News Corp buys Harlequin

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree with you about lack of research in historical novels, but that's not just something that affects the romance genre. I was recently reading a novel set in the Napoleanic Wars (1790 or so), in which people went around saying "hello" to each other. Can any author of historical novels really be so ignorant as not to know that "Hello" is a late 19th century coinage, whose first recorded usage was in 1883? Amazing.

It's worse than that I am talking about stuff like adding movie references to the book using modern terms that were even around till after the 70s. I kid you not it gets worse. You also have heroines acting like modern women and there is no consequence for it. No one bats an eye at their scandalous behavior. In fact more than often they are cheered on inside the book.

It's like a bad Disney movie. I call them fairytale Romance because there is no way it could have happen in that time period. The Authors are not even trying anymore. Almost all historicals have to be set in Regency time era, there has to be a Duke hero in it somewhere.

Harlequin is one of few publisher's that still publishes historicals that are set in different eras. They don't use gimmicks like Avon does.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Can't argue on the historical point. If authors don't want to research, they need to create fantasy worlds that "look like" whatever they want to define it as, but not market it as historical (mystery, romance, etc). I see many do this and call it steampunk. That works because you can't really expect it to be accurate if you label it steampunk!

I call it Mistoricals or Fairytale Romance. Avon calls it Historical Romance but there isn't an ounce of history in it.

What even more sad is I've seen authors who I know can write decent dumb down their writing lately. At first I wonder if they gotten lazy or maybe it's the editor who knows really but it's really sad.

I do like Steampunk but these aren't sci-fi in anyway. More like Alternative Universe where Modern meets Regency and produces some scary results.

[Terisa de morgan]

Problem is, saying a person likes Mistoricals because doesn't know better is like saying a person reads romance because doesn't know better. Sorry, I dislike that kind of comments. I don't bat an eye at some of them and they can be entertaining. I've read a lot of classic historical romance and I like history, so I really know and I don't mind but... give me a book with misinformation about computers and I'm going to bear it for less than ten pages. The hot spot is different for everybody,

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

Problem is, saying a person likes Mistoricals because doesn't know better is like saying a person reads romance because doesn't know better. Sorry, I dislike that kind of comments. I don't bat an eye at some of them and they can be entertaining. I've read a lot of classic historical romance and I like history, so I really know and I don't mind but... give me a book with misinformation about computers and I'm going to bear it for less than ten pages. The hot spot is different for everybody,

You misunderstood. I'm saying they're are people who don't know any better so they don't question it. When I throw up a question they are like I wouldn't notice if you hadn't said anything. This is sad. It means authors can get away with alot in historicals now days. It doesn't mean all people out there who likes a mistorical doesn't know any better but there is some out there like that and I've come across it alot in my campaign to save Historical Romance.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Blossom

You misunderstood. I'm saying they're are people who don't know any better so they don't question it. When I throw up a question they are like I wouldn't notice if you hadn't said anything. This is sad. It means authors can get away with alot in historicals now days. It doesn't mean all people out there who likes a mistorical doesn't know any better but there is some out there like that and I've come across it alot in my campaign to save Historical Romance.

I hope that clarifies it for you.

Yes, you're right, I had misunderstood, sorry. Lack of culture/knowledge is sadly usual.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

Yes, you're right, I had misunderstood, sorry. Lack of culture/knowledge is sadly usual.

It's okay. I knew English is not your first language and with my Dyslexia I always word things wrong most of the time and have to explain or edit. If it wasn't for spell checkers I would write in gibberish most of the time.

[fjtorres]

Here's a snapshot look at the extent that romance (and SF) readers have accepted indie titles:
http://edwardwrobertson.com/self-pub...rket-by-genre/

Note, this is simply a count of titles and it is not weighed by ranking, price, or anything else.
Think of it as a "shelf space" or mindshare exercise.

ROMANCE

Self-published: 49%
Small/medium: 11%
Amazon: 9%
Big 5/Harlequin: 30%

MYSTERY/THRILLER/SUSPENSE

Self-published: 11%
Small/medium: 5%
Amazon: 16%
Big 5: 68%

SCIENCE FICTION

Self-published: 56%
Small/medium: 9%
Amazon: 5%
Big 5 (plus Baen): 30%

FANTASY
Self-published: 49%
Small/medium: 7%
Amazon: 7%
Big 5: 37%

Basically, Harlequin titles are being swamped.

[BearMountainBooks]

In fact the only category where they aren't looks to be mystery and thrillers. I can believe that a lot of sci/fantasy writers are "go it alone" types. Fits the mold and the genre. I can also believe romance writers would do that because it's a popular category, but you have to write a lot of them to succeed. You don't have many "blockbuster" romance titles.

[fjtorres]

Well, mysteries and thrillers is where you get the biggest of the big names, Patterson, Thor, etc. Plus Amazon plays strong there.

Romance gets an added boost from all the Harlequin "refugees"; a lot of the indies are familiar names to buyers.

I was a bit surprised to see SF bigger on indies than romance, techie friendly or not. Might be the backlists showing up that way, which would be a great development to see. There's lots of great 50's and 60's SF that's been deprecated by the tradpubs that I want to see more readily available in legal editions.

[BearMountainBooks]

Zelany is slowly being ebooked:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00K7PCQWI

There's a couple of others too.

At least one agent started "publishing" some of his authors' backlist as the publisher. Seems to have worked out well for the authors and for him. I do find quite a bit of decent fantasy stuff coming out from indie writers too, but then, I read a lot of indies so I'm constantly sorting and finding stuff.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Zelany is slowly being ebooked:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00K7PCQWI

There's a couple of others too.

I'm really hoping for JACK OF SHADOWS. First Zelazny I ever read, via SFBC.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I was a bit surprised to see SF bigger on indies than romance, techie friendly or not. Might be the backlists showing up that way, which would be a great development to see. There's lots of great 50's and 60's SF that's been deprecated by the tradpubs that I want to see more readily available in legal editions.

SF Gateway are going a great job of publishing backlist SF and fantasy. Most of it not available in the US, unfortunately, due to rights issues. Elsewhere, though, they've published the entire back catalogue of authors like Cliff Simak, Harry Harrison, Gordon Dickson, and many others.