But second, there is an “everything but the kitchen sink” feel to these books. When you add the mixed lores to the pop culture language and references … Sometimes it creates a fun, zany environment, and sometimes it doesn’t work as well.

I think you’ve put your finger on what kept me from falling in love with AHLNO. The “everything but the kitchen sink” feel kept me from being able to suspend disbelief and buy into the world and the story. And the zaniness seemed over the top to me.

I think they are all at heart quite loveable. E.g. their materialism is made fun of and is in a sense beyond their control (the valkyries are powerless against their own fascination for diamonds).

I can understand reading it that way. But to me, it’s similar to the manymany chick lit novels that make fun of the heroine (a heroine who’s often helplessly materialistic).

I love that so many (most?) romances can be read either as perpetuating or as inverting stereotypes. Laura Vivanco described that conundrum really well on Teach Me Tonight a couple of years ago, though I can’t find the post right now. Anyway, it makes perfect sense that, f’rex, one reader might see a female character as obsessed with appearances, where another reader sees her as not apologizing for being feminine, or as ultimately triumphing whether or not she conforms to societal expectations.

For me, Sabine’s VIEW of herself was skewed but this error wasn’t based on a self esteem lack.

There I agree. Unless being evil is necessarily about lack of self esteem. I don’t think it is, LOL.

For me, Sabine’s VIEW of herself was skewed but this error wasn’t based on a self esteem lack.

I totally agree.

RfP – Otherwise, I think I disagree. I don’t really see these heroines as being the shallow villainesses of old made into heroines. I think they are all at heart quite loveable. E.g. their materialism is made fun of and is in a sense beyond their control (the valkyries are powerless against their own fascination for diamonds). For me, Sabine showed that KC wasn’t really willing to eat into their basic cuddliness and give them truly unattractive qualities.

I think I also disagree on the self-esteem thing. I find KC’s heroines have a strong sense of themselves. For me, Sabine’s VIEW of herself was skewed but this error wasn’t based on a self esteem lack. Certainly compared to other romances where heroines are portrayed as having major esteem issues (HQs are particularly guilty of this).

It’s also common among heroines, right? The genre abounds with heroines who don’t know their own worth.

I agree, but I see a difference between a heroine not knowing her own worth, and “I am not good enough for you” as a reason for conflict between the h/h.

In fact, now that I think about it, that it true of Sabine too. So, I don’t retract my assertion that it is more common among heroes, but I retract my assertion that Sabine does it.

Can you give me some examples of the low self-esteem of heroines creating conflict? It would help jog my memory.

Janine wrote:

I wonder if I should give this author another try. The one I read (A Hunger Like No Other) seemed over the top to me, without as much grounding in reality as I like in paranormals. But I could say the same thing of J.R. Ward’s books, which I’ve been known to enjoy. I’m not sure why I didn’t find the world in AHLNO as convincing, but I think it might have to do with the wide variety of paranormal beings that peopled it.

Janine,

First, I think the world building was weakest in the first book. My recollection is that most of it took place in a hotel room or mansion.

But second, there is an “everything but the kitchen sink” feel to these books. When you add the mixed lores to the pop culture language and references … Sometimes it creates a fun, zany environment, and sometimes it doesn’t work as well.

I seem to be in the minority, but to me these books seem really problematic in their gender statements. In the two I read, I thought the male roles *were* turned inside out to some extent, but the female roles followed the manipulative, shallow stereotype of the Old School villainess. I can see that perhaps it’s unexpected to give that character a happy ending, but it still grates.

I am trying to think back, because my recollection is very different of the other books.

I want to clarify that I DO think there is a very traditional core to these romances, but I think wrapped around it is a layer of tweaking of gender roles. I think that’s why they appeal so widely, as Tumperkin suggests.

Oh, no! If I start giggling every time I hear “Do You Know the Muffin Man?” I’ll know who to blame.

(Getting a little smirky about “Drury Lane” now, too.)

Tumperkin, you mention that Sabine’s self image doesn’t match what we know of her, and I agree. I note that this type of low self-image is very common among heroes, so I view this as another example of Cole’s gender bending.

It’s also common among heroines, right? The genre abounds with heroines who don’t know their own worth. Unless you mean the specific “I’m eeeebil” spin; that’s less common in romance, though somewhat common in paranormal, I think. (Having skillz makes a woman eebil, natch.)

you have the traditional sexy, tiny heroine, and big strapping hero. She’s talky and he’s taciturn. He’s all about honor and principle and she’s Freud’s view of women sprung to life: narcissistic, manipulative, and deceitful. All very Old School. But now reverse it … Sounds like a billionaire CEO doesn’t it?

I seem to be in the minority, but to me these books seem really problematic in their gender statements. In the two I read, I thought the male roles *were* turned inside out to some extent, but the female roles followed the manipulative, shallow stereotype of the Old School villainess. I can see that perhaps it’s unexpected to give that character a happy ending, but it still grates.