Book formats, genres, and sales in the news

[brightknightie]

I thought that you might want to know about these developments, too:

A few weeks ago, I saw an article discussing how mass-market paperbacks are on their way out, that the last large publishers/printers of them in English will soon cease production of that cheaper "pocket size" book format that has dominated my lifetime. That market has apparently fallen to a combination of e-book readers and non-readers. Also, grocery stores and drugstores and other such grab-and-go places for which mass-market paperbacks were made don't give books as much shelf space as they used to, as you may have seen first-hand. The future of new books is trade paperbacks and hardbacks, apparently, though I imagine used books will circulate as long as the pages cling to their glued bindings. Anything and everything that puts books out of reach for anyone, yet especially the young and the poor, is tragic. (Subscriber gift link to take you, and anyone you share it with, through the paywall for free: "So Long to Cheap Books You Could Fit in Your Pocket" by Elizabeth A. Harris, New York Times, February 6, 20026.)

Yesterday (Valentine's Day, no less), I saw an article reporting that Harlequin/Mills & Boon, the romance publisher powerhouse, will discontinue its historical romance line entirely in English, after having previously pared all historical eras down to just Regency and Victorian. (Medieval, Old West, US Revolution, and many more were all actively published at various times.) I'm not a big romance reader and I don't buy new Harlequin, but... it's always been there. I've read it from time to time from the library, and bought used from library sell-offs or bins outside bookshops, and while too many of the ones I've read were at best ephemeral candy, and a few were absolute wrecks, an equal few were genuinely good or clever or inspiring and have stayed in my imagination. I am a big reader of historical fiction... I can't feel good about history being a fading interest. (This site allows 3 monthly freebie views: "Harlequin to Discontinue Historical Romance Line" by Sam Spratford, Publishers Weekly, February 13, 2026.)

Comments

[kalloway]

Yesterday (Valentine's Day, no less), I saw an article saying that Harlequin/Mills & Boon, the romance publisher powerhouse, will discontinue its historical romance line entirely in English, after having previously pared all historical eras down to just Regency and Victorian.

I guess I'm going to have to start hoarding medievals from the used book store. While I'm generally willing to give anything a shot if it has either a good hook or a silly title, I really do like my medievals. It's been a long time since I bought a new Harlequin, though. I've looked, but most category romance is in categories that I just don't mesh with.

[brightknightie]

I was intrigued when the suspense and supernatural/urban fantasy category romances began emerging over a decade ago, and thought it was likely good for all the genres. I would never have imagined they could supplant historicals!

I have two unread Harlequin medievals on my stack and was planning to re-donate them to the library book sale when I was done with them, and now I'm regretting the last one that I did that with, as it was unusually good, and if I'd known the spigot would be turned off...

[ride_4ever]

This is so sad I can't even.

I've been a librarian at a public library for 29 years and I have seen these mass-market paperbacks in Romance and in other genres being very popular amongst our library patrons right up to now in the second month of 2026.

[brightknightie]

I learned from the NYT article that mass-market paperbacks cost only thirty cents less to manufacture than trade paperbacks, while trade paperbacks sell for six dollars more than mass-market paperbacks. So. But it can never be a one-to-one switchover; people will buy fewer books overall (not everyone can afford or use an e-reader, of course), and that's so sad.

And holding a mass-market paperback in your hand (never mind fitting it into pocket or purse) is just different from a trade paperback. I wonder if that, too, will reduce some people's reading, especially if there's physical strength or ability considerations.

[estirose]

When I took a trip last year, in order to get a mass market-sized paperback to toss in my carryon, I had to hit up a used book store- no major bookstore seemed to have them. So I'm saddened but not surprised.

[brightknightie]

Looking back, I feel like I've been seeing it in slow motion for many years in, of all places, the grocery store. First, the comics went away. Then the magazines and books section contracted. Then the magazines and books got moved from the front of the store to the aisle with the greeting cards and seasonal merch, while contracting again. Then the books contracted yet again. Now...

[celli]

I had heard about the paperbacks but not about Harlequin. That makes me so sad! I have loved many a Harlequin Regency.

[brightknightie]

Harlequin "category romances" seemed to me as immortal as any sort of book genre line could possibly be. I would never have imagined that historicals would fall as a desired type.

I will not resist noting grumpily that this is surely a symptom of what is actively undermining our society -- not enough interest in history and what we can learn from it!

[greerwatson]

I'm not surprised about the paperbacks. For the past few years, fewer and fewer books have been published in that format. It's a pity: they take up less space on the shelf, are readily packed for reading on a plane, and—this is the killer, of course!—they cost less.

Trade paperbacks are still with us, at least. They're more expensive; but at least they aren't e-books. You can curl up with them on the sofa.