# Recommend the Best (Intelligent) Romance to a Romance Hater



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I've always loathed the things, but I'm trying to be more open minded, so recommend something. What is the best, most intelligent romance out there that I wouldn't toss across the room (and possibly stomp on)?  

Help me out here.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

In my view,  - It actually fits right into the Mills and Boon romance formula - handsome man, lovely woman, attraction, misunderstanding and events keep them apart - happy ending. Of course Jane Austen's wit and sharp social observation make this a classic. A romance is as intelligent as the author who writes it and even writing to formula should not stop humour, style and depth making the romance a good read.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

Sophie Kinsella. Her writing is excellent and the books are funny. For a good taster try The Undomestic Goddess. Clever funny romance.

For context, I am a guy in my 40's; I read it twice, or possibly three times.


----------



## Strapped-4-Cache (Dec 1, 2010)

Here's one I had been asked to read recently:



It was wasn't syrupy-sweet and had a good bit of humor.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Daphne said:


> In my view,  - It actually fits right into the Mills and Boon romance formula - handsome man, lovely woman, attraction, misunderstanding and events keep them apart - happy ending. Of course Jane Austen's wit and sharp social observation make this a classic. A romance is as intelligent as the author who writes it and even writing to formula should not stop humour, style and depth making the romance a good read.


Of course, you prove me a liar about hating romances. Jane Austen doesn't count. 

Edit: Thanks for the suggestions. My problem is possibly that I prefer fiction at least a bit on the dark side. No one dies? No one suffers? No angst? *tsk*

I think that's why I can like some of the Victorian romances better than modern ones.


----------



## JamieMcGuire (Jan 31, 2011)

I also like _The Undomestic Goddess_ by Sophie Kinsella, as one poster said above. It's quirky and comical.

_--- edited... no self-promotion outside the Book Bazaar forum. please read our Forum Decorum thread._


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

JR, I hear what you're saying about a lot of modern romances. . . . .so often the 'conflicts' could be resolved in about 2 minutes if people would just sit and talk to each other.  But no: there are long pages where they 'think' about how they feel or they talk to girlfriends and make assumptions about things they really know nothing about. And/or it is completely obvious in the 'love triangle' type books which one she'll end up with from the start.  I like a book that has a romantic element. . .but I find that if they're billed as 'romance' first, I am probably going to find it boring, annoying, or worse.  So I, too, tend to steer clear.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

I recently read North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell and loved it! I have seen the movie before but never actually read the book. 
Great read/romance and surprisingly it went pretty quickly.


----------



## JamieMcGuire (Jan 31, 2011)

I just read in a different post that talking about our own books here is a no-no, so I rescind my suggestion. However, Sophie Kinsella's book is still a fun read.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> JR, I hear what you're saying about a lot of modern romances. . . . .so often the 'conflicts' could be resolved in about 2 minutes if people would just sit and talk to each other. But no: there are long pages where they 'think' about how they feel or they talk to girlfriends and make assumptions about things they really know nothing about. And/or it is completely obvious in the 'love triangle' type books which one she'll end up with from the start. I like a book that has a romantic element. . .but I find that if they're billed as 'romance' first, I am probably going to find it boring, annoying, or worse. So I, too, tend to steer clear.


Yes, this is a lot of my problem. A romance element is fine. Most of us are concerned about that in our lives so it makes sense to me, but novels where the only thing someone worries about is whether or not they get a ring just doesn't make sense to me. And so many that pretend to have some other element (romance/mystery or romance/adventure) the other element is so poorly done or so simplistic that it also could be solved with a two-minute talk, that I can't finish it.

Some of the best novels ever written do have an element of romance in them but they aren't romances (Atonement).

Hehe The 'romance reader' in my family will no longer recommend books or even let me read hers because I never like them which is why I asked here. I just keep thinking that in a genre that large there must be some out there I would like, but I don't seem to find them. Humor doesn't really solve it for me, because those still have the same lack of complexity or depth.

I think it is complexity and depth both in characterization and in plot that I'm looking for that I can't find in the genre. I'm still not convinced that it isn't out there somewhere.


----------



## chipotle (Jan 1, 2010)

I think when recommending a romance novel it is probably a good idea to gauge the reader's view of how the love scenes are written. Some scenes use very flowery language which can be off-putting and others veer toward the crude. I'm pretty much impervious at this point as I read so many romances!  I think right now the historicals are more popular than the contemporaries so I'd probably recommend a historical.

