Bitchin' Blog Posts
Author Rant: Series vs. Romance - Do The Same Rules Apply?
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | September 10, 2007 | Monday at 9:33 pm | 85 CommentsAfter the discussion about labels on romance novels, and prior discussions about series books in the romance shelves, one author and I had a rather lively discussion via email about series books and whether the same rules and expectations should apply to them as to romance novels. Since this author doesn’t want to be seen as trying to sell her own books, she asked that I post her rant anonymously so that it would be evaluated on content and not as a potential marketing attempt. Normally we’re all about owning your comments, but I can see her point - she wants her argument to stand on its own without being judged as an attempt to build buzz around her series. So - Anonymous Author defends Series in Romance, take 1.
AnonyAuthor says:
Ignoring the whole OMG-bad-language-naughty! aspect of what Madeline Baker wrote, her comment that “Lately I’ve read several books that have ‘paranormal romance’ on the spine. In my opinion, a good number of them haven’t been romances at all…” got me thinking: are there still hard and fast romance rules? Or has there been a gradual change with the new guard of readers taking over the old when it comes to what a romance “should” have?
With the recent popularity of paranormal series novels, where happily-ever-afters aren’t automatic, does the Romance label on the spine still imply to people that there are certain formulas inside? Or has the romance genre changed to where formulas/guaranteed HEA’s/Heroes with Big Cocks are more, to quote Captain Barbosa from Pirates of the Caribbean, like ‘guidelines’ than actual rules?
I could be biased but I think there should be some leeway for series novels when it comes to a HEA. If a book is a true stand-alone with NO other novels being written containing the same characters and it’s labeled a romance, then I can see how people get their bacon burned when there isn’t a HEA. But if you have a series, be it paranormal or mystery or whatever, then you know there’s more to say and the HEA might be just delayed, not eliminated.
I guess what bothers me is how readers blame the authors. Unless you’re an established money-making author, you have NO say over how a publisher markets your novel. Especially if you’re a new author, you do a lot of smiling and nodding, not much else, because the publisher doesn’t give a shit that your newbie hasn’t-made-them-a-dollar-yet ass disagrees with their marketing scheme.But when some people get upset about a book not having a HEA if it’s labeled a romance, they don’t email the editor or pub house - they bash the author. If a book has “romance” on the label, yet no HEA, or perhaps half the plot isn’t about the romance, remember that the author didn’t chose the marketing label. The publisher did. After all, it’s not like an author can pull a fast one and sneak in a non-HEA after a novel’s been edited - the publishing house would have known it wasn’t there when they bought it.
Several of my author friends are in the same boat, having a “romance” label when their books don’t follow old-school romance formula, but what’s a new author to do? Pull out of their contract in protest when they see how their book’s being labeled?
So to wrap up a loooong ramble, IMO, I’d say series books should have a somewhat different set of rules when it comes to romance. But if that still doesn’t appease, then readers who are unhappy about not having their expected formula/HEA should go to the person who did the labeling with their complaints, not the author (unless the author is self-pubbed, then yes, readers can bring on the bitching to us!)
I personally am not fond of series, though I do see this author’s point. She’s right that the issue isn’t that the publisher said to the author, “Hey we really like this romance but it should be a series - think you can hack off the happy ending and make it so the book doesn’t really come to an end?” The series idea was there from the get-go, and the publisher knew it when the book was sold. There are also plenty of series books in romance now - from paranormal to contemporary to historical - and there are those readers that LOVE series books and write the date of the next issue down in their planners so they can buy the next one.
I, with my shoddy memory and inability to remember things and my terrible recall and…um… oh, my bad memory, am not one of these people. I like my happy ending in hand, thanks. Not only will I not remember to pick up the new book in the series, I’ll likely not remember what happened in the last book. And I’ve said a few times how irritated I get when I am 30 pages from the end and I realize there’s no way the romance and the plot can be sewn up satisfactorily in that time. But is the publisher subject to a smack on the wrist for putting the label “romance” on the spine? Does the designation “romance” demand a happy ending? Is there another subgenre descriptor we need to use to designate a series with a pair of primary protagonists and a plot that continues over multiple books? I think the term “series romance” is already taken.
But really, my biggest beef is one that I bring to the author AND the publisher: there are several series that start out fantastic and fizzle . I don’t even have to name them - I’m sure you can tick them off on your fingers for all they’ve been discussed here and elsewhere. And I blame both parties for that problem - neither the author or the publisher seems to have an end or at least a resolution in sight, and both keep churning out new issues of the story without the larger story arc in mind. It reminds me of everything that went wrong with television shows I loved - characters change into villains for no reason other than easy tension, the triangle of “who will s/he choose?” gets old and stale far too fast, and there’s no consideration for the larger story and the smaller story within each issue.
So if the publisher hangs a “romance” label on a series that doesn’t have an end point in sight, much less a HAPPY ending, I do get irate. It’s not a question of violating formula; it’s neglecting to mention that the book in my hand is not going to meet what I hold as the most important tenet of romance: everything will be ok in the end. With a lot of current series, there is no end and it’s definitely not ok!
Filed: Random Musings, Ranty McRant
Bev Stephans said on 09.10.07 at 10:10 PM • [link]
There are many romance series out there that have happy endings in each book. If that’s what you want, then that’s what you should stick with. On the other hand, if HEA doesn’t matter then go with the cliff-hangers.
I always look at these things from a readers point of view and I just don’t think it matters much where all of this is going. There is plenty of reading material for everybody.
Robyn said on 09.10.07 at 10:21 PM • [link]
I remember getting totally pissed off at a couple of Adams and Clamp’s Sazi stories, clearly labeled romance. The first one was told in the hero’s first-person POV; though it was an odd choice for romance, I liked it. The relationship between H/h was absorbing, even when I wanted to kill the heroine myself.
The sequel, again from the hero’s POV, again clearly labeled romance, was no such thing. Even though the HEA was there, the focus in a romance is, for me, on the relationship. Mysteries, werewolves, starships, whatever, are icing on the cake. The attention is still on the relationship. In the sequel, the heroine was barely in it. It was all about him, and the Sazi world. After looking forward to reading about how they would work through the problems presented in the first book, all I read was how he dealt with them, alone. Pissed me clean off.
If these books had been labeled urban fantasy, it would have been fine. But when a book is pigeon-holed as romance, they better get it right. I can blame the authors as well as the publishers in this instance, because the sequel was not romance. Not just by my standards, but by the standards set in the first book.
Kalen Hughes said on 09.10.07 at 10:39 PM • [link]
Am I the only one wondering how Mystery/Thriller fans would feel about the crime not being solved in the book labeled “Mystery” just because it’s a “series” book? Am I the only one who loved THE X-FILES episodes that were stand-alone but who was bored silly by the smoking-man/alien/conspiracy episodes? Or who is sick to death of Stephanie Plum’s romantic vacillations? I’ve only read two romance “series†that I can think of, and they both drove me nuts. I quit those authors after the first and second books and never looked back.
Honestly, I just can’t think of how a “series†romance would work effectively. When the focus of romance is the relationship how do you both leave the relationship hanging and offer the kind of closure that romance readers are looking for? It’s one thing in another subgenre (like urban fantasy or thriller) where the resolution of the book is not dependant upon the resolution of the romance plot, but in romance that all important HEA is the whole freaken point.
Ann Aguirre said on 09.10.07 at 11:05 PM • [link]
I don’t mind series if they’re well written.
Am I the only one who sees the template as utterly broken right now? I haven’t changed my Firefox settings, but I show two columns of posts, the side is all the way at the bottom, and the More, More! link isn’t working; the whole post shows at once.
Chrissy said on 09.10.07 at 11:05 PM • [link]
Interestingly, we had a recent discussion about this on Romance Divas. I read just about anything. But labels help me decide what to read when. I love a good fantasy, a rich mystery, or a thriller.
But if I buy it off the ROMANCE shelf I am expecting romance. It’s not a matter of preference, it’s a matter of accuracy. Romance, for me, means the two lovers end up together, happy for the final frame, boinking away like bunnies on speed behind a picket fence somewhere. I WANT the HEA if it’s a romance.
I am happy to buy books that aren’t romances, and do. But if I buy them off the romance shelf and the liner notes, coupled with a quick riffle of pages, don’t tip me off to the fact that it’s not an HEA ending, I’m pissed.
Trouble is… not everyone who works in book stores is a reader. I was at Barnes and Noble about two hours ago. The new Mancuso (sp?) Shomi novel was in fantasy. Charlaine Harris was still in romance. I own both books I saw, like both authors and the books themselves, but they were in the wrong place.
*sigh*
Which is why we need to be educated readers to be happy readers, ennit?
shaunee said on 09.10.07 at 11:09 PM • [link]
PC Cast’s Goddess Summoning series is great romance with HEAs and it’s a series.
Are we speaking specifically of series, i.e. cliff-hanger ending or series, “a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence?” (dictionary.com)
I’m always thrilled when I find a really good new series. Don’t much care if it’s labeled romance or urban fantasy. Jacqueline Carey’s Kushiel series is wonderful. Not so much with the cliff-hanging that you’re all, “fuck, where’s the rest of the book (hello, they’re at least 700 pages a piece)?” But still, it’s clearly stated that there’s more to come, which is fine by me. Just means, to me at least, that there’s more coming from an author I can count on to give me great stuff.
bettie said on 09.10.07 at 11:17 PM • [link]
Nope! Those episodes are boring because they have to dole out info at a snails pace to keep the plot running, which, ultimately, just frustrates and annoys me. I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep on saying it until the suits making programming/publishing decisions listen: I hate a too-long series.
