Fans of Interracial Romance discussion

I compartmentalise fairly well from genre to genre. For eg when I read crime novels, literary fiction, horror etc I don't expect certain elements that I may expect in other genres (for eg the HEA). When I read Time Traveler's Wife & The Help they both ended sadly, but I didn't feel bad because I knew in my head these weren't written by bonafide romance writers.

Perhaps the only time I became a bit picky was just after my father died. I was too heartbroken to read anything without a solid HEA, but under normal circumstances I'm easy with different genres having different rules.

However, I have a very curious habit ... if I, for example, know that a romance author has switched from pure romance to a genre that is more flexible about common romance must-haves such as the HEA, h/H not having other partners etc many times I can't read their work under this new genre. Or I can, but I know I will be disappointed even if the story is an otherwise great one. It's like once I know an author to be a writer of romance its hard for me to see them as anything else.

Take Lora Leigh for example. Even if I had nothing against multiple partner couplings I couldn't read her menage books. Why? Because to me she's a writer of romance as most of us know it, not just a writer of mere love stories where a lot more flexibility is allowed when it comes to aspects intrinsic to the romance genre. Unfair to the artistic freedom of the author I know, but that's just the way I feel.

The same is true to a lesser extent with authors in other genres. For eg when I read James Patterson's Suzanne's Diary for Nicholas, a love story without a HEA I did enjoy it, but I didn't really want to be reading JP the romance author, I wanted to read JP the crime writer. Somehow the story will lack something for me because I know JP's expertise is as a crime/thriller writer. I must admit though that these feelings are largely more attributed to romance novelists than anyone else. Do other people have the same weird habit?

Also I must say with romance authors this only happens when I didn't know them BEFORE they switched. For eg if I had experienced JR Ward writing as Jessica Bird before she became JR Ward I probably wouldn't have been interested to read her BDB books with its elements of UF because in my mind she's romance writer, not an UF writer.

Another author is Julie Garwood. Just can't get into her writing suspense. My husband claims I'm too emotional about my reading preferences. Maybe he's right.

I think I know what you mean. Usually when I aim for a particular book at one time, I'm in the mood for a certain kind of story. Lately I've been into love stories but with more realism that romance tends to go. It's hard to find a nice balance but usually I find it with, say Suzanne Brockmann books, where I can get a nice actiony addition to the books.

I don't know if I've read an author whom I used to writing one way and then takes another direction. I tend to skip around authors but I do get a bit miffed if the story is sold one way and then it ends up not having the conventions that I expected it to have when I picked the book up.

Interestly enough, at the moment I'm doing a reverse of what you're doing. I'm reading the BDB and not really getting into it but I am curious about the Jessica Bird books because I'd like to see if the conventions and writing style differ in any way. At the heart, I do notice there is always a romance because that's where she started. It'll be interesting to see how Anne Stuart changes for me because I know her first and foremost as a suspense writer but I know she's written some historicals as well. Not sure how I that will turn out, but it'll be fun to try! :-)

I have two words to say about Julie Garwood's contemporary romance. Noah Clayborne, although, I didn't care for his story, because he was hooked up with a woman that I didn't want him with and I wished I've learned more about Noah, besides him being Cole Clayborne's great great grandson and he being a lawman.

I am fairly good about compartmentalizing when it comes to genres. What I dislike is being mislead about what kind of book I'm reading. That bothers me because I feel like I didn't get what I signed up for.

I don't have an issue with WARD integrating more of an urban fantasy feel into the BDB books, because I saw the threads of that there already. It's actually what got me sucked into the series. I thought the romance in Dark Lover was okay. I liked the vampire society aspects, their religion, and their customs.

I actually like some books that cross genres. For example, I really enjoy the Nightside series by Simon R. Green. It's urban fantasy, but it has a good dose of horror thrown in. I like horror and its conventions, the thrills and the scary moments. Since I was a kid, I've loved supernatural fiction, monsters, ghouls, vamps, ghosts, werewolves, you name it. But I like that with these books, I know that John Taylor will prevail and save the day, and I'm spared the bleak endings that modern horror seems to offer preferentially.

I freely admit that I am very narrow-minded when it comes to romance being separate from erotica. That's probably one of my areas I'm fairly rigid in. When I read a romance, I want the focus on the feelings and the emotions, and if there is some sensuality that comes out of that, then so much the better. But when it starts getting where it's more about sexual explorations and experimentation, that becomes an erotic book to me. If I wanted to read that and I bought the book knowing it was erotic, than I knew what I was signing up for. If I bought the book for a good, strong love story and I got kink, then I feel very cheated. I am not trying to beat a dead horse, but that's really the answer to your question, Davina.

