I am starting to believe that the Rom genre should be split into two – Single Title Romance and Category Romance – and treat them as separate genres. You know it makes sense. Well, I think so.
It pretty much stems from my disagreement with a general belief that Category Romance is the short form of Single Title. Category Romance is so much more than just being “short form”. It’s at best 102 years old. Single Title Romance as a genre is, roughly, 50 years old. And both have different histories, structures, innovations, influences, genre conventions, etc. Examples:
Single Title Romance is dominated by American authors and a wide range of U.S. publishers (Avon, Bantam, Hachette, Samhain, EC, etc.).
Category Romance is dominated by a global* stable of authors and one Canada-based publisher: HQN/M&B.
(*as in authors from English-speaking countries including Australia/NZ, UK, US, Canada and so on, and English-speaking authors from lesser known countries.)
There are other category-romance publishers, but not usually on a world-wide basis like HQN/M&B is. Those category-rom publishers are usually localised. Examples: Loveline in the UK, Encanta (sp?) in Mexico, [Chinese name that I can't even translate] in urban areas of mainland China and Taiwan; Young Women in Love (or at least that’s how I translated it) in Japan, etc. I know there are category-romance publishers in some part of Europe including France, Poland, Germany, and urm, what’s the name of that country? *headdesk* I can’t even spell it if I remembered, so I won’t bother (my apologies to the country).
And what about those novels based on telenovellas in Latin American and Asian countries?
It’s a seriously massive industry with a solid genre and its sub-genres, but completely ignored by the romance community. I came across one when I was living in Japan. My reaction was pretty much: “Soap opera with a massive dollop of romance? Right…” A friend was surprised enough to take me to this tiny but popular bookshop (probably with a hope to convert me into another fan). There were six long book cases of telenovellas (DVDs, books, graphic novels, ‘fotonovellas’ – like a comic, but photos); all were clearly Spanish.
The friend reeled off a list of her favourites ‘telnov’ authors (and added their nationalities: Mexican, (European) Spanish, Argentine, and Brazilian). She knew more about this genre, a lot more than U.S. single title / category romances combined. She got me to read and watch some. Holy cow. British/American soap operas? Haven’t a patch on those Latin American romances. I mean, seriously, those novels were like romance novels, but on epic scale. Like those epic historical romances from the 1970s, but contemporary. But the friend pointed out that those works share many elements with traditional Asian epics, which makes sense. (I am quite sure HQN did once launch a line of this type in the U.S. but it failed to take off? I don’t trust my memory on this one.) I still don’t know much about this industry, but from what I see, it’s massive.
Yeah, it’s a big world out there. But I digress, so back to the topic:
I think splitting the genre into two would make it a lot easier for both sides to research, define and attribute. Especially when charting a time-line of changes, influences and trends. It’d be less confusing, too.
For instance, Sarah Frantz (twittername: @SarahFrantz) recently asserted on Twitter that Suzanne Brockmann was the first romance author to innovate the start-a-rom-in-one-book-and-end-it-in-another-book concept in the Romance genre. (I admit to mild scepticism, but I’m assuming she did her homework so I’m taking her word for it.)
Sarah is right if we were talking about Single Title, but wrong if we were talking about Category Romance, and still wrong if we were talking about the Romance genre as a whole. How do we deal with this kind of situation? Split it into two.
Furthermore, genre conventions of Category Romance and Single Title are different. In a way, a Category romance is a television drama episode while a Single Title romance is a feature film. Different expectations, different rules, differences values, different story structure, and so on.
If we were to compare Category Romance with television drama: Author’s name is the TV drama title. A book title is the title of an episode. And there would be spin-offs of certain episodes under Author’s name.
If we were to compare Single Title (whether it’s part of connected-book series or not) with feature film: Author’s name is the lead actor. A book title is the film title. When Author writes another book set in the same universe or series, it’s the lead actor doing a sequel to the first film or make a guest appearance, e.g. the Terminator film series. Types of Lead actor’s roles vary, according to his abilities or opportunities. Same with Author’s writing skills that vary according to her abilities and opportunities.
