I’ve read the various posts on author branding and when authors switch genres (and whether or not a reader appreciates when a favorite author jumps ship and floats in new waters).
I’m curious, though. And I’d like to pose some questions to the readers out there.
When you pick up a book by a new to you author. And let’s say for arguments sake it’s a historical romance. You really, really like this book and the author. So much so that you’re going to be on the lookout for her next release. Six months later, you’re in the book store and you see the author has a new release out. But it’s a contemporary romantic suspense. Do you buy it? Are you upset because it’s not a historical? Do you harbor any feelings of betrayal?
I ask this because I’m becoming more and more convinced that it’s a matter of timing. If an author writes in one genre for a lengthy period of time, it’s more likely that their readership is going to be resistant to the author writing something new and different. But I wonder when the cutoff for this is?
I’ve witnessed authors who write, say their first book as an erotic contemporary, then their second might be a historical, and perhaps their third is a suspense. I don’t see much complaining amongst their fans, but I wonder if it’s because an expectation was never built into their work of “Author A writes only sizzling erotic romance.â€
Would it have worked so well if Author A had written her first four books as an erotic romance author then made her fifth a historical? Or maybe it takes six books to build that expectation.
I know for a fact when Julie Garwood stopped writing historicals, I was horrified. HORRIFIED. I wasn’t angry with her, but I just could not imagine reading something by her in a contemporary setting. But had she sprinkled in the contemporaries with her historicals through the years, I wonder if I would have had the same reaction. I’m thinking no. It’s that whole expectation thing.
How many books do we give an author before we began to expect certain stories from them? Are we more forgiving of an author who genre hops from the very beginning? Are you annoyed with an author whose second release is a stretch from their first? And is there a middle ground? Some sort of a place between immediate genre hopping and years of writing the same genre that we tend to be more forgiving of an author who makes the change?
No related posts.
There are just some genres I don’t enjoy reading … BUT if I have an author that I love, I would probably pick up the book, regardless of genre, and try it out. If I still didn’t like it, I doubt I would read that genre (even by her) again, but would keep buying the other books in the genre I liked. I do think that already liking her as an author would cause me to try something new, though. For me, it wouldn’t be off putting.
You talk about Julie Garwood — I actually loved her old stuff and have some of it on my keeper shelf, but didn’t have a problem with her switch to contemp, and I read all of her FBI novels now. But I also go back and read her old stuff, too.
Maybe it’s just me. I’ll be interested in seeing what other folks have to say.
I don’t have a problem if an author jumps from genre to genre. If I like the writing, I will definitely try another type of book from the same author, especially if I do enjoy the writing style and see if it’s just as enjoyable as what I’ve already read.
Where I do get frustrated is when it comes to series. A few authors have on-going series, and one author might have 2 or 3 going on at the same time, and if they only write one or two books a year, then it takes longer to get the next installment. Again, I have no problem with an author spreading their creative wings, but if I want book 6 for the Red series, and instead get book 3 for the Green series and now have to wait at least a year or more for another Red book, I’m not too happy about it. So that’s the dilemma I face. I’m interested to hear what other readers have to say.
A lot depends on what particularly one likes about a writer, such as the voice and treatment of plot, character, or the period.
An author I like, I’ll try them at least once in a different genre.
I don’t switch it up much between Romance classifications. So if I like a Historical Author, I really will not read a Contemporary, because I’ve gone on record repeatedly as not liking them. But if the Historical Romance author were to completely leap out of Romance, and write, say, a book of collected essays about her experiences, I dunno, riding trains over a six month period in Peru, I DEFINITELY pick that book up.
I’m interested in what a “favorite” author has to say, but sometimes not enough to read varieties of Romance I know I don’t enjoy.
(And, in terms of timing, I think having a string of Historicals, say four, and then writing a Contemporary is more off-putting than first one, then the other. But I’m only guessing here, since I don’t tend to get all that worked up about what the author Needed to write in order to make me happy.)
