One of the things I like very much about the m/m end of the field is that things aren’t quite so strongly defined as they are on the het end. Maybe it’s because this is still a relatively new chunk of the genre, but there’s more flexibility among the publishers, less calcification in the rules and expectations and assumptions. Writers can do something different, such as begin a couple’s relationship in book one and not give you a final HEA until book five. Or give you a complete romance in one book and then further adventures in later books which aren’t romances by definition — and therefore couldn’t be published by a traditional het romance publisher — but which are enjoyable anyway.
I remember when I first got into reading (het) romances, running into some series where the guy and the girl meet, have problems, cuss each other out and give each other a few black eyes or whatever, then admit they love each other 1.3 pages before the end of the book. Then there’s another book about them, some (usually ridiculous) misunderstanding occurs, and it was all cussing and fighting for the next 382 pages until they worked it out and were all in love again at the end. Remember Rosemary Rogers’ Steve and Ginny books? I opened up the third one, got to the cussing and fighting and breaking up again within the first chapter or so, eyerolled and tossed it. Luckily it was my mother’s book and I hadn’t spent any of my own money on it.
It’s annoying, and we don’t see that much anymore (or at least I haven’t, and I’m not complaining at all) but Ms. Rogers was trying to fill a market niche which is essentially impossible to fill in the traditional, rigid het romance. Many readers do enjoy seeing their favorite characters over again in later books, and yet unless they fall out of love, or otherwise find their relationship in serious jeopardy for whatever reason the writer can come up with, their next book is not and can not be an actual romance. If the main plotline isn’t about them facing some conflict which threatens their relationship, then it’s not a romance and a romance publisher won’t take it. And yet showing favorite characters breaking up and making up over and over is something which appeals to a limited audience.
Having previous characters show up with cameos in later books which are actually about a new couple works, but it’s unsatisfying to the reader who really wants to see the first couple. It doesn’t really fulfill the wish of the Joe/Mary fan to see another Joe/Mary story unless there’s a lot of Joe and Mary. But if there is a lot of Joe and Mary, it takes away from the new Bob/Sue story and anyone who’s absorbed in Bob and Sue’s romantic plotline gets impatient when Joe and Mary are hogging the spotlight. It can be done, but it’s always a tightrope walk and never really completely satisfying.
On the m/m side of the fence, though, the rules aren’t as rigid. If a writer wants to show us Joe and Bob’s romance in book one, then give us three more books about what they’re doing, where the plotline focuses on something else and our still-in-love couple are working together to solve whatever the outside problems are, that’s cool and there are publishers who’ll take the whole series. To me, that’s a feature rather than a bug, so long as readers know what they’re getting so those who only want to read genre-definition romances can pass on the sequels. The flexibility to try new things and push the boundaries is one of the things I love about m/m romance.
I really wish the het side of the genre could do it too, though.
I can think of the occasional romance which pulled this off — one of my favorites was Joyce Verette’s Dawn of Desire, set in ancient Egypt. (It’s a great romance, and if you like historicals but are tired of medievals and Regencies I highly recommend digging up a used copy.) In the sequel, Desert Fires, the Guy is struck down by a paralyzing curse and they set off on a quest to find Atlantis where there might be a cure for him. Okay, it’s not that historical [cough] but it was a great story with characters I came to love, including a number of the supporting cast. And because the Guy was on his way to dying, his relationship with the Girl was threatened pretty seriously, which qualified this second book as a romance without having the characters temporarily break up over something ridiculous.
For the most part, though, we just don’t see this kind of sequel. The requirement that each book published by a romance press be an actual genre romance precludes the sort of series where the first book is the romance itself and subsequent books are adventures or mysteries or whatever, featuring the original two characters.
So instead we have to go to other genres to get our whole-series-about-these-characters fix. But in other genres there’s rarely a strong romance in the series anywhere. SF/Fantasy writers are getting good at producing genre-definition romances in SF or Fantasy settings, but there still aren’t all that many. Monica Ferris, who writes the only mystery series I follow (cozy mysteries where the protag owns a needlework shop — the first one is Crewel World) has added a love interest, but it’s incredibly low-key and the guy doesn’t even show up in every book. There are other off-genre series which include a romantic subplot, but it usually doesn’t have much oomph to someone who’s used to the good stuff. So…?
Am I the only one who likes this kind of series? I’d love to see some small presses start doing for het romance characters what we’ve already got on the m/m side — the flexibility to cross genres with a single series if we want to, without having to change publishers. I’m not expecting it to happen any time soon, although this is one of those issues where I’d love to be mistaken.
No related posts.
Well, there’s JD Robb’s Eve and Roarke “….In Death” series. I really don’t think we can ignore that. And Suzanne Brockmann’s about to publish a Sam and Alyssa mystery/suspense that continues the lives of a previous HEA couple.
