But. When I read romance – whether it’s contemporary, hsitorical, paranormal, futuristic or fantasy (and any other sub-genres I’ve left out) – then I expect an HEA. When I buy a romance, that is what I believe I have been promised. By the author, the publisher – that it is a romance that will end happily, no question. The journey might be harrowing, but the outcome is guaranteed.

I borrowed Nicholas Sparks’ Message in a Bottle (I think that was the title) from the library on the understanding that it was a romance. No. I’ve never borrowed any of his books since nor will I try him again.

I don’t don’t class the LKH books as romance. Paranormal fiction with romantic elements in the first half of the series; paranormal fiction with muy sex in the latter half of the series; but not a romance. Doesn’t mean I don’t read it, or enjoy it, I just have it in my head what type of book I’m reading and everything’s ok. My expectations are met.

So (the purpose of this rambling post is that) labelling correctly is important (or perhaps, that labelling incorrectly is very bad). I don’t *mind* a book not having an HEA if I know it’s not a romance. Because I’m not expecting it. You might hope for it, but it’s not, necessarily, necessary.
In a romance though it’s, for me, one of the things that can’t be left out if a book wants to be seen as a romance (rather than romantic/ tragic etc.) My 2p anyway.

I too will read other genres, but when I want a romance, I want a romance, and when I want a HEA, I’m going to read a romance. And if a book labeled a romance doesn’t end with a hea I am going to be pissed.

As Kimber An said, I will just rely on word of mouth to get the skinny (and even then with a jaundiced eye. I got a lot of positive feedback on LA Banks’ VHS from “romance” readers, so bought it on the strength of that alone and was sorely disappointed. Not only is it not a romance, but it doesn’t stand alone. I could have forgiven the latter however, had the book been a romance. When Lori Foster’s new urban fantasy series came out, I almost went out and made the same mistake again, except this time I asked around extensively until I was told it was not a romance but had romantic elements in it with the “possibility” of a romance. That wasn’t enough for me so why set myself up for a fall going in? I’d rather just stick to her other books that I know are romance. And again, the new series doesn’t really stand alone (which is another gripe and another issue outside of the is-it-a-romance-or-isn’t-it issue better left for another blog ;)

The marketing ploy of “mislabeling” may work for the first book (in a series or by a first-time author), but if a reader isn’t happy with the first book, she is not going to go out and buy the second, romance or not. At least I won’t and Jane, I have to say you were more than patient to continue reading the series. But then you had the promise that you would get your HEA.

Over time I wandered away from Romance, and focuse more on SF/F/H (which is mostly what I read now) and as I have read most of LKH’s work, I feel that I can comment. LKH is Urban Fantasy. There is no mistaking her books for anything other than that. They are not romance, and they are not really horror. For years they were shelved in the horror section only, and IMHO, that was because they contained paranormal creatures & elements, that up until then only (really) existed in horror… vampires, werewolves, zombies. All classic horror stuff. There is a romantic vein to her earlier Anita books, but it is in no way satisfying the way a good romance is.

As for Juno Books, I have to say that I would not classify most of what I have seen from them as Romance either. Urban Fantasy some of it, Chick Lit: all of it. There’s a trend lately for strong heroines who “don’t need a man to stand on their feet”. While this is great and liberating and all that, I for one get a little tired of alpha everything and dominance games all the time. And using an excuse that these books reflect modern life as opposed to ‘romance’, which is dated, is missing the point altogether. Women read romance to escape, for whatever reason: they’re lonely, they are in a bad relationship, they can’t get enough sex, they don’t like the sex they get, or maybe they just want to forget about real life for a little while and live in a world where everything works out OK. Chick Lit does not (very often) fulfill this need. Chick Lit can be empowering, but it’s not usually comforting.

As for why SF/F/H authors/publishers want to avoid the ‘romance’ tag/stigma? I think it’s because the stereotype says that Romance is strong on relationships & character building, but weak on action, suspense and plot. I don’t think this is true for the most part, but there’s nothing you can do to change some peoples’ minds.

As to why more books are showing up as Romances that truly are not? That is simple economics… Romance has the largest market share when it comes to readers. And romance readers read A LOT and OFTEN and buy LOTS and LOTS of books. These other publishers/authors are trying to get into that game. The problem is they don’t really know what they’re getting into. And rather than sit down and do some research and get some educated opinions, they are going to end up putting their foot in it.

While some of these stories are excellent, none of them resembles what I’ve previously read as “paranormal romance”. Some are romantic; very few are paranormal. I’d call the collection a cross-secti……