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.
But to answer Nora’s question – No. I don’t think we can be JUST intelligent, attractive and interesting. I don’t think we can JUST write great books – not for people starting out, trying to make a name for themselves or promoting a new line of books.
Stephanie, I absolutely agree that writers are being pushed to do whatever they have to do to get attention in order to sell more books. There is a lot of pressure on writers to market, market, market, and sometimes desperation breeds crazy. That said, however, I disagree that a writer can’t be intelligent, professional and write good books and still get ahead, as long as they’re willing to wait. Some writers hit it big on the first book, but most don’t. If you’re patient and willing to build your following slowly, I believe good, professional writers will rise to the top. Maybe I have to believe that because otherwise I’d be checking out the classifieds right now, but I do believe it. I think there’s a misperception that writers have to be outrageous to get noticed. I think the best thing you can do to get noticed is consistently put out quality work, and the kind of notice you then receive will be the kind of notice you want.
I am so sending that photo to the Dallas Morning News, Rich.
I’d expect nothing less, Cory. Smooch.
Ahhhh, Ok,
I get it! (Damn that swan is BIG!)
I think part of the problem (granted, I’m looking at this from the outside) is that writing is a creative art….and you are in the profession of creating fantasy. Even in reality, it’s a fantasy.
So I can see how costumes/boas/hats would flow from the books to the authors….sorta, kinda, yaknowaddamean.
I work in a very ‘stick up the butt’ medical profession and our meetings are borefests. You either see powersuits or birkensocks/crinkle skirts. So, no, no costumes would be appropriate.
Needed? Hell yeah, but you’re dealing with women who argue about mg of sodium in a bag of potato chips for fun. A costume to them would be blue birkenstocks.
Maybe if RWA held a party where costumes were encouraged, that might do it. However, how folks dress, especially in creative arts is often, well, hard to tell if its a costume or their usual dress.
Then you do find yourself with your foot in your mouth—- “Nice costume!” “It’s not a costume.”
Lani, if you wore that Daisy, I wouldn’t say a word.
Kate R., it’s normal to be conservative about protecting kids.
Reviewers at RWA? OMG, the world is ending!!!
If RWA intended the conference to be all business, all the time. . .well, I tend to think there would be a significant drop in attendance. How exactly would one determine who should be at such a conference, anyway? Would unpublished writers be allowed? Because if not, agent and editor appointments would be fairly pointless. And what criteria would you have to meet to be considered “a writer?” Because frankly, you Smart Bitches have done a damn site more writing than I have this year. It just doesn’t happen to be fiction.
On costumes, I guess that I come from a pretty uptight industry in my day job because I would never have dreamed of wearing those outfits to an event at which I was appearing in a professional capacity. To one of the parties? Definitely – and now I really need those pink thigh highs, btw. However, if someone had to do a costume (and someone ALWAYS has to do a costume), I’d rather it be something hip and young than uber-goth madness. Paranormal authors who dress like their creations are a special pet peeve of mine. It makes the rest of us look like role playing weirdos.
Guess the con mention in P.R. gave me away, huh?
No, no and don’t worry about it shaunee…I imagine there’s very few people who’d know what you were talking about, including me if I didn’t happen to work in close proximity with people who run the local chapter of the group in question.
aargh!! I wrote a long post and my computer ate it! Okay, to summarize, since I should be packing, anyway:
Disclaimer: I’m the one with the blue hair, so maybe I am less than objective. I had readers write to let me know they were driving ridiculously long distances to see me at the Literacy Signing and I wanted to do something fun and creative to celebrate that and say thank you and I got a few blue streaks in my hair, in honor of one of my characters. Does that make me less professional? Less focused on quality work? Hardly.
I worry that we are so afraid of the marginalizing influence and denigration of mainstream media and the literary fiction establishment that we’re afraid to be creative in our business. I’ve seen mystery authors, sci fi and fantasy authors, and of course childrens’ book authors, dress up in character. I’ve been on TV with Sandra Boynton who carries a giant stuffed chicken with her wherever she goes. Sure, her demographic is children, who appreciate giant stuffed chickens, but good for her!
Liz and Marianne wanted to engage readers and booksellers in conversations about the edgy new line they’re launching. Certainly they’ve achieved that goal – beyond their wildest dreams, I’d guess, now.
We’re artists. We’re allowed to have a little creative fun.
If I had a body like Liz and Marianne, forget the short skirts, I’ll show up in a bikini to promote my Shomi book.
I think they looked cute. And they certainly got people talking about the new line! Mission accomplished. 😉
For every perky little author who dresses like a pedophile-luring schoolgirl or wears a swan hat or shows her rack or whatever in the vague hope of becoming a bestselling author that way, there are a hundred who a)don’t wear costumes, b)are fat, middle-aged and flat-chested c) don’t even go to conferences, in costume or not, and d)are hugely successful. So, like everything else in the world of extravagant self-promotion, the message continues to be: the best self-promo is sitting yo’ ass at home and writing another good book.
An enormous swan worn on the head at a romance conference where such things aren’t the norm is done for no other reason than to garner attention.
If Kenyon wore that hat all around National, I’d totally agree with you, since that would clearly be about garnering personal attention and nothing else. But it’s my understanding she wears it as part of a “signing outfit” and that it relates to one of her covers, so I’m still not seeing the big distinction between her and the self-styled Rebels.
Gail K. drew the distinction as old school v. new school, and as a member of the new school (chronologically, at least), that comment really seems on target to me, because my first reaction to M&M was along the lines of Candy’s response. Then I started to think more about it, and the ground shifted.
Also, as counterintuitive as it sounds, the idea of an author simply garnering attention actually feels less objectionable to me than an author using something I think we need to jettison in Romance—the overpersonalization of the author—to market the genre. Like “Dear Reader” letters, dressing up as one’s characters feels like the genre is using certain stereotypes about women (and the nature of fantasy) to market the genre to us, and it squicks me out. The calculated business model of M&M’s outfits actually works against my desire to embrace it, especially since it doesn’t seem all that new as a strategy.
Alesia made a comment about being so tight about “professional standards” that we end up squelching creativity, and I think she has a really good point. And it brought even more into focus what I think is basically the interesting comparison between Kenyon and M&M—in M&M’s case they have admitted that they are engaged in a calculated branding effort. Is it creative? Not in the same sense of writing (at least as I like to see it). It may be creative marketing, but it’s less about paying homage to the genre or one’s characters and more about moving books. And in that, maybe Kenyon is the more authentic in her expression, even if I think the overall dynamic is the same—that is, to create an overt and IMO overpersonalized association between author and book. And yes, I know the same thing happens in sci fi, but as someone pointed out, the culture is quite different, and it’s largely the fans who are dressing like that, isn’t it?
The thing about marketing is sometimes it wins and sometimes it backfires. The whole “rebels of the romanceworld” is a big backfire to me because I view it as insulting to other romance writers. Completely different issue than the costumes. But to some it might make them pick up the book. But in the end I would rather read a good story than a mediocre story with a gimmick.
” But the thing is, we’re an easy target for most mainstream media outlets because they either don’t read us or don’t want to admit it, and they go into stuff like this keeping an eye out for the big swan head.”
This is what a friend of mine refers to as “the naked guy at the Pride parade.” There will always be one naked guy at the Gay Pride parade. The reporters will *always* interview and photograph (discreetly) that guy. And all the gay people pushing strollers, or doing drill-team routines in their business suits, or flaunting their respectable professional status, will be mentioned, if at all, as a sidebar. Because the frame for that story is “weird people”, not “normal people having fun”. And until the frame changes, it really doesn’t matter what you do.
Just wanted to mention that I personally loved the swan hat. It seemed to me a communication between author and readers. A kind of in-joke for her audience. Lots of authors cultivate reader groups with themes. Off the top of my head I can also think of Jenny Crusie’s Cherries. So to me, the swan hat was a kind of homage to her readers. It was fun, it got people’s attention, and I’m sure her readers loved it. I say: Oh, baby, rock on! But that’s just me.
As for calculated marketing effort thigh highs versus swan hat authenticity. Well, *shrug*. It seems irrelevant to me.
New button for next year: I HONK FOR SWAN HATS
🙂
Liz
I guess I wonder whether we are seeking validation/approval/acceptance from people who will never give it, swan hat or no. There is so much else about the genre that plays to the idea that it is frivolous and worthless and very little of it has to do with the swan hat.
