Best re-read? Worst?
I love to re-read–I’d hazard that at least a quarter of my romance reading is re-reading books I’ve previously read and loved. I’m lucky–it’s rare I’ve re-read a book and been far less happy with it the second time around. My most recent re-reads were two of Madeline Hunter’s Rarest Blooms series, Provocative in Pearls and Dangerous in Diamonds. When Hunter is on her game, she’s tough to beat for sensual historical romance and I thoroughly enjoyed again experiencing these two love stories.
On the other hand, I thought I loved Eloisa James’ Three Weeks with Lady X but when I tried it earlier this month I found it rather meh. I still enjoyed the epistolary exchanges but the heroine seemed over the top this go round. I didn’t dislike the book but it didn’t wow me in the way it had eight years ago.
How about you? What’s your best re-read? Your worst?
Jo Beverley’s Malloren novels have held up quite well for me. I wish she was still around to write. For me, her work is very, very good, but Stella Riley just blows me away. If you like Beverley, try Riley.
I tend to prefer to reread historicals. There are only a few contemporary writers I reread, led off by the always rewarding Kathleen Gilles Seidel. I also reread a lot of Carla Neggers. I also like to reread Elizabeth Lowell’s series about the Donovans, which begins with Amber Beach.
There are a lot of authors I reread, but most have been mentioned here already, including Mary Balogh and Carla Kelly. As others have noted, my tastes have changed along with the genre. I think that is good. Long ago in a comparative literature course, the class and the professor had a lively discussion about how and why books become classics. The more some of the guys in the class pushed her to say that a particular writer’s work would be a classic, the more she resisted. Her point was that only time would tell which books stayed readable through different eras.
Her point was well taken, but of the romance writers I read and reread, Kathleen Gilles Seidel and Stella Riley strike me as those currently most likely to endure. I believe that KGS has the insight into character that helped keep Jane Austen’s work engaging down the decades, and Riley writes well-researched history that lifts her books above the many other very good historical romances that will remain classified as genre fiction. Both create heroes and heroines that engage my attention, and both also plot well and write strong secondary and tertiary characters as Austen does.
I just “met” Stella Riley in 2020,and I’ve already relistened (I had the audiobooks) to most of them. The quality of writing and storytelling is so high. I’m hoping the last two books in her Roundheads and Cavaliers series will come out on audio. Those are the only two I haven’t read.
I believe Alex is about to start work on The King’s Falcon :)
I do re-read a bit but my TBR pile is ever-growing so it’s somewhat rare these days. Recent re-reads have included Jubilee Trail (Gwen Bristow) and A Civil Contract (Georgette Heyer). As mentioned by DiscoDollyDeb, I re-read Katherine by Anya Seton last year following a visit to Kenilworth Castle to look at the lovely re-established Elizabethan knot garden. I lived in Kenilworth for 20 years and visited the castle regularly for walks and photography sessions. Every visit reminded me of Katherine. Three years ago I visited Katherine Swynford’s tomb at Lincoln Cathedral – very poignant. Those that have been the worst of the re-reads are nearly always in CR so there are only a very few that I have or intend ever to visit again. When I look at my keepers, there are about 1% CR and the rest are HR. It has been ever thus since I started reading romance more years ago than I care to think about!!
I have been re reading Lucinda Brant’s Georgian historical…..The Roxtons, Salt Hendon and Alec Halsey books. Her historical detail is excellent. She has a new Alec Halsey coming soon.
I really enjoyed her Roxton books. I haven’t read the other series except for the first Alec Halsey. I enjoyed the mystery but didn’t like the relationship drama.
It gets better!
Thanks! Maybe I’ll give it another go!
I had not read Lucinda Brant, so I went looking. There’s good news and bad news. The bad news is that on my Nook reader, the only two Brant titles available are Road to Gretna Green and a Roxton title, Midnight Marriage.
The good news is that Midnight Marriage is currently free (in English and two other languages).
I re-read a lot, and I agree with DiscoDollyDeb that “you never read the same book twice”, but mood also makes a huge difference to me. It sometimes makes it difficult to differentiate between “this book hasn’t aged well” and “I was just not in the mood for this particular book on this particular day”.
Which still makes me feel a bit unsure about one of my worst re-reads: Lord of Scoundrels. Oh, there are other re-reads that I would give a lower rating than this, but this is the one it disappointed me most to find disappointing. It was one of the very first romance novels I read, and I loved it at first. And also at later re-reads. But after not having revisited it for several years, I gave it another whirl earlier this year, and it just didn’t work for me. I’m still hoping it was a case of “I was just not in the mood for this book on this day, but maybe next time will be better”. I can’t bear to donate it just yet.
Other Chase books happily still hold up (for me, The Last Hellion in particular), and Jennifer Crusie and Carla Kelly are also writers that have several books that I happily still re-read again and again.
I love to reread, and I am currently on a rereading spree. I have been working my way through:
Nora Roberts’ trilogies – these have really held up for me
Linda Howard – very hit or miss this time around
Jennifer Cruise – I could reread her entire backlist every year and not get tired of it – even books that came out 25 years ago. I really wish she was still writing!
Julie Anne Long’s Palace of Rogues series in anticipation of the next in the series releasing this month
I have been eyeing my Nalini Singh’s Psy-Changling series on my bookshelf and will probably start a reread soon, although with such a long-running series it’s a bit of a daunting task!
I also love to reread Loretta Chase. I have not found that Susan Elizabeth Phillips holds up well for me – I don’t like how her heroines have to hit rock bottom before they can find their HEA in every. Single. Book.
Oh, I forgot how much I enjoy Psy-Changeling rereads!
That series is one of my favorites of all time, which is particularly impressive because I don’t read much paranormal/alternate reality romance. Ms. Singh is phenomenally talented (IMHO). Her world-building is unbelievable – I particularly enjoy reading about the changelings and life in the different packs
I hardly ever reread romance because my tastes keep evolving and I know I’m now going to be bored by that 1990s historical romance so there’s no point wasting my time. I do reread classic mysteries (about 20 years later) so I can appreciate the author’s sleight of hand, given a vague remembrance of the solution.
One of the few romances I actively sought out to reread ended in disaster: Patricia Gaffney’s To Have and to Hold was a swift DNF even though I knew Sebastian’s redemption was just around the corner. It wasn’t boredom but repulsion that led me to abandon the book. I don’t need a hero to be a saint but the kinds of misdeeds I can tolerate are different now.
I did a number of re-reads over the years and culled so many books from my collection. Judith McNaught didn’t last into the 2000’s. Most of Julie Garwood got tossed and not replaced in ebook format.
Certain Linda Howard’s are still re-read but a bunch got tossed because they no longer “sparked joy”. I gave myself permission to not have or get or even like every single book by an author just because I liked some of their work. Nora Roberts definitely has her hits and misses but the “Three Sister Island” books are still on my keeper shelf.
I still love my Carla Kelly books as much as the day I first read them. I am convinced many of hers are destined for classic status.
I have also discovered that I must have been initially dazzled by the sexiness of 80’s to 90’s romance books, because otherwise I cannot account for some of my former bad taste.
My favorite books from that era that are tamer, with more story and less sex, tend to hold up better on re-reads. I think the sexy times distracted me from poorer writing and plots. That’s my excuse anyway.
I am with you on the Linda Howard books! I glommed her entire backlist about 15 years ago when I first started to read romance in my early twenties. Over the past few months I’ve been on a rereading spree. Nora Roberts’ trilogies (Three Sisters Island, Gallaghers of Ardmore, etc) have really held up for me but Linda Howard has been very hit or miss this time through. I enjoy her books where the heroine is very strong since her heroes are SOOOO alpha, but otherwise, I roll my eyes and give myself permission to DNF. I have never read any Carla Kelly but have read good things on this site – do you have a particular book that you recommend as a starting point?
We’ve given her tons of DIKs. Personally, I think Libby’s London Merchant/ One Good Turn is a phenomenal duology (read them in order). Mrs. Drew Plays Her Hand is many people’s favorite, and deservedly so.
It’s the holiday season, and you won’t go wrong with her Christmas short stories if you enjoy that sort of thing, and Marian’s Christmas Wish is also a good holiday story.
Thank you so much for the recommendations! I am adding to my TBR pile!
Oh Carla Kelly is wonderful! I envy you having all those books to read!
some of my favorites are:
Marrying The Captain
With This Ring
The Lady’s Companion
The Surgeons’ Lady (second in the trilogy that starts with Marrying The Captain)
But she has so many wonderful stories. Everyone seems to have their own favorite.
I hope you enjoy her!
It sort of depends on why I’m rereading. If it’s because I’m really down, as in I want to crawl into bed, pull the covers over my head, and suck my thumb, then I read Heyer’s The Quiet Gentleman ( don’t exactly know why that appeals so much, but it does), Eloisa James’ Much Ado About You and The Desperate Duchesses (same comment) and anything by Loretta Chase, because they all make me happy.
Heh, I had to go to GR to see some of my “worst” collection…
My worst re read was Heaven ,Texas by SEP. Everything I first loved about bobbytom Denton was what I came to hate about him. Talk about turnabout.
My best reread is Mrs. Drew plays her hand by Carla Kelly.
Carla Kelly is absolute gold for rereads. I have the exact same happy sigh the fifth time through that I did the first.
The books that don’t age well for me tend to be historicals from the 90s and early 2000s. The first time through, I added every Julia Quinn to my keeper shelf. Every single one got donated after the second read. Once I’d tried Milan and Duran and Thomas, and less one-name authors like Cecilia Grant and Elizabeth Essex, the superficiality and wallpaper-ness of Quinn became apparent.
Similarly, I remember loving Judith McNaught’s A Kingdom of Dreams the first time I read it. Rereading exposed that not only was it profoundly detached from historical reality (vs medievals like Madeline Hunter’s, Elizabeth Elliott’s and Jo Goodman’s, which, while obviously fictionalized, at least connect vaguely to the time), but also that the heroine was both underage and a twerp.
This is what always bugs me in the Top 100 poll. I feel like if you haven’t checked in on a book in 5 years (or 15, or 25!), then you should reread it before you vote for it. It’s highly likely that it isn’t as good as you thought it was.
I co-sign all of this from the Carla Kelly praise to the absolute disappointment of the 90’s romances in particular.
The last paragraph above is absolute gold. It should be a requirement to have read the book within the last two years if you are going to vote for it in any poll.
I cannot tell you how many books I remembered really liking that I hadn’t picked up in a decade or more, finally re-read, and was convinced someone re-wrote the book. They were that bad. How could I have liked it?
That’s a good point (about the Top 100) – tastes change and better book come along, etc. But Top anything polls are always difficult – I mean, look at those Top Movie of All Time polls where Star Wars wins over Citizen Kane or Casablanca or whatever. I’m a massive SW fan but much as I love it, some of the dialogue is truly dreadful! Those polls are more indicative of the average age of the voters than the quality of the films IMO.
I didn’t start reading romance in a big way until the mid 2000s (I’d read most of Heyer’s romances by then and a few others) so I missed the 80s and 90s horrors that often come up in conversation and can’t really comment on those (although I do enjoy the discussions!).
In Jo Walton’s WHAT MAKES THIS BOOK SO GREAT? (an overview of some of her favorite SF titles, but a really fun book even if you’re not a big fan of SF), she talks about “the suck fairy” who drains all of the fun and joy out of our favorite childhood books between the time we first read them and the time we go in for a re-read. (I should add that Walton admits she didn’t come up with the term “suck fairy,” but I can’t remember who she attributes it to.) Anyway, it often seems to me that the suck fairy doesn’t just visit childhood favorites, but also books that we loved in earlier parts of our adulthood but that upon re-reading no longer do it for us. Alas, sometimes you truly can’t go home again.
I find that even childhood books hold up better for me. Of course the language is basic and it’s not something I would sit down to “read” today but when I flip through old Beverly Cleary or other books I still see why I liked them. It’s definitely not the case for a lot of my early romance reading.
I made the same experience with Julia Quinn. When the Bridgerton hype started, I tried two of her books but after half an hour I gave up. IMO the best she has written is the prologue of Duke and I.
Bobby Tom is an ass.
SEP hasn’t held up for me.I found I dislike many of her characters the second time around, both male and female. And Carla Kelly is so very rereadable! I reread Beau Crusoe, Reforming Lord Ragsdale, and 3 or 4 others at the beginning of lockdown and they were all a delight.
I can’t remember the last time I re-read a book – BUT I do “re-read” in audio, as it often happens that audios are released after the e-and print editions, so if I enjoyed reading something I’m likely to pick up the audio, especially if it’s got a good narrator. Most recently – Lily Morton’s Merry Measure, which I reviewed here when it came out last year, and which I enjoyed again just last week in audio. Gregory Ashe’s They Told Me I Was Everything, Yet a Stranger and The Same Breath are also books I revisited in audio – the narration is outstanding, so they definitely held up. I’ve been listening to Jay Hogan’s Auckland Med. series in audio as they come out (another fantastic narrator) – the audio of Against the Grain (my favourite of the set) is coming out in a few weeks, so I’m looking forward to listening to that. Other books I’ve “revisited” in audio this year and enjoyed – Miranda Dubner’s The Spare, Annabeth Albert’s Up in Smoke and Aftermath by L.A. Witt.
I’ve re-read a lot of the recent “big name” HR series in audio (Bridgerton, Bedwyns, Wallflowers, Maiden Lane etc.), although none recently.
I too re-read some older books by audio, especially Balogh and Mary Jo Putney.
I just wrote a post and my computer crashed. Sigh.
Worst: Susan Elizabeth Phillips and JAK/Amanda Quick books.
Best: BET ME by Jennifer Crusie, THE IRON DUKE by Meljean Brook, Stella Riley’s books, ENVY by Sandra Brown
Authors I revisit regularly: Georgette Heyer, Carla Kelly
Recent books I recently read and have already reread: Most of Lily Morton’s books, Rachel Reid’s Game Changer series, Angels in the City by Garrett Leigh, KJ Charles’ Charm of Magpie series.
One of the truisms of my reading life is “You never read the same book twice,” because you’re always a different person (different age, different perspectives, different experiences) when you re-read. I absolutely know I couldn’t re-read any of the bodice-rippers I consumed in mass quantities from the mid-1970s until the late-1980s; my blood-pressure would probably go through the roof before I got to the second chapter of Rebecca Brandewyne’s THE OUTLAW HEARTS (once—30-plus years ago—in heavy rotation on my re-read list). That being said, in addition to regular re-reads of Anya Seton’s KATHERINE (a classic of historical fiction with a central romance, which holds up amazingly well almost 70 years after publication), I have a collection of about 30 romances I consider “comfort re-reads” that I dip into between new books or just when I want the assurance of knowing what’s going to happen. Because I’m an angsty-heartache queen (only in my reading life, my real life is thankfully fairly placid), none of my re-reads involves smooth sailing for the MCs and at least one (Taylor Fitzpatrick’s THROWN OFF THE ICE) doesn’t have an HEA. Probably my best re-read is Anne Calhoun’s LIBERATING LACEY, with its older & wealthier divorced heroine and younger cop hero. Every time I re-read it, I notice new things (for example, how making grilled cheese sandwiches for each other is a bonding experience between h&h). I love re-reading it. How I miss Anne Calhoun and wish she were still writing.
One more comment: I’m not saying it was my worst re-read, but certainly one of my most problematic re-reads has been Edith Layton’s THE ABANDONED BRIDE (originally published in 1985). THE ABANDONED BRIDE was one of the two Regency romances (the other being Mary Balogh’s THE OBEDIENT BRIDE) that “brought me back” to romance in the late-1980s after I’d gotten totally burnt out on bodice-rippers, so it has always had a place in my heart. However (and I’m pretty sure I’ve posted about this before), in one of the early scenes in THE ABANDONED BRIDE, the hero slaps the heroine. This act of violence is not mitigated or excused—even though the hero feels immediately remorseful—and the consequences of it percolate throughout the book, but, almost 40 years later, it’s very hard to read a book with a hero who hits the heroine. By the same token, several early Balogh titles (including the aforementioned THE OBEDIENT BRIDE) feature heroes who, after entering into an arranged marriage, continue to visit their pre-marital mistresses. Again, a re-read of those books can be problematic because—no matter how passionate the love that eventually blooms between h&h—we’re just not accustomed today to reading romance novels where heroes are unfaithful to their wives.
And yet, if romance is about redemptive love, why wouldn’t we allow the husband who changes his ways for love story? There are lots of kinds of adultery–the one in which a person in what begins as a business arrangement seeks comfort elsewhere has never thrown me.
I love that Mary Balogh offered a dose of realism in those early romances! They are some of my favorite re-reads!
Naturally, Balogh’s hero would realize eventually that it did not sit well with him to keep a mistress when he had a perfectly lovely wife at home. Was A Christmas Promise the one where the hero buys nice jewelry for his mistress–something he could never afford to do before his marriage–because he now has the necessary funds, thanks to his new wife’s dowry? Shortly thereafter, though, he feels bad about funding his mistress with his wife’s money, and his innate sense of right and wrong leads him to break off with the mistress, IIRC.
I agree about the dose of realism – and it’s odd that in some ways, we’ve gone backwards in attitudes since those books were written in the 80s. I don’t particularly like reading about husbands with mistresses, but it’s certainly realistic and makes his transformation into a faithful husband that much more powerful. But it’s the rare author nowadays who will write something like that and get away with it. Sherry Thomas pulls it off in Ravishing the Heiress, but there are people who just won’t read it because of the “cheating”.
I think these older books, with mistresses and even the occasional slap (It was the right of the husband at that time!) are a bit more realistic than newer books.
Now we have many regencies bordering on erotica and nearly nobody bemoans the unrealistic behaviour of the protagonists.
Oh, I used to bemoan it frequently – but most authors and publishers don’t care. I’ve more or less stopped reading HR because of it.
The part about not reading the same book twice is 100% true.
But it is also true that well written books with interesting plots and universal feelings are great reads no matter the age of the protagonists or the reader.
Even though my 20’s are far behind me in the rear view mirror I feel every bit of Anne Elliot’s angst whenever I re-read Persuasion for the millionth time. I’ve even re-read some children’s and teens’ books I used to love during the pandemic and they hold up.
For whatever reason, the only time my taste went “off the radar” wonky in my life was in my romance reading.
@chrisreader: Your last line (“For whatever reason, the only time my taste went ‘off the radar’ wonky in my life was in my romance reading”) provides a lot of food for thought. I’m wondering if one of the reasons a re-read of a favorite romance tends to be a more perilous venture than, say, a re-read of a favorite mystery is because (speaking very broadly here) romance tends to be the genre that adapts most readily to reflect changes in social attitudes and awareness. I think about the plethora of boss-employee romances that were oh so popular as recently as five years ago—but, in light of #MeToo, you no longer see many boss-employee romances (and when you do, the plots are set-up in some way to make it more palatable that a boss is in a relationship with an employee; for instance, they got together before they discovered he was her new boss). The same is true for treatment of gay characters: ten or so years ago, the heroine’s “gay best friend” character was considered quite progressive, even if he was presented somewhat stereotypically, dancing to Madonna, drooling over the hot guys, and saying “oh guuurl” every few pages. We rarely see that character any more; we have m/m romances with a wide variety of hero types and gay supporting characters (in either m/f or m/m romances) are no longer effeminate cliches. Perhaps one of the reasons so many favorites past romances just don’t do it for us on re-read is that we’ve moved on in our outlooks and the books haven’t.
I really enjoyed this comment. Very interesting. Thanks!
Maybe. I think, in the US, that the idea that most romance readers care about #MeToo is wishful. Or that the super helpful gay friend is a thing of the past. This is not to say I don’t wish it were otherwise. But from where I look–and I’m watching the VA governor’s results come in and looking at post-voting polls, it’s clear most Americans don’t care passionately about the social issues that dominate Twitter, the NYT, and our universities.
On the other hand, I do think that romance writers and romance readers tend to incorporate evolving sensitivity and inclusivity in their outlooks. If romance writers (and readers) didn’t change, we’d still be reading romances with rapey heroes, couples who never discuss birth control, health status, or condom usage, and a ”kill all your gays” or “being gay equals being a villain” mentality when it comes to gay characters (and we certainly wouldn’t have an entire sub-genre of m/m romance). My speculation is that older books may no longer work as re-reads because our perspectives have changed and the book remains unchanging.
I totally agree–the world evolving is key.
However, if you look at the Amazon romance best seller lists, you’ll see the majority of books don’t mention birthday control, don’t have well-rounded queer characters, and have very alpha males. Clearly, that stuff still works for many. Are they changing? I sure hope so. But it’s a slow thing.
“most voters who live in non gerrymandered districts and have enough leave and health and childcare to access voting and haven’t been voter suppressed”
Fixed that for ya.
No, I did not mean that, but thank you.
Gerrymandering doesn’t impact statewide races for governor. Additionally, Virginia has early voting and is run by Democrats. New Jersey is considered a Democratic stronghold.
As the WaPo said,
“Democrats’ losses Tuesday indicate that they may have “misread” the four years of anti-Trump resistance as enthusiasm for liberal policies.”
That is an excellent and very pertinent point. You only have to look at the kerfuffle over the last Top 100 Poll to see that dissonance at work.
There is such a social disconnect right now between the ideals we often see in our world and what people actually want. I just started an upcoming romance and in the first chapter the heroine defines her father’s attitude toward his unmarried 30 yo daughter as misogynistic. It seemed a bit much and I wondered what most romance readers would make of it.
I think part of my “excuse” is that I was very young when I started reading some of the more serious “romance” books and they were an education of sorts. I hadn’t had any real romances of my own so my ideas of male-female romance dynamics were based on TV shows, movies and books.
At first anything remotely explicit was a real eye opener and anything that ended happily was good enough for me to overlook the obnoxious behavior and excesses. I think I didn’t equate it to anything “real life” and I certainly wouldn’t have put up with any of that crap from guys in real life.