Reading Binge

[shipperx]

Still on my reading binge, and was awake entirely too late last night to finish a novel.

It was another Courtney Milan, so I guess I got my wind back up for angst again after having read several novels of the bubbly variety. At this point I think I'm going to have to say that I like the way this woman writes.  It's not that her novels are without flaws.  They are quite flawed.  There are weak points in plotting and places where she is too aligned with genre tropes.  And in the novel that I just finished (Unveiled) there are problems with both.  It particularly had the soap opera problem of "For god's sake FINISH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!!!"  Secret interuptus.  Time and time again, the heroine was going to confess her secret only for her to either chicken out or to be interupted or by the hero refusing to shut the hell up to allow her to finish her confession.  Very frustrating, and a weakness in plot.  Also a weakness was the heroine doggedly remaining loyal to people who did not deserve her loyalty (though on that score, I can see that as being a legitimate psychological flaw.  It's frustrating as hell, but it is quite common for people to become so focused on gaining love from an abuser (and her family qualified as emotionally abusive IMHO) that they keep focusing on the love denied them while undervaluing the love someone else offers freely.  It's a perverse psychological quirk, but one that happens too often in real life to outright dismiss.

And yet, despite the flaws, Milan manages to place a scene or two that hits so hard, and works for me so well emotionally that I'm willing to forgive even blatant plot flaws (and, in general, I'm a plot-loving kind of gal).

Unveiled had a scene that worked so perfectly for me that I want to go back and examine exactly how she pulled off the trick.  She made me spontaneously -- and unexpectedly -- gasp then begin crying.  Imean, it's one thing when it's The Hunger Games making me cry over a dead child or the WWII novel The Lost Wife making me cry over a Nazi death camp.  It's hard not to cry over over the scope and scale of such injustice and tragedy.  It's much more difficult to pull the heartstrings over something infinitely small scale, etching the pain of something personal treated so cavalierly that it takes you by surpise and makes you well up with tears of empathy.   The scene made me love the hero (who wasn't even in the scene) and the heroine (because she, like myself, was blazingly furious with the perpetrators of it).  It was about such a small thing in one respect, just the salutation of a letter and some brotherly teasing, and yet the way it was handled made my eyes suddenly well up with ushed tears and created a desire to bitchslap the hero's relatives while cheering the heroine for wanting the exact same thing.

Like Duchess War some of the best scenes are not the romantic scenes but familial.    In Unveiled the scene that made me cry and love the leads was a scene between the heroine and the hero's brothers, where the brothers exhibit a profound lack of understanding of their sibling while the heroine's heart is breaking for him, all with her being unable to explain to the brothers just how incredibly hurtful their cavalier dismissal of something so small but precious (a simple letter salutation) might be.


Despite a slow start and some quibbles about what were most probably publisher guidelines, as well as trope problems of secrets not told when they damn well should have been told and characters sticking to plans that should have long  been abandoned,  that heartwrenching mid-book scene made the book a keeper for me.  It made me love the leads despite their flaws (of which there were many) and their moments of willfuly blind stupidity  (Seriously, if the heroine's secret had been any more obvious, the hero would have been buried under a pile of anvils.  That said, I believe it's intended to come off as Buffy Summers-like levels of Herculean denial rather than outright stupidity.  They know the truth, they just don't want to admit it to themselves (the scene where one brother asks the other doesn't he WANT to know and the hero says "only when she tells me" is the tip off to that, I think).  So the hero willfully ignores every anvil that drops directly on his head  (hell, it's not just him.  I think every character in the book has serious issues with denial.  That was my read anyway.)   But because it read as the emtional hang-ups of the characters, I accept these problems not as  evidence of a lack of intelligence but of employment of psychological coping mechanisms... probably because the characters made me love them (while wanting to shake them.).

The novel also did the job of making me go ahead and buy the sequel with the youngest brother that I would not have read otherwise (don't care for the blurb.) I want to know more about the family.

Comments

[usedtobeljs]

I like Ash and Mark, but it is a truth universally acknowledged that it's Smite's story that haunts a reader. :)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I'm now about half way through Mark's and have no doubt that I'll want to read Smite's as thus far there have only been hints.

And his behavior towards Ash was inexplicable enough that I want to know. I mean, Ash clearly thinks that Smite resents him, but it's equally clear to the reader that this isn't really it. So why did Smite arrive to help then walk away (hell, he didn't even remain to see whether the Margaret kept her word. I realize that her becoming furious with him truly convinced him that whatever she was doing, she did truly care about Ash, but it was still odd that he came but was unable/unwilling to stay, despite how obvious that Ash desperately wanted that. (And I figured that his asking Ash to become a Magistrate was his response to Margaret's plea that he PLEASE allow Ash to give him something

Clearly their childhoods did an enormous number on those boys heads. But, yes, Ash is wonderful and Mark is quite fascinating. Tp the point I've read in the trilogy, though, Smite is an enigma.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...I may try Unveiled. Now that I've read the other series, except for the Governess Affair.

Like Duchess War some of the best scenes are not the romantic scenes but familial. In Unveiled the scene that made me cry and love the leads was a scene between the heroine and the hero's brothers,

Oh, so agree. Had the same reaction to The Countess Conspiracy - I burst into tears during a scene with the heroine and the hero's brother - and I mean sobbing tears. It caught me. And that rarely happens. And it also happened during a scene with the heroine and her mother.

I really do like how Courtney Milan writes - she develops interesting supporting and lead characters, and their relationships.

Currently reading another Sherry Thomas. Then possibly Judith Ivory, who I haven't tried as yet, but I think might work for me.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The Judith Ivory is a angst free palet cleanser, which is needed from time to time.

The Turner Brother Trilogy (Unveiled #1, Unclaimed #2, Unraveled #3) is clearly going to be quite the angst-fest. (I haven't cried during #2 yet, but I can feel it coming when it all comes crashing down).

The three brother's mother went insane when they were children. I'm talking a genuine schizophrenic or psychotic. How each son responded to this is different (and I really don't know what's going on with the middle son as his only appearance so far is enigmatic. All three sons have issues.

Unveiled is the oldest son who is filled with guilt over having 'failed' his younger brothers and it obsessed with reconciling with them (even when he's with them he feels shut out) and over giving them everything that they've been denied.

And one thing I liked about Unveiled is that it gave both the hero and the heroine their own issues. They were sort of mirrors in a way, with Ash, the hero trying desperately to give and give and give to his brothers and Margaret's brothers being so incredibly selfish and self centered in regards to her.

I'm now onto the sequel with the youngest brother who fears that he's a little TOO like their mother (who again was obsessive and clinically insane). This has turned him into the "saint" of the family. He has a desperate need to be in control of himself, to not let loose, to keeping himself in check. He's also a 28 year old virgin whose leading lady is a bonafide courtesan... and there have been so many ways that could've gone so very wrong, and thus far has not (though, there are secrets about the heroine that have yet to be revealed. For that matter, Margaret the heroine of Unveiled is no virgin either. There's clearly some issues being examined about the damage caused by slutshaming.)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I have to admit - I enjoy how Milan and Thomas, also it appears Ivory, play with established romance tropes, deconstructing and examining them in a new way.

The whole virgin/whore bit which is huge in the romance genre. If you are a "virgin" - you must be female and have no experience whatsoever - ie. wet-behind-the ears, and if you are male and a virgin - you are a doofus.
If you are not a virgin and have been sexually active and female? A slut.
If male? Amazing lover and a rake.

As if sexual experience defines you?

But Thomas and Milan play around with that. They also play with the whole "drop-dead" beautiful trope. There's less physical description. The woman aren't always described as breathtakingly beautiful, and if they are - it's not always a great thing...

It's a rarity in this field. And rather refreshing.

Hmmm...I may try the Milan books. Thanks for the Rec. I'm still on my unending binge...clearly.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The whole virgin/whore bit which is huge in the romance genre. If you are a "virgin" - you must be female and have no experience whatsoever - ie. wet-behind-the ears, and if you are male and a virgin - you are a doofus.

Milan is deliberately examining parts of that in the 2nd book of the Turner Trilogy.

In Unveiled(1) the woman isn't a virgin, but it's just part of the whole. It's A point not THE point (and it's not 'her secret.'... and not a complication for the romance).

