Fluffy Pink Cover?

Bitchery Reader JC sent me a link to an oh-so-patronizing article about a paranormal romance writer from the Denver Post’s book section. Seems Carrie Vaughn, a local writer, has a huge romance following but… she doesn’t write romance. As JC put it, “she may have a ton of romance fans, but she’s still a ‘real’ writer.”

In the article, Love at First Bite, an awful lot of attention is paid to the fact that the heroine of Vaughn’s hit series is just like any other contemporary romance protagonists… except she’s a werewolf.

And while Vaughn is a more experienced writer of Sci-fi and fantasy, her series about the lycanthrope heroine, Kitty Norville, has been “lapped up” by romance fans – and as a result Vaughn has been promoted as a romance author, an experience that seems to befuddle her a bit.

What strikes me, and what struck JC, is this idea a strong heroine would appeal to romance fans, even if that heroine is immersed in a world of “harrowing violence and gore” with sex scenes that are, according to the author, “rape and something that might as well be rape.”

Golly ghee whiz I can’t think of any heroines who are equally immersed in gore and sexual muck without a clear-cut hero who enjoy a very devoted romance following. No, wait, I just ran out of fingers on which to count.

Add to that the undertone JC picked up on, the one that hints that Vaughn is a “real writer” (to quote JC) despite having her legion of rabid romance fans, and I can see why JC was bothered enough to forward me the link.

That said, for an article promoting a local author, it’s a pretty good interview – and kudos to Vaughn from Logan the Eskie Wonder Pooch on her American Eskimo Dog. Logan wants Lily’s phone number – he thinks she’s hot.

Categorized:

The Link-O-Lator

Comments are Closed

  1. It’s a good interview but there is that undercurrent of patronization of romance readers – that if they read romance they must also have fluffy pink brains and surely could read nor appreciate anything else.

    Must be nice to live in a world with such clear cut boundaries. Geez…

    What term do you apply to someone who discriminates against someone for their reading preferences? For surely this is an “ism” of some sort.

  2. Nonny says:

    Not uncommon from science fiction / fantasy authors. To be honest, this is one of the most friendly. Vaughn comes across more ignorant of the genre and confused than actively trying to be patronizing.

    My husband is a voracious reader, and has always loved fantasy stories with strong romantic elements. But, he swore up and down he HATED romance because all they were was stories about idiots with Great Big Misunderstandings in place of character development. That’s what he was introduced to, and he assumed the rest of the genre was the same.

    I slipped him a couple paranormals which I thought would be more to his taste, and he gobbled them right up. Nowadays, he buys more romance than I do. 😛

    What I’m trying to say is, it sounds more like she just doesn’t understand but would be open—unlike some non-romance authors who belittle the genre at every turn.

  3. I actually thought it was the author of the article than the Vaughn herself who sounded patronizing.

  4. nina armstrong says:

    I think this is more the bias of the writer-but Vaughn’s novels are not romance novels to me either in the sense that the plots aren’t really about her love life and that she never really ends up with anyone-so I can somewhat see her surprise.Too,they aren’t really marketed to the romance demographic-more to the sci-fi end of things. That said,I can see why they’d appeal to romance readers-the good characterization,the strong heroine,the werewolf thing.

  5. Marta Acosta says:

    I didn’t think it was patronizing.  Vaughn is a sci-fi/fantasy writer who was surprised that her book would be embraced outside that genre.

    The support that romance fans give writers is delightful and astonishing to those unfamiliar with the romance community.  I know it surprised me.  I’m not a romance reader/writer, but I do write romantic comedies and I’m happy for the support I’ve gotten from romance sites.  Yeah, that means you, Sarah, and Candy, too.

    Give the reporter a break.  They have to do stories on local authors one day, and a Pekinese who can sing the “Star Spangled Banner” the next.

  6. I found the interview much better than expected.  And I think Vaugh has it right: we don’t always want fluffy pink covers.  Sometimes, maybe we do want them, but honestly, I would be worried about the fluff getting matted and mangey looking.  Then if they are really flufy, it changes the whole notion of loving your books, you know? It’s just down hill from there.

  7. --E says:

    I’m a non-romance reader, if we define “romance” novels as “books that publishing houses put the word ‘romance’ on the spine of.”

    Just because the Kitty books are popular with people who often read romance novels doesn’t make the Kitty books romance novels. And it really doesn’t matter, does it? People will read what they like, and it’s a stupid author who begrudges a reader just because of the other things they read. I thought Vaughn came across as surprised—but pleased—that her books have wide appeal to a group of people she didn’t think were her target audience.

  8. B says:

    Well, when I take my samurai sword to marketing departments across the U.S. nation, I’ll be depending on y’all to make sure they don’t blame Kill Bill 🙂

  9. B says:

    I am kidding.

    No, really.

    SRSLY.

    ‘death17’—It’s your website making me do it.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top