This year’s Romantic Times convention was my fourth in a row. Since my first visit, RT has underwent a dramatic change and much of it has to do with moving the focus away from cover models and toward the readers. In 2012, RT did not have a Cover Model pageant and while there were cover models roaming the halls, the overt sexuality of past conferences was not present.

This is not to say that all readers are happy with this change. Some vocal readers expressed unhappiness at the lack of eye candy and the disappearance of the Mangeant, as it is fondly referred to by some of us. (I think Heather Osborn may have named it) I overheard one reader exclaim to a friend after having her picture taken with a cover model that “it made her conference.”

You can’t really have an increased YA celebration and mantitty all over the place and thus I believe that in choosing to foster young readers, RT is making the absolute right decision as to the direction of their conference.

During the immense signing, RT set up Teen Alley. It was mobbed during the signing. There were groups of girls, some who came with their mothers and others who came with library groups. One library group had printed “Author Prom” t shirts for their readers. The readers wore the shirts and had the authors sign the t shirts. What a marvelous idea.

Even though the conference price is high, the hotels they choose are reasonably priced, some meals are provided, and a ton of swag (books and other items like bookmarks, chapstick, pens). However, I believe the most valuable thing that the readers get from this is the opportunity to meet with authors. The authors will sit in the bar and the lobby and are very receptive to readers coming up to them and engaging in them. Authors, I’ve learned, get a thrill from being recognized and acknowledged by readers. Some authors, like Beth Kery aka Bethany Kane, were anxious to meet other authors like Anne Rice. (I’m not sure if Beth ever got her Anne Rice meeting but I did hear that Anne Rice was in the elevator at some point!)

The Hyatt was really a great conference hotel. The staff was super nice and they put out signs that celebrated romance readers and had no snark! (At least none that I saw). Whether it was Hyatt or RT, there was a big dry erase board where a new question was posted every day and people were invited to write in their answers.

I attended a couple of sessions. One was the reader roundtable that Sarah and I facilitated. It ended up being a lot of authors wanting to hear from readers (dear readers, we want to hear from you!!) but listening to authors talk about their favorite books was really fun. MaryJanice Davidson confessed that she just started reading George RR Martin’s series and that she was totally hooked.

There were some RT scandals. What would RT be without scandals? J.R. Ward instigated #peegate. Apparently she twice used the restroom on Friday and both times had her bodyguards prevent any one from entering. Dear everyone there, no one but the hotel staff has the right to bar you from the restroom, particulary if you were a paying customer. Of other interest to Ward readers, she intimated in her panel that Butch and Vishous are regularly having sex. I guess that is okay for Jane, after all, she is just a ghost but what about poor Marissa? (Edited to add a link to someone who took more copious notes)

Q: We haven’t seen much of Butch and V lately–
JR: interrupts They’ve been seeing plenty of each other!
Q: — will we ever see any of that on the page?
JR: No.. [paraphrased]... I will give hints about it and talk about it verbally, but it won’t be on the page… because too many people would hate it.  sotto voce Butch is getting it regularly.

I tried to pump Nalini Singh for details about the ghost but she refused to give it up. Actually, she seemed close to being broken on Friday night (I had worked her over good for three days) and admitted that she wanted to tell but was afraid that if she spilled the beans to even one person that the floodgates would be breached and she couldn’t keep it a secret anymore. I told her that I knew it was Kaleb and in the event that she choose someone else to be the ghost, I would need a legal brief justifying her alternative choice. Someone is going to have to write a lot of fan fiction for me if the ghost ends up being someone else. Nalini is a very good sport. She had dinner with Angela James and Sarah Wendell and I. I think Angie and I spent about a good hour complaining about certain aspects of Nalini’s books. (Angie and I are not fans of reincarnation stories) Nalini took everything with really good humor. Perhaps it helps that Angie and I are real fans of both series but as I look back at that dinner, I am pretty amazed at how gracious Nalini was with Angie and I.

One of my highlights and more embarassing moments came right before the booksigning. I had slipped in to take photos which I have uploaded to the new Dear Author flickr account. Loretta Chase was there. I told her that when I was in Korea, I went to a bookstore and there was Lord of Scoundrels in Korean. I wished I had brought it with me. I shared with her repeatedly, in a rush of garbled words, how much I appreciated her books and loved her writing. I also told her that no matter what grade we gave her on the blog, we still appreciated her contribution to the genre. I think I may have said that three or four times. It was embarassing. I’m glad few people were there to see me.

RT has made Saturday into a reader event. There are four or five sessions going on at one time so that there is always something that will fit a readers’ particular interest. I’m not certain what readers want out of conferences but if it is to meet with other readers and authors in an informal but engaging setting, then RT is likely to satisfy.

Related posts:

1. Dear Author’s RWA Report: Jolie, the Intrepid Bookseller
2. New Report Says Author Presence Online Is Important
3. Thursday Midday Links: New Blog & State of the Day EBook Report

I attended two panels:

• Vamps with Charlaine Harris, Kerrilyn Sparks, Cathy Clamp and Mario Acevedo
• Demystifying e Book Contracts with Ethan Ellenburg, Elaine English, Raelene Gorlinksy

Both of these panels were summarized for RT and the full reports can be read at the Romantic Times website sometime in the near future. The highlights of those are as follows:

Vamps

Harris enjoys reading Sparks but isn’t writing that kind of story. There were no hints given regarding the future of the Sookie relationship status but it sounds very tenuous. Don’t look for an HEA from Harris.

Sparks writes about what she finds romantic which means men that are gentleman and treat the heroine with kindness and gentleness. She also tries to write funny stories.

Clamp tries to write about two equals even though she thinks that many readers like a strong heroine but want the hero stronger. She says that the readers who write to her represent a small minority of the overall readership. She realizes that there are many dissatisifed and satisfied readers who will never communicate with her.

Acevedo spent most of the time blushing about the sex talk (which is really mild).

Contracts

Don’t be afraid to negotiate but don’t be an ass about it either was the message from the panelists. Get a publishing attorney, not a general attorney, to review your contract if you have questions. Understand that publishers are writing the contract that best suits their needs and purpose. Definitely use Google and other resources but understand that book contracts are confusing and complex. Don’t kick yourself if you don’t understand it. If you sign with a new epublisher and are concerned about terms, bring those up. New epublishers may not be sophisticated in the contract drafting but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are are trying to cheat you. Conversely, don’t hold your nose and sign when you aren’t sure of what is going on.

