tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post8097150639098838662..comments2024-03-26T01:10:13.720+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: Short, Dark, and MulticulturalE. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-36391487229320124422008-02-27T12:50:00.000+00:002008-02-27T12:50:00.000+00:00Picking up on the point about the appearance of th...Picking up on the point about the appearance of the 'models on the cover', this may be one of many reasons why romance should try to get away from these childish covers that purport to illustrate (often very inaccurately) a scene from the book. This type of cover was what prevented me from reading category romances till I was middle-ages (and no longer cared what people thought about my reading choices); I was acutely embarrassed by the picture-covers, and I still am.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-78624481506291615552008-02-27T11:48:00.000+00:002008-02-27T11:48:00.000+00:00Someone quoted:"A publicist I was working with rec...Someone quoted:<BR/>"A publicist I was working with recently told me that in normal circumstances, she would walk right by my books in a bookstore—the “blacks” on the cover would not appeal to her. She said, however, that once she started reading my books she was hooked. Her opinion was that publishers should use more generic covers to reach a broader audience."<BR/><BR/>I have noticed that the models on a lot of covers are in fact becoming more ethnically generic -- sometimes it's difficult to determine the answer to the question, "Is this young woman brunette, hispanic, NA, cafe-au-lait, Filipino, or, possibly, all of the above . . .?"<BR/><BR/>Her hair is dark and wavy, her complexion olive, her cheekbones high, etc.<BR/><BR/>VirginiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-14406596739978023222008-02-25T23:10:00.000+00:002008-02-25T23:10:00.000+00:00Here's another interesting snippet of information ...Here's another interesting snippet of information from Grescoe:<BR/><BR/><I>Sandra Kitt of New York had written her first Harlequin with black characters in 1984, but after </I>Adam and Eva<I>, "I couldn't get them to accept the other black novels. They said they didn't know anything about the market," she told the </I>Boston Globe<I>. In fact, Harlequin got scads of letters complaining about the book, including one from a Philadelphia woman who said, "Those people should have their own series."</I> (279)Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-34734886937682515252008-02-25T22:01:00.000+00:002008-02-25T22:01:00.000+00:00I remember the discussion on Dear Author about Sus...<I>I remember the discussion on Dear Author about Susan Mallery's The Sheik and the Virgin Secretary and the culture gap between some UK and American readers</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think that particular culture gap involved "some" UK readers. As far as I could tell, I was the <I>only</I> UK reader commenting on that thread. And as I've said in various places and at various times, I certainly wouldn't claim that my tastes or preferences are representative of those of all UK readers.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm sure there are some who see that difference as ideologically charged</I><BR/><BR/>I'd agree with what you said in comment 22 on that thread, which is that "I definitely think that ideology shapes our response to EVERYTHING we read." Of course a reader's attitude to texts will be shaped by that reader's culture and beliefs.<BR/><BR/><I>if that same conversation occurred around an issue of race, I suspect it would get ugly pretty quickly.</I><BR/><BR/>That particular conversation touched on stay-at-home parenthood, beauty ideas and student debt, all of which are topics which in some contexts can get very heated. The novel in question also contained a heroine who claimed that she was "normal." That inevitably meant that any readers who didn't have a similar lifestyle/experience to hers were being defined as unusual/not normal. In the heroine's own context, that was an understandable thing to say. She clearly saw herself as normal. But once the novel is sold in the global market place the invocation of particular ideas about "normality" has the potential to alienate readers who don't fit those criteria of what constitutes "normality."<BR/><BR/>So I think those issues had the potential to become extremely inflammatory, but they didn't on that thread because everyone remained civil.<BR/><BR/><I>In some ways I think we've gotten to the point where race is so charged that it's self-igniting.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think any of us have ignited yet on this thread. I think we're still managing to have a productive, interesting discussion.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-19159372733094786332008-02-25T21:39:00.000+00:002008-02-25T21:39:00.000+00:00I point to the info about white women being the in...<I>I point to the info about white women being the initial readers of Genesis books</I><BR/><BR/>I read Colom's statement that "there were a lot of white women that was also reading our romance. Actually, in the early days it was probably more white women than black women," as meaning that white women made up a sizeable proportion of, and probably a slight majority of, the initial readership, but they weren't all of "the initial readers."<BR/><BR/>As I said, I don't know how Genesis were doing their advertising, but many of the traditional venues for romance advertising that exist may not reach many potential black readers. <A HREF="http://karenknowsbest.com/?cat=39" REL="nofollow">Lynn Emery's said that</A><BR/><BR/><I>as a new romance author back in the day I remember that they marketed Arabesque in the traditional ways white romance authors were marketed. Which IMHO explained why I would meet black women at booksignings for several years stunned to learn about black romances- even after Arabesque had become established.<BR/><BR/>Although I don't have hard figures, I have a strong feeling that most American black women don't read Romantic Times or even know about the magazine. That's just one example.</I><BR/><BR/>Another factor that may have played a part, and is interesting in any case, is that there seem to be regional differences. When asked about her readership <A HREF="http://karenknowsbest.com/?p=607" REL="nofollow">Kayla Perrin said that</A> "My books are mostly purchased by AA readers. I do hear that in certain cities, I have a lot of white readers buying my books as well."<BR/><BR/><I>I tend to see easy charges of racism as the equivalent of using a hatchet to perform heart surgery</I><BR/><BR/>I can certainly see how hatchets would not be the best implements to use on heart patients, but I don't think anyone on this thread has been making "easy charges of racism."<BR/><BR/><I>But very soon we may have an AA man as US president, a man chosen pretty decisively, it seems, over two other Democrats</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that could have a lot to do with his policies and his public speaking abilities.<BR/><BR/>I also think there's likely to be a difference between (a) the way in which people make a considered decision (as is the case when people have pondered which candidate to choose and have thought about their policies, and learned more about each politician as an individual), and (b) the way in which subconscious prejudices may affect the outcomes of quick decisions. The students who were studied by Goff, Eberhardt, Williams and Jackson might well have have been horrified at the findings, and been completely unaware of their subconscious associations. I'd suspect that that type of negative association about AA men is going to be more influential when people are making quick decisions, such as book choices made on the basis of book covers. As <A HREF="http://karenknowsbest.com/?p=607" REL="nofollow">Kayla Perrin has said</A>, <BR/><BR/><I>it would be interesting to see if our books would reach a broader readership if the covers weren’t necessarily ethnocentric.<BR/><BR/>A publicist I was working with recently told me that in normal circumstances, she would walk right by my books in a bookstore—the “blacks” on the cover would not appeal to her. She said, however, that once she started reading my books she was hooked. Her opinion was that publishers should use more generic covers to reach a broader audience.</I>Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-88954747702523186892008-02-25T18:42:00.000+00:002008-02-25T18:42:00.000+00:00re we therefore to suppose that there are more whi...<I>re we therefore to suppose that there are more white American women who are turned on by the thought of sex with (fortunately) mythical monsters such as vampires and werewolves than with black male human beings?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, before I jumped to that conclusion I'd probably ask the white women who don't read Romance (or even paranormal Romance) but who find Denzel Washington or any number of AA actors/performers sexy that question. I know a number of white women who are completely turned off by the paranormal Romance thing but who have no problem seeing Black men as sexual fantasies. <BR/><BR/>The question of relatability is extremely charged, no doubt. I remember the discussion on Dear Author about Susan Mallery's The Sheik and the Virgin Secretary and the culture gap between some UK and American readers:<BR/>http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/10/06/review-the-sheik-and-the-virgin-secretary/<BR/><BR/>Now I'm sure there are some who see that difference as ideologically charged, but if that same conversation occurred around an issue of race, I suspect it would get ugly pretty quickly. In some ways I think we've gotten to the point where race is so charged that it's self-igniting.<BR/><BR/>One thing I've found super interesting is the IATs (Implicit Association Tests) at Harvard, where you can test your own unconscious preferences and associations:<BR/>https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/index.jspAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-41453763780733380472008-02-25T17:24:00.000+00:002008-02-25T17:24:00.000+00:00Laura, I know we can all pull on anecdotal evidenc...Laura, I know we can all pull on anecdotal evidence to make any sort of case about AA Romance -- a reader comment here, a publisher's example here. I point to the info about white women being the initial readers of Genesis books, you point to Monica's comment about Harlequin. Someone else will point to Sean Bentley's comment about how AA Romance sells better segregated (despite the fact that AA readers read integrated). But I am just not at all certain that the marginalization of AA Romance is all about racism, any more than I am that those horrid NA Romances are a product of racism. That doesn't mean things can't have a racially discriminatory effect or that the genre doesn't have a problematic relationship to race (obviously it does). <BR/><BR/>And I know we all have our own personal experiences, as well, which clearly shape our views. I have my years of research focusing on representations of race and US national identity that definitely shapes mine, no doubt (I tend to see easy charges of racism as the equivalent of using a hatchet to perform heart surgery). Monica has her experiences and you have yours and on and on. And from there we tend to generalize. Monica recently blogged about how the Black best friends in Romance don't get the love, pointing to two white authors, Nora Roberts and MaryJanice Davidson as authors who don't give their AA characters a main romance. But that's actually not the case. Jessica, Betsy's BFF in the Undead series DOES have a prominent, serious romantic relationship, as do at least two of the significant AA characters in the Robb/In Death books (Leonardo and Mavis; Captain Whitney and his long-time wife who appears a number of times in the series, as well). Except for the Whitney pairing, the other couples are interracial, as well (Black female/white male, Black male/white female with a new baby). So what does that mean besides the fact that it's really hard to come up with a generalization that will hold up to scrutiny? I don't know. If we started tracing the evolution of attitudes toward AA males in the 19th century, it wouldn't be a straight and even path, either. But very soon we may have an AA man as US president, a man chosen pretty decisively, it seems, over two other Democrats, a white woman (married to a man who was referred to as "the first Black president") and a white man. Oprah, I'd venture to say, is the most influential television personality. Meanwhile we still have Black men being brutalized by white men and disproportionately high numbers of young Black men incarcerated as compared to white young men with comparable charges. Example, counter-example. Point, counter-point. I guess the bottom line for me is that I'm willing to go to bat against the segregation of AA Romance because I don't think it's right, even if I'm not willing to label it racism. And IMO that should be okay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-35455578403186427872008-02-25T17:23:00.000+00:002008-02-25T17:23:00.000+00:00I am going off at a slight tangent, here, that of ...I am going off at a slight tangent, here, that of reading romance being tied to a personal sexual fantasy. <BR/><BR/>Fantasies involving non-human creatures appear to sell well. Are we therefore to suppose that there are more white American women who are turned on by the thought of sex with (fortunately) mythical monsters such as vampires and werewolves than with black male human beings? Oh dear. If so, something is very wrong indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-52804121955368309152008-02-25T11:43:00.000+00:002008-02-25T11:43:00.000+00:00I disagree. Passionately. [MOLE bites Laura's toes...<I>I disagree. Passionately. [MOLE bites Laura's toes.] The MAIN POWER lies with the PUBLISHER, who decides whether to accept, publish, or withdraw the books containing plagiarized elements.</I><BR/><BR/>Elsewhere, during the discussions about plagiarism, Nora Roberts said that authors sign something in which they pledge that the work they're handing to the publisher does not contain plagiarised material. So I think a publisher's justified in believing the author until she/he is proven guilty. Which is not to say that publishers shouldn't try to be alert to plagiarism. Nor would I defend publishers who prematurely leap to issue statements stating that an author has "done nothing wrong." And once a publisher knows a work contains plagiarised material, it is most certainly their responsibility (barring contractual obligations) if they decide to go ahead and publish anyway.<BR/><BR/>So despite my mole-bitten toes, I'm going to have to continue to respectfully disagree with you on this. <BR/><BR/>Would it be OK if we just agree to differ and let this issue drop now? I know I've been posting about it as much, or more than, anyone else (Laura slaps herself on the wrist) but given that the introduction of the plagiarism issue has already led to considerable confusion (at least for me and Robin), I think it might be better if we let it lie for now. We seem to have reached a consensus that while plagiarism is a serious ethical issue, it isn't one which is particularly relevant to a discussion of racism or the shelving of AA romances.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-5003599753709232412008-02-25T11:25:00.000+00:002008-02-25T11:25:00.000+00:00Ironically, I think it takes some effort to develo...<I>Ironically, I think it takes some effort to develop discriminatory judgments, and that those judgments are assisted when something is advertised as already *different* somehow. So when publishers announce AA-authored Romance as different by segregating it, they're telling readers, IMO, to see it differently. If there wasn't that initial distinction, it would require an affirmative decision on the part of readers to discriminate, and I don't know how common that would be.</I><BR/><BR/>I think the shelving is very much a symptom of a problem which permeates society. Separate shelving alone did not create racist discrimination and the mere changing of shelving practice will not eradicate racism in the responses of readers to books (though a sustained change in shelving might help the process of change towards a less racially segregated romance genre).<BR/><BR/>As Monica said, Harlequin has tried selling AA romances in their non-AA lines and "they have shown dismal sales compared to similar white romances in that line on sale at the same time." What that suggests to me is that simply shelving all romances together probably wouldn't be enough to solve the problem. I'd suggest that there are underlying attitudes which exist among a significant number of non-AA readers and which make them less likely to buy AA romances even when AA romances are being marketed as being the equal of all the non-AA romances in their line.<BR/><BR/>As Goff, Eberhardt, Williams and Jackson discovered, despite the fact that "Historical representations explicitly depicting Blacks as apelike have largely disappeared in the United States [...] a mental association between Blacks and apes remains. [...] this Black-ape association alters visual perception and attention." The racist perceptions of AA people have been centuries in the making, and they're going to be extremely difficult to eradicate, precisely because they often persist in the sub-conscious and manifest themselves in subtle, but still significant, ways.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://monicajackson.com/blog/2008/02/24/dreams-part-ii-i-just-cant-relate-to-those-people/" REL="nofollow">As Monica asks</A>, "How many times have we heard that a reader can’t relate to the black heroine or black hero? They [the non-AA readers who make such statements] toss the words off as if they are completely understandable." Given the subconscious level on which racism works, I think it's worth taking a closer look. If non-AA readers can "relate" to vampires, English aristocrats, sheiks, spies and billionaires, why can't they "relate" to contemporary black professionals?<BR/><BR/>Possibly they've got the mistaken impression that all AA romances deal with racism, and they'd rather not read about that topic in their romances. I think it goes deeper than that misconception, though.<BR/><BR/>I've seen a comment by one non-AA reader who said that she would not read a romance about AA characters because she does not find AA men attractive. In other words, they're not part of her sexual fantasy. Leaving aside the question of how many readers read romance primarily as sexual fantasy, it's certainly true that there have long been taboos about inter-racial sex, particularly between white women and black men (as discussed above). I think that might well affect sales of romances, since, according to the RWA's 2004 survey results (which can be found <A HREF="http://blackromancereader.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/" REL="nofollow">archived at Reading While Black</A>) "75% of romance readers are White". As for how many of these white readers are also female, although the figures have changed for later surveys, according to the 2004 figures "93% of all romance readers are women. One in five women have read a romance novel in 2002."<BR/><BR/>That's a lot of white women readers. How many of them want to read about men they consider attractive? How many don't find black men attractive?<BR/><BR/>And looking at the other half of the relationship in AA romances (I'm not talking about inter-racial romances just now), they have black heroines. How many non-AA readers wouldn't want to put themselves in the shoes of a black "placeholder heroine"? How many of them wouldn't find a black heroine beautiful? How many of them wouldn't find love between two black people "romantic"?<BR/><BR/>The lack of central romances (with happy outcomes) between black men and black women has certainly been noticed with regards to the movies. <A HREF="http://www.indiana.edu/~bfca/publications/blackcamera/BlackCamera18-1.pdf" REL="nofollow">Alile Sharon Larkin writes that</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>The black woman in the Hollywood films of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s also [like black male characters at the time] provided simple-minded comic relief and she, too, was devoid of sexuality. With this lack of sexual chemistry it is no surprise that these black male and female characters never get together! Blaxploitation films initially reddressed this issue until black female characters were replaced with white female characters. Black men in love with white women became the norm in films like </I>Guess Who's Coming to Dinner<I> (1967) and in the remakes of </I>Othello<I> on stage and screen. This trend continues today as stars of color are matched with white love interests</I> (3)<BR/><BR/>and she asks<BR/><BR/><I>Out of the thousands of Hollywood films that have been made are there even fifty that show black love? I have come up with a dozen films in which black men and women gaze at each other, talk with each other, and have courtships in which black women are desired and actively pursued.</I> (4)<BR/><BR/>--- <BR/><BR/>Larkin, Alile Sharon. "Cinematic Genocide." <I>Black Camera</I> 18:1 (Spring-Summer 2003): 3-4, 15. [PDF of this issue of the journal, including Larkin's article, available at <A HREF="http://www.indiana.edu/~bfca/publications/blackcamera/BlackCamera18-1.pdf" REL="nofollow">http://www.indiana.edu/~bfca/publications/blackcamera/BlackCamera18-1.pdf</A>.]Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-68103717589230086752008-02-25T05:46:00.000+00:002008-02-25T05:46:00.000+00:00I thought the opposite was happening. At least, I'...<I>I thought the opposite was happening. At least, I've always found Richard Wright, Maya Angelou, and other classics shelved under "literature". I've only seen genre fiction in the AA section.</I><BR/><BR/>This is mostly my experience, as well, although I've also seen some double shelving for books that aren't genre fiction. Also, in a lot of the bookstores I frequent, there are separate shelves within broad topics. For example, in history there's a section for Native American history, one for African American history, etc., and then there's an African American Studies section that's different, and there's AA fiction that's different, etc. And I live in what's probably the MOST liberal area of the most diverse state, FWIW.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-39749279333487375342008-02-25T05:26:00.000+00:002008-02-25T05:26:00.000+00:00why isn't Native Son in the literature section now...<I>why isn't Native Son in the literature section now where it belongs instead of being sandwiched between a romance and a street lit book?</I><BR/><BR/>I thought the opposite was happening. At least, I've always found Richard Wright, Maya Angelou, and other classics shelved under "literature". I've only seen genre fiction in the AA section. (I'm not sure whether the store does it because it's genre, or because it's new releases.) But you're not seeing Richard Wright in the literature section?<BR/><BR/>Cross-shelving is one thing, but *removing* him from literature? Suffice it to say, that's not a choice I'd have made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-30294922278773472002008-02-25T04:54:00.000+00:002008-02-25T04:54:00.000+00:00How the black sections started at Borders, accordi...How the black sections started at Borders, according to the <A HREF="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06340/744053-44.stm" REL="nofollow">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reprint of a WSJ article by Jeffrey Trachtenberg.</A><BR/><BR/><I>African-American sections date to the late 1960s and early 1970s, when black culture and identity was generating regular headlines. Writers and activists such as Eldridge Cleaver, Stokely Carmichael and Bobby Seale were redefining the black experience, and booksellers rushed to group them together.</I><BR/><BR/><I>When Borders opened its first new book store in Ann Arbor, Mich., in 1973, it included an African-American section. "In the historical context of the Civil Rights movement, when African-Americans were no longer being defined in terms of white culture, it made complete sense to have a separate department," says Joe Gable, a longtime Borders executive who for many years managed that store. "It still makes sense because race continues to be a defining issue."</I><BR/><BR/>There are quite a few books written over the last few decades that have been illustrative of the black experience. I understand why the section was necessary then. However, why isn't Native Son in the literature section now where it belongs instead of being sandwiched between a romance and a street lit book? <BR/><BR/>I would posit that the majority of black romances do not contain materials or themes that non-black readers can't relate to. Some have seasonings, sure. Just like Southern romance, Aussie romances, and all those HP books with Greek Tycoons and sheiks who are half-white or educated in England so they're not really Arab.<BR/><BR/>I would also posit that black readers don't solely purchase black books, as has been stated. Furthermore, I bet if you polled fans of a particular genre, they would say they'd like their books separated out as well. I'd love for paranormal to be separated from all the historicals and white contemporaries, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. So to just throw it on the black readers "we're doing what the readers want" is a copout at worse, and some selective customer research at best.Seressiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04568727282888354896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-84841794595486403572008-02-25T04:52:00.000+00:002008-02-25T04:52:00.000+00:00I wonder what percentage of white readers read boo...<I>I wonder what percentage of white readers read books by AA authors. Would 96% of white readers be happy to head over to the AA section to look for books?</I><BR/><BR/>If we're talking generally, I would imagine that the percentage is substantial, because in lit fic, for example, AA authors are not stigmatized or segregated as they are in Romance. Then there's other genres, as well. Before I started reading Romance it would not have dawned on me that I would have to actively look for authors and characters of color -- both were so much a part of my reading experience that I didn't have to think about it. Which, I imagine is something that a good number of non-AA Romance readers might experience, as well -- a relative ignorance about racial segregation in the genre and separate shelving (let alone the existence of books that are segregated based on race). <BR/><BR/>This is one of the reasons I think ebooks can be so subversive. I know of one AA Romance e-author who recently crossed over to a major NY print pub (and who has written at least one AA heroine), and she is NOT pubbed by an AA imprint. If she hadn't crossed over that way I wonder if she would have had the same experience. <BR/><BR/>Ironically, I think it takes some effort to develop discriminatory judgments, and that those judgments are assisted when something is advertised as already *different* somehow. So when publishers announce AA-authored Romance as different by segregating it, they're telling readers, IMO, to see it differently. If there wasn't that initial distinction, it would require an affirmative decision on the part of readers to discriminate, and I don't know how common that would be. I'd like to think that it would be far less common than the insidious neglect that non-AA readers can now indulge in through publisher and bookstore segregation of AA-authored Romance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-77146296630766008632008-02-25T03:26:00.000+00:002008-02-25T03:26:00.000+00:00Monica wrote: I think it can work any way if defi...<B>Monica</B> wrote: <I> I think it can work any way if defined by treating somebody a certain way because of race--yes, blacks can be quite racist too.</I><BR/><BR/>I remember back in the 60s, many of the most militant members of the civil rights movement insisted that no white person could possibly speak, write, or teach about the black experience. This may have laid the foundations of the treatment of books by AA authors as (dare I say it?) separate but equal (or not). This is the kind of karma that comes back to bite extremists of any stripe over any issue. White writers may avoid writing about black characters because they feel unqualified to do them justice; and white readers may avoid books by AA writers about AA characters because they feel they'd be too alien to appreciate the story. It's as if radical feminism led to male novelists avoiding having female characters, and women writers omitting male characters.<BR/><BR/>I remember that about 40 years ago I read a romantic-suspense novel set in Canada, with a white female protagonist, a fashion model, and a black photographer. They were living together, and she wanted to get married; but he told her that though he loved her, when he married, he'd marry black. I think she attempted suicide (though it may have been accidental, or the villain messed with her meds); anyway, he came back to her, but I don't think it lasted, as he hadn't really changed his mind. I can't remember anything else about it.<BR/><BR/>(The author may have been Velda Johnston.)<BR/><BR/>Re: Janet Dailey. I believe that the settlement of the lawsuit with Nora Roberts included the clause that all books containing plagiarized material would be withdrawn and pulped, and not reprinted.<BR/><BR/><B>Laura</B> wrote: <I>I think that with regards to plagiarism the main power lies with the author who plagiarises, because she/he starts the process.</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree. Passionately. [MOLE bites Laura's toes.] The MAIN POWER lies with the PUBLISHER, who decides whether to accept, publish, or withdraw the books containing plagiarized elements.talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-37304639687084450582008-02-24T22:48:00.000+00:002008-02-24T22:48:00.000+00:00Okay, so that's where the train derailed, because ...<I>Okay, so that's where the train derailed, because my comment was intended as a response to what I thought you were suggesting: that in both the AA Romance and the Edwards situations that readers had the power.</I><BR/><BR/>Ah, I see. I think we both ended up misunderstanding each other on that issue, then. I think that with regards to plagiarism the main power lies with the author who plagiarises, because she/he starts the process.<BR/><BR/><I>it's not like readers are begging for plagiarized books to be published</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed. I agree. Though sadly there may be some readers who want plagiarized books to be published because they refuse to believe that their favourite author is a plagiarist, even when presented with overwhelming evidence.<BR/><BR/><I>but apparently quite a few AA readers are asking for the targeted marketing and shelving.</I><BR/><BR/>If they're readers who mainly read AA romances, then it'll be convenient for them to find books by their favourite authors grouped together. However, the segregation probably doesn't stop them buying books by non-AA authors.<BR/><BR/>A survey of "1,285 African-Americans concerning their reading habits and their opinions of the publishing industry" that <A HREF="http://blackromancereader.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/can-a-black-author-ever-break-out-statistics/" REL="nofollow">Angela reported on</A> revealed that only 5% of interviewees agreed with the statement that "Every single book I read is written for an African-American audience" and only 4% agreed with the statement that "All the books I read are written by African-American authors."<BR/><BR/>[The other percentages were:<BR/>Most of the books I read are written by African-American authors. 18%<BR/>Some of the books I read are written by African-American authors. 42%<BR/>A few of the books I read are written by African-American authors. 29%<BR/>None of the books I read are written by African-American authors. 7% ]<BR/><BR/>So that's 96% of the AA readers who read books written by non-AA authors. Clearly the overwhelming majority of AA readers do shop outside the AA section.<BR/><BR/>I wonder what percentage of white readers read books by AA authors. Would 96% of white readers be happy to head over to the AA section to look for books?<BR/><BR/><I>the only cohort that receives what they see as a benefit are probably those readers who prefer the segregated marketing and shelving so they can FIND the AA books</I><BR/><BR/>I wonder how many non-AA readers are receiving what they'd see as a benefit from the segregation of AA romances because it means that books they don't want to read aren't mixed in with the ones by non-AA authors/about non-AA characters that they do want to read.<BR/><BR/>[I know, I'm resorting to statistics again and risking looking silly by doing so! ;-) And I'm asking somewhat rhetorical questions about them too, since none of us here can answer them. And I also know that that survey wasn't specifically about romances and AA readers, and it's possible the figures might not have been the same if the survey had only been about romances. But it does demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of AA readers shop outwith the AA section of the bookstore. I'm not at all sure one could say the same in reverse, because it certainly doesn't seem as though the overwhelming majority of non-AA readers shop in the AA section.]Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-42262111316720703772008-02-24T22:19:00.000+00:002008-02-24T22:19:00.000+00:00Blogging about it has gotten more people talking a...<I>Blogging about it has gotten more people talking about the issue in the last 6-8 months (oh let's be generous and say the last year) than in the 15 years that AA romances have been published. We gotta start somewhere.</I><BR/><BR/>That's both sad to hear (that the issue's that far underground) and good to hear (that blogging is improving matters). I didn't mean that it *shouldn't* be talked about on blogs, but that for wide audiences and large presses, *additional* action would serve the issue well. But it's good to hear that the blogging part alone has some effect.<BR/><BR/>I get frustrated with some discussions (not this one) that seem to turn into "But we're talking about it! Why isn't it better?" It's so easy to just keep talking to ourselves, whether it's defending romance from the meanie critics or asking why AA romance is separated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-86138991892532008652008-02-24T17:16:00.000+00:002008-02-24T17:16:00.000+00:00Not trying to be antagonistic, because you said it...<I>Not trying to be antagonistic, because you said it's wrong. But this is an opinion shared by many non-black readers/authors. Really though, isn't it right up there with the old "separate but equal" policies, i.e., "Sure it's wrong, but at least you're getting an education."</I><BR/><BR/>I just want to make the clarification that the ONLY reason I made this comment was as a distinction from the Cassie Edwards/plagiarism issue, NOT to give publishers an out for segregating AA Romance and its authors. And now that I think about it, the only cohort that receives what they see as a benefit are probably those readers who prefer the segregated marketing and shelving so they can FIND the AA books.<BR/><BR/><I>So I replied to Jane, and then you picked up on the point about publisher ethics with regards to plagiarism and also made a direct comparison between the plagiarism and the segregated shelving of AA romances.</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, so that's where the train derailed, because my comment was intended as a response to what I thought you were suggesting: that in both the AA Romance and the Edwards situations that readers had the power. Which I disagreed with, at least in the sense that in the Edwards situation that readers should have ANY burden. I mean, it's not like readers are begging for plagiarized books to be published, but apparently quite a few AA readers are asking for the targeted marketing and shelving. In other words, I see plagiarism and African American Romance as of a different character (plagiarism = bad and should be discouraged, AA Romance = good and should be integrated), which means that I can't bring myself to see publisher treatment of them as analogous, either. Anyway, I think I'll leave tis one alone, now, too!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-65531059948128904282008-02-24T15:33:00.000+00:002008-02-24T15:33:00.000+00:00Hello, everyone.I'm just back from a poetry confer...Hello, everyone.<BR/><BR/>I'm just back from a poetry conference, and won't really be able to catch up until I finish another poetry project next week. One thought, though, did cross my mind.<BR/><BR/>When I saw that Sarah Frantz was planning to substitute Beverly Jenkins' "Something Like Love" for "Lord of Scoundrels" on her syllabus, I was struck by the power of sheer contingency here in academia.<BR/><BR/>Sarah chose that Beverly Jenkins, at least in part, because I chose it a while back for my own classes on romance, and subsequently posted some material about it (essay questions, I think) on line.<BR/><BR/>I chose it for remarkably arbitrary reasons. As I threw together, all in rush, that first romance syllabus, I wanted to include at least one novel by an author of color, strictly on principle. I also wanted to include a romance set in the American West, preferably during frontier times. A little sleuthing turned up Beverly Jenkins, some of whose work (not her contemporaries, obviously) would fit both needs! "Something Like Love" had just come out, so I bought it, read it, liked it, and put it on the syllabus.<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind, this is before RomanceScholar, before Teach Me Tonight, really before I had any solid sense of the scholarly resources out there. I was working on hunches, and on the theory that I'd be learning alongside my students. <BR/><BR/>I know more now about romance, and about Beverly Jenkins' work. Most likely I'll assign or suggest "The Taming of Jessie Rose" next time, for example, for variety and also because my daughter is such a fan. I also know a little more about the impact my little syllabus choices can have on the broader world of romance scholarship. Before I order the next set of books, I'm off to read Rochelle Alers, Monica Jackson, Adrienne Byrd, and other authors, and taking a cue from Monica Jackson's posts here, I'm going to do two other things. First, I'll assign them by genre (contemporary, paranormal, etc.) rather than by author's race, to see what happens. And, second, I'm going to get the students reading up on this very discussion, so that we can all learn more about it as we go. <BR/><BR/>The conference idea is also percolating, but I'll come back to that. Too many projects in the works already, and too many due too soon....E. M. Selingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-19059577165620460262008-02-24T15:08:00.000+00:002008-02-24T15:08:00.000+00:00As far as blogging and talking about the issue, aw...As far as blogging and talking about the issue, awareness is the foundation of any change. People want to shut up any uncomfortable topic and race is one that causes profound discomfort.<BR/><BR/>I still stand by my premise that the consumers are what drive any market. <BR/><BR/>A commenter asked me what black readers (romance readers, I assume) want.<BR/><BR/>Reader wallets are talking and saying they obviously want the status quo. Corporations merely go with how the dollars flow.<BR/><BR/>Cassie Edwards readers must not give a damn about the plagiarism brouhaha or her books wouldn't continue to sell and be released.<BR/><BR/>The publishers knew that the bulk of Janet Dailey fans would overlook her plagiarism and buy her books or they wouldn't have released any more books by her. <BR/><BR/>Romance readers must not give a damn about racial segregation or the books wouldn't continue to be so staunchly segregated and continue to sell.<BR/><BR/>But this doesn't mean that plagiarism and racial segregation are acceptable and good just because they are accepted practices. <BR/><BR/>I think any argument that plagiarism, race segregation or any other wrong should be tolerated just because it's practiced by publishing and accepted by readers is also wrong. <BR/><BR/><B>But the acceptance and tolerance is why plagiarism and racial segregation within romance is going to continue. </B><BR/><BR/>If readers truly didn't tolerate these things, both would stop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-81954716550943402872008-02-24T11:44:00.000+00:002008-02-24T11:44:00.000+00:00Seressia, thanks for giving us some solid facts to...Seressia, thanks for giving us some solid facts to think about rather than my vague speculations about publishers and what their responses/attitudes might be.<BR/><BR/><I>Blogging about it has gotten more people talking about the issue in the last 6-8 months (oh let's be generous and say the last year) than in the 15 years that AA romances have been published.</I><BR/><BR/>As a blogger, I'm glad you think that blogging can have an effect, even if it's only a tiny one. And the timescale you give emphasises for me how long it can take to effect even limited change.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-83981036384216412042008-02-24T11:35:00.000+00:002008-02-24T11:35:00.000+00:00I'm sorry, Laura, but I'm completely confused, now...<I>I'm sorry, Laura, but I'm completely confused, now, lol. I was just trying to say that I don't think the Edwards situation and the AA Romance situation are perfectly analogous. I think I've missed something here because I'm not sure where you've taken this thread of the discussion.</I><BR/><BR/>I was getting a bit confused about why the plagiarism was getting so much attention on this thread too! ;-)<BR/><BR/>Reading back through the thread I think what happened was that Jane brought it up to make a point about reader-power (or rather, lack of reader power). <BR/><BR/>So I replied to Jane, and then you picked up on the point about publisher ethics with regards to plagiarism and also made a direct comparison between the plagiarism and the segregated shelving of AA romances. At least, that's how I read this:<BR/><BR/><I>In any case, though, while the segregation is wrong, IMO, at least there is one upside, and that is that good, hardworking, talented, honest authors are being published, even if their books are being separately marketed and shelved. IMO that should not be enough to ignore the injustice, but it's still, IMO, something that distinguishes the AA Romance issue from the Edwards issue.</I><BR/><BR/>And then attention shifted to Genesis, which is a publisher, and how it had helped create the AA romance niche. My point was that Genesis was started by readers. So, as with the Cassie Edwards situation, a lot of the good that's come out of both situations is due to readers and authors. In the CE case it's readers and authors who helped ferrets and raised awareness of plagiarism. In the AA romance case, it was it was AA readers, AA authors, and also the white readers who supported the company and read the books from its earliest days, who built up a company that, although it had trouble getting its products shelved in the big bookstores, or getting distribution, did succeed in publishing AA romances on a regular basis.<BR/><BR/>So I see the Genesis example as a demonstration of how readers and authors can help effect change and make something good come out of a bad situation.<BR/><BR/>I also think the two issues are at different stages, so one perhaps shouldn't draw a direct comparison between publishers' attitudes to plagiarism now, and the current situation of AA romances. It might be more apt to compare the publishers' response to SavageGate with the almost complete absence of AA romances prior to the early 1990s.<BR/><BR/>The authors and readers of AA romances have been working to raise the profile of AA romances for well over a decade, and although there's been some movement (from almost no AA romances at all to the existence of niched lines) that's taken a huge amount of time and effort, and there's still a huge amount more to do before AA romances join the "mainstream".<BR/><BR/>I don't know the exact timeline, but it seems as though Genesis was set up in 1993, and <A HREF="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HST/is_4_6/ai_n6106181" REL="nofollow">Kensington set up the Arabesque line in the summer of 1994</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>A decade ago, the few black romance novels on the market came out singly and very rarely from mainstream publishers like Dell and Harlequin, recalled Monica Harris, former senior editor at Kensington Publishing and founding editor of the Arabesque line. <BR/><BR/>Harris was interviewing for the position of editor of historical romances at Kensington, when she happened to mention that she had researched the publishing history of black romance novels. "They said, 'We were just thinking of doing that! Do you want in help?'" So, she did. And Harris thus became the first editor at Arabesque. The original authors to join the imprint were Rochelle Alers, Angela Benson, Monique Gilmore, Layle Giusto, Shirley Hailstock, Donna Hill, Sandra Kilt, Felicia Mason, Francis Ray, Ebony Snoe and Margie Walker.</I><BR/><BR/>So it seems like it was a mixture of things which got AA romances on the road, albeit in their niche. And those things included readers doing something, and publishers doing something. And so I agree with Seressia that it's going to take "a multipronged approach," involving all these groups, to keep moving AA romances to where they deserve to be, which is alongside all the other romances in terms of readership, publicity, shelving etc.<BR/><BR/>I feel I should also mention the <A HREF="http://www.romanceslamjam.org/conference/history.htm" REL="nofollow">Romance Slam Jam</A>, which was started in 1995 and is another part of that same momentum, beginning in the early 1990s, which demonstrated that AA authors existed in significant numbers and could draw an enthusiastic readership:<BR/><BR/><I>"The Romance Slam Jam grew out of an early desire to recognize, and pay respect to OUR authors, and to celebrate their craft with their avid fans."<BR/><BR/>Emma Rodgers, Ashira Tosihwe and Francis Ray gave birth to the ROMANCE SLAM JAM in 1995 in Dallas, Texas, to demonstrate what Nikki Giovanni describes as “The Power, Passion and Pain of Black Love.”<BR/><BR/>There was much success at Black Images marketing, promoting and selling the works of black romance writers since the early 90’s that they decided it was time to take their love for romance to a new level by bringing writers and readers together.</I>Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-3714259665378393632008-02-24T10:44:00.000+00:002008-02-24T10:44:00.000+00:00RfP,Laura, I apologize if it sounded like I meant ...RfP,<BR/><BR/><I>Laura, I apologize if it sounded like I meant *your* population numbers were silly! In re-reading, I can see that it probably sounded like that.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry I missed seeing this last night, because there was such a flurry of posts on the thread. But you don't need to apologise. It was just that your use of the word "silly" made me realise that there were areas on which I'd been speculating rather wildly based on figures (like the library ones) which probably aren't representative. So I decided that I might as well admit that I'd been a bit silly to dabble in stats when that's really, really not my area. I think I manage OK if I quote other people's stats, though ;-)<BR/><BR/><I>Especially given I've just caught up on some of your later comments quoting more population statistics, which makes what I wrote look even more pointed.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, some of those stats are more useful than others to the conversation. I think the ones about the number of inter-racial marriages and mixed-race children and non-white people in the UK are useful, because they help give a picture of what the situation is like in the UK. But extrapolating wildly about possible numbers of AA authors and romances wasn't quite so useful.<BR/><BR/><I>Numbers seem so concrete, though they often disguise a lot of unreflected assumptions.