![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swan_towerSo in my SF Novelists post, I made a mention of how a lot of romance novels don't work for me because they're often too focused on the hero and heroine, to the exclusion (or at least sidelining) of other characters. And that reminded me that I had some thoughts I'd meant to post, about why, despite giving it a good shot, I don't think I'll ever be a romance reader.
Before I get into those thoughts, however, let me say up front: the tl;dr version of this is not "romance novels suck." Anyone using the comment thread to bash the genre wholesale will be invited to do their bashing elsewhere. This is about why I'm the wrong reader for the genre.
The reason, in short form, is this: I don't find them all that romantic.
It has to do with where my own personal buttons are. I do not, for example, have much interest in the hornypants model of romance, where the connection between the hero and heroine (or hero and hero, heroine and heroine, or other combinations -- this isn't only a heterosexual or even monogamous thing) manifests first and foremost through their hormones. This is why the Imriel/Sidonie relationship in the second Kushiel trilogy didn't do much for me, because they were so much about lust, and that just doesn't engage my interest. Or, to pick a genre romance example rather than a fantasy-with-romance one, I eventually stopped reading Butterfly Swords because two pages after the main characters met, all they could think about when they looked at each other was physical attraction. That's an important component, of course, but when it's the chief signifier of compatability and connection, I'm not persuaded. It doesn't make me believe in their relationship, not in the way I'm looking for.
So what do I find romantic? Shared interests and goals. Characters who have something in common (besides lust), something really important to them both. Then their relationship becomes a partnership, working together for something outside themselves. To put it in visual terms, I don't want them to be standing face-to-face, looking only at each other; I want them standing side-by-side, looking at something else. I used to say that I like romance when it's the B plot of a novel, rather than the A plot, but lately I've come to realize that's a symptom of my personal inclinations, not the cause. The truth is that when the romance is the B plot, I find it more romantic.
The A plot, you see, gives me context and meaning for the romance. It shows me different sides of the characters, so that when they come together I have a better sense of who they are and why they matter to each other. This is why Phèdre and Joscelin work for me, and Imriel and Sidonie don't; the foundation of that first partnership goes down to bedrock. When they dislike each other, it's for well-grounded cultural reasons. When Joscelin hates Phèdre, it's because he has reason to think she's a traitor. When they begin working together, it's for survival, and to strike back at their enemies, and their trust and inter-reliance grows out of that. As a result, when the really dramatic moments roll around -- the moments where they decide to put each other ahead of something else -- those moments hit harder because that something else? Really matters. To them both. And I therefore care about it a lot more.
I've read romances where one or both protagonists have the attitude of "you are the only thing in the world that matters to me." That? Is not a button that works for me. I like characters who care about multiple things, and those things intertwine. It doesn't always have to be fate-of-the-world level, either (though admittedly, as a fantasy reader I'm accustomed to plots with fairly high stakes). I very much like the Lydia/Wickham byplot in Pride and Prejudice, for example, and would love it even more if it was resolved by joint action between Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy. (Which, if I recall correctly, is the case in the Bride and Prejudice adaptation.) The higher the percentage of that kind of thing in the story, the more I'm likely to get invested in the romance -- at least until you tip over the edge of "this is actually just about the A plot, and we've shoved a romance in there because we feel obligated to do so."
I know romance novels do include that kind of thing. But it's been a running dissatisfaction of mine, with virtually all the ones I've read, that I want more plot-plot to ground the romance-plot. I picked up Butterfly Swords because it was set in Tang Dynasty China, which, you know, awesome! But then it was all about the hornypants, and I'm sitting there going, "MOAR TANG CHINA NAO PLZ." If the political side had been the plot, rather than a very neglected subplot, and the hero had been somebody invested in that plot rather than a random European outsider shoehorned into the setting (seriously, wtf), then, well, it would have been the book I was hoping to read. As it was, though, it was not for me.
