I do have a hard time buying the “Nobody can read all those books” thing though, when I consider how many books I and most writers I know read per week or per month.

Do you read ALL the thousands of books released each year in the genre? Or even most of them? Enough to feel qualified to cite a book, or books, as “the best” in the genre?

And say you did read some outstanding books, hidden gems, say, from smaller pubs, books without much word of mouth. So you nominate them. If we’re talking votes, what are the odds of those little-known books even having a shot at getting nominated?

In any case, not all writers read prolifically, even if they once did. Some writers don’t like to read at all while they’re “on book,” and many don’t read in the genre while they’re writing so they won’t be unduly influenced. Some of us, whose reading time is limited, prefer to read out of genre, anyway. In fact, I look forward to my RITA judging because it forces me to read authors I wouldn’t have normally picked to read on my own — I’ve found some real treasures that way!

I’m not saying the RITA is ideal. I realize, for instance, that my nomination is out of a smaller pool than every series romance book published in 2008 (even though that’s by no means a small pool). And I absolutely agree that there needs to be more accommodation for e-books, and that erotic romance needs its own category. But I’m not getting how the “let everyone vote who wants to,” in such a huge genre, would be an improvement. No matter how the contest is run — even if, somehow, every single romance novel released that year was part of the process — people are still going to feel left out, or that more worthy books are being overlooked.

I mean, name me one contest/award where everyone agrees about the winners.

Is that crickets I hear?

That doesn’t mean that this years nominees shouldn’t be proud to be judged the best in their category or that they’ve acheived nothing, just that the Ritas on the whole would mean more if they were more than another fund-raising activity for the RWA so it can pay more questionable legal counsel to give it lousy advice about ebooks.

I do have a hard time buying the “Nobody can read all those books” thing though, when I consider how many books I and most writers I know read per week or per month.

(I never thought you had to judge the Ritas to enter the Ritas. And being a PAN member is all well and good, until you consider that the PAN requirements are pretty low.)

Thanks for your comments! There’s no list of books entered, which actually isn’t a bad idea . . . it’s done in the Edgars and Thrillers, so why not the Ritas? But I don’t know how that would go over with the authors. I wouldn’t care, personally. I hope you like Sudden Death–I really enjoyed writing that book.

I’m thrilled with the finalists in my category. They’re all outstanding writers, I’m excited to be in the group with them.

Actually, you’re mistaken. I’ll admit I don’t know how the Nebulas are judged, but I know exactly how the Edgars and the Thrillers are judged. ANYONE can enter the Edgars and Thrillers. There is no charge, publishers by and large enter the books, and a panel of FIVE JUDGES read the books and then determine the finalists. As the ITW Thriller Awards Chairman, I know what I’m talking about here.

We had well over 300 books entered in the Thriller Awards for Best Novel. FIVE BOOKS will final. ALL thrillers (except first novel) compete against each other. There’s no separate categories for romantic thriller, medical thriller, techno-thriller, crime thriller . . . it’s all together.

Publishers (or authors) enter books in the Edgars and they are judged by a panel of peers. A panel of five judges (it might be seven, but I think it’s still five.)

The difference between the Ritas and the Edgars/Thrillers is that there are many, many judges for the Ritas, but every book is judged by five people and no one judge is sent more than 9 books (unless they opt-in for more and more judges are needed.) In the Edgars/Thrillers, the books are read by the panel–and discussed–and everyone knows who the judges are. And, the Ritas charge $40 for members to enter, and the Edgars and Thrillers are free–just the cost of the books and shipping to the judges.

Also, you do NOT have to judge the Ritas to enter the Ritas. I don’t know how that rumor started.

Yes, the Edgars are considered far more distinguished that the Ritas but I have my own opinions as to why and this isn’t the thread for that debate.

Finally, you must be a published romance writer to judge the Ritas.

The Ritas are not perfect. No contest is. I don’t understand why people are up-in-arms about this. The books that finaled are great representations of the genre they finaled in. That doesn’t mean they are the BEST representations or the only representations.

I believe, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, that there used to be an award in RWA that was voted on by the membership at the conference for a specific book, and there was some sort of nomination process. I can’t remember the name, but it was discontinued a year or two after I joined.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify how other contests manage their awards.

When did they remove the word count specifications? Because part of the definition of the Regency novel (for the RITA and GH) used to be 85,000 words or less. Anything over that was the straight Historical category. This made more sense before the boundaries began to blur, (say 10 years ago? longer?) back when a “Regency Romance” was a short, sweet, and rather discreet book set most definitely in England between 1811-1820.

Seems like books and sub-genres are shifting faster than the contest categories. But then, it’s a moving target.

re: Nominated vs. self submitted

As a relatively (ok, VERY) unknown author (actually, 2 authors, I co-write with my husband) whose debut book is up for a RITA, I can say that very very few people have read PASSIONATE, but the feedback has been great from those who have! Why so few? Smaller NY publishing house, no push whatsoever from marketing (I mean, the authors even have to load most of the book info to Amazon themselves), smaller print run, released in October (remember, Publishing’s worst month. Ever.) Not placed in a number of outlets because of exotic setting (botanical expedition from England to Tunisia)… and yet, the RITA gives PASSIONATE a chance to not be *completely* buried beneath the waves of hundreds of releases. And for that, for giving our book an increased opportunity to connect with readers, we are very, very grateful.

I haven’t read Brockmann in ages and have never read any of the books in her current series that was the focus of so much controversy. I enjoy J.R. Ward’s series which I’ve heard is structured similarly, but I agree with the sentiment the last couple of books in that series have been less romance and more something else (most romance readers seem to say these later books are urban fantasy, but I wonder if most fantasy readers would agree, since I think urban fantasy usually has more focus on the worldbuilding and fantastical aspect than Ward’s books do).

My definition is something like this: story concerned with one primary couple (or triple) working to overcome obstacles to a long-term, lasting relationship, with a commitment at the end to make a go at it. No babies, marriage or white picket fences required.

My definition isn’t that different, actually, though I don’t mind subplots about secondary characters and I’m also okay with that commitment being something other than marriage, like living together, or with it being hinted at. I totally agree that a book in which one of the main characters dies or the couple go their separate ways at the end is not a romance.

I’m tempted to make an exception for A Knight in Shining Armor, though. It did work for me as a romance, and I can’t exactly explain why. Maybe it is as you say, a case of “I know it when I see it.”

just that I want to be assured that I won't have a nasty surprise at the end, be left feeling depressed after finishing a book labeled ‘romance'

In that I am also with you 100%. One of the reasons I read as much romance as I do is because I want to avoid nasty surprises and getting depressed. If I didn’t mind depressing endings I would head over to the literary fiction genre, where they often have strong prose and well developed characters, but the books frequently leave me feeling in need of Prozac. The one thing that distinguishes romance from other genres is that the ending is happy, and I think it is important to preserve that.

However happy ending doesn’t necessarily mean babies and a white picket fence to me either.

Where I think we disagree is on how we define stretching. As I said to MaryK, I think books where one of the main characters dies or where they split up cross the genre’s boundaries, rather than stretch them.

I agree. I don’t necessarily like some of the components you mentioned (like long separations) but I don’t think the inclusion of them makes a novel not a romance.

To the extent that such a thing is defined by anyone in romance fiction, the Beaumonde sets it strictly as 1811-1820, occasionally conducts vigorous arguments about whether the time period ought to be extended to a broader one, and has yet to extend it.

As Past President of the Beau Monde I have to speak up here: We define our chapter thusly “Our purpose is to promote excellence in romantic fiction, set primarily in the Regency period (1811-1820)”, but even for our own contest (the Royal Ascot) our date range is stated as “Broadly set at 1780 to 1830″. I think most people (readers, agents, editors and even *gasp* writers) would label any book set during this period in England as a “Regency”. I know Kensington certainly marketed my books as “Regency Historicals” even though they are set in 1788-1789. I think of them a Georgian Historicals, and I entered them in the “historical” category, but I’m a history buff (obviously).

