Dear Theresa,
I wanted to ask you a question that has been recently discussed at our on line writing group, about the definitions of the romance genre.
To my understanding the definition is that a love story with a happy ending must be central to the plot. I also feel that in the current markets romance novels usually involve a lot of sensual scenes, ranging down to fairly explicit sex, and that without those you cannot really market a novel as romance. Finally, I heard that if there is another major plot drive in addition to the love story (such as, a war, or a major change in a character’s life not related to love), this disqualifies a novel as romance.
I was wondering if you could possibly comment on these definitions, and maybe give me a better sense of what constinutes a romance novel?
Thank you very much,
Anna Kashina
Hi, Anna, and thank you for the question. It’s a loaded one, and as you may have discovered in your writing group, it can be difficult to establish a definition of romance that satisfies all romance readers and writers.
But sometimes the difficult questions are the most worthy of discussion. By examining the definition of romance, perhaps we can understand the genre in a new way. By the way, did you know that the current debates about the definition of romance may have their theoretical roots in a debate about the nature of art in the nineteenth century? If you studied the Romantics in school, you might recall — in addition to their grand neoclassical allegories and infatuation with nature — these lines from Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn.”
”Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Scholars are still arguing over those lines — simultaneously a call for enlightenment and a restriction on knowledge — and though the interpretation has changed over time, the sentiment permeated much Victorian thinking. If truth is beauty, then lies are ugly. If all we need to know is truth and beauty, then we must avoid knowledge of lies and ugliness. And so on. The Victorian moralists used this line of thinking to endorse a form of purifying censorship. They believed that art’s purpose was to enlighten, ennoble, and elevate the human spirit, and that anything that failed to accomplish this exaltation was unworthy of human attention. Indeed, Matthew Arnold famously censored one of his own essays, refusing to allow it to appear in a second printing of one of his collections because he thought it was too depressing. He wanted art which would “recommend culture as the great help out of our present difficulties; culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world….”
Bawdiness has little role to play in such an environment, and of course, the Victorians have a reputation for prudery. This isn’t to say their high ideals were bad, just that excluding entire categories of human behavior led to an anti-censorship backlash. Even as the moralists were ennobling and exalting and erecting barriers, others were arguing that art must be autotelic and anti-didactic — that is, that its purpose is to exist, complete and organic, as a commentary without an agenda. This idea is both bohemian and modernist, and it influenced writers as diverse as Edgar Allen Poe, William Blake, and Gustav Flaubert. They wanted to examine the human condition in totality, not just the pretty or morally acceptable parts.
Now, here we are, decades later, having much the same debate within the same framework, but with romance novels as the context. We argue about whether it is immoral to include sex in romance novels. We argue about whether it is censorship to exclude sex from books about sexual relationships. Sometimes we argue about whether romance novels should be an instrument to advance a particular moral agenda in the first place. (Or feminist agenda, or anti-feminist agenda, or religious agenda, or whatever other kind of agenda is under debate that day.) But mostly, we’re echoing the sentimental moralists and the free-expression modernists without resolution. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Big questions sometimes require more than a few minutes of casual thought to answer.
So, where does all this theory leave today’s aspiring author? Let me restate your question in two parts. One, how much sex can be included in a romance? And two, how much external plot can be included in a romance?
The short answer to both questions is: Check the guidelines.
In today’s market, romance tastes range from pure and sweet to spicy and wild, with everything in between. No matter what you choose to write, there will be an audience. The size of that audience may fluctuate, but that has more to do with fad and fashion than with the core definition of romance. Check the guidelines of the house you wish to target. That will help you tailor your manuscript’s heat level. If you don’t know which house to target, check the spines or copyright pages of books that resemble your book’s level of sensuality and exernal plot. Browse the shelves of the romance section in your local bookstore for more ideas. If you can find a book like yours, you can find your target house.
Likewise, characters form romantic attachments within all sorts of story types, and some romantic content can be found in almost every section of the bookstore. How much romantic content must there be for your book to be shelved in the romance section? Again, browse the shelves in your local bookstore and check the guidelines of your target house. But you probably want at least half of your story to focus on the developing romantic relationship if you want it shelved in the romance section.
I guess it all boils down to this: a definition of romance can be practical or ideological. The ideology is fun to debate, but it might not help you find a path to readers. If publication as a romance author is your goal, then be practical and let the marketplace be your guide. Once you begin the quest, given the state of the current market, you’re sure to find a publisher whose definition of romance matches yours.
RU Crew, do your manuscripts straddle genres? What are you writing? We’d love to hear from you. Also, check out Theresa’s blog for details on a contest where a reader can submit ten manuscript pages and three synopsis pages for editorial feedback. What a great opportunity to get your work in front of two editors. Here is the link:
http://edittorrent.blogspot.com/2009/12/two-years-two-editors-two-ways-to-win.html
If you have a question for Theresa you can submit it to askaneditor@romanceuniversity.org. Don’t miss this great opportunity to have your concerns addressed by a top-notch editor!
After earning degrees in creative writing and law, Theresa Stevens worked as a literary attorney agent for a boutique firm based in Indianapolis where she represented a range of fiction and nonfiction authors. The lure of the courtroom led to a nine-year hiatus from the publishing industry, but now Theresa is back as Managing Editor for Red Sage Publishing, a highly acclaimed small press. Her articles on writing and editing have appeared in numerous publications for writers. Visit her blog at http://edittorrent.blogspot.com/ where she and her co-blogger share their knowledge and hardly ever argue about punctuation.
Kelsey's serving up bite-sized morsels for your noggin on her new 
Level of sensuality is a tough one. It seems that single titles almost always have at least one sex scene (unless you’re looking at the inspirational market). But beyond that, I’ve seen everything from sex on one page to sex on every second or third page!
As far as other plot stuff: I write romantic suspense, so I sure hope you can have a significant non-romance plot and still be considered romance! I think of it this way: if you can take the romance out without hurting the plot, it’s not a romance. (If one character’s growth could happen independent of the other, if the war is the focus of the novel, you get the idea.) If, on the other hand, the growing relationship between the protagonists is integral to the plot, whatever that plot is, then it’s a romance.
Posted by Laura K Curtis | December 18, 2009, 12:54 amLaura,
I just listened to an old RWA conference workshop by Eloisa James. In her proposals, she always says she’ll include 2.5 sex scenes. I got a kick out of that.
Tracey
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | December 18, 2009, 9:51 amI write what I consider plot-driven suspense but others see my my work as romantic suspense because the hero/heroine have a relationship throughout (not just sex) the story. I can remove the romance and the story can stand on its own. Would this still be considered romantic suspense because of the growing relationship between the characters (with a happy ending of course
)?
Posted by Kim Cresswell | December 18, 2009, 9:08 amI think romance can be argued about interminably, but each person’s definition will vary according to their viewpoint/lifestyle and each publishing house’s definition will vary as well…..so there is no true answer. =)
i think that should be on a fortune cookie somewhere…lol
carrie
Posted by carrie | December 18, 2009, 9:29 amTheresa – as always, thanks for being here today!
Laura – your answer really resonated with me!
Kelsey
Posted by KelseyBrowning | December 18, 2009, 9:37 amHi, Laura,
Permitted levels of sexuality are an incredibly contentious debate in the romance community. On the one hand, sex is what distinguishes a romantic relationship from a friendship. On the other hand, sex without hope of an emotional bond is not a relationship at all. Add in the moral/religious angle, and people can get quite, er, passionate about the topic.
And I agree — a good external plot can make the romance all the more interesting. And entertaining. I like where you draw the line, and I suspect this rule of thumb is a handy one for people working with hybrid stories.
Theresa
Posted by Theresa Stevens | December 18, 2009, 9:46 amHey Theresa–thanks for the great post.
Many editors/agents use the term “sexy,” which might mean different things to different people. When I first heard the term, I left the room scratching my head. Now that I’ve heard it several times, I’m left with the impression they’re looking for hot, highly emotional sex scenes.
Am I close? LOL
Thanks bunches,
Tracey
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | December 18, 2009, 9:48 amKim, when you say that you could remove the romance, does this mean you could remove one of the romantic lead characters without hurting the plot? Or that the external plot can move forward without the formation of a romantic attachment? Is the romance a subplot without a strong link to the main plot? In these cases, the book might be better shelved in other areas of the store.
I’ve read a lot of suspense novels, thrillers, mysteries, scifi, etc., stories where there was a romantic entanglement between characters that had no bearing on the plot. Dan Brown’s stories would fall under this heading, and it hasn’t hurt him a bit as far as readers and sales are concerned. I remember reading a Lincoln and Child book (title escapes me, but it was set in an underground desert research facility) where all of a sudden, the hero was having wild sex with a minor female character. And from that point on, she was his girlfriend or something, but there was no real emotional link between them — at least, not one that was explored or developed in the story.
Were these romances? No. Did they contain romantic elements? Yes. They were shelved in sections other than romance, and the authors all succeeded.
Theresa
Posted by Theresa Stevens | December 18, 2009, 9:52 amTeresa…yes I meant the external plot can move forward without the the romantic attachment. It is a subplot without a strong link to the main plot. I find it interesting because others including my agent see the story as a romantic suspense and I see it as suspense. lol I’m very much an action girl and that’s what I enjoy writing.
Posted by Kim Cresswell | December 20, 2009, 10:08 pmHi, Tracey,
Yes.
Remember the first rush of romance when you and your man were wild for each other’s touch? Think of two aspects, the behavior and the emotion, and put both on the page. Then the book is sexy.
Theresa
Posted by Theresa Stevens | December 18, 2009, 9:55 amGot it – thanks!!
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | December 18, 2009, 9:59 amWhen I pick up a romance novel, I have certain reader expectations. I expect the love story to be the focus above all else. It’s okay to have something going on in the plot other than the relationship like a murder or a suspense or a mystery of some sort (I actually prefer that), but at its heart, the book is still about the evolution of the relationship between the hero and heroine. I also *much* prefer a happy ending where the hero and heroine get that Happily Ever After. I have discovered that I do not like at all the slow bleed of Urban Fantasy into the romance genre as they are often book series with the heroine having multiple partners and winding up with none of them by the end of the book (or any book in sight). I “expected” one thing and definitely got something else. Just not my thing I guess. That’s not to say the writing wasn’t good.
I think most fiction contains some romantic element, but it isn’t the driving for the of the story and the stories would be hurt if that romantic entanglement wasn’t there. I think that’s the dividing line for me: Does the story lose something if there was no romance?
As for the sex, I don’t mind explicit and I don’t mind hot. What I do mind is sex without purpose and sex for the sake of putting sex in or for shock value. I like sex scenes with a feeling of intimacy. If there’s emotion beneath the hot sex (even if the hero and heroine are having it without really knowing each other) I’m good.
Shifting the shoe to the other foot… As a writer I’m comfortable writing fade to black moments for love scenes or all out, explicit scenes… but I always like to have a point behind it, and I definitely strive for emotional connection/intimacy in them. Reading guidelines is definitely the key. My last WIP is targeted at the Blaze line of Harlequin and that is most definitely the “hottest” romance line they produce.
Julie
Posted by Julie Harrington | December 18, 2009, 12:47 pmJulie,
Regarding Urban Fantasy, you might try Lori Foster’s The Servant series. She has the usual kick-but heroine whose journey lasts over three books. The heroine’s powers are balanced by the love of one good man, not multiple men.
It’s really a romance with a gritty UF backdrop. Loved the series.
Tracey
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | December 18, 2009, 1:49 pmThis is all food for thought and exactly what I was thinking about this morning.
If I decide to make my story a romance, is there a ‘guideline’ as to when the two should meet? I think that is the biggest question of where my story will go-I have a hundred pages and no hero in sight yet-but I could rewrite, skip HER story and refocus on THEIR story. But how much of her can I allow before he has to come onstage or I’ll face angering the reader?
Posted by Eva | December 18, 2009, 12:51 pmEva, the general rule of thumb is that you want to get the hero and heroine together as early as possible. Otherwise, it might be women’s fiction with romantic elements. Which is okay — there’s a place for stories like that on the bookstore shelves, too.
Posted by Theresa Stevens | December 18, 2009, 1:19 pmJulie, I agree. Someone pointed out that I haven’t shared my personal definition of romance. So here goes. (drumroll) (lol)
If most of the plot centers on the formation of an enduring romantic attachment, then it’s a romance.
Amount of sex? Optional.
Amount of external plot? Optional, as long as it doesn’t overwhelm the romance.
Werewolves? Okay.
Alien group marriages? Okay.
Alien group orgies where you never see the little green peckers again? Not okay.
Now, where I find room to quibble is with the HEA requirement. Some say “Bridges of Madison County” is one of the greatest romances ever told. Some say it’s not a romance because it doesn’t have the fairy tale ending. (I didn’t like the book, personally, but not because of the ending.)
So what do we think? Bridges — okay or not okay?
Posted by Theresa Stevens | December 18, 2009, 1:25 pmI like your definitions. I could do without little green peckers! LOL.
For me, Bridges was not a romance.
Great post and discussion, Theresa.
Posted by Adrienne Giordano | December 18, 2009, 1:52 pmRomance is romance, an emotional journey from unattached to attached. Sex is, well, sex. The two do not always meet. Pair romance with sex, and well, makes for heady times. Romance without sex, to be sure, can be wonderful. Kind of like phase 1. Just means the story isn’t over (even if the rest isn’t in the story). Sex without the romance is simply crass, at least in my opinion.
External plot simply provides a backdrop for the romance. Kind of like the Land of Oz provides the backdrop for Dorothy’s journey from insecurity to affirming hearth and home.
If romance comes with certain expectations (I agree with Julie here), then not having an HEA removes it from consideration. I didn’t read Bridges, so I can’t say.
But perhaps we should consider our definition of HEA. If a couple meets, unites, enjoys a fabulous long life of romance, and then, after many years, one dies, leaving one with fond memories to cherish, is it not a romance? The survivor feels blessed to have had such a romantic life. What about two characters who have a whirlwind romance with the agreement that it will be short-lived? They each go off happy that they met to pursue other goals. By the narrow definition of “HEA”, these are not. Should it be the reader’s definition of HEA or the character’s?
Posted by PatriciaW | December 18, 2009, 1:49 pmIt’s the old drama theory (Greek, maybe? I forget where this originated, but probably in Greece; it feels Greek) that drama is built on three: two that want to unite divided by one that wants to defeat the union. Between parents, a child. Between friends, an enemy. Between lovers, death. And so on, but that always comes to mind when I’m pondering the old HEA.
Posted by Theresa Stevens | December 18, 2009, 2:11 pmBridges was NOT a romance. I’m an HEA purist but that’s just about my only qualification. Don’t screw with the HEA, though.
Posted by Eva | December 18, 2009, 2:15 pmI can live with that as long as we distinguish between romance literature and the commercial romance genre.
Posted by Theresa Stevens | December 18, 2009, 5:56 pmRomance lit can do what it wants. :p Bridges was romantic (tho not for me but I’m anti infidelity like that) so as romance lit maybe it hit it’s mark.
Posted by Eva | December 18, 2009, 6:09 pmOh I like the distinction between a book being “romantic” vs. a Romance. I can go with that. Bridges was romantic but not a romance, imo.
Tracey, TY for the recommendation, but sad to say I’m not a Foster fan. One Urban Fantasy I did enjoy (and am looking forward to the sequels on) is Gail Carriger’s “Soulless.” I had no expectations when I bought the book from the Fantasy/Sci-Fi section, I might add. So when I finished it I was really delightfully surprised. Not only was it labeld Urban Fantasy, but I considered it very romantic with a very heavy Romance story, a strong hero and heroine pairing who ended up together/married in this book and sound like they will be together for the next 2 as well. Plus they threw in Steam Punk, Paranormal, Mystery, Horror, etc, etc, etc. Very much a blending of genre lines, and very much a strange POV writing style that I still wonder if I liked or not. LOL. But I must have liked it enough to be looking forward to the next installments.
Julie
Posted by Julie Harrington | December 18, 2009, 7:01 pmIt looks to me like the whole thing comes down to sex. As a Christian I am against sex without marriage. I was engaged for two years with a wonderful lady. We had a passionate romance but I never dishonored her or the woman I finally married. It was still a beautiful thing. It was a true romance. My books have hot and passionate romances woven in the plots. I think once you add sex it no longer is a romantic novel. It is , in my opinion, pornography. I think what the world needs is more true romance. To many think of romance as a physical thing. Love is the matching of personalities, based on inter beauty.
Posted by Angelo Thomas Crapanzano | December 19, 2009, 11:04 amIn that case, Angelo, you might want to consider the inspirational romance market. The Christian book market has been taking a beating lately, but there are publishers who release the sort of story you describe.
Posted by Theresa Stevens | December 19, 2009, 11:38 amDear Adrienne,
Thanks a lot for addressing my question so well! I have a much better sense now, both from your explanation and from the ensuing discussion. And, as I suspected, the answer is quite multidimentional.
I will follow your suggestions, and will also relay this to my writinig group.
Anna.
Posted by Anna Kashina | December 21, 2009, 12:13 pmI wonder what you all think of the movie The Graduate. It certainly fits in every way, but the HEA was more like ??? Then, of course, there was Romancing the Stone, which was perfect (in every way!), but in the sequel they had split. This also happened in the National Treasure series. If this is the way of popular “romantic” movies, how does it impact popular romance fiction?
Posted by Diane | December 21, 2009, 12:49 pmNow that I am in on the discussion, I felt compelled to answer this comment. The Graduate should not qualify, because the romance (with sex) does not end with the happily-ever-after, and the sensual relationship is twisted and does not happen between the ‘main couple’ of the story. I think from what I learned so far if the sexual relationship ends with nothing, it is not a romance.
Romancing the Stone may have been a romance novel, but as a movie it looks more like an adventure. The development of the relationship is definitely secondary to the plot.
At the same time, Sense and Sensibility should qualify as romance — shouldn’t it?
Posted by Anna Kashina | December 21, 2009, 6:17 pm