Below you’ll find the top 250 books from all the write-ins from Round One. Choose AS MANY of these as you’d like.
Please pick your personal favorites, as well as any you feel should be on the list on principle.This round will be open until May 7th at 8pm EST and you will only have the opportunity to vote once in this round. So please be sure of your choices before you hit “done”!
In the next round, we’ll combine the top vote getters from this round and the top ones from our original 50 list. You’ll have 150 books to choose from in that round, before we narrow it down to the top 100! The final round will be the Top Ten Shootout, where we’ll give you the top ten from round 3 and you choose your overall winner.
Please note: each book is using its proper title, so check the “A” “The”, etc. options as well.
Click here to vote!
Here again are the rules:
Round 1: Select as many books as you want from the list provided. It is meant to just be a starting point. There are fifty books on it–the list will ultimately have 100 books. Then, in the write-in section, enter up to ten books that are NOT on the current list you think must be. All book choices will be given one vote so a write-in has just as much weight as one on the list.
Round 2: The nominations from you, our faithful community, will be provided to be voted on.
Round 3: The ranking begins…
Round 4: Once the Top 100 is established, we’ll give you a final chance to rank the Top 10. This will be the only time your vote will be restricted to 1 book.
Spread this thing far and wide – we want it to be as reflective of Romancelandia in 2018 as it can be.
Impenitent social media enthusiast. Relational trend spotter. Enjoys both carpe diem and the fish of the day.
What is Sarah Maclean doing here? Her historical romance novels are the worst, not to mention Elizabeth Kingston. Are you kidding me? This author writes like my niece. You should have included Shadowheart by Laura KInsale or Red Adam’s Lady by Grace Ingram (both medieval romance novels).
I’m apalled to not find Cecelia Grant, Sarra Manning, Mahiri McFarlane, Sophie Kinsella, Robin Schone, Marsha Canham, The Rosie Project by Graeme Simsion, Attachments by Rainbow Rowell, Jean Webster, Jane Austen, Fanny Burney, Catherine Lowell, Uprooted by Naomi Novik, The Serpen Garden by Judith Merkle Riley, Dark Angels by Karleen Koen, Longburn by Jo Baker, etc in this list. Instead the 80% of this list are books about sex scenes, mediocre plots and poor writing. Really disappointed. Not voting again.
These books are readers’ choices. When it comes to reading, there is a wide variety of tastes out there. Also, several of the authors you mention were included in the first round of this poll and will, we feel sure, be in the final round which will open next week.
This is only the second round, and if a bunch of authors you just mentioned, like Jane Austen and Laura Kinsale don’t make it on the final list I’ll eat my hat.
I found it. Sorry.
Is the second round open now? Where do I vote?
I’ve been reading all the comments and I agree with many of the ideas expressed, namely: 1) that is very easy to be less inclusive or even unaware of (our own blind) prejudice; 2) that the AAR Top 100 is a reader’s poll and, as such, will inevitably be biased by personal tastes.
Now, I’m not sure we (as readers) can put all the effort for a faster change (for more inclusion and diversification) on the AAR staff’s shoulders. I think that their “work” right now is already remarkable. This is a big site with lot of posts, reviews, general information, interviews… plus polls. I visit it regularly because I like to read all this stuff and because there are constant updates. Now–do I want more? Yes, I do. I want more reviews etc on different authors and stories (race, gender, sexuality, etc). Heck, I’d love to read more reviews on lesbian romance or out of the America/England/Canadian background. However, I also think that for that to happen people have to approach the AAR staff and say: “Hey, I love to read different stuff, I know how to write and make some fair criticism and compliments… Will you accept me as a (occasional/steady/whatever) reviewer? I’d love to cover X kind of novels.”
Seriously–I think the path to change is not only to say what should be done but also to help on that effort. More inclusion is faster when new voices, with different tastes, join the effort.
Thanks for the support. We are always looking for qualified new reviewers!
I wish I could upvote this excellent comment.
This is an excellent comment We are always looking for new reviewers.
It is always more important to be the instrument of change than to demand that others change. .
I just wish to add that I believe we (as a romance community) are making progress. I can quite imagine, though, that for writers who have been systematically shut out it’s been too damn long in coming, and that the lack of representation should not have happened in the first place. It is also my understanding that we (white readers) are NOT being asked to stop buying/reading our favourite white authors, whoever they may be, and yes, even the outspoken racists ones. I make a choice that *I am comfortable with. But here is the problem I have with polls like this, which isn’t necessarily a reflection on AAR. Some of the older published books that continue to make the TOP Lists, I find extremely problematic–sexism, racism, erasure, etc, fill the pages. And, to me, they were just as problematic then as they are now. The difference is, we now have the internet to discuss such things. I will also add that *I am uncomfortable when an author, ANY author, chimes in on a review of her/his/their book, thanking the blogger for the reviews. I think it shuts down reader conversation. But that is just *my perspective. YMMV.
Speaking as a reader, not as AAR, I’d say that it’s possible to enjoy things that you can see are problematic. Fiction has always presented worlds that we may like to experience in our imaginations but would loathe in our reality.
Agreed.
Whether it’s a book by James Joyce, Nabokov or a Harlequin Romance author it’s up to the READER to decide its worth and if it is right for them to read.
As some one who has spent a great deal of time studying both the law and history I find it more than a little disturbing that people want to manipulate other people’s opinions.
Hi Chrisreader,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments above. I definitely agree that readers can read whatever they like, regardless of the book’s content or the author’s views. I additionally agree that if you or they want to continue voting LH into the top 100, absolutely go ahead. I would just like to figure out how to address the harm that will result from a final list that will likely be predominantly white, thus perpetuating a systemic issue of marginalized AOC continuing to be underrepresented in this poll.
Is there some way that future polls can be structured so that systemic issues will not be replicated so easily? Maybe Round 1 could have at least 50% AOC next time. With the current poll, I feel that if I want to see a reasonable percentage of AOC in the top 100, I have to vote for ALL the AOC, even if I didn’t necessarily enjoy a particular writer’s book.
Lastly, Chrisreader, could you please reconsider how you’ve been characterizing my anger as manipulative and irrational? I did find the way you responded to my comments here and above hurtful and somewhat condescending. I hope we can both communicate more kindly to each other from here on. Thank you.
I’m sorry you took my comments that way as they were meant literally and not directed at you personally. By “manipulation” I meant literally trying to manipulate votes people cast for authors that you and others don’t like. If it is truly to be a “readers” poll it is not accurate to try to change other people’s votes after the fact or invalidate authors who have already been voted for. If it were an “AAR chooses the best romances” then you certainly could use your influence to try to change reviewers choices but as this is based strictly on anonymous ballots by voters it should be fair and actual. Skewing the numbers doesn’t change people’s tastes or minds in actuality, even if it made some people just feel better about the results.
I don’t remember using the word “irrational” and can’t locate it in my posts, but if I did I suspect it was to say it’s not rational to come and protest about an author AFTER THE FACT, AFTER voting has happened and with NO ONE posting or bringing up any complaints about an author BEFORE, yet being angry at AAR when individual voters cast votes for them.
I do think it is “manipulative” however to try to skew my comments as some kind of “personal attack” on you. I don’t like things that were said to AAR and the people who volunteer and give so much of their time to this site. That’s the closest thing I have seen yet to a “personal attack” and I still wouldn’t call it that as I am not prone to hyperbole.
I believe all of my comments to be very rational without any sarcasm like “aww bless your heart” or any personal attacks. I have had differing opinions with countless people on the boards here about many issues over the years yet have never had anyone become so personally contentious about not agreeing 100% with them. You are the one throwing around words like “monster” and asking AAR staff to “speak to” posters and reprimand them on your behalf. We are all adults here (presumably) and should be able to communicate civilly. I’m sorry if the ideas I presented to 1.) actually post factual issues or opinions about authors and 2.) advocate for authors you deem worthy were seen as somehow “condescending”.
In all of this talk about Linda Howard, no one has even bothered yet to post what it was she said to cause all the problems with her -which was one of the main complaints to begin with. I had to search the web to find a blog with her original comments which seem to have been related to the governing of RWA as much as I can tell from the fuzzy screenprint someone took of her emails or posts. Perhaps posting some facts about that would help to bolster support for people’s objections to her. And I hope this call for posting actual facts isn’t seen as “condescending” either.
Hi Chrisreader, I see what you mean by “manipulate” now, and I’m sorry I misunderstood and used the word “monster.” I felt demonized after my comments were labeled as “abuse” by an AAR reviewer, and when I then saw you use the word manipulation in a subsequent comment, I misinterpreted it in the same vein. I apologize.
