It is so helpful to look at this perspective. I am currently writing my dissertation on reading romance and relationships (specifically, using romance as an adjunct to sex and couples therapy), and it’s meaningful to me to hear that it doesn’t matter- legitimacy comes from its readers, not ages old statistics. Would love to connect with you some time to talk romance.
I get your point on it not needing to be a billion dollar industry for interest in romance to be legitimate. I think, though, there's value for writers in understanding it sells better than other genres. At a writer's conference I attended in October 2024, several publishers revealed that roughly 70% of their revenue comes from publishing romance. As a writer, as an excellent writer no less, it rankles to have other writers look down on me because of the genre I choose to create within. One publisher said to me, "Be proud of your genre. It helps keep the lights on at the publishing houses so we even still exist to publish anything else. Other writers should be thanking romance writers, not looking down on them." Too, romance readers are among the most voracious. I know many that read 3-5 books a week and can't wait to consume something new and interesting within this space. I've never met a sci-fi fan or a literature fan that read more than a book or two a week. There's also the misconception that romances can't be true literature. They tout 'Pride and Prejudice' and the like as flukes. In reality, many romance writers are masters of the craft and worthy of recognition.
It does make me a little anxious to read that we don't need similarly impressive data, assuming I'm understanding you correctly. I'm not sure if the battle that was started decades ago has been won yet.
If I'm recalling it right, the point of the billion-dollar-industry data was to get the mainstream to acknowledge that stories "written by women for women" have leverage and power behind them, in the area where the old mainstream most valued leverage - in the bottom line. And thus could not be dismissed or ignored at least on that level.
Although we've come a long way, both in overall gender affirmation and in publishing, I feel like the old mainstream is still controlling publishing, and even has significant influence over indie publishing. It feels like romance is still being pushed to the fringe and effectively punished. I guess I don't think we've come so far that the mainstream offers leeway to romance the max that it could or should.
I'm not disputing your data, I swear! I'm just worried about the we-don't-need-data part. I agree we don't need data to assume that our literature is worthy. We don't need to prove it to ourselves.
But we do kinda need something to break through the still-existent barriers out there. Romance stories are still being forced into covert niches in a way that thrillers, horror, and "literary" women's fiction are not. I think to some extent romance is still treated as the undesirable cousin everybody puts up with because he brings all the treats to the party.
All that not to argue with you, but to voice a concern that I don't think the battle to assert relevance for the romance genre is over - yet.
Great article! It’s amazing to me (though it probably shouldn’t be) that this narrative took hold from such ancient / unreliable non-data.
This is not an ad I swear… but have you ever taken a data stroll in Publisher Rocket? That’s the closest thing I can think of to being able to see sales figures in real time regarding keywords used in Amazon book sales, how the ranking works, and average monthly earnings. If nothing else I find it utterly fascinating to see what people are searching for and precisely what it yields.
It is so helpful to look at this perspective. I am currently writing my dissertation on reading romance and relationships (specifically, using romance as an adjunct to sex and couples therapy), and it’s meaningful to me to hear that it doesn’t matter- legitimacy comes from its readers, not ages old statistics. Would love to connect with you some time to talk romance.
Fascinating! Love the Mean Girls memes. 🩷 We definitely don't need to justify reading romance with bad data.
I get your point on it not needing to be a billion dollar industry for interest in romance to be legitimate. I think, though, there's value for writers in understanding it sells better than other genres. At a writer's conference I attended in October 2024, several publishers revealed that roughly 70% of their revenue comes from publishing romance. As a writer, as an excellent writer no less, it rankles to have other writers look down on me because of the genre I choose to create within. One publisher said to me, "Be proud of your genre. It helps keep the lights on at the publishing houses so we even still exist to publish anything else. Other writers should be thanking romance writers, not looking down on them." Too, romance readers are among the most voracious. I know many that read 3-5 books a week and can't wait to consume something new and interesting within this space. I've never met a sci-fi fan or a literature fan that read more than a book or two a week. There's also the misconception that romances can't be true literature. They tout 'Pride and Prejudice' and the like as flukes. In reality, many romance writers are masters of the craft and worthy of recognition.
I love this data-based approach. Thank you!
It does make me a little anxious to read that we don't need similarly impressive data, assuming I'm understanding you correctly. I'm not sure if the battle that was started decades ago has been won yet.
If I'm recalling it right, the point of the billion-dollar-industry data was to get the mainstream to acknowledge that stories "written by women for women" have leverage and power behind them, in the area where the old mainstream most valued leverage - in the bottom line. And thus could not be dismissed or ignored at least on that level.
Although we've come a long way, both in overall gender affirmation and in publishing, I feel like the old mainstream is still controlling publishing, and even has significant influence over indie publishing. It feels like romance is still being pushed to the fringe and effectively punished. I guess I don't think we've come so far that the mainstream offers leeway to romance the max that it could or should.
I'm not disputing your data, I swear! I'm just worried about the we-don't-need-data part. I agree we don't need data to assume that our literature is worthy. We don't need to prove it to ourselves.
But we do kinda need something to break through the still-existent barriers out there. Romance stories are still being forced into covert niches in a way that thrillers, horror, and "literary" women's fiction are not. I think to some extent romance is still treated as the undesirable cousin everybody puts up with because he brings all the treats to the party.
All that not to argue with you, but to voice a concern that I don't think the battle to assert relevance for the romance genre is over - yet.
Note to Shelf Love: Thank you for saving me from spreading bad data in my upcoming book, "Write & Sell a Well-Seasoned Romance."
I so appreciate this deep dive! I'm new to your newsletter so feel free to kick me to the archives, but have you delved into the claims from NPD/Circana about romance growth in 2022 and 2023? https://www.npd.com/news/press-releases/2022/romance-is-the-leading-growth-category-for-us-print-books-this-year-npd-says/ https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/92735-book-sales-continue-to-slow-down-in-first-half-of-2023.html
Great article! It’s amazing to me (though it probably shouldn’t be) that this narrative took hold from such ancient / unreliable non-data.
This is not an ad I swear… but have you ever taken a data stroll in Publisher Rocket? That’s the closest thing I can think of to being able to see sales figures in real time regarding keywords used in Amazon book sales, how the ranking works, and average monthly earnings. If nothing else I find it utterly fascinating to see what people are searching for and precisely what it yields.