Categorization is an essential part of how and why a publisher decides to market a book.
Hence the beginnings of Genre–I'm talking specifically about romance.
The RWA's mission is to help it's members sell. Therefore it's definition would cater to that.
What interests me here is the possibility that readers are used to the HEA and that's the reason why they want it to stay–this in no way is meant as an insult to anybody.
Reading is a hobby. We do it because we enjoy it. It comforts us. And we tend to want things that comfort us to stay the same forever–that's why I refuse to throw out the ratty old nightdress I'm wearing as I type this (nearly 4am here).
So it does make sense to me that people want the h/h HEA to stay.
Alau brings up what romance once meant. I do, at some level, agree, but I also see that publishing is a business. It's not gonna fly if you tell the RWA membership that this is why you need to change the definition. The publishers would laugh in your face.
Now, if we tried that now, they would laugh at us too.
But a few years down the road, who knows?
PS It occurs to me that if an editor reads a romance manuscript of mine (not that I've any) today and realises I'm THIS blogger, I have a feeling she'll drop me faster than a hot potato. (maybe Angie can answer this question LOL)
I don’t want to get into semantics, but I think the HEA should fit the characters not the characters fit the HEA–and that’s why there are so many lackluster romance novels sitting the shelves.
*semantics about what the word “romance” means! Rid me of presumption!