tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1411374346823190041.post8000162088686517539..comments2023-09-16T07:49:42.256-04:00Comments on Life at the Narrow End of the Bell-Shaped Curve: A Cranky Reader's ManifestoMagdalenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11551590278859598110noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1411374346823190041.post-12453961644398075062009-07-19T21:18:52.146-04:002009-07-19T21:18:52.146-04:00@Sarah -- Thanks. I have some ideas on things we ...@Sarah -- Thanks. I have some ideas on things we all can do to break the logjam, but it's clearly an uphill battle, as people's misconceptions about romances are pretty well entrenched.<br />@Heidenkind -- Clearly there are a lot of literary intersections between authors like Austen and (particularly) the Bronte sisters and the more anonymous "gothic" romances of the 19th Century. But I really do think that the Brontes and Austen beget authors like Edith Wharton and Margaret Mitchell, while the entire literary world thinks today's romance authors are fungible and the equivalent of Rodney Dangerfield: they get no respect! <br />Part of the problem, I suspect, is that romances are quick reads, relatively speaking. Of course, westerns are quick reads too, but Louis L'Amour gets a whole more respect than even Nora Roberts. I'm starting to think that sexism is playing a role here as well as all the other things I indicted!Magdalenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11551590278859598110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1411374346823190041.post-6313074127525535022009-07-19T00:17:08.109-04:002009-07-19T00:17:08.109-04:00Very nice post. I love your manifesto and your po...Very nice post. I love your manifesto and your point about how romance readers only identify themselves as romance readers, even if they read a lot of other stuff. I can enjoy a book for different reasons, but when it comes right down to it I really only care about the romance plot. :)<br /><br />I do have to disagree with you on your romance antecedents timeline, though. Jane Austen was inspired by Gothic novels (e.g., Northanger Abbey). I would say she borrowed the same sense of fantasy and emotional resolution and applied that to her stories. And what about Arthurian romances, which were hugely popular in the Victorian Era?Heidenkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09494625457587427781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1411374346823190041.post-80681603940588974952009-07-12T13:35:12.840-04:002009-07-12T13:35:12.840-04:00Excellent post!
It is so frustrating when a frie...Excellent post! <br /><br />It is so frustrating when a friend says she hates romance novels but has either only read one really bad book, or none at all. For some strange reason, many people seem to find chick lit acceptable, but not contemporary romance.<br /><br />I find your point about publishers not marketing romances differently interesting. One thing I've noticed is that they are very quick to label particularly successful romance authors' novels as "Fiction" on the spine, and NOT as "Romance". Nora Roberts is always billed as "Fiction", as are Suzanne Brockmann and Linda Howard. <br /><br />Glad you're finding All About Romance useful. I find their review database brilliant for looking up older books. Their "If you like..." lists are also useful for finding authors with a similar style.Monkey Bear Reviewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17066203287877085289noreply@blogger.com