Archive for: June, 2009

Do you REALLY Heart Harlequin Presents? Test your love with this quiz

Jun 30 2009 Published by under Genre musings

See how well you know your Harlequin Presents/Silhouette Desires:

1. Our hero is a billionaire tycoon, running a multinational corporation. How much time does he actually spend working?

a. His picture is next to “workaholic” in the dictionary

b. He tries to keep it under 80 a week, to leave time for charm and elegance.

c. Absolutely none.

2. In what way is our hero least likely to show his frustration?

a. Run a hand through his hair.

b. Clench his jaw.

c. Nibble on his fingernails.

3. Our hero’s lips are least likely to be what?

a. Hard and sensual

b. Mocking

c. Covered in Cheeto crumbs.

4. Our heroine’s attitude towards marriage is least likely to be which of the following:

a. She will never allow herself to be dependent on a man! Never!!

b. She must get married immediately! Like, right now!!

c. Sure, someday, if she meets the right guy.

5. The hero touches the heroine’s arm as he shows her through a doorway. Her physiological response is most likely which of the following?

a. Nothing. She barely notices.

b. It tickles a little, so she scratches it.

c. Sweat, heart palpitations, dizziness. Please call the paramedics.*

*Spontaneous combustion if skin is bare. Call fire department.

6. What is our hero’s attitude towards other women least likely to be?

a. Some of them — his mother, baby sister and geriatric secretary, to be exact — are wonderful.

b. Most of them — especially his lovers past and present, and indeed any woman not mentioned in (a) — are scheming superficial bitches.

c. He doesn’t have an attitude “towards women”. He judges people individually.

7. Which method for luring the hero to bed is most likely to be successful?

a. Candlelight dinner, mood music, sexy lingerie.

b. Talk to another man.

c. Tell him in insulting terms that you do not want to have sex with him. Extra points for physical punctuation mark, such as a slap.

8. Our hero is not an American. From which country is he least likely to hail?

a. Greece, Italy or Spain

b. An exotic Sheikdom

c. Any former member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

9. English is not our hero’s first language (see question 8). When does he speak his native tongue?

a. All of the time. (Our heroine has a translator app on her iPhone)

b. Most of the time, but uses English when heroine needs taming.

c. Never, with the key exceptions of one term of endearment and one minor swear, both used over and over. (Example: Greek –Agape mou/Theos! Italian: Bella mia/Dio! Spanish: Querida/Por Dios!)

Warning: the following questions are “adult rated”.

(I am sorry to be explicit, but we must be thorough to get accurate results.)

10. Which best describes our heroine’s vagina?

a. Her vagine hang like a wizard’s sleeve, as Borat would say.

b. Hot, wet and tight.

c. No one knows. It has never been viewed or penetrated by any mortal being, save perhaps her gynecologist.

11. How often does our hero sport wood?

a. Rarely. Work is stressing him out and his wonderful geriatric secretary forgot to refill his Viagra prescription.

b. Whenever he is nekkid with the heroine.

c. Every time he sees, hears, smells, touches, or thinks of the heroine. That is to say, all of the time, except for the required grace period of 60 seconds after each ejaculation.

Scoring:

Give yourself 1 point for each (a) answer, 2 points for each (b) answer, and 3 points for each (c) answer.

0-13: You have never read a romance novel in your life. Why are you here?

14-26 points: You can do better. Put down your Jennie Crusies, Ann Aguirres, and Jo Beverlys and pick up the nearest copy of The Secretly Ruthless Italian Gazillionaire Tycoon’s Conveniently Pregnant Virgin Mistress Bride right away.

26 and up: You win! You may now use “heart” as a verb, do things to deserve “punishing” kissess, and fall in love with the next man named Dante who crosses your path!

23 responses so far

REVIEW: The Tycoon’s Rebel Bride, by Maya Banks

Jun 30 2009 Published by under Reviews

tycoonbride

This is going to be a quick review. Basically, if you like this line and these kinds of stories, you will probably like this one.

I don’t pay much attention to covers on the Kindle (ebooks automatically open to page one), and it wasn’t until I finished it that I realized I was not reading a Harlequin Presents. Twitter friends (thanks @Mcvane, @BevBB, @Young Librarian, and @Jane_l!) informed me that Presents is the more international line, Desire more domestic (US), so I am guessing this one, which, while set in New York, has a Greek hero and some quality time spent in Greece, is a bit of an odd duck (?).

It’s the second in Banks’ trilogy about three Greek hotel tycoons. In this one, Theron comes to NYC to manage one of his hotels, and finds himself informal guardian of the daughter of an old family friend. Theron barely remembers Isabella, until she saunters into his office, aged 23 with the bod to prove it, all alluring tramp stamps and piercings and bare midriff.

Given that Theron wants very much to settle down, given that Isabella has been in love with him (I was never sure why. She has only met him a few times, and he has two equally commanding, rich and good looking brothers, after all) since her training bra days, and given that they are incredibly hot for one another, why isn’t this a two paragraph book?

Well, Theron thinks he should be more of a father figure and less of a mack daddy to Isabella, and he’s already chosen Alannis, a nice Greek girl back home, for an arranged marriage. For her part, Isabella is too chicken to tell Theron the slightly stalkerish truth (Her entire life, including the move to NYC, is oriented around getting him to the alter. She has no job, no plans, and nothing else to live for. Considering Isabella’s singleminded pursuit, the fact that “Theron” means “hunter” is a bit ironic.), and she believes his pre-engagement to Alannis is the real deal.

What I liked about this is the forwardness of Isabella. She’s a virgin, of course, and her one and only goal in life is marriage, but at least she’s the aggressor in the relationship, leaving Theron a bit befuddled and off balance (When I say “aggressor”, you have to read it in context: she’s never forthright about what she wants. It’s manipulative feminine wiles all the way) . She often mocks him for his old fashioned notions of women and sexuality (while conforming to them completely, of course). He’s more likable and less awful than so many of these Greek tycoons tend to be. And the resolution of the Alannis situation does not require turning her into a hellish shrew, for which I was grateful.

Of course, the plot is entirely predictable, beyond the mere certainty of an HEA, as these categories so often are (for example, the minute we discover Isabella has a stripper friend, we know Isabella will be working the pole, that Theron will see her, and that his anger will push him over the sexual edge).

I’m attracted to category romance because they are short and cheap, but I find them so dicey.  This one was a bit better than average, but whether that’s high praise will depend on your point of view.

The best thing about it for me, was that it inspired me to make up a quiz, which you can take in the next post.

5 responses so far

Review: A Most Unsuitable Man, by Jo Beverley

Jun 28 2009 Published by under Reviews

n122537

Series?: Yes, published in 2005, this is the 7th Malloren (noble family in Georgian England) book. If I had a do over, I would have read its predecessor, Winter Fire, first, since the action in AMUM follows events and characters in Winter Fire so closely.

Setting: The Georgian (1763) setting is very refreshing, especially the importance of country estates, which provides a lot of time with a small group of people, something I happen to enjoy. Beverley talks about the importance of the country estate to the era here.

Hero and Heroine: Mr. Octavius Fitzroger is a penniless friend of the Marquess of Ashart, whom Damaris Myddleton — a “pirate’s daughter” and heiress in search of a titled husband who can provide her entree into the nobility — had hoped to marry. He’s honorable, though haunted by past scandal, and modest. She’s forthright, impulsive, and, at first, superficial.

Conflict: Damaris wants to marry a nobleman, and Fitzroger knows he isn’t good enough for her.

Fun Factoids: The cover won the two image contest at Cover Cafe in 2005, and AMUM was a RITA finalist in long historical (losing out to Liz Carlyle’s The Devil To Pay)

Word on the Web:

Dear Author, Jayne, B-

I love the world of the Mallorens. 18th century England, with the flamboyently dressed men and women, the age of reason, inventions, wigs, power and wealth. I like how your titled men in this series don’t go around spying for England but rather act as Marquesses and Earls of the age would have. They stay in England, they take care of their dependents, they go to court and hold public levees and try to influence the King. No smugglers, no spies, or anything of the sort. They are considerate of their servants but aren’t out marching for servants rights or allowing them to call their betters by first names. They have immense power and by gosh, they act like it.

The Romance Reader, 5 hearts

Mrs. Giggles, 63

Much has been said about Ms Beverley’s supposed exquisite skill in characterization and plot but A Most Unsuitable Man is a flimsy story with underdeveloped conflicts, tedious martyr blues, and an ensemble cast of secondary characters who are interchangeable because they are uniformly perfect.

Rakehell, Cheryl Sneed, positive

AAR, B

Audionote: I listened to this on audio. It’s about 12 hours, unabridged, narrated by the wonderful Jenny Sterlin.

Racy Romance Review:

So much happens in the opening scene of this book, to characters I felt like I was supposed to know already, that I was sure I had accidentally started playback in the middle of the recording. This made for a confusing, but very exciting start to what turned out to be a very enjoyable listen.

This is the story of the “other woman” from the previous Malloren book, Winter Fire. As it opens, Damaris Myddleton’s hopes for a union with the Marquess of Ashart are publicly dashed when he announces his engagement to someone else at the Rothgar Abbey Christmastide gathering. In embarrassment, she tries to flee, only to be detained and convinced to stay by Ashart’s friend, the barely dressed Mr. Fitzroger, who has caught up with her on horseback. This was an incredibly gripping opening.

