I am one of those loyal readers of romances and I read ALL sub-genres. I didn't read through all the above posts but someone wrote something to indicate we're an insatiable group, and we are! So our favorite authors have to keep pumping out the novels or we start getting whiney. I'm not sure why you feel we need the romance genre respected. Who cares. The fact that you want to write for this genre is fabulous and if you're any good, you'll hopefully have a healthy writing career and build a fan base that adores you. The thing about this genre as well, is the readership is always wanting more and run out of stories to read. We're always looking for new authors. So these days I'll happily give self published novels a go too. Romance novels are pages of feel good chemical and provide an escapism of Happily Ever Afters in our stressful lives. We shouldn't feel ashamed for wanting to read them or wanting to write them. If I need a horror story, I'll just read the news. I often get annoyed when some people talk about romance they would say, "I read 'Jane Eyre' or 'Gone with the Wind' or 'Pride and Prejudice" as if to imply, "I read quality romance". Whatever! I love Lisa Kleypas, Kresley Cole, Ellen O'connell, Elizabeth Hoyt, Nalini Singh, Skye Warren and too many other authors that I can't remember unless I refer to my kindle. Hope you eventually write that romance novel you would love to read yourself.
Just a question, during this thread it seems to be stated that the Romance story always ends in happily ever after, is that true? Just asking, not doubting but it just isn't logical to me.
Genre romance, yes. Lots of love stories (Romeo and Juliet is the obvious example) have unhappy endings, but for a modern genre romance, the HEA (or at least the HFN - happy for now) is considered mandatory.
Well that sounds bland. Just like modern Zombie crap. Well these are the times we live in, I guess. Feel good stories that are afraid of disappointing their audience, by having a dark ending. Lets face it the classics knew how to mess the audience, and not give a crap about the nay Sayers.
Not to start hair-splitting, but I'm wondering. Is there a difference between Romance (as a genre) and Formula Romance? If so, what is the difference, and how would you market each of them? I may have been barking up the wrong tree here, as I've always assumed that Romance is a genre category that involves following a formula. Maybe it doesn't? Do the two lovers in every one of these always 'get together' at the end, as part of the requirements of the genre? What would you call a Romance story that doesn't end well? I mean, take Mystery. Has anyone ever written a genre Mystery where the crime never actually gets solved? It would still be a Mystery, wouldn't it? A real one...!
A genre romance without a happy ending would be more like a genre mystery where there's no actual crime. The HEA/HFN is that intrinsic to the genre. I'm not sure what you mean by "formula romance" - do you mean, like, Harlequin category romances? If so, then those are a subset of all the romance novels. The two rules to qualify as a genre romance are that the love story is central to the novel and it ends on a happily ever after. Pretty much all of Austen's books qualify, but the Brontes' sometimes don't. This doesn't mean the Brontes' books aren't romantic, or that they wouldn't be considered romances in a historic or even academic sense, but according to the modern publishing rules, the HEA is mandatory. So if that counts as formulaic, they're formulaic. But compare to category romances, many of which have actual beat sheets to lay out what event should happen at what point of the story, with different sheets for the different categories, most romance is not nearly as rigid. The ending is known from the start of the book, but the author has total freedom in how to get there. Maybe this is why I find myself so frustrated when I try to use the seven-act or three-act or whatever structure that many authors recommend - to me, they feel formulaic - this is the fourth act, so I need to introduce X here and resolve Y, even though it's not the best time to do either. And maybe it's why I can "pants" a book without an outline - I already know where I'm going, and just need to figure out how to get there. Note: At least one of my publishers has introduced a line called Bittersweet Dreams that don't have happy endings, and has taken a fair bit of heat from readers about it. These are readers who are perfectly happy to accept that romance novels can be about two men falling in love (the publisher specializes in m/m) but can't accept that they don't have happy endings. The publisher includes a sort of warning label in the blurb to each book, making it clear that they aren't typical genre romances. And still, readers complain!