Should have said there, that it doesn’t make me angry to discover that an author has written a Contemporary romance–I figure that’s her choice; it’s what wanted to be written.
I never feel like an author owes me a certain type of story except when they have an incomplete series going. THEN I can get demanding.
If I really love an author, I’ll try anything he or she writes, even if it’s outside my normal genre preferences. I don’t always like it, though. And I never get angry at an author for writing something different, though sometimes I get angry at faceless entities like “market forces” or “the publishing industry” if I get the impression the author had to move away from writing the books I love for the sake of staying published.
I’m fine with an author changing it up. I want to make sure the cover and copy let me know that. I don’t want to pick it up thinking it is another historical only to find out it is something else. I may not read the new genre depending on if it is a genre I enjoy.
As long as a writer stays within my personal comfort zone, I’m happy to go along. Barbara Hambly writes Fantasy (v. good), historical novels (v. good), and Star Wars tie-ins (so-so – but you can tell I read it even though it’s the only one I picked up ever). If she wrote romance or thrillers, I’d follow her around.
The one book of hers I hate is one in a fantasy series where she strays over my line in regard to sexual & horror elements.
I think the test a writer should apply is ‘if they like this, will they like that?’ If you write YA and adult books in the same genre with the same take on explicitness (eg, not very) then you should be fine. If you write historicals and contemporaries with the same wit and style and attention to setting, that shouldn’t be a problem either.
If you write books that might offend the readers of your other books – because they’re too sexually explicit, too violent, or too weird, you might consider a pen name. Even when the secret is out in the open (‘well-known writing as totally obscure’) readers will know what to expect and can avoid the books they won’t like.
Sharon, I’ve always read by author rather than by genre or subgenre, so it’s not a big deal to me. I especially don’t see it as a big deal in romance if an author writes in more than one subgenre; it’s all romance.
This may be heresy, but I don’t care if a favorite author choses to write straight suspense. I read virtually all genres. The subject and the quality of the writing has everything to do with my decision to read a book, not the genre.
Personally, if I really like an author, I’m going to be stalking her website/blog for info on the new releases.
In which case, I’ll know what (sub)genre the new release falls into.
I mean, some things I’m not interested in and won’t read. J. R. Ward writes contemporary romances under her (I believe) legal name, but they seem to be more traditional romance… which I’m not interested in, no matter how good it is.
IMO, it’s stupid to swear off an author for writing books outside your comfort genres, unless she’s completely switched altogether. I’ve heard readers whine that, “But I can’t tell what the new book is.”
When they go on to say that they’d read her if they could tell… well, I have to say, that’s just BS. The Internet makes it really easy to google an author, find her website OR a fan site, and find out wtf genres she’s writing in. Most authors will have their work categorised by genre, so it’s not difficult to tell. If you “want to read it” except for not being able to tell the genre, well, marketing is definitely at fault for not making it simple to recognise, but I have issues with people blaming others for their own lazy arses.
That being said, if there is absolutely no connection between works in regards to genre or elements, it may be best for the author to use a pen name, though something that’s recognisable. Like, people who read Paperback Writer’s Lynn Viehl novels know they’re getting paranormal suspense, whereas if they pick up her S. L. Viehl books, they’re getting medical SF.
I read across most romance sub-genres but I also pick books primarily by plot first and foremost not character or even author. Yes, I will pass on an absolute favorite author if I’m not sure of the plot description and instead pick up a completely new author if the plot sounds fun. I may eventually get around to acquiring the favorite author’s book and I may not.
I’m a great fan of Garwood’s older book but don’t read her new ones not because of the genre change itself but because I tried the first one and didn’t even like what she was doing with the plot. It no longer sounded like her. Why continue to torment myself?
Now, the real question is whether some plots lend themselves to certain settings and situations to the extent that an author can change those and still strike the right note with their core readers anyway. It can be done because Krentz does it all the time. So, too, to some extent does Roberts. Is anyone really going to tell me that the plots of the In Death books are all that different from the rest of her books? They’re just MORE in certain ways but essentially they’re still Roberts voice telling the same stories.
It’s been my observation that most authors seem to think that changing what we call genres means they have to completely reinvent their voice just because the settings have changed. Which is probably a big mistake, I think, because ultimately their voice is what makes them truly unique. Lose that and why should readers be able to find them in a crowd? Why should they want to?
The author doesn’t owe me anything. I’ll follow her so long as she writes something I want to read–IOW, if she writes a historical, I’ll be waiting until she stops because I just don’t read historicals.
You can just call Nonny Number Two.
Interesting point about voice, Bev. I have come across authors who write in different genres whose voice IS different in the two. There are actually a couple of authors who I read voraciously in one genre but have been unable to get interested in for the other.
If the voice stays the same, I’m much more likely to gravitate with the author to the new genre.
I do think, though, that the number of titles an author writes does have a lot to do with how many fans they carry over or don’t carry over when they make the switch. I’d love to know if there is a magic number
I’ll follow a favorite writer to any subgenre with the exception of romantic comedy. I detest romantic comedy and would read the transcripts of C-Span before reading any of that stuff.
I’ve never gotten upset about an author switching subgenres. If I don’t enjoy the books in the writer’s new subgenre I just move on.
I loved Christina Dodd’s historicals but not her contemporaries, even though I prefer contemporaries. Dodd’s contemporaries feel outdated and anachronistic to me. Just all wrong. On the other hand I love both Mary Jo Putney’s historicals and her contemporaries.
I only wish my favorite romance writers, Judith Ivory and Madeline Hunter, would switch to contemporaries.
Unfortunately I don’t see them abandoning historicals anytime soon.
I have to admit, I got a little peeved after reading Julie Garwood’s first suspense release. The flavor seemed entirely different. Then again, I read all kinds of different flavors from all kinds of authors. I think Nonny is right though. When I bought P.D. James’s non-fiction book (thinking it was another Dalgliesh mystery), it was my own fault for not checking it.
I don’t think Authors owe me anything. I wonder myself if I would write a story (even if I ran an idea dry) just because readers were demanding a character’s story. Could I? Book on demand! I just don’t know.
I don’t know if there’s a magic number when it’s “OK”. Perhaps it’s just dependent on the reader.
If it’s an author I read, I will follow.
I don’t believe authors owe readers anything either. They should always write the book of their heart. I’m just observing that sometimes writing the current book of their heart means they no longer sound like the same author to even loyal readers. Or feel the same. Whatever. This is about more than simply changing genres or sub-genres because sometimes it can happen within the same time period and settings although not nearly as often as when they deliberately make a major shift in gears.
I guess it’s more about that “comfort zone” that exists between readers and authors. It’s either there or it’s not and sometimes an author simply moves too far out of it for the individual reader to handle.
This is an extraordinary thread and one I believe is as much a challenge for authors as it is for readers.
As an author who has written in several genres, as well as poetry, non-fiction, and as columnist of newspaper, I would like to interject a point that I am not sure a reader would necessairly know off-hand about this industry. That being the “winds of change.” Very often, more so as of late-are the seasosned authors who have for years entertained us with a particular genre. Suddenly they switch to something else completely! Why?
It may be for many reasons, but as poetic as the writers journey may be (writing the book of your heart, etc,) when it comes to agents, editors and publishers-its often times –especially in these harder economic times–greatly about the bottom line.
Hence, an author who has written historical for years, may be asked by her editor to “try” a new genre, because of the current “trend.” (However & whatever means the industry uses to measure such things)
Just planting a seed, that it may be less of an authors “choice” to write a new genre, in lieu of staying published in the mainstream long enough for her original genre to come back around. Becasue invariably, it does, as do most things.
Be patient. Trust the authors who’ve made your reading experince a pleasure,chances are you may again see them writing their standard genre one day.
Meantime why not sample from the bevy of new authors out there (like me!) whose aim it is to bring you a pleasurable escape into a well written story!! You may be pleasantly surprised!
Pam
Just planting a seed, that it may be less of an authors “choice†to write a new genre, in lieu of staying published in the mainstream long enough for her original genre to come back around. Becasue invariably, it does, as do most things.
You know, I’m really puzzled by the suggestion that readers should be aware of decisions behind a book being published, much less take them into account in their purchasing decisions. I’ve thought about this comment overnight and still fail to see how knowing this would, could or should impact on an individual reader’s choice in reading material. Because ultimately I don’t care why authors choose to write one way or another, first, last or in-between. I either enjoy their writing.
Or I don’t.
So, their reasons behind changing their writing styles are no more relevant to my reading choices than their reasons for writing a certain way in the first place would be, which is somewhere around zilch. The finished product either works for me or it doesn’t.
All of my sales to date have been science fiction, military fiction, and military science fiction. When the romantic suspense novel I’m writing sees the light of day, it will have my wife’s name on the cover. (Which is fair — she’s he inspiration for the project. Not to mention first reader and sounding board.) I expect zero crossover between readerships.
However, within genre, whether mystery or science fiction or romance, I have no trouble with a writer exploring the whole spectrum of sub genre within that genre.
For me, it all depends on the author and the genre. I love historicals and contemporary thrillers, so I’ll read anything that Julie Garwood or Kat Martin put out (Bev – go back and pick up Mercy or Killjoy by Julie – you’ll love them, I promise! They are on my keeper shelf.)
However, as much as I like Nora Roberts, I am not a fan of the futuristic genre, so I don’t read her JD Robb books. Maybe I’m missing something, but I just can’t get into it. I extremely dislike the current trend of vampires, werewolves, otherworldly literature and if a favored author ventured into those territories, I probably wouldn’t pick up the book. I’m sure there are good stories out there, it just doesn’t do anything for me. Chick lit is okay, it all depends on the author.
I like Jayne Ann Krentz contemporaries and will occasionally pick up an Amanda Quick, but it’s not my favorite read. Loved Kresley Cole’s historicals, won’t touch her vampire stuff.
I have found authors I like in one genre, then gone on to try their books
in another to see if I like those as well – like I said, it depends on the author and the genre. Erica Orloff writes under two other psuedonyms – her fictional stuff (Tess Hudson) and YA (Liza Conrad) and I love all three!
It wouldn’t bother me if one of my favorite writers switched genres. The main reason a writer appeals to me is a certain voice or sensibility, and those things travel with an author.
If I completely hated the new genre, I might be reluctant to purchase the book, but to be angry at the writer is CrazyLady, imo.
A reader doesn’t have to spend many hours contemplating the work and angst that goes into writing a book — that isn’t their “job” — but they should be aware that writers have to live with their stories for long periods of time, and sometimes interests evolve, or new challenges must be met in order for survival of the passion for storytelling.
Let’s face it. A reader goes to their favorite writers for that same initial thrill, but this comes with huge problems. A writer has a voice that will always be somewhat the same, and so some of the initial thrill and surprise will dissipate. Few writers can happily tell the same exact story again and again, and even the most dedicated fan will weary of it as well. At that point the reader starts talking about ____ ______ not being as good as she used to be, or phoning it in.
On the other hand, many will see a new genre as a betrayal. It’s a pretty much lose-lose situation, but after a while most writers do want to try something a little different.
It’s — to completely change the focus — the Stephen King syndrome. There are people who are convinced that Stephen King is not the writer he used to be, but I maintain we’re all just too used to his voice. If he hadn’t hit it big in the seventies, and had just got published with one of his newer efforts, he’d be proclaimed Pretty Damned Good — even in another genre.
Anyhow, most successful writers are destined to disappoint by familiarity anyhow, so they might as well find creative satisfication.