News Corp buys Harlequin

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Blossom

I wish Kensington had brought Harlequin I think they were a better fit.

Sorry to say, I expect Kensington to be next.
In fact, I expected them to go first.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Sorry to say, I expect Kensington to be next.
In fact, I expected them to go first.

Yeah tis sad. I thought Harlequin and Kensington would merge several years ago but it didn't happen. They both have similar goals. Had they merge they probably both could've been kept from being sold.

[Atunah]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Books aren't essential like food, no.
But a lot of people seem to care about the ethics and/or practices of their food sources.

And some make a big fuss over retailer employee practices without blinking an eye at the reprehensible or even illegal practices of manufactures and content producers. I prefer to be as informed as possible about all of them so I understand who I'm voting my wallet in favor of. Informed choice over "see no evil" willful ignorance.
Just me, mind you.

By the time I buy a book, I am often plenty informed. I research and vet the books I buy. The most important thing to me as a reader is if I am going to like the book, is it an interesting concept. As nice as it is to know the author gets more money, it is not my first deciding factor. I want to read books I like is the first.
No ignorance on my part. I never blindly buy any books. Vetting is most important. My time and money are valuable, so I like to spend it to get the most for it.

I sure hope Kensington is not next. They have Zebra. This reader needs the publishers. Self publishers do not satisfy my voracious reading habits. There are some back list titles I get that are put out by SP's, but as far as new releases, there aren't as many I want to read.
Some of that is what Blossom said, the road to drama lama land is where self publishers are going these days in romance. Where there was unique stuff coming out, there is now mostly cookie cutter sameness with the same tropes again and again. Which is a bit baffling to me to be honest. I expected more unique stuff coming from the SP front.

And like Blossom said, in historical especially, Harlequin has been willing to paint outside the lines. They are covering era's and themes most nobody else is. I sure hope that doesn't change now with the buy out.

I don't really want to see any publishers go away. I'd rather them adjust and find a way to survive in this new world.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Atunah

By the time I buy a book, I am often plenty informed. I research and vet the books I buy. The most important thing to me as a reader is if I am going to like the book, is it an interesting concept. As nice as it is to know the author gets more money, it is not my first deciding factor. I want to read books I like is the first.
No ignorance on my part. I never blindly buy any books. Vetting is most important. My time and money are valuable, so I like to spend it to get the most for it.

I sure hope Kensington is not next. They have Zebra. This reader needs the publishers. Self publishers do not satisfy my voracious reading habits. There are some back list titles I get that are put out by SP's, but as far as new releases, there aren't as many I want to read.
Some of that is what Blossom said, the road to drama lama land is where self publishers are going these days in romance. Where there was unique stuff coming out, there is now mostly cookie cutter sameness with the same tropes again and again. Which is a bit baffling to me to be honest. I expected more unique stuff coming from the SP front.

And like Blossom said, in historical especially, Harlequin has been willing to paint outside the lines. They are covering era's and themes most nobody else is. I sure hope that doesn't change now with the buy out.

I don't really want to see any publishers go away. I'd rather them adjust and find a way to survive in this new world.

This is so odd to me because I stopped reading Zebra and Harlequin years ago for the most part because they both seemed so cookie cutter! I don't read a ton of romance, but when I do, it's usually paranormal and/or indie work. Not to say it's all new and different, but generally not what I consider cookie cutter. Maybe it's all in what we read in younger years?

Have either of you tried:

Cry Baby Hollow by Aimee Love
Louisiana Longshot by DeLeon (this is really more mystery, but the romance is coming along as the books progress)
Susanna and the Spy Anna Elliot (pretty traditional romance/historical/just for fun, not plausible)
A Gift of Ghosts by Sarah Wynde (fairly straight-forward romance, but with a side of mystery)

Of these, I'd say Cry Baby Hollow is the most unique and the romance doesn't follow what I'd call typical lines--takes pretty long to develop and has some, oh, I guess I'd call it realistic barriers thrown in.

DeLeon is mostly for the laughs. I'm not trying to tell you that the series is plausible, but I do enjoy the heck out of it and I like when a romance takes several books to develop.

The other two are more focused on the romance, but I thought them unique and cute enough to stand well enough without feeling they were following a formula.

[BearMountainBooks]

P.S. I stay away from love triangles, angst, drama and the like--I don't care who publishes it. I don't care if it is YA, Geezer lit, cozy, or what have you. I don't know what started that trend of angst or love triangles, but I wish it would go away. Soon.

[Atunah]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Have either of you tried:

Cry Baby Hollow by Aimee Love
Louisiana Longshot by DeLeon (this is really more mystery, but the romance is coming along as the books progress)
Susanna and the Spy Anna Elliot (pretty traditional romance/historical/just for fun, not plausible)
A Gift of Ghosts by Sarah Wynde (fairly straight-forward romance, but with a side of mystery)

Of these, I'd say Cry Baby Hollow is the most unique and the romance doesn't follow what I'd call typical lines--takes pretty long to develop and has some, oh, I guess I'd call it realistic barriers thrown in.

DeLeon is mostly for the laughs. I'm not trying to tell you that the series is plausible, but I do enjoy the heck out of it and I like when a romance takes several books to develop.

The other two are more focused on the romance, but I thought them unique and cute enough to stand well enough without feeling they were following a formula.

I checked them out and they do look interesting. But when I made my comments, I really was talking about romance. I think only one of those you list are romance, the first looks like urban fantasy, which I love that genre too, but its not romance. The ghost one I can't really say where it goes based on the goodreads shelves from friends. Cant I trust for example that there is a HEA/HFN at the end.

The DeLeon is like Chick lit, which is fine, but I don't read chick lit.
That is really what I meant by unique with harlequin, I am talking about the romances they publish. And this really brings up another one of my reservations with self publishers. I see so many times where they want to stick their novel into the romance category when it really isn't romance. It might be something with romantic elements, but that isn't the same.
Like I said, I read UF too and I am going to give the first one you list a shot since it really sounds interesting, but when I look for romance, that is what I want. I am not always convinced that is what I am getting with indies. I think its a trust thing.

I agree with the triangle though. Oh how I hate thee.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Atunah

I checked them out and they do look interesting. But when I made my comments, I really was talking about romance. I think only one of those you list are romance, the first looks like urban fantasy, which I love that genre too, but its not romance. The ghost one I can't really say where it goes based on the goodreads shelves from friends. Cant I trust for example that there is a HEA/HFN at the end.

The DeLeon is like Chick lit, which is fine, but I don't read chick lit.
That is really what I meant by unique with harlequin, I am talking about the romances they publish. And this really brings up another one of my reservations with self publishers. I see so many times where they want to stick their novel into the romance category when it really isn't romance. It might be something with romantic elements, but that isn't the same.
Like I said, I read UF too and I am going to give the first one you list a shot since it really sounds interesting, but when I look for romance, that is what I want. I am not always convinced that is what I am getting with indies. I think its a trust thing.

I agree with the triangle though. Oh how I hate thee.

Ah, I see. You have a more narrow definition of romance (nothing wrong with that--you know what you like and you buy it!) I tend to lump romance in with other categories (as a reader. I don't know how I'd categorize romance if I wrote it, but none of my books are what I would define as Primarily Romance). Two of those above are what I would call "just romance" -- the ghost one and the Suzanna and the Spy. They have other plots going on to keep things interesting, but they are HEA and have some other standard plot lines that I categorize as "romance."

Jana DeLeon isn't chick-lit IMO. I'd categorize that series as cozy mystery first, or humorous mystery. Secondarily it has romance and some interesting "geezer lit" qualities. I don't really read chick-lit, but it might have some chick-lit qualities too. The main character is an assassin but perhaps chick-lit has branched out into more interesting career choices since I last read any. I don't think it fits romance, really, though. Good point. I was mainly thinking of the 3rd book that I just finished and in that one the romance subplot came more to the fore.

These are my "reader" categories. I have no idea how these are actually marketed or categorized when it comes to how the author may have marketed them.

I guess I just found the plot lines unique enough that I was interested in reading them. And since I don't read a lot of "just romance" it could be that I don't define it well either!

[Atunah]

I don't have a narrow definition of romance at all. I read all sub genres of romance in all spans. But, romance, the genre, has a HEA or at least a HFN, or it isn't genre romance. That isn't being narrow, that is THE definition of the genre. Every genre has one I am sure.

[Blossom]

Jana DeLeon isn't indie. She was published by Dorchester and is currently writing for Harlequin.

A romance is where the book focuses on the hero and heroine and their journey into happily ever after. That is the main plot. Anything else is a story with romantic elements.

[fjtorres]

My understanding is that romance books include everything where the core of the story is the relationship. It can be wrapped in mystery, fantasy, politics, superheroes, or warring space armadas but if the gist to the story is a romantic relationship between two people, the story is romance. The details and the wrapper is where the author shows off.
Different folks can them as they see them but that's the broadest most reasknable definition I've seen.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

My understanding is that romance books include everything where the core of the story is the relationship. It can be wrapped in mystery, fantasy, politics, superheroes, or warring space armadas but if the gist to the story is a romantic relationship between two people, the story is romance.
Different folks can them as they see them but that's the broadest most reasknable definition I've seen.

Yes it focuses on two people. The romance is the main plot and everything else is secondary and it has to have a HEA or it isn't romance.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Yes it focuses on two people. The romance is the main plot and everything else is secondary and it has to have a HEA or it isn't romance.

Oh Love Stories and Romance is two different genres too. Example Nicholas Sparks isn't romance. Nora Roberts is Romance with exception of her alter ego books.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Oh Love Stories and Romance is two different genres too. Example Nicholas Sparks isn't romance. Nora Roberts is Romance with exception of her alter ego books.

I guess I tend to use the Library of Congress definitions--I get what you're both saying. But Harlequin is a BRAND as are most imprints. They have a narrower definition of romance and brand their imprints with it, and to some degree, they defined romance for their brand and the industry. When you work in a library or bookstore, you only have so many genres to pick from--and there aren't enough!! Romance has to encompass a lot more in that situation.

So while I completely agree that romance should have HEA and I also agree that cozy mysteries need their own genre...those definitions can be hard to come by when selecting genre or trying to define it as a reader.

I wander around forums all the time and we regularly define cozies as "little to no cursing, happy ending, most violence off the page, etc" But that doesn't really make it a genre that I can choose as an author--or as a reader...nor is it one that the library can separate out because it's not really a choice in the overall definitions.

Not even Amazon has cozy mystery as a choice, but they have added a lot of "Kindle" choices and subgenres that have nothing to do with the original allotment. I hope they keep doing so.

DeLeon is publishing that series on her own, *I think*. She has several she writes on her own now so far as I can tell. Her name shows as the publisher. I think she is branching off and publishing other authors too. I don't follow her, know her, or keep up with any of the other series other than that one so I can't say for certain.

And if she writes for Harlequin, it's STILL a fun series. I'm not stuck on where a book is published or who does the publishing.

I'm not even stuck on genre, but I totally appreciate what you are saying about genres being mismarked, marketed incorrectly and so on.

[copyrite]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Oh Love Stories and Romance is two different genres too. Example Nicholas Sparks isn't romance. Nora Roberts is Romance with exception of her alter ego books.

Does any NS book ever end with a HEA? Rarely (I did a recent rewatch of Message in a Bottle... why I watched it, I dunno. I *hate* the ending of that book). I think if he did write more HEAs I'd suspect 'he' was really a 'she'!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

So while I completely agree that romance should have HEA and I also agree that cozy mysteries need their own genre...those definitions can be hard to come by when selecting genre or trying to define it as a reader.

Would you say, then, that "Romeo and Juliet" is not a romance, simply because it doesn't have a happy ending? I'd strongly disagree with that - for me, it's the STORY that makes it a romance, not the outcome.