Here is the AAR list of Top 100 Romances of All Time voted by their readers - http://www.likesbooks.com/top1002010results.htm and there is definitely a bias toward historicals. My recommendations would be The Madness of Lord Ian Mackenzie (hero has Asperger's and there is some suspense as well) and The Spymaster's Lady by Joanna Bourne. I started it and couldn't finish it as it was extremely dark but it sounds like you may like it. Also check out Nora Roberts who has a zillion books - contemporary romance and romantic suspense. I really liked Angels Fall.

Oh and I'm very surprised no one has recommended Outlander by Diana Gabaldon. I personally didn't like it but it is pretty much ALWAYS on any list of recommended romance novels.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

chipotle said:


> I think when recommending a romance novel it is probably a good idea to gauge the reader's view of how the love scenes are written. Some scenes use very flowery language which can be off-putting and others veer toward the crude. I'm pretty much impervious at this point as I read so many romances!  I think right now the historicals are more popular than the contemporaries so I'd probably recommend a historical.
> 
> Here is the AAR list of Top 100 Romances of All Time voted by their readers - http://www.likesbooks.com/top1002010results.htm and there is definitely a bias toward historicals. My recommendations would be The Madness of Lord Ian Mackenzie (hero has Asperger's and there is some suspense as well) and The Spymaster's Lady by Joanna Bourne. I started it and couldn't finish it as it was extremely dark but it sounds like you may like it. Also check out Nora Roberts who has a zillion books - contemporary romance and romantic suspense. I really liked Angels Fall.
> 
> Oh and I'm very surprised no one has recommended Outlander by Diana Gabaldon. I personally didn't like it but it is pretty much ALWAYS on any list of recommended romance novels.


Maybe they took one look at me and knew I would hate Gabaldon? Or they saw one of my previous rants about her? She is so _homophobic_. Besides her history is _WAY_ beyond sloppy which is why I don't read historical romances. I have yet to read one that wasn't sloppy or worse. Most seem to make no attempt at historical accuracy. (I have a history degree. I don't take history lightly) Especially if they're set in Scotland. I happen to be a Scot and it* infuriates* me the way Scotland is misrepresented in romances.

I read a Roberts novel which made my point exactly about the "suspense" not having much in the way of suspense about it but I'll try Angels Fall. It may be better. You can't necessarily judge by one novel. 

Thanks for the recommendation.

Edit: Yes, I probably would be turned off by flowery love scenes. I read somewhere about some author referring to 'manroot' which I'm afraid would have me snorting and laughing--probably not the ideal reaction. But I usually skim the love scenes in romances anyway. They're boring.


----------



## davidhburton (Mar 11, 2010)

What about paranormal romance? There's certainly some dark elements there and I loved the Thrall series by Cathy Clamp and CT Adams. Warning: vampires and werewolves involved, but really well written.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

A couple that I've enjoyed recently where I thought the romance element particularly well-done are Sharon Shinn's The Shape-Changer's Wife and Alice Hoffman's The River King. Of course, the first book is considered part of the fantasy genre and Hoffman's writing is generally a combination of suspense and magical realism, so neither novel falls in the romance category.

I tend to like books best that don't fit well into any genre. Good story-telling is good story-telling and shouldn't be forced into some genre box. Unfortunately, for marketing purposes, this is an unrealistic viewpoint but one I still hold dear.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Of course, you prove me a liar about hating romances. Jane Austen doesn't count.
> 
> Edit: Thanks for the suggestions. My problem is possibly that I prefer fiction at least a bit on the dark side. No one dies? No one suffers? No angst? *tsk*
> 
> I think that's why I can like some of the Victorian romances better than modern ones.


I think Daphne du Maurier's *Rebecca* and *My Cousin Rachel* would be perfect for you, but alas not on Kindle (yet) - and I guess not romance by strict definition. 
Edit: Oh, and Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe - really historical romance and definitely intelligent (plus death, suffering and angst!)


----------



## CJArcher (Jan 22, 2011)

My problem is possibly that I prefer fiction at least a bit on the dark side. No one dies? No one suffers? No angst? *tsk* 
[/quote]

The Iron Duke by Meljean Brooke has dead people popping up and plenty of dark angsty moments. Mr. Perfect by Linda Howard is great (warning - it has funny bits that will make you lol). There's plenty of other paranormal romances that are dark and have dead people. Maybe try Keri Arthur's Riley Jenson series which has a strong romantic thread through it.


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

Mary Stewart. My favorites are _Airs Above the Ground_, _My Brother Michael_, and _Nine Coaches Waiting_. I still re-read these once every few years.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

P.S. If anyone has read Ivanhoe - was Brian de Bois Guilbert meant to be the villain? But didn't you just fall for him?


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

terryr said:


> Mary Stewart. My favorites are _Airs Above the Ground_, _My Brother Michael_, and _Nine Coaches Waiting_. I still re-read these once every few years.


+1 Mary Stewart. Loved _The Moonspinners._ Also Gwen Bristow. Too bad neither of them are available in any ebook formats.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Well I absolutely adore Romance novels and to be honest, I won't recommend any to you. Why? Because Romance readers are being mocked already enough and its obvious in your posts you do the same. If you don't like Romance novels, you won't like anything I recommend and I won't put myself out there to be mocked. Sorry. 

Romance as it is has certain requirements, it is what it is. If you only want some romance elements, its not really romance, but any genre you like with romantic elements. There is a difference. 

If you want no sex at all, you have too lock for sweet stuff. Or do a Heyer Novel. Venetia is one I really liked by her. No sex, door closed, witty and smartly written. Thats about all I am going to suggest. There are many many modern written romance novels that are excellent too, but I doubt with your already expressed "hate" you would like any of them. 

My link to goodreads is in my siggy, you can see the books I read and gave star ratings too. The rest is up to you. 

I am bowing out of this thread now as I am not in the mood today being sick as I am, to read all the mocking that usually goes on about Romance Novels. 

And to add, your thread title might be a little insulting, implying that reading romance is not intelligent. That tone might explain my post a little better.


----------



## anguabell (Jan 9, 2011)

Unfortunately, romance makes me physically nauseous. I tried to read Outlander, I honestly did. I think I might be allergic to it.
The only "romance" writer I can tolerate is Gail Carriger but it is steampunk. Vampires, werewolves, all the good stuff. And DEFINITELY not homophobic


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> I've always loathed the things, but I'm trying to be more open minded, so recommend something. What is the best, most intelligent romance out there that I wouldn't toss across the room (and possibly stomp on)?
> 
> Help me out here.


You read for entertainment, right? So why should you force yourself to read in a genre you don't like? That's not "openminded," that's called "being a martyr."


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

"Love in the Time of Cholera" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez  

The most romantic novel I've ever read. Not joking.


----------



## Shayne Parkinson (Mar 19, 2010)

A few that have romance elements, while not necessarily being "romances":

- Two lesser-known Bronte works that have their share of darkness: _Villette_ by Charlotte Bronte, and _The Tenant of Wildfell Hall_ by Anne Bronte.
- Mary Stewart's _The Ivy Tree_.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Shayne Parkinson said:


> A few that have romance elements, while not necessarily being "romances":
> 
> - Two lesser-known Bronte works that have their share of darkness: _Villette_ by Charlotte Bronte, and _The Tenant of Wildfell Hall_ by Anne Bronte.
> - Mary Stewart's _The Ivy Tree_.


This is what I look for in a book. I really like a romantic element in most things I read, but I don't gravitate toward straight romances.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

J.D. Robb's series is good--romance, but excellent mystery woven in.  I'd say the same about Elizabeth Peters (although the century it takes place in is the other direction!)

Another fun romance/comedy/mystery is Take the Monkeys and Run by Karen Cantwell.

Romance doesn't just have to be guy meets girl.  There's ever so much more to it!


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> +1 Mary Stewart. Loved _The Moonspinners._ Also Gwen Bristow. Too bad neither of them are available in any ebook formats.


The Moonspinners is one of my favorite books - and movies - of all time!


----------



## gina1230 (Nov 29, 2009)

Flowers from the Storm by Laura Kinsale.  It's not like any other romance I've read.  I don't want to give anything away, but I think it's worth checking into.  I loved this book, though many readers found it controversial.  

Ashes in the Wind by Kathleen Woodiwiss was probably the first romance I had ever read, and I've been hooked ever since.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

I don't feel as strongly about this as Atunah, but my feelings are similar. It's not like you've never tried a romance. You have tried quite a few and didn't like them, so why force yourself to keep it up? I write romance and there are all sorts of them no power on earth could force me to read. You also couldn't get me to read fantasy or paranormal. I don't think that makes me a lesser person, and it surely doesn't affect the state of the world in general. Read what you enjoy. Life is short.


----------



## Margaret Jean (Aug 31, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Of course, you prove me a liar about hating romances. Jane Austen doesn't count.
> 
> Edit: Thanks for the suggestions. My problem is possibly that I prefer fiction at least a bit on the dark side. No one dies? No one suffers? No angst? *tsk*
> 
> I think that's why I can like some of the Victorian romances better than modern ones.


 How about the Bronte sisters? Here's dark for ya: Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre?


----------



## Margaret Jean (Aug 31, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> This is what I look for in a book. I really like a romantic element in most things I read, but I don't gravitate toward straight romances.


Someone already mentioned it, but I want to add a ditto to Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier. Seems to fit the bill in so many ways!


----------



## RobynB (Jan 4, 2011)

This probably doesn't qualify as romance, but if you want a really smart "relationship" novel, I highly recommend _The Post-Birthday World_ by Lionel Shriver.

Here's the link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Post-Birthday-World-ebook/dp/B000OI0F58/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1297016236&sr=1-1


----------



## chipotle (Jan 1, 2010)

Great points Atunah! I don't know why romance novels (and those of us who read them) get so little respect. Especially since the genre is out-selling all the others. DH reads another popular genre and some of those books read like they are written at a second grade reading level. So I guess I don't see that the romance genre is less intelligent.

BTW, here is a hilarious satire of the Amazon romance message boards including the mandatory recommendation of Outlander. http://www.pennyromance.com/2010/12/day-in-life-of-amazon-romance-boards.html

gina1230, why is Flowers in the Storm considered controversial? I have it on the Kindle (it is the last one on the AAR Top Ten I have to read) and am greatly looking forward to reading it. I haven't ever read any Kathleen Woodiwiss so I will check out Ashes in the Wind.


----------



## Ciareader (Feb 3, 2011)

@Gina...can you tell us why Flowers in the Storm is controversial?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Is it Flowers from the Storm by Laura Kinsale? I read it and loved it. Not sure about controversial. The heroine annoyed me a tiny bit as she is a Quaker so she is a bit preachy, but it adds to the story too. But it is a heartwrenching book and the hero goes through quite a trial. I do recommend it for that. Its not a fluffy light fun read, its emotional and rich.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

chipotle said:


> Great points Atunah! I don't know why romance novels (and those of us who read them) get so little respect. Especially since the genre is out-selling all the others. DH reads another popular genre and some of those books read like they are written at a second grade reading level. So I guess I don't see that the romance genre is less intelligent.
> 
> BTW, here is a hilarious satire of the Amazon romance message boards including the mandatory recommendation of Outlander. http://www.pennyromance.com/2010/12/day-in-life-of-amazon-romance-boards.html
> 
> gina1230, why is Flowers in the Storm considered controversial? I have it on the Kindle (it is the last one on the AAR Top Ten I have to read) and am greatly looking forward to reading it. I haven't ever read any Kathleen Woodiwiss so I will check out Ashes in the Wind.


How many sales a genre gets is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I don't consider most Romance novels "intelligent" because they lack depth and complexity. This relative simplicity is, frankly, what a lot of readers find enjoyable in a novel they want purely for relaxation. Since when is looking for fluff a crime (or an insult)? Some extremely intelligent women, one in my family who is near genius level in IQ, read fluff Romances. They simply aren't necessarily looking for "intelligence". There is nothing wrong with that, but fluff is not what I look for.

Edit: I could have said "non-fluff" Romances but you and atunah were going to choose to be insulted by the question however I phrased it.



Atunah said:


> Is it Flowers from the Storm by Laura Kinsale? I read it and loved it. Not sure about controversial. The heroine annoyed me a tiny bit as she is a Quaker so she is a bit preachy, but it adds to the story too. But it is a heartwrenching book and the hero goes through quite a trial. I do recommend it for that. Its not a fluffy light fun read, its emotional and rich.


(Putting this back in because atunah objected to my removing it. I took it out because her prejudiced comment about Quakers was more important: I thought you said you were too good to make a recommendation to me, atunah.)

Quakers are not necessarily preachy--in fact, I have never met a preachy Quaker. Quite the opposite. (Speaking of being rude)

Thanks everyone *else* for the recommendations. I will check a number of them out.

Edit: One point, I never considered _Rebecca_ a Romance because I don't see that as a HEA ending--it sounds like they're pretty miserable for the rest of their lives. A novel I rather enjoyed even if the protagonist was a bit of a drip. 

I don't know and don't care whether the character in _Flowers from the Storm_ is preachy. Generalizing that to an entire religion is known as prejudice.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I wasn't talking to you with the Flowers of the Storm. And as I actually read the book and you haven't, you aren't in a position to make a comment on how preachy a character comes across in a book. In this book, I found the heroine a bit preachy.

Since you also don't read romance novels, again you can't really make assumptions on how much depth or complexity they have. You are guessing, and you are guessing wrong. Talk to me again about that when you read 100's of them. 

I find you rude too, and extremely condescending. You been spreading your hate of romance all over the place here. I don't know why. There is fluff in romance as there is fluff in any other genre out there, period. There are romance with lots of depth and complexity, of course you wouldn't know about that as you don't read it and have preconceived notions. 

I post where and when I want by the way, I don't need your permission. And I didn't make another recommendation to you, someone else did. 


eta: interesting how you now edited your post to take your snide comment to me out of it. I'll let mine stand though, even though your word are now gone poof.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Atunah said:


> I wasn't talking to you with the Flowers of the Storm. And as I actually read the book and you haven't, you aren't in a position to make a comment on how preachy a character comes across in a book. In this book, I found the heroine a bit preachy.
> 
> Since you also don't read romance novels, again you can't really make assumptions on how much depth or complexity they have. You are guessing, and you are guessing wrong. Talk to me again about that when you read 100's of them.
> 
> ...


You said she was preachy BECAUSE SHE WAS A QUAKER--not merely that she was preachy. You might want to take a hard look at your prejudice.

*shrug* I'll put the comment back. It was a WHOLE lot less snide than your nasty attack on me for asking for recommendations. How DARE I.

Edit: I 'have been spreading my hatred of Romance', have I? My, my. For a subject I rarely discuss, that's extremely effective of me. People can judge for themselves, I suspect. *shrug*

And again, thanks to those who made suggestions. I will read a number of them. I think that all genres have their high points and the fact that I have missed reading the ones in Romance (except for a couple of classics such as Austen and the Brontës) does not mean they don't exist.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Atunah said:


> Since you also don't read romance novels, again you can't really make assumptions on how much depth or complexity they have. You are guessing, and you are guessing wrong. Talk to me again about that when you read 100's of them.


Actually, I happen to agree with him, and found his first post to be mostly tongue-in-cheek ribbing about the genre. When I was in my late teens and 20s, I read 100s of romance novels (Holt, Deveraux, Krantz, Garwood, Roberts, Spencer, Heyer, etc.) Looking back, other than the classics (Lucy Maud Montgomery, Alcott, Austen, etc) I can't think of many that were really what I'd call intelligent fiction - most were just escape entertainment - maybe V. Holt came closest in the first group. Mary Stewart was certainly a standout.

There were certainly some who were better writers than others, and a few who made an effort to have a plot that went beyond meet-hate at first sight-awkward encounter-begrudging affection-misunderstanding-distant longing-chance discovery that straightens out misunderstanding-true love always. Oh yeah, and lots and lots of soulful looks and steamy sex.

I can barely read the genre now, because so many of them are just so melodramatic. But I don't really watch pure romance movies either.

I do, however, enjoy a story that has a romance in it, as a subplot. It doesn't have to be a HEA, it just has to be well-done and believable. I have dozens of books on my shelves where romance is an element of the story, but the novel would never be classified as a romance novel. Lots of my friends read all romance all the time. Yeah I tease them, but don't think they let me off easy on my all sci-fi all the time.

In reality, the best stories are often hard to pigeon-hole, so rather than being so angry about it, since certain people here have read 100s of romance novels, perhaps there are some standout recommendations. I would think an avid reader would be able to find enjoyable reads in all genres, even if they don't prefer a particular genre as a whole.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> Actually, I happen to agree with him, and found his first post to be mostly tongue-in-cheek ribbing about the genre. When I was in my late teens and 20s, I read 100s of romance novels (Holt, Deveraux, Krantz, Garwood, Roberts, Spencer, Heyer, etc.) Looking back, other than the classics (Lucy Maud Montgomery, Alcott, Austen, etc) I can't think of many that were really what I'd call intelligent fiction - most were just escape entertainment - maybe V. Holt came closest in the first group. Mary Stewart was certainly a standout.
> 
> There were certainly some who were better writers than others, and a few who made an effort to have a plot that went beyond meet-hate at first sight-awkward encounter-begrudging affection-misunderstanding-distant longing-chance discovery that straightens out misunderstanding-true love always. Oh yeah, and lots and lots of soulful looks and steamy sex.
> 
> ...


Angry? There was nothing angry about my post except the one in which I accused someone of prejudice. Then, yes, I was angry, very angry. Edit: And my reaction has not changed a whit. At the least, that was an exceedingly rude remark. At worst, it was outright religious prejudice.

I agree that most Romance is escape fiction. That is one perfectly legitimate function for fiction. I have no criticism for that or for people who use fiction for that purpose. I certainly am not angry about it. 

I agree that an avid reader probably can find enjoyable reads in all genres--_which is why I asked for recommendations_.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

I didn't say YOU were angry, but you certainly are unaccountably body-checking now. I was suggesting that maybe those who have read 100s of romance novels might have a short list of those that were written at more sophisticated levels. 

Sorry to hear that you were not being tongue-in-cheek about the "hater" comment. That's really sad. I feel sorry for you and can't for the life of me understand why you would want to force yourself to read something you hate.

Edited to add: Maybe you should think BEFORE you hit the submit button. If you didn't mean to make the dig, don't make it. Or as Neil Gaiman says: ""I don't think you should ever insult people unintentionally; if you're doing it, you ought to mean it."


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> I didn't say YOU were angry, but you certainly are unaccountably body-checking now. I was suggesting that maybe those who have read 100s of romance novels might have a short list of those that were written at more sophisticated levels.
> 
> Sorry to hear that you were not being tongue-in-cheek about the "hater" comment. That's really sad. I feel sorry for you and can't for the life of me understand why you would want to force yourself to read something you hate.
> 
> Edited to add: Maybe you should think BEFORE you hit the submit button. If you didn't mean to make the dig, don't make it. Or as Neil Gaiman says: ""I don't think you should ever insult people unintentionally; if you're doing it, you ought to mean it."


This has gotten silly. I have no regret for anything I said in this thread. I did not insult her. She attacked me pretty viciously and also made an insulting remark about Quakers.

I meant the dig. My objection to the Quaker remark was more important.

Edit: If you weren't saying I was angry then I don't know the meaning of your "rather than being so angry about it..." remark, not that it matters. Yes, there are people here who have read 100s of Romance novels. Some of them made some interesting suggestions. I am going to read some of the novels they suggested. I've already said so.

Otherwise, when a thread turns into an argument as this one has, it's time to walk away.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> This has gotten silly. I have no regret for anything I said in this thread. I did not insult her. She attacked me pretty viciously and then made an insulting remark about Quakers.
> 
> I meant the dig. My objection to the Quaker remark was more important.


Actually, I was referring to the snarky remark you made to ME in the next post, which you quickly edited out. Why edit if you have no regrets for anything you said? Whatever.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> Actually, I was referring to the snarky remark you made to ME in the next post, which you quickly edited out. Why edit if you have no regrets for anything you said? Whatever.


It wasn't snarky, just didn't make sense since I had misread your comment. Whatever.

Have a good evening.


----------



## gina1230 (Nov 29, 2009)

I mentioned that Flowers From the Storm may be controversial because several posters on another site were upset because


Spoiler



the hero was having an affair with a married woman,


 if I remember right. It's been a while since I've read this book, so please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Rebekah (Oct 9, 2009)

Shayne Parkinson said:


> A few that have romance elements, while not necessarily being "romances":
> 
> - Two lesser-known Bronte works that have their share of darkness: _Villette_ by Charlotte Bronte, and _The Tenant of Wildfell Hall_ by Anne Bronte.
> - Mary Stewart's _The Ivy Tree_.


You might also try Ann Radcliffe, who wrote Gothic romance. I enjoyed reading "The Mysteries of Udolpho" and she has written a couple others, including "The Italian" and "The Romance of the Forest."


----------



## tsilver (Aug 9, 2010)

Where's a fire extinguisher when you need one?


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Somewhere, someone is getting wronged on the internet. However, it doesn't have to be happening here. Let's lighten up, folks. Everybody has the right to their opinion, no need to get personal.


----------



## dengar (Dec 27, 2010)

I have a great recommendation. The Time Traveler's Wife. I hate romances and I love this one because of the sci-fi element. My wife and I loved the movie as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travelers-Wife-Audrey-Niffenegger/dp/015602943X

Edit: Just realized no Kindle support yet. Still a great book and movie.


----------

