I was just having a very similar conversation with Vicky, Charlotte, and Hannah on Saturday while we discussed our most recent Romance History Project selection, Playing the Odds by Nora Roberts. None of us liked it, to put it mildly. But it was Nora's first bestseller and she's basically been a bestseller ever since. So clearly readers were responding to something in that book! We all wish we knew more about what else was popular at that time.
On the other hand, I keep going back to how I feel about today's bestsellers, most of which are not my cup of tea. They seem more for people who don't read all that much and maybe don't know that other, better books exist. (I feel so snobby saying this!) The page-turner element and simpler prose has to be a large part of the appeal, whether we're discussing Nora Roberts, SJM, or Colleen Hoover.
I read a ton of Nora Roberts as a teenager and had tapered off by my early twenties and now I haven't read one in ten+years at least. I think there's a season for some readers for certain books. I don't know that today's bestsellers are for people who don't read that much--I think there are lots of voracious readers who don't stray beyond the bestsellers or their genre of choice.
This is an awesome post. This line will stay with me for a long time. "It’s ironic that romance novels, which are often derided as populist drivel, are actually not populist enough to be familiar to The New York Times audience." So true!!!!!!
So I regularly read SBTB, several other romance blogs, romance substacks, and listen to romance podcasts, yet I had no idea what Fourth Wing was, and I've never heard of Yarros, or seen her recommended or even mentioned at any of the places I frequent. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was just having a very similar conversation with Vicky, Charlotte, and Hannah on Saturday while we discussed our most recent Romance History Project selection, Playing the Odds by Nora Roberts. None of us liked it, to put it mildly. But it was Nora's first bestseller and she's basically been a bestseller ever since. So clearly readers were responding to something in that book! We all wish we knew more about what else was popular at that time.
On the other hand, I keep going back to how I feel about today's bestsellers, most of which are not my cup of tea. They seem more for people who don't read all that much and maybe don't know that other, better books exist. (I feel so snobby saying this!) The page-turner element and simpler prose has to be a large part of the appeal, whether we're discussing Nora Roberts, SJM, or Colleen Hoover.
I read a ton of Nora Roberts as a teenager and had tapered off by my early twenties and now I haven't read one in ten+years at least. I think there's a season for some readers for certain books. I don't know that today's bestsellers are for people who don't read that much--I think there are lots of voracious readers who don't stray beyond the bestsellers or their genre of choice.
This is an awesome post. This line will stay with me for a long time. "It’s ironic that romance novels, which are often derided as populist drivel, are actually not populist enough to be familiar to The New York Times audience." So true!!!!!!
So I regularly read SBTB, several other romance blogs, romance substacks, and listen to romance podcasts, yet I had no idea what Fourth Wing was, and I've never heard of Yarros, or seen her recommended or even mentioned at any of the places I frequent. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
“Did we spend 20+ minutes trying to make sense of one framing choice on page 1? Yes. Yes, we did.” Hahaha! #AlwaysRemember
P.S. I am still trying to make sense of it
The joys of analysis!