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

Amen!

I also think that people who think this is a “disgrace” have simply not read the book.

ADIOS TO MY OLD LIFE, honestly, was one of the best written books I read all year.  So the heroine was a teenager...so what?  She was still a woman (albeit a young one) who was experiencing first love.  Yes, the romance was somewhat secondary to the overall exploration of self that was the focus of the book, but it was still a romance with the requisite happy ending and the romance was intricately tied into the plot of the book.  In fact, I found the romance even more compelling because the heroine wasn’t experienced, wasn’t jaded and needed the trust between her and her guy even more than an older woman would have in the same circumstances, making the ending even sweeter.

As for the anonymous posters...who cares what they think?  I think the blog world discounts them out of hand. I know I never put any stock in a post that is anonymous, even if the post agrees with my sentiments.  If you have no name (or a fake name...I do click on links for people who post) then their words mean nothing.  Big fat waste of time to post anonymously, I think.

Anytime somebody wins something, there will always be those that discount the winner. Sour graes? Who the hell knows or cares.

Bring on the controversy, though. ‘Cause I thought it was a great book and if she sells a gazillion, more power to her.

I meant grapes, but graes sound pretty juicy too.

Well being I hate nicey nice borg like thought…

I just wish the people saying it was a disgrace would say why. I am not opposed to bitching. I just wish it was clear on what grounds people felt upset about it.

Is it because YA gets tons more support in mainstream critical circles than Romance ever will? I know I see them reviewed constantly in the papers.

Is it because people feel the RITAs categories are not well defined?

It would be great to know what the issue was.

I think it’s AWESOME that a YA won the RITA.  AWESOME!!  YAYYYYY!!!

I’ll bite. I disagree.

I didn’t post before anonymously or otherwise but I will say on the record that I’m disappointed a YA book won for best single-title romance.

Not because of the book. I haven’t read it. But knowing that it had to get through 5 judges and then another 5 judges - I don’t think there can be any doubt that this must be a freakin A good book.

My disappointment comes from the idea if that if the BEST that single title romance had to offer all year was a YA -then I think that reflects poorly on single-title romance.

I don’t think anyone is to blame. I’m sure the judges based their scores on the book and not the controversy. And I’m glad that YA as a category survived and I hope Caridad’s win encourages others to submit their books.

It’s not sour grapes on my part. I actually didn’t read any of the other books nominated. I read Caridiad’s blog and totally understood her frustration because she wanted a chance to compete for best first book, but I just wish she’d had the opportunity to compete in the category she intended.

Maybe I have to re-adjust my idea of romance - but when I think of teenagers - I don’t think of a HEA. Too much growing to do.

I seem to find some excellent reading in that place where genres blur and overlap, so “Adios To My Old Life” was the only RITA winner that went straight onto my must read list. Criticism of having a very young heroine is patently absurd considering the long history of very young heroines in romance novels.
I do not agree, however, that posting anonymously or with a fake name instantly invalidates an opinion. Posting a very harsh opinion without giving good reasons does invalidate it, IMO. I spent years claiming my identity back from the bastards who stole it, and have become somewhat phobic about the precious commodity that is my real name. Does the fact that I’m not willing to use it invalidate all my opinions? I hope not. And I certainly don’t appreciate being lumped in with that small group of people who think that being anonymous is a good opportunity to be vicious.

I haven’t read the book (though I am partial to YA in general - more so than traditional romance) but I suspect this type of thing was bound to happen simply because the RITAs and RWA as an organization has resisted changing even though publishing has.  I was at Nationals last year and sat there in disbelief as the categories were read - Regency?  Really??  A whole category for Regency?  Coming from a fantastic local chapter that *has* kept up with the industry, it was a rude awakening about the national organization. 

If RWA is to continue being a resource for writers and for publishers, they need to realize that they can’t run the industry, and they can’t ignore the changing market.  I give them credit for allowing a YA into the running, but the category structure of the RITAs and GHs are as frozen in time as my grandma’s white leather living room set.

Again, I have to return to the book being discussed specifically and not in generalizations of YA as a whole. ADIOS was not so much about teenagers, but about young adults.  This isn’t HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL and I seriously doubt that any other book could have topped this category.  The heroine had a maturity about her that trascended the YA genre...and the subject matter and setting also lent to a more mature feel to the book.  ADIOS was more about reality television and the music industry than it was about high school crushes or prom.  I’m not knocking YA.  I love YA.  I’m just saying that this particular book wasn’t a typical YA.  It, IMO, crossed the line between young adult and adult fiction.  Had the heroine been 19-21, the book could have still worked...though not quite as effectively...particularly within the hispanic, namely Cuban-American culture where this book is set.

Most romance readers want to read about a vulnerable heroine.  What made her vulnerable was her lack of worldliness in a cut-throat industry.  This was made more believable because of her tender age, but might have been able to work had she been older as well.

Controversy.. hmm.. *goes to look up book*.

:P :P

I actually looked this up already because it won the RITA and was a YA. And that’s sans the controversy. Now its even more interesting.. why would people call BS? *Wants to read it more*. Therefore I agree with this post.

Melanie, the thing you have to realize about RWA is that change in the national organization is slow.  Boards who try to change things quickly and without a lot of investigation and thought and documentation are villified--and rightfully so.  I think the changes to the RITA and GH for next year were worth the wait.

And you can’t blame RWA for there being no YA category.  They offered it--enough people didn’t enter, something Barb/Caridad lamented in her acceptance speech.  All the categories have a minimum number that have to be entered before the category is viable.  I think that’s fair.

Bookworm is right.  I’m sorry I said it, too.  I didn’t mean people who take screennames that are valid and recognizable and who offer complete opinions, but more the drive-by type of anon posting that says, ultimately, nothing of value.

“...is not *really* a romance and ergo shouldn’t have won Best Contemporary Romance?”

That’s it. Option A. Again I didn’t read the book but just going on what Julie said about it being more about an exploration of self… also in reading the back blurb… it didn’t come off to me as a straight romance.

When I think YA I think growth, learning and exploration. Just like when I hear Paranormal - I think vampires, ghosts and psychics.

