Quote:
Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks
Oh no, I get that many people define it as you do. And I did ask how YOU defined it, not whether the industry might include broader definitions. I was specifically interested in how you defined it so I did get my answer. Thank you!
I don't think every reader has to define it by the same standards or use Harlequin as the epitome. There's plenty of room to use the term in different ways/context or for some readers to feel they read romance that aren't defined that way. That's why I asked. It helps to know what the expectation is for why someone might like publishers versus indies or have issues with the labeling/terms. I was curious about it, so I asked!
|
Ah I gotch ya. I can send some of our romance readers in here if you want more definitions.
I don't mind indies if they don't go off the deep end. I do buy them but quite a few has been disappointing. The hero is abusive jerk who can do no wrong because he is super hot. I can name several Indies like that.
I buy alot of back issue that are self published. I would say back issue historical romances are autobuy for me. Especially anything that was published by Zebra. We currently have historical romance crisis on our hands. The publisher's (not harlequin) are letting anyone published them these days who do not research the time period so it's like reading a modern novel. For me it's horrifying! For others who know no better they are loving it. Knowing no better in meaning they have no idea what it correct or not correct when it comes to the time period it is written in. Avon is probably the biggest one in this next to Sourcebooks who publishes these mistoricals.
So I can truly worried Harlequin Historicals will be turned into a gimmicky imprint like Avon Romance has become with their historicals. They use to be one of my favorites back in the day now I avoid them due to the inaccuracies and modern dialogue they allow.