Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Things that chap my ass
I was surfing an agent's website earlier today (one who is very clear that she does NOT rep romance, thank you very much, but has no problem repping authors who write for Red Dress Ink) to forward the info along to another writer friend. In order to avoid any ambiguity about what she does and does not represent, the agent has a helpful list of "genre definitions" posted on her website. Here's what it said about romance:
"Romance is unabashed escapist fiction, following the love story of a (usually female) protagonist, and intended to sweep women readers away from their day-to-day problems. The Romance Writer's Association defines its genre simply as "a love story with an optimistic and emotionally satisfying ending." However, also key to Romance novels is an absence of moral ambiguity. Courage saves the day, justice triumphs, good defeats evil, and it is always readily apparent who and what is good and who and what is evil. Almost uniformly, Romance involves the "taming" or "civilization" of a wild man by a woman. Sub-plots and minor characters are kept to a minimum; these are not multilayered works. Romance readers are seeking to relax and enjoy. Romances should be easy to read, but should strike strong emotional chords. Marriage is almost without exception the desired goal of a Romance plot."
Is it just me, or does this strike you as a particularly antiquated, narrow-minded, not to mention judgemental definition of romance and its readers? Or is it just me and my increasing sensitivity and irritation when my husband's colleagues suggest with the best of intentions, "who knows, maybe someday you'll break out and write literary fiction," as though writing and publishing in romance is not a worthy goal in and of itself.
"Romance is unabashed escapist fiction, following the love story of a (usually female) protagonist, and intended to sweep women readers away from their day-to-day problems. The Romance Writer's Association defines its genre simply as "a love story with an optimistic and emotionally satisfying ending." However, also key to Romance novels is an absence of moral ambiguity. Courage saves the day, justice triumphs, good defeats evil, and it is always readily apparent who and what is good and who and what is evil. Almost uniformly, Romance involves the "taming" or "civilization" of a wild man by a woman. Sub-plots and minor characters are kept to a minimum; these are not multilayered works. Romance readers are seeking to relax and enjoy. Romances should be easy to read, but should strike strong emotional chords. Marriage is almost without exception the desired goal of a Romance plot."
Is it just me, or does this strike you as a particularly antiquated, narrow-minded, not to mention judgemental definition of romance and its readers? Or is it just me and my increasing sensitivity and irritation when my husband's colleagues suggest with the best of intentions, "who knows, maybe someday you'll break out and write literary fiction," as though writing and publishing in romance is not a worthy goal in and of itself.
