AAR

[KathieO]

I've been curious for some time now, and don't know if I am missing something and out of the loop. It seems weird that Hannah Howell seeems so unrepresented on AAR's lists. This question has puzzled me for awhile. I found her when I was in my "Highlanders" period, and loved her "Highland Bride." Then I glomed onto her series, and consider her my "cotton candy" formula romance reading author (although formulaic, she's addictive to me for some reason). She has a huge number of books, so it seems weird there are only two reviews (not so good), no "favorite books" author rep. list, and now I'm starting to think she may have commited some weird PC violation I may not know about. Am I just imaging things? Can anyone enlighten me? It can't just be me reading her books, since she has so many!?
_________________
"Life is Managed, Not Cured" (Phil McGraw)

[NoirFemme]

I read her when I first began reading romances and quickly tired of the formula. Perhaps she's MIA from AAR because she's kind of like Connie Mason--you adore it because you're brand new to the genre, but once you dig into romance, you outgrow their work (not to say they're "terrible" writers, but just ones who work with the formula, not out of it).

[KathieO]

Well, that can't be my excuse . . . since I've been reading romance (with some breaks of course wondering into other stuff) since before Woodiwiss launched her career (i.e. there are very few novels on the top 100 here I have not read). I can't say Howell has even one in my personal top 100 list, but her formula (amongst other authors) just has some kind of weird "guilty pleasure" reading for me. (I've never read Connie Mason, but I did see a comparable analogy made by dick about her and his reading of same, on another thread.) Like comfort food, I suppose when I've emotionally drained myself for a period with a lot of "heavy" reads. (I read, and I use the term lightly,"US" magazine on occasion too . . . emotional non-commitment time )

Anyway, there are many of the same kind of fomulaic authors represented in reviews and listings here (IMO), so I was curious if there actually was something more to it! Maybe not. Hmmm - wait a minute, perhaps that's the point? I'm usually looking for more "meaty" reviews (no pun intended), so they tend to come up? HA!
_________________
"Life is Managed, Not Cured" (Phil McGraw)

[KathieO]

NoirFemme After reading my post . . . Now I'm feeling a bit guilty for throwing my comfortable Hannah under the bus!

Hannah, if you're out there girl . . . I'm no "romance elitist." I promise I'll continue blowing my hard earned cash on you! Don't quiz me on which book is which, but I'll stand strong! (I'd better slink away now . . . to the Fond Memories thread and post her stuff - no one will ever get them!)
_________________
"Life is Managed, Not Cured" (Phil McGraw)

[dick]

to kathieo: I've read quite a few of Howell's myself, until the last two or three, which got pretty boring. I even wondered if those last ones weren't ghost-written. I prefer the very early stuff more than that long series of "highland" titles--Elf-king's Lady, Only for You, and Unconquered, e.g.--for the unabashed entertainment they provide, much for the same reason I enjoy reading Connie Mason occasionally. As an aside, I always thought the dialogue in dialect she wrote pretty consistent and easily adapted to until the last two or three, one of the reasons I thought those might be ghost-written.

I theorize that those authors who write consistently to formula with some degree of confidence are successful for that very reason. They rarely cause controversy because they provide what probably the greater majority of readers of romance want--the formula, competently executed.
They maintain the genre, in a way with a meat and potatoes with beer menu while the more stellar authors do chateau briand and champagne.