There are two competing threads that took place last week amongst the romance circles. The first discussion arose out of a post by Daniela A, a reader blogger, who wrote that she did not like books featuring adultery. Some readers felt it was written in stone that infidelity could not occur. Others felt that in certain books, it could work.
Companion threads sprung up at author blogs and reader blogs debating not just the infidelity rule, but the idea that there were some unwritten rules that prevent publication of certain scenes or elements that some writers feel are crucial to their story. The case in point was Eva Gale’s novella (a work that is usually under 100 pages). Ms. Gale wrote a story which featured her hero having sex with his mistress after meeting the heroine but before coitous with the heroine. A couple of her beta readers told her to trash that scene because romance readers would not stand for such activity, often viewing any on screen sex between the hero and the heroine as being infidelitous.
As a stark contrast to authors such as Selah March, Eva Gale, and Barb/Caridad Ferrer who want to write whatever they want, damn the uptight reader, is the call for censorship by Eileen Dreyer. And yes, I said the C word. Ms. Dreyer, in her blog post and on the RRA-List stated that Claiming the Courtesan should not have been published because rape does not belong in romance and neither does a hero who speaks like an abuser. The justification for this argument is that romances are to be uplifting and empowering.
As a reader, I found myself in the middle. On the one hand, I felt like I was being chastised for not being open minded enough. That if I wasn’t such a tight assed moralist, I would see the value in the hero (note it is almost always the hero) having sex with others (Caridad Ferrer called those who said that it should not be romance - Romance Nazis). On the other hand, if I was someone who cared about my fellow woman, about the message that books were sending, I would join in the call for the abolishment of abuse and rapes in romances.
What I realized is that my acceptance of topics such as infidelity or rape, adultery or abuse depends upon the author. To Have and To Hold by Patricia Gaffney remains one of the seminal romances in my library. Powerful, emotional and breathtaking in its reach, a ban such as one that is urged by Dreyer would have prevented this story. While ordinarily not a fan of infideility, I was not bothered by JR Ward’s Lover Eternal which finds Rhage off sating his lust for blood and sex with someone other than the heroine, Mary.
Each author must have the latitude to write whatever she thinks is best. But I ask those authors, with each scene that you propose, ask yourself whether it belongs in the story. Does having your character rape or abuse the heroine make for a stronger, more emotional read or can the same story could be told without those devices. To each author who wants to write the infidelity scene, ask yourself what you are trying to prove? Is his ability to get hard and lay his pipe in a woman offered up as some type of measure of virility? Is the ability to have sex and pleasure other women indicative of his alpha male status? I’ll extend this even farther to one of my greatest pet peeves and that is skanky villian sex because it seems authors tend to show how truly evil a villian is by how perverse his or her sex choice.
Let me request one more thing. Let’s stop making value judgments about readers based upon what they do and do not like in books. More often than not the reader is really saying “this piece of the story didn’t work for me” rather than “I don’t ever want to see another infidelity scene again.” Just because a reader doesn’t like infidelity in her romances doesn’t make her a Romance Nazi. Just because a reader likes forced seductions doesn’t mean she is perpetuating the cycle of abuse for other women. Insulting the readership, even if you don’t believe that reader is “your” type of reader, doesn’t really do any good at all.
I believe a reader can accept anything so long as there is a good reason for it, so long as it is integral to the story, so long as the reader buys into your premise and connects. So long as I can’t remove that scene and still have the same effect. Otherwise, the scene is just trying too hard to be edgy and provocative for the sake of being edgy and provocative instead of actually advancing the plot. In the end, the cost will be pissing off the readership in exchange for the dubious honor of being a so called rule breaker.
Next week: Let’s Get Real. How reality in romances bites both ways.
Very well said Jane. I agree 100% and have nothing more to add really, except perhaps that I hope this will be taken into account by writers and publishers.
Amen to to a moratorium on skanky villain sex! There are better ways to show that a character is nasty. Besides, skanky sex is so much more fun when it’s between the h/h. *g*
As far as adultery, it’s not hard for me to extrapolate from Mary Balogh’s wonderful Regencies in which the hero keeps his mistress long into his marriage causing major problems and a turning point for the heroine, to a book which deals with the same yet includes sex scenes. It’s all in how the author deals with it.
It’s all about the story, and the execution of the story. Then the individual reader’s reaction to the story, and its execution. Romance is a very wide umbrella, with many, many readers who choose to pick it up. Each would have his/her own reasons and expectations when they do.
For every one who thinks NO! That didn’t work for me at all, there’s another who thinks YES! That’s exactly what I wanted. And both are absolutely correct.
Just as the author was correct when he/she created the story, because it undoubtedly worked for him/her.
Writers and other readers don’t have the right to tell a reader what she should read, or how she should feel about the book before or after the read.
Writers and other readers don’t have the right to tell a writer what she should write, or how others should feel about the book.
Rules, for me, aren’t meant to be broken just because they exist. That’s ego. They should be broken if the story demands it. That’s writing.
I abhor censorship in any form, no matter how it’s couched.
There are and have been books that I hated, and others have loved. There are books that I’ve loved and others have hated.
