This is a very fair point and I'm not going to disagree. In retrospect I think including the romance definition you posted would have actually been more constructive. Let me try to explain the purpose of going to those definitions, which, for the record, were not hard to find and are also pretty standard. The question is why are people so attracted to fantasy? I think fantasy, as defined by the industry, is a very broad genre. Thomas Covenant, a novel series about a leper who is transported to a romanced version of a magical medieval world, rapes a woman, and then returns to that world decades later only to fall romantically in love with his daughter who was produced from that rape (and yes, she dies), and Harry Potter, a novel series about a boy who just so happens to be the most important and famous person in a romanced magical secret world and saves humanity via the literal power of love, are both considered fantasy. I hope most of us are on board so far. Now let me ask two questions. Q1. Do you think that fantasy novels like Thomas Covenant and fantasy novels like Harry Potter are equally popular? Q2. Can you think of any type of fantasy novel, which you can define any way you see fit, that is wildly popular by readers and shares core traits with a type of novel that exists in another industry defined genre? I'm not saying there's a definitive answer here. As you probably guessed, my own opinion is that the answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second question is yes. I think that the majority of popular novels provide romance as defined by the definitions I gave earlier, and in many cases also the definition you gave as well (which makes sense considering the Romance Genre is the most popular) and this exists across most genres. So I don't think fantasy is popular simply because "no rules" and "imagination." I think it's popular because it's a very good enabler for the type of romance as defined by the definition I gave earlier, and will give again below. "a quality or feeling of mystery, excitement, and remoteness from everyday life."
I've not read Thomas Covenant (nor much Harry Potter), and it's a bit unfair to compare just about any book from any genre to Harry Potter, given the runaway, record-breaking success of the latter, but I'd certainly say that the Game of Thrones books are darker than Harry Potter, and they're very successful. But I'm not sure what point is being proven or disproven by this comparison. And... of course I think there are core elements of successful fantasy novels that are shared by successful novels in other genres - vivid writing, strong characterization, etc... But again, I'm not sure what this proves or disproves? I feel like your insistence on using "romance" is just kind of muddying the waters. Are you using it as a synonym for "escapism"? If so, would this conversation work better if we continued on using that term, instead of the more ambiguous "romance"?
If we're to use "romance" in place of "escapism," what word would we use for stories whose central conflict are its romantic relationship(s)?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/romance I think @123456789's use of the word 'romance,' to mean a quality or feeling of mystery, excitement and remoteness from everyday life is certainly valid for this discussion. It helps to explain why people are attracted to reading the various kinds of fantasy that exist ...from Thomas Covenant to Harry Potter. These readers aren't looking for romantic love, necessarily. But they are looking for the qualities inherent in the second part of the Merriam-Webster definition above. The word 'romance' is a much more all-encompassing word than the definition of a particular genre. (That genre is usually written with a cap letter, ie Romance.) The thing is, 'escapism' isn't a direct synonym either. Some people regard the Romance genre as escapism. Ditto Crime fiction, Thrillers, etc. These all provide escape from our individual humdrum 'present,' don't they? However, they are not 'fantasy,' in the sense we're talking about on this thread. Fantasy usually involves conjuring a world (or world order) that doesn't exist. The other escapist genres I listed present escapist scenarios that are set in our known world. Rather than debating which accepted definition of 'romance' is the true one, I'd love to get back to discussing why so many people are attracted to so many kinds of fantasy. It's a type of story that has been around for a long time ...from fairy and folk tales to tomes like The Song of Ice and Fire. As we know these settings, events and kinds of characters don't exist at all, and never will, it's interesting to think about why so many of us find them so fascinating ...both as readers and writers. I don't have an answer to that one. I love certain kinds of fantasy, but I couldn't tell you why. I mean, it doesn't make 'sense,' does it? But I enjoy reading it. I just couldn't tell you why.
Which is why it's unhelpful to use one word for both romantic love stories and stories based on legend, the supernatural, and adventure.
This feels like one of those "People who get offended are so offensive" posts... if you're in favour of "spouting off", shouldn't you be in favour of Azuresun spouting off?
I promise I wasn't using the word romance as a jab at the romance genre. I'll tell you exactly why I've been using the word romance. I want to be a lawyer because I want to be in the courtroom every day dazzling juries with rhetoric and creative arguments and saving innocent people from death row, while getting rich. I want to be a cop because I want to be like John McClane from Die Hard. I want to manage my own business because I want a giant house, a pool, and two or three range rovers while doing whatever I want. In response to each of those cases, I think a lot of us would say "you're romanticizing those things." So when I use romance, I use it to mean specifically that I am looking at an idealized version of something and ignoring the unattractive realities of those things, such as the fact that I might be sitting at a desk all day or wind up in massive debt. So I think the word escapism might not convey that as well as the word romance (or would you prefer romanticism)? Fantasy is a great means to provide romanticism because I'm not expected to look at the reality of the situation, whether that be those frequent mundane moments or the realistic costs of achieving greatness. For example, in a fantasy, on my 16th birthday I might discover I have super strength and speed because I'm actually half dragon. I can make my own rules, which also means I can ignore the negatives, and sell you a romanticized story where everything works out for me. * In general fiction, on my 16th birthday, I might discover I have super strength and speed but because I started working out at the gym non stop and taking steroids, after having gotten up beat too many times in high school. In addition to that strength and speed, I also developed extreme aggression and violence, ultimately alienating myself from my family and friends and ending up expelled from school and or in juvie. If you want to use a different word than romanticize, I'm all for it. *@Jannert, this is why I think fantasy may be so popular.
I think romanticize or romanticism is much clearer than romance, when in a discussion of fiction genres, yeah! There's no romanticism genre to get confused about. (And I didn't think you were slamming romance, I just thought things were less clear than they could be)
Thanks. I'm glad we agree and I appreciate your input. "Romance" was muddling the conversation way too much, so you helped me come up a better word for the point I'm trying to make.
I think that's much better, though it's still not ideal. Its meaning may not be obvious, but people would know that they don't know what you mean. "Romance" has a very firm and clear meaning in the world of books, so any effort to use it with another meaning will be entirely focused on confusion. I lean toward "glamorous" for the concept that you seem to be trying to express: Glamorous: 1. full of glamour; fascinatingly attractive; alluring. 2. full of excitement, adventure, and unusual activity Glamour: 1. an attractive or exciting quality that makes certain people or things seem appealing. 2. ARCHAIC enchantment; magic.
Unfortunately for that viewpoint, the separate definitions do exist. In fact, the definition of romance as a love story is actually the THIRD definition in the Webster's. Not the first. So I think it's important not to fixate on one definition only. I think that's why the romance genre is spelled with a capital "R." Because the other definitions actually predate that one, and it's important to distinguish between them. Context matters. If I say it's a crime to put ketchup on ice cream, that's a valid use of the word 'crime.' It's not 'confusing.' It doesn't imply murder, detectives, or police procedurals. (Although if somebody dumps ketchup on somebody else's ice cream, we could end up with the basis for murder, and a Crime novel.)
In a conversation about book genres, you don't think it would be helpful to use the definitions that most clearly match book genres? I mean, all novels are fantasy, really, because they haven't really happened. Right? And all novels are mystery because we don't know how they're going to end. And all novels are literary, because they involve writing...
I don't agree. In the context of books, romance is a pretty clear meaning, and I don't agree that it's usually expressed with a capital "R". Whether the book is "a romance" or has romantic elements, "romance" or "romantic" is almost always about a romantic attachment between two people. I tried, there, to avoid using the phrase "a romantic attachment" here, by spinning phrases about sex or life partners, etc., even though we all know exactly what that phrase means. So I stopped trying.
I wouldn't characterize preferring clarity as "fixating." Fantasy and romance genres are separated for good reason - by and large, they have distinct readerships. I don't deny someone could make an abstract argument about how the Dragonlance fantasy series could (should?) be shelved beside Nicholas Sparks books, but I imagine your average reader of either genre wouldn't want that.
Have you read the current Merriam-Webster definition that I linked to above? Their definition of 'romance' as love story is actually the THIRD definition given. Not the first. Context matters. And romance does not always mean 'love story.' Why limit ourselves like that?
Nope. His characters tend to die at the end. Romance needs a happy ending. He writes love stories, women's fiction, contemporary fiction... something like that. Not technically romance.
I'll try one more time. I believe @123456789 was NOT defining genres when he was talking about romance as connected with fantasy. He was talking about the impulse behind fantasy. Just because this is a writers' forum doesn't mean every time the word 'romance' is used that it has to be connected to the Romance genre. Surely... Any more than the word 'crime' is always connected to Crime fiction, or a mystery is always Mystery. Or a thrill always means Bruce Willis. Context matters, when it comes to choosing which definition of a word fits the discussion. Or at least it should, if we are writers.
"A series of cards of the same suit" is the 4.5th definition of "run" in the Oxford dictionary, but if I'm playing cards with someone and I say I'm going for a run, they're going to assume I'm trying to get a series of cards of the same suit, not that I'm taking a brisk trip around the block. Context matters. We're talking about book genres, here. Why on earth would we muddy the waters?
