Over the last few days I've noticed little conversations about risk taking, taboos and the predictable comfort of romance as a genre. A column over on RTB discusses risk taking leaving the author on the outside, Alison Kent picks up the conversation in her blog. And Keishon asks "Can you read outside of the box?"
This whole thing leaves me somewhat baffled and at a loss. Are authors condemned for taking risks? I guess it depends on the risk. I've been reading romance a long time, and I see the genre as being completely driven by risk takers and taboo breakers. Now, that doesn't mean all readers are going to love risks and the forbidden, some people read for the comfort and predictability of romance, and there will always be authors who write for these people.
It's the authors, editors and publishers that take a chance on something new or forbidden that moves things forward, and keep the genre from staggering into complete mediocrity. How else to do we end up with trends? Paranormals and Erotic Romance are hot now, and there are authors, editors and publishers that we can point to and say they took a chance writing, editing and publishing books that are like no others out there. This goes way back to the Boddice Rippers of the 70's (Kathleen Woodiwiss, Rosemary Rogers), the historical trends of the 80's and 90's (Jude Deveraux, Catherine Coulter, Mary Jo Putney, Susan Carroll, Judith McNaught, Julie Garwood), the Romantic Suspense trends that are still popular today (Sandra Brown, Tami Hoag, Linda Howard, Anne Stuart). I could go on and list authors for Time Travels, Contemporaries, Westerns, Romantic Comedies... You don't have to love their books, but they've moved the genre forward and allowed us to have the variety we expect and want.
It's the breakout novels that leave the rest of the genre in their dust trying to catch up.
19 comments:
This whole thing leaves me somewhat baffled and at a loss. Are authors condemned for taking risks?
See, this is what I don't get, either. Condemned? Definitely, when an author takes risks there is a segment of readers who are going to HATE it. But those books are also the most popular, the most talked about...if the point of putting a book out there is to get it read (which makes both publisher and author happy) then how are they condemned? -- even if they're flamed on message boards, etc etc.
For example, PASSION. How much discussion was there on that book -- and how many people hated it, and condemned the book, the language, the upfront sex scene? A whole lot.
And I'm guessing that Lisa Valdez probably went "ouch" quite a few times over some of the comments, maybe even cried (because I would have, in private, under my blankets before getting back online and pretending I didn't care) ... but the important thing was that book *sparked* something. I don't know what, but I imagine we'll see a whole lot of copycats in the next year or two.
Anne Stuart and her bi-sexual hero -- the book's not even out, and there are threads condemning the choices. But damn if that book -- especially if it sells well -- isn't going to tell us that we CAN push boundaries in romance, and the hero's sexuality (and thank god, because the hero of my second book hasn't just spent his life drinking from the ladies) and maybe we'll see more of that, too.
Will there be people pulling their hair out on the message boards? Will some people hate it? Yes.
But so what? The book stands out. And it makes the genre interesting.
What I don't understand is the stuff I hear about "authors aren't allowed to write X, or authors aren't allowed to do Z, or go over 300 pages." WTF?
Maybe I just have a different editor, different publishing house, etc -- but I'm a freaking nobody and haven't had that problem. So are the manuscripts with risks and length just not being picked up -- or are they not being written for fear that they won't be picked up?
Meljean, I think you touch on something that I didn't, breakout books get people talking, good or bad, love or condemn. And eventually that's what moves things, because for each and every person that condemns a book, there's another that loves it. And, it's those of us who love them that pushes authors and publishers to give us more.
...that book *sparked* something. I don't know what, but I imagine we'll see a whole lot of copycats in the next year or two.
Exactly!!!
...or go over 300 pages--nobody's told Diana Gabaldon this--LOL.
Rules are made to be broken, push those boundaries, there are some of us who not only want it we expect it.
So are the manuscripts with risks and length just not being picked up -- or are they not being written for fear that they won't be picked up?
Now that's the next question. Do authors write what they know will sell, or write what they want to sell, or is it somehow a combination of the two?
I need to think about this one I guess mainly because I also can't decide what is meant by risks. There are so many different things it could mean that it almost makes discussions meaningless at times.
