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.

Part of marketing any book is a kind of bait and switch

Indeed. And once I've bought a book with 5 heaving bossoms and barely got a kiss on the cheek, I resolve to never buy a book from that author or that line again. When I was 14 Harlequins were perfect for me. By the time I was 17, I'd quit reading them. Don't show me a cover meant for a 47 year old and then give me a 14 year old YA book. I'm not interested.

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.

I've known too many men that hew to the "fashion? what fashion?" stereotype (and, who knows -- more women might try it, if there weren't more of a perceived penalty for us) for me to agree with that presumption. Not to mention the ones who do pay attention and are just wrongheaded crackpots and end up looking like crap anyway (not a gender-skewed issue at all).

wrongheaded crackpots

There are many of these on this earth. Still and all, I would posit that a $200 anything deserves some attention and care. I spent weeks working myself up to buying my new computer, and have still not settled in my mind that the bike I am thinking about is The Perfect Bike that I shall love and cherish till the end of my days.

$5 t-shirt, I feel no remorse about dripping shmutz on it the first day I wear it. $200 Evening gown? I will employ a shmutz-avoidance field generator.

I would posit that a $200 anything deserves some attention and care

You can posit, but I don't think that your positing will affect the thousands of men that buy suits because they have to wear them to work, and really don't care how they look.

I worked with a guy that wore a bright purple (like, Prince would decline wearing it -- Barney bright) suit two or three times a week. Customers would ask me about it. I never worked out if he was one of those that didn't care, or if he did care, and this was what he really wanted to be wearing.