Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2014-11-02 03:38 pm
[ SECRET POST #2861 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2861 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08.

__________________________________________________
09.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #409.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

no subject
(Anonymous) 2014-11-02 09:21 pm (UTC)(link)OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-02 09:51 pm (UTC)(link)Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-02 10:06 pm (UTC)(link)This is exactly like the "There isn't enough fic for this character!" rants.
If people wanted to see them, they'd write them. They don't.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-02 10:07 pm (UTC)(link)If romance was disallowed on the major fic archives, they wouldn't be major fic archives for very long. Because there is much less gen fic than romance fic.
Authors aren't going to stop writing ship fic. They'll just make their own archives and continue on, likely surpassing the archives that ban romance. So unless a site is existing on the kindness and large pockets of its owner, websites want hits. Want hits? Have ship fic. Because that is what the largest portion of fan-people read.
Then you'd want THOSE archives to disallow romance fic, because suddenly THEY'RE the popular archives. And it goes round and round the mulberry bush.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-02 10:14 pm (UTC)(link)Oh, I'm well aware that it's a pipe dream. But it's still a dream, and an honestly held opinion.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 05:59 am (UTC)(link)Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-02 10:43 pm (UTC)(link)Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 12:43 am (UTC)(link)Can you prove this? Because it sounds more like something you want to believe than something that's actually true.
If you added up all the romance novel sales, and then all other fiction with a romance element, you'd be well into the majority of all published fiction. Most bestsellers have some sort of romance element, even ones that are sold as YA, sci fi, crime etc.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 01:04 am (UTC)(link)But your second point is the most interesting to me because it might explain why a lot of people consider anything where the main focus isn't romance to be gen. Because there's A LOT of romantic threads and elements in crime and mystery fiction, but because it's not the focus it doesn't get called romance. Same with many other genres (YA, SFF, etc.).
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 01:14 am (UTC)(link)Romance is a women's thing. It will put men off buying. It's not prestigious.
Yet romance not only sells, most books actually feel odd without some element of it. Thus the polite cover up.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 01:20 am (UTC)(link)Because it's a huge part of the human experience, and books reflect the human experience.
And that's coming from an aromantic.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 01:34 am (UTC)(link)Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 01:48 am (UTC)(link)Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 01:50 am (UTC)(link)I tell a lie, Romance is its own category outside the Literature & Fiction category. Which also says a lot.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 02:06 am (UTC)(link)It's making me laugh, in fact. Romance is not literature!!!!
It's ingrained snootiness like this, even in Amazon's category divisions, that meant that I deliberately didn't read any novel marked romance for many years, believing romance to be a ridiculous, niche genre.
Perhaps they even do this deliberately, to make reading less threatening for a certain style of reader? At the same time, making other books by implication not-romance, they boost the snob factor of general literature, even though those books also probably contain romance in them.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 04:31 am (UTC)(link)However a look at the first page of Genre Fiction returns mostly romantic-centric books, so you have to wonder about the classification at all.
There still isn't anything close to "General Fiction". Which makes sense, because most fiction, barring avant-garde experimental stuff, is about something, so "General Fiction" in and of itself sounds like a nebulous misnomer.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 02:28 am (UTC)(link)But it's like, okay, so you'll accept hints of romance in a book you buy at Barnes & Noble but you won't accept it in a fic? Why? If it's in the background in both cases, then what makes the difference?
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 03:22 am (UTC)(link)Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 01:45 pm (UTC)(link)Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 08:44 pm (UTC)(link)And if you think the author has any say whatsoever on the genre the publisher decides to sell the book under, you're very much mistaken. We don't decide, they do, based on where they think the book will sell best.
No one 'mis-tags'. Genfic, if such a thing truly exists at all -- and I don't think it does -- is something different for everyone.
Re: OP
(Anonymous) 2014-11-03 11:12 pm (UTC)(link)So yes, agreed that it's not the writer who's responsible for how/where their books get marketed. One publisher's "thriller with romantic elements" is anothers "romance."