Into the Fire

Passionate thoughts about the world of writing and the Power of God

recent posts

about

Passionate: right or wrong. Writes love stories with a passion. Raw Romantic Redemptive

Peevish . . .

 

If you get a chance, drop on over to Brenda Anderson’s blog, Spire Reviews, and contribute your pet peeves about plot manipulations and well-worn techniques that come off as boring or lame.

 

While you’re here, tell me what bugs you the most about the publishing industry. It doesn’t have to be one thing. Come clean. What is it/are they? You’ve heard my peeves enough times. What are yours? Or don’t you have any?

 

 

Father, the comfort and joy comes from you alone. Thank you for being the source and giver of everything good and perfect. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.

Posted in

6 responses to “Peevish . . .”

  1. Brenda Anderson Avatar
    Brenda Anderson

    Thanks for the plug, Nicole. 🙂
    As for what bugs me most about the publishing industry? The over-focus on historical & Amish fiction. As someone who doesn’t read Amish and rarely reads historical, this trend greatly reduces my choice for reading material in the Christian market. I remember the days when I went to our neighborhood Christian bookstore & drooled over the choices. That doesn’t happen anymore.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Brenda Jackson Avatar
    Brenda Jackson

    My greatest pet peeve isn’t just the publishing industry–it is the full circle of publishers and readers. And that is, I get why the MAJORITY of books are romance, but I don’t get why they are ALL romance, and again, I’ll zero in on historical fiction.
    Call it a mystery of the psychology of women that I am trying to understand–and that affects what publishers publish and what is available to read. I simply do not understand why women (ostensibly being the bulk of readers in CBA if not general fiction) only want to read romance.
    I understand the grace and charm of reading a romance. Believe it or not, I have enjoyed a few touching ones. I can understand some of the elements at play–perhaps escapism and an adult way of clinging to stories of princesses and the eternal hunt for Mr. Right and being swept off your feet. Heaven knows I’ve had to hear a million times about how its a comparison to being the bride of Christ.
    But from my perspective, as I survey the landscape and see shelves full of historicals that are all romance or mostly all romance, the question I ask myself is “Do people seriously think a romantic relationship is the only one that is interesting in life?” If so, how sad. But that doesn’t seem to fit the women I know, whose lives are comprised of many different relationships. So why is it so desperately one-sided in published books?
    I realize that on this I and the publishing/reading public will never agree. But it is so disheartening (and sometimes brings me to tears) to start out reading a book that has so great a potential that self destructs because instead of following the interesting plot points that could have been developed, the interesting story is sacrificed on the alter of romance.
    I wish that occasionally, people would evaluate stories and say “Is romance really the story here, or is something greater, deeper, broader at work that I’d rather explore.” And yes, before people fall on me with their swords and axes, romance can be deep and sweeping too.
    But in the end, I can’t do anything about what gets published by others. But I have taken it as a personal challenge to myself to see if I can craft deep stories and great characters that are enticing without benefit of a romance thread. Who knows? Maybe I’ll succeed. Maybe I won’t and I’ll be assimilated. Maybe as I continue to write books I’ll come to a greater understanding and have an “Ah ha!” moment about the things that mystify me now. Time will tell.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Brenda Jackson Avatar
    Brenda Jackson

    Brenda A–did you see the informal survey blog post at Rachelle Gardner’s site within the past week? I agree with you–if I were to take a guesstimate of the shelf space in a bookstore, I would guess that about 35% or so is historical (I know–to you it probably seems as low a number as when a librarian tells me that only 55% of the book market is romance).
    But on Rachelle Gardener’s site only 7% of the people were writing historical. And in the Publishers Marketplace scan she did (of two different months) the contracts were not for historical (but bizarrely, she says there is no category for historical in Publishers Marketplace. HUH?)
    The point being, maybe the tide is about to shift and you’ll see more of what you want. Although much of the discussion ended up being about SF/Fantasy.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Jessica Thomas Avatar
    Jessica Thomas

    Well this week I’m annoyed with “secular edgy”. Books, stories, poems that have to “stab you in the gut” and romanticize darkness and cynicism in order to be acceptible. (Just had a few poems rejected. Not edgy enough. Not obscure, or weird or ugly enough. rolling eyes)

    Like

    Reply
  5. Nicole Avatar
    Nicole

    Good points, Brendas.
    I don’t read historicals as a general rule, but I can certainly understand the disappointment when they all dissolve into a romance, Brenda J. And I think it’s absolutely a great idea to write one that doesn’t, that features the depth of other events and struggles.
    Historicals and Amish novels fill the CBA writing world, neither of which I choose to read. When Mike Dellosso went into his local Christian bookstore a while back, he counted them. The percentage was huge.
    In a way, I’m a little in the same boat with Brenda J. in that I don’t like most of the novels in my genre and rarely read them anymore. So I write them.
    Thanks, Ladies, for taking the time to answer my question. Appreciate it.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Nicole Avatar
    Nicole

    Good point, Jess. When you speak of secular, that opens the door wide. All things dark and depraved are permissible. Not a pretty place. Especially without hope.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Nicole Cancel reply