Yesterday’s winners are: Pat and Sue A. Congrats! Send me an email and I’ll get the books out to both of you.
On a new subject… I was reading through the August 2006 RWR and saw a letter to the editor on the issue of defining romance. Janet W. Butler is not pleased. She appears unhappy (I may be making the understatement of the year by using that word) with the idea of RWA defining romance in a broader scope than one man/one woman. She objects to the idea of romance being defined instead as “two people” and in doing so manages to reference the “slippery slope” theory, use the word “pedophilia” which always scares the hell out of intelligent people and raise the possibility of RWA being overtaken by fringe groups.
Now, I’m not a fan of the old slippery slope panic. Having worked for a time on Capitol Hill, I heard the term on an almost daily basis and in every context imaginable. My basic view is that we all pull out the slippery slope argument when we really don’t have any other argument. It tends to be more of a scare tactic than anything else. Used here, immediately following a statement about another group promoting pedophilia, the argument appears once again to be used to shock. I’m not easily shocked, so it doesn’t work for me.
That being said, Butler has some interesting points that should be discussed. If you take away the hyperbole, emotion and vitriol, there is a basic argument here that RWA should stand for one man/one woman romance and if people want something else, that should be under the umbrella of a different group. My guess is that this theory has a much stronger basis within RWA than we hear about, but the group isn’t vocal for fear of being called narrow-minded or whatever. For me, love and romance come in many forms and RWA needs to be an ever-changing and growing organization. Having said that, Butler’s underlying point shouldn’t be ignored. I just wonder if this is an issue about which we can all have a rational dialog without resorting to name calling and more scare tactics. Hard to say. If you want to read Butler’s comments, I’m including them here in full.
Defining Romance
I beg to differ with an earlier letter writer’s sentiments; romance isn’t about just any “two people” celebrating “love in all its many forms.” Organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association would certainly refer to themselves as celebrating “two people” (or more) finding love in one of its “many forms”…while they actively promote pedophilia.
Think RWA can’t go down that slippery slope? Think again. Under our present definition, we cannot exclude such “love stories” under the category of “romance.” We, as a culture, seem to have forgotten how to say “enough is enough,” but RWA can - indeed, must - do better than that. Some of us are trying to speak up now, to head off trouble before it sneaks up on us. Please pay attention.
And, please, spare us the arguments about “censorship” and “inclusiveness.” A preference for “one man, one woman” stories represents what RWA has always claimed is romance’s target demographic: college-educated, married, middle-class, monogamous, and moral. It also represents the preferences of an overwhelming majority of our membership, if our survey responses and actual lifestyles can be believed. Only in recent years has a vocal (translate: shrill) minority tried to drive RWA’s focus off that path, under the guise of “broadening its horizons.” but refusing to define romance according to the parameters it has held for centuries doesn’t “broaden” anything…it only starts us down the aforementioned slope, and once we’re in that slide, heaven help us.
There’s an old saying, “Go home with the one who brought you here.” What brought romance fiction to its present level of success is a collection of decades’ worth of one-man, one-woman relationship stories, in all their richness, variety, and power. RWA should be the first to endorse that, rather than attempting to placate fringe groups trying to impose their standards upon the rest of us. If anyone’s in danger of being “censored” here, it’s the believers in “what comes naturally”: one-man, one-woman romance. We in RWA owe it to ourselves not to let that happen.
Subscribe to Posts
Wasn’t the definition alway Two People instead of Man and Woman?
From a marketing POV, I think One Man and One Woman does make sense. There’s no way around it: Romance readers are, by and large, looking for One Man and One Woman stories.
I imagine there’ll be more people upset if they pick up a book marketed as a romance but isn’t a heterosexual romance than there would be if the book didn’t have a traditional HEA.
by May July 23rd, 2006 at 10:11 amWhat I always think is strange is that RWA doesn’t hold sway over publishers anyway, so they can put anything they want on the spines of their books. Just because Publisher X’s books say “romance” on the spine and RWA calls “romance” one man/one woman, doesn’t mean that’s what a reader will find in that book. Unless that’s RWA’s new mission. To dictate publishers’ designations.
by Alison Kent July 23rd, 2006 at 10:56 amAlison, that strikes me as way too serious a mission for RWA.
It seems to me this is more about what some people find offensive, and also about their political views. And I imagine the loudest critics are also the ones who might be inclined to mark a Harlequin Blaze as “not a romance.”
They can try to stop evolution of the genre, but they’ll only succeed for so long.
by Emma July 23rd, 2006 at 1:52 pmI thought it was interesting that on Kate Rothwell’s blog one of the authors who commented brought up the fact that until RWA recognizes that descrimination takes place within its organization it’ll be difficult to get them to change ANY guidelines. No matter what RWA ends up adopting as a policy will have little to no effect on what I choose to write.
by Jordan July 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pmI think the main point that all writers have to bear in mind is what audience they want to have for their writing.
If the majority of readers feel one man/one woman is what they want, then books written to that formula will obviously sell more than ones that do not adhere to the formula.
So writers have to decide whether they want sales or the freedom to pursue their own inclinations.
by Carol Thompson July 25th, 2006 at 12:38 amCarol - I understand what you’re saying in terms of sales and what some readers are buying. My preference in reading is one man/one woman. But, that’s my preference. where I think this gets confused is in the question - the question for RWA when determining what fits under its umbrella isn’t about what people read. It’s about whether RWA as an organization that purports to support writers and their careers should limit its definition of romance to exclude certain types of romance and love.
Seems to me RWA’s goal should be to focus on the support angle and not to narrowly draw a definition or seek to say that X type of romance is legitimate and Y type isn’t. I’m guessing the Mystery & Suspense group doesn’t seek to limit members on the basis of “acceptable” v. “unacceptable” mystery and suspense offerings. I’m not sure why RWA thinks it should. If readers don’t like romance and love stories other than one man/onewoman, they won’t buy. Then the market will take care of itself. In my view, RWA shouldn’t draw that distinction and shouldn’t be about what the mainstream (or the minority) wants. RWA should accept and promote and support all romance authors.
Again, just my view.
by HelenKay July 25th, 2006 at 7:10 am[...] While there are posts on the romance blogosphere about that letter to the editor in the latest RWR (see: Smart Bitches, HelenKay, Kate R.), and while that letter ticked me off just as much as the next rational, non-homophobic person, it’s a different section of this magazine issue that has me needing to blow off steam lest I explode. [...]
by Emma Gads | Blog July 27th, 2006 at 12:40 amWell, I’m not telling anybody what to believe. I just believe “Blessed is the NATION whose God is the Lord.” Psalm 33:12. That’s my motivation.
And I know God loves everyone, but He defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Especially in Romans 1 in the New Testament. That also motivates my beliefs.
That tells me if we want things to go well in our land and in our lives, that’s how we’ll define marriage. In RWA and elsewhere.
So I want RWA’s definition of marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Check out this website and book, for interesting conclusions: http://narth.com/
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=94&ITEM_ID=859
Peace, all. I think we can disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you.
by Margo Carmichael August 5th, 2006 at 4:11 pmHi,
by Florian January 28th, 2007 at 11:50 amI found your blog via google by accident and have to admit that youve a really interesting blog
Just saved your feed in my reader, have a nice day