Comments on: The Serious Readers Who Never Moved On

By: Ridley

Ridley — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 21:26:21 +0000

Spot on, Lynn. There's no need to pass judgement on the readers of books we don't care for. Books are targets for criticism, not the people who read them.

AAR Sandy: I was, as I hoped was clear, comparing Harlequin love to the 50 Shades bashing — which is a LOT harsher than my “serious” reader remark.

How could you have been doing that when you wouldn't even acknowledge that you were doing to category readers what had been done to 50 fans? No one was "bashing" you for not liking categories. They were annoyed at your hypocrisy.

By: AAR Sandy

AAR Sandy — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:44:36 +0000

Jessica: Thanks for this post Lynn.Sandy wrote, “I’ve been at AAR for over 10 years now and the relentless Harlequin drumbeat has been deafening for all of those years. To the point that, frankly, I have felt that if I don’t read Harlequins, I am not on the same wave length as everybody else. Maybe even ostracized a bit. It gets to you after a while.”I find that whenever I talk about romance to non-romance readers, they are shocked that they aren’t ALL published by Harlequin. I wonder what market share of romance is actually published by Harlequin? Wikipedia says more than half. And that’s a *lot* of books, given the sheer numbers of romances published each year. My sense is that Harlequin publishes a larger percentage of romance than any comparable genre publisher in any other genre, but I am more than willing to be corrected. So, while I personally don’t pay attention to publishers (I often don’t know until I am writing a review who published a book I am reading because I read them on my Kindle)I really do understand the fatigue angle.

I'd be interested to know that stat, too, Jess. It seems as if across all their lines, at least 30 books a month are published.

By: Anne

Anne — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 04:42:59 +0000

That Harlequin, Loveswept etc are or have been a training ground for many single title authors is (IMHO) undeniable when you look at a very partial list of authors who got their start in category… Suzanne Brockmann, Linda lael Miller, Debbie Macomber, Elizabeth Lowell, Iris Johansen, Barbara Boswell, Merline Lovelace (now writing a very successful mystery series), Sharon Sala, Carla Neggers, Jennifer Crusie, Emilie Richards, Candace Camp, Justine Davis, Lynne Michaels, Anne Stuart, Maggie Shayne, Nora Roberts, Linda Howard, Catherine Coulter… just to name a few… I have enjoyed the categories by all these authors as well as the single titles they later wrote and I’ve enjoyed both over the years… (and I mean years)

By: Sue

Sue — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 03:07:19 +0000

Fifty Shades and Harlequins. Opinion against opinion. Word choice faceoff. Annoyance, irritation, disgruntlement, offense. Women against women. High dudgeon over reading choices not womens rights or inequalities. Meanwhile romance is looked down on and some are shocked or surprised.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:05:16 +0000

Thanks for this post Lynn.

Sandy wrote, “I’ve been at AAR for over 10 years now and the relentless Harlequin drumbeat has been deafening for all of those years. To the point that, frankly, I have felt that if I don’t read Harlequins, I am not on the same wave length as everybody else. Maybe even ostracized a bit. It gets to you after a while.”

I find that whenever I talk about romance to non-romance readers, they are shocked that they aren’t ALL published by Harlequin. I wonder what market share of romance is actually published by Harlequin? Wikipedia says more than half. And that’s a *lot* of books, given the sheer numbers of romances published each year.

My sense is that Harlequin publishes a larger percentage of romance than any comparable genre publisher in any other genre, but I am more than willing to be corrected. So, while I personally don’t pay attention to publishers (I often don’t know until I am writing a review who published a book I am reading because I read them on my Kindle) I really do understand the fatigue angle.

By: missrubyjones

missrubyjones — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:55:20 +0000

Danielle: This and Friday’s post make me miss At The Back Fence even more by demonstrating the difference between perceptive critical discussion and tweet-like opinionating. While AAR has made perfectly clear that ATBF will not be revived that column set a standard that raised the bar for intelligent debate in the romance community. The current blog format has its upside and, as today’s post shows, doesn’t render considered pieces impossible, but quick-fire posts invite quick-fire commentary, and the cumulative result is not what I had come to respect AAR for over the years.

Well said, Danielle. My thoughts exactly, but I won’t gild the lily by adding more

By: Alissa

Alissa — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:11:33 +0000

Can we take a step back and talk about our own preferences, which we might be able to assess less controversially than any author’s skill? I love short stories, but not usually short romance stories in anthologies. For me, it takes a rare writing talent to make a believable HEA in a short story, or even a novella. My mother won’t read short stories, because she only likes to read stories into which she can sink for hours. I’ve read some wonderful category romances, and some wonderful single titles. Sometimes I wish a short book were longer, but at least as often I’ve wished a thick novel had been ruthlessly pruned! I think different authors shine in different formats — some can make good use of 400 pages, others are brilliantly brief. You can probably think of examples, but they might be different from mine. Thank God for all the variety!

By: xina

xina — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:56:21 +0000

Is it offensive for an author to be called “B-list”? I think there are different levels of success and popularity in all art forms. Actors are put on certain lists determined by their work, and I don’t see the B-listers as necessarily bad actors, just not as popular or sought after as the A-listers.

By: willaful

willaful — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:30:10 +0000

Blackjack1: I enjoyed them when I was really young but the disadvantages of such a short story and one that is typically overly formulaic works against Harlequins for me.I’m pretty clueless about the debate between Harlequins and single title romance novels though and didn’t realize there was tension among readers.I wouldn’t necessarily attack readers as that could be interpreted as personalizing a debate and generalizing about the multitude of reader responses to a work of fiction, but I would feel free to critique the books, which I generally don’t find very good.In this respect, I agree with Sandy’s earlier post.

I'd say there's a world of difference between "works against Harlequins for me" and what Sandy wrote. I also feel I should point out that not all categories are Harlequin and not all Harlequins are categories. Loveswept is publishing again, with some amazing books by Ruthie Knox, and Harlequin has numerous other lines with great authors like Kristan Higgans. And then there are the Harlequin category historicals, with Carla Kelly, Cheryl St.John, and so on.

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:26:12 +0000

New poster here, but frequent reader. For a long time, I turned my nose up at Harlequins, primarily based on a couple of lousy ones I’d read years ago and the titles. Not being a fan of Cindrella/pregnant/virgin/ secretary heroines, arrogant billionaire sheiks, etc. I dismissed any book with one or more in the title. Which covered a lot of books.
But as an aspiring writer trying to get the hang of love scenes and sexual tension, I’ve been reading them and have been pleasantly surprised. I’m in the midst of an older Blaze title, Karen Kendall’s “Midnight Touch” featuring a male manicurist hero. It’s hilarious, sexy and very well written. Also loved Carla Capshaw’s inspy gladiator books and surprisingly, a horribly titled Presents (“His Christmas Love Child”) with a Russian billionaire hero, and pregnant secretary heroine. Who knew?