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?
No related posts.
Hi Christine, great discussion even if I’m coming to it a little late in the day!
When asked what I write, I say “Romance novels”. Many times I get nice comments and asked are you published? Sometimes I get the “Oh eye-candy” or “women’s stuff” or “trash, huh?”.
That’s when I come back with, “Well actually it’s the genre with the best writing taking place in the world today. It supports the anti-literacy campagin to the tens of thousands of dollars a year. And it allows me to escape the very real world of life and death I deal with daily, so that I can be more focused on people’s lives when I am at work.” Followed by a BIG OLD SMILE.
And I agree with Jo. Romance has some of the best writers in the world today. We have stories that cover a multitude of subgenres, and fans that are rabid for more.
Often because I wear the title of Romance writer proudly, people will ask me who would be a good author to read and I point out about ten different people based on their personal preferences.
I haven’t been able to find the Howells article in The Bookman issues online. However, if you google on keywords from the following, you can find quite a few references to a version of it which appeared in another publication:
“The New Historical Romances,” by William Dean Howells, in The North American Review, vol. 171, no. 6, December, 1900, pp. 932-936 [at least].
Howells was a proponent of realism, of course. He objected to “the sound of the swashbuckler swashing his buckle.”
Put me in the camp that doesn’t care what we call it. Furthermore, so long as the genre remains popular, productive and profitable, who cares what “outsiders” think? IMHO, if your panties get bunched because your friends laugh at your reading material, you need either to toughen up, or to get a better class of friends.
As to the issue of titles and covers, a lot of somebodies are buying and loving THE MILLIONAIRE GREEK’S VIRGIN MISTRESS’S BABY, the clinch cover bodice-ripper, and the trade paperbacks with blatantly erotic titles and images. By passing judgment on these books – or pointing to them as the “problem” leading to how the genre is perceived – we are also passing judgment on their readers. How is that different from the attitudes of so-called “intellectuals” who look down on the entire genre?
I think we expend far too much time and energy worrying about how others perceive romance, and often come off just as snobbish and intolerant as those against which we’re trying to defend ourselves and our books. I don’t believe it’s worth it.
Chessie and Robin, I don’t like the cheesey covers and titles but apparently they do appeal to many readers. I’m sure publishers would rather market to their existing customer base than try to give those romances broader appeal and more ‘respectable’ packaging. I have heard, though I don’t know it for a fact, that when you don’t have The Boss’s Virgin Bride or something like that in the title, sales go down. What can you do?
Elena, I love those authors, too and if someone reads them and still disses romance, I would be surprised. I agree wholeheartedly with you that it needs to be a grass roots movement and in my own small way I do try.
I don’t expect to change anything, least of all the name of the genre, with this article. Sometimes, I just get tired of attempting to convert one person at a time. This was just an idea I threw at the wall, and I’m so pleased it has generated a great discussion.
Suz, love it! And given you’re an absolute pro at hand-selling, I’m sure you have chalked up many converts. Thanks for dropping in. I think many of us identify with the need for escapist entertainment that romance provides.
Virginia, I think there’s always been a school of thought that whatever is popular must be of less worth. We don’t hear much about so-called potboilers any more, do we? And as Elena and others have said, that probably has a lot to do with the excellence of so many novels in the genre and the revision of opinion about those very pot-boilers–critics taking them seriously.
I do think, however, that on top of the ‘popular’ tar brush, we have this added cringe about anything to do with feelings and mushy stuff. I think many people expect romance to be either saccharine-sweet or wall-to-wall sex. A lot of it is to do with the discomfort many in our society feel with talking about emotion.
There’s also the cliche of the bored, poorly educated housewife in curlers eating chocolates and reading a romance–if you read romance, you must be starved for love, desperate for sex, living in a fantasy world, etc.
I proudly write and read romance, but I’m equally proud of selling my first fantasy. When I encounter a person who thinks less of the romance genre, I gladly describe my books as having lots of sex, betrayal, sometimes fantasy or mild violence and even wars. What’s not to love about that? And think of all the hit movies today. This description appeals to most everyone. LOL.
Selah, you make an excellent point. I expected more people to say something similar and about 98% of the time, I *don’t* care what people think about romance. But what can I say? Valentine’s Day really got to me this year.
It really brought home the difference between the public perception of romance and what we write and read.
