The Romance Writers Are Really Fucked Now

A few weeks ago a negative review on this site fueled a spirited -- and often contentious -- debate in the romance community (and by spirited and often contentious, I mean that there are some romance writers out there who had their Mary Kay foundation clawed off) about whether authors should review other authors. I can't say this is a conversation I've ever had with writers of literary fiction or mystery fiction and so I was surprised when a good portion of the writers said that that the sisterhood had no right to condemn another member of sisterness for writing, you know, The Wet Nurse With The Secret Baby and then filling it with odd dialogue tags and exuberant adverbs, he sarcastically refuted lackadaisically. Because I found the whole argument completely and utterly inane -- who better to review a novel than an expert in the field, like, say, another author? -- and that this stance was one of the larger reasons romance so rarely is treated with respect in the literary world when, more than ever, romance authors keep demanding to be heard in the NY Times & LA Times, I dropped into a few arguments and called people fucktards, but I used well reasoned arguments instead of just, you know, dropping fucktard cluster bombs over the romanceblogeratti.

So why am I bringing this all up again? Well, no opinions were changed. The preponderance of romance authors who talked about this insidious business of authors reviewing authors still think it is wrong and that critics should be critics and authors should be authors and never the twain shall meet. Now that an author has been named the editor of the 2nd largest book review in the country (see the post below), I wonder if they'll stick by their mantra while still clamoring for review space.

And, in other news, my review of The Traveler, written by a member of the brotherhood of crappy writers, of which I am a charter member, appears today in Las Vegas Citylife.(or will when the website is updated)...

Comments

[David J. Montgomery]

As a critic, I don't object to authors reviewing books, assuming they're any good at it. The problem, of course, is that many of them aren't. (They really are different skills.)

What seems to happen many times is that the review editor will have a brainstorm like "Hey, John Irving has a new book out -- let's get this John Irving-esque author to review it! Isn't that a unique and novel idea!" Well, no, not really...And it only works if the John Irving-esque reviewer is unbiased (which is harder for an author to be than a critic) and has the ability to write a good review (which many of them don't).

The larger issue here, though, is that these romance writers object to negative reviews no matter who wrote them. I don't think they're so upset that another author reviewed them -- they're upset that another author panned them.

[Karen Scott]

I have to agree with David. It's all about the savaging of the book. After all, how many authors would complain if another author reviewed their book, and they loved it?

I guarantee there would have been no debate.

[Ann Wesley Hardin]

Got alot of hits on my blog from here so I wandered over to take a peek.

David is wrong when he says romance writers object to *any* negative reviews. Most of the writers I know, including myself, don't object to them - at least not out loud. I've received a couple more bad ones since Paperback Reader and they didn't bother me.

The most telling aspect of Paperback Reader's review, however, was that Wendy claimed to have enjoyed the book during the first reading and it was only upon later dissection she began to clearly see how bad it truly was.

Even though it was, in mine and my editor's opinions, a well constructed story, Layover wasn't meant to be dissected. It was meant to take the reader on a joy ride. Most romantic comedies are that way. Take Romancing The Stone. A fun movie. People loved it. They walked out of the theater feeling happy.

Now take the plot apart - Romance writer's sister gets kidnapped and a merry band of romance-reading drug dealers help romance writer save her sister.

It's absurd and is not meant to be held up to art house standards. It's supposed to be fun fer chrissakes. Like that's a sin in the book world.

I objected to some of the language in PBR's review, and that yes, I don't think it's a good idea for practicing authors to review. David stated some of my thoughts on that very well.

Will I be clamoring for a NYT or LAT review any time soon? Not likely, no matter who's at the helm. Light-hearted comedies are generally scorned by the literary community. *Shrug* That's what I write. That's what I love. And I really don't give a flyer if the NYT disapproves.

BTW, Todd, if you knew about the Mary Kay/RWA interface in Dallas, you'd bust a gut. And I don't wear foundation ;)

*waves to Karen*

[Tod Goldberg]

Well, it's a little of both, actually, David. They don't like that an author reviewed them, and they don't like that it was negative. When the original discussion went on, it was pretty clear that both issues were negatives. And I agree that not all authors are good reviewers -- I do recall perhaps the worst book review I ever encountered was "written" by Kelly Lange -- but the odd issue remains, as Ann notes in her response here, that her story shouldn't be held up to what is a normal standard of literary criticism. Every other genre that I can think of demands that kind of reflection -- even for books that are simple fun. Just because something is fun, or romantic, or scary, or thrilling, or whatever, doesn't mean that it is immune to critical review. Because sometimes funny, romantic, scary, or thrilling stuff fails to do those very things.

But my point is this: if it is such an unholy thing for other authors to review other authors, why would the LA Times hire one to run the whole ship?

[tex]

Tod,

Aren't you afraid that your semi-critical remarks about Kelly Lange (this is the second that I'm aware of online) are going to reduce your chances of ever again getting her interestingly reworked face anywhere near your pelvic region?

Tex

[David J. Montgomery]

Let me just clarify: I did not mean to imply that all romance writers object to negative reviews. There seems to be a vocal contingent on several websites, though, that does. But I know they don't represent everyone.

[Ann Wesley Hardin]

Well, thanks for the classy clarification, David. I dislike sweeping generalizations and it's encouraging that you don't subscribe to them.

I'm not too sure what "normal standard of literary criticism" means, Todd. Whenever anyone says something is "normal" it raises red flags. If you mean general, sweeping rules that should apply to all books of all genres (architecture of the modern story aside), then I have to say I disagree with you, and quite possibly the whole literary community ;)

What does my opinion amount to? Nothing. But hey, I can blow hot air as well as the next person when I feel like procrastinating from my writing.

I don't believe any genre should be immune from criticism. What I do believe is that each book should be approached with an eye toward what it sets out to accomplish. Of course, as always, the results will be subjective. But it would be a service to readers to apply appropriate standards to each genre.

-Did the mystery surprise?
-Did the comedy make you laugh or can you see it making someone, somewhere laugh?
-Did the literary book depress you? (j/k)

To use an original idea (you heard it here first, folks) an apple critic wouldn't apply the same standards while reviewing an orange. We'd all be eating crisp, tart and possibly green oranges.

I received one review where the critic obviously had a list of marks an erotic romance comedy author should hit. She ticked them off one by one and ultimately gave Layover a thumbs up. It was a dry and somewhat unsatisfying review, but with the addition of some editorializing could've been wonderful.

That's all I'm saying.

As far as authors reviewing and the LA Times doing what it did, haven't you heard of the Dilbert Principle? Just because a big, smart, time honored company endorses something doesn't mean it's a good idea.

There will always be dissent on that front. And so what? Makes for entertaining discussions.

~Ann