Pat here with another question from our Wench mailbox
Francie Stark wins a free copy of one of my books by asking:
“Dear Word Wenches, can you tell me the difference between 90's historical romance novels and 21st century historical romance novels. I've been snooping around and reading comments from books clubs and this is a hot topic. I've been out of the business for 20 years--not that I ever had much more than my toe in it. Honestly, I lost heart for writing and even reading historical romance so I'm really in the dark. I did pick-up a book by one of the reigning queens of the genre and I tried to read it, but it was so pink and fluffy. No meat. I couldn't stay with it. I've been sitting in the middle of the second draft of a novel for ten years and it will not leave me alone. It's like a dragon egg I pick-up and stare at, knowing that I must build a pyre and take it into the fire before it will hatch--or not. Maybe it doesn't need to be hatched. Based on what I've read it's very 90's. But I write the way I write and my stories aren't pink of fluffy. What to do, what to so... Any comments would be appreciated.”
Anne replies:
Francie, the other wenches will probably explain in more detail the difference between then and now —I'm not so clear on it because I pretty much only discovered the American-published historical romance novels in the late 90's; they weren't in most Australian bookshops. Still aren't. So I read a lot of authors out of any kind of chronological order, discovering some twenty years after their books were published.
What I will say, however, is I don't think you should dwell on the difference at all. Readers are always looking for something a little bit different from what they've been reading lately, and a lovely big meaty historical novel would, I'm sure, be a refreshing change after a diet of entertaining fluff. We all crave variety, and just because publishers tend to jump on bandwagons and follow trends doesn't mean writers have to. In this brave new age of publishing, authors can write the books of their heart and sell them direct to readers in the marketplace, and readers, hungry for something fresh and different, are snapping them up.
If we learn anything from history, it's that things go in cycles, and that what was old will eventually become new again. And authors are proving it by self-publishing their old books (from the 90's and earlier) and earning money from them. So I say dive into the world of your story, hatch your lovely dragon's egg with all the care and attention you can lavish on it, and then release it into the world. You never know, you might start a movement back to the big meaty historical. And readers will be grateful.
Mary Jo says:
A key factor is that those earlier historical romances were longer. My first historical romance contracts specified 125,000 to 150,000 words. (My longest book was Veils of Silk at 145K.) Now most books are 100,000 words or less. Fewer words means fewer subplots, fewer secondary characters, less time for adventuring around the world.
There are reasons why this has happened. A shorter book costs less to produce, and more books fit into the sales pockets in those stores that still carry print books. Perhaps even more important, in our very busy world with way too many things to look at, a lot of people prefer shorter books. Also, as traditional publishers struggle to stay afloat in a changing business, they prefer to put out books that are likely to attract the most readers, which often means books that are very closely focused on the romance.
But none of that really matters now that we have an indie publishing market where all kinds of books can be published. Selling them is another, more difficult matter, but from a creative point of view, there is no reason not to write what you love. Because in a diverse marketplace, there will be readers who love what you love, and great stories never go out of style!
--
Andrea says:
I get a little flummoxed trying to think of an answer for this question. The reason is, it seems to imply that there is a standard “model” for each type, and I don’t think that’s the case. Yes, many books tended to be longer in the 90s, and Mary Jo explains the practical reasons why this is no longer the norm. But as for tone and plot and characters—sorry, but I think both eras have a wide range of styles and voices. Along with readers who appreciate that variety. I didn’t start reading romance until the late 90s, and coming from Austen and Heyer, I was delighted to discover the Signet Regency line (where I first read Mary Jo and Pat!) I loved the stories, which seemed to me to be echoing that traditional spirit. Yes, there were the big lush historicals, but frankly I didn’t find them appealing.
As for today, the range is even wider. Light and fluffy, dark and brooding, intense and erotic—readers should have no trouble finding a niche that appeals to their tastes. And technology has, of course, made it much easier for authors to write the book of their heart, as they have ways of reaching an audience that didn’t exist in the 90s. (Marketing them is not an easy challenge these days, but that’s a whole other subject.)
The point is, readers have always been open to all sorts of stories. Trying to gauge hot trends or what voice is “popular” is the last thing I would advise to any author. Writing is hard enough—you have to be passionate about your story, your characters and your own narrative style. As Shakespeare said, "Be true to thine own self . . .”
Pat here:
As others have said, write what you need to write—just be far more careful of your craft than we were back in the day! Today’s books are much more tightly structured and IMO, better written. I’m working on one of my late 80’s books right now—over 150k words! We’re not talking just sweeping settings, but sweeping sentences. I’m usually able to cut out 20k words simply by eliminating head-hopping and directional phrases (“He followed her into the room and shut the door behind him” becomes— “He followed her and shut the door.” Amazing, huh? What were we thinking?)
The biggest difference, to me, is that back in the 90s, we could write anything. I wrote westerns, Civil War, American Revolution, as well as Regency . And then I started on paranormal romance. Today, so much of historical romance is light English Regency that everyone is trying to claim a particular niche of the same pie. So if pink and fluffy sells well, everyone tries to find a way of making their own claim on pink and fluffy.
But not everyone is writing light. Stretch your boundaries beyond the old names from the 90s—the market is enormous. Surely you’ve read the wenches! Some of us are lighter than others, but we all write character-driven stories with meaty plots—not pink and fluffy. The difference between then and now is simply one of word count, as Mary Jo says. Fewer characters, shorter plots, less running around the countryside and description. In focusing point of view, we’ve also focused the story to make it tighter, more intense, more emotional, and hopefully, more satisfying. Although I love humor and have nothing against pink and fluffy either. There’s a mood for every book.
If you have your heart set on writing the sagas we used to write—do so. Big 5 publishers might not be interested, but there are readers out there for every book written. Call it a romantic historical, give it scope and depth, make it as dark and intense as you like—and you’ll find there are as many readers now as there were then for a really good book.
What do wench readers think? Is the romance market being inundated with “pink and fluffy”? Do you prefer light? If not, who are current authors who give you the grit you like?