(no subject)

[skygiants]

So yes, I used to be one of those people who had nothing but contempt for romance novels based on little evidence but a general feeling of EW ROMANCE NOVEL COOTIES. You would not catch me dead reading one, you definitely would not catch me dead reading one in a public place; this is especially ridiculous considering the sheer novel of terrible, terrible books I read as a young teenager. Including Piers Anthony. Including The Color Of Her Panties. (Which, to my everlasting shame, I then passed on to my little brother, who passed it on to his BFF, who had to make a brown paper cover so he could take it to school without getting In Trouble With The Authorities. BUT I DIGRESS.)

But then I grew older, and started finding more shiny ways to procrastinate on the internet, and I started reading the Smart Bitches, Trashy Books site - and you know what, the ladies over there make some good points about the general dismissal of romance as a genre. Especially by people who have never really read a romance. Which, at the time, included me. So I am thinking, perhaps this is a thing I should fix! Perhaps I should broaden my horizons. I adore Georgette Heyer, who is classed as romance; I love Lois McMaster Bujold, who is not classed as romance but often easily could be; I have a guilty love for Sharon Shinn, who totally should be classed as romance even if she usually is not. Why should I assume that I would not enjoy well-written romance novels?

Then I went and bought Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches' Guide to Romance Novels, which is not actually a romance novel, but it did seem like the least I could do considering all the staving-off-boredom-during-work the website has brought me. Which was extremely enjoyable, if slightly repetitive in places, and read very much like a book-shaped version of the site. However, that did not actually fix the expanding-my-horizons problem, although it does technically count for my distressingly neglected nonfiction count for the year.

Anyway, having started to think about my own attitudes towards romance novels, I now turn to my flist for your expert opinion.

[Poll #1390713]

Comments

[innerbrat]

I am genre-ignorant. But I love Austen, so I'm going to say YES.

[skygiants]

I ALSO LOVE ME SOME AUSTEN. Which is what led me to Heyer! I saw people going "it's like fake Austen . . . no, not bad fake Austen, good fake Austen!" and, trustingly, I followed!

(Well also I think rymenhild shoved one into my hand, but.)

[nextian.livejournal.com]

OPTION... H. The mood you describe in the post, where intellectually I know I shouldn't have anything against romance novels and yet due to a traumatic experience with Mr Darcy Takes a Wife I haven't yet picked one up.

[skygiants]

Oh man, I think I picked up one of the (five million?!?) Mr. Darcy sequel-books in the bookstore once and opened it to a random page and went 'AUGH WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO THAT POOR INNOCENT CLASSIC AUGH AUGH' and fled.

On the other hand I find myself strangely tempted by Joan Aiken's Austen sequels. Her YA books involve St. Paul's being wheeled into the sea on rollers and Queen Guinevere participating in human sacrifice! This leads me to hope that the book about Jane Fairfax will be like the best most cracked-out Austen fanfic ever.

[agonistes]

I don't LURRRRRRRRRRRVE them, but I have started picking up one or two here and there, and OH MY GOD would I EVER love to see your take on the Kushiel books by Jacqueline Carey, which are always over in the sci-fi/fantasy section but are TOTALLY ROMANCE. Those books? THOSE BOOKS I lurrrrrrrrrrrrrrve.

[skygiants]

I did read the very first one! The problem is that it was ages and ages ago - I must have been thirteen or fourteen at the time? - and so the BDSM stuff was sliiightly more than I could appreciate at the time, in the way where my brain kind of went @_@?!?!jkl? and dumped most of the information, and now I remember nothing about them. D: PERHAPS I SHOULD RETRY SOMETIME.

[foreverdirt.livejournal.com]

There is no option for "I love a good, old-fashioned queer romance, but since I can get it on the internet for free, full of characters I already know I adore, plus a ready-made community of incredibly awesome folks, I have not put much effort into finding books what do this, too, but politically speaking, I am very pro-romance novels, in the sort of vague way that I am pro many things."

Because I am a special snowflake, yes I am.

[skygiants]

I am sorry! I have failed at providing adequate poll options for my readership. D: Especially since I suspect that you are far from the only person on my flist who would ticky the 'I get all my romance through fanfic! FOR FREE!' option.

(But I do not mean that to detract from your special snowflake status! For one thing you are an awesomely special snowflake for phrasing this option far better than I ever could.)

