In a recent comment, Jennifer Echols mentioned No Plot? No Problem, a how-to manual by Chris Baty, founder of NaNoWriMo.
According to Echols, “He suggests that before you sit down to write a novel, you make a list of everything you love to see in novels. When you write your own novel, you should put the stuff from your list in there. Then you should make a second list of everything you hate to see in novels. When you write your own novel, you should make sure none of the stuff from that second list creeps in when you’re tired.”
Ooh, neat. But looking at that idea from the perspective of a reader, I can generate an equally useful list – for shopping and seeking recommendations.
Here’s my list:
Things I Love:
Characters who are mysterious, who don’t say much, but whose deeds are wonderfully telling and could reveal a character who keeps a great deal of depth hidden. I’m all about the steamy unspoken ardor.
Example: Gleason’s Max from the Gardella Chronicles, who carries a burnt rose in his pocket from when Victoria lit it on fire to try to see in the dungeon where they were trapped. He kept it – and would be mortified if anyone found out that he did and asked him why.
Characters who are genuinely funny, not just in a slapstick way but in a witty, clever, and realistic way.
Example: Deirdre Martin’s Power Play, in which a soap opera actress falls for a hockey player. The hockey team’s scenes in particular had me giggling to the point that Hubby wanted to know what was wrong with me.
Plots that are sustained by multiple threads of tension, some large and some small, that don’t line up like links on a chain one after another merely for additional pages. Wait, that’s more of a hate. So let’s go there.
Things I Hate:
Dialogue that is completely unrealistic.
Characters getting angry for no good reason, except to sustain conflict. Flipping out over minor things, getting all icy and disdainful for really stupid shit? GAH. (Harlequin Presents and Helen Brooks, I am LOOKING AT YOU.)
What do you want as a reader? What don’t you want? And as a writer, do you write the plots you love to read?
I just finished Heyer’s A Civil Contract. Counted by some as perhaps her “least romantic book,” the heroine is Jenny, the overplump mousy-haired daughter of a Cit. The hero, Adam, is desperately in love with another (a much more typical Heyer heroine) but must marry Jenny to save Fontley, his family estate.
The book takes place over a year and a half of marriage and includes Jenny having their first child. Heyer reveals Adam’s growing consideration and love for his wife in slow, subtle layers. The ending of the book is not truly a typical HEA. It’s better. I think this Heyer novel may rank as one of my favorites ever.
Maybe we could both move to Australia. I’m totally sure I could get into surfing. As a spectator sport. That doesn’t involve below-freezing temperatures. And too many clothes on the athletes (totally ruins the view of the musculature).
Rosa! I heart you! You’ve nailed it!
I used to really enjoy Susan Johnson, but over the last ten years or so, her couples ALWAYS have long histories of promiscuity, and hook up because they’re bored or horny, and SHAZAM! They’re in LURRRVE!
For no reason that they, or I can figure out, these former sluts are suddenly exclusive and jealous. Over and over again.
WTF?
And robinjn, I agree with you about A Civil Contract.
Love: layers. I’m like Shrek. Hand over the onion.
Hate: anachronistic speech/mores/behavior in a historical. Nothing will make me wallbang one of these faster. Recently read a Harlequin Historical that had ‘em calling it the “Black Death” when that term wasn’t used ‘til the 17th C. Sheesh! If I can find a historical detail, that makes it EASY to find! I’m not that smart!
Love: heroes who aren’t tall, dark and Anglo-Saxon, just once in awhile. Short, sexy and Italian gets my gonads goin’ just as well.
Wow, great discussion. I agree about consistent and interesting world-building, and TSTL heroines, and believable dialogue, and a buncha other stuff. But I have to agree with Suze and Rosa that a BIG pet peeve of mine is the “instant attraction for no real reason.” That always smacks of the superficial for me, and I don’t want superficial romance. I want deep and lasting.
I like imperfect characters—people with flaws, who make mistakes. I think that’s why I prefer older h/h, because they have had time to make those mistakes and be looking to fix them or to do better next time. I have a real weakness (personal biography) for stories where the h/h make mistakes and then get a second time around when they are more mature and self-aware. Sherry Thomas’ books do that very well, with the intertwined timeline.
