She encouraged people to randomly pick books written from 10 of the authors listed and see if they enjoyed them -- without preconceptions. Then apply this experiment and see if you can generalize to say "I love/hate ALL the books written by people who are listed at RTB." Obviously, this is sophistry. I suppose it makes a point, of a sort, although it's a point made with a blunt-edge instrument. Generalities don't often accomplish much with people who are truly teachable. But I suppose there are enough close-minded folks still around that her lesson might be of some use. If it is, I wish her well.
In the comments, I noted that:
I’ve read romances by authors of many races and unless an author is deliberately attempting to inject an ethnic or cultural tone, I can rarely tell who’s who. It’s possible that I’m not reading very deeply (in fact, I’d say it’s likely) but I tend to take romance novels at face value, rather than reading for mind-bending philosophy or a cultural immersion experience.
I posted that a while back, after reading more than one comment that someone had read a few AA romances, found them mediocre and somehow applied that to the entire sub-genre.
My main point though, is that it's stupid to have a sub-genre defined by race, any race because people within that race are as diverse as any other.
And yep, I truly think there are plenty of close-minded folks around, of all races and types, that jus' don't get it.
Do you really think I'm fierce? Really? I like that, sorta like I'm channeling Malcolm X or something.
But, heck, didn't he get shot?
Yeesh. Yeah, he did. But fierce is still a good thing! It's his legacy, not his end, that matters.
Would that make all romance books superb if I found 3 keepers? See your point Monica.