I was thinking about my blog entry yesterday and realized that my new work falls somewhere in between romance and sci-fi/fantasy (urban)/horror. It’s not exactly straightforward (urban) fantasy because there’s more of a romance in it and it can in no way be considered a straight romance because the focus isn’t on the relationships in any of my upcoming books (except the Blaze and I need to do a lot of work before the relationship will be the focus in that book).
This got me thinking about a conversation I glimpsed the other day concerning the need for a new genre. Apparently, readers are getting upset by urban fantasies being passed off as romances (and rightly so). I know this is what’s been happening with the erotic romances and erotica over the past year and a half. Books that are erotica are being called erotic romance. Heck, even books that don’t fall into either category are being called erotic romance because it will sell more copies…initially. Then the reader will discover that they’ve been duped and will tell all their friends and so on, and so on, and so on. The sad thing is the author has absolutely no control over where their book is shelved or how it is labeled.
I think there is only so long that you can get away with fooling the readers before they rebel and stop buying the product. I’d hate to see it come to that, but it looks like it’ll have to before things change. Which gets me back to the ‘new’ category I mentioned earlier. We’ve seen hints of these books from JR Ward and Lynn Viehl. Are they straight romances? No, I don’t think so, but I also don’t know where else you’d shelve them in a store. In addition, I’m not sure what you’d call them. (Romantic Horror, Edgy Romance???) If you have any ideas what to call these new kinds of books, I’m all ears. 
And before you ask, the books I’m working on now aren’t exactly like these beyond the dark and gritty aspects. So where do I fall in this new territory of romance? Am I even writing romance? I suppose that depends on how you define a romance novel. Do you think there needs to be another genre created for the readers? If so, what?
October 18th, 2006
I actually would put Ward under straight romance. I think at some point there’ll be a new genre, even though I think it’s unnecessary, and I wouldn’t have a clue what to call it either.
by May October 18th, 2006 at 11:37 amI think elements of other genres are bleeding into the romance one, as romance is blending into the them. Regencies and westerns with paranormal elements. Paranormals with sci-fi elements.
I can hear the purists saying, “Where is this writing world coming to?” *lol*
I agree with you that sometimes pure paranormals are being sold as paranormal romances, like the ones sold from TOR and Luna.
by Tempest Knight October 18th, 2006 at 11:45 amMay, With JR Ward, I was thinking much more along the darker grittier line, but yes, you’re correct that it’s a romance at heart.
by Jordan October 18th, 2006 at 11:56 amTempest, Yes, the purists are screaming. *ggg* I like the idea of the blending of lines. I just hate that readers are grabbing books that they think are one thing and ending up with another. :-/
by Jordan October 18th, 2006 at 11:58 amI can’t comment on Lynn Viehl, because I haven’t actually read her Darkyn books. (Love her StarDoc novels, though, but those are SF.)
J. R. Ward, IMO, is romance. They’re darker and grittier than most romance, and the ratio is more towards 60/40 romance/external plot (maybe even 50/50), but I think that still falls into the category of romance.
For me, a romance needs to have two things to qualify as a genre romance novel. One, the plot should be at least a 50/50 ratio in favor of the romance. Two, there needs to be a HEA.
The problem with a lot of the erotica-in-romance-suit books is that there isn’t a HEA. I can’t say that I’ve read any books marketed as paranormal romance that don’t fit those qualifiers… but I’ve also read very little from Tor Paranormals, which I’ve heard is the worst culprit for that.
by Nonny October 18th, 2006 at 12:04 pmTempest:
)
by Nonny October 18th, 2006 at 12:06 pmLuna was never intended to be a romance line. If you look over their guidelines, it’s fantasy with romantic elements. The problem is, not all of their authors have portrayed it as such on their own websites and blogs. Along with that, they picked romance writers as well as fantasy writers for launch, so the plot ratio is skewed. (Really, it’s more difficult than you might think to go from one genre to the other.
Some of the cross genre could be considered speculative romance. SpecRom doesn’t have a hard and fast formula for the amount of romance to other story line, it’s more fluid and organic. I read Lynn’s Darkyn books. In them, the romance, horror, and paranormal elements seemed to move like a tide, devoid of any standard formula found in the more pure of each of the genres. But I think people might be frightened of anything ’speculative’.
by Ursula October 18th, 2006 at 4:49 pmThey should just be shelved in Fiction. LKH’s Anita Blake series is shelved in fiction. At least in Canada it is. But then again, Kelley Armstrong’s books are shelved in Horror…and I think her’s have more romance than LKH. Kim Harrison’s books are in sci-fi/fantasy…
That is where I think urban fantasy should be shelved, whether it has a romance in it or not.
by Vivi Anna October 18th, 2006 at 7:09 pmI actually like the term speculative romance because mixed genre stories fit in it.
What were the Crimson City Series labeled–Paranormal action adventure romance? Plus they were futuristic. But the romance wasn’t the main focus of the story.
I think publishers get confused, also. Nocturne, the new paranormal series–anyone read Dangerous Temptation? A mortal, in fairyland–I would classify that as a fanatsy. Now, if the fairy had been living a hidden existence in our normal world, then I would have seen it as a paranormal. Confusing.
by Becca Furrow October 18th, 2006 at 9:32 pmOh, gawd–another genre?! lol!
