Regurgitated from the Chicklit Thread

[ned]

Copied and pasted from the last post on the chick lit thread:

I'm reading all about Steeple Hill and I just want to make sure that while they apparently turn out some nice readable romances, they also have nice strict CBA conventions. Is that a bad thing? No. But their work can't really be compared to Harlequin or even referenced as Chick-Lit as such because these restrictions are sooooo overwhelming different from what the standard is. Here are two links to explain what I might say this and yes, it's just my opinion. :)

This is a FAQ
http://www.hodrw.com/inspirefaq.htm (http://www.hodrw.com/inspirefaq.htm)

Here's their writers guidelines:

http://www.eharlequin.com/articlepag...=559&chapter=0 (http://www.eharlequin.com/articlepage.html?articleId=559&chapter=0)

This is definitely not your everyday Chic-lit. Here's an excerpt from their writer's guidelines if you don't want to follow the link. Again, not judging, just saying there are overwhelming differences in the two, Harlequin and Steeple Hill Romances. Steeple Hill has always been a CBA affiliated publisher which means they have restrictive conventions. When they were bought up by Harlequin, they kept those restrictions. The only advantage to this buy out was that now a CBA publisher had distributors for the general market. The issue I have with that is that CBA authors serve a niche market, a highly conservateve evangelical niche market and many times they don't make this clear which has a lot of authors submitting without knowledge of what they'll accept (which is actually the authors own fault because the guidelines are out there) but readers are often dismayed because they aren't aware that they're reading from a niche market. This leads them to make judgements about Christian romance as a whole that simply aren't accurate. There are tons of Christian romances outside this niche market though.

Now for the excerpt.

"Because Steeple Hill sells to both CBA and ABA bookstores, we must adhere to CBA conventions. The stories may not include alcohol consumption by Christian characters, dancing, card playing, gambling or games of chance (including raffles), explicit scatological terms, hero and heroine remaining overnight together alone, Halloween celebrations or magic, or the mention of intimate body parts. Lying is also problematical in the CBA market and characters who are Christian should not lie or deceive others. Possibly there could be exceptional circumstances (matters of life and death), but this has to be OK'd by an editor."

I swiped this from the last post under the chick lit thread, since it seems to have little to do with that topic, and I'd like to address this topic once more. (It's been mentioned now and then.)

I agree with you, that this particular publisher has guidelines that I'd have a hard time following. First, I write historical fiction, and it would be impossible write a realistic representation of Georgian England without either card playing or dancing. Both were part of everyday socializing.

However, if the romance novels this publisher brings out are of fairly modern times, I have no trouble with the guidelines. Yes, it poses numerous challenges for the writer. How can my MC get through a day without being in bed, undressing for the shower, using the loo, or getting lost in the woods and spending the night in a cave with her hero? (Well, maybe that would be avoidable...) But honestly, for the rest, none of these things really need to be mentioned for a good story. When I read fiction from other periods, I don't find references to bathroom functions, the everyday acts of dressing, undressing, bathing, etc.

Jane Austen managed to write several beautiful novels and never a mention of body functions. The challenge for the Christian writer is no different than Miss Austen's. We can tell the story, we can say what we mean without using the required words. We know her characters felt sexual desire. We know they (the males, at least) participated in countless debauches. Jane doesn't have to spell it out for us to understand what people are doing. But she was a skillful writer, a brilliant writer. It's not easily done. I know; I've been working on these problems for six years or more. I want to write a realistic novel, with real, dimensional, believable characters, but don't want to betray my personal guidelines for writing fiction, which is: "Don't write anything mom couldn't read."

I know this isn't the way Art is supposed to be done. But it's the standard I've set for my own art.

Agreed, not many Christian romance novels measure up to what I expect from a work of fiction. Some do, however. Some writers can tell a whapper of a story, and the reader never misses the references to bowel movements or underwear that would exist in a secular novel. Others, I'm afraid, leave me cold. For some reason, some writers fail to engage me as a reader. They fail to make me care what happens to their main characters. And much of the time, these writers are following strict guidelines such as those listed above.

My theory is that for some writers, guidelines like these constipate the imagination. They are so fixated on following the rules, that in the end their story sounds like an outline of a story. It reminds me of writers who lack confidence, or who are afraid to tell the truth becuase the truth may hurt someone's feelings. Or break someone's rules.

I've tried to look at this both ways. I've read numerous books that would be suitable for this publisher/agent or whoever makes rules like these. Some were quite good, if not what I currently enjoy reading. At the same time, it feels so wrong to stifle an artist. I just don't know what the answer is. I can write a good story. I do a good job. And sometimes my characters (gasp) sin. That's what I write. Can't change it.

I recently read something that I found reassuring. The quote is from a text I had to read for a college course, and within the context of that class, it was roundly criticized. Nevertheless, I wholely agree with Dr. Johnson when he said:

It is justly considered as the greatest excellency of art to imitate nature; but it is necessary to distinguish those parts of nature which are most proper for imitation: greater care is still required in representing life, which is so often discoloured by passion or deformed by wickedness. If the world be promiscuously described, I cannot see of what use it can be to read the account; or why it may not be as safe to turn the eye immediately upon mankind, as upon a mirror which shows all that presents itself without discrimination."
Johnson: Rambler #4 (March 31, 1750)

[Mumut]

So these people want books that show a world where people don't drink, smoke, make love, tell fibs or put a couple of dollars on the Melbourne Cup. That's pretty way-out fiction!

[windyrdg]

If it wasn't so important, these guidelines would be laughable. Unfortunately, these people are the gatekeepers. I feel like we're in a real bind. The ABA bookstores won't touch things deal with religious themes and CBA doesn't want anything that remotely reflects the reality of the world we live in. What's the solution, write tepid fiction?

Maybe they haven't looked at the Bible recently. People are killin' 'n' fornicatin' 'n' worshipin' idols 'n' doin' all sorts of stuff you can't put in their books.

[Roger J Carlson]

"Because Steeple Hill sells to both CBA and ABA bookstores, we must adhere to CBA conventions. The stories may not include alcohol consumption by Christian characters, dancing, card playing, gambling or games of chance (including raffles), explicit scatological terms, hero and heroine remaining overnight together alone, Halloween celebrations or magic, or the mention of intimate body parts. Lying is also problematical in the CBA market and characters who are Christian should not lie or deceive others. Possibly there could be exceptional circumstances (matters of life and death), but this has to be OK'd by an editor."
Well, I admit these strike me as odd. I come from a pretty conservative denomination, and card playing hasn't been much of an issue since the 70s. Dancing either.

On the other hand, 2 of my 3 novels would comply with these guidelines, although neither is a romance. One is science fiction and the other is a mystery. My second novel doesn't, but only because it's a fantasy and magic is part of the story.

The part that annoys me, however, is the lying. Christians lie. They just do. I can't see any reason why a Christian character shouldn't lie, have that be the beginning of a problem, and have the character resolve it, learning along the way that lying isn't the best solution. Basic storytelling. Much of Shakespear is based around someone telling a lie and all the repercussions of it.

I can see saying that lying should never be an acceptable solution for a problem, but Christian characters should never lie or deceive? Ridiculous.

[Inspiewriter]

So these people want books that show a world where people don't drink, smoke, make love, tell fibs or put a couple of dollars on the Melbourne Cup. That's pretty way-out fiction!

and just reconfirms the impression that Christians should be perfect.

[ned]

Well, face it. Corrie ten Boom lied to the Germans about the Jews hiding in her secret room. But didn't her sister tell the truth, that her boys were hiding "under the table?" And in that case, the soldiers were furious because they thought she was making fun of them. She proved to Corrie that telling the truth is just as safe, if God is protecting those he loves. Still, I don't know of anyone who blamed Corrie for lying. I feel sure I would have done the same thing.

My best work of fiction takes place during a war. The mc lies constantly. Yes, it's a problem, but in every case, he feels he is justified. Then, when he tires of lying and tries to tell the truth, he faces real, negative consequences. It's as though lying is the better choice, although he believes it is not.

But this is not the theme of the book, just part of his character.

As I said, most of what I write would fall into this company's guidelines, but only by accident. I would resent being forced into that mold if I felt my story needed more to be believable. I suppose that's why I've never thought of trying this lot. I remember when I first began this process, I found similar guidelines from a publisher called Hartline. They are well-known and respectable, and they publish a lot of Christian fiction. But they are not for me. They have a market, clearly. But I feel that another market is being somewhat neglected, and that is readers who want a little more meat with their milk.

I like fiction that really speaks to me, that inspires me or teaches me a life lesson, if only by accident. This type of book does none of those things for me, because I don't find it accessible. I can relate to nothing in the stories, and nothing in the characters. For those who can, I am glad. I'm not one of them, so I write the sort of thing that inspires me, that I can relate to, or that I can at least understand.

A perfect, sinless Christian is not a character I understand. I don't see how he or she could inspire me or give me any kind of inspiration. In all honesty, stories such as those leave me cold.

[Mumut]

I think a better Christian outcome in a story is that these things happen but they aren't used by the MC to solve the problem - the goodies don't win because of socially unacceptable behavior. And the more subtle it's done, the better.

[Jenny]

You can shoot me down for sweeping generalizations, but a lot of people read romance novels as fantasy. It is an escape into a "better" world, hence the guarantee with Harlequin of a happy ending. I'd assume (and I know assumptions are dangerous) that people buying Steeple Hill do so because they can rely on a particular fantasy world being developed -- one in which people don't lie, gamble or refer to body parts;). If that fantasy world won't hold your writing or the story crying out to be written by you, fortunately there are other publishers :)

[ned]

I think a better Christian outcome in a story is that these things happen but they aren't used by the MC to solve the problem - the goodies don't win because of socially unacceptable behavior. And the more subtle it's done, the better.


Very good thought. I remember hearing a Christian radio broadcast several years ago (while I was painting the inside of the coat closet). They were discussing the evils of Harry Potter. The greatest complaint was that Harry often won by breaking the rules. He broke the rules, and was always rewarded for it. They complained about his lying more than any other thing.

[ned]

You can shoot me down for sweeping generalizations, but a lot of people read romance novels as fantasy. It is an escape into a "better" world, hence the guarantee with Harlequin of a happy ending. I'd assume (and I know assumptions are dangerous) that people buying Steeple Hill do so because they can rely on a particular fantasy world being developed -- one in which people don't lie, gamble or refer to body parts;). If that fantasy world won't hold your writing or the story crying out to be written by you, fortunately there are other publishers :)

Guilty of a hundred generalizations a day, I won't shoot.

I agree; romance, as a genre, originated as adventure, the heroic epic, Tom Jones, that sort of thing. The word's meaning has changed; now it usually refers to novels in which two people meet, fall in love, and after overcoming a few obstacles, make it work. (Or simply realize they are in love.) It still retains much of the original meaning, in that there are a series of episodes of adversity before the happy conclusion.

But it must have the happy ending, or it isn't acceptable.

I agree with this: for me, all stories should have a satisfactory, if not happy, ending. I don't care for modernists who leave the reader guessing. That kind of realism isn't satisfying unless one is just reading for the sake of enjoying the art of the writing, and not caring how the story ends. I don't care for art fiction, although I read it for the sake of learning.

I have a brilliant book by Christopher Booker called "The Seven Basic Plots." In it, he describes the human psychological need for stories to be told in certain ways. He gives specific examples of all-time best-selling fiction, and how it always falls into this pattern that fits that need. It's an amazing book, which took the author something like twenty years to complete. Also, it's not cheap. But well worth it, if you are into learning aobut the theory of fiction writing.

[stc]

I have a brilliant book by Christopher Booker called "The Seven Basic Plots." In it, he describes the human psychological need for stories to be told in certain ways. He gives specific examples of all-time best-selling fiction, and how it always falls into this pattern that fits that need. It's an amazing book, which took the author something like twenty years to complete. Also, it's not cheap. But well worth it, if you are into learning aobut the theory of fiction writing.

Agreed--brilliant book--foundational, essential, for writers of fiction. And it's a fun read! No turgid academic sludge--Booker's a journalist, a solid writer.

Fyi, it's not that expensive. Both amazon and powell's have new/used copies for $17-$18. Can't recommend this book highly enough.