# What is Romance? Does it belong in thrillers? Do sex scenes? Thoughts?



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

T.L. Haddix asked me to guest post on her blog today--about writing romance. That got me thinking...do I write romance? Or the antithesis?

And what _is_ romance, anyway? 
*Please post your opinions here!*

I had fun writing the post. Read it here http://tlhaddix.com/content/2011/02/romancing-romance-by-author-suzanne-tyrpak/

Thanks!

Suzanne

(There's also a great article about self-promotion by L.C. Evans)


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

I'd love to hearing other people's thoughts about romance--it's one of my fave topics!


----------



## Ruth Harris (Dec 26, 2010)

IMO romance has grown from a fairly narrow category -- originally called bodice rippers -- to a much, much larger one and includes fiction primarily of interest to women.  It overlaps/includes Women's Fiction and even what was once called Mainstream Fiction.  I'd love others to chime in.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks for posting Ruth. I hope others follow. I agree--romance novels have evolved.

I'm interested in human relationships, the psyche, how we operate with each other. And I'm interested in how we deal with sexuality and emotions (and how we've dealt with them throughout history). For me, romance also implies mystery and adventure, and these are elements I weave into my story. But sexuality may not have anything to do with romance--it might be used to manipulate, to wield power, to intimidate, to seduce without emotion. I'm interested in exploring all these possibilities along with the romantic ideal of love in my stories. The way a character approaches sex is extremely telling.


----------



## LCEvans (Mar 29, 2009)

Very nice article, Suzanne. Like Ruth, I've noticed that romances come in a lot of subgenres. I love it when the books are categorized like this. I like humor and historicals and I like being able to find them easily.


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

What is Romance?

A Romance is the story of the relationship of a couple*, how they come together and fall in love, and the conflicts (both internal and external) they must deal with and resolve before reaching their happily-ever-after ending.

The happily-every-after (HEA) ending is a MUST. Without it, the story is not a Romance. A happy-for-now (HFN), with the inherent promise that it will eventually be HEA, ending is acceptable in short story, novelette, and novella lengths. Sometimes there simply isn't enough room in these shorter forms to believably develop the HEA, but as long as the couple is together and happy, it works. Usually, HEA endings in the shorter forms work best if the couple is already in the middle of a relationship, exes and getting back together, long-term friends discovering their friendship turning into something more, etc.

"Bodice ripper" is a term that refers to a specific type of historical romance from the mid-70s to early-80s (written by Rosemary Rogers, Kathleen Woodiwiss, and many others).

Lanette


* For simplicity's sake, the word "couple" can refer to m/f, m/m, f/f, threesomes or more, or whatever floats your boat. My personal preference is one man and one woman, but your mileage may vary.


----------



## Jennybeanses (Jan 27, 2011)

I left my comment over on the post, but to me romance is when the relationship between characters becomes a primary focus over time. Whether it be bad or good, if it ends with them together, that's romance to me.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

T.L. Haddix said:


> If you look closely, every movie, TV show and book usually has some shape or form of romance. Even the thrillers and action flicks.  The (fill in the blank) doesn't work so well without it. Look at shows that have run for years on the backs of the sexual tension between the two main characters.
> 
> I wonder if the reason romance or the idea of sexual tension, even, appeals to so many people (even men, whether they'll admit it or not) because one of our basic instincts is supposedly to mate?


Yes, but in those the HEA is not requisite as in Romance.


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

I'm probably an outlier here, but I hate the HEA requirement for a romance.  

I mean, what do you call a story where the main thrust is the building of a relationship, but it doesn't work out, either the relationship goes sour or one character dies.  What if it's a book about love and the joy and the pain of it?  What do you call them?  

In a romance I want to see a relationship build.  I usually want to see some sex, because in most cases sex is part of a functional romantic relationship, but a fade to black is fine.  On the other hand, a 'romance' say set in the 1500's in which the Knight and his Lady actually play by the rules of courtly love would be really interesting and totally sexless.  But, of course, since the rules require they can never be together it's not a romance.  

I find it frustrating that you can't, in a romance, explore loved and lost.  No one gets to be wiser but sadder.  You never get to see the value of the emotional development that comes from loving deeply and then losing.  Let alone the ability to show off that you may indeed be better off without Mr. Perfect.  

Okay, I'll stop complaining about the HEA.  I certainly understand that a lot of people want it.  And I really get the fact that many people would be sorely disappointed if the MCs don't find the rainbow and the pot of gold.


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

modwitch said:


> Interesting question. My novella has a romance in it, and so does my novel (but it doesn't involve the MC in the novel). I like romance, but I've never been a big fan of books that are only romance. I want it blended in with lots of other stuff.
> 
> Which probably just means my books are going to be he** to categorize
> 
> The other question I find funny is the difference between romance and erotica. I'm with Suzanne - romance and sex can be two really different things! Erotica can be romantic - or totally not. Romance can have sex - or totally not.


My definition above didn't mean other things aren't happening! Other things should be going on--a mystery to solve, a quest to tackle, a murder to investigate, or perhaps something less exotic like trying to keep a business afloat or finding a handyman to fix the plumbing. But the main focus of the story is the romance and how it develops while the h/h are doing these other things. Bad things can happen to them, they can break up then come together again (through circumstance or choice), but at the end of the story, they are together, declare their love, and are on their way to building a life together.

Erotica might or might not have a HEA ending, and its focus is the sex. Erotic romance does have the HEA ending. Some define erotic romance as the sexual situation driving the story, but I'm a little looser with my definition of it. There is more focus on the sex, the words used are more explicit, and there are more love scenes in erotic romance.

I read in many other genres. But if I'm in the mood to read a romance, and I buy a book that is categorized as Romance but it doesn't follow the formula of what a romance is, then I am not going to be a happy reader. At all. I will never buy or read that author again. Many years ago, I read a time travel story by an author who is well-known for her romance novels. The heroine went back in time and fell in love with the hero. It ends with the heroine returning to the present, where she meets some guy who the author intimates is the reincarnation of the man she left behind. But the hero had to live out the rest of his life back in his own time without the woman he loved, and that's no HEA. It followed the formula up until the very end. I've never read another book by this author and never will. And it made me wary of time travel romances, so that I have to make sure the couple ends up together, no matter which time, before I actually read it.

What is a Romance? It's all about the journey to the happily-ever-after.

Lanette


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

KerylR said:


> I'm probably an outlier here, but I hate the HEA requirement for a romance.
> 
> I mean, what do you call a story where the main thrust is the building of a relationship, but it doesn't work out, either the relationship goes sour or one character dies. What if it's a book about love and the joy and the pain of it? What do you call them?
> 
> ...


But these kinds of stories can be and have been written. Aren't they categorized as Chick Lit and Women's Fiction?

Lanette


----------



## AnnetteL (Jul 14, 2010)

In your post I think you used one term that helps define things: _*romantic. *_

*Romance* and *Romantic* are not the same thing.

I see what KerylR is saying--why do the two MCs HAVE to get together?

Lanette said it: it's all about reader expectations. If you pick up a romance, the genre rule is that the hero and heroine are together at the end.

But sure, you can write a book where hero dies instead. That could be a wonderfully powerful book. The catch: it's something besides a romance. It's ROMANTIC. (Think one of the most romantic stories of all time--_Romeo and Juliet_. Romantic, not a romance. Tragic ending.)

Think of it this way: what if Miss Marple didn't figure out who dunnit? Then the novel wouldn't be murder mystery. A murder mystery _requires_ that we find out who the bad guy is by the end. If we read an Agatha Christie and didn't get that, we'd throw the book against the wall. It's all about reader expectations.

So write a book without the HEA--but you'll have to call it something else. (The hugely broad "Women's Fiction" works as a starting point.)

I have a few friends who write romance--very well--and I love how they take what could be a boring formula and turn it inside out and upside down so the reader has a ball on the ride and doesn't know HOW the two will end up together.

One of them took a classic nursery rhyme, turned it backward, and used that to base her plot around. ("First comes the babies in the baby carriage, then comes marriage, last comes love.") It was a fantastic book--I laughed and cried.

I also think that a good romance writer is skilled at creating chemistry and tension--and that doesn't necessarily mean lots of physical anything. Sometimes a good writer can create the tension so well that all we need is a *kiss* for a huge payoff. For me, if the couple is jumping into bed on page 12, the author not only got lazy, but just destroyed any chance for building up the chemistry and with it any hope for a great romance.

The difference is when writing _ romantic_ story. Those don't need the HEA ending. They can have hot moments, romantic tension, even "true love," but if the couple isn't together at the end, it isn't technically a romance. It could still be a great book--but it just doesn't fall under that genre category.


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

MidnightWriter said:


> But these kinds of stories can be and have been written. Aren't they categorized as Chick Lit and Women's Fiction?
> 
> Lanette


Are they? I know they aren't romance.

I don't read a lot of chick lit, is that where the less than HEA end up? Would it then be Paranormal Chic Lit?


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

AnnetteL said:


> In your post I think you used one term that helps define things: _*romantic. *_
> 
> *Romance* and *Romantic* are not the same thing.
> 
> ...


Thank you! I was trying to come up with an example in another genre and couldn't think of anything. Reading a Mystery without finding out whodunnit at the end is the perfect example. Wall banger, for sure!

I call a story like Romeo and Juliet a "love story" because of Erich Segal's Love Story. She died--not a romance. As you pointed out, such stories can be romantic, but not Romance.

Lanette


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

KerylR said:


> I'm probably an outlier here, but I hate the HEA requirement for a romance.
> 
> I mean, what do you call a story where the main thrust is the building of a relationship, but it doesn't work out, either the relationship goes sour or one character dies. What if it's a book about love and the joy and the pain of it? What do you call them?
> 
> ...


You aren't the only outlier. That is exactly my problem with Romance as a genre. But it sells well enough without me buying them so i don't think they care.


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

KerylR said:


> Are they? I know they aren't romance.
> 
> I don't read a lot of chick lit, is that where the less than HEA end up? Would it then be Paranormal Chic Lit?


I don't really know. That's why I asked. I don't read Chick Lit and Women's Fiction. I only know what I've heard about the two categories. What I've heard about them doesn't really interest me, so I avoid books in those categories.

Lanette


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks for responding. I like the definitions of romance vs romantic. I don't want to give too much away, but by that definition my novel qualifies as romance--it's also the complaint of one of my reviewers who felt the story is too neatly tied up.

I'm working on another novel now, and it has romantic elements. I'm going back and forth on the storyline--especially the ending--so I'm not sure yet if it will qualify as romance. It's definitely suspense...but will all the threads of love come together in a neat bow? I'm not sure.

This gives me a lot to think about.


----------



## Ruth Ann Nordin (Sep 24, 2010)

I agree with the difference between romance and romantic.  I think Women's Fiction and Chick Lit would be more along the lines of there not having to be a happy ending, but the romance readers I've talked to (and myself included) want the happy ending or else it's not a romance.

To me, romance is a fantasy.  It's about fulling our wishes for the perfect love.  It's about the hero and heroine working together to overcome all odds and still end up happily together.  My romances veer off from the typical formula, and it's why Harlequin didn't want my books.  They wanted more angst between the hero and heroine, but I think it's stronger to have the hero and heroine pull together despite external opposition.  One of my favorite romances is Eyes of Silver, Eyes of Gold by Ellen O'Connell because of the way she handled this.

Does romance have to have sex in it?  Of course not.  That's like saying a thriller has to show people being brutally murdered.  Sometimes it's best to imply it instead.  I love psychological thrillers more than graphically violent ones.  It really depends on the storyline and the characters.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

MidnightWriter said:


> What is a Romance? It's all about the journey to the happily-ever-after.


I wrote and earlier post on this sort of thing&#8230; more my thoughts on the difference between PNR and Urban Fantasy&#8230; http://tlhaddix.com/content/2011/01/c-i-bond-author-genre-differentiation/ But I talk about how limiting romance is because basically you can't go too far into the dark or the otherness of your hero and still have it hit all the story requirements of a romance.


----------



## Ruth Harris (Dec 26, 2010)

Hi Lanette, I write Women's Fiction & wonder what you have heard about it that turns you off?  Occasionally, my characters have a Happy Beginning but not a HE.  Most of the time, tho, they have a HE but have to  overcome obstacles on the way.  My novels aren't Romantic (with a capital R);  they're more realistic and involve characters that are recognizable -- as opposed to super goregous, super sexy.  I'd love to hear from you.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

CIBond said:


> But I talk about how limiting romance is because basically you can't go too far into the dark or the otherness of your hero and still have it hit all the story requirements of a romance.


Not to say that romance doesn't have limits. But I would disagree with that one. I don't write paranormal. But dark is the new black, in historical. It's more a question of 'how bad can you make him' lately. And I am happy because redemption stories, and turning the villain, is kind of my specialty.

Agreeing with everyone who said that it's all about the HEA, and the journey towards it. You have to do that, to get the romance label. And I call Nicolas Sparks and the like 'love stories' like Midnightwinter does.

And I'll answer you Ruth, although you didn't ask me. I avoid women's fiction for the most part, unless I am pretty sure of the ending. I will go so far as to read the ending first. A book doesn't have to have a relationship at the end to satisfy me. But it is the bleak midwinter over here, both in weather and in life. I have more _realism_ than I can personally handle, right now. A book with any of the heavy topics like death or separation would snap me like a twig. Not going to ready any of those books with the empty Adirondack chair on the cover. I can't trust them to leave me in a happy frame of mind.

And the problem with Chick Lit is that in trad publishing, it's dead. That's what I'd label NEEDTO KNOW, if I had to tag it. No HEA. And I could not sell it to save my life. but I prefer it to the women's fiction label, because it was about young women on the way up, still full of life and energy. That is sometimes lacking in the women's fiction stories. I don't like to be reminded that I am playing the back nine of life.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

CIBond said:


> I wrote and earlier post on this sort of thing&#8230; more my thoughts on the difference between PNR and Urban Fantasy&#8230; http://tlhaddix.com/content/2011/01/c-i-bond-author-genre-differentiation/ But I talk about how limiting romance is because basically you can't go too far into the dark or the otherness of your hero and still have it hit all the story requirements of a romance.


Interesting post C.I.

Christine, I have to admit that I also prefer happy endings. But...what is a happy ending? Does it always have to involves HEA with a guy? What if, after a convoluted romantic adventure, a woman discovers her own power? What if the romance involves a man who is, ultimately, not what he appeared to be? Does the genre of romance hold no place for different outcomes?

This makes me think that I'm a romantic writer, but not necessarily a writer of romance.

*I'd love to hear thoughts about how the romance genre has changed in recent years, and how it is evolving.
Also: what do men consider romantic? And, guys, what kind of love interest (if any) do you want in a story?*


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

So what is it if two end up happy together at the end, but their relationship isn't the main story of the book? Maybe it's a novel about catching a serial killer and a detective and a witness end up happy together at the end? 

It seems to me that a romance is primarily a story about how the two characters end up happy together. The focus is on that and not on a crime or a mystery or something else.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Asher MacDonald said:


> So what is it if two end up happy together at the end, but their relationship isn't the main story of the book? Maybe it's a novel about catching a serial killer and a detective and a witness end up happy together at the end?
> 
> It seems to me that a romance is primarily a story about how the two characters end up happy together. The focus is on that and not on a crime or a mystery or something else.


Thanks for responding Asher--I hope more guys will.

A love interest does not make a book a romance--at least not in any traditional sense of the genre. But I'd like to open this discussion to the importance of romance in ANY story. Also men's take on that.

I once attended a thriller-writers' conference (I think it was Left Coast Crime), and the topic of romance (and sex) in thrillers came up in a panel discussion. (The panel included Joe Konrath, btw.) The panel turned to the audience for a vote: should a thriller include sex scenes? The men in the audience seemed to be against sex scenes. The women, however, wanted them!

Opinions?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I don't know about thrillers, but most genres may contain elements of romantic tension. Since it's a part of life, having people in thrillers, mysteries, etc never form a relationship would be rather peculiar, wouldn't it?


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

What is love? Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me. Don't hurt me no more.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> What is love? Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me. Don't hurt me no more.


Jason...do you need some relationship counseling?


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> Jason...do you need some relationship counseling?


Actually, I do just fine now that I take after these guys, thanks.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

LOL. But that guy in the middle must wake up with a stiff...neck.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> Interesting post C.I.
> 
> Christine, I have to admit that I also prefer happy endings. But...what is a happy ending? Does it always have to involves HEA with a guy? What if, after a convoluted romantic adventure, a woman discovers her own power? What if the romance involves a man who is, ultimately, not what he appeared to be? Does the genre of romance hold no place for different outcomes?


To me, and I am NOT wise in the ways of Romance novel definitions, that is exactly what takes something from romance and into chicklit. Chicklit is about a romance, ultimately, with herself. Or not. I have no idea!


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Monique said:


> To me, and I am NOT wise in the ways of Romance novel definitions, that is exactly what takes something from romance and into chicklit. Chicklit is about a romance, ultimately, with herself. Or not. I have no idea!


This.



Christine Merrill said:


> Not to say that romance doesn't have limits. But I would disagree with that one. I don't write paranormal. But dark is the new black, in historical. It's more a question of 'how bad can you make him' lately. And I am happy because redemption stories, and turning the villain, is kind of my specialty.


It's all about the HEA. It doesn't matter how bad the guy starts out&#8230; he must be a proper "hero" for the romantic ending to work. The Christian Romances are often about saving the man (at least from what I have been told) and bringing him to Jesus. It is an essential component of the reader's life and so it adds to the sweetness of the HEA fantasy. The necessity of reform has a credibility problem if you make the "hero" too dark or strange. I just don't see an actual demon reformed by the love of a good woman&#8230; so the author needs to lighten him up so that the reform is credible. There isn't anything wrong with that it just limits how "off" you can make him - how alien. He has a narrower window that say&#8230; a non-romance hero.

I just thought of an example:

Can you see Dexter Morgan as the leading man in a classic romance if he remains a lovable serial killer or would that kill the HEA?


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Dexter would definitely be a dark romantic hero...and strange. How about Hannibal Lexter?  He ultimately became the love interest for Clarice, didn't he?


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> Interesting post C.I.
> 
> Christine, I have to admit that I also prefer happy endings. But...what is a happy ending? Does it always have to involves HEA with a guy?
> 
> ...


The answers, in order. And this is only as they relate to romance, which is a specific genre, and not a value judgment on what people choose to write.

Yes, an HEA needs to involve a guy. Or more exactly, a partner (or partners, gender and species, and number to be determined).

If a woman discovers her own power without that defined HEA, than it is lit fic, chick lit, or women's fiction.

If the guy turns out to be a jerk, than it is lit fic, chick lit or women's fiction.

No, the genre does not have a place for other outcomes.

People find that confining. But really it's not. All other rules in the genre are guidelines. People will tell you no rock stars, no loose women, no adultery, no rape, no murder, no more than one partner, no no no no&#8230;

All those things will influence audience reaction. But none of those things should keep the book off the romance shelves. The person who compared it to mystery is spot on. You don't set up a book as a mystery, and decide not to solve the crime. You can write a book about an unsolved crime, but it should not be on the mystery shelf. Your readers will hate you.

So, you're right. You're probably not a romance writer. I'd guess women's fiction. Or maybe you are literary.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks for the clarification Christine and Monique.

Maybe there should be a category for Romantic Adventures.  
Women's fiction sounds vague to me.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> I'd love to hear thoughts about how the romance genre has changed in recent years, and how it is evolving.[/b]


Second post, since I was getting long winded. And most of this is about the traditional market. The whole point of coming here is that we can write what we want. But I can give you the big picture on what people are reading and why. All opinion, of course. and I'm long winded.

Imagine yourself at the beach, watching the waves and the tides. The ocean is romance (really big) the waves are all the subgenres. You see a few tsunamis in a lifetime (paranormal). And then you see the regular changes by day and season. Right now, historical is in, and contemporary is out (but probably coming back). When I started writing about 1999, contemp comedy was in, and historical was out. And in paranormal, there was a sudden rush, which broke into vamps, shifters, werewolves, and lately, zombies.

Chick lit was a brief storm. It got old right about the time that Sex and the City peeked and real women noticed that they did not live in Manhattan, nor could they afford decent shoes.

And the reason contemp has been out, and that there has been a lull in romantic suspense, is that the economy blows, there is massive debt, we are still at war, and there has been lots of political turmoil for a long time. Readers are withdrawing from reality as far and as fast as they can. The sort of contemporaries that sell well are the Harlequin Presents books, which are full of billionaires (not millionaires).

I also think that heroes have gotten a lot darker, lately, very alpha and going back to almost a 70's level of arrogance. This is not a rejection of feminism, IMHO. It's that women, along with men, are stressed to the max. We do not have time to be responsible for our own 'ahem' pleasure. The billionaire /handsome prince /duke and rake heroes are take charge guys who will not have you clipping coupons, making dinner and then being the sexual aggressor. They are all jerks on page one, but they are easily tamed, permanently, faithful, and not going to dump a wholesome Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie.

It sounds retro. But the heroines in the older books used to get away with being doormats in need of saving. That won't work anymore. Heroines now need opinions, jobs and brains, and usually a sexual past. Even if they are trapped in a situation that does not allow for many options, they need to meet the hero halfway intellectually. If they have a personal problem or conflict, the hero might help them achieve the solution, but they have to grow themselves to earn the HEA at the end of the book.

While there is an HEA, and the relationship is the thrust of the story, a good romance will have the same level of spiritual and emotional growth that you will see without a guy present. The relationship is primary, but it is also the icing on the cake of a full life.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> But that would be what Jenny Crusie and Bob Mayer write. Adventure means guns, in marketing. Do you have guns? (she said hopefully. I love books like that).
> 
> And books which have a romance, but also something else: thriller, mystery, etc. Are called by the RWA "Books with strong romantic elements". Sometimes they get shelved with romance in the book stores. And the RWA contests make a separate category for them, so that people don't judge them subjectively as 'not romantic enough'.
> 
> ...


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> Dexter would definitely be a dark romantic hero...and strange. How about Hannibal Lexter? He ultimately became the love interest for Clarice, didn't he?


But an HEA ending wouldn't be possible unless you were okay with the extra freezer being full of body-parts and most readers aren't.


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Ruth Harris said:


> Hi Lanette, I write Women's Fiction & wonder what you have heard about it that turns you off? Occasionally, my characters have a Happy Beginning but not a HE. Most of the time, tho, they have a HE but have to overcome obstacles on the way. My novels aren't Romantic (with a capital R); they're more realistic and involve characters that are recognizable -- as opposed to super goregous, super sexy. I'd love to hear from you.


Pretty much everything you said is a turnoff for me. When I read I don't want realism, I want to escape into the fantasy. I want to know the journey will have a good ending, that everything the heroine went through paid off. In Real Life, some things pay off, some don't. Sometimes (and most times, in my own life) things don't work out neatly with a bow on top. When I read a romance, I want the bow. That's why I read romance.

My husband passed away three years ago, so my own HEA didn't last as long as I thought it would. I never have wanted to read about depressing endings, and I sure don't now. I've lived my own, thanks. I want happiness and sunshine and rainbows (especially if the main characters have been through a lot of bad stuff).

Oh, the only thing I don't really want is super gorgeous, super sexy heroines. I like the plainer, physically less than perfect heroines. She may be plain, overweight, too short, too tall, too shy, etc., that's the type of heroines I write. But in the hero's eyes she is perfect.

Lanette


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> But...what is a happy ending? Does it always have to involves HEA with a guy?


In the romance genre, yes.



SuzanneTyrpak said:


> What if, after a convoluted romantic adventure, a woman discovers her own power? What if the romance involves a man who is, ultimately, not what he appeared to be? Does the genre of romance hold no place for different outcomes?


Then it's not a romance. The romance genre *requires* a HEA with a partner. If it does not meet that requirement, it's simply not a romance.

Lanette


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Asher MacDonald said:


> So what is it if two end up happy together at the end, but their relationship isn't the main story of the book? Maybe it's a novel about catching a serial killer and a detective and a witness end up happy together at the end?
> 
> It seems to me that a romance is primarily a story about how the two characters end up happy together. The focus is on that and not on a crime or a mystery or something else.


It's called Romantic Suspense. That's one of the sub-genres that doesn't end in "romance". (I think of it as the last word is the noun and so is the focus of the story, like Paranormal Romance, Erotic Romance, Historical Romance, etc.) Romantic Comedy is another. Suspenseful Romance and Comedic Romance just don't sound right. LOL

Lanette


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

CIBond said:


> There isn't anything wrong with that it just limits how "off" you can make him - how alien.


Alien? Did someone mention alien?  (I know you were talking about demons, but...)

See Starkissed in my sig. He's as alien as it gets. Futuristic/Sci-Fi Romance. He's not just from another world, he's from another species! His...romantic equipment, shall we say, is a bit different from human men.

Still, the focus is on the romance as there are only a couple of love scenes and it's 80,000 words. I wrote it about 12 years ago. It was daring and different at the time. It's kind of tame compared to what's out there now, but it is very romantic and has a satisfying HEA.

Lanette


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Christine, I agree with pretty much everything you said in your posts. Thank you.


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Now, I have a question.

If what you write doesn't meet the requirements of the Romance genre--main focus on the journey of the of the h/h falling in love with a HEA ending--why do you want to call it Romance?

Lanette


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

KerylR said:


> I'm probably an outlier here, but I hate the HEA requirement for a romance.
> 
> I mean, what do you call a story where the main thrust is the building of a relationship, but it doesn't work out, either the relationship goes sour or one character dies. What if it's a book about love and the joy and the pain of it? What do you call them?


Love stories - or women's fiction - depending on the way the writer handled it. In Love stories the relationship is at least 70% of the plot. In women's fiction, less than 70%.

I know, its weird, it doesn't seem like it should matter, but for the RABID romance fan - you had better get it right or you will hear about it.

I would like to go on record as saying "If you read romance, then you can write romance. Otherwise, it is likely to be women's fiction, because you don't know the tropes."


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> What is love? Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me. Don't hurt me no more.






 Check out the Vampire chick!


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

MidnightWriter said:


> My husband passed away three years ago, so my own HEA didn't last as long as I thought it would. I never have wanted to read about depressing endings, and I sure don't now. I've lived my own, thanks. I want happiness and sunshine and rainbows (especially if the main characters have been through a lot of bad stuff).


You actually see a lot of this. Women who work in trauma counseling, nurse who are in critical care or ICU&#8230; etc. I suspect that 70% of them read romances. Escape fantasy is the non-alcoholic way of handing the stress.



MidnightWriter said:


> Alien? Did someone mention alien?  (I know you were talking about demons, but...)
> 
> See Starkissed in my sig. He's as alien as it gets. Futuristic/Sci-Fi Romance. He's not just from another world, he's from another species! His...romantic equipment, shall we say, is a bit different from human men.


I like my romance a little hard-core (that would be PNR/Erotica)&#8230; I suppose I'm just not a very "sweet" person. LOL&#8230;


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

CIBond said:


> You actually see a lot of this. Women who work in trauma counseling, nurse who are in critical care or ICU&#8230; etc. I suspect that 70% of them read romances. Escape fantasy is the non-alcoholic way of handing the stress.


Well, I've read romances since I was in my teens. I cut my romance teeth on the historical romances of the mid-70s. (I've also always read SF, thrillers, mystery, and horror, too.) I've never really liked a sad, unhappy ending in anything. But I've found the older I get the less I like it. Now I'm at the point I don't want to read an unhappy ending at all.



CIBond said:


> I like my romance a little hard-core (that would be PNR/Erotica)&#8230; I suppose I'm just not a very "sweet" person. LOL&#8230;


As in real life, sometimes I like it hard and fast, and sometimes sweet and slow. 

Lanette


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

MidnightWriter said:


> Well, I've read romances since I was in my teens. I cut my romance teeth on the historical romances of the mid-70s. (I've also always read SF, thrillers, mystery, and horror, too.) I've never really liked a sad, unhappy ending in anything. But I've found the older I get the less I like it. Now I'm at the point I don't want to read an unhappy ending at all.


We read Beatrice Small in our house&#8230; that was when I was in high school.

I think what we all crave is a happy ending. For Romance is a relationship ending but for fiction it is the guy who make the sacrifice and does the right thing - in the end he needs to get rewarded for it, not outsourced, cheated on, become ill, lose his wife. That is just too much like life. For example: _The Other_ by David Guterson - we talked about it in our bookclub, the problem was that the main character didn't to the hard but right thing. He did the lazy/not-my-problem thing and we stopped respecting him as a main character. Sacrifice by a good person = reward. That's what everyone wants in fiction. _The Art of Racing in the Rain_ he did the hard but right thing and we cheered him for it.



MidnightWriter said:


> As in real life, sometimes I like it hard and fast, and sometimes sweet and slow.
> 
> Lanette


LOL&#8230; tell me more.  

BTW - if you want a free copy of my book ([email protected]) it has a sex scene or two but it isn't a romance. I actually thought they were very racey but I just had a reader comment about how she liked them because they weren't too graphic. LOL... here I thought I was very graphic. That's when I started reading erotica.


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

CIBond said:


> We read Beatrice Small in our house&#8230; that was when I was in high school.
> 
> I think what we all crave is a happy ending. For Romance is a relationship ending but for fiction it is the guy who make the sacrifice and does the right thing - in the end he needs to get rewarded for it, not outsourced, cheated on, become ill, lose his wife. That is just too much like life. For example: _The Other_ by David Guterson - we talked about it in our bookclub, the problem was that the main character didn't to the hard but right thing. He did the lazy/not-my-problem thing and we stopped respecting him as a main character. Sacrifice by a good person = reward. That's what everyone wants in fiction. _The Art of Racing in the Rain_ he did the hard but right thing and we cheered him for it.
> 
> ...


I read Bertrice Small, too. Rosemary Rogers, Kathleen Woodiwiss, Valerie Sherwood, Laurie McBain...so many others I can't remember them all. I read them by the shipload for years. And I'd grab the rare paranormal romance when I saw it. Loved those, but they were few and far between back then.

