This is the worst romance novel I have ever read, and that is saying a lot. This is the kind of romance novel that gives romance novels a bad name (minus the bodice ripping and sex- this one has no sex. At all.) Originally published in 1984, but republished in 2003, Sullivan's Woman features a moody jerk of an artist and a completely innocent dreamer of a writer. Of course she's stunningly beautiful, so he must paint her. Over the two months of their sitting she manages to fall completely in love with him, but hell if I can figure out why. So far as I can tell, they didn't actually talk and he just yells at her a lot. In the very final chapter we find out that he can't live without her and they live happily ever after. What? Huh? This is exactly the stereotype of a romance that makes everyone think they are all crap. Spoiler: They aren't all crap.If you're looking for a great romance you might try the following:
The MacKade brothers by, yes, Nora Roberts.
The Fool's Gold series by Susan Mallery
The Lucky Harbor books by Jill Shalvis
In the Midnight Rain by Ruth Wind (my favorite romance ever, in fact.)
Practice Makes Perfect by Julie James
Nine Rules to Break When Romancing a Rake by Sarah MacLean
The Hathaways series by Lisa Kleypas
The Bride Quartet by Nora Roberts
Going too Far by Jennifer Echols (YA)
The Truth About Forever by Sarah Dessen (YA)
Actually, you know what? Pretty much any romance novel you pick up is gonna be better than Sullivan's Woman. If it had been any author other than Nora Roberts I'd have abandoned it, but I just kept thinking it had to get better. It didn't.
Thanks for the warning. I'll skip this one for sure.
ReplyDeleteHeh, I guess it took Nora awhile to find her stride. Have you been reading her Boonsboro Inn series? I think the last one comes out tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteHehehe the only good thing is that, when you read a very bad book, then the next looks wonderful to your eyes :)
ReplyDeleteI don't like Lisa Kleypas so much, but I'll try with any of the sagas by N. R.