Category: Reading

Posts in which we talk about reading habits and preferences

Falling Back in Time

Updated on November 4, 2015 by Sandra Schwab

First of all, let me apologize for the rather later and rather short post – I spent most of the day preparing a job application (or rather, I spent most of the day tearing my hair out over what to put into the cover letter for the aforementioned job application), and I feel as if my brain has been sucked dry.

In the night from Saturday to Sunday, the whole of the USA turned back their clocks, and the Historical Romance Network took the opportunity to celebrate our genre on social media with the hashtag #FallBackInTime: like last year, people posted selfies with historical romances. Elena, for example, took a picture of herself with one of her favorites from Mary Jo Putney.

Others ::cough:: me ::cough:: took pictures of their softies reading historical romances. Dragon, Corduroy Wes, and Vampire Teddy did a great job of modeling for me:

And soon, #FallBackinTime was joined by #WhyIReadHistoricalRomance and #WhyIWriteHistoricalRomance — quite fittingly as Sunday also marked the start of this year’s National Novel Writing Month when oodles of people worldwide sit down and begin writing a brandnew story. So it was indeed a good day to think about why we love our genre so much.

For me, it’s the history & the research. I cannot get enough of historical tidbits, historical gossip, the details of life in the past. And the research books! I love (love, love, love!!) obtaining new research material! 🙂

Fall Back in Time is also a good opportunity to add a few more historicals to your TBR. I picked up Royally Ever After, a bundle of two of Loretta Chase’s shorts, which were originally published in different novella collections. I particularly adored “Lord Lovedon’s Duel”, which has got a typical quirky Loretta-Chase heroine and features a most unusual device.

And now over to you: Why do you read (or write) historical romance? And what was the last historical you read?

Romance, Feminism, and Academia

Updated on August 13, 2015 by Elena Greene

I’ve been thinking a lot about Gail’s post last week “About Those Dukes”, and also about this this article in the Smithsonian Magazine, “Why Can’t Romance Novels Get Any Love?”

The article talks about Germaine Greer’s “feminist call to arms”, The Female Eunuch (1970) in which:

“Greer was skewering the authors of romance novels, and the readers who made them bestsellers, suggesting they were submitting to nothing short of serfdom to their heaving, rippling fictional heroes: alpha males with giant pectorals, important lives, patriarchal views and very little interest in love…until just the right petite, witty heroine comes along.”

I love the idea that literary scholars like Sarah Frantz Lyons, who started the International Association for the Study of Popular Romance, want romance to get the same attention from scholars as other popular genres such as mystery and science fiction.

“We’ve been talking about this for 30 years: since the 1980s at least, it’s been about empowerment versus oppression. Is this narrative empowering or oppressive to women?” she says. “We need new approaches to romance fiction.”

It’s the sort of thing Jennifer Crusie has been saying, probably even before this 1998 article “Defeating the Critics: What We Can Do About the Anti-Romance Bias”.

“But romance fiction insists that women be front and center, demonstrating over and over again that women can solve their own problems. Reading that kind of narrative empowers women and therefore attacks the basic assumption of patriarchy.”

I love this statement, and this is part of why I write romance. (I hope Crusie’s smart and sexy books are among those that will be studied.)

I’ve also read romance novels that tapped into fantasies that may or may not work with the idea of women solving their own problems.

I suspect part of the appeal of Duke and billionaire stories is the fantasy of never having to work a boring job or worry about money again. For personal reasons, it’s not a fantasy that appeals to me, but I can understand it. When I’ve been too busy taking care of others to care for myself, I daydream about tropical vacations where all I have to do is snorkel with pretty fish, get massages, and sip umbrella drinks. But I don’t really need a life of luxury. I need to rearrange my life so there’s more time for self-care on a regular basis. I’m working on that, but the vacation fantasies help me get through bad days. Likewise, a woman whose job is unpleasant or unrewarding, or who is struggling to make ends meet, has every right to enjoy an escapist story, even though she may also be actively trying to improve her situation.

I feel the same way about domineering, alpha heroes and “forced seduction” stories. Personally, I find some heroes cross the line from “alpha” to “abuser” and especially if I don’t see a real transformation, the story isn’t going to work for me. It is very, very important to me to see that at least by the end, the hero treats the heroine as a real person and an equal, neither domineering nor putting her on a pedestal. But each reader has the right to decide for herself which stories work for her. Perhaps some women can’t distinguish between the fantasy of being conquered and how healthy relationships work, but that’s no reason that others should not enjoy those books.

I do not care for censorship. What I do believe in is dialogue. Dialogue is good. Criticism is good. I’m thinking about all the conversation about Fifty Shades of Grey. I didn’t participate because I haven’t read it, but from the articles and blogs I skimmed, I could see there were intelligent points made. I believe we should all discuss, criticize, even argue about the books if we want, but judging people personally for their reading choices is just an exercise in ego.

Which gets me back to the academic study of the romance genre. Scholars will likely find many stories featuring strong heroines and the development of healthy relationships.

They’ll also likely read some of those old contemporaries I used to find around the house as a child, where the nurse always marries the doctor and the secretary gets the boss. (And in those old stories there were never any female doctors or bosses.)

Scholars may also include books like the one in this review on the Smart Bitches/Trashy Books site: Purity’s Passion. A quote, just to give you an idea:

We’re at the midpoint of the book, and let us tot it up: Purity has had consensual sex twice, been raped by six men (two of them multiple times), and nearly raped by a seventh.

So I don’t think a broad study of the romance will lift the genre as a whole to respectability. That’s not important to me. Although some romance novels are complex and beautifully written, not everything needs to be literary. Although I prefer to read and strive to write romances that end in what I think are healthy relationships, I do not deny others the right to read and write what speaks to them.

What I do hope is that the study results in some good discussion. Maybe some of those who haven’t yet tried a romance will do so, at least out of curiosity.

What do you think? Which romance authors or books do you think are most feminist, or most literary? Any favorite guilty pleasures you’d like to share?

Elena

Posted in Rant, Reading | Tagged academia, feminism, Romance genre | 2 Replies

Strong Heroines of All Kinds

Updated on July 10, 2015 by Elena Greene

I’ve been streaming Star Trek: Voyager on Netflix a lot lately. Although the series (like all the Star Trek series) had some uneven writing, I do love the strong female characters, including Captain Kathryn Janeway.

Some Star Trek fans hated her, but I’m with Sara Eileen Hames, who wrote this blog post on the TOR website: “Janeway Doesn’t Deserve this Shit”.

Hames quotes one of the more egregious bits of snark she has read about Janeway:

“What they needed was a take charge, dynamic female Captain, what they gave us was a moralizing, overly-liberal pushover all too willing to throw her crew’s life away for no reason at all if it made her seem superior and at least as interested in prancing around in frilly dresses on the holodeck as she is in leading her crew.”

So there it is—her worst offence is taking a little free time from her stressful job to enjoy a romance holo-novel. The horror!

And not just any romance, but a historical romance featuring a governess. How cool is that?

Here’s something Hames herself wrote that sums up how I feel:

“Janeway is a strong female character to rock all strong female characters: A leader who is female-gendered, in touch with her sense of gender, and yet invested with a non-gendered position of highest responsibility which she executes with capability and compassion.”

In other words, everything that is most frightening to the fan-boys who admire Kirk’s girl-on-every-planet exploits. (Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Kirk, but he does fall in love rather easily…)

Here’s another reason I love Janeway. She’s older than your average kickass heroine. While I enjoy heroines like The Avengers’ Black Widow, as played by Scarlett Johansson, and though they are interesting characters in their own right, they can also be perceived as serving the purpose of appealing to the fantasies of teenaged boys (and less evolved older men). Captain Janeway is sexy but her purpose is to captain a starship.

Likewise, a good romance heroine has more to her than beauty. She may or may not be physically tough, but she always has strength of character, like Jane Austen’s heroines who refuse to cave in to pressure and marry men not worthy of them.

It’s been far too long since I’ve had much time to read, so my favorite examples of strong historical romance heroines are from older books: Alys from Mary Jo Putney’s The Rake and the Reformer, who works as a land steward and supports the hero in battling his alcoholism, and Melanthe from Laura Kinsale’s For My Lady’s Heart, who is outwardly tough as nails while hiding heartbreaking secrets.

I hope at some point to have time to read more for pleasure, so help me out. Which historical romances have you read recently that feature particularly strong heroines?

Elena

Posted in Reading, Writing | Tagged Captain Janeway, Star Trek Voyage, strong heroines | 1 Reply

For a Good Time Read a Regency

Updated on June 29, 2015 by Mary Blayney

Our guest blogger today is Deb Barnhart, a long time friend and fellow romance reader. I asked her to tell us why she reads Regencies and her answer follows. But I also encourage you to check out her Pinterest site to see some of the lovely Regency images she has collected. Thanks Deb for the kind words and your thoughtful response

Regency historicals touch my romantic soul at its deepest level. Whenever I enter that time period through the imagination of favorite writers, like Mary Blayney, Loretta Chase, Cathy Maxwell and Lorraine Heath, there is a level of intimacy present that I don’t find in contemporaries or other historicals.
For me, that early 19th century time frame offers so much more freedom in character and story where it runs the gamut of dark to light, sweet to sexy, drama to comedy. I love that kind of variety when I’m looking for a good read and Regency authors always provide it.

Of course, Jane Austen is still a favorite of mine and Georgette Heyer is always good company, but I have read every one of Mary Blayney’s Pennistan series and the Braedons with the same level of joy and pleasure. Loretta Chase’s LORD OF SCROUNDRELS could not be sexier or more fun to read, unless I’m reading Janet Mullaney. I recently reread THE RAKE by Mary Jo Putney and found it as fresh as when I first read it.

I am such a Regency fan girl. The authors I mentioned, and the many I have not, have seen me through good times and bad. Regencies have allowed me to experience the Peninsular War, weekends in English country houses and evenings in infamous gaming hells. But from my very first Regency, what I love most about them is the romance. I adore stories about Dukes who find love for the first time and ladies who want nothing to do with it.

I love happy endings and Regencies do that best of all. They sweep me away from whatever crisis I am experiencing and into a past where pelisses are all the rage, women are feisty, love is always new and happy is ever after.

Since you read this blog you read Regencies. So tell me was it Jane Austen, Georgette Heyer or Regency history generally that inspired you to write or read that genre?

Is there a Regency that you have read that has a special memory for you personally as a reader or a author?

Posted in Guest, Reading, Regency, Risky Regencies | 18 Replies

The long and short of it

Updated on June 11, 2015 by Elena Greene

I’m hopeful that I’ll be able to get back to writing soon, and when I do, I’ll probably work on a novella. I haven’t had anything “new” out since last April, when I reissued a heavily revised version of Lord Langdon’s Kiss, so I’d like to get more work out there as quickly as I can. That means novellas, in this case, a prequel and sequel to Lady Em’s Indiscretion.

It takes me a long time to develop a full-length book—more than just 3-4 times the length it takes to write a novella. It takes me longer to deal with the complexities of more characters and subplots. Long books are still my absolute favorite both to read and write.

Novellas are fun to write, though, and they go more quickly, not having all of the complications I mentioned above. I enjoy reading them, too. Since they usually focus more closely on the hero and heroine, there’s a certain intimacy to well-written novellas, kind of like chamber music compared to orchestral music. A friend also called my novellas “bon-bons”, which is another fun way to look at it.

However, I’ve had a few readers complain about the length. Even at 99 cents, they were expecting a full-length novel and apparently did not notice the word “novella”, which is on the cover and also in the description along with a word count. I’ve heard this happens to other authors, and we’re all stumped as to how to make the length more clear. I suspect there are readers who buy inexpensive titles on impulse and don’t know what they bought until they start reading.

I’ve also heard of complaints if the digital version of a novella is priced more than 99 cents. Since I personally know the time and work that goes into a novella, I wouldn’t balk at a well-written novella being priced at $2.99 or $3.99, especially from an established author. But of course every reader has the right to make purchasing choices based on her own budget and preferences.

My own novellas are currently priced at 99 cents. My strategy has been to encourage new readers to take a chance on me, in the hope that they might go on to buy my full-length books. However, Amazon’s pricing tool is encouraging me to price my novellas at $2.99. It’s also telling me to use the same price for my full-length Regencies. That doesn’t seem right to me and would probably annoy readers, so I’ll always price my novellas less than my full-length books.

As for full-length books, I don’t generally want to support the notion that they should have a regular price of 99 cents. I make an exception for introductory prices and special sales. That is the beauty of digital publishing—one can afford to do that—but full length books are such a huge project that I think they should have a regular price that reflects the work that went into them. Even though I’m tickled when a reader tells me she stayed up and read a whole book in one night, I can’t help remembering that it took me a year or so to write it!

What do you think? Do you prefer novellas, long, meaty books, or something in between? Any opinions on e-book pricing?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

Posted in Reading, Writing | Tagged Elena Greene, Lady Em's Indiscretion, novellas | 10 Replies