I also hate series that stretch the “will they or won’t they” out for frickin ever. Yes, I know that most series tend to fizzle after “they will!”, but that’s why series should end.
When the primary draw is a romance plot or subplot, writers or producers will always piss off a substantial portion of their audience by not providing a satisfactory close to that romance.
Robini said on 09.10.07 at 11:49 PM • [link]
A Couple of unrelated (but still relevant) points:
1) I think the Kushiel’s Series is a really good example of a “romantic” series (it’s shelved in fantasy, but has strong romantic plotlines), and of a Fantasy series, where each book stands alone. The main romantic couple establishes a tenuous connection in the first book, challenges it in the second and comes out stronger, then tests exactly how strong that connection IS in the third. All three end on what was (for me) a “whohoo! It’ll be tough, but they’ll be OK” note.
Which does of course, get me thinking…
2) What is a happy ever after? Is it a guarantee of marriage and children and nary a worry until they start losing teeth? Or is it just the h/h having found a common ground such that when they say they’ll give it a shot, we as readers can believe it will work out? Because the latter is certainly attainable in series formats. I’ve been happy with Bombshells where the romantic resolution was the hero asked the heroine out on a date, and to me a HEA is more hope for the future than anything else. I get horribly pissed when things I get out of the Romance section end angstily, but as long as I can look at my h/h and say “they’re on the right trajectory, and they have the tools to make it work” for me that’s usually satisfaction enough. Perhaps that’s where the definition of romance is going?
Not to say that romance authors haven’t dropped the ball on even that one as well. But…
3) I think Fantasy series have a lot of the same problems, and with the merging of romance and fantasy, those problems have ported over…a lot of the offenders I’ve seen in recent times (excluding Amanda Quick’s Regency series) have been Vampire/Paranormal/Fantasy whatever. This trend DOES annoy me…I used to be a very dedicated fantasy reader, but when adulthood led to a significant decrease in my reading time, I got disgusted with picking up book 1 of a trilogy, and at the end seeing nothing that suggested that the author knew how to wrap up a story, in one book OR three.
But, with lines like Luna becoming more popular, and Fantasy readers *liking* a good romance in their stories - and being increasingly unafraid to branch out and get it (ever notice Amazon isn’t easily navigated by genre? I’ve bought more than a few books by clicking links to outside of my “comfort zone” in a bookstore) - it might just be that the line between the two is becoming more blurred. There’s no distance between shelves cyberspace, after all.
4) It is true that Series books in the Romance genre aren’t a new thing…It just used to be that it was ALWAYS a new Hero & Heroine with every story (See: Mallorys, Coltons, Calhouns… any series involving brothers, sisters, cousins, schoolmates or coworkers). So really, it’s just keeping the same H&H that sets some of the newer stuff apart.
Which goes back to #2. If an author can convince me, X times in a row, that the h&h are in incredible danger, and their relationship might not survive, but oh wait, they came out of it stronger and even more capable/in love, that to me is an acceptable type of romance series.
Where it gets me is when the action stops in the middle, and I have to read the next book to find out. Because *that’s* just manipulative.
Kalen Hughes said on 09.10.07 at 11:58 PM • [link]
Exactly!
The PC Cast books aren’t the kind of series I think we’re talking about. I haven’t read them, but from what I can tell from her website the protagonists of each book are different. I think we’re talking about romance and romance readers being more open to series that star the SAME protagonists book after book (in the Eve/Roarke or Stephanie Plum/Ranger/Joe style). This style of series works great in other genres where the ROMANCE isn’t the main focus of the book (be in mystery or sci-fi/fantasy) but it doesn’t work all that well in the romance genre, IMO.
For me, the issue isn’t my being open to the idea of series (hell, I read them all the time in other genres) it’s the unsuitability of the series construct to the romance genre requirements.
Chicklet said on 09.11.07 at 12:06 AM • [link]
And I blame both parties for that problem - neither the author or the publisher seems to have an end or at least a resolution in sight, and both keep churning out new issues of the story without the larger story arc in mind.
OMG Stephanie Plum I’m looking right at you. JESUS.
I think Suzanne Brockmann handled this issue quite well in the part of the Troubleshooters series that I’ve read (Books 1-6). A couple was established in the background of Book 2 (ancillary to the main couple, although I found the “background” couple about a million times more interesting), then continued their story throughout the series—but they weren’t the main couple until Book 6. I loved that format, because we really got to know the characters, and I was really invested in them by the time they got “their” book.
Of course, because I came to the series so late, I was able to read all six books in a couple of weeks; I didn’t have to wait months and months between each one.
Nora Roberts said on 09.11.07 at 12:12 AM • [link]
~I WANT the HEA if it’s a romance.~
There you go.
If the HEA isn’t an essential aspect, call it something else.
That’s my stand as a writer, and as a reader.
Jackie L. said on 09.11.07 at 12:23 AM • [link]
I am with Nora. No HEA, shelve it somewhere else.
Marta Acosta said on 09.11.07 at 12:32 AM • [link]
Sarah, are you talking to me? Huh? Are you talking to me? Okay, here’s a thing about some of these series and their apparant lack of direction or whatever. (And count me as still fuming over the “ending” of Deadwood.) Sometimes the authors don’t know if there are going to be more books in the series. If they’ve got a multiple book deal, the publisher may ask for sequels, or decide to go in another direction.
Speaking of sequels and WAITING FOR A HAPPY ENDING, I’m checking here every day, Sarah, to see if Freebird has a new sibling!
Kalen Hughes said on 09.11.07 at 12:44 AM • [link]
Me too!!! I always go back and rewatch the ending of the first season. *sigh* love that ending. Perhaps now that John from Cincinnati flopped they’ll actually give us the two movies they promised! At least Rome got told they were being cancelled so they had a chance to tie things up.
Liz C. said on 09.11.07 at 01:00 AM • [link]
“a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence?â€
I definitely prefer this type of series and am less likely to read a series that’s about the same two hero/heroine without giving us the HEA.
The Pink Carnation series is a good example of the type of series I’ll read. Each novel is stand alone, but continues to include the characters from previous novels only they’re secondary characters. It’s interesting enough, and has the promise of really good pay off with one of the characters when the author finally writes her story, that I’ll make sure I’m aware when the next book comes out.
But if there’s no HEA, no promise of an HEA, and the romance is secondary then I don’t think it’s really a romance.
snarkhunter said on 09.11.07 at 01:27 AM • [link]
For me, series—and this goes for tv and movies, too—only work if there’s an endgame.
It doesn’t have to be a specifically plotted-out-ten-years-in-advance endgame, ala JK Rowling and the epilogue to DH. There just needs to be a vague sense of where the hell we’re going, and, maybe, how long it’s going to take to get there. (Shows with great endgames so far? Battlestar Galactica. Buffy (S7 improves on the rewatching, I swear, even if the story arc is lame). Possibly Heroes, if they keep it together. Shows with bad, bad, BAD no endgame problems? Anything JJ Abrams touches. Ditto Chris Carter.)
I rarely read book series, as I am an impatient person and get petulant if I can’t have MORE NOW. (There are a few I read, but they’re all mysteries, which is a rather different kettle of fish.) I can’t see a long, drawn-out romance series *working*. If you have an endgame, and you know you will take 6 novels to get there, fantastic! Bring it on! I’ll gladly read it. If your endgame consists of “some day I will get Character X together with Character Y,” and then you basically Chris Carter us for seven years, I will NOT be a happy monkey.
So, yeah. My $.02. Let me show you it.
Ann Bruce said on 09.11.07 at 01:44 AM • [link]
No HEA = no romance.
That’s why I don’t read Nicholas Sparks. H/H die in his books. I’m not uplifted in the end. If a book makes me cry, that’s fine as long as there’s a payback by the time I reach the final page.
If there’s no HEA, but there is a sequel bait teasing me with a possible HEA in the next book, that author’s off my buy list. Life’s too short for me to chase after books looking for a HEA. If I’m reading a romance novel, I want my HEA guaranteed.
Kimberly Anne said on 09.11.07 at 01:52 AM • [link]
I’m chorusing Nora and Jackie on this one, but with my own special twist.
I must have my HEA, if you’re going to call it a romance, but I’m flexible as to the exact definition of it. One of the things that makes me most nuts about TV shows is that they refuse to allow a romantic relationship to evolve. Once the couple is together, the story either ends entirely, or the couple is screwed over and separated. I’d love to watch—or read—a relationship that changes and deepens with the passage of time.
I’ve been married nearly 11 years, and I can tell you, he is not the same man that I married. But, neither am I who I was back then. We’ve been through a lot together, and our relationship is completely different now. I love him more, respect him more, and he makes me crazier than I ever thought possible.
You don’t need to stop a romance when they finally get together for good. After the honeymoon phase is when things start getting really interesting.
“horse88”? I am not!
jennifer echols said on 09.11.07 at 01:53 AM • [link]
Ann, yes, the Bitches are broken!
Kalen et al, yes, the self-contained X-Files episodes rocked and the alien episodes were horrid, for the reasons you say! Ack! So nice that someone else appreciates this. The self-contained episodes were some of the best TV I’ve ever seen. The alien episodes were phoned in.
SB Sarah, I always appreciate your rants against series because I don’t feel so alone. I’ve got series on the brain today because I just had proposals for sequels to my YA books rejected again. But I mean sequels/series in terms of same world, different h/h, with original h/h as secondary characters. The reason I proposed sequels in the first place is that readers have been asking me for them. That said, I don’t think I would have been giving them what they asked for. They mean a new book about the old h/h. And this response has been ubiquitous. I wonder if all the YA series (and Mr. Potter) are bringing up a generation of readers who expect a sequel to absolutely everything.
One reason I would not want to write a new book about the old h/h is that I write what I want to read, and I hate to read books like that. Like Sarah, I want an HEA in one book. Maybe it has to do with a feeling of accomplishment and completion in finishing a book. Maybe it’s because, like Sarah, I would NEVER remember to get book 2, let alone book 7.
Another reason—and this may actually get to the crux of the matter in reason 1—is that I worked really hard to get that h/h together, and I don’t want to undo what I did just to get them together AGAIN! But on her website Jennifer Crusie has a related and much more concise explanation: a good book needs to contain the most important thing that ever happened to the h or the h or both. Well, if you write that in book 1, what’s book 2 about? Book 2 is the second most important thing that ever happened to the h/h. Book 3 is the third most important thing, ad nauseam. More interesting for writer and reader to start over with a new h/h and a new most important thing every time.
Darlene Marshall said on 09.11.07 at 01:53 AM • [link]
Put me in the No HEA = No Romance camp. I read a lot of books that aren’t romance, and have no problem with troubled endings or ambiguity or ongoing series. But if you’re going to shelve it in romance, bigod make it a romance. That’s one reason why I always thought Diana Gabaldon was right to insist her books are not romance novels. They don’t all have a HEA and should be shelved elsewhere.
On the other hand, even she didn’t have the clout she has now when she first started in this business and her books were shelved in the romance section. I don’t blame the author for the publisher mislabeling the books, it’s beyond the author’s control.
desertwillow said on 09.11.07 at 02:19 AM • [link]
I just started a series labeled romance. It’s more of a fantasy with romance involved - later on. Hmmm….I’ll read the whole thing because I like the author but normally series don’t work for me. Either I don’t figure out I’ve got nr. 3 of a 7 part series until I’ve started reading or I can’t find nr. 1, only nr. 6. Pisses me off. And then when I manage to get them all read the series starts to sag because the author has been writing it for to long and is sick of it - or somehow it turns to crap. Or I’m sick of it. I haven’t gone near Stephanie Plum in ages, same with Feehan.
And I liked the stand alone X-files a thousand times better than the extended story lines.
What I want from publishers is a complaint department. A phone nr, an email addy, or snail mail, that I can find easily and send my complaints in. Then I want somebody at the publisher who’s main job it is to respond to my complaint and promise to send it to whichever department is responsible for pissing me off. I spend the money I should have somebody I can complain to if a book labeled as a romance really isn’t, there was a typo that threw me out of the story on some page or the write up on the back led me astray. Why don’t we have that?
SB Sarah said on 09.11.07 at 02:30 AM • [link]
Yeah, I totally borked the page with that entry- my bad. A bit of poor coding on my part. Carry on!
Speaking of sequels and WAITING FOR A HAPPY ENDING, I’m checking here every day, Sarah, to see if Freebird has a new sibling!
I’m sorry to say, I have decided that I am destined to be Pregnant Forever. I will gestate for the rest of my life.
But no, Marta, I’m not talking to you. But then, I don’t think your books are romances. However, I do think you, and for that matter, authors like Gleason who have a five-book series and Brockmann who had a six-book series, do have a larger story arc in mind.
I get frustrated with tv shows for the same reason - sustaining tension with poor character decisions makes me take the show off my DVR list. It also makes me appreciate the “telenovela” programming that’s so popular in Latin American countries vs. never-ending soap operas that have no happy ending. Or ending for that matter.
Leslie Kelly said on 09.11.07 at 03:34 AM • [link]
>> Kalen et al, yes, the self-contained X-Files episodes rocked and the alien episodes were horrid, for the reasons you say! <<
Yep yep…totally agree. I think the reason they were horrid is because the alien storyline didn’t flow naturally out of a long-range plan, it was yanked out of Carter’s backside as the years went on. Continuity elements? Ha. Nonexistent.
I was worried about Lost going down that path and was glad to see they put an end date on the series.
And Deadwood…grr…don’t get me started. Reminded me of the series finale of Twin Peaks where everybody is in danger, blowing up, etc.
Chrissy said on 09.11.07 at 03:37 AM • [link]
Regarding Jacquelyn Carey’s Kushiel and Imriel novels… omg I so adore them. But they are romantic fantasy, not fantasy romance. It’s not about being fussy, really. I think we’d probably all agree. It’s about knowing what we’re getting.
Anne Bishop, too… although I think sometimes her lines are a little more flexible. Last few had HEA endings and everything! LOL
Sharon Shinn’s new 13th House series, and even the Angel novels—again, getting closer to the line.
For me, this is all fabulous. I get books with more of what I like in all my favorite genres. The only trouble is, I really, REALLY do have definite moods. Some days I want to crawl into a Carey or a Melanie Rawn or something similar that just sprawls across several books in a gorgeous, exquisite epic. Some days I want to read Terry Pratchett and snort Aquafina Sparkling out my nose. And some days I want to blow through an Eloisa James in 4 hours, get my HEA, and pass out for a long sleep.
Just like sometimes I want a banana, and sometimes I want a cookie, and sometimes I want a steak. It’s all food, and I like all of it, but have you ever tried to enjoy a banana when what you are craving is a seasoned Ribeye with mashed potatoes, gravy, and baby asparagus?
Right.
Rinda said on 09.11.07 at 03:54 AM • [link]
You guys are scaring me with this subject. ;)
I’m writing a trilogy/series with romance and the same two main characters and I can’t wait to get to book three—because that’s where the love story gets intense. Yes, it’s urban fantasy first, but the romance is a MAJOR aspect of this story.
But I have a question. If a writer resolves the main plot but introduces a subplot that threatens the romance at the end of book one and two, is that really considered manipulative?
I’ve never seen it that way myself. I read a lot of series. For instance, I’m a huge Patricia Briggs fan and her series has elements of romance—I have no problem looking forward to the next book to find out what happens. :)
But this is a difficult subject for a lot of authors right now. I know ones who clearly write fantasy but since there are romantic elements, the publishers are choosing to label them romance on the spine. The authors don’t have a say in that. I also know some who have been ripped for this in reviews. No, it isn’t fair in that respect.
LOL! My word is needs69.
AnotherAnonAuthor said on 09.11.07 at 03:59 AM • [link]
I’m Anon because anything else will sound like blatant self-promo. And yes, I’m so happy to see I’m not the only one who found the ‘conspiracy’ X-Files episodes the most boring. Yaaay us!
I have the first book in a romance series coming out. It’s an HFN for the couple. The series continues with the same couple. Each story is self-contained with a happy interim resolution (‘cos I personally hate cliffhangers, esp. in romance). The relationship strengthens, gets tested, an old flame reappears, baddies are out to get them, etc. How does it work? Well, in my case, I set up two things: one internal complication between the heroine and hero, and one external threat to their world that links to the internal complication. So I think it can be done.
And, to amend Ms Crusie: “a good book needs to contain the most important thing that ever happened to the h or the h or both” AT THAT POINT IN TIME. Good God, you can’t just say that only one thing of importance will occur to a couple in their lives.To take you as an example, Sarah. Was marriage the most important event in your life? What about Freebird’s birth? Maybe that’s of secondary importance because, in all likelihood, it was a consequence of your marriage, right? Your current pregnancy? Must be third, at least. See? It’s silly to even couch it in those terms, isn’t it? If we really do appreciate fine characterizations (and are not just jawing about it), then we must admit that our characters can hit other obstacles besides the ones we’re currently reading about. It may or may not result in a series, but to say otherwise (and that’s the explicit assumption Crusie is making: there is only one most important moment in any life) is just plain silly.
KeiraSoleore said on 09.11.07 at 04:30 AM • [link]
~I WANT the HEA if it’s a romance.~
Absolutely. There’s no point in being labeled “genre fiction” and not “general fiction” if the most fundamental rule of the genre (HEA in a romance) is not followed.
Now, I can understand where some contemporary sub-genres don’t ascribe to the rule that a HEA has to mean a marriage, however, they do follow the sense and meaning of a happily together for a very long time .
Heloise (& Abelard) said on 09.11.07 at 04:39 AM • [link]
HEA = Romance
I sooo don’t want a banana when I’m in the mood for some….okay I’m not going there. But I do take the Anon Author’s point, that this is primarily a marketing decision. So Yes, if you marketeers are listening, don’t dick with our labels. We are tired and harried and don’t always have time for in depth study of our Target purchases!
Teddy Pig said on 09.11.07 at 05:28 AM • [link]
Sorry but my first impression is…
WTF!
There is nothing lazier in my opinion than watching yet another author pull off a tired old cheap “buy my next book” ploy by never finishing the story you are reading. In other words, it is not about ME requiring the romance HEA as much as finishing whatever the god damn story you are telling is in the current book you have written. Or worse shorting the dang thing to reference your grand opus.
But… then you say “well the various story arcs take several books to reveal”. BULLSHIT, the first question I have to ask after an unsatisfying read of a series book is always “What the hell was the story this book was written to tell me?”
It’s great to have an overall story arc and great goals for a series. But, if the current book has no other reason to exist then why the hell did you waste my time and yours writing it?
If I can pull out all the typical series fluff, the characters from the last book saying hi or the new baby or the introductions of characters that you plan to use in the next book and all I have is maybe 4 or 5 chapters of the current story then you and I have an issue and you are not gonna like what I have to say about dishonest writing.
PS… The best Chris Carter was when he kept most of the story arc per season. I am thinking Millennium here. The worse is when it took over the whole show. I totally agree that the X-Files was a brilliant example of first making it work and then ruining the show when it became obsessive.
Excess in anything
Kacey said on 09.11.07 at 05:36 AM • [link]
I really think it depends on how it is done. I tend to think it is fine for it to be romance and be a series with the same H/H if it is labeled as such some place where it is relatively easy to spot (not buried away on the copyright page or the last page of the story). I am sure that is because I have read so many fantasy series. If I know it is a series than I tend not to be as upset if the overall story doesn’t wrap up.
Off the top of my head I know both PC Cast and Suzanne Enoch each have a series with the same H/H in them and I have enjoyed both of them.
I too vote for a easy to find reader comment/complaint line for publishers! When will they learn that have only the author’s picture to describe what a book is about is not a way to get new readers!
sara said on 09.11.07 at 05:37 AM • [link]
Jennifer Echols, if you’re writing a book with the characters from Major Crush in it, I will buy that sucker so fast your head will spin. Please. I mean, I’m too old for it, but that book made me yearn.
Also, where the series are concerned, I really like how Nora’s trilogies work, in that there’s a HEA in each of the three books, but there’s also an overarching story that takes all three books to resolve. The In Death series, 20-odd books in, fills a different need - each book ends happily, but it’s an extended story that keeps getting more complex. But it’s not like, oh, let me pick a really wretched example, Lost, setting up plot points and never resolving them and not giving any indication of resolution. God, I hate that show.
I read the first two Stephanie Plum books and went no further because I could tell we weren’t getting any sort of ending any time soon. Excellent decision, as it turns out.
Tracy said on 09.11.07 at 05:46 AM • [link]
For me a romance=HEA. I don’t blame the author if it was labeled wrong. The author doesn’t label the book.
“I think Suzanne Brockmann handled this issue quite well in the part of the Troubleshooters series that I’ve read (Books 1-6). A couple was established in the background of Book 2 (ancillary to the main couple, although I found the “background†couple about a million times more interesting), then continued their story throughout the series—but they weren’t the main couple until Book 6. I loved that format, because we really got to know the characters, and I was really invested in them by the time they got “their†book.
This was the series I was going to discuss. I think Suzanne Brockmann does this very well. Each book has an HEA, but at the same time there is another couple in the background whose story arc can last many books (torturing the poor couple!)
what I do love about series books is getting to know the characters. Sometimes by the time a character gets their own HEA they’ve been in 3, 4, 5 books and you really feel like you “know” this person.
OTOH, books like Stephanie Plum make me crazy~pick a man already. At this point I’m thinking she’s not good enough for either one of them b/c she’s such a twit. Sleeping with one one night, then kissing the other the next day? WTF? I don’t want her with either one of them is she’s gonna act like such a moron.
whoops, should I tell you how I really feel? :)
Wry Hag said on 09.11.07 at 06:19 AM • [link]
Well, what the hay. What do you call an intensely romantic story, with or without scads of sex, that doesn’t end with happy-happy-joy-joy? Was Love Story a romance? How about Bridges of Madison County? (Well, I thoroughly loathed both, so I picked me some bad examples there. But you know what I’m getting at.)
Quite frankly, I have never understood this insistence that a HEA be an integral part of a “romance”. In fact, I’ve found many tales of love to be far more satisfying without a Smiley tacked on after the final period. Written well, nonHEA stories can be profoundly moving—much more so than many standard romances whose feel-good conclusions seem gratuitous, silly, and/or unrealistically saccharine.
It’s all about breadth of definition, I guess.
Miki said on 09.11.07 at 06:44 AM • [link]
OTOH, books like Stephanie Plum make me crazy~pick a man already. At this point I’m thinking she’s not good enough for either one of them b/c she’s such a twit. Sleeping with one one night, then kissing the other the next day? WTF? I don’t want her with either one of them is she’s gonna act like such a moron.
That’s what I think! As far as I’m concerned, Steph’s cheating on Joe, and he deserves much better. (Besides, Lula drives me absolutely apeshit crazy!)
More to the topic, I love the J.D. Robb series, but the poster who pointed out that’s not labeled “romance” is correct. I can’t think of an ongoing “romance” series that’s carried on with the same couple.
Mysteries, yes. Fantasy, yes. But they’ve got romantic elements, they’re not “romances”.
I’ve enjoyed Brockmann’s series, but I’ve been inevitably disappointed with the way she handled the couples she teased us with for years. Maybe it’s just that the built-up expectations are just too much, but I didn’t care for Max/Gina’s book or Sam/Alissa’s book. I’m almost afraid to read the latest one because of what she’s going to do to poor Jules!
One more thing - I liked Moning’s Darkfever and are interested in the coming Bloodfever. But if I hadn’t been forwarded that it was an open-ended series with an HEA hinted in some time in the future? Would have been SO mad…
So tell your friend, if marketing mislabels her book - TELL US ABOUT IT! Put it on your website, your blog, your MySpace videos. Get a “viral blogging” movement going. Let us know. Don’t let us go in with mistaken expectations.
We’ll be grateful for the notice, and just might love your series!
karibelle said on 09.11.07 at 06:54 AM • [link]
“I tend to think it is fine for it to be romance and be a series with the same H/H if it is labeled as such some place where it is relatively easy to spot (not buried away on the copyright page or the last page of the story).”
AMEN Sister! This is where I think the publishers play dirty pool. While they may know that their readers would love to have it spelled out for them that abook is part of a series, they know it will hurt sales. If I pick up a book that looks interesting and see that it is book 5 in a series, I am going to drop it like it is on fire. The only wa a publisher can get me to buy that book is to trick me into it,and a few of them have. Maybe some people will, if sufficiently intrigued, go back and look for the earlier books in the series, but I really don’t have time for that. I know I am not alone. As much as I dearly love Nora Roberts, I have never read a single book in the “In Death” series. I just can’t invest the time in starting from the beginning with such a long series. Maybe when the children are grown,lol. But since my baby just started kindegarten, that is a long way off.
Maybe I am jaded, but the sad truth is that publishing houses are businesses. Businesses, when faced with the option of doing the nice thing and doing the profitable thing, will do the profitable thing
spamfoiler: really 15 No. Really 35, but thank you :)
Karmyn said on 09.11.07 at 07:28 AM • [link]
IMO, series doesn’t work as well in straight formula romance as it does in other genre fiction with romance elements. I’m a series mystery junkie and have added a few urban fantasy series to my personal library. I have to get my fix somewhere now that Harry Potter is over.
HEA is important to the romance genre. It’s one of the basic arguments we give when people compare it to porn. To me, it’s one of the things that seperates an erotic romance from just plain erotica. Nothing against erotica. Sometimes it’s nice to read something spicy without having to worry about if the h/h will end up HEA.
And yes, Stephanie needs to stop messing around and pick a man. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t care for the latest Plum.
Jenyfer Matthews said on 09.11.07 at 08:18 AM • [link]
Oh God - I just started watching season 1 of Deadwood on DVD. I *love* it. I had heard that it ended abruptly. I guess I’ll listen to the SBs here and just skip season 2 (unless they start up production again…)
On the topic of romance and series - I’m happy to expand the definition of HEA to “hopefully ever after”. It can end on a great kiss and a load of possibilities and I’m satisfied.
The only type of series I’ve read in romance have been Nora’s, where each can stand alone but there is a wonderful subplot that ties them all together. Well done.
jennifer echols said on 09.11.07 at 11:58 AM • [link]
Sara, that is so sweet. I’m not writing another book about the MC characters because my pub wants those books to be stand-alone.
And, to amend Ms Crusie: “a good book needs to contain the most important thing that ever happened to the h or the h or both†AT THAT POINT IN TIME. Good God, you can’t just say that only one thing of importance will occur to a couple in their lives.
AnotherAnonAuthor, you’re right about this. In terms of YA, I’m thinking what happens to the characters may be the most important thing that’s happened to them in their teen lives, but of course there will more important things come up when they are adults.
However, whether they’re teens or adults, if they keep getting Very Important Things hurled at them in quick succession like fast balls in a batting cage, one per book in a series, the Very Important Things lose some of their importance. As a reader I’m thinking OMG what NOW?
Why is my verification word hell77?
Trix said on 09.11.07 at 12:12 PM • [link]
I’m more familiar with SF/fantasy myself, and it’s very rarely I can bother reading a closely-interlinked series any more, and certainly not if it’s more than 3 volumes. It’s become a real disease in the last decade or so.
With a good series writers will have each story sufficient-unto-itself - such as Bujold’s Vorkosigan books. The only exception for me for non-standalone is LoTR. Even Elizabeth Moon’s Paksennarion books stand alone (mostly). I don’t mind if the overarching plot takes a while to be completely resolved, but I prefer to see definite stages with that too.
I need a HEA - it doesn’t have to syrupy, but more positive than not - no matter what I read. Unless a series is showing the evolution of a relationship, with distinct stages, I don’t think solely romance would be enough to sustain it. People have mentioned Stephanie Plum - see, I totally ignore the romance aspects in those (I’m polyamorous too - I just want to scream at them all to get over themselves and admit it).
Francois said on 09.11.07 at 01:28 PM • [link]
I don’t need an out and out HEA but there has to be character progression. I am about the zillioneth person here to tell Stephanie Plum to make up her mind already, not only for her character but because she is making the men look stupid for putting up with her puerile antics. On the other hand, I still enjoyed the plot and dialogue in number 13 - if I hadn’t read the other books it would be fine.
monimala said on 09.11.07 at 01:32 PM • [link]
For series romance to be effective to me, as a reader, I don’t necessarily need an HEA. I need it to be fresh and I need to be worth hanging in there for.
Suzanne Brockmann’s Troubleshooters series has expanded and folded in new characters to root for, but not all of her HEA payoffs have been great. Max and Gina, who I waited for several books to see get their shit together had was what probably her weakest book in the series, Breaking Point. But other characters like Jules in her most recent Force of Nature have fared much better. Brockmann very much has a “Here’s one HEA, but here’s one pair to tune in for next,” thing going on and that’s the kind of thing that tends to work. Give the reader a small victory and then a carrot to keep them coming back.
But then you turn to someone like Janet Evanovich or even Brenda Joyce and the need to straddle both the mystery and the romance genre gets in the way of them resolving anything emotionally. The mystery there becomes what is tied up Happily Ever After in each novel, while readers are forced to keep tuning in to see if Stephanie will pick between Morelli or Ranger or if Francesca Cahill and Hart will break up and she’ll go back to Bragg. And that uncertainty gets tiring.
Of course, the thing is, all three of these examples don’t quite fit in the traditional definition of romance, nor do they fall under the paranormal/urban fantasy umbrella where series work seems to be the formula du jour.
skapusniak said on 09.11.07 at 01:43 PM • [link]
First point; I am that nut who thinks order of genre hyphenation really matters! :)
Romantic-
just doesn’t have the same requirement for HEA by the end of each book for me as
-Romance, where it’s an iron law of my expectations.
But the problem is that all the romance publishers label everything they put out as
-Romance even if it really should be Romantic-
. Whilst all the
publishers will label everything they put out as Romantic-
if they’ve even got fortitude to stick the romance label on it all (which they probably don’t).
Second point; yes I think there is a missing genre for series that have significant romance content in them that that I would like to have a separate label for, mainly so they can be grouped together rather than be spread across umpty different sections in different genres where I can’t find them unless I have detailed specialised knowledge of which precise titles they’re disguising themselves behind.
These are ones where the protagonists get themselves to a state of ‘Happily Together’ by the end of the first book—or indeed competely offstage before the series starts if we’re being radical—and then spend the rest of the series wrapping up the big complicated non-romance parts of the plot (with lots of intricate and funky world-building) whilst being totally hot together and making me go all gooey over their obvious ongoing luuurrvvvv thang.
Yep, I’m a soppy old coot.
‘
-Continuing Romance’, ‘
-With Established Lovers’, or something. I selfishly want this genre to exist really quite badly because I actually prefer that sort of story to the traditional ‘relationship and circumstance angst followed by HEA’ of your straight-up Romance.
djh said on 09.11.07 at 03:31 PM • [link]
I know of one series romance (if two books can be called a series) that worked wonderfully. I read the first book and loved it! The ending was great and when I picked up her next book I was surprised to see the same H/h. The author is Jayne Ann Krentz and the books are “Gift of Gold†and “Gift of Fireâ€. She also did this with “Dreams Part One†and “Dreams Part Twoâ€, but I think the reissue has these two books packaged together. Both were published in the late 80’s and had great HEA’s. They just continued and built onto the relationship in the next book.
mercorir said on 09.11.07 at 03:36 PM • [link]
Personally, I’m just waiting for Stephanie to give up on choosing and attempt polyamory…
shaunee said on 09.11.07 at 03:47 PM • [link]
Question(s):
Other than the authors mentioned (Evanovich, etc) what are some examples of romantic series? I confess, I’ve never really experienced one. I mean, I’ve gone to the bookstore of course and headed directly to the romance section, naturally, but it’s never been my bad luck to find a set of books among the Kinsales, James and Dodds where the romance, which is the primary thrust/conflict of the plot, goes on and on for books.
Many have posted here that they don’t like series for a variety of reasons, but is the “no likey” factor an issue of the books being badly written or soley an issue of impatience/instant gratification? Cuz I hate me a badly written book too, but are you saying that you’d hate a really well-written one of twelve because you’re on one and two et al aren’t on bookshelves yet?
I just reread the previous and it sounds kinda condescending which I don’t mean to be at all. I’m simply bewildered. (And apparently too lazy to rewrite.)
Jane said on 09.11.07 at 03:48 PM • [link]
Like others, this is a discussion that has been on my mind for a while. I was supremely disturbed by the Cameron Dean series and felt that its labeling as a romance was a gross injustice to the romance reader. (Yes, in all its hyperbole, I mean it).
I think that romance sales are falling because marketing, publishers, authors, whomever, have decided to avail themselves of the holy romance label to be placed in the section of the bookstore that accounts for 50% of the mass market sales. The problem is that with the increasing hybridization of romance by the “powers that be”, the label “romance” is being diluted and thus is training readers to be more cautious in making impulse buys. Unfortunately, you cannot tell for sure, based on the back cover copy, that a book is going to end in an HEA. The reader is at the mercy of the publisher.
It’s not good for the genre; it’s not good for the author. Take, for example, Colleen Gleason’s series. I read somewhere that it will take 8 books before I get a resolution. No thanks. I am not going to invest time in reading 7 books where the h/h are jerked around. And it’s got the dreaded romance triangle which means that the h/h will vacillate a dozen times before its resolved. And even if that is not what actually happens, that is what I perceive will happen and it deters me from reading and buying the books.
Another series which I won’t name but the first book will be released in November ends with the couple completely apart. I can see that it is trying to be a series but how successful will it be when the first book lands with repeated thuds against the wall.
I understand that it is not within the author’s power to change her label, but there are some things within her power. If she doesn’t want to be a romance author why submit to editors that primarily specialize in romance? Why not submit to Roc, Tor, Ace?
It’s not as if fantasy books can’t garner a strong cross over audience. Look at Patricia Briggs. I suspect Ilona Andrews will also be a Briggs like author in the future. These are two urban fantasy authors who have romance threads in their books and there is no promise of the HEA and no one expects it. Slap a romance label on those same books and I bet readers are up in arms because those expectations are going to be met.
Ultimately readers will blame the authors for this “deceit” because it isn’t the marketing dept on the front of the book and it isn’t the publisher whose picture is in the back.
soco said on 09.11.07 at 04:33 PM • [link]
While I’ll say I’m all about the HEA, I am preferring other genres with romantic elements these days. Not of the wham-bam now you must die so I can move on to my next honey James Bond type elements, but one where the characters and the relationship evolve. So series really work here provided there is the evolution. The finest example of this is undoubtedly the In Death series. Wow, 20 books and still working. Impressive!
This thread has brought up a question in my mind - do we have different criteria for romance movies than for books? I seriously doubt anyone would still be talking about Casablanca today if Bogie and Bergman had waltzed off into the sunset together. Dr. Zhivago (movie, haven’t read the book) just haunted me. I honestly can’t remember how it ended, but I’m guessing it wasn’t an HEA given how much it haunted me.
It seems that romantic comedies give you the HEA (though perhaps not much else) while the romantic epics (English Patient, Titanic (yeah, I know there were the historical elements here like the ship sinking to work in here)) go for the Oscar winning ending aka not happy.
distracted said on 09.11.07 at 04:40 PM • [link]
“For series romance to be effective to me, as a reader, I don’t necessarily need an HEA. I need it to be fresh and I need to be worth hanging in there for.”
I completely agree with this. Right now my favorite “series” is Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight” et al. There’s technically a HEA in each, however, there are unresolved plot points that have my panting for the next book. Others I’m awaiting are Meg Cabot’s third and final Heather Wells mystery “Big Boned” (I’m not sure how this is classified—its in YA at my library, but it’s listed as adult on her website, and while there’s mystery, there is the love plot buildup of all Cabot books. Technically no HEA yet, but it’s coming!). Also Libba Bray’s “The Sweet Far Thing.”
The problem I often encounter has been discussed already—indefinite story line turning the series into “Days of Our Lives.” To me it seems that the less books the series contains, the better. I love me some YA, which is full of series books. I recently finished the YA SWEEP series (Cate Tiernan) which started out very interesting and by book ten, the point of view began to change and I had lost interest. I was lucky that I discovered the books AFTER all 15 had been released, otherwise I probably would have driven myself crazy.
Chicklet said on 09.11.07 at 04:46 PM • [link]
Well said, Wry Hag! I’m with you 100%.
Kalen Hughes said on 09.11.07 at 04:49 PM • [link]
No, it’s about GENRE definition. The discussion here centers around GENRE romance, which (like all other GENRE fiction) makes certain promises to its readers. The promise of GENRE romance is a happy conclusion to the romantic relationship (and here I’m willing to have a great “breadth of definitionâ€).
Many stories may be ROMANTIC, while not being GENRE romances. These books are generally considered fiction, women’s fiction, literary fiction, etc. A tragic ending precludes these stories from being a GENRE romance. That does not mean these books are bad, unsatisfying, unworthy, or anything else. It simply means that when I plunk down my $$ for a GENRE romance, I want a fucking GENRE romance. Just as when I buy a GENRE mystery I want to find out “who done it†and when I buy a GENRE sci-fi/fantasy book I want whatever challenge the characters face to come to a satisfactory conclusion.
GENRE = fulfilling a promise to the reader, plain and simple.
DS said on 09.11.07 at 04:53 PM • [link]
One of my top two X-files favorites was Jose Chung’s It Came From Outer Space. It managed to get more UFO lore in one hour than the entire rest of the UFO arc. I think that Carter lost or stopped using his best writers after the first 3 or 4 seasons. I pretend seasons 5-9 never existed.
