I haven't exactly been searching out discussions, but it seems from my distant corner of the world that there's not been as much discussion on the changes to RITA categories as I'd expected. Possibly because writers are generally happy to embrace the changes. Possibly because they see them as positive. Possibly because their concerns/complaints were voiced back when the proposed changes were mooted. Or maybe all the heat was reserved for the changes to publisher recognition, PAN-eligibility and vanity/subsidy press definition.
Anyway, I've been thinking about the changes to the short contemporary category -- the one my books are eligible for -- and wondering if I'll enter the new category. In the past I was competing against other short category books: books published under Harlequin series lines such as Presents, Romance, Desire, Blaze, Medicals. Short books, limited by publisher word count. The longer series lines -- Superromance, Special Edition, Intimate Moments -- were eligible for the Long Contemporary category. And there was a category for Best Traditional Romance, which the sweet, non-explicit series book could enter.
But the publisher word counts changed, lowered, making the majority of the lines eligible under the old "short" guidelines. Hence this year's anomoly of seeing books from the same series lines final as both "short" and "long" contemporary romances. Confusing, much. Change was necessary and the change approved and to be implemented for next year's RITAs pits the majority of category/series books in one honking big category: Best Contemporary Series Romance.
There is a second category, Contemporary Series Romance: Suspense/Adventure. This is brilliant for authors of Sihouette Romantic Suspense, Harlequin Intrigue, suspense titles within SuperRomance and Blaze and the adventure/action segment of Mills & Boon Medicals. But as far as I can see, the rest of the Harlequin lines -- Presents, Romance, Modern Extra, Desire, Special Edition, American, most Medicals, Blazes and SuperRomances -- will all compete for the one RITA. The Traditional category has been deleted altogether.
I see the rationale, mostly. All books entered in this section have the romantic relationship at their core...although I don't agree with this statement from the Board's explanation of the new guidelines: "With the shrinking word counts at Harlequin/Silhouette, there is no longer an appreciable difference between the length of individual lines." I do think 20-30K is an appreciable difference (50K compared with 70-80K) and I don't believe the gap has shrunk, it has just slid down the scale. When I started writing for Desire, I was turning in 240+ page mss. Now that's shrunk to 200.
I see a huge number of eligible entries for this category -- both the short and long contemporary categories have seen maximum number of finalists in recent years, indicating a high number of entries. I also see that the list of "short" finalists this year is largely weighted toward the longer end of the spectrum. Maybe that was just this year. Maybe next year will be different and judges will find brilliance in the concise storytelling and quick pace of 50K books. I know that more words, more pages, do not necessary make a better book. But I also know those extra words allow for fuller characterisation and complementary layering and parallel subplot, more showing and less telling, more exploration of theme, more setting and descriptive detail.
Although maybe this category won't attract that honking huge number of entries I predict because other authors, like me, won't enter every eligible book. They will enter the pick of the litter, the one they are most proud of, and leave the rest. I dunno. *shrug* Perhaps it's only me who sees it this way.
So, anyway, that's what I've been wondering about this weekend. On the silver-lining side, if I don't enter I will save myself the entry fee and the postage. RITA is not a cheap contest. And I will be able to judge this category -- my favourite kind of reads -- as I did this year.
Labels: RITAs, weekend wondering
posted by Bronwyn Jameson @ 1:27 PM
