If you recall my Open Letter, I have challenged DocTurtle of the Random Romance Title Generator to a readerly challenge. He has accepted!In order to rebut his idea that all category romances are low-grade and throwaway, I shall be sending him a category romance.
DocTurtle, it seems, is a turtle of very large brain, and a professor of mathematics, so in my efforts to select a book that might best represent the category romance subgenre and catch his interest, I’ve been searching through that thread for a book that might fit. His preferred list of fiction is vast and very toothsome: quoth DocTurtle, “I’m pretty big on some of the (pre-)Victorians (Austen, Dickens, Trollope, Thackeray), a lot of early twentieth-century novelists (Woolf, Steinbeck, Galsworthy), magical realism (Garcia Marquez, Hesse, Grass, Bulgakov), and a good deal of Jewish literature (Malamud, Levin, Potok, but especially I.B. Singer).”
Based on this new information, you might have a category romance that may possibly fit his reading preferences. I’ve also listed the three recommendations from the prior thread in the poll below, based on your ideas and DocTurtle’s reading list. If you do have an alternate suggestion, please make sure to list it in the comments. I hope we can find a title that will happily introduce him to the best of category romance!
That might be true but I also think that’s selling the category romance and even the whole romance genre short. Either it stands on its own or it doesn’t. (I know a whole other argument.)
Based on DocTurtle’s acceptance post, I think he’ll be at least open minded. Regarding Betina Krahn’s The Last Bachelor:
Remember he doesn’t have to like the book or even become a romance convert. The book only needs to prove it’s more than a low-grade throwaway bodice ripper.
But if we’re really concerned about his understanding the shorthand, perhaps the best alternative is to choose two or three books within the current category field (I’m still opposed to older releases/reprints or single titles) and let him choose the one that most interests him. It might prove interesting to see if he chooses the ‘trashiest’ one or something he truly believed would be the better fit for his reading tastes.
And if we’re going to do the multiple choice entry, I’d also suggest sending a first chapter to him so he could get a feel for writing style/voice of each book. Sometimes a book utterly fails not because it’s bad but because the style doesn’t suit the reader. With DocTurtle’s comment on Krahn’s book, I get the impression that he might be able articulate why the book didn’t work for him.
Robin: I am curious about the shorthand and how it changed.
Also: Just as aside, I really want this book to have open door sex in it. In fact, if the category field is going to be opened up to include Regencies (which I don’t believe was the original intent of the throw down) then I think the field should be opened up to erotic romances from the electronic publishers as well.
Personally, I still think the field should be limited to the current category lines that DocTurtle was originally snarking and at the very least I think that the SB should do an official review of the book if they haven’t already. I’m still going with my original choice: His for the Taking as reviewed by SBSarah but only because I haven’t read any of the others.
spamword: stop67 (I think that means I should stop my madness in posting.)
My vote is for Manhunting by Jennifer Crusie
Anything by Julie Garwood (especially the historicals)
Of course, Nora Roberts…pick any
Linda Howard, my favorite of all times is Cry No More, but if you mean specifically the Harlequin type… Mackenzie’s Mountain
If we open it up to historicals I think Jo Bourne’s The Spymaster’s Lady would be perfect. It has that awful mantitty cover that completely contrasts with the yumminess that is the prose inside.
I’m not really a category reader, but I’ve heard a lot of great things about the Kathleen O’Reilleys so I can be down with that.
I’d vote for Kinsale’s “Flowers From The Storm,” because it’s so beautifully written and it explores an area of the Regency rarely touched. The historical details are great, too.
Not “Lord of Scoundrels,” much as I love that book, but from a literary pov it has a couple of flaws that are fairly easily picked on.
Linda Howard’s “Cry No More.” Throwaway it ain’t, or “Mr. Perfect” for a lighter read.
If you went paranormal, I’d go with Nalini Singh. Beautifully worked-out world and a great approach. Any of them really, but maybe “Caressed By Ice.”
Or “The Defiant Hero” by Suzanne Brockmann, with its WWII story carefully threaded in to the narrative.
Erotic? A Robin Schone. “Scandalous Lovers,” because “The Lady’s Tutor” has some serious historical flaws that the later book doesn’t have.
Or a Linnea Sinclair for SF romance, maybe “Gabriel’s Ghost.”
You have to pick something to engage him, a story that catches his imagination.
That was fun!
I can’t keep away.
Category only, ie Harlequin and its compatriots:
I’d still stick with Linda Howard and Suz Brockmann.
