When is a love story NOT a romance?

So I was talking with jeffschanz on the Book List thread about whether his book should be listed under Romance or not.

He said: "I understand what you are saying, but I was referring to current genre romances. Defined by sexual/romantic choices, overcoming personality obstacles (usually) and perfect timing. Just at the perfect time the guy does/says the right thing to make the girl want him. That last explanation is why most men do not understand romance. We have no clue when to do this perfectly right thing. ;)

That said, love stories can be romances, and I do enjoy love stories just fine. Just not romances. Even though some folks say I've written one. Go figure. ;)"

What do the rest of you think?

When is a book a romance, and when is it just a book with a love story?

I said this in a review the other day:

There are books that are one genre with a romance subplot, there there are romances that are built in a genre world.

I think this is the important distinction. IF the primary plot is the love story, the reason for the adult themes and scenes, the driving reason of the book, then the book is a romance.

If the drive of the book is something else and just happens to have a romance incorporated, then it is whatever the other genre is.

"Romance fiction" is an odd genre label. It refers to a tightly-constrained set of narrative conventions and fetishistic preoccupations for which there is no other name in English. But certainly not all love stories are part of this genre. Take the "Love" books of Lee Siegel: Love in a Dead Language, Love and Other Games of Chance, and Who Wrote the Book of Love? All of these are love stories, but not remotely romance fictions. The primary plot is the love story, but it's not a "romantic" one leveraging a well-defined set of collective emotional and erotic prejudices in order to gratify readers.

It is entirely possible to create a romance fiction genre-text within a setting that is directed by another genre, whether that's a typical one like a historical novel, or an atypical one like a noir detective tale. To put it simply in a fantasy or sf world should be no problem at all.

I find myself giving "urban fantasy" a wide berth because contrary to the apparent denotation, it doesn't mean things like Harrison's Viriconium or the city-focused fantasy novels of China Mieville, but it tends to indicate contemporary romances that have incorporated a limited body of tropes from supernatural fantasy and gothic horror. Just like a fantasy reader could be disappointed in "urban fanatasy," a romance fiction reader could be disappointed in a "romance" that turned out to be some other sort of love story altogether.

A romance novel is defined by the RWA (Romance Writers of America) as having (and I quote from their website) "a central love story and an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending.

A Central Love Story: The main plot centers around individuals falling in love and struggling to make the relationship work. A writer can include as many subplots as he/she wants as long as the love story is the main focus of the novel.

An Emotionally Satisfying and Optimistic Ending: In a romance, the lovers who risk and struggle for each other and their relationship are rewarded with emotional justice and unconditional love.

Romance novels may have any tone or style, be set in any place or time, and have varying levels of sensuality—ranging from sweet to extremely hot. These settings and distinctions of plot create specific subgenres within romance fiction."

It's really best to adhere to this definition in terms of categorizing your books: romance readers will be very, very unhappy if you label a book as a romance and then have, say, one of the main romantic protagonists die at the end. The happy ending is a must, or else it's a love story or just general fiction.

>3 paradoxosalpha: Except the three books by Lee Siegel are NOT love stories. They are life arcs of characters that he chose to follow.

Oh, and not all urban fantasy qualify as contemporary romance. I think the Harry Dresden series, which is more a noir mystery with magic, definitely does not qualify. Certainly, others, like the Illona Andrews series fit that bill. (I hated the one I tried) but not all.

>5 gilroy: They are life arcs of characters that he chose to follow.

Er, I don't see how anyone can exempt Love in a Dead Language from the category of "love story." It is a story about love, through and through. It has the rich character development of "literary fiction," but I wouldn't call it a story about "a character."

>5 gilroy: not all urban fantasy qualify as contemporary romance.

Yeah, maybe more like 80%? Certainly enough of it for me to see the label as a warning flag rather than an enticement. And wouldn't you agree that The City & the City is not "urban fantasy" as the term is used for genre?

