Earlier this week I read a piece about Danielle Steel's interview with CBS News in which she denies being a romance author. I found the statement so shocking that I emailed a link to the story to Mr. Quack. From trolling the blogosphere since that time, I understand that Ms. Steel's statement surprised a bunch of folks.
It also reminded me of a USA today piece about a novelist who lives right down the road a piece from me, Nicholas Sparks. Mr. Sparks was pretty vehement about not being a romance novelist too.
What do Danielle and Nicholas have in common? They're both laughing all the way to the bank.
You know what else they have in common? People read their books for the love stories. Instead of sneering about the romance genre, Steel and Sparks should be thanking romance readers for supporting their work and buying their books. See, romance is the not-so-little genre that could. In these down and out times when everybody is cutting back on everything, people are still buying romance. Today more readers than ever before need something that will take them out of reality and sweep them away on an emotional joy ride.
Steel says she "thinks of romance novels as being more of a category" but her books are about "situations we all deal with" like loss, war and illness and jobs. I wonder what Danielle thinks romance novels are about? Situations we don't deal with? All books, Danielle's included, pick particular people, places and things and blow them up, bigger than life. It makes them more interesting.
Sparks says he doesn't write romance novels - he writes love stories and he thinks that is "a very different genre." Romance novels, he says, are supposed to make you escape into the "fantasy" of romance but his books are love stories more akin to Jane Austen and Shakespeare. Sparks thinks his work is most like Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms." As an aside, Sparks detests Cormac McCarthy's work, calling it "horrible." McCarthy has been compared to William Faulkner. I guess that would case Sparks v. McCarthy as Hemingway v. Faulkner. REALLY? Talk about a fantasy world....
At the core of Steel and Sparks comments is an obvious disdain for romance novels and a heavy dose of two writers who found so much success that they started believing their own PR. The Steel story brings the criticism home more because her comments would surprise the most readers. Danielle doesn't do romance? So why have we been reading and buying her work all of these years? Our bad, I guess. It's a mistake we can correct starting today. We can forgive poor Nicholas a wee bit because in romance terms, he was born with the handicap of being well... male. If he considered himself a romance writer then - in macho terms - he'd think he was calling himself less of a man. That's a shame. A male romance writer finding the kind of success Sparks has would make him a real trailblazer. Instead of appreciating his own possible contribution to the romance genre and showing biased bitches like me that men can bloody well write romance, he enters his own fantasy world where he's like Hemingway.
And it is a fantasy world because all writers of fiction are, after all, professional dreamers. ALL fiction is, in a sense, fantasy. It's a world created in the head of the writer and populated by people he or she crafts. Sparks and Steel want to elevate themselves far above writers who happily wear the romance novelist label - like yours truly. See, they've come not only to believe their own good PR, they've come to believe in all the bad PR that the romance novels get all the time. They think that romance novels are born of a formula while their work is born only of creative genius. Dani and Nick - get over yourselves. The promise of a happy ending is not the kiss of death; it's a big ole' dose of hope in a pretty hopeless world.
With apologies to Sparks who hails from the sister state to my homeplace, love stories are the heartbeat of all romance novels. Romance novelists may be imaginative enough to set the love stories in other times and other places - sometimes even in other worlds altogether - but all of that is just smoke and mirrors and yes, wallpaper. The relationship is the story.
In elevating themselves above romance novels, Steel and Sparks place themselves on pedestals high above and way apart from their readers. And that's a big, big, mistake. Romance readers are some of the smartest folks on earth but they're also some of the most fiercely proud and stubbornly loyal. "Romance readers are considered among the most loyal fans ..." If Steel and Sparks are so much better than folks who read and adore romance novels, then those buyers should remember that the next time they're browsing a real or virtual bookshelf.
You know what? Even in today's downturned economy, romance readers continue to buy in much higher volumes than readers of other genres. In fact, romance novels were one of "10 winners in the recession" according to US News and World Report. Hemingway and Faulkner didn't make the list. The author of the piece I just cited, Meghan Daum of the LA Times, calls romance novels "formulaic," "overwritten," and "underdeveloped." But even she had to admit that the romance novel buisness is pretty much recession-proof. If Sparks and Steel don't care that romance sells, then their publishers surely will. As Time magazine pointed out, while overall book sales numbers are down, revenues for romance giant Harlequin are UP. More than 1 out of every 4 books sold is a romance novel. "A love story is a love story" AND THE GENRE IS AUTHOR DRIVEN. So writers who disdain the "romance novelist" label risk alienating the most loyal book buyers on the planet. Will Sparks and Steel's publishers support their declarations?
If their publishers support their big ticket authors' disdain of romance novels, then let 'em put their money where their mouths are. Let them affix warning stickers to the books - Warning. This Book Is Not a Romance Novel. The publishers should make sure that the books are never shelved anywhere near all those romance novels that the buyers have stopped by the store to browse. If they don't like the buyers then Sparks, Steel and their publishers surely don't want the buyers' money.
Sparks and Steel have come to think way too much of themselves and way too little of their readers. If a reader is looking for a romance and picks up and likes a Sparks or Steel book - then the book IS a romance novel. Once a book is printed, the story is no longer the author's, it belongs to the reader. And the ultimate opinion of any book isn't the writer's, the publisher's, the book store's or the reviewer's - it's the readers'.
How should Sparks and Steel answer the question? How about something like this: "I've never considered my books to be romance novels, but my opinion isn't worth a hill of beans. The stories are whatever the readers believe them to be. I just hope they enjoy the books."
Sparks and Steel overrate themselves and underrate their readers. That's a dangerous mistake for any writer. It's an error that I hope I never make.