The Normalization of Genres And Paradigms Within Romance

Yesterday, I blogged about books that lack soul. Today I am going to talk about why readers sometimes complain about authors and publishing houses putting out the same stuff over and over (it can often feel like that to readers).

I am about to unload a whole bunch of theory on ya. I know, I know. Theory often makes my ears bleed. But I have been thinking about why certain tropes and modes of soullessness have become the "norm," sometimes theory can offer an explanatory model that better illustrates what may be occurring.

PLEASE NOTE: I am going to speak in generalizations and speak to what appears to be a dominant trend and there will always be exceptions.

I have been reading romance novels since the mid 1980s and I have noticed a steady trend towards normalization of certain sub genres within the genre itself.

The lovely image above is of a social network. Now, bear with me before you roll your eyes. I am talking about something bigger than social networking sites like Twitter.

We all belong to many different networks and we all have different roles within each network. Let's take an author who also works in an office. If she is published, she probably belongs to an author loop for each publisher she has books with--each of these are their own distinct networks and can exert influence on the author. If she writes romance, she may belong to the RWA or some other like organization that has a local as well as a national/international network. She belongs to multiple networks in her office as well, each with different roles. If she has kids, she may belong to the PTA so there are a few networks there. Each individual is a node, in the image each node is a dot. Individuals are tied to other individuals within a network as well as to individuals in other networks.

The more networks a person belongs to, the more likely her ideas can attain a farther reach. Likewise, the larger a network is, the more ideas can be shared and move around. Throw in social media and email and these ideas spread like wildfire. Unlike the 1980s and early 1990s when these connectors simply did not exist. Are you with me so far?

Now the denser a network is, in that image it is represented by the dark indigo colour, can alter how ideas are received. Sure, ideas have a greater reach, but now they are subject to normalization. Simply put, this is a process through which the social network(s) determine which expressions/ideas are acceptable and which are not. In the romance genre, this could mean that Regency romance is a more acceptable form of "historical" romance over other time periods (I am not saying this is true necessarily, I am merely using it as an example here). This can also determine how one writes as an author. This is also part of a paradigm.

One could also argue that organizations have the most to gain when they normalize ideas and the most to lose when they are no longer the arbiters of what is acceptable. One could also state that normalization occurred around 2005, but now that paradigm is being threatened.

Thomas Kuhn, in his work The Structure of Scientific Revolution, outlined how norms/paradigms come to prominence and how they are challenged. This occurs in three phases--the pre-paradigm phase (there are multiple paradigms but none are dominant), the "normal science" (one paradigm is dominant), and the revolutionary science phase (the paradigm is being questioned and new paradigms are being offered).

I would argue that publishing and the romance genre are just entering the Kuhnian third phase that heralds a paradigm shift.

What is causing this shift? Digital publishing. Self-publishing.

Organizations look to a strict set of factors to identify who plays what role within their organization. The RWA, for example, has rules for who can be what sort of member, even if these rules seem anachronistic and not only privilege the old paradigm but also help legitimate the norms that that paradigm has established through the primary/dominant networks (in this case NY publishing houses and the like). Now, people are already starting to question the rules. One good example is Jackie Barbosa's latest blog post about how the RWA determines who is published when faced with a plethora of new publishing opportunities.

Publishing houses do not know what to do now because the models they have held to, and have tried to dictate to members within their network, are being challenged. For instance, Marsha Canham writes about her experiences as a self-publisher and why she cut herself out of her publisher's network (and how the publisher/editor tried to normalize her writing).

So, now that I have given you some theory, next time we will talk about what has been normalized and how it has undergone that.