As the story unfolds, Damaris grows out of her desire for a titled husband and falls in love with the entirely inappropriate Fitz. This happens slowly and maturely while other things — namely an apparent assassination plot against Ashart, whose family history may be more dangerously complicated than anyone realized –  are also going on. Since Fitz is Ashart’s bodyguard — a fact which is revealed to the reader, but not to Damaris or Ashart, very early on –  Fitz must keep Ashart safe while getting to the bottom of the plot.

It’s a bit jarring to read a Jo Beverley after reading so many other romances in which the hero and heroine are essentially adolescents on Adderal and Viagra. Damaris and Fitz are adults: they are interested in other people and activities besides each other, and while their story is romantic, and while they do give in to passion, they are not obsessed with it to the exclusion of every thing else.  Here’s an example of the forthright conversations they tend to have:

“You want to be a duchess”, he reminded her, unhooking her leg. “One of the grandest ladies in the land.”

But she clung onto his shirt. “I’m not sure I want to be mistress of a grand establishment.”

“Don’t take Cheynings as your model.”

“I’m not. I’m serious Fitz. I want a home. A real home.”

He tore free and left the bed. “You certainly won’t get one from me.”

She raised a hand to hum, tears in her eyes, silently pleading. He took it, but used it to pull her up and off the bed.

“You want to marry a man of title and position, and you should.” He tried to be harsh, but he had to wipe away one trickling tear from her cheek, and he wanted to take her back into his arms and comfort her. “Yes, there’s passion between us, Damaris, but it’s nothing important. If I let it trap you, you’d hate me all your days.”

He began to refasten her robe, but she snatched free and did it herself. “I might not.”

In this book, there’s a bit of a gender reversal, as Damaris is the rich confident one, and Fitz is the one with no prospects and no self-esteem. Damaris has fantasies of giving Fitz gifts and dressing him in finery.  I often despise the “I am not good enough for you” conflict, but in this case, Fitz was right. Damaris’s heart’s desire is to have access to George’s court, and, with the exception of Ashart’s family’s home, the scandal-ridden Fitz is not received anywhere.

There is much going on that I haven’t mentioned. In addition to the unfolding suspense plot, both Fitz and Damaris’s complex family histories are slowly relayed in ways that help move the story forward and help us make sense of their motivations personalities. When added to Ashart’s own genealogical expedition, a major theme of the book is the question of whether it is nature or nurture that make us who we are — to ourselves, and to society.

In looking at other reviews, I know some readers had trouble with Damaris. To be honest, she wasn’t totally likable. She was often superficial, impulsive and selfish, and not in a token way, but in a way that had really bad consequences. But those qualities are the other side of her determination, loyalty and honesty. To me, she was real.

Fitz was less distinct in my mind. A keen wit, a very decent honorable person, but a bit stuck and not a self-starter. I had a hard time believing he was a crack bodyguard.

MILD SPOILERS

How could he not have realized who the assassin’s target was after the cider incident? I figured it out and I had exactly the same information he had. And why was he unable to steal papers from a sleeping old woman without waking her up?

END SPOILERS

I was really impressed with the many plot strands Beverley managed to braid together into one very satisfying tale. With the one exception of Fitz’s enforced secrecy (he couldn’t alert Ashart to the danger he was in, or to his own role in keeping him safe), I never felt anything was forced.

Some romances keep me reading because I am so swept up in a larger than life romance. Others, because the plot grips me. Both the romance and plot worked for me here, but mainly I loved being in the world Beverley created. I just wanted to hang out with the Mallorens, hear them talk, go to a ball, take tea. Do the normal things aristocrats did in the day, as DA Jayne’s review sums up so well.

I can’t believe I hadn’t read a Jo Beverley prior to this one. I will definitely be reading (and listening) to more.

7 responses so far

Vacation

Jun 19 2009 Published by under Navel gazing

Starting tomorrow, I’ll be in one of my favorite spots in the world for a week:

2009

Except we are expecting this for the entire time:

rain010507

I’ll have wireless, but no plans to post.

In paper, I’m bringing a Kate Noble, a Susan Elizabeth Phillips, a Megan Hart, an Ann Stuart, and a bunch more ebooks on my Kindle.

Hope everyone has a great week!

2 responses so far

Joint Review: The Madness of Lord Ian Mackenzie, by Jennifer Ashley

Jun 19 2009 Published by under Reviews

35641955

Tumperkin’s Take:

Sometimes, when I’m really enjoying a book, I just race through it.  If I get even five minutes peace, my hand will stray towards it and I’ll fit in however many pages I can.  I’ll gorge and guzzle it; devour it the way you might eat a chocolate bar when you’re hungry.  And sometimes that greediness leaves me with a feeling of regret afterwards, wishing I’d savoured it more even though I know that the regret is misplaced.  Because the compulsion is part of the enjoyment. The Madness of Lord Ian Mackenzie was such a book for me.  I read it over a couple of days, snatching every chance to pack in a few pages.

TMOLIM is the first in a series of what looks like being four books, focussing on the four Mackenzie brothers, the oldest of whom is the autocratic Hart Mackenzie, the Duke of Kilmorgan.  Ian is the youngest brother at 27 and the hero of the first book.  The brothers have had troubled childhoods: their mother died when they were young and their father was violent and angry.  They are all introduced in this first book and we learn that they each have had difficult histories. There was a fair bit of sequel-baiting but since it did largely fit with Ian’s story, I didn’t object too much.

This is a premise – the pack of siblings, headed up by the uber-alpha big brother – that has become popular in historical fiction lately: Madeline Hunter’s Easterbrook series, Mary Balogh’s Slightly series and Jo Beverley’s Mallorens all use the same model.  Initially, I was slightly put off reading TMOLIM because of this.  However, by the time I reached the end of page 1, all of my reservations had disappeared.  The opening chapter is one of the most arresting and intriguing first chapters I’ve read in a very long time, introducing the character of Ian in a compelling and original way.

Ian is widely believed to be ‘mad’.  Even Ian himself believes this.  The modern reader recognises the condition that Ian suffers from (Asperger’s syndrome) but the Victorian characters of the novel don’t have this insight.  And so Ian’s symptoms are described by him and by others as is the treatment he received for eleven years in an asylum until Hart arranged his release on their father’s death.  I am no expert on Asperger’s syndrome, but I suspect that Ian may be somewhat atypical.  He is able to express himself quite articulately and whilst Ashley describes his inability to recognise and interpret emotions, he seems to be able to discuss this inability with a degree of comprehension – and later find a pathway to an understanding of love -  that gave me pause.  I wondered if this was accurate.  I worried about it a little.  And then, ultimately, I decided that Ashley had done such a good job with this character, that I wasn’t going to be troubled any longer.  I made the conscious decision to simply accept Ian as he was presented.  Ashley has written a character in Ian whose actions and characteristics are consistent and logical within the pages of the book and within my own understanding of this type of condition.  Which I suppose is a very long-winded way of acknowledging that this character might not work for everyone, but he worked for me.

In fact, I loved him.  I loved the descriptions of his feelings for Beth – even if he didn’t recognise them as emotions until close to the end.  Even more, I loved the descriptions of his ways; his helpless absorption in the things that fascinated him – getting ‘lost’ as he put it.  There is a marvelous little bit where he becomes fixated on a ball of ink hanging suspended from the end of pen and in the end his valet has to take the pen and write for him.  Similarly, we get to see him in a number of difficult situations in which he becomes enraged or panicked.  Ashley’s depiction of how he experiences these events, how very raw and difficult they are for him, is so rich and satisfying.  The language Ian uses to describe his experiences is heartbreakingly understated: he refers to these situations as ‘getting into one of his muddles’.  Those romance readers with a motherly streak (Kristie J, I’m naming you; and standing with you, shoulder to shoulder) will love this hero.

The heroine – as is often the case with books that have an outstanding hero (or vice versa) was inevitably less noticeable.  Nevertheless, she was likeable. (I didn’t mind her ending up with my Ian).  We are told that Beth’s mother was genteel but her father was a con artist and she spent most of her childhood in poverty before marrying a vicar and enjoying a short but happy marriage with him.  On his death, she found employment as a companion, and after 7 or 8 years, when her employer died, inherited everything from her.  One small quibble I had was that the employer – Mrs Barrington – was portrayed rather unsympathetically.  Beth’s time with her was referred to as drudgery and we hear many quotes attributed to Mrs Barrington.  I had the sense we were meant to find her hypocritical and small-minded but on the whole I found her comments unobjectionable and given that she left Beth her large fortune, she couldn’t have been all bad!

If I’m going to be really picky, I also felt that Beth’s character felt as though it had been constructed to be Ian’s perfect match rather than a unique character in her own right.  She is uniquely suited to him: she has enough knowledge of the streets get information from whores she knows by name whilst having sufficient polish to navigate Ian’s privileged world with ease; she has enough sexual experience to be keen to bed him whilst having a sufficient degree of innocence that he is able to ‘teach’ her a number of variations on the general theme; she is empathetic enough to feel his pain whilst being tough enough to face down the rest of the world on his behalf.  You get the idea.  I’m not knocking Beth as such.  She worked.  But it did mean that she was a less compelling, less ‘real’ character for me than Ian.

