Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

Has anyone else noticed that the people featured on category covers are often smiling at one another? The people on historicals are passionately staring at one another (you know, those smoldering gazes) and the people are paranormals are trying to look tough enough to kick your ass. But in category land it’s always smiles . . .

Putting on my publisher hat: titles are a pain in the ass. Coming up with something short, descriptive, and catchy isn’t easy and in my experience marketing doesn’t have control--choosing a title is a balance between editorial and marketing.  My boss has been known to say: “For god’s sake people, we’re publishers. We ought to be able to give this book a compelling title.”

There is no way I’m going to pick up the Sheik’s Secret Virgin Boardroom Table and take it to the cash at the bookstore I frequent - at least, not without hiding it under “The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire” so I can hold my head up.

Oh, God. I know what you mean. Except in my case, it is erotic romance. I really, really wanted Emma Holly’s Strange Attractions, but the only way I could past my burning face and buy it was to buy it with a Julia Quinn novel. “Innocent” romance versus OH MY GOD YOU SLUT YOU BOUGHT WHAT?

So I have issues. Who doesn’t?

I went bookstore to bookstore last February with a friend, searching for copies of her first book in the wild.  Her book was a Superromance, so we spent some time checking out which category lines each bookstore carried.  One of the stores had a cardboard display rack for its categories, and while we were reading off the titles of the Presents books we did a double take.  One title was The Millionaire’s Pregnant Wife and another another (same month, same line) was Pregnant by the Millionaire.

Julianna, snarkhunter, I too, hated the embarrassment at the cash register. So I learned that through my public library system I can reserve books online, have them put on hold, and do self-check out. A girl never need to interact with a human being. My library carries quite a bit of erotica; it’s where I pick up books by Emma Holly, Angela Knight, Lora Leigh, gave Kate Douglas a try (one was enough) and whole bunch of others.

I was just writing about titles.  There are some interesting theories out there on why these titles sell.

The piece of the puzzle that I really don’t understand, and should think more about, is the reader who loves a specific setup:

I know what I’m getting. When faced with six (?) Presents, I know this one has a Sheik, that one has a virgin and oh, wOOt!, this one has a Greek billionaire. I’m all about the Greek billionaires, regardless of the heroine’s state of virginity.

To me, those titles say nothing about the style or emotional content of the book.  So there’s a sheik?  I don’t understand how that’s a good predictor of the quality of the book.  Aren’t there good sheik books and bad sheik books?  (I’ve only read maybe two of ‘em, but logic dictates....)

Well, I’m not sure I’m any good at titles, because my personal title for DRIVING HIM WILD/HIS FOR THE TAKING was “I Left My Clothes in the Bronx.”

However I did like the UK title a lot.  The heroine is a New York City cab driver, so the “driving” works.  The hero is a Maine park ranger, so the “wild” works.  And she does drive him wild, because she’s one stubborn and strong and sexy and woman. 

The US title...well.  Um.  There ya go.

It’s partly line promise, I think: in the UK, it was released as a Modern Heat, which is a flirty, fun, sexy line aimed at younger readers.  Whereas in the US it’s being released as a Harlequin Presents and that has a different promise.  Of course that doesn’t change what’s between the covers, and I hope that US readers aren’t disappointed at finding something a little different.

I agree with you, Sarah, that it replaces an active female with a passive, taken, owned one.  And that doesn’t reflect my writing (or my personal beliefs) at all.

some young busty blonde with 80s hair hold on to a guy with too much man titty.

Dude, you saw my cover, didn’t you???

Julie’s book was a Modern Extra/Modern Heat in the UK.  This is the line they came up with to replace Temptation.  Originally it was only being released in the UK and places like Australia and was being marketed as younger/flirtier/lighter etc.  So the titles were more Temptation-y

I suspect they’re being retitled in the US as they’re being released as Presents (Modern = Presents in UK) Collection or something and they want titles that sound more like a straight Presents.  Whether or not this is a good idea, who knows?  The ones I’ve read are quite different to Presents so you’d think having some different style titles might be good to cue the reader.  If a fan of the Billionaire/Virgin etc type book picks up one of these based on the title alone, they’re not going to be getting their normal read.

And darn, while I was composing my answer, the author herself explains : )

Can someone EXPLAIN the lines for those of us who are category-tarded? My mom/aunts/grandmothers/friends don’t read these, so I have had ZERO exposure to them. For the life of me I can’t figure out what the “promise” of each line is supposed to be (except that Blaze = hot). And the titles scare me. The only cats I have any experience with are the Trad Regencies that basically don’t exist anymore.

Aside: a note to Victoria Beckham - we Americans are on the whole a happy, boisterous lot. It would probably help you a bit if you smiled, you know, every now and again.

She can’t or her makeup would come off in big flakes. :-)

As for titles, I think my favourite ever is The Very Virile Viking. No, I didn’t read it, but I saw the title at Amazon and read an excerpt. *shudder*

She can’t or her face would come off in big flakes.

Fixed that for you.

I won’t say what I think about marketing people, in any discipline/industry.  But if they are going to do any meaningful market research, one useful project might be to find out how many readers buy certain novels IN SPITE of the title/cover art, rather than because of them.  It might give them, as Poirot would say, furiously to think.

I used to be too embarrassed to buy category romances when I was young, too.  I started reading them in my 40s (20 years ago), because I didn’t care any more what someone at the cash desk thought about my taste. 

I don’t read many of them any more, because the authors I got to like a lot at that time are not writing category any more, and anyway, I am too busy writing my own (non-fiction) stuff.

Different titles in different countries (when the language is approximately the same) is bibliographically irresponsible and infuriates me.  Don’t these prats (publishers) realise that these books are going to be major resources for academic research in social history in the future?  Having the same book under different titles is going to cause such confusion…

My verification code is ‘picture69’.  Yes, I can picture that.

Lol, we should leave poor Vicky alone. It’s hard to look human if you don’t weigh more than a sparrow.

Can’t bring myself to even touch [cooties] some of those books with *those* titles [squick], and *that* kind of cover art [yark].  Yeah, maybe [?!] I’m shallow, but I don’t like being judged by the company I keep, and I never know who I’m going to encounter before I can get to the register.

I guess it’s all a kind of shorthand for various archetypes, and marketing is always aiming for the subconscious.

[Srsly, tho’, if they’re this bad at titling books, can you imagine what names they inflict upon their offspring??]

The title confusion must be worse for those who buy catergory at Amazon.de, because they list both UK and US titles. And the short descriptions won’t help much in sorting out if a book was the same under another title.

Billionaire Greek makes deal with virgin mistress.

Kate Hardy’s Giovanni’s at Breakfast is to be called In Bed With Her Italian Boss and is out in April in the US. I believe she prefers the first title. She is currently running a contest on her blog in celebration of being short listed and the prize is a copy of said book.  http://katehardy.blogspot.com/
But as far as I understand it, the vast majority of Modern Heats are having their titles changed when they go to the US as Promotional Presents.
The Modern Heats, particularly Julie Cohen’s and Kate Hardy’s, have rapidly become one of my fave lines in contemporary. So they are worth seeking out. Modern Heat of course used to be Temptation but is now editted out of London.

In Bed With Her Italian Boss

What the—!!?!???!

Ah-HA!  I just figured it out—these cheesy titles sound just like the HEADLINES on the tabloids!

[a.k.a. ‘Scandal Alert!’]

This reminds me of the Sophie Kinsella book where the heroine works in marketing, and she’s faced with the company decision to market its new line of whatever at women, by making a logo that includes stylised ovaries.  And she’s like, WTF?  Ovaries?

We should bombard the HMB marketing dept with emails that we really love books with the word penis in the title, and see if they change their titles accordingly.

Spamfilter: appear27.  Which reminds me: why are the Modern Heat books being marketed as Presents in the US?  Do they feel the younger, flirtier audience doesn’t exist in America?  Has the marketing dept. revealed that US Harlequin readers are all old and boring?

out—these cheesy titles sound just like the HEADLINES on the tabloids!

Yep, that’s Jennifer Crusie’s view too.

Oh, and for Kalen: if you go to http://millsandboon.co.uk/ and click on each different line, it gives you a short blurb about them at the top.  (You can go to http://eharlequin.com/ for all the lines sold in the US, but there are freaking millions, and it’s probably quicker to read one of each than navigate a site that’s bigger than Texas.)

What’s the difference between the Temptation and the Blaze lines?

Something I’ve been wondering: how many billionaires are there in the Greece, anyway?

For info about Harlequin & Silhouette lines you can explore the eHarlequin.com site. You can also shop there and buy the books without making contact with another human being, who might disparage your choices. Also, prices are lower there than at brick & mortar stores.

I choose category romances by author and/or description rather than by title. I also note the series # and the date in my reading journal. When I first started reading them, I checked them out of the library for free. Then I culled the used book stores in my area. Then I joined the publishers mail order clubs. After a time, I found that I didn’t like enough of a month’s shipment to justify the cost. Now, I order what I want from eHarlequin or shop for them at my favorite UBS.

Kay

Kelly Hunter is another Modern X author who’s title has been changed for the US release as Presents. Her wonderful Priceless has become Bedded for Diamonds, and personally I’m furious about it. B4D creates an impression that has NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with the plot, style and themes of the book.

GRRRR.

But buy the book, anyway. It’s the best category book I’ve read in a long time. It’s not a fantasy style - the protagonsists are ordinary people and there’s not a billionaire to be seen - but it is a wonderful read.

(Disclaimer: Kelly is a friend of mine, but I read this when I still hardly knew her, and was WOWed. And I have a personal thing about not pimping books unless I think they’re brilliant.)

I went to eharlequin.com in and they have a “pregnant mistresses” line. WTF??!  (And who uses the term mistress anymore? )

I wonder a little bit if the Presents titles have some kind of cult status. When folks poke fun at romance, they usually try to make up a Presents-like title.

I think it has to do with the target market. In the UK, Modern Heat/Modern Extra targets 18-35, while I think Presents is 35-50. It’s as if it stays that way so readers will recognize them. I guess the red circle on the cover isn’t enough.

Blaze titles aren’t bad, usually, and I think they go after the younger demographic.

“ONLY if it is titled, “His Frozen Chosen.” Or a variation thereof.”

Ha ha ha. Sarah, you ARE a Smart Bitch. I am SO doing it!

Do you think the following euphemism would be apt for a Jewish protagonist: “His searing Shabbos love candle lit her deep within”, and such like?

Incidentally, have you read that book, Neurotica: Jewish Writers on Sex?

His Frozen Chosen...ha ha. I am SO digging the rhyme scheme! If my novel were to be a category, though, it would have to be more specific: I was Seduced by a Hassidic Hunk, maybe? I would SO buy that title!

“these cheesy titles sound just like the HEADLINES on the tabloids!”

That’s the point, as I said on another thread on this site. The Harlequin books are competing for attention at grocery stores and Wal-Marts and K-Marts right next to magazines with screaming high-concept headlines. (High-concept as in simple, not elevated or complex or intelligent.)

And I have to say, as a long-time category reader, the opinions of people who do not habitually read category should not be important to the publishers. Sure, I noticed the “Pregnant Millionaire” duplication. But if that’s the kind of story I want to read, Harlequin is doing me a favor by saying so up front.

The real problem is that some of these romances, if not all, may be considerably different from the impression the title gives.

As for being embarrassed to buy a book because of its cover, really. We all should be over that by now. Who cares what the worker behind the register thinks of my choice in reading? I let her/him know my choice in deodorants, after all. And toilet paper. And junk food. Very personal choices.

I hate them.  I never would have started reading category if I hadn’t been given a bunch to review, and that’s largely because the titles and cover pictures turned me off so much.  I’m past my prejudices now, but I still think the titles are embarrassing and make it harder for me to convince other people that there’s value in them. 

I don’t read along those strict lines of kink so maybe that’s why they do nothing for me, but if I did want to know whether there was a tycoon or a virgin or whatever in the book I wouldn’t need the cover to tell me that since all that should be in the back cover copy anyway.  At this point I mostly choose cateogires by trusted authors, but if I were picking an author that was new to me I’d ignore the title, read the description, and then skim the first chapter to figure out if I wanted it.

P.S. My favorite bad category title ever is still The Virgin Bride Said, “Wow!”.

Don’t these prats (publishers) realise that these books are going to be major resources for academic research in social history in the future?  Having the same book under different titles is going to cause such confusion…

And there’s going to be/already is a boom in literary criticism of romances, and the different titles won’t help with that either.

Can someone EXPLAIN the lines for those of us who are category-tarded?

There are a lot of them, so the quickest way to explain it is really to point you in the direction of eHarlequin’s guidelines on each line, which they have up to help aspiring authors. Those include descriptions of the “feel” of each line. I’ll pick out a few of the lines and a quick summary description taken from the guidelines:

* Harlequin Presents (Mills & Boon Modern in the UK and “Sexy” in Australia):

Although grounded in reality and reflective of contemporary, relevant trends, these fast-paced stories are essentially escapist romantic fantasies that take the reader on an emotional roller-coaster ride.[...] All are set in sophisticated, glamorous, international locations. [...] focus on strong, wealthy, breathtakingly charismatic alpha-heroes who are tamed by spirited, independent heroines

When they say “spirited,” here, this includes the virgin mistresses, so they’re different from the heroines of the Mod Extras (described below).

* Modern Extra/Heat in the UK, being sold as Modern Collections in the US an d Sexy Sensation in Australia. This is Julie Cohen’s line:

Take an international city background that vividly conveys the sophistication and buzz of cosmopolitan life, an independent woman who knows what she wants from love and her career and a guy who’s very much an alpha male—charismatic, confident, gorgeously sexy [interestingly, on the M&B Australia site that line reads “a guy who’s confident, easygoing and gorgeously sexy"] —and you have the Modern Extra line. [...] the kind of relationships that women between the ages of 18-35 aspire to. Young characters in affluent urban settings

There’s a bit more of a chick lit feel. Only a bit, because these are still romances, but compared to the Harlequin Presents line there’s usually more about the heroine’s career, and there’s something a bit less “escapist” about them. So fewer billionaires, sheiks, Greek tycoons and virgins.

* Harlequin Romance (M&B Romance in the UK, M&B Sweet in Australia):

She drives the story — the reader lives vicariously through her. [...] The reader wants to be able to identify strongly with her, to like her, to want to be her, or want to be her friend. She must be a strong, convincing woman of the 21st century. [...] Stories should be driven by strong, emotional conflicts that are character-rooted and relevant to women today. These conflicts should stem from the realities of real women’s lives — the importance of home, family, friends; universal hopes and aspirations for love, security and children. The desire for recognition and acceptance at work and in the community. [...] Couples can make love — before marriage, just as they do in real-life, but this should be within an emotional context and not described explicitly. It’s fine to shut the bedroom door and leave them to it!

As is obvious from the Australian name for the line, there’s much less explicit sex in this line, and the guidelines say that the novels in this line should not include “a strong, dominant alpha male.” Unlike the Modern/Presents, these are described as being about characters who are “Aspirational, even a bit glamorous, but very relatable. Characters and plots seem realistic and attainable.”

* The Historicals are all historicals, obviously, but the type of story can vary a lot. Carla Kelly had her Beau Crusoe published with this line recently, there are more unusual settings, including Viking, Roman and Western, as well as the more common Regency-set romances, and some of those are more like trad regencies than others. Some of them have quite a bit of sex, others have much less.

* The Medical line involves medical professionals, obviously, but it’s definitely not solely male doctor and female nurse any more. Nowadays there are all sorts of other combinations, including paramedics, midwives, and stories in which the heroine is the more senior of the two. The “Heroes and heroines are equally matched and equally respected professionals.”

I’ll stop there, because this has got very, very long, and the details are in the guidelines. Those are also the lines edited in the UK, so they’re the ones I know best. Maybe someone else can give more details about some of the other lines.

“High Concept” --

So the title is basically the ‘elevator speech’?  Okay, got it. [making mental note]

But it isn’t the cashier’s opinion that concerns me.  It’s the valued estimations of friends and acquaintances—of both sexes and all orientations—that frequent the same book-stops as myself.

Funny thing, though—no one ever questioned my picking up a copy of Playgirl.

I haven’t heard anyone mention Silhouette Romantic Suspense.  You get a sexy, satisfying romance and an exciting suspense plot.  No need to be embarrassed at the checkout stand, and no billionaire babies.

Also worth saying that a lot of single title authors who got started in category CONTINUE to write for category.  So it’s not just a jumping off point.

Silhouette isn’t immune to bad titles though!  From the list I lifted from Jennifer Crusie:

• The CEO’s Scandalous Affair (Roxanne St. Claire, Silhouette Desire)

• The Boss’s Demand (Jennifer Lewis, Silhouette Desire)

• The Prince’s Ultimate Deception (Emilie Rose, Silhouette Desire)

“The Boss’s Demand"… now THERE’s a bad title.  Definitely evocative, but not in a good way.

Sorry - didn’t notice I was pasting code.

I have to chime in briefly on the topic of cover art in the US vs UK… Has anyone else seen the UK covers for Julia Quinn’s recent books? For ‘the secret diaries of miss Miranda Cheever’, the Brits got a non-embarrassing chick lit-esque drawing and in the US we got butt ugly green marble with a gloved hand and some lace - it’s better than nekkid man titties, I grant you but not by much. Americans read in public places and have to face book store clerks too… it would be nice to not have to try to hide the front cover of my favorite trashy books.

Perhaps there’s money to be made in paperback book covers, you know, middle school style but perhaps with ‘rise and fall of the roman empire’ printed on them.

“Also worth saying that a lot of single title authors who got started in category CONTINUE to write for category.  So it’s not just a jumping off point.”

That’s true, and I think it is also true that the discipline involved in writing category romances - brevity above all, but also a fair number of other rules and regulations - probably made some authors much stronger and tighter in their writing than they might otherwise have been.

It is very easy to be dismissive of ‘formulaic’ writing, but the ability to write powerfully and memorably within a strict formula is actually a great achievement.  Any one of us who is experience in writing simply to strict word-counts knows that.

Sure, I noticed the “Pregnant Millionaire” duplication. But if that’s the kind of story I want to read, Harlequin is doing me a favor by saying so up front.

What we wondered, though, was if they actually were doing Presents readers a favor.  We had to look twice, and then a third time before we actually processed that those were different books.  It’s one thing if they repeat similar titles from, say, January to February, but to repeat them in the same month...it seems like it’d be very easy to mistake one for the other.  Particularly since they do so much to make the covers in a particular line look alike.

Sorry about typo - daren’t use ‘preview’, or I can’t post at all.

I’ve always been tempted to put a bunch of those category titles together and come up with the blurb for a whole new book.  Something like “ “The Sheikh’s Runaway Virgin Bride became The Greek Tycoon’s Unwilling Mistress and now she’s Having The Billionaire’s Secret Baby!”

On the general question of differences in British and American cover art (not just romance), some of you might like to read this:
http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=carol_pinchefsky&article=002

It’s one thing if they repeat similar titles from, say, January to February, but to repeat them in the same month...it seems like it’d be very easy to mistake one for the other.

Surely that’s a screw-up.  In that NY Times article I cited, the Harlequin editors said “a name can be brought back within a few years”.  That’s bad enough (I’d say it’s an argument to stop restricting titles to such narrow types), but within the same month is ridiculous.

It’s not the titles, it’s the cover art. I’ll prove it to you.

I’d say it’s both.  But either way, there’s a substantial market who actually LIKE the titles and art.

I’ve been lucky enough to title most of my Harlequins, and the next three, I really, really like.  shaken and Stirred, Sex, Straight Up, and Nightcap.  However, I don’t write for Presents or Desire, or any of the lines where the titles are pretty rigid.  In Blaze, the only thing rigid is the manroot.

My fav title that never made it to press was Blame It on Viagra.  Alas, we changed it to A Christmas Carol. 

And as for The Virgin Bride, it should be His Pregnant Virgin Bride.

“Blame It on Viagra” = “A Christmas Carol”

That’s quite fabulous.  I suppose one could similarly retitle “The English Executive’s Insatiable Spanish Mistress” as “A Tale of Two Cities”.

Using this same title concept the Mystery genre would be destroyed… “Psycho Murder, Executive Secretary” “The Billionaire Serial Killer” and the ever lovely “The Sheik and The Black Widow”

I may not be liked for saying this but the intentional uniformity in packaging, the “marketed but inappropriate” titling, just the whole feel of mass produced product that unfortunately permeates Category Romance is just so Pulp Fiction minded.

I am simply talking about the packaging mind you. Remember… Robert Bloch (Psycho) and Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett were all pulp writers so I am not putting down the writing or the writers just the publisher and their excuses for treating Romance as nothing more than the literary form of McDonalds.

Check this site out about Pulp so maybe you can understand what I am talking about in relating the two…

http://www.vintagepbks.com/index.html

Oh, Teddy Pig!

My eyes, MY EYES!!

Teddy Pig, the pulp roots are really clear in the old Harlequin covers (some from before they went exclusively romance, some from the early romance lines).

I dunno, I find the titles and ugly covers useful. See, I only read highlander romances. I have no interest in cowboys, sheiks, natives, cops, pregnant people, missing babies. . . just highlanders. I don’t care about quality whatsoever, because all I want is a highlander. I walk into a bookstore, find a spine with some plaid on it, and out I go with my delicious prize. If there’s no plaid, then I look for a half naked man and “Highland Hero” or “Dark-Haired Highlander” or “Ghost Highlander” or whatever else, and I’m set. I browse for my romance novels the way people often browse for porn. They go to one section, and they pick up whatever’s new on the shelf, without a care in the world for things like production values or specific stars.

If romance companies started getting creative with covers and titles, I’d be a confused woman. Perhaps more gratified because I’d be able to extend my repertoire. . . But definitely confused.

OMG, Teddy’s link is so evil. :-)

Go to Genre and check out the Sleaze and Lesbiana covers. Some of them are so not worksafe.

Teddypig you are a genius for posting that link. I love some of those covers- had me on the floor laughing. Did you check out the Lesbiana covers? heelarious! Actually someome should bookmark that page as inspiration for the annual SB cover design contest.

Nope, no way I can check out of my local bookstore with titles like that. 

And I can’t buy erotica there even if I want to do so.  There’s one clerk who looks just like the picture of Jesus that used to look down on me from my Sunday School wall.  I have to be very, very careful of what I buy-- just in case.

I collect those covers by the way. Pulp was the beginning of todays Gay Romance.

Here is an even better link.

You can buy these covers as posters for your Romance Writer bedroom wall!

http://www.pulpcards.com/podgallery_artprints.htm

God, I hate those titles. I’m on the ereader.com mailing list and thus get the newest terrible titles e-mailed to me twice a week. I started collecting the worst ones and posting them on my silly links blog every couple of weeks or so.

I also heard that whole keywords thing and told it to a friend of mine. She promptly wrote a novel that had some title like “Pregnant Princess Cowboy Puppy” or other. For reasons you can perhaps deduce, she has tactfully not shown it to me.

When I was in Hawaii, the condos I stayed in all had a shelf area where people left free books behind to read. I found three Harlequins at one of them. I always made fun of the things, but I figured that since three of them were there for free, I’d read and review them. Pardon the self-linking, but I’ll post the links here. Bottom line: two of them were hideous, HIDEOUS DRECK, just as I was expecting, and the third was...surprisingly not bad.

http://fullmoon.typepad.com/books/2007/08/baby-of-shame.html
http://fullmoon.typepad.com/books/2007/08/the-mancini-mar.html
http://fullmoon.typepad.com/books/2007/08/the-billionaire.html

My conclusion upon the end of this experiment was that...well, so far most of them ARE bad, but I guess the occasional non-stinker slips in between the godawful titles.

omg, teddypig, where do you find these things!  I am laughing my arse off over here.  The blurbs are almost better than the titles.

“Beatnik Wanton” - She lusted in sin orgies and reefer brawls!

“69 Barrow Street” - Their love was right! But their sex was wrong.

“The Leather Girls” - She had the face of an angel, the body of a devil - and the passions of a lesbian!

rotflmao!

Ye gods and little prairie dogs—!

After a deeper [hur!] exploration of the link Teddy Pig offered, I’m inclined to quote Jessica Rabbit:

“I’m not bad.  I’m just drawn that way.”

wow

I want to thank Jennifer for helping my brain to assplode…

Um this, this, THEY DID THIS!

Secret Babies Bundle

The Virgin Bride Said,"Wow!" is part of a series: 

http://forums.delphiforums.com/LunaticCafe/messages?msg=787.98

Sandra, check this out: A collaborative effort to come up with the worst title ever--one longer than the category it’s placed on:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/LunaticCafe/messages?msg=787.48