It obviously comes down to issues of genre definition, and personally, I don’t WANT my romances to do what you’re saying here. I put up with it in the male/male world because I have to, but I’d really prefer not to, and I have to say, only a very few of the best authors out there can actually pull it off. When other authors do it, they sometimes end up with a “novel” without a plot, because there’s very little character conflict.
Is it more a function of the e-publishing world which actually rewards (monetarily) several shorter books, rather than one long book? I don’t know, but I have my suspicions.
TBH, I want my romance to be romance, HEA and move on, and I tend to avoid m/m authors who do precisely what you’re talking about. FWIW. Or wait until I know the “series” is done so I can read them all at once.
Sarah — only a very few of the best authors out there can actually pull it off
But isn’t that always true with anything new or unusual? How many people can pull off a three-way relationship and make it work and sound realistic? How many people can write BDSM and make it sound like they know at all what they’re talking about? There aren’t a lot of well-marked, well-paved paths to follow for the mixed-genre series, so you’re right that a lot of writers who try it are going to trip and stumble and end up in a ditch. [wry smile] But that, to me, isn’t a good enough reason to say that no one should try it.
If you prefer romance and only romance, that’s fine. I’m not saying that every romance series should do this, or even most of them, only that I’d like to see some on the het side which do. (With the tacit assumption — which perhaps should have been stated more clearly — that I’d like to see it done well. [grin])
I agree that books need to be labelled so that readers have a clear idea of what sort of story they’re getting before they pull out their credit cards. Not necessarily even a label label, but if Book Two isn’t a romance, you should be able to tell by reading the blurb that there’s no mention of marital troubles or break-up arguments or whatever and therefore this isn’t going to be a romance plot, but rather that the two people who got together in Book One will be having more adventures together. Then you can decide to buy or not as you like.
I’m not saying the whole genre should be transformed; I like the current story pattern too. I’d just like to see some other type of pattern in addition. Not replacing.
Angie
Ah, yes… you’ve hit on a subject very near to my heart right now.
My Lady Anne series has begun, and Book 1, Lady Anne and the Howl in the Dark is out. However… I’ve been struggling against the howls of outrage that it didn’t end with a pat, rolled-up-and-presented-in-a-bow happily ever after ending. There are three books in the series, all with Lady Anne in the title… did anyone think she was going to have THREE happy endings?
Instead, what I did was take her romance and let it develop more naturally over three books while she and her hero work things out. They are two very strong individuals and they have a lot of crap to work out before they can come together and make a believable HEA.
I’ll tell you how that’s going some time!
Definitely let me know.
Sounds like what you have is more like a single romance broken up into three volumes because it’s just that long. That’s cool too. [nod] And yes, I’d much prefer that sort of series than having them HEA at the end of each volume, but then break up again by page ten of the next. :/
Angie
Hey, a historical paranormal! Awesome! I just added it to my Wish List.
Angie
It’s the kind of thing I really enjoy, but I agree, too, that it’s not what one could call a romance. I inadvertently did this sort of thing starting with a manuscript that I wrote that I thought was a romance. Broke too many hard and fast tropes, but at the time, I didn’t realize the tropes would be that difficult to overcome with respect to traditional publishers. Then I wound up writing a manuscript starring the brother of the heroine and the sister of the hero. Their story was complete and free of the potholes that had held up the first one. But the leads from the first weren’t quite done with me– I had to write a second story for them, one that occurred after I had thought their HEA over and done with, but it wasn’t, not quite. They were still happy together, there was never any question of that in my mind, but like any couple who’ve been together for a while, they had new issues and conflicts to deal with and so they got a second, different sort of HEA.
I still love that trio of stories, but those will stay under my bed, at least for the time being.
As to whether or not they’re romances? By the definitions of the genre, only the middle one truly is.
That’s exactly my point. [nod] Going on the assumption that these are all good books, you have a series which mixes genres, or at least mangles the standard genre rules of romance a little too much, and is therefore unpublishable despite being a good read. We can tell from the comments thread here that there is a market for that kind of series, even if less than 100% of romance fans would be interested (and how many subgenres are there which are favored by 100% of romance fans?) so wouldn’t it be great if there were a publisher out there — even if it were a smaller one — who would take it?
Angie
Hurrah! Yes, exactly. I’ve railed on this subject more than once. As many of the commenter are bound to say, they don’t like this kind of thing, they want the romance, just the romance and nothing but the romance thank you, but what I love about m/m – and the way that it IS breaking moulds – is that it can be an adventure AND a romance at the same time, it’s not just all misunderstanding, arguments and HATEORRRS and then PING! NO! I LOVE HIM INSTEAD!
Take Alex Beecroft’s False Colors for example. Yes, the characters are attracted to each other, and there are many tropes in the book, such as misunderstanding, and actual dislike – but Beecroft doesn’t forget that while commanding a ship you can’t be mooning over your beloved when you have 400 men under your command and they have to be fed and watered, enemies have to be fought and the ship needs repairs.
Or Lee Rowan, or Charlie Cochrane’s series where the path of true love is still the path of true love, but it doesn’t run smoothly – because that’s life, it doesn’t. It makes it more realistic for me, because I often think “well they got together at the end, but I don’t give much for their chances.” – in a series you can see how things develop after they sink into each others arms.
It’s one reason why I’ll never do a proper sequel to Standish, because I’d only make them break up again, and that wouldn’t be good.
But yes, I’m sure that some het readers would love to read the further travails of the characters they’ve come to love, it stands to reason.
I think you have a few different issues here, although I agree with you about all of them. [grin]
all misunderstanding, arguments and HATEORRRS and then PING! NO! I LOVE HIM INSTEAD!
I have a problem with these too, and to me it’s just a badly written romance. I can buy that one character might not be able to articulate exactly why they love the other, or that they might have mixed feelings and love some characteristics while hating (or at least being really freaking annoyed by) others. But when they just plain loathe one another up until page N-2 and then suddenly it’s all hearts and ribbons and rainbows, I don’t buy that either. If the writer can’t convince me that yes, these characters really do love one another by the end (and in accordance with my larger topic here, that might well be by the end of several books rather than just the first one, but wherever the writer intends the end of the romance plotline to be), and that it has an excellent chance of lasting rather than being an infatuation based on hotness and sex, then she or he hasn’t done the job properly.
but Beecroft doesn’t forget that while commanding a ship you can’t be mooning over your beloved when you have 400 men under your command and they have to be fed and watered, enemies have to be fought and the ship needs repairs
Very true, but I’ve seen that sort of thing in het romances before too. The first one that pops into my head is Jo Beverley’s An Arranged Marriage, where despite having a new bride, Nick still has his duty (he’s sort of a secret agent for the government) and he makes sure some friends of his will be looking after Eleanor while he goes and does his duty, which includes romancing some vital information out of a female foreign agent and has a very real possibility of wrecking his marriage. He does it anyway, though, because he’s not about to take the chance of his country losing a war over his own personal happiness. Jo makes it very clear in the process that he hates being with this other woman, that she repulses him (not because she’s ugly — she’s not — but because she’s amoral and selfish and he doesn’t want her, and having to bed her anyway is pretty awful). It’s a wonderful book and the start of one of the better serial-couple series, but then, Jo rocks.
But I do agree with you that people who are willing to throw away or ignore absolutely anything because they’re in love aren’t always admirable, or people I want to read about.
But yes, I’m sure that some het readers would love to read the further travails of the characters they’ve come to love, it stands to reason.
It seems so, looking at the comment thread. Not a hundred percent, but then I was never expecting a hundred percent buy-in to this idea. (Or any other idea for that matter.) It sure looks like there’s a market here, though.
Angie
The requirement for the HEA (and the ways in which this restricts the plot in general) is one of the reasons why I don’t get on with Romance as a genre. And genre readers might not like it, but I’d be quite happy to read about two people forming a relationship in book one, and moving in together (or getting married) in book two, and loving each other and strengthening their relationship in the face of adversities such as redundancy or an elderly parent moving in in book three…
No breakup needed. No reset button (from ‘we are madly in love’ to fighting and feeling insecure about what the other person could possibly see and whether it’s the right thing to do). Often I find those stories *much more* interesting – anyone can fall in love and be determined to make the most of that relationship, but watching people hit real roadblocks and working at that relationship and coming up with unique solutions is, for me, much more interesting; and I get that in subplots in mysteries or SF, and not so much in main plots in Romance.
two people forming a relationship in book one, and moving in together (or getting married) in book two, and loving each other and strengthening their relationship in the face of adversities such as redundancy or an elderly parent moving in in book three…
I agree, I’d enjoy that too. [nod] The main roadblock seems to be the way publishers and imprints are set up to only publish books within the same genre as a series. If someone writes a series where the first book is a romance, the second book is a mystery, the third book is women’s fiction, etc., there’s no market for it, although there are readers who like all three genres and would like reading a mixed-genre series about a single couple.
I get that in subplots in mysteries or SF, and not so much in main plots in Romance.
Mysteries can do a lot with subplots. [nod] And what gives SF so much flexibility is that it’s defined by its setting, so you can do whatever you want with the plots of a series of stories and so long as you stay with the SF setting, an SF publisher will be good with it. Romance is defined by its plot, though, which is much more restrictive. I think what it’ll take to do multi-genre with a base of romance is a new publisher willing to overtly mix genres.
Angie
Erastes, I’m sorry, but FALSE COLORS is about as close to absolutely pure romance as it gets. Seriously, that book is the best of the best when it comes to canonical genre romance definitions. If you think that’s not what the best of het romances are doing, you’re reading the wrong ones.
What I don’t like about this conversation–and please understand that I’m ONLY reading m/m and BDSM romances right now, so I’m firmly in your camp–is the het romance bashing going on. Have you (generic you) read the most innovative authors out there nowadays? Meredith Duran? Sherry Thomas? Nalani Singh? Alyssa Day? Suzanne Brockmann? Meljean Brooks? Nora Roberts/JD Robb? Read them, and tell me that they’ve got one definition of what works in a romance. Then show me a m/m book over 100K words. A “series,” sure, but one book?
I don’t think m/m is doing anything really different from the growing pains that het romance has historically undergone. But het did it over…oh, 50 years. M/m has done it in 5. More power to m/m, don’t get me wrong, and I love it, but how much of what you’re complimenting as Exciting! and New! about m/m is a result of market/format forces, rather than real creativity and genre-breaking?
Well both False Colors and Transgressions are over 100,000 words. Standish is 98,000. I could name many others.
I agree, False Colors is a romance, but it’s an adventure too. And yes, I’ve read most of the authors you quote, and I’m not bashing them at all.
I don’t think anyone’s been bashing het romance as a genre. I’m perfectly willing to criticize individual books gone wrong, but my point here, as I said above, wasn’t to suggest that the entire genre needs to change, but merely that I’d like to see something added to it.
I get what you’re saying about a series of short books which could have been (and maybe should have been) published as a single longer one. I’ve gotten a bit eyerolly over that a time or two as well. I don’t necessarily object to a story which is so large it needs multiple volumes, but yeah, when all the volumes are only 20K words, I have to wonder why they didn’t just publish it as a novel and be done with it.
That’s not what I’m talking about here, though. What I’d like to see is a series where the first book (novel length) is a complete romance, but where there are further books which might not be romances by the genre definition (where the main plot is based on overcoming the obstacles standing in the way of the characters forming a stable relationship) but where the two (still in love) characters are going on and doing other things which do involve a coherent plotline, just not a romance plotline. Does that make more sense?
Angie
Then show me a m/m book over 100K words. A “series,” sure, but one book?
I’m a little late to this, but SLOW BLOOM, one of my novels with Anah Crow, is well over 100,000 words. PANDORA PROJECT: RUNAWAY STAR is over 90k. I’m sure there are lots more, but the limiting factor for m/m books is that, in order to go to print, they have to fit within the most profitable range for POD printing, and 100 tends to be past that.
I like my romances as currently defined,
to have a romantic HEA
at the end of each book.
I think trying to squeeze other genres
(women’s fiction, adventure series, etc)
into romance
is an attempt to trick romance readers
and an insult to the REAL genre.
You don’t see Nora Roberts
slapping the romance label
on the spine
of her J.D. Robb books.
Why?
Because she believes in those books enough
not to resort to trickery.
Be proud of what you write!
There are great books
in every genre.
I don’t think it’s an attempt to trick anyone at all– unless it’s the marketing people at the houses who are trying to sell something as what it’s not.
But the writers who are pushing the boundaries and exploring different ways of telling a romance I think are just opening the genre further and making it more and more accessible. I can’t see how that’s an insult.
But romance means that there is a happy ever after (or for now) at the end of the novel.
I recently read a historical romance (romance being what was on the spine) where the first ‘hero’ died and was replaced by a new ‘hero’. To me, that isn’t a romance and I DID feel tricked.
Note: Usually I read both the first chapter and the last chapter in store to ensure it IS a romance but with eBooks, that is difficult.
I’ve read one like that too — The Kadin, by Bertrice Small, back when I was a teenager — and I was definitely annoyed when the first guy died and the girl went on and later met someone else. I’ve enjoyed rereading it since then, though, because once I knew what it actually was — a historical about a woman’s life, with strong romantic subplots, and an excellent example of that — I could enjoy it for that. I agree that books need to be marketed properly, though.
Angie
That’s the thing… if it hadn’t have been marketed as a romance, I would have loved the story. It was very well written, great plots, interesting characters…
But romance brings an expectation of happy. I read it when I need that extra shot of happy and hope.
Unfortunately, I didn’t get it which meant I ate more chocolate than a woman should possibly eat. LOL. Not a good scene.
[Replying to your comment downstream, which won't let me comment on it.]
if it hadn’t have been marketed as a romance, I would have loved the story
Exactly, so why didn’t they market it properly? :/ I really get annoyed when that happens. They probably ended up with a lot of unhappy romance readers who were thinking evil thoughts about the publisher and the author, and they missed an entire audience of people who like
Something made that post when I wasn’t ready. I have no idea what. [mutter]
Anyway, as I was saying, they missed an entire audience of people who like historicals or women’s fiction or whatever it was, but who don’t read straight-up romances and didn’t buy this book they would have enjoyed if only they’d known it was something they’d have liked. You have to wonder what people are thinking sometimes.
Angie
But see, Kimber, for example, in the manuscripts I described in my original answer to Angie, I had the HEA– all three of those books had the HEA. It was how the first one, in particular, got there, that proved to be the problem. “Too real,” was I believe the comment used most frequently by editors in turning it down. But for me, watering down the “too real” incident would have lessened the impact of the overall conflict and wouldn’t have made the reconciliation and eventual HEA as satisfying. *shrug* So it stays under the bed, HEA and all.
Ahhh… as a writer, I’ve heard the ‘too real’ comment also (but more about my characters, especially heroes and heroines, being too real as in ethics challenged).
As a reader, I don’t really like the ‘perfect’ ending where everything works out wonderfully for every single character in the book. I find that too fake. I do like a moment (if only a moment) of bliss for the hero and heroine though and the hope that they will have more moments to come. After all the writer puts them through, I think they deserve that. LOL
I suspect that the unwillingness of publishers and some (though by no means all) readers to accept books that violate certain genre taboos is more limiting to the romance genre than the requirement of a happy ending. I’m thinking of taboos such as the fact that the hero/heroine is not allowed to have a sexual encounter with someone else after meeting their future one true love, even if the couple are not yet together or in love. Or that no romance heroine is allowed to feel ambivalent about an unplanned pregnancy, even though it would make her eventual coming to want and love her child that much more poignant. Or that it is still difficult to find romance heroes which do not fit the studly alpha male stereotype or heroines which are not morally perfect.
Love can be very messy in real life and it would be nice to see the occasional romance novel reflecting that messiness.
Cora below, since I can’t reply directly under her comment — I’m thinking of taboos such as the fact that the hero/heroine is not allowed to have a sexual encounter with someone else after meeting their future one true love, even if the couple are not yet together or in love. Or that no romance heroine is allowed to feel ambivalent about an unplanned pregnancy, even though it would make her eventual coming to want and love her child that much more poignant. Or that it is still difficult to find romance heroes which do not fit the studly alpha male stereotype or heroines which are not morally perfect.
I agree, absolutely. [nodnod] I’ve seen most of those things done in romances from other genres, and they can work wonderfully well. Kate Elliot’s Jaran, for example, is an SF novel but swept through the romance community when it came out, to great acclaim. But the Guy and the Girl meet, don’t get together right away, and the Girl has a couple of other lovers, then she and the Guy get together (and get married) later on. It’s an awesome book, but there were a few people on the boards who refused to even try it when they heard about that part. Their loss IMO, but there you go.
And I’m particularly sick of the alpha hero thing. Yes, they can be very cool if done right. (Which they aren’t always. [cough]) But there are other kinds of guys who are perfectly cool and romantic. Some variety please? [sigh] I’m not saying get rid of the alpha hero (or any of the other tropes or character types you mentioned) but simply allowing for variety if the writer chooses to do something different.
But yes, there are so many ways of writing a really good romance which are closed to genre romance writers. It’s very frustrating. Luckily, m/m doesn’t have most of those barriers. (Yet. [crossed fingers]) I think there are some real opportunities, too, for a smaller publisher to break through some of those roadblocks. Keep the HEA — I agree that a happy, stable relationship, or at least a promise of it, is an integral part of the genre romance definition — but pretty much anything else you mentioned I’d happily trash as a hard-and-fast rule.
Angie
Replying to Angela, even though the software does not let me do it directly.
All genres have their peculiar hang-ups and taboos that make little sense to outsiders, e.g. the screeching of certain SFF fans at even the slightest hint of romance or – gasp – sex or mystery readers being up in arms over the death of a cat, never mind that five people die in the same book.
But hanging out on romance fora, I am often struck by how many readers confuse their personal likes and dislikes (no sexually experienced heroines, no non-alpha heroes, the hero must be an aristocrat or at least rich, the hero and heroine not even daring to look at anyone else, no one finding true love with the brother/sister of someone they previously dated) with absolute genre taboos. It’s okay for readers to have individual likes and dislikes. There are certain themes, settings, tropes, etc… that I will not read either, regardless how highly acclaimed the book is. But it’s when these individual likes and dislikes turn into prescriptions for the entire genre that the problem starts.
M/M romance or same sex romance in general does make it easier to avoid some of the problematic power issues connected with gender relations that occasionally plague the romance genre, e.g. the domineering and downright violent alpha jerk and his sweet little doormat heroine, which is a trope that drives me up the wall.
Replying to Cora — I am often struck by how many readers confuse their personal likes and dislikes (no sexually experienced heroines, no non-alpha heroes, the hero must be an aristocrat or at least rich, the hero and heroine not even daring to look at anyone else, no one finding true love with the brother/sister of someone they previously dated) with absolute genre taboos.
I agree that it’s annoying when some group of readers mistakes their personal preferences for genre boundaries, but what’s really annoying is when the publishers start doing it. :/ You get enough people complaining about, say, a guy who’s not ridiculously wealthy, whether by snail mail or e-mail or on forums or blogs, and eventually the publishers just won’t take a manuscript with a middle-class guy, much less a poor one. It’s like telling all the poor people in the world, “Sorry, you’ll never ever be happy or find love and we all know it, so shut up and fantasize about money like the rest of us.”
There are some tropes and settings and character types I don’t care for either, but the full range of variety should be available whether I personally like all of it or not, so that other people whose tastes are different from mine can read what they like. And I don’t get why everyone doesn’t get that.
e.g. the domineering and downright violent alpha jerk and his sweet little doormat heroine
One can find that in m/m too, with the doormat being the cute little twink-boy. It’s not as common as it is on the het side, though, so I don’t have a problem with it. Again — variety, even if it’s not to my personal taste.
I absolutely agree about the lack of gender issues, though. Fallout from the gender wars is all but impossible to avoid with het relationships. One of the reasons I like writing m/m is being able to get out from under all that.
Angie
I don’t really think it’s trickery, either. I think it’s more a case of wanting to combine genres because it’s fun, and because it gives you more and meatier plots to work with.
Personally, I much prefer to have something more mixed in with my romance. A lot of the tried and true romance plot lines are boring to me
Elle Parker
http://elleparkerbooks.blogspot.com/
For me, the only defining part of romance is a convincing happy ever after between two (or more) individuals (human, vampire, badger, alien, whatever).
I am buying the happy. That’s what I’m plunking my cash down for. Take away the happy ending and it isn’t a romance.
I think that leaves plenty of room for creative storylines.
And if authors don’t think it does, then simply call it something else. People DO read other genres. The book doesn’t need to have romance on the spine.
See, whereas I can respect the traditional HEA ending…that’s just not the end all/be all of romance for me personally.
I love to read the continuing stories of couples that I’ve enjoyed, and I find it very satisfying to read stories of ongoing romance rather than always starting a book with the couple just meeting.
Perhaps there needs to be a kind of subgenre of romance that meets this need with interfereing with those who love their traditional romance format.
And I think we actually agree on the HEA aspect – I like a good happy conclusion to a story, too. I just don’t need the story to have followed that usual format.
Elle Parker
http://elleparkerbooks.blogspot.com/
Oh, the couples don’t have to just meet for me to consider it romance. There are some great reconciliation romances or reconnecting romances out there.
Hhhmmm… I smell a topic for a blog post.
‘Course you can only have couples split up so often before you question whether they’ll EVER get along.
I think trying to squeeze other genres (women’s fiction, adventure series, etc)
into romance is an attempt to trick romance readers and an insult to the REAL genre.
I don’t know about insult, but I agree that if a book isn’t a romance it shouldn’t be labelled that way. I get annoyed over mislabellings of various kinds too, and am with you on that.
What I’m talking about is the ability to mix genres within a series of books. So you’d have Book One be a romance, with an HEA, and then further books wouldn’t be romances (in that the couple wouldn’t break up and have to be dragged back together) but rather are going along still enjoying their relationship and being in love but doing other things, having other adventures, etc.
If you wouldn’t be into that sort of thing, that’s fine. But so long as it was clear exactly what was going on with the subsequent books, you could just read the initial romance, enjoy the HEA and then move on to something else. I’m not saying the whole genre should change; I enjoy straight genre romance too.
Angie
I think those type of series (starting as a romance with the first book and then ending up as women’s fiction or mystery or…) have a marketing challenge more than anything else.
You’d want the entire series to be shelved and marketed together so you’d likely put the women’s fiction label on it. But then, that doesn’t really serve the first book, does it?
It’d be challenging.
Definitely a marketing challenge. [nod] In a brick-and-mortar store, I think it’d need to be shelved in whatever section the first book was. So if the first book was a romance, it’d need to go in the romance section. If the later books were properly labelled — or if not actually a LABEL then at least if you could tell from the blurb on the back cover that this particular book doesn’t have a romance plot, that the couple is still together and happy but they’re up against some outside obstacle this time — then that’d let folks know what they’re looking at before they buy.
Ideally there’d be a set in each relevant section of the store, but we all know how likely that is. [cough] This is the kind of concept for which online retail was made, or at least has the potential to serve perfectly. The series as a whole could be tagged with as many genre labels as are relevant (Romance, Mystery, Women’s Fiction, Adventure, etc.) so they’d come up whenever someone did a search on those genres.
And again, the trick to making this work is to make it plain in the description text on each book’s page that this is a multi-genre series, so no reader feels like they’ve been lied to, or sold carrots when they thought they were buying oranges.
Angie
I think ongoing romances are more common in urban fantasy these days. Eileen Wilks’ series is a good example.
Right, if you go to other genres which are defined by their setting (SF, fantasy, urban fantasy) you have more flexibility with the plots than you do with a romance, which is defined specifically by its plot. And even in other plot-defined genres, such as mystery, you can do a lot of different things with the subplots. And multi-book arcs for the romance subplot are getting more and more common in other genres, for which I’m definitely grateful.
I’d love to see a series, though, where the first book is a genre romance, but where there’s more to the story after that, without having to break the couple up over and over.
Angie
On occasion, I also like seeing love stories unfolding more slowly than the framework of the standard genre romance allows for.
