If you can't beat 'em, throw the rock and hide your hand anyway

A short rant brought to to by those-who-are-peeping-the-game.

Well, the tug ‘o war is still happening in romance writing. Especially when it comes to, -  here comes that word – “multicultural” romance writing. Yanno, when at least one of the main characters is NOT White.  A whole lot of shaking has been going on since, I really can’t remember, but it’s been going on awhile. The whole “Who can write whom? Why does who want to write whom? Will who write whom in a real way?” And on and on. Romance writers who are White, by and large, write whatever the hell they want. As they should. What is the argument then? The 800-lb. elephant in the room has never been, “You shouldn’t write a non-White or non-binary character!” Nooooooooooo! The issue has ALWAYS been, “Why are y’all the default, go-to writer to pen everything that readers might express an interest in reading?” Okay. Now that that is cleared up, let’s follow the trajectory. The first “multicultural” romances were seen as such because they usually depicted a White heroine discovering another culture through the non-White, or half-White hero. Recall those sappy Westerns from the 70s, 80s? A hero so stupidly smitten by her “alabaster skin” that he lost all reason from the second he laid eyes on her. Blah. Blah. Blah. He either kidnapped her to get her, or would leave his own people to have her. Multicultural was so vaguely defined that men from Italy, Greece and Spain were labelled “exotic.” As for the thoughts of the heroine about the guy, she usually compared him “wild, untamed, unfamiliar” land he came from. I could say that about Greek yogurt. Oy.

Now, I am not sure but the first romance writers in the LBGTQ+ community were from those communities, but the offerings were not viewed as romances. They were memoirs or coming-of-age stories as opposed to mass-market romance fiction. Time marched on and the readers of the Liberated White Heroine school devoured the “multicultural” books with that brownish hero. Readers could scratch their itch safely by reading about “forbidden love” with the other. “Wow! It’s so real! I feel like I’m in Barcelona!” LBGTQ+ memoirs or fiction stayed with that community more or less. Then the romance market changed. A new influx of readers wanted to read about the imaginary romantic lives of people not often written about. To answer the call, White writers to the rescue again. Mainly female writers. But this time writers who were from the actual marginalized communities desired to have their voices heard. They had story ideas where the characters sounded more authentic and were not in the story for titillation. Get my drift? A few got their manuscripts accepted, and the view of the non-White and LBGTQ+ in love changed. It also sold. But miracle of miracles, without much help from their publishers, the new authors sold. So what happens when success is achieved and others want some? You guessed it. Already established White writers stewed because, hey, they wanted even more of the pie they were already bogarting.

So, White writers started studying the romance books written by non-White writers and LBGTQ+ writers to see what was making them stand out. They were looking to reproduce the success. Well, they learned and before you knew it, those writers became the go-to writers for ANYTHING in non-White or LBGTQ+ romance, in addition to all things White in romance writing. Déjà vu all over again. Imitation is supposed to be the highest form of flattery? Um, er, um, no. It’s stealing. They like to call it borrowing. Okay. But I see you. Five, well-known, White writers come to my mind immediately who have worked “borrowing” to their advantage. They latched onto the rhythm of “others,” ran with it, and cashed in big time. They were lauded up and down the halls of romance for creating such “refreshing, edgy, innovative, authentic” characters. Yeah, Rock stars. Billionaires. Military themes. All done by "others." All “borrowed.”

That disingenuous, sleight-of-hand doled out by publishers and most White romance writers who pen “multicultural” romance has lasted and has made their pockets bulge. But with criticism coming fast, deep and sharp from romance writers from the communities these White writers think they are depicting so accurately, that crown the chosen few were given has gotten quite uncomfortable. Most recent flack has been for their abysmal depictions of the non-White heroines. I can only speak on non-White heroines in hetero romances. I am not an authority on LBGTQ+ romances other than that most folk who are from those communities sort of detests the ones written by non-LBGTQ+ people. Back to non-White heroines though. Specifically, Black ones. I have blogged about this mess before and it has not gotten any better. The Black heroines most White writers create are pitiful. Oh, the ones by some non-White writers suck too but usually due to scant character development not outright bias. I’ve wondered sometimes when I’ve read a “multicultural” by a White author if they have even spoken with, or met, a Black woman. Their ouvres contain stereotypes in mannerisms, speech and background out the wazoo. Non-White romance writers who have created humane, multifaceted non-White characters can’t even get a manuscript read, let alone accepted.  But trash submitted by a lot of White romance writers gets through. Oh, trust and believe. It’s trash. It’s like their heroines are the amalgamation of every Black female they ever heard or saw on Fox News. I’ve tried to read trash so insulting that I swore my I. Q. dropped before I DNF’ed it.  The criticism continued, and does, ‘til this day. So, what was the defense mechanism used against the criticism? The writers circled the wagons and doubled-down!

The lauded writers, and their wannabes-in-waiting, did not like having their omnipotent view challenged. They did not, and do not, take kindly to being told their portraits of “others” suck. Several have taken to romance book blogs, and to Twitter to lament that they “tried to write a Black or Asian or whatever heroine but the response was too harsh. “ Waaa! And that they “won’t do it again because even after having several beta readers” their masterpieces got trounced!” Waaa! My take? Suck it up, honeys. No one told you to write a non-White heroine. You chose to for 1) the quick money, 2) the recognition, 3) because you thought you had it on lock, and did I mention 4) the quick money? But Romancelandia is small. Word gets out when something has an odor. Especially when it’s one of insincerity. People wait to critique these books when written by a White author. Why? Because lots of readers believe White authors do it better. And because you, White author, believe you can do no wrong. The truth is people, who probably have a better, different view of a heroine who looks like them, NEVER get the chance to present that view. Comprende? Capisce? I have always said, “Write what you want. But be prepared to have it analyzed and critiqued when you leave your lane.” Sentiments most White writers DO NOT heed when forging ahead into territory unknown. Then they get all butt-hurt when people eye-ball it.

So, these butt-hurt special snowflakes have decided to get around that troubling problem of being called on the carpet for piss-poor depictions of non-White heroines. Oh, they still write the “multicultural” but these women have gone RETRO. I noticed this trend about a year ago. It was slight trickle then but now it’s become a steady flow. Retro how, you ask? They’ve gone back to the “multicultural” of old. The tried-and-true plot where the focus is on the White heroine going to another land, or simply another part of town, to find herself through shagging a non-White, half-White hero. The old 360. Like the writer of old, the writer of today only has to stick to describing, or depicting, the White side of things. Things like the White heroine’s rising ardor for the non-White/half-White hero. It’s all about her. No pesky thinking about how to pen a non-White woman and how to explore her feelings in a love affair. No having to create a profile for a character not like her. Nope, that woman is not part of this story. Unless of course, she is the mother or sister to the hero who hates the heroine’s guts. The writer can then make these women as shrewish as she wants to contrast the gentility of the heroine. Making it plain that she is sooo not them. Same goes for the heroine’s view of the hero. You see him though her eyes and he’s this hot, “exotic” man she’s discovered that she’s always wanted to bone. He doesn’t have to be too developed. He doesn’t have to have a complex personality. He’s there for one purpose. The mainstream reader can still say they read a “multicultural.” That they enjoyed it and most importantly, it was something relatable! “Wow, this place holder is just like me! I felt he was talking to me when the hero spoke to the heroine! Golly Gee, I like ‘multicultural’ now!”

Just another ingenious, subtly bigoted way to recapture the top spot in the market in general romance 

AND in “multicultural.”

Oh, I could tick off more examples of subtle bigotry hiding behind a balance sheet that gets sanctioned by the industry, but I’d be here all day. But for this particular, peculiar occurrence, don’t take my word for it. Check out the new releases post on the major romance book review blogs. They are posted on Tuesdays. Scan those suckers. First, one can count on one hand, with two fingers missing, the covers with NON-WHITE faces in these “new release” posts. Some weeks there is not a one. And non-White authors? It would be easier to find ears on a chicken. New Releases my eye. Might as well call it business as usual. Sneakily but surely, this new breed of “multicultural” romance shows up in the new releases post with a bare-chested, non-White male on a book cover all by his lonesome. It is only when one searches on Amazon for details, does one discover the book is a “multicultural” romance with a White heroine. Written by a White female author.