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

[ciorstan.livejournal.com]

FISHSTICKS.

I will never be able to look at another Johanna Lindsay book again. A'tall.

giggles insanely

[bklynwebgrrl.livejournal.com]

I almost spit my tortorlini out at my computer when I saw the picture of the fisherman.

I hear ya... what romantic guy wears a yellow rain coat? Everyone knows true manly men heros wear london fog or one of those australian outback all-weather trench coats.

Because this has been rattling around in my brain.

[zyada.livejournal.com]

What you are describing in regards to the heroes is called the alpha male syndrome, and I've seen romance sites talk about whether the men have to be Alpha male or not. I think Alpha-male is more predominant in the more overtly porn trashy novels.

IMO, Johanna Lindsey is one of the better of the girl-porn writers, but that isn't saying much. I could only stand Lindsey's males because her heroines (usually) give as good as they get. The "A'tall" stuff is in her Georgian/regency period books - her version of witty conversation, I think. But probably more than that, I hadn't really found any better writers when I was reading her stuff, and she's not a really bad writer - at least compared to some of the writers out there. I'm absolutely sure that Harlequin pays it's writer to be deliberately bad.

If you prefer Amanda Quick, you would probably prefer the regency sub-genre. This is about the only romance sub-genre I read anymore - there's a lot of fascinating cultural changes going on, and most of the good writers are interested in those changes and how they affect the people who lived then. I've noted at least one university professor of English literature and one professor of history among the regency authors. Also, I find that the Regency authors are more likely to make their hero and heroine intelligent and witty, instead of good looking.


In the regency group, you can usually go by publisher to tell which books are more likely to be good. Harlequin is c&*%, and Sihlouette isn't much better. Zebra is a gamble - they get some really bad authors and some really good ones. Signet is the best by far - they usually steal proven authors from other publishers.

Of authors, my favorites are Mary Jo Putney, Jo Beverly, Barbara Metzger and Carla Kelly. Barbara Metzger is just a fun writer, she's not so much on the cultural details but her wordplay is great. The others are good authors and do their research.


BTW, I do NOT like Mary Balogh. Her plotting is great, but she has a weirdly impersonal writing style that grates on my nerves. I do recommend that you read one of her stories, and see if you can tell what I mean.

And don't ever read Catherine Coulter. She has a rape fetish.

jxhwYOKynSabCw

[(Anonymous)]

"We've removed the proiveus 10- and 14-day trial time restrictions, and players who are interested in trying out World of Warcraft can now play the base game for free up to a maximum character level of 20, including draenei and blood elf characters—all they need is a Battle.net account and an Internet connection. "So yeah, you'll be able to play as much as you like on level 20, which is still pointless though, as to be honest the game starts at 85.P.S. World of Warcraft died with Lich King. Find a better game to play.