AAW—Where Have All the Dark Historical Romances Gone?

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?

 

 

Comments

[Sonya Heaney]

Well, I just wrote a blog post complaining about this.

It was prompted by an Avon editor posting this:

http://romanceuniversity.org/2013/09/25/avon-romance-editor-lucia-macros-wish-list-for-historical-romances/

Her first point: 'Lighten up everyone'

Apparently your manuscript won't even get looked at if it isn't light and fluffy and following all the genre clichés.

I don't think all established authors write that way, but newbie authors definitely need to think "anachronistic and cute" rather than "accurate and dark" if they want to get published.

It is a common complaint doing the rounds of major romance blogs.

I've read some FANTASTIC historical romances recently, but it is impossible not to notice romance is getting sillier. Just look at all the catchy titles named after recent movies.

[Sonya Heaney]

By "It is a common complaint" I mean that readers are sick of pink and fluffy, but editors are obsessed with it. They really don't seem to understand their audience.

[Patricia Rice]

For readers, Sonya's blog about this is at http://sonyaheaneyblog.com/2015/05/08/wish-list-for-historical-romances/

I am pulling on my blinders and refusing to read Lucia's article. For Avon, yes, this is the formula that works for them. They have some fabulous authors with wicked humor who can manage it, and apparently this is what the largest part of the romance market wants.

It may also be why the rest of the historical romance market is dying. I've been in the business for 30 years and have watched NYC kill thriving markets regularly. I understand the business reasons, and that's why I now indie publish. But that's another story.

What I would like is for readers to point us in the direction of lesser known authors who write the kind of books we like. Kaki Warner comes to mind, right now. There are others. Let's get a list started!

[Dean James]

For darker historical romance, I highly recommend Meredith Duran. She's terrific.

[Patricia Rice]

Thank you, Dean! Meredith's website is at http://meredithduran.com/ and I just scooped up her latest. The premise sounds most excellent and your recommendation wins the day. I've not been reading many historicals other than the wenches lately but this looks like a good place to start.

[Annette N]

Assuming that all readers like the same thing is the same as expecting everyone to want vanilla rather than chocolate. I read more than one style of book, more than one author even more than one genre. If publishers are steering the boat in this direction, then I hope they hear the loud roar of the water falls they are approaching.

Now, pink and fluffy...there are times when that is just exactly what I want. At times in life, finding light reading is a huge relief. It does not mean that all I want is vanilla.

I had never read a romantic book until I found Judith McNaught at my library. I am grateful to her and the road I have followed since then. I appreciate this post, and the fact that each of you Wenches treat we readers as though we are actually human beings with hearts and brains - and choices.

[Laurie Anderson]

I have been reading romance since the 80's. When I read historical romance, I would like just that, some history with my romance. I appreciate the time and effort it takes the author to find out these facts and weave them into the story. If you want more history with your romance, Deborah Harkness' All Souls Trilogy will give you that.

[Patricia Rice]

And we blog because we appreciate voracious readers! It would be a sad day if everyone wrote vanilla, no matter how much everyone likes vanilla. Excellent comparison!

[Patricia Rice]

Here's Deborah's website: http://deborahharkness.com/

I'm not a vampire fan, but I love witches! If the history is good as well... Thank you for adding more to my TBR pile.

[theo]

Hello, ladies!! Long time, no post. Busy moving and trying to come to terms with a 2-1/2 hour drive round trip has left me little time but to cook and drop into bed in the evening, but I've faithfully read all the posts. :) Unfortunately, I have lots of new books but haven't had the time to devote to them :(

I love a big, historical romance IF the romance is first and foremost. It seems these days, one can either get a great romance in 100K words or a great history lesson but there are few authors who can manage to combine both (present company excepted.) I fell very far out of love with an author who didn't want to 'dump her stories' into the romance category and yet, for the first few, they were very much centered around a main couple and romance, and then the history lessons started until I felt like I was in school again. I kept skimming the 200 pages of history to get back to the romantic couple, and I think that's maybe what the overall problem is for new writers as someone else mentioned. It's a very thin line to walk between a great mix and a snoozer.

An established author has the ability to move in different directions more easily than a new author does. At least, I think so.

[Patricia Rice]

Theo--two and a half hours! Gads, you're a candidate for audio books if I ever heard one!Check your library...

Interesting about the combination of history and romance. Wonder if that was author or publisher driven? Love stories have driven literature since time immemorial. History is about people, after all. It's a shame if we can't have both!

[Anna Bowling]

Historical romances with heaping helpings of both are my favorites, both to read and to write. It's easy to get discouraged, having a natural pull to the dark side, with sweeping sagas and grit, when it seems like all that's wanted is pink and fluffy, but the romance umbrella is wide. I really do think there is room at the table for everyone. Doesn't a good buffet have both main courses and dessert, as well as everything in between?

Sandra Lake, a newer author who writes amazing Viking romances shot straight onto my favorites list with her first historical, The Warlord's Wife, and I will never stop happy dancing that Marsha Canham is back, and publishing independently.

I want a fully realized historical world with my romances, for that time and that place to be the only time and place those lovers could have lived that story. I want the morals and social expectations of the time, as well as world events, to affect the lives of the lovers, and, of course, the happily ever after at the end. Nothing makes me happier than when the lovers have earned that HEA, against all odds. Those stories are out there.

[Patricia Rice]

oh now you're making me wistful for the good old days when I could walk into the bookstore and shuffled through the covers and find exactly what I wanted right that minute!

[Artemisia]

Hello ladies. Here's a faithful reader chiming in. Don't much like paranormal elements. Don't like silliness, and some older novels can be silly too. I call them a Kindle Cupcake,I get them from my library, and consume them as palate cleansers between serious stuff. Pink and Fluffy should not have Shades of Grey. Too much sex is a turnoff. :::: Now I want to thank Joanna Bourne for some of the best I have read this year. History, love, passion, and intrigue. Yum.

[Andrea Penrose]

I agree-Meredith Duran does some really interesting books.

[theo]

Trust me, I am an Audible member in great standing! ;) But I should rephrase that I suppose. It's an hour and fifteen one way for me right now so yes, total of 2-1/2. We're hoping things change for the hubby soon and then I'll find something closer to home. Right now, it's all about the health insurance for us.

The author refuses to call her stories romance or put them anywhere near that category and yet, any bookstore puts them front and center in that section. Go figure.

I love historical and paranormal romance and if the paranormal is time travel, that's a huge win for me.

[Andrea Penrose]

Annette, I like pink and fluffy at times too! At and times I want dark and gritty. I think most readers appreciate variety, and there is no right or wrong style in which to write.And that's all good!

[Maria D.]

I've been reading historical romance since the late 1970's and I have to say that I am personally looking for something different than what seems to be coming from many of the publishers - and it's really a shame - I think hemming an autnor's creativity in with word count really hurts a story - I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to pull my hair out because what started out okay went downhill fast. I want serious character development and unless it's a fantasy book or a paranormal book - I would like some realistic plots. Pink and fluffy is okay occasionally but it definitely isn't a steady diet that I want to read and I would like say that I agree with Sonya and Artemisia

[Sarah Webber]

When I want pink and fluffy, because my life ain't, I absolutely adore Jayne Ann Krentz/Amanda Quick/Jayne Castle's books. Love them. Reread multiple times. But I also love Joanna Bourne's series, which is devastatingly excellent, as well as most of Sherry Thomas' books, especially Not Quite a Husband and The Luckiest Lady in London. They are as excellent as Mary Jo's Fallen Angels and Silk series, which I loved, in my youth. Angel Rogue, be still my heart.

[RevMelinda]

Historical romances have always been my favorite, but I find myself preferring historical mysteries, science fiction/fantasy, and paranormals these days--because of the increasing silliness of the historical romance genre. It is very sad to me that there is so little out there in my favorite genre that I want to read nowadays. Cutesy-poo rhyming titles, books based on fairy tales or TV shows, along with nonstop anachronistic plot points, dialogue or behavior--it's just not my cup of tea (although the cutesy-poo books seem beloved of editors and the RITAs). As far as authors I have enjoyed, my favorite (wenchly company excepted) probably is Susanna Kearsley, who weaves together history and romance in a truly masterful way. I have enjoyed quite a few of Elizabeth Hoyt and Elizabeth Essex's books, and if you're looking for dark, Anne Stuart is probably the master of that. And I'm delighted to second the recommendation of Deborah Harkness's All Souls trilogy which I think is a wonderful combination of history and romance (Deb is a PhD in history and an old friend of mine from college days).

