Affaire de Coeur

[AnneMarble]

Is this available as a print magazine again, or is it just an on-line review magazine? I tried to check their web site, but it's excruciatingly slow (even on a cable connection). Years ago, I bought a few copies of its original print incarnation, and thought it was OK. Some people preferred it to Romantic Times. Some even thought Affaire de Coeur was more likely to give negative reviews, although in my (limited) experience, I didn't see that many negative reviews in AdC. Also, AdC always had distribution problems (I rarely saw it on newstands), and I thought its design looked less professional than RT. Eventually it died, came back under new ownership, died again, and came back. I'm just not sure if it's in print or only on-line.

The latest incarnation of it became the subject of a post by Lee Goldberg (http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writers_life/). He is not a fan, even though they gave his latest Mr. Monk book five stars. (In fact, he told the publisher not to use quotes from the ad in publicity.) One thing that upset him was the fact that the magazine's advertising director is a co-owner of Light Sword Publishing. Another was the way the magazine apparently (ahem) connects buying an ad and getting a positive review. (In an update, he also criticized Romantic Times for reviewing small press books only if the book has been advertised in their magazine.)

On the other hand, I know that many erotic romance authors back Affaire de Coeur because they are willing to review controversial subgenres such as male/male romances, which Romantic Times pretty much refuses to touch. So I'm willing to cut Affaire de Coeur some slack for that. So which view of the magazine is correct? Or is this an "all of the above" situation?

It's been a long time since I read the original AdC, but I don't remember them doing anything like this. Sure, they were far from perfect, but their reviews seemed OK. They were longer than the RT reviews at the time, and I seem to remember that the magazine had fewer ads and less glitz than RT. And probably more substance.

ETA:
The gerbils finally came back to life, and I was able to see the website. On the site, you can only read the five-star reviews. For the rest, you have to subscribe to the magazine. To be fair, most of the reviews are not five-star reviews. And most are for authors whose names I recognize. (You know, people like Nora Roberts, Jackie Kessler, Avon romance authors, etc.), not for micropress authors.

[Inspiewriter]

I saw Lee's posts and understand his concerns. But I have never heard of ADC being as bad as he believes. Years ago I was a subscriber, and that entitled me to a book review when my first came out. It was not a great review by any means. It was fair, and I did not pay for it, but I did pay to subscribe for many years.

One poster on the Writer Beware! blog said she searched ADC and got "erotic magazine." That was never the case either--- it was always a romance review magazine. As you said, it was a less glossy mag than RT --I think the pages were all newspaper, not glossy. And the editor (Louise?) even donated the back cover once to an anthology I had a story in, for which we were giving the profits to charity.


Just checked--it is still available as a print mag for $36 per year.

http://www.affairedecoeur.com/subscriptions.php

[AnneMarble]

I saw Lee's posts and understand his concerns. But I have never heard of ADC being as bad as he believes. Years ago I was a subscriber, and that entitled me to a book review when my first came out. It was not a great review by any means. It was fair, and I did not pay for it, but I did pay to subscribe for many years.
That's like the impression I got from the RT small press reviews. Yes, the authors have to pay for an ad if they expect a review, and that doesn't guarantee a review. Nor does it guarantee a good review. I wonder if they felt they had to do something because there are simply so many ebooks?

One poster on the Writer Beware! blog said she searched ADC and got "erotic magazine." That was never the case either--- it was always a romance review magazine.
I wondered where she got that impression from. Maybe she didn't understand some of the search results? Or maybe she saw an issue and got that impression because of ads for erotic romance or reviews of erotic romance. It's possible to review both erotic and children's books. PW does it all the time. Also, Romantic Times now reviews YA books, but they also review erotic romance -- and inspiration romance. Anyway, I've always had the impression that the YA reviews were a guide for parents, librarians, and adults who like to read YA. There can't be many teens reading RT, unless they are romance fans as well.

[Inspiewriter]

. PW does it all the time. Also, Romantic Times now reviews YA books, but they also review erotic romance -- and inspiration romance. Anyway, I've always had the impression that the YA reviews were a guide for parents, librarians, and adults who like to read YA. There can't be many teens reading RT, unless they are romance fans as well.


I think you're right, she must have gotten a hold of an issue/reference with an erotic review. I haven't seen an issue in years, but it was never something that would bring up "erotica" in a Google search!

