Talk:Romance Novel
Get Talk:Romance Novel essential facts below. View Videos or join the Talk:Romance Novel discussion. Add Talk:Romance Novel to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Talk:Romance Novel

Potential other sources

  • Luther, Jessica Luther (March 18, 2013). "Beyond Bodice-Rippers: How Romance Novels Came to Embrace Feminism". The Atlantic.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Romance novel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Discussion of scope can continue as needed. Dekimasu?! 20:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


Romance novel -> Romance fiction - For the same reason mentioned at psychological fiction (formerly psychological novel): to make it clear that the genre isn't restricted to just novels. Also because "romance fiction" currently redirects here. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasu?! 04:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • The topic has a distinct niche within literature, specifically the mass market books. Is a split in order perhaps? One article about the "bodice rippers" and another about the broad genre of romance fiction (which applies to all media)?-- Netoholic @ 05:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Could we move this page to something that doesn't make the genre look restricted to just novels? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't separate articles on other media be a better idea? Also fiction is an ambiguous term, that is frequently applied to novels -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk o contribs) 14:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC).
I'd also prefer the term "love romance genre". This is because the term "romance" is ambiguous: it is also a long prose narrative related to the novel, which was defined by Walter Scott as "a fictitious narrative in prose or verse; the interest of which turns upon marvellous and uncommon incidents". That is, in reality, a romance is in fact a type of novel. (see Novel), Rwood128 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The topic isn't called "love romance" or "love romance genre". "Romance fiction" would solve the problem of confusion with romances as long fiction (which is a problem at the present title.--Cúchullain t/c 19:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd say this makes sense as a descriptive title covering all elements of, well, romance fiction. The novels may be the more significant part, but the article covers other variants like novellas and short stories as well.--Cúchullain t/c 16:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd possibly support a renaming to: "Genre of love romance fiction"? Rwood128 (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, "romance (genre)" should be a good idea. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC) -----Love romance (genre) -or just "Love romance"- is less ambiguous, given that this article focuses on just one form of romance. See the article Historical romance. Rwood128 (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC) There is also an article Historical fiction. Rwood128 (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a good topic, and we should have an article on it. It is poorly scoped at present and that should be fixed. Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the fact that this article just focuses on the mass-market version of the genre be acknowledged in the title- I suggest that the following: "Mass market love romance"? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk o contribs) 10:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly! Of course the article title should match its scope! But there are two ways of achieving this; Either we restore the scope of this article to its original intention, or we rename it. See #Factors. Andrewa (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per discussion, I think the current title is fine for describing the media type (similar to biographical novel, cookbook, self-help book, comic book). I suggest turning romance (genre) into a stub to cover the genre of romance used in TV, film, and, of course, books. Once this happens, we can retarget redirects, properly categorize, and make the two article distinct in purpose. I don't think Romance fiction has a strong definition and should probably redirect to the genre article. -- Netoholic @ 06:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENCY and the actual scope of the material ("The beginnings of American romance fiction", etc.). Whether we should also have an article on romance as a genre across media (yes, we should) is irrelevant. Anthologies of short romance fiction are common, and are not novels, but are within the scope of this article, and are not more within the scope of a general article on romance as an entertainment genre than they are within the article on romance literature. -- SMcCandlish ? ¢ ? 15:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Factors

  • The original scope of the article was romance novel. [1] This early article history is best kept with the current article, rather than moving it to match off-topic material mistakenly added later.
  • The more important article is romance novel. The term romance fiction is relatively obscure. [2] [3]. (But both probably deserve articles.)

What other factors should we consider? (And evidence too please.) Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa can you indicate what material you think was mistakenly added and which should be removed? But should this article distinguish between mass-market love romances and say the works of Jane Austen? I'd favour expanding the discussion back in time. Also the title needs to emphasize that its subject is "love romances", and not, say A Glastonbury Romance, or a historical or adventure novel.
An alternative would be to keep the focus on the mass-market genre (changing the title) and create a new article that focuses on the longer tradition of the genre of love romance. Rwood128 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The definition section needs to be revised so as to better acknowledger the early history of the genre and questions relating to both the literary and social value of this genre-including the undervaluing of literature written primarily for women. There must be some recent scholarly work of use here. See the "Critical attention" section. Rwood128 (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The first thing is to find a reliable source definition of romance novel. The current lead and the reference it gives
https://www.rwa.org/p/cm/ld/fid=578
refers to the romance genre rather than the romance novel. This is the first and primary problem. Whenever the lead was rewritten to refer to the genre, that refocussed the article and was in hindsight a mistake, as the title no longer quite matched the topic. Andrewa (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
M. H. Abrams gives Rob Roy, The Three Musketeers and Wuthering Heights as examples of romance novels ("Novel", A Glossary of Literary Terms, 1999, p. 192). What the Romance Writers of America define as the romance genre is popular, mass-market, love romances, which are distinguished from other works in the romance novel genre by how they are marketed.
Should the article be renamed "Mass-market love romances", or expanded to cover all the different kinds of romances-or just all the different kinds of love romances? If it is changed to "Romance fiction", films, etc, would also have to be included! Rwood128 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
We should have an article on romance novel. It's a good topic, even a moderately important topic. The question really is how we best get one, now that this page has been made into a mess of original research and esoteric theories of relatively little interest to the general reader. My suggestion still is, go back to the original scope of this article, and then see what other articles on genres and other related topics should also exist. And then create them. Andrewa (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa, wouldn't it help clarify matters if the title of the article better reflected the content. I therefore suggest changing it to Mass-market love romance rather than the proposed Romance fiction. However, you need to be more specific about what is irrelevant and esoteric in the existing article. Also what do others, including Kailash29792 (who started the discussion), think? I have commented enough for now. Rwood128 (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Or what about Love romance (genre fiction)? Rwood128 (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
That is exactly the question you asked before, just in different words. Of course it would help clarify matters if the title of the article better reflected the content. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a move is the best way of achieving this... in fact the more I look at them the worse these new title suggestions get. What is wrong with romance novel as a topic? IMO we need an article on it. Create another article on Mass-market love romance by all means if you have sources for this topic, and it may even gain a few page views. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, Andrewa, there is a misunderstanding here? I would be happy to see the scope of this article expanded beyond the current narrow emphasis on genre fiction. Maybe some bold editing of the lede is needed? Rwood128 (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Science fiction romance

I tried to update the Science Fiction Romance section. I do understand that my sources might not have been the most legit (websites instead of print books). I apologize for that. I understand why it had to be deleted. However, the information that was added after my attempt to update it is very much out of date. Ellora's Cave hasn't been in business for years. Neither has Silhouette. The market is mostly Indie now. Fantasy is NOT part of Science Fiction Romance. It is its own subgenre. Paranormal is also its own subgenre. I'm working with SFR writers and other experts to record the history of SFR more thoroughly and accurately. I would very much like to work with others contributing to this section.CynthiaSax (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. If you know of more recent, dependable sources, you are welcome to update the article.--Anita5192 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Talk:Romance_novel
 



 



 
Music Scenes