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.