Nonfiction, sci-fi, John Grisham and public domain novels are more in line with the tastes of typical TeleBlogger readers than modern romance novels are.
But some passionate fans are indeed in our midst. So here’s the first of two parts of a list of free romance e-books. While we’re on the topic of romance books of any kind—paper or electronic, from major publishers or self-published—I’ll also reproduce with permission some candid thoughts from a veteran publishing insider.
Major caveats about the freebie list: First, remember that many and perhaps most of the books on the list are self-published. Walt Whitman and many other respected literary figures published themselves, but as rule, self-published books aren’t as good as those from the usual suspects. The “free,” of course, makes them less of a gamble—the authors are hoping you’ll go on to buy paper editions. Just think of this as a bit like a barber’s college.
The second caveat is that Regina Paul, author of the list, mentions her own books and presumably those of her friends.
So, Jane, what do you think of Regina’s choices, including her book The Mark of the Guardian, first title mentioned? Anyone else care to comment? The reviews on the book’s Lulu page are friendly.
A reminder: If you want free tried-and-true romance novels, check out the romance category on manybooks.net.
And now a word from a publishing insider
Almost verbatim—I made a few tweaks—here are a publishing insider’s views on romance novels. Comments, one way or another? Hey, I don’t read modern romances; I plead neutrality. I’m just passing on the views of someone well qualified to share an opinion.
I wonder in the long run how it will work out if romance writers start putting out books that can be commented on by hyperlink or whatever by their readers. I have read a couple of them who say they get ideas, etc., etc., from the fans.
It’s been my experience that, of all the genres I’ve worked with (just about everything but westerns) romance writers–especially of historical romances) are the most resistant of all to making changes, even when they are screamingly necessary. Most of them seem to have egos that are both fragile as a Fabergé egg and the size of the Hindenburg. A wicked combination, I can tell you.
Plot glitches are explained away (i.e., clumsily pasted over) or ignored. Lack of knowledge about the period of the novel seems to be a thing cultivated rather than shunned. And the attitude toward language is, almost without exception, that any word the authors wish to use, no matter how inappropriate, is just fine. A couple of houses have said straight out that fighting the battle of the anachronism is a lost cause. Some will give it a bit of lip service for dialogue or when something is referred to that does not yet exist—a named article like daguerreotype–but many just don’t want to know and don’t make the changes.
As for more subtle things, sentence construction, attention to the niceties of dialogue in a particular period—forget it. Apparently it is thought that throwing in a few ’tis and ’twas (frequently spelled t’is and t’was) should cover it. Thus you may have a character who says ’tis, ’twas, and okay–gag.
When I retire I intend to take up reviewing back titles on Amazon. Maybe some readers will then actually look at the language that authors use.
Part of the problem is that today’s romance writers don’t read enough. One of the greatest aggravations that teachers suffer is the almost total lack of awareness of any kind of past or common references on the part of the students. They didn’t even know what had happened, much less are able to catch any references to thing like “whited sepulcher” or know that the phrase is dog-eat-dog world—not doggy-dog world—or Alzheimer’s disease rather than old-timer’s disease, etc. At least the latter makes some kind of sense.
And from these come the romance writers, sigh.
Yes, I’ll welcome comments on the quality of writing in other genres of fiction. Which are the winners, and which are the losers?
Sasha White is a NY Published author. Charlene Teglia wrote one of the best erotic romances called “Yule Be Mine.” Raine Weaver is also very good. I’ve heard of about three others on the list.
Thanks for those recs, Jane, and I hope you’ll use this thread to point readers to other helpful details, whether at your DearAuthor.com or elsewhere. It’s great to hear that, yes, the list does contain some good reads. – David
I enjoyed reading your comments on the article I wrote Part 1: Where to Find 64 Romance E-books to Download. I was happy to see that I generated some discussion both about self-publishing, and romance books in general. While I hadn’t thought of this happening when I originally wrote the article, I think it’s a great side benefit. It’s true some on the list are self-published, including myself, although I personally prefer the term POD published (Print On Demand for those who aren’t familiar with the term). Not because I think there is anything wrong with self-publishing, but because the word itself conjures up notions of bad writing, and the idea that if someone self-publishes they are not “good enough.” While it is true there are some really awful self-published books out there, I’ve also read some very good ones. I review, and edit for Coffee Time Romance in addition to being an author, and honestly I’ve seen both self-published books and books from NY Times Bestselling authors with the same types of errors, like typos and horrible grammar. I even had one where whoever edited the book didn’t catch that the main character’s name had been changed in several places! Talk about confusing.
