Friday, June 24, 2005
What The World Needs Now...
Is a perfectly precise definition of romance.
The powers that be at RWA have a member survey up for discussion to better define their (RWA's) representation of the romance genre. I'm completely astounded why the need to change their current definition at all (and I'll go back and find these definitions in a moment), unless it's to generate as much controversy as possible prior to the AGM in July. Are they deliberately whipping up the membership into a frenzy of activism in order to ensure attendance? If so they've chosen a very divisive way to do it.
Survey Choices:
A. The romantic relationship is between one man and one woman
B. The romantic relationship is between two people
And why limit the survey to two choices? I mean, I applaud the board for consulting the membership on this issue, but seriously, why is it even an issue? I really, really want to know why RWA needs to change the current definition. Who decided on these choices? Why isn't, let the existing definition stand, a choice? What about a few dictionary defintions to choose from?
There's an article currently on the RWA site in which Ms. Quinn herself quotes: "RWA established a simple and straight forward acid test for classifying a book as a popular romance novel. Our central-love-story/emotionally-satisfying-ending criteria will allow writers, readers, and other interested parties to fully understand what RWA means when it discusses ‘the romance novel,’ and all the statistics and demographics that refer to it," Quinn says.
At this rate I think I better pack some protective gear, nunchucks, and maybe a refresher course on self defense before I attend the AGM.
X
The powers that be at RWA have a member survey up for discussion to better define their (RWA's) representation of the romance genre. I'm completely astounded why the need to change their current definition at all (and I'll go back and find these definitions in a moment), unless it's to generate as much controversy as possible prior to the AGM in July. Are they deliberately whipping up the membership into a frenzy of activism in order to ensure attendance? If so they've chosen a very divisive way to do it.
Survey Choices:
A. The romantic relationship is between one man and one woman
B. The romantic relationship is between two people
And why limit the survey to two choices? I mean, I applaud the board for consulting the membership on this issue, but seriously, why is it even an issue? I really, really want to know why RWA needs to change the current definition. Who decided on these choices? Why isn't, let the existing definition stand, a choice? What about a few dictionary defintions to choose from?
There's an article currently on the RWA site in which Ms. Quinn herself quotes: "RWA established a simple and straight forward acid test for classifying a book as a popular romance novel. Our central-love-story/emotionally-satisfying-ending criteria will allow writers, readers, and other interested parties to fully understand what RWA means when it discusses ‘the romance novel,’ and all the statistics and demographics that refer to it," Quinn says.
At this rate I think I better pack some protective gear, nunchucks, and maybe a refresher course on self defense before I attend the AGM.
X
