Don’t Be Judgmental About What People Like to Read-- The NYT Book Review Fails Again

I would like to start this post by saying I hate the fact that I have been calling the NYT Book Review out for their failures recently. Specifically, I was [and still am] very angry about the Book Match column [it’s still the pinned tweet at the top of my Twitter timeline], but there is a much more detailed discussion of the larger problems here.

I am a life long home delivery subscriber of the paper. I walked a mile, literally [round trip], every day in college to get my reserved copy at A.J Hastings. I would seriously think twice before moving somewhere that home delivery of this paper was not an option.

But despite this, and despite some positive changes the NYT Book coverage has made over the last few years, all I want to do after this weekend’s debacle with this Romance column“A Roundup of the Seasonal Romance Novels” by Robert Gottlieb is shake my fists in anger. 

Why are people still making fun of Romance books? Who cares if you like them or not? Who care if you think they are “good Literature” or not? If you don’t like them, don’t read them and most certainly, do not write a column highlighting the genre for the biggest book coverage media outlet in the land and inject it with your judgey-mcjudgers attitude. This does not make you seem smart. This does not make your seem Literary. This makes you look stupid, petty, and mean.

There are so many things wrong with this column. The first of which is that it is supposed to highlight the best of the genre right now and all it does is disparage the genre. I am not going to go through and point every problem out because Ron Hogan already did an excellent job at that in his piece, “All the Dumb Things You Can Say About Romance Novels, In One Convenient Place.” I especially like this statement which condemns the author [a respected editor of the likes of Toni Morrison and Doris Lessing]:

Now, the New York Times may not be the only place an 86-year-old white man get away with saying a black woman’s characters don’t seem very black to him without anybody in the editorial chain chiming in about whether this literally gratuitous swipe is really necessary to the overarching theme of the essay. But it’s a place where this sort of thing is not uncommon. 

A couple things I noticed on  my first reading of this column [yes, I have read it more than once] were:

1. Gottlieb says there are only two categories of romance right now-- Regency or Contemporary. WHAT?!?! Okay, that’s just straight out wrong and any decent editor would have questioned this. Heck, any librarian would have immediately called foul by pulling out all of the paranormal and Amish romances waiting to be shelved at this very second. Here is the Romance Writers of America’s most recent list of all of the subgenres, and please note, Historical is a subgenre under which Regency falls, but Regency is by no means the only historical period covered in Romance novels.
2. His anger about Romances always and forever ending with the HEA and marriage is actually even more troubling. THAT IS THE RULE OF THE GENRE. If it doesn’t end that way, it isn’t a romance.  Again, I defer to the experts at RWA with their definition of the Romance Genre which states that a Romance must have, "An Emotionally Satisfying and Optimistic Ending: In a romance, the lovers who risk and struggle for each other and their relationship are rewarded with emotional justice and unconditional love." What is wrong with you Gottlieb? Next you are going to tell us how annoying it that Fantasy relies on the “crutch” of magic to tell a story. Oh, I’m sorry, the editors wouldn’t let that in because men write Fantasy so it is a higher genre. Women writers and women readers aren’t worth as much, so we can make fun of the fact that their genre has rules and tropes. 

Again, there is much, much more here, but Hogan does an excellent job of breaking it down, so read him too. And, since he is a man standing up for the genre and its readers, people might actually listen.

Look, I am not surprised that a Literary Fiction editor wrote condescendingly about Romance. I am not naive. But I am angry that the editors at the NYT Book Review let this drivel be published the way it was written.

Finally please know that I am not a Romance expert, or even a fan, but I have been on the record as saying that Romance readers are among my favorite to help. They love their books and they can tell you why. They know what they are looking for and can discuss their personal appeal preferences. Most importantly, romance readers have taught me how to be a better RA librarian. I have learned how to listen to what readers are asking for and then apply that to the resources to identify titles for them even when I am not a reader of that type of book myself. Romance readers give us feedback. They cheer when we get a suggestion right and lay into us when we are wrong [nicely]. Also, they are the best book talkers around. You want to learn to book talk better, ask a romance reader to tell you about their recent favorite. I promise you will learn something.

I love Romance because the fans love it. They energize me to find them another wonderful read.

Our first rule of RA Service, the fact that we are all guided by as we start each day helping readers, is Betty Rosenberg's, “Never apologize for your reading tastes.” Now I get that book reviews are supposed to judge a book’s merit. Again, I am not naive, I am paid reviewer of genre titles. I understand my charge. I currently love Hematophages by Stephen Kozeniewksi. It is an awesome horror novel. But is it the best book I have ever read? Of course not. But that wasn’t my charge to compare it to ALL books. I was reviewing it’s merits as a horror novel, and as such, it is wonderful!

When others in the book world decide to be judgmental about an entire genre of books in principle, rather than judging each book on its merit based on the genre’s rules and tropes-- that is wrong. It is mean. It is detrimental to all genre reviews and reviewers because it is unprofessional.

And, most importantly,  it doesn’t help any readers find their next good read. And NYT Book Review, I ask you, why else would you have a Romance column unless you wanted to help Romance readers? Seriously, why did you print this because I cannot figure out why except that you are unprofessional and mean-- both things I don’t think you are or are trying to be.

There are many people waiting for an explanation and an apology.