I don’t know whether it’s a galactic coincidence, or there’s something in my drinking water, but lately I’ve seen posts on a number of the message boards I frequent about how many good romance novels are currently on the shelves, and how they’re “not what people think they are.” I’m deeply skeptical of this opinion, especially after suffering through a Harlequin romance that was assigned reading in college and which scarred me for life. I’m also allergic to most romantic movies, TV shows, and comics. However, I’m also adventuresome, and I’m willing to be proven wrong. I trust the collective wisdom of the Dopers more than that of any other board, so I’m asking this question here.
Recommend a romance novel, published within, say, the last ten years, that will improve my opinion of the genre. Subgenre doesn’t matter; it can be science fiction, historical, whatever, but anything involving bodice-ripping will face an uphill struggle. Rape fantasies are a deal-killer. It must be reasonably well available, preferably via clicks-and-order at a major retailer. I’d prefer something available in softcover, but books available only in hardcover will be considered. Page count - short of a War and Peace length epic - is unimportant. I promise to report what I buy, and what I thought of it.
Once again… Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander Series. Huge historical fiction novels found in the romance section. Includes elements of time-travel and romance (somewhat detailed sex scenes). It begins around the time of the Jacobites and the Rising of '45, Scotland. For more information visit Diana Gabaldon’s Home Page
Also, you may like Sara Donati’s Into the Wilderness Series. It is a “continuation” of Last of the Mochians. Visit Sara Laughs
Seconding the Gabaldon Outlander series, which combines a neat historical perspective with some nice make-you-blush-on-the-bus-to-work scenes. And men in kilts are hot, that’s all there is to it.
If you’re looking for something that’s amusing, I recommend anything by Katie MacAllister, most especially A Girls’ Guide to Vampires for that otherworldly feel, or The Corset Diaries for actual laugh-out-loud funny.
Keeping the otherworldly and ditching the funny, Shannon Drake has a series that’s (mostly) about vampires, as well, with relatively good plots outside the romantic aspect. The first one is called Beneath a Blood Red Moon.
I’d add more, but it’s time to go home, and I’ve had a hell of a day. :mad: I’m going to go relax on the couch with a bottle of wine and a romance novel of my own. Happy reading!
Thanks for this thread! I might sneak over to the romance section of the library next time I darken its doors.
And I agree – there’s just something about a kilt on a man which invites people to fall to their knees and start fondling upward. (quoting someone from a mailing list I’m on)
Not surprisingly, the old cover of **Love Me Forever ** by Johanna Lindsey looked just like that! This is the only romance novel that my friend and I reread every year as a joke. It’s just too ridiculous really, and Johanna Lindsey is one of the more sane bodice-rippers.
You’ll find it in the science fiction section, but I’d recommend A Civil Campaign by Lois McMaster Bujold. It’s patterned after “Regency romances” (which I gather are, like Jane Austen, comedies of manners) in a society lurching from the 18th-century (culturally speaking) to the 27th century with all delibarate speed. The main problem is it’s a book in the middle of a series, though the earlier book chronologically, Komarr (more of a mystery/suspense thriller whose romance subplot leads into Campaign) is a very good point to start.
Outlander is the only Gabaldon I’ve read. No rape fantasies, but if I remember right, there was at least one scene where Claire and Jamie’s sex was “enhanced” by the physical abuse that preceded it. (I want to say “light” physical abuse, but that just doesn’t seem right.)
Melanie Jackson writes modern, historical, and supernatural romance, and it’s plenty readable.
I wish you had asked for something older. I have fond memories of the Angelique series by Sergeanne Golon. Not sure if they’re as good as I remember though. Probably not.
Definitely a more than worthwhile read. She’s currently my favourite author, and I read the entire series (5 books and counting - should be 7 when completed) every year or so. And I also have been known to read and love Romance novels. That being said: The Outlander Series is not a “Romance” novel. That’s it’s shelved there by bookstores is misleading. It’s historical fiction, that happens to have two main characters that share a deep and abiding love.
FWIW, this opinion (that Outlander is mis-shelved in Romance) is shared by the author - it was one of the questions I asked her at one of the book signings I attended (she’s a local author - lucky me!).
For Romance novels: I second Bertrice Small (The Kadin is one of my favourite stories as is Love, Wild and Fair) and add Jude Deveraux (Knight in Shining Armor, Wishes, Sweet Liar are three I re-read every once in a while), and Judith McNaught (Whitney, My Love, Almost Heaven, Once & Always)
No offense intended to the poster, but anything that promotes the idea that “no” doesn’t really mean no or that nonconsentual sex is ever nonviolent and enjoyable is anything but romantic.
Shudder.
Selkie, why in this world were you assigned a Harlequin romance in college? I can maybe understand someone wanting to read mindless drivel on a daily commute or when one can’t really concentrate. But why in an academic situation?
In a batch of books I bought at a secondhand bookshop was [iCowboy* by Sara Davidson, apparently a fictional account of her real life relationship with a cowboy. I gave it to a woman at work and it is out in the world being passed from hand to hand still. Here are the kind of reviews that made me grab it.
Do you like historical stuff? I’d suggest Julia Quinn. She’s fun, light, amusing and writes well. I recommend her Bridgerton series. Mary Jo Putney also has a great series called “The Fallen Angels” which is swoon worthy. Starts with Thunder and Roses. Also Julie Garwood but only her historicals. I don’t care for her contemporaries. For contemporary romance I’d say Susan Elizabeth Phillips would be a good choice. Her “Chicago Stars” series combines fictional Chicago football team, The Stars" with great leading ladies and wonderfuly caring “alpha” males. Susan Mallory is another contemporary good choice.
Did someone say Vampire romance? Lyndsy Sands has a good series starting with Single White Vampre. They are also fun, light and laugh out loud. I actually liked her much better than Katie MacAllister who I also enjoyed. Maggie Shayne writes about both vampires and witches and Maryjanice Davidson combines chick lit with vampire horror in a fun, campy way.
And I must be the only person in the world who can’t get through Outlander. I have no clue why. It has everything I like in a romance, Highlanders in kilts named Jamie…time travel…you name it. But I’ve picked the thing up 6 times and haven’t gotten past chapter 4. No clue why. I have it on my perpetual TBR list so maybe one day.
You may like the site All About Romance which has reviews and a “readers choice” section which features “favorite books by favorite authors” which lists 12 (if the back list of that author is big enough) of the most voted for books for that author from 8 reader polls in the last 2 years.
Can you tell I like romance novels?
I second Judith McNaught and Julie Garwood. Garwood’s For the Roses series is pretty dang good. There are a couple of people who write Regencies that I like, but I can’t remember their names, dammit. Amanda Quick, aka Jayne Ann Krentz, but I could be wrong. I’ve had pretty good luck with most Regencies when it comes to balanced relationships and, dare I say, witty writing.
Avoid like the plague Danielle Steele. She, like the many of serial novelists on bestsellers lists, is abominable in every way shape and form.
The only thing I find distasteful in romance novels is how very stupid the characters are. The stupidity really is the root of all the misogynist themes and disagreeable gender roles in your average romance novel. It seems as if they just throw their brains out the window when it comes to anything to do with their match. Why can’t they act like regular people? I certainly can’t imagine any of the women I know gladly accepting their lovers back after said lover killed most of their male relatives. I suppose, though, that if the characters acted like regular people, it would be a plain ol’ novel.
Zoe, there are some people (feminist literature scolars, pop culture scholars and the like), who think that romance novels are a valuable source for figuring out what women are thinking – i.e.: what they want in relationships or life, tracking popular views of gender roles, etc. This link, which I always post when these discussions come up, is an example of the analysis. It really is very interesting and readable.
I did my thesis on romance novels, and found this list of the 100 favourite romances to be very helpful.
My personal favourites are:
Connie Brockway - As You Desire, All Through the Night, My Pleasure
Laura Kinsale - For My Lady’s Heart, Shadowheart
Anything by Jennifer Crusie.
I would rate the above three authors to be amongst the very best in the genre at the moment. Brockway and Kinsale do historical fiction while Crusie is very contemporary.
My thesis was on how contemporary romance novels have changed from earlier bodice rippers. I found that a lot of the most popular romances went out of their way to play with classic archetypes (the hero raping the heroine, the promiscuous hero and the virginal heroine, gender roles) and often even subverted them. I’m in a rush at the moment, so I can only post my super condensed findings, but I’ll be back later with some more later.
Adding my recommendation of Gabaldon’s Outlander books. BUT. There are actually a few rape scenes in the series - without going into major spoilers, Claire and Jamie have a romantic interlude that is interrupted by a soldier (? I think he was a soldier…) who attempts to , er, take Jamie’s place, and Claire has to defend herself while Jamie is being held with a knife. Jack Randall IS a rapist, although it’s not Claire he’s particularly interested in (and his scene in the Wentworth prison with his victim is harrowing and NOT for the weak-of-stomach.) A young companion of the Frasers’ is raped in France. A major character in the fourth book is sort of raped, too - she attempts to bargain with a thief and his end of the bargain is sex.
All that said - I think what the OP is objecting to as a dealbreaker is forced sex between the main characters of the romance (ala Luke & Laura on General Hospital, in which Laura falls in love with her rapist - and if that’s the case, I’d find it to be a dealbreaker, too.)
The Corset Diaries sounds like something I’d really enjoy, but my library doesn’t stock it so I rented The Girl’s Guide to Vampires and Sex and the Single Vampire last night. I read all of the former and am about half-way through the latter. I found the funny bits quite funny, hope the plot was supposed to be that predictable, and the romantic bits … aren’t bad. In short, much better than my expectations, and an important step toward rehabilitating my opinion of the genre. With Superb Owl Sunday coming up, I’ll have plenty of time for further reading so keeping those recommendations coming.
However, I have to ask: are there any romance novels with less traditional gender roles, with perhaps an alpha female? 'Cuz the whole “She’s smart and successful, but finds out she really wants the security of a traditional relationship with an alpha male” schtick could get old really fast. And, well, I prefer my guys a little more obedient.
You nailed it exactly. “Man forces woman, woman finds she likes it” causes me to foam at the mouth. Rape scenes that make sense within the context of the story and which doesn’t result in or from romance are fine.
Zoe, I was an American Culture major at college. The major was restricted entry - you had to apply and pass an interview for one of the available slots - and, among other requirements, take one seminar a quarter with the rest of the majors. I can’t for the life of me recall what the specific topic that quarter was supposed to be, but I do remember the curriculum doing this weird detour for a couple of weeks and delving into gender role research, despite it having nothing to do with the supposed subject of the class.
What was doubly weird was that after, say, watching a video about the behind-the-scenese details of the sex industry, our male professor didn’t particularly want to discuss the material he had assigned. And, even more bizarrely for a hand-picked ULTRA-liberal faculty and student body, my belief that the Harlequin romance I read was anti-feminist trash was, shall we say, unpopular. Apparently, because it was written by women for women it was supposed to reflect what women really want, or some such nonsense. One male classmember agreed wholeheartedly with my views, but the rest seemed to think I denying my true feelings about the material.
WordMan, I just knew someone was going to recommend Jane Austen, which was why I imposed the “published in the last ten years” limitation. I absolutely loathe Jane Austen’s writing.
