Kelly Faircloth and the History of Harlequin, and Other Excellent Links

I think there are two types of journalism pieces about romance.

Type 1 is the one that makes many of us cranky. You know it well.

It’s framed in derision and condescension, and while it appears to be focusing on romance, it serves more to highlight the writer’s own conflict with the genre:

Example A: They didn’t realize it was so popular, LOL PORN is POPULAR!

Example B: Here is an article about those books – remember those? They’re all terrible and here are some people who say otherwise but really, you and I know better. Anyway, something business happened and that might be important but either way, you and I would never read them. 

Example C: HAHAHAH WIMMENZ and SEX and also bodice rippers and Fabio and… there, I demonstrated my deep penetrating knowledge of the genre, back to the Real Journalism!

Example D: Can you believe all these women reading about porn? They’re so stupid! The books are stupid, too! I’ve never read one but I KNOW. No, really, LOOK… at the COVERS.

Example E: Illustrated today, the attempt to write “like” a Harlequin romance, which mostly comes out as utterly and horrifically, squirm-uncomfortably terrible. (I can’t even pretend to do it because it makes me cringe so hard and today is not ab workout day.)

I can think of a few examples of each one without having finished my coffee. Sometimes they start out promising but descend into a uncoordinated flurry of outdated romance cliches, spluttering like the desperate guesses of someone with no clue in the last round of trivia bowl. Other times the entire angle reads like the writer is trying to soothe her own upset at having to write about “those books” by reassuring both herself and the readers of The Location Post Times of Whatever Publication that they are still above and superior to all “those women.”

To quote author Jenny Haddon and many others, Ahoy, there, Malvolio Syndrome: “You are lesser things. I am not of your element.”

Then there are The More Better kind of articles about the romance genre, in which the writer’s opinion or derision is nowhere to be found. These appear more infrequently, sometimes from a writer who is uninformed about the genre but is willing to let the facts and quotes in the article speak for themselves. You know – like, journalism without overt bias?

The most wonderful kind, and yes, I most certainly AM biased, comes from someone who owns her own bias (of course) in support of the genre as something they like (shocking), and also owns her critical thinking ability (grab a chaise, I might swoon here) and then turns the power of that focus on the genre for a few thousand words (I have swooned and can report that the floor is hard and also cold).

How Harlequin Became The Most Famous Name in Romance arrived on the lovely, lovely interwebs and is still making me happy.

Grab some deliciousness and pull up a chair, because you’re in for a delightful read if you haven’t found this already. It is a balm to sooth the long run of, “I’ve never read a romance and they’re all the same and also stupid and guess what Fabio” articles we’ve endured of late.

Kelly Faircloth’s long form take on the history of Harlequin is so freaking terrific, I can’t even tell you. There’s history, examination, location of events in a larger historical context, explanation of business success and failure – all with the goal of dispelling the idea that “all romances are Harlequins.”

More importantly, Faircloth carefully skewers the gaping flaws of the more crappier pieces of journalism about romance by pointing out the standard allegations of crap-itude so often tossed against it. She takes down not only the misinformation about the genre, and about Harlequin as a brand and a literary style, but also the shallow and fragile foundations of those who write about it with visible bias and condescension. (Then she did it again this morning, posting some execrable examples of reporters attempting to write Harlequin prose.)

Some examples in no particular order:

Despite the company’s frankly astounding financial history, generations of journalists have treated any related assignment as an excuse to do their best impression of its novels’ distinctive style. (Those impressions are generally abysmal.)

People who haven’t cracked a book open in years feel fully qualified to sneer at Harlequins.

There’s a persistent tendency to assume that romance fans read only on a single level. Either we’re housewives fluttering against the confinement of the patriarchy like moths at a kitchen window, or we’re deluded foot soldiers in the backlash to the feminist movement, or we’re dowds somehow simultaneously repressed and sex-crazed.

These books are surprisingly capable of bearing the weight of multiple meanings.

Harlequin was unashamed about going where its customers were—and its customers were women, often housewives. They knew they were selling to women, and they chased women’s dollars without embarrassment or apology.

And let’s face it, being associated with women is often the shortest route to being dismissed in the broader culture as fundamentally unserious.

Have mercy, every word was delicious. Well played, Ms. Faircloth. I’m honored to have been quoted and am so, so impressed with your badassery.

(I love that gif in particular because among the first to stand and applaud are women.)

…

Romantic Times in Dallas is next month, and I have two links to share. No, three!

First: RedHeadedGirl, Elyse, Amanda, Carrie and I will all be at RT, and we’re hosting with RT’s Regina Small a very fun hour on Friday, 15, May at 10am:  Outlander: Knitting, Trivia, Prizes and Snacks!

What do those four things have to do with one another, or with the hit TV show Outlander? Everything, when you come to this event hosted by the ladies behind Smart Bitches Trashy Books. Bring your knitting (or similar needlecraft — some of us will be cross stitching) and enjoy some low-key fun with discussion, trivial, giveaways, mayhem and snacks for all. We’re huge fans of the show, and we want to talk about it with you!

Giveaways include copies of Outlander by Diana Gabaldon and copies of Outlander, Season 1, Volume 1 (first 8 episodes) DVDs!

Yay, stichery, bitchery, Outlander, knitting, snacks, and giveaways!

Second: Kim asked me to pass along the information about the event she’s coordinating: the Military Tribute at RT is scheduled for Thursday night. It is a ticketed event, and you can register for your free ticket online. It’s free for conference attendees, but you need a ticket.

Third: I’m part of a panel on working with publishers, and you can read more about it at the RT site. They asked me to do a Q&A about the session, which is titled, Writers, Publishers and Reviewers: Real Talk, Real Answers, Really. For Really Reals.

And fourth – (sorry, I was wrong, there’s four things) – there is still space at the RT Book Blogger Con on 12 May. It’s the day before the RT conference begins, and it’s for book bloggers and online book reviewers. If you’re interested, you can get all the information here, and you still have time to sign up!

…

Earlier this month in Australia (HI AUSTRALIA IT IS FALL THERE AND HERE IT IS THE FIRST DAY OF SPRING AND ALSO SNOWING I KID YOU NOT *sniffle*) (I NEED A DROP BEAR TO FIX THE WEATHER) (THANKS) ARRA, the Australian Romance Readers Association, held their bi-annual conference in Canberra.

During the conference, Shannon Curtis announced ARRA’s publication of her reader-generated romantic suspense novel:

In a story inspired by readers, for readers, Shannon Curtis creates a world suggested by members of the Australian Romance Readers Association, bringing together passion, adventure, miscreants and magick in a unique paranormal romance—where a junior lawyer gets more than she bargained for, defending her darkly dangerous yet seductive client.

When a miscreant patient unexpectedly dies in his dental surgery, Ryder Galen knows two things: he didn’t murder the alpha wolf, and he’s dead meat unless he can prove his innocence—before the dead alpha’s pack kill him in retribution. Handing himself in to the Reform authorities should buy him some time to track down the real killer, with the help of his lawyer …

Half-blood vampire Vassiliki Verity has inherited a secret gift from her human side of the family—a truthseeking ability that enables her to tell when someone is lying to her. Not so good on the dating scene, but very effective in dealing with criminals. Her latest client, though, is an interesting mix of honesty and secrecy, and while she knows he’s lying, her conscience won’t allow her to throw him to the wolves. But how can she trust a man who can seduce her with his lies?

Curtis did surveys of local romance readers, asking “what they wanted in a book if they had control of the story. Things like hero/heroine names, descriptions, occupations, etc. They also got to pick the subgenre (paranormal), heat level (HOT), cover preference, etc. The plan was to write a short story/novella and donate it to ARRA to sell, with all proceeds going back to ARRA to use for their reader members.” It’s happened, and is the Australian Romance Readers Association’s first book “by readers, for readers.”

Congrats, y’all!

…

Finally, Amanda sent me the link to this Tumblr, and it makes me laugh like a loon every time I look at it: Natalie Kossar’s McCalls Pattern Behavior.

I’m all for captioning of things, and this just gives me all the joy.

But please, put your beverage down before you read it, or you’ll choke.