I’ve read three historicals (romance) in a row. This isn’t my usual reading pattern, but I’d picked them up at Ollies (I assume remaindered) months ago, and I’m trying to work through my TBR pile. Plus, I’ve been harboring an idea I’ve had for a book set during the Gold rush north, and one of the books is set during the same period/situation.

Of the three books, one I felt was so bad that it was painful to read. The story line and characters felt weak and a little too cardboard. The writing was mediocre at best.

Another, I thought the setting was quite good, and the story was good. However, the pacing was pathetic, staying more or less the same throughout the whole book. Too much information was given to actually drive up the tension, and I just didn’t care about any of the characters. It was set in the court of Catherine de Medici, and the only character I cared about was her daughter who I believe was meant to only facilitate the plot. All of the mains were… well, I couldn’t care less. I was more interested to see if the hero became truly friends with Henry de Guise than if he hooked up with the girl. On top of that, the author used “became aware” “caused her to recollect”, and other such annoying phrases to turn subjects and info-dump.

And the third? Actually not bad. It was a little touch and go in the beginning. One good page followed by a bad one. The bad guy was evil enough to be terrifying, yet had a streak of goodness (or perhaps just gratitude) strong enough to make you wonder if he couldn’t be redeemed. Of course, you know he won’t be since writing a scene like that is so delicate only a pro could truly pull it off- but you sense that it could happen. The characters weren’t developed enough for my taste. My interest mostly lay in the bad guy and a character who is more or less insignificant in this book, but whom I expect will be the love interest in the second. I liked the cover best out of the three, and it makes me wonder if you really can judge a book by its cover.

Still, what the author did well, she did very well. What she didn’t do well, was acceptable. This is the only book that I felt was worth my time reading and the cost of buying it remaindered. However, it was not worth my investing the cash to buy book 2 new.

Now, all three of these authors have quite the career writing, and so I make allowances for time constraints in their writing. Obviously, most working writers have to produce a book in a relatively short period of time to keep their editors happy. I still think the industry would be better served as a whole to allow authors sufficient time to perfect each story.

Yes, people like to buy from authors they’re familiar with and like, but if each book published was as strong as it could be, would the consumer not be more inclined to take a chance on an unknown? I know that my fear in purchasing from a new author is “I’ve read so many dreadful books, do I want to take the chance?”, surely that’s how most reader/buyers feel. If editors didn’t rush their authors to keep pumping out books, and instead used the lull to publish other great writers, surely the market would only be improved by this?

Ok, rant over.

Here’s the common denominator in all three of the books. I just didn’t care about the characters. I didn’t feel that any of them were real (except the princess in book 2, and the bad guy in book 3), and I’m not spending my cash on people I don’t care about. I don’t lend money to my co-workers, and I’m not going to pay you to bore me. I don’t have to like your story, but I do have to like the people in it. And stop using lazy phrases!

Oh, and one more thing. Don’t tell me that someone is funny, friendly, or has a cruel streak. I already saw it in their actions and words, I don’t need a nanny telling me what I already know.