[veinglory]

I subscribe to AdC. I have never seen them review MM or anything out of the mainstream bar one self published book. I have seen them print articles saying romance is dying as a genre because of erotica, I have seen them reprint old puff pieces by dubious publishers, I have seen typesetting and image mistakes (cut off and overlapping type, pixelated pictures), they seem to be more concerned with catering to advertisers and insiders than providing info to readers. I am not impressed and will not renew my subscription. I haven't read the Goldberg piece yet but expect to agree with it.

Edited to add: it is instructive to me that they are directly linked to Light Sword as they clearly pandered to this press even when they weren't advertising in that issue.

I don't know if they sell positive reviews but do believe that only those who pay for ads get to write puff articles about themselves and their books, appear on the cover, be chosen as 'reviewers picks', or have their review shown with cover art. Advertising small presses seem to get more reviews. They only one who knows whether this affects star ratings would be the reviewers--I can't know but I wouldn't rule it out.

[Inspiewriter]

Edited to add: it is instructive to me that they are directly linked to Light Sword as they clearly pandered to this press even when they weren't advertising in that issue.


Really? So that part's true? What a shame.

[Cathy C]

Yes, Affaire deCoeur is available as a slick glossy. It's bigger in size than RT at 8-1/2 x 11, versus RT's 7-3/4 x 10-1/2. But it only has 50-ish pages to RT's 130+. Stand price per issue is $2.95 to RT's $4.99, and $35.00 per year at 1st class rate, to RT's $54.00.

I don't subscribe to it presently, but I should. They do fair reviews and yes, they have on more than one occasion, given a not-so-good review. In the issue I'm holding, one review had "It was difficult to hold a desire to read what could have been an excellent novel. Physical abuse, controlling and ill tempered characters who are aroused by physical abuse and brawling is not a romantic love story." And this wasn't said about a small press release.

This past December, they did something interesting, which was to offer original short stories from selected authors. We were one of the ones selected, and all of the stories were quite good, from known writers. From what I hear from our contact there, the issue was well received and I think it resulted in quite a few new subscribers, so they'll probably do it again.

I like the mag and plan to subscribe in the near future, since I can't get it anywhere nearby. They don't have the distributor base that RT has, so it's hard to find in the stores except in the home state of California.

Just my take. :)

Edited to add:

but do believe that only those who pay for ads get to write puff articles about themselves and their books, appear on the cover, or have their review shown with cover art.

I can only speak for myself, but we've written articles, appeared on the cover and had our cover art appear, but have never paid for a review. In fact, I'd never heard of the magazine before a fan contacted me to tell me about a glowing review with the cover shown. It was when I wrote to thank them for the review that they offered a slot for an article and they offered to pay me a fairly standard rate---an amount that I've accepted from other national mags. Now, I ELECTED to turn it into ad space, but that was my idea.

I don't know what others have done. :Shrug:

[AnneMarble]

I subscribe to AdC. I have never seen them review MM or anything out of the mainstream bar one self published book.
I got the impression they were more open to it, but it looks as if I was wrong. :( After the fiasco involving Laura Bambach and the RT convention in 2007, some readers posted comments that suggested subscribing to AdC instead. They claimed it was more open to MM. Maybe they just meant they were more open to MM ads.

I have seen them print artciles saying romance is dying as a genre because of erotica, I have seen them reprint old puff pieces by dubious publishers, I have seen typesetting and image mistakes (cut off and overlapping type, pixelated pictures), they seem to be more concerned with catering to advertisers and insiders than providing info to readers. I am not impressed and will not renew my subscription. I haven't read the Goldberg piece yet but expect to agree with it.
I read the piece in your blog about that article. That article was ... something else. The old version of the magazine wasn't perfect (I seem to remember that they had major errors in their table of contents), but at least they didn't run the pictures and the text together! :eek: I hope the reviews are better than the typesetting. And I hope somebody feeds the gerbils that run the AdC web site.

[veinglory]

Before subscribing you might want to consider the worth of a mag that published this article in full, as content--not advertsing

http://www.lightswordpublishing.com/OurCommitment.html

see also: http://www.erecsite.com/2007/11/some-thoughts-about-affaire-de-coeur.html

I subscribe because they took Torquere advertising. But they need books 4 months in advance of release, effectively ruling out a great many small, e and POD presses. So I feel they effectively got me on a misunderstanding about their content.

