Romance Books?
Posted on September 22nd, 2009 by admin
I really like them (especially the regency stuff) but am a bit ashamed to talk about them to my friends as they think they are unintelligent. I’ve also noticed a lot of other people feel the same the way.
Why is that? Aren’t they as ’smart’ as other fiction books?
You have basically two categories of romance novels: the soppy and over-emotional and formulaic and the well-written, well-researched, good stories.
Though people don’t usually recognize the fact, all genres include the poorly written and the well-written. It just depends on which books you choose.
I think the reputation romance books have gotten is more because of the glut of them that have been written in the last twenty or so years and the fact that they can be good escape reads, usually for women (earned or unearned). The bad ones usually have little plot and a lot of sex…in historical romances it would be the so-called "bodice-ripping" stories of unrestrained passion.
If you want really smart Regencies, read any of Georgette Heyer’s books set in that period. They are truly good stories, with well-rounded characters and a lot of period details.
Just as an adult who reads young adult novels shouldn’t be ashamed, someone who likes romance novels shouldn’t be ashamed. If you enjoy them, you enjoy them. No apologies necessary.
BTW: there are a lot of fiction novels of various genres that could be called mindless reads. They don’t all have to be classics or profound to be enjoyable.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I read a lot of them and i am not ashamed of it.So, do what you like to do .
References :
October 13th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Actually, if you read Historical romances, you can really learn alot! Most authors do alot of research on whatever was happening in the background of the story, such as war,politics, kings or queens, gold rush…just about everything. It is mainly just the charachtors that are fictional. There have been many times when I knew the answer to a question, just because I read a romance novel that talked about it!
References :
October 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
As far as my experience goes, all the romance books I have read are soppy, chauvinistic, badly written, thoroughly predictable and often puerile.
Hence the general disregard for them.
But yes, I still read them, sometimes, when I desperately need a break from all the intellectual, meaningful, absolutely fantastic literature that usually makes up my daily life, and I just want to read something that I know by standard to be senseless and not requiring thought- I turn to Romance fiction (example Mills and Boons).
References :
October 13th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
I’m to young to read a ROMANCE novel, but I do read a lot of chick lit, which can be like a romance novel only on a smaller level. My mum reads romance novels and sometimes she is a bit ashamed about it, but I seriously wouldn’t be. When I’m old enough I’ll read romance novels and if I like them then I’ll like them and I won’t be ashamed of it. I’ll even proudly display them on my bookshelf, next to Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, Ivanhoe and Anne of Green Gables.
References :
October 13th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Romance… romance. A very cliche subject, you must understand. It can be so fake. I don’t even think that JK Rowling could pull it off entirely. But books, to me, that center around a romance usually put love as a disadvantage for the protagonist. The protagonist is usually blinded by love at some point and, in this way, people think it’s stupid and un-relateable. "Why did you do that?" they say, "That was just stupid!"
While the stupid protagonist keeps fighting because of love, other books have the protagonist making "logical" mistakes. Such as in, an obvious choice, the book Harry Potter.
***SPOILERS TO HARRY POTTER***
Of COURSE Harry believed Snape was evil. He KILLED Dombledore. He was always mean to Harry. He was hanging around Voldemort all the time. It’s obvious that Harry would believe Snape was evil. It’s simply logical. But in the end, you see, that Snape was actually good all along. This is more a logical mistake than the silly, blinded-by-love mistakes
***END OF SPOILERS***
In this way, people believe romance books are a little more stupid. Love is put at a disadvantage for the protagonist and while the reader is kept without the stupor of this love-blind, the protagonist makes dumb mistakes. In this way, it makes romance a very hard thing to write and very rare to see it done well.
References :
October 13th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
You have basically two categories of romance novels: the soppy and over-emotional and formulaic and the well-written, well-researched, good stories.
Though people don’t usually recognize the fact, all genres include the poorly written and the well-written. It just depends on which books you choose.
I think the reputation romance books have gotten is more because of the glut of them that have been written in the last twenty or so years and the fact that they can be good escape reads, usually for women (earned or unearned). The bad ones usually have little plot and a lot of sex…in historical romances it would be the so-called "bodice-ripping" stories of unrestrained passion.
If you want really smart Regencies, read any of Georgette Heyer’s books set in that period. They are truly good stories, with well-rounded characters and a lot of period details.
Just as an adult who reads young adult novels shouldn’t be ashamed, someone who likes romance novels shouldn’t be ashamed. If you enjoy them, you enjoy them. No apologies necessary.
BTW: there are a lot of fiction novels of various genres that could be called mindless reads. They don’t all have to be classics or profound to be enjoyable.
References :
October 13th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
A lot of "intellectuals" think of romance novels as soft core porn. That’s why they look down on them but if were to compare genres, romance novelists produce more books and make more money than scholarly writers. Look at Nore Roberts, V. C. Andrews, etc.
References :
I read romance novels and I am proud of it.