Romancing the Blog | Romance Authors and Readers Who Blog

If I could go back in time to when I was first submitting work to publishers and give myself one piece of advice it would be: If a publisher wants to publish my book, it’s because they believe my book will make them money.

It’s not because I’m nice, or I know the right people, or I’ve been to the right conferences, or have the very very very best critique group on the planet. They believe my book will make them money. That’s it. There’s no other reason for them to buy the book.

I don’t know why I didn’t get this for so long. I wasn’t new to the business world, not even the creative arts business world. But something happened when I started writing- I lost my perspective. I totally, if subconsciously, believed that they were doing me a favor, buying my book. But here’s the thing: no one I’ve ever met has been published by a major house as a favor. Ever.

I hate to say it, but I think RWA fosters this mistaken belief. I’m not exactly sure how, but it has something to do with the competitiveness, with the rush to be published. It has less to do with a worthy apprenticeship than a race to a finish line that leaves people disheartened, depressed and/or sick with envy, none of which fosters creativity. Because the game is all about getting published now, then whoever can bestow this state is the savior. Not a partner.

Remember, I said creative partner. Not financial partner. Publishing houses exist to make money. Therefore, it is in their best interest to pay me the least they can, so they can make more profit. It is up to me to make sure what they offer is enough.

Not understanding my role clearly cost me. I lost money. I lost a great deal of time because I waited meekly for an editor to respond to something when I should have picked up the phone and gotten an answer. If I didn’t get the answer from my editor, I should have called the senior editor. This would not, I guarantee you, have gotten me blackballed. Nothing short of being a total, life-threatening jackass would have done that, because (one more time) they believed my book would make them money. Mind you, the publisher had no reason to dissuade me from my subservient role. I made life easier for them. Why smarten me up?

There exists a belief, which I picked up almost from day one, that if I don’t toe the line obediently there are a hundred others waiting to take my place. But guess what? There aren’t. If their books were as good as all that, they would be published. Now.

I’ve read about yet another get-published-quick scheme on the web, a way to milk the desperate that is about as sad as it gets. But I know people will buy it. Because that kind of desperation makes us forget who we truly are.

What I’m suggesting is that if there is desperation in the process, it should be about the work, not the contract. The passion should focus on the words, not on this contest or that, not on polishing the first three chapters for five years.

The only reason a publishing house thinks my book will make them money is that the book is good. I’m not saying everyone will like it, or that you, or anyone, couldn’t write a better book. But my book is good. The whole thing, not just the first three chapters. It has a flow, characters that people can relate to… It’s a professionally written book. It took me a long time and a great deal of hard work to get to the point where what I wrote was publishable. And it wasn’t just my critique group who thought so.

The only reason I’m letting the publishing house use my book to make them money is because I’m getting value from the arrangement as well.

I don’t know if I would have listened to this advice back in the beginning. But I do know that if I had, I would have been better off.

I’m no prude. I bought condoms for my sister when I was 12 because she was too shy (and yet, not to shy to be having sex…but I digress). I flashed an entire class of 8th grade boys on a dare (when I was in 8th grade, so don’t call the cops. Not entirely sure they were missing much when none of them saw me). I’m known to write erotica, for pete’s sake. I won’t even tell you some of the things I’ve read. And yet, I can’t quite wrap my head around a particular phrase so prevalent in romance: “screaming in pleasure”.

Have you screamed in pleasure? Really? Where did you get the breath?

I know, I’m being a bit literal. Allow me to explain.

Since I’m keeping everyone abreast of my newbie foray into the world of publishing, I thought I’d let you know my impression of editing for an editor. Truthfully, I never felt as fat in my life as I did when I had to trim said fat from my contracted manuscript. And, it’s not remotely done yet. I still have a few rounds to go with a great editor who is rubbing her paws together in glee at yet another juicy slab of manuscript to cut down into edible portions. At any rate, I have been introduced to a concept that in my many years experience, I didn’t take to heart as deeply as I should have–wandering body parts.

I can keep track of arms and hands and legs and…ahem, other things, but it’s those sneaky body parts that have gotten away from me like water through my fingers. Eyes wandering through rooms, lost, alone and afraid. Mouths traveling, hill and valleying over the canvas of a body and so on and so forth. The reason I didn’t give these much thought was because it seemed, oh, I don’t know…nitpicky. People understood, right? Well, not quite. Fans of the English language would like my head on a platter and so the wandering body parts have to go for the sake of grammar (my head notwithstanding, apparently).

