![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dangermousieIt is no secret that I don't really like romance novels unless they are written by Georgette Heyer. I think they are trashy. Nothing wrong with trashy,* but if I want that, there are plenty of dramas and mangas which fit that criteria and also provide eye-candy or pretty drawings. Not to mention come across as more realistic by sheer virtue of seeing "actual people" doing that stuff (many a bad line of dialogue has been saved by a decent actor) or have some really pretty art to distract one.
Anyway, one of the few bona fide romance novels I actually enjoy is Jo Beverley's My Lady Notorious. Set in Georgian times, the heroine is someone who's had her reputation ruined, hair cut off etc for refusing to marry a particular person by her eeeeeevil authoritarian father. Now she is helping her widowed sister escape an even worse fate and that is where her paths cross with Cynric Malloren (yet another pet peeve about romance novel names - seriously. The names in those books are ridiculous. Any kind of parent who gives their child a romance novel name deserves what they get, which is hopefully an icepick in the back). Cynric is bored and joins them on their trip, cross-dressing as a woman. So yup, here they travel, he as a girl, she as a man. Blahblahblah.
I was amused to discover that those who don't like the book dislike it for the reasons I like it. LOL. See this amazon review:
It's different enough that it should have kept my attention, but I just didn't find most of what happened in this book romantic. Maybe it's just because the book took place in a more primitive time than the Regency England that I'm used to. But hero dressed in drag? Herone going around with cropped hair and dressed as a groom? And then there's the well developed sense of time. At first I thought that the author did such a good job that even though the time period was never specified, we're never in doubt that this happened in Georgian England. But then I started to think that the realism has been carried to far. I kept on imagine in my mind Chastity and Cyn running around England in dirty clothes and smelling like sewage, which is decided not romantic. And did we really to read about diaper changing and the heroine wondering if the sound of a woman urinating is different than when a man does it?
Haaaa. Clearly what this woman looks for in a book and what I do are rather different. But the above attitude explains why I don't like most romance novels.
Also, LOL (another review):
Call me crazy, but the idea of the hero in women's clothing and makeup was a total turnoff. And the fact that he appeared to enjoy it so much only worsened it for me. Add that to the author describing him as femininely beautiful and I had a nasty picture in my head that I couldn't get rid off.
I wonder what would happen if this lady ever discovered Asian idols?
*I really don't feel like getting into a discussion that any novel with a romantic theme is a romance novel. I don't agree with that. That's like saying any novel with an explicit sex scene is an erotica book or one with murder is a mystery. I like a strong romance as much as anyone, but when it's the main topic of a book, without more (from external topics like politics or war to internal ones like exploration of the human soul in love) it becomes dull - like a meal entirely out of chocolate. I like chocolate but not as the sole food group.
ETA: And now I am remembering how years and years ago my friend and I used to go to the local bookstore's romance novel isle and have a great time reading the ridiculous stuff on the back out loud to each other, acting out the summary included.
Anyway, one of the few bona fide romance novels I actually enjoy is Jo Beverley's My Lady Notorious. Set in Georgian times, the heroine is someone who's had her reputation ruined, hair cut off etc for refusing to marry a particular person by her eeeeeevil authoritarian father. Now she is helping her widowed sister escape an even worse fate and that is where her paths cross with Cynric Malloren (yet another pet peeve about romance novel names - seriously. The names in those books are ridiculous. Any kind of parent who gives their child a romance novel name deserves what they get, which is hopefully an icepick in the back). Cynric is bored and joins them on their trip, cross-dressing as a woman. So yup, here they travel, he as a girl, she as a man. Blahblahblah.
I was amused to discover that those who don't like the book dislike it for the reasons I like it. LOL. See this amazon review:
It's different enough that it should have kept my attention, but I just didn't find most of what happened in this book romantic. Maybe it's just because the book took place in a more primitive time than the Regency England that I'm used to. But hero dressed in drag? Herone going around with cropped hair and dressed as a groom? And then there's the well developed sense of time. At first I thought that the author did such a good job that even though the time period was never specified, we're never in doubt that this happened in Georgian England. But then I started to think that the realism has been carried to far. I kept on imagine in my mind Chastity and Cyn running around England in dirty clothes and smelling like sewage, which is decided not romantic. And did we really to read about diaper changing and the heroine wondering if the sound of a woman urinating is different than when a man does it?
Haaaa. Clearly what this woman looks for in a book and what I do are rather different. But the above attitude explains why I don't like most romance novels.
Also, LOL (another review):
Call me crazy, but the idea of the hero in women's clothing and makeup was a total turnoff. And the fact that he appeared to enjoy it so much only worsened it for me. Add that to the author describing him as femininely beautiful and I had a nasty picture in my head that I couldn't get rid off.
I wonder what would happen if this lady ever discovered Asian idols?
*I really don't feel like getting into a discussion that any novel with a romantic theme is a romance novel. I don't agree with that. That's like saying any novel with an explicit sex scene is an erotica book or one with murder is a mystery. I like a strong romance as much as anyone, but when it's the main topic of a book, without more (from external topics like politics or war to internal ones like exploration of the human soul in love) it becomes dull - like a meal entirely out of chocolate. I like chocolate but not as the sole food group.
ETA: And now I am remembering how years and years ago my friend and I used to go to the local bookstore's romance novel isle and have a great time reading the ridiculous stuff on the back out loud to each other, acting out the summary included.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-19 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-19 11:43 pm (UTC)I read romance novels and I still like it when there's a bit more to the plot than two people dancing around each other, but a good romance novel I find isnt just about a romance, but human relationships and interaction, friends and family, making your dreams come true. In some cases a romance novel has a great adventure or shows the two leads changing and growing in amazing ways. One thing I do love about crusie novels is they tend to have an overreaching theme that actually has nothing to do with romance, even though she's writing romance novels.
As for the other things you mentioned, the site "All about romance" has this lovely rating and review system. It tells you exactly what to expect (without spoiling) out of a huge amount of romance novels. Like for you I'd recommend traditional regencies, since they tend not to go beyond kissing and follow the austen and heyer model of romance. I've read a few those kinds of romance novels and they are really great, not my favorite kind but I definitely like them alot, they have their own charm. I like a bit of sexytimes in my romance novel but I'd never want it to be a central focus of the plot like it is in erotica which is why I simply dont read those. Too much kinky sex and while I am pretty impossible to shock on that point, I do not find eroticas particularly romantic or focused as much on the love between the hero and heroine (or much else in fact) and that defeats the purpose of the story for me. So yeah, I can see how you feel in a way. But if your open to trying some of the tamer more witty stuff out there, I'd definitely recommend something like the "Knave's Wager" for example, which is very tame (though not as much as heyer and austen but still pretty free of sex) and has some of the wittiest dialogue and banter I've ever read in a book. I loved it. I think you might like it too.
Oh and as for the last thing, I assure you not all romance novel readers are that close minded! I get everyone has their likes but dang those girls need to loosen up. But then I get a kick out of cross dressing heroes and heroines and love me a good gender bending tale. Convention is dull, I'm all for breaking out of the molds society has put out. On that note, that book you mentioned sounds WONDERFUL and I think I'll go look it up. Lord knows it's not like my book list couldnt be bigger lol. and as for the horrible names, I have no defense, this is mostly true XD. Not every romance writer is guilty of perpetrating the horrible names in the genre but quite a few do, though thankfully not most of the ones I read. But then I did put down a novel the other day because the hero was named "Dumitru Constantinescu" He was supposed to be Romanian but srsly WTF? But, just know mousie, for every 20 horrible romance novels there is one beautiful gem of a book out there waiting to be found and read. :)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-20 03:06 am (UTC)That's very strange, though, about My Lady Notorious, as I've never encountered a romance novel reader who didn't love it, or at least respect it.
*I really don't feel like getting into a discussion that any novel with a romantic theme is a romance novel. I don't agree with that.
Who does? (Not sarcasm, seriously.) It's like saying anything with a female lead is feminist, anything with a racist character is racist, anything where people travel is a travelogue, etc.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-20 04:21 am (UTC)Andy always meets me in the romance aisle and he picks out the ones with the most ridiculous covers and titles and then tries to guess the plot. Or he'll dramatically read me the back. It's so much FUN.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-20 04:41 am (UTC)I read all of Beverley's Malloren family series last year, and they're all pretty good. Definitely above most romance novels. Actually this entry is making me want to reread the first book, and I never really reread romances (the too much chocolate effect).
Out of curiosity I looked at some of the amazon reviews for the other books in the series and found this gem: "This book was incredibly boring. I found most of it to be about the plot against the king. I prefer not to have a whole lot of subplots in my romance novels." LOL. I find it weird that people wouldn't want a larger story. Most of the romances I read have some sort of mystery/adventure story going on.
I do love the names of the Mallorens, as I think they're Beverley's meta humor on crazy romance novel names. There's a running joke in the books that their father was obsessed with Old English stories and gave all his children these archaic names and they all resent that.