Turning Home
Turning Home is an introspective inspirational romance with the intriguing premise of a heroine who leaves behind the conveniences of the modern world when she falls in love with an Amish man. Unfortunately, the execution of this fascinating storyline leaves a lot to be desired.
Julia Durant ostensibly came to Tompkin’s Mill, MO to visit her brother Nick. In truth, she is looking to make changes to her life and moving to this small quaint town with its large Amish population, seems like an ideal place to start. That Nick is the local police chief is icing on the cake; you can’t get much safer than a small town that has your brother as the chief law enforcement officer, and Julia longs to feel safe after the incident hat derailed her life a decade ago and continues to haunt her today.
The most important piece of her relocation will be finding a job, and when she receives a tip that Bowman & Son’s Handcrafted Furniture is hiring she immediately applies. The Amish owned business is looking for someone to run their website, answer phones and work the store front, and Julia is perfect for the position. She is hired on the spot and quickly becomes a fixture at the establishment where Eli Bowman and his son Luke sell their beautiful one-of-a-kind creations.
Luke Bowman has only recently returned to the Amish after years of living as an Englischer. He is determined to devote himself entirely to this way of life and is frustrated to find himself attracted to Julia. Were he to marry – or even date – a non-Amish woman now that he has been baptized he would be excommunicated, lose his job and become estranged from his family. While he admires Julia’s sweetness and her beauty he knows that he can’t allow himself to fall for her. But his intellect and his heart are waging a war within him and he isn’t sure he has the strength of will to do what is right when what is wrong is so very tempting.
The first thirty percent or so of this narrative is a rather bland, tepid romance. There is no grand passion or sweet love story but the author does a decent job of showing us why the hero and heroine have practical reasons to become a couple. Luke is attracted to Julia because she loves the Amish way of life, is devoted to God, gets along well with his family, and most of all, she is the only one who seems to understand his full self – the part of him attracted to the conveniences and intellectual stimulus of modern life as well as the portion devoted to the Amish lifestyle. He can’t imagine finding a better partner to suit him but it is not the Amish way to invite people into their world. She must choose it completely of her own accord.
Julia is attracted to the Amish way of living because to her it represents real safety. The people are all gentle, friendly, and advocate a life of non-violence. She was raped in college and has felt frightened around men (excluding her brother and father) ever since, so finding herself at ease around the kindly, gentle Eli and his powerful but equally considerate son Luke means a great deal to her. Her job and love of quilting draw her into the community, where she makes Amish friends who share her love of that skill at the quilt shop, and where she finds people who love peace, modesty and quietude as much as she does. She starts learning the language to fit in better and attends an Amish church service, where she is impressed with their serene devotion to the Lord and with the fellowship – involving a big meal, lots of laughter and wholesome fun – which they all participate in afterwards.
This part of the story was fine. I wondered if the man-fearing Julia would eventually struggle in a patriarchal society, and I wished that the author had had Julia do a bit more of an investigation into everything she would have to sacrifice to live among the Amish, and had the story taken that direction it would have received a C. What I found a lot harder to accept is what happens about a third of the way into the book.
From this point on I will be discussing spoilers so if you have an interest in reading this novel, stop here.
A social worker shows up at the shop, child in tow, to ask Luke if he is Luke Bowman and if he knew a young woman named Beth Miller. Luke had indeed known Beth during his years in the Englischer world, but only casually. She was a homeless young woman whom he believed to be a drug addict and who pan handled near the bus stop he used on his way to college. She had also been former Amish, a bond they had shared, but after he graduated school and moved, they lost touch and he forgot about her.
Now the social worker tells him he’s listed as the father on the birth certificate for Beth’s three-year-old daughter, who is standing in his furniture shop saleroom. He knows it’s a physical impossibility – he was never intimate with Beth – but on learning that Beth is dead and her child has no other family to care for her, he states that he is indeed the dad and is happy to take custody of his daughter. And the girl is left with him, just like that.
