Yeah, misogynistic, I think that’s a terrific term for old school romance and definitely for the heroes.

You’ve really got me thinking now.

First, in thinking back about old school romance, the books are ever so much more in the heroine’s head than the heroes. We don’t get his viewpoint very often, and often when we do, it’s thuggish and he’s leaping to some stupid assumption. I’ll totally buy that. That we’re not hearing the kind of emotional inner dialogue that we’re hear from today’s heroes. I think it’s a point really well taken.

Also, in thinking about Julie Garwood, I’m wondering do you think she’s the bridge between “old school” and “new school”? Her heroines are very much like today’s heroines. But her heroes are definitely alpha and not always in the good way.

Ana, I can’t tell you how much I’ve enjoyed this discussion! I bow down to your intelligence and sense of fun about a debate!

You’re a good woman!

Hey Kate! I hear you on the Rape issue – it really ticks me off too.

Bridget Locke! LOL, do take over, I am loving it – all the debate, it’s great! come back!

“No. I don’t think that the reason romance is relegated to the fringes of respectable literature is because of the old school romance. I think it’s because it’s written for women” – I think you may be into something here, I never thought of it like that. Could we perhaps says that it’s a combination of both? That it’s both intended solely for women and at the same time, paradoxically, at least in the beginning, it was hugely misogynistic? That has got to send the wrong signals..no?

“I don’t think so much “I would NEVER put up with that” because well, I’d never put up with a vampire biting my neck, I’d never put up with some of the alpha heroes who are written today.”

I think it goes a little beyond that – it is not a matter of “putting up” with something – at least not the way I see it. It is a matter of being comfortable with the “frame of mind” or motivations of the heroes – yes, the vampire bitting or the current alpha heroes may be a bit too much and as “real” women we would not put up with that , but as readers, it is so much better to read about extra protective alphas and vampires and the such than to read those heroes that had HATE as their motivation. This is the point I want to make and which I don’t think I did in the review –

I have been racking my brain for an explanation and I think the best way to explain the difference between old school and new school is the frame of mind of the characters. The heroes in old school DO feel rage and contempt for the heroine, They DO want to hurt them. Their forced seduction is solely for their own pleasure or for punishing. New school romance, the hero MAY hurt the heroine (rarely physically though) but not because they want to hurt them directly but merely as consequence of a misguided frame of mind, or fear, etc. There is even “forced” seduction , for example, Nalini Singh’s changeling heroes sometimes are a little pushy but it’s ok, it is a lot more palatable because we see that in their minds, it’s all about the fact they can’t be away from these women, and it is all about her pleasure first and foremost.

And this makes all the difference to me. I am not saying that a hero that acts terribly can never be redeemed – but it depends a lot on how it goes and the way the heroine reacts

AKISA – I read so many different opinions about it, I decided to look until I found all spoilers about it. I can safely say , if I ever read it, I would be royally pissed off too, so I am not going to.

Sabrina, thanks for your input. I liked Cat so much better too and Lord of Scoundrels is my favorite romance of all time as well. I read some Johanna Lindsey – the first 3 Mallory books and I have to say that although they are not in the bodice ripper category and the heroines are less doormat-y still the heroes were kind of jerks for most of the time.

Brie: thanks! can’t wait to see what you think!

When I read AKISA for the first time, I was about 14 maybe? Loved it. Then I grew up and it did nothing but make me angry. Here she builds up this major love story between these two people and then *SPOILER* she ends up with his reincarnation? I don’t THINK SO! Argh!

As for strong heroines, I really enjoyed 3 Nights of Sin by…can’t remember the author’s name. Anyway, she could’ve written it like a typical historical where the heroine is basically forced to sleep with the hero to save someone else, but the author tweaked it in a way that was very satisfying for me. The heroine was tough and very much in charge in a lot of ways. Fascinated the hero which is always good.

And Shutter Island is nothing like Mystic River. It’s a single-title that has nothing to do with any of the other books. Excellent mind trip. Can’t recommend it enough.

Sorry Book Smugglers. I will shut up now! Love ya!

Holly and Bridget, what did you not like about A Knight In Shining Armor? Yes, I’m one of those people who love it – and I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’m just curious! I’ve heard so few who dislike it. What about the ending? I don’t recall anything extraordinary except that it was a neat-tied-up-with-a-bow ending, but so many romances are that way that I’ve never batted an eye at that.

Ana: “Alys, ‘Mind you, even now, in certain areas, groups of people and mentality, the sexual assault of a woman is still considered the woman’s fault.’ Isn’t that horrible?” – and it’s still true in so many places. Imagine hearing about a woman who’s the victim of sexual assault or rape, and people saying everything from “she shouldn’t have been wearing that (x,y,z)” to “she shouldn’t have been in that bar/walking at night/at college” whatever. No, THE PERSON/PERSONS SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE WHAT THEY DID. Period. Sorry to yell – it’s a hot button for me, as you can probably tell.

