New to this Board - Have I written a romance?

oldhousejunkie · Dec 7, 2011

Hi all,

I know my title must sound like I have lost my mind (or didn't have one to start), but I am in a quandry.

I write historical fiction. But I love a good love story. And so I set out to write a story where the love story played a prominent role. The guy and the girl do end up together at the end but not without substantial problems (another man, her quest to avenge her father's death, etc.)

But I received a critique recently that said the story didn't fit the historical fiction genre, nor did it fit the romance genre. I've read about a "formula" that most romances adhere to; I know that I haven't stuck to it. I was defining my genre as "historical fiction with strong romantic elements" in my query. I've sent about 25 out and got rejects on all but one. That agent requested a full but ultimately passed.

So now I'm lost. I figure substantial revisions are inevitable. But I want to know where I fit in too. Some of my favorite authors are RITA award winners--Deanna Rayborne and Lauren Willig, specifically. I find it interesting that their books are shelved in the general fiction section of the book store. I think my writing identifies most closely with theirs, but I wonder how they managed to stradle the gap between historical fiction and romance. Although interestingly enough, I recently read that Deanna Rayborne labels herself as historical romance author. And she is published under the Mira imprint. Now I am even more confused!

Any insights to the romance genre industry would be extremely helpful!

Thanks in advance!

Jersey Chick · Dec 7, 2011

For it to be a romance, it needs to main things -

A. The romance is the focus of the story. If you take it out and the story falls apart, you have a romance. If you take it out and the story doesn't fall apart, you have fiction with romantic elements.

B. It has the much-debated HEA ending - Happily Ever After (or in some genres, like erotic romance, a Happy For Now ending.) It MUST have an HEA (or the HFN) or it isn't a romance.

Hope this helps a little.

oldhousejunkie · Dec 7, 2011

Hmmm.... It does have a HEA (although originally I wanted to leave everyone hanging). If I took out the love story, it would need some substantial edits to make it stand on its own. I don't think it would totally "fall apart", but I would be missing some great characters!

ARGH!

veinglory · Dec 7, 2011

A lot of historical fiction these days has romantic elements. I don;t think that disqualifies it from being historical fiction unless the book is very tightly focused on the relationship and the historical elements are 'costume drama' rather than fairly grittily accurate.

oldhousejunkie · Dec 7, 2011

veinglory said:
A lot of historical fiction these days has romantic elements. I don;t think that disqualifies it from being historical fiction unless the book is very tightly focused on the relationship and the historical elements are 'costume drama' rather than fairly grittily accurate.

That's exactly how I feel! But do agents feel the same way? How do you wedge yourself into so small of a niche?

My background is in history, so I try to be as accurate as possible. Some would say too accurate...especially with my dialogue. And part of the fun (for me at least) is conveying my rather immense (and most likely tedious) knowledge of social history!

Deb Kinnard · Dec 7, 2011

Caroline, have you had the piece beta-read? That might give you some insight on what facets to tighten up during rewrite.

The other deal-breaker might be your admitted tendency to convey your historical knowledge. If you overdo, it may slow the pacing to the point that it doesn't "read like a romance" to the agents who've read it. One of my tendencies I have to fight is my habit of throwing in little tidbits of medieval usage and lifestyle, when they're not strictly necessary. I'm fascinated by it all, but I have to stay focused on the fact my target readership just wants a horking good love story.

oldhousejunkie · Dec 7, 2011

Deb Kinnard said:
Caroline, have you had the piece beta-read? That might give you some insight on what facets to tighten up during rewrite.

The other deal-breaker might be your admitted tendency to convey your historical knowledge. If you overdo, it may slow the pacing to the point that it doesn't "read like a romance" to the agents who've read it. One of my tendencies I have to fight is my habit of throwing in little tidbits of medieval usage and lifestyle, when they're not strictly necessary. I'm fascinated by it all, but I have to stay focused on the fact my target readership just wants a horking good love story.

Deb,

I have had three complete read throughs by betas and two semi-read throughs by two others. My latest was the one who made the comments about the genre. No one else has said anything, but I do trust this last beta. But I guess everyone's opinion of historical fiction differs. Her specific comment was "may have trouble finding an agent because it is not strictly historical fiction, but does not follow the formula of historical romance."

I think I may be in a gray area. :-(

My only other option is to beef up the whole determined to revenge her family story line. It consumes much of the first half of the story, but falls by the wayside in the second after she meets her love interest. If I did that, it might kick it back into historical fiction territory. I'm just trying to find the right blend, I guess. And I'm a slave to the market.

AutumnWrite · Dec 7, 2011

Personally I love a historical fiction that is accurate and detailed, (history being my first love) but I understand your quandry. Perhaps the way to go is mainstream fiction.

elindsen · Dec 7, 2011

Jersey Chick said:
For it to be a romance, it needs to main things -

A. The romance is the focus of the story. If you take it out and the story falls apart, you have a romance. If you take it out and the story doesn't fall apart, you have fiction with romantic elements.

B. It has the much-debated HEA ending - Happily Ever After (or in some genres, like erotic romance, a Happy For Now ending.) It MUST have an HEA (or the HFN) or it isn't a romance.

This x100

veinglory · Dec 8, 2011

oldhousejunkie said:
That's exactly how I feel! But do agents feel the same way? How do you wedge yourself into so small of a niche?

Historical fiction is a pretty big niche and by the look of what is on the new release shelves right now, about half of it has romance. I assume a lot of these books were agented.

I know writers complaining because they can't get their historical fiction published because it has no romance or is "for men". I suspect there may actually be other reasons.

job · Dec 8, 2011

There are many more titles on the shelf that call themselves 'Historical Romance' than there are titles in the 'Historical Fiction' section. It looks like it would be easier to go the Romance genre route. But most of these Romances are 'history lite' -- wonderful stuff -- but not really germane to what you are talking about. Getting a dense and accurate Historical Romance published is probably about as difficult as getting published in Historical Fiction.

What you cannot do is get published as Historical Romance if that is not what the book actually is. The agents and editors are really canny about this. They know.

To qualify as Romance -- (I'm talking via my direct link to Infallible Knowledge here) --

(a) At least half the words should be the male and female protagonists in the same scene, face to face.

(b) Another quarter or so, if not the two protagonists face to face, should be scenes directly related to the MMC (Male Main Character) or FMC (Female Main Character.)

(c) The POV should be either MMC or FMC, (unless it's Omniscient Narrator,) for more than 90% of the writing.

(d) The central problem of the story -- the stuff that sends everybody into action -- is solved when the MMC and FMC finally get together at the end.

That is -- the central problem is not the Queen's Pearl being misplaced or Princess Elizabeth dodging the ax long enough to inherit. The central problem is that Thomas and Anne can't get married because their grandparents are feuding.
You know it is central to the story because most of the actions the MMC and FMC undertake are motivated by the marriage problem, not the Missing Pearls.

(e) The FMC should have considerable 'agency'. Stuff happens in response to her action.

(f) The ending should be upbeat. There is a plausible HEA for the MMC and FMC. Everybody walks away smiling except the villain.

(g) Nobody kills a puppy. This means the MMC's friend does not die lengthily on stage. Nobody the reader cares about dies.

(h) Word count under 120K.

(i) Roberta Gellis and, once or twice, Georgette Heyer got away with this one, but a new Historical Romance author probably can't.

Do not write about history.

By this I mean, be as accurate as you want, but do not have the narrator or any character tell us 'Why Henry VIII had money in the treasury when he inherited' or 'Why the 1814 Battle of Paris was a good deal more important that the Battle of Waterloo'. No consecutive 300 words should convey historical information.

If the readers of dense, accurate, well-researched Historical Romances want to read Historical Fiction, they know the way to those shelves. When they pick up your Historical Romance they do not want to read Historical Fiction.

And that ends my mini-opinion piece on what distinguishes HR from Historical Fiction.

Have you thought of YA? One thought I have is that your mix might could maybe possibly fit into YA.

Deanna Raybourne writes what the RITAs classify as 'Novel with Strong Romantic Elements'. Not Romance books, really, and not marketed as such. Lauren Willig is more a straightforward Romance genre writer.

Mr Flibble · Dec 8, 2011

What job said

job said:
Do not write about history.

I think in all sorts of historical fiction, but especially the romance subgenre, it's best to use history as the setting, and to inform how the characters act. It should be subtle, but there. That said, people who read historicals (in any form) like little details that put them right there and then.

My next release is an historical romance. I made sure that while the history is there, and prevailing attitudes etc inform the story, it doesn't overshadow the story. Slide in details subtly (what the FMC is doing, how she is doing it) rather than dump a load of info.

As with any fiction, it's a fine line to tread.

Deb Kinnard · Dec 8, 2011

What Jo and Julia said. They said it better than I did. Historically accurate tidbits can be sprinkled in, like spices in cooking. You don't want a lot or you'll overwhelm. But the minute you have a woman adjusting her linen veil, or a man breaking his bread trencher to throw the pieces to the dogs, you've grounded the reader in how these folks think, and move, and live.

My take (and they said it better than I did).

oldhousejunkie · Dec 9, 2011

job said:
There are many more titles on the shelf that call themselves 'Historical Romance' than there are titles in the 'Historical Fiction' section. It looks like it would be easier to go the Romance genre route. But most of these Romances are 'history lite' -- wonderful stuff -- but not really germane to what you are talking about. Getting a dense and accurate Historical Romance published is probably about as difficult as getting published in Historical Fiction.

What you cannot do is get published as Historical Romance if that is not what the book actually is. The agents and editors are really canny about this. They know.

To qualify as Romance -- (I'm talking via my direct link to Infallible Knowledge here) --

(a) At least half the words should be the male and female protagonists in the same scene, face to face.

(b) Another quarter or so, if not the two protagonists face to face, should be scenes directly related to the MMC (Male Main Character) or FMC (Female Main Character.)

(c) The POV should be either MMC or FMC, (unless it's Omniscient Narrator,) for more than 90% of the writing.

(d) The central problem of the story -- the stuff that sends everybody into action -- is solved when the MMC and FMC finally get together at the end.

That is -- the central problem is not the Queen's Pearl being misplaced or Princess Elizabeth dodging the ax long enough to inherit. The central problem is that Thomas and Anne can't get married because their grandparents are feuding.
You know it is central to the story because most of the actions the MMC and FMC undertake are motivated by the marriage problem, not the Missing Pearls.

(e) The FMC should have considerable 'agency'. Stuff happens in response to her action.

(f) The ending should be upbeat. There is a plausible HEA for the MMC and FMC. Everybody walks away smiling except the villain.

(g) Nobody kills a puppy. This means the MMC's friend does not die lengthily on stage. Nobody the reader cares about dies.

(h) Word count under 120K.

(i) Roberta Gellis and, once or twice, Georgette Heyer got away with this one, but a new Historical Romance author probably can't.

Do not write about history.

By this I mean, be as accurate as you want, but do not have the narrator or any character tell us 'Why Henry VIII had money in the treasury when he inherited' or 'Why the 1814 Battle of Paris was a good deal more important that the Battle of Waterloo'. No consecutive 300 words should convey historical information.

If the readers of dense, accurate, well-researched Historical Romances want to read Historical Fiction, they know the way to those shelves. When they pick up your Historical Romance they do not want to read Historical Fiction.

And that ends my mini-opinion piece on what distinguishes HR from Historical Fiction.

Have you thought of YA? One thought I have is that your mix might could maybe possibly fit into YA.

Deanna Raybourne writes what the RITAs classify as 'Novel with Strong Romantic Elements'. Not Romance books, really, and not marketed as such. Lauren Willig is more a straightforward Romance genre writer.

Wow. Thanks for this breakdown. I don't think YA would work; there are some pretty heavy themes although it seems like that genre is definitely getting more adult. Perhaps I should say that based upon the YA historicals I have read, I don't think mine would fit.

Let's see...based on your comments. I'm at 95,000 words, so definitely under 120k. The book is told mostly in the main female's POV with an occasion diversion to the main male and secondary male POVs. I'd definitely say that the female MC has agency. Somebody does die and it's sad but mostly because he went crazy (literally) from love of the female MC.

I think the major deviations occur at a and d. For a, the male MC doesn't show up until Chapter 6 and then the female and male MCs are split up during the second half. They do reunite for a HE.

For d... I think that's where it gets a bit gray. The main problem (or inciting incident) is the ruination of the female MC's life by the war and her promise to get revenge for her family. Enter the male MC. He's secretly working for the baddies and when female MC finds out, she's pissed. So they split. She's back to finding some sort of revenge for what's happened to her, but now it's more like trying to make peace with it all. But she's still secretly pining for male MC. Enter second male MC. She cares for him but isn't crazy in love with him like she was main male MC. Meanwhile main male MC shows up (female MC has been hiding), finds out she's engaged, throws in the towel, but then realizes that he still wants to pursue her. They make up, second male MC goes nuts, then dies, male MC and female MC live happily together. It's like a smart, historical soap opera. Very high drama. It's Gone with the Wind with a smarter heroine and a trip to England. Actually I was vaguely inspired by the TV dramatization of "Scarlett", sacrilege that it was. So yeah, I think it starts off as a historical fiction with a romance intertwined and then maybe steers far left and ends up in historical romance territory. I've just got to put it firmly into one category or another.

I actually broke down e-mailed Deanna Raybourn to ask her advice. She's seems like a pretty cool person from her blog. Maybe she'll write back eventually.

I think you're right about Lauren Willig. She seems to embrace the historical romance title even though her books are in general fiction. Perhaps the only reason why she (and Deanna Raybourn for that matter) make it into that section is because their books are based around mysteries.

Thanks to you all for commenting. At least I have a little more clarity now!

CDancourt · Dec 10, 2011

Maybe the problem is with your query and not with your novel. Did you try to submit it here for critics?

job · Dec 11, 2011

oldhousejunkie said:
the male MC doesn't show up until Chapter 6 and then the female and male MCs are split up during the second half. They do reunite for a HE.

Then you may just not have enough of 'the relationship' in the story. It's a novel with a strong love story inside, but it may not be genre Romance.

None of this affects whether the story is good or bad. It just determines how the story is marketed.

oldhousejunkie said:
It's like a smart, historical soap opera. Very high drama. It's Gone with the Wind with a smarter heroine

When you describe it this way, it makes me feel like it might work as a somewhat eccentric Historical Romance. Unless there's some reason not to, go ahead and submit to agents who handle Romance. They are going to know who to market to.

oldhousejunkie said:
I actually broke down e-mailed Deanna Raybourn to ask her advice. She's seems like a pretty cool person from her blog.

She's a very nice person. She'll be in a panel at the Virginia Festival of the Book in March, if you're near there.

BethS · Dec 12, 2011

oldhousejunkie said:
Deb,

My only other option is to beef up the whole determined to revenge her family story line. It consumes much of the first half of the story, but falls by the wayside in the second after she meets her love interest.

Ummm...that may actually be your problem. Ideally, you want to have both arcs running for the length of the novel. And you for sure don't want to start one arc and let it fall by the wayside. This would give the story a disjointed feel, and ultimately make it an unsatisfying read.

oldhousejunkie · Dec 20, 2011

job said:
Then you may just not have enough of 'the relationship' in the story. It's a novel with a strong love story inside, but it may not be genre Romance.

None of this affects whether the story is good or bad. It just determines how the story is marketed.

When you describe it this way, it makes me feel like it might work as a somewhat eccentric Historical Romance. Unless there's some reason not to, go ahead and submit to agents who handle Romance. They are going to know who to market to.

She's a very nice person. She'll be in a panel at the Virginia Festival of the Book in March, if you're near there.

Eccentric historical romance. Love it!

I think I just made a decision to submit to some romance agents. What can hurt right?

Thanks to everyone for your patience and comments. I'll be lurking, as time permits...

New to this Board - Have I written a romance?

oldhousejunkie

Jersey Chick

Up all night to get Loki

oldhousejunkie

veinglory

volitare nequeo

oldhousejunkie

Deb Kinnard

oldhousejunkie

AutumnWrite

Old enough to know better

elindsen

Zombie lovin'

veinglory

volitare nequeo

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Deb Kinnard

oldhousejunkie

CDancourt

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

BethS

oldhousejunkie