Free and bargain romance ebooks + Discussion February 2014

[FizzyWater]

Doesn't Sourcebooks release the Grace Burrowes ebooks? I would put them in the same category as Julia Quinn. She's actually a favorite of mine, although some might not like her men (which I consider more beta than alpha for the most part).

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Doesn't Sourcebooks release the Grace Burrowes ebooks? I would put them in the same category as Julia Quinn. She's actually a favorite of mine, although some might not like her men (which I consider more beta than alpha for the most part).

Yes they do. I've read her books aren't terrible accurate and could be set in any setting. I have not read her but I have heard this from several people.

Here's a comment from Jane at DA from a post on her blog.

Jane
May 08, 2012 @ 18:22:36

@Loosheesh: Just from reading the review, it sounds like Burrowes still isn’t doing any research in the historical genre. I still question why she is even writing historicals. She could port these books to a small town and have the same feel and not be bound by the restrictions of history. The very basis of this book – a child adopted and legitimated – could not have happened. This line too is very telling “She’s a genius with money.” With what money? Is she in the trade? Wouldn’t most of their money come from tenant rents and the land?

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by kg3

5 FREE from Ellora's Cave:

All of these are also free from ARe:

Lucy's Lover

Ellora's Cavemen: Jewels of the Nile I

Desert of the Damned

Sarael's Reading

Ravenous

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by NixLapi

And Blossom - what's that them I've seen you mention for historical romances which are pretty much contemporaries in fancy dress? I need to make a shelf on GR for these! Just DNF'd Season for Temptation because of it - I'm not usually a stickler for historical accuracy, but this one just felt wrong from the get-go.

Okay it seems my library had this book so I decided to see how bad it was. OMG! I got to page 14 and could go no further. Romantic times gave it 4 stars.

The water crescent sandwiches was just too much. Two pages full of babble about them. The dialogue is clunky and the writing is all over the place. How far did you get before you gave up?

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Yes they do. I've read her books aren't terrible accurate and could be set in any setting. I have not read her but I have heard this from several people.

Ah. I'll admit, I've assume some of her situations like that are not historically accurate (illegitimate family members accepted into the family, babies/children adopted and given precedence in the inheritance order).

I'll also admit, I've only been reading historical romance with any consistency for maybe the last five or so years (and maybe irregularly five years earlier than that). But it seems to me almost everything I've read is like that. The woman all refuse to marry except for love. They all seem to run their households because of inefficient or absent male relatives. They've all managed to have "some idea about sex" because of exposure to farm animals or randy servants. They're all friends with their servants. And they all seem to decide they're going to remain unmarried, so they might as well experience sex, even though there's no (safe) way to avoid pregnancy.

They definitely don't read like Austen, but I've never read anything - except maybe some of Lynn Connolly's early works - that gave the same feeling to me.

I do notice some things....Amanda Quick is always having her heroines say "Good grief!", for example.

But I'll admit, I assume that the historicals are written the way they are because young woman today don't want to read about powerless woman who marry at 16 to men more than 3x their age.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Ah. I'll admit, I've assume some of her situations like that are not historically accurate (illegitimate family members accepted into the family, babies/children adopted and given precedence in the inheritance order).

I'll also admit, I've only been reading historical romance with any consistency for maybe the last five or so years (and maybe irregularly five years earlier than that). But it seems to me almost everything I've read is like that. The woman all refuse to marry except for love. They all seem to run their households because of inefficient or absent male relatives. They've all managed to have "some idea about sex" because of exposure to farm animals or randy servants. They're all friends with their servants. And they all seem to decide they're going to remain unmarried, so they might as well experience sex, even though there's no (safe) way to avoid pregnancy.

They definitely don't read like Austen, but I've never read anything - except maybe some of Lynn Connolly's early works - that gave the same feeling to me.

I do notice some things....Amanda Quick is always having her heroines say "Good grief!", for example.

But I'll admit, I assume that the historicals are written the way they are because young woman today don't want to read about powerless woman who marry at 16 to men more than 3x their age.

None of the historicals I have read had any of that except being friends with their servants. The problems you describe is what is wrong with the stuff being written today. I'll stick with my old school's romance where a young heroine is thrust into situations beyond her control and yet she learns to triumph and conquer her hero and it is done without the need to modernize the heroine.

That's the problem with authors today they all follow that same formula who tried to justify the heroines action for why she is the way she is. Most probably have never even done enough research to realize that it just wouldn't be done in that time period.

I just read two historicals where the author had two unusual heroines and it work. The first heroine was raised in convent and was preparing to become a superior who would handle the same task as a man for estates but she is suddenly given in marriage and she knows no better than to take the reigns and handles things which drives her poor husband crazy because he is very alpha. The second the heroine is a Laird of her clan and given in marriage by the king to a English knight. She is strong woman who must learn to be a wife to a man she hates who goes out of his way to win her love. Both stories work despite the heroines being very strong woman they didn't seem to be out of their time period or modernized in any way.

I try to stay as far away from mistoricals as I can.

[Keslynn]

Originally Posted by NixLapi

And Blossom - what's that them I've seen you mention for historical romances which are pretty much contemporaries in fancy dress? I need to make a shelf on GR for these! Just DNF'd Season for Temptation because of it - I'm not usually a stickler for historical accuracy, but this one just felt wrong from the get-go.

I DNF Season for Surrender by the same author. I can't comment on the historical accuracy since my expertise is the Early Modern period. I can however say that the book failed for me on many levels.

I do think that there are a lot of misconceptions about history in general. I also think there's a lot of "artistic license" among romance authors, even the ones with better researching skills. I mean, really, how often could a lord marry a poor woman without any consequence? How often would he be able to rub shoulders with poorer women who weren't servants? Not to mention, why are all the books about lords? Where are all the merchants and other classes? Plus, the biggie, times were pretty crappy for women.

Do I always mind these things? No. I think they stick out more when the book is badly written or just doesn't click.

[NixLapi]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Not Blossom, but I think the term you're looking for is "wallpaper historical".

Thank you!

Originally Posted by Blossom

Okay it seems my library had this book so I decided to see how bad it was. OMG! I got to page 14 and could go no further. Romantic times gave it 4 stars.

The water crescent sandwiches was just too much. Two pages full of babble about them. The dialogue is clunky and the writing is all over the place. How far did you get before you gave up?

Not a lot further than that! All the sentences starting with "so" and "anyway" just irked me too much. So I curled up with a Lorraine Heath and stayed up way past bedtime reading!

DA has it right, there needs to be a way to easily separate the meta-regency from the really historically accurate.

Originally Posted by Keslynn

I DNF Season for Surrender by the same author. I can't comment on the historical accuracy since my expertise is the Early Modern period. I can however say that the book failed for me on many levels.

Do I always mind these things? No. I think they stick out more when the book is badly written or just doesn't click.

Lords and billionaires, the grass-must-be-greener for us mere mortals. lol I totally agree, I don't always even notice many an inaccuracy that I'm sure would drive a historian to distraction - but it needs to at least make an attempt, and be well written!

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Doesn't Sourcebooks release the Grace Burrowes ebooks? I would put them in the same category as Julia Quinn. She's actually a favorite of mine, although some might not like her men (which I consider more beta than alpha for the most part).

Oh good to know! I've been collecting her books but have yet to read one, maybe I need to do that before hoarding more of them - I'm not sure how I feel about betas. lol

[Jane A]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Ah. I'll admit, I've assume some of her situations like that are not historically accurate ....... babies/children adopted and given precedence in the inheritance order).

This is a deal breaker for me! There is absolutely no way it is possible and anyone who has read historical romance to any extent knows this. Some of the other scenarios you mention are not probable, but at least they are not against the law!

Edit to add: I made the assumption you are talking about title and entailed estate inheritances, the laws about which are very strictly enforced. Other types of inheritances may not be dependent upon blood descendents.

[Keslynn]

Originally Posted by NixLapi

Lords and billionaires, the grass-must-be-greener for us mere mortals. lol I totally agree, I don't always even notice many an inaccuracy that I'm sure would drive a historian to distraction - but it needs to at least make an attempt, and be well written!

Well-written is definitely key!

It makes me roll my eyes how many romances - historical and contemporary - feature people who never have to worry about money! Sometimes the heroine starts out poor but she almost always ends up filthy rich by marrying the hero. Must be nice...

[Keslynn]

Has GoodReads been loading slowly or not completely for anyone else?

I've been having this problem for a couple weeks.

[hannahi]

Who do you think are some good "non-mistorical" authors writing today? I have a lot of backlist titles that are more meaty and to my knowledge, historically accurate. Carla Kelly is one who comes to mind. She still writes for a smaller press and Harlequin Historical. I liked the first trilogy that Tessa Dare wrote, but I can't get past the description of her newest book with all the modern movie references to get interested in it.

[cfrizz]

I can't really read historicals anymore simply because I can no longer accept the old school rendering of the second class treatment of the females who get sold off to some older man then miraculously falls in love with him in spite of practically being his property.

I simply matured out of historicals.

So I had to find another genre within romance to read where the women actually were written to be strong and independent. I settled for Paranormal and now I'm enjoying my books again.

[Blue2u]

Some of the Entangled Indulgence are on sale at Amazon if you're interested. Link to get started, but again not all are on sale so click carefully.

[It's difficult for me to post these because of geo-restrictions I get skewed prices being from Canada] Anyways, trying to be helpful.

ETA looks like some of the Entangled Brazen are coming on sale as well.

[pisceschick]

Originally Posted by Blossom

I hear Tessa Dare's newest novels has like 20 or something movies references in it. People seem to think that's brilliant.

Seriously?

Originally Posted by Blossom

I think a list needs to be made for these type stories so I can avoid them. I think they should have there own genre kind of like Steampunk is Victorian and scifi these are a mix of contemporary elements with modern characters in long dresses.

You know that group you made at Goodreads? Groups have shelves that we'd all be able to add to, and unlike Listopia would be not subject to SP-authorial spam. I'd be very, very glad to help...

Thanks for that blog link!

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Doesn't Sourcebooks release the Grace Burrowes ebooks? I would put them in the same category as Julia Quinn. She's actually a favorite of mine, although some might not like her men (which I consider more beta than alpha for the most part).

I have to admit that GB is my shameless wallpaper weakness. I know her history's not terribly strong, but I *love* those beta heroes of hers.

I'm trying to remember which character Jane was talking about. The only illegitimate offspring I can think of that has something that's normally inherited was given an Earldom that had reverted back to the crown because the Earl had died without a surviving heir. There wasn't anyone from other branches of that family that qualified, and the hero that was given the title earned it because of his superior wartime service.

Originally Posted by cfrizz

I can't really read historicals anymore simply because I can no longer accept the old school rendering of the second class treatment of the females who get sold off to some older man then miraculously falls in love with him in spite of practically being his property.

I simply matured out of historicals.

So I had to find another genre within romance to read where the women actually were written to be strong and independent. I settled for Paranormal and now I'm enjoying my books again.

And I can't stand paranormals because those strong and independent heroines to me are often written as TSTL or mega-bitchy. To each their own, then?