Welcome to Chaos Theory of Writing! Today, we bring you our final discussion on the state of historical romance in today’s market. I’m excited to introduce you to award-winning author Hope Tarr and Harlequin Blaze Senior Editor Brenda Chin. Both ladies have graciously agreed to stop by and answer your questions about Victorian-set romances and, of course, any general questions you have regarding historical romance.
Photo by BizUrban.com
Hope and Brenda, the class is yours!
Tracey: How would you define the historical subgenre?
Hope: When I sold my first romance novel, A ROGUE’S PLEASURE, back in 1999 the industry standard for an ‘historical” was a book set in any era up to 1900. That said, as we “travel” farther and farther in time from that 1900 “cut off,” we are seeing World War I and even World War II set romances under the rubric of historical. I anticipate that will continue into the decade. And I think that’s pretty cool.
I don’t believe that 1900 is sacrosanct any longer. In the spirit of embracing “shades of gray,” I’d say a romance novel is historical if it aims to transports the reader back to an era viewed as bygone. Eventually the 1980’s will be considered “historical.” Scary, huh? 
Tracey: What is your opinion of the state of this subgenre today?
Hope: At the risk of starting out with a cliché, the pendulum swings. I’ve been in this business as a published author for more than a decade, so plenty long enough to remember the mid 1990’s when paranormal was “dead.” Literally, no editor or agent would touch a paranormal manuscript. Not so long ago, historical were supposedly dead, too. There was a flight of historical authors, including a number of bestsellers, to contemporary, chick lit, and “romantic suspense.” A lot or at least some of those authors have returned to writing historical. And recently there’s been a dialogue unfolding as to whether the contemporary can be revived. In point, Sarah Wendell (Smart Bitches, Trashy Books) will co-lead a panel discussion on bringing back the contemporary at the Romantic Times BOOK Lovers Convention this April-May.
Tracey: What sub-genres do you feel are hot right now? What’s not?
Hope: Paranormal is “hawt.” That’s a no-brainer. Mash-ups are huge at the moment, but I think we’re seeing them at peak. I expect they’ll crest soon so unless writing a mash-up is your passion and/or you can write one really, really quickly, I wouldn’t push it. Historicals and contemporaries are in a bit of flux but hey, they’re the bread-and-butter of traditional romance, and so I don’t see them going anywhere.
Tracey: Do you see any trends writers should avoid? Move toward?
Hope: I think writers should avoid writing to trends, any trends, unless they feel some authentic passion for the subgenre. If you’re er…faking it, agents and editors will pick up on that in a heartbeat. And odds are by the time your manuscript is out there the trend will have crested or worse still, taken a dive. My best advice is to be market savvy by all means but write what you love.
Tracey: What do you like best about this subgenre? The least?
Hope: Like most writers, I started out as a passionate reader and yes, the romance historical was and is my first love. I think most readers like to learn something when they read—I know I do—even from material that’s purely for pleasure. Good historical fiction presents history in not only a painless but a vibrant way. It provides that complete vacation (note, I don’t say “escape,” which always sounds so pejorative) from one’s day-to-day life, as though the author has led the reader on a private tour, a mini-break adventure. I love that!
What do I like least? How certain eras and settings e.g., Regency England become sacrosanct while others e.g., Ancient Egypt become taboo or close to it. How you write one or two books set in a certain time period and suddenly you can find yourself labeled (AKA pigeonholed) as “that Regency writer” or “the chick who writes Victorian romances.”
Tracey: How do you think this subgenre has changed in the last five years?
Hope: The bravery, the expansion, has been tremendous! I love that heroines no longer need be virgins (though it’s certainly fine if they are), of noble blood, or even all that young. I admire writer buddies like Diane Perkins W/A Diane Gaston who held out and had the heroine of her first book, THE MYSTERIOUS MISS M, be a prostitute—not a mistaken identity prostitute but a real one—in order to support her young son. I love how historical heroines are, more and more, rescuing themselves, and how that self-sufficiency in no way obviates their very human, very timeless quest for love.