I'll e-mail you. Can't resist a punny title. LOL Yeah, some of the reviews at Amazon say the same thing about Starkissed, they're glad it's not all just sex with an alien, that there's a story. My publisher does have it categorized as erotic romance. I hope potential buyers read the reviews, so they know it's not all sex and won't be disappointed.

After so many years on the market, it just tonight broke 5k in the ranking. I sit here and wonder how low it can go. 

BTW, I clicked the link to your book in your sig, but got a 404.

Thanks,
Lanette


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

MidnightWriter said:


> I'll e-mail you. Can't resist a punny title. LOL Yeah, some of the reviews at Amazon say the same thing about Starkissed, they're glad it's not all just sex with an alien, that there's a story. My publisher does have it categorized as erotic romance. I hope potential buyers read the reviews, so they know it's not all sex and won't be disappointed.


Oh, erotic romance. I'll pick it up then. I read Biting Nixie by Samhain Publishing and thought it was great until like the last 1/4th of the book. It was like the author forgot that the story should make sense. The whole point was to raise a crumby 500K and then at the end the "hero" pulls out a Platinum card with no spending limit, casually buys a large diamond earring and rides in on a very $$ motorcycle. It would be like a vampire slapping on some sunscreen and saying "Oh, never thought about that before!"



MidnightWriter said:


> BTW, I clicked the link to your book in your sig, but got a 404.


I was visited by the typo fairy. My best so far is the character who was made into a "laughing sock."

It should be up in a day or two&#8230; I ran it through Serenity and then a reader sent me some more that I missed but you don't have to buy it I am still giving them away if I can get someone to take one.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CIBond said:


> We read Beatrice Small in our house&#8230; that was when I was in high school.
> 
> I think what we all crave is a happy ending. For Romance is a relationship ending but for fiction it is the guy who make the sacrifice and does the right thing - in the end he needs to get rewarded for it, not outsourced, cheated on, become ill, lose his wife. That is just too much like life. For example: _The Other_ by David Guterson - we talked about it in our bookclub, the problem was that the main character didn't to the hard but right thing. He did the lazy/not-my-problem thing and we stopped respecting him as a main character. Sacrifice by a good person = reward. That's what everyone wants in fiction. _The Art of Racing in the Rain_ he did the hard but right thing and we cheered him for it.
> 
> ...


There is nothing in the world wrong with reading for escape. It's one thing that fiction can be for. I'm not putting that down at all.

But I don't always crave a happy ending--or a happy ending doesn't always make the best novel, anyway imo. (_Atonement_ is a good example--I would have loved for it to have a happy ending but the tragic ending was part of what made it a great novel) Let's face it, one is not always rewarded for doing the right thing. And sometimes even someone who wants to be a good person doesn't do the right thing or mistakes what the right thing is.

Otherwise, doing the right thing would always be easy. It's not. And I guess that most of the time I do like real life in my fiction. (Except maybe larger than life--because a lot of real life can be boring and that I do not want in my fiction lol)

Edit: But if they get a happy ending, they darn well better have suffered for it. _Suffered_, I tell you!


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

CIBond said:


> Oh, erotic romance. I'll pick it up then. I read Biting Nixie by Samhain Publishing and thought it was great until like the last 1/4th of the book. It was like the author forgot that the story should make sense. The whole point was to raise a crumby 500K and then at the end the "hero" pulls out a Platinum card with no spending limit, casually buys a large diamond earring and rides in on a very $$ motorcycle. It would be like a vampire slapping on some sunscreen and saying "Oh, never thought about that before!"


LOL Yeah, I don't like it when the book sort of dwindles off at the end and makes no sense.



CIBond said:


> I was visited by the typo fairy. My best so far is the character who was made into a "laughing sock."
> 
> It should be up in a day or two&#8230; I ran it through Serenity and then a reader sent me some more that I missed but you don't have to buy it I am still giving them away if I can get someone to take one.


Typos. They multiply like tribbles when we're not looking. 

Oh, I didn't realize it wasn't for sale yet. I was just going to read the blurb.

BTW, Starkissed is down to 3,780 rank and is #100 in the Romance > Fantasy, Futuristic & Ghost category. It may not last, might disappear the next hour, but right now I'm stoked!

Lanette


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

K. A. Jordan said:


> Check out the Vampire chick!


Ha, that video could fit right in with a lot of the stuff being produced today!


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> But I don't always crave a happy ending--or a happy ending doesn't always make the best novel, anyway imo.


We're not saying that all books have to end happily. We're just saying that all books labeled romance have to end happily. Romance is the single largest genre for sales in mass market paperback. It's probably the largest genre for e-books. And the only thing the audience can agree on is the ending of the book. They buy in that genre looking for a happy end. The times that publishers have branched out into things that 'maybe' have a happy ending, the sales are not there. They give up and go back to HEA.

That's the trade off for the author. You want the romance label (which will equal more sales) you end the book happily.

And sometimes, you have to work harder, to get to that end. The resulting book is always better if the characters have to struggle a lot. The conflict should be as close to insurmountable as you can get. And romance writers, when they talk writing and mechanics, are all about conflict.

Giving unhappy endings some thought. I know the plot of Atonement. I know the literary reason it is written the way it was. And yet, I will not read it, nor will I go to the movie. The futility would depress me. But I was a theater major along with English. And I love tragedy in live drama. And I do not mind horror novels with unhappy endings, either.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks Christine, Lanette, CI. I didn't realize how important happy endings are for the genre of romance. My novel *Vestal Virgin* has the requisite HEA, but I'm not sure if the new book I'm working on will. I won't classify it as romance, but romantic suspense. It will be romantic, adventurous, and dark. No guns: knives, poison and at least one spectacular (and unusual) death.

This discussion has helped me solidify the plot.

I still wonder what men consider romantic, and how they feel about love in a story. Is it important? And what differentiates romance from sex? Love? Mystery? The unknown?


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

FYI, they happen to be talking about the HEA, on Mrs. Giggles's blog. This is one of the more candid, kid gloves off, sources of romance reader opinion. But it will show you how strongly they feel about the label.

http://mrsgiggles00.livejournal.com/178125.html


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks for the link Christine.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

It's an interesting article.  Of note - a book can be filled with romance and a love story, etc. but not necessarily BE a Romance (ie. part of the genre).  Nothing wrong with that   Okies - off to read everyone's comments


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

In my view there is a big difference between genre romance and literary romance. The way I see it genre romance is a fairly recent invention which are basically glorified fairy tales -- a young (no more than 25) woman meets a slightly older (no more than 35) man. They go through some stuff and then they live happily ever after. Literary romance has a long, lavish tradition and incorporates love and/or romantic themes with a more complex story -- _Last of the Mohicans_ may be one of the best examples of literary romance.

I've had a lot of discussions about this because some of my friends think I write romance novels but they don't understand the genre. My lovers are older, they exist within a much more involved and complex story, and my endings are often open to interpretation.

Of course all of this is just my opinion...


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> In my view there is a big difference between genre romance and literary romance. The way I see it genre romance is a fairly recent invention which are basically glorified fairy tales -- a young (no more than 25) woman meets a slightly older (no more than 35) man. They go through some stuff and then they live happily ever after. Literary romance has a long, lavish tradition and incorporates love and/or romantic themes with a more complex story -- _Last of the Mohicans_ may be one of the best examples of literary romance.
> 
> I've had a lot of discussions about this because some of my friends think I write romance novels but they don't understand the genre. My lovers are older, they exist within a much more involved and complex story, and my endings are often open to interpretation.
> 
> Of course all of this is just my opinion...


I'll have to check out your books!


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> I still wonder what men consider romantic, and how they feel about love in a story. Is it important? And what differentiates romance from sex? Love? Mystery? The unknown?


For what it is worth, a LOT of men told me they fell completely in love with my Clair in *The Old Mermaid's Tale*. In the story she is faced with a very difficult choice where the man she loves is concerned and I've been vastly amused by the reactions to it! MOST female readers say they thought she made the wrong choice and MOST male readers were amazed that she had the courage to make the choice she did. So interesting how people see these things.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> I'll have to check out your books!


Thank you!


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

KerylR said:


> I mean, what do you call a story where the main thrust is the building of a relationship, but it doesn't work out, either the relationship goes sour or one character dies. What if it's a book about love and the joy and the pain of it? What do you call them?


Women's fiction / chick lit. IMO, the big indicator of chick lit is that it's much like a coming of age story - the main focus is on the personal growth of THE main character, a woman. Can there be a relationship? Sure. But chick lit is not, IMO, the same genre as romance. I did a review recently on Beth Orsoff's How I Learned to Love the Walrus. Great book, but not a romance. I'm currently trying to convince TRR to add a chick lit category. Heck, we have an Urban Fantasy category for those UFs that would appeal to romance readers.



MidnightWriter said:


> I read in many other genres. But if I'm in the mood to read a romance, and I buy a book that is categorized as Romance but it doesn't follow the formula of what a romance is, then I am not going to be a happy reader. At all. I will never buy or read that author again. Many years ago, I read a time travel story by an author who is well-known for her romance novels. The heroine went back in time and fell in love with the hero. It ends with the heroine returning to the present, where she meets some guy who the author intimates is the reincarnation of the man she left behind. But the hero had to live out the rest of his life back in his own time without the woman he loved, and that's no HEA. It followed the formula up until the very end. I've never read another book by this author and never will. And it made me wary of time travel romances, so that I have to make sure the couple ends up together, no matter which time, before I actually read it.
> 
> Lanette


Omigod, Lanette! Was the heroine's name Douglas? If so... I am right there with you. Frustrating.



Kathleen Valentine said:


> The way I see it genre romance is a fairly recent invention which are basically glorified fairy tales -- a young (no more than 25) woman meets a slightly older (no more than 35) man. They go through some stuff and then they live happily ever after.


Couple of things: You hit the nail on the head when you said that Romances are fairy tales. I was actually going to reply that even before I read your post. And that's not a bad thing. Having your characters suffer through adversity is fine - but it's not romance. If someone's in a mood to read a deeper story, they can enjoy it. But if they have in their head that they just want to read a good story where everything turns out fine and it's a happy ending, they aren't going to appreciate the best book in the world if it doesn't perform that Calgon function. Example: Anyone remember Crossroads (Britney Spears movie) and A Walk to Remember that came out about 10 years ago? Crossroads was this little chick flick / teenage movie and I correctly assumed it would require no brain power to enjoy and it would have a happy ending, thus taking me away to a nicer place for a couple of hours. Well, it was sold out. "Hmmm," I thought. "I'll just see this other movie that also has a teen singer in it!" I had no idea that


Spoiler



The teenage heroine was suffering a disease and would die midway through the movie.


 and I would need a box of Kleenex halfway into the movie. It was a great movie. It also was SO not what I needed right then.

I think something that drives me NUTS is people want the "Romance" tag (because it sells like gangbusters) but they don't want to write Romance. Seriously. Write the story you want, but please don't try to shoehorn it into Romance. All you'll do is tick off readers who wanted a happy feel-good book that didn't necessarily require a lot of brainpower and then you hand them Last of the Mohicans. If you're in the mood for macaroni and cheese, pate' isn't going to do it, no matter how good it is.


----------



## JamieDeBree (Oct 1, 2010)

Fascinating discussion, and one I have with myself every time I wonder if my "romantic suspense" books are categorized properly. I have the HEA (and they always will), but my books are one trial after another for my chars, usually involving bad guys of some sort (though not always guns). As someone said above, I look at "romantic suspense" as "suspense that is romantic"...but I'm constantly wondering if my suspense is dark enough, or if there's enough romance, etc (readers seem to get different things from my books, interestingly). And the few sex scenes I do include are graphic, but there aren't enough of them for erotic romance (though still other readers have tagged it as such).  Makes the head spin, I tell ya. 

The title post asked if romance belongs in thrillers, along with sex scenes - which I've also been pondering as I'm working on a thriller at the moment too. I've read sex scenes and romance both in thrillers, though I'd classify them as "encounters" more than romance, since it normally doesn't end up with the H/h together. The sex scenes are generally quick & dirty...geared more toward the male reader who just wants to get back to the real action, from what I've read. I doubt I'll add any sex scenes to my thrillers. There is a sort of "attraction conflict" subplot that is running through my thriller, but it's directly related to and plays a key role in catching the killer. So it's there as a plot device, which I think is valid in any genre.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Excellent post on Den of the Ogress. I especially liked this line:


> If the label says chicken soup, it had better have chicken soup in it, because I guarantee I'm not in the mood for clam chowder.


And that's really all genre labeling is - letting the reader know what to expect so they don't get clam chowder when all they wanted was chicken noodle.



> How is romance novel different from a romantic novel? For example: is HEA a necessarily element of a novel classified as romantic suspense?


Suzanne, I'm assuming this was you. To answer your question - yes. Romantic suspense and romantic comedy are sub-genres of the Romance genre - so the rules still apply, if you want happy readers.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Arkali said:


> I think something that drives me NUTS is people want the "Romance" tag (because it sells like gangbusters) but they don't want to write Romance. Seriously. Write the story you want, but please don't try to shoehorn it into Romance. All you'll do is tick off readers who wanted a happy feel-good book that didn't necessarily require a lot of brainpower and then you hand them Last of the Mohicans.


Sadly, you are right and it is a sad commentary on what reading has become to some people -- strict adherence to genre "rules" create the junk-food equivalent of literature. It is fun now and then but intellectually unhealthy as a steady diet. I have trouble with this because it annoys me that words like "romance" are now viewed as the exclusive property of a certain few. According to their way of thinking books like _Wuthering Heights, Anna Karenina, The Last of the Mohicans, Madame Bovary,_ etc. cannot be considered romances when they are some of the most romantic books ever written.

When reviewers and readers call my books romances I feel it is creating false expectations in those who are only interested in genre romance and at the same time turning off people who wouldn't be caught dead reading a genre romance. But how do you describe stories that are highly romantic but don't follow a formula?


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Arkali said:


> Women's fiction / chick lit. IMO, the big indicator of chick lit is that it's much like a coming of age story - the main focus is on the personal growth of THE main character, a woman. Can there be a relationship? Sure. But chick lit is not, IMO, the same genre as romance.


Thanks for the explanation. That was my understanding of Chick Lit.



Arkali said:


> Omigod, Lanette! Was the heroine's name Douglas? If so... I am right there with you. Frustrating.


That be the one! I still get angry when I think about it. (Not to pick on your misspelling, but the heroine's name is Douglass, which was a woman's name during the historical period she traveled back to.)



Arkali said:


> Having your characters suffer through adversity is fine - but it's not romance.


I disagree with this. Those historical romances of the 70s? In many of them, the h/h were put through the wringer and then some, but in the end, they declared their love for one another and were together. Romances don't necessarily have to be light and fluffy. In fact, that's part of the journey. Throw everything at them, including the kitchen sink! Put them through hell--and in Paranormal Romance one of them can die and go to hell literally, but that one must come back so that the h/h are together at the end. *How*, not *if*, they get through it and wind up together, is the enjoyment of reading the story. Just like reading a mystery--the enjoyment is the journey of how the mystery is solved, not if it will be solved.



Arkali said:


> I think something that drives me NUTS is people want the "Romance" tag (because it sells like gangbusters) but they don't want to write Romance. Seriously. Write the story you want, but please don't try to shoehorn it into Romance. All you'll do is tick off readers who wanted a happy feel-good book that didn't necessarily require a lot of brainpower and then you hand them Last of the Mohicans. If you're in the mood for macaroni and cheese, pate' isn't going to do it, no matter how good it is.


I agree.

Lanette


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

MidnightWriter said:


> That be the one! I still get angry when I think about it. (Not to pick on your misspelling, but the heroine's name is Douglass, which was a woman's name during the historical period she traveled back to.)


Girl, I read that book like... 23 years ago? I think I was 15. No idea the title of the book or the author, but I remember her name (thought it was cool). In fairness, it was a great story. Just kind of a bittersweet ending. I guess it says something that I still remember it all these years later  Anyway, all that to say - I don't mind you correcting the spelling of the heroines name AT ALL 



MidnightWriter said:


> I disagree with this. Those historical romances of the 70s? In many of them, the h/h were put through the wringer and then some, but in the end, they declared their love for one another and were together. Romances don't necessarily have to be light and fluffy. In fact, that's part of the journey. Throw everything at them, including the kitchen sink! Put them through hell--and in Paranormal Romance one of them can die and go to hell literally, but that one must come back so that the h/h are together at the end. *How*, not *if*, they get through it and wind up together, is the enjoyment of reading the story. Just like reading a mystery--the enjoyment is the journey of how the mystery is solved, not if it will be solved.


I agree. I think I just didn't word it very clearly - and I probably still won't (going home soon as I hit save ). What I meant was... the ending of the book. If the book ends with all that adversity being gone through and no happily ever after, it's not a romance. ie. - the husband and wife have a rough time, they love each other, but for whatever reason split up, or he dies and she loses the house... yada, yada, yada. The Romance is the happy ending, the couple winding up together. Adversity in the beginning or in the middle is fine - adversity as the ending is not (IMO).


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Excellent post on Den of the Ogress. I especially liked this line:And that's really all genre labeling is - letting the reader know what to expect so they don't get clam chowder when all they wanted was chicken noodle.
> 
> Suzanne, I'm assuming this was you. To answer your question - yes. Romantic suspense and romantic comedy are sub-genres of the Romance genre - so the rules still apply, if you want happy readers.


Yes, that was me. Thanks. I'll keep this in mind for my next book. It will definitely be suspense, but I'm not sure how the love interest will end.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Christine Merrill said:


> We're not saying that all books have to end happily. We're just saying that all books labeled romance have to end happily. Romance is the single largest genre for sales in mass market paperback. It's probably the largest genre for e-books. And the only thing the audience can agree on is the ending of the book. They buy in that genre looking for a happy end. The times that publishers have branched out into things that 'maybe' have a happy ending, the sales are not there. They give up and go back to HEA.
> 
> That's the trade off for the author. You want the romance label (which will equal more sales) you end the book happily.
> 
> ...


I realize the HEA requirement for Romance genre. I was just responding to the "we all want a happy ending in novels" comment as a generalization and merely as a point of discussion.

It's too bad you won't read _Atonement_. It is one of the best novels I've ever read--and with my academic background in addition to being an omnivorous reader, I've read a lot of them. The reasons for the ending weren't merely literary. They were also emotional. A happy ending would have been the easy way out.

That doesn't mean that happy endings are necessarily easy in Romance. Any genre can be challenging to write.


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Arkali said:


> Girl, I read that book like... 23 years ago? I think I was 15. No idea the title of the book or the author, but I remember her name (thought it was cool). In fairness, it was a great story. Just kind of a bittersweet ending. I guess it says something that I still remember it all these years later  Anyway, all that to say - I don't mind you correcting the spelling of the heroines name AT ALL


I read it about 20 25* years ago. I'd never read her, but picked up a handful at a yard sale. I read a couple before that one, and never read the others. If that one had ended like a romance is supposed to, I would have read the others and bought her new ones as they came out. So she lost me as a customer. (Not that it mattered, she remained a bestselling romance author for years, and probably still is.)

Another author I used to read wrote a sequel to an earlier book. The sequel was about the daughter of the couple in the earlier book. Between the books, the hero of the first books had died. Soon as that was mentioned, I put the book down and never finished it. And I've never read any of her books again. In addition to the couple being together at the end of their own book, they must still be alive in any sequels that take place within what would have been a long, natural lifespan for them.  But that's my own personal preference.



Arkali said:


> I agree. I think I just didn't word it very clearly - and I probably still won't (going home soon as I hit save ). What I meant was... the ending of the book. If the book ends with all that adversity being gone through and no happily ever after, it's not a romance. ie. - the husband and wife have a rough time, they love each other, but for whatever reason split up, or he dies and she loses the house... yada, yada, yada. The Romance is the happy ending, the couple winding up together. Adversity in the beginning or in the middle is fine - adversity as the ending is not (IMO).


Gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood what you meant.

Lanette

* Tempus fugit!


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

*Arkali* and *MidnightWriter* that same book peeved me off too. It was one of the first I read on my first Kindle, it was cheap back then and I liked the theme. I was so disappointed with it that I am not sure I want to read any more of the author. I think I read one more a while back, I can't even remember now. To this day thinking about that book and the Hero depresses me. 

I then read Karen Marie Moning Highlander series and I thought Kiss of the Highlander was a much better read with a similar theme.

That kind of stuff is a sure way to turn me off when I want to read romance lol. The author loses trust with me. Call it romance, it better be that.

I have noticed books lately more in the romance search on Amazon that don't really belong there. It worries me. I guess it means more research before reading. I think there is a lot more jumping on the Romance bandwagon now because of popularity of the theme. I also think there is still confusion about what romance is, which surprises me considering how long it has been around and how big it is. Its not that complicated, it just has one set rule. HEA. 
I read some where the H and h get put through the ringer and suffer and all that. But in the end, they at least get to be happy.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> It's too bad you won't read _Atonement_. It is one of the best novels I've ever read--and with my academic background in addition to being an omnivorous reader, I've read a lot of them.


While I'm not an academic, I've read widely as well. And really, not trying to sound snippy on this. But I'm going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The fact that it's a favorite of yours doesn't mean it will be a favorite of mine. Likewise, I think there are some books I love that would be as much fun for you as pouring bleach in your eyes. Different strokes for different folks. Different stories resonate with the individual in different ways.

If we compared our whole favorites list, we'd probably also find some common ground.

But when it comes to Atonement, specifically, my therapist said "Don't" and "Keep taking your Prozac." It sounded like pretty good advice to me. That story might be beautiful. But I know it's tragic. I already know about those emotions. When I choose to write the sad scenes, my personal tragedy well is all full up, and I can draw from that. I do not seek to refill it with other people's work.

And that doesn't mean I never read books with unhappy endings at all. One of my absolute favorite books is "The Haunting of Hill House." Melancholy, ironic and scary.

But I do not read unhappy relationship stories. They mess me up.

The thing that gets under the skin of romance readers in general, is the sense that we need to wise up, or grow up, or become more sophisticated. Statistically speaking, romance readers read more widely and frequently than other readers. And they've generally read a lot of the classics as well. It is not a lack of exposure that leads people like me to the HEA books. It's a choice.

Personally, I was an English major, a theater major and a librarian. I've read a lot. My last classic was a month or so ago. Shirley by Charlotte Bronte. I don't recommend it.

But Sherry Thomas? High romance, but with a beautiful prose style, a dangerously large vocabulary, and the ability to make jokes in Latin. I read her whole backlist in a week, and was a happy woman.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

*Christine* I really like this quote or yours

_It is not a lack of exposure that leads people like me to the HEA books. It's a choice. _

This is so true and just perfect. I don't like listing all the literature I have read in my lifetime to somehow show I am well read. 
I read a lot always, until a few years ago when I couldn't see the print anymore. Kindle has made it possible for me to read again, and I chose to read a lot of Romance now. A choice. Hey, I am one that actually enjoyed reading the Tin Drum and Goethe, in german of course 

I just want to read what I want and I want to know what I get when I buy a Romance.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

I’ve got an idea.  Let’s write a detective novel where the murder was never revealed in the end… where everyone gathers in the room waiting for Poirot to point to the killer and instead the detective has a heart-attack.  We’ll call it literature and when people complain we’ll say there weren’t evolved enough to appreciate the irony and that they should broaden their reader tastes.  We’ll inform them that we actually did them a favor.  LOL…  How well do you think that would work?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Atunah said:


> I have noticed books lately more in the romance search on Amazon that don't really belong there. It worries me. I guess it means more research before reading. I think there is a lot more jumping on the Romance bandwagon now because of popularity of the theme. I also think there is still confusion about what romance is, which surprises me considering how long it has been around and how big it is. Its not that complicated, it just has one set rule. HEA.


:nods: Are they indie books or trad? I have to say, that's one thing about trad. publishers, they're good at categorizing books. That's also a negative, in some cases, but... if you read a Harlequin, St. Martin's, etc. you get a HEA.

CIB - I predict it would go over like a lead balloon


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Paranormal Romance is interesting. There's actually an Urban Fantasy sub-genre that's VERY close to it. Take for instance The Mercy Thompson novels by Patricia Brooks, or the Kate Daniels series by Ilona Andrews. Those are actually pretty popular with Paranormal Romance readers _because_ they're so close. Cousins, almost. The distinction, though, is that the driving force of the book is not the relationship. Take the relationship out of the Paranormal Romance and you have the __________ Urban Fantasy. Not sure what to call it, and I'm not sure if it's been named. It most likely has, but anyway. Fans of the two genres will know exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Arkali said:


> __________ Urban Fantasy.


Chick-lit Urban Fantasy?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

LOL  Sumpin' like that   Seriously, though, what to call it?  Hrrrrm.  I mean, it's a very distinct sub-genre.  I may have to research.  Surely someone's come up with a name.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Arkali said:


> LOL Sumpin' like that  Seriously, though, what to call it? Hrrrrm. I mean, it's a very distinct sub-genre. I may have to research. Surely someone's come up with a name.


What are we talking about: Queen Betsy? Kim Harrison's stuff? Kelley Armstrong?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

CIBond said:


> What are we talking about: Queen Betsy? Kim Harrison's stuff? Kelley Armstrong?


Queen Betsy is... hrrrm. A class unto herself  Kim Harrison - I've only read one of her books, so don't want to comment on that. But I'm thinking Ilona Andrews Kate Daniels books, Marjorie Liu's Hunter Kiss, Patricia Briggs' Mercy Thompson.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

CIBond said:


> I've got an idea. Let's write a detective novel where the murder was never revealed in the end&#8230; where everyone gathers in the room waiting for Poirot to point to the killer and instead the detective has a heart-attack. We'll call it literature and when people complain we'll say there weren't evolved enough to appreciate the irony and that they should broaden their reader tastes. We'll inform them that we actually did them a favor. LOL&#8230; How well do you think that would work?


I just want to point out: there are instances, in mystery, where the case is solved--but the killer gets away.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> I just want to point out: there are instances, in mystery, where the case is solved--but the killer gets away.


Right... but that's a different thing. Nobody says the killer must be caught (or killed) - just that the mystery must be solved. Leaving it unsolved would leave the author with justifiably ticked off readers.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> I just want to point out: there are instances, in mystery, where the case is solved--but the killer gets away.


And do the readers complain about them?

Because that's what this is really about. We can write whatever we want. But we are bound by reader expectation. I'm betting that those stories tend to get more one and two star reviews, with readers complaining that this wasn't what they expected.

If you put that same story in the literature section, the readers are less likely to complain that "It doesn't read like a mystery." In general fiction or literature, all bets are off as far as plot and ending.

First and foremost, we need to be true to ourselves as writers. But if 'being read' is an important part of our goals, we have to know the audience that we are trying to reach. There is infinite freedom to reach _someone. _ But if you are aiming towards a _specific group_, you have to recognize that when you step out of their bounds of expectation, you will be fighting decades of traditional marketing and a majority viewpoint of the audience. And readers will get nasty on you.

Sometimes, it's easier to pick a different target audience than to change the plot.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Right... but that's a different thing. Nobody says the killer must be caught (or killed) - just that the mystery must be solved. Leaving it unsolved would leave the author with justifiably ticked off readers.


So...(playing devil's advocate here) What if, in a romance, she gets the guy--then decides to let him go?


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Christine, Maybe that device (of having the killer get away) is used for a series. It worked very well for Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty. I've seen it in other popular books--of course, there's Hannibal Lector. And it's used a lot in television shows like Law and Order, CSI, etc.

I wonder if the same device could be applied to romance...


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> So...(playing devil's advocate here) What if, in a romance, she gets the guy--then decides to let him go?


Then it's probably chick lit. She most likely let him go because of some sort of personal epiphany. That lands it in chick lit territory, IMO.

I get that you're playing devil's advocate, so this isn't really directed at you, just a general rant. Why, oh, why do some writers feel the need to change the genre? And not just a tweak, but the FUNDAMENTAL that makes it a Romance Genre book? Seriously. Write what you want, just don't call it a Romance if it isn't. It's not a hard concept. Don't buy a car and then whinge and moan that it doesn't fly. If you want a vehicle that flies (assuming it cost the same money) buy a flipping airplane. Don't decide to manufacture cars with wings on them, but still call them cars.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Queen Betsy is... hrrrm. A class unto herself  Kim Harrison - I've only read one of her books, so don't want to comment on that. But I'm thinking Ilona Andrews Kate Daniels books, Marjorie Liu's Hunter Kiss, Patricia Briggs' Mercy Thompson.


We will argue about this no doubt but&#8230;

Mercy Thompson, Kate Daniels (I've only read one so I could be wrong), Early Antia Blake, Dresden Files: Detective Urban Fantasy. Book lengths are shorter, the interpersonal stuff is much less, the story question is about who killed X or along those lines.

Kim Harrison's stuff is more YA and I would say almost chick-lit or perhaps "free form" because the conflicts are more personal, the bulk of the book deals with problems that belong to her specifically rather than a "single case or issue." Anita Blake moved into this territory even before the porn switch.

Marjorie Liu feels like Epic Urban Fantasy it is very BIG, end of the world problems.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

CIBond said:


> We will argue about this no doubt but&#8230;
> 
> Mercy Thompson, Kate Daniels (I've only read one so I could be wrong), Early Antia Blake, Dresden Files: Detective Urban Fantasy. Book lengths are shorter, the interpersonal stuff is much less, the story question is about who killed X or along those lines.
> 
> ...


Well, IMO (and it is just that) - while people who like Kate Daniels might like Dresden and vice versa, they aren't written for the same audience, by and large. I love Dresden, don't get me wrong. I also love Mercy and Kate, but I don't think they're in the same sub-genre at all.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> Christine, Maybe that device (of having the killer get away) is used for a series. It worked very well for Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty. I've seen it in other popular books--of course, there's Hannibal Lector. And it's used a lot in television shows like Law and Order, CSI, etc.
> 
> I wonder if the same device could be applied to romance...


Those examples are, respectively:

Classic
Thriller
and TV show.

None of them are mysteries. If you go to a bookstore, very few of them would have Conan Doyle next to the current currant releases.

The first two Hannibal books were actually about catching other serial killers with the help of Lecter. The third? Was just icky. See above post about whether or not it was a romance.

And a television show will give you that plot as a serial with a change every week. You can't do that with novels, even if you write fast. People get frustrated and leave, just as they do with TV shows that string the story out too far.

Or I should say, you can't do it in romance. There have been examples of an ongoing relationship. But other than JD Robb, I can't think of a successful one.

And that brings us to the secret rule of writing romances: "Because Nora Roberts does it&#8230;" is no excuse. Nora can do whatever she wants, and her audience will let her. Also, her JD Robb books are mysteries, but with a romance subplot. So, still not a romance series.

It really is all about marketing. You can write what you want. You just can't label it wrong when you market it.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> It really is all about marketing. You can write what you want. You just can't label it wrong when you market it.


This. I think you just won the interwebs today


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

What makes a sub-genre?  I think it's story question, ending, and how long it takes to get there.  For example in detective stuff it is:  "did we find out who X."  In all of these we find out who the killer or X was and why.  How much time is devoted to sub-plots and personal growth?  Very little in detective genre so they are short 90,000 words?  Written first person - yup, otherwise we would know who the killer is which wouldn't be fun.  Dresden has to figure out what is going on with the clients husband, Mercy has to find the missing fairy artifacts, Kate as to find out who is killing the vampires.  These are external problems that come to them… not problems that they have been dealing with for years.  Very different yes, and yet similar story questions, similar endings, similar sub-plot involvement.  

There are sub-plots in the detective style but either there is only one… the romance with the pack alpha, or they are brief contact type ones that you see in Dresden.  Kim Harrison’s work (one of my favorites) has a B-plot and a C-plot and…. an E-plot to which she devotes lots of time her books can be 550 pages long, twice the size of the detective style ones.  

Let’s try the same experiment that you did with the HEA ending.  Pull the “figure out who killed or summoned or is trying to kill” from the ones I call Detective Urban Fantasy.  Would it ruin the book?  I think so.  Now pull it away from Kim Harrison’s work… nope, the book isn’t as good but I wouldn’t throw it across the room, there is still lots of cool stuff and other plots that are distracting enough that while I’m not fulfilled I am not ticked off.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

CIBond said:


> I've got an idea. Let's write a detective novel where the murder was never revealed in the end&#8230; where everyone gathers in the room waiting for Poirot to point to the killer and instead the detective has a heart-attack. We'll call it literature and when people complain we'll say there weren't evolved enough to appreciate the irony and that they should broaden their reader tastes. We'll inform them that we actually did them a favor. LOL&#8230; How well do you think that would work?


I think there are many instances in literature in which, at the end of the story, things are left ambiguous. That is much closer to reality and far more intellectually satisfying than ALWAYS assuming the reader has to have everything spelled out for them.

One of the first lessons I learned about writing was to respect your reader --yes, there are readers who want fairy tales with tidy little endings. But there are also a lot of readers who want to be challenged to think. Throughout literary history it is the stories that challenge people's imagination that survive as literature, not the "penny-dreadfuls" and dime novels that got pumped out by the hundreds and disappeared just as quickly.

If people want to read genre romance, that's fine but I resent being dictated to that I have to use formula characters and a formula ending in order to call what I write a "romance".


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

CIBond said:


> What makes a sub-genre? I think it's story question, ending, and how long it takes to get there. For example in detective stuff it is: "did we find out who X." In all of these we find out who the killer or X was and why. How much time is devoted to sub-plots and personal growth? Very little in detective genre so they are short 90,000 words? Written first person - yup, otherwise we would know who the killer is which wouldn't be fun. Dresden has to figure out what is going on with the clients husband, Mercy has to find the missing fairy artifacts, Kate as to find out who is killing the vampires. These are external problems that come to them&#8230; not problems that they have been dealing with for years. Very different yes, and yet similar story questions, similar endings, similar sub-plot involvement.
> 
> There are sub-plots in the detective style but either there is only one&#8230; the romance with the pack alpha, or they are brief contact type ones that you see in Dresden. Kim Harrison's work (one of my favorites) has a B-plot and a C-plot and&#8230;. an E-plot to which she devotes lots of time her books can be 550 pages long, twice the size of the detective style ones.
> 
> Let's try the same experiment that you did with the HEA ending. Pull the "figure out who killed or summoned or is trying to kill" from the ones I call Detective Urban Fantasy. Would it ruin the book? I think so. Now pull it away from Kim Harrison's work&#8230; nope, the book isn't as good but I wouldn't throw it across the room, there is still lots of cool stuff and other plots that are distracting enough that while I'm not fulfilled I am not ticked off.


I'll give you that. And actually, sub-genre is probably not a good term. Heck, Urban Fantasy is the sub-genre. So maybe it's a category? And in my mind a chief distinction is who the book / series will appeal to.

If you like Jim Butcher, there is a high likelihood that you'll like Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos novels, for instance. My husband loves both dearly. Would he read PB's Mercy books? Probably. Would he love them? Doubtful. Would he also be able to enjoy Nalini Singh's Psi-Changeling novels? Not a chance in hell. However, there's good cross-over (audience-wise) from Paranormal Romance to Kate Daniels, Mercy Thompson, etc. There is NOT, however, good cross-over to Dresden. I hope I was able to make my logic clear on that


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> If people want to read genre romance, that's fine but I resent being dictated to that I have to use formula characters and a formula ending in order to call what I write a "romance".


*sigh* There is a difference between the Romance genre as we know it today and what you're thinking of, which is literary romance. Write what you want, call it what you want, but don't be surprised if you call your book Romance and have unhappy readers, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Arkali said:


> but don't be surprised if you call your book Romance and have unhappy readers, that's all I'm saying.


I DON'T call my books "romance novels" but some of the reviewers have. Well, the actual title of my first novel is *The Old Mermaid's Tale: A Romance of the Great Lakes*. I got a negative view from one reader of *Each Angel Burns* who said "It wasn't much of a mystery" -- _it wasn't a mystery nor was it classified as such._

For awhile I paid a lot of attention to the discussions on the Romance boards at Amazon and I was surprised by the way many readers limited their experience of reading! Some only wanted to read stories about men who cheated, or ones that included rape fantasies, or ones where the H got the h pregnant --- there was even a thread about books in which he H had gigantic youknowwhats. It's quite fascinating really but I can't help but wonder why those readers are so controlling of the time they spend reading.


----------



## AnnetteL (Jul 14, 2010)

Wow--this thread covered a lot of ground while I wasn't looking. 

Going in a different direction: 

One element that I thought I'd bring up is that while editors and agents claim that a great romance doesn't need sex scenes, I've seen too many cases where they eat those words. I've had writer friends told quite bluntly that their books are fantastic, that a publisher or agent would love to take them on . . . if they add some sex scenes. (Who cares that they'd be gratuitous and there for the sake of being there, not for plot?)

In one case, the books are Regency Romance. Currently, more racy is the trend--although it's wildly inaccurate from a historical standpoint. (With the antics the heroines do, they'd end up totally shunned by society, but they don't even worry about the consequences, let alone HAVE any.) 

With both of these friends, they finally did find a publisher--a smaller regional one who didn't demand they insert content they didn't feel they could add.

It's frustrating to be told that a great story is all you need, but in their cases (over and over again--this went on for years, with multiple books and multiple agents and editors) they were told otherwise: Add sexual content, or don't get published. 

So I wonder: why do editors and agents think that's such a necessity--do the readers really demand it? Isn't great chemistry and a sizzling plot good enough? 

Or do those in charge assume readers demand racy scenes, so that's what they publish? 

I personally can't stand seeing a sex scene (whether it's a book or movie or TV show) thrown in simply for the sake of being there--which happens WAY too often and is sloppy writing.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

AnnetteL said:


> I personally can't stand seeing a sex scene (whether it's a book or movie or TV show) thrown in simply for the sake of being there--which happens WAY too often and is sloppy writing.


I absolutely agree. It is very difficult to write the mechanics of sex in a fresh way so the author has to rely on what the characters experience and if characters are inadequately developed the sex just winds up boring.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> I DON'T call my books "romance novels" but some of the reviewers have. Well, the actual title of my first novel is *The Old Mermaid's Tale: A Romance of the Great Lakes*. I got a negative view from one reader of *Each Angel Burns* who said "It wasn't much of a mystery" -- _it wasn't a mystery nor was it classified as such._
> 
> For awhile I paid a lot of attention to the discussions on the Romance boards at Amazon and I was surprised by the way many readers limited their experience of reading! Some only wanted to read stories about men who cheated, or ones that included rape fantasies, or ones where the H got the h pregnant --- there was even a thread about books in which he H had gigantic youknowwhats. It's quite fascinating really but I can't help but wonder why those readers are so controlling of the time they spend reading.


Um because sometimes one likes a specific theme and wants to read more of that? Doesn't mean that is all they want to read. If someone reads 100's of books a year there is space for all kinds of themes. How is that controlling to read what one likes. Why should I let a author try to control my reading by telling me what I should or shouldn't read or what is more highbrow than what I read?

What I don't get is, why is it only always Romance readers that get put through the ringer like that. You don't hear any uproar in Fantasy when there are usually swords in there or magic, or Orcs or just things that make fantasy a fantasy. Why is reading what one likes without being looked down upon ok in all genres but Romance. It baffles my brain. I am pretty sure there is plenty of lowbrow fluff in those genres too, but thats ok somehow. Nobody accuses a guy that reads sci fi of not being challenged enough. And I have read some of the stuff my hubby reads, it's not any more challenging than what I read, period.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> I DON'T call my books "romance novels" but some of the reviewers have.


It may seem like nit picking. But that is an entirely different thing. There is no point in telling a reviewer what to think. Nor can one change the minds of the readers. Nor is it wise to spit into the prevailing wind of marketing. The only part of this discussion that matters it what we call the books, as they leave our hands. Tag it "love story" and set it free.

And speaking as one, I would think twice about seeking the label of romance writer, if you actually write lit or women's fiction. I am really happy with what I do. But it is the pink ghetto, as far as getting any respect in the industry, or being taken seriously as a writer. I am used to fielding dumb and nasty questions about my career, on a variety of fronts.

You yourself have been insisting that the books are cookie cutter. And you are assuming, based on the Amazon threads that the audience is limiting themselves.

Actually, some of them are reading hundreds of books a year, with a decent percentage being out of genre. They probably have quite a bit of variety. They just have favorite tropes.

But if you fight for the right to write romances, the first assumption will often be that you write genre romances, and that comes with a sneer and a snicker. Then you have to say, "But not those books..."

Women's fiction authors don't have to take quite so much #$%^.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

That's one of the bad things, IMO, about tagging on Amazon.  People can tag a book however they want - "Lizard Men" - or whatever, and there's not a whole lot to do about it, but it is frustrating for author and reader alike.

Annette - I agree.  That's a case of bean-counters looking at what sells / makes money and making assumptions/decisions based on that.  You see it in every industry, though - from entertainment all the way to insurance.

Atunah, I agree.  I get tired of defending the Romance genre, sometimes, to tell you the truth.  Oh, well.  What can you do?


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

AnnetteL said:


> Wow--this thread covered a lot of ground while I wasn't looking.
> 
> Going in a different direction:
> 
> One element that I thought I'd bring up is that while editors and agents claim that a great romance doesn't need sex scenes, I've seen too many cases where they eat those words.


Yes, in traditional publishing, hot is in.

But that is the advantage of self publishing. You don't have to listen to them. Tell your friends to put the books on Kindle, kick butt and take names.

In a ladylike way, of course.

I write hot, when I am writing romance. But I would much rather see a warm book done well then a bad hot book.

Speaking of good clean fun, Victorine, why are you not in this discussion? Amazon was telling me to buy your book, just yesterday, in a blanket, best seller e-mail. Victorine is having no problems with a lack of heat. I haven't read her book yet, but I'm pretty sure the bedroom door is closed.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> It may seem like nit picking. But that is an entirely different thing. There is no point in telling a reviewer what to think. Nor can one change the minds of the readers. Nor is it wise to spit into the prevailing wind of marketing. The only part of this discussion that matters it what we call the books, as they leave our hands. Tag it "love story" and set it free.
> 
> And speaking as one, I would think twice about seeking the label of romance writer, if you actually write lit or women's fiction. I am really happy with what I do. But it is the pink ghetto, as far as getting any respect in the industry, or being taken seriously as a writer. I am used to fielding dumb and nasty questions about my career, on a variety of fronts.
> 
> ...


I'ma give you an award before the day is done. Seriously. And I totally agree that just because someone is a romance fan, that doesn't mean (by a long stretch) that that is ALL they read. Romance is my favorite genre, paranormal my favorite sub-genre. I also read fantasy (urban, epic, you name it), some sci-fi, some general fiction, chick lit, women's fiction, true crime, dog training / animal behavior and other subjects of non-fiction. To assume that I'm brainless just because I want to pick up a Romance book with a guaranteed happy ending is both condescending and erroneous.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> Speaking of good clean fun, Victorine, why are you not in this discussion? Amazon was telling me to buy your book, just yesterday, in a blanket, best seller e-mail. Victorine is having no problems with a lack of heat. I haven't read her book yet, but I'm pretty sure the bedroom door is closed.


It's been a while since I read Not What She Seems, but if I recall correctly the bedroom door is not only firmly closed, I don't think it actually OPENS during the book. The ending, IIRC sets it up so that you can imagine the couple getting together quite easily. I forget if they actually say the words, though.


----------



## starhawk (Sep 24, 2010)

When I started writing I was so naive I had no idea I was writing a romance novel, but I found out quickly enough when it was sold to Zebra.

Being stuck in a genre was disappointing, I thought that first book, and all the others I wrote for them after, were very adventurous and had elements that went beyond the category of romance.

For instance, in romance novels can you have your heroine sleeping with 2 men instead of just the hero? I did that, and succesfully, I think, because of the compelling motivation my heroine had. That book was a finalist in the annual RWA contest, but didn't win because one person marked it low because my heroine slept with 2 guys.

So, there is a risk in pushing the edge, but that's the only way I want to write.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Atunah said:


> What I don't get is, why is it only always Romance readers that get put through the ringer like that. You don't hear any uproar in Fantasy ....


LOL! Well, I think part of it is that it seems the Romance readers are the ones who get most defensive. They also (appear) to make the most absolute rules. I've never encountered that with sci-fi readers.

I'm just speaking from my own experience... if I am wrong I am willing to be flexible.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

There are no absolute rules in sci fi? None in fantasy? What makes a sci fi a sci fi, a Fantasy a fantasy. I am asking a serious question here. Its exactly one rule in Romance, not the most. One simple rule, HEA. That is it. There are 400 pages to fill with whatever ones heart desires, any locale, any adventure, anything. One rule. You can't tell me that Sci fi does not have at least one rule to make it sci fi. 

Defensive? Maybe. But thats like the chicken and the egg. If you are never attacked, belittled, condescended to, then there is no reason to ever be defensive now is there. 

I actually think that Romance is less restrictive than for example fantasy. Reason? We have everything from Time travel, Regency, Historicals of all kinds from all over the world, sci fi, suspense, vampires, all kinds of creatures really, fairies, fantasy, inspirational, etc. I am sure I am missing plenty here. That is a HUGE mass of stories, a huge variety of genres within Romance. Only one rule really, that is it.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Christine Merrill said:


> You yourself have been insisting that the books are cookie cutter. And you are assuming, based on the Amazon threads that the audience is limiting themselves.
> 
> Actually, some of them are reading hundreds of books a year, with a decent percentage being out of genre. They probably have quite a bit of variety. They just have favorite tropes.
> 
> ...


Christine, I am not insisting anything -- I am observing. I am also not assuming readers only read certain "tropes" (? new word to me). I am just describing what I observed.

I personally would never call myself a romance writer but it seems that many people outside the romance community are not aware of these rules. I was on a television program and the host introduced me as a "romance writer". When I attempted to correct him he asked if I found that description embarrassing. I tried to tell him I didn't wish to label my books but, when the interview was over he asked when we could expect my next "romance novel". It is very frustrating.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

starhawk said:


> So, there is a risk in pushing the edge, but that's the only way I want to write.


I totally agree!

I forgot about that sleeping with 2 men rule...


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Actually if its erotic romance it can be perfectly fine for more than one man in the picture, or women, or 2 men or whatever. Same one rule applies, HEA. 

Plus I read plenty of historicals where the man had mistresses and such, some people might not like them, but in the end there is HEA even it its painful getting there, its still a Romance. Thats the whole fun of it, the journey.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Atunah said:


> There are no absolute rules in sci fi? None in fantasy? What makes a sci fi a sci fi, a Fantasy a fantasy. I am asking a serious question here.


All I said was I never encountered it.

I think I better bow out here -- I don't wish to upset anyone.


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> So...(playing devil's advocate here) What if, in a romance, she gets the guy--then decides to let him go?


Then it's not a Romance.

Lanette


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Arkali said:


> I'ma give you an award before the day is done. Seriously. And I totally agree that just because someone is a romance fan, that doesn't mean (by a long stretch) that that is ALL they read. Romance is my favorite genre, paranormal my favorite sub-genre. I also read fantasy (urban, epic, you name it), some sci-fi, some general fiction, chick lit, women's fiction, true crime, dog training / animal behavior and other subjects of non-fiction. To assume that I'm brainless just because I want to pick up a Romance book with a guaranteed happy ending is both condescending and erroneous.


I second that award, and you can share it with Christine. Y'all are doing great!

Lanette


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> ChI was on a television program and the host introduced me as a "romance writer". When I attempted to correct him he asked if I found that description embarrassing. I tried to tell him I didn't wish to label my books but, when the interview was over he asked when we could expect my next "romance novel". It is very frustrating.


Then you do need to label your books and yourself, as something other than romance. What does your back cover copy say? What does your press release say? What authors do you compare yourself to? If someone says romance, you have to be ready to hand them a different label. If you are going to do publicity, it helps to come into the situation with a brand.

Writing is one thing. Selling is another. It's all about the marketing and connecting your book to its desired audience.

And again, really, only one hard and fast rule for romance: HEA. Some things are harder to sell than others. Starhawk had more than one lover in her book. I've done adulterous heroes and a guy that slept with his best friend's wife. People complained. But it sold just fine. And here is a link to a blog about out of the box romances.

http://www.likesbooks.com/blog/?p=5929


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I'll give you that. And actually, sub-genre is probably not a good term. Heck, Urban Fantasy is the sub-genre. So maybe it's a category? And in my mind a chief distinction is who the book / series will appeal to.


Ah, but there are Romances that appeal only to people who don't want a sex scene and they would not be interested in reading Beatrice Small or Romantic Erotica. There are romances where there are paranormal elements and while lots of people like them a lot of other people aren't interested. Romances that appeal to older women where the protag is in her 40's&#8230; etc. They are still Romances because they have the same story question: "Will they get together and live HEA" - the same answer - Yup, and much of the book is devoted to the characters and how they interact. So &#8230; all Romances even though they have different readers.

Who a series appeals to&#8230; that is probably more about how it is told and the little side plots rather than the main Story Question. My husband liked Dead Already - detective noire vampire, well written but very&#8230; male. He had no interest in the Stack House books.



Kathleen Valentine said:


> I was surprised by the way many readers limited their experience of reading! Some only wanted to read stories about men who cheated, or ones that included rape fantasies, or ones where the H got the h pregnant --- there was even a thread about books in which he H had gigantic youknowwhats. It's quite fascinating really but I can't help but wonder why those readers are so controlling of the time they spend reading.


Because its wish-fulfillment. They already have their wishes they just want you to fulfill them. They aren't looking for enlightenment or surprises or great literature they want a fantasy. This isn't to say they won't ever read your book but if they are in the mood for a little wish-fulfillment they don't want to end up with something else. Seems reasonable don't you think? Like opening a chocolate bar and finding toffee instead. Its not bad just not what I ordered and if I was expecting chocolate I am going to be mad.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

The first rule of sci-fi is that there is no such thing as written sci-fi. Sci-fi is movies, sf is prose. Or at least that's how it was taught to me back in the day. 

To answer the OQ, I almost never read straight romance, but I like romance as an element of almost everything I read. I like good sex scenes. Bad sex scenes embarrass me.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> LOL! Well, I think part of it is that it seems the Romance readers are the ones who get most defensive. They also (appear) to make the most absolute rules. I've never encountered that with sci-fi readers.
> 
> I'm just speaking from my own experience... if I am wrong I am willing to be flexible.


No? How about I write a book about Tarzan and Jane and market it as sci-fi? I don't think the readers would be happy ;-)



Atunah said:


> There are no absolute rules in sci fi? None in fantasy? What makes a sci fi a sci fi, a Fantasy a fantasy. I am asking a serious question here. Its exactly one rule in Romance, not the most. One simple rule, HEA. That is it. There are 400 pages to fill with whatever ones heart desires, any locale, any adventure, anything. One rule. You can't tell me that Sci fi does not have at least one rule to make it sci fi.
> 
> Defensive? Maybe. But thats like the chicken and the egg. If you are never attacked, belittled, condescended to, then there is no reason to ever be defensive now is there.
> 
> I actually think that Romance is less restrictive than for example fantasy. Reason? We have everything from Time travel, Regency, Historicals of all kinds from all over the world, sci fi, suspense, vampires, all kinds of creatures really, fairies, fantasy, inspirational, etc. I am sure I am missing plenty here. That is a HUGE mass of stories, a huge variety of genres within Romance. Only one rule really, that is it.


Amen.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Arkali said:


> No? How about I write a book about Tarzan and Jane and market it as sci-fi? I don't think the readers would be happy ;-)
> Amen.


Actually, if you threw in some nifty, whiz-bang gadgets you'd have the makings of a cool steam-punk novel -- one of the hottest sci-fi markets out there!


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

CIBond said:


> Ah, but there are Romances that appeal only to people who don't want a sex scene and they would not be interested in reading Beatrice Small or Romantic Erotica. There are romances where there are paranormal elements and while lots of people like them a lot of other people aren't interested. Romances that appeal to older women where the protag is in her 40's&#8230; etc. They are still Romances because they have the same story question: "Will they get together and live HEA" - the same answer - Yup, and much of the book is devoted to the characters and how they interact. So &#8230; all Romances even though they have different readers.


I'm confused. I was only talking in terms of Paranormal Romance vs. Urban Fantasy.



CIBond said:


> Who a series appeals to&#8230; that is probably more about how it is told and the little side plots rather than the main Story Question. My husband liked Dead Already - detective noire vampire, well written but very&#8230; male. He had no interest in the Stack House books.


That's my point exactly. Sookie is classified as UF and a lot of Paranormal Romance readers love the series. I think the difference in the two categories of of Urban Fantasy is that one appeals to men and some women (Dresden Files being a good example) while others appeal almost solely to women (Sookie, Queen Betsy, etc.) and others might be enjoyed by some guys (Mercy, Kate Daniels, etc.) but their primary audience is still women, IMO.



CIBond said:


> Because its wish-fulfillment. They already have their wishes they just want you to fulfill them. They aren't looking for enlightenment or surprises or great literature they want a fantasy. This isn't to say they won't ever read your book but if they are in the mood for a little wish-fulfillment they don't want to end up with something else. Seems reasonable don't you think? Like opening a chocolate bar and finding toffee instead. Its not bad just not what I ordered and if I was expecting chocolate I am going to be mad.


Exactly  If I'm in the mood for what you wrote and I'm getting what I expected, no problems. In the case of a romance, you expect the HEA and get one partner dies... now you're beyond disappointed. You wanted a feel-good and now you're in tears. WTF? That's like opening a chocolate bar and finding a piece of beef jerky.

Kathleen - very true  But no, none of that. Just Tarzan and Jane and maybe George of the Jungle. Try selling it as sci-fi and then tell me sci-fi doesn't have rules


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> All I said was I never encountered it.
> 
> I think I better bow out here -- I don't wish to upset anyone.


You're not upsetting anyone, I don't think. Healthy debate / discussion is healthy


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

No need for anyone to bow out, I'm considering it very interesting. I've always considered sf/f to be the most versatile genre, but I'm seeing a good romance argument, at least in all aspects other than a certain plot element that needs to inform everything.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Arkali said:


> Kathleen - very true  But no, none of that. Just Tarzan and Jane and maybe George of the Jungle. Try selling it as sci-fi and then tell me sci-fi doesn't have rules


Well, then by your definition, if I wrote a book about a dog and a goat that happily co-habitated ever after, I could classify it as Romance, since HEA is the only rule.

Incidentally (I'm asking because I truly do not know), are there gay romance novels?


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> Well, then by your definition, if I wrote a book about a dog and a goat that happily co-habitated ever after, I could classify it as Romance, since HEA is the only rule.


If the book focuses on the journey of the two falling in love and they declare that love and end up together, then yes, it's a Romance. Don't know if there's much of a market for that particular sub-genre, though. 



Kathleen Valentine said:


> Incidentally (I'm asking because I truly do not know), are there gay romance novels?


Yes, there are. Most of it is written by women for women. It's usually called m/m or slash. (The term slash originated back in the day from from the slash mark in Spock/Kirk fanfic in the Star Trek fandom. And, yes, it means what you think it means. LOL) There is also gay romance written by gay men for gay men. I've read there's a difference between the two, but I don't really know. I don't read it.

There is also f/f romance. And menage romance (threesomes or moresomes, or polyamory--I hope I spelled that right), where it might be any combo of arrangement--one woman-two men, one man-two women, one woman-three men, etc.

As long as the story is about the journey of falling in love for the main characters (whatever the combo) and they end up in love and together, it's a Romance.

Lanette


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> Well, then by your definition, if I wrote a book about a dog and a goat that happily co-habitated ever after, I could classify it as Romance, since HEA is the only rule.
> 
> Incidentally (I'm asking because I truly do not know), are there gay romance novels?


Yes! Now you're getting it. That would be the "across the tracks" romance trope. Romeo and Juliet, but with an HEA. Strong conflict because the hero and heroine would have to overcome a lot to be together. Both families would be against it, as would society.

And not all about sex. The majority of erotica publishers look askance at bestiality. But if you give the animals character, and close the bedroom door, then it could be done. Think Disney movie.

And yes, there are gay romances. They are doing quite well right now.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> Yes, in traditional publishing, hot is in.
> 
> But that is the advantage of self publishing. You don't have to listen to them. Tell your friends to put the books on Kindle, kick butt and take names.
> 
> ...


I've been peeking my nose in and out of this thread. 

I personally don't read romances with sex scenes, but I love a great romantic story. So I read inspirational/Christian romances, or YA romances. The problem is, I find myself wanting a good adult romance without the religion thrown in.

That's one reason I wrote my own novel. (I also wanted a mystery in it... so I just threw a bunch of genres together.) I figure if I really like that kind of book, someone else might too. And seeing how well YA romances sell, I'm guessing a lot of adults think the way I do.

So I don't think a romance needs any sex at all to sell well. Mine doesn't even imply any sex. They kiss a few times. Someone called them "steamy kisses" on a review which made me smile. 

Vicki


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I'm confused. I was only talking in terms of Paranormal Romance vs. Urban Fantasy.


Ah&#8230; I was saying that who a book appeals to is completely separate from what genre it fits into. People can be really specific about what kind of Romance they will read but they are still all Romances because they have the same story question and ending. I was going to say that there is something in every genre for both genders but I'm not sure how many men read Romances and what they look for when they do?



Arkali said:


> Sookie is classified as UF and a lot of Paranormal Romance readers love the series.


I thought she was classified as detective by the Library of Congress? That's what I was told at the book store. It was the explanation for why she was in the mystery/detective section and not in the paranormal section. The author writes Cozies in general and they are similar to Romances in that they slide away from the graphic violence and darker themes. Happy endings, murderer gets caught&#8230; etc.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> Incidentally (I'm asking because I truly do not know), are there gay romance novels?


Just a click away... 

http://store.samhainpublishing.com/romance-glbt-c-1_8_42.html


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Victorine said:


> So I don't think a romance needs any sex at all to sell well. Mine doesn't even imply any sex. They kiss a few times. Someone called them "steamy kisses" on a review which made me smile.
> 
> Vicki


See and mine isn't a romance at all but I have sex in it anyway. I'm just a dirty, dirty girl. LOL&#8230; 

My neighbor said it wasn't about love it was about hunger and that sounds about right.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

CIBond said:


> Ah&#8230; I was saying that who a book appeals to is completely separate from what genre it fits into. People can be really specific about what kind of Romance they will read but they are still all Romances because they have the same story question and ending. I was going to say that there is something in every genre for both genders but I'm not sure how many men read Romances and what they look for when they do?
> 
> I thought she was classified as detective by the Library of Congress? That's what I was told at the book store. It was the explanation for why she was in the mystery/detective section and not in the paranormal section. The author writes Cozies in general and they are similar to Romances in that they slide away from the graphic violence and darker themes. Happy endings, murderer gets caught&#8230; etc.


Mystery / Fantasy according to ACE and also the LoC. I'd classify them as primarily fantasy (urban) and then mystery.

BUT - here's the thing. There are far less "Official" genres than there are categories, niches, etc. And of course classification at the sub-genre level is all about the reader. At the higher levels it's for libraries to know where to shelve stuff and how to categorize. But when you start really drilling down: ie. romance > paranormal romance or fantasy > urban > chick-appeal THAT is for the reader and the author's relationship with the reader. You don't want to try to sell your Paranormal Romance to a Dresden fan, for instance. What a reader expects when they pick up a book that they believe to be of Type A may or may not be the same thing the librarian who categorized it looked for, and she's not going to drill down 15 layers on how to categorize a romance - in fact, for fiction, you may have Shannon Butcher's PNR titles side-by-side with her husband's work, even though they aren't in the same category at all once you get past "Fiction".


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Arkali said:


> What a reader expects when they pick up a book that they believe to be of Type A may or may not be the same thing the librarian who categorized it looked for, and she's not going to drill down 15 layers on how to categorize a romance - in fact, for fiction, you may have Shannon Butcher's PNR titles side-by-side with her husband's work, even though they aren't in the same category at all once you get past "Fiction".


Yes. I read a review of Kim Harrison's work by a very "male" librarian who read YA and loved Butcher and Ilona Andrews. He was shocked at the sexual tension between Racheal and Ivy, hated the wandering plot lines, and dropped into a tirade about how her world building was poor... it isn't, it is fantastic as is her writing. She just isn't standard detective genre and she pushes sexual comfort zones. It was unfare but the genre covers such a wide spectrum that it is a challange to explain how books in the same genre aren't at all the same.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

:snicker:  He's going to just llluuurrve the Kate Daniels series around book 4ish


----------



## AnnetteL (Jul 14, 2010)

Having read Vicki's book, I can attest that 1) it is a romance (but also a suspense/mystery, almost equal parts) and 2) there IS no bedroom door to speak of--but that doesn't mean there isn't CHEMISTRY, which I think is the foundation of a great romance. 

I appreciated reading a clean romance!


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> Incidentally (I'm asking because I truly do not know), are there gay romance novels?


M/M, M/M/F, M/M/M/F - oh yeah! all kinds of things are hot in the romantica market.
Kathleen - The romance genre is widely varied, with guidelines and tropes that serve as a framework. It is not only a genre - it is also THE best selling of ALL genre. It is difficult for someone who doesn't know romance to understand it. So your TV person wouldn't have a clue. I think the draw is that the reader gets to fall in love right along with the MC. The spark and the sizzle that love, or lust, brings.

I have been reading romance since the days of the 'bodice ripper' (now a sub-genre). I studied the tropes and the guidelines, hung out on the Harlequin sites, soaked up everything I could - but my book was classified as women's fiction by my first reviewer, because less than 70% of the plot was about the relationship. So there may be one rule, but the guidelines can trip someone up. The H and h should also meet in the first chapter. They should be monogamous after they have sex.

I was also told to put in a love scene or my book wouldn't sell.

I have decided that my best bet is to market myself as a someone who writes 'pulp fiction for women' because of the quirks in my writing style. I hope that writing under the moniker "pulp fiction" will help the reader understand that I'm not going to hit the tropes right. Some things are going to be near misses.

Pink Ghetto? I like that! (Nora Roberts, Queen of the Pink Ghetto - has a nice ring to it.)


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

PS - read Victorine's book - really liked it. 

She hits the tropes and does all the right things to make it a true romance. It is no wonder the book sells like hotcakes, she pushed all the right Romance buttons.

If anyone can break out of Indie (pulp fiction) into Romance - it's going to be her!


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

K. A. Jordan said:


> with guidelines and tropes that serve as a framework


What is a trope?

Are there romances with older characters? Say the woman in her 40s or 50s?

It's that HEA thing that puts me off -- if I know in advance the H is going to end up with the h, what's the point? Now, if the question is _which_ H is going to end up with _which_ h, that's more interesting! The comparison to mysteries is specious because if a mystery is worth reading you stick around to find out whodunnit but in a romance if I know by page 25 that the H is going to be with the h on the last page, why keep reading?

I _seriously_ don't get it!


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> What is a trope?
> 
> Are there romances with older characters? Say the woman in her 40s or 50s?
> 
> ...


A trope - call it a theme, a plot arc, what-have you. Here's a podcast by Smart Bitches, Trashy Books about tropes: http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/comments/dear-bitches-smart-authors-podcast-romantic-tropes-carolyn-jewel-and-female/ Some examples they give of their favorites:
a) Friends to lovers
b) Unrequited love
c) Marriage of convenience

So - what's the point if you know how it's going to end? It's the journey, as Kat said up-thread. And actually, the comparison to a mystery isn't specious at all. You may know that they'll wind up together (or that the mystery will be solved) but it's the how of it that keeps you interested.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> What is a trope?
> 
> Are there romances with older characters? Say the woman in her 40s or 50s?
> 
> ...


More tropes: the May December romance, the secret baby, amnesia, reforming the rake... There are dozens of them, and I am blanking out right now. But those Amazon readers are probably looking for a specific trope. And inside any one of them, you can get a vast variety of plots.

And yes, there are romances with older women in them. I just read a Sherry Thomas book, Private Arrangements, with two plotlines, one for the mother, and one for the daughter. Jennifer Cruise has some older heroines. The mother in "Faking It" is one of my all time favorites. At the beginning, she's doing doublecrostics and waiting for the dog to die so she can be free of responsibilities.

Often the more mature woman is a secondary lead, but I am sure there is a thread on the Amazon forums for primary older heroines.

It really is a genre for all shapes, sizes and ages.

As stated, mystery readers are reading for the destination, but romance readers are there for the journey. And generally, mysteries are plot driven, but romances are more often character driven. We want to relate to the people, and watch them get together. That's why there is a great variety of character types. If it was always a 20 year old blond, virgin and a 35 year old billionaire with black hair, that would get old. The reader is always on the lookout for a new interesting couple and a new twist on a familiar plotline.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Here's a list of tropes:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RomanceNovelPlots

I haven't read it yet, so not sure how accurate or complete the list is, but at first glance it seems like a good article.

And Kathleen, it's okay if you don't like romance novels - they aren't for everyone. But they are enjoyed by a lot of people  Out of curiosity, have you ever read one?

Edited: Have you read one recently? Romance has grown a lot over the years.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Somewhat amusingly, people were discussing favorite tropes / will not read tropes on some board (my google search took me there).  I laughed because a LOT of people were squicked about step-siblings.  For me, it would depend.  If the step-sibs were kids when the folks got married - eeeewwww.  They were both in their late twenties when their older parents found each other and got married?  I have no problem with that.  In fact... I could see them coming together in their efforts to keep their parents apart.  Then you wind up with TWO HEAs for the price of one ;-)


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Arkali said:


> Out of curiosity, have you ever read one?


You are going to hate me for my answer: I've started lots of them, I've only finished a few -- the ones I've read have been soooooooo predictable! I know everyone says it's "the journey" and it's about the characters but I haven't found an interesting couple since Clare and Jamie in the Outlander series! I was very active on a few Amazon threads for awhile and people kept telling me to read this one or read that one and they were just ... I hate to say this ... ridiculous.

I got interested because some readers kept calling my two novels "romance" novels and I didn't see them that way at all so I was seriously trying to figure out what a romance novel was. I even exchanged several emails with Diana Gabaldon about it.

One of the things that put me off was how petty and childish so many of the heroines were. I remember one that came highly recommended by a bunch of women and it started off pretty good but then the h pitched a hissy fit over something really, really minor that the H did. The entire rest of the book was him trying to win her back. If I had been him I would have said "good riddance".

Guess, despite my name, I'm just not "romantic" enough....


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Nah, I don't hate you   As I said, romance isn't for everyone, just as sci-fi, fantasy, or any other genre isn't for everyone 

I would suggest, though, that you might find a sub-genre that's more up your alley - perhaps romantic suspense, or paranormal? - and try one from there.  And I totally understand, sometimes they are ridiculous to one person, but another loves them.  But, yeah, that would probably be the miscommunication trope, or whatever it's called.  Not one that like.  I always think "Geez!  If you'd just try talking to each other!  Novel concept, know!"


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> One of the things that put me off was how petty and childish so many of the heroines were. I remember one that came highly recommended by a bunch of women and it started off pretty good but then the h pitched a hissy fit over something really, really minor that the H did. The entire rest of the book was him trying to win her back. If I had been him I would have said "good riddance".
> 
> Guess, despite my name, I'm just not "romantic" enough....


The author needs to create conflict between the couple and well... some do it by making the h cranky or the H a complete cad. I can handle the H as a cad better than I can a whiney h and I agree, if they can't get their collective sh*t together enough to communicate then they really aren't mature enough for a relationship. The adventure ones are better. The conflict is primarily externally based with some internal repercussions of an external problem. So the problem can be a h who doesn't take the threat seriously enough and an over protective H who is trying to save her/convince her not to go/open the shelter/face the bad guy&#8230; etc.

You might like the gothic romances. Usually two H's and one of them is hiding a secrete or bad or there is something really creepy going on and the h has to figure out which one of them is to blame before she becomes the next target.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Thank you, KA and Annette, you guys made my night.  

Vicki


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

This probably won't qualify as proper "romance" but in honor of Valentine's Day I posted a free romantic story to my blog: http://networkedblogs.com/eerYX

Two and a half years ago someone I loved died very unexpectedly -- this story, Sailor's Valentine -- grew out of that experience.

Happy Valentine's Day, all you romantics.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

The tropes I was talking about are - H/h meet in the first chapter, they have to be monogamus, he has to be an Alpha Male, he has to be physically perfect and the couple's conflict is usually them sniping at each other. Usually, she has to be a virgin, or at least inexperienced and he has to save her at some point.

Those are the main ones. 

I understand, the romance genre isn't for everyone. I would suggest to anyone that doesn't understand the genre to not use the moniker in their work. No sense getting mixed up in it by mistake. It can cause problems that an Indie/pulp fiction writer doesn't need. This is difficult enough as it is.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

K. A. Jordan said:


> The tropes I was talking about are - H/h meet in the first chapter, they have to be monogamus, he has to be an Alpha Male, he has to be physically perfect and the couple's conflict is usually them sniping at each other. Usually, she has to be a virgin, or at least inexperienced and he has to save her at some point.
> 
> Those are the main ones.
> 
> I understand, the romance genre isn't for everyone. I would suggest to anyone that doesn't understand the genre to not use the moniker in their work. No sense getting mixed up in it by mistake. It can cause problems that an Indie/pulp fiction writer doesn't need. This is difficult enough as it is.


But don't you think it is unfair and ridiculous that a generic word like "romance" should be appropriated by a certain group and denied to those who don't want to follow the rules you just outlined? If you do a search on "classic romance novels" you'll find books that do not fit your rules (especially not the HEA rule) but have been regarded as romances for decades. Are you saying that Alexander Dumas, Daphne DuMaurier, the Brontes, Thackery, Nathaniel Hawthorne, etc. are NOT romance novelists?

It seems quite ridiculous to say only novelists who follow your rules can say they write romance!


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Thanks for the freebie, Kathleen!

Kat - are those tropes or guidelines?  I'm getting the terms confused.  *sigh*

Back to Kathleen.  I take your point, and yes, the classical romances are nowhere near the modern Romance genre.  At the same time, why buck the system?  If you want to call your books romances, go right ahead.  At the same time, don't necessarily be surprised when romance reader get angry.  I mean, sometimes it's best to conform.  You don't have to, but why make things difficult?  If you want a job at the police department, is it a good idea to wear a t-shirt depicting a pig eating a doughnut to the interview?  Seriously, you are free to do whatever you want, and I do see your point and agree with it to a certain extent.  At the same time, there are potential consequences to everything we do - in this case, confused and possibly angry readers.  The only thing I could see you doing to make the distinction (and I don't know that this would even work) would be to say that you are a classical romance writer.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

As an avid romance readers for decades and a romance writer, to me romance ALWAYS has a happy ending. To me anything claiming to be a romance involves the hero or heroine (and variations if you branch out to menages etc) and their relationship as the main story line. Their romance must take center stage to action, suspense, mystery or anything else that is external to their relationship. There is no mandate on love scenes--how graphic or how much for it ranges from inspirational to erotic. That's how I've always seen it and will always see it.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I'm going to have to agree with the happy ending thing.  If a book doesn't have a happy ending, that doesn't mean it's not a good book.  I just wouldn't classify it as Romance.

Just my two cents.

Vicki


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Thanks for the freebie, Kathleen!
> 
> Kat - are those tropes or guidelines? I'm getting the terms confused. *sigh*


Guidelines!

And traditional publishing guidelines at that. And in some cases, they are guidelines to specific lines and publishers.

Really. Ignore them. Strike them from your rule books. Do not follow them unless they suit your story. and do not think that the romance genre is limited by them on the basis of what you've been told by specific editors or other writers. And if you are writing indy, why would those rules matter at all?

Swear to God, I know from whence I speak. I just finished writing my 11th traditionally published romance, and I have broken every single one of those, sometimes several of them in a book. A few readers complain, but the vast majority do not. And my editor does not even blink. If you can come up with any others, I will be happy to try to break them in the next book I write, just to prove I can.

Write a good story, and you can get away with anything. Except not having an HEA, of course.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Arkali said:


> If you want to call your books romances, go right ahead. At the same time, don't necessarily be surprised when romance reader get angry.


Somebody on another thread just referred to me as a "romance writer". Would you please go over there and straighten him out: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,52641.0.html ?


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Truly, Christine, that's good news. You are the first person to say that. Everyone I've talked to in the last few years has been quick to point out that my book doesn't follow the rules/tropes/guidelines closely enough to get trade published as a romance.

Kathleen - I think we all struggle to find the right niche for our work. Anything that bends a genre too far can have issues with agents - but the same work could be just what a publisher is looking for - IF the writer can get the work into the hands of a publisher. To me, this is the beauty of this new market, we are relatively free to write what we want. I don't have to turn myself inside out trying to hit all of Harlequin's guidelines and Alice Newbie needs only to hit the HEA trope to find romance readers. 

I can have my hero lose a leg in Iraq, be all scarred up and have tattoos - but not conform to the Alpha Male trope because he's likes women and is a good listener. He can be a tormented "Wounded Warrior" without being drunk and mean. He can joke and tease the heroine instead of snarking at her. 

It's all good at this point.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> Somebody on another thread just referred to me as a "romance writer". Would you please go over there and straighten him out: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,52641.0.html ?


Nothing to straighten out. Heck, you sound like you're calling yourself a romance writer. And that's fine, honestly. Like I said, if you're okay with getting the occasional disappointed reader, you can call yourself whatever. I don't think you're doing yourself any favors with that, but hey... everyone's got an opinion


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

K. A. Jordan said:


> I can have my hero lose a leg in Iraq, be all scarred up and have tattoos - but not conform to the Alpha Male trope because he's likes women and is a good listener. He can be a tormented "Wounded Warrior" without being drunk and mean. He can joke and tease the heroine instead of snarking at her.
> 
> It's all good at this point.


Romantically speaking, war injuries get bonus points and automatic alpha status. Carla Kelly's got a historical out now with a one handed hero. I've done a limp (war), blindness(hereditary), and I've got a couple of guys with glasses, one of which is pretty definitely beta. And the blind guy was a cheater. I also did a heroine who was not ravishingly beautiful. Everyone but the hero thought she looked weird. She got a makeover, but did not take off her glasses and become gorgeous.

Editors for print have to be more cautious in what they buy because it's their job on the line if the book doesn't sell. They try to appeal to a majority. But e-pub and Kindle have really expanded the market and I think the readers are more open minded, now that they've seen the choices that are possible.

Write first and sell later.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Arkali said:


> Heck, you sound like you're calling yourself a romance writer.


