Post Austen/Heyer there were Regency category romances, and they emulated A/H. So no sex. But they died in the 90s just as the historical Regency romance took off. Amanda Quick* started writing these longer, steamy-riffic Regencies, and these days that's all you can find. Authors like Loretta Chase still write the light, witty sort of stuff, but there has to be lotsa sex. (She used to write category Regency, so I guess she made the transition.)
But sex relieves romantic tension. "No kissing til the last chapter" tends to recreate what it's like to be falling for someone and not knowing if they like you back. O the torture of it all! If you're going to have sex with someone, well, clearly there's some interest there. In order to keep the tension going, the stakes have to be raised in other ways. Heyer has some books where The Kiss happens halfway through, cause there's a mystery to carry the novel the rest of the way. In modern novels, things usually go nuttier than that. Spies and supa-adventures and massive misunderstandings and break downs and family drama.
I don't dislike the current Regency historicals, I just want to see more variety. That's why I enjoyed Jude Morgan's Indiscretion so much. Finally someone writing in the old Austen-Heyer tradition. Right now Goodreads is taking votes for the best books of 2012, and in amongst the usual suspects of erotica, semi-erotica, and paranormal was Edenbrooke.
I'd never heard of it, but it's just a Regency novel without the sex. It is published by Blue Mountain who are owned by a Mormon publishing group, so I assume this isn't where the next great gay romance is going to come from--but I gather it also is not a Christian Romance ("inspirational romance" as it's called). But Edenbrooke was published under a new line that will be dedicated to "clean" romances.
I don't care for this "clean" terminology, cause I don't think sex is morally dirty; but I do hope that the popularity of this book means we'll be seeing this sub-genre of romance re-emerge.
____
There were bodice rippers before Quick, but I think the popularity of her style led to historicals being overwhelmingly set in the Regency, as opposed to the United States, pirate ships, etc.
6 comments:
My personal taste is different than yours somewhat. I love Amanda Quick. And I was bored by those sexless romance books by the time I was thirteen or fourteen. There are exceptions, of course, but as a rule I'm not a fan of sexless romances.
I like Georgette Hayer somewhat but I didn't read one and then have to read everyone like I do most romance novelists. And, in fact, I don't think of her as a romantic novelist. I think of her as a female P.G. Wodehouse type writer.
To each her own - thank diversity.
I gave up reading all the boinkathons, because of the modern sensibilities. I like my historical romance reflecting the mores and manners of the time fully. I adore Jude Morgan's books - my favourite so far of his Regencies was An Accomplished Woman, but I also really enjoyed his Secret Life of William Shakespeare, which explores his marriage beautifully and plausibly.
Another writer I enjoy who does include sexy scenes is Janet Mullany - she achieves credible scenarios that allow the sex to emerge - as it did in real life.
I think I am a prude!!! Can't STAND sex in novels. AT ALL. It bores me. I don't find it hot or exciting, but rather annoying and a distraction... get back to the story already!! then again, I don't care for romances either...
I'm just weird.
@JJJ - Oh yeah, I can tell by your reviews and humor, lol. Let me add that in high school my friends I read Judith Krantz. Almost the first scene in Scruples is of our heroine giving a stranger chopper pilot "golden balls" (I think it was called.) Our male friends couldn't believe what we were reading.
And I love Jilly Cooper, who's genre is referred to as "Books and bonking." But in romance novels, if it's not necessary to the plot, then it holds my interest/tension up til the first roll in the hay. The rest of the sex scenes I skip. Especially when they tag one on at the end, once the plot's been resolved.
@Brussel Sprout - That's definitely part of it. The morals and sensibilities of Heyer or Morgan's characters, or Austen's, is part of what's interesting about reading a different era. The boinkathons just use the Regency as set dressing.
@Simone - Well you're also listening to audio books, so that's even worse!
It depends. Wisdom of the ages, that. Sometimes when I'm reading a romance novel the sex scenes flow (sorry) right out of the characters and the plot and they are worth reading--although now that I think about it, for me that usually only happens if they are talking to each other during. Other times, it's just flat out boring. I find myself skimming over them more and more often these days. Heyer for me was an acquired taste--I didn't like her at first, but I kept hearing about her so every few months I'd try another one. I think it took about 4 before I finally figured out how to appreciate her, and now I think I've read all of her romances (haven't tried the mysteries yet). I've just about quit reading most historicals for exactly the reason you say-- they're just modern characters stuck into a pseudo-historical environment as an easy way to provide tension.
I should add that I often enjoy sex scenes as erotica. I'm just not always in the mood for erotica. Diversity, diversity--that's all we ask for, right?
Post a Comment