The weekly links, opinion, and personal updates post
Links of Interest
Over at All About Romance, Sandy writes You Can’t Review Your Friends. You Just Can’t.
Here’s the thing that’s making me increasingly uncomfortable: With Twitter bringing authors and reviewers closer than ever before, a line that used to be hard is now getting blurry.
Day by day you get friendly. And then friendlier. And then all of a sudden more matters than just the words in a novel. That’s only human nature and it’s completely understandable, but it sure as hell can put a dent in the credibility we now enjoy.
51 comments and counting on the post, including Jill Sorenson and Lynne Connelly defending the practice, [Edited to add: Connelly makes several comments, but does not defend reviewing friends.] and lots of Twitter chatter. Commenter Diana is the first to remove the invisibility cloak that has been shielding the elephant in the room:
I think it’s safe to say that we’re talking about the Big Two review blogs here and what concerns me is that they’re REALLY not small in terms of readership and influence. Those blog owners seek mainstream media attention and are often quoted as spokespersons for Romancelandia. You can’t have it both ways, claiming to be “just a reader blog” while sitting on industry conference panels with all the attendant media hooplah.
The twitter lovefests among authors, publishers, agents and reviewers are killing credibility, at least for readers who pay attention. Claire brings up a valid question. How many would-be negative reviews are never written because of established friendships?
Responses on Twitter have been all over the map, But here’s the funniest:
*****
Ready for your daily dose of Condescending Media Portrayal of Romance? Try Claudia Connell’s The Blue Rinse and Bodice Rippers: In twin-sets and pearls meet the ladies behind Britain’s steamiest novels from the Daily Mail.
Have any of you been the journalism school? Is there, like, a rule that if you are writing about romance you have to start your article with bad pseudo parody?
There’s enough ageist, sexist, and book snobbish stuff here to last you all week (though you know it won’t have to). Just consider, for a minute, the contrast between the journalist’s description of the attendees as blue hairs in support hose and pearls, with the picture of author (I mean, “authoress” *eyeroll*) Jilly Cooper — undated, but looking totally sophisticated, strong, and hot, no pearls to be seen.
Or statements like this:
the average reader of dreamy romantic literature doesn’t tend to set foot in Waterstone’s or download to a Kindle.
Connell meets Roger Sanderson, who has recently parted ways with Mills & Boon, and decides:
I get the feeling that Roger, who like everyone I meet is highly intelligent with a cracking sense of humour, tired of writing endless schmaltz that always followed the same formula: girl meets boy, boy behaves like arrogant brute, girl hates boy, boy shows soft side, girl falls for boy and they all live happily ever after.
Still, there’s some good stuff, like this quote from Mills & Boon author Sara Craven:
Well I’m not holding my breath for a Pulitzer Prize, my dear,’ she quips. ‘People are very snobby about the novels I write, but when you get a letter from a lady in her 80s telling you that she read your book and felt like a girl of 21 again then, frankly, I couldn’t give a fig what anyone thinks.’
Luckily, friends on the other side of the pond are not taking this lying down. Many great comments, some from people who attended the same party. (via @Mills&BoonUK)
*****
Many are very unhappy with Psychology Today’s sexism and racism. Well, we can now add their inability to interpret data. (Via Crooked Timber). That insulting article purporting to show black women are less attractive than other women? Turns out to have been bad science after all.
This is not the apologetic and angry mea culpa I would have preferred. In my opinion, it wasn’t just “bad science”, but overt racism and sexism. However, here’s my favorite bit:
Kanazawa does not follow these guidelines in all of his publications. For instance, in a paper on race differences in IQ he not only commits several theoretical errors, but also failed to consider alternative explanations. Incidentally, in that particular paper he also assumed that the earth was flat!
Updated to add: Looks like that racist asshat may be losing his LSE job over this! If so, good riddance!
*****
Last week, I posted an article in favor of adults reading YA, so it’s fitting that this week, we have Laura Curtis at Heroes & Heartbreakers taking the opposite view:
After much consideration, I’ve decided there are two problems for me when I am trying to read YA literature. The first is responsibility, the second is that particular brand of angst peculiar to the teenaged, developing self.
*****
Via Teach Me Tonight, a CFP for Popular Romance and the Ivory Tower:
This seminar will take place — March 15-18, 2012 — during the annual North Eastern Modern Language Association’s meeting at Rochester, New York. Please send abstracts of 250 words and a brief biographical statement to jonathan.allan [at] utoronto.ca. Deadline for abstracts: September 30, 2011.
*****
Kristie(j) from Ramblings on Romance is sharing some of her favorite newly digitized backlist titles. As a newer romance reader, I love getting these recs.
*****
From the Dabbler, How to Win Arguments On the Internet Without Really Knowing What You are Talking About. God, is this on the money! One example:
DEFEAT IS NEVER ADMITTED, BUT MAY BE IMPLIED
LAYMAN: Of course God doesn’t exist. Why does your God allow children to be murdered and earthquakes to wipe out whole populations?
BLOGMAN: I must say, you seem rather angry at this God whom you don’t believe exists.
LAYMAN: I’m angry that you think I should worship a God who, if He exists, must hate me and be evil.
BLOGMAN: Perhaps it’s not necessarily all about you?
And one more:
…the National Society of Blogmen Handbook 2006 listed as ‘Five Tried-and-Tested One-Liners for Undermining an Earnest Opponent’:
(TIP: although these ploys can be used in almost any kind of debate, the novice may wish to try them first in a simple question, such as whether euthanasia should be legalised)
1) Nearly everyone gets this one wrong, but you’ve argued it a hell of a lot better than most.
2) That’s certainly how a lot of very smart people used to think – you’ve done well to get there on your own.
3) Clever… if I started from where you did, I’d probably end up there too.
4) Your enthusiasm does you great credit. I wish I still saw the world like that.
5) You’re damned close to a profound insight there.
Go back to the AAR thread, and count how many of those you see there.
*****
From The Chronicle, a really good (but long) article on why privacy matters even if you have nothing to hide.
The deeper problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is that it myopically views privacy as a form of secrecy. In contrast, understanding privacy as a plurality of related issues demonstrates that the disclosure of bad things is just one among many difficulties caused by government security measures. To return to my discussion of literary metaphors, the problems are not just Orwellian but Kafkaesque. Government information-gathering programs are problematic even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered. In The Trial, the problem is not inhibited behavior but rather a suffocating powerlessness and vulnerability created by the court system’s use of personal data and its denial to the protagonist of any knowledge of or participation in the process. The harms are bureaucratic ones—indifference, error, abuse, frustration, and lack of transparency and accountability.
*****
Personal Updates:
My older son’s U12 soccer team won its semi-final in the State Cup, so they play in the finals in two weeks. When he was first asked to “play up”, I posted about it, not being sure if it was the right choice. Looking back on the season, I would have to say it was. He has made great friends with the older boys, and his play has improved.
The team they face in the finals is their arch nemesis, whom they have never beaten. We are lucky to scrabble together enough players to make one team, while their opponent is the “A” team, with B, C, and D squads for backup. We’re from “the other Maine” — northern rural, poor — and they are from the wealthy southern part of the state. Of course, all of this floats over my son’s head, but suffice to say I will be cheering my head off on the sidelines.
I’m still so, so busy. I am really despairing of it, actually, but I’ll spare you my angst.
Not sure what I’ll do on the blog this week. Blogging may be light in general until RWA.
HAPPY WEEK!
Related posts:
How does one blog become a spokesperson for the romance genre? The public decides this or the industry in general?
That’s like saying Perez Hilton is the spokesperson for Hollywood, which is so not true.
Erm, no, I didn’t support it, nor do I. I don’t review books from friends, or from publishers that I’m with. It keeps me honest! But I was explaining why I did it recently. I was reviewing a whole series (the Bad Blood series from Mills and Boon) and one of the books is by a friend. My review wasn’t stellar. So I contacted her beforehand, and she sportingly said “you do what you do.” Why do you think she’s a friend? And I did state in the review that she’s a friend.
