Paradox

Here’s something weird I’m finding about book blogging – I’m reading books for a whole lot more reasons than I used to. Life was simple then:

READ WHILE AUTHOR_BOOK_X=GOOD THEN
.....X=X+1
.....GOTO READ
ELSE STOP

Now I’ve got a whole bunch more uncertainty about what to do when BOOK_X != GOOD.

Sometimes I just wonder what I’m missing. To be honest, I’m not the world’s pickiest reader. My bar just isn’t that high. So if I’m not liking something that the rest of the Romancelandia is raving over then… huh? I wonder, am I missing something? Is it me? What time of the month is it? (yes, that matters. Some months.) Did I manage to pick up the one mediocre book and now I’m missing out on the fabulous ones? Wha..??

Which leads to some strange behavior, like

READ WHILE AUTHOR_BOOK_X=GOOD THEN
.....X=X+1
.....GOTO READ
ELSE IF AUTHOR_BOOK_X=BAD THEN
.....ANALYZE AUTHOR_BOOK_X
.....IF AUTHOR_BOOK_X=CHANGED_MIND THEN
..........X=X+1
..........GOTO READ
.....IF AUTHOR_BOOK_X=STILLBAD THEN
..........X=X+1
..........READ AUTHOR_BOOK_X
..........INCREMENT TOLERANCE_FOR_CRAP
..........INCREMENT MINDFUCKAGE
..........IF TOLERANCE_FOR_CRAP<MAX AND MINDFUCKAGE<MAX
...............GOTO ANALYZE
..........ELSE
...............SET WTF=TRUE
...............STOP


Yes, I know. I don't care, it's my blog and I'll geek out if I want to.

Bottom line is, I'm reading a lot more books that I don't like in attempts to figure out exactly a) what it is I don't like; b) what it is everyone else likes, and/or c)wtf is wrong with you people me??

Lora Leigh review to follow. First I might need to read one more book though.

This Made Me Laugh

Check it out.



.


.


(Laziest. Post. EVAH.)

Advance Planning

I didn’t really do any challenges in 2008. I didn’t know that much about them, and I've always pretty much hated anything that smacked of “required reading." But one thing I’ve really liked about keeping this blog and becoming involved with other book bloggers is the way I hear about great books. So this year I’m going to commit to a couple of challenges that are near and dear to my heart. It’s kind of a funny process for choosing what challenges to join – I don’t want to join too many, because I already have a job, and it doesn’t make sense to me to join challenges about books I would probably read anyway—for example, Naida is hosting a challenge to read 5 romance books in 2009. Um. I will most likely hit that mark within two weeks. Maybe less, given that there’s a holiday in there, so I’m not signing up for that one—not much point for me (though, since Alpha Heroes is totally about romance novels, I'd like to think I could serve as a resource for that particular challenge).

As a fast reader, I’m all about quantity; I go through lots and lots of books, and while I’m loyal to authors I like, it takes a LOT of them to keep up with me, and then sometimes I just want something new. Like grocery shopping when I’m hungry, being in a bookstore all unprepared when this feeling hits me can be a very dangerous thing. I think it will be a great exercise in discipline and planning to try to stay ahead of that cycle with a list I can keep in my back pocket. (Or sidebar. Whatever.)

So the 50 New Authors Challenge, hosted by Jackie over at Literary Escapism, really appeals to me. I touched on it a little bit this year (before I changed the blog format) by just keeping a list of new authors I wanted to try. My personal rule for this challenge is going to be that if I’ve read a short story or novella by the author, it still counts as a new-to-me author. Just because; I’m being arbitrary about it and last I heard, there are no Book Challenge Police.

Mechanics: I’m going to keep a sidebar item through 2009 with links to the challenge updates. I’ll to try to post monthly on how each of my challenges is going.

To start off, here is an incomplete list of authors I want to sample in 2009. I’ll give an update near the end of January of 2009 on how it’s going. Here’s my list so far, in no particular order—recommendations welcome! Actively solicited, even; that’s mostly how I got this list:

1 Ilona Andrews
2 Linnea Sinclair
3 JL Langley
4 Samantha Kane
5 Kelley Armstrong
6 Josh Lanyon
7 Rachel Vincent
8 Karen Chance
9 Justin Gustainis
10 Jeri Smith-Ready
11 Shannon McKenna
12 Katie MacAlister
13 Alexis Morgan
14 Anya Bast

Beyond Seduction, by Emma Holly – Review

So I’m going to expose myself as a pseudo-intellectual here (or perhaps merely a former intellectual) and cite Molière’s Les Précieuses Ridicules as the prototypical plot for this book: two members of the nobility, fed up with the strictures and pretenses of their class, both independently choose to pose as a servant. Each in their guise, they fall in love but struggle with class bias. Each knows they must eventually return to their true position in society, and cannot figure out how to fit their commoner lover into that life.

Of course, the ironic reveal involves much drama and a happily ever after.

I’m 100% sure that I read some play with this plotline in my 17th Century French Lit class in 1985. I am something less than 100% sure that I have the right title. I still have the book; sadly, I do not have enough patience, given the tattered remnants of my French language ability, to confirm. Anyway.

That’s pretty much the plotline of Beyond Seduction in a nutshell. There is also an unremarkable and wholly transparent subplot involving a servant boy that constitutes the weakest part of the book, IMO, and one of your more despicable manipulative-parent stories I’ve come across.

What makes it really shine though, is the character of Merry. Her trials at the hands of her mother aren’t so very horrible, as fictional trials go, but her rebellion is quite wonderfully executed. Holly really shows us an entirely unique, intelligent, vulnerable, sensual heroine throughout the story, and as readers, we watch her grow up, step by step. I absolutely love the way Merry not just defies convention, but stands ready to live with the consequences of her actions; no qualms, no ducking or excuses, just standing tall and serene, with narrowed eyes and a bring it ON attitude.

Naturally, our hero Nic has no intention of settling down or falling in love, and for once, the heroine handles this just exactly right. Plenty of stories follow this general formula, both characters refusing to admit that they are in love because they know the other will freak out (for want of a more historically appropriate phrase), but few manage to do it without drawing it out too long or making me dislike at least one character as TSTL. I can’t quite describe what is so right about Beyond Seduction, but I just loved it. Despite Nic being jaded and dissolute, despite Merry being protected and innocent (before Nic, anyway), she instinctively knows exactly how to manage their relationship with dignity and intelligence and with a profound ring of believability.

Holly’s backlist includes paranormal and contemporary erotica, none of which I’ve managed to sample yet. I’m almost hesitant to pick up the paranormals – I liked this book so much I’m somehow afraid I’ll be disappointed with the paranormals. I know that doesn’t make any sense. I do sort of feel like the historical subgenre needs her right now more than the paranormal one does.

Yeah, so it’s kind of late and I’m not sure I’m making sense any more, so I’m gonna call this post done, LOL.

SRSLY?

From the latest Stephanie Laurens, p. 76:

She was far to fly to the nuances of place to let him use the lingering echoes of last night to distract her.

Assuming that should be “too fly to the nuances,” again I ask, SRSLY?

So it seems. A little etymological googling first turned up this, but no date:

fly (flī)
adjective flier fli′er, fliest fli′•est
1. CHIEFLY BRIT., SLANG alert and knowing; sharp; quick
2. SLANG fashionable, stylish, attractive, etc.
Etymology: orig., thieves' slang < ? fly Source

“Thieves’ slang?” Hmm. Adding that to the google mix, I found this:

fly (n.)
O.E. fleoge, from P.Gmc. *fleugjon (cf. O.S. fleiga, O.N. fluga, M.Du. vlieghe, Ger. Fliege "fly); lit. "the flying (insect)" (cf. O.E. fleogende "flying"), from same source as fly (v.1). Originally "any winged insect" (hence butterfly, etc.); long used by farmers and gardeners for any insect parasite. Slang adj. meaning "clever, alert, wide awake" first recorded 18c., perhaps from the notion of the insect being hard to catch (other theories, however, trace it to fledge or flash); 1990s use may be a revival or a reinvention. Fly on the wall "unseen observer" first recorded 1949. An O.E. word for "curtain" was fleonet "fly-net." Fly-swatter first attested 1917. Flypaper attested from 1851, though the item itself is said to have become commonly available in London in 1848.

