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

You guys are going?!?! WAAAHHHH!!!  Yet another reason I’m beginning to regret my decision yesterday not to kill myself working and not spending any money between now and then to afford to go.

Oh yeah, congrats to any SBTB’ers on the lists!

OMG I love Rita’s Water Ice!!!!!! And the custard is good too.

Knew I shouldn’t read the list...catagory #1, best first book...Spying in High Heels was boooring.  And how does Eyes of Crow (also boring) qualify since Jeri Ready-Smith has a previous book Requeim For The Devil published by Warner Books in 2001?

These romance awards really need an erotica division...I’m totally OD’d on the words his, life, husband, and titles...Duke, Princess, Lady, Boss, Devil, Hero, etc.

OK, I plowed my way through the rest, didn’t see alot I recognized.  As an avid & prolific reader, can’t say I was inspired to rush out and buy any of these titles either.

Good Luck Nora, and any other SB authors!!

Candy & Sara...pics PLEASE, and shoe reviews would be welcome also. 

Speaking of studies, I read one that stated that in a social setting women are much more likely to dress to impress the women in the room than the men. Hubby was shocked, I think most men assume we dress to impress (or piss them off).

Let’s see, rounded-front lady and purple haired Asian chick. We won’t stand out at ALL.

Not as much as I do when I attend the RWA, and I don’t even have purple highlights.

I had only heard of a couple of those books.

I haven’t read any of these, but I don’t mind since I’m used to the books I like being ones no one else has ever heard of . . . but Carpe Demon (the book preceding California Demon) was a chuck-against-the-wall for me; I don’t know if I’m just good at spotting foreshadowing or what, but I figured out the “twist” ending immediately, and spent the rest of the book being incredibly annoyed at the heroine for not getting it.

Regardless.  Party on, and have an excellent time!

I wish I was going to be there to see the SBs, but be sure to take good notes and give us full reports.

I’m a little startled that I’ve only read two of the books on the RITA list this year (!) and I only liked one of the two (Pam Rosenthal’s The Slightest Provocation!!!). I guess I really have been caught up in my own little world. LOL!

Watch out for Mel Scott and Bronwyn Clarke who finalled in the Golden Heart. If they’re not published in the next wee while I’ll be very surprised.

Is it just me, or does that list of RITA nominees seem really long? I mean, most categories have 8 or 9 finalists.  That seems absurd to me.  Does it bother anyone else?

I’ve read three of the nominees, all of which I thought were good, though I couldn’t begin to compare them to the rest of their categories or books that aren’t in the finals, since I think I’ve read maybe 10 or 12 2006-copyright romances.  Anyway, the three I’ve read were Eyes of Crow, The Marriage Spell (which I was surprised to see in Long Historical rather than Paranormal), and Ride a Painted Pony.

As for the number of finalists, I think it’s the top 10% from each category--that way you have an equal chance of making the finals regardless of whether you enter a small or crowded category.

Who said RWA needs an erotic category? I so agree!

“That’s why I didn’t enter,” Lucinda says flinging her long hair back over her shoulder.

Seriously, Kate Douglas entered some of her wolf stories in the RITAs and didn’t final. Not too many erotic novels/novellas did make it through. Sylvia Day might be the only one, I think.

This site makes it so easy to eat my sour grapes!

Good luck to NR and anyone one else who reads here and sent in books.

SWAK,
Lucinda

Many of us are lobbying for a new “erotic romance” category, but I guess that will just annoy the people who said we have too many already. Can’t please all the folks all the time . . . I do think we have too many categories devoted to various types of category romance, but then I don’t read or write category so maybe my complete ignorance on that front just blinds me to the reasons for having multiples.

Oh, Candy and Sarah, PLEASE come find me at some point. PLEASE!!! I know I’ll be signing at the Literacy Signing on Wed night. And I know I’ll be at the bar, a lot. *grin*

Spying In High Heels was FABULOUS!

Pam Rosenthal’s historical, which has been recommended by a few different people.

Actually, I was most impressed by the list of long historical finalists, Candy.  I loved Rosenthal’s book, and was pleasantly and substantially surprised it finaled because it was not a quick nor a passive read.  The book was flawed (it received a D- grade at AAR), but what it aimed to to was really significant within the confines of the genre, IMO.  So definitely worth a read, and published with a beautiful cover and in highly readable trade format (one of those soft and supple editions), creating a very aesthetically pleasing reading experience.

I also highly recommend Shana Abe’s Dream Thief, although I didn’t like it was much as The Smoke Thief (another D grade at AAR, BTW). I re-read The Smoke Thief back to back four times, which I don’t think I’ve done with any other book.  Not perfect by any stretch, but something about Abe’s prose and the dynamics she created between her protagonists really sucked me into the world of the novel. 

Like others, I haven’t read a lot on the list.  I recognized Rhonda Nelson’s name from the posse that went after that Wallace woman a while ago, but I haven’t read her books.  I was taken aback for a moment at the nomination of Susan Donovan’s latest.  I really enjoyed her first three books, but this last one had major characterization and plot issues, IMO (or even more issues, I guess I should say).  I wish she’d go back to the freshness and *thoughtfulness* of her first couple of books.  With the publication of He Loves Lucy, though, something seemed to go tragically wrong somewhere.

I also am a big fan of the Kresley Cole series, although that was definitely a book that I enjoyed sort of in spite of the craft.  Which probably says a lot about how fun it was otherwise.  Because that series is really, really fun, IMO. The paranormal list is kind of strange overall, though.

And am I the only one who wasn’t disappointed by the absence of JR Ward on the finalists list? 

Oh, and I fully expect to see Meljean Brook’s Demon Angel final next year for best paranormal.

I judged in the Golden Heart this year and was shocked to see a book I scored really low to show up on the finalist list. 

Note to self: Enter that category next year.  It’s easy!

SB Sarah, you reminded me of one of the best pregnancy shirts that I’ve ever seen:

“Got Milk?”

Top 10% or not, that nominee list per category is still too long. 

Take a hint from the Oscars, RWA, 5 nominees/category.  Or 3, which they do for the more technical categories or smaller fields like best animated feature film.

Candy,

Asian chicks actually aren’t THAT lacking at RWA. I went a couple of times, and I mostly assuredly wasn’t the only one either time. Purple hair, however, would do the trick. 

And don’t worry about missing the literacy signing.  Each major house usually has a free handout session of their authors’ upcoming books, though you’d have to stand in line and fight for them, which I’m sure you would have no problem doing.  :-)

I’m going to be in Dallas on Wed, b/c my agent is treating her clients to four hours in the SPA.  Woo woo!.  I haven’t decided how long I’d stay yet.  But if I do stay another day, I would love to buy you a drink or several if I happen to see purple hair at the bar.

Well,the Maria Snyder is really good,and so is the J.D. Robb,but the long historicals category is otherwise a bust for me-I thought the Julia Quinn a weak entry-I’d’ve replace it with Mary Balogh’s Simply Love.
Ah,well.

I judged in the Golden Heart this year and was shocked to see a book I scored really low to show up on the finalist list.

That happened to me last year.  This year I was rooting for two of the entries I judged and disappointed that neither made the cut.  I guess I just have weird tastes.

Thanks, Candy, they were a Payless special!  So psyched you’ll be at Dallas this year.  Now it will truly rock.

how does Eyes of Crow (also boring) qualify since Jeri Smith-Ready has a previous book Requeim For The Devil published by Warner Books in 2001?

EYES OF CROW was my first book to qualify under RWA standards.  Back when REQUIEM FOR THE DEVIL was published, Time Warner’s e-publishing arm (the embarrassingly named iPublish.com) was not an RWA-recognized publisher.  I specifically asked the Rita people about that, and they double-checked to make sure EOC qualified as a debut.  Linnea Sinclair, who was nommed for Best First Book last year, was also previously e-published.

It’s weird being a quasi-debut author.  I’m like, no, I have another book, but the PTB’s in the industry tell me again and again that it wasn’t a REAL book.  You think e-pubbed authors have a tough time getting respect these days?  Back in Ought One (she says, rocking in her chair, shifting her Depends) people said it would ruin my career FOR-EVAH!

And since I have a title (Baronness Fagge Hagge), that makes me an official Rita-nominated SB.  So thanks much for the good wishes, dl!

Well, the paranormal list confused me.  I totally get Kresley Cole’s nom.  I thought Nalini Singh’s Slave to Sensation was notably absent. That book was excellent.  Good world, building, strong characters, and a lovely romance. 

The ‘Date me Baby, One more Time’ made me shudder.  But that could be my own person dislike for paranormal chick lit.  I’ll admit I was disappointed that JR Ward didn’t make the list.  Personally, I loved Lover Awakened. I thought it was better than Dark Lover, which made the list the previous year. Go figure.

I am happy to see Marjorie Lui on the list, because I think that she’s an excellent author that has been largely lost amidst the glut of vampire novels.

I have to agree with the Julia Quinn entry.  That baffled me.  The Bridgerton books have been rapidly heading downhill with the last being the worst.

Hey Candy--I’ll be sporting hot pink stripes in my hair this year...since I made the mistake of telling everyone in my chapter that I would do just that if I sold before the next conference. I guess that promise was all I needed to make because Voila...offer from HarperCollins. My hairdresser and I have already started planning for the appropriate hotness of the pink.

I thought this years’ list was actually a pretty good one. It’s the first year in a long time that I’d actually read and enjoyed several of the nominees. SPYING IN HIGH HEELS was a lot of fun, quirky, and I thought, a great Debut novel. Same with ADIOS TO MY OWN LIFE. And I love Madeline Hunter’s LADY OF SIN and Eloisa James’ THE TAMING OF THE DUKE. For the first time, I felt like I didn’t stand alone with my reading taste.

I was sorry to see both Nalini Singh and J.R. Ward missing, although Ms. Ward did receive a nomination for her Jessica Bird title “From the First.”

Good point, Darlynne.  I’d forgotten about the Jessica Bird nomination.  Although, I liked Man in a Million better than From the First.  And watch, MiaM won’t get a nomination next year. LOL. I think I’ll just join everyone else with throwing up my hands in confusion…

I have to agree with the Julia Quinn entry.  That baffled me.  The Bridgerton books have been rapidly heading downhill with the last being the worst.

I thought the two Lisa Kleypas books were the weakest in her Wallflower series, too.  But there are certain people I simply expect to be on the list, which is probably my own cynical thing. Eloisa James, Julia Quinn, Lisa Kleypas, Nora Roberts, Jennifer Crusie, etc.  Some of these authors I read and some I don’t.  But I always expect them to final in the RITA because of their popularity and because everyone exclaims that they are the “best” in the genre, whether their individual books are, indeed, the best for any given year and in any given category.  I wonder, sometimes, if the books of these better known authors were given blind to readers who didn’t know the authors or the books themselves (but who were Romance readers) if they would still be considered the best. But we’ll never know, because these authors are so universally well-known and assumed to be at the pinnacle of the genre.  I figure when people talk about how RITA is a popularity contest, this is part of what they mean.  It doesn’t, of course, mean that these authors aren’t producing great books, still, but it doesn’t mean they are, either.

Doesn’t the fact that some of the popular kids didn’t make the finals indicate that it is not, in fact, merely a popularity contest?

People complain because it’s the bestsellers in the finals. Then people complain because they’ve never heard of anybody in the finals. What do The People want here?

Dropping out of perpetual SB lurk mode for my first post, because I actually have something to say that hasn’t already been said :)

With H/S dropping the word counts on a number of lines, I contacted the contest organizers and asked whether I should enter the long contemporary category (70k and over) or short contemporary (under 70k), and was told to base it on the actual Word count.  I must not be the only one to ask the question, because there are Intimate Moments and Special Editions in both the long and short categories, where previously the short category was almost exclusively Blaze, Temptation, Presents, and etc.

My point?  I’d like to see them combine the long and short contemporary categories into one, and then add an erotica category.

Rock onward, ladies!

word verification: been25, i.e.
‘it’s been a few years since I’ve...’

Doesn’t the fact that some of the popular kids didn’t make the finals indicate that it is not, in fact, merely a popularity contest?

I’d say the fact that Pam Rosenthal’s Slightest Provocation finaled indicates it’s not “merely” a popularity contest.  But I *do* think that there is an element of what I’ll call “assumption of superiority” with certain authors who have risen to a certain status within the industry.  And by and large, these authors are consistently good craftspeople.  But year to year, book to book, I think the “assumption of superiority” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy to some extent (to what extent, I don’t know and couldn’t begin to guess).  Now of course if a popular author puts out a book that disappoints a whole bunch of loyal readers, that assumption can actually create a backlash, too, so I don’t think it consistently works in one direction.  But IMO there’s a point where an author’s reputation becomes difficult to eradicate in a contest like this, especially when a certain level of excellence becomes routinely expected of her.  In any give year, these authors may absolutely write “the best” book, but I do have to wonder whether it’s always the book that’s being rewarded or the author’s overall talent.  Does that distinction make sense?  I mean it as more of a question than a conclusion, since there are so many variables.  But we do know that reputation counts for a lot, and not just in Romance.  I think that’s partially why Oprah, for example, took herself out of the Emmy running after a while.

Then people complain because they’ve never heard of anybody in the finals.

The People would like to register an objection to use of the word “complaint” when it was no more than an observation.

But IMO there’s a point where an author’s reputation becomes difficult to eradicate in a contest like this, especially when a certain level of excellence becomes routinely expected of her.

I would argue the opposite (not because I have proof one way or the other, but just throwing it out there as an alternative).  The Famous People might be held to a higher standard because they’re expected to be great.  America loves an underdog, and a judge might think, “Oh, let’s give Ms. Newbie a chance.  Famous Lady has won so many times, she doesn’t need another award.”

(Don’t worry: I’ve decided to always judge the Golden Hearts instead of the Ritas, thus having no way to implement my commie pinko sentiments.)

Then there are those of us who like to rebel against the crowd and find something to dislike about anything that gets a lot of hype.  I really wanted to hate JR Ward’s books (I told her that, too, in person), but man, they are just too damn good.

I’m not sure what you mean by “a contest like this” rewarding popularity.  I think the only contest where popularity wouldn’t be a factor (in one direction or the other) would be one in which all the books were brand-new and had their authors’ identities covered up.  Basically, the way unpublished contests are run. 

Any award with a small panel of judges is going to be a crapshoot to a certain extent.  Then again, so is getting published in the first place.  If Editor X had a headache the day Author Y’s manuscript came through, or had an ex-boyfriend who looked like Y’s hero, well, too bad.  The important thing is to keep rolling the dice.

I think if it really were an ‘assumption of superiority’ then the paranormal list would’ve had Feehan, Kenyon, and Ward as those seem to be major fan favorites.  So it seems clear that the RWA judges don’t necessarily bow to bestseller status.  I think the issue is really that everyone wants to see their favorite books on the list and not the ones they hurled against the wall two chapters in. 

What is interesting is that with the huge number of vampire/werewolf books on the market, only one of the paranormals is vampire/werewolf related.  One has to wonder if the choices reflect the judges’ exhaustion with this sub-genres and an interest in representing paranormals that went into different territory.

To be honest, while I love Ward’s book, they are pretty much the only vampire novels I read.  None of the rest really capture my interest, so I could understand judges that were looking for something different as well.

I’m not sure what you mean by “a contest like this” rewarding popularity.  I think the only contest where popularity wouldn’t be a factor (in one direction or the other) would be one in which all the books were brand-new and had their authors’ identities covered up.  Basically, the way unpublished contests are run.

What I mean is a contest that does not have a detailed judging rubric, but that relies on one overall number and no articulated criteria AND that requires people to submit rather than having nominations AND that requires an entry fee AND has a very small juding panel.  I’m not making a value judgment about these things (although the award would matter more to me as a reader if I understood the judging criteria better, because I think authors even differ in the way they view it).  I’m just pointing out that they have a certain impact on both the field and the process.  I can understand why people see the RITAs as a popularity contest, whether or not that’s the reality. 

And I agree with you about the potential backlash for a popular author, which is why I can’t begin to measure the extent of the effect of popularity on an author’s chances.  But I still expect to see a certain selection of authors on the finalist list each year, even when I have found the books themselves to be lacking.

I think if it really were an ‘assumption of superiority’ then the paranormal list would’ve had Feehan, Kenyon, and Ward as those seem to be major fan favorites.

But I’m not talking about “fan favorites”—I’m talking about those authors who are both veterans in the industry and who are widely recognized as excellent authors, regardless of the overall quality of their *individual* books from year to year and in competition with books written by authors who have not achieved that same status.

I see what you’re saying, Robin.  Although, I don’t think that you can become a veteran in any industry unless you’re a fan favorite to some degree. Because no matter how much the critics and peers may love your work, if the readers aren’t buying them, you won’t last long. At least, from what I understand of the industry.

Who would you describe as the veterans of the paranormal romance genre?  Feehan is the one that leaps to my mind.  For the paranormals it does seem to be a collection of relatively newer writers to the genre.  With the exception of Elizabeth Boyle, who did a little cross-genre thing there.

The historicals, however, seem to be largely populated by the veterans, IMO.

What I mean is a contest that does not have a detailed judging rubric, but that relies on one overall number and no articulated criteria AND that requires people to submit rather than having nominations AND that requires an entry fee AND has a very small judging panel.

Ah, I see.  Yes, I definitely agree about the lack of articulated criteria.  At the very least there ought to be two scores: one for technical merit and one for artistic impression.  But better yet, divide each of those into sub-criteria so that the judges are forced to think about specific aspects such as POV usage, character growth, etc., rather than just a vague overall impression of “8.2! No wait, 8.3!”

But I disagree about having it be an entered contest versus nominations.  Nominations are what turn it into a popularity contest, so that unknown authors are SOL to begin with.  We already have those in the form of reader polls.

The entry fee and small judging panels are administrative realities, I’m afraid, what with time and money being finite resources.

