Romance novels is weird

[msmcknittington]

In the current trashy book I'm reading (which is "Angel" by Johanna Lindsay -- so old it's got a Fabio clinch stepback for a cover), there's something that's just bugging me a lot. I take it for granted that the heroes in romance novels are supposed to be phenomenally handsome and virile to a fault. That's just the way it goes and probably the way it's gonna go for as long as there are books about twue wuv! between a silly girl and a powerful guy.

But this book just isn't conveying the whole hot dude thing to me. It's got that tradition of early '90s romances where the hero's hair is disreputably long, he's domineering* at first but has a change of heart when he realizes he wuvs! the heroine, he shoots people for a living . . . so it's got all the tenets of your basic Western romance novel. Bad dude meets good girl, add trouble, shake vigorously, and the end result is a cocktail of love. Except for one thing.

The gosh-darn hero is described as constantly wearing a bright yellow slicker/raincoat. Over all black clothing, natch. So every time the slicker is mentioned, instead of imagining some really handsome dude in a raincoat, I imagine this guy. Only more bumblebee-y.

Not good, Johanna Lindsay. Not good.

_{*Seriously, who finds someone who's constantly trying to control your actions, telling you you're wrong, and is insanely jealous a good life mate? Why did that cliché persist so long in romantic fiction? Drives me nuts!}

Comments

Re: Because this has been rattling around in my brain.

[msmcknittington.livejournal.com]

I knew there was a name for it! It's been a while since I've done any reading of crit lit about romance novels that wasn't second-wave feminist torchburning.

I don't think Harlequin pays its writers to be bad; I've read a couple Harlequins that were surprisingly competent. Rae Muir's first novel, The Pearl Stallion, was pretty good. It's, of course, set in the Regency period and involves the sea trade from India and the Orient. I've actually re-read it more than once, despite the alpha-male hero.

Anyway, I think Harlequin attracts a lot of first-time writers or readers who don't care especially for strong writing; I do believe most of their sales come from subscriptions and not bookstore or grocery store sales. I also think that the editors look first at genre -- hence all the "Greek Tycoon's Baby" titles -- and then at writing. They're more interested in what they can put on the cover than what goes in between.

I do read a lot of Regencies -- the authors have a dedication to historical detail that isn't found in medievals or Westerns, which are the other two subgenres I dip into.

Medievals are all basically porn-y fairy tales. There's one author who writes medievals and claims to have cites for all the things that occur in her books. I laugh whenever I hear about her, because if she's got cites for them, then I'm Santa Claus. She has way minor nobility running around in velvets and silks and freaking-fracking cotton, which didn't become commonplace in Europe until the 18th century.

I agree that Signet usually has the best historicals, period. Zebra swings so widely either way that you can't tell until you're actually reading it.

I have read all of those authors except Carla Kelly, who I've never heard of before. I love Barbara Metzger -- she's so much fun! My favorite by her is "The Hourglass." It's fantasy-esque; the hero was a minion of the Devil, but then he won a bet with the Devil and got to return to life.

I read a couple of Catherine Coulter books last summer (they were a quarter!) and . . . shudder. I've read better fanfiction. I can't believe she's published. It was like a rollercoaster of awfulness.

Re: Because this has been rattling around in my brain.

[ciorstan.livejournal.com]

Harlequin is one of the very few houses that will read anything sent to its slush pile, which is why first-time authors have, over the years, made a point to submit-- typically without representation-- to it.