Just about any Harlequin romance. I devoured those as a teen - bout them by the boxfull at yardsales and rummage sales. I picked up a few a couple of years ago and promptly wanted to throttle every female main character in each book. Maybe there was a period of time in the late 90's early 2000's where romance was redefined as a single mother (and always a single mother) being more attractive and more of a "real" woman than the woman with no kids that their love interest was already dating
. Just the attitudes that these women had of being more "deserving" of attention/love/romance burned me up. Not to mention the older Harlequin's where every woman is a virgin and falls in love because of "forceful, manly s3x ie borederline noncon s3x". How is this romantic?
On the other hand, rereading Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" gives me something new to think about every time I read it. I went from
in my teens to debating current policy of reproductive freedom vs religious rights and how lack of participation in government will create a government that has no concern for you.
The Harry Potter books - I loved the first five and still do, the last book was about camping and was kind of phoned in. I still think that Harry would not be anywhere near as functional as a human being after his upbringing his first 11 years and the additional trauma would not help.
Shakespear - I learned to pick out the naughty bits as I got older, so it's all funnier to me.
Sherlock Holmes - I did not like the novels when I was younger but after watching the absolutely wonderful and borderline cracky BBC series that started a couple of years ago, I went back and reread a couple (Hounds of the Baskervilles, A Study in Scarlett, A Sign of the Four) and I appreciate the detail and induction
work that Shelock does.
I used to love piers anthony as a preteen, now all of his books just make me roll my eyes. Anne Rice is the same except for the Beauty series, and that has always appealed because of specialist interests.