4 replies to this topic

[Evangeline Kelly]

This has been rumored since about mid-last year and it has me wondering whether it's true, or whether it's the mumblings of publishers to shift the blame on someone else as the reason why the historical romance market isn't doing as well as it was 2,3,4 years ago.

I've been looking at the breakdown of historical romance authors published by publisher and of course, Avon is in the lead. But in Avon's majority of the market, and the number of best-selling authors on their roster, they've become a sort of "romance generator machine". I've also heard from two different authors that write/used to write for(recently) that Pocket is cutting back on their historical romances. That leaves only 4-5 historical romance authors writing for that imprint. St Martin's Press, NAL, Berkley, Ballantine and Bantam have a small, but respectable roster as well. Leisure and Kensington publish alot of historicals, but due to their lingering, bad reputations and oft times unattractive cover art, they tend to be avoided not only by readers, but by writers as well.

But why is this genre "dying"? I see this coming about due to the mergers of 1999-2000( cutting alot of authors from lists that weren't doing so good in sales), the smaller editorial staff and the heavy involvment of the marketing department. The flood of Regency Historicals in the market aren't directly to blame because that happened as a result of what happened in 1999-2000.

I've also heard that publishers aren't pursuing the "heavy" stuff right now because of the growing fanbase of teenagers who squeal over the wallpaper,light historical romance. And I've heard for a fact that a certain author, well known for their intense,"heavy" romances had been politely asked to write lighter historicals.

Judith Ivory commented on the "Pocket Book" theory: as in, publishers publish what you buy. The Pocket Book theory is a catch-22 because consumers buy what's put in front of them, and if what's in front of them are books written by their favorite authors, who just so happen to write in a popular time period, then of course it looks like that's all consumers want to buy. This segues into the "dont buy if you don't like it" line. Which is what consumers are doing! And then, because of this, publishers see this common happenstance as a sign that historicals are dying. It's a mad circle that's being danced. What is anyone else's opinion on this topic?

Have you changed your writing style or plots or characters to adapt to this change? If no, would you consider it if you kept getting rejection letters?

Does this bit of news worry you concerning your (future) career? If no, why doesn't it?

Do you believe the advice to "write the best book you can" has any relevance in today's marketing department driven industry?

[Ellen Fisher]

Interesting topic. Speaking as someone who got caught in the mergers of 1999, I have to say yeah, it's fairly hard to sell a historical right now that isn't a fairly lightweight Regency or Victorian to a traditional publisher. My first romance was set in colonial Virginia, and I never could get a major publisher to accept my second colonial historical and finally went with a small press. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. Pamela Clare has written three brilliant historicals that are serious, descriptive, and historically accurate. She sold them to Leisure-- and I honestly disagree with your assessment of Leisure, BTW. Their covers are decidedly, shall we say, retro, but they're producing some of the most unusual stuff out there. Not just historicals, but a lot of fascinating futuristics and paranormals as well. At any rate, I think the whole market is slowly changing. Gothics are coming back, as are pirate historicals *waving at Sylvia*. I think readers are getting a little tired of the "Regencies R Us" approach to historicals, and that is slowly being recognized by publishers.

Frankly, I don't think historicals are going anywhere. The market goes through cycles, and the wheel will come around again.

[Sylvia Day]

Short reply here.

Almost Too Much / Seducing the Widow (My Golden Opportunity multi-winner and Gateway to the Rest winner) garnered a lot of enthusiasm from queries, but in the end agents rejected it. Most were vague, "send me something else" responses, but one said the "marketing prospects" worried her. Why? I can't be certain, but I think it's because it's a Georgian romance. Everyone loved the book and writing... until they saw the time period and read about wigs and panniers.

[cece]

Ellen Fisher said:

I think readers are getting a little tired of the "Regencies R Us" approach to historicals, and that is slowly being recognized by publishers.

Frankly, I don't think historicals are going anywhere. The market goes through cycles, and the wheel will come around again.

I'm too tired to write a long response so I"ll just point at Ellen and say "what she said" Someone on the pro list sold a viking historical last year. I do disagree with the fact that young historical readers want only flluff--their tastes vary as much as ours do--at 14 i was reading Shanna and historicals were epic adventures. At 35 I've BOUGHT and read one hisotrical a year for the last copule of years and that's it. I have NO interest in reading tem.

I think writers who can cross genres (ie erotic historical romance, historical mysteries, etc stand a chance of the most success because they're drawing from two different readerships.

[ladytess]

Evangeline Kelly, on Jan 7 2005, 04:47 AM, said:

<SNIP>

Have you changed your writing style or plots or characters to adapt to this change? If no, would you consider it if you kept getting rejection letters?

Does this bit of news worry you concerning your (future) career? If no, why doesn't it?

Do you believe the advice to "write the best book you can" has any relevance in today's marketing department driven industry?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great post!! Below are my answers to the questions you posted above.

Nope - I haven't changed a thing about my writing. It is what it is. I don't deny I want to sell and keep the general parameters of saleability in mind while I write, but I can't make my books any less historical. It's just not me.

I won't say the news doesn't worry me, ######, I'd be lying if I did. But in the end, I'll keep writing no matter what. Sure, I really want to share my stories with the world and see my paperback on a store shelf, but not selling won't make me any less a writer. Just less a published writer Doesn't mean I'm not serious about building a career, only that there are certain things I can't compromise to do it.

And yes, I do believe in "write the best book you can" is still relevant. There are always exceptions in this business and if I tried to do anything BUT writing what is for me the best book, it wouldn't sell either, because it would lack any real passion.

Teresa (aka Lady Tess)