>6 paradoxosalpha: The description of Love is a Dead Language reads more like a Lolita knock off than a Love Story.

Having not read the book, and only basing it on the description, The City & The City is not Urban Fantasy. It's science fiction or possibly science fantasy. Feels more like science fantasy with a mystery theme.

I didn't know "Lolita knock off" was a commonly recognized genre. And I don't think "Love Story" is either.

I'm glad you concur with my point about The City & the City, to demonstrate that "urban fantasy" is a far more specialized form of literature than its name suggests. And I really do think that romance fiction conventions are a big validator in "urban fantasy," even if they aren't ubiquitous.

"Lolita Knock Off" isn't a genre description any more than a "Harry Potter clone" or "Tolkien Wannabe" is a genre description. I never said a genre outside of NOT romance, not Love stories -- even if the author tried to claim as much in the back cover copy. You said yourself it was a literary fiction. Which is what Lolita is also considered.

As for the Urban Fantasy validator, I think each publishing house and each editor has an opinion on what it should be, just like each book store will move things to what THEY think it should be. A true genre selection is, after all, just a marketing gimmick. Until they started breaking everything so finely, anything that wasn't a bible or nonfiction was considered "Romance."

>9 gilroy: A true genre selection is, after all, just a marketing gimmick. Until they started breaking everything so finely, anything that wasn't a bible or nonfiction was considered "Romance."

Agreed!

My novel is among many that blur genre lines, and I do agree that the need to define genres can hamper book marketing/sales. That said, many other books are easily identified in their genre, and a majority of modern romances fit that label. Not necessarily a gimmick.

To me, in the simplest terms, romance is made to showcase a love story, using the plot and setting as the vehicle/tool to do so. Whereas a love story can occur in a book that is created around a theme/plot, and not necessarily be "about" the love story. The love story might be a vehicle/tool that feeds the plot, but the book is still "about" the theme. This is not a romance, IMHO.

I am finding this differentiation hard to grasp.

(I always think that Burroughs adventure stories showcase their love stories, and I'm not sure what their theme is supposed to be. Sometimes it just seems like my brain is put together differently or something.)

Mostly I don't bother to try differentiate. But if I had to, for me it would be easier to divide books up by plot problem. If the relationship itself is the main story problem, then you have a Romance(tm), but if the book has a central love story that fills some other role in the story other than providing the main plot problem (in Burroughs' books the love story provides the central motivation for the hero to subject himself to all sorts of dangers), then its probably a love story.

When people talk about genre conventions, that's a whole n'other ball of wax.

I love for stories to have a love story, but I tend to avoid most commercial romance subgenres. Why? Because I dislike stories that spend too much time on sex/lust, or on visual description; that are overly-dramatic, angst-ridden or too sentimental; or where the plots seem purposeless or are fueled by misunderstandings or protagonist error.

None of those things are inherent in being a Romance(tm), but they are sure super common.

Of course I understand that ´too much' is a very personal judgement, but for me many published-as-romance books push my own personal tolerance levels in these areas to a degree that I just can't enjoy them. In spite of that fact, I own over two hundred books published as romances. It's just a matter of finding subgenres where the conventions lean more toward my own tastes.

gilroy has commented previously on not liking romances (or fantasy books that are really romances in disguise), and I have always wondered if my own stories would be considered intolerable or not. When gilroy gets specific about what is particularly disliked, the descriptions generally seem to be of things that I dislike also.

But just because I didn't do x, y or z, which are things that gilroy doesn't like, doesn't mean that gilroy would like what I did instead. ::rueful::

I like to point out that I am but one person and not the voice of everyone in existence. I'll gladly shift views/opinions, when given an opportunity to learn and grow. I come across as pushy and arrogant in words, probably because I don't like to mince them. I apologize if my writing in that respect has offended anyone.

TL;DR: don't judge based on my opinion. :)

I think you misunderstand.
I'm not worried and I'm not judging myself or you. I'm curious.

I'm totally okay with people not liking what I do. Why should they?

The thing that gets me, is that I can't answer the question: "Is Serendipity's Tide too romance-y to appeal to people who don't like romances? Rinse, lather and repeat with most of my other titles.

I do do some romance-y things, I don't do other romance-y things.
Where do the lines get drawn?

Are we looking at a variation of Gold's fourth rule (fifth?) that any wordage spent on sex scenes is wordage not spent on advancing the plot?

Or do I need to have a better grasp the "is the romance the theme of the book" question?

Or is it more a matter of avoiding certain tropes, and if so, which ones?

And how does this change from reader to reader, and what are the telltales that will allow me to spot and sort the types?

These are the sorts of things I'd like to know. :)

LShelby, you say you find it hard to grasp, but you stated it fairly accurately. At least, my opinion of the differentiation.

Here's an example of something unrelated to romances, but with the same point.
Imagine a movie with Bruce Lee in it who fights a bunch of gangsters. Is the movie more about gangsters and crime that just happens to have Bruce Lee in it? Or is it a martial arts movie built for Bruce Lee to dispatch bad guys, in this case: gangsters?

I think you know the answer. Same would be true of most romances. Is the story really about the historic story of Viking warriors raiding English villages and happens to involve an English Maiden who falls for the Viking? Or is it about the two unlikely lovers that is set with the exotic/interesting trappings of Viking days? That's the romance difference.

As for Burroughs, the hook is Mars, battles, swashbuckling, and world building. Location/action/adventure/Sci-fi/fantasy. It's a serial, like Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon. It was even a comic book. Little boys loved it, which tends to be a indicator of things that are not romances. Hero gets girl. Yes, they love each other, so did Lois and Superman. Not a romance. James Bond had bunches of loves, none romances. Flash Gordon loved Dale Arden; Rocky Balboa loved Adrian; John McClane loved Holly (Die Hard), Indiana Jones loved Marion (later Willie) - folks would fight you if you called any of them romances.
Lord of the Rings (movie moreso than book) had the romantic element of the Aragorn/Arwen love story. A love story inside the main plot which was not a romance. In this case, the love story is a sub-plot. Am I making sense? :)

LShelby, as for your own work... honestly why does it bother you what to call it? If you've got a nice love story in your book, and it's not a romance, then what's wrong with that? If it IS a romance, and folks like to read it, what's it to ya?

I don't think mine is a romance, but it does have a love story, and folks have called it everything from a romance, to a thriller, paranormal, to suspense, to a medical thriller (yes, someone did call it that). It's whatever the reader wants. I have my opinion, but I doubt the readers care.

Write what you want to write, and label it after you're done. :)

>14 LShelby: Ah, okay, better explanation. And I agree with what >15 jeffschanz: says, in that the main story line/theme is what determines genre, for the most part.

Honestly, Gold's Rules are more like guidelines, because a sex scene could be a characterization vehicle, though it doesn't have to be full and explicit to do so (which I think many modern authors forget.) I mean, it could show does a character have a dominate side or a submissive side? Is the character conflicted based on who they always find themselves? How are they when it comes to consent? (All of which would need to appear in later parts of the story if it's an early scene, or all of which should be showing a balance of previous parts to the book.)

Of course, many writing rules are guidelines, once you understand them...
(Could you point me toward Gold's Rules, please? I've lost my connection to them somehow...)

To gilroy and LShelby...
I have no idea why sex scenes would determine anything about a genre. I read famous authors who have juicy sex scenes in their books, and the books are most definitely NOT romances, or even love stories in some cases.
--Nelson DeMille loves explicit sex scenes. Sometimes to a fault, and his books are action-thriller/espionage/intrigue genres.
--Ken Follett tosses in a few juicy scenes. Thriller/historic fiction-thriller, etc.
--Michael and Kathleen Gear write historical fiction about ancient native americans - with sex scenes thrown in here and there.
There's more authors but I'm not remembering everyone.
--Oh, and there's me. :)

I don't care what anyone calls my books. I care about whether or not they like my books, inasmuch as there is a generizable pattern that can add to my understanding of readers and their preferences.

