Editors and agents at the conference spend a lot of time telling writers not to chase trends.  Good advice.  Now, here are some trends people were talking about:  medievals are making a comeback, chick lit mysteries are in demand, folks are waiting for westerns to come back strong (K Duffy at Kensington and J Enderlin at St. Martin’s both want them), agent Evan Fogelman insists editors are asking about paranormal inspirationals (I’m assuming the paranormal parts are more angels than vampires) and hot stuff is still hot.

The publisher spotlight is a favorite of the conference.  Basically, this is an opportunity for the publishing house to tell you how great it is, how particular it can afford to be because of how great it is and wonderful its current author base is, which in some way relates to how great the house is.  The bottom line, and what you hear over and over until you want to jab yourself in the eye with the RWA pen you got at registration, is that they are all looking for fresh new voices, innovative ideas, authors they can build and nurture….blah,blah,blah.  Really, just once I want an editor to say:  we’re looking for crap. 

I enjoyed Kensington’s spotlight because it was less about "ain’t we great" and more about asking authors to give the house a shot.  I ventured to a few other spotlights.  All were interesting, some for what the editors said and others for what they didn’t say.  The ones I attended for some period of time before going in search of a latte were:

1. Bantam/Dell - These folks have a big NYT list.  Some of the authors we heard about have nothing to do with romance but we heard about them anyway.  Last I checked, Grisham’s paperbacks were not romance.  The basics are:  there are no set slots for romance and there isn’t a separate romance imprint or line.  The editor’s view was that this allowed for a lot of flexibility.  The editor also said the company was very supportive of new authors and pushed them to greatness. 
2. NAL - I had a heard time getting a handle on NAL’s overall program.  They are pushing trade erotic romance.  Luann McLane, a former Brava writer, and Toni Blake seem to be the leads. Unagented submissions are okay but will sit for a long time (more than 6 months). 
3. Berkley - The editors are looking at everything.  Berkley publishes at least 4 romances per month under its romance line, Sensation. The word count is 90,000-110,000.  Multiple submissions are okay (this means to other houses - it is not okay to send to multiple editors within the house).  Unagented submissions are okay.  Send a synopsis and 3 chapters.  Also, Kate Seaver is new to Berkley and trying to find authors.
4. St. Martin’s - The editors here are looking at everything too.  The house doesn’t have a set number of books or set romance imprint.  The word count is 90,000-100,000.  Multiple submissions are okay.  Send query only and the response time on that is about 1 month.  The preference is agented but that’s not a requirement.

More Jayne Ann Krentz….  For the second year in a row I attended the workshop Secrets of the Bestselling Sisterhood with JAK and Susan Elizabeth Phillips.  These ladies are engaging and fun.  They’re also saying what needs to be said, like:  stop listening to the rule nazis; get rid of people who deflate you; don’t let fear rule your career choices; don’t let critique groups steal your voice; perseverance is key, etc. 

One of the interesting stories JAK tells is about how she tried to sell for 6 years and couldn’t.  She kept submitting futuristics, which was a genre no one was interested in back in the early 80s.  She loved her futuristics and eventually scored a 3-book deal.  When those futuristics came out, her JAK contemporary numbers started to crash.  On the last one, the publisher even changed JAK’s name on the cover (and Jayne Castle was born).  JAK realized that what she loved about the futuristics was what she called the "core story" - the theme she wanted to write about.  For her, the core story of interest was the marriage of convenience.  She didn’t think that core story worked in contemporaries and decided she had to lift that core story and put it somewhere else.  For her, historicals were the answer and so Amanda Quick and JAK’s historical career began. 

The idea of a core story is intriguing but also seems to carry with it the possibility of having every story sound the same.  JAK listed some other core themes, like folks who like to write about emotionally wounded and fractured heroes.  That struck me as broader and possibly more viable for a long-term career.  Not sure how I feel about this idea but JAK certainly is passionate about it.

The other piece of advice these ladies (mostly JAK) gave was for folks struggling to find their voice.  She suggested taking what is to you a very compelling scene and giving it to a trusted reader friend or career partner.  The only job the reader has it to say what one emotion struck them.  JAK’s point is if the answer is nothing, then there is a voice problem.  If the answer is funny or something else, that might be the answer to the voice question and from there you can develop and nurture that voice.

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 30th, 2005 at 5:21 pm and is filed under About Books, About Contests & Associations, About Publishing, About Writing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.