At one point in time, RWA (Romance Writers of America) was the envy of other genre writers. With over 10,000 members, a robust conference, and courses and tools for published and unpublished writers, it nurtured the careers of many for over four decades.
It was, however, always a traditionally leaning organization. In this century, they earned a justified reputation for being determinedly disinterested in love stories that featured characters of color or queer leads. No Black author won the RITA until 2019 and finalists of color were virtually non-existent.
In 2019, the organization blew up. You can read about it all here and here. Since then, despite RWA making some effort (but not enough), the organization has continued to shrink. This week, they filed for bankruptcy.
You can read about the filing here. Unsurprisingly, the language in the brief pissed people off yet again. It says:
[its membership dropped to 3,000 members from roughly 10,000} predominantly due to disputes concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion issues between some members of a prior RWA board and others in the larger romance writing community.
This did not go over well. Why did RWA need to bring up DEI? (They do not mention Courtney Milan in the filing despite what the Bloomberg article headline would make you believe.) That definitely seems like a CYA move and one that makes them look as if they’ve not learned a thing in the past five years.
It feels like RWA is circling the drain and, given their behavior, perhaps that’s for the best.
But it is a bummer that what RWA offered to romance writers has vanished and, if the past five years are any indication, will not be replaced.
In its very flawed prime, RWA was possibly the biggest and most influential writing organization, one that helped thousands. Unlike many other organizations of its kind, it supported unpublished writers. It also offered a platform for romance writers to connect, to find agents, editors, friends, and support. Their advocacy for romance writers was unmatched and their conferences and education phenomenal. (Again, probably not if you were Black.) For many writers, it was a career changing place. (I think some of the points made in this 2023 article are valid.) And it is missed.
Because, yes, romance as a genre is booming but it is becoming harder and harder for most romance authors to make a living. In 2023, just two authors, Colleen Hoover and Emily Henry, counted for 80% of all romance novel sales. And, most are now going it alone–there simply isn’t a national network that new authors can plug into to make connections. I think writing romance is probably lonelier than it used to be.
It’s a bummer that RWA couldn’t or wouldn’t fix itself. I miss the conferences–I’ve not gone since 2019–and the ability to meet in person and talk with the authors our readers love. I learned so much about, by attending their workshops, about writing and what it takes to do it well and get published. The industry feels much more scattered and opaque now.
But there’s no place for a national organization that isn’t truly inclusive. RWA wasn’t and when pushed to be, they couldn’t manage it. So, they’re, I suspect, toast. Here’s hoping something better rises, at some point, to do the work they used to.
An interesting essay, Dabney. I read most of your links including the one from Wordsrated about the top-selling romance authors. I had never heard of the top three though, in checking, I see they have been reviewed here. Emily Henry’s books were published 20 years ago; Colleen Hoover’s books were rated C and Lucy Score’s books were published over 20 years ago as well yet, astoundingly, she is shown to have had a 2312% increase in sales in 2023. A review of an Ana Huang book was for one published in 2006. I realise these authors are still publishing but I found all of this a bit strange. Here are some authors who are apparently the most successful by sales and yet they get very little attention at AAR on doing a quick search and none at all from me. What’s going on here?
Emily Henry had a best seller in 2023 and another very well reviewed (at AAR) in 2024. She has been much written about in NYT and Washington Post. Not sure which Emily Henry you are referring to.
As far as I could tell – as the writer isn’t on my radar – the one referred to by Wordsrated. Of course, there may be more than one by that name but I did look at the reviews here. Really, I was just surprised that three authors were topping a list with staggeringly huge increases in sales and I’d not registered them at all. Maybe they just aren’t particularly popular in the UK? Don’t know. It was just all a bit of a surprise.
They are huge in the US, for sure!
I’ve seen CoHo’s books in Tesco’s and I think I saw a Lucy Score one the other day. But I think the romance market is quite different in the UK. The big chains don’t stock a lot of romance – it’s there but usually lumped in with the Fiction section, which is arranged alphabetically, so you have to know what you’re looking for. You might find find the odd big name book on one of the tables of selected titles. I would be surprised if Colleen Hoover’s name was known here at all pre BookTok.
Bookstores sell a fraction of what Amazon does. They sell at least 50% of the print market and close to 70% of the ebook marketing which does not include KU.
When I started reading romance in a big way in the early 2000s, Amazon was the only way I could buy books by Mary Balogh, Julia Quinn, Meredith Duran, Lisa Kleypas, Sherry Thomas… and others on a long list of authors I now know are genre ‘staples’. But – and even though Balogh is British – they’re virtually unknown names in the UK (okay, now JQ probably has some increased visibility because of Bridgerton). So I’m absolutely agreeing with what you say about Amazon, but suggesting also that for some of us, going into an actual bookshop and being able to find romance novels was almost impossible. Even now, the last time I went into a few of the big West End shops, the romance sections – if they existed at all – were tiny.
US bookstores are booming and many have extensive romance sections now. But they are still outsold by Amazon.
Last time I went to Foyle’s they had a romance section which was basically a double-sided shelving unit with 5 or 6 5ft long shelves on each side. My nearest book shop is a small indie, and if I want a bigger selection, there’s a Waterstone’s 20 miles away. But I don’t recall there being a romance section. The supermarkets stock the best sellers/TikTok faves.
That said, it’s been a year or two since I went to a large bookshop – I can’t read print books easily these days, so they tend to be places I go when I’m out with Elinor.
It’s just the way things are for many of us. We generally don’t buy paper books anymore, at least fiction. We use Kindle and the library. A big part is a matter of space, and keeping them all dusted and in good shape. We’ve probably donated 700-800 books in the past ten years, more if you count all the homeschooling materials I donated or sold.
The other big issue is that many of the author’s I read don’t publish in paper, or if they do it’s limited edition runs or print on demand. Habit’s change as technology changes. I’m not thrilled about Amazon’s deathgrip on books, but I’m not seeing how that’s going to change much until some other trend makes inroads into their successful model.
When ebook readers fist started getting popular, we had a Kobo, a Nook, and a Kindle. Kindle was by far the easiest to use and before long it was the only ereaders we owned. I think some of the others gained ground with ease of use, but we had 4 or 5 family members actively using our Amazon account by that time and having all the books we owned in one spot made sense.
Same. Kindle is just more user-friendly. Everyone in our family has multiple kindles.
We just reviewed a big Huang seller from 2024 here.
Same with Lucy Score–our latest review of hers is here.
We’ve reviewed Emily Henry recently too.
Are we sure the 2006 review is for the Ana Huang who wrote the Twisted Love and the Kings of Sin books? The earliest date I can find for a Huang book is 2013, but her major breakthrough with the If… series didn’t happen until 2020. Also, according to the ever-reliable Wikipedia, Emily Henry’s first published book was a YA in 2016. Her breakthrough, BEACH READ, wasn’t published until 2020.
As an AAR Reviewer, I can tell you that I would never willing review a Colleen Hoover book, and if I did read and review one, it would most likely be a hate review. They are full of abuse and misogyny. And I’ve heard Ana Huang’s books are equally problematic. Just because BookTok has made some authors super popular doesn’t necessarily mean they deserve the hype. In fact, I actually did try to understand the popularity of Fourth Wing and found myself absolutely baffled. My point, I guess, is that as a volunteer reviewer with a limited amount of time, I personally have no interest in reading and reviewing books that I don’t think deserve the hype they’ve gotten, and as much fun as it is to write hate reviews when they are deserved, I don’t know if that’s what people want to see when they come to this site. Obviously I don’t speak for my fellow reviewers.
We all have what we like and that’s great–it’s what makes AAR a rewarding place to come to!
I do think it’s important that we never shame anyone for what they like. Hoover isn’t for me but I know many who find her storytelling irresistible and that’s fine too.
Oh, I in no way mean to shame anyone for what they like. Lord knows I’m sure there are many things I enjoy that would have people scratching their heads. Read and love what you love, by all means. My point is that an author’s success and popularity is not always based on superior quality, thus if we as reviewers decline to review books we feel confident contain things we won’t enjoy (themes, tropes, bad writing, etc) then it isn’t a failure of AAR that those books are not reviewed.
I wouldn’t pick a book to review that I know in advance I’ll hate. But I’m absolutely on board with writing a negative review of a book I disliked. Not only do I view it as my ‘reward’ for slogging through the book, I think it’s important for a site like AAR to be cautioning our readers about rubbish books!
I agree 100%. But, we–I hope–don’t ever shame any of our readers for liking what they like.
The Emily Henry they’re referring to wrote her first adult romance novel, Beach Read, in 2020; it looks like she has a few YA books before that. According to Goodreads, Lucy Score’s first book was 2015 but I think the ones that are on the bestseller charts right now are from the last 2-3 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are past authors with those names but these are the ones they’re referring to in the link.
Emily Henry’s books are sold on the fiction shelf in bookstores in my town and so even though, yes, they’re romances, they’re more “beach reads” or “upmarket women’s fiction” in my opinion.
