Romance, bah humbug. Trite and air-heady. The book of choice for the bored housewife. Trashy novels. Real readers don’t read romance. You’ve heard it all, experienced it and as quiet as it’s kept, perhaps felt the same way from time to time. 
The funny thing is, the roots of some of the greatest novels are based on the themes and premises of romance. Romance in its purest form is simply the evolution of a relationship, whether it be between a man and woman, a mother for her child, siblings for each other or (wo)man and nature. It is, without question, one of the most versatile and resilient forms of literature.
What other genre has the distinction of being able to morph from the simple sweet first blush of love, to transend time and space, [paranormal, time travel] chronicle history [historicals and regency], leave dead bodies in its wake [romantic suspense], showcase the modern woman [contemporary], land on Fifth Avenue in a pair of high heels [chick lit] and catapult a writer to the New York Times Bestsellers list? None. It’s all romance–the relationship.
Romance and its venerable writers are able to deliver through the stories myriad worlds, so varied and complex that publishers continue to scramble to find a box to contain them all. The challenge of writing a damned good romance novel compels the writers to find a new spin, to broaden the horizons, to punch themselves out of the box.
According to definition, romance is:
1. A love affair.
2. Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people.
3. A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something.
4. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful.
5. A long medieval narrative in prose or verse that tells of the adventures and heroic exploits of chivalric heroes.
6. A long fictitious tale of heroes and extraordinary or mysterious events, usually set in a distant time or place.
7. The class of literature constituted by such tales.
8. An artistic work, such as a novel, story, or film, that deals with sexual love, especially in an idealized form.
9. The class or style of such works.
When evaluating the definitions of “romance” it is clear that all literature takes its cue from the above. That being the case, the various genres have been able to “trick” the reader into truly believing that what they are reading is not in anyway related to the trite, trashy romance. Heavens no!
Yet even if you open a John Grisham or Patricia Cornwell, or Walter Mosley, Elmore Leonard, Marquez… you will find romance disguised as a legal thriller, murder mystery, the love of the con game, man’s fascination with his own evolution. Pick any of the definitions and you can apply it to any book.
So while romance novels may forever be relegated to fancy dust covers to disguise the contents, or discussed in hushed tones or with disdain, and the authors viewed as non-writers; we can always sit back and smile, content in the knowledge that romance is the formula upon which literature is based. And when all is said and done it is the “relationship” that the author establishes with their readers–the true definition of romance.:lol:
No related posts.
Donna,
Great post. IT’S ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP, both with the reader AND between the characters.
But speaking in a stricly romance-related vein, relationships are *hard* to nail. I’m so sick of people who make snarky remarks about how they’d love to try their hand at writing “one of those trashy books.” By “trashy” they imply our books are cheap, paint-by-the numbers drivel. However, any Tom, Dick or Sally can’t just sit down and bang out a romance in a weekend. Folks think they can because our skilled writers make it look easy. BUT IT’S NOT!
This is a craft. And in order to write romance effectively and convincingly, you have to infuse a lot of psychology into the character arc. It’s not just about plot structure, dialogue and description. I dare say the romantic relationship we create is a character in itself and that’s what our critics will *never* understand.
Tanya
Great post, Donna. I love the idea that some big burly dude out there is reading a romance disguised as a thriller. Wouldn’t it be fun to point that out? Especially if he’s just waxed poetic about how great the book was.
“Uh, Thor? You do realize that’s a romance, right?”
I agree with you too, Tanya. It’s a tough business, and romance writers don’t receive nearly enough credit. But then again, if you release a book, somebody reads it and thinks writing the same would be easy, isn’t that a compliment, as well? Not to the genre, but to you?
Writing romance is difficult, but making the process look effortless is even harder.
That was a super post to start Monday off on, Donna. The fourth definition of romance got my cranky muse to thinking about a few gaps in my current work – thank you!
I was once engaged in a discussion with a co-worker who is a Fantasy buff, and the minute I mentioned that I had begun my writing career dabbling in Fantasy, but moved to Paranormal Romance, he looked at me like I’d crawled out of a skanky hole. He actually said to my face that anyone could write a Romance, and if I was published as a Paranormal Romance writer, I’d never be able to sell as a ’serious’ Fantasy novelist. Luckily, this guy is normaly sweet so I didn’t give him a swift kick on behalf of all Romance-dom.