Ian wants Beth on sight and quickly takes action to make her aware that her fiance Lyndon does not deserve her.  There’s an oddness around this opening portion of the book.  In the first chapter, Ian meets Lyndon to buy an antique bowl from him – Ming bowls are Ian’s passion.  We learn in this scene that Lyndon can’t tell a real bowl from a fake; and this is a metaphor for what he is as a man.  He doesn’t see what has value in life.  Without being over the top about it, Ashley shows us a man who is rude, crude and fawning all at once.  We see that he clearly does not deserve the heroine.  We want Ian to take her away from Lyndon before we’ve even met her. *SPOILER ALERT*  At this stage, I anticipated a struggle – perhaps a third of the book at least being given over to this – but that isn’t what happens.  Instead, Ian divulges something to Beth immediately about Lyndon that causes her to throw him over.  This revelation was not – to my mind at least – connected to the more fundamental objections about Lyndon’s character, and the ease with which she decided to ditch him felt odd.  Why had she agreed to marry someone in the first place that she could cast aside with such ease?

But really, these are mere quibbles.   I loved this book.  It consumed me.  I read it too fast then wished I hadn’t.  It’s an A for me despite the flaws, for the same reason The Spymaster’s Lady was an A for me: because it really got my teakettle whistling.

One last thing that I really liked about this book: the pacing of the ending.  I often feel like I don’t get enough HEA for my money.  You get the crisis/ the black moment, then the HEA.  Sometimes, the crisis is very close to the end of the book and suddenly the HEA is upon you, and it’s over.  And I feel like my rollercoaster car has just reached the end of the track and fallen to the ground, instead of gliding to a stop.  This book didn’t do that.  It gave us a black moment, then another, different crisis, then slowly brought us to a really lovely HEA before guiding us out of the rollercoaster car very gently and back onto the ground.  I can’t tell you how much I appreciated that careful handling.

Oh, and I can’t wait for Hart’s book.

Jessica’s Rejoinder:

I, too, really enjoyed this book, despite the fact that I had to read the paper version (I have gotten very used to enlarging the Kindle fonts!). I became intrigued by it after reading so many great reviews online, and when I saw how many readers of this blog had just bought it (discovered when I asked people what the last 5 books they bought were).

I’ll say what I really liked about it: the dark world of the Mackenzie brothers, the unusual hero, and the witty and no nonsense heroine. As Tumperkin has mentioned, the hero, Ian, has an unusual mind. He has a gift for numbers and memorization, trouble detecting verbal nuances and reading facial expressions, and can’t easily restrain his own impulses in order to follow social convention. The following bit exemplifies what I liked about Ian and about Beth:

“I shouldn’t let you do this,” she whispered.

“Why not?”

“Because I think you could break my heart.”

He traced his finger around her lips, outlining the cleft of the top lip and the roundness of the lower. His gaze remained on her lips, as his large hand moved to her thigh.

“Are you wet?” Ian whispered, teeth on her earlobe.

“Yes.” She tried to swallow. “If you must know, I am quite, quite damp.”

“Good.” his hot tongue circled the shell of her ear. “You understand such things. Why you need to be wet.”

“My husband explained on our wedding night. He thought that ignorance on the woman’s part was the cause of much unnecessary pain.”

“An unusual vicar.”

[snip]

His eyes flickered. “Does what I say anger you?”

“No, but never speak like that in a drawing room full of ladies and fine china, I implore you. That would be quite a mess.”

He nuzzled her hair. “I’ve never been with a lady before. I don’t know the rules.”

“Fortunately, I’m an unusual sort of woman. Mrs. Barrington did her best to change that, but she never succeeded, bless her.”

“Why should she want to change you?”

Beth warmed. “My lord, I do believe you are the most flattering man of my acquaintance.”

The scene also exemplifies what I felt uneasy about. Like Tumperkin, I felt Ian’s condition was romanticized. The lack of eye contact which some people with AS display is a marker for lack of empathy and social reciprocity. That’s a very big emotional barrier to the kind of romantic love Ian and Beth share. I also felt, as in this scene, that Beth’s wit, which I did really appreciate, sometimes took on the condescending tone of a parent who talks to her child in such a way that you know her comments are directed more at the other adults in the vicinity and not the child, who will never understand them anyway.

But, like Tumperkin, the good parts of the romance made me overlook these qualms. I figured if sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and all the other things get romanticized in the genre, why not autism spectrum disorder? I told myself Ian was on the “quirky” side of things, not the “high functioning autism” side.

Some readers felt the sequel bait was a bit too smelly, but I was so enthralled by the Mackenzie’s, who have had a hell of a childhood, I didn’t mind. I can’t wait for Mac and Hart’s stories in particular, Mac’s because he is estranged from his wife, and I love estrangement stories, and Hart’s because I found him absolutely vile and cannot believe he will get his own book.

Like Tumperkin, this was a page turner for me. I didn’t stop to ask why Ian became enthralled by the mere mention of Beth’s name, how likely it was that Beth would bump into both the hero’s brother and sister-in-law in France, why Beth felt so comfortable speaking plainly to both Mac and Hart about their own lives when she hardly knew either of them.

I was fascinated by every character who appeared on the scene (like Tumperkin, I thought the pacing was terrific. I never found a moment I could put it down.) and I just wanted to be in this world and learn more about it. I can’t wait for the next installment!

12 responses so far

Polyamory, Menage, Erotic Romance, and Culture

Jun 18 2009 Published by under Genre musings

If you enjoy this post, consider subscribing to this blog, to receive new posts (about 3 per week)  in your feed reader or via email.  For more about what you can find here, visit the About page.

In this post, the word “menage” refers to a sexual activity involving three people, not primarily to a long term love relationship. I take it as obvious that one’s participation in a sexual menage doesn’t tell us anything about whether that person believes in monogamy, polyamory, or is against the idea of romantic love totally.

I’ve read five erotic romances which feature a menage (or more): Victoria Janssen’s The Duchess, Her Maid, The Groom and Their Lover, Megan Hart’s Dirty, Broken, and Tempted, and Maya Banks’s novella Overheard (all but the last are Harlequin Spice). In three cases, the menage involved one hetero woman and two hetero men, was the fulfillment of the heroine’s fantasy, and readers were led to believe it was a one off (ok, a three off). In Broken, the menage involved the hero and two female strippers. In each book, it was pretty clear that the protagonist would end up happily satisfied in the long term with just one person, and it was clear who that person was. In Dirty, the heroine had virtually no relationship with the second man. In Overheard, the heroine was friends with the second man. And in Tempted, the heroine had strong feelings for both of the men, but was married to one of them, with whom she stayed. Although Tempted takes us into a gray area, all of these books stay true to the RWA definition of romance –  the two person (primarily one woman, one man) love relationship.

The menage may push the sexual envelope in romance, but it doesn’t fundamentally threaten the core RWA definition of romance as a two person romantic relationship.

In contrast to the sexual term “menage”, polyamory, or polyfidelity, is a term for a committed love relationship (which may well include sexual menages or quartages, etc., or may not) with three or more people. This is romantic love, not mere lust or friendly feelings. (Some think of polyamory as a gender identity, but in this post I am using the term to refer to a lifestyle.)

Some people use the term polyamory to refer to a situation in which two people are the primary couple “in love”, but consent to sexual relations — even long term ones — with others with whom they are not romantically involved. “Swingers” with regular partners might fall into this category. That’s not true polyamory according to my definition.

Polyamorous relationships are guided by a very similar set of ethical values and principles to traditional monogamous relationships: love, mutual support, respect, loyalty, honesty, and trust. Polyamorites contend that there is so much deceit and cheating that goes on in supposedly monogamous relationships that their lifestyle is not so much different but being honest about what actually goes on. (For example, over 30% of the people who use online dating services are married. There is a whole dating site, Married Secrets, devoted to marrieds who want to stay with their spouses but have secret sex on the side) (although recent research suggests most married are faithful).

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that menage is becoming more and more common in erotic romance. It seems almost “old hat” in erotica, and we see “mainstream” publishers like Harlequin publishing books featuring the menage.

An HEA among three or more characters (polyamory in the sense I am using it here) is less common, but seems to me to be following the same trajectory. (Of course, my data set is comprised entirely of web surfing, so feel free to prove me wrong. Polyamory could be getting less common and less acceptable). Romance novels that end with three (or more) people together at the end feature what I would call “polyfidelity”. I have only read one of these, the paranormal novella It’s Raining Men, by Crystal Jordan, but I know that polyamory is a specialty of Emma Holly, for example.

I find this very interesting, especially in these times when we are interrogating our cultural understanding of marriage. My own thought had always been that while we can have sexual desires for more than one person at a time, true romantic love could only be felt for one person at a time. I think this has something to do with my conception of love, as not just an emotion but also a commitment to a “we”, a union of two people (thus begging the question). Thus the question of whether you believe polyamory truly possible may hang in some part on your definition of love. I may pursue this in a later post.

I know the links between pop cultural products like erotic romance novels and real people’s practices and beliefs are multivalent, and are mediated by many complex social, political, historical, and psychological structures, but I also think it is indisputable that pop culture is sometimes influentially ahead of the curve on where the culture is going. to take a recent example, think of the discussion of the portrayal of black presidents in TV and film around the time of Obama’s election:

“Our research suggests that people really do in a lot of ways treat fictional characters like real people,” said Melanie C. Green, a psychology professor at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. In 2004, she studied more than 100 college students and found that fictional narratives had just as strong an influence on their beliefs as nonfiction.

“To the extent that younger people have grown up seeing images of black presidents,” she said, “it is totally understandable that they would think about it in a different way than an older generation would.”