I'm posting this because it's been very enlightening for me to think through my expectations and the conventions of the genre (as seen through friends' reviews, the Smart Bitches website, and the twenty or so romance novels I've read). The more I understand what I'm looking for in a story, the better I'm able to find stories I will like.
But I am definitely willing to take recommendations from those of you who are romance readers, of books you think are likely to supply what I'm looking for. Short form is, more plot = more good (though I will roll my eyes right out of my head if the characters are running for their lives from the bad guys and then stop in a stairwell or broom closet for random nookie). Also, I like stories where the protagonists have known each other for a while, rather than just having met; this, to me, is one of the big romantic selling points in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pameladean's Tam Lin. My ideal of romance grows out of friendship and partnership, which both fare better when they're given lots of context. Finally, because of my interests, I tend to gravitate more towards historicals or things with speculative elements, rather than contemporary realistic romance. But they'd better do their history or speculation well, or I'll be kicked right out of the story.
Yeah, I know. I'm not asking for much at all. <g>
Before I get into those thoughts, however, let me say up front: the tl;dr version of this is not "romance novels suck." Anyone using the comment thread to bash the genre wholesale will be invited to do their bashing elsewhere. This is about why I'm the wrong reader for the genre.
The reason, in short form, is this: I don't find them all that romantic.
It has to do with where my own personal buttons are. I do not, for example, have much interest in the hornypants model of romance, where the connection between the hero and heroine (or hero and hero, heroine and heroine, or other combinations -- this isn't only a heterosexual or even monogamous thing) manifests first and foremost through their hormones. This is why the Imriel/Sidonie relationship in the second Kushiel trilogy didn't do much for me, because they were so much about lust, and that just doesn't engage my interest. Or, to pick a genre romance example rather than a fantasy-with-romance one, I eventually stopped reading Butterfly Swords because two pages after the main characters met, all they could think about when they looked at each other was physical attraction. That's an important component, of course, but when it's the chief signifier of compatability and connection, I'm not persuaded. It doesn't make me believe in their relationship, not in the way I'm looking for.
So what do I find romantic? Shared interests and goals. Characters who have something in common (besides lust), something really important to them both. Then their relationship becomes a partnership, working together for something outside themselves. To put it in visual terms, I don't want them to be standing face-to-face, looking only at each other; I want them standing side-by-side, looking at something else. I used to say that I like romance when it's the B plot of a novel, rather than the A plot, but lately I've come to realize that's a symptom of my personal inclinations, not the cause. The truth is that when the romance is the B plot, I find it more romantic.
The A plot, you see, gives me context and meaning for the romance. It shows me different sides of the characters, so that when they come together I have a better sense of who they are and why they matter to each other. This is why Phèdre and Joscelin work for me, and Imriel and Sidonie don't; the foundation of that first partnership goes down to bedrock. When they dislike each other, it's for well-grounded cultural reasons. When Joscelin hates Phèdre, it's because he has reason to think she's a traitor. When they begin working together, it's for survival, and to strike back at their enemies, and their trust and inter-reliance grows out of that. As a result, when the really dramatic moments roll around -- the moments where they decide to put each other ahead of something else -- those moments hit harder because that something else? Really matters. To them both. And I therefore care about it a lot more.
I've read romances where one or both protagonists have the attitude of "you are the only thing in the world that matters to me." That? Is not a button that works for me. I like characters who care about multiple things, and those things intertwine. It doesn't always have to be fate-of-the-world level, either (though admittedly, as a fantasy reader I'm accustomed to plots with fairly high stakes). I very much like the Lydia/Wickham byplot in Pride and Prejudice, for example, and would love it even more if it was resolved by joint action between Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy. (Which, if I recall correctly, is the case in the Bride and Prejudice adaptation.) The higher the percentage of that kind of thing in the story, the more I'm likely to get invested in the romance -- at least until you tip over the edge of "this is actually just about the A plot, and we've shoved a romance in there because we feel obligated to do so."
I know romance novels do include that kind of thing. But it's been a running dissatisfaction of mine, with virtually all the ones I've read, that I want more plot-plot to ground the romance-plot. I picked up Butterfly Swords because it was set in Tang Dynasty China, which, you know, awesome! But then it was all about the hornypants, and I'm sitting there going, "MOAR TANG CHINA NAO PLZ." If the political side had been the plot, rather than a very neglected subplot, and the hero had been somebody invested in that plot rather than a random European outsider shoehorned into the setting (seriously, wtf), then, well, it would have been the book I was hoping to read. As it was, though, it was not for me.
I'm posting this because it's been very enlightening for me to think through my expectations and the conventions of the genre (as seen through friends' reviews, the Smart Bitches website, and the twenty or so romance novels I've read). The more I understand what I'm looking for in a story, the better I'm able to find stories I will like.
But I am definitely willing to take recommendations from those of you who are romance readers, of books you think are likely to supply what I'm looking for. Short form is, more plot = more good (though I will roll my eyes right out of my head if the characters are running for their lives from the bad guys and then stop in a stairwell or broom closet for random nookie). Also, I like stories where the protagonists have known each other for a while, rather than just having met; this, to me, is one of the big romantic selling points in
pameladean's Tam Lin. My ideal of romance grows out of friendship and partnership, which both fare better when they're given lots of context. Finally, because of my interests, I tend to gravitate more towards historicals or things with speculative elements, rather than contemporary realistic romance. But they'd better do their history or speculation well, or I'll be kicked right out of the story.Yeah, I know. I'm not asking for much at all. <g>
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 12:55 am (UTC)In the past I've often found that my favorite romances come from other genres -- in fact in my twenties I read mysteries predominantly for the romance, with only the vaguest interest in whodunnit and much more interest in how the discovery of the murderer and the subsequent confrontation would affect the MC and his/her love interest. (The most obvious example being Lord Peter and Harriet, but I also followed Anne Perry's Inspector Monk series for about twelve books practically for the romance element alone.)
And I too find that the "love at first sight" idea, and relationships based on being mystical soulmates and/or mutually gorgeous to one another, leave me cold. The marriage of true minds well acquainted with one another appeals to me far more. Sure, I want to see some physical attraction too, but I'd like it to be based on attributes much more singular and interesting than a chiseled jaw or pouty red lips.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 01:19 am (UTC)Yeah, I'm hoping for some good recs. The thing is, I adore a strong romance; it's just that the approach I prefer is more often found in other genres. (I've only just dipped my toes into the Lord Peter/Harriet Vane storyline, but I'm looking forward to more. I might have to check out Perry, too -- I've read a couple of hers and enjoyed them, but not the ones with the romance, I think.)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 01:38 am (UTC)For spec fic romance, I recommend the Liaden books by Lee and Miller. Each book in the main series has a central romance, but the two leads are always working together to accomplish something: to stay alive, to fight off a planetary attack, to unearth a conspiracy that's been targeting their family for decades, to find lost members of their clan, to rebuild on another world. It's fun. The final book of the series brings all of primary characters together and requires them to coordinate with each other in order to save themselves and their planet.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that the romance happens on the way to the goal. And is important. But is not, in itself, the goal. Also, there are other equally important relationships (between siblings, mostly) that take center stage at times in the books.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 01:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 09:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 02:28 am (UTC)Funnily enough, this is why, despite not being interested in romance as a genre, i do find myself reading a lot of fanfic to the effect. That way, you can have a serving of romance with books and books (or hours and hours)' worth of worldbuilding already extant and internalized.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 05:26 am (UTC)Good enough prose can do it, though. There are some characters I could just sit there and watch be themselves, with nothing happening, for like a whole book before I start asking for a plot. :-)
I totally agree that's one of the strong motifs in fanfic, though. The plot and tension and so on have already been provided in canon; now you can wander around endlessly exploring the relationships.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 03:08 am (UTC)So now I'm going back to my own damn erotica novel and add some more surfing.
Edit: FWIW, this book (http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/b116562/10-Days-in-Paradise/Dawn-Halliday/?si=0). I started skipping over sex scenes because they bored me. That said, some of the Hawaii description was better than I expected, so win overall.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 05:28 am (UTC)But I'm putting MOAR SURFING PLZ into my critical lexicon alongside "too much boyfriend, not enough roller derby." :-)
(And then there's the "too much sodomy, not enough dinosaurs"/"too much dinosaurs, not enough sodomy" pairing -- but I save that one for special occasions.)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 03:39 am (UTC)I hear you on story-driven, B-plot romances; I have a weakness for romances where there's some personality conflict, like the Gabe/Gracie snarking, or initial misdirect, like Phedre's crush on Delauney and Joscelin's initial feelings toward her.
Of course, many romance novels don't aim to tug at your /heartstrings/ exactly, ahem.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 05:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 05:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 04:22 am (UTC)That being said, here are my romances that trump all others:
1. The Silver-Metal Lover, by Tanith Lee. This is pure romance. It makes me cry, it's so good. She wrote a... companion book, that I hear is critically amazing and a very hard read for most of the people who love the first book because it strips away a lot of the illusions of romance that the first book establishes. I own the companion, but haven't read it yet because... I'm scared.
2. Temeraire, et. al., by Naomi Novak. Love 'em, and the romantic epiphany Lawrence has at the end of the fourth book makes all the boring travel in the earlier books completely worthwhile. That being said... boring travel.
3. The Ship who Searched, by Mercedes Lackey (and Anne McCaffery, but really... they just slapped her name on it). Tia may be the most awesome shipembodied heroine I've ever read, and Alex is pretty kick-ass too.
4. Restoree, by Anne McCaffery. God... her gender stuff hurts my soul, but... this is one of the first romance novels I ever read, and I still love the _romance_ between Sarah and Harlan. And I may or may not have penned some Mary-Sue fanfic regarding Jokan when I was a teenager. Just sayin' >.>
5. The Darkangel Trilogy, by Meredith Ann Pierce. Forget Irrylath. Keep an eye on the romance with Erin. Something I really couldn't appreciate until I was older and wiser.
Runners-up:
The Fool Trilogy, by Robin Hobb. This would be my number one winner with a bullet, because I *adore* Fitz and the Fool. But... Hobb chickens out at the last second and gives us a totally unsatisfying resolution on what has essentially been the main pairing for... nine books (if you count the Assassin trilogy and the Mad Ship trilogy - both also good). *And* she doesn't allow fanfic. To quote Ladyhawke: "[She] didn't even leave us that. Not even that."
The Time-Traveler's Wife, by Audrey Niffenegger. Another one that *almost* is my number one, except... the ending leaves me very ambivalent (in the best possible way) about whether this relationship was an enriching and constructive kind of love, or a horrific and constricting kind of co-dependency. I haven't seen the movie and don't wish to, because I can't imagine it will leave me as intellectually energized as the book. So, amazing book... but I'm still not sure it's a romance.
I'd write more, but I'm probably over my word limit as is. And you'll notice that, sadly, none of these is from the romance section. I keep hoping...
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 05:39 am (UTC)I read Compass Rose because it was a) polyamorous (I'm in favor of more romantic diversity) and b) a fantasy -- this was one of the books put out by Harlequin's Luna imprint -- but yeah, one of the things that disappointed me about it was the way the fantasy plot got put on autopilot for about half the book while the romance was developed. (Plus it tried to shoehorn too many people into the marriage in too quick succession; given that this was the first book of the series, I would have liked it to take a slower approach, and develop each new character more thoroughly.) But I think I'm more willing to forgive predictability in a romance B plot, because the emotions can feel real to me even if they're a lot like something I've read before. So long as I care about the characters -- which is usually accomplished by the A plot -- I care about their happiness.
Anyway, I don't much expect recs from the romance section, because the whole point of this post is that I don't think what most of the romance section is doing is the kind of thing I'm looking for. Which is fine; clearly it is the kind of thing a great many other people are looking for, because that stuff sells like mad. But I no longer feel like my lack of interest in romance is due to uninformed prejudice, as it was before.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 04:39 am (UTC)Simple romances don't do it for me, either, unless I'm totally stressed and need a predictable but not yet read world to visit. I adore the Mary Russell-Sherlock Holmes stories by Laurie R. King, but most people would call those Detective Stories with Romantic Intermissions, to misquote Dorothy Sayers. And I don't like Detective stories generally, unless I like the main character(s) a lot. Otherwise: boring.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 05:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 06:32 am (UTC)Year of the Unicorn by Andre Norton is probably my favourite book involving a romance, which (arguably) is central to the plot. Except that it's Andre Norton, so old-fashioned YA, and physical attraction is pretty much absent. So not sure whether it counts.
If it doesn't, then it's back to Dunnett--but there's plenty in those books to keep you busy that's not the romance.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 06:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 12:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 08:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 02:35 pm (UTC)I came into the series expecting a bog-standard quasi-medieval European setting featuring a dauntless young street urchin who becomes a thief with the help of some white-bearded mentor. I could not have been proven more thoroughly wrong, or more delighted to be so.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 08:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 03:03 pm (UTC)I also have a stylistic focus problem with genre romance. A lot of genre romance tends to want far, far more visual description than I care about. I get bored long before the central pair gets to bantering, because do I care what the room looks like in cinematic detail? I do not.
Another thing is, I am a plausibility junkie. One of the romance novels I read had the hero tying the heroine up (fine) and suspending her by the wrists from a hotel curtain rod. What follows that in my mind is 1) heroine tangled in nasty dusty-smelling hotel curtains after the rod has been pulled down and bonked one or more of them on the head and 2) embarrassed attempts to jointly explain the situation to hotel staff upon checkout. So I'm giggling in anticipation of the comedy about to ensue, and...the hero is ravishing the heroine smoothly, glibly, no problems. I take technical implausibility as foreshadowing data rather than an idealized world. You'd think I'd be able to switch into physicist mode, but it turns out that muttering to myself, "Assume a massless frictionless pulley," in the middle of reading a sex scene does not help.
I also have terminology problems. This started when I was reading the sex scenes in my mom's Jean Auel novels as an adolescent and going, "I don't believe I was issued the equipment described. Orchid? Seriously? No orchids here."
I am cranky and have eccentric standards, is what.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 03:20 pm (UTC)'Freedom and Necessity' by Emma Bull and Steven Brust has a very slowly developing romantic subplot. Includes one of my favourite seduction scenes in the genre (and I usually skim over seduction scenes as all-much-of-a-muchness).
Martha Wells often has a romantic element threaded through some very entertaining light adventure fantasy. I love her dry sense of humour.
Lois McMaster Bujold's later Vorkosigan books - 'Komarr' and 'A civil campaign' - are an entertaining mix of politics and romance. Her Sharing Knife books are romantic fantasy.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 04:45 pm (UTC)The Apothecary's Daughter (kept me guessing, actually)
The Acts of Faith series by Davis Bunn and Janette Oke
and on the nonChristian side:
I like Julie Garwood
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 06:08 pm (UTC)Otherwise my best offerings are not Actual Romances -- Tommy and Tuppence in Christie; Miles and -- virtually everyone he's ever dated -- in the Vorkosiganverse.
And Elizabeth Bear's Hammered books. Totally fits on knowing each other a long time and having a shared project.
I adore the romance in Kay's Tigana, but they are definitely not standing together looking in the same direction -- they are standing together looking in opposite directions, and therein lies the tragedy.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 08:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Georgette Heyer
Date: 2011-02-17 06:33 pm (UTC)While the A plots are pretty much romance, the B plots concern finances, scandals, foolish youngsters, and other issues that are small stakes by "save the world" genre standards, but huge stakes by any individual character's standards. The result: lots of snappy dialogue and that comfy feeling that you're well-settled in a historical period.
So while she's neither Dunnett nor Austen, she's a lot more satisfying than anyone I've read on the modern romance shelves. Plus I don't have to worry about leaving her novels out where the Short Voracious Readers will pick them up; I have no intention of explaining that particular use of the term "Orchid" to the Pre-K crowd.
Oh, and I know what you mean about Dean's *Tam Lin*; something similar goes in on *Snow White and Rose Red* from the Fairy Tale series, where Blanche gets the dreamy A-plot romance but you know the cooler romance is the B-plot one. But yeah, not a lot of really good love stories in literature by my standards. I will go find *Bet Me* now.
By the way, sorry to post Anonymously, but I don't subscribe to, um, anything, so I don't have an LJ handle. --Reaux, Minister of Love Emerita
Re: Georgette Heyer
Date: 2011-02-17 08:34 pm (UTC)Heyer I am definitely intending to try; I just haven't had the time yet.
Re: Georgette Heyer
From:Re: Georgette Heyer
From:Re: Georgette Heyer
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 09:51 pm (UTC)I may be close to another Nora Roberts binge, probably starting with the Quinn books-- Sea Swept, Rising Tide, Inner Harbor, and there is no fourth book, no seriously, it never happened. Those have three brothers coming together to protect a fourth, figure out how he fits into the family's history, and also kind of grow into the people they will be via love and ambition. It's Nora Roberts World, which takes its own suspension of disbelief, but still. The Born In books, maybe, depending on your tolerance for Nora Roberts World.
Some of the Nora Roberts thrillers might be what you're looking for; they are generally standalones but have, you know, dead people in them. And her heroines generally save themselves. I could go on about this for days.
Crusie, yes, Heyer, yes, but really, what I like is to read a bunch of connected books so I see everything. Sometimes I run into the nonepilogue version of the epilogue with a baby in it, but most of it's good.
(althogh I warn you: I have a thing for brothers and families in general.)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 09:54 pm (UTC)I did read three or maybe four of the Wallflowers books, and liked 'em okay; the one that started with the marriage of convenience was my favorite of the lot, precisely because it had more in the way of non-romance plot to it (I think they were trying to make a go of a business together -- a gambling den or something? -- and then there was her family being out to get her, too). Also, the hero was probably the only "rake" with actual rakish qualities I've yet seen in romance. That was one of the things that annoyed me about the one Bridgerton book I read, that the hero supposedly had this reputation as a big ol' rake, and did absolutely nothing to deserve it: no gambling, no womanizing, nothing of the sort.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 03:27 am (UTC)I also don't like the way the conflict has to be between the hero and heroine, which leads to a lot of "I hate him and everything he stands for, but he's so hot, and I hate that I want him so much" stuff. Maybe I'm weird, but if I think a guy is a jerk, then he becomes less attractive to me, not more. And then even if the heroine doesn't think the hero is Satan incarnate, she's irked by his very existence. Like, don't you just hate it when the perfect man waltzes into your life and falls madly in love with you, and it's really inconvenient because you chose that day to assert your independence and he's ruining your plans. I prefer a relationship to grow out of people working together, not working against each other.
I'll third (or fourth, or whatever) the Georgette Heyer recommendation. That's about the only genre romance I read these days. There are also a few romantic adventures from the 70s and very early 80s by Madeleine Brent, which was a pen name for Peter O'Donnell, author of the Modesty Blaise books. They had a lot of the Gothic structure, with spooky houses, lots of family secrets, the guy who seemed good but turned out to be bad and the guy who seemed dark and dangerous but who turned out to be good. But they were a lot more action-oriented with the heroine more proactive than in the typical Gothic. Most of them involved an English girl brought up in some foreign place, where she learned some unique survival skills. Then fate brought her back to England, where her foreign upbringing made it hard for her to fit in with Victorian or Edwardian society. But then her unique skills enabled her to save the day (and quite often the hero). For instance, there was one where she was kidnapped as an infant and left to die in the Outback, where she was found by Aborigines and brought up by them until she was found by missionaries who brought her back to England, but then later she gets to put her expert tracking skills to use to catch the bad guys and save everyone. I think these are all out of print, but I've always found them in the library.
The books Connie Willis co-wrote with Cynthia Felice work like romance novels for me, with the elements I want from a romance (in a science fiction setting) but without the stuff I don't usually like.
For more straightforward contemporary romance type stories without the romance elements that are annoying, I like some of Sarah Bird's earlier books. They're shelved in mainstream fiction, but she wrote category romance under another name and she knows the genre. Both The Boyfriend School and Alamo House have love stories, but they're also kind of satirical about the genre, and they're laugh-out-loud funny.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 08:37 am (UTC)Yeah, exactly. I lose a lot of respect for the characters if they can't put their hormones aside long enough to focus on the job.
I also don't like the way the conflict has to be between the hero and heroine
I like it if it's the right kind of conflict. But it has to be grounded in something valid -- unlike your latter example -- and not be insurmountable in real life -- unlike your former example. (Okay, maybe that's not insurmountable, but it shouldn't be surmounted; if the guy's an ass, I don't care how hot he is, stay away.)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 10:00 am (UTC)This post seems like it came from my dreams! I could have written it myself!
I agree with all the things you said about "Butterfly Swords". I bought it the day it was released, because I'd read a very good review on Dear Author... and it was sooo boring. I was really interested in reading a story set in ancient China and starring a swordswoman, but in the end it was only a lame excuse for all the smut. Like a porn movie, it didn't matter where it happened, all that mattered was the sex scenes. The "romance" was so unbelievable to me, all about lust and not really knowing the other person. The plot wasn't much of a plot. -- I really regretted spending my money on this book.
I've always liked a bit of romance in the books I read, but I only truly entered the world of romance novels around a year ago. I needed some light reading to balance all the heavy college work. 90% of what I tried didn't please me... it's like looking for gold in a junkyard.
I leave you some recommendations of books with very good romance (not lust):
- Sevenwaters trilogy by Juliet Marillier (the second book was the best of all, in my opinion) -- the story itself is bigger and more important that the romance, though the latter becomes one of the most unforgettable love stories you will ever see. Love it.
- "The Tea Rose" by Jennifer Donnelly -- amazing book, seriously. I can't say much without spoiling anything, but the lead female character is a very strong woman whose spirit is never broken and she doesn't rely on men. The romance is very touching, but secondary to the story.
- "Mine to Possess" a book in the Psy/Changeling series by Nalini Singh. Childhood friends/sweethearts meet again as adults and rekindle their love.
I could recommend many more books, but suddenly I can't remember any! XD temporary amnesia...
I'm going to check out the rest of your LJ! ^_^ it's nice to find another book addict!
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 08:54 pm (UTC)(Also, random side complaint: I can understand Anglicizing Ai Li's name when seeing her from the hero's pov. But calling her "Ailey" even when in her pov gives me the impression that the author isn't as interested in Tang China as she ought to be.)
Thanks for the recs; I'll keep them in mind!
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-26 09:34 pm (UTC)Thirding (I think) the Heyer recommendations; and I do like a lot of Cruisie. Plot-wise it's definitely worth checking out the books she did with action/thriller writer Bob Meyer, particularly [i]Agnes and the Hitman[/i] -- they balance each other out nicely.
Other than that... hmm. I'll think. :)
(And thanks for the post, and especially for the term "hornypants", which nicely sums up what turns me off about a lot of romances. My tolerances are higher but I suspect we have a lot of the same issues....)
no subject
Date: 2011-03-23 06:08 pm (UTC)- I wrote down what people suggested in the comments and took a leap of faith by buying 4 of those novels.
So far I've read two, "Silver Metal Lover" by Tanith Lee and "Bet me" by Jennifer Crusie, and I loved them! Specially the first one.