Welcome to Anne Gracie's Website

Romantic Myths
This is an article I wrote for the Victorian Writers' Centre magazine, WriteOn, based in Melbourne, Australia. The audience was writers, most of whom have literary aspirations, and with limited understanding of, or experience with the romance genre. * I've added a link at the bottom to an excellent essay by academic and romance writer, Jennifer Crusie, and several to Barbara Samuel's wonderfully inspirational columns. There's also a link to a blog on romance writing, by Diana Duncan which is worth reading..

There's a real cringe in this country about writing romance. I know. I used to have it. I started out writing romance because I'd been told by other writer friends you could make a fortune from it — easy money. The rumour was $25, 000 for 50,000 words. 50 cents a word. With a debt and a leaking roof, that appealed.

I read a few HM&B's. Hah! Dead easy, I thought.

Wrong. My first effort was rejected. Too much background, too many minor characters, not enough emotion. And the worst insult of all — "not up to publishable standard".

How dare they! I was obviously too good a writer for them. After all, I was only dabbling in romance for the filthy lucre, wasn't I? I was having trouble sinking to their level. But I accepted the challenge.

Too much background — OK, ditched my elegantly detailed background and settings. Killed off the minor characters. "Not enough emotion" — I was sure I knew what that meant — more sex please.

I had four more rejections. Each new manuscript I sent was more and more lurid, with less background, fewer characters and more sex.

So why didn't I sell? I was stupid. I wasn't listening to the publishers. I wasn't learning about my targeted genre; I had in fact, a good deal of scorn for it. I was operating on the powerful urban myths so prevalent about romance writing.

The more I was rejected, the more determined I became. I started reading more widely. To my amazement, I found some romance books I liked — really liked. I found writers I admired. I found characters I cared about, stories which stayed in my head long after I'd finished them.

Softening of the brain? No, opening of the mind. Then I discovered HM&B also published historical romance. I'd been raised on Georgette Heyer, Rosemary Sutcliff, the Brontë sisters, Jane Austen. Surely I could write historical romance. So I tried. With a bit of reworking, M&B bought it. And then I read a Jennifer Crusie contemporary romance and laughed my head off — and I realised HM&B was publishing stuff which was feminist and funny — and I was off and running on a contemporary comedy, which I also sold.

So let's examine some of the myths about romance writing:

Myth #1* The famous Mills and Boon Formula
There's no such thing. I've talked to M&B writers who have been writing for 40 - 50 years. There is not and never has been "a formula".

So how did this myth arise? M&B were one of the first publishers to put out publishers guidelines. Nowadays, most publishers do it and writers take it in stride — it makes sense to find out what a publisher wants before sending off a manuscript. But when M&B first did it, writers were shocked, and when they read the descriptions of each line (or category), they cried "formula" and "shame".

Apply a little logic to The Formula: HM&B publishes more than 50 new titles each month. They've been doing that for more than 50 years. If there was a kiss on page 28 of every book, do you think readers would keep buying, month after month, year after year? Would romance continue to account for around 50% of all paperback sales in the USA? Of course not.

So why the guidelines? Most people imagine one sort of book when they think Harlequin Mills and Boon; a skinny book with a red rose on the cover, dramatic (melodramatic?) sexy books with a millionaire alpha hero — they are the books most often dragged out and mocked. But in fact there are many different lines or categories — about 15 in Australia and more in the USA — pure romance, sexy or not, crime romance, medical romance, romantic comedy, historical romance, and more. Each line has a different "flavour" and the regular readers choose lines in the same way we choose to watch a sitcom, a soap opera, a chat show or a medical drama on TV.

Romance, like TV and movies, is entertainment fiction. Not literary fiction. I am not talking qualitative difference here, but intention. Yes, there is a lot of crap published in romance. There is a lot of crap published full stop. But there's also a lot of good books out there and many of them are romances.

Myth #2* they're all the same
Romance is genre fiction. One of the best analogies I've heard is that genre fiction is like the dressage riding event at the Show : a limited number of moves in a clearly designated arena within a strict period of time. A "literary rider" on the other hand, can chose to ride anywhere, in any fashion, on any kind of steed for as long as they want.

Romance, like other genres, has its conventions, its restrictions, its styles. Yes, romances must have a happy ending. Does this make it boring and predictable? Not in the hands of a skilled writer. We read crime novels, knowing the murderer will be discovered in the end. Sometimes we even know who the murderer is. Does this make the novel boring and predictable? No. Otherwise the books would not keep selling.

Romance is about how two people overcome obstacles to make a relationship work. In murder mysteries a detective overcomes difficulties to unveil a murderer. In both genres, the focus is on the journey — not the end result. Crime novels are whodunnits, romances are how-happened it.

Myth #3* they're soft porn for women
I don't know how many times I've heard critics of romance read out salacious passages from a sexy M&B. I dare say I could pick out passages from almost any novel and mock it out of context. Cheap laughs.

Yes, lots of romances have lots of sex in them. Lots don't. But whether or not there is or isn't sex, the focus of the story is not the sex but the relationship. This is what I failed to understand in my early attempts. The books are romances — it's the story, not the sex. Erotica has a small and limited market. Romance is hugely popular. It's fascination with the human condition which makes the difference.

In any case, it's not as if sex in a romance is necessarily gratuitous, as it is for instance in action movies. How many of us can honestly say that sex played no part in our relationships. But there is no requirement on any romance author to write sex scenes — the genre is broad enough to cater to all preferences.

Myth #4* they're full of cardboard characters, clichés and bad writing
Yes, some are. Again, some aren't. But again, you have to go back to the purpose of romance fiction — entertainment.

Some writers are known for their archetypal characters and stories — stories which are repeated over and over with different names and different backgrounds — variations on a theme. A theme and character types much beloved of the fans. To criticise Melbourne writer Stephanie Laurens' books for thin characterisation and too much sex (as happened in a recent Melbourne review) is like criticising an Arnold Schwartzenegger action movie for thin characterisation and too much violence. You don't go to a Schwartzenegger movie expecting a Paul Cox film.

Educated movie goers know what the Schwartzenegger name means. Educated romance readers know exactly what they're getting when they pick up a Stephanie Laurens novel; an exuberant, sexy regency-era romp with her own particular brand of hero and heroine. There's a reason she's a four or five times New York Times Bestseller. It's the same reason people go to Schwartzenegger movies — for the next variation on the theme, for a repeat of the experience, for fun, light-hearted, escapist entertainment with wide popular appeal.

To quote Robertson Davies, 'It is dangerous to condemn stories as junk which satisfy the deep hunger of millions of people. These books are not literary art, but a great deal of what is acclaimed as literary art in our time offers no comfort or fulfillment to anybody.' (from For Your Eyes Alone; the Letters of Robertson Davies, edited by Judith Skelton Grant, Viking Press.)

Not all romance writers take the archetype approach; many create unique, unforgettable characters. They write stories which stay with us and haunt our imagination — in the trade such books are known as "keepers".

If 50 % of paperback sales in the US are romance, it must be fulfilling more than one kind of need. Romance readers come from all walks of life, all levels of society and all educational backgrounds. Romance publishers therefore must cater to a huge variety of tastes to stay in business.

Myth #5* romance is for uneducated, sexually repressed voyeurs
Yes. Just as crime novels are for repressed murderers and psychopaths with a taste for necrophilia.

Romance Writers of America (www.rwanational.org) have socio-economic and other statistics on who reads romance. Romance readers come from all educational backgrounds, all ages and from all areas of society. And if degrees are your thing, I regularly lunch with 9 romance writers in Melbourne: one PhD, three Masters or higher degrees and three degrees. Not that it matters.

Myth #6* write a romance, it's money for jam
Romance writers get royalties, like other writers. And thus, earnings depend on sales. To expect to make a fortune is like expecting to earn like Bryce Courtney, just because you sold a book to the same publisher.

Yes, you can make a living writing romance — if you sell to a big enough publisher and if your books do well. Like any other writer, it depends on talent, hard work, the market and luck. Australia's top romance writers earn a good living — but they've written numerous books over many years, have built up a huge following and continue to please their readership. Romance writers, like any other writers, get dumped if their books don't sell.

Some romance lines earn a lot more than others — this is because they're more popular. HM&B, being one of the biggest publishers, has a huge international market so their authors have big sales (but low royalties). They can earn a living, if they publish three or four books a year for several years and continue to do so.

In a country where few writers can earn a living from writing, it's another reason people snipe at romance. It's seen as money for jam. But HM&B receive more than 20,000 unsolicited manuscripts each year and contract perhaps 30 of them. It's jam that's not so easy to make.

Yes, I'm a published romance writer, but I paid off my roof by teaching night-classes. And I still have my day job.

**********
© Anne Gracie 2002
Anne Gracie is a HM&B writer. Her historical romance,Tallie’s Knight, a soft-porn regency feast for repressed voyeurs, recently won the Australian Category Romance Book of the Year.

**********
For further reading on the anti-romance bias, try this excellent article by Jennifer Crusie - Defeating the Critics

To read a wonderfully inspirational article about why writing romance is important, read Barbara Samuel's brilliant column called Acts of Faith.
I love all her columns -- about travel, writing or life. Read the one called Snapshot, or Come dance in the rain. Coming from a dry climate I can so identify with that one.

There is also an excellent blog called "Why I write romance" by Silhouette writer Diana Duncan.