know what you’re talking about.
I think it’s been established that the majority of romance readers aren’t spending a lot of time online, and most of them don’t get the Dallas paper either, so the only people with any interest in this subject seem to be the micropopulation of a few hundred burning up the blogosphere.
I suspect the interest level of people who don’t read romance is even less.
It’s a gross exaggeration that thigh-highs and bizarre headgear have done irreparable damage to the genre in the public eye. I just don’t see the public eye training a lot of attention in this direction.
Have you ever read a really hot romance, turned ot the back and see a picture of a woman old enough to be your grandmother? It’s…well…unsettling. It shatters the fantasy.
You know who wrote The Story of O? A 47-year-old woman who was trying desperately to hang on to her lover. Nobody will ever find it erotic again (whether or not it’s your kink) because of that, eh?
Seriously. Screw this. Writers write. “Write about your own experience” would mean that we had nothing but novels about people studying for their MFAs, leading lives of quiet desperation, and growing middle-aged. Good as a subgenre but not good as the only available diet.
Suzanne Brockmann is not parachuting out of airplanes. Janet Evanovich is not crashing every car she owns (at least, for her sake, I hope not.)
I don’t expect hot writers to be hot mamas. I expect them to have great imaginations. “Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke.”
language75, how appropriate.
And if this wasn’t a public spanking, then why are M&M so devastated by it? Wait-because it’s their baggage to be horrified by being held up as what not to do at a literacy signing, and being called pedophile bait?
As I’ve said several times now (although with all these posts, I don’t expect people to keep up, since I can barely keep up with my own train of thought), I completely understand how M&M feel they were personally attacked, even though *in the main* IMO they were not. I think it’s a very human thing to feel that anything that includes your name and feels less than glowing can absolutely feel like a personal assault. And yes, a couple of comments have, IMO, been completely out of line and called out for such (that their outfits were assaulted as pedophile bait probably doesn’t count for much consolation with them, and I completely understand that and would feel precisely the same way, I’m sure).
We go around and around this same question every time an author publicly expresses feeling slapped for a negative review. For the person in question—whether it’s her book or her marketing strategy—attention can feel very personal. That’s I think, though, where sometimes you need to step back and really look at what’s going on and whether it really is directed at *you* or something related to your *professional work*. In this case, I think it’s the latter, even though M&M might think it’s the former. I don’t blame them for feeling picked on in the same way I don’t blame an author for feeling hurt at a negative review. But that doesn’t mean that everything that feels personal is truly of a *personal* nature. Especially since in this case M&M made a *professional marketing* choice in their costuming, not a personal wardrobe selection. They were very up front that *this was marketing*—it was *business*, a view both have re-articulated here, as well.
I do think it’s interesting that we don’t seem to have this same type of argument during the cover carnage or the very colorful commentary on the particularities of mantitty and other cover model eccentricities. Why is that, do you suppose? Aren’t the issues similar?
As for the other conversations to which I referred (which were not on your blog), I’ll email you the links, as I frankly don’t want to give them any more play than they’ve already got.
Actually, you know what? Let’s go for it, by way of comparison:
http://www.ferfelabat.com/?p=265
http://www.ferfelabat.com/?p=272
Excellent points as always, Robin.
In the last year or so, I’ve started to pay more attention to tactics people use to deflect criticism. One that seems very common in review discussions and in this current one is labeling EVERYTHING a personal attack on the author, even when it quite clearly isn’t. It’s yet another variant on the old straw man argument, IMO.
I believe some relevant and important points have been raised here, with regard to appropriate venues and techniques for marketing, public perception of the romance genre, and identification of the author with the work itself.
It disappoints me (but, alas, doesn’t surprise me) to see those with a horse in the race—the authors in question, their friends, and their business associates—attempting to mischaracterize the discussion as simply jealousy, name-calling, or an attack on the authors’ taste in clothing.
Thanks, Lynne.
I don’t want to lose sight of the personal investment people have in the way they’re invoked in these conversations, though, either. Because while I agree with you that it’s easy to overpersonalize stuff, I also think there are examples in this community of personal attacks dressed up as something else. So as ever I think it’s an issue of balance, and a continual process of self-questioning when any of us comments. What’s the motive, is this too personal, what will we say if the person in question protests, etc.? I think it’s absolutely fair when people who feel attacked post their feelings, because it provides a check on the conversation. Because we really do all draw our lines in different places, and we all have different stakes in these conversations, as you said.
Personally, I think a lot more people are going to pick up the Shomi books now than might have before this, and as numerous people have said, that achieves the purpose of the costumes, albeit by somewhat indirect means. Hopefully that’s what will have the most significant impact on the authors in question. As to Kenyon, it seems she’s already got a very healthy fan base, and I have no idea what the impact of the swan will or won’t be. All I know is what I heard—that she stayed until she had been able to greet and speak with everyone who stood in her line, and that consequently, she was one of the last (if not the last) to leave. I think that even without the swan that such gracious dedication would generate a lot of reader loyalty.
Wow, a lot of well thought out and well written arguments here. I’m both intrigued and intimidated. I guess my thoughts boil down to the following:
1) Just FYI, I’m not defending M&M personally anymore; I think they know this is all intellectual debate now. I’m not attacking anyone for their personal opinions, and respect them all, if not agree with them.
2) If there was a mandate about what people could wear to the Literacy Booksigning—business casual—then Liz and Marianne wearing costumes was inappropriate. If that’s the case, none of us knew about it (as far as I understand), and *I personally apologize.* I understand and appreciate the idea of a group getting together to further one particular image, and others standing out simply for personal gain—if you believe that’s what their marketing was about, which I don’t—is wrong and inappropriate. Period. I wouldn’t want to betray any mutually agreed upon goals, ever. On the other hand, if business casual was a suggestion, it seems wrong of others to *expect* their own tastes to be adhered to and their own agendas to be fulfilled. People attempt to find success in a variety of ways, and I personally don’t believe that issues regarding nebulous concepts like image (look at how split people are here!) should be dictated to those who don’t consciously sign up to be part of the “crusade.†For me, it’s a matter of free will. Please don’t hear my comments here as condemnation of personal opinion—I love that everyone is expressing their personal tastes here; I am simply stating that if there was no specifically stated rule outlawing costumes, Marianne and Liz did nothing “inappropriate.†I don’t believe any RWA members approached them with concerns. I could be wrong.
The question of what is outrageous or in bad taste is a whole other can of worms, as it is so subjective. I find it amusing that most people early on objected more to Sherrilyn’s hat than M&M’s attire. I can’t recall if people said it was inappropriate or awful or what, but that issue seems even more problematic to me—at least in terms of those who claim that she shouldn’t be allowed to wear the hat. Isn’t it part of who she is?
If RWA wants to set a mandate for “appropriate†attire, they should—and they should list what business casual is, and what it isn’t, just so there’s no confusion. I’m always in a tie, so this is no skin off my back. Personally I think it’d be a mistake. I think it removes individuality. Fitting all romance into one box to shush the people who don’t understand it… Well, I just don’t see that as an effective strategy. Authors connecting with their readers depends on actually connecting with them—which can be dependent upon creating a persona (or conveying it) that connects. To hogtie authors in this pursuit seems short-sighted to me, as the readers who like their authors in mini-skirts and big black bird hats will ultimately find those authors, and RWA removing them from their lists seems like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s…well, another person’s face.
I reiterate that Marianne and Liz were dressing up in those costumes in a sense of fun, trying to convey that…and, sure, to get some attention for books they believe in. I don’t think there was much other agenda there.
3) “My own perspective in this conversation has been that Romance marketing has depended on an overpersonalization of the author and an artificial identification of her as either a surrogate for the heroine or a personal acquaintance of the reader/fan.†I think that’s interesting and insightful. Just one guess why it has happened: Because every marketing department tries to show the credibility of the author. If you have a book on car engines, you hype the fact that the author is a mechanic. If you have a book of science fiction, you get scientists to talk about the likelihood of the proposed concepts. If you have a novel dealing with very personal emotions and the fulfillment of those…you start showing that the novelist is someone who can/has experienced those emotions, can relate to the reader to elaborate on them, and who is innately qualified to write about them. Not everyone can fix a car. Most people can feel emotion. The easiest way—it seems—to show a writer’s validity is to have the novelist identified with her heroine (showing her knowledge about the subject at hand) because the only other way is to take a scientific approach about emotions, which seems dry and ineffective to me. (Sociologist Jane Author knows what makes people fall in love! Is that a novel you want to read, or an essay?) Thoughts? (I’m using the ability of the author to express valid emotions because there are a variety of romances and all of them deal with different topics and have different strengths but connect in the journey of two people falling in love. I’m not saying that historical authors don’t also have more insight into historical details that are important, or that erotic authors don’t have insights into sensuality.)
â€Clinch covers and mantitty are employed to sell the idea of Romance as fantasy fulfillment, not a literary endeavor.†Many romances *are* fantasy fulfillment. They just are. Many are damn good literary endeavors instead—or even *as well.* Isn’t fantasy (as in swords & sorcery) fantasy fulfillment? What boy doesn’t want to grow up to be king—or girl to be queen? I’m pretty sure there are a few fantasy novels accepted as literary endeavors. Look at Lord of the Rings, at the very least.
â€But AS A GENERAL ISSUE, I think that costuming authors is part of an overall dynamic in Romance marketing that encourages and results in an overidentification with authors and a conflation of authors with their books.†I just want to remind you that M&M did this on their own, with no prompting, and they didn’t dress up as their characters here, but in a manner demonstrating the fun of the line.
Have I mentioned the books are fun?
4) I’d love to see a workshop next year at Nationals about the state and image of Romance, and have various people lecture on/debate what they believe are the reasons. I’d attend and try to learn. The sociological aspect fascinates me, though I might be afraid of the fights that would break out.
I do want to say that there have been a couple of comments here that take me aback, only because I’ve seen the opposite in practice. One is:
“Call me paranoid (it’s been done before), but I think that those [mantitty] covers will never go away, because they reflect the patriarchal value system which insists that women’s work (and by extension the women themselves) be marginalized and belittled (although way less so than at almost any other time in history or in other places around the globe).â€
To say that man-titty covers exist because this is a male-dominated world is just so wrong. Women buy the books! Romance readers buy and love them! I can get you a petition of women who like them. Seriously. (It boggles my mind a bit, too, honestly.) As I’m sure you can get me a petition of women who hate them. Very few men want to see man titty; I guarantee it. I’d love to see how many names of straight white males (since we’re saying this is institutionalized marketing) who think they’re a good marketing move. And yet these covers thrive. In fact, they thrive against opposition: Covers like that have a harder time getting into stores (with male dominated buyers) than similar covers with women. In Canada, you’re not allowed—my rep assures me—to show male nipples. There are issues other places, too. They just won’t order the book. I’m not saying this is right or making any judgments in any direction; I’m saying I’ve seen it in practice. I’m saying that there are a variety of people reading romance for different reasons, who want different covers, and to personally assume your own (and I try to do this with my thoughts, and I hope I’m mostly succeeding) opinions are the only way is not effective or accurate. Different books should be marketed different ways. (Different authors should dress different ways.) The audiences are separate and distinct, as are the messages being conveyed. Romance is a broad, broad genre.
5) “Chris, this is something I don’t think you can ever understand, because you are not a woman. By virtue of your sex, you have never had to defend your fundamental validity (unless you are a person of color or one who leads an alternative lifestyle, in which case you do know what that experience is like).†This statement seems to say only women, non-whites and gays know discrimination. Wow. This will likely be an unpopular theory, and **I’m not diminishing in any way the discrimination faced by anyone**—in fact, the opposite. I say that all—well, most—of us face discrimination in our lives, and at fairly crucial times. Is not the validity of my opinion on this subject being questioned here and now, in my place of employment? Didn’t I have authors question my ability to edit romance for most of my early career (“Wow! You’re a man…editing romance…?â€) and even occasionally do so still? And if there is an ugly stereotype about romance, aren’t I suffering it as well by association? If you feel disempowered by a male society that doesn’t give you props, where should that put me, a man who has voluntarily (and with love) given myself to a profession that publicly is identified as “porn,†“writing with no literary merit.†Doesn’t that “emasculate†me? Or is it less important, my struggle along that road, because I am part of the “ruling classâ€?
I think making gender distinctions here is too easy, and will lead us down the wrong paths. The trick is understanding ourselves the merit of what we do, and going forward with our heads held high.
Have I mentioned how impressed I am with my authors, and that by writing some damn good books they can do what few other people can? I don’t say that enough. I don’t qualify what they do at all. They write good books.
And now I have to run. This took way longer to write than I thought it would, and I have to go play basketball, and the rest of my weekend will be editing. I’ll probably pop back in and read replies, as there’s a lot I have learned from some of them, but this will probably be my last post. Nora had the right idea when she left town. I’ll be happy to discuss it—I think—if I bump into anyone at a future RWA meeting, or maybe after I finish my current editing project. I hope you all flesh out your concerns and actually get what you’re looking for.
In summary: I love the genre, too, and want to see it succeed. But I am not (if this ever becomes an issue) happy to sacrifice individual rights in the process, should anyone be suggesting that is the way to do it.
Best, as always, and thanks involving me in the discussion!
Chris
“In Canada, you’re not allowed—my rep assures me—to show male nipples. “
Really, truly? I just did a quick check of my bookshelves, admittedly not a scientific study, and found at least ten books with mantitties. I bought all these books at Canadian stores.
Robin: I’ve been reading those threads and revelling in the CRAZY WITH CRAZY SAUCE in the past couple of days. Have you checked this hilarity yet? http://www.ferfelabat.com/?p=275
Especially these comments:
From Tate:
From Ferfe:
Behold the power of my rack! I’ve dazzled more than a few boys (and a couple of girls) with ‘em, but who knew they were capable of precipitating this Ragnarok of all comment threads?
JONQUIL? JONQUIL? Are you there? If so, take a deep breath, some water, and perhaps some mulch.
Now, go back and read my post. I said readers have a FANTASY about writers. And that I think effective marketing connects/appeals in part to that fantasy.
Since you mention Susan Brockman, she’s a perfect example of effective marketing. She always wears jeans (informal image) and has been known to show up with an attractive Navy SEAL by her side. She’s playing to her readers’ FANTASIES about her and her books.
Look at the post carefully: I NEVER WROTE THAT WRITERS SHOULD WRITE THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES.
Since I am a romance writer, and most of my friends are romance writers, I know that would be a book about someone sitting and typing or writing longhand. A book based that might possibly pass as haute-literature, but not commercial fiction and certainly not romance.
I’ve had books published that are set in the 1700s, and yet,while not as young as Liz and Marianne, I’m not quite old enough to have been hanging out in Paris and London in the 1790s.
D’accord?
I will now return to writing about goblins, even though I’ve never been green. Except maybe for people with Newfies…trade for a sheltie anyone?
Point of clarification.
I never said I was “devastated” nor wrote anything that suggested a sense of “devastation.” Nor have my posts been “hysterical” as someone above said. (Unless, by hysterical you mean amusing.) I said that I have nothing to apologize for. And I have certainly not asked any plants to come in and post on my behalf.
I do think it is clear, however, that I have been slammed (my talent, my intelligence, my looks, etc) in various parts of this comment section, both overtly and by insinuation and continue to be referenced even as the conversation morphs. Consider also that this “story” has crossed into other blogs which have ongoing lives of their own.
So, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the slammee in such a situation to be a bit, er, stunned and unhappy about it.
Thanks to everybody willing to take a chance on one of the Shomi books. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your support. It’s really touching and it’s something I’ll remember long after this blows over.
Rock on!
Liz
I HONK FOR SWAN HATS
So, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the slammee in such a situation to be a bit, er, stunned and unhappy about it.
You know what would cheer you up? A sheltie! You don’t have to thank me, she’s in the mail…
I am going back to work…really…any second now I could back away from the computer.
Um Robin,
Sherrilyn Kenyon will hate me forever for picking on this. But, I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. – Nora Roberts
No matter how generalized or conceptual this debate became I think at least three people NAMED will feel they were attacked several times and made examples of here on a personal level.
Judging from at least two peoples responses so far that seems to hold out.
People were not talking about these writers books they were making an example out of them for their behavior.
A slight bit different if you ask me.
Boy, lot’s of griping going on here. Lots of good points and interesting debate on the subject matter though, so I’m not going to put in my two cents worth, as it’s been stated over and over…and over again. One thing, which I didn’t see anyone really complaining about since this whole thread seems to boil down to the ‘image’ presented by romance authors and how that’s conveyed to the public is this: WTF was the Dallas Morning Star doing putting in the one photo in their paper that is the LEAST representative of romance authors? Of course they have the right to publish whichever photos they like, just as folks at the conference are able to wear what they want, but it seems to me to be pretty poor journalism to highlight the swan hat as representative of what was going on at the signing.
I think Liz and Mari’s promo efforts are a great thing. Sherrilyn, wear the damn hat (yeah, it’s gaudy as hell, but still great in its own way). Romance authors should be focused less on toeing that imaginary professional line, and jumping all over the idiots out there who ridicule the romance genre with misrepresentation.
Has anyone here emailed the Dallas Star? Demanded an apology for poor journalism? For portraying an inaccurate picture of romance authors as a whole? That would be more productive imo. I’m just sorry the icons like Nora and Jennie and such have to endure it for everyone else’s sake.
JDuncan
Whoa. Those ferfe threads were…weird.
Oh and for the record I’m not sure which Canada someone’s rep is living in but (sadly) all of my Holly Berkeley Sensation books have man titty galore, complete with nipples. I had to step to the other side of a book aisle to keep a safe distance between me and the oiled nipply power of some Angela Knights books. Those things are dangerous.
No matter how generalized or conceptual this debate became I think at least three people NAMED will feel they were attacked several times and made examples of here on a personal level.
Since I’ve made that point at least three times in this thread (that I can remember, at least), I can only say that I agree with you, TP. Here’s my last statement on that subject:
Behold the power of my rack! I’ve dazzled more than a few boys (and a couple of girls) with ‘em, but who knew they were capable of precipitating this Ragnarok of all comment threads?
There’s so much irony there, Candy, that I don’t think I’ll ever be deficient again in that literary mineral (har har). If it weren’t for the sheer ugliness of some of those comments (especially as compared to the main of what’s happened here), I’d be able to laugh. I really do try to be fair in seeing the merits of any opposing view. But the meanness heaped at certain bloggers there has exceeded my ability to understand, especially because some of the most horrendous comments have emerged from voices that have been the staunchest advocates of civility and morally upright behavior.
Just one guess why it has happened: Because every marketing department tries to show the credibility of the author. If you have a book on car engines, you hype the fact that the author is a mechanic. If you have a book of science fiction, you get scientists to talk about the likelihood of the proposed concepts. If you have a novel dealing with very personal emotions and the fulfillment of those…you start showing that the novelist is someone who can/has experienced those emotions, can relate to the reader to elaborate on them, and who is innately qualified to write about them.
What you say sounds right in terms of the intent, Chris. And as someone who comes from a literature background, it also feels problematic to me. I certainly wanted the authors of my law casebooks to be damn good attorneys and legal scholars. But I don’t really need Tim O’Brien to be a Vietnam vet or a politician to adore In the Lake of the Woods. Because for me fiction is different. Oh, sure, I can appreciate that publishers are going to sell Grisham’s legal thrillers as penned by an atty, and I can completely appreciate the various ways that authenticity plays into the marketing of an author and his or her books. But in fiction I tend to conceptualize that relationship differently. I imagine that an author of historical Romance can write brilliantly about a certain place and time without having a PhD in history. And I can imagine that some of my most loved Romance novels were written by people who had very unhappy romantic lives. Because the authenticity of the prose is what I’m interested in, and frankly, while sometimes it matters whether the author has a background in something, sometimes it can actually work against a book, too, especially if the author is not skilled at *writing* and storytelling. Does that make sense? So I understand what you’re saying, but again, I think those assumptions are not necessarily so productive.
â€But AS A GENERAL ISSUE, I think that costuming authors is part of an overall dynamic in Romance marketing that encourages and results in an overidentification with authors and a conflation of authors with their books.†I just want to remind you that M&M did this on their own, with no prompting, and they didn’t dress up as their characters here, but in a manner demonstrating the fun of the line.
If I didn’t make this clear already, let me do it here: I totally understand that, Chris. My main point was simply that what seemed new and hip to some felt familiar to me as a marketing strategy. And because I think that these strategies are so often employed, I don’t think people think about them much at all beyond the very things you talk about. But hey, that’s the point of ideological analysis, right? I loved the points you made in response to the idea that you could not understand some issues because of your gender, and I think that discussion—the effects of stereotypes—is very much about becoming collectively aware of those stereotypes and talking about them based on our own different experiences. Because let’s face it: all of us engage in behavior that fits in with one stereotype or another most often without even thinking about it. When we talk about race in Romance that becomes incredibly important, too. So that’s kind of where I’m coming from in regard to the marketing thing, because I don’t imagine anyone sitting down thinking, “okay, time to exploit gender and genre stereotypes to sell these books.” I just think patterns emerge and perpetuate because we fail to question, and sometimes those patterns have what are IMO undesirable implications and results.
â€Clinch covers and mantitty are employed to sell the idea of Romance as fantasy fulfillment, not a literary endeavor.†Many romances *are* fantasy fulfillment. They just are. Many are damn good literary endeavors instead—or even *as well.* Isn’t fantasy (as in swords & sorcery) fantasy fulfillment? What boy doesn’t want to grow up to be king—or girl to be queen? I’m pretty sure there are a few fantasy novels accepted as literary endeavors. Look at Lord of the Rings, at the very least.
Absolutely many Romance novels are fantasy fulfillment. Although I haven’t thought the whole thing out, I think there might be some differences in character between the level of fantasy you refer to when you talk about king and queen fantasies and the larger notions of literary fantasy. That’s something to think about. When I was a lowly grad student I TA’d for a Science Fiction class, and it was there that I learned to love the genre. And no matter what the level of play and fantasy there, it was clear that social critique and commentary was very much a part of the genre. And I think it was respected as such, even while the more fantastic elements were enjoyed at a more overt level. I’d like to see the same for Romance, and unfortunately, I think sometimes the fantasy element becomes a cheap sell that perhaps unfairly suggests that it’s primarily fantasy that Romance readers want (as opposed to really rich history or morally ambiguous characters or complex and layered prose). Of course my current disappointment with the market doesn’t help here, and perhaps in a few years, if rich Romance novels come back in droves, I’ll be singing a different tune.
In summary: I love the genre, too, and want to see it succeed. But I am not (if this ever becomes an issue) happy to sacrifice individual rights in the process, should anyone be suggesting that is the way to do it.
I don’t think anyone is making that suggestion, but I certainly agree with you on this.
And for Penelope, who posted sometime last night, I think (it’s all a blur), I thought your post was great, especially the last two paragraphs.
I think if you and Marianne (and maybe SK?) print this up on a bunch of bumperstickers for future signings you’ll find they fly off the table. I do appreciate you keeping a sense of humor about all this.
Candy, your point about how the cosplay outfits seem to be viewed differently based on the viewer’s age is a valid one to mull over. It reminded me of something that happened last week-end. I took my daughter shopping for, umm…searching for that word they use at the stores, aha!…foundations and my friend and I were talking about how a lot of bras (and indeed thong underwear) these days are decorated in a way that makes it acceptable for them to be shown in public. My friend and I are of that generation where we just can’t voluntarily show our undies to the world, while it seems to be perfectly acceptable to a lot of women who are younger than us. Generation-wise we definitely view the idea of deliberately showing our straps from a different standpoint – one where ours probably comes across with an attitude of judgmental no-fun-fogies and theirs comes across as just lighten up.
I’ve found this discussion fascinating because it has challenged my opinions and prejudices. They haven’t changed much, but I do find it valuable to examine image and perception and how they are used for and against us.
Actually Sherrilyn beat Liz to it.
On sale here.
Robin, the reason you didn’t see me posting for civility on that thread was because I wasn’t there. If you’ve read my blog you’d know that I’ve been having my house worked on and been without a pc various days, and when I did get it hooked back up for a night I didn’t check in with everyone to make sure they were being appropriate. I read main posts and commented. I cannot type a hhundred words a minute, and I don’t have time to wade through every comment.
I promise to not be derelict in my duties again.
As for what I said and what you picked out from this thread was that I said nothing that the authors didn’t say themselves. And so you find them being likened to pedophile bait a correct assumption?
And I personally was jealous of Candy’s rack. Last time mine was that pretty was about 16 years ago after the first kidlet. Which was what I said in that thread.
Early in this thread I think Nora commented along the lines that if M&M’s costumes were the worst thing to come out of the conference, it was a very successful event…Dittos.
La Nora defines classy & professional appearance, and tough act to follow for some of her peers.
Much earlier Gail posted a pic of the infamous Swan Hat. I have a degree in “Custom Apparel, Design & Construction”. Therefore, somewhat qualified to comment…SK’s black & red dress (Satin with tuxedo tucks) could easily qualify as a costume even without the hat. Behind her is a woman wearing a long brown velveteen coat with strong historical costume elements. And the numerous women behind them wearing generic, baggy, peacock colored shirts with dumpy, poorly fitting pants…NOT my opinion of business attire.
IMO it’s all in the perception. My closet contains skirts almost the twin of M&M’s. 3” Heels, yeah even if I can’t walk the next day (I paid $149 for arch supports just so I didn’t have to give’m up). OK, due to my age I’d have to pass on the cute sox…would look totally dumb, my teens would heckle, and refuse to be seen with me.
IMO if writers are concerned about genre image, Banning the godawful covers would be a good beginning. No other genre has such an uphill battle for respect, because they don’t have to suffer the STUPID COVERS. Honestly, most of the time I can’t decide if it’s just really, really bad marketing or if it’s a secret agenda to bankrupt a genre that embarrasses the rest of the industry.
OMG! Mariane, I just ordered 12. HOW FUN!
dl, I beg to disagree. Both fantasy and science fiction have had (and still have) to put up with godawful covers.
But the thing is, covers are rarely in the hands of the authors—particularly the covers of the first few books, or of books released withing a certain imprint/line/what have you.
And I may be wrong, but I think the other people in SK’s picture are fans? Over whose behaviour and clothing choices I expect any author to have little to no control myself.
Individual behaviour and attire are within each author’s control.
As far as going to the press and demanding some sort of apology or retraction for that piece in the Dallas paper… Realistically speaking, what are the chances that if (huge if, by the way) such a retraction/apology was ever printed, it wouldn’t come with a “gee, these women can’t take a joke, look at them ranting and flapping their feathers over nothing!” tone—quite similar to a few comments here and there through this discussion?