|
Comments:
Roxy - 2005-01-20 23:13:49
As a devoted romance reader, I object! :) Not that there are plenty of romance novels out there that have ludicrous plots. Oh, there are plenty of those. But there are an equal or more number that are amusing, enthralling, touching and believable. I'd just say that Mississippi taste in romance might be as abysmal as its taste elsewhere, eh? Check these authors out: Lori Foster, Janelle Denison, Donna Kauffman, Shannon McKenna for modern stuff, and for historicals check out Amanda Quick and Stephanie Laurens at the least.
-------------------------------
Ahnalyse - 2005-01-21 01:49:20
I object to the MS comment, but I completely despise romance novels. Only because nothing in real life ever happens that way and who wants to read about sappy love stories all the time? Give me magick, death and sex and I am all good! Harlequin romances should be used as a means to start a blazing fire...in the fireplace. My sister reads those all the time. I just dont get it!!
-------------------------------
Ro - 2005-01-21 08:26:25
I don't know, Rox- I have looked at some of the Lori Foster books, and apart from them being a little more (dare I say) sexual in nature, they are about the same to me. I really can't speak for her novels, though, because I haven't read any all the way through, I have just paged through. It's a matter of taste, and mine is just WAY different. What really turns me off are unbelievable plots in supposedly believeable stories. I can take an unbelievable plot in a fantasy or sci-fi book, but if it is based in *real* life, real time, I want something that I can actually think will happen. Just a preference. Of course, I am assuming that embryos aren't stolen for espionage purposes in real life- I could be wrong. I am also assuming that at least eight times out of ten, unexpected pregnancy with strangers doesn't end up in a happily-ever-after marriage (especially after the couple knows each other for less than two months). But again, I could be wrong.
-------------------------------
Rox - 2005-01-21 10:45:09
I think those that disparage romances disbelieve in happy endings. The books that do not have ludicrous plots offer optimism and hope that trouble in relationships can be resolved through understanding, communication, and hard work. Lori Foster books do not contain stolen embryos or pregnancy-leads-to-happy-ending plotlines. So I guess we could dissect a book and come down to the real source of dismay regarding the book. But I think it isn't well done to label all the books based on the very bad apples in the bunch.
-------------------------------
Ro - 2005-01-21 10:59:34
I completely disagree. I think that those who disparage romance novels feel that those romances are misleading women into thinking that once a ring is upon a finger that the happy ending is there and the work is done. Or that there is no work to be done at all, that if he is the "right one" everything will work out naturally. I have yet to read a romance novel that involves problems being solved after marriage. If they exist, do they solve the problems of marriage in realistic ways?
I am not going to argue each book's merit with you- I am sure there are shining examples in every genre- hell, there are shining examples of pornography, but I won't say that because of those shining examples I am going to say that porn doesn't demean women. I just disagree with the whole premise that romance novels perpetuate ON THE WHOLE- that romance is what a relationship is about and is the substance a relationship should be made of.
-------------------------------
Ro - 2005-01-21 11:26:06
You are partially right, though. I do disbelieve in happy endings. I don't think that there will every be a "happily ever after". I don't think there is an end to the work that makes a relationship. I don't think that a happy ending is something to shoot for, because the journey doesn't end in a relationship.
-------------------------------
add your comment:
back to the entry - Diaryland
|