Author Earnings Romance market analysis

[hildea]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Chick lit, though, is easy to pick out: it's all about the "chicks". The guys, if any, don't really matter to the story. Window dressing and plot devices at best.

Wow, that's an... interesting definition.

What's the name of the genre that's all about the guys? Where the chicks, if any, don't really matter to the story. Window dressing and plot devices at best?

Heh, the genre name springs to mind, doesn't it?

"Have you read Moby Dick?"
"No, I'm not that into dick lit. I read a lot of it as teenager -- I loved Asimov's Foundation, and Lord of the Rings was OK -- but I've less tolerance for it these days. There are a few examples of dick lit that are truly excellent, though. 'Nothing New on the Western Front' is still one of my favourites, regardless of genre."

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by 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. ...

An author could change one line and publish the same book in a bunch of different genres!

"By the way I'm a werewolf." (Paranormal romance)
"By the way I'm an alien." (SF)
"By the way I'm an elf." (Fantasy)
"By the way I'm a zombie." (Horror)
"By the way I'm a woman." (F-F romance)
...

[DiapDealer]

I have no problem with people having strict, personal expectations based on genre labels. I just question whether or not they represent the average genre reader by doing so. I don't think such strict adherence to "traditional" genre definitions rules the reading public, myself. I like to think people are a bit more flexible than that. The rise in popularity of genre blurring/blending genre titles leads me to believe I'm not entirely wrong. I (and many others) see genre labels as gateways, rather than fences. They get me in the ballpark. The reviews and the descriptions then tell me the specifics I need to know.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by jhowell

An author could change one line and publish the same book in a bunch of different genres!

"By the way I'm a werewolf." (Paranormal romance)
"By the way I'm an alien." (SF)
"By the way I'm an elf." (Fantasy)
"By the way I'm a zombie." (Horror)
"By the way I'm a woman." (F-F romance)
...

This is true. It was that generic. Two paragraphs to explain it all. I didn't buy the shifter bit because he acted too human. I suspect it was originally just contemporary romance she couldn't get published so she added the werewolf part because at the time paranormal romances were very popular.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Blossom

There is a lot mislabeling. The Stephanie Plum series has been put into Romance but they are not romances. I've seen other cozies and mysteries stuck in there as well. Why? They know it will sell better categorized as a romance.

Not all Chicklit is about the chicks as you put it. I've read plenty that were about the lead female and had strong romantic elements but not a happy ending for the couple. They are a lot like cozies in that way. I've seen Urban Fantasy categorized as romance alot when there is hardly any romantic elements at all.

A more modern way to tell is covers like shirtless hairless men, pretty dresses that go on and on, sexy couples and sweet couples in uncomfortable poses. These are almost always romances.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

Actually publishers and authors do not deliberately mislabel them because it improves sales. It can actually hurt sales. The way things are labeled is mostly because we are given x number of choices on each platform -- this is true whether you are a trad publisher or indie. Some platforms have a "main" category and then subcategories (this is partly why you see subcategory rankings on Amazon. An indie author cannot set those, but can request that her book be included in such and such category or taken out of a category. For example, Executive Retention is a mystery. It was categorized by Amazon at one time as a book about "lawyers". There is one character in the book who is a lawyer, but that did not make it a lawyer thriller so I had to request that they take that out).

Many books can be more than one category and be completely legit. Catch an Honest Thief has two characters who fall in love and get their happily ever after. This is also a mystery. I'd say these themes run side-by-side. I'm not trying to sell into the romance readership by labeling it romance--it is a romance. But sometimes for some mystery readers, it warns them away from such a book because they aren't interested in the romance component.

How a reader defines romance is different from how the industry defines it (and that definition changes to be more inclusive or exclusive depending on trends). Each reader may define it differently too.

Really, the labels are to TRY to help readers find what they want. Sure, some would label it with every label in the hopes every reader would see a book, but there are restrictions in place to keep that from happening. The restrictions differ by platform/retailer.

I consider most chic-lit to be romance. Whether I would (as a reader) put the chick-lit label first or second...would depend on the book.

As far as sales, a lot of books get thrown into a larger category of romance because it is one of the categories at the top of the Library of Congress genre "trees." When defining a book for library sales, they sometimes ONLY have the major categories. So, for example, there is no cozy mystery category. There is only "Mystery and thrillers."

Retailers in the last 7 years have moved away from a small tree of definitions to a much larger one with branches and more choices. When possible, I will "label" my Sedona series as cozy mysteries. When possible I will label the Moon Shadow series as Urban Fantasy--HOWEVER, those categories are rarely available (Amazon keeps putting the Moon Shadow series under occult because it happens to have vamps and weres in there. But it's really more paranormal mystery than true occult. I have very little control over that label when the rankings hit high enough to bring them into play.)

Some of those subcategories are done off key words in the story especially on Amazon.

I think it was John Levitt's thriller (recently repubbed from backlist) that had something about tarot cards in the subcategory. That's a long shot given the overall story, but the title is Tens of Swords so that probably caused it.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I have no problem with people having strict, personal expectations based on genre labels. I just question whether or not they represent the average genre reader by doing so. I don't think such strict adherence to "traditional" genre definitions rules the reading public, myself. I like to think people are a bit more flexible than that. The rise in popularity of genre blurring/blending genre titles leads me to believe I'm not entirely wrong. I (and many others) see genre labels as gateways, rather than fences.

You may be surprised. Romance readers have certain expectations if a book is too light on the romance then you are going to see a lot of negative reviews.

I've seen this happen because of covers too. If the cover has a hot guy on it without a shirt then readers is expecting it to be heavy on the sexy times. If it's too sweet even if it's well written the author is going to get a lot of negative reviews.

I once bought books that had a sweet fully dressed couple on it. It look and sounded like romance. It wasn't. It was erotic romance with kinky bits. It had been previously published with super sexy covers but I didn't know. I don't know if I will ever read those three books. I felt seriously mislead.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I have no problem with people having strict, personal expectations based on genre labels. I just question whether or not they represent the average genre reader by doing so. I don't think such strict adherence to "traditional" genre definitions rules the reading public, myself. I like to think people are a bit more flexible than that. The rise in popularity of genre blurring/blending genre titles leads me to believe I'm not entirely wrong. I (and many others) see genre labels as gateways, rather than fences. They get me in the ballpark. The reviews and the descriptions then tell me the specifics I need to know.

People change, industry standards change and so do overall tastes, which can affect labels. I don't think most readers get too hung up on the labels. Someone above said Stephanie Plum isn't a romance. To me, it's a romance. Sure, it lacks that happily ever after SO FAR, but it certainly has a lot of the same elements of a romance. In every book, girl gets her man and there's a happily ever after of sorts for that book. It's deliberately left open so that we can enjoy the tension and chase in the next book (until you just get sick of the whole ploy). It still has the chase, the tension, and generally the payoff (even if it isn't marriage.)

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

People change, industry standards change and so do overall tastes, which can affect labels. I don't think most readers get too hung up on the labels. Someone above said Stephanie Plum isn't a romance. To me, it's a romance. Sure, it lacks that happily ever after SO FAR, but it certainly has a lot of the same elements of a romance. In every book, girl gets her man and there's a happily ever after of sorts for that book. It's deliberately left open so that we can enjoy the tension and chase in the next book (until you just get sick of the whole ploy). It still has the chase, the tension, and generally the payoff (even if it isn't marriage.)

You obviously haven't read all of the Plums books. If you had you couldn't call them all romance. There is nothing romantic in the last ones that had been out. The first 13 had stronger romantic elements but after readers had a meltdown that about Stephanie acting the slut. There hasn't really been anything remotely romantic in them.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[BearMountainBooks]

No, I stopped reading around book 10 so my romance comments really applies through maybe book 8 or so. Shrug. The labels aren't terribly important to me as they are often wrong or stretched when pitted against my own reading tastes. When I describe a book to someone who asks about it, I give them my impressions on whether it's romance or mystery or both, etc. That's about all anyone can do.

[DiapDealer]

And this thread hasn't shown me anything to change my mind on the subject. There clearly is no consensus. Label adherence is clearly more important to some and less so to others. And no one's definition of any particular genre is the "right" one for everyone else. Divergence abounds. Just as it's supposed to.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

No, I stopped reading around book 10 so my romance comments really applies through maybe book 8 or so. Shrug. The labels aren't terribly important to me as they are often wrong or stretched when pitted against my own reading tastes. When I describe a book to someone who asks about it, I give them my impressions on whether it's romance or mystery or both, etc. That's about all anyone can do.

The last book 22 was really bad. There is no way JE wrote it. There was too many inconsistencies. I suspect ghost writers since book 19 but the one who did 22 was very unfamiliar with plumverse. The romance died out so long ago after JE stopped writing them.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Blossom

The last book 22 was really bad. There is no way JE wrote it. There was too many inconsistencies. I suspect ghost writers since book 19 but the one who did 22 was very unfamiliar with plumverse. The romance died out so long ago after JE stopped writing them.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

Entirely possible. The publisher (assuming a standard contract from way back when) owns the name (her author name for that series) the characters and has right of first refusal. The publisher could easily have decided to continue the series without her. Even by book 10 it was ridiculously obvious that there was no "final" choice in the romance because the publisher (or someone) believed that the indecision was keeping the books going. The first three had the best mysteries. And, for that matter, the best parts of the romance!

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Entirely possible. The publisher (assuming a standard contract from way back when) owns the name (her author name for that series) the characters and has right of first refusal. The publisher could easily have decided to continue the series without her. Even by book 10 it was ridiculously obvious that there was no "final" choice in the romance because the publisher (or someone) believed that the indecision was keeping the books going. The first three had the best mysteries. And, for that matter, the best parts of the romance!

I seriously think book 12 was suppose to be final and she did make a huge decision in that book. It should have ended there even though 13 is probably my favorite. All the rest the writing changed, the male characters became hollow versions of their former selves. I still think she wrote 14, 15, 16, 17, and possibly 18 but after that someone or someones took over. I do believe she has some say though. She said on Facebook that her paranormal series released was on hold due to publisher pushing for a June release of Tricky Twenty-Two. She later released the next in her paranormal series with a co-writer.

It's all a mystery of how much she takes part in the Plum series anymore.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[silverraven]

Originally Posted by Blossom

The last book 22 was really bad. There is no way JE wrote it. There was too many inconsistencies. I suspect ghost writers since book 19 but the one who did 22 was very unfamiliar with plumverse. The romance died out so long ago after JE stopped writing them.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

Thank you, that is good to know. I am only on, I think, #11, maybe. Been a long time, I got burned out reading them one after another. I really really liked them though, grandma was a hoot.
So you are saying stop at 18? Not bother with 19 and above?
S

[theducks]

If it was good enough for John W. Campbell,
It is good enough for me to call it SF

Randall Garret
Mike McQuay
Isaac Asimov
(and others) wrote SF (bordering on Fantasy?) that got published in the pages of Analog

I think it is more important that a story hold together and FLOW rather than if the detective is a Vampire/Were.