Group Read of "Jane Eyre"

I realize that everyone has different committments, especially those who have children who are home on summer vacation, but please consider joining a group read of "Jane Eyre" on the Barnes and Noble University website. There is no charge, and if you already have the book you won't have to spend a cent! The group reads are moderated, with discussion topics posted by the leader, and responses can be posted 27/7 -- it is not a chat room situation. The "Jane Eyre" discussion starts on July 5th and runs through August 11th. If dear Miss Eyre doesn't appeal, there are many other group reads going on at the same time.

If you are interested, go the the B&N web site, click on B&N University, and follow the prompts to register. I have found that even if you are unable to participate on a daily basis, the experience is beneficial, as you can go back and read previous postings in order to catch up. I enjoyed the group read of "David Copperfield," and even got into a spririted exchange on the subject of Dora Copperfield, David's infantile first wife (you can see my opinion of Mrs Copperfield in that one sentence!). Another benefit is that you do not have to be an "expert" in the field to participate -- and everyone's opinion is treated with respect.

Not Enough Hours in the Day!

Recently on one of the Romantic Times message boards, a poster asked how some ladies are able to read more than ten books a month. I found the answers interesting, as I haven't hit ten books a month for years.

In the first place, it seems that many women who frequent the RT boards do not work outside the home, and they are the ones who tend to read the most books. Some women are stay-at-home-moms, but many are retired, or are ladies who have health issues that do not permit outside employment. I was a stay-at-home-mom for only about three years, and what I remember of those days is usually being too tired to get in much reading, other than what I read to my son at bedtime! So my hat is off to stay-at-home-moms who are able to read more than a book a week -- I don't know how you do it, especially if you have more than one child, or your child/children are still at home.

Second, I would be willing to bet that the women who read 15 or more books a month are primarily reading short, category romances, which I rarely read. One poster, who also works outside the home, claims that she reads a book a day! I am sure these must be category romances, but even then we're talking 200-220 pages! Maybe she is a speed reader...

I tend to like longer books, although I have started reading the Zebra Regency books, which are in the 200-220 page category. Harlequin Historicals tend to be shorter as well, although that is not a hard and fast rule. Generally, Zebra Regencies and Harlequin Historicals tend to be light reads, although there are exceptions: I have Marianne Willman's brilliant "Pieces of Sky" in my TRB pile (TBR again pile, actually) -- it is a wonderful western set in Arizona territory in the 1870s and well worth a search on-line or in a UBS. When I am also reading for the Barnes & Noble University on-line group reads the books tend to be longer (200 pages to go in "David Copperfield"), so I go to a shorter book for my secondary reading material.

I read on the commuter bus, 30 minutes in the morning, 30 minutes in the afternoon. I try to squeeze in another 30 minutes in the evening right at bedtime. Weekend reading is hit-and-miss, depending upon my other activites. Yesterday, for example, I read about 45 minutes total, as I spent the morning and most of the afternoon with my DS and DGS, then went grocery shopping. By the time I got home, unpacked the groceries, cleaned out the frige, did some laundry, set out fresh water and seeds in the backyard for the birds, and washed dishes, I was so tired that I just watched a rented movie ("Iris," so sad, but wonderful performances by Kate Winslet and Judi Dench).

Okay ladies! How do you all get in your reading time? How do you make more time for reading?

Current reading: "David Copperfield, " by Charles Dickens.
"Carnal Gift," by Pamela Clare.

Romance Novel as Chocolate Truffle

There have been several spirited discussions on Romancing the Blog within the past two weeks, mainly dealing with the public image of romance novels, including the restrictions of the genre, the "clinch" book covers, and the future of romance fiction. Of the people who enjoy seriously discussing romance novels, there seem to be two schools of thought: those who want to bring romance more into the fiction mainsteam, and those who can't understand why that should be a concern.

I have to say, and this shouldn't come as a surprise, I am one of those who would like to see romance become more mainstream, but I am not sure how that can come about, given the restrictions of the genre. Maili made a good point the other day that even within the restrictions there is great variation depending upon the author and the plot, so that the readers who stick only to romances do have a variety of reading experiences. However, the characters in a romance novel are based upon archetypes (the hero, the virgin, the villian, the temptress, and so on) and the structure of the romance follows a set pattern, so the interaction between h/h is predictable and the ending is a done deal. This is not the case with mainstream and classic fiction, which seems to be dismissed by many romance readers as "depressing."