Anyway, back to romance. The Rosemary Rogers Steve/Ginny series were books in which the main couple would get together and then when it seemed everything would settle down, they would be separated for another big chunk of text (whoa, having flashbacks, I just wrote “sex” for “text”). I’ve never read all the way through them but what I did read seemed pretty awful.
Although I enjoy a romance in a story I am honestly having to dig in my memory to come up with the last book I read and enjoyed where the relationship took center stage alone. i guess my reread of Heyer’s Devil’s Cub comes the closest this year. I’ve tossed a couple of romances partially read into the Goodwill box because I wasn’t enjoying them.
I don’t bother with interconnected romances, especially if there are a group of men with a sophomoric club name and there is always a saccharine epilogue. I don’t mind family series. Roberta Gellis and Elswyth Thane come to mind although both are probably as much historical as they are romances. Each book also has a couple at the center whose romance needed to be sorted out.
If I had to name an author who managed to successfully sustain a romantic relationship in a nonromance series over a long period of time and bringing it to a satisfying conclusion it would be Dorothy Sayers.
Stephanie Doyle said on 09.11.07 at 05:08 PM • [link]
“I know of one series romance ... that worked wonderfully… Jayne Ann Krentz and the books are “Gift of Gold†and “Gift of Fireâ€. “
Ditto on this. I loved these books because the second story took you to the “other side” of HEA and really explored the next step. At the end of the first book you knew they would be together. The second book defined what that meant and all the conflict that comes with two people making a life together.
I would definitely read more books like these - but there has to be a limit.
After reading HP from beginning to end -I think I’m going to be more picky about this. That was essentially an 8,000 page book. And to my way of thinking that’s how a series needs to be done. One large story arc that has a beginning, middle and end. As many mentioned the Plum books are going no where. And worse there is no development of character for me. Hence Steph’s endless indecision.
What I keeps me reading the “In Death” series - aside from the satisfying mystery - is I still feel that Eve and Rourke are growing. Individually and together. If I ever think they’ve figured it all out - that will probably be the time for me to walk away.
And as an aside - I think we have to give TV writers some slack. They simply don’t know when they start a show how long it will go. They can’t “reasonably” plot an end when that end could be 4 shows from start or 4 years from start. I don’t know how they do it.
I will say that the tired will-they won’t-they plot line in most TV “romance” relationships really needs to be overhauled. There HAS to be a better way to do this. It’s so tired - it’s almost turned me off watching any show where I think a couple might get together. I just can’t invest in something when I KNOW exactly how it’s going to play out.
Jane said on 09.11.07 at 05:16 PM • [link]
In fact, I’ve found many tales of love to be far more satisfying without a Smiley tacked on after the final period. Written well, nonHEA stories can be profoundly moving—much more so than many standard romances whose feel-good conclusions seem gratuitous, silly, and/or unrealistically saccharine.
This is absolutely true and to insist on an HEA in a GENRE romance does not mean there are not love stories that are tremendously moving (Time Traveler’s Tale). But, when reading a Genre romance there are genre expectations. There is a reason that thousands of romance books are sold and it isn’t because the books end unhappily.
jennifer echols said on 09.11.07 at 05:17 PM • [link]
One of my top two X-files favorites was Jose Chung’s It Came From Outer Space.
That was a great one. My favorite was the one with Peter Boyle.
Stephanie Doyle said on 09.11.07 at 05:31 PM • [link]
Funny… I just read my comment…“I just can’t invest in something when I KNOW exactly how it’s going to play out.”
And I thought - no wait I can if it’s a romance novel. Even knowing I’m going to get my HEA - I still want to read it. I think the difference is I know that time period for the story is limited and the time it will take me to read it also pretty defined. It’s the endless teasing that TV offers that drives me nuts.
So it’s a pretty good bet - depending on how it was done - that a straight series romance with no end in sight… Nope. Not going to be my cup of tea.
DS said on 09.11.07 at 06:07 PM • [link]
Just wanted to comment on this:
Jane wrote (Is that Dear Author’s Jane?)
I think that romance sales are falling because marketing, publishers, authors, whomever, have
decided to avail themselves of the holy romance label to be placed in the section of the bookstore that accounts for 50% of the mass market sales. The problem is that with the increasing hybridization of romance by the “powers that beâ€, the label “romance†is being diluted and thus is training readers to be more cautious in making impulse buys. Unfortunately, you cannot tell for sure, based on the back cover copy, that a book is going to end in an HEA. The reader is at the mercy of the publisher. snip
Despite the fact that Romance (like sf and mysteries) likes to root into the past to claim books for their genre, Genre Romance As We Known It, only crawled out of the primal ooze in the middle 70’s. While there were Harlequins before then and they had most of the qualities that any definition of genre romance would include today, they were, for the most part, not very good reading experiences.
Genre Romance As We Know It probably didn’t become completely formed until very late 70’s/early 80’s with writers like Johanna Lindsey and Jude Deveraux. This might be growing pains.
I hate to drag sf back into this, but anyone who remembers the New Wave of sf remembers the outcry among people liked linear stories versus those who enjoyed the more free-wheeling literary style of the New Wave. Or perhaps a better analogy would be the tension between sf and fantasy that erupted with the first popularity of LotRs. Sf is nuts and bolts versus sf is speculative fiction. The result of all of this was that both nuts and bolts and soft sf and fantasy and Star Wars and Star Trek in all its flavors are all available under the sff umbrella.
I think that Genre Romance will eventually end up accommodating the different flavors of romance now emerging under its umbrella. I would expect die-hard HEA fans to give up reading romance, just to be more cautious about what they buy. Hopefully it will also attract other readers who care nothing about 18th-19th century Europe but who enjoy the supernatural or erotica or erotic supernatural or whatever else is on offer.
I ordered all three of the Shomi books based on comments written here and on Dear Author. I also have about six Juno books (love the covers) stacked in my office that I want to read. All ordered new from Amazon—so I’m buying more new books published as romance this year than I have in the past two years combined but it’s not traditional romance.
DS said on 09.11.07 at 06:15 PM • [link]
Oh gosh, I just reread this. I meant I would not expect die-hard HEA fans to give up reading romance.
And anyone who is worried about the HEA situation should take a look at the Amazon review and comments on Stephanie Meyers third book. There are a lot of upset young women because apparently the heroine kissed some other young man besides the heroine. There also seem to be a lot who are upset because the heroine is so invested in the hero without a thought to her own development.
My feminist side finds that last bit very encouraging.
DS said on 09.11.07 at 06:29 PM • [link]
Phooey, hero, not heroine. Although I might find the other situation interesting also.
Heloise (& Abelard) said on 09.11.07 at 07:16 PM • [link]
The promise of GENRE romance is a happy conclusion to the romantic relationship (and here I’m willing to have a great “breadth of definitionâ€).
YES, YES! Exactly! Millions of wonderful books out there, and I don’t always need what I’m getting written out in picture symbols for me, but when I buy me some Genre Fiction and it doesn’t conform to the general expectations of that genre, I’m gonna be mad even if it’s written by Arundhati Roy (God of Small Things). Well, maybe not…. but you know what I mean!
PS. Speaking of which, Kalen Hughes, I just read Lord Sin and I thought it’s a great example of romance ‘rule’ stretching while staying within the genre framework nicely. Liked it a lot!
This was supposed to be a short comment. :)
Tracy said on 09.11.07 at 08:18 PM • [link]
“And worse there is no development of character for me. Hence Steph’s endless indecision.” Great point. That’s just it. I don’t see Stephanie as being any different in book 13 as book 1. And I know that the Plum books are not labeled as “Romance” (they are shelved in the “mystery” section of my library). But there is a romantic element that makes me nuts and that is it. No matter what the series is labeled as the characters should show some growth.
I also agree with all of those that have said that there are great books out there without the HEA, but that in GENRE romance the HEA is expected. HEA also can have many definitions~to me it just means that the relationship is going somewhere and the characters know that.
I like knowing there will be an HEA b/c when I read, I read to enjoyment and to relax. My books don’t have to emulate “real life”. There is enough crap in real life, I want to escape a little when I read.
Tracy said on 09.11.07 at 08:19 PM • [link]
FOR enjoyment.
verification word LOOK51. As in “look at the post before you hit ‘submit’” :)
Tracy Grant said on 09.11.07 at 08:59 PM • [link]
Well, just to be odd person out, I have to confess that I enjoyed the stand alone X-Files episides, but I absolutely adored the mytharc episdes and those tend to be the ones I watched over and over. I also enjoyed the thematic connetctions between the stand alones and the mytharc in a given season and how the Mulder/Scully relationship developed in both. I actually liked the development of the Scully/Mulder relationship through season 8. I pretend season 9 never happened :-). And I’m still in denial about the series finale of Alias.
I also love series books where relationships develop over multiple books (and I totally agree that the Peter Wimsey/Harriet Vane books are a brilliant example of this). In my Charles & Mélanie Fraser books, Charles and Mélanie resolve a major issue in each book but their relationship continues to develop through-out the series. And I have ideas for love stories for other characters in the series that I’d like to play out over multiple books. Which is why the books aren’t marketed as romances and I don’t think they should be (I was trying to articulate this in a recent interview on Fog City Divas when Monica McCarty asked how the books differed from my romances). They defintiely contain love stories, but als mysteries and poltiical intrigue, and each book doesn’t end with a happily-ever-after for one couple.
Eli said on 09.11.07 at 09:05 PM • [link]
Do I expect a HEA when I pick up a Romance novel? yes
Do publishers drive me insane with creative labeling? Yes.
