The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yup, that's me, too, and why I try to avoid that sort of thing. I will never understand why Amazon tries to push Romances to me, especially romances with extant kids. (I think it's because there's a sub-sub-genre of Steampunk, typically written by female authors, that invariably...let's see...invariably ends up with a romance theme, no matter how Independent Woman it starts out. They see that I plow through [mostly, altho some have been wall-tossers!] and read those, and so they think, "yup, that's it, give her another 3 minutes, and she'll be in the Regency Aisle!")

Hitch

I actually read a romance once in a while, and I don't mind romantic subplots in other genres, even though I'm an absolutely unromantic person in real life. But I've never liked romances where kids play an important role. I prefer the main couple having kids after the end of the book, off-screen, if they have to have them.

And all those trashy romances with "baby" in the title... just yuck.

[ownedbycats]

It's a bit disappointing to read what looks to be an interesting genre book and then realize halfway through it was actually a disguised romance novel.

Also cozy mystery romances are the worst.

[Sirtel]

Also, what's with the billionaire craze that has been going on in the romance and erotica genres for years now? Sure, I guess I know the psychological explanation, but still, it just seems unspeakably stupid. Makes me want to puke every time I see "billionaire" in a title.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I actually read a romance once in a while, and I don't mind romantic subplots in other genres, even though I'm an absolutely unromantic person in real life. But I've never liked romances where kids play an important role. I prefer the main couple having kids after the end of the book, off-screen, if they have to have them.

And all those trashy romances with "baby" in the title... just yuck.

Oh, hey, I don't mind a romance subplot. Or the real thing (Austen) once in a while to refresh the palate. Why the heck not? But I don't care to feel that I've been bait-and-switched. That's not happy-making for me.

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

It's a bit disappointing to read what looks to be an interesting genre book and then realize halfway through it was actually a disguised romance novel.

PURRRRzackyly!

Also cozy mystery romances are the worst.

Mmmmm...you know, I'd have to think about this. I'm a bit picky, in some ways, around my cozies so I may not have run into what you mean. You can virtually guarantee that if your female detective protag is not hideous, is under hell, 50 years old or older, and single, (In today's "X is the new Y" culture, Jessica Fletcher is probably dating 3 men at once...) that a romance subplot will arrive somehow. Even if it's through the backdoor. I stopped reading the Stephanie Plums some time back--probably just overloaded--but those have at least one or two never-ending romance subplots, if memory serves. [shrug].

But I did borrow a book, travelling someplace, a while back desperation and sure as shooitin', tweren't no mystery. T'was a romance novel, with a very shallow and uninteresting mystery just plopped right in there. Disappointing.

Hitch

[maddz]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Also, what's with the billionaire craze that has been going on in the romance and erotica genres for years now? Sure, I guess I know the psychological explanation, but still, it just seems unspeakably stupid. Makes me want to puke every time I see "billionaire" in a title.

I see 'billionaire' in the title and immediately dismiss it from my recommendations list... Along with any cover featuring a scantily-clad couple with overt muscular development.

Just because I replaced a bunch of old-school Regency paperbacks from the 1980s and before also doesn't mean I want to read what passes for Regency nowadays. Again, the cover art is a dead give-away; usually a female with her clothing in disarray looking like it's about to fall off, along with loose locks. No respectable woman in that period would wear her hair like that once she went past puberty.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by maddz

Just because I replaced a bunch of old-school Regency paperbacks from the 1980s and before also doesn't mean I want to read what passes for Regency nowadays. Again, the cover art is a dead give-away.

They are putting "modern" cover art on older titles now
If you like Bridgerton then you like this...

Bridgerton* (TV or Book) sounds terrible, but I do read real Regency era books as well as ones by Heyer & Aiken**. And the publishers change the covers to cropped photos with a Bridgerton sticker. Ugh. At least with Calibre you can find the older covers.

[** Maybe some of Aiken's are better than Heyer (avoids heavy use of Cant), though Heyer practically invented the modern genre of it. Maybe some of Heyer's detective novels are better than her Georgian & Regency ones?]
[*Or whatever the spelling is]

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Quoth

They are putting "modern" cover art on older titles now
If you like Bridgerton then you like this...

Bridgerton* (TV or Book) sounds terrible, but I do read real Regency era books as well as ones by Heyer & Aiken**. And the publishers change the covers to cropped photos with a Bridgerton sticker. Ugh. At least with Calibre you can find the older covers.

[** Maybe some of Aiken's are better than Heyer (avoids heavy use of Cant), though Heyer practically invented the modern genre of it. Maybe some of Heyer's detective novels are better than her Georgian & Regency ones?]
[*Or whatever the spelling is]

I tried Heyer once, more than 25 years ago. And I must admit I DNFed it. Because I couldn't understand a word of what some characters were saying. That was pre-Internet, and those words weren't in the dictionary I had, so I had no way to look them up somewhere. No definitions or explanations were included in the book.

[ownedbycats]

The first book of a series is KDP Select exclusive, but the rest aren't. Wtf?

EDIT: Also, that awkward moment when you see an interesting book summary, then scroll down and recognize the name of a Christian publisher. Yeah never mind.

[Uncle Robin]

That "pull at a thread" kind of a niggle when you read an anachronism in the wrong direction: A book I'm reading was first written in 2019, and set then, but includes this around the 37% mark from an English DCI character:

Tom looked surprised. “She’s at Magdalen? I was at Trinity. We don’t get many American undergraduates at Oxford.”

I tried to ignore it, but after a few more similarly anachronistic depictions of the UK's 'otherness' from the US by the protagonist (a history graduate), I checked the Oxford website and sure enough the 'foreign' country with the largest number of undergrads there is the US. Maybe I should cut the author some slack since it's her debut, but it's not filling me with an urge to read her next.

[Asawi]

I am so glad to see that others share my dislike for romance plots thrown in where they add absolutely nothing to the book. Recently I read a crime novel that I really enjoyed, in part because of the strong female protagonist and her great non-romantic friendship with her male work-partner. About 80-90% into the book it had been romance free. Then it was like the author though "hey, wait a second, we're almost at the end and I've forgotten the romance part" and sure enough, they end up in bed together <sigh>.
Why oh why is it so hard to let men and women stay FRIENDS???

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

The first book of a series is KDP Select exclusive, but the rest aren't. Wtf?

A lot of authors put the first book in a series into KU. It's a smart business decision.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Asawi

Recently I read a crime novel that I really enjoyed, in part because of the strong female protagonist and her great non-romantic friendship with her male work-partner. About 80-90% into the book it had been romance free. Then it was like the author though "hey, wait a second, we're almost at the end and I've forgotten the romance part" and sure enough, they end up in bed together <sigh>.
Why oh why is it so hard to let men and women stay FRIENDS???

There's a series I really enjoy, Long Beach Homicide. I've read three of the four books and so far no hint of romance between the male and female detective partners. Another aspect I appreciate: though the male (Danny Beckett) is the lead character, his partner Jennifer Tanaka is clearly the more competent of the two.

[isarl]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

though the male (Danny Beckett) is the lead character, his partner Jennifer Tanaka is clearly the more competent of the two.

Sounds like a Mulder/Scully pairing, haha.

“Whatever tape you found in that VCR isn't mine.” / “Good, because I put it back in that drawer with all those other videos that aren't yours.”

[Asawi]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

There's a series I really enjoy, Long Beach Homicide. I've read three of the four books and so far no hint of romance between the male and female detective partners. Another aspect I appreciate: though the male (Danny Beckett) is the lead character, his partner Jennifer Tanaka is clearly the more competent of the two.

Thanks for the reading tip! Putting it on my "possible TBR" (as if there isn't enough for a lifetime or so already...)

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Asawi

Thanks for the reading tip! Putting it on my "possible TBR" (as if there isn't enough for a lifetime or so already...)

If you decide they look interesting, add 'em to your ereaderIQ. Amazon is the publisher, so they go on sale fairly often.