Urban Fantasy vs. Paranormal Romance
The other day, I stumbled upon a discussion in fangs_fur_fey concerning the differences between urban fantasy and paranormal romance. At first glance, I thought it rather a silly question, but the term "paranormal romance" is a rather slippery eel, owing its origin to romance but has since made its way to the SF/F section, and suddenly, anything with any kind of romance is considered "paranormal romance," even though it's not. For the record, I prefer "speculative romance" myself, but that's beside the point.
I started reading the comments to the thread, which if you must read it, click here, and decided that I couldn't even respond without coming off as horribly bitchy, hence this post. :) So here's my ranty take, for what it's worth, which isn't much, as I'm only a reader, and not a published writer. /sarcasm
Fact: urban fantasy does not have to have romance in it.
Fact: paranormal romance DOES have to have romance in it.
Fact: some urban fantasy HAS romance in it, but is still not considered paranormal romance UNLESS the whole point of the plot IS the romance.
Why?
There's a difference between romance and romantic sub-plots/romantic elements. What makes something ROMANCE is that the ROMANCE is the goal of the story, the turning point in the plot. When the point of the plot is romance, they're paranormals. When the romance is a subplot or even simply romantic elements, it's urban. To me. :)
It's why Diana Gabaldon's Outlander is romance first, historical second. It's why Catherine Asaro's Primary Inversion is BOTH science fiction AND romance, due to the nature of how the story's goals are accomplished.
Kelley Armstrong's Bitten is paranormal romance. Carrie Vaughn's Kitty and the Midnight Hour is not. The latter has romantic elements, but it's definitely urban fantasy. And when it comes to serial works, some books in the series can be urban fantasy, and some can be paranormal romance.
I'm am so tired of this debate. To me, coming from the SF/F side of it, it makes perfect sense. It gets a little muddled when I read discussions by people who either primarily read romance, and therefore have INGRAINED expectations to what should happen, or people who primarily read and write YA, who don't see the distinction between urban fantasy and paranormal romance because in YA, there IS no distinction. It's all YA.
Not that I'm picking on YA or romance readers. I'm reading more in both genres myself, and I'm enjoying them. I'm learning a lot. It's just that some of the perspectives of readers in these genres boggles my mind. Granted, SF/F readers have some ugly perspectives too, especially when it comes to how MUCH romance, if any at all, should take place in their books. There's bias all around. But COME ON. The difference isn't THAT hard to figure out. Paranormal romance MUST have romance in it. Urban fantasy doesn't. Just because there's magic and vampires and werewolves and witches in each sub-genre doesn't mean the sub-genres are synonymous. It has nothing to do with the gender of the protagonist. It has nothing to do with happy endings or no. And for goodness sakes, it has nothing to do with the mis-shelving or mis-marketing of the books by booksellers and publishers.
Urban fantasies are magical stories set in urban areas. That's it. Charles De Lint, Jim Butcher, Chiana Mieville, they write urban fantasy. Call their stuff paranormal romance and you're going to get some weird looks.
For all intents and purposes, HARRY FREAKING POTTER could be considered urban fantasy. Though, it could be contemporary/modern fantasy, depending on which sections of the books you're reading.
Or must we dissect the differences between urban fantasy and contemporary/modern fantasy? This might make my head hurt, but here goes: contemporary/modern fantasy doesn't have to take place in an urban setting! And URBAN fantasy does!
Shocking, isn't it? Who would have ever GUESSED?
Genre "boundaries," such as they are, can get blurry as hell. And some people insist that sub-genres don't exist because they're constructs of marketing, booksellers, and the audience. But they are there, and while there's plenty of books that mix-and-match genres (a trend that's not changing any time soon), let's not leave common sense by the wayside.
Confusing terms like paranormal romance and urban fantasy is just about as silly as saying fantasy is science fiction, or that science fiction is fantasy (some die-hard SF readers and writers will fight the idea that their SF, which is rooted in hard science, is FANTASY, which is rooted in magic. This is another debate, and there's different arugments concerning which genre is a subset of the other, but to many readers I've talked with, there's a strong difference between use of magic (fantasy) and use of science (SF); then, of course, there's the lovely genre of science fantasy, but that muddles things up on purpose)***. The point is, it's like adding Buffy the Vampire Slayer to a list of The Top 10 Best Sci-Fi Shows EVER. It's stupid, because no matter how "great" (I use quotes cause I've never watched the show and therefore cannot endorse it's "greatness") it is, it's not SF in any form or fashion.
Just because the genres beget one another (fantasy evolved out of SF, not the other way around), just because they share the same influences and shelf space, does not mean the genres or sub-genres are synonymous or interchangable. Don't use them if you don't like them, but for goodness sake, if you ARE going to use them, use them properly. Please?
I know it's splitting hairs, but it's starting to give me a headache. And I freely admit I could be wrong. This could be one of those cases of "Shara-logic" where it makes PERFECT sense in my head, but unless you know me really well or are my brain twin, it's the stupid conclusion in the world. :)
I'll shut up now. :)
*** Edit = I've been corrected, and you'll be interested to read all about it here. Or not. ;)
I started reading the comments to the thread, which if you must read it, click here, and decided that I couldn't even respond without coming off as horribly bitchy, hence this post. :) So here's my ranty take, for what it's worth, which isn't much, as I'm only a reader, and not a published writer. /sarcasm
Fact: urban fantasy does not have to have romance in it.
Fact: paranormal romance DOES have to have romance in it.
Fact: some urban fantasy HAS romance in it, but is still not considered paranormal romance UNLESS the whole point of the plot IS the romance.
Why?
There's a difference between romance and romantic sub-plots/romantic elements. What makes something ROMANCE is that the ROMANCE is the goal of the story, the turning point in the plot. When the point of the plot is romance, they're paranormals. When the romance is a subplot or even simply romantic elements, it's urban. To me. :)
It's why Diana Gabaldon's Outlander is romance first, historical second. It's why Catherine Asaro's Primary Inversion is BOTH science fiction AND romance, due to the nature of how the story's goals are accomplished.
Kelley Armstrong's Bitten is paranormal romance. Carrie Vaughn's Kitty and the Midnight Hour is not. The latter has romantic elements, but it's definitely urban fantasy. And when it comes to serial works, some books in the series can be urban fantasy, and some can be paranormal romance.
I'm am so tired of this debate. To me, coming from the SF/F side of it, it makes perfect sense. It gets a little muddled when I read discussions by people who either primarily read romance, and therefore have INGRAINED expectations to what should happen, or people who primarily read and write YA, who don't see the distinction between urban fantasy and paranormal romance because in YA, there IS no distinction. It's all YA.
Not that I'm picking on YA or romance readers. I'm reading more in both genres myself, and I'm enjoying them. I'm learning a lot. It's just that some of the perspectives of readers in these genres boggles my mind. Granted, SF/F readers have some ugly perspectives too, especially when it comes to how MUCH romance, if any at all, should take place in their books. There's bias all around. But COME ON. The difference isn't THAT hard to figure out. Paranormal romance MUST have romance in it. Urban fantasy doesn't. Just because there's magic and vampires and werewolves and witches in each sub-genre doesn't mean the sub-genres are synonymous. It has nothing to do with the gender of the protagonist. It has nothing to do with happy endings or no. And for goodness sakes, it has nothing to do with the mis-shelving or mis-marketing of the books by booksellers and publishers.
Urban fantasies are magical stories set in urban areas. That's it. Charles De Lint, Jim Butcher, Chiana Mieville, they write urban fantasy. Call their stuff paranormal romance and you're going to get some weird looks.
For all intents and purposes, HARRY FREAKING POTTER could be considered urban fantasy. Though, it could be contemporary/modern fantasy, depending on which sections of the books you're reading.
Or must we dissect the differences between urban fantasy and contemporary/modern fantasy? This might make my head hurt, but here goes: contemporary/modern fantasy doesn't have to take place in an urban setting! And URBAN fantasy does!
Shocking, isn't it? Who would have ever GUESSED?
Genre "boundaries," such as they are, can get blurry as hell. And some people insist that sub-genres don't exist because they're constructs of marketing, booksellers, and the audience. But they are there, and while there's plenty of books that mix-and-match genres (a trend that's not changing any time soon), let's not leave common sense by the wayside.
Confusing terms like paranormal romance and urban fantasy is just about as silly as saying fantasy is science fiction, or that science fiction is fantasy (some die-hard SF readers and writers will fight the idea that their SF, which is rooted in hard science, is FANTASY, which is rooted in magic. This is another debate, and there's different arugments concerning which genre is a subset of the other, but to many readers I've talked with, there's a strong difference between use of magic (fantasy) and use of science (SF); then, of course, there's the lovely genre of science fantasy, but that muddles things up on purpose)***. The point is, it's like adding Buffy the Vampire Slayer to a list of The Top 10 Best Sci-Fi Shows EVER. It's stupid, because no matter how "great" (I use quotes cause I've never watched the show and therefore cannot endorse it's "greatness") it is, it's not SF in any form or fashion.
Just because the genres beget one another (fantasy evolved out of SF, not the other way around), just because they share the same influences and shelf space, does not mean the genres or sub-genres are synonymous or interchangable. Don't use them if you don't like them, but for goodness sake, if you ARE going to use them, use them properly. Please?
I know it's splitting hairs, but it's starting to give me a headache. And I freely admit I could be wrong. This could be one of those cases of "Shara-logic" where it makes PERFECT sense in my head, but unless you know me really well or are my brain twin, it's the stupid conclusion in the world. :)
I'll shut up now. :)
*** Edit = I've been corrected, and you'll be interested to read all about it here. Or not. ;)