Dear DocTurtle:
I’m a big fan of your wife’s site, and Lord knows, there’s more than enough cover snark to go around. And I completely agree, some of the Harlequin Presents! titles are enough to make your teeth hurt like you ate a glazed donut with a cavity. I’m particularly not fond of the “baby of shame” series, which makes me want to get all fidgety and stabby the nearest paperback.
And Lordy knows, I love a good random title generator. We’ve been known to play with such technology hereabouts, and mock the occasional Presents title. So it’s not like there isn’t plenty of mocking room going on. There’s like a mocking mansion with separate parlors for mocking at various times of the day, with all the mockage that floats about.
I so dig your sense of humor, too – random mammal generator? Win!. You went to the Jack Daniels distillery in Lynchburg before your wedding? Also win. I’ve been there. It’s a dry county. The irony is delicious.
So really, sir, did you have to go there? Did you have to pair the silly humor of a Random Romance Title Generator with the text:
“low-grade throwaway bodice rippers put out by the thousands by Harlequin and similar publishers….”
Did you really, really have to go there? I won’t pick apart the layered fallacy of that sentence, except to say: you don’t know from much. The cover art: preposterous. The titles? Don’t get me started. The contents? Not bodice ripper, not low-grade, and certainly not throwaway. Not by a longshot.
I challenge you to a duel! A duel of reading! I shall pick out a Harlequin that is pretty damn fantastic, and I shall send it to you and your wife to read. Perhaps romance isn’t your cup of tea, but certainly you can evaluate fiction for fiction’s sake, and read a story that might just alter your judgment of the category romance genre. I mean, the brain that came up with The Strongbadian Paper Company Sales Representative’s Wily Marquess can face the task I propose.
I await your reply. Email me (sarah @ smartbitchestrashybooks.com) any time.
Yours,
SB Sarah
“The Scottish Trillionaire’s Feminist Duchess”
Psst- Got a book to suggest for the duel? Leave a comment.
Probably TMI here, but restaurants and stores get a lot of…well, foot traffic, so to speak, and not necessarily a lot of sun. Which means the floors are going to be a breeding ground for germs and fungi-people don’t like going barefoot in a gym because of athlete’s foot and there are other fungal infections that can be picked up with the feet.
Not entirely sure about the bare chest thing, but bare feet in busy places are one way to catch some yucky fungal infections.
crap, posted in the wrong one… that was supposed to be in the GO TOPLESS post…. sorry!
Awesome. I won’t deny that some romance (and many titles and most cover art) is bad, but it’s like any genre – I read enough children’s lit, gen lit, chick lit, gardening books, travel essays, blogs, screeds, and philosophy to know that’s the case across the board.
Except those other genres tend to have better covers. (Sorry, cover artists – I love you, and your lives are difficult, but . . .)
The Scottish Marquis’s Reluctant Personal Trainer
To me, it’s like a “high concept” movie or the “elevator pitch.” You see that title, you know the plot. I mean, what’s more high concept than “Snakes on a Plane”?
If you’re like Robin, you pick it up for the outrageousness of it. If you’re a fan of the Greek billionaire/secretary/mistress/secret baby plot, you pick it up because you know what you’re getting.
If (like me), you’re so ADHD you can’t tell one from the other, you’re going to look away because it’s confusing and cluttering. (Although that brings up another issue with single titles in that their titles all blur together in my mind, too, so while they’re less outrageous, they’re no more memorable for the same reason.)
The Assyrian Outlaw’s Insatiable Marquess
Heh.
The Italian Millionaire’s Unwilling Love-Slave
I’m SO writing this book! LOL
Good point! Some days, when I’m feeling kind of self-conscious, and there’s a hottie looking at magazines right beside me, I either won’t look at the categories at all, or I’ll pick up the ones with the most outrageous names, giggle out loud, and put it in my basket.
I think that we remember the really egregious names, and the more appropriate, less-cringe-worthy names we just don’t notice. This is a link to a list of lots-n-lots of Presents titles, and most of them don’t grab my attention at all:
http://www.fictiondb.com/series/harlequin-presents-subscription~HPS~s.htm
Maybe it’s like the full moon causing more births myth. It’s not that more births happen during a full moon, it’s just that we notice the full moon when births happen more than we notice any other phase.
Which probably makes more sense in my mind than to you… Sorry. Groggy today.
Oh, SB Sarah, I totally less than three you right now. Excellent letter.
The Mayan Dragon Emperor’s Insatiable Secretary
I’m sending this title to Bam. I think she’s gonna write one of these serials next.
The Indian Performance Artist’s Depraved Girl Friday
Yeah, the mockery is totally off the scale.
Yeah, that remark on his site peeved me, too.
Oooooooooh, the gauntlet has been thrown, eh?
I have to tell you, I’ve read my fair share of historical bodice rippers. I got through high school by imagining myself anywhere but, and historical romance novels helped a lot. They also helped me pass history without cracking a textbook.
But the toughest thing I ever did was try to get DocTurtle to read a romance novel. I was trying to prove that there were good ones out there. I think I gave him something by Betina Krahn. Unfortunately we’re talking about a man who reads non-fiction for fun. He teaches himself foreign languages as a hobby. He’s a mathematician, for FSM’s sake! He couldn’t force himself halfway through it. I wish you luck getting him to read a romance. You’ll need it!
There’s that ‘bodice ripper’ phrase again…
Pardon me while I go twitch in a corner. 🙂
Since the random mammel I received was “shrew” and the random title I received was “The Celtic Cad’s Gold-Digging Countess” I have to wonder if the universe is trying to tell me something today.
Either that or someone has been talking to my ex……
OMG, my mammal is COUGAR! I started to say I’m not that old. But, sigh, I am.
The Pacific Islander Sadist’s Insatiable Model
The Turkish Paper Company Sales Representative’s Bodacious Automaton
Is an automaton like a robotic blow-up doll?
I nominate Jessica Bird’s The Billionaire Next Door. I loved this book!
signed,
The Scottish President’s Willing Girl Friday
Here’s my title: The Parisian NASCAR Driver’s Bodacious Automaton
Okay, but not enough alliteration, IMO.
Oh, and my animal was groundhog. I don’t know how to feel about that, actually.
MoJo: I think the single title situation is the worst. I am one of those people who identifies a book by its title more than by its author, and the absolute INANITY of most of these titles astonishes me. How is it that a book like Susan Johnson’s Forbidden can still be so distinctive, but so many of the books pouring forth from publishers currently have more words in the titles and fewer distinguishing marks.
NOTHING CAN TOP THIS. Ilona Andrews wins. That is all. *bakes prize cookies*
Not entirely on-topic, but I’m re-reading SEP’s Ain’t She Sweet, and I just read the following dialogue between Colin and Sugar Beth:
“[Faulkner]‘s a man, and I have limited patience with dead white male writers. Or even living ones for that matter, you and Mr. Conroy being notable exceptions. Now Jane Austen, Harper Lee, Alice Walker, their books deal with things women care about.” She let herself rattle on. “Margaret Mitchell isn’t p.c. anymore, but that was one heck of a pager-turner. Then there’s Mary Stewart, Daphne du Maurier, LaVyrle Spencer, Georgette Heyer, Helen Fielding—but only the first Bridget Jones. Nope, Faulkner just doesn’t make my final cut.”
“Your list is a little heavy on romance for my tastes.”
“You try spending six months sitting at somebody’s bedside waiting for them to die and then tell me that the happy-ending love story isn’t one of God’s good gifts.”
I love SEP.
The Frankish Thousandaire’s Feminist Bride
Hey—Millionaires, billionaires, tycoons and royalty abound, but I’m stuck with the bride of a “thousandaire”?? I feel so, so . . . discounted.
On the other hand, I prefer feminist bride to:
The Greek Legal Consultant’s Wily Automaton
Random mammal = chinchilla. Now all I can think about is that episode of Friends where Joey goes into chinchilla ranching, not realizing that the end result is to kill his chinchillas for their fur.
I believe it’s impossible, or, at the very least, oxymoronish to be a wily automaton. Unless, of course, said herione is so wily she’s convinced the legal consultant that she’s an automaton. Hmm—Harlequin Intrigue?
I think I’m settling for:
The Strongbadian Performance Artist’s Robust Princess
As a princess, robust no less, I can support my Strongbadian performance artist while he struggles to succeed in his chosen creative field.
Shoot! My randomly generated chinchilla leapt into my screen in a random spot, interrupting my non-randomly generated comment!
yowza!!
My random mammal was a human.
Needless to say, THAT was disappointing.
These titles started in 2000, but weird titles aren’t new to Harlequin. Back in the ‘40s they started out with *very* lurid titles.
The Romance Wiki’s list of Harlequin Presents by the Numbers makes it easy to see the trend.
Early ‘80s titles (no billionaires)
Late ‘90s titles (still no billionaires)
Then the crazy titles start, Blam!, in 2000.
The Mediterranean History Professor’s Unwilling Bride. I’d rather be Darlene,
.
And my mammal is the dugong, which for us mammal-ignorant types is a kind of sea cow, related to the manatee. So good for my ego, NOT.
I don’t read much category, and I agree that some category romances follow conventions familiar only to frequent readers. But there have to be some that transcend those conventions, right?
Sounds like you’ve got your work cut out for you, SB Sarah—I mean, The Scottish Trillionaire’s Feminist Duchess!
OMG my brilliant title!
The Venusian Hunter’s Sleep-Deprived Marquess
Yes! Yes! Yes! I love it!
But this valiant attempt to show people who sneer at romances that romances are more than their stereotyped cliches sounds suspiciously doomed.
I’m thinking of that idea where people form an opinion (usually mistaken for a fact) and then use whatever evidence they can to support that opinion, and dismiss any evidence that contradicts or invalidates that opinion. Such as, someone who thinks all [fill in the blank] people are lazy and selfish/crazy and homicidal/drunk and stupid, etc., and will use whatever anecdotal evidence or news stories they come across to back that opinion up, and ignore all the anecdotal evidence and news and studies and so forth that say otherwise. Or people who think all [fill in the blank] movies are stupid, or [ditto] books are vapid and horrible, or members of [ditto] political party are all spineless/evil/self-serving/stupid/delusional/etc etc etc.
It just makes me tired. But rock on, Sarah. You kick ass! Maybe this time it will be different.
Ah, SonomaLass, it’s good to be the Scottish Dragon Emperor’s Supine Bride, especially when my one true love offers to turn those who write negative reviews of my novels into charred bits o’ haggis.
OK. So one of you authors just needs to whip up a romance novel with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a mathematician, and a few foreign languages for docTurtle. Hmmm….I wouldn’t mind reading a good story with characters like that, actually.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster’s Depraved Mathematician 😉
Luuurrrve the comment snark, but I was seriously wracking my remaining half a brain cell for an answer here!
From your basic Silhouette, I always thought Christine Rimmer presented lovely characters in the limited confines of contemporary romance. From the larger books, I dare a man to not laugh at Jennifer Crusie—Welcome to Temptation is probably my absolute favorite. If we want to throw in a thriller or an action novel—howsabout Suzanne Brockman? (Gone Too Far, again, one of my faves:-) Either way, I”m sure you’ll come up with something amazing to throw down with the gauntlet—you always do:o)
Okay, I want to see Harlequin publish this book:
The Nordic Shah’s Wily Marquess –
because it so sounds like an m/m romance to me!
