Quote:
Originally Posted by Atunah
I just looked at the original cover on this one on goodreads and its bombastic. 
And that blurb, I want I want. 
The thing with the Jo Beverley and such from those days is that they are never boring to me. They are big and over the top. Every time I see a back list title re-released I am afraid that the author neutered it for current audiences. I think Marsha Canham did so with one of the scenes in one of her books where it was somewhat forced seduction. There where a few authors that "fixed" their books that way. I prefer to read them as they were.
The Flame and the Flower wouldn't be what it is without those scenes for example. But the newer romances in general don't have any of that.
An Arranged Marriage was a 3 star for me. I didn't like it a whole lot either. The second is better, but still a difficult one. But sometimes I want that complicated stuff when I read romance. I like to change it up. |
Exactly. I really need to read the Flame and The Flower.
I too am disappointed when I find out a book has been edited. Patrica Rice I think it is just said she is edited all her old romances from the 80s and removed like 20,000 words from each book. This is sooo sad.
Quote:
Patricia Rice
JUN 11, 2014 @ 16:34:28
I am currently editing some of my old 80′s and 90′s historical romances, many written on a typewriter. I’m easily cutting out 20k words without cutting a single scene because these books were seriously unedited back then. Readers expected big books and we gave it to them, complete with every adverb known to mankind.
Those books were written before the proliferation of the internet and cable TV. People needed to have verbal pictures drawn of sailing ships and tropical islands and Big Ben. These days, not so much.
So there are quite a few reasons for the changes over the decades, but I do miss the meaty stories.
|