Thanks again for commenting, and the second part is on my content producer page should anyone be interested. Where to Find Free Online Romance Reads Part II. You can find it here.
Nice hearing from you, Regina, and thanks for taking the item in the right spirit—and pointing romance fans to the link to Part II of the series. I hope you’ll stick around the TeleBlog and tell others about it.
As for POD vs. self-published, one isn’t always the same as another; so I’ll stick with “self published” in many cases. As usual, I would encourage people to judge by the book rather than condemn all SP works or praise everything from big publishers.
What really counts, no matter what the category, is a good editor. Few people can write a book without others doing the copy editing at the very least.
David
Hey David,
Yup, I’m hooked now, you’re stuck with me. I’ll be checking back often to comment and to read other’s comments.
As to taking the article in the right spirit, of course, that goes without saying. And you’re correct POD and self-published aren’t always the same, some traditional e-pubs do POD for their print books. This is just my preference for terminology.
Having someone help you edit is absolutely crucial when self-publishing. I had a couple of other people read my book Getting Out Alive, and I read it an additional time after that before sending it in to the publisher. It’s still possible to miss things, but you will have a much better chance than if you try and edit it totally by yourself, this is true.
Great advice on proofing, Regina. The more times you read a manuscript, the better. In fact, the most serious POD folks would do well to hire professionals.
I’m hardly a stellar proofer myself, but at times the TeleBlog benefits from a very sharp-eyed volunteer, to whom I’m immensely grateful.
In a related vein, here’s a reminder for people to acquaint themselves with The Chicago Manual of Style. At least that’s the most common manual in use here in the States.
Most writers will never be able to memorize all the rules there or follow all the advice—I sin constantly—but it’s a start.
Thanks,
David
Hi David,
It’s great if you can afford to hire a professional editor to edit your book, but they can be costly. I also suggest to beginning writers who cannot afford the cost to become part of a critique group. That way you can get several opinions at once, and there is usually one eagle-eyed individual who is good with grammar, punctuation and so on.
I hear you on the fact of a sharp eyed reader catching edits that need to be made. I actually tell people I want them to let me know if they see something in my books or on my website that needs to be fixed, those extra eagle eyes really help!
The Chicago Manual of Style is great, although I can never remember all the rules either. My personal favorite for the rules, because it is the quick and dirty version is Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style. It’s less than a 100 pages and you can find what you need relatively quickly.
Regina
“I also suggest to beginning writers who cannot afford the cost to become part of a critique group.”
Another excellent suggestion, Regina.
“It’s great if you can afford to hire a professional editor to edit your book, but they can be costly.”
If I were devoting hundreds of hours to book for POD, I would aim for input from both a professional copy editor and friends. I’m not swimming in cash, but given the time needed to write a good book, yes, I would probably invest in a professional if I wanted the book to be reviewed.
In the end this is a “depends” issue. If I were to throw together a collection of tweaked TeleBlog postings and not be terribly ambitious about the project, I’d put less money into it. Even then, however, I’d take proofing most seriously.
To return to an earlier point, just to show that POD does not mean just self-publishing, I notice that none other than the Washington Post will use Lulu for a book project. Given the nice words I’ve written about Lulu, I feel a bit vindicated. You should, too, Regina, as a Lulu user.
Thanks,
David
Hi David,
Yes, that would be David Hilzenrath, an investigative reporter for the Washington Post who has published his book with Lulu. I think it’s great, and it definitely says something for Lulu and the quality of their offerings. And yes, I feel vidicated, (and I’m glad you do too!) it’s nice to see Lulu get kudos.
Regina
I love romance books. I usually reads Emma Rose romance books, hope you guys try it also.