The truth is that with how varied romance is already becoming… I’m not referring to the authors but to the genre, recently we had an interesting talk about a new romantic subgenre, Dark romance (which in turn has subgenres from “dark “traditional to Pitch Black) and monster romance is in fashion, because to choose from, fantasy has different subgenres and if to all this we add the different groups of readers, their preferences, etc…
My point is that seeing what the current romance industry is like in terms of genre, not in terms of authors, because honestly the author’s race, nationality, sexuality, etc. shouldn’t matter, I think what should be discussed is whether in such a market divided as current romance is, it is possible that there is an organization that brings together ALL romance authors of different genres with different interests and role models, for example, the popular authors that Emily Henry mentioned is the most transversal Colleen Hoover and Ana Huang They had serious, very vocal detractors as well which means that they do not serve as a model for everyone. Booktook has had bitter fights between young readers and writers: basically they don’t seem able to share amicably because everyone says “preferences are preferences” as the politically correct thing to do but they don’t want to share a space with another group of readers. I am 27 years old and I usually prefer to share on pages like this where the bloggers or commentators are older or on pages specialized in closed-door or Christian romance (this is what I preferably read and subgenres such as fantasy or science fiction) because I do not feel welcome in others more general romance pages where readers of sexless romance are treated like prudes and the books we like like the plague to be avoided (except Mimi Matthews and Francine Rivers are the only closed door and Christian romance writers that many tolerate).
And I honestly know that people from the dark romance, closed door, sweet romance community don’t behave better either when a reader of a somewhat opposite romantic genre arrives. I’m sorry to say this but I don’t see the new generations sharing massively in a friendly and transversal way.
I guess I’d say that Romancelandia has always sniped at itself. I think the genius of RWA was that it had so many resources for so many. You didn’t have to have any interest in other genre but you could always learn and find professional guidance no matter what you wrote or care about.
I suspect there’s a difference between groups of readers or fans vs. authors. The fans feel everything very strongly and the things they like (or don’t like) get wrapped up in their identity. From my understanding of how the RWA worked, I’m not sure the specific genre of romance you were writing mattered that much, because it was more about advice on getting good deals from publishers, how to get started as an author, or tips on writing, etc.
And I agree with you about younger vs. older readers. I read and participate on some of the romance related subreddits on Reddit and it can be difficult dealing with the younger/newer readers. And I say that with the full knowledge that I may have been just as big of a PITA when I was in my 20s. I feel like there’s much more of a preference for things being cut and dried, right and wrong, while I think stories are sometimes more interesting when there’s nuance.
I didn’t know this and it has made me sad. Years ago, I saw this kerfuffle from afar, from another country, another continent, so I surely I missed a lot of nuances. I saw it as something to be framed within a broader trend, a phenomenon typical of the polarization of the last five to eight years (2016 is the year where I saw things changing). If an institution, or person, or whatever, is not perfect from all points of view (especially considered from a woke POV) then the tendency is to think that it is better to destroy it. Even if you have not something better to offer.
Those to whom it served no purpose, and were even marginalized, are understandably happy to see it disappear.
Now all the authors are at the same level, nobody receives the push and the support that RWA gave to many of them (and not to others). So in a sense, certain equality has been achieved. All of them are alone fighting for themselves.
My perspective as a spectator outside the problem is more relativistic. If something works, if it has more positives than negatives, it should continue and reform at its own pace. Perhaps it will never be perfect because not all the problems in the world are going to be solved. Ever. For me, it was like professional romance authors shot themselves in the foot with this implosion. Especially when, as anyone can see, no one has provided an alternative with the good things that RWA gave.
So all in all, it makes me a little sad.
But as I say, it has been something so ‘from the USA’ and its politics that I surely miss a lot of things.
I share the sense that blowing up RWA may have done more harm than good but it’s easy for me to have that perspective as a non-marginalized person.
I do think the anger that many had in 2019 was intense. Trump’s presidency infuriated so many and anger at all he represents: arrogant, white, male, rich, entitled privilege boiled over into many many non-Trump arenas. There was–and is–a sense among many Americans that burning systems to the ground is the best answer for a flawed world.
Was there a different path? I don’t know. RWA handled it so poorly so perhaps not.
The statistic that grabbed me was the fact that 70% of the membership of RWA departed after the leadership failed to successfully respond to concerns of the membership. How often do 70% of the people in any organization agree on anything? The majority of writers did not like the way the organization was being run, and so they left, as they had every right to do. I wonder how many of them are lamenting the demise of RWA? Or would they say, good riddance, the organization was irretrievable? Given RWA’s latest bankruptcy press release, my vote is for irretrievable.
