I must be honest. I’ve never been a really big fan of the romance novel, and I’ve almost always passed on them ever since seeing some cheesy covers with swooning women with torn dresses, lying askew in the arms of a shirtless beefcake specimen whose hair is as long as hers. There weren’t any books in the Romance section that ever appealed to me based on the covers that I saw there 15-25 years ago, and despite some crossovers with mystery, thriller, fantasy, and paranormal flavor, they still appear to dominate those shelves.
Don’t get me wrong… I appreciate the beefcake. Keith Hamilton Cobb in a chainmail vest: Best thing in SF TV, EVER. But I digress.
I am not familiar with the rules of romance. I had no idea that there were distinct lines between what defines a “romance” and what defines a “love story”, nor that there were so many rules for the other types of romantic tales. But the readers are passionately familiar with them, and passionately pissed off when certain rules are broken for certain types of tales.
I have been discovering this after reading a blog post that commented on Show #243, on paranormal romance. After reading some of the many comments, and adding a few myself, it occurs to me that some of what they are arguing about reflects a bit on our earlier discussion. I wonder if the bigger picture goes beyond endangered indie stores and a little into poor marketing strategies that are adversely affecting many aspects of bookselling. If all of the books are called “romances”, how is someone outside of the genre supposed to know that there’s a huge difference between the types of romances? I wouldn’t know, not from walking through the section at a Borders or Barnes & Noble, nor down the aisles of used bookstores such as Bookman’s.
Fantastical tales with romantic relationship elements between characters is fine with me… but I wouldn’t call that a romance, nor a love story. A love story might be a subplot of the main story, but you can’t call the book a love story because of it. So why are so many books that focus on romantic relationships all called “Romance” when that definition no longer holds in the minds of the readers who are consuming these books? Doesn’t it dawn on the marketers that these readers will also actively and rabidly seek out new books that fit their expectations, so making them harder to find hurts both sides?
I mention this because of the fantasy crossover angle. Should the paranormal romance, or the romantic fantasy tales be shelved in both SF/F and Romance? I know some guys who have used crossover stories to lure their wives and girlfriends in SF/F, but I don’t know of anyone using them to accomplish the reverse. While I personally don’t have any interest in the traditional fare of the Romance novel, there might be a number of SF/F readers who would be, but like me, wouldn’t normally go into the Romance section to see what’s there. So what’s the best way to attract the interest of the casual reader, the one who wouldn’t know ahead of time where to look for a book because they’d already seen or read about it online?
There’s not a simple answer here (unless it’s “put Love Story instead of Romance” as the category on the cover), but I’m definitely getting an education in the process.
addendum: The original definition of “romance” states: a medieval narrative, originally one in verse and in some Romance dialect, treating of heroic, fantastic, or supernatural events, often in the form of allegory AND a baseless, made-up story, usually full of exaggeration or fanciful invention.
So, by definition, all of those stories that a number of us have been taken to task for calling romances do actually fit the original definition of the word. So, about that rigid adherence to romantic definitions… it doesn’t seem like it’s something to get so upset about anymore, not with so many other genres crossing over into Romance that have been lining up their relationships according to the old ways.
That said, I’m going to add a little bit to the smoldering bonfire: Calling it paranormal romance is right. It’s the definition of Romance that maybe needs to be updated and clarified. Define and describe current descriptions of the genre, as well as those that are considered to be outdated and derogatory so that people outside the genre can learn without being attacked for an innocent slipup. Make a history lesson out of it. If you want people not familiar with the genre to understand, update things for the 21st century and move on from there.
I say this because covering genres beyond science fiction, fantasy and horror is where The Dragon Page is headed. It’s only a matter of time before Romance sticks it’s foot in the door, and I don’t want there to be an angry mob behind it, upset only because of novice confusion between “romance” and “love story”. That’s a waste of everyone’s time and energy, and I’d rather avoid it from the jump.
Why am I pushing it? Because the major attitude seems to be that any romance novel that doesn’t have a “happily ever after” ending doesn’t belong in the Romance section of the bookstore, nor should it be labeled “Romance”; that it should go in Fantasy or General Fiction instead.
Why not come up with ways to extend “Romance” to be inclusive rather than exclusive? Why not call a love story that ends badly a “Tragic Romance”? It lets people know that it’s a romantic story, but that there isn’t a happily ever after ending. Why can’t that go in the Romance section, now that it’s more clearly labeled? And why can’t other romantic tales be so labeled, and make everyone from readers to marketing departments happier?
I’m with Summer, here. My sister is a romance book geek. I have known her for a long time.
I have read thousands and thousands of books, and I had no idea that there was a set ending type for a romance book, or else people get mad.