I’ve always loved words. Words are powerful. The ability to use words to trigger an emotional response in a reader is a valuable skill. Politicians and advertisers the world over know that what you call something can make a whole lot of difference to the way people perceive it. The emotive use of words is a romance novelist’s stock-in-trade.
Why, then, do we embrace the label ‘romance’ for our genre?
Think about it. What does the word ‘romance’ mean to you? I’m not talking about the label slapped on the kind of books we read and write. I’m talking about the word.
To me, romance means candle-lit dinners for two, hearts and flowers, champagne picnics and hot air balloon rides, the schmaltzy sweetness that drenches the air on Valentine’s Day. All very nice in its place. But you can enjoy a romantic evening with just about anyone you’re dating. He doesn’t have to be your soul mate, he just has to trot out a few time-worn cliches. And lest you think I’m entirely cynical, I agree that romance can go deeper than that. A thoughtfully planned romantic gesture can be a wonderful affirmation or communication of love.
But is that what authors of romance novels write about? Is that what makes a good romance novel?
I don’t think so.
When I look at my keeper shelf, it’s full of angst and passion and heartache and edge-of-the-seat black moments that make your insides twist and your throat close over and your eyes fill with tears. Heroes who would die to protect the woman they love, heroines who risk everything for the man they can’t live without.
The journey to happily ever after is often messy and dirty and politically incorrect. Sometimes it’s laugh-out-loud funny, but it’s never, ever smooth or paved with hearts and flowers. In a romance novel, the hero and heroine’s love is inevitable and impossible. They might come close to tearing each other apart before they work out their differences, and none of their problems can be solved with a bunch of roses or a piece of jewelry. Often, even saying ‘I love you’ isn’t enough.
Some of the most powerful and complex character studies I’ve read have been crafted by romance novelists. What better test of someone’s character is there than the process of falling deeply, irrevocably in love? In a romance novel, the journey is one of personal discovery and healing as much as it is a road to love everlasting.
Romance. Is that what we write? Is that what we stay up all night to read? Can we blame outsiders if they assume we’re all about hearts and flowers and fluffy bunnies and I wuv you vewwy mush?
Now, I know we didn’t ask for the label and it’s not going to change just because some jumped up historical romance writer belly-aches about it. Some might say a rose by any other name… But, humour me. What would you choose to call the romance genre? Should we even worry about how outsiders perceive romance?
Wow, Christine! That’s a shot across the bows of the nay-sayers! Bravo, you! Although please don’t wave that cutlass at me, Bandita!
I’m not sure what I’d call it - I’ve always called it romance and I know what to expect when I pick up a romance novel. But I so agree with you that a great book is full of heart-wrenching emotion and a genuine possibility that the hero and heroine won’t reach a point where they can be together. I wouldn’t have it any other way! People who don’t read romance are always surprised when I say that our genre is the MOST powerful genre because it deals with the great fundamentals of life. When I say that to people who do read romance they look at me like I’m trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, of course!
by Anna Campbell February 22nd, 2008 at 7:28 amShould we even worry about how outsiders perceive romance?
A big fat emphatic NO to that. Too many people spend far too much time worrying about what other people think. You’re reading a book, not committing a crime. What’s there to be ashamed about?
Call it Fluffy Rainbow Kitty Fiction for all I care. Won’t stop me from reading whatever I want.
by Kerry Allen February 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 amAnna, you’re so right–what else would we call it? ‘Love story’ always sounds a bit aimless to me. How about ‘Angst! In Buckets!’–hee. But as I said, I don’t expect anyone to have the answer. I just think we need to think about the message we’re sending occasionally.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 8:22 amHi Kerry, thanks, I’ll add Fluffy Rainbow Kitty Fiction to the list of possibles
. Actually, I think Valentine’s Day was the catalyst for my uncharacteristic rant. Romance writers are always asked for our take on V-Day, which is fine and a great opportunity for celebrating the genre but it misses the point of what we write about. And then I got to thinking perhaps the name ‘romance’ was partly to blame for misconceptions out there. Thanks for commenting!
