- A Little Sisterly Advice
- Cheeky Reads
- DRD aka Donna's Blog
- Gunner Marnee's Blog
- J.K. Coi: Living with Immortals
- Just Janga
- Killer Fiction
- Kimberly Killion
- Maggie Robinson
- Maureen O. Betita
- Megan Kelly
- Pam Clare
- Renee Lynn Scott
- Romance Bandits
- Romance Dish
- Scapegoat's Blogspot
- Smartass Romance
- Terri Osburn Writes Romance
- Tessa Dare
- Vauxhall Vixens
- 2013 (161)
- 2012 (206)
- 2011 (237)
- 2010 (325)
- 2009 (307)
- 2008 (254)
- 2007 (66)
Powered by Blogger.
Friday, May 18, 2012
12:00 AM | Posted by Maureen | | Edit Post
So, I think I’ll get a little controversial today and address something that has been on my mind a lot the last few weeks.
I’ve been making some big changes in my professional life and assessing how to approach the next step in my plan to conquer the publishing world. (Or at least slice off a sweet little tidbit to enjoy…)
My journey here on the Revenge has taught me to importance of romance to a story. Whether it be a personal romance or the overriding theme of romance. I’ve dallied with the first and enjoyed it, but recently came to the conclusion that at heart, I’m more in love with the second aspect.
I can survive a book without a passionate romance between characters…as long as there is a romantic story being told.
For example… The Indiana Jones movies were romantic. Without being romances. Yeah, we had the H/H dynamic, but the real story was more about saving the world, saving the children…on and on…
Some of the most impressive books I have ever read were incredibly romantic…without a romance involved.
Some of the best stories I’ve written involved characters learning to love themselves, not necessarily loving anyone else. Yes, I generally have a H/H and they end up with a HEA. And I understand that is what defines a romance…
As I venture into the greater publishing world sans agent and consider venturing into self-publishing and who I still want to pitch to and what I want my pitch to consist of… I don’t think I fit the definition of a romance writer.
But I do write books with romantic themes. I dove into the dictionary in an attempt to address my feelings regarding the aesthetic of romance. Merriam Webster says
1): A medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural 2): a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous or mysterious 3): a love story especially in the form of a novel.
Nothing in there about HEA save the 3rd definition. I know the RWA has a preference when it comes to what defines romance. I know the everyday man/woman has an idea of what romance involves. (Squishy stuff…)
I believe my thoughts on this matter harken back to all those literature classes I took in college, and even further back when I was reading Robin Hood stories, Treasure Island, even Sherlock Holmes. They were romantic themes…even without the romance. (Let’s face it, the movies made much more out of Maid Marion than the original stories did!)
So, I open the floor to a discussion regarding how a writer such as myself presents herself to potential readers/editors/agents… I’m tempted to return to my original, long ago idea of how to talk about what I write. I write romantic adventure. Sometimes set in alternate universes, sometimes in outer space, sometimes in contemporary…
Will this open doors to me? Or close them? Anyone have a better way to define what I'm talking about? Anyone see the difference? ;-)