[gramarye1971]

I think my general dislike of romance novels comes from my general dislike of any story, fic or original, in which the primary driving plot is to get Character A and Character B together and it's patently obvious that everything else is secondary to that plot. Stories like The Princess Bride manage to sidestep this trap with good writing and one eye on the tropes that are being used -- but even then, as the movie shows, there's concern that it'll become just a 'kissing book'.

(Then again, I've been holding back on a very ranty tl;dr post about the rules for the femgenfication -- not ranting about the rules themselves, but rather about my dismay that the ficathon's organisers have to be so explicit about what isn't allowed in the submitted stories. I may actually write it when I can figure out how to frame my thoughts in a way that avoids offending many of my fellow fic writers.)

[skygiants]

Which is totally fair! And it is true that the Heyer books I have liked the most so far are the ones that involve an interesting side plot as well as the romance - although, admittedly, this may be also because the side plots tend to be things like "And then, through a misunderstanding about someone's eyebrows, they are kidnapped and forced to be nannies!" On the other hand, really good dialogue and banter can get me over a lot of problems with forced plot/lack thereof.

(You should! I am now very curious and would be extremely interested to read it.)

[muji]

I have no recommendations. Except for Karen Moning (which I mailed you!) for what not to read. Amanda Quick is nice and Victorian in her stuff too.

[skygiants]

Man, Steph, now you have mailed it, I have to read it. It is a challenge! D: D:

It is a good thing my capacity for ironic enjoyment is so high . . .

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, I love the hell out of A Civil Campaign, which probably counts. But with my backlog what it is...yeah. Nothing personal, but not my style.

[skygiants]

Which is fair!

My love for A Civil Campaign is one of the main reasons I started reading Heyer, which is half the reason for the decision enumerated in this post right there. Though my backlog is also pretty epic . . . but on the other hand, romance novels tend to be quick reads, so I don't feel much guilt for slipping them in between other books that have been on the list for longer when I can basically finish them on my subway ride to and from work.

[wickedtrue.livejournal.com]

To which I say to recommendations: WHAT SUB GENRE?

[skygiants]

ANY THAT ARE AWESOME, I say helpfully!

Um but I like things that involve pretty costumes? Or the mental images of pretty costumes?

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

As I said to a staffer at an independent bookstore once, I don't read Georgette Heyer because she writes romance novels. I read Georgette Heyer despite the fact that she writes romance novels!

[skygiants]

It is that attitude in myself that I am trying to combat! I am starting to think that perhaps I should be hunting for other romances with Heyeresque qualities, and appreciating the genre for that, much as I hunt for high-quality fantasy instead of hiding from the five million Tolkein rewrites.

[aberration]

Romance as a theme generally doesn't appeal to me. I think I can get the issues in terms of what's probably a similar dismissive attitude toward things like soap operas and "chick flicks," but the bottom line is, while I like romance as a seasoning and can definitely be shipper-y, it doesn't do much for me as an entree. And I've just been growing more tired of it recently - like, for once instead of the girl with the messed up life being convinced by a guy to be his girlfriend and let him help her sort out her life, I'd like to see a girl decide, 'uh, no, my life is complicated enough and I'd like to sort it out myself.' And I think the one time I've actually seen that happen is like... Buffy, 'I Was Meant To Love You.'

But, uh, yeah. In short: Romance as a theme itself is not something I relate to and therefore I don't have much inclination to read books entirely devoted to it.

[skygiants]

while I like romance as a seasoning and can definitely be shipper-y, it doesn't do much for me as an entree

This is generally my attitude too in most books - I want plot, and character development, and then maybe romance if it makes sense with these, and sometimes I really do not want romance at all. But, as I said to Gramarye above, sometimes I just want to read entertaining banter . . . and romance novels seem like a good place to find that, if I can find the good ones! To steal your food analogy, I am pretty sure that on a diet of All Romance, I would quickly go kind of insane, but I think if I started sampling I might find it a tasty snack for between-meals.

[misslucyjane]

Jennifer Crusie. Jennifer started out studying romance novels and then thought, I could do this; and then did, often brilliantly. And she's FUNNY. Definitely read "Bet Me", and I also like Welcome to Temptation, Faking It and Fast Women. They're my comfort lit.

I will have to give you more when I'm closer to my bookshelf.

[skygiants]

Oooh, thanks! Jennifer Crusie is a name I have often seen come up in terms of Excellent Romance Novels, and I am definitely going to have to try her out.

[areyoumymemmy.livejournal.com]

I like romance just fine, but like gramarye shoroko! (I wish I had edit function) said above, I like it as a seasoning, not the entree. I think this is because in a number of the romances I have read, the reasons A and B do not get together immediately are pretty contrived when the sole focus is on the romance.

When the focus is elsewhere, or when there are natural and logical obstacles, then I am all for it!

[skygiants]

This is why I demand my flist prescreen for me. :D This way, I only get the good stuff and avoid the Big Misunderstandings and contrived obstacles! My plan is sheer elegance in its simplicity.

Uh, admittedly, in my brain, 'the good stuff' includes "A and B cannot get together because of ZOMBIES"; "A and B cannot get together because they are on opposite sides of the REVOLUTION"; "A and B cannot get together because B is a duck." All of which is TOTALLY NATURAL AND LOGICAL.

[blacksheep91.livejournal.com]

I'd want to say no, but considering Austen and other such authors, I have trouble placing books in certain categories. :/ I'll probably be reading romance on occasion and not even know it.

[skygiants]

That is what led me to start thinking about romance novels! I felt it was sort of silly for me to keep condemning romance novels when, once I started thinking about it, a decent portion of what I read could easily be classified as romance. So perhaps it works in the opposite direction as well and things that fall into the category of 'romance' could also be classified nicely into the subset of 'Things I Read'.

[furikku.livejournal.com]

I am assuming this does not count novels that might have "graphic" in front of them, mainly because I am kind of a sucker for romance manga but I don't read a lot of fiction.

LJ Smith's supernatural romance stuff owns tho.

[skygiants]

It totally counts romance manga! It is maybe not terrible-cover-ghetto-ized in the same way as romance novels of the American plain prose variety, but surely the tropes are often similar?

I have been meaning to read L.J. Smith's supernatural romances forever, mostly just because of my love for her Arthurian books. Alys is the best Arthurian descendent/reincarnation/whatever ever!

[jezrana.livejournal.com]

I've kind of shifted from "I read romance novels, but ironically!" to out-and-proud romance reader over the years. This is largely thanks to living with other people who read romance novels ironically in college, and the lot of us periodically taking them from the free-book-swap bin at the library to go "lolol this stuff is so bad let's read it and laugh at it together--hey, some of these are actually kind of good!"

There are still a lot out there that I'll read just to laugh at, mostly the type that feature heroines and heroes with conspicuously little clothing on the cover, but I've found enough that I really enjoy that I won't sneer at the entire genre anymore.

[skygiants]

I think this is the path down which I am shortly to walk; I have happily snarked on a few romance novels in the past (and, on one memorable occasion, spent a whole evening annotating one with Gen and cackling to each other) but I am assured there is good stuff out there! And it seems unfair to sneer at a whole genre for anything.

I have no guilt whatsoever about mocking the covers, though, seeing as they seem to be pretty universally terrible. Lurking in the romance novel section of the bookstore brings me SO MUCH enteratinment.

[magwana.livejournal.com]

I grew up reading Elizabeth Peters and Barbara Michaels, so I have a great deal of love for romantic fiction. But in most of the 'romance' books, there is also plot! It's usually some sort of mystery or general fiction with the sex amped up. They're fun! Like snacks, like you said somewhere in this comments train.

I enjoy Jayne Castle's supernatural romances, and some of her Jayne Anne Krentz stuff is pretty good (she also writes as Amanda Quick, which are fun! Pen names are confusing, though). Some of the Krentz stuff is REALLY REALLY BAD, though - 'Trust Me' leaps to mind. He touched her intimately has become a huge joke between my husband and I, after we were quietly sitting at home reading, and I started cracking up. Because...well. He TOUCHED her. INTIMATELY. (Change the emphasis on that a few times. It gets funnier and funnier.)

For queer romances, I love love love Sarah Waters. Victorian hijinx! They are somewhat heavier and more serious (being a lesbian during the Victorian era (and WWII, in the case of Night Watch) was not fun) but they are interesting and sexy.

Also, I am with you on Piers Anthony. *sheepish* And the Tolkein ripoffs.

[skygiants]

I have read some Elizabeth Peters! I read the first few of the Egyptian ones and then got lost somewhere trying to figure out which one was the next one and stopped, but they were extremely enjoyable. :D

Your warning is taken to heart. *solemn* And the concern you took to give it . . . touches me. Intimately.

Sarah Waters has been vaguely hovering on my radar for a while now (she's one of those names I always seem to see out on the table in bookstores and then I pick it up and then remind myself that, no, I am not supposed to be spending money on books and put it back down) so I should possibly push her up my list!

It's a rite of passage, I feel! One that every fantasy-reading teen must go through . . . and hopefully come out the other side, someday. Older but wiser.

[libitina]

I defend my trashy reading tastes as superior to romance novel trashy reading tastes.

Picture wee little me in 7th grade or so with my trashy sci fi novel.

And picture my wee little friend with her V.C. Andrews Flowers in the Attic. She looks to me all astounded and whispers, "My book has dirty bits."

Being the charmingly socialized child I was, I whisper back, "Yeah, so? Mine does, too."

"No, you don't understand. These are really dirty bits."

"Yeah? Prove it."

So we both read our respective naughty bits. Mine totally won for inclusion of graphic detail, and I have carried my flag for trashy sci fi ever since (just like romance, only with spaceships, robots, and explosions!).

[skygiants]

I am kind of curious now as to which trashy sci-fi that was! (Trashy sci-fi totally does often win in terms of disturbingly graphic bits, though. Also robots do almost always improve things! Though from what I understand the romance category is now expanding to include robots, spaceships and explosions as well.)

Also, that was totally me when I was reading Mists of Avalon in fifth grade. "zomgincest! zomgthreesomes! I AM SO MATURE TO BE READING THIS, CLEARLY."

[oneechan19.livejournal.com]

You left the most important option off the poll! Which, um, I'm kinda embarrassed to say.

¬_¬

⌐_⌐

I only read the you-know-what parts.

[skygiants]

Oh man, you are right! That is an extremely important option, and I clearly fail. :O :O

[jothra]

-did you read Lois McMaster Bujold's Sharing Knife series? It's romance with fantasy tacked on top. And the reasons the main characters should not get together are legion and actually like...cultural. Rather than 'he insulted me once five years ago!!'

They are not hugely plotty, but there is one, and the worldbuilding is cool.

[skygiants]

I have not! But I will probably get around to it after I actually finish reading the Vorkosigan books, which . . . I have not actually read many in the middle of, due to skipping over for some reason I cannot actually remember. So step one is to actually embark on a thorough reread of the Vorkosigan books, and then step two is to branch out into her other stuff!

[mercuriazs.livejournal.com]

I wish more romance novels were written well! Not necessarily artfully constructed, just written well and with engaging, three-dimensional characters.

[skygiants]

Those are the ones that I am trying to hunt down as well! But I hope that my flist will provide, for lo! they are wide-read and wise in the ways of various subgenres of fiction.

[wakeupnew]

There was no option for 'I read romance novels because they are HILARIOUS.' :(((

[wakeupnew]

Though I guess the ironically answer is closest. I went with that? I really don't read them to be cool or ironic or anything; I read them (A) because I love the bad ones, and (B) because I am the kind of mature adult who laughs at all written sex scenes, good or bad.

[sophistry]

Mmmmmmmeh, I dunno. I think this is a Pavlovian reaction I've developed, since all the romance I read is, you know, fanfic -- but I tend to be v. leery of romance in my actual canons at all, because (unless they're done really well [example: Adama/Roslin])they just tend to feel, well, gratuitous and fanservice-y to me, and that makes me squirmy-in-a-bad-way. Not all of them! But a lot of them.

And as for romance novels in particular, well... on the whole, I want to watch/read about a romance between characters I already care about, not get to know characters via the romance they were created with the specific goal of consummating.

Obviously, there are exceptions to all of the above. See: HEYER.

[skygiants]

See, I think in very hypothetical theory I could like romance because I like reading about characters, and I like reading about complex and interesting character interactions, and well-done romantic developments (Adama/Roslin is an example of this; I will also hold up almost any Diana Wynne Jones couple) should be in ideal-hypothetical-theory land a complex relationship between two complex characters! That may not actually be the case with the vast majority of romance novels. But I feel it must at least be the case with some.

. . . I would add 'see: HEYER' except this is not at all what I read Heyer for, I read Heyer for the period-ness and the banter and the hijinks. Heyer relationships are generally not hugely complex. But they are adorable.

[cupenny.livejournal.com]

*snicker* My whole family reads romance novels. INCLUDING MY DAD. We have three large bookshelves stacked deep with them- and these are the ones that actually have a good plot and fun chars! Ranging from modern day (though I like these with a bit of supernatural/fantasy tossed in for flavor), to Regency, as well as pseudo-midieval/otherwise historical.

Nora Roberts is one of our favorite writers. She tends to like to write in trilogies, usually with a group of brothers/sisters at the core of it. These tend towards the slightly formulaic as to tropes, but the characters still have their own details and each trilogy has its own plot arc that finishes by the end of the third book. Some of the sets we particularly enjoy are the Chesapeake Bay trilogy (actually 4 books), the Irish trilogy and the Three Sisters trilogy. Nora Roberts also writes under the name J. D. Robb for the In Death series, which is technically a futuristic cop mystery series- but there are some romance elements in these books as well. You may enjoy them more than the 'standard' romances, since the relationships take much longer to develop than just a single book.

Julie Garwood tends to write historical romances- at least those are the books by her that I like the best. She has a western series starting with For the Roses based around a self-made family of NYC orphans that ran out west to protect themselves. (Yep, another series based on marrying off one sibling per book- a common trope in romances!) She also has several well-done Regency romances (The Bride, Castles), as well as one of my personal favorites- Saving Grace, a historical romance with kilts.

Jayne Castle, who also writes as Jayne Ann Krentz, has some fun, futuristic, 'Lost Colony'-type books. As Jayne Castle, she has Amaryllis, Zinnia, and Orchid, taking place on a world with the cities 'New Portland' and 'New Seattle', and deals with people with psychic abilities that can only be used by two people together. Of course.

Dad and I were just looking over the bookshelves, since I told him I was looking for 'romance' books to recommend to a friend. "Well, for just plain romance... um." That is, we like romance books that have a little more plot than just character A falling in love with character B. ^_^

[skygiants]

Man, kudos to your dad! (Not that I think guys wouldn't enjoy romance novels, I just think it's a rare guy who will actually give them a shot.)

*giggling* It's like Seven Brides for Seven Brothers . . . in seven books! Uh, but hopefully with less lady-kidnapping.

Thank you for the recommendations! I too have been sort of easing into romance with stuff that has actual plot, so things that are more plotty than romantic are just fine by me. :D

[emmaco.livejournal.com]

I am too sleepy to provide many recommendations (in any case although I read romance I wouldn't say I read heaps of it) , but will say I love Eva Ibbotson's romances. They are joyful. And someone recommended Crusie - my favourite of hers is probably Bet me. Nearly everyone I lend it to has liked it too.

[skygiants]

Oh, Eva Ibbotson! I almost forgot to mention her but I am super fond of her as well - her books are really just kind of adorable. I read a whole bunch about two years ago and then had to stop for a bit due to overdose on uber-self-sacrificing-heroines, but 'joyful' overall is just the right word ofr them.

[elspeth-vimes.livejournal.com]

I used to be the kind of person who went "EW ROMANCE COOTIES," I now accept that it is a valid genre like any other, and give it some level of props for often allowing its authors to just have more fun. But I have little to no interest in it in general, as I am the kind of person who usually skips love scenes and stuff because I want the plot instead. In fact, as I grow older, I seem to be admiring things with little or no romance more and more. I also do this weird thing with ships of mine, where I go "A and B would be wonderful together. BUT LOOK AT THE WAY THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CHARACTER ARE RESPECTED! IT IS SO AWESOME THAT THEY ARE NOT TOGETHER!"

That said, since I saw that you are open to manga, I do have a recommendation! Kimi wa Pet, which for some reason known only to Tokopop is published under the title Tramps Like Us in the U.S. It is about a careerwoman who finds a young man in a cardboard box outside her apartment, and ends up keeping him as a pet, with hilarious and dramatic results! It has wonderful characters, and is sometimes really goofy and sometimes incredibly dramatic, and also happens to deal with things like sexism in the workplace and modern dance!

I also second the recommendation of Emma.

[skygiants]

I completely know what you mean - I totally love it when books don't go the expected romance route! And when other friendships and relationships and dynamics are granted to be just as or more important because . . . I sort of think they are, in general. But I also kind of feel like I should at least give the romance genre a chance to show me what it's got. :D

Oooh. *makes note* Thank you for the rec! (Recs, plural, really - Emma is totally jumping to the top of my manga list now.)