posted
This topic came up in the discussion from our last “Hatrack Challenge” and I thought it might be interesting to share my “research findings”.
As mentioned in the “Hatrack Challenge” Discussion area, I have been “researching” Luna Publishing as a possible place to send one of my novel length works.
FYI to anyone who has not heard of Luna - They are an offshoot of Harlequin Romance Publishing that is specializing in Fantasy Fiction, with a romantic twist.
Most people feel that Harlequin is not for serious writers, but this might be different.
Here is their website link for anyone who is interested:
I was a little concerned that they might not be very legitimate, not as a company, but as a credible publisher of “serious” fantasy fiction.
My research consisted of checking out their website and then buying a couple of their newest titles. Real scientific, huh.
My first impressions of Luna books in general: The cover art for the books is modest. Most of the images are not even very fantastical looking. The art does not look trashy, like a harlequin romance. Outwardly, they look legit. Actually, I had to check the spine to make sure they really were Luna books.
The books are being placed in the sci-fi\fantasy section of the bookstore NOT the romance section. Which is a good sign.
I made my initial selections based on the cover art. Then read the back for the story summary. The summary of the story seemed good, without too much emphasis on romantic content. Then I read the first few pages of one of the books to see if the writing was sub-par. It seemed OK.
I don’t want to review the book and thus spoil it, if any of you are planning to read it. I just want to let you know if it seemed like quality fantasy writing.
My impression of The Mountain’s Call by Caitlin Brennan:
Overall: Several of the stories I have seen from you guys are just as good as this one. We probably have an ecellent chance of being published.
POV: The book started with an Omni POV description of a mountain. Ugh. That made me nervous about what the writer’s technique would be like for the rest of the book, but when the story finally started it was third and was handled pretty well.
Magic system: The magic system was established early and in pretty good detail. No credibility issues for me.
Romantic content: By the end of Chapter 1, there were romantic “clues” being dropped. However, the romantic involvement in the book DID NOT follow the set pattern that most “romantic” books follow. The romance was NOT the main focus of the book. It did have immediate hints at romance within the first few chapters, romantic tension by end of the first third of the book and a romantic conflict and resolution by the end of the book. The sensual content that was shown, was not explicit, unlike some romance novels.
Character development: Was fine. These WERE NOT just token characters used to get to the romance.
Conflict Question: Was NOT really romantically driven. Was about the main character becoming accepted into a male-dominated magical hierarchy.
Also, this book did not have the annoying use of sensual words in non-sensual situations. So instead of – “The crashing waves heaved onto the shore, spraying, luxurious foam with each stroke.” It was more like – “The waves broke onto the shore, in repeated cascades.” The writing seemed a little more serious, and less sensational. However, there was the occasional “throbbing member”, which seemed out of place with the writer’s style. It made me wonder if the editors added it in the final draft.
LUNA describes themselves as:
quote: LUNA Books delivers a compelling, female-focused fantasy with vivid characters, rich worlds, strong, sympathetic women and romantic subplots. LUNA Books wants emotionally complex, sweeping stories that highlight the inner female power. Whether the heroine is on a quest to save the world — or someone or something important to her — discover her past or develop her own abilities, these stories are involving, gripping and sweep the reader away into a detailed, convincing world. They also contain romantic subplots that enhance the main story but don't become the focus of the novel.
At least from this book, it looks like they are going more for serious writing with a sprinkling of romance. I think I will still try TOR first, but if a story has strong romantic content, Luna seems like it might be a good second choice.
Would anyone else like to share impressions of a Luna book?
Has anyone heard anything negative about Luna on any other bulletin boards, in the trade mags, or from other writers?
Has anyone had any experience with sending in a query to Luna?
[This message has been edited by NewsBys (edited September 20, 2004).]
posted
Thanks NewsBys! I appreciate you sharing your research into a possible imprint. It is very helpful to know they are looking at fantasy and not sf, for example.
I'll definitely check out their website.
Edit - enjoying reading the short bits they've put up for aspiring writers. In one, it mentions that Mercedes Lackey published "The Fairy Godmother" through them (this was their launch title, on January 1, 2004)- I haven't read it, but have read many of her books (dare I say MANY!). If Luna is good enough for someone of Misty Lackey's stature, it certainly is good enough for us to hope for. BUT... it doesn't mean it will be easy
Manuscript lengths - 100k-150k!
Lee
[This message has been edited by punahougirl84 (edited September 20, 2004).]
posted
From what I heard at Worldcon, they're definitely legit in the field of SF. (And let's face it, once you add romantic subplots there will be a section of the field that won't see you as legit wherever you publish-- so the only people who would see publishing with a Harliquin SF imprint as problematic are probably those who already wouldn't like the romantic subplot.)
Another Luna author is Laura Anne Gilman, whose novel Staying Dead came out earlier this year. It's a great book, and she's stated (online and at cons) that she's had a good experience with Luna as a publisher.
And Harlequin's distribution system? Can't beat it.
posted
Let me second what Gen said, especially that Laura Anne Gilman's book is great. I haven't read anything else put out by Luna (I prefer science fiction to fantasy), but they seem to be viewed as perfectly respectable by people in the field.
Now, I admit that after I bought _Staying Dead_, I almost fainted when I looked more closely and realized the connection between Luna and Harlequin. Me? Buying anything remotely connected to a romance publisher? Time to die of embarrassment! But I have no problem with romantic elements, as long as the science fiction or fantasy is sound, and at least in the case of _Staying Dead_, it is.
posted
I remember hearing about Luna from Catherine Asaro, who has a book out (or on the way out) from them. Considering she's the president of SFWA, that's pretty much all the recommendation I need as to their respectability. Posts: 338 | Registered: Aug 2002
|
quote:Most people feel that Harlequin is not for serious writers, but this might be different.
I have to say that's an opinion I don't share. I might not write in their usual genre, but from what I've seen about them what they publish is (a) among the best in the genre, (b) earns a higher than average advance for its author and (c) usually earns out that advance.
posted
And I also noticed last night as I was looking at the books they offered, they offering a book by Mercedes Lackey. She's not exactly an unknown in the world of fantasy.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Sep 2004
|
In addition - several of the articles about writing fantasy are by Lackey (I went through several last night).
Beginning of general diatribe of personal thoughts regarding no one in particular: A very long time ago, my dad bought me a huge brown bag of assorted books at a yard sale (I was probably a pre-teen, but not sure now). I filled three shelves from it, making my own "library" of the classics that were in the bag. There were also about 5-7 Harlequin Romances. I'd never read a romance before, so figured why not?
Well, the first one was so good I STILL remember the story (though the character names escape me). I think the thing they were great at, other than settings, was setting up the catharsis. You KNOW the male and female characters will end up together - so the challenge is for the author to believably threaten the relationship. Not an easy task, especially when some books feel mass-produced. You know - spin the wheel for setting, occupation, hair color...
I read some others a few years ago and didn't think they were quite as good, but that might have been the luck of the draw.
I know people have trouble admitting to reading romance novels - they've been given a bad rep ("trashy" or "throw-away" type reading, not to be taken seriously). I'm sure some books earned that rep.
BUT!
Romance is not only a legitimate genre to be enjoyed, but think about it. They are THE genre of characters in relationships. What in the world is wrong with wanting to read about characters finding love? About how people learn to get along (or not)? Do you seriously have something against love and romance? We all can learn a lot from a well-written romance, just as you do from a well-written sf/f book, or any other. You got a problem with some pseudo-Fabio gracing the cover? Get over it! It's as valid as some robot, or alien sunset.
I don't usually choose romance books when I'm buying/checking out something to read because I developed an early love for sf/f and it stuck. But I don't care if someone sees me reading a romance. Real humans read romance. It is no more a waste of time to escape into one than it is to escape into LOTR.
You don't have to like them (we all have our preferences). But don't sneer at those who do read and/or write them.
Oh yeah, and a side benefit - All the way to the bank people
I spent some time looking into Luna as well. I've even been known to read a romance or two (or more). I think what has been said here basically boils down to the fact that romance is just another form of fantasy, albeit for many people a more accessible one.
I read Seraphim from Luna by Michelle Hampf and found it grand - I wouldn't get too het up about it. The premise was very good, the execution fine and the characters enjoyable. It had a twist I wasn't expecting, though only one. It was more like a romance than a fantasy novel, but if you read the author's biog. that was her starting point, so fair enough.
I certainly wouldn't turn my nose up at them as a publishing house, or a source for books to read. In fact, if I had anything to hand that fitted their requirements I'd send it straight to them.
Its hard to sneer at romance writers when so many people sneer at fantasy and science fiction. I know people do, but its a bit rich. I think we should be empathising rather than furthering it.
As for all the way to the bank - yeah, but your average romance reader, like your average fantasy/sci-fi reader, can smell someone trying to cash in like old fish. I don't think you can write convincingly in any genre unless you believe in the genre and love that genre. (Make of that what you will! I'm waiting for the storm of replies saying "I can"!!!)
[This message has been edited by RFLong (edited September 21, 2004).]
posted
Thanks for all of the feedback. The fact that most of you seem to think well of Luna is more persuasive than a mountain of research. I just might give them a try.
Posts: 579 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
Wow! Great topic! I may just have found the market for my WIP--though still a year or more away.
Thanks, everyone, for the comments and leads.
Now, my take on the romance genre: I'm sure there are quite a lot of excellent romance novels out there. My trouble is that the genre, IMO, has been marred by the many writers who produce works meant merely to tittilate--a shoddy plotline, poor characterization, conflict introduced ONLY to get the hero and heroine in bed together, scenes ordered with the sole purpose of building the sexual tension--story components be damned.
An example--Nora Roberts. A friend lent me one of her books a year or so ago. Hubby and I had a great week, but the story left a LOT to be desired. If I want to read to be titillated, I can find plenty of that in well-written works.
Just found a romance author by the name of--get this--Karen Moning. No joke.
posted
I think the Romance novels I've always objected to were the pusedo-porno kind that take delight in describing in the "flaming spears" and heaving breasts. In fact, I think the biggest disservice they do is increase women's expectations of men in regards to romance and sexuality. Most of these male characters are pretty cardboard - brawny, strong-willed with a secret soft-side, and is excellent in bed and know the secret to satisfying a woman in bed.
I'm coming off my soapbox, with the sad realization that women read these novels simply because of the reasons stated above. ::sigh::
Nope she's not a porn star. She has five books out--all romances set in the Scottish Highlands. Anybody out there read them?
Thanks, Whitney. That was just the point I was trying to make, but you said it better--pseudo-porn. Good way to put it. However, I don't think women who read those things have any increased expectations about men--at least not the women I know who read them. They read them to fantasize about something they don't have, rather than use them as a model for what they think they should have.
posted
I read a few romance novels out of sheer curiosity and found them to be far better than I expected. Maybe I just got lucky? In any case, the 'bad' ones are good too, when you need a laugh. And who's to say that the author did not write with his/her tongue planted firmly in cheek?
His/her own cheek. Not throbbing. Just your basic spatulate tongue. Not rampant, spear-like, quivering or thrusting. No exudations or spasms. Just kinda planted there like a wad of gum.
Just a wad of gum. Not a massive wad. Not elongate, nor firm. Not intrusive, just quiescent.
posted
There's good stuff and a lot of junk (some of it semi-pornographic) in the romance genre. But that's true of every genre. The trick is to find the good stuff.
Posts: 253 | Registered: Jan 2004
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
