Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

But no, that’s not the best part. Aside from the images I get when I read the words “pamper hamper” (two words: dirty diapers), and the flinching I do at the conflation (2pts!) of “bodice rippers” and category romance, it gets better and better. Get a load of this:

Tips for writing in the Mills & Boon style
- characters should have unusual names
like ‘Slade’, ‘Blaze’, ‘Calliope’ and
‘Sergio’ (Yes, because nothing makes me giddy like a hero named Calliope)

- detail and description is extremely important (But they’re short books and this is a short contest so break out the adverbs, she said sarcastically.)

- love interests are often Princes, Earls, surgeons, pilots or thieves (Sing it with me now: “Princes, Earls and Thieves! But every night all the men would come around… and lay their money down” )

- giving a character amnesia is a useful narrative tool (for bugging the shit out of your reader.)

- the bachelor rogue always has a heart of gold, he just needs the right woman to tame him (if he can break free of the amnesia and remember who she is)

- the first kiss between the lead characters is perhaps the most important part of the book (after the amnesia affecting Slade, the Earl of Blaze, of course)

Oh, dear, oh dear. And to make matters extra more special with a side order of what-the-freaking-shitfuck, the contest announcement thoughtfully provides three cover samples at the bottom with classic M&B/ HQ: Presents title samples, like The Greek Tycoon’s Convenient Bride.

But the worst part is that I cannot get over one of the cover images at the bottom of the message. Now, I fully understand that the world is not tuned into US news at every moment, and my reaction is solely my reaction, but there is no way I could every buy a book with this image on the cover were it marketed in the US.

A baby in the arms of a firefighter in front of a giant blaze? NOT SEXY. NOT ROMANTIC. In fact, SCARY AS FUCKING HELL.

And if you’re like me, the image brings up a tragic memory. After the Oklahoma City bombing, one of the images that was circulated most often was of a firefighter carrying a 1 year old girl, Baylee Almon, from the wreckage of the building. The image won the Pulitzer Prize in 1996 and came to symbolize the victims of the attack. Baylee Almon died of her injuries. Bottom line: that’s not a romance cover. And if anything underscores the dance across the line of revolting that is played out every month by the titles and cover images of category romance, that’s it. 

RWA’s policy manual defines a subsidy publisher as “any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution.”

Pam Schwagerl, the “Tsaba Housse” (sic) Publisher (Note to PW: your server is slow and your article has typos), says that, “They are simply using [their policy] as a tactic to keep a small press from submitting contest entries. It also looks to me like they are trying to control the outcome of who wins by who they allow in the contest.”

Minneapolis attorney David Koehser weighs in (no explanation as to why, nor any mention whether he’s representing anyone involved) and says that Tsaba’s clauses are “fairly common:”

They’re in most of my contracts. The author has to submit a manuscript suitable to the publisher, and is obligated to provide supplementary material. This is not considered to be a subsidy arrangement. This does not convert [a press] into a subsidy publisher.

Discussions following our original entry about the story speak to the contrary.

Following the publication of the original PW article, RWA published a response on their website in the members-only section which clarified the circumstances of Schwagerl’s claims, stating that the author in question had sought to enter a chapter contest, the rules of which are not determined by RWA National but by the individual chapters themselves. Schwagerl confirmed that the author, Molly Noble Bull, “had been informed she could not enter the contests until Tsaba House proved to RWA’s national leadership’s satisfaction that they were not a subsidy publisher.”

Schwagerl maintains that RWA is not addressing the issue of labeling Tsaba House as a subsidy press, while according to the lastest article from PW, Allison Kelley, RWA Executive Director, has said that if Tsaba house would amend their “their boilerplate contract, RWA would ‘be happy’ to reconsider their decision.”

Schwagerl, who has already sent a letter to RWA threatening to seek an injunction forcing the organization to allow Bull’s novel to be entered in the RITA contest (although this year’s deadline has passed, and finalists will be announced March 26), is now consulting an attorney, before making her next step.

When asked if she would consider amending her boilerplate contract in accordance with RWA’s standards, Schwagerl refused. “I feel strongly that they should have no say in what is in my contracts with my authors or to re-define for the industry what a subsidy press is or isn’t,” Schwagerl said.

