Recently - after a long spell of reading almost nothing but historical romance - I've branched out. I've taken my first teeny weeny baby steps in the daunting world of paranormal romance and I've revisited contemporary romance. And it's got me thinking about genres and what I like and why.
Today, some thoughts about contemporary romance.
Basically, I'm just not that much of a fan of contemporary romance. I went through a stage of glomming category romance a while back and I still indulge in the odd one of those. But I detest chick-lit which dominated contemporary romance (particularly in the UK) for a long time.
Then you've got your romantic suspense (I suppose technically this is a separate sub-genre. Whatever. It's not for me. Stuff about police and detectives bores the pants offa me).
The thing that bothers me about contemporary romance - the reason I think I stopped reading it - is the lack of compelling conflict. I've realised that I'm not really interested in what I term 'domestic conflict'. For example, X can't be with Y because he is her ex-husband's best friend. Or, A wants to be with B but would have to give up her job and move five hundred miles.
(Caveat: I realise I'm hugely generalising here. I haven't even read much contemporary romance in the last however many years.)
Lately, though, I've read a few contemporary stories that I've really enjoyed. Most of these -admittedly - are erotic romances (again, arguably another sub-genre), though not all. However, they all do have something in common: a major issue at the heart of the story.
In Mathile Madden's Equal Opportunities, the hero is in a wheelchair and the heroine is devo. Is she only with him because he is in a chair and she gets a kick out of that? Does that matter? Is her kink just as much a part of her as his chair is a part of him?
In Summer Devon's novella Direct Deposit, the heroine's marriage has broken up over her infertility. After years of trying to get pregnant, sex became a means to an (unachievable) end. Then she meets up with a man with whom she shares an uncomfortable past and rediscovers desire. (My only complaint about this story is that I wished it had been a full length novel instead of a novella).
In Kristina Lloyd's Asking For Trouble, the heroine likes degrading sex. (She just likes it; no particular reason; no 'abusive childhood' excuse). She enters into a dangerous relationship with a man who knows just what she wants. They agree that any situation they enter into can be brought to an end if the word 'cuttlefish' is uttered by either of them. But if they do that, the whole relationship ends there and then. I can't honestly call this a 'romance' (although I must admit to having a harbouring ridiculous hopes that Beth and Ilya would walk off into the sunset together) but it is contemporary and it illustrates the point I'm trying to make: I like real conflict. These books gave me that.
Is that the attraction of historical and paranormal romance? An historical or paranormal setting places the protaganists in a situation that is immediately rife with conflict. The hero and heroine are more easily put at odds with one another. Let's face it: a disapproving governess and rakish earl or a vampire-hunter and vampire provide richer pickings in conflict-terms than a couple of accountants. And - and in my view this is absolutely key - there is usually a transgressive element to the sex.
What do you think?
I'll be offering some beginner's comments on the paranormal genre soon and some observations about erotica: what works and what doesn't. In the meantime, if you have any contemporary recommendations, please pass them on. (I'd better admit right now that I've never read any Jennifer Crusie or Nora Roberts.)
Saturday, February 16, 2008
General thoughts about...... contemporary romance
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I am the same way. I just can not get into anything contemporary when it comes to romance. I always go for the paranormal, fantasy or sci-fi elements because of the conflict. The few I have tried have been erotica and I agree that this is a seperate genre. Maybe I do it because I want to be swept away and contemporary is too close to home?
I think compelling conflict is difficult to write no matter what the (sub)genre or the setting.
I recently reviewed Snowball in Hell, by Josh Lanyon. There is a book I would not ever ever have read if it hadn't been a gift. Sucky cover. m/m detective novella (blech) set in LA during WWII. Are you kidding me?
It was wonderful because the conflict was incredibly real, the characters were motivated accordingly, the sex was hot, and the writing good.
While I do have time periods that I enjoy, if the writing holds me I'm open to anything. Except chick lit and multi penised aliens.
I really enjoyed this post, and I find I agree with it, though I've never been attracted to contemporary romance, though I'm more of a newbie to romance.
Though, of course contemporary theoretically could have as much conflict as anything, and sometimes I wonder how much of these things are "in the air."
Like, I fancy myself as being not a slave to fashion whatsoever, and if you saw me now, well, you'd agree. But still, when clunky big heeled shoes or gauchos were in, I thought chunky big heeled shoes or gauchos looked pretty, and now I don't, and look, they're out. This always mystifies me.
Publishing, as you know, has trends. Are we inside the zeitgeist but we don't know it? Because, isn't contemporary just sort of out?
I'm not saying I think that, I'm just sort of wondering aloud.
LB:
I hold a boiler engineer's license (from our condo owning days) and there is this one maintenance thing you do on a certain kind of boiler that's called "blowing the tri-cock."
Well, if you've never read a Nora Roberts, start with Angels Fall. This book rocked my socks so hard I wound up barefoot. I'll even send it to you; I love it that much. The heroine is just freakin' fantastic.
There's no rule that you have to enjoy Nora Roberts' romances. I can't bear them. I prefer her futuristic police procedural romance novels, a.k.a. Eve Dallas as Wonder Woman with Issues. But that series has lost much of the romantic tension--after all they've been married for HOW many books?
I think single-title contemporary romances sometimes flounder because they try to tell the same story as a category romance but in more words. A relationship-centered, low-conflict plot may work in a tightly-written Harlequin/M&B but not be enough to sustain a longer work.
I have similar problems with single-title historical romances. Many are flabby and repetitious. Some would be better edited down into a shorter format, as traditional Regencies or Harlequin Historicals. (I just gave up on Elizabeth Boyle's latest. Decent story ideas buried in a lot of flabby writing. Much of it could have been fixed by a good edit.)
Ah, an excellent post, and one to which I will reply fulsomely (sorry about that).
I'm not a fan of contemporaries (and I HATE chick lit!) but there are author's I'll read. Susan Elizabeth Phillips is one of the best when she's on form, Linda Howard (except for recently; what's going on?) and Jennifer Crusie. Crusie is good, by any standard, and it really depends on individual taste what you'll prefer. I'm a Welcome to Temptation/ Fast Women/ Faking it girl. There are those who much prefer Bet Me, which was not to my taste (too consciously studied? I don't know). As for Nora Roberts, I glommed her years ago until everything bled together and I couldn't bear to read another. She's good (and very refreshing in a market that was, at the time, saturated with crappy, old fashioned themes and sensibilities).
Back in the day, I used to love steamy contemporaries from Sandra Brown: so much angst, so much drama, so much testosterone and conflict. I lapped it up. I probably couldn't bear it now, but I still remember Slow Heat in Heaven and Where There is Smoke fondly.
Which brings me to the last contemporary I loved - Erotic Secrets of a French Maid by Lisa Cach. She captured perfectly a modern tone and sensibility, had engaging characters and a great sense of humour. I absolutely loved it and totally recommend it. Never read Cach before, but I might add her to my tightly controlled list of contemp authors.
I think you're absolutely right when you say there isn't enough conflict in contemporaries (which is probably why so many authors move onto romantic suspense and thrillers). I also find it really hard to relate to most of the characters in these books, even more so than vampire queens and governesses.
I am really tempted to read Asking for Trouble, but the main couple worries me. I'm guessing from what you wrote it isn't a HEA? Am I such a stick in the mud that the absence eof an HEA will stop me from reading a good book? Ach.
CJ - I agree on fashion (as my wardrobe attests) but not on books - not for me anyway.
Ann - thanks for the recc. I really need to try NR. And Crusie.
RfP - absolutely agree. Category romances are the perfect length for these domestic conflicts.
Meriam - thanks for the reccs. Cach appeals. Asking For Trouble just isn't a romance at all so the question of an HEA is irrelevant. It's a piece of pure erotica and any 'romance' I experienced while reading it came from my own ridiculous head. I suggest you only read this book if you are not easily offended. Personally, I think it is incredibly well-written and - in its completely filthy way - quite beautiful. But it's certainly not for everyone. One of the things that it has raised in my mind is the difference between British and American erotica (based on my limited reading, I think there are some quite big differences). might touch on this in a future post.
re; Asking for Trouble:
It's a piece of pure erotica and any 'romance' I experienced while reading it came from my own ridiculous head.
You see, that's what I would do, too. I've read an excerpt or two of this and it sounds really filthy (but in a good way) and actually, I like the premise, but I'd kind of start shipping the two of them, even though I guess ultimately the relationship will end destructively... But you know what, I will read it. I was really impressed with Lloyd's writing.
*cheers*
I know when I wrote that about trends I it sounded weird - I didn't mean I consciously follow trends in reading, but just that sometimes I wonder if I am, and I just don't know it.
PS, I am now very interested in this Asking for Trouble.
Some good contemporaries are Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Susan Donovan and Gena Showalter wrote such a funny contemp last year called Catch a Mate.
Lately I have been reading tons of paranormals and fantasies, with some historicals thrown in.
OH! Don't forget Lisa Kleypas's contempt- Sugar Daddy and her new one coming out :)
Great post. I tend to read only categories when looking for a straight contemporary. I think RFP made a great point that the conflict works better within the shorter length. The longer ones seem contrived.
I think I'm the only person on the planet who is totally meh on Crusie. There's something about her books that seems to be trying too hard. [I'll run and hide now]
I did enjoy the two Susan Carr books I read last year.
BTW, have you read any Kate Hardy? She writes Presents, but in the UK its Modern Temptation. Very different from other HPs I've read.
Post a Comment