![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I do not think that means what you think it means...
I checked the book Story Structure Architect out of the library this week. Not because I think it will driectly help me, as it's pretty didactic about things, but because it felt good. It's a well-designed book, attractive and reminiscent of blueprints, with color and design used quite effectively. Plus, it might serve as reverse-inspiration: the sort that happens when I read something that says "Do [this] in [this] manner," and my reaction is "Oh HELL no!" and I go and do it completely differently, out of spite.
However, that's not what this post is about. What this post is about is one line in an early chapter when it's defining subgenres (and one wonders exactly what the need to define genre is, in a book that's aimed at a slightly more experienced writer than your basic beginner) in Romance:
Er.
How on earth did Victoria Lynn Schmidt, Ph.D. come up with this definition? Regency romance does not by definition mean that it deals with monarchs, but that it takes place during a specific historical time and place when the UK was ruled by a regent. There are tons of Regency romances that haven't got a single crown in them.
Most of the rest of the definitions of genre are at least halfway decent, but that one stuck out as really, completely, and utterly wrong wrong wrong.
However, that's not what this post is about. What this post is about is one line in an early chapter when it's defining subgenres (and one wonders exactly what the need to define genre is, in a book that's aimed at a slightly more experienced writer than your basic beginner) in Romance:
Regency: Monarchs,rulers, and kings aboundUm.
Er.
How on earth did Victoria Lynn Schmidt, Ph.D. come up with this definition? Regency romance does not by definition mean that it deals with monarchs, but that it takes place during a specific historical time and place when the UK was ruled by a regent. There are tons of Regency romances that haven't got a single crown in them.
Most of the rest of the definitions of genre are at least halfway decent, but that one stuck out as really, completely, and utterly wrong wrong wrong.