I can actually relate to this. I read to rest my mind or to explore a subject that interests me. I'm not in a mood often for tougher stuff.
Yeah, but I'm guessing that you'll accept that there are people who do like or who want a measure of reality in their escapist fiction-- after all, different strokes for different folks. But the kind of reader who says that with respect to women's fic is also usually saying that with respect to contemporary romance, which is a subgenre that's been losing a lot of shelf space to the paranormal and urban fantasy and erotic romances. This is also the reader who's not only saying that they don't want to read it, but no one else should want to either.
It's terribly frustrating.
There are romance readers who won't read women's fiction because "If I want realism, I'll look at my own life, I don't need it in my books."
When I was a kid in junior high and reading romances, 1970s-era Harlequins and Barbara Cartlands were fine for me. But, I was delighted as I got older to find out that romances, even Harlequin/Silhouettes, really expanded into what's now considered to be "women's fiction." For example, Kathleen Korbel's Silhouette Special Editions from the early 1990s dealt with everything from an illiterate hero to a heroine with a Down's baby, and I think they're some of the best examples of the genre out there.
Unfortunately, in the mid-'90s, category romances were taken over by way too many baby books--every other title was "Baby on Board," "Unexpected Delivery," or another insipid take on the subject. That's when I stopped reading them, even though I was working at Waldenbooks and able to get them with my discount. Now, the only romances I buy are Nora Roberts trilogies and the occasional book written by one of my old favorites.
Loretta Chase finally published her sixth book in fifteen years this summer, and I snagged it off the shelf after a customer brought it up to the register. I didn't even know she had a new one coming out. The customer laughed when my eyes nearly bugged out of my head when I went to ring it up; "Loretta Chase has a new book?!? How did I not know this?" She'd never read her before, but was delighted to have me recommend some of her old titles from the "other books by" list in the front of the book.
no one else should want to either
What a boring world that person lives in.
There are romance readers who won't read women's fiction because "If I want realism, I'll look at my own life, I don't need it in my books." (This is the kind of reader who tends to give romance as a whole a bad name... )
Well, that's basically the reason that the only romance I do read is Regency. (Exceptions to this rule are made for Jennifer Crusie). But I don't generally pick up contemporary fiction anyway. I'm slowly changing that as I have more time to read now.
meara should always be thanked twice, right? (Double post. I don't know why it did that.)
Oh my - just when I think I couldn't possibly love xkcd any more: House of Pancakes
Jess, your blue font made me laugh and laugh.
"The decision to not hyphenate "kids only" is likely related to the omission of the serial comma. I wonder if the author is British. I wonder if he sleeps at night."
