DISCLAIMER: The following opinion letter WILL contain spoilers for Cameron Dean’s Candace Steele series. The post may contain cursing, negative statements toward the author, the publisher and basically the world. If you don’t like mean statements, I suggest not reading on. I’ve done all I can do to tell you not to read this post. You have been warned.
I read my ebooks on a fairly expensive electronic device. Even if I have read a wall banger, generally, I have been able to control my impulses. At the end of reading the final book in the trilogy, Eternal Hunger, I threw the IPAQ across the bed where it slid off and landed on the floor. Unfortunately, when I went to pick it up, it didn’t turn on. I had to unscrew the device and place a piece of scotch tape inside because I had broken some small plastic piece during the tantrum.
Between October and December, Ballantine released the Candace Steele trilogy. The series has “paranormal romance” on the spine, is designated as a romance in the bookstore computers, and is shelved in the romance section. The books were about Candace Steele, a vampire hunter, who does not want eternal life and the fact that her true love, Ash, is a vampire with eternal life. The first story wasn’t bad, the second story a bit dull, the third one a take off of Laurell K Hamilton’s books by ensuring that the sex to plot ratio is about 2 to 1. (I think out of the 20 chapters, 10 of them were sex scenes). The reader even gets the obligatory LKH orgy because no good vampire hunting series is complete without the orgy.
And the end of this romance series? The fine resolution to the conflict between true love and the desire to remain human? Ash dies. That’s right. My fingers didn’t stumble on the keyboard. The author kills off the true love of the heroine and has Candace hook up with her cop friend, all in the last two chapters of the final entry of the trilogy.
WTF? This is a romance? I slogged through three tepid books to find out the resolution of the conflict is to kill off the vampire hero? I kept thinking as Candace Steele engaged in various relationships with men other than Ash that - huh, this doesn’t sound like a romance but I will hang on. After all, the spine of the book says romance. Ballantine says this is a romance. It must be a romance right? I can live through the multiple partners and the separation so long as the hero and heroine end up together. Because that is the definition of happy ever after, right?
You market the book as a romance but kill off the hero at the end of the trilogy? What is the point of marketing this to romance readers? Put the stupid book in the sci fi/fantasy section. Shelve the book with Kelley Armstrong and Kim Harrison. If the book is good enough, it will reach the romance readers. Don’t market a book where you fucking kill off the hero as a romance because it will seriously piss me off and not just me. Look at the unhappy ladies at Amazon who are returning their books. (Oh, if only I had that option).
After reading Paula Guran’s blogpost yesterday about the new Paranormal Romance anthology that Juno Press is putting out (Juno Press is also the house that bought the Gail Dayton book) and Shannon McKelden’s post at Romancing the Blog, I started wondering who it is that wants romance redefined.
I listened to the podcast of an interview with Paula Guran of Juno Books and Elizabeth Bear about paranormal romances.* The interviewer must not read alot of romances because she starts out by saying that paranormal romance is ignored by two genres. (had to stop the podcast there because I was loudly saying WTF and missed the next part). The interviewer sees the paranormal romances occassionally in the Sci Fi section, but there is no separate section in the romance section. Again, WTF. There is no contemporary or historical sub sections. Its hardcover, trades, and then the rest are thrown together. That’s the purpose of the cover.
Back to Juno Books, the submission guidelines are as follows:
Some might call our books “paranormal romance”, but don’t let either word frighten you off. “Paranormal” really means “beyond the ordinary” and “romance” is defined as “an exciting and/or mysterious quality as of a heroic time or adventure” as well as “a story dealing with love”.
Doesn’t sound like a romance to me. Ms. Guran acknowledges that not all the Juno books will be romances in the traditional “category” “formulaic” sense. (her words). The interviewer suggests that the romances of old are exactly that - old and outdated. Romances featuring the bond mate or the one girl/one guy ending up happily together are not representative of life today. The three agreed that romances tend to revolve around the question “Do I go with him and live with him in fairyland or do I stay here and be sad.” and that “People don’t think that way anymore - that committing to a life with single man is the only way to find happiness. So you can have lots of different happy endings.” That’s true, but that does not mean that those books are romances.
I hear no clamor from romance readers saying, “boy I really wish there were more books where the hero and heroine don’t end up together. I really love those books.” or “I love it when the main couple, after a couple of books, end up with one dead. That really tickles my HEA jones.” Why doesn’t Harlequin put out a line that is Happily Ever After Alone, seeking romances where the relationship ends with at least one character dead or the two characters parting ways - going their own paths.
Sarah Frantz of Teach Me Tonight didn’t read Barbara Samuel’s The Black Angel because based upon the storyline and the surrounding historical events, the couple only have 14 years of happiness together. I never read Stephanie Lauren’s Promise in a Kiss because I knew that not only would the hero die but he would also cheat on the heroine and present her with a bastard to raise.
It’s not really that happy endings are the sole province of romances. How happy would readers be if Temeraire got killed off at the end of Black Powder War? Would Novik sell lots more of that series? How about if at the end of the whodunits, the mystery isn’t solved, or in the fantasy, the bad guy is not defeated. Where would be the triumph in those books?
Redefining romance isn’t necessary because the romance genre isn’t confining to authors. Authors are free to write whatever they want. They may not get their books in front of the millions of romance readers, but if they aren’t going to write romance, why should they? Don’t call it romance if it is not a romance because all it does is piss off readers and make them take LESS chances. Which means that new authors lose out. As commenter, Kimber An, noted at Romancing the Blog,
Seems to me the marketing goal is to snag new readers, because the veteran readers stick with their favorite authors. Do they realize it's because these veterans have been burned?
Readers will stick to the tried and true because they know what they are getting and that isn’t this “new” idea of happy ever - not together - endings. It’s not that I don’t like books without HEA. I love the Temeraire series. I am very anxious to read Patricia Brigg’s end of the month release, Blood Bound, a book with no HEA in sight. But these books don’t promise me a happy ever after ending. To tell me that the book is a romance and then to kill off the hero? That sucks big time.
I won’t be buying any new paranormal romance series soon without reassurance from trusted sources that it is a romance with the romance ending, as sappy or out dated as anyone thinks that is.
*Its start at the 8:48 min mark if you don’t want to listen to the advertisement.
Hangfire! :) I *believe* the actual Juno books line will be labelled and shelved in Fantasy. I have two books coming out on the line, both HEA romance, but both fantasy first and foremost. They have paranormal elements, and a strong romance. I’d call them “fantasy with romance and eroticism” myself :) Cross-genre labelling is always going to be problematic. It’s also important to consider that small press shelving and labeling is decided in consultation with the book buyers.
I agree with you in that I don’t see a problem with shelving paranormal romance, in general. This is just my take, but I don’t think Paula Guran is talking about redefining romance, I think she is saying a lot of things in there aren’t strictly HEA (which is your point, too,) and what I see her doing is giving women fantasy readers more obvious access to the kind of stories they are looking for.
Jane, you threw your IPAQ? WTF were you thinking, blogging buddy? No book, no matter how much is sucks, is worth that. You need to grab one of baby girl’s rubber balls and hurl that wallward. Will baby IPAQ live?
Jane, I agree with every point you made. If I had an IPAQ, I’d have thrown it, too. If the hero and/or heroine dies, it’s not a Romance. It’s never going to be a Romance, and should never be marketed as such. It may be a wonderful book, but if it doesn’t meet the reader expectations that define the genre, it should never try to pass for Romance.
Ugh. I heard of one other line doing this–saying the books don’t need a HEA ending, but still labeling the books “romance”–and thought it was a terrible idea then.
I’d be taking that book back as well.
Juno may be an exciting new line, and the books may be very good–I don’t know, I haven’t seen or read any–but I read romance because I know I’m going to feel good when I put that book down, not upset and angry. It’s a shame when readers are misled like that for the sake of sales.
Wow, they have stunning covers though.
Jane, you could also take into account that the interview was done at the World Fantasy Convention, and Paula Guran is talking to Fantasy readers and writers, in context. She is not prescribing to romance readers/writers.
You know, interestingly enough, I have alot of young female readers and they’ve expressed surprise that my books end happily. They didn’t know about the Romance Guarantee! Surprised the hell out of me, lemme tell ya! I’ve always assumed everyone knew about it. Makes me wonder if publishers are taking advantage of this ignorance (and I don’t mean that in an evil, manipulative sense, just as a sort of organic evolution in marketing).
This trend disturbs me because my books end happily and they always will. In fact, because of this post, I put that as a tagline in MySpace *gg*.
Since I’m a speed-reader, maybe the biggest contribution I can make to womankind is to speed-read books and list them on my blog with warning labels! Something like this:
Rumble on the Bayou by Jana Deleon
1) Made me read at a normal pace.
2) Sex - my limit on graphics, but believable because couple in love and respect each other.
3) genre/subgenre - irrelevent because its that good, present day Louisiana, no paranormal elements
4) alpha female and alpha male
5) HEA Factor - couple in love and together in the end
Did I miss anything?
I’ve not read any Juno titles, but I always got the impression that Juno would be shelved in fantasy. Think Luna. I’m quite sure in the submissions guidelines that they talk about putting the fantasy first.
I’m always shocked at how non-romancers get it in their heads that non-HEA endings are romantic. That whole “better to have loved & lost…” BS. It’s why I truly cannot stand Nicholas Sparks. But he’s considered romance. It just sucks that this thinking is spreading….
Holy heck, she killed her own main love interest? I will -never- read that series. Ever.
I knew there was a reason I was waiting to start that trilogy.
Speaking from the publisher side, sometimes labeling books can be tricky and difficult, but to us, romance is about the HEA (I actually talked about this on our editor loop a few days ago) and fulfilling our promise to the reader with the label is very important. I know some people don’t think romance needs the HEA (like May) but I think the majority would disagree with this. Maybe that will change in the future, but for myself, I sincerely hope not. I don’t want to have to ask someone to guarantee me there’s a HEA if it says romance on the spine. I want to just KNOW it will have some semblence of one. Things like this can only hurt the author/publisher’s bottom line, as less and less readers become comfortable making impulse purchases.
Juno is labeling their books as paranormal romance. It’s there at the publishing website. Guran is editing and releasing a series of anthologies entitled the Best New Paranormal Romance. In the podcast, all three participants, interviewer, author and publisher acknowledge that the traditional romance features an HEA with the couple going off together. As you look at Guran’s definition of romance, it is clearly not in concert with the traditional understanding that even Guran has.
Further, in the podcast, Guran takes a book to the marketer or someone higher up and the guy places his hand on the word romance and says “I wish we could take this word out but we can’t.” They don’t really want to sell romance in the traditional sense, but they want to sell it to the romance reader.
This is fine. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that not everyone has the benefit of a) listening to the podcast and b) reading the submission guidelines. I know now that if I see a Juno Book at the bookstore in my romance section, I will be very careful in its purchase because despite the beautiful cover or compelling storyline, I’m not likely to get an HEA.
As for where it will be shelved, I clearly got the impression that Guran wants these books shelved in the romance aisle. Why else label it paranormal ROMANCE. You think that the buyers in the sci fi/fantasy section are going to buy a book labeled romance? Nope. The people who are buying paranormal romances are primarily romance readers.
Some of the concepts that Guran talks about are interesting but I won’t be climbing on board with Juno until I start hearing that book A is really a romance or even without a romance, the story is compelling. And it’s not just Juno Books. It’s paranormal romance series everywhere. If I can’t trust a Ballantine book labeled paranormal romance, I have to be cautious of all labels now - not just the erotica ones. As a reader, this is frightening and sad because I want to be able to go to the bookstore and pick up a book based upon the cover or back blurb and know that the ending is happy.
After reading the first book in the Steele series, I felt that it wasn’t a romance. The mislabeling made me second guess my decision to read the trilogy and I quit. I’m glad too, because I’d have been seriously pissed it I invested my time and money into a paranormal romance series for it to take a twist and land in the fantasy department. I’m with you, if I want a fantasy I’ll go buy one. I don’t like being misled especially when it comes to my reading material.
As a reader, I’m a traditionalist. I need my HEA or I get really pissed off and I WILL fling the book. You can call it whatever genre you want, but if you label it a romance then it better have a HEA. As a writer, I want my hero and heroine together and happy at the end of the book or I might as well not be writing romance. And that’s what I do-I write romance.
Strangely, at the Random House site, the books are listed as:
” Fiction - Romance - Contemporary; Fiction - Horror ”
So which is it? Weird!
I’d be happy to send you a copy of BNPR so you might read the introduction if you would like. (Just email me an address to editor@juno-books.com.) It attempts to explain the definition I used for the book (and even my doubts about the title). I agree, “romance” is “romance”. Romance readers have certain expectations (like HEA) and that’s great. I’d never try to “redefine romance” and neither does Juno.
But what is now being called “paranormal romance” — by readers, reviewers, publishers, and media — is not necessarily “romance.” “Paranormal romance” appears to be emerging as a genre unto itself. Of course, this is a still-evolving theory, but, as you point out, there are a lot of books — like Laurel Hamilton’s — that certainly are not romance, but are called “paranormal romance.”
Books like Hamilton’s and many other types of “non-romance” are not only being called “paranormal romance”, they are what most folks these days think of when you say “paranormal romance.”
As for the Juno line, some of the books do fall within the definition of “romance” — BEYOND THE HEDGE by Roby James (which just came out), for instance — but most do not. I’m sure romance readers will like it. They might, if they like action-adventure, like JADE TIGER by Jenn Reese. Same with MATTERS OF THE BLOOD by Maria Lima. If they like fantasy set in a fantasy world, they may like Saskia Walker’s THE STRANGELING, Camille Gabor’s VILDECAZ series, and THE BONE WHISTLE by Eva Swan (the former is sexier than the latter two, btw). They all have happy endings. EURYALE by Kara Dalkey was originally published as fantasy but is also about the meaning of love, albeit in a mythical/historical context. It also has a happy-ish ending. RAGS & OLD IRON may or may not have a happy ending. It “ends” happily but a note of ambiguity is added, too. It’s also darker than the other titles I mentioned. We have a couple of “contemporary gothics” coming up…
Well, I could go on…The point is: We aren’t trying to “fool” anyone. We aren’t labeling our books as “romance.” We are trying to explain what it is we are publishing — a diversity of supernatural fantasy (crossing over into SF and other genres sometimes) that has a focus on women and an element of romance.
Fantasy fans did not get upset when Harlequin started their fantasy line, Luna. There’s no reason for romance fans to be up in arms concerning Juno. It’s a big cross-genre world, but there’s only “romance”, “sf/f”, and “fiction” in most bookstores. No “contemporary paranormal non-category romance” or “supernatural suspense women’s action-adventure with some mystery”… or any of the even less difficult to define “types” of books.
We are also evolving as we go along. Juno did not exist six months ago. We’ve been offered a fabulous chance to experiment with the line–something unheard of in publishing. In a year or two, that may change. Store buyers may say “this sells, so go this way.” Or we may decide ourselves that we want to stick with a particular type of book.
Besides, readers are intelligent folks. They read cover blurbs and reviews. Our books do not even LOOK like traditional romances. In fact, the romance buyer for a major chain hates our covers. She suggested heterosexual couples embracing in lurid colors and script lettering. I suppose that telegraphs “romance.” We aren’t sending that message, but we aren’t denying there’s romance in our books either.
BTW: BNPR doesn’t say “romance” on the spine. The book is being stocked on romance shelves in some stores, on fantasy shelves in others, both in some. We have no control over that, but we are pleased that it is being offered to romance readers, too.
Hmm… I saw Juno as being more along the lines of Luna; novels about strong female protagonists with romantic subplots that didn’t necessarily include a HEA. Though I do agree, calling the books outright romance if they are is probably not a great idea. I’d label them paranormals with romantic elements, or such.
As for the trilogy… WTBFH???
I’m sorry, if I pick up a romance novel, the hero had bloody well better not die. Jeez. What the hell were these people thinking!?
The only thing that would piss me off more than the love interest dying is if I had BOUGHT the books before finding out. That is the ONE thing I won’t forgive an author for and will make me never ever EVER buy another book by them no matter what.
I’d say your tantrum was well warranted, but CRINGE over damaging the IPAQ. Maybe you can bill the author for a new one *grin*
Nothing like a good bout of depression I guess. Good grief.
I don’t know who is saying LKH is paranormal romance because she is far from a romance. She isn’t shelved in the romance section and I don’t know of any readers who define her as such.
I am not “up in arms” that Juno is starting up. I just don’t want to be the victim of another Candace Steele fiasco where I buy 3 books and spend the time reading them (when I could have been reading something else) only to find out that the ending is not happy, maybe it has a spiritual or greater meaning but that isn’t the reason I read romances.
Ms. Guran, when you use the word romance, though, I think it has a very different meaning than when I use it. Your defintion on your website includes none of the buzz words I identify with romance. Your definition is more of a historical use. I.e., the books are romantic in the vein of Gone With the Wind or Wuthering Heights. The Time Traveler’s Wife was extremely romantic but it wasn’t a romance.
I don’t think that paranormal romance is an emerging genre unto itself at all. I think that supernatural/paranormal/fantasy fiction with a focus on female protagonists might be an evolving genre but not paranormal romance. And I disagree with you reading what “most folks these days think of when you say ‘paranormal romance.’” If I were to post over at AAR or Romantic Times about what paranormal romance is, readers would refer to, as you did in your podcast, Diana Gabaldon, but they would also bring up names like Sherrilyn Kenyon, Christine Feehan, Constance O’Banyon, Linda Lael Miller, Mary Jo Putney, Shana Abe, more recently Nalini Singh, Kathryn Smith, Teresa Medeiros, Jaci Burton, Meljean Brook.
It’s not that I or other romance fans are adverse to reading outside the genre, but it is reading outside the genre for me. I, too, think that readers are smart people but I was fooled by Candace Steele series. And I can be fooled by the labeleing (romance) and the back cover blurb. Unless the cover blurb clearly says that this book does not end in an HEA (which means I am probably not buying it), then how would even a smart reader know that a book in the romance section may not end with an HEA.
Do readers consider LKH’s books paranormal romance? I haven’t read them since the first few Anita’s, but I wouldn’t have defined them as such.
As a reader, if I picked up a book with Paranormal Romance on the spine, I’d expect a story including romantic relationship and paranormal elements, with a HEA. As a writer, when I write what I think of as a Paranormal Romance, it’s going to include the same.
I don’t have to have a HEA in every book I read. But if I pick one up that has the Romance label, then I expect to get one. If I don’t get it, I’m probably going to get pissy.
[quote comment="19024"]Further, in the podcast, Guran takes a book to the marketer or someone higher up and the guy places his hand on the word romance and says “I wish we could take this word out but we can’t.” They don’t really want to sell romance in the traditional sense, but they want to sell it to the romance reader.[/quote]
So, basically, they’re admitting to what amounts to fraud? I mean really when you get right down to it that’s what it is. They can spin it all they want that romance can be redefined but if they KNOW that most readers expect a certain thing and they are INTENTIONALLY giving them something else . . . sounds like fraud to me.
Yeah, I know, legally there’s not a case. And that’s unimportant anyway. What is important though is the attitude behind the whole thing. The attitude that readers aren’t even going to notice.
Uh, yeah, right.
I can’t decide which actually annoys me the most. That they believe it’s a good marketing strategy or that they think romance readers are actually dumb enough to buy the spin.
Oh, and as to her definition of romance, that’s straight out of a dictionary. Merriam-Webster, for one. I’ve used it myself because those are the elements I like in my romances. It is, however, the “traditional” definition of Romance not the genre one used the RWA. Remember the discussion we had several weeks ago about the “romance” of Lord of the Rings? Can you imagine, though, if they’d actually tried to MARKET the movie as romance instead of fantasy? Hey, it has all the elements. Slap it on there. Call it what it is.
Yeah, I’d like to see that happen. ;p
Oh, and one more thing before I forget. I’ve been trying for several years now to get my twenty-something daughter to watch the Scorpion King movie, which is a great romance by the way, but she won’t. Absolutely refuses. Why? Because she already knows he becomes the Scorpion monster in the second Mummy movie. Digs her heels in deeper than a mule. Son and I have argued until we’re blue in the face about how much we liked the movie but no go.
So this mindset is not a generational thing by any means. Anyone who believes they can play around with HEA expectations in any way shape or form and not incur the wrath of romance readers at some point is nuts. ;)
What’s wrong with a little variety, romance readers? The way the genre is going, maybe they will dispense with authors altogether and have book templates the reader can order with fill in the blank Mary Sue heroines, alpha heroes and choice of cookie-cutter plots and romance-acceptable locales.
[quote comment="19040"]What’s wrong with a little variety, romance readers? The way the genre is going, maybe they will dispense with authors altogether and have book templates the reader can order with fill in the blank Mary Sue heroines, alpha heroes and choice of cookie-cutter plots and romance-acceptable locales.[/quote]
And there speaks someone absolutely ignorant of just how much variety there actually is in romance. Pity. Nice to see the trolls have arrived, though.
The issue isn’t variety. It’s labeling…and mislabeling. Seems like when there’s lots of comments on entries, confusion ensues.
P.S. I’m doing a lot of reading in my market research to self-educate myself on this business. I’ll start posting my recommended books on my blog on Tuesdays. I go there now to explain my plain. ;) After my experience with ‘Rumble on the Bayou,’ it seems to me word-of-mouth is the best way we can get the skinny.
This completely stopped me in my tracks and if someone else has commented sorry if I step on toes…
Who exactly are “most folks”?
Because it’s not within the romance reading world. You go to any romance website and you may find readers who like LKH, but they can tell the difference between LKH and say JR Ward. Isn’t that the point of the column. Romance has one major criteria–a HEA. Killing off heros/heroines or getting sexually involved with other characters doesn’t make for a HEA.
Romance readers don’t consider LKH a romance writer. They may read and enjoy her books but would never confuse this issue.
Here’s the problem, you can’t pigeon hole romance readers. We read across the genre markets, a historical romance fan may also read historical fiction or paranormal romance reader may also pick up horror, but that doesn’t mean we can’t tell the difference between a historical romance and historical fiction or paranormal romance and horror.
We’re a huge market, publishers are going to try to get the cross over readers, but they make a mistake by calling it romance.
It’s rather simple, if it has a HEA it’s romance, if it doesn’t don’t market it as romance as you will alienate the die hard romance readers, the ones who expect that HEA. The ones who have blogs and will throw books or IPAQs at walls.
PS Nicholas Sparks writes LOVE stories not ROMANCES. There’s a huge difference between a love story and a romance. This maybe difficult for non-romance readers to understand, because a brilliant mind like Oprah’s doesn’t seem to grasp it either–LOL.
I thought the same thing when I went over to the Random House site. I’ve not read these books, and after reading this post I’m not likely to.
Jane, you’ve read the books, how would you market them? They’re obviously not romance, but are they scary enough to qualify as horror?
yikes sorry I hit submit before finishing my last post…
Jane are these books really sci fi/fantasy?
My local B&N stocks Armstrong and Harrison in romance but LKH in horror.
I don’t know that they are scary. The first two aren’t very horror filled. The first one has two “fight” scenes and one is at the front and one at the end. The second has one or two at the end. The third, one at the beginning and then two others.
They all involve blood and some descriptions of throats being ripped out but I don’t know that is “horror.” It definitely does not have the feel of the early Anita stories in terms of graphic details and monsters.
This book belongs with Kelley Armstrong, Kim Harrison, Rachel Caine’s WeatherWarden series, and Laurell K Hamilton. (I am thinking that Colleen Gleason belongs over there as well). In my opinion, if the book is in the romance section, it has to end with some form of togetherness at the end of the book. If it is paranormal but does not end that way - it goes in the sci fi/fantasy section. If it is a chick lit or women’s fiction that does not end that way - put it in the general fiction area.
I really think that bookstores need to re-evaluate how they shelve, if they ever hope to compete with Amazon and allow publishers to reach potential audiences without causing people to throw things.
While reviewing an article by Cynthia Ward on the Internet Review of Science Fiction, I said “But how the heck do we get bookstores to shelve relationship-oriented speculative fiction so we can FIND it?”
Romance tells the reader to expect a happy ending, but I empathize with authors/publishers of relationship-driven speculative fiction who want to reach the romance reading market but really don’t have many options. As an avid reader of both romance (HEA expected) and speculative love stories (HEA not expected), I’d be happier if they found a way to make these kinds of books stand out to me. That way everyone would get the read they expect, and the net result would be better for everyone involved.
Bev, Not a troll, just too wussy to leave my name.
I disagree about variety in romance. There are sub-genres, sure, but I find the books excruciating similar as far as the Mary Sue heroes and the basic formula despite superficial differences. It’s a matter of personal taste and obviously, the similarity works for many.
I can agree that it’s a matter of labeling. Those who want romance, and pay their dollars for it, should get it. Nicholas Sparks or an unhappy ending or unsympathetic characters aren’t romance.
I also think book templates would work just fine in the genre, but don’t begrudge the authors their livelihood.
I echo the hordes of other romance fans out there… Romance = HEA. If that pact is broken, Ipaqs will fly and heads will roll!
[quote comment="19053"]This book belongs with Kelley Armstrong, Kim Harrison, Rachel Caine’s WeatherWarden series, and Laurell K Hamilton. [/quote]
If sales are the point, then why even bother to label them romance? These ladies aren’t doing so badly, and urban fantasy is becoming huge … and readers know what they’re getting (and many of those readers are romance readers, so it’s not as if there’s a wall in the bookstore between “romance” and “sf/f” … I cross it all the time, and when I cross it, I *know* that my HEA isn’t guaranteed. And that’s okay).
To me, that just sounds like publishers/marketers who are ignorant of their readership, or romance readership in general. Romance readers have always been cross-over readers … we don’t need to be tricked into it.
Count me in as another reader who would have thrown the book across the room….and NEVER picked up another book by the author again. And taken a close look at every book from that publisher in the future, because I wouldn’t be able to trust the “romance” part. But if I’d known it was “horror” going in, it wouldn’t even be an issue.
FB -
But do you prefer to read novels that, while featuring speculative content (sf/f/h), are motored by a relationship between/among the main characters?
What good is a definition only YOU know?
What is “not misleading” about plainly labeling this book PARANORMAL ROMANCE?
You know, after reading this about ten times, I think what she’s really saying is that fantasy/sci-fi readers are seeing romance crossing over into their genres and they don’t know what to do with them. Or call them. So they call them paranormal romances. In a rather twisted way, that half-way point may be the market they’re actually after.
Which wouldn’t necessarily be bad if the books actually WERE romances.
I read a lot of books and do like plots motored by relationships a lot. But I can take realism in a novel and all relationships don’t end happily. I don’t particularly identify with the heroine and don’t require a sympathetic Mary Sue either. But that’s just me.
I do empathize with the romance reader who prefers the predictable read and her angst that the relationship she fantasized about through the journey of the book didn’t end the way a fantasy should.
I think books should be marketed and labeled according to their content and that would solve the problem. Don’t get misleading labeling either.
Female Doggie (oh, why don’t you just come right out and say it! hee ),
IMO there’s a big difference between asking for more variety in the romance genre and eliminating the HEA. There’s a very big spread there with lots of possibilities that will please the diehard romance fans.
I am the interviewer in the Paranormal Romance show you reference, and you are right, I don’t read any romance at all :) Okay, not much. A few years ago I read a couple of Linda Howard novels that were recommended to me because they were also mystery/thrillers: Kill and Tell, All the Queen’s Men. I liked the first one, but outside of the sex, I was bored by the second one, and never went into the romance section again.
SF/F with a little H now and again plus a healthy dash of mystery/thriller/detective stories is where my tastes lie, for reading as well as TV and film, and those tastes help me in my role as producer and co-host of a radio show plus a bunch of SF podcasts. Paranormal does falls into that arena, so I’m willing to give it a try if the story appeals to me. And I wanted to talk more to Paula about what she’s doing after hearing her moderate the “Vampire Powerhouse” panel at World Fantasy Con back in November, which is where this interview was recorded.
In the marketing of these types of stories, I’d never heard the term paranormal romance until I talked to her in the dealer’s room that weekend, so my curiosity got the better of me. Elizabeth Bear is also becoming a favorite of mine, and Elizabeth Hand, Delia Sherman and Jane Yolen contributed to the anthology, so again, my interest was piqued.
Juno titles are being put in the SF/F section, and knowing that like me, most SF/F readers won’t touch anything “romance” with a 10-ft pole and a hazmat suit, shelving those titles in the Romance section as well seemed to make more sense to me, but that’s not where they’re going. That, to me, makes it harder for interested casual readers to find new titles. But the buyers see the word “Paranormal” and stick it in SF/F… so how do both sides get the win?
Net-savvy readers are different, more inquisitive and diligent in their search of rmaterial, but there are readers who would never consider using the Internet to find books to read, no matter if they are romance or detective crossovers. They shop in their favorite sections, and that’s about it.
FYI, I don’t consider the Anita Blake series, or Kelley Armstrong, or Charlaine Harris as fitting the romance genre, but if I’m mistaken, let me know! :)
I think it needs a new word, but what do you call the genre so that it’ll be attractive to readers of fantasy and of romance but also tell both groups that it’s not likely to 100% fit their preconceptions of either genre? And how do you sell bookstores on making a subsection in the SF/F or Romance sections with that label?
FYI, the Vampire Powerhouse panel was Show #242.
Female Doggie–you’re too wussy to give a name but are okay with using “Female Doggie” instead–LOL
I think your kind of missing the point. It’s not about crossing genres and trying something new or different it’s about the marketing of something that isn’t romance as romance. If it says “paranormal romance” then it should be a ROMANCE.
Romance readers cross genres all the time, but they also want the romance ubrella to include other genres and get the rush of a fantasy, sci/fi, horror or a suspenseful mystery or the emotion of woman’s fiction, the comic feel of chick lit AND a HEA. And I think that’s what’s making marketing harder and harder, publishers want to reach both markets, the reader looking for romance and the readers of whatever the crossover is–fantasy, horror, mystery etc.
[quote comment="19055"]Bev, Not a troll, just too wussy to leave my name.
I disagree about variety in romance. There are sub-genres, sure, but I find the books excruciating similar as far as the Mary Sue heroes and the basic formula despite superficial differences. It’s a matter of personal taste and obviously, the similarity works for many.
I can agree that it’s a matter of labeling. Those who want romance, and pay their dollars for it, should get it. Nicholas Sparks or an unhappy ending or unsympathetic characters aren’t romance.[/quote]
I would appreciate and enjoy more variety in settings and characterization in the romance genre, but I think the happy ending is a different story. There are plenty of books that end unhappily in other genres, and readers who want to avoid those books need to have some kind of labeling system that allows them to find books with happy endings. Presently the word “romance” on the spine is the only way to know that a book will end happily.
Maybe what we need is a new genre designation for books like the ones Juno publishes and the one that made Jane hurt her IPAQ . “Paranormal fiction with romantic elements” is a mouthful, but that’s the best description I can think of. I don’t think “paranormal romance” is the correct label, because I have always viewed paranormal romance as a subgenre of romance aimed at readers who want a happy ending.
Let’s just cut through the BS - when you write genre fiction, you have to play by the rules. You cannot label a book romance then not have a HEA. Likewise, mystery readers like to have the mystery solved by the end of the book. Genre readers are silly like that.
There has long been the misconception that genre fiction = predictable. This will never change, so it’s best to not feed the troll(s). Just because we know about the HEA or resolution doesn’t mean the journey is boring.
Jane, I wonder if this series was marketted as romance because it’s well known that romance readers buy WAY more books than most? But like someone else already commented, that seems strange because paranormal-anything is very hot right now. Vampires are starting to creep back into General Fiction again….
