ellid | Follow up to yesterday's rant

I downloaded a sample of one of the books that was recommended to me. The writing was good enough that I was actually tempted to buy it and read it...

But when the author commits no fewer than three separate errors about the heroine's clothing in the first few pages, what's the point? If she can't be arsed to spend ten minutes looking at a copy of Francois Boucher so she'd know that a respectable 14th century woman didn't go out in public bareheaded, or that the trim on her gown would have been a detachable band, not embroidery, or that the heroine could not possibly tuck her coins in her bodice because clothing in the 1320s didn't HAVE bodices, well, I can't be arsed to read her book.

And that was the best of the four samples I downloaded based on recommendations from DKos.

Somehow I don't think I'm going to make a romance reader.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Here's the thing.

I'm a rather voracious romance reader, and, frankly, I enjoy the ones where I don't know as much about the period, because the mistakes don't bother me unless they are glaring. I read lots of Victorian and regency, happily, there is not a lot of Roman set romances. THANK GOD.

That's basically it. I know too much about the clothing and the textiles to overlook something like that.

And since you're here...*cackles*

I normally read fantasy, SF, mysteries, and sometimes suspense/thrillers. What romance writers would *you* recommend? So far every single one that was recommended to me on DKos was a big, fat goose egg, either because the writing drove me nuts or the costumes were wrong or I found the set up implausible. I mean, I spent about half an hour looking at recommended authors in the Romance section of the local Barnes & Noble, and it was like being in a foreign country without a phrasebook. I literally had no idea what I was doing.

It may well be that I'm not girly enough to enjoy romances even as light reading, in which case I probably should just give up, hack off my hair, and be the token het in a lesbian feminist commune in Vermont....

My usual recomendations for straight historical are:

The Spymaster's Lady, by Joanna Bourne, French and British spies during the Napoleonic Wars. Bourne has a fantastic ear for language and dialogue. She has a few other books in her Spymasters series, but that's the first one and my favorite.

Lord of Scoundrels, by Loretta Chase. I've heard good things about all her books, but this is the only one I've read and it's fantastic. I think it is also Regency or early Victorian.

I also very much enjoyed Nine Rules to Break While Romancing a Rake, by Sarah McLean.

Sometimes the set up is implausible. It's all what the author does with it.

now, as far as paranormal- I adore Zoe Archer, and not just because we are twitter buds. Her Blades of the Rose series (Victorian/steampunk/paranormal) is great.

I've heard good things about The Iron Duke, but I haven't read it yet.

I'll look at some of these. The steampunk one sounds like the most interesting. Thanks!

I only got into romance in the last five years by way of science fiction romance.

Linnea Sinclair. Ann Aguirre. Catherine Asaro. Dru Pagliassotti.

Try Sinclair's Finders Keepers? Only downside is I'm not all that keen on seriously alpha males a main characters - Sinclair gets better in her recent books that way, but they're the 3rd and 4th books of a series.

I've read Asaro and liked the book on the first read. The second read, not so much. But I read one of her contemporary computer tech romances and liked it.

Possibly you're just not cut out for historical romances--I know there are other subgenera. (Says the fan who has screamed at her computer while watching Stargate because they got the linguistics wrong again. As in pick up a damn textbook it's called Indo-European.)

I'm beginning to think I'm not cut out for romances, period. I went to B&N after work to browse, and I swear I have never felt so detached from a rack of books in my entire LIFE. It was as if the authors were speaking Basque or Wendish or !Kung.

And no, I am not exaggerating. All I kept thinking was "If this is what the average woman reads, what is wrong with me? Why can't I get past the first couple of pages? Or the back cover? I'm supposed to LIKE this, so what is going on?"

Uh, there are plenty of other women who aren't into the genre, either.

Have you read the Daisy Dalrymple mysteries, or Madelyn Alt's Bewitching mysteries? Daisy Dalrymple is 1920s, and the bewitching books are contemporary, but have a supernatural element, and introduce some psychic and Wiccan practices. I think you might have fun with those.

I've never heard of either. Thanks for the rec!

Paranormal romance is somewhat better, in that it's mostly modern day so no gross costume gaffes.

Actually some of the best written romances I've read are Sarah Waters' Victorian lesbian romances, but they may fall under "fiction" more than "romance".

I totally agree about Sarah Waters. Tipping the Velvet and Fingersmith were marvelous, and incredibly romantic...and neither would have made it as a romance because they're about lesbians.

That was something that bothered me, actually. I specifically said that I read slash and some m/m romance, and the best rec anyone could give me was Diana Gabaldon's secondary series...which I tried and couldn't stand. And some of the bad historical romances were rec'd by SCAdians who evidently could and did overlook the mistakes.

and neither would have made it as a romance because they're about lesbians.

Probably true, but my first thought is that Waters wasn't marketed as romance because they were well written!

My own $.02: most of what's sold as "romance" has a limited number of plots and character types because that's what the people looking in B&N's rack of mainstream romance want and expect. There are good romantic stories with interesting characters and well developed plot - they're just lurking in other parts of the store and sold under different genres.