I see why you find me manipulative for requesting that Dabney respond to your specific comment and to BJ’s specific comment above. I misinterpreted the former, but with regard to the latter, BJ was speaking from her position as AAR reviewer, and I did not feel it was right for her (apologies if I’m using the incorrect pronoun) to label a POC reader as abusive from that position, when I wasn’t being abusive. I was arguing that a racist should be excluded from the polls and replaced by AOC, due to the fact that LH’s potential continued placement in the top 100 renews her power and white privilege at the expense of marginalized voices. I was not being abusive by pointing out AAR’s own privilege, or the fact that such polls perpetuate systemic problems unless some kind of structural changes are made to it to boost marginalized voices.
So I felt like my voice was being delegitimized through some comments here suggesting that my reaction to the polls was unreasonable & abusive. I’m sorry I interpreted some of your comments to be directed personally at me, when you did not intend so.
With regard to condescension, this is what I meant for example: When you said in your original post, “If you want to educate people about the facts you have…” and then characterized people’s discontent with LH as “lamenting about votes after the fact” and “berating unpaid staff at AAR,” and indicated what you feel is the “best” way to voice such issues in order to effect change — well, I felt like you were talking down to people like me, that it was unreasonable and ungracious to express dismay after the fact, when I feel POC speaking out against a racist author is constructive even after people have already voted her and especially if no one else has spoken out about it before here. So I kind of felt that you were instructing POC on the “best” ways to speak and act on these issues. If that was not your intention, I apologize for misinterpreting. But when you suggested that the best way to have raised awareness about LH was to comment on reviews of her books — well, for me, reviews of LH books are the last place I want to go, given how I feel about her and that I will never read her books. I’m also not uncomfortable just going into spaces dedicated to her books simply to denounce her racist views without further comment about the actual content of her books. For me, I felt it was more constructive to do that here.
Sorry for the wordy reply. Thank you for engaging with me on these issues.
Typo: I meant not comfortable.
I think the idea of raising representation of AOCs in the staff selected round is possible. One of the reasons we instituted that round in the first place was the observed poll bias in favor of “establishment” authors. People tended to use previous polls to jog their memories in voting, so books, so if you made the earliest lists, you probably continue to make the present lists. This is, of course, a metaphor for race in America in a nutshell – as my mother always says, “Thems as has, gits.”
So we were looking to improve representation of more recent authors, which included AOCs as well as LGBTQ+ fiction, but we were not intentional enough about AOC representation in the first release. In the second, we were more intentional, but it’s fair to argue that it still wasn’t enough.
The million dollar question is what the actual effect of the staff list will be. I know we have some smart, hardworking people here with some data analysis chops who I am sure will take a close look at this. If it turns out that the staff “seeding” improved performance, then it would probably make sense to do what you are talking about and “signal-boost” as many underrepresented talents as we can.
However, what happens if the pre-seed doesn’t seem to have made a difference, if issues of distribution and readership simply overwhelm a nomination? Well, we could look for other strategies – feature some classic reviews of books in contention while the poll runs? Blog “pre-reading” lists before voting opens? We’re open to suggestions here.
I’m sure Dabney will echo me in saying that the passion of romance readers to embrace all types of people and their love stories is inspiring, and if you’re especially passionate, there is place for you here on staff.
Edenbrook by Julianne Donaldson
Summer Campaign by Carla Kelly
Griffina & HBO, I think you’re doing the right thing in speaking out. It is a readers’ poll and readers should hear you and hopefully are open to your ideas. I recently re-read Linda Howard’s books during AAR’s reposting of the top 100 and expressed my dismay at the representations of women, people of color, and transgender characters in her novels. I posted my honest thoughts on the books, to some readers’ dismay, and I continue to believe that dialogue on these issues is important.
Blackjack, I am not sure why people are so uncomfortable talking about these issues. And the conversation quickly dissolves into “you’re not being nice” especially when it’s POC speaking up. I changed my reading and T.V. habits a number of years ago; not because I was suddenly “woke” but because I was getting extremely bored of reading and watching the same thing over and over again–an all white (and straight) cast within the pages or on the screen, which does not represent REAL life.
First, let me just say that I am a disaster at picking out good books when left to my own devices. So, I rely on websites like AAR to point me in the right direction.
I enjoy reading books of diversity – ethnic, cultural, disabled, gender, religious – well, you get the idea. AAR has been very helpful to me in this regard. I looked at my 10 written in votes. I don’t think there are any POC authors on the list. I’m not 100 percent sure, because since I went to reading on an e-reader, I have noticed that pictures of authors no longer are part of the reading experience. Except for websites like AAR, I really have nothing to do with the romance community – I don’t “follow” authors and I am not a fangirl type. Put a good book in front of me, and I will read it – I’m a very simple woman in that way.
Of my 10 write in books, I have an YA with a heroine whose family is from India. In a Women’s Fiction book on my list, the hero and heroine are white, but two of the main characters are Hispanic (about half of the book is chapters written in one of the Hispanic character’s voice.) Another book (New Adult) has a permanently disabled heroine. And my favorite book, the one that was my favorite in the last Top 100 poll,, is an American Historical with an African American hero. It never makes the Top 100 list, sigh… (But I also have a book on my list that has a lizard for a Hero, so I’m probably not your average mainstream romance reader.)
Please don’t be upset or angry with me because I don’t have a POC on my top 10 list. Instead, share with me your POC books and authors who are on your top 10 list. At the very least, you will be saving be from my own horrific choices, and maybe you will help me and others who read your list find a favorite new author.
Our enjoyment of romance books is our common ground. Isn’t that a good place to start?
HBO – I think perhaps people often feel nostalgic for books they once loved and are not open to hearing criticism of them. I used to read Linda Howard and liked many of her books, but during a recent reread I was really shocked at how blatantly discriminatory some of them were. For instance, Mr. Perfect does a hatchet job on transgender characters and somehow, unfortunately, I did not pick up on this years ago. My hope is that AAR remains a site that is open to readers expressing their honest feelings about books, even if some readers are not comfortable reading criticism of ideas in a story and that tone policing does not take place to try to shut down conversations. I cannot see how any progress could ever be made if ideas cannot be examined.
I totally agree that speaking out to readers is important because they are the ones who need to be reached – both for this poll and for their buying habits. I also think it was fair to criticize AAR for a lack of diversity on the staff short list, and I appreciate the staff taking at least belated action on it. What I don’t get is people who are mad at AAR about the reader selected short list.
Lisa, why aren’t *you* mad that AAR won’t disqualify LH for espousing rampantly bigoted views towards POC, and instead has allowed her to have multiple slots in the shortlist? While readers voted for her, these polls are a form of author promotion by AAR. AAR’s intent may be to adopt a hands-off, neutral approach, but the actual effect is an implicit endorsement/condonement/celebration of all the authors who make it onto these lists, including LH, an unapologetic racist.
I feel AAR needs to draw a moral line and say for example: “While we recognize that LH’s works have been beloved by many, she has made it quite clear, in hurtful and offensive ways, that she opposes inclusivity and diversity; she has repeatedly wielded her white privilege to promote racism. We cannot in good conscience endorse an author with such bigoted views towards marginalized identities in the romance community. As such, we will be removing her name and replacing her in the lists. Since the way we generated our shortlist did not result in as diverse a number of authors as we hoped, we will be replacing LH’s slots with several underappreciated romances by POC that readers nominated.”
So, yes, I’m upset that AAR has not taken the above steps. AAR appears to be blinded by its own white privilege.
How intensely should AAR research authors private lives? A few years ago a pretty big romance author got in trouble for saying Donny Osmond was her childhood crush and tweeting or posting about him. At least one person was outraged because Donny Osmond is a practicing Mormon and the Mormon church does not condone gay marriage among other things and said they would never buy the author’s works again for liking him. (I don’t want to say the wrong author’s name so I will have to check as she wasn’t someone I read).
What about political affiliations? Is there a litmus there as well? Who gets to decide who is included and who isn’t?
Is the next step to decide who gets to post opinions here and who doesn’t?
The whole point of this is that it is a reader’s poll. It is to accurately reflect what readers consider to be the top 100 romances. Most of my write in choices didn’t make the cut to the next round but is that anyone’s “fault”?
Being angry that AAR didn’t somehow exclude people or manipulate votes doesn’t make sense. Even if you took Linda Howard out of the equation how would that somehow guarantee an AOC would have a greater chance? In all reality it would likely mean another book by a very popular, bestselling author such as Kleypas, Duran, Bourne etc, would move up the lists.
Writing about authors and their books, commenting on them and promoting them on chats and boards is what helps authors and gets them noticed and read more in addition to the reviews posted here (which get equal billing and equal time on the front page).
It’s from other readers and their comments that I discovered authors like Ellen O’Connell and Meg Maguire/Cara McKenna who don’t have big PR machines behind them (and both made it onto the top 100 voting).
Griffina – The reviewers and staff at AAR recognise white privilege and do our best to counter that in books we choose to review. We ask readers to tell us about good books by AOC and books with diverse characters. I was taken on 2 years ago to review Queer romance fiction to widen our coverage of the LGBTQ+ community, a community Im happy to belong to and I think AAR can be proud of the increase in Queer books we review. After several discussions by readers on SM regarding the ethnic make up of AAR, some quite unpleasant, we discussed between us how we identified and although it is not something we advertise I believe we have a majority of non-white identifying reviewers. So please no more abuse.
This round of the poll is merely the list of 10 books each sent to us by readers. I have heard of LH due to her uninformed book about transgender characters and no, I would not recommend her books or read them myself. However, if readers choose to include her books because THEY enjoyed them what would you have us do? If we say “no she is racist remove them” we are censoring a free vote and upsetting readers who voted for her. Many dont like “Jane Eyre” for her representation of women, and that mad woman in the attic is a feminist horror! Should we remove Jane Eyre or Pride and Prejudice? I wouldnt add 50 shades or Twilight, as I personally dont think they are well written and dont like what they represent. However, they sold millions and their fans will vote for them on polls. So Griffina, do we remove badly written books, or books whose endings are unbelievable? Who chooses what to censor and the reasons?
We present a poll of books chosen by readers. Books they love and enjoy. This is romance poll and whilst it is very important to address issues of racism, homophobia and misogyny in society you cannot dictate to readers what to read and what to like. You can affect covers that show white characters when the story has PoC as the main love interest, by not buying the book in protest. We can be aware of new AOC and current ones to review, but this is a review site and it is a readers’ poll..
Griffina, have you tried to target toward Amazon and other places that sell LH’s books? Hitting her in the pocket might be the best way to get action. I’ve sent letters to them but they’ve ignored my requests.
To expand on what chrisreader and BJ Jansen said – should this site remove their archived reviews of Cassie Edwards’ embarrassingly racist NA romances? Should it avoid reviewing Lisa Kleypas or Eloisa James after their recent racism-related missteps?
I’ve read most of the reviews for the books included on last year’s list. From the comments left behind on those reviews by the site’s staff a ranking isn’t an endorsement.
Thanks Anon. I get the idea of a slippery slope and why disqualifying LH from this poll is not seen as a workable remedy. I’m still concerned that if she ends up in the top 100, she will benefit from the promotion/recognition. But I do understand AAR’s position of not wanting to intervene. There’s no easy answer. I also really appreciated that, iirc, LH was not one of the staff-selected authors in Round 1 – if this was a conscious decision on AAR’s part, thanks AAR.
BJ – I appreciate your detailed response. However, could u please reconsider how you described my anger, and my punching up to AAR, as abuse? I am not being abusive. Thank you.
No one on this thread has seemed abusive to me. I am encouraged at the civility with which this conversation is taking place.
I will say that we’ve had over 2000 people now vote in this round. AAR doesn’t curate this list in anyway. It will be interesting to see what wins in the final 100 and next round.
I understand, Griffina! And I have hope that people won’t vote her into the final listing; I have a feeling that with the number of new authors and books involved that people will likely vote for other options
I’m pretty sure she wasn’t – all of the selections for this part of the poll seem to be fan write-in votes that got some significant part of the vote.
A lot of good things have been said here on both sides and no one necessarily needs my opinion, but I just wanted to chime in that I think the poll should continue to be based solely upon the work, itself, whether you read a book yesterday that really wowed you, or whether you read one 20 years ago that still remains with you for whatever reason. While I haven’t read Linda Howard in years — I think the last book I read was “Open Season,” which I liked — I remember a few of her books fondly and wouldn’t want to block them from being included. That being said, as we all know Linda Howard, herself, has been a big name in romance for decades, so her inclusion in our poll or not — I think — won’t affect her much. On the other hand, voting for a new work by an underrepresented author, may help them get more recognition for their work, so I’m all for that and intend to do my part to promote books that I’ve read and admired. But, I still want to be able to vote for books I enjoyed from the past.
