-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Why you would never read trashy romance novels
- Thread starter nick452
- Start date
Litany
Active Member
I intend to read at least one Barbara Cartland novel in my life, just for completeness. I've read a couple Mills and Boon, not so much for pleasure but just because they were all that was lying around and I desperately needed a book. They were pretty bad. The writing was competent and all, but the stories were as off the peg as you'd expect. No heaving bosoms, though there was a nudey scene in a sleeping bag as I recall. They were a bit like bubble gum for the brain. Not a genre I'd want to spend my life on, but I can see how they'd appeal to some.
Ashlea
New Member
Actually, there are the throbbing loins and heaving bosoms ones, and there are the harlequin ones (known in britain as mills and boon) and then there are the ones I read. Like every genre (mystery, sci fi) there are good ones, mediocre ones, and that-is-so-derivative-and-awful-I-can't-believe-it-got-published ones. Just as people buy into the fantasy of wizards, etc., some people like to buy into the fantasy of high romance. It's not for everyone, tho as it's already been discusssed, Eddings isn't, either.
True@1stLight
New Member
Not that I've ever read any, but this seems like a gross over generalization. I mean I don't read sci-fi , but I can't assume that it's all just about stupid aliens and green monsters gobbling up people while people use cool guns to fight them off.
Litany
Active Member
True@1stLight said:
Ah, but it does fall into categories. I've only read those few Mills and Boon so I only can only comment on those, but I think that Mills and Boon do section their books into categories.
And I've seen Barbara Cartland adaptations on the telly and they are much of a muchness. So while I will not deny that there are probably many different facets to the romance genre, much like fantasy and sci fi and all the other genres you care to poke with a stick, there will be the old cliches rising to the surface. And why not? Things only become cliched because people enjoy them, afterall.
Jenem
kickbox
i've never read a harlequin romance, but a long time ago i read jackie collins books. i have never read a book for sex, it just seems to pop up in the books by certain authors i've read. at the time i read jackie collins, i was interested in all the glam stuff. i read wilbur smith books and he writes lots of sex, but i read his novels for the action and adventure, and for the settings.
Litany
Active Member
I read part of a Harold Robbins once. But I had to stop. It was filthy. I think I only got about 20 pages in or so and they were doing drugs off each other's bit and all sorts of naughty things. There didn't seem to be any plot inbetween the nipples, just someone's head and some more drugs.
True@1stLight
New Member
Litany said:
That SOB, he told me he would never print that story!
Ashlea
New Member
As far as romances go, there are two basic kinds:
Category - very, very short, like harlequin or mills and boone, very formulaic. There are different lines for different plots. Harlequin has American Romance (small town stuff), Intrigue (thriller subplot), Desire (steamy), Blaze (steamy and aimed at a younger audience), Historicals, Inspirational (religious sub-plot), Regency (same era as Jane Austen, and if you make any sort of historical mistake, your readers will send you millions of letters) etc. Here you see the same 6 plots over and over. Each "line" has a different level of sex description, from inspirational (they kiss, then feel guilty about it) to Blaze (wowsers) but there's always a relationship involved. They're about the same length as an Agatha Christie mystery, one of those cat mysteries, or a Louis L'Amour western. Popular plots are marriage of convenience, where'd this baby come from, sheiks are hot, etc. Lots of writers - including Janet Evanovich - get started this way.
Mainstream - these are about the length of a normal Grisham mystery or part of of sci-fi trilogy. These have the same sorts of setting as category, but there are room for sub-plots, character development, natural plot progression, humor, etc. Historical seems more popular than contemporary, unless the contemporary also has a mystery subplot or it's more like "women's fiction" where the woman also has many other relationships to work out.
As with any other genre, the readers like to see sequels, but you can't have someone already established in a relationship have issues enough to require an entire new novel, so generally you have their sister, cousin, best friend, etc. fall in love in the next one. So in the 1st novel, there are a lot of single people milling about.
Lately, Harlequin's been exploring fantasy-romance combos, so you have vampire romances (VERY popular), time-travel, etc.
Romances aren't all I read, about 1 out of 4 books that I read are either romance or fantasy that might as well be. It's about like watching a romantic comedy - cute, fluffy, unrealistic.
Category - very, very short, like harlequin or mills and boone, very formulaic. There are different lines for different plots. Harlequin has American Romance (small town stuff), Intrigue (thriller subplot), Desire (steamy), Blaze (steamy and aimed at a younger audience), Historicals, Inspirational (religious sub-plot), Regency (same era as Jane Austen, and if you make any sort of historical mistake, your readers will send you millions of letters) etc. Here you see the same 6 plots over and over. Each "line" has a different level of sex description, from inspirational (they kiss, then feel guilty about it) to Blaze (wowsers) but there's always a relationship involved. They're about the same length as an Agatha Christie mystery, one of those cat mysteries, or a Louis L'Amour western. Popular plots are marriage of convenience, where'd this baby come from, sheiks are hot, etc. Lots of writers - including Janet Evanovich - get started this way.
Mainstream - these are about the length of a normal Grisham mystery or part of of sci-fi trilogy. These have the same sorts of setting as category, but there are room for sub-plots, character development, natural plot progression, humor, etc. Historical seems more popular than contemporary, unless the contemporary also has a mystery subplot or it's more like "women's fiction" where the woman also has many other relationships to work out.
As with any other genre, the readers like to see sequels, but you can't have someone already established in a relationship have issues enough to require an entire new novel, so generally you have their sister, cousin, best friend, etc. fall in love in the next one. So in the 1st novel, there are a lot of single people milling about.
Lately, Harlequin's been exploring fantasy-romance combos, so you have vampire romances (VERY popular), time-travel, etc.
Romances aren't all I read, about 1 out of 4 books that I read are either romance or fantasy that might as well be. It's about like watching a romantic comedy - cute, fluffy, unrealistic.
I love a good romance. The book can be about anything, anything at all - bacteria, I don't care - if there's an underlying random romantic story I'll be hooked 
Trashy books serve a very good purpose; reading when you have so little brain power left, you couldn't even tackle the complexities of Harry Potter.
Trashy books serve a very good purpose; reading when you have so little brain power left, you couldn't even tackle the complexities of Harry Potter.
novella
Active Member
New Here--What's specifically trashy?
I'm newly registered here. This is the first thread I've looked at. Trying to get a feel for the site.
Question makes a number of assumptions, esp. shared understanding of what trashy romance is.
I read that git Sebastian Faulks, talked into it last time I visited UK. Does that qualify? Couldn't understand how his work could be construed as "literary fiction." Birdsong it was. Wasted all that paper. Made Pat Barker look like a genius of subtle character development.
Novella from NY
I'm newly registered here. This is the first thread I've looked at. Trying to get a feel for the site.
Question makes a number of assumptions, esp. shared understanding of what trashy romance is.
I read that git Sebastian Faulks, talked into it last time I visited UK. Does that qualify? Couldn't understand how his work could be construed as "literary fiction." Birdsong it was. Wasted all that paper. Made Pat Barker look like a genius of subtle character development.
Novella from NY
LOL Sebastian Faulks is a git? I've read Birdsong and wouldn't class it as trashy romance. For a start, my definition of trashy romance dictates that it must be by an American author - I don't know why, but it's always so much convincing if it's set in America than say, Birmingham.
Thea
New Member
I don't read romance novels mainly because I don't think romantic love exists.
Also, I've never ever been into "trashy mindless reading" for some reason. If I'm depressed and need to shut my brain off for a little while I'll watch a movie like Emma, but it's too much energy to exert to read all that stuff in a book when I can just stare at a screen and space out instead.
Also, I've never ever been into "trashy mindless reading" for some reason. If I'm depressed and need to shut my brain off for a little while I'll watch a movie like Emma, but it's too much energy to exert to read all that stuff in a book when I can just stare at a screen and space out instead.
novella
Active Member
Scrape scrape scrape, what have we here?
Hey Freya, let's get that flatheaded screwdriver outta my toolbelt and scrape the encrustation off the bottom of the romance barrel . . .
Hey, what have we here? Is that a soiled lock of Barbara Cartland's white mane? Yessirree. Whoa, and here some crust of Jackie Collins! Two grande dames of the international crapulous romance genre (who also keep Hollywood's plastic surgeons' pudgy little hands full).
Hey Freya, let's get that flatheaded screwdriver outta my toolbelt and scrape the encrustation off the bottom of the romance barrel . . .
Hey, what have we here? Is that a soiled lock of Barbara Cartland's white mane? Yessirree. Whoa, and here some crust of Jackie Collins! Two grande dames of the international crapulous romance genre (who also keep Hollywood's plastic surgeons' pudgy little hands full).
Is that a soiled lock of Barbara Cartland's white mane? Yessirree. Whoa, and here some crust of Jackie Collins! Two grande dames of the international crapulous romance genre
I just think this is such a stupid reply to the thread! There will always be completely different tastes to reading - the same as with everything. Trashing the people who provide the entertainment for millions of people is just dumb. And, just think, another of the threads in this forum discusses the fact that people are reading less - well, some people are reading romance novels and being categorized as dumb and with no taste. But I say, at least they're reading!
I just think this is such a stupid reply to the thread! There will always be completely different tastes to reading - the same as with everything. Trashing the people who provide the entertainment for millions of people is just dumb. And, just think, another of the threads in this forum discusses the fact that people are reading less - well, some people are reading romance novels and being categorized as dumb and with no taste. But I say, at least they're reading!