I confess here, internets, that I had a thing for romance novels in my youth. You know, about 13. I had several, and I loved getting them from the library. Especially the historical ones with the ladies in their gowns and fans and the gallant men in top hats. sigh. Since then I have moved on to other things and I admit become more of a literary snob than I was once; romance novels! Honestly! What trash!
But becoming a parent has meant that I have no time to digest literature -- neither the time nor, frankly, the brainpower, most of the time, to really appreciate a deeper work of literature.
So I said yes. And she brought me a bag -- and I mean a bag -- of novels. Probably 25 or so? Maybe 20.
Friends, the romance novel has changed since I was a girl.
Oh, not that I'm becoming prudish or that THAT part has changed. There's still sex, although it's fairly dull (being the old married (sort of) woman that I am I guess the sex part has lost its forbidden allure.) What I mean is the ... well, in many of the books, the distinct lack of plot. And by that I mean, I've read several books now that have gone on for 200 pages too long ... and they are only 300 or 400 pages long. There's a sense of creating plot simply to fill pages, and I find myself thinking ... just get on with it! Please! For the love of pete!
And then there are the strange ones. The more recent love of the paranormal and the occult has meant that there are vampire and quasi-vampire and other non-natural human forms ... including (and I shudder to even write it) a quasi-human-feline species. I just ... I don't even know where to GO with that. I haven't managed to even open the damn thing, it just creeps me out THAT MUCH.
I suppose that there must be someone who thinks this is the best thing ever and rolls their eyes at YET ANOTHER scottish-themed historical romance but ... oh, dear Lord. Perhaps I am just getting old and prudish.
But not so old and prudish that I'm letting go of those Enlightenment Era Scotsmen.
2 comments:
You should read the Twilight Saga. I know I complained about it on my blog, but they really are excellently readable books. I just happen to be in a pragmatic state of mind when it comes to romance these days. Anyway, Twilight = HOT VAMPIRE ROMANCE and since they're young adult books, there's no trembling loins or anything like that.
Also, the boy they found to play Edward in the upcoming movie? Is HOT. (Because that's a reason to read a book, right?)
Hee :) I interviewed somebody a year or so ago who was working as a proofreader at Harlequin, and she had some interesting things to say about the stuff she got to proofread... Apparently the genre has undergone some serious diversification, and the rules for the various subgenres are very specific.
I have a conflicted relationship with romance novels. Or, to be more accurate -- because I've never managed to get into the Harlequin kind, for whatever reason -- novels with romance in them. I likes me some romance, definitely; some of my favourite comfort reads are Mary Stewart, Ellis Peters (not the Cadfael books but the other ones), Margery Allingham, and Ngaio Marsh, all of whom tend to serve their mystery plots with a generous helping of lurve, and when I re-read it's often that part of the story that I'm focusing on. (And my very, very, very favourite Vorkosigan book is A Civil Campaign, which is nothing if not Regency Romance In Space.) But I like, I guess, for the lurvers to have something else to focus on while they're negotiating their relationship. Also, I hate hate hate plots that revolve around The Big Mis. It may be an unreasoning prejudice, but there it is.
Quasi-human-feline, huh? Shades of "Admiral Naismith" and Sergeant Taura...
< rant> My current work-in-progress is trying very hard to turn into standard-issue romance, and it's pissing me off :P. I need a better plot, dammit!! < /rant>
Post a Comment