Why Mislabeling Will Hurt New Authors (or The One Where Jane Broke Her IPAQ Hurling a Book Against the Wall)
By Jane • Jan 9th, 2007 • Category: Letters of Opinion, Misc • •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.
Jane is a long time romance reader whose passion is, you guessed it, reading. Jane also does not like to talk about herself in the third person, but apparently this is the way that this biography thing works (although in a true biography, someone else would be writing this blurb). Anyway, currently Jane loves urban fantasy authors Patricia Briggs and Ilona Andrews. She's really excited about this year's crop of historicals including Joanna Bourne's The Spymaster's Lady and Sherry Thomas' Private Arrangements and the upcoming Loretta Chase Her Scandalous Ways.
She's looking for a good contemporary author. Email her with a recommendation!
Email this author | All posts by Jane
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 distinctly remember discussions years ago. I mean like a decade or so ago. It could have been on RRA or on the original AAR list. This was during the initial emergence of the popularity of that first wave of futuristic romances. You know the forerunners of the ones we now know as those paranormal romances. There were big debates then about little details like, uh, what to call them . . . well, because most of us didn’t particularly like futuristic as a blanket term. Let’s face it, it didn’t always make sense.
As far as I can see, this is just the flip side of the same issue. Suddenly the romance element really has escaped the bounds of the genre and is making and impact on other genres and they really don’t know how to handle it.
It’s funny but I don’t exactly feel charitable about them using the romance label willy-nilly because it’s suddenly convenient for their purposes. Honestly, do the rest of you?
So, you see, that has nothing to do with expanding this genre in any way shape or form.
The definition of “romance” is well established: it is a story about a romance between a couple (usually one male and one female) that ends happily. I agree with it and accept it. So I’m not sure what we are disagreeing over here :-)
By “most folks” I mean the world outside of romance readers — the term “paranormal romance” is used by everyone for the NYTIMES to Publishers Weekly to USAToday to refer to books that are NOT romance. That is the point and that’s why I suggested reading the introduction. It cites examples. Many books called “paranormal romance” simply are not romance.
I’m not understanding exactly how you reached this conclusion, Bev, but maybe it’s because I don’t agree that it’s only “outsiders” who are somehow diluting the Romance genre label. The arguments over what constitutes Romance have raged on with regard to Romantica, erotic Romance, and Romantica for a while now, and a lot of that has been within the Romance genre, especially among Romance readers. That one sci-fi reader makes a statement about not wanting to touch Romance with the proverbial pole doesn’t, IMO, speak for all genre fiction readers outside the genre. I’m not saying that some people outside the genre aren’t applying the term Romance in a looser way than a majority of genre readers do, but I don’t know how much of this is from disrespect for Romance, lack of full understanding of the genre, or deceptive intention (or some combination thereof). Personally, I think it’s dumb to fail to understand one’s intended readership, because if you burn them once, you may have lost them for good. But I also think there is growing tension within the Romance genre over how far the genre should go, and I can see where this might appear to be an opportunity for publishers who want to capture some of those readers who indicate a desire to see more boundaries crosssed. Like I said, I think there are WAY more interesting boundaries than the HEA that could use some crossing, but even still, I don’t think every marketing label that pisses a Romance reader off is intrinsically deceptive. Sometimes it’s just a miss for that particular reader.
I don’t like Nicholas Sparks, but I am a Romance reader who can find a non-HEA ending romantic. I understsand how so many Romance readers don’t, though. While I do sometimes feel that some endings read as forced and unconvincing, and wish the strictures on the ecstatically dramatically celebratory HEA ending were more easily loosened, I know I can get romantic books without the HEA outside of Romance, too, so I don’t sweat it. I figure that because so many genre Romance readers want that HEA I can live with it even when it feels forced to me, especially because there are tons of places I’d rather an author focus any envelope-pushing energy first.
[quote comment="19103"]the term “paranormal romance” is used by everyone for the NYTIMES to Publishers Weekly to USAToday to refer to books that are NOT romance. That is the point and that’s why I suggested reading the introduction. It cites examples. Many books called “paranormal romance” simply are not romance.[/quote]
Cite some examples here. I’d love to see them, because I’ve obviously missed them in those publications!
I don’t begrudge anyone a non-HEA in their reading enjoyment, even if its not for me. My 17 year old daughter loves Nicholas Sparks. We argue about it, good naturedly, because he depresses the hell out of me. I want to leave a book with a smile on my face, not drop the book while I’m sobbing and depressed and reaching for the Kleenex because one of the main characters has died or something equally angsty. She thinks it’s great. I think it’s crap. To each their own. :-)
I’d not heard LKH series described as thus and secondly, if LKH was to kill off say Richard or Jean-Claude, I wouldn’t be all that upset as it is not a romance. It’s fantasy and it’s shevled in fantasy. I don’t think I like have the paranormal romance described as being similar to LKH books because there is a difference at least to me it is. I read fantasy so the Steele books and subsequent plotline wouldn’t have bothered me. I didn’t see them as “romance” but they certainly are described that way. Thanks Jane for the heads up as I hadn’t read the trilogy yet.
Me and many of my friends wouldn’t cross over to Romance from SF, but I know quite a few of my male friends finally lured their wives and girlfriends into SF/F by using crossover titles like these… things they might not have read unless there was a hint of some type of romance angle.
That’s why I don’t understand why they aren’t put in the Romance section first… the SF/F readers could be more likely find them there on their own, but my impression is that a primarily romance reader wouldn’t venture into the SF section to seek them out, if they didn’t know about them ahead of time.
Some of the Luna titles are going into Romance, aren’t they? I know the C. E. Murphy titles are in Fantasy, but there are so many that aren’t, I just assumed they were in Romance.
And no, I’m not familiar with the rules of romance stories, but I am familiar with the appeal of the HEA ending. As for why some people’s ideas of one lover dying or the lovers being separated is romantic, doesn’t that happen all the time in soap operas? I may be showing my naivete about both genres, but I thought there was an appeal to them not getting together at the end (as in Buffy/Angel). If I was mistaken about that, then consider me slightly educated about the matter.
Robin said:
If Ms. Guran is correct the NYT and USA Today both lack a full understanding of the genre and that does show a lack of respect for a major chunk of the reading public.
The NYT and USA today may not grasp the different genres but publishers do. Random House knows the Cameron Dean books aren’t romance. Why put that on the spine. 1. It obviously alienates the sci/fi/fantasy readers who wont touch romance with a 10 foot pole and 2. upon reading they also alienate some romance readers expecting a HEA not a dead hero. Nobody wins this way.
I was going to save this for a RTB column but here goes…
Romance vs. Love Story…
Romance… To qualify as a romance right before “The Endâ€Â? there needs to be an invisible… and THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER, it must have some sort of HEA—whatever type of HEA that works for you is fine. That doesn’t mean they’re happily married with 3 kids, a dog and a picket fence. It means the main characters have found some sort of happiness together now and in the future.
Love Story… a romantic story that may or may not have a HEA. The book “Love Storyâ€Â? is a perfect example, true love tragically doomed by death, it’s filled with romantic elements, but misses the main one that would make it a romance—a Happily Ever After ending.
Ghost, Love Story, Buffy/Angel are all examples of love stories not romances.
I purchased the first book of this series, thinking that it was a romance. I haven’t started reading it yet. Not sure I’m going to now. I do understand your anger. I would be upset, too. I think it’s sad that the author of this series is going to take the hit for the books being mislabeled by the publisher, when I have no doubt she had no input whatsoever. It’s a lot like cover art. Authors rarely (unless you’re a big name) get a say in how their work is presented to the readers.
As for LKH, Kim Harrison and Kelley Armstrong, some stores may file them under romance (mine don’t), but the spine clearly says “FICTION”. When I read their books, I don’t expect a HEA. Yes, I’m in the camp that if you say it’s a romance it has to have some semblance of a HEA in the end.
