The July issue of the RWR is out and about. If you haven’t received it yet, it’ll be there soon. Included in this issue is the long awaited survey on what the definition of romance is.
Here’s your options to help them define romance:
A. The romantic relationship is between one man and one woman.
B. The romantic relationship is between two people.
Although other elements and subplots may also be components of the story line, by the book’s conclusion the romantic relationship has been resolved in an emotionally satisfying manner. (Satisfying to whom?)
You have choice A and B with no write in. And it states “Below are two versions of that definition, and we’d like your opinion on which you prefer. This is a survey only, so we ask that you include only your vote here. As always, your comments can be e-mailed to any member of the Board. We welcome them.”
There is no place to write in on the survey itself that you disagree with both options. If you don’t vote at all then it seems as if the survey results will be reported as ‘the majority feel’.
I have to say these definitions are, to me, so impossibly limiting. These rule out Paranormals with vamps/weres/ghosts/aliens, it rules out Chick Lit and MWRE. Why say ‘man’ and ‘woman’? Why not ‘male’ and ‘female’? Why only two parties? What about the wonderful romances of Emma Holly with m/m/f love stories?
I totally agree with you, Sylvia. It limits so much. I’m not a member of the RWA yet, but I’m watching all of this very closely because someday I might be.
by Gina June 23rd, 2005 at 4:15 pm:naughty:My opinion is they need to lay off the drugs (or maybe start taking them?)
Actually I sort of admire their bravery in wading into the mire again. Silly goobers. . . . Or maybe this was all printed out and ready to go before the graphics nonsense? It’s all part of a plan to limit love to heterosexual duos? who knows?
Hey, welcome to ec!!!!!!!!!!
by Kate "they're lookin' fer trouble an' I'm the gal to give it to them" R.I’m writing them…again. It never occurred to me until you said it and I was glad you did.
by Mechele June 24th, 2005 at 1:22 pm:puke: I’m so VERY sick of this.
by Jordan June 24th, 2005 at 2:07 pmI love reading books both ways, but I‘ve been singing the praises of ebooks for the past two or three years.
I have a Sony Clie (or I did, I’ve lost the charger for it and can’t use it anymore) and I can load a ton of ebooks on it at one time. The nice thing about it is the little scroll button on the side which lets me scroll down without having to hassle with a lot of buttons and pull me out of the book. I really miss taking it with me on trips. I’m a voracious reader when traveling and taking 20 or 30 paperbacks with me is a *lot* harder than loading them on my PDA and sticking it in my purse. I’m going to have to invest in another one in the near future, because I hate not having that sort of portability.
I also like the immediacy of e-books. I find a book I want, buy it and I can read it that night (though not all e-book sellers take PayPal, which is my preferred way to pay online). I don’t have to wait for Amazon to ship it to my POBox and the trudge to the post office and pick it up.
I think your true fans will follow your work in whatever format it comes in. I know when I fall in love with an author’s work, I’d read it on paper bags if I had to.
~Mandy
by Mandy June 24th, 2005 at 7:04 pmWho just tried to buy Catching Caroline, but found out that AQ doesn’t take PayPal.:cry:
It would help if I’d keep up with which post I’m actually commenting on. This should have been on your most recent post. Haha! That’ll teach me to do a million things at once.
by Mandy June 24th, 2005 at 7:05 pmI’ve written to the board. I’d love to continue to support RWA, but I don’t see how, if this doesn’t stop immediately. I’ve been a member for a long time, and this just blows. What I can’t help seeing is the connection to this to the radical right that seems to be taking over the country. I at least thought we were safe, but I guess nothing is.
by Jo June 24th, 2005 at 10:04 pmI’m a new member of the RWA, and I find this appalling. I emailed the Board members last night, then posted about it on my website today (Sylvia–I hope you don’t mind, but I cited your blog and linked to it–if you do object, let me know).
I also urge everyone who objects to this exclusionary definition of “Romance” to let the RWA Board of Directors know how you feel–and big smooches to those who already have. :hug:
by Marlys June 26th, 2005 at 2:44 pmJo and others –please don’t blame the Christians or the “radical right” conservatives for RWA’s decisions. The inspirational writers are not the ones initiating these changes– I was the Secretary of the Faith, Hope and Love chapter of RWA last year (have since left the org altogether) and there was no discussion of other books from other subgenres. No talk of graphics or content or not wanting to sit next to an author of steamy works. We did not waste our time worrying about what other chapters were writing, we only worried about how to improve our own craft.
I believe these issues in RWA arose from their own recognition of publishers who publish romantica, and who do it very well and make lots of money. This is something RWA will have to come to grips with, or attempt to revise their recognition standards once again.
by Robin Bayne June 28th, 2005 at 3:53 pm