What is a romance novel/how much romantic content is in this book

[nposecznick]

I think you are much closer to agreeing on most points and are getting riled up over lesser points.

I hopped over to wikipedia and it defines a romance novel as...

The romance novel is a literary genre developed in Western culture, mainly in English-speaking countries. Novels in this genre place their primary focus on the relationship and romantic love between two people, and must have an "emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending."[1]

Regardless of modern variance it sets the tone and agrees essentially with KatG's definition.

So in my mind Paranormal Romance = story centered on a romantic relationship (or plural, what the heck) + supernatural elements.

I don't actually care how many readers, fans, reviewers, etc protest, personally I say they're wrong. Some of them aren't reading/writing a PNR novel. Some of what they say is PNR is actually UF w/heavy romantic subplots.

They know what they like, but it doesn't mean they are right about the definition. And I think calling them wrong actually helps the discussion and clarifies things a bit.

Because then you can label things as PNR easily and accurately.

And for UF you then explain why it isn't PNR, but it does have X amount of romance w/a discussion. That serves the purpose, I think.

You can do what you like, but I'm going with KatG's definition as it makes the most sense. Of course I doubt I'll review any books for this thread at the rate I'm reading them.

I think this whole thread would be much smaller and less cantankerous if it had been titled - How much romantic content is in this book?

But I think that most folks would blow over it even though that's EXACTLY what they want to know.

But they will read - Is it a Paranormal Romance Novel, so the thread's title does it's job.

[Contrarius]

The romance novel is a literary genre developed in Western culture, mainly in English-speaking countries. Novels in this genre place their primary focus on the relationship and romantic love between two people, and must have an "emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending."[1]

Regardless of modern variance it sets the tone and agrees essentially with KatG's definition.

Right. Nobody is disputing that Kat is using the "classic" definition for PNR. As I said in my very first post in this thread: "I think what you are talking about could be more accurately called something like "classically structured romance novel with paranormal elements", or something like that. The term "PNR", though, is normally applied to a much broader range of books than just those with a classically romantic plot structure. "

I don't actually care how many readers, fans, reviewers, etc protest, personally I say they're wrong.

And that's fine. However, you will be creating a lot of confusion if you insist on sticking to the "classic" definition.

I think this whole thread would be much smaller and less cantankerous if it had been titled - How much romantic content is in this book?

RIGHT!!

But I think that most folks would blow over it even though that's EXACTLY what they want to know.

How about "PNR -- how much romantic content is actually in this book?"

[nposecznick]

I don't think I'd create much confusion with the classic definition as I'd phrase it like this...

As the central plot revolves around killing a dragon in Des Moines and not a romantic relationship this book clearly falls under UF and not PNR. However, a good portion of the book is dedicated to the subplot of John and Mary's relationship problems in the midst of dragon hunting. Blah blah blah.

That's a made up novel BTW so don't go looking for a dragon in Des Moines book.

As for changing the thread title I worry about length and confusion and would probably leave it alone or at most a mild variant to your suggestion...

"PNR vs UF - How much romantic content is in this book?"

[Contrarius]

I don't think I'd create much confusion with the classic definition as I'd phrase it like this...

As the central plot revolves around killing a dragon in Des Moines and not a romantic relationship this book clearly falls under UF and not PNR. However, a good portion of the book is dedicated to the subplot of John and Mary's relationship problems in the midst of dragon hunting. Blah blah blah.

Sounds pretty good to me. I would probably add a phrase, though, saying something like "because of the romantic subplot, a lot of people might think of it as PNR even though the romance isn't the central element".

"PNR vs UF - How much romantic content is in this book?"

Works for me.

eta -- LOL!!

Since you told me NOT to look up dragons in Des Moines, of course I had to look. Didja know that the "Des Moines Dragons" were a (now defunct) minor league basketball team? ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines_Dragons

[kissmequick]

The yes/no-->PNR/not-PNR test just doesn't cut it -- in order to actually help people, there needs to be a discussion of the actual romantic content in the book.

Indeed (or if someone hasn't read the book, from the blurb etc - the expected content. Books heavy on the romance tend to feature it in the blurb)

Because PNR or UF is only a marketing label, really. As noted above with POTC, things are labelled, in part, to appeal to the market they want to have. Many, many, MANY books can be labelled as two or more genres/sub genres. Publishers call a book PNR or whatever so that it has the greatest chance of finding readers who want that kind of story.

Now, that said, there are some very basic core features of every genre. For fantasy, it has to have a fantastical element, ofc. A mysterty tends to have a mystery in it.

Other than that, marketing labels can be very fluid. One of my books could, easily, be labelled as romance ( it's not quite, relationship already in place but evolving, no HEA, but it IS geared to readers who like romance and if I took out the relationship, the story would fall apart), romantic fantasy, action adventure, fantasy, high fantasy, flintlock and sorcery fantasy, heroic fantasy or piratepunk. It has even been described as paranormal by a reviewer despite having no paranormal elements! It is marketed as just 'fantasy', or 'romantic fantasy' because that is the readership my publisher wants to draw in.

So, as PNR etc are marketing labels, for the purpose of this thread, I think actual (or expected) content/style would be the best way to distinguish for people who don't want hot werewolf on vampire lovin'.

However, helping people to recognise for themselves what is and isn't PNR is also helpful.

[Contrarius]

Other than that, marketing labels can be very fluid. One of my books could, easily, be labelled as romance ( it's not quite, relationship already in place but evolving, no HEA, but it IS geared to readers who like romance and if I took out the relationship, the story would fall apart), romantic fantasy, action adventure, fantasy, high fantasy, flintlock and sorcery fantasy, heroic fantasy or piratepunk. It has even been described as paranormal by a reviewer despite having no paranormal elements! It is marketed as just 'fantasy', or 'romantic fantasy' because that is the readership my publisher wants to draw in.

Right. The labels ARE fluid, and often overlapping. For instance, as you mentioned earlier, you could label Pirates of the Caribbean as a classically structured romance if you really wanted to (personally I wouldn't, but I can see your argument there). IMHO it's much more reasonable to recognize the fluidity and nebulous nature of those labels, and to go on to discuss *content*, rather than sticking with classic restrictive definitions that often don't really reflect the public's understanding or expectations.

So, as PNR etc are marketing labels, for the purpose of this thread, I think actual (or expected) content/style would be the best way to distinguish for people who don't want hot werewolf on vampire lovin'.

Righto. I'm with ya all the way.

However, helping people to recognise for themselves what is and isn't PNR is also helpful.

Hey, I'm all for increasing understanding!

[Contrarius]

Okay --

If we've more or less settled the definition question, maybe we can actually talk about some of the books that have engendered the debate.

First -- very very few of the popular UF-type series that most people are going to ask about here will fit the "classic" definition of PNR. Most will have continuing protagonists from book to book (not allowed in "classic" PNR), and many will not have HEA/HFN type endings at the end of each book (required in "classic" PNR). So we can get that out of the way. There are some popular exceptions (like the Black Dagger Brotherhood series or the Psy/Changeling series, for example), but I rarely see books like those mentioned around here.

Books that people DO tend to ask about around here are UF series with varying romantic content. These range from low romance (Dresden) to relatively low romance (The Hollows, for the most part) to high romance (the Fever series, or Anita Blake, and many other examples). Many of these are popularly thought of and labelled as PNR, whether or not they even have a lot of romance in them.

I've read tons of UF and, yes, even "classic" PNR myself, and so have many other forum members, so there's a good chance we can give pointers to series (or standalones) that have romance levels that will fit individual tastes.

[kissmequick]

Most will have continuing protagonists from book to book (not allowed in "classic" PNR)

It's worth saying here that it's not 'not allowed', it's more 'it's not typical'. Mainly because with your HEA requirement, it's very tricky to keep up the romantic tension (without adding a third for a love triangle). Trust me on this. The classic example ofc being Twilight - same protag, most definitely PNR. But yes, many (not all, but many) PNR series have separate couples as protags in different books - as you say, such as the Black Dagger Brotherhood.


To be fair, I'm in the UK and PNR-type books tend to be shelved separately (under Dark Fantasy, their term for paranormal and that type of book. With Peter V Brett, for some reason! Lol) Classic UF - Dresden, Benedict Jacka's Alex Verus series, Ben Aaronovitch's, Stacia Kane's work etc tend to get shelved in the main fantasy section. Which makes life easier for those looking for something specific.

[Contrarius]

It's worth saying here that it's not 'not allowed', it's more 'it's not typical'.

Actually, according to the "official" definitions, it just flat out ain't allowed.

from paranormalromance.org: "Secondary plots may continue within a series however couples can only recur in subsequent novels as secondary characters."

I think I've seen the same stipulation elsewhere -- and heck, Kat has used that stipulation herself (in a different thread) -- but that's the "official" quote I can find for right now.

Good example, though -- according to Kat's definition of PNR, the Twilight series isn't.

eta -- btw, I'm a sucker for British authors. Now that I know you're a Brit, I'm dying to know what you've written. If your avatar is one of em, I can't read it!

edited again -- nevermind, I found it on Goodreads by matching the cover! I promise not to blow your secret identity!

[kissmequick]

Hmm. Well the romance publishers I've worked with (inc Harlequin, how official do you want to get? ) have no such requirements. It's not mentioned in their guidelines for the PNR imprint, and I've seen at least one series where the protag stays the same. I note wiki makes no mention of it in its definition either. That said, it does happen very often, for the reason I mentioned above, among others.


What you are quoting is part of an award's guidelines (they have a separate award for serial protags), not a definition of genre. Other awards that give gongs for PNR make no such stipulations.

edited again -- nevermind, I found it on Goodreads by matching the cover! I promise not to blow your secret identity!

Hehe - since I announced it in the self promo board, I think my cover is blown ETA: Though I wrote my romances under a different name. This is SO VERY MUCH not a romance.

[Contrarius]

Hmm. Well the romance publishers I've worked with (inc Harlequin, how official do you want to get? ) have no such requirements. It's not mentioned in their guidelines for the PNR imprint, and I've seen at least one series where the protag stays the same.

Well, that's kinda my point -- or at least one of em. Most people understand the terms "romance" and "PNR" in a much broader way than the "official" definition would allow for.

Hehe - since I announced it in the self promo board, I think my cover is blown ETA: Though I wrote my romances under a different name. This is SO VERY MUCH not a romance.

Now I'm dying to know your romance nom de plume. Can I beg for a PM?

[kissmequick]

Well, that's kinda my point -- or at least one of em. Most people understand the terms "romance" and "PNR" in a much broader way than the "official" definition would allow for.

But it's not the 'official' definition, that's my point - it's the definition of one category for an award (that hasn't run in several years btw). You run an award, you say what is allowed. I'd also note at least one of their winners/runners up in that category have series where the protag continues through more than one book) The Arthur C Clarke's won't take novella's, that doesn't mean a particular novella isn't SF, only that they won't accept it for the award



So it's 'a' definition. But not 'the' definition. I'd note that a different protag in each book is a very good indicator that the series is PNR though.

[KatG]

So there seems to have been three problems that occurred with this thread:

1) The question that many members frequently ask: is this a paranormal romance novel? was disliked by a member who feels that people should word the question in another way before anyone attempts to address the question.

2) When I said I'd say what a paranormal romance is in regards to this question, i.e. giving my opinion based on marketing and plot content, I was interpreted as saying I am master of the universe and you will all do as I say. Obviously, I am therefore describing stuff wrong. (I will point out, however, that my saying romance publishers invented the term paranormal romance as a new name for fantasy romance novels they had been doing was factually accurate.)

3) The idea that you can distinguish a story with a romance main plot from stories with or without romantic content in giving an opinion is surprisingly controversial, even if I've read the book in question. And if I haven't read the book in question, but do know the plot is a romance plot, I should still stay silent apparently.

So I'm staying silent. I've changed the thread topic to what it is -- a discussion of what constitutes romance and types of romantic content. That way, the issue of trying to answer the question that is frequently posed doesn't have to be central to the thread (since it's clearly not going to be central or possibly even present.) So now it's a general romance in fantasy thread, which will give members the chance to develop the conversations they are having.

[Contrarius]

But it's not the 'official' definition, that's my point - it's the definition of one category for an award (that hasn't run in several years btw).

Hey -- if you don't like that part of the definition, take it up with Kat. She's the one who introduced it into the discussion in the first place.

I'd also note at least one of their winners/runners up in that category have series where the protag continues through more than one book)

Right. I gave examples in earlier posts of how these groups often award novels that don't even fit their own official definitions. Their own understandings of the "romance" and "PNR" labels are much broader than their official definitions would allow for, if taken seriously.

I'd note that a different protag in each book is a very good indicator that the series is PNR though.

Right. Off hand, I can't think of ANY UF-type series that does this, other than "classic" PNR.

edited to add -- wait -- would the Newford books by Charles de Lint qualify here? Hmmmm.

[Contrarius]

So there seems to have been three problems that occurred with this thread:

1) The question that many members frequently ask: is this a paranormal romance novel? was disliked by a member who feels that people should word the question in another way before anyone attempts to address the question.

Nope. I never said any such thing.

What I disliked is your usage of a restrictive and rarely observed definition that would create misunderstandings amongst people who asked that sort of question.

2) When I said I'd say what a paranormal romance is in regards to this question, i.e. giving my opinion based on marketing and plot content, I was interpreted as saying I am master of the universe and you will all do as I say.

Uhhhh, nope.

And if I haven't read the book in question, but do know the plot is a romance plot, I should still stay silent apparently.

Uhhhhh, nope.

But you should expect to be called on it when the things you are saying are likely to mislead people.