It’s fun, in a way, to watch the ongoing demolition derby over at the Romance Writers of America. First their Board tries to institute "graphical standards" and for book covers and member websites (banning certain images and words). That brilliant move went down in flames. Having not learned a thing from that embarrassing debacle, now they want to strictly define "romance" so they can presumably squeeze out writers and content the antiquated Board members (have you seen their hair?) find offensive, or don’t read, or simply don’t like.
Romance writer Alison Kent reports that the RWA sent out a survey to its members asking them to choose from their two arbitrary definitions of romance (which, like their "graphical standards," they probably devised without any input from their membership):
“Romantic Fiction” or “Romance” means a story in which a predominant
part of the story line focuses on the romantic relationship that
develops between CHOICE #1 one man and one woman / CHOICE #2 two people
on more than a physical level. Although other elements and subplots may
also be components of the story line, by the book’s conclusion the
romantic relationship has been resolved in an emotionally satisfying
Hard to believe this is an organization of WRITERS isn’t it? I’ve never seen a writing organization so eager to alienate its membership and destroy its credibility in the professional writing community at large. Why would any romance writer want to be associated with the RWA? You’re better off joining the John Birch Society instead.