I don’t like heroes who, after declaring their undying love, are unable to trust the love they get in return—she’s pregnant and it must be someone else’s, or we agreed not to but she must have done it on purpose. Or he hears something negative from someone else and believes it, rather than believing in her and how she feels about him. I probably don’t like it the other way around, with her not trusting, but lately it seems I’ve read books where the man has that particular problem—usually it’s a device to allow the couple to get together and have steamy sex in the middle of the book, but then have conflict that continues so that the real HEA is at the end.
To borrow a phrase from Hortense Powdermaker on another thread, I hate heroines who are TSTM—Too Stupid to Masturbate! She loathes his values, his attitude, his previous actions, whatever—but then he sexxes her up and nothing else matters. “He who can bring me to orgasm rules my heart, regardless of everything else” —honey, get a vibrator!
(madly scribbling down all this WEALTH of info. Must. Remember. For next book…)
You all put the SMART in Smart Bitches (ok, and the BITCH too, lol. Love the snark). Book lovers that care, that notice, that recognize what’s right AND wrong. Thank you!
merely61—no, not yet, but that’s a nice way to look at it. 🙂
Ohmigosh, YES YES YES!!! I remember the first time this popped out at me, in A Rose in Winter by Kathleen Woodiwiss. I remember scratching my head in bewilderment as I read the book, going, “Why on earth does the hero even like the heroine? Because she’s really, really beautiful? Pathetic! She has no personality!” And that’s really, honestly it. The hero loved the heroine because she was beautiful and she was forbidden. That’s it. Why? Why? Why?
Writing the same book over and over again but just changing the names bugs me, too.
Again, Ohmigosh, YES YES YES!!!!!
Things I love in a romance:
*strong personal style. When the book doesn’t read like a generic, Mad Libs sort of thing, but the writer’s use of words and storytelling is unique and recognizable. I don’t much like Judith Ivory’s books, but she’s got very strong personal style. I love that in a book.
* hero/heroine with a real personality. Again, not generic. These characters aren’t bland, blank slates, but have actual likes and dislikes, ways of speaking, ways of thinking. They don’t have to be astonishing originals, but they have to be individuals.
* Restrained desire. The hero and heroine don’t jump into bed together in the first chapter, but let the tension build and build and build…. yummy.
*non-generic backgrounds. I love it when the setting of the story is told vividly and interestingly, so that we see the characters not in a vague, watery street in Regency London, but in a street that’s vivid and atmospheric, with details. Not so much detail that it kills the narrative, but enough to evoke somethign, rather than just a blank backdrop.
I could go on….
In the vein of not liking it when the hero and heroine take one look at each other and instantly know that this is something they’ve never ever felt before (realistic much?) I also dislike the too-early sex scene, either with the hero/heroine or with one of them screwing someone else. I just really honestly don’t care for having a huge hot and heavy sex scene at the very start of the book before I even know the characters. The only possible exception would be the sex scene that really illustrates the character and informs the plot. But that’s vanishingly rare; the only one I can think of is that I didn’t mind Jason’s early sex scene in TrueBlood because it pretty much told us what we needed to know about his character but, importantly, it wasn’t a complimentary portrait. And it’s a TV show, not a book.
I love the slow, sensual buildup and think that sex is often far more exciting when not brutally explicit, or is explicit in a sensual way. I got far more excited over the single kiss Jean-Claude and Anita exchanged in Bloody Bones than anything in the later novels.
And to be fair to Charlaine Harris, robinjn, while Jason is having sex from the beginning in the Sookie Stackhouse books, it’s not a POV scene for the reader. The only sex scenes described in the books are Sookies, and they are timed pretty well, IMO.
I agree that early sex scenes often feel gratuitous—one reason I stay away from a lot of erotica is that sense of formula, where you have to have X number of sex scenes, one of which is usually earlier in the plot than I’m comfortable with.
OH – I may drag that old chestnut out and dust it off. I wrote it back during the hey-days of “Dallas”, complete with wealthy Alpha Hotel oil man with the requisite fancy downtown office and big ranch. Oh, yeah. Cliched to the max. But there might be something to that story afterall….hrmmmm….