Urban fantasy offers quite a few series of that sort, which do have a happy ending (or will hopefully have one, if the series isn’t yet finished), even though it may take a few books to get there, e.g. Rachel Caine’s Weather Warden series, Shanna Swendson’s Enchanted Inc., Lilith Saintcrow’s Dante Valentine series, Colleen Gleason’s Gardella Vampire chronicles, Jeaniene Frost’s Grave series, Patricia Briggs’ Mercy Thompson and Alpha and Omega books, etc…
I enjoy such series quite a bit, often more than those romance series which feature a new couple every book. Because those families with lots of siblings, groups of friends who met at boarding school, brotherhood of vampire hunters, etc… can feel rather contrived, especially if the group keeps on expanding.
Urban fantasy and mystery offer series with continuing relationships, though it would be nice to see something of that sort e.g. in contemporary or historical romances as well. Besides, there are a lot of challenges that could face a couple beyond the happy ending such as dealing with living together, having children, etc…, which could be explored in continuing books.
I like both kinds — and I’m particularly fond of a certain series centered on a bunch of boys who met at boarding school
— but that’s exactly my point, that there are people who like both kinds and it’d be nice to have more variety available.
Series from other genres do tend to progress more slowly on their romantic subplots, but at the same time they’re often not that romantic, to someone who’s used to reading straight-up romance. Not all of them — some are very nice — but they are subplots and the ones I’ve seen have often been much more low-key than I’d prefer.
Besides, there are a lot of challenges that could face a couple beyond the happy ending such as dealing with living together, having children, etc…, which could be explored in continuing books.
Exactly. [nod] One can come up with a lot of valid and interesting plots which could involve people who’ve already had their HEA.
Angie
Well, I was an SFF reader before I was a romance reader, hence the slower progression of the romantic subplots in certain urban fantasy series suits me just fine.
I was an SFF reader before I was a romance reader
Me too, and I agree that it seems to make a difference in expectations and tolerances.
Angie
Patricia Briggs has her Mercy Thompson character in a slowly progressing romance with Adam.
Not a romance but a mystery – Sue Grafton has had her character Kinsey Milhone have several romances that carried over multiple books. Sometimes she won’t mention love interest for several books, or will only be a single line or two.
I like Patricia’s style, I’m not so thrilled with Sue’s but that’s because I prefer the romance aspect rather than the mystery, LOL.
I’d heard of the Mercy Thompson books but haven’t tried them — I just added the first to my Wish List, though, so thanks for the rec.
There are a lot of series in other genres with romantic subplots, and I enjoy those very much. I’d like to see an ongoing series with a strong romance foundation, though, and that’s much more rare in other genres.
Angie
What Kimber said about Nora Roberts.
Let Romance be Romance.
I do enjoy watching the slow unfolding of a relationship over multiple books. That kind of subplot seems to work particularly well in mysteries, from Sayers’ Harriet Vane and Lord Peter to Lindsey Davis’s Falco series and Anne Perry’s Monk books. But the romance in those books, however important or satisfying, is a subplot, not the plot. The books still have a satisfying resolution because the conventions of the plot structure are met : the mystery is solved.
For a romance to have an emotionally satisfying resolution, the plot structure has to be honored. The romantic arc and the individuals’ character arcs have to come together in such a way that each are irrevocably changed, whether that change results in marriage-and-children or not.
Right, I like series from other genres with a strong romantic subplot too. [nod]
I think it’d be fun to see an ongoing series with a basis in romance, though, but where we get to see the characters having other adventures after they’ve established their HEA. I’m not talking about breaking them up and having one of the characters wander off to solve a mystery or whatever. Nor am I talking about labelling a mystery without a romantic story arc as a romance. But rather, I’d like to see a series in which the first book is a romance — by all genre definitions including an HEA — but where subsequent books can be of other genres. That kind of mixed-genre series is what you really don’t see, and it’s not because they wouldn’t be good reads but rather because publishing isn’t set up that way. I think there’s a market for a small publisher to offer mixed-genre series; not every romance reader would enjoy them, but clearly just from the comments here, there’s a group who would.
Angie
I hear what you’re saying, but I actually like books in which we briefly revisit the old characters but the focus is on a different couple. I find that spending too much time with a happy couple is, well, kind of boring. And a contrived break-up is pretty annoying.
Brockmann is the exception. I love when she brings back old characters to the Troubleshooters series and I’m eagerly awaiting the Sam/Alyssa book that’s coming out this summer. Her books always have another romance going on, though, so the book fulfills both needs, and I think she gets the balance of bringing back old characters vs. showing us the new romance just right.
I actually like books in which we briefly revisit the old characters but the focus is on a different couple.
