After way more time than originally planned editing the ms, it's finally headed back to the editor. It started at 103,000 words and ended up at 76,000 words, so much red ink was spilled.
I miss the characters already. Am I mad? I guess when you've watched them do everything--and I mean EVERYTHING--it can be hard to let go.
I worry about the book: will it sell; will readers like the setting of southern Spain, which I consider very romantic but is considered an 'unusual' setting; will I be able to re-focus on the current book without too much difficulty. . . .
But for now, I'm going to celebrate the fact that my 'baby' is as good as I can make it right now and hope and pray that the editor will like the revisions.
What do you do to distract yourself while waiting for an editor's reply?
Louisa May Alcott
An American writer
Showing posts with label historical romance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label historical romance. Show all posts
Friday, February 17, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Karen Harbaugh on American-set historicals
Karen Harbaugh is a Regency author who follows market trends and has been incredibly accurate in predicting where the next "turn" in the market will be, and why things are operating (or not) as they are. With a lovely re-issue of "The Marriage Scheme" available at Regency Reads, I thought it would be a good time to ask her about the State of the Market, and how that relates to my last blog post regarding the difficulty of selling American-set historical romances.
So here, without further ado, is Karen Harbaugh:
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.
When I look at what should sell if there weren't these constraints, I'd say American Revolution, Civil War, and WWII eras. Why is this?
1. We are at the same point in the approximately 80-year cycle that gave rise to the American Revolution, Civil War, and WWII. There is and has been rising interest in these eras.
2. We have already seen interest in these eras in the bestseller lists (McCullough's books comes to mind: 1776 and John Adams, the latter of which not only was on the best seller lists, but won the Pulitzer Prize AND was made into a mini-series. The media doesn't plunk that kind of recognition and money down on something like that without knowing it's worth the risk. Interest in the Civil War is suppressed at this time because of continuing racial tensions concerning slavery--it's very difficult to walk the line between historical accuracy and offending someone.
World War II gets special mention. In the 1980's the U.S. released 17 WWII-themed movies. In the 1990's, the same number. From 2000 to 2009, it released twice that many--34. That is a significant jump in not only audience interest, but business investment. In other words, it's considered a relative "sure thing."
3. Controversy sells. In addition, we live in one of the most divisive of times, and when we do, we ALWAYS hearken back to periods of history that might possibly give us the answers we need to get us through. Controversy + desire for answers = big sales.
Mainstream publishing hasn't jumped on these romance trends. I think this is typical--they tend to lag about 5 to 10 years. Case in point: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which developed a cult following from 1997 to 2003. The ratings were modest, but the significance here is in "cult following." That represents extremely loyal viewers who "evangelize" the show and get others to watch it, far beyond the lifetime of the series. This is the epitome of word-of-mouth. You get that kind of loyal readership for books, and you can guarantee bestsellerdom. But, as many of us know, in the mid to late 1990's, the publishers were saying that paranormal romances and vampires were dead (if you will excuse the expression) :-D
The consumer demand for paranormal romances was very heavy even back in 1995. I went to a Romantic Times convention around about that time, and it was significant to me that when the readers (and this was a reader--rather than writer--convention) that when readers were asked what kind of romances they wanted, there was a loud cry for paranormal romances, and a great deal of frustration that they couldn't find them. Keep in mind that these readers--like the Buffy fans--were readers so dedicated that they would not only go to a convention for romance novels, but they were the romance novel evangelists. The kind you want to spread word of mouth.
Yet, publishers at that time kept insisting that such romances were not popular. However, we all know how that subgenre has been doing since that time.
If I were to go on historical circumstances and similarity to our own era, I'd say that the order of relevance would be American Revolution, WWII, and then the Civil War.
However, our memories are short, and what we are currently told about the American Revolution is highly politicized. So the most accurate accounts we have of an era that is similar to ours is for WWII, because we still have some eyewitnesses.
If we were to write stories in older eras, we REALLY have to do our research. We can't go on the stereotypes of those eras. We have to look at those eras with fresh eyes and present a fresh, and very accurate perspective. So far, I don't think that's been done. The research may be good, but the fresh perspective may not be there.
If you want some historical parallells or have other questions, feel free to ask.
And since she's asked for questions. . . . ask away!!
So here, without further ado, is Karen Harbaugh:
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.
When I look at what should sell if there weren't these constraints, I'd say American Revolution, Civil War, and WWII eras. Why is this?
1. We are at the same point in the approximately 80-year cycle that gave rise to the American Revolution, Civil War, and WWII. There is and has been rising interest in these eras.
2. We have already seen interest in these eras in the bestseller lists (McCullough's books comes to mind: 1776 and John Adams, the latter of which not only was on the best seller lists, but won the Pulitzer Prize AND was made into a mini-series. The media doesn't plunk that kind of recognition and money down on something like that without knowing it's worth the risk. Interest in the Civil War is suppressed at this time because of continuing racial tensions concerning slavery--it's very difficult to walk the line between historical accuracy and offending someone.
World War II gets special mention. In the 1980's the U.S. released 17 WWII-themed movies. In the 1990's, the same number. From 2000 to 2009, it released twice that many--34. That is a significant jump in not only audience interest, but business investment. In other words, it's considered a relative "sure thing."
3. Controversy sells. In addition, we live in one of the most divisive of times, and when we do, we ALWAYS hearken back to periods of history that might possibly give us the answers we need to get us through. Controversy + desire for answers = big sales.
Mainstream publishing hasn't jumped on these romance trends. I think this is typical--they tend to lag about 5 to 10 years. Case in point: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which developed a cult following from 1997 to 2003. The ratings were modest, but the significance here is in "cult following." That represents extremely loyal viewers who "evangelize" the show and get others to watch it, far beyond the lifetime of the series. This is the epitome of word-of-mouth. You get that kind of loyal readership for books, and you can guarantee bestsellerdom. But, as many of us know, in the mid to late 1990's, the publishers were saying that paranormal romances and vampires were dead (if you will excuse the expression) :-D
The consumer demand for paranormal romances was very heavy even back in 1995. I went to a Romantic Times convention around about that time, and it was significant to me that when the readers (and this was a reader--rather than writer--convention) that when readers were asked what kind of romances they wanted, there was a loud cry for paranormal romances, and a great deal of frustration that they couldn't find them. Keep in mind that these readers--like the Buffy fans--were readers so dedicated that they would not only go to a convention for romance novels, but they were the romance novel evangelists. The kind you want to spread word of mouth.
Yet, publishers at that time kept insisting that such romances were not popular. However, we all know how that subgenre has been doing since that time.
If I were to go on historical circumstances and similarity to our own era, I'd say that the order of relevance would be American Revolution, WWII, and then the Civil War.
However, our memories are short, and what we are currently told about the American Revolution is highly politicized. So the most accurate accounts we have of an era that is similar to ours is for WWII, because we still have some eyewitnesses.
If we were to write stories in older eras, we REALLY have to do our research. We can't go on the stereotypes of those eras. We have to look at those eras with fresh eyes and present a fresh, and very accurate perspective. So far, I don't think that's been done. The research may be good, but the fresh perspective may not be there.
If you want some historical parallells or have other questions, feel free to ask.
And since she's asked for questions. . . . ask away!!
Monday, January 30, 2012
American-set historicals
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?
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?
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
What to cut?
Since I've been in editing mode for a while now, I'm finding in some parts it's darned difficult to tell what needs to be cut versus kept versus re-written. Kept some scenes, but did a POV switch. I **think** it's better, but crap, when you're in the middle of it all, it's really hard to be objective.
Of course, since it's my book and by definition I love it, I can justify keeping just about anything. That's what happened the first time I came at this. I cut it from about 103,000 words to about 102,500. Not exactly an effective job. It's kind of like getting a run at Queen Anne Hill in the snow, getting halfway up and then sliding back down to the bottom (Snow reference since we're in the middle of Snowmageddon here).
This time I'm trying to focus with a laser beam on the primary internal conflict between the h/h and also what their own internal conflicts are. As much as possible, anything that deviates from that gets extra scrutiny. Or at least I hope it does.
Do you have a technique for the first pass, second pass, subsequent passes? Or do you look for specific things each time? My "technique" is pretty darned hit-and-miss right now, but I'd probably be a lot more effective if I could refine this a bit.
So what are your tips for editing?
Of course, since it's my book and by definition I love it, I can justify keeping just about anything. That's what happened the first time I came at this. I cut it from about 103,000 words to about 102,500. Not exactly an effective job. It's kind of like getting a run at Queen Anne Hill in the snow, getting halfway up and then sliding back down to the bottom (Snow reference since we're in the middle of Snowmageddon here).
This time I'm trying to focus with a laser beam on the primary internal conflict between the h/h and also what their own internal conflicts are. As much as possible, anything that deviates from that gets extra scrutiny. Or at least I hope it does.
Do you have a technique for the first pass, second pass, subsequent passes? Or do you look for specific things each time? My "technique" is pretty darned hit-and-miss right now, but I'd probably be a lot more effective if I could refine this a bit.
So what are your tips for editing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)