Our reviewer John is the one who urged me to see this film. A weepy with a wardrobe for the principal star that is to die for. Though I’m not a fan of melodrama, especially the grand 1950s ones, the clothes aspect drew me in, shallow creature that I am. Considering that I thought the movie was nothing but overwrought angst, I was surprised to find that I like it as much as I do. I doubt I’ll ever become a true devotee but there is much more here than might initially meet the eye.

Lora Meredith (Lana Turner) and her daughter Susie meet Annie Johnson (Juanita Moore) and her daughter Sarah Jane in 1948. Both Lora and Annie are single mothers struggling to survive in NYC. Annie is seeking employment in a place that will allow her to keep her daughter with her and despite Lora being unable to pay her much, black Annie and her much lighter skinned daughter move in with pale blonde Lora and her equally blonde daughter. Lora is an aspiring actress and we see her dejected, returning from days of hounding casting agents. Meanwhile Annie works her fingers off and comforts her daughter who bitterly resents not being the white girl she can “pass” for. Steve Archer (John Gavin), a photographer who met them all the day they all met each other, begins to date Lora who finally gets her big break when she impresses a NY playwright with her insight into his latest creation. The film is filled with these improbable moments which simply must be accepted. Soon Lora is the new, rising star of the NYC theater world, though she casts Steve aside in her quest for fame.

Flash ahead ten years and all the women now live in a lavish country house paid for by Lora’s wealth. Annie is still happy to “do” for Lora, Susie (Sandra Dee), who longs for her mother’s attention, is off at boarding school while her mother continues to single mindedly pursue her career, and Sarah Jane (Susan Kohner) increasingly hates who she is and how her skin color limits her future prospects in life. Steve moves in and out of their lives which are shown to be darker than initially they would appear. Annie is heartbroken when Sarah Jane rejects her and denies who she is in order to pass for white, Susie is still hurt by her mother’s lack of attention to her and Lora continues to swan through life being a star. It takes a “full box of tissues” tragedy to bring the women together again and the movie to a close.

If, like me, you aren’t a fan of gushy melodrama, there are other things to see in this film. Producer Ross Hunter wanted his usual “women’s” picture filled with beautiful people, wearing beautiful things and living in beautiful places – a glossy soap opera with sets deserving of a full color spread in Ladies Home Journal. Director Douglas Sirk gave him that but also made the kind of picture he wanted to make which was a critique of a Ross Hunter film plus a biting look at stardom and, more importantly, race in America. This version of the story differs significantly from the book upon which it’s based as well as the 1934 film of the same name. Here the white woman is seeking fame as an actress rather than success as a business woman while the black woman is content to remain a servant. Not having seen the earlier film nor read the book, I can’t say how the character of Susie differs but here, Annie and Sarah Jane provide the storyline which interested me most. And believe me, at times it’s hard to watch.

IoL is gorgeous to look at with lush colors for the clothes and carefully color coordinated backgrounds that emphasize or de emphasize certain aspects of the film. The house is lovely though Sirk’s camera angles and the shadows make it seem as if it’s closing in on the characters as the film progresses. Lana Turner’s wardrobe is amazing but in a deliberately OTT way. She dresses and struts like a Movie Star – as she herself had been taught by the studio in real life. The bling is also stunning. Lora could signal her location to overhead search planes if she were ever stuck on a desert island. Sandra Dee is given a perky, teenage wardrobe plus a pink, froo froo bedroom – all of which emphasizes how privileged, yet juvenile, her life is. In contrast Moore is almost always dressed plainly in navy, gray or black. Her dresses might get better as time goes on but she always dresses like a servant. Sarah Jane, though only a year or two older than Susie is years ahead of her in the more adult clothes she has and the way her room is decorated which suits the problems she faces, many of which she brings on herself.

While the beauty of Lora and Susie’s lives might catch the eye at first, I soon found myself far more interested in Annie and Sarah Jane. Lora emotes and overacts, Susie is so sugary sweet and bubbly she makes my teeth hurt but they can both whine and be totally self absorbed in their troubles which in the end are seen for the superficial issues they are. This side of the film does serve as Sirk’s commentary on ambition and Hollywood. While part of me cheered Lora’s determination to succeed and her refusal to give into Steve’s demands that she give up her ambitions as an actress, some of me cringed at the cold, bitchiness she displays and her willingness to give up or put on the back burner almost every relationship in her life for it. Lana Turner is lovely to look at but for most of the film, she looks as if she’s acting. It’s a very staged performance but it still works since the character of Lora is an actress as well. Dee is the epitome of the Grease song “Look at me, I’m Sandra Dee.” I’m not sure if she was like this in real life or just forced into that role for the public but in all the movies I’ve seen her in, she plays the same – cute, bouncy and perky. Could she have played better roles had Hollywood been willing to put her in them?

In contrast, what comes between Annie and Sarah Jane is real, painful and not something easy to put aside. This isn’t the first Hollywood film to feature racial issues but since it was made in 1959 it served to show something of what had gone on for years and also emphasized the racial tensions sweeping the nation. Some of the stunts Sarah Jane pulls do prove the saying “more sharper than a serpent’s tooth.” Is SJ annoying? Yes. Does she have a reason for what she thinks and how she acts? Maybe yes. She’s seen her mother work as a domestic, seen that other blacks are limited in what they can do, where they can go, how society views them. She’s also seen – first hand – the opportunities Lora has and that Susie will have. She tells her mother that she’s tired of “living in the back” and doesn’t want to be limited to chauffeurs, cooks and other servants as potential husbands. She’s seen the black butler at the house. She doesn’t want her children limited and scorned. Is that reason to hurt and reject her mother? No but SJ is up against the ingrained racism of the time that was only just then being changed – little by little though. Susan Kohner, herself a mixed race child though of Mexican/European Jewish parents, does a fantastic job here. All the anger, the bitterness, the envy and, yes, the love for her mother is there in Kohner’s acting. Though I do wonder why a light skinned black woman wasn’t cast in the role as had been done in 1934. Still Kohner deserves her nomination that year for Best Supporting Actress.

Juanita Moore got the opportunity to play a large role, something few, if any, black women got a chance at then. She also deserved the Oscar nomination she shared with Kohner (though neither woman won). Still a lot of the lines she’s given make me cringe. She volunteers to do Lora’s laundry because she “likes taking care of pretty things.” She’s always there with a pat, down home truism to ease the white characters’ worries. It’s she who basically supports their little family during the lean times by cleaning their apartment steps and taking in laundry in addition to keeping the apartment they live in. Then once the money begins to roll in, she still keeps the lovely home they move to even though she puts aside money for SJ and for a lavish funeral for herself. But it’s in the scenes where she tries to soothe her child’s hurt feelings and get SJ to accept who she is rather than lie that get me. The heartbreak on Annie’s face when she realizes just how far SJ will go to achieve her goals, breaks my heart as well. Moore might have to play the saint but she does it with dignity and quiet grace. And when she gets her lavish funeral, she goes out like the Saint she is. I maintained dry eyes for most of the film but Mahalia Jackson’s powerful singing had me reaching for a hankie.

Oh, the men in the movie? Steve is basically a handsome Ken doll for most of the film – nice to look at but asexual to the point where we might be forgiven for wondering if he’s anatomically correct. Robert Alda – Alan’s father – is the slightly sleazy agent. But since this is a women’s picture and focuses on them, the lack of strong men is actually not a problem.

This movie makes me think. I’m not so much into weepy melodrama but I do like the thinking part and there’s a lot here to muse on. What should we pay for success, are material things worth it and most importantly, what possible difference should our skin tone or eye color/shape or any other physical features make in our opportunities in life? Watch it for the flash, listen to what should be called the Lush Lux Orchestra with their soaring violins, but think about the deeper message Sirk is trying to convey. B

~Jayne

If you want to watch it right now, someone has loaded it in 13 parts to youtube.

Related posts:

1. Friday Film Review: My Best Friend’s Wedding
2. Friday Film Review: Blazing Saddles
3. Friday Film Review: The Reluctant Debutante

“He rode a blazing saddle, he wore a shining star.
His job to offer battle to bad men near and far.
He conquered fear and he conquered hate.
He turned dark night into day.
He made his blazing saddle a torch to light the way.”

It’s been a while since I’ve reviewed a bromance so here goes with one of the funniest movies from Mel Brooks. Not only is it an homage/spoof of the great Western classics but it’s also a social commentary on race relations of the time. A comedy with layers. The first time I saw it was in its 1975 summer re release in theaters and, to be honest, most of it went right over my head. I still thought it was funny then but with age and movie watching experience, I can understand a bit better what Mel Brooks was trying to do with it.

Hedley Lamarr (Harvey Korman), the crooked Assistant to the crooked Territorial Governor William Lepetomane (Mel Brooks), wants some land to sell to the railroad. The only problem is it’s currently owned by the citizens of the peaceful town of Rock Ridge (all with the last name of Johnson). He schemes to send his hired thug Taggert (Slim Pickens) and his band on a No 6 – where they go tearing into town awhooping and ahollering and ashooting everything. When this fails to send the townsfolk fleeing, he maneuvers the Gov into appointing a black sheriff, Bart (Cleavon Little), to replace the one Taggert and the boys shot. But along with his deputy, Jim the Waco Kid (Gene Wilder), Bart settles into town and begins to slowly win the town over. Undeterred, Lamarr then sends Mongo – who is more of a what rather than a who – against the town but Bart soon tames Mongo thus earning his devotion. Well if the Beast didn’t work, maybe Beauty in the form of Lili Von Shtupp (Madeline Kahn) will be able to bring Bart to his knees. Bart, however, turns the tables on Lili after a night of hot lovin’. But Hedley is supremely greedy and keeps trying. Can the townspeople pull together, overcome their prejudices, give Bart the 24 hours he asks for to devise a brilliant plan to save the town – after all, they’d give it to Randolph Scott – and prevail?

The poster for the movie has the line “Never give a saga an even break” and this one doesn’t. Is it vulgar? Does it offend most ethnic/social/whatever groups? “You bet your ass!” The film gleefully skewers a lot about the Western genre – the cavalry escapes but little else. The references to bits and pieces of famous westerns come thick and fast but the film is still funny even if you don’t catch all this. It’s also chock full of anachronisms including Cole Porter songs, Count Basie and his Orchestra, Boris the medieval executioner, Hedy Lamarr jokes, mentions of Academy Award nominations, German storm troopers and a tollbooth with flashing electrical lights. It was un PC before PC even existed. It goes for shameless laughs and usually succeeds including more than once when the actors break the “fourth wall” to address the audience directly plus the ending which shows that the whole thing is just a movie. The not-to-be-missed campfire scene is movie making history.

Blazing Saddles is also a powerful commentary on race. Sort of like the original Star Trek of a few years prior, it uses a different setting – in this case the historic west of a hundred years ago instead of the far distant SF future – to shine a spotlight on current social situations. I think most people will already know that there are offensive racial slurs used in the film but they are words which would have been commonly used in the historic time period and I think Brooks deliberately employs them to make a point. Plus, it’s the white characters – the common clay of the new west, you know … morons – who are portrayed as racist while every other POC – including the Indians/NA – isn’t. Could the film be remade today? I have my doubts.

But beyond all this, the film is LOL funny. Bart is the dazzling urbanite in the sophisticated Gucci ensemble. Jim has “probably killed more men than Cecille B DeMille.” Hedley Lamarr uses his tongue “prettier than a $20 whore.” Mongo is “only pawn in game of life.” Lili the “Teutonic Titwillow” flatly announces that “everything below the waist is kaput.” Honestly I’ve never gotten tired of rewatching the entire film and probably never will. It’s that great. Sure the plot is off the rails – so to speak – from almost the beginning and the ending certainly takes it beyond even that. But the writing is brilliant, the casting is fabulous and it’s totally quotable. And those elements are what helps make a movie for me.

~Jayne

Related posts:

1. Friday Film Review: Hot Fuzz
2. Friday Film Review: Something New
3. Friday Film Review: Tremors

• Any Man of Mine by Rachel Gibson * $4.99 * Amazon | nook | Kobo
• Waking Up With the Duke by Lorraine Heath * $4.99 * Amazon | nook | Kobo
• The Seduction of Scandal by Cathy Maxwell * $4.99 * Amazon | nook | Kobo
• A Night to Surrender by Tessa Dare * $4.99 * Amazon | nook | Kobo
• What a Duke Wants by Lavinia Kent * $4.99 * Amazon | nook | Kobo
• One Night in London by Caroline Linden * $4.99 * Amazon | nook | Kobo
• In Total Surrender by Anne Mallory * $4.99 * Amazon | nook | Kobo
• The Norse King’s Daughter by Sandra Hill * $4.99 * Amazon | nook | Kobo
• Every Scandalous Secret by Gayle Callen * $4.99 * Amazon | nook | Kobo

Related posts:

1. Monday Midday News: Kindle Touch and Fire Reviews; Black Friday eReader Deals
2. Nook Tablet v. Nook Color v. Kobo Vox v. Kindle Fire Comparison
3. Monday Midday Links: New Nook Tablet

Sarah Wendell and I had a lively debate via email on the topic of inclusion or getting it right.  The Mahajara’s Mistress by Susan Stephens recently reviewed at Smart Bitches features a heroine who has an eye patch due to the loss of an eye and is scarred in her face.  She dresses like a pirate and works at a trendy hair salon in Monaco.  The disfigurement is largely an accessory and not well integrated into the heroine’s character arc.  I felt that the inclusion of disfigured heroines, even when poorly done, was a step forward.  Sarah disagreed. With Sarah’s permission, I have excerpted some of our email exchanges (and yes, I write the briefest emails of all time):

Jane:  There is another HP featuring a heroine who has a prosthetic leg and I confess that I was really disappointed that there wasn’t some discussion about her shyness in taking off her clothes, in showing her leg to her partner.

I mean, in comparison to the lovely breast cancer story by Karina Bliss, there is no comparison, but I give kudos to Harlequin for allowing these characters to exist, even in their meringue like forms.

Sarah:   I can’t give credit for the attempt when the attempt is so shallow and poorly done. You can’t give a character a disability or difference that is so profound and treat it as if it’s haircolor. It’s like all the characters we were discussing before, J, that have coffee-variation colored skin. Does the darkness of their skin affect them or permeate their existence in noticeable ways? No? Then what’s the point of giving a difference from the established Caucasian heteronorm if the difference makes no difference?

Jane:  No, you have a good point, but I think I want to have more inclusion, even in these fits and starts than no inclusion at all.  But I think that describing people with coffee colored skin is tired and old.   So I’m less irritated by the inclusion of a character of color but by the use of food to describe them.

Sarah:   I think what this comes down to is what I think of as the two styles of making change: you can storm the castle and demand change, or you can sneak in the back and change from within. Usually I advocate for the former for a mess of reasons but in this case, the “fits and starts” don’t work for me as a reader and I want to storm the castle. I can’t give any credit to anyone for publishing a half-assed character with a disability or disfigurement.

What bothers me about the fits and starts and the way in which “different” characters are included is when that inclusion is so shallow, the disability or difference is an accessory that can be turned on and off or used for pathos when the scene demands and forgotten otherwise. That’s not how it works. For example, contrast Mia in “Maharaja’s Mistress” to the Karina Bliss character who had a mastectomy without reconstruction. That character’s loss of her breasts was felt in so many small ways, and affected so many parts of how that character felt about herself as a female, as a sexual being, and as a daughter (esp since her mom’s mental health was failing at the same time). Mia, from MM, had an eyepatch. Sometimes it had sequins. She was embarrassed about how she looked. That’s about it.

I do not mean to sound strident here, but there are so many times when I read a review of a romance and see readers say, in effect, “I had NO IDEA there were characters like me in romances,” whether it’s Asperger’s or post-mastectomy. The example you gave of the character having one limb missing and using a prosthesis yet having no shame or embarrassment about showing her body to her partner – that’s just insulting to the reader who has that or similar experience. To treat a major difference like a decoration demeans the experience of people who do have that difference.

So the inclusion makes me want to storm the castle and demand characters who are different from the established Caucasian able-bodied norm and whose differences are at the very least realistic. As a reader, I find it insulting to be told that something so major as a loss of an eye or a leg is no big deal when the characters get naked. There’s a lot of things the mighty wang can do, but growing another eyeball surely isn’t one of them.

Jane: I’m thinking about paranormals and where there is a distinct lack of cultural representation. The homogeny amongst angels and demons being all white is incredible so any inclusion of non white characters as the protags is a bonus for me.

To expand on my thoughts, the norm in romance is white anglo saxon, even in paranormal books we have angels describing other people of color as “exotic” or the only non white people are the bad guys.  In a paranormal world, how is it possible that all these beings: valkryies, vampires, werewolves, angels, demons, fae, etc. are white or European, mostly western European?  It’s not that I don’t think authors shouldn’t make every attempt to “get it right” (see infra, contemporroneous and mistorical discussions).  I do. I think that when you are writing about anything, whether it is women having a career, or characters having a disability, or being of a different race, that authors should do their utmost to get it right because it is respectful and shows thoughtfulness on the part of the author.

It’s that in the romance genre, we are reading a largely homogenous group of people regardless of the sub-genre which would allow for more freedom such as paranormals or contemporaries and perhaps I would give more latitude to authors trying to be more inclusive of differing races, religions, and abilities.  I was thinking about holiday stories recently and how almost all of them seem to celebrate Christmas.  Where is Hanukkah? or Kwanzaa?

We would love to hear what you have to say.  More inclusion even if the authors are flubbing it up right and left or getting it right even if it means more homogeny?

Related posts:

1. Why Accuracy in Historical M/M Romance Matters (to Joan/SarahF)
2. Contemporroneous: 5 Biggest Mistakes Writers Make About Lawyers (or why I rarely read romances featuring lawyers)

(Thanks for the heads up Nadia Lee)

Reader Elizabeth sends this article in over at Bookslut by Colleen Mondor on the issue of kids of color and publishing’s attempt to erase them on the covers and in the text. Mondor asks the big question of why publishing is engaged in whitewashing. Who has sold these marketing folks, the execs, etc., on the idea that a) caucasion kids are the only market and b) that caucasion kids won’t relate to the kid of color.

This industry runs very much with the knowledge that there are sixteen writers waiting to take your place, who are willing to shut up and be agreeable, so they openly treat writers with contempt.

Pearson is engaged in experimenting with different forms of digital books. First is the short book.

FT Press, a unit of Pearson, has introduced two series of short, digital-only titles for professionals who want quick snippets of advice for $2.99 or less.

The publisher, through a new imprint named FT Press Delivers, has quietly begun selling what it is calling Elements and Shorts through the Kindle electronic bookstore on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble's e-bookstore. The Elements, which the publisher has priced at $1.99, are stripped-down, 1,000- to 2,000-word versions of already-published books, while the Shorts are newly written essays of about 5,000 words, priced at $2.99.

Second, it has released ebook apps for “the home and office and technical and professional communities.”

In addition to the fully-populated iPhone Developer’s Library App , Pearson also offers free reader Apps that contain one sample chapter from various best-selling Pearson books, and allow customers to purchase the remaining chapters through a convenient “in-app purchase” feature.

The CEO of Penguin had a rambling op ed piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. I couldn’t quite understand the gist of it but two other people take it on.

Marion Maneker of Big Money says:

For Penguin, which has a lot of its brand (if not revenue) tied up in publishing books that are in the public domain, there’s an important message here about the future of the company. It’s a shame that Makinson didn’t address those issues.

Bookseller sums it up as follows:

Makinson invoked Penguin’s past, calling the e-book a “direct descendent of the 1930s paperback” on the back of which Allen Lane began the publishing company in 1935.

I thought Bookseller was more closely aligned with my interpretation by Marion Maneker’s insight was interesting.

All About Romance rolls out its 2009 Reader Poll results. You would have thought the DA crew made it up, with all the Sherry Thomas and Meredith Duran mentions. Alas, I did not fill out a survey (can’t vouch for the other DA reviewers though).

Reader Merrian sends in this audio interview. I haven’t listened to it yet. I have a number of them that I am collecting and maybe I’ll listen to them on the way to New York in a couple of weeks.

Stephen Page heads the literary publishing house Faber and Faber which, perhaps surprisingly, is embracing the digital future of electronically published books. Stephen Page says the e-book will include all kinds of extra goodies – like author interviews and readings.

Online retailers are looking for Congress to overturn the Leegin decision which found that retail price maintenance (minimum prices with no discounting) were to be examined under the rule of reason. Under the new law, RPMs would not be legal which was the law for 97 years.

On some pages of e-commerce sites selling products like televisions, digital cameras and jewelry, a critical piece of information is conspicuously missing: the price tag….

The missing prices are part of a larger battle sweeping the world of e-commerce. Wary of the Internet's tendency to relentlessly drive down prices, major brands and manufacturers -’ and now, book publishers -’ are striking back, deploying a variety of tactics and tools to control how their products are presented and priced online.

The House Bill has made it out of committee and is recommended to be considered by the entire House for a vote. The Senate version is still in committee.

Of course, even if Leegin is overturned, manufacturers can unilaterally refuse to do business with a dealer. This is known as a Colgate policy. See United States v. Colgate, 250 U.S. 300, 307 (1919). Under the Colgate rule, a manufacturer can set the retail prices, the retailer can discount and the manufacturer can terminate the dealer’s right to sell those products directly. (The dealer could buy those products from a secondary market and resell)

Courtney Milan makes a good argument that a hard price ceiling would reduce the availability of books that need to be priced over $9.99.

I'm not saying that Macmillan is right-far from it. I'm not saying that Amazon is wrong-far from it. I am saying that we need to avoid categorical statements. Some books really  do need to be priced over $9.99, or it simply won't be profitable to produce them. And if we drive those books out, publishing will adapt by not selling them.

It should be noted that there are literally thousands of books in Kindle format that sell in excess of $9.99 and I don’t really think that is what the fight is over.

Related posts:

1. Monday Midday Links: Bookstore Outlet Looks Grim
2. Monday Midday Links: SFR Holiday Bash
3. Monday Midday Links Roundup: ABA Wants DOJ to Investigate Discount Pricing

Straight off the top of your head, do you think that authors have any ethical or moral responsibilities beyond the book?

I'm guessing that the vast majority of you answered this question the same way I did for a long time, with a fully articulated, deeply resounding NO.

As I said, this was my reaction for a long time, duly influenced, I am sure, by the paradigm of literary scholarship in which I still so often work, where everything is merely "interesting," and where social issues are examined without judgment. But purely as a reader, my view on this question has evolved in tandem with the emergence of numerous issues related to but not limited to the books themselves.

And things have gotten most complicated lately around the issue of appropriation, particularly in terms of white authors who write about people of color and straight women authors who write about gay men.

While I don't want to suggest these cases are identical, I think they share two essential characteristics: a) there is an issue of commercial profit based on the experience of historically marginalized people, and b) in both cases there is sometimes a falsity perpetuated in the process of selling the author's work (a male pseudonym or a white character featured on the book cover). And both of these larger issues have raised the issue of whether authors have any ethical or moral responsibilities outside the confines of their writing.

All art requires appropriation – whenever we imagine the experience of another we must embody that person to grasp the differences from our own experiences. I absolutely believe that the construction of alternative realities and personae in fiction charges both its diversity and creativity. And while I do not believe that art must have moral or ethical or social purpose, I do think that fiction can bridge the chasm of difference between people of different experiences and backgrounds, promoting understanding, compassion, and edification. Even those books any of us might find insulting, offensive, unworthy, whatever, have a basic right of expressive existence in the vast realm we refer to as creative freedom.