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 8:34 amI like the word “romance” myself but maybe that’s because I am into history and conscious of its original meaning: a story full of adventure and passion, not necessarily a love story with a HEA. I think it was the commercialism of Valentine’s Day that brought about all the fluffy hearts & flowers connotations.
But I suspect that if we found a new term for what we write the naysayers would find a way to twist its meaning. It’s similar to the attempts to define PC language. The terms keep changing and confusing well-meaning people while others continue to find ways to be disrespectful.
IMHO there are better ways to improve the perception of the genre. I’ve given friends who believed the stereotypes of the genre copies of my favorites and a few have been “converted.”
by Elena Greene February 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 amIt’s called “romance” because that’s what it’s been called ever since the middle ages.
The story content then was not exclusively fluffy and was not expected to be.
A lot of the current confusion comes from limiting the ancestry of the modern romance to novel format (thus getting rid of poetic epics, dramas, etc.) and insisting firmly that if there isn’t a HEA, it wasn’t a romance — it’s bound to have been something else.
“That’s not romance; it’s a tragedy.”
“That’s not a romance; it’s too close to women’s fiction.”
“That’s not romance, it’s . . .” — you name it.
I don’t know whether anyone else sees this process as instituting a rather self-defeating narrow self-definition. There’s a lot that even Harlequin publishes that doesn’t meet it (Pam Jenoff, The Kommandant’s Girl; Tara Taylor Quinn, Behind Closed Doors, both just last year).
by Virginia February 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 am‘Happily Ever After’ is the essential factor in the Romance genre, but I so rarely read a book about the romance of actually living happily ever after.
by kimber an February 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 amChristine, I have to admit I never really considered romance to not be a good description, but I see your point.
As Virginia pointed out, we could potentially (and unintentionally) make romance so narrow it is almost non-existent. I have noticed that all my favorite books - of any genre - include a romantic storyline. I think, as Anna said, seeking romantic love is one of the fundamental elements of life. It transcends time and culture, so it certainly transcends genre.
I have found, like Elena, that it’s easier to talk about what the stories are rather than fight perceptions. Even my mother, who swore off romance decades ago, reads some romance novels given to her by a friend and enjoys them. Which has proven to me that romance has something for everyone - if you can get them to read it.
by Caren Crane February 22nd, 2008 at 9:53 amLordie, isn’t romance one of the top selling genres? Me thinks the label is doing just fine.
The thing with rebranding the same product is it costs a lot of money and time and almost never works.
Plus it irritates your existing customer base (i.e. in our case, those readers making romance one of the best selling genres).
by Kimber Chin February 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 amkimber an, just think about what happened to Harlequin’s Everlasting Love line (now folded into the SuperRomance line). It had some excellent books (Linda Barrett, The Soldier and the Rose). What happened? Apparently, a lot of readers complained that showing the work that goes into keeping that HEA for twenty or forty or sixty years isn’t really “romantic.” They want the book they’re reading to end with a bright promise (and maybe a sketchy epilogue).
I suspect the current market for Jane Austen sequels (my local B&N has enough of them that they occupy one whole end display in the romance section and a table back in general fiction) appeals to a different reading market than that for standard HEA romances, since the whole premise of that sub-genre is showing the course of the couple’s life after marriage (women’s fiction, etc.).
I think this is one reason that many authors who want to show an ongoing relationship between a couple do so outside of the genre (mystery writers with married protagonists, etc. — take Elizabeth Peter’s Amelia Peabody series, from Crocodile on the Sandbank onwards as an example). This has been true at least since the 1920s. If nothing else, each new plot gives the couple something to do other than angst about their relationship
by Virginia February 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 amFirst of all Kimber says — Romance is one of the top selling genres. If you look at the statistics that the RWA released a while ago,. you will that only religion sells better. Why shouldn’t one be proud to be part of one of the coomerically successful genres?
by Michelle Styles February 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 amSecond. if you look up the term Romance in the OED or Websters, you will see several definition of the term, only one of which is a love affair. Romance is the term that best describes that class of story where the growth of the emotional relationship between two central protagonists forms the central spine of the story.
Third, the problems with the term are not new. Rosemund Pilcher several years explained that back in the 1950s, when the Romantic Novelists Association (the British equivalent of the RWA) was formed, they discussed the name and decided that Romance was the best fit and the least clunky of the terms available.
Fourth, at least the Romance industry is not called the love pulps or lurve story as it was sometimes called in the 1960s aka Swain’s Techniques of the Selling Writer.
FWIW
Michelle Styles — proud to write and to read romance
An interesting idea, Christine, and interesting responses. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had the same reaction when I say I write romance novels.
An arched brow and a small smile. “Oh, you mean like Mills and Boon?” Or, last week, “Oh, you mean like Barbara Cartland?”
It’s as if I’m supposed to “admit” to something. I usually say no, nothing like Mills and Boon. They’re an art form that’s too difficult for me. I couldn’t do it successfully.
Part of the problem, I believe, is that many people have no idea how far the genre has come, how it’s grown and matured and widened its scope. They seem to be stuck in some kind of time warp featuring pink feather boas and bodice ripping.
If there was a way to update the image of romance in the public view, (or at least, some of the public) that would be good. Except that, when I look around, it seems that authors are already doing that with character driven books that deliver all the emotion and excitement anyone could desire.
So I guess I’ve argued myself full circle. I dunno. *shakes head*
by Denise Rossetti February 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 amLOL Christine, you’ve done stirred it up now. A great topic for debate.
You’re right Michelle.
I come from an art interest and the romantic movement there was anything but fluff.
At least I don’t think Eugene Delacroix’ Liberty Leading The People is fluff, though the painting does feature some female nudity.
And wasn’t there a romantic movement in literature too? Wasn’t Edgar Allan Poe considered a romantic writer?
I don’t know. I’m no history guru (give me numbers and THEN we’ll talk).
by Kimber Chin February 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 amOkay, fabbo post! As I run to work, let me put in a vote for LOVE STORY. I think story is a word (like romance) that is undervalued. We are, above all else, storytellers. If we forget that, we are lost. Stories inspire, educate, elicit emotion, and help us make sense of our world. Stories are the essence of our craft. We aren’t writing history, metaphor, symbol, moral, or memoir, though we may use elements of these. We are writing stories.
And love. It may not be pretty, comfortable, sensical, healthy, easy, or even HEA. It’s the most powerful emotion that exists. It transcends all others. It is the reason we tell our stories, right?
So I vote for love story!!
by Kirsten Scott February 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 amHey, Christine! What a great topic for discussion! Just the other day somebody asked what I wrote, & I had that two second pause where I panicked & tried to think of someway to be truthful without triggering the condescending eye-roll that says, “Oh, you write *romance*.” As if that’s not as respectable as, say, a murder mystery. As if it’s somehow more intellectually sound to spend your off-hours planning, committing & solving imaginary murders than imaginary love stories.
I used to go for the laugh & say I write trashy novels. Not because I believe what I write is trashy, but because it sort of takes the rug out from under the person who wants to sniff & define it as trash themselves, thereby dismissing me. What’s left for them to say after I used the ‘trash’ word myself, after all? But lately, I’ve decided to just own it. I write romance novels. Big, fat, messy, angsty, sexy, over-the-top love stories. That’s what I love to read, so that’s what I (attempt to) write.
I do wish I understood why our genre inspires such massive condescension from people who don’t even read our stories. What’s so trivial about the search for somebody to build a life with?
by Susan Seyfarth February 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 amExcellent post, Christine. Coming from a suspense background, I might rename the romance genre “boot camp for the heart” as love stories are about conquering obstacles that seem insurmountable, digging deep and pushing through the pain (like boot camp!), and reaching new heights. And, the whole boot camp theme brings up an image of a soldier sporting a six-pack looking for a damsel in distress….
by KJ Howe February 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 amChristine, how come you’re all sweet and funny over in the lair, and you come over HERE and pull out the deep stuff?
I was gonna say “Bodice Rippers” and then duck the flying fruit.
But Denise already used the ugly BR phrase so she stole my thunder.
Part of the problem, I believe, is that many people have no idea how far the genre has come, how it’s grown and matured and widened its scope. They seem to be stuck in some kind of time warp featuring pink feather boas and bodice ripping.
This is exactly the issue to me. It would be an interesting study to find out who, in print, and considered in some way an “expert” first derided the genre.
Now in truth, everything that appeals specifically to women most of all has at one time or another been considered “less”–”less difficult”, or “less important” or LESS something else–less worthy in some way. We’re not over that yet.
And Kirsten, I waffle on what I say I write. Once or twice it’s been FUTURISTIC romance FICTION. Usually I say I write romantic SUSPENSE–and I kinda whisper the first word and say the second one real loud–especially if he’s an old codger with a smirk on his face. I’ve been known to lie if he’s already said “whuuudduyouwrite, roooooomance???”
And I said, “Suspense. Lots of dead bodies. torture. Mutilation. Blood everywhere.”
Okay there is a little of that, but it was a bald-faced lie. I write straight up romance. The fact that it’s suspense is kind of a side-note to me, but it made his jaw hit the floor and made him jabber and I turned and walked away. He’s never going to buy one. Probably couldn’t even read.
The thing about Christine’s post that gets me going is that I hate being condescended to by people who’ve never read one of the books, and I think, at least philosophically, Christine is correct. The definition of the word romance –whatever the definition USED to be–now has to do with fluff. We’re not going to change the name of it of course, but what a brilliant essay on, and example of… perception.
And the MOST interesting bit of all is that when you get to a certain level of bestsellerdom, they shelve you in the mainstream fiction–with the word “fiction” on the spine. Not romance.
I don’t know that there’s a better word, but eve the publishers know that the word in question narrows the potential readership to a given market. Not that this is a bad thing–especially for a new author. And we have to have some way of finding what we’re looking for among thousands of books. Honestly, Gone With The Wind is a love story. but it doesn’t have a clear HEA–and that’s required in my reading.
So, Christine, Sweetie, howzcome you don’t trot out this hardcore stuff over in the lair Ms. Lawyer?
by Cassondra Murray February 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 amMichelle Styles wrote”
“Romance is the term that best describes that class of story where the growth of the emotional relationship between two central protagonists forms the central spine of the story.”
This definition leaves a lot more “fudge room” than the one Pamela Regis used in A Natural History of the Romance Novel (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007). She defines the genre by eight necessary elements, one of which is that the book end with betrothal (or, at a stretch, the marriage) of the two protagonists. The chapter on “The Definition Expanded” requires eight “essential” elements:
Society Defined
The Meeting
The Barrier
The Attraction
The Declaration
Point of Ritual Death
The Recognition
The Betrothal (pp. 30-38).
This definition exiles out of the romance genre at once any book in which the couple is already married at or near the beginning and work out a relationship during the course of the story.
Nevertheless, since her book is (1) a recent academic study; (2) readily available to interested non-fans since it’s now in paperback; and (3) accepted among other scholars of popular culture (she’s one of the participants on Teach Me Tonight), I would speculate that if almost any non-specialist book reviewer wanted an overview of what romance is in the early 21st century, s/he would get that book and use it as a starting point.
by Virginia February 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 amCassondra Murray wrote:
“This is exactly the issue to me. It would be an interesting study to find out who, in print, and considered in some way an “expert” first derided the genre.”
Well, it was first derided in manuscript, back in the days of the ancient Greeks and Romans. It was possibly derided earlier, but I don’t read ancient Babylonian
It was derided in manuscript in the Middle Ages (think what all those monks said about Aucassin and Nicolette and The Romance of the Rose). It was derided in print when Samuel Richardson made a mint of money with Pamela and Clarissa Harlowe in the 18th century, throughout the 19th century, and into the early 20th century (see comments on, for example, George Barr McCutcheon’s Beverly of Graustark).
The major objection throughout, of course, has simply been that it’s entertaining, and people read it for
frivolous fun 
when otherwise they could Improve Their Minds by reading Serious Stuff.
There’s really no point in going what my husband’s grandmother called “all Poor Pitiful Pearl” about the status of romance as compared to mysteries and f/sf, either. Within living memory (mine; I’m 67), those were dissed as heartily as romance ever has been, even though recently they’ve picked up some more “serious” analysis.
by Virginia February 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pmThis is a great discussion, Christine! What do I call it, when I read it? A damn fine few hours of reading!
And, of course, I read it all the time. As to the old codgers, I frequently say, “I write Romantic Suspense.” Then brace myself for the eye roll, and when they say, “Oh, like those trashy novels in the grocery store?” I smile and say, “You mean the ones in the check out line? Like Dan Brown, Nora Roberts, Janet Evanovich, and Michael Crichton? The bestsellers? Exactly. Suspenseful situation, romantic entanglements, danger, passion. Yep, that’s what I write too.”
by Jeanne (The Duchesse) February 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pmI have to say though that recently I’ve been pleasantly surprised by several people, total strangers, who said, “Wow, that’s great, I hear that’s a hot selling market.” I think RWA’s media team must be doing their work quite well.
Also, HAVE to say that I want Shelli Steven’s cover artist to work on MY next book…
Frivolous Fun 
I think that’s a GREAT new title for virtually every fiction book. We could divide the library into non-fiction and frivolous fun. Heehee. After all, as Virgnia says, those who don’t read it - and are obviously experts of SOME kind - believe reading fiction IS frivolous and couldn’t in any way improve the mind. Now, mind you, 
I have learned so much history, so many techno-facts, and general interesting knowledge useful at dinner parties from reading fiction and romance in particular, that I’m consider “quite well read” by my family and friends. I LOL when I say, “Oh, learned it all from reading my favorite romance authors.” I especially love it when I get to say that to my Dad, a librarian and non-fiction snob. Heehee.
by Jeanne (The Duchesse) February 22nd, 2008 at 12:37 pmWow, Christine, you do really like to stir the pot! Fascinating discussion ladies.
I teach my students that romance , as opposed to realism or naturalism, is looking at the world with rose-colored glasses on. It isn’t necessarily about love, but about the writer’s basic world view. (Realism would be seeing the world through clear lens and naturalism, through dirty ones LOL.)
However, romantic fiction is different, I think, and I agree with Cassondra’s comments. Any writing associated largely with women had come under attack through the years — witness Austen and the Brontes. Writing about women’s issues and interests has been denigrated at some point in history and not considered significant enough.
Some of the best writers of fiction today are romance writers IMO, but unfortunately there are enough hackneyed, purple-prosed, down-right silly romance writers out there today that give the truly outstanding writers a bad name.
Romance writers provide fiction that caters to the interests and needs of women, we do a damned good job, and we shouldn’t have to apologize for our genre in any way.
by Jo Robertson February 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pmI don’t have a problem with the designation of “Romance” (although I capitalize it to represent the genre, even though purists will argue that capital R refers to the ‘old-style’ Romance). What throws me off is the conflation of romantic and Romance. Not every Romance is universally romantic, and I think too often books in the genre are judged by that standard alone — i.e. if someone doesn’t find a book romantic it’s not a Romance to them. It’s especially frustrating to me in a review.
IMO Romance refers to a formalistic set of boundaries defining the genre, and I doubt you could come up with anything less encumbered, ambiguous, or easily misunderstood.
by Robin February 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 pmWell - personally, I’d call them Damn Good Books
I’m with Elena. I’ve always thought the word romance represented an imaginative tale - fantasy - something that didn’t depict gritty reality of our everyday world. It’s sad to think that a HEA would be considered a romance in that context.
I have absolutely no problem with saying I write Romance…bodice rippers, yes…romance no. When asked, I usually say I write sexy and witty romance - and that tends to stop the sneer in the making. I’m proud of what I do and I can rip a phone book in half. People back away slowly
by Donna MacMeans February 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pmThe only other term I can come up with that might describe the type of book would be a “relationship novel,” and yet, that sounds dull, somehow!
I’ve been lucky that I haven’t encountered many naysayers when I say I write romance. (Of course, when asked, I say “I write romance, erotica, science fiction/fantasy, and media tie in,” and then take a deep breath and smile while their eyes roll into the back of their heads). I occasionally get “what’s the allure of romance novels,” in which case I counter with “What’s more important than the connection between human beings?” Yes, we “know” the ending in that we know the heroine and hero will be together (to some degree), but it’s how they overcome their difficulties and differences to get to that point. And given the divorce rate these days…
I hit more walls when people think “erotic romance” = “porn” and they say “I don’t read that.” So I just tell ‘em about my reviews that rave about the characterization and the romance/connection, etc.
Can’t convert ‘em all!
by Dayle February 22nd, 2008 at 2:13 pmElena, thanks for commenting. Of course, you’re right–the origins of the genre pre-date the Valentine’s Day hype. I’m a traditionalist and I don’t like the way language has been sterilized in so many ways by business and the pc police. However, not many people are willing to look beyond the surface with romance. As soon as you say the word they become dismissive.
Many readers say they won’t read ‘romance’. But when Harlequin asked them–do you like the sound of such and such a story, they said yes, they’d read a story like that. What other genre has this problem?
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 3:19 pmI think that it all boils down to violence= okay, sex= you filthy dirty person.
And yet, we all have sex, but we are not all violent. Interesting.
I was watching TV the other day, and I had to cringe because I was watching American Idol with my little boy, and the commercials come on. There were people with guns to their head, bleeding, being violently thrown up against the wall, kicked, etc.
But if a booby accidentally pops out during the superbowl, you’d think the world was about to end. How is that right? What is the booby going to do to anyone? Why is it okay for a commercial to depict beatings in front of my two year old when he just wanted to dance to the “singing show.”
This problem struck me again when there was a big hulabaloo about Grand Theft Auto. The programmers of that game hid a secret sex game so deep in the programming you had to decipher the Rosetta stone to find the stupid thing. All of a sudden Hillary Clinton herself is decrying what a terrible game it is. The game is about shooting police, doing drugs, sleeping with prostitutes to heal yourself, then beating them so you don’t have to pay, doing drive by shootings, etc. I guess they were okay with all of that part, but as soon as there is sex in it, oh, now it is a problem.
What kind of a society are we?
We can say we write about horror, murder, violence, “Oh well, that’s cool.”
But write about love and automatically it is “trash” because guess what? Boobies are involved.
Again, what kind of a society are we. When women can’t even feed their babies in public in certain states without a fuss about it, we have got our national priorities all screwed up.
Sorry, I had to rant a minute or two.
by Chessie February 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pmNow on to the actual question.
I don’t have a problem with the label “romance.” I think that a lot of people have old conceptions that need to come to the light. You can see it in the covers alone.
Romance has shaken off the feather boas and long flowing mullets. We just haven’t completely shaken off the impression, yet.
It will happen so long as we write great books and as authors insist that, yes, this is a romance, and guess what, you liked it.
by Chessie February 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pmVirginia, you’re right about the origins of the word but to most people, that’s not what comes to mind when they see it in a bookstore. It’s an interesting idea that we have limited ‘romance’ from the inside, but I doubt many outsiders would have a clue what ‘rules’ readers/writers have set for the genre. They don’t even think that far. THe mind shuts down as soon as you mention ‘romance’.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 3:28 pmWhat other genre has this problem?
What other genre is marketed with titles like ‘The Billionaire Sheik’s Secret Baby’ and clinch and/or bare chest covers? I don’t think it’s the word Romance; I think it’s the visual images and title associations and how they appear to the genre outsider.
by Robin February 22nd, 2008 at 3:43 pmKimber Chin, I agree that re-branding is not an option. I suppose when a knee-jerk reaction to a word happens, I just want to find ways to make people stop and think. How do you do that if you can’t even get past the label? You don’t get to sit everyone who walks into a bookstore down and tell them the substance of the stories. They see the label and walk right past the section.
And I agree with so many of you that romance is doing fine in terms of sales. It’s not really the numbers that concerns me here.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pmI agree with you, Robin. I think that is exactly where the problem lies. I think it is worlds better than where it was a couple of decades ago, no disrespect to Fabio.
But, you can say to someone, “I wrote a thrilling, action-packed story with real emotional resonance that connects with the reader through themes of love, loss, honor, and the sacrifices we have to make to protect those we love.”
“Wow, what’s it called?”
“Captain Booty’s Secret Prisoner of Love.”
Okay, maybe that is over the top, but something like “Velvet Seduction,” is still going to make people arch brows.
It is hard to say a book isn’t all about sex when the title and the cover scream, “Hey, this book is all about sex.”
by Chessie February 22nd, 2008 at 3:57 pmHi Michelle! Thanks for commenting. I agree we need to stand up and be proud about reading/writing romance. I think if a lot of the smart women who read romance as a guilty pleasure admitted it proudly, it would go a long way to changing the perception of the genre.
Yes, we are commercially successful but I don’t think that garners us respect. It seems to work in the reverse, somehow, as if, how dare they make all that money out of peddling trash??? Personally, I rarely respect someone more just because they make money. If something is popular, I think it’s fascinating to try to work out why. But I don’t think it automatically makes it good.
Not many people look up the dictionary when they’re glancing at the genre signs in a bookstore. I’m talking about actual perception, here.
And yes, you’re so right, the label could have been worse!
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 4:19 pmIt is hard to say a book isn’t all about sex when the title and the cover scream, “Hey, this book is all about sex.”
LOL on the title, Chessie! And FWIW, I don’t think it’s at all over the top.
I do, though, think that this is where we hit the insider/outsider difference. Many of us who read the genre don’t like the title and covers, but we’ve been conditioned, for the most part, to look past them. But what about someone who hasn’t read a wonderful genre Romance and who passes those shelves in the grocery store or bookstore? What incentive do those folks have to look past the titles and covers? They may be good shorthand for Romance readers who want quickly to sort through a slew of books, but I don’t think they’re at all friendly to the project of commanding respect for the genre from those who haven’t read it (or don’t think they have because the Romance they did read and love was discreetly covered and titled).
by Robin February 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pmHi Denise! I’m right there with you on the head-shaking.
You wrote: They seem to be stuck in some kind of time warp featuring pink feather boas and bodice ripping.
Yes, I get that, too. My problem is that we know what’s going on with all the fab romances out there, but the general public doesn’t. Sometimes the only connection they have with the genre is that word that heads up the romance section in their bookstore–the one they avoid as if it’s the porn section in the video store. They don’t know about the ways the boundaries are being pushed or all the different types of subgenres out there. They don’t get that far. The books aren’t reviewed in most mainstream publications. How are they to know what’s there?
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 4:26 pmOh, yes, Kimber Chin–there was most definitely a romantic movement in literature–Byron, Wordsworth, Keats and so forth but I think that’s a different definition of the word again.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pmKirsten, thanks for commenting! Love stories, yes I think you have something there. It’s certainly more accurate than romance.
Susan, I know what you mean about pulling the rug out. It works a treat, but I think it’s great that you’re ‘owning’ romance now. Maybe if enough of us do that, it will make others look at the genre more closely.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 4:35 pmOh, Chessie, I so agree with your rant!
Christine, I share the frustration about people not thinking past the label of romance. I actually do worry about the numbers, because I know many women who seem to fear that their status as well educated professionals would somehow be tarnished if they were known to enjoy romance. It seems to me that there’s an untapped market for the intelligent romance I like to read and aspire to write.
And it’s certainly hard to get past the issue of books with silly titles and silly covers (and let’s be honest, occasionally the contents are silly, too). And, just to be devil’s advocate, I think some people like that stuff just as I will occasionally dive into a bag of Cheetos. The tough part is when generalizations about the genre keep people from trying it.
I don’t know how to get the word out to a broader audience. All I can think of is grass-roots efforts: speaking calmly and intelligently about romance, recommending good reads that are, if possible, attuned to the individual’s tastes. So far, I’ve had good luck with Laura Kinsale, Jennifer Crusie and Susan Elizabeth Philips.
by Elena Greene February 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 pmKJ, I love it! Boot Camp for the Heart. Fantastic.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 pmCassondra, thanks for commenting! And I can be serious on occasion.
I think it was V-Day that did it. I got really tired of all the hype and became a bit of a ranty pants. I usually leave the deep and meaningful stuff for you, m’dear!
Great point about shelving the bestselling romances in ‘fiction’. That might be a good thing–maybe it will draw more readers into our world. ::rubs hands together:: Hey, I know we have a gazillion readers already, but I’m all for WORLD DOMINATION!!
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 pmVirginia, that’s so interesting about the history of dissing romance! I think how academics define it isn’t what I’m talking about here–it’s the gut reaction to the word ‘romance’ most people have.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 5:01 pmHi Jeanne–snorked at your snappy comeback. I need to remember that when I’m confronted with an uninformed comment like that. Frivolous Fun? Your books have FAR too high a body count to be called FF!! But yes, maybe we need to step back and stop taking it all so seriously. Maybe that’s all we can do, while still continuing to defend the genre when the opportunity arises. Good humour goes a long way further than snootiness, in my experience.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 5:09 pmJo, thanks for giving us your perspective as a teacher of literature. Rose-coloured glasses…maybe that’s not so far from what we write. We try to make it real, but there’s still that veneer of the fantasy in romance, isn’t there? Most men will tell you they wouldn’t act like heroes in our novels. That’s why I was fascinated by the partnership between Crusie and Mayer. I wonder if she was often obliged to say to Mayer, yes, that’s what a man would do, but it’s not what a *romance hero* would do. I know there was a bit of a stir about the hero in Don’t Look Down getting it on with a woman other than the heroine before they really clicked into a relationship. I thought the way they wrote it was realistic, but many romance fans wanted him to focus solely on the heroine from the time they met. Rose-coloured glasses? Maybe there is a bit of that in romance.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 5:17 pmRobin wrote:
IMO Romance refers to a formalistic set of boundaries defining the genre, and I doubt you could come up with anything less encumbered, ambiguous, or easily misunderstood.
Robin, maybe people who slam something as not a romance because they don’t find it romantic simply aren’t expressing themselves very well. Most of us know different things appeal to different people. But that is another facet of the misunderstanding the word generates. Thank you, I hadn’t considered that even within the genre we have the same problem.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 pmDamn Good Books–I’ll add that to the list, Donna.
Yes, remind me never to mess with you. I’d hate you to try your telephone book trick on me.
You’ve hit on a good point–if we respect what we do, others might well follow. There’s a great romance bookstore in my town, and you know what they have for sale in the window? Book covers–as in, covers to cover up the cover of your romance. Apparently, they’re very popular.
by Christine Wells February 22nd, 2008 at 5:40 pm