The new RWR has arrived with the Member Survey “concerning the direction in which the membership wants our organization to go.” The task force working with member input to come up with a “Basic Definition of Romance that can be applied when questions arise as to what, for our group’s purpose, constitutes a romance” has offered members two choices in the survey ballot (emphasis mine – pointing out this is the only the organization’s definition, not a genre definition).
“Romantic Fiction” or “Romance” means a story in which a predominant part of the story line focuses on the romantic relationship that develops between CHOICE #1 one man and one woman / CHOICE #2 two people on more than a physical level. Although other elements and subplots may also be components of the story line, by the book’s conclusion the romantic relationship has been resolved in an emotionally satisfying manner.
Comment
Copied from my blog:
I have to say these definitions are, to me, so impossibly limiting. These rule out Paranormals with vamps/weres/ghosts/aliens, it rules out Chick Lit and MWRE. Why say ‘man’ and ‘woman’? Why not ‘male’ and ‘female’? Why only two parties? What about the wonderful romances of Emma Holly with m/m/f love stories?
Comment
Is there a neither option? I haven’t received my RWR, so I’d like to see if there’s more to the survey.
Comment
I think I might be the last person in RWA to actually receive her copy of RWR. Once I see people start posted about it, I know it’ll be at least 2 weeks before I see mine.
Thanks for posting them, even though the questions made my head hurt more.
Comment
Nope. That’s it. Two options as stated. One or the other. No write in – except to address the board. (Which I might do, though I’m not sure if they’ve delisted me as a member or not!)
Comment
Good god almighty. My latest theory about the board: last winter they thought they were taking a Marketing workshop but they accidentally signed up for Masochism workshop and never discovered the mistake. Why else would they go out looking for the pain? I’m putting on my steeltoed boots because I just have to when it comes to these issues. But honestly.
Comment
Steph, I think I get my RWA 2weeks after you. Romance writing pygmies deep in the Amazon jungle get their copies before I do. Wording is everything, ain’t it?
Comment
What I’m wondering is where this leaves chick lit that doesn’t always HAVE a romantic relationship.
Comment
I don’t even have my RWR yet and my head already hurts. Neither, dammit. Both are too narrow. And resolved in an emotionally satisfying manner for whom?
Sometimes I wonder if the board is somehow isolated so they don’t actually get to see what’s going on in Romanceland. Sequestered with two boxes of 1950’s romances.
Comment
I’m an outsider, but really, if the RWA really cared about this whole mess they’ve started, they would focus the organization on the support of writers of women’s fiction–fiction(”romance” or not) written predominantly by women, marketed predominantly towards women.
Comment
I’m sorry, and RWA absolutely HAS to deifne romance because, why? What wonderously convoluted legal regulation are they complying to again?
X
Comment
What is with the RWA? Where is the love? Yowza. I’ve been trying to keep my mouth shut on this, but I finally had to blog about it. It’s scary. What’s next? No heroines who’ve had abortions or children out of wedlock? No criminal pasts? No murder not even for self defense? Where does it stop? Everyone must go to church and be christian?
When is the vote on what sexual positions are acceptable for fiction?
M
Comment
Oh, God, no. Not again.
Especially given that we already HAVE an excellent definition. “According to RWA’s official definition, a romance is a book wherein the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying.”
Comment
X – I’m pretty sure it does come down to some sort of legalese related to their status as a non-profit. I read an article or president’s column once about why they have to have the definition. And it has to do with who they’re able to offer their services to. So, I can deal with that for that reason. I just don’t get the definition excluding what’s already included – and it seems to do that if these are the only choices.
Comment
Thanks Alison,
I haven’t received my July copy of RWR (I just received June issue two days ago???), if it’s in the June one I totally missed it. I’ve emailed to see if I can get a copy of the survey sent to me. Otherwise, by the time I do get my hands on it, the issue will be long decided.
X
Comment
This is the July issue, and they emphasize that it’s only a survey, that nothing is being decided on yet. ;) I’d suggest anyone not satisfied with the two choices email the board!
Comment
well, I gotta say, speaking as a heterosexual I’m deeply insulted the choices are love between a man and a woman OR two people. What are we heteros, chopped liver?
Comment
Alison, yes, you’re correct. Legally there has to be some sort of definition to protect the assets of the organization for romance writers. At risk of bringing wrath on my own head, I’d like to point out that the committee that worked to try to come up with these definition choices did go out to the membership for input. Several times I saw reminders to give input on how we, as members, felt romance should be defined. So, if these definitions were formed as a result of member input, please don’t demonize the board members.
Comment
but WE have a lovely definition. And what the heck? Who would want to sue? Why? What? If we’re that scared of lawsuits we need to disband. I’m sorry Mary Stella, I think fear is a rotten way to run a writers’ organization.
Comment
And you’re right–we have ourselves to blame if we didn’t pay close attention to what other people were saying. I’ve dutifully filled out forms etc over all the years I’ve been a member. Now I have to pay better attention.
Comment
Kate – I’ll try to find the column where the President explained the reason the organization has to have a definition of romance. I’m sure it was in one of this year’s RWRs if not one from late last year. Of course, since I’ve been on a cleaning-not-writing binge and have tossed most of my mags, I’m not sure I’ll be able to find it. But I know it’s there. And, like I said, for that legal reason, so that the org doesn’t get caught having to offer services willy nilly to authors who don’t write romance, I can deal with a definition.
But I don’t understand redefining. What’s there seems to be perfectly reasonable – except, perhaps, to members looking for more exclusion. And I’ve yet to hear what’s going to happen to Chick Lit should the org adopt one of these two options in the survey. Will it affect the Chick Lit chapter? What about the RITA given for women’s fiction with romantic elements? That seems out, too – and so many authors just fought to get that included!
Comment
I would also like to add to myself here now that I’m on a roll, that it would be EVER SO HELPFUL when these sorts of surveys are sent out if the rationale was attached. If we were reminded of the LEGAL REASONS that the org needs a definition for romance. Reading the President’s column made it very clear to me, but I think that information needs to be included every time something like this comes up so members understand that it’s not just a random act of unkindness.
Comment
but it is random, dammit. There is a definition. It’s a cool one. I’m going to leaf through all my old copies of RWR to see if I can find the column you’re talking about because it would take more than scary lawyer talk to convince me that this nonsense is necessary.
Comment
wait — no I’m not. I’m going to go sign books. I forgot; I’m a writer.
Comment
I’m with Jonquil, we HAVE a definition. “Love story is the focus of the novel with an emotionally satisfying ending,” is a definition of romance. What other genres have a love story as a focus of the novel?
What possible reason could there be to have a more restrictive definition? If there is a good legal reason, why aren’t mystery writers and SFF writers angsting over their own genre definitions.
Comment
Okay, because I love you all, I went out and dug through the trash I carted out yesterday where I’d thrown out a bunch of RWRs. Alas, the one in question wasn’t there. Judging by what I wrote here: http://www.alisonkent.com/blog/index.php?p=1023 the President’s column with the explanation for the need for a definition must be in the March or April issue. If anyone can find it, would you post it here?
Comment
Okay, here goes. Found it in the Apri 2005 RWR. (Yeah, yeah. I keep everything.) TTQ says… blah, blah, blah… (paraphrasing because it’s a long article…) It has to do with who/what kind of programs, services are allowed at RWA-sponsored programs and events. “Many of these could potentially benefit some of our membership. … We could also end up with a conference filled w/ publishers of other genres & there could be no slots avail for romance editors & romance industry professionals. … So… the only way we can limit these functions and not break anti-trust laws is to clearly define ourselves. Where do we draw the line in a way that can be tangibly proven? This isn’t about what ea of us thnks of as romance, but about setting tangible boundaries that will allow us to continue to forge ahead in the marketplace.
The situation before us is three-fold:
1. Where is the industry headed? How are publishers & readers defining romance? How will they be defining it 5 yrs fm now?
2. Where is RWA headed? Will our focus remain on romance writing, or will we segue into other genres w/o a focus on the romance? And if we are to remain w/ a focus on romance, w/the boundaries blurring, how will we define ourselves?
3. RWA needs a rangible, clearly provable, non-subjective method for determining, for application of policies, whether or not a book is a romance. Currently, this definition defines a romance as any work of fiction with ‘romance’ printed on the spine; or that is marketed as a romance (catalogued in the romance section of a nat’l distributor’s catalogue); or the publisher of which states in writing to the RWA nat’l office that the work is a romance. Does this definition still work? And will it continue to do so?
… Consider yourselves called upon. Please. Speak up. Write to president@rwanational.com or any of the other board member addys.”
Does that help? I’m not checking for typos! :-)
cb
Comment
Thanks for typing all of that Carol! You da man! So there it is, people. That’s the reason we have to be so narrowly defined for the org’s purposes. ;)
And note the question: Where is the industry headed? Uh, places the board doesn’t want to go mebbe?
Comment
“We could also end up with a conference filled w/ publishers of other genres & there could be no slots avail for romance editors & romance industry professionals.”
Good God Almighty! You mean that there would be more PUBLISHERS and EDITORS and this would be a bad thing for authors?
Why would publishers not looking for romance authors and romance oriented books pay money to attend a Romance Writers Conference. Do the standard romance editors/publishers attend SciFi writers conferences? Are they excluded? What about mystery writers conferences?
I do fear that the Board of Directors are seeing monsters under their beds.
Comment
I do fear that the Board of Directors are seeing monsters under their beds.
Actually, TTQ does state that “We are getting repeated requests from vastly varying sources asking for our sponsorship and/or for the right to participate in RWA-sponsored programs and events.”
She goes on to say that if they let everyone in our RWA funds will be swallowed up quickly – and did you get the part about “could be NO slots available for romance editors and romance industry professionals”?
Seems like a bit of a problem to me. Thousands of romance writers coming to a convention that has few or no opportunities for them to sell? Don’t know about you, but if I shell out those kinds of bucks on flight and a conference, I’d better find it worth my while.
Apparently, the problem being
Comment
I happen to like the current definition, too. Probably because I was part of the committee that came up with it. I think it passed the year that I was on the Board.
As far as the editors attending the conference… it may come down to budgets. The budget isn’t limitless to comp editors who take appointments. Without a clear definition (again, I thought the current was clear enough), then, yes, the organization can run into problems if it refuses to comp non-romance editors.
Comment
People who are entitled, angry and have access to a lawyer(a dangerous combination)are not going to be stopped by a definition of romance, no matter how carefully it’s worded.
When has a legitimate publisher ever been pushed out of the conference schedule because a bunch of inappropriate types have jumped into the slots? Except for EC, I’ve never heard of this happening. And EC is powerful enough and interested enough that the company is willing to show up at RWA anyway.
It is a real question, actually. I haven’t paid much attention in the past. . . now I will.
Comment
[quote] Currently, this definition defines a romance as any work of fiction with ‘romance’ printed on the spine [/quote]
Oh. My. Freaking. God.
Tell me TTQ did not actually write this. Please tell me that RWA’s PRESIDENT didn’t actually put this bit of totally incorrect propaganda in her President’s Pen letter. I can forgive ignorance on the part of RWA general members who might not have known that the organization already has a perfectly good definition of romance–I cannot forgive it from our president. This is NOT the current definition of romance! To my mind, this is deliberate misinformation, distributed with the purpose of clouding the issue and steering the vote in a certain direction.
Maybe I’m paranoid. Maybe I learned how to be by watching the RWA board. Shame on you, TTQ.
Comment
I just joined the RWA–this issue of RWR is my first ever. So I eagerly open it up, and find the dread Survey…
Did I mention I write gay romance? Dang–such a welcome! I’ll be up all night emailing Board Members.
Comment
Ladies, I still believe the situation is more complex than we understand. I am not defending RWA at all. But I have a weird feeling about all this. I’ve been around a long, long time, and this may be about more than we know.
Comment
Janie – I agree. My problem with the whole thing, however, is that the membership is treated like children with parents who won’t give explanations but just a pat on the head and a “Because I said so” response. They need to make this information readily accessible. Yes, we can read minutes of the board meetings online, but are all members online? I think not! They also use the loops to keep us informed. Are all members part of the loops? I know not! So, yes. There is probably a very real and logical reason. But since they don’t disseminate the information in a timely manner and to all involved, we’re left to wonder what they’ve been smoking!
Comment
OK, that whole anti-trust rationale from RWA looks purely fictional (yes, I’m a lawyer). For an antitrust primer, check out this site: Antitrust primer. None of these activities even come close to applying to RWA. They’re not a publisher, they’re not a monopoly, they don’t control pricing of romance novels, and their proposed restriction on defining what romance is does to address antitrust law issues. If anything, what they’re doing looks anti-competitive and makes their position with respect to antitrust law (assuming that it’s even applies) look worse, not better. But whenever you tell people “ooooh, we’re doing this because we’re worried about legal issues,” people freak out, making them easier to manipulate to whatever agenda you have.
Unreal. I’m reminded why I didn’t join RWA after I had attended my first local meeting.
Comment
Anna – Thanks for that. I’ve heard forever that RWA’s lawyer is big on the side of caution, so it’s interesting to hear from others. I have no idea how he invokes the anti-trust issue, and now, of course, I’m dying to hear about your RWA experience!!!