Then, while helping another buddy with her line edits, another friend asked me, “Have you ever screamed in pleasure?”

Not your typical question and I had to really think about it. I don’t think I have. I don’t think anyone has, outside of films. To me, a scream is a full-throated belting out of sound and air. If I’m in that much pleasure, I have to say…I’ve got better things to do than scream.

This isn’t to claim that a heroine can’t get noisy. By all means, share your joy with the world, but isn’t there a better word to use for it? Isn’t “screaming with pleasure” just another kind of wandering body part, a phrase we use for shortcut instead of creating real prose and working for our heroine’s good time?

So, I decided to look up some typical romance euphemisms for climaxing with gusto:

• Screaming with pleasure–See above

• Roaring/Crying out (his/her) release–Is it me, or does nothing about either of those sound sexy out of context?

• Went over the edge (or into oblivion)–I got a kick out of how many variations to this one I found: Toppled, Fell, Dropped, etc

• When the shattering explosion hit them…–I remember that car accident. So sad.

• Climaxed hard–well, there’s something for raw (if not necessarily eloquent) honesty

• Pumped her full of (whatever you’d like to put there)–Evocative…but messy-sounding. Always reminds me of how they put the filling in donuts.

• Exploded–I can’t help but wonder…do you hear a ka-boom?

• Came apart is his arms–every time I read that, I think, boy, that must scare him. And why does he get to explode but she has to come apart? Oh wait…is it like a gun at target practice?

I’ll fess up, I’ve used almost all of these. I’ll probably use them again. I have such shame (some of which is even for the writing clichés). But what is the way out? Being more descriptive? Perhaps less so? What are your commonly used expressions? Have your body parts been escaping like criminals, too? Can romance pull away from them or are they expected now? If you aren’t sure, share some euphemisms you’ve come across to add to my list!

Dee

“I’ll go somewhere where I won’t get in anybody’s way,” Dorothy Gale of Kansas said. And off she went, with her little dog, Toto, too. Along her journey she met some amiable strangers, each with their own little problems. One seemed a little dim, and awfully clumsy. One was stiff and rather humorless. And the third, well, he was just a wuss.

“I heard about a man that can help us to have the things we want most,” Dorothy said. The four friends agreed to travel together to meet the talented man who could help them. Along the way, they encountered a few obstacles, including one meany of a lady, but they finally reached their destination. The man helped them and they lived happily ever after.

Zzzzzzz…

The above might make an okay book, if someone gave it a chance, but really, there’s nothing spectacular about the story line, is there? In today’s market, it would be rejected right out of the gate. It’s what you might call, drum roll please, low-concept.

Now that’s not to say that low-concept books can’t be enjoyable, but chances are they’ll never have the over-night success of, say, Allison Brennan’s mega popular set of books, The Prey, The Hunt, and The Kill. What makes her books high-concept?

The short answer is the hook.

She offers something different. The Hunt has a twist on the typical stalker book: deep characterization, a creative plot with the villain copying the murders that the heroine, an ex-FBI agent, writes about in her novels. All three of Allison’s books offer strong female characters with something to prove and demons to purge. In short, high-concept.

Back to the Wizard of Oz (because my son just played the Munchkin Coroner in his school’s production a few weeks ago and it’s in my brain)… What did L. Frank Baum do to change things up and turn his story into something high-concept before high-concept was even invented?

• He added a tornado
• And Munchkins in the Land of Oz (who’d ever heard of a Munchkin before? Or the Land of Oz?)
• Both beautiful, good witches and ugly, bad witches
• Flying Monkeys and diabolical trees
• Ruby Slippers
• Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my
• The Scarecrow and the Tin Man
• And, of course, the Great and Powerful Oz

The story reaches the same conclusion a low-concept version might have. Dorothy realizes that she had the answer to her dilemma all along, she had only to recognize it. She learns to look no farther than her own backyard next time she feels lonely. It’s her journey that leads her to these answers, though, that is so very different, and as a result much more fun than a low-concept trip. The unique journey Baum created for Dorothy is what makes The Wizard of Oz high-concept, and a classic to boot.

Taking a story idea and putting a twist on it, making it into something original is what high-concept is all about. Easy to do? Heck no. But it is possible. Who’s done it lately?

• Carpe Demon, Julie Kenner’s Demon-Hunting Soccer Mom~ Kate has to reconcile the job of her youth (demon hunter with her late husband) with the responsibilities of her new life (married to a politician and mom to two children). Same outcome–she succeeds–but the adventures she has? Demon-hunting is little more inventive than, say, rejoining the workforce and going back to a state job. Throw a dead demon in the pantry, make the fate of the world rest squarely on your heroine’s shoulders, and now you have a party.

• Gregory Maguire’s series of books, beginning with Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister and Wicked-The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. They take Fairy Tales, put a different spin on them, and tell them from an alternate point of view. (Note: this was also done with the children’s picture book, The True Story of the Three Little Pigs, as told by the Big Bad Wolf. High concept crosses genres and reading levels.)

• The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants by Ann Brashares–Magical pants and how the lives of four girls are forever changed because of them? Clever. It’s a hook.

• Like Water for Chocolate~ Love and food. Food and love. Need I say more?

High-concept is one of those abstract ideas that is hard to define. Agents Jenny Bent and Kimberly Whalen wrote an article about it for Romantic Times last December. Read it, learn it, because high-concept is what agents and editors want. Understanding what it means can help us ignite something great into our writing.

There are a ton of high-concept books out there. And there are more in our heads, waiting to be told. We only have to identify them.

What high-concept books have you read lately? Let’s share and learn from them.

As I mentioned last month, all of my free time (ha!) has been devoted to adding content to the RomanceWiki. In addition to fighting the good fight against spammers (why, oh, why do they think they’ll win against me?) and adding new titles, I’ve been working on gathering information about past RITA winners – titles and authors.

Here is what I’ve learned: we have lost so much history. Worse, we are losing our major asset…the actual stories that make the history.

It’s a bit depressing to consider, yet I think we can save our past. I’ve been trying to build histories for each RITA-winning title. Naturally, my primary source is Amazon.com. It is, frankly, amazing how many old books they have in their catalog. Of course, a lot of them are out-of-print. If I were the type to do math (and, thankfully, I’m not), I’d say 85%* of RITA-winning titles are no longer available to readers.

If it weren’t for authors like Nora Roberts and Susan Elizabeth Phillips, that number would be far higher. Trust me on this.

More often that not, the note I include with a book’s description is “Out-of-Print.” And every time I write those words, it hurts. I understand the business of publishing, probably better than most. It’s a numbers game and the sheer economics of maintaining physical product makes keeping books in print a losing prospect.

Yet, my little inner voice whines, these are the best of the best of the genre. And while that’s probably debatable, these award-winning books tell the story of how romance has evolved since RWA was established. You get a sense of what was considered, well, romantic, and you get a sense of how absolutely different our genre was when compared to today. And, if you’re reviewing these titles in great detail, you’re thinking, “Man, that was a great book. Too bad I let it go.” (I’m thinking, specifically, of Anne Stuart’s Cinderman, but it applies to many more titles).

What really got me agitated about this topic was a book by an author with a name I’m sure is made up. I hope is made up. In fact, when I first started typing her name, I thought, this is the type of name that people making fun of romance use. Her name is Constance Ravenlock>. She won the RITA (actually, Golden Medallion as the RITA didn’t come into play until the 1990 awards) in 1982 in the Category Historical category. Which I believe is the Short Historical category in our modern world. The title of the book is Rendezvous at Gramercy

.

This book is out-of-print (heck, the publisher is out-of-print), and the online information about this author is minimal. I can access a list of her pseudonyms, that’s about it. From what I can tell, the only book she wrote under the Ravenlock name was her RITA winner, a Candelight Regency about a woman who finds shelter with people who suspect she’s a spy. Maybe this book is ridiculously awful, maybe it’s brilliantly brilliant. The sad truth is I’ll probably never know.

Now if I were in the mood, I’d turn this into a screed about authors grabbing back their rights and using new technology to make these award-winning titles available to readers. I’d suggest that the very least RWA could do is form a committee to explore ways to preserve RITA winners for posterity. I’d complain that the one-month-and-you’re-gone Harlequin model is depressing when you’re trying to learn about books that were considered the best of their genre (of course, I’d level the same charges at other publishers as well).

I imagine this is an issue faced by every genre from literary to science fiction, and I like to think others are asking these same questions. I’ve written about projects like Google books in other venues – and my point has always been that we’re losing so much because the economics of publishing precludes keeping large numbers of titles in print. We have the technology. We have the creativity. What I really hope we can do is save our history before it’s too late.

And, yeah, if you know more about Constance Ravenlock, please fill in the blanks. In fact, here’s a list of RITA-winning authors (I’d post the titles, too, but I’m only up to “O”…lot of books, you know!).

* – This is truly just an estimate. Honest.

Just the other day someone said to me, “I would never read a romance.” Yeah yeah, we’ve all heard it before, and it enraged me as usual, and I briefly considered telling this otherwise intelligent, talented man that I would bet folding money he had read Jane Eyre, if not some Jane Austen, in college…but then I didn’t.
Because I got to thinking about what I won’t read.

At first, I was all, “I would never say that! I would never prejudge an entire genre! I will read anything, I tell you! Anything!” And then I realized that’s not really true.

I’m not a terribly girly girl – I like makeup and shoes (shoes! swoon) and I hate bugs, but I’m definitely not all ruffles and pink glitter and flirtinis. Yet ever since I was a kid, I’ve read primarily about girls and women. And, most of the time anyway, books written by women. Loved Little Women, had no interest in Jo’s Boys. Gobbled up every Nancy Drew I could find, never cracked the spine of a Hardy Boys mystery. I’ve reread A Little Princess and The Secret Garden dozens of times, but I’ve never even picked up Little Lord Fauntleroy. An English teacher had to twist my arm to get me to read Huckleberry Finn.

The most interesting aspects of history for me are always its effect on women’s lives. I can tell you lots about suffrage and about pregnancy and child rearing through the years, but I can’t tell you anything about wars outside of basic dates, and I don’t know much about military heroes or the design of ships or muskets. My favorite Civil War stories are always about female spies, and when it comes to the Revolutionary War period, my interest is in Betsy Ross, not George Washington.

Most of the books on my shelves are written by women. Nora Roberts, Julia Quinn, Patricia Gaffney, Elizabeth George, Deborah Crombie, Jodi Picoult, Diana Gabaldon, Edith Wharton, Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen, Shirley Jackson…Yes, yes, I know, you’re getting the idea. The number of books I own written by men is pretty damn small in comparison, and a lot of those are written by Stephen King (of whom I am an unashamed fan).

As usual, though, there’s a big exception. When it comes to romance, I usually read for the heroes. Don’t get me wrong – I want a heroine I can relate to, but the pull for me is the hero, and I’ve realized he’s usually either dark or tortured in some way. Patricia Gaffney’s Sebastien Verlaine, of To Have and to Hold. Jamie Fraser, of Diana Gabaldon’s fantastic Outlander series. Anne Stuart’s oh-so-tortured Bastian Touissant in Black Ice. Michael and Gabriel of Robin Schone’s The Lover and Gabriel’s Woman.

Once I started thinking about it, I realized that most of the characters which have fascinated me on TV are dark male characters, too. Angel and Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Mulder of The X-Files, Jack, Sawyer, and Sayid on Lost. The incredibly conflicted (and very, very hot) Logan and Weevil on Veronica Mars.

Both Veronica and Buffy have major issues (or, as some would say, subscriptions) to struggle with, which is why I love them both so much. There’s still nothing like a strong female character for me. But I can’t think of a lot of other women, especially in romance, who are as dark as the men I’ve mentioned. There just aren’t a lot of women in romance – or on TV, actually – who are tortured, or who need redemption.

Why is that? Seems like a pretty big hole in the plot continuum to me, and one that smacks of something upsetting. Is it just not “seemly” for a woman to have a dark past? Would it be too much to ask that readers sympathize with a woman trying to overcome alcoholism, or addiction, or suspect moral choices? And those are only some of the reasons heroes seek redemption, aren’t they?

Dark or tormented heroines tend to be victims. Women overcoming abuse, for instance. Judith from Karen Ranney’s gorgeous A Promise of Love is a great example. Even women like Ana Lucia and Kate on Lost are given very sympathetic reasons for their transgressions. Ana Lucia, a former cop, shot someone who had caused her to lose her baby. Kate killed the stepfather who had been abusing her mother. And that doesn’t bother me, except when those are the only kinds of reasons women are given for seeking redemption or change.

Maybe it’s easier to paint men this way – Alison Kent’s fabulous SG-5 series features heroes who have gritty, uncomfortable pasts, such as the military. Of course, women aren’t eligible for combat. And in thrillers, all of the women spies I’ve encountered are villains.

Maybe I’m weird – I love a good comedic romp once in a while, and I’ve read plenty of family dramas, which I enjoy, too. But my natural love of strong female heroines – whether they’re mystery-solving teens or contemporary women facing divorce or governesses dealing with brooding employers – ranks just above a story about someone who needs to battle his or her demons and make peace with their past. Just happens that sort of story is usually given to a man.

Am I wrong? Are dark or tormented heroines out there and I’m missing them? And is there anything you won’t read on principle?

by Cynthia Eden

When I was a kid, I fell in love with Romancing the Stone. I loved the movie because it had great action, great romance, and some great comedic moments. But…the most important reason I loved it was…Joan Wilder.

Joan Wilder. Bestselling romance novelist. Award-winning writer (Hey, I saw the plaque in her apartment!). The woman who cried as she typed because she cared so much about her story. The woman who was so completely absent-minded when she wrote that she could forget something as simple as buying tissue.

A woman truly after my own heart.

Joan was the first romance novelist I saw on the big screen. Sure, I’d seen writers before—mystery writers, horror writers…but no romance queen. Until Joan.

And from the moment I saw her, from the moment that I heard her talk about how much she loved her characters (Does anyone out there remember Jesse?), I knew I wanted to be…her. I wanted to care as much about my work as she did. I wanted to churn out bestsellers. And, of course, I wanted to ride off on an awesome yacht with Michael Douglas.

A few years later, another movie came out with a romance novelist as a prominent character—She-Devil. Meryl Streep played the oh-so-elegant Mary Fisher—the romance writer who lived in a huge pink house by the sea. Now, when I saw Mary Fisher, I wasn’t blown away. She was too fancy for me, too rigid. And I got the feeling her character didn’t “love” the romances like Joan did. Yep, I thought she did it for the money, and not the love.

But, hey, that’s just me. Maybe some of you out there are Mary Fisher fans. But…me, I’m Joan. All the way.

Can anyone think of any other movies or TV shows that depicted romance writers? And did you think those shows did a good job in their portrayals?

*For information on how you can submit to Open Blog Night, click here.

I once had an author tell me I was the most normal reviewer she knew. Before I could take offense, she explained that I was always honest and never looking to form cliques. Hey, I like talking to authors. I’m all about idle chitchat, sipping cocktails in the bar at whatever conference, and hoping for some juicy gossip (Who just landed 3-book deal? Who is trying to reclaim their backlist?). That said, true friendship is out of the question. Acquaintances, sure. Drinking buddies, even better. But bosom buddies? Probably not a good idea. A reviewer’s first job is to remain objective – and that’s merely one of the many things I’ve learned over the past seven years.

Trends Come and Go – I started reviewing in 1999. Back then, if you were trying to sell a paranormal you might as well have been looking for the Holy Grail, every historical on the shelf didn’t take place in Regency England and a little imprint called Brava had nearly everybody and their dead grandmother scandalized. In 2006, paranormals are everywhere, I’m sick of Regency England and Brava is starting to look tame compared to the imprints that have followed in her wake.

Publishing Is A Business – the minute a book that fits Type B is a hit, publishers will jump on the bandwagon and flood the market with other books that fit the mold. Then it’s just a question of when readers will get burnt out, fed up or just plain tired. Talented authors (in many cases fan favorites) are put out to pasture because 1) their last book didn’t sell 2) nobody reads Type A books anymore or 3) they cannot be pigeonholed or branded.

Bad Books Happen – As a firm believer in the law of averages, even the best of authors are allowed at least one dud.

Keep Your Mouth Shut – Bad behavior sticks, and thanks to the glorious wonders of the Internet, can be spread in record time. You may think your baby is the prettiest one on the playground, but opinions are like butts – everybody has one. Fix a margarita, call your best friend and she’ll tell you that the reviewer is obviously a misguided jackass who wouldn’t know The Great American Novel if it bit them in the butt. But keep it off-line. That bears repeating – keep it off-line! Sure that might gall you – but nothing blows up in your face that way.

Round And Round The Merry-Go-Round – Authors will always get defensive over bad reviews. Reviewers will always defend their job. It’s an unbreakable food chain and we all need to move on.

Awards – in the grand scheme of things, most readers could care less. That said, some libraries will probably decide to buy your book now.

Never Say Never – I cannot tell you how many times I’ve said, “Oh that author doesn’t do a thing for me” and then I read their latest book and it knocks my socks off. Or, “I really don’t care for paranormal” and I read several that I really enjoy. I have since learned to keep my mouth shut.

Stop Worrying About Respect – Romance is genre fiction, and literary snobs will always malign genre fiction. We may succeed in changing a few minds, but there will always be a camp of narrow-minded people who will continue to sneer and demean no matter how eloquent our arguments or passionate our defense. I’m a librarian. Most days I even like to think I’m a good one. It’s on those good days that I tell readers to hold their heads high, never be ashamed. They are a reader, and that automatically makes them a hellava lot smarter than the average bear. And when all else fails, there is always the one-finger salute.

What lessons do the next seven years hold? I cannot wait to find out.

Sarah Weinman wrote a blog entry a while back that pops into my head every time I hit the book aisle at Wal-Mart: “There is no better tonic than hard numbers” (This entry was written July 26, 2005, but I doubt things have changed drastically since then, and this is the best breakdown I’ve seen.)

Over a three week period this summer, the following sales numbers were recorded for a NYT bestselling thriller writer’s most recent book:

B&N: 4,140
Waldenbooks: 4,888
Borders: 3,993
Anderson Merchandisers/Walmart: 47,671
Target: 16,341
Price/Costco: 17,291
Sam’s: 14,108
Amazon: 320

My first thought: That Amazon figure can’t be right, can it? I don’t know what NYT bestselling thriller writer she’s talking about, but I would have guessed pre-orders alone would total more than 320 copies.

My second thought: Those numbers seriously narrow the field if you want success, don’t they?

It didn’t surprise me to see Wal-Mart’s numbers higher than the others’. The discount and convenience are hard to beat. I was, however, surprised at how much higher. It seems to me that the discrepancy is large enough to allow a retailer known for censorship espousing conservative values to have a signifcant effect on the market.

As with many writers (I assume), there’s a little piece of my mind watching and reading and listening—absorbing market and industry news—and making and adjusting future plans. Now, if those numbers are factored in, they can also have a significant effect on a writer’s career plan.

For instance, I’ve always wanted to submit something to Kensington Brava. (Well, not always, but since Brava came about.) Why? I love steamy romance, and I’d love to work with Kate Duffy. But now, a little voice in the back of my head whispers “But you’ve never seen a Brava at your Wal-Mart…but they always stock HQN…” and such. (Though I have seen Bravas on walmart.com.) I can buy Harlequin Blazes at my Wal-Mart, but I heard a rumor a while back that they actually had to do less envelope-pushing or risk getting the boot from the retail giant. Writing a romance that doesn’t feature explicit sex and graphic language won’t guarantee you get a spot at Wal-Mart, but writing a book that does guarantees you won’t.

Are quality authors and/or publishers losing out—even being put at a financial disadvantage—for not meeting one retailer’s standards? Does the impact Wal-Mart real estate can have on sales factor into a writer’s plans? Should it?

I couple months ago, I blogged over at Murder She Writes about “hooking” and posted the first lines of some books and asked based on the first line alone, what book would they pick up first? (The number one pick was James Patterson’s MAXIMUM RIDE, a YA novel.)

The first couple pages . . . in fact, the first paragraph or even the first line . . . are crucial for an unpublished author or a debut author. I am admittedly shocked at how many people read the first page or two at the bookstore, or on-line, before deciding to buy the book. And when you consider editors and agents who will pass only on your first 5-10 pages, you know that how you start the story is vital in making that sale in the first place.

I used to buy books by unknown-to-me authors primarily on recommendations from my mom or best friend, both avid readers who know what I like, or because the cover and blurb intrigued me. I never used to read the first pages of a book.

Now? I’ve joined the masses of readers who judge the book based on the first page. It seems so unfair, but there you have it. I don’t have a lot of time, I don’t like to waste money, so I start reading the book and if it doesn’t grab me right away, it’s back on the shelf.

After reading Diana Peterfreund’s article last week (Post Medias Res), about starting a book after the action, I wondered how the author got away with it. Diana admits the book was otherwise very good and enjoyable, it was just the beginning that faltered.

Then you have the other extreme, starting with backstory. Or, rather, before the beginning. Unless it’s done well, it’s just plain boring. But I am one of those readers who does like a good backstory . . . I just don’t want to be told it.

Some people have complained about books starting in the middle of action and not being able to figure out the characters or what’s happening, making the first pages confusing and not an enjoyable read. They want to see a bit of the “ordinary world” before diving into the action.

But at the same time, authors know that if they spend too much time on set-up, they lose the reader before they even buy the book.

I’ll admit, I added a sentence to the beginning of THE KILL during the copyedit stage because I felt it just started too dang slow. I showed my heroine in her “ordinary world” as an FBI scientist, which was crucial to establish her character prior to the bad news she is about to receive, but at the same time it was ho-hum.

The day Olivia St. Martin’s life turned upside down for the second time began like any other.

That sentence was designed to pique the reader’s interest so they would not only wonder what was about to happen (which happened a couple pages later), but also transitioned from the brief prologue which showed the first life-altering event.

Gimmick? Perhaps. Fair? Absolutely. When an author is judged on the first page of her book, we use everything we can to hook the reader.

With the number of agents and editors blogging, writers today have more resources than ever before. Most that I have read give unpublished authors 5-10 pages. Sometimes a full chapter. But if they aren’t hooked by the end of those pages, they pass.

Then I started thinking about my favorite authors. The auto-buys. There’s only one auto-buy author where I got a third of the way through the book and said, “This is ridiculous, I can’t read anymore.” I think readers give their favorite authors more time to get into the story, because we love their voice and they’ve consistently delivered a good story. But that’s just me . . . what about you? Do you give your favorite authors more or less leeway than new-to-you authors?

Or maybe you’re not like the majority of readers. Maybe you don’t read the first page and buy or pass.

I write romance in most sub-genres–historical, contemporary, futuristic, paranormal, and sci-fi (all erotic). So far in my career I’ve been able to write whatever I want. I hope to always be able to do that, but I doubt that will be the case. There are fences around authors, boundaries we can’t cross. I’m starting to see them as I feel my way around the perimeter.

Don’t readers want something different?

Yes, I hear they do. But even then, “different” has to stay within the boundaries.

So many times I’ll see a storyline and wonder why the author didn’t take it further. The last time it happened, I decided to write the premise differently. But I was urged to rein back by those who read it in its early stages. Romance readers won’t go for that. You can’t do it.

I wasn’t sure I believed them, but I made some alterations to make the piece more palatable (read: commercial/salable). It didn’t affect the story and I wasn’t attached to it. Still, I’m a gal who likes to take things outside the box. Later, while stopping by a blog I was directed to, I found a discussion between readers where some were quite adamant that certain things were simply unacceptable in romance. There are boundaries. Once the hero and heroine meet, certain things must NOT be done. (I bet you can think of a few things you won’t tolerate or don’t like in a romance after the H/h meet. Want to share? I’d love to hear them.)

Writers entering contests will tell you how their manuscript came back with notes about how they “couldn’t” (not “shouldn’t”) have a character say or do that (and the “that” varies.) A friend posted a blurb on a Yahoo loop and was emailed by a popular author who pointed out all the things she “couldn’t” do, but had done in her blurb. We’re not talking about the craft of writing, but about the storytelling and the “rules”. She turned it in to her NY editor without the suggested changes, and the editor loved it.

As another friend of mine says, “Anything is possible with the right motivation.” I’ve always thought that. But I guess that’s not true. Apparently, some things can’t be done. Period. Because despite what is said about wanting new and different, it’s the readers’ old standards of romance that seem to set the boundaries. If we want to be swept away by a storyline we haven’t seen, we have to buy it when it hits the shelves. If the money is there, the publishers will follow.

I spoke with a reader the other day and confessed my worry that I would continue to write stories that need “reining in” and might alienate readers. She agreed that breaking too many rules coming out of the gate could have a negative effect. I’ve heard it said that romance novels are fantasy, but it seems the fantasy has a set screenplay.

So when I see complaints about how publishers are releasing a parade of the same old thing, and how readers are finding less and less keeper books, and reading slumps are coming more often, and readers are afraid to try new authors… I can’t help but wonder if we’re the ones fencing the genre in. Us–the readers.

Is that a possibility?