I saw a comment: “Good writers shouldn’t waste their time writing romance novels.”
That’s so same ol’ same ol’, I usually ignore such things. Some stuff has been happening in my life lately, however, causing me to reacquaint myself with the romance genre. There have been a lot of changes in the genre over the past five years or so, but some things remain very much the same. Such as the attitude that romance novels aren’t real books, they’re trash, they’re written by hacks wearing feather boas, blah blah blah. Meaningless blather, usually uttered by people who’ve never read a romance and have no intention of doing so, but suffer from the delusion that anyone gives a shit about their opinion.
Readers who love romance novels won’t stop reading because of it, but I’ve known readers who used book covers to disguise their romances, hid their collections so the neighbors couldn’t see, and engaged in other shenanigans to avoid the shameful feelings such absurd detractors roused. Romance writers (at least back in the day) sometimes hid behind pen names so their friends and families didn’t know they wrote those books. Others deserted the genre and publicly insisted they don’t write romances! They write real books!
The denigration of a genre isn’t limited to romances. Almost every science fiction, fantasy, mystery, Western and horror writer I know has heard, at some point, some version of: You’re too good to write that trash, so when are you going to write a real book?
To make everything clear, let’s work on the definitions. Good book and Bad book.
As a professional writer/editor I know the difference between well-written, well-crafted fiction and poorly written, poorly crafted fiction. Show me a page and I can tell right off if it is well done or not. That’s objective. I can also tell when the writer’s plotting is weak. Also objective. I also know when characters have been pulled from central casting or based on TV shows or otherwise poorly developed. Again, objective.
As an experienced reader who reads broadly across many genres and has done so for a long, long (looooong) time I usually know when stories, themes, characters and situations have been recycled, are derivative or formulaic. That’s objective, too.
Here is what is subjective, based purely on opinion: Good book or Bad book. Opinions about what makes a book good or bad are varied and layered in their reasoning and depend solely upon the reader’s tastes, age, experience and whatever might happening in their lives at the time they read the book. Because what it actually comes down to is emotional connection. If the writer, for whatever reason, connects with the reader, for whatever reason, the reader is going to declare the book “Good.” If the connection isn’t established, the reader’s opinion will either be “Bad” or “Meh, not for me.” Sometimes the connection is made in a negative way and the reaction is, “I hate that book! It’s the worst thing ever written!”
When I read on a purely intellectual basis (the way I do in editor-mode) I can objectively determine the soundness of technique and craft and whether a piece fits within the conventions of a genre or fits so closely (artificially) as to be formulaic. When my emotions are engaged (or not) then sometimes the objective doesn’t matter. I’ve read novels that were technically a mess, bizarrely constructed, grammatically alien, and yet–and yet!–they connected in such a profound way I loved them. In my itty, bitty world they were good books. On the flip side, I’ve read perfectly crafted novels with amazing writing that left me utterly flat. Are those bad books? In my mental filing system, yes. In the big scheme of things? That’s not for me to decide.
With objective and subjective in mind, let’s return to the original question. Can a writer be too good to write a certain genre?
In my opinion, the proper response in an eyeroll and removing the questioner from one’s Christmas card list.
The literary snobs and elitists, the ignorant and insecure, who mistakenly believe stomping on others somehow elevates them, will always be among us. There’s nothing you can do about them except ignore their silliness. Don’t let the bastids grind you down.
Focus instead on being the best writer you can be, no matter what your genre. Keep working on your craft. Set your objective standards high and strive to meet them. Put all your heart and energy into your stories so you can connect with your readers. Whatever you do, avoid always the internal trap that says, “It’s just a romance (just a space opera adventure or just a zombie tale or just any genre) and so it doesn’t matter.”
It's the age of the New Writer. Own It, Share It, Take Responsibility For It. It's all about connecting with readers. 
You know, I have a horrible story about that. I used to belong to a book club – a “literary” book club. We read all sorts of crap that they all loved, but I thought was okay, but wasn’t entertaining the way I wanted to be entertained. But, you know, all my friends were in that book club so, so was I. Anyway, one of the other gals let slip that she was in a science fiction book club. Everyone proceeded to make fun of her. I just sat there and watched in horror. She had the confidence to just laugh it off, but I was mortified and never told them I liked to read science fiction and fantasy – let alone wanted to WRITE it. I’m still ashamed I didn’t back her up.
Don’t beat yourself up, Nila.
I have had a postal clerk say to me (as I was mailing a manuscript), “Harlequin? Oh, I don’t read that trash.” —> me, nonplussed
My father say, “So when will stop writing smut and write a real book?” —> me, fuming
A bookstore owner say, “Oh, we don’t carry *those* kind of books.” —> me, never shop there again
A librarian (after refusing my offer to be on a panel) say, “We’re looking for real writers.” —> me, crushed and disheartened.
You know what? Screw ‘em.
I don’t have any romance in my soul, and don’t care much for the genre, but I admit to being interested in writing a romance novel, just as a challenge. I think romance is, by and large, deserving of its reputation. But that’s because 99% of it is formula–the same old ideas repeated ad nauseum, with tiny variations to keep the customers hooked. The same can be said for most of horror, thrillers, and probably other genres. That doesn’t keep any writer from breaking out and writing something that ignores or subverts the formulas.
I had this discussion over on my other blog, Catana.
https://mustlovefiction.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/romance-novels-are-a-bad-influence/
Ah, that was a clever way of getting me over to your other blog. But I’m glad you pointed it out, even if you beat me to a lot of points. What little romance reading I do is m/m romance, and it’s not even the romance I’m looking for. And certainly not the erotica, which is just as boring as het erotica. I’m just more comfortable relating to men. I’m always looking for interesting characters, which means *complex* characters, and off-the-beaten-path plots. Write something that’s never been done before, and if it’s well done, I’ll be your fan for life.
not so much clever, but my wrists and fingers are sore. I’m using voice recognition software right now and am not very fast.
The discussions I’ve been in this past week have partly been about the fact that indie publishing is the place to escape conventions and even formulas that traditional publishers push down readers’ throats.
I happen to think that there are writers who will rise or are rising above the pressure to chase trends. I’m looking for them now. And the truth is, if someone would give me a line on a good, old-fashioned, rip roaring bodice ripper, I’d jump on it heartbeat.
Yes, Jaye, that’s EXACTLY why I decided not to even attempt to go the trad publishing route. My first book is somewhat unconventional in its structure – which I did for a sound (in my mind) reason. What I didn’t want, was a publisher to ask me to rework it because it wasn’t the norm. And as an editor myself, I completely agree on the subjective/objective thing. Just look at The Celestine Prophesy and the sequel I forgot the name of. Self-published, HUGE success, and poorly written. But, it emotionally connected with people’s need to believe that what is actually sheer coincidence (according to math gurus) is, in fact, profoundly meaningful.
When I was in uni, one of my favorite authors was Johanna Lindsey. She wrote (maybe still does?) historical romances. I’ve since gravitated to fantasy and quirky literary if that category exists.
I loved Johanna Lindsey! Her characters would make me yell at the page, but her stories always made me cry. I loved her medievals best.
WB and I argue almost weekly about the merits of books. She doesn’t care for my favorites and I don’t care for hers. I think the only writer we agree on across the board is Dennis LeHane. That’s all subjective, pure opinion. Funny thing I’ve noticed about those arguments (mind, she’s a pro writer/editor, too) is that the one who loves the book will, when the non-lover points out technical flaws, then say something along the lines of, “Well, yeah, but that doesn’t matter…”
Hmm (I tried to write the sound of a throat clearing, but it didn’t work).
We both also like Robin McKinley (especially SUNSHINE!), and soon we’ll be agreeing on Tana French’s FAITHFUL PLACE, I’m predicting.
We also agree on good short stories (even when some of them are the ones we’re writing), and you don’t have a bigger fan than WB for THE OTHER LAURA.
Mostly, I’d say we agree that there’s a lot of trash out there, but a lot of wonderful writing and storytelling, too, regardless of genre or publisher or critics. But you’re right, when either of us really loves a book, any weakness pointed out will earn the reply, “Well, yeah, but that doesn’t matter…”
Because it doesn’t matter, not for the books that hit us where we live and breathe.
*Ahem* You’re right about SUNSHINE. Both of us nuts over that one. (By the way, IMAGINARY GIRLS made a ton of favorite and top ten lists for 2011. And I STILL don’t like it)
There are a lot of poorly written books for sale–traditionally and indie published. I won’t dismiss them in trash, (though I still reserve the right to go off on a book rant with you about any particular titles that drive me nuts) The thing is, as long as some readers are finding redeeming value in the work, then it can’t be trash.
You sneak! When did you post this? As usual, your astute observations are right on. I read all genres, including literary fiction, which I few as one more genre. I search for good stories and unique voices. Or unique voices telling good stories.
And I really really really love great characters. Really. Did I say… really?
I am sneaky, Julia, and in a bit of a manic phase right now, too. So much STUFF churning through my brain right now.
The gist of this post speaks to one of my major frustrations with “starred” reviews. Most reviewers don’t separate their likes and dislikes into subjective/objective. I see one star reviews for short stories because the reviewer thinks short stories are too short. Or harsh reviews for fantasy novels because the reviewer dislikes elves. I’ve nothing against reviewers laying out their likes and dislikes, but rating a book good or bad because of preferences is ridiculous. That’s just my opinion.
Hmm (again, I wish I could write the sound of a throat clearing…)
Sounds like there is a gap between “starred” reviews, and the kind of reviews you would write, where a book rating of good or bad is based on factors other than the reviewer’s preferences. You have a good ear for story “sounds” that ring true, Jaye, and you have a strong sense and experience about plotting. Still, though, in the final analysis, rating a book good or bad does come down to preferences. The best reviewers–and there are precious few of them–don’t rate a book as either good or bad, but give strong, specific details supporting a “slant” one way or the other.
Personally, I think you would make an excellent reviewer, the in-depth type whose reviews appear online and in credible publications. But that’s just the opinion of your WB.
Big difference between a literary critic and somebody popping into Amazon to add their two cents to the kitty.
What it boils down to for me is that despite best seller lists, reviews, sales numbers, notoriety–or whatever “majority rules” method is used to determine good, bad, better or worse–books and the affect they have on readers is very personal. It is one on one. That’s the only true measure.
I break down every once in a while and leave a review on Amazon, (always leave 5-stars just because) I’d rather talk about books over my other blog where I have room to explore whatever it is about a book that catches my attention and strikes a chord.
Oh Jaye, I could not agree more.
Oh! My churning mind came up with an insight. Judging from my own experience with unthinking detractors (see above comments) and projecting a bit onto others, is that what some critics seem to be saying and certainly what many writers are hearing is that it’s not a matter of technical failure or flaws in the story. It’s a matter of RIGHT and WRONG. As in, the writer was wrong to write the book in the first place. The book has no right to even exist. Of course, it is an absurd notion. When dealing with human behavior absurdity can never be dismissed as a factor. I KNOW there are people who base their notions of “good and evil” on likes and dislikes. (I like = good; I dislike = evil). So there are people willing to dismiss any book or genre as WRONG, as in shouldn’t exist at all, and that means those who write it and those who read it and enjoy it must be WRONG, too.
To that I say, pfft.
Pingback: The Elusive Real Book – The Boon of Being a Genre Author « Improvisations on Reality