There are books, authors, series, and even whole genres that I just can not, no matter how many times I give them a whirl, find interesting. Last year one of my book clubs read A Gentleman in Moscow and everyone but me adored it. I was so bored, I quit at the 500 page mark, miffed I’d wasted precious reading time on such a twee tale. Several friends of mine feel the best book they ever read–EVER!–is A Man Called Ove. I’ve tried to read it three times and every time just… can’t… do… it. That guy is waaaaaay too cranky for me.
So, despite my propensity to love romance novels, there are those that aren’t for me. Shifter stories don’t call to me–I’m always overcome with practical concerns about clothing, food sources, and DNA. I find the appeal of Kristen Ashley’s books somewhat mystifying. I find her heroes to be–in the three books I’ve managed to finish, misogynistic jerks whose manipulative techniques creep me out–and every single one of her heroines seems to live to be called baby. Sugar Daddy and Blue-Eyed Devil, two of the books in Lisa Kleypas’ Travises series, regularly show up on top lists in romance and I found them both a bit of a slog.
My responses to these books are mine and as such they’re not right/wrong/stupid/mean/clueless (no matter what you shifter fans think!). Books, just like people, work for some and not for others and that’s just fine. (So please no scolding readers for their lack of love.)
How ’bout you? What book do you not understand the love for? Are there series or genres that get a hard pass from you? If so, why?
Impenitent social media enthusiast. Relational trend spotter. Enjoys both carpe diem and the fish of the day.
Any book in the antebellum South. If a book has slavery of any kind I can’t read it. If slavery is just mentioned in passing I can deal with that but if any main characters own slaves the book is dead to me. I read one book where the woman was an abolitionist in secret but I only knew because a friend warned me first. She was a slavery supporter to the reader early on! Poor choice by the author.
This also causes me to avoid Westerns. Too many have ex confederate army members explaining how they really weren’t fighting for slavery blah blah blah. It’s a firm throw book in the trash and avoid the author forever thing for me.
I avoid inspirational stories even though I’m fairly religious. I just find them too judgy.
I HATE secret baby stories because I think failing to tell a father he has a child (absent abuse in the relationship) is an unforgivable breach that no man should ever have to forgive. It makes all the romance after that unbelievable. I usually end up feeling disgust for one character and pity for the other.
Otherwise I am game for anything.
No reverse harems, threesomes or anything with more than two people in love. I know that there are people IRL that are in this type of relationship but I’m a firm believer that three (or four) is a crowd. I can’t respect a hero who is okay with passing the heroine around like a cigarette. I also avoid inspirational like the plague. These are two things I can say with confidence I won’t ever read. I also have a list of books I won’t generally read but with the right author, I’ll never say never. I almost never read mafia or MC books. I don’t read much romsus YA and mysteries but I have read and liked some in those subgenres before. I just don’t read them as a rule. I also avoid any daddy kinks and heavy BDSM books but if the right author was to write one I’d probably give it a shot. As far as series, I never cared for JQ The Bridgertons, the Fever or The BDB series. I read a few books in each and promptly lost interest.
Outlander! Omg! First, fore not a romance and not slightly romantic. It bored me to tears. I don’t get it.
I agree, not a romance. But I love it! My favorite book/series EVER!. But lots of folks hate it, too, so you’re in good company.
Awaiting #9 with huge anticipation!
I’m the “never say never” sort. As long as you don’t bore me.
There are some stories I tend to stay away from. So if I read about a book that sounds interesting, and then learn that it’s about another Russian Mafia hero, I might roll my eyes and ignore it. But if it sounds interesting enough in spite of that, I might at least add it to my wish list. Now, it might stay on that wish list for a couple of years… But on the other hand, someday I might try it sooner if I feel the urge.
One book/series I couldn’t read was 50 Shades or Grey (plus the sequels), it’s not because I’m a book snob as I will read anything that entertains me. I read the whole Twilight saga without a problem. It wasn’t too racy and I didn’t care that it started off as fan fiction -I just could not bring myself to wade through the writing. I didn’t make it through a chapter and couldn’t force myself even with the “curiosity” factor and the fact everyone including 60 year old men at work had read it and were talking about it. I was just annoyed with the writing and bored with it.
Regardless of the genre, I can’t do zombies.
The exception is if they show up and are quickly dispatched in a thriling paranormal battle (such as in Yasmine Galenorn’s Otherworld books). I have a hard time with undead creatures in general. I wanted to like Jordan L. Hawke’s Whyborne and Griffin series because it’s so highly praised, the audiobooks are awesome, but the heavy use of people being subsumed by spirits and becoming undead creatures just didn’t work for me.
I avoid vampire novels because they all end with the non-vampire protagonist also becoming immortal. I was excited to try te limited-lifespan vampires of Bec McMaster (who is super beloved around here) but she went the same route and it was very disappointing to me.
What bothers you about the immortality? I think, when well done (Angel) it show that immortality is a curse. When a human lover, though, has to choose, why wouldn’t they choose that curse if it means spending their lives with the one they love. Not all stories have to be as realistic as the choices made in Tuck Everlasting.
What bothers me is that the vast majority (by which I mean I can’t even think of one that doesn’t) of vampire novels play this as a source of conflict: “We can’t be together because I’m an immortal vampire and they’re a human!” You’re just yawning and flipping pages until the twit realizes that they can make their true love a vampire too and GOSH WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING.
I don’t know any romance authors who portray immortality as a curse (or at least do so meaningfully, beyond a “boo hoo I outlived my family hey console me pretty lady”). One author who does it very interestingly is Barbara Hambly in Those Who Hunt The Night, where we see aristocrats who have outlived a world that works the way they expect, and vampires grappling with faded, bored ennui. There is a married couple at the core of this story so I can recommend it for romance fans, but vampires are the villains.
Actually in Bec McMaster’s first novel, “Kiss Of Steel” the heroine had a vaccine so she can never become a “blue blood” and her (eventual) husband is already a “blue blood” over 50 years old (but still looking in his 20’s)when they marry. I’ve wondered what will happen over time. Blade can use his blood to help heal her of things but it doesn’t make her younger or stop the aging process that I remember. Almost all the other couples are matched blue blood to blue blood or verwulfen to blue blood or verwulfen. Only Blade and Jasper Lynch are blue bloods married to humans. At some point there has to be a “Highlander” type situation going on when the men never age but their human wives (and children) do.
Steampunk is a NOPE for me.
And NOPE to Navy SEAL “heroes”.
No to inspirational, medieval, cowboys, sheiks, billionaires and I think Dukes are about to join the list.
I don’t enjoy the 21st century ideas and values in the HR novels. Also two many subplots in HR novels are not for me.
It makes me crazy! Why write a HR?
I’ve been following the posts here with great interest. It seems that everyone here has both similar and dissimilar tastes which is as it should be in our funny old world. I agree wholeheartedly, though, with what Caz said about the HEA as this is my prime consideration and the reason I avoid 99% of “literary fiction” and why I question whether novels such as “Gone Girl” are anywhere on the romance scale as the conclusion for me was both repugnant and unbelievable and definitely not an HEA. Verisimilitude is pretty important to me as well and it just didn’t do it for me in GG.
As to what I simply have to avoid: Fantasy, shape shifting, werewolves, vampires, steam punk, motorcycle sagas, most (but not all) sports romances, sci-fi, YA, most (but not all) inspies (Amish stories are interesting sometimes), most dystopia and novels that border on sheer porn, especially those with a menage a trois. I did try a few of Cat Sebastian’s books and she writes well but it’s not something that I am particularly attracted to.
And concerning style, as someone mentioned above the first person, present tense, this is what made me so irritated at Hilary Mantel’s novels: they were just to annoying as they dragged me too far out of my personal comfort zone and I found them hard going.
Finally, I will avoid authors of any genre who have poorly written prose and questionable plot structure accompanied by bad grammar and punctuation and who make repeated (seemingly knowing) mistakes in HR like getting aristocratic titles wrong or who have heroines who are 21st century #metoo girls dressed up in corsets – @#&%!!!
Thanks for Ask @AAR – great fun! And, Mark, lovely to see you commenting again.
Inspired by your list:
Oh, mafia or crime families, too – I find a HEA built on thriving criminal family business completely off-putting.
Getting out of a life of crime for an individual, or some revenge or balance getting achieved, and then building a new life, that can work.
But criminal families that merge / consolidate / restructure – count me out. I see all those children cursed in the next generation, all that never-ending fear and hiding and murdering and fighting… I cannot suspend belief for that.
@Elaine – who make repeated (seemingly knowing) mistakes in HR like getting aristocratic titles wrong or whohave heroines who are 21st century #metoo girls dressed up in corsets
High Five on both counts!
OMG THIS!
Inaccuracy in HR drives me crazy, especially regarding correct address with titles. It’s just lazy!
I can’t get Paullina SImons. I tried her first book and I couldnn’t finish it Everybody else seems to love her, though, so there must be something strange with me.
I had a mixed reaction to Paullina Simons. I found Alexander’s background as an American emigrant to the Soviet Union intriguing (there is an excellent non-fiction book by Tim Tzouliadis called “The forsaken” which is about these unfortunate emigrants). But Tatiana had a childlike (almost saintly) quality that I found hard going.
I dislike most romances about highwaymen, pirates and con artists. They basically seem like muggers dressed up with an historical background. Ick.
“muggers dressed up with an historical background” – I love this!! :)
I do not read psychological thrillers, and absolutely avoid serial killers.
Even with a strong romance, no thanks.
I am fed up with the type of very similar fears they play on.
I might break the rule if they were serial killing rich white men, maybe.
But I never saw that. Poor, female, „unimportant„ people die horribly.
And often, from focus, the killer becomes the main character.
No thanks.
Actually, this was a conscious decision at a certain point. Once I realized that I never feel good after such a read, and how much woman-hating happened in those books, by making them victims of horrible death most of the time.
Humor is unpredictable, many funny books do not work for me, and chick lit seems to celebrate stupidity, and self destructive tendencies, which is humor I do not get. But these are not hard „no“s, just a general need to be convinced.
For the most part, I gave up reading psychological suspense when it seemed to me that it was basically punishing women for loving the wrong person, trusting the wrong friend, making the wrong choice. In other words, a woman was punished for being a loving, caring person and getting gaslit and mind-f*cked. No thanks.
You put it extremely well – yes, exactly!
I’ve not found many romantic suspense novels that work for me, the Lady Julia Grey books are the only ones that come to mind right now.
But I do like well-written thrillers, and I don’t mind it going pretty dark. I like a kick-ass heroine going after the serial killer or terrorist or whatever, especially if she has some kind of special training or experience to bring to it. I really liked Nicci French’s Freida Klein series for that reason. Frieda just went and figured out the mystery, often at her own peril, but her training as a psychotherapist gave her the edge she needed to resolve stuff. Plus, she’s a really unusual protag for many reasons, not just that. Great series!
I also love John Sandford’s Prey series and Lawrence Block’s Matthew Scudder series. Both can be very very dark, but they are so wonderfully written and have continued their respective stories for 30 years of more in compelling ways. The MCs have aged and matured, gained wisdom, but retained their lethal ways when it comes to hunting down bad guys.
None of those last three series are romances in any way, just to be clear.
Misogyny seems built into the thrillers, much in the way it has been in slasher films. Today there is a trend for hard-boiled female detectives, maybe to offset the victimization of women and the sheer amount of violence done to women’s bodies. My aunt watches Dateline regularly and I have to say that about 85-90% of the weekly crimes examined in each show feature women as victims – quite depressing.
I’m intrigued by the idea of rich, white men as victims of thrillers. I think though there would be great backlash in the publishing industry if that trend took place, kind of like the fretting so many engaged in when women outed men at the start of the #MeToo Movement. Disrupting the status quo is painful for many.
Why pick any group to be victims?
I’d be intrigued by the idea of bad people as victims, not members of any set group.
Why do authors engage in dehumanizing stereotypes such as what Lieselotte pointed out above? The books sell, right? But why? Why are women overwhelmingly victimized in particular genres, such as slasher or thriller? How do readers as consumers respond to dehumanizing representations, especially critically conscious readers who read carefully for harmful depictions? If the stereotypes are flipped upside down, such as portraying rich, white men as victimized group, how would consumers respond, and would the outrage be hypocritical? My guess is yes, unfortunately. Sure, do away with stereotyping and rendering people into identity groups, but first, do away with the cultural practices that make this possible.
Yes.
And obviously, women read them.
Which is ok, of course.
I just stopped once I realized how utterly pervasive the victim = woman was.
Andhow often There was moral judgment = the „Bad“ women get to die.
Once I noticed, I couldn’t read anymore.
I have never been able to get into Julia Quinn books. I’ve tried the Bridgertons. I’ve tried her smythe series. I find them totally insufferable and most of them are so explicitly fatphobic, I feel like she, as an author would be personally offended by the idea of me (a fat woman!) imagining myself in the small, dainty slippers of her oh-so slender and perfect heroines. Yes, I feel this way even about Romancing Mr. Bridgerton.
On a similar note, after the release of “Good Luck with that,” I haven’t been able to read a single Kristan Higgins book.
Anything extreme bdsm, walking on broken glass seen as a romantic gesture just does not work for me. Add spiritual connotations and that’s an ‘inspirational ‘I positively dislike..
Stories described as romance that don’t have a hea. Love stories can be as heartbreaking as you like but call it romance and I’m expecting hea.
I’m a member of a discussion board for writers, and every now and then we have the HEA discussion with someone who doesn’t read romance.
“I’ve written a tragic love story where one of the people dies. Can this be marketed as a romance?”
No. The couple have to be together and happy at the end.
“But it’s got a paranormal element so at the end, he’s a ghost. And GHOST was such a romantic movie!”
It wasn’t a romance novel.
“Why should the nature of the ending define the genre for the entire book? If I write a story that’s all about the couple falling in love and building a relationship, and they get married on page 199, and on page 200 he gets hit by a truck, how could that not be a romance?”
Romance readers are not looking for a punch in the gut on the last page. If we want tragic love stories, we know where to find them, and it’s not on the romance shelves.
“But happy-ever-after endings are so old and predictable! And this limited, inflexible requirement constrains my creativity!”
HEAs are what romance readers want. If you don’t want to write them, don’t call your story a romance.
“But romance as a genre gets great sales.”
Ahhh…
This argument is crazy-making. Sigh….
*nods* This argument comes up on Twitter at least once a month (probably more often and I just don’t see it!)
But I honestly don’t understand what these people don’t get. Genre fiction has rules, and the HEA is the romance genre rule. I never see anyone saying “I wrote a mystery novel, but the mystery isn’t solved at the end (assuming it’s one book not a series), so can I market it as a mystery?”
Sadly, it really IS all about the money. And even more irritating is that these people trying to cash in on the romance market are often the ones who look down their noses at the genre anyway. Grrr…
This is a direct quote from someone on that discussion board :
“I would totally read a story about a detective who fails to solve the mystery. The main reason I don’t read mysteries is that you know the hero is going to figure out the villain by the end.”
Some writers feel it’s daring and subversive to flout the rules of a genre.
One such writer asked why romance publishers were afraid to take the risk of a few main-character-dies endings in the romance section. Maybe readers would be pissed off because they found something they didn’t like, but maybe such readers also needed to have their expectations challenged. Maybe this way, readers would be able to broaden their definition of happy endings.
I replied that if I came home from an rough day at work where a patient died, and I picked up a romance novel to have the security and comfort of a happy ending, only to find the heroine died, I would warn every romance reader I knew never to touch that author’s books, because the author had tricked me. No other genre gives so much assurance. No other genre makes the promise that the people you care about will be safe and happy in the end. Life certainly doesn’t have that guarantee. That’s why we read romance.
That’s it exactly. The assured HEA gives authors and readers room to explore emotions in ways that are often complex and difficult, and even as the reader is put through the wringer, they know, at the back of their mind, that everything will work out in the end. I know it’s not for everyone, but I can read romances with a fairly heavy degree of angst precisely because, even as I’m in tears, I know there will be an HEA. Not to offer that security is break your contract with the reader.
I call that attitude “contempt for the genre and its readers…but not for the money they generate.” It must be exhausting to have the same argument over and over again with people who don’t want to be enlightened and only want you to confirm what they already believe. It’s for much this same reason I stay off of political blogs and am not on Twitter.
Some people are more creative than others with the “ugh, happy endings” arguments. We had someone post in the romance forum saying she was a therapist, and some of the people she counseled had unrealistic expectations about relationships. The cause of this problem? Why, romance novels with their happy endings!
It’s so simple…no HEA, no romance genre label. It’s the whole point, isn’t it?
There are a few romances that have successfully skirted the HEA requirement and “mostly” managed to remain huge favorites. One that stands out is Jude Deveraux’s Knight in Shining Armor. Susanna Kearsley’s Mariana has an interesting twist as well.
I would argue that the ending of the Deveraux (which, admittedly, I read over 20 years ago) holds the promise that the heroine is going to find love again.
[SPOILER] I don’t know if Edith Layton’s beautiful THE FIRE FLOWER qualifies as having a happy ending (or if the book even qualifies as a romance). The book is extremely melancholy in places, but at the end of the book, after a very long and happy marriage, the hero dies, leaving the heroine and one of their sons to return a gift to the hero’s first love—a Puritan lady and also now a widow.
[MORE SPOILERS] Natasha Knight’s dark mafia romance, SERGIO, ends with the hero being killed in a gangland-style shooting. I think it’s possible that Knight wrote the book because she’d already written the HEA romances featuring Sergio’s two brothers and memories of their dead brother thread throughout those books. Perhaps Knight thought she needed to give readers the dead brother’s story. I was shocked when I read it because I don’t think I’d encountered another hero dying in a romance since I read the aforementioned THE FIRE FLOWER, even though the book’s blurb says: “Be prepared: this is not a traditional love story.” I kept thinking the hero must have escaped and would return with a new, fake identity. But nope—he really was dead. Then there’s a scene where the pregnant heroine enters the hero’s study and senses his presence one last time—and I must admit I burst into tears.
I apologize for spoiling things, but in order to discuss the extremely limited number of “romances” I’ve read without an HEA, I had to explain their endings.
I don’t a priori rule out reading stories in any genre or sub-genre, but my preferences strongly favor some sub-genres. For me, it is more the author (or individual story) than the (sub-)genre.
The Black Dagger Brotherhood series by J. R. Ward, already mentioned, is an example. I bought the first 3 books years ago, read the first, and stopped. It just didn’t work well enough for me to buy or read any more.
Tangled by Emma Chase: the “hero” was a total jerk, and stayed that way, and he kept making pronouncements about how all men are things that just aren’t so. I have wondered since if that jerk was partially based on the T-Rump. I haven’t read any other books by Emma Chase.
The Hating Game by Sally Thorne, which is supposed to have a lot of conversational humor, simply didn’t have much of any humor for me. I haven’t read bought or read any other books by Sally Thorne.
Inspirational romances, for the same reasons other people have mentioned. And non-inspirational romances set around Christmas kind of fall into that category for me too. If it’s part of a longer series I’m following and/or has a lot of tropes I love, I’ll sometimes give those a go, but I’m a Jewish convert, estranged from most of my family, extremely introverted, suffer from social anxiety, and generally don’t mesh well with mainstream American holiday traditions, so the “grumpy character softened by the Chrismas magic!!!!” tropes make me angry, and it’s rare to find Christmas books that don’t go there at least a bit. Small-town romances sometimes hit the same notes in non-Christmas books, but it’s harder to tell from the tin, so I don’t avoid them as much.
Other sub-genres I don’t really read: paranormals; YA; “clean” romance; f/f romance; sci-fi romance; BDSM featuring female submissives. I avoid books that feature cancer because it gives me panic attacks, and I’m wary of historicals involving white characters in the American South.
For authors: Lisa Kleypas. I read a lot of her work when I first started reading romance, because she’s so beloved, but had to conclude that she just doesn’t work for me at all.
Also, my feelings about fantasy romance are very complicated. I love fantasy, and I love romance, and therefore I want to love fantasy romance, so I keep reading them, but it pretty much never works for me, so I really ought to stop.
As a college teacher, I have very little patience for teacher/student relationships. In reality, there is so much institutional red tape to make these relationships daunting, even for the most risk-taking of teachers willing to flaunt rules. In today’s cultural moment, social ostracism is having a big effect on teachers even considering an affair with a student. From an ethical consideration, teachers have too much power over the lives of a student (GPAs, future job attainment, and even the accusation of creating a harassing setting to succeed in schoolwork ). And yet, these books keep getting published and drive me a little crazy. On a similar note, I’m very hesitant about employer/employee romances for many of the same reasons. I can see why women may be drawn to a dominant, powerful, and successful man, but the repercussions of such romantic relationships feel overwhelmingly negative to me. But this is why more good stories featuring the sexiness of equality is powerful
I’m not generally a fan of fantasy romance, though I can be persuaded. I just read the first trilogy in Ilona Andrews’s Hidden Legacy series and enjoyed it. Even here though, too much time spent mired in rules about magic or technology, too many explosions, and confusing battle scenes leave me bored and wanting to get back to relationships.
I tend to read lots of reviews before I sit down with a book, which is probably a bad approach in some ways because I am sure I miss out on books I might love simply because I’ve read an off-putting review. But two books that I expected to love based on reviews and just did not were Kleypas’ Dreaming of You and, more surprisingly to me, Thomas’ Not Quite a Husband. Kleypas is very hit or miss for me (the ones I like, I really like, though) but I love everything I’ve ever read of Sherry Thomas’ except this one – and I know a lot of people adore it! Good for you, not for me, as Amy Poehler would say.
I, too, find the extraordinary love for Kelypas’ Dreaming of You puzzling. I liked it. It’s not a bad romance at all, but it never stuck with me as it seems to have with many romance readers. The same goes for Loretta Chase’s Lord of Scoundrels.
1st person, present tense. I sample before I buy, and if I read an excerpt of a novel that’s written in 1st person, present tense, that alone will kill it for me. I won’t go back to that book unless someone somewhere has convinced me it’s really good, and the exception to the rule for that trendy, writing style. So few authors can do it well!
I feel the same which is why had a problem with Bec McMaster’s latest book to start with. But she’s a good enough writer to make it work and I DID end up enjoying it.
Off topic slightly- but I also found Bec McMaster’s change to first person in her latest novel jarring. It didn’t sound exactly like her at first. I enjoyed the story as I do all her works, but the 1st person present tense was quite a surprise.
I never pick up fantasy or time travel novels. I want my novels to get started promptly without endless backstories and large suspensions of belief. Those who love them, enjoy them and buy them so your authors keep going.
Billionaire romances give me the creeps.
For the most part billionaires are the Kochs, the Mercers, the Rupert Murdochs, Sheldon Adelsons, and Steve Wynns. Bad plastic surgery, strings of exes, overmuch interest in protecting their wealth and exerting their power. About the last group of people with romantic appeal. Billionaire in a title sends me packing.
.
Sheikh romances for me. I grew up in the United Arab Emirates, so I have an idea how most sheikhs behave and what they expect from their wives. If there’s a romance where the sheikh speaks Arabic, wears a dishdasha, and expects his wife to be a practicing Muslim, let me know. Otherwise, not interested.
I do think everybody has their thing they can suspend disbelief for. I have zero patients for most MDs in romance–their lives never look anything like that of any of the many many real practitioners I know. But I am completely incurious as to the validity of the the lives of Dukes!
“I have zero patients” – love the pun. :)
I work in a trauma hospital, so a medical romance would need to be very accurate for me to believe it. But yeah, I can suspend disbelief for historicals too, unless they’re really stretching it.
The Sheikh’s Destiny by Melissa James! Hero is a race car driver turned rescue ambulance in a conflict area in northern Africa, heroine is an Aussie Muslim nurse from his home country. Here is my review! https://allaboutromance.com/book-review/the-sheiks-destiny-by-melissa-james/
I’ll read ALMOST anything. Books I should just avoid because I haven’t found one I like yet: Daddy kink.
I also don’t read inspirational romance.
@Em Wittmann: Try Eve Dangerfield’s ACT YOUR ACT. DD/lg isn’t my thing either, but Dangerfield writes with heart and heat.
I tried that one but got squicked out at the idea that they were playacting that she’s under 18 and that the hero is cheating on his wife with her daughter. Ick.
I do think that Dangerfield goes to great lengths to show that the couple are having a completely consensual role-play fantasy—but I agree that if a book isn’t working for you, you can’t force yourself to continue reading.
I’ll check it out! thanks!
You know what? I just said I’d check it out but I’m not going to. This just doesn’t work for me.
I don’t read young adult. I’m a high school teacher, and I cannot suspend disbelief. Amish and inspirational-no thank you. I’ve tried it but it’s not to my taste.
What is DD/lg?
Daddy/little girl.
Thanks!
That is such a hard pass for me. It literally makes my gorge rise.
Daddy Dom/Little Girl. In m/m and/or bdsm romances, this is sometimes called “Daddy/Little” without reference to the gender of the “Little.”
That is a hard pass for me too.
I don’t like horror in general.
In romance books I’m more concerned about certain tropes than the specific genre. For instance, I do read all kinds of romances but if the trope is lovers reunited, that is automatically points lost.
If I had to name a “sub-genre?” in romance I avoid is YA. Often this means love triangles or silly behavior and I’ve hated my teenage years, no interest in having more. If it’s not a romance, say a more a coming-of-age tale, I’ll try that.
As for some authors… I’ve recently tried Phillip Roth. Didn’t like his writing at all but he won prizes, has many fans…
The other day I was talking to a fan of Brenda Joyce and both books by her I’ve tried were awful to me…
I still love the BDB series! But I’ve tried Kim Harrison, also a PNR/UF author many readers like and I didn’t…
I am mostly a historical fiction/romance reader who sometimes ventures into sci fi or murder/mystery as well as nonfiction. Contemporary romances leave me cold. I have read some that I liked very much but for the most part I find them unbelievable and even “dated”. It’s hard for me to suspend belief enough not to notice things that take me out of the story. Inspirational romances are another genre that leave me cold. Like Marian Perera, I’m not religious, although I identify as agnostic not atheist. Books where “non believers” are either villains or are converted are pandering to stereotypes and wishful thinking on the part of the believer. I’ve met many believers who have no moral compass, and many nonbelievers who have strict personal moral codes. So inspirational novels are a no go for me.
I should add, I have no problem with novels where religion is not the main focus of the story but where religion is important to the characters. It’s just a fact of life, especially in historicals where religion was a central part of most people’s lives.
I find myself very resistant to books that are marketed as being humorous or comedic—especially in romance. Humor is such an individual and idiosyncratic thing, I can’t see setting out to write a book with the goal of making every reader laugh. This might be why I’ve avoided Penny Reid’s books (Cletus? Really—are we in an episode of the Simpsons or a Jerry Clower hillbilly bit?) even though the angsty-melancholy tone of her latest sounds like it would be right up my alley.
There are genres that I really don’t get (paranormal, shifter, fantasy, urban fantasy), although I have occasionally read (and liked) books from those genres, I don’t seek them out and only read them if a favorite writer is doing something in the genre (for instance, I’ve liked Kati Wilde’s Deadlands fantasy romances, but that has not been a gateway to other fantasy authors for me). I’m also too old for YA, but I must admit to reading some NA (even though Jimmy Carter was President the last time I was a “new” adult).
I should add that Kati Wilde has also written a couple of shifter romances which I liked very much (especially TEACHER’S PET WOLF, which was light on shifter lore and heavy on hot-sexy-times). Again, I follow the author to the genre rather than reading the genre and discovering an author.
NA isn’t of great interest to me either. I think it’s because I am the parent of four twenty somethings and I don’t seek more of that age group in my reading life!
I can definitely see why some readers wouldn’t be into Penny Reid books, but I don’t think she is trying to write comedy for everyone. She is a self-published author for a number of reasons, not least is that she seems to enjoy not having to appeal to all readers (as if such a thing is possible anyway). She has a devoted following of like-minded “weirdos,” as she calls them, and I think in the publishing world there is a place for the indie authors.
I tend to like authors who take such a stance and write the books they want. I would put Mariana Zapata in that category too. She is constantly criticized for a number of features that mark her writing unique, and she doesn’t care or change her style.
I adore Cletus, btw. He is one of the best heroes in romance, for me. Reid sets up the southern good ole’ boy stereotypes and flips them upside down, Still, I can see why these books aren’t for everyone, and I definitely agree that humor is idiosyncratic.
I kind of feel the same way because writing comedy is truly an art form. It’s much harder than drama. Comedy is really situational. It’s not always about creating an outrageous character as it is about putting characters in situations that bring out comedy. Not to say that a character can’t be comedic in their own right, but in doing so, the author risks making the character so ridiculous that they seem like a cartoon or someone the reader just cannot relate to. I’ve seen it done well a few times, but it’s very rare. Keeping in mind that tastes in humor are also very individual and also cultural, a couple that spring to mind are The Vintage Guide to Love and Romance by Kirsty Greenwood and Hustle, Sweet Love by Maggie Davis.
Beverly Jenkins books. Too full of boring stuff.
Books with overly nice-guy heroes. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Same sex historical romances. Unbelievable.
Clean romances. What’s the point?
Why do you say same sex historical romances are unbelievable? KJ Charles writes some of the best HR around and not only are the HEAs in her books perfectly plausible, her books are far more grounded in actual history than about 95% of the other HR out there.
Not about that here.
From where I sit, the world has always been depressingly cruel to gay relationships. In my own family, there are those who refuse to allow the gay couple to visit. If it’s that hard to survive in the 21st century, it’s too much for me to go along with it in the long ago past.
Look up ‘boston marriages’ to see where you’ve erred in your judgement. Not every queer love story, even going back to the pre-Stonewall world, was a tragedy.
Also there are plenty of wonderful romances that have no sex in them at all, The ‘point’ of a romance novel is to tell a love story, and sex doesn’t always have to be involved.
The only genre I avoid is inspirational fiction, because I tried a few of those years ago and got tired of non-believers being either villains or converted by the end. As an atheist, that just doesn’t work for me. I’m fine with reading about religious characters in other genres, just not about people like me being cast in certain roles.
Plus, the heroes and heroines of inspirationals usually don’t share certain values or ideals that are important to me. I don’t need characters to reflect my standards, but I like this to be approached in an evenhanded manner rather than those characters’ positions automatically being correct. So, of all the seven hundred books crammed into my apartment, not one is an inspirational.
Years ago, I bought a few inspirational romances not even being aware of the sub-genre, I just liked the blurbs.
Well, I quickly learned that there is indeed such a sub-genre as inspirational romance and it is not for me. It may vary a lot from book to book and author to author, but the ones I’ve come across were very preachy and not at all what I want to read.
I don’t mind religious characters, but just not like this.
Yes, as an atheist I definitely avoid inspirational romances. I don’t mind religious characters in books, but I can’t enjoy immersing myself into a romance where religion is foregrounded and central to a story.
I used to feel this way about inspirationals, but then I realized that some books are labeled as inspirational or are placed in that pot because they might have characters who attend church or mention God once or twice or the author has published in that sub-genre at some point. Or, maybe just because the story has no explicit sex.
However, I realized I was missing some really good books with excellent historical research and a compelling story. For instance, Tiffany Girl by Deeanne Gist, Beyond All Dreams by Elizabeth Camden, and River’s Edge by Marie Bostwick. These have become some of my most highly rated romances and I’m so glad I took a chance on them and on these authors.
I don’t think I’ve ever been able to read a sci-fi book beyond a chapter or two. I find them too technical, cold and removed from human experience. Most high fantasy is just tedious in my experience, with rare exceptions. The Tolkien stuff is ‘makes me want to off myself’ boring. The movies were just ok, but I don’t like sci-fi or fantasy movies either. The Alien movies and the Star Wars movies were films I had to be dragged to back when they were new releases and I will never get those hours back!
But I do like Superman comics and movies, and I like reading some urban fantasy of there is a decent romantic hook.
Romantic suspense often is unappealing to me also, but there have been notable exceptions, like the Adrien English series by Josh Lanyon. I generally prefer straight-up mystery/suspense/thriller books like Val McDermid’s Tony Hill series.
Hah! Those movies are among my favourites! BUT I’m not one for “concept” sci-fi novels although I’ve read some good sci-fi romances. I’m also not wild about shifter books, and the only ones I’ve read or am interested in reading tend to be those where not much actual shifting goes on (such as Charlie Adhara’s excellent Big Bad Wolf series. I do like romantic suspense, even though quite a few of the books I’ve read recently in the genre haven’t really managed to get the balance right. Loreth Anne White and Rachel Grant are two of the best around, and although I haven’t read many books by Anne Calhoun, or Jill Sorensen (to name but two) I do have a few of them on my Kindle waiting for me to find time to read them!
I’m trying to think of a book I hated that many people who generally share my tastes liked… the one that springs to mind is Maggie Fenton’s The Duke’s Holiday which was unfunny, full of plot holes and had one of the most unlikeable heroines I’ve ever read.
Ha! I remember when I LOVED The Duke’s Holiday and you didn’t. Great minds do not always think alike!
I tried to read one of the Black Dagger Brotherhood books. I really tried. And I got caught up in the story and the sexual heat and it was all going great…
…until I came across one of those names. You know the names. Each time I read one of those, it jerked me out of the story. When I found myself imagining future characters called Ahnnoyance, Dhiscomfort and Mazhokist, I gave up.
I could not agree more. I feared detaching my eyeballs from rolling them so often everytime I came across one of her ridiculously spelled names. Also, her writing style is just not for me. Perhaps she has improved over the years but my initial take was dull and unimaginative prose.