That's too bad, even though I think I get the motivation on the part of the purists to not have those stories. When you look at how many love songs are 'tragedies,' I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner. There's gotta be a market for sure for those stories without the author having to wander into being considered quasi-literary. I think it's a good avenue for the genre to explore, and could lead to broader appeal.
Thanks for clarifying that. I think I'm old enough to remember when Romances (that people categorised as such) WERE often 'category' romances like Mills & Boon, etc. I remember reading a how-to book on the subject many years ago that brought it home to me how exactly formulaic these stories are. They have never appealed to me, but I know people who collected them into huge mounds and read them constantly. One friend of mine had an attic full of thin pink volumes. And she continued to buy them! Yikes. One of my favourite authors of all time was Mary Stewart. She who wrote The Moonspinners, Thunder on the Right, Madam, Will You Talk, etc, before she wrote her masterpiece post-Roman Britain trilogy of Merlin. I didn't realise till quite recently that she was the first 'Romance' writer to include solving a mystery as a central part of the story. It was the mystery plus the romance that gave her books the edge, during the 1950s and 60s, when she was a bestselling author. I think she was a damn fine writer. I still do. Very emotional, without being gushy at all. I really identified with her characters in just about all of her books. I think if I consciously imitate any writer in my own books, it's her. At least her tone. So, if you're writing a Romance in the genre, the romance pretty much needs to end well? And that's the only restriction? I guess that's not terribly formulaic, and could certainly be less boring to write and read than the categories. One other question. In a Romance, is it usually obvious right from the start who the couple is? In other words, is it acceptable for one of the parties to go (happily) off with somebody nobody expected? Or is it always pretty obvious who the couple will be?
If nothing else, it would mean a reader wouldn't automatically assume a certain kind of ending when they pick up the book. However, if a tacked-on 'unhappy ending' becomes mandatory in this category, that can end up being as formulaic as anything else. I think I prefer reading a book that contains a 'love story' rather than a genre Romance, because love stories don't always end happily. I think your characters can be more realistic in a love story, when you're not tied to a certain kind of ending.
It's generally fairly obvious, but I think that's more because of the "romance must be central to the plot" idea rather than the "happy ending" idea. If the romance is truly the central plot, it has to start fairly early in the story.
I think a lot of the tragic love stories get marketed as Women's Fiction - Nicholas Sparks is a good example.
Yeah, I didn't even know that. I don't go to new-book stores often though. I think there could be a bigger market for men to read romance if word got out that there are stories that are more realistic and maybe tragic, without treading into what might appear to be plot-driven literary, but those are just my impressions -- I wouldn't know if sad stories are considered quasi-literary, but I was talking more about people who would stay in romance.
Honestly, Romance is such a huge market as it is - I think publishers are fighting to keep the existing market fed rather than worrying too much about trying to make it ever bigger!
I think the fact that it's (supposedly) almost exclusively read by women is another reason for the bad rep. Think of how typical romance readers are stereotyped - either bored, middle-aged housewives who don't get enough sex and want to relive their youth, or naive teenagers with idealised visions of a perfect happily-ever-after. Who wants to be instantly labelled as one or the other for admitting they enjoy romance? So you get people unwilling to admit they read it or to defend it to sneerers. I doubt any of it matters much to successful romance authors who have a HUGE readership and are laughing all the way to the bank.
@Tenderiser I think you nailed it. At least as far as I can tell. Whether Romance commands respect as a genre has yet to be determined. I think it has plenty, considering it is a powerhouse (from what i have seen in my perusing into e-publishers). So not sure what all the fuss is about.
Yeah, I think there's an element of this. When men read spy thrillers, it's a respectable form of escapism - nobody thinks they're bitter about not being spies themselves, or starving for adventure or naive or whatever. But society is used to denigrating things that are of interest to women, so it's easy to denigrate romance.
Agree with the happy for now. There's a real strong following and a trend for dark romances lately and it's something I've gotten into, as I said, I'd read anything when it comes to romance. Considering how dark and twisted some of the characters are in those stories, HFN makes sense!
