Susan, have you tried the Pink Carnation series? I started with the second because I found it at a second-hand bookstore, but I've enjoyed it immensely.

I've heard good things about it but haven't read it yet, partly because I'm not usually that big of a fan of spy stories--I just tried this book because I'd seen it raved about so much on review blogs I trust.

Well, that's the trouble with formula stuff. After one has read a lot of them, the formula begins to outweigh the story, no matter how good the writing is. You not only know how it's going to end, you know how it's going to get there. It can happen with series TV as well. If you have never seen an episode of Law & Order, and you see a good one, you might be drawn in by the storytelling and think it is incredible. If you have seen a lot of them, you won't be surprised and not knowing what's going to happen is part of what draws us into narrative, so it will never seem more than good.

Well, the thing is, sometimes I don't mind the formula at all. I mean, the Sharpe books all follow the same pattern, and I don't care in the least. It's done well, I care about the characters, I'll probably learn some history (or at least get a more personal angle on something I know on a dry, academic level), and having some idea where it's going is a benefit rather than a downside.

I think part of the issue is that I tend to be bothered by romances with strong adventure/mystery elements, as opposed to adventure or mystery stories with strong romantic elements, which I'm all for. But with the former, I often feel the characters' and/or author's priorities are out of order--I'm like, "Dude, the Fate of Europe (or whatever the big important thing is) is in your hands! Angst about your Twoo Wuv later!"

For me -- my tolerance for formula books depends on how long it has been since I have read one. I need a break, so I read something light. Works as long as I don't over indulge.

Almost all of the books I read are formulaic, and I like that about them because I know what I'm getting. Ones I really enjoy have something more to them -- exceptional writing, an unusual setting, an actual surprising twist, whatever.

Yeah--I've hit that point about a lot of science fiction--or more, about fantasy. Blah blah peasant with funny name, blah blah epic quest, blah blah special power/companion/position, royalty, magic, yadda yadda I'm not even checking it out of the library.

Jesse is me, basically.

And I think I've figured out my own issue--I should stick with romances that are pretty much just romances, because if the FATE OF THE GALAXY/FREE WORLD/ENGLAND/ETC. is at stake, I want the love story to play second fiddle.

Well, the other issue I had with this book is one that's bugging me with a lot of romances lately--insta-lust. It's fine on occasion, but I miss stories where the attraction sneaks up on the hero and heroine over time.

The book I've been reading - "The Deception of the Emerald Ring" - starts off with a plot device she lifted from Georgette Heyer. The author acknowleges this in her note, but I recognized it right off. But the story takes a different tack after that.

Once more into the breach: The NYTimes considers the Transcending Genre question.