RobinJn – I LOVE the Julie Collins series. I already have my copy of the last one. *sniff* I haven’t the heart to read it yet because I don’t want them to end. I even got the husband to read them.
JenTurner – Read these books!
And I third (or fourth) on Jim Butcher. The Dresden books are awesome!
Loves:
1. Ironic humour, where the dialogue may be witty as well, but there’s more a sense of “isn’t human nature funny” that we get to share with the author
2. H and H are best friends
3. Sense of larger community by book’s end
4. Hero who is emotionally vulnerable (Lord of Scoundrels)
5. Another vote for the plot I just can’t anticipate
6. Plots with backwards courtship
7. Sex scenes with humour
Hate:
1. Passive heroines
2. Power discrepancies, where the woman’s growth is more about acquiring the man with sexual experience/power/money, etc. than coming into her own
3. Also hate the “big misunderstanding” plots
One of the most annoying characters for me has to be the sweet lovable girl who could never hold down a job or who constantly screws up (majorly!). This is all too familiar in chick lit although Bridget Jones (the sequel) comes to mind immediately.
This brings me to another pet peeve: the series which drags on with no resolution in sight to major conflicts and issues, and little growth/development of main characters. I also hate literal interpretations of “everyone is out to get me.” I get irritated when the storyline becomes every other chracter hates/is trying to kill the major character. Its such a cliche in the “urban fantasy” genre, and terribly overused by Kim Harrison, Rachel Caine, etc.
Seconding most of what others have said.
I particularly love:
– seeing respect, attraction and love grow between two people, so that i believe there’s enough between them to last for 60+ years (or eternity, of we’re talking about vampires…)
– ‘ordinary’ heroes and heroines – real-life characters facing life with humour and emotional depth
– historical characters who actually think like characters from their period/place in time
I find very frustrating:
– heroines who are supposed to be smart, successful spies heading up a covert agency with gazillions of resources at their disposal who can’t work out who the guy is and who he works for despite knowing about him for years, when it’s obvious to the reader from chapter 2, if not earlier. Duh.
(Yes, I know it is hard to write suspense and to get everything right. But I shok my head through a lot of that book.)
changes52: yes, it could have done with about that many edits
A few personal hates:
1. Independence and spunk are not the same as stupidity. I’m thinking of all the westerns in which the gently reared Eastern lady inherits the ranch from her long lost father. She doesn’t know anything about ranching (or horses, the outdoors, guns, physical labor, etc). AND she’s the world’s worst judge of character. Her lawyers told her it was a bad idea to try to run the ranch. The townsfolk tell her it’s a bad idea. The hero tells her it’s the stupidest idea ever. But they’re just trying to keep the woman down. She’ll prove them wrong…or get the hero almost killed as he repeatedly has to pull her out of the deadly situations she gets herself into to prove to everyone that she can take care of herself just fine.
2. Heroines who are unattractive because their legs are too long and slim, their waists too small, their heaving bosoms too voluptuous. If your character is going to be gorgeous, let her be gorgeous. It’s much better than total denial of reality. But why not let her be normal looking? The hero doesn’t fall headfirst in lust with her. He gets to know her, slowly coming to realize that her eyes/smile/hair are the most stunning he’s ever seen.
3. The gratuitous baby ending. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the epilogue featuring the hero, heroine, and their dozen children frolicking at their country estate. OK, maybe not a dozen. But I’ve seen an even ten before.
And while Susan Johnson’s heroes and heroines are simply ridiculous, her use of endnotes makes my heart beat faster.
Thought of some more “hates”
—The ghost story/romance in which the supernatural element starts out great but then just fizzles—Barbara Michaels does this to me ALL the time (yet I read and reread them).
—The gay (male) best friend, or neighbor, or co-worker who seems to exist only to provide the heroine (generally chick-lit) with a sounding board, wise advice, or humour, rather than being a full character in his own right. Ditto the elderly woman who was a regular spitfire in her youth, who can see herself in the heroine.
—I am with the poster who does not like the lack of contractions in dialogue. I, too, have not ever met anyone who speaks that way.
Oh I agree. I wasn’t very clear in my post. On the Trueblood thread a lot of people complained about Jason’s sex scene right up front and I defended it from the point of the TV series because I felt it was illustrative of Jason and of the tone of the series. But that’s certainly not how Harris did the book.
Exactly. And it’s not that I’m against explicit sex scenes, I love them when done well (Sherry Thomas, Lisa Klepas come to mind right off the bat). But please let me get to know these two people first. Sex right off the bat in a book is almost somehow like having sex with a stranger. If I’m not emotionally involved with the characters then yes, it’s really more clinical than involving. And offputting. I’m not sure why, but it is.
Works for me. Just need to get a passport.
I hate endless internal monologues—nothing makes me put down a book faster. I don’t usually notice anachronisms, but I have to say I’m damn tired of historical characters getting killed off in carriage accidents. How I long for a case of erysipelas to carry someone off, just for a bit of variety!
Also can’t stand heroines in romantic suspense novels who insist on pretending their lives are bidnis as usual even though a rabid serial killer is stalking their every move. “There’s no way I’m going to let that pesky police escort interfere with my 5 a.m. jog at Remote Lake! I’ll just sneak out the back door.” There have been a couple of times when I found myself whispering, “Stab her, just frigging kill her already,” wishing I had a Choose Your Own Adventure version in which the killer has a chance at success…
And I’m not fond of constant mentions of the hero’s erection, especially when he’s turned on by something ridiculous like the sight of her licking a stamp. During a sex scene I get it, but do I have to know that he’s bursting through his pants in line at the post office? Ew.
What are plots with backwards courtship? Not sure I understand those.
Otherwise, I agree with most of the things mentioned. If there is a good enough reason for the character (including a child) to die, other than merely to jerk around the reader’s emotions, then I can live with that. It’s not a deal-breaker. But I’d prefer it otherwise.
I recently read my copy of SILENT IN THE SANCTUARY, which I think was a Rita Winner (can’t remmber the author’s last name—first name is Deanna—and my copy is at home in Galveston. (House came through fine, going home this week, hopefully to stay. Still have to boil water, and no internet, but have electricity and working potties.)) The heroine in it is one of 10 children, and the author makes it work. Large families were the rule rather than the exception in the Victorian era. Babies happen. (sorta like other things that “happen.”) Especially in fertile families. So I don’t have a problem with babies in epilogues.
Unless, of course, it’s one of those miraculous healing situations. Healing does happen, especially if the author has set up the story with a condition that can spontaneously go away. But usually it doesn’t, and it bothers me that some authors think you can’t have a happy ending without a baby, or healing the blindness, or fixing all the family relationship problems. Even if life isn’t perfect, it can be happy.
Backwards courtship is sex/prenancy, then marriage, then love (like No One’s Baby but Mine).
Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!
How fun! I actually kind of went crazy and came up with a bunch so I posted the rest on my blog.
But here’s a few:
Likes:
Two people from wildly different backgrounds finding each other and falling in love, overcoming it all to stay together. (I actually find Disney’s Pocahontas really romantic, for example…)
Gladiators. But not Russell Crowe (although he is yummy) or any other kidnapped nobleman. No, no. I want me some Spartacus. Slaves who are stuck and have to fight their way up from the dirt, not men who started at the top and have toppled. The gladiator world was so fascinating I wish someone would actually explore that life instead of taking the nobleman shortcut.
Clever, dry-witted old reprobates with a twinkle in their eye and a wineflask up their sleeve. (Cadfael, Robinton, Llewellyn, how I love thee).
A good chase scene over a rickety rope bridge. Don’t ask me why but they are so fun.
Dislikes:
Big Misunderstandings in romance novels that could be resolved in a page if the parties involved would just TALK TO EACH OTHER but instead they spend the last half of the book, uncounted chapters, being apart and mad at each other because the author couldn’t come up with an actual conflict! (I’m lookin’ at you, Jude Deveraux!)
Slutty baddies (always women) going after the sweet young heroine for no apparent reason just to “get” the hero. Um…then shouldn’t you be going after the hero? Oh! And don’t compound the problem by even having the characters in the book recognize how ridiculous your plot point is! (*cough* Anne Stuart *cough*)
Teenagers in otherwise realistic books skirting around using the bad words. In fact, skirting around swear words in general with teen fiction. Most teens swear. A lot. I’m sorry to say this but most of them do not default to “Oh fudgesicle” when the parents aren’t around.
And that’s probably more than enough to be going on with, eh?
Great post!
Moth
I love: EPIC smackdowns and righteous revenge. In fact, if there were a book called “Epic Smackdowns and Righteous Revenge,” I would buy it. I love seeing villains get p0wned. Not just regular revenge – deport them, try it again and I’ll get you, fall off a cliff, etc – I mean nefariously brilliant hoist-on-your-own-petard rub-their-face-in-it takedowns that have you cackling with glee and kicking your feet because OOOH, that sonofab*tch had it coming. No surprise that I liked Count of Monte Cristo. I also liked Eva Ibbotson’s Countess Below Stairs.
Also love: Neil Simon-style French farce, with doors slamming and people falling out of cupboards and everything coming to a chaotic and hilarious head. The end of Heyer’s Unknown Ajax comes to mind.
I like your list SB Sarah! Especially #1.
When expertly handles, these are a joy to read. I am always dismayed when some authors write a “mysterious” character by pointing out how mysterious the character is. It’s like a giant blinking arrow-shaped neon light proclaiming “Look! This character doesn’t like to say much! None of the other characters know anything about her/him. She/He is MYSTERIOUS.” Oooh.
My pet peeve character is a Too-Much-Drama Guy. The type that’s all I’m-a-dangerous-guy-I-don’t-give-a-shit-about-what-you-think-I-
have-issues-you’d-never-understand-so-I-can-be-as-rude-as-I-want-
but-maybe-with-the-right-person-someday-I-can-change. I’m aware that this is a popular hero mold, but seriously it makes me ill to see their popularity. The psychology behind it alone has me gnashing my teeth in anger and frustration. But hey, to each her own, right?
I haven’t read Power Play, but Body Check was excellent and I’ll definitely be buying this new book now that Sarah has recommended it. I want to say that Deidre is (or was) a soap opera writer, so she should get the soap opera actress stuff right in Power Play. I live in Alabama so I can’t vouch for the verisimilitude of the hockey. She has like 5 of these hockey books so surely to God.
Everyone has such great lists, hard to find more to add.
Except:
I HATE: –
* Marriage of convenience as a plot device in modern books.
* When authors set a book on a tropical island or cruise ship, just as an excuse to keep H/h bumping into each other and walking around near naked.
I LOVE: –
* Layers – the plot, the characters. You get my drift…
* The setting being part of the story. When an author has a real feel for the city/country that the book takes place, and it’s personality pulses through the book.
( best example ‘Shadow of the Wind’ in romantic, gothic Barcelona)
Heh, I always thought tropical island/cruise ship romances were just an excuse by the author to write a vacation off on their taxes as research.
3. The gratuitous baby ending. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the epilogue featuring the hero, heroine, and their dozen children frolicking at their country estate. OK, maybe not a dozen. But I’ve seen an even ten before.
Kels, I totally agree. I don’t understand why these authors even bother; since most seem to end with a marriage, an epilogue is only interesting if it doesn’t end happily. Like if instead of “And they all frolicked on their country estate” it was “After only three months of wedded bliss, Lord Handsomepants was killed in a tragic carriage accident, leaving his wife to raise their child alone etc.” So you either get a twist ending or a setup for a sequel.
Today’s xkcd is very appropriate to how I feel about books:
http://xkcd.com/483/
I think the most important part of any book is the lulz. If I do not laugh in the course of reading the book, I have wasted my time. I don’t want to feel down and depressed when reading. I’m reading for enjoyment, and I want to laugh. What makes me laugh changes day to day, but today I got to giggle at the new Lynsay Sands book (I discovered how hilarious cockblocking leeches are). 😀
I hate a lot of things in books – I hate when characters have incomes that do not match their careers at all, characters who never learn from their mistakes (when they keep making the same ones over and over), self-inserts, women who are described as “eccentric” who really aren’t (ooh, she’s a vegetarian, EDGY!), and the repeat in books (oh noes, naming names here – Cheryl Holt. My friend Heather shoved a bunch of books on me including hers and it was terrible. The have a very specific formula and there are many instances where entire paragraphs are exactly the same as they were in other books). I haven’t been able to pick up a historical romance since.
I also hate baby stuff. I like pregnancy plots (SEP’s Nobody’s Baby But Mine is one of my favorite books of all time), but absolutely despise “surprise, this is your kid!” plots.
I absolutely LOVE “No Plot, No Problem”! And I’ve followed the list-making advice myself.
My list of “WANT” and “DO NOT WANT” in fiction is relatively simple. At least I think so. I despise rushed, unrealistic romances in which the characters are completely “swept away” by one another—with no real action to support this. We’re not shown any sexy glances or tiny moments of physical contact; we get no witty banter or deep conversation. We’re supposed to leave these people are just INTO each other—so into each other they’d run away together right now.
I’m just big on the “show, don’t tell” philosophy. Show me what type of person we have here—through their actions, through their choices, through their hurts and discoveries. Sprinkle in some winning, realistic conversation and leave out the strange, sudden changes in place and time and we have a winner!
Like:
Decisive Hero and Heroine-no wishy washy crap over should we or should we not be together (I’m reminded of Der and Mer on Grey’s Anatomy)
Realistic speech-There doesn’t need to be a page and a half of dialogue. Especially when its all in one sentence increments and asking questions.
Comedy-especially one line zingers that don’t overpower the character, but just make you respect them more. Karen Marie Moning has a more subtle comedy in her books, even the Fever series that brighten the story for me.
A genuine mystery or problem-No manufacturing a “relationship”, but a real issue that needs to be resolved that isn’t one sided. That make me care about the issue.
Equal characters-I’m not a big fan of the alpha man. I like characters on equal footing that have an equal relationship.
I love heroes that are secure enough in their masculinity to poke fun at it. By doing “girl things” like loving to cook or clean, wanting to take care of his kids, and wanting to secure a loving marriage or relationship enough to sacrifice.
Real life decision making-no bs over which stiletto heel to wear. I’m talking stuff like his or hers house to live in? Jobs? Kids? If its frivolous, I’m probably gonna skip it because I don’t believe frivolousness is necessary for a convincing heroine.
Hate:
Problem with a relationship, then throw in another person to make the triangle complete.
Preachy characters or points.
Overbearing Alpha-ness to try to push the heroine-I’m reminded of every Lora Leigh book ever printed when the heroine says something to the effect of “Yes baby you’ll love it, and ____ is why.”
Using sex to fill pages-once again looking at Lora Leigh. I get it, its a romance, but does every book in the breed series have to have sex on every other page. How do these couples make it once the heat has worn down?
Spending 3 or more page describing the physical attributes/surroundings of the characters.
Wit-This is a double edged sword. If there is too much or not enough it ruins it for me. It has to be just right for me to enjoy. Sarcasm is only appreciated when it adds to the characters.
Company name dropping-Do I really give a shit if the hero is wearing Armani, or the heroine Dolce and Gabana….um no. I don’t care. Not about clothes, purses, shoes, jewelry, aftershave, lotion, soda, alcohol, electronics, styles or furniture. J. R. Ward, that means you. If I have to skip whole paragraphs of descriptions on which vodka is best, I can’t enjoy the book. I can do just as well if it was just left at vodka.
So many of mine have been covered, but here’s a few more for the hatin’:
1) Not fond of secret babies in general, but despise an easily resolved one. “Oh, well, she kept my kid from me for no real good reason for six years, but I luurves her and her magic cooter, so let’s get married with no resentment at all!”
2) And speaking of babies, I absolutely hate, despise, throw-to-the-wall loathe unrealistic post-partum stories. No weeks of bleeding! No leaking boobage! No sleep-deprivation so bad the Geneva Convention should outlaw it! Hormones so perfectly recovered that she is frothing to have sex by the six week check-up! Ha, in what alternate universe does any of that happen?
3) Inhuman sense of smell in an otherwise normal male. Vamps, weres, aliens having the super sniffers that smell the slightest hint of arousal across the room and beneath VS cotton and Levis? Sure, why not. Regular dude in non-para novel with same? Give me a break.
Silver: Let me know when it gets published and I’ll line up to read it 🙂
LMAO. I have that thought way too many times, though I find the problem even worse in movies. So add that to the hate list: If I’m suggesting (aka screaming at the TV/book) helpful tips to the killer, there is something wrong.
DeeCee: Oh, I am so with you. Frankly I hope Der and Mer fall off the Seattle space needle. Or on it from way above. I’m not picky. As long as their heads fall off so we don’t have to see Mer wander through her mind away from the friggin light again. I liked them in the beginning, but for the love of all that is holy just get over yourselves.
(Hmmm, too strong?)
These are some great lists! I agree, I agree!
Moth, re liking gladiators, do you read fantasy at all? I just read a really fun new book by Kage Baker titled The House of the Stag where the main character is a gladiator. It was a subversively humorous take on the typical male-oriented fantasy novel. I highly recommend it (and her other books as well)!
Oops, re previous comment, if y’all are wondering WHY I brought it up in this forum, “The House of the Stag” is definitely a Fantasy/Romance. HEA, epilogue, and everything. It is great!
I had to de-lurk for this. The comments are hilarious 🙂 My hates:
– Contractions. I ‘third’ whoever mentioned them. Just because some words can be contracted, doesn’t mean all of them can! There is one book (published earlier this year) that when I think of it I have to sit on my hands so that I don’t email the author and tell her to desist!
– TSTL heroines. I know it has been mentioned before, but I have just (today 🙂 finished a contemporary romance and I am trying to work up the courage to email the author and ask why her main female character (a country doctor with 12 years experience who sees numerous pregnancies) has 2 days of unprotected sex! It is only at the end that she thinks ‘OOPS! I forgot to use the diaphragm!’. (FYI – I know full well that she falls pregnant in a later book.) What I can’t understand is…you’re a doctor…you see numerous teenage pregnancies – HOW CAN YOU FORGET CONTRACEPTION? And no mention is made of condoms….STDs? I need a wall so I can hit my head against it. And no mention of the male character mentioning it….he’s an undercover cop.
– The perfect heroine. Lissa – you put it all perfectly. I am so not perfect it isn’t funny. But it’s like, the more perfect the male, the more perfect the female needs to be. And, why, no matter what century a book is written in, beauty is measured by your size?
– Colouring. Is it just me, or do heroines always seem to have such dramatic colouring – black hair or blonde, and eyes of blue or green (or grey)….and if they mention brown is it described as cinnamon or whatever. Is there something wrong with brown?
orannia *who is very grateful to have been allowed to get that all out of her system*
PS And my word is hair49…..subtle 🙂
MB, thanks for the rec. I do read SF and F and I read Terry Pratchett too, which I guess this book is similar to. Unfortunately my local library doesn’t have The House of the Stag. They had the first one in the series, though, so I put that on hold. 😀
(Ha my word verification is “held21”…creepy).
Moth, I love Terry Pratchett as well. The House of the Stag’s humor is a little more subtle than TP—it sneaks up on you. I don’t remember The Anvil of the World very well, although I did read it some time ago. But if you like it do try Kage Baker’s Company series. It is to die for although it really only started getting enjoyable for me about 4 books in. I love the combination of SF, cyborgs, conspiracy theory, and bouncing around history! I will never again feel the same about chocolate, Hearst Castle, and neanderthals 🙂
(Sorry for highjacking this thread people. I’ll stop now.)
I agree with you in general/theory.
BUT….
I’m in the middle of trying to finish up a story set in what could be called the Pre-Regency period. In it, the heroine has, indeed, been subjected to not just the usual masculine authority, but brutality. Add to this the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft’s “Vindication of the Rights of Women”, & you have a heroine who has reason & opportunity to spout what could very well be called feminist ideas – and who gets to take all the flak she would get in those days for doing so (&, no, I don’t make the hero agree with her, either. “Better than his counterparts” is all anyone can hope for in the period setting).