Suzanne said: When asked what I write, I say “Romance novels Sometimes I get the “Oh eye-candy†or “women’s stuff†or “trash, huh?â€.
Frankly, I find that downright rude. Depending on my level of pique, I’d probably come back with one of three answers (with appropriate level of hoity toity):
A. Have you ever read one?
B. What was the last thing you read?
C. Do you read at all?
Of course, you may or may not wish to begin any of the three with, “Well, bless your heart…”
If we’re to own romance as both readers and writers, I don’t think we should just allow ourselves to be subjected to comments like that graciously. It only leaves the offender feeling smug and the offendee feeling inferior (and I will not believe it doesn’t leave a residue of ick behind, no matter how secure oneself is in one’s work and/or the genre).
Susan, congrats on your sale! And yes, it seems when it comes to movies, people don’t mind the romance so much. Even thrillers tend to have a romance thread running through them. Books are different, for some reason. I know many women who will happily watch a ‘chick flick’ but dismiss romance novels.
Good on you for standing up for your books, though! Thanks for commenting.
MoJo, the ‘ick’ factor is what has me on a burn at the moment. I had a big launch for my first book, with all my friends, family and writer colleagues there. Recently, I was at the stage where I considered keeping my next release under wraps from my own circle of acquaintances because I’m tired of the rudeness.
It’s the first time I even contemplated going underground. When I thought about it, I was ashamed of myself for letting all that get to me. My next launch is going to be bigger than ever. So there!
Christine said: Recently, I was at the stage where I considered keeping my next release under wraps from my own circle of acquaintances because I’m tired of the rudeness.
Your milieu does this to you?
I guess my most rudest comeback (definitely NOT to be preceded by “Well, bless your heart…”) would be:
Oh, can you tell me where I can buy a copy of your latest novel?
It’s the first time I even contemplated going underground. When I thought about it, I was ashamed of myself for letting all that get to me. My next launch is going to be bigger than ever. So there!
Oh sweetie, no! Don’t let the so-and-sos grind you down!
For those who don’t know, I write erotic romance – and you try that one in conversation!
I’ve finally got to the stage I can say, “I write erotic romance.” Straightout. But it’s taken me quite a while to be able to do it with complete confidence.
Reactions vary. Men often go all beady-eyed and ask about the “research”. Hah, hah. Very funny.
If the person is interested, I’ll say more. If not, I let it go. I never, ever, push. They often look surprised that I appear to be normal and in possession of a brain. Goddess give me strength.
And you too, Christine. I’ll be at that launch, wavin’ da pom-poms!
Hmm, that sounded like my acquaintances are rude and that’s not right. They just don’t really understand the genre. Even the most well-meaning of them say it’s not their cup of tea, or the first thing they’ll mention if they have read it will be the sexiness. Scandal’s Daughter wasn’t as hot as many historical romances around, but these people don’t read romance at all, so they can’t really get beyond the bedroom scenes. I would have liked to hear about the characterization or the historical detail or the plot twists but the sex thing looms too large. But we can’t order the world to our liking, can we? Particularly other people’s opinions. So I’ll just wear them down slowly, instead.
Thanks, Nisey! What better excuse for a party, after all?
About clinch covers and cheesy titles,
I’ve got to say, I’m not a fan. I’ve got an entire keeper shelf full of them. Why? I wanted a romance, and at the time that those were super popular, your choice was buy the story you wanted and shut up, because you’re getting Fabio, dang it.
I was young, (okay, really young at the time) and I had to keep all my favorite books hidden, especially from my Mom. I resented that. As I got older, and worked as a teacher, I still had to keep my books hidden.
I’m tired of being in the closet for the sake of propriety. I think those books sold well because the core audience knew what they were getting. They were looking for steamy, and the only way to advertise it was with man-titty. If I knew I wanted a steamy romance, well the package proclaims it, and if I’m looking for a western/secret baby story. Then “The Cowboy’s Bride and Baby” told me exactly what I was getting without having to read a blurb. I could grab the story I wanted from the spine.
I do think there is a backlash against this, and as a reader, I’m thrilled. I love the cartoon covers. They immediately say fun and sassy. I love that romantic suspense and paranormal stories tend to have these dark atmospheric covers that are more likely to feature a moon and a wolf, than the moon shining off of some guy’s oiled steroid-chest.
I love that historicals are taking a note from old artwork, and featuring some of the visual cues from the romantic period in art.
However, we’ve still got our visual cues for the steamy read. Now instead of mullet, we have the floating torso cover. At least the men are fit, and I do appreciate a nice set of real abs.
I don’t think we’ll ever escape the visual cues that say, “Hey, sexy read here for those that want it.” But I’m glad that romance covers across the board seem to be more than just that.
It is nice to read in public again.
But what can I say? Valentine’s Day really got to me this year. It really brought home the difference between the public perception of romance and what we write and read.
I think that’s a perfectly valid and often fascinating topic. I just don’t see the point in gnashing our teeth and rending our garments over something that probably won’t change anytime soon.
There will always be folks looking to make themselves feel superior by mocking what someone else enjoys, whether it’s category romance, erotica, Native American love stories, or lusty vamps/werewolves/demons making it with virgin widows. Ya gotta pick your battles, is all I’m sayin’.
Selah, I agree, we have to pick our battles–I believe people don’t give up their prejudices easily because, as you say, having them makes them feel superior. Jenny Crusie has an excellent article about picking our battles with the media on her website. In the meantime, this article has been excellent therapy.
Chessie and Robin, I don’t like the cheesey covers and titles but apparently they do appeal to many readers. I’m sure publishers would rather market to their existing customer base than try to give those romances broader appeal and more ‘respectable’ packaging. I have heard, though I don’t know it for a fact, that when you don’t have The Boss’s Virgin Bride or something like that in the title, sales go down. What can you do?
Christine, I’ll tell you a secret: I like some of those cheesy covers, too, especially the old Pino ones from the 80s (Rangoon is a favorite). But my appreciation of them is different from, say, my appreciation of Renaissance painting. It’s even different than the way some of those HP titles crack me up (and, of course, as intended, make me notice the book).
But before I read Romance I had NO appreciation for any of that, and I think that experience is congruous with the upshot of your column: that representation of the genre says something different than what’s actually in the books, whether it be through the word Romance or something else. To me the something else is the covers and titles and how they appear to those outside the genre. In the same way that Romance readers know that the word “romance” in genre terms doesn’t equate to hearts and flowers and cute stuffed animals, we also know that even the most over the top cover doesn’t equate to whatever negative connotation you can come up with. If there were no anxiety about what “others” think of the genre we wouldn’t even have to debate this stuff.
As for people inside the genre liking the clinch, etc., more power to them. I’m still not convinced that those covers sell more because people love them (although I know there are readers who DO honestly prefer them) or because they recognize a Romance (and let’s face it, not every clinch of naked torso cover is created equal in terms of how people receive them), but in any case, they are still the public face of the genre.
Are they more influential than the term “romance”? I don’t know. But I think they’re all part of a package that we’re talking about when we start talking about the representation of the genre, especially since those of us inside (as readers or authors) code many of these things differently because we already have chosen to read the genre. Although interestingly, there was as conversation at Smart Bitches recently about covers, and it’s clear that even genre readers are negatively and positively influenced by covers, so if we are, then how can those who don’t already share our knowledge and love of the genre not be?
Great discussion you’ve got going on here, Christine!
Loved the comment about a DAMNED GOOD BOOK! I’m there with whoever said that — Donna?
Yes, Christine, even the male romance writers in the past looked at the world positively, and what’s more positive than a happy ever after?
Also, I think it’s the fantasy of romance writing that we women love — reality is practical and prosaic (sometimes even boring). And just imagine how we’d survive if our REAL love lives were so fraught with conflict. Yikes! So, it’s the fantasy that we create that’s interesting, the conflicts possible and the resolution of them.
First, I’m not sure a different name for the genre would change the perceptions of the Great Unwashed.
For those people, it would be the literary equivalent of called used cars “preowned.” A rose by any other name and all that.
An awful lot of people are uncomfortable with a) stories about love that b) end happily, whether because they a) aren’t in touch with their sentimental side, b) don’t want to admit they have a sentimental side or c) are terminal pessimists who really do believe life sucks the big one and anyone who celebrates those moments when it doesn’t has his/her head in the sand. Whatever you want to call such stories is immaterial.
And, yes, the less obvious titles/covers do not sell as well…at least not to the readers we already have. I know there are those who are convinced that classier, less obvious cover packages would attract those who normally wouldn’t be caught dead reading a romance, but I’m not so sure (and neither are most marketing big-wigs in the publishing houses). Experiments with multiple covers of the same book have proven time and again that — especially with new or midlist authors — clinches/cliched titles far outsell the more subtle approach. A true facelift would necessitate a huge, and remarkably effective, marketing campaign to both attract new readers and keep the old ones, with no guarantees it would work.
But then, I’ve never deluded myself into thinking I write anything other than commercial fiction — a mindset that has gotten me in trouble before.
That’s not to say there’s not some damn fine writing going on in commercial fiction — obviously — but it is what it is, and I make no apologies for that.
I write romance — subset: family and kids and babies — period. I have my fans.
But my stuff doesn’t sell NEARLY as well as the sheik books in my line. People who think kids “ruin” romance steer clear of my books. And I also occasionally get the “if only there was more sex” comment embedded in an otherwise You Go, Girl review. In other words…the reason most romance readers read romance is for the fantasy, the escape, the sex. The…romance.
Sure, I’ve seen a few converts over the years — who’ve been surprised that my stories didn’t jibe with their perception of what a romance novel was “supposed” to be — but to be honest, I’m not sure they’re out there in droves, just waiting for the covers and titles to become more “respectable.”
Changing the genre to attract non-romance readers reminds me a lot of the Aesop fable about the dog carrying a piece of meat who sees his reflection in the river. Thinking the dog in the river is carrying an even bigger piece of meat, he drops the piece in his mouth to get it…and of course ends up with nothing.
The genre may be dented a bit, folks, but it ain’t nearly as broke as some of us would believe. So I vote for leaving it the heck alone.
Experiments with multiple covers of the same book have proven time and again that — especially with new or midlist authors — clinches/cliched titles far outsell the more subtle approach.
As long as certain covers and titles are associated with Romance among its readers, I don’t think any “experiments” are ever going to work. The whole paradigm would have to shift, because even for those of us who find some of the covers and titles over the top, they still code Romance, making books easy to locate and identify on that basis alone. So I find the results of these experiments neither surprising nor effective as evidence for a giant love of clinch. I just think they reflect something Romance readers have become habituated to, something that some readers actively like and some don’t (and that also feeds into our socialized distrust of change and difference).
Great discussion, Christine,
My lst 2 posts yesterday went into the “ether”, so, if they arrive, please excuse it.
I’m a reader, not a writer. Trying not to generalize (& realizing it’s writers income-production), it appears to me writers are more concerned what others perceive about what they write than readers do about what others think about their choice of reading. If outsiders want to dismiss what I read, I couldn’t care less. Most instances, they’ve never read a Romance & don’t have any idea what elements it encompasses. Last I read, the average person buys 1 book a year, while Romance readers buy 100. Booksellers & writers should be thankful, & the opinion of outsiders really don’t matter.
I agree that I think the reason that the clinch covers exist is that they immediately tell the reader looking for a romance, “Hey this is a romance.”
At Smart Bitches, they have their threads about making fun of the old covers, and I’ve got to admit, they’re hysterical, and I owned/own a lot of those covers. But one of the things they did was snark about how the over the top Fabio cover of Savage Thunder seemed more appropriate to a story with a wicked sex scene on the back of a horse than the recent re-release cover with a house inside an oval on a plain white background. That cover just doesn’t say, “wild sex on the back of a horse here.” While the first one clearly did.
There is a code to romance covers, clearly. They try to catch the eye of romance readers and let them know what is inside. I think that code is changing, and I’m grateful for it. But I think there will always be a code. I’ll take the faded pictures of the hot guys with brooding stares while a girl runs in the background through a collage of city streets anyday, or even a good floating torso if I’m in the mood for a floating torso book.
Even though these modern covers look Sooo much better than the old mullet-fests. (In my opinion) eventually they’ll be degraded too because people will figure out, “Hey, those are romances.” Whenever they bother to crack the new code. However, at least the pictures themselves aren’t laughable anymore.
There are some gorgeous covers out there. And if they weren’t selling hot, Fabio would still be gracing our books.
Robin, I don’t know if it’s different in the United States, but in Australia, where I live, most people wouldn’t know what the covers looked like and they wouldn’t know the titles of any Harlequin novels, either. I had a launch in a specialist romance bookstore which a lot of ‘outsiders’ attended. They marveled that there was such a subgenre as paranormal (or any subgenres at all). Most were shocked that my book contained explicit love scenes.
The depth of their indifference is such that they don’t know *anything* about the genre, except that Barbara Cartland wrote romance and Mills & Boon is ‘dead easy’ to write because there’s a formula. That’s where this column came from. I haven’t properly formulated my views on covers and titles, so I’m going to leave that argument for another time. I’m ambivalent–in the true sense of the word–about the covers.
Jo wrote: So, it’s the fantasy that we create that’s interesting, the conflicts possible and the resolution of them.
Yes, the challenge is making the problems real and the resolution perfect.
Then what effects a paradigm shift? And do internal or external forces cause them? (Being very philosophical/theoretical here.
)
: Environmental concerns alone didn’t spur the evolution of the hybrid vehicle — or consumers’ avid purchase of same — but rising gas prices did. Up until then, Americans loved them their big old SUVs (and many still do!). But once there was a “real” reason (as in, it directly, and personally affected car owners) to consider the switch, they did.
I would assume that, generally, public demand for something different (often brought about by other shifts in the landscape) brings about change. As far as I can tell, these shifts are rarely arbitrary — or predictable — but are usually predicated on either necessity or consensus that change IS necessary. This might be a stretch as a metaphor, but it’s the first thing that comes to mind
The way I see it, only if and when the *majority* of current romance readers’ conscious, stated desire for change in what’s considered appealing and acceptable packaging for the romance genre — IOW, if most of them had bought the non-clinch covers — will such change happen. You can call it conditioning or whatever, but for every romance reader who’s embarrassed by man-titty or tacky titles, there are far more who either don’t care or actually LIKE them.
Besides which, we’re all conditioned to associate certain types of packaging with certain products, because different colors/images evoke different reactions. I’m fascinated with the whole psychological basis behind packaging, and will readily admit that I most likely will not buy a product if the packaging doesn’t evoke the “right” reaction.
Which leads me back to my point — that perhaps those of us most concerned about image are, in fact, *missing* the point about why most reader read romance in the first place…and that much of what embarrasses the living daylights out of some of us is exactly what turns those readers on.
If you’re looking for a sexy, escapist read, then a cover that doesn’t shout HERE BE SEX probably isn’t going to provoke the Pavlovian response that will make you pick up that book. If that author is fortunate enough to move up the food chain to the point where she no longer needs nekkid people on her covers to sell books — because now her name alone is sufficient — that’s great. But you gotta snag those readers in the first place.
And if not by the covers/titles, how?
::Even though these modern covers look Sooo much better than the old mullet-fests. (In my opinion) eventually they’ll be degraded too because people will figure out, “Hey, those are romances.†Whenever they bother to crack the new code.::
Four people posting at once, huzzah.
But I agree — there will always be a code, because human beings ARE conditioned thusly. You can change the covers, the titles, even the name of the genre, but that doesn’t change the core message of the stories — that love is the driving force of the universe. People who can’t handle that will still recoil in disgust and call our work whatever denigrating epithet comes to mind.
Ask me if I care.
Karen, you make perfect sense. I agree with you about the impracticality and likely consequences of change.
As for the used car comment, I’m not talking about ‘romanticising’ the name of the genre, I’m talking about changing it to reflect what it really is. A suggestion more to stimulate argument than real change, I admit.
I agree with you that changes might lose readers and of course, I’d rather please and keep the readership we have than shake it up and lose them. This is a separate issue from attracting readers. As I think, Robin said, maybe we shouldn’t care what other people think of the genre, but the fact is many of us can’t help it, especially when we are faced with journalists and others constantly misunderstanding and belittling what we do. Companies re-brand themselves every so often to keep step with progress and to lose any negative associations with the previous name. I’m just saying that the name ‘romance’ and all its connotations might be partly responsible for the misperceptions of the genre out there. We write fantasy, yes, but that’s not the same thing as romance, IMO.
Robin, I don’t know if it’s different in the United States, but in Australia, where I live, most people wouldn’t know what the covers looked like and they wouldn’t know the titles of any Harlequin novels, either.
In the US, it’s often the series Romances that people see in the grocery store aisles, along with some of the more eye-catching covers. And when you read a lot of the mainstream coverage of the genre, immediately you get a lot of the images associated with those titles and covers in the introductory reportage. So perhaps there’s a significant difference with regard to cultural context.
We write fantasy, yes, but that’s not the same thing as romance, IMO.
ITA with this statement. I’m always uncomfortable with the “fantasy” argument in Romance, because IMO fantasy is a complex term. First there’s a separate Fantasy genre, then there’s the idea of fantasy as in sexual fantasy or rescue fantasy, then there’s the notion of escapism, and then the idea of the fantastical more generally, along with the Disneyfied fairy tale that is often called fantasy. Although I think a lot of this conflation is going on within the genre, which probably isn’t the context to which you’re referring.
I definitely consider what I write to be romance, but then I don’t think of romance as either fantasy or hearts-and-flowers fluff, either. So I got no problem with the genre name, for one thing. And for another, I have no clue what else it could be called — at least, not anything else that would still instantly identify the core story (as does mystery, sci fi, western, etc) and not still be an easy target for them what’s not gonna like it, anyway.
It’s not the name that’s turning them off, it’s the content. That people have learned to identify the content with the name “romance” is immaterial.
And that’s where I think the problem lies, when one mentions rebranding or whatever. Rebranding without changing content is pointless, IMO. And if changing content doesn’t yield a net gain in customers, you’re sunk, as Wal-Mart discovered when it tried to go more trendy in its clothing offerings. People don’t go to Wal-Mart for trendy, they go for the basics at a good price. So they lost sales from their core market — who weren’t about to pay 40 bucks for a sweater from Wal-Mart — while those customers who might are already shopping at Target.
Certainly, there is some rebranding going on within the genre — despite complaints about the “sameness” of offerings, there’s actually far more variety than there was even ten years ago, with the explosion of subgenres. Granted, within the subgenres things might get a bit repetitious, but considering you couldn’t even find a paranormal ten years ago…or a romantic suspense twenty years ago…or contemp romance thirty years ago…
But the core elements of what makes a romance a romance haven’t changed. Nor will they. And I still maintain we’re fighting a losing battle trying to figure out ways to basically disguise what we do in order to “trick” people into reading our books.
It’s the same thing, IMO, as trying to convince someone about religion — if they’re up for exploring options, they will. If they’re not, they won’t. And all the PR in the world won’t do beans to make someone change their mind if they simply can’t buy into the basic premise. Yes, there are misperceptions — in both religion and literature
— but all you can do is present the facts as best you can. Beyond that, you can’t force people to open their minds.
Alas.
But the content has changed, the image hasn’t quite caught up yet.
I really saw this in stark relief when there was a dear Abby column a while back about a mother who was concerned about her daughter reading romances. Abby responded that it wasn’t the sex she needed to worry about but the themes of men having to rescue helpless women and make them submit that she should be worried about. (I’m paraphrasing, I apologize)
Anyway, the romance community wrote back saying “Hey wait a minute,” and in the response letters Abby admitted that she hadn’t read a romance in well over a decade.
The image of the content hasn’t changed and that image is linked to the old clinch covers, etc.
We’ve got strong women, facing difficult choices, with good men willing to stand by them no matter what. That’s come a long way from old “forced seduction” so the heroine could be virginal and therefore likable storyline.
People judging aren’t reading, but they have a “bodice ripper” idea of what is in those books that is decades old. That is the image that has to change. I don’t know how it is going to happen without having more people stand up and say, “Hey, BTW, that is a romance novel.”
That said, I’m a romance reader. I do read them to escape, and yes, I read them to get turned on. Something’s got to do it, because the dishes and dirty diapers sure don’t. I’m not going to apologize to anyone for that. I like bigger stories that are about more than that. I’m thrilled that romance has grown to a point that the stories give me more than that.
Bravo for us. I guess we should start by just being proud of ourselves. Eventually the rest of the world will catch up, and if they don’t, hey their loss.
I don’t think it’s true that you can’t change or shape public perception about something. Why would people spend so much money on public relations and branding if that were the case?
And I don’t mean we should try to pretend romance is anything it’s not. I just feel we could use an image facelift/update/correction/whatever you like to call it so that people are getting a more accurate picture of what our stories are about. But I think I’ve probably said enough about that because I don’t have a viable solution besides throwing a lot of dollars at a blanket PR campaign
It’s been interesting to hear everyone’s opinion. Thanks so much for your comments!
Bravo for us. I guess we should start by just being proud of ourselves. Eventually the rest of the world will catch up, and if they don’t, hey their loss.
Bravo, Chessie! I couldn’t agree more.
First, we have to understand that while a lot of derision *is* based on misperception — that the genre is still all about bodice rippers — not all of it is. A lot part of the let’s-all-gang-up-on-romance community simply has issues with the HEA, for instance, a device that automatically reduces the books to tripe in their eyes.
And there has been a concerted effort for years, both individually and collectively, to correct the stereotypes. And yet I still see the same negative, incorrect assessments of the genres in the media now as I did a dozen years ago. Besides, let’s be honest with ourselves: Not all those old tropes are completely dead. We have readers who still drool over the alpha jerks and prefer their heroines to be virginal. And what do we say to people who say our books are “all about sex” with the surge in popularity of erotic romance, especially those books with sex scenes literally every few pages?
Since the genre isn’t one-size-fits all (hmmm
), no rebranding in the world can make it appeal to everybody. I do think we can, and should, do more to emphasize the variety within the genre, which IMO is possibly the biggest misperception — that our books are “all alike.” But I, too, agree with Chessie — we have to start with being proud of ourselves *as we are* and let the genre’s evolution happen as it will. 
Patricia, I realized I missed your comment. So sorry! You’ve made an interesting point, that writers seem more concerned with the image of romance than readers are. I have to say that most of the time, most writers shrug off the negativity too. We’re pretty darned happy writing for a genre that is so popular and beloved by readers.
I sort of wonder about the argument that romance is somehow blocked off from the other genres. If I go into the B&N at Seven Corners (about eight miles outside of Washington, DC, but “inside the beltway”), I enter, pass the display tables in the middle aisle and heavy discount displays to my left, make a left at “new fiction,” pass that, pass f/sf, and get to the romance shelves. Mysteries are just behind romance; general literary fiction is just behind both “new fiction” and f/sf. It’s not as if the romance books are shoved to the side.
They’re displayed just like f/sf and mysteries — namely a shelf of face-out new hardbacks, and then the rest a mix of m/m pb, trade p/b, and hardbacks. Some authors we might expect to see in romance are over in general fiction (Gabaldon); some are in both (Jennifer Crusie), and occasionally a book that I’d expect to see in mystery (Janet Evanovich) or sf (Patricia Briggs) is in romance (and occasionally vice versa). AA romances are alphabetically in with all the rest.
The new mini-industry of Jane Austen sequels and spin-offs has its own end display on one of the general fiction shelves, plus a table at the rear of the general fiction section.
The Harlequin series titles are in a rather small end display hooked onto the f/sf shelves. They don’t necessarily get rid of them at the end of the month. If a title has appeal, it get tucked onto a shelf underneath the westerns and gets to stay around until it sells, I suppose. The books in the new NASCAR series are interfiled with the single-title romances rather than being in the Harlequin display.
If I go to Borders at Bailey’s Crossroads (also inside the beltway), it’s a little different, because their shelving is different. Again, sf, mystery, and romance are to the left of the entrance, right behind the “new” displays (both fiction and nonfiction “new books”) and surrounded by general fiction, which has wall shelving. There are two full sections of romances. If you turn around from the “nearest the entrance” section, you’re facing the end of f/sf; if you turn around from the other section, you’re facing the end of mystery shelving.
However, they have some “literary fiction” on the romance shelves (they moved Jane Austen because she sells much better in romance, now that the pbs have pretty covers, than she ever did in “classics”). They also, because most of the romance shelving is so shallow that it only takes m/m pbs, have most of the romance trade pbs and hardbacks over on the walls in the general fiction section, where the shelves are taller and deeper.
The Harlequins are on end racks in between two sections of romance shelving.
Moving to the local Safeway, which only has one section of books, right next to stationery and school supplies, it’s a general mix of paperback fiction best sellers, with no distinction among genres at all. Nora Roberts as both herself and J.D. Robb cohabits with Dan Brown and Clive Cussler. It’s all single title books — no series or category romances.
I didn’t have time to hit Target and there’s no nearby WalMart.
However, overall, I don’t think there’s a lot of segregation of the romance genre, as far as marketing goes, here in dear old Swampland on the Potomac.
I do think we can, and should, do more to emphasize the variety within the genre, which IMO is possibly the biggest misperception — that our books are “all alike.â€
Karen, I think this is a very good point. When I tell people what I write, I don’t just say “romance”, I say “historical romance in the time of Jane Austen” or “historical romance in the time of the Napoleonic Wars” or something like that. Since history is part of my brand I think it helps to differentiate my work from other romance novels but it also serves to educate people that there are different sub-genres within romance.