I tried, but couldn’t think of another name that would really fit…maybe “Dark Romance”, or something of that kind?
I guess push to shove, the publishers could just have some sort of abbreviation on the binding edge which might indicate all the MAJOR elements, like “ROM/URB/PARA”.As for shelving–I’d lean toward the fiction section–but I doubt the publishers would. :-/
by raine October 18th, 2006 at 11:06 pmNonny, I agree that a romance should constitute 50% of the story to be considered a romance. I need you to define HEA. The thing about Tor is that they’re a sci-fi/fantasy publisher, so they’re trying to reach their original market along with the romance market. It’s tough to do. That’s why I don’t believe what I’m writing now are true romances.
by Jordan October 18th, 2006 at 11:31 pmUrsula, They might be scared of that title, but I think it’s a good one for all of us ’sandwiches’. *g*
by Jordan October 18th, 2006 at 11:32 pmVivi, Here you’ll find LKH, Armstrong, and Harrison all in the sci-fi/fantasy section of the bookstore. Armstrong used to be in the fiction section, thent they moved her over when she started writing more of the series. I do agree that all urban fantasy should be shelved in the fantasy section. It would make things for less confusing.
by Jordan October 18th, 2006 at 11:33 pmBecca, I’m not sure what Crimson City was labeled, but it was shelved in the romance section. I do think publishers and bookstores get confused when a book crosses multiple genres. They tend to stick it where they think it will sell.
by Jordan October 18th, 2006 at 11:35 pmRaine, I’d just be happy if they shelved them in the sci-fi/fantasy section or called them Dark Romance/Horror Romance, etc. As long as the reader knew that a good dose of darkness was coming with their romance, I wouldn’t care.
by Jordan October 18th, 2006 at 11:37 pmI kinda like the “speculative romance” label!
by Larissa October 19th, 2006 at 5:07 amSpeculative Romance sounds good, but does speculative mean that the romance still has to have a HEA? I mean, I see so many books being released in the next year that may or may not have a HEA, but appear to have some romance in it. And are being sold as romances, I might add.
by May October 19th, 2006 at 7:03 amIn defense of bookstores….I use to work for Chapters in CAnada for five years. When the book buyers are goign through catalogues chosing books to buy for the stores, they have a cover and a short blurb…sometimes that’s not enough to determine what genre a book really is. I think to help stores out and make it uniform, the publishers should SAY right in the catalgues what section it should go in. They should knwo right? they bought the damn book!
by Vivi Anna October 19th, 2006 at 8:38 amLarissa, I kind of like speculative romance myself. It covers a lot of ground.
by Jordan October 19th, 2006 at 10:37 amMay, Speculative by nature would mean it could have just about anything in it (HEA or not). As for your other point, unfortunately the authors have NO say where the publishers choose to have the books shelved or how they’re labeled. I’ve read a few blogs where the authors of urban fantasies were upset because they were receiving mail from readers who felt they were deceived because their books had been put in the romance section. Trust me, the authors didn’t want their books there. BUT, it makes a huge difference in sales. (at least initial sales) Doesn’t make it right, but publishers are in the business of making money.
by Jordan October 19th, 2006 at 10:42 amVivi, I’m not surprised it’s difficult. I can’t imagine reading a blurb and trying to pick a category. That said, if given the choice publishers would still stick a book in a wrong category if they thought it would sell better.
by Jordan October 19th, 2006 at 10:43 amI don’t have an issue with books without HEAs being published as romance. I just have a feeling people won’t like it being called something romance because it might or might not have a HEA. After all, every time I say romance doesn’t need a HEA, everybody tells me I’m wrong, or that readers will raise hell. LOL.
by May October 19th, 2006 at 11:42 amMay, LOL! You do catch it quite often for that stance. *ggg* I completely agree with you, but I know it won’t stop the publishers.
by Jordan October 19th, 2006 at 11:46 amMy comment on this is in response to the shelving in bookstores and reader assumptions. LKH, Charlaine Harris, Kelley Armstrong, Rachel Caine, etc are read by romance readers and reviews for their novels occassionally pop up at AAR and yet while they’re shelved in mystery, fiction, horror or sci-fi in bookstores, romance readers subconsciously associate them with the romance genre. A new genre that bridged the gap between the romance genre and other genres would satisfy those readers who have been burnt by the romance genre, but still want a bit of the “romance genre”-romance other genres such as straight mystery or straight fantasy,etc lack. If romantic suspense can have differing balances of romance and suspense (70/30, 40/60,etc) and continue to satisfy legions of readers of romantic suspense, why can a new sort of romance genre do that?
by Camilla October 20th, 2006 at 1:01 amJordan, My definition of a HEA would be where the couple ends with a deep emotional committment to each other and their relationship. When you’re dealing with paranormal or SFF, this doesn’t necessarily mean wedding and kids.
If a book labelled as “Romance” doesn’t have the HEA, I’m not going to be a happy kitty.
by Nonny October 20th, 2006 at 11:34 amCamilla, You bring up a real good point about romance readers. They will seek books outside of the genre and make them their own, even if the books aren’t romances. I think that occurred because their needs weren’t being met in the romance genre. I completely agree with you. It’s time to bridge the gap.
by Jordan October 20th, 2006 at 2:03 pmNonny, Thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought that’s what you meant, but I wanted to make sure.
by Jordan October 20th, 2006 at 2:04 pm