OK, I hate to trash another site but I found Book Riot’s article on 8 of the Most Polarizing Romance Novels Ever Written to be, um, a joke. Ravishing the Heiress? The Hating Game? The Heart Principle? The Love Hypothesis?
I don’t think so.
Perhaps the writer is young-ish or new to romance or unaware of the romances that, over the decades, have continued to create intense debate. None of the books on her list are more than ten years old so there’s that.
AAR, however, have been analyzing romance novels for over almost three decades so our perspective has a bit more breadth.
If I, personally, were to list the eight (why is it not capitalized in the title?) most polarizing romances, my list would include:
The Duke and I by Julia Quinn. Readers have been appalled, or not, by Daphne’s forced seduction of drunk Simon ever since the novel was published in 2000.
This Heart of Mine by Susan Elizabeth Phillips. This too has a scene some/many feel is rape. Molly definitely doesn’t get Kevin’s consent before sliding in his bed. Bring it up and I promise you, you’ll find two camps who refuse to see the story the way the other side does.
Prisoner of My Desire by Johanna Lindsey. She forces him, he forces her, then he orders her around and she falls in love. This premise makes many furious. And yet, it has a 4.5 rating at Amazon from thousands of readers and is a DIK here.
The Dead Romantics by Ashley Poston. Is it a romance if the heroine’s most joyful moment is punching her ex in the face? Many readers loathe this book and yet it was on many a Best of 2022 list.
Verity by Colleen Hoover. The woman has sold well over twenty million books. You either love her and have read everything she’s ever written or, like me, you read one and wished you hadn’t.
What You Wish For by Katherine Center. There are some who feel a school shooting isn’t the best plot point in a romance (waves hand) and others who find making it something love helps you past palatable. (This same discussion happens about Roni Loren’s series The Ones Who Got Away.)
Fifty Shades of Grey.
Beautiful Disaster by Jamie McGuire. We gave it a DIK. I thought it was horrific–and I’m not the only one. The hero–to say it mildly–has anger issues and the lifestyles of the leads are bad news. And yet, it has a 4.4 rating from almost 25K Amazon readers.
Whitney, My Love by Judith McNaught. Would you want a guy who beats you with a riding crop and rapes you? The answer, if you’re the eponymous Whitney, the answer is YES! It has, however, many a fan for whom, like many of the bodice rippers of old–Sweet, Savage Love anyone?–was an entry into a world of desire and exciting romance.
I could go on and on but I’d rather hear from you! What do you think are the most polarizing romances? And why?
Lemonade by Nina Pennacchi, I remember seeing this book mentioned in a blog where they said it was a raw but profound story and that it had left the blogger with a book hangover for days. I knew it was controversial because the hero was an idiot, but many reviews said that he changed later, and since I love the trope of the idiot who changes when he falls in love, I wanted to try it.
Well…let’s say I’m not in the group that I love the book either you love it or you hate it…it’s like Pride and Prejudice had a son with a boddice ripper so the proud and snobbish hero decides to discipline his fighter heroine at old school way with a dose of rape and then forced her to marry him.
Huh. Never heard of it. I’ll check it out.
My very personal experience:
I loved Catherine Coulter romances, and reread frequently, then more rarely, and then reread Night Fire a second or third time, a book i had found very hot — and I had changed:
It was a terrible book with zero consent ever, scenes of forced s*x to convince the heroine she would enjoy it etc etc
I got rid of all CC books and never read her again.
(Less intense, i had the same with Whitney, my Love).
But really, this is nor a story of A Polarizing Book, it is a story of me, changing over time, and being grateful that I was led to where I stand today, as a woman in the world, with knowledge of my own agency and ownership of me.
I agree 100% that it is less about the book and more about how we change and grow over time. I can’t reread many childhood favorites—such as the Black Beauty books—simply because I recognize all their flaws now. The same is true with some of my favorite early romances. Their appeal is gone because I am a different person.
I’ve never tried to reread Black Beauty–I found it too upsetting as a kid. That scene on the ship!
Are you perhaps thinking of The Black Stallion?
This is how I feel about Night Storm, my least favorite romance of All Time.
I thought Night Fire was the only one in the series where the hero gets explicit sexual consent from the heroine? I know Night Shadow is just as bad as Night Storm in that instance.
I do not remember, as the names are utterly generic, and the Amazon blurb points most to N F – so you could be right. She is truly horrified and traumatized after s*xualabuse, and he “cures” her with no consent s*x, and she never consents to the relationship, at all, she only wants to be left alone.
I’ve read and loved many of Anne Stuart’s HRs but they’re definitely not for everyone. I know what I’m getting when I settle down to read one of her books but even I was taken aback by the actions of Lucien de Malheur in Breathless.
In real life, I would have poisoned him and watched him die slowly but I love him in the book. It’s a favourite of mine and I re-read it often, but I think it definitely falls in the polarizing category.
I love Reckless and Ruthless but I do struggle with Breathless. Lucien is a rough hero to love.
I was thinking that, for many, Black Ice is polarizing as well but I love it.
Black Ice is indeed polarizing. And I also loved it.
Another one that roiled Romancelandia when it came out is Leah Raeder’s Unteachable.
It’s a student/teacher romance that really pushed a lot of people’s buttons back in the day.
First of all, I think you are right. You have more experience and therefore your perspective is better than those who have been reading romance for a couple of years and think they know everything about the genre.
You nailed it with your list. I have thought about some of those titles when I read the beginning of the post. It’s difficult to find another one. I have only thought about two more.
Another book that people either love or hate, with nothing in the middle is the first one of Blair Mallory, ‘To Die For’, by Linda Howard. I found it entertaining, but many people hated the heroine.
Another one of my all time favourites, ‘Slow heat in Heaven’ by Sandra Brown is one that divides people because of, well –Cash Boudreaux. He says ‘lovely’ things like ‘I should have raped you when I had the chance’ –or something like that, I’m trusting my memory.
Whoa. That’s a line that gives one pause.
Slow Heat in Heaven was my first Sandra Brown. I enjoyed it, flaws and all, and gave it a B-. While a more complex story, Slow Heat has the same feel as Tami Hoag’s Lucky’s Lady, which I preferred. I gave that one a solid B which stood up to a later reread. There were no characters I could really root for in Slow Heat. I did enjoy it on audio with Dick Hill narrating, though. He has a great Cajun accent.
I think a lot of people who loved those bodice-rippers back in the day would have a different reaction on re-reading them today, if they put aside any feelings of nostalgia. Hell, probably even their authors, if they’re still alive, might disown their creations that were born of a different time with different social attitudes (and definitely different prose styles, as I discovered when I took a peek at a Woodiwiss novel for old times’ sake. A couple of pages was enough).
So I don’t consider ‘vintage’ romance to be polarizing, in the sense of that article. Tastes have just moved on. I guess Colleen Hoover and The Hating Game are better examples, since they are phenomenally popular yet also leave legions of readers underwhelmed. But personally speaking, I never bother to finish a book others loved just so I can say I hated it; I’ve bailed by then and found something else to read.
20+ years ago, I reviewed a Mary Jo Putney book for The Romance Reader. I think the title was The Spiral Path. The “hero” had been physically abusive to the heroine in the past and was now back in her life to make amends. I’m all for a redemption plot, but my brain could not combine “formerly abusive” with “HEA.” There was a fair amount of controversy about the book IRRC.
Huh. I see we gave it a DIK!
I can remember this book generated a lot of conversation. The author did a good job of explaining how the hero had changed (years of therapy, support groups, dealing with issues from his past which had led to the problems) that made it seem as though there was a chance for a genuine reconciliation. It still felt a bit unsettling, though.
I think the book where the “hero” abused the heroine was “The Burning Point.” “The Spiral Path” was the next int he series. It looks like AAR gave “The Burning Point” a D.
You’re right, “The Burning Point” was the controversial one. Thanks for the correction.
I reviewed two books on the list (Not the Girl You Marry and The Heart Principle) and gave them both B+ grades. I’ve also read The Hating Game, and honestly, it surprises me that these are the books that Book Riot feels are controversial. In fact, I would say the only way the books are polarizing is that the reviews are probably split between love and hate, not that genuine controversy surrounds the books. Given the critiques I’ve read, it seems to come down to some readers not enjoying novels where the characters grow and change in the story. Instead, they want people who are perfect at the start, which doesn’t work nearly as well for me. It’s all a matter of tastes, I guess, but there are a lot of books with h/h relationships that start off far more acrimoniously than these do.
Yes. I think controversial means there’s something in it that strikes readers as really morally wrong–Nothing in The Hating Game is even vaguely morally iffy.
AND I think there are many readers of romance who have soured on the idea of the redeemable lead. Many older romances are predicated on that idea which is why many older books don’t work for many today.
I wasn’t reading romances during the main bodice-ripper phase and never felt the need to go back and read any of them. I now read reviews and carefully select my books to avoid most sticky sexual situations (like dubious consent), so most of these kind of controversial books just aren’t part of my romance experience. I mean, I read one review and knew Colleen Hoover would never work for me.
Honestly, reviews are how I navigate the pitfalls in reading. If I’m unsure of a book, I’ll look for spoiler reviews because I read for fun, not to end up angry. I’d rather a few spoilers than to end up regretting my choices. I also have absolutely no hesitation in stopping a book that’s making me mad or unsettled, either, although these days I stop mostly because I dislike the writing, like with Archer’s Voice by Mia Sheridan. (I couldn’t believe how simplistic and stilted the writing was, especially after all the glowing reviews.) Of the books you mentioned I’ve only read two, The Duke and I (B), and This Heart of Mine (C, and most of that was due to the excellent narration).
Anna Fields, who narrated This Heart of Mine and several others in Chicago Stars series, was spectacular. The latest of those books just aren’t done as well.
She definitely was a big part of the draw for me when I was reading that series.
Jo Beverley’s An Unwilling Bride caused a fuss because Lucien, the hero, hits Beth, the heroine, when he thinks she has betrayed him. This didn’t bother me so much because it was definitely in character for the arrogant Lucien and Beth had been pushing his buttons for a while. I was more bothered by the happy ending for the duke, Lucien’s father, who forced this marriage by arrogantly blackmailing the couple.
Another was Patricia Gaffney’s To Have and to Hold. The hero, Sebastian, is redeemed, but it’s a really hard sell. I loved the book, but it is not a comfort read.
I’ve read a couple of Anne Stuart’s books and while they are very good, I find her heroes so loathsome that I steer clear of them now.
I re-read To Have and To Hold recently. Sebastian is a hard hero and yet Gaffney redeems him. I think many of these discussions are really about whether or not some actions/leads are irredeemable. I have a much higher tolerance for that than many.
Anne Stuart is a very good writer, but I gave up on her books after a scene where the hero tried to drown the heroine. I’m scared of drowning, so there was no way I could feel even remotely drawn to the hero after that.
Of all the listed titles (by Book Riot), the only one I’d call controversial is Fourth Wing, and that’s because it’s so popular there’s a lot of diverse opinions of them (I only reviewed Love Hypothesis, and I know I was in the minority with that one).
There is nothing controversial about Fourth Wing. You can argue its merits but there’s nothing in it that is shocking or even new.
I wasn’t thinking of it on controversial terms, I was thinking about it having a lot of people that liked it and some that didn’t – IE, a polarized fanbase.
Yeah, I see that. But, like Caz says, there’s nothing in the book that is polarizing. I guess it’s hard to tell, in the original post, whether they’re using polarizing as controversial.
I don’t think so either, but audience reaction suggests otherwise, I’m presuming!
And there’s a new kind of intolerance sweeping through the romance book world an attitude of ‘this should be banned because I don’t like it’. A recent debate concerned a book with a big age gap between the two leads, where some booktoker decided the age gap was ick and suggested the author should be arrested because the female lead was being groomed.
Now, the premise of that book IS problematic, but it’s not because of the age gap – (I can’t remember the title) it’s because the male lead was in love with the female lead’s dead mother and sees her as some kind of replacement. Now THAT is icky, and could be seen as grooming etc. etc. But this booktoker was saying that all age gap romances were perverted or something.
I don’t like mpreg, I don’t like MC or mafia romances, I don’t like Daddy/boy, but there are a lot of them out there and people obviously read and enjoy them. Just because I don’t like them doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be written or published.
Book censorship, whether from the right or the left, is bad news.
A few years ago I participated in a lively neighborhood book club. We read Lord of Scoundrels and many members were shocked and turned off by the scene where Jessica shoots Sebastien. I have a deep fondness for this book and I personally thought Jessica was great!
It’s a shocking scene, for sure. But, I’d argue Chase makes it work.
I agree. That scene always reminds me of the one in Heyer’s DEVIL’S CUB where Mary shoots Vidal. That scene is a favorite with many, and I don’t recall people objecting to it. Of course, he’s threatening to rape her, so she does have some justification. 🙂
I always take it as a homage to Heyer’s “Devil’s Cub”.
I am an older librarian and it’s interesting how many younger librarians, who mainly due to not having a lot of experience in the field yet, don’t have a broad scope on the collection or the patrons, yet have such strong opinions on how X should go. I’m usually thinking, just wait, in a few years you’ll have more knowledge and more perspective.
And I loved Lord of Scoundrels.
Me too. It’s one of my all time favourite books. Is it on the list of polarizing books too? Why?
I’ve just seen the comment you were replying to, never mind
What on earth is controversial in The Hating Game? It’s been a long time since I read it, but I can’t think of anything in it that is “the subject of intense public argument, disagreement, or disapproval.” (The definition of the word in the dictionary I just grabbed off the shelf!)
I think whoever wrote that post has confused things that are “controversial” with things that “I don’t like”.
I’ve seen a lot of debate recently around the whole “I don’t like X so therefore all the books with X should never be published” issue that is apperaing frequently on places like booktok. I’ve read the Quinn, the Lindsey and the McNaught from your list, and would say they’re much more problematic/polarising than any of the books on the BookRiot list. And Ravishing the Heiress doesn’t deserve to be anywhere near it.
I think we are clearly in the same camp!
Agreed. If it’s not to someone’s personal taste, that doesn’t mean it’s problematic.
I don’t think of “polarizing” as meaning “controversial”, I think of it as meaning that readers are very strongly in either the “love it” or “hate it” camps. I can clearly see THE HATING GAME as being polarizing because readers either love it or hate it (I must confess to being in the latter camp—to me THE HATING GAME reads like an office romance written by someone who has never worked in an office, with MCs who come across as 8th graders doing office-job cosplay); very few readers are lukewarm about the book. Anyway, that’s how I interpret “polarizing”. I read a lot of dark romance and much of that fits in the love it or hate it category…and I happen to love it more often than not.
I wondered about that too. I’ve read three of the books on the list, and the novels all seem to be the kind of books people love or hate. No middle ground. I was the exception with The Hating Game, which I found readable but far from brilliant. On the other hand, I liked both Not the Girl You Marry and The Heart Principle. I think the novels were picked less for controversy and more for their ability to draw opposing reactions from people.
You are the only other person I’ve encountered who was in the middle on HATING GAME!
THAT scene in The Duke and I makes it the most controversial book I know of. (Given her circumstances, I am fine with it. I would NOT be fine with it in a contemporary).
I too tend to be cool with things in HRs that I would not in contemps.
Me too. I find new and newish historical romances that retcon the past and it’s mores to be problematic.
Isn’t it interesting that the chief issue for “I hated this romance” is rape. I don’t think you hear “she deserved to be raped” any more, but boy, you used to. Today, even rape as a sexual fantasy is generally unacceptable. Is this a kind of new Puritanism or does it reflect an advancement in social attitudes?
The second issue also is the general mistreatment of women. When women were legally and socially the property of fathers and husbands, the theme generally was “But he loves her, and it’s for her own good. She’s dangerously head-strong, she needs the steadying hand of an older man.” Women are still generally nicer than men in romances. Do romances influence an acceptance of abuse, showing that if you just wait it out, he will change?
People who dislike romances see it as a subversive genre, unlike mysteries, science fiction, horror, or any other genre. Why is that? Is it just because generally, only women read romances–or is that romance strikes at the core of society’s values, unlike other genres?
And who gets to decide that this book is unacceptable? As an adult, I want to read whatever I want, and yet, I cringe at some books’ characters. It’s easy to condemn the racism of “Gone with the Wind,” for example. Would “Lolita” be published today? I doubt it. In our society, the marketplace decides–or good or ill.
It just recently occurred to me that Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” could be seen an indictment of both R&J–that they commit suicide because they went against parental wishes, with the connivance of the nurse and the friar. I always taught it was the feud between the parents that was the cause, but now I wonder what Shakespeare would have said. My bet? His audience would have blamed R&J completely.
PS. In the future: what–if any–romances do we think people will read and enjoy in thirty years from now? I’d be very curious about people’s answers.
With R and J, the parents take the blame in the closing scene of the play. and Lord Capulet calls the couple “poor sacrifices of our enmity.” Shakespeare tended to leave it all on the page/tell his audience the lesson rather than have them guess it and there are other scenes where it is made clear that the family feud was troublesome to the whole town of Verona. That’s why the Prince is a recurring character throughout. The idea of the disobedient children being the problem is one I have heard mentioned, but it is a more recent interpretation. And honestly, the whole situation was at a boiling point anyway. Someone was gonna die.
As to the novels we will be reading in thirty years, I’ll go with Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, and Romeo and Juliet. I’m reluctant to take guesses beyond those, but I will add a question of my own: Does genre fiction need to transcend the time in which it was written, or can it have value just in that moment? I think of popular TV shows and general fiction (Does anybody else remember Sidney Sheldon?) that I thoroughly enjoyed at the time which I might not laugh at or get caught up in today. I’m glad I got to enjoy them but I’m also glad I’ve got new stuff, more relevant to today, to keep me entertained. Just my .02 but I don’t know that these books need to be lasting masterpieces to accomplish what they should accomplish, which is to keep me entertained today.
I remember Sidney Sheldon! Those books were kind of my introduction to adult fiction. Those and John Jakes, both the Kent family books and North and South. Oh, and let’s not forget Judith Krantz and probably Jackie Collins. I would be honestly a little scared to try to read any of those today, 40+ years later.
I remember a Judith Krantz book where the heroine, in her teens, is obese, but she goes to live in France and is immediately put on an involuntary diet of 1100 calories a day. She ends up losing about a pound a day. The story couldn’t happen if she stayed fat, but I was actually wondering about her health as a result of this.
OMG–Scruples! I read that in 8th grade and was like WTF?
The sex in that book is bonkers. Is it that one that has the Snickers bar sex scene?
I don’t remember the sex scenes, I’m afraid. I just recall the food situation because that made me look up whether 1100 calories a day was a sustainable diet for a person.
Oh, I remember that one! Yeah, isn’t it interesting that you can have a character that is sympthetically written, but the author also shows such contempt for (“See, if you just tried a little, you can lose 100 pounds!”)
So glad I’m not the only one! And I am with you- I think I’d be super hesitant to do a re-read.
I didn’t read it (read a sample and the prose was not my cup of tea), but wasn’t PASSION by Lisa Valdez a polarizing book? The comments in the AAR review are no longer available, but I remember people loved it or hated it. Those in the hated it camp didn’t simply dislike the story or the characters, they felt it was so over-the-top that it appeared cartoonish, and (I may misremember this as it came from a comment and not from my own reading, as noted above) there was a scene at the end where the couple’s child was somehow involved in one of their sex scenes, which many found unforgivable. Those who loved it found it immensely romantic and, well, passionate.
I liked parts of Passion a lot but it is so over the top. I don’t remember the thing about the kids.
This was the first book I thought of too. Wasn’t she breastfeeding the baby when they started getting it on? Definitely there was Stuff happening with her milk.
I read and participate on the subreddit for historical romance and there is a lot of tension between the people who are pretty new to the genre and the old timers. The young ones hate being told that their opinions aren’t fully formed yet because, well, they just haven’t read that many books. And, like others here said, they have a hard time accepting how anyone can like books that have elements they deem questionable. There’s very little shades of gray or nuance. Now, I think there are people who have been reading for a long time who feel like recent books have characters that have been sanitized of all interesting personality, and I don’t think I agree with that either.
This was a long way of saying that controversial may be in the eye of the beholder and some of it may depend on how old those eyes are.
600%. This is true for SO MANY THINGS.
I like the way you express something that I feel of lately in MF romances, that ‘recent books have characters that have been sanitized of all interesting personality’. It’s obvious that I am an old reader of romance. After forty years reading this genre, if I enjoy a recent book it usually is a male/male romance. For MF romances, specially if it’s historical, I’d rather look for things published in the past.
I’ve seen a lot of talk going around about younger audiences (Gen Z?) being more “puritanical” than older ones, which might be a contributory factor to that feeling.
Thank you so much for the compliment!
I recently read a book through NetGalley, Ne’er Do Well by Alexandra Vasti, and the male character especially was just… nothing. He’s from Louisiana, but he speaks out against slavery, he’s incredibly supportive of the female character, but somehow still comes off as boyish? There was honestly nothing about him to hang onto.
Meanwhile I’m doing one of my regular rereads of parts of Slightly Dangerous by Mary Balogh and Wulfric is so much more complex and real. I don’t know what the answer is.
Perfect is boring, at least to me.
Early discussion of The Hating Game by Sally Thorne said it had a lot of conversational humor (repartee), but I did not see that when I read it. Since I bought and read it anticipating humor, it fell flat for me (a “there’s no there there” reaction).
I started to add that the “hero” was an incredibly unrealistic depiction of a male—that no man would behave and talk like that, but I looked back at an old post and saw that that book was Tangled by Emma Chase (with a total jerk “hero” who stayed that way and kept making pronouncements about how all men are things that just aren’t so). I wondered after a certain orange-hair became prominent if he might have been a partial source of that character.
I think the old “guilty pleasure” label might turn up more than a few books that are controversial or provoke very divided reactions. A personal example: I read Warrior’s Woman by Johanna Lindsey several times over a decade ago, despite also being somewhat appalled each time I read it. (A mostly strong heroine, but . . . .)
Linda Howard wrote a few stinkers in the past and the two most polarizing books that I recall were: Shades of Twilight (there were a few truly icky scenes in there) and Sarah’s Child.
I remember Linda Howard’s explanation that Sarah’s Child was about (paraphrasing here) Rome Matthews’ journey from utter grief and devastation to finally able accept his second chance. And I remember thinking, more power to Sarah then. I wouldn’t be able to do what she did if I were in her shoes.
So I tried reading the start of Sarah’s Child, and came to this encounter :
Rome’s behavior is excused because he’s grieving for his dead wife, but he then goes on to shake Sarah before he breaks down, sobs against her chest, and then tries to have sex with her. Of course she comforts him when he needs it and responds sexually to him when he needs it, much like the Giving Tree and the little boy, so he tells her :
And that’s where I gave up.
Ugh.
Sarah absolutely is like a human version of The Giving Tree in this book.
Wow, Howard admitted it’s all about Rome’s issues instead of Sarah’s journey?
Well, at least she’s being truthful.
Laura Kinsale’s SHADOWHEART! Another story with a rape, but one that both the story and the male protagonist condemn in the end, if I’m remembering correctly…
I didn’t like that book at all and I think Kinsale is one of the greats.
I liked this book very much! I was initially taken aback by the BDSM part, but it did not deter me from enjoying the book itself. The hero was really quite compelling.
If she thinks those are polarizing she hasn’t read books like Stormfire by Christine Monson very controversial even when it was first published.
I don’t know that book. What was it about?
Set in 1798 Irish rebellion. He’s very abusive to her.
I just read a synopsis of what happens to the heroine in that one and holy wow.
I might read it just out of morbid curiosity. But I’m quite desensitized due to reading horror from a very young age, I’m quite difficult to shock so who knows.
Wow. That makes Sweet Savage Love look like a Harlequin Presents!
I’ve got a thick skin but man, by the end I think I’d be calling for the hero’s head on a pike.
I definitely see a lot of love and hate for Flowers in the Storm by Laura Kinsale – I’d call that one a polarizing book. There are no in between feelings about it (at least none I’ve seen).
I have a hard time seeing what’s to hate there, honestly. Many reviled books, I can see why even if I don’t agree. That one, hard for me to understand why anyone would hate it.
Most age gap romances due to the inherent power imbalance.
Bully romances – I find it difficult to get how abuse can be romantic.
Bully romances leave me cold, too!