Personally, I'd have called Bourne's book a Regency, but I wouldn't have fought with her about entering it in the historical category. The contest definition is “Romance novels set in any time period prior to 1945, and taking place in any location”, which clearly includes the entire Regency period, no matter how you define it (a problem which MANY of us pointed out to the board and complained about when the categories were revamped).

No Blue Eyed Devil by Lisa Kleypas :-(

No Broken Wing by Judith James :-(

No Untamed or no Unlawful Contact by Pamela Clare :-(

These were my 3 top reads of 2008 and not a one of them got nominated.

Broken Wing actually felt like a return to an older style romance rather than genre stretching in a new direction.

All the ‘stretching’ I’ve seen lately (Hart, Brockmann) took the books clearly out of the romance genre for me. I do not consider it something positive, and especially the argument that the ‘stretched’ stuff is somehow better romance does not resonate with me at all. I didn’t get the impression that it was about being ‘fresh’ but rather that it was better because it didn’t follow the traditional romance constraints.

It’s not so much about whether the HEA is convincing but rather that I wasn’t sure there was one (especially in ‘Broken’) and it has nothing to do at all with whether or not the story is ‘romantic’.

I started reading romance in the 80s with Heyer and while I have read some of the books that came before and clearly fall into the category you described (Rogers) I do not consider the comparison of those early books to what evolved into the genre ‘romance’ over the last 25 years really relevant to the point I was making.

I feel we are having two different conversations, addressing two separate issues. :)

What’s really funny is that my definition has evolved over the years. I considered ‘A Knight in Shining Armor’ a romance when I first read it, but I wouldn’t classify it so nowadays because of the ending.

While I agree that we all should have a similar general idea of what constitute ‘romance’ as a genre, I have a feeling it’s very much like that quote ‘I can’t define porn, but I sure know when I see it’ and it does seem to differ from reader to reader. My definition is something like this: story concerned with one primary couple (or triple) working to overcome obstacles to a long-term, lasting relationship, with a commitment at the end to make a go at it. No babies, marriage or white picket fences required.

A considerable number of the books I’ve gotten to judge in contests and seen nominated for RITAs (especially in recent years) should not be included as far as I’m concerned, but since they are many people obviously disagree. I usually try to live and let live (aka I just don’t read the things that are clearly not romance), but I’m increasingly finding books labeled as ‘romance’ that do not even have a clearly defined couple or where the characters go separate ways at the end or where one of the protagonists is killed. And that’s where I see the issue in labeling, when a reader cannot determine between the spine label and the back blurb whether the book is indeed a romance or not.

Maybe it’s a sign of having read romance for so long, but I don’t want structural surprises any more (if I ever did). That doesn’t mean I want to read the same book over and over again, just that I want to be assured that I won’t have a nasty surprise at the end, be left feeling depressed after finishing a book labeled ‘romance’ or get bogged down in trying to follow 12 couples over multiple books and then be left hanging anyway.

That may make me sound like I’m not willing to try new authors or books that include controversial plot points, but that is definitely not the case. I just read my first Jewel (Scandal) and loved it, and really enjoyed the new Carlyle that had some events in it that took some readers aback, which I guess some might call stretching the boundaries, but which were clearly dictated by the characters’ needs as far as I was concerned.

I’m not sure I clarified my thoughts any more than I did before, but I tried… :)

IOW the idea that “good girls don't” was still prevalent at that time and if the hero forced her, well then, she could still be a “good girl” and have sex (often enjoying it) at the same time.

And that the rape was the only vehicle available at the time for a good girl’s (explicit) sexual gratification and the retention of virtue.

I think the sexual politics of the Old Skool romances is fascinating.

But my real point is that there's a reason the rape/forced seduction scenario was popular then and it's not just historical romance that documented it.

Oh yes, I agree with that. There were also clearly other places in pop culture where you saw it too, such as Luke raping Laura on “General Hospital” and John Travolta’s character in “Saturday Night Fever” raping his girlfriend. Both hugely popular with viewers.

I also think that it’s no coinicidence that the old-school romances we are discussing were some of the earliest romances to include explicit sex scenes. I think the heroines (almost always virginal) then were forced into sex partly to distinguish them from the villainesses who freely consented to sex. IOW the idea that “good girls don’t” was still prevalent at that time and if the hero forced her, well then, she could still be a “good girl” and have sex (often enjoying it) at the same time.

I think that’s a relatively new (last few years) development. I’ve also seen stretching the genre discussed in the context of long separations, historical romance heroes who aren’t of the nobility, different or unusual settings (like ancient Rome or contemporary Japan), etc. In general I favor stretching, but when things don’t end happily for the main characters (such as when one of them dies), then it goes beyond stretching the boundaries IMO, and becomes crossing them.

Those weren't books that stretched the boundaries of the genre, they were books that created a template for historical romance. And whether we like it or not, forced seductions, hero-heroine rapes, and lots and lots of fighting and arguing were a part of that template for a while.

Most of those books came after Nancy Friday’s books about female sexual fantasies were gaining ground. While I don’t think one necessarily informed the other, I do think that it was a convergence of awareness that happened concerning the rape/forced seduction fantasy. My Secret Garden was published in 1973 and Forbidden Flowers in 1975. Both have sections laden with the rape fantasy.

Woodiwiss’s Flame and the Flower was published in 1972 and Wolf & Dove in 1974, both of which prominently feature rape as the preferred seduction technique.

These could not have been informed by each other, as they were all in the editorial pipeline about the same time, but note that the fiction came before the non.

But

Rosemary Rogers
Bertrice Small
Johanna Lindsey
Valerie Sherwood
et al

might have been.

All those came after Nancy Friday, but Woodiwiss came before.

I think the case could be made that the rape fantasy in historical romance, and in Nancy Friday’s, ah, research, could have been a backlash to the feminism at the time. But my real point is that there’s a reason the rape/forced seduction scenario was popular then and it’s not just historical romance that documented it.

I think my preferred way of dividing the category would be by word count, since it’s such a constraint on the way that the plot, characterizations, contexts, etc. can be developed or not. I love categories because so many authors are able to write fully realized and satisfying stories in a very short space, and I think that talent deserves to be singled out more than whether your story is set in Britain at a particular time or not. When trads had their own publishing lines the Regency category was basically doing that, but that distinction is clearly gone now.

In a genre with thousands of new releases every year, it really wouldn’t be any more “fair” for authors to nominate their faves, since like everyone else, authors tend to read more of the more popular authors than the lesser-knowns (and they often read them after the year of publication, since it’s often hard to read someone else’s work while you’re writing.) So if noms are dependent on # of votes, it’s highly unlikely that a new or less popular author would garner enough votes to be nominated.

There actually was a RWA Favorite Books contest, separate from the RITAs but still author-generated. It was discontinued due to lack of response (if you only have time to read a handful of books during the year, do you really feel qualified to vote? I didn’t.) As you can imagine, with very, very rare exception, the same Big Names showed up on the Top Ten every. single. year.

Good idea in theory, but not terribly practical. ;-)

And you’re absolutely right. I know there are a lot of other books, outside category, that have to overcome that sensuality stigma. Brava being one right off the top of my head.

So, maybe the author can mark her book as being high in sensuality when she enters? And those books aren’t sent to judges who specified that they don’t want to judge them–no matter what the category? I dunno…no easy answer, I guess.

I am aware that it’s not just sensual books, either. As a judge, you really do have to try to set aside your own dislikes. I would never choose to judge inspie romance, because I rarely read them. (Except for Rachel Haucks–whoop Rachel!) And I make that clear on my judging preference sign-up. Yet one landed in the romantic suspense lot I judged last year–obviously the author’s choice to place it there. I tried to be as fair as I could, and gave it a pretty good score, but I don’t know that someone who chose to judge inspie wouldn’t have rated it higher.