Ciar Cullen:
Because I work at Princeton, and only left the office intermittently, I caught only three talks.Having been to many academic conferences (on archaeology), I'll say this was a different mix for obvious reasons. Beverly Jenkins made me tear up, for sure. It struck me, though, that this was an odd mingling of speakers and perspectives, and I'm not sure the mix works. Typically, the analyzers (from an academic viewpoint) are not in the same laboratory with the subjects. Something was off, there, and I can't put my finger on it. Anyone else?

No, it wasn’t just you – I also work at Princeton and I’ve attended many academic conferences here, as well. (In religion, politics, and philosophy.) And that was the thought I had, too. I think that having the authors in be part of the panel discussions somewhat tied the hands of the academics. They were all careful to be respectful to the genre (for the most part) and did not fully convey their thoughts as to why/how romance literature can be analyzed from an academic perspective. It was a fascinating conference, no doubt, but I was left wondering how much it really deviated from a standard RWA conference.

Mary Bly, while there as an academic, did not really give an academic presentation. Her whole presentation focused on the theme of homosexuality in JR Ward’s “Brotherhood” series. I thought it was an interesting idea, but there are so many other “sexual taboos” themes to explore in romantic literature.

I was also kind of surprised that not even one panelist (either academic or non-academic) discussed the history of the way rape has been handled in romantic literature. “Claiming the Courtesan” made such huge impact in the romance literature world when it was released because some people loved it (well written) and others thought it was a throw-back to the dreaded bodice ripper cliché. “Bodice ripper” is even a term that is synonymous with romance literature and the image evoked is of a woman being brought to climax by rape and submission. Yet, in the panel devoted to sexuality and taboos, no one discussed this.

MaryK: Isn't this kind of dated? I thought the heyday of the sheik was pretty much over. Aren't they mostly Greek and Italian billionaires now? Maybe I'm just not paying enough attention to category romance.

That was actually part of Haddad’s presentation (which was fantastic, btw). Her point was that Sheikh romance sales have actually gone UP since 9/11 and she wanted to try to figure out why readers were attracted to these sorts of stories. Of course, what makes this interesting is that the heroes of these books are not really anything like real Arabs or Muslims. Islam is never mentioned. The heroes are all “modern” characters who want to bring modernity to their people, but the authors are not selling the reader the idea of democracy, either. (The book always ends with the hero being the king of the country and a benevolent dictator. The heroine will bear him the heir who will go on to rule the land, etc.)

I had a long conversation with Haddad after her talk and I’m not certain she has a come to the right conclusions as to why these books are popular and what makes an American woman want to read it. Some members of the audience thought that it was the thrill of the “foreign other” or that some people just want to read about inter-racial romances. Haddad argues that this cannot be the case, because the heroes are so generic, it’s actually not an inter-racial romance. I’m not so sure that I agree, but it was a very good discussion, none the less.

I thought the heyday of the sheik was pretty much over. Aren't they mostly Greek and Italian billionaires now?

There are still plenty of sheiks, maybe not as many as there are Greek, Italian and Spanish billionaires/tycoons, but still a fair number. This month’s Harlequin Presents include Annie West’s The Desert King’s Pregnant Bride:

Sheikh Khalid Bin Shareef has vowed never to get entangled with virgins. But innocent Maggie is too hard to resist-’and he takes her…

The Sheikhs and Desert Love website keeps a “boutique” of sheik romances.

Emily Haddad … talked about sheik romances, particularly in Harlequin Presents. … It's interesting that these books have become very popular over the last few years.

Isn’t this kind of dated? I thought the heyday of the sheik was pretty much over. Aren’t they mostly Greek and Italian billionaires now? Maybe I’m just not paying enough attention to category romance.

Beth Patillo, who wrote Heavens to Betsy, was the most interesting one in this group (to me, at least). I was surprised when she said that Betsy sold very poorly. (It got a lot of buzz online, but I guess that doesn't necessarily equal sales.) She said that she was stuck between two markets – the Christian market is specifically evangelical, and many Christian bookstores wouldn't sell her book because it featured a female minister. But she couldn't get a lot of publicity on the secular side of the market (and her publisher was Christian, so they were focusing on the religious sales).

I liked Patillo’s two books about Betsy and her struggles in her job and in love. The books were smart and amusing and portrayed someone for whom religion was central without being preachy or exclusionary. I’m sorry to hear that they didn’t sell well but must admit it confirms some of my biases when I hear that many Christian bookstores wouldn’t stock it because the heroine was a female minister. Of course, I also liked her Regency, written under the name Bethany Brooks, so perhaps I just like her voice and POV, whether faith is an integral part of the book or not.

The Avon editor said there was a disconnect between selling books to publishers, where authors have to emphasize how their books are similar to other books that have sold, and selling books to readers, where authors have to emphasize how their books are different.

Perhaps all romance writers need to get the t-shirt that is ubiquitous on tourists in Vietnam: “Same-same, but different”. It refers to the common response in restaurants when the waiter is asked about a food that is unknown to Westerners, the food is “same same like chicken” or “same same like apple” but “different”.

I imagine the difference between Bly's and Crusie's experiences of being romance writers in an academic environment is that one was a professor and the other was a student.

Point taken.

Personally, I never had a problem saying I read (and aspire to publish) romance novels. But then my speciality is history, not English literature.

She pointed out that these romances leave out a lot when it comes to the Middle East – religion is never mentioned, democracy is never mentioned, 9/11 is never mentioned – but the heroines are always depicted as bringing Western values to the prince heroes and securing the succession. It's interesting that these books have become very popular over the last few years.

But haven’t all sheikh romances been essentially white American alpha males in caftans? The few sheikh romances I have read, which were written long before 9/11, featured “Oriental” heroes who usually turned out to be half-Anglo whose only interaction with Muslim/Middle-Eastern culture was the harem. We can go back further than E.M. Hull’s novel, to the titillating stories of young women stolen and sold into harem during the height of the Barbary Coast pirates, and even the crusade against “white slavery” 1880s-1910s. Middle-Eastern and Native-American men are acceptable romance heroes in a way neither black nor Asian men are allowed to be (the former too “brutish and rapacious,” the latter too “feminine and sinister”), but all deal in perpetuating stereotypes that were nurtured during the 19th century and given life in the early days of cinema.

But this emphasis on love led to the idea of men and women having “separate spheres” and gender roles became more rigid.

I love this analysis and would like to read more about it. I find it extremely fascinating that the rise of romantic love created differences between the sexes, when the ultimate goal of romance, love and marriage in modern-day society is for a blending, a sharing of one another’s strengths and weaknesses. In light of this, perhaps the romance genre exists to bring the sexes back together?

She said that she was stuck between two markets – the Christian market is specifically evangelical, and many Christian bookstores wouldn't sell her book because it featured a female minister.

Ha! I believe this. Just last year a Christian magazine was pulled from some bookstores because the current issue profiled and featured on the cover a group of female ministers. Heavens to Betsy sounds really interesting, so I’m going to pick it up.

The two editors both said that they thought there was a market for these books but it was hard to know how to sell them.

I am extremely interested in the number of non-white and non-black aspiring writers who write and submit romances with other ethnic backgrounds. I remember Warner (now Hatchette) launching a line aimed at Latinas, and I could be wrong, but Kensington may have published a Latina romance imprint, which folded. Many non-black writers have published with the regular romance imprints, unlike black romance writers, and I wonder whether their presence proves that the separation between black and non-black romances should exist–or at least allow those who don’t want such a narrow focus market a choice to be published, promoted and marketed to the general romance reading crowd. But I still wonder why there are not more romances with Asian characters, or Latino/a protagonists, etc, and then I also wonder why romances with non-white/non-black characters do not have their ethnicity played up the way black characters do.

She talked about how it was important to have a place where readers aren't “intimidated” by “too much criticism” and that “most romance readers don't want to read negative things”

I don’t see this personally as a slap–MB’s agenda notwithstanding–but an offering of variety, or tiers of involvement, I might say. I remember when I first began to read romance novels and then discovered sites like AAR. I was flush full of love and excitement, and since it was all brand new to me, it never occurred to me to dissect or review or deconstruct the romance genre. As time progressed, and also as I added writing a romance to the mix, I began to view the romance genre with a more critical eye and began to involve myself in the more critical and deeper discussions. But I can say that there is a slight chance that if I remained a reader and a reader only, the progression may not have happened. Plus, not only do we have to realize and accept that there are people who love fluff and fluff only, there are many readers out there who love the fluff because they have no support for their reading choices.

I believe MB referenced a reader who felt they didn’t have the vocabulary to discuss their reading, but they felt she and the regulars (Bellas, I believe is the name for the community) put into words what she had difficulty articulating. Yes, we want academic discussions of romance novel, a greater level of critique of this genre we love, but there’s a danger in wanting to slough off people who don’t read romance and want to discuss the books in minute detail because it fosters the same resentment many of us feel when literary folks sneer at the genre. There’s room for everyone and all types of input into the genre, and putting a “wine and cheese” face on romance at the expense of hiding our hillbilly cousins in the closet is the complete antithesis of the positive elements romance is supposed to foster and that which we are supposed to be celebrating.

Although I enjoyed the conference only second or third hand, I must say that I am absolutely fascinated by the issues raised around inspirationals, in large part because it’s something I haven’t really thought about or talked with anyone else about. Talk about a whole new world opening up; I would love to have copies of those presentations.

Jennifer Crusie talked more about why her experience was different from Mary’s. She said that she grew up in a very different environment – Mary Bly’s parents were academics and weren’t very happy about her reading romances, while Crusie said her family was happy for her to read and write romance. And Crusie went back to school when she was in her 40′s, and by that point, she wasn’t bothered by any criticism.