Maybe look for quality mystery or historical fiction that oh-by-the-way has a romantic subplot?

I have liked Georgette Heyer (contemporary of Sayers), especially as audiobooks. I especially like The Unknown Ajax as read by Daniel Philpott and The Nonesuch, although the spoiled brat beauty character is not fun (an excellent foil but still a spoiled brat). Cotillion and A Civil Contract (I think) are more interesting as social commentaries about what happens after the engagement.

A scifi/romance/adventure series you might check out is Sharon Lee & Steve Miller's Liaden novels:
http://sharonleewriter.com/bibliography/free-samples/
Conflict of Honors might be a good place to start; Agent of Change is much more an adventure story.

(I don't read from the romance section either, other than finding Heyer there. For what it's worth.)

I've heard about Liaden - are they in the romance or SF section? Thanks!

SF, they're being re-released as omnibus editions by Baen (which is why I am now collecting them) so you might actually find one in the store. But don't count on browsing and picking one up--BN here rarely carry more than one or two copies of ANYTHING and that usually only as a new release.

If you want to borrow them we can talk?

I have been meaning to post on The Sheikh, which I read a couple of weeks ago. I have a different take on it from you, and particularly on aspects of the rape fantasy, but I’d say that’s one reason why it is actually a good book, or at least interesting from a cultural history POV: there is enough there for people to have different opinions about.

I am not a formulaic romance reader, but I have read a number of formulaic romances. Reading your article and posts, but not trawling all the comments, I note that the books you have been recommended and have tried and been disappointed by are “historical” romances.

To be honest, I think that you are looking for something in these books that they are not. These are not historical novels. They are more like films with a historical back-drop. A painted back-drop at that. The historical setting is in no way intended to inform, educate, or entertain you of itself, but serves to add colour to the basic het love story of boy meets girl, difficulties intervene, happy ever after. You pick up errors in areas of your expertise, and though these are by no means limited to romance novels*, they are going to be more common in romance novels because it isn’t part of the writer-reader agreement that the errors should not be there. These are books with men called Lord Rake, after all, and an entire genre that makes Kidnapped look like a detailed anthropological survey of Scottish life.** If you expect to get pleasure out of the accuracy of the historical details in these books, it’s a non-starter. That said, there are ones that focus more on the historical aspects and are more interesting from that POV, though they are not "historical novels".

I will recommend Georgette Heyer, though, as she does largely portray a convincing Regency as well as having a fabulous sense of humour. And a lot of people are keen on Dorothy Dunnett, so she may be worth a try. Finally, if you would like a love story with accurate (at least as far as knowledge went in the 1920s) medieval Norwegian clothing, try Kristin Lavransdatter, which is simply a wonderful novel. However, none of the above have sex scenes.

Incidentally, all the above does not simply apply to romance novels for women. Pretty much exactly the same can be said about Westerns largely read by men, which are an enormous selling genre, right down to them being pretty much ‘invented’ by Riders of the Purple Sage, which is a lot better than its reputation.

*Looking at you, Connie Willis, as a random example of author lauded for research who gets tons of obvious stuff wrong.

** I don’t intend here to denigrate writers or readers of these books – they are escapist light entertainment, and I approve of escapist light entertainment, I just like it to have dragons or boarding schools in it.

Oh, and in utterly shameless self-promotion, I must recommend my spoof of 1930s romance, including The Sheikh, The Healing Fountain.

I've read and loved Dorothy Dunnett for thirty years, and I did download a sample of Georgette Heyer (which I haven't read yet - any favorites you'd recommend?). I found the writing in The Sheik just abominable, although very much of its time. I also did read Kristin Lavransdatter, which is about a lot more than the love story.

And that's my problem. I enjoy a good love story as part of the book, but even when it comes to fanfic, there has to be something more going on than "boy meets girl, there are complications ~~that usually hinge on them acting like idiots~~, happy ending ~~even though these characters have already proven they can't communicate~~." I think that's one of the reasons I enjoy the JD Robb novels by Nora Roberts - she actually explores the problems and the fights that come when two strong-willed lovers have to try to make their relationship work after the happy ending.

Georgette Heyer?

Frederica is and always has been my absolute favorite. Heyer is not only convincing, she's hilarious -- and deadpan about it.

Next to that one I think I'd pick _Sylvester: or The Wicked Uncle_, whose heroine is writing a roman à clef and gets caught ;)

And I'm convinced that _Lady of Quality_ has one of the most hysterically funny climactic scenes in literature -- perpetrated by the paid companion.

Some of these do, admittedly, have people in love who act like idiots and don't communicate, but they are intelligent people and do figure it out.

I have to admit that I still haven't read Dunnett - must remedy that. I agree that the writing in The Sheikh is awful ("the mercy of an Arab who was merciless"), but it isn't awful enough for me not to find the content very interesting in a cultural history sort of way. I need to find out if someone has written about Diana as symbolically Irish...

