- If you’re going to call a book The Billionaire’s Virgin Stable Girl because you know it will sell, then accept responsibility for a sizeble chunk of the scorn heaped on romance and readers who love it.
- And the same goes for cheesy covers.
- Leave it to Beaver is s-o-o-o-o over. We had some excellent suggestions about what to call faux-temporaries and I think Mayberry Romances really fits the bill. If a book features Grams and PawPa and a 50 year-old mom who spends her leisure time in the sewing circle with Aunt Bea, kick it back. Please.
- The whole destined lovers thing in paranormal romances is really getting old. Seriously. Old as dirt. Okay, so J.R. Ward gets a pass because…well, because she’s J.R. Ward, but genetic destiny does not excuse alpha-creatures leveling a heroine’s objections with a thrust of his massive supernatural dick.
- Meredith Duran, Sherry Thomas, Elizabeth Hoyt, Gail Carriger, Lavinia Kent: May we have more, please?
- Please avoid the following descriptors: Kick-ass, feisty, miss, tempestuous.
- If a book features a heroine running from ruthless pursuers while wearing stilettos, know that it will be ridiculed. It is the modern day equivalent of an historical heroine investigating mysterious noises in the middle of the night while wearing a nightgown and carrying only a candle. The next time I come across this, I am going to call in the angry torch-carrying villagers.
- You all say that historical romance is limited to Regency or Victorian England because those time periods are the only ones that sell, but can you do more than pay lip service to trying something different? I’ve heard over and over again, a variation along the lines of “well, we tried that and it didn’t sell.” Well, why didn’t it sell? Lack of marketing support? A lousy cover? The fact is publishers don’t seem to know, which leads me to…
- Tail Wagging the Dog Syndrome. Publishers has it. Regency and Victorian may be selling because consumers have only Regency and Victorian to choose from. Readers may actually like Regency and Victorian (I do), but if they had more choices, don’t you think there’s a chance they might be open to something different – just as they used to be? Publishers seem curiously resistant to consumer research which might actually answer that question and that fact leaves me with my mouth hanging open in disbelief. Literally.
- Ebook pricing and release dates. For God’s sake, can we just settle this already? For the record, when I buy an ebook, I am buying a book. From a publisher. Supporting an author. It pisses me off when ebook releases are delayed. It says to me as a consumer that you don’t care about me as a consumer. And, just to put this on the table, I will not pay more for an ebook than a paper book. Will. Not. Do. It. (And, while I’m on the subject, ebook prices may piss me off, but they will not turn me into a pirate. I find those who say readers who are unhappy with ebook prices will turn to piracy presumptuous beyond belief. You may speak for yourself, but you most definitely don’t speak for me.)
So, how about you? Got something you want to get off your chest?
– Sandy AAR
Found your website on AOL. Thanks for these great informations. Oh by the way, pretty website layout.
Found your website on AOL. Thanks for these great informations. Oh by the way, pretty website layout.
I absolutely accept the previously mentioned remark, the web is definitely growing into the most important channel of connecting internationally and it is thanks to websites like this that concepts are spreading so fast.
I absolutely accept the previously mentioned remark, the web is definitely growing into the most important channel of connecting internationally and it is thanks to websites like this that concepts are spreading so fast.
I think Regency and Historical novels sell not because that’s all that is out there to read, but because I know I would continue to search the world over for more of them if suddenly a new fad of not writing them took place. That to me would be a shame. I think they are endearing and also “”timeless””.. BUT, I agree new story lines are needed in them. New types of Hero’s and Heroines both. But they are not boring in the least to me and many others I know and yet the plots need some revamping or out of the box thinking and for sure new writers are needed. I think the new writers need to be given a chance to be heard. I think they are not getting the same advantages and many unique novels are perhaps being overlooked which would have been best sellers had they been given a chance and opportunity to have them read. There is something truly romantic about Regency times, where the male seemed to be a little more valiant then what we have today, no offense to anyone but there is no doubt a valiance is missing from our world in the romantic sense and I think that is perhaps why so many people enjoy that setting of time. It was during a time that Chauvanism was on its way out and they were conquering this during this time setting and then finally men/women were getting a grip that we no longer need to be Neandathal’s and women needed to be viewed as the intellectual person she truly was in all angles and aspects.. I personally think issues have taken place when we hit the modern times in many ways not admitted and which are overlooked for women struggled for so long just to have the right to vote, think or enjoy education as a man has and so because that the extremes have taken place where many women and men are confused with their roles romantically and men are afraid of valiance and sometimes women are portraying a role that is less feminine then times gone by. Before I get taken wrong I am not thinking that women were not kicked around for they have been the brunt of horrifying events over the eons of time and I have personally written about that in my non fiction writings and on large forums and I do believe they needed to be set free, and they still are not; in many ways. But during the change from Regency to present modern day some things were for sure lost and it seemed the pendulum swung too far to opposite sides with male/female roles and so instead of Neandathal attitudes that women have put up with for eons you got the opposite side of it now in many ways and to me that LACKS “”Romance:.. Where is the fun if heroe’s are not valiant or honorable? and women have to always defend themselves continually, did we really get past all this non equality if we still have issues with male/female running a muck? I think we went from Neandathal to the Romantic time of finally being viewed as we were where meant to be viewed and those few valiant men who stood by their sides during the hardest of times cannot be denied as they had a new found presentation they were beginning to be allowed to express. Finally ! But still even within the generation of my Grandmother did women first have the right to vote which was the early 1900’s. Can you believe it ! And so we still had work to do but by the time we got some of our independence we became sort of rough around the edges often due to having to fight for our rights. Sort of took away the romantic view of a women’s previous role to men and so the men didn’t sit pretty to it and some still don’t and yet those that accepted it, became more passive or some of the ones that didn’t accept it became more aggressive and so still we have issues to this very day. There is such a thing as going overboard in one area and not in another and so I think the Regency time was the time of hope and New Beginnings and that to me is very Romantic and the men that struggled for their woman’s independence were probably to me some of the most… Read more »
I think Regency and Historical novels sell not because that’s all that is out there to read, but because I know I would continue to search the world over for more of them if suddenly a new fad of not writing them took place. That to me would be a shame. I think they are endearing and also “”timeless””.. BUT, I agree new story lines are needed in them. New types of Hero’s and Heroines both. But they are not boring in the least to me and many others I know and yet the plots need some revamping or out of the box thinking and for sure new writers are needed. I think the new writers need to be given a chance to be heard. I think they are not getting the same advantages and many unique novels are perhaps being overlooked which would have been best sellers had they been given a chance and opportunity to have them read. There is something truly romantic about Regency times, where the male seemed to be a little more valiant then what we have today, no offense to anyone but there is no doubt a valiance is missing from our world in the romantic sense and I think that is perhaps why so many people enjoy that setting of time. It was during a time that Chauvanism was on its way out and they were conquering this during this time setting and then finally men/women were getting a grip that we no longer need to be Neandathal’s and women needed to be viewed as the intellectual person she truly was in all angles and aspects.. I personally think issues have taken place when we hit the modern times in many ways not admitted and which are overlooked for women struggled for so long just to have the right to vote, think or enjoy education as a man has and so because that the extremes have taken place where many women and men are confused with their roles romantically and men are afraid of valiance and sometimes women are portraying a role that is less feminine then times gone by. Before I get taken wrong I am not thinking that women were not kicked around for they have been the brunt of horrifying events over the eons of time and I have personally written about that in my non fiction writings and on large forums and I do believe they needed to be set free, and they still are not; in many ways. But during the change from Regency to present modern day some things were for sure lost and it seemed the pendulum swung too far to opposite sides with male/female roles and so instead of Neandathal attitudes that women have put up with for eons you got the opposite side of it now in many ways and to me that LACKS “”Romance:.. Where is the fun if heroe’s are not valiant or honorable? and women have to always defend themselves continually, did we really get past all this non equality if we still have issues with male/female running a muck? I think we went from Neandathal to the Romantic time of finally being viewed as we were where meant to be viewed and those few valiant men who stood by their sides during the hardest of times cannot be denied as they had a new found presentation they were beginning to be allowed to express. Finally ! But still even within the generation of my Grandmother did women first have the right to vote which was the early 1900’s. Can you believe it ! And so we still had work to do but by the time we got some of our independence we became sort of rough around the edges often due to having to fight for our rights. Sort of took away the romantic view of a women’s previous role to men and so the men didn’t sit pretty to it and some still don’t and yet those that accepted it, became more passive or some of the ones that didn’t accept it became more aggressive and so still we have issues to this very day. There is such a thing as going overboard in one area and not in another and so I think the Regency time was the time of hope and New Beginnings and that to me is very Romantic and the men that struggled for their woman’s independence were probably to me some of the most… Read more »
As a debut historical writer, I am excited to read comments by readers who want eras other than Regency and Victorian. Although I *love* both time periods as a reader and as a writer, I am also fascinated by eras like the Middle Ages, the American West and the Great Depression. If characters from those eras present themselves to me, I want to write them and have them sell!
P.S. If you like different historical eras, I recommend Carrie Lofty’s ‘Scoundrel’s Kiss’, placed in 13th century Spain.
As a debut historical writer, I am excited to read comments by readers who want eras other than Regency and Victorian. Although I *love* both time periods as a reader and as a writer, I am also fascinated by eras like the Middle Ages, the American West and the Great Depression. If characters from those eras present themselves to me, I want to write them and have them sell!
P.S. If you like different historical eras, I recommend Carrie Lofty’s ‘Scoundrel’s Kiss’, placed in 13th century Spain.
You’ve nailed it! It’s lack of courage on the part of the publishers that I find most irritating. The “Well, we tried that and it didn’t sell” mentality prevents innovation and limits the consumer to the same old stuff. As you said, “”Regency and Victorian may be selling because consumers have only Regency and Victorian to choose from,”” and to me that’s why staleness creeps into the genre.
You’ve nailed it! It’s lack of courage on the part of the publishers that I find most irritating. The “Well, we tried that and it didn’t sell” mentality prevents innovation and limits the consumer to the same old stuff. As you said, “”Regency and Victorian may be selling because consumers have only Regency and Victorian to choose from,”” and to me that’s why staleness creeps into the genre.
Amen to much of what’s already been written. Here are my additions, basically under the heading of “”How To Think Outside The Box”” in our Primer for Publishers:
A. Tell me a story.
– I’d rather read a well-written first novel with original concepts by a new author than a formulaic 14th novel by a tapped out author who obviously has nothing more to say. (Even if I used to love that author a decade or two ago.)
B. Don’t try to sell me drivel.
– These days, I read better quality fiction online (for free!) than much of what’s available in print. If the authors do publish, it’s often POD releases. Good writers are clearly out there, therefore, major publishing houses need to go fishing for their new authors from the right talent pools!
C. Other heroes are Sexy.
– Where have all the smart heroes gone? I adore Peter Whimsey, Jasper Damerel & John Smythe for their humor and their erudition. I’m sure other women have their preferences, too. So, give us wider selection of heroes!
Whew! Thanks for letting me get that off my chest! :-)
Amen to much of what’s already been written. Here are my additions, basically under the heading of “”How To Think Outside The Box”” in our Primer for Publishers:
A. Tell me a story.
– I’d rather read a well-written first novel with original concepts by a new author than a formulaic 14th novel by a tapped out author who obviously has nothing more to say. (Even if I used to love that author a decade or two ago.)
B. Don’t try to sell me drivel.
– These days, I read better quality fiction online (for free!) than much of what’s available in print. If the authors do publish, it’s often POD releases. Good writers are clearly out there, therefore, major publishing houses need to go fishing for their new authors from the right talent pools!
C. Other heroes are Sexy.
– Where have all the smart heroes gone? I adore Peter Whimsey, Jasper Damerel & John Smythe for their humor and their erudition. I’m sure other women have their preferences, too. So, give us wider selection of heroes!
Whew! Thanks for letting me get that off my chest! :-)
I think there are not enough vampire/werewolf and shapeshifter paranormal historical romances.. I for one would love to see MORE Regency romances and I love all I have read and hope they DONT stop writing them either .. YES I prefer not the contemporary romances.. That’s just me but please dont start doing all Contemporary either.. That would be such a loss.. I am writing Eve Silver to do more Regency novels, Gothic set in Regency times. I’m also a writer and plan to do the same.. Somehow Vampires in Black Leather dont turn me on.. They dont turn me off either but I think that Vampires modern style doesnt fit too good.. So, I am only writing this to show that there are many of us that LOVE romance novels just as they are and YES I like Noble Class Regency Heros but alos woudnt mind a few that are not Noble Class.. I’m not really sick of any that I’ve read and hope they keep coming. In fact I wish there were more Regency and More Gothic if anything … That’s my forte though and this is what I plan to write about. Take care,
I think there are not enough vampire/werewolf and shapeshifter paranormal historical romances.. I for one would love to see MORE Regency romances and I love all I have read and hope they DONT stop writing them either .. YES I prefer not the contemporary romances.. That’s just me but please dont start doing all Contemporary either.. That would be such a loss.. I am writing Eve Silver to do more Regency novels, Gothic set in Regency times. I’m also a writer and plan to do the same.. Somehow Vampires in Black Leather dont turn me on.. They dont turn me off either but I think that Vampires modern style doesnt fit too good.. So, I am only writing this to show that there are many of us that LOVE romance novels just as they are and YES I like Noble Class Regency Heros but alos woudnt mind a few that are not Noble Class.. I’m not really sick of any that I’ve read and hope they keep coming. In fact I wish there were more Regency and More Gothic if anything … That’s my forte though and this is what I plan to write about. Take care,
Thank you for your list, Sandy; and for all those who have replied.
I have a lot more than ten suggestions for what I would and would not like to see in romance fiction. But here I’ll list just those that haven’t already been covered in this blog and its responses.
1. Paranormal fiction that’s NOT about a vampire/werewolf/demon hero and the woman who must save him. There are so many other fantasy/science fiction themes a romance writer can explore—eg. magic, aliens, time travel, reincarnation, and of course benign supernatural beings. But right now only the nasty-creature-as-hero sort of paranormal romances are on the bookstore shelves. That’s great for those who go for this sort of fiction; but how about something for the rest of us as well? Some of us reader/writers can hardly wait until someone pounds a stake into the heart of vampire romances.
2. LB already mentioned this point, but I must emphasize this: PLEASE give us some romances, a few at least, in which the hero isn’t a billionaire, or (in historicals) a member of the upper nobility. I mean, what’s wrong with ordinary guys? Think of all the plot possibilities for romantic heroes who rank low on the social scale and must work for a living. I for one don’t fantasize about snagging Donald Trump or the like. Why must a guy be loaded before he’s desirable? Not in my book, literally or figuratively.
3. If a romance is contemporary, PLEASE make it contemporary in spirit as well as setting. Too often it’s not. Right now the subgenre is dominated by billionaire, babies, and marriages of convenience. If that’s what a large portion of the readership wants, okay; but please publish at least some contemporary romances in which the heroine is truly modern.
And modern women don’t have to marry for money. Assuming wealth and social position are important for us, we can work toward these goals. Modern women don’t enter into marriages of convenience, for ANY reason—unless they’re golddiggers, or worse; and I don’t care to read about them. And if there are babies and/or little kids in a romance, they should serve some purpose other than forcing a man and a woman who distrust if not hate each other into marrying for the children’s sake.
In short: if it doesn’t happen in real life, it shouldn’t happen in romance fiction. Well, there are obvious exceptions in paranormal romances; but I hope I’ve made my point.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you for your list, Sandy; and for all those who have replied.
I have a lot more than ten suggestions for what I would and would not like to see in romance fiction. But here I’ll list just those that haven’t already been covered in this blog and its responses.
1. Paranormal fiction that’s NOT about a vampire/werewolf/demon hero and the woman who must save him. There are so many other fantasy/science fiction themes a romance writer can explore—eg. magic, aliens, time travel, reincarnation, and of course benign supernatural beings. But right now only the nasty-creature-as-hero sort of paranormal romances are on the bookstore shelves. That’s great for those who go for this sort of fiction; but how about something for the rest of us as well? Some of us reader/writers can hardly wait until someone pounds a stake into the heart of vampire romances.
2. LB already mentioned this point, but I must emphasize this: PLEASE give us some romances, a few at least, in which the hero isn’t a billionaire, or (in historicals) a member of the upper nobility. I mean, what’s wrong with ordinary guys? Think of all the plot possibilities for romantic heroes who rank low on the social scale and must work for a living. I for one don’t fantasize about snagging Donald Trump or the like. Why must a guy be loaded before he’s desirable? Not in my book, literally or figuratively.
3. If a romance is contemporary, PLEASE make it contemporary in spirit as well as setting. Too often it’s not. Right now the subgenre is dominated by billionaire, babies, and marriages of convenience. If that’s what a large portion of the readership wants, okay; but please publish at least some contemporary romances in which the heroine is truly modern.
And modern women don’t have to marry for money. Assuming wealth and social position are important for us, we can work toward these goals. Modern women don’t enter into marriages of convenience, for ANY reason—unless they’re golddiggers, or worse; and I don’t care to read about them. And if there are babies and/or little kids in a romance, they should serve some purpose other than forcing a man and a woman who distrust if not hate each other into marrying for the children’s sake.
In short: if it doesn’t happen in real life, it shouldn’t happen in romance fiction. Well, there are obvious exceptions in paranormal romances; but I hope I’ve made my point.
Keep up the good work!
Let’s go French Revolution on all these books and get rid of the aristos. And by that I don;t mean I want to see books about the terror, but rather, less books about worthless men who inherited everything they own, and have never had to make a living for themselves, who fall in love with women that are less well off then them but are smarted and better then all the other petty women. This set up worked the first 100 times, but after a while I’d like to read about a man who made his own way and did something to earn the title hero aside from being born. I know publishers think that we just want to see the word Duke in the title, but that’s because we’ve been brainwashed to think the way 1800s women were, that a man’s worth was in the title, if you put out a few good storys where the aristos were the stuck up asses we all know they were people wouldn’t care about who’s a Duke or a Viscount.
Let’s go French Revolution on all these books and get rid of the aristos. And by that I don;t mean I want to see books about the terror, but rather, less books about worthless men who inherited everything they own, and have never had to make a living for themselves, who fall in love with women that are less well off then them but are smarted and better then all the other petty women. This set up worked the first 100 times, but after a while I’d like to read about a man who made his own way and did something to earn the title hero aside from being born. I know publishers think that we just want to see the word Duke in the title, but that’s because we’ve been brainwashed to think the way 1800s women were, that a man’s worth was in the title, if you put out a few good storys where the aristos were the stuck up asses we all know they were people wouldn’t care about who’s a Duke or a Viscount.
I loved the list. The one I would add is the still a virgin at 30 years old. I mean, C””MON. I am so sick of contemporary books having these women never having had sex or even sexual thoughts until they met the hero who turns them on to it with one kiss. Oh, and it’s orgasmatically good right off the bat. I can’t even read those books anymore. I have less issue with this in historicals, I just kind of go with it. But in a Silhouette or harlequin where you are trying to convince me she’s happily stayed a virgin til he appeared it just ain’t gonna happen. I keep hoping there will be more Rachel Gibson’s who’s characters seem to have active and healthy sex lives before meeting the hero. What a concept! Now, if only we get more books like that.
I loved the list. The one I would add is the still a virgin at 30 years old. I mean, C””MON. I am so sick of contemporary books having these women never having had sex or even sexual thoughts until they met the hero who turns them on to it with one kiss. Oh, and it’s orgasmatically good right off the bat. I can’t even read those books anymore. I have less issue with this in historicals, I just kind of go with it. But in a Silhouette or harlequin where you are trying to convince me she’s happily stayed a virgin til he appeared it just ain’t gonna happen. I keep hoping there will be more Rachel Gibson’s who’s characters seem to have active and healthy sex lives before meeting the hero. What a concept! Now, if only we get more books like that.
Regarding Time Periods, well I’m certainly not going to NOT read a book because it’s Regency or Victorian England. If anything, I’m familiar with the setting now and I seriously want to resist the temptation to limit good authors by telling them not to write a story that captivates their imagination. (I know you’re not sayinig that, Sandy! I get that you just want publishers to actually try.)
Having said that I don’t want to limit the expression of creativity, I just can’t help but remember how I amazed my family at 13-years-old when during a heated debate between my father and my uncle, I idly threw out that William the Conquerer invaded England in 1066. How did I know that? Because “”October 28, 1066″” is the first line in Kathleen Woodiwiss’s “”The Wolf and the Dove.”” Given her status as a “”pioneer”” in this genre, I have a hard time believing that it wouldn’t sell now. Are Publishers seriously trying to say that Judith McNaught’s “”Kingdom of Dreams”” wouldn’t sell because it’s set in the 13th Century? Have they noticed the popularity of tv’s “”The Tudors?””
I think that we are victims of trends and I deeply suspect that a decade or so from now, we’ll look at the current turn of the millenium trend and ask publishers if they can publish anything besides a “”Twilight”” knock off.
As for the covers, I have to admit that my Kindle solved the problem altogether for me.
I have tried using these sorts of contraptions when my friends have had them, but they just wouldn’t work for me for the long haul. I can get thru messages and stuff like that, but to read a whole book would probably not fly. My eyes just can’t manage that kind of screen for long term. The print in books is much easier for me. Maybe they have changed much within the last couple of years. If so, I’ll need to visit them again. But it was not a good experience for me initially.
Hopefully, reading “”books”” won’t go out of style. I realize so many are just loving their kindles and similar devices and more power to them. But if the books do stick around, I’m still in favor of doing something about those horrible romance fiction covers.
Regarding Time Periods, well I’m certainly not going to NOT read a book because it’s Regency or Victorian England. If anything, I’m familiar with the setting now and I seriously want to resist the temptation to limit good authors by telling them not to write a story that captivates their imagination. (I know you’re not sayinig that, Sandy! I get that you just want publishers to actually try.)
Having said that I don’t want to limit the expression of creativity, I just can’t help but remember how I amazed my family at 13-years-old when during a heated debate between my father and my uncle, I idly threw out that William the Conquerer invaded England in 1066. How did I know that? Because “”October 28, 1066″” is the first line in Kathleen Woodiwiss’s “”The Wolf and the Dove.”” Given her status as a “”pioneer”” in this genre, I have a hard time believing that it wouldn’t sell now. Are Publishers seriously trying to say that Judith McNaught’s “”Kingdom of Dreams”” wouldn’t sell because it’s set in the 13th Century? Have they noticed the popularity of tv’s “”The Tudors?””
I think that we are victims of trends and I deeply suspect that a decade or so from now, we’ll look at the current turn of the millenium trend and ask publishers if they can publish anything besides a “”Twilight”” knock off.
As for the covers, I have to admit that my Kindle solved the problem altogether for me.
I have tried using these sorts of contraptions when my friends have had them, but they just wouldn’t work for me for the long haul. I can get thru messages and stuff like that, but to read a whole book would probably not fly. My eyes just can’t manage that kind of screen for long term. The print in books is much easier for me. Maybe they have changed much within the last couple of years. If so, I’ll need to visit them again. But it was not a good experience for me initially.
Hopefully, reading “”books”” won’t go out of style. I realize so many are just loving their kindles and similar devices and more power to them. But if the books do stick around, I’m still in favor of doing something about those horrible romance fiction covers.
I agree with most of the points, but please leave out number 4. I love the whole mated/soulmate thing in paranormals. It’s my favourite trope.
I wish there were more witty contemporaries to read (a la Crusie or SEP) and less Navy Seals. Can’t we leave the politics of the military type thing alone.
I agree with most of the points, but please leave out number 4. I love the whole mated/soulmate thing in paranormals. It’s my favourite trope.
I wish there were more witty contemporaries to read (a la Crusie or SEP) and less Navy Seals. Can’t we leave the politics of the military type thing alone.
Why blame Heyer for the Regency/Almack’s/London glut? She wasn’t nearly as one-note as the Regency copycats are. She set books in the English countryside (not to mention other countries), not everyone was titled, she wrote contemporaries, Georgians, and medievals in addition to Regencies, and she had very few spies as heroes.
I actually gave up reading Regencies (other than Edith Layton and a tiny handful of other good writers) because the copycatting was both so blatant and so badly done. Some things haven’t changed since the 1980s.
And if KariLyn was including the Austen “”sequels””, I’m definitely with her on those as well. If authors want to write fanfiction, go for it, but at least call it that so that I know what I’m getting. I don’t really need to know what someone else thinks happened to Darcy and Elizabeth after the end of P&P, I’ve got my own imagination for that.
Lynda X, thanks for the request to get rid of “”clean””! As opposed to WHAT? No, don’t tell me, I don’t think I want to know.
Why blame Heyer for the Regency/Almack’s/London glut? She wasn’t nearly as one-note as the Regency copycats are. She set books in the English countryside (not to mention other countries), not everyone was titled, she wrote contemporaries, Georgians, and medievals in addition to Regencies, and she had very few spies as heroes.
I actually gave up reading Regencies (other than Edith Layton and a tiny handful of other good writers) because the copycatting was both so blatant and so badly done. Some things haven’t changed since the 1980s.
And if KariLyn was including the Austen “”sequels””, I’m definitely with her on those as well. If authors want to write fanfiction, go for it, but at least call it that so that I know what I’m getting. I don’t really need to know what someone else thinks happened to Darcy and Elizabeth after the end of P&P, I’ve got my own imagination for that.
Lynda X, thanks for the request to get rid of “”clean””! As opposed to WHAT? No, don’t tell me, I don’t think I want to know.
I realize the covers need to say “”romance”” but have a hard time believing they have to have nude male torsos or overflowing bodices on them in order to sell! ;-) I can think of some authors whose covers don’t embarrass, like Kristan Higgans, Rachel Gibson, Susan Andersen, Susan Donovan, Jennifer Crusie, Deirdre Martin, Elaine Fox, Nora Roberts, Georgette Heyer, and some of the romantic suspense I read (such as Debra Webb, Laura Griffin, Suzanne Brockmann). Linnea Sinclair’s scifi-rom has decent covers, although I kind of miss the older ones that looked more “”sci-fi”” than “”rom.””
I think a cover can be romantic and even sexy (like the cover of Kristan Higgan’s latest or Jill Sorenson’s Set the Dark on Fire) without reinforcing the idea that romance novels are for lonely women who aren’t getting any. And while some people might not think to pick up a novel if the cover isn’t racy, there have to be just as many who avoid the embarrassing covers and therefor avoid the books within. I won’t shop for romance books at my local Barnes and Nobles because the romance section is directly next to the cafe. I’m a teacher/tutor and I run into students and their families often while shopping at that mall store. I’m not embarrassed about reading romance (any more than I am about reading mystery or fantasy books), but I AM embarrassed by too many of the covers/titles to want to be seen buying them. Now that i read the comments here, I realize I’m not alone feeling that way.
I realize the covers need to say “”romance”” but have a hard time believing they have to have nude male torsos or overflowing bodices on them in order to sell! ;-) I can think of some authors whose covers don’t embarrass, like Kristan Higgans, Rachel Gibson, Susan Andersen, Susan Donovan, Jennifer Crusie, Deirdre Martin, Elaine Fox, Nora Roberts, Georgette Heyer, and some of the romantic suspense I read (such as Debra Webb, Laura Griffin, Suzanne Brockmann). Linnea Sinclair’s scifi-rom has decent covers, although I kind of miss the older ones that looked more “”sci-fi”” than “”rom.””
I think a cover can be romantic and even sexy (like the cover of Kristan Higgan’s latest or Jill Sorenson’s Set the Dark on Fire) without reinforcing the idea that romance novels are for lonely women who aren’t getting any. And while some people might not think to pick up a novel if the cover isn’t racy, there have to be just as many who avoid the embarrassing covers and therefor avoid the books within. I won’t shop for romance books at my local Barnes and Nobles because the romance section is directly next to the cafe. I’m a teacher/tutor and I run into students and their families often while shopping at that mall store. I’m not embarrassed about reading romance (any more than I am about reading mystery or fantasy books), but I AM embarrassed by too many of the covers/titles to want to be seen buying them. Now that i read the comments here, I realize I’m not alone feeling that way.
Lynda X, with regards to covers, publishers do know something about what sells. And from what I hear the clinch cover still sells better than anything else. So, I guess we’re probably have to suck it up and bear with them.
The purpose of a cover is to catch readers’ attention in the store and to quickly get across the idea that “”this is a romance — buy me!”” You’d think we wouldn’t be stuck with the clinch as the ONLY way to telegraph that, but there you go.
My point in the blog was to ask publishers to accept some responsibility for the scorn. Just own up to it. I personally don’t get all worked up about the lack of mainstream respect thing because we’re never going to get it. And why should we need anybody’s approval anyway? WE know the quality of the books we read and shouldn’t that be enough?
Lynda X, with regards to covers, publishers do know something about what sells. And from what I hear the clinch cover still sells better than anything else. So, I guess we’re probably have to suck it up and bear with them.
The purpose of a cover is to catch readers’ attention in the store and to quickly get across the idea that “”this is a romance — buy me!”” You’d think we wouldn’t be stuck with the clinch as the ONLY way to telegraph that, but there you go.
My point in the blog was to ask publishers to accept some responsibility for the scorn. Just own up to it. I personally don’t get all worked up about the lack of mainstream respect thing because we’re never going to get it. And why should we need anybody’s approval anyway? WE know the quality of the books we read and shouldn’t that be enough?
Like most of you here, I loathe the quasi-porn covers and the forgettable, irrelevant titles, but in the ’80s when some big writers insisted that those covers go (you’ve seen the replacements: usually flowers), sales plunged, so maybe publishing knows something we don’t. I’d like to think not, though. . .
Like most of you here, I loathe the quasi-porn covers and the forgettable, irrelevant titles, but in the ’80s when some big writers insisted that those covers go (you’ve seen the replacements: usually flowers), sales plunged, so maybe publishing knows something we don’t. I’d like to think not, though. . .
Okay, I’m going with 4, 5, 8 & 9 here. First, I have to admit that I kinda like #4. I’m not a big paranormal reader, so I guess it hasn’t gotten old for me yet. It can provide the shorthand needed to go ahead and get to the steamy stuff.
#5 – It just can’t be stated enough.
#8 & 9 – I just want something a little different. Please!. It can be a pirate, Medieval, or a western romance even – I don’t care. Something even more exotic would just be icing on the cake. I sometimes wonder if anything else can be done with the Regency period because it seems that it’s been so used up.
Okay, I’m going with 4, 5, 8 & 9 here. First, I have to admit that I kinda like #4. I’m not a big paranormal reader, so I guess it hasn’t gotten old for me yet. It can provide the shorthand needed to go ahead and get to the steamy stuff.
#5 – It just can’t be stated enough.
#8 & 9 – I just want something a little different. Please!. It can be a pirate, Medieval, or a western romance even – I don’t care. Something even more exotic would just be icing on the cake. I sometimes wonder if anything else can be done with the Regency period because it seems that it’s been so used up.
I agree with everyone and don’t have much to add. Would like to say once again…those covers and titles can be awful. I am another reader who would like to stand in the romance section and not feel foolish. Nothing against the book itself, just the cover.
I am also sick of heroes as tall as buildings and dainty heroines coupled together. The visual looks silly, and I don’t want to think of a heroine only reaching the man’s waistline.
I agree with everyone and don’t have much to add. Would like to say once again…those covers and titles can be awful. I am another reader who would like to stand in the romance section and not feel foolish. Nothing against the book itself, just the cover.
I am also sick of heroes as tall as buildings and dainty heroines coupled together. The visual looks silly, and I don’t want to think of a heroine only reaching the man’s waistline.
“”Here is my #11: GET OVER JANE AUSTIN. Seriously. Jane Austen is a wonderful talent and a big influence for many historical authors, I get that, but COME ON and think outside that box. I beg the publishers (and authors!) do not kill the historical romance genre by stiffeling all of our selections to just ballrooms and Hyde Park in 1820. And now there are all these Jane Austen spin-offs. Just tooooooooo much!””
Jane Austen wrote three of her novels BEFORE 1800. She died in 1817.
I agree with Magdalen, authors need to stop using Georgette Heyer as the One True Authority for All Things Historical.
“”Here is my #11: GET OVER JANE AUSTIN. Seriously. Jane Austen is a wonderful talent and a big influence for many historical authors, I get that, but COME ON and think outside that box. I beg the publishers (and authors!) do not kill the historical romance genre by stiffeling all of our selections to just ballrooms and Hyde Park in 1820. And now there are all these Jane Austen spin-offs. Just tooooooooo much!””
Jane Austen wrote three of her novels BEFORE 1800. She died in 1817.
I agree with Magdalen, authors need to stop using Georgette Heyer as the One True Authority for All Things Historical.
Fantastic list Sandy. I’m probably doubling up on some of the previous posts but here are a few suggestions I’d love to make – if I only could…
Six pack abs (even for heroes who don’t work out) – I sooo don’t need a hero to look like this.
Covers, covers, covers – I’d like to see all those ridiculous covers off of romance books. I know that’s asking too much so why don’t we settle for cutting the current number of outlandish covers by half?
And more of the same – show some respect for your romance reader by making it easier to stand in the aisle at the bookstore and peruse the selection without embarrassment over all those outlandish covers.
Give us more straight contemporaries without the required villain around the corner.
I buy historical westerns and medievals – I want a larger selection. There are too, too few around.
Shrink the number of paranormals.
And finally, I’m done with the rake and the 18-year-old with her first or second season.
Just wanted to pipe up – as someone who just sold a story where the hero is a *research librarian* with six pack abs, I know it strains credibility. But it’s actually a requirement.
The submission guidelines for many romance publishers spell this one out. Your heroine can be almost any shape and size, but the hero must be yummy. Some publishers even spell out what yummy means. In possession of a six pack and hung like a bull is usually the starting point.
And I admit… I write the spicy stuff, so I’d rather be writing about someone who has a six pack instead of someone drinking a six pack.
P.S. I gave my librarian a little farm with lots of hay bales to lift on the weekends, just because I couldn’t stand him looking so good without working out. ;)
Fantastic list Sandy. I’m probably doubling up on some of the previous posts but here are a few suggestions I’d love to make – if I only could…
Six pack abs (even for heroes who don’t work out) – I sooo don’t need a hero to look like this.
Covers, covers, covers – I’d like to see all those ridiculous covers off of romance books. I know that’s asking too much so why don’t we settle for cutting the current number of outlandish covers by half?
And more of the same – show some respect for your romance reader by making it easier to stand in the aisle at the bookstore and peruse the selection without embarrassment over all those outlandish covers.
Give us more straight contemporaries without the required villain around the corner.
I buy historical westerns and medievals – I want a larger selection. There are too, too few around.
Shrink the number of paranormals.
And finally, I’m done with the rake and the 18-year-old with her first or second season.
Just wanted to pipe up – as someone who just sold a story where the hero is a *research librarian* with six pack abs, I know it strains credibility. But it’s actually a requirement.
The submission guidelines for many romance publishers spell this one out. Your heroine can be almost any shape and size, but the hero must be yummy. Some publishers even spell out what yummy means. In possession of a six pack and hung like a bull is usually the starting point.
And I admit… I write the spicy stuff, so I’d rather be writing about someone who has a six pack instead of someone drinking a six pack.
P.S. I gave my librarian a little farm with lots of hay bales to lift on the weekends, just because I couldn’t stand him looking so good without working out. ;)
Yes. Nos. 1 and are my biggest problems with romance. Generally the covers are generic, and have nothing to do with the story itself. Massive chests (usually with heads cut off) and massive breasts falling out of dresses. They are painful and laughable. One of the biggest reasons I like my Kindle is because I don’t have to carry around a book with a horrendously cheesy cover that I’m embarrassed to be seen with.
And please stop using the words virgin, rogue, rake, duke, how to seduce … in the titles. They have been used TO DEATH! Certainly they can come up with something more creative.
No. 8. I agree. I do love the Regency and Victorian time periods. But I’m also a huge fan of Medieval and Historical Westerns. I wish more of these were available.
Yes. Nos. 1 and are my biggest problems with romance. Generally the covers are generic, and have nothing to do with the story itself. Massive chests (usually with heads cut off) and massive breasts falling out of dresses. They are painful and laughable. One of the biggest reasons I like my Kindle is because I don’t have to carry around a book with a horrendously cheesy cover that I’m embarrassed to be seen with.
And please stop using the words virgin, rogue, rake, duke, how to seduce … in the titles. They have been used TO DEATH! Certainly they can come up with something more creative.
No. 8. I agree. I do love the Regency and Victorian time periods. But I’m also a huge fan of Medieval and Historical Westerns. I wish more of these were available.
I know I’m in the minority, but I wish romance covers were more discrete, and they left off comments like “”Hot! Scorching!”” on the covers. I take a book with me every time I leave the house because I have been caught too many times having to wait on people. I honestly can’t take my paperbacks some places I go (places my children go, church-related functions), and have switched to Kindle/iTouch for reading in public because I think the covers are embarrassing. This is especially irritating when the books themselves are relatively mild in content, with the cover being the most explicit thing about them!
I’ll add one more comment on the subject of titles: if you’re going to give a book one of those ridiculous titles, at least make sure the title has something to do with the book. I recently read Mistress in Private (In Bed with the Boss series) by Julie Chen because it was recommended by a friend. I was very skeptical, but it was a great book. The only problem was there was no mistress, nothing in “”private”” and nothing to do with bosses! The book was about the reunion of old friends.
I know I’m in the minority, but I wish romance covers were more discrete, and they left off comments like “”Hot! Scorching!”” on the covers. I take a book with me every time I leave the house because I have been caught too many times having to wait on people. I honestly can’t take my paperbacks some places I go (places my children go, church-related functions), and have switched to Kindle/iTouch for reading in public because I think the covers are embarrassing. This is especially irritating when the books themselves are relatively mild in content, with the cover being the most explicit thing about them!
I’ll add one more comment on the subject of titles: if you’re going to give a book one of those ridiculous titles, at least make sure the title has something to do with the book. I recently read Mistress in Private (In Bed with the Boss series) by Julie Chen because it was recommended by a friend. I was very skeptical, but it was a great book. The only problem was there was no mistress, nothing in “”private”” and nothing to do with bosses! The book was about the reunion of old friends.
I am soooo sick of having to tear a book apart to read the darn thing because there are no margins! Come on, publishers, how much can a quarter of an inch save you? Not as much as you lose from us not buying a book. I am looking at you, Harlequin, right now! Give Carla Kelly the respect of making her easy to read!
Also, this is a minor point, and doesn’t happen very often, but when it does, it really annoys me. Please don’t assume that we all understand Latin, French, German, Spanish, etc. If a character uses a phrase, please footnote it. I realize that MOST OF THE TIME the author uses a context clue so that you can figure out what it means, but I’d still love the footnote.
Please ban “”clean”” as an adjective used to describe how the hero smells. 99% of authors use this. It makes me wonder about the men they live with, frankly.
Can you indicate somehow on the date of publication in the future whether that date is stead-fast. For some major authors, if their book is due out on March 30, it can’t be released earlier, but other authors’ dates are flexible. I am annoyed, when I am counting the minutes to a book coming out, to find out that it’s been in bookstores a week or more, even though officially, it’s supposed to come out next week!
I am soooo sick of having to tear a book apart to read the darn thing because there are no margins! Come on, publishers, how much can a quarter of an inch save you? Not as much as you lose from us not buying a book. I am looking at you, Harlequin, right now! Give Carla Kelly the respect of making her easy to read!
Also, this is a minor point, and doesn’t happen very often, but when it does, it really annoys me. Please don’t assume that we all understand Latin, French, German, Spanish, etc. If a character uses a phrase, please footnote it. I realize that MOST OF THE TIME the author uses a context clue so that you can figure out what it means, but I’d still love the footnote.
Please ban “”clean”” as an adjective used to describe how the hero smells. 99% of authors use this. It makes me wonder about the men they live with, frankly.
Can you indicate somehow on the date of publication in the future whether that date is stead-fast. For some major authors, if their book is due out on March 30, it can’t be released earlier, but other authors’ dates are flexible. I am annoyed, when I am counting the minutes to a book coming out, to find out that it’s been in bookstores a week or more, even though officially, it’s supposed to come out next week!
I too am dying for publishers to start marketing books in series AS books in a series. I picked up a book recently (non-romance) at the library, got halfway through it and figured out it was book 7 in a series!!! I stopped reading it immediately. Now I have to go get the rest of the books and start all over. How annoying.
I too am dying for publishers to start marketing books in series AS books in a series. I picked up a book recently (non-romance) at the library, got halfway through it and figured out it was book 7 in a series!!! I stopped reading it immediately. Now I have to go get the rest of the books and start all over. How annoying.
I have four big complaints.
I H A T E the way they’re reissuing books or changing the covers and then marketing the suckers like they’re new.
I want to slap a publisher or two when they come out with a series, but there’s no way to tell it’s a series. There’s no mention of it on the book, no note from the author…it makes it that much harder to keep up with over the months/years.
I’m also not a happy camper when there’s a delicious series I’m adoring, and then the next is only available as an e book. Until e book prices come down to about half the printed price–or less–I’m NOT jumping on the bandwagon, and I really don’t care to download that puppy and read it online. I’ve done it twice, and that was that. I’ve dumped two fabulous series because of this, and now I don’t keep up with the authors OR the other titles from that publisher.
The fourth is the least of my complaints, but I’d appreciate a general “”hotness”” meter of sorts. While I know I’ll get little if any real emotion out of something like the Black Lace books, it’s not nearly as easy with most publishing houses. I’ve read Ellora’s Cave books that scortched my eyeballs, and then there are others that are hot while also being supremely romantic at times. Even some of the Harlequin/Silhouette lines are a little wonky in this area.
When it comes to historicals, thank you GOD I’m over the genre. I can’t forget what hygiene standards were at the time, or how women were typically treated. As the writer P.J. O’Rourke once said, “”I have one word for those that romanticize the past: Dentistry.”” The past was pretty damned awful.
I have four big complaints.
I H A T E the way they’re reissuing books or changing the covers and then marketing the suckers like they’re new.
I want to slap a publisher or two when they come out with a series, but there’s no way to tell it’s a series. There’s no mention of it on the book, no note from the author…it makes it that much harder to keep up with over the months/years.
I’m also not a happy camper when there’s a delicious series I’m adoring, and then the next is only available as an e book. Until e book prices come down to about half the printed price–or less–I’m NOT jumping on the bandwagon, and I really don’t care to download that puppy and read it online. I’ve done it twice, and that was that. I’ve dumped two fabulous series because of this, and now I don’t keep up with the authors OR the other titles from that publisher.
The fourth is the least of my complaints, but I’d appreciate a general “”hotness”” meter of sorts. While I know I’ll get little if any real emotion out of something like the Black Lace books, it’s not nearly as easy with most publishing houses. I’ve read Ellora’s Cave books that scortched my eyeballs, and then there are others that are hot while also being supremely romantic at times. Even some of the Harlequin/Silhouette lines are a little wonky in this area.
When it comes to historicals, thank you GOD I’m over the genre. I can’t forget what hygiene standards were at the time, or how women were typically treated. As the writer P.J. O’Rourke once said, “”I have one word for those that romanticize the past: Dentistry.”” The past was pretty damned awful.