I've never read romance novels (and I'm female, by the way).
For that reason, I can't really discuss them, but from what I've heard, things like stalking, kidnapping and rape being portrayed as romantic are on their way out, as more readers and writers realise how creepy that is. Well, it's progress, at least.
Also, the points you listed seem weird to me as well, though point 1 is really a matter of personal preference.
I read them, and some I like, some are just fluffy candy. Some are downright awful, avoid anything by Fern Michaels like the plague.
Part of the genre is that people get together, otherwise it really isn't a romance; well not unless you're going for a very old notion of romance. So I'd say the main characters getting together ratio is actually much higher than ninty percent.
There are certainly a large number of conventions in romance, I think, though I don't have knowledge, that part of it is that many of the publishers have certain formulas for it.
The rape/kidnapping theme is getting to be far less, as women are expected to be interested in men, rather than having to be forced into sex. Swept off her feet is not the romantic trope it used to be.
Heyer is often classified romance, but really is often a comedy of manners as well. I've also recently found Anna Dean, who is excellent, though you may well find her under mysteries; as the romance portion is going over a very long arc (three books in, the clear leading couple still aren't together). Her female lead is also not a virgin, which is refreshing.
Another annoying trope in romance is that there is very little where the leads are older, and as I age it just gets more annoying. I'd like to see some works with characters in their forties, fifties and older being the leads rather than the occasional secondary pair.
Thank you so much! I was wondering if I was the only one who had read books by Fern Michaels...and lived to regret it!
I read all 20 of the Sisterhood books. The sad thing is, I thought they were great...at first. Then I read reviews pointing out the flaws, starting reading between the lines, and I got struck by Fridge Horror like an anvil dropping out of the sky! There are spelling mistakes, inexplicable name changes, Retcons that feel unnecessary, and a bunch of things that make me think that FM has Protection from Editors going on. The final blow came when I sent an email that questioned her writing to her. She gave me a Dear Negative Reader response. I lost all my respect for her afterwards.
What's interesting is how the Sisterhood series tries to act like it's romance, but it isn't. That's just false advertisement. The series is loaded with anger, revenge, and seems to be the author's soapbox to rail against...a lot of issues. It is disturbing how her writing is loaded with anti-Asian sentiments (racist), and her approach to political correctness comes off as, "I don't care at all about PC!" Okay, she's an old lady, and I'm not a fan of Political Correctness Gone Mad, but old age is not a free pass to political incorrectness.
With all that said, her writing does have some dramatic, entertaining moments and it could be that she was aiming for escapism and just fell short.
How about Gone With The Wind? I bet that one's controversial when it comes to romance!
edited 19th Sep '12 2:53:28 PM by TiggersAreGreat
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!Actually, I couldn't even get through one. It got returned to the library post-haste. It was all about some group of mysterious women hiding or protecting other women, which sounded like a neat premise, but the execution... *shudders* The only book I hated reading more in my memory is More Than a Carpenter, which is atrociously written and is perpendicular to any rational logic. I don't mind apologies, but that particular one made me nauseous.
Too bad she didn't listen to you, she clearly needs someone to tell her when she's doing badly.
I do like Nora Roberts, though I've only read a few of her straight romances, mostly I read her "In Death" series. It's odd, but the reason I like her is that she writes some really nice female friendship bonds, her romances in those stories are such that I barely remember her heroes. Even in the In Death books I find Roark is more like a deus ex machina for difficult situations rather than a memorable character of his own; and she puts a lot of time into writing him and giving him a background. She does fine with her secondary male characters, I like Mc Nab and Leonardo just fine.
I haven't read Gone With the Wind, I'm not sure why; I haven't seen the movie either.
edited 19th Sep '12 4:37:13 PM by Lightningnettle
Again I say, thank you so much! I was wondering if I was the only guy around here who read Nora Roberts's books, particularly the In Death books!
I've read every single In Death story, and I think that's at least 30 books worth! It's such an interesting series to read!
I need to say straight off that I think Roberts intended the series to be pure Escapism. Yeah, it does contain stuff that might turn off people, but that's what can happen with Escapism. For instance, I can see why you would say that Roarke comes off as Deus ex Machina. Especially with his god-like skill of breaking into stuff, the only exception being a ghost that prevented even him from getting into a building. But...I see him as more of The Ace, with some books like Portrait In Death showing him to be a Broken Ace. Also, I would argue that he is the series's version of Batman, and that he can be viewed as an Escapist Character.
Eve Dallas is seen by some as a Mary Sue, particularly a Jerk Sue. But I would argue that she could be seen as an Escapist Character, and a female police version of Sherlock Holmes. Really, characters like Peabody and McNab come off as so annoying at times that it's no wonder Eve gets prickly with them!
I like the future world she's created, it doesn't sound particularly *likely*; but it's possible, the whole Urban Wars thing is intriguing and I've never quite figured out the why's and wherefores of it. The structure of society is just different enough to be interesting, yet you could see ours developing in those directions; and the people act in ways that you could see people doing. For instance, same sex marriage isn't even blinked at, just assumed; and we're heading that way even now. Artificial foods (those soy dogs just sound awful) with real ones being expensive treats, I could see people getting used to them and finding the real stuff a sensual experience as she writes them.
Dallas' social awkwardness prevents her from being a Mary Sue in my opinion. She makes mistakes, sometimes big ones with her friends. I also like how she fears Trina, that is so silly. She's very competent in her job, and rarely makes mistakes there; but that's part of the character, she is supposed to be one of the best. And she's not good at everything even there, she still calls in experts for computer analysis, forensics, and even Mira for psychological backup (though Dallas is pretty good at psychology as well as investigation).
Roarke's not only capable of breaking into any building, he owns so many businesses and so forth that makes her jobs easier, and can get into any data. He's a little broken by his past, but I don't remember him making any real mistakes in business, society, or relationships. He's the prototypical tall, dark, and handsome with a sexy accent thrown in. He's useful to the plot, but not at all interesting to me. Summerset, I wish she'd do more with him; after the revelations about his daughter, I did expect him and Dallas to get along better, but he's gone back to almost a stick figure.
edited 21st Sep '12 8:50:16 PM by Lightningnettle
Come to think of it, they never said anything about the woman who gave birth to Summerset's daughter Marlena. What's up with that? On the plus side, you should check out Delusion In Death...you might have gotten your wishes!
Okay, so far we have thumbs down for Fern Michaels and thumbs up for Nora Roberts. How about other writers? I know there are lots more out there!
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!The Guardian attributes the change in female protagonists from the doormats to people with some character to Nora Roberts. I've only read her "In the Garden" series. She's definitely writes fluff, but she's alright.
"Creating feisty heroines was something that came naturally to her. "I was like, I don't want to be the secretary, I want to be the boss. I didn't want to write the kind of story where the man treats the woman like shit for the entire book and in the last chapter he tells her, 'I treated you like shit because I love you.' That won't do for me. Or for a lot of other writers. I started to write the kind of stories that I wanted to read. It was very instinctive. You just wanted the heroines to be a bit feisty.""
I actually like J.R. Ward and Sherrilyn Kenyon. They write paranormal romance you can get in grocery stores. Nicholas Sparks is awful.

Because I can tell that I, a man, most certainly have. What's interesting is how a number of authors who write romance books are women and the books they write seem aimed more at women.
Speaking from a man's perspective, I have noticed a number of concepts pop up in these books that seem rather odd.
The points I listed here are just begging to be subverted or deconstructed in some way!
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!