For Historical - I'd say the exact same as you.😀 American Revolution/Civil War or any war are less appealing to me. The war tends to take over the book and I'm not reading romance for a history lesson. I want the history to be a part of the story but not the story itself.
like medieval and Viking also. I never got into regency.
The Viking, Medieval and Pirate theme within the historical genre are waaaay more intense imo. The H can be cavemen and non-pc and it works in those books, hence I like them. 😆
Regarding regency, the H's have to conform to the rigors of society so they seem more tame imo. I did enjoy Amanda Quick's 90's era regencies. (I don't like the later ones.) All her one word titles are good imo. I loved Ravished. I find it very entertaining when a man traps a woman into marriage while she is completely oblivious.
Last Edit: Jul 3, 2017 7:04:53 GMT -7 by Samantha K
like medieval and Viking also. I never got into regency.
The Viking, Medieval and Pirate theme within the historical genre are waaaay more intense imo. The H can be cavemen and non-pc and it works in those books, hence I like them. 😆
Regarding regency, the H's have to conform to the rigors of society so they seem more tame imo. I did enjoy Amanda Quick's 90's era regencies. (I don't like the later ones.) All her one word titles are good imo. I loved Ravished. I find it very entertaining when a man traps a woman into marriage while she is completely oblivious.
I guess I never thought of it that way but you are so right. And your explanation of regency hero's explains why I don't care for regency books. Maybe they are more beta than I would like.
My favorite historical eras have always been ancient history up through medieval. I just started reading The Patrician by Joan Kayse, which takes place in 52 C.E. I'm only on chapter 4 but loving it so far.
Post by secretromancejunkie on Jul 4, 2017 16:20:10 GMT -7
I think the problem with Regencies (which I love BTW) is that everyone and their dog thinks they can write regency. Sorting the wheat from the chaff becomes tiresome. Regency, when well done, can be very intense. Although, admittedly, it usually isn't as caveman ish as, say, medieval.
Some authors have done their research and the write very compelling and intense heroes that still fit within the strictures of society. Others just make my eyes roll with the things they get wrong.
I enjoy pretty much any historical period, as long as the story is believable within the time frame. I don't insist on complete accuracy (old english for example) but I do want to believe it.
I also like late victorian romance. Some more modern conveniences start to appear, such as indoor plumbing, gas lights and train travel. I can stop pretending that the H and h actually bathed more than one a month (squick!), because it actually becomes likely that they did bathe more often.
Josie - Yeah, I have to agree. It can be boring. The only time I like the American West is when it's with Indians and the H is an Indian who kidnaps the h but then I don't think that's considered the American West - lol.
My fave historical genre would be Medieval, Viking, Highlander.. Regency is so popular now but not everyone can write it.
American West is so harsh.. I think I truly enjoyed only 1 book in that category (Julie Garwood's Prince Charming if I'm not wrong)
Also, one of my very first historicals was so traumatic.. Rosanne Bittner's Heart's Surrender and the romance spanned decades and so many freaking heartaches like the Trail of Tears and the heroine being enslaved and drugged and made to work at a brothel..
I don't care much for the American west HR, either, unless it is Laura Ingalls Wilder books. However, I did really enjoy The Tenderfoot Bride by Cheryl St. John and Two Pigs and a Chicken by Courtney Seligman. I have reread both of those a couple of times.