I can remember the very first time I interviewed a romance author who said she didn’t read romance – and since then there have been many, each saying that she didn’t want to subconsciously "borrow" from other romance authors. But when Alison Kent wrote earlier this month in her RTB column that she no longer reads romance, she raised quite a ruckus – her reason for no longer reading them is that she can’t relate to most romance heroines. Personally I don’t want to read a heroine like me any more than I want to read a hero like my husband. Although he’s as handsome as any romance novel hero, he’d not make any better book material than I would. Like many readers I gravitate toward heroes and heroines who embody characteristics far unlike those I encounter (or like) in real life. If I met a man like many of my favorite romance heroes, I’d run for the hills, and I’m hardly in the habit of knowing women who are a cross between Maria von Trapp and Sex and the City’s Samantha.
I read romance novels precisely because I want to get away from reality, to escape into a world of people different than those I encounter in real life. Now, that doesn’t mean that their conduct should run counter to human behavior – I don’t know many people in real life who, when afraid of the bogey man, would go into the basement without turning on the lights, and that’s the equivalent of much tstl behavior I read – but if I, as a very independent woman, read a heroine who needs rescuing, I may very well love her. After all, escape fantasies often hearken back to our childhoods, when we dreamed of the knight in shining armor coming to rescue us on their white steed. Yes, even us feminists can love a good rescue story…provided we can also read romances wherein heroines do some rescuing too.
So while I may think Alison’s missing out on some great books, I cannot understand some of the strong negative feelings she’s since encountered. In many ways she’s simply saying something I hear every day from romance readers – she’s just saying "I wish authors would…", differently. Even so, though, why does it matter what she herself reads, who cares what she thinks about romance novels as a whole if she herself writes ones that you enjoy? Could she possibly have alienated some readers and/or authors because her column shows a lack of a wholehearted commitment to "the cause" that is Romance? I think that’s an underlying reason, and it baffles me.
Why should an author’s motivations, personal opinions, or even political values affect how you read their writing? All I want is that HEA ending…don’t you? Unless you are, say, an ultra-liberal Democrat reading a romance by an espoused ultra-conservative whose book puts the Republican platform in story form and whose hero is a better-looking Karl Rove, I’m not getting it. As I blogged earlier this month myself, I only care about an author’s writing. Unless they’ve pulled a Woody Allen or Roman Polanski, I can’t imagine what difference it makes whether or not they did or said anything – as long as I like their books.
What am I missing here?
TTFN, Laurie Likes Books
No related posts.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Laurie. Reading a website/blog by an author may make me feel I understand a little of what makes them tick, but it no way influences me about reading their stories. Authors shouldn’t have to defend themselves about their preferences whether it’s a ‘business’ decision as to not inadvertently steal ideas or a ‘personal’ one because they have trouble finding a story that fits what they want to read about. We all read books with different expectations…escapism, the thrill of the chase, figuring out the whodunit, the HEA, etc and authors have the same rights.
Having a personal preference is very different from attacking the genre and in Alison Kent’s case, I have read her posts and she is not taking a stand against the hand that feeds her, it’s just a personal preference how to spend her personal time. I love Alison’s stories and anyone that reads her stories can tell she believes in romance, so until that proves otherwise within the story…for any of my favorite authors…I’m going to continue to devour everything they write and remember that authors are people too! 
If a butcher on Meating the Blog, blogs about how he doesn’t eat many sausages anymore, finds they’re mostly full of intestine and gristle, and nine other butchers chime in to agree – would it make you decide to serve a sausage supper, or leave you feeling shortchanged as a sausage customer?
It’s a terrible analogy, I know. A book is not a sausage, a sausage, even with leeks in, is not a book.
We all grouse about our jobs – but if a bunch of teachers blogged the stuff that was normally said in the staffroom, parents might well have a bad reaction. People normally keep their professional gripes within the profession, where they’ll be understood.
If Romance authors grouse about Romance in front of readers, maybe some readers – who may be defensive about reading in the genre in the first place – just feel that their reading choices are validated by no-one, not even the people that take their money, and that produces a bad reaction.
I can only say – and did say on Alison’s blog – that the uneasy feeling that I got was not from Alison’s original post – it was a subliminal response to the – unexpected, to me – replies she got to her post.
In the end, we are customers, and are used to be sold things by people who pretend to be confident of the quality of the product, and enthusiatic about that product. It’s unnerving to be buying something regularly and have a group of the people who produce say they wouldn’t buy it themselves.
While you and Alison both make valid points, it’s probably not a good idea for any writer, let alone a writer working in a particular genre, to avoid that genre completely.
Novice writers often use the “borrowing” excuse for not reading in their genre, but experienced writers know that reading other writers in a particular genre is a way of avoiding common pitfalls, or the overuse of specific ideas. Without that connection, one runs the risk of duplicating the effort of others, possibly even others who themselves avoid reading in the genre because that have the same fear of being influenced. It makes for bad writing, worse reading, and a stagnant genre.
As for Alison Kent, I would argue that she’d be better off using her experience as writer and reader to select her reading material more carefully. Now that she knows what she doesn’t like, it should be a bit easier for her than for most to crack open a book, glance at the first few pages, and make a determination as to its quality.
Could she possibly have alienated some readers and/or authors because her column shows a lack of a wholehearted commitment to “the cause” that is Romance? I think that’s an underlying reason, and it baffles me.
I think this may be part of it. Romance writers are incredibly community-minded, especially when it comes to defending the genre, which a lot of writers/readers feel is unfairly maligned, or at least not respected. Personally, I think the numbers speak for themselves — why are we so busy worrying about what’s said in this article or that column (or what “tone” the piece has) when romance still sells? Romance readers are a pretty faithful lot, and while book sales across the board rise and fall, it seems to me publishers are releasing more romances than ever right now.
Alison is nothing if not honest, which is one of the reasons I love reading her blog, and her books. If she can’t find romance heroines who really resonate for her, more power to her for writing ones who do! And for finding readers who clearly love them, too.
True, romance still sells, but in certain sectors of the market, it sells less and less. Why? That’s the big question, since taste is impossible to judge, but I would suspect the slowdown has to do with far too much garbage being shoveled onto shelves with the expectation that readers will buy what they’re given simply because it has the word romance on the spine.
Reactions from people like Alison Kent indicate that this attitude simply doesn’t work anymore. Romance can be romance, but it must also be effective fiction. That’s a lesson that appears to be lost on some, both on the production and consumption ends.
If a buther won’t eat her sausage with intestines and gristle, then neither will her customers. If the butcher decides to try other foods in effort to discover a new recipe for sausage, then I say all the more power to her. That doesn’t necessarily make her a “traitor.” It is the final product that matters. In the end, we all want the same thing, a good read.
IMHO, romance right now is rather bland. There are too many books with stale ingredients. From reading other blogs and message boards I don’t think that I am alone in this feeling.
I can only comment as an avid romance reader, and not a writer. It honestly doesn’t matter to me what an author chooses to read or write. As a reader, sometimes I choose books for realism and sometimes fantasy and escape, and I think an author has a right to do the same.
I found Ms. Kent’s column interesting and she certainly can and should choose to read whatever she wants for whatever reason. I personally didn’t agree with her premise, I think most heroines in contemporary romance are strong individuals. Character strength comes in varying degrees, from shy with a strong backbone to kick-butt tough.
For me the problem with contemporary romance isn’t the strength of the heroine, but rather the quality of the storyline and plot. If the storyline and plot are thin or fantastical the story isn’t going to ring true or realistic. And, if that the case the strength of the heroine really doesn’t matter.
If I steered away from authors because they didn’t agree with me on a variety of subjects, I’d have very little to read.
While I understand the point that readers may feel alienated if romance authors don’t read romance, I’d argue that many professional people steer clear of extra-curricular activities that relate to their profession. For example, when I worked in the Legislature I never watched the news. I was inundated with it at work. So sometimes I missed important things — but nothing that couldn’t wait until I got the news clips.
While that’s not a direct analogy, I’d suggest that Alison is doing what everyone should do as human beings on a grander scale — if you don’t like something, work to change it.
Alison said something to the effect that she didn’t read romances anymore because she didn’t enjoy what was being offered. But is she out there condemning the entire genre? No. She’s offering books to the marketplace that she would want to read.
And it’s not like she hates the genre! She obviously read romance novels for years and loved them, then gradually found fewer and fewer to love.
I agree with Laurie that there are a lot of great books out there Alison is missing. I’d venture to say that Alison probably still reads romance novels, but she’s far more selective. Maybe only when someone she trusts recommends one. But who cares if she does? She’s writing romance because she loves romance and wants to give readers books she loves.
Since I started writing, I’ve read a fraction of what I used to. When I was on maternity leave with my son before I started writing, I read 77 books in 3 months. When I was on maternity leave with my daughter after I started writing, I read 4 books in 3 months. And they were all best sellers I’d been looking forward to, like Janet Evanovich and Tess Gerritsen and JD Robb.
Would I be criticized if I said I prefer JD Robb to Nora Roberts? Or romantic suspense to straight romance? Or that I only read category romance if I know the author because the shorter book formats and minimal subplots simply don’t do it for me? Possible.
We all have different reasons we love certain genres of books. No one is a “better” or “worse” reader simply because of their personal perferences.
IMHO
When I talked about having given up romance because of the heroines, I said, quoting, “I stopped reading romance when I could no longer relate to too many of the stories I picked up to read.” Notice, past tense. And I then gave my list of what I didn’t like about those heroines I’d been finding. But since I had stopped reading romance quite awhile ago, I admitted, quoting, “(And, granted, I may be missing out on great stories being published now, but I was burned too many times in the past to keep looking!)” So I was really surprised by all the responses considering I’d stated quite clearly my timeline. That said, there were still several readers who agreed with me, and went on to state that they weren’t finding much currently that appealed to them. Whether a malaise with the genre in general, or a specific issue . . . that’s going to be an individualistic thing. (In fact, two readers up the page have commented thus this morning.)
Interestingly enough, I polled several of my closest author buddies after the whoopla had settled a bit. Out of the 6, one said she only finished 25% of the books she started. Two still read ravenously. One never has read romance for entertainment, but is a wholehearted fan of writing in the genre. One considers it too much of a busman’s holiday (as do I). However, four of us also readily admitted that we read much more romance when we were single and not in the fantastic relationships we’re in now. That we actually believe in true love so fully that we loved the validation (even though it was fantasy) of happily ever after we got from the books.
In my column, I admitted that I started writing at one of the worst times in my life. Well, I STOPPED writing at one of the best. When I got remarried in 1997. I had a long dry spell between release – from 12/97 until 8/99 – and might not ever have started writing again had not the dh bugged me about it so much. When I did start back up, my books took on an entirely different tone. My heroines did grow much more independent and confident and complete as women – and it’s obvious because that had been my own personal journey. But no matter where my writing takes me, my stories will always feature heroines I want to read about, and there will always be romance in their lives. I believe in love so fiercely, how could I write about anything else!!
Thanks, Laurie, for bringing this up from another perspective. It’s interesting to see it discussed.
Nope, Sandy L. You’re not alone.
Marianne -
You lose me here:
“It’s unnerving to be buying something regularly and have a group of the people who produce say they wouldn’t buy it themselves.”
And here’s why: Alison is only selling HER work, not that of anyone else, and she’s saying why her work is different than most of what she reads. And, as I wrote in my column, what she’s saying isn’t essentially all that different than anything you’ll read at AAR posted by a reader. She’s just saying it differently.
One of the reasons I started to write online was to explore all facets of romance, and among those facets were some ridiculous things, like purple prose, P.R. blurbs passing as reviews, etc. When I read Alison’s column, I thought to myself, “Hmmm, here’s an author – not a reader – who’s willing to generate some discussion on a topic that’s bound to be controversial.” Which is one reason I liked it.
My goal in each and every RTB column will be to generate discussion – I think that’s what makes for interesting commentary as well as interesting discussion in the aftermath. Alison was certainly more provocative than most authors are in public about their craft and genre, but I have always appreciated that kind of honesty. It’s one reason why we are always asking authors to put on their reader’s hats as opposed to their author’s hats. So, in a way, you could read Alison’s column as though she is a disgruntled reader – someone who used to love romance but no longer does. I can respect that even if I disagree, because I’ve certainly gone through periods when romance reading wasn’t working for me.
There’s nothing wrong with pointing out what you don’t like – we should NOT be a group of yes-people, and I’ve not heard Alison say she’s ashamed of her work. Maybe I’m just a cock-eyed optimist, but I think it’s actually a breath of fresh air to hear criticism of the genre from within because it’s so “not done.” And it isn’t as if, like a certain author I won’t name, Alison has disowned the genre and feels embarrassed about what she’s written in the past.
Sorry for going on and on and on, Marianne, but sometimes when I get going…
TTFN, LLB
James -
With all due respect, I’ve interviewed some tremendously famous best-selling romance authors over the years who don’t read romance because they don’t want to subconsciously “borrow” from other authors – in at least one instance you can find one quoted as saying so in her interview w/me at AAR. Most of these women had been published for many years and were in no way novices.
Here’s an analogy that I think works, at least for me: when I first published AAR I made it a point to try and read many of the new books that were getting great buzz online. I thought it important to do so as publisher of a site and as someone who writes commentary on romance. But then my tastes started changing and I started reading fewer new books – as I wrote in an ATBF column at the start of this year, in 2004 just about a third of the books I read were published in 2004 (more than 1/4 were published prior to 2000). But that hasn’t affected my ability to do my job any more than Alison’s decision has affected her ability to do HER job as an author. The most maverick of movies, TV, music tend to come from people who are stretching boundaries so that the future of their fields will probably look different as a result, eventually.
Hope that makes sense.
TTFN, LLB
I have to agree with James on one point that he made. If more authors would read what’s out there for research purposes, they would see what’s been done before, and try something new. Then maybe we’d have less of the same old story again and again which readers are frequently complaining about.
Questions for the authors out there: To a certain extent, doesn’t reading in your genre count as market research? Whether it’s something you would choose for a personal preference or not? How many authors do market research? And what do you do?
Beverly -
I think that’s a bit of a two-edge sword…couldn’t it lead to jumping on the bandwagon? Hasn’t it?
TTFN, LLB
I’m not entirely sure I agree with you 100 percent, Beverly. I think some authors make a conscious choice *not* to write something new and different. They choose instead to write what’s “selling” and we end up with 40 versions of the same premise, setting etc. In their defense, it’s what’s being bought.
Beverly, interesting question. I buy a lot of “research” books, i.e. the last purchase was THE SERIAL KILLER FILES about the history of serial killers and a lot of background information.
To me, reading is STILL something I do for pleasure. I read across all genres, from romantic suspense (which I write) to science fiction to mysteries to thrillers to romantic comedy. Unfortunately, my reading time is limited. Between writing at night (when I used to read) to the kids, I’m lucky to finish a book every two weeks.
I have no problem reading other romantic suspense writers, but I do tend to be more critical than I used to be. I enjoy reading in genres I don’t write in, but suspense is my first love
In terms of doing something “new” — there is nothing new. It’s only the author’s voice and characters which are new and different, and sometimes taking a traditional premise and twisting it around to come up with something a little different.
I bet that one little statement sent some people into a tailspin. You have to be a maverick in this business. We’re accused of being formulaic in every breath. I agree that you should read what you love. And if you’re writing what you love, and doing well at it, then you’ve obviously got nothing to worry about.
People that are sponges, i.e. soak up everything their senses come into contact with, should NOT read everything, go to every movie, and watch every television show. It will not help their writing a bit. But in the end, it doesn’t matter what the author reads. What matters is what the reader reads. If they like it, then who cares? They are the barometer of an author’s success.
Someone mentioned earlier that the romance readers, writers, editors etc. are something of a close-knitted community and perhaps that’s why Alison got the sort of reaction she did, because it was seen (by some) that she wasn’t “supportive”. As a general (and not pointed) comment I say that being a strong community does not mean that everyone should share a sort of “group-think” where dissenters or anyone who isn’t Ra-Ra about the entire genre should be seen as a “black sheep”.
I completely understand the defensiveness that comes almost instinctively to many of us because of the genre’s “repute” but this shouldn’t make us shy away from thoughtful critique. As a reader of the genre I can say that my long list of “auto-buy” romance authors has dropped to the point where I can count them on one hand. This has happened for a few reasons: differing tastes, favourites moving on to “Romantic Suspense” (light on the romance), lower tolerance for mediocre writing…you get it.
It hasn’t stopped me from feeling apart of the community: I still check author’s blogs, post on messageboards, sign up for Yahoo groups. I’ve never felt that I have had to be “Ra-Ra” about the entire genre, but it’s easier as a reader. I’d hope that we wouldn’t let something like differing reading tastes and ideas of what’s “good romance” make us resentful or judgemental of anyone, author or not.