I think this is a very good point, even though I do think that some of these images of Romance, as they filter outside of the community, do help maintain a certain taint to the genre. Even more, though, the associative marketing reminds me of those letters Karen Templeton was talking about that Harlequin authors were expected to write and that were supposed to make a personal connection between the author and the book. Which, of course, has nothing to do with mainstream acceptance of Romance, but instead with how the genre is marketed to its own audience. And I think there’s a subtext in the genre that readers connect to the books because we project ourselves into the fantasy world of the novels, feeding that stereotype of the genre as emotional femme porn. OTOH, I think it’s fabulous that M&M are trying to reach a younger readership—IMO, the more diverse the readership, the better for the genre. And if younger readers associate that costuming as positive, then mission accomplished, I guess. But if a whole new crop of historical authors came dressed in period wear, don’t you think the reaction would be different? (and FWIW, I don’t like the suggestive author photos, either, and I know they’re done in other genres, as well).
Pardon me while I think out loud for awhile…
Like “Dear Reader†letters, dressing up as one’s characters feels like the genre is using certain stereotypes about women (and the nature of fantasy) to market the genre to us, and it squicks me out.
Robin, this articulated better than I ever could another part of the costuming that makes me uncomfortable. This is similar to me to how I’ve heard there are romance-genre conventions where drinks (or whatever) are catered to the crowd of mostly women by bare-chested men. This is obviously what some women want and like, but for myself that’d be a big, fat NO.
I don’t like the concept of mostly nude men catering to me any more than I like the concept of mostly nude women catering to my husband (a la stripjoints, of which my neck of the woods reportedly has the most per square capita in the nation). There’s too much of an element of usury to it for my comfort, even if the people doing it volunteered for the job (and even like it). I realize it’s not the same thing – dressing in a costume to sell something and undressing in a costume to sell something – but there’s something in there that feels the same, and that something isn’t in my comfort zone.
It’s also very possible this is nothing more than the fact that I don’t like the assumption that I’m supposed to fit a stereotype just because I read books in this genre and therefore this or that tactic should appeal to me. Yes, that’s undoubtedly *quite* possible since I can’t help feeling insulted when even thinking that’s a possibility.
>>For every perky little author who dresses like a pedophile-luring schoolgirl<<
This is flatly offensive. Also the premise of your post is unsupported – writing good books is not a bar to being an effective marketer, as Liz’s starred review in PW attests.
Except that, to change said frame, you need more people visibly being normal (whatever normal is defined to be) than people being weird or outrageous.
Personally, and while I get the whole “professional doesn’t equal staid/stodgy/stiffling” bit, I still think that professional behavior and dress are better in the long run than any other kind—both for individual authors and for the entire industry at large.
(and to think that my spam foiler is “forward22”!)
Mancusi and Maverick’s short skirts and cool socks don’t look like costumes.
One doesn’t look like a costume. Two standing together is clearly a costume. They said as much themselves. They chose their clothes to be costumes, to create an image, to market their books.
I’m not saying it’s an outrageous getup. But to me this is too general a standard:
Maybe it’s the ‘would you go to the mall in this outfit’ test.
What I’d wear to the mall is not what I’d wear to a conference. Is it what I’d wear for a press event? That depends.
The book signing sounds like it’s all about author exposure—to fans and to the press. So again, mallwear isn’t appropriate—but what is appropriate depends on the image you’re after. Exposure to fans is about presenting yourself to people who already love the genre. Exposure to the press is about a broader audience.
why must JR Ward always wear the rock star sunglasses?
I think Sarah Frantz posted that Ward is severely photosensitive—camera flashes, etc, can put her out of commission.
This is similar to me to how I’ve heard there are romance-genre conventions where drinks (or whatever) are catered to the crowd of mostly women by bare-chested men.
Yes, exactly. And since I already feel like the factory farming model of Romance publishing privileges things like marketing over writing and editing, the synergistic effect of that type of marketing is doubly frustrating to me. How much of an author’s work is directed at writing and how much at marketing these days? And when the marketing is—to me, anyway—same old same old (despite the updating packaging), it doesn’t help. Of course I’m the dork who would buy a book marketed with the strategy of “this book has no cover because we spent all our marketing budget on editing,” so I’m not immune to marketing by any stretch of the imagination. I’m not that naive, just better manipulated with a different approach. I wish Romance publishers at least *pretended* to respect me and my money, even if they don’t. 😉
Robin, this articulated better than I ever could another part of the costuming that makes me uncomfortable. This is similar to me to how I’ve heard there are romance-genre conventions where drinks (or whatever) are catered to the crowd of mostly women by bare-chested men. This is obviously what some women want and like, but for myself that’d be a big, fat NO.
