I am bored with the below discussion (but don’t let me rain on your parade, so carry on). However, I do need to use it as the springboard for what’s on my ADHD mind today: What, precisely, defines a genre?
We’re very specific in romance. Got an email yesterday from my newest BFF (kidding! but the offer’s open!) who said, “I know you don’t write romance…” Well, yeah, I do. It’s just got so much other STUFF in it that it can’t be classified, which is why I’m publishing it myself. In fact, it’s got THREE (count ’em, 1, 2, 3) full-length romances going on at the same time all woven together (which is why it’s going to top 700 pages and who-knows-how-many megabytes). And they have sex and there is no fade-to-black and they say the f-word and the c-word. They live a certain political philosophy (some more than others) that will probably be uncomfortable for other types of readers. The story takes place over the course of 5 years and oh, by the way, they’re all in their late 30s and early 40s and wow is that so not part of genre romance.
And oh, guess what, 2/3 of them are Mormons: Giselle is a true believer, not endowed, unable to pick between the sacred and the profane because she is drawn to them equally; however, she goes to church and she does what she’s supposed to—up until the point she chooses to be seduced. Bryce is searching, a returned missionary, former Peter Priesthood who feels betrayed by God. He’s not sure what he believes anymore, because he wasn’t taught the gospel; he was taught the Miracle of Forgiveness and he doesn’t really know what the gospel is (that would be found in Matthew 22:37-40 and James 1:27). Sebastian left his mission halfway through it because of the experiences he had on said mission that caused him to doubt; he now professes paganism. Knox was excommunicated…but not for the reason you might expect; he is the truest believer of the four and he has been completely disenfranchised.
Addendum: But they do NOT take the Lord’s name in vain. I do have standards.
So given that, it doesn’t fit the definition of any genre, not romance, not LDS (please see below comparison of “LDS fiction” to Steeple Hill and inspirational fiction of the type you’d get at Zondervan). I’m billing mine as straight fiction, but I think it will appeal to romance readers more than LDS readers (unless, of course, you’re one of those Mormons).
“Inspirational romance” as defined by RWA (Romance Writers of America):
Inspirational Romance
Romance novels in which religious or spiritual beliefs (in the context of any religion or spiritual belief system) are a major part of the romantic relationship.
and Harlequin and the CBA (that would be the Christian [read: evangelical] Book Association, retailer/distributor of books and kitsch) is a legitimate (sub)genre. It’s a genre because it has guidelines that publishers of inspirational romance follow. Harlequin didn’t set them but defined them, wrote them down, codified them, made them mainstream.
(And oh, by the way, inspirational romance sales are neck-and-neck with erotica sales and outstrip all the other romance subgenres put together; interesting to me that the two extremes are the most popular. Heh. With mine, you get both in one shot.)
The debate raging now is whether “LDS fiction” is its own genre and, therefore, analogous to “inspirational romance.” I say yes. Why? Because there is a certain expectation that goes along with it. Just because it is CONSUMER-defined as opposed to SUPPLIER-defined makes no difference to me.
Romance = genre that is well-defined and codified with a gazillion subgenres.
LDS fiction = genre that is only well-defined within the consumer’s mind and NOT codified, with no subgenres yet no wiggle room. Rock. Hard place.
My advice, as I have said elsewhere, is for publishers of LDS fiction of all types to get together, define the terms as set forth by consumer expectations, codify it, make it what the readers expect it to be when they pick it up. Take a page out of Harlequin’s Steeple Hill submission guidelines (do Deseret Book and Covenant have anything that specific?) and get something on paper. Those of you who stray outside of those bounds, label label label.
This donnybrook is over the fact that consumers felt ambushed. They expected one thing and got another, which is exactly what they are trying to avoid with their reading choices. I respect that while it was not in any way marketed as LDS fiction, it was written by a Mormon and published by a Mormon publisher, so in the consumer felt him/herself entitled to the expectation. Perhaps marketing mistakes were made, but oh well. Learn and grow.
And readers, you who sling the arrows of self-righteous outrage because you don’t dare set foot outside of Deseret Book and have no clue what you’re getting when you see “Mormon bishop’s wife,” “vampire,” and “dying daughter” in the back blurb: You get over it, too, and quit passing judgment on the man’s eternal salvation. It’s not for you to say. And I do not for one second believe the “I didn’t know ‘vampire’ was code for ‘blameless female sexual expression and enjoyment,'” claim because unless you’re 7 and live under a rock, you can’t possibly be that naïve—not even if you do live west of the Rockies.
And you wonder why we get a bad rap in the public eye.
Just because it is CONSUMER-defined as opposed to SUPPLIER-defined makes no difference to me.
Good point. Wouldn’t hurt at all for the definitions to be better and tighter.
Though you can’t walk through a normal grocery store or a Wal-Mart without having supernatural romance novels jump off the shelves at you.
Thugh a lot of it has to do with expectations and paying money, not to mention I’ve gotten two e-mails from the publisher pushing the controversy.
I’d say there is a lot there to think about.
Goodness yes. I stopped seeking paranormal anything after, oh, you know, Lestat. In, you know, 1994. 😀 Doesn’t mean I won’t read something interesting, but the current urban fantasy thing doesn’t interest me the way it would have, say, 10 years ago.
Right now I like my romance contemporary sans supernatural and/or dressed up in costumes and plopped down somewhere in the world before 1900.
While I’m bored with the controversy itself, I do think it would serve the LDS fiction community well to use this to define its terms and, furthermore, define them on the already-existing consumer’s expectations. Whether Deseret Book set those expectations or fulfilled them is, at this point, moot. The expectation has been created, as evidenced in this review of the book on Amazon. She read the bio and automatically assumed stuff about the book. That’s on her, but I think it’s important to remember this in the future for marketing purposes.
Let’s get a solution out of this, folks.
“And I do not for one second believe the “I didn’t know ‘vampire’ was code for ‘blameless female sexual expression and enjoyment,’” claim because unless you’re 7 and live under a rock, you can’t possibly be that naïve.”
While I agree with a lot of what you’ve said, I think this statement is a little bit harsh and you’re being as judgmental about the naivete of some readers, as they are about Mr. Woodbury’s intentions. I know plenty of people who’ve had little exposure to classic vampire tales. And no, they honestly don’t believe there is any subtext in Twilight. If you haven’t been exposed to it or you haven’t had it pointed out to you, you’re not going to get it.
However in this particular case, I think the phrase, “As the two women push against every moral boundary…” should have been a big clue. My only question is, what part of “every” do you not understand?
Thanks for dropping by, Karlene!
I honestly don’t know what it’s a function of, but I can’t fathom a person who doesn’t get that connection. I don’t know anyone, in church or out, who hasn’t had exposure to something vampiric. Even Buffy? Really? I’m not trying to be sarcastic at the moment; I’m having a hard time with there being that many people who haven’t run across this.
Kate Woodbury, in the other thread, said:
Could this possibly be a function of regional differences? Like Kate, I’m loathe to play the “we out here in the mission field” card, but I am at a loss as to how this could be missed by so many LDS.
And precisely!