I would never presume to tell others what to read or not read, nor do I ever want someone to tell me what I should read based on content. I have an opinion on what I like and don’t like, just as others do. What I find acceptable I’m sure is different than what others find acceptable.
I think there have been and probably always will be stories that bend the rules of what is considered ‘romance’, based on certain elements contained in the story or the entire story itself. What one embraces, another may loathe.
Writers should be allowed to write their story any way they want without censorhsip. Readers can then buy or not buy and express their opinions accordingly. But I can’t begin to imagine someone trying to tell me how I should feel about a book. That’s as individual as our DNA.
Rules, for me, aren’t meant to be broken just because they exist. That’s ego. They should be broken if the story demands it. That’s writing.
As usual, Ms. Roberts has put it succinctly and echoes precisely how I feel. I don’t ever break rules simply to break them– for the longest time, I was writing with the blissful unawareness of any rules even existing, until the first time I received a judge’s comment saying, “You can’t do that,” with the excuse boiling down to, “That not how it’s done in romance.” And it wasn’t about any one thing– it was about when, precisely the hero and heroine should meet and feel attraction (by page five) and which POV is acceptable (never First Person– didn’t I know that NO editor would ever buy First Person POV?) and yes, whether or not a hero or heroine should be married at the outset or have a relationship with someone other than the hero or heroine in the course of the plot prior to committing themselves to their one true love. From those comments, I learned pretty quickly that unpublished contests weren’t necessarily for me. I learned, too, that this attitude didn’t just exist amongst contest judges (most of whom are writers, yes, but ultimately, also readers).
However, even though that’s had the end result of creating a bit of a knee jerk reaction to being told what I can or can’t do, I still maintain that people are free to write and/or read whatever they prefer.
I believe a reader can accept anything so long as there is a good reason for it, so long as it is integral to the story, so long as the reader buys into your premise and connects.
This. Exactly this. Let me say it, again, I have no beef with anyone choosing to write a story a certain way or with anyone’s objecting to reading it. Please, please, please, though, don’t tell me I can’t. I know that as a writer, I work very hard to make all of my premises work, to make each scene count– to have it blithely disregarded and reduced to, “you can’t do that because then it’s not romance,” especially as it is often said, without context, is condescending in the extreme.
I guess my base feeling is, as again, Ms. Roberts said, there are so many wonderful stories out there and so many ways in which to tell them, why are there those who are so intent on shoving it all into one narrow box? There’s more than enough to satisfy every reader’s taste. And in the end, it’s really the writer who’s taking the risk, no? That the work we spend endless hours on, that we pour our hearts and souls into may be rejected on so many levels, from an agent, to an editor, to the reader. Ultimately, we have to be happy and at peace with what we write, because it’s the only thing in the entire process we can control.
People come from all kinds of different backgrounds, experiences and walks of life, and of course that can affect your you likes and dislikes. And I don’t want to dismiss anyone else’s preferences, but what works for some people doesn’t work for me. But that doesn’t mean that books should only be written to my likes/norms/morals. There’ll always be books that push people’s hot buttons or be written about controversial subjects, have problematic characters and so on. And those who don’t like those will stay away from them. But they shouldn’t dismiss or pass value judgements about those that do.
Now if an author manages to make me enjoy a book even though it’s an issue/topic/characters that I’d normally have a problem with, then more power to the writer. That’s where the author’s skill can transform the reading experience. So yeah, some writers can make controversial topics work, and some aren’t as successful. For me. And it’s ok that something doesn’t work for others. But that doesn’t mean that there should be censorship. (That always raises the issue of who decides, and whose norms for me).
And as Jane said:
Absolutely.
[quote comment="26297"]People come from all kinds of different backgrounds, experiences and walks of life, and of course that can affect your you likes and dislikes. [/quote]
And that’s supposed to read as: “… and of course that can affect you and your likes and dislikes.”
Sigh.
I thought Robin at yesterday’s Readers’ Gab said it perfectly in the last two paragraphs of her post. There are too many people out there who like stuff different from the stuff I like. I adore Joey Hill. Some people can’t stand her because of the extreme nature of what she writes. That doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t be allowed to write…or that any of the other authors on Ellora’s Cave who write female submissive stories shouldn’t be allowed to write because someone finds female submissiveness offensive to women. Obviously, other readers love them. Ditto M/M stories. Or inspirational. I think if we turned this around and said that Inspirational authors shouldn’t be allowed to write because I personally, as an atheist, find their stories offensive, people would send out a pitchfork-and-angry-peasants party for me, as well they should. Books with forced seduction or even rape obviously work for someone and we shouldn’t condemn the reader for reading and enjoying them anymore than we should condemn the author or publisher for producing them.
Well said Jane. It’s the most coherent rational editorial on the subject I’ve seen. It certainly captures my feelings. Guess I’m a reader in the middle too.
I don’t know anything about the RRA-list, but I didn’t see any sign of the nasty C-word on her blog. There’s a big difference between a writer calling for censorship of another writer (which is abhorrent) and a writer expressing her personal horror that a book was published and giving her reasons for feeling that way. But, like I said, I don’t have access to the RRA-list.
