Genre difficulty

Is the novel simply historical, or is it alternative history? It can't really be both.

If it is Alt-History (Lincoln wasn't assassinated, Hitler won WWII), then you may want to check out the SciFi/Fantasy boards. We're a friendly bunch.

If it is just historical (John Jakes, for example), the best bet is Mainstream/Contemporary.

But all of the boards are fun to visit, so make sure to sample each one as often as possible.

It is logical that the genre section 'romance' would focus on romance as a genre rather than a theme. However if romance is a large part of the story -- e.g. your fiction is a historical saga with a female protagonist, then romance might be the best place. if it is a period peice in which some incidental relationships occur then perhaps 'mainstream'. If it is alternative history then 'fantasy'?

But if you opt for romance I suggest dropping the 'Fabio on the cover' line. We a just a little more diverse than that might suggest. Although I for one would kill for the publicity of having Mr F. on the cover of my gay erotic romance ebooks...

I think alternative world is definitely fantasy--one of my favorite types.

Alternate history is still grouped with science fiction and fantasy, even if there is no magic or different technology. Remember, science is not only about technology. Sociology, anthropology, political science, etc. all have a lot to do with alternative history. Observing the differences made in history by changing an important event is quite similar to observing molecular reactions; figuring out society's quirks takes the same kind of analytical mind that it takes to debug a computer system. Science fiction isn't all lasers and spaceships. It never really has been.

I'm sorry, Ted, but I don't understand your question. Since I'm the romance moderator, I can assure you that we discuss every sort of romance in the Romance Forum. But where is the quote portion of your post being pulled from? Is this a different discussion about the issue of romance? Maybe I could answer the question in context with the original.

This portion especially confuses me:

A romance is: A book length prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious.

Click to expand...

Where is this definition pulled from?

It is a rather vague defintion that doesn't mention, for example, a romantic relationship

Well, going far, far back into the origins of literary works, the original "romances" were serial (episodic) metrical poems of daring-do, of knights and ladies and courtly love affairs. But in the 1500's, romances began to include prose--brought about mainly by Spanish novels that involved heavily supernatural elements with love involved only as a secondary thread. But modern, 19th and 20th century "romances" evolved beyond the adventures to focus primarily on the love affair between the two main characters. That's not to say that every novel involving romance is necessarily SHELVED in romance. There are quite a few of what are deemed "love stories" that are shelved in General Fiction or Mainstream Fiction.

The difference between what is shelved in Romance versus the "love stories" are whether a) the relationship is the focus of the book, and b) the parties achieve a "happily ever after" (HEA.) Presently, novels that do NOT include an HEA wind up either in Women's Fiction (which are basically female-centric tales of life and living) or General Fiction. Historical fiction doesn't really have its own section of the bookstore, unless it's a Western (meaning United States West from 1830-1900), or shows up in the Regional section.

That's not to say that publishers aren't looking for historical, but the term "historical" precludes an alternate history--the goal is to fit the elements within KNOWN history. An alternate history literary novel with a strong romantic element would, as veinglory said, probably wind up in Fantasy. It's not a bad place to be, overall, but if your goal is to have the book treated as a serious literary work, the placement on the shelf will be difficult to overcome.

However, I wouldn't dismiss the romance shelves as somehow inadequate for your needs, since romance readers might be more discerning than you believe. Long gone are the days of trite, overblown stories. There are any number of current romance novels that are quite literary, and keep in mind that romance readers account for over 50% of the book buying public.

Or, is there more to your question than appears?

Cathy C said:

Where is this definition pulled from?

Click to expand...

That's Uncle Jim's definition from the beginning of the Learn Writing With Uncle Jim thread and, as he says, it's the literary theory definition of romance, not the average reader's definition.

Oh, I see. Then it's a fine definition for apples but the romance sub-forum is for pears (or vice versa).

Actually...

No, actually what it says is that alternate history stories are included as qualifying for membership in the society. But in the links provided which "define" historical, this one includes:

"The simplest definition of historical fiction is that it is set in the past, before the author's lifetime and experience, but there's much more to it than that. Historical fiction makes a point of conveying a serious respect for historical accuracy and detail, and its intention, beyond providing reading pleasure, is to enhance the reader's knowledge of past events, lives, and customs"

"Egregious anachronisms are unacceptable violations of genre expectations for Historical Fiction (e.g. introducing cars into 19th-century historical fiction or giving women rights that they did not have during a past setting of a historical fiction)."

Click to expand...

These seem to preclude alternate histories unless primary events remain true to our existing time line.

Or this other link:

Historical fiction, then, is the artistic form that springs from this impulse to give a shape to the past. But it’s not JUST to give a shape to the past. It is to bring part of the past ALIVE into the present.

Click to expand...

To me, this is the most accurate description of the "romantic novel." Breathing life into the past -- stripping away the illusion of the truth the history texts try to pound into students, to show that there are two sides to every story (and quite possibly, many more!)

But returning to the primary question, I think while Ted's book might follow the origins of romantic literary works, it wouldn't be wise to TELL potential publishers it's a "romance." Because the current definition (primary plot=romance with HEA) is so strongly set in the minds of booksellers and the reading public, the book wouldn't be seen to qualify for inclusion in the publisher's list.

I'd suggest calling it general fiction, mainstream fiction or alternate reality fiction. This will at least give you a fighting chance at finding an editor who will seriously consider it for their line. Ultimately, though -- it's up to the PUBLISHER to decide what to call it by placing the genre on the spine and in the logline of the catalogue to the booksellers/distributors.
Good luck!

I do feel your pain, Ted. Our first novel was historical fiction and, like you, I spent HUNDREDS of hours on the tiniest detail -- from learning when the stick match was invented and whether it could be used to light a lantern, to scouring old newspapers on microfiche for hints about a shoe style. Fortunately, the true historical readers appreciated the detail, and serious reviewers and scholars gave it an approving nod.


Perhaps you might consider whether you're more interested in scholarly acclaim or overall sales. A small publisher (a GOOD small publisher) might take this on more readily if you seek out those specializing in historical. While our book never sold through the original press run, it was looked to by serious railroad scholars as a solid, accurate telling of the story, and won an award for best historical chronicle by the state's independent publisher association. Since my GOAL was to write an accurate story about the real events that occurred, but humanize the events enough (by adding details that might/might not have occurred) to make it exciting, I'm happy with the result.

HNS comments.

I'm at work and can't lay my hands on the copy of the HNS Review or the last Solander (HNS mag) but the comments re alternate histories and publishers were in there.
Perhaps Richard et al need to update the HNS site?

Could be. I'd be interested in more details about that, though. It could be useful information to pass along to other historical writers. Please and thanks, pdr!

HNS

Solander - Autumn 2005. Toby Frost provides an overview of alternate history and I'm sure the comment re publishers is in his article.