Okay, so RWA is updating their definition of romance. How about you ? Do you have a definition of romance–or mystery–or fantasy? Have you ever picked up a book expecting one thing, only to be disappointed when it was something else? If so, why? What misled you? If not, what do you think keeps you straight?
I have to say I have on occasion started a book expecting it to be a romance and if the hero doesn’t appear by say the middle of the book, I was pretty ticked off. This might have been a completely acceptable book–but it wasn’t what I expected. Kind of like picking up a glass of what you thought was soda only to discover brandy. You may love them both–but the expectation can be a killer.
I have also picked up what was billed as a fantasy or a mystery and at some point had the realization, “Hey, this is a romance.” For some reason that never upsets me as much. Why is that? I think it is strictly a matter of emphasis. Mysteries, fantasies, and women’s fiction can all have romantic elements–even strong romantic elements and still live up to my expectation of the genre. But for me a romance, if billed as one, needs to have a pretty big percentage of the plot dedicated to the romance.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s throw some out there. You be the judge. Romance or something else?
- Gone with the Wind
- Any and all of the Stephanie Plum novels
- Ann of Green Gables novels
- Books by Lois McMaster Bujold
Okay, now movies/TV
- Buffy
- Star Wars (the original)
- Cheers (With Diane)
- The Bachelor
- Shrek
Okay, so what do you think? Why or why not? How about some popular Ellora’s Cave books? Romance or no? If you picked up any of these books with romance stamped on the spine, would you get that soda/brandy reaction? Or would you accept it?
Now the opposite? Can you name books promoted as romance that to you just don’t fit the bill? Why don’t they?
And finally, do you care? Would you be just as happy if all of fiction was lumped in together with no labels? I already said, I like some guidance–am I the only one?
Lori–being lazy this month and making you do all the work.
No related posts.
The trouble I have with approved definitions of terms like “Romance” is that they assume that what tips the balance one way or another is something inherent in the book itself. I don’t really accept that. It’s not whether a book is a romance, it’s whether your reading of it makes it one. Take Stephanie Plum, for instance. The books have got crime, they have humour, they have a strong sense of place and yes, they have a romantic storyline running through them. As a reader I can get emotionally and/or intellectually involved with some or all of those aspects, and equally importantly I can choose not to (or simply find myself unable to) get caught up with them. If I think that the Stephanie/Joe/Ranger triangle is at the heart of the books then they are romances. If I find it a distraction from Grandma Mazur’s obsession with visiting funeral parlours and Stephanie’s penchant for destroying cars then they are not.
On this basis of course it is possible to read The Da Vinci Code as a romance rather than a thriller, and Gone with the Wind as a war story rather than a romance. In each of those two cases I wouldn’t score them as good examples of those genres, but I wouldn’t say that they were absolutely not qualified to be considered as such.
Personally I read Stephanie Plum partly for the romantic element (but more for the humour), and I read the Vorkosigan books for various reasons but not really for the romance, but that is my reading of them. The whole question is surely subjective, not objective.
Well, the only books I’ve read that you mentioned are “GWTW” and a few of the Anne of Green Gables books, none of which I consider to be romances. One of the dictionary definitions of romance is “a book that deals with sexual love in an idealized form,” which has evolved into the romance novel formula that we all know. “Anne of Green Gables” is a series of YA books that I do not consider dealing with sexual love, although Anne does end up getting married, as does Laura Ingalls at the end of her series. I believe that “GWTW” has traditionally been considered a mainstream or historical novel, but not a romance. It certainly doesn’t follow the formula of girl meets boy, etc. Scarlett never recognizes the true love of her life until it is too late.
Now, as to whether all books should just be lumped in one category called fiction, regardless of genre: part of me says no, because I think that would create too much work for the reader, especially those readers who never or rarely venture outside the romance genre. On the other hand, this could be a good thing, because it could get people reading other genres, stretching their comfort zone to include the unfamiliar. I have introduced several men to the “Outlander” series by Diana Gabaldon, and they all liked it, but said they never would have picked up a book from the romance section with a recommendation. Interesting thought, but I don’t think this is going to happen. IMO everyone should read more than one type of book..I don’t like to see people limiting themselves to a steady diet of romances, or science fiction, or mysteries, or mainstream ficition, or non-fiction because they are missing so much wonderful literature..you can lead a horse to water…..
I meant men would never have picked up a book from the romance section WITHOUT a recommendation.:oops:
I wouldn’t classify Anne of Green Gables, GWTW, or the Stephanie Plum books as romance novels. Still, each has either passion, sexual tension or a love story somewhere in its pages. Now, look at Patricia Gaffney’s Circle of Three which wrapped three intertwined stories (three generations of woman in same family) inside the main storyline. In Circle, the “main” woman (middle generation) was involved in a developing relationship with a man and that relationship was a source of conflict not only for them, but also for her mother and daughter. I thought that was enough to qualify this as a romance and not a mainstream or novel with strong romantic elements. Others did not. Did it make me enjoy the book any less. Nope.
Buffy is a tough one. *thinking* Maybe a modern gothic paranormal with strong romantic elements?
Maybe just a damn fine show with brilliant writing, action and enough metaphorical angst that I still miss new episodes!
I haven’t read GWTW, but the others aren’t filed as romances in my brain – though part of the reason I liked LMB’s ‘A Civil Campaign’ so much was because of the strong romantic element. And again, I don’t know of ‘The Bachelor’ but the only one of that second group that tempted me to define it as romance is ‘Shrek’ – but I decided it’s a fairy tale.
That’s a distinction I hadn’t really thought about before pondering your question – the construction of a Romance can be very like the construction of a fairy tale. And you can read a version of Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast that’s unquestionably just a fairy tale, or you can read (or often – watch) the same story told as a Romance. The reader knows which it is – fairy tale or Romance – but it’s hard to think exactly what makes the difference.
I don’t consider Gone With The Wind or the Stephanie Plum books ‘Romances’ in the genre sense. I think the books mentioned are all ‘romantic’ — which is a larger term, not a genre identification. OTOH, I’ve bought a lot of Ellora’s Cave books and every one would, for me, classify as a genre ‘Romance’ novel, just a genre Romance novel with a lot of sex. LOL
Often, I do go to a bookstore looking for a Romance novel. When I’m looking for a Romance it’s because I want a book I can allow myself to just fall into emotionally. I want to allow myself to totally fall in love with the characters and to just totally open myself to the emotionally intense situations. I feel I can do this because Romance novels give me the implicit promise that everything will turn out okay in the end.
That’s really the marker for me with Romance — I can TRUST the author not to decide to kill the hero or heroine at the end, or to pull them apart never to see each other again. I can trust that I’m not going to lay my heart out on the stone only to be smashed by an author who decides that a ‘downer’ ending is somehow more literary (or god only knows WHAT they think).
With other genres I know things might not turn out the way I want and I guard myself while reading those books. I don’t allow myself to become as involved. Or, frankly, if I feel myself getting that involved I flip to the back and see how it all turns out before I read farther.
I read for entertainment and I really hate closing a book and feeling depressed. That’s why I never go to movies billed ‘romances’ anymore. I’m sick to death of watching two people struggle to be together for 2 hours only to have one die in the last five minutes.
So, that’s my expectation for a Romance — the ‘it ends well’. I don’t say ‘happily ever after’ because I don’t require a sugar sweet ending. They can still have tough times ahead, but I trust that a Romance won’t pull a ’surprise’ downer ending on me. That’s what I look for in the genre, and that’s why I stick with Romance over any other genre.
After reading everyone’s comments I think what we have here are two types of romance. What people think of generically as a romance and a genre romance. To me Shrek is most definitely a romance. And I loved the Anne of Avonlea books, but while reading them they were romances to me. But would not fit (without some major editing) into what I think of as a genre romance.
GWTW–again romance, but not genre. Let’s face it Romeo and Juliet is a romance, but not at all my idea of a genre romance.
No one has mentioned the TV show The Bachelor yet. I’m curious how people would peg it or any of the other reality shows with an emphasis on pairing up two people. To me it isn’t a romance, because it doesn’t feel like it is about a relationship–even though that is the whole idea of the show. How’s that for a confused opinion?
Anyway, I’m really enjoying reading everyone’s opinions. I wonder if we would all agree on any of these as definitely being or not being romances–somehow I doubt it.
Lori
Oh, and I just discovered Buffy–a little late I know–who could be a more romantic hero than Spike? But does that make it a romance…
It’s not whether a book is a romance, it’s whether your reading of it makes it one.
I love this, and I totally agree. Every reader brings his/her own likes/dislikes, expectations/perceptions to what he/she reads – no matter where the book is shelved or what it says on the spine. I’m a firm believer that it is that experience of reading that defines for a reader individually whether a book qualifies for her as a romance.
Oh, and I just discovered Buffy–a little late I know–who could be a more romantic hero than Spike? But does that make it a romance…
Oh, Lori, the joys that await you! But — huge BtVS fan here — I’m not sure the show can be a romance because you’re never going to get the happy ending. The thing with Buffy and Angel read (well, watched?) as a romance, because of the attraction and the obvious conflict, but there was no way to resolve it, in the end. (Or at least the writers didn’t want to.)
Spike is a great romantic hero in my mind, and ripe for redemption, but until he discovers he loves Buffy, he doesn’t want to change. He’s evil and he likes it that way. (And I could go on about this forever, but I won’t… *g*) Can a romance hero, in the strictest genre definition, embrace evil? I don’t know.
I do agree with Alison, though — what we bring to our reading of a novel, or our interpretation of a show or a movie, defines it for us. I call Shrek a romance all the way, but I know my kids don’t see it like that, for instance.
Amy, I tried watching Buffy with the Angel story line and for whatever reason he had zero appeal to me, but Spike–very intriguing. I’m also a big Charmed fan. I really loved the romance between Cole and Phoebe.
On a book being different for each person, I totally agree with that–but I still think genre romance is different from other romance–like Romeo and Juliet. Am I the only one who sees it that way? As two different beasts?
Lori
You just had to mention Buffy, didn’t you!
I think Buffy in many ways was a tragic figure, with too many conflicts without and with in to be able to maintain a romantic relationship. Buffy’s love for Angel ended tragically when she was forced to run a sword through his heart and send him to Hell. Later he returned, they still loved each other, but he left her for her own good, in his mind.
Then she tried to be a normal college girl with corn fed Riley–but she could never be a truly normal girl due to her Slayer nature. Riley knew she didn’t really love him, and did he truly love her? Or did he wish her Slayer calling would disappear?
By the time Spike entered the picture to be a romantic hero, Buffy was one damaged girl. She had conflicts within herself about her own nature, she was depressed and angry at the loss of peace and completeness she found in heaven, she was grieving the death of her mother, the desertion of her watcher, she had r5the responsibility of raising her teen aged sister. “Is this Hell?” she asked her friends, when she first returned from the dead. In many ways, it was.
Spike was on a learning curve himself, trying to overcome his demon nature to be what Buffy could love, without her help. Buffy was at war within herself, overwhelmed with responsibilities, and she knew none of her friends would accept a relationship between them. That relationship ended in an ugly way.
Later, Buffy found Spike, mad in the basement, with a soul he had fought to get, for her. Their relationship changed again, they became a friends with a basis of trust. Buffy for the first time began to take action that met his needs(rescuing him from torture, getting his chip removed.) She recognized him as her strong right arm in the upcoming battle. Did they make love the night before the battle, in the infamous fade to black scene? I think so. Then Spike died, being the hero he longed to be in her eyes.
Of course, it’s the Buffyverse, Spike returned, but not to her. He wanted to be his own man, not Drusilla’s or Buffy’s or Angels’s. He succeeded.
Did Spike survive the final battle in the alley? I like to think he did, that eventually he found his way to Italy, to a healthier, happier Buffy, that they are walking hand in hand under the stars.
One of the failures of the writers of Buffy and Angel, in my opinion, is that no characters in the Buffyverse were able to maintain a love relationship. None. If they ever do the Spike movie, they really need to hire a writer for the team who understands romance!
I have to admit the Spike/Buffy relationship appealed to me more than her other ones. I love your analysis, Becca.
Like some of you have said, a book is what we read into it. Most stories have some kind of romantic element because that is such a powerful pull in the world. Love is what makes the world go around. People search for someone to love them, to be that special someone in their life. We seek others.
I read a lot of adventure and suspense books often written by men (example James Rollins). In these books there is a romantic element, if not several between different characters. That element adds a dimension to the story that I enjoy.
Can a romance hero, in the strictest genre definition, embrace evil? When a regular Hero will not do, an Anti-hero fits the bill perfectly (I know this because I have one stalking around my head. He ain’t in shining armour, he likes to dabble in shadows, but boy, has he got some undercover heroic qualities!
)
I don’t feel qualified to answer the slew of questions for today’s post (I haven’t read any of those books, and I only watched Shrek all the way through – which I easilly classified as a romance). What I would like to know is if RWA is changing the definition of ‘Romance’ in order to distance itself from Erotic Romance? (Sorry, bit out of the loop seeing as I’m not a member yet, and I have a terrible habit of finding out things after they happen.:oops:)
Hmm, great post and very thought-provoking responses….
As far as I can tell, RWA is trying to define romance for its Policies and Procedures Manual. Right now, the definition of “romance” and “romantic fiction” is purely based around packaging: there’s the word “romance” on the spine or the book is acknowledged by the publisher to be a romance. But that leaves RWA with nowhere to go (legally) when it wants to support its unpublished members. By creating a “content-based” definition, it’s trying to develop a way of supporting the unpubbed.
As for sad/bittersweet endings, I only like them if they’re dramatically necessary. I didn’t think, for example, that Message in a Bottle’s tragic ending was dramatically necessary, so it was a throw-the-book-at-the-wall situation for me. The hero wasn’t “completing his journey” when he was swept away by the sea, unless you count the fact that he consistently made things so damned hard for himself that drowning at sea was the only thing he could proactively do. Heck, by page 150, I was kind of hoping he would drown. (So I guess that makes me a fan of this ending, in a morbid kind of way.)
Anyway, I’m with the folks who don’t like to have the rug pulled out from under their feet re: the romance. I don’t mind a “let’s see how it goes” ending or even an “I’m not sure this is going to work out, but what the hell, let’s give it a shot” ending.
But if it’s billed as a romance and I get something else, Grrrrr.
Thanks for the info, Sandra!
I’ve been following the RWA trying to define romance for months now it seems. The definition it seems they are going with it possibly a male and a female living happily ever after, and that’s where I just shake my head a little. Because to me, a romance doesn’t just have to be in between a man and a woman, but two people. Those two people can be two men or two women, or a vampire and a woman. It’s the love story that makes the romance for me. Not the gender of the two in the romance.
As for books and television shows or movies that bill themselves as romance, I think most try to include some aspect of a love story nowadays. Even if it just a small part. For example, the original trilogy of Star Wars had the early romantic feelings between Leia and Luke, to only later be replaced by the romance of Han and Leia. A good replacement because as we all know Luke and Leia turned out to end up being related. It has the love story, but the films were sci-fi fantasy and not romance. The romance was only one very small part of the story.
I still think genre romance is different from other romance–like Romeo and Juliet. Am I the only one who sees it that way? As two different beasts?
I agree, but only when someone forces the issue, as in if we’re talking about publishing specifically. Otherwise, I see anything with a love relationship as a “romance” according to my own definition of it, including things like Gone With the Wind and Sommersby and Susan Isaacs’ fabulous novel, Almost Paradise. None of them have the HEA a genre romance requires.
I like Spike better, too, with Buffy at least. I love Angel, but I love him better on his own, and on his own show.
Sandra, thanks for addressing the sticky wicket of RWA and romance definition. And I loved your wished-he-had-drowned-earlier statment. LOL!
Gina, I think a romance can be a variety of combinations too, in the bigger sense definition. I think we are maybe even dealing with 3 categories: 1.)Stuff I would call a romance in the general sense (like Amy said) 2.) Genre romance and then 3.) what RWA wants romance to mean for promotional purposes of RWA members. I think #3 may very well be a combination of #2 and #3, but not everything in either one.
Very interesting.
Hard to figure out–but hey, I got some great shoes today for Saturday night in Reno, so I’m happy.
Oh, this is appropriate today. I went looking for the 2176 series at Borders today. Online, they claimed to have all of the books in sci-fi. Uh, no, not in real life. I went through the sci-fi section and the literature section before finding them in romance. Oh, the goddamned joys of categorization.
I tend to categorize a romance as a book that doesn’t have much plot besides a romance- if there wasn’t anything left to it if the couple was taken out.
The reason I say that is because almost every book out there has a romance in it. Try to find a book with no romance in it whatsoever (I’ve tried it post-breakups)- it’s almost impossible to find. So romance doesn’t necessarily equal A Romance to me…just books that don’t have much other kind of plot to it.
Amy, I love that you cited Almost Paradise. I adore that book, even though I will wish forever that the ending was different. (Can’t help it. I’d still prefer that Scarlett found a way to grow beyond her selfishness and earn Rhett’s return — but not the way they portrayed her in that pseudo-sequel!) Susan Isaac’s Shining Through struck me as a romance by any definition, too.
Sandra, whenever I talk about books/movies with a romance premise that annoyed the @&#$@ out of me at the end, Message in a Bottle is the first one that I mention. There was nothing noble or heroic about a born waterman diving into squally high seas to save people without having the good sense to take a life ring. (In full, dragging, foul weather fear no less.) That’s just dumb. In the case of the book, it was also completely unnecessary. Having it end well would not have damaged the book. It would have improved the story!
Sorry for the typo in my last comment. That should have read “foul weather gear” not “foul weather fear”.