Harlequin Presents – What Were They Thinking?

“Pirate Tycoon, Forbidden Baby” made me lawl.

I actually bought the last book on that list–The Ruthless Italian’s Inexperienced Wife. It was pretty bad, gotta tell you.

I’m losing my ability to laugh these titles off … they’re starting to bleed into the naming of Harlequin Historicals and I have tons of those. That being said, the review on AAR for “Invitation to the Boss’s Ball” (B+} was so positive, I might just have to buy it … I’m a sucker for Cinderella tales.

I KNOW why these titles keep coming: they sell. Oh well. Another good reason to buy an e-reader I suppose I, as a member of romland, might see the ironic appeal of these titles but no one else, imo, looks at these ridiculous titles ironically.

I started reading romances back in the mid-60s with a series of books in our local library, the titles of which all took the form “[Heroine's Name], [Her Profession],” which sounds all nouveau girl power except that the jobs were exactly what you might imagine: teacher, nurse, secretary, etc., and I’m pretty sure the books all ended with a marriage and coincidentally the end of the career. The series had probably been written in the 1950s.

So why do I feel like these books have more than a passing familial relationship with my 50s horrors? Stable girl is an interesting job; secretary is a positively prehistoric job title (aren’t they all personal assistants by now?); I’ll admit to being a sucker for housekeeper heroines (Harlequin + HGTV = Hot Heroine Who Can Cook & Manage Household & Gets Paid!). But VIRGIN? Wow! And VIRGIN + FERTILE?!? Double wow!

I’m not sure why the titles sell, other than they clearly excel at telegraphing the plot. The real question to me is why “Foreign Royal Boss’s Gestating Formerly Virginal Handmaiden” plots appeal to people. Because after forty years of women’s lib, the idea of “just” having some rich dude’s baby sounds appealing? Somewhere, Gloria Steinem’s gnawing on her knuckles…

Great post, Sarah!!