Of course, a TV show like 24 has millions of viewers and is a lot more mainstream than a publication on an epress which maybe sells, I don’t know, a few thousand copies?

Let me be clear on what I am NOT saying: (a) I am not suggesting that folks who sometimes write a polyamorous HEA in fact practice or support polyamory in real life, or (b) that these authors intend in any way to promote the poly lifestyle, the way Minx is encouraging writers and filmmakers to do, and (c) I am not saying that readers of erotic romance in fact endorse or intend to practice what they find in its pages. Trust me, I do understand fantasy.

But my own view of fiction, in general, is very far from Wilde’s or Barthes’ asceticism (art for art’s sake). I don’t think the gap between fiction (even fantasy fiction) and life is that large. On the other hand, fictional worlds are not actual worlds. They are not even possible worlds, but more like the “continuous and vivid dream” John Gardner spoke of.  Fiction stretches our imaginations and encourages us to see old things in new ways and to behold things we many never have dreamt of. I am not going further into the question, but merely gesturing in this post to my own stance, which holds, with Gardner, that “we recognize true art by its careful, thoroughly honest search for, and analysis of values” (On Moral Fiction).

I am no expert on the poly movement, but even I know that fiction has been important to it. Robert Heinlein’s 1961 novel Stranger in a Strange Land galvanized the twentieth century secular poly movement (good discussion of Heinlein here). More recent influences are purported to be feminism (women can build the kinds of relationships they desire. Increases in rates of female infidelity may support this), and the internet.

Some polyamory supporters explicitly advocate producing narratives that challenge stereotypical views of polyamory in culture. In her keynote at this year’s Poly Living Conference (Powerpoint here), activist Cunning Minx explicitly advocated influencing pop culture via social media (blogs, twitter), and via the creation of images in books and film to combat the two dominant (negative) images of poly — the “swingers”, and the religious polygamists. As summarized by Alan of Polyamorous Percolations,

[Minx] told the crowd of about 100 that it’s time for the poly-awareness movement to start shifting focus: from education — explaining polyamory to people who’ve never heard of it — to culture-building — creating recognizable pop images of the polyfolk-world that represent us well, that we can be proud of, and that will appear in people’s minds when they think of us.

In romance, it’s not terribly uncommon for the hero or heroine to have strong romantic feelings for more than one person (any “love triangle”, Butch for V and whatsername in J. R. Ward’s Lover Revealed, Sadie for both her husband and Joe in Broken, or even a character mourning his or her dead lover, as Gabe does in Susan Elizabeth Phillips’ Dream a Little Dream). But in most mainstream romance, it is a mark of maturity and growth of the characters to pick one person and settle down with him or her. It is also the way we mark the flow of romantic narrative — when the second candidate for the hero or heroine’s affection has been removed, we know we are nearing the end of the book.

But creating a believable world in which three honorable, loving people live happily ever after — together –  is quite different and quite subversive, and I think this is true whether the setting is fantastical or not.

Does the RWA accept polyfidelity as within genre boundaries? Should it?

33 responses so far

Kinder Review: Here Be Monsters!, by Alan Snow

Jun 16 2009 Published by under Reviews

275px-herebemonsterscover

An Adventure Involving Magic, Trolls, and other Creatures

[This is a guest post by a certain 9 year old boy -- who is not, I feel obliged to point out in case Child Protective Services is reading this, normally allowed to read Triple R.]

By guest poster: This is an extremely good read. It may have tons of pages (529) but nearly every one of them is filled with excellent illustrations.

This story is about a boy named Arthur, who lives underground, and a wretched gang of monstrous beings. One day while Arthur is out stealing food for his grandfather –  because they are penniless — he sees a gang of people doing something illegal in Ratbridge: they are hunting cheese. Arthur follows them.

Arthur has wings that his grandfather made him, so he flies, (and he can talk to his grandfather using a doll with wings that looks like him) but one of the members sees him and Arthur gets caught. Arthur manages to get away in the nick of time, but a stranger pulls him into a house filled with random nuts and bolts. There Arthur meets a friendly man named Willbury QC Nibble, who helps him throughout the story.

Arthur also meets strange creatures called Underlings, who live in the underworld. Cabbageheads have cabbages on their heads, worship the art of gardening and make tunnels extremely deep below the surface. A Cabbagehead is rarely seen, even by other Underlings.

Boxtrolls, another type of Underling, live inside boxes because they are so shy. They love collecting random things, though many citizens get mad when their water won’t come out through there sink because a Boxtroll has taken many pipes away. Boxtrolls also help the Cabbageheads with their water supply (they are also good at wiring things up and putting pipes in places so water will run through them).

Trotting badgers — stay away from them! These type of Underlings can and will eat you whole! If you ever see one, run away as fast as you can! Grandfather lost a finger to one of them!

Freshwater sea cows love grass (as any cow would), and if you were in Ratbridge near some water, throw some grass in! If you are lucky enough you might be able to see a regular-sized cow swim up out of the water and start eating the grass! But now, sadly, Freshwater sea cows are extremely rare, so if you ever see one it wouldn’t hurt to stop for a few minutes and look at it!

Arthur has to stop the gang from hunting cheese and help the Underlings get back to their real home in the underworld. There is a lot of action, and some funny scenes, and a few times where there is some straight on talking.

[From Jessica: Here Be Monsters! was first published in the UK in 2005 (by Oxford University Press) and has since been published in the US by Atheneum. It's marketed to 9-12 year olds, although, like Gaiman and Dahl, it has appeal for adults. It's the closest thing we have to Steampunk in our house. Clothing suggests very early 1800s England, but over-industrialization has already occurred, and bicycles, cardboard boxes and electrical technologies have been developed.  A stop motion film adaptation of Here Be Monsters!, helmed by the director of Coraline, is in the works.]

And finally, here is a quick interview with our guest poster:

J: Do you think both girls and boys will like this book?

D: Well, there are many gross parts, but there are also humorous parts. And there are also rabbit women that are much like women but were raised by rabbits. So, yes, both will like it.

J: Don’t girls like gross stuff?

D: Well, most girls I know do not.

J: What other kinds of books do you enjoy?

D: I like adventure books, like The Golden Compass, and I have tons of Roald Dahl books. I also like mysteries, like The Big Nap. I also love Japanese Manga. One of my favorite titles is Naruto.

J: Do your parents like to read?

D: Daddy reads tons of music books, books about war, and other books. My mom is addicted to romance, which I do not like.

J: What??!! No Wii for a Wiik. Just kidding. Would you ever read a romance?

D: No, I think love is icky.

J: Why?

D: Just because of like kissing … and love. Just gross, man.

J: But mommy and daddy kiss and are in love. Would you rather we didn’t?

D: Well, it’s just not for kids. It’s just weird.

J: I can see that. Do you think reading is good?

D: Well, reading comic books isn’t that good. But reading chapter books that are filled with words is pretty good for the mind.

J: Isn’t reading also fun?

D: Yes, because every time I read I learn new things and that is fun.

J: Ok, I don’t know what pod child this is, but I want my son back. Let me try again: isn’t reading FUN?

D: Metza metz [He learned it from his grandmother, complete with hand gesture.]  I love reading, but there are so many other things in life. It’s half and half.

J: Very true. Thank you!

D: You’re welcome. Can I do another one?

7 responses so far

The Sweat Smell of Success

Jun 15 2009 Published by under Genre musings

Is it just me, or is there more and more sweat in romance novels? I mean this both in terms of the sheer quantity of it and how soon it tends to appear in the proceedings. I’m sure there used to be small quantities that appeared late in the proceedings.
Not now.
Take two books I’ve read recently:

tycoonspgmistress250

(1) The Tycoon’s Pregnant Mistress by Maya Banks
This one is a good example of how quickly sweat enters the agenda:

‘I want to touch you, Chrysander’ she said softly. She placed her palms on the top of his thick legs and smoothed them slowly upwards.
His eyes smoldered and sparked. ‘Then by all means, touch me, agape mou.’
With a little nervousness, she touched his male flesh and he jerked in reaction. Feeling a little bolder, she wrapped her fingers around the turgid length and stroked lightly.
A groan worked from his throat and she could see sweat beading on his brow.

The sweat appears before anything much has really happened at all here. She sits on him, touches his penis and suddenly he’s sweating?

I’m not sure if the suggestion here is that the sweat glands are physiologically connected to the hero’s penis or if they are psychologically linked to the hero’s self control. I suspect the latter given that a few sentences later, after the heroine has kissed his ‘taut abdomen’ and touched his ‘flat nipples’ he penetrates her with the epithet ‘You are killing me, pedhaki mou!’

Killing him?

n221561

(2) Untouched by Anna Campbell
This book seemed to have several references to sweat in every sex scene, leaving me with the impression of them practically wading it. Like here:

Lord Erith sprawled at Olivia’s side without speaking, his head buried in the pillow. She couldn’t see his face but his black hair was limp with perspiration and the bare skin of his back glistened…The air was sharp with sex and sweat.

And here:

Poignant tenderness filled her. Her hands began to play on his sweat-sheened back. He made a sound deep in his throat like a lion’s satisfied growl. When he buried his head in her shoulder, his damp hair pleasantly tickled the side of her neck… The room reeked of sweat and sex.

And here:

She opened tear-filled eyes to see him poised above her, his head flung back, his hair damp with sweat, his face taut…. His chest heaved as