A Roundup of the Season’s Romance Novels

The people who review mysteries and science fiction for the NYTBR like what they read. Robert Gottleib apparently doesn't like romances. Why was he chosen to review the field?

Ugh! This was horrible. For an actual reviews of current romance books I recommend the wonderful website "Smart B***ches, Trashy Books" which despite the title treats the genre with respect and also does a hilarious take down of Mr Gotliebs work here.

I have also read many (not hundreds....surely it must be in the thousands range by now) romance novels. The authors I have read over the years have inspired my interest in various topics, from the historical period the novel was set in to an even more esoteric interest in the Gnostic Gospels. These authors spend an incredible amount of time researching history, facts, as well as details that make their stories believable and riveting. The romance genre has been the best selling one in recent publishing history. Scribd (an e-book subscription service) changed their subscription terms because romance readers took advantage of it's favorable terms. From Publishers Weekly "In July of last year (2015), Scribd also announced that it would scale back its offering in certain genres, including romance, where voracious “power readers” were consuming titles at an unsustainable rate." In other words, voracious "power readers" of romances broke the original business model Scribd was based on. The least that the NYTBR could have done is to have someone who actually reads the genre write this article. Mansplaining indeed.

I thought this was an article about this season's romance novels, but it focuses mostly on those published decades ago. Romance novels have evolved in the 22 years since my first one was published in 1995. Furthermore, Mr. Gottlieb is not qualified to condescend to romance authors and readers for two reasons--if not more. First, he clearly does not understand or respect the genre. Second, he has a conflict of interest stemming from his role as a literary agent representing many romance authors. Perhaps he is no longer receiving a commission from Trident Media, but I know several romance authors who contracted him as their literary representative some years ago. A "reviewer" should be knowledgable about the subject and objective. Correct?

Where is Sherry Thomas in your article? A talented writer, she creates reasonable plots, charming characters, and believable sex.

Dear New York Times, at least find someone who has an appreciation, respect, and experience with reading romance novels. I could not read this to the end. Also, most of these so-called season's novels are the least exciting, original of the batch.

When I've read the round-ups for mystery/thriller books here in the NYTBR, a body count was never part of those mini-reviews so why does this writer feel the need to do a check list of sex scenes for romances? The condensation levels are pretty toxic here, not to mention the sneering at Debbie Macomber, who writes some very lovely and lighthearted books which make for much better reading that this article. By the way, I always notice that when people clearly unfamiliar with a genre have to talk about it, their references always out of date. Barbara Cartland was a founding member of the old school style but not relevant to the books supposed to be discussed here,nor Rona Jaffe. Update your references if you want to be taken seriously on this subject!

When I saw the cover for this Book Review, I was thrilled to see The NYT finally covering romance. (I run one of the world's biggest English language sites focused on the genre). The paper has assiduously ignored romance for decades and I'd hoped that, finally, this genre--written predominantly for women, by women, and concerned with issues many care deeply about--would get a thoughtful look. Nope. Instead, I read a condescending piece written by an elderly white male who appears to have no familiarity with Romancelandia. This article not only mansplains romance, it reinforces our deeply sexist, patriarchal world. I am still holding out hope that, someday, the world's best paper will celebrate women telling women's stories. This article doesn't.

I have read hundreds (no kidding) of romance novels, nearly all are Regency or earlier, a handful contemporary. I am not alone when I say they bring me pleasure to read them (it's a massive market), regardless of whether there are sex scenes or not. I do belong to a book group, and we have yet to read one. After reading this article, I feel remiss in never suggesting one, as there are a great many excellently written ones. I am guilty of not standing up for my favorite genre. Is there a competition among us to see who has read the most erudite books out there, and therefore romance is shunned or secreted away? It would be a shame, because the romance genre is just plain fun and we all need that in our lives, right?! If you haven't read this genre, may I suggest one by either of the masters, Kathleen Woodiwiss, (R.I.P.), or Judith McNaught. I Dare (as in Tessa) you!! Wine and a chair by the fireplace make this experience sublime!

I agree with many of the concerns raised by other readers, but the bit that really set my teeth on edge was the awesome racist moment when Mr. Gottleib decided to tell the clueless reader that: "Zoe and Carver are African-American, though except for some scattered references to racial matters, you'd never know it. (Well, you would from the cover)." First, there's no reason for any author to identify the race or gender of her/his/their characters. Second, calling out the characters as "African-American" makes it abundantly clear that this is the one and only book in the review that is written by a Black author or an author who isn't "White" (no other author is identified by race as far as I can determine, and I don't think "White" or "Caucasian" are mentioned anywhere). Third, "racial matters" aren't necessarily about being Black, but apparently the author is unaware of the fact that Native Americans, many Hispanics, East Asians, South Asians, and so forth, are also not "white" and are also very aware of "racial matters." I think I'll stop here.

I'm a woman, and consider myself a feminist, and I don't get why this is insulting to women. I have intelligent, accomplished friends (at least one with a PhD!) who love romances, because of the escape from so-called real life they enjoy and find stress-reducing. But, c'mon, these books are light reading.They're entertainment. They're attractive because they are simple and enjoyable for many women to read. (Full disclosure: I'm not a fan. I've often thought I'd enjoy books like these but I find them too predictable and badly written to enjoy. But then I have a tin ear for music, and don't like blues and jazz -- so.... ????) They're not meant to be literature, nor to be taken seriously, so let's everyone lighten up. As a writer myself, I'm just happy people are reading any books at all.

This article was offensive in so many ways that I won't even go there. But what about all the gay romances? Written by both men and women? They are just as wonderful as the traditional romances. It is slow but inexorable that romance is slowly bringing men into the fold. Primarily as writers in m/m, but more and more into other areas. And there are men who also read romances. There is nothing wrong with wanting a happily ever after. That is about all that ties together the wide variety of books written under the romance moniker. Are there bad books? Stereotypical books? Of course. But there are also groundbreaking, emotionally challenging, progressive, and uplifting romances. Many authors have written blog posts to challenge this horrible article. I am published in the romance genre and proud of it. So are many of my friends. I will happily provide a list of hundreds and hundreds of wonderful romances that don't fall into Mr. Gottlieb's narrow view of a genre he knows nothing about.

I didn't realize the writer was a man, since I didn't look at the byline or the author's note, until I started reading the comments. I thought it was a woman who shared my feelings toward the genre and my disbelief that intelligent women are so avid for it. As a girl I loved Anya Seton's historical romances, especially "Katherine," but let's be honest: if as an adult your fiction-reading is mainly romance novels, you're allowing your relationship to men to shape and constrain the life of your imagination, and how is that a healthy way to come to terms with love? And while the article may be condescending, how is it misogynistic? "Misogyny" implies hatred or anger toward women or the state of being female or a compulsion to dominate women by doing them harm, physical or otherwise. It isn't the same as sexism (the practice of showing favoritism to men in the belief that they're inherently superior to women) nor is it the same as gynophobia (a fear and aversion toward the state of being female—Trump's horror of menstruation, for instance). The success of "Fifty Shades" shows that plenty of women have a psychologically violent relationship to being female, and isn't that misogyny? Romance novels just seem like a form of self-loathing, a way to say "I would know I was good enough if an impossibly handsome man found me attractive." I see why romance novels are entertaining, but it's their premise that's insulting to women—not calling attention to what that premise is.

I guess I can understand the remarks from the true believers in the genre, but my initial reaction was that this review has the perfect format: She/he/they-plus sample of sexual passage. If I wanted to pick up one of these novels for fun, I would have a good idea of what to choose. And if I then fell in love with the genre and would find such a review objectionable, I would not let it fret me. I just would put it away and pick up one of those novels I love. Life's too short to read stuff that irks you.

Well. This is certainly a view of a billion-dollar genre, but it's not a good view. Where do I even start? With the inclusion of Quinn's The Duke and I, a book that, while it holds up wonderfully as a great example of the new wave of romance, is 17 years old? With the idea that romance featuring African-American heroes and heroines must conform to some idea the author has of what they should be portrayed as? Maybe it's the insistence on taking single lines from sex scenes and presenting them as proof of the genre's deragatory nickname, "porn for women". I'm sure Nora Roberts is thrilled that the author believes he knows what women want and believes that she knows it as well. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of men and women in the publishing, blogging, and writing world who write eloquently about the romance genre, people who could have touched on the rise of self-publishing (see Courtney Milan), romances that are written with characters of color where their skin isn't a plot point but simply a part of who they are (Alisha Rai's Forbidden Hearts series is some of the best romance I've read in years), or the surge in male/male romance, not just as a niche market, but that's now being published by powerhouses like Avon. Instead, you chose the easy mark-- the jabs at 50SOG, the scoffing at sex scenes that aren't just PIV without stimulation for women, the idea that it's ultimately harmless fluff. It's lazy editing, it's lazy publishing, and you should be ashamed.

Wow, what an epic fail this article was, an insult to women in general, and little to no understanding of the genre. Did he actually read any of the books or just skip straight to the sex scenes so he could comment on those. Am seriously considering ending my subscription over this.

I would have loved to read a thoughtful critique of recent romances that highlighted examples of the best of the genre. It would have shared on social media an in-depth analysis of the history of romance and current subgenres. Instead we get this misogynistic, racist claptrap. I'm glad to have the NYT cover romance, but this is very disappointing. It's hard to choose a worst part, but the one I've been angry about for days is "Oh, yes — Zoe and Carver are African-Americans, though except for some scattered references to racial matters, you’d never know it." Why was this sentence included? How are African-Americans supposed to act, pray tell?

Wow. I didn't realize newspapers sat down and said 'hey, how can we insult women today?' I feel like the percentage of misogynistic men who will find this clever is much lower than the 50% of the population who just got told books written by them and for them are silly. Was this article vetted by anyone who actually enjoys MAKING money? I've never noticed smugness and condescension being particularly winning marketing strategies. But hey, I'm just a silly woman with dreams, what would *I* know about anything?

This article was clearly was written by someone that should not have been assigned this task. I really (really!) dislike sports, especially football, but I can see that many people get pleasure from playing and watching it. Why can't some people understand that each of us have different tastes, even if they aren't our own? I used to read many different forms of literature. I switched over to mainly Romance a few years ago. There is enough sadness, fighting, crime, poverty and natural disasters (I could go on and on) in this world. I want to spend my free time reading about a story with a happy ending. Yes, these books can be very simple, but not always. They do all have a happy ending, which is what I want in this crazy world that we live in. I want an escape from that, and these books give me that escape for a little while and then I can go back to the sadness of the real world. I also will add that I went to a Romance Times convention fan day 2 years ago since it was in my city. I met so many authors of romance and they all were so generous with their time given to fans. I discovered that the authors all support each other in this amazing network. I met so many fans that were excited to be there and discuss the books we enjoy. To discount this wonderful community so poorly with this article is offensive to all that enjoy it. Please have someone in the future review Romance books with an open mind, instead of this clearly biased article.

Good to know the patriarchy is alive and doddering in the pages of the NYTBR. You don't need to find a reviewer who appreciates a genre to review it, but you should try to find somebody who's not chuckling to himself as he recycles ideas that were stale in the 70s. Try again with an intelligent reviewer who will resist the urge to mansplain something he does not comprehend. Or here's an idea: get an open-minded female reviewer instead of sexist male; women have had enough men telling them why they're not valuable or worthy of respect.

There are so many other people who could have given romance novels the commentary and critique they deserve. Instead, a clearly biased and uninformed person attempted to discuss something he doesn't know anything about, or at least didn't take the time to really find out more about this genre, which could arguably be what has kept publishing going strong. No, not just Fifty Shades, but books that are cherished and enjoyed. Try again, and find someone willing to do the work to see what's actually going on. Send someone to RWA chapter meetings, someone to the RT Book Reviews RWA national conventions... find someone to write about what makes this genre interesting and wonderful. Don't bring it down. Bring it up, and celebrate a large part of the publishing industry.

Well, if it was your goal to belittle the romance genre, as well as insult romance readers and writers, you have succeeded.

I'm a romance reader and an academic who studies the genre, and I'm completing revisions on an essay about the cliched nature of news articles/media that represent romance novels based on little but cherry-picked evidence (usually the sexy bits) and the cover images. I start with an early article in Playboy(!) and I think I just found the article to end it with. I'll be sure to thank the NYT in my Acknowledgements for publishing this gem.

Wow. Ok so I have to admit that I don't read romance. Haven't in a LOOONG time. But holy condescending article!! I feel like we've been whiplashed back into the 1980's and I'm only 29! Who the heck thought it was a good idea to have Robert Gottlieb write this?? First off, did he ACTUALLY read the books or did he just Spark Note them? Secondly, for all that I used to mock the fact that I don't read romance, I mock ME not the authors! Good grief! The least NYT could have done was find someone with at least 2% MORE enthusiasm for the genre than the 100% contempt Mr. G has for it. Yikes.

Thank goodness someone undertook the thankless task of mansplaining the romance genre to me!

How lovely to discover that misogyny is alive and well in the NY Times. Perhaps this type of roundup could be applied to other genres as well. Mr. Gottlieb, your prejudice is showing. The "Robert Gottlieb Is Obviously Smitten" piece on the Seattle Review Of Books website says it best for me. He's falling in love but can't admit it. Of course, he seems to fancy himself as James Bond who does exhibit some classic signs of commitment phobia.

Gracious what a condescending article. Happily, the romance authors you mention (and many, many more) will be laughing their way to the bank this year with nearly 1.5 billion dollars in revenue from customers who enjoy reading the books more than making fun of them.

As a romance reader of nearly 40 years, it appears that the reviewer is rather obsessed with the sexual details. In speaking with other readers in the library where I work, I hear comments from "I just skip those parts" to a 87 year old who "liked to remember how things used to be." I would recommend to the reviewer the new Loretta Chase novel. She excels at witty repartee and turning those old Regency conventions on their heads.

I think this "roundup" took place 30 years ago, and was shelved because it was so terrible. I actually had to check the date of this article, because I thought it must have been written in 1982. The fact that you have reduced an extremely popular, billion dollar industry, into 2 categories, regency & contemporary, shows your true ignorance of this genre. Roberts, Cartland, Steele, yes they all were prolific, popular authors, but this is 2017!! Where are your reviews of JR Ward, Diana Gabaldon, or Kristen Ashley? I hate to tell you, but just because 50 shades was made into a movie does not mean it was a good romance novel. It just means the author had a good agent. And those indy authors that you dismiss, I'll admit, they're not all great, but it is a source of new authors for us readers that we gladly take advantage of. The NYT should be ashamed to publish this condescending crap. I highly doubt that the author even read these books, probably just skimmed to the "good bits".

Why commission someone to review romance novels who has contempt for the genre? Why not commission someone can speak authoritatively like Sarah Wendell or someone from the International Association for the Study of Popular Romance? Why fall into the time old cliche of depicting romance as the trashy younger sister of litfic? I saw a Facebook thread today where romance readers talked about cancelling their subscription to the NYT because of this article. Such a weird business decision to disrespect your readers.

This piece is a slap in the face to women. Women writers. Women readers. As a subscriber, I am disappointed the NYT would publish such misogyny. Is it 1980? This piece is totally out of touch. Next time the NYT wants to run a "roundup" of romance novels, perhaps they will enlist a writer who actually knows something about the genre. And with millions of romance fans out there, that shouldn't be too hard.

I had to re-check the date of this article. For a moment I thought I'd been transported back in time to Publishing World circa 1987. Conspicuously absent are any of the self-published romances which made the NYT Bestseller List this year--including some that managed to take the #1 spot. In 2017 Publishing World the romance books that achieve inclusion on the prestigious lists of NYT and USA Today rarely have a Regency gentleman in sight.

It is refreshing to see a much-maligned and overlooked sector of publishing the subject of an article by such a revered name in the industry. What a shame then that it exudes the ineffable condescension with which romance fiction is so often viewed by those whose publishing is of a loftier quality. One has also to wonder whether Mr Gottlieb has actually read the books he mentions: whereas the quotations from Julia Quinn’s “The Duke & I” with which he leads would give that impression, Ms Quinn does not have as her heroine “Lady Daphne Bridgerton, daughter of a viscount”: Miss Bridgerton would need to be the daughter of an earl at least to have this courtesy title, and in this case, the experienced author does not make the reviewer’s elementary mistake. Indeed, I am not quite sure where the reviewer gets this description of the heroine, given that it appears in quotes, but if he is going to mock, appearing to be more ignorant of the milieu in which the books are set than one of the authors he targets does not seem like firm ground from which to do so.

"Toothache-sweet climax"? Okay, yeah, that's some terrible writing. Not as bad as E.L. James, but not quality. I think you're a little too harsh on romance novels, though. You just picked some bad ones to read, unfortunately. There are good authors out there. Try Cecilia Grant or Rose Lerner if you want beautiful, thoughtful writing. You're picking books mostly by writers who churn a book out every 3-6 months. You can't expect quality work in that short a time period.