But what about outside the book; what about the author, as a person, as a name, separate from but attached to the book?

When it comes to pseudonyms, they are as old as writing itself, I daresay, especially these days when privacy is a concern for many public figures. But they’ve had other uses as well. Mary Anne Evans became George Eliot so that her writing would be taken seriously and even chided other women authors for being "silly” and writing silly books. Harold Lowry writes genre Romance as Leigh Greenwood, one of more than a handful of men who write pseudonymously in this female-dominated genre.   And increasingly, some female writers of m/m Romance are donning male pseudonyms, as well. On a superficial level, the reason for this is obvious: it creates a sense of confidence in the reader that the author knows what s/he is writing about. Which, as blogger Sparky argues, is exactly the problem:

HOWEVER when you use a MALE pen name (and, to a lesser extent, but still very telling, a gender neutral or initialled pen name) in the m/m genre you are doing so in a context where authors do try to fake being gay men for the sake of "authenticity". When you use a male name in the m/m genre you are implying that you are a gay man – you are implying knowledge and life experience you do not have, you have not suffered for and you have NO RIGHT to claim. This is an appropriation of our identity and is one of the most grossly disrespectful parts of the m/m genre. Women using pseudonyms in the Romance genre don't feel the need to suddenly use male names – so why do they in the m/m?

But all writing is appropriation, right? Didn't I just say that at the beginning of this piece?

Yes, I did. But I'm not sure all appropriation is created equal, especially if the appropriation extends beyond the writing and into the public face of the author. We all know about the various cases of fake memoirs, from Angel At the Fence to Love and Consequences to Forbidden Love, where the story itself is presented as authentic and the author a witness or participant. But authenticity attaches to fiction to a certain extent, as well, or pseudonyms aimed at a specific gender or cultural affiliation would be deemed unnecessary. Yet they persist.

And in some cases (especially with men writing Romance under female pseudonyms), the author does not try to hide the “real” person behind the pseudonym. But if, say, a female author publicly presents herself as a presumably gay male, if she hides her true gender in order to sell books, isn't that essentially an attempt to commercially profit off of someone else's life experience? But that's what all writing is, I said! And it's all a fantasy, anyway! It's about the story!

Okay, but we're not talking just about the writing here – we're talking about selling an identity, an experience in the form of a public authorial identity. We're talking about selling authenticity, which is where one holds out an identity for the purpose of getting others to trust in that identity in buying/reading a book. And, as Sparky suggests, when the group that constructs the author’s pseudonymous identity has been traditionally marginalized and oppressed, isn't an attempt to profit off of that group's experiences by publicly claiming that identity inherently exploitive?

I am asking this as an open question, by the way.

Another manifestation of the appropriation and authenticity conundrum we've seen lately is the cover debate, sparked by Justine Larbalestier's Liar and more recently by Jaclyn Dolarmore's Magic Under Glass, both books published by Bloomsbury and both undergoing cover renovations after representing white girls in place of the protagonists of color. In the midst of the debates about Dolamore's book, Larbalestier blogged that

Sticking a white girl on the cover of a book about a brown girl is not merely inaccurate, it is part of a long history of marginalisaton and misrepresentation. Publishers don't randomly pick white models. It happens within a context of racism.

Blogger Editorial Anonymous said

And also for the record: those of us who objected to the cover were not objecting on the author’s behalf. We were objecting on the readers’ behalf. And especially on the minority readers’ behalf, because some of us understand how excruciating and demoralizing it is to children to be made to feel that they are the wrong color.

In both these cases, the darker-skinned heroine was being represented on the book's cover as light-skinned. Whether or not the context here is one of out and out racism, it is clearly one of race and one of commercial profit. However, unlike the female to male pseudonym situation, here we have something of the opposite: the commercially viable position is one of white, and the perpetrator is the publisher.

So why even implicate the author in this? She has no control over her cover art, right? Karen Healey went so far as to suggest that authors are "endangering" their careers by speaking out against a whitewashed cover:

But there was one response from people who were justifiably angry that I do not think was practical, and that was the expectation that the author should have spoken up publicly and denounced this cover. Even if, these people said, even if authors really have no control over their covers and it’s all the publisher’s doing, she should make a stand!

This is roughly equivalent to expecting someone who has just acquired their dream job to curse their boss for doing something wrong. In front of a packed press room. While the boss is standing beside them on the podium.

First, in response to the persistent employer/employee analogy Charles Petit of Scrivener's Error makes the following correction: "Bluntly, under the 1976 Copyright Act, there is no real question that the publishers’ rights are subordinate to those of the authors (excepting, of course, works made for hire… in which the patron/publisher is wrongly defined as the author)."   I don't know where this whole "employee" model of authors came from, but if authors are employees, then they would likely be producing works for hire, and not creative works over which they own the rights. They couldn't be complaining about piracy disrupting their copyrights, etc.

Rarely have I seen this employee analogy forwarded except in cases where the author is being asked by the reader to question or protest against the publisher on behalf of the reader (not on behalf of the author herself, as was the case during the protest against Harlequin). But I am willing to accept the idea that speaking out against a whitewashed cover may place the author in the position of "rocking the boat" and being viewed as "difficult."

My next question, though, is whether that means the author has no ethical or moral responsibility to take a stand against whitewashed covers, especially when the author in question is white.

I am a bit more ambivalent about this situation than the pseudonym case, in part because the author is not directly or initially perpetrating the whitewashing. However, if the author supports the whitewashing, either overtly or tacitly, is the author participating in the erasure of those very characters of color she created? And more importantly, is there an added responsibility in a white author writing about characters of color, in appropriating the experiences of non-white peoples in a commercial – hopefully, profit-yielding – work of fiction?

In an industry where authors of color – in Romance, at least – are shelved separately from other genre books, where being an author of color – especially a black author – can automatically land her books on a separate, ethically-designated shelf in the bookstore, white authors have much more mobility within the genre. Beyond the book, there is a definite privileging of whiteness in Romance, combined with a fetishization of race, that extends to the race of the author and the way the book is represented to the reader.

So why shouldn't the white author who appropriates racial otherness have some responsibility to represent those like her characters outside the book, too?

Again, an open question.

Personally, I am adamant about protecting an author's creative freedom. I generally do not believe that authors explicitly owe individual readers anything outside the book. And I have read numerous objections to this idea of authorial responsibility beyond the book with the admonishment that perhaps authors will stop writing about characters of other races, sexual experiences, etc. But you know, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for authors to think good and hard about what it means to write about people of color, about people of different sexual orientations and practices, about people of different cultural, ethnic, religious backgrounds. Just as I don’t think it’s a bad thing for readers to approach these stories mindfully. How can mindfulness be a bad thing, especially when we’re talking about commercial work aimed at yielding economic profit?

I do realize that, especially in the case of covers, there are some significant intersections between how characters are represented on covers and how they are represented within the books themselves, and how much more complex questions of authentic representation within books are. Also, I deliberately did not frame this inquiry in terms of what authors owe readers or what readers can expect from authors, because I’m not sure to whom I’d say authors specifically owe these ethical or moral responsibilities. I believe these issues are related to core community values, and by extension, to larger social values.

Even if an author does not believe that s/he has any responsibilities beyond the book, I would suggest that when an author endeavors to represent the experiences of another group, particularly a historically disenfranchised group, and further, if an author aims to suggest membership in that group through a pseudonym, then the author should be prepared to meet the criticism of readers who do believe that the author has some off-page responsibility, either to them, to the genre, to the marginalized group, or to society at large. And if authors do not respect that readers may buy the full implications of what authors are presenting to them for purchase, they risk losing the respect that those readers have for their work.

So back to the original question: should authors be held to a higher responsibility beyond the book when they choose to appropriate the experience of historically marginalized peoples? Should they be expected to deal with reader anger or protest (boycott, letter writing, etc.)? Beyond the creative freedom artists expect, what ethical or moral responsibilities, if any, do they have?

