Right. And I think that's what people are really trying to find out when they ask questions about PNR. They want to know if there's lots of romance in the book, whether or not the book happens to technically fit a classic definition for "romance" or not.Originally Posted by Mister
I haven't read the Stacia Kane books, but I may have to check them out!
Kelley Armstrong. Karen Armstrong writes books like A History of God and The Battle for God.
The Women of the Otherworld series has the same protagonist in the first two books (and also in #6) -- and since it repeats the protag, according to Kat's definition, it can't be PNR. Then it has another protagonist in the second set of two books -- again, since it repeats protags, according to Kat it can't be PNR.
As I see it, PNR is typically(!) a UF book with a strong romance aspect. By that I mean it's set in a city, the protag meets a potential partner and the romance arc is at least a major secondary story.
So, I'd say books like Soulless, Greywalker, Geist and Graceling (though this is 'odd' as it's a trad. fantasy book) are PNRs.
I also think it's become a bit of a term to describe a book with the most godawful, ridiculous and unbelievable romance story. And I can think of many of those.
I think your interpretations of the term "PNR" come much closer to the common understanding of the term than Kat's does -- especially if you carry that interpretation over an entire series, rather than insisting that an entire arc should take place over the course of one book.
Perhaps. I think the 'style' of the romance is what makes something a PNR. To me it's a romance style as much as it is anything.
I wouldn't quite put J.A. Pitts' books as PNRs despite their fairly prominent romance theme. Why? Because he handles the romance in a way that doesn't fit what I think of when I think of PNR. It's deeper and more meaningful, for a start.
I am unclear about the point or purpose of this thread. This forum exists, I would have thought, to discuss tales in which the author decided that a world setting in which some major rule or rules work differently than they do in consensus reality would better facilitate the accomplishment of whatever the author intended to accomplish in his or her tale. ("Selling many copies" is, purely for the sake of discussion, disallowed as an intended accomplishment.)
That distinction is in itself often difficult to agree on as a boundary (is "alternate history" sff?). To try to subdivide the category--even into the classic "sf" and "fantasy" slices--is argumentation for the sake of argumentation, as countless long and often vituperative threads here and elsewhere demonstrate. Cannot we just talk about speculative-fiction works and their individual merits or demerits without the need to establish some sort of overhead based on infinitesimal sub-slicing?
Last edited by owlcroft; August 29th, 2012 at 02:11 AM. Reason: fix typo
I think I agree with your overall point here. Specifically, I agree that it's better to keep the focus on individual characteristics of a book rather than trying to shoehorn books into one artificial category or another.
As someone who has published several romance novels under another name, may I say ouch?
There are many stories that, technically, are PNR but don't 'feel' PNR, and vice versa.
However, for it to be truly PNR, it does need an HEA or a HFN (happy for now). Without that, it's not a romance in the true sense (though it may have been written for romance readers)
Besides that small point, the difference is in the focus. If the focus is on the developing romance/relationship - the plot IS the romance - then it's PNR. (I've seen some publishers that actually put a % on this - if it's over x%, it's romance, same goes for many other types of crosover romance, which is what I wrote)If the focus is on the doodad of mystery - the plot is a mystery or whatever, even if with quite heavy romance subplots - then it isn't.
However, personal perception will come into play. Some people will dismiss any UF with any little bit of romance in it as PNR. Because some people are very dismissive of romance (and I love telling them that a lot of their favourite films actually fall slap bang into 'romance'). Some people will be more encompassing.
As a category, ie what a publisher will call it, then the definition can be quite narrow, but that's what it is. The trouble comes, of course, when everyone has their own definition (much like what constitutes epic fantasy). Quite often the tone of a book will be what people are talking about, rather than actual content.
But there you're getting into the description of a romance. So, are we approaching this as a romantic tale or as something that contains "love" elements (i.e. flirting, kissing, making the bed creak, etc.)?
One could easily make the case that I'm dismissive of some UF books as PNR due to the romance. That's not entirely correct. I'm dismissive of them because of bad romance, and this extends to trad. fantasy too.
As I see it, it's less about whether there is romance and more about the style of the romance. If the character(s) are huffing, puffing, getting red-faced and dropping their knickers within moments of meeting, I would think that's a PNR. If they're not, I would say it's UF.
But seriously, fantasy writers. Stop with having your lady protags drool over men in combat. It's not cool. At all. It's stupid.
But men in combat are hot!
Sorry
And of course I am - PNR is a sub category of romance, so perforce any description of it needs to include the romance element.
There's a huge range of styles of romance within the genre so I think it's a bit arbitrary to say bad romance = PNR and good romance = UF. Because there's good and bad in both categories (and a book can be PNR with no sex scenes at all). That isn't what distinguishes them from each other (and is subjective anyway, because what is bad romance for you is great romance for someone else. The distinction is is the romance a focus of the plot?). Just because you don't care for knicker dropping doesn't change the category of a book.
Last edited by kissmequick; August 28th, 2012 at 04:48 AM.
Men in combat might be hot (can't see the attraction myself), but if you're drooling over a man whilst you're meant to be fighting him then you deserve his sword through your neck.
I think the bad=PNR/good=UF is more me being meIt's more the style I find bad (insta-knicker dropping) is something I associate with the romance genre, and so on.
You realise that many romances have no sex scenes in, right? (I've written two of those. In fact, of the six romance books I've published, only one could be said to have any knicker dropping. But then, she was trying to blackmail him....and that was my one attempt at an erotic romance, which is another animal)
That romance doesn't have to have purple prose?
That there's a HUGE variation in style within the genre (just as there is in fantasy)?
Not all romance is the same, just as not all fantasy is the same. Not all romance is knicker dropping, and not all romance readers are 40-something housewives, just like all SFF fans don't have beards and live in their mum's basement
Sorry, but generalisations about genres always gets my goat.
I'm well aware of that, but sex doesn't make a romance bad. The style, however, can.
Of course it can - in every genre
But like I say, in PNR and romance in general there is a HUGE variance in styles, just as there is in fantasy. So saying one style is PNR and another is UF isn't saying anything - because it's the content and focus which makes the difference between the two, not the style.
And I think that's another good reason to forget focusing on the labels, and to focus on the individual characteristics of the books instead.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks