FREE/BARGAIN — Romance & Discussion

[library addict]

Weekly Report:

Read:
Finished my complete Psy/Changeling series reread in chronological order and reread some other stuff.

It may sound crazy, but I just didn't have the mental energy this week to invest in new-to-me characters by reading any of my new books.


Purchased:

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by ferrywoman

Ha! I don't.

I just think it's not about frequency but rather a personal expectation and choice. A sex scene or two more can "take away from the story" for one reader, "deepen the intimacy" for another, "inconsequential so may skip/but may still read" for others, whatever the romance subgenre.

Filler sex doesn't have anything to do with a character arc so it's quite pointless unless you are reading erotic romance. That stuff is not written for the story although there are a few exceptions like the inside out series.



Sent from my XT1528

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I expect a ton of sex in erotic romance. Other books, it just gets distracting.
I have read most of the J D Robb books. The romantic gestures were nice, but after about the second book I skipped the rabbits.

These books don't have filler sex in them and are wonderfully done at least the first nine I have read.

Filler sex is when there is more sex than plot. The author prolongs the story by writing page after page of a long drawn out sex that just seems out of place.

Filler sex isn't couples being intimate in scenes or just being lovable. It's long drag out play by play sex that takes up pages of what could have been a short scene there is no character development. It's pointless to the story or relationship.

Sent from my XT1528

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by library addict

Weekly Report:

Read:
Finished my complete Psy/Changeling series reread in chronological order and reread some other stuff.

It may sound crazy, but I just didn't have the mental energy this week to invest in new-to-me characters by reading any of my new books.


Purchased:

I'm half way through Archangel's Storm then have to wait for the novellas which should have read before Storm to come available before continuing. So far all heroines have been severely abused or gone through something severely traumatic. I don't think your series was same way if I remember right?

Sent from my XT1528

[copyrite]

Back when I used to read a lot of fanfic in various fandoms it used to be referred to as PWP or Porn Without Plot, a lot of gettin' it on, not much story or character development.

[library addict]

Originally Posted by Blossom

I'm half way through Archangel's Storm then have to wait for the novellas which should have read before Storm to come available before continuing. So far all heroines have been severely abused or gone through something severely traumatic. I don't think your series was same way if I remember right?

Not really, at least not in the way I think you mean, but maybe. The Psy/Changeling series does have both female and male characters who have had traumatic pasts, but it fits the storyline and much of the story wouldn't work without it.

Spoiler:

The premise of the first story arc is Silence. The world is made up of three races: Humans, Changelings (who shapeshift into various animals), and the Psy. The Psy have psychic abilities, but also high rates of insanity so 100 years ago (before the start of the series) they decided to condition all emotion out of their children. But the means by which this is done, particularly for those with deadly abilities, would be considered abusive and traumatic.

Plus some of the other characters have had their parents killed and other traumatic events in their childhoods.

But it's really both heroines and heroes equally. And it's such an integral part of the plot so it's not gratuitous.

I've only read one full-length book in the Guild Hunters series (I think it was book #8), so I can't really compare the two series.

[ferrywoman]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Filler sex doesn't have anything to do with a character arc so it's quite pointless unless you are reading erotic romance. That stuff is not written for the story although there are a few exceptions like the inside out series.

That you mention "a few exceptions" is case in point. Also, pardon me but I was going on the assumption that anything beyond the [maybe] three sex scenes you mentioned is "filler" for you. My post wasn't meant as a defense of erotic romance but as an example of how your personal limit may not always apply.

But, hey, I'm just glad the romance genre is big enough to accommodate both our tastes and others', and that there's a part of the market that responds and/or adapts to evolving demands and readership.

(As a sidenote, if you're referring to the Jones series, I wouldn't understand your baseline since I DNF'd the first two books.)

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Blossom

These books don't have filler sex in them and are wonderfully done at least the first nine I have read.

Filler sex is when there is more sex than plot. The author prolongs the story by writing page after page of a long drawn out sex that just seems out of place.

Filler sex isn't couples being intimate in scenes or just being lovable. It's long drag out play by play sex that takes up pages of what could have been a short scene there is no character development. It's pointless to the story or relationship.

Sent from my XT1528

This goes to show that we have different ideas of rabbit scenes. I found the J D Robb rabbit scenes rather long and drawn out. Potentially beautiful but I was not reading them for the romance per se. I was reading for the drama.

I do know what you mean about filler sex though. I also don't like nudity without a purpose. At least the Robb books had that purpose. Or while we are at it, I don't like the F word thrown in just for cussing sake. It should be used sparingly. Not just because the author can use it.

[ferrywoman]

Originally Posted by copyrite

Back when I used to read a lot of fanfic in various fandoms it used to be referred to as PWP or Porn Without Plot, a lot of gettin' it on, not much story or character development.

The good old days, yes? But this type of stories is a whole different beast, and some may even be classified under another genre: erotica. (Of course, we're talking about poorly defined [sub]genres so even this is hard to quantify.)

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

This goes to show that we have different ideas of rabbit scenes..

I would say the difference actually lies in our ideas of how certain rabbit scenes are considered organic and relevant to the story/characters/relationship, and how [un]enjoyable they are generally. We have our own biases and limits, after all, and take things in differently.

Which is why I'm now exiting this convo.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

This goes to show that we have different ideas of rabbit scenes. I found the J D Robb rabbit scenes rather long and drawn out. Potentially beautiful but I was not reading them for the romance per se. I was reading for the drama.

I do know what you mean about filler sex though. I also don't like nudity without a purpose. At least the Robb books had that purpose. Or while we are at it, I don't like the F word thrown in just for cussing sake. It should be used sparingly. Not just because the author can use it.

But they are romance. Just like Catherine Coulter's FBI series is romance. They may have mystery in them but the core is the romance.
These are called thriller romance which is a harder version of romantic suspense and quite popular.

Now Stephanie Plum isn't romance. It has romantic elements but it doesn't follow the HEA and focus on the h/h relationship.



Sent from my XT1528

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by ferrywoman

That you mention "a few exceptions" is case in point. Also, pardon me but I was going on the assumption that anything beyond the [maybe] three sex scenes you mentioned is "filler" for you. My post wasn't meant as a defense of erotic romance but as an example of how your personal limit may not always apply.

But, hey, I'm just glad the romance genre is big enough to accommodate both our tastes and others', and that there's a part of the market that responds and/or adapts to evolving demands and readership.

(As a sidenote, if you're referring to the Jones series, I wouldn't understand your baseline since I DNF'd the first two books.)

I should have clarified long drawn out sex scenes. More than three and it's just pointless in a romance and takes away from the plot. Erotic Romance is written for the sex so I expect more sex in them and seeing I don't read this genre much anymore when I go into reading a romance I expect more plot, character development and less sex.

Why did you DNF Jones' books? Was it the BDSM part? I thought they were brilliant. Sarah and Chris were so interesting. The whole Rebecca storyline was done very well.

Sent from my XT1528

[booklover6]

Ok, I went back 5 pages, and I still don't know who this "Jones" is that is referred to. Some hint, please?

[library addict]

The in Death series isn't romance, it is mystery or futuristic procedural.

The first book could be considered a romance since it did end in a HEA. But the focus of each book is the murder mystery. The relationship between Eve and Roarke is part of an overarching story, but the series has never been labeled as romance or romantic suspense.

[Keslynn]

Originally Posted by ferrywoman

I would say the difference actually lies in our ideas of how certain rabbit scenes are considered organic and relevant to the story/characters/relationship, and how [un]enjoyable they are generally. We have our own biases and limits, after all, and take things in differently.

I agree. It is definitely a matter of personal taste, and also how one "reads" the book. Hearing a rabbit scene is a different experience than reading and may be a factor in determining if it feels like filler or an integral part of the story. (Btw, I am still laughing about the neighbors maybe hearing risqué stuff. I have worried about that myself when not using my headphones.)

I don't have a number limit past which all other sex scenes are filler. I rely on my feelings at the time. Do I feel like the scene added something to the story or some emotional connection? If not, I personally consider it filler. Your mileage will, of course, vary.

[Terisa de morgan]

This topic about "sex / no sex / too much sex" is the same to romance as "Is Heinlein right-wing" in SCi-Fi (Spain, I say). I don't think two persons see any novel in the same way, so it's something I try to stay clear... and go by my linkings.