Aurgh! I've been fighting that label ever since I started writing -- a lot of it has to do with my name, too, but I was born with it so I'm keeping it. ♥ Happy Valentines Day ♥


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

LOL  Sorry.  But you say "I write romances!" (in the classical sense) so you aren't a romance writer, but then you turn around and say you are because you're fighting da man and why should the romance novel genre corner the market on a term that has been used for centuries.  So, yeah, I'm confused.  I mean, I don't think you write romances by the modern definition, but at the same time...


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Arkali said:


> LOL Sorry. But you say "I write romances!" (in the classical sense) so you aren't a romance writer, but then you turn around and say you are because you're fighting da man and why should the romance novel genre corner the market on a term that has been used for centuries. So, yeah, I'm confused. I mean, I don't think you write romances by the modern definition, but at the same time...


I feel like I'm hollering down a well -- oh well, ♥ Happy Valentines Day ♥!


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> Aurgh! I've been fighting that label ever since I started writing -- a lot of it has to do with my name, too, but I was born with it so I'm keeping it. ♥ Happy Valentines Day ♥


You need to create a brand or yourself. Really. You take some time to create a cogent definition of who you are, as a writer. And nowhere in it do you want to use the word romance. Because, if you do, people will call you a romance writer. And yes, the name Valentine is going to work against you. But no, I am not telling you to change it. It is who you are. And you use it, even if you say something like, "I think of my novels as valentines..."

And then, define all the things about that word without using romance.

I used to think marketing and branding was icky, and evil. But I have to admit, it is the most effective way to reach the audience. And once the book is written, that is the next goal.

You can try to change the current marketing definition of romance. But you have the Romance Writers of America working actively against you at every step. Over 10,000 members, there, with a marketing dept, advertising, etc. All working together to solidify that definition of romance for the reading public, so that we can increase our sales.

You can say you write romance, if you want. but as long as you do, you will be stuck with the label of romance writer. And as a group, we romance writer's are the industry's largest red headed stepchild.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Sometimes I am sensing that some authors would just love love the advantages of being in the romance listings, category or whatnot. Its the biggest selling genre after all. But in reality they are too snobbish, think of their works to be above romance, like is some evil thing and are just all around huffing and puffing about it and trying to change the genre completely. 

But they sure like the exposure they get by being listed amongst those peasants  

I do see some of this more and more. 

Nobody is trying to change any of the other genres. But oh those poor widdle romance readers must be educated on what "real" books are and what romance should be  

I thank all the Romance writers out there, some of them having posted here. I thank you for not being deterred by the look down the nose by other writers, readers, industry people for writing "omeegawd" romance. 
That you continue to write amazing stories anyway. It is a great writer that can take a story that has an ending known somewhat from the beginning, take it by its horn and take me down an emotional roller coaster, show me adventure, humanity, wit, incredible storytelling and love. Now that is skill. So thank you Romance writers for sticking with your guns. Many of us appreciate it.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Christine Merrill said:


> You can say you write romance, if you want. but as long as you do, you will be stuck with the label of romance writer. And as a group, we romance writer's are the industry's largest red headed stepchild.


Christine, I spent 25 years in the marketing department of a couple large corporations creating corporate identity and branding materials. Ever since I started this business, both for myself and for Parlez-Moi Press, I've been creating a consistent, well-branded identity - from the images I use on my various web sites, my logo, the typefaces, etc. I've repeated this here half a dozen times now but it doesn't seem to sink in -- I KNOW what I write, literary fiction, BUT people who are not familiar with the stringent rules of the romance genre, continually brand me as a "romance writer". Partly because of the name I was born with and partly because many of my books have a romantic theme. The title of my first published book is My Last Romance & other passions.

Why am I bothering? Never mind....


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Atunah said:


> Sometimes I am sensing that some authors would just love love the advantages of being in the romance listings, category or whatnot. Its the biggest selling genre after all. But in reality they are too snobbish, think of their works to be above romance, like is some evil thing and are just all around huffing and puffing about it and trying to change the genre completely.
> 
> But they sure like the exposure they get by being listed amongst those peasants


Charming. ♥ Happy Valentines Day ♥


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Sorry we ticked you off.  But if multiple people misunderstand you in the same thread, perhaps the communication block is on your end?

I truly do get that you say you aren't a romance writer, and also that you don't write romances in the current sense.  But then you turn around in a different post and beat your chest about the required HEA that modern romances have and also wail about why you can't say that your books are romances (in the classical sense) because why should a fairly new genre be able to take a word hostage - a word that has, in fact, been used to describe certain types of books for hundreds of years and many of those classical books don't have a HEA, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Arkali said:


> Kathleen, I honestly think you're getting a bit ticked off about this. I apologize for that, but - take a deep breath. And you might want to delete that last post - it's a bit over the top on the snark-o-meter.


I'M snarky Did you read "Atunah's" post?


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

In Romance the story question is about whether or not the couple will get together so the HEA ending needs to have the couple in a HEA situation but the HE seems to be a standard for commercial fiction or popular fiction in general - Genre fiction requires a HE unless it is horror. We read because want the hero to succeed, narrowly and with great difficulty but his commitment and faith needs to be rewarded in the end. It happens in fantasy, it happens in Sci-fi, it happens in westerns, and in thrillers. In fact if you don't have a HE and you aren't writing horror it automatically places you in Lit Fiction doesn't it?

I would say Romantic Literary Fiction would be what I would call myself if I were in your shoes. Then even if your endings are H but not saccharine HEA you should still be fine. If people are confused well... it happens even in the best of times. I would understand exactly what you were selling... _Age of Innocence_ comes to mind.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Ladies - I think it is more like genre confusion. Because fiction written for women, by women, tends to get treated as trivial by the -- (I don't want to use 'literary establishment' but that's the only term I can think of at this moment - and it's NOT what I mean. RATS!) -- hmm how about 'Average Joe Reader?'

if Art Reader (note the masculine) sees Alice Writer wrote a book and he's got a literary snob attitude towards genre fiction written for women - then he's not only going to slap "Romance" on the book, but also "Bodice Ripper" for a good measure.

I'm afraid that those of us who read, write and love Romance have gotten (understandably) twitchy. The danger is alienation our own (women who write fiction) because of the crap 'we' (romance readers/writers) take from outsiders. II don't see women who write fiction as outsiders, just because they aren't familiar with the quirks of the romance genre. I see them as peers, coming from a different direction - but we have the same goals - to entertain readers.

I'm going to take the stand that education and patience(!!!) is the answer - AND that the problem is a lack of solidarity _within_ the ranks of women who write fiction.

I welcome the questions of women writers as they attempt to understand the marvelous and complex genre that is romance in all it's flavors. Women writers need women writers as friends, mentors and equals - so that we can learn from one another.

I would gladly share the knowledge that I have gained - so that I may learn from my peers. Since we are all on this board, we are peers.

Ladies - please may we agree that we all feel passionately about what we do, and allow others the freedom to ask questions and disagree? There is so much we could learn from each other, I would hate to see the opportunity wasted!

I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening...or reading.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

CIBond said:


> I would say Romantic Literary Fiction would be what I would call myself if I were in your shoes. Then even if your endings are H but not saccharine HEA you should still be fine. If people are confused well... it happens even in the best of times.


Thank you. My intention when I came in to this discussion was to open up discussion and I was sort of shocked when I was met with defensiveness -- especially considering the opening post that started the discussion.

The HEA thing is, to me, problematic because, in my opinion (and only in my opinion), it sounds a little too saccharine for many readers BUT if that's what people want, so be it. It is the _literalness_ of "Happily Ever After" that perplexes me. For instance, in one of my novels the story unfolds in three parts. In part 1 the h, who is young and naive, meets and falls quite madly in love with an H who is also young and idealistic. They have a brief romance (semi-sexual) and then he tells her that, though he loves her, he has a dream and they part when he goes off to pursue it. She meets another guy but the relationship doesn't work and she is left alone and miserable. In part 2, a few months later the h falls under the spell of an older, mysterious, and quite thrilling H. They have an intensely passionate relationship but throughout she is aware that he is not a well man, despite appearances. He adores her and, through the relationship, she matures, but, after a lot of "stuff", they part. In part 3 the h is now 20 years older and we soon discover that H#2 has died and she has spent the last 20 years raising their son alone. Now the son has gone off to fulfill something his father had always hoped to do and, as she is saying farewell to her son, she learns that H#1 has returned and, after having gone through a lot, he is alone. In the final scene the h finds H#1 and they have a very emotional reunion. The story ends not knowing which way things will go but with hope.

To me that is a very delicious ending, but to the HEA crowd it might seem too vague. I don't know.... but I continue to call my novels "literary fiction" -- if others want to add "romance" to that it is up to them.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Kathleen Valentine said:


> The HEA thing is, to me, problematic because, in my opinion (and only in my opinion), it sounds a little too saccharine for many readers BUT if that's what people want, so be it.
> 
> To me that is a very delicious ending, but to the HEA crowd it might seem too vague. I don't know.... but I continue to call my novels "literary fiction" -- if others want to add "romance" to that it is up to them.


Of note: romance readers don't always want a HEA, and when they don't, they read outside the genre. Romance, to me, is like a comfort food. If I'm not concerned with reading a feel-good tale I might choose a mystery, or something like your book that you described. But when I want a happy ending, a feel-good, that's what I want. It's like snack food. If you want salty, you pick pretzels or chips. Not ice cream. Not that there's anything wrong with ice cream, it's just not what you're in the mood for.

And I agree with you that your ending sounds just fine, but from what you described it most definitely is not in the genre of Modern Romance (just to make sure we're all on the same page ) and not just because of the lack of a HEA. It still sounds like a good book, though


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> Romantically speaking, war injuries get bonus points and automatic alpha status. Carla Kelly's got a historical out now with a one handed hero.


That's good! I never cared for the physically perfect Alpha hero. I'm into the 'wounded warrior' type.

I live near a military base and we see so many young men & women in wheelchairs and on crutches. The ones with PTSD are the hardest to reach. They are either withdrawn and watchful, or they turn into jokers who are never serious but hyperactive and watchful. Their eyes scan the room, the area, they track anything that moves. I can spot them - though you rarely see them in a crowd.

I like the pretzel and ice cream analogy! When life hands me lemons I want lots of sugar - ice cream and chocolate, not anything that smacks of reality. I need my HEA to counteract the real world. I'm looking for escapist fluff - not tragic love. I'll read the other stuff later when life is good. I can appreciate it better.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Yeah, wounded hero is one of my favorite themes too. Wounded in body and/or mind. Tortured, anything like that. 

Some writers take the tortured hero right up to the edge, Anne Stuart is one of those. Its not always pretty and some don't like it. I like reading the different. Not always perfect. But I don't have any issue with a handsome hero either. Just what I feel like at the moment. Thats why you sometimes see people asking about specific tropes (new word I learned here  ) on the forums. 

Its very interesting sometimes to see how a writer can redeem a very very bad boy throughout a book. 

To me that is all in the tortured category as they usually have some demons they are fighting. 

I do find I don't read much contemporary romance. Not quite sure why that is. I guess I don't want to read about stuff that is too close to reality in present time , all the time. I like to escape into worlds very different from the known, experience new things. Then of course I have always been interested in historical stuff like that. 

I also am always confused at what is really a contemporary romance or what is chick lit, which I don't like, at least the ones that deal with chickie stuff I can't relate too like shopping  . 

I read a few historicals with the hero's having PTSD. Those poor guys back then didn't have any help at all. I think about that sometimes how many came home maimed in the many wars in England, or Scotland etc and they couldn't even find work or feed their families. As gruesome as war is today, It must have been totally horrific back in the day.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Well...this thread has certainly taken on a life of it's own! Reading through it is an education. It's been great for me, because I'm plotting out a book, and this conversation has given me a lot to think about. Ultimately, I'm mixing up a few genres: historical, suspense and romance. But I will NOT call the book I'm working on romantic suspense--unless it has a HEA ending!

Another conversation might be: What is literary fiction. I've always heard it defined as a beginning, a middle and no end. I'd love to hear other takes...maybe another thread?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

That might be interesting to discuss that. Personally, I have no clue what literary fiction means and haven't hear the term until I read it here. I might have to explain that I grew up in a different Country in a different language with I am sure a different way to categorize books and obviously use different terms. So I am a bit lost there. 

Now I sometimes go to the german Amazon and I am lost there  . Thats what happens I guess when you life lives in different cultures and languages.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

K. A. Jordan said:


> That's good! I never cared for the physically perfect Alpha hero. I'm into the 'wounded warrior' type.


I love "wounded warriors" -- most of my lead males fall into that category. Both of the Hs in the book I described earlier fall into that category -- it is set in the 1960s and when the h re-encounters H#1 he has returned from Vietnam and is only starting to get his life back together.

Of course the problem with wounded heroes is that you run the danger of the h falling into the stereotypical co-dependent rescuer. I guess some women like that but a lot of us have done enough rescuing in our lives and find it off-putting.

As to literary fiction, I picked up the term on an Amazon Discussion board. Basically it refers to the style and/or quality of writing rather than anything having to do with story structure. Basically, genre fiction follows a predictable arc and as long as it follows that arc it doesn't really matter how the writing is as long as it is acceptable. I recommend Robert Olin Butler's book "From Where You Dream" if you are serious about learning how literary fiction is written. Generally, the writing is more character-driven than plot-driven and much of the narrative follows the personal journey of the main character or characters rather than a specific story line. Writers like A.S. Byatt, Valerie Martin, Butler, etc. are literary fiction writers.

Some novelists can do both within the same story -- James Lee Burke is an excellent example. He writes detective thrillers but he also presents the journey of his lead characters in a very literary manner. And sometimes his endings are not "resolved".


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Atunah said:


> I also am always confused at what is really a contemporary romance or what is chick lit, which I don't like, at least the ones that deal with chickie stuff I can't relate too like shopping .


Generally, chick-lit is 1st person - has a breezy, snarky voice and the MC is in her early twenties.

Contemporary takes place in the last 10 or 20 years, is usually 3rd person. I like contemporary - to read and to write because I see a lot of people going different ways than the 'norm' to make their lives meaningful. It can be as simple as opening a business - which is still a little unusual for a woman to do. Also, I see a generation of women who grew up without all the 'but you can't do that, 'cause your a girl' crap that I hated growing up. Life in the 60's and 70's changed dramatically from the 50's. (Some of the stupid BS is still there, we've made a little progress.) I like to play with that - the reminants of the old sexist culture make good stumbling blocks.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

K. A. Jordan said:


> Also, I see a generation of women who grew up without all the 'but you can't do that, 'cause your a girl' crap that I hated growing up. Life in the 60's and 70's changed dramatically from the 50's. (Some of the stupid BS is still there, we've made a little progress.) I like to play with that - the reminants of the old sexist culture make good stumbling blocks.


I can relate to that. My young nieces think I'm joking when I tell them that when I was in college men and women lived in different dorms and there was a vat of piranhas in between (okay, I lied about the piranhas). But we had curfews and the men didn't, men were only allowed in our rooms on Sunday afternoons and we had to keep the doors open and one foot on the floor. Honest. Seriously. It's the truth.


----------