I have spoken to several authors in the past year about it. I think most people think it had to go but also mourn all they lost when it did.
Speaking from Australia and therefore definitely not having the same level of knowledge as an American reader, I can say that back in the day when I would read the finalists for the RITAs I would usually think that the celebrated books were just the latest releases by all the biggest authors and there was never much variety there. But readers can like whatever they want and I love the immense choice available now that I never had back in the 1990s and early 2000s. I have no patience with readers who complain about characters being marginalised or objectified or presented in some way that offends their sensibilities – just go read something else, and don’t hound the author over social media either.
However, if the RWA was not giving all authors the same support and recognition for discriminatory reasons, then that’s a valid reason for members to leave in solidarity, in my opinion.
The SFF news zine File 770 posted about it here:
https://file770.com/romance-writers-of-america-files-bankruptcy/
It’s worth visiting because Laura Resnick made a couple of responses (one in response to me). She has been a part of the SFF publishing (and fandom) world for years — and she was also an RWA member for a while. One problem she points out is that a lot of published writers got frustrated with RWA as far back as the early 1980s. They were often told to “volunteer” to help aspiring writers — but they felt RWA wasn’t giving anything back to them. They were told it was an obligation — as if they didn’t have deadlines to meet, day jobs, families, etc. On top of that, many of the aspiring authors hadn’t even started a manuscript yet. How much can you teach someone who hasn’t written yet? 😐
Some published writers have expressed the same frustration with mentoring aspiring writers. They believe in “paying back.” But they also get really fed up when they put in a lot of time helping an aspiring author, only to see that mentee quit. 🙁 So they’ve gotten cautious about who they mentor.
It’s also interesting to note that the first poster blamed DEI (without using that word). And the other posters weren’t having any of that.
I think it’s a real shame that this resource is failing and I actually think it will be bad for writers in underrepresented groups. I think I’d feel more “good riddance” about it if someone could demonstrate that getting rid of it made it easier for queer people and people of color to get published and make a living at it. But I’m not seeing it. Instead you get a billion books about super white billionaires and the blonde secretaries that capture their heart with their magic vaginas. The exponential curve that governs the internet, where 10% of things get 90% of all the traffic and sales, is what’s going to prevail without these established systems to create a flatter platform for modest successes and work-a-day writers.
As a person of color who writes romance, I didn’t find it easy to get published even when RWA was going strong, so I’m not worried that things will get somehow worse for me. But that’s just my take on it.
I’m a writer of color in another field and the professional organizations I belong to were invaluable in getting me in the door when I was a newbie. But the key is there’s not just one — there are some for my particular ethnic/racial group, one for my subspecialty within the field, etc. Each had their own convention and having people from the industry come to the ones for, say, Black writers was a quick and relatively easy way for publishers to have access to a more diverse writing base. Whether they give those writers real opportunity is a different story, but making those connections is the first step.
The issue is that RWA was pretty much the only game in town. The fact that it was very white-centric would have been less of an issue if someone had figured out a way to scale up other professional development organizations, with similar connections in the publishing industry, that either focused on diversity or at least weren’t as hostile to it.
I guess I think a better answer might have been RWA getting better at promoting AoC.
In an ideal world, certainly. In an ideal world, all organizations with deeply rooted problems of racism would reflect honestly on this, identify their own biases, apologize to anyone harmed, and take concrete steps to encourage diversity and inclusiveness.
In this world?
I didn’t have much confidence in RWA, and I didn’t see any indications that RWA really wanted to promote authors of color. In fact, I thought it was quite the opposite. Sorry for my cynicism.
I can’t really say although it seemed to me that post 2019, RWA made the effort but it still wasn’t enough.
IMO, the problems with RWA were significant and were baked-in. Maybe they made a good-faith effort to change this in 2019. But in 2021 they gave the Vivian award to a romance where the white hero participates in the Wounded Knee massacre, and I’ll always remember how the story subtly portrayed the Lakota as the aggressors. I would definitely agree that this is not enough of an effort to combat racism.
Well, they did see they’d screwed up and rescinded the award.
They did damage control after there was a public backlash.
But as I said, if RWA wanted to show that they had learned from their mistakes and were trying to reduce racism and promote diversity, rewarding racism was perhaps not the best way to go about this.
Agreed.
I agree with your thoughts. Just sad