In real life, no. I don’t have space to list all that would have to happen but it would be days, most probably weeks before the child would be left with him. Especially since she is non-verbal.
Naturally, what follows next could also only happen in a novel. The girl immediately falls in love with Julia and initially, will only stay with her. Julia is only too thrilled to take this little stranger to heart and the two bond. It is Julia, of course, who convinces Abby to start talking.
I’ve spoken before of my dislike of a child as an aphrodisiac trope. Given how many relationships break up because of the stress of having a family, this is a fantasy I just can’t enjoy. In this case, all the attendant weird little quirks make it especially unbelievable. The addition of a secret baby into the plot, one that belonged to neither the hero or heroine, having said toddler be dropped into the text in a thoroughly unrealistic manner and then having them form an immediate attachment to the love interest didn’t so much break my suspension of disbelief as much as shatter it completely. The scenario is just so poorly written, and it detracted from an already lackluster tale.
Turning Home is a gentle Inspirational with mild spiritual content which might have appealed to a wide audience but the poor execution of an intriguing premise makes it a difficult read. As a result, I can’t recommend this book.
Buy it at: Amazon or shop at your local independent bookstore
Visit our Amazon Storefront
I've been an avid reader since 2nd grade and discovered romance when my cousin lent me Lord of La Pampa by Kay Thorpe in 7th grade. I currently read approximately 150 books a year, comprised of a mix of Young Adult, romance, mystery, women's fiction, and science fiction/fantasy.
Buy Turning Home by Janice Kay Johnson:
Book Details
| Reviewer: | Maggie Boyd |
|---|---|
| Review Date: | November 8, 2020 |
| Publication Date: | 09/2020 |
| Grade: | D+ |
| Sensuality | Kisses |
| Book Type: | Inspirational Romance |
| Review Tags: | Amish | Contemporary romance |
This would’ve worked for me if Julia had been able to use her experience in the Amish world to boldly step forward, instead of fearfully sinking into the Amish community as a protective casing. No one can shelter you from the world forever
Also yeah, the surprise!kid stuff is super offensive in several ways here, including the “saving little child from the Wicked English” way.
Also I too HAAAATE the “I love you, new pretty alive mommy” trope too. So much.
“I love you, new pretty alive mommy” is the perfect name for this trope.
Hah, I totally lifted it from the Rifftrax for Birdemic, I can’t take full credit for it!
OMG—RiffTrax “Birdemic” reference for the win! We love RiffTrax (and MST3K) in our house—it’s a family tradition to watch really bad movies and riff on them. They really should do “Gymkata” if they haven’t done it yet.
When I have extra money, I absolutely buy a Rifftrax (My last one was Theater of Blood when it was on sale around Halloween). I’ve heard such good things about Gymkata! I want to grab Charade eventually too.
Woohoo! Another MST3K fan! I actually had the pleasure of seeing Joel and the bots live on stage a while back. They riffed a martial arts film knockoff of The Karate Kid entitled No Retreat, No Surrender. It was the most appreciative audience I’ve ever been a part of.
“I love you, new pretty alive mommy” – that should absolutely be its official designation. And I agree that several things about the surprise baby bothered me – from the fact that neither of them were related to the kid to the casual way she was handed off, as if social services drives the kids around with them until they find some place to leave them. Home visits have to be done, legal paperwork has to be signed, you have to go before a judge – so, so many steps were skipped to make this story possible.
It’s like they wanted a fluffy falling-in-love-over-a-kid trope but genre restrictions meant that Luke couldn’t have a bio kid so they went above and beyond to produce something cute for Julia to give her love to. They just should’ve had her bond with a lamb or a calf or something.
I’m not even sure this development, in the novel, reflects well on Luke. He wasn’t in love with the little girl’s mother; they only knew each other casually. He doesn’t know the girl at all. He’s not even married (at this point). So does he plan to be a single dad? And if so, why, because this would be better for the girl than foster parents who aren’t Amish?
Or has he read the script, so he’s aware that she will bond instantly with the woman he wants?
It can be seen as him being Good And Effacing Christian. I was going to ask how Amish folks see single parenthood!
The kid wasn’t even being raised as Amish, so any logic he might have about how this’d be healthiest for her kinda goes out the window.
HAH! Definitely the latter.
Luke felt that Beth listing him on the girl’s birth certificate was her way of telling him that she wanted him to raise the girl. Beth couldn’t have known that Luke would go back to being Amish (he wasn’t at the time she knew him) but apparently she did know he had a great family and wanted the little one to be a part of all that. His plan initially is to have his mom help him raise the girl but the child doesn’t really take to his mother at first (with good reason, the mom tries to force her to learn deustch and change from wearing tights and sparkly shirts to a dress and kapp). Eventually, the issues are worked out and the little girl accepts his family as her own.
I keep wanting to rewatch The Substitute Wife, a 90s era movie with Farrah Fawcett that has the mom is dying/new mom appears trope. I recall that it was excellent but I now doubt my recollection. I wish it were available to stream.
Reminds me of Stepmother, which had Julia Roberts and Susan Sarandon.
A lot sexier as I recall.
I loved Stepmom – I watched it with my mum when I was about 9 or 10 and wept copiously. I remember telling my dad that if my mum died and he married someone else, I would hate him and his new wife forever! I was clearly a very judgy brat.
Does the child’s biological father ever find out about her, and is he ever given an opportunity to take responsibility for her? If not, I don’t think this continued deception would work for me.
The only person who knows who he was died without leaving any written information about him, so no.
Convenient!!! And a stupid plot device.
I would say the reason most marriages undergo strain after children is due to the extra work that parents, usually women, have to do. Thus I don’t see having kids in and of themselves as being a bad thing for a marriage. In cultures where child raising is shared and, even better, is communal, children are rarely regretted. (Nine out of ten Americans either have children or say they want children.)
I’d love to read books where having children is a joyful thing realistically, stories that show the challenges, the joys, and how to create a life that the latter outweigh the former.
I don’t see having kids as a bad thing,(love mine!) but I don’t like them used as an aphrodisiac. Children, especially young kids, put a strain on parental resources – not just time, of which they take a lot, but money, sleep, and attention. Then there are the inevitable clashes on what each parent believes to be best for the child. I’ve seen well meaning people destroy marriages because they couldn’t agree on child rearing. I have no trouble with kids in romance but don’t try to sell me on the idea that it adds to the perfection of the relationship. Show me a strong relationship that can withstand that added strain not a tepid one which is miraculously enhanced by adding a toddler.
I see it differently. I think children can and often do add to the perfection of the relationship. (Not, typically, however as an aphrodisiac.)
“In cultures where child raising is shared and, even better, is communal, children are rarely regretted.”
Regardless of what anyone here thinks of cultural critic Camille Paglia’s politics, I thought she made the excellent point that the 1950s ideal of the nuclear family is actually quite damaging to women because it doesn’t at all reflect how children used to be raised in large extended family groups. She said the problem with the idealized 1950s suburbia model is that women were often cut off from adult female company and child-rearing assistance, which she described as “cruelly isolating.”
Which brings me to an interesting observation about HEA in romance. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an M/F HR that incorporates extended family members in the household- even though that would have been the norm throughout large swaths of history in many places. In fact, there are quite a few epilogues with the heroine bustling around the hearth in heady bliss surrounded by nobody but little ones in diapers and the hero for an obligatory kiss, often with the implication of “Let’s make another one of those little rug rats that I can just pat on the head once in a while while you do the rest of the work.” It all feels rather Leave it to Beaver, doesn’t it? When, historically (depending on class and culture, of course), you would probably expect to see Grandma, aunties, sisters, and cousins visiting to help out.
I was a live-in nanny to a toddler in a single parent household at one point in my life, and the days are very long. They vary from incredibly stressful to extremely boring. I was in the country, so I had no neighbors to socialize with, either. He was a good kid, and pretty helpful with household chores, and I took him to the park most days so he could socialize with other kids. But from 7am to 8pm, it was me and that kid. Trying to keep him entertained while getting my tasks done, paying attention to his safety, his meals and snacks, bathing him, dressing him, potty training him….I don’t know how stay-home parents do that for years at a time! I’d go mental, I really would.
I was also a bit surprised that the various families I interviewed with didn’t really want a nanny, they wanted a housewife. Things like grocery shopping, doing the family laundry, cleaning the house, dropping off/picking up dry cleaning, cooking and planning all the family meals, running all sorts of errands, and of course all the childcare related tasks. When exactly was my bathroom break?
Parenting is so unique. We all, those who choose it, experience it so differently. I stayed at home, mostly by myself, with four small children. It was hard, wonderful, rewarding, and, at times, stupefyingly dull. And I gave thanks every day then and now I was privileged enough to do so. It’s still my favorite job I’ve ever had.
Dabney, its wonderful that you wanted to do that and were able to. Possibly I’d have felt like that if the child was mine. It was in some ways an easy job because I was allowed to figure out what worked most effectively for my schedule with no interference from my employer. In other ways it was one of my hardest jobs if only because of the length of the day. Romance novels that use kids as the big draw between partners is just ridiculous imo. Nothing kills the romance – and the sex drive – faster than childcare!!
Even that isn’t always true. Figuring out how to make love, getting babysitters so we could “date,”, taking romantic weekends away–thank you, Mom!–and racing to the bedroom when the kids napped all added spice to our post-kid love life.
I don’t think it’s an either or situation. Children didn’t kill our romance or our sex life although they presented challenges. I stayed home with five children and we didn’t have money for weekend getaways or even for babysitters. We got good at improvising. We occasionally traded babysitting with another couple who also had 5 children (later 6 for them), but mostly we didn’t go out. And yes, it was tiring and yes, we had to get creative about intimate times,but for us it worked.
When my oldest could watch the young one during the day,my husband and I started out Saturday lunch date. In the beginning we had coupons to Burger King, and we stopped our chores when the youngest went down for a nap and headed out for an hour or two of just us. As they got older and our money situation eased, we started going to nicer places to eat and spending several hours running errand or going to a museum,etc. Our Saturday lunch dates lasted for over 15 years, until I had to go to work in retail.
I know that all doesn’t sound like fun, but it really was. We loved our afternoons together. As far as sex, we made it work and 37 years into our marriage neither of us have any complaints there.
Personally, I’m not a fan of children in romances, but mainly because they are rarely done well and don’t sound like real children to me. But having children wasn’t an obstacle to be overcome, but a part of our life choices we adapted to. I’m definitely not the prson who thinks everyone should want children. I’m not sure any of my children will choose to be parents. But children did not kill our romance or our sex life, that’s for sure!
I agree Dabney. I went from writing a PhD thesis to parenting, and I found that nurturing my children’s mental and physical development was by far the more intellectually stimulating and challenging task.
I also loved knowing that the job really mattered. So many of the jobs in modern societies are fundamental inconsequential.
That doesn’t mean that parenting is an easy path to a HEA, in Romandlandia or real life.
“So many of the jobs in modern societies are fundamental inconsequential.”
Good Lord, is that ever true! There’s a great book out there called Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber that focuses on the titular problem. I highly recommend it if you can stomach reading about layers upon layers of bureaucracy throughout multiple sectors in modern society.
Interesting story, KesterGayle. I spent the summer between my sophomore and junior year at university as a nanny to 3 children under 5, none fully toilet trained or capable of even dressing themselves. They were being raised by a series of people like me who were students, transient and doing the job for cash; sad really. Made me wonder why their parents had even bothered to have them.
Unpopular my POV may be, but that 3 months only ultimately finalised my decision not to have children of my own. It just wasn’t for me. Both of my husbands felt the same.
The decision not to have children is becoming less unpopular, as it should. I love my choices and wouldn’t change them, but I definitely don’t think everyone needs to have kids, and I respect their life choices as much as my own.
Having 5 children and homeschooling drew a lot of criticism, and it was hurtful at times. My choice to have 5 children or homeschool was nobody’s business but mine and my husband’s. I, in turn, would never second guess anyone’s decision not to have children, or to have one, or whatever. Like I said above, I don’t think any of my children want to become parents (some for health reasons, but a few just don’t feel the calling).
Who criticized you?
I think I must be so scary–no one ever criticized me for staying at home and having four kids. Or how I schooled them.
People…. sheesh.
Elaine S, Carrie G, and Dabney, I agree with all three of you that it’s a good thing how people have a lot more options than in the past. Sure, you’re going to get some annoying people in your life who can’t seem to mind their own business and are full of unasked-for advice, but thankfully, they’re just that- annoying. At least society as a whole is moving in a direction of children being a choice rather than an obligation.
As for all AAR posters who homeschooled their kids, I salute you. I think it’s terrible there’s a stereotype about homeschoolers being a bunch of people living in the dark ages who don’t want their kids to think the world is more than 6,000 years old. Totally not true. All the homeschooled people I have met over the years have been charming, intelligent, well-informed citizens. Many colleges accept homeschool students, and homeschool test scores tend to be quite high. And, strangely enough, current circumstances in our world are making homeschooling more popular than ever among various demographics. So, good job moms for being ahead of the curve. :)
I always wanted to be a parent who could homeschool but I haven’t the patience.
Heh heh. It’s not for everyone, but I love the idea of maximum options rather than a one-size-fits-all centralized program. I feel really sorry for kids and parents living in places where schooling methods are so rigidly defined by law when those methods don’t suit the families in question. We’re all so different. The last thing I want is for people of any age to be treated like assembly-line automatons.
When I started homeschooling it wasn’t widely known and I got a lot of flack for it. I was told I didn’t have the capability because I wasn’t a certified teacher, that my kids would be stunted academically and socially, and more. Several of my kids had learning disabilities, and being able to tailor their educations was a real blessing for them,and they got soo much socialization! LOL!
It wasn’t perfect, believe me, and I don’t think everyone should do it. I’d do many things differently knowing what I do know. Homeschooling should be one viable option in educating your child. Every education method has strength and drawbacks.
As for having 5 kids? We got stopped at times out shopping while I got asked if I “knew where babies came from” (Yes! And my husband and I enjoy it !), or got a lecture on overpopulation.
When Will told his dad I was pregnant with our last child, his reaction was, “Will, you idiot!” Of course he loves his granddaughter, but that was the knee-jerk reaction of more people than I care to admit.
Yeesh! People have a lot of nerve! What gets me is how most of these folks don’t care if you and/or your family are happy and healthy. They care that you’re not conforming to the lifestyle they think you should live.
Another thing that gets me is how quite a few supposedly enlightened people who tout alternative lifestyles tend to get holier than thou about other people choosing to live an “old-fashioned” life with stay-at-home mom and lots of homeschooled kids. Or people who are totally cool with cohabitating but think unmarried adults who live with their parents are losers or fundamentalist freaks. Not to mention the other side of the argument where some people look at unmarried, childfree women askance and call them awful names like “crazy cat lady.” Yikes! What is with all these busybodies on every side and angle of the political spectrum? As long as you aren’t hurting anybody, why do they even care what your family structure- or lack thereof- looks like? Don’t these critics have anything productive to do with their own lives rather than picking on others?
I’m sorry you didn’t get more support!
Everyone has the right to choose how many kids they want, and how to educate them, and what sort of religion they want to teach them, if any. When people would tell me to have kids because I’d ‘feel different about my own’ I’d just tell them that I had already made my choice, thanks just the same. We don’t regret it in the least.
I knew by the time I was 5 that I didn’t want kids, even if that meant never marrying. Luckily, my husband feels the same way, so it all worked out.
Being a live-in nanny is strange, I must say. I worked for 2 different families, both with just one child. You live with them, eat with them, even take trips with them, and they say they want you to feel like a member of the family. But of course you’re not, and can’t be. You have to maintain objectivity and not get involved in family conflicts. My single parent family was divorcing while I worked there and she CONSTANTLY complained about her ex. I finally had to point out to her to be careful about how she talked about her child’s father in front of him, he was plenty old enough to understand the gist of her comments. Plus, I didn’t want to hear it though I didn’t mention that! She took it well, but a lot folks might have fired the nanny for saying something like that.
Looking after those two kids was sometimes fun, always challenging, and educational. They were great if very different kids, and its an experience I am glad for. But I’m also glad I never had any of my own!
Someone on another discussion board once criticized me for choosing not to have kids, but his reasoning was basically, “Once you look into their eyes, it changes you, and you’ll want nothing more than to keep and love the child from then on”. I admire people who raise children, but I am not bringing another human being into the world in the hopes that a look into his/her eyes will alter the mentality, personality and habits of a lifetime. It’s hardly fair to the child if this sea-change fails to occur.
That said, I like reading to my friends’ children, playing games with them, taking them for walks and so on. Basically, all the fun parts of child-rearing. I also like being able to give them back to their parents when they get cranky or need a diaper change. :)
After what I heard about our larger-than-average-family and even more about homeschooling, it seems some people are really threatened by other people’s choices. I feel like it makes them think theirs isn’t necessarily the “best.” People who try too hard to convince you are really showing they are uncertain about their own choices.
It was like if I chose homeschooling I was saying their choice was inferior and they would be better parents if they homeschooled. I got a lot of defensive reactions back in the early 90’s and even later. I,on the other hand, was happy to talk about homeschooling,but never thought everyone should do it.
I’m forever confused by the popularity of Amish romances, and wonder how they actually feel about their portrayal in these books. I don’t understand the obsession. It’s not like Amish people are writing these romances, and it feels like fetishizing another culture.
These books also romanticize the culture. In areas where they live they are major owners of a shockingly cruel puppy mill industry, and anyone who as spent any time in PA Amish country is familiar with seeing lame horses pulling buggies. The Amish, like everyone else, aren’t monolithic in their goodness and gentleness.
The Amish are romanticized in a way that baffles me. I’m in Lancaster County, PA.
@Carrie G: you took the words right out of the of my mouth (well, out of my keypad)—especially in terms of how fetishized the Amish tend to be in parts of Romancelandia. It’s truly baffling to me: at least in the plot synopses I’ve read, many Amish romances seem to involve a heroine who has been hurt (physically and/or emotionally) in some way and that the “simple, pure” life of the Amish is presented as a vehicle for the heroine to regain her health and equilibrium. And then there are those handsome, bearded, strong, and silent Amish bachelors. It’s like the Amish are presented as a one-stop shop for all that ails a woman. Talk about fetishization! Then I consider certain aspects of the (non-Amish) Protestant-evangelical-fundamentalist belief system (full disclosure: I am a regular churchgoer—at least I was pre-covid—but not part of a fundamentalist church) where virginity pledges and purity rings are required from young girls—and subsequent “slut-shaming” occurs if that same young woman loses her virginity (even through rape) before her wedding night. I can’t imagine that romance writers would portray a group like that in a positive, sunny way! I know that the overt elements (such as purity rings) are missing from Amish life, but oppression of women (sexual and otherwise) is a cornerstone of many fundamentalist belief systems—and I include the Amish in that. I am not saying that the Amish are horrible, but I am saying that no way of life is perfect (because humans are not perfect) and to present one way as being so obviously elevated above all others does a disfavor to both the people who live in that system and the ones outside it. Also, having recently spend 36 hours in a house without electricity (courtesy of Hurricane Zeta), I can tell you that living without power and doing everything by lamplight and candlelight loses its charm very quickly—lol!
I couldn’t be Amish – I love my tech way too much. My phone, my computer, my electric lights, my car, listening to music – I use that stuff from the time I get up till the time I go to sleep. Also, the clothes aren’t comfy, I don’t like farm smells and why would anyone live without an air conditioner?? So this lifestyle holds ZERO appeal to me. That said, I think we elevate/glamourize lifestyles in romance on a regular basis, the Amish are just a part of that. Consider the Regency romance novels, where little is said about the horrific conditions of the poor in that era. Even the servants are in the backgrounds of these books and rarely mentioned is the fact that the same woman who helps her mistress undress at two has to stay up to put her gown away, sponge off any stains, care for the shoes and then be up early the next morning to do a myriad of other tasks. All without health insurance or a retirement plan. While a 50 year old dowager would sleep until eleven, breakfast in bed and could take afternoon naps, her same age housekeeper was up from dawn till dusk, working that whole time. Plenty of people in that era literally worked themselves to death. And don’t get me started on the misogyny. At least Amish women of today can leave their patriarchal society if they so choose, no such option existed in the late 1800s.
I agree with all this, and will add that many people reading these romances that I personally know are in churches that give the side-eye to anabaptist tradition and theology. That makes the whole fetishizing more distasteful for me.
I’ve read articles where the Amish have complained about the fact that these books rarely depict their lifestyles or beliefs with any accuracy. And I agree that universal goodness should not be ascribed to any group of people. Humans have character flaws, it’s just the nature of the beast.
I blame the very naive attraction to this tosh on Harrison Ford.
We just watched Witness tonight–Ford has never been sexier and, whoa, baby Viggo! It’s interesting that John Book knows the Amish are not for him–he admires them but has zero interest in staying.
It’s a combined desire for “wholesome” values in a certain segment of the book buying public and a wish by certain segments of the reading population to disappear into a “simpler” community where all that matters is apple pan dowdy and Jesus Christ.
Lisa, you nailed it!
Incidentally, I think this is why Harlequin category romances still play it relatively safe when it comes to unconventional HEA/HFNs and are only now beginning to dip their toes into queer content outside of imprints Avon and Carina Press.
Personally, if some people enjoy reading Amish or pseudo-Amish romances, I have no problem with that. As long as nobody says I or anybody else has to read inspirationals or live like that, no big deal. Just like it’s no big deal to me if some readers don’t want sex or a non-Christian viewpoint in their romances. One of the fun parts about being a grown-up is being able to choose what we read or don’t read. :)
Exactly, it doesn’t matter to me either.
The weird thing is that the Amish faith and conservative evangelical faith have a lot of doctrinal points at variance, yet most Amish inspirational romances present the latter belief system in their texts. It also bugged me that Julia loved Jesus so, so much – but she didn’t grapple with any issues of theology in her conversion. And there should be issues, that’s just how devout people approach changes in denominations. This wasn’t a question of “I don’t like Immanuel Lutheran, I need to check out Good Shepherd Lutheran”, this was a huge change in belief structures., yet she easily transitioned from one to the other.
I’m wondering if a large majority of Amish romance readers come from more conservative backgrounds. I’d be interested in what the demo breakdown for their readership looks like. I enjoy them now and again, but I wouldn’t run off to Pennsylvania to make whoopie pies and milk cows.
Sounds like the author didn’t investigate the differences in spiritual belief systems at all which, yikes.
Just wondering, Lisa, if it is also a way to time travel and live in the past for a while. Sort of like Claire finding the love of her life 200 years in the past in the Scottish Highlands It’s all fantasy, of course, but who doesn’t have a fantasy life hidden deep inside. It’s perhaps also the “weirdness” of that past and fantasy life existing in 2020 right there in Pennsylvania so you don’t have to give up tampax and toilet paper to experience it.
Oh likely – they could easily do the same thing with historical romances but yes.