Hm… let me clarify with another use of this admittedly dodgy comparison:
American actor Tom Hanks, for example, started out as a TV sitcom actor and gradually launched his film career. Today, he’s a A-list film actor who still occasionally makes a TV appearance. Between his first film role to now, he’s appeared in a wide range of drama types including comedy, suspense, drama, supernatural, melodrama, and so on.
Linda Howard started out as an author in Category Romance and gradually launched her Single Title career. Today, she’s a best-selling Single Title author who still occasionally writes a category romance. She’s written a wide range of novels including romantic comedy, romantic suspense, drama, supernatural, melodrama, and so on.
Hm. I’m not sure if that comparison works, but yeah -
What I’m saying is, Category Romance and Single Title have almost completely different branches with histories and conventions of their own, so why not separate them?
Some may think I’m splitting a hair here but surely, you must agree the Rom genre is so massive that it’s like standing in the eye of a Mammoth. I can’t think of any other genres that have something similar to the Romance genre having category novels.
I mean, Category Romance has a history of all types: Traditional Regency, Historical, SF, Gothic, Action, Contemporary, Nurse, etc. What other genres have this? Hm… Crime Fiction with pulp fiction? But it’s not as widely read or available as category romances today, is it really?
“Category Romance is so much more than just being “short form”. It’s at best 102 years old. Single Title Romance as a genre is, roughly, 50 years old.”
So what are Georgette Heyer’s romances, if not single titles? But she began writing more than 50 years ago. And M&B didn’t start specialising in romance until quite a bit after they began. At the very beginning they were publishing all sorts of books, including novels by Jack London and non-fiction.
“both have different histories, structures, innovations, influences, genre conventions, etc. Examples:
Single Title Romance is dominated by American authors and a wide range of U.S. publishers (Avon, Bantam, Hachette, Samhain, EC, etc.).
Category Romance is dominated by a global* stable of authors and one Canada-based publisher: HQN/M&B.”
I think you could argue that American Single Title Romance is dominated by American authors, but there are Single Title Romances published elsewhere. In the UK, for example, they’re mixed in with other kinds of romantic fiction, but they certainly exist. If you wanted to argue that different countries have different traditions and histories when it comes to the romance genre, then yes, I can see that you might have an argument (though obviously you’d have to allow for the way that some authors e.g. Heyer, have had a huge influence on more than one national tradition).
“I know there are category-romance publishers in some part of Europe including France, Poland, Germany, and urm”
In some countries the category romance publishers are in partnership with Harlequin. That’s certainly the case of Cora Verlag (in Germany) and Mondadori (in Italy).
“Furthermore, genre conventions of Category Romance and Single Title are different”
How? As far as I know, both category and single title romances meet the RWA definition, and Pamela Regis’s, so I’m not sure what it is that you see as being so distinctive about the two kinds in terms of their conventions.
I totally agree with you about single title (although that bothers me, b/c the series aren’t single titles, so I prefer “mainstream”) romances and category romances, although I do wonder how much cross-over there is between “telnov” genre conventions and category conventions. As in, I think that European categories should be separated from other genres and I’m interested in you conflating them and separating them out even further. That’s why I’m so thrilled the mysterious and elusive Laura Vivanco is doing such great work on category romances, while we all work on mainstream.
I’m still really interested in your assertions of “love stories that actually start in one book and end in another” in category romances. I need to go back and read the TMT discussion, I think, before I make an ass of myself….