Sex-sans-love-story is easy for me to sort out. I'm not confused about that. With the Gold's rule reference, what I was trying to ask is:

Would the reader's decision on whether a book was a too much a romance or not be based on how much wordage is "wasted" on romantical things?

Hopefully I stated it much more clearly this time. :)

If only stories in which the main plot problem is fixing the relationship count, then of the stories I have published the only "romance" is Cantata.

But if the criteria is based on wordage spent on romantical things, then Serendipity's Tide might be more romance-y than Cantata is. Especially if we are counting the percentage of words, rather than total words.

If we are talking about avoiding romance tropes and your picture of a typical romance is Danielle Steele, then I probably have no book that qualifies as a romance, but once again, Serendipity's Tide probably comes closest. But if your romance tropes map includes Georgette Heyer, suddenly all my books will look way more like romances, and Cantata probably once again is top of the list.

>15 jeffschanz:
...I have no idea why anyone would think that a movie with gangsters in it was not a gangster movie just because it was created as a vehicle for Bruce Lee.
But then, I don't think I've ever watched Bruce Lee.
I've watched Jackie Chan.
And probably a couple hundred hours of Wuxia.

When I write a book, most typically the love story and the rest of the plot will feel equally important to me. This is why your criteria is so difficult for me to grasp ahold of and really be able to apply.

Burroughs is clearly adventure, and Catherine Asaro is clearly romance but there is a lot of middle ground between the two. My books aren't the only ones that look to me as if they belong about halfway between the two.

LShelby... I think you're too caught up in theory when I'm sure you have better data to use from your own readers. What have your readers said about your books? Has anyone had an issue with any of them being too much/too little of anything? Those opinions, plus of course your own preferences/intentions, are the best way to interpret what your books are.

"Vampyre" was read by a group of romance readers (happenstance) and they all liked it. Some loved it. The only complaint (and it was done good-naturedly) was that the reader preferred more sex than the little tidbit I gave her. The males who have read it call it anywhere from action, to horror/suspense, etc. One likened it to Stephen King (I scoff and snort at the incredulity, but I'm flattered anyway). My book so far has been enjoyable by different types of readers and no one has complained it is not enough of something. Maybe a touch more sex needed? ;) I'm sure I've just jinxed it, haven't I?

BTW, I thought the Bruce Lee analogy was as plain as I could get it. I think I'm just going to shrug and not try to convince you of an alternate opinion of a modern romance. People can get way to obsessed with changing others opinions and assumptions through social media. I hate it. And I normally don't do it, so I'll stop now. Believe whatever you feel. Who's to say you're not right?

**BTW, I'm only about 10% into you book so far, so I don't have a good answer yet for "Serendipity." I will say that the title sounds more romance-y than adventure-y, but that's just personal vibe.

>20 jeffschanz: "I think I'm just going to shrug and not try to convince you of an alternate opinion of a modern romance."

Er...

I thought you were trying to *explain* what the differentiating feature between a love story and a romance was for you. How does *convincing* come into it?

I am already perfectly convinced that for you there is a difference. If for you there is a difference, there must actually be a difference.

I think I sort of get it the general idea of what that difference is, even, but I don't really grok what makes this an important difference to you. Theme is always something I have trouble grasping anyway. ::sigh::

I like watching Jackie Chan because I love the way his action scenes are choreographed to a, be amusing, and b, take advantage of the situation.

If Jackie Chan was doing a straight up wuxia choreography, for example, with all the usual wuxia stylistic ticks and deadly seriousness, there would be no point for me in watching it for Jackie Chan. I would have to want to be watching it for the wuxia.

