by ldb August 15th, 2009 at 1:48 pm Reply to this comment

@tracyleann:

I am curious who you would consider a more intrigueing author writing historicals today, as I think the exact opposit of historcials compared to 20 years ago.

I just think the quality of the the writing by “new” authors like Meredith Duran, Sherry Thomas, and Tessa Dare is so exciting right now. I also found Jennifer Ashley’s latest very intriguing. Even if I don’t always LOVE the book (reunion romances aren’t my cup of tea, so ST books haven’t been my favorite–so far), I still appreciate the intelligent yet accessible writing and characters who seem more dimensional. Of course, this may be colored by the fact that most of the 80s/90s historical romances I read as a teen were my aunt’s cast offs (many of them Lovespell or Zebra romances).

I am perfectly willing to admit that I might not have read the “right” older books. Although, in my defense, I have tried some of those revered and beloved authors that are frequently referred to on sites like this, and they have been hit or miss with me: Laura Kinsale (sorry, I tried two of them and they just didn’t grab me–seemed like too much work), Judith McNaught (LOVE Kingdom of Dreams and really liked Once and Always, but all the others I’ve tried have been wallbangers for me), Johanna Lindsey (don’t even get me started on some of those…), Loretta Chase (LOVED Lion’s Daughter and really enjoyed LoS, but haven’t finished any of the others), etc.

Still, as I said there are some “older” romances that I discovered and LOVED. I loved almost all of Teresa Medeiros’s 90s books (her last few, not so much), and I did go through a definite Amanda Quick phase in college (late 90s), till it started to seem like I was reading the same book over and over.

So… Maybe I have just been more selective in my reading in the last few years, and proportionately the 2000s romances are coming off the better for it?

In the 2000s, my increasing dissatisfaction with meatless but oversexed romances moved me away from romance, and I started reading more urban fantasy and digging into my keeper shelves. The “new to me” authors I’ve fallen in love with in this decade have been Nalini Singh (paranormal romance), Patty Briggs (urban fantasy and fantasy), Anne Bishop (dark fantasy), JK Rowling (YA Fantasy), and….nope. That’s about it. There are a few other authors I’ve discovered and read with some regularity, but I don’t pant for their books. Or if I DID pant for their books — as with JR Ward’s BDB series or Brockmann’s SEALs — the obsession soon faded.

I am curious who you would consider a more intrigueing author writing historicals today, as I think the exact opposit of historcials compared to 20 years ago.

Well I started reading in the mid 2000s my first books was a Diana Palmer, which was an old catagory the only reason I read it was because of a movie which was based on it. I then found SEO and read one of her older books that was reissued and revamped in 2000s. I started reading mostly new stuff then, and didn’t go out of my way to find anything not readily available in stores, I ventured into chick lit adn read mostly contemps. But once I got my hands on some older LH I was ruined and then I read JL and I was ruined for historicals. I started finding older JD and JM and realized that the best books they wrote were before the 2000s or early 2000s. After this I also realized I was a lot less anxious to read newer authors because the books just felt a lot more light and shallow. So basicly once I started reading books written outside the generation I started in I no longer enjoyed those books/
As for your other question about why. It’s not a matter of trad regencys or sweet books, but size and depth. I want books which have a lot of action and more plots that are important to the story then just the love story. Older books seem less rushed and less superficieal, while books being released today seem to scratch the surface of whats gonig on and not get further, it’s also all about the love story and there’s usually just another plot thrown in which is so unimportant I don’t care about it, and which doesn’t enhance the love story. So I’ve given up, and I woulkdn’t blame an author for it either, I feel bad for authors it seems like there are so many more rules and guidlines, more difficult page counts and they need to write more books. WHile I’ve seen a ot of people say 2000s are it for the amount of books getting released, that is the mian reason I think it is not, yeah there are more books being put out, but each book coming out is less polished and original because of the amount of time to research it, plot it,write it and edit it.

For contemporary, other than Jennifer Crusie, I would say the 1990s. And my favorite by her, Crazy for You, was published in 2000…

Now, if you are talking “category” romance, then it is DEFINITELY the 1990s (and maybe a little late 80s). I really miss the Harlequin books of yore; I can rarely finish any of the new ones.

I just have to make everything overly complicated, don’t I?

On the down side right now – too many books equal books that often need polish to make them gems, so everything from storylines to syntax are a bit rougher than they used to be. Too many series, especially paranormal – it’s gotten old, just tell a complete story in ONE book and stop dragging the romance out over endless books. Too much sexual ‘punishment’ – ick. Too many books with poorly drawn characters and too many books that read like a ‘write by the numbers’ equivalent of a paint-by-the-numbers – unoriginal and boring. There’s a lot more chaff and a lot less wheat. Publishers are idiots and I despise those reprints, but acknowledge there is a new generation of readers that otherwise wouldn’t get to read some good books. I think a lot of writers had better characters in the past when they were original than they do now as they follow the paranormal pack. Too many books substitute sex for story.

No question, I have sentimental attachment to some early books, but itis hard to beat books like Kathrine and The Winthrop Woman – and yes, those were reprints when I read them. But I also have sentimental attachment for a lot of science fiction and fantasy. :-)

You're joking, right? An author putting out a book a month is not a good thing. Releasing a gazillion books a year isn't a sign of more quality offerings.

Yes, I was joking and thank you, I do realize that quantity does not necessarily mean quality.
I was merely trying to say that we weren’t getting as many books in the 70′s & 80′s. Obviously I should have just said that rather than make light of such a serious subject.

I started in the early 80s and I’ve read pretty widely into the past and I stopped reading new romance completely in the late 90s and into mid-2000 because there just wasn’t anything out there that I wasn’t totally disenchanted with – RS everywhere :(. Or better said I gave up in the late 90s and missed a bunch of authors and books, which I’ve now fortunately found! Backlist heaven. grin

As somebody who loves angst and detests humor, chick lit, RS and paranormal, the late 90s and into now haven’t been very good times for me and I’m absolutely convinced that the increased output schedule and the current word count restrictions are making many newly released books less than what they could be (the newer Chase titles come to mind).

I’ve found some new-to-me authors in the last couple of years, but the books that resonate with me the deepest are their late 80s and early 90s releases, not their current offerings (Balogh, Chase, Beverley). I have also come across some new and new(er) authors and again it’s the books that remind of earlier writing times and styles that work best for me (Broken Wing, Scandal).

I can’t wait for the paranormal craze to finally fade away and I’ve seen some resurgence of interest by publishers in Regency (although I think the times for the ‘sweet’ reads are over, which doesn’t bother me personally, but I know there are readers who prefer the ‘fade to black’ when it comes to the bedroom) and historical overall, which makes me happy. I just wish they’d stop touting the ‘tight writing/plotting’ mantra which is really making the majority of currently released books lacking because they just aren’t as fleshed out as they need to be. It gets the publishers fewer pages to print, but I’m getting really disenchanted with these books that I just *know* could have been A reads for my keeper shelf if they had just bothered to write the whole story instead of the ‘oops, gotta wrap up in 20 pages’ we are getting so frequently right now.

The ‘good old days' weren't that great. Authors did not put out a book a month and the publishers of romance books were fewer and less diverse. The ones that existed weren't releasing a gazillion books a year so the pickings were slim. Less chance of finding a crappy read but even less chance of finding an amazing new author.

You’re joking, right? An author putting out a book a month is not a good thing. Releasing a gazillion books a year isn’t a sign of more quality offerings.

I’d have to say the 90s as well. I’ve been compiling a list of my top romances, and re-reading them, so as to set aside any that were just nostalgic favorites. The only one I’ve discarded has been from 2001. The majority are from the 90s (though I do have a few older and newer ones I haven’t got to yet). Romance was hitting its stride in the 90s and attracting some wildly talented writers. Publishers were still allowing original plots with meat to them. The trad Regency romance was in its best decade (though the 80s were great for it as well).

But, I see a trend back toward these golden days now. I think that we may be heading into another golden age to be honest. There was a horrible dip in the early 2000′s when so few good books came out that I pretty much left romance. But now I’m being enticed back by some wonderful writers who’ve appeared the last couple of years. The 2010′s might be the best decade yet.

I couldn’t quite identify with the romances of the 80s, as I couldn’t stand the way heroines were portrayed in romance then. The mid-90s was when I started enjoying romance again, with Julia Quinn, Lisa Kleypas, who are still my faves to this day. The 2000s is also when I discovered Madeline Hunter, Eloisa James, and a few other notable new authors then who have since gone on to greater success.

The other reason why 2000s is the golden era to me would be the many new Fantasy authors discovered this period. It’s been a wonderful 9 years of discovery and exploring so far, and I look forward to what other new adventures reading will take me to.

I still have nightmares about some of the books I read when younger from the 70s, 80s and early 90s. lol