just when you thought it was safe to read my LJ... it's another Twilight post

[rose_griffes]

Instead of the writing binge I'd hoped to start, apparently I'm on an organizing binge, though now I'm working on the computer rather than the CD pile. This has been on my hard drive for a while. At one point I said I'd make another post about Twilight and my religion before the next movie came out. Uh... does posting this before the third movie

Comments

[emmiere]

Her heart went into full washing machine spin cycle.

That sounds..extremely unpleasant. *does not snicker* :p

[rose_griffes]

I'M GLAD YOU'RE NOT SNICKERING, YOUNG LADY. THIS IS POTENTIALLY A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM.

note to self: do not use appliances for analogies when writing (theoretical) romance novels

[callmeonetrack]

Just in case you're curious I looked up sales of the Jordan book, it moved about 6600 copies. Which seems about par for the course for series Harlequin novels (they seem to all sell between 5-10K). There's roughly 4 per month released in each of about 12-15 series between Harlequin and Silhouette, so you can see how it's a really productive and profitable business model (esp. when you factor in the low advances given on these books, which don't usually exceed $5K I don't think)

Given that 93% of books released sell less than 1000 copies, there's definitely a demand in the marketplace for these.

HP has always been the most old-fashioned bodice-rippery of the Harl/Silhouette lines. Every title is ripped right out of 1952, complete with built-in misogyny!, and most are really gross and cringe-inducing in that "this woman is a possessive of this man" kind of way.

[callmeonetrack]

Yup. That was a surprising stat that I heard at BEA. Even having access to Nielsen's numbers and seeing how little a lot of well-known authors sell...still shocking.

[rose_griffes]

Given that 93% of books released sell less than 1000 copies, there's definitely a demand in the marketplace for these.

Yeah, I figured that with the same style of cover for so many years, Harlequin must be confident that this is a money-wining venture and there's no need to tinker with the formula.

[rose_griffes]

Y'know, I can go for the dominant male in romance novels with certain authors. But a lot of them make me wince. (I'm sure the badness of this particular novel was exacerbated by me expressly looking for romance novel conventions to link to Twilight.)

I think to refresh my brain I need to go finish reading that Dick Francis novel I started Saturday. :)

[daybreak777]

Harlequin Presents! Goodness. Do you know I first found these at my elementary school library? Yup. Not even junior high. I was eleven years old. It was on for me and romance from then on. Of course I became a shipper. :-) I used to keep a list when I was little of how many romances I read and I quit listing when I broke 150. I could write that Harlequin Presents formula novel. So predictable! So addictive too. :-)

Penny Jordan is still writing? For reals? She sure made her money. And she used to be one of my favorites too! You read one recently? I can't imagine reading one now because they are so silly! But she did write good schmoop and I can appreciate schmoop.

Ooh, his name is Alessandro. :-) Sorry, getting distracted. :-)

There are several scenes where you think the lead couple will "consummate their relationship" but they don't until much later in the book. Yes, the consummation fakeout! Let me tell you it really did confuse my 11 and 12-year-old selves. Lest you worry about my then tender age know that sometimes when the

[rose_griffes]

Do you know I first found these at my elementary school library? Yup. Not even junior high.
*boggles* Really?!?

I could write that Harlequin Presents formula novel. So predictable! So addictive too. :-)
Yeah, there's definitely a formula. And I've thought I could write that as well.

Penny Jordan is still writing? For reals? She sure made her money. And she used to be one of my favorites too! You read one recently? I can't imagine reading one now because they are so silly! But she did write good schmoop and I can appreciate schmoop.

I know! I thought I was going to get good schmoop but... not so much. Reading analytically, with the express purpose of looking for the conventions is obviously not going to be as enjoyable as just reading, but even with that in mind, it was just BAD. I actually bought two Harlequin Presents at the thrift store, and the other one, though it had much worse misogyny, was better-written by far. (It didn't have quite as many good parallels to the Twilight series, even though it did have misogyny,

[daybreak777]

*boggles* Really?!?
Really. Seems odd to me now but then I just accepted it was like a public library. I had read a lot of what the school library had so I tried these. I remember being bored and thinking, "Why not?"

And I've thought I could write that as well.
Hey, could help you pay your mortgage. :-) I'm just sayin'. And you might write better stories too. In fact, I know you would.

Yes, I remember that as well!Yeah, I don't know what was up with that. In hindsight and after I moved on to bigger and more flowery explicit romance novels (HP being my gateway into romance novels) I realize I was glad that the stories had been so vague. It was was I was ready for at that age and I wonder if they did that on purpose. But times have changed at HP, I suppose

[rose_griffes]

I don't remember Loveswept. I didn't think about misogyny in the novels back then, of course.
No, me neither. I was just automatically more drawn to the option that had the women doing more exciting things.

I never read the Sweet Valley books--not a single one. I much preferred dragons and stuff to 'realistic' fiction, unless it was funny.

[anastasis]

Thank you for writing this. It's weird how many anti-Twilighters treat Twilight as if it's something completely new and out of the blue and that women are suddenly being 'corrupted' somehow. It's like people don't know romance novels exist and have been wildly popular for a century?

[rose_griffes]

*throws hands in air* Yeah, I don't get it.