News Juno Editor/Paula Guran on 28 Feb 2007 02:18 pm
BEST NEW ROMANTIC FANTASY
First, yes, the antholgy series’ second volume is now BEST NEW ROMANTIC FANTASY (not “Paranormal Romance”). More about that in a few days in a newsletter. (Not signed up? Sign up here.)
Second, fifteen emails have gone out. Once I receive acceptances from (I hope all) the authors, I will announce the list.
Cue the anticipatory music…
on 28 Feb 2007 at 4:21 pm 1.Nicole said …
Hey, I like it. I think that title allows lots more things in terms of reader expectations. As in my expectations would be wide open.
on 28 Feb 2007 at 4:23 pm 2.Lynn S. said …
I like that title. Can’t wait to see it on shelves!
on 28 Feb 2007 at 6:03 pm 3.Li said …
I do think that’s a much more accurate description – I look forward to seeing the list!
on 28 Feb 2007 at 6:25 pm 4.Juno Editor/Paula Guran said …
I guess the question is: We know “paranormal romance” sells. Does “romantic fantasy”?
on 01 Mar 2007 at 12:49 pm 5.Selah March said …
Is “Devil’s advocate” actually written into your job description, Paula?
I like the new title. I think sales will depend — at least partially — on shelf placement, though. Go for the romance section. Then, if someone moans about a lack of HEA, you can point to the title and say, “We never promised you a rose garden. Bitch.” (Just kidding. No. Really.)
Seriously, there are plenty of “urban fantasies” shelved with romance these days. People who need that HEA should know by now to read the fine print in order to figure out what they’re buying.
on 01 Mar 2007 at 1:28 pm 6.R Billing said …
Well done!
I think the title’s just about perfect, the distinction between “romance” and “romantic” should be just enough to clear up the confusion.
Looking forward to seeing it on the shelves.
(Wanders off, singing “Con-grat-u-la-tions…” in Cliff voice, thereby giving his age away.)
on 01 Mar 2007 at 3:03 pm 7.December Quinn said …
I love the title, I’d totally buy romantic fantasy!
on 01 Mar 2007 at 6:03 pm 8.Li said …
“I guess the question is: We know “paranormal romance” sells. Does “romantic fantasy”?”
I’d buy both – but would have slightly different expectations of the stories in each (without wanting to re-open the whole romance and HEA debate here!).
Another question though: Having posted above that I thought the title was more accurate this time around, what about the more SF-orientated stories? E.g. in the first book, I’d have classified Catherine Asaro’s story more as SF than fantasy…
on 01 Mar 2007 at 7:09 pm 9.Juno Editor/Paula Guran said …
Yup, I’d say the York and the Asaro were both SF. Of course “paranormal romance” traditionally included “futuristics”, so it definately came within what I was looking for.
Now, however, we have “fantasy” in the title and the expectations of that word. Sorta cuts SF out, doesn’t it? But then again we keep talking about “fantasy with focus on female” — and we have a couple of SF-ish books coming out, too.
Sigh.
on 02 Mar 2007 at 1:42 pm 10.Stringer said …
Oh, yeah, I’ll buy it!
In all candor, I’d prefer a ‘romantic fantasy’ to a ‘paranormal romance’. With a ‘paranormal’, I’ve been programmed to expect vampires, werewolves, ghosts and shapeshifters – none of which bear any appeal for me.
But with ‘fantasy’, the spectrum is much, much wider.
The lack of a guarantee of the HEA means far more may be at stake, reiterating that there are *no* guarantees in life. And I like not knowing what is going to happpen in a work of fiction. It keeps me on my toes as a reader, and I actually get more out of the story.
I can’t stand predictability in stories. Where’s the suspence, my reason to keep turning pages, if I know for an absolute certainty there’s going to be an HEA? A ‘romance’ dictates the necessity of the HEA, which pretty much is a spoiler.
So thanks for the different category! Hurrah!!
on 04 Mar 2007 at 5:58 am 11.Jed said …
Nitpicky question: Does the title still have a “2″ in it?
Over on the year’s best sf info page, I’m currently tentatively calling the next two volumes “Best New Romantic Fantasy (2007 edition)” and “Best New Romantic Fantasy (2008 Edition)”, but if there’s a number of some sort in the title, let me know and I’ll update the page.
on 04 Mar 2007 at 8:50 am 12.The Stalker on Sunday « Milady Insanity said …
[...] The next volume of Best New Paranormal Romance will be called Best New Romantic Fantasy. In my not very humble opinion, I think it’s a better fit. [...]
on 11 Mar 2007 at 2:30 pm 13.March Books « Me and my books said …
[...] Belladonna (Anne Bishop): The second book in her Ephemera duology (fantasy, but with strong romance – would this be romantic fantasy? *grin*). Seriously, I just love all of Ms Bishop’s books, so this is an auto-buy for me. Oh, and yes, I liked the first book “Sebastian” too. Excerpt here. [...]
on 11 Mar 2007 at 3:14 pm 14.Juno Editor/Paula Guran said …
You, know, I read BELLADONNA and was a little disappointed. I think it is partially because I didn’t read the first book and the whole idea of Ephemera was really hard to grasp from Belladonna alone. It will be interesting to see if, since you read the other, you enjoy it more.
on 16 Mar 2007 at 1:48 am 15.Barbara Gordon said …
I definitely prefer Romantic Fantasy. Paranormal Romance makes me think primarily of vampires, secondarily of the darker, horror side. Romantic fantasy could be any sort of fantasy, from high to urban to dark to fairytale, with a romantic element.