please clarify
Finally got that ‘redefining romance’ email everyone’s been talking about from RWA. And I’d like to be able to answer some of the questions they ask coherently and rationally. But first, someone please explain to me what they mean when they ask if we’re becoming women’s fiction writers?
Am I the only one confused by this question? Because that’s entirely possible.
What is a women’s fiction writer - a woman who writes fiction or a writer who writes fiction about women?
Here I thought I was a career-focused romance writer, one who wrote military romantic adventure. Seriously, does that not count as romance? Should it not count? Because there’s lots of romance in my books. Lots of HEA’s for everyone, once the dust settles.
And what’s a mainstream novel with strong romantic elements? Is that the whole 70/30 suspense/romance mix people keep talking about? Are Bombshells not considered romance, even though they’re published by a leading romance publisher? Is a Bombshell a romance if there’s a HEA? Are MIRA’s not really romance? Have erotica, chick-lit and action-adventure really caused this much confusion? Where have I been?
Make the pain stop. 
Someone focus me, please. I just need a starting point.
Steph T.
January 31st, 2005 at 9:42 pm
Sorry, Steph, can’t help ya. Still trying to figure out what *I* write! Haven’t got the email yet. Maybe I should go check.
February 1st, 2005 at 4:38 am
I actually think that from here, the picture is clearer and easy to see because those romances we get from the US don’t really exist over here in the UK [British Mills & Boon authors is a minority over here].
So, I don’t agree with the idea that romance authors are authors of women’s fiction, e.g. the focus of a WF story is female but the story itself is filed under “anything goes”, including falling in love with two men [on separate occasions!], etc. Jennifer Crusie is the nearest thing to Women’s Fiction, but not quite. Her books are still ‘Romance’, as opposite to romantic fiction.
Chick Lit is not supposed to be a branch of Romance. Never meant to be, not for British Chick Lit, anyway. It’s a branch of Comedy.
Harlequin makes it clear that Silhouette Bombshell novels AREN’T romance, so I suppose we should rule that line out. Oh, this is getting long, so I’ll shut up. :)
February 1st, 2005 at 7:18 am
LOL, Linda!
And Maili - make it as long as you want, cause I need help :) And the women’s fic example helped me tons, because I guess I always tended to see ‘anything goes’ as more of a chick lit phenom., and I tend to separate chick lit in my brain, for some reason, as chick lit (BJ Diary) & romatic chick lit (Jen Cruise, old flipside line, etc). As for Bombshell, I think the problem I’m having is that the guidenlines talk about a strong romantic sublot and a HEA, although it doesn’t have to be a marriage, per say. It becomes like those romantic suspense novels that are much heavier on the suspense, but still labeled romance. *sigh*
And then I looked on the spine of a couple of Suz Bock’s mass markets (SEAL books, non-category) - they were just labeled Contemp. Romance. That I don’t get at all.
February 1st, 2005 at 7:29 am
LOVE the smiley!!
I haven’t got the email yet either. And hoenstly, I’m not sure I want it. I’ll be banging my head right along side you.
February 1st, 2005 at 7:43 am
Sasha - I got it forwarded to me from my local RWA chapter, but they’re asking for feedback, so I’m just assuming they’re going to get it to all members.
And I forgot to mention the books that are supposed to be causing the most uproar (altho, not for me). For some reason, I tend to see erotica as the easiest of all of the above mentioned to define as romance, becuase I always equate sex with romance, even if it’s not always ‘romantic.’
Maybe, if RWA lived inside my mind, they wouldn’t have these problems.
Then again, I write romantic adventure (you sure about that, Larissa?) So what the heck do I know?
February 1st, 2005 at 8:03 am
I haven’t seen this email yet either, but I’m pretty sure it’ll make my head hurt. I’m also sure the answer RWA will end up with will be politically-derived rather than anything that actually makes sense!
February 1st, 2005 at 8:35 am
This topic makes my head hurt. Seems to me that there’s no need to “define romance.” It’s been defined. Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets the girl back, HEA. And the boy getting girl stuff has to be the focus of the book, though there can be subplots.
I’m probably going to get slammed for this, but IMO, a lot of erotica isn’t romance. ROMANTICA, yes. Erotica…not so much. I think the problem there is that erotica has such a broad definition. For example, I do consider a lot of LSB’s and EC’s stuff to be romance. However, I don’t consider Anne Rice’s “Beauty” erotica romance AT ALL.
So I think a lot of RWA’s problem in defining romance comes, as Sasha says from the growing popularity of erotica. I’d be willing to bet that if publishers of erotica and romantica divided their titles into “lines” like H/S so that the more romantic stuff was more easily accessed, a lot of this issue would fall away.
Maybe. Then again, my head is sore from that wall, too! LOL
February 1st, 2005 at 8:36 am
Oops, Steph said that, not Sasha!
February 1st, 2005 at 11:35 am
It makes my head hurt esp after reading the discussion on one list about it. Personally I do consider chick lit women’s fiction but not necessarily romance. Mainstream WRE is damned vague.
It’s the RWA definition of romance that’s at steak (stake?) as well as how they define themselves. I agree w/suzanne…when all is said and done the solution will have a political basis. Traditional romance writers like the ones SAsha posted about that are threatened by romantica and erotica are the ones who’ll make the biggest stink. But if they narrow the definition of romance, what happens to chapters like the chick lit chapter because chick lit isn’t romance.
Enough stalling. It’s time to go work on my women’s fiction lit WIP with romantic elements and a pseudo-chicklitty voice
8-P
February 1st, 2005 at 3:08 pm
I agree with Larissa. (R U surprised?) A lot of erotica is NOT romance. And a lot of chick-lit is not romance. I think the confusion comes from the fact that the people that write these genres are members of RWA and targeting publishers that are traditional romance publishers that will buy “a good story”.
And the fact that if you put the word erotic in front of romance onthe books llabel it directly affects the sales numbers.
Maybe they shoudl just call it ALL romance. but get a rating system going for sensuality and action. Liek the movies. PG_ 13 for ‘romantic’ love scenes, NC-17 for murder and deaths/gunfights, or X rated for sexual explicitness.
RWA is the biggest writers group for any type of fiction geared towards women, so we become members. One of the best things about RWA is the contests and feedback. So these authors are also trying to get some of that. Then when they are judged by traditional romance writers, they say it’s unfair because what they write isn’t traditional romance. It’s a vicious circle.