I was quite hesitant with the virgin/courtesan premise for Unclaimed. Execution of those premises can go horribly wrong (I still shudder at the memory of an old Mary Balogh novel where Balogh paired her courtesan heroine with a mentally handicapped dude because...it was all the fallen woman was allowed to expect or something? ::double shudder::) In Milan's set up, the hero (the youngest brother of the hero in Unveiled and a sub character in Unveiled) is a virgin, and purposely so (this actively bothered the hero in "Unvelied" because he thinks his baby brother walls himself off from the world. Their disturbed mother was religiously fixated and Book 1 hero is concerned and doesn't always 'get' what Book 2 hero intends with his philosophical stances).

Anyway, hero of book 2 actually wrote a book on Male Chastity (that we know from Book 1 is both humorous and serious at the same time). The heroine is a courtesan who has accepted a wager to seduce him and ruin his 'reputation' (how's that for a gender swap?)

There were SO many ways this plotline could've gone wrong. But, actually, I think I see what Milan was doing. She's examining the sexism of traditional female 'chastity'.

First off the hero's reasoning for his philosophical stance is that in Victorian society it's the women who pay the price for Victorian moralizing. Men have sex with women but it's the women that society treat as 'fallen.' Men are just seen as sowing their oats or whatever, but it's the girls who are disowned if 'ruined' and it is the women who are 'fallen' and ostracized while society applauds the reformed rake. There's hypocrisy under it. Worse, somehow men explain their own 'weakness' (there's a word choice) as a 'loose women leading them astray' but there are very few consequences for men in the equation. Nearly all the consequences and censure falls on the women.

Which is a good point and an admirable point, but Milan also gets around to the heroine telling him that he can't 'romanticize' her as a 'victim.' Seeing her as a 'just a victim' is ALSO damaging. She did what she had to. She survived.

It's the last bit that was rather more difficult to get across (and one that I think some people reviewing on Amazon missed.) I wish Milan had made her points without plot repitition. It would've been better. But both issues were important. The first flip-out pushing him away had to be there because it would've destroyed heroine's last bit of self-worth had she actually betrayed him. The second flipout about 'not seeing her as a victim' was important individually not as a pair because if she didn't seize her own power, she was always going to spiral out in panic. It was just more difficult to communicate. First because it's not entirely true. She was a victim of a society/time/family that kicked her onto the streets at 14 years old. But it is infantilizing and victimizing her to not allow her her ownership of her choices and actions. She did need to fight for herself. So I got the POINT of it (just wish it it hadn't gone to the same flip-out well twice.) I give Milan credit for the THOUGHTS. They were important enough that, okay, repeat.

And the 'saintly' hero is quite lovely (and no saint.) He was no inept dufus. He isn't always right about everything but he's not just some naive fool, either.

All in all, as hesitant as I was over the set-up of "Unclaimed", I think Milan did a good job of deconstructing several things in it. It is quite angst-ridden though. There is a desperate loneliness to the heroine which is very sad.

[femmenerd.livejournal.com]

Yes! And Ivory is also reworking the gender dynamics of other myth/tropes like Beauty & the Beast or Pygmalian.

I actually especially like Beast for the way that it deconstructs the "Diamond of the first water" youthful beauty and makes her more three dimensional.

And...I'm realizing that this is why I looked twice when Ivory was mentioned above as a lighter, palate cleanser because it's true! Her plots are less angsty than Milan or Sherry Thomas, but no less "serious" in terms of craft.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I read the description of Judith Ivory's The Beast and some reviews of it on Amazon today. I'm currently reading Sherry Thomas' Beguiling the Beauty - which appears to be Thomas' twist on Ivory's "Beast" story. What Thomas does, and I haven't seen this done before - is the heroine has an overwhelmingly beautiful face. So beautiful that when the hero first glimpses her from afar he is "overcome" and each time he sees her, again from afar, he becomes more and more obsessed. Then he hears a malicious rumor about her from her husband - that her beauty is only skin deep, and her horrible she is. (It's not true - her husband is a jealous man, and horrid to her. And never sees beneath the surface.) He doesn't believe it at first - that is until he reads about her husband's death, and how the husband was driven bankrupt buying her jewels. The even more malicious gossip about her remarriage, and the subsequent death of her second husband, who died when she was allegedly having an affair with his best friend. So he decides she's a beast. The hero is a naturalist - and is giving a lecture on naturalism at Harvard, which the heroine decides to attend with her sister and sister-inlaw - in the hopes of setting her sister up with him. During the lecture - he is asked a question about whether "beauty" is an inherited trait and its effects on evolution.
During his response, he provides an example of how feminine beauty can be the downfall of most men, and how beautiful women can be well "beastly" and shallow. The example he uses is the heroine, leaving her name out of it, but providing enough information - that she recognizes who he is talking about and is deeply wounded.

Her sister, Helena, suggests that when the opportunity arises the heroine should seek vengeance against him. Make him fall for her, then cut him.
It does, she wears a veiled hat...and takes on the identity of a German Baroness...he is not permitted to see her face. He falls in love with her, but never sees her face, and she with him.

You see the gender flip? She not only grabs the concept from Ivory and flips it. But she instead of doing the fairy tale, she sort of references the Greek myth - Cupid and Psyche, except the woman is cupid, and the male is psyche. Rather clever.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I've about decided that some amazon reviews are crazy. I think that while there's an audience for deconstructed tropes and more complex psychological stories, there are readers who just don't get it. (Seriously, there are reviewers who really do. not. get. how characters may be flat out lying to themselves and thus to the reader as well. I've seen confusion over that more than once in Amazon/Good Reads reviews recently. I love that Milan and Thomas do psychological POV things like that. It's one thing in GRRMartin books that I like, too. POV should matter. And sometimes a character is so caught up in their view or in such deep denial that it's going to take the reader figuring out what's 'really' going on.)

I've loved some of Milan's, Thomas' and Ivory's deconstructions. To me they've made them more interesting. And yet for each of my favorites works I can think of an Amazon review that just did not get it.

There were a couple of terrible reviews of one Milan $.99 novella. Complaints about certain aspects. Enough that I just didn't read it until recently. When I did, I was totally 'what the hell was that person talking about?!" (Had a similar reaction to reviews of one Ivory novel and a Thomas as well.) I can only think that the reviewer was looking for one thing and totally missed that the author was focusing on something else.

I love the aspects that deconstruct tropes or deeply delve into a psychological point. It raises those books to being better books. But its clear from some reviews that this isn't a universal point of view.

And your discussion of Beguiling the Beauty intrigues me (again, more than Amazon's blurb and reviews did.)

Though I think I'm back to needing a light book before delving back into the angst.

And have you ever read any of Roberta Gellis's reconstructed mythology? She re-did both the Minotaur myth as well as the Hades/Pesephone myth. (As mythology (meaning its still about gods). It's been decades since I read the Hades/Pesephone one, but I remember liking it. I wonder if I can trust my memory. Sometimes what we liked as a teen we don't like as an adult.)

[femmenerd.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I kind of love when there's something in a bad review that tips me off to the fact that me & the reviewer are living in totally different universes and thus I should find that book they hated ASAP.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

HUGE pet peeve of mine is "clean romance". As soon as "clean" romance is used my alarm bells go off.

How sexually explicit a story is is not a clean/unclean issue. I understand having preferences (frankly, I think that they should just go the fanfic route and have a rating system so that people know upfront. I personally enjoy a wide range, but it's perfectly clear that many people do not. They want what they want and that's fair. But the "clean" thing irks the hell out of me. (Just as the H/h shorthand that shadowkat mentioned the other day. I had noticed that too and it had bothered me also. Why is Hero the capital and the heroine lowercase? What kind of subconscious sexism is that?!)

And as far as the sex is concerned, it's not a matter of 'clean' or 'unclean'. Framing it in those terms gives me the wiggins. It doesn't matter if it's a fade to black or whether it's explicit in every detail. For me the difference between disturbing and enjoyable is about the power dynamics. There are perfectly 'chaste' novels that have incredibly ookie sexism and domination involved. THAT is what I'm disturbed by. That, sexism, and consent issues. One person's 'clean' and 'unclean' may mean a world of difference to me than what it means to THEM (often because the people who often make these 'clean'/'unclean' judgments are the same sort that love 'traditional gender relationships' translated into an overbearing, power-sucking, controlling hero infantilizing a heroine.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh, I so agree. I've read a lot of disturbing romances - in which they power dynamics are completely out-of-wack and it becomes alarmingly clear that...the writer is oblivious to this.

I understand having preferences (frankly, I think that they should just go the fanfic route and have a rating system so that people know upfront. I personally enjoy a wide range, but it's perfectly clear that many people do not. They want what they want and that's fair. But the "clean" thing irks the hell out of me. (Just as the H/h shorthand that shadowkat mentioned the other day. I had noticed that too and it had bothered me also. Why is Hero the capital and the heroine lowercase? What kind of subconscious sexism is that?!)

EXACTLY. I've learned to read the bad and good reviews on these sites. Some books do warn you - the self-published ones do and the ones that are .99 cents. Which is interesting.

(often because the people who often make these 'clean'/'unclean' judgments are the same sort that love 'traditional gender relationships' translated into an overbearing, power-sucking, controlling hero infantilizing a heroine.

Found that out the hard way... I really can't abide those romances. Read a few of them...and found them cringe inducing. Most, weirdly, were in the contemporary/New Adult category. Which is odd. Also a lot of the chicklit books have that power imbalance.

While the historicals...that I've been reading such as the Countess Conspiracy (which I adored to pieces) and Beguiling the Beauty...don't or rather they comment on how the time period enforced a power imbalance, which the characters struggle against and refuse to give in to.

But a lot of the reviewers on Amazon and Good Reads - I've found, find the stronger women - to be self-centered or not supportive. It's very odd. And they seem to want the 18-21 year old and the older guy.

Thomas in Beguiling the Beauty plays with that trope - in an interesting way, her heroine is older than the hero, but the heroine's first marriage was to that older controlling guy who wanted her to be the pretty/traditional girl (which is the established trope). While the heroine wanted to dig up fossils, but her first husband was against it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I've about decided that some amazon reviews are crazy.

LOL! So too are some of the Good Reads reviews. Honestly, I wonder about some of these people.

Seriously, there are reviewers who really do. not. get. how characters may be flat out lying to themselves and thus to the reader as well. I've seen confusion over that more than once in Amazon/Good Reads reviews recently. I love that Milan and Thomas do psychological POV things like that. It's one thing in GRRMartin books that I like, too. POV should matter.

Exactly. I've discovered this as well. POV is a major deal for me. It's actually one of the reasons I stuck with GRRM as long as I did - he does POV very very well.

I've loved some of Milan's, Thomas' and Ivory's deconstructions. To me they've made them more interesting. And yet for each of my favorites works I can think of an Amazon review that just did not get it.

Quite true. Judith Ivory's The Beast got ripped apart, as did Beguiling the Beauty. (I read the worst and best reviews.)

I can only think that the reviewer was looking for one thing and totally missed that the author was focusing on something else.

I sometimes think reviews tell us more about the reviewer than the work being reviewed. Not always the case. But sometimes.

A lot of readers get angry at a book for not being what they wanted it to be, ignoring what the writer was trying to do. (I've read a lot of the reviews that were upset that the writer didn't include an epilogue that showed the couple having babies and happily ever after. In fact that seems to be a huge criticism of Thomas' and Milan's novels.)

And your discussion of Beguiling the Beauty intrigues me (again, more than Amazon's blurb and reviews did.)

It has a reference to a same-sex relationship and handles it in a realistic and interesting way.

I can see why the book pissed a lot of reviewers off - it has some extremely strong and dominant women characters. (which personally, I prefer and find to be a breath of fresh air). A lot of female reviewers have issues with strong and assertive women in books - it's weird. I've even scene the term "alpha female" used and in a derogatory sense.

Though I think I'm back to needing a light book before delving back into the angst.

I'm thinking the same thing. I may jump to The Proposition before attempting either The Beast or the Milan trilogy. Or maybe Tempting the Bride - which is supposed to be lighter.
Beguiling the Beauty isn't that dark at the moment - but I'm only 36% of the way through.

nd have you ever read any of Roberta Gellis's reconstructed mythology? She re-did both the Minotaur myth as well as the Hades/Pesephone myth. (As mythology (meaning its still about gods). It's been decades since I read the Hades/Pesephone one, but I remember liking it. I wonder if I can trust my memory. Sometimes what we liked as a teen we don't like as an adult.)

No. I should try her. I loved to see a twist on those myths.
I remember reading Piers Anthony's take on the Greek myths as a kid. My favorites were the ones on "Death" and "Hades".
(Yes, I have a fictional bad-boy character fetish...but only in fictional narratives.)

True...I'm learning I can't trust what I liked as a teen either. I recently re-read a book I loved as a teen and thought it was ...well not that good.

[femmenerd.livejournal.com]

I have read Beguiling the Beauty too and I agree - I think it's quite likely that Thomas was responding to Ivory's book specifically, not just more general romance/other tropes. I mean, the shipboard settings & hidden identities!

(Do you have a Goodreads account? 'Cause this whole comment would make a good review.)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I don't, but I've been considering it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

(Do you have a Goodreads account? 'Cause this whole comment would make a good review.)

I do. And thanks! But I need to wait until I finish reading the book. ;-)

But you've sparked my curiousity for Beast by Judith Ivory. Which is a wee bit controversial on Good Reads. But then so too was Beguiling the Beauty.
Nuance is, I've found, lost on a lot of Good Reads reviewers. And Thomas is a subtle, clever writer.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Same here. I've got the 'samples' of both now on my kindle. "Beast" does have a pretty funny opening scene so I may try it first. I haven't decided yet.

(Books are really getting me through February that has no TV and is all Olympics. It's actually more enjoyable.)

And Good Reads savaged "The Proposition" also, which I found to be a really fun romp (with a wonderful alley love scene. I found it hilarious how the hero kept telling himself "I'll stop. I have to stop. I can't make love to her in an alley. You don't take a girls virginity in an alley. Especially if you love the girl. But...um... okay, one more sec. Just one more thing first..." Until he finally confesses to the heroine how close he is to doing just that with her saying, "No, you won't. I won't let you." and his being doubtful with "er... yeah, I kind of think you would" (she totally would've too.) Very funny and yet sexy scene. Because when ...er.. push comes to shove, she's the one who convinced him to finally make love to her.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I read some of the reviews on Good Reads that savaged the Proposition.
A couple of readers really could not deal with the strong female character, and a male hero who was not...what they were used to. (They were really turned off by his background.)

Smartbitches a while back, in one of their podcasts, discussed Good Reads Reviews and how they aren't really indicative of the readership at large, and that the reviewers there are geared towards certain novels.

Okay, I think I may read the Proposition first. Let me know what you think of "Beast" - it got weird reviews on both sites. I did find one decent review of it - that made it sound rather appealing. The heroine is smart.
(I require smart heroines, stupid heroines grate on my nerves.)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the Beauty and the Beast one, but I quite enjoyed the Pygmalian one.

And I love light and fluffy ones, especially when there's substance to them. I also love the angsty ones as well, but after a few of those, I kind of need a fluff break. (I'm actually pretty close to needing a fluff break now, so I may check out Ivory's Beauty and the Beast take. There are some more Thomas and Milan's I want to read, but I think I need a breather from heartbreak novels. :)

[femmenerd.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes! Fluffy with substance. This reminds me of how in general good comedy is often harder to produce than drama - in tv & film, etc. but also I find that so often both less skilled fic & romance writers rely on inherently angsty subjects rather than find the depths of everyday life.

(PS It made me very happy to see this post upon looking at my flist after such a long absence - I have so few people to talk about romancelandia with & it seems like you and I have v. similar taste.)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

It's the old acting axiom: Dying is easy, comedy is hard.

In romances, it should probably be 'obstacles are easy, making a relationship work is hard.'

[femmenerd.livejournal.com]

In romances, it should probably be 'obstacles are easy, making a relationship work is hard.'

YES.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

n romances, it should probably be 'obstacles are easy, making a relationship work is hard.'

THIS is what I look for in romance novels. Where it shows the the difficulty of making the relationship work. Not just the following in love or of-times cliche "marriage plot", or the crazy obstacles, but how they make their relationship work after they fall in love, after the lust stage...or after they get married.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I have so few people to talk about romancelandia with & it seems like you and I have v. similar taste.)

Have the same problem. It's why I'm over here...finally can discuss this with someone.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I actually especially like Beast for the way that it deconstructs the "Diamond of the first water" youthful beauty and makes her more three dimensional.

After reading it, my conclusion is that it's basically like a Howard Hawk's screwball comedy, like the ones Carey Grant did with Irene Dunn such as "The Awful Truth" or "My Favorite Wife"

[femmenerd.livejournal.com]

I've been meaning to reread the Turner series - have 'em loaded on the eraser and everything - but lately I just want every book to be the Countess Conspiracy again.

And I wonder if some of the change (improvement) in Milan's most recent series has anything to do with the fact that she's self-publishing now.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I think so. There were aspects of things in the Turner trilogy, especially language in the love scenes but also some pacing things that I suspect were to conform to harlequin guidelines.