~~EK

great blog btw, so glad I found it!

~EK

I do think genre conventions are important. A mystery needs a “whodunnit” and a solution. A work of science fiction needs fictional science.

As far as I can tell, a romance needs a love story that ends happily. All other “rules” are trends and fashion, because there isn’t anything that hasn’t been done – and done well – and sold well, for that matter. Perhaps adultery isn’t a HUGE seller as a plot device within romance, but ten years ago, neither were vampires. Or werewolves. Or BDSM.

As I said, I haven’t written anything that includes adultery, but I chafe at what I consider artificial rules and contructs that limit an already limiting genre, simply by virtue of it BEING genre fiction.

And as an inveterate storyteller at heart, I have to re-state that I believe romance is about relationships that don’t work – at least at the beginning. The journey from “not working” to “working” is what makes the story after all.

BTW – not all of us voluptous, ethnically-non-bland ladies spend all our time worrying about diet or how society mistreats us. Sometimes we can be “ideal,” too.

I don’t relate to perfection or near, but I like reading about women who embody some idealized qualities. These include but are not limited to natural skinniness, a bland ethnic background, and no addictions. It’s pleasant to read about someone who isn’t always thinking about the next diet, or about her problematic interface with the mass of our culture, or about her hoarding fixation. Romance heroines do have emotional baggage, but it’s usually very limited and specific and the story resolves the key issue.

The whole point of reading genre is to read within a structure. Readers have a legitimate expectation within genre that there will be rules, that certain lines won’t be crossed. Sometimes they are, with exciting results. But sometimes that becomes a false path leading away from the core genre reading experience, which basically promises safety. I am convinced that there are only two approaches to reading: either “Surprise me!” or “Don’t surprise me.” And genre is the second approach. So, no, I don’t want to read about infidelity because that’s not a safe romantic issue.

I see adultery as another potential “issue” or “obstacle” in the creation of a story.

Some people hate that obstacle. Other people hate the “big misunderstanding.”

I, for one, dislike overly-idealized behavior in romance. I’m much more likely to put a book down that features characters to whom I can’t relate, and I can’t relate to perfection or near-perfection.

I write what I like to read, which includes a nice dose of reality-based behavior. Haven’t written a story that includes adultery, but I’m not ruling it out based on what I see as an artificial “rule.”

I can appreciate a strong reaction against adultery in romance by those who read romance in order to “escape reality,” but I do get heartily sick of the whole “if it contains THIS, then it’s NOT ROMANCE” argument. How about just saying “I don’t care for this in the romances I read.” Do we need to defend our preferences by defining the genre so narrowly? Are we really that insecure in our own likes and dislikes?

Frankly, I think all these supposed rules limit the genre, and add to romance’s reputation as sexually explicit pablum for bored housewives.

I say bring on the adultery, and anything else an author might want to write about. If there’s an audience for it, it will sell. If there’s not, it won’t, and editors won’t purchase it again. That’s pretty much the basis for an open marketplace, isn’t it? And an open marketplace — the foundation of the American economy — is what makes any industry healthy.