What, exactly, is romance? And how is it different from simply being romantic? And for that matter, how did the romance community and/or publishing industry come to a consensus on “romance”?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot. Devon’s post on what kind of HEA is required (or not) prompted me to consider again which books I list in my library as romance and which I list as general fiction with romantic threads. For example, as I evaluated my
“Best of” books for 2007, I realized that there were very few straight romance novels on the list, despite their high volume on my reading log. The very best (for me) was Anthony Capella’s The Wedding Officer; while James and Livia certainly get an HEA, the book is about considerably more than their romance. I’d hesitate to call it a genre romance novel, because of all of the other things going on in the novel. But is it general fiction with a romance theme? Or is it somewhere in between?

Back to the question, though, of what is romantic. Doing a brief survey of the January series releases by Harlequin, romance is about: family; falling in love with your boss; babies — taking care of them and making them; pregnancy; mistressing; and being blackmailed. The most heroic men are: cowboys; bosses; cops; soldiers; sheikhs; doctors; Texans; race car drivers; royals; and billionaires. Who decided this? Obviously these ideas sell, otherwise Harlequin Enterprises wouldn’t be buying the stories and publishing them like there’s no tomorrow. But what exactly about having a secret baby is romantic? And how is being blackmailed into having sex with someone or marrying him romantic?

I selected category/series books for my survey above, but they are by no means the only genre romance novels to trade in what to me are very un-romantic steretypes and situations. Paranormals — is drinking blood really sexy? And would you really want to live with wolf? Historicals — is a Duke of Slut really who you want to be bound to for life? Are his money and title worth the potential STIs? Time travel — do you really want to learn to live without running water?

Now that I think about it, I find it pretty amazing that any romance author can take what I deem to be *very* unromantic circumstances and turn them into a story about two characters, distracting me from the Ick Thing. (Yes, very technical language there.)

Are there situations or circumstances that you can’t find romantic, no matter what? Does it all depend on the author? Or is every setting, every situation possible romance novel fodder, given the right writer?

---

This entry was posted by JMC on Monday, January 14th, 2008 at 12:36 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “What is romantic?”

1. Devon said:
   January 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

   From Wikipedia:

   A romance novel is a literary genre developed in Western culture, mainly in English-speaking countries. Novels in this genre place their primary focus on the relationship and romantic love between two people, and must have an “emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending.”[1] Through the late 20th and early 21st centuries, these novels are commercially in two main varieties: category romances, which are shorter books with a one-month shelf-life, and single-title romances, which are generally longer with a longer shelf-life. Separate from their type, a romance novel can exist within one of many subgenres, including contemporary, historical, and paranormal.

   I thought that was a pretty good description of the genre: focus on the relationship, and a happy ending. Those are the elements which distinguish the genre because any kind of fiction could have romantic elements.

   All of the other conventions are really a matter of taste, and seriously wouldn’t it be fascinating to examine some of these to figure out how they became so accepted? Like secret babies. Nothing like promoting unsafe sex,and often one night stands. Unfortunately, I’m still recovering from the one-two slam of watching Bret Michaels and Scott Baio’s reality shows, and I’m still feeling a little dumb, so no sociological insight from me.

   Sometimes I read secret baby stories, though. And I admit to interest in “mistress” stories as well. A good author goes a long way in making stuff appeal to me. The onlyplot I can’t ever get into is sheik stories. Can’t separate from the reality of women’s treatment in the Middle East.

---

2. Rosie said:
   January 14th, 2008 at 9:27 pm

   Thanks Devon for the description of romance from Wiki. For me personally that is a very excellent (can you be veryexcellent?) explanation of what I personally look for in a romance novel.

   There are many situations that I can’t imagine accepting in real life that I’d read in a romance novel. For instance I have a weakness for arranged marriages. Don’t know why they intrigue me, but they do. But in real life? Now? No way.

   OTOH, I used to read books that had sheiks in them if they were historicals but not contemporary. I was very interested in the history of that part of the world for a long time. Now I can’t imagine picking one of them up. My oldest son is half Jordanian so go figure.

   I think most sub genres are cyclical. Somebody, some where, some day will write a stupendous romance about the middle east and we will all be racing to book stores for sheik books again.

---

3. CIndyS said:
   January 15th, 2008 at 4:26 am

   You know, the more we talk about the titles of category romance the more I realize that these really are the tried and true stories that make up romance for most people. I mean, Harlequin would be broke by now if it wasn’t the case.

   I know that I like to read about the ‘fallen’ woman in historicals because their lives were so much different than ‘proper’ women.

   I *think* and I can’t really say because I avoid them like the plague that the secret baby stories have to appeal to single mothers. Not that they want the original guy back, but that they too can have a HEA.

   As to the others - I really don’t have a clue - oh, except cops. I really dig cops and warriors. Then I also like con men and assassins (I’m an Anne Stuart nut) but I’ll go with a ‘hell no!’ in real life.

   Just off the top of my head, searching for a missing child/children doesn’t seem like the time to fall in love or to have sex - and by this I mean they have just gone missing. Also, I’ve never had a baby myself but watching my friends in those first months after the birth, I know the last thing they were thinking of was ‘mreow, c’mere sexy’.

   Characters without a conscience. I can empathize with the motives of some of the bad guys that are presented in romance (doing what they do to save their child) as long as I know they have a conscience or at least a stop point. As long as the character has a place they can’t allow themselves to go then I can buy into a romance as long as it’s then proven to be a good match.

   I’m rambling.

   Cindys

---

4. Devon said:
   January 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am

   I think CindyS is on to something with the secret baby thing. I think the appeal is in the idea that a man could fall in love with a mother and her children. A lot of people (including me) find the idea of a dedicated and capable dad very sexy. It’s an unconditional love and acceptance thing.

   LOL on the finding love while searching for a missing child. That storyline always gives me pause.

---

Leave a Comment