This is a big ol’ podcast: we start out talking briefly about novellas and short digital reads that Jane liked, but our main topic is the canon. What romances form the genre’s canon for historical, contemporary, and paranormal? We talk in circles a good bit (sorry about that) and we discuss what a canon is, and why it means different things to different groups. Writers and readers, for example may have different ideas of what their romance canon would be.
I’m sure there’s many writers you think have been left off, and so if you’d like to add or subtract from our list, you can email us at sbjpodcast@gmail.com.
Or, and this is new, you can call and leave us a message at our Google voice number: 201-371-DBSA. If you want to tell us why we’re wrong (or right!) about something, leave us a message, and please don’t forget to give us a name and where you’re calling from so we can work your message into our next podcast.
The music this week is, as always, provided by Sassy Outwater, and yes, we are all about the peatbog! The track is called “Room 215” and it’s by the Peatbog Faeries from their albums, which are available at their website. You can find them at iTunes as well.
If you like the Podcast, you can subscribe to our feed, or find us at iTunes. You can also find us at PodcastPickle.
Here are some of the books we mentioned in this week’s edition:
↓ Press Play
This podcast player may not work on Chrome and a different browser is suggested. More ways to listen →
Remember to subscribe to our podcast feed, find us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Laura—There’s a huge gap between Hull and Woodiwiss but I don’t think it was “bridged” by Violet Winspear alone; it was filled chock full of historical romances that just were’t quite labeled as such. And I know for a fact that at least SOME of us authors read those books. Certainly I did, but I rmember an email exchange with Kasey Michaels back in the mid-90s where she and I talked about one particular title, which I’m sure very very very few have ever heard of: The Burnished Blade, by Lawrence Schoonover. It had a particularly memorable scene that Kasey and I discussed. So I know I’m not the only person on earth to have read these. 😉 It seems that some people—and I don’t mean that in a “Some People” pejorative way at all—but it seems that some people have latched onto certain examples and made them into all-powerful influences. I never read The Sheik. I never saw the silent film, other than occasional clips. (I did just download the freebie to my Kindle so maybe I’ll read it this week when I have some time off.) But I was much more influenced as a writer by movies first—Captain Blood, Prince of Foxes, to name two—and then by searching out the books from which they were made. Books don’t influence books; they influence writers. I sometimes think the writer is left out of the equation altogether.
There’s a huge gap between Hull and Woodiwiss but I don’t think it was “bridged” by Violet Winspear alone; it was filled chock full of historical romances that just were’t quite labeled as such.
Oh yes, I agree. I think what’s happened is that a lot of the history of romantic fiction has been lost and those of us who are newer to the genre may end up picking out certain authors as key figures because (a) we’ve read them, (b) they’re still in print and/or (c) they’re mentioned in the few accounts of the development of the romance/romantic fiction which do exist. I know Pamela Regis is working on a history of romance in the US, and she’s been trying to find “lost” romances.
I think you’re right that labelling does play a part in this. I suspect that the RWA definition of the romance as having a “central” romantic relationship and an “optimistic ending” may make it more difficult to discern the links between various different types of “romantic fiction” (in print and in film). The definition is useful, of course, but it does seem to set “romance” apart from novels such as the ones about the adventures of Angelique, for example. Did you mention those further up the thread? I thought someone had but I couldn’t check because of what Disqus does to the comments thread. I haven’t read them but I have the impression that you could place them in that “gap” which is, paradoxically, “chock full.”
Oh, you’re so right. Dark Shadows was totally addictive and very much in the genre. It was a paranormal soap opera but still, the romance element was there (as it is in soap operas for that matter).
Laura—I mentioned Angelique in my blog, but I don’t think the series was mentioned here. And yes, I agree that RWA’s definition—the HEA or HFN ending—is restrictive and often conflicting. How often, for example, is Gone With the Wind held up as a, if you will, canonical romance, but it doesn’t even have the HFN ending? Or Romeo and Juliet, cited (almost) universally as the quintessential “romance” except they both die? Or more contemporarily, The Thorn Birds? My good goddess, what a fricking bummer THAT book was in terms of HEA. But the other side of that coin is to look for the romantic elements that pervade other literary forms, and/or how romantic elements have been inserted into other literary forms when they’re translated into new media, such as adding love interests to novels when they’re turned into movies.
RWA’s definition—the HEA or HFN ending—is restrictive
It is, and in some ways I think that’s a good thing: it’s very helpful, for example, for readers who want romantic fiction with a tight focus on one relationship and an HEA and HFN. It’s also a widely accepted definition in the US (things seem to be much more fluid in the UK, where libraries not infrequently shelve books under “romance” which, in the US, wouldn’t be considered “romance”).
On the other hand, there are downsides to being restrictive, which is why the International Association for the Study of Popular Romance is “dedicated to fostering and promoting the scholarly exploration of all popular representations of romantic love.”
How remarkable – I can’t think of any other writer who wrote anything like Betty Neels. Violet Winspear put me off romance for a good 15 years. I tended to retitle romance novels in my head as “beloved rapist” books.
General Comment On Canon
Isn’t time always a factor?
Having said that, I enjoyed the entire podcast. I could have listened to hours more of it. Could you have more where you do those kick back “circular conversations” around romance tropes? i.e. pick one for a pod cast, kick back around it, up to most recent takes on it versus all time favourite takes.
Also: tropes that have stayed. tropes which used to be all the rage and now very rare – new tropes. tropes that turned up for 5 minutes before sinking without site.
FWIW you’ve got me prioritising friday night lights, then checking out the football young adults – somehow the “girl wanting to be athlete” books have passed me right by – and I prefer the general idea to “heroine wanting to bonk super football star”. Perhaps there is a cultural issue here – I’m Australian, and Australian footballers have a massive gang rape culture. I enjoy SEP in spite of her heroes often being footballers.
Great podcast. The term “category romance” was new to me and I looked it up on Wikipedia. I get the impression that category romances are assembly line, read-and-forget types of books. Is this how you see them?
Also, you called Nora Robert’s JD Robb books canonical. I happen to enjoy the In Death… series and am interested to find other romance writers influenced by the Eve Dalas series. Are there romance/suspense tropes that can be attributed to her?
Thanks for giving me a couple of hours of work since I now feel compelled to go back through the podcast and create an annotated list of authors and titles.
Mack, as Sarah and Jane said during the podcast, a lot of the best-known romance authors have written category romances, including Suzanne Brockmann, Jennifer Crusie, Jayne Ann Krentz, Linda Howard, Nora Roberts, and J. R. Ward. I can’t speak for Sarah or Jane’s opinion of category romances, but I’d argue “that many are well-written, skilfully crafted works, and that a few are small masterpieces” (to quote the blurb of my book on Harlequin Mills & Boon romances).
I remember enjoying Jilly Cooper back in the day, but I’m not sure how much influence she had on other writers.
Laura, thanks for your reply and pointing me to your book. I just purchased the Kindle edition. The Wikipedia article indicated that the titles have a short shelf-life which made me think they are “read and forget.” I look forward to your take on Harlequin Mills & bloom.
I hope you find it interesting, Mack. As for the shelf-lives of category romances, it’s true that they’re short, but Harlequin/Mills & Boon have often reprinted the more successful novels, either in anthologies or special editions. I’m not sure when they started doing that, but they were certainly doing it by the 1970s because I’ve got one of the “Golden Harlequin Library” volumes, from 1971 and it includes 3 novels previously published by M&B in 1960, 1957 and 1962, and Harlequin in 1960, 1964 and 1963, so it’s not a new phenomenon. Nowadays, of course, Harlequin/Mills & Boon bring out ebook editions alongside the print ones, so all the books will probably stay on their virtual shelves indefinitely. They’ve also been digitising their backlist.
Random House has also been digitising its old Loveswept category romances and as you can see from the comments left on the announcement page, there are many readers who remember them very fondly.
I like that idea, thank you! And footballers – you mean Aussie rules football, rit? Not soccer? (pardon my ignorance)
Listening to the podcast and reading the comments has sent my thoughts back my start reading romance as a teanager – Georgette Heyer (from my mother’s bookshelf) Victoria Holt, Jean Plaidy and Mary Stewart. Living in Australia, there was far greater access to English, as opposed to US, authors. I don’t think I read any US romance authors until I discovered Jennifer Crusie about 8 years ago. But I have to say that I didn’t discover any other other current romance authors indepently – an article in an Australian newspaper sent me to this webstie
You never mentioned Jayne Ann Krentz – who has published articles talking about the themes in romance novels. I remember when the Silhouette book – Raven’s Prey was published in 1983 there was a lot of talk about presenting the male point of view. Sweet Starfire was published in 1986 – an early science fiction romance. Also her mystery series Guinvere Jones was published in 1986. She certainly belongs in the canon
This is my first listen, and I loved it! I’ve told you before (a while ago) that you have a great speaking voice, and it was great to hear Jane, too. Incidentally, I have the same quirk—the more hype something gets, the less I like it on principle. It all started with Titanic, the movie. But I digress.
I think the term you guys were thinking of (re: Anna Campbell’s type of books) was Regency Noir, which is what I kept hearing when I tried to read it. I was one of those who didn’t enjoy the throwback to forced seduction, but I can certainly appreciate the emotion and baggage she injected into her characters.
As a writer, I can say I was heavily influenced by Johanna Lindsey (specifically, the Malory series), and Julie Garwood, to the point where Regency-speak and Britishisms regularly creep into my everyday speech. So happy to see them in the list. As a previous commenter said, Julie Garwood included a lot of humor in her Regency novels, with a lighter tone, which may make her more canonical than Julia Quinn, if only because of publishing dates.
Oh! And someone just mentioned Diana Gabaldon (sp?). I’ve never read her, but my friends swear her Outlander books changed their lives. I guess, for the paranormal canon?
Was Loretta Chase mentioned? I don’t know what she contributed to the romance that was new or canonical but I feel like she’s one of those authors – like Jennifer Crusie – that usually gets recommended to new romance readers and therefore is somehow important to the genre. Does that make her canonical? I don’t know.
I’m an Aussie too, Deslivres and I think there are many girls who want to ‘bonk a football star’ in Aus too. There have been some very unfortunate incidents with footballers in Aus and I make no excuse for that but I do think the description ‘massive gang rape culture’ is probably doing the sport and most of the men who play it, a disservice.
Yes Sarah, she is referring to Aussie Rules – I don’t agree with that description of the sport’s culture however, despite some unquestionably inexcusable incidents that have occurred over a period of time.
Great podcast. I am working my way through all the episodes starting at the beginning. Do you provide a listing of books discussed anywhere on your website? Thank you!
Hey Karen! Welcome to the podcast – I’m so pleased you’re listening! I’m not sure why the book covers aren’t rendering on this page except where it says “book covers” but they should all be there. I’ll try to figure out why the covers aren’t showing up!