Part of the barrier, of course, is the expectations of each genre. A romance author is expected to concentrate on the relationship and sex, which leaves very little room for worldbuilding. I have a psychic contemporary I'd love to write, with an entire world of people there for a very specific reason. But to sell it to romance, I'd have to leave out most of that groundwork and concentrate on the relationships. To do urban fantasy, I'd have to build nasty monsters and cut back on relationships. Just writing it the way I want to write it doesn't work for marketing. We need to break down more genre walls.

This is the issue I’ll be facing with a multi-volume story I’m working on — and I can’t say I’m looking forward to that challenge. When folks ask what genre my story is, I honestly cannot answer that in a single word. Nor am I willing to compromise the story for the sake of easier pigeon-holing.

Is there a classification for bildungsroman-fantasy-adventure-love story?

In romance, IMO, we’ve become slightly jaded. Our readership is huge. Publisher demands are often more for quantity than quality. And for years we’ve been getting by on skimming the surface. The UF authors had to beat down huge walls with their talents to get where they are. As their popularity increases, you’ll probably start seeing the same problems there as in romance, so the circle will come around.

Part of the barrier, of course, is the expectations of each genre. A romance author is expected to concentrate on the relationship and sex, which leaves very little room for worldbuilding. I have a psychic contemporary I’d love to write, with an entire world of people there for a very specific reason. But to sell it to romance, I’d have to leave out most of that groundwork and concentrate on the relationships. To do urban fantasy, I’d have to build nasty monsters and cut back on relationships. Just writing it the way I want to write it doesn’t work for marketing. We need to break down more genre walls.

I'm suspecting that it's all about which publishing line an author is contracted to. If you're contracted to a SFF label, the book will end up in SFF. IF you're contracted to a romance label, the book will end up in romance. Am I right?

I think that’s actually supposed to be due to the Library of Congress’ genre classifications, but it seems like these days, well, not so much.

I’m actually reading a Linnea Sinclair book because I enjoyed Ann Aguirre’s Grimspace so much. I figured I’d give this whole “romantic” science fiction a try. Yet whereas Grimspace was definitely a sci fi novel with a relationship, Sinclair’s book is a romance novel with spaceships and laser rifles. But they’re both classified and shelved as science fiction. Go figure.

We’re now frequently seeing books in the romance section without HEA’s – and sometimes even without development of a romance within the book (mostly urban fantasy/paranormal series). And, on the other hand, authors like Linea Sinclair who do tend to heavily feature romance and HEAs are shelved in SFF instead of romance.

I’m suspecting that it’s all about which publishing line an author is contracted to. If you’re contracted to a SFF label, the book will end up in SFF. IF you’re contracted to a romance label, the book will end up in romance. Am I right?

Followed by Mercedes Lacking

Cripes, that should have been Mercedes LACKEY

What I really enjoy, in all of my books, is when the author uses the setting to create the conflict. I.e., when the background is fully integrated into the emotional arc. Judith Ivory was really a master at doing this, taking cultural mores and creating emotional conflict from that. It’s the essence, I think, of the duke/governness pairing or the demon/angel pairing. But to truly capture the tension that those pairings naturally give rise to requires, as Jan says, a thinking about the repercussions of each element that the writer chooses to insert into the story. I think of this as conscious writing, when a writer is fully aware of the word choices and makes conscious decisions as to the portrayal of a particular character from the rhythm of the dialect to the type of attire to the character’s mannerisms.

All of those are part of the setting, I think, that makes a story rich and real. The more conscious the decisions, the more thoughtful, the more I think that the book will come alive.

But I will admit, I’m missing some of the romance aspects. I loved Patricia Brigg’s “Iron Kissed”, but I have to say I was majorly frustrated with how the romantic relationship was resolved – mostly off-screen! I’m certainly not looking for LHK-inspired sex on every other page, but sheesh!

I do find it interesting, though, that my interest in historical (generally Regency) romance has increased at the same time as my interest in urban fantasy. I never really thought about how there’s as much world building in historicals than in fantasy!

It was Bunnicula that did it. That evil little bunny. Followed by Mercedes Lacking in Children of the Night. Then her Valdemar books… But I strayed to romance. Now I happily indulge in both.

don't label it SF romance and then do not deliver a HEA

The problem is the publishers, not the authors. I don’t consider my stories ‘traditional romances’ or ‘urban fantasies’ or anything of that kind. I just write about people, build my worlds, spin my ideas. Then I submit to publishers who go, okay, there’s a relationship between guys, no one dies in the end, must be a gay romance. It’s got telepaths and empaths and telekinetics, must be paranormal. And then I’d end up fighting for shelf space with werewolves and vampires screwing each other up and down New York City.

I love HEA. Almost all my stories have HEA. Are the stories romantic? Hell yes. But I’m just as fascinated by the societies I create and the impact of the superpowers I give my characters. I don’t just want people to read them for the romance. I don’t want people reading just for the sexual content. I want people to find the entire package satisfying and I don’t want to adhere to some rigid idea of what is expected in a particular genre. But then most of my writing’s not intended for publication so I have the luxury of ignoring labels :)

I’ve been getting more and more concerned about the labeling of anything with even the smallest bit of romantic elements or a barely there relationship as ‘romance’.

Obviously, more than 50% of mass market sold is romance, so the temptation of labeling things as ‘romance’ or ‘romantic’ is attractive to the marketing morons because the idea is that they can lure in all those tasty romance reader dollars. And because romance readers read widely for some of us that will not be a problem, or not much of one.

However, you knew there had to be one, that’s not true for all of us and I think there might be a backlash after all while. Something to do with truth in advertising, creating expectations and then not fulfilling them.

One thing that *really* concerns me is that I have lately seen quite a bit of variety in the definition of ‘romance’ and quite a few folks stating emphatically that only Harlequin romance novels are required to have a HEA/HFN. To which I went huh? I’ve read romance novels for over 25 years and I do not know any long time reader of the genre who does not equate the romance label with HEA (or possibly HFN in erotic romance).

I really wish people wouldn’t label everything ‘romance’ just to make a quick buck.

I have less of a problem with using ‘romantic’ because I’m smart enough to understand that romantic SF might have a HEA or might not, because the emphasis will probably be on the SF, but don’t label it SF romance and then do not deliver a HEA.

I like the historical fantasy novels. Mercedes Lackeys and Roberta Gellis have their Elizabethan fantasy series. One of the best books that I don’t hear any buzz about is Patricia Wrede’s Sorcery and Cecelia or the Enchanted Chocolate Pot. It is awesome-imagine Regency England with magic. It takes place between two cousins/friends who write letters to each other.

[The] balance between fantasy and reality is the part that has to work for the reader, and doesn't always.

This is exactly the premise I held when I outlined my medieval fantasy romance, THE KING’S DAUGHTER. I was compelled to create a world that was historically accurate but also woven with recorded myth. To be further accurate, I decided not to use words beyond Middle English unless spelling or phrasing might confuse a reader.

I began by researching society in Ireland at the time of the novel, 997 AD and discovered Brehon law. I came to admire the Brehon principles, devised many centuries before the era of the book and knew they played a valid role in my world building.

Beyond scouring old maps and reading about shelters, food, clothing and clans, I delved into herbs and potions, trees and names of the months as they were in that place and time. I attempted to remain as true to history as possible while creating a world according to my imagination.

As The King's Daughter is based on the luscious myth and glorious chronicles of Ireland, I therefore mentioned in my author’s note the main resources and acknowledged many historical facts were invaluable in creating my tale.

I admit, I still have yet to see a real cohesiveness as to what is termed “romantic” (as an example, Moira J. Moore’s Resenting the Hero was termed a romantic fantasy, which is so inaccurate it’s not even funny–try satire, marketing peeps). But seeing this, I’m way less worried now. In fact, I’m kind of jealous of the romance genre. Readers of the fantasy genre can be very…well, closed-minded, as something a fellow reviewer of mine said today evidenced.

It seems that the people here, who have made the cross-over (either from romance to fantasy or vice versa) care about their genres. They don’t want them to get stagnant. So my apologies…it seems I’ve really underestimated you all.