Tor is the biggest offender, I find myself hesitating to purchase books by established authors I am familiar with because I have this instinctive flinch when I see Tor on the spine.
Note to any Tor editors who might read this blog: If you kill the hero don’t put romance on the cover. I realize that Fournier’s The Wanderer and Goethe’s Sorrows of Young Werther are considered Romance, but it’s a different kind of romance. I respectfully recommend a remedial course in Popular Fiction.
The sad thing is after months of trying to scrub the book that provoked the reaction from my brain and leaving it on the floor of the garage in hopes that the flood coming would destroy it so that I wouldn’t feel guilty about throwing the book away I confronted my nausea and re-read the book. Going in with the knowledge that it wasn’t a Romance I was able to acknowledge that it was a great book. But not a romance.
Series Romance can be done right. Someone mentioned the Riley Jensen series, I don’t consider it Romance, rather Paranormal/Urban Fantasy so the lack of a HEA doesn’t bug me. Because I like the character, however, I want her to get a HEA or HFRN eventually. My preference is for series like Nalini Singh’s Psy-Changeling Series, individual HEA with an overarching story line that connects them all.
I rarely blame an author for the rampant mislabeling. I’m more likely to write it off as lingering, “The main character’s a woman, she’s only emotionally involved with one guy (so what if its not really the point of the story) lets stick it in Romance” attitudes.
I have given up on my tradition of purchasing one completely new to me Romance author each month because I can no longer trust what I’m getting by picking up a book with Romance on the spine (see my longwinded off topic rant on killing the hero above). New authors are approached cautiously with multiple recommendations from people I trust. The only time I buy unknowns now is Sunday night at the grocery store when I’m desperate and haven’t read anything new in a day or so. The good news for other authors is that I’m spending more on nonfiction, fantasy, and science fiction. I don’t expect HEA’s when I pick up one of them.
Jane said on 09.11.07 at 09:38 PM • [link]
DS - yes, unfortunately it is me from Dear Author and I am glad to hear that you have purchased the Shomi books. I think its an innovative line. You’ll heave to let us know what you think.
I don’t think that diehard romance readers will stop buying romances but impulse buys account for a great majority of all retail sales. I suspect that is true for romances as well. Impulse buys require, on some level, a belief that you are going to get something that meets your expectations. The expectations of a romance reader in the romance aisle is that the book will end with a HEA - whatever that may be.
I also don’t think that the HEA is generational or confined to the romance genre as witnessed by your example of the unhappiness of the Stephenie Meyer fans. Meyer’s books are not labeled as romances but the expectations that she built for her readers was that they would end in a certain way. The way in which she has chosen to stray from the expectations has led to alot of disappointment. What does disappointment do? It negates the impulse purchase.
So while there are still purchases, it is in lower numbers as readers who once sought gratification in the romance aisle are turning to other forms of entertainment.
E.D'Trix said on 09.11.07 at 09:39 PM • [link]
Hi Eli, this is Heather Osborn, editor for Tor Romance!
Which particular Tor Romance books were you talking about? As far as I know, although Tor has done a 3 book, same hero/heroine series for the romance line, those books each ended with the hero and heroine still together, and no one was dead. All of the Tor romance books have ended HEA, or at least hopefully ever after, as far as I know.
This is only in regards to the books that fall under the Tor Romance logo, of course, I can’t speak for the science fiction and fantasy books. I do know that Tor has a “Women in Fantasy” program that they advertise in romance friendly venues like Romantic Times magazine, but they are advertised as “fantasy” and not romance, so the HEA is not guaranteed.
I would love to hear which book sent you over the edge!
Eli said on 09.11.07 at 10:36 PM • [link]
I would love to hear which book sent you over the edge!
That would be Natasha Mostert’s Windwalker.
This one wasn’t part of a series, it was, as far as I know, a stand alone. It was more toward the subconversation regarding HEA & Romance.
To make it clear: This is a great book, but I snagged it when it came out because I was excited when I heard Tor was doing a Romance line. Devoured it, got to the end, sat stupified and dry mouthed for about 10 minutes then spent the rest of the day muttering to myself, and generally convincing my family I’d finally lost it. Literally left it on the floor of my garage as we evacuated. Decided it was a sign when the flood waters stopped in the front corner of our yard and put in in the re-read pile.
If it had not been so well written I doubt I would have felt so betrayed at the end and it wouldn’t have stuck with me to point that when frantically trying to lift things up pending evacuation I saw that book and took the 20 seconds to toss it on the floor instead of sticking it in the plastic container I was wrapping with duct tape. Great book, but not a romance.
Kalen Hughes said on 09.11.07 at 10:40 PM • [link]
Thanks. I think I like the idea of being a “rule stretcher”. LOL!
E.D'Trix said on 09.11.07 at 11:12 PM • [link]
Eli,
Ahh, Windwalker was before my time, and I haven’t read it yet. Sorry the ending crushed you! If it makes you feel any better, I believe Natasha’a next book is being published as Women’s Fiction and will not be in the romance section. Hopefully we have learned from that mistake!
Heather
Jennifer said on 09.12.07 at 12:04 AM • [link]
Regarding Colleen Gleason: the series is supposed to have 5 books total. And I think it’s pretty freaking obvious at this point who she’s going to end up with (albeit uh…it might take 3 books to get there for a reason).
I tend to think that it’s all in how you handle it. I hate series books where the h/h break up very sadly by the end of them (unless they get back together in the next one)- I like to have some kind of temporary happy ending for now sort of resolution from series book to series book.
Michelle said on 09.12.07 at 12:39 AM • [link]
Re: the whole Stephenie Meyer deal. It is a lot more than just the heroine kissing someone else. Watch out spoilers-kind of ahead.
Spoilers/Spoilers
Twilight to me was magical. The entire hero fighting his basic urges to kill the heroine, his attempt to be “more” than a monster, was set up beautifully. The book was basically how they were soul mates, that one in a lifetime connection. Then in the last book Eclipse the heroine does a total 180. Oh by the way I have always loved hero #2, and I would really rather have a life with you but its kind of too late since I am addicted to hero #1 and he is my drug. But we can all be happy together and friends coz you really are my other soul mate. Sadly even though it was fairly well written it did ruin the magic of the first book for me.
Anyway I don’t mind series as long as there aren’t major cliffhangers and the hero and heroine will eventually end up together. Kind of like Katie MacAlister’s Aisling series.
Wry Hag said on 09.12.07 at 02:53 AM • [link]
Genre romance. Okay, I get it. Yeah, writers and publishers of genre romance are pretty much locked into the HEA gig. Readers expect it. End of (predictable) story.
CC said on 09.12.07 at 02:53 AM • [link]
italics fixed?
SB Sarah said on 09.12.07 at 03:02 AM • [link]
Italics fixed - thanks CC for giving me the heads up.
Cara said on 09.12.07 at 03:49 AM • [link]
Diana Gabaldon
I said it. Ok, this is where I originally found my confusion with the genre of ‘romance’.
Side note: That, and a snotty UBS owner informing when I grew up, I would appreciate a more thoughtful romance. All I could think was Hey bitch, I got kids, you’re younger than me and don’t….backhanded complement?
Anyways, I enjoyed her books later, as along as I didn’t think of them as having a HEA. But dammit, I expected something different and it pissed me off at first. Once I knew what I was getting, I was able to enjoy them. It took a bit of calming to reach that point, though.
Robyn said on 09.12.07 at 03:50 AM • [link]
Ms. Osborn- see comment #2. Both characters were alive and had an HEA, but it was not about Tony and Sue, it was about Tony, which was not the tone set by the first book. Made me want to pluck my hair out.
Cara said on 09.12.07 at 03:50 AM • [link]
Oh, thanks Sarah for fixing the italics. I was wondering if it was my drink or lack of V8 after a while!
iffygenia said on 09.12.07 at 03:53 AM • [link]
I think that romance sales are falling because marketing, publishers, authors, whomever, have decided to avail themselves of the holy romance label to be placed in the section of the bookstore that accounts for 50% of the mass market sales. The problem is that with the increasing hybridization of romance by the “powers that beâ€, the label “romance†is being diluted and thus is training readers to be more cautious in making impulse buys. Unfortunately, you cannot tell for sure, based on the back cover copy, that a book is going to end in an HEA. The reader is at the mercy of the publisher.
It’s not good for the genre; it’s not good for the author.
Very interesting, Jane. I couldn’t disagree more :)
I think hybridization (both directions: other genres admitting they’re dabbling in romance territory, and romance authors trying new things) is saving romance. Look how sales of paranormal romance have taken off—there’s clearly a market for darker stories. I don’t think that harms romance; I think it provides more variety.
Speaking for myself, I can’t live on a diet of entirely Harlequin Presents or entirely pointy-teeth-creatures. But if I read a variety of types of books, I enjoy all my reading more.
Also, your hypothesis about impulse buys is the opposite of my intuition. I make two types of impulse purchase:
1. I know I’ll like that
2. Wow, that looks different.
If all I looked at in the bookstore were the “safe HEA” section, half the time I wouldn’t see anything that really caught my eye. (I went through years of this, and sometimes ended up buying utter crap out of sheer desperation. Believe me, it didn’t make me feel very positive toward romance.) But if I find a variety of books that provide something romance-related, I always walk away with something I’m interested in.
Ultimately, I think it’s like any other area where a “brand” is trying to keep a lock on its ownership. It’s hopeless anyway—the cat’s out of the bag; people are figuring out romance can be good reading and good sales. As a reader, I’m all for variety. And as a supporter of the genre, I think it can only be good to bring in new readers. Even if they like their own weird unhappy geeky spaceshippy pointy-toothed version of romance.
