Sticks and Stones may break my bones...

But whips and chains excite me!

Okay, so I've always been a bit of a prude. I was a bit of a late/bloomer with the whole boy/dating thing, and I used to be a bit uptight when it came to sexual matters. Six years of marriage and two kids later, I am much less prudish, but I was still quite attracted/repelled by the whole Ellora's Cave/romantica phenomenon. The first time I got up the nerve to order something, I felt like the fat man behind the "Adults Only" curtain at the local used bookstore (What's back there? Used porno mags? GROSS!!). I even used a VISA gift card I had so that it wouldn't show up on a credit card statement. But since I was being naughty, I figured that I may as well be really naughty, so I got one of those menage opuses by Lora Leigh, one where brothers share their women. Oy. Anyhow, now I'll freely admit that I quite like romantica, especially of the pervy BDSM variety. And apparently, I'm not the only one, as it is the top-selling genre at Ellora's Cave.

So why would any liberal, feminist, hater of "forced seductions," captive stories and sheikhs enjoy reading about women (primarily) getting tied up and having all kinds of kinky things done to them? Yeah, it's weird to me too. In a way, these BDSM scenarios are merely a more extreme version of the alpha males, and aforementioned forced seductions etc. that still exist in today's romances. Heck you even find the word "dominance" and the idea of being dominated in more mainstream romances (although it's usually without a flogger). This being fiction for women, usually the author goes to great lengths to emphasize that it is the woman's choice, and furthermore that she feels free or actually empowered by participating in such scenarios. Whether or not this is convincing depends on the skill of the author.

I have little knowledge of the reality of BDSM. All my knowledge comes from reading romantica, which I see as a form of literature for women's fantasies. So I don't know whether the authors I've read are getting it right, or cleaning it up so that women like me actually find it romantic and sexy. But different authors present the lifestyle differently, and sometimes it's hot and sometimes it super-squicky. The best author I've read is Joey W. Hill, of all the romantica I've read. I just read Ice Queen, which was a sequel to the also excellent Natural Law (one of only two I've read with a Male sub!). Hill's books are peopled with adults with jobs, interests and lives, who just happen to be involved in this particular lifestyle. Since they are already practiced in the lifestyle, it lacks the ick factor of some of the books I've read where the guy seduces the girl, then proceeds to sort of coerce her into things. Hill also focuses on the psychological and emotional aspects for both the dominant and the submissive, the give and take for both. The sex scenes may be extreme, but it is always clear what both parties are getting out of it,and how it is bringing them closer. So often, we see a lot of what the sub feels and the dominant comes off as a creep who gets off on humiliating the heroine and pushing her into embarrassing situations. Then we are told that he cares about her and he does it b/c that's what she wants. Don't buy it, squicked out. Hill avoids that whole humiliation bit, i.e. calling the person "slut" or "whore", and as I pointed out the sex scenes take place privately or in a club that the characters belong to and are familiar with.

I don't know, I intended this to be a review of Ice Queen, and has turned more into a treatise on my view of BDSM romantica. I really enjoyed Tyler and Marguerite's story, although the ending was a bit disturbing, then abrupt. But there's going to be a sequel, soon I hope! Marguerite is a truly troubled person and we need a sequel where she works out some some of her issues, so I can be convinced that she won't stab Tyler in his sleep one night. If you are thinking of trying out BDSM romantica, give Joey W. Hill a try. Bound to Trust by Jaci Burton is another good one. Now different strokes for different folks, and perhaps it's more realistic, but if you are uncomfortable with a heroine being humiliated in various ways, including public situations with strangers, avoid Claire Thompson. I have a high squick level, and I was bugged out. I'm very careful with buying this stuff these days. I don't want to spend six bucks to horrify myself.

Also: Not one of the local Barnes & Noble's have Taming of the Duke yet. WTF? I bought Lord Perfect and Sword of Darkness intsead, to make up for the disappointment.

This n' That

Blogging 101

Added some new links to the sidebar thingy. Laziness has kept me from doing it before this. Even added some more of those group author blogs. Although there can be something kind of...corporate...about them, i.e. the constant shilling of books from their publisher, they have a lot of neat stuff too. Little by little I'll get this looking the way I want it to.

Chicken Little

Is it weird that I take such a perverse kind of glee that Kevin Covais, formerly of American Idol, is from my neighborhood? As a devout non-watcher of AI, I usually take little notice of what's going on with it, but all these signs started popping up all over--the high school, the parks, the local stores, messages painted on the back windshields of cars, "Vote for my friend Kevin!" There have even been notices tucked into my front door, a la a chinese food menu, urging me to vote for a local boy makes good. Once I saw a picture of him ("He makes Clay Aiken look manly!," thought I) I had to watch. Except I kept forgetting to. So instead I went to Television Without Pity. For some reason it is so exciting to me that the dorky guy who so many people regard with awe, shock and horror is from my neighborhood. That's so much cooler than, say, a really talented person. Oh well, he's been sent back to Island Trees HS now. And I never got to see him shake his thing to "Part-time Lover." Seriously though, going on AI takes balls, and he slogged on through even though he had to know that he was out of his depth. I hope that his classmates don't give him shit, and I'll squeeeee if I see him at the pizza parlor (which as of Friday had a pizza named after him).

RITAtm Nominations

The Rita Finalists are up at the Romance Writers of America site. Hmmmm....Not familiar with a lot of these, which isn't really a surprise, I'm no expert, and I spent a lot of last year glomming, rather than checking out new stuff. Totally unfamiliar with several of the paranormal noms. Who is Pamela Labud? She also got a first timer nod. Let's go see...Spirited Away... got eh reviews, which means nothing. I'm not really into ghost lovers, though.

Next time: Devon makes yet another foray into pervy romantica.

Bad title, Good Book

Recently, I read The Charmer and The Romantic by Madeline Hunter. There were some things I liked about both books, and other things that left me cold. But when I saw that Lady of Sin would be about Nathaniel Knightridge and Charlotte, the youngest sister of the Duclairc family, I was psyched because I enjoyed their appearances in The Romantic quite a bit. And I enjoyed Lady of Sin quite a lot, though I don't like the title. It's too...hooker-esque, and kinda dumb, though I know it's because this book follows Lord of Sin, which I skipped because I was sick of rakes.

I think that Hunter's strength is in creating characters with a strong self of self, who, while they might go against the grain, still fit into the time and place. In particular, her heroines contain a maturity and self-awareness that distinguish them from a lot of Regency/Early Victorian fare. Like Sophia and Pen in the other titles, Charlotte (Baroness Mardenford/Lady M.) engages in an affair, knowing that there may be disastrous consequences, simply because the desire to is strong enough. There's little fluttering or blaming the hero, and if self-recrimination takes place afterward, it's for good reason. But unlike Sophia and Pen, Charlotte is not annoying. She is unapologetically clever and opinionated, without being grating, and she doesn't go haring off, making stupid decisions, just because she can. I think it's because she is portrayed as a very empathetic person. She is a good match and foil for lawyer Nathaniel, the fifth son of an Earl, who is himself a very strong, opinionated, arrogant, yet empathetic guy. And I like stories where sparring partners realize that their dislike is masking other emotions entirely. One imagines that such relationships probably don't end so well in real life, but it makes for good reading.

As LOS opens, Charlotte goes to see Nathaniel on the day a man he unsuccessfully defended is to be executed. They've alway disliked each other, but they end up smooching, and Charlotte is painfully aware that this is not their first intimacy. At an orgy (Naughty!) held by the notorious Earl of Lyndale (hero of Lord of Sin), the masked Charlotte and Nathaniel hit it off and got it on. Nathaniel doesn't recognize her and Charlotte would like to keep it that way. However, as a series of events keeps throwing them into proximity, they realize that that not only is desire between them still there, but also is quite strong, and seems to involve the mind and heart as well as the body. I liked that they resolved the issue of their one night stand quickly, and it didn't turn into some stupid big misunderstanding. They are brought together by a mystery surrounding Charlotte's late husband and her brother in law, and while I didn't find the plot particularly suspenseful or compelling, I didn't care. A good romance is a character driven story of two individuals coming together, and if I'm drawn to the hero/heroine's love story, the plot is incidental to that. I liked Nathaniel and Charlotte and I really enjoyed seeing their vigorous dislike turn to love. The love scenes were good and there were lots of them (although perhaps the word "vulva" was overused). If you like strong, mature characters with lots of passion, this is a good bet. I'll be reading Hunter's future books, and I want to try her Medievals. They are very well-reviewed and I've got to get over my Medieval dislike (but that's another post).

That is all. Everyone's asleep and I'm off to drink my McSorley's. Erin Go Bragh!

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

What an exciting week! My husband's on furlough (that's temporary unemployment to those not in the know), I'm about to kill him, I have to get my wisdom teeth out, I bought Lady of Sin by Madeline Hunter, and Her Master and Commander by Karen Hawkins. From the library, I got Shadow Touch by Marjorie M. Liu and The Ultimatum by Susan Kearney (not my usual bag, but I'm attempting to push my boundaries). Plus, first new Veronica Mars in six weeks! That's enough to make up for the loss of Project Runway. (BTW, Chloe? Really? I liked the girl and all but...really? Huh. At least it was a surprise).

First off, Veronica Mars. Love the continuity as usual, but please with the chick from Laguna Beach. She needs a punch in the teeth so she doesn't grin through every freaking line!!! Hate Hannah, the new mini-Veronica, but loved the homage to My So-Called Life's hallway hand-holding scene. (Which still makes me sigh 12 years later. And yes, my college roommate bought the Buffalo Tom CD afterwards. And we made mixes). I will watch the rest of the season if only to see if Logan and Hannah have the following exchange:
Hannah: Why are you like this?
Logan: Like What?
Hannah: Like how you are.
Remember it? Remember? Does "the N" still have MSCL re-runs on? But anyway, where's the Goot? The Goot's behind the bus crash, for sure. As much as I love to see a boy from Massapequa do good, the Goot's a bit evil. And he needs to lay off the plastic surgery. Or the makeup. Or is it a combo that's got him looking so freaky?

Before I get my surgery (which for some reason I'm more nervous about than giving birth, it's the whole sharp implements in my mouth, near my eyes and my brain, thing), I still got me some books to get. Although I imagine the recovery won't be that long, I'm still going to have assistance with the kids for a day or two. Whee! Reading time! Im' looking forward to buying Taming of the Duke,Sword of DarknessLord Perfect and Three Little Secrets. Sword of Darkness got a bad review here, which was disheartening. Over at Smart Bitches, they're bitching about the fact that the cover blurb is by Sherrilyn Kenyon (Kinley MacGregor), which was mentioned by the AAR reviewer as well. From reading SK's novels, interviews with her and having seen her in person, I do think it's a joke. I also think it's a dorky one. Then again, I often find the humor in SK's novels to be a bit dorky. Oh well, I've been increasingly disappointed with her work, but I'll get this for sure, because I do love the premise.

Gee, I'm feeling kinda loopy today, and I've haven't even had my celebratory St. Patty's McSorley's. I'll have 'em while I do my review of Lady of Sin later.

