Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I just read my first book by Sarah M.Eden. which I thought by the synopsis was going to be a sweet romantic comedy.Instead it is a horrible book with a villainous uncle you wish you could see die a horrible death,and a useless hero that does nothing to protect the heroine from the uncle,nor had he ever declared his feelings for her yet when I stopped reading at 81% on my Kindle! Certainly not my definition of a romance!
The heroes I fall for leave no doubt in the heroine's mind that he loves her.I totally hate so-called romances where the couple spend the entire book second-guessing 'does he/she love me or not'?

I don't like guys like that in real life either. Sorry, maybe some think it's more macho or cool to give off that aloof attitude, but in my opinion, it's really pathetic if they have to put up such a strong defense line to guard their feelings. I think it's actually a flag of emotional weakness.

Good way to put it Loren.

Who wants a guy who can't/won't open up to you?

I want the hero to have a soft spot in his heart for the heroine,and for her to be able to feel secure in/about his love. How/why else could she trust him?

I want to read romances that make me feel good,not agonizing ones!

me too!! I'm not a huge fan of these new Alpha males in romance novels where he's just so testosterone heavy that I can't possibly see how that relationship is going to work out. They're such opposites that it feels like the heroine has to change herself completely to be with this type of "hero".
so of course there'll be alot of constant angst and I just can't deal!!

Tamara wrote: "me too!! I'm not a huge fan of these new Alpha males in romance novels where he's just so testosterone heavy that I can't possibly see how that relationship is going to work out. They're such oppo..."

Yep, you said it so well,Tamara! It makes me sad how many romance authors are writing books where TSTL[TOO STUPID TO LIVE]females idolize a macho male who is a jerk!

Where are the smart females who have the strong "self-esteem" that they are no way so desperate that they would give such a guy any notice at all.

Are mothers today failing in raising such strong girls?

Hm. You guys are making me worried about the hero in my own book. Without saying too much (since I hope you will all eventually READ it), I wouldn't say he's angsty, but he is rather stiff. I'd compare him more to Darcy, who is a bit stiff emotionally. You wouldn't call it angst though. Right? Definitely not an Alpha male, though. Certainly not!

You're right, of course, Noe. Thanks. Characters will act true to themselves, so there's not much I could do about it, anyway. :)

Becky wrote: "Hm. You guys are making me worried about the hero in my own book. Without saying too much (since I hope you will all eventually READ it), I wouldn't say he's angsty, but he is rather stiff. I'd ..."

Aaaah Darcy, now for me that's Matthew Macfadyen in the 2005 film, sorry but I'm not a huge fan of the book. I would have kicked him to the curb exactly as Lizzie did, until he suitably groveled and she discovered his good side, so he was worth loving and forgiving. In other words he definitely redeemed himself.

However, as I said, I totally love the film, the book is just eh, to me, but I agree with Noe's advice. :]

All right, then! Let's talk Darcy. I hope you've seen other versions of P&P (I'm assuming you have). By my count (only those with the same title), there are 4. I haven't checked IMDB to make sure. The old Laurence Olivier version, the Masterpiece Theatre one that came out in the 80s, Colin Firth's version, and Matthew McFadyen. Which is everybody's favorite? We should totally come up with a dream cast. Sigh. This is my favorite pastime...

I have definitely seen and also enjoy the Colin Firth version, but am not enticed by it to purchase the DVD, like I was the Macfadyen/Knightley version, and I've lost count how many times I have re-watched it... plus when it comes on TV. :D

Another reason it is my favorite versions because I prefer 'all' of the supporting actors in that version, over the Colin Firth version.

Seems like I have also seen the Olivier version, and once was enough.

The Olivier version is good - well, it's hard to beat Olivier as Darcy. My complaint (and I haven't seen it in years) is that they set it in the Victorian period rather than regency. Not that I'm hung up on regency costumes (makes all the women look pregnant), but I like accuracy.

I agree that supporting characters can make a big difference. In the Kiera Knightly version, I definitely prefer Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennett, Rosamund Pike as Jane, Rupert Friend as Wickham, and what's his name as Bingley. I'm not entirely sure I like Kiera herself best as Elizabeth, and definitely not Matthew McFadyen, though I like him. Just not best. Not that I think Colin Firth is the be all and end all in Darcydom. I think I preferred the Masterpiece Theater Darcy, played by (excuse me while I look it up) David Rintoul. In that version, Elizabeth Garvie played Elizabeth and she was very good.

Personally, I would like to see Benedict Cumberbatch or Tom Hiddleston play Darcy. Ah, well.

In my opinion THE ONLY Pride and Prejudice out there is the BBC version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. The casting, the costumes, the location, it was all done so beautifully. I personally don't think they could have done better. When I watch it, I feel like I'm watching history. And that, as my Mom puts it, is timeless movie magic.

So, how do the readers of romance here feel about 'ANGST' in your romance reads?

Misunderstandings, triangles, cheating, threat/danger hanging over them, most often in the form of a psycho ex boyfriend/husband of the heroine?

I really hate these plot devices, myself, and also insist on a HEA! :D

I agree that every love story should end with a HEA or what's the point?

Becky wrote: "I agree that every love story should end with a HEA or what's the point?"

Exactly, the way I feel! Though I would not mind at all if an author wrote a romance where an unworthy character gets dumped for a much more worthy well-developed side character, lol!

For me it is the love triangle that puts me off a book or a series. It is so overdone! I have a series I am still reading and 15 books in they are still unable to choose which man is for her but heaven help if they date someone else too.

Oh gosh yes, triangles are another romance pet peeve of mine!

You must have extraordinary patience to stick with a series that has prolonged a triangle for 15 books! No way could I tolerate that, lol! I would not have stuck with it longer than 2 books!

It helps that they are quick and light reads. I did just tell a friend of mine that I am almost done with them though. You can only wait for so long....

Desiree wrote: "For me it is the love triangle that puts me off a book or a series. It is so overdone! I have a series I am still reading and 15 books in they are still unable to choose which man is for her but he..."

That doesn't happen to be the Stephanie Plum books? I haven't read all of them, but she's always flopping back and forth between Morelli and Ranger. They are funny, though, and I don't think of them as romances, so I don't mind the waffling so much.

C. wrote: "So, how do the readers of romance here feel about 'ANGST' in your romance reads?

Misunderstandings, triangles, cheating, threat/danger hanging over them, most often in the form of a psycho ex boyfriend/husband of the heroine?

I really hate these plot devices, myself, and also insist on a HEA! :D ..."

My biggest pet peeve is when the conflict of the story is wholly that the hero and heroine just don't TALK to each other, and let a simple misunderstanding stuff them completely up. For Pete's sake, sit down with a cup of coffee and figure it out!

My favorite books are the ones where an external conflict throws the H/h together, and they have to grow in order to overcome the threat. They have to learn to work together. The trope of the crazy ex-boyfriend overdone, although I did have a crazy-drug-dealing ex-girlfriend as a villain in one of my books.

And yes, the HEA is the whole point, right? I also dislike getting to the end of a book and realizing it is a two part story arc. Sometimes it's my own fault for not paying close enough attention, but I hate the surprise cliffhangers. (Especially when the next book costs twice as much!)

C. wrote: "It makes me sad how many romance authors are writing books where TSTL[TOO STUPID TO LIVE]females idolize a macho male who is a jerk!

Where are the smart females who have the strong "self-esteem" that they are no way so desperate that they would give such a guy any notice at all...."

Nothing turns me off faster than a TSTL heroine, and the alpha jerk has to be believable when he softens up for the heroine. I much prefer a Beta male, who is strong and protective, but doesn't have to act like an a-hole to everyone.

If anyone is interested, I started a group on Facebook called Strong Women in Suspense, for readers (and writers) who love to see Strong Women represented in life and in fiction. It is a closed group, but I welcome anyone who wants to share inspiration and information about Strong Women.
If you request to join, I will add you. :-)

Good posts, Kristi. Your Facebook group sounds like something many readers of romantic suspense would enjoy,but I myself, do not have nor want a FB account.

I just hate romance in general. Haha!

There are so many other stories to tell ...

Lyndsey wrote: "I just hate romance in general. Haha!

There are so many other stories to tell ..."

That is true, there are, but there are also so many romantic stories to tell, like castles, and knights, and lords saving maidens, plus cowboys, and men in uniform......Oo-la-la, (swoon)! :D

Kristi wrote: "Desiree wrote: "For me it is the love triangle that puts me off a book or a series. It is so overdone! I have a series I am still reading and 15 books in they are still unable to choose which man i..."

I didn't mean to not respond!!!! I gave up on that one like 6 books in. The series I was referencing is Hannah Swenson (joanne fluke). However she finally chose someone just not one of the two that we have formed attachments to over 17 books!

Desiree wrote: "I didn't mean to not respond!!!!

No worries, Desiree - we all have lives. ;-)

I gave up on that one like 6 books in.

On Stephanie Plum, I haven't read them in order - but I had the pleasure of listening to the audio versions of several of them while driving truck across country. Nothing makes I-80 Kansas go by faster than having one great belly laugh after another. (As I said, I don't really consider them romances, just a fun way to pass time.)

The series I was referencing is Hannah Swenson (joanne fluke). However she finally chose someone just not one of the two that we have formed attachments to over 17 books! ..."

I have not read Joanne Fluke. I'll have to check it out. Is this her?

Joanne Fluke

Yes that is her. Lots of cookie recipes and very quick and easy reads.

Desiree wrote: "Yes that is her. Lots of cookie recipes and very quick and easy reads."

Nice!

Lyndsey wrote: "I just hate romance in general. Haha!

There are so many other stories to tell ..."

I hate romances in general as well, they tend to mildly offend me at best. I think the only romance books I've read are those written by Jane Austen.

C. wrote: "So, how do the readers of romance here feel about 'ANGST' in your romance reads?"

I enjoy angst in a romance as long as:

(a) it feels appropriate to the situation and the character, and
(b) it's peppered with humour and feel-good moments. 

It's pages and pages of one depressing scene or tensed situation after another that puts me off.

And of course, HEA is a must :-)

Re: Ramla Zareen, I could enjoy a book like the ones you enjoy, and so agree with the "must have"~ HEA! :D

C. wrote: "Re: Ramla Zareen, I could enjoy a book like the ones you enjoy, and so agree with the "must have"~ HEA! :D"

Lol. Thank you, Chris, I'm glad you agree :-)