On the heels of Alison Kent's questions about preternatural romantic fiction, comes another blast for... historical fiction.
Over at Vanessa Jaye's weblog, she has posted a diatribe on the subject. Though long-winded, it makes for interesting reading.
It kind of makes you wonder what is happening in the world of publishing when favoured genres are beginning to suffer from blandness. Is it the authors, lacking in creative juice? Is it the editors, who are unable to find the true gems? Or is it the publishers who are trying to squeeze as much profit out of concepts that work; a kind of production line of similar products?
Stephen King once wrote that he wasn't going to write horror anymore because it was too hard to scare people. As a master of the genre, he would know. He also wrote that if his stories didn't scare him, they were unlikely to scare anyone else.
I don't read horror, but his comments are still relevant. If an author doesn't feel the pain of heartbreak, what's the point? If an historical romance is historically inaccurate, what's the point? If there are too many cliches why was it published. If tired subplots are being used ad nauseum why would a reader bother? They wouldn't, obviously.
It goes to the paranormals, too. Vampires aren't people, they are not funny, so why write as if they were?
Regency, Medieval, Vikings, Scottish subgenres cannot be politically correct, filled with sex, giggling females, or manners that don't match the time period. Similarly, writing the same book over and over again with a change in names is just as bad and treats the reader with contempt.
While it is true there are some wonderful period romances out there, they are becoming harder and harder to find; the weight of formula books is crushing the life out of them.
An author's greatest crime is to cheat a reader of the promise; the promise of a great book, filled with romance, history, characters the reader can love and return to. Perhaps those formula authors should get back in touch with what obsessed them about writing, re-ignite the passion for the work rather than writing stock standard books.
When it comes to writing, money ain't everything - it's the work that's important. An author should be able to revisit a book written twenty years ago and still be proud of it.
Are you proud of your work? Does it still affect you as much now as it did when writing it?
1 comment:
I think someone once said "You can't serve both the Muse and Mammon. Choose which one you will hold to and respect."
Editors and publishers must also choose.
Ultimately, readers who purchase books filled with trite characters, banal dialogue, predictable plots and obvious anachronisms, provide the fuel for the industry's glut of mediocre novels. I'm guilty of buying some of them myself, but not frequently any longer in these days of bloggers and Amazon reviewers.
As for my writing, I'm a newbie with few words to my credit, but I can tell when I've written something that resonates. It's for those moments I write.
Post a Comment