The R-Word

[hedda62]

Finally got to the post I've been meaning to write for ages on how and why my books are and are not romance novels, and what that means to me, at great length. I am not going to sit here longer and recode it to post here, so you'll have to read it on my blog. Comments welcome here as well as there.

Comments

[philomytha]

I think if I was in charge of shelving your books at my local Waterstones, they'd be going with the general/'literary' fiction rather than in any particular genre. I'm not completely sure of the reasoning behind this decision, it's a gut instinct based on theme and feel and language, and of course it's only based on the two I've read. I don't think they'd belong in the romance novels section at all. Which is not the same thing as saying they're not romances: that's about structure and focus and expectations rather than whether or not a romance is right in the middle of the story.

[hedda62]

I am always very interested in shelving decisions (while routinely arguing with them) - for example, our local library has an area for mysteries which does not include certain categories of suspense fiction, and I'm never sure where to look for things. Certainly my books would be hard to shelve; they don't anchor strongly in the SF section either.

I like the idea that romance is about structure and focus and expectations - and that perhaps a book can be romance while at the same time not correlating with those elements - but it doesn't square with marketing in all cases. But of course an awful lot of "literary" fiction (and a lot of mysteries, etc.) might qualify as romance if you put your thumb on the scales a bit. Labels, pfft.

[mmegaera]

You and me and Diana Gabaldon, Erica [g]. She spent *years* insisting that her books weren't romance, until she found out how well romance sells, then said, sure, call it what you want.

And I don't consider my Time in Yellowstone books to be romance. Yes, each of the three books has a romance in it, but that's not the primary story. Still, when I added romance to my Amazon categories I think it increased my sales. Slightly (not that my sales aren't miniscule to begin with).

You might also want to consider the RWA Rita award category of "books with romantic elements." That may be where your books belong. That's sort of where I think my TiY books fit.

[hedda62]

I certainly wouldn't have thought of TiY as romance, though they're not science fiction either (mine have a more SF-basis, but I'm hesitant to land them solidly in that category). "Books with romantic elements," yes, but I'd more likely focus on the historical aspects.

I've only read one Diana Gabaldon book, and I'd say it was a book with strong romantic elements, in fact pretty forceful and uncompromising. :) But yeah, there's a lot of history and politics too.

[mmegaera]

No, TiY is western historical fantasy adventure with a side of romance [g]. But one does have to decide on categories, and the romance folks seem to be more accepting of "other stuff" in their books, so long as the basic parameter of the Happily Ever After is taken care of. Since I couldn't write an unhappy ending if you paid me far more than I'll ever make, I don't have a problem with that.

The historical aspects don't sell well to the historical folks if there are fantasy cooties in them. And the fantasy folks don't seem all that interested in something with as little fantasy as mine have in them.

So I do what I do [wry g]. Your books, OTOH, are much skiffier.

I always thought it was silly to think of Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series (the first and third of which I really liked, the second one not so much, and from the fourth on I think she fired her editor -- I gave up after #4 in spite of the fact that I still think Jamie Fraser is one of the most romantic heroes I've ever read) as anything *but* historical romance, but she's the author...