As for subject matter, if enough people feel the same about CTC as Ms. Dreyer, they won’t buy her next book. (I haven’t read it yet.) I blogged just yesterday about some feedback I’ve received on some of the choices my characters made in my recent release, and I knew when I wrote it I might lose a few readers. And that’s okay. Censorship is not. Ever.
But when I read Ms. Dreyer’s blog entry, I see an author giving her honest opinion of a book, which is something authors are usually criticized for not doing. Is it her standing in the romance ranks that makes her review a call for censorship, or was there something more on the RRA-List?
Yes, good luck defending yourself after you’ve been called a Romance Nazi.
I, too, am in the middle. Since I wrote the infamous AAR review of Claiming the Courtesan, it’s clear where I stand on that book. I hated the rape, despised the “hero”, and, as a romance, I thought it was an abysmal disappointment. But, OTOH, I am with Jane in loving To Have and To Hold which I think is one of the most brilliantly written romances of all time. It is, as Jane says, all in the execution.
What bothers me, OTOH again, about CTC is that it’s published by a Mainstream (and, yes, I meant mainstream with a cap “M”) publisher with no real clue on the cover about what’s inside. And, yes, I am right there with the tight-assed moralists in being concerned about the message it sends to young women who pick it up expecting Avon’s usual round of light romance featuring painfully implausible virgin widows.
But, bottom line for me, is that even though I personally disliked CTC, I will defend to the death Anna Campbell’s right to write it and Avon’s to publish it, though I certainly wish that some kind of “mature themes” label had been put on it. (Gee, and wouldn’t that really jack up sales?)
I never used the word “censorship.” Never once. And like Caridad, I’m all for allowing readers to buy and read whatever they want, whenever they want. And I’ve said that. Repeatedly.
I simply want the same right to write whatever I want and not have it called “not romance” simply because it breaks someone else’s definition of romance.
Before Jane jumps in with her repeated question “but who is keeping you from writing it?” the answer is “no one.” No one is keeping me from writing what I want. I’d prefer it if we just didn’t sling around labels and rules like they were handed down from the Gods of Romance. They weren’t. There are no golden tablets with the 10 Commandments of Romance Writing. There is only the love story that ends happily. Everything else has been done - well and poorly - and sold - well and poorly.
The marketplace always wins. Which is why Jenny Crusie (see this post) and Lynn Viehl (see this post) make the bestseller lists with startling regularity. Because they write what they want and they write it well. And they don’t care if someone comes along and says “that’s not romance.”
So. I’ll take a page from their very healthy checkbooks and not care so much, and just work on my craft. The marketplace will take care of the rest, as you, yourself, have pointed out.
As for writing stories that break what I consider artificial rules for “the dubious honor of being a so-called rule breaker?” Not in this lifetime. If it doesn’t serve the story, then it doesn’t stay. But since no one other than a handful of beta readers — some of whom loved the “mistress scene” in Eva Gale’s novella — has ever read Ms. Gale’s story, I’d say the jury is still out, no?
It’s a big genre. There’s room for all kinds of stories. I’m preaching the gospel of diversity and freedom of expression, which can only be good for romance. Can only keep it healthy and open it up to new readers.
And I really have to say this: constantly setting up this artificial battle between authors and readers? It’s getting old.
Books in which every character is well behaved and nothing bad happens to anyone would be incredibly boring. Murder, abduction, war, and treachery aren’t “uplifting and empowering,” either, but they regularly appear in all types of fiction, even in romances. They make for much better conflict than The Big Stupid Misunderstanding That Could Be Resolved With A 30-Second Conversation But Instead Drags On For 200 Pages, in my opinion.
A writer has no control over how any given reader will respond to an element in a story. Reader A will hate it. Reader B will love it. Reader C will accept it as part of the whole and not dwell on it. Reader D will find it unnecessary. Reader E will think it would have been better if aliens had abducted the heroine and staged a coup to ensconce her as queen of the booger people instead.
It’s impossible to please everyone, and even attempting to do so is the kind of compromise of artistic integrity that ends careers. If you can’t tell your story without caving in to someone else’s opinion of how it should or should not be told, you can’t tell it at all. Hang up your pen and check your keyboard at the door - you won’t need them when the puppeteer sticks his hand up your butt and words that aren’t your own start coming out of you.
No story is written out of disdain for the reader. Writers need readers and are universally appreciative of their patronage. All a writer can do is tell the story in the best way she can. What readers make of it is entirely up to them.
I don’t know anything about the RRA-list, but I didn’t see any sign of the nasty C-word on her blog.
Certainly when she came over to Teach Me Tonight and explained a bit more about her thinking on this issue she wasn’t calling for censorship. Her argument seemed to have more to do with genre boundaries/definitions:
I only said that I think CTC does not belong in the limited world of genre romance. Not that it doesn’t deserve to be published. Genre fiction, by definition, has boundaries (just try killing off a baby on a romance audience and see how far you get). There are other places (a very good example is fan fic) which has none, or different ones. I write in more than one sphere for this very reason. The books I write in romance I do deliberately. I also write mainstream to write about what doesn’t fit.
and she also gave a longer explanation about why she feels this particular novel isn’t one she thinks fits in the romance genre.
Some people have stretchier boundaries for the genre than others. Also, romance is a huge genre. One of the ways that readers negotiate the vast number of choices available to them is to read within their favourite sub-genres and/or they make use of labelling such as the kind Sarah mentions, ‘female submissiveness [...] M/M stories [...] inspirational’.
It’s all about the story… These were the exact words that came to my mind. Authors need to tell their stories and not have to worry about being second guessed about motivation or even worse censored. Saying that we as readers don’t have to love or even like what’s written.
I’m a reader that likes to see rules broken, it shows the author thinks outside of the box, that doesn’t mean it always works, but it’s refreshing when an author does make it work.
There’s this fear that Claiming the Courtesan will somehow throw us back to the stone age of romance, it’ll be considered ‘edgy and cutting edge’ and it will be this season’s black. I think those who want to censor authors give the reader very little credit. I’ve been reading romance since “forced seduction/rape” was the norm rather than the exception and there’s no way that today’s readers are going back. The readers of yesterday watched as the genre evolved into something better, why would they tolerate it going backwards. Authors speak through their stories, but the balance to that is readers speak through their pocketbooks and that will keep the genre from reverting back.
[quote comment="26303"]And I really have to say this: constantly setting up this artificial battle between authors and readers? It’s getting old.[/quote]
Seriously. I just don’t know where to stand, being both an author and a reader. Do I insult my own intelligence and motivations?
(Only here subscribing to comments. Ignore.)
You’re doing young woman a diservice by giving them less credit than they deserve. Do you really think young woman who read and enjoy Julia Quinn or Loretta Chase aren’t going to be able to see the difference between their light/humorous tales and a darker one like CTC. Are they going to now think that forced seduction and rape are acceptible–I’m not buying that. Did Rosemary Rogers and Kathleen Woodiwiss somehow warp young minds 30 years ago? I don’t think so, or the genre wouldn’t have ever moved away from forced seduction/rape as the norm.
I don’t think there are an rules for being a romance other than love and HEA. But it think that if the plot involves rape, child molestation, extreme torture etc I should be given some way of knowing that this is not the book I want to spend my hard earned money one *in advance*–others feel similarly about infidelity, the death of pets etc.
Dreyer posted at the RRA list
This sounds like she wants the editor to serve as a censoring mechanism for the genre to keep out those books containing the undesirable. Obviously it is my interpretation and everyone else’s may differ.
I am with Tara Marie in that I give readers alot more credit. I don’t think that they are going to start romanticizing rape by reading books about forced seduction or rape. This type of ideology presumes that women are so weak minded that a few books they read for entertainment will start shaping their moral code and their conduct. Are women going to start leaving the city and moving to the small town and all its glories? Are women going to start hiding their pregnancies and refusing to take child support from their rich millionaire sperm donors? Are women going to start eating Chicken Marsala and Krispy Kremes for every meal? Probably not in large numbers.
Sigh.
I don’t think any of us said Damn the uptight reader. Nor did we call the morality flag. It was about what we’ve encountered as writers and the rules of romance. Not about readers. I didn’t read all the posts about infidelity (gee look, I spelled it right today) so I have no idea about what was going on with those posts. I was a bit astounded when the subject came up with my story-but now knowing that the conversation was going on in other places I understand.
I think Jenny Crusie said it so well on Smart Bitches, (Selah linked). It’s all about the story.
I have very wide open reading boundaries. Entertain me-that’s all I ask. And that’s all I ask as writer. Let me entertain you. I may be able to pull it off-I may not. It’s subjective according to reader.
You’re doing young woman a diservice by giving them less credit than they deserve. Do you really think young woman who read and enjoy Julia Quinn or Loretta Chase aren’t going to be able to see the difference between their light/humorous tales and a darker one like CTC. Are they going to now think that forced seduction and rape are acceptible–I’m not buying that. Did Rosemary Rogers and Kathleen Woodiwiss somehow warp young minds 30 years ago? I don’t think so, or the genre wouldn’t have ever moved away from forced seduction/rape as the norm.
I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, Tara Marie, but reading or seeing something repeatedly desensitizes. Especially when we’re talking about very young minds. And was I warped by reading Woodiwiss? I’m honestly not sure. I certainly put up with some heavy petting I didn’t want back when I was 14 or 15 because I was reluctant to make a scene and that seemed more important than standing up for myself. Is that warped? Maybe.
And, once again, I support Anna Campbell’s right to write the book and Avon’s to publish it.
I had the same impression as Laura. I’ve only read the RRA-L and not the blogs, but my feeling was that it was more of an issue of genre boundaries and reader’s expectations when choosing an Avon book. I don’t recall censorship being used by Ms. Dreyer.
Obviously the book didn’t work for some romance readers as a romance. It must be a very thin line when the writing is cutting edge. One comment (and I apologize for not remembering the name) said we complain when it’s the same old/same old and we complain when it is cutting the edge too close. Is Avon stretching their own boundaries?
Overall, I came away feeling that this book may have worked better either as an erotica or a different publisher (one of whom readers have different expectations).