Anytime before [I turn] 69 will do nicely, thank you, word verification for summing up its chances! That puts it a loong time into the future. LOL
Signed,
Diane, aka the “snowshoe hare” <blink>
I got “The Italian Performance Artist’s Quiet Automaton” I LOVE IT!!!!!
Catherine Mann
Jo Leigh
Jessica Bird
Cindy Dees
Tori Carrington
Maggie Price
Alicia Scott (aka Lisa Gardner)
Tess Gerritsen
Suzanne Brockmann
Anne Stuart
And of course, need it even be said, La Nora
The above authors do not disappoint in the category romances
I haven’t read from the Harlequin Presents line since I did a paper on one my senior year in high school and got a C. An effin’ C, when the teacher told us to pick any book we want and write a review on it! It was a damned fine paper, too.
Yours,
The Maltese History Professor’s Bemused Dragon Lady
Willa writes:
It’s called a confirmation bias, and they can be strong (hence my skepticism upthread), but if this discussion doesn’t cause some healthy cognitive dissonance in Sarah’s target, I don’t know what will.
And let me add to the chorus for Kathleen O’Reilly, especially Sex, Straight Up, but also early Crusie, especially Manhunting, and another one I have on my keeper shelf, Barbara Dunlop’s The Billionaire’s Bidding .
Okay, I went through the box o’ Red Silhouettes. 🙂 I say try:
Cattleman’s Choice by Diana Palmer.
This bad-boy was printed in 1985! LOL. It’s about a woman falling for a rancher, who unbeknownst to her, has been in love with her for a while. But, he doesn’t think he’s “high class” enough for her, so he asks her to help him become “more refined”. It’s a great novel, and I don’t know any straight guy out there who can’t identify with feeling they aren’t good enough for a hot woman. Even my husband agrees!
It might work!!
And because I just couldn’t resist doing it again!
The Scottish Vampire’s Captive Princess
Hey…that one doesn’t sound too bad!! 🙂
I’m not sure I entirely agree with the ‘all publicity is good publicity’ premise of this, although there’s certainly something to that.
Sure, if the real titles were turned up to 11 (okay 12, they’re already at 11) and pulled from a wider set of character descriptions, to give more of the surreal mashup feel, like the title generator does it, or like we’ve all ourselves done in our heads, then I actually *would* want to pick up these books as long as the stories inside ran with the concepts.
But Harlequin Presents’ *actual* title generator seems to pick from such a narrow and restricted set of stuff, with almost everything it comes up with shouting ‘unctuous patriarchal hero, wimpy doormat heroine (and that’s the way we likes it! No “Robust” for you!)’ to such an extent that it ticks off the shade of my every female ancestor, my initial reaction to them is a deep down ‘ugh! *shudder*’. Thus I end up getting the Blazes again instead, almost certainly missing out on some good stuff in the other lines due to my unfortunate revulsion at their mere titles.
Any ironic intent sails straight over my head. I guess it’s because I’m English or something.
So yes, both sets of titles (real and fake) offer a surreal glimpse into particular fantasy worlds. But a lot of the fake ones read like glimpses into fantasy worlds I might actually be interested in reading about, whilst most of the real ones imply a promise of fantasies I feel like I want to back away from slowly whilst making no sudden moves 🙂
Gazelle
The Viking Merchant’s Captive Feminist
Wouldn’t read that one. I find quite a few of the newer titles over-the-top and complete turn-offs. The only thing they stimulate is my gag reflex.
The Mediterranean Tycoon’s Sleep-Deprived Actress (which I would totally read, cause I can relate…well, I’m not an actress…and I don’t know any Mediterraneans…nor tycoon’s from that region either, but I’m always sleep deprived, so I can sorta relate)
Shrew (does this mean I look like Elizabeth Taylor? *grin*)
I’m inclined toward Jennifer Crusie’s theory that the titles are “turned up to 11” not so much as camp but to mimic the appeal of tabloids. “Britney’s Baby Secret” sells on the magazine rack; “The CEO’s Secret Baby” sells on the book rack.