Since we’re quoting Jenny Crusie today, here’s another interesting tidbit. She’s talking about category romance. When I read it, however, it rings true of romance in general.
I would rather some of those badly written romances with awkward, forced happy endings be allowed to NOT have happy endings, or not as explicitly so—to make the overall book better. I think sometimes an author produces a book that just doesn’t wrap up tidily, and that’s OK. I’d rather my happy endings be really good and satisfying. I feel more betrayed by uterus-less women having miracle babies and reconciliations with formerly-dead brothers on the final page than by a semisweet, 75% cacao, or even bittersweet ending.
Crusie also talks about romance being treated like a commodity, like soup. In that light, that last line I quoted really gives me pause:
Jane: It’s not good for the genre; it’s not good for the author.
As I said, I don’t think this can be controlled, nor would I want to, because romance fiction isn’t just a customer service business. It’s also an art. If authors inside OR outside of conventional romance are excited about trying some crossover stuff, even if it’s stuff I hate, I’m glad they’re jazzed about it. That’s all part of genre growth. The publishers and bookstores can shelve it wherever they like—I’ll still read the cover, flip through to read a few pages, take a chance, and see where it goes.
BTW, I’ve been curious about these reports of romance sales falling. Is that as compared to last quarter? last year? last five years? The numbers I’ve seen, 1998-2004, trend upward for that period, so if there’s new data I’d love to see it. (Graph here, a couple paragraphs down.)
Chicklet said on 09.12.07 at 04:31 AM • [link]
BTW, I’ve been curious about these reports of romance sales falling. Is that as compared to last quarter? last year? last five years? The numbers I’ve seen, 1998-2004, trend upward for that period, so if there’s new data I’d love to see it.
I doubt the information I want is released to the public: raw numbers of actual books sold, not the percentage of all readers who read a particular genre. Because then we could see if sales are rising or falling, and discuss what might be influencing that.
My gut feeling is that hybridization is expanding readership of the romance genre, since people who wouldn’t have read a traditional romance might pick up a paranormal or suspenseful romance.
Ha! My spamblocker is reading81.
iffygenia said on 09.12.07 at 04:56 AM • [link]
raw numbers of actual books sold, not the percentage of all readers who read a particular genre
The Census collects some of this; so does the Book Industry Study Group (their reports are expensive), and a couple other organizations. I looked briefly at it, and decided it was a big big job to figure it out. More of the figures are in $ sales than # books, so it’s hard to sort out expensive hardcover vs cheap mass market, etc. The number sold is really hard to figure out even with subscriptions to the various reporting services—each one reports a fraction of the market, and some of them report what shipped to stores while others report what actually sold.
In terms of total books read (across genres), avid readers are generally maxed out—they can’t read any more books than they currently do. But frequent or avid readers (at least 1 book/month) are only 16% of the population, so something like Harry Potter that gets the huge non-avid population to all buy one book per household creates more market growth than a few avid readers frantically reading a little faster.
That’s for all genres—but it’s partly applicable to romance. Given that many romance readers are in the maxed-out avid reader category, there’s obviously a new readership snapping up the cross-genre books. I can’t imagine how else all the paranormals are hitting the bestseller lists. (Dear Author’s annotated USAToday list shows several books in this group.)
Jane said on 09.12.07 at 04:29 PM • [link]
There was a report either in the spring or early summer that showed romance was decreasing and sff and mystery were increasing. They were slight changes - single digit percentages - but I think that it heralded a future, and larger, shift.
Impulse buys account for a huge portion of retail purchases and while books could be different, I don’t think that they are which is why placement of books (at the front ladders; on the tables; face out) and covers play such a big part in why books sell.
As for hybridization, I don’t mean paranormals and romantic suspense, I mean increasingly non romance books being labeled as romances such as Cameron Dean’s series or the Clamp series (this isn’t the first place I’ve read those complaints about the Clamp series) or Colleen Gleason’s books. They all happen to be paranormals and series at that, but it isn’t the sub genre of the books that makes it a hybridization in my mind, it’s the cross genre classification, the dilution of the purity of the romance novel in terms of not ending happily or not ending at all.
I don’t put books like Suzanne Brockmann or even Karen Rose (a highly underrated romantic suspense author in my mind) in the same category because even if their books are series or connected, each one contains a wholly integrated romance that ends with a couple together.
As for the HEA being an “antiquated” notion, I just don’t buy that. I read alot of YA literature and many of those books have a romance in them that ends happily as well. Meg Cabot who, behind JK Rowling, is probably one of the highest selling YA authors almost always ends her books with an HEA. I say almost because her most recent entry into the “babble” series doesn’t end with the h and her love together at the end. I have hopes for the future though. ;)
iffygenia said on 09.12.07 at 05:23 PM • [link]
As for hybridization, I don’t mean paranormals and romantic suspense, I mean increasingly non romance books being labeled as romances such as Cameron Dean’s series or the Clamp series (this isn’t the first place I’ve read those complaints about the Clamp series) or Colleen Gleason’s books. They all happen to be paranormals and series at that, but it isn’t the sub genre of the books that makes it a hybridization in my mind, it’s the cross genre classification, the dilution of the purity of the romance novel in terms of not ending happily or not ending at all.
What I’m saying is that the “cross genre” hybridization and the “subgenre” developments are happening for the same reasons. It’s no coincidence that paranormal romance and urban fantasy are both booming—and with a lot of overlapping readership. There’s a market. It’ll evolve—that’s what markets do.
I’m baffled by the disconnect here—these arguments work against each other. You can keep romance an exclusive club, or you can let the crazy people in.
If you’re really concerned that romance is going under (which I don’t believe at all), then I’d think you’d want to see hybridization and new readership. Preserving high walls between genres isn’t the way to grow, and the idea of “the dilution of the purity of the romance novel”... again, that’s an idea that speaks primarily to existing romance devotees, not new readers.
Kalen Hughes said on 09.12.07 at 06:01 PM • [link]
What you appear to be arguing for is the dissolution of the concept of the “genre†novel, and I don’t think that would serve readers or writers. When I buy a romance, I want an HEA. When I buy a mystery I want a mystery-that-needs-solving to present itself, and by god I want that mystery to be solved. When I buy a sci-fi/fantasy novel I want to be swept away into another world and I want to go on a some kind of grand adventure (overcome the evil forces, win the war, whatever). When I want to read something a bit edgier (a tragic romance, or a murder mystery where the protagonist if the murder, or something that doesn’t wrap up neatly, something where I don’t have a stated “contract†with the author) I buy general or literary fiction.
The walls can be lowered in genre fiction, but if you knock them down entirely you no longer have a genre.
word verification: point65
iffygenia said on 09.12.07 at 06:16 PM • [link]
What you appear to be arguing for is the dissolution of the concept of the “genre†novel, and I don’t think that would serve readers or writers.
I’m not arguing for this at all. I’m saying I think there’s room for a variety, and that some experimentation is healthful for the genre. I don’t think hybridization is any threat to genre. The genre novel isn’t going away, nor would I want it to.
Kalen Hughes said on 09.12.07 at 08:18 PM • [link]
This is the statement that I was addressing most explicitly (combined with your other statements about “purity†and “walls†and “hybridization†etc.). It seems to me that you are clearly stating here that you think the HEA rule of genre romance is something that should be thrown out or reconsidered. But since that HEA (or happy right now) is the bedrock guarantee of the genre (that which makes genre romance genre) I don’t see how it can be thrown out without simply dissolving the very concept of genre.
I’ll agree 100% that I find the endings of many books unsatisfying, schmaltzy, or just plain old wall-bangingly-bad. I don’t think this is the fault of the genre requirement for an HEA. I think this is the fault of bad writing, lazy editing, and a publishing machine that serves up a vast quantity of mediocre books (in all genres and categories). Removing the HEA from romance won’t fix this problem, but it will guarantee that legions of readers (myself included) will be forced to read the end before plunking down our $$$, and I don’t want to have to do that! When I want angst and bittersweet there are other sections of the bookstore that serve that up by the bowlful.
I don’t think anyone here was arguing against the idea of crossover appeal (whether it be paranormal or thriller or evangelical), but we were standing firm against the idea that hybridization and crossover appeal means that books which lack an HEA should be labeled and sold as genre romances.
iffygenia said on 09.13.07 at 02:32 AM • [link]
It seems to me that you are clearly stating here that you think the HEA rule of genre romance is something that should be thrown out or reconsidered. But since that HEA (or happy right now) is the bedrock guarantee of the genre (that which makes genre romance genre) I don’t see how it can be thrown out without simply dissolving the very concept of genre.
That’s not my intent. I’m not motivated by trying to attack the genre, I’m expressing bafflement over the “yikes, barricade the door” I’m hearing. Basically, I read capital-R “Romance” with a HEA, and I truly can’t believe that it’s in any danger of dilution.
I think the hybridization provides a deep fringe around the core of “Romance”, and that provides space to experiment with new styles and expectations in a number of ways. E.g. I’d love to see romance become stronger in making physical setting really matter to the story. Physical description is a major strength of some of Juno’s Paranormal Romance anthology. (I know that book is a family-size can of worms, and I agree it’s badly named; the new one’s called Romantic Fantasy.) Regardless, my point is—The romantic aspects aren’t always strong, but the descriptions really leap out at me. Cross-genre learning opportunity, both directions.
I feel like I’ve lost the plot here. I need a nap.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments