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.
I’m not going to read any of this until I rest my brain. Like maybe next year. But I’d like to point something out about the so-called generation gap.
Nora Roberts: I have a pretty good idea how tough this has been on Liz and Marianne.
I’m certain she does. You know why? Search Salon.com for “Nora Roberts” and you get a long list of derogatory asides in articles over the last few years—never about her writing but using her to represent all romance. And the most recent article implies that Nora’s books are full of alpha men and stupid women, and thus part of a mindset that produced some recent bad science and anti-woman headlines.
Yes, Nora knows exactly what it’s like to be the poster child for a larger debate… rightly or wrongly so.
I’d say the old guard vs the new is a false dichotomy. The long-time big names here understand very well what it’s like—and not through dim remembrances; it’s still happening to them.
Whoa. Those ferfe threads were…weird.
Hee. That’s because you’re reading an ongoing conversation. We talk on the phone, we post on eacother’s blogs, at The Cage and it’s one long huge assed conversation. So one someone references something seemingly out of subject, we all know what it’s about and toss it up for a few other rounds.
And now that I did go over and read every comment on those posts, I have nothing to apologize for. They we’re not mean or nasty in any way.
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?
Eva, I can’t figure out what your first sentence is saying. As for your second, no, I don’t think that was a correct assumption. Or more to the point, I think it was presented in a way that crossed the line. As I said earlier, the fact that it was their *outfits* and not them characterized that way would not make much of a difference if I was wearing the outfit in question, either. It would have felt personally insulting to me, as well. But you know, I KNEW what they were going for, and I had a flash of Britney Spears from that infamous video (and I seem to remember a Knight Ranger video, too, maybe, and a Van Halen video?)—so I did recognize a number of possible references there, even though I understood M&M weren’t trying for those and would feel horrified by the association made.
I think it has to do with the fact that the wearers had a specific cultural context, but viewers will bring their own cultural contexts with them, which will sometimes be broader and sometimes narrower. This is in no way an attempt to justify any harsh comments directed at M&M, btw.
As for the Ferfe threads, well, I think there has been some editing going on over there, wowee. I know there are people who archive these things, and I’ll have to see if I can track one of them down. But things seem to have done gone and disappeared since the last time I checked in over there. Of course, I think it’s still bad. I mean, how can you possibly think the “miners” reference is anywhere near okay?
In any case, despite Ferfe’s attempt to distinguish an entire thread labeled “They Look Perfectly Normal” that includes the photos of four bloggers and extensive commentary on (some of) their physical characteristics, I’m not seeing ANY higher bar set over there. Is it better or worse that this conversation was an actual discussion about the issues around image in the Romance genre and industry? In any case, Eva, it’s no business of mine if you want to jump into the deep end of that conversational maelstrom. I just think that any attempt to say what’s going on over there is *better* than even the harshest comments here is completely indefensible, either as an intellectual or emotional position.
And perhaps I’d suggest that it really is a matter of perspective. You think there’s nothing mean about the comments over there, and I do. You think what’s going on over here is bad, and I agree that there are some over the line comments in this thread but disagree that most of this discussion is aimed personally.
My first line reworded: I didn’t say anything that the authors didn’t say, so why am I being held up as the morality police?
As far as Ferfe’s thread, I think you are missing the tone of the post. “Of all the posts coming out of the RWA convention the most interesting are pictures of people who look nothing like I expected.”
And one thing I know about Ferfe after all of these years, is that she doesn’t clip comments, and she never posts anon. What you see is what was there. And you’ll also see that she moderated and told Tate she was going to.“Sorry I had to edit you. It was barely a smidge over the line but it was definitely over.” So, it wasn’t some slam fest, it was just authors and even an editor talking about conferences. And that was a pretty fun thread between friends who poke at each other constantly. You entered the Lunatic Fringe without your special glasses and helmet. 😉
I just have to say it.
It was one hat and 2 pairs of tights people!
I thought they looked fabulous and unprudish. If romance is stereotyped, what a great way to step in a different direction. Maybe everyone didn’t agree with the choice of dress, but who gives a damn? They’re grown women and can dress anyway they choose. As long as they have on clothes, I’m fine.
I think all the pink in romance makes me want to barf anyway. I love romance but I’m sick of the bodice rippers, pink hearts( romance tv) and women walking around dressed like they’re going to a prom for the Ritas. I thought the boas, colored hair *(Notice this has skipped the conversation entirely) was fabulous and I commend authors for going the extra mile to please their fans and not being uptight and pretentious.
🙂
And I’m buying some buttons to wear to next year’s event. Dare to be different, it just might make you feel good, ya know?
Part 1 (because I’m so far behind in my comment reading. 225+ pages when the text is copied into Word–not too shabby but I think I’m missing comments and I’m not sure I’m ever going to catch up.)
Teddy Pig tried to raise this Gay Pride parade comparison way up in the comment field. (I’ve taken the liberty of rephrasing.)
Is the purpose of the Gay Pride parade to: a) celebrate Gay Pride in all of its shapes, sizes and flavors without any restrictions; b) showcase a certain portion of its community/membership in order to either gain ‘acceptance’ or be acceptable to a certain target audience? c) make a certain portion of their community feel comfortable with the image conveyed to outsiders?
Now RWA Literacy fundraiser: Besides raising money for literacy, is the purpose/objective of RWA’s fundraiser to: a) celebrate the romance genre in all its shapes, sizes and flavors (warts & all); b) present a prepackaged image of its membership to gain ‘respect’ and ‘legitimacy’ from a specific target audience? c) convey a packaged image to outsiders that a certain portion of membership is comfortable with?
This comparison hit me right square between the eyes and I believe that it is vital to the magnitude of the ground covered by a discussion that boils down to are ‘costumes’ appropriate attire for RWA’s fundraiser?
Without a statement from RWA’s board laying out their objectives for the event as well as their official definitions for business casual, costumes, and professional comportment as it pertains to the Literacy signing, the yardstick being used to measure the appropriateness of a swan hat or the Shomi marketing ploy during said event is entirely too subjective.
Peers, fans, editors, and the general public—we all get to have lively discussions and differing opinions where can can attach labels like brave, silly, inappropriate, brilliant to the’costumes’ or the discussion itself. We get to publically discuss all sides of the debate while plumbing the depths where our position come from. Ultimately we can use those arguments and our voices to influence RWA’s board decision on what’s appropriate and what’s not for that event. But the board must also take into consideration their pre-event objectives and how those objectives measure up against post-event results. Results which include online discussions such as this one.
Jenny Crusie said: I’m not big on criticizing other authors and I’d sure as hell vote down any attempts to put in a dress code.
Laura Vivanco said: 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?
Pigeonholing membership to get buy-in from some undefined someone somewhere to gain ‘respect/legitimacy’ is just as bad as the stereotypes used to prove that romance authors only write crap, porn or fluff or that all consumers of romance need emotional porn or only read the good parts—-i.e., the sex scenes.
Even if every romance author in the world conformed to some predefined attire and comportment standard and stayed on message, the cultural message whispered in our ears about romance novels, authors and readers wouldn’t noticeably shift because that cultural message is about more than romance.
That said, RWA’s board does have the right to define standards for their fundraising event, even in regards to appropriate attire and comportment. But in order to so, the board must do what a corporate HR department does when a creating/instituting a dress code: define exactly what constitutes appropriate attire and comportment so that everyone is on the same page right from the start.
Query: how many people have seen the writers/artists of the comic books dressed up in costume at Comic Con?
Real costumes, like the characters they write. Not pins or t-shirts or such. I know quite a few comic creators and none of them have ever dressed up as a character at a con.
I’m not sure this answer is comprehensive enough because dressing up like Batman vs. pins and t-shirt only covers part of the definition of costume as it’s being applied to the Literacy signing. Costumes were defined as any attire worn as gimmick or marketing ploy which is not authentic to the author. M&M’s outfits were costumes not because of the actual clothing but because it was part of a public marketing strategy. SK’s black swan hat is a costume because the overall opinion has been no one would ever wear such an over-the-top hat except as a gimmick. An additional distinction was made that wearing native attire such as African tribal wear was a costume—a gimmick—if the wearer was not an African immigrant.
So given that definition, can anyone answer this:
1) Do the organizers of Comic Con have dress codes for the participating writers/artists at their conference? If so, what is the dress code?
2) If a writer/artist chose to dress in costume as defined above what type of reaction might he/she receive from their peers?
3) Does any other national writing organization have an author dress code for a national fundraising event similar to RWA’s Literacy booksigning? If so, what is the organization and what is the dress code?
4) Same question as #2
AQ
Just a side-note.
I have gone on record as not being a fan of the swan hat but I have to admit that my first reaction when I saw that pic was not “Oh. Inappropriate,” or even “WTF.” It was “Uh-oh if she has a new book with a wereswan in it LKH is going to be piiiiised!”
My first line reworded: I didn’t say anything that the authors didn’t say, so why am I being held up as the morality police?
I wasn’t trying to imply that you are the morality police, Eva; initially I just asked you for some examples of the comments you think are too personal. People say that there have been personal attacks, but since we all seem to interpret that differently, I was hoping you could point specifically to which comments fell into the personal attack category so I could understand where you’re coming from. For example, I think comments 3, 51, 62, 90, and 104 of the “They Look Perfectly Normal” post on Ferfe’s blog are all personal slaps and over the line.
As for the morality police issue, I assume you’re referring to my comment about folks setting themselves up in terms of moral standards. I wasn’t actually referring to you. But what I was saying in my first reply to you was that since I found the threads at Ferfe’s offensive in some respects, it surprised me that you would be participating in those discussions without comment, while making the same charge here that I would make over there. Again, I think it’s a matter of perspective and POV.
So, it wasn’t some slam fest, it was just authors and even an editor talking about conferences. And that was a pretty fun thread between friends who poke at each other constantly.
I know that you pointed to Deborah Smith’s comment in a way I can only assume means you found it to be one of those personal attacking ones, so I’ll use it as a contrasting example for a moment. At least Smith was responding to something she has a personal investment in—a personal and professional stake, even, as an author who cares about the genre and its image. It wasn’t thrown out as a casual barb, as cattiness to amuse a group of friendly bloggers, as, IMO, were many of the comments on Ferfe’s blog. At some level, I would argue that such casual slapping is actually worse, because it doesn’t seem to come from anything heartfelt, even though it’s directed at specific individuals. And the comments on the hypocritical nature of this thread struck me as particularly ironic, especially if the tone over there was of casual amusement among friends. Because it was public, directed at specific individuals, and dished out by at least one person who delivered several speeches during the Triskellion debacle about journalistic integrity and the importance of remaining on the moral high ground. In one thread Ferfe referred to “caustic insults and sideways slaps” emerging from this thread, but in truth, I think that’s far more what was going on in her venue than here. Here, at least, the caustic nature of some of the comments wasn’t about casual amusement or superficial sarcasm. I haven’t agreed with or even liked everything that was said in this very long thread, but even in some cases where I found the comment caustic, the sense of personal investment in it felt authentic.
I’ve been to a number of SF&F and comics cons over the years, AQ, and I have friends who are professional artists. The people I know who are there to sell and sign their comic books are also looking to make other deals, and they dress like themselves, not their characters or their product lines.
If the artist usually wears a black t-shirt and jeans, that’s what he wears to the con. If his personal style runs more to poet shirts and leather pants, then he’ll wear that.
I haven’t seen an artist dressed like his/her character, but that’s not to say it has never happened. It just doesn’t seem to be a typical practice at the cons I’ve attended. The FANS definitely dress that way, but the artists, no.
I don’t think this is a matter so much of a dress code but is more to do with the fact that these folks are there to hook up with other like-minded professionals and to possibly make deals for future business. A guy who has his own highly-regarded comic book series may be asked to work on someone else’s new line, if he comes across as a person who can get the job done and who’ll be decent to work with. If he seems like a person who’s all about his own ego, he may be less desirable as a potential business partner, no matter how cool his comic books are.
I in fact go to indy publisher events here in San Francisco.
Bob The Angry Flower
http://www.angryflower.com/
Known for Bob’s Quick Guide To The Apostrophe, You Idiots
I must report that yes Bob does wear his Angry Flower outfit proudly.
One does not call it a costume or he will kick you.
Got to love Bob The Angry Flower.
He will always have a place in m heart.
AQ Fredrichs quoted me
Laura Vivanco said: 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?
and AQ replied Pigeonholing membership to get buy-in from some undefined someone somewhere to gain ‘respect/legitimacy’ is just as bad as the stereotypes used to prove that romance authors only write crap, porn or fluff or that all consumers of romance need emotional porn or only read the good parts—-i.e., the sex scenes.
Even if every romance author in the world conformed to some predefined attire and comportment standard and stayed on message, the cultural message whispered in our ears about romance novels, authors and readers wouldn’t noticeably shift because that cultural message is about more than romance.
My response – I’ve been musing aloud and asking a lot of questions to which I don’t have answers.
I’m thinking that there’s a hypothetical discussion to be had about conformity v. self-expression, and there’s also another one about what, in the existing climate of prejudice, best serves the author and the genre in both the short and the long term.
What I think is problematic is the fact that because of the existing prejudices against the genre the media will tend to seek out the extremes, the exceptional. They’ll print the photo of the author in the swan hat and, presumably, they’d print photos of readers swarming around cover-models. If this is presented as the *only* or *predominant* image of romance authors and readers, then it will annoy readers and authors who have different reading strategies/who write different types of romances.
At the other end of the spectrum, I have the impression that there was quite a lot of coverage of Eloisa James when she ‘came out’ as a Shakespeare professor. And, as everyone has mentioned, there are lots of interviews with Nora Roberts, and if I recall correctly, last year there were quite a lot of photos of Bob Mayer at the RWA conference, so it’s not as though the media never report other images of romance but they do tend to focus on the striking images and the exceptional authors i.e. the best selling, the ones who aren’t of the expected gender or background or the ones who do confirm the stereotypes.
This is a very, very diverse genre and there are romances written and read in a wide range of sub-genres, by a wide range of different people, all with their own individual views of the genre and gaining different things from their reading. Some readers may indeed “only read the good parts—-i.e., the sex scenes” and that’s their right. They may want to talk on blogs/message-boards about hot heroes and how reading romance has helped their sex lives. In itself, that’s fine and there are plenty of others who may read the very same novels in different ways. Like I said, this is a huge genre with a very, very wide range of both authors and readers.
What I’d like to know is whether we, either as (a) as readers writing publicly about the genre or (b) authors who, when interviewed or photographed may be assumed by the viewer to represent the whole genre, should individually strike a balance to represent that diversity in what we write/how we represent ourselves, or whether it’s possible for us to do that collectively.
Or to put it another way, would someone looking at these photos of authors (taken in 1981, so that I’m not using current examples) come away with the impression that the genre is very diverse or would that person come away with the impression that romances are written by women wearing strange clothes? They’re going to bring their own prejudices to how they see those photos. How far do authors have to go to try to prevent those stereotypes kicking in?
Our answers will probably depend on a lot of factors, including how much we care about those outside the genre and the extent to which their prejudices affect/have affected us personally.
Also, if, as AE says, “the cultural message whispered in our ears about romance novels, authors and readers wouldn’t noticeably shift because that cultural message is about more than romance”, what is the cultural message about, other than romance, and what can romance authors and readers do to change it?
Here, at least, the caustic nature of some of the comments wasn’t about casual amusement or superficial sarcasm. I haven’t agreed with or even liked everything that was said in this very long thread, but even in some cases where I found the comment caustic, the sense of personal investment in it felt authentic.
Robin~
Please believe me when I say that I take full responsibility for any comments I make—here, at Ferfe’s, on my own blog, or elsewhere. And I mean every word I say, from the very bottom of my heart. Believe it—there was no “casual amusement” in what I felt when I said it, nor anything “superficial” in my anger and disgust. I simply preferred not to drag others down into my bad mood, and used sarcasm to cloak my very real distress.
Caustic? Certainly. But sincerely meant, every syllable.
I do hope that makes you feel better.
~Selah
Before this gets … crap I almost said “ugly” and realized how retarded that would sound …
Before this goes off on yet another pointless tangent which will in no way be entertaining … I …
(at great personal mental expense I must say)
… set up a poll on my blog to settle the Robin question of David vs Goliath.
I do hope that makes you feel better.
Selah, all it makes me feel is profound frustration and befuddlement that you or anyone could think what’s gone on over at Ferfe’s blog over the past couple of days is okay, while the discussion here isn’t. It’s like one of those down the rabbit hold moments, like a universal law was broken last weekend, or like trying to understand how Bush thinks he’s doing the right thing for America.
But instead of delineating all the points of irony about the hand wringing going on over there about the sad state of Romance community politics, I’ll simply say that this is obviously a matter of perspective and context, and in the same way that I think that there has been a descent into catty disregard over at Ferfe’s blog, you are similarly disapproving of what’s happened over here.
whoops—should be “down the rabbit hole”
Laura,
Looked at the photos. My initial response: oh, that’s right, they used to photograph people like that, how unfortunate. That response was to style of the photograph (70s, 80s) vs. the content. Content response: no diversity and a little uninspiring and where’s the fun?
——————
#1 You say there’s diversity, I say I’m not seeing it and I want to see it. More importantly, I want to see a huge target with diversity painted all over of it so that it’s not as easy to use stereotypes to keep romance down.
#2 Romance is the biggest genre in publishing, it’s a billion dollar industry which should by definition of our societal values give automatic entry into the media, and yet, I rarely hear anything about it in the news and when I do the reporting sometimes seems rather lax, even in a newspaper such as The New York Times.
To me the questions shouldn’t be about lines in the sand re: conformity vs. self expression. Those questions are much too small and completely miss the big picture.
The questions should revolve around how does RWA, which represents 9,000 members and has 50% of multi-billion dollar publishing marketplace change the scope of the conversation? Because scope is what needs to be changed, not asking authors to toe a line.
It won’t happen anyway. We humans are flawed creations and the more of them you bunch together, the harder it is to determine ‘appropriate’ or ‘normal’ for any given situation.
It comes down to this for me: If an author as successful, prolific and articulate as Nora Roberts still gets asked about Fabio and why she writes porn, then the romance writer’s issues with respect and legitimacy simply can’t be addressed on an individual level. They need to be directly addressed by the organization that purports to represent them.
I know, not as easy and simple as the outside looking in sees it. Trust me, I don’t think it’s simple at all and I don’t have an easy answer for how RWA does it.
#3 I’d much rather have SK’s hat published everywhere if that’s what it takes to bring these discussions to the mainstream because unfortunately the other side of the coin as I see it is silence or the cultural whisper.
I just want to say that I would pay sweet loads of cash to have my picture taken with Bob the Angry Flower.
Though he’d probably kick me for suggesting it.
… set up a poll on my blog to settle the Robin question of David vs Goliath.
Ferfe, if you’re going to skew the parameters of the question, please don’t give attribution to me. You have got to know very well that I am talking about far more than the comments on “Candy’s rack” (they weren’t even in my top give offensive comments) and that your characterization of this conversation is IMO hopelessly misrepresentative of its overall character.
I understand why you might want to derail any legitimate commentary on the public exchanges you have been engaged in over the last several days (along with the handwringing and the mourning wails that you have been uttering yourself), and I do realize that there are obviously real differences of perception and context at work here. But at this point, everything I want to say to you is most definitely going to be personally directed at you and would involve lots of words like hypocrisy and ugliness and self-righteousness and unethical and mean, so I’ll just stop here and let the discussion in this thread resume.
Robin~
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.
Selah, all it makes me feel is profound frustration and befuddlement that you or anyone could think what’s gone on over at Ferfe’s blog over the past couple of days is okay, while the discussion here isn’t. It’s like one of those down the rabbit hold moments, like a universal law was broken last weekend, or like trying to understand how Bush thinks he’s doing the right thing for America.
But instead of delineating all the points of irony about the hand wringing going on over there about the sad state of Romance community politics, I’ll simply say that this is obviously a matter of perspective and context, and in the same way that I think that there has been a descent into catty disregard over at Ferfe’s blog, you are similarly disapproving of what’s happened over here.
Would you please point to where I said I thought this discussion wasn’t “okay?” I’ve looked for a comment in which I said “it’s not all right for people to be discussing costumes at RWA,” and I can’t find. If you can find it, please quote it. If I said it, I’ll take it back. Because I don’t, in fact, think it’s wrong for the discussion to take place. I’m appalled at a few of the comments WITHIN the discussion, as are you, or so you’ve stated. Particularly those related to pedophilia and fetish porn. But I don’t believe now, nor did I ever believe, that the conversation shouldn’t take place. If this is what people need to discuss, then they should discuss it. I’m all for talking about stuff.
Did it get ugly over there? It did. Did it get ugly over here? It did. We’re agreed. I’m okay with the context of both discussions. I’d take issue with certain specific comments in both, as would you, I assume. But I would no more take full responsibility for everything everyone said in Ferfe’s blog than I would expect you to take full responsibility for everything said here. I think we’re on the same page.
Furthermore? None of the comments you referenced that were mine had much to do with the costume discussion at all, did they? If the issue is hypocrisy over the costume discussion, let’s go there. If the issue is that I took a couple of potshots at your friend after she pissed me off over the whole RITA controversy, then let’s go THERE. Please don’t muddy the issues. It’s too early in the morning, and I was up late making voodoo dolls again.
#1 You say there’s diversity, I say I’m not seeing it and I want to see it. More importantly, I want to see a huge target with diversity painted all over of it so that it’s not as easy to use stereotypes to keep romance down.
By diversity do you mean racial, ethnic, religious, etc.? Or do you mean in terms of more superficial appearance in terms of wardrobe and demeanor?
It comes down to this for me: If an author as successful, prolific and articulate as Nora Roberts still gets asked about Fabio and why she writes porn, then the romance writer’s issues with respect and legitimacy simply can’t be addressed on an individual level. They need to be directly addressed by the organization that purports to represent them.
Won’t the extent to which this happens depend in part on the members of the BOD? As you say, it’s clearly not about wardrobe or costumes or homogenized corporate attire (just the thought of walking into a room full of suited Romance authors makes me cringe—what a creativity sucking sight that would offer to the media, eh?). I’m not even sure whether it’s an issue of what constitutes a professional Romance writer (since RWA is supposedly an organization which represents only the interests of professional writers). And as I’m writing this, I’m wondering if it’s even beyond the scope of the RWA, or at least the scope of their professed mission to represent professional writers. Unless you conceptualize that representation to encompass public image of the genre. And in that, there is some dabbling the RWA does, what with its press packet, etc.
One of the problems I see is that some of the more, shall I say, “celebratory” elements of the genre—the RT convention, the cover model contests, the glorification of the mantitty, the perpetuation of the word “hawt” at a national level—shouldn’t be eliminated, IMO. Because they are part of a very very large genre, and because they are part of the roots of the genre’s fan-oriented culture. And because I think we walk a dangerous line when we start to legislate only certain types of genre appreciation as legitimate. I don’t think every Romance author needs to become Joan Didion for the genre to gain respectability.
I think what frustrates me is that there seems to be a perception that all those feathers and oiled, waxed torsos is ALL Romance is. And frankly, I’m way more concerned with how that impacts the way Romance readers are courted by marketing and image and served by books than I am with outside perception.
Because as a reader, where I feel a real lack of diversity is in the books offered. As much as I love the power erotic Romance has commanded in the market, I feel an incredible redundancy in so many of the books, and a real flaccidity in the elements of characterization and storytelling (plus the sex is so often boring to me). And as much as I love a good paranormal, again, I feel so much of what I read is more about feeding the perceived trend than about a charge to put out really solid books, and really different books (as one would expect in books that characterize things beyond normal). In regard to historical Romance, it’s that incredible page shrinking phenomenon that I find so frustrating, and the trend away from rich stories with a wealth of historical detail.
And I wonder how much of that comes from a certain perception of what Romance is—and who reads it—from on the part of those editing and publishing it. This topic always reminds me of that Canadian-produced documentary on Romance in which a young Avon editor was filmed telling someone that the Romance novel always starts with “the virgin” (I didn’t see the movie, just got the commentary from several blogs afterward). And I remember someone talking about how so many editors are quite young, and have certain assumptions about the genre and its readers. Not that I think RWA should necessarily involved in any of this, but I do really wonder how all these community dynamics play into (or don’t) the way the genre is actually produced and marketed and then perpetuated in terms of perceived trends. Because it has always struck me that Romance readers are incredibly loyal, and that we will buy and read books that don’t satisfy fully, simply because the *form* is satisfying. So that when sales figures are used to slot new books, they already represent kind of a closed circuit, wherein readers have already had their choices limited by what’s published, and then even if that crop isn’t completely satisfactory, publishers use its profit yield to narrow the next crop even more. So that there’s no real authentic correlation between what’s being published and what readers want. And also that what readers want may not in any realistic way reflect what they will enjoy, especially if they have not yet seen it in print.
They’ll print the photo of the author in the swan hat and, presumably, they’d print photos of readers swarming around cover-models. If this is presented as the *only* or *predominant* image of romance authors and readers, then it will annoy readers and authors who have different reading strategies/who write different types of romances.
The sad thing is, many journalists who come to the conferences, come with preconceived notions. They look for, or often create the stereotypes that reinforce this bias. At the NY Nationals, the post placed a photo of an Ivy-league educated, contemporary romance writer atop the shoulder of a woman in a traditional historical clinch cover.
I’m almost past being surprised by this kind of behavior, though I have trouble understanding when it’s done by female journalists. (Is it, gee when I write MY book it will be SERIOUS literature?) I don’t know…
As for someone’s complaint about too much sex and too much paranormal that’s not the fault of the writers but the publishers. Over the last few years, publisher have consistently earned less, a major distributor was shut down, and many bookstores have closed. As the market shrinks, publishers become less willing to take risks. Chicklit sells? Let’s publish it until the bubble bursts. Likewise for paranormal and erotic. And whatever will come next…
I have gotten rejections that said, “this book is fresh and original and I don’t know what to do with it.”
Trust me, romance writers are as frustrated by these trends as readers are…
Robin, I can’t play with you anymore. I don’t have the time to keep up with everyone’s loops and blog posts and so I don’t have all of the facts you do. I am woefully ignorant on all that goes on in Bloglandia. Happily ignorant, too. I’m going to go be ignorant over at the lake now.
Selah, yes I think the comments you made about Jane were out of line, especially since as far as I can tell they have been unreciprocated. I thought the Galaxy Quest exchange was totally out of line, and even though you weren’t the one to make the miners comment, there was no protesting it. That’s not muddying the issue IMO because my whole point was that it’s unfair to say “It’s all very ugly” in reference to this conversation over here (your first comment in the OMFG thread) and then make some of the comments you did about reviewers/bloggers. You later even reference this thread as “shit” and counseled Eva Gale to “ignore it.” And I did think it was ironic to say that one blogger’s comments on a *book* (which she prefaced by indicating were NOT a proper review) were a personal attack on the author after comments you made that IMO personally belittled said blogger (e.g. reading comprehension comment, in over her head comment). I think Ferfe was much much worse, if that makes you feel any better.
Truly, I thought that a lot of the general running commentary over there was rude, especially since it was going on publicly, so even to keep it going felt excessive and catty to me. You may feel the same way about this thread. But like I said, the tone over there felt very much like one of sarcastic amusement, which just irked me even more. I know how tempting it is to be sarcastic, and I give in to it sometimes, too, but I generally find it to be one of the most assaulting things you can unleash in a blog situation, because the lack of face to face contact just makes it seem mean more often than not, IMO.
There are a number of comments in this thread I won’t even try to defend, but in the main, I think this discussion—in the main—has not been *about* Mancusi, Maverick, or Kenyon, any more than a debate over a book is *about* the author. You may disagree, though.
#1 You say there’s diversity, I say I’m not seeing it and I want to see
it. More importantly, I want to see a huge target with diversity painted
all over of it so that it’s not as easy to use stereotypes to keep romance
down.
I do see diversity. I can see that their are all sorts of different sub-genres, about a range of different characters. There are ordinary people at extraordinary moments in their lives, there are some extraordinary, paranormal creatures and quite a lot else in between. There are explorations of sexuality and love from a variety of different religious and political angles. There are different cultural perspectives (not all romance authors are from the US, for example, and that’s reflected in the settings both literal and social that they depict).
I do agree that the stereotypes minimise the diversity, and I know that some readers, like Robin feel there’s ‘an incredible redundancy in so many of the books, and a real flaccidity in the elements of characterization and storytelling’, but I still think there are a lot of good romance novels out there. Could we do with more? Of course! Could there be more diversity? Again, yes, but I get the impression that this is a period in which romance is expanding into lots more sub-genres than before, and in more media than before (e.g. ebooks as well as print).
The questions should revolve around how does RWA, which represents 9,000
members and has 50% of multi-billion dollar publishing marketplace change
the scope of the conversation? Because scope is what needs to be changed,
not asking authors to toe a line.
On the RWA website it says that
“The 9,500 members of Romance Writers of America are as diverse as the romance genre itself. Among our members are doctors, engineers, attorneys, military officers, airline pilots, scientists, mathematicians, musicians, business women, scholars, teachers, college professors and stay-at-home mothers.”
I wonder if they could do a bit more to express that diversity on their website. For example, if they encouraged the press photographers to take a group photo of lots of different authors and having a photo-opportunity specifically for that? And if the different flowers on the different pages are supposed to represent the diversity, that’s a little bit subtle.
I also think it’s interesting that the RWA awards academic research grants. I wish they had a bit more information on the website about previous research completed as a result of these grants. [And I say that as someone with an interest in the research, but who is not going to be applying for a grant.]
We’ve also had plenty of discussions about the RITAs and whether they do enough/are high profile enough/are set up so that they showcase the very best that the genre has to offer and present that to the reading public. They’d need to have the backing of the publishers, but it seems strange that other awards increase sales and are seen as a marketing device which readers understand, whereas I don’t think romances are on the shelves with ‘RITA Winner’ stickers on them.
Selah, yes I think the comments you made about Jane were out of line, especially since as far as I can tell they have been unreciprocated. I thought the Galaxy Quest exchange was totally out of line, and even though you weren’t the one to make the miners comment, there was no protesting it.
Mostly because I didn’t GET it. I saw Galaxy Quest when it came out. I don’t remember the miners. Apparently, that makes me a Philistine, but whatever. I’ll go back and watch the movie, and we’ll talk.
That’s not muddying the issue IMO because my whole point was that it’s unfair to say “It’s all very ugly†in reference to this conversation over here (your first comment in the OMFG thread) and then make some of the comments you did about reviewers/bloggers. You later even reference this thread as “shit†and counseled Eva Gale to “ignore it.â€
You’re right, I did that. I have no defense, other than I couldn’t believe how long and amazingly circular the arguments were, and I was appalled at how much time I’d already wasted reading it. Frankly, I’m appalled at how much time I wasted chatting about it and other things that day when I should’ve been writing. I apologize for calling the thread “shit.” The discussion itself was not “shit.” Some of the opinions expressed definitely reeked of it.
And I did think it was ironic to say that one blogger’s comments on a *book* (which she prefaced by indicating were NOT a proper review) were a personal attack on the author after comments you made that IMO personally belittled said blogger (e.g. reading comprehension comment, in over her head comment). I think Ferfe was much much worse, if that makes you feel any better.
I’m sorry, here we disagree. The blogger in question doesn’t get to set herself up as a reviewer, state openly that it’s all about the books and never about the author, and then go off on a bitter rant directly against an author. That is, in my book, hypocritical to an ABSURD degree. She doesn’t get a pass from me because she was upset. I certainly didn’t ask for one when I made my comments—“forgive me, I’m screaming mad over this RITA bullshit.” No, as I said, I take full responsibility for my every comment, public or private. I consider it a mark of integrity.
And frankly, I thought my comments regarding her reading comprehension were fairly tame. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt. I could have accused her of intentionally misreading.
Truly, I thought that a lot of the general running commentary over there was rude, especially since it was going on publicly, so even to keep it going felt excessive and catty to me. You may feel the same way about this thread. But like I said, the tone over there felt very much like one of sarcastic amusement, which just irked me even more. I know how tempting it is to be sarcastic, and I give in to it sometimes, too, but I generally find it to be one of the most assaulting things you can unleash in a blog situation, because the lack of face to face contact just makes it seem mean more often than not, IMO.
I understand that you find us mean. One person’s “mean” is another person’s “I can’t express how enraged I am without resorting to four-letter words, so I’ll cage my comments in sarcasm.” I will not apologize for the way I choose to express myself when I see sarcasm all over the reviews I read on your friend’s site. If it’s a fit mode of expression for her, then it’s a fit mode of expression for me. And since as far as I’m concerned, she’s blown all credibility on the “it’s not personal” front with her review of Karin Slaughter’s latest, I’m guessing you won’t be changing my mind on that point.
There are a number of comments in this thread I won’t even try to defend, but in the main, I think this discussion—in the main—has not been *about* Mancusi, Maverick, or Kenyon, any more than a debate over a book is *about* the author. You may disagree, though.
And the discussion at Ferfe’s was not, in the main, *about* any individual either. A few comments, some of them mine, took it there on a tangent. I take responsibility for what is mine.
So…now we’ve covered tone and content. As to whether my comments were reciprocated, I believe the individual in question is fully capable of shooting back at any time. Fire away. I can take it. And I won’t be asking anyone to argue my points for me.
She is, indeed, lucky to have such a stalwart friend, I’ll give her that.
Robin~
She is, indeed, lucky to have such a stalwart friend, I’ll give her that.
I’d like to clarify that I meant this last bit most sincerely. Having recently felt the need to come to a friend’s defense—ironically in the very debate that’s ending here (dear God, I HOPE it’s ending here)—I sympathize with and applaud your efforts to stick up for someone you care about.
I only wish to reiterate that I take full responsibility for anything and everything I’ve said, and will not try to excuse it by blaming high emotion or the provocation of others.
And now I concede the field. Let your response, whatever it may be, be the last word, and please take with you my best wishes and ongoing regard for your passionate commentary on all topics. 🙂
~Selah
I’m sorry, here we disagree. The blogger in question doesn’t get to set herself up as a reviewer, state openly that it’s all about the books and never about the author, and then go off on a bitter rant directly against an author.
How was it against the author? Seriously, I don’t understand this at all. It was about how the author wrote the book, which is about the book, is it not? About the way the book ended? Show me the personal attack there so I can understand what you’re referring to. CLEARLY we disagree about what is personal and what is not, since I think the first thread on the bloggers on Ferfe’s blog was completely personally directed. As for Jane’s reviews generally, she can defend herself on those, and when I disagree with her, I don’t hesitate to say so. In fact, I didn’t agree with her general take on what authors owe readers—and said so.
She is, indeed, lucky to have such a stalwart friend, I’ll give her that.
This has nothing to do with friendship. I’ve stood up numerous times for people with whom I almost always disagree (and sometimes I’ve been sandwiched for defending points made by two people who dislike one another—that’s really fun, let me tell you). I defended several points Nora Roberts made on this thread even though she and I almost always disagree, sometimes in very sharp terms. My rant against Ferfe’s blog has been building for quite a while, Selah, and it likely erupted this weekend because I’ve been chained to my desk for the past two months preparing for the imminent Bar exam and am generally low on tolerance to begin with. I’ll clarify again that I think Ferfe was the most out of line, but I was also frustrated by what I saw as aiding and abetting. I doubt we’ll change each other’s minds about that, but all I can say is that everything came to a head for me in the context of the comments over there that personal attacks elsewhere were so unwarranted. I admit to being baffled by Ferfe’s behavior, because if she actually believes half of what she says, she does so with an enormous blind eye to her own double-standards, and if she doesn’t believe what she says, then so many of her comments seem trollish. Mostly, though it just seems downright mean-spirited. Which would be okay, really, if she weren’t so bent on accusing others so readily of bad behavior.
I only wish to reiterate that I take full responsibility for anything and everything I’ve said, and will not try to excuse it by blaming high emotion or the provocation of others.
Thanks, Selah; I appreciate this, I do, and I’ll take you at your word here (note that I posted my response to your last post before I read this). And I appreciate the civil exchange. I know we all cross the line sometimes, and that our words can so easily be used in a way we didn’t intend.
I just noticed that I had at least one typo in my last post, and some weird formatting. Sorry.
Lordy. I’m trying a new technique: read every 4th comment.
Laura, this is really interesting:
I’ve seen photos like that before, though not all collected in one place, which adds a new layer of hilarity. I have 2 reactions:
1. Smile at how dated it looks
2. Wonder if the authors are really that delusional
Robin talks about overpersonalization in the genre, and I agree on a lot of levels. But those photos are the first time I’ve connected that debate to my reaction to costumed author photos on book covers. I’ve never even considered reading a Danielle Steel book, because years ago I saw some crazy-glam photos that said to me “Her books are all about her self-image.” (OK, I also thought “Joan Collins II”. That was off-putting too.)
I have the same dislike of a lot of chick lit marketing—sell an image, not a great book. I can relate to the chick lit and Shomi images a lot better than Steel or Regency costumes, but I still *squick!* a little because of the focus on fashion over content. I think Laura’s right, for many people the old-school costumery evokes those stereotypes in a bad, bad way. But maybe the readers L&M are aiming at aren’t aware of those stereotypes.
Bear in mind, I was just ranting on DearAuthor about being fed up with hype of all sorts. So I’m a grinch. The hype and image marketing must work for many readers, or it wouldn’t be done.
If any of the three authors involved in this discussion feel my remarks and comments about costumes were a personal slam them, I want to profoundly and sincerely apologize. That was never my intention.
I should add: I do get “Don’t judge a book by its cover”. I realize the authors in those photos aren’t crazy. For all I know, Danielle Steel may be a fantastic writer—like I said, I’ve never tried a book. But what I described is the reaction I had when I first saw photos like that. Obviously, it stuck with me. And I believe it was meant to; it just backfired.
If any of the three authors involved in this discussion feel my remarks and comments about costumes were a personal slam them, I want to profoundly and sincerely apologize. That was never my intention.
Posted by Nora Roberts
Nora,
You were one of the few people from the start to recognize that these women might feel that way.
We might disagree on some things, but never the fact that you have class.
Oh lord!
Tom Elmer Huff Aka Jennifer Wilde.
Lives with his mother and is a “Noel Coward type”… You go guy!
Oh my. Good find, TeddyPig. I’d skipped the text, but it’s as interesting as the photos. Laura, you found a real historical gem.
I didn’t realize the brutality went out of style that early (this article was in 1981; Sweet Savage Loge was published in 1974).
And Tom Huff says
Lots of interesting tidbits on the first RWA National, too. The more things change, the more….
That first paragraph sets the tone, doesn’t it:
I kinda wished I’d never clicked on those links. Bullying is brought up several times. I’m horribly sorry and not a little sick at the idea that speaking my mind, expressing my opinion that I dislike—strongly dislike—costumes at a particular event, and how I feel that reflects on the genre could be construed as bullying.
And God, where did I say this damaged the genre irreputably or forever?
But anyway, that doesn’t matter. If the sense is that by commenting I’m a bully that’s just far more power than I want to hold. And makes me think I need to step back altogether. And perhaps think carefully about speaking about the genre itself, rather than just my own work.
Seriously, this isn’t a position I want to hold. I’ve enjoyed commenting on a variety of topics on this site as it felt as if everyone’s opinion was weighed pretty much equally—agree or disagree.
I’d honestly rather see a ballroom full of swanhats than be considered a bully because I have a personal objection to costumes at particular functions.
While I don’t like it suggested that any authors should ‘shut up and write’, and that’s fantastically insulting, if having and speaking an opinion is taken in this way, maybe it’s best for some of us to just keep it off blog.
While I don’t like it suggested that any authors should ‘shut up and write’, and that’s fantastically insulting, if having and speaking an opinion is taken in this way, maybe it’s best for some of us to just keep it off blog.
You gotta do what you gotta do. And yeah, the reality is that when people see you as powerful you can become a target for whatever reason or, conversely, a source of authority. And god knows I disagree with your opinions at least 50% of the time. But it will be a cold day in hell when I find the logic of “I’m going to be mean because you are,” coherent or persuasive at any level. I’d like to think this community’s strength and value is measured by the way it handles difference and disagreement—ideally in engaged, honest, sometimes passionately raucous debate and not in mocking others for shits and giggles. By doing our best to set an example of the kind of discourse we want to see, and failing, necessarily, and sometimes painfully, as we fumble toward greater understanding of each other, only to try again until we finally, eventually, get it right.
And God, where did I say this damaged the genre irreputably or forever?
You didn’t but because Cindy Cruciger likes to hold herself up as the moral arbiter of blogland and, of course, has issues with anyone who doesn’t find her witty in the extreme, she resorts to hyperbole to create points where none exist. To her, agree or be a bully. As my dear husband Ned says, “that doesn’t even make sense.”
I think if Cindy Cruciger and her crew become our moral barometers, we might as all just pack up and go. The fact is they delight it creating some arbitrary moral high ground whilst wading in shit deeper than is slung anywhere else. They assign labels to actions in order to make themselves feel superior but they can’t back it up with anything but hyberbole.
And, of course, for the record, I disagree with your statements regarding professionalism but agree with your right to say what you want and to do so without being characterized as a bully.
In essence, Cindy Cruciger (an author) and her crew (also authors such as Selah March and Eva Gale), are trying to make the argument that if you don’t have anything nice, you are a bitch and a bully. In order to show us the wrongness of our ways, she posts our pictures to make mock and then attempts to explain away her perjorative actions by saying that we asked for it.
I choose not to address it before nor respond to it because it is so beyond the pale that it speaks for itself. Cruciger and crew’s actions are indefensible and therefore need no response. I suggest we give them none.