I’m reading this one now and concurrently reading one of Lora Leigh’s Breed books which is possibly why it just hit me that in this book, Gaffney is not writing a “beta” hero, she’s completely re-writing the whole idea of “alpha.” By his standards, Michaels is alpha: he thinks about people in terms of pack and what it means to be the alpha a number of times and it’s a whole other animal, pun intended, from the Romancelandia definition. Leigh, conversely, went the traditional route with it, to the max.

That’s a very interesting theory!! It sounds plausible on the face of it. Need to think more on it…

I’ve noticed though that some readers have the impression that an internal conflict is a conflict between the hero and the heroine, one that is internal to the relationship, rather than to the character’s mind and/or emotions.

Those people are in error. Enlighten them, we must.

Janine wrote:

An internal conflict is a conflict or obstacle which comes from within a protagonist’s heart and/or mind, while an external conflict is one which comes from a source other than one of the main characters.

That’s my understanding, too. So we agree on what an internal conflict is, but we don’t agree whether one is present for the heroine in this book. Or rather, you think it’s more pronounced than I do.

Oh dear, I screwed up the formatting of my last post. That’s my reply to Meriam in the second quote. Can you fix it?

I guess I saw that as lack of conflict. Maybe I do not know what conflict is. To me, an internal conflict would be “I adore him but I want a stable life and I could never marry someone with no connections or money.” I recall very little of that, but my short term memory is not the best.

But merely not thinking of him as a potential suitor, you say, is a conflict? Just Michael not showing up for her as mate material was a conflict? Hm. Will ponder.

Well, I’m sure different people have different definitions for these terms. And if you look at conflict in the sense of “conflicted feelings” you are right.

But from a writerly standpoint, I look at conflict as the engine that drives the book, without which there is no story. Characters have to face obstacles, otherwise there is no journey to the ending. So in a romance, I see the conflict or conflicts as anything which is an obstacle to the happy union of the hero and the heroine. An internal conflict is a conflict or obstacle which comes from within a protagonist’s heart and/or mind, while an external conflict is one which comes from a source other than one of the main characters.

I’ve noticed though that some readers have the impression that an internal conflict is a conflict between the hero and the heroine, one that is internal to the relationship, rather than to the character’s mind and/or emotions. I have yet to see a single book on writing which defines conflict this way, but I think this impression has become common enough that when some readers say that they don’t like books with internal conflicts I take that to mean that they don’t like books where the hero and heroine fight a lot.

But actually under the first definition of internal conflict (the one I do see in books on writing), there are plenty of quiet books with an internal conflict; Pride and Prejudice is a good example.

No To Love and to Cherish? Wow. Although it’s not my personal favorite, I am very surprised, since so many people consider that Gaffney’s finest book bar none. And even though it’s not my personal fave, I do think it shows excellent craftsmanship in the creation of Wyckerley (both as a place and as a community of characters) and the main characters (Christy especially is a sublime hero). I also love the literary device of Anne’s journal entries.

Do you like on-form Gaffney better than Kinsale? Or vice-versa?

That’s a very tough question for me since I adore them both. I would say that I lovee To Have and to Hold more than any other book in genre, even any by Kinsale. Really, no other books even come close to that one for me. But I would probably place The Shadow and the Star (the Kinsale I find most romantic), For My Lady’s Heart (from a literary standpoint, Kinsale’s most perfect book IMO) and The Dream Hunter (Oh, how I love that book) all ahead of Wild at Heart in my personal book love rankings. And Flowers from the Storm and Seize the Fire are pretty darn great too. So I guess I would say that for me, Kinsale is the more consistent author of the two. She gets to me emotionally more often. But To Have and to Hold has yet to be eclipsed by another romance for me. At the top of her form, there’s no beating Gaffney.

Since I already own Crooked Hearts I’ll read that next.

Janine wrote:

Jessica, I would argue there is another internal conlict you haven’t mentioned, which is that Sydney (and with her, the reader) only gradually comes to see Michael as a romantic prospect. That is a pretty major obstacle actually.

I guess I saw that as lack of conflict. Maybe I do not know what conflict is. To me, an internal conflict would be “I adore him but I want a stable life and I could never marry someone with no connections or money.” I recall very little of that, but my short term memory is not the best.

But merely not thinking of him as a potential suitor, you say, is a conflict? Just Michael not showing up for her as mate material was a conflict? Hm. Will ponder.

3. Sweet Everlasting, 4. Thief of Hearts, then 5. Lily and 6. Crooked Hearts. All of them fabulous, but in that order.

Do you like on-form Gaffney better than Kinsale? Or vice-versa?

Lily didn’t do much for me (I probably like even Another Eden and Thief of Hearts better myself) but my friend and often reading twin Jennie loves it. So you are not the only one whose imagination was captured by that book.

Jessica, I would argue there is another internal conlict you haven’t mentioned, which is that Sydney (and with her, the reader) only gradually comes to see Michael as a romantic prospect. That is a pretty major obstacle actually.

Janine, that’s exactly what I was going to say. Sweet Everlasting and Lily come in third and fourth. (I have an awful fascination with Lily; I don’t understand it).

Jessica, I would love to hear your take on Lily if you ever pick it up.

One thing I really enjoyed about Michael was how he could laugh at himself. I loved the whole scene with the ‘gift’ he gave Sydney.

I loved this scene too. There were so many scenes I could have written about. It was like a collection of gems.

Tumperkin wrote:

I generally find the terms ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ off-putting when talking about heroes but now I’m going to follow your links above and no doubt change my mind.

I do, too, and I half regret using them in this review. The rank ordering really bothers me, as if beta are “less” masculine or less good (although I guess you could argue that alphas are leaders, thus “first”). Is a beta who shows alpha qualities really a beta? Do we call any hero a beta who diverges from the stereotypical romance hero mold?

Phyl wrote:

I especially enjoyed the fact that it was so different from most other romances available, and different from other stuff I’ve read by Gaffney.

I agree 100%. After reading romances for two years I have come to appreciate uniqueness.

Shannon C. wrote:

And Michael is my favorite kind of beta hero.

He is awesome. I’m thinking in the movie version, Morgan Spurlock should play him.

Kidding!!

Jill Sorenson wrote:

What a fantastic, heart-wrenching hero.

Does anybody write heartwrenching like Gaffney? the scene when Michael goes into the water to save Sam about killed me.

@ Victoria Janssen:
@ Ana:
@ willaful:

Go forth and read it!