Like so many others, I come to the end of another year with some reflection about what I’ve read in the past twelve months — and what I haven’t. More than a few folks have complained about extended reading slumps (and I’ve been among them), and there’s been sort of a low-level grumbling about paranormals (too many?) and historicals (not enough?). Lots of speculation has been offered for why the market is this way or that way. There have been suggestions that “average†Romance readers just want simplistic, formulaic fiction, while others have wondered if publishers are only interested in books that meet current trends.
Most days I think that the Romance market as a whole is beyond understanding, except in those momentary flashes of clarity one might have after a few glasses of 90 proof egg nog. In fact, I’m not even sure chaos theory can touch the labyrinthine processes that comprise Romance publishing, marketing, and sales. Clearly profit seems to be important, and to make profit one must sell books, which entails some idea of ‘what readers want,’ even if we argue endlessly about what that is. And there are some things that seem in line with that overall goal that also strike me as logical, but whether or not they’re true I have not a clue. So I figured I’d put them out there for a yay or nay from those of you who have more insight into the business of Romance than I do (which is probably most of you).
The first thing I’m thinking is that great books aren’t sitting in a trash bin or slush pile somewhere, neglected because they don’t meet a current trend. After all, in the 400-500 Romance novels published a month, aren’t editors looking for the next hot trend? And don’t most trends start with some break-out book that grabs readers by the throat and makes us hungry for more? So why would anyone in the business of selling books turn down a brilliantly written, plotted, and characterized book just because it doesn’t fit a mold, when so many of the current molds started out with mold-smashing books? In fact, I’d think that the different and brilliant book is pretty much what editors live for, since they’re always buying at least a year or two in advance.
Which brings me to the next thing I’m thinking which is that brilliant books aren’t not being published because they fail to conform to some list of “Romance rules.†As much as I’m seduced by this argument (reading so many books that seem to conform to an unspoken norm), I have to reconcile it with the fact that the most brilliant books I’ve read have also been rule-breaking books. And those that haven’t broken a ton of rules have basically re-imagined them in a wonderfully novel way (e.g. the upcoming Joanna Bourne historical The Spymaster’s Lady, which takes ye olde spy plot and polishes it to such a high shine that it feels brand new). Now I’m not saying that I question the notion that certain unspoken rules do exist in the genre, and we’ve certainly seen several overt examples of authors admitting to pressure to change things in their manuscripts. But it’s hard for me to imagine an editor reading a mind-blowing manuscript and rejecting it because the heroine isn’t a virgin or near virgin or because the hero is unfaithful after he’s met the heroine. It’s always those authors who can take me somewhere new, somewhere I didn’t think I could go, who make me happy I’m a reader, and I can’t imagine I’m the only one who feels that way.
What I’m left thinking, then, is that there are many manuscripts out there that range from middling to strong, and that editors see them as interchangeable. So if one feels like it will fit better into a current trend and another doesn’t, the trendy one will go to publication. So I’m basically imagining a critical mass of books clustering around a certain level of craftsmanship and originality, providing a pool of options for editors trying to place books in line to sell. And while I realize that beauty and brilliance is in the eye of the beholder to some degree, I’m wondering if editors see a comparable level of brilliance in available manuscripts that evens out across certain considerations (hot subgenre or hot erotically or hot character trends). And that books that really get editors excited – in that they-can-barely-contain-themselves kind of way – really are exceptional, both in content and number.
This doesn’t mean that I see the genre as a sinkhole of mediocrity. But I do think that with so many books in circulation – past and present – that it takes something really special, super-duper special, to blow away the seasoned editor/reader. And that the grinding pace of Romance publishing makes that breakthrough book more difficult to write (let alone more than one). I’ve read so many really promising first books by authors only to be underwhelmed by their second. And I’ve read so many books that basically fall around a certain level of okay or good that great seems even more elusive. And since I know I’m not the only one who has this type of reading experience, it’s really tough for me to think that editors aren’t doing everything they can to find that “next big thing.â€
So tell me: am I right or wrong? And while we’re on the subject, what’s the most rule-breaking Romance you’ve read and loved – or hated, for that matter.
No related posts.
Secondly, well, secondly, I haven’t had enough coffee yet to process it.
I completely agree with Kimber on this. I also like reading new authors. I recently read DANCE WITH DECEPTION by Tracy Goodwin a debut author. Her historical was fabulous with a fresh voice.
However my favorite romance is still HIGLAND WARRIOR by Hannah Howell. I simply loved the chemistry between Fiona and Ewan.
Wow, you tackle the big subjects!
I do think there are more competent books than extraordinary books, but what makes a book extraordinary…well, that’s hard to say. (Unless you are Donald Maass, and then you dissect the subject and write a very good book about it)
I don’t think it’s possible for every book to be extraordinary. I do think I can always work harder, dig deeper, and be better. I know for myself learning what I do well, what my themes and my core story are, and how to play to my strengths has made a big difference. I could write competently outside my areas of strength, but I’d rather work where I can be at my best.
A stand-out rule-breaking romance: The Fifth Favor by Shelby Reed. The hero is a male prostitute. It’s an incredible story.
I was reading Michelle Rowen’s blog
(author of Bitten & Smitten)
and she announced that she plans to write 7,
yes you read that right, 7 novels next year.
When I commented in amazement,
she replied that she felt authors need
at least 3 novels on the shelf
to make a living/name for themselves.
Wowsers, that is a lot of pressure
and it would be difficult to find time
to “experiment” with an edgy book
that may or may not work.
I can see why some authors would prefer
to play it safe
and try not to break any “rules.”
Oh, not that Michelle is one of those authors
playing it safe.
LOL
I guess that’s why she plans on writing 7.
On the other hand, I’ve seen authors who only release one novel per year struggle, because readers kind of forget. From what I’ve seen, two novels per year are ideal. The stories and the author stays fresh in the readers’ minds and the author has time to devote personal attention to those readers. Not much time!
But, certainly more than three.
This is just what I see from my place in cyberspace.
What constitutes extraordinary is really subjective. What one editor might find amazing another is ho-hum about. It’s that way with readers too. And believe me editors only buy what they are excited about. Every book published someone was excited about it.
Two exciting books for me this year came from new authors.
DRIVEN by Eve Kenin (okay Eve Silver’s not new new but this was a new genre for her and she kicked it)
HALFWAY TO THE GRAVE by Jeaniene Frost. This was the type of book I was waiting for in the urban fantasy genre. I LOVED it. And she will definitely be an autobuy for me along with Kim Harrison, Rachel Caine, Lilith Saintcrow and Gena Showalter. My all time favorites.
Good to know Kimber An
’cause you’re never going to see
3 books a year from me.
LOL
3 books a year is a full time job
and
I love the business/investing world
a bit too much
to ever fully retire from it
(all those sexy men in suits, yum).
Still 1, 2, 3 books a year…
that’s a lot of pressure to produce.
Some writers write fast, some write slower. Writing speed has nothing to do with quality. I’ve read some incredible books by authors who put out 4+ books a year (I’ve never read a JD Robb book I haven’t thoroughly enjoyed, for example) and I’ve read books by one-book-a-year authors that left me scratching my head and go ho-hum.
Kimber Chin said that 3 books a year is a full-time job, and I agree. I’m at 3+ books a year and that’s about my comfort level until my kids are older. Seven books? That would be waaaayyyy beyond my comfort zone. But more power to Michelle!
Regarding breaking rules (Great blog post, Robin)–I love breaking rules. I think that breaking rules needs to be in the author’s individual comfort zone, as opposed to what’s expected or what people tell them they should/should not do. I don’t believe in breaking rules just for the sake of breaking them–it has to fit the story, which in turn has to fit the characters. But I also believe that anything can work, any rule can be broken, in the right hands. I have my own personal rules I don’t break, which may be different than other writers. That’s great! If we all broke the same rules, books would be boring
My favorite rule-breaking author is Laura Kinsale… and she apparently is having trouble getting published, so what does that say about the industry?
I disagree a bit. I do think there are great books that are not being published because as you remind us “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Yes, publishers are looking for the next great thing but will they recognize it or be courageous when and if they see it 100% of the time? I’m sure the answer is yes most of the time but I’m sure there are also stories of the “one that got away”.
More likely, as you point out, there are a lot of really good writers producing really good product that in the eyes of the editors (and many readers) is indeed “interchangeable” commercial fiction from a sales and potential reader satisfaction standpoint. That might depress some authors but I think it should inspire writers to strive for better and then to seek that unique thing that will help us to break out of the pack.
In a recent NovelJourney newsletter, literary agent Jessica Faust said, “Just to get noticed you need to be original both in your idea and execution.” It’s when an author does both that we start thinking “great book”.
Every marketer is looking for that elusive “next hot trend”, publishers are no different. The tough part is being able to spot it. Even with experience that seems more trial and error then anything else.
Duuude… actually I said I was going to try to write that many.
And a few of those were YAs. I do stand by the 3 books/year comment, though. Especially in romance. Happily I will be writing full time next year, and I do have the time and freedom to focus on the writing exclusively. Woot.
You are absolutely right.
Hey Everyone, thanks so much for the comments and recommendations!
Over time, reading blogs has made me appreciate the idea that editors are in some ways uber-readers; they’re trying to make book for their publisher, but they are trying to please readers in the process. So it makes sense to me that they’re behind the books they acquire. Especially when you figure that they’re making a pittance relative to the work that goes into what they do! But I can imagine that any given editor may pass on a manuscript that another editor turns into a bestseller. We readers can be pretty hard to please, IMO, although I definitely agree that we are extremely vocal about what we love — and don’t.
Wendy, it’s sure a drag about Laura Kinsale, but IIRC she said that she had some offers to buy her manuscript — just not what she wanted. Hopefully she’s writing as we speak, lol, and will have two books to sell pretty soon.
Anyway, I wanted to emphasize this quote from Allison Brennan, because as a reader I have the same thought sooooo often:
I don’t believe in breaking rules just for the sake of breaking them–it has to fit the story, which in turn has to fit the characters. But I also believe that anything can work, any rule can be broken, in the right hands.
Yes! We readers aren’t stupid, and IMO we can tell when all the pieces of a book fit together. Sure, we will ignore all sorts of things to enjoy the genre we choose to read, but in the end, I think we appreciate a really thoughtful book that takes us somewhere powerful, whether it’s a new or familiar place.
With Kinsale’s reprint sales to Sourcebooks, I have to wonder if we’ll see more original work from her there.
Body Electric by Susan Squires was a rule breaker when it came out. It was dark and gritty and had that urban fantasy feel before that became a hot trend. It is a thrilling book if anyone gets a chance to pick it up.
I didn’t know about those reprints! Thank you for the news