On that note, I just wanted to add that back in the 1970s, when I started reading romances as a pre-teen, there wasn’t much diversity in romance. In fact, I don’t recall as many *Americans* in romances. Most romances I read seemed to be set in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand with heroines who were innocent misses right off the farm or out of small towns. LOL! Now we have so much more diversity, not only in terms of location and type of character, but in terms of POC, sexual orientation, and genre. I’m not a fast reader and have only read about nine romances in the past four or so months. But, of those nine, I think five of them were written by authors of color and all of those five had main characters who were of color. And I wasn’t even trying to single out these books! Not only that, but I gave high ratings to three of those books. So, I would say just by my example — from the 1970s to 2018 — that there’s been a definite change in the romance genre, at least in terms of what is available to read and what we are choosing to recommend. And, yes, this excellent work should be represented in our poll.
Spanish Brand Series by Carla Kelly –fantastic series of books, very entertaining!
Suzanne Barney
As a POC, I’m upset to see so many titles by Linda Howard in this round. LH has made it abundantly clear that she opposes efforts (particularly by RWA) to be more inclusive towards marginalized authors. She has explicitly asserted that diversity constitutes discrimination. She is racist, period. To see so many of her books make the list, yet NONE of the AOC I nominated (Zen Cho, Marjorie Liu, Bettie Sharpe, Naima Simone), which includes 2 black authors, get a chance to be voted on by other readers.
I know AAR’s voting/nominating system is imperfect. However, I still feel more needs to be done to boost marginalized voices & give them a chance to be voted on, so that the top 100 is not overwhelmingly white, again. Also, is AAR really OK with so many slots being filled by LH in this round? I don’t want to see a racist in the top 100, let alone multiple titles by her.
Well, they tried with the round 1 votes to “seed” more diverse candidates, which I think was appropriate. Ultimately though it’s a reader poll. I don’t really know what the staff can do if readers don’t choose poc authors without it becoming not a reader poll.
Lisa, I don’t think you (and AAR, for that matter) is getting Griffina’s point, and what other AOC have been talking about for eons on social media.
It’s called systematic racism, and each of us has the power to stop it. Polls like this, that are based on readers’ nostalgia as far as far as I see, do nothing but keep but add to the hurt.
We understand the point you are making. This poll, done once every five years, is, as they’d say in Galaxy Quest, a historical document. We think there’s value in marking readers’ values–this is the sixth poll we’ve done in over 20 years.
Griffina, I second your words, and applaud you for speaking out. I am sorry that the outspoken racist Linda Howard, and others of her ilk, continue hurt by making lists like this. I decided not to participate as the final list will look no different from AAR’s list of five or ten years ago. And judging from the first 2 rounds, (and comments) I doubt AAR”S reader poll will ever reflect any other than white authors as being the best. But hey, this poll will be deemed a great success as it is a reader’s poll, and AAR will do a Pontius Pilate. Wipe its hands of any culpability in adding to systematic racism that exists in the romance publishing world.
Yes, this is our readers’ poll which we do every five years. Almost 2000 of them have voted on this list. We have opted to let our readers have their say here. The rest of the time, at AAR, we, the reviewers make choices and we own those. But this, this is what a huge swath of romance readers say they love.
HBO and Griffina, I’m listening to you and others in the community about your concerns. I’m making a point of reading authors of color. But I have to admit I did not nominate a book by an author of color in my short list of 10 this year. I’m sorry, but I haven’t read one yet that would displace one of the 10 I did nominate. I genuinely look forward to the day when I read them – I expect it will happen soon – thanks to the coverage sites like AAR have begun to give to POC authors. It wasn’t that long ago that LGBTQ romances would never have appeared on these lists . . . in fact there none in the last Top 100 in 2013. Now there a dozen or so nominated. I believe the same is in the works for POC authors.
So what should they do?
That’s the million dollar question. AAR can remove authors deemed racist from the first portion of the poll and risk them ending up in the rankings through write-in votes or they can require readers add a number of diverse authors or books to their nominations which might cause a different set of problems. It’s a difficult situation. All they can do is listen to readers like HBO and Griffina and try to improve.
Diverse authors, books and characters clearly deserve to be ranked on the list but this is a poll that’s subject to the whim of the popular vote. But there are notable signs of change and positivity there. Judging from the list people love K.J. Charles just as much as they love Linda Howard.
A top ten to twenty list entirely made of diverse authors and characters might make a good compromise. Otherwise readers can and should do some grass roots organization on the voting side of the poll and make some change. I know I have.
Lisa, for starters we ALL can be more proactive in being better allies by seeking out and purchasing books written by Black authors and other AOC, who have been denied publication, for decades, by the white gatekeepers of the industry–agents and the Big Five publishing houses. When I look around at the array of romance blogs out there, I see the same thing over and over again–another book featuring an all white (and straight) cast written by another white author. It’s boring. It’s tiring, even for me, a white woman. As consumers we have the power to push for change. But change cannot happen if we remain in our own safe little lanes. Is it uncomfortable to talk about erasure of other cultures, racism, etc, that does exist even in our beloved romances? Yes! Most certainly. Yet, if we do not speak up the status quo remains. I, for one, no longer accept that. We can and should do better.
*Consider the above to include ALL marginalised groups that have been denied representation not only in the romance world, but across most forms of entertainment.
Oh, I agree with all of these things as general operating procedure for the site and other institutions, including people who make ordering and shelving decisions at retailers etc, but I specifically meant for the poll.
I wasn’t aware until I read some of Linda Howard’s RWA comments that her viewpoints are so narrow and not embracing of diversity. I have read many of her books in the past and enjoyed them. However, now that I am aware of her viewpoints, I will not be comfortable buying her books in the future.
This is the first time I have seen anything brought up about Linda Howard and these issues. I don’t follow RWA or anything much about authors’ private lives, and as these aren’t “celebrities” in the greater sense (outside of their sphere) the mainstream media isn’t going to cover this. I assume most readers are in a similar situation. I don’t do background research on authors and assume most others don’t either.
There have been many reviews and lively discussions about Howard and her works here and I recognize many regular posters like Blackjack etc who have engaged in them. I personally hate Howard’s book “After The Night” because of the heroine’s treatment by the hero but I have been a big fan of her other works and I have expressed all these opinions freely. AAR is very accepting and agreement on every issue or author has never been a requirement.
In all the opportunities for discussion and debates about her books, (particularly in the past several months as the old top lists were re-reviewed and/or discussed) I don’t recall any posts or discussions even intimating anything about Howard you allude to.
It hardly seems fair now to chastise AAR about this issue. Maybe if this had been brought up before in a discussion or a review it may have changed the minds of many people who did vote for her. Maybe not, but either way it hardly seems fair *after the fact* to take issue with her inclusion or the fact that individual voters cast ballots for her.
Clearly there are hundreds, if not thousands of “silent” readers who enjoy AAR, read reviews, show up to vote in the polls but may never have posted once in a discussion or under a review. (I base this on the number of names I recognize from comments and discussions vs, the number of responses AAR seems to get from polls etc.)
If you want to educate people on facts you have, or want to influence their votes or reading habits the best way to do it is by actually commenting on reviews, sharing opinions or viewpoints. I read every comment and discussion about books I am interested in and comment on ones I have actually read. People have posted comments and views on books here and probably would never know they have influenced my purchases or viewpoint but they have.
Lamenting about votes after the fact and berating the unpaid staff at AAR (which has already tried to expand the number of AOC included in the poll) is not the best to go about expanding people’s views or changing their opinions.
We are at just under 2000 votes on this round alone–that’s 2000 people who’ve voted not books chosen.
Aww…did my comments offend you? Bless your heart, honey, but please don’t instruct me or other POC on how to speak or how to act when we want to call out blatant white privilege and racism.
AAR asks that all commenters respect each others’ views. We have worked to make this a site where all are welcome and that means treating each other with kindness.
I apologize for the tone of my reply, and will strive to be more respectful in the future. To be frank, it was difficult to respond with generosity & kindness when the import of Chrisreader’s comment was to dismiss the importance of the issues I raised and the way I raised them, and to then instruct me on the “best” way to speak and act about such issues. However, I will still try to be more respectful in future even towards such comments, while in this forum.
In the interests of moving forward amicably, could you please ask your reviewer below, who called me abusive, to stop doing so in future comments? I am not engaging in abuse by expressing criticism of this poll. Could you please additionally ask Chrisreader to stop calling me manipulative, as he does below (indirectly)? I am not a manipulative monster for expressing opinions Chrisreader or AAR disagrees with. Thank you.
My comment applies to everyone in this discussion. We all owe it to our community to use our words constructively rather than destructively. I will ask again that all who comment here make sure their words take our conversation forward. Kindness: Spread that shit around.
Hope Chase’s “Lord Perfect” was on the first list. My favorite. Glad to see more Connie Brockway and Anne Stuart on this list.
Me, too. I love Connie Brockway, and her books don’t get much love these days.
Yes, to all of these! Lord Perfect is still an all-time favorite as are both Brockway and Stuart.
WOW! No This heart of Mine by Susan Elizabeth Phillips! I loved that book! I’m kind of surprised that The wedding Date by Jasmine Guillory made the list.
Wow no Joanna Bourne
There are books by her on the original list that was voted on in the first round -so they are there. This is the list compiled of the ten write-in votes everyone submitted in that round. Round three will be a combination of both.
I can’t go back to the survey page to check now that I’ve filled it out, but I think Kleypas was misspelled once & Phillips twice.
I’m enjoying voting for my faves, but it’s weird to me seeing recently published books that I couldn’t say will really stand the test of time. Books that are a year or two old. So when you end up with the final list, maybe you could put the year published next to each title?
This was really tough, BTW. I chose some books, like Kiss of Snow and Duke of Sin, because I think they’re terrific, but not necessarily because I’m sure they’ll stand the test of time. It will be interesting to see the final list.
No Suzanne Brockman, that’s a surprise
I agree :-)
Also no Jo Goodman, no Cecelia Grant, and no Josh Lanyon . . . ? Very curious to see how this turns out!
Definitely think Josh Lanyon should be but which book do you choose?
In my personal Top 100, I have both Fair Game and The Dark Tide. I included The Dark Tide on my ballot. What about you?
Sorry for delay….yes Fair Game and Holmes and Moriarity series, Adrien English series, Mexican Heat with Laura Baumbach, Stranger on the Shore oh and Come unto these yellow sands! So many…
I also miss her in this list. Brockmann and Sandra Brown have both several books in my personal Top 100. But –generally speaking– romantic suspense is not a genre that is usually voted in Romancelandia. I think that people tend to remember more –and vote– Historicals.
I did also miss Cecilia Grant, who is one of my favourites.
On the other hand, I found 5 books that I have never heard of, and believe me, I visit A LOT of Romantic websites. But if that’s what people vote, it could be that they are ‘unknown jewels’, or that they have a lot of friends & fans voting for them.
Nevertheless, this is my favourite poll, because it’s done by readers and usually 95% of the list are good books, even if they are not my cup of tea –for instance, paranormals–.
Thank you for the vote of confidence. We’ve had almost 3000 votes in this round. It’s definitely a reader driven result.
Hmm. What a dilemma. There are definitely authors on this list who I think should be included in any “best of” list, like Nora Roberts, Julie James, LaVyrle Spencer, Kristen Higgins, Susanna Kearsley, Patricia Gaffney,Jennifer Crusie, Pamela Morsi, etc. But, the books that are listed for them are either not my favorites or ones that I’ve not read. I’d hate to choose those books just so the authors will be included on my list.
On the other hand, I’m a little surprised at some authors — who I think are still earning their place on these types of lists — who have five and six books to choose from. I guess that’s a function of their being up and coming authors with readers who are currently enjoying them, and thus, including multiple titles in their lists.
We plan to do a “best series of all time” poll in the near future. This poll has always just done individual books.
I think I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t talking about series. I meant, there are very well-known authors on this list with only a few books from their catalogue to choose from on the list — one or two. In comparison, there are authors who I don’t think have reached the level of “best of” yet who have five or six of their books on the list. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? (I’m guessing it has something to do with newer readers choosing what’s being published now as opposed to books that are well-known in the romance genre from “the past” but are not as well-known to newer readers?)
I think this is something that always happens in public polls, regardless of subject. I, too, raised eyebrows at many of the names on the list (and I still can’t believe that The Madness of Ian Mackenzie is = or was – higher up than Flowers from the Storm in the last Top 100) – but it’s often a case of people having stronger memories of the things they read most recently, or of readers new to the genre who haven’t get had time to catch up with the books long-time readers regard as classics.
How can there be no Lord of Scoundrels in this list? It’s my absolute favourite, and has been top of this poll for years! I’m shocked.
This is JUST the write-in votes. In the next round, they will be combined with the 50 top titles Round One included. So, no worries. LoS will be in Round Three.