Bitchin' Blog Posts
The Challenge is Accepted!
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | August 30, 2008 | Saturday at 11:14 am | 70 CommentsIf 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!
Filed: General Bitching, The Link-O-Lator
Courtney said on 08.30.08 at 01:41 PM • [link]
Does “category romance” encompass the Harlequin Mills & Boon historicals? Because I’m betting that based on his preferences that might be more up his alley.
The Other Laura H. said on 08.30.08 at 02:07 PM • [link]
Uh… Austen, Trollope, and Marquez are not romance novelists how? Sorry, Doc Turtle, you are already a fan of the genre; that you seem to have run up against Sturgeon’s Revelation when exploring the stuff actually labelled as “romance” is unfortunate, but I have a feeling you are going to have a great deal of fun correcting your misapprehension.
Hm. Or perhaps I’m not sorry at all…
natasha said on 08.30.08 at 02:11 PM • [link]
I think Courtney is right, he might prefer historical rather than contemporary.
I would suggest one of Mary Balogh’s books A Precious Jewel would be a good one.
Faellie said on 08.30.08 at 02:17 PM • [link]
That sounds like a good idea to me. My recommendation would be Paula Marshall “Hester Waring’s Marriage”. The background is the establishment of the British settlement in Sydney, Australia in the early 1800s, with a definite Dickensian flavour of a transported criminal (think Great Expectations) building a business empire while rescuing the well-born heroine (Austen would have approved of her actions) from destitution through employment as a schoolteacher, marriage and love. Available from Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Hester-Warings-Marriage-Paula-Marshall/dp/0373304560/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220097601&sr=8-17
The author was a university librarian, and the background seems well-researched. The love-story is sweet and hopeful. There are several spin-offs, most not as good but one (An Improper Duenna), like this one, you wil not be prising even out of my cold dead hands.
Don’t know any of your specific titles or authors, so couldn’t choose among them.
Faellie said on 08.30.08 at 02:40 PM • [link]
Apologies for double posting, but I’ve just noticed “The Strongbadian Paper Company Sales Representative’s Wily Marquess”.
Perhaps you could point out to DocTurtle that “Marquis” or “Marquess” is in fact the male of the species (female being Marchioness or Marquesa). Does this make it a role-reversal book with the Sales Rep a female, or is it m/m? Either way, categories would have moved on from my young days….
Joyce Odell said on 08.30.08 at 03:22 PM • [link]
My first vote was for Sex Straight Up, a terrific contemporary.
But as I’ve read these comments, a historical may be more in keeping with his interests. Therefore, I would like to suggest Beau Crusoe by Carla Kelly. That book is a Harlequin Historical and would fit the category romance criteria.
On the other hand I felt the challenge was to require him to read something that he would assume was a “trashy” book only for him to realize that underneath is a real gem. If that is the case, Sex Straight Up would fit that bill. God, what a horrendous title! I was actually embarrassed to by the darn thing. But it was definitely worth the embarrassment.
GloriaSue said on 08.30.08 at 03:31 PM • [link]
What about Outlander, by Diana Gabaldon? Historical, romance, AND magical realism, all in one.
I was thinking the same thing about Thackeray and Austen—yep, those are romances.
theo said on 08.30.08 at 03:32 PM • [link]
Perhaps a Kathleen Woodiwiss? Wolf and the Dove? Or one of her other excellent stories?
Elizabeth Wadsworth said on 08.30.08 at 03:57 PM • [link]
How about Georgette Heyer’s The Spanish Bride? Romance AND real history.
Gail said on 08.30.08 at 04:01 PM • [link]
I agree that Beau Crusoe by Carla Kelly is a good one, but it’s getting harder to find. For stuff that’s readily available I would point out Jennifer Crusie’s books. Manhunting or Getting Rid of Bradley are both favorites of mine.
I would also ask if the man has read any Heyer.
Chrisbookarama said on 08.30.08 at 04:33 PM • [link]
Anything by Heyer. How about An Infamous Army? Not to generalize but, boys like war, right?
Tina M. said on 08.30.08 at 04:35 PM • [link]
I would recommend any of Geogette Heyer’s romance novels. They are smart and witty books with enough historical accuracy that even he might appreciate the her works (especially These Old Shades and Devil’s Cub).
Trish said on 08.30.08 at 04:44 PM • [link]
Flowers From The Storm - Laura Kinsale
This is the blurb from Goodreads
nystacey said on 08.30.08 at 04:50 PM • [link]
If we weren’t talking category, my immediate without reservations thought, would be to recommend Liz Carlyle’s fabulous ‘Never Decieve a Duke’, sure to appeal to someone who likes both Austen and Singer. (from someone who’s read them both…)
But we are talking category, so recommending something might take me a while. I’ll be back :)
Laura Vivanco said on 08.30.08 at 04:52 PM • [link]
Given his preference for authors who include a fair bit of social observation, I’d recommend Polly Forrester’s Changing Fortunes (post-WW1, raises issues of social class and sexual mores) or Sheila Bishop’s Fair Game (Regency, deals with the sexual double-standard). They’re both Harlequin Mills & Boons, but unfortunately I don’t think they’d be very readily/cheaply available in the US, and the same would probably be true of many of the other HM&B;historicals I can think of. They can be found on Amazon.com, but they’re rather expensive. Faellie’s Paula Marshall recommendation’s a good one.
Moving away from the historicals, I’d also second Gail’s Crusie recommendation but I’d go for Charlie All Night, because it’s more political (moral dilemma, political corruption, sexual politics), as is Strange Bedpersons.
Marski said on 08.30.08 at 05:08 PM • [link]
Does Tolstoy’s Karenina count? I mean this is after all a math prof, things could get ugly for you - so build in the revenge!
nystacey said on 08.30.08 at 05:11 PM • [link]
After thinking about it, because we’re talking category, I’m going to stick with my original recommendation of ‘Sex Straight Up.’ Yes, it’s contemporary, yes it’s very real world based, but because it’s both, it’s chock fill of observation of contemporary social mores and structures.
And also, I agree with what Joyce said about the nature of the challenge:)
AQ said on 08.30.08 at 05:12 PM • [link]
His For the Taking by Julie Cohen or another SB official reviewed book
Why? Because I think that if the SBs are going to throw down the gauntlet they, not their readership, should do so with a category romance that one of them has personally have given a high grade. (Sorry, readership. I love the examples given and plan to seek some of them out!)
The Smart Bitches (SB Sarah) gave this book a B+ and snarked the hell out of the difference between the US and UK cover/titles. I think it’s a perfect example of the originating throw down statement.
Pulling out Heyer, Gabaldon or even an older Crusie doesn’t seem like a fair choice because the objective is to challenge the assumption/statement that the category romance isn’t a low-grade throw bodice ripper, not the romance genre in general or even what is a romance.
I also think that the story needs to be fairly recent (less than a year old) and readily available if others would like to play along (according to Amazon they have the paperback and the Kindle version in stock).
No matter what I think that this is a very interesting thrown down. I look forward to a non-category romance reader’s take on whatever story is chosen.
Walt said on 08.30.08 at 05:31 PM • [link]
Hmm… I opened up two browser windows: One was http://random.org
and the other the total booklist for Blaze,
http://blazeauthors.com/bookstotal.php
and then put in the total number of Blaze numbers, currently 428, which goes through October 2008 and then hit Generate several times in a random fashion, generating just one number for a truly random Blaze selection:
Blaze number 75, by Rhonda Nelson
Just Toying Around
Feb 2003 (prolly hard to find)
ISBN-13: 9780373790791
ISBN-10: 0373790791
Happy reading!
Disclaimer: I maintain the BlazeAuthors.com database/website.
/ I purposefully chose a few of the Regency books to read when first “confronted” with the mountain of books my wife stashed in our garage after we first married some 11 years ago. While the Regency plots weren’t thrilling, I did get a good sense of how character conflict is used to move the story along (because the conflict is usually so stark in Regencies).
