I mean there are plenty of boring musicians out there, leather pants notwithstanding

Probably. I just never hung out with any.

presumably when you're wearing an outfit that costs $200 (and you're a man, where the economy of fashion is far smaller on average), you ought to look spiff

My experience doesn't quite bear that out, but still.

Define economy of fashion for me? I thought men got off easy on that one, but I may be interpreting it differently.

I mean there are plenty of boring musicians out there, leather pants notwithstanding

Probably. I just never hung out with any.

Oy. I have. Not substantatively different from their corporate counterparts. I've never encountered more than five people in any profession and not found one of them boring.

90% of real people who wear suits wear them indifferently

Doesn't that cover 90% of people who wear clothes?

Bingo!

presumably when you're wearing an outfit that costs $200 (and you're a man, where the economy of fashion is far smaller on average), you ought to look spiff

Not if they look like they aren't comfortable, or that they're wearing a costume they aren't particularly happy about. I've seen far, far too many guys in very nice suits who give off the vibe of 'do not want to be wearing this', which ruins the whole thing. Oh, and posture. Posture & confidence are very important when wearing suits. (Okay, they're important for any clothing, dammit.)

I've never encountered more than five people in any profession and not found one of them boring.

I think I have a particular vibe that's always made the boring ones scuttle off before I could notice whether or not they were dull. Same way macho sexists pigdogs cross the street when they see me coming.

I love the way Nic looks in a tailored three-piece. I adore him in his tux - so damned hot. But what really adds the salsa to the suitage, for me, is knowing that he knows the game-playing of having to wear it is crap. He's playing a game, and I can dig that.

I think my brain is broken over these edits.

Harlouette, gentil Harlouette, Harlouette, gentil plumerie...

Bwah!

So is it a matter of the publishers/editors don't think books that match these guidelines won't sell, or are they worried they will turn off some of their readers? Because if it's the latter, maybe they need to implement some kind of rating system. Maybe a little symbol in the corner with, for example S, L, NMI which would mean "Warning: this book contains depictions of smoking, harsh langauge and non-missionary position intercourse."

I'm mostly-joking, but on further thought, it might actually help readers find the stuff they're into while being confident they won't suddenly come across a known squick on page 111.

(Of course, romance books could already do this, for all I know.)

(Of course, romance books could already do this, for all I know.)

Nope. Doesn't sound like a bad idea, though. I found it interestisng that Barnes and Noble now has a "religious fiction" section (I think that's what the called it, I misremember.) It looked like it was all bodice rippers with a church in the background.

I think that's what lines out of particular romance houses are for. Like the Harlequin Heaving Bosom line is for romances from the times of corsets; Harlequin Manolo is for Sex-and-the-City knockoffs; Harlequin Glimpse-of-Ankle is for religious conservatives of several flavors; Harlequin Nose Ring is a series of romances among a group of dykey friends.

I'm only kinda joking.

Define economy of fashion for me?

Budget, then. Although a pair of men's khaki may cost about the same as a women's, I bet women buy more pairs in a year (and skirts and trousers besides). A man spending $200 on one garment would, presumably, really pay attention to that garment, it being a considerable percentage of his yearly clothing budget.

The funky thing is that AFAICT, Harlequin Historicals is one of the more flexible historical publishers in terms of era, setting, tone, level of sensuality, etc. They still wouldn't be my first choice publisher because I want my book on the shelf for more than a month if it can be managed, but HH isn't as branded as (most) other Harlouette lines, nor as some other publishers' historical lists.

I'm mostly-joking, but on further thought, it might actually help readers find the stuff they're into while being confident they won't suddenly come across a known squick on page 111.

(Of course, romance books could already do this, for all I know.)

An agent actually proposed this idea recently in the RWA magazine, and I had a heart attack. Part of marketing any book is a kind of bait and switch -- if you're going to put Five Heaving Bosoms on the cover to indicate lots of sex, you're automatically turning away readers who like a little less. Whereas if you're more vague with the cover, it's a crapshoot. And publishers always want to sell as many books to as many readers as possible. The opposite is also true -- to try and keep traditional Regencies afloat recently, Kensington was trying to make them look "bigger" and sexier, with more suggestive covers and much more suggestive cover copy. The books inside were the same -- no sex, just kissing -- but they were trying to attract readers of longer, sexier historicals.

That said, Harlequin and Silhouette have lines that are fairly clearly outlined in terms of sexual content, etc. In one line, the sex all happens behind a closed door, in another the sex is "on camera" but the book always ends in what I'll call "intent to marry," etc.