It's the girl in the red truck, Charlie Brown

My son is very into the Peanuts. Both our local library and the library that I work at have an extensive collection of old Snoopy cartoons so we regularly check them out. The other day, the H-Bomb chose this one:



I had a bad feeling about it (look at that cover), but he insisted, so anyway...as a mom, one is often forced to watch shows that one might not otherwise, but this was one of the strangest. My son keeps watching it over and over again, and I have no idea what would make this appealing to small children. There is no Snoopy or Charlie Brown, instead it focuses on Snoopy's seedy-looking brother,Spike, who lives out in the California desert. It is mostly live action, and revolves around his friendship with the very perky Jenny, who is torn between her love for her home, and her boyfriend. Her boyfriend is one of those white bread, blonde and handsome, yet somehow creepy types the 80's did so well. He wants to go to LA to be a musician or something. This is pretty much it--Jenny's relationship issues and a long roller skating sequence. Seriously, Jenny and the boyfriend spend a lot of time talking about their relationship and whether to go to the "city" or not. And she yammers with her bitter waitress friend. Boyfriend is also disturbingly jealous of the friggin' cartoon dog. It's so weird. I don't even think an older kid would enjoy it. So I looked it up on IMDB (shut up, I don't need to get a life), and I found out two fascinating facts: Jenny is played by Jill Schulz, daughter of Charles Schulz, and the roller skating rink in the movie belonged to Charles Schulz. I did further investigation into the career of Jill Schulz (shut up, I don't need to get a life), and she had few credits that all revolved around roller skating. So she must be some kind of...roller skating person. I could tell you she ain't no actress. I wonder if the other two actors were Schulz family members, or employees of the roller rink or something. The whole movie was to showcase the woman's roller skating talent. I can't decide if I like the randomness of it or it was just super-bad. Anyway, we just took it out yesterday, but I think we'll have to return it sooner than later, b/c I can't take too much more.

Lover Eternal by J.R. Ward (Spoilers Ahead)

J.R. Ward's Website

Lover Eternal@Amazon

The pleasure of reading a good paranormal romance is in being transported into a fascinating, different world. It may be a little dark and scary, it should be damn sexy, but it is always fun. I think paranormals are appealing to people because they are a true escape from the everyday, mundane world. Also appealing to readers and writers alike, I think that within the framework of the paranormal, writers are able to push the envelope a little bit, explore issues of love and sexuality in a manner that still feels "safe" to many. However, paranormals are often marred by stock characters, stale plots, and worlds without internal logic and inconsistencies. As a devoted reader of paranormals, I have an almost boundless ability to suspend disbelief and ignore the things that I don't like and focus on the things that I do. But more and more, I am unable to do so because I am hung up on the stuff I don't like.

Lover Eternal is not one of those books. It is an example of a great paranormal romance. I am declaring myself J.R. Ward's bitch right here, right now. She rocks. I loved this book. I loved Dark Lover, but I loved this one even more. I put some links at the beginning of this post which lead to summaries, excerpts and other reviews, because I want to get right to what makes the book awesome (in my not-so-humble opinion).

*Increasing Depth into the World--In this book, we learn more about the vampire race and their world, while remaining consistent with DL. No annoying rule changing. While not necessarily groundbreaking (but nice and simple), I find her vampires very interesting, particularly their strict social hierarchy and their almost animalistic nature. I look forward to learning more about the aristocracy and the whole concept of blood slavery in the next book, Lover Awakened.

*Character Development--A romance should be a character-driven story. It is the story of two people falling in love. Honestly, to me the plot is almost incidental. If I can't buy the characters, I can't buy the romance and I don't like the book. In DL, I was impressed by how Ward created a number of distinct characters. In LE, we gain greater insight into the characters, through a number of different p.o.v.'s, and they are even more intriguing than before. In addition, Rhage and Mary were great characters. Rhage, while a larger than life character, did not overshadow Mary, who was no Mary Sue. In fact, she was kind of a pain in the ass at times (but I could understand why). While there was the standard insta-lust, their emotional and physical connection deepened over time in a very satisfying way. This was a very emotional story (gotta love how Rhage fell like a ton of bricks and didn't seem to mind at all. Refreshing.)

*Multiple points of view--This is connected to character development and world building. I felt that the different points of view really added a lot, providing a lot of insight. I think that it makes the readers more invested in the characters also, so that you're looking forward to all of the books. This is definitely a series book, and a lot of time was spent setting up the next book. I wonder if that would bother some readers, but I was psyched b/c of lots o'Zsadist. Which leads me to...

*No fear--These characters have problems, and big ones, and Ward doesn't shy away from their portrayal. More importantly, she doesn't take the easy way out. With the exception of, perhaps, Mary's miracle cure and immortality. That didn't bother me actually, b/c she left Mary infertile. It may seem stupid, but it was better that everything wasn't perfect at the end. And miracle babies are annoying. Similarly, I liked that Rhage was left with the beast at the end. Things weren't perfect, but they loved and accepted each other enough to see it through. Some things happened that would definitely be unacceptable in most romances (i.e. Rhage having sex with another woman, THEN HAVING SEX WITH MARY!!! SAME NIGHT!!). Within the context of the novel, it didn't bother me in the least, and I actually thought that it was one of the most emotional scenes in the book. More of Z's background was given and it is indeed horrific. I'm very curious for the third book, b/c what we're being shown of his character...things could be very interesting indeed. Awesome and disturbing to some, I'm sure. I hope that Ward doesn't wuss out and give us the tortured hero has sex with beautiful nurturing woman and becomes shiny, happy, well-adjusted (maybe just a bit cranky) guy. I have high hopes though, b/c this book was quite different than DL, so I think she'll continue to take risks.

*Writing style--Ward writes in a very crisp, intelligent style that contrasts with a the extravagant, cliche ridden style of a lot of paranormals. Her prose is pretty much simple and straightforward.

Fangirl much? There were some things that bothered me. The slang and pop culture references came thisclose to being too much. I thought that they suited the characters (it's not like they were listening to Mariah Carey or something), but I got a little distracted by it at times. It was very close to crossing the border into annoying. Also, the conflict with the lessers is a bit weak. I can't help but feel that that vampires could kick their asses and call it a day quite easily. The lessers seem like a bunch of tools. Eh, with so much good stuff, I was able to ignore this easily and I admit, I kinda skimmed a lot of the lesser parts, until the end of course, when it got more interesting.

Oy vey, I'm exhausted. I'm going to go start re-reading now.

Ahh...need a cigarette

Devil in Winter was so good. So good!! I didn't want to put it down, which hasn't happened in a long time. I'm sure after the afterglow wears off, I might find some criticism, but for now, no. It was a delicious and satisfying read, and I just felt so happy afterwards. Yes, I'm crazy.

I just loved Sebastian and Evie so much. Sebastian was awesome, a real rake, not a cheesy, half-assed one. He was really funny, too. Kleypas has had some amusing moments in her books, but I've never laughed so many times during one. My personal favorite comment was when he said that he was going to embark on a spree of orgiastic debauchery that would only end when someone got arrested (paraphrase). I was browsing around Mrs. Giggles last week, and I loved this rant. I think that it suits Sebastian quite well, and in general should be used by authors as a reference when creating "good" bad boys, instead of obnoxious assholes. Liked Evie a lot too. Sure, she was another shy, sweet innocent virgin, but she had a will of steel. I just really bought that these were two damaged souls who saw something in each other and could love and accept each other for who they are. Well done, Lisa Kleypas. I just hope the other authors I'm looking forward to bring their a-game as well.

When is Scandal in Spring out? After reading the excerpt at the end of DiW, and the excerpt on the author's site. I'm psyched for this one. It seems like she might be going a in an unusual direction with the hero. I've always liked Daisy, too. Well, off to re-read. Yeah, I am.

I got it, I got it

Okay, I've got a bunch o'crap to do, but all I want to do is read. By the way, the lovely cover is marred by a ridiculous stepback--frizzy red hair on the heroine, the hero shirtless, yet wearing a cape. Wha? Oh well at least the front's nice.

To be investigated some other time: Are any of these any good?









More on Through a Crimson Veil: it was all right, just a bit meh. Neither the h/h nor the love story was particularly memorable. I did enjoy the demon race though, after after looking at the Crimson City Blog, I am sufficiently intrigued to read the next one.

Enough already...

I'm currently reading Through a Crimson Veil by Patti O'Shea. This is my first go at one of these books, which have been around since last year. In the world of Crimson City(created by Liz Maverick), humans, vampires, werewolves and demons live together very uneasily. Different authors take turns writing different entries in the series. It sounds like a cool concept, but some of the reviews I've read made me put it off. I decided to give this one a try.

Through a Crimson Veil is the story of Mika Noguchi and Conor McCabe, both half-human, half-demon. Mika has spent her life crossing the veil which divides Crimson City from Orcus, the demon world, and though she feels like an outsider in both worlds, she is far more at ease with her nature than Conor. Conor absolutely hates his demon side (he is the result of rape), and has spent his adult life hunting demons. These two crazy kids meet when Mika is sent by the Demon governing council to retrieve a spell from Conor, which will lower the veil between two worlds, and enable the spellcaster to enslave all demons. As soon as Mika sees a picture of Conor, she suspects that he is her vishtau mate. The vishtau is a preordained soulmate bond, which is characterized by overwhelming sexual desire, which later deepens into a emotional bond. Once Mika meets Conor, it's adventure, fighting, sex, running, blah, blah, blahcakes, the usual.

Now I haven't read the entire book yet, and I plan on abandoning it for Devil in Winter. When/if I finish it, I will certainly update or edit my thoughts if need be. But I just need to comment on something that's really getting on my nerves in paranormals: the soulmate thing. The idea of having one true mate, who you were destined for and who will love and cherish you for all eternity, b/c he or she has no choice, is an enticing one, I admit. But in so many books, it just seems to be the ultimate shortcut. Who needs character development? Who needs plot development? They're soulmates, they will end up together because it's destiny. I don't know, it just seems like in these sorts of books all kinds of annoying behavior (usually the heroine's) is excused, because the hero will fall in love due to hot sexin' and forces beyond their control. In this particular book, Mika is all over the reticent Conor's ass, because it is the vishtau! And he will feel it too! I'm not a fan of forced seduction and it made me uncomfortable. It was like, get your hand off his junk, bitch, he told you ten times already. Although, at one point, Mika does realize that her actions are crossing the line (b/c he wants her! no he doesn't! yes he does!no...), so she lays off a bit, and that made me like her better. But in this book, as in others, the relationship seemed like the good old device of undying love as the result of really good sex, with some mumbo-jumbo to make it more convincing. I think paranormal authors need to give the soulmate thing a rest.

Now, I'm not trying to diss on Patti O'Shea in particular, this just happens to be the most recent one I've read. I do want to point out that I really like the fact that Mika was supernatural also, with stregth and powers of her own. I imagine it's for purposes of reader identification, but I do get sick of the powerful, ages-old creature falling in love with average, innocent girl on the street. Really, after the dust settles, what are they going to have in common? Do you picture Blade the angry vampire at Walmart, pushing a cart with two screaming toddlers? (More importantly, should you? Too much reality? Perhaps just that's my own weird habit of picturing what happens after the HEA.)

More thoughts on the great mommy debate

I've been thinking more about the whole Stay At Home ws. Work Outside the Home mom argument. Each side feels that they are perescuted and judged. The working mom (so I gather) feels that others feel that she does not put her children first, is letting others raise her children, or is putting material gain ahead of her children. The stay at home mom feels that others feel that her work is not work, that she is wasting her education/career experience, that she should be contributing more financially, and of course that she sits on her ass all day, watching soaps. You know, what burns my ass the most is this notion that parenting small children is so easy that you have so much time left over. Because all they need is to be fed, changed and maybe put down for naps, right? Heck, we could probably train monkeys or dogs to do it. Perhaps that would solve everybody's problems--we could all get babysitting dogs, a la Nana in Peter Pan . Pretty cheap labor, though. Potty training might be an issue . Anyway back to my point, such as it is. I think that the arguments of the SAHM and the working mom may be rooted in their own guilt and self-doubt. Am I doing the right thing? Am I doing the best for my family? Hell no, say self-righteous law professors, by being a SAHM you're destroying society. Hell no, say the breastfeeding, organic baby food giving supermoms, your child will suffer because you're working (just kidding on the Supermom thing, I'm making fun of myself if anything). Perhaps your husband or partner or mom or sisters aren't all that supportive. So, if everyone devalues what you do, then it's up to the individual to value themselves and their choices. And I totally think people should take pride in what they do. It just sucks that so often, giving one's choices value comes out of judging and belittling others. I guess what I'm saying is take pride in what you do and be the best you can be, and screw whatever everybody else thinks. I don't know....just thinking.

I think that I just read that Walgreen's has Devil in Winter. The local one is open 24/7. Methinks I'll be taking a ride later. I hope this isn't one of those things where I'm so excited that I psych myself out and am disappointed..

Linda Hirshman is an idiot

There was this woman, Linda Hirshman, on Good Morning America this morning. She has written an article or book or something about how "educated", "privileged" women who choose to stay at home to raise their children are doing something that's bad for themselves, their children and society. Normally we're watching Sesame Street or something of that ilk at this time, but I had sat on the remote and changed the tv to channel 7. I'm just mentioning this because the segment had already started, and between that, my son's shouting and the fact that when I attempt to google this woman I'm coming up with nothing, and that GMA has little on their site other than a link to their message boards: Mommy Wars Rants means that I don't have more info about who this woman is and what it is she wrote. But this escalating nonsense about the so-called "Mommy Wars" has my blood boiling and so I must rant.

First, this is where I'm coming from. I have a BA in English from Wesleyan University (a "potted ivy"), and an MLS from Long Island University. I have chosen to work part-time and stay at home with my children until they are in school full-time. I'm evil to Linda Hirshman, pretty much. Part of the reason for this has to do with my own neuroses, stemming from childhood, that something could happen to my children in daycare/with sitter, i.e. abuse, and I wouldn't know about it. However this is my own issue, which shouldn't factor into the argument at large. Mostly, I chose to stay home with my children because I feel that the ages of 0-5 are the most important years of their lives, when the most brain development and learning take place, and their first experiences, impressions and learning should be from me. I feel that I should point out that I have a well-paying, flexible, convenient part-time job. And my career (librarian), though fulfilling, is not necessarily a "fast-track" career, so to speak. It is also a traditionally feminine occupation, and a job that a lot of people take up later in life as a career change, so there would not be a lot of stigma attached to me returning to work later down the line. I'm just pointing these things out b/c I am sure that they all color my perception of the issue.

Onto the "Mommy Wars," yet another anti-woman, anti-feminist issue cloaked as a feminist one. Why women must continue to pit themselves against each other as well as denigrate and de-value each others' choices is completely beyond me. Beyond me as well is why supposedly feminist scholars continue to judge certain women. I believe that the argument is that feminist scholars of the 60s and 70s worked hard so that we would be able to work, and now us stay at home moms are "opting out". Screw that. As a lifelong, self-identified feminist who's taken lots o' women's studies classes, I appreciate the work by earlier feminists to give us choices. Choices, bee-yotch. I don't care if anyone on either side agrees with me. I don't necessarily think women can have it all (at the same time, at least), but what's important is that there is an element of choice. That each mother is making what she (and her partner) feels is the best choice for her family and herself. The only people I feel bad for in the "Mommy Wars", who are of course never mentioned, are those women who are constrained by finances to either work or stay at home (childcare's expensive,ya'll, if you don't make enough money it doesn't pay to work, often). There are plenty of unhappy women, who wish that they could be at home or at work. Nobody cares about that.

That's because the arguments that the "Mommy Wars" are based upon are rooted in sweeping generalizations, misconceptions and outright fallacies. Intelligent, groundbreaking ideas like--all stay at home moms are unhappy, working moms are putting careers before family, stay at home moms stay at home all day and their children aren't well socialized, kids in day care are not as well socialized, no they are better socialized, SAHMs are selfish, working moms are selfish and so on. I know it looks stupid and contradictory, but there it is. I've seen these things written in articles, blogs and on message boards. There are so many variables determining what decisions people make and why, but instead we must reduce women and mothers down to two entities, the SAHM and the working mother. Because all SAHMs and all working mothers are exactly the same, right? Same values, same politics, same interests, same priorities. Yeah, right. What makes you a good mother is, again, choice and time. Being a SAHM does not necessarily make you a good mother if you choose to spend all your time watching talk shows and talking on the phone. Childrens' needs and development can just as easily be neglected by a mother in the home as without. Sorry, but there it is. A mother who works outside the home full-time may not have as much time with her children, but its what she does with it that counts.

Yes, I'm sure there are differences between children of SAHMs and working moms, but again I think that has more to do with the type of parenting going on. Just as there are differences among children of SAHMs and children of working moms. Obviously, I am pro-staying at home, but that's because I enjoy it, I'm good at it (and I make a little money at a job I enjoy too). We all make parenting choices based on our situations, desires, opportunities, experiences, and other factors. Instead of generalizing and judging, it might be better to think and empathize a little. Mothers have enough guilt and self-doubt to deal with on their own, we don't need it from others. Sisterhood is powerful!!! If you want something to judge, there are a number of people and issues that are genuinely dangerous to our children and their futures. Take aim at one of them.

In happy, snoopy-dancing news, less than a week to Lisa Kleypas' Devil in Winter. Over at Squawk Radio, she's given some teasers. Squee. I'm so excited for this book. It definitely seems like a change for her. Have I mentioned that I like heroes that are genuinely a bit bad? Squeeeeee. Oy vey. A romance reading housewife. I'll have to turn my brain over to Linda Hirschman and the editors of Ms. magazine. Maybe they can find someone who'll make better use of it, since apparently, I don't use it or need it at all.

ETA: I think this might be the same woman who wrote that article that was in NYT in the fall.

Back to re-reading...

Last night I was re-reading Julia Quinn's When He was Wicked. I love the Bridgerton books, but this one is my favorite. I have all of them on my shelves, but this is the one that I keep going back to. It's really different from the others, but yet contains that trademark Quinn wit. It's just one of the sexiest books I've read, I think. The scene where Michael first seduces Francesca in the library...Oy vey. Shivers. The sex scenes are all the more sexy because of all the heightened emotions the characters are feeling: love, desire, confusion, guilt. This book is, to me, was truly daring. Francesca's late husband was truly loved by both Michael and Francesca, a real rarity in romance land, and it makes their coming together really fraught with so many emotions. And Quinn never shies away from those emotions. It's not only super-sexy, but sad. I tear up (which rarely happens). Michael is one freaking hot hero that also makes me cry. Too bad Francesca comes off as kind of a bitch sometimes. But her turmoil is understandable also. When He was Wicked is a highly emotional read, so different from the other Bridgertons, yet so satisfying.

Tale as old as time...

song as old as rhyme,Beeyoooty and the Beeeast.

Damn, that song gets into my head. With that creaky Angela Lansbury voice. So I read Goddess of the Rose by P.C. Cast. Loved it. This was my second book by Cast, (the first being Goddess of Spring) and I think that she is a very bold and original storyteller. She's not afraid to tell an unusual story, and thinks enough of the intelligence of romance readers that she doesn't take the easy way out. This book was dedicated to all those who were disappointed when the beast turned into the handsome prince. Or something very close to that, I'm feeling too lazy to get my butt up and get the book. As I state ad nauseum, I love dark and tormented heroes, and this book just takes it further. The hero, Asterius, is dark and tormented, and not human. And not a sexy vampire, but a half-man, half-beast. All the time, not like a sexy werewolf/shapeshifter thing. And it was cool. Actually it was pretty hot. And I liked the heroine, Mikki. More on the practical and nurturing end of the spectrum than the whiny and whimpy. I just loved that it was about loving and accepting somebody for who they are, because I totally HATE stories where the dark, tormented, tortured hero either changes himself or is changed by the heroine, to become socially adjusted, charming guy, all of a sudden. You want the hero to keep a bit of the beast, y'know? This wasn't perfect: the beginning was a bit slow, and Cast was heavy handed with her repeated assertions that men are patronizing and don't really want to listen to women. But muscles. Horns. Hooves. Swear to God, some sexy shit, I don't care how it sounds. And it was sweet and awwww, too. Anyway, it's well worth a read.

A Bunch of Lying Liars

Faking It by Jennifer Crusie

This is the first book that I've finished in weeks. And I liked it. I really liked it. There were slow bits, times where I wasn't liking the characters and thought about giving up, but I'm glad I didn't. I was quite pleased and satisfied at the end.

Faking It is the story of Tilda Goodnight,an art forger and the dependable one in a family of flakes, and Davy Dempsey, the con man brother of Sophie from Welcome to Temptation. They meets cute in the closet of Clea Lewis, who was also featured in Welcome to Temptation. Davy is trying to steal his money back from Clea, Tilda, a painting that she painted as part of a long-ago scam. I won't spend a lot of time going over the plot, that would take a long time, and I don't think I could. But it features lots of lies and misunderstandings, eccentric family members, con artists and marks, hit men, FBI agents, sexed up vixens, and lots of lies and misunderstandings. Yeah. It's a real testament to Crusie's skill that she makes most of this cute and fun, rather than annoying and grating.

I really liked the moral ambiguity of the characters. I like my comedy dark and my characters gray. I'm often drawn to stories that feature characters that are not quite on the up and up. I think that everyone in this story lies at least once, and almost everyone engages in behavior that if not downright illegal, is ethically ambiguous at best. And even if they feel guilt, it's not that much (except for Tilda) because they feel they are doing it for a good cause--family, to right a wrong etc. I would imagine that this might bother some readers. Oh well, not me. At first I thought that Tilda and Davy were a bit too enigmatic, or detached, or something, and that I wouldn't be able to get into their story. But ultimately this is the story of Davy and Tilda accepting who they are and because of that (in spite of that?)being able to truly love each other. I believed in them by the end.

I liked Davy especially. He was pretty self-aware and accepting of his feelings for Tilda, if a bit surprised by them at first. Tilda on the other hand, got on my nerves a bit. Intellectually I could understand why she was acting the way she was, but please, sister. You've got this guy, you find him very attractive and he's given you an orgasm, but you're going to repeatedly and bitchily turn him down, even though he's pretty much begging for sex. OK. Actually, I found all of the Goodnights, despite their endearing eccentricities, to all have this passive, life-just-happened to-me-and-now-I-have-to-suffer thing going on which grated a bit. And they would all believe anything anybody said to them, just so they could be like, "Oh well, I thought that things would change, but (insert name here) is an FBI agent, so now I'm stuck forever." They're a bunch of liars themselves, but no one ever considers the fact that someone else might be less than truthful? However, as I'm writing this, I'm admiring Crusie, b/c this behavior really could be seen as a family trait, although I didn't really think of it that way at first, and it makes the Goodnights seem that much more, uh, family-like and connected.

Of course Faking It contains a lot of the usual Crusie wit including, a really hilarious denouement. I thought this book was fun. Thumbs up to Jennifer Crusie, I'll be tracking down more of her books soon.

Tiny steps...

I finally figured out how to add links to the blog. And it was fairly painless. Cool!! Now different sites I look at all the time are all in one place. My own little Internet portal. What a concept. Can't believe it took me so long to figure it out. Now if only I coud figure out how to do that thing where you put up part of the post and the reader can click to read the rest. I think it looks better, is easier on the eyes and you can get more on a page. I can't find "help" for it. I'm also going to do a little author link section.

Last night I watched "Corpse Bride." I love Tim Burton. Almost always (I'm looking at you "Planet of the Apes.") I liked it. It was about Victor, dreamily romantic, wussy son of nouveau riche fish merchants who is to marry Victoria, the daughter of obnoxious, impoverished aristocrats. They hit it off right away, both being passive, pointy faced and wan (but nice). However, Victor freezes up at the Wedding rehearsal and is sent off to rehearse his vows. While practicing, he unwittingly promises himself to the Corpse Bride, who died tragically and has been awaiting her groom ever since. The animation was beautiful in a macabre way, and I loved the little details--the "Head Waiter", the maggot who lives in the Corpse Bride brain and gives her advice. The land of the Dead was fabulous. My favorite part was when the dead people came back to the land of the living, and the living people were afraid until they realized it was their grandfathers, husbands, friends etc. then everyone goes to the church together. Classic Burton. That being said, I don't think it was the best. Nothing was compelling enough that I'd go out of my way to watch it again. It was an amusing novelty. I'd say it's worth a try for anyone who likes Tim Burton,animation, or black humor. Expect to be amused but not blowm away.

Random Thoughts

What I'm reading:


What I'm thinking about ditching the book I'm reading for:


I'm enjoying Faking It, just can't focus. Always looking ahead, always looking for better. This is becoming a problem. Oh well, two weeks to The Devil in Winter, three to Lover Eternal. Not that I'm counting or anything. Dork.

So I've been thinking a lot about those couple nicknames that everyone keeps saddling
real life and fictional couples with: Brangelina, Vaughniston, LoVe (Veronica Mars). Is there a name for these totally lame things? But more importantly, who comes up with them? And how does the media, the blogosphere, the world, decide which is the best name, the one that will stick? Seriously, how many people came up with "Vaughniston" while sitting in front of their computer? Was the Vincifer faction pissed? I first saw this practice with soap couples, reading Soap Opera Digest. (It was at my parent's house, I almost never watch soaps, I swear :)) But I suppose it is symbolic of the fact that the media no longer thinks of them as individuals with accomplishments, lives or anything to contribute apart from being part of that soul-sucking entity known as...Brangelina. Or whatever.

Ho Hum...

So it snowed. A lot. Its making me very unmotivated to go out. We've all got colds too. Seems like a good day to sit around and play on the internet. Prince of Magic has disappeared to wherever Master of the Night went. Saves me the trouble of debating whether or not it's worth it to continue. Read 50 or so pages of Return of the Warrior by Kinley MacGregor. Put it down. Read 50 or so pages of The Stone Prince by Gena Showalter. Put it down. Seriously not in the mood to read anything, though in the mood to read. Does that make sense? I have several contemporaries by Elizabeth Bevarly and Jennifer Crusie in my TBR baggie, including Bet Me, which gets such rave reviews. Perhaps I'll try one, I'm trying to get over my contemporary bias. I've read Welcome to Temptation and I liked it, though not as much as most people seem to. I just felt that the connection between the hero and heroine was just sex, pretty much (not that there's anything wrong with that), and I wasn't sure that their HEA would last. Also read Strange Bedpersons, which I also didn't love, because I felt that the heroine was of the arrogant and judgmental masquerading as liberal and free-spirited variety.

Its funny that I rarely read contemporaries, because I think that if I actually ever get a romance novel written, it would probably be one. I don't feel confident that I would have anything new to add to the historical or paranormal genre. The problem is, many of the contemporaries I've read just don't seem realistic. Isn't that ridiculous? It's just that so often the characters and motivations seem so contrived, rather than adhering to any sort of logic. People are always acting like assholes for stupid reasons. Of course, the annoying-ness of this is so often aided by character development that can only be described as broad. I'm willing to explore and try to overcome my bias though.

Speaking of adding something new, I think that they need to cool off on the paranormals. A lot of mediocre stuff is coming out. But I love how authors keep trying to come up with new stuff. I read a review by Bam (she's got two great blogs)of a novel featuring gargoyles. Yes, gargoyles, those ugly stone creatures that stand guard on Cathedrals and swanky apartment buildings, and who also had a cartoon series in the mid-90s that my younger cousin was into. He would make all of us be characters, even though I was like, 21. Anyway, I'm intrigued to see what the author does with this. It got me thinking too, what's next? We've got vampires, werewolves and other shapeshifters, witches/sorcerors, dragons, demons, aliens fairies and now gargoyles. How about the Loch Ness Monster? A beautiful young American on holiday in Scotland meets a mysteriously damp yet sexy young man...How about the Abominable Snowman or Sasquatch? Preferably brooding and in leather. Banshees, centaurs, fauns,brownies, the Shoemaker's elves? The Chupacabra (I love saying that word)? Perhaps some creative and enterprising author can do something with this. Actually I read that PC Cast did something good with centaurs, and I've been meaning to read more by her because I loved Goddess of Spring. Oh well, it's up to someone far more original than I.

Book ADD

Lately I've been having this problem that I never have,where I just can't focus on a book. I can't decide if it's me or the books. I'm going to blame those books though. I've attempted "Master of the Night" by Angela Knight. I can't even find that one now. I think its under the bed. Then I started "Good Girls Do" by Cathie Linz, dropped it for "Mr. Impossible" by Loretta Chase (which I read really fast and wish that I read before I voted in the AAR poll, b/c Rupert Carsington is my new favorite hero. Also awesome heroine and setting. I lurve me some Egypt), picked it up again and now have abandoned it for good. Now I've been working on "Prince of Magic" by Anne Stuart and I may give up on it. Part of me wants to finish, and a large part of me is saying just skip to the end and see what else is in the TBR pile. The sad thing is both of these books seem like they had elements that would make them surefire hits with me, but just didn't do it.

The Linz book, GGD, highlighted why I tend not to read Contemporaries. The contrived reasons for the hero returning to the town where everyone shakes their head and whispers that he's a bad seed, the forced conflict, the cardboard small-town characters, the heroine's annoying new-age-y, free-spirited mother and sister... I loathe this sort of characters, with only the most superficial trappings of individuality--the belly ring, the yoga, the crystals, vegetarianism etc. Their nonconformity comes off as petulance, arrogance and narrow-mindedness. They are sooo above others. Hey, it's kind of like me at 17! According to the excerpt at the end of the book, annoying sister is going to be the heroine of her own book and promises to be even more annoying. Sad thing is, the masochistic part of me wants to check this out to see if its as irritating as it looks, or at least to see if someone will bitch slap the heroine. Anyway I won't comment much more, b/c I did give up on the book, so it's not fair. A librarian and a biker, just like me and my hubby. He even commented on the cover when he noticed it on the counter, where it sat for days. Oh well.

I was looking forward to Anne Stuart's "Prince of Magic" because she's supposed to be wonderful and the Queen of dark, tortured heroes. This looked awesome--the hero is a defrocked priest with an interest in pagan religion (awesome!),and he's a royal bastard (literally! awesome!) the heroine was banished from her home for dancing in the woods at night, in her nightie (awesome!), dark Yorkshire forest, monk ghosts, crazy aristocrats/Druids (awesome, awesome, awesome!). I thought it would be like one of those Barbara Michaels or Victoria Holt books that I used to love, but with sex. But it just didn't do it for me. I think the problem is a lot of telling, not showing. We are told a lot of things about the hero and the heroine, that are not necessarily born out in their words or actions. I'm not feeling their romance. And the hero's a bit of a dick, frankly. I should wait until I finish to make a final judgment though.

Very Cool Heroes

The Charmer by Madeline Hunter: Again, I wanted to love this book but didn't, quite. There was something about the characters, I don't know how to explain it, I felt a distance from the story. The hero was great, though, a third, illegimate son of an Earl, in truth half-Turkish. He was very self-aware about his feelings for the heroine, a duchess, as well as very aware of the fact that their relationship could quite likely go no further than an affair. But he just wants to be with her for as long he can, however he can. Sigh. Sophia, the duchess, was a bit annoying, in an understandable way. Used to being used, she keeps Adrian at arms length for most of the story. Perhaps that accounts why I felt their romance lacked something, some passion. Really liked that Adrian though. Worth a try, I think. I do like the vision of Regency England that Hunter has, a bit darker, perhaps more realistic...but the romances themselves just don't grab me.

The Proposition by Judith Ivory: My first by her, and definitely won't be my last. This was a really sweet, fun, sexy read. It was a twist on the whole "My Fair Lady"/Pygmalion deal, with Cornish rat-catcher Mick Tremore as Eliza Doolittle (I freaking love that movie by the way, though the end, get my shoes thing bugs a bit). Anyway, Mick was a fabulous hero, strong, smart and really sweet. Really different and refeshing and totally sexy. The spinster, scholarly heroine came thisclose to being totally annoying, but redeemed herself when she began to let her hair down. I was really rooting for them. A different and worthwhile read. I checked it out of the library, but I'll be looking for it at the UBS to add to my keepers.

I put down Good Girls Don't by Cathie Linz, to read The Proposition, and I'll be trying to get back to it. I couldn't resist the librarian meets biker scenario, since I am a librarian married to a biker. But it heavily features one of my most hated romance "characters": the new-agey, "non-conformist" "free spirit". Two actually. Shudder. Yes, I am using the quotes librally for a reason. More on this later, when I finish or decide to give up for good.

Two Little Lies and The Romantic

After several weeks of not really being interested in reading anything new, I picked up a couple of titles this past week that got me going. I breezed through a couple of them rather quickly actually. The first was Two Little Lies by Liz Carlyle. I have enjoyed the books I've read by her in the past. I think she has a very distinct voice. Her characters and plotlines seem to have more of a edgy, darker feel. Her heroines are a particularly refreshing bunch, even if young and virginal they tend to have a self-awareness and strength that distinguishes them from the usual feisty, impetuous regency yet self delusional miss. TLL is the story of Viviana Alessandri, an Italian opera singer, and Quinten, the Earl of Wynwood, who have a tumultuous, passionate affair which ends abruptly when Viviana returns to Italy, taking a piece of Wynwood with her (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Ten years later, they meet upon the now-widowed Viviana's return, along with her pops and three kids, to England. Still bitter over what he perceives as her betrayal, Wynwood soon realizes he's not over Viviana. She still loves him as well, but is torn because of the lies she has told him and the big secret she's been keeping (I'll give you one guess...) Can these two crazy kids find their way back to each other? Quin and Viviana were two very passionate people and the tension and the emotion were pretty smoking hot. I'm even willing to forgive the secret baby plot, as I am more apt to do with historicals, because I actually felt the reasons for keeping the secret were compelling ones for the time and place. The 20 y.o. heir to an earldom was not likely to marry his Italian opera singing mistress. This was sexy, fast read. The one lingering problem that I had was that both the first and second time around, the overriding thing that drew them together was their passionate physical connection. They never seemed to get to know each other that well.

The Romantic was my first book by Hunter, and stylistically, she reminded me of Carlyle. This is not shiny, happy Bridgerton England, y'know what I mean. As in Carlyle's books, the ever-present constraints of class, gender and ethnicity figure prominently in the characters lives. The Romantic was the last in a series, apparently and it features Julian Hampton, a solicitor and friend to the titled and wealthy. He is very reserved and inscrutable, but of course still waters run deep and he has long nursed a secret passion for Pen. Pen is a longtime friend and client, and he has spent a long time helping her extricate herself from the evil clutches of her husband, the disgusting, sadistic Earl of Glasbury. Now the Earl is looking for his conjugal rights, and Julian and Pen will take the risky step of embarking on an affair to try and force a divorce. This book really pulled me in the first couple of pages, wherein Julian mentally dictates letters to his hostess concerning the guests seated on either side of them, then he goes home and writes this passionate letter to his love, only to put it into a drawer filled with letters and poems. It was great and I love the set-up: the idea of this totally controlled, reserved guy just eaten up with love inside, now putting himself into such proximity. I liked the plot, which moved along nicely, but I can't quite put my finger on what was missing. There was some sort of distance there, I just never felt the passion or tension. I don't know, I wanted it to be more intense.
Maybe that reserved Englishness came across too strong. I just wasn't feeling it. I'm going to give Hunter another try, though. I've got The Charmer, and Lady of Sin,out in February, looks good and features two characters that stood out for me in this book.