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and numbers will seem even more concrete to someone like me who doesn't really understand the background to how they're arrived at. Which is why I appreciate it when you come along and give a more informed perspective on them. <BR/><BR/><I>in general, regardless of what "competence" we bring to the table, I don't think that should bar anyone from speculating. A lot of interesting perspectives get lost if only one sort of person weighs in. You have "competence" in all kinds of areas I don't, which is part of why I learn so much here.</I><BR/><BR/>I learn a lot from everyone who posts in the comments threads, which is why I think of the discussions as being like a seminar, in which the speaker presents a paper to her/his peers and they then point out holes in the argument, ways it could be improved etc.<BR/><BR/>I was having a discussion about competence/expertise elsewhere on the web this week, with Pam Rosenthal, and <A HREF="http://thespicedteaparty.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-novel-from-pam-and-how-molly-w.html#c6730875665888823178" REL="nofollow">I was explaining</A> how little claim I'd make to have lots of it, outwith the very small area in which I focus my work. But as long as one recognises when one's just throwing out hypotheses which might (or might not) be disproved by better informed people, speculation can, as you say, be helpful and stimulate discussion.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-86399520607235722462008-02-24T09:27:00.000+00:002008-02-24T09:27:00.000+00:00what matters is buying books and writing letters t...<I><BR/>what matters is buying books and writing letters to the stores, not blogging about it</I><BR/><BR/>Blogging about it has gotten more people talking about the issue in the last 6-8 months (oh let's be generous and say the last year) than in the 15 years that AA romances have been published. We gotta start somewhere.<BR/><BR/><I>I second Jane's suggestion for people to find out directly from bookstores' corporate division what their shelving/buying practices are as part of the process of making assumptions about where things are shelved. I mean, if there's a separate AA buyer in corp X, do you think that buyer will want to have books increasing in sales shifted over to buying category Romance?</I><BR/><BR/>I spoke with Sean Bentley, the AA fiction buyer for Borders, when we were at RT last year. He believes AA books sell better segregated. He said during his panel that Beverly Jenkins' historicals didn't take off until they were moved to the AA section. (WTH?) <BR/><BR/>I talked to Sue Grimshaw when she was at M&M last year (she did a PAN workshop about promotional opportunities) and she just referred me to Sean. Same with Jane's friend. My questions weren't unusual--what could I, as a romance author, do to get more exposure? Oh, I left out a word--I said <B>black</B> romance author.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, if I don't agree with their policies, my $$, reader and marketing wise, should go to stores whose policies I agree with.<BR/><BR/>So it has to be a multipronged approach.<BR/><BR/><I>In any case, though, while the segregation is wrong, IMO, at least there is one upside, and that is that good, hardworking, talented, honest authors are being published, even if their books are being separately marketed and shelved.</I><BR/><BR/>Not trying to be antagonistic, because you said it's wrong. But this is an opinion shared by many non-black readers/authors. Really though, isn't it right up there with the old "separate but equal" policies, i.e., "Sure it's wrong, but at least you're getting an education."Seressiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04568727282888354896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-37656224668532404152008-02-24T01:16:00.000+00:002008-02-24T01:16:00.000+00:00I'm not sure if it's just that I haven't looked ha...<I>I'm not sure if it's just that I haven't looked hard enough, but a quick search didn't turn up any Janet Dailey novels reprinted by Harlequin after 1998. She's not listed on the Harlequin website. Given that they do reprint other best-selling authors' backlists, and they were reprinting Dailey's novels up to that date, I wonder if this is significant.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know if Dailey's plagiarized books have been repubbed, but I do know she got a HUGE contract with Kensington after the whole plagiarism incident. And on her website she advertises herself as something like the number one bestselling female author in America. Anyway, that deal was inked just a few years after she was sued for infringement, which I know some have found to be pretty distasteful. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be given a second chance, but I think a publisher might also infer that if an author plagiarized extensively and still remains a bestseller that readers don't really care about plagiarism. And IMO that shouldn't be enough for them to ignore charges of intellectual dishonesty in one of their authors. Their own code of ethics should be higher, because they are part of the writing industry, and their own interests are served by not having THEIR authors plagiarized or infringed.<BR/><BR/><I>But Genesis Press was set up by readers. To quote again from the interview you mentioned: "When Honorable Dorothy Colom couldn't find romance books that spoke to her soul, she and husband-attorney, Wilbur Colom and step-daughter, Niani Colom, started Genesis Press."</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, Laura, but I'm completely confused, now, lol. I was just trying to say that I don't think the Edwards situation and the AA Romance situation are perfectly analogous. I think I've missed something here because I'm not sure where you've taken this thread of the discussion.<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, it would be interesting. And it would be interesting to know how those readers learned about Genesis. I wondered if it was maybe a result of how the founders of the company were doing their marketing. Maybe when they started up they knew a lot of white romance readers, or maybe they first advertised in locations which attracted a mainly white audience. Whatever the reason, "As the word got out, we started moving out and we sorta had more black women migrating."</I><BR/><BR/>I tend to be very origin-oriented. So one of the reasons I like to know how things evolved is because I think there might be clues to how we proceed. So if Genesis had success (wildly speculating here about what they did) in marketing to white readers, then perhaps that's something that can be used to sway publishers to expand their marketing of AA Romance, etc. In other words, is there anything in the Genesis experience that might be instructive in the current publishing/book buying environment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com