Historical Romance Part 2: Hot? Not?
Welcome to Crafting Your Career! Today, we continue our discussion on the state of historical romance with New York Times Bestselling author Laura Lee Guhrke. Laura’s graciously agreed to give us her take this ever-changing subgenre and what she likes
best about the Edwardian (1901-1910) period.
The class is yours, Laura!
Tracey: How would you define the historical subgenre?
Laura: I think definitions of what’s “historical” are broadening again. It’s still basically the 19th century Regency and Victorian periods, but we are seeing some ventures into the 18th century Georgian (Eloisa James’ Duchess series comes to mind). And some authors, including myself are pushing into the Edwardian era of the early 20th century. Location, however, is still staying pretty close to British Isles only. I hope that widens out again, too. We’ll see. Other elements of setting are broadening out a bit. Some paranormal has been appearing in historical settings, although that might be easing back again now. We’ve got some Steampunk elements popping up in the classic Victorian, a trend which might be helped by the new Sherlock Homes movie. We’ll have to see how it goes.
Tracey: What is your opinion of the state of this subgenre today?
Laura: Historicals, IMO, are always a staple of romance. In the 16 years I’ve been published, I’ve heard again and again that the historical is dead, and it’s always a serious miscalculation. Personally, I think we may have hit critical mass with Regency settings, but maybe not.
Tracey: What sub-genres or sub-genre crossovers are hot right now? What’s not?
Laura: Heck, I’m not the person to ask about what’s hot and what’s not. I keep track of basic trends, but in the end, I write what excites me, I try to craft the best story I can, and I hope readers like the result. I don’t, I can’t, make my decisions about what to write based on what’s hot right this minute. First, by the time I write the book and it’s published, what was hot probably won’t be, and second, I can’t write based on what other people think. I just can’t. I have to write what inspires me, so I am not the best barometer of what’s hot and what’s yesterday’s news. Editors are much better at that than I am.
Tracey: Do you see any trends writers should avoid? Move toward?
Laura: Again, I don’t follow trends. I strive to write what excites and motivates me, and I advise anyone wanting to be a published author to do the same. Now, I’m not saying we shouldn’t pay attention to the market, because anyone who wants to sell anything should know their market. That’s just good business sense. So, what I advise is for every author to strike a personal balance between what’s the new trend and what’s uniquely you. If you are comfortable tweaking your style or your story to suit the current market trend, do so by all means. But don’t force your writing into established pigeonholes just because you think that’s what will guarantee a sale to a publisher. Agents steer authors in that direction all the time, saying write this or write that because it’s “hot.” They are trying to get the sale, obviously, but 9 times out of 10, it’s a mistake, because storytelling skill and voice trump commercial considerations every time. On the other hand, know that by writing the book of your heart, you may severely limit your chances to sell to a publishing house. It’s all about striking that fine balance. To know where you stand in terms of commercial appeal, read the books on the USA Today Bestseller’s List as often as you can. That way, you’ll be able to see what’s selling. That’s how you know if you’re in the mainstream, marketing-wise.
Tracey: What do you like best about this subgenre? The least?
Laura: What do I like about historicals? Love everything about them. I love the gowns, the moral dilemmas, the etiquette, the politics, the art, the music…The subgenre I am currently writing in (Edwardian) is very exciting to me because so much was going on. I love having motorcars and ragtime in my books. It’s fun. I’m glad I’m able to write it. I don’t like how narrow the historical settings have become (only Britain, only these decades), but the brutal truth is that’s what’s selling now. If you want to be published, you must acknowledge that. It’s like the old adage: know the rules first. Then, break them with full knowledge of what you’re doing. Speaking personally, as a reader, I wish there was more variety in time and setting.
Tracey: How do you think this sub-genre has changed in the last five years?
Laura: As I said above, I think boundaries are stretching out a little bit. Erotica was very hot, but I think it might be cooling down a bit. It’s still a very rigid book market. Publishers are not taking very many chances in terms of setting or time. A great writer can overcome that, but a mediocre writer cannot.
Tracey: Do you have any other words of wisdom you’d like to share about the historical market?
Laura: Write, write, write. Read, read, read. Write some more. And don’t keep fiddling with the same story for five years. Finish your story, send it off to every agent or publisher that would be interested in it, and once it’s in the mail, FORGET ABOUT IT. Write something new, send that out, and keep going forward. That’s what you have to do once you sell, so you might as well learn to do it before you sell. Also, learn your strengths and play to them. Learn to innovate within the rigid framework of the market. Read widely of the period you are writing in, especially novels or plays contemporary to the time. And try to remember to have fun.
* * *
RU Readers, what do you think? Any thoughts on the Edwardian period? What combination of historical crossover do you like?
Don’t miss the first installment tomorrow (Extra Credit Tuesdays!) of a Debut Author’s Journey with Laurie London. Laurie lets us ride shotgun while she travels the road to publication.
Laura’s Bio:
New York Times Bestselling author Laura Lee Guhrke spent seven years in advertising, had a successful catering business, and managed a construction company before she decided writing novels was more fun. The author of fifteen historical romances, Laura has received many literary awards, including romance fiction’s highest honor, the Rita Award. When she’s not writing, Laura spends her time skiing the slopes, wakeboarding across the lakes and fly fishing the streams of her beautiful home state of Idaho. She loves hearing from readers, and you may write to her by visiting her website: www.lauraleeguhrke.com.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Laura -
Thanks so much for being at RU today! I’m not sure I’ve ever read an Edwardian historical romance, so it looks like it’s time for me to expand my historical horizons!
Best,
Kelsey
Hi Laura,
Welcome to RU!
When I went to my first RWA conference in 2007, I remember hearing folks say that historical romance was dead. Talk about a buzz kill. Although I could write contemporary, I didn’t think my heart would be in it. I was so bummed until I heard Kate Duffy, who was sitting in on a workshop for an absence colleague, set everyone straight. Historicals aren’t dead. They’re thriving. Don’t listen to the gossip.
Whew! There were a lot of writers smiling in that room.
Tracey
What do I think about the Edwardian era? Hover your mouse over my name and you’ll see.
I’ve been writing Edwardian historicals since 2004 and it’s great to see that it’s slowly, but surely, becoming an acceptable time period. Now if only we can squeeze in Gilded Age America and France into the mix, I’ll be in heaven. 
Fantastic site, Evangeline! I can’t wait to spend some time there.
Thanks, Tracey
The mention of the Edwardian Era and the Gilded Age have piqued my interest. I am currently writing about pre Civil-War in the Northern US. I think that Historical Romances will always be around whether they are at the forefront of popularity or not.
morning laura! and thanks for the great post…very informative….i love historicals, always have.
thanks again
carrie
Hi, Laura. Welcome to RU. Thank you for a great post. I’m always impressed by historical authors. The research would drive me batty!
Morning, everyone! And a big, huge, grateful, “Hi!” to Evangeline, who runs a wonderful website for all things Edwardian. And Tracey, Kate Duffy was so right. I’ve heard, “The historical is dead” through my entire career. It’s never been the truth.
For those of you who haven’t read many Edwardian settings, I think the biggest thing that sets it apart from previous eras is the relaxing of moral codes: divorce was getting easier, chaperoning was less severe (especially in America), and fashion was becoming more liberated. For example, British beaches stopped requiring separate sea bathing areas for men and women in 1902 or 1903, and women’s bathing suits revealed the lower legs (in stockings and slippers, of course!). Women began living on their own in greater numbers, rooming together in flats, holding down jobs, etc. Lots of opportunities for new twists on romance!
I’ll check in with you guys later today, so please post your questions, about Edwardian settings or the historical in general, and I’ll try to answer them. Now, I’m off to1904 London…er…I mean, I’m off to work. Bye for now!
llg
Hi ladies!
Great to see you here, Laura! I love Laura’s books. (My favorite so far being HIS EVERY KISS.)
I definitely agree that historicals will always be around, in one form or another. What era is hot will probably change…I mean, the Regency era HAS to hit an end at some point, doesn’t it?
(says she, who writes in said era…)
But I’m excited that there is more opportunity to move into the 1900s. I love so much about the early 20th century and I would love to write a story in that setting. I’ll definitely second the vote for the Gilded Age — I love that era in American history.
I lvoe the Gilded Age, old New York and Newport, too, Jeannie. So sad it’s not being written now.
Hi Laurie! Great interview. I’m glad historicals are doing so well–I could never write them, but I sure enjoy reading them.
Hi, Becky Clark! Fancy meeting you here!
Laura,
I was interested in your comment about finishing up a story and then “send it off to every agent or publisher that would be interested in it, and once it’s in the mail, FORGET ABOUT IT.”
First, great advice–I am transcribing a manuscript I’ve been working on so long the original is in dot-matrix form. But what I’m really wondering about is what is the etiquette for sending out a manuscript? Can you really send one out to several people at a time, or is it good manners (and good business) to send it out to one, then wait to hear from them before sending it out to the next?
I really think the sending out part (to whom, how) is the thing that has me most unnerved. Love the writing, love the plotting, love the ideas–but then! Pushing my babies out of the nest is daunting, and because I’m not sure about best practices, it mires me down.
Diane, I think the etiquette is something authors worry too much about. Romance Writers of American is a great organization to give you tips on where and to whom you should send your book. They are a GREAT resource. They have local chapters and loops. They can help you write a query letter, and tell you where to send your stuff, so if you aren’t a member, join, get the info, and send your book out!!! I am giving you a deadline of April 15 to get that puppy in the mail to at least one agent or editor. Get moving, girl!
Diane, I second everything Laura said. Also, I just completed editing a manuscript and sent it out to nine agents I’m interested in. After reading several blogs by agents (Pub Rants and Bookends are great – you’ll find the links under our Faculty Faves section), I’ve come to realize they expect writers to send out multiple submissions. Many agents (and editors) can take months to accept/reject a submission. It wouldn’t be fair to the author to make them wait before submitting elsewhere.
The etiquette part comes when you get an offer of representation. When that happens, you’ll want to let the other agents, who have requested material from you, know that you’ve received an offer. It gives them a chance to review your material before you say yes to the other agent. Plus, if you do accept representation elsewhere, you’ll want to let them know so they don’t spend hours reading your material.
Having said all that, you might get an agent who requests an exclusive read for a period of time. I’ve never had this, but a friend has. She gave the agent an exclusive for 30 days.
Hope this helps.
Tracey
Thank you for your post, Laura Lee.
I too feel sad about the historical romance editors and publishers demanding a narrower and narrower range of settings in terms of period, place, and milieu. Surely the readers aren’t demanding this!
I for one would love to read a good historical romance that takes place before the 18th century, in a country where the people don’t speak English, and in which the hero is an ordinary guy rather than the Duke of Thisandthat or Lord Suchandsuch.
What really matters to me isn’t the setting. It’s the theme, plot, and characters. That’s true for every genre.
Good luck on your upcoming projects!
The sad thing is, Mary Anne, to a great extent, readers are driving this. Books with dukes just sell the best. Books in England sell better than books set in America. It’s a little like the McDonald’s mentality. Nobody thinks a Big Mac is divine cuisine. We all go to McDonald’s because it’s low risk, and we always know a Big Mac is gonna be the same Big Mac every time. You can count on it. Readers don’t want to take chances with their money.
Neither do book distributors. In this market, where book sales are monitored instantly, distributors and publishers know what’s selling and what’s not at any given moment. Because of that, they watch an author’s sales numbers very closely. If they see an author’s sales dip over two books, or even one book, that author can be seen as trending down and will not be ordered in the same amount next time. Even if the publisher put a crappy cover on it, even if the publisher insisted on a different (and stupid) title, even if the book came out the same month as September 11, if it doesn’t sell as expected, it’s always blamed on the author not writing a commericial enough book and their orders for that author drop. Downtrends in sales numbers mean an author’s next book won’t be ordered as much, which means it won’t be in as many stores, and fewer readers will it. If that continues over two, or at the most three, books, an author will not be picked up again by their publisher. And since all publishers have access to the same sales info, an author let go at one house may not ever be published again, regardless of her talent. And the lack of independent bookstores means no hand-selling and fewer word-of-mouth recommendations, so an author has a harder time than ever before in recovering from a downturn because no one wants to take a chance on an author deemed a “has-been”. With bills to pay and families to feed, and file-sharing sites offering pirated (stolen) copies of our books for free, authors do what they have to do to survive. We say, fine, I’ll write books with dukes set in England if that’s what it takes. That’s what readers are buying. I learned that lesson the hard way. I wrote a book set in Colonial America once, and it almost tanked my entire career. That’s why you see so many books set in the Regency period. That’s what sells best.
Romance publishing is a brutal business, sad to say.
Thanks for giving it to us straight, Laura Lee.
Laura, Is this why some established author take on a new pseudonym? Kind of like a fresh start – no numbers to follow you?
Sometimes, yes. Also, if an author wants to write in a different genre from their previous work, that author will often take a different name.
As e new writer I am happy to hear historicals aren’t dead. In my short time submititng I have heard the statement many times.
I love you work, Laura. I’ve never read Edwardian but will now check it out.
Thanks, Angelina. I’m so glad you like my work. And I’ll say it again, loud and proud: the historical romance is not dead! Not even close!
A follow-up to my earlier comment:
I don’t recall anyone in the publishing business asking me what I want to read. Therefore, how can the editors, publishers, distributors, and booksellers know what the readers want, if they offer us so little choice?
Right now there are essentially only five types of romance fiction on the market. There are contemporary romances, in which the hero is a billionaire; historicals, in which he’s a duke; paranormals, in which he’s a vampire, werewolf, or demon; inspirationals, in which there’s no sex; and erotica, in which there’s nothing but sex. And that’s it.
If you’re a reader who digs one or more of the above, good for you. But if you want something even slightly different, there’s nothing available. The market is strictly take-it-or-leave-it. If works that fit the strict genre formulas are all that’s being published, then of course that’s all that’s selling.
I might get in trouble for saying this, but I don’t think the romance fiction industry is serving its readership very well. There must plenty of us who would love more variety in our reading diets. We’d provide the publishers and authors with plenty of income and a larger, more loyal reader base if the powers-that-be were more responsive to our wishes.
But what we want is simply not available. We don’t get the books we like, and the industry misses out on a potential stream of revenue. It’s a lose-lose situation.
And if anyone says, “But romance fiction that deviates from the genre formulas doesn’t sell”—well of course it’s not selling, because it’s not being published. How can anyone know anything won’t sell if it’s not on the market?
And no, we readers won’t buy books we don’t like simply because they’re for sale. We won’t buy books at all. I suspect this is a big factor in the current economic malaise in book publishing.
I wish I had a solution, but the problem is too big for me. I’ll just get back to pounding out my work in progress, a romance novel in which the hero’s an ordinary guy . . . .
I’d also add that one book under-performing doesn’t mean its unusual setting was the only factor which contributed to its failure. And gauging interest based on one book is the most haphazard scientific method I’ve ever come up against.
Sure, romance readers may gravitate towards certain familiar themes and/or settings, but it’s the writing that hooks them.
There is only one Laura Lee Guhrke, just as there is only one Judith Ivory, one Julia Quinn, one Sherry Thomas, one Tessa Dare, and so on.
What keeps the readers returning is not the setting, but the writing–which is why I try my hardest to improve my craft and not worry that my setting isn’t “marketable.”