You have to be really careful with the historicals. Although terrific writers and marvellous books, Carla Kelly and Jo Bourne both have pertty huge historical errors. We afficionadoes can ignore them, but that just gives someone looking for potholes an easy out.
Heyer for sure, and he’ll thank you for it. Academics lap up Heyer, as do lawyers (I don’t know why, either, but they do).
My friend Annie Burrows was Harlequin/Mills and Boon’s biggest seller in historicals last year, with “His Cinderella Bride” and her history is hard to fault, too. If you want an older historical, Mary Balogh, maybe “The Lady With the Black Umbrella.” Anne Astley, who writes for Mills and Boon, has academic creds to match the Prof’s, and she was the last Mastermind of the Magnus years. Sophia Weston is another intellectual heavyweight, who writes Mills and Boon historicals.
There are so many great writers on the Romantic Suspense side of category, from Cherry Adair to Susan Kearney.
I wouldn’t plunge him straight into the Dark Side by giving him a Blaze, ease him into it first.
Yeah, that’s what I thought too, and since I found the few Harlequin/Silhouettes that I’ve read to be very, very bad cheese with bad writing sauce on top, I couldn’t recommend any of those particularly.
I usually stick to romantic fantasy and Regency/Georgian historicals, so maybe I’ll read the book along with DocTurtle.
Went back and re-read Sarah’s Open Letter:
I really think this should be a current HQ that directly relates to his romance title generator. Anything else is either cheating or at the very least changing the rules of the original challenge.
I own Alaskan Fantasy and I’d definitely vote for it. It has enough intrigue in it to catch a guy’s interest and the story is so tightly written. I read all the comments and I don’t know enough to know if historicals are his thing, but this book should definitely chabnge his miond about category romances.
I nominate Linda Cardillo’s Dancing on Sunday Afternoons. It was the launch book for Harlequin’s Everlasting Love series and is the most brilliant category romance I have ever read—bar none. The writing is exquisite and it also has some historical references, etc, as it spans seventy or so years—which might appeal to him, as well.
My vote is also for Garwood’s The Bride – my reasoning is fourfold: 1) It was my first romance as a young lass, so it’s good for newbies; 2) It is touching, hilarious, aggravating, and hot (often within a single chapter); 3) There is a mystery to solve; 4) My father, who would normally never touch a romance novel with a ten-foot-pole, has read it in order to settle a bet with my mother and liked it!
I second (or third) Joanna Bourne’s The Spymaster’s Lady. Another good choice would be Loretta Chase’s Lord of Scoundrels.
I thought the terms of the challenge were well defined on both sides. It’s current (2000-present) Harlequins being mocked, not general romance. It’s a Harlequin that SB Sarah said she would send.
Is there really no recent Harlequin that anyone here would recommend? Then no matter how many other great books are suggested, Doc Turtle wins.
It’s current (2000-present) Harlequins being mocked, not general romance. It’s a Harlequin that SB Sarah said she would send. […] Is there really no recent Harlequin that anyone here would recommend? Then no matter how many other great books are suggested, Doc Turtle wins.
OK, well, picking a few recent favourites off my shelves which I think might appeal to DocTurtle’s tastes, which have something a bit unusual about them, and trying to select from among a variety of different lines:
Jessica Hart’s Promoted: to Wife and Mother (2008). It’s funny (in parts, where appropriate), it’s got an older heroine (which is a bit unusual), and it deals with some serious issues (aged parent heading for dementia). There’s an excerpt here.
Claire Thornton’s My Lord Footman (2007). Set just before the French Revolution (not a common setting), with a heroine who’s only an aristocrat by marriage, so touches on politics and social class. There’s an excerpt here. I don’t think this has been released in the US, though, so maybe that wouldn’t count.
Marion Lennox’s The Police Doctor’s Secret (2004). This is a medical romance, but it’s not set in a hospital. The heroine’s a forensic pathologist and the hero’s the police doctor of the title. There’s suspense, action, and asylum seekers. Again, I think some of those elements are quite unusual. There’s an excerpt here.
I could go on and on, but there’s not a lot of point if there are additional, very specific criteria to meet.
