Tara Marie did a rather interesting post about Avon and the nation in which many a reader blogger tends to give it credit for forming.
Tara Marie asks:
Here’s the thing. Which came first? Does Avon sign them because they are already writing in this style or do Avon editors push them toward this mold? For some reason I don’t think the editors push them toward this, because there’s enough authors within the group that don’t fall into the “Avonization” category.
I first responsed on the blog:
But really what is Avonization? Is a bad thing that Avon is doing? If it is than their sales will drop off, right?
If their sales continue than how can you blame them for publishing what people are buying? Or get pissed off other publishers are following?
There are many a reader online who hates everything Avon puts out. Or what they have ‘done’ to authors. To the first I say, ok don’t buy them then. To the second I call bullshit.
Like it was said many an author has left Avon. Sabrina Jeffries is selling better than ever and is with Pocket, although I was a big fan while she was with Avon. Karen Hawkins first two books with Pocket are hands down better than her last four with Avon. Lisa Kleypas is fucking awesome and rocked out with Avon and with St Martin.
Does an author get better leaving Avon? Could be. Is it because they are no long with Avon? Is it because there is new energy being in a new job (publisher). It can be a lot of things. But every author has a choice. It is their name on the book.
NO ONE can say well if Lorraine Heath would leave avon and write a western it would be Texas Glory or Always to Remember. It is possible her style has changed. It is possible the reader has moved on.
All sorts of things can be said and can be argued. But the fact of the matter is at the end of the day – money talks. The sales numbers are what matter.
If Julie Ann Long’s next book blows, the fault is JAL’s not Avon’s. And if it hits the bestseller lists… what does that say?
Anyone have any answers? Suggestions? Comments? Tara went on to raise three points and I should prolly do different posts for them but really this is me.
Tara Marie first point I found of interest:
But the average blogger isn’t the average reader. Maybe we’re too obsessive and have higher expectations, I don’t know.
I think that sums up a lot of it. And is a very big thing we lose sight of… reader bloggers, for the most part, are not you average readers. We are too obs…err… focus *g*
And do we have higher expectations? Yes and no. Who is to say our expectations are ‘higher’? Bloggers are selfish to a point and egotistical. It is the nature of the beast… we want what we want and why the hell aren’t you giving it to us?
Really that is all reviews are one person’s views, others can agree and that is great but can a review ever truly be RIGHT. There are many books that are held up and cried over… ‘gosh why, why can’t books be like this anymore’ or ‘such and such was better when’ or whatever. And I read the book and my only answer would be thank you baby jesus cuz who the fuck wants to read more of that crap.
Does that make me wrong? Nope. Does that make the person crying for more glory of old wrong? Nope. You can argue style, voice, plot, cliches and even grammar to a point because blink and someone is trying to change the rules.
I think that has always been my big hang up over the fuss regarding reviews. There isn’t a right or a wrong.
The other two fabu points tara marie makes in her response:
Ultimately it is the authors name on the cover and if they fail they fail alone, if they succeed so does everyone along the process.
Isn’t it odd that the actual writing process is considered an art/craft, but the process of publishing is all about business.
Very, very true… in a way it is great and in another sucks…
Publishing is a business. How can it be expected to be anything different? People are in business to make money. So do you continue to put your dollars behind something that doesn’t work? How long do you give it time to be found?
If it is all about money shouldn’t authors be writing to the market? Isn’t that a horrid thought? But why? I laugh at the idea that a book is an author’s baby. The whole omg don’t be mean to her child. Oh no I couldn’t pick a favorite among my babies.
At the same time that book… the one that made me catch my breath… made me cry… had me fall in love with the love the characters found in one another… the one that had me put aside my cynical view and think ‘Yes, this is really is HEA’ – THAT book… was just a job? ick! I so don’t want to hear that truth.
And I have no clue why that is.
Nora Roberts has made a point, err somewhere forgive me for not linking cuz I have no clue where, that getting a book published today isn’t different than it was back in the day. (obviously I am paraphrasing)
Is that true? If not how is it different? It seems to me authors are not given a long enough time to find an audience. You need to hit and hit big because if you bust you are screwed. But is that the same as it ever was?
It seems like more books are published on a tighter schedule to more imprints at the same time. Of course there are many an imprint that is now dead… so have there always been more imprints than the market could keep successful? And WHY are there so many imprints? I have asked publishing peeps who work for the publisher what is the difference between line X and line Y – and not been able to get a clear answer.
