(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.

[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]

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.)

[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]

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.

[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 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.

[agonistes]

DO IT DO IT

In the second book it is ALL ILLYRIAN PIRATES, ALL THE TIME.

[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.)

[skygiants]

. . . like . . . the kind of Illyrian pirates that crossdress and stalk young gentlemen named Sebastian/accidentally stalk his sisters who are named Viola?

[agonistes]

WHY YES. YES THEY ARE.

Although they are also ~*freedom fighter pirates*~ trying to cast off the chains laid upon them by FAKE NON-ANGELIC VENICE. And then they have to go to Crete to cast off a blood-curse! And there's a cave! And then there's FIGHTING! SEXY FIGHTING!

(I love these books. SO MUCH.)

[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.)

[skygiants]

WELL IN THAT CASE!!!

It is true that ~*sexy fighting*~ is a tremendous draw to any right-thinking person. :O Especially when it involves freedom-fighter pirates!

(*cracking up* So I am gathering. And it is HILARIOUS.)

[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.

[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]

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 . . .

[wickedtrue.livejournal.com]

To which I say to recommendations: WHAT SUB GENRE?

[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.

[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!

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I add my voice to Becca's; I would be very interested in that post.

[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]

+1, as they say these days. I would read many more romance novels if I could find well-written, high-quality ones in flavors other than heterosexual.

[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.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

See, I like Heyer most as a Wacky Cheerful Historical Fiction / Gothic Drama (the Surprisingly Cheerful Kind) writer. If I could find wacky cheerful historical fiction/hilarious gothic drama without the romance element, I'd read that too. If I could find it with queer romance, I'd be delighted. But the romance is not the main thing I'm looking for at all.