Re. Heyer, I adore Venetia. It is very funny, and perhaps one of her most romantic, but it's also about real people trapped in situations they feel they can't get out of (or really can't get out of) and doing their best to behave decently by other people, except for all the people who aren't. Also it is set in Yorkshire, which is always nice.

I just read The Black Moth, which is Heyer's first novel. It was entertaining if somewhat silly, but the climax was so ridiculous I can't believe her editors let it pass. I also found the whole idea of the villain pretty much getting a free pass for kidnapping and attempted rape frankly horrifying....

I've never actually read TBM, but Heyer was nineteen at the time, so I don't let the reported lunacy worry me. Goodness knows, my ideas of what was romantic aged nineteen do not bear thinking about!

Actually, I am wrong. I have read TBM - it's the one with the highwayman dressed in manly peach satin, isn't it? (Read These Old Shades, which is the sequel, last year. What she does with gender and performance definitely deserves to be on a university syllabus.)

Oh, yes. And rouge. And patches. He's quite the metrosexual.

I had no idea Heyer was only 19 when she wrote it. That explains a lot, especially the strong Scarlet Pimpernel feel I got in many passages. :)

Don't worry, you're not the only person who doesn't care for romances. I don't think I've ever read any, apart from a couple of Marion Zimmer Bradley and Anne McCaffrey ones (both non-SF, but with a bit of paranormal in some). My older sister used to get Mills & Boon novels from the library; she'd read the cover blurb and the first chapter, then say: "OK, Helen marries Noel, Jason commits suicide, and Paul goes into a monastery." Then she'd turn to the last chapter to see if she was right!

I generally have to do a fair amount of suspension-of-disbelief when reading almost anything anyway - either it's a period/genre I know nothing about, in which case I have to take everything on trust, or it's one I know enough or too much about and have to try and slide past any errors. Though I once gave up entirely on the first book of a historical (mediaeval) mystery series which had the sheriff getting up a posse... *twitch*

A medieval sheriff with a posse? How special....

respectable 14th century woman didn't go out in public bareheaded....

Depends on what you mean by "bareheaded" (and when in the fourteenth century). A C14 matron would not have gone out with her head undressed, but that doesn't necessarily mean "swathed in veils."

or that the trim on her gown would have been a detachable band, not embroidery

Stella Mary Newton cites examples of C14 embroidered clothing (although it's generally embroidered all over, IIRC) :-)

the heroine could not possibly tuck her coins in her bodice because clothing in the 1320s didn't HAVE bodices

OK, that's a fair cop--although in the 1320s, she might have been able to drop coins down the neckline of her kirtle and her belt might have held them in place. Still, fourteenth-century women had these things called "purses"....

Head was completely bare, as in the hero spends several paragraphs noting that her hair is braided into a neat coil about her head. It sounds like the author saw a couple of Italian paintings and deciding that they did the same thing in England. And yes, she was originally from a good family and was old enough that she would not have been considered a girl.

This was set well before the Black Prince era, during the late 1320s, and the author specifically mentioned embroidery at the hem, not all over. :)

There was nothing to indicate that she owned a purse, or even a belt.

:)

I understand what you mean about the details being wrong. Although, since I am reading them for escapism, I take it as part of the humorous entertaiment factor (even if the author didn't mean for it to be humourous).

My all-time favorite clothing error was a novel set in 12th century England (smack dab in the year of Henry II's ascending the throne). The female lead needed a new wardrobe for her wedding, so they were sewing up a storm. And the description of the set of clothes talks about the tunics and skirts (the author got the picture of the short overgown/long under gown confused with the idea that it was a top and a skirt). But what was more hilarious was the explanation of how she could interchange her wardrobe -- i.e. pair that top with that skirt for a whole different look. Made me think I was reading one of the "how to dress on a budget" advice books written for teens/young women.

At least she got the idea that the bliaut was a court gown meant for more formal wear......

Medieval separates! Cool!

I once admitted to Baron Joram Goldspoons that I loved reading romance novels. He told me that Baroness Asseneth (sp?) writes them! I replied that, no, I don't read medieval ones - I like Regency romance novels. Yes, he said- that's what she writes. No, I said - I like to read BAD Regency romance novels.

Yes!!! He said. That's what she writes!!! :-)

*DIES*

I second the Georgette Heyer recommendation - I enjoyed The Corinthian, The Grand Sophy, Frederica, and Charity Girl, to name a few.

I'm still going through my stack of her books. ;)
I have some other recommendations, but I'll have to pull them together and I'm leaving for the airport - right now! Eep. My ride just called.

:)

I'm now reading a rather arch but still enjoyable one called The Black Moth. It's like the Scarlet Pimpernel only with highwaymen instead of the French Revolution.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Profile

ellid

October 2023

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Page Summary

Style Credit

Base style: Abstractia by chiming
Theme: Au Lait by chiming

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Feb. 2nd, 2026 11:59 am

The Last Homely Shack East of the Manhan

Follow up to yesterday's rant

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags