In which Sky talks about Nora Roberts.
Mar. 10th, 2008 05:06 pmMy roommate informs me that the best part about reading these books is that no one knows. They're supposed to be your guilty little pleasure and you keep them in your nightstand (if one has a nightstand) and you feel wonderfully guilty for reading those.
For the record, I've been reading Nora Roberts.
Yes, I hang my head in shame. But only because she does something that I swear I won't read if other authors do: She vomits out books. Can she really be taking the time to make each one good? (That's my argument against R.A. Salvatore, Anne McCaffrey, and Steven King, and why I refuse to read anything but their earliest works. Which I actually haven't gotten to yet, but they are on the list!)
However, I contend that the writing in Nora Roberts's books isn't actually all that bad. Ok, sure, every once in a while I wonder about some of her sentence constructions, but for the most part, she does a pretty good job. What people seem to be confusing for "bad writing" (and I don't know if I would make this leap personally) is that her stuff is all the same.
Nora Roberts wrote one good book. And ever since then, she's been rewriting the same book, over and over again.
Okay, there's something to be said for starting a romance novel knowing that the woman is going to get her man. And that somewhere in the middle of it all, there's going to be some really hot sex. (With a whole lot of euphemisms for orgasms. "Flying" and "shattering" seem to be her favorites.) Sure, there's less suspense, but that's not really the point of a romance novel. Nora Roberts has really capitalized on this. There's some variation on the details of the plot–she's an artist, he's own a gallery; she's a doctor, he's business man; she's a witch, he studies the paranormal–but it's really all just the spices on the entrée anyway.
As I said, I don't think I would make the leap from "similar plot lines" to "bad writer" but I suppose that might be a matter of perspective. I think Ms. Roberts is doing what she does really well, and what she's doing is giving women a good romance to read.
ETA: Coming Soon: Classics. *cue suspense music again*
For the record, I've been reading Nora Roberts.
Yes, I hang my head in shame. But only because she does something that I swear I won't read if other authors do: She vomits out books. Can she really be taking the time to make each one good? (That's my argument against R.A. Salvatore, Anne McCaffrey, and Steven King, and why I refuse to read anything but their earliest works. Which I actually haven't gotten to yet, but they are on the list!)
However, I contend that the writing in Nora Roberts's books isn't actually all that bad. Ok, sure, every once in a while I wonder about some of her sentence constructions, but for the most part, she does a pretty good job. What people seem to be confusing for "bad writing" (and I don't know if I would make this leap personally) is that her stuff is all the same.
Nora Roberts wrote one good book. And ever since then, she's been rewriting the same book, over and over again.
Okay, there's something to be said for starting a romance novel knowing that the woman is going to get her man. And that somewhere in the middle of it all, there's going to be some really hot sex. (With a whole lot of euphemisms for orgasms. "Flying" and "shattering" seem to be her favorites.) Sure, there's less suspense, but that's not really the point of a romance novel. Nora Roberts has really capitalized on this. There's some variation on the details of the plot–she's an artist, he's own a gallery; she's a doctor, he's business man; she's a witch, he studies the paranormal–but it's really all just the spices on the entrée anyway.
As I said, I don't think I would make the leap from "similar plot lines" to "bad writer" but I suppose that might be a matter of perspective. I think Ms. Roberts is doing what she does really well, and what she's doing is giving women a good romance to read.
ETA: Coming Soon: Classics. *cue suspense music again*