…Wolk describes \”comics culture\’s slightly miserable striving for ‘acknowledgment’ and ‘respect’….\” That could be said of portions of the romance community (witness the hostilities between authors Jennifer Weiner and Curtis Sittenfeld …

I think the main problem with the authors isn’t so much that they have to embrace the review for the book or the reviewers, but they need to embrace criticism as a concept. I.e., authors many times control the discourse surrounding romance. They are the ones with the biggest platforms, the loudest voices. So when comments about reviews that have qualifiers, the authors encourage only the most positive of reviews. They do not, in any way, foster a community of reviews that are critical. And by doing that, they are essentially saying, these reviews that are critical have no value in our romance community.

I don’t know about the monolithic “Authors”–there are a lot of us out here with all different levels of influence (the idea that I have as much ability to control discourse as Nora Roberts is just…silly). Just like authors of any other literature, there are authors who are going to be more or less receptive to critical review. I’ve no doubt that there are authors of more “highbrow” fiction who have been involved in blog wars or other communicative shenanigans.

But when it comes to critical review, romance as a genre is going to run up against a brick wall (or maybe a pink ceiling). Consider that to review a book of any genre by an author, it first has to be published, and nowhere else but the romance genre can you find publishing criteria or editorial preference so specific–hence you have a publishing industry (or portion thereof) at odds with critical review efforts–there exists a commonality that means steady profits to the one, but devolves into cliche’d banality very quickly for the other.

Not to say it couldn’t be done – I appreciate honest critique of my work as an author, and as a writer, I appreciate honest critique of both mine and others’ work because it’s how I learn what works and what doesn’t. I just think that a new or different approach to literary critique is probably going to be needed.

Romance is the meatloaf of the publishing industry. Nourishing, plentiful, and fun for the whole family, but not generally served because it’s startlingly unusual. Authors have the capacity to construct really good stories within the framework. Make really good meatloaf, so to speak. But in order to be published as romance, rather than a cross-genre, it still has to be meatloaf.

I doubt the NYT is going to be jumping on board any time soon, and truthfully, I don’t read and write romance because of anything the NYT may or may not publish about it. But I do get tired of people thinking it’s okay to scorn the romance genre just because it’s large and well-stocked.

*Given the numerous incidents of ugliness in the author community we’ve seen over the past few years, has the culture of suppression around honest critique really convinced anyone that it’s the healthiest path, either for the industry community or the genre?*

My own experiences,– I am also an author as well as reader– have not been good. I am not going to focus on the negativity. Romance does not need validity outside the community. It needs work inside the community. There are some excellent authors, and even *Great Failed Attempts* at trying new things.

Again, your thoughts have been insightful and provoking. I’m linking.

My sense is that the current culture of the romance industry makes it difficult for authors to review books or to come out more strongly in favor of criticism, because they are afraid of backlash from fellow authors (And who knows? Perhaps from editors as well). I could be wrong about that — I hope I’m wrong about that — but that’s the sense I have. And if that’s so, who knows how many authors might wish for a different atmosphere that would make them feel more free to participate in critical discussions.

Good points, Janine. And haven’t we already gotten word that such pressure from editors exists? Where was it I saw someone quote Brenda Chin in saying that she won’t work with anyone who bad mouths another author? If I were an author desperate to publish, I sure as hell would interpret that sentiment as including reviewing another author’s work with anything less than a rave. I think that change is going to have to be initiated by readers.

Given the numerous incidents of ugliness in the author community we’ve seen over the past few years, has the culture of suppression around honest critique really convinced anyone that it’s the healthiest path, either for the industry community or the genre? I can’t help but think of Pleasantville.

Was that a reference to TMT? We have had disagreements, and they’ve stayed fairly amicable and polite but we haven’t had many (if any) disagreements with authors. I suspect that we’re not very likely to get disagreements with authors because we tend to pick out aspects of books which we can comment on and analyse. That means that when we refer to individual novels we’re saying we found them interesting in some way. Of course it might get a little bit nasty if we started analysing individual texts and saying that they were interesting because they were sexist/racist/homophobic…

Reviewers, though, have to comment on lots of books, from ones they love to ones they hate, and they have to assess the value of the whole book, not just particular aspects of it, so I think it’s likely that reviews will generate controversy more often.

they need to embrace criticism as a concept. I.e., authors many times control the discourse surrounding romance.

It does shift the balance of power when readers become writers of prose too. I’ve read comments by a very, very, few authors who seem to consider themselves the wordsmiths and therefore consider the opinions of readers as less valid. It’s true that authors are the experts at writing fiction, but that doesn’t automatically make them expert readers who can tell other readers how to respond to the books (everyone’s reading experience is personal, and affected by their own emotional and intellectual outlook, their mood etc.) nor does it necessarily make authors experts in writing reviews or literary criticism.

We probably also need to separate out ‘criticism’ as in ‘negative comments’ (which might or might not appear in reviews, depending on how the reviewer felt about the book) from ‘criticism’ as in ‘analysis/literary criticism of texts’.

I think the main problem with the authors isn’t so much that they have to embrace the review for the book or the reviewers, but they need to embrace criticism as a concept. I.e., authors many times control the discourse surrounding romance. They are the ones with the biggest platforms, the loudest voices. So when comments about reviews that have qualifiers, the authors encourage only the most positive of reviews. They do not, in any way, foster a community of reviews that are critical. And by doing that, they are essentially saying, these reviews that are critical have no value in our romance community.

But… to play devil’s advocate, I see a lot of authors posting here and at other review blogs like Smart Bitches. And I’m not cynical enough to think that these authors are participating in the discussion solely for self-promotion. That may be a part of it, but many of them also seem genuinely interested in the discussions we have here. And I think their participation helps those review blogs where they post. I do see it as a show of support for us, and I appreciate it.

My sense is that the current culture of the romance industry makes it difficult for authors to review books or to come out more strongly in favor of criticism, because they are afraid of backlash from fellow authors (And who knows? Perhaps from editors as well). I could be wrong about that — I hope I’m wrong about that — but that’s the sense I have. And if that’s so, who knows how many authors might wish for a different atmosphere that would make them feel more free to participate in critical discussions.

That’s why I applaud so strongly those authors who are reviewing. I know it’s not something every author can do but I see them as the ones who will make it possible for things to change for the better.

But still, how much value would good criticism be, and think how time consuming?

Well, I think it would be of great value, for many of the same reasons Romance as a genre has value. Take that Joyce review of Clarke’s book, for example. IMO that’s an incredibly powerful and GOOD review — a statement of profound respect for Clarke, an acknowledgment of her talent as a writer, and an honest reaction to her latest work. IMO it adds something to discussion of the Fantasy genre merely by reflecting on Clarke’s contributions to the genre and positioning her work within a larger literary and cultural context. But I wonder: how many Romance authors would see that as a positive review? This is not a rhetorical question — I really don’t know the answer.

Your comment and Jane’s remind me of how important it is to stress the notion that reviews are NOT FOR AUTHORS. If authors want to use reviews for promotional purposes — as they often do — then they will likely never use anything but so-called positive reviews. And what will the criteria be? How would reviews that might, from a reader’s perspective, be the most informative and the most persuasive compete against sweepingly positive generalizations? Again, not a rhetorical question.

I am very, very wary of pushing the idea that the primary purpose of reviewing is for authors, publishers, or marketing departments, because that simply leads us right back into the “if you can’t say anything nice” trap. Reviews DO promote a book, but I don’t think that is or should be their primary purpose. I think they should 1) offer a perspective on a book relative to the genre as a whole (although I don’t think they need to directly address the general level), and 2) provide a forum for discussion of a book. Anything that is aimed ONLY at selling a book is marketing, plain and simple.

Although it might be unfashionable these days, I think critical discourse on any genre is good for its own sake. If people don’t want to engage in it, that’s fine with me. But I think the genre has already suffered under the weight of the utilitarian directives of factory editing and publishing practices. Authors may or may not write to those directives, but I don’t ever want to get to the point where I submit to them, as well, because as a reader, they too often seem incompatible with my interest in reading the best damn books I can get my hands on.