And really when I think of some of my all time favorite historicals, many published years ago, they were published by Avon.
I have to wonder, what exactly is “Avonization?”
I suppose I’m not expert here, but I would imagine not many authors – or the ones worth their salt, anyway – would change everything about their writing simply for their publisher. What I mean is, you write how you write. Syb, you have your own style here on your blog. Probably you could change it a bit, but you are who you are, and that comes across in your writing. The same can be said for me on my blog and on and on. Even the best of us can’t change our writing “voice” even if we wanted to. So, do the authors with Avon really change theirs?
I can’t imagine that’s the case.
Re: the other…well, I have to agree. Us bloggers who have major..focus..on romance, well, we’re more anal, more set in what we like and what we want. I don’t want to read the same old story, just by a different author. I want to read new, fresh stuff…from new authors and from my old favorites.
But I think ultimately it comes down to personal preference, doesn’t it? Personally? I like Avon. Well, for the most part. As a matter of fact, several years ago I was addicted to Avon Historicals like you wouldn’t believe. You might be appalled at the number of titles on my shelf. I bought them only because they were pubbed by Avon. I didn’t care who the authors were at that point.
But because of my obsession with Avon, I found some amazing auto-buy authors.
Both sides of the coin, right?
I still contend that the Avonization label popped up because of their total slave-ish devotion to the English historical. Now are they following the market trend or dictating it? There’s probably no good answer for that (the chicken? or the egg?). Notice nobody complains about “Avonization” when talking about their contemporary authors/titles. It’s only the historicals. That’s because after a while, no matter how great the author is, all those English historical storylines blur together. They just do. And before my words get thrown back at me – I’d feel the exact same way if Avon published nothing but westerns (but I’d be pretty durn happy for a long while). Too much of one thing can certainly be tasty, but after a while it’s like eating nothing but candy – you get a tummy ache and need more than empty calories to get your GI tract back in sync 😉
As for bloggers being more of a PITA – I would agree. I’ve long contended that the vast majority of romance readers are NOT online. Otherwise Harlequin would have stopped publishing secret baby books about 5 years ago because all online romance readers claim to hate secret babies.
Hmmm. You know, a bunch of us Avon authors have discussed ‘Avonization’ and none of us really seem to know what it is. And I gotta tell ya, it’s a bitch being categorized when you don’t know what the category means.
Avon knows what works for them — and what they can make work. And they’re very good at what they do. You take a look at the NYT paperback list, count the romances and there’s been an awful lot of Avon authors on there. But, I realize that I probably seem like an author defending her publisher.
One thing every author I’ve talked to agrees on is that none of us have ever been pressured to write a certain way. Yes, there are times when I’ve had an editor say to me, “Readers don’t seem to respond well to books set in the theater” or something similar. I take that advice to heart, because the sales dept is paying attention to what books sell and what ones don’t sell so well. For Avon, the ones that sell well seem to be England/Scotland set historicals.
And you’re right when you say the average internet savvy romance fan is not a good measure of the market. People like my sister who reads anything but rarely remembers an author’s name, and my mother-in-law who tells me that her favorite kinds of books are “those ones where she had his baby years ago and he doesn’t know” are the ‘average reader.’ They’re the people who go into a store and pick up a book based on the cover and read the back blurb and take the book home.
And I think for a lot of these women, historical England is a fabulous fantasy because it’s so far from their own world. I think part of the reason medievals and westerns aren’t doing so well these days is because life was hard and sometimes dirty and a real struggle, and that’s too close to ‘real life.’ Then again, I could be full of crap.
Anyway, ‘Avonization’ ticks me off. It makes it sound like we’re all trying to write alike, or part of a machine. I wish there was such a thing as Avonization. Maybe they could make me into the new Julia Quinn or Stephanie Laurens, or Lisa Kleypas. I certainly wouldn’t mind having their talent, or sales numbers.
Oooo, I made “fabu points” it must have been a good day–LOL.
Wendy’s thoughts are very similar to mine re: Avon’s slave-ish devotion to the English historical, but having said that I still wonder how many average readers, not those of us obsessive enough to analyze everything we read, actually even notice this.
Avon knows what works for them — and what they can make work. And they’re very good at what they do. You take a look at the NYT paperback list, count the romances and there’s been an awful lot of Avon authors on there. But, I realize that I probably seem like an author defending her publisher.
I don’t think any Avon author needs to defend their publisher. Avon does a good job. Avon knows what works for them — and what they can make work. Isn’t that what their supposed to do? 🙂
I have to say, I have absolutely no idea what Avonisation is, (and yes, that’s the proper way to spell it!) and I don’t really understand why it matters at all.
Holly’s experience with Avon as well as what Ms. Smith has detailed is most likely the buying experience of the average reader: meaning, Avon has successfully branded itself to the point where a reader will grab anything with that little triangle on the spine. It doesn’t necessarily mean readers only want 19th century British Historicals, just that they depend on Avon to give them a good read. Granted the Regency period has been a perennial favorite and the Western romance hasn’t proven itself a viable setting in a while, but it seems to me that Avon ignores one crucial point: the author’s voice.
I find it funny when low sales are considered equatable to a particular setting when Judith Ivory’s Beast (set in 1902 and *gasp* France! Quel horreur!) is still in print 10 years later, and the book that propelled her to USA Today Bestseller status was a dense, heavy and very unconventional romance set in the Victorian era.
It isn’t the setting that made Lisa Kleypas, Eloisa James, Julia Quinn and other Avon superstars successful, it was their voice and style. It’s that combination, or lack thereof, that has long separated the wheat from the chaff. As you can see, Ms. James has transitioned to the Georgian era, and Teresa Medeiros had established herself long before she joined Avon’s roster with books set in various time periods and settings. And based on Ms. Smith hitting the USA Today Best-seller list with a book set in 1890s Romania, it proves it isn’t the setting or the gimmick but the style of the particular author.
LOLOLOL can there be a proper way to spell a made up word? Just saying *g*
Correct me if I am wrong but once upon a time there were westerns everywhere. Right? Like every author had one, just about, Nicole Jordan (who NEVER finished hers ::pout::), Elizabeth Lowell (who NEVER finished not one but two series ::double pout:: three if you count the series Reckless Love was suppose to be), Lorraine Heath, Brenda Joyce, Lisa Kleypas, even Teres Medeiros has one. This was all sadly before my time but if rumor is correct there were just as many westerns around as their are Regency’s now.
But that ended… Soooo wouldn’t one think that will happen with regency and paranormal at some point? I have heard many a horror story about Avon. And I don’t doubt them. Some I find down right stupid.
But I think that can be said of many a publisher. All sorts of things go into play: who is making the decision, editor/author relationship, market, personality so forth and so on.
So where I think there are a few Avon authors who (in my opinion) aren’t worth the paper they are printed on and some of them are shockingly similar in plot, voice and style (hell I think a group of them have a blog together… you like one you can like em all) I just can’t see Avon as an axis of evoooolll.
At the same time really I don’t understand why some things sell. Kate Douglas writing her 100000 wolf tales book blows my mind. I could careless if Judith Ivory ever wrote another novel because I haven’t liked one by her. I would love an overload of westerns, when many a person doesn’t want a one. I read Diana Palmer but can’t for the life of me explain why she sales so well.
Why are old Harlequin books by Nora Roberts, Linda Howard, Elizabeth Lowell, Catherine Coulter, and Linda Lael Miller books reprinted 10000 times and why are people buying? Are there that many NEW romance readers? That many people who can’t remember reading them and rebuy? That many people replacing books that have fallen apart from rereads. I mean what?
lol but I guess that is a topic or five for another day…
I don’t see Avon as an “axis of evooooll”, but a force in the industry, and as a juggernaut, you’re bound to take hits.
As for the demise of the Regency and the paranormal, who can say what will happen in the future? As of today, not only Avon, but other imprints continue to acquire authors of Regency Historicals and when you skip through the blogosphere, it seems 9 times out of 10, an aspiring historical romance author wants to write Regencies. Paranormal authors have been warned that the market is capped, but as I stated in my Historical Romance rant on my blog, they’re being told to increase their emphasis on world-building and voice in order to break through while unpublished authors of historicals aren’t being given the same advice. That is what I feel “Avonization” is: the over-emphasis on trite, cute hooks with sketchy world-building that allows the h/h to romp and lust through highly improbably and historically inaccurate situations.
And personally, I feel the demise of the traditional Regency hurt the Regency Historical when those who were well-versed in the period(readers and writers) fell to the wayside for those who didn’t mind the fun, frothy wallpaper romp. No one can ever get it right, but a lot of the trad authors got the “tone” right, a “tone” that I rarely, if ever, see in todays RH’s.
Well… at the same time wouldn’t you say that historical fiction is on the rise?
Those are more often than not – not frothy. Although I have to admit I can like fluff if done well, meaning it amuses me. LOL
I have often heard Julia Quin is fluffy but I didn’t think so of course I haven’t read too too much of hers. Only about four?
It isn’t the setting that made Lisa Kleypas, Eloisa James, Julia Quinn and other Avon superstars successful, it was their voice and style.
Bingo, and that was one of the points of my original Avoniz(s)ation post.
Why are old Harlequin books by Nora Roberts, Linda Howard, Elizabeth Lowell, Catherine Coulter, and Linda Lael Miller books reprinted 10000 times and why are people buying? Are there that many NEW romance readers?
Nope, I have to think that they get reprinted because they’re crossover authors and appeal to a wider market, perhaps Harlequin is trying to take advantage of this?
Avon has hits and missing just like other publishers, but to me, they are the ultimate in historical romance and won’t back down from this.
I find Brava is becoming it’s “bravaization”… so what doesn’t someone write a blog on them?
I find Brava is becoming it’s “bravaizationâ€â€¦ so what doesn’t someone write a blog on them? Possibly because Brava doesn’t have as wide a readership as Avon. I’ve only read a few Brava’s, so can you describe Bravaization katiebabs?
And personally, I feel the demise of the traditional Regency hurt the Regency Historical when those who were well-versed in the period(readers and writers) fell to the wayside for those who didn’t mind the fun, frothy wallpaper romp.
What killed the traditional Regency? Regardless of how well froth does or doesn’t sale if trad’s had been selling wouldn’t they still be in print?
And wasn’t it a pretty long slow death? It seems to me that even if they had been turning any kind of profit there would still be a line to support it.
IMO Brava has had a major increase of erotica type novels. I also find with their erotica line, most of the stories are written in a way that I can no longer tell the diffence between them. Most are stretching the envelope, which I applaud but some books of the being published have become quite shocking, especially with certain sex scenes. Right now I am reading Lord of the Deep by Dawn Thompson which is a Brava release and there is one scene in the book that I have never found in any book I have ever read before. It takes alot to shock me and this one did!
Does anyone know how well Avon does in readership? Are they truly the top publisher in romance?
Are you talking Brava? Or Aphrodisia? Or both? I thought Dawn Thompson had an aphro coming out.
Two different animals… that both belong to Kensington.
Sybil,
You are correct! My bad. I guess I should say Kensington, rather than Brava.
Have you had the chance to read the book yet?
Lord of the Deep? I don’t think I have it. Although Gwen might. I forget what the hell I have given to her and am too lazy to go check the spreadsheet. And I mix that one up with Nicholas, which I do have.
Did you like it?
Re: The death of the trad Regency.
My speculation only here – but I think the trad started it’s slow descent into death when the marketplace got more competitive. Now instead of just the trads, readers had many, many longer Regency Historicals to choose from as well. Many of which were bigger and “sexier” – with a very minimal price difference (maybe $1 or $2 more – that’s it).
But trads would have survived had they recognized this competition and done something about it. Instead, the cover art stayed exactly the same for 20+ years (and that’s probably a generous estimate on my part – it was likely longer). So you had the old faithful still buying trads, but they weren’t attracting a “newer” market because they still looked like Old Lady Grandma Books.
Trad readers point at a book like Dedication by Janet Mullany as being something “different” and “bold” but look at the cover. It looks EXACTLY like every other trad that was out there at the time (and every other trad that came before it). There’s nothing to distinguish it in a very, very competitive marketplace. And while I’m sure a lot of “online” readers ran out and bought it once buzz grew – I think it’s already been speculated on this post that the online romance community is a small minority.
My very long 2 cents….
Sybil,
Lord of the Deep has a sex scene with the heroine having sex with a tree… twice! I am not joking. This is a first in all my years of reading anything. So you can imagine what I am thinking of this book.
Evil Dead anyone?
Nope – not me. No Lord of the Deep. Sex with a tree?? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry. That would have me laughing too hard to finish the book.
She also has sex with seals that turn into men (selkies)
I need to go back to old fashion romances where men and women don’t turn into plant life, fish, vegetables…