LETTERS TO THE SLUSH PILE #11

Dear -----

I'm only a couple of pages into your story. I've stopped reading to write this post. Just so you know, On Spec is a speculative fiction magazine.

I know sex sells, but you're far better off starting us off with a hint of science fiction or magical fantasy, not some sex scene that makes me groan (in the wrong way) and talks about 'strokes' and 'blossoming womanhood'. Are you referring to orgasm when you talk of 'blossoming womanhood'? To me, this is 'fluffy sex' prose. Don't romanticize. Write it like it is.

Also, eyes can't 'embrace'. Even when they're emerald green. You might want to check an earlier ABC's I posted, on E is for Eyes, Arms, Legs, and Other Bodily Appendages.

Okay, after penning the above rant, I returned to your story to give it a fair read. I see that you do have an SF element to it. Still, (and for an SF market) you might start with an opening that establishes your story as SF and not romance or erotica.

You also need to think through some of your logic. Since most governments in the democratic world include officials who are 50 and over, I find it highly unlikely that anyone over 50 would be relegated to government compounds. Furthermore, you need to be careful when you target a particular ethnic group  as terrorists in need of mind alteration. There's a word for that. It starts with 'R'.

- Susan.

ROMANCING THE CRONE, PART TWO...

LAST POST, I TALKED ABOUT HYBRID BOOKS, The Tattooed Witch, my debut novel that spans both speculative fiction and paranormal romance, and my frustration with the Big Five NY publishing houses that insist that fantasy and romance genres remain within strictly defined guidelines. (Thank heavens for my publisher, Five Rivers Publishing, which diverges from the traditional publishing model and allows its authors an authentic voice.) I went on to criticize some of the traditional romance formulas, which include a dominant alpha male hero and a tolerance for rape. Shortly after I posted Romancing the Crone on Suzenyms, there was a lot of discussion on my Facebook Timeline about the romance memes, why romance writers adhere to them, and how readers don’t necessarily think the same way writers do. Diane Walton, friend and fellow editor at On Spec, sent me this e-mail (slightly edited, so as to protect identities). She wrote: I asked two acquaintances to read your post about romance writing, since they write romances and paranormal romances. Here’s what one of them said: 

“As much as I agree with her (meaning me) about romance writing, we still have a publisher's formula to follow. In fact, we tried to write a thoughtful, exciting, and historically accurate romance novel, and a lot of it was edited out…as new authors, we are at the mercy of editors' and readers' preferences. If these formula novels were not popular, they wouldn't be selling.”

This note started me on a very interesting back and forth with the writer in question. I suggested to her that perhaps I’d been a bit harsh in my criticisms. I asked her if I could share our correspondence, to which she agreed, as long as we maintained her anonymity. She was worried about offending her publisher. I find what she writes very illuminating:

“I don't necessarily think the formula is a good thing, and for some women who are far more educated and sophisticated in their reading habits, they still love romance, but not the ‘old style’ romance. Many are shifting to historical lit with romance stories built in to get better stories with more depth and richness. I got into romance on the whim of my publisher—the book I co-authored was written as historical lit. She changed it and edited it to fit the romance cube.

If you hate formula romance, you will also hate this one, I think. We had a damn good book until the publisher and editors took out all our careful research and wonderful plot and had my co-author, who took over the rewrites during editing for the experience, insert some hackneyed, horrible ‘sensual scenes’  that are stilted and awkward. (I already had experience working with editors and publishers so I wanted her to have the opportunity.) I’m not putting down my co-author—being a new writer she was intimidated and obeyed—but I wish I’d known. She had to insert love scenes where they didn't belong. I didn't know what was going on until it was too late. It was my mistake. I should have taken over the editing process with the editors and publisher of  this book. 

Frankly, I'm on a mission to change the ‘formula’ and make romance into an intelligent, sophisticated, thoughtful, and exciting genre, instead of the same old crap that’s being pumped out there. If I have to write romances for this publisher, I want them to be good stories. From what I hear, most women readers are shifting towards this as well, but the romance industry is simply not listening.”

She goes on to point out the romance book industry accounts for 68% of overall book sales in North America (I haven't verified this number and I've seen other stats that differ, but the percentage is substantial.) With regards to women romance readers wanting to see a shift in terms of what the industry offers them, she said this is what she continually hears on discussion panels. 

So, how do we change publishers' minds in terms of what readers might rather see in romance novels or hybrid books? We speak up. We offer differing opinions, whenever and wherever we can. We encourage our readers to do so, too. 

ROMANCING THE CRONE...

RECENTLY, I CHECKED OUT NovelRank to see how my debut novel The Tattooed Witch was doing. Sales are slow; I wish they were better. I have to remind myself to have faith in my publisher’s advice that over the long haul, the book will likely make as much money as it might have in six months, if a bigger NY house had picked it up. Sometimes, it’s hard to keep the faith.

As much as I like sharing what I’ve learned about writing in my ‘ABC’s' posts or my more recent ‘Letters to the Slush Pile’, I also use Suzenyms as a platform to promote The Tattooed Witch and the rest of the trilogy. Part of the trouble is that the books are hybrids. My agent told me last year (before the book sold to Five Rivers) that the marketing departments of the NY houses didn’t know where to place it – the concern was that there was too much ‘strange’ magic in it, which might unsettle romance readers, and too much romance in it to appeal to the fantasy reading crowd. 

From some of the reviews I’ve received, the fantasy readers (many men, surprisingly) haven’t minded the romantic elements. I’m sharing a portion from Dave Laderoute’s review of The Tattooed Witch on Goodreads, here:

“Honestly, going into this book, I was a little wary; it came across as a ‘woman's book’ and, well, I'm a guy. Two or three pages in, I realized I was wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong. This is a fantastic book for anyone to read (okay, perhaps not for some younger readers, as in some places, the book—if not actually explicit—is pretty clearly treading into mature places involving violence and/or sex). The author has drawn some extremely compelling characters, and placed them in a well-constructed, consistent and richly-textured world that resembles our own Medieval Spain. Miriam, the main character, is both strong and vulnerable; she is far more than the dreary old female tropes that plague most speculative fiction i.e. ‘the guy with boobs’ or ‘the shrinking flower/damsel in distress’….” (Dave goes further. If you’d like to read the rest of the review, you can read it here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18174746-the-tattooed-witch.

Anyway, I very much appreciate his thoughts. But it does occur to me, if fantasy readers are okay with some romance depending on how it’s handled, just how far are romance readers willing to go? I’ve given this a lot of thought. So far, I haven’t done much to promote the book to the romance reading crowd. The Tattooed Witch doesn’t follow classic romance formulas. Before the book was published, my agent warned me that most romance readers want only one love interest. The Tattooed Witch has two. I wanted to explore the different types of love we experience – so, two very different men representing different kinds of love. Alonso, a disembodied spirit, is my protagonist Miriam’s ‘soul mate’. Joachín is her earthy, physical love; they share a strong sexual chemistry but don’t see eye to eye. Neither man is the typical love interest portrayed in most romance novels, ie. the strong, arrogant, and potential rapist that so many romance novels present.

Years ago, long before I wrote Witch, I bought a ‘how to write romance novels’ book and quickly set it aside. Its suggestions turned my stomach. Here are a few of them, slightly revised:

1). Make the hero rich. (Alonso is dead, and Joachín is poorer than poor, a vagabond and a thief.)

2). Make the hero proud and disdainful, sure of himself, strong and virile. (Neither Alonso nor Joachín is disdainful, nor are they always sure of themselves. Like most men, they’re vulnerable and make mistakes – sometimes terrible ones. They also let Miriam know, fairly early on, that they love her. I have never liked disdainful men. Why should I expect my readers to? Miriam’s problem is she loves Alonso and Joachín both in different ways. I explore their relationships further, creating an unusual and frustrating love triangle in The Tattooed Seer.)

3). The hero sees the heroine as an utter innocent or a schemer. (To me, this kind of ‘innocence’ is just another word for stupidity. Why should my heroine have to be innocent? Why should men see women in one of these two ways, which also reflect the Madonna and whore stereotypes? Why should Miriam have to be any less than what her counterparts are?)

4). Early on, the hero scorns the heroine. This is shown through how he smiles at her (cruelly, mockingly, etc.) (Oh, please. I hate this kind of crap. First of all, portraying the hero in this way is stereotypical. If you’re going to make your hero a ‘bad boy’, do it in ways that are provocative. Push the morality borders, but keep him likeable. Any man who sneers at a woman isn’t likeable, he’s abusive. I find it disturbing that some women find this attractive.)

5). The heroine sees the hero as a threat. There is often the potential for rape. If he does rape her, it must be for some reason that excuses him – he was drunk, for example. (This is where I stopped reading the book years ago and set it down. I understand that this is a sexual fantasy, but I don’t condone the message it imparts – it’s okay to victimize women; they find it desirable.)

I will never, ever, write this kind of schlock. Because I don’t, this may be why the book hasn't yet appealed to the romance reading crowd.

I can’t believe it won’t, though. Surely, we’ve outgrown such lame excuses for a good story. If romance readers are quick to embrace novels like ‘Twilight’ and other books that include a fantastical hero—a vampire—then I fail to see why they wouldn’t like a ghostly priest who falls in love and is an honorable man. Or how my protagonist is faced with two impossible loves – one, a spirit, and the other, a man who loves her more than life but is her complete opposite. Romance readers are tolerating supernatural elements now, more than ever. The boundaries between paranormal romance and fantasy overlap and blur.

(If you'd like to read a sample of The Tattooed Witch, Amazon includes a free peek of the first four chapters here, plus a five star rating with more great reviews. If you're wondering about the release of The Tattooed Seer, I'm hoping it will be available by summer, 2014.)