I also participated in two panels

• Save the Contemporary Reader Roundtable
• EReader Panel

Save the Contemporary
This was a small but fun panel. We had three authors: Julie James, Louisa Edwards, and Victoria Dahl. We really engaged the readers and asked them to share with us what they liked and didn’t like about books. Most of the readers liked small town settings but it the books represent a sanitized version of the small towns. One person wondered whether small towns was code for white, Christian.

Another person shared that a submission of hers was turned down when she wanted to write something much darker with racial implications.

We talked about covers. One reader mentioned she really likes it when the covers include plot elements like the cover of “On the Steamy Side” by Louisa Edwards.

Sarah Wendell, my co moderator, prompted Julie James to tell the story about the dress on the cover of “Something About You.” In the story, the heroine wears a backless fuschia dress exactly as it is depicted on the cover. This is no moment of serendipity. Instead, James had written the character as wearing a sexy black dress but when she received the cover image, she changed the dress of the heroine to match the cover.

It was a great time and I hope that we have more of these in the future. The readers were so engaged. I could have talked for hours with everyone.

eReader Panel

The comment I heard after the panel was that they were more confused than ever about what ereader to buy. It is confusing. We brought Sony, Nook, Kindle, the new Kobo Reader, iPhone, iPad, and netbooks. We brought up 8 things to consider when deciding on what ereader to buy (I’ll post those next Sunday). The easiest device to use was determined to be the Kindle. The cheapest is the new Kobo Reader.

There were things I liked about the Kobo Reader and things I didn’t. The Kobo is lightweight and I loved the quilted matt back finish. For $149, it’s a good eink reader but the software program could definitely make it better. Sarah and I thought the screen resolution was not as good as the Sony Pocket Edition. I was suprised that though the Kobo has bluetooth capabilities, it is only for the purpose of connecting Reader with a blackberry. I couldn’t tether it to the Macbook for over the air syncing of content. Weird.

All Romance Ebooks gave away a Sony Reader Touch and offered up three coupon codes.   For each book listed below you can get a 50% discount.   The codes are case sensitive.

• What the Librarian Did by Karina Bliss -janeRT2010
• Instant Attraction by Jill Shalvis – sarahRT2010
• Stray by Rachel Vincent – angelaRT2010

Overall Impressions

RT is a day/night conference. By day, it is mostly a writer’s conference with five or six writer panels for every one reader event. By night, it is a spectacle of fairy wings, vampire teeth, pleather, leather, and latex. There were the not very original coterie of non romance readers there to gawk and draw conclusions about the romance readership as a whole.

There were only 6 Mr. Romance contestants. I heard four didn’t show up and at least three were last minute additions including one who referred to this as another “dance gig.” One of the contestants was a guy who had come to the conference to learn to write romances. Andrew (whose last name I can’t recall at this moment) had written a book on the love lives of philosophers and apparently it was 30 stories of tragicly bad romances. Andrew began reading romances for the positive endings and would like to see his name on the cover, not necessarily his face.

The winner, Jamie, seemed like a sweet boy for whom a cover modeling gig seems perfectly suited to his skill set. Read into that what you will.

Mr. Romance 2009, Charles Paz?, got up on stage and began lamenting the mean girl bloggers of 2009 who posted his picture and made comments about his person suggesting that perhaps he was not their vision of a cover model for romance books. Apparently this affected Charles so adversely that he was unable to get out of bed. Fortunately, the facebook fans were wholly encouraging and gave him a reason to rise in the morning. Charles then broke down and started crying, sobbing almost. In fact, there were more tears shed on stage of Mr. Romance 2010 than at the last Miss America pageant (more cogent answers at the Miss America pageant as well). You mean girl bloggers, ruining everything. (As an aside, no one I talked to even remembered seeing posts about the winner from 2009. All I could remember was that he was short in 2009 and he is still short today).

Everyone agreed that RT has become more subdued and less sexualized. I attribute that to the fact that the Ellora’s Cavemen no longer roam the halls, barechested and eager. EC did hire local strippers for EC party. The rumor is that they are holding back the real cavemen for the fall EC Con.

Probably the best reason to attend RT is for the fellowship of readers. There isn’t anything more fun than talking with others, in person, about your favorite book, is there?

Related posts:

1. CES 2010: The Ebook Hardware Highlights
2. Software EBook Highlights from CES 2010

Many (possibly hundreds) of people who attended RT convention in Orlando and stayed at the Wyndham have been the victims of credit card fraud. The hotel has launched an investigation and is asking that any victims contact them, and RT has been asked to be notified as well.

Wyndham contact information:

8001 International Dr
Orlando, FL 32819
(407) 351-2420

RT via Jo Carol:

jocarol at rtconvention dot com

Related posts:

1. Kindle $100 Off with Amazon Credit Card
2. Romantic Times Responds
3. Why Romantic Times Reviews Are Not Credible

The booksigning was really large, although not as large as the RWA literacy signing.   There were digital authors with their print books and traditional published authors placed side by side.   Smart Bitches was sent with 25 books and sold out.   Alyssa Day brought cookies for Sarah and for me!

Sarah and I met with Sue Grimshaw after the signing and before Mr. Romance.   Borders is doing well. They had great sales numbers for romance last month and she feels like they are in a good position for the future.   We talked about Borders.com and how she wants to make Borders a place for readers, focused on what they are interested in and providing a platform for readers to interact with each other.   Sue is a very reader centric person.

Maybe in a nod to past criticism, Mr. Romance was surprisingly free of naked man titty.   There were only 7 contestants this year.   All of the expenses including the costumes the men wear are born by them.   Some are able to get sponsors, but it really raises the idea of why.   Mr. Romance is a title conferred by judges associated with Dorchester as the winner goes on an actual cover for a book at Dorchester.   The attendee choice winner gets $200.   

So why would you come to a conference of women to work your butt off for 4+ days in anticipation of winning $200?   It seemed odd to me.   There is no question that these gentlemen were nice guys but I would think that there are other ways to get cover contracts that don’t include this constant glad handing.   Maybe I am wrong.

I think the whole event is one that every romance reader should attend because it’s such a different experience.   I ran into one reader and asked her whether she would come back.   She said she would because it was a way for her to connect with one of her favorite authors.   

RT does make it easy for you to have access to authors in a variety of ways.   The social mixers place you, the reader, in close proximity to the author.   It’s a far more casual atmosphere than at RWA and in comparison, I would say that RT is more suited to the reader than RWA.

But there did not seem to be alot of discussion about the books, at least not panel led discussion, by authors. It’s much more of a constant social event for readers which can be fun and rewarding.

Related posts:

1. RT Recap Day 3: Friday
2. RT Recap Day 2: Thursday
3. RT Day 1 Recap

The first “panel” I attended was actually a reader party hosted by Ann Aguirre, Lauren Dane, Megan Hart, Anya Bast, and Cynthia Eden. It was very popular. When you entered, you were handed a soft tote bag (one of those recyclable kind) full of swag. I think that each bag contained 5 or 6 books, several bookmarks, and a t-shirt. The party activity was answering 25 questions about the authors. In order to get the answers, you had to go and interact with the authors. I thought it was a very clever way of engaging the readers.

After the morning party (which did have food and drink for those who follow my twitter feed and now know that I am fairly obsessed with eating), I attended the Dorchester Spotlight.   For those who enjoyed the Shomi line and were wondering what happened to it, the line has been folded in Lovespell and Leisure.   Leah Hultenschmidt has more information on her blog.

Some highlights include:

• Dorchester’s current releases are available in Sony & Kindle digital formats but the goal is to make them available in more formats and to digitize the backlist.
• Dorchester encourages authors to send in unagented, unsolicited work. Marjorie Liu was found in the slush pile.
• Dorchester publishes contemporaries with a humoristic bent.
• From the time of acceptance to time of publication is usually 9 months to 1 year.
• Bookstores are only placing orders 6-8 weeks in advance and not the 12 weeks in advance as they did before.

One title that fascinated me was  The Strangely Beautiful Tale of Miss Percy  Parker set in the Victorian time period and steampunk-ish but without gadgets.   Anne Marsh is writing a very steamy series about shapeshifters releasing in the fall with the first title called  The Hunt.  

After the Dorchester panel, I attended the editor panel.   The message is that it is a good time to be a romance author but that they are still being selective about what authors they are picking up.   It sounded like the authors they are looking for must have a good hook and be marketable.   I’m not exactly sure what that means.   Most publishers acknowledged that their numbers were up.

I think that the best advice that came out of the conference came from agent Lucienne Diver who stated that you want to be the name that is used to describe the trend, not following it.

I attended the vampire ball which was hosted by Helen Rosburg and Heather Graham.   There was singing! and dancing! and dramatic acting!   and also food!   A good time was had by all.

Related posts:

1. RT Recap Day 2: Thursday
2. RT Day 1 Recap
3. Cassie Edwards Plagiarism Recap

We started out the panel talking about some technical aspects of obtaining a domain name.   (Sarah likes Name Secure).   We encouraged authors to make their blog and website look like the author that they want to be and not the author that they are now, meaning that even if they are aspiring, try to make their site look as professional as possible.

We discussed the need for authors to limit the information that they put out online.   If an author invites intimacy by sharing personal details, then readers will not know where the lines are.   I talked about Laurell K Hamilton as an example of how oversharing can lead to uncomfortable speculation about personal life.

Sarah announced that authors do not need to have blogs and I agree completely.   If an author does not like blogging or finds it difficult, it often shows.   Instead, we believe that authors should use microblogging platforms like twitter and facebook to interact with readers and gain a following.   Don’t think it can be done? Sarah has 2300 followers on Twitter.   That’s 2300 people who read what she microblogs each day.   How many author blogs have that kind of daily traffic?

We also talked about monitoring comments and comment philosophy.   Sarah believes that comments by the original poster (called OP in some places) can suppress the conversation.   I believe that in some cases, particularly in regards the opinion pieces posted in that I’ve made my position/argument in the original post and now I want to hear from you.   When it comes to book discussions, though, most of the reviewers are good at interacting with the commenters which leads to more interaction.   We both agreed that we did not like moderating or preapproval of comments.

After our panel, we enjoyed lunch with CL Wilson, Kristen Painter, and Roxanne St. Claire.   Roxanne signed over a hundred book plates for a Australian bookstore owner.   Temptation the Romance Bookstore, is beautiful.   It is clean and white and bright. I wish I had a romance bookstore that looked like this.   I met a wonderful reader from Taiwan as well.

That evening I attended Deidre Knight’s Gods of Midnight party.   It was the first sighting I had of costumes and cover models.   It was interesting.   It does seem that most readers come here for the cover models and the parties.   Each day there are probably 5-6 panels for writers in every time slot and one event for readers.   The events for readers are primarily social mixers sponsored by authors.

The regular attendees love the conference however conference attendance is lower this year which might be due to the economy.   It still seems crowded, however, and each event seems to run very smoothly.

Related posts:

1. RT Day 1 Recap
2. Cassie Edwards Plagiarism Recap
3. Thursday Afternoon Haiku Moment: Beyond Heaving Bosoms by Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan

Probably the coolest part of the registration packet, for me, was a print out that was included in the pocket of the badge that told each speaker what panels that they were on. RT is a very well run conference even if there are time delays.

Almost all the panels seem focused on writers or aspiring writers. “Self-published to Six Figures in Six Months” was one panel yesterday. Even the historical panel that Sarah & I participated on talked about trends and reader wants. There are some reader panels and the parties seem reader focused but at least 90% of the panels seem focused on writing.

I did see some of the cover models. They posed for pictures for Kathryn Falk’s chosen charity, Save Our Soldiers. You paid $10 to sit in front of the black t-shirted, jeans clad men. I’m glad it was for charity.

I managed to take a picture of the cover models in the wild. They were leaving their charity picture taking event to go to the epublishing signing. For those who were wondering, the cover models, generally, are not as tall as they appear in the picture. There were a couple who were tallish but many are under the 6′ mark.

The digital signing is very cool. The first area is set up for publishers and then there is row after row of epublished authors. Most of the authors have cover flats of their books. If you wanted to buy their book, you received a cover flat and a sticker and you got a code at checkout. I thought that the whole concept was very cool. I saw mostly Ellora’s Cave authors there.

The cover models worked the room the entire two hours because every registrant votes for them.

Sarah and I and Kathe, the senior reviewer for RT, sat on a historical panel helmed by Kristi Astor whose historical is coming out in October. Kathe was not a fan of the regency period but said that other readers aren’t enamored of what she termed the “exotics.” Exotics are historicals that take place in countries other than Europe or America such as Africa, India, China, and the like. This makes me tremendously sad, but maybe the future will change as the romance community becomes increasingly international.

Sarah from Smart Bitches Trashy Books related how she didn’t like modern sensibilities being grafted onto historical characters. Historical accuracy about the details of clothes and surroundings weren’t so important to her, but the flavor of the characters were.

I shared my list of upcoming historicals and how I thought we had a great crop of new authors entering the historical market. I also encouraged aspiring authors to seek out the expertise of other historical authors in order to ensure historical accuracy.

We capped the night with a dinner at Ming Garden with a few agents, authors, and editors.

Related posts:

1. Cassie Edwards Plagiarism Recap
2. Powell’s Bookstore Powered by Solar
3. Unintentionally Funny Comic Book Excerpts

Romantic Times convention took place a couple of weeks ago. Since the convention, a few people spoke up about their experiences which included a negative reaction to the antics of the Ellora’s Cavemen. SB Sarah said that the Cavemen acted like cavemen and were overly grabby. JC Wilder reported a poorly thought up 9/11 tribute which included strippers and a porn star grabbing themselves in military regalia and later one of the cavemen simulating a sex act with a woman. (Note, according to a pro-Caveman commenter and author, Trista, the stripper remained a whole 12 inches away from the woman at all times while simulating the sex act.) Lori Foster’s report praised the event, cheered the harmless entertainment (the costume balls), but was disturbed by the acts of the Cavemen.

The push back against this is that those who do not wholesale condone or appreciate outward displays of sexuality are prudes or anti-sex. This latter sentiment echoed the arguments of those who defended the Open Source Boob Project. (I refer to this argument as The Ferret Chorus). For those who didn’t follow OSBP, a few guys started asking women if they would offer their breasts up to be touched. It morphed into the OSBP and was rolled out with buttons at PenguiCon. In order to not be groped, you had to wear a non-groping a button. That’s right, it was an opt out program. Now, PenguiCon is synonymous with a convention where women have to wear a button on their boobs to avoid being groped by strangers.

Similarly, I think the RT convention is becoming a conference that is no longer about romance readers meeting romance authors and romance authors taking writing seminars, but instead is becoming the con of ribald and tawdry antics. As stated by author Trista,

You know it happens every year and you complain, than turn around and go again the next year. It’s not going to change. Next year there will be yet another round of complaints. Someone was offended, someone acted inappropriately. If you want conservative, safe, then go to Lori’s event (It is alot of fun, I’m not putting it down). If you want a little more, then attend RT. It’s as simple as that.

Essentially, if you want to be “safe”, you should not go to RT. I hope this isn’t the message because what a scary one it is. The message is that if I attend RT, I should expect to be groped. If I attend RT, I should expect to see graphic sex acts. I should not expect to be safe and if I am not a prude, I should enjoy it. That’s the unintentional message that is being sent and it is not being sent to just romance readers or romance authors but to others outside the genre.

What would we say if Locus magazine, the venerated science fiction/fantasy magazine, would host a convention attended primarily by male readers and its male authors. It hosted an event which included staged events featuring young, nearly nude, nubile women and allowed another publisher, say, Eos, bring in a number of porn stars and strippers who engaged in lewd acts with the attendees in hosted events and in the bar. What would we romance readers think of a conference like that or a publisher who did those things?

The defense to this is that it represents what romance is truly about. Some would argue that romance should own up to its prurient side. The charge is that we should let go of our high minded, elitist shields and accept romance for what it is – graphic descriptions of sex wrapped up in a socially acceptable package. We read it, the argument goes, to be sexually aroused. If the most sexual organ is the brain, then how are words any different than pictures. How is reading about a woman strumming her clit different than a picture or a short video of the same?

There are some types of disagreements that will always reside within our romance community. On one end are the authors and readers who are disgusted by the inclusion of books that contain homosexuality or polyamorous relationships within the romance umbrella. There are others who, at one time, viewed all books published by Ellora’s Cave as nothing more than porn.

I think the answer comes from a non romance writer – Lois McMaster Bujold. On the Eos blog, Bujold writes of difference of writing romance v. fantasy. She defines the genres as follows:

if romances are fantasies of love, and mysteries are fantasies of justice, I would now describe most F&SF as fantasies of political agency.

Love, for me, is inextricably intertwined with sex. Romances fulfill the love fantasy through the argument that a union with just a mental bond is not as strong as mental and physical bond. Matthew 10:8, if I can offer a biblical reference says “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall join to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh?” The union, no matter how it is populated, it made one through a physical act.

But no matter how sex is used, as physical release, plot conflict, or expression of love – it is not simply porn because it invokes a physical reaction. Measuring whether a book is porn or romance based on the physical response it invokes is dangerous and misleading. Victims have reported both lubrication and orgasm during forced or non consensual sexual stimulation.

Women may succeed in having sexual intercourse with unwilling men because the anger, fear, and pain that such intimidation can evoke, although unwelcome, can cause sexual arousal or even orgasm.

Family Health International (citing R. Levin & W. Berlo, Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non-consensual sexual stimulation, Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, Vol. 11, Issue 2, Pages 82-88).

Now, this is not to say that sexually explicit scenes in romance engender physical response due to anger, fear and pain but it does show that basing the romance = porn argument on a mere physical response is fallacious. There can be conscious arousal, unconscious arousal and automatic arousal. We can choose books that we know can be titillating but still satisfying on an emotional level. I would argue that a physical response is the result of good writing. If a book can make you cry, you are having a physical manifestation to an emotional stimulus. If a book can make you aroused, it is any different? You simply have a physical manifestation of an emotional stimulus.

The overt sexualization of the romance industry whether it is through chestless covers or half dressed women or cover models stimulating sex scenes at a reader and writer’s conference elevates only one component (sexuality within romances) and unfairly brushes the industry with a broad red brush. That taint is undeserved because romance is more than heaving bosoms and oiled chests. Many books within the genre have no sex or very little or is represented in a closed door manner. If all that readers wanted was sexy stuff wrapped up in a pretty package, you have to wonder why more explicit erotica and erotic romances aren’t more successful. I’ve not seen one Aphrodisia on the romance Bookscan top 100. Bookscan is a list that measures sales figures for books. It’s generally deemed to be unreliable for those books that are sold in grocery stores and big box stores but for books whose sales are made primarily in bookstores and through online sales, Bookscan is pretty darn accurate.

Romance is not porn and I think that EC and RT do a disservice to the genre by focusing on one component above everything else, further promoting the equation of romance with porn. What does it say about the genre if the highlight of the event is to get your picture taken with prostitutes and xrated porn stars? Is it really then about books? I don’t think so. I think that the innocence of RT has been slowly eroding.

Related posts:

1. Women Are Dumb Post Leads to Romance Bashing on Noted Political Blog
2. Agent to the Romance Stars Claims Vampires New Alpha Male and Erotica Is Porn
3. Romance Publishers Promises to Romance Readers Part 2: Branding

Also, romance readers rarely stick to one genre. They are more open about reading everything-’from historical to thrillers to women’s fiction. So they same way they’ve opened up other markets and genres, they’ve expanded from romance to read more fantasy, which I think was a harder genre for them to get into as for many years it was very boy-centric. But now, with more interest in the girls-who-kick-ass and with more female authors, it that has opened up to the female readership.

A few weeks ago, Patricia Briggs‘ Iron Kissed made it to the top of the NYTimes Paperback Bestseller List. One of my favorite urban fantasy authors is Ilona Andrews. In a sign of how far urban fantasy is leaking into the romance world, Andrews and her writing helper husband are over at RT for the “Ask the Author” feature.

Go on over and ask Ilona who her favorite romance author is. It might surprise you. It did me. Plus, you can give her recommendations because she is a new romance reader.

Related posts:

1. Harlequin’s Profits Are Increasing in Part Due to Online Retail Sales
2. National Bestselling Fantasy Author Sharon Shinn Opens Home on the Web
3. Today’s Fantasy Romance: Not Your Mother’s Oldsmobile

moar humorous pics

The news recently has been all about free ebooks lately, mostly stirred by Oprah’s Valentine’s Day gift of Suze Orman’s bestselling book, Women & Money: Owning the Power to Control Your Destiny. More than 1 million copies of the books were downloaded. The news reports have been mostly positive as Yahoo stated that the giveaway did not appear to adversely affect sales.

Carol Stacy, President of Romantic Times, emailed me today after Lynn Viehl posted on the issue of free ebooks. Viehl has given free books away, although not any of her New York published work likely because most contracts ceding US distribution rights to the publisher also cede the right to distribute ebooks. In her post today, Viehl makes a reference to RT:

"Now I wonder if Romantic Times will accuse Oprah and Suze of undercutting other writers’ advances, the way they did with me and Melanie last year. I’m thinking no, how about you?"

Carol Stacy wanted to know what blogger protocol was, because she couldn’t make a comment on Viehl’s site in response to the post. I informed her that some blogs moderated comments and Viehl must be one of them. Stacy informed me that RT had not made any accusations against authors and asked me to the post the following clarification since Viehl wouldn’t allow the comment on her blog. I don’t pretend to understand the beef Viehl has with RT, but I agreed to post Stacy’s response here.

Romantic Times did not say or report in its magazine that it was against free downloads. The article in question was about the e-book industry in general and the mention of free downloads was just a sidebar within the article. Here is the sidebar in its entirety:

As e-books grow in popularity, some authors are embracing the format as a way to give back to fans and attract new ones.

Signet Eclipse and Roc author Lynn Viehl pens free e-books and tie in e-novellas to whet fans’ appetites for her next releases and to thank them for their support.

For other writers, it’s a way to get a book out there that might otherwise never see daylight.

When author Melanie Lynne Hauser realized her novel Jumble Pie might not be published, she decided to make it available for free. "We still hope to see it published someday. But who wants to wait for someday? Not me!"

While this may seem like a boon to fans (free books!) these authors and others like them have angered some in the industry who see this practice as essentially giving away the goods for free.

"To my mind they’re undercutting those of us who aren’t giving it away for free and are trying to get publishers to pay a better wage for our hard work," science fiction author Dr. Howard V. Hendrix said in a statement published online.

No matter who you side with, there’s no denying, e-books sure get people talking!

I read Viehl’s reason for not allowing the comment and I don’t know if I really understand it. Obviously I’ve had issues with Viehl’s blogging style in the past so I’ll refrain from trying to parse out her meaning.

I will say that I am a big fan of ebook giveaways and firmly believe that by giving away free fiction an author can increase her print sales. This phenomenon just occurred for me over the weekend. Last week, I received from Berkley a copy of Maya Banks’ Sweet Surrender. None of the previous Banks books I have read have ever worked for me and I can’t say why I even opened this one up to read. But read it I did and I found that I liked it despite my previous experience negative experiences with her writing. I went online this weekend and saw that her book, Into the Mist, was Samhain’s bestseller. I read the excerpt and bought it.

I thought it was great (it will be one of my March recommended reads) and bought a GC for Samhain and sent it to a friend so that she could read it. So out of one free book, Ms. Banks earned two sales.

Related posts:

1. REVIEW: FREE, FREE, FREE Ebooks: Why Midlist Authors Should Give Their Book Away
2. Tor to Give Away Free eBooks
3. REVIEW: FREE, FREE, FREE Book: Amber Quill Followup

While the change has not yet appeared on the RT BookLovers Convention webpage, Bitchery reader Kay has forwarded me some information that Romantic Times sent out earlier today. It seems they’ve added a session with Bertrice Small on research without plagiarism. According to the post at Smart Bitches, the announcement reads as follows:

Also new to the agenda- Bertrice Small has rounded up her fellow historical romance buddies Roberta Gellis and Jennifer Blake to present a research workshop of a different kind-’How to Use Historical Facts Without Crossing the Line Into Plagiarism. Bertrice feels it’s necessary for historical romance authors to know what’s acceptable and what is not when embellishing your fiction with historical facts.

Kudos to all those Bertrice Small for spearheading this seminar and for taking the extra step in educating those within the writing community about this important topic. I’m off to buy some books now to support these authors.

RWA, the spotlight’s on you now.

Via SBTB.

Related posts:

1. NY Times and Daily Telegraph Publish Articles on the Cassie Edwards Plagiarism Issue
2. Cassie Edwards Plagiarism Recap
3. AP News Picks Up Cassie Edwards Plagiarism Story and Gets Statement

It has recently been brought to our (Margaret Bell and I) attention by some concerned bloggers (thanks very much for advising us) that a rather inflammatory post was made by Kathryn Falk and co-signed by Margaret and myself.

I would like to confirm that Margaret and I were guests of Kathryn’s at the time the post was made, however we were out sightseeing in Galveston all day and were not aware of what had transpired.

Having read the post, we would like to state that for the record that this “Rhetoric” does not represent either Margaret’s or my views. We have further advised said blogger of our feelings on the matter.

As Australian Book Sellers and Lovers of Romance, we love all aspects of our business and quite frankly this kind of bullshit just pisses us off.

We are all about, putting Romance into our readers’ hands, giving authors the opportunities to talk to Aussie readers, selling autographed/personalized books, distributing Pre-release bookmarks and giving readers the best service possible.

All of these things make a difference to readers and authors, keep the good stuff coming.

Cheers

Rosemary and Margaret
Australian Book Sellers

Related posts:

1. REVIEW: Romantic Times Update: RT confirms Comment by Kathryn Falk
2. Romantic Times Update: Still Waiting
3. REVIEW: A Vision of Light: A Margaret of Ashbury Novel by Judith Merkle Riley

I asked Ms. Stacy if she wouldn’t be willing to share this information with the readers and she complied. She knew that even if she did provide the guidelines that there will always be some detractors and she encourages anyone to email her. She’ll respond. But she won’t engage in a public banter back and forth and so I hope that you can respect that. I encourage you to email her if you have an issue about RT.

We can certainly have debate, if you like, about the quality/credibility of the reviews, policy changes that you think should be implemented to make a better magazine, but any comment that is a personal attack will be deleted.

***

Dear Readers and Authors,

When Jane called to confirm that Kathryn wrote the letter, I brought up a comment she made on her site, questioning the credibility of Romantic Times’ reviews.

I explained how books are reviewed and the process we have in place, which all reviewers must adhere to. She was surprised to learn just how involved the protocols are and invited me to share this information with the visitors to her site because she felt few were aware of them.

I know there is a misconception that our reviews are connected to advertising and I can emphatically say that NO they are not for mainstream publishers.

Before I get to the small press policy I would like to address our mainstream publisher policy, which includes publishers like Harlequin, Dorchester, Kensington, Penguin/Putnam, HarperCollins/Avon, Warner Books, Random House/Ballantine, Bantam/Dell, Simon & Schuster/Pocket, St. Martin's Press, Tor/Forge and ALL of their relevant imprints.

We review (or at least try to get the galley and/or manuscript for) EVERY book that appears in a publisher's sales kit that we feel is appropriate for our audience REGARDLESS of whether it is being advertised.

Case in point is Nora Roberts. By her own admission on this web site, she severed her relationship with the Romantic Times organization more than a decade ago. No contact with her at all. No ads from her. No ads from her publisher.

In those same 10 years, we have reviewed EVERY Nora Roberts book and EVERY J.D. Robb book.

Here is how we select the mainstream women's fiction books that we review:

• We have a column in the magazine called Publishers Previews that lists books coming out two months BEFORE the issue in hand, i.e., the June issue forecasts books being published in August. To compile the Publishers Previews list, we receive either a sales catalog from the publisher (which we go through and select the relevant books for our readers) OR we receive faxes from the publisher (which contain pages from the publisher's catalog) that highlight those books they deem relevant for our readership.
• It is the Publishers Previews listing that we use to track down all of the books we want to have represented in our magazine for that month. And WE DO track them down because some publishers do not just automatically send them out.
• This is all independent of whether or not a book it being advertised. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

Jane raised the question about whether or not our reviewers know which books are being advertised and the answer is NO. I think a few years ago someone from RWA correlated the advertised books in RT with ratings and found that there is no correlation. I am sure RWA has the archives of this article and findings for those who may be interested. But if they do not, it is easy for you to check out on our web site. Go to our search page and look up the advertised book and compare it to the rating.

We are working so far in advance to get books to the reviewers for the appropriate issue that our advertising list is far from complete when the reviews are assigned.

SMALL PRESS AND E-BOOKS AD/REVIEW POLICY:
Since we receive thousands of requests a month (this includes e-mails and actual manuscripts –" piles of manuscripts) from people who want us to review their small press and/or e-books, we realized we had to come up with a policy. Since many small press/e-book authors were already advertising with us, we felt it was fair to include reviews of their books. THIS IN NO WAY GUARANTEES THEM A GOOD REVIEW. In fact many of these books receive less than favorable reviews. Again you can check this out on our web site. As more small press and e-book authors began to advertise we extended the review option to them as well. Thus began the policy that we would review all small press/e-books advertised.

I also came up with an inexpensive way for small press/e-book authors to advertise so that their books would be guaranteed a review –" group advertorials. This is where several authors (typically five or more) share an ad for half the cost of a full-page ad. This has worked very well for small press/e-book authors who, for a few hundred dollars, can get their name in front of our readers and have a review of their book in the
magazine.

This may explain why there are so many Ellora's Cave books reviewed in our magazine. It's because their authors do many group ads and in turn they get reviewed.

I want to reiterate that this small press/e-book review policy IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE RATING of a book. It only ensures a review. I also want say that we have established a policy that regardless of advertising we will not review m/m books at this time, which is why even though Laura Baumbach participates in advertorials her m/m books are not reviewed. The author agrees to be a part of the advertorials even though she understands her book will not be reviewed.

Also I want to reiterate this policy of ad/reviews DOES NOT APPLY to the mainstream publishers' books as explained earlier.

EVERY REVIEWER is given a ratings guideline, which I have included below along with a letter from me explaining what their goal should be when writing the review. Reviews are subjective and although we keep our reviewers in check, i.e. we will question too many 4s and 4 1/2s etc., we respect our reviewers' opinions since they all are readers.

I hope this information will be helpful in helping you understand more about Romantic Times BOOKreviews and our policies.

Sincerely,
Carol Stacy
Publisher

RATINGS GUIDE:

• 4 1/2 Gold — Phenomenal. In a class by itself.
• 4 1/2 — Fantastic. A Keeper.
• 4 — Compelling. Page Turner.
• 3 — Enjoyable. Pleasant Read.
• 2 — Problematic. May Struggle to Finish.
• 1 — Severely Flawed. Pass on this one.

Here is the REVIEWERS’ Guide to rating descriptions.

• 4 1/2 Gold– In a class by itself. Reserved ONLY for those books that have a WOW factor. A book that blows you away. One that you want to immediately spread the word about to all your reader friends. One you will not part with so you buy another to give to a friend because you are so excited about it. Does not have to be groundbreaking like a 5 was but has to be beyond a keeper. Please be sure to ONLY give this rating to books that are extremely special or it will diminish the impact. “In a class by itself” because that is how a Gold should be perceived by our readers.
• 4 1/2–Fantastic. A Keeper. (and please be sure it is a keeper). A book you COULD NOT put down. Perhaps it kept you up all night or you found yourself stealing time to get back to it. A book you would HIGHLY recommend without hesitation. A book that stays with you even after you have finished it. A book that is set apart from just a very good book.
• 4–Compelling. Page Turner– Not a keeper but a very enjoyable book. Completely entertaining and satisfying. One you did not want to put down. One you looked forward to getting back to. One you won’t get rid of but not one that will go up on your keeper shelf.
• 3–Enjoyable. Pleasant Read…Average. No great shakes but not bad. A so so book that can range from being average to good (note NOT very good book). Not a book you would recommend but if someone asked you about it you could say it was OK. Not compelling but one you will eventually finish.
• 2–Problematic. May Struggle to Finish. Does not engage. Boring. Hard to finish OR has serious technical problems that made it hard to finish. A 2 is a book you probably would not have finished if you did not have to review it. Problematic says it is flawed but not unredeeming even if you are not recommending it.
• 1–Severely Flawed. Pass on this one. Should never have been published without major editing. A BAD book. OR it can be a book you would never support because of offensive or objectionable content but if you use this you MUST state the reason. Absolutely would not have finished if you did not have to review it. This says lots and lots of problems. Unredeeming. Don’t waste your money.

(This is the letter I send to the reviewers)

ABOUT THE REVIEWS:

The book reviews are the heart and soul of RT BOOKreviews magazine and it is imperative that we make every effort to strengthen the reviews and make hard decisions when rating the books. If you look through any issue of RT BOOKreviews magazine as an objective reader you would raise an eyebrow as to how many books are rated 4 and 4 1/2 in each issue.

I am not saying that you should give a great book a lesser rating or a bad book a higher rating. I am only asking that you take a minute to reflect on each rating to determine what number it should receive and in MOST CASES I think you will determine it should be lower.

With the “critical–? paragraph as the lead, it is very important to convey what is good (or bad) about a book in specific terms. Phrases like “will keep you on the edge of your seat,–? or “beautiful prose,–? or “a page-turner,–? or “a book to snuggle up with on a cold winter's night,–? or even “will keep you up all night,–? does not say anything specifically about the book. What readers want to know is WHY it will keep them up all night, WHY it's a page-turner or WHY the prose is beautiful, etc.

Your critical paragraph must convey the tone of the book, i.e., suspenseful, humorous, very sensual, etc., and also substantiate why it is getting the rating you've chosen.

It's important to note that although we are asking you to consider giving more ratings on the low end of the scale, we will not accept mean-spirited descriptions that can be construed as a personal attack on an author. For instance, it is not acceptable to say something like, “this author should keep her day job because she can't put two sentences together.–? Or “about the only thing this book is good for is a doorstop.–? You get the idea.

We want to take the high road and explain to readers why the book didn't work without a personal attack or a mean-spirited opinion.

The book summary should be kept to TWO SHORT paragraphs. This is just a summary, and is not intended to give readers a blow-by-blow description of the entire book. Readers just want the gist of the story to see if it is something they would be interested in reading.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE be sure to check the spelling of characters' names, places and also the title of the book and the author's name. We have been embarrassed on a number of occasions where the publisher and/or author have contacted us with corrections.

Thank you for all of your hard work and dedication, for your commitment to the deadlines and most of all for your loyal support. It is you, the readers, that make RT BOOKreviews so special!

Sincerely,
Carol Stacy
Publisher

***

Related posts:

1. Why Romantic Times Reviews Are Not Credible
2. Romantic Times Update: Still Waiting
3. Romantic Times Update: Kathryn Falk’s Vested Interest in Ellora’s Cave

Ms. Stacy confirms that the blog post made on Karen Scott’s blog was Kathryn Falk. She wants to apologize if anyone was offended but she will not comment on Ms. Falk’s post more than that. I also don’t know that Kathryn Falk will come and provide explanation for what she meant.

One other comment before I have to get back to work and that is Ms. Stacy wanted to convey some details about the gay romance author promotional materials issue. According to Ms. Stacy, the hotel manager had several complaints by businessmen about the poster featuring men loving each other up. The hotel manager removed the poster and refused to put it back up. The promotional items were left on “Promotional Lane” and the author participated in the book signing.

Related posts:

1. Romantic Times Update: Kathryn Falk’s Vested Interest in Ellora’s Cave
2. Romantic Times Update: Still Waiting
3. Why Romantic Times Reviews Are Not Credible

Related posts:

1. Romantic Times Update: Still Waiting
2. Why Romantic Times Reviews Are Not Credible
3. New York Times Is Behind the Times Again

A message has been passed onto Ms. Falk for verification but at this time, Romantic Times cannot confirm nor deny the identity of the blog commenter. Other than to say that Ms. Stacy, a senior representative of RT, sees nothing wrong with a post accusing bloggers of being “ridiculous–?, “viputerative–?, “heartless–?, “genuinely perverse–? and “sick in the head.–?

Falk says that we should all support women run businesses regardless of quality of content. How does that jive with their lack of support for the female run publishing house that is devoted to gay romance? The Gay Romance promotional display at the hotel was removed for being “too risque” while Ellora’s Caves covers with naked threesomes are widely available. RT did nothing to support this author. On the bright side, some authors took the content to their author tables: Angela Knight and Mary Janice Davidson to name a few.

There is a great debate going around the literature blogging internet about the value of blogger reviews. The value of the blogs is this: we provide our honest opinions that is not influenced by any publisher, author or advertiser. The greatest benefit we receive is free books and if that is lost because we give a negative review, so be it.

More updates to follow.

Related posts:

1. Why Romantic Times Reviews Are Not Credible
2. New York Times Is Behind the Times Again
3. Is this the E Reader people have been waiting for?

The commenter named Ms. Falk takes Karen S to task for a number of things, but outrageously suggests that Karen S is responsible for someone’s attempt to commit suicide as a result of a negative review.

I have heard from several people on your post who are saddened by what they read today. One person mentioned has offered her resignation. Another is contemplatiing suicide. Is that what you intended for your blog? Do you want this on your conscience? . . .

The blog in question that you posted, bashing one or more publishers and authors, is detrimental to the principles of romance. If you have influence, please spend your time helping our romance community. People are sensitive and a string of suicides is not what is needed.

Falk continues to ramble with some sentences not making any sense but mostly she confirms what I believe RT’s motto is that if you don’t have anything good to say – keep your mouth shut. Anyone who doesn’t follow this mantra is “ridiculous”, “viputerative”, “heartless”, “genuinely perverse” and “sick in the head.”

None of our members deserve such ridiculous bloggers, especially from mean-spirited women posting notes from the quiet of their houses while those in the rat race of business life are working long hours. To think you only have time to promote personal vendettas is sad….

If one “hurts” — be it something nasty published towards a publisher, editor, or author. We should all hurt unless we are heatless.[sic] . . .

Unless your bloggers are genuinely perverse and have no regard for people’s feelings and livelihood, then I predict you all will needlessly add turmoil and discontent to yourselves. I hope you are ready to take responsibility for some of your remarks….

Anyone who thinks this kind of dialogue on a blog is valuable is truly sick in the heart and the head.

the woman who purports to be Ms. Falk states that the reason for this relentless positivity is because she’s a woman running a business in a man’s world. We should feel protective of these small businesses, she instructs as if we are small children.

I am proud of any woman who writes erotica and gets published. I know how tough it is. I am the only woman who owns a magazine (except for Oprah and Martha) and no woman has ever owned a publishing house in New York. Be it Harlequin, Berkley, Dorchester or Kensington, it’s owned by businessMEN.

Attacking the epublishing houses for poor quality is mindless and does not help the genre for “[p]ositivity is the key to helping our genre.” Actually failure to provide robust critique leads to stagnation, a glut in subgenres leading to a demise of good authors. Publishers frequently state that they are interested in providing what the readers want to read and if we do not demand quality, then we won’t get quality.

By engaging in critical review of a romance book, Ms. Falk suggests that it is reflective of a “dark nature”.

Disrespect for our industry and its members reflects the dark nature of the person spewing it — not the object of the attack.

She points out that the publishing industry is comprised of fragile flowers:

Our writers and editors are sometimes fragile, as the line of our work is pure emotion. . . .Why not realize that authors are sensitive, and so are publishers — and inflicting harmful words does all of us a disservice.

Karen Scott, a voracious reader of romances, is not supporting the industry by her comments. She is everything (and I suppose this blog is too) that romance is not.

It appears to be promoting everything romance books do not stand for.

She instructs Karen on what is tolerable

Please start by asking them to not muddy our waters with ugly suppositions and invalidated comments — and to be impeccable with their words — this would be an excellent practice of gratitude and most appreciated.

and what is not

Bloggers who have no idea of the work it takes to be an author and a publisher in today’s competitive market should not be welcome on board….

Blogs of this nature are harmful when they could be productive. Giving frustrated voices a place to say outrageous things to destroy is evil. Why not encourage frustrated women to spin to the positive?…

I wish you all peace and bliss….and the enlightenment to pass over a rough patch and avoid this ever happening again.

I can’t help but wonder if Ms. Falk’s, if it is Ms. Falk, viputerative attack on Karen Scott, a popular blogger, is as a result of what she perceives to be a threat to her business. Many magazines are losing ad revenue as more and more companies are moving their publicity dollars onto the internet. I’ve read that publishers are looking toward bloggers for more word of mouth coverage and moving away from traditional print sources (one of the reasons given for the demise of the print Book Review sections in so many newspapers).

We don’t have time to pay much attention to blogs, but when we hear of people are upset by inconsiderate vicious bloggers who seem committed to spreading bad feelings instead of working in harmony for the good of all, it makes us wonder about who we are supporting with our businesses!!!

It is we who support RT’s business and the publishers. Not the other way round.

I am sure that authors will not feel comfortable about posting a comment here. After all, RT is still a very influential player in the romance industry. But I could not stand for such statements to be made without a response. We readers are not the borg and we are not bound by any one person’s dictates. The freedom of discussion is what makes the online community so vibrant. We disagree on books within the bloggers here. Janine and I are rarely on the same sides of the coin, yet we remain steadfast supporters of the romance genre. We blog because we are so passionate about this genre of ours. But we will not be silenced even if we are accused of being responsible for suicides and the downfall of romance.

If this kind of negative mood and behavior is allowed to spread, I predict that no one will care or dare to support romance in the future….

People are sensitive and a string of suicides is not what is needed.

I do hope that this is not Falk because I am embarassed for her if this is. A true professional would not come to a blog and suggest that readers who are critical of the genre are evil, suicide inducing individuals.

Related posts:

1. New York Times Is Behind the Times Again
2. Internet Explorer Opens Into Modern Times.
3. REVIEW: Harlequin Manga Reviews Take 2: The Good, and the Bad and Ugly