Still very new here (I've posted in the Great Write Way only, I think) but I've been lurking on this thread for weeks.

I worked in romance publishing (still do as a copy editor and copy writer) for years, and I've written one romance and am now writing YA books. Romance is definitely the red-headed stepchild of the publishing industry, but I think (possible unpopular opinion coming) part of the reason for that is the happily ever after factor. There are lots of romance authors who are fabulous writers, women I'd hold up against authors of mystery, SF, and fantasy. But the problem for the literary elite, I think, is that ending -- no matter how beautiful or stylish or moving the craft of the novel, it will always end (and sometimes in unlikely ways) with love conquering all, and the featured couple looking forward to a lifetime of love and happiness (and daffodils and puppies…).

That said, I read them and I love them. The fantasy, the happy ending, are part of what draws me to the genre, as much as the journey to get there. And if boards like All About Romance are any indication, the women who read romance are intelligent, critical, and discriminating -- they don't want to be written down to, and they know good (and bad) writing/plotting/characterization when they see it.

But I think mystery and SF/fantasy (which I admittedly don't read much) may get a bit more respect because there's no standard goal in mind -- the books don't always have to end with justice done or with peace achieved between warring planets, or what have you. They may explore similar and familiar territory, but they don't consistently take the same path.

How do reviewers stand on Ruth rendell?

I’m pretty sure reviewers still gush over her; she’s achieved that “master of the genre” status, I think. I used to love her, but lately her books have seemed flat, and kind of rote to me. Adam and Eve and Pinch Me was the last one I tried, and I never finished it. The books she’s written as Barbara Vine (at least the old ones) were books I loved – A Dark-Adapted Eye especially. Actually, scratch the earlier statement – I tried The Blood Doctor, which was a Vine book, and didn’t finish it either.

Someone mentioned the Salon article stating that mysteries do the same thing in the same way all the time, and I’m not sure I agree with that. Elizabeth George, at least, has mixed it up in her Lynley books, and it’s fascinating to get different perspectives on the crimes. One book had Havers investigating on her own, and at least two books have given Simon and Deborah the chance to sleuth. Anne Perry has also done that with her Thomas and Charlotte Pitt books, to a lesser degree, but I can’t read her anymore – she seems to be more invested in moralizing than developing a story, and the political stuff is a big fat yawn for me.

Ack -- the baby's awake.

I know that, in my discussions with Nutty about our different genre favorites (mine: romance, hers: sf/f), the major stumbling block on her part was the romance happy ending factor. She likes plots, and likes surprises, and is annoyed when she knows picking up the book what will happen in the end. I am not particularly interested in plots, and more interested in character and witty dialogue.

Someone is going to end up doing one of these for genre fans, aren't they?

Welcome, AmyLiz. Great post.

Wrod, AmyLiz. That's beautiful. And Gus - BWAH!

But I think mystery and SF/fantasy (which I admittedly don't read much) may get a bit more respect because there's no standard goal in mind

I wonder if romance as a genre is hampered by the factors you cite, AmyLiz (and welcome!), whereas -- possible unpopular opinion coming -- SF/fantasy are hampered by the readers themselves, or to be more precise, the popular stereotype of the readers.

Caution: stereotyping ahead, not to be taken seriously:

• Literary novels are read by middle-class college-educated people with ordinary lives, mortgages, kids.
  
• Romance novels, whatever their quality, are read by unthreatening middle-aged women who wear pastels.
  
• SF and fantasy novels are read by those (often overweight and socially maladjusted) people who dress up as Darth Vader and wait in line for three days for the premiere of RotK.

This is what the media tells us, and the perception of the readers taints the genre being read, because who wants to be associated with a class of people that all look like Harry Knowles?

t /satire mode

I liked Atonement, but I read it like a mystery, which is probably like putting ketchup on quiche in McEwan country.

Romance novels, whatever their quality, are read by unthreatening middle-aged women who wear pastels.

You misspelled "written". Signed, woman who has been to an RWA convention

I believe you, Betsy. Which makes them even more unthreatening.

I was surprised, when I went to the library here, that the librarians asked me what I was interested in, and then showed it to me, with no quirked eyebrows or oddities, and that they still let Greg know that they ran across something they think I'll like, and often send things home with him for me. (FTR, in order, fantasy, sci-fi, romance, mytery, graphic novel, rarely lit fic. no non-fiction unless it's about building, making, writing or decorating something.)

I remember, as I was growing up, that I'd get funny looks from many of the librarians, or they'd try to steer me toward "good" books, even the occasional look of severe disapproval or muttered comment, whenever I checked out another book of fairytales or an Andre Norton.