Sarah’s not promising to send DocTurtle a book he’ll love, only one that will change his view of category romances. There are a huge number of Harlequin romances which would do that. It gets more tricking if we’re supposed to be finding one which might appeal to DocTurtle given his list of preferred authors, and if the recommended book should, in addition to being a recent Harlequin, be one with a clinch cover, a “The X’s adjective noun” type title (or something else which would be judged to be equally cliched), and be one which has been reviewed by the SBs. That last requirement in particular really would narrow things down a lot, probably to the Julie Cohen that’s been mentioned, the Kathleen O’Reilly and Louise Allen’s Virgin Slave, Barbarian King, though Sarah only gave it a D. However, I got the impression that one of the reasons many people didn’t like it was because they’d expected the barbarian to be more barbaric and prone to ripping bodices, so it would certainly challenge DocTurtle’s preconceptions on that front. For what it’s worth, I liked it and I had fun comparing the hero and heroine to Dido and Aeneas.
And I should have typed “tricky” not “tricking.”
Another somewhat unusual one, because the heroine is the hero’s boss, and she’s not a virgin is Anne McAllister’s The Antonides Marriage Deal. That’s a Harlequin Presents from 2006.
I’m really going to have to stop myself there, or I could spend a very, very long time typing up a list of Harlequins which would surprise DocTurtle.
Although Outlander is a brilliant book, it’s not a Harlequin.
Georgette Heyer was originally published by Mills & Boon, back in the day. But the Doc’s mocking more recent category romances.
What about something from Harlequin/Silhouette by Justine Davis or Rachel Lee? Definitely category, but good writing and characters. Maybe from Lee’s Conard County series, or Davis’ Trinity St West series. They’re both in the line that has a bit of suspense/mystery as well as the HEA.
Thanks for the list, Laura : ) As it happens, I’m looking for recent Harlequins myself. I used to have good luck with them, but not lately, so I’m delighted to read through this thread for recommendations.
Haven’t read the three books mentioned, but it does sound like the Kathleen O’Reilly book would be a good pick. I don’t know about matching up with the Doc’s interests, but I can list a few categories by name that I’ve enjoyed that are fairly recent. I just finished “Killer Affair” by Cindy Dees in SRS, and thoroughly liked it, but it might be a little more comic/not as emotionally intense as what you’re looking for. I’d recommend her Medusa books from the now defunct Bombshell line to anyone, though. And speaking of Bombshells, two of my favorite, Stephanie Doyle’s “The Contestant” and “Calculated Risk” are good reads. Still bitter that line folded, there was some seriously fine categories in there. Catherine Mann’s “Fully Engaged” from SRS is in the last two years and it was very good, very emotional. Helps if you’ve read the Wingman Warriors series up to then to know the supporting characters, but you could probably get by without.
I never read Harlequins until sometime in mid-80s and only then at the recommendation of my uncle (a very smart cookie, voracious reader, and admitted Austen fan). He told me to try anything by Betty Neels so I did. I still don’t read many Harlequins, etc., but we both have complete collections of her works. Uncle Fred was in his 60s then so if she was good enough for him then (and now), she should be good enough for the Doc.
I already put in a vote for Alaskan Fantasies, but I’d also like to throw in the suggestion of any of Jessica Anderson’s Harlequin Intrigue titles. Good suspense, good romance, and she gets her details right. (Although the Intrigue covers might not be cheesy enough to make the point.) I admit most categories don’t end up in the keeper pile but hers do (and not just because I know her from RWA and like her. I know too many fun people from RWA to use that as a criteria; my house would explode!)
Ain’t She Sweet, Natural Born Charmer or Match Me If You Can by SEP. Flowers from the Storm by La Kinsale.
No Harlequin’s but really, really good books. I don’t know (or read) Harlequin’s but I will after all these recommendations.
I know it’s not category, but I gotta toss my vote into the Outlander hat. I have gone through seven paperbacks of that book because I keep loaning it and never get it back. Even the most curmudgeonly linear left-brained thinker has fun with Jaime & Claire.
I would recommend Dream Thief by Shana Abe (it was even better than its predecessor Smoke Thief, and it stands on its own). Set in the 18th century, this novel had a fantasy component but was beautifully written with well developed characters. While this was a romance, you were kept guessing whether the leads would have their happily ever after. In my opinion, this book is a new classic.
Er, no. I found them about as much fun as a severe headache.
🙂
Just as an aside, in case anyone is interested, the UK editions of Gabaldon’s Outlander are entitled Cross Stitch (her original title), and have the prologue date changed, more plausibly, to 1946 – I believe it is 1945 in the US edition.
I wonder what people like so much about it?
🙂
Based on the original post, I thought the challenge would probably apply to a Harlequin Presents. I haven’t read anything in that line in quite a while and have no reccomendation. If the challege does apply to anything Harlequin/Silhouette, I would suggest something by Karen Templeton.
I just finished Mann’s Fully Engaged and I have to disagree with the recommendation. It was bland, not horrible, but definitely not something I’d say represents the best in romance to convert a doubter.
I’d definitely go with the O’Reilly of the choices given. While it’s not a HP, the title’s pretty awful and the cover is man-titty, which feeds into the stereotypes DocTurtle bought into. Also, the others all seem to have major suspense plots and that’s also not typical of HPs.
For HP authors I would recommend Anne MacAllister, although the best of hers that I read is actually not a HP, but a Silhouette Romance Cowboy on the Run. Her HP books are nice reads, but have nothing in emotional intensity to CotR (I think that length or lack thereof has something to do with my feeling that the HPs are just not quite there there, if you get my drift).
I you were to decide on an older historical, I would definitely go for one of the Mary Balogh signet regencies – The Ideal Bridge has just been republished by Dell so that may count as new, although I’m not sure if it will still count as “category”. A Precious Jewel, A Christmas Bride, the Last Waltz – any of them really – they are superior examples of the genre I believe. (Can’t wait until they are all reprinted!!).
I’m a new romance reader myself—I read my first one early last summer. I thought it was soooo cuckoo and interesting that I couldn’t stop. I went crazy with them, but more in the spirit of so-bad-it’s-good Lifetime movies. My tastes have changed a lot in the last year, and I now enjoy completely enjoy many authors & books that I just didn’t ‘get’ even 9 months ago. I wanted to ‘get’ them, and I was trying to read everything, but I couldn’t get inside. It took me a while to learn to make sense of the generic conventions and get my expectations retrained for romance. I’m so glad I kept at it, and grateful for the recommendations I found on this site. I never would have given Crusie a 2nd try, for example, if ‘Welcome To Temptation’ hadn’t been mentioned so often on this very blog, and, months later, I reread ‘Anyone But You’ with much different eyes. I think Crusie is more fun to read when you can appreciate how her books depart from the norms, or rework them.
HOWEVER Judy Cuevas/Judith Ivory’s books were IMMEDIATELY AND OBVIOUSLY AWESOME even to me. I COULD NOT BELIEVE that such exciting, thoughtful, and dignified writing was dressed in bookcovers so revolting, off-putting, and mendacious. Her writing tasered me into reconsidering those first lazy impressions of genre romance. I’d go with Beast, Bliss or Dance. They’re all 3 kind of Woolf-y.
[I’ve been thinking about his tastes—all of the writers he mentions demand patience of their readers, that they attend every page very closely and exercise readerly imagination and sympathy as the writers imagine new ways or rhythms for fictional narratives, but the payoff they share is major unexpected beauty and patterns and dis/re-orientation LIKE BRAIN BOMBS for a reader who craves a certain kind of novelty. Not the opposite of genre fiction, but this flavor of readerly pleasure is a different kind, and not the kind that makes the transition to genre fiction effortless.]
If it must be category romance, then please pick Carla Kelly because she was the only category author who seized my attention and my respect from the very first. I feel huge affection for the Signet Regency covers now, but before I read her books, I found those covers repellent yet pitiable. I was sooooo wrong.
Thank you Carla Kelly and Judyith Cuevory for giving me the gift of all the other bajillion romance writers I’ve enjoyed since you coaxed me into your world. Your books were a bridge.
If it must be one of the 3 mentioned above, then my vote’s for O’Reilly. The cover is a giant SATC cliche—guh-ross—but the facile predictability ends there. I really think I would’ve loved it even a year and a half ago, before I realized I was reading romance all wrong! I think it might’ve lured me in.
Both of mine were already mentioned: Either Kinsale’s Flowers from the Storm or Gabaldon’s Outlander. Whatever he reads, it needs to have some good lurving in it, though. I’m thinking that THAT is his definition of “romance”…especially since he’s listed authors that are classical romance authors, but whose writing doesn’t have the sexxoring.
I’m also thinking that Carey’s Kushiel series (the first trilogy) would be good, due to the depth of the writing (but that isn’t strictly “romance”), or Crusie/Mayer’s Agnes and the Hitman, which I thought was great.
K I didn’t see a ‘vote’ place so I’m saying here that Elle James is a fantastic author and I vote for Alaskan Fantasy.