Romance and Urban Fantasy

I just had my first wedding nightmare… so it begins?

So this week, there was a bit of a kerfuffle over the genre of romance at one of my blog groups: Fangs Fur Fey. One of the members admitted a bias against romance, but in the interest of expanding her horizons, asked what books people recommend. There were a few comments that were generally negative against romance (but who can control crazy comments, right Heather?) and some people took issue with what they thought was the original poster’s derogatory phrasing.

Yawn. This kind of shit goes down all the time. I don’t step in too often on public forums, because I’ve learned over the years that most of the time it’s like walking into a pit of rabid hyenas after slathering yourself in steak sauce (especially if you write–gasp!–chick lit), but I will occasionally pipe in to point out when people are contradicting themselves. I did it in this instance because the OP said she loved Twilight. I’ve read Twilight (not the sequels) and let me tell you, from twelve years of reading romance novels (and four years of studying/trying to write one), I can say unequivocally that Twilight? She’s a romance. In tone, in plot, in characterization (gorgeous, unattainable, perfect, desirable angsty alpha male every reader can fall in love with who avoids/antagonizes but is secretly obsessed with a female the reader can identify with, and a commitment at the end of the book)? Ding ding ding, that’s a romance, folks.

Me, I love romance and always have. I read historicals in high school, categories in college, and pretty much anything I could get my hands on afterwards. I’ve read books ABOUT the genre of romance and its development. I’ve read old categories from the 1940s,50s, and 60s where the plots are pretty much exactly what I described above (sans vampires).

More than once, I’ve been at a cocktail party where someone will sniff and say something demeaning about romance novels. I always ask what it is they LIKE to read. More than once, the answer has been “Nora Roberts.” But they don’t realize that’s romance, because in their heads, it’s not romance unless it’s a historical with Fabio half naked on the cover. They think THAT is what defines romance, not the actual content of the book. there are romances that aren’t shelved in romance. There are romances with adirondack chairs on the cover. I felt like this same kind of “I don’t read romance but Nora Roberts is my favorite author” conversation was what was going on at FFF, so I did bother to comment.

So the kerfuffle ran its course, and then — because they love nothing like they love a good kerfuffle, with the possible exception of an HEA — resurfaced on Dear Author. (Uh oh. Hide the steak sauce.) 😉 No, that’s not fair. Everyone was pretty even-keeled, I thought. Actually, what struck me about the thread comments was the absolute weariness with which all the romance writers and fans seemed to approach the conversation. There was a definite sense of “sigh, here we go again.” (I was paraphrased in Jane’s original post re: the Twilight thing. And I commented on the DA post as well.)

This weariness makes me so sad. I’ve been trying to figure out why, and I think it’s because this book I’m writing, this YA urban fantasy that allowed me to join FFF in the first place? Also a romance. A romance that even dedicated romance readers like the folks on DA would approve of. I refer to the stated description of Rampant: It’s about killer unicorns that can only be defeated by virgin descendants of Alexander the Great, and the teenage huntress whose birthright is seriously messing up her social life. That last part is where the romantic conflict comes in.

The SSG books aren’t romances. They contain that lovely coinage of RWA’s: “romantic elements.” i.e., Amy thinks about her love life. (I’m really not going to talk much more about this to avoid spoilers.) But Under the Rose was called, respectively, “romantic” and “romance” by Publisher’s Weekly and Booklist. And when I get fan mail, it’s almost always about Amy’s various romantic relationships, and speculations about “who she’ll end up with.” So I guess the elements are loud and clear.

I love romantic elements. I love romances. My favorite romances are, arguably, the ones that are more “elemental” in nature, though I will always say that people have it backwards. Like The Terminator. I think that’s pretty obviously a romance — what could be more romantic than the idea of a man — a dedicated soldier — who has loved you, in secret, his whole life, coming back in time to save your life and the life of your child, knowing that… well, I speculate that Kyle knows who he is at the end. But that’s me. All that killer robot and nuclear holocaust crapola is just window dressing for the romance. It’s the conflict that brings the characters together AND keeps them apart. But then my romance writing friends would all be, “but what about the HEA?” But what is Sarah Connor focusing on at the end of that movie? Killer robots? Nah, man. She’s thinking about Kyle. Sighhhh.

Anyway, I might be getting off track, here. I guess all I want to say is that I’m writing
romance that is also UF, and I hope both romance and fantasy readers can appreciate that, no matter what it says on the spine…