In the last few years, I’ve read well over a thousand romance novels. I started with contemporary, then moved on to Regency and other English stories. Then I got into other historicals. My faves are Western and Scottish historicals. I don’t claim to be an expert on romance novels, but I have formed opinions based on my extensive reading.

I’ve read so many books—typically a book a day—that I have to keep a list of what I’ve read. There are only so many plots, and I can’t always be sure I’ve already read a book if I read it several years ago, so I check it against the list, which is now 117 pages long. I list books by author. A number of those authors I’ve tagged as “NO MORE.” I’ve reached my tolerance level on those. I may have added comments on a particular author’s books such as “stupid woman,” “stupid, stupid, annoying woman” or “world’s stupidest woman.” My particular pet peeve. (Yes, and I realize that’s arrogant; I can only imagine what people would write about my books.)

Other comments include “too slow, “enh,” “not feeling it” and “didn’t like the characters.” I’ve also found books boring, too dependent on misunderstandings and too similar to previous books by the same author. Sometimes books are too technical or too historical for my taste. At this stage of the game, I don’t want to have to slog through I book. I’m reading for pleasure now.

I read romance novels at three different speeds—normal, speed read and super speed read. Originally I read every word of every sex scene, but there’s only so many ways you can do it, and I found myself flipping through 10-page sex scenes, skimming the pages. That’s my speed read mode. Super speed read is when I read 50 or 100 pages and am just not into it, yet I’d like to know how it ends. So I skip to the last 20 or 30 pages.

Now that you know how many books I don’t like, you should know that the majority of the romance novels I read do give me pleasure. Including mine, but what do I know?

Most fiction writers know a good story needs conflict. Without conflict, the story lies flat on the page, lifeless. Romance writers most often make the conflict between the male and female protagonists. This is harder than it sounds, at least to make the conflict believable.

My pet peeve when it comes to romance novels is a story in which the female lead rejects a handsome, wealthy, humorous, thoughtful man because of some trumped-up reason. Another man broke her heart years ago. Or she can’t possibly get involved because her younger siblings need her. Or, unbeknownst to him, her mother was a courtesan. Please. No woman in her right mind would continually rebuff a borderline perfect man.

To enjoy a novel, we must suspend our disbelief, as they say. For the time it takes to read this story, I am going to believe that a handsome, wealthy duke will choose a lonely wallflower. I am never going to believe that any woman with half a brain would not want a handsome, wealthy, humorous, thoughtful man. Never gonna happen, at least not on my watch. My belief cannot be suspended that far.

Another conflict that bugs me involves women who are too prissy or righteous. I realize they’re going to mature and grow throughout the story, but if I can’t stand them at the beginning, I don’t want to read the book. I only have so many minutes left in my life, and I’m not going to use them reading something that bugs me. The best romance novels, to my mind, are the ones in which the conflict occurs between two intelligent, witty, strong people. No wimps allowed.

Another approach is to make the conflict be against our intelligent couple. They may be fighting the evil stepmother or the outlaw seeking revenge. This type of conflict can heighten interest because it involves bullets, poison, swordplay or other action.

To review, you want your conflict to be believable. The conflict isn’t supposed to be between you and the book you’re reading.