Thread by @JenReadsRomance

I'm going to live tweet my reading of this book -- starting a new thread so I don't drag anyone I tagged into the abyss.

https://twitter.com/JenReadsRomance/status/1253739097996374021

Ok. So -- a few notes before we begin. The book does not have a bibliography or works cited.

Memoir starts off with him describing that when he was a prison librarian, there was a woman inmate who loved Nora Roberts, so much so that it was her nickname. And Prisoner Nora Roberts didn't like her reading being judged. Words of wisdom...

... and then he pivots to a discussion of Anna Karenina. Because Anna was a *prisoner of fate*. And he quotes a long passage where Anna feels shame for reading a book, and he wonders why contemporary romance writers are shamed!

"A reader of contemporary romance can relate. Romance readers are constantly shamed." He then talks about a random house editor who sends her grandmother boxes of romances but they don't ever talk about them, and bookstores who don't carry romance.

SIR.

You're just going to let all that shame creep in but never interrogate where it comes from?

Conclusion: He's mad that AK had to die. She didn't have to die. Tolstoy decided to kill her. Which literary character do you think he's going to talk about next? 10 minutes only before I come back with the big reveal.

IT IS IN FACT EMMA BOVARY! It's almost like we can see all these moves coming a mile away!

"When I think of those stories today, they seem to me less about why AK and EB ended her life than about why her (male) author decided to kill her. What was it about her choice of reading that so threatened these writers. Why does Don Quixote's fixation on courtly romance lead...

...him to heroic misadventure and a happy ending, but women who try something like that perish in disgrace?"

I guess Avi doesn't know the patriarchy exists. Which is kinda ironic since it's how he got this book deal.

Let's pause for a fun game. You pick a foundational romance author you would mention if you were writing a book like this, and we'll see how many times that author is mentioned.

For example: Nora Roberts is mentioned TWICE (which I have already mentioned.)

Beverly Jenkins: once

Woodiwiss, Jenkins: once
Brenda Jackson: twice
EL James: six

Zeroes: J Lindsey, B Small, EE Ottoman, KJ Charles, T Dare, S MacLean, SEP, Kleypas, S Kitt, J Crusie, A Cole, K Cole, J Guillory, .... nobody with the first name Susan.

But this, and I swear to God and by all that is holy.

Fabio. Is. Mentioned. 69. Times.

Sixty. Nine. Times.

I am not going to lie to you. I might have just ascended to a higher plane of being.

Next, he visits an RT convention (I'm at like 3%) and attends a panel. And although he quotes THE WORDS of several authors in actual quotation marks, he never once mentions these authors by name. Instead referring to them as "an author" or "a panelist."

But, he does mention seeing cover model CJ Hollenbach but was "too lame to say hello."

Then, he launches into a description of his friend Nellie (This is an alias), but she is "a romance industry dynamo." Nellie is there with him at RT and showing him the ropes.

Here is Nellie's description of him to someone else: "So, ok, he writes this nonfiction books where he, like, joins some group where he isn't welcome. And they end up haaaating him. It's hilarious."

Avi writes, "It wasn't how I'd described my work but it was painfully valid."

I'm skimming ahead now, kinda. More RT recaps of panels in which he never names the authors he's quoting. But he ends with this gem, a woman taps him on the shoulder to ask if she's in the right place. She had been looking for "mental illness and fiction."

Avi: "She'd been sitting there for ten minutes, apparently unsure if this was the correct panel."

Now Avi, what conclusion are we meant to draw from this anecdote?

Let's take a poll on what he might have meant.

He stopped to explain that it's super weird how romance gets no respect and how it's a real shame and why are't journalists interested into digging into that question.

Then, he recounts a scene in Kafka's unfinished work, Amerika.

What year was RT in New Orleans?

Ok, first mention of romance authors is at 10%. He talks about how in LitFic, they wonder if the novel is dead. But romance has different problems: it took 40 years for RWA to give RITAs to black authors -- especially considering Jenkins & Jackson are bestsellers.

He then spends a few pages describing the controversies w/ Cherry Adair, Faleena Hopkins, and KU book scammers. "Quaint are the days when people hated S. Meyer for her Twilight series. She was at least an actual author who wrote actual books for other actual human beings."

"In short, romance has all kinds of conflicts, but nobody believes that its problems are caused by the demise of the novel. On the contrary, the novel is perhaps doing too well. And that, for me, was an enticement."

The author is recently divorced and likes the promise of happiness. He knows how happy that is.

So I was like, Ok, I'm going to cling to that non-shitty thing.

But then he recounts the story of the first person who gave him the idea that he could be a writer. A drunk women at a bar in the Salt Lake City airport strikes up a convo with him. Upon hearing she's a writer, she flashes her copy of a romance -- Seduction of a Proper Gentleman.

She then says, "Write one of these. That's how you make money as a writer." When he named some problems he was likely to face, she said, "You're just like my son. Just do it, okay? For your Mom."

All right, so he has actually mentioned a specific romance title. After the drunk lady in the bar, he mentions Merry Christmas Cowboy by Janet Dailey. Just that he's reading it. Nothing specific about it.

But don't worry. He does quote Nathanial Hawthorne in 1855 as the first person to call these books "written by the 'damned mob of scribbling women'" as "trash."

He then talks about his first romance writing group, he happened upon it by accident bc they met as his laundramat.

And he basically realizes that none of his books are romance because he doesn't actually get what the HEA is even though he swears he's been reading lots of romance.

And I would like to say this explicitly.

At 15%, there's no sense that he sees romance novels as individual, interesting stories. This is a "genre" and each "book" is a cog in the wheel. To have a book ostensibly about someone's journey through romance be so completely devoid of individual books is...not great.

So anyways. He then goes on to list the eight essential elements of the romance novel as defined by Pamela Regis. Either from her 2007 book A NATURAL HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE NOVEL, or maybe cribbed from other sources.

newyorker.com/magazine/2009/…

He likes these rules and he likes the romance reader's facility and knowledge of them.

Then, he reveals that the last thing he did before getting on the flight to New Orleans was his divorce hearing, and then a flashback to conversations with their Rabbi about the divorce.

SO. This guy. He pitches a story to some editors at RT about a polygamous Mormon family since he'd recently done some research on the Mormons. "It would be similar to work in the popular Amish romance subgenre, but unlike those books, my books would be frankly more erotic."

Some folks are interested and some aren't, but his therapist has this to say.

SIR. Literally every romance author you see on here mentions how painful it is when outsiders assume that their interest in writing romance is because of their own personal sexual proclivities or baggage.

So thanks for this.

Ok, apparently "a panelist" referred to herself and her fellow unnamed panelists as "A group of Scheherazades." So he does a little tap dance about The Arabian Nights as a kind of proto-romance.

Back to RT. He mentions Sylvia Day. Now, I would like to point out that we are 21% through this book, and this is the first author he NAMES from the RT convention. And check this out.

And I'd like us all to sit with this description of her. "As I descended an escalator at RT, the giant head of Sylvia Day, followed by a black choker, suddenly rose in front of me like a dead-eyed plant."

At first I thought he actually saw *her*, but it must have been promo.

I'll just wait there for us to take that in.

A woman he's with calls this "creepy" and admits she's not a fan of Sylvia Day. "Day, like megaseller EL James, or megaseller Danielle Steele, is a polarizing figure within romance."

Polarizing bc people don't get why they are megasellers with bad prose.

He finally quotes some named women authors from RT. Mimi Milan's struggle with whether to get a new pen name if she tried to move away from christian romance.

The some conversation about some really terrible "Mr Romance" type competitions. Model CJ Hollenbach is quoted.

Next he describes Kathryn Falk and relays some quotes from her about why she shuttered RT.

He interviews an author named Tere Michaels who worked for RT and writes LGBT romance. She mentions how ardent fans are about favorite characters.

Author: Are you afraid of the reader?
Michaels: ....but, yeah, I'm afraid of readers. If you're smart, if you know what's good for you, you live in constant fear.

It is a "common sentiment" among authors that readers are to be feared: readers feel betrayed, they'll stop reading books, persuade others to stop reading, launch an online campaign to get others to stop reading.

OR LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO ANNIE PROULX, FANS MIGHT ARRIVE ON YOUR PROPERTY.

Where do I fucking start? It doesn't even matter that Proulx isn't a fucking romance author, what matters is the drastic difference between not reading you anymore and showing up at an author's house!

THEN. HE. EXTENSIVELY. SUMMARIZES. THE. PLOT. OF. MISERY. BY. STEPHEN. KING.

Small digression from a middle school English teacher. We're all about skills-based reading instruction, and can I tell you about the Notice & Note signposts. We use them to teach children about how to critically read both fiction and non-fiction.

I'm liberally using the "quoted words" strategy in this thread. Which voices are being heard? And I'd like to point out that a quarter of the way into this motherfucking book, he has only talked about FICTION by men and NONE of them are romances.

So far, most women are unnamed, or in the case of Mimi Milan, flirting with the idea of changing her named. 1 romance title has been mentioned by the author as something he is reading, but there is no actual description of the plot or the characters; as compared to books by men.

Now class, what is the author revealing to us as readers about his stance towards the romance genre? What is he revealing about what stories he thinks are worthy?

paragraph mention of Elizabeth Bennett and what she wanted from Darcy.

Now we're on to Fabio. "I've wondered at the meaning behind his rise to fortune. It seemed like some kind of Big American Story."

Yes, in fact, and Kelly Faircloth has the tea: pictorial.jezebel.com/the-steamy-thr…

Katrina Jackson has the tea:

https://twitter.com/katrinajax/status/1226555912376246274

Hell, *I* have the tea: kirkusreviews.com/news-and-featu…

Discussion of Fabio & CJ lasts from 28% to 33%. End of PART ONE.

PART TWO. I am not really reading, more like power skimming.

Starts with a lyft ride where the author is a romance writer who wants to meet Sylvia Day, so she goes on a cruise, but then notices it's "work" for Day rather than a mission or something.

Then he goes on a camping type sleepover with other romance authors, contemplates his urge to write gothic romance, actually describes a 1960 book called Mistress of Mellyn by Victoria Holt at length.

Asks his friend Jesse if he's ever read a romance. "Of course not," he said.

But then Jesse recalled reading BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, and our author concludes that he in fact was a romance reader bc of this book.

Does this story end differently than the movie?

Long digression on whether or not Brokeback is a romance. The internet cannot decide. Can we?

Is Brokeback Mountain a romance?

HINT. (just kidding. I know you don't need one.)

AGAIN. I would like to be clear. this is an author writing a memoir about his journey to understanding genre romance. THIS IS NOT LIKE A DISCUSSION AT A COCKTAIL PARTY WITH A BUNCH OF RANDOS.

Moving on. He's broadly talking about romance's history: Pamela by Samuel Richardson, The Flame and the Flower, Don Quixote (I'm only naming titles not the thrust of his argument)... cool digression to Yiddish novels, or shund. Tom Jones, Cassandra, Jane Austen

bold choice, he mostly discussed Northanger Abbey -- lengthy discussion of Catherine, the book.

The Scarlet Letter. he notes Hawthorne subtitled it "a romance."

"Women who wanted to be taken seriously as novelists by the male establishment of that era had to make a show of distancing themselves from other women novelists...George Eliot published "Silly Little Lady Novelists" is 1856...

He continues later, "Shortly after she published this manifesto--anonymously--she took on a male pen name to help market her first novel."

Any experts on Eliot want to weigh in?

Long discussion of how men suppressed the successes of popular women writers such as Jane Austen. Henry James' The Velvet Glove.

And now we get to Edith Hull's The Sheik. "It's hard to overstate the influence", "prefigured the outrageous global juggernaut of Twilight and FSOG"

He quotes a romance author at a 2019 conference that argued "sheik offered readers immediate comprehension of he genre."

He follows up that post 9/11 with Islamaphobia on the rise, interest in these romances quadrupled.

And that is all he has to say about that.

Let me help you out, sir. Sheik romances?

"for good reason, there remains much emphasis on the problematic depictions of the alpha hero in The Sheik, but a large part of the appeal of that story, to its 1920 readers, was the radical vision of a female-led adventure story."

Here we are at 50%. Are you ready?

"In contemporary terms, it was a much less virtuous, but no less sincere 1920s version of Eat Pray Love, which in a variety of ways, including its polarized reception, can be considered a nonfiction romance."

He does nothing to interrogate the racism of either texts and the cultural appropriation they traffic in.

And honestly, I'm done. I have fun things to do and romances to read. I feel like we all know enough to know this is not for us. I honestly am not sure who it's for.

Ok. Sorry. I worked on a puzzle for a while. Now I’m just skimming. I am floored by his inability to name known authors. I don’t get this.

He refers to An article in the Journal of Gender Studies without mentioning the Title or author. Is this normal? This is so weird to me.

He interviews and quotes Shelley Laurenston about cover design, mentioning 2 titles: Bite Me and Bear Meets Girl.

Discussion of secret book cover design meeting he went to with Nellie. Now he’s about to talk to a ghostwriter.

The ghostwriter, Tina, can’t disclose who she wrote as since the author in question has been dead for a decade. The interview with Tina was long, I skimmed until the next section.

He goes back home. Hangs out with his writing group. Thinks about how he doesn’t like Medical romance. His writing group gives him lots of good advice. He seems to genuinely like them & their work.

Now he’s talking about his real love life. I’m skipping all this.

He’s drawn to Amish romance. Here’s why. I have no comment on this.

Long exploration and justification of Amish romance. I didn’t read it.

Me about this whole Amish thing. I’m just going to have to leave that.

A woman in his writers group teaches him about Fanfic.

He talks about Moby Dick and how he wasn’t the first to notice it has a “homoerotic romance” I think he’s connecting this to queer romance?

Back to Fanfic. He interviews and quotes a fanfic writer Angstgodess003.

Now he’s talking about money in romance and who makes it. This is clear from the whole book it’s what he cares about. We are at 71%

Long discussion of KU and it’s problems. He quotes Courtney Milan on book scammers, but it appears he’s just quoting her tweets.

Back to the writers group. A new polarizing member has joined.

I’m skimming all this.

He has a tattoo that is a quote from Thomas Pynchon. Name drops Foucoult and Kafka. More about his new girlfriend. End of part 2.

Part 3: lots of discussion of his research and writing process for his Amish book.

Skim, skim, skim.

I’m skimming because every time my eye stops too long, I get mad. He doesn’t want to write a romance. He wants to write a cash cow.

More about the girlfriend. A heartfelt and sad description of a miscarriage.

They go on a trip. He thinks of Mary Shelley. More description of his Amish book, which I am continuing to give the cut direct.

He’s married. They had a baby. Moved to Michigan. He was at 2019 RWA. He describes the 2019 awards ceremony and a session where Brenda Jackson was the speaker.

He quotes LaQuette’s speech and describes how truly inspiring he found it.

He ends by reflecting on his life with his wife and new baby girl.

I MIGHT have broken the threading bc i am on my phone. I’ll check tomorrow and maybe wrap up with some thoughts.

I did in fact break my thread. Here's the rest. You're welcome?

https://twitter.com/JenReadsRomance/status/1253891100361834502

Ok, I've slept on it and here are some thoughts, please understand that when I say that I skimmed, I meant I skimmed. These conclusions are based on a fast read, not a close read.

I actually liked that he talked about he was jaded after his divorce and the power of the HEA drew him in. That's what draws a lot of us to romance and that motivation was fine with me.

I do have some serious fucking questions about the audience for this book. And look, I get that memoirs are about personal experiences, but honestly I don't understand why this author is the one with this book deal.

Just kidding. Yes I do.

Here is what the text makes very clear: there is a long, venerated history in European/white literature for romantic relationships. That is part of the well-respected literary canon. At some point, romance as a genre splintered from "literature."

Again, I would like to be clear that I skimmed like hell. I'm sure there is more nuance to these arguments. I did not care to read them.

At that splinter point, the thrust of his argument seems to be that Romance as a genre is interesting because there is money to be made.

He does not ever talk about genre romances he enjoyed or thought where interesting. He does not name favorite authors. Imagine writing a book about TV shows, but only mentioning movies. It would be pretty clear that I thought movies were the real art form and TV was to make $$.

That's how this book is.

We see his absolute disdain for the romance genre by its absence in the text.

Our author would like to make money as a writer. He would like to mine & explore his own past and background. He thinks romance writers are not actually all that smart, he thinks romance novels aren't that good, and he thinks romance readers are unhinged.

But that money, tho.

He is willing to appropriate the Amish romance both because it sells and to mine his own personal demons because he was raised in Orthodox Judaism, which he feels is kinda similar because it is also closed and conservative. And because he's been assured that Amish romance sells.

He does interview a great number of readers and inspiring writers. As an inspiring writer himself, these conversations are usually framed about what he learns from them. Again, that's fine. He claims to be learning the genre.

I don't know who would want to read this. But I can think of a million other people who could write about their journey to romance that I would rather read.

Hi, one last clarification -- I skimmed a great deal of this book and am responsible for any errors. So for example, if I say "he didn't talk about X" it might have been that I didn't see it. That is on me, but I did try to make it very clear I was skimming.

I don't think that changes my major problem: That this book engages very little with genre romance and prioritizes the voices of LitFic and/or male authors.

The author has offered to let my followers read his book and you should do that if you want.