Sunday, March 27, 2011

Getting it off my chest.. and onto the page

I am in no position to claim any romance author is doing it wrong. If it sells, it's must be okay. Amend that: the self-published should not solely self-edit.
This is not to deny I prefer Eggplant Parmesan to fish sticks. I love a well-constructed plot, characters with backstory, and any phrase I intentionally read again.


  1. Oooh, I love those phrases in books that jump out at you and make you read them a second or even a third time.

  2. Hi,

    Hell, I'm going to champion some self-pubbed authors, their work better edited than that of many now famous e-book publishing houses, where shocking typos, bad sentence structure, characters lacking substance and drag-ass plots pass muster: basically boring!

    A lot of conventional romance novels inclusive those from Harper Collins/HM&B and Transworld etc, are not only badly-written, they read more akin to easy-read status (for those whom have difficulty reading more than a few words per sentence), often as full of typos, lousy plots, achingly boring stereo-typical characters, and one ends up begrudging price paid for crap reading! Don't even get me started on Tudor & Regency historicals - a lot of author research seeming sketchy at best and often as not hopelessly incorrect. ;)

    But, every one's a critic when own work not under scrutiny by the reading public: reviews on Amazon perfect examples of the best and worst side of reader opinion, not to mention fellow writer envy!

    Me: I only pass comment on what I've enjoyed reading. Why comment otherwise? No comments/reviews below a novel speak for themselves on Amazon.


  3. Agree to a certain extent that some publishing houses produce some badly-written/edited stories and that some self-pubbed stories can be much better. With the rapid growth of e-book publishing, I think we're going to get extremely good and horrendously bad with both.

  4. Just been thinking about what you said, Ana. "If it sells, it must be okay." Not true, I would suggest. I'm basing that on various romance novels I've read published by one of the main (possibly THE main) publishers of the genre. Maybe they sell, but they're certainly not okay in my opinion. Not when they have formula-driven (read hackneyed) plots, and stereotypical heroes and heroines. Not to mention poor writing!
    Okay, I'll get off my soap-box now!

  5. Hi Paula,

    Ha ha, for years I've felt book covers produced by the most prolific publisher of romance novels should have a hazard warning, as did all books out of Black Lace imprint!

    These novels are fantasy reading - always practise safe sex and use a condom!

    There are more one-night-stands and secret baby plots in HM&B (Mills & Boon)novels than any other publisher on the planet. Thousands of these novels are read by young, easily influenced teen girls, looking to supposed adult reading material. I should know, my eldest was hooked on them for awhile, and time and time again I reminded her the stories didn't really reflect real life (plus explanation) after I'd browsed several: first time reading of a M&B for moi.

    Needless to say daughter had a string of boyfriends, and mum and dad held breath every time she said: "I have something to tell you". Luckily, it was never: "I'm pregnant" - mum's advice obviously taken on board.

    The younger daughter thought the books utter tosh!

    Do you think one-night-stand risque plots should come with a health warning?