I am with Tara Marie in that I give readers alot more credit. I don’t think that they are going to start romanticizing rape by reading books about forced seduction or rape. This type of ideology presumes that women are so weak minded that a few books they read for entertainment will start shaping their moral code and their conduct. Are women going to start leaving the city and moving to the small town and all its glories? Are women going to start hiding their pregnancies and refusing to take child support from their rich millionaire sperm donors? Are women going to start eating Chicken Marsala and Krispy Kremes for every meal? Probably not in large numbers.
Jane, that wasn’t my point. My point was to raise concern about very young minds exposed to rape from a mainstream publisher, which is something I don’t think you or anybody would advocate.
[quote comment="26310"]I don’t think there are an rules for being a romance other than love and HEA. But it think that if the plot involves rape, child molestation, extreme torture etc I should be given some way of knowing that this is not the book I want to spend my hard earned money one *in advance*–others feel similarly about infidelity, the death of pets etc.[/quote]
Do you mean like warning labels? But who decides what all should have labels? Should there only be labels for rape, torture, molestation? But that could also lead to ratings like: “Warning extreme alphaness inside! Hero acts like an idiot! ” for those readers who don’t like alpha heros.
I guess I find putting labels on books problematic (and then there’s the whole issue of ratings and that they can serve as an enticement to some people).
This is really an interesting disucssion. My feelings about the creative process are that my characters often do things I don’t want them to. Yes, I am writing the story, but the next thing I know, if I let go and just follow along as I often do, I find that my characters have gone and done something I wouldn’t have in my “real” life. I remember in my second novel actually thinking, “God, Stella, don’t do that.” But she was out the door and I just went along for the ride.
Now, I have only written three published romances, but in some of my other stories, characters have had affairs. I hope that the reason for them doing so was made understandable and clear. Maybe the reader won’t agree with the decision, but I hope the reader understands it.
The prime example for me of understanding if not liking a character comes in the novel Zombie by Joyce Carol Oates. In that novel, the main character is a young man so disturbed that no one wants to be near him. He decides to study up on the process of lobotomy, and tries to do a couple at home–he figures he will make a zombie, a person who would actually love him.
He makes a few mistakes along the way, and it’s not pretty. His process is horrifying. But I “got” him because the writing is so good.
Of course, I had a few nightmares about the book, but it’s an example I use in my classes of the the use of the the first person narrative and just flat out good writing to bring a character to us–make us care about someone not us, not in our moral landscape. I don’t want to write this character, but I’m glad Oates gave it a go.
I do feel that there is some pressure in romance writing to make things “hot.” And as we know, hot is subjective, in the realm of fantasy, and fantasies are very personal and varied. So there should be a spectrum of writing out there to appeal to all.
Jessica Inclan
Since when is the romance industry responsible for “young minds”? Isn’t that the parents job? I have a young daughter and when she starts to read romances, it will be my job to talk to her about what she is reading and monitor what she is reading.
Romance books are marketed to adults. They are not Young Adult books. They are books for adults. Yes, of course, they are purchased and read by young adult and teens but the publishers can’t start editing with an eye toward that. It’s the parents job, not the publishers, to make sure that the books a child is reading is appropriate for that child.
I heartily dislike the idea of erotica being the catchall for romances with provocative subjects. I can’t really articulate this very well because I’m just speaking off the top of my head but it’s like everything that is objectionable gets the “erotic” tag which makes “erotica” then being equated with the objectionable and I don’t think that should be the defining aspect of erotic romance or erotica.
Jane, I didn’t say it should be labeled as erotica. I merely said some kind of mature themes label might have been warranted to tip off a mom that the book wasn’t in the vein of Julia Quinn.
Sandy, I too cut my romance reading teeth on Kathleen Woodiwiss and Rosemary Rogers at a young age, but I honestly don’t think on a whole it’s going to cause havoc with teenage girls. There are some many influences that keep girls quiet or allowing bad behavoir from boys–peer pressure, parental (good and bad), cultural norms and those raging teenage hormones.
Honestly, I think I’d rather see a teenage girl read romance than watch MTV. A book like CTC is the exception not the norm and by the conversations that are going on all over the on-line romance community it’s going to remain the exception. It’s readers that have moved the genre forward and there are enough of us that remember the old days that an occasional throw back book isn’t going to send the genre screaming backwards any time soon.
I had to go back in the RRA archives to find what I was looking for regarding Ms. Dreyer.
She stated “My persona contention, though, is that what I read in this book does not belong in a genre romance.” In responding back to her regarding that latest Linda Howard book I read that had more objectionable behavior on the part of the hero, she replied:
“As for Linda’s new book, I have to say that I don’t think it belongs in romance any more than Courtesan. No, I haven’t read it. No, I won’t. I find the concept offensive, which is my right. And Silhouette will make its decision based on how the book and subsequent ones do. Of course I wish they would have passed on the idea.”
It is one thing to say, I won’t buy that book, and another, in my opinion, to say I wish that they hadn’t published that book as a romance. To me, that is censorship.
Tara Marie, I agree with every single word in your most excellent post.
Sandy - I wasn’t say that you were saying the book should be labeled erotica. It was in reply to another commenter. But ironically, the topic came up on the RRA list under the heading “kinky” in which people were discussing erotica. So . . .I think that there are people who view “erotica” as the catchall where “bad” books should go and die.
I agree 100% with you on this one Jane. Excellent editorial. With every point I’m just nodding my head. Loved what Nora Roberts said, too. Writers should and can write whatever they want but execution is key.
[quote comment="26321"]I had to go back in the RRA archives to find what I was looking for regarding Ms. Dreyer.
She stated “My persona contention, though, is that what I read in this book does not belong in a genre romance.” In responding back to her regarding that latest Linda Howard book I read that had more objectionable behavior on the part of the hero, she replied:
“As for Linda’s new book, I have to say that I don’t think it belongs in romance any more than Courtesan. No, I haven’t read it. No, I won’t. I find the concept offensive, which is my right. And Silhouette will make its decision based on how the book and subsequent ones do. Of course I wish they would have passed on the idea.”
It is one thing to say, I won’t buy that book, and another, in my opinion, to say I wish that they hadn’t published that book as a romance. To me, that is censorship.[/quote]
I agree. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. You don’t speak for me. I am open to anything and everything except bestiality but I wouldn’t demand that they don’t publish it for those who enjoy that kind of stuff (not an animal lover, sorry). I think Ms. Dreyer is outrageous in her claims and is reacting without thought and talking a lot of rhetoric to feed the flames of critical discussion.
I can honestly understand your concern, but I think I come from it from a different perspective. It’s the not the norm, if it were I’d say parental warnings may be needed, but it’s not. I still think we need to give young adults more credit. If they are reading a steady diet of upbeat and fun romances (using Julia Quinn and Loretta Chase again :) ) and then read something darker, I think they can tell the difference. And to be honest, there are a lot of books out there that have dark themes–romantic suspense, paranormal, urban fantasy–how do we go about labeling these?
I lean toward agreeing with Jane, in that it’s the “parents job”, though I think it’s a little naive to think… when she starts to read romances, it will be my job to talk to her about what she is reading and monitor what she is reading. (sorry Jane :D) My parents had no idea what I actually was reading and then sharing with friends.
That’s because your parents probably trusted you. I plan to toss her room every other day and do every other objectionable, privacy invading thing I can. LOL. Who knows. That’s the plan today.
I agree. Readers have expectations when selecting a book listed as romance but clearly, there are vastly different ways and means of a getting to HEA. A more informed choice could be made if print publishers clearly defined content, genre and subgenre. Most ebook publishers are doing it.
I have a niggling doubt print publishers will want to catagorize a book in the event it may limit sales. But I say, readers will pick up another one more suited to their taste and everyone will be happy ever after.
And around and around we go…who else was harmed by reading romance novels? Come on, fess up. I’m outta here.
That’s because your parents probably trusted you. That’s probably true, I’ve been stuck with a “good girl” label my whole life, probably helped my reading material, not so great when you’re a teenager and dating, but works out better as you get older. :)
I plan to toss her room every other day and do every other objectionable, privacy invading thing I can. LOL. Who knows. That’s the plan today. LOL–good luck with that and the ensuing riots. :D
I heartily dislike the idea of erotica being the catchall for romances with provocative subjects. I can’t really articulate this very well because I’m just speaking off the top of my head but it’s like everything that is objectionable gets the “eroticâ€Â? tag which makes “eroticaâ€Â? then being equated with the objectionable and I don’t think that should be the defining aspect of erotic romance or erotica.
Hear Hear.
Seriously, and that’s what’s happening.
I know the calls being put out to writers for erotica lines are ASKING for envelope pushing stories, and that’s where you will get them, because that’s where people are having going to read them. But I wholeheartedly agree-it’s a shame.
And as far as readers being disappointed and angry about what they read is there any way to prevent that apart from a laundry list of warnings? Blurbs don’t cover content-they present a conflict in hopes to entice you to purchase the book. I can understand a person maybe getting angry that they paid $ and they did NOT want to read what they consider rape/forced sex. But like it was stated above, all subjects are not the same to all readers.
And having daughters, what they read is my job, not the publishers. I know I had Rosemary tucked under my mattress. (look there Jane. :))
And around and around we go…who else was harmed by reading romance novels? Come on, fess up. I’m outta here.
Keishon, that was a h-u-u-u-g-e exaggeration of my point.
What we read and see in popular culture — and not just what we read — affects us in many ways when we are growing up. That’s hardly a controversial contention.
I guess I am of the opinion that rules in the writing of any genre should be broken again and again and again till it works. The smart writer will make the breaking of a rule or rules central to the selling of a plot or a character.
But… most good writers will not break the rules unless they see a benefit or a freedom gained by doing so.
Anyway, I think rules were made to be broken. I love being shocked. I like having my brain engaged and even if I do not like the story or it’s outcome I will respect those attempting to make it work.
Otherwise WHY we would give people bonuses for “thinking outside the box”. Which in essence is not following someone else’s rules but making your own.
I hid mine in the pockets of my winter coats hanging in the back of my closet.
Interesting post. And the comments are even more so. You’re right Keishon, around and around we go.
I’ve been on a lot of reader forums lately that have been demanded the old romances back, Romantic Times being one of them. That those books are what they want to read. Maybe Avon has heard the call and is back to publishing ‘bodice rippers’ for lack of a better term. Some readers are going to dig it, and some readers aren’t. Just like some people like Eileen’s books and others don’t.
I hate romances with TTSL heroines and think that it is a disservice to women everywhere to write them, but I’m not going to stand up on my soap box and complain about the abhorrance that a writer wrote about one or that that publisher published it.
I think Ms. Roberts said it the best.
And as a young girl of 12 I read Stephen King and other horror writers, but I didn’t grow up with violent tendencies. And I got a sex education from Penthouse…and I grew up okay…oh wait, no, I write erotic/romance…hmm, so that MUST be the reason I like to write about HAWT sex.
Damn, that should say, TSTL, not TTSL…LOL
~But… most good writers will not break the rules unless they see a benefit or a freedom gained by doing so.~
I’m not sure I understand this. What benefits? What freedom? And how do those relate to the story being told? I don’t think about benefits or freedoms (never have) when crafting a story. I think about the story.
I can’t agree that rules are made to be broken. Rules have a purpose, so breaking them must have a purpose as well. I don’t write with the intent or the desire to shock the reader. I write with the intent and purpose of telling the story, with the hope that story will engage and entertain the reader.
I have to equate the goal of shocking the reader to ego again. IF the shock value is integral to the story and the characters, great. If it’s there because the writer feels: Boy, I’m going to mess with people’s heads, or I’m going to blow the rules to hell and reshape the structure of the genre, the story is almost certain to fail. Because the story isn’t the purpose.
Tossing her room Jane? Believe me, you don’t want to do that. If you leave her no privacy she will not trust you and never confide in you. The thing that can do a teenager the most harm is not a romance novel, but the internet. It is the best and the worst of everything. Checking her history online is more helpful to your piece of mind that tossing her room. As of now, there are blogs, message boards, myspace and facebook accounts where they can talk to their friends and whoever else is lurking about. Not giving our their private information is the most important thing you can teach her when online, and they tend to be online quite a bit. By the time your little darling reaches that age, there will be more of the same. I wasn’t beyond checking text messages from time to time either, but she never knew I did that.
I haven’t read the book in question yet, but are young girls really interested in romance novels anyway with so much wonderful YA literature out there. Either of my daughters were interested in them nor were their friends. I suppose some are, but I don’t see them as a threat when there are so many more powerful influences out in the world to be concerned about.
“Boy, I’m going to mess with people’s heads, or I’m going to blow the rules to hell and reshape the structure of the genre, the story is almost certain to fail. Because the story isn’t the purpose.”
Sorry Nora, but I repeat William S. Burroughs, Phillip K Dick, and Carlos Casteneda just to begin. he list is much bigger.
I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 12. I also read Clan of the Cave Bears and sequels. The Ayn Rand scarred me more than the sex in CotCB. I think it’s disingenuous to say “My point was to raise concern about very young minds exposed to rape from a mainstream publisher, which is something I don’t think you or anybody would advocate” as someone does above and not worry about the thousands of images that degrade women and instill unrealistic body types that young girls see every day of their lives. I think any young girls reading books like this, in this day and age, are going to be of the variety to take everything they read with a grain of salt and to understand that this is FANTASY, not reality. These debates are more than 250 years old–the same debates happened about novels in general and their effects on unsuspecting young women when the genre was first created in the 18th Century. I find it fascinating that we’re still rehashing the same territory: oh, but they won’t know any better! Oh, but they won’t be able to separate fantasy from reality! Oh, but they’re too sheltered to have their own opinions! I call Bullshit! just as much as it was bullshit 250 years ago.
I read The Flame and The Flower when i was 17. It was my first romance read. I followed it up with a lot more Woodiwiss, Rosemary Rogers and many more sweet savage romances. Loved them. They never influenced the sexual decisions I made. We grow up with values and parental influence, and what we learn and how we choose to use those lessons learned are what guide us, not the books we read. IMO.
I raised two sons to adulthood and have a teenage stepdaughter, all who read voraciously. I tried to teach them the same types of values and talk to them about what they read, but in the end it all comes down to choice, lessons learned and how they choose to apply what they’ve learned. As with all kids, some choose wisely, others don’t.
I really don’t think our fiction reading influences who we become or the choices we make. Again, my opinion only.
To me their style of writing the way they wrote became the substance of the story. That was not writing to follow any rules but their own.
Isn’t it in Fountainhead where Dominique is raped? I remember reading that scene as a teen and wondering, isn’t she supposed to be unhappy about this? I think it was the first “forced seduction” “rape fantasy” I ever read.
I don’t know that I want to be shocked although there is certainly a place for shocking content in romances. I also think that “writing outside the box” can refer to reinventing the old themes and making them fresh again, like the boss/secretary tale in Laura Lee Guhrke’s latest book, And Then He Kissed Her. There was nothing rule breaking in that book, but I thought it was fresh.
I think of Jennifer Crusie’s Don’t Look Down where they have the sex scene between the hero and an actress. I wasn’t sure what that was supposed to show. That JT was a real man? That when confronted with a nubile woman, he immediately succumbs? I am never sure how or why a man’s ability to have sex is equated with heroic status. It’s like the more sex we can show this guy having with other women and the more we can show he’s irresistible. I think it tends to show that the guy is someone of indiscriminate taste. It’s not so much that infidelity turns me off as that the constant catting around by some guy shows me he is unlikely able to make a committment or is led around by his dick. Neither of which seem like lovely traits.
“I have to equate the goal of shocking the reader to ego again. ”
Actually Nora, I equate “ego” when talking about writing to Ernest Hemingway.
But… That never seemed to stop people fawning all over his stuff.
I’m not generally in favour of adultery plots in romances, BUT, I also know that they can and do work. Jo Beverley convinced me of this years ago in The Shattered Rose. Which is why I don’t understand the attitude that adultery must NEVER occur is a rule set in stone for romance writers. Rubbish.
As for a hero not sleeping with another woman after merely meeting the heroine, well, I don’t even know what to say to that. Ok, I do - that’s ridiculous. Totally and completely ridiculous, especially if it’s a historical romance.
Hmm. I don’t think that at all. I wrote mine in as a character flaw-not something to show his prowess. I see it the same way in others writings. It makes his conflict to his HEA harder, and I love a high climb for the characters.
*looking up at some previous posts of mine-sorry for the mistakes*
~Sorry Nora, but I repeat William S. Burroughs, Phillip K Dick, and Carlos Casteneda just to begin. he list is much bigger.~
I can’t get inside those authors’ heads–or into any author’s but my own–but I’d maintain that the story came first for all of them. Shock value, rule breaking were PART of the story–not the goal of the writing. And I don’t know how it’s shocking for an experimental writer like Burroughs to break rules.
I’m talking about focusing on the shock or the rule-breaking rather than using either or both of those elements to tell the story, and to use them for the writer’s own desire to push rather than using them because the story needs them.
Wow. How funny to see the same hot topic now as it was back in 1999.
I hope no one minds if I weigh in on this one. BTW, Jane and Jayne, I love your blog, you bring up some really interesting topics, and keep flaming to a minimum, which is greatly appreciated by this reader.
Anyway, back to 1999, and the debate about genre romance and the affect it has on kids. Kids see this kind of stuff (adultery, alcoholism/drug addiction, abuse in all of its myriad forms [emotional, psychological and physical] all the time, for goodness sake. If not in their own homes, then in the homes of a relative, or a friend, or a neighbor. I don’t think they’re going to learn much from a romance - no matter how dark - that they haven’t already seen in real life . . . or in a V. C. Andrews book. Or on LifeTime tv!
Furthermore, while romance and passion are timeless, times are different. Laws are different. The twenty-first century is NOT the nineteenth century, no matter that we are still steeped in Victorian ideology. Surely to portray it as such does a disservice to everyone, no matter their age.
Rape, adultery . . . such things happen, both historically and now. Why should the topics be taboo in romance? And if they are, then how can romance fiction ever hope to be taken seriously? If authors and publishers stopped writing outside this imaginary box, then romance books would truly deserve the term “Fabio books,” wouldn’t they? Even books written for children deal with realities . . . Anyone for Where’s the Poop by Susan Kathleen Hartung? But, ooops! I forgot, no one in romance land ever goes to the bathroom.
Why must romance always be divorced from reality? It’s nice to read fairy tales every once in a while, but variety truly is the spice of life.
And . . . I have to say it . . . My idea of hell would be living in a Leave it to Beaver or The Brady Bunch world. And much as I love Donna Reed, please don’t put me back in the kitchen wearing never-wrinkled shirtwaist dresses and baking cookies that are made from scratch. Better to occasionally eat a burned loaf of bread . . . or store-bought bread! . . . or heavens, no bread at all! than to be locked in a perpetual time-warp where everything is sunny and pg and we all agree.
Okay, I’ve rambled enough. Now to tie in with my opening . . . One of the most emotionally satisfying letters I’ve ever received came from a twelve year old girl who read her grandmother’s copy of The Lady’s Tutor. In my 1999 release, the heroine commits adultery with the hero. The twelve-year-old girl did not write she was going to boink the first man she met after marriage. What she did write was that she was not going to throw her virginity away on a boy just to be popular, that she was going to wait until she found a man . . . like Ramiel . . . who cared about her emotional, physical and sexual needs.
I don’t think it’s fictional adultery or rape that impacts our lives . . . it’s the emotion that a writer generates, in showing us that there is hope and redemption through love, that stays with us.
:::stepping off my soap box:::
Yeah! Jaci, you and I seem to be on the same page :-) I remember Erin B. reading Sweet Savage Love by Rosemary Rogers outloud to the rest of us who sat at the back of the school bus to hear the latest! Am I damaged, heck no, I was hooked.
I read and write romances for the extraordinary path to a HEA. Is it always beautiful, easy and full of roses? No, nor is every hero/heroine perfect and knows the moment when they’ve first met their heart mate. Maybe we could do away with needing to put “rules” on a very natural course of events being played out in a fictional setting.