Great discussion.  I know RWA is getting ready to take comments on how to improve the Rita/GH process, so hopefully someone is compiling all these thoughts and passing them on.

Although, I don’t think that you can become a veteran in any industry unless you’re a fan favorite to some degree. Because no matter how much the critics and peers may love your work, if the readers aren’t buying them, you won’t last long. At least, from what I understand of the industry.

Oh, I agree.  I was just thinking of the difference in reputation between, say, LKH and SEP in the industry.  LKH is a veteran and a fan favorite, but is she respected as an outstanding craftsperson like SEP is, who is also a veteran and a fan favorite.

Who would you describe as the veterans of the paranormal romance genre?  Feehan is the one that leaps to my mind.  For the paranormals it does seem to be a collection of relatively newer writers to the genre.  With the exception of Elizabeth Boyle, who did a little cross-genre thing there.

The historicals, however, seem to be largely populated by the veterans, IMO.

I think the historicals lists reflects the dearth of historicals in the past few years.  But I was VERY happy to see both Pamela Clare and Pam Rosenthal on the long list.  As for the short list, oy, I agree. 

As for the paranormals, that’s an interesting category, isn’t it?  In some ways, it seems cool that Magic Study is there when people claim it isn’t really a Romance (I love those boundary pushes, so I applaud that kind of thing).  And YEAH on the Abe nomination.  I LOVE the Kresley Cole series, but mostly in spite of the writing. I’d love to hear from a judge in that category about what books were entered v what finaled.  Also, that category seems to have to accommodate a very wide range of books.  For example, I’ve heard Abe described as a historical writer, a paranormal writer, and a fantasy writer.  Since so many paranormals are published now, and since there is a number limit for books (1000 TOTAL for the whole contest?) and they are accepted on first come, first served basis, who knows what the pool looked like. 

Ah, I see.  Yes, I definitely agree about the lack of articulated criteria.  At the very least there ought to be two scores: one for technical merit and one for artistic impression.  But better yet, divide each of those into sub-criteria so that the judges are forced to think about specific aspects such as POV usage, character growth, etc., rather than just a vague overall impression of “8.2! No wait, 8.3!”

Exactly!!  Of course all judging is subjective, but if everyone has specific categories, and the scores must be broken down into more than one or two of them, I think you can actually create a more objective subjectivity. 

As for RWA noticing and/or caring, they just issued Jane of Dear Author a cease and desist for her portrayal of the RITA in her “Readers RITA” contest—which was ALL ABOUT readers honoring the RITA a la Barbara Samuels’s RTB post (even though Samuels was not speaking on behalf of the RWA).  So my view of the RWA right now is not particularly friendly or optimistic.

Ah, I see.  Yes, I definitely agree about the lack of articulated criteria.  At the very least there ought to be two scores: one for technical merit and one for artistic impression.  But better yet, divide each of those into sub-criteria so that the judges are forced to think about specific aspects such as POV usage, character growth, etc., rather than just a vague overall impression of “8.2! No wait, 8.3!”

Can we also have point deductions for grammar errors and incorrect word use? ;)

Okay, that was entirely tongue-in-cheek on my part.  While I appreciate trying to break the story down into its elements, I think that it’s really just a contest of what book the judges liked best. One can provide some guidelines of what elements to consider, but I think it might make it into a quite different competition if it were broken down that way.

And I suspect in the end they’d finagle the numbers so their favorite book had the highest values, irrespective of whether each element was well done.

You have a good point about the wide range of books in paranormal genre as it seems to include what I would describe as fantasy books with romance subplots (Magic Study), as well as real romances.  And while I loved Gabriel’s Ghost that won last year, it was really more a scifi novel than a parnormal.  Considering the popularity in paranormals, perhaps that category should be split to have fantasy on one side and paranormal on the other to reflect the increase in books in that area.  And it seems like it might be time to include a real erotica genre in there as well.

I still think Boyle’s book should’ve been a straight historical. I agree, it may well be the dearth of novels in that genre that has caused the jugdes to fall back on the veterans.

Everyone keeps mentioning books that are missing. Am I right to assume that the author (or her agent or editor) must enter the book? Maybe that’s why some noteables are missing.

Yeesh. How did Julia Quinn’s disaster of a book get nominated? On the Way to the Wedding should be burned, not praised. Dreadful, dreadful book.

This just confirms to me that my low opinion of the RITAs is merited.

Poison Study I managed to get through although it was easy to tell it was a first time author.  But Magic Study would have gone against the wall if it hadn’t been on my new ipod.  I was about an hour and half into it before I decided I couldn’t take her cliched world building any more.  It has been done so much better!