During Harlequin’s Christmas category giveaway, I sent the email inquiring about the absence of African American category Romance among the free books:

As a Romance reader who has only recently become familiar with the unique pleasures of category Romance, I want to thank Harlequin for the Christmas book giveaway the company is currently running. I think it is a wonderful way to introduce genre readers to the fun of category books and have no doubt it will be a successful promotion for Harlequin.

One question I have, though, is why there are no books offered from your African American category line, Kimani. I realize that Harlequin is so large that there are other lines unrepresented in the giveaway, but one of the things I’m most frustrated with in the current Romance industry is the lack of AA Romance marketed to “mainstream” readers. I am not, myself, an African American reader, but I really enjoy genre diversity and have been seeking out more books that feature non-white (and non-stereotyped) characters. And I just think it would be an impressive gesture for Harlequin to bridge the gap that currently exists between AA Romance and the rest of the genre (i.e. separate shelving and marketing), not only to give AA authors access to a broader market, but to give readers greater diversity within the genre’s characters. It seems to me that if any company has the power to effect some change in this arena, it’s Harlequin. Anyway, I don’t mean this as a criticism, but rather as a statement of hope that the genre will move past the segregation that, in my opinion, both marginalizes AA Romance and diminishes the genre as a whole.

Following an automatic ‘out of office’ reply, I got this response:

Thank you for taking the time to e-mail us.

We greatly appreciate your comments. Your feedback will ensure that the appropriate persons in their departments are given your comments and/or suggestions.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact us.

Now I realize that even though I sent the email to a supposed Public Relations address, I got a response from “orders email account,” and that probably most of the inquiries they get from those addresses probably relate to book orders. And granted, my email may have gotten to the “appropriate person” and that person may be intended to respond at some point. But I was still disappointed, because I meant what I said about Harlequin: if any publisher has the clout to change the status quo it’s Harlequin.

Unfortunately, when it comes to race and Romance, it seems the status quo is largely a state of marginalization or mythologization.

Marginalization is the norm for African American Romance and its authors. While there are some AA authors who are not published by an exclusively AA imprint, and some white authors writing AA characters for so-called mainstream publishers (and I mean here the main commercial stream of romance publishing, not as “normal” or “acceptable” or any other content-related judgment), to find Romance about AA characters written by AA authors you generally have to be aware of the particular presses and imprints like Genesis Press or Kimani Press. Then there is the issue of labeling. For example, I flinch a little every time I write “AA Romance” because I feel like I should just be able to refer to all Romance novels as “Romance” and have people know what I’m talking about here. So even in the talking about it there’s a segregation that is easy to perpetuate.

While dedicated imprints were established to ensure that AA Romance was published in any significant numbers, the continued marginalization of books based on nothing more than the race of the characters and/or authors creates the impression that AA-imprint Romance is different somehow – that it’s not real Romance or the same Romance as readers are seeing in ever other publisher from which they purchase books. This is not, therefore, an approach that encourages non-AA readers to see these books as Romance pure and simple. I know of one author who does not publicize the fact that she is AA and who crossed over from ebooks to a NY publisher and was not placed under its AA imprint. Would this have been the case if she were more public as an AA author or if her books featured primarily AA characters? Unfortunately, as long characters and authors are categorized by their race, Romance readers will not be invited to judge every book by the content of its characters. And in such a diverse society as that which we have, at least in the US, it seems to me that especially when it comes to contemporary Romance, we are perpetuating a real disservice to the genre and to a diverse readership.

The artificial distinction expressed in the Romance genre’s treatment of race is evident in the romanticization of certain racial groups, especially Native American and Mediterranean/Middle Eastern men – the clichéd Noble Warriors and Sheikhs of the genre. Ironically, these characters abound in the genre, but are so often represented as sentimentalized or exoticized that they are at best caricatures and at worst offensive stereotypes. I read one sheikh Romance not that long ago that kept describing the “desert” in the hero’s blood, the untamed legacy of his people’s past, blah, blah, blah. What was frustrating was that for the most part this guy wasn’t horribly portrayed, but these continual references to some exotic, wild genetic history worked against my ability to see him as a realistic character.

I cannot even read most Romances featuring Native Americans, because they either turn out like Sandra Brown’s Hawk O’Toole’s Hostage (doesn’t the title say it all?) or an even more romanticized version of Fenimore Cooper’s already highly romanticized fictional Mohicans. That is, they’re either the stereotypical bloody savage or noble savage (either “more civilized” or “uncivilized” by Anglo-American standards), neither of which bear much resemblance to real life people of Native American nations. The content of these characters is too often that of stereotype, not multi-layered humanity. Of course there are books like Susan Johnson’s old historicals, particularly Forbidden and Pure Sin, both of which feature Native American characters who are complex and compelling individuals, but these are, unfortunately, the exception rather than the norm.

Then we could talk about various Asian and Latino characters, which are present in the genre, but not in any meaningful representation to real life cultural diversity. I think Janet Evanovich has done a pretty good job with the Cuban American Ranger, but even his character started out as somewhat of a caricature, and only deepened when he became a serious contender for Stephanie Plum’s romantic attentions. And Anne Stuart did some intriguing things with Takashi and his cousin Reno. But still, ethnically identifiable heroes and heroines are not, by any stretch, the norm.

As we move into 2008, the 21st century for mercy’s sake, I think it’s time that we stand more strongly for meaningful and authentic racial and cultural diversity in genre Romance. It’s really not that difficult. It may mean a bit of extra searching for novels featuring African American protagonists, and, ideally, perhaps, of vocalizing to publishers and bookstore buyers that you want all Romance shelved and marketed and published together. Or it may mean asking publishers and authors for a more diverse cast of characters in the genre, or increasing word of mouth on great books that don’t follow the standard white hero and heroine into their great white happily ever after. Because while it would be nice if publishers would take the lead on this, chance are they won’t, and it will be up to readers like me, and maybe you, who want more diversity of all types in genre Romance and more content to its characters.