Oh, and Tara, your link for the RtB post has an extra http in it.
Bev, think about it, I hope you end up agreeing with me *grin*. Risks is probably a little too general, but I see them ranging from small to large, but they keep things moving. When things get to stagnant, someone comes up with something "new" or something "fresh" that leaves everyone else thinking "man I wish I thought of that."
Thanks for the http correction.
There are so many different things it could mean that it almost makes discussions meaningless at times.
I agree with this, too. To me, it means that the author doesn't seem to be paying attention to the unspoken "rules" out there (and sometimes, spoken.)
Not the HEA, exactly. But the others: thou shalt not write an adulterous heroine, thou shall not hurt little children, thou shall not have a hero who kills not in self-defense.
That kind of thing. But even writing that list is meaningless, because we can point out exceptions...but still these rules are hanging around out there, passed around in critique groups and on reader loops.
I'm not saying everyone should go out and torture kitties in their book -- but that a lot of readers want to explore the boundaries of characters, of emotion, to step out of that comfort zone. As a writer, the only way to do that is to pretend those rules don't exist...or maybe flip the rules a big middle finger.
As a reader, there are plenty of things that really make me squirmy -- but if I feel there is a point to it, if I think there's going to be a payoff for pushing myself outside the comfort zone, then I'll stick with it. And it can be exhilarating, I think, that payoff.
But it's definitely not for everyone. What is my squirmy is another person's stopping point...and another reason why it's so hard to define what a "risk" is.
I don't know what, but I imagine we'll see a whole lot of copycats in the next year or two.
Okay, and I said this, but now I'm thinking: maybe copycats is too harsh. Maybe it's that writers will see that a boundary was pushed out, and think: oh, god, I can do that!
Copycatting would be saying: I can be another Lisa Valdez if I just write a public sex scene in the first chapter! But someone who just takes that extra room and makes it her own...yeah, that's not copycatting. That's something good (for the genre and the writer, I think.)
But, see, what I mean is that in her own way Krentz is a risk taker. (Okay, everyone scream "What?!?" and get it out of your system. ;p) No, but really, she was one of the first to turn the tried and true Gothic "formula" on its head and have the heroine immediately believe in the hero's innocent and shame anyone who didn't. Was that as great a risk some other completely taboo subjects like incest would be?
Heck, no. At least, I hope not. Buy it was still a risk. A creative risk. And that's where it gets confusing.
The other place it gets confusing to me is when someone says they have to go outside the genre to find stories that satisfy their need for "risky" topics. Uh, if they're finding them outside the genre then why are we readers having a guilt trip laid on us because we don't want to read some things????
To me, that's a major contradiction that simply won't go away easily. At times it actually smacks of fussing just to be fussing. There's risks and then there's a time and place for everything.
Now, if they actually said they couldn't satisfy this need ANYWHERE, I might be a lot more sympathetic.
Not much, but some, I suppose. :D
I don't read Krentz (or haven't in a long, long time) but I agree -- a lot of the risks are creative, not topical. In her case, it sounds like stretching the rules of a certain sub-genre.
Of course now she might be considered a comfortable read, because it's not new...but at the time? And, anyway, a well-written book is a well-written book, and a good book is a good book, even if they sit comfortably within the rules (whether those rules are just created or were blown apart twenty years ago) ...yet they can still be taking risks with style. Laura Kinsale comes to mind.
I don't know about the genre thing. I understand wanting, say, big fantasy and horror and the HEA and sex, too -- but it's out there. Is it just that it isn't specifically labeled "romance"? I dunno. Dunno what a difference the label makes, if it's what a reader wants to read.
Meljean, copycating may seem harsh, but in reality, it's close, if it doesn't mean they're writing the same story, all it means is they're now willing to go where someone else already has.
Bev, some risks are small, and only slightly change things, but it's still change. I consider Nora Roberts a comfort read, I know what to expect, but in this new series she killed off a sympathetic character, that pushes her envelope.
I don't think anyone should feel guilty about not wanting to read outside their comfort zone. Romance reading is entertainment and everyone has their favorites. But I do think readers should try stretching their comfort zone. Two years ago I wouldn't read paranormal, yet now I've found some authors that work for me.
I understand wanting, say, big fantasy and horror and the HEA and sex, too -- but it's out there.
This is exactly what I want. Maybe I'm the odd one expecting my cake and eating it too.
I understand wanting, say, big fantasy and horror and the HEA and sex, too -- but it's out there.
This is exactly what I want. Maybe I'm the odd one expecting my cake and eating it too.
Hmmm, don't some fantasy/horror books end with a HEA? Just wondering if it's not the emphasis on the relationship that you're not really talking about, Tara. That I could see not finding too much outside of romance but surely not every single non-romance ends without a HEA?
Not trying to be contrary, really. Just trying to clarify something in my own head.
Bev, I want romance, I want fantasy, I want horror, I want HEA. A romantic thriller must be thrilling, a romantic horror story must be scary, a romantic fantasy must bring me to a different world. The romance version of fantasy, horror/paranormal, suspense rarely meets the expectation of these genre readers. I want what other genre readers expect but with romance and a HEA ending.
Am I asking for too much?? LOL
I want what other genre readers expect but with romance and a HEA ending.
Weeeeellll, I'm not a writer or a publisher but I suspect maybe you are. BUT, I was thinking about this on the way to run some errands earlier and it occured to me that maybe what you're actually asking for is some type of compromise. More like the niche romantic suspense fills, only with the fantasy/horror elements the focus instead of suspense.
That may or may not fill the bill exactly. Like I said, it may have to be some type of compromise which doesn't completely satisfy but at least attempts to. Sort of like what's happened with sci-fi and romance with the arrival of authors like Catherine Asaro. Ebooks helped there because they allowed the gap to be bridged, i.e they took the risks and some of them paid off, for example in authors like Linnea Sinclair. Her books are very much half-way between sci-fi and romance. The first I've ever seen that do it seamlessly.
The way I'm hearing things, somet erotica is doing something of the same thing with darker themes, darker there meaning horror not sexual assault type stuff. (Not that the two don't overlap, but it's big distinction to me.)
Of course, ultimately there has to be a market but does any of this hit in the ballpark of what you're talking about. (Ask me to clarify if you have no idea what I'm getting at because I admit I'm sort of thinking this out as I go along. Told you I had to think about it. :D)
My 'great slump of doom' lasted two years and it was driven by too many books playing by the rules.
I remember picking up a historical romance and in the second chapter it starts with the heroes name which is, of course, 18 words and I dropped the book. I don't think I picked up anything for those two years except authors that were already auto buys.
Now, I love the risks authors are taking but I can see others are feeling overwhelmed by the paranormal/vampire romances out there. I just want a great romance and when the market get too saturated, some of the dreck gets published.
You like A Hunger Like No Other by Kresley Cole right? Did you consider that horror?
Anyways, I like the variety we have today vs the stagnation we seemed to fall into there at the end of the 90s.
Cindy
Cindy, Kresley Cole did hit the horror mark in that book, not that the horror overshadows the romance, but what's supposed to be scary is.
And, Bev that's my point, paranormals, thrillers, suspsense romances are often watered down versions horror, mystery and suspense.
When I was a kid I loved reading westerns as I got older I wanted the good guys in these books to have wives and HEA. We already have historical romances that can rival historical fiction. I think it's possible that other genres can do the same.
Great discussion!!
I'm not so very picky. I don't mind reading books that follow the rules. HOWEVER, I love when I stumble across something different and edgy and a bit out of the ordinary. That's really hard to find.
Jen
Jen, I'm not overly picky either, if I was I'd have given up on anything set in Regency England at this point--LOL.
But, it's the edgier out of the ordinary books that stay with us longer, whether you love them or hate them, they make you think. And, I think it's these books that eventually move the genre in different directions.
Tara
But, it's the edgier out of the ordinary books that stay with us longer, whether you love them or hate them, they make you think. And, I think it's these books that eventually move the genre in different directions.
I totally agree.
Jen
Jen, see I always said we think alike and you know how great minds are--LOL. Tara
Absolutely!! :o)
Jen
Post a Comment