I was out with a mixed crowd of friends last week and we got to the subject of books. One of the guys made the old “porn for women” statement about romance. He was a bit surprised when I said that sexual content varies widely within subgenres ranging from the erotic romance to the inspirational. It was a totally friendly discussion, just the sort that can help dispel stereotypes.
~The genre may be dented a bit, folks, but it ain’t nearly as broke as some of us would believe. So I vote for leaving it the heck alone.~
Agree.
And I write Romance.
I’ve read romance for a long time and I think the idea that older romances were more formulaic than present romances is another myth of the genre. There’s always been plenty of feisty heroines ready to rock the hero’s world in romance – perhaps she did it in a way that reflected the times she was written (or in the case of historicals, the times written about), but that’s true of all writing. The stuff written in 2008 is going to be old hat one day too! Actually ‘old hat’ is the wrong phrasing – I’ll go back to the fact that we can’t help our writing reflecting the times we live in and sometimes that’s what makes the older stories interesting.
Christine, you’ve set up an incredibly fascinating discussion here. I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s take on this.
Virginia, the question of integrating or segregating romance is an interesting one and it’s a bit like the title/cover question. One of my local bookstores suddenly started shelving romance among commercial fiction. First, when I couldn’t find the romance section, I was irate, thinking they’d stopped buying romance altogether. Then I found some of my favourite authors in with general fiction and thought, hey, this is great. We’re not in the ghetto any more. Then I just got irritated because it was more difficult to browse or find what I wanted quickly now everything was jumbled together.
I think looking after the established readership is the primary concern.
Elena, I do the same. I always say historical romance. Good on you for educating one more!
Nora, thanks for commenting. I appreciate your take on the issue. Can just imagine you telling me to stop whining and go write!
Anna, as always, you sound so sensible! I’ve come to the genre relatively recently, so I can’t comment on the quality of what went before but I’m sure you’re right. Not many outsiders have ever taken the trouble to delve into the genre. And the myth is so much more fun to hang on to, isn’t it?
I certainly agree that the genre isn’t broken FISCALLY at any rate — hell, romance writers are responsible for beau coup sales — but the image still retains the tarnish that it’s had for centuries.
I’ll bet if the Brontes were writing today, their brother’s book would sell before Emily’s, Charlotte’s, and Anne’s. What was that little guy’s name — oh, right Branwell?
I still think women’s issues get short shrift in society and most people think “romance” is a woman’s issue, a woman’s interest, and a woman’s purview.
Jo, I agree that we often fall back on the massive sales as a kind of comfort blanket when others pour scorn. My point is that there’s nothing wrong with the genre, but that the image unfortunately doesn’t match the substance and what can we do to address that? Does it need to be addressed at all?
If yes, obviously changing the name isn’t the answer, and most folks here think that standing up for romance, educating people on an individual basis, is all you can really do. I think a clever promotional campaign might work wonders, but then I argue with myself that the dollars would be better donated to literacy campaigns than to making us feel better about ourselves.
If no, then perhaps we do need to all stop whining about how people react to romance and get on with it. I’m glad we’ve thrashed out this topic to the extent we have. It’s been interesting to read everyone’s opinions.
Perhaps we do need to stop whining about how non-romance readers react to the genre, much as the mid-20th century pulp fiction writers (albeit, men) ignored the literary purists. We can educate readers as individuals and maybe that suffices.
It’s interesting to note, I think, that, just like those mystery writers have gotten more sophisticated at their craft, so have the romance writers. In fact, I’d venture to say that “romance” writing as a whole edges much closer to what we consider literary fiction (and isn’t that REALLY the standard we’re comparing both romance and pulp fiction to?) than pulp fiction does.
Dare I say we’ve come a long way baby?
I agree. I can’t help but go back to my keeper shelf and go “old school,” from time to time. There is a lot in the foundations of romance that is certainly worth reading.
But we’re only getting better. We push ourselves, and heaven knows we push each other. Every day new books break out with something new, different, exciting, and dare I say it, sexy.
We grow, we change, we get stronger. It’s all in search of a great story. And there are some great stories out there.
Just wanted to say thanks very much for having me on Romancing the Blog this weekend and thanks to everyone who commented for a lively and interesting discussion!
Cheers,
Christine