Allow me to interject: Just because they call themselves the "Romance Writers of America" doesn't necessarily give them carte blanche and it absolutely does not make them the authority on the genre of romance novels. Much in the same way that me calling myself "The Master of literary" doesn't make me commander and chief of all writing. Want an example? "Harlequin" romance novels are the steady backbone of "Romance Writers of America". Yes. The most derided and mocked publishing house in the entire literary land are the pinnacle of the so-called "Romance Writers of America". If the UK people in this forum aren't aware of "Harlequin" novels, think "Mills and Boon" with an American accent. They are low-brow, formulaic and intellectually retarded. "Harlequin" and "Mills and Boon" are nothing but Mummy porn. Over the years they have been attacked by feminists for being misogynistic and for being glorified rape fantasies. They aren't the authority on any kind of literature. They aren't the authority on anything. People here are actually giving "Romance Writers of America" authority on what constitutes "rules for Romantic novels"? Are you kidding me?! Yeah, well, if you want to learn how to write formulaic stories that appeal to bored housewives with OCD then RWD absolutely know their stuff. However, if you want to be a real writer, one that writes for adults who can actually pronounce and understand two-syllable words, then please avoid the so-called "Romantic Writers of America" like the plague.
What a load of misogynistic crap. RWA is made up of romance writers in America - ones published by Harlequin, by Entangled, by Kensington, by Penguin, by Simon and Schuster... all of them. Many agents who represent romance writers are members of the RWA. Many romance editors, from all houses, are members of the RWA. They are the authoritative voice for romance in the USA - and elsewhere, really, since no other country has an organisation that comes close. But even so, Harlequin is not "the most derided and mocked" publishing house. As well as their category lines they have highly esteemed lines, HQN and Mira, which have published some of the most well-known authors in romance as well as other genres. Your ignorance is astounding and you should be embarrassed.
Upon reading more posts on this topic, it would appear that I'm in jeoperdy of being banned for airing my opinion. I cite Jane Austen, Mary Shelley and the Bronte sisters as inspirations, so excuse me if I stopped reading after this ignorant tirade. So, if a woman has a pop at Harlequin/Mills and Boon then it would be OK? https://thewisezephyrus.com/2015/02/03/a-feminists-letter-to-harlequin/ Harlequin/Mills and Boon ARE misogynistic and have been attacked by feminists for their portrayal of women. Perhaps you aren't familiar with these sorts of books? Regardless, be it male or female, citing Harlequin/Mills and Boon as being the shining light of romantic novels/stories is akin to saying that E.L James is the next Jane Austen. And honestly, there's no need to make this about gender. I didn't.
You keep using that word. I'm not sure you know what it means. I'm actually defending the dignity and portrayal of women in literature, and you're saying that I'm a misogynist because of it? OK then.
By denigrating a genre primary marketed at women as "intellectually retarded Mommy porn", saying the mostly female authors who write it aren't "real writers", and mocking "bored housewives"? Your ire is directed at women. You think things women produce and enjoy are substandard and unworthy of regard. You are a misogynist.
I suspect Julie Bindel is a misogynist and stupid, too. Hopefully she knows: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/dec/05/women.fiction Fifteen years ago, I read 20 Mills & Boon novels as research for a dissertation on "romantic fiction and the rape myth". It was the easiest piece of research I have ever done. In every book, there was a scene where the heroine is "broken in", both emotionally and physically, by the hero. Having fallen for this tall, brooding figure of masculinity, the heroine becomes consumed with capturing him. The hero is behaving in a way that, in real life, causes many women to develop low self-esteem, depression and self-harming behaviour - blowing hot and cold, and treating her like dirt. But all comes right in the end. After the heroine displays extraordinary vulnerability during a crisis, Mr Macho saves the day and shows her he cares. By this time (you know how uppity women can be), our heroine is so fed up that she does not comply when he grabs her inevitably small frame in his huge arms, and attempts to take her to bed. And so begins the "gender dance" - man chases woman, woman resists, and, finally, woman submits in a blaze of passion. My loathing of M&B novels has nothing to do with snobbery. I could not care less if the books are trashy, formulaic or pulp fiction - Martina Cole novels, which I love, are also formulaic. But I do care about the type of propaganda perpetuated by M&B. I would go so far as to say it is misogynistic hate speech. Why do I care so much about books that few take seriously? Are there not more important battles to fight? Challenging the low conviction rate for rape certainly seems more urgent than trashing novels that perpetuate gender stereotypes, but there is no doubt that such novels feed directly into some women's sense of themselves as lesser beings, as creatures desperate to be dominated. One argument from M&B apologists is that the heroine has moved with the times. True, she is now more physically active and sexually imaginative. The modern-day character often dares to have sex before marriage, knows what she wants in terms of her career and personal life, and even has a sense of humour. As a result of the changing heroine, the hero has been required to catch up. But rather than becoming a "new man", it seems he has become even more masculine and domineering in order to keep the heroine in line. This is how the rape fantasies so integral to the plot have been able to persist. Take this description of a recent M&B novel, The Desert Sheikh's Captive Wife: "Tilda was regretting her short-lived romance with Rashad, the Crown Prince of Bakhar. Now, with her impoverished family indebted to him, Rashad was blackmailing her by insisting she pay up ... as his concubine! Soon Tilda was the arrogant Sheikh's captive, ready to be ravished in his far-away desert kingdom." Or Bought: One Island, One Bride: "Self-made billionaire Alexander Kosta has come to the island of Lefkis for revenge ... He doesn't count on feisty pint-sized beauty Ellie Mendoras to be the thorn in his side! ... There's a dangerous smile on Alexander's lips ... As far as he's concerned Ellie's a little firecracker who needs to be tamed. He'll seduce her into compliance, then buy her body and soul!!" Or Virgin Slave, Barbarian King: "Julia Livia Rufa is horrified when barbarians invade Rome and steal everything in sight. But she doesn't expect to be among the taken! As Wulfric's woman, she's ordered to keep house for the uncivilised marauders. Soon, though, Julia realises that she's more free as a slave than she ever was as a sheltered Roman virgin." The first two were published this year, the third comes out in January. In 1970, one of M&B's regular writers, Violet Winspear, claimed that her heroes had to be "capable of rape". Another, Hilary Wilde, said in 1966, "The odd thing is that if I met one of my heroes, I would probably bash him over the head with an empty whisky bottle. It is a type I loathe and detest. I imagine in all women, deep down inside us, is a primitive desire to be arrogantly bullied." These comments may have been made some time ago, but the tradition seems to continue in the many M&B novels that depict female submission to dominant heroes. My horror at the genre is not directed towards either the women who write or, indeed, read them. I do not believe in blaming women for our own oppression. Women are the only oppressed group required not only to submit to our oppressors, but to love and sexually desire them at the same time. This is what heterosexual romantic fiction promotes - the sexual submission of women to men. M&B novels are full of patriarchal propaganda. I can say it no better than the late, great Andrea Dworkin. This classic depiction of romance is simply "rape embellished with meaningful looks". Julie Bindel
My ire is directed to the MEN and women who write for these publications. Yes, men. Want me to repeat it for you? Men. As stated, Pride and Prejudice, Gone with the Wind, Wuthering Heights, etc, are amongst my favourite novels: All written by women. I'm the worst misogynist in the world.
And if you don't know who Julie Bindel is: Julie Bindel is an English writer, feminist, and co-founder of the law-reform group Justice for Women, which opposes violence against women and helps women who have been prosecuted for killing violent male partners. In essence, I'm totally and completely in agreement with Ms Bindel and what she said about these sorts of publications, and you appear to be saying that Harlequin/Mills and Boon are empowering towards women. Again, I'm agreeing with a feminist and a founder of a group labelled "justice for women". I'm such a misogynist.
There's no problem with not enjoying certain Harlequin lines. The problem is the misogynistic language you use, which I've cited in posts you've chosen not to read. If you're a fan of feminist theory then perhaps look up some articles on why it's not okay to mock "bored housewives" and "Mommy porn." And maybe also some theory on why "retarded" is a problematic word.
Alright, so you're new here @SlayerC but we have a section of the forum dedicated to debate. Actually, we have a lot of interesting stuff. Check out the New member thread. This current thread we're in is about writing advice. I would, and everyone else who is paying attention to this thread for its intended purposes, would greatly appreciate it if you'd either move your debate over to the debate thread, or discuss terrible writing advice. It's either or, really. @Tenderiser you know better (don't get mad at me)
No, I don't know better. If mods want to move a thread that's fine (and in fact I've reported this discussion so they're aware of it) but I'm not willing to let yet another ignorant person mock an entire genre on a writing forum without calling them out on it. It's not okay.
Apologies. And of course, you are correct. I just had to correct a misconception about a particular genre. For people in 2017 to perpetuate these sexist stereotypes, well, let's just say that it brings out the feminist in me. It's worse when it's women doing it. But I suppose everyone has an opinion, I'm more left than most, I suppose.
Ya'll are both passionate, if I put half as much into my WIP as you two did in here, I might have a real future in writing... To get us back on target (or near to it) This isn't exactly terrible writing advice, but it is a bit odd. I had a friend who convinced me to try writing by hand instead of typing. Everything I wrote eventually transitioned into first person.
That's very kind. Thank you. As for that advice, I'm such a slow writer it would take me to 2020 before I even got into the second drafting stage.
Let's refrain from trashing entire genres. It's not good form and usually marks a beginning to a flame war. Thanks. Also, "mummy porn" sounds dry and dusty. Probably illegal in many countries, too.
SlayerC is no longer among us and I certainly don't want to give more attention to his nonsense, but among the many misconceptions in his original post was confusion between "Romance" and "Romantic". In his case probably wilful, although I have no idea how it was supposed to contribute to his point... But, just for clarity, and because I've seen others confusing the terms... "Romance" is a term of art in publishing, a short form for the term Genre Romance. It has a specific meaning, specific rules, etc. "Romantic" is just a descriptive term. A sunrise can be romantic to some people. It can't be Genre Romance. The words aren't interchangeable, and I think a willingness to interchange them has possibly led to at least some of the confusion we see in these discussions.
Wow, I just woke up and I can't tell you how happy I am to have been asleep during all of that twaddle.
Why I oughta! Stupid writing advice I've heard lately: Don't use weak verbs. Stupid because a) wtf is a weak verb and b) another damn absolute.
I think it was the shock of hearing that I am driven to write romance novels due to my oppression by the patriarchy.
I think a weak verb is one of the common one like said, ran, walked etc - ie one that often has an adverb attached to 'strengthen ' it ... so they mean rather than saying 'ran quickly' you say "dashed" or similar. Its often worth considering but as you say it shouldn't be an absolute