I like those too, and I’m not suggesting we should get rid of anything which already exists. What I’m suggesting is that it’d be cool if someone could publish a mixed-genre series in addition to all the usual romance story types and subgenres. I’m not trying to strong-arm anyone into reading anything they don’t want to, but rather add something new and different for folks who’d enjoy it. I’m all about variety — giving everyone the kind of books (or series) they want to read. There’s no reason to subtract anything. [nod]
Angie
Can’t say I’d be interested in reading about a couple, for a couple more books, after the initial HEA. What I enjoy in romance is the purposefulness of watching people falling in love. Of wondering, along with the heroine: Does he feel that way about me too? Because it mimics the excitement of falling in love (so I can, you know, stay faithful to my husband while vicariously enjoying that feeling again!)
For that reason I enjoy romances when they’re a subplot in other genres (Minette Walters mysteries, Sharon Shinn’s fantasies.) Because it’s a subplot, you get less Inner Monologue About Oh How I Love Him/Her, and more romantic suspense. That’s even why Heyer is still my fave romance author.
(But that’s just personal preference, and not a criticism of books that are REALLY focused on the couple’s budding feelings, and spend a lot of time exploring those feelings.)
Can’t say I’d be interested in reading about a couple, for a couple more books, after the initial HEA.
That’s cool. [nod] There are times when one book — romance plot, resolution, HEA — is enough for me too. There are other times, though, when I really fall in love with the characters and would love to hang out with them some more, but I don’t want to see them breaking up or fighting over something silly. Leave them in love but give them other obstacles to overcome — an external plotline with problems they can tackle together.
That’s not a romance, though, so the romance publishers won’t take it. It’d be great if a publisher could publish mixed-genre series (maybe a new line?) so they could publish books which are technically different genres as a single series.
I enjoy romances when they’re a subplot in other genres
I do too. [nod again] But sometimes I’d like to read a series where the foundation is a genre romance — with the main plot being focused on overcoming obstacles to establish a stable romantic relationship — before going off to do other things, rather than having the romance itself strung along as subplots beneath other, larger stories. I like both kinds, and right now you can only find the second.
Angie
H’mmm. You know, the only well known series that comes to mind that (mostly) fills that criteria is Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander series, although I can think of a m/m/f shapeshifter series that does, but the focus is erotica rather than romance. (Blanking on the author right now, sorry.) There’s also Bujold’s Sharing Knife quartet, which is labelled fantasy, yet could equally be the tale of a relationship in four parts.
It’s interesting. Is it just genre convention? Reader preference? Publication requirements? Or are our modern tastes just trained to expect the resolution at the end of the novel?
I’m thinking of what would actually have to be done to carry it off. You’d almost have to have some form of external conflict to make it work over a series without descending into soap opera type drama, which why I guess mysteries and sf / f dominate this area.
I suspect it would end up being more what your average reader would call women’s fiction or a romantic saga than a romance novel series.
Well, it depends which way you wanted to go.
My original idea was to have the romance wrap up in the first book, but then continue the rest of the series as further adventures with the same two characters, still in love. These later books wouldn’t be romances, since the main plotline wouldn’t be focused on whether or not they’ll successfully establish a stable romantic relationship; they’ve already got that, left over from the first book. Later books would be adventures or mysteries or whatever. That’d be really hard to market because each book would be a different genre, or at least the later books would be a different genre from the first, if the first is a romance. Publishers don’t like releasing books in different genres in the same series. Many publishers (or their imprints) don’t publish books in different genres at all. So that’s a marketing issue, and a problem with the way the industry divides up the business.
The second way is to have an over-all story which is a romance, but have it take more than one book to resolve. Each book would (or should — I’ve certainly run into counterexamples) have its own self-contained plot arc, but would also contribute to the larger romantic plot over the course of the series. There’s no reason this format couldn’t be published by an established romance press, but it’d have to be very clear that the romance will take multiple books to resolve. More clear than having the woman’s name in the titles of all the books, since as Donna Lea Simpson mentioned above, that’s not necessarily enough of a clue. [wry smile]
And yes, the Sharing Knife series is wonderful. But then, everything Bujold writes is wonderful, so there you go.
Angie
Danielle
My theory is that the re-classification of the Outlander books had more to do with her publisher wanting to reach a larger audience than with anyone thinking they were less romance than they’d been before. After all, the books haven’t changed, but their popularity was kind of insane and it’s no shock that with all that money falling out of the sky, the publisher wanted to grab a bigger net to catch it with.
Angie
Actually, the reclassification had more to do with her and the fact that she felt she would reach a wider audience shelved in general fiction because there were a lot of historical fiction and even suspense/mystery readers who had no idea to look for her in romance (a theory supported by my husband when he worked at Barnes and Noble– he said there wasn’t any author who more people came in looking for who were then surprised to find in romance than Gabaldon).
The reason she was shelved in romance in the first place was because her publisher had no idea where to shelve the first book– it had the elements of paranormal and historical fiction and romance and suspense. Basically, they decided that since the element that had the most impact was the overwhelming love story between Claire and Jamie and hence, the romance tag/classification. She’s been quoted as saying that she has nothing against romance (in theory) but that her books really aren’t romances. Which is true– by the definitions of the genre that so many people so slavishly adhere to, no, she’s not writing romances.