Comments on: We Need A Better Dictionary http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/ SEXY, SASSY, SMART ROMANTIC FICTION Sat, 19 May 2012 10:33:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Florian http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-4096 Florian Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:50:46 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-4096 Hi, I 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 :) Hi,
I 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 :)

]]> By: Margo Carmichael http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2561 Margo Carmichael Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:11:51 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2561 Well, 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. Well, 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: Emma Gads | Blog http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2369 Emma Gads | Blog Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:40:24 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2369 [...] 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. [...] [...] 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: HelenKay http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2334 HelenKay Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:10:33 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2334 Carol - 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. Carol – 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: Carol Thompson http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2331 Carol Thompson Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:38:22 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2331 I 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. I 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: Jordan http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2326 Jordan Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:17:44 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2326 I 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. I 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: Emma http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2306 Emma Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:52:33 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2306 Alison, 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. Alison, 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: Alison Kent http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2305 Alison Kent Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:56:41 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2305 What 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. What 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: May http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2304 May Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:11:24 +0000 http://helenkaydimon.com/blog/2006/07/we-need-a-better-dictionary/#comment-2304 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. 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.

]]>