Redefining romance. Again. Fortunately, since my RWR comes a day or two later than others’, y’all know the backstory. (Bolded parts below were underlined in the survey—emphasis theirs—but I underlining escapes me at the moment.)
Option A—“Romantic Fiction” or “Romance” means a story in which a predominant part of the story line focuses on the romantic relationship that develops between one man and one woman on more than a physical level. Although other elements and subplots may be components of the story line, by the book’s conclusion the romantic relationship has been resolved in an emotionally satisfying manner.
Option B—“Romantic Fiction” or “Romance” means a story in which a predominant part of the story line focuses on the romantic relationship that develops between two people on more than a physical level. Although other elements and subplots may also be components of the story line, by the book’s conclusion the romantic relationship has been resolved in an emotionally satisfying manner.
Although it was my intention to limit the use of smilies to the comments pages, I must say…:eyebrow:
What’s wrong with current definition? A romance is a book wherein the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.
Personally, since the board is more than aware of the market, what’s hot, what’s selling and what members are writing, I see this is a big screw you to anybody who writes chick lit or romances featuring polyamory. Gay and lesbian romances are quite popular. A fair number of members write books that would fall outside those two very limited, exclusionary definitions.
And, yes, you know damn well the people who drafted those two options know that, and they don’t give a shit.
What caught my interest was a small snippet of Tara Taylor Quinn’s “From the President” column:
Since the inception of the genre, we have taken undeserved hits and snide remarks about what we do. The world has tried to devalue us, to take away our power, and the strength of what we do.
That is exactly what the board is doing to its members.
And, hello! Did you get teary-eyed reading Trish Jensen’s thank you letter to those who supported her medical fund? I did. And is our board fighting to get its members affordable health insurance?
Fuck no. They’re running around trying to ensure that no blue-hairs are accidentally exposed to a hint of a nipple on a cover, or letting the world know that you can’t live happily ever after unless you’re a heterosexual woman with a virginal down there area and a heterosexual, cockless man.
I must stop now before my head explodes. Blood pressure machines within a ten-mile radius are cowering in fear.
But before I hit publish, a couple of my favorite takes on the subject so far:
Lee Goldberg, of course (and make sure you read the comments)