That’s why we have categories. It’s not the BEST BOOK category. It’s the best single-title contemp romance - where the focus of the story should be on the couple falling in love, and living happily ever after.

However the next question can a romance story about teens compete straight on with a romance story about adults… as I said I might have a harder time buying it, but yeah. I think it can.

Of course now that I think about it I KNOW it can because I’m desperately waiting for my Harry Potter copy to find out what happens with Ron and Hermione. (Who MUST have an HEA - Right? Right? JK wouldn’t be so cruel to me.)

Look - I could be dead wrong. ADIOS could be a straight romance about teens in which case it absolutely found the right category. I’m basing my comments on knowing that it was intended for YA and all the expectations that for *me* comes with a YA book.

See… and I just read Julie’s comment that the book goes beyond a “YA”. And has a very different feel.

Enough said.

That’s all the explanation I needed for why it was able to hold it’s own in this category. (Also I know from another loop that Julie is really smart - and I don’t like to disagree with her :))

My reaction was just a gut reaction based on what I know about YA - which don’t get me wrong - is a great category with great books. But YA is not Single-Title Contemporary.

My hope is that YA writers submit their work next year. I’m not sure why they didn’t this year.

They did sub--just not enough...and I know some subbed and got disqualified.  :( So it was unfortunate this year, but I hope people try again next year!!

I am curious whether those griping about the book have read all of the books in the category, including AtmOL.

If they have, then it might behoove the critics to offer more substantial commentary regarding why they disagree with the win. Blanket statements and annoyed mumblings don’t do much to support their stance.

Regency?  Really??  A whole category for Regency?

Regency-set historicals make up roughly 50% of the historicals published over the past few years according to the board survey of back issues of Romantic Times. The category is not limited to Traditional Regencies, which have essentially ceased to be published by NY.

While MANY of us disagree with board’s decision to create two overlapping historical categories (the other one is any romance set before 1945, which clearly includes the Regency era), I think most of us did think that Regency-set historicals should be separated out from the others. We just thought the separation should be actual, no merely a suggestion.

My disappointment comes from the idea if that if the BEST that single title romance had to offer all year was a YA -then I think that reflects poorly on single-title romance.

Then maybe single-title romance needs to bring its game next year, huh?

Okay, that was really snarky, and probably unnecessarily so. But I hate the anti-YA bias that seems to be driving the complaints about ADIOS winning the single-title contemporary award. People seem to think a YA novel just can’t be written as well as an adult novel, and are peeved that someone’s pointing out that just because a novel is about a young person, that doesn’t mean it’s not as valid as one written about an adult.

To which I say, have you heard of this book called To Kill a Mockingbird?

I’m definitely going to look up this book.

This may be controversial, but I think a YA winning a Rita for best single-title contemporary romance may beg the question what is “wrong” with single-title contemporaries these days.  I used to read so many more of them than I do now.  Beyond Susan Elizabeth Phillips, I can’t think of a single-title contemporary author I get that much excited about one of her upcoming releases.  I sometimes feel like I get my contemporary romance fix out of the Superromance line.

I do really enjoy Susan Wiggs’ novels, and I belive her books have won single-title contemporary romance Ritas in the past. But, I would argue that in the majority of her books, the romance is more of a secondary plot behind the greater, more women’s fiction, self-actualization of heroine plot that feels more important to the advancement of the story in this reader’s eyes. It may not be that different from the YA that just one the Rita based on previous comments.

So, where are all the great, single-title contemporary romance novels?  Am I just missing them?

-Michelle

I don’t know that I am all upset about the award, although my initial feeling is that a YA book shouldn’t have won the contemporary romance award.  I need to think about it more but my sense is that YA is a different animal than contemporary romance and therefore you aren’t judging apples against apples. 

I.e., did the Adios book win because it was a fresh story different than all the other contemporaries put in that category? 

What I do find is ironic, though, it seems that the same people who are in support of Ferrer’s win are also the same people who were outspoken against the way RITAs are judged/won.  I don’t know if I have the time to wade through 300+ comments on the subject, but I remember very vocal critics of the subject here on this blog.  As if because a commenter now agrees with the result, the process is validated.

I think, too, that a criticism of Adios winning isn’t the same as criticizing the book itself.

Sorry, but if you did not read the book how can you say it didn’t deserve to win? Romance = HEA (for the most part) right?

Adios was a romance. It happened to have a heroine who was young.

Um, read any historicals lately? Where the heroine is 16 and marries a 28 year old?

I am delighted that Barb won the Rita and not just because she is a cool chick. I think she deserved to win. The book is well-written and the story well told.

It was judged by other published authors and it was judged on its own merits not whether or not the RWA members at large would be happy.

Really twists my knickers to see people whining about a book that deserved to win.

On a personal note, I didn’t even KNOW I talked to a SmartBitch! LOL! That polka-dot dress was to DIE for! And where is that picture of the shoe?

“...But I hate the anti-YA bias that seems to be driving the complaints about ADIOS winning the single-title contemporary award....”

Chicklit - I just want to be VERY clear. I do NOT in anyway think that that YA books are better/worse than a single-title stories.

I’m PRO-YA. Hell, I’m pro good books. Period.

I just think that the two categories are different.

I admit to not having read the book, but I thought we were discussing the theoretical idea of whether a YA book should be winning a non YA category RITA.  This is not dissimilar to the discussion that took place on the blog a few months ago as to whether the RITAs were relevant.  It would be virtually impossible to limit a discussion of who should/should not win to those who have read all the entrant books.

When I read that a YA title had won a catagory, my only thought it was another example of the blurring of the line between adult and YA. It seems to happen quite often in fantasy/sf that books marketed originally for adults are re-marketed for teens,ie David Eddings Belariad series and Trudy Canavan’s Black Magician trilogy and vice versa ie MaryJanice Davidson’s Jennifer Scales’ books now being printed for adults.
I have tended to be a bit warier about letting my 15 year old read my romance books, as opposed to other genres, purely due to the sexual content but after discussing some of her recent teen ‘romances’ one of which involved drugs, rape, homosexuality - both male and female and a HEA and another dealing with child sex abuse, abortion, promiscuity and a HEA, I’m beginning to think that adult romances will be a bit tame compared to YA!

In cases of awards shows where nothing I’ve read/watched/etc. and enjoyed is a serious contender (and something I enjoyed greatly was overlooked entirely), I pretend to myself that the award is one of those cursed ones, where the winner will never produce anything of worth again.

But then, I’m a vengeful little minx.

So no matter what, I hold nothing against the winner.

The point remains that this book is about a young woman’s romance. Historicals are also about young women who are sometimes even YOUNGER than the protagonist in this book.

I see utterly nothing wrong with a college-age YA winning this category. All the parameters were met except for the unspoken one. That one being “A YA shouldn’t be entered because, you know, it’s a YA.”

And yes, I do think you need to read the book to be able to state that this particular story should not have won the RITA.

I really think it is ridiculous to say that YA can’t be a single title contemporary. Is there an age limit to the hero or heroine that I missed? Is there an unwritten rule that the heroine needs to be gainfully employed to be a good book?

What are the real reasons for those of you who are saying that a YA shouldn’t have won this category?

Is the heroine of Adios less of a heroine because she’s under 21? Is she less of a heroine because she’s struggling with life issues that some of us have finished with and helped our own daughters get through? Is she less of a heroine because her story is being told in a YA category by MTV Books?

What’s the real unhappiness here, y’all? Shall we petition RWA to recategorize by age instead of genre? Shall we say that the substitute category only counts if the book doesn’t actually win that substitute category?

I didn’t hear people yelping about the paranormals that showed up in RS or Historical!

I think the question should really be whether it’s a romance or not. Age shouldn’t dictate whether that’s the case. The story does.

And so, yes, reading the book factors into whether one can proffer an informed opinion on the accuracy of the judging. If someone reads and says, ‘You know, this just didn’t qualify as a romance for me. I didn’t believe in the HEA. The protags were simply too young for me to believe they would be together always, so I’m disappointed this book won’, that would strike me as a valid criticism.

But as Sarah points out, some people do meet their sweethearts in high school, and they make it work. They grow up together, and thirty years later, they’re still together. So I don’t think one should eliminate YA for being YA. It goes on a book by book basis and depends on how full / satisfying the romance is. And yes, one’s response to that will absolutely be subjective. What works for one person will not work for others.

Obviously, it worked for the judges.

“Chicklit - I just want to be VERY clear. I do NOT in anyway think that that YA books are better/worse than a single-title stories.

I’m PRO-YA. Hell, I’m pro good books. Period.

I just think that the two categories are different.”

They are very different.  But YA wasn’t an option this year.  So does that mean that the YA authors are SOL?  You only get one shot at Best First Book. Given the options available, what would you have done?

I love Young Adult books. I wax rhapsodic about them on the blog. I urge other readers to read them.  But, there is a reason that books are categorized as YA and its not just for marketing purposes and it is not just because of the age of the protagonist.  Much of the YA designation has to do with tone, setting, etc.  If there is a clear line of demarcation (and maybe there is not), between YA fiction and fiction, then it doesn’t seem appropriate for a YA fiction book to win in the fiction category.

As Doyle said before, there is a reason that there are categories so that like can be judged against like.  Can a straight contemporary be entered into a YA contest?  Based upon the arguments put forth, such as “Is there an age limit to the hero or heroine that I missed?”, there shouldn’t be any issue with that and neither should there be category definitions.

As for my motives, I have none.  What you see is what you get.

As usual, I’m a day late and a dollar short when it comes to a new controversy.  I should get out more.  Damn - and I was so pleased with myself, just for being able to say Caridad and roll the r.

Clearly, I’m far too simple-minded.

Stef

Out of curiosity, what are the criteria for placing a book in the YA category? 

I know, it sounds like a dumb question, but more and more I see books in the YA section that, to my mind, aren’t, or aren’t just for a YA audience.  I recently spotted a copy of one of my favourite romances, A Countess Below Stairs reissued as a YA title (with another name - which I can’t remember!). More classic romances ( for one) also seem to be ending up on YA shelves.  Is it simply because there’s no sex?

The boundaries seem very blurry to me - and maybe that’s no bad thing, as long as the YAs occasionally wander over to the Romance section, and vice versa. 

Though I’m not sure I’ll express it as eloquently, I also wanted to support bookworm’s defence of screennames.  Using a screenname isn’t a good or bad thing in and of itself.  Much like the internet, it’s good if it frees someone to share her considered opinions, bad if it facilitates stupidity and malice.  Would I say the things I write if I met you in person?  You betcha.  But you’ll have to take my alter ego’s word for it.

Bruce Wayne

I judged both rounds of the RITA’s and while I did not judge this particular book, I did find myself in the position of judging another YA book that had been entered in the “Traditional Romance” category (now defunct.) I assumed at the time that the author had tried to enter it in YA and this was her second choice.

The book was fantastic. I gave it an almost perfect score.

I also marked it “WC.” Wrong category. Because (IMO) it was not a romance. It was a wonderful book about a teenage girl struggling with her life and there was a tiny bit of a romance with a boy, but it was not in any way the focus of the book.

If it had been entered as “mainstream with romantic elements” I probably wouldn’t have had any problem with it...because there were “romance elements.” But it was entered as a romance and I didn’t think it was one.

I made a judgement call, obviously, but that’s what judges have to do. There are almost no guidelines for this, nobody at RWA is sitting there making sure every book ends up in the right category. It’s the judge’s responsibility to decide, and with no direction, you simply have to muddle through it on your own.

I believe that the way the RWA rules are set up, it takes 3 judges to WC a book before it’s disqualified. I honestly had no idea if 2 other judges would see it the way I did, but I had to be fair, both to this author and to the authors of the traditional romances. If the other judges didn’t see it as a problem and I was wrong, I certainly didn’t want to knock it out of contention for an award because it was that good...hence the high score. But I couldn’t just give it that high score and leave it at that.

That book did not final, though because it was dq’d or just didn’t score highly enough, I don’t know.

Situations like this are a tightrope act and I don’t know how other judges handle it. There are no wrong or right answers, just judge’s instincts. In the case of the Ferrar book (which I have been meaning to read ever since Julie raved to me about it several months ago) there simply weren’t three first round judges who thought it might not, technically, be a single title romance. Could easily have gone the other way, it just happened to be those judges.

The final round is different--you don’t have the choice to WC anyone. Once it gets to the finals it’s just rank the books from 1st to last. Period. So it all comes down to whether 3 judges in the 1st round decide it’s in the wrong category.

This was a very interesting situation. And another reason I wish RWA would get a little more specific in its judging guidelines.

Perhaps people can propose rules changes for clarification.

However, there seems to be almost universal agreement that ATMOL is well written book.

A book that impacted both rounds of RWA RITA judges enough to make it the first choice for a ST Rita.

So if you want a rules clarification, propose it..but to the anon. commenter who just wrote bs...no..it’s not bs ..it’s a well written book, deserving of a Rita.

I also want to add that the readers of tomorrow come from capturing and holding the YA of today. So....excellence in YA romance is a GOOD thing for the future of romance, don’t ya think?

Readers for Life, right? ;)

I"m de-lurking to say something about the YA category, why it hasn’t made in the past, and why that will hopefully change next year.

The criteria for the YA category up til now has been pretty much exclusionary of anything but old fashioned, squeaky clean, 100% romance books. Very very few YA books (even books published as YA Romances) meet the criteria as defined by this year’s Rita.

Ferrer’s shout out to YA authors is timely, because the category has recently changed. It’s been opened way up to books that have romance as a secondary plot, and concern other themes --paranormal, suspense, coming of age, etc.

It’s about time, and hopefully this “controversy” will be a moot point next year. Maybe, maybe not. There’s a lot of fluidity in categories that are often separated by theme and setting more than the physical age of the character.

FWIW, the conversation on this thread has been considered and considerate. So far. I’ve enjoyed reading it.

Maybe I have to re-adjust my idea of romance - but when I think of teenagers - I don’t think of a HEA. Too much growing to do.

As opposed to adult-hood where most of the growing is over with and the HEA is just over the horizon...?

This criticism holds very little water for me. Neither does the “straight romance” argument because how many books, of any romance genre but especially contemporary, are “straight” anymore? Isn’t there always a mystery, some local town conflict, vampires/werewolves/furry aliens, mad murderer out to get me, vulnerable female psychic-involved-with-local-police-investigation, poor girl from the small side out of town making it out on her own and blah blah blah?

For that requirement I would look more to certain Harlequin lines, or even historicals which, funnily enough, don’t seem to be making the waves they used to, which could have something to do with the fact that they tend to play it “straight”. (I’m speculating, of course.)

Now that is interesting.

So there is a YA Romance or YA With Romantic Elements category! But… since that category did not have enough entries this year she put it into Single Title to qualify for inclusion in First Book.

Now, I can see where people might be slightly miffed since that does look to be a bit manipulative even if it is allowed by the rules. Thus I can see members asking for clarification of the standards for each category.

Maybe the way to go is to open the First Book category up or maybe even add another “Wild Card” category.

First, my disclaimers:

1.  Robin is my real name
2.  I love YA
3.  I have not read Adios
4.  I (still) think the RITAs constitute a contest without rules

There are almost no guidelines for this

This, I think, is the issue it always comes back to for me.

Here’s mostly what I hear people saying about Adios:  that it should have won because it’s a wonderful book.

To which I immediately think:  Won what?

Because I think the controversy over Adios is inevitable given the way the RITAs are (not) structured. I have no beef with the book being recognized as outstanding, and I think it’s a terrible shame that the YA category was canceled.  I have no beef with what Ferrer did, because the (non) structure of the awards allowed her to enter her book as she did.  But still, what I’m primarily hearing from people who support the book’s win is that it was first and foremost a wonderful book.  Then there are the defenses of the book as a) a Romance, and b) a YA book that *really* is like an adult book. 

Is Adios a Romance as some claim, or is it a book with romantic elements as I have seen others claim?  If the book is Romance, is YA Romance the same as adult contemporary Romance?

Taking the second question first, if YA Romance is the same or substantively equivalent to adult contemporary Romance, why are there different categories for Regency and historical Romance?  And better yet, why have two DIFFERENT categories that Regency books can enter?  And what about inspy Romance—why does that have its own category, when hey, lots of Romances invoke some sort of faith into the story?  Why is it any different to say that religion at the center of a Romance creates a category than to say young adults at the center of the Romance creates a category separate and distinct from Romance with fully grown adults at the center of the Romance?  It seems to me that this question goes back to the issue of categorization as part of this process, and more specifically to the question of how these categories are decided.  That Adios is a fabulous book doesn’t, IMO, make it automatically appropriate for a certain category, for the same reason that no categorical distinctions guarantee that either the best books will win or that the categories reflect current publishing trends.  Which IMO is the problem here. 

My sense is that people who are over the moon about Ferrer’s win are celebrating the fact that a great book won.  But that IMO does not in any way validate the RITA process, because if the RITAs were just about the best books winning, would those categories look like they do?  Think about the categories and about how the books competed against each other *within* the categories, then look at how the categories are constructed.  If anything, I think Ferrer’s win just points to the inadequacies in both the categorization and the evaluation process (i.e, lack of judging guidelines).  That doesn’t mean Adios wasn’t a wonderful book, that it won unfairly, or that Ferrer shouldn’t be thrilled she won.  It just means, for me, at least, that the RITAs is a contest without rules, and that therefore, it doesn’t mean a hell of a lot to me as a reader.

Which leads me to the first question way up yonder about whether Adios is a Romance or a novel with romantic elements.  That’s the question that’s really causing the controversy, isn’t it, because it calls out all of these screwy distinctions in the categories and IMO highlights the absolute lack of judging criteria in the process.  To be honest, I hear some people who support the win of Adios kind of backing into the question of appropriate category rather than being able to straight on say that the book is a Romance that can compete equivalently with contemporary adult Romance.  Unfortunately, that discussion turns into a debate over whether Ferrer’s book should have won, which in turn becomes a potentially ugly fight between people who loved the book and others who have various reasons for objecting to the win.  And then it gets bad because people feel that Ferrer is being maligned and her win tarnished.  Which is too bad, both because none of this should reflect badly on Ferrer and none of it should take away from a book many people feel is truly outstanding.  BUT, IMO, it also doesn’t vindicate the RITA process, and, in fact, to me just demonstrates how eccentric the contest really is, both in terms of categories and criteria.  So bottom line, I don’t think it’s unfair at all that Ferrer’s book won a RITA.  But I also don’t think Adios’ win validates the RITAs or means that anything was “done right” with that contest this year.  To me, it’s still a contest without rules.  Two separate issues, IMO.

Taking a cue from SB Sarah (as I do in everything *wink*), I checked out the Amazon page for each book nominated in the category. Let’s see if I can manage to link correctly to all nine!

The Kept Woman by Susan Donovan

Ride a Painted Pony by Kathleen Eagle

Adios to My Old Life by Caridad Ferrer - WINNER

Lucy Gets Her Life Back by Stef Ann Holm

Irresistible by Susan Mallery

Heiress for Hire by Erin McCarthy

Must Love Mistletoe by Christie Ridgway

Aussie Rules by Jill Shalvis

Summer at Willow Lake by Susan Wiggs

Going by just the blurbs, editorial reviews, and reader reviews at Amazon, I think AtMOL sounds very novel—as in “new”—compared to some of the other nominees; it’s set mostly in a reality/talent show, whereas the other books have settings like family stores/restaurants, quirky small towns, a horse ranch, etc.—all locations that I’ve seen done quite a bit before. Second, it’s about a Latina heroine, and I don’t know of a lot of romances like that.

As for the age of the heroines, there are a few in their 30s-40s (single moms) and a few in their mid-20s—and then, of course, seventeen-year-old Ali. One book, Summer at Willow Lake, apparently contains lots of flashbacks to when the hero and heroine were teenagers.

Obviously, I can’t speak to the quality of plotting, characterization, or prose, since I haven’t read any of the finalists. In the interest of knowing whereof I speak, I do plan to read all of them and report back to the Bitchery. However, it won’t be until around Labor Day, because:

A) I’m rereading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in preparation for…

B) My appointment this weekend with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and besides…

C) There are NINE books in the category.

Speaking of Potteriana, this debate reminds me of the late 1990s, when the New York Times was forced to establish a separate best-sellers list for Children/YA, because so many non-Scholastic publishers complained about the Harry Potter books dominating the general best-sellers list. Apparently, people just can’t stand to be one-upped by books aimed at readers under age 18?

Ha! My spamblocker word is “issue.”

The ones who tend to view the RITA with a skeptical eye also tend view the genre in general much more critically, and we’re also usually the ones pushing to have the boundaries expanded.

I’d much rather see the RITAs award the ten (or twenty) best titles of the year, regardless of subgenre, romantic elements, age, time frame, spiritual inclination, length, etc.  With judging criteria, of course, that fleshed out the word “best” for the purposes of expressly non-categorical evaluation.

Sorry, Teddy. I should have clarified that better. There is a YA romance category, but it didn’t “make” because there weren’t enough entries that fit the 2007 requirements. I’m sure that’s why Ferrer’s book was entered in a non-YA category.

Next year the new criteria will go into effect, broadening the YA category and hopefully allowing enough entries that it will make.

As someone pointed out, the category criteria can be confusing and seemingly arbitrary. Right or wrong, it allows authors pick where they think their book has the best chance, or even to hedge their bets.

Some people think that’s unfair. I think it’s a contest, and as such, you do what you think will get you a win. The gamble could backfire if enough judges deem you in the wrong category.

I have absolutely no history with RWA and no beef with how they run their contest. I’m mostly ignorant of the machinations of the publishing industry. Someday, I would love to publish a book and at that time I will have to learn a lot. But first, I have to finish a book.

Barb Ferrer mentions on her blog that she would have chosen “mainstream with romantic elements” but her word count wasn’t high enough. She also says that they are changing the word count rule. If this book had been written this year, it would have gone in that category.

I was also “present” on the Crusie group when Barb first found out that YA didn’t have enough entries. Enough people - published (and unpublished) authors of contemporary and historical romance novels and avid readers - were very gung-ho about her finding a category because we loved her book, that she figured she would give it a try and see what happened. She wasn’t performing some evil trick, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of any judges, she was trying to find a place to enter her book for a prize that means something to her.

I do have to say that of the three books on the finalist list that I read, hers was the absolutely fabulous-est. I have read books by some of the other authors on the list, though not the ones up for the prize this year, and have not been as impressed with their work as I was with Adios. Maybe that’s unfair, because I haven’t read those particular books, so I’m not judging apples to apples.

But the romance element was very important to the book. She was growing up and changing and part of that was falling in love. The guy was a bit older and an intern for the music contest, so he was more restrained with her because he was 1) a good guy and knew she was too young; and 2) not willing to lose his job by shtupping an underage contest participant.

Maybe it wasn’t an HEA completely, because they were both so young, but they seemed to have a future together. It is very rare in most romance novels that I have read that I completely believe that the people are going to be happy forever and ever.

Phyllis

There are a lot of references to the heroine’s age, so here’s my two cents:

Why do people have such a different mindset between contemporaries and historicals.  One of my first books was a historical by Ruth Langan and her herione was only 16.

Ali Montero, the heroine in Adios to My Old Life, is 17.

With the historical setting the heroine’s young age is acceptable, yet not in a contemporary setting.

Seems like a double standard.

Yes, the Langan book was categorized as historical romance and the Ferrer book is YA.  But what makes Ferrer’s book YA?  The age of the heroine?  The age of the audience?  Does it matter?  Is it a darn good book that fulfilled RWA’s requirements for Best Contemporary or whatever award it won?

Barb Ferrer mentions on her blog that she would have chosen “mainstream with romantic elements” but her word count wasn’t high enough.

Of all the wacky things about the RITA categories, I understand the word count thing the least.  Can anyone explain the wisdom behind these distinctions?

I personally do not think the RWA can be trusted to provide “valid” definitions on their own industry.

I mean, look at them defining Samhain as, of all things, a Vanity Press.

I just read in Wiki WHAT a Single Title Romance is considered by most publishers, since they use these definitions for marketing purposes.
Sound reasonable to use those definitions since they are the market.

A Single Title Romance is 350 to over 500 pages.

Adios to My Old Life is 250 pages.

A Single Title Romance is defined as a non Category Romance. In other words they define it based on what it is not.

Adios to My Old Life is labeled by it’s own publisher Simon & Schuster as a Young Adult book.

The RWA has a Young Adult category to handle this issue but as was pointed out that category did not have enough entries this year.

Look like there is some valid reasons to question here.

I think it’s wonderful that a YA book an RITA.  That’s fine and dandie. Helps open readers minds to the genre of YA.

But I also have a very big problem with a YA winning.  Maybe it’s from working in retail bookstores and dealing with summer reading lists, but a YA book is direct at the 13-16 market and I don’t feel that something aimed at older KIDS is something that should be recognized by the RWA. The year that Speak (a wonderful book, btw) was on the 7th grade school summer reading list and I had to warn parents about the subject matter after the first few mothers thru fits was enough of an experience for me. Having the mothers who read category romance novels start going thru the teen section and pulling out the same books their daughters might be reading is just too much for alot of women. It’s a topic for the industry as a whole and not just for the RWA.  Maybe a new category of pre-teen to separate out all middle school books from the high schooler books.

I dunno. Again tho, congrats whole heartedly on the win cause that book was awesome. I can understand the unease of the win felt by many but it doesn’t stop the fact that out of the nominated books, it was the best.

Also, people who can’t put a name to an opinion do not deserve to be recognized as having an opinion.  That’s about as bad a complaining about the president when you didn’t vote.

I’m confused. I know, big surprise there.

Was there any controversy over Barb’s (Caridad’s) nomination for the RITA in this category when they announced? I think I would’ve remembered it if there had been…

So, it was okay for this beautifully written book to be nominated in Single Title, but not okay for it to win? Can someone maybe explain that to me?

I’m actually stunned people are turning this into a controversy. It’s a fantastic book and it won. So what if Barb is a nice fashionista. What does that have to do with anything? There are lots of very nice, well dressed authors out there...that doesn’t have beans to do with the contest.

Barb’s book won because it rocks and the judges recognized that. And if it wasn’t a big deal when Adios was nominated, why the hell is it a big deal now that it won?

“...Sorry, but if you did not read the book how can you say it didn’t deserve to win? Romance = HEA (for the most part) right?

Adios was a romance. It happened to have a heroine who was young.

Um, read any historicals lately? Where the heroine is 16 and marries a 28 year old?...”

Stephanie - I never said it didn’t deserve to win. I said was I disappointed that a book originally labled as YA and intended for the YA category - won. And that it reflected poorly on Single Title Contemp Romance.

Someone said down further - maybe the ST needs to bring a better game. And maybe that’s true. Or maybe Adios is a romance and the YA label is misleading. I don’t know.

But certainly I’m not suggesting that something as trivial as the age of the herione has anything to do with it.

As I’ve said and Jane also mentioned - YA has a certain feel to it. It tends to be more about self and exploration and less about two people overcoming a conflict, falling in love, and living HEA.

That was my only issue with the win.

I think the “controversy” as some have pointed out really has more to do with legitimizing the RITAs and finding the best way to classify books so that consistently the best books win.

Speaking of Potteriana, this debate reminds me of the late 1990s, when the New York Times was forced to establish a separate best-sellers list for Children/YA, because so many non-Scholastic publishers complained about the Harry Potter books dominating the general best-sellers list. Apparently, people just can’t stand to be one-upped by books aimed at readers under age 18?

I was just going to post about this when I saw your comment.  It does seem quite reminscent of the complaints about Harry Potter taking up permanent residence on the NYT bestseller list. The implicit assumption seemed to be that a book appropriate for children can’t possibly be literature.  In this case a book appropriate for YA can’t possibly be romance?

I might have an issue if the hero and heroine were like 14, but not when she’s 17.  As others have said, there are plenty of 17-18 years olds in historicals romances.

Just to clarify a bit before I start - I’m a different “Joanna” than the one who usually posts who’s of Scottish origins.  Though, I simply must give her props for her name and frequently lovely comments!

Now, to the matter at hand…

Candy makes an interesting point here that I have seen validated elsewhere.  When I was visiting the UK with some friends a few years ago, I noticed the Harry Potter series shelved in the “Literature” section but with completely different covers-that is, with no YA-esque artwork.  They were all black with only the title (excluding any “Harry Potter” designation) and only J. K. Rowling’s last name printed on the cover.  They also usually included some sort of weird icon on the front like a floating feather or something.  Anyway, these were supposedly the “adult” versions of these books - the content was exactly the same; however, the covers were more “adult” so that us grown-up types wouldn’t have to be ashamed to be seen reading a Harry Potter book on the morning commute.  An idea that made me indelicately snort in indignation at the time; however, with the current controversy/debate, I find it to have a significant correlation.

Overall, I find the stigma with regard to reading YA to be fading and at a far swifter rate than the one attached to Romance reading, especially since academics can receive PhDs in English with specializations in children’s/YA literature.  Romance-as-specialization has no such distinction or any real academic respect. 

As Adios and so many other YA book show (and I would include the “Twilight” series by Stephanie Meyer as another compelling example), these stories/characters/plots, etc. are not the vapid and obviously juvenile Sweet Valley Highs and Babysitter’s Clubs of MY youth.  There are real problems, conflicts, and romances (if no hot monkey sex to be had) in these stories.  These characters desire, often in the same ways and for the same reasons as adults, and as desiring subjects/objects, they make many of the same poor choices and suffer many of the same obstacles and set-backs as many of their chronologically older counterparts in Romance.  And, in reverse, they also receive many of the rewards that come with going after what they want and succeeding, which from what I gather, happens in Adios. 

Therefore, I find the more significant question to be whether or not individuals are more perturbed over the age of the protagonist(s), or the age of the marketed audience for these books?  If it is the former, then I agree with those who have previously stated that we must recategorize Romances where the female protagonist is under the age of 21 (or whatever age is deemed “proper adulthood").  And, in this respect, there would need to be another addition to the Regency categories because many of the herione’s in those books are only 18 or even younger.  However, if the problem is the latter (as I suspect), then the answer lies not with the categories themselves, but with how the categories are dictated by marketing execs, editors, and publishing houses.  If Adios had been published as an adult Romance, as opposed to a YA book, then would there be such grumblings over Ferrer’s win?  Or if Rowling were to suddenly publish her final Potter book with an swanky adult cover and under the seemingly adult category of “Literature & Fiction,” then would it not be possible for her to submit _The Deathly Hallows_ for a RITA based upon the various romance plots that are admittedly secondary, but nonetheless still present in all of her books?

Robin: my feeling is--and mind you, I’m prolly talking out of my ass here--that the wordcount requirements were basically a way to differentiate category romances from single title romances, above and beyond distinctions between short story, novella and novel.

That squares with some things I remember reading in other discussions, Candy, but it still seems weird to me, especially because IMO it’s more difficult to write an outstanding short book than one with a huge wordcount.  I get the sense there’s some other anxiety around those counts—like whether categories will be read with the same seriousness, or whether the number of categories is seen to skew the odds toward or away from them, etc.  If you’re trying for fairness, it seems to me that judging criteria would be more influential than categorical differentiation.  Neither is completely objective, but at least one could be focused primarily on quality, with the extension of trust that readers could treat differently oriented works with fairness.

I’ll have to think some about your category distinctions, but the two categories that really brought some issues home to me this year were the long historical and the paranormal.  Looking that those two categories, there is, IMO, INCREDIBLE DIVERSITY WITHIN each category, AND VERY STRONG BOOKS competing against one another.  How, for example, Abe’s The Dream Thief could be compared to Cole’s A Hunger Like No Other or Snyder’s Magic Study with nary a complaint doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.  Then, on top of that, with so many strong books in one category, do votes split among them?  For example, in the long historical category, with absolutely no offense intended to Julia Quinn, her book was not particularly well-reviewed and yet it won against books that were, IMO, stronger.  I know that’s a completely subjective opinion, but when you have so many strong books clustered together in one category, does the author who has finalled seven times or something win what is basically a career achievement award for those years her book perhaps SHOULD have won but didn’t?  I mean, how do you compare Pamela Clare’s Surrender with Quinn’s book and then say you can’t compare Quinn’s book with Dodd’s Barefoot Princess or Stuart’s Devil’s Waltz? 

It seems to me—at this stage of my thinking—that you either need to privilege the notion of “best” or of “category,” because the idea of “best in genre by category,” is, IMO, deeply and irreparably flawed, at least as it’s been practiced in the RITAs.

I mean, look at them defining Samhain as, of all things, a Vanity Press.

RWA has not defined Samhain as a vanity press. The def being used is as follows:

“[A]ny publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the cost of production or distribution in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution.”

This definition includes:

Publishers who withhold or seek full or partial payment of reimbursement of publication or distribution costs before paying royalties, including payment of paper, printing, binding, production, sales or marketing costs.

Publishers whose authors exclusively promote and/or sell their own books.

Publishers whose primary means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site.

Publishers whose list is comprised of 50% or more of its books written by authors who are principals in the publishing company.

and

Publishers whose business model and methods of publishing are primarily directed toward sales to the author, his/her relatives and associates.

To the extent of my knowledge, Samhain does not charge authors $, their books are available though multiple outlets (such as Amazon and Fictionwise), and I’m not under the impression that the owners of the company are responsible for writing 50% of their titles. So clearly RWA is NOT calling them a vanity press.

I think what you’re talking about is the fact that Samhain does not qualify for the new def of an “eligible publisher” because they don’t pay their authors a $1000 advance. This is an entirely separate issue, and whether you agree with it or not (I don’t, just for the record) all it means is that Samhain can’t participate in the RWA conference as an “official publisher”.

Personally, I don’t expect this new “eligible publisher” thing to last long, as the howls of protest from the epubs and Red Sage can already be heard . . . much like the graphical standards brouhaha, I expect this to morph or die pretty damn fast.

Joanna and Jepad - it’s not the age of the heroine. It’s a question as to whether it is a romance or a YA with romantic elements.

And maybe I’m wrong - but I don’t *think* there is any type of discrimination in the romance community against YA. At least none that I’ve ever heard. There are amazing, wonderful YA books. I don’t think anyone is questioning that.

But using the example if JK Rowling decided to enter the Ritas - she would enter it in the YA category or yes book with romantic elements. (R & H 4EVER)

She would probably not enter it in Single Title Contemporary Romance.

If she did and won does it change how great her books is?

No.

Would it make me question why it won for Best ST Contemp romance?

Yes.

SB Sarah:

“Big girl panties are in aisle 4. Head on over and get yourself a pair.”

ROFL!  Gotta remember this one!

Here’s a thought: maybe someone in Ferrar’s publishing house IS creating the controversy.  What an excellent way to get free publicity…

Disclaimer: OK folks, I’m just kidding.  I don’t have inside knowledge or anything.

Pssst Kelen,

Did you read what they are saying?

“This definition includes:”

“Publishers whose “primary” means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site.”

Hey, don’t blame me. They wrote it.

I just attempt to comprehend what weird ass shit they claim makes sense this week.

There was a looooooooooooooong discussion of just what the word “primary” meant at the AGM, and while I agree that it is unclear, the board stated in no uncertain terms that this did not mean epubs like Samhain, EC, Loose-Id, etc. who sell through both their own website and through various other legitimate channels (such as Amazon and Fictionwise).

So to recap, RWA has NOT defined Samhain as a “vanity press”.

One point: there is a box when judging the Ritas that says “Not Romance” that the judge can check.

I think if three judges in the initial round of five check that category, the book is disqualified. So there is a filter for books not ‘romancy’ enough for this category and ‘Adios’ made it through. Since the judges are romance writers and readers, what better system is there?

I remember the awards discussion here pretty well and also remember that the process for picking winners for the Hugos, Nebulas, Oscars, Edgars, etc., often made less sense than the Rita process.

Writers and readers judge and that’s subjective and that’s true of any creative work. All the critics said “John From Cincinnatti” was amazing and I watched and thought “what the hell were they smoking?”

So what’s a fairer way to judge? I don’t think there is one better than the imperfect way the Ritas and the GH are done. Five writers is a lot of people to satisfy all at once and for the Ritas, there’s more judges at the end.

Aside: my daughter is fourteen and reads a ton of stuff from YA to adult romances. I often read the YA with her, to check content. I’ve found the concepts tend to be more original and with a fresher presentation than adult books. I’m not sure why, I think maybe it’s because YA editors have the idea that kids constantly need new angles to be entertained and maybe the marketing people in NYC feel adults aren’t the same.

Kalen,

Oh, so they are now defining the word “Primary” too. Well good for them. I am happy that the English language is their arbitrary play ground of fun times.

I heard that cults did this in order to control the minds of the followers.

You know, like in Orwell’s 1984 Double Plus Good speak.

‘Romance-as-specialization has no such distinction or any real academic respect’

We’re working on it! ;-) There were quite a lot of panels and papers on romance at the last Popular Culture Association conference. Sarah Frantz’s summaries are here, here, here and here. Also this year, An Goris, Sandra Schwab and I went to a Feminism and Popular culture conference (and there’s a summary here.

There are quite a few other romance scholars at work too.

One of my RWA chapter members just shared this site with us, and I’ve got to say I love it. I’m one of the few people in my chapter who writes both adult and YA romance. Writing YA within RWA is a bit like entering a lunchroom and having no idea who to sit with as the cool kids are already buddied up. Most RWA contests for unpublished writers lack a YA category. I generally skip them b/c I don’t think that my book can really compete in any other category, and since most contests are as much about the feedback as about winning, I want my YA to get feedback as a YA. With the Golden Heart and the RITA, though, there’s no real feedback, so marking a second category in case your category is canceled makes sense. If people have issues with this, they should eliminate that part of the entry form that allows you to list an alternative category. What would make more sense given the success of Adios and other YA’s by RWA members would be to keep the RITA for YA category even in years where there are fewer entries. Reduce the minimum number of entries. I’m thrilled by Adios’s win b/c it shows the diverse appeal of YA fiction, but in most cases, it makes sense to judge YA’s against each other. The target audience of most YA’s isn’t the same as the target audience of most ST’s, so it makes sense to keep each in their own categories. Adios is one of those rare books like Meg Cabot’s and Sophie Kinsella’s that DOES appeal to multiple ages of readers, and it’s so awesome that a panel of ST judges found it worthy, but I’d still like to see a separate YA category maintained and offered each year. It’s a bit like a documentary winning best picture--sure it can happen, and it shows just how transcendent that documentary is, but there’s still a need for a separate documentary category.

Ella Enchanted is a good YA epistolary romance. I would have no problem with it winning multiple awards for romance. I can’t say I have ever read any of Ms. Ferrer’s books, as (a) I don’t read much contemporary, period and (b) I don’t look for YA to read generally, but I don’t get why anyone would care that it won other than the people whose tails she beat out for the award.

Some YA is better than some stuff intended for adults. For example, I’ve read two Rachel Gibson novels and been vastly disappointed by them as they were exactly the same and weren’t at all funny. I’d reather have read just about anything by Gordon Korman, one of the Bunnicula series, or Josepha Sherman than the Gibson books.

(I hope the fact that my verification word is chief34 doesn’t mean that I’m going to come under fire by Cassie Edwards...)

I was one of those authors encouraging Barb to enter as she did, way back in the long, cold Winter of ‘06.  We had similar situations, in that both our first choice categories were dropped.  For me it was easy to switch to Short Historical from Regency.  But she had to struggle to find the best fit for the book, inside the rules that were presented.

I was thrilled to death to see her get 2 nominations, and even more thrilled when she won. The amazed look in her eyes at the reception, when a friend reminded her who she’d been competing against, was one of the high points of my week.

I read Adios, and thought it was a terrific book.  I have no problem with a sweet YA romance competing against ‘adult’ books.  Of course, I’m still married to first guy I dated in high school, and it’s been almost 30 years.  Maybe I’m biased.

I’d also give her some credit for a secondary romantic line, since I kind of thought the father character was on his way to an HEA as well. Or am I remembering it with my romance writer brain?  Anyway, I felt the book was romantically satisfying. 

It doesn’t matter who judges, or what they change the rules to in the RITA’s. IMHO there will always be some good books that don’t fit as easily as they could, or end up in slots where critics complain.

But I am not particularly bothered by the way the contest is currently set up.

She read the rules, and entered where the book fit best.

To get where she did, she got 10 randomly chosen judges to give her high scores, based on the quality of her writing. 

There was a chance to disqualify her, if the first round judges thought it wasn’t a romance.  But they didn’t.  Obviously there are people who think this is plenty romantic enough to play in the big leagues.

She got the same shake as the rest of us:  a randomly chosen jury.  And she won. 

The only totally fair way to judge the contest would be for every judge to read every entry, so we could be sure they weren’t missing a better book.  It would also help, if we could get people to all agree, all of the time, and maybe weed out anyone with extreme opinions or odd tastes, so nothing risky or out of the ordinary like this would ever come along and upset the category.

Personally, I would be against judging by popular vote, just for this reason.  I think it is easier to miss the YA’s, or little books, or category straddlers, and get too focused on the books that everyone has read.  This year, 10 judges looked at a book who might not have seen it otherwise, and they felt it deserved recognition.

But that doesn’t sound all that interesting, to me.  Of course, I’m biased, because I like Barb, I liked Adios, and I like to see the underdog win.

I’ve always thought that the difference between YA and other genres is that the main theme of the YA is the protag’s beginning forays into, and the actual rite of passage from child to adult.  Romance can be a central element, but the meat, so to speak, is the navigation.  Lots of romances have themes of protag self-discovery. However, they’ve usually either sucessfully navigated their rite of passage (i.e., they’re grown folks) or they haven’t and suffer angst because of it (i.e., all those lovely, lovely rakes).  The meat here is the romance between the protags and a central element is the failed rite of passage. 

I’ve not read the book in question or many other YA books because I’m not a big fan of rite of passage stories