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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.