Meandering Musings

It's getting to the end of the year and so there are usually some round-up posts. I'll probably do one about my year, eventually. And I would do one on the books I've read this year but I've been haphazard and don't really know what I've read or not read.

So, in lieu of a reading list, here's a flow of consciousness list of romances (which means I probably read or at least re-read them this year, but I'm not entirely sure). And it's a romance list... just 'cause.

I've been hitting the Christmas Novellas lately. Mainly because I'm pressed for time and they're short. Plus, they're a little cheesy but seasonal, and I can get into that sometimes.

Clearing out my book case the other week, I found an old copy of Mary Balogh's Under the Mistletoe. I have a soft spot for Mary Balogh even though she can be quite hit or miss. I honestly don't remember two of the novellas, but I did enjoy "The Family Christmas," about an estranged couple who had had an arranged marriage. It's fairly high up on the sweet scale, but I can do that for Christmas.

The other Christmas novella I remember from this year was Christi Caldwell's tale of a lonely bitchy rich girl whose family forgot about her at Christmas (and it just struck me how that sounds like Home Alone... Except in the Regency period). Not a lot to say about the plot but it was easy and enjoyable, especially compared to the other Christi Caldwell book that I remember from... I don't know when I read it, but it has stuck in my memory as an angst-o-rama. Annnnngggssttttt!!!

Angst-o-rama (not a Christmas story) Victorian Christi Caldwell is My Lady of Deception I don't remember the details so I could be wrong about parts of it, but from what I remember the heroine's family were Irish terrorists. Horrified by her thuggish (and abusive) father's brutal (and explosive) tactics, the heroine contacted the British Government who pretty much turned her into an informant (leaving her in the hands of said abusive father. The sense of dread and danger in this one is no doubt why it's listed as "dark" on its blurb. It's dark as compared to most Christi Caldwell novels but in terms of 'dark' it doesn't begin to compare to a book book by GRR Martin). The British also sent in an agent... who was captured by the father and tortured. The heroine tried to aid the agent in captivity and eventually arranged his escape (which got her beaten and left for dead by her father... but she was taken to an indigent hospital and eventually recovered.) Upon his release, the hero discovered that his fiancé had married someone else during his captivity and, when he discovered what had happened to the heroine, he felt obligated to aid her. And (for reasons I don't remember at all) this included marrying her. The heroine had naively idolized the hero... too much. More than he deserved, because he breaks her heart. I don't remember all of it, but the climax stuck in my memory because it did not go the way I had expected. The hero did something that was just incredibly difficult to forgive. So difficult that I'm not sure that I believe that the heroine forgave him... and that's after months of NOT forgiving him and leaving him. And, even though I could sympathize with the hero's decision, it was just such a devastating betrayal (NOT infidelity) that it was angst-city. I can't help but think this book needed another couple of chapters, because there needed to be more time to build to a happy ending because the hero needed to grovel more.

Another in the genre -- the historical spy genre -- that also happens to fall into the Christmas novella genre, is Grace Calloway's The Lady Who Came In From the Cold , set some 12 years after Waterloo. Heroine had been an orphan raised to be a spy who, when under cover as a gypsy 'camp follower' for her mission was treated well by the hero... such that he became her "ideal" (with her back story, she hadn't experienced much chivalry or compassion in her life). When the war was over, she transformed herself with a fake identity in order to pursue him... and won him. At the start of the novella, the pair has been married for 12 years. It looks like the story is part of a series and that at some point in that series of books she had been blackmailed over her secret, and that in whatever previous book this was, she had thought the secret buried. In the novella, even though the blackmailer is dead, he had taken steps to ensure that she would be exposed. So after 12 years of happy marriage her husband is faced with the discovery that his wife isn't who he thought she was. Her name and identity are fakes. She had slept with men during to her missions (and had faked virginity when she had married him), etc. He feels (understandably) betrayed. The reader privy to her back story, has great sympathy for her and know that she truly loves him. Angsty but not as angsty as the Christi Caldwell spy story. Although, the spy stuff is all backstory in this one. The plot is about her secret being exposed via blackmail, the subsequent estrangement.

And since I'm listing Regency spy stories, I read (perhaps this year?) a pair of connected Grace Burrows' stories The Captive and The Traitor. I, pretty much, only remember "The Captive" because it led to "The Traitor." The Captive is all about PTSD of a Napoleonic war hero who had been a prisoner of war and who wanted revenge on his jailor/torturer (The Traitor). Honestly, the torturer is the more sympathetic character. The Captive is okay, but pretty well-worn territory that leads to learning that vengeance isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

"The Traitor" was somewhat more original than "The Captive." The Captive wasn't the only former prisoner that was seeking vengeance on The Traitor. There's a line of them ready to challenge him to duels. Pretty much everyone in England wants him dead. Turns out that he was only half French. He was half English. He just happened to be visiting his French Grandparents in his youth when hostilities broke out and he was given the choice between joining the French Army or being killed. So he chose the military, despite his possessing a British title and with British loyalties. He had used his position as best he could. If he could ransom the British prisoner, he would (sometimes using his British estate via a relative to supply the money that would actually buy the British officer's freedom), or he would "oops" sometimes arrange an escape or a prisoner swap, etc. But for all that he tried to survive the war and protect who he could, he's now a "traitor" with a target on his back, loathed, and everyone wants him dead. He's also a pretty tortured guy who never asked for any of this. Strange that the 'traitor' was the more sympathetic and generous hero. I actually liked this the better of the two books.

What Have You Just Finished Reading?

Ridiculous! by D.L. Carter
Fluff.
As an analogy, it's sort of like if you had Pride and Prejudice except Elizabeth didn't meet Darcy and Mr. Bennet died, leaving the Bennet sisters in the care of Mr. Collins.  Which, while insufferable in its own right, is made far, far worse when Mr. Collins then dies, leaving the Bennet sisters and their mother soon-to-be homeless, in poverty, and potentially workhouse bound because the distant cousin who is next in line is a pitiless, compassionless asshole (those damned entailments!) until "Elizabeth" basically says "screw this!" and decides to chop off her hair, move the family to Bath, and become "Mr. Collins" herself, figuring she could do a better job managing things anyway.

The Shakespeare references make me think that we aren't supposed to question whether or not Mellicent (the would be Elizabeth Bennet of this analogy) could pull off being a man in convincing way. We're to accept the conceit much as in Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night" and the like. The 'woman experiences Regency England as a man" aspect is clearly what most interests the writer because it is what composes most of the novel (the romance, such as it is, arrives late and bound up with the friendship of Melli--er... Mr. North and his new best friend Shoffer (who is clueless about the disguise for roughly 85% of the book, and who doesn't even arrive in the novel until roughly 40%). It's a bit more about the gender politics, the freedom of being 'male' at that time and the injustice of women not having property rights.

Generally light in tone with a touch of relatively chaste romance (that doesn't even come about until the last 15%, after Shoffer freaks the hell out when he discovers that he and Mr. North are being accused of "buggery", which is, of course, quite illegal at that time.  And it is rather funny that by that point Shoffer still didn't catch on that "Mr. North" is viewed by most as being rather effeminate (due to 'he' actually being SHE, so that wasn't much of a stretch.  She probably was a rather effeminate 'man.')  Alas, Shoffer is a creature of his time, so his attitudes regarding this accusation (and the subsequent innuendos re: his own sexual orientation) are neither modern nor progressive, so "Mr. North" loses his best friend (to his female alter-egos hearbreak)...for a while.

But, like a Shakespearean comedy, all is well that ends well. More or less.


Currently Reading:
Still planning to start The Serpant Prince

Reading Next:
Don't know. 

What Have You Just Finished Reading:

Elizabeth Hoyt's "The Leopard Prince" (No leopards or princes were involved in her main story.)   As per Hoyt's habit, an attached fairytale  acts as meta commentary on her non-fairytale novel  -- though this time it isn't a separate text but a story the heroine relates in pieces and parts over the course of the novel. This fairytale is of "The Leopard Prince," a heroic prisoner freed from enslavement to exploitative kings and is included as commentary on the main (non-fairytale) plot. (Side note: it continually surprises me how many people on Good Reads do not grasp that Hoyt's attached fairytales always act as commentary on her non-fairytale plots).

I tend to think that the last bit of cross-purposes in the final chapters of the novel weren't as well supported as they should've been, making them come off a bit manipulative and OTT (but relatively brief, so I shrug it off). It felt like there needed to be a bigger impetus to force such rash action. However, overall, I was charmed and liked the book.

One thing I generally like about this author is her tendency to add subplots and secondary characters.  The central mystery is simplistic and pedestrian (someone killing sheep of all things, though this escalates to a murder later in the novel.  And ultimately there are 4 {human} deaths in the novel), but I rather liked the subplot of the hero and his brother reconnecting. And the inclusion of  the subplot with the heroine's much younger sister is clearly used as comparison for contrast with the main romantic relationship with the hero and heroine.(a lantern is hung on this by both the hero and the heroine's brothers who recognize both the similarities and, more significantly, the differences in the two sisters' situations. The older sister is almost 30 and consciously chooses to embark on a relationship with her land steward. Her baby sister is 14 and seduced by a fortune hunter. In that time period, those things are considered to be much alike, but the characters recognize the there is a significant difference between a 30 year old woman choosing a relationship with a man her own age (if not her own social station) and a 14 year old girl being manipulated by a 26 year old man.


In the end, I think the biggest flaw in the novel is too little expansion on the main villain. I'm still confused by his obsession with the hero (further confusing that motivation is the hero's tortured hallucination which mixed with his memories of the heroine's fairytale, implying that... well... huh. There's love involved...? Was that what I was supposed to take from the ogre and the tin stag? Or was it just obsession coupled with the hero being insensate and near death?)At any rate, the villain may or may not be the hero's biological father (the hero's mother had been the villain's married mistress and there were no DNA tests at that time, so there's no way to know for sure).

I could've done with a bit more exploration of the villain's head space because I find it curious that the villain loathed his legitimate son (Thomas), loathed the {paternity inconclusive} hero (Harry), yet was covetous of the hero's younger brother (Bennet) {who shares a mother with the hero and... I'm unclear why Bennet's paternity would've been any more conclusive than Harry's, other than the villain acknowleging him, as it was the exact same situation all over again}) while on the other hand the villain was utterly dismissive of the existence of his youngest illegitimate child (Will) by yet another woman.

{The villain is sexually loathesome, BTW. }Clearly class issues were involved, but given the villain's loathing of his legitimate (blue-blooded) son, it wasn't just class.   I would've liked to parse out the whys of the villain's head space a bit more.

Anyway, flaws aside, I enjoyed the book.

What Are You Reading Now:
Between Books

What Are You Reading Next:
Am considering Hoyt's "The Serpant Prince" "The Raven Prince" .  Though I may backtrack to one of the unread Milan novels.


ETA: And suddenly I can edit posts again!  Whoopee!!!  That was a really irritating LJ glitch.

I wrote up some comments recently about one of the romances that I had read and nutmeg3 pointed out that I never gave the title of the novel.  I had to admit that I had forgotten the title of the novel.  I forget titles all the time.

Want evidence of why it's so damn easy to forget the titles?  There are two novels (that are in no way related) currently downloaded from my Audible account.

*  Beguiling the Beauty

* To Beguile a Beast


Gee, who could ever confuse those?

(And how often is the term 'beguile' used in everyday conversation?)

What I've just finished reading:

Unclaimed by Courtney Milan

It's a gender swap of 'the rake and the innocent redeeming angel' trope with a Dangerous Liasons-like premise of a courtesan playing the Valmont role of accepting a wager to seduce an undisputed paragon of honor and virtue. (And while writing that down, I suddenly understand why there needed to be a duel near the end).

I was wary of the premise but intrigued. After reading the previous book in the trilogy, I wanted to know 'what happened next' enough that I dove right in to the second. I ended up loving "Unclaimed".  It does a good job of showing what's so appealing about the trope (the scene where the hero chooses to lose his virginity to the heroine is moving and beautiful. She'd be soul-dead if she hadn't fallen in love with him by then) and where the trope falls apart (As wonderful as love may be, it doesn't 'fix' you.'  One person cannot 'save' another. Someone else does not redeem your weaknesses.  YOU have to do that.)

I was discombobulated by the ending during the first read because it felt like it should have ended a couple of chapters earlier. Traditionally it would have.  Why tear them apart after what would usually be the denouement?  But re-reading the last few chapters, I was so very wrong.  It had to go that way.  The second part was important.  I was missing the bigger picture (made more clear by reading the entire trilogy, because the trilogy makes this point again and again):  Love, as wonderful as it is, as redeeming as it may be, does not 'fix' things. The only person who can do that is you.

So even after the couple confessed mutual love and tried to make a go of it, things fell apart.  But... it would have, wouldn't it?  Her self-esteem issues were real, her hurts were huge, and her coping patterns well established.   There was a point where the hero's middle brother told the heroine that she displayed the decision-making skills of a lizard.  She was offended.  Who wouldn't be?  He tells her that she misunderstood him.  He wasn't saying that lizards were unintelligent. Their behavior makes perfect sense.  When presented with danger, they run. That's what he did, and what she did too.

That was why what would traditionally be the point of 'happily ever after' wasn't in the novel.  Yes, yes, the hero and heroine  loved one another. They truly did.  And yes, the hero had confronted the villain.   And, no, that wasn't the ending, because you cannot 'fix' someone else.  Love -- while wonderful -- doesn't do that.  At least not love alone.  You cannot (truly) 'rescue' another person, not from themselves.  It's actually quite patronizing to think that you can.  In the first read, I was as despairing as the exhausted hero when he realized the truth of that.  The same scenario would just keep happening again and again because he couldn't make things okay for her.

SHE has to vanquish her demonsvillains.   She has to reclaim herself.  If someone is going to fight for her honor, it is going to be her.

I don't remember the exact quote, so this is only an approximation, but I loved the moment when the hero said that he couldn't be her white knight because (paraphrase) "You have always been your own knight, riding to your own rescue.  I'm just the man lucky enough to admire how you shine (Love him!)

ETA: Passage from the book:

He took a step closer to her. "I promised you once that I would be your knight, willing to do battle for you. But I don't think that's what you need of me. You've always been your own knight," he said, "riding to your rescue. I'm just the man who came along and saw how brightly your armor shone." [/ETA]

It's the second book in the Turner Brother trilogy, and I think it may be best to read the trilogy in order because it's developing characters and themes along the way. It works alone, but much better in context (and the only way to get the full breadth of the characters is to read the various POVs of all three brothers.)

But, yeah, this novel worked for me.  It worked for me quite well.

What are you reading now?
Nothing.  I'm contemplating.  I'm a bit angsted out.

What are you reading next?
Don't know.

What Are You Reading Now:
Err...  I suppose  'technically' I'm still 'reading' the Pretty Pink Princess romance in that I have not finished it.  But I'm not actively reading it either.

What Have You Just Finished Reading:
Mr. Impossible by Loretta Chase
It was a fun read.

It takes place during the rise of Egyptology in England and France but prior to hieroglyphics actually being deciphered (this is a significant plot point).  The heroine is a widow who is highly skilled in linguistics and who wishes to decipher hieroglyphs.  Her late husband was both intimidated by and jealous of her skills and aptitude and he seems to have been quite the misogynist who did a heinous number on her head, making her feel that both her intellect and her skills were unfeminine and undesirable.  Luckily, he died and left her lots of money, so she headed to Egypt and began publishing her work under her brother's name.

When her brother disappears (is kidnapped) at Giza, she approaches the British consulate about finding him. No one there takes her seriously and they basically dismiss her until someone hits upon the idea that she can take the troublesome son of an English lord off their hands, giving him something to do far away from the consulate.

What follows is a romp through pyramids, tombs, temples, and sand storms as well as a trip up the Nile with villains on their tail, as the heroine and hero seek to find and rescue her brother.  In the meantime, the troublesome hero begins to find a purpose while the heroine rediscovers her confidence, because this leading man LIKES that she's smart and determined.

It's a light read, and the hero could've stood a tad more development (though he is generally adorable.  Impossible and exasperating but also quite likable.). The heroine has a strong presence and is quite developed.   Though it has all the dramatic weight of say... "The Mummy" (Brendan Fraser version)... it's a fun read.

What Are You Reading Next:
Absolutely no idea.

Though I was toying with reading The Monuments Men before the Clooney movie came out and I saw a review on Smart Bitches for an urban fantasy novel involving archangels that might be intriguing.  But truthfully, I just don't know.

Does it seem like winter has been going on forever?

While the South can definitely get cold, usually you can depend on it being very temporary and quickly turning back to moderate temperatures. This winters's cold seems ongoing. Between the gray and the cold, I'm beginning to feel very cooped up. The dog doesn't even like to walk when it's gray and cold. She starts dragging me back towards the house once we reach the end of the block.

Briefly went shopping on Saturday. Despite the cold, I thought it might be a good time to coat shop, as this time of year is when they go on sale. I was looking at a fitted insulated North Face jacket and seriously considered buying, but looking at the website, the complaint about it was that it wasn't as warm as you would think. I have enough light jackets and was looking for a warm one, so I'm not sure I'm willing to pay for one that looks good but isn't considered to be particularly warm.

I also bought yet another pair of Sketcher 'Go Walks'. I already own two pair, but I wear those walking shoes to death. The blue ones are practically mesh, open air, and summer weight, so I'm not wearing those these days (and I had already done a LOT of wear on them). I have black ones that I'm wearing these days. I've also worn those to death over the winter. They are beginning to suffer from the wear, so when I saw that 'Go Walks' were on sale the other day I bought some gray ones. They're just walking shoes, but they are truly the most comfortable shoes I've ever owned... which is why I now have three pairs (though of different summer/winter weights).


Most constructive thing I did this weekend was make chili. With the cold and the gray, it seemed apropos for the weather. Turned out pretty good.

Nothing has been on TV.

Well, Downton was on TV. Okay episode but nothing earth shattering. Don't care how Anna's story has turned into her husband's story. Did enjoy Branson mentioning his discomfort in how he's gone from 'uppity chauffeur' and socialist to something not too far removed from the Grantham's pet (he didn't phrase it like that. I did. But... yeah) And I liked Lord Grantham's petulant announcement that he didn't want Branson to go and his dreams of Branson's daughter growing up as the almost-sister of Lady Mary's son. Lord Grantham may be a twat and an idiot with finances, but he isn't all bad. :)

Other than Downton, TV is pretty thin right now (Once Upon a Time, I want you back from hiatus. And GOT, start airing already!)

Finally got around to seeing Iron Man 3. Liked it better than Iron Man 2, which I found to be boring and a complete waste of time. Iron Man 3 was enjoyable. RDJ looked good and was quite funny. And I liked the switcheroo with Pepper Potts (which was totally obvious, but I liked it anyway), so all in all not bad... for a superhero movie (of which I'm not the worlds biggest fan).



Other than that, I'm still in the fluff book territory. I seem to have swum to the edge of the angst pool, as the last two weren't particularly angsty(and I'm A-okay with that.)

shadowkat67 mentioned having Zoe Archer's Sweet Revenge on her to-read list and the kindle blurb for it interested me. I've read about 70%+/- of it now.

It's a Victorian era story about an escaped convict seeking revenge on the titled Lord who murdered his sister. The convict runs into a group of covert 'agents' for Nemesis, a Robin Hood-esque organization seeking justice for those who can't get justice in a rigged class system that favors the titled and the wealthy. Like Jack (the hero), Nemesis is also after the titled Lord. And there is a particular female Nemesis agent that Jack finds incredibly attractive.

While packaged as a romance novel, it really isn't all that romance novel-y. It's more of an action adventure caper with a romantic subplot. Sort of "Leverage" meets "Ripper Street" (with perhaps a tiny pinch of "Inglorious Basterds"), and should probably be approached with that attitude because it's rather implausbile that in the Dickens era a Whitechapel street thug/convict such as Jack would turn out to be as...well... as nice as Jack turns out to be. Probably not as literate either. They don't play him as educated or anything, but an orphaned guttersnipe son of a prostitute from Whitechapel during the age of Ripper would most likely be unable to read. Jack can. And he's canny too. His 'roughness' seems primarily to be his boxing and his vulgar language. Everything else about him is surprisingly civilized. At any rate, the hero (who is the primary POV character) is quite likable. Though they go overboard mentioning how HUGE he is. It's like he's The Hulk or something.

The primary weakness in the novel (to me at any rate) has been a failure to explain (at least to the point that I've read) some unelaborated aspects of the heroine. Like I said, the primary POV is Jack, and Jack finds Nemesis agent Eva to be mysterious (and with her cultured speech and clothing, exotic for the likes of him), meaning that he and the reader aren't always privy to everything that makes Eva tick. (Although it strikes me on thought as a bit of a gender reversal in that Eva is written in a way that heroes are sometimes written.  In traditional formats, heroes are often elusive in the heroine's POV.  This sort of flips that equation). For instance, what turned Eva, the daughter of missionaries, into such a sexually liberated Victorian? I got the explanation for how she went from frustrated missionary into the Robin Hood-esque aspects of Nemesis, but she is anachronistically liberated where sex is concerned (which, there are worse flaws for a story to have, so it's not much of a complaint. More of a curiosity.) At any rate, Eva is likable, smart, and kicks ass (and is anachronistically modern.)

Because of the missing bits of Eva's psychology (at least to the point where I've read, it hasn't yet been explained) I don't quite grasp her romantic obstacle with Jack. They seem perfect as Nemesis spy-partners with benefits. Plus, Jack seems a made to order Nemesis recruit. AND (though it's still unsaid) it's pretty clear that they both fell ass over teakettle for one another... so why can't they just stay together once the 'mission' is done? (It's a romance novel, so I assume that in the end they will, but Eva in particular behaves as though there's no possibility for that to happen, and I'm still unclear as to WHY she continues to think so.)

At any rate, it's action-filled and caperesque. Likable leads. Fun, not too angsty, and explicit.


I also read Sherry Thomas' "His at Night". Like the reviewer at Smart Bitches I had a thing for the Scarlet Pimpernel when I was growing up.  (They seek him here.  They seek him there.  Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.  Is he in heaven or is he in hell, that demmed elusive Pimpernel...)  So, yeah, I'm a prime audience for a rif on this sort of story motif.   In this case it's the very late Victorian era (in fact it seemed like the late 1890s.  I never look at the dates, but it felt like it was pushing 1900), so no French Revolution.  Just an 'agent for the crown' who seemed to be covertly Sherlock Holmes while pretending to be... well, they talk about him as having suffered a brain injury in a fall from a horse (which was his cover story for having become 'less' than when he was a teen) but honestly, his covert identity seemed rather Big Bang Theory Sheldon Cooper-like.  He's on a case and in his Sheldon-like identity when he runs into the heroine.

The heroine is trapped in an abusive household.  Her uncle, the villain the hero is investigating, is coldly menacing.  And, while the heroine wants to escape, and even ran away once, she's unwilling to leave her Aunt, a laudenum addict, behind in her uncle's clutches, so she's trying to formulate a plan when the hero falls into her lap.  She decides that if she can somehow trap/force him  into marrying her, that not only can she escape from her uncle but she can get her aunt out as well.  Of course the 'addled' hero she wants to manipulate isn't really addled, so it becomes a duel of scheming...such that the heroine  catches onto the fact that the hero is not what he pretends to be.

Less angsty than some of Thomas' work (not totally without angst, but not overly burdened).  Fun hero and heroine.  (Though the hero is mystifyingly self-destructive a couple of times) but overall enjoyable.

- I wish Tom Branson had a better storyline on Downton Abbey. I really didn't care for this one. Also, I feel for poor Edith. Matthew is barely in the ground and already Mary's parents are trying to match her up. Edith got left at the altar last year and it was "poor Edith. No one will ever want her." Poor Edith, indeed. Poor Edith for a family that doesn't value her worth squat.



- Watched Oblivion with Tom Cruise. The guy is certainly batty, but he is quite photogenic. That said, the movie struck me as the epitome of how female characters are there to not be people in their own right but generic love interests. His 'wife' in the movie never even had a personality. Barely said anything. And yet was supposed to be this stupefyingly important true love. Erm... guys, how about actually giving her something to DO rather than be a goal and object?

Further causing me to tilt my head and wonder was the final act/twist/revelation. It made me miss Farscape. Farscape did it FAR BETTER. No one anytime ever would accuse Aeryn Sun of only being a movable object. She was a person in her own right and her being so is what carried what is in fact a very similar story point.

So, in total, Oblivion is a relatively enjoyable (if totally formulaic) movie but, no bones about it, Season 3 Farscape is infinitely better.


- Read Sherry Thomas' "Luckiest Lady in London." Eh. No real complaints about the book, really. (Well, yeah, I could make a few but why bother?) Sometimes it's not a matter of how 'well' someone writes or doesn't. It's a matter of whether they emotionally connect with the reader (or at least THIS reader). I can tolerate typos and poor punctuation in service of an involving story. That may not make me the most discerning reader, but it's the way that I roll. I remained rather detached from this one. The only particularly strong emotion it ever stirred in me was one small 'hell yeah' to the heroine when the hero confessed that he loved her and she stepped back and told him that his 'love' was stunningly selfish, always about what he wanted or needed. If she'd turned around and thrown herself into his arms after that love confession, I probably would've had a strong reaction to the novel (throwing it across the room). But, luckily, she didn't. Another act followed. So in the end, I was "eh. Okay, by the end." Other than that I remained emotionally detached.

I guess it again goes back to story kinks. There was definitely some heat in this one, and nothing was 'wrong' with it per se. But... eh. I didn't really connect. (I liked Thomas's brief novella "Dance in Moonlight" better. Far more brief and rushed, and yet it reached me far more than this full length book.)

May be burning out on romances now. I've had a few questionable quality that I loved, one or two I thought were quite good, and a couple of "eh, not really what I would've prefered." I tend to be an eclectic reader, so I may be back on history or science or comedy or science fiction again next week.

What Are You Reading Wednesday Meme

What I just finished reading:
As I mentioned the other day in this post, I've been on a mid-gray too-damn-cold winter I-need-fluff romance novel kick, polishing off not one but two Sue London romances last weekend (some joyous bicker/banter, a little trope subversion, and a happy ending were what I was craving.)

Following recs made in the comments of  that post, last night  I downloaded a Courtney Milan short novella, The Governess Affair, polishing it off in a couple of hours. It was more sad than the Sue London books I read over the weekend. It had a more sad premise than those.

Here, the heroine was a governess who was raped by a titled houseguest during a house party (shades of Downton Abbey. Digression: why do does Downton HAVE house party's when someone is always being raped during one? They've had two and... well... Arguments persist on what exactly happened to Lady Mary way back when, and then more recently... ugh) Anyway, the poor violated governess lost her job and got slut shamed and it's all back story but incredibly sad. Haunted by it, she decided to win back some part of herself by forcing the S.O.B. to admit what he had done to her. (This is no 'bodice-ripper.' The rape is taken seriously. It was a violation, and she is written as a rape survivor.) The titled rapist in question appoints his 'man of business' to get rid of her no matter what it took (without telling the man of business what the bastard had done to her). And, the man of business falls in love with her instead.

It seems to have been a prequel to a novel series which I've now picked up.

What I'm reading now:
The novels that follow the Courtney Milan novella prequel mentioned above. "The Duchess War" and "The Heiress Effect"..

What I'm reading next:
 Have not thought that far ahead.