It got me to thinking though, how formulaic Fantasy can be – maybe even more so than Romance. Take a hero, a blushing princess-type (warrior or useless -you choose) the hero desires and may or may not travel with/too, throw in some opposing orcs, drunk dwarves (don’t forget the axes), an evil over-lord intent on sucking the land dry of magic/taking over all available kingdoms, and maybe one or two wise wizards (hobbits and dragons optional). Oh yeah, don’t forget the deep, mystical elves too! Send the majority of the above mentioned creatures/people on a quest against said over-lord and viola, Fantasy novel.
Yeah, think I’ll stick with trashy Romances and their dozen or so sub-genres, thank you.:grin:
(Although, to be fair, I still like reading, and dabbling in Fantasy. Just to be clear.
)
How many of us studied Shakespeare in school? I bet most people looked at Romeo and Juliet etc, you don’t get anything more ‘Romance’ yet the people who make derogatory comments about the genre don’t seem to get it.
Here’s a quote: ML: These are books read by people who, as you say, don’t often read other books. It’s fine to think, ‘Oh it would be great if they read Jane Austen, if they read Dickens’. They’re not going to, they’re going to read these books. [....]
Huge sensation these books, read by millions of people. Are these people stupid? Why do they read them?
TP: Well it’s, for me, it was like lifting a stone. You see all these insects scurrying round and you think, ‘What on earth are they up to?’ and you put the stone back and go away. That was my attitude. I mean, selling thousands of copies. A complete amateur, doesn’t even write in chapters. Hasn’t a clue… -
That’s two very eminent BBC reviewers talking about one of Terry Pratchett’s books. [I love Pratchett, enjoy Austen, can't make myself like Dickens.] So you can be made to feel really stupid for liking fantasy books as well.
I enjoy reading in different genres, and I think I’d disagree with you a bit, Donna – good science-fiction can twist the world like a Rubik’s cube and give you a different perspective on the world – romance doesn’t set out to do that – or a locked room mystery can be a carefully crafted intellectual puzzle – romance doesn’t want to do that either. I suppose I think there are authors with broad horizons writing all sorts of books, and other genres have their strengths and attractions as well.
{I should say that the above quote is from a transcription on the internet, so I can’t vouch for it being 100% accurate.]
I believe it was either a workshop given or an article written by Jayne Ann Krentz where I first heard the romance-as-the-basis-for-all-literature argument. Loved it then, love seeing it mentioned here! Great post, Donna!
I know it is dangerous to speak for others, but I would say that I think most romance readers know or sense that it is not easy to write a GOOD romance novel. We know better than most there there is stuff out there that would not have seen the light of day except for the fact that the authors have become “giants” in the world of romance fiction. It may be the same story told over and over again, but if it is done well, it transends the limitations of the genre — and let’s face it, there are limitations. However, as Natasha pointed out, there are limitations for genre fiction in general — sci/fi fantasy, mysteries, chick-lit, as well as romance all conform to a template.
Personally, I don’t know how someone can limit themselves to just one genre: I was married to semeone for many years who read only sci/fi and fantasy. It was rare for him to venture outside the genre, although one or twice when he did, he actually enjoyed the experience. I have read messages on the RT Magazine boards posted by women who only read romance — I feel they are missing so much by limiting themselves, but they love the HEA ending of a romance novel, and dislike the uncertain ending of more mainstream fiction. Are they harmed by this in some way? Well, other than not being open to new experiences, probably not! I am not one of them, but I try hard not be judgemental, since there are times when nothing but a HEA ending hits the spot for me as well.
I have read messages on the RT Magazine boards posted by women who only read romance – I feel they are missing so much by limiting themselves, but they love the HEA ending of a romance novel, and dislike the uncertain ending of more mainstream fiction. Are they harmed by this in some way? Well, other than not being open to new experiences, probably not!
IMO, no. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to limit to one genre only because one genre alone can offer a wide range of difference experiences, ranging from an extensive catalogue of armchair travelling to a range of scenarios. No matter what we say, there are no two authors alike. Linda Howard and Lindsay McKenna have written jungle romances, but their takes are so different that you’d have to be thoroughly drunk not to be able to tell their books apart.
Sometimes that’s just good enough for some readers.
It’s like with travelling, some people live in their home towns all their lives and some leave to travel round the world. And most of them are happy with that. Same thing with reader sticking with just one genre or trying a variety of genres. FWIW.
Maili, I agree. The genre makes the template & then each author is free to create a new little world within the restrictions of the template, so it is possible to have endless variety within the genre. The analogy about travel is perfect IMO — I even know some strange creatures who don’t read at all!