SBD -- What comes first

[jmc_bks]

Celebrate! 'Tis Monday! Smart Bitches Day! We have survived the holiday with our family and our loved ones (not necessarily the same thing, y'know), so rejoice!

I'm supposed to be doing work and studying for a final, so this is going to be quick. I'd say quick and dirty, but I have no smut in me at the moment. Maybe later, after my exam and the consumption of a couple of margaritas.

I watched the first episode of the original UK Queer as Folk. It was pretty good. The first episode of the US version is a total copy of it, lifted wholesale and plopped down in Pittsburgh. Except the names, of course. Stuart for Brian. Vince for Michael. Nathan for Justin. And I'm sure I'm going to enjoy the series. Except every time I look at the actor who plays Stuart (Aiden Gillen), instead of seeing the character, I see Carver Doone, a slimy character he played in an A&E/BBC production of Lorna Doone. It's distracting. Plus, I saw Brian Kinney first. I'm a creature of habit. Original versions of songs: Layla, Shameless, I Will Always Love You (The Cure, not Dolley Parton or Whitney Houston), etc. Original versions of movies. The original TV show, not the recent movie remake. Like I said, a creature of habit.

Anyhow, I'm thinking about romance readers and how we are influenced by what we read first, and again, are creatures of habit. For instance, a lot of readers are totally turned off of romance by the first dreck posing as a romance novel that they come across. Blech! they think. This is utter rubbish! It truly is trash and I'm not going to waste my time. Thus, they never know the brilliance of a Laura Kinsale or the humor of the early Bridgerton books or the futuristic NYC of Eve Dallas.

And often we foreclose types of stories or settings because they aren't to our taste. Some of us don't read contemporaries, or are leery of historicals (moi). Or despise paranormals.

Are we all sticks in the mud? I dunno.

I've written before that I started reading surreptitiously from Mommom's stash. I'm pretty sure that if I could find the books I started with, they'd be horrendous to me now. But the illicit thrill kept me reading, and eventually I stumbled across stuff that was good.

Did you fall in love with romance because you hit on a gold mine the first time out? Or was it perseverance and a search for something good that kept you in the romance reading pool? Are there settings that you refuse to read, no matter how good the author may be?

Just wondering.

Comments

[sarahf.livejournal.com]

I fell in love with that feeling in the pit of my stomach when the hero had to finally admit he fell in love. I distinctly remember the book I was reading when I felt it full-blown the first time, but I must have felt it before that a bit in order to have kept reading at all. But they were all M&B and they're ridiculous now.

Old M&B

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

I searched high and low for an old, old Harlequin Presents book that I read in junior high, since I had fond memories. [I think it was originally published as an M&B, set in South Africa.] What a mistake. In retrospect, I can only marvel that I kept reading romance and HPs.

[rosario001.livejournal.com]

I lucked out in that one of the first romance novels I read was Paradise, by Judith McNaught (a stripped copy bought from a sidewalk vendor in New York City. Hey, I was 14 and a foreigner; I had no idea what a stripped book was! I think I assumed the sidewalk vendor was the book version of those outlet stores that sell brand clothes with minor damage). Anyway, I've actually reread this one quite recently, and it's as good as I remembered.

Before Paradise, I *had* read some romance novels from my mom's shelves and some my grandma lent me (ever heard of Corin Tellado, the Spanish romance author even more prolific than Nora Roberts?). They were pretty bad, and even then, I realised they were bad. But they were novels where the romance was *the focus* of the book, and I loved that idea. Previously, I'd been reading books with romantic subplots and reading them pretty much just for the romance, so getting a book where the romance was the main thing and whatever else there was, was just a minor subplot, was wonderful.

So there I was, reading either insipid Corin Tellados or books about asshole heroes and doormat heroines, when I was blown away by Paradise. Reading it was a revelation. It showed me what a romance novel could be, and that there were books out there that were about the romance, but in which I wouldn't have to tolerate horrible characters and stupid plots just to get to read about two people falling in love.

Knowing this kept me a romance reader through all those dark pre-Internet years in which practically all the romance novels I could get in my local bookstore were by Catherine Coulter and her ilk.

Paradise

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I read Catherine Coulter early in my romance days. Now when I pick up her older stuff, I just cringe.

And I've heard of Corin Tellado, but never read her. Based on your description, it sounds like I haven't missed anything.

Paradise. I think I've read that one. Matt & Meredith? Big Mis? Maybe it is time for a re-read.

First romances

[(Anonymous)]

Hi, I found your blog through Beth's site.

By accident, my first two romances both happened to feature noble outlaw women dressed up in masks and avenging crimes done against innocents. I am an historian by training and even at 15, I loved historical settings. I should say that I would laugh and laugh at those first forays now, but I own them both. They made quite an impression on me. I've been reading and writing historicals ever since.

That said, it would take a pretty fantabulous concept and author to convince me to read a paranormal. The closest I ever came willingly was a book featuring a reincarnation storyline that was handled very very well. But vampires, shapeshifters -- so not my thing! I'll stick to history :) But my critique group (which I just blogged about through Beth's SBD) helps me keep from getting in a rut.

Carrie
http://lovelysalome.blogspot.com

Re: First romances

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

Hi, Carrie!

Noble outlaw women dressed up in masks and avenging crimes done against innocents.

Now, that's why I'm leery of historicals. Chicks-in-pants make me cringe. I'm sure they existed, but they seem like an anachronism and over done to me. How many suffragettes were there in 1812 really? There is an overabundance of them in Romancelandia, along with the hundreds of Dukes of Whatever.

Cheers,
jmc

Re: First romances

[(Anonymous)]

These happened to be late 1800s, both in America. Midnight Rose by the since-turned-inspirational Robin Lee Hatcher, set somewhere in New Mexico, I think. Decent, silly in most places -- heroine avenges her raped sister-in-law/best friend. Santana Rose by you've-never-heard-of-her Olga Bicos was set in New Orleans. FBI detective seeks outlaw woman who is robbing from an influential citizen (her husband, who just so happens to run a white slavery ring). It's huge, with three romance plots, and features all manner of fun -- voodoo, snakebites, shoot-outs, coach robberies, oral sex (eyes wide open for me there as a 15-yo). Dead sexy hero and a dead sexy side-kick, a young Cajun.

Yes, I read historicals back before 1804-1814 England became the center of the publishing universe. Sigh....

Carrie
http://lovelysalome.blogspot.com

Re: First romances

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

Another piece of my reluctance to read most historicals -- stuck in the English regency.

Santana Rose sounds interesting...but the FBI didn't exist until after 1900 at least, and wasn't called the FBI til J. Edgard Hoover came to power. Reading a reference to it in a 19th century-set book would drive me crazy.

Re: First romances

[(Anonymous)]

My mistake. He wasn't FBI but Secret Service, I think, checking on the villain's counterfeit scheme -- which was the initial function of the Secret Service.

Re: First romances

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

Okay then :) Probably wouldn't drive me crazy.