I’ve got a sinking feeling that I’m going to have a pretty hard time with this book, I’ll admit it now. I’ve been reading romances for, heck 15-odd years? I’m 29 and started in middle school (when do we start middle school, anyway?) But I’ve never really read any of the “old school” ones. I remember picking up a Woodiwiss at the library and not reading it for no particular reason except it didn’t interest me. I read a lot of Jude Deverauxs and that may have been it, in the beginning. I’ve never particularly encountered the “old school” forced seductions, crap heroes, and doormat heroines- though I read and reviewed a romance in the last year that had such a doormat for a heroine that it made me angry, and I said so in my review. (Much to the author’s dismay, I fear.)

I do recall reading a Julie Garwood at some point that had not exactly a forced seduction – except it sort of was – wedding night, unwilling but willing bride (you know what I mean), etc. Or maybe it wasn’t Garwood? I don’t remember. I didn’t like it, and I remember thinking, “this is our hero???” I’m currently reading a romance that has so many possession/conquering themes going on that it’s starting to tick me off, even though the heroine’s trying to give as good as she gets. We shall see.

Boy, this got long. Sorry to rant!

(Bridget – I’ve read Mystic River and enjoyed it though not really something I’d go back to – is Shutter Island drastically different? I’ve seen so many conflicting reviews of it!)

LOL – I love that comment, MaryKate!

Late to the party, but I thought that your distinction between old-school and new romance was interesting, Ana. When I fist started reading romance, I pretty much glommed all of McNaught, Garwood, Quick, Lindsey…

Now, when I go through my bookshelves back home, I re-read the Garwoods and Quicks, but not McNaught and Lindsey. I hadn’t really thought about why, but I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.

Oh, and I noticed you said you loved Julie Garwood – I take it you don’t classify her as old-school?

No. I don’t think that the reason romance is relegated to the fringes of respectable literature is because of the old school romance. I think it’s because it’s written for women. And it’s about all those squidgy feelings and emotions and god forbid, sex. I think that’s the reason it’s marginalized as “less” than other fiction.

Yes, good point about Shakespeare. Of course, he did it first and in many cases better than anyone else. And if you extrapolate that argument, impacted most romantic fiction (among many other genres) but my point is that without the old school stuff, the newer might not exist in the way it does. My guess is that if you started polling romance authors, many, MANY of them would site Woodiwiss and McNaught and hell, Barbara Cartland as influences. Why? Because of their prose, because of their style of writing. Because many of them are considered founders of the genre.

I think that the reason that old school romance worked back then is that it’s what was out there. It was different from other fiction. I think the reason it doesn’t work now is that women don’t put up with the kind of boorish behavior that happened even in the 80s. Women had different opinions and outlooks then than they do now. For example, I would never put up with a male colleague calling me “Sweetheart” now. NEVER! But women had different roles in the work force even then.

The reason that alot of old school romance works for me now is that I appreciate it for the time it was written in. I don’t think so much “I would NEVER put up with that” because well, I’d never put up with a vampire biting my neck, I’d never put up with some of the alpha heroes who are written today. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t love to read about alphas who are tamed by their women. I do. Do I want to tame one myself? Hell no. I think that there’s value in the old school because of its impact on what’s out there now. And well, because I have tremendous affection for those authors and their books. I think that some of them are wonderfully written and plotted. Sure, the heroines and heroes might not be to your taste, and their actions might be unrelatable, but that’s true even today.

I hope I answered everything you said. Not sure if it all made sense because in the course of typing this, I took two phone calls and answered about 15 emails. Work. It gets in the way of all my fun.

Keep in mind that I still love a few old school romances. Whitney, My Love is still a favorite and so are a couple of wonderful Rebecca Brandewyne books that definitely have old school elements.

Back then, I read old school romances for the relationship because that was mostly all there was that included sex (I also adored Jane Austen, go figure). I didn’t like the long passages of description, and I hated the “mean” heroes, as I saw them. BUT, when romances became kindler, gentler, and better-paced, I was a very happy camper. Still am. Lord of Scoundrels is my favorite romance of all time.

I say all this just to say that even the old school people had varying tastes. Some liked one thing; some another. The wonderful thing about romance is you don’t have to choose a category and stick with it.

If you’d want to read some transition books, you might enjoy Meagan McKinney or Rebecca Brandewyne or certain old Johanna Lindsey (not the oldest ones, because those are DEFINITELY of the rape ‘em and they enjoy it variety).

Oh, and I totally agree with you about the argument that men were “like that back then.” Some of them were. Some of them weren’t. Plenty of romantic novels from that period have heroes who would be loved in the newest of romances. So I don’t buy that stuff. I think old school romance was 50′s woman shaking off the chains. Or something like that.