Laura Vivanco said on 08.30.08 at 05:34 PM • [link]
I think that if the SBs are going to throw down the gauntlet they, not their readership, should do so with a category romance that one of them has personally have given a high grade. [...] Pulling out Heyer, Gabaldon or even an older Crusie doesn’t seem like a fair choice because the objective is to challenge the assumption/statement that the category romance isn’t a low-grade throw bodice ripper, not the romance genre in general or even what is a romance.
I’d agree with you about Heyer and Gabaldon not being category romances, which makes them irrelevant to this particular challenge. However, the older Crusie romances are Harlequin romances, so they’re entirely relevant. Moreover, they’ve been reviewed by the SBs, and got extremely high grades. Candy gave both Strange Bedpersons and Charlie All Night A-. Sarah once quoted part of Charlie All Night and described it as a “moment of insightful brilliance.”
Ocy said on 08.30.08 at 05:35 PM • [link]
Remind him that Austen wrote romance and send him something by Joanna Bourne. Her beautiful language and intricate plotting is definite proof that romance authors have brains, too.
Jill Sorenson said on 08.30.08 at 05:39 PM • [link]
Props to DocTurtle for accepting the challenge! I originally recommended a “sweeter” title, but Sex, Straight Up seems like a perfect choice. I would love to hear his thoughts on this book!
I haven’t read it yet, so I think I’ll go order it along with a couple of other category romances I’ve been meaning to pick up. I do love a challenge! *rubbing hands together*
LiJuun said on 08.30.08 at 05:54 PM • [link]
I’d like to second Gabaldon’s Outlander. It’s probably not quite “trashy” enough, but it’ll certainly change his opinion of romance novels. I was going to suggest The Star King, by Susan Grant (not a historical, but I think he’d enjoy it). It comes complete with the lame-o cover, but is packed with a great story. But I think I’ll just stick with seconding the Gabaldon suggestion.
Jessica G said on 08.30.08 at 06:28 PM • [link]
I voted for Kathleen O’Reilly above. I’m about to pass that book along to a friend. It has one of the best opening lines I’ve read in a long time. My current favorite category author is Sarah Mayberry, but for a man, maybe that new Blaze historical (assuming men would like a little sex in their romance) Bound to Please. No NASCAR, please.
AQ said on 08.30.08 at 06:40 PM • [link]
Sorry, Laura, my intention in including Crusie in the that list was because her books aren’t recent category releases. They’re great examples but in my mind they aren’t representative of the challenge because the way they’re covered, packaged and titled (sorry not sure if these examples are some of Crusie retitled books or not) don’t say category romance to me and I’m a romance reader so how would they appear to the non-romance reader or the non-category romance reader.
I think that the title chosen should SCREAM ‘here I am the low-grade throwaway bodice ripper’ as originally stated in the open letter. The cover, the title, the blurb everything should reinforce the stereotype and it should be a recent Original release. An example of exactly what is available via the category line on the bookshelves today.
Opinions can certainly differ. But that’s why I thought Crusie should be excluded although I did not clearly articulate that.
AgTigress said on 08.30.08 at 06:42 PM • [link]
Crusie’s Charlie All Night would probably be a good choice, and it was first published as a Harlequin Temptation (1996). So was Manhunting (1993). Many of Jayne Ann Krentz’s novels from that period would be good too, with their humour, wit and intelligence, though she was always at her best with the slightly larger canvas of a non-category book, e.g. Perfect Partners (1992), even when she was still writing categories.
Please, not Diana Gabaldon: I know that those who like her, like her a lot, but believe me, she is not everyone’s cup of tea, so the choice could backfire really badly. I waded through about half of that book and had to stop, lest my head explode with the sheer unrelenting tedium of it.
:-)
AQ said on 08.30.08 at 06:53 PM • [link]
PS. And here’s my final reason for offering His For the Taking up as ‘the’ book to choose.
SB category tag for this review:
1001 Ways to Eat Crow: SB Sarah Reads Category Romance
rebyj said on 08.30.08 at 06:53 PM • [link]
any of Jennifer Archer’s books from the ” next ” series..
“off her rocker” is one of my all time faves.
also, The Boss And Miss Baxter by wendy warren from 2006
it’s funny and a tear jerker.
I like Nora Roberts Sillouhette editions but they’re mostly older ones from the 80s and the majority are part of a series not really stand alones.
Laura Vivanco said on 08.30.08 at 06:57 PM • [link]
They’re great examples but in my mind they aren’t representative of the challenge because the way they’re covered, packaged and titled (sorry not sure if these examples are some of Crusie retitled books or not) don’t say category romance to me
Right, and it’s exactly because the cover and title “don’t say category romance to me” that they’d be so effective in challenging DocTurtle’s ideas about the titles and covers of category romances. It’s fairly clear that when DocTurtle wrote “The only things cheesier than these books’ cover art are their titles” he was thinking primarily of novels in the Harlequin Presents line (I’d assume that from the fact that titles like those he provides, namely “The Greek Millionaire’s Revenge,” “The Italian Count’s Bride,” are most often found in the HP line). But Harlequin has a large number of lines, and there are quite a lot of romances which don’t have titles like those.
I think it would be good to challenge DocTurtle’s ideas about the homogeneity of the covers, titles and the contents of the novels.
And no, the Crusie category romances haven’t been retitled, though they did get different covers.
Kestrel said on 08.30.08 at 07:24 PM • [link]
I am excited about this challenge, and will be waiting with baited breath for the results, regardless of what title is chosen!
As much as I love Diana Gabaldon, I would not recommend Outlander for this challenge, because I don’t see it as ‘category’ romance.
However, I just want to put my two cents in here because I saw Kathleen Woodiwiss name come up. Back when I was a jaded young woman who thought “romance” was beneath my lofty, high-minded self, I picked up “A Rose in Winter” one weekend at my grandmother’s when there was nothing else to do. I fell in love with romance then and there, and went on to read everything else Woodiwiss had ever done. Her more recent stuff is not as good as the old stuff, so I second going old-school, including an old-school “bodice ripper” cover. I would even go so far as to say I will donate one of my snarkable covers of “The Wolf and the Dove”, “Ashes in the Wind”, or “Shanna” to the cause, if DocTurtle promises to return them.
(Let me just note that I would have named my youngest son ‘Aislinn’ had he been a girl!)
AQ said on 08.30.08 at 07:25 PM • [link]
And I think that the book needs to completely fall within the stereotype and break the assumption. Why? Because I had the impression that prior to reading a few category romances for review that SBSarah originally had shall we say a not that dissimilar view of category romance.
SBSarah accepted the challenge (or challenged herself) and had to essentially ‘eat crow’ for painting all ‘categories’ with a similar brush. (SBSarah, or anyone else, please feel free to correct MY impression if I got this wrong because I didn’t go back to read all the original posts on this and am going by memory only.)
I feel like there are even many (some) romance readers who feel the that the category lines are low-grade throwaways. I’d like DocTurtle (and them) to accept the challenge the same way SBSarah originally did: by reading a current title that fulfills all the stereotypes of category romance.
I, however, would fully embrace a choice that was an example of a category which fell outside of the stereotype. It just wouldn’t be as much fun for me personally. But I’m perverse that way.
Robin said on 08.30.08 at 07:37 PM • [link]
Hmm, if the old Crusies are on the table, I’d throw the old Laura London historicals up there, too.
Otherwise, I agree with the Carla Kelly recs, especially since her writing tends to be more straightforward. In general, though, I second the idea that historicals might suit some of the literary conventions DocTurtle seems like appreciate.
And I’d also suggest Janet Mullany’s Dedication, which I found to be clever, resonant with echoes of its literary ancestors, and earthy in its romanticism.
Jayne at Dear Author has reviewed many, many historicals, and she might have some suggestions, as well.
Katie said on 08.30.08 at 07:58 PM • [link]
I don’t know if this counts as “category,” since it’s not a Harlequin, and doesn’t have a trashy cover, but The Poison Study by Maria Snyder is completely irresistible. It’s unbelievably sexy and subtly erotic, with one of the most unusually romantic love interests ever. I read it in one sitting.
Julie Leto said on 08.30.08 at 08:26 PM • [link]
Makes me wonder, reading these recommendations, if people really know what category romance is. Right now, it has to be published by either Harlequin or Silhouette. I mean, these are the books the man is making fun of, so it only makes sense to give him one to show him how wrong he is!
I nom’d both Kathleen O’Reilly and Elle James. Either one is good for me, but I think the O’Reilly will make more of a point since the book is so sexy on the cover, in the blurb, etc, etc. I just loved ALASKAN FANTASY though. Lots of action and adventure to appeal to a man, IMO. But in a way, that’s what makes the O’Reilly book an even better choice.
Kestrel said on 08.30.08 at 09:01 PM • [link]
I figured he was mocking the whole ‘romance’ genre in general, but if you limit it to Harlequin/Silhouette, there is still plenty of decent writing and storytelling to be found there and his generalizations should not be allowed to continue. Thanks for clearing up exactly what ‘category’ romance is defined as for this purpose!
I haven’t read any of the titles listed in the poll, but I did just read a Blaze novel that wasn’t bad at all. I admire anyone who can develop well rounded characters and tell an intense, passionate story in such a small confined area as a Harlequin, so he better give props!
Tina M. said on 08.30.08 at 09:08 PM • [link]
Glad to know I wasn’t the only assuming he was mocking romance in general.
Since its category that is the challenge, then my suggestions don’t count (even though Harlequin is re-issuing the ones I suggested from Heyer).
Robin said on 08.30.08 at 09:15 PM • [link]
I think part of the issue here is DocTurtle’s somewhat limited view of “category” Romance. And since there’s no stated time frame on the recommendation, why can’t Signet trad Regencies be included, since they are part of the “category” category? Then there are all the older categories published by Dell, Mira (okay, that’s Harlequin), and the Evanovich category reprints that Harper is doing. There are a lot of fabulous Harlequin and Silhouette books, too, of course (and of special interest here may be the Harlequin historicals), but I assume we’re including M&B;in there, too, right? I guess my impulse would be to start by challenging DT’s notion of what a category Romance *is* and go from there, but ymmv.
Also, I’ll readily admit that I’m a little concerned about giving a contemporary category to a guy who doesn’t even read Romance, NOT because I have any problem with categories (love them, read them—and in fact, the O’Reilly book was one of my favorite Romances that I read last year), but because I think that they are coded to Romance readers, and that non-genre readers like DT are going to be doing the equivalent of reading a book in a foreign language by checking a dictionary every few words. Now I may be completely wrong about that, but as someone who just started reading the genre a few years ago, I had to adjust to the genre’s paradigm in single title before I was able to fully appreciate categories. I think this paradigm issue may be more prominent to readers who come later to the genre, but if you’ve got someone coming from a lit fic or classic lit background (for the most part) to genre Romance, I think there’s going to be a period of transition and adaptation, and that what we immediately recognize as fabulous category Romance is the conclusion of a cultural insider to the genre. Again, ymmv, though.
Jane said on 08.30.08 at 09:20 PM • [link]
I might even suggest the first category O’Reilly I read which was Beyond Breathless. Both Jayne and I adored that one. A historical category that I also loved and has a good bit of social awareness is Joan Wolf’s My Lordship’s Mistress which can be purchased in e form or perhaps The Scottish Lord also by Joan Wolf.
I consider a Signet Regency to be a category romance. I’ll ask Jayne, though, if she would have any recommendations as she reads fairly broadly within the category sub genre as well.
arebass said on 08.30.08 at 09:31 PM • [link]
As much as I love Anna Karenina and romance novels—and I do—I just don’t think they two are remotely comparable. I mean, the ending aside (obviously not a HEA, not even close) I feel like Anna Karenina is the antithesis of a romance novel. Romance novel’s are fantasy-fullfillers and while they contain some spectacular, thrillingly human characters, there is an expected ending: clean and primarily satisfying. Romance novels give us what we (probably) cannot get for ourselves.
Anna Karenina, however, find more satisfaction in the pining/dangerous part of her relationship with Vronsky. Once they get what they want: a live alone and apart, shit starts to fall apart.
Also, Anna Karenina serves as a warning against women switching gender roles in a relationship: Anna behaves like a man and dies for it. Kitty becomes a good wife. Not that this makes them seem anyless human—Tolstoy’s women, especially Anna and Natasha are bracingly alive even when we don’t agree with Tolstoy’s politics.
Whew! That was long winded. Basically, as much as I want Doc Turtle to read the best/most awesome/contradictory-to-stereotype romance novel possible—but while Anna Karenina is friends with romance, she ain’t in the same boat.
Deb Kinnard said on 08.30.08 at 09:35 PM • [link]
If you want a “good story, lyrical writing” historical entry, pick up Blythe Gifford’s recent title, INNOCENCE UNVEILED. Better still, find one for the Turtle & keep a copy for your own TBR pile. Fits the challenge and will have you turning the pages.
AQ said on 08.30.08 at 10:22 PM • [link]
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.)
mearias said on 08.30.08 at 10:44 PM • [link]
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
Amanda said on 08.30.08 at 10:49 PM • [link]
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.
Lynne Connolly said on 08.30.08 at 10:51 PM • [link]
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!
Lynne Connolly said on 08.30.08 at 11:05 PM • [link]
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.
Katie said on 08.30.08 at 11:15 PM • [link]
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.
AQ said on 08.30.08 at 11:23 PM • [link]
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.
Judith Rochelle said on 08.30.08 at 11:32 PM • [link]
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.
Tracy Wolff said on 08.30.08 at 11:41 PM • [link]
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.
Joanna S. said on 08.31.08 at 12:39 AM • [link]
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!
Barb Johnson said on 08.31.08 at 12:43 AM • [link]
I second (or third) Joanna Bourne’s The Spymaster’s Lady. Another good choice would be Loretta Chase’s Lord of Scoundrels.
RfP said on 08.31.08 at 01:04 AM • [link]
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.
Laura Vivanco said on 08.31.08 at 02:22 AM • [link]
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.
Laura Vivanco said on 08.31.08 at 02:34 AM • [link]
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.
rooruu said on 08.31.08 at 03:45 AM • [link]
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.
RfP said on 08.31.08 at 04:36 AM • [link]
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.
nadia said on 08.31.08 at 06:07 AM • [link]
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.
judy said on 08.31.08 at 03:02 PM • [link]
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.
Teresa Noelle Roberts said on 08.31.08 at 04:08 PM • [link]
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!)
Pooh Pooh said on 08.31.08 at 04:13 PM • [link]
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.
Emeline Greene said on 08.31.08 at 06:40 PM • [link]
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.
ann said on 08.31.08 at 06:50 PM • [link]
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.
AgTigress said on 08.31.08 at 07:19 PM • [link]
Er, no. I found them about as much fun as a severe headache.
:-)
AgTigress said on 08.31.08 at 09:19 PM • [link]
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?
:-)
SusanL said on 08.31.08 at 09:35 PM • [link]
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.
GrowlyCub said on 09.01.08 at 12:13 AM • [link]
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).
Kaetrin said on 09.01.08 at 01:17 AM • [link]
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!!).
Renee said on 09.02.08 at 03:36 AM • [link]
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.
RStewie said on 09.02.08 at 04:04 PM • [link]
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.
Lisa said on 09.02.08 at 04:18 PM • [link]
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.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments