Certainly the Reviewer should aim to be well-enough read to communicate effectively with her/his audience.

Naturally, the Reader wants to discover a reviewer with similar tastes and a shorthand language that is created within a shared frame of reference.

This may not be possible in every instance, but it’s the goal of the Reader who is looking for recommendations.

Whether books or movies (think: Gene Siskal, Roger Ebert, Rex Reed, et al), the Reviewer should have sampled a wide enough variety that a reader can have a good idea of whether their tastes and opinions mesh.

And yes, I believe that every romance reader should take a stab at the Classics (Austen, Bronte, Orczy, Heyer) in order to recognize plagarism and appreciate tribute. And to get/give depth: You might like the movies Clueless and Ten Things I Hate About You, but you can appreciate them more after having read Emma (Austen) and The Taming of the Shrew (Shakespeare). That goes double for reviewers.

Subjective opinion is fine – and desirable! – but having an informed opinion gives it more weight and elevates the review from the level of school book report.

IMHO, of course. ::wink::

As for Heyer, I do not think her appeal has anything to do with age, but rather with style. Some people enjoy her style, and others find it “wordy”…..

I think wide reading within the genre can allow you to give more comparisons to how the author writes and which readers will appreciate her work, but every reviewer, especially the voluntary ones, are readers first and shouldn’t force themselves to read anything.

I haven’t got into Heyer myself and do consider it a deficiency because a lot of romance novel references are based around her work- I imagine it’s a little like trying to study English Literature without reading Shakespeare or Ovid or Chaucer, you get a lot out of it but having read them you could get a lot more.

I also think there are some new authors like Meredith Duran and Sherry Thomas that are changing modern romance and should be read. However, again, no one should be forced to read anything that they aren’t ready for; I hated Kinsale’s work at 14 while now I love it.

Coco

I pretty much review in a vacuum. Maybe I’ll sometimes think of other genre-specific books for technical issues in world building (paranormals) or accuracy (historicals) but the meat of the review is very low if not completely absent of comparisons.

Also, once we start talking of “the best of the best” that’s going to be a whole ‘nother discussion – one without end and without agreement.

I’ve never read Heyer and I haven’t even heard of some of those names! I’m not averse to reading them though, but no rush, in my own time.

But if we’re really compiling a list of must read authors, those two figure large.

Woodiwiss wrote the first book in which the hero wasn’t an a$$hole – Shanna. The heroine was, but the hero wasn’t. This was the 70s and there was no forced seduction, the heroine had all the power in the relationship. I often wonder why this book is so overlooked, since the power paradigm is inverted.

With Devereaux, I guess A Knight in Shining Armour is her most recognized. There’s the one with the big heroine, I think it’s called Wishes? Someone correct me.

My main subgenre has been contemporary, with some romantic suspense, for the vast majority of my romance reading years, so I’m doing much better on that front. I’ve only been reading historicals for about a year — and I have to take breaks from them — and I rarely read paranormals, so I sometimes feel like I have a whole lot of catching up to do!

If you want to ease into Heyer’s novels, read some of Patricia Veryan’s books. (Her Golden Chronicles made desert island keeper status on this site) Veryan’s books were written in the later 80s/mid 90s, and I think her style is a happy medium between Heyer and modern romance. Lots of period turns of phrases and dialogue but also romantic tension and some suspense.

On the other hand, I loved the first three books in the Outlander series, liked the fourth one, but I’m still struggling to finish the fifth one. Ms. Gabaldon is a talented writer, but apparently, her editor doesn’t think that any of Ms. G’s manuscripts need editing. Since book #7 in the series comes out in September, I suppose I should accelerate my efforts to finish book #5. Otherwise, I’ll be reading the last one in the nursing home!

Bottom line: You like what you like, and if your reading taste changes, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that!

And so many people tend to prefer one genre over another. I read mostly historicals with some contemporaries thrown in for good measure but have no real interest to read chick lit., urban fantasy, erotica, vampire books, heavy paranormals, fantasy “other world” books, much romantic suspense, etc. And even within my own preferred genre of historicals there are many eras that I haven’t much interest in reading.

I think my reading tends to be out of the mainstream and I don’t feel any guilt about what I read. I read for my own pleasure so I read what I want. Sometimes I have succumbed to the buzz about a genre/sub-genre or author I don’t normally read. Sometimes I am surprised and like the book, but many times I am just reminded about why I don’t read that type of book or author. I am really open to trying new authors in my preferred areas but admit that I am more reluctant about venturing outside my comfort zone.