My current headache is the compartmentalization in the romance field itself, and how many times the authors/readers in one subgenre look down upon other subgenres. Silly me, I thought it was all Team Romance.
"Romance is not real writing"
- Thread starter Another Editor
- Start date
- Status
There is something from Art and Fear that I feel is appropriate to the discussion:
In this context, "romance writing" or "sci-fi writing" or "____ writing" is no less of a form to my eyes than "literary writing." It's on the shelf. You can't deny that words have been put on the page, been printed, been bound, and, hopefully, been sold. It's writing, pure and simple.
Now, I suppose part of the argument that "Romance is not real writing" is a perception of "cheap" and "quick" writing, as though literary fiction has a sense of ardour and suffering attached to it "because it's Art" with a capital A.
However, artmaking is something that is intensely ordinary. It would be like dismissing folk musicians as musicians because they're not Mozart. Nobody is like Mozart - that's why he's Mozart. Yet folk music is the lifeblood and song of entire cultures and subcultures. Similarly, no-one is Dickens or Nabokov except Dickens and Nabokokv. Yet, their existence and their writing does not preclude those authors who contribute to Mills & Boon from the common status of real writers, producing real writing. Even if we go along and agree, at least with half a measure, with those critics on their opinion that "romance is not real writing", we must concede that it is still writing. Ivory may not be so white as snow, but the whole Arctic continent does not make ivory black, says GK Chesterton.
The dismissal of romance fiction sounds like too poor a case of No True Scotsman! being put into effect, because the reality is that all Scotsmen and Scotswomen are, despite certain clan feuds, standards, and fashions, all born in Scotland to Scottish parents.
In this context, "romance writing" or "sci-fi writing" or "____ writing" is no less of a form to my eyes than "literary writing." It's on the shelf. You can't deny that words have been put on the page, been printed, been bound, and, hopefully, been sold. It's writing, pure and simple.
Now, I suppose part of the argument that "Romance is not real writing" is a perception of "cheap" and "quick" writing, as though literary fiction has a sense of ardour and suffering attached to it "because it's Art" with a capital A.
However, artmaking is something that is intensely ordinary. It would be like dismissing folk musicians as musicians because they're not Mozart. Nobody is like Mozart - that's why he's Mozart. Yet folk music is the lifeblood and song of entire cultures and subcultures. Similarly, no-one is Dickens or Nabokov except Dickens and Nabokokv. Yet, their existence and their writing does not preclude those authors who contribute to Mills & Boon from the common status of real writers, producing real writing. Even if we go along and agree, at least with half a measure, with those critics on their opinion that "romance is not real writing", we must concede that it is still writing. Ivory may not be so white as snow, but the whole Arctic continent does not make ivory black, says GK Chesterton.
The dismissal of romance fiction sounds like too poor a case of No True Scotsman! being put into effect, because the reality is that all Scotsmen and Scotswomen are, despite certain clan feuds, standards, and fashions, all born in Scotland to Scottish parents.
Last edited:
I've heard people say things like this as well, and I couldn't agree less.
To me, romance is one of the most challenging genres to write (besides horror) because romance is something most of us experience at some points in our lives, and we all experience it differently, making it challenging to write it in a way that many people can relate to.
Romance is complex and deeply emotional. I think a lot of people hold romance as this sort of mystical thing that can't be understood, only experienced, so they can't see how it can be captured in writing.
Same deal with erotica.
But romance is absolutely real writing.
To me, romance is one of the most challenging genres to write (besides horror) because romance is something most of us experience at some points in our lives, and we all experience it differently, making it challenging to write it in a way that many people can relate to.
Romance is complex and deeply emotional. I think a lot of people hold romance as this sort of mystical thing that can't be understood, only experienced, so they can't see how it can be captured in writing.
Same deal with erotica.
But romance is absolutely real writing.
Yep! Love makes the world go round. It shapes peoples lives from the first breath taken. Love is something everyone desires and strives for. It's exciting, messy, and can make or break you. People do so crazy stupid (and great) things because of it. How can writing about the emotion that drives so many not be real?
Monday's RWA newsletter had a link to a wonderful interview with Eloisa James defending the romance genre:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/defense-romance-vol-2/
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/defense-romance-vol-2/
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,382
- Reaction score
- 311
- Location
- Casa Chaos
- Website
- www.debkinnard.com
Re: Nick Sparks. IMO he calls his stuff "love stories" because the term "romance" is abhorrent to him vis-à-vis his own work. Reason: GIRL COOTIES.
Quote:
"America is now wholly given over to a damned mob of scribbling women,
and I should have no chance of success while the public taste is occupied with their trash."
~Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I like that quote. In a way it's true. But whose fault is that? If you write things that are too original than the agents and publishers don;t want to risk. They want things that have been done before just in a new paper.
It's the same thing as in the movie industry. That's why blockbusters seem to have some plot in common. The public always expects those things. The same in the books. The readers expect things. That's why there are genres. Some readers will like any book, other only specific books.
Women are writing for other women. They sell romance to other women. Why? Maybe because women like to dream of love more often.
"America is now wholly given over to a damned mob of scribbling women,
and I should have no chance of success while the public taste is occupied with their trash."
~Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I like that quote. In a way it's true. But whose fault is that? If you write things that are too original than the agents and publishers don;t want to risk. They want things that have been done before just in a new paper.
It's the same thing as in the movie industry. That's why blockbusters seem to have some plot in common. The public always expects those things. The same in the books. The readers expect things. That's why there are genres. Some readers will like any book, other only specific books.
Women are writing for other women. They sell romance to other women. Why? Maybe because women like to dream of love more often.
I blogged about writing romance recently (for Springs2 as it happens). It really irks me that it's seen as 'not proper writing' or just something for 'silly women.'
Men like/read/write romance too.
Men like/read/write romance too.
- Status