News Corp buys Harlequin

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would you say, then, that "Romeo and Juliet" is not a romance, simply because it doesn't have a happy ending? I'd strongly disagree with that - for me, it's the STORY that makes it a romance, not the outcome.

No, it's not a romance as genre is understood now. If a book in the romance section doesn't have a HEA, I'm afraid the bookseller is going to get some complains for the usual customers. Anyway, this is an usual discussion... with people who doesn't read the genre

Anyway, I'm a picker (I'm sure some readers know with I mean) and the reason is "A Knight in Shining Armor", romance according to your definition but not mine.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

No, it's not a romance as genre is understood now. If a book in the romance section doesn't have a HEA, I'm afraid the bookseller is going to get some complains for the usual customers. Anyway, this is an usual discussion... with people who doesn't read the genre

But I do read romances. Jane Austen is one of my favourite authors - see my uploads of her books in the MR library. Or are you going to turn around and say that Austen's books aren't romances?

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I guess I tend to use the Library of Congress definitions--I get what you're both saying. But Harlequin is a BRAND as are most imprints. They have a narrower definition of romance and brand their imprints with it, and to some degree, they defined romance for their brand and the industry. When you work in a library or bookstore, you only have so many genres to pick from--and there aren't enough!! Romance has to encompass a lot more in that situation.

So while I completely agree that romance should have HEA

DeLeon is publishing that series on her own, *I think*. She has several she writes on her own now so far as I can tell. Her name shows as the publisher. I think she is branching off and publishing other authors too. I don't follow her, know her, or keep up with any of the other series other than that one so I can't say for certain.

And if she writes for Harlequin, it's STILL a fun series. I'm not stuck on where a book is published or who does the publishing.

I'm not even stuck on genre, but I totally appreciate what you are saying about genres being mismarked, marketed incorrectly and so on.

Harlequin has defined Romance since the early 50s I think it was. They are not just brand they are a Icon. They are the ideal romance book. Other publishers tried to copy Harlequin. LoveSwept, Fawcett and Signet are a few that comes to mind then later Precious Gems. I get what you say but you have to understand Harlequin is Romance. It's what every other publisher started copying after after. They are not just narrow definition of Romance they ARE the pioneers of romance. Just like Austen and Heyer are pioneers in Regencies, Harlequin is the pioneer of Romance.

You will find alot of books mistmatch Cozies, Urban Fantasy and Chiklit may get stuck in the wrong section. The truth is romance always focuses on the relationship of the two lead characters. It's easy though by just reading a blub to know if it's a real romance or not. The blurb will be around two people the hero and the heroine.

Examples:

#1

LOVE'S DANGEROUS ADVENTURE

Desperate to help her widowed sister and baby escape a deadly pursuer, Lady Chastity Ware dresses as a highwayman and captures the first coach to travel down the road. Coming face-to-face with its occupant, the arrogant aristocrat, Cyn Malloren, she orders him to drive her to a remote cottage.

Little does Chastity realize that after long months of recovering from his war wounds, the devilishly handsome Cyn is looking for adventure, and being abducted by a cocky young highwayman-obviously a young woman in disguise-is even more than he had hoped for. Willingly he is drawn into her desperate plan... and helplessly he is seduced by her lovely sensual presence. Yet he is obsessed with learning the bitter secrets that torment her-and determined to show her that the passion that drives him is a love that will bind them together forever.


#2

IN THE STILL OF THE NIGHT

The calls came like clockwork -- a cold, hate-filled voice telling late-night radio announcer Cilla O'Roarke that she was going to die. The never-ending threats had finally made her a believer. She was desperate -- desperate enough to accept police protection.

Cilla preferred to keep her distance from the police, and she had her reasons. But there was something about Boyd Fletcher that made him difficult to ignore. He was strong, laconic, infuriating and clearly determined to watch over her every second of the day -- and night.

And the trouble was, the more Cilla saw of her unwanted bodyguard, the more she wanted him to share the night she loved....


#3

When beautiful advertising executive Maddie Fitzgerald is attacked in a New Orleans hotel, she thinks that she's a victim of random, senseless violence. FBI agent Sam McCabe thinks otherwise--that she's the target of a serial killer who's eluded the FBI for weeks. He also knows that there's only one way to catch him: use Maddie as the enticing bait. But as McCabe's intimate protection ignites irresistible passion, Maddie finds herself in greater danger than she believed possible--and closer to the killer than she ever imagined.

If the blurb just mentions the hero slightly then it's probably has some romantic elements in it but it's not romance.

If the ending isn't happy it isn't romance but a Love Story.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But I do read romances. Jane Austen is one of my favourite authors - see my uploads of her books in the MR library. Or are you going to turn around and say that Austen's books aren't romances?

Jane Austen is Traditional Regency. They can be called Romances but they don't necessary fit into the main Romance genre. When we refer to Austen or Heyer it's Traditional Regency although many consider Ms. Heyer a pioneer in romance. Her books would be more Traditional Regency which is partly romance. So it's either OR.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Jane Austen is Traditional Regency.

A misnomer. "Regency" novels refer to historical novels. Austen didn't write historical novels - her novels are contemporary to their time of writing.

You say in a previous post that Harlequin "invented" the romance genre. I would respectfully suggest that the British publisher Mills and Boon, who long, long predated Harlequin, actually did that. (Yes, I know that Harlequin now own M&B!) M&B started specialising in women's romance novels in the 1930s; Harlequin didn't start doing so until the mid 1950s.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A misnomer. "Regency" novels refer to historical novels. Austen didn't write historical novels - her novels are contemporary to their time of writing.

You say in a previous post that Harlequin "invented" the romance genre. I would respectfully suggest that the British publisher Mills and Boon, who long, long predated Harlequin, actually did that. (Yes, I know that Harlequin now own M&B!) M&B started specialising in women's romance novels in the 1930s; Harlequin didn't start doing so under the mid 1950s.

I do include MB as Harlequin because they did buy them out. Although it's really rare to find those very old stories but you can still find HQs from the 50s. I own quite a few.

Harlequin is the pioneer of Romance though not MB because it was HQ that every one wanted to copy their formulas and rules. MB might have been earlier but it was HQ who made the genre famous.

There is a whole genre that patterns after Austen and Heyer we call them Traditional Regency because Regency Romance is often called Wallpaper Historicals or today Regency many call Mistoricals because they are modern stories in long dresses and the reader must suspense their disbelief for enjoyment.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Harlequin is the pioneer of Romance though not MB because it was HQ that every one wanted to copy their formulas and rules. MB might have been earlier but it was HQ who made the genre famous.

Probably different in the UK. If you say "romance novels" in the UK it'll be Mills and Boon that people automatically think of. I suspect you'd struggle to find anyone who'd ever even heard of Harlequin here. It's just not a known brand name.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Probably different in the UK. If you say "romance novels" in the UK it'll be Mills and Boon that people automatically think of. I suspect you'd struggle to find anyone who'd ever even heard of Harlequin here. It's just not a known brand name.

You could be right on that. Here it's Harlequin and the publishers who followed after them.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Probably different in the UK. If you say "romance novels" in the UK it'll be Mills and Boon that people automatically think of. I suspect you'd struggle to find anyone who'd ever even heard of Harlequin here. It's just not a known brand name.

Yes, Harlequin was smart to keep the M&B brand name as what they use in the UK (& a few other places) when they bought them even though the books themselves are the same.

[BearMountainBooks]

Well, all that history and expectations are true, but as a genre, it has to be defined with a broader scope because there ARE readers who like romance, but don't look for that definition. I'm one and I guess HarryT is too!

And the biggest problem is that not everyone reads the books (they can't read them all) so when they are shelving, they have to take their best guess. There are readers of one of my books who consider that particular book romance. I suppose it is compared to my other books because the romance plays a much larger part. But I don't classify it as romance first because of a lot of the points you make. I only get to choose two categories per book. It will always be an issue because as a reader, I classify romance much more broadly that Harlequin. As a writer, I also classify it more broadly--and that isn't to gain sales or marketing, it's because I have to pick the two best categories available.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Well, all that history and expectations are true, but as a genre, it has to be defined with a broader scope because there ARE readers who like romance, but don't look for that definition. I'm one and I guess HarryT is too!

And the biggest problem is that not everyone reads the books (they can't read them all) so when they are shelving, they have to take their best guess. There are readers of one of my books who consider that particular book romance. I suppose it is compared to my other books because the romance plays a much larger part. But I don't classify it as romance first because of a lot of the points you make. I only get to choose two categories per book. It will always be an issue because as a reader, I classify romance much more broadly that Harlequin. As a writer, I also classify it more broadly--and that isn't to gain sales or marketing, it's

It seems to me you may be a little confused on the genre. The ones speaking up in this thread read mainly romance and own a ton of romance books. I invite you hang out with us in our little monthly Romance thread in the deals forum if you wish to get a better idea of romance books. It's isn't hard to identify what a romance is or not. Only non romance readers seems to be confused on the matter. Those of who read mainly romance has a good idea of what it is and what it isn't.

I don't get why shelving is a big deal here. Anyone can mislabel a book's genre. I've seen Westerns in the romance section! The real issue here is Romance has become a genre that is easily definable and RWA's even has guidelines for a book to be accepted for a RITA they just threw out the books with a strong romantic elements category because they felt it wasn't REAL romance.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Blossom

It seems to me you may be a little confused on the genre. The ones speaking up in this thread read mainly romance and own a ton of romance books. I invite you hang out with us in our little monthly Romance thread in the deals forum if you wish to get a better idea of romance books. It's isn't hard to identify what a romance is or not. Only non romance readers seems to be confused on the matter. Those of who read mainly romance has a good idea of what it is and what it isn't.

I don't get why shelving is a big deal here. Anyone can mislabel a book's genre. I've seen Westerns in the romance section! The real issue here is Romance has become a genre that is easily definable and RWA's even has guidelines for a book to be accepted for a RITA they just threw out the books with a strong romantic elements category because they felt it wasn't REAL romance.

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!

[Blossom]

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.

[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.

[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!