Author Earnings Romance market analysis

[meeera]

I strongly disagree with the "taming of a man" requirement, and much prefer the RWA definition. Romance, of course, also doesn't have to be a hero/heroine. It can be M/F, M/M, F/F, or other combinations.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by meeera

I strongly disagree with the "taming of a man" requirement, and much prefer the RWA definition. Romance, of course, also doesn't have to be a hero/heroine. It can be M/F, M/M, F/F, or other combinations.

I think it was Mr. Sparks way of dissing romance but the important part was distinction between love stories and romances he gives.

Yes I agree there can be all sorts of combo couples now days in romances. There is something for everyone.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Blossom

I think it was Mr. Sparks way of dissing romance but the important part was distinction between love stories and romances he gives.

All I agree with is the HEA/HFN. His other two criteria seem inapplicable to me.

[Terisa de morgan]

We can agree/disagree about the genre bounds as we like. With these figures, I seriously doubt they're talking about "Romeo & Juliet" likes or Nicholas Sparks' kind of books. More about RITA criteria.

[Josieb1]

Talking of RITA apparently an MM Romance won an award yesterday. For Real by Alexis Hall.

[latepaul]

Genres are at best a clue to whether a book might fall into your wheelhouse of interest. At worst they're just a marketing category.

They are descriptive and therefore subjective and hence the boundaries tend to be very fuzzy.

Trying to define much less police those boundaries is pointless and frustrating IME.

[fjtorres]

M

Originally Posted by latepaul

Genres are at best a clue to whether a book might fall into your wheelhouse of interest. At worst they're just a marketing category.

They are descriptive and therefore subjective and hence the boundaries tend to be very fuzzy.

Trying to define much less police those boundaries is pointless and frustrating IME.

True, for the most part.
But genre classifications, particularly the "classic" commercial genres (SF&F, Romance, Mystery) come with reader expectations. (Which is where a lot of the debate comes from.)

Those fuzzy borders are dangerous territory.

Take a detective story, set it in some nebulous, ill-defined future and try to bill is as SF? It'll get creamed for being poor SF no matter how good it might be as a mystery.

Or, as pointed out above: take a light bounty hunter mystery/adventure and throw in some flirty sexual tension and try to bill it as romance? Genre readers will cry foul.

Those classifications aren't just corporate pigeonholing and marketspeak; they are the result of decades of genre evolution and they are terms that can make or break a book's success. They promise very specific reader experiences and if those promises aren't met the word will get out fast.

Oh, and yes: Sparks was most definitely dissing the genre when he claimed nobody else does what he does. Sheer chest beating. When all is said and done his readers are romance readers.

In the end a book's genre is defined by who buys it and enjoys it.
Romance readers are legion and these days they are overwhelmingly digital readers.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Take a detective story, set it in some nebulous, ill-defined future and try to bill is as SF? It'll get creamed for being poor SF no matter how good it might be as a mystery.

Nah. It'll get "creamed" by some cranky purists in the dark corners of the genre blogosphere for being "poor SF." But if it's a good story, it will sell and readers and author will be happy regardless of it's "mis"-labeling. Genre borders are only going to get fuzzier and fuzzier. Those who stress over it are only denying themselves enjoyable reads for silly meta-reasons.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Nah. It'll get "creamed" by some cranky purists in the dark corners of the genre blogosphere for being "poor SF." But if it's a good story, it will sell and readers and author will be happy regardless of it's "mis"-labeling. Genre borders are only going to get fuzzier and fuzzier. Those who stress over it are only denying themselves enjoyable reads for silly meta-reasons.

It will sell...to mystery readers.
Not to the core SF market. The reviews will make sure of that. Because SF readers aren't loking for a detective mystery in SF-trappings but rather the real thing.

SF, more than the other genres, is finicky about its borders. (Too much crap heaped upon it over the decades.) Witness the never-ending debates over SF vs SciFi. Spending good money on what is billed as SF only to discover a pale imitation with bad science, lazy world-building, and a focus on "mundane" details will not please regardless of the sparkling prose or intricate twisty-turny plot.

Again, the word of mouth and reviews will cream them. Because genre labels do bring expectations:

At the most basic, Romance is about the relationship, mystery is about the puzzle, SF is about the idea. Fail to deliver and you will hear about it.

Romance clearly labels their fancies as Paranormal romance to make sure readers aren't mislead, even by accident, because it is not good for readers or authors when readers are disappointed. Those folks know their business.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It will sell...to mystery readers.

And to SF readers who enjoy Mystery, and to Mystery readers who have an SF penchant/interest, and to people who liked the cover/description--what's the point? Readers (even genre readers) don't fit into neat little boxes any more than genre definitions do.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Not to the core SF market. The reviews will make sure of that. Because SF readers aren't loking for a detective mystery in SF-trappings but rather the real thing.

The "core" SF market you're referring to is small--and getting smaller all the time. If they were big enough to affect the market, then the successful "Not-SF SF" that they poo-poo wouldn't be successful. But it is, and their resentment/dismissal of it is mostly immaterial (except, once again, in their their own little corner of the world where their voices might carry a smidgen of weight). And the "never-ending debates over SF vs SciFi" are tempests in a teacup, too. People who have time for such silliness aren't reading nearly enough.

SF is, quite simply, what sells as SF (same as with any genre). Not what a small group of dwindling purists bless with their "Real SF" label (or insert "Real Romance" or any "Real" genre label you like). As always; perception is reality. A genre label doesn't pigeonhole the content or its aficionados. It's an aisle marker at the supermarket--and the black-bean hummus with mango-corn salsa topping has to be shelved somewhere.

Science Fiction (the genre) is only definitively--rigidly--defined in the minds of people who's opinions on the subject aren't very relevant to the vast amount of people buying/reading what's being sold under the SF label (by the bucketfull).

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Spending good money on what is billed as SF only to discover a pale imitation with bad science, lazy world-building, and a focus on "mundane" details will not please regardless of the sparkling prose or intricate twisty-turny plot.

Genre alone is a poor predictor of whether your money is well spent (i.e. "will I enjoy this book?"). Better to find reviewers whose taste you chime with rather than get angry at publishers/authors for transgressing genre boundaries.

[fjtorres]

The point is that if a book is billed as one genre, be it SF, Mystery, or Romance it will be judge by the standards and expectations of that genre.
Most readers won't say "it's not really SF" or "it's not real Romance". They'll say it's bad SF or Bad romance because it doesn't deliver what they expected.

The number of people who will say "it's not SF but it's a good mystery" is minimal. Most genre readers prefer that books live up to their billing. Truth in advertising and all that.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The point is that if a book is billed as one genre, be it SF, Mystery, or Romance it will be judge by the standards and expectations of that genre.
Most readers won't say "it's not really SF" or "it's not real Romance". They'll say it's bad SF or Bad romance because it doesn't deliver what they expected.

The number of people who will say "it's not SF but it's a good mystery" is minimal. Most genre readers prefer that books live up to their billing. Truth in advertising and all that.

I'm going to agree with you on this. I've have had this happen many times with books mislabeled. Do I mind? Yes. If I am in the mood for Romance then I will judge it to romance standards. I once did a review on a ARC for a paranormal romance that really wasn't one. It could have been any Harlequin Present it just turned out the hero was a werewolf. It got a bad review from me.

Actually this happened twice one was a historical regency where the hero was just a werewolf but the whole story was not paranormal.

If I go in with expectations on a book then I will judge the book according to them.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[DuckieTigger]

It is enough that the hero in a Romance is a werewolf to classify the book as Paranormal Romance.

A unscientific, but fortunately based on common opinion source (wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal_romance ) says this:

Paranormal romance is a subgenre of both romantic fiction and speculative fiction. Paranormal romance focuses on romantic love and includes elements beyond the range of scientific explanation, blending together themes from the speculative fiction genres of fantasy, science fiction, and horror.
[..]
Common hallmarks are romantic relationships between humans and vampires, shapeshifters, ghosts, and other entities of a fantastic or otherworldly nature.

[Blossom]

Not really. It's very poorly to just say. "By the way I'm a werewolf." There should be world building, background information and rules have to be written about the universe it's set in. If you just make a character a shifter without setting all those things in motion. There is no paranormal to the story. The book was written by an author who knew better. Her book by another publisher was great. It had all the requirements a paranormal romance needs. These two examples were a marketing ploy done badly. I felt cheated. I wanted my time and money back.

Several other reviews felt the same way. We take our paranormal romance serious.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk