In Which I Deviate.

Remember that time I was going to write about my heroines? Yeah. Semi-fail.

Remember that time I abandoned my other blog in favor of this one? Yeah. Total success. I think.

So now is the time when I wish the two points above would coalesce into something awesome. I am currently reading two books, with emphasis on the one that arrived from Amazon today (I clearly need to talk to someone about my ADD reading habits... Melissa?!). The new book is a new-ish book called One Day by David Nicholls. I recently read the super happy Entertainment Weekly article regarding excitement over the movie that has just been filmed, and was intrigued by the premise.

Don't worry, it's totally a romance.

Moral of the story? I don't have a book to write about right this minute, but I really would like to write a blog entry anyway. As we all know, I have been fully entrenched in all of my new DVDs (Community is my most current obsession) which is not entirely appropriate for my book-reading blog, but which brings me around fully to my heroine post.

I've written about it before on the other blog, but I am actively not linking, because that would be cheating.

Liz Lemon is my heroine. "And by heroine, I mean 'lady hero.' I don't mean I want to inject [her] and listen to jazz."

Coming from a generation of girls nursed through adolescence by Sex and the City, I have to say that nothing about that show appealed to me. (Full disclosure: I enjoyed the first movie) Sure, the fashions were great and it was awesome to see a group of liberated women living unapologetically in the 00's, representing a new generation, etc. Yay post-modern feminism. Or something.

Except that they didn't represent me. I fully acknowledge my freakishness on a number of levels, but I don't think I'm alone in saying that I am neither a Carrie, a Samantha, a Charlotte, nor a Miranda. I mean, I'm a Miranda if nothing else, because that's what she was there for, right? To represent the nerds. But she wasn't a nerd. At all.

Liz Lemon, rather, is my hapless, Star Wars referencing, successful, bra-taping role model. Is she perfect? Not in the slightest. But she also doesn't give two fat rats about her shoes, clothes, the condition of her hair, or the fact that she is, quite simply, a raging nerd. This is the woman who tried to write Star Wars references into a telenovela called Los Amantes Clandestinos, and who dumped Jon Hamm (Jon-freaking-Hamm, people!!!) because he was too dumb, who regularly writes sketches about farting, and who constantly finds herself in socially awkward sitations. Like having to stall your ex-boyfriend's wedding so your boss' girlfriend won't leave. I believe the quote "Come on, Bible. Give a girl a break" is used. Genius.

This is my kind of woman, and I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get her on to my list before. I guess things are finally lining up for old Liz Lemon.

P to the S- I'm sorry to report that the paranormal writing thing didn't quite work out. Obviously it's going to take more to get me to write it than it took to get me to read it.

In Which I Answer a Question You Didn't Even Ask.

This is the review I read earlier today on DearAuthor.com.

Lovely, well-written review.

It brings up an issue that I'm slightly embarrassed to admit has never ONCE occurred to me: the obvious pro-British, anti-French thread running through almost all American-written Regency/Revolution era romance novels. Once you hear (or read) that it exists, it's like, the biggest "DUH" ever. EVER. What can I say? I left all of my major thematic analytical skillz in Mrs. Eriksen's Senior English.

The lovely review vaguely tries to make sense of this, but ultimately offers little by way of answers. Because honestly, who can answer that question definitively? Maybe every single American author of Regencies hates all things French (highly doubtful). Maybe they all favor hereditary monarchies (possible, but only in hypothetical, ridiculously small countries where the nannies are particularly virginal and marriageable). Maybe they're all pacifists who abhor the violence writing about the French Revolution entails (probable, though the vast majority of heroes seem to be badass retired military).

I suspect the comments section of the post will continue growing, both with ideas about the whys and wherefores, and also with commentary about the book in question, which I confess I have not added to my TBR list. Too many books, not enough interest in this particular one despite the largely positive review. I also know that I tried to form a response in the comments section with my theory about this phenomenon, but a) it was too long and b) I realized I hadn't blogged in a while. So without further ado...

REASONS I THINK THERE IS A PRO-BRITISH, ANTI-FRENCH BIAS IN REGENCY/REVOLUTIONARY ROMANCES WRITTEN BY AMERICANS.

Small Print/My Qualifications For Addressing This Issue: I write as an attempted writer of romance, a long-time reader of romance, a person who lived in Paris for a year, and a person who dated a Brit for three years.

Firstly and foremostly, it is important to note the "written by Americans" part of the thesis (is that a thesis? I didn't make an argument. Mrs. Eriksen is going to kill me). The "written by Americans" is key because anything anti-French written by a Brit makes some sense (old habits and all that), but it makes no sense for our bias to play out this way. During the Regency period, we were at war with Britain (though it might not have been officially declared... I don't remember), and they burned down the White House. There was no Special Relationship, only sailor impressment and shore raids. Fun! Also the French Revolution, while bloody and brutal, was modelled on and inspired largely by our own Revolution, and it could be argued that theirs would not have played out the same way (if at all) if ours had not been so successful.

So we should have a natural inclination toward the French side in these matters, right?

HA!

Here's THE THING: While writing books with a pro-French bias would make more sense for American writers historically speaking, there is the entirely other matter of culturally speaking.

Most obviously, there's the fact that the French speak French. Books can most certainly be written for Americans/English speakers in English with the understanding that the characters are actually speaking French. But as a reader, when I realize that the characters are speaking a different language than what I'm reading I find it distracting, and as a writer I would be terrified of getting something wrong. Changing the language can change the entire tenor of someone's character. It changes their tone of voice, it changes their mannerisms, it can even change the way they look. Writing for a (major, fully fleshed-out) character in a language that is not the language that they're actually speaking is really intimidating to me as a fledgling writer, and I can't imagine it being a wholly comfortable concept for others.

Also, while there are obvious differences between American and British temperament (obvious, obvious differences), there are still many, many similarities. Possibly stemming from the shared language. But in general it's easier to get into the head of the Brit and to write their motives and personalities and not feel like you're making stuff up.

Eddie Izzard said it best when he said "I like the French, but they can be... fucking French." What does that mean? It means that they think differently from us. Not in a bad way, not in a wrong way, but in an incredibly generalized way. They value different things in their romances, in their sex, and in their expectations for relationships. They aren't nameable, definable differences. It's just about perceptions of what's important. It's cultural. And again, as a writer, I would feel like an absolute fraud trying to write about something I didn't understand, or trying to fake it.

You don't have to fake it as much writing Brits. Which is why any French-Revolutionary characters we run in to are usually women (at least they have that in common with the author), and have been Anglicized. Like in the book that was reviewed; the heroine is French, but raised in London, working for the British government. Or in Spymaster's Lady. It turns out the French spy in Joanna Bourne's most excellent Regency-period novel is... Welsh.

It's not really pro-or-anti anything, to be honest. It's about what and who is comfortable to write about. What's familiar, and what's not. And that's all I have to say about that.

In Which I Finish Talking About the Books I Read on My Sickbed

Confession time: I really, really like Tessa Dare. I do. I got my mom to read her (she likes Tessa Dare now, too), I've recommended her to other romance fans, etc. I LIKE TESSA DARE.

For some reason, though, I cannot seem to finish her trilogies.

I read Goddess of the Hunt and Surrender of a Siren. I own A Lady of Persuasion, have for almost a year, and have yet to read it. I read One Dance with a Duke earlier this summer, started and then abandoned Twice Tempted by a Rogue in July, and then read Three Nights with a Scoundrel while fighting my Four Fatal Diseases.

This is odd. Even I can admit it. I like the author, and I always like the first book in the trilogy. Then the problem arises! I have a theory that the first book gives too much information about the rest of the people in the trilogy.

For example, in the first set, I loved Lucy and Jeremy, and I liked Sophie enough that I was totally intrigued for her book, the second in the series. A character I did not care for (I don't mean this in a negative way, I simply mean that I was totally neutral about him and had no feelings one way or another) was Toby. Toby's, of course, was the third book.

So I didn't care about Toby, so I didn't care to read his book. I'm not even remotely suggesting it is a bad book or that it is inferior to those that came before it. I'm just saying that my feelings about the character diminished by need to read his book.

Same goes for the newest trilogy. The first book was great, but I was so much more interested in the relationship between Lily and Julian that I didn't care that Rhys' book came before theirs. He was sort of boring to me, and I was not in any way compelled to read his story. So I didn't.

Normally I would be a huge fan of Tessa Dare's release strategy-- three books, three months in a row. What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. Except that perhaps in these instances they are detrimental to the characters and my interest in them. There's no time for them to sit and stew in my brain (or in those two instances, for me to forget about how much I don't care for those characters). I look to Kresley Cole's newest book, released this past Tuesday, and I think about a previous post I had written regarding just how many more of these IAD books she could come up with. She was running out of characters. But there was enough time between installments for me to forget that the main, familiar character in this book (Carrow the Incarcerated) secretly annoys me (a lot) and distanced me enough to want to know her story.

I'm just saying.

So I read Three Nights with a Scoundrel, and it took me far, far longer than it really should have.

Despite my feeling that Julian and Lily were going to have the best romance of the three, they actually were fairly annoying after a bit. It really took too long for them to tear each other's clothes off, and in the end I'm still not sure I understood Julian's motivations. And I'm not sure I really cared. In the end the most compelling part of the book was the resolution of Leo's death (the instigating event from book one) and the revelation of his homosexual liaison with a British spy. I'm not sure how historically correct everyone's actions and reactions were with the circumstance, but it was certainly a cool and unusual thing to read about in historical romance. At least, from the perspective that the homosexual was not the raging villain of the piece.

I also re-re-re-read Honor's Splendour, which is among my favorite Julie Garwood novels. I have to confess that the more I read in romance, the more I expand my palate, the less I have interest in returning to the Garwoods on my keeper shelf. This is not to say that I would be clearing them off the shelf, but rather that they are no longer holding my interest and imagination the way they once did.

Julie Garwood's novels are very important in the Span of Romance Novel History, bridging the gap between Old Skool and New Skool Romance. Her heroes are understanding and emotionally available (whether they want to be or not), but they still do have some hair-grabbing tendencies. They don't jump to wholly illogical conclusions (or if they do, they are quickly disabused of their notions), and they fight against the external threats to their relationships with aplomb. Garwood heroines are occasionally silly and ridiculous, but always likable and resourceful when it comes to making friends, taming their heroes, and defending themselves (see: Jaime and the sword in The Bride) when necessary.

I like Honor's Splendour because Madelyne and Duncan embody all of the best of these characteristics: Duncan takes her hostage as an act of revenge against her brother, but he very quickly (immediately?) recognizes that she is more than a mere hostage. Madelyne is incredibly clumsy and slightly scatterbrained, but when it comes to taking charge of the situation, she does so masterfully. Especially when her life is spinning out of control. Sure, she cries a couple of times. But it's not because she's annoying and waiting for someone to come save her.

Up Next: It Sucked and Then I Cried review. Also, maybe I'll finish the new Kresley Cole this weekend! I might be sent back to my sickbed, anyway.

In Which I Talk About Two, Two, Two Heroines in One!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Still not done with Harry. I'm working on it.

But with the return of Mad Men on Sunday comes fresh inspiration for a heroine post. Joan Holloway Harris and Peggy Olson are heroines for the ages (theirs and ours), and I'd like to take a moment to talk about them. And it's my blog, so I pretty much get to do whatever I want. HA!

I'm going to start with Peggy, because she is easily the single most evolved character on the show. I don't mean "evolved" like "forward-thinking and acting" (though she is that), I mean personally evolved since the start of the show.

The pilot is a typical "first day of work" by way of story-arc-opener for Peggy- she starts her first day as Don's secretary, taking advice (and OB/GYN recommendations) from the ever-helpful Joan and fending off the advances (momentarily, anyway) of the overzealous Peter Campbell. By the end of the episode, of course, she is on the Pill, knocked up, and well on her way to being more than just a secretary in the Sterling Cooper world.

Though modern times make this seem unlikely, Peggy spends the entire first season not knowing she's pregnant, and she's promoted to copywriter the day she gives birth. We later find out that Don tracks her down, helps her pick up and dust off, and the two set off toward the future knowing just a little bit of each other's secrets.

The changes in her over the course of season two are obvious-- at the end of the season she is able to confess to Pete that she had their baby, and that she could have made it so that they were together forever, but she "wanted more." This "more" seems to have been her disturbing affair with Duck in season three (still waiting to see how that hashes out) and very definite ambitions to be "the next" Don Draper, if not his most promising protege.

These seasons and changes are a marked by fierce contrasts-- Peggy hesitatingly welcoming Pete into her home in the pilot; Peggy rejecting his drunken offer of love and devotion. Peggy cowering under Don's glare when she missteps on her first day; Peggy looking Don straight in the eye and demanding his respect when he makes her an offer (but not really) to join the still-zygote Sterling, Cooper, Draper, Pryce. Peggy the secretary; Peggy having her own secretary (a man!) who she can order around at will.

While Peggy has grown and changed (or, at the very least, figured out what she wants and how to go about expressing it), Joan has achieved her goals, only to find out that they're not all they're cracked up to be.

Joan Harris spends her time being the best: she is the best secretary (and therefore becomes the Office Manager), the best mistress (discreet and non-demanding... plus she's really great for your nuclear mother/daughter squabbles), and then later the best fiancee (to the biggest dirtbag around), and the best wife (she quotes Emily Post to the dirtbag and plays the accordion... awesome). All of this, but nothing in her life is perfect. Because she is a woman in this time, she might be given the "highest position" that can be given to a woman (Office Manager), but she is trumped by Peggy, who breaks through the ceiling and enters the men's realm.

Her perfection as a wife is indisputable, but the perfection of her life as a wife is nonexistent- Greg is a whiney, inept surgeon who is very jealous, possessive, and useless. When she brains him with a vase in season three, it is a joyous thing to behold.

I will be anxious to see what has happened to Joan since she was summoned back to save the men as they floundered trying to get the details in order to create SCDP (One of her last lines of the season: "Greg's going to kill me"). Last we heard, her useless husband had joined the Army so he could go be a surgeon in Vietnam, where I really, really hope he dies. Big time. Whatever she's doing at SCDP, she's doing well, since she has an office all to herself in the sleek (if crowded) new offices in the Time Warner building. And while we're at it, I hope she's still using her considerable charm and physique to lull those men into submission before going in for the kill. Manipulative? Sure. But you can't argue that it doesn't work, and you can't argue that it's not a smart move on her part.

In Which I Talk About Non-Fiction, and Get Slightly Political

Yes I am still reading Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. No, I haven't finished it yet.

But it occurred to me today that I have read two additional books that I haven't really talked about here. Those would be my non-fiction book on CD "readings" that take place in my car. First there was John Adams by David McCullough, which, at twenty four discs, took me FOREVER to finish. And right now there is American Lion by Jon Meacham, which is not taking nearly as long to finish.

What's interesting, and entirely accidental, about this whole thing is that Jackson comes to his Presidency only a few years after John Adams dies, and whereas the Adams biography covers the man's entire life from start to finish, American Lion picks up when Jackson defeats John Quincy Adams in the 1828 Presidential Election, covering only briefly his early life and rise to power. As a result, this experience has been rather like reading a continuous timeline of our country in its infancy.

Each of these books is well-written, though I will admit to a secret weakness for David McCollough and therefore a preference for his work in general.

Personally, I have been appalled by the political climate in our country. There is a lack of civility in the discourse which is at times inhumane- people (in general and politicians specifically) are not allowed to be human beings, but rather must be paragons of virtue who have made a sum total of zero mistakes in the course of their lives. And in the name of political progress, any and all mistakes made by any person at any point in their lives is available for use in character assassination by opponents.

One of the reasons I like Obama is that he, at least, believes in civility. When it came out that the pro-family, pro-life, pro-abstinence Sarah Palin's seventeen-year-old daughter was pregnant, the media jumped on it and asked Obama if he had anything to say. And he did. This is what he had to say: "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits."

He absolutely could have taken this opportunity to say that obviously teaching abstinence-only is ludicrous, and here is a grade-A example of why it doesn't work. But he didn't. And that's one of the main things I like about him.

Anyway, I have been appalled by the language, and, to quote a barfworthy Bush/Cheneyism, "the discourse." And whether or not this is hugely influenced by "the media" (just as a blanket term) is probably indisputable. However, I have spent a long time thinking that with each year that passes, the situation is getting worse. And worse. And worse.

So I don't know whether or not to be relieved or horrified to learn that the situation has actually not changed very much in the 240+ years since the formation of our lovely government. John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to lock up newspaper editors who wrote libel or false stories about the leaders of this country. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press aside, it's fascinating to read that in the last years of the eighteenth century he was dealing with such vicious attacks on his presidency and character that he felt he had to take measures to protect himself and the office. To say nothing of the fact that Thomas Jefferson, his opponent, was behind a great number of these attacks.

As for Andrew Jackson, there's really no dispute that he married his wife Rachel under... dodgy circumstances. Whether she was still married to her first husband when they wed, or whether they lived together (in sin!! WOOT!) before marriage, there was plenty of fuel for opponents to use in the anti-Jackson fire. In fact, there are some who would argue that the attacks made on Rachel to derail her husband's presidential bid hastened her death, which occurred right before he took office. As for dealing with a politically overheated country, the Southern states first started talking of secession so that they did not have to live under what they thought of as despotic Jacksonian rule.

Awesome Friday rant, right?

Apologies for over-politicalness, or whatever. It's just been startling to be to read about these two very different men who ran our country, who were running things under relatively similar conditions to those of today. It really does seem as though things have not gotten worse... we just hear about it faster, what with the internets and the television. So... yeah. Have a good weekend.

I Still Have Nothing More to Add.

Nearly a week later, I am still stumped as to the Top Ten Heroines. And I've tried. Believe me. The two spare minutes I have had so far this week to contemplate matters great and small have been filled with brain-wracking with regard to those who are (in my opinion) the best heroines in romancedom.

But perhaps this was a hubristic undertaking on my part-- granted this is all under the disclaimer of "my opinion," but I'm starting to question whether I have read enough books to make this distinction. I have come up with a list of six names. And I have a feeling I'm going to have to stare at my book shelves for a while before I can come up with the other four. (I should also say at this moment that I have technically only come up with five romance novel heroines. Sydney Bristow remains number one on my list.)

So I think it's time to talk about what constitutes a good heroine. I touched briefly on this in my previous post on the subject, but now it's time to get down to the nitty gritty details.

1. She should be badass. This might be the reason I have so many girl-pirate/smuggler/sailors on my list. The heroine should be able to roll with the punches, steer a ship, con the conmen, and rabble-rouse generally. No shrieking and running away allowed.

2. She should be vulnerable to the hero. Yes, Kaderin the Cold Hearted, I am looking at you. All of the great ass-kickingest heroines (Syd, the Buffster, Kara Thrace, etc.) have a man who is equally (or nearly equally) as ass kicking. She doesn't need him, but she wants him, and his presence in the field of battle makes everything easier. He's not taking care of her, he's not fighting on her behalf, he's fighting alongside her. And ideally she's not letting her own ego get in the way.

3. She is someone I would like to be friends with. As someone with a very low personal threshold for the ridiculous, I have a very low threshold for heroine lunacy. Oh, I'll finish reading the ridiculous heroine book all right, but it's not going on The Keeper Shelf, and I probably won't remember her name a day after I've finished. OK, so I'll probably remember her name (damn you, prodigious memory), but you know what I mean.

Sad to say, it's hard to find a heroine as memorable as all that. Some of them stand out, but that's not necessarily because I liked them. Maybe she was just different, or her circumstances were unusual. In any case, I'm determined to put some thought into this list, so it's not going to be perfected before next week. Apologies for the delay.

On the plus side, I should have Instant Gratification finished by tonight. Review coming soon!! I know you're excited, but try to maintain your composure.

Well Now I'm Really Grumpy.

"You are my heroine. And by heroine I mean 'lady hero'. I don't want to inject you and listen to jazz."

-Liz Lemon

So I had this lovely post about romance novel heroines written, and then Blogger had a freakout and now it's gone. And I'm sad. Actually, I'm really sad because it was a kick-ass post.

I haven't read any books since Dead End Gene Pool, and it might be early next week before I finish another one. So instead of writing another boring review of... something... I think it's time we talk about heroines. Back in the day I wrote a Top Ten Heroes post (that ended up containing only nine heroes), but I've spent very little time talking about heroines.

Devotees will know that I am in the process of writing a romance novel (or twelve) in my spare time (read: never). The personality and strength of my main heroine, Lyla, is something I am terrified of getting wrong. Because it is ridiculously easy to go very, very wrong.

It could be argued that The Heroine is the most important character in the book, because in 99.9% of books the majority of the story's POV will be on her. Great strides have been taken to give the hero greater perspective in recent years, but the focus is still mostly on the heroine. And thank goodness, because the only thing worse than a flaming jackass hero is a too-stupid-to-live heroine.

Because I'm writing a heroine (or twelve) I have very definite ideas about what she should and should not do. She should not be (too much of) a bitch, but she should not be a spineless nitwit. And by all that is good and holy, if the hero is being a flaming rat bastard, she should not sit around pining and waiting for him to get over himself. Is he The One? Presumably-- he is The Hero, after all. But that doesn't mean that she can't go out and date and have fun without him. And if she does go out and date and have fun, he shall not come back from rat-bastardom and announce that she has been a slut while he was away.

Examples my heroine will NOT be following are:

*Any Diane Palmer heroine, ever. Seriously... speaking of putting up with rat-bastardom to excess...

*Most Sandra Brown heroines, who seem to be born lacking an "honest conversation" gene

*Sarah from Sarah's Child (the dude you're in love with asks you to get an abortion? Dealbreaker!)

*Lauren from Double Standards (grow a damn spine and stop being the pawn of every man in your life. Also, get yourself a "person." She'll make you stop acting like an idiot)

From past experience, I know I'm going to need a few days (or at least a 2 hour ride in the car to Scout Land) to formulate my Top Ten list. Know this: it will include Sydney Bristow. While I acknowledge that she is not a romance novel heroine, she is still a heroine, has romance, and is one of the models for how I want to live my life (minus all of the deceit, dead friends, and dead fiances).

I'll let you think over the weekend too. Because this here is going to be a proper discussion on Monday morning. Dig?

Notes on the JR Ward Book That Hasn't Even Come Out Yet

I am not excited about this book.

Wow, I've been really negative lately, huh? Don't worry, I plan on having very positive things to say about Jill Shalvis' Instant Attraction as soon as I finish it. Whenever that will be.

But in the meantime, I want to talk about Lover Mine, the upcoming (and possibly last?) book in JR Ward's Black Dagger Brotherhood series. I doubt very much that this will be the last book in connection to that series, but as of Lover Mine, all of the principals have been paired, coupled, and shacked up.

And it's this last one that, for me, is going to pose the biggest problem. Summaries tell us that it is finally the story of John Matthew, the youngest Brother, and Xhex, the bodyguard of sociopathic club owner Rehv.

I do not like these two as a couple, which I'll get to in a minute, but first I want to talk about John Matthew. He's the "brother" of the queen of our vamps, only he's not her brother, he's the reincarnated version of... her father. No one knows this, and there have been no hints that anyone even suspects this, and I am curious to find out if this is finally revealed in Lover Mine.

Quite aside from John Matthew's, er... old soul, he's an eighteen-year-old boy. Not a two-hundred-year-old dude immortalized in the body of an eighteen-year old. He is straight up eighteen years old. Personally, I don't like my heroes to be that young. Now John Matthew has been through a lot in his young life, and again he has an "old soul" (though he doesn't even know this, apparently), but I have very little interest in seeing him find his The One so soon. He's definitely not mature enough, and his head is definitely too effed up (for various reasons) to be an effective partner at this time.

As for Xhex herself, I don't need for my heroines to be virgins (unless it makes sense), but I definitely don't want them to have already slept with someone else in the series. In addition to the fact that I don't like Xhex (she's a little manly for me), I really don't like the fact that she had sex with Butch in a previous book. Perhaps this is a double standard on my part, because I certainly don't hold this against Butch, but I can't change the fact that it really, really bugs me.

Xhex really needed to remain Xhex, the bodyguard at the club, not the sudden victim/heroine of one of the series' final chapters. To a large extent, I think Ward is trying to subvert cliches of the genre-- the hero is young and virginal, while the heroine is older and tougher and more experienced. I actually have no problem with that in general (see: No Rest For The Wicked, Dark Needs At Night's Edge, and heck, even Lover Awakened), but for these two, it simply doesn't make sense.

They are a temporary couple at heart: she's supposed to introduce him to passion (done), he's supposed to save her (coming up in this book), and then she's supposed to continue her stance that they are not meant to be together. He gets hurt, but moves on and eventually finds the one he's really supposed to be with. Too much thought? Too much thought. But this is the way I feel about this couple. I don't understand how or why they're supposed to be together. Hopefully Ward can convince me.

Pleasure of a Dark Prince Review-- Allayed Fears and Fresh Skepticism.

I finally finished Pleasure of a Dark Prince at 1:00 this morning, about 3 hours after I announced that "I probably won't finish this book tonight" to an unsuspecting Boy Scout. Well, he was unsuspecting, and also, I think, a little skeptical that I had the motivation to power through and get 'er done.

Ah, Garreth and Lucia. If we were waiting for Murdoch and Danii's Ice Capades for years, we had been waiting for Garreth and Lucia's for a millennia-- they were arguably the first foreshadowed couple in the series before everything blew up, seen in the Val Hall dungeon as Lachlain tried desperately to break out and get to Emmaline in A Hunger Like No Other.

Have I mentioned I prefer Lykae to Vampires? I mean, those Wroth brothers are something else, but they have nothing on the brothers MacRieve and their uber-sexy, no-longer-heartbroken cousin Bowen (though I think Bowen is a hero much helped by the likability of his heroine. Bowen might be a tool, but as long as he's Mariketa's tool, it's fine.) I mention this because there's something extra special sexy about the way Cole writes her Lykae as opposed to the way she writes her vamps-- they all have their The One (Brides, Mates, whatev), and all become physically affected when they find them. Not just sexually affected; the vamps get blooded (heart beat, more physical strength), while the Lykae's Beast gets a little more tempermental and starts running around and growling mine instead of... well, just growling.

Kresley Cole has put a lot of thought into the psychology of the Beast-- how it's a primal entity almost separate from the Lorean it inhabits, taking control almost without any thought or choice from the, er, carrier. The Beast's mate is everything-- he will literally follow her to the ends of the Earth to ensure that she is safe, or, if she's in no danger, to ensure that he can continually get in her pants. The full moon in Cole's mythology does not portend a beastly turn-- that can happen at any time-- but rather a frenzy of sex for those mated, and a potential frenzy of violence for those not. The Beast can appear at any time depending on the danger and threat level surrounding the Lykae, but he is guaranteed to appear and seek his mate at the full moon.

Garreth and Lucia, like all of them, are beset by one problem after another that Keeps Them Apart. Naturally there is a lot of fooling around in the forest, lots of arguing that ends in fooling around in the forest, and lots of Nucking Futs Nix running around and confusing the hell out of everyone.

I enjoyed Garreth and Lucia's story more than I thought I would-- when the story opened with Lucia's binding to an ancient god of... something (I don't know what, but whatever it is it's GROSS), and consequentially her flight to Skathi, who turns her into a mythical archer, threatened with paralyzing pain if she misses her target-- I was a little leery of the fictional mythological infodump. Fortunately this resolves itself and we are able to coast along on what we already know for most of the rest of the book.

One day in modern times Garreth is playing rugby with the demons near Val Hall (as you do... I think this would have been a perfect opportunity for some pre-bound Cadeon and Rydstrom banter, but hey... I have a weakness for demons almost as strong as my weakness for Lykae. So I'm biased. Whatever.) He sees Lucia and he's done. Down. For. The. Count. We kind of already know what happens next. He busts into Val Hall while Lucia is agonizing over a missed shot, helps kill the vamps who are trying to take down the house (in search of the already missing Emmaline... but you already knew that), then they use Lucia to bait Garreth back so they can in turn use him as bait to get Lachlain to bring Emma back.

And we all know where that ends up.

It's not until the 1/3 mark that we start to actually get fresh story, starting a year after the Lachlain-Emma love connection and finding our hero and heroine on a boat in the Amazon, searching for an aptly named Dieumort. Those of you who don't speak French can go look that up. I'll wait.

Problems ensue, blood is spilled, Lucia and Garreth finally consummate things on the forest floor (3 for 3 on first sexorration in the woods for our Lykae! Woot!). They yell, they make up, they fight vamps, they Find The Treasure. Happily Ever After (though only after some minor "I thought you were dead" torment. Really, it was minor, for which I can't decide if I'm sad or happy-- if this was a Judith McNaught, he would have thought she was dead for 50 pages. But this isn't Judith McNaught, and that's why we like it. I'm just saying a little more torment wouldn't have been out of order. Sigh).

A couple of things: At a certain point Lucia is held with a knife to her throat by a vamp and Garreth... is almost unaffected. Now that's not true, but let's review how other Lykae reacted when their mates were threatened, shall we? Lachlain, as I recall, beheaded two vampires and a demon hybrid when all they did was cause Emma to scream and run away. Mariketa the Awaited was kidnapped by Colombian mercenaries (silly humans!) and Bowen destroyed everyone in their compound (not to mention the poor bastard whose stray punch hits Mari in Dark Needs at Nights Edge). Lucia is held with a knife to the throat by one of his mortal enemies and Garreth growls... "Let her go"? Disappointing. And honestly, a little against character. I get that he'd want to be careful of her, but come on. He didn't even let the Beast out. I'm not sure this goes along with anything written previously-- or even in this book-- to describe a Lykae's reaction to his mate in imminent danger.

Thinking about it, maybe neither of these plot points (the threat to Lucia and Garreth's convince-ment that she's dead) needed anything more than a bit of Garreth's perspective. Cole, who rocks socks at writing the male perspective, suddenly stops writing it in the last bit of the book.

The ending of the book was intriguing, addressing all of my previous concerns about where this series is going. A small point though: By the end Regin the Radiant has been kidnapped by who Nix foresees to be "[someone I can't remember], the CIA or a berserker." Now the berserker assumption is a fine one considering that there has been one stalking her for centuries, but by the epilogue it is clear that it is not a berserker who has Regin and a number of other characters (including Carrow the Incarcerated, who is, we're told, the heroine of this summer's Demon from the Dark) for reasons unknown. These are good guys and bad guys, kidnapped on what is still the eve of the Accession.

Since Nix is never wrong, either we have a seriously pissed off berserker army, or the CIA is involved. Note to Kresley Cole: I'm OK with you taking a page out of Joss Whedon's playbook and bringing in The Initiative. Just don't screw it up, got it?

Finally, I'm not even close to breaking up with this series, but I have to confess that since Cadeon's book (Dark Desires After Dusk) I have been less and less thrilled and psyched and ohholyhell-ed by the characters and books. Maybe it's the re-hashing of past events because we have to backtrack for the perspective of our "current" heroes. Maybe this is all just taking too long. Maybe I'm tired of the Valkyrie getting to have all the fun. So, Note II to Kresley Cole: I love you, and I love everything you do. Could we maybe do one IAD book per year and save the other one for... something else? Like a contemporary? You haven't done a straight contemporary yet. Or maybe that rogue Sutherland cousin who we last saw heading to the West Indies? You remember the Sutherlands, don't you? They put you on the freaking map. Please consider going back to your roots.

Vote Nix for Goddess 2010!

Characters welcome?

Well - I have to concur that the characters compel me to finish a story far more than any plot ever will. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate a well told story, and will enjoy the clever twists an author can infuse: Sandra Brown's "Envy" anyone? But the characters keep me until the end - whatever it may be. I am gloriously involved with the "...In Death" series that J.D. Robb so brilliantly pens. Some of the plots are less intense than others, but I have come to look at the characters as old and comfortable friends. I genuinely care for Eve and Roarke and have come to care equally for the series regulars. Even the coroner, Morris, got his own story and, heartbreaking though it was, we were given a here-to-fore- unseen glimpse into the person behind the spiffy clothes and the great hair. While the plot lasts only as long as the book, the characters live on. (Dare I bring up Gone With The Wind, Kate? We all want to know what happened to Rhett and Scarlett. Do we really care about the restoration post Civil War? nah!)

The Plot's The Thing (oh, wait...)

Over dinner last night, an intriguing discussion came up, leading to a further intriguing discussion that will take place... Here.

While talking about the wonderful (non-trashy) book The Sweetness At the Bottom of the Pie, I was noticing that a lot of people who had read it had a lot of trouble finishing it, myself included. I liked the book, would go so far as to say that I loved the book, and will definitely read its inevitable sequels.

But I still had to force myself to sit down and finish it.

So I've decided that it has everything to do with characters versus plot: when you love both, it's easy to sit down and read the book, no problems, no questions, no hesitation. When one of those elements is askew, things get a little more difficult. In Sweetness, I adored the characters, but didn't care one way or the other about the plot and its mysterious resolution.

I have a feeling this particular scenario is symptomatic of series: you come to know and love the characters, and eventually you can get tired of the plot. Or vice-versa.

A specific example of this in Romancelandia? Every Stephanie Laurens novel I have ever tried to read. For the record, I have picked up probably 10 of her books over the past five years and have only managed to finish two: Captain Jack's Woman (a personal favorite) and The Promise in a Kiss (though to be honest, I now cannot tell you what that one is really about). I always like the characters and don't mind the plot, and never stop reading the books on purpose-- there is no deliberate "This book sucks, I'm going to read something else."

At some point I just stop reading, and literally cannot compel myself to finish.

So here's the question: when only one thing can be good (plot or characters) which is the MOST IMPORTANT one to get the book reading finished? For me, it's got to be the characters every time. If I don't care about them fully and completely, there is no possible way for me to finish the book. While I may have liked Laurens' characters well enough, they didn't compel me past what I considered to be pretty bland plots. On the other hand, Flavia De Luce and the remarkable characters around her were the only things that got me through to the end of Sweetness.

... discussing

Kate will say that every book I read is like the first time. I am constantly purchasing books I already own because I don't remember the plot or the main characters names. So my choice may be rather skewed.

I have to say, that I agree with Kate in that many of my current "favorite" authors have developed writing styles that improve with time (exception: Jude Deveraux - what's up with her lately? And have I already asked that?)

So, for the book I would like to experience "a-new" all over again, I have to harken back a long time to a favorite read, re-read, re-re-read. M.M. Kaye's Shadow of The Moon. The intensity of the history detailed in the Indian uprising and the intelligence of the hero (whose name, I DO remember, is Alex) make it more than just a romance novel. And the end of the book still clutches my heart.

The book is no longer in print and the copy I own was borrowed from my local amazing library and subsequently lost, so I paid for my negligence. I have since found it and it assumes a place of honor on the bookshelf in my living room.

I'd lend you my copy to read, but it's kind of a treasure!

Discussion Time!

Over at the better, smarter, funnier website, they have incited a discussion about Books You Would Like to Rediscover. You know, the ones that were so good you wish there could be some sort of strategic, Sydney-Bristow-like precision memory erasing so that you could pick it up and be thrilled, amused, heart-broken, and overheated all over again, in the way only a first-reading can accomplish.

So that got me thinking, what would my first choice for that be? To be sure, every Kresley Cole EVER with the exception of maybe two. I still remember the first time I picked up her first books. I have no idea what made me do it (Amazon rec, author quote on the book...?), but I knew by the time I had finished Captain of All Pleasures (no snickering!) that I had discovered a new "favorite author." A lot of writers take a while to hit their stride (Hi, Linda Howard and Sandra Brown. What's going on?), but once they get there, they nail it (pun... yep, pun intended). Kresley Cole had it down on the first go, which speaks volumes about the quality of her work since and in the future.

Oh look, I've digressed! ALL of that aside, when I talk about a book I wish I could un-remember for the joy of reading it *again for the first time*, Guardian Angel by Julie Garwood is the only correct answer.

As a heroine, Jade rocks my world, what with all the lying and the stealing and the incredible ability to fool anyone she has ever come across, with the sole exception of the Marquess of Cainewood (or so he would really, really like to think). The story progesses merrily along, and you think you know "the answer" because everyone in the whole book is so sure of it themselves-- Jade's brother Nathan is the notorious Pirate Pagan who killed Caine's brother (although there is definitely A Misunderstanding there) and Caine has to decide how he's going to keep Jade even after he kills her brother.

And then Uncle Harry shows up.

Look, I'm not going to get into the glorious 100+ page sequence in which Nathan strolls into Cainewood to find Caine threatening his sister, in which Sterns hides the silver under the bed, in which Harry carries Caine's stepmother out of the house with the sure knowledge that "Caine would want me to have her!" but it needs to be said that nothing can make me smile harder, laugh louder, or jump up and down in my seat quite like Guardian Angel. And that's after at least 10 readings.

I remember distinctly the moment that scene reached its pivotal moment... because a neighbor came over to insist that I come swimming. I went to the pool, but never got in. There was no way I was putting that book down.

So Wendy... you're up ;)

Which Came First- The Plot or the Prophecy?

A small note before I get started: I just discovered Kindle for iPod Touch, and it is the most dangerous thing I have ever encountered in my entire life. Ebola and Lady Liberty on whiskey included. First of all, the app is free, so all you need is an iPod Touch, which happens to be at least twice as functional as a Kindle anyway (Kindle: Books. iPod Touch: Music, Videos. Twice as functional). So all of my favorite books, you know, of the trashy romantic variety, are available for less than $10 and sometimes for less than $5. Plus there's the whole delivered-wirelessly-in-the-blink-of-an-eye thing. Lo and behold, Ms. Jones has fallen into lust with an inanimate object.

So this Kindle thing rocks, because I can buy books that I don't want to physically own (but want to read anyway) at a fraction of the cost. And I don't have to waste valuable bookstore time trying to remember the title of That Book I Told Myself I Would Not Forget.

Which brings me to The Nightwalkers series and its first book, Jacob (I'm really not reviewing the book or my problem with the fact that the title is a name. Not going there). In theory this is one of my favorite kinds of romance with my favorite kind of conflict. Jacob is a Demon (supernatural/magic: check), whose sole job it is to be The Enforcer, demonkind's own sheriff counteracting Violence Against Humans (male in natural protector/military role: check). Part of his job? To make sure that there is no demon/human sexing of any kind. You see it coming, don't you? One night he encounters a human female (heroine as excellent intellectual librarian: check) and falls madly into lust/love/pheromone/gene induced obsession (forbidden love: check check check). The writing is so-so (read better, read way worse), the sex is OK (read waaaaaay better. Actually, wrote better), and the strictures of the world created by the author are slightly unclear, but since there are at least 3 characters who will obviously have books of their own, we'll get there eventually.

And now we come to the source of this little post and the title thereof: Which came first, the plot or the prophecy? Jacob and His Woman, Isabella (I kid you not) are the subject of a prophecy about The Enforcers how their kids will start a new generation, etc. etc. etc. Here's the prophecy:

The Demon. The Druid. And all will be returned to the state in which it all began. Purity restored... An Enforcer will be born and reach maturity as magic once more threatens the time, as the peace of the Demon yaws toward insanity. The Enforcer will be born to hunt the Transformed, will have the power to destroy, to walk unscented... This Enforcer's thoughts will be sealed except to Kin and Mate, will walk the Demon path in body and soul, though never born to it.

Now, let's review: They meet and then she magically kills one of the Transformed when she is attacked. Jacob has just spent the past 78165 Kindle pages (they're really small on the iPod!) talking about how "Bella" (grrrrrr) is so pure, absorbs scents, and how they keep getting more and more mentally connected until they are... practically telepathic? But only with each other. Gee whiz, I wonder who the prophecy is about!

Call me crazy (go ahead... I'll wait) but to me a prophecy should not be written almost word-for-word to the characters and situation. Like, there should be enough ambiguity that it is at least possible that someone had misinterpretted something, somewhere along the line. I get it; if it's a prophecy then it's "going" to come true, and there will be people who fit it perfectly. But with the exact wording? Really?

I'd like to bring forth my friend J.R. Ward who at least hears what I'm saying. Two things: In Lover Eternal, V has a premonition that has something to do with Rhage and His Woman. I don't quite recall the context, but it has something to do with a virgin. Rhage's Woman (I mean, Mary) is not a virgin, so Rhage gets confused. Turns out Mary's mother named her after... All together now!... The Virgin Mary. Also, Lover Revealed has Butch and some scary Other recruit vying for position as the Ultimate Weapon of or against The Omega. Both of them are the same age, have the same(-ish) backgrounds, physical markings, etc. and the prophecy is ambiguous enough that it really could be either of them. Really. Except (SPOILER ALERT:) it's really Butch.

What have we learned today? Prophecies are great. And so are oracles. But for the love of Delphi, make it interesting, make it count, and don't make us think you just re-read your book to write them.

THE HERO- Discussion Post

I imagine this will be an ongoing thematic discussion here at Novel Idea, because the ideal of the perfect hero is completely changeable depending on mood, situation, and... mood and situation. I can't speak for every romance reader ever (though I will pretend I can), but which author you're reading, who the book is about (characters) and the plot (CIA dude? Rakish pirate?) can all determine what you are looking for in a particular hero at any given time.

Wendy Pan kindly loaned me two of Erin McCarthy's latest, Hard and Fast and Flat-Out Sexy (stop snickering!) and it occurred to me that the heroes of these books (it's a series, too!) are nothing to write home (or blog) about, but they are solid, dependable, sexy men dripping with testosterone. In fact, McCarthy seems to go out of her way to make the point that men in any field other than racing (her male characters' chief occupation) are losers who can't find their way around female anatomy. But I digress.

The point is that if you're looking for anything but an uber alpha-male (of which there are varying degrees, by the way), you're in for a world of disappointment. I contend that the only real variation is the female herself, and the way she acts and interacts with the hero. Discuss.

Anyway, time for The Novel Idea's first Top Ten List! My top 10 heroes ever, in order, because I can.

9. John Medina (All the Queen's Men, Linda Howard)- Falls so hard for the woman he can't have that when he's finally in the same room with her, he can't help but ask her to put herself in all kinds of unnecessary danger. Then when they're in the thick of it, he can't help but rip her clothes off anyway. Manipulative? Sure. But anytime a book ends with the girl joining the guy in the field (as spy, vampire hunter, etc .) and not at home waiting around is OK by me.

8. Jack Travis (Smooth Talking Stranger, Lisa Kleypas)- OK, so he's new (the book only came out in March) but the evolution of the alpha-hero to the point that he recognizes he's a bit of a psycho? In fact, I think the passage goes something like:

"There are about ten things I want to say to you right now, and at least nine of them make me sound like a complete psycho."

"What's the tenth thing?"

"Nope. That pretty much makes me sound like a psycho, too."

Gives all of us neo-feminists the satisfaction of knowing he recognizes the way possessive men sound, but let's us know he's feeling it anyway.

(And let's not forget the parking garage. Ever.)

7. The Marquess of Cainwood (Guardian Angel, Julie Garwood)- An old-school romance hero of yore, Caine takes the news that his beloved is a pirate with aplomb (and then beats the crap out of her brother.) Extra points for always coming to get her no matter how many times she runs away, and for passing out when the baby is born. And for putting up with Sterns.

6. Harrison MacDonald (For the Roses, Julie Garwood)- Two Julie Garwood characters in a row, I know, I apologize. But Harrison does the classic "lie to the heroine about who he is and why he's there," and we still love him more than words can express. Why? Because he beats up the Clayborne brothers like he's a member of the family, produces the best murder defense this side of Johnny Cochran, and he's a frakking Scottish Cowboy. I don't think I need to add anything else.

5. Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)- Those of you who read this post from its inception know that I was initially leaving Angel off the list because he appears on TV, not in romance novels. Justification for adding him now? Ready, steady, go: On Amazon, the Buffy graphic novels for "Season 8" appear on the "Romance Bestsellers" list. So there. I'm breaking my own rules, but if Stephenie Meyer can do it in her bestselling series, I can do it in this tiny post that no more than 10 people will read. Anyway, Angel. All tormented and angsty, all brooding, soul-and-not-sex-having Angel. Loves her more than his life, leaves her before he ruins hers, and still manages to pop over from his spin-off series when it matters most. Plus him trying to "save" Joyce from Spike is one of the funniest scenes of the series.

4. Zane Mackenzie (Mackenzie's Pleasure, Linda Howard)- In a world populated by Mackenzies, it's difficult to make a choice between them, but for me it's got to be Zane. Every. Time. He is a bit of a retreat from the more evolved hero (he drags her off in the night to elope, and she doesn't seem to do... anything), but there's something about a Navy Seal and showing up at your door to announce that you're getting married that gets me every time. Perhaps it could be argued that Zane would be a better hero if he had been given a better heroine? I'm just saying.

3. Conrad Wroth (Dark Needs At Night's Edge, Kresley Cole)- Heinous title aside, Conrad Wroth is one of my favorite heroes from the Immortals After Dark series, and among the crowd that includes Cadeon Woede, Lachlain MacRieve, and, well, the rest of the Wroth Brothers, that's saying something. Maybe it's my own personal weakness for tormented heroes, but Conrad's bloodlust and insanity is off the hook. No matter how far he comes with the help of the lovely Néomi, he's always dangling on the precipice of losing his mind. The fact that even at the end of the book he is not completely recovered speaks volumes for him as a character and Cole as a writer, for not insisting that everything end perfectly in a neat little bow. Plus there is that shower scene. Hot. Damn.

2. Derek Craven (Dreaming of You, Lisa Keypas)- Derek Craven, up-by-the-bootstraps, from-the-gutter gaming club owner in Regency London, falls for a bookish researcher who is stalking his club to talk to his whores about the World's Oldest Profession. He saves her from assault after she saves his life, and then he proceeds to do everything in his power to get the hell away from her, knowing that her life would be better without him in it. Finally capitulating after she is assaulted again (yes, she gets a bit old, but she's perfect for him), they wed and live happily ever after, with Derek still realistically living on the edge of what he used to be.

1. Derek Sutherland (Captain of All Pleasure, Kresley Cole)- OK so Derek is the go-to name for tormented heroes. We get it. Another Cole hero, another frakked up gentleman. Derek Sutherland is married, an alcoholic, reprobate, deadbeat. And then he encounters the magic hoo-hoo and all is well. But all kidding aside, Derek is perfect in his torment-- he loves her to the point of insanity, can't eat, can't sleep, can't think when they're not together, and then completely turns his life around when they are. Love. Him.

This was actually a stunningly painful list to put together, mostly because for every memorable alpha-hottie there are ten "who the frak is this guy and why is he such a" freaks. And all the guys in between. So it's my Top 9. Which you should be grateful to have anyway.

Discussion Continued-- The Kinks are worked out! (No, the band didn't go to the gym... nevermind)

WENDY PAN:
Okay - so why is it that when the heroine loses her virginity it's always a glamourous and wonderful adventure? Where is the fear, the pain, the mess?


Oh - maybe I'm talking about my first blog publication. I am being hounded by Kate Jones to contribute to this space and I make the effort with the humble knowledge that while I taught her all I know, she far surpasses me in talent. I think when I was her age I had the wit and wisdom to be creative, but I seriously doubt my ability to hold my own in this, our joint post.

So, I'm supposed to make witty reparté about lame heroines? The pressure is on. There was a time when I was enthralled with anything Jude Deveraux wrote and equally Joanna Lindsey. Not so much now. The heroines kind of remind me of the uncomfortable feeling I would get when I watched "I Love Lucy." You just KNEW Lucy was going to screw up and get in trouble and it was going to take the rest of the show for Ricky to figure it out and for them to get kissy face and get over it. I understand the concept of conflict - God knows it exists every day in real life - but do these women seriously have to create ways to be idiots?

Part of my thrall may have been based on a lack, in my own life, of the kind of "romance" that I read about in my favorite books. I have since learned that the fantastical romance I sought escape to, in the pages of comfortable trash, is so far from real life that it actually feels uncomfortable.

So, lame heroines are the ones that have to resort to any kind of subterfuge to attract the man of their dreams, or even the villain who later becomes the hero (Whitney My Love?) And those who think that when the initial bloom of romance is gone they have lost their man to a rival (The Black Lion).

A real heroine - whose character is to be applauded - is the one who is who she is and never needs to make things up to get her guy. But - if she does have to make things up, it's only to protect her man (Lyon's Lady, Guardian Angel). The one with enough guts to enjoy the battle and the struggle - for the reward of endless devotion from the man who sees beyond the tough exterior to the puddle of mush inside (J.D. Robb's Eve Dallas).

KATE:

Well Wendy Pan, thank you so much for joining us! No more putting down your own ability to repart-- any blog where we make up words like "repart" obviously has no standards of any kind.

I was waiting for you to bring up Eve Dallas, a difficult female character who finds a dude who, as you say, finds the puddle of mush inside. It makes the heroes better (sexier, more likeable, etc.) when they can see past the heroine's serious flaws (difficult, standoffish, badass warmonger, etc.) and like her anyway. This is the evolution of the "new" heroine, who the man adjusts to. Unlike in the earlier books you mentioned (everything, ever by Jude Deveraux), where it is up to the heroine to adjust and forgive and negotiate parts of her own personality.

Wendy Pan:

Okay, so what happened in society that made the weeping wimpy heroine so unacceptable now? And can any of us go back and be satisfied with Kathleen Woodiwiss again? I mean, Shanna... really? I think K.W.'s Ashes In the Wind gave us a better heroine - one more vibrant and less weepy, but the doctor actually fell for the sneaky cousin instead. Look how that ended!

I began reading trashy romance at the ripe old age of 17 (my grandmother's influence, if you can imagine) and Shanna was as hot as they got. (I won't say, "back in the day" but it's implied.) I worked my way over to Jude Deveraux and was truly, madly, deeply in lust with anyone whose last name was Montgomery. The women I could take or leave. They weren't why I was reading. I think Linda Howard changed my perception of the heroine. She made her women witty and bold. Jaine Bright - I mean, how great is she? And that Sam actually "gets" her at the same time he is perplexed by her? And that she drives a really cool car and that she's so not a wimp! Heroine evolution? God did not just create her, she has evolved. Her genetic roots can be tracked back to Lucy the fossilized hominid. And baby, look at her now!

KATE:

Funny, I'm a Taggert girl, myself...

Discussion- The Heroine Lameness Factor

And thusly begins our first discussion post.

I don't know exactly how this is going to work between the two of us, but I'm going to start in one color, and then Wendy Pan will respond in another color. Or something.

Let the Great Experiment Begin!

To open, I give a little background: This blog is largely inspired by another, more famous blog, nd the genius creators/writers of said blog recently published a book, from which our beginning discussions will originate.

So, one of the major breakdown/critical assaults (with love!) is about Trashy Romance Heroines, their archetypes, and how generally helpless they can be (except for a select few of our more mod ladies).

That said, here I am opening the discussion. Ready, steady, GO!

KATE:

I have two current paranormal series obsessions, one of them the aforementioned Black Dagger Brotherhood series by JR Ward, the other the Immortals After Dark series by Kresley Cole. Ward's prose is more heavy, the characters better developed, the drama more wraught. Cole's is lighter, fluffier, and just plain more fun. But I digress.

I prefer Cole's series for a number of reasons, the most important of which being that the women kick ass. Like, seriously. Kaderin the Cold Hearted is a badass warlord who collects the teeth of all the vampires she's killed. Mariketa the Awaited is the most powerful witch in a millenia who manages to fend of otherworldly threats just fine before her lykae shows up, thank you very much. Sabine the Sorceress of Illusions is a tormentor and torturer of epic proportions, and continues to be even after she is comfortably mated to the King of the Rage Demons.

By contrast Ward's heroines are always the secondary members of the book, they have identities of their own, but they don't really do anything... they have their moments of glory and then very quickly fade into the background at the Brotherhood takes precedence.

Now there is a time and a place for a complacent heroine (mostly in historicals), but if I'm talking about personal preference, I want my ass-kicking heroes to have ass-kicking femmes. Who's with me?