I freely admit that historical romance was and will always be my first love (I love the series/category contemporaries but to a lesser degree. I also went through a mainstream contemporary phase but I've realized that much of it is not my cup of tea, other than the romantic suspense/action/adventure romances, and anything by Anne Stuart, my favorite author. I started reading interracials because I loved seeing Black heroines paired with all kinds of men, since I've always been open to interracial dating). I admit that I was miffed when three of my favorite historical writers jumped ship and started writing contemporary, Lisa Kleypas, Christina Dodd, and Connie Brockway. I felt really cheated because it's very hard to find consistently good historical romances and trusted authors to deliver them. I felt that my historical romance options were being narrowed down by this move they made. Out of respect for the artistic endeavors of writers, I realize that they wanted to do something different, and also, there was more money in contemporary romance at that time. I was really upset about Brockway, because I believed she was done with historical romance (and that was a tremendous loss to the genre), and moving onto women's fiction (which I really dislike). Apparently the pendulum is swinging, unless the authors want to venture forth into the erotica/erotic romance genre, which doesn't seem to be their thing. I forced myself to open my mind about that, and I will finally read Lisa Kleypas contemporaries early next year (because many of my fellow fans of hers have raved about them). Thankfully, Connie Brockway and Christina Dodd will be writing more historicals.

I actually genre hop because I need to read a different type of story.

My preferred genre is romance and when I am reading romance, I have very certain expectations. I want the focus to be on the couple and their relationship. Once they are in a relationship (or have even begun to acknowledge they might be starting something) I expect fidelity and monogamy. It is nice sometimes to have a plot outside the romance, but it isn't necessary, especially not in the hands of a really skilled romance novelist.

Now, if I am reading erotica, then my expectations are different. I don't necessarily expect the couple to be faithful or monogamous. And depending out the thrust (hee..hee) of the story I may not even want the couple to be.

But, If I am reading Sci-Fi or fantasy (my second favorite genre), I don't even need a romance. I want the adventure or the space battles. A romance would be nice, but it isn't necessary to be a a huge element in the story and the couple doesn't even have to have an HEA. And in fact a badly written romance within the context of a sf/f story is worse than none at all.

Regarding author, I may have some expectations of an author if they switch genres. For instance, if a romance author switches to writing mysteries or police procedurals then I might have an expectation that she may include a romance as part of the story. If she doesn't I may be a bit disappointed but if she manages to write a good mystery then that will fade.

The thing is most authors are really only good in one genre. I think successful authors are successful in their native genre for a reason. they have a very strong and compelling voice in that area. One that may not translate into another area as well. It is rare for them to switch up really successfully into another. I find sometimes that a good crime fiction writer just can't do romance or vice versa. So that is where the author expectation comes in. This is the case with Julie Garwood. I just don't think she writes contemporary suspense very well. Her historicals are great, her suspense not so much.

Arch wrote: "I have two words to say about Julie Garwood's contemporary romance. Noah Clayborne, although, I didn't care for his story, because he was hooked up with a woman that I didn't want him with and I wi..."

Lol, Arch, I actually meant to write Iris Johanssen in my last post, not JG. But yes, I see your point. For some reason I just can't get into Garwood doing the suspense thing either. I want her to go back to doing historicals.

The thing is I know my feelings are not only unreasonable, but also irrational. As people grow and go through life they will change and will want to write different things. I certainly don't have the same interests as I did when I was 20 or even 30. I think authors have a right to change their style, focus and even their audience if that's what keep them in their groove. It's just sad when I can't follow them onto their new path. I lose a story teller it may take years to replace with another author of the same talent and skill.

I think that an author should challenge themselves to write something different, especially authors that write Historical romances.

I can only read so much historical books. I've stopped reading them a while back, because I wanted to read about people that was in my present or have been in my present. That's why I like reading contemporary romance.

I don't know what wagons feel like, but I know what a car feels like.

Davina wrote: "Arch wrote: "I have two words to say about Julie Garwood's contemporary romance. Noah Clayborne, although, I didn't care for his story, because he was hooked up with a woman that I didn't want him ..."

--I agree with you about having trouble finding new authors to replace the authors lost to you for a variety fo reasons.

Arch wrote: "I think that an author should challenge themselves to write something different, especially authors that write Historical romances.

I can only read so much historical books. I've stopped readin..."


--I can appreciate where you're coming from. But I find my reality boring. I like to look at different realities, and I am fascinated by the past. That's why I love historicals. I think it's actually harder to write historicals, especially if you are trying to do a good job of making it accurate.

Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "I am fairly good about compartmentalizing when it comes to genres. What I dislike is being mislead about what kind of book I'm reading. That bothers me because I feel like I didn't get what I sign..."

I like Ward's stories. In fact, I don't just like them I like them A LOT, even LRe, my least favourite of the 4 books I've read so far. Though I had my issues with it, its still a lot better than many books out there. And I like them for the same reason as you. The vampire world, to me, appears to be the human world with a few additions, but I still enjoy reading about their customs as well.