Related posts:

1. Ethical Reviewing: Transparency, Consistency, and Community
2. Authors Sue Publisher for Giveaways and Book Club Sales
3. Why Mislabeling Will Hurt New Authors (or The One Where Jane Broke Her IPAQ Hurling a Book Against the Wall)

I found this holiday code at Scooper Speaks blog. Today (and yesterday), all of the books on Dorchester’s site are 70% off. The promo code is Holiday70. (http://www.dorchesterpub.com/)

There’s no indication on the site that the sale exists. I called their 800 number to confirm before creating my account (which requires credit cad info before the promotion code entry is available). I’m thinking about placing another order today since i don’t own any Marjorie Liu books…

Go forth and buy!

****

Here are links to a couple of book trailers from high powered authors: Born of Ice by Sherrilyn Kenyon and What I Did for Love by Susan Elizabeth Phillips. These videos are quite different in look, feel, and tone. They both match the overall feel of the books but does one sell better than the other?

****

The nook is delayed again and customers are not happy. (link via Teleread.org). The forum thread is interesting because there is discussion about the Spring Design lawsuit and debate over whether demand is causing delays. I have a hard time buying into why increased demand would cause delays in shipping for all orders. The pushback of release dates seems to me either a production issue or a legal one rather than – oh, we can’t ship out the thousands of nooks we have already produced because there is too much demand.

****

Search Engineland has a live blog of the FTC Workshop on Journalism and the Internet.

Today, papers are in position of producing a product that’s liked but not considered needed by college grads. But you can’t reverse the internet revolution. You couldn’t if you tried. Nor would you want to, as it has benefits. Goal should be to extend the benefits broadly and ensure survival of journalism (not necessarily newspapers). Seattle PI is now online; Rocky Mountain News [I think] closed. Nearly 47,000 workers in journalism laid off, hardest in investigative and foreign coverage, as these are most expensive. Meanwhile in Trenton, where 50 reporters were covering the statehouse, now think he said only 10.

****

Bookavore pleads with authors to a) stop describing every non white character’s race because the default assumption that all characters are white unless otherwise described is, well, irritating;   and b) to stop using shorthand in YA books.

To go a bit further: look, I know WHY you create these mythical best friends, these girls who wave their hands in the air like they just don’t care, who pair Converse with tutus, who play viola in the morning and varsity soccer at night. It’s because they make your protagonists seem normal and relatable. Of course we all think other people are cooler than us (especially when we’re 14) and of course this is a good way to impress upon your reader that your main character is "JUST LIKE YOU!"

Related posts:

1. Tuesday Midday Links: Amazon’s Charm Offensive
2. Tuesday Midday Tech Links: BN’s Reader Is Called Nook. Not a Joke
3. Tuesday Midday Review Links: Kindle is everywhere but Canada (WTF?)

Earlier in this year of 2009, there was a Great Cultural Appropriation Debate, dubbed racefail09, that centred mainly around the SF/F genres. If you clicked on that link, it leads to a set of many, many, many links about race, racism, cultural appropriation and white privilege. (If you’ve never heard of these terms before – or your knee jerk reaction is to say “I don’t have white privilege!” – this is a good place to start reading.)

Romance suffers from the same problem SF/F does. It’s very, very white. It would also seem that readers are far more okay with reading about vampires and werewolves and demons and angels than characters of colour. That is not okay. Think about what this means for a second. And imagine, if you will, being erased in stories or always in the background, a victim, evil, maybe the best friend or sidekick. . .but never the hero of your own story. This is what appropriation does to people of colour. It is not diversity to have white people running around in foreign lands without much thought to the people who are native to those lands. I can’t say I find it romantic when they’re in the middle of colonizing another country either; I’m not sure how I’m supposed to root for our heroes when they’re killing or enslaving other people, or condoning/profiting from it, even if they aren’t actively participating (this is an issue even when white characters don’t visit foreign lands, but it’s a bit harder to ignore, I think, when they’re in the middle of taking over another country).

Is it possible to write white people in foreign lands without it being appropriative? I don’t think I’ve seen this done in a historical. I hesitate to say never (it’s not like I’ve read every book in the romance genre), but at the same time, there’s also the issue of creating yet another story about white people. Even if this story were remarkably absent of exoticism and respectful of the other culture, it still features white people, which means the characters of colour are in the background somewhere; this is a problem in contemporary (and fantasy) settings, as well. The stories of white people are being privileged over the stories of people of colour. If you truly mean to be diverse, write and read about people of colour. Make them the main characters of your stories. Even – or especially – in a historical romance.

I admit to reading less and less romance novels as I’ve grown more aware of these issues. I’ve also fallen out of the fandom quite a bit because there seems to be an overwhelming pressure to keep things “nice” and “polite”; I can understand the need for civil discourse, but not when tone is used as a silencing tactic so these things don’t get discussed. So I read other genres, like YA, which is still mainly white, but seems to be a bit more open to diversity. There’s this YA book I read the other day, Justina Chen Headley’s Girl Overboard, that I fell in love with. It’s everything I mean and want to see in a book when I say there ought to be people of colour in the leading roles.

Girl Overboard is about a Chinese-American teenage girl, Syrah Cheng, whose story is one of growing up, finding herself, dealing with her parents, making friends, thinking about boys, thinking about her future… And snowboarding and drawing manga. I like to think some of Syrah’s emotions and experiences are universal enough that white people would be willing to read about them and perhaps even see themselves in this character; after all, it’s what many people of colour often (have to) do. I appreciate that this isn’t a book about race or racism; they are mentioned, but are not the main focus of the story (there’s a place for those books too, but not what I always want to read). For the most part, being Chinese simply is. And it’s integrated with the American culture of the Pacific Northwest because Syrah is a first generation citizen living in Seattle. This book stands out to me not only as a fabulous story, but also as a story about people of colour by a person of colour. [/plugging]

One way to combat appropriation is to let and encourage people (writers) of colour tell their own stories. I don’t see a reason why this couldn’t apply to romance as well. It already exists, though I’ve only read it in a contemporary setting with Marjorie Liu’s books (her supernatural people don’t bother me because she has actual characters of colour in her books. I mean, I like the X-Men. I see value in metaphors, but the metaphor of alienation, being different, being treated as sub-human, etc, only goes so far when there aren’t any characters of colour in your stories, which ends up perpetuating the problems the metaphors are attempting to address.)

As a romance reader, I’ve grown increasingly wary of books set in “exotic” locations. I never know, if I read that story, if it’s going to offend or hurt me in some way. It’s easier, for me, to suspend disbelief – pretend it’s a kind of fantasy or alternate history – if the story is about rich, upper-class white people doing rich, upper-class white people things. Although this is not to say it’s a good thing to have “wallpaper history” as the setting, or that writers should aim for such a low standard or write alternate histories in which people of colour are erased. I am saying, when writing people of colour or another person’s culture, take the time to know what you’re writing about. If I never see another non-white person described as “exotic” or with “almond shaped eyes“, it won’t be soon enough. If nothing else, I think these are very lazy terms to use to describe someone who isn’t white — it’s an extremely vague description and rather insulting to be lumped together in one or two tired phrases, like all people of colour (POC) look alike (and, for some reason, we always get compared to food. What’s up with that?). I would like to think it’s possible for historical romances about characters of colour, set somewhere that isn’t England or America, and that’s respectful of the culture to exist. And that white people could write these stories alongside writers of colour telling their own stories. I’m just not sure that I’ve seen it, or, actually, looked for it.

I’m not saying writing is easy to do. I’m not saying writers will get writing other people and their culture(s) right all the time. And it’s hard, as a reader, to come across beloved books or authors and find out their writing contains racist or white privileged ideas. I’m not saying you will cure racism. I’m not saying I want authors to defend their work; I’d like them not to continue to further get stuff wrong, though. I’m not even saying you’ll be praised for your efforts (especially if you get stuff wrong — your intentions are only as good as the outcome). I am saying you should try, regardless. And I think supporting or reading books by and about people of colour is one way to do this; as is being more aware of when cultural appropriation, racism and white privilege are occurring in your fiction and perhaps even talking and educating others about it.

Janine adds: Handy Hunter, our guest blogger, has requested that we add this video of a speech given by Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie, titled “The Danger of a Single Story,” to the bottom of this opinion piece. You won’t regret watching it. It’s truly excellent!

Related posts:

1. Is the Kindle Ruining Cultural Snobbishness?
2. Book Pimp Post #2
3. Cross Blog Post: State of Plagiarism Today

One thing I’m trying to do this year is expand my reading horizons.   I usually stay within my favorite genres of fantasy, paranormals, and young adult, but sometimes you need variety to keep things interesting.   So when I was glancing through the eHarlequin website earlier this month, your book caught my eye because of the interracial couple on the cover.   I normally don’t read romantic suspense but my interest was piqued and Harlequin/Silhouette books are short enough that I don’t feel like I’m making a massive time commitment if things don’t work out as well as I’d hoped.

Anamaria Duquesne comes from a long line of psychic women.   When she was a little girl, she predicted her mother’s death.   Now over twenty years later, she returns at her grandmother’s request to learn more about the circumstances surrounding that tragic event.

Robbie Calloway is a lawyer who’s been hired to keep an eye on her.   When you make a living by telling fortunes, you can’t help but end up accused of being a swindler, even if you’re the real deal.   And make no mistake, Anamaria is the real deal.   (I guess I wasn’t able to completely stay away from paranormal elements, after all!)   We’re led to believe that Robbie’s client is worried Anamaria is going to take advantage of his wife’s gullibility the same way her mother once did.   But it soon becomes apparent that everyone in Copper Lake has a secret, some of which they’d prefer stay buried.

I admit I was initially concerned when I started learning about Anamaria’s family.     The Duquesne women are a long line of single mothers who have children — always daughters — out of wedlock, all of which are fathered by different men.   If that’s not a racial stereotype, I don’t know what is.   And while I think their collective free-spirited outlook on their lifestyle and their being portrayed as strong, independent women might be indicative of a subversion of this cliché, I remained uneasy about this aspect from start to finish.   Different readers might have different reactions to this, one way or another.

In addition, her mother, Glory, fits the tragic mulatta archetype at first glance and that lingered in the back of my mind as I read the book, bracing myself for the hammer to come down at any moment.   When the truth about Glory’s death is revealed, I ultimately concluded she didn’t really fit this stereotype but again, I think this is another aspect readers could go either way on.

When it comes to the actual story, I’m not sure I would call this book suspenseful.   I’ll be truthful and say this is the first book I’ve ever read from any Harlequin/Silhouette romantic suspense line so I have no measuring stick to guide me.   As Anamaria’s investigation into the past continues, there are escalating threats to her safety but they never struck me as particularly dangerous to her life.   Maybe I just have some preconceived notions about romantic suspense that need addressing (and destroying), if I always think they involve women in peril.

Even when it comes to the romantic aspect, I’m not sure I completely bought it.   The Duquesne women are known for “loving hard and unwisely” and it seems like Anamaria knew Robbie would be that man for her at first sight.   That might explain why I have a hard time swallowing it since the destined love trope generally tends not to work for me.   As for Robbie, I also had a hard time warming up to him.   He’s the lazy playboy son of a rich family and is used to all the privilege that affords him.   I don’t understand how he can even call himself a lawyer without laughing since he hardly does any work!   But once he started falling for Anamaria, his outlook starts changing in ways that softened me towards him.

This brings me to the aspect I liked best: the treatment of race and class in the context of interracial relationships in a small, deep Southern town.   It’s not glossed over or brushed aside.   Anamaria comes from a long line of women used to being kept as secret lovers to what often are rich, white men.   Robbie comes from a background where he’s expected to marry a blue-eyed blond and have a proper, class-appropriate marriage.   That’s the point at which their relationship starts so watching their respective outlooks change — Anamaria wonders why she can’t marry the man she loves hard and unwisely and Robbie wonders if marrying a blue-eyed blond is what he really wants when the future children he imagines are all daughters who look like Anamaria — was the most engrossing part of the novel for me.   It’s not ever preachy or overt but it’s there and I found that very realistic given their respective backgrounds.

I also liked how achieving their HEA was about fighting tradition for what you truly want.   Robbie’s circumstances are obviously a matter of tradition.   Marry a white, blue-eyed blond socialite from a rich family and have a marriage and family that’s expected from someone from your social status and class.   But Anamaria’s circumstances are a tradition too, in their own way.   The Duquesne women call their propensity to fall for the wrong men a curse, but is that really the case?   Or is it a self-fulfilling prophecy that passes from one generation to the next?

When it comes to a grade, I’m a bit torn.   I feel that the plot itself is a C+, especially in light of the real reason Robbie was hired to tail Anamaria in the first place, which I thought was abruptly revealed.   On the other hand, I thought the portrayal of race and class as it affects a relationship was really well-handled and for that reason, I settled on a B-.   From looking at your backlist, I see this was apparently the last book in a series about the Calloway brothers, so I think I might pick the first three up sometime in the future.

My regards,
Jia

This book can be purchased in mass market from Amazon or ebook format from the Sony Store and other etailers.

Related posts:

1. REVIEW: Sin and Scandal in England by Melody Thomas
2. REVIEW: Public Scandal, Private Mistress by Susan Napier
3. REVIEW: Before the Scandal by Suzanne Enoch

During the past couple of weeks, the Smart Bitches and Karen Scott’s blog hosted heated debates regarding the state of African American romance fiction. For the most part and with few exceptions, romance books written by African Americans are shelved with African American books. To some authors, this is a regressive trait in what we like to pretend is a post racial culture. There has been a request by some authors that readers take a stand since the majority of romance dollars are spent by white females. The problem is that there are several ways in which romance readers can address this issue but I don’t know which is the one we should take.

There was one commenter at the SB’s who said she needed an ally. I find that to be true. If an author or a group of authors stepped up and said this is the direction we would like you to go, then I would take up the standard and run with them. But right now, I am stalled at the starting line, wondering which fork in the road I should take.

CHALLENGE 1: African American authors are relegated to niche marketing through segregated shelving.

SOLUTIONS:

1. Eliminate niche marketing for all African American romance books.

PRO: Exposure to a larger audience. Reduce the possible stigma that books featuring African American couples or books penned by African American authors are somehow different and not appropriate for the mainstream audience.

CON: Not all AA authors want to eliminate niche marketing. With niche marketing, books get in front of a pool of interested buyers. There is also increased shelving space, possible longer shelf life and no competition with the 400 other romances that are released each month.

2. Allow authors to choose where they want to be shelved.

PRO: This would solve the problem of the issue of treating African American authors as one hive mind. There are clearly some authors and readers who appreciate the niche marketing. By having the authors designate where their books should be shelved places the onus and power with the author and not some corporate schlub.

CON: First, feasibility. Bookstores, generally, refuse to double shelf because of the limited shelf space, the logistics of double shelving. Second, equality. African Americans who want to be shelved in the romance section (versus the AA section) state that they want equal treatment. If African Americans authors were allowed to choose where they want to be shelved, would booksellers be forced to treat non African Americans the same way? This would create a logistical nightmare as authors would send in requests to be shelved in certain areas and I’m sure that there would some who would ask to be shelved in romance who aren’t writing romance books.

3. Require publishers to stop selling books as niche marketing. As I understand it, chain booksellers have buyers for different genres. The marketing arm of the publisher pitches the books to the particular buyer. Who buys determines where the book is shelved. If publishers would have their marketers pitch a romance book to the romance buyer, it is more likely to end up shelved in the romance section.

PRO: Requiring publishers to market romances as romances regardless of the race of the books’ characters and the books’ authors would eliminate the logistical and feasibility problems that arise in the bookseller in control scenario described above.

CON: Like the removal of segretated shelving described in Scenario 1, this treats all African American romance authors the same regardless if they prefer the niche marketing.

As I stated at the outset, I think some of the lack of response to the issues raised by African American authors is due to issue paralysis. We don’t know which issue to take up as our cause. One other area in which I think we need to work together to achieve is increased visibility for African Americans authors on romance blogs.

The main problem for us at Dear Author is that because of the volume of books that we receive, we tend not to read anything that is not sent to us via email or snail mail. Dear Author posted 40 reviews in the month of April. The number of reviewed books that the reviewers had purchased was 2 or 3.

I’m sure that Dear Author is not the only blog who feels overwhelmed by the number of books it has the very good fortune of being offered. Truly it is a blessing but it is a blessing that causes us to be absentminded about books that are published and not before our eyes

The best way for an author to increase her chances of being read, reviewed, and recommended is to send us an email with a blurb and link to an excerpt. If the excerpt or blurb is interesting enough, we’ll buy our own copy so we don’t require a free book. Janine bought Ginn Hale’s Wicked Gentleman and on recommendation by Teddy Pig, I bought, read and enjoyed Josh Lanyon’s Adrien Fletcher mysteries (review to come). Both of these purchases seeded other purchases. Janine bought another book from Hale’s small print publisher and I bought two more books by Lanyon.

So we at DearAuthor need help. We need authors and readers to send us recommendations of books by African American authors. I think we’ve proven that we’ll read anything so long as it is a good book regardless of race, sexual orientation, or sub genre. This is not something that we are asking only African American authors do. As I blogged about last week, there are some things people can do to increase the likelihood of the group here reading and reviewing a particular book.

What I am saying is that authors and bloggers can work together to achieve positive results, but the key here is working together. If all we do is hurl insults at each other or talk past each other or say the one side doesn’t understand the other, we will never move from our current position and in ten years, we’ll still be bemoaning the segregation of African American romance fiction.

Related posts:

1. Racism in Publishing
2. Changes Afoot to Wal-Mart’s Shelving of Books?
3. Seattle Weekly Explores the Ethnic Divide in Romances

Does this mean that there will be a Latina section in the Borders store like there is an African American section? Are Latina authors happy about the specialized market segmentation? Will Julie Leto’s great “Dirty” series be reprinted to be sold to the new Latina book club? So many questions.

Related posts:

1. Borders Announces Its Literary Idol Finalists
2. Libraries account for 10% of the book market
3. Literary Arts Home in Minneapolis MN

The article is largely dismissive of romance stating the the “paperbacks are cheap and hardly literary” and wondering “Why would anyone want to write them?” But it does bring to light the strange practice of segregating the books by author ethnicity instead of by genre. It also questions why such a popular genre is so lacking in multicultural figures, both behind the covers and between them.

Glenda Howard, the executive editor for the African American Harlequin line, Kimani, believes that African-American romance is a growth area, calling it “robust and it’s flourishing.” But authors who aren’t African-American and aren’t Caucasion find themselves adrift. There is no South American, Asian-Pacific Islander writing groups or lines devoted to those ethnicities. “Sarkar-Mishra echoes Flynn’s comments about Asian writers when she says, ‘If it’s not African-American fiction, it’s Caucasian–"and no in-between.’”

If you can withstand the constant romance put downs, the article is an interesting read.

Via Seattle Weekly.

Related posts:

1. Racism in Publishing
2. Ebook Weekly Article Delayed
3. Publisher’s Weekly Names Jane Friedman as Person of the Year

In a high school in Jena, Louisiana, a beautiful shady tree became a symbol of the racial tension. The high school allowed the school property to be coopted by the whites and it was known as a “whites only” place for students. A black freshman decided he would like to sit there and went to the principal about the tree. A day later, after the freshman requested to sit under a tree, three nooses were hung.

A few of the star football players, who were black, staged a protest by standing under the tree. The incident was reported to the principal who called the incident a “prank” and suspended the offenders for three days. This incident led to heated racial tensions. At an all white party in the fall, a black student was struck over the head with a bottle. The white offender was charged with a misdemeanor.

In another incident, a white man pulled a gun on a group of black kids. The black kids wrestled the gun away and reported the incident to the police who charged them with attempted robbery of the gun.

The situation came to a head on December 4th when a fight broke out and six black teens were arrested and charged with aggravated assault. A white teen was battered and concussed and spent a few hours in the hospital. He was released and attended a party later that evening.

The DA was committed to making a statement with the three black teens and increased the charges to second degree attempted murder and conspiracy. In a statement to the press, the DA promised that when the 6 boys were convicted, he would pursue the maximum penalty allowed by law which could be up to 100 years.

In a two day trial in which the defense offered no testimony, no witnesses, the first of the six boys was convicted of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit the same. This conviction carries with it a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison. The boy has already spent months in jail while his family scrambled to come up with enough money to meet the high bail set by the judge.

This boy is known as one of the Jena 6 and this story is not one that happened in the 1930s or 1950s or 1970s. It happened last year and Mychal Bell was convicted on June 28, 2007, just a month ago. I read a few comments on other blogs where the Intel ad appeared in which the commenters claimed that people were reading too much into the ad and that racism really was overplayed.

When I read the stories about the Jena 6, I was moved to tears at the injustice of it. A two day second degree murder trial? It would take longer to pick a jury than to try a case. I’ve read that a number of scholars and lawyers are collaborating on the appeal of Mychal Bell and in the defense of the next 5 trials.

You can read more about the Jena 6 and the travesty of justice that is happening right now, in our country at the following sites:

• While Seated
• Democracy Now
• Louisiana Weekly

Via MagicNoire.

Related posts:

1. Intel Ad Exec Doesn’t Want Job Anymore
2. REVIEW: Cat Tales: A Christmas Story by Leta Nolan Childers
3. The Neverending Story: When Enough Is Enough

In a case of either monumental stupidity or poor judgment (or both), Intel choose to run an ad for its new Core Duo processor by showing six black men (who all look the same) in a crouched position with one Dockers clad white middle management wank in the middle. The black men are supposed to be sprinters, but the visual imagery of these six black men in a near kneeling position with the white guy standing in the middle is just bad, bad, bad.

Even taken at face value, without the horrible symbolism that could be read into the ad, the fact is that the ad is selling the black folks as the workhorses and the white folk as the pants clad office management. See. Bad all around.

Copyranter claims that it is reverse discrimination, suggesting that Intel is calling him slow and suggest an Intel boycott for the reverse racism against crackers. (This is tongue in cheek, obviously, before anyone goes off on copyranter.)

Me thinks that some Intel Ad Exec is dusting off his resume and looking for a new job.

Via PenciledIn.

Related posts:

1. Author Kate Rothwell Asks Can You Be ColorBlind?

Sharon Cullars, author of Again and The Object of Love, repurposed the images of the Black Dagger Brotherhood and challenges readers whether these brothers could fit into their fantasies.

I’m not much for man titty, but I know a pretty face when I see it and these men can be the stars in my romance book any day.

Related posts:

1. REVIEW: Lover Eternal by JR Ward
2. REVIEW: Lover Awakened by J.R. Ward

Related posts:

1. REVIEW: Hope’s Captive by Kate Lyon
2. New Report Says Author Presence Online Is Important
3. International Author Series: Nalini Singh

An African American author shouldn’t have his or her audience limited by race. Put the authors according to the genre so that all readers can be exposed to fresh voices and finding books isn’t complicated by visiting the various continents in this bookstore. Okay, now kids, overhere we have the Asian continent where you will find books on Soduku and Kung Fu.

Edited to Add: Because some commenters can’t behave civilly, I am moderating the comments and if I believe (because I get to be the moderator) that the post is in anyway an ad hominem attack, the post gets edited, deleted and I may even ban the commenter.

Related posts:

1. A Solution for Self Publishing: Establish Your Own Small Press
2. Blacks & Books
3. REVIEW: Why Harlequin Authors Should Move to E Publishing

In 2002, the NFL adopted the “Rooney Rule” which required all teams to consider a full complement of races when making hiring decisions. In practice, it is widely acknowledged that you must interview one minority candidate for each position. The rule was given teeth when the NFL fined the Detroit Lions $200,000.00 when it choose to hire Steve Marucci as its next head coach without interviewing any minority candidates.

Some inside sports decried this fine because Detriot had wanted Marucci and only Marucci. Why drag some poor African American coach up for a cursory and token interview? Yet, since the Rooney Rule was implemented, the number of minority coaches has tripled to six. Affirmative action seems to be working within the NFL. Should there be some type of similar affirmative action in romance?

A week ago, a fellow blogger asked me why I didn't read more African American romance. This was days before a certain scuffle on the internet erupted. Said blogger got me to thinking and I have been going over this in my mind for days now and this is the distilled results.

When I examined my reading habits I know that I don't particularly care what color the characters are. I've read characters that are Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, Muslim. I've read authors that are Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American and Muslim. It is the packaging, then, that must be holding me back.

If I am making race based decisions as a reader, is that wrong? For example, I am Asian. I have lived a unique life as an Asian American and I have found I like to read stories that reflect that experience. There are certain commonalities. When I was perusing the Little Brown catalog for young readers last year, I saw a book entitled: Nothing But the Truth (and a Few White Lies) by Justina Chen Headley. It was a story about a teenaged girl dealing with only in parts: part white, part Asian and never a whole. That story resonated with me, along with stories from Cara Lockwood.

Is it racist of me to gravitate toward themes and stories which have similarities to my own experience?

If I read characters that are of different cultures and ethnicities, does that make me non racist? I.e., I have read Howl by Raine Weaver featuring an African American heroine. I haven't reviewed that book because I haven't read the rest of the anthology, but it was quite good. I enjoyed the Kyra Moray series featuring an interracial couple and another Deanna Lee book, Undressing Mercy, featuring an interracial couple. Alison Kent's Beyond a Shadow featured a mixed couple. The hero is not African American but rather Caribbean. Suzanne Brockmann wrote Harvard’s Education, the first featuring black couple to grace the covers of a category romance novel. Shelly Laurentson's The Distressing Damsel features a woman with “soft brown skin” and “[b]ig brown eyes.”

Of the above books, only Ms. Weaver and Ms. Laurentson are African American. So is it that I am intentionally excluding African American authors from my reading list? I honestly don't know that many African American authors. I bought and read Kayla Perrin’s Getting Even. I know that Sharon Cullars is and I bought her Aphrodisia, Again, during the great Aphro purchase of 2006 but haven't read it along with three other Aphrodisia's such as Vivi Anna's Hell Kat. I've bought some Brenda Jackson but haven't read her along with Jo Leigh. I don't know that I can honestly say that I've consciously chosen not to read African American authors.

Should I be seeking them out? What about the poor Asian midlist authors such as Jade Lee and Gennita Low? Shouldn't I support these ladies? And didn't I show just how racist I am not by supporting Nalini Singh? She's Indian and her heroine is some mongrel mixed race person.

When I was first asked, my knee jerk response was that I was lazy. I didn't see any romances featuring African Americans in the regular romance aisle. I read a lot of paranormals and don't see any paranormals featuring African Americans. Surely, if the books were side by side, I would make my decision based on blurb alone. I felt confident in myself recalling the Avon books I had been sent this month. Gimme an O by Kayla Perrin featured a philandering married man as the hero and a sex therapist as a heroine. Infidelity and already married? No thanks. How about Hot Boyz by Marissa Monteilh featuring three perfect dreams that are shattered and a family shaken to its core with legacies of loss and obligation, tragedy and madness, threatening everything the Wilson brothers have worked for. Doesn't sound like a romance. (note that these are all marked “Fiction” on the spine).

Then I got to thinking. What about the ebooks, Jane? Every month I cruise Fictionwise, Ereader, and Harlequin looking for new books. I would look at the “Luna” line. More recently I looked at the Blaze line or the Nocturne line. Never once have I looked at the Kimani Press line.

Why not? Ultimately it came down to this and I cringe when I read it in print. I made the assumption that the themes of these books would be more urban in nature or more like the Toni Morrison books I’ve read which have all been very women’s fiction-y. I felt awful when I reached this conclusion.

Surely, I can't be racist. My second mother, one to whom I send flowers to every mother's day and has been an influential part of my life since college, is African American. Nearly every African American I have been exposed to has been college educated and professional. So why would I assume that the stories in the books published under the Kimani imprint be any different than their stories or my story, frankly? It’s a bit lowering. No, shameful, to have examined myself and found this. (of course, I do have preconceived notions about Harlequin Presents line too).

Obviously I was making a race based assumption and a wrong one at that. Last night I perused the blurbs for about 15 Kimani Press books. They sounded like every other category romance out there. Some filled with babies. Others filled with CIA operatives. Some with Deserts and Sheiks. (The latter one I bought).

The fact it is that publishers aren't marketing to me but that is because I am not buying. If more non African American readers began buying books featuring African Americans wouldn't the publishers market those books to everyone, instead of special group of individuals. Ned says that the decision to put African Americans in their own special place is akin to going to the movie theatre and having a camera identify you as white and then exclude movies like Drum Line or Stomp the Yard. If you wanted to see those movies, you would have to go to a special section of the theatre, plus you have to actually know that it exists. That is so ridiculous.

This is a double edged sword though. Are African American authors going to lose sales at a greater rate of gaining sales by moving to the main romance section.

Ultimately the question is whether we as readers, booksellers, bloggers, word of mouth purveyors have a moral obligation to read outside our ethnicities. Should we institute the Rooney Rule and read one author a month that is not Caucasion. Wouldn't that go a long way in abrogating race based assumptions? I know that I, personally, am going to make a greater effort to read other ethnicities, including but not limited to, African American authors. But, I am still not reading the Kayla Perrin book.

Janine commented to me

Fantasies are not always politically correct. If a reader prefers to read about dominant alpha heroes, does that mean she is sexist? If a reader prefers to read about British aristocrats, does that mean that she supports a class system and opposes democracy and equality? If a reader doesn’t seek out books with Jewish characters, does that make her anti-Semitic? I don’t mean these as rhetorical questions, I think they are worth asking.

Something else to think about is that it can be tough to find a truly great book, regardless of its author’s race or religion. In search of that great book we online readers often rely on the recommendations of other readers and review sites, as well as on bestseller lists. If we don’t get recommendations for books by minority authors, or see those authors on bestseller lists, we may end up not buying or reading their books, without any conscious intent to avoid them. Is what’s needed here a kind of affirmative action program for minority authors? Would something like that work in the context of a recreational activity like reading, that people do for fun?

Jayne responded:

Speaking for myself, I don’t actively go out looking for AA authors but I don’t try to avoid their books either. If a plot or hook interested me, I’d read one. But I’m not going on some quota system for something which, as Janine points out, is a recreational activity for me. This is supposed to be fun time. If we were a professional review site, then maybe we would need to insure that we cover a broader spectrum.

Karen Scott is running a survey of race in romance and is seeking out African American authors to answer it. I hope she gets her 100 participants as I am truly interested in what the survey will reveal.

Related posts:

1. Romance Publishers Promises to Romance Readers Part 2: Branding
2. Blacks & Books
3. Romance Publishers Promises to Romance Readers Part 3: Good Authors Gone Bad

While “the race beat” eventually came to represent one of American journalism’s finest hours, it is interesting to note that much of the best reporting demanded that the rules of objectivity be tossed out the window.

The press had long ignored insidious nature of segregation and the damage it was doing to the southern blacks. Once the press began to throw off its own blinders and self imposed bias toward accepting the statements of politicians in power, the truth began to reveal itself to the entire nation, both the South and the North, mobilizing change.

Via the Nation.

Related posts:

1. Wall Street Journal Addresses Race in Publishing
2. New Twist on ARC sales: Free gift with purchase.
3. REVIEW: The Morning Gift by Diana Norman

Related posts:

1. Non Sequitur of the Week: Street Ninjas
2. REVIEW: Death on D Street by Kathryn Kristine Rusch
3. REVIEW: Harley Street by Lynne Martin (aka Lynne Connolly)