Yeah. They caught some seriously dangerous hell while they were still trying to make it work in Israel (she's a dual citizen, so it wasn't too hard for them to leave and move here).

I wish I could say that surprised me, but it doesn’t at all. :(

I am sure she is, and I am also sure it wasn't her intention to marginalize, but my problem as a reader is that I have no way of knowing these intentions.

I’m not saying you should know her intentions, but I guess I feel that authors could be cut some slack on this issue, since it seems from this discussion that there’s no pleasing everyone. It sounds to me from your earlier posts (though I may be wrong) like you’d prefer books set in England or the U.S. to books set elsewhere with main characters who are English or American. But on the other hands, Maili is saying she would like to see more books set outside England and the U.S., and I don’t think she’s stipulating that the main characters have to be people of those settings. And from what Kalen is saying, books set in England or the U.S. are far more likely to sell. And here’s what Monica Burns said in comment #26:

My Jan release from Berkley is set in Morocco, late 1800s. When the cover copy was being developed, my editor indicated that readers like to see that they're reading about an English noblemen. So we included a few words that tells readers the hero is an Englishman Viscount. It helps that his title does have a strong connection to who the hero is.

It sounds to me like perceived reader preferences are a big factor in the decisions that are being made by editors and authors.

All I see is what I get, and what I got was, well, white heroes put in danger because of an Indian “rebellion” (I put that in scarequotes because one person's rebellion is another person's revolution).

Yes, but if the characters are English, they would be more likely to see it as a rebellion. I personally prefer that the word “rebellion” rather than “revolution” be used in a scene that is written from the POV of a 19th century European.

I’ll give you another example that pertains to my own ethnicity. One of my favorite medieval romances is Mary Jo Putney’s Uncommon Vows. It is set in the 12th century. The hero is Norman and the heroine part Norman and part Welsh, but the subplot that pertains to this discussion for me is one that involves the household of a Jewish merchant.

The merchant asks the hero, who is an earl, to allow the Jewish family to live in his domain after they are left without a home due to the machinations of the villain. The hero gives them temporary shelter but initially refuses to allow them to settle down there. He is afraid their presence will endanger the souls of the Christians in his community. At the end of the book (after the Jewish family has aided the heroine), the hero changes his mind and realizes his initial stance was wrong.

Now, the Jewish characters themselves were a bit stereotypical, though they were portrayed in a positive light. But what thrilled me was the hero’s attitude. I felt that Putney handled the situation beautifully. Had the hero given them a permanent place right away, it would have struck a false note with me, because it would have been untrue to history. Since I’m Jewish myself, I’m very conscious of the long history of prejudice and persecution that Jews faced in Europe. If the hero’s attitude had been PC, I would have been offended, because I would have felt that this painful history was being given short shrift.

For that reason, I would much rather see historical attitudes portrayed with authenticity.

Again, I love Thomas' books, I am always grateful to have more POC writing, and I realize that editorial constraints are very difficult to get around. But it still doesn't erase the fact that the book itself, no matter what the intentions, contributes to a pattern of white heroes and heroines put into a country they are colonizing without portraying the people of that country or really even addressing that colonization.

Yes, but as I say she wrote another book that IMO did all that you have suggested you would like to see (as I recall there was a lot of anger on the part of the Chinese characters, including the heroine, about Englishmen coming to China and addicting the Chinese to opium). And that book didn’t sell. Not Quite a Husband sold.

I don't think it is an issue that can be solved by a single book or a single author, but that is also why I think it's so important to point out the pattern that exists despite people's best intentions. Mostly that means I think there needs to be pushback from everyone, from readers and writers and editors, because staying with the status quo is harmful to everyone. It means readers don't get books they want and writers can't write books they want (I've heard too many stories about agents and publishers rejecting books with POC characters or settings to say they won't sell), and it makes all of us poorer off.

As I said above, I’m not sure what the solution is. I think many readers do also want books set in England or the U.S., or books set elsewhere that still feature English-speaking protagonists. I know that I myself don’t categorically object to either. Let’s face it, if I did, there wouldn’t be much left for me to read in this genre.

