Change to Golden Heart/RITA Categories?
Posted by CM under Writing on Thu 3 May 2007
WA is suggesting the following changes to its categories:
9.2.6. BEST
SHORT HISTORICAL ROMANCEBEST HISTORICAL ROMANCE TO 1820-novels or sagas that have a strong romantic element throughout. The word count for these novels is 40,000-95,000 words.Romantic historical novel with a primary setting up to the year 1820. The story may take place at any geographic location. The level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.
Judging guidelines:In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying. :In this category, the story takes place primarily in years through 1820. The love story is the main focus of the novel and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying. If a book spans many years, the author should best determine the category in which it belongs. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.9.2.7. BEST
LONG HISTORICAL ROMANCEBEST HISTORICAL ROMANCE FROM
1790 – 1945-novels or sagas that have a strong romantic element throughout. The word count for these novels is over 95,000 words.Romantic historical novel with a primary setting in the years 1790 through 1945. The story may take place at any geographic location. The level of sexuality may range from sweet to extremely hot.
Judging guidelines: In this category, the story takes place primarily in years 1790 through 1945. In this category, the love story is the main focus of the novel, and the end of the book is emotionally satisfying. If a book spans many years, the author should best determine the category in which it belongs. These novels may or may not contain a high level of sexuality.Rationale for changing historical categories: Again, the board wished to eliminate the word count problem. With numbers dwindling, we examined merging both short and long historical into one category but felt that the historical novel could grow in the future. We hoped to allow for the change in popularity of one time period over another by providing overlapping years. An author whose book spans many years should determine where the novel best fits.
I like the idea of getting rid of “short” and “long” historical–those keywords were holdovers, I think, from the days when there were a number of “category” romances. But those days are no longer. But what exactly happened to the times? So if you write a book set in 1817, you can submit to both categories? Why would you have one category that was all the Regency and the Romans and the cave-dwellers, and another that was Victorians and Georgians? Is that really what they intended?
UPDATE: I e-mailed RWA Nationals and they said: Yes. It is intentional, because there are so many Regencies out there. Well, okay!









May 4th, 2007 at 8:03 am
It looks to me like they set it up so the first category includes everything from Victorian back and the second includes everything from Georgian forward. So Regencies can go in either place. In the first the Regencies would compete against Medieval and in the second against W.W.II.
I think they are going to regret that.
Alice
May 4th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I’m not seeing the logic of that change at all.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
To me, it would make more sense to have one category for Regencies, another for everything before the Regency, and one for everything set after it.
But then, I write early Victorian (more or less the same period as Lisa Kleypas), so I don’t particularly care to be lumped in with Georgians and Regencies, any more than I imagine the medievals and Elizabethans want to be lumped in with the Georgians and Regencies!
May 4th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
*scratching head*
Huh? My head is literally spinning.
Is this something we get to vote on? I’m with Jacqueline’s categories. All that I see happening here is endless speculation and jockeying to enter the category with less competition.
May 4th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I think the board votes on this, but I’m not sure.
There’s no such thing as “less competition” in the GH though–I think the top 10% advance. There may be weaker competition, but in the end, how would you know that?
The one I care about: Allowing you to enter with pseudonyms. I am very much in favor!
May 5th, 2007 at 9:04 am
The categories thing seems nonsensical to me — I’d love to see a regency/georgian only category, and I have no issue with allowing regencies/georgians to also compete in the broader category. But that is not what this is. This is a nonsensical coin toss.
Totally agree on the pseudonyms, though.
I believe the board vote is on Thursday, if these are part of the amendment package — I have that here but haven’t read through it yet. Two good friends who are involved at the board level have both told me that if I go, I *must* attend, and make sure we bring proxies of members who are not attending.
May 5th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Oh, CM, I’m SO with you on the pseudonym thing. The bane of my existence at the moment is that all my contest finals are in my real name. God forbid my company’s clients start googling my name on the Internet. Because as far as I know, every single reference to that name on the Internet pertains to me (I’ve googled myself; haven’t we all?) and a lot of the more recent ones are, of course, contest finals.
The last three contests I entered, I put my psuedonym on the entry form next to my name and begged for that to be used when making any announcements.
Pray for me. I entered an erotica!
May 7th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I just received my ballot in the mail. If you’re a RWA member, you’ll get to vote.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Cool . . . since I’m a new member, I should receive one. . .however, I haven’t been receiving my RWRs (sigh)
May 7th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
I, too, would really like my contest entries in my pseudonym. . . that way it doesn’t confuse any of the mass (cough, cough) who read my mystery stuff.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:11 am
This re-categorizing seems very odd indeed. I understand that it’s always going to be a little difficult deciding where the break is going to be between time periods, but having overlapping categories just seems needlessly complicated.
And Ericka, I also had the problem right after I registered of not receiving my RWRs. If you call the main office, they’ll mysteriously start appearing again!
May 9th, 2007 at 6:12 am
I also agree about the pseudonym thing. Can’t believe that wasn’t in there from the beginning!
May 10th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I hadn’t bothered to look at my ballot, but I will now!
Alice