What is the state of the romance genre when it comes to American-set historicals? Regencies and Scotland, of course, sell well. And vampires. I'm being told that American-set historicals are a hard sell, especially in the romance genre. Why would that be?
Digital publishers ARE publishing these, yet traditional publishers seem to shy away from them. Why the gap? And are they selling well? I don't know how to get numbers on digital publishing--will have to ask my friend Karen Harbaugh, who's an absolute genius at divining trends from the market. If they're selling well digitally, then why wouldn't print publishers be interested?
Is it because Americans think they already know their history? Is it because American history is somehow seen as 'unromantic', and therefore not worthy? We obviously didn't have kings and queens strutting around doing odd things, throwing lavish parties or building pleasure palaces. And Americans are a practical lot. Even in colonial times, education and reading material was almost exclusively based on useful information; growing crops, staying warm. . . .staying alive. Things that were "fun" were frowned upon because they took time away from the important business of living.
Or is it a lack of authors willing to take a risk and write in this area? Geralyn Dawson, Sharon Ihle and Alexis Harrington all have e-books or even a traditional book (in the case of Alexis Harrington) out right now that are American-set historicals. Westerns have had their rise and fall in popularity, but haven't hit the sustained sales figures of Regencies and Scottish-set historicals. If it's because people like to read about other places and times, then American-set historicals should be selling well in the U.K. and elsewhere.
Thoughts? Am I missing something here?
12 comments:
I think we've lost the romance of westerns and America in general.
We don't know our history and films depict America in less than heroic colors. As writers, we can change that.
Where is the American version of Gabaldon's "Outlander"?
The stories await.
thanks for an excellent post.
I sure don't understand it. I love to read American historicals, but you can only find them with the digital publishers.
I also write stories set during the Civil War and was a reenactor for a number of years. To me, that period in American history was incredibly romantic. After all, wasn't 'Gone With the Wind' the romance classic of all times.
I write for a digital publisher, because when I tried the bigger publishers with my Civil War time travel, they rejected it. One editor told me she liked my writing, but Civil War romaces don't sell.
My latest romance is set a few years after the war, so I'll see in a few months if that sells than my other books.
I write American historicals set during the gold rush era. I have never understood why they aren't easily sold as well. I was told any story set west of the Mississippi River is considered a western, another thing that has puzzled me. My stories are not westerns they are stories set in the west. I was told when I asked that it is because when in the west have a much tougher life than the glamour days of Europe.
I also write American Historicals. I have one published (e-book publisher) that begins with the Oklahoma Land Run, and then a published sequel to it also set in Oklahoma. Of the two I have coming out in the spring, one is contemporary, the other an American Historical.
I think mine are selling okay--but nowhere near another author from my same publisher who released a Scottish Highlands book, with Jimmy Thomas in a kilt on the cover, and the word "Highland" in the title. Her sales are through the roof. I enjoy Highlander books, and will probably write one after hubby and I take a trip to Scotland in a couple of years, but will also write my love--American history.
I love this blog and all the comments! I love American History as well, and have in my own American Revolution ms's query that I am writing something similar to the OUTLANDER series, but, of course, a bit different.
Why is it that big publishing houses don't want to touch an American set romance with a ten foot pole is beside me. Maybe you struck a cord in saying that many Americans think they know their history, but as any American historian can tell from just the politicians running today, no one is very accurate about American history anymore, at least not those in the lime light. It's sad too, because although we didn't have kings and queens, we did have John Hancock, who was asked to be king of America, as well as General Washington, but thanks to loud mouths like Sam Adams that never happened. America during the Revolution was WAY richer than England. Granted, we might not have castles, but some of the houses errected for Hancock were not that far from a castle.
In the mean time, I'll just have to keep wishing that some big publisher will notice how rich and romantic the American past was, and then insert we many talented writers, and we're going to be landscaping a whole new genre!
-Lani
Lani, I'll be with you! I'm still stymied by this. Maybe I'll hunt down an editor from a traditional publisher to weigh in. But Callie mentioned her books aren't selling as well as a friend's Scottish-set historicals. Maybe we just need an effective marketing campaign. "Kissed in the USA" or something. I don't know.
lol. I like the "kissed in the USA." Right now there's a big push to buy American--how about extending that to American Historical romance novels?
Well, IMHO, what's curtailing the move into American-set romances is the fear of traditional publishers to take risks. That's always been the case, and it's even more so now. Even though they're moving into the "risky" ebook market (at last), this does not mean they're going to take risks with subject matter. They're going to take baby steps, because they have assets to protect and right now, their assets are under a tremendous amount of threat.
Indie authors, on the other hand, have very little to lose. You have a few hundred bucks for a really nice cover and copyright registration, you do your own scanning and coding, and you're good. If you're really short on money, you can try creating the cover yourself and you're out maybe $50-$75.
Well...I wrote more on this--the hows and whys--but Blogger doesn't like comments that go over 4,096 characters. Carol, I could post it on my blog, or I could give you what I wrote as another post here on your blog.
Exactly, Callie! We could put a little flag logo on the covers or something. Karen, would you be willing to guest blog here to keep the conversation going? I've love to have you!
Sure, Carol. Shall I e-mail you the post?
A very interesting post. It set me to wondering, and I have a question. When was the last period of time American-set historicals were popular? I have a WIP that is set in Northern Minnesota. Hopefully, things will change.
I also wonder if pairing a historical with something else, like paranormal or a mystery, would make a difference. I think the market is fickle.
I love historicals set in America, particularly the Civil War and its aftermath. I've learned some interesting facts while reading them, and will never claim to know "everything" about U.S. history.
Joan
"If it's because people like to read about other places and times, then American-set historicals should be selling well in the U.K. and elsewhere."
Now there's a point! It always interests me how different stories fit in different times and places.
There's no reason there shouldn't be a tonnish Regency set in Edinburgh, but I don't know of one. Readers see Scotland and expect a different story.
No reason not to have a tonnish Regency in Boston or Philadelphia, but NAL tried the American Regency years ago and it flopped.
It's not fair to blame the publishers because most of the time they react to readers -- are readers buying or not.
In my opinion, with times hard and likely to stay that way people will be looking for more escapist romances, so more aristocrats and glitter, but they might go for homespun, family values as well. It'll be interesting to see.
Jo
Post a Comment