I mentioned both groups – the highlanders and the Native Americans – in my earlier post because they were popular historical sub-genres in the romance genre.

I didn’t even think further than that when I wrote it.

@GrowlyCub

All I'm trying to say is that it's offensive to tell one group of people that they don't have it as bad as another one you find more ‘worthy' of being championed.

Thank you.

I think it might be a case of us knowing too much about the ‘exotic’ countries, or at least having certain preconceptions, but then again, what did Belgium ever do wrong? Hmmm, actually what did they ever do right?

I’m kidding, I’m kidding. Belgium, lovely place.

I'm not sure what happened to Native Americans was ‘worse' in degree, even if higher numbers of people were involved in the ‘clearing' of the Native Americans.

Scotland still exists and is peopled by the Scots . . . can’t really say the same for Native Americans.

I guess if you look at it in total numbers, it might be ‘worse’, but I’m sure for those families that lived through Culloden and the atrocities that followed and the later clearing of the Highlands where thousands lost their homes and livelihoods, I’m not sure what happened to Native Americans was ‘worse’ in degree, even if higher numbers of people were involved in the ‘clearing’ of the Native Americans.

All I’m trying to say is that it’s offensive to tell one group of people that they don’t have it as bad as another one you find more ‘worthy’ of being championed.

I know that as a minority herself she is sensitive to this issue and I don't think it was her intention to marginalize minorities. I think it is just very hard to write about Asian countries from a 19th century European viewpoint without having to choose between political correctness and authenticity. IMO it is better to be true to what attitudes were like in those days than to misrepresent history.

I am sure she is, and I am also sure it wasn’t her intention to marginalize, but my problem as a reader is that I have no way of knowing these intentions. All I see is what I get, and what I got was, well, white heroes put in danger because of an Indian “rebellion” (I put that in scarequotes because one person’s rebellion is another person’s revolution). Again, I love Thomas’ books, I am always grateful to have more POC writing, and I realize that editorial constraints are very difficult to get around. But it still doesn’t erase the fact that the book itself, no matter what the intentions, contributes to a pattern of white heroes and heroines put into a country they are colonizing without portraying the people of that country or really even addressing that colonization.

I don’t think it is an issue that can be solved by a single book or a single author, but that is also why I think it’s so important to point out the pattern that exists despite people’s best intentions. Mostly that means I think there needs to be pushback from everyone, from readers and writers and editors, because staying with the status quo is harmful to everyone. It means readers don’t get books they want and writers can’t write books they want (I’ve heard too many stories about agents and publishers rejecting books with POC characters or settings to say they won’t sell), and it makes all of us poorer off.

@Maili

In any case, the romance genre didn't seem to mind authors exoticising the hell out of the so-called Scottish highlanders and the Native Americans, so why not // tongue in cheek mode on// do the same for the rest? // tongue in cheek mode off //

Hrm. I have a problem lumping the exoticization of Scottish highlanders and Native Americans together, even tongue in cheek, specifically because the political situations surrounding that exoticization are so different. I very much agree that the Scottish are exoticized in romances, but they have not also been subject to the same level of attempted genocide as Native Americans. And of course that isn’t even going into what Native Americans are still facing today, thanks to a legacy of colonization.

I don’t want to deny the power of romance or optimistic thinking, but I also wish that that power were more often directed toward righting things. I for one would love to see romances in alternate worlds or something in which people fight off colonizers or reimagine the world so that there isn’t this history to deal with—not by erasing colonized people a la Patricia C. Wrede’s Thirteenth Child, but by providing an alternate, empowering vision. And I don’t think it’s limited to fantasy settings either; I would love books about African revolutionaries and Chinese pirates and etc.

I know one! She (Jewish) was teaching at a school in the Gaza Strip and fell in love with a fellow teacher (Palestinian). They now live in New York and have an adorable son.

I was thinking as I wrote that post that the best ending for such a story would be for the couple to leave the Middle East. It's a sad statement on the current political situation there. I'm glad your friends have found a way to be happy together but I guess I'm just too aware of the prejudice that I've seen on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide to feel that I could pull such a story off.

Yeah. They caught some seriously dangerous hell while they were still trying to make it work in Israel (she’s a dual citizen, so it wasn’t too hard for them to leave and move here). Her family is totally on board, but I think his is still bent out of shape (they were last I heard) . . . I'm wondering if it has something to do with who has access to the grandbaby? Babies have an amazing ability to make people change their minds (just look at Dick Cheney and his opinion on gay marriage; which yes, I do at least partially attribute to the gay daughter having a child).

@Kalen Hughes:

I know one! She (Jewish) was teaching at a school in the Gaza Strip and fell in love with a fellow teacher (Palestinian). They now live in New York and have an adorable son.

I was thinking as I wrote that post that the best ending for such a story would be for the couple to leave the Middle East. It’s a sad statement on the current political situation there. I’m glad your friends have found a way to be happy together but I guess I’m just too aware of the prejudice that I’ve seen on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide to feel that I could pull such a story off.

But also, I'm not drawn to writing about my own minority experience.

Me either.

A romance between an Israeli and a Palestinian would be just as difficult because frankly I cannot see a true happy ending for such a couple.

I know one! She (Jewish) was teaching at a school in the Gaza Strip and fell in love with a fellow teacher (Palestinian). They now live in New York and have an adorable son.

I'm Jewish myself and as a reader I wish there were more Jewish heroes and heroines in romance.

I’m not Jewish and I’d love to see that, too.

But aren't authors (and some readers) already doing that with the US and the UK in making US- or UK-born members of ethnic minorities the “others” by ignoring their presence?

Putting on my writer hat, I feel this is not an easy problem to solve. I’m sure if I were to write a book with major African-American characters, for example, I would be very afraid of getting them wrong and offending readers (even though my sister-in-law and nieces are black), and even if I bent over backwards trying to get them right, it would still be controversial since I’m not African-American myself.

In addition to my Victorian historical WIP, in which the characters are mostly British, I do have a contemporary project that has an Italian-American heroine and an Irish-American hero, and I hope I’m getting those characters right. Mostly I try to portray them as normal people and avoid giving them strange ethnic quirks. I try to veer away from stereotypes.

I’m Jewish myself and as a reader I wish there were more Jewish heroes and heroines in romance. I suppose I ought to be more annoyed about stereotypes but frankly there are so few Jewish characters in romances that unless it’s the kind of stereotyping that reminds me of Nazi propaganda (like in Heyer’s The Grand Sophy) I’m usually just glad to see someone of my ethnicity portrayed at all.

I have to admit that I don’t have that much interest, at this point at least, in writing about Jewish heroes or heroines myself. It is funny to say, but I would be leery of getting Jewish American characters wrong since I spent the first eleven (nearly twelve) years of my life in Israel and have only been in a synagogue on rare occasions. But also, I’m not drawn to writing about my own minority experience. I write partly for the same reason I read — to escape the difficulties of my own life.

I also cannot see writing a romance (at least a contemporary) set in my native country of Israel, although I might enjoy doing that. I don’t think it would sell because of political issues. But even putting that aside, I suspect readers who feel as Oyce does would look askance at a romance between two Israelis, while a romance between two Palestinians would leave me completely out of my depth. I would be so afraid of offending someone if I tried to write that. A romance between an Israeli and a Palestinian would be just as difficult because frankly I cannot see a true happy ending for such a couple.

FD said:

I personally love romances set in places / times or with people that are outside of the white UK / US cultural norms.
But I am uncomfortably aware that they often serve as little more than cultural appropriation / window dressing / or culture as setting – I think Sherry Thomas' Not Quite A Husband fell into this category, much though I loved the book.
These settings are home to many people, and by exoticising them, don't we run the risk of ‘othering' them?

Sherry Thomas who is my friend and critique partner, is Chinese born and Chinese-American. Her husband is Indian-American (I can’t remember at the moment if he is also India-born, but I know they have relatives in India). I know that as a minority herself she is sensitive to this issue and I don’t think it was her intention to marginalize minorities. I think it is just very hard to write about Asian countries from a 19th century European viewpoint without having to choose between political correctness and authenticity. IMO it is better to be true to what attitudes were like in those days than to misrepresent history.

A few years ago, Sherry wrote a historical novel that was partly set in China and had a Chinese-born, half-Chinese heroine and several other Chinese characters. Ying Ying (the heroine) was such a memorable character, and the China setting was extremely well researched. It didn’t sell. I don’t know whether the China setting and Chinese characters were the biggest factors in why it didn’t sell, but I also don’t blame Sherry for writing a couple of England-set books after that.

So, in the final analysis of this long post, I feel that writers are being cramped from all sides of this issue. Books with foreign settings require more research than usual and don’t sell often, yet they’re most likely to sell if the books feature English or American characters. But when the major characters are English or American and the setting is foreign, readers who are minority members feel marginalized. So what is the solution? I don’t have it, but these discussions make me understand why so many writers stick to writing about white, Christian, English speaking characters.

I also thought Venice, while fresh and interesting, was too confusing of a setting. I think they were supposed to be doing it in a bell tower with guards at one point and I was never there.

The above comment, from the review of Chase's new book Don't Tempt Me (but about Your Scandalous Ways), sums up why authors and publishers think twice (and then twice more) before setting off to unfamiliar settings . . . If Italy is too confusing what are readers who share this desire for the familiar going to make of Morocco, China, or Chile?

And then there's the fact that even with “exotic” settings, the protagonists are usually still Caucasian (and often still English nobles if the book is historical!). Much like there seems to be an amazing number of non-Muslim Sheiks out there in the land of Harlequin . . .

As a bit of synergy, last night I was watching Better Off Ted (which I think is a hoot) and a Caucasian male character referred to an Asian female one as “exotic” to her face. She and the AA character she was flirting with protested and pointed out that planet-wide Asian women are far more common, so HE was really the “exotic” one. It was a great moment and brought me right back to this discussion.

@Jennie says:

“exotic” can refer to pretty much anything outside of a U.S. or British setting.

Yes, that’s what I understood as well. It’s a term used frequently by editors of US publishers as well as by some readers/reviewers/reporters in the romance community over last decade.

International does sound (and is) better, but since the majority of romance novels we read (which I had in mind when writing this article) are published by US publishers for the US market, so any place outside the usual settings would be seen as “exotic”. And for many readers, it is.

For myself, I have mixed (mostly, negative) feelings about the word “exotic” in context of the romance genre and have talked about it with some readers (too many times, admittedly). I acknowledged this with the use of quotation marks, as seen here from the third paragraph of the article:

Unfortunately, it's hard to find a contemporary or historical romance novel with an “exotic” setting these days.

It was my fault for not making it clear, though, but I do think it’s a topic that deserves a spotlight in its own right. I’m not articulate enough to write a piece about this particular topic and also, I admit, my emotions may – no, will – get in the way.

I thought I got over it, but a couple of weeks ago I discovered I didn’t because when Janet/Robin and I discussed the genre’s history of romanticising the “savage noble” aspect of Native American and Scottish historical romances, my blood pressure instantly sky-rocketed. Yup, I still can’t handle it.

Anyroad, I hope you (Kat or Oyce) or someone will write a letter of opinion instead.

@FD says

Without wanting to get into the whole Racefail 09 debacle, I do wonder whether there's a connection?
I personally love romances set in places / times or with people that are outside of the white UK / US cultural norms.
But I am uncomfortably aware that they often serve as little more than cultural appropriation / window dressing / or culture as setting – I think Sherry Thomas' Not Quite A Husband fell into this category, much though I loved the book.
These settings are home to many people, and by exoticising them, don't we run the risk of ‘othering' them?

But aren’t authors (and some readers) already doing that with the US and the UK in making US- or UK-born members of ethnic minorities the “others” by ignoring their presence?
I’m British and a Scot, but my ancestors and I aren’t exactly Caucasian, for example, thanks to a Chinese ancestor. Others in the North East had ancestors who were Italian (rare until the war when Italians were made as POWs), Polish, Norwegian, Portuguese, and blah blah. There is a historic link between Japan and Scotland, dating back to 19th century, too. This sort was rarely acknowledged in Scottish historical romances.

The US, the UK and many parts of Europe as a whole are multi-cultural countries and in some cases, have been for centuries. The Chinese communities in the UK (the best known – and the most documented – would be the Limehouse in London) have been around since 18th century, for instance. Same for black people in London who were around a lot earlier. By ignoring their existence in British settings, authors are already making them “the others”. It’s not just romance authors, quite a few authors of other genres and some social historians are guilty of this as well.

In any case, the romance genre didn’t seem to mind authors exoticising the hell out of the so-called Scottish highlanders and the Native Americans, so why not // tongue in cheek mode on// do the same for the rest? // tongue in cheek mode off //

I just feel that if authors and editors are willing to turn a blind eye to certain aspects of the US, the UK and a selected European countries’ histories, then why not for the rest of the world? It doesn’t apply just to print publishers, it could apply to epublishing where it apparently has more editorial freedom.

On that note, a massive thank you to everyone for contributing thought-provoking opinions, which is an awesome surprise, considering how badly written my letter of opinion is. Thank you.

So, sure, if something is native to someone, then sure it’s not going to be exotic to them. It might be to someone else, though.

As to portraying cultures in romances who’ve historically been on the recieving end of colonialization, repression, exploitation, slavery or whatever, here’s something to think about which goes back to that definition of romance I like to quote. We can never forget how much we value the hope and triumph aspect of Romance. And, yes, there I did use the capital R because I’m talking about that other much broader definition because it’s a definition of overcoming as much as it is one of relationships. Of finding hope where there is no hope. So, if you want those stories to be told then you’re going to have to adjust your internal filters as authors and readers to make them possible regardless of external circumstances.

Do you think that medievals are so popular as romances because the white men conquered the world? Or do you think that it’s because the medievals set the pattern for Romances in the first place? Because we all know there are romances that do work in places other than white-centric regions of the world. This isn’t about race or ethnicity. It’s about seeing the possibilities that fit recognizable patterns.

Or being willing to make your own patterns.

Otherwise those stories may never be told.

Now, I think having books set in lots of different locations instead of just the usual is a great idea. It's the part about making them “exotic” that makes me wince. The whole term just seems a bit too colonial for the twenty-first century. How about “international” or something?

I see your point, but I’d just like to point out that, in my context at least (and I think that of some others here, if I’m understanding people correctly), “exotic” can refer to pretty much anything outside of a U.S. or British setting. In my earlier post, I mentioned romances set in Germany; I absolutely consider Germany an exotic setting for a romance, though it obviously doesn’t have any of those overtones of colonialism many of us can find troubling. I think even for a romance reader in say, Singapore, a romance set in historical Singapore is “exotic” in the sense that it’s not just another English Regency romance.

I think there’s also an issue of local book markets having different requirements to the US market. I’ve heard Parry talk about how her book was originally targeted for the US market, but when it was acquired by an Australian publisher, she had to make lots of changes to suit Aussie market.

Somewhat related is the fact that the Aussie market, as I understand it, doesn’t have a separate romance category. So my favourite local “romance” authors actually write bloke-lit/chick-lit-ish crossover books (Dominic Knight, Melanie La’Brooy) with (usually) a happy romantic ending. The HQN-published authors are an exception, although I have to be honest and say that I don’t often find even their Australian-set books believable. Again, I think that’s because the books are primarily aimed at US/UK readers.

One other issue: ebooks. Parry, Knight and La’Brooy’s books aren’t published electronically, as far as I know. I’d have thought ebooks would be a great way to sell these authors overseas if they’re unable to break into the US/UK print market.

I’ve had to look outside of romance to get it… Anchee Min is a fave.

I sold a Victoria-era exotic setting to St. Martin’s Press. Should be out next summer (don’t have a solid date yet). Hidden Beauty takes place between Constantinople, Isle of Corfu and Brindisi Italy!

My settings after this book are England though.

Now, I think having books set in lots of different locations instead of just the usual is a great idea. It’s the part about making them “exotic” that makes me wince. The whole term just seems a bit too colonial for the twenty-first century. How about “international” or something?