Where Personal and Professional Life Collide...

Well, I'm with you.

But I can also attest to the frustration at the other end, and the belief that it's the companies themselves that are hidebound and refusing to diversify.

My agent won't send the Kinkaids to Brava because they aren't told from a woman's POV. These are books about a couple's coming of age, growing, evolving, in a milieu designed to keep that from happening.

But they wouldn't look at it because "they only want it from the female perspective. No exceptions."

So, well, there you go. A third leg in the "we insist you publish ONLY THIS!" versus the "publishers need to diversify": the company itself as stupidly rigid and destructively hidebound in its conventions.

Of course, I do have the flu, so that may not be coherent.

From:

lagilman

But Brava is only one imprint of a larger company....

From:

Oh, yes, I grok that. But the line, as I understand it, specifically wants love stories focussing on a couple who go through life together, eventually winding up at the happy-ever-after goalposts.

Which is exactly, and I do mean exactly, what the Kinkaids are about.

So by the imprint's own reqs, this is what it wants. But only if I have Bree tell it.

No exceptions.

I call that rigid, you know? And that much rigidity and specificity within a given line - even though the umbrella house has others - argues against the idea that they're looking actively diversify.

From:

lagilman

And that much rigidity and specificity within a given line - even though the umbrella house has others - argues against the idea that they're looking actively diversify

Hrm. I'd have to disagree, there. In this particular instance, Kensington has a number of imprints that include a range within genres, and they have imprints that are very style-specific. That's a reasonable amount of diversifying, in my book (sorry, bad pun).

From:

But if each of those individual lines are that rigidly contructed, then we're talking small metal publishing boxes, and product rather than stories. So the parent house might have "Hoobah!" as imprint, purely about "female circus clown who battle addiction in hospital wards, while searching for true love", and if it's a male clown, they presumably won't bother to crack the covers.

Which, again, is fine. But it does make me shake my head at the idea of them having any major jones to shake things up. Anyway, why would they, if this works for them? I certainly wouldn't, if it worked for me.

From:

djonn

The question may be whether both the editorial and marketing sides of the operation are equally committed to shake things up.

Case in point: I very much liked the Silhouette Bombshell titles I looked into (having sampled the line specifically because an author I'd previously enjoyed was writing for it). The thing was, those books were not category romance in any rational way, shape, or form -- not on a qualitative level. In publishing them, the Harlequin editors who bought and nurtured those books were pushing the envelope something fierce.

But the marketeers who insisted, until very late in the game, on packaging the Bombshell line as if it was category romance, series-numbering and all -- they were at best Not Paying Attention, and at worst, well "blithering idiots" would be way too kind; the packaging, IMO, actively sabotaged the line.

From:

Heh. Back around 1990, I wrote a book called "Fire Queen", at the request of an editor who, at the time, was at Pocket. She was outbid for it by Bantam. The book was based on the Cycles of Oisin and dealt with prechristian Ireland. Hard to stick a genre label on; I'd say, looking at it now (it, the book, NOT the cover), that it qualifies mostly as a historical thriller, built around a love story.

I am, for whatever reason, generally seen as a "literary" writer, rather than a "commercial" writer (and to this day, I can't make any sense of the explanation between the definitions, but that's another discussion). When Bantam brought this one out, they put the most ridiculous cover imaginable on it. Expensive, as well; my editor let it slip that they'd paid the cover artist thirty thousand dollars for it. For some reason, she was proud of that.

Around our house, we refer to the cover as "Pink Sonia"; if you've ever seen "Red Sonia", the hilariously bad fantasy flick with Ahnold and whatserface the Swedish actress who was married to Mark Gastineau of the Jets, you'll immediately understand how bad it was. The cover has Maeve, Queen of Connaught, in pink backless body armour. It has an insanely studly Connal of Ulster licking her spine. I couldn't look at the cover then without wanting to cry; I can't look at it now without breaking down into mad giggles.

By virtue of the packaging, they turned it into a bodice ripper. It was on sale at the checkout line at the supermarket. It sold a ludicrous number of books and made me pots of money at the time.

I have never forgiven them.

Yeah, I know. I'm nuts. But there you go; packaging can do the oddest things.

My whole point to suri, though, wasn't disagreeing with her at all. I think she's right. I just think the two legs she posited are actually two legs of a tripod, and I was pointing out what I perceive as the third leg.

From:

authorm.livejournal.com

I'm pretty consisently offended by the rather vocal insistance of some readers who don't think that other readers are capable of picking up a book and actually looking at it, reading the blurb, or otherwise informing themselves about what to expect in the content, rather than simply blindly assuming that all books put out by Publisher X are this and this only, god help you if it's something else.

Because I have reader expectations, yes I do, but I'm also pretty confident that I can be counted on to think for myself, to choose books based on MANY things, not just a name on the spine -- to inform myself and also to be open to new things. Sometimes I find something I don't expect, sometimes I'm disappointed. That's true. But sometimes I discover something I wasn't expecting and I'm thrilled.

I really dislike when people assume that because THEY are incapable of taking responsibility for their own pleasure, that I'm not. And reading, for me, is a pleasure.

From:

dsgood.livejournal.com

This is not the first time Harlequin has tried publishing spec-fic. In the 1970s, there was Laser Books -- which published science fiction.

Why I think it failed: It published only one line of books. (I believe that at the time, Harlequin and other romance publishers were each publishing only one line.) And the specifications were too rigid for sf readers. For example, all the covers had to look alike. Every novel was to be structured alike, and the word limits were rigid.

But it didn't help that Roger Elwood (who edited Laser) was much better at selling himself than at selling books.

From:

lagilman

And the specifications were too rigid for sf readers. For example, all the covers had to look alike. Every novel was to be structured alike, and the word limits were rigid.

In other words, it was the exact opposite of Luna, where every book has its own look, and the only requirements are that there be a strong female lead, and a romantic -- or at least 'shipy -- element. But now, people are saying that Luna is "failing" (cancellng everal books they felt weren't performing to expectation, including one of my favorites, damn them, has somehow become 'failing?' ) because, oh, they're not putting out the exact sort of category books Laser failed with.

This may simply prove my contention that some days it's just not worth the effort of talking to people.... *wryness*

From:

jonquil.livejournal.com

And the sad thing is, as with Bluejay before it, Luna has had several different books that pushed my buttons. (Bluejay was the only publishing line that I could pretty much buy without checking the blurb -- damn near every book they published, I wound up loving.)

From:

kradical.livejournal.com

Nah, you're not too much a hardened pro, you're just not a twit like the person who wrote the article........ *chuckle*

From:

I pointed that exact thread out to Catie yesterday. This is a thing, lately, to say that Luna is collapsing. I did not know just how *many* authors in the line had not had their series continued or had them cancelled, etc, but I hadn't heard that the line was going away either, so it's frustrating.

That said, I can see

debg's point too. I have a couple three projects that are fantasies with romantic subplots (and one urban fantasy!) that would be, IMO, perfect for Luna. In one instance I was told point blank that there was too much focus on the hero. In the case of the urban fantasy, my primary protag is male, which means there's not much point in sending it to Luna. Which is also frustrating.

From:

Is that what folks at Luna outright told you? *curious*

I have an urban fantasy series that would probably fit with them, but at least one of the books has a strong emphasis on the male lead. :-\

From:

Yep, Nonny. Sitting at a table at a conference with an editor. Granted, that was a few years ago, but I haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that they're more interested in hero-focused stuff.

From:

*nods*

Might be worth to give it a go anyway, if the MS is finished and ready. But then, I'm of the "the worst they can say is no" school of thought. ;)

From:

Eh. Unless an editor or author steps forward and reports that they're interested in looking, I'd call it pointless postage, printing and a waste of time on everyone's part. None of the books Luna has released thus far have been hero-centric, that I'm aware of. The guidelines put clear emphasis on the heroine, so sure, the worst they can say is no, but why send something they pretty clearly don't want, you know?

From:

Well, at least one of their books, the hero has an extremely prominent role. I think about half of the book, maybe more, was from his POV. Then again, that was the second in a series, so it might be different for that. *shrugs*

From:

lagilman

okay, Luna has been up front from the very beginning that they wrre looking for fantasy with a "strong female lead." That's the basis ad the 'hook' of the entre imprint.

That said, and using the example I'm most familiar with, I don't think anyone could point to my books and claim that Sergei doesn't have his say....

From:

No, you're right. I wasn't trying to say that men can't be a presence, or aren't. I was told 50-50, at least.

I suspect, however, that a book that's 50-50 that has the hero being present first/acting first would get a no thank you. I don't know this is fact. I would gladly be wrong. :)

From:

Funny, because I'd thought that Luna was just restructuring their line, not closing it. Are people maybe confusing it with Bombshell, or expecting it to go down that path?

(It wouldn't be the first time Luna got confused with something else. If I had a quarter for every person who thought Luna was 50/50 romance -- Tor Paranormals -- I could mosey down to the local diner and have myself a nice breakfast.)

Personally, I'm hoping Luna sticks around a good long while. So far, I haven't been disappointed by anything I've read from them. Okay, some books, I haven't liked as much as others, but that's to be expected. Nothing so far, though, has been "bad" (unlike certain other recent lines), and that impresses me.

From:

djonn

Interesting, because the first few Luna titles I tried seemed pretty clearly groupable into two stacks: the romances in fantasy clothing (about half of those worked for me, and about half were too, too fraught), and the genre fantasies in romance clothing (most of those very well executed). That's seemed to tilt sharply toward the latter subgroup as the line's evolved, which I think is probably wise.

I would mostly agree that the execution has been decent even in the romance-Lunas; those I've disliked have been mostly for reasons of taste rather than reasons of craft. Well, with one spectacular exception that I found astonishingly sloppy on multiple levels (so far as I know, the author isn't among present company, but for this purpose I don't think it would be useful or productive to name names), and in fairness, that one was a case where I have a degree of specialized knowledge.

Now Bombshell -- that one the marketers screwed over soundly. But that's another digression....

From:

Well, I read romance and fantasy about evenly these days, so neither "style" of Luna books really disappointed me. :)

From:

djonn

And amusingly, I now find on wandering over to the Dear Author column linked up top that the book/series I found substandard is among those that's survived the restructuring. Clearly there is no justice....

From:

lagilman

Oh, what happened to Bombshell was a damned shame -- a case of rushing a great idea to market before the editorial concept had a chance to gell, IMO.

I was also amused to see that several titles in Bombshell could have been Lunas (or Nocturnes, to name another imprint of theirs I've been waching caefully. Nocturne is FAR more gene-category than Luna ([specifically panormal romance] but is still straying from the old lockstep Silhouette-style category restrictions).

From:

djonn

And how many folks know that the Harlequin umbrella also stretches over Gold Eagle (i.e. mens' adventure) and Worldwide (cozy mysteries)? [Although I notice that they seem to be in the process of dropping the Destroyer series from the men's line....]

My personal experience of Luna, as a reader, has been that I found their first wave of books -- schizophrenic. A range of quality/execution I can understand; that *always* happens (and there've been Luna titles/series all over that range, IMO). What startled me was the degree to which some of the early titles read very much as Conventional Category Romance, where others read much more like cross-genre or more or less straight fantasy. I had expected more "brand sense" in the Luna line, and was surprised not to find it. To give a parallel example, Baen has developed a pretty strong brand-identity for itself -- even though it publishes books that push its envelope (their new Sarah Hoyt urban fantasy, for instance). Luna -- hasn't, quite. And as a Harlequin imprint, that surprises me.

OTOH, they've shown more patience with Luna than they did with the Silhouette Bombshell line, which seems to have suffered from fuzzy-marketing syndrome from day one. (To my mind, what they should have done with Bombshell was what they did with Luna -- treat it as a non-category imprint, with a mix of trade and mass market titles, and aggressively market it as cross-genre. But that's ink under the rollers now....)

From:

miladyinsanity.livejournal.com

There's a Chinese saying that directly translates as stepping on two boats at the same time. It means that because a person cannot or does not want to make a decision, she/he tries to go in both directions at the same time.

I think that was the situation which led to Luna requiring restructuring, and because of that, on one side it has SFF readers who say there's too much romance and on the other side, it has romance readers who say there's not enough romance.

Romance readers do, to some extent, feel that the Luna novels that have been cancelled (Gail Dayton's Rose books in particular) are the ones they wanted Luna to keep. At least, that's my take on it, and I could be totally wrong.

From:

lagilman

Romance readers do, to some extent, feel that the Luna novels that have been cancelled (Gail Dayton's Rose books in particular) are the ones they wanted Luna to keep.

Well, if so, they were very quiet about it where it mattered -- in the stores. In the end it all comes down to this: if you enjoy an author's work: buy it. Otherwise, all the good feelings in the world don't matter when it comes time to run the P&L/make an offer, and you don't get any more of the stories you-the-reader enjoy.

Supply and demand: if you establish demand (via sales), the publisher will supply it, as long as you (and the author) can maintain it.

Art has little to do with publishing. Writing, yes. But not publishing.

From:

miladyinsanity.livejournal.com

It was an observation.

I agree with what you said. But the romance readers I talked about are the ones who are online, and we are not always in sync with the majority who simply go to the bookstore and grab a title.

From:

lagilman

How does on-line vs. store-buying impact thier ability to support an author they like by buying the books before they gripe about not being able to get more? Or did I miss something in your orginal comment? (entirely possible, I'm multitasking like crazy this morning)

From:

miladyinsanity.livejournal.com

I'm not talking about where they buy their books.

I'm talking about what influences their bookbuying.

Online, if you see one reviewer with a reasonable readership reccing a book, then over the next few weeks you'll probably hear about it on a good number of other romance blogs as well.

Contrast that with someone who doesn't read online reviews and buys a book by walking into a bookstore and seeing something that looks good, and this group of someones is the majority.

From:

lagilman

I'm not talking about where they buy their books.

I'm talking about what influences their bookbuying.

Ah. And I was referencing back specifically to your comment about the complaints from those who were unhappy with what had been cancelled. On-line word of mouth is good, yeah. On-line word of mouth that leads to actual sales is better. In the cases we were discussing, the sales weren't happening at a high enough level for Our Corporate Paymasters. So, in the eyes of OCP, that type of book was not what they should be focusing on.

In terms of business plans, it's a solid logic. Emotionally, as a reader? It sucks. And I thought so even when I was the one with the hatchet, back when.

From:

Um, in the Cold Hard Fact category, okay. But who decides what the numbers are? The publishing industry makes that decision: not the bookbuying public, who may go to a library because the twelve bucks for a trade paperback is tomorrow's dinner for their family in a crap economy.

Also, I'm honestly tired of the publishers not promoting what they themselves release, and then bitching because no one knows about said releases. I've heard all the reasons why a major house will spend 80% of their annual PR budget putting ads on buses in major urban markets across America for a writer who doesn't need it and who is guaranteed to sell no matter what, and I don't buy it. Or, rather, if the constant whine that "but Steven or Tom or John will take his next novel to another house if we don't put him up at the Ritz Carleton and make sure there are ads on every billboard in America and give him hot and cold running groupies and green M&MS!" is valid, then the publishing industry can at least have the grace to shut up and stop acting surprised that the midlist doesn't do well. The books they push will do well. The ones they don't will do less well. Even I can do that math.

Take one ad out every season in the New York Sunday Times, or the LA same. Put a dozen of your upcoming midlist titles in there, with covers. Get. the. word. out.

Otherwise, the publishing industry is being run on disingenuity and false naivete, with just a dash of hypocrisy.

From:

lagilman

But who decides what the numbers are? The publishing industry makes that decision: not the bookbuying public,

Forgive me, but that's sort of like saying that the male isn't responsible for a baby beng created. It takes two (or, in this case, three) to tango.

1. the publisher presents a book to the store buyer
2. the buyer, based on their (alleged) knowledge of their customers) places an order on each book.
3. the books hit the stores, and are either bought, or not.
4. The next book is presented, and the buyer makes his/her buy BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COPIES THEY SOLD OF THE FIRST BOOK.

Everyone has a role to play. Publihers must present well, yes. Buyers must have a clue what is good and what will sell (not always the same thing, admittedly). And the customers must buy the book, because if they don't, why should anyone put more from that author into the stores? (and it has less to do with promotion than you might think -- I've seen promoted books tank and unheralded books take off. That's where the crazy alchemy of the thing comes in...)

From: