While going over my To Be Bought (TBB) list recently I noticed something disturbing.
My contemporary TBB is twice as long as my historical TBB.
Ask most romance readers what they cut their reading teeth on and they’ll typically give you one of two answers: 1) Harlequin Romances or 2) Historical Romances. I fell in love with romance through historicals – not surprising since I’m a history buff in general. When I first became active in the online romance community my historical TBB was mammoth. As a general rule that was all I read, with the occasional contemporary set book to break up the pattern. However, nowadays, my purchasing of historicals has dwindled to near nothingness.
Why? Because of the blandness that has seemingly overtaken the sub genre. If you don’t believe me, look no further than the October 2005 issue of Romantic Times.
Flipping through the historical reviews section, and discounting anything categorized as “Historical Fiction,” these were the descriptions offered up for October releases:
24 books set in Great Britain
*1 Tudor England
*2 Victorian England
*13 Regency England
*2 Georgian England
*4 Medieval England/Wales
*2 Traditional Regencies (again, England!)
6 American-set Historicals
*5 Westerns
*1 19th century east coast
Please pass the salt someone forgot the flavor.
Readers have been moaning for a long time on how variety has vanished from historical romance. I’ve largely agreed with that opinion, mainly because as a western lover I’m often stuck with only a handful of releases a month. But hey, at least there is usually one new western for me to buy every month. Are we as readers to believe that no one fell in love in historical Africa, Japan, China, Russia, Brazil, France, Spain, or Norway?
This isn’t exactly a new rant, visit any message board and you’ll find someone singing a variation of the same tune. What you won’t find are readers acknowledging what finally killed the traditional Regency – the complete and total saturation of the English-set historical market. It’s like the spinster older sister was driven away from the ball when her vivacious younger sister showed up in a designer ball gown.
Many argue that the traditional Regency is dead because no one wants “sweet” and “sex free” reads anymore. I argue that the trad is dead because publishers actively pushed and ultimately saturated the market with the bigger Regency-set historicals. Readers are drowning – where the heck are the life preservers?
The death of the trad has been foretold since the late 1990s – but you’ll notice that the final nail in the coffin (in this case Zebra closing shop on their Regency line) wasn’t hammered home until 2005. Publishing houses that once published variety now only publish books set in England. Sexy is good, fluffy is even better.
Writers like Susan Kay Law were told that the American West was dying and why not try writing an English-set historical? Nicole Jordan, Lorraine Heath, Susan Wiggs, and Pamela Morsi all flew the coup. And that’s merely American-set historicals! “Exotic” settings were tossed out with the bath water completely, with the very rare book (usually Egyptian-set) slipping out occasionally through publishers like Dorchester.
So who is ultimately to blame for this fiasco? The publishers? Sure, but as capitalists of the first order it’s hard to punish them for merely following the market trend. The authors? Heck, they have bills to pay. The readers? Most definitely. Ultimately, it is we who decide what is viable. Yes, we can only purchase what is offered to us, but one can still find the exotic and different if one goes looking for it. Sure it’s easy to hit drive-thru and chow down on a Big Mac, but I’ll take a chance on a new restaurant over McDonald’s any day of the week.
Here’s hoping New York and readers snap out of it before the historical sub genre as a whole starts pushing up daisies.
Related posts:
I am a die-hard historical romance reader — I rarely read contemporary romances, with the exception of chick-lit (for works set in “the present”, I go to mainstream fiction). But I do agree that the Regency period has been done-to-death: an “overgrazed pasture” is what I called it on another on-line forum. And being required to set almost every historical romance in England (with the odd American western generally set in the post-Civil War American west) does show a great lack of imagination on the part of the writers, the publishers, and the readers.
What to do? Well, since publishing is a $$$-driven industry like any other, I think part of it is up to the readers to start demanding more variety in historical romances by writing letters to publishers voicing their concerns. But just writing letters is not going to produce results unless the readers are willing to carry through by not purchasing redundant romances. That is the hard part: could an author’s career be permanently hurt by such a boycott? Are there enough historical romance readers out there to actually make a difference? Are authors willing to switch time periods and leave the familiar English countryside behind to strike out in a new direction? I cannot see Mary Balough writing anything other Regency or Georgian romances, for example.