I also volunteered to two staff members, who were soliciting reviewers at their forum, to review MM for them if they lacked reviewers in that area. Despite their on-going appeal for reviewers they never followed up. And that was back before I started getting my copies and blogging about them. I could have solicited my own appropriately advanced copies in this genre if they wanted those kinds of reviews--and will be more than happy to do so for any romance magazine.

[Inspiewriter]

Lee has a new post.

http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/

[Cathy C]

But they need books 4 months in advance of release, effectively ruling out a great many small, e and POD presses.

May I ask why? I mean really. I don't know. Even with the small and POD presses that I've published with, I've gotten a release date in sufficient time to get a copy to them. I send a great many of my own books to reviewers, sometimes up to a year in advance of publication. (Heck, a few choice reviewers get the book the same day I send it to the editor---before edits!)

Most accept a PDF just to read it, and then I follow up with an ARC later so they can cite pages if they need to in their review. Since I have a magazine background, I guess I'm accustomed to 9-12 month lead times for articles, so 4 months doesn't seem that onerous.

If this really is an issue for small and POD press romance writers, I'd like to know about it to bring it up in my strategic planning committee meetings with RWA.

Lee has a new post.


I'm afraid I don't agree with his point of view, but maybe because I've had long talks with reps from both magazines and understand the background and the reason for this decision. However, I will say that for the small press books/anthologies, I wouldn't have any problem paying for a review, and taking what I got. If they didn't like it, they didn't like it. I would be horrified to learn that they would give a good review just because I bought an ad. :Shrug:

[veinglory]

Wellif you take the exampleof Torquere whose endorsement and shift to advertise with them was the reason I subscribed to AdC (they advertised at least a full page in every issue I have seen), I don't think they have ever had ARCs out that far in advance. Nor, I think, would any of my publishers, Loose Id, Samhain etc as publication is counted from ebook release. I don't think the new model of e and POD commonly has that kind of time between having a review-ready copy and releasing it. They don't have any specific reason to leave a gap that long and the technology is on demand.

[Gillhoughly]

I got a few positive reviews from AdC back in the 90s and noticed that not all of the other books reviewed then were praised to high heaven. A few got one stars and were panned. I was pleased. I felt that I'd earned those stars.

I never saw that in RT. Ever notice most everything in it is 2 stars and better? Even Cassie Edwards gets three stars (http://www.romantictimes.com/books_review.php?book=34603) and her writing makes me gag.

But to address the ad space = good reviews issue, this is what I've experienced:

In the 90s I bought a full page ad in RT (my publisher did the art) and much to my surprise they also reviewed a number of books from my backlist (4-5 stars on each) and interviewed me, providing a total of three pages worth of promotion. Heck, yes, I enjoyed it.

A few years later, I bought another full page ad--same lush treatment with full page interview and 5-star review of the book.

A few years later I bought a half-page ad. For that I had a few inches of a synopsis-style review, nothing else. My popularity was still good, but I guess I wasn't tribbing as much to the ad kitty.

You can figure that it sure does *appear* that RT (now Booklovers) is playing favorites, depending on the ad space sold.

I still sometimes get mails from their marketing person, offering rates.

Hate to say it, but Goldberg just may have a point.

For my part, I'll still flip through Booklovers and check reviews, but I take them with a grain of salt. They have gushed about writers who are (to me) downright stinky. (I should know, I've edited some of them.) The rest are often useless.

Many are little more than a one-line plot synopsis with star ratings attached. They don't mention whether the characters are interesting or if the quality of writing is worth one's time. I like a bit more meat on that bone, please.

Lately my new works have been getting these synopsis-style reviews, and however favorable (4.5 stars! and without buying ad space!), I like to think the reviewer actually READ the book!

No wonder folk are checking the Amazon reviews to find out more of what's going on for a title!

Did you like the book? Why or why not?

Now was that hard?

[AnneMarble]

Many are little more than a one-line plot synopsis with star ratings attached. They don't mention whether the characters are interesting or if the quality of writing is worth one's time. I like a bit more meat on that bone, please.
I like that RT did start including a sentence or two about the book and then the teeny synopsis. Some people think they did that because readers were complaining about the reviewers. But it's still not enough. Also, even then, there's often still no way to tell why one book got 4.5 stars and the other got 3 stars.

By the way, this hit the Karen Knows Best blog (http://karenknowsbest.com/2008/07/28/lee-goldberg-takes-affaire-de-coeur-to-task/). I wonder if it will hit Dear Author, SB, etc.? And if so, how long before someone from AdC starts posting in all the blogs about how mean everyone is. ;)

[Inspiewriter]

I
By the way, this hit the Karen Knows Best blog (http://karenknowsbest.com/2008/07/28/lee-goldberg-takes-affaire-de-coeur-to-task/). I wonder if it will hit Dear Author, SB, etc.? And if so, how long before someone from AdC starts posting in all the blogs about how mean everyone is. ;)



It's only a matter of time.:Shrug:

[veinglory]

I don't know. I've been critiquing AdC for many months and although one article writer recently posted a response that was not exactly dispassionate, the PTB of AdC have maintained a professional silence (or, of course, they may just not Google themselves and so not have found me).

[L.Jones]

Does any of this really matter to anyone but writers? I mean does anyone else really care or read these things? I always think of these 'review' sites and magazines as a vanity thing for authors and a power deal for the reviewers and a $ thing for the publishers/owners.
So why care what their policy is? I never thought anyone took them seriously. No need to get in a snit about them or pay them. (I've had 2 publishers pay for ads in RT and it didn't make a bit of difference in the review or the sales)
annie

My disclaimer: I usually get really gushy AdC reveiws and those weird RTs where they give me a 4, now and then a 3 and then say something quotable that makes it sound better than a 4 or 3 book.

[veinglory]

The websites mostly are fluff, but someone has to actually buy magazines and it seems clear to me most people who buy RT are readers. With AdC, I don't know, some articles seem to target readers and some seem to target writers and a good 1/3 just seem totally off topic altogether (non-romance movie reviews etc).

[AnneMarble]

Does any of this really matter to anyone but writers? I mean does anyone else really care or read these things? I always think of these 'review' sites and magazines as a vanity thing for authors and a power deal for the reviewers and a $ thing for the publishers/owners.
Readers often care -- even if they've given up on reading the magazines. I haven't seen many threads about AdC (because few people have seen a copy of the latest version), but RT is another thing. Readers often criticize RT for its review style, the emphasis on cover models and conventions, etc.

I guess a lot of romance readers take anything RT does personally because RT is the major print magazine that reviews a large number of romances. For years, it has been the public face of romance reviews. It was big enough that it had an impact on how some authors expected to be reviewed. When review sites like All About Romance and The Romance Reader first came to life and started giving graded reviews, many authors (and even some readers) couldn't "deal" with the lower grades. (Authors often responded to reviews with "But Romantic Times gave me 4.5 stars!") RT and the RT Convention have also been the subject of some intense blog controvesries.

Also, I've seen interesting threads about reader opinions concerning Harriet Klausner's reviews. :) Some fans do love her, but many roll their eyes are her reviews.

[L.Jones]

No one has to buy RT to keep it going, do they?
The mag is basically paid for by authors before a single issue is printed, I thought. I know that once upon a time they did not pay their reviewers. And the authors submitted their bios, so no cost there. Only once was I ever interviewed for an article (my publisher bought a BIG ad that month and decreed who would be in the special article than came with it but left to my own, I never submitted info when another publisher sent notice that we could be in an article because they did an ad).

It's a business thing, books show up all over the place because they publisher paid for placement, I don't think people look at these things and think they are literary journals. They are PR tools. It's hard to get all worked up over it.


annie

[veinglory]

Whether or not someone has to buy RT, they clearly do. I find it in most Borders stores and other chain store magazine sections--and I know if it was not selling it would be very quickly dropped. Also some of their advertsiers are large companies who would baulk at paying anything more than a few cents per quarter page per per reader which gives some idea of how big their circulation must be. I don't like RT all that much but that doesn't have much to do with how popular they are with their readership.

[Deb Kinnard]

Are there any other review-heavy paper magazines on the bookstore shelves? I haven't seen any for quite a while. Since I gave up RWA membership, I barely know there are romance-friendly mags out there. But I don't miss the RWR particularly.

[Cathy C]

No one has to buy RT to keep it going, do they?
The mag is basically paid for by authors before a single issue is printed, I thought.

I don't think it's paid for by authors, unless they choose to buy an ad. Mostly publishers buy the ads, but I don't think even advertising would be enough to put it on the shelf without the subscribers. According to BusinessWeek, the circulation of RT is 150,000. But it doesn't say how many of those are subscribers, versus shelf stock.

I don't think the new model of e and POD commonly has that kind of time between having a review-ready copy and releasing it.

See, there's where I get stuck in the concept. To me (and it be JUST me) the moment the book is reader to go to the editor, it's plenty ready for a reviewer. :Shrug: If the book has been accepted for publication and is in the editorial chain, it's fit to go. Or is that a really weird concept to everyone else?

[veinglory]

For me, and equally we all have different experiences, I would certainly not want my submitted version to go for review. For several of my books substantive changes were made such as an added or removed scene, and they all underwent substantive and necessary copyediting.

[Deb Kinnard]

For me in the small press world I've lived in for years now, it's post-edit. Yipes. I wouldn't want my pre-edit book up there for review. Cripes, once I had the hero & heroine paying the dinner check before they'd ordered food. My editor caught that one, bless her competent heart.

But post-edit and pre-release? There've been occasions when that throughput time was months. One author I know waited almost 20 months between edit and release -- unconscionable, but it happens. She wisely used that time to get the book reviewed wherever she could. But for most of us, the normal lag time would be more than ample to send out ARCs.

My take.

[veinglory]

I think that depends on who 'us' is. And by that I just mean that I have worked with several of the top new e-/POD romance publishers and the time frame is different. I have had books edited through 5-7 passes, but completed on days before release. I dount more than one in twenty (or less) had 4 months post edit. If AdC wants to continue to passively exclude those books, that's fine, their call.

[veinglory]

From Karen's Blog I see: “resources at AdC have indicated that Veinglory applied for a position as a reviewer and was rejected. Could that be the source of her animosity and inaccurate reporting?” posted by one 'Scarlet' without specifying who or what is being quoted.

So maybe I was wrong about AcD's willingness to sling mud and make with the ad hom attacks, albeit apparently through a proxy (unless it is just someone privy to AdC discussions 'leaking'?). But if anything I have posted at anytime is inaccurate, I hope to hear more about that. It can pretty much be assumed I am a pit of seething envy (or not), that's fine, but I am very indignant that anything would suggest I am innaccurate and would be very apologetic if I did make an error of fact. All that I have posted is based on direct observation of the AdC magazine and website, with any opinion phrased as opinion.

[AnneMarble]

From Karen's Blog I see: “resources at AdC have indicated that Veinglory applied for a position as a reviewer and was rejected. Could that be the source of her animosity and inaccurate reporting?” posted by one 'Scarlet' without specifying who or what is being quoted.
Oy. It starts.

Somebody should create a Bingo card for blog comments. And something tells me we'll be able to fill it out quickly. One of the first things that comes up is usually some variation of "(Insert Name Here) is angry and jealous because she was rejected by us."

And why would they reject someone who can actually write?! ;)

So maybe I was wrong about AcD's willingness to sling mud and make with the ad hom attacks, albeit apparently through a proxy (unless it is just someone privy to AdC discussions 'leaking'?). But if anything I have posted at anytime is inaccurate, I hope to hear more about that. It can pretty much be assumed I am a pit of seething envy (or not), that's fine, but I am very indignant that anything would suggest I am innaccurate and would be very apologetic if I did make an error of fact. All that I have posted is based on direct observation of the AdC magazine and website, with any opinion phrased as opinion.
It's typical of so many people in the industry to see something like "Your product is badly designed and badly written" and think that means they have to slam the person rather than improving their product. :rolleyes: It's like the writers who slam reviewers by saying something like "Well they're just jealous because they can't get published." Some people refuse to believe that the answer is, "Jealous of what? And your book still sucked." ;)

[veinglory]

Also, I probably should refrain from wandering around whining about it. the internet is insidious in how it effects behavior, my own included. Oh well.

It is no secret I am not a fan of AdC as a magazine, but then I don't much like Chick Lit, gherkins or Amazon.com--and it ain't slowing them down much. There are some business approaches that are either okay or not depending on one's personal philosophy.

I would say that I don't think anything AdC chooses to do is outside of that gray area. And both readers and advertisers only need to read AdC's website to see what the deal is.