Okay, done. I still want to hear some concrete examples. I know these details slip through our minds, but I think Brockmann just did it differently. Right from the start, she had characters who had unhappy romances DURING A NOVEL (rather than offstage) who then found love later with someone else. And then in her TS mainstreams, from Book 2, she had characters who got together, had sex, fell in love, and were pulled apart only to find love with each other books later. This is unlike JD Robb’s Eve and Dallas, which was groundbreaking in its own way. Unlike Rosemary Rogers Steve and Ginny books, although closer. These are secondary characters getting together in one (or 2 or 3) books and getting their own primary-focused HEA in later books.
But I do NOT have your encyclopediac knowledge of the genre. I’d love to hear some examples.
“Laura Vivanco is doing such great work on category romances, while we all work on mainstream”
Thanks for the compliment!
Re the “mainstream,” though, in the UK, category romance is the mainstream, at least as far as the romance genre is concerned, though not, perhaps, as far as romantic fiction is concerned. M&Bs don’t seem to win the main prize awarded by the RNA (the only one which has won the RNA Romantic Novel of the Year Award was Flower Of Silence by Joanne Marshall, in 1971), though the RNA do have a separate competition, “Love Story of the Year” for category romances.
I’ll admit, though, that I tend to think of HM&B as being at the centre of the modern romance genre as a whole, because my perception of the genre is definitely shaped by which romances I have most access to. And the RITA shortlists, which tend to include a lot of HM&Bs, don’t do much to dispel my impression that even in the US, Harlequin is a big player in the genre. Maybe if I went to the US and saw shelves and shelves of single title romances I’d adjust my feelings about the relative numbers/weight of category vs. single titles.
Excellent post, Maili. I agree with many of your points. I get annoyed when readers dismiss categories as shorter, inferior versions of single title romances. Yes, there are many bad M&B/Harlequins published each month, but there are also a few gems among them.
The shorter word count in category romances leads to a tighter focus on the hero and heroine and a unique set of restrictions/options for the author. This tighter focus can often lead to a more convincing romance than those featured in single titles, which often get sidetracked by secondary characters and subplots.
As Laura mentioned, the categories published by Cora Verlag are usually German translations of M&B/Harlequin titles, some of which are abridged. Many of their lines are direct copies of Harlequin’s. For example, books by Blaze authors Kathleen O’Reilly and Sarah Mayberry are part of the Tiffany Sexy line. Cora Verlag also publishes the German translations of Mira titles such as Susan Mallery’s books.
@Laura: “I think you could argue that American Single Title Romance is dominated by American authors, but there are Single Title Romances published elsewhere. In the UK, for example, they’re mixed in with other kinds of romantic fiction, but they certainly exist.”
Absolutely. I think the perception of what constitutes a romance novel is different in the UK. When I refer to reading a romance, I usually mean American-style romance.
For example, I was interested to see that Julia Gregson’s ‘East of the Sun’ won last year’s Romantic Novel of the Year award from the Romantic Novelists’ Association (based in the UK). ‘East of the Sun’ would definitely not be classified as a romance in the US. It features three heroines, only one of whom has a truly HEA at the end of the book.
@Laura Vivanco
“So what are Georgette Heyer’s romances, if not single titles? But she began writing more than 50 years ago.”
Georgette Heyer’s novels are, IMO, single titles. My comments about fifty-year-old was a reference to Single Title Romance as a genre, e.g. a recognised commercial genre.
It does represent a problem: how to deal with Traditional Regency romances? But then I realise, it doesn’t matter because if romance readers accepted Jane Austen’s contemporary romantic novels as a definitive influence on Historical Single Title Romance and Historical Category Romance, then why not accept Heyer’s romantic novels as the founder of Traditional Regency genre? Still problematic, but it’s a possible solution.
“And M&B didn’t start specialising in romance until quite a bit after they began.”
Yeah, M&B started to focus on selling romance novels some time during the late 1940s, didn’t they? I think to be honest, it sky-rocketed when the paperback format and its position of distribution, e.g. train stations, was popularised by Penguin UK during the 1930s or thereabouts? This is a guess, though.
The first novel they published was classified as a romance, which technically marks a cross on the genre’s time-line. At least it is in my books, anyway. Plus, M&B did promote their 100th birthday under the “Romance” banner. Let me google a bit.
Here goes:
— “It was a fabulous turn out and in true Mills & Boon style there were some bonafide alpha males to lead us on a tour back in time to 1908 when the first Mills & Boon Arrows in the Dark, (prophetically a romance!) by Sophie Cole, was published.” —
— “The exhibition then continued on to show the development of Mills & Boon from 1908-2008, alongside the changing role of women and social and sexual mores in 20th Century Britain.” —
Source: http://www.iheartpresents.com/2008/06/harlequin-mills-boon-birthday-celebrations/
“At the very beginning they were publishing all sorts of books, including novels by Jack London and non-fiction.”
Avon, Kensington, Leisure, etc, are seen as romance publishers, yet they sell all types of fiction almost from the start. I suppose it’s a matter of perspective. From my POV, I think M&B became truly known as a romance publisher during 1960s/1970s (you know their old rose logo? It was everywhere!).
There were other contenders, like Scarlet, I think? (some of their titles were sold to the U.S. through Pinnacle Books) and Futura, specialising in historical category romances. Example: Julia Fitzgerald. But none of them could surpass M&B. Pretty amazing, really, isn’t it? I still think M&B wouldn’t have survived if it wasn’t for libraries. But I digress.
“I think you could argue that American Single Title Romance is dominated by American authors, but there are Single Title Romances published elsewhere. In the UK, for example, they’re mixed in with other kinds of romantic fiction, but they certainly exist.
True, but when discussing the Rom genre, it almost always refers to American romance novels. I mean, this country doesn’t even recognise (British) Romance genre in terms of Single Titles. Basically, it’s British Romance? M&B. End of.
The UK isn’t the only one that holds this view. Here’s an example:
“Interview with five leading ladies of Germany’s romance industry” by the wonderful Kris Alice)
http://www.aromancereview.com/interviews/germany.phtml
“If you wanted to argue that different countries have different traditions and histories when it comes to the romance genre, then yes, I can see that you might have an argument”
You don’t believe it’d stand up well in U.S. context?
“(though obviously you’d have to allow for the way that some authors e.g. Heyer, have had a huge influence on more than one national tradition).”
What do you mean by national tradition(s)? And which nationalities? Examples?
““I know there are category-romance publishers in some part of Europe including France, Poland, Germany, and urm”
In some countries the category romance publishers are in partnership with Harlequin. That’s certainly the case of Cora Verlag (in Germany) and Mondadori (in Italy).”
I don’t think it’s Cora Verlag (thank you for that titbit!), but it very well may be. I’ll try to dig up a photo (of me holding up German category roms with a silly grin on my mug) to see if I can read the name on cover. Let’s hope it’s clear enough to be readable!
““Furthermore, genre conventions of Category Romance and Single Title are different”
How? As far as I know, both category and single title romances meet the RWA definition, and Pamela Regis’s, so I’m not sure what it is that you see as being so distinctive about the two kinds in terms of their conventions.”
I *sometimes* feel that single title romances are (editorially) more flexible and ‘relaxed’ than category romances, but I admit I’m not 100% confident to say it because if I say it, I may be making a sweeping generalisation.
Take Janet Dailey*’s Calder series for example. Romance readers today reject that series for being too “Women’s Fiction”. This doesn’t quite make sense because if they were able to reject that series, then it stands to reason to reject certain romance novelists’ novels. Such as Suzanne Brockmann and Jennifer Crusie’s single titles that sometimes bordering on being WF.
Category romances won’t even go anywhere near WF. Its sole focus is on main relationship (with or without social issues, and with or without friends/family) and that’s it. It’s narrow and tight, comparing with single titles. That’s why I feel there is a difference in this aspect.
*I know many are unwilling to accept her or her works as part of the Genre’s canon, but while I understand, I think it’s wrong to erase her existence from the genre’s history because there’s no denying that she had a massive impact on the genre during the 1980s, especially category romances. I think it’s common knowledge she was happier and more comfortable with writing category romances. Outlining reasons why she moved to Single Title would be gossip, so I’ll say nowt.
OK, I’ll have dinner now before I get to other responses. Sorry and thanks!
Just realise how awful this commenting system is! I’ll have to find a template with a better commenting system ASAP.
“Georgette Heyer’s novels are, IMO, single titles.”
And one of them, Powder and Patch, was first published by Mills & Boon as The Transformation of Philip Jettan.
I don’t know exactly when M&B started to really concentrate on romance. As far as I can remember from reading McAleer, they were still selling other kinds of fiction, and non-fiction (including textbooks) for quite a while after they began to concentrate on romance. As you say, that makes them similar to the publishers of romance single titles. In fact, Harlequin’s recently been branching out into producing some single titles, including crime fiction, I think, and also some non-fiction, so perhaps things are coming full circle a little.
Anyway, the important thing to know would be the date when M&B started marketing their romances as such. I know that in the 1950s they had the romances branded with a Cupid logo (the Cupid is standing behind a letter “R”), but they separated out some of the various types of books they sold earlier (e.g. I’ve seen lists at the backs of M&B books in which they separated out their fiction from their nonfiction). So what I don’t know is when they decided to separate out love stories with happy endings and consistently give them a list (or brand/description) of their own.
What do you mean by national tradition(s)? And which nationalities? Examples?
Well, at the recent PCA conference, there was a paper by Maryan Wherry which, if I’ve understood Jessica’s notes correctly, was about the American romance tradition, and how it’s tied in with its particular historical and cultural context. Pamela Regis is working on a history of American romance. As I posted here the book she’s writing will be called
The American Romance Novel, 1742 to the Present, a book-length history of romance novels written by American authors. [...] The proposed project will involve first identifying the novels of American authors that contain the eight elements of the romance novel laid out in my earlier book. From this will emerge the first identification of America’s national canon of romance. Analysis of these novels with an eye to identifying the essential components of an American romance, which is to say, those characteristics that the author’s nationality and its attendant culture imbue it with, will define our romance tradition.
Similarly, Juliet Flesch has described specifically Australian things about Australian romance in From Australia with Love and there was also a paper at the PCA conference by Toni Johnson-Woods about Australian romance. So if these studies are correct, there are national traditions, or at very least persistent differences in the romances produced in different countries.
Category romances won’t even go anywhere near WF. Its sole focus is on main relationship (with or without social issues, and with or without friends/family) and that’s it. It’s narrow and tight, comparing with single titles. That’s why I feel there is a difference in this aspect.
I think there’s actually quite a lot of difference between different HM&B lines, both in terms of wordcounts and in terms of how tightly they focus on the central romance. For example
For the Superromance line (one of Harlequin’s longest series) we’re looking for stories about today’s woman in today’s world. While the focus should be a strong, involving central romance, we also expect to see the other aspects of your heroine’s world. Secondary characters, situations and subplots should all be relevant and believable. (Guidelines)
Books in that line are “60,000–65,000 words” and the RITA and Golden Heart Category Descriptions and Judging Guidelines say that for Contemporary Single Title Romances “The word count for those novels is over 70,000.” Harlequin Historicals are “70,000–75,000 words.”
So I’m not sure how clear cut the distinctions really are in terms of either length or content.
Australia pretty much only has Mills and Boon – while we have some romantic fiction published, I wouldn’t count them as romances. The (very small) romance sections in bookshops are made up of imported US titles. M&B mainly kept at kmart and newsagents.
Don’t know if that was valid to any part of the discussion or not.. but I always try to fit my whine in where I can.
I would also class categories and single titles as very separate beasts. IMO operate separately for completely different market/readers.