I don’t like the concept of mostly nude men catering to me any more than I like the concept of mostly nude women catering to my husband (a la stripjoints, of which my neck of the woods reportedly has the most per square capita in the nation). There’s too much of an element of usury to it for my comfort, even if the people doing it volunteered for the job (and even like it). I realize it’s not the same thing – dressing in a costume to sell something and undressing in a costume to sell something – but there’s something in there that feels the same, and that something isn’t in my comfort zone.
Usury? How did we jump from manga styled costumes to nude male chests? Cosplay is very accepted within the anime industry. The covers of the Shomi books are intentionally manga like to attract a broader and possibly newer, younger audience. The Shomi costumes are not at all akin bringing a bus filled with male cover models or selling a calendar filled with bare chested men.
It’s this industries slavish devotion to the male chest that is more responsible for it being labeled porn more than anything. Authors dressed up in short skirts and ponytails are nothing compared to the imagery that is innudating the public on an hourly basis at the grocery store and the bookstore.
These women aren’t selling themselves. They are selling an idea. A concept. A package. It was done for the public signing to attract readers to their table, to stand out in the masses. At least they were there and personable instead of signing their books and leaving or looking like they didn’t want to be there and turning away readers.
I think Nora’s observation on professional attire is right in line with the other question brought up of “Is this RWA convention for writers or readers?”
If it is for Romance writers and industry insiders and the dissemination of career building information and services then why even have free books and the whole book signing thing (for readers)or these costumes and advertising etc etc etc?
Except maybe in the context of showing writers the advertising power and ideas a publisher will provide for their books.
If it is a professional environment meant to serve the purpose of focusing on only Romance writers, their careers and the marketing of their next books and talking with their editors and meeting publishers and agents.
Then is catering to readers and wearing costumes and just doing the whole promotion thing off focus?
I think that is an interesting question.
From what I have heard so far it sounds like the convention is very similar to RT which supposedly is for promotion to Romance readers.
Wednesday is the literacy signing and it is open to the public. This is where the costumes where worn by three authors of the 450 that were there.
Thursday through Saturday, this convention is for workshops, networking and author to author publicity. The only thing that a reader would benefit from is authorial socialization which would merely be by happenstance or individually preplanned meetings.
It is a writer’s workshop and business place. I went with the purpose of providing myself and the readers of DA insight on the industry’s convention. If I made it seem like RT, I am sorry because I think RT with its cover models and costume balls is part of what is wrong with our image and I don’t see RWA’s National Convention doing that.
I might buy your book if you conduct yourself at all times in a business-conservative manner, but I’m not standing in line for an hour to meet you any more than I’d do the same just to say “hi, love your work” to an IRS agent.
But that’s just me. The divide between the “lighten up, it was fun” crowd and the “they’re inflicting irreparable damage to the image of the genre” crowd is never going to be bridged here or anywhere else.
Lots of authors cultivate reader groups with themes. Off the top of my head I can also think of Jenny Crusie’s Cherries. So to me, the swan hat was a kind of homage to her readers.
Somehow I can’t see JC showing up at the literacy signing (let alone just wandering around the conference) with a giant cherry on her head.
I write historicals and am a costume historian. I certainly own the right clothing to show up dressed as one of my heroines, but the idea of doing so at the RWA convention just seems out of step with my purpose for being there (it’s a professional conference, not a reader con like RT where costumes would totally make sense).
Perhaps my distaste for it all comes from growing up in the sci/fi/fantasy world where my parents’ friends were frequently squicked out by having fans show up dressed as their characters? I don’t know. The costumes just struck me as “off†somehow. They certainly didn’t inspire me to want to read any of the books associated with them.
If it is for Romance writers and industry insiders… then why even have free books and the whole book signing thing (for readers)or these costumes and advertising etc etc etc?
That’s why I made the distinction between the booksigning being for readers or for the press. “Insiders” (including fans of the genre) will see costumes, stunts, and in jokes differently than the press and the general public.