Summer…
Why??
Am I the only one who finds this rather insulting. Are romance readers that cross genres somehow more open minded.
[quote comment="19065"]I think it needs a new word, but what do you call the genre so that it’ll be attractive to readers of fantasy and of romance but also tell both groups that it’s not likely to 100% fit their preconceptions of either genre? And how do you sell bookstores on making a subsection in the SF/F or Romance sections with that label?[/quote]
See, I was right. What they’re doing is coming at it from the opposite direction of another genre. Still annoying but . . . no, just annoying all the way around because it’s only shows a lack of respect for romance as a genre that it and its READERS could be dismissed so easily. Period. Sorry, people, but sometimes one just has to call a spade a spade.
Well, anyway, what the heck is wrong with romantic “whatever”? I mean there’s already romantic suspense. Why not romantic thrillers? Or romantic fantasies? Or romantic horrors? Hehehe.
The problem is that romance already has a substantial and I do mean stubstantial subgenre of paranormal romance and if fantasy/sci-fi/horror or whatever suddenly start producing books that they’re calling by that label but which aren’t really romances at all then major confusion results.
And it’s not going to be confusion that wins friends and influences people to buy books in the long term. Is that really what publishers want?
Somehow I don’t believe so. Clarity is a much better objective.
I’m with the majority here. I don’t mind non-happy endings in the books I read, but not with romance. I want the HEA with romance. I don’t need to see them married with children, but I want to know at the end, they are committed. Other genres, yeah, I know I might not get an HEA (grew up reading Stephen King). A romance without an HEA is like a bird without wings. It’s not going to fly with me *shrugs*.
[quote comment="19065"]I am the interviewer in the Paranormal Romance show you reference, and you are right, I don’t read any romance at all :) Okay, not much. A few years ago I read a couple of Linda Howard novels that were recommended to me because they were also mystery/thrillers: Kill and Tell, All the Queen’s Men. I liked the first one, but outside of the sex, I was bored by the second one, and never went into the romance section again.[/quote]
On second thought, this makes whole Juno thing makes no sense at all. Think about it. Here the interviewer is admitting that she’s the target audience and she doesn’t read romance so she’s going to be turned off by the label in the first place. The so-called potential market audience that the label should reach - us - are going to be turned off the first time we pick up a book that doesn’t have that HEA.
So, what kind of logic is this?!?
Weird that’s what.
Tara Marie wrote:
Actually yes, they are. Librarians that are forced to label (like I was at one point and let me tell you, I hated it!) have known this for a long time. Romance readers will leave the romance section, but non-romance readers would rather have bamboo shoots shoved under their finger nails than be anywhere near the romance section. Maybe they think the idea of sex, love and committment will taint them somehow?
Which means most “good” librarians are subversive as hell. I’d put romantic suspense in the mystery section. And J.D. Robb? In the mystery section because the romance readers would find her there and the non-romance readers would give the series a chance because it didn’t have an icky-yucky romance label on it.
Which I suspect might make me part of the problem in this labelling debate ;)
The consensus is that romance is defined by the HEA and I can go with that.
It’s my opinion that romance is a more predictable genre than say, mystery, because it’s based on reader fantasy, but that’s just my opinion. I’m not going to argue over it. Mileage may vary.
I agree with the commenters who say labeling a book with a non-HEA and that clearly doesn’t fit romance parameters a romance has more to do with getting the humongous romance reader dollar than anything else.
There has to be a happy medium. Personally, I’d love a different label for the paranormal women’s fiction genre with a widened definition that didn’t particularly include romance mores.
But I go with that if it says romance, it should be a romance, no problem.
[quote comment="19065"]I am the interviewer in the Paranormal Romance show you reference, and you are right, I don’t read any romance at all :) Okay, not much. A few years ago I read a couple of Linda Howard novels that were recommended to me because they were also mystery/thrillers: Kill and Tell, All the Queen’s Men. I liked the first one, but outside of the sex, I was bored by the second one, and never went into the romance section again. .[/quote]
LOL. Well, I am a reader who loves romance (though I do read in other genres as well), and I agree that except for the sex, All the Queen’s Men was boring. For a good Linda Howard romantic suspense, try After the Night. A paranormal romance I really loved and recommend is Shana Abe’s The Smoke Thief. You can read my review here. I’m sure Jane, Jayne and I, as well as the readers, could give you more recommendations of romances that would suit your tastes. :)
[quote comment="19065"]
Juno titles are being put in the SF/F section, and knowing that like me, most SF/F readers won’t touch anything “romance” with a 10-ft pole and a hazmat suit, shelving those titles in the Romance section as well seemed to make more sense to me, but that’s not where they’re going. That, to me, makes it harder for interested casual readers to find new titles. But the buyers see the word “Paranormal” and stick it in SF/F… so how do both sides get the win?
Net-savvy readers are different, more inquisitive and diligent in their search of rmaterial, but there are readers who would never consider using the Internet to find books to read, no matter if they are romance or detective crossovers. They shop in their favorite sections, and that’s about it.
FYI, I don’t consider the Anita Blake series, or Kelley Armstrong, or Charlaine Harris as fitting the romance genre, but if I’m mistaken, let me know! :)
I think it needs a new word, but what do you call the genre so that it’ll be attractive to readers of fantasy and of romance but also tell both groups that it’s not likely to 100% fit their preconceptions of either genre? [/quote]
Paranormal Fiction? Paranormal Love Story?
Either of those would work, but “Paranormal Romance” is already taken, and labeling books in which the male love interest dies “Paranormal Romance” is likely to make romance readers feel that the term is being co-opted by people who want to make a quick buck by selling them something they don’t want.
As to how to sell bookstores on creating a new section in the store, I don’t know, but Harlequin has succeeded in making many bookstores shelve their books seperately from those of other romance publishers. Perhaps something like that could be worked out in the F/SF section of the bookstores for paranormal love stories.
BTW, I agree that Laurel K. Hamilton, Kelley Armstrong, and Charlaine Harris don’t fit the romance genre. I don’t believe their books are labeled “Paranormal Romance,” nor should they be.
If I were not a regular Romance reader, I would not necessarily understand how many Romance readers are dedicated to the HEA as intrinsic to the genre (certainly I wouldn’t get that solely from the RWA definition, either). OTOH, if you’re going to market to a certain readership, I think you should do your best to know that readership and the central expectations of the readers to whom you want to market. Genre fiction, by its very nature, tends to be defined as much by what it excludes as bay what it includes, whether it be Sci-fi, Fantasy, YA, or Romance. I understand why Romance readers are feeling that they are being “tricked” into books that, in their opinion, violate a basic genre rule. In some cases, I think the marketing is absolutely deceptive, ESPECIALLY if it comes from Romance genre players or insiders.
As a slutty reader who regularly cheats on Romance and tends to take a contrarian position to rules that aren’t safety or ethically based, though, I’m excited about the kind of hybridization with which Juno is experimenting. Of course, I’m also a Romance reader who doesn’t require a HEA ending, too. Some HEA endings feel so forced and unconvincing to me that I do sometimes yearn for something less dramatically ecstatic in Romance. But I know there are tons of readers who won’t read without an HEA or a virgin heroine or an alpha hero or a Regency setting or whatever. And I agree that more diversity in the genre shouldn’t just amount to taking away the HEA (in fact, I think that cheapens the whole idea of generic diversity, as it doesn’t seem anymore innovative than having every book end with an HEA). There is so much room for more diversisty in the genre that doesn’t involve the common Romance HEA ending that hundreds of books could be published before the issue of the ending ever comes up, IMO.
That said, I do think there is a certain hybridizing taking place in the genre, especially in contemporary Romance, with the integration of paranormal, suspense, horror, fantasy, sci-fi, and adventure elements, that I do think it’s becoming more and more difficult to label books. There was a discussion on AAR a while ago about giving violence ratings on books, as they do sensuality ratings. And while I don’t have a stake in the issue either way, I totally understand why some readers want violence ratings, because the merging of suspense, true crime, etc., elements into Romance has amped up the gore, IMO, and many readers are sensitive to this (I, for example, won’t read torture or abuse of animals, skipping pages entirely if necessary). The genre IS changing, IMO (although I think it’s debatable whether these changes are actually creating more diversity, ESPECIALLY in historicals, which are basically standing water, IMO), and what one person sees as paranormal romance another will see as fantasy with romantic elements. So to me, there’s a fine line between mislabeling and deceptive marketing and true confusion about how to label effectively books that represent a more hybridized take on genre fiction.
I agree that romance should require a HEA, but…isn’t one of the most beautiful moving romantic movies of all time..Ghost? Would you consider that a romance? Or a love story?
So, it’s okay to label a book Paranormal Romance even though it doesn’t meet the reader expectations of the Romance genre, because the books can be shelved in Romance, where those looking for a good read within the genre should be expected to take their chances, and in SF/F where most of that genre’s readers wouldn’t touch a Romance with the old ten-footer.
I have to say first off that I read both SF/F and Romance, among other things, and need no pole or hazmat suit. Second, it’s it too bad that SF/F readers are considered by some to be so elitist and narrow-minded.
I absolutely agree that most internet savvy readers will know more about a new imprint or line before it hits the shelves than the average reader. By that mark, it seems to me that the average reader’s going to be more disappointed and annoyed when she picks up something labeled Paranormal Romance, shelved in the Romance section, and doesn’t get the HEA that is one of the vital defining elements of the genre, and most likely what she wanted when she bought the book.
I think, too, many of those average readers won’t look at the publisher or the marketing department with their annoyance or disappointment, but at the author.
Ghost is a love story.
Wendy, I know this and you know this and so does every other romance reader. I want someone who can come to a romance reader site and make a comment like…knowing that like me, most SF/F readers won’t touch anything “romanceâ€Â? with a 10-ft pole and a hazmat suit to explain themselves. I’m just itching to use the “Harlequin Law”–LOL.
[quote comment="19091"]The genre IS changing, IMO (although I think it’s debatable whether these changes are actually creating more diversity, ESPECIALLY in historicals, which are basically standing water, IMO), and what one person sees as paranormal romance another will see as fantasy with romantic elements. So to me, there’s a fine line between mislabeling and deceptive marketing and true confusion about how to label effectively books that represent a more hybridized take on genre fiction.[/quote]
Yeah, well, change can sometimes just mean something isn’t dead, too. The thing about this particular discussion that bothers me is that it seems to actually be more about another genres use of the term “romance” than about their preconceptions against romance. Cross-overs and hybridizing are all well and good but when the terms become meaningless then we have a problem. A big problem.
Here’s an example of what I mean. I d