So why DID they do it? Seriously. Publishers are all about making money, and even if I think some of their strategies are ridiculous (i.e. clinch covers), apparently a lot of those strategies work. Maybe the intent is deceptive — I wouldn’t put that past a publisher at all and think it happens quite regularly, actually, in small ways that we tend to brush off because we enjoy the final product enough to keep it from mattering. But if the goal is to sell as many books as possible, wouldn’t that be short-sighted? Or maybe the goal is different, and maybe that’s where this analysis should start. What’s the goal and can we track back from that to figure out why the Romance label was used. Maybe they thought Romance readers would be more likely to buy the book blind and that’s all they were looking for — that initial sale — not caring what happened beyond that. I don’t know; all I know is that there are many things publishers seem willing to do that baffle me.
[quote comment="19100"]
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]
It’s not my preference of a story to read is all. It’s a knee-jerk reaction to the Fabio covers or something. I avoid chick-lit and romantic comedies as well. I am either bored by them or annoyed by them. It’s simply my personal preference.
I’m not insulting the people who prefer to read the bodice-rippers and the everyone happy at the end tear-jerkers, it’s just not what I prefer to read. I know a lot of people who feel exactly the same way about stories with spaceships or elves in them… why is the way I termed how I feel such a problem?
Trust me, I respect the people who write the stories, and the fans who gobble them up. Doesn’t mean that I’m ever going to be a member of either group.
I actually have Shanna Abe’s “Dream Thief” and “Smoke Thief” in my TBR pile. Janine, feel free to comment on them over at Dragonpage.com, in The Library section… that’s what that section is there for, but you might have to go back a page or two.
Robin,
I think it come down to the publisher cashing in on a huge market. 1. They know romance is 50% if the mm paperback market, obviously much larger than sci fi/fantasy or other genres. 2. romance readers are much more likely to crossover to other markets. 3. they’re willing to take their chances and market to romance hoping the crossover market is strong enough.
Maybe I was wrong in saying it’s no win situation. I’m not even sure this will backfire on them, it only really becomes no win if there’s a large enough backlash. Who it may hurt are new authors that haven’t found their niche, and I guess that was Jane’s original point–Why Mislabeling Will Hurt New Authors…
[quote comment="19115"]And no, I’m not familiar with the rules of romance stories, but I am familiar with the appeal of the HEA ending. As for why some people’s ideas of one lover dying or the lovers being separated is romantic, doesn’t that happen all the time in soap operas? I may be showing my naivete about both genres, but I thought there was an appeal to them not getting together at the end (as in Buffy/Angel). If I was mistaken about that, then consider me slightly educated about the matter.[/quote]
Soap operas. Oh, boy. You know, that may be one of the biggest romance myth-conceptions around. I say, myth there because there is some basis in truth to it. It’s not a total misconception to say that the basic romance formula traditionally yanks our emotional chains. Intentionally so. Sometimes big time. It’s an emotionally based genra after all.
It’s just that in the end we expect a pay off. Big time. Otherwise known as the HEA. (Happily Ever AFTER - not to be confused with the simple happy ending, which those mere mysteries or thrillers can have and welcome to them, you know.)
And nowadays we expect a lot more than just a pay off in the end, too. Meaning we want not only that HEA but we want a real RELATIONSHIP to exist for most of the story. We want them to spend as much time together as possible. So, it sort of cuts down on those soap opera type roller coaster separations and reunions, you know. Not that they don’t happen anyway. They just don’t happen as much as they used to, say twenty, thirty years ago.
Expectations? Just a few. ;)
Buy, hey, beyond all that authors can do pretty much whatever they want. Hehehe. (Oh, drat, now I’ve started coughing again.)
~I’m not insulting the people who prefer to read the bodice-rippers and the everyone happy at the end tear-jerkers, it’s just not what I prefer to read.~
It might be better to understand the genre, at least somewhat, you’re discussing. It IS insulting to refer to Romance as bodice-rippers. I write Romance, have never written a bodice ripper, and like most who read and write in the genre find the term derrogatory.
Summer, I was going to make the same point Ms. Roberts just made; that many romance readers consider the term “bodice ripper” insulting, since most romances don’t involve bodices ripping. It’s a stereotype that is inaccurate and has been for decades — like the stereotype of romance readers as being uneducated when most of them are educated professionals.
I believe you when you say that you respect the readers and authors in this genre, but so many people don’t respect us that it’s easy for us to feel insulted when you say you don’t touch romance without a pole and a HazMat suit.