Sounds like the swanmonstrosity is an in joke to Kenyon’s readers and the manga chic is more focused on the press? (I’m guessing as it doesn’t seem likely a branding like “Rebels of Romance” would be a hit with an internal audience—witness the offended responses in the comments here.)
Either way, though antagonistically expressed, I think Deb Smith hit on the core of the issue: this whole debate is about attention-getting in its various guises.
“Except that, to change said frame, you need more people visibly being normal (whatever normal is defined to be) than people being weird or outrageous.”
Alas, no. Otherwise, the picture of the *one* (of three total) costumed person at the convention wouldn’t have been the teaser for the article.
When people go to RWA National with the attitude of “look at the weird women” (which has happened in many forms over the years) there’s always going to be somebody who can be used to illustrate and uphold the stereotype.
“This is perhaps an indicator of how clueless I am when it comes to fashion, but I’d totally wear a similar get-up to Mancusi/Maverick to lunch with an agent. Not what I’d wear to a wedding or a super-formal occasion, or even to work at a conservative company (like I do now), but very similar to I’d wear to something like an editor’s meeting. *shrug*”
I think this kind of sums up the “anti-costume” point: why do you treat a business meeting with your editor (where a Shomi outfit is OK) differently from the company where you work now (where the outfit is not OK)? Aren’t they both professional business meetings? That seems to me what people are getting at: that the Romance industry is a professional business, the convention is essentially a professional business meeting, and the authors should treat it as such – by behaving and dressing like professionals.
Now the question is: is the convention truly equivalent to a professional business meeting? I don’t know – I’m still making up my mind – but it seems that many people view it as such, others don’t, and that’s the rub.
I wonder if any of the people commenting about Liz and Marianne’s outfits have read their work. I have. Wired is a fresh, original, amazing piece of work, and I’m not the only one who thinks so:
Starred Review. If Maverick’s fast-paced, genre-bounding novel is any indication, Dorchester’s new imprint, Shomi—which aims to hook a younger generation of readers—should catch an audience quickly. Maverick grabs readers from page one, throwing together romance, science fiction and cyberpunk. (From PW)
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’d kill to have a review like that.
A book like Wired deserves a strong sell through, the author deserves to be picked up again, but we all know that doesn’t happen if there’s no buzz about the book or the author. (Sorry Marianne, haven’t read your book yet.)
No disrespect meant to Jennie Cruisie and Nora Roberts, but they have publishers willing to extensive marketing behind their books. Newcomers like Marianne and Liz have to generate buzz themselves. (And let’s be honest, a bunch of bookmarks and a website won’t do it.)
Would any of you be talking about these writers or their books if they hadn’t dressed up? They are creating a brand that works effectively with their covers and the material they are writing—fresh, edgy, futuristic, and anime-influenced. An image, I might point out, that has gotten them interviewed by PW, picked up by mediabistro, Borders electronic newsletter, and highlighted at BEA.
(And tarty? Please, there’s more cleavage in most of the Rita gowns or in the bustiers sported by erotica authors—and I don’t hear anyone dissing them.)
I’ve run the green room at BEA (where authors come through before signing) for over five years. There are quite a number of bestselling authors who wear what might be considered costumes to promote their brands—Tom Wolfe in his over-sized white suit, Neil Gaiman in black and leather and with a haircut like his Sandman character, RL Stine who always wears black, Iris Johansen whose entourage carries big vases of irises for her wherever she goes. Fans LOVE this.
Liz with her MBA in marketing and Marianne with her Emmy award, are two very smart, talented women. With their Rebels of Romance campaign they are reaching out to a new generation of romance readers. Young readers who are embarrassed to be seen with a book with half-naked men and women on it. (And that’s not a dis of those kinds of covers, just a fact.) YA fans are the next generation of adult romance readers. If Liz and Marianne succeed in drawing them in and showing them that romance can be smart, funny, and empowering (and not “trash” as it’s often labeled)then, like the rest of us, aren’t going to care about the pink/cartoon/naked people covers publishers put on the books. They are going to care about the writing. And all of us, fans and writers alike, profit.
The covers of the Shomi books are intentionally manga like to attract a broader and possibly newer, younger audience. The Shomi costumes are not at all akin bringing a bus filled with male cover models or selling a calendar filled with bare chested men.
I think it depends on whether you’re looking at the particulars of this image and concept or the way the genre more generally uses certain images and concepts to sell itself to readers. At a certain distance, it’s all the same to me, Jane, even though I understand how people are drawing the distinctions. Like I said, my first reaction to the photo was positive, and I still have no negative reaction to the *content* of the outfits. I think I understand Kenyon’s swan hat, too. It’s at the big picture level where the distinctions between M&M and Brenda Novak dressed in a toga and judging similarly clad (or unclad) cover models on Mr. Romance break down for me.
Hmmm…who said the Rebels of Romance were anti-romance? We’re anti-stereotype and that should be a good thing. Again, check out the http://www.rebelsofromance.com website to ease your mind. We’re pro-romance genre and we’re not afraid to go out to the press and the public and say it.
🙂
Liz (who really should be WRITING, LOL!)
Well, I think I’d ask why anyone cares if reviewers or bloggers attend RWA. I mean, at a conference as big as Nationals, you’re dealing with thousands of people milling around (same with RT, etc) so, and it might just be me, but I spend more time thinking about my own interactions with people than who someone down the hall might be and if they’re acceptable or not. My assumption is, if people want to spend the money and time to go to Nationals, more power to em and all that.
Secondly, I’m just sort of stupefied by the tinge of nastiness in some of the reactions to costumes at signings. It’s a signing, some people tend to view it as a fun, promotional event. It is promotion. It’s not a pitch meeting, it’s marketing. I tend to like comfortable clothes at a signing but I am loving how Liz Maverick and Marianne Mancusi are taking the idea behind Shomi and making it fun and accessible. The anime/manga type covers is related to what they did and the “pedophile luring” comment made me very uncomfortable.
Dressing appropriately is something you do as a professional. If I’m at a dinner party at a conference, I’m going to dress for one. If I’m meeting an editor or an agent for the first time, I’m going to dress appropriately. If I’m sitting on a panel, etc. But a signing, a book release party, etc – these are things where appropriateness has wider boundaries. If people want to have a little fun and dress up, why should that bother anyone else?
I guess the bottom line is, I don’t get why everyone seems to be so obsessed with what everyone else does at these large public events.
Lani: Holy crapperdammer, that photo made me laugh.
Gail: The old school vs. new school tension between the manga costumes and the grand-diva Black Swan Sherrilyn Kenyon hat. I don’t like the distinction I’m hearing in these comments that one is acceptable and that one is not. If we’re going to embrance feminine power via marketing, let’s embrace it in all ways.
Whoa, slow down, there. The whole point of this thing isn’t new school vs. old school. I’m talking swinging to extremes. The swan hat was extreme. If Mancusi/Maverick HAD gone in full anime-style drag instead of their toned-down get-up, which conformed pretty closely to what I view as streetwear, I’d be going “AIEEEEE.” What Maverick/Mancusi did ain’t even CLOSE to what many the get-ups you can see at SF/F and anime cons.
I still stick by what I said: some of these costumes work. Some of them kind of backfire. All of them garner attention. The Mancusi/Maverick schtick made me pay attention to the Shomi line and I’m going to check ‘em out and see if they pass my 15-page test the next time I get to a bookstore. The Kenyon Swan O’ Death? Eh. If I really liked her books, it wouldn’t deter me from getting more, but as a new-to-me author, I don’t feel especially interested in looking her up. But you know what? That hat indicates a sense of humor, and I really, really appreciate that, because damn, the romance community could use a good shot of that a lot of the time.
Much as I am impressed by Maverick and Mancusi, I am uncomfortable with how they have set themselves up as “The Rebels of Romance.†Um, what does that say about most of the other ladies who write romance? Boring, old, fat housewives.
That’s setting up another false dichotomy, don’t you think? (The old school vs. new school is also falsely polarizing, in my opinion.) There’s plenty of middle ground between “rebel” and “fat hausfraus with a serious bonbon habit.”
And let’s face it: what they’re doing, in terms of crossover, theme, etc. IS pretty different from mainstream romance. They may be overstating the countercultural rebel thing, I’ll give you that, but what they’re doing with the books really does seem to be something new(ish) in the genre, and focused more on young and edgy—for certain values of “young” and “edgy,” anyway.
Kate: I finally figured out what squicks me about the clothes. Women dressing like sexy little girls gives me the willies—even though it’s all the rage in Japan.
A large part of my befuddlement over this is driven by the fact that Maverick/Mancusi are wearing what *I* would wear, and what I see a lot of people my age wearing. (It ain’t a Portland thing, I think. I mean, Portland prides itself in being colorful and weird, what with the Zoobombing and March Fourth and the Plunderathon and the Zombiewalk and the Naked Bike Ride and the Public Pillowfighting, but we ain’t that special, and many other cities have similar scenes going on.) I don’t think my friends and I are trying to dress like sexy little girls; I don’t think Mancusi/Maverick were, either. Since when were short skirts, shiny tops and thigh-high stockings primarily little-girl wear? Whuh?
Robin: Also, as counterintuitive as it sounds, the idea of an author simply garnering attention actually feels less objectionable to me than an author using something I think we need to jettison in Romance—the overpersonalization of the author—to market the genre. Like “Dear Reader†letters, dressing up as one’s characters feels like the genre is using certain stereotypes about women (and the nature of fantasy) to market the genre to us, and it squicks me out. The calculated business model of M&M’s outfits actually works against my desire to embrace it, especially since it doesn’t seem all that new as a strategy.
Hmmm. Now THAT’s something for me to chew over. I think this is one of the first arguments I’ve seen that have made me feel more ambivalent about the whole costuming thing, because the overpersonalization creeps me the hell out, too. I’ll have to think about this more before I can come up with anything coherent.
Michelle: The whole “rebels of the romanceworld†is a big backfire to me because I view it as insulting to other romance writers.
How is it insulting to other romance writers? I’m not sure I get it. They’re positioning themselves as doing something different and fun; this does not automatically imply that everybody else is boring.
But professional for writers seems to mean something else to me than professional for a lawyer, doctor, etc. These people are creative right? Maybe even artists? I guess my expectations are that creative types get to where costumes and big ass swan hats on their head because that is what I expect from creative types.
I don’t see it as a bad thing. I should be working but I think I need to print out the comments and really distill the pro/cons because I do respect the opinions of people who are arguing against as much as I respect my own opinion and I want to evaluate it fully.
And to Liv’s question about why you’d wear something to a business meeting in one profession but not another – that’s about the cultural norms of professions.
When I worked at a large law firm, the cultural norms were not the same as the ones when I worked at a non-profit. Both were unquestionably professional jobs – they just had different expectations.
The first time I met my agent, I dressed up but now that I know her and she knows me, I dress more casually. If she and I were to meet with an editor for the first time, I’d dress up. It’s about gauging your audience and understanding the norms for that particular situation. Professional means different things in different professions and even at different meetings within those professions.
The way I portray myself as an author may not be the same way that other authors portray themselves. I get that—I understand it—I embrace it. No, I won’t wear a swan hat. No, I won’t do knee-high boots and short skirts (outgrew that phaze about ten years ago) but then again, no, I probably won’t do the business suit thing either. It’s very easy for any of us to sit back and criticize the route one of our peers has taken. The fact of the matter is that in American society in particular, the lines between ‘professional’ attire and ‘casual’ attire is now blurred. If e were talking about someone who showed up smelly, with gnat-infested hair and drunk off their gourd THEN it might be an issue. *shrug* but then again, I worked in a gay bar for years. Being the only little princess in a room full of queens immunizes you against excesses of dress. NOTHING surprises me any more, and after zipping up the gown of a seven-foot-tall man, a swan hat or anime-inspired clothing isn’t likely to even register on my radar.
jonquil, I totally see what you means, hence the key words would be “visibly normal”—again, however you define normal.
As a reader who has never attended a con of any kind, I’m talking completely out of my ass here (how’s that for a disclaimer?), but…
Seems to me that Jane is hitting the nail in the head: there are parts of RWA National that are geared towards readers/fans/general public, and parts that are exclusively for industry professionals—be these reviewers, agents, writers (both published and not yet), etc.
Color me extra conservative (which would be funny, actually), but I keep feeling that if the romance publishing industry, as a whole, wants to break the “soft porn”, “porn for women”, “trash” stereotype, then individuals should perhaps make an effort to fit how they present themselves to this overall goal. I.e., dress and behave in a professional manner.
Now, some people are naturally more casual in their professional lives—jeans and a nice shirt wouldn’t make me look twice. Costumes would—let alone the oft mentioned swanhat.
Of course, my only interest here is as a reader who keeps hearing (from my intellectually snobbish family, friends, coworkers, neighbors, heck, strangers at the bookstore!!) that romance novels are, by definition and with no exception, trash. I’m tired of that, and long for some public respect for a genre I love love LOVE—as well as some peace and quiet from well meaning souls bent on rescuing me from my “poor” reading choices.
[the SB’s spamfoiler is scary today! “personal43”—yup, this is my personal opinion, nothing more]
I agree that professional means different things in different contexts – which is why I really do think the real question is “what is the point/expectation of the conference” rather than just “is it OK to wear costumes.”
I honestly don’t know – but I can see the point that the conference is more like the first meeting with an editor is some ways. The romance industry is one that is already maligned, dismissed, and condescended to – so I can see the argument that a conference is one place to highlight the professionalism of the industry – that romance authors are real business people deserving of recognition and respect.
On the other hand – I can see the argument that the conference is a time for people to get together and have fun. Like I said – I honestly don’t know where I fall on this yet.
Jenny Crusie with a giant cherry on her head? Um…I’m thinking ‘no.’ The cherries actually named themselves, though, and Jenny was nice enough to go along with something that mainly started as a dirty joke related to a cover that was changed from apples to cherries. So far, though, we haven’t ventured much beyond t-shirts.
I totally understand the wanting to dress up similar to characters. When I finaled in the Golden Heart a few years back, I made sure to wear a black leather jacket (a classy one) in honor of the main character. Plus, I also happen to love black leather jackets. So I’m not particularly bothered by the idea.
The questions raised in this discussion are interesting, mainly: How much marketing is too much? Is there pressure from publishers to do this?
But, I’m sorry, the giant swan hat? SK seems a very nice person with a great sense of humor but if, say, Lani wanted to wear it, I’d snicker at her too and when I stopped laughing, I would, of course, say “Baby, no.”
Because it’s a Giant Swan Hat!
Because “professional” differs by context. At my current job in Silicon Valley, a business suit would be unprofessional and in fact might get me dinged at a job interview. In Charlotte, NC, where I used to live in the 90s, a red mid-thigh suit with gold embroidery on the lapels was routine business dress in the downtown financial district. (I have no idea what’s routine now.) When I lived in New England, a subdued business suit was de rigueur for interviews.
There honestly isn’t one “professional”. If I worked for an investment bank (I once did, and I’ll tell you that was a trip), I wouldn’t consider my daytime “professional” gear to be “professional” when talking to my agent.
What’s “edgy” for the East Coast is routine in Northern California; what’s “edgy” for Northern California would probably make everybody else faint.
I’m just a lurker and reader, jumping in to the conversation but…….. 3 out of 450? Four thigh-highs and a swan hat don’t equal the end of whatever leap toward respectability romance has made.
As for all the talk about how demeaning costumes are, either petition your organization to ban them, or let individual authors decide what is right for them.
“I don’t like the concept of mostly nude men catering to me any more than I
like the concept of mostly nude women catering to my husband (a la
stripjoints, of which my neck of the woods reportedly has the most per
square capita in the nation).”
I fully disagree here. If “mostly nude men” wish to cater to me at an RWA event I will not only join I will become their greatest supporter EVA!
I am sorry but I am weak and easily swayed to sell my integrity for cheap thrills.
Ms. Maverick,
I am really excited to buy read your new release, Wired, the more I hear about it. As a fan of SFF, anime, AND romance, it seems tailored made for me and “my” crowd. Yours and Ms. Mancusi’s Rebel of Romance campaign is exactly the kind of shock paddle I think this genre needs. And I’m *all* for drawing in the younguns.
However, from your branding, I still get an pervasive, uncomfortable sense of “we’re cool and the rest of ‘em are not,” be they other romance writers or readers. Sorta like the message is: Buy our books. You won’t be ashamed to read *these* in public.
I guess it the inner nerd in me still getting oddly drawn to yet intensely irritated by the cool chicks at the “other” lunch table, LOL.
Like I said before, I got mixed feelings about this issue. Fascinating discussion though. This genre needs more of this type of dialogue between authors, reviewers, AND readers.