Meg Cabot's Insatiable

[shipperx]

Okay, so I've been somewhat stalled on Meg Cabot's Insatiable since I first mentioned it.  I've been having issues with it since the heroine finally met the vampire romantic lead.  Is it mocking Twilight?  Yes.  But I also have the impression that I'm to take this romance seriously and -- or dear sweet flippin' God! -- this romance is sacchrine.  It's cloying!  And I don't say this with any prejudice against romance novels.  I've read more than my fair share of romance novels.  It's just that, at the moment, this is not my kind of romance novel.

That's what has been stalling me for a couple of weeks.  What's irritating me at the moment is the author's use of Dracula. 

First off, I seem to have a different interpretation of where the real misogyny in Bram Stoker's novel lies.  To me a lot of the misogyny in Dracula isn't the vampire but in the human men's reaction to OMG, women's sexuality!  Dracula comes into ladies bedrooms and has metaphorical sex and the story tells us this makes Lucy evil, and it culminates in the human men re-exerting Victorian order by a metaphorical human gang-rape/staking of the sexualized female now turned vampire.  There's a great deal of the Victorian man's fear of women's sexuality and of the concept of 'original sin' in Bram Stoker's Dracula, and a lot of the misogyny in the story is in the human heroes.

Secondly, if the heroine is conversant with Dracula enough so as to discuss the novel, then how in the heck did she not connect the Romanian 'hero' Vlad Tepes with Dracula?  It's not an obscure fact.  In fact, I would bet it would be mentioned on the plaque under his portrait in the museum.  How exactly can the heroine know enough to gripe about the novel Dracula and yet have no clue about who the novel is based on? 

Yeah, yeah, it's a nitpick, but it's currently irritating me. Either make her largely ignorant about the novel or have her bright enough to know the connection.

ETA:  And I'm growing sick of the name "Jack Bauer".  Seriously, does she have to use her dog's full name all. of. the. time?

ETA II:  D'oh!  It just struck me what this novel is trying to be -- an updated, modern Northanger Abbey !  (I don't know whether Meg Cabot realizes this though.  While she's riffing on Twilight, I haven't seen any Northanger Abbey shout outs).  You can't really blame a woman for not being Jane Austen.  But...erm... she's not as good as Jane Austen.  Northanger Abbey does a far better job satirizing gothic novels.

Comments

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

Hmm... I've got this on my on order list...

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I enjoy it when it's being snarky, but, yesh, the romance is treacly and cliche-ridden, and I can't really tell from the tone whether it's intended to be cliche-ridden or not.

Frankly, it reminds me of Sex and the City when Carrie was dating Baryshnikov. He'd cook breakfast but make Carrie eat it alone as well and he was always taking her to the opera or art museums too (and really, Carrie isn't that high-browed of a gal). I get the whole fantasy part of the girl dressing up and going to the symphony, but I'd actually somewhat enjoy it more if the 20-something girl was honest enough to inwardly groan and think "The symphony? Couldn't we go to a Tool concert instead?" And the whole bit about sending her stuff from Bergdorf-Goodman. It's like something from a Harlequin Romance circa some point in the 1970s. It's a bit too cliche, you know? Unless it's played with some irony. (I mean, I rather loved the Sookie/Tara argument over the dress that Bill sent Sookie in True Blood, because it's such an old-fashioned utterly inhuman (for a male) action that it has to be treated with some amusement.) The problem with this is it's hard to tell whether I'm supposed to find this intentionally cliched or not.