Recently, I discovered something painful. No, that ’s wrong. I discovered the source of my pain. A little food allergy (big food allergy, really) with an easy fix. I can no longer eat one of my favorite foods (okay, I can, but it’s not worth it; happily, I am wide open on another favorite, so I’m cool). It’s changed how I eat, but it’s also, weirdly, changed how I think.
Sloth is my favorite vice, but I’ve always been sort of attracted to gluttony. So decadent, so…I don’t know, rife with possibilities. The world, quite literally, was my oyster (oysters, however, didn’t turn out to be my oyster). Turns out that it’s more like The Chocolate Factory, and gluten is my Willy Wonka. What I wanted, what I got, not necessarily the same thing.
Now, when I eat, I must be more particular about the menu. Maybe I should put that another way: I must be more broad. Where once I would look for very general things on the menu, now I seek specifics. I am looking for pearls. I am looking at possibilities. To put this in book terms, I am not just seeing a row of bestsellers, I am seeing new discoveries.
I’ve had to slow down when it comes to many meals. Pre-main course snacking is is problematic. Specifically the bread. While others dive in (and enjoy, oh beauty!, olive oil, balsamic vinegar, and butter, eh, I’d prefer the olive oil and balsamic vinegar), I sip wine and wait. Ditto for chips and salsa. In addition to surely eating healthier, I’ve also come to appreciate the wait (alas, typical for me, not so much the weight loss, ha!).
This relates to romance novels, I promise.
There are so many books published every month. A smorgasbord. If books are our indulgence, then we exist in a glutton’s paradise. Books, books, books. More books than we can consume, yet we want them all. We devour them, swallow without chewing, grab the next bit–book. Sometimes we don’t even taste what we’re reading, we go fast. So many books, so little time.
But like the bread before the main course, we regret so many of these reads. They look good, they even taste good, but they don’t settle nicely in our stomachs. Sometimes we’re overstuffed and regretting the fact we can’t finish the book we really want to read (or worse, be bothered to pick it up). Sometimes the book leaves a churning, burning, icky feeling…why did I waste so many hours of my life? Why didn’t I just wait for the main course?
I am terrified by the number of romance novels published each month (I am also terrified by the number of books across the board published each month, but let’s keep on topic). So many of our books are destined for obscurity. A moment of, I don’t know, fame followed by remaindering and stripped covers.
The industry is burgeoning — new players every day. The industry is changing — new formats are ascending. The industry is morphing — new genres and sub-genres are emerging.
But are romance readers really being served? Are the books being published, sold, really the best of the best? Or, as I suspect, are we seeing an increase in quantity with a slackening of quality? Have we, as authors, lost sight of the goal?
If you’re a writer with any sort of aspiration, you yearn to be published. I do not believe there is anything wrong with commercial designs. We all want to be read. Why else do we do what we do?
But is it worth it if our books don’t register? Not only from a sales perspective, but from a reader perspective? If there is a perceived demand for an ever-increasing number of books available for purchase, yet so many of them don’t create a blip on the reader radar? It’s that tree, forest, sound thing.
What if your book — and I know you’ve poured your heart into it (or at least I hope you did) — leaves the reader with a nasty stomachache? A bad taste in her mouth? A belief that she’s gotten less than the best possible item on the menu? Day old bread because there had to be something on the shelf?
What I am saying is that I still get to eat French fries though I must avoid bread. I love French fries, but they are not something I eat every day (oh, I could, I definitely could). My selection is limited when it comes to food, but my enjoyment of meals has dramatically increased.
What if there were fewer books but the experience was more satisfying? I’m not saying it’s the right answer, but narrower selection and deeper menu/catalog has worked for me.
I hate the idea of less choice. One reader’s breadstick is another’s shepherd’s pie, so to speak. If Reader A can’t select a satisfying meal from a limitless menu, it’s unfair to Reader B, who can, to limit the choices to what will fit on the “today’s specials” board.
by Kerry Allen March 6th, 2008 at 6:30 amHey… there is plenty of gluten free bread out there.
What? That wasn’t your point?
Actually, I love that there are zillions of books out there. I tend to like stuff that no one else does (I can’t tell you how many “bestsellers” or romance novels that have gotten rave reviews all over the place that I’ve hated), so the choices mean I’ll be able to find something to love.
And… try gluten free bread. It’s yummy
by Marianne March 6th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Don’t get it. As a reader, I love a buffet. 
As a writer, as long as I have my own little corner of the universe, I don’t care. I know I’m not J. K. Rowling. 
by Kimber An March 6th, 2008 at 9:28 amI LOVE that a handful of well meaning folks in NYC are no longer dictating what the rest of the world should read.
I average over a romance novel a day (blame that on speedreading) and don’t especially like paranormals. If we still had those gatekeepers, I’d likely to be right insane by now. You’d see me on the front page of the New York Times “Romance Reader Goes Bonkers. Streaks Down 5th Avenue In Protest. Freezes Hiney Off.”
If anyone is looking for a great historical read (as you’re waiting for Kalen Hughes’ Lord Scandal to release), you might want to check out Candace Camp’s The Bridal Quest. Wowsers, that was one for the keeper shelf. Great, great stuff.
by Kimber Chin March 6th, 2008 at 9:33 amPlease note that I am JK Rowling. I simply post under Kimber Chin so y’all don’t hound me for virtual autographs and questions about Dumbledwarf. Fictional characters, unless appearing in erotica, are allowed to keep their bedroom doors closed.
by Kimber Chin March 6th, 2008 at 9:40 amWhenever I venture into Barnes & Noble as a reader, I am excited by all the choice. When I go in there as a writer, I feel overwhelmed–how will anyone buy my book when there are so many out there? How can *any* writer make a living?
But I don’t think less choice = better books. As people have said, there needs to be room for individual taste. I’ve had reader letters from my first book who absolutely loved it, as well as one star reviews on Amazon basically saying it was one of the worst books they’ve ever read
What are you going to do? You can’t please everyone, and the fact that there are so many books out there, so many choices and genre and possibilities, means overall there’s a better likelihood of everyone finding something they like to read.
Kate
by KateHewitt March 6th, 2008 at 9:45 amI like that there are so many choices. Many of my friends read books that don’t interest me. And I know that some of my very best friends and even my family don’t particularly like the books I write. Not because they’re not good books because they don’t care for fantasy or futuristic.
by Susan Kelley March 6th, 2008 at 10:38 amIn my personal reading, I’m much pickier than I used to be due to time constraints, but I dream of having the hours in the day to sample from the thousands of available titles.
Sorry about your gluten allergy. I’m friends with an entire family with the same problem. I often make them no bake oatmeal cookies. Sweet, chocolately, and peanut butter. MMM.
“But are romance readers really being served?”
I’m certainly not. I think the problem is me, though. I’m an older reader(48), and have been reading romance since I was 13. I also read science fiction, horror, mystery, suspense, etc. but romance has always been my favorite. I’m no longer part of the target audience for romance. I don’t feel as if there’s something in romance for everyone. I’m outside of the current trend right now. That’s fair enough. Someone always is. It’s my turn now.
I’m somewhat of a purist. When I want suspense I read suspense, not romantic suspense. I do think the current mixing of genres in romance is brilliant, however. It just doesn’t work for me as an individual.
Romances that are a melange of genres are fine but they don’t satisfy my craving when I’m in the mood to read romance. They lack emotional/sexual intensity and resonance for me. It’s been “the winter of my discontent” with romance for the past few years now. I’ve bought, literally, thousands of books in the past 2.5 years but I’m raising the white flag. I’m pretty much done with current romance.
There are still plenty of good romance writers around, but with a few exceptions they’re not writing anything I want to read. Lately I’ve been buying books written prior to 2000. I’ve got a huge wishlist at FictionDB that I’m working on. It gets pretty expensive and sometimes I spend as much if not more than I would on a new book. Particularly when I buy on line. The shipping fees are ruinous. It’s so worth it though, to get that emotional and sexual intensity I want in a romance.
by Barbara B. March 6th, 2008 at 11:04 amMy only problem with so many different selections out there is that I want to read them all and can’t! When I think about all the books I’ve been meaning to buy, all the new authors I thought I’d try…I feel overwhelmed. I also tend to read books too quickly, skimming rather than savoring. Want more time, not less books.
by Jill Sorenson March 6th, 2008 at 11:10 amThe problem with so many books is that you can’t buy them all. So many books get lost in the whole bunch.
Besides, not all books published are that good. Some of the editing leave much to be desired. Even from well-known authors.
by Tempest Knight March 6th, 2008 at 11:19 amMy tastes are often quite different from other people’s, so I don’t like the idea of less choice. Still, I do have a hard time not getting overwhelmed at the sheer number of books out there. The trick, I’ve found, is to really get to know exactly what I’m looking for as a reader, so that I can focus in on the kinds of books I’m looking for.
by Zoe March 6th, 2008 at 11:33 amI like a lot of choice, but agree with Tempest - some of those published are not as high quality as others. This isn’t limited to the romance genre, but I’ll stay on topic too.
As long as the books published are well written, well edited and well produced, I say lots of choice is fine. Where I suspect readers are being ill-served is in quality.
by Kristin Lawrence March 6th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Kimber Chin, I knew it! I knew it! If I wasn’t J.K. Rowling, I just knew it had to be you. 
by Kimber An March 6th, 2008 at 12:12 pmYou have touched upon a real issue. On the one hand, its wonderful that there are so many books out there for a reader, on the other hand, how do you find one? When faced with row upon row of romance novels at the bookstore, it still the time honored, “if its face-out rather than spine-out and has a good looking cover, I’ll pick it up and read the blurb.”
I have used the “if you liked this, try this” system on Amazon and at the bookstore with limited success, sometimes it results in a find sometimes it makes you wonder how anyone could have tied the two authors together.
From a writers perspective, I don’t understand how a writer could make a living off books. With the exploding number of offerings, unless the market is expanding dramatically, it means on average less sales per book, but unfortunately it doesn’t mean less work per book!
As for the bread…sorry to hear it, one of life’s great joys is a warm crusty slice of french bread. As part of a pre-diabetes prevention program I have switched exclusively to wheat bread (bleached flour is bad!) you might try it and see if your system can tolerate whole grains better than the bleached stuff
by Mark March 6th, 2008 at 12:18 pmI have also had no success with “if you like this, try this” since it seems focused on overarching genre. Just because I like one well written, fascinating, unputdownable, nuanced vampire romance, doesn’t mean I’m going to like some other flat, ham handed cliched one.
Sadly, I think fewer books would mean a decrease in quality, as I don’t personally like a lot of what is selling best on the shelves right now, and that’s what we’d be stuck with. Also, with fewer slots, editors would be even LESS likely to take risks withs something slightly outside the box, and thus miss out on the bestsellers of tomorrow. (A good example of an “outside the box hard sell” is the bestselling Tairen Soul series by CL Wilson. That series fell through the cracks for years at publishers before the writer found someone who would take a chance.)
by Diana Peterfreund March 6th, 2008 at 12:25 pmThe more choice, the better, as far as I’m concerned. The author who isn’t delivering quality will likely not be around very long — with some notable exceptions — and, hopefully, a newer, better writer will take his or her place.
by Robert Gregory Browne March 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pmIt’s so hard to judge “quality” though. Reading preferences are so subjective, and vary greatly from person to person. What one person doesn’t find satisfying, is deeply satisfying to another.
My vote is for many many choices!
by Kim Lenox March 6th, 2008 at 1:18 pmWhat a great post. I can relate with both the food part of it and the reading. Especially the reading…
It’s so easy to skim ahead or skip descriptive sections. but then I think - this person put a lot of work into this! Possibly several years of his or her life was dedicated to this story and these characters just as I am dedicating my life to mine. I definitely don’t want someone skimming through my book one day!
But it’s hard to judge. Take The Memory Keeper’s Daughter. I thought it really was a beautiful book, but I didn’t finish it with that…that fulfilled feeling, in fact I skimmed the last few pages. But the reviews are amazing, praise this book so much. My own taste is different than others, you know?
but I’d rather reach a few people, have a few people go “wow” with my book that have a ton of people read my book, say “eh” and put it back on the shelf only to let it collect dust rather than pass it around to their friends and families or recommending it to others. man i’m rambling!
by April March 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pmI read 100+ books a year. I can safely say, although pleasant and entertaining, the vast majority are not “deeply satisfying”. It bothers me when I read a book and days later I only vaguely remember, if at all, who the characters were and what it was about. I even can recall feeling “stuffed”, like after Thanksgiving dinner, when I’ve read so many “just okay” books in a period that it is hard to appreciate the one or two standouts, and I find myself desperate need of a reading break.
Still, I remain encouraged to read as many books as I can in order to find those one or two satisfying reads. The more, the merrier, I say!
It’s really nice when I hit upon a spate of books that stay with me. I’m on a bit of a reading roll right now, so to speak. (I’m posting the books on my blog later, if anyone’s interested.) Keep ‘em coming!
by Patricia Woodside March 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pmKimber An, I just snorted water out of my nose.
Did you think for a bit that you WERE J.K. Rowling? Sometimes I think I’m Warren Buffett (after a few successful trades) but then I look at my bank balance and that feeling goes away.
My theory is that J.K. Rowling is really Nora Roberts (J.K. Rowling, J.D. Robb, come on, I can’t be the only person to figure this out).
That good looking blonde lady on tour is a Milli Vanilli, throwing us off track.
BTW… when I heard that stand in say Doubledoor was gay, I thought to myself “Nora Roberts is going to be so p**sed.”
by Kimber Chin March 6th, 2008 at 2:58 pmI’m SO going to get blocked from commenting…
by Kimber Chin March 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pmWhat a great post!
Sometimes I think it’s not a problem of quantity but rather a problem how to filter through the selection.
Romance novels (whether erotica, historical, paranormal, urban fantasy, contemporary, etc.) are all crammed into one section called “Romance”. I would find it helpful the have the sub-categories broken out. (Guess that’s the beauty of online bookstores.)
In general, the best novels leave me wanting to live with the characters for a while.
Blindness by Jose Saramago was so powerful that I didn’t want to read anything else–and didn’t–for THREE WEEKS! (I usually read 2-3 books a week.) The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood also halted my desire to read anything else. I’ve mourned for Lily Bart, cried for Whitney Westmoreland, rejoiced with Yelena Zaltana. New books continue to appear that capture a place in my memory
by Susan March 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pmI can’t see the logic behind “fewer books = better quality books”. Esp when, as has already been pointed out, those “fewer books” would likely be only what’s on the best sellers lists now and 99% of my keepers are from “mid-list” authors who’d be left out in the cold.
by Kalen Hughes March 6th, 2008 at 4:12 pmKassia, I feel your gluten-free pain as two of my sons have celiac disease. Limited choices and forced choices are a serious drag for them and us. Great analogy to the book industry. Enjoy those french fries when you eat them!
by Misa Ramirez March 6th, 2008 at 7:05 pmMisa — I have a friend with celiac and she was the one who helped me figure out what was going on. It’s been really helpful for both of us to have each other. French fries totally rule. It can be a drag, but I have to say that it’s been so cool for me to actually feel good after eating. I am older and wiser (I hope!) and can do a mental cost/benefit analysis and not feel limited. If I were younger…
by Kassia Krozser March 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pmI am loving all these comments. Since I’ve been stuck on a plane (or two) all day and, well, dealing with airport food, my analogy (which, by the way, I am not good with analogies, so please someone with authority, stop me next time) seems so appropriate. However, even I can exercise restraint. Thus one more thought about food and books and one thought about just books.
First, continuing with the food theme. I see today’s books in two ways: comfort food and variations on the turkey sandwich. Always — always! — bookstores, particularly, are going to lean toward classics on the menu. Authors like Nora Roberts, Susan Elizabeth Phillips, and Jennifer Crusie (among others) gain new fans year in, year out. They sell steadily and their new releases do very well. These are the macaroni and cheese or beef stews of the booksellers world. Known, trusted, satisfying (and, for people like me, something I order multiple times because I have bad book management skills, so I tend to buy the same titles more than once).
When it comes to other books, that’s where the turkey sandwich analogy comes into play. Publishers have a terrific (bad terrific, I think) habit of jumping on trends until they’ve wrung the very soul from them. Paranormal? Urban fantasy? Vampires? There’s a point where the reader feels like it’s just more of the same (and readers do feel this way). A few authors and books rise above the rest, but so many are lost in the morass.
Enough with the food!
Now my second thought (I would have three, but I am professional plane sleeper). I don’t, for a second, believe that decreased choice will lead to lower quality; I think tighter lists lead to more editorial restraint. Better books. More competition for authors to write better rather than faster. I get so scared when I see authors pumping out books like it’s a speed contest. It’s great right now, but experience tells me that there’s going to be burnout — for the author and the reader.
Let’s use the erotica market as an example. It seems like there are new publishers coming online every day. I love this — I love the fact that publishing is now so democratic. As a reader, however, I’ve stopped buying. The books are not increasing in quality. I do not doubt that there are a few authors out there who rise to the Emma Holly standard (Emma Holly being an incredible erotica writer — she really showed us how it could be done), but, man, have you read some of these books? I’m not just talking about improbable sex…I’m talking about lack of plot, story, etc.
Can the market really sustain the growth I’m seeing? Not if the reader rumblings I’m hearing are any indication. I grant that some authors write really fast, but too much is too much, and too many publishers offering the same type of book can’t be good for authors or readers (readers being incredibly fickle creatures who can dump a trend like nobody’s business!).
As a writer, what disturbs me is that books are published and forgotten within hours. They don’t make a wave. Sure, if you’re lucky enough to publish for Harlequin, you have a certain set level of sales you might hit, but are you growing your market? Do you ever think about how many titles are remaindered or returned?
Circling back to my first point, if unit sales decrease because readers simply aren’t finding books (either virtually or physically), then bookstore orders will decrease. More shelf space will be occupied by the comfort food books because they have proven track records. It makes no sense for book buyers to invest in new authors, not at least until the publishing industry decides that scan-based trading is the new black (it’s not — the infrastructure will kill you!). Creating a marketplace where new books cannot find an audience is simply not good. For anybody.
Now off to find Frito pie because I’m in Austin for SXSW (yes, I know, but eating Frito pie is soooo worth the pain [and yeah, that’s bravado, I’ll probably fall back on maturity and just think about the Frito pie!]).
by Kassia Krozser March 6th, 2008 at 9:21 pmBarbara B., I empathize. Your post echoes much of how I feel, although I really don’t mind mixing my romance and suspense.
In truth, though, I don’t always want suspense. Sometimes, I just want a straight-forward contemporary romance–and at 39, I’m tired of virgins, vampires, werewolves, and baby stories. The first three are either too rare or too fantastic to believe (for me, anyway), and babies? Been there, done that–moving on.
I recognize, however, that there’s clearly a strong following for all of these subgenres; otherwise, they wouldn’t be so successful.
by Kacie J March 6th, 2008 at 9:26 pmMy guess, though, is that there must be other women out there who feel the same way we do…which is probably one of the reasons Nora Roberts and Susan Elizabeth Phillips are still consistently at the top of the bestseller’s lists.
You can add people like Karen Templeton, Barbara Bretton, and someone I’ve just discovered, Christine Flynn(hope I spelled name correctly), to list of authors who do excellent romances. Once I find someone I like, I search bookstores and then used bookstores until I find more of theirs.
by Bea March 6th, 2008 at 9:51 pmRe paranormals…Eileen Wilks is still my favourite even though her last one was not to my taste. I will remain faithful, always buying her books, because every other book has been so good.
Barbara B, yes, you hit the nail on the head for me. The current trend doesn’t have the emotional or sexual intensity I long for in my romances either. I don’t mean quantity of sex, I’d much rather have less sex and more sexual tension filled with emotion but that just doesn’t seem to be the in thing. For a while I was thinking this trend was a degradation of quality because people were writing too fast. But lately I’ve come to believe that it’s a matter of taste and trends and the majority of the readers aren’t looking for this kind of story. Over the past few years most of my favorite writers have switched to writing what I think of as more emotionally shallow stories that provide a fast paced, dizzying ride but never slow down to linger in slower paced scenes with strong emotional conflict.
I’m sure there are romances out there that still do this, but I’ve given up on trying to find them. I’ve now moved on to general fiction, ya (which has some amazing stuff out there), some women’s fiction and historical fiction. In these books I’m managing to find the emotional intensity that I used to find in the romance genre and sometimes they even have an emotionally intense romantic subplot to help satisfy that other itch.
by Jeanne S March 7th, 2008 at 2:16 amI find it hard to criticize writers. I admire some more/some a lot more than others. To me it’s always all about the story. It’s all about telling stories. I can easily read a book a day(I even read Roots in a day! Really.) If the story is good I can forgive a lot/skip over stuff I don’t like. If other elements are good I will go back and read again to enjoy the style/characterization/sexual tension/romance/suspense/the “music”of the words on the page…I often enjoy one special sentence in a book–sometimes just a sentence someone wrote will make me feel it was worth buying the book. Ever since I first discovered “Once upon a time…” I’ve loved the idea of writing and reading. It’s magic.
by Bea March 8th, 2008 at 10:44 amIf I get tired of something I just move on to something else, and then usually circle back. It’s all a discovery.
Celiac disease is NOT food allergy. Food allergy implies immediate death may occur. This is not true for celiac and endangers the lives of those of us with real food allergies. Please do not use food allergy when referring to celiac. This has already caused people with real food allergies trips to the ER - and possibly death. Trust me, there is a really big difference.
Secondly, less choice is bad. This is true in food and books. In food it may have caused the increase in food allergy and intolerance. (Manufacturers use corn, soy, wheat, milk, and tree nuts in just about everything - even things they do not label for processing.)
I dislike generic romance, but I like paranormal romance. I dislike most straight mysteries and like chick-lit/mystery mixes. If we went back to the shallow list model there would be fewer books for me and people like me. Everyone should be able to read what they want and with a broad publishing catalog that is possible.
by MLO March 10th, 2008 at 10:46 amI’m glad to see this kind of posting. It sounds like a strange allergy but I know three people who have celiac disease, and one is my mother. It is a terrible discomfort and darn inconvenient when trying to prepare foods or eat out in a restaurant. Its surprising how much food has wheat in it. Rice flour isn’t all its cut out to be either, so tasty recipes that can add a little to a wheat-free meal is a great celebration!
by Tara S Nichols March 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pmWow, you combined gluten free eating and books into the same topic. You are my hero.
I guess as someone with Celiac disease I feel as though since my food selection is limited, I would be saddened if my book selection was, too. Sure, there is a large number of crap novels being released, but there are so many quality choices, as well. I also agree with earlier posts that state that what one person hates, another may love.
MLO, you are correct in stating that Celiac is not an allergy, BUT please do not dismiss the seriousness of this auto-immune disease. Untreated is can, in fact, lead to death through malnutrition and the possible development of lymphoma. Attempting to explain to a waiter that you have Celiac is nearly impossible. That is why we often simply say we are allergic. An ER doctor ought to know better. If you have had problems with this, the fault lies with the medical professionals, not the Celiac patients.
by Shannon March 20th, 2008 at 2:09 amShannon,
I realize that celiac’s can die over time from malnutrition. There is, however, a world of difference between slow death from malnutrition and immediate death for which the treatments are only effective a certain percentage of the time.
The growing use of the word “allergy” to describe things that are not allergy is endangering those of us with true, immediate reactions because waiters and such - as well as medical personnel - are tending to not take these concerns as seriously.
I have yet to meet a waiter who did not know what celiac disease is - even in a small town.
by MLO March 20th, 2008 at 8:43 amMLO,
I wish I had dined in the same small towns as you have because even in a huge city like Chicago, I am still constantly running across waiters who think I can’t eat sugar because I am gluten free.
by Shannon March 20th, 2008 at 9:07 pm