Ok. The last two paragraphs just dumbfound me.

Translated into 13-year-old-girl speak, she says, “You are so going to read my books despite the rules that a few hundred other authors and their publishers already obeyed, and I’m going to MAKE YOU. And I won’t change what my contract says because my best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with a girl who downloaded my contract for me from 31 Flavors last night.”

At what point do this reach minor star status in this cluster galaxy of wtf? I mean, like it or not, RWA can define vanity and subsidy however the crapping damn they want to. It’s their right. And they don’t have to open their contest to anyone and everyone. Again, that’s their right. They are a writer’s organization, and their policies are at the behest and on behalf of the membership, as are their contests. And the RWA chapters who run their own contests can do whatever THEY want, and if they want to accept works published by authors who do not appear on the RWA non-van/non-sub list, they can do that if they want to.

But the whole “you don’t like small presses and you’re meeeeean” crap just irritates me, particularly because there are more than a few small presses on the RWA list, including Genesis Press, Loveland Press, and others. But what burns my toast a bit is the idea that no matter what RWA does, someone’s going to stamp feet and say “UNFAIR!” Which is it? Should RWA welcome any and all publishers, despite the mounting number of small ePubs who folded after exhibiting the business sense of a drunken barnacle, or should RWA be as cautious as possible because of all those small houses who exhibited said level of business acumen prior to folding and taking their author’s manuscripts with them?

Personally, having seen the fallout as a bystander, I’m for the latter. Yes, it sucks, and yes, some majestically awesome ePubs and small presses are left out, and yes ePubbing and small publication houses are entirely a legitimate enterprise and rock my athletic socks, but I personally think the reasons RWA drew those lines in the sand (and to my understanding they can move them if they wish, hence the sand, which I assume is literal, because that would be awesome) is because members needed protection from contracts that were fishy like drunken barnacles and for every legitimate and savvy small press out there, there were five more giving the entire enterprise a bad name. Thus the tossing of words like “discrimination” and “injunction” around with wanton abandon and insisting her author be permitted to participate in a contest that is about to announce its finalist slate, completely undermines Schwagerl’s argument, furthers the reputation that small presses fight against, and only strengthens RWA’s position.

Her commented response to the Urban Fantasyland entry on her own blog:

The cover of the teen book is very similar to Hamilton’s covers, and the stories do sound similar. However that applies to many books. In the romance genre, it’s sometimes hard to tell one author from the next.
If you read carefully, you’ll note that I did not make any untoward accusations or accuse the new book’s author of anything illegal. In fact, for many authors, being compared to Hamilton would be a compliment.

It’s not YA, it’s romance! And she brings in that 90-year-old creaky, arthritic dog of an accusation (Oh, please let the poor thing lie the hell DOWN already): “You can’t tell romance novels apart anyway.”

Not to be outdone, Ms. York Levack responds to Henderson’s comment on UrbanFantasyland lining up both the cover images, and the book summaries of Hamilton’s and Marr’s novels, delivering a many-word WTF Smackdown.

I agree that many authors would consider comparison to Hamilton a compliment– many authors of adult stories would. However, (1) you did not compare Marr’s work with Hamilton’s. You accused her of being a “knock-off” and of “taking a page”. This is not a comparison. This is a suggestion that Marr got her ideas from Hamilton. (2) If you are going to compare authors, please stick to authors of the same genre, same target audience.

And finally, the idea that you did nothing illegal is questionable. You have, by way of comparing adult-content with teen-content, damaged an author’s reputation with potential readers.

After a brief detour into the world of defining slander, York Levack again chastens Henderson most severely and ends with “...read the book first. Don’t start by comparing one author’s sexually charged work with another author who has sensitively navigated the issue of sexuality.”

Henderson responds by saying

I have read some of the upcoming book, “Ink Exchange,” and I have plenty of evidence for what I’ve written. There is nothing untrue about my comments, which are my opinions, and I am not intimidated by cyberbulling.

CueGennita Low’s Greek Chorus: You’re Soooo MEANNNNN!” Yes, disagreeing with you vehemently and calling you on things you wrote is exactly the same as bullying. Except not at all.

I see more than 300 books a week in my office. I have been a book editor for more than 12 years and when I say that something looks like a “knock-off” I have the experience and evidence to back that up.

My last thought before I go lie down and snuggle with that dog: You’d think after 12 years and 300 books a week, Henderson would know the difference between YA, romance, and adult paranormal fiction, let alone have developed some foresight before declaring a YA paranormal novel a “knock off” of a novel featuring exceptional degrees of explicit adult sexual content. And, for that matter, the difference bullying and incensed disagreement. 

The decision to change Cohen’s title makes little sense to me. As a rule I think American audiences are sophisticated enough to appreciate cultural differences. I don’t think Harry Potter needed to be Americanized because we Yankees are too dim and navel gazingly xenophobic to appreciate the differences between a philosopher’s stone and a sorcerer’s stone, let alone what “troll boogies” are. Bend it Like Beckham was nearly released in the US as “Move it like Mia” and that was just ridiculous. I’m sure Beckham himself appreciated the slight boost in his American credibility anyway, seeing as he and Posh are all over the US right now. (Aside: a note to Victoria Beckham - we Americans are on the whole a happy, boisterous lot. It would probably help you a bit if you smiled, you know, every now and again.)

But I can’t place the change from “Driving Him Wild” to “His for the Taking” on cultural differences, unless there’s a huge community of Dominatrixes that buy Mills & Boon in the UK, whereas female subs comprise more of the Harlequin buying audience in the US.

Cohen’s title change really befuddles me, about as much as the whole titles question for the Presents line does as well: I ask again, what the hell is UP with the TITLES?

I realize the simple answer is that it’s all about marketing, but I am long past the “yeah yeah it sells yadda yadda” argument. I want to know WHY these titles with hookwords like “billionaire,” “tycoon,” “cowboy,” “boardroom,” “viking,” “Roman,” and, for crap’s sake, “Mistress,” sell, even if there’s a vocal group of readers, including myself, who find them insulting, demeaning or at the very least irritating.

Kimberly Van Meter left a comment in the entry about our RN.tv discussion about categories that read: “Don’t let the titles scare you. We don’t have any control over that stuff.” I am well aware that authors don’t have much control over titles, much less cover art, so believe me, I know it’s not up to the authors.

Kate Hewitt commented in that same thread, “Authors have *nothing* to do with the titles, and I don’t know a single author who likes them. That’s just marketing. They also come way after the book has been plotted, written, and accepted for publication.”

So who is it that likes them? Or is the question really how consumers of the categories thus titled use those titles in their buying decisions? Do consumers of the categories look past the titles because they know not to pay attention in the first place, or do they perhaps use the keyworded titles as indication for a specific type of story? Thus the “Tycoon” title is one word shorthand for a specific type of romance, where as “mediterranean” is shorthand for another?

From my perspective, I don’t see how it isn’t counterintuitive to closely word all the titles in the first place. Wouldn’t it be self-defeating if someone’s looking for a book they heard was good and they conflate (2 pts!) the title words and go home with a horrible “Billionaire Sheikh’s Mistress” when they were looking for the excellently written “Mistress of the Billionaire Sheikh?”

It’s almost like a secret society - the readers who love categories know to look past the titles. But that’s not much of an allure to someone like me who looks at the covers and the titles and says “What the crap are the publishers thinking?!”

Bottom line? eBooks from Harlequin rock my world because I really want to read category, and some of the category romances I’ve read have been exceptionally skilled pieces of writing, but let’s me be blunt: being seen with an Asus or a Bookeen is a LOT more reassuring to my pride and my professional identity than being seen with “The Billionaire CEO’s Virgin Boardroom Mistress.”

I’m not saying that because I give a shit what people think of my reading material (I so do not) but because I think titles like that in the wrong circumstance could get the reader into some hot water.

So, what is with the titles? Do you buy them? Do you like them? Honestly, please speak up. I’m not looking to pound on you for your taste - if anything, we here at Smart Bitches are enthusiastic defenders of your right to enjoy whatever you want even if other folks think it’s in poor taste. If some of the authors don’t like the titles, and I and other consumers don’t like them either, who are the people that do, and why do you like them?