For me, what draws me to a particular romance author is how she is able to come up with something fresh and new, given the limitations placed upon her by the nature of the genre. What is ironic to me is that the most popular romance authors (the "big guns") are, with a few exceptions, the least innovative romance authors. That indicates to me that those of us who want more mainstreaming of romance novels are probably in the minority of readers of romance, while those who are more traditional are the support base for the Nora Roberts-type of author, who writes seemingly dozens of books a year, all virtually interchangeable one with the other. The more innovative mid-list authors are publishing one or two books a year at most. Sigh...maybe erotica/romantica will be the wave of the future that sweeps some of the same-old, same-old away.

Okay, so what does this have to do with chocolate truffles? Well, one of the remarks I made the other day was that there was only so much romance I could read without feeling the need to go to mainstream fiction, historical novels, mysteries, non-fiction, or the classics for a while. So maybe for me, romance novels are like chocolate truffles -- I love them, but I know that a steady diet of them would be a disaster of major proportions (proportions being a key word here!) for me. I love knowing that they are there, so that when I need a HEA ending, I can pick up a book by my favorite author, or look for one that has been highly recommended to me, and savor the sweetness.

Social Responsiblity in Romance Novels

This morning on "Romancing the Blog" the topic under discussion dealt in part with the idealization of the Regency period. As Wendy wrote on RTB, some readers tend to ignore the ills that were present during that period, but shrink in horror from books set in Victorian England due to the exploitation of child workers, industrial pollution, and other social issues. My remark was in part that if you carried that thought to it's logical conclusion, we would stop reading novels all together because you cannot find a period in history, including our own, where someone is not being exploited or mistreated.

In my article on the 100 best movies, I wrote that "Gone with the Wind" treats slavery as though all the horrors of that institution were the result of hiring evil Yankee overseers. There have been recent discussions on various blogs and websites about the American Civil War period being ignored in romance novels due to the whole issue of slavery: how does an author deal with this issue if the book is set in the south and has a southerner for a hero or heroine. Some stated they saw no problem with ignoring the whole issue of slavery and concentrating on the romance, while others felt that was dishonest. My feeling is that if you can't deal with the issue of slavery then set your book in another time period, which seems to be what authors are doing, because there is a dirth of CW romance novels. Another possible solution is to make your h/h northerners, but this seems to be out of the question for most romance authors -- I think this goes back to Shelby Foote's comment in Ken Burn's series on the CW, which was that somehow a myth that Union troop were not brave and committed to their cause has taken root in our popular culture. As Foote said, nothing could be further from the truth. As the direct descendant of three men who fought for the Union side in the CW, I personally find the myth disturbing. One branch of my family had to move out of Missouri for their own safety during that period, and in another case a ggg-GF was murdered (bushwacked) on an isolated road by southern sympathizers. But who tells their stories in a romance novel? When it is dealt with at all it is all about the south and the lost cause of the Confederacy!

My point, and I do have one, is how much should a romance novel deal with social issues? I don't want to read didatic literature, but on the other hand, books that totally ignore the reality of the time period are IMO dishonest. As I remarked on RTB, even Jane Austen dealt with the idle, careless Regency rakes by having them lose out to the more solid and steady type of hero that so many romance readers find boring ("just love those bad boy alpha heroes," is what we read over and over again). Any ideas?

If You Were Oprah, What Would Your "Bookclub" Recommend?

Oprah is recommending William Faulkner for summer reading this year. Now, I already stated on the Romantic Times message board that I think Faulkner will be a tough go for most people, although I am not surprised that Oprah would recommend a "difficult" author, since she seems to want to be known as an "intellectual." Faulkner was one of those authors whom I never "got" when I was at university -- I read the books, but never related to them. Maybe I should join Oprah's club and give them another go -- she couldn't make me like Toni Morrison, but maybe she can help me gain a better appreciation of old W.F.

Now, if I were Oprah, my reading for the summer would be Jane Austen. Not "Pride & Prejudice," not "Mansfield Park," but rather I would start with "Northanger Abbey," then to "Emma," and end the summer with "Persuasion," which has an autumnal feel. Since there are movie versions of all three books available, I would also "require" the readers to view them as well -- although the only version of "Northanger Abbey" is not very impressive.

What does your Book Club recommend?