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

First and foremost: the RWA is a writer’s organization, not a reader’s organization. Personally, I think that’s why sites like this one, Mrs. Giggles, All About Romance, Dear Author, Romancing the Blog,et al , are so successful. By and large those sites form communities of readers, and readers of romance, as snidely denigrated as we often are, like to hang out with other readers of romance who think intelligently. I know I do. If I didn’t co-manage this site, I’d be here all the time anyway, hot pink not-work-safe design be damned.

But the RWA doesn’t exist to address readers’ needs. It’s there to advance the cause of much-maligned romance in the professional publishing market, and to educate those who are new to the publishing world how to best go about getting information and marketing themselves and their books. It consistently says “Yay, Romance” and “Here’s how to write, develop, edit, publish and market your own.”

As a writer’s organization, it really can’t say, “Yay, romance! Except for the romance with sheikh’s secret babies and tycoon boardroom mistresses! Because they are stinky!” (That’s our job here at SBTB. And one of these days I’ll put my horror where my eyes are and read one of those. Feel free to nominate one.)

So as a writer’s organization, it’s not supposed to look after readers. Add to that the intangible quality of being a “voice of romance fiction” and there’s a lot of room to request increased clarity - what does “being the voice” mean specifically? It’s hard to quantify what the RWA does until you talk to an author whose contract became more fair and equitable after the RWA addressed discrepancies in royalty payment, for example. That part gets lost in the venting.

What good does the RWA do? I asked a few prominent RWA members why they support the RWA, and received much in the way of the positive regarding RWA’s role as a professional writer’s organization.

Nora Roberts says:

I have a lot of respect and affection for RWA. I can have respect and affection knowing it’s not perfect.

I appreciate that RWA tries to be an organization that offers education for published and unpublished writers, does what it can to provide writers--at all levels of their career--with information, networking opportunities, marketing news. I like that RWA celebrates the genre, and works hard to be a voice for Romance. Whether or not you always agree with that voice, or even like the tune.

RWA’s Literacy Signing at National has raised tons of money for literacy over the years. It matters a lot. That single program weighs very heavy for me.

Nobody really understands us better than we do ourselves. And RWA gives us a venue to be with, talk with, complain to or brag with the people who understand us best.

I’m not a board member (nor do I play one on tv) but I do know a few of them, and here’s what Stephanie Feagan, current RWA Treasurer and creator of Accountant Romance Heroine has to say:

I started to write a long laundry list of all the things RWA does for its membership, but that’s boring, and nobody really gives a shit anyway, so I think I’ll go at this from a more esoteric standpoint. 

To begin with, the mission of RWA is to support the professional interests of career focused romance writers through networking and advocacy. Key words are Professional, Career-focused, Networking and Advocacy.

A professional who is career-focused is in business to earn a profit - whether he or she is a hit man, a CPA, a plumber or a writer.  RWA wasn’t formed to provide a coffee klatch to writers who dabble, and it wasn’t formed for readers - it was formed as an association of professionals to exchange information via networking, and to collectively provide advocacy within the industry.

Networking - exchange of information - takes place every day, through the RWA list serves.  The National conference provides networking possibilities between its members with one another and members and publishing professionals.

As for advocacy, complaints and grievances against agents and publishing houses are looked at on a case by case basis, and when an author is in need of an advocate for her interests, RWA steps in. After several members lodged complaints against a publisher for withheld royalties, RWA funded an audit on behalf of one representative author. When the audit is concluded, the authors may or may not receive compensation, but the light shed on this problem will educate other members who can make a more informed decision before signing a contract.

You know, that’s pretty much it - that’s what RWA is for.  It’s an association of professional writers who can share information and collectively go to bat for one another when one of our own gets screwed over.  Every program put into place within RWA has to somehow fit into that mission statement.  The monthly Romance Writers Report is filled with articles that provide information.  The quarterly Romance Sells publication that goes out to book stores and distributors is a tool members can use to advertise their latest releases. Biweekly eNotes are sent via email to keep members abreast of changes in the market and current RWA news. The Golden Heart™ is an opportunity for unpublished writers to showcase their work and bring it to the attention of editors.  The RITA™s give authors something to bring to the table during future contract negotiations.  I don’t think anyone can put a value on a RITA™ final or win - mileage varies - but there’s no question that it’s a respected award among publishing professionals.  So even if certain readers don’t care about it - editors and marketing departments do.

[The RWA] is also a democracy.  We have a board of directors that includes two representatives from each of six regions, a President, President-elect, Secretary, Treasurer, and 3 liaisons.  The board is elected to represent those 9500+ members, and for the most part, every board member keeps all those members in mind when she comes to the table to make decisions for the organization.  I say for the most part because there have been board members in past years who maybe had their own agenda - hey, it happens.  But on the whole, and speaking for this year’s stellar board, every single person is there to further the best interests of RWA as a whole.

[The RWA is] not the magic key to publication.  Paying dues is not a guarantee that you’ll win an award.  Membership doesn’t include entre into the New York Times and USA Today lists.  We don’t promise friends, fortune or fame.  What we do promise is information, the opportunity to meet other writers, whether online, or at National or Regional conferences, and we promise to stand behind you - all 9500+ members - when your agent or publishing house sticks it to you.

So:nutshell = RWA is about writers.

If the RWA is trying to advance the cause of writers, then it’s not entirely fair to blame the RWA for a horrid horrid book any more than it is fair to entirely blame the writer who penned the dreck in the first place. If I write a review of a terrible book, I’m going to question why the character made cliched or uninformed decisions left and right, but I’m going to be consistently steamed at the publishing company that edited without fixing the egregious crap, then slapped a $9 price tag on it. Somewhere between writer, editor, publisher (and art department - let’s not forget the man-titty) egregious publishing decisions are made and a sweet savage backlist is born.

But when the alleged dreck finals for a RITA™ or even wins the category, then I am treading in weedy water. Subjectivity and contest rules and judging policies of warm fuzzy vs. craft aside, do the RITAs™ serve as a recommendation for readers, or as a celebration for writers? Is the RITA™ meant to be received by readers as a endorsement? On one hand, there’s no real push to advertise RITA™ winners or nominees in bookstores I’ve visited. There’s a lot of chatter and discussion regarding whether one agrees with the finalists - and that’s pretty much the standard on any awards process - books, movies or otherwise. If the RWA means for the RITA™ to showcase the best of their membership to the buying public, and not merely an internal celebration of the submitted romances of a given year, then yes, there are some changes that could be made to make the award itself more clear and easier lent to advertisement and marketing. Off the top of my head: fewer finalists, and merging of categories to create one to encompass “series romance” as a whole.

But RITA™ business aside, some of the accusations regarding the RWA seemed to revolve around a theme that the RWA doesn’t do enough. Enough what? Enough making changes quickly? Enough overhaul with fast and furious response to those 10k members and their varied opinions? It’s not going to be able to make a sweeping change that takes into account all the needs of its membership.

My point in writing all this blather is as follows: there are two ways to make change. You can storm the castle, or you can sneak in the back, see how the castle works, and slowly make changes from within. Depending on the size of the castle and the size of the problem, either method can work. Some changes, for example, need to be addressed by storming the castle and forcing the change, no matter how much it angers and scares the crap out of everyone - desegregation is a good example of stormy change that had to be forced into being. But sometimes, working within for gentle change works better for long-term efficacy, especially when the needs and requests of a crapload of people need to be taken into account. And generally speaking, between the two Smart Bitches, Candy is more likely to storm the castle, while I’m inside sneaking around the back asking lots of annoying questions.

Simply put, the RWA is listening to what we say (*cue ominous music*) and there is no question that they pay as much attention to the RITA™ as we do, and are listening to the issues that we talk about. The genre changes fast, but in some instances, the RWA can’t change as quickly and maintain relevance and effectiveness. It wouldn’t be the least bit of a good thing if they did.

How does that relate to romance? I think with each romance novel, the question is how to arrive at the happily ever after, and to ask repeatedly “Aren’t each of us worthy of love and care?” Even the most unredeemable hero finds true love, and his perfect match, and the same can be said for some heroines. Miss Thing might be slightly more sharp than a box of hair, but there is a handsome hero for her by the final page.

The judgments people render against romance novels try to dismiss the question of why romance is so popular, and why so many millions of people spend so many millions of dollars on their choice of reading material. But even against the certainty that romance is “dreck,” or “chick porn” or just lowbrow popular culture loved by dim women in puffy paint sweatshirts, the questions that we ask about romance push back against judgment and assumption to celebrate the questions romance novels ask about human emotional and sexual experience.

Now, pass the matzo ball soup!

Devil’s Cub is the sequel to These Old Shades and features the son of the protagonists from Shades. Dominic is the definition of wastrel, and Heyer doesn’t excuse away his debauchery in the least: he gambles, he drinks, he drinks while he gambles, all to the despair of his mother and the anger of his father. As Marquis of Vidal, Dominic is held in high social regard, a regard he tries to chip away with each evening’s activity.

Currently his sights for romantic interlude are set on Sophia Challoner, a beautiful young woman with aspirations of grandeur almost as high as those of her mother, though the family resides far, far from nobility or even gentility. Sophia is stunning, and she and her mother both expect that the attentions of the Marquis of Vidal will lead to a proposal, even if a forced one due to the man’s actions, and are counting on Sophia’s looks and charm (and complete lack of sense) to elevate them from their poor status.

Sophia’s older sister, Mary, the much more intelligent and sadly less attractive of the daughters, is horrified at Sophia’s lack of self-preservation. She tries to keep Sophia from throwing away her virginity, knowing full well that the Marquis only sees Sophia as a dalliance, and certainly not as a future wife.

When Mary intercepts an illicit invitation from the Marquis to Sophia, she decides to pose as Sophia to save Sophia’s reputation, even though the shallow little twat doesn’t deserve her sister’s loyalty, in my opinion.  And once Mary is trapped in an untenable situation with Dominic, the incredible parts of the book don’t stop until the end - and then, if you’re like me, you’re somewhat pissed off that the book is over.

Heyer does a wonderful job of setting up the depth of the hero and heroine before they meet and begin to interact, and it wasn’t until their deliciously snappy dialogue - snappy in the sense of sparks flying off the page - that I could appreciate the setup of Mary and Dominic’s meeting, slow and tedious though it was. Parts of Dominic’s character are revealed through gossip and through ancillary characters’ discussions of his own merits (or lack thereof). Parts of Mary’s are revealed through the narration, though her actions reveal what the narrator hints at. It’s a huge payoff- once the reader gets through the period of time introducing the reader to the protagonists, and the depth revealed about each one, the delight of watching Heyer place all the players in action is addictive. Thank God it’s not that huge a book or I’d have gotten exactly nothing done all weekend.

In addition, her prose is wonderful in that it doesn’t reveal too much by telling. The revelations as the protagonists come to care for one another are in tiny drops, but they’re contained in segments of narration that I had to go back and read over and over. For example:

Miss Challoner hunted for her handkerchief, and blew her little nose defiantly. It was a prosaic action. In her place, Sophia would have made play with wet eyelashes. Further, Sophia would never have permitted herself to sniff. Miss Challoner undoubtedly sniffed. Lord Vidal, whom feminine tears would have left unmoved, was touched. He dropped her hand on his shoulder, and said in a softer voice: “You’ve no need to cry, my dear. I told you, I don’t ruin ladies of your quality.”

Mary’s reasons for trying to avoid any ties to Dominic, though somewhat naive, demonstrate her intelligence and her innate nobility. She doesn’t want to be forced into anything, but moreover, she knows her station in life, and doesn’t want him to be forced into alliance with her or her family. Moreover, she doesn’t see that Dominic should sacrifice himself when she’s more than willing to work as a seamstress or a housemaid if she has to, given her ruined reputation.

But the interplay between them both is much deeper than mere plot progress. The questions of what is nobility, and who has it (and why) create the underpinnings of this novel. Nobility, to Heyer, is a quality not determined by birth status, but by character. In the beginning, Mary has more nobility than the Marquis, and while he is of much higher social status, he has to become worthy of her. Moreover, Mary’s nobility is a product of her own generosity and bravery as well as her intellect, and transcends her own status, as well as the negative influences of her very shallow sister and her ambitious, selfish mother.

The only part I didn’t like was the insincerity in the end of the book on the part of the Duchess, Leonie, who was her typical outspoken and somewhat adorable self, even as she pronounced loudly within Mary’s hearing that she didn’t want her son to marry someone as base as Mary. Clearly a Duchess wouldn’t come right out and apologize because, well, she wouldn’t have to, but I closed the book thinking that Mary would probably get on better with the Duke than with her mother-in-law, and that this was a bit of a shame, since I enjoyed Leonie’s character.

Aside from the utter novelty of reading a book first published in 1932, the story was set in a period a good bit before the much-written-about Regency. No mentions of Prinny here - but powders, patches, fans held by men, and the wonderfully-named Macaronis are everywhere. Since this isn’t a period of historical metrosexuality that I have often read about, it was particularly fascinating.

But by far the most fascinating part was reading a book held in regard so highly by so many different writers and readers. There’s no small amount of disagreement in tastes in romance novels, as we’ve amply demonstrated here a few times, but I’ve heard nothing but sighs and squee about this book, and others by Heyer. I’m happy to add my own sigh-age and squeeage to the crowd. Damn, this book was wonderful.