I can only assume Bruce Lee also has his thing that he does, that goes beyond being just a kung fu fighter. And that if your gangster movie removed those aspects, there would be no point in Bruce Lee fans watching it. But the reverse does not seem to apply. Gangsters are still gangsters even if Bruce Lee is there.

So the gangsters are your love story, and Bruce Lee is your romance. You can't stand Bruce Lee. (Not really, I assume.)

But I'm only roughly able to guess what it is about 'Bruce' you don't like. My biggest problem is that you seem to be finding it in what seems to me to be a very broad range of books.

>21 LShelby:
LShelby, all I'm pointing out is there are media where the story's intention is clear based on how it is used.
First of all, Bruce Lee is awesome. So is Jackie Chan. Chan's movies (especially early ones) would be considered "Chop-socky" movies. Movies whose intentions are to make cool fight scenes within shoulder-shrug plots. Does anyone remember the plots of most of Chan's movies? Does anyone care? No. Cool fight scenes are enough. But they do have plots. Gangsters, or kindnappers, psychopaths, whatever. Those aren't important as long as Chan kicks their ass.
If your friend said, "Lets watch a gangster movie," you might say, "Goodfellas?" or equivalent. I doubt you'd say, "Jackie Chan movie?"
He fits a category, like many things fit a category, despite every element that exists in the film. Yes, Chan could make a drama, or something less chop-socky, but that's not my point. I think you know what I mean.
My opinion: Romances tend to use the plots and settings more as a vehicle or excuse to fuel the romantic relationship, as would Chan movies use the plot and settings to fuel his reason to do acrobatic fighting. Just like a porno involving a pizza delivery guy would not be considered a movie about the trials and tribulations of being a take-out driver.

"LShelby, all I'm pointing out is there are media where the story's intention is clear based on how it is used."

I didn't disagree with you. I said Burroughs was clearly action and Asaro was clearly romance.

I think it isn't always clear, though.

But, I'm also starting to suspect that if it isn't clear, that is to you its own answer. If it isn't there wholly for the relationship, then it isn't a Romance (tm). You don't see any middle ground because for you there isn't any.

>23 LShelby:
I see middle ground. I just thought I was confusing you on what I thought. I was giving examples of fairly straight forward stuff in order to explain it.
Things can be complex. My book is kinda complex. I recognize that it can be more than I think it is.

I haven't gotten far enough into yours to know what category it is yet. Maybe its complex like mine I don't know yet.
Usually romances have sexy people in scant clothing on their cover. Point 1 in your favor of not being a romance.
Usually romances don't world build (yours is set in different world), so point 2 in your favor.
Usually romances use key words like sexy, sultry, steamy... in their blurbs to indicate what kind of love action to expect. Point 3 in your favor.
Helpful?
:)

>24 jeffschanz:"I see middle ground. I just thought I was confusing you on what I thought."

I'm good at getting confused. I consider it a talent: it means I don't reject information just because I don't understand it yet. :)

"Usually romances have sexy people in scant clothing on their cover. Point 1 in your favor of not being a romance."

I'm saving the sexy girl in not much clothing covers for the pulptastic space opera series. They are the least romantic of all the books in the current and upcoming lineup, but the heroine is bioengineered to be a bombshell, and I like making jokes that no matter how sensible the clothes she starts out in, I always arrange for her to at some point change into something suitable for her Boris Vallejo cover sitting.

It really is a joke, I'm not that fond of Vallejo style covers--I prefer Krenkel's more action oriented stuff.
(For people who aren't Burroughs fans, and don't know what I'm talking about, here are some sample Krenkel covers. (3 and 8 were favorites of mine from childhood. No, I am not a child of the sixties.)

...Your ur romance is not the kind of romance I read, BTW. But that's okay, I have sampled a few, and know where they sit. :)

>25 LShelby:
back in their day, Krenkel and Vallejo and Frank Frazetta were king. Nothing wrong with those covers, just the ideals for what people expect has changed. Those covers would probably signify an adolescent novel nowadays. Too bad because the artwork is incredible. Always loved it.

So marshamelna was talking about the 'romance' of Italy, and I don't think we even brought the subject of setting up in this thread, so...

Does the setting need to be romantic for it to be a romance?

And whether the answer is yes or no, what makes a setting 'romantic' anyway.

(Beaches are apparently romantic--I have noticed this in Korean Dramas where they make romantic visits to beaches in the middle of winter when they can't wear anything sexy, or even go wading, let alone swim. I confess to not quite understanding how this is romantic.)

It's not the beach that's romantic, it's the ocean: Thalassa as the pulsing heart of the outer world.

>28 paradoxosalpha:

Although I absolutely believe that you have hit the nail on the head, I can't help noticing that there are a shortage of ocean without the beach romantic scenes, in these shows.

Just a bad habit, probably.

So is one of the things that makes Italy romantic the fact that it is almost completely surrounded by waves, then?

If that's so, is England equally romantic?

England certainly is romantic. As I often tell my (soon to be) ex, 'Of course I'm romantic, I've got all Led Zeppelin's CDs.' (I live near the furthest point from the sea by the way).

>29 LShelby: I can't help noticing that there are a shortage of ocean without the beach romantic scenes, in these shows.

Well, stereotypical beaches do provide an excuse for minimized attire.

>30 Denscott:
When I think England and Romance I usually end up at Jane Austin, not Led Zeppelin, but I'm sure this is merely the unfortunate outcome of my lack of a mis-spent youth.

Even so, if one is truly romantic, isn't one supposed to collect vinyl?

>31 paradoxosalpha:
Beaches probably have the minimal attire thing going for them in Italy, but I currently have Jane Austin on the brain, and the only Jane Austin scene I ran recall with any seascapes, looked almost as unsuitable for stripping down as Korean beaches in winter did.

In fact I'm having trouble thinking of any romantic beaches in England references at all. I know there are beaches, so I'm going to assume that I'm just blanking on this, and that half a year from now I will suddenly recall several.

What I am recalling as being referenced as romantic locales in England are lakes, moors, ruins, and capability brown landscapes full of follies.

The follies are built with the express purpose of looking romantic, (and ruined). So invoking the past is romantic?
Moors are apparently romantic because they are empty -- they give a "just the two of us effect?"?
And lakes are romantic because they are pretty?

> So invoking the past is romantic?

Invoking the past and desolate nature are both Romantic.

it depends on the past i would think and i don't feel sex means its a romance by any means.
there's the smut genre, if you will. no love there.

>34 vegetarianveggie:
I totally agree that sex isn't romantic.

I found myself at one point reading a book that was all about sex, and nothing about a caring relationship between partners, and I put it down -- it didn't scratch my romance itch at all.

(However, when a romance is completely missing a physical aspect, I admit to finding that a bit disappointing.)

To me, an ur romance is about a caring man-woman relationship with the possibility off lifetime companionship and family-building in the offing.

I can hear the comments from the peanut gallery now: "What about same-sex couples?"
Sorry, but I'm not very interested in them. Whatever they are doing is their business, but I get no joy from it. "What if there is the relationship -- but not the future?" I can still like the story if its really well done, but it's sad and being sad really is a strike against a story for me. I want there to be a future.

In Wuxia they kill people off, and then allow for the possibility of them getting together in the NEXT life. Unless I am going to be able to SEE the next life, this feels like cheating to me. But apparently for some people, the story in which the couple does not get together is the ur romance. I don't get that myself.

About whether or not invoking the past is romantic depending on which past...

Personally, I have a sneaking suspicion that no part of the past was really all that romantic in the sappy sentimentalistic sense. To me, the past is an adventure, not a romance. So I'm not all that particular about which part of the past, one is invoking.

Like with the star-crossed lovers, however, I think that may not be the case for every reader.