I think I might be silly to even try and tackle this topic but I get asked this question often enough to make a stab at it.
I receive many a query letter that begins with the opening, “I’ve written several novels for the XYZ line at Harlequin but I’m looking to make the leap to single-title.”
This is a great goal if that’s your desire. I definitely read these queries with keen attention—paying special note to the story’s description. Sometimes I end up not asking for sample pages though (despite an author’s track record) because after reading the pitch blurb, I end up thinking that the story idea is just not “big enough” for single title. And sometimes when we do ask for pages, the story as it is written just isn’t “big enough” either.
And writers hate that phrase “big enough.” It’s right up there with “I just didn’t fall in love” or “I didn’t feel emotionally connected to the story” or what have you. Too vague to be of any real help.
So maybe this blog topic is really about defining what I mean by “big enough” and remember, I certainly don’t speak for all agents.
So what the heck makes something “big enough”? The term refers to a couple of things I think.
1. It can refer to a main story concept or idea that’s big enough to drive the story.
2. It can refer to the emotional depth and complexity the writer taps into for the hero and heroine (and it’s much deeper than what a category line page restriction allows).
2. It can refer to the writer’s ability to introduce secondary characters and a possible development of a secondary story that intertwines with the main plot.
3. It can refer to how the writer handles the point of view shifts between the hero and the heroine and how developed each narrative is before switching.
4. It can refer to how individual scenes are handled. Are they too dialogue-oriented (which tends to be more true in category romance) or are the scenes more complex with more description (and yet the addition of either doesn’t slow the plot)? That might be the hardest balance to capture when switching to single-title.
5. It can refer to having more than one subplot.
6. It can refer to having a fully realized and developed villain or nemesis.
It can refer to so many things as you can see.
But ultimately, if you desire a shift to single title, you have to make sure you capture some of that “big enough” complexity in your query letter story description.
It doesn’t work if you have a pitch paragraph that reads too simply (and I’ve made up this historical example). I’m also trying to exaggerate a little to illustrate a point, but I’ve received “single title” queries that weren’t all that far off from this example.
Lady Anne must save her family from destitution so despite her reluctance, she embraces her coming-out debut in order to land a rich lord. Only one Lord will do. Only the notorious Lord Smith has the money and the connections to save her father from debtor’s prison. As she attempts to entrap London’s most eligible bachelor, Anne discovers that Lord Smith is more than she bargained for.
Lord Smith is bored with society. In secret he has been assisting destitute orphans but his altruism does not extend to penniless misses. When the destitute Lady Anne sets her sights on him, he know it’s finally time to teach the husband-hunting gentry a lesson and Anne is the perfect opportunity.
Ultimately there’s nothing wrong with the above pitch. The story simply doesn’t feel big enough for single title.
And that’s the best I can do to define it.
Related posts:
Hell, I’d read it.
Quite a few of the single titles I’ve read weren’t big enough in my opinion. Or original enough. Makes me wonder how banal the stories that DON’T make it are.
It’s not difficult to double the word count of a story with nothing but filler, but length without substance does not a single-title make. Readers have expectations at 100,000 words that they don’t have at 60,000, and failing to meet those expectations leaves the reader as frustrated as bad sex, wanting something more that’s never delivered.
You have to let the story be what it is. If it’s 50 percent padding to bring it up to single-title length, cut the fluff and let it be successful as a category. Maybe this isn’t your break-out book. Maybe the next one is.
And I’d pass on that hook. I’ve already read it, about a thousand times, and it was old after the fifth. And that was 20 years ago. Enough with the destitute husband hunters, already!
That was very helpful, actually, thank you!
This reminds me of the discussions I’ve seen about Traditional Regencies vs. Regency Historicals. It’s impossible to pin down what makes a book one or the other in specific “rule”-like terms, but you certainly know it when you read it. LOL!
First of all, I’m very glad this was not related to Michelle’s column.
Second of all, this was a very helpful little essay indeed.
I once had an editor explain that with media tie-in writers such as myself there was a concern about whether I could “carry” an original novel. I think, in light of what you’ve written, she menat there was some question as to whether I could write “big enough.”
This is information I can use — both for pitching and writing.
Kevin, I’m so glad I’m not the only person who had a mind-in-gutter-moment thinking that this column would somehow be related to Michelle’s “Moist O” post! Of course, that was before I realized this post is by Agent Kristin. Thank you, Kristin, for trying to shed some light on yet another shadowy area of publishing.
I found point #4 about individual scenes to be the most interesting and, as Kristin said, the hardest to balance. Sounds like yet another example of “I’ll know it when I see it.”
D.
If it’s not big enough, I won’t date him again.
(Sorry Kevin and Diantha–I write erotic romances and rising above it is not in my nature!)
SWAK,
Lucinda
By describing what makes a single-title, you actually helped me better understand category romance too.
I know I’ve read some single-titles that I thought were overblown category romances. Can’t think of a category that should have been single-title though.
Great food for thought. Thanks.
Actually, several Bombshells hit me as category books that could have been single titles, The Orchid Hunter comes to mind most specifically. Also some Superromances… I think it’s because it really is about the story, and how the writer handles it, not just the word count.
My agent actually has discouraged me from thinking about ideas themselves in terms of “category” or “single title” — it’s more in the execution of an idea than the idea itself, that that could go for the tone of the sample pitch as well. Donald Maass has a section on this in the Breakout Novel with some good advice as well.
It’s a muddy area, though, and always good to find a discussion on it.
Sam
[...] April 25, 2007Is the romance genre irrelevant to the black author? Kristin Nelson wrote an interesting column over at Romancing the Blog on what makes a single title bit enough. Her advice is sound and worth studying for authors wanting to make the leap from category romance to bigger fiction titles, whether we are writing for primarily black readers or white ones. 1. It can refer to a main story concept or idea that’s big enough to drive the story. [...]