Contemporary, or Not? (Updated)
Updated 10 April 09: Thanks for all the input. I never thought I would read so many romances that I would actually have to split them up into more accurate sub-genres.
Recently, I was perusing my category tags, both on-line and off. Since I label even contemporary-set paranormals and urban fantasy as “contemporary”, it looks like I’ve read more contemporary books than historical.
My original thought behind labeling them as such was to distinguish them from historical-set fantasy and paranormal, on the off chance I read one — Mary Jo Putney’s “The Marriage Spell” — and futuristics — most of Colby Hodge’s “Twist” is set in the future.
I’m beginning to think that this is misleading. Readers looking for straight contemporaries might be unhappy to learn that the main female character in “Ace is Wild” is a psychic — though nowhere near the level of Feehan’s GhostWalkers or Singh’s Psy. Fans of those series might take exception to “Ace is Wild” being labeled as paranormal.
So my question is, is it misleading?
On a slightly related note. . .
In Magic Strikes by Ilona Andrews (urban fantasy set in an alternate-reality Atlanta), we learn one of the characters is a big fan of paranormal romances (not Kate — her favorite book is “The Princess Bride”). Later, we learn that several books (or all of them) by the character’s favorite author features. . .pirates.
This got me thinking. In Kate’s world there are shape-shifters, vampires, magic. What would these characters consider “paranormal”? Your average Harlequin Superromance? Chick-lit? Ye Olde Bodice-rippers of the 80’s?
And would a comtemporary be a story about a hunk of a werehyhena romantically pursuing a heavily armed Knight of the Order?
Anyone else pondered this?
There’s a poll in my sidebar regarding the labeling . Please take a moment to vote. Thanks.