I do think there’s a grey area there. I have probably a dozen author friends who I know far too much about to be able to review properly. But if they release a book I love, you bet I’m going to pimp it. That’s a bit different. If I don’t like their book, I’ll keep quiet, usually.
But that’s a dozen authors. The rest, I’ll review.
But I still contest that everyone is biased, whether they realise it or not, so it’s much more useful to the reader if you state the biases upfront (like my dislike of the Big Mis, or books where children play an important part).
Ah, the Daily Mail piece! The Mail is a woman-hating rag, at least if the woman is climbing out of the cliche they put her in. The RNA private loop has been delicious, but of course I can’t quote anything here. Two steps forward, three steps back, sometimes.
And lots of luck to your son. Having just endured a nail-biting end of season struggle (Sorry, Blackpool, yay Manchester United!) I know what you’re going through.
Jessica,
First of all, thanks for leaving a track-back so I knew you had posted this.
I wanted to step in and say proactively that commenter Diana is my sister. She visits AAR as anyone else does. Anyone who’s ever had a sibling knows that the last thing a younger sister can do is control an older. She has her own mind and always has. I’ve never attempted to control anything she posts online and never would. Hey, it’s the wild and crazy InterWebs!
I didn’t identify who I was talking about in my post because I thought it was obvious.
I would say to KT Grant’s question, that putting yourself forward as a media spokesperson encourages the media to contact you. You are in effect serving as a spokesperson for romance. Nothing formal, but there it is.
We’ve always noted that more people read than post, but the majority of posts at my blog indicated discomfort with the friend/reviewer thing. It just seems very basic and ethical to me and it’s something we’ve always followed at AAR.
I see that much mirth has been expended on Twitter. I thought my post about ethics in reviewing was many things, but not something to be laughed at.
Thanks again, Jessica, for the track-back.
Sandy AAR
@Lynne Connolly:
My apologies! I will correct it right away.
@Sandy AAR:
I’m glad you raised the issue, and 50+ substantive comments later, it’s clearly something that needed to be discussed. I know people are reluctant to name names, but, if done respectfully, I think specific examples (not a just a blog name, but an actual review) might help to zero in on what the problem is. I have some other thoughts about it, but I’ll share them over there when I get a chance to digest all of the discussion.
I figured since you didn’t correct Diana that you did agree with her as to where the problem lies. Thanks for clarifying your relationship.
@KB/KT Grant:
I don’t want to speak for Sandy, but as I read it, she was pointing out that there are two usual suspects when it comes to speaking on behalf of readers’ perspectives in professional venues (print media, publishing conferences, etc.) on romance reading, buying, or publishing (i.e. who gets a called for a quote, not as a random “woman on the street” reader, but as an expert in romance readers). I think her implication was that with greater power comes greater responsibility.
So, I’ll be blunt. Dear Author and Smart Bitches, correct? And Sandy and Jessica you both have good points. Greater power comes great responsibility but also goes to people’s heads.
It will be interesting to see which blogs are courted at BEA this week from the publishers who feel whichever blogs have this power to help with sales and reaching out to the masses.
I seem to miss all the fun in the Pacific. But I tend to agree with Claire’s comment … and Andrew’s Tweet made me laugh!
@KB/KT Grant:
Wait. Those are not my points. The first one is (I inferred) Sandy’s point, and the second one is … yours? Not sure.
I hope you give us a full BEA report. I wish I could be there. Alas, I will be on a soccer field all weekend.
Hmmm, I have many thoughts on the AAR post. Sandy, if you’re still reading I think you raised some interesting points. I’d like to add a few thoughts such as which books make it to review and which books will never see the review light of day. Would some books have been reviewed regardless? Do some sites review more books from certain publishers? editors? authors? Do percentages matter for individual bloggers vs. review sites vs. review sites which platform diversity or champion causes? (And shouldn’t any standard that we hold a blogger to also be applied to those professional review sites?)
What happens when a reviewer becomes invested in an author or even a series? Invested here doesn’t even need to mean “friendship?” Of course, with professional publications that investment could be advertising dollars. On the flipside of that the question becomes is the non-professional review sites more likely to review an advertiser’s book or is that the advertiser is more likely to place the ad because the site is more likely to review said book? ***eta Or what if an author/publishers/etc. becomes invested in the review site?***
What about reviewers who are involved in author or fansite forums? Here I’m thinking of something on the order of the BDB forums where the author and characters interact with the readers and much of that information doesn’t make it to the page. When one becomes that enmeshed in the worldbuilding, how does one separate what they know of the world and evaluate what actually makes it on the page? Or say beta readers? There is a level of investment there that may not be friendship but it is still nevertheless investment.
If I think about it long enough, I think my real qualms have to do with the fact that most reviewers are individual reviewers and don’t necessarily see the big-picture aspect of how they
willfit into the bigger review world or rather the publishing machine. Or how many consumers of the posts don’t follow the reviewers and know about their online relationships or panel discussions or contact within the publishing world; i.e., they only stop by every once and while and read a single review now and again. Even if a post producers discloses that, I very much doubt that the level of investment in either the product, the author, the professional relationship, whatever, really makes it’s way into a consumer’s brain, especially if said consumer loves the voice of the reviewer. (e.g., the reviewer becomes in a sense a celebrity but one the consumer feels they ‘KNOW.’ Let’s face it many blogs feel like personal living rooms where many of us are invisible guestswarmedcoddled in the warmth of the reviewer’s homes. Okay, not all.)I think this is a very important aspect. We fall in love and follow someone because we love the voice initially. Starting out that individual may have been a lonely reader on the fringe but as they become popular their contact points with the industry change and really there’s no way for any individual person to know how that new influence affects any of these people or how far the interconnected web goes.
I guess I’ve leave it here. As authors have become more accessible via the web, so have reviewers. I guess the question then becomes what role should reviews play in the publishing game vs. what role are they actually playing? How do we see that changing as the new publishing models move forward? Do reviewers need to get together and evaluate which books they are reviewing and why as their role increases in the publishing paradigm? Or as it continues to expand from not just reviewing individual books but giving interviews, holding author contests, doing promo and selling advertisement, writing opinion pieces, etc.?
***eta*** And what would reader trust networks? What is their role in this new publishing paradigm and how is that different from an individual review post?***
(Darn, I was trying to go short, too. I think I need hard word count limits.)
I thought of two more ethical lines in the sand but sadly they’re not as funny as Andrew’s (someone new for me to follow & fawn over
) …
1. I never review anyone if I’ve slept overnight at their house.
2. I never review anyone if I’m thanked in the acknowledgements or … need I even say this? … if the book is dedicated to me.
… bit of a grey area perhaps but if you regularly share rooms with someone at conferences and/or they’re your critique partner, that might be a review to pass along to someone else. Just me but I don’t see how “transparency” can make that all “jes fine folks, move along, there’s nothing to see here”.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m all about celebrating books, both new and old. You wanna believe when the books from the class of 2011 hit the shelves, I’ll be a pimp*mistress, celebrating the majorly wonderful fact of publication — and being able to buy a friend’s book. I won’t shut up and I won’t sit on my hands because it’s a friend’s book but I also won’t be reviewing it.
I thought of one more thing.
What role does audience share/blog readership vs. community play for an individual blogger? Do we also need to look at intent or the so-called mission statement to make an evaluation for how an individual review fits into where the blogger wants to take an individual blog vs. a review site?
Looking at my calendar, we were due for one these right? My thoughts: author / reader line was crossed a long time ago with online forums on AOL, et al and such. We just got a little closer is all with sites like Twitter. I like to have distance. That’s me. I don’t much care what anybody else is doing. At the end of the day, it’s about books. Good books at that and those two sites seem to deliver. Sure some of us will fall outside the median but from what I’ve seen overall, their readers are satisfied with their recommendations. Their influence comes from that among other things. I trust their opinions because I personally know which reviewers tastes match my own. I won’t read PNR but the rest I will give a look.
I could see if they were recommending bad books from their alleged “author buddies” and we would have heard about it soon enough. As for not posting negative reviews – hey it’s their site, their prerogative. YOU determine if it’s an issue or not. If it is, don’t visit. Solved. As for the media aspect – I can count on one hand how many articles I’ve read with those two sites mentioned. Conferences and such, etc, don’t care. Those places are set up to listen to ideas and take notes but I’ve yet to see them implement a single thing. But, carry on. I read mystery these days anyway…
It wasn’t obvious to me. There are a great many romance reviewers and I follow relatively few of them. Even with regards to those reviewers whose sites/blogs I do read, I don’t keep track of all their online interactions with romance authors. Can I just ask for a bit of further clarification? Are “the Big Two review blogs” Dear Author and Smart Bitches Trashy Books?
Even if those are the two sites under discussion, I’m still not sure precisely who the criticism is directed at. DA is a multi-reviewer site, and the reviewers have varying tastes and, perhaps, different relationships with various authors. I know that one of their reviewers, Janine, “is also a writer and her critique partners are Sherry Thomas, Meredith Duran and Bettie Sharpe” because this is stated openly at the foot of her reviews and Jill Sorensen, another author who reviews at DA recently began a review like this:
Which just goes to show that friendship/positive online contact between a reviewer and an author doesn’t always lead to ultra-positive reviews.
To add to AQ’s list of possible factors affecting reviews, it occurs to me that there may be some reviewers who like or dislike particular authors and/or their books as a result of the authors’ behaviour and/or opinions. As Leigh Davis recently stated at AAR,
Doesn’t it seem likely that reviewers’ political/social views may shape their reviews?
As someone who reads a very small number of romance blogs and who doesn’t use/read twitter, I’m not all that informed about which authors communicate with which reviewers, and it’s obvious even to me when there’s some fuzziness surrounding a review at DA (I don’t include SB simply because they don’t seem to review all that much). I pretty much ignore any positive grades and mostly go by the comments. Actually, I don’t really read DA for the reviews. I look at any that catch my eye, but I go there for everything but the reviews at this point. I haven’t considered them a “reader” review site for a very long time. Not that that’s a bad thing, at all, because it’s awesome that they’re that successful, but when one book/author get’s several posts dedicated to them, I call b.s.
And another thing…how do you all define “friend”? Just talking to someone on Twitter is considered friendship? and not an acquaintance? Friendliness on social networks doesn’t necessarily mean we are “friends.” Yes, I do make the distinction and am self-aware. That’s all.
ETA: I’m not dense, I realize that with those two sites people expect them to behave a certain way because they have “influence.” At the end of the day, it’s their site to run as they please. Such is life.
I see several people are asking questions of me here and today I have to plead my need to make a living. I’m monitoring the AAR blog thread as best I can, but I can’t keep up here and at other places where my post is being discussed.
If anyone would like to post there, you are more than welcome.
Sorry, but duty calls!
SandyAAR
To me, a friend is someone I know a lot about, writing-wise. I’ve brainstormed with them, shared rooms with them at conventions, not just chatted to them. I know what they’re planning next, what their relationship with their publishers is, and we share things we absolutely wouldn’t share with anyone else. If I have an edit that makes me upset, there are friends I can moan to who will absolutely not share, too.
Similarly, I won’t review books from publishers I’m already with. I’m privy to information the public isn’t, I know the internal dynamics a bit better (but only a bit!) and there is stuff I can’t share. So I’m not in a situation to review the book fairly.
For instance, I can’t say in a review, “she wrote this book when her marriage was breaking up/when she met a new man/after her son was born/when her doctor changed her meds,” because that’s friendship, although I might be able to see how that affected the way she wrote the book. I’m supposed to be reviewing the book, not my friendship.
Reviews are for the reader. It’s a principle I always hold firmly in mind.
Being on Twitter, it is very hard not to become friendly with authors. I LOVE to talk books and there are so many authors on there that are available to chat with. But being friendly with an author on Twitter does not mean we are friends. And I’ll be honest and say there have been times where I posted a negative review and felt awkward the next time I tweeted that author – but I’m also not going to post a positive review just because we tweet. That negates the entire point of reviewing a book.
What about hanging out with authors at conventions? I’m going to Lori Foster’s in a few weeks – if I sit at lunch with an author and we have some laughs, does that mean I should think twice about reviewing her next book? And good point above with belonging to an author’s message board or fan club – there are so many ways you can become involved with an author above reading their books – I just don’t think it is possible to disclose everything. I say – find a blog(s) that you either enjoy the style of the reviews or you find you have similar interests and let the rest go.
@Keishon:
I disagree here. Conferences are places to gather information AND to make connections.
Conferences from a professional perspective are about extending influence, selling products and getting investment. People who chair panels aren’t just conveying information, they are establishing themselves as resources, getting their name/ideas out there. Depending on the panel, it could be seen as a marketing exercise, a chance to influence discussion or an opportunity to network and either get people to notice you/your product or come to you with business opportunities down the road because hey, they liked you.
Connections made at these events can influence trends because decision makers can be found here. The average reader may never be able to discern whether or not a certain idea/trend/etc. was born at a conference. And let’s face it, once someone gets tagged in an individual’s head as an expert, then that individual’s opinion can carry more weight once they return to their online platform.
Or a person can be invested in some marketing hoopla and carry that excitement back to real life and online because it made them feel special, included or maybe just happy and euphoric.
Many of the business meetings I’ve been involved in and the eventual business decisions/purchases made by executives have as much to do with the individual sales team as they do with the product itself. Hell, I’ve had to implement and support truly crappy products because the executive overrode the technical staff’s recommendations.
And if we’re talking books, that feeling of excitement might have nothing to do with the actual content of the book. It might be the concept of the book, the presentation the author gave, how much fun the individual had with the author at the bar or the shared personal stories…
And for the record, none of what I’ve said above means that I think an individual is necessarily being dishonest or unsavory. I think perhaps it’s more about building communities, feeling involved and part of a larger whole. Perhaps even thinking that our individual contributions to an author’s success might or do matter. How many bestsellers become bestsellers because the readers are invested in the individual author as opposed to their work and will pick it up just because of the name on the cover? Where did that investment come from in the past? currently? do we see that evolving in the future with the advent of an author’s online presence? Will that online presence be required of an author in order to be successful in the future?
*****
As to individual review sites, I’m now up to 800 plus different sites. I’ve got a database and let me tell you it’s hard for me to discern which reviewers review on which sites under which names or which sites are part of an inter-connected group of readers or who they interact with. I only follow blogs but I do wonder how my understanding of that interconnectedness would change if I followed twitter or went to conferences. And, yes, those thoughts also extend to professional media of all kinds, not just book reviews.
@Mandi: @Mandi:
To me this is exactly what I see as a conflict of interest. Not the review itself but the awkwardness because of the relationship.
In a few years time, as your online circle extends/matures, what type of influence will these online relationships exert? I’m not talking about the rah rah positive reviews so much as the things like the second guessing if you should say such and such or any potential awkwardness.
I suspect that for some reviewers what maybe easily discernible now with rather minor interaction will be much muddier as time goes by and those relationships become more robust.
Mandi, I have one follow-up question for you. If you were just starting out today and hadn’t already established a base for your reviewing voice, do you think this new personal access would have impacted your blogger voice? Or do you believe your style and reviews would be similar to what you have now?
@AQ: Got it and this ends my participation in this discussion.
While I understand that some people have a problem with a perceived conflict of interests in author/reviewer friendships, this is not a new issue. First of all, does the friendship spring out of an initial professional relationship or does the friendship exist prior to the professional relationship? I think that makes a difference because often authors and reviewers or authors and critics become friends because they have similar aesthetic sensibilities. Reviewers and critics are going to promote those authors who write books, prose or poetry, that align with their particular aesthetic. I could talk your ear off about the incestuous relationships going on between early 20th century Modernist poets, some of whom were running and editing magazines. Or graduate creative writing programs, literary magazines, etc. all of which are intensely incestuous. However, that doesn’t mean that the people involved in these relationships are not committed to quality or craftsmanship or good work. Does it mean that sometimes they might be love blind? Yeah, but even if you don’t have a personal relationship with an author you can still be love blind because the work itself speaks to you on a deeply personal level. A bias always exists.
I think I’m comfortable with full disclosure. If the reviewer says “This is my friend, critique partner, I’ve been on panels with them, etc. here is my review” I’m fine with that because ultimately I judge whether or not a review works by the quality of the review itself. A review is necessarily a subjective critique, no matter how objective you try to be.
I remember when I was the poetry editor for our college literary magazine our advisor advertised on Poetry Daily. The result was 1200 poetry submissions mostly by professional poets. Our supervising editor was not interested in poetry so it fell to me to do the bulk of the reading and judging. It was awful. I had an existential crisis because even though there are certain objective criterion for judging poetry—or books for that matter—at a certain point those criterion disappear. I had to give up on the idea that there was a way for me to create some kind of rubric for judging the submissions because every poem was attempting to do something different. Ultimately, I had to rely on my own sense of what the poem was attempting and whether it achieved it. Sometimes a decision came down to the very arbitrary judgment that one poem was more aesthetically pleasing to me than another.
My point is that friendships between authors and reviewers might indeed be a conflict of interest, but subjective taste itself is a bias. Hell, mood is a bias. Whether you’ve eaten or not is a bias, what you’ve just read can bias you. When I read reviews, I try to look for reviewers whose tastes align with mine to a certain extent because I know I can trust their judgment. If they happen to be friends with an author, that will not prevent me from trusting their judgment so long as the reviews maintain an insightful and critical commentary. In order for that relationship to be a true conflict of interest, IMO, I need to have it demonstrated to me that the reviews or commentaries are doing some kind of harm. That they are really just thinly disguised PR copy. But I have not come across that. I agree with Jessica that a specific example would be helpful in determining where the problem lies and how it effects/affects perceptions.
@lazaraspaste: Good points.
What are your feelings toward access?
eta*** Does it matter whether access is to an individual reviewer vs. a non-professional review site vs. a professional publication?
@AQ Can you clarify what you mean by access? Like access to authors? Access to the information about relationships between authors and reviewers?
@lazaraspaste:
Access to whether or not a book will be reviewed at all. Given the number of romance novels released each year (I believe Jane at DA quoted 4,000 as a number a few years ago), should we be concerned that relationships become (or might become) part of the equation for getting a review?
Relationships in this case might be with an author, editor, publicist, arc service, etc. I ask this question because I see the reader trust networks taking the place of hand selling, table displays, etc at the brick & mortar stores. Will we start to see more of a consolidation of books that get reviewed or more diversity? If more consolidation, will authors see the need to conform to the likes of certain review sites or that they need to cultivate a relationship in order to get reviewed?
@AQ:
I have only been reviewing for about two years and pretty much started on Twitter around the same time. I will say that much of my increase in readership has come from Twitter. And being on Twitter, (which I am a lot) it is impossible not to chat with authors. I mean – it really is impossible. The smart authors use Twitter to engage us (readers) – to make us laugh, to make us want to read their books.
I feel like my style is my style whether I was online all the time or not- I really try to make sure I write the review for my readers – not for the author.
I don’t feel awkward posting a negative review at all. But like I said, in my head I might cringe a tiny bit when I see that author on Twitter. But that has never stopped me once from putting my honest thoughts in my reviews. I have no problem posting a negative review of a book – whether I just tweeted the author an hour ago or have never spoken to them in my entire life. Reading constant 5 star reviews of books we all know are not 5 stars gets on my nerves.
Also – while there are a few authors I joke around with more than others on Twitter, if I have a personal relationship with them (email them consistently, talk about things other than books) I would make sure it was known in the review that we have this relationship.
congrats to your son’s team for making in this far! and after watching The Social Network for the first time this weekend all i can do is continue to laugh my head off at this quote:
Erica Albright: You write your snide bullshit from a dark room because that’s what the angry do nowadays.
about Mark Zuckerberg’s live blogging on his break up. i just keep thinking, omg that is SO true about half the ridiculous comments/blog wars these days!
I’m not sure if anyone has pointed out the major difference between “professional” vs. “non-professional” reviewers. If you are employed by a newspaper/magazine as a reviewer, you are given an assignment that must be completed. You may not have a choice about whether or not to review Susi Q Author’s latest book if your employer has assigned you this reading selection. However, non-professional reviewers (book bloggers, etc) have a choice. We decide what we read, what we review, and where we post these reviews. I have never been dishonest about a review posted on my blog. But I have certainly not reviewed every book I have read, particularly ones written by friends or colleagues that I did not enjoy. It was simply not necessary to include those ratings on my blog. If asked point blank if I would recommend a book I didn’t like, I always answer honestly…”No. It wasn’t my cup of tea.” Some things are more important than posting every damned book review, and friendship is one of those things.
@Mandi:
As a tweeting author, I got onto Twitter to raise my profile in the romance community and one way to do that is to get more reviews. I feel I have been modestly successful in that regard. I’ve also had fun doing it. I don’t think the fact I’m friendly on Twitter with some bloggers has affected their reviews, but I can’t possibly know for sure. I’ve had both good and bad reviews from bloggers I interact with. Bad ones are never fun, but they are better than no reviews. Do reviews sell books? Not as many as a great big heaps of copies in Walmart, but in the age of the ebook raising name and title recognition is crucial.
To put on my reader hat, I’ve bought books because I enjoy the writer’s voice in social media. Sometimes I’ve enjoyed the book, sometimes not. But the tweet or blog post has sold the book.
The group calling for Kanazawa’s removal is the legislative body of the union for students. LSE is going to have a hard time firing him on the basis of his Psychology Today blog posts, I would think, since it is presumably an academic freedom issue. And if you look at his list of publications, it would be difficult for them to argue that they didn’t know what they were getting when they hired him. LSE was his fifth academic job in less than a dozen years, and he had a string of publications when he got there. He is the UK equivalent of a US academic at the Professor rank in Management (aka the Business school) and an Honorary Research Fellow in Psychology at Birkbeck, which I assume is like a courtesy rank in the US.
His earlier stuff in Sociology journals (he has a Ph.D. from a Top 10 department) was apparently challenged on a regular basis (most young professors have few if any published rebuttals to their research, let alone half a dozen). There’s definitely a backstory in the CV, but I don’t care enough to email the relevant friends to find it out.
ETA: When I say I don’t care, I mean this guy is a creep and I don’t want to know more stuff about him, not that the story isn’t important.
@Mandi:
Sorry, I confused you with another reviewer and thought you’d been online longer.
I call this getting investment.
Nope, this wasn’t the awkwardness I was trying to get at. It’s not about the good, bad, indifferent reviews so much as it is the investment itself that bothers me. Then again maybe lazaraspaste is onto something and it’s always been about the investment.
I guess my issue with this new level of investment is that I’m starting to feel like the reviewers are small clogs in the publishing machine rather than outsiders sharing reviews because they discovered a book they love. And in the future, I see that role solidifying and becoming even more important. I’m not really sure that it’s good for the art form. I fear that as readers we’ll have even more choices and even less diversity.
Reading reviews in the past used to feel more fragmented and rather spontaneous. There was some overlap but it typically was spread out over an extended period of time. Now I see the engineered blog tours, the inside jokes with comment threads, the power of the mass consciousness, the harnessing of marketing potential and although I see some very good, what I consider honest, insightful reviews, I also see the machine behind the curtain. Or maybe I’ve just read too many reviews. LOL
But I do have to wonder whether or not this new level of interaction is really good for the art form as a whole (assuming one still believes that books are an art form as opposed to a product).
And for those who continue to say that reviews are readers… sorry, you are kidding yourselves. Individuals may believe it for themselves but when you look at the industry/community as whole as opposed to a single review from a single reviewer, I don’t believe that statement holds.
Would you say that the Oprah Winfrey Book Club is about the individual reader?
If the answer to that question is no, then is it also no for SB Book Club? Or the Save the Contemporary promotion? How big or small does a review site have to be before we admit that it’s no longer really about the reader? Then again, does it really matter?
@AQ:
Yes! This perfectly sums up how I feel about all this.
I got to the AAR post late because I was out of town, but the one thing that struck me is that there is a HUGE difference between an “acquaintance” and a “friend.” I’m acquaintances with a boat-load of authors. But am I really, truly friends with them? Um, not really. For me, a friend is someone who knows more about me than what I put out on the Internet (yes, I hold some stuff back!). An acquaintance is someone I can be “friendly” with, share a few laughs with, but if the chips are down, my back is against a wall, and Real Life explodes? I’m not picking up the phone and calling an acquaintance. I’m calling on my closest and deepest friends.
I don’t know, maybe I’ve been lucky in regards to cultivating these “relationships” – but I’ve never felt pressure by any author acquaintances to “tone down” a review if I have a negative reaction to one of their books. I think because, while the loud mouths get the most attention, a lot of romance authors really, and truly, are professionals. They know that they aren’t their book. For every one reader who didn’t like the book, there are more than likely 5 other readers out there who loved it and just didn’t plaster their opinion all over the Internet. The key is, never make it personally. I think Portia Da Costa, Michelle Willingham and Cheryl St. John (to use some examples) are the bee’s knees – but I haven’t loved every single one of their books, and have written the reviews as such. They’re all still e-mailing me about their upcoming releases and casually chatting with me on Twitter. So obviously it’s a “relationship” that has worked for us.
So yeah, I think it is possible to straddle both worlds….but then I’m not super-duper friends with any published authors. Now if KristieJ were to publish a book? I’d probably find myself adopting Lynne Connolly’s policy – which I actually think is a pretty darn good one if you find yourself in similar circumstances. But that’s me.
I had a long response typed out and lost it. On my own damn blog!
Here are a few thoughts on the reviewing friends thing. Sorry not to be addressing specific comments.
1. Is this topic worth talking about in a reviewing community? Yes, and I’m sorry that some people seem to want to dismiss it out of hand because they don’t like the messenger. In fact, this person wrote a nuanced, balanced and altogether delectable post on the topic in 2009. (I’m joking. But it’s not a bad post.)
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a sample of people in the book reviewing business who have considered this topic worth thinking about, and what they think:
A 2007 Survey from the National Book Critics Circle: 84.3% of respondents said one should not review a friend’s book.
And this from Rebecca Skloot’s “Tips for Successful Book Reviewing:
And this from John Updike’s Six Rules for Professional Reviewing, which is cited approvingly by loads of reviewers, and which I found here:
And, from my older post, a litmus test from the New York Times:
I’m not sure why we have to compare book reviewing to academia or journalism or other fields when we have enough evidence right in our own back yard that the practice of reviewing friends is fraught.
As for academia, it is true that some fields are so small that reviewing friends cannot be avoided, but it is worth pointing out that even in such cases editors, at least in philosophy, bioethics, and history, usually send the ms to the reviewer without a name attached. Reviewing is not a free for all in academia. Besides, since it is easy to avoid reviewing friends in Romanceland, this isn’t really relevant.
And in journalism, every code of ethics I have seen (like that of the Society for Professional Journalists) has some language about conflicts of interest, both in fact and in appearance. Sure, loads of journalists may violate this code of ethics, but the question Sandy’s asking has to do with how we ought to behave. How people in fact do behave is not an ethical question.
2. But maybe none of this matters. Maybe, as Penny suggests, what we are doing here is just so unlike what the professional book reviewers are doing as to operate by a distinct set of rules. I don’t like to think so. But it is an idea that may well be worth thinking about.
3. The claim that since we cannot eliminate all bias we shouldn’t bother trying to eliminate this one does not make a lot of sense to me. For one thing, certain kinds of bias, like conflict of interest, have been identified, marked out, and discussed in the book reviewing community. Strategies for eliminating or minimizing it (such as transparency) have been proffered, and reviewers have the free will to adopt those strategies. It’s not like reviewers are being asked by the AAR post to do something conceptually or physically impossible.
4. On the other hand, it may be true that committing to not review friends on the grounds that it predisposes the review in a biased way may entail a lot of other recusals, such as (as suggested above) not reviewing books written by people you despise. People who say reviewing friends is unethical because of it presents the appearance of a certain kind of bias have to be consistent in their review policy.
5. The NBCC survey linked to above also had a question on reviewing “a casual acquaintance of the author — e.g., someone the reviewer may have met at a writing conference, party or on a panel, but who is not a close friend”. On that question, 57% said yes, it’s ok to review. The distinction between casual acquaintance and friend was not made by Sandy in the AAR piece, and this caused a lot of the joking on Twitter.
It’s interesting how social media has changed our relationships in that I may know the names (ages, and appearance) of some of my tweeps’ kids, but still do not consider them friends. So in the age of social media,. Harris’s litmus test maybe isn’t so useful.
The point is that we have to give a better definition of “friend” to even have this discussion.
6. The singling out of specific blogs. Either these blogs should have been named in the body of the AAR piece, with examples, or the post should have been written to apply to everyone. One cannot have it both ways. And, if reviewing friends is not to be done, then it is not to be done by anyone, right? So why bother targeting just one or two blogs?
The point about undermining credibility is bizarre, since I am pretty sure it is those two blogs, and their extremely tech savvy and media savvy leaders, that have done more to enhance the credibility of romance beyond Romanceland than any other similar outfits (although Sandy’s points about the historical importance of AAR — and, I would assume, TRR and RT — are well taken).
7. One thing that is common to Updike’s rules, and to the responses on the NBCC survey is the importance of judgment. On the question of reviewing friends’ books, 12% indicated they might under the right circumstances. Rules are great, but they cannot be applied without judgment.
If you are looking for an example of how reviewing friends can be done well, try this B- review of Carolyn Jewel’s My Immortal Assassin at Dear Author. I follow both reviewer and author on Twitter, and it’s clear they are good friends who see each other frequently. In the review, Janet makes sure to let the reader know that the author personally gave her the ARC, and further that she “knows and likes” the author. I guess I’d have to look at Janet’s other B- reviews to see if she softballed this one. But even if she did, I’d personally prefer that kind of friend review over the mountains of mindless squeeing reviews between strangers which are still all too common in our genre.
I like calling a spade a spade: Sandy’s blog, and many of the comments, were about Dear Author (DA) and Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books (SBTB)–or to be more precise, Jane Litte and Sarah Wendell–, who have become spokeswomen for the romance genre with the mainstream media, and respected panelists for romance at many conferences and conventions. IMO, with Jane editing a print pub anthology and Sarah writing two books about the genre, the blogs they run are not just reader-review blogs, but romance industry blogs a la Gawker or Wonkette, where they’ve:
a) Built a reputation for breaking stories and issues within (and sometimes outside) the genre that most author- and industry-based arenas are slow to catch onto, or fail to discuss at all (which is another topic–seems authors and industry professionals are the ones all about the shiny-happy-joy-joy).
b) Are the first sites publishers visit when they want to create buzz about a particular book or imprint.
c) Frequently sway opinion on certain subjects (DRM! And I remember Jane’s firm stance against self-publishing about a year ago; things have obviously changed, and the only emphasis is on well-edited and well-written books)
With that in mind, the only issue I take umbrage with is the denial of this influence, and, honestly, the denial that the friendships between any influential reviewer-blogger and authors/industry professionals are a completely separate sphere (if they were separate, disclosures would be unnecessary). I think this point is muddied because this topic is brushed off as sour grapes (a small handful of AAR regulars are admittedly biased against DA/SBTB for superseding AAR as the face of romance readers–which is another interesting tangent, since AAR set themselves up as the romance genre’s answer to Entertainment Weekly) , and/or is seen as an attack against DA/SBTB’s integrity, which brings out the fans and friends of the blog(ger)s. Yet, doesn’t the knee-jerk reaction against discussing this issue mean there is a murky, potentially dicey relationship between denizens of Romancelandia 2.0?
I’m not going to lie and say I’m playing armchair philosopher, because I’ve struggled with my thoughts about this topic, sometimes wavering towards suspicion over credibility and sometimes just viewing blogs as places I enjoy visiting, but I really dislike that this same issue is shut down again and again because people can’t push aside their egos or hurt feelings or jealousy, to look at this objectively.
I read that Daily Mail piece a few days ago and first rolled my eyes, but then really thought about the face of romance on both sides of the Pond. I’m not too familiar with UK Romance & Romantic Novelists, but there are a lot of older women writing and reading the genre; however, it seems the US glorifies the youngish, attractive–sometimes sexy–and well-educated romance writer even as they’re painting its readers and writers as somehow both sex-starved and sex-mad (lol). Even women authors of breakout books like JK Rowling or Stephenie Meyer have the limelight shone brightly on their faces once they get their hair highlighted and wear stylish clothing. It’s rather interesting that the UK is obsessed with the libidos of “grannies”, and the US is obsessed with the libidos of middle-aged women. Furthermore, it’s even more interesting that the face of romance is still white–I know Harlequin/Mills&Boon publish books written by women of color, or at least books with characters of color.
I read that “article” in Psychology Today when it first hit the net and would have laughed if it wasn’t yet another sanctioned attack on the existence of black women. Seems there’s something going viral every day about the worthlessness of being a black woman in America (won’t ever get married, net worth of $5, etc etc).
And Laura Curtis’s stance on reading YA almost fits me to a tee! Perhaps when I’m older, married, and a parent, I won’t feel this way, but as a single, childless woman working my way to adulthood, YA feels like a regression to my past.
I wouldn’t take that piece as indicative of attitudes in the UK.
I don’t think this is particularly surprising given that
I do know there’s been some Asian chick lit published, and Dorothy Koomson writes romantic fiction but I don’t know how many other published UK romantic novelists there are who are non-white. My focus is on M&B, so I don’t know much about the rest of the “romantic fiction” market in the UK. I do know that the Kimani line is sold across here by M&B, but it’s in ebook format only. I assume that’s because M&B didn’t think there would be a big enough market for it in paperback.
In addition to the demographic differences between the US and UK, there are organisational differences between the RNA and the RWA. The RNA, unlike the RWA, is mostly made up of published authors. There may well have been some people at the party who were there because they’d been accepted onto the RNA’s New Writers’ Scheme which “allows unpublished authors to take part in all RNA activities and also submit a typescript of a full-length novel for appraisal” but there are only 250 places on that scheme.
@Evangeline Holland:
I struggle with it, too. Lately my tendency has been to shrug and really not care, but I fear that’s more because I am losing interest in the romance genre and its mahinations rather than any kind of principled stance. And that’s not good.
I agree with your assessment that some topics just get shut down, unfairly, and that it’s really too bad.
I live in the UK, but I write for the US market, for various reasons. I’m also a member of the RNA. We are a much smaller organisation in terms of numbers, but older and quite prestigious, although tarred by the “romantic” brush, which, may I add, we’re rather proud of. Only published authors can be full members, although unpublished ones do join as part of the NWS.
The Daily Mail article should be treated as the piece of trashy journalism that it is. Really not worth thinking about. The journalist had obviously decided on her agenda before she went, and was only looking for evidence to support her theory.
Ethnicity differences are interesting. Over here it’s very different. We don’t tend to categorise quite so much, only when it’s absolutely necessary. It’s illegal to discriminate in any way by race, and that goes all ways. The vast majority of the population just consider themselves British with different backgrounds. I think it’s partly this categorisation that is different. We are all people first.
Recent Mills and Boon titles have included ethnic heroes and heroines. Sheikhs have long been accepted as part of the regular lines, and they are romanticised so that religious differences are minimised, but Indian and Chinese heroines have featured, too. There is no “ethnic” line specific to the UK, and it would probably be considered ghettoisation. Ethnicity helps to make a story more “exotic,” that’s all.
@Laura Vivanco: Laura, thanks for noting some of the differences between RNA and RWA. And yes, I certainly hope Evangeline wasn’t serious about “UK attitudes” , since plenty of UK folks have already noted the problematic assumptions of the article!
Edited to add: and thanks to you, Lynne. We cross posted!
First of all, mea culpa. I should have named the blog I was primarily referring to. It takes some courage to paint a bright red bullseye on your back and I clutched.
I hope that your reasoned post and those of others I’ve read elsewhere will ensure that this issue gets the serious consideration it deserves.
With regards to those commenters who say that AAR is no longer dominant, I’m happy to report that AAR is robustly competing these days.
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/likesbooks.com+smartbitchestrashybooks.com+dearauthor.com/
Sandy AAR
A 2005 report from the Commission for Racial Equality on “Britishness” found that
——
Labelling something “exotic” is not exactly unproblematic, however. According to Amoja Three Rivers:
@Sandy AAR:
One more thing. I also don’t review books by authors whose online or real life behavior has rubbed me the wrong way. Personal bias, one way or the other, has no place in reviewing.
I think the bias is something interesting to discuss, of all blogs in this limited fenced world of the interwebs.
Though not sure I recognise it in relation to the main two sites, but then I am not that regular a reader of either these days.. well of any blog, I need more hours in the day.
They do tend to focus on books with buzz about them, or authors with presence.. but not sure if that is bias. But it is something worth looking into I guess.
Though can we ever have a romanceland brouhaha about the reviewers that are so often quoted on the back of romance covers, often the same two blogs who have never read a book that they didn’t love and give full marks to?? Don’t they have influence by being quoted on the book, author/publisher website?
Can someone give them a web shootdown? Because seriously they drive me insane, though I guess they are a small step up from the mystical Harriet..
Just making a quick comment, to thank everyone for participating. Something IRL has come up (yes, it is kind of bad, no hopefully not irreparably so), so I won’t be online for a bit, but I don’t want people to think I have abandoned ship. I wil get back when I can and try to repsond to any new comments. Thanks again everyone!
Thanks for posting the graph Sandy, it is very telling. I find it quite interesting that these discussions regarding these blogs almost always ends up pointing and insinuating jealousy. It is almost comical how that word always surfaces. The fact is DA/SBTB do not represent the mainstream romance reader, but a handful of readers who visit their blogs. Now that is reality.
My pov is probably less relevant here, as though I am a reader, I am also a writer, and I don’t review books any more (though I will pimp books I like, or about certain topics that others might like, which is a different thing from reviewing, I think).
@lazaraspaste voiced some of my thoughts: I think that makes a difference because often authors and reviewers or authors and critics become friends because they have similar aesthetic sensibilities. Reviewers and critics are going to promote those authors who write books, prose or poetry, that align with their particular aesthetic.
Also @SuperWendy on the difference between an acquaintance and a friend. Though some of my internet acquaintances have been around so long – a decade and more – that the line can get wavery. I haven’t had to deal with this issue much personally. I’ve had a friend review, and she stated up front she was my friend and shamelessly biased. Ditto a longtime online friend saying so up front before she commented on the book. I didn’t feel that was any better or worse than being reviewed by a stranger, just different.
When reading reviews, I appreciate knowing up front if there’s a relationship between reviewer and writer, but in general my decision to purchase the book, or not, is based on other factors. If the book begins to sound interesting to me, I might stop reading the review and go check out an excerpt.
The main reason I read reviews is to find new books to read. That’s it. Learning a book exists so I can find out more on my own is more important to me than the review itself. When I enjoy a review, it may not be because the book interests me – I might just like the reviewers’ style and insight. Whether I enjoy reading the review has little to do with whether I am personally interested in the book. I don’t distinguish between “professional” and “amateur” blogs – for me it’s about content and style, not influence. I tend to seek out bloggers that write about books that interest me.
I’m going to pick on something else from the original AAR post. Namely this:
The above quote is about the appearance of impropriety. But I’m going to question whether print really is that “honest.” Or that insulated from relationships, even casual ones, with authors, publishers, agents etc etc.
I don’t feel like Twitter/Facebook/Conventions muddies the waters of honesty at all. Friends and friendly acquaintances are two distinct things to me. I’ve met/interacted with some very nice people whose books I couldn’t stand. That hasn’t stopped me from telling the truth in my reviews. Anyone reading my blog likely found me via Twitter. So they are already privy to my interactions with authors.
I do feel that anything that could obviously bias my review should be disclosed. But that is my call to make. Just as it is for any other blogger. Even an influential one.
@Jessica: Sorry for the generalities, I should have rephrased my statement to make it clear that I was referring to how the mainstream media in the UK viewed romance writers compared to how the mainstream media in the US viewed of romance writers. I just find it interesting that M&B=grandmothers writing racy books (UK), whereas Harlequin=porn-for-women fiction written by mousy housewives–or by women who surprise journalists with their attractiveness and/or education (US).
And that’s interesting that you’re losing interest in the romance genre! Do you feel your fatigue stems from participating in Romancelandia online saps the excitement from just reading a book without any baggage (i.e. reviewing, book discussions, visiting websites, reading blogs, etc)?
Okay, let me throw out this phrase and see what happens.
Grade-school cliques
Sometimes I very much feel like I’m not watching “communities” or readers but competing cliques. Do professional reviewers typically get involved in online flame wars with either authors or other readers? Do they have twitter accounts and the reader followers in the same fashion that reader reviewers do? Do professional reviewers let us know as much about their personal lives as reader reviewers? Have you ever felt like you were in the personal living room of a professional reviewers? On the other hand, how many of us follow an individual professional reviewer as opposed to the publication itself?
And one more final thought:
are reader/reviewers booksellers hand-selling books/products and is an author a sales force/marketing team or maybe the reader is the marketing team/sales force?
Maybe some of the confusion or disquiet comes from the fact that the professional reviewer has a structured role in the process but the reader reviewer could actually be anything or for that matter anyone. We assume that the professional reviewer had to pass an employment test (interview, professional criteria, follow some type of industry ethics subject to a higher power). The only thing most of us know about reader reviewers is what they share with us via their writings and as with any written medium the receiver is responsible for at least half of what is received.
ETA*** Oh, Jessica, I echo Evangeline’s sentiment. Your use of the word machination here immediately called out to me. I hope everything works out okay. (See investment.)
ETA2: And, Wendy, I think we give away a lot more of ourselves and who we are online then we think we do. (Assuming of course we are having honest interactions.)
Yes to all. Example: Roger Ebert.
He did, and still does, all but one you listed above. Regarding the last question, I believe quite a few follow Ebert, not publications he reviews for. He’s not an exception as there are quite a few professional critics/reviewers – of restaurants, books and/or films – like him who do the same.
I don’t think one article, and particularly one like this, which seems to have outraged a significant proportion of the RNA membership, can be taken to be representative of all UK media coverage of romantic novelists. I’ve been collecting links to UK, US, Australian and other English-language media coverage at the Romance Wiki (here and here) so if you’d like to read a wider of range of articles you can find them there. I haven’t noticed any particular pattern, but it’s possible that’s because I wasn’t paying enough attention to that aspect of the coverage.
Argh! I lost my response. Here is another attempt.
@Evangeline Holland:
I honestly can’t think of any British romance (read: M&B) authors,. who have been interviewed for mainstream publications, who weren’t the grandmother type*. Penny Jordan is probably the most ‘glamorous’ looking, but she rarely does interviews.
Oh, there is Jilly Cooper, who looks very jolly and fun, but she’s not a M&B author, is he?
Younger and “more attractive” British romantic authors tend to write for Chick Lit. Let’s not forget, there is still a persistent belief that only grandmothers read M&B romances, too.
Actually, now you mention it, I can’t think of any interviews that made an issue out of British romance authors’ education backgrounds or qualifications. What seemed to intrigue interviewers the most were authors’ ages (most interviewees were at retired age) and how grandmotherly they appeared.
I do agree with you, though, that the public image of British romance authors is middle class, white, female and, sometimes, retired. Even I can’t shake that from my head when I know there are some who’re nothing like that public image.
IMO, M&B and the RNA are somewhat lazy in that respect in terms of encouraging non-white aspiring authors to submit their efforts as well as highlighting existing authors. It might reek of tokenism, but at this rate, I’m happy to accept anything if it can change that public image of a typical British romance author.
*I wouldn’t use ‘grandmother’. I’d use “the old-school W.I. type”.
@Lynne Connolly:
Oh, how I’d like to live in your world.
Yes, we all are British and ‘people first’, but it doesn’t mean some of us can escape from being casually referred as ‘paki’, ‘chink’ or whatnot. Most times, these were said without intentions to offend. While this country has centuries’ worth of being multicultural and multi-ethnic, it still has issues. How would this country react if Prince Harry decides to marry, say, a daughter of Sir Anwar, do you think? [edit: clarification - interracial marriages were, for a couple of centuries, pretty much a class issue.]
It’s true that not all categorise by race, but we still categorise by region, class, accent and name, which isn’t any better. The middle class still rules the world in this country.
It’s a lose-lose situation. Because there is no ethnic-specific line and M&B rarely publicises non-white titles, I don’t have any awareness of new releases that feature non-white Brits.
In fact, I don’t believe I have ever come across a M&B that features a British Chinese or East Asian hero/ine. (I think there was one with Eurasian heroine, but in this case, Eurasians don’t count.) Since you say there are some, could you please name those titles? I’d very much like to read them. Thanks.
I sincerely and seriously hope authors don’t think that, let alone endorse it.
@Jessica: I hope whatever goes on in real life will be resolved quickly and easily. Best of luck.
Ah, yes, but he is a television personality and a celebrity in his own right. Can you give me an example of a print reviewer of books that the general public or rather the online romance community would typically know?
Also I do consider SB Sarah and Jane (or rather Jennifer) to be online romance personalities / celebrities much like Ebert without the comparable reach. I find that most celebrities in general make up their own rules as they go along or even find ways to break them. Comment made in general not directed at either Sarah or Jane although I’m sure that others could give examples of that. Actually I can think of some right now. Judging whether such individual actions are good or bad though is rather subjective and then the question becomes are those actions greater or lesser than the whole.
BTW: I do agree with you, FiaQ/Maili, that they are out there, I’m just thinking that our minds simply don’t make the same comparisons as readily. Or even maybe it’s that we have to counteract our conditioning. For example, we are told that we have a free press in the US and that there are standards and that other countries’ news are filled with state propaganda. Many of us know that it isn’t really true (not entirely) and yet sometimes we accept information via the news without question or certain thoughts started by essentially propaganda organizations become common wisdom within the media circles and touted over and over again until they take on a life of their own.
Going back to the topic at hand, I wonder if this topic when directed toward the two sites specifically isn’t really about control on a certain level. If it is, that genie is out of the bottle and if the complaints about these two specific sites are valid, it can’t really be reigned easily in unless they lose audience share. And actually once I gave it more thought and compared it directly to the news organizations and their biases/coverage, I rather think we’re seeing exactly the same thing. Otherwise, why do we need Rollingstone, an “so-called fluff” Entertainment publication to break political news and force scrutiny on certain non-entertainment issues like bank fraud, military impropriety, lax government oversight, etc.? why do need an organization like Wikileaks? that’s a fairly telling indictment of our “free” US press, isn’t it?
Anyway, a very wise person once told me that if I didn’t like the coverage or the platform, I could start my very own blog, present my counterpoints and establish my own platform/audience. I was much too lazy to do that at the time and a few years later, I’m still not ready to commit the resources. Besides I have feeling that I’d become an “insider” eventually anyway because that’s how our social networks tend to work out in the long run.
Finally, if someone has a complaint about coverage about a specific title or bunch of titles/authors, I’d be happy to do some cross-referencing and research any perceived bias. That said, I’ve read a lot of reviews from online reviewers (mostly amateurs although I have slowly been including professional one). Overall, compared to many, many sites, I’d still hold out Dear Author and Smart Bitches as having some of the highest standards content-wise of the actual reviews. Much more insightful then most of their professional counterparts when it comes to romance reviews. Much more able to readily see their biases than those professional counterparts.
No, they certainly aren’t perfect but then again perfection isn’t really attainable. And some of the snark does occasionally cross some lines but I’ve seen that on most ever review site with reviews longer than 3-5 sentences. And, yes, there are other sites that have similarly high standards content-wise. Dear Author and Smart Bitches aren’t the end-all be-all of review sites by any measure.
Then again, I also don’t believe the influence that Dear Author and Smart Bitches have resides in their reviews although their reviews do or did help establish the base of their platforms. I guess I really don’t consider them to be “Just” review sites and haven’t for a very long time. More like Gawker as someone mentioned earlier or maybe the op-ed sections of the NY Times/Wall Street Journal but in the romance publishing world sphere.
@AQ:
My instant response was “Pauline Kael”, but she’s not in this age (I believe she’d use Twitter if she was still alive today) nor a book reviewer.
Offering examples of print book reviewers is difficult because it’s a country-specific pop cultural issue, isn’t it? What is your definition of the “general public”? I’m guessing you’re thinking of the general American public? Then, my examples would be useless because they are more familiar to Britain than anywhere else. I’m not that familiar with American book reviewers as a whole so I can’t offer examples. So, what could I do in this case?
Back to topic, do you know what makes the whole thing so funny? A few years ago, both AAR and RT were subjected to exactly same criticisms that SBs and DA are receiving now. AAR Sandy and the others must remember the time when quite a few criticised AAR for abusing its position of power and authority by promoting certain authors and neglecting certain authors? That tere were some criticisms towards LLB for courting the media with interviews, TV appearances and generally being the spokesperson for the romance community?
There is a difference between AAR/RT and SBs/DA, though: we didn’t have Twitter at the time. Would AAR maintain its policy whilst on Twitter? Half of me thinks yes and the other half of me thinks no. We will never know.
Criticising a review blog/site isn’t a bad thing, though. These criticisms, years ago and now, are good because I believe it helps all – from major names to newcomers – to remember to check their toe lines now and then. [edit: I try not to criticise review blogs because I want to support and maintain the 'do as you please as long as it suits you best' mentality.]
My god, I talked a lot today! That’s what I get for being stuck in a dark, damp basement for so long. I need the sun! Sorry, all.
@Jessica Same here. Hope the IRL situation resolves quickly and to your satisfaction.
@FiaQ Stay in that basement. I enjoy reading you talk. Oh, okay, get some sun but then get back into that basement.
@Lazaraspaste: I admire Sandy AAR for her bright line in the sand. On the other hand, I also agree with you in that it is a small community and cliques and friendships are unavoidable.
Btw, my only friend in the reviewing community–and by friend I use a HIGH-threshold definition as someone who knows what’s going on in my private life and vice versa–has a written policy that she does not review my books.
I don’t often do this, but what Maili said about the “professional” critics. Over here they have a habit of doing it. I could add AA Gill to that, and Will Self, who does both and “engages” with people.l
There’s a history of it, too. Critics and essayists coming to blows in the press and in person with the people they are criticising.
I think my lengthy reply has just been eaten. Shame.
But basically, I was brought up in Leicester which has one of the highest ethnic populations in the UK, so maybe I just don’t notice. In my childhood, I was laughed at an insulted because I came from an underprivileged background, rather than being of Romany origin (“Hey, gyppo!”) I went to a grammar school, and I stuck out somewhat, but I learned fast. And hated myself for learning. So class rather than origin, and yes, that did include a few well-off Asian “princesses.” I didn’t know how to hold my fork, so I was laughed at, not them.
I think the Royals would be delighted if Harry wanted to marry a woman not of his ethnic group, as long as she was rich and prestigious enough. An ordinary girl from Brick Lane might be a bit difficult, or a parvenu. The fuss about Diana marrying Dodi Fayed (not that she ever planned to) was because of Philip’s long-running feud with the man, and his status as a nouveau riche, not his ethnicity. Could you see them letting him marry a typical Essex girl, for that matter? (Now I would love that!) And of course, there’s that whole thing about Queen Charlotte.
M and B books – I don’t know about British heroines, because I wasn’t thinking about those. “The Restless Billionaire” features a Bollywood star as heroine. Abby Green’s “Secrets of the Oasis” featured a half French, half Arab heroine, and the sheik heroes are, at last, appearing more Arab in the descriptions of them. It is a recent thing, that is, I haven’t noticed before, but the Modern line is making a welcome getaway from the English rose heroine in recent books.
“Professional” critics in the UK don’t review romance books. The Times, the Observer, the New Statesman and so on, don’t take them. So no examples possible. But plenty of examples of book critics who engage publicly.
@AQ: Lol, you definitely threw the gauntlet down on that one! I wouldn't go so far as to use the phrase "grade school clique," but I do see sub-communities within the larger romance community, which isn't necessarily a bad thing because everyone isn't going to be BFF with everyone. However, as I stated before, friendships and sub-communities only become dicey when one or more persons within that group are in a position of influence and do not proactively acknowledge that influence.
@Laura Vivanco: Thanks Laura! Female images in the media always pop out at me, so I think I look at articles from that viewpoint whereas others focus on how the genre is viewed.
@FiaQ/Maili: I definitely remember the days when AAR was booed and hissed by a good portion of Romancelandia. I think the difference between review blogs and AAR is that AAR has never played a large part of the advance buzz/promotion process (feel free to correct me if my memory has failed me) . I also think the relative hand’s-off from the staff also plays a part, since blogs are driven by the personalities of its owner or owners more so than a message board. But like you, I’m not interested in this topic to “police” blogs or chase after owners with pitchforks; I’m pleased the discussion is so thoughtful and low-key.
You’re right, that probably is what I focus on.
Thinking about this a bit more, I wonder if the UK coverage also differs because we don’t have a “single title romance” market in the same way as the US does. As it used to say at the RNA website:
I wonder if there are different stereotypes about the authors of different types of romantic fiction?
I suspect you’re right that there’s more emphasis on the educational background of romance authors in the US, but that could be because of Eloisa James and Julia Quinn’s prominence in the genre. In the UK, Rosy Thornton’s an academic and also an author of romantic women’s fiction, but she’s not particularly well-known and I’ve not seen her mentioned in any articles about the genre as a whole (although she did appear in this article in her local newspaper).
Perhaps the coverage of individual authors is more varied and nuanced than that on “romantic fiction” as a whole? For comparative purposes, here’s: a feature on M&B author Michelle Styles in a magazine published in her area; an item on a course being taught by Kate Walker which is firmly focused on her qualifications for teaching the course; an interview with Marian Keyes which discusses some very serious topics.
AAR certainly participates in promoting certain authors and books just like other romance reviewing sites. See for example a recent AAR blog posting “Books with Buzz: Julia Quin Interview” which included a contest (and this is not the first promotion/interview with Quinn at AAR).
I wonder if in part AAR appears more low-key because of its design, size, and complexity. AAR has a homepage that contains links to its various sections (e.g., the pages of the currents reviews, its message boards, its own AAR blog, its after-hours blog, etc.). So items that are more “promotional” can be competing or lost among other featured links and areas on the homepage. As well excited readers and reviewers can go to the AAR message boards to discuss promoted books rather than discussing them under a blog posting about the book. This could possibly dissipate the promotional energy at AAR since it is spread across several areas of the site.
Kat, I’m glad you posted that … I was going to step up because that sounded so off. Another great example of an author using All About Romance as a launching pad (a re-launch pad?) is Connie Brockway — it was so exciting to read that she would be back in the publishing fray again, with sequels to some of her most beloved books. She shared that — premiered the news — at AAR. Too many authors, too little time … but like Dear Author and Smart Bitches, it’s never unusual to see authors posting at AAR.
AAR has so many platforms (message boards, blogs, twitter prescence) that perhaps the impact is diffused? I won’t say diluted since I find AAR* pretty potent. Just today I linked back to a review of Precious Jewel by Mary Balogh that was reviewed there forever ago. We’re lucky to have all three resources, imo: romance readers are very well served (and I’m certainly not excluding some other invaluable resources, like Read React Review, Heroes and Hearts, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, Book Lovers Resource board … but I better stop before I unintentionally leave someone … like Teach Me Tonight … you can see how this could go on forever!).
* I’m not a reviewer for AAR … just someone who likes visiting there.
Yes, it’d be like trying to write the invitations for the christening of a baby princess in FairyTaleLand. I was just about to start dusting off my set of midnight-black wings (with sparkles) and practicing “flouncing-in-accompanied-by-a-clap-of-thunder” when you remembered TMT.