Laurie – yes, you’re right. But I think I’m a bit right too.
Firstly, I should say, because I’m in the UK, I read Alison’s piece early when there were no comments posted, and felt no urge to comment. I didn’t agree with her – because I still read romance for pleasure – but the fact she doesn’t didn’t bother me. It was when I came back later, and read the replies by other authors, that I felt surprised. So I’m absolutely sure it was those replies rather than Alison’s thoughts that caused my reaction.
And, as near as I can get it, what nagged at me about those comments was what I tried to express in my post above. [I'm over it now.]
Having just gone back and read what those comments were, I think it’s fair to say my brain was expecting a very pro-Romance reply, and thus maybe read the comments as more negative than they were and selectively highlighted the most negative.
I think honesty can be a double-edged sword – there was famously a businessman over here Gerald(?) Ratner, who owned a very successful chain of high street jewellery shops. He remarked publicly, and honestly, that his earrings were as cheap as an M&S sandwich and lasted about as long, and that cost him his business. I think there’s a reason why salespeople and politicians routinely spin [lie] to the general public – and that’s probably because it works. ‘No New Taxes’ and ‘Romance is Great!’ maybe don’t generate much interesting discussion, but if the bottom line is getting votes, or selling books, perhaps simple and positive is better.
[Better's a bad word to use. Depends what writers are using this blog for. If they want discussion, to exchange ideas, honesty works. But when you discuss anything, people disagree and get annoyed, and from time to time readers flounce off and won't buy that author's books Ever Again. If writers want to raise their profile, sell more books, contentious, provocative and controversial may be the wrong way to go. Pictures of cute kittens with witty captions might work better. I'm not in marketing, who knows?]
Marianne -
“If writers want to raise their profile, sell more books, contentious, provocative and controversial may be the wrong way to go.”
I think bloggers like Alison Kent are in perhaps as odd a position as a blogger like me. Yes…she’s an author writing books she wants to sell, but she’s also found that blogging gives her a creative outlet she needs. I told someone this morning that I think blogging lends a feeling of carte blanche to the blogger…and yes, that may bite the blogger in the end, but who knows? It might not…it might very well be a very good thing.
When I first started blogging – and then again when we went through the difficulties of last spring that ended w/my passwording certain material in order to keep it off AAR – I heard from many of my AAR colleagues who were not (and are not) happy that I’d decided to blog, and to blog at times about AAR. It could, conceivably, hurt AAR, but in an odd way that’s the main reason I started blogging. If I didn’t have a valve to open to let off steam, I think I’d have packed it in a year or so ago. There have been times on my blog when I’ve felt I went too far, but then I remember the early years of AAR, when I could be more outrageous there than I can be today. Today I have an entity to protect while I feel my blog is just me. But I want to continue to have the fun that being outrageous provides, and my blog allows me to have my cake and eat it too.
So, in a roundabout way, I think that it’s difficult to know what to say, where to say, and to whom it can be said. Being provocative and controversial is probably alright for me and for those of us who write at AAR because we are reviewers and commentators and interviewers, but it may very well not be for an author. But for an author who also blogs…I think this is uncharted territory and we’ll just have to see.
TTFN, LLB
My view as a selfish romance reader: as long as Alison Kent keeps on writing books I want to read, then she can read anything she wants. Heck if all she reads is Bazooka Joe bubblegum comix, that’s fine with me. [does bubblegum still come with comix, she asks, suddenly panicked]
my view as a romance writer: um . . .what was the question again?
Laurie — I do think that wide reading of the genre MAY result, in some authors, in “jumping on the bandwagon”. And yes, that is what many of us complain about. However, in all honesty, the authors who do that would do that no matter what they read. Some authors just want to sell books, and appeal to as many people as possible, and others want to sell books, yes, but they also strive for something new and original and fresh. And those are the authors I care about and that I want to read.
Sharon — I think that to a vast extent what you are talking about is what is happening now. Authors look at the bestseller lists and they see Nora Roberts and Suzanne Brockmann, and Julia Quinn, and a bunch of other “big names” and they say, I want to sell as many books as them. And so they try to copy the formula that they believe will work. But that’s exactly the problem. All of those authors, and most who become well-known, are offering something that readers haven’t seen before, and writing it well. Copying never made anybody famous. At least, not for long.
Allison — Yeah, there’s nothing new if you subscribe to the “there are only three (or five, or seven, etc. depending on who you talk to) plots” theory. But I guess what I mean is a new way of looking at things. A new type of character. A setting that hasn’t been beaten to death and/or twisted into something it’s not. The good authors will see what’s out there, and say, I’m going to do something different. Something that isn’t just a rehash of what the last five authors from my own house did last month.
I guess my major point (and there is one:oops:) is that I don’t really care what authors choose to read when they have their “reader hat” on. But I do hope that most still choose to read critically and in their genre when they have their “author hat” on. I, for one, appreciate the fact that Alison is trying to write something that she doesn’t see in the market herself. I wish more authors would do that? But how is anyone going to know what’s in the market if they’re not reading it?
But how is anyone going to know what’s in the market if they’re not reading it?
Now this one is easy to answer. I’m all over what’s being released. I keep up with sales news via publishers marketplace, publisher’s websites, message boards, blogs, review sites and publications, word of mouth, etc. Many of my writer buddies are amazed at how much I know, LOL. For example, yesterday a friend I know online told me about her 3-book sale to a new publisher and being assigned the same editor who works with a NYT author in the same subgenre. It’s not on her website yet, and I don’t know who else she’s told. But hearing the gossip, then I always dig deeper and find out what I can. It’s not hard at all to know what’s going on if you keep your eyes and ears open and are a glutton for the news as I am!
If writers want to raise their profile, sell more books, contentious, provocative and controversial may be the wrong way to go.
I may come across provocative and controversial, but I’d take issue with contentious. *g*. Still, the books I write are also provocative, perhaps even controversial in some cases. I’ve related many times on my own blog how I’ve heard readers say my heroines are *TOO* independent and not romantic at all. Cute kittens won’t convey what I’m writing. *g* I don’t want readers to close my books and never think about them again.
Beverly, I totally agree with you. I don’t want to be “the next” anyone. I want to be ME. I want to be an original. I don’t know if I’ve done that yet, but I am trying. In my books, my heroines are (I think) the most different from what’s out there. There are independent heroines, but mine tend to be a little older (mid-late 30s); self-sufficient; determined and steadfast. I also try to dig deeper into the psyche of my villains without doing the same-old “he was abused as a kid” thing. I want my villains to be hated but understood. My heroes tend to be alphas, but they would have to be in order to challenge the heroine (at least in my little world).
Time will tell. To be honest, I’m scared to death.
Alison — Just as a quick disclaimer, I am not taking issue with you or your work personally, just the idea of not reading in genre in general (and not for the same reason as many others do). I work in a library, and I keep up with what’s new and what’s coming also. I read romance and SF industry trades and websites. None of that means that I can write a book that READERS will enjoy. Yeah, maybe I can peg what PUBLISHERS want. And message boards and word of mouth are important, but most people don’t overanalyze their likes and dislikes. They just say “I didn’t like the last book by (some romance author).” Now, if you haven’t read that book, you’ve just read reviews, etc., how are you going to know WHAT it was about the book that turned readers off? You may say to yourself, I have the same premise, but my book isn’t like that one. But how do you know? And why would you want to do the same thing as that other author anyway? I don’t mean you personally (I’ve never read any of your books, but I will after this discussion because I like different), but authors in general. Why do authors (especially romance) rehash the same stories over and over, never really doing it different or better than the four who did the virginal sex therapist or the “feisty” society miss before?
Allison (okay, two Al(l)isons is weird:???:) — Your comments here have made me, at least, more interested in you work. I am always intrigued by those who consciously try to be different (and two Alison’s have me interested in their work today), so I will definitely pick up one of your books.
Ah, but Beverly, finding out what’s out there is a separate issue for me than writing a book readers enjoy. If I went by what’s out there, I’d be writing the same ol’ same ol’. I simply keep up with the market out of interest. When I listed the ways I keep up with what’s going, that in no way means that’s where I get my ideas on what to write. That just means I know what’s out there. *g* And usually what I don’t want to write since it’s already been done!
Expectations
The novel is not turning out quite the way I wanted. I DO want to make money writing and please lots of people with my work, believe it or not. The easy way, as far as romance, to do that…
Ah, but Alison, I think somewhere you must have missed what I was saying, because you just said exactly the point I was making. That authors should keep up with the market so they write something new and different.
LOL, Beverly! Yes, we agree!