[Janice]

Well, it was Avon, and pink and fluffy (except for some of their long established authors) is what they do. And why I don't buy many Avons anymore. I am not the audience they are targeting, I suppose. I used to think it was because the mass audience's reading skills are not what they were 30 or 40 years ago, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it's the editors and marketers who aren't up to snuff?

[Laura Boon]

I can't speak for everyone, but I know I enjoy romances with a lively line in humour, so I favour authors who write either light or dark who can also make me laugh - and in doing so take me away from the rush and stress that is everyday modern life. I suppose laughter could edge a genre towards light and fluffy. However, I find that there is a very wide range of light and fluffy, humorous, and dark and gritty romances available at the moment from both traditional and indie published historical romance authors. I enjoy the variety. It means I am never bored. Authors with different styles are very easy to discover too, if you sign up to lovely blogs like this one, author and publisher newsletters. Although you do definitely get dark and gritty in the Regency sub-genre, reading Medieval romances almost guarantees dark and meaty. It was a much darker period in history, which is reflected in the novels.

[Annabel]

Pat, please finish your not-pink-and-fluffy historical romance! There may be a variety of books out there, but the books and authors that most frequently top the list are unreadable for me. The heroes are blah and "nice" and the heroines are unrealistically independent and sassy. It may be what readers like (because it feels more modern to them) but it takes me out of the story because that's not how people acted back then. I don't want to read about a modern day couple written within a historical framework. I want to read relationships that feel authentic for that time. When I'm in the mood for historical romance, I reread my 90s classics. I'll be watching the comments for more recent recommendations. I'll have to check out Meredith Duran.

[Joanne Bourne]

Oh thank you so much. (jo brightens up and feels as if she's been given an extra cup of expresso, just reading that.)

You'll notice I didn't contribute to that wonderful blog up top. I kept reading the other wenches entries and thinking about it and being quite unable to make a good and useful contribution.

The best I can say is that some writers bring me joy by being historically accurate and realistic and thoughtful. Some bring me joy by writing bright dialog and tossing me around in their persiflage and making me laugh.

Give me good writing, you author folks, and I will follow you anywhere.

[Joanne Bourne]

Thank you for the kinds words. (jo wriggles like a puppy, which is something better mentioned in words than observed in real life, perhaps.)

I'm going to second your praise of JAK, (and Sherry Thomas and Mary Jo.)

JAK and Nora Roberts bring me great joy. I open the book and hang my worries and pains at the doorway and enter a world where I do not have to think. The skill that goes into creating these stories just awes me.

[Karin]

I have also noticed the trend toward "fairy tale" stories, even from established writers whose earlier works were meatier. Not that I don't like humor and fluff when I'm in the mood. But I avoid the long jokey titles and titles with rhymes in them. Thanks to indie publishing, some new writers are doing grittier and darker tales, so I have no trouble finding more thoughtful and serious books. I recommend Erica Monroe(Victorian era factory girls), Erin Satie(I was wowed by "The Orphan Pearl", so original!). Both of them are new authors worth watching. Of course Elizabeth Hoyt. Jo Beverly's Malloren books are very meaty and always worth a reread. Sharon Cullen's "His Saving Grace" reminded me of one of Mary Balogh's stories about wounded veterans, heart-wrenching. "Almost Taken" by Isabel Mere was also heart-wrenching, and I look forward to reading the rest of the series. I liked Theresa Romain's Matchmaker series, it was meatier than you might guess from looking at the titles and the big dresses on the covers.

[Patricia Rice]

well said, Jo, says she capable of writing and reading pink cotton candy when the mood overtakes.

Kindle Cupcake, Artemsia! I love it. Love cupcakes too but I like real ingredients. ;)

[Patricia Rice]

I think there's a wide spectrum available. The problem is that we can't locate what we want as easily. The lighter books are all over the marketplace and that's what pops up whenever we go looking.
This is one of the reasons the wenches try to draw attention to authors who aren't "Kindle cupcakes." (thanking Artemsia for that phrase!)

It's hard to cover all major areas and everyone's tastes, but we hope to occasionally introduce new-to-you authors.

[Patricia Rice]

You have most excellent taste, Sarah!

[Patricia Rice]

Thanks for keeping the recommendations of good authors out there. I'm grabbing them with glee because I've been suffering the same malaise. I like some "cutesy-poo" when done well, but a steady diet leads to malnutrition of the brain.

[Patricia Rice]

that's an excellent summary! It's sad that so many of us are so starved for humor and laughter that we've flooded the market with lightness, but I guess it's good that it's there. And now I must ponder why we're not getting our fix of laughter in life...

[Patricia Rice]

Characterization is the one thing I MUST have in a good book. The entire book can be dialogue, but if it's witty dialogue that suits those particular characters, I am Happy. I don't think people were a lot different in any age--but circumstances demanded different behaviors. That's where the Character Fail often happens.

[Patricia Rice]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! New names for me to scout.

I'll admit, the silly titles today make me say "oh, another one of those" and skip over them in my TBR pile. But if I'm left with nothing else to read and actually sit down and read some of them, many are quite good. I'm only now getting around to reading Courtney Milan and loving them.

[Cathie]

I didn't discover traditional regencies until they stopped them at Zebra and Signet. So I'm elated that authors are re-releasing these. Then I love the full novels out today as well as discovering reads I missed since I didn't know of these until around 2001. Before then I would read anything but once I discovered historical romance I found so much what was missing for me. I love it all. Love the variety. Cathie

[Patricia Rice]

Cathie, have you found Regency Reads? http://www.regencyreads.com/online/

They have a wonderful collection of backlist from those old Zebras and Signets! I love that I can have them again.

[Nancy Mayer]

Funny, we were told that Signet and Zebra regencies folded because people wanted the longer books. Some readers even said they would buy the longer books because there were more pages for the money
Now I understand that publishers are putting out shorter books ( and charging the same as for the longer ones) because too many people are reading them on devices. Soon we may to reduce them to twenty tweets.

[Barbara Kuterbach]

I read all types of books. If I start a book and find that it doesn't hold my interest, I simply put it in my Amazon cloud, it may interest me later. I use a Kindle. I prefer a historical setting. Certain authors are a must read. Before downloading a book (except for those written by a Wench) I read all the reviews. So keep on writing Wenches, my Kindle has only 900+ books on it.

[Patricia Rice]

Publishing is a business. I was one of those Signet Regency authors and I was making beans on those little books. I suspect distributors could make more money per pocket on bigger, more expensive books. I just know more people did buy big books and not my little ones!

[Patricia Rice]

Oh my, we love readers like you! 900 books! I bow to you. ;)

[Kantu]

She's right. There's such a flood of pink and fluffy! And all of them claim to be regency historical novelists! I probably sound like a pig and a prig. I promise I'm not. I've bought many of these books for free or 99cents. But they are still fluff. My first love has always been historical fiction/romance. Didn't matter how long it was. What mattered to me was if it I knew of the author, or had previously read his/her books. What mattered was the content. The cover and the font were and are still insignificant to me.

My 2 cents
Ps I have a very large print book library, maybe 2000. And my iPad has iBooks, kindle, nook, hc, override, and between all of these maybe, 1200. I have a very wide selection. A lot of WWII ,suspense, mysteries, humor, westerns, erotica, women 's fiction. All the fun stuff. Oh cook books, gardening, children 's, photography, knitting, crotchet, weaving. And I haven't even read half of them. I just keep piling them on, specially if they are free, for when I will have more time to read. Only God knows when that will happen!

[Sonya Heaney]

I probably shouldn't have mentioned my blog post! :) I was a little angry when I wrote it. Mostly because I read so many historical romances I was annoyed we were being told we don't want variety. I want everything. Fluffy, dark, funny, sad, tragic, exciting.

I don't like this idea we're only supposed to want one thing. If I read a hundred or more historical romances a year, then I want every version you can offer!

[Patricia Rice]

Kantu, you are exactly the kind of reader the wenches love. Your library is probably similar to ours. I wish we had a way of convincing publishers that readers like us exist, but everything is cyclical. They'll figure it out eventually!

[Patricia Rice]

Publishers know we don't want just one thing. They simply cannot afford any longer to sell anything that doesn't sell over a certain number of copies. Which is why we have to promote the books we like, so more people will buy them, and publishers will recognize the demand for different!

[Sonya Heaney]

Oh, theo, I know what you're talking about.

What annoys me so much is that "romance" can be anything - as long as you don't kill your two stars. This idea romance is some silly thing only one gender can like, and that it cannot possibly feature real history or anything that "intelligent"... I'm so sick of that clichéd nonsense!

[Karin]

Oh, Courtney Milan is not pink and fluffy at all. She is fond of subverting common romance tropes(see "Unveiled" and "Unraveled") and hits a lot of class and gender issues.

[Bona]

Long post.
As I've been reading romance since the 80s, I see some things that have changed. The first thing that comes to my mind is that, in the “pink and fluffy” subgenre, they don't even try to to anything remotely historical. On the good side, the bodice-rippers are gone. At least in the historical romance, it looks to me that they have found their little nest in paranormals.
I personally don't like light. The majority of books like that sounded -to me- as High School Musical characters in Regency disguise.
I think I only enjoy an author in that 'light' tendency, Loretta Chase. She's witty but in an adult sense. And I guess that some Kleypas could be included in this line, although some of her characters have got really dark stories.
My favourite authors, in a serious historical way... I'm not sure, and I will not mention which word wenches I prefer... Courtney Milan, Sherry Thomas, Kinsale of course in the rare occasions she publish something, Cecilia Grant, Mary Balogh...
I'm not sure if its 'light' as opposed to 'dark'. I prefer to talk about juvenile characters and plots versus adult ones.
Something like Simply Love is very compelling because it talks about things that you only see and understand when you have certain age.
I usually say that what makes a romance novel 'adult' is not the amount of sex in it, but the maturity in the thoughts and behaviour of the characters.

[Artemisia]

"Malnutrition of the brain" - love it.

[Sue W. McCormick]

"'Romance' can be anything as long as you don't kill your two stars."

I am all for the happy ending; I prefer that the hero and heroine do not die, and I admit that they almost never do. BUT, Romeo and Juliette is such a great romance that it is a basic plot in so many, many romances. And while the takeoff hero and heroin usually DO survive they also die in West Side story. So even that stricture can be overcome.

[Sue W. McCormick]

I cannot suggest authors today. But I do have a serious comment on length and sales.

You are saying here that the editors "know" that the romance readership wants smaller books. But over there at the Fantasy and Science Fiction side we've been being told that the readership won't buy short, they want long and complex. (This may be changing, I haven't followed recent comments.)

WHO tells the editors these things? It is NOT true that there is no overlap between genre! Romance readers, F&SF readers, mystery readers, whatever other genre count, there is ALWAYS a LARGE overlap between the readerships. I'm so tired of marketing telling me I don't want something and that I don't know what I want.

[Tihi]

True. I'm currently reading (or dragging more likely, since I don't have much free time) Written on Your Skin and I got chills while reading some of the scenes. And it's all about the characters themselves, they have such strong presence.

[Teresa Broderick]

Hi, I've never replied to a blog before. I've been reading the newsletter from Word Wenches for some time. I love the recommendations I've been reading here. I too like 'light and fluffy' and dark and serious and everything. I'm a voracious reader and own a huge number of books including many from the Wenches. I love historical romance with time travel. Probably one of my favourite genres. If anyone loves these my highest recommendation in this genre is Lost In The Mists of Time by Karen Michelle Nutt. Fabulous.

[Patricia Rice]

Thank you for stopping by, Teresa! Glad you enjoy our newsletter and took time to join in. I'm off to look up Karen Nutt!