Last Wednesday, I was doing a purge on my romance bookshelves, trying to winnow them down a bit. Only managed to get rid of 14 books out of an estimated 250, though--the big purge I had back in the beginning of 2006, when I got rid of about 2/3rds of my romances, was as far as I think I'm willing to go.

However, it's now obvious that my Nora Roberts books compose almost 1/3rd of the collection. She's the one whose books have been branded the most out of all the ones in my collection. Since I've been reading her so long, I've got a wide range of cover styles for her various books: the clinch for most of the Silhouette books, the abstract drawing with big title/smaller author name for her first standalone novels, the no-drawing covers for her more recent standalones with her name in huge letters.

Yeah, nothing about covers are ever up to an author, although if you have some pull, you can get some things changed.

So, so true. I'm still astonished we were able to have as much input on the GCS cover as we did. Of course, having Pete hand them a completed cover image helped immensely.

I'm just annoyed because I dislike her books so much.

Heh. I've never actually read her, but I remember when her first book came out.

However, it's now obvious that my Nora Roberts books compose almost 1/3rd of the collection.

Of romances I've held onto, her trilogies and Patricia Gaffney's old historicals are the big winners.

NR takes up about the same amount of rrom on my shelves, too. Even more when you add in the JD Robb's.

I'm curious Steph, what is it that you don't care for about Jane Green's writing?

Not Steph, but one of the things that infuriated me about her early books at least, was that they seemed to epitomize everything bad about the chick lit genre-- all the labels, the shallowness, the sheer vapidness of how her characters treated relationships. Jemima J was like the dark side of Bridget Jones and oh, how I hated her.

Worst of all, it didn't feel as if the character really learned anything of value by the end of the story.

That makes sense. Babyville, in particular, seems to bring out the worst of the chick lit labels and stereotypical women.

Bookends is my favorite, with To Have and To Hold right after.

Jane Green is one of my favorite authors to read. I do not by any means think she is wonderful literature, but when I need escapist, no-brainer reading material, she's who I go to. Her and Sophie Kinsella.

The other big names on my romance shelves are Linda Howard, Kay Hooper, Jayne Ann Krentz/Amanda Quick/Amanda Glass (got rid of all the Jayne Castle SF romances), and Robin D. Owens (kept her SF/romance titles, mostly because I love her portrayal of pet familiars who communicate with their humans), but I only have 8-15 books of each, as opposed to NR's dozens.

The authors I wish had published more are Jessica Bryan (terrific mermaid romance), Lee Damon (not a big name, but the few books I have I really treasure for wonderful characters), and Nancy Block (who only published the one book I know of, a hilarious timetravel pirate romance called "Once Upon a Pirate" that I highly recommend if you can find it--it's long out of print).

when I need escapist, no-brainer reading material

Nora's my girl for that. Not that her trilogies are brainless at all, really, but I know what's going to happen -- three couples, an overarching plot, and good snarky dialogue and decent sex.

Also, really well-drawn men. She really gets male characters in a way that most romance writers don't.

Also, really well-drawn men. She really gets male characters in a way that most romance writers don't.

SO MUCH THIS, I have to asscap it.