Source

I wish it gave usage though. I’m just having SUCH a hard time with a regency noblewoman being fly to nuances.

Anyone have more or better sources?

Oh, and here's a bonus:

Flying fuck originally meant "have sex on horseback" and is first attested c.1800 in broadside ballad "New Feats of Horsemanship."

One Bite With a Stranger, by Christine Warren-- Review

I’ve been a Christine Warren fan for quite some time now. I browsed past She’s No Faery Princess dozens of times, intrigued despite my non-urban-fantasy-reading-self (at the time). I think it was the title that finally did me in, along with my growing love affair with vampire novels (see also: JR Ward).

One Bite with a Stranger is a recent mass market release. According to Warren’s website: This book is an expanded version of the title originally released by Ellora’s Cave as Fantasy Fix. It contains new content and can be considered the First Novel of the Others.

I haven’t read the original e-book version, so I can’t comment on how much different it is or how much it may have changed. I can assure you that Warren’s roots in erotica show more in this book than her previous print releases, and those were not exactly lukewarm, IYWIMAITYD. Take note: the erotic scenes feature some loving BDSM kink – if that’s a big turnoff for you, you might want to take a pass on this one. If it is your thing, though… or if it’s not NOT your thing... um. It’s pretty good.* It’s also constitutes a fair bit of the page count, so, fair warning.

Dmitri is a really lovely alpha hero in this story. He has this nifty little gift of mind-reading, and when he happens to tap into Reggie’s fantasy life, he finds that it lines up with his own, and things just smoke along from there. The notion of a lover being able to read your mind certainly has some disadvantages, not the least of which would likely be a sense of violation. It also becomes an interesting way to treat the notion of consent. What if you actually do know for a fact she means YES when she's saying NO? Warren handles this nicely, IMO. Dmitri doesn't ever ignore what Reggie says when it's in conflict with what he knows about her inner desires; rather, he calls her on it and insists on her cooperation in something of an ultimate submission. The rest of the plot is adequate but unremarkable.

My only nitpick with the story is the motivating premise that kicks off the whole thing. Reggie has this group of girlfriends who came up with “the Fantasy Fix” (title of the e-book version). Each of them apparently shared a sexual fantasy or two and amazingly, no matter how outlandish (not so very), someone in the circle had a single hunky friend who was able to deliver said fantasy. Reggie, the most prudish of the group, was exempt from the fix-up because she was the only one in a long term relationship. At the beginning of the book, she has dumped the loser LTR and thus amid much protest becomes the subject of the next Fix.

Here’s where my eyes start rolling. I just don’t see blind dates and fix-ups working out that well when they specifically involve fantasy sex. I mean, I’ve BEEN on fix-ups. Add in that the fixer-upper has shared one of YOUR fantasies with the guy and ugh. AWKWARD. Or maybe "awkward" isn't the word-- maybe the more accurate term would be "LESS FUN THAN REPEATEDLY STABBING YOURSELF IN THE EYE WITH A SHRIMP FORK".

Then there’s Reggie’s reluctance. Her girlfriends all but force her into this. She wants no part of it, not even deep down secretly yadda yadda. Yet she still lets them dress her up in slutwear, take her to a bar, and goes along with the plan to go home with a guy of their choice and have kinky sex with him. I don’t buy it.

Really? This is where your suspension of disbelief fails?

Um, yeah. Who're you?

You can call me the voice of doubt. Or reason. Whichever. This is one of the vampire books, right?

Yeah, vampires and some were-guys. So?

Where the girl falls in love with the vampire? The centuries-old, mind-reading, blood-sucking dude with the pointy teeth?

Yes already. Your point?

So you believe in the mind-reading sexually dominant immortal vampire and his were-wolf buddies, but you don’t believe the main character would go for a kinky fix-up?

Right—that and the single available straight men in Manhattan. And one of them was a were-cat, not wolf. YOU CAN SHUT UP NOW.

Okay, okay, untwist already. I'm just saying.

*glare* Consider it said.

On a serious note, the scenes between the hero and heroine were far and away the star of the show. The chemistry in and out of bed between Dmitri and Reggie really sparkles, and carries the book. If you're not into the erotic side of it, it's probably not going to rate tops for you (errr, no pun intended) but I give it good marks just for the main characters. I thought the scenes among the girlfriends were more than a little flat by comparison and probably didn't help with the believability of their roles. I actually didn't like Ava much at all-- we'll just have to wait and see what kind of true colors she reveals in her own book, coming next April.


The reading order for Warren's Novels of the Others can be found here.
__________________
*By which I mean smoking hot.

Mistress of Pleasure, by Delilah Marvelle – Review

One of the recent highlights of my avocation as a romance reader was the Emerald City RWA conference in Bellevue, WA. This just happens to be about 8 miles from my house. I am steadfastly NOT writing a romance. No. Not doing it. As tempting as it sounds to attend a seminar by Julia Quinn on writing dialog, or Cherry Adair as the motivational “just do it” speaker (no really, it IS tempting, that isn’t sarcasm), I would rather spend the $300-odd on books by other people. Seriously, it’s way more fun to read them than it is to write them. At least for me.

**WARNING: NAVEL-GAZING AHEAD**

So, the thing is, as an artist, I’m a damn good engineer.

I do not mean to say that I’m utterly hopeless at creative stuff. For any art, there is craft that can be learned and practiced, skills that enable the artistic vision to shine through. My husband, who’s a 3-D electronic artist, has said that when his company looks for artists, they’d far rather have someone with a great artistic eye and teach them the software, than someone who’s a whiz with the package of the moment but merely OK at the art. Me? I’m pretty good at the craft stuff. If I can read up on it, and practice it, and have sufficient motivation, I can perform competently. It’s that vision, that creative spark, that I think I lack, or perhaps it’s just the faith in my spark that's missing. Either way, I’ve yet to catch fire.

So back to the review, and how it came to be: I was standing in line loaded down with a huge tote full of juicy new books, and started chatting up the person next to me (it wasn’t Ciara, though I did accost her in her FABulous boa and got a bit of a scoop on how things were going) and probably talked her ear off – I tend to do that when I get going on the topic of romance books (I’m sure you’re shocked). Julia Hunter held up to the barrage pretty well, and told me that I HAD to check out Marvelle. You can probably imagine how much arm-twisting was involved. Julia graciously held my place in line (there were like 50 people ahead of us and 4 behind) while I ran back and nabbed one last book.

Delilah Marvelle was the nicest person you could imagine to talk to and her books have a pretty cool premise. She writes in the regency era, but less about the ton and more about the demi-monde, or that class of folks, especially women, who might be welcomed into the rarified air of the ton, if only they would behave themselves.

Intrigued?

So was I. Honestly, I really, really wanted to be able to write a rave review for this book, but I found it only so-so. It seems to me that Marvelle has the spark, the idea, the passion, but it’s executed a little clumsily. Anachronistic patterns of speech, dialog that clunks along sometimes, especially the grandmother’s French inflections. Plot devices that don’t quite ring true – in particular, the hero is a duke who, despite being handsome, fit, of a prime age, and – did I say—a bloody duke?-- is considered unmarriageable because of recent family scandals. His mother, overbearing but loving, is so desperate for him to marry that she pressures him to marry a woman who has no reputation, no money, and no family lineage – she’s not quite a courtesan, but the next thing. The heroine meanwhile, is a prim virgin saddled with a grandmother who has educated her in the theory of sexual arts to a degree that rather squicked me out. Now, I realize that there’s a deliberate attempt here to turn gender roles on their head, but I just didn’t really buy it, on either side.

In spite of all the problems though, I still really like the basic premise (a very secret "School for Scandal" where men of the ton can learn the arts of seduction) and I loved the glimpses of the gentlemen who will become the subsequent heroes. Marvelle tells us that she’s planning to write 5 or 6 books with a concurrent time frame, and I’m looking forward to that. I’ve always loved reading the same scene from more than one point of view (see also: Julia Quinn, “The Lost Duke of Windham” & “Mr. Cavendish, I Presume”).

If I haven’t made my point yet on craft vs. art, I feel like Marvelle has the art but needs a little work on the craft. Which is why I’ll be happy to pick up at least the next book and see what happens with it--I'd rather read a book with this kind of flaw than a perfectly-written one with no heart.