No romance, please. We’re mystery readers.
Every so often, I pop over to the newsgroup rec.arts.mystery to check out their latest chatter, and I came across this particular topic: “Do romance writers have an advantage?” It asked, in short, do romance writers have an easier time getting published as mystery authors, and how on earth would such awful writers as Sandra Brown, Janet Evanovich, Nora Roberts, and — ahem, yours truly — ever manage to get their mysteries published otherwise?Â
Normally I’m a rather mild-mannered person, but there were follow-up comments on this topic that made me want to get out a gun and start shooting people. The majority of those comments said, essentially: “Romance writers are talentless hacks who write purely by formula. I read one (or two) romances back in the Pleistocene Age and wouldn’t dream of even picking up another one, unless I was sick and dying of boredom in the hospital.” There was this one comment that pretty much sums up what they think about romance:
 Romance seems to be pretty much nothing *but* formula –
the identical formula of the love triangle and the woman who
has to “tame” the “wild” man — maybe 90% worth. Â
Mysteries, while they do have formulae, have a huge field of
variations — serial killer procedurals, psychological thrillers
told from the killer’s pov …Â So far as I
know, Romance doesn’t have anything like that.
Mind you, these are comments coming from people who actually admit that they haven’t read a romance since they tried Barbara Cartland as teenagers. That’s like saying, “oh, I ate chop suey once, when I was ten. I haven’t tried it since, because I know that Chinese food is awful. And of course I’m an authority on the subject.”
Or: “I read a Hardy Boys mystery when I was twelve, and it was awful. So I’ll never read another mystery because I know what they’re like.”
As Tabitha King once said, “That’s a really powerful position to argue from! Â Ignorance!”
But, okay. Deep breath here. I’ll ignore the post that said GRAVITY was such a poor book it goes to prove Tess Gerritsen’s a hack. (GRAVITY has enough glowing reviews and awards and a listing in Stephen King’s ON WRITING as one of his favorite books to take away the sting of that post.) I’ll just address the topic here: Do romance writers have an unfair advantage when it comes to selling mysteries?Â
Since I’ve been honored in both genres (a Rita Award for THE SURGEON; a Nero Award plus an Edgar nomination for VANISH) I think I’m qualified to address this issue. And my first reaction is this: why would anyone think that being published in romance makes selling a mystery any easier? There are legions of romance novelists who have not been able to break into the mystery/thriller genre. Just as there are legions of writers of all stripes who haven’t been able to break in. The examples cited in this discussion thread (Sandra Brown, Nora Roberts, Iris Johansen) happened to have been mega-selling authors before they started writing mysteries. (Oh, and by the way, Nora Roberts’s mysteries weren’t even written under her name, but under the name J.D. Robb, and they sold well even before anyone knew who J.D. Robb really was.) So, imagine you’re a publisher. Imagine that an author who regularly sells a million paperbacks a year says, “You want to publish my new thriller?” Do you suppose you MIGHT want to publish that book?
Of course you will.
So the examples cited on the discussion thread have nothing to do with the fact these ladies are romance authors. It has to do with the fact they have a zillion fans and a proven track record. Their romance writing isn’t what gave them the advantage; it’s the fact they’ve already demonstrated they can reel in readers. Stop attributing it to the fact they’re romance writers. They are bestselling writers, period. No wonder they’re published.
When I sold my first thriller Harvest, I was not a bestselling romance novelist. I was earning, oh, about ten grand a book. My previous sales were definitely not an advantage to my being published as a thriller writer. Do you suppose the editor who bought Harvest thought: “Oh! An unknown!  But she’s a romance author, so let’s put a ton of money behind this book!” Of course not. They put their support behind the book because, I assume, they thought it was a great book.Â
Do romance writers in general — even those who aren’t already bestselling writers — have an advantage when it comes to selling a first mystery?  The fact that they’re already published, in any genre, is of course an advantage. Just as a published SF writer or horror writer would have a better chance — because they’ve already demonstrated they know how to write, unlike the millions of merely aspiring novelists who can’t even land an agent.Â
But romance novelists, as a group, may actually face more challenges than other genre authors when they try to break into mystery. And the reason is written all up and down that discussion thread: many mystery readers loathe a romance plot in any way, shape, or form. Some of them even admitted that if an author at any time in her career ever wrote a romance, they wouldn’t pick up her mystery novel. Their hatred borders on the irrational.  They think they are too discriminating and literary for such drivel. A brush of the lips, a longing glance, and BAM! They slam the book shut. They will eagerly devour pages and pages of spattered blood and glistening entrails, but a man and a woman falling in love? Horrors!Â
Those who’ve read my books know that I do not shy away from glistening entrails. Heck, I’m one of the few who’s actually seen glistening entrails and I’m not afraid to write about them. I can write about them with more authority than 99% of mystery writers. But I also write about human beings.  So how do we human beings get on this earth? We fall in love, have sex, and have babies. We’re much more likely to do these things than commit murder. And to ignore such a powerful emotional force as sexual love is to revert back to Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys sexlessness — mysteries which are far less realistic than any romance novel. (Does anyone really think that Nancy and Ned weren’t getting it on in the back seat of her convertible?)
I’ve blogged in the past about my struggles to be accepted as a thriller writer. Even though I’ve now written more thrillers than romance novels, there’ll still be some critic somewhere who’ll dismiss me as “just another romance author.”  In BLOODSTREAM, I wrote a four-paragraph love scene. This was in a book filled with autopsies, gory deaths, an amputated thumb, and school shootings. Yet the critic zeroed in on those four-paragraphs as evidence that, yes, I was just a romance author.
So no, I do not think that romance authors have an unfair advantage. I think we have a disadvantage, because certain jerks think that once you’ve written a romance novel, you are somehow tainted for the rest of your life and no one should ever take you seriously.Â
Lawrence Block, an award-winning crime novelist and one of the most gifted writing instructors around, has never been shy about his past as a writer of paperback porn. Why should he be ashamed of it? It was a writing gig, it paid the bills, and he used it as a vehicle to hone his craft as a storyteller. No one ever puts down Larry Block as “just an ex-porn writer.”  Dammit, he’s a crime writer.
But those of us who once wrote romance will, it seems, never be accepted as crime writers. We’ll always find our names popping up in “they’re just stupid romance authors” discussions. And the comments are always along the lines of “and because of romance writers horning into the genre, serious mystery writers don’t stand a chance.” Because of course, mystery authors are the real artists here, the ones who never write a bad book, the ones who never write by formula.
Well, lemme tell you the mystery formula: “A crime is committed. An investigator seeks out the truth. The truth is revealed.” Most crime novels cleave to this formula. Some writers do a dazzling job with it. Some writers are, to put it plainly, hacks.Â
Is there anything wrong with the formula? No. Just as there’s nothing wrong with the formula for a romance novel: “A man and woman are attracted to each other. Conflict or crisis keeps them apart. The conflict is resolved.” There are a million different ways to tell this story, just as there are a million different ways to tell a mystery. And any mystery reader who continues to insist that romance novels are all exactly the same doesn’t know squat.Â
Why do these discussions keep popping up? Beyond sheer ignorance of the romance genre, there’s another theme beneath the surface. And that’s jealousy. Whenever I hear a mystery writer whine, “These ex-romance authors are crowding the mystery market!” I think: “Ah. You can’t sell your book because it’s just plain lousy and no publisher wants it. And you have to find someone else to blame.”Â
It’s so much easier to blame “those romance novelists” or “the narrow-minded industry” or “ignorant editors” when one’s book doesn’t sell. I’ve taught enough writing courses and read enough amateurish manuscripts to know that there’s a reason that 99% of those manuscripts remain unsold. And I’ve also heard the writers of those same awful manuscripts complain bitterly about how well Patterson or King or Cussler sells when “my book is obviously so much better!”
They have to blame someone. And it might as well be the evil romance writers
Â
Â
Do you seriously think the romance genre is like Shakespeare??? I’ve never read Shakespeare on my own. The only story I ever read was Romeo and Juliet, and that was because we had to read it in high school. Good grief! Before you judge a genre, read a few books in it, at least!
Putting a copyright on a work doesn’t mean it can’t be studied in school. And I don’t know what copyright laws, if there were any, back in his day were like, but these days, the moment you create a work (writing, art, or whatever), it’s copyrighted. Registering a copyright gives you more proof and more rights to compensation should anyone violate your copyright, but you don’t have to register your copyright.
What does Dean Koontz have to do with romance? That’s what this blog was about. Do you judge the whole horror genre the same because you don’t like Dean Koontz? And, if I understand you right, you’re saying you’ve only read one Koontz book, so you’re judging all of his books, plus the whole horror genre, because of it?
I’m not a big fan of Stephen King, either, but I’ve found that I did like a couple of his books, nevertheless. One I absolutely loved. But again, that’s the horror genre.
Movies often stray far from the books they came from. The books are almost always better. You say you “watched the movie, so [you] didn’t have to read it.” Why did you have to read it at all? Was it a school assignment? Movies often change much of the book.
ekiushi;sassy devil-doesn’t the short story/novelette format seem more appropriate for horror?it’s hard to sustain at novel length from what i have seen,and i go way back to the days when arkham house classics were available at $ 3 or $4 apiece as new books
Sassydevil – Someone above, I’m not bothering to go back and look it up, commented about Dean Koontz. He has nothing to do with romance. Take it up with that person. And I haven’t read ONE book. I’ve read HALF of ONE book. At least get my reading achievements correct. I won’t be trying Koontz again, until I can convince myself to get over the last half book of his I read. Did I say I was judging the entire horror genre on him? Unless you are reading into the’inner meanings’ of my comments, then I didn’t say that.
So what, Stephen King isn’t my favourite author? I don’t have time to read a book every single moment of every single day. If I don’t like an author, even based on one book, I am more likely to read the books of authors I already like.
No, I do not seriously think all romance is like Shakespeare. I’m not an idiot. However, I still don’t want to throw myself into just pure romance novels. If I want romance, I’ll watch a movie. (I have tried to read a few romance novels before, perhaps they were just bad ones, but they were really boring. Of course, they came from my school library, there is no accounting for the taste of the librarian) If I want blood and gore I’ll read a book. Oh, I’ll probably hope for a movie too.
As for Shakespeare, come back to me when you’ve been subjected to five years of him, six plays including The Tempest, and have had to write countless essays on what you’ve LEARNED of yourself and others from studying the text. AND you’ve had to watch the film versions of these, namely Macbeth and the Tempest. Okay, I’m touche – I have a speech on the Tempest tomorrow.
The comment about the copyright – it was a joke. I know damn well there isn’t one. Never could be one.
Was the Da Vinci Code a school assessment? No. I just didn’t want to read it. Then I realised the movie wasn’t far off and decided I could wait. Or are we talking about the Stephen King book I read? And No, that wasn’t an assessment either. I believe that was a present. Movies often stray from the books? Oh really? I really wasn’t aware. I always wondered why the ending was different in the film version of Hannibal.
Ekiushi, you have my curiosity going now … you’ve told us (very clearly) what you don’t like to read. So what authors DO you like?
Ekiushi, one more question … if you feel that strongly about Shakespeare, why on earth have you spent five years of your life writing, reading and learning about the man? You sound so outdone and burnt-out that I feel a tad sorry for you. Go do something you enjoy (READ something you enjoy) and let Will bug you no more.
I didn’t say you said you were judging the whole horror genre on Dean Koontz, or Stephen King. I asked if you were, since you definitely implied that you’re judging the whole romance genre on Shakespeare: “Romance probably annoys me thanks to bloody Shakespeare.” Additionally, I think you insulted people here by assuming they’d not only disagree with you on Shakespeare, but they’d have an attitude about it.
And I didn’t say there’s anything wrong with not liking Stephen King. Your manner of speaking suggests judgements based on limited exposure, and I’m commenting on my understanding of what you’ve stated.
You should make your jokes more obvious. Your sarcasm and attitude are certainly clear enough.
I think Cynthia’s got some good advice for you as well.
Shakespeare isn’t optional at my school, and most people on the board of studies seem to think it is “important” to learn about. I would much rather waste my time doing something more interesting.
Oh, I like to read some things. I am currently reading Hannibal Rising. I’ve had to stop reading it though, I can’t find it.
No, you don’t have to have an attitude about Shakespeare. If you feel insulted that’s fine. Surely I don’t have to explain my assumptions behind why I suspect most people (or at least some) here have favourable opinions on Shakespeare.
Yes, limited exposure. You are right. I haven’t really given Stephen King a chance. Or even Dean Koontz. I still don’t plan on reading anymore of their books anytime soon. Wait, that isn’t true. I do plan on reading a Stephen King book. Someone lent it to me. I probably should find out who what was. However, considering that I’ve got heaps of work, assessments, exams, other books, I probably won’t have time to read it until the end of the year.
If I actually had the time I would read more, that’s not to say I’ll jump into romance novels, but I would probably try Stephen King at least. You make my dislike of romance sound like a great sin. Perhaps I should insert the fact that I’m only 18.
Next time I make a joke, i’ll put a joke tag on the end. Hell, I’ll even put sarcasm tags on the end.
Damn, Ekiushi. I love all those writers. Even Shakespeare.
Koontz and King have really transcended any sort of genre labels. They are what they are. Brilliant.
I thought Dreamcatcher was a masterpiece. The movie sucked, IMO, but the book is as skillful a piece of modern lit as you’ll find anywhere. Bag of Bones is my fave by King. Give it a shot if you find the time.
You never answered the question. Who DO you like? Do you even like to read? Just curious.
No, I didn’t answer the question. I had to go to school. So, I kind of rushed the last comment.
I like reading. Really. Well, I like Mary Higgins Clark, Jilliane Hoffman, I suppose I must like Harlan Coben… I can’t remember much about them. I have six of them, so I must have liked him. Ben Elton, I like James Patterson, err… Michael Connelly, Patricia Cornwell. Oh, Thomas Harris, Douglas Adams, John Grisham. And I am undecided on Sandra Brown – I have read two of her books, and I have a third still to read. I’m not sure about them yet. There are a few more, the names just escape me. However, when I went over to look at my books I found Hannibal Rising!
I would have been 14 when I attempted to read Dreamcatcher, perhaps that’s why I didn’t enjoy it… I’m still not going to read it. I also have Lord of the Rings over there, doesn’t mean I am going to read it. Well, even if I refuse to read Lord of the Rings because the font is too small. That’s not really the point.
So, yes I do like reading. Just not Shakespeare or Dean Koontz (He will always bother me). Of course Shakespeare is meant to be performed, not read out in a classroom. I watched the Australian Shakespeare Comany do A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Probably the only thing of Shakespeare I enjoyed. It didn’t make the theory side any more interesting.
Well, personally I’m rather fond of Chabo the Wolf Baby.
I never said I was insulted because you don’t like Shakespeare or romance. But you’re being 18 explains a lot.
Additionally, I think you insulted people here by assuming they’d not only disagree with you on Shakespeare, but they’d have an attitude about it.
And you’re lucky that I’ve decided not to take the comment about my age as an insult. I easily could.
meeeeoooooow
it’s encouraging to know that 18 year olds enjoy reading books and discussing them-it seems to be an endangered activity for that age group these days
)
Ekiushi – I’m almost twenty and have never read Stephen King either. It’s not that I wouldn’t it’s just his books are so incredibly long.
I think you’re narrow-minded for saying you don’t like romance novels because you don’t like Shakespeare. Romance as a genre really has nothing to do with Shakespeare. Shakespeare is not written in modern language and yes, most of the plot lines are quite ridiculous.
The comments above me prove how diverse the romance genre is and there is something for everyone. Take for instance the book Savannah Breeze by Mary Kay Andrews. It’s a romance, but there are also elements of suspence and plotlines besides the main character’s love affairs.
As a last note, I think you should read some Meg Cabot before you think twice about never reading romance. (I really liked Queen of Babble)
{{sigh}}
This “issue” never fails to puzzle (and irritate) me. I wrote my MA thesis on British detective novels, and I’m published in romance fiction, so I’m familiar with both sides of this essentially spurious debate. (Romeo and Juliet is a love story, btw, not a romance. It’s not really about love, it’s about the divisiveness of hate and how destructive it is. And Shakespeare wrote as fast as he could to make a living, so he could be called a hack, too.)
It’s one thing to present a well-reasoned, well-informed opinion about what is in fact a matter of personal taste. It’s quite something else (read: immature, insular, bigoted, ignorant, tactless, and utterly arrogant) to condemn an entire genre and its writers and advocates because one dislikes it.
Interestingly, the romance readers who join in this fray are usually also readers of mysteries, thrillers, suspense, and a whole bunch of other genres that aren’t under discussion. They tend not to preface their remarks with “I’ve only read one mystery but…” or “I read a few Nancy Drews when I was a kid, so…” They are also the reason that the romance genre has become mother to a wide variety of sub-genres that combine the conventions of romance fiction with those of science fiction, fantasy, mystery, action, espionage, futuristic, and a laundry list of paranormal sub-genres. The genre expands to reflect the interests of the readers and the authors.
Are there formulas in genre fiction? Well, gee, how else can you “categorize” something without a concensus about essential standards? Are there poorly written romance novels? Yep, just as there are poorly written novels in every other genre and sub-genre. (There was a time, not so long ago, when mysteries were considered suitable only for compost and “real” readers and writers did not indulge in such “trash.”)
Do romance authors have an unfair advantage in transitioning to mystery/ suspense/ thrillers? Given the vitriolic tone often aimed at romance authors and their work, it’s hard even to ask that question with a straight face. Romance writers have to create vivid and engaging characters involved in not only a romantic situation but a plot of some kind. They have to make the obstacles between hero and heroine big and bad enough to keep them apart yet not ultimately insurmountable, and they have to integrate those romantic problems with the plot. Writing romance novels is like what some wise person said about Ginger Rogers: She did everything that Fred Astair did, only she did it backwards in high heels.
Are romance novels less realistic than mysteries, etc.? Hmm. Well, we all know a fair amount about pair-bonding (even those among us who seem to be against it, judging by the vehemence with which they reject any inclusion of it in their mystery reading). And sure, we watch CSI and Cold Case. But how realistic is it for an average person to stumble over one dead body, nevermind an unending series of them, then have to help the cops solve the crime?
As for the professional investigators, surely they’d all retire (if they didn’t die of heart failure first) early if they spent all their time dodging bullets and other lethal things. Every PI I’ve heard talk about their work says there are some exciting moments punctuating mainly grunt work and the boredom of surveillance.
Here’s a point that no one has made during this discussion, one that seldom gets made during any debate on this topic: At their essences, Romance and mystery/ suspense/ thriller literature (and all the other genres) have the SAME THEME. They are stories about the survival of the human species, whether through pair-bonding despite apparently insurmountable obstacles, or through the discovery and removal of someone or thing that threatens the survival of the human species.
Otherwise, what’s the point of detecting and solving brutal crimes, of bringing the bad guys to justice, either legal or cosmic? Surely it’s not just to solve the “puzzle.” Why else bother to hunt down the bad guys if not to make the world safer for those who seek a suitable mate with whom to create the next generation of humans?
As someone here (Tess?) said, people who can’t get their own work published need to blame someone else in order to feed their denial. The mystery/ suspense readers who vigorously and viciously condemn romance fiction, the ones who loathe and ridicule even a hint of pair-bonding in the books they read, make me wonder what they’re afraid of.
BTW, RWA created the awards category of Single Title with Romance because of the many suspense, etc., novels that have some romance woven in but are focused more on the external plot.
It’s funny because when I was younger, it was more much permissable to read horror and suspense than it was romance. There are a lot of romances out there that emcompass traits of different genres – action and military with Suzanne Brockmann, action, violence mixed with vampires with J.R. Ward. I love it when I get to be on the edge of my seat with a book and yet know there will be a relationship somewhere.
I still don’t quite understand how vampires translate to the romance genre, but they are very popular right now. As with everything, there should be a sense of evolution with books, change is good… grey areas between genres are good. A good book is a good book. One author does not define an entire genre, any genre.
As for Meg Cabot, as much as I love romance, I can’t stand chick lit. That’s a whole different topic, but I didn’t mind her Size 12 Is Not Fat. I found the mystery thin (er, no play on words intentionally), but she is clever.
Excellent post, Katy.
Go, Nora! Fantastic post today.
As for “Gravity,” that is my absolute favorite of all of your books!
I am really getting tired of going over this, however, it seems I will have too. And to the person that called me narrow-minded, I think you are annoying. Because that’s my mature response.
What I said was, going back to my original post, Romance annoyed me. Do I need a reason to dislike romance? It’s a matter of taste. For instance, not everyone likes reading fantasy novels. Not everyone wants to read Jane Austen. Not everyone likes Harry Potter! Are we going to curse them to oblivion over this horrible crime? They don’t agree with you on something. Something must be wrong with them. Because if someone disagrees with me then they are complete idiots, who obviously haven’t given the book/genre a try! Jehovah Witnesses aren’t allowed to read Harry Potter, or stricter ones at least, they obviously haven’t given it a try, those narrow minded people! Honestly, some of you people make it seem like because I happen to not like the romance genre there is something wrong with me. I’m an 18 year old female, I don’t want romance, I want blood and death. We have a paradox! Wow.
My comment about Shakespeare, possibly became unclear because I’m the one that had the speech on Shakespeare, so therefore had to think about him way to much. And that was a really weird sentence, but anyway. What I meant was, when you have to study Shakespeare every day, look at detail in the romantic plots of the story, the supernatural events, I for one, don’t want to come home to read MORE romance. I want to read blood thirsty novels that get me weird looks when I run into book shops to buy them.
You can argue that Romance isn’t like Shakespeare, and you’ll be right. And can we get off Shakespeare already? I don’t have to explain my dislike towards him. The fact that I’m 18 should be enough said. Anyhoo, back to my point. I don’t like romance. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind some romance. Just other ones, where the main focus seems to be the romance, I’d just rather not. When I come across romantic subplots in various stories, I spend the rest of the novel hoping that the love interest will die. Are romance writers bad? I don’t know or care.
And finally, I’m not going to read Meg Cabot. What do I have to say to get the point across? I don’t want to read a romance novel. If I want romance, I’ll watch a movie.
As for my comment about wanting love interests to die, allow me to give an example. In the Surgeon, I wanted Cordell to die. I actually can’t remember why, but she annoyed me.
Talentless hacks? Look, anyone who can write and sell ANY story is a writer, NOT a hack. A hack is someone who tears up the efforts of others publicly. Pretty much what you have here Tess is the cyber version of the grade-school bully.
Laugh all the way to the bank. They have no idea how damned difficult it is to write a winning story.