However, the only reason I can enjoy the Ward books now is because I never read her books written as Jessica Bird under the Silhouette(?)imprint. If I had I probably would have associated her Ward books as urban fantasy with elements of romance and decide not to read them.

I wouldn't have a problem with UF written by an author who I've associated with that genre. But when a romance author makes the switch its hard for me to follow them, regardless of how much I love them. I've thought of another perfect example Karen Marie Moning. I know I will never read her FEVER series. I know I will never read Kleypas's contemps.

I'm with you on your argument about erotica. I'm narrow-minded about certain things in this genre. I'll read erotica as long as it is between two consenting adults who are of the opposite sex. However, even with two people of the opposite sex, I won't read it if the sex is too far outside my comfort zone (extreme BDSM in large doses, golden showers etc). I won't read homosexual or lesbian erotica. I'll read a gay romance if 1) its a secondary story in a book I'm reading (I won't seek out individual books) and 2) if the door is closed on all the bedroom action.

The point of mentioning all this is that when an author switch from mainstream romance into this particular genre its even harder for me to follow them because some either take things to the extreme (sacrificing the story for sexual dalliances every other page. Lora Leigh!) or they bring in elements I don't want to read like I've described above.

I have a general question. When a person that reads historical romance for facts, what are they looking for?

When I read a historical romance, it's not teaching me anything. I don't read romance books to learn thing, regardless if it's a contemporary book, because they tend to have accuracy in them as well.

Davina wrote: "Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "I am fairly good about compartmentalizing when it comes to genres. What I dislike is being mislead about what kind of book I'm reading. That bothers me because..."

You really hit on an issue I have had with your last paragraph, Davina. I was having a bit of an issue because Jennifer Ashley (one of my newer fave historical authors) wrote a historical that had some erotic elements I wasn't comfortable with (it's mainstream historical romance), and I had to get past that to enjoy the book, which I did (but only by rationalizing why she put it in there). I feel that authors do have trouble keeping their genres separate. I know that she started writing some erotic stuff, and I won't be reading that. I hope that she will compartmentalize her erotica and keep it out of the mainstream historical romance, because I don't want to have to let her go as an author. I wish her all the success, but I'm not interested in reading in that genre, unless it's a book that has been rated Danielle-friendly erotic romance. The love scenes are about passion for me, not sexual exploration. So there are lines I don't want to see crossed in a romance.

Arch wrote: "I have a general question. When a person that reads historical romance for facts, what are they looking for?

When I read a historical romance, it's not teaching me anything. I don't read romance..."


--To answer your question, Arch. It's not so much about teaching a lesson, it's about authenticity. When I read a historical romance, I want the setting and the characters to feel like it is that time period. If I wanted to read a modern romance, I would. I like the Victorian period, and when I read a Victorian romance, I want to be immersed in that time period. I have learned a lot of history from historical romances that were actually accurate in what they include, and that's a side bonus. For me, the story has to ring authentic (at least in a vague sense) or it loses some value for me. I'm not saying the romance has to be a history book, because that would be dry and lose the point of being a source of entertainment.

I admit I'm a bit of a perfectionist, harder on myself than anyone else. That's why it was hard to work on my NaNoWriMo story because I am writing in the Edwardian period, and it required some research on my part. I want to do the story justice by making it real, and part of the realness is authenticity. It's paranormal, and I did do some research on the folklore I was using. And I did research on the language (I used a bit of Gaelic Irish language), and some Edwardian colloquial language as well.

It's a history buff thing for me.

I know plenty of historical romance fans who don't particularly care if a book is accurate.

Let me put it this way. If you were reading a fiction book that was set in the medical world, and the hero, who is a doctor, gave the patient two medicines that interact together to cause a fatal reaction, would you be okay if you read that and it was clear that the writer didn't know what she was writing about? Why even put those drugs in the story if you didn't research them and didn't know what they did? You could write about something else or something vague and avoid making that kind of mistake. It would bother me, because I think that was a relatively easy thing to look up and check before adding to a book, and it showed that the author didn't really care enough to try to make the story sound authentic. I'm not judging anyone here. Just how I would feel as a reader. I watch tv shows and I catch medical errors. I'm sorry, but it's my training coming out.

I hope I answered your question, from my viewpoint.

Also, I like the old fashioned values where people did have courtship and a lot waited until they got married to have sex. It's pretty hard to find modern books with those values.

I read for fun, just as I write for fun.

I don't look for accuracy in books, regardless if it's a historical book or contemporary book. Contemporary books have accuracy in them as well.

When I watch TV, I don't look for accuracy, because if I did, then I wouldn't be watching a lot of shows that I do.

I don't care for history. Don't get me wrong, some things are good to know. But, in romance books, I don't need to know history.

Everyone has different tastes. Nothing wrong with that. That's what makes the world round.

Everyone is unique and has unique tastes.

A book has to catch my attention, in order for me to read it.

Arch wrote: "A book has to catch my attention, in order for me to read it. "

I agree with you, Arch.