what we call ourselves when we're not paying attention

[kaigou]

I was going to respond in an earlier thread about this, but figured others might enjoy jumping in, so I'll start a new post just for this. In an intended reply to myladyinsanity, who pointed out a thread over on the Dear Author blog, about why mislabeling can hurt new authors. The gist is that romance readers expect, above all else, a Happy Ending. A story that does not provide, by definition therefore, is NOT Romance-with-a-capital-R. It may be top-notch, but it's not top-notch Romance.

I do agree that 'paranormal romance' is just... erk. I keep thinking, "wouldn't paranormal romance be like those Mary Higgins Clarks books where it's always some poor woman swept up in Amazing Fantasy Alpha Guy who then takes her away and suddenly strange stuff's happening and it might be ghosts and it might be a rather butchered retelling of Turn of the Screw..." Y'know, ghosts. And stuff. Paranormal.

I hardly count 'people who can shapeshift' as paranormal.

I would, however, describe a great deal of the fantastical romance as romantic in the classical sense, where the fantastical exists to lend a romantic/quasi-idealised view of the world (and of love in particular, in the HEA stories). Charles DeLint, IMO, is romantic urban fantasy, too, even if he doesn't have happy endings; he's still a highly romanticized view of fantasy. Hrm. Fantastical Romance might work as a sub-genre for the romance world, but it still wouldn't pull me in as an urban fantasy reader. Maybe Contemporary Romantic Fantasy?

Another element that seems to be required in Romance is that of the pairing of the main protags: you can pinpoint from the beginning who's going to end up with whom, and the question isn't who, but when and how. This as opposed to well-written Chick Lit, it seems, where the protag's choice waffles between two or more guys and each has good and bad, and the question isn't when, but who and how. There is a tendency to emphasize the "fated!destiny" crap in Romance, too; the only other genre I can think of that uses this as strongly/often is fantasy. It's the only reason I could forgive its emphasis in Liu's work: she uses fantasy tropes to give the romance a reason that's believable in that world; when the fantastical is everyday, then who's to say that in that world, two people couldn't be drawn and bound so quickly?

Perhaps the real question is this (because we're really dealing with crossovers): is it a romance with heavy fantasy overtones, or is it a fantasy with romance in it? Hell, a lot of science fiction does have romantic plotlines, as do Westerns, and plenty of great literature. Those aren't in the Romance section, and not only because they're not all HEAs, either -- there are plenty that are. (Lord Valentine's Castle, anyone?)

Now, though, I am off to swing by the office and wrap up the last of the week before heading up to see the brother & his family & his new house. Woot. Let's see if he's waiting at the door with a shotgun to take me out for the xmas gift CP and I sent him, bwah. And then, tomorrow morning, a long drive back to Philly, catch the flight out, and I should be home by 6pm tomorrow evening. Here's hoping I can find a decent grocery store between here and northern PA that has good chocolate. Sigh. Next time I pack plenty in advance.

EDIT: As noted to RS in the comments below, rectangles and squares, people. Urban fantasy readers can be unhappy rectangles and happy squares, but all romance readers are happy squares. So the chances of a romantic fantastical work appealing to both fantasy readers and romance readers is probably double the chances of an unhappy fantastical work, on average, appealing to both. Which is pretty much a duh.

Sleep dep may have made my comments muddy, but this is what's underneath: not whether labelling urban fantasy as 'romantic' would make romance readers come over to our side of the fence, but whether labelling the fantastical romance subgenre would bring over more fantasy readers to the romance side. I don't know whether Gilman or Dayton have been shelved in romance; I've only found them in fantasy; they may be writing to romance expectations (and published by romance publishers, to boot) but they've proven to be popular among fantasy readers, as well. So if there's question of whether crossovers would work, those authors (at minimum) are proof such do.

I do not, for the record, find Gilman to be a romanticist/idealist; her view of the world is rather sharp-edged, as is Liu's. Dayton's is a little bit softer around the edges, like DeLint's. That, though, is entirely my opinion and a completely subjective thing, and simply how I personally categorize authors I like, really like, and those I read for story or character but not so much place or voice. (The less romanticist, the greater the chance it'll appeal to me.)

Then again, my idea of a romantic gift is built-in shelves, and I can't remember birthdates, anniversaries, or speshul holidays without sixteen sticky-notes, ten verbal reminders, and possibly a neon sign flashing in red and blue. It's not that I don't like happy endings. I just don't like sap... but a romance writer who writes fantastical romance that's sap-free would get my money as much as any urban fantasy writer, if I knew where/how to find such writers. *shrug* That would be the entire point of asking for a label -- not for anyone inside the genre, but for making it clear to those outside the genre who might also be interested.

As for covers? Yeah. I snark on the covers Liu got, but I snark equally much on other covers -- it's just that Liu's covers are so stereotypically 'modern romance' and yet her work goes far past those boundaries. They seem misleading, when a more ambiguous could have appealed to anyone who likes happy squares, in fantasy or romance.

Comments

[okaasan59.livejournal.com]

Alright you two. Maybe it should be Hardly Ever Asks anything while expecting a straight answer!