When I think about it, I just amazed that a few short years in the history of England continues to have such a hold on AMERICAN romance readers. It is very similiar to the hold that the post-Civil War American west has on some readers (and generations of movie goers). The Civil War ended in 1865, and by 1890 the frontier period in America was considered to be over, yet that 25 year span of time continues to grip the imagination of Americans. It is our “Regency.” However, some authors are breaking out of that time period rut with great success: Diana Gabaldon’s “Outlander” series, Sara Donati’s “Wilderness” series, which is set in post-Revolutionary War New York and Canada, and Rosanna Bittner’s “Wilderness” series, set in the mid-18th century, are all popular.
Hmm, and if you think historicals set in places other than England are a hard sell, try drumming up interest in a black historical! England sells, duchesses sell. Slaves, even runaway ones, don’t apparently sell so my historical set in the Spanish Main and featuring a woman who runs away from her plantation to become a pirate is having a hard time getting placed with an agent.
Maybe I should have her run away to Regency England and fall in love with a highwayman who is actually a Viscount!
If I were going to write a historical romance, my first thought would be to set it in the UK, because I’m British. If I wanted to write something “exotic” to me, it might just as well be the American Civil War or Revolutionary France or any other country where my ancestors weren’t. I don’t understand why the default setting for white American writers isn’t America, at least for an era where there were white Americans in America. I mean, I can see that if you want to write a medieval, you have to set it in Europe, because there was no white culture in America at that time. But, when there were white people living European-culture type lives in the US in the Regency era, why don’t Americans write about them, their own ancestors? Or, if their ancestors were Eastern European or Scandanavian, why not those cultures instead? Has anyone read/written a historical set in 19th century Poland or Sweden?
I whole-heartedly support Maili’s rants about Americans getting British culture wrong, but, if they get the details right, fair enough. But why do they think the UK is the only place to write about?
Oh thank you. I count the settings, too, and our counts match. It’s not just me.
While I adore English-set historicals (anglophile from way back here) do I want a steady diet of only that? Nope. I cut my romance reading teeth on the British Isles and the American colonies and Africa and Europe and South America and Asia and the high seas and tropical islands and and and and and…I miss my ands. There’s a lot of history — why not use it all?
Eugenia, I’d love to read your Spanish Main book — that sounds great! My first ebook is set in 1720 New York, and the WIP is set in the English Civil War, in Holland and the Isle of Man. Currently fiddling with a medieval idea that will take place largely “on the road” between the Holy Land and England. For me, it’s fun to bust out of the box and zoom around.
Is it different for contemporaries though? How many of the contemporary books in your TBB pile are set in Africa, Japan, China, Russia, Brazil, France, Spain, or Norway?
I have read historicals set in France and in Norway (Vikings!) but apart from Mary Stewart’s French setting books, I don’t think I’ve read contemporaries set in any of those countries. At least, to be fair, Suz Brockmann’s last book takes place partially in Kenya, but the story is about Americans rather than Kenyans.
Great topic, one near and dear to my heart. I’ve been moaning and groaning about this for quite a while, but I know I’m part of the problem. I still buy and read books set in Regency England, it’s an obsession or maybe habit that’s hard to break, afraid I might miss something original and new.
I would imagine the bottom line for any publisher is what sells, we need to change our purchasing habits. I for one will be reading a few more westerns and medievals, maybe a tudor and a georgian.
Eugenia, your runaway slave story sounds wonderful, I’d read it, but please keep her away from the Viscount.
I’m a historical romance lover who’s become a little impatient with the narrowing of the boundaries and conventions and behavior for heroines permitted within the subgenre. Also, as the book’s page count has been relentlessly reduced, I’ve seen a lessening of historical details, fewer evocations of the costume and setting and atmosphere that I adore. (Gabaldon is, of course, an exception.) So, in response to this, I seem to read more and more “straight,” historical fiction, both commercial and literary, and less and less historical romance. I’ve been more satisfied by books like “Girl With a Pearl Earring” and “The Other Boleyn Girl” than with a lot of the historical romances I’ve been offered recently.
Thanks, Tara and Anna – now if only I could find an agent who agrees with you. Sherry – I’ve been reading a lot of straight historical fiction too – The Red Tent, Girl with a Pearl Earring and Penelope Lively’s Moon Tiger are among my current favorites.
I think publishers are more willing to gamble on a range of eras and settings when it’s deemed ‘literary.’ I suppose they think romance readers are inflexible and won’t venture far from the tried and true. From discussions like these I think they’ve got it terribly wrong.
I hear you, Wendy. And my current ms is set mostly in Revolutionary France. The next ms will be set entirely in Rev France. Yet I’m also told it will be a tough sell!! I’m not sure how readers start buying books with different settings if they don’t get pubbed in the first place:???: Kinda a catch 22. I see where the pubs are coming from, but at some point, something’s gonna have to give.
Just my .02. FWIW
[...] Wendy Crutcher posts on what boring shit historical romance is lately on RTB (But no worries. She puts it way nicer). [...]
“Many argue that the traditional Regency is dead because no one wants “sweet” and “sex free” reads anymore. I argue that the trad is dead because publishers actively pushed and ultimately saturated the market with the bigger Regency-set historicals”
You know Wendy,I never thought about that but I think you have a very good point. Years ago when I first came back to romance, I used to read a lot of trads and then drifted away when the larger ones came out. If there had continued to be a variety of historical romances instead of so many being situated in England alone, the market for trad regencies would probably still be there.
And in the past couple of years I have been reading less and less historicals just because they are all so much the same!!!
One thing I know for sure… I miss Western Historicals.:neutral:
I used to love the Regency and Regency Historical, but about 6 months ago I reached saturation point and simply could not read about yet another Duke, Bluestocking, or Original. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with the saturation theory.
I loved historicals set in the American West. The only places I can find them now: Harlequin Historicals, the odd paranormal, and, some scattered inspirationals. The E-Pubs still have them. A few years ago someone said the Cowboy was dead. Did we as readers kill him, or was it a simple issue of more demand for the English historicals filled the slots, and then once that wheel got rolling, it crushed everything else in it’s path?
Someone wrote a piece here about publishers pushing the envelope only so far. We may be experiencing a glut because there was such a voracious appetite for them in the past, and publishing runs a year or two in the past. And we know, the brick and mortar publishers are less likely to take risks.
C. D’Allaird
It’s nice to see that there are readers for Historical Fiction (not Romance) here, because that’s what I write. If I get published, you’ll be in for some Late Imperial Romans, Picts, Visigoths, Mediaeval Scots, and 14th century Baltic Sea Pirates.
I’m a historical romance writer. My first book was a colonial American (set on the high seas). It did ok. My second was a pirate, set in the Regency. My goodness, the response was so much better! So what did that teach me?
It’s not that other settings don’t sell, it’s that other settings don’t sell *enough.* The people buying historical romance in droves obviously want the Regency and other English historicals, because those are the books that get the best numbers. As long as these readers continue to buy English historicals in droves, publishers will publish them in droves.
The only thing readers can do is, when a different setting appears on the shelves, you buy it. New, in the first month of release. That signals to the publisher that you want it. That is really the only way that the current rut will change (and it will, eventually.)
You mention that Dorchester takes chances on new settings. They do, and that’s why I like writing for them. They publish people like Morag Pippin, who writes WWII settings. They let us push the boundaries, which I am currently doing in my next historicals. Of course if I’m wrong and my books tank… well… I’ll be the one at that McDonalds selling the generic burgers.
Take care. This is a good discussion.
“Here’s hoping New York and readers snap out of it before the historical sub genre as a whole starts pushing up daisies.”
I don’t think the subgenre will die. What will happen is that it will languish for a while, then all of a sudden, someone will write an absolutely SMASHING wonderful historical romance that breaks all the rules, maybe sneaks into a new era or some such, everyone will grab onto it, and the publishers will all of a sudden be hunting for historical romance again.
Things go in cycles. Was a time not so long ago that authors wanting to write paranormal couldn’t Give them away…
Publishers are pushing the envelope.
Harlequin Mills and Boon recently bought my book The Gladiator’s Honour which is set in Rome in 63 BC. It will be published in the UK in hardback in March 2006, in paperback in May 2006 and in the North America at some point as Gladiator’s Honor.
It breaks a number of the so-called rules, among other things the hero is a prossional sports man BUT the editors are very excited about it and about the possibility of publishing books set in the ancient world.
They have been open to this period and actively seeking it for a number of years but had to wait until they had a strong enough manuscript come through the door.
I am also about to deliver the next requested full set in the same time period. The editors were excited about the partial, and hopefully the full will deliver on that. I love writing about the sandals, swords and sex time period.
I know the editors at Mills and Boon and Harlequin Historical are actively looking for something fresh and different. The time periods they are looking for stretch from ancient times through to WW2. But they do have to have a strong manuscript that fulfils ALL the elements required for the line.
The expansion of the historical market depends on three things — the willingness of publishers to look at different settings, the ability of authors to deliver a really page turning romance and the book buying public buying these new time periods and demanding more of them. Without those three pillars, the whole genre will stay in the same place. At the moment, my fingers are very firmly crossed that the third pillar holds up for me.
I have a historical time travel set in ancient Greece and Persia with Alexander the Great – quite a lot of fun.
drop me an e-mail if you’re interested.
I don’t think the Historical is dead so much as the standardized version of the historical has worn out it’s welcome
I published my Western historical series (PROMISE series) with Ellora’a in March of 2004. I had a heck of a time even getting it reviewed because well, it was Western historical and everyone had pre-coneived notions of what that meant.
The series has caught on is very popular with e and print readers. I just released my first paranormal suspense series which I assume will have a higher draw factor because of the genre. I had anticipated those that enjoyed CONCEPTION would go back and check out my back list, but what I didn’t anticipate was how in love the dedicated paranormal fans would become of my Historical bad boys. I have a huge number of “Normally only read paranormal and contemp” readers in my fan base.
I think that just goes to show that while people have some genre preferences and prejudices, readers are not as genre bound as marketing would lead authors to believe and that in the end, irregardless of where they started, the majority of readers will find a good book in whatever genre it hides.
Granted, an author of an off standard book may have to go outside of a traditional NY publishing house to find a home for their stories, but more and more traditional print readers are discovering ebooks and as they do, they are finding more and more diverse stories to entertain them. I have plenty of readers who find me through my print books and end up buying my next book in ebook rather than wait on the print version. Other authors have the same experience and with the NY houses putting their books out in e-version too, the public is becoming more and more savvy of this market which, IMO, will either force NY houses to expand the scope of their acceptable storylines or increase the popularity and sales of epublsihers. Either scenario works in an author’s favor.:cool:
Just my opinion.
Wow – lots of great comments!
One thing to keep in mind – the online romance community is far smaller than the general romance reading public. While I firmly believe those active in the online world are hungry for “different”, there are many readers out there who want “McDonalds.” Heck, someone has to be buying all those secret baby books right? Otherwise, why would they keep getting published?
In the meantime, for readers who are serious about change – I think Jennifer Ashley said it best. By those “different” and “unusal” books new! Also, support publishers who push that envelope every now and then. Heck, write some letters. It can’t hurt, right?
One of the reasons I LOVE my editor(s) and publishing house is that they’re pretty well letting me do whatever I darned well please when it comes to setting my books, which means that MUSIC OF THE NIGHT is set in Venice and WHISPERS OF THE NIGHT is set in Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Turkey.
And no, there are NO vampires!
I agree with everyone–I too have been reading less and less Regency-set HR’s because they are so predictable. And while I do love HH and Dorchester for taking chances, they are, to state it bluntly, deemed to be at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to targeted publishers for unpublished writers. Most writers want to write for the Big Publishers, namely, Avon, who has a large roster of best-selling Regency Historical authors. And since everyone would like to become a best-selling author, not to mention just getting your foot through the door, it’s easier to write a MS similar to your favorite best-selling author and target their publishing house. Not to mention that the major players in the book selling arena only consistently carry books by the bigger NY houses. But I for one am going to stick to my guns and my favored settings of France,Italy, Russia,Asia and the Middle East and will snap up anything with a non-UK setting.
I think one of the problems for the authors who write “new and different” and the readers who want to read “new and different” is finding each other! It’s not terribly productive to write a daring book if the cover, title, back-cover copy et al all tell the reader it’s a “classic Regency” (or classic Western or whatever…)
Case in point: Janet Mullany’s so-called “traditional” Regency, DEDICATION. (Signet Regency, September.) The cover illustration is of a sweet young thing in a demure gown, and a handsome, well-groomed young man, sitting on a chaise longue reading a book, with flowers and ferns in the background. (You can see the cover on amazon if you like.) The back-cover copy hints that the book is a bit sensual, with phrases like “sophisticated patroness of the arts” and “long-held secrets” — but the copy doesn’t go very far.
The book? Okay, WAY not the “sweet” and “sex-free” read that Wendy rightly points out many people associate with the “traditional Regency.”
Yep, there’s sex in the book. Lots of different kinds of sex, plus sex talk, naughty letters, and even a bondage scene! The characters are mature adults who know what they want out of life and each other, and the book never sanitizes the conditions people lived in 200 years ago. It’s different, it’s earthy, it’s sometimes edgy.
But any readers who are bored with “traditional” Regencies, who would love an adult story full of complications and surprises, drama and hot sex, and realistic historical details, would never pick up this book. And readers who would like a Regency full of witty banter and waltzing at Almack’s might be put off by this book (it not being what the cover implies) and stop buying new books.
This, of course, is just one example. But I think as long as the covers and cover copy and blurbs fail to give a real hint of what’s inside, readers seeking unusual or daring books will continue to be frustrated — and writers of daring books will continue having a hard time reaching their audience.
Ahem. Just to set the record straight…it’s two bondage scenes.
My editor at Signet told me they hoped for crossover sales from readers of regular historicals, but keeping the actual content of the books a well-kept secret is not the way to go. I’m not the only author to include “non-traditional” material–Cara is too modest to mention she’s another risky regency writers–but the image of the regency as a bland, asexual, comfy read persists. And as for the craze for regency-set historicals, I tend to read them questioning why on earth the reder chose the period. A lot of them seem to have a setting and feel closer to the Edwardian age (no, I’m not naming names. There are too many). Jane Feather made the break and set a series in the early 1900s, and they’re a great read. (Also a time of conflict and great clothes!)
And, I should have added, if you’d like to talk more about regencies (or pirates, that’s the latest post as of this morning, oh, why not), come visit
http://riskyregencies.blogspot.com
I have to say that Regency romances (whether traditional or the bigger historicals) have been plagued with some overused plots. The sweet innocent miss from the country who comes to London to make a good match so she can help her impoverished family (paired with the impossibly handsome rakish lord who is tired of being pursued for his fortune). In the historical the variant may include the sweet thing offering herself to the rakish lord as his mistress in some deal to help her family.
But Regency England has so much more wealth to offer. Different situations, settings, plot possibilities. There are authors who tap into that wealth. Mary Jo Putney is one of my favorites.
And for quite some time the Signet editors have encouraged authors (including me) to experiment with original stories and characters. Not necessarily angst and sex, though they can include them, but anything original. I highly second the recommendation of DEDICATION by Janet Mullany, a beautiful and complex book, with sex, angst and wry humor. My September release, LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE, also includes original elements: hero/heroine in their thirties, issues of infertility and foundling children, and yes, SEX.
And yet, as Cara mentioned in an earlier comment, they put the same misleading covers on most traditional Regencies.
My theory is the genre is like a person standing between two ships sailing away from one another. The covers are designed to appeal to a dwindling segment of readers who want their Regencies cozy. Readers who want more original stories have largely gone on to reading the big historicals by innovative authors who got their start in traditionals.
I’m reassured to see that many of my favorite Regency historical authors are doing very well, because I do love this setting!