[quote comment="19121]
I actually have Shanna Abe’s “Dream Thief” and “Smoke Thief” in my TBR pile. Janine, feel free to comment on them over at Dragonpage.com, in The Library section… that’s what that section is there for, but you might have to go back a page or two.[/quote]
Thanks, I’ll check out the site, and feel welcome to comment here when you read the Abe books, Summer. I hope you enjoy them enough to give more romances (even if just the paranormal kind) a chance without your suit and pole. All that protective gear must get a little uncomfortable. ;-)
OK! That does it! I’m officially calling all the new M/M Romances Jockstrap-Rippers then. So there pffffffft!
OK! Then can we call all the new M/M Romances Jockstrap-Rippers then.
Hehhehehehehehe…
~~I’m not insulting the people who prefer to read the bodice-rippers and the everyone happy at the end tear-jerkers, it’s just not what I prefer to read…why is the way I termed how I feel such a problem?~~
Surely you yanketh. For real, you don’t understand why saying you and your friends wouldn’t go into the romance section with a 10 foot pole and a HAZMAT suit (AFTER confessing minimal knowledge of romances) and then following up by calling romances soap operas, bodice rippers and tear-jerkers is insulting to romance readers?
I am so sorry.
What you say about the gamble sounds right, Tara Marie, and to be fair, there are probably some cases where such a gamble pays off and Romance readers do embrace a less traditional book (isn’t this what happend with erotic Romance, to some extent, which, IMO, is often MORE conservative than so-called mainstream Romance). But as for new authors, as you and Jane point out, the gamble is pretty big, isn’t it? Again, I think this has to do with the factory publishing practices, and if readers and authors could actually see that we have a mutual interest in something like this issue of marketing, I think it would be good for the Romance community as a whole. In the meantime, maybe the best disappointed Romance readers can do is contact the publisher and let them know how they feel about the marketing of specific books. That might also be a small and indirect kindness to a new author who doesn’t have control over how her books are marketed and may end up a victim of the publisher’s, well, is greed the right word?
I can’t seem to avoid being saddled by assumptions of my statements and intents, despite the fact that I never said these things, so I will try to be clearer in the future.
Rending people from limb to limb because they aren’t educated about a particular topic doesn’t encourage newcomers to want to come and stay, now does it? :)
I never once said that readers of romance are uneducated, so why I’m being labeled as being derogatory is a mystery to me. It’s also just as unfair to me as it is to wrongly think I am being that way to everyone here. Some of the most highly educated people I know don’t know squat about how to use the Internet for indepth searching… they can barely use email. That doesn’t make them uneducated, it just makes them unfamiliar with something outside of what they are used to. So no, I never once said that romance readers are uneducated, and it’s more than obvious that the writers of the genre are also educated.
That said, I am not familiar with the genre breakdowns, expectations, or language, and I did not mean “bodice-rippers” in a derorgatory fashion… I don’t know of any romance subgenres beyond historical and paranormal, so I just used terminology that I’ve seen and heard used in years past.
SF/F is my pond, and I think it’s time I returned to the safety of it :)
[quote comment="19136"]That said, I am not familiar with the genre breakdowns, expectations, or language, and I did not mean “bodice-rippers” in a derorgatory fashion… [/quote]
Hmm, I do wish someone would explain to me how “bodice-ripper” could be used as a term of endearment by someone who isn’t a romance reader?
How could it even be neutral?
Really. No sarcasm intended.
Well I don’t consider LKH romance, and at my local Border’s she’s actually shelved in the horror section, which seems appropriate.
Summer - Thank you for taking the time to post today. What set everyone off, which you didn’t realize, is that we romance readers, particularly the online ones are very touchy about the word “bodice ripper” because it denotes something very negative in our minds. If you aren’t a member of the community, and I guess by your posts that you aren’t, you probably couldn’t have known that.
I am sure that there are sci fi/fantasy generalizations that make a sci fi reader cringe. Bodice ripper is just a huge hot button issue. There is great debate amongst readers about the clinch cover/the bare chested man/and the like because those sorts of things do perpetuate an inaccurate picture of what the genre is like.
