Either physically or emotionally. Surely for this purpose we’re counting as “romance” such tales as Beauty and the Beast (in all its incarnations), The Phantom of the Opera, The Hunchback of Nôtre Dame, The Count of Monte Cristo, Cyrano de Bergerac, and several cinema “takes” on Dracula (e.g. with Louis Jourdain or Frank Langella).

If not, then “romance” would indeed be a restrictive category label.

“There is a certain sense of superior disdain that permeates the article as if by writing gay romances, these authors are so much cooler and better than the mundane hacks that dominate the romance landscape.”

If this article had been written by a couple of writers of heterosexual romance, would you have said, “There is a certain sense of superior disdain that permeates the article as if by writing straight romances, these authors are so much cooler and better than the mundane hacks that dominate the romance landscape”?

I didn’t see any mention of gay romances in the blog entry. I don’t see how the fact that these authors write gay romance is at all relevant. One’s knowledge of the romance genre is in no way dependent on whether one writes gay romance. If these authors are ignorant of heterosexual romance (and I don’t know enough to assess whether they are), it’s not because they write gay romance. It’s because they don’t read heterosexual romance. As veinglory pointed out above, plenty of people do both.

After reading Jane’s comments, I gotta say… I love Jane. I adore Jane. I think somebody needs to make Jane into a kick-ass bitchy heroine.

I somehow picture Jane as Lucy Liu as the “schoolmarm” in CHARLIE’S ANGELS.

Anyway, why do the romance genre and romance readers have to defend themselves again? Didn’t this happen just last month?

And one word about EC: they’re actually not that restrictive. The only comment I get from my editor is, well, more sex. But that’s it. Okay, and no more baby epilogues. Otherwise, they’re pretty open because they can afford to be.

See, I’m easy: “Uh, go Rockies!!!” LOL.

Alex, not to bash on you, but I don’t understand how “ignorance” and “informed opinion” can exist in the same context. I know what you are trying to say, I see where you are coming from, but I wish you will at the same time try to listen to what others have to say without feeling attacked.

Oh dear! It’s another case of miscommunication, I’m afraid, as I was saying that in a sort of jocular way and I genuinely do believe that I don’t know enough to comment further. Believe me, I wasn’t feeling attacked - I was acknowledging a good point and agreeing with it :) I’m sorry I gave the wrong impression.

I can talk about why I think the EC guidelines are worthy of being sporked because I know enough to see that they are restrictive, but I can’t carry on a conversation about the whole of the romance genre because I don’t know enough about it. That’s all I was saying! No offence taken, or given (I hope) over here :)

(note: For the most part, this is not a specific rebuttal to the above, but a rant at inaccurate romance-as-a-genre bashing in general and attempts to invalidate need for genre definitions in general and the romance-as-a-genre definition in particular).

Wow. You said it all, and more!

After reading Jane’s comments, I gotta say… I love Jane. I adore Jane. I think somebody needs to make Jane into a kick-ass bitchy heroine. ;)

Also need to point out just a few little details, and this is purely from my reader POV, not my writer.

One of the authors comments I much prefer to have characters behave in a way that’s REAL. People cheat. If a writer is worth his/her salt then they’d be able to include this antiquated “taboo” and still make a story work.

Real people cheat… yeah, real people do. But I don’t want to know them. I’ve distanced myself from friends who cheat because if they can’t respect the most important vow they’ll ever make, they likely can’t respect me and I want no part of them. To be clear and blunt, I’ve ended friendships over that sort of thing with no regrets. And if my husband, a real person, ever cheated… I’d end him. :) And he knows it.

Whoever made this comment, if that’s his/her official standpoint, I don’t want to see their reading shelf.

Why? To prevent fictional STDs? And again, I’ve never seen a protagonist use such a thing.

Okay, now this might be a little skewed, me coming from a medical background, but if you’re trying to portray real life (man, I hope the person who commented this ISN’T the same one that was knocking fidelity) then you need to face real life facts. STDs happen. Pregnancies happen. If you want your book to be true to life and your characters true to life, then you need to acknowledge basic human biology. Unprotected sex can too often end with pregnancy or disease. If you’re writing a contemporary, glossing over things like sexual safety is going to make a few eyebrows go up. Won’t make people stop reading necessarily, but it does cause some pause. I can say that honestly because my eyebrows have gone up a time or two, or two dozen-two hundred-etc.

Okay, that’s pretty much all I have to say. I’m going to go back to writing my books that I set in the 1950s where things like fidelity and respect still matter, and there aren’t rampant STDs in the world. ;) And when I’m done, I’ll don my June Cleaver apron and make some cookies for Walley and Beaver.