Tracey: Advice you have for writers who want to break into this sub-genre?
Hope signing at the December 2009 Lady Jane's Salon, Soho, NY
Hope: See my advice (above) about not writing to trends. Added to that, know the time period (or periods) in which you’re writing and know them well—very well. Beyond anything, remember to relax and have fun with it—the clothes, the funky period furnishings, the posting inns and propriety, the whole lot of it. Writing is supposed to be fun, after all.
***
Thank you, Hope and Brenda!
RU Readers, what do you like best about how historical romance has changed over the last few years? What would you like to see more of? Remember, Hope and Brenda will stop by periodically to answer questions.
Join us Monday for C.J. Redwine’s next query letter critique.
Hope’s Bio:
Hope Tarr is the award-winning author of thirteen historical and contemporary romance novels and one novella. Look for the latter, TOMORROW’S DESTINY in a Victorian Christmas anthology with Jacquie D’Alessandro and Betina Krahn due out this December 2010. Hope is also a co-founder of Lady Jane’s Salon, New York City’s first (and so far only) monthly romance reading series. Visit her online at www.HopeTarr.com.
Carrie Spencer, writing romantic comedy and goofy middle-grade, personifies her alter-ego - 
Hope and Brenda, welcome to RU!
I love the fact that historical authors have another option to write with Harlequin under the Blaze imprint. Brenda, how does this combination fair with your loyal Blaze readers?
Hope, can you tell us about Lady Jane’s salon?
Thanks!
Tracey
Posted by TraceyDevlyn | February 26, 2010, 6:34 amSorry I’m late everyone. Tracey, we’ve had some mixed results with the Historicals. Time periods that are popular with historical romance readers and themes that still work within romance seem to do well. When we stray from the path, the books don’t sell as well. So we’ve learned to hedge our bets. Our two upcoming Blaze Historicals fit both criteria. Hope’s book, The Tutor, is Victorian (popular time period), and has the innocent heroine asking the roguish hero for lessons in sex (popular Blaze theme). Pat Potter’s The Lawman is Western. Her heroine ends up shooting the hero, and then has to give him a lot of TLC. The fact that he’s in a bed for half the book doesn’t hurt either.
Both books are absolutely wonderful! Hope’s is in July, Pat’s is in September.
Brenda
Posted by Brenda Chin | February 26, 2010, 9:44 pmHope and Brenda,
Thank you for sharing your insight here today. Giving us aspiring historical writers a ray of sunshine to keep on writing what we love!
May I ask this question, if it is off subject I understand. I am curious what your opinions are on the “steampunk” craze. Do you feel it will affect the historical markets to a degree? I have to admit I know very little about this genre, but it seems to have some historical elements.
I really want to visit Lady Janes Salon also! LOL!
Thank you ,have a wonderful weekend everyone.
Posted by Jane L | February 26, 2010, 9:23 ammorning Hope and Brenda!
I’ve always been a huge fan of historical romance, and now that I write, I’m really a huge fan of writers of historical romance for all the research they must do. It’s impressive!
Hope, how much time do you spend on research? And Brenda, is the Blaze line more receptive to one time period in history than others?
Thanks again for the post!
carrie
Posted by carrie | February 26, 2010, 9:36 amHi Carrie,
As I mentioned above, the popular time periods are the ones that sell best.
Brenda
Posted by Brenda Chin | February 26, 2010, 9:45 pmThank you Hope for stopping by to give us the skinny on historical romances. Especially Blaze! It is also refreshing to hear that you don’t think contemporary romances are going by way of the Dodo.
Hi Brenda!
Cher
Posted by Cher Gorman | February 26, 2010, 9:39 amHi Cher!
Posted by Brenda Chin | February 26, 2010, 10:17 pmHope & Brenda -
Thanks so much for taking time to talk with RU! As a reader, I moved away from historicals for a while, but am delighted with the “hotter” books in the sub-genre and have begun reading them again. Do you find that historical romance lovers are in one camp or another (love the hot ones or not)?
Hope – love the cover on your book above. I’ll be on the lookout for it!
Best,
Kelsey
Posted by KelseyBrowning | February 26, 2010, 10:30 amHi Tracey, Hi Everyone:
Foresmost, thank you having me/us. Brenda is in meetings today but she’ll chiming in to say hi answer your questions in the early.
In the meantime, you’re stuck with me. And advance caveat: I type with two fingers, so please bear with me and whatever typos I may introduce. I realize this is a “university,” so I’ll try to step it up.
Great questions, and I’ll try to take them in order, so here we go…
Tracey, Lady Jane’s Salon is New York City’s first (and so far only) monthly romance reading series founded just over a year go by myself, authors Maya Rodale and Leanna Renee Hieber, and book blogger, Ron Hogan (Beatrice.com). So far the Salon has been covered by TIME OUT NY (twice now) and THE NEW YORK POST as well as by our media pals within the romance fiction community: Romantic Times BOOK Reviews, my dear PW book blogger buddy, Barbara Vey, and the sadly now defunct Romance Novel TV.
If I sound like a proud mom, it’s only because I am.
The Salon meets on the first Monday of each month from 7-9 PM at Madame X (94 W Houston Street, Soho, NYC) and with bookings through 2011 and a Special Salon Event at this April’s RT Convention in Columbus, we feel pretty solid about being around for a while. Each Salon night features between two and four authors representing all the various subgenres of romance as well as various career stages, from mega bestseller to debut. Past guest authors include Wendy Corsi Staub, Marjorie M Lui, and Amanda Pickens.
This month’s Salon (Monday, March 1st) will feature Kensington author, Mingmei Kip, Cara Elliott, and Louisa Edwards. Mingmei is also an accomplished illustrator, calligrapher, and musician. Per the latter, I believe we’ll be treated to a spot of performance art as part of her reading. It promises to be a great night. Personally, I can’t wait!
The support within the romance community, notably, our RWA/NYC chapter “sistahs!” has been tremendous. So, any of you cool chicks who mighr be checking in later today, this is my opportunity to send you a big *sloppy* wet kiss of a thank you yet again.
Clearly I could go on (and on), but I’ll rein myself in here and ask that you visit Lady Jane online at out–oops, I mean Her–web site at http://www.ladyjanesalon.com. For up to the minute (okay, timely) reports on Salon doings, please “friend” us on Facebook.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 11:52 amHope,
Lady Jane’s Salon is such a unique concept – sounds like a great deal of fun. Love the web site.
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | February 26, 2010, 8:33 pmIt’s really cool! I’ve been there.
Posted by Brenda Chin | February 26, 2010, 10:17 pmThanks, Tracey, we have a good time. And its really rewarding to see what started as a place to call “home” amidst the NYC literati grow into so much more. In additoin to the Special Salon Event at this year’s Romantic Times Convention, Maya, Leanna, Ron and I are giving a “How To” worksop for authors interested in starting satellite Lady Jane Salons in their hometowns.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 27, 2010, 2:33 pmOK, I’ve clearly already muffed it. Our March guest author is Mingmei Yip.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 11:54 amGreat question, Jane, and timely too as I’m almost finished reading CRIMSON AND STEAM, the final installment in my buddy, Liz Maverick’s Crimson City Series, which is both totally steampunk and totally wonderful.
As to steampunk’s staying power, I would say it’s certainly at the pinnacle of its popularity now. And nothing, including Regency-set historical romances, can ever stay the top dog forever.
That said, I’d have to step back and say that steampunk is a new branding of a subgenre that’s been around for a while. I’m old enough to remember “Wild, Wild West,” not the Will Smith movie but the TV series. And of course, on the Big Screen, films like “Golden Compass” and more recently the Sherlock Holmes film with Robert Downie Jr and Jude Law are big box office hits.
Popular fiction tends to track with other entertainment art forms, so I’d say steampunk probably isn’t going anywhere, certainly not anytime soon, especially given the market stability of paranormal in general. The cream always rises to the top (how’s that for a cliche), so even when the Next Big Thing strikes, I’d expect the better steampunk authors will be here to stay.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 12:04 pmCarrie, the research question is always a tough one for me to answer because when you’re a writer, in a way everything is really research. Or at least that’s what I try telling myself when I suddenly find say, a cool new to me costuming website on Victorian clothing and before I know it, an hour has blown by.
So, my answer is “it depends.” For me, everything is iterative and cyclical, so there’s never a day when the research stops and the writing starts. I do them simultaneously and when I get to a black hole in the draft, I am one of those writers who will write”INSERT XXX HERE” and continue writing.
I’ve written several books in the late Victorian era, including my beloved “Men of Roxbury House” trilogy for Medallion Press, so I feel pretty comfortable working in that period. THE TUTOR (due out in July ’10 with Harlequin Historical Blaze and pictured above) is actually a spinoff of two secondary characters from the last book in that series, UNTAMED. Beatrice Lindsey, the bratty baby sister in UNTAMED, is all grown up and seven sexy days (and nights) with grifter turned semi-respectable private secretray, Ralph Sylvester is a rite of passage she can’t wait to make. Bonus: it takes place in Scotland.
That said, there’s always stuff to look up. To whit, last night I spent more time than I care to think abuot or certainly admit reading about gramophones versus phonographs and wringing my hands over which to use in my 1890′s set WIP. Disc records versus cylinders, not the same at all.
I guess my best basic advice is to really know the time period in which you’re writing. My second best advice is to really, really love it. Readers, like editors, will pick up on a writer’s fake out just as they will any obvious factual errors.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 12:16 pmAw, shucks, Cher, you are most welcome. It’s fab to be here, not to mention far more fun than the line edits I “should” be doing.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 12:18 pmKelsey, I find there’s a solid readership for historical romances, the super sensual as well as the sweet. And of course like every other entertainment medium, it comes down to personal preference. I know some readers of historicals who skim or even skip the “naughty bits” altogether–quelle blasphemy!–while others er…can’t get enough. That said, in terms of the books publishers are *buying* and publishing at the moment, I’d say the hot ones definitely have the advantage.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 12:25 pmHi Hope,
Such an interesting post as I do love watching the trends (although I don’t chase them). You mention mash-ups. I’m not familiar with that term. Could you explain what that is? Mixing of 2 genres like the historical paranormal? Or like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?
It’s interesting you say historicals and contemporaries are in a state of flux. Just in my own little sphere, almost all the debut authors I know write historical, but I don’t know anyone selling a debut contemp. to NY. Seems like contemps are due to come around again pretty soon.
Reading about Lady Jane’s Salon makes me wish I lived in NYC. I’ll bet you all have so much fun.
Laurie
Posted by Laurie London | February 26, 2010, 12:42 pmFrom your mouth to God’s ears on the contemps, Laurie!
Kels
Posted by KelseyBrowning | February 26, 2010, 10:40 pmHi Hope. Thank you for being with us today. I’m going to jump into the research topic with Carrie. I’m always curious if historical writers “build in” research time when they are working on a book. For example, if you know it takes you X amount of time to write the book, will you add on another month just in case the research becomes more involved than you originally thought?
Posted by Adrienne Giordano | February 26, 2010, 12:45 pmGood question! I’ve wondered that too. With historicals, you are writing within an already established world to a certain extent. If you don’t get a detail correct, people familiar with the facts will know.
Posted by Laurie London | February 26, 2010, 1:21 pmHI Laurie, so lovely to see you here.
Per mash-ups, yes, I refer to PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES and to other recent releases of that ilk. Basically mash-ups fuse or rather overlay works of classic fiction with paranormal elements (zombies, vampires, etc.)
But for every “rule” there’s the counter-rule. Also considered mash-ups are original fiction works (versus homages) that graft historical figures onto a paranormal situation and setting. Suddenly Queen Victorian and Abraham Lincoln are vampire slayers, too. Talk about multi-tasking!
I’d say more but frankly a recent Romantic Time BOOK Reviews Magazine feature article on mash-ups (with copious quotes from my Lady Jane Salon co-founder buddy, Ron Hogan) presented the subject far better than I could.
Speaking of Lady Jane’s, we would adore having you read, so please keep the Salon in mind for any future trips to the city.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 1:19 pmThanks, Hope!
Regarding doing a reading, wow, that’d be fun. My little brain is already starting to justify why I need to make a trip to NYC again.
L
Posted by Laurie London | February 26, 2010, 1:26 pmHi There Adrienne,
No doubt about it, writing an historical takes longer, at least it does me. As for building in cushion time, yes and no. My books to date tend to be relationship stories in the main, so the research I do speaks to setting primarily and to plot secondarily.
And then of course just as category books are by their very nature quicker reads, they’re also quicker writes. Take THE TUTOR, my July HQ Blaze. The set up for that book is the heroine, who’s about to marry a very nice but fairly dull fellow, approaches the hero to tutor her in sex before her marriage. (She’s given the fiance a test run and basically the poor guy needs a map). So the book focuses on these seven sexy days and nights wherein the hero and heroine have their private lessons and along the way, fall in love.
THE TUTOR, as I said in an earlier comment, is a spinoff from my Men of Roxbury House series. The first book in that trilogy, VANQUISHED, was also a relationship story and yes, a seduction story but it was a single-title book, so the word count was higher and the plot more layered. The heroine, Caledonia Rivers, is a leader in the women’s suffrage movement. I know a bit about the history of women’s struggle for the vote in this country, and the movement in Britain was in many ways the template for our leaders here. And that’s about all I knew. Hence lots o’ reading and emailing back and forth with people who’ve made an actual study of this stuff and of course, Googling. All that takes time and yes, you’ve got to build it in.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 1:38 pmThanks for this great post. I love what you say about the changing heroines and how they are now saving themselves. Also the changing timeline. Hey a 60′s multi-cultural historical could be interesting.
Posted by Kwana | February 26, 2010, 1:40 pmI absolutely agree, Laurie. Readers of historical anything, fiction, nonfiction, you name it, tend to really know their stuff. If you mess up, they’ll catch you and in many cases call you out. And I think they should. None of us are infallible, we all slip up on a detail here and there, but there’s never any excuse for sloppiness. And anything that pulls a reader out of the story long enough to go “huh” is never a good thing.
Re Lady Jane’s, seriously email me off-list at hope@hopetarr.com and, as they say, we’ll talk.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 1:43 pmHi Kwana:
Lovely to see your smiling face here–literally. And it’s so funny what you say about a 1960′s romance. Years ago when my first book, A ROGUE’S PLEASURE, came out I had a friend from my hometown who used to *beg* me to write one, or more properly a parody of one. He even had a title picked out.
Rogue Toker.
I can’t say I ever seriously considered writing an homage to the Era of the Herb, but pondering the possibility makes me smile even now.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 1:48 pmRogue Toker! LOL.
Posted by Adrienne Giordano | February 26, 2010, 3:57 pmThank you for the interview, Hope and Tracey.
What would I like to see more of in historical romances? There are plenty of themes, characters, plots, and settings I could list. But to stick to the most important only:
1. Heroes who are ordinary guys, rather than nobles or millionaires. Think of all the plot possibilities if the lead male character must work for a living and live within his modest means.
2. Heroes a woman can easily love, with charming personalities and healthy attitudes. I’m sure there will always be plenty of arrogant, cynical misogynists for women who daydream about “saving” them. But what about romantic heroes for the rest of us?
3. Historical romances set in countries where the people don’t speak English.
4. Historical romances set in any time other than the 19th century.
5. Gripping, intense plots with plenty of drama and adventure; and themes and situations that are authentic but underused. And by that, I mean almost any story that’s not about how a devilish British lord is forced to marry a smart-mouthed virgin.
6. Heroines who have at least as much going on in their lives as the heroes do. The practice of focusing on the hero and making the heroine a mere stand-in for the reader never went over well with me.
7. Characters other than the focal couple, with their own concerns. Too often the writer concentrates on the hero and heroine so intensively that all we get is scene after scene of them alternately arguing and making love. Other characters are mere cardboard figures and have little to do. That gets tiresome quickly. Well, for this reader, anyhow.
8. Finally, I think sex scenes are boring. How many ways are there to describe two people doing it? And going on and on, page after page, describing the minutest detail—gimme a break! The most interesting events regarding sex take place in the characters’ hearts and minds. As for what’s happening elsewhere, leave it to the readers’ imagination. And if they don’t have any, that’s their problem!
Posted by Mary Anne Landers | February 26, 2010, 2:00 pmMary Anne –
Thanks for sharing. I like the idea of historicals set in other countries. I’ve been noodling a series based on that exact concept.
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | February 26, 2010, 8:38 pmWhat! Sex scenes are boring? Actually Mary Ann, in a way, you’re right. If we don’t see the character’s feelings, their emotions, then it is boring. In Blaze, sex scenes aren’t just gratuitous – they need to move the plot forward and show character. And for that, you need to get into the character’s heads. It’s not about what they’re doing – it’s about how they feel about what they’re doing. This is something my authors struggle with – how to make it different. I usually advise them to look to their characters – how would those two people make love. Because, although the basic act is the same, no two people, or characters, should do it the same way.
Are you converted yet?
Brenda
Posted by Brenda Chin | February 26, 2010, 9:53 pmBrenda: Thank you for reading and replying to my list. I’m especially grateful to you for doing so in light of the fact that you must have a ton or two of manuscripts to read and edit. I also appreciate your insight into what makes a sex scene more than just another sex scene.
I hope I don’t give you or other RU members the idea that I want to spoil anyone’s fun. I know sex sells; the hotter the romance, the easier it is to sell the manuscript to editors and the published book to readers.
I’m not calling for a stop to sensuous/erotic romances (and it wouldn’t have any effect if I or anyone else did). I just think that those of us who don’t care for them, for whatever reasons, should have an adequate choice of more restrained works.
In a way, we already do; there are the genres of young-adult romances and inspirational romances. But what if the reader is a grown-up, and outside the target readership for inspirationals? Of course, I’m thinking of myself. But I can’t be the only one.
It’ll be interesting to see where the romance market goes during the next few years, once the publishing industry has (we hope!) overcome its current troubles.
Posted by Mary Anne Landers | February 27, 2010, 8:35 pmGreat interview. I think historicals always fascinated me as a reader and frightened me as a writer because of the amount of authentic detail that has to be included. I don’t write historical, although I have one character come from a differnent time, and even that was difficult.To make sure everything was accurate for his time period. I think historicals and paranormal are both here to stay.
Posted by Anita Clenney | February 26, 2010, 2:30 pmWow, Mary Anne, I wish I could do a banket cc: of your reply to all those New York editors!
I know a lot of writers who are already on board with you. In point, I’d say just about most–except for the sex scenes being boring. Then again, mind I do write for Blaze.
That said, once an author writes that boundary pushing book of her heart, she’s got to get someone to buy it. And therein lies the rub, at least sometimes.
Which is one of the many reasons Brenda’s authors, including me, adore her so very much–and no, I’m not sucking up. Within the short category framework, the out-of-the-box storylines and characters she supports and encourages is truly extraordinary, particularly in this tighter than usual market.
To your point about regular guy heroes, my dad used to repeat this catchy little one-liner to me when I was growing up: “dukes, pukes, counts and no accounts.” Retrospectively, I think he might have been trying to give me a more realistic view of my future dating pool.
I’ve done quite a number of non-titled and otherwise regular guy heroes. Off the top of my head, there’s been a hangman (Jack Campbell in MY LORD JACK–hey, it’s manual labor)–a portrait photographer (Hadrian St. Claire in VANQUISHED), and most recently a pickpocket/grifter turned valet/private secretary (Ralph Sylvester in THE TUTOR, coming this July). Quite a rogues gallrey, wouldn’t you say?
Let’s all get on board and…*embrace* the common man, shall we?
Ditto on heroines who have something going on beyond stitching their samplers and fending off “the vapours,” and generally behaving in ways that make us want to hurt them. Of course, there are those who will argue, some quite vehemently, that giving a heroine a professional passion if not a career “isn’t historical.”
To that I say, fustian and feathers! Stuff and nonsense! Rubbish and rot! Susan B Anthony did stuff. Jane Austen did stuff. Victoria Woodhull did stuff and so did that other Victoria, too. (Can we say queen of the whole freakin’ British Empire?).
And those examples don’t even begin to take into account the myriad regular women who were postmistresses (had to be married), public house proprietesses, artists and even silversmiths. The little explored history of female silversmiths is a fascinating one indeed. Only think of the opps for building biceps.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 3:22 pmHey Hope,
I don’t mind if you suck up a little.
Brenda
Posted by Brenda Chin | February 26, 2010, 9:49 pm
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 27, 2010, 2:30 pmThank you for replying to my comment, Hope. I’ll have to check out your books. You’re more than welcome to share my comments with anyone.
Your comment about “public house proprietresses” brings to mind Miss Kitty in “Gunsmoke”. Oops—am I dating myself?
Anyhow, I’m grateful to you and the other RU “professors” for letting me shoot my mouth off about romance fiction. I’m just another reader, and a writer with little in the way of published credits—a nobody. It’s hard for persons on my level to find an online soapbox where we can speak our minds and established professionals listen. I’m grateful to RU for providing one; and to you, Brenda Chin, et alles for participating.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by Mary Anne Landers | February 27, 2010, 8:51 pmI think so, too, Anita. Though as I said in my post proper, I remember back in Ye Ole mid-1990′s when submitting anything remotely paranormal was verboten. I remember being at an RWA National Conference and hearing not one but multiple editors and agents swear that if a submission coming across their desk had even one vampire or werewolf in it, they’d toss it in the recycle trash.
Can we say “Twilight” anyone? “True Blood?” JR Ward’s Black Dagger series? The pendulum swings for sure, but I don’t see paranormal going out of vogue anytime soon.
Be that as it may, if you write in paranormal, and you’re not yet published, make sure you love it. Really, really love it. With so many wonderful established paranormal authors writing prolifically, and so many high-quality submissions flooding the New York houses (and the established e-pubs, too), good is no longer good enough. You’ve got to be incredibly good, dare I say “most excellent.”
Then again, that’s the point of creating anything, isn’t it?
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 3:32 pmMy, how things have changed!
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | February 26, 2010, 8:40 pmOops, Black Dagger *Brotherhood.* Wonderful books, IMHO.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 3:34 pmGreat post, Hope. I think that with historicals the rules are falling away and the story is mattering. Both historicals and contemporaries cant disappear, readers want the stories [i certainly do love all] but just like agents and editors we want something fresh.
Posted by Mageela | February 26, 2010, 4:23 pmYes, yes, yes, Mageela, you’ve put it perfectly. I’ve never heard it said more succinctly or dare I say better.
“I think that with historicals the rules are falling away and the story is mattering…”
So, Tracey et al., what Mageela said.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 26, 2010, 4:37 pmLOL!
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | February 26, 2010, 8:40 pmHope,
Thank you so much for spending time with us. I hope it was a nice break from your juror duties.
We really appreciate your candid, thorough answers!
Best, Tracey
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | February 26, 2010, 8:42 pmHope, thanks for a great interview! Historicals have always been nearest to my heart, and it’s exciting to see all the new directions being taken by writers brave enough to explore beyond the well-tilled fields of Regency ballroom and Highland castle.
Mary Anne, your list was spot-on in every respect! I especially agree with point 8: in a well-plotted book, I do tend to skip past the sex scenes, unless there’s some important issue at stake. (On the other hand, in a dull one, I end up skipping TO them — I figure I should at least get something back for my seven bucks!)
Posted by Beatriz | February 26, 2010, 9:12 pmHi Beatriz, you’re most welcome. And thank *you* for stopping by. I love the “well-tilled fields” comment! Mind if I borrow it for future?
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 27, 2010, 2:35 pmBorrow away! I started with “well-plowed”, but thought the double entendre might be a bit heavy-handed
Posted by Beatriz | February 27, 2010, 3:08 pmThank you, Beatriz. It’s great to know I’m not the only romance reader who feels this way. Here’s hoping you get plenty for your seven bucks!
Posted by Mary Anne Landers | February 27, 2010, 8:55 pmBrenda,
I’m so glad you had a chance to stop by and say hi.
Have a great weekend!
Tracey
Posted by TraceyDevlyn | February 26, 2010, 11:01 pmOh, I’m always a day late, but I just wanted to thank my buddy Hope for mentioning The Mysterious Miss M, my debut book and the book of my heart. When I was amassing rejections for the manuscript editors (not you, Brenda!) and agents said readers would not accept my heroine. I always knew readers would love her. Thank goodness Harlequin Historical knew too!
Lady Jane’s Salon is WONDERFUL. If you plan a trip to NYC, plan it for a Salon day.
Mary Anne Landers, my niche in Harlequin Historical is to write about heroes and heroines who are involved in the seamier side of the Regency. And I almost always have a secondary romance. Gallant Officer, Forbidden Lady (Dec 2009) features a soldier/artist and an actress.
Posted by Diane Gaston | February 27, 2010, 9:07 amHi Diane! So great to “see” you here, late or not. And I adored your first book as well as admired (and still do) the heck outta you for not caving and upholding your vision. To my way of thinking, that opens doors for us all.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 27, 2010, 2:36 pmThank you, Diane. I’ll have to check out your novels next time I’m at the bookstore. Keep up the good work!
Posted by Mary Anne Landers | February 27, 2010, 8:58 pmTracey, thank you so much for having Brenda and I here to talk about our favorite subject: historical romance. To everyone who took the time to stop by and post such thoughtful questions and remarks, I so *appreciate* it. I feel like I’ve learned bunches from all of you.
To that point, Mary Anne’s most excellent list, esp the regular guy/girl hero/heroine, has got my gears grinding for sure. Suddenly I’m seriously thinking of that silversmith heroine book. Only to keep the patent (or whatever), she’s got to marry. Just for “convenience,” of course. So she strikes a bargain with a “regular guy.” They’ll marry, in name only of course. He’ll front the biz for her, you know, eye candy to decorate the shop front and sell tea services and such to frustrated matrons while she does the sweaty real work behind-the-scenes. Only regular guy that he is, still he’s “hawt.” And glib, dare I say…silver-tongued. Yes, yes, a silver-tongued rogue with a secret past, maybe on the lam from the law. Only he’s innocent of course, or at least not so terribly guilty as it seems.
Hmmm, I’d better head off. It seems, ladies, I have a proposl to write.
Happy Weekend All.
Posted by Hope Tarr | February 27, 2010, 2:49 pmHope: “Yes, yes, a silver-tongued rogue with a secret past, maybe on the lam from the law. Only he’s innocent of course, or at least not so terribly guilty as it seems.” But perhaps his reputation is somewhat “tarnished”? I couldn’t resist!
Posted by Mary Anne Landers | February 27, 2010, 9:10 pm