Anyway, we do appreciate Ms. Guran and you coming to post. It’s a thought provoking issue.
Bev- it’s the harlequin thing. Everyone thinks a romance is a harlequin. REmember the fairly positive article written by the college journalist. She called Santa Baby a Harlequin. I think it just comes down to the fact that romances to the mainstream media are known as bodice rippers and maybe don’t see the harm in it.
[quote comment="19136"]I never once said that readers of romance are uneducated, so why I’m being labeled as being derogatory is a mystery to me. It’s also just as unfair to me as it is to wrongly think I am being that way to everyone here. Some of the most highly educated people I know don’t know squat about how to use the Internet for indepth searching… they can barely use email. That doesn’t make them uneducated, it just makes them unfamiliar with something outside of what they are used to. So no, I never once said that romance readers are uneducated, and it’s more than obvious that the writers of the genre are also educated.
That said, I am not familiar with the genre breakdowns, expectations, or language, and I did not mean “bodice-rippers” in a derorgatory fashion… I don’t know of any romance subgenres beyond historical and paranormal, so I just used terminology that I’ve seen and heard used in years past.
SF/F is my pond, and I think it’s time I returned to the safety of it :)[/quote]
Summer, I apologize for being unclear. I did not say, and I also wasn’t trying to imply, that you thought or said that romance readers are uneducated. I was referring to a common stereotype of romance readers that exists in the general population and comparing that stereotype to the stereotype of romance novels as books where bodices get ripped. Both stereotypes are inaccuate, and both stereotypes are widely held, which is why I compared them, but I never thought that you yourself looked at romance readers as uneducated.
I’m sorry my post had anything to do with driving you away.
I can tell you something I started to do a couple years ago in interviews, when it was very clear the reporter hadn’t done any homework, and knew nothing about the Romance genre. I tell them straight out, at the beginning, not to use the term bodice ripper. It’s old, it’s inaccurate, it’s insulting AND I’ve never written one. So that if they want a current and solid interview, they’ll delete the term from their vocabulary.
I don’t know if this will help anyone else in an interview situation, but it’s worked for me. Approach is key as well–and intonation is more difficult on the internet. So I’m careful to be clear, but not bitchy when I bring this up.
I often have Fabio tossed out at me in the same sort of way–and nip that in the bud, too. Nothing against Fabio, blah blah blah, but he has nothing to do with me or what I write, and so on. Then, Mr. or Ms Reporter, what would you like to know?
It is, in some ways, the same thing as marketing, as labeling. Getting your message across clearly so the reader isn’t confused.
Ack! Dead hero in a romance? Flying IPAQ? Moments like this are why I have a back up ebookwise. Just in case…
I am a huge fantasy/scifi reader, actually those were some of the first books I have read. Also love mysteries, and romance novels, and paranormal. So I think what was upsetting was the broad generalization.
I think it reflects more on the individual reader than the genre when they are so close minded and afraid of reading anything new. What happened to intellectual curiosity, wondering what the next story will bring. It is actually a sad thing that people miss such wonderful stories due to narrow minded misconceptions.
Regarding movies, my absolute favorite is Ladyhawke-that is what I consider a paranormal/fantasy romance (with a happy ending! and a really hot Rutger Hauer). Compared to say Somewhere in Time which I would consider more of a love story.
You make it sound like the author makes the marketing call on whether a book will be shelved as paranormal romance or as urban fantasy.
Man, am I glad I held off reading/buying this series until other people’s verdicts were in. And here I thought the whole first person thing was the reason people would have issues. Sheesh! Shows what I know *G*
Oh, and female doggie has her head up her arse. Sheesh.
I dunno.
It seems many are so tied up in getting respect and having a mutually-understood vocabulary among different literary cultures that we may be missing the Big Picture: more books we might like to read, and more opportunities to publish the stories we write.
Fiction is a living entity, and therefore change and newness shouldn’t be seen as a threat, but as an opportunity. We all come to the book shelves with preconceptions and prejudices. For example, I like to snidely refer to much literary fiction as “subtle homoeroticism at various boys’ schools genre.” And I also will ocassionally wonder if some science fiction authors have attachment disorder, for all the value they place on their characters and their relationships. But as much as all that makes me chuckle, it really isn’t helpful.
Everyone will catch up — in publishing, in literary criticism, bookstores, everyone — eventually, and until then, there will be the ocassional wall-banging experience.
Frogs will be kissed, yes, but princes will always appear.
Oh well, late for the party, talking to myself, not likely to get flamed.
1. Jane, I want pictures of you repairing your IPAQ. Thou art assuredly a geek goddess.
2. So glad I didn’t read Candace Steele.
3. Summer (who has probably departed), thank you (thank you, thank you) for the links to the Hodgell lectures.
4. I am so glad I am not an author. The submission guidelines from Juno are bizarre. Some might call our books “paranormal romanceâ€Â?, but don’t let either word frighten you off. Maybe that’s what they said to James Frey about autobiography. Classifications matter.
5. Otoh, the author list for the Guon short story collection sounds strong so I will ignore the category and look at the book.
Oh, I agree with you, Joyce. That is why I am starting to review books on my blog without regard for genre (almost.)
One thing, though. I think Linnea Sinclair and Susan Grant have put the no-love-in-space fault of science fiction to rest. ;)
Jayne and LinM - I am afraid to open it again. I lost one of the screws. Ned said “I told you so” after I refused his help. But it lives and is fine. Carried it around in my bag today and still runs.
Wendy - I am not sure the reasoning behind the marketing. Robin’s right in that if we could figure that out, it would be more illuminating. My best guess is the same as you and Tara Marie and others said and that is publishers want the romance dollars because romance readers do buy and read more.
Kimber An - I have got to get Rumble on the Bayou. May go out tonight.
Jackie - It is unfortunate that I blame the author. I guess I assume that the author has something to do with labeling and marketing. No? None at all?
Michelle - When I first read your post, my knee jerk reaction was “I am not narrowminded” but when it comes to reading fiction, I guess I am. I like a certain type of book and I don’t know that I need to apologize for that. It’s just what satisfies me at the end of a hard day. If liking romances and wanting those to have HEAs, then yeah, I am a narrowminded reader who may be missing out. That’s on me as someone famous would say.
I can’t speak for other authors, of course. In my case, I had no say. I thought my book was urban fantasy, but it was published as paranormal romance. (Maybe I could have had a say, but didn’t know any better.)
No, no, no. Jane you totally misread my post (or I didn’t make myself clear). I was referring to Summer’s post about how scifi/fantasy readers wouldn’t touch romance with a ten foot pole. I mean think how many good books they are missing because they refuse to read Romance. And romance does in my mind require the HEA (that is why I gave my movie analogies). I think it is narrow minded to write off an entire genre because you read one book and didn’t like it or you don’t like bodice ripper covers. That is like refusing to read scifi/fantasy due to some of the old cheesy barbarian/naked Amazon covers.
I would track the author down…what the fa? Kinda reminds me of NORTH AND SOUTH, BOOK 3 HEAVEN & HELL…did anyone ever watch that? North and South was a big AMAZING 80s miniseries I absolutely loved. My parents’ taped it and I watched it over and over. When I grew up and became a woman, they film the 3rd part to the series, in which the hero dies and the heroine ends up with his best friend. True fans of the series don’t even consider the 3rd movie part of the series because it was so upsetting and WRONG.
I guess publishing houses are trying to sell more books…who knows? I totally understand why you would be upset. I’m glad I’m don’t reading these books!!!
I suppose it varies by publisher, but for the most part, particularly for new or midlist authors? No. None. Nada. Or damned little. I’m rather surprised you don’t know this, having assumed you back up your everlastingly strong opinions with actual knowledge of the industry and how it works. More fool me.
But it’s easy to blame the author. She’s got that picture in the back of the book, after all. Makes a much easier target than an amorphous publisher, I suppose.
I did blame the publisher. Read the blog post. But I also hear authors saying that they want their books defined as romances or put in the romance section because that is where the readers are so to some extent while authors may not have control, I don’t necessarily think that they are upset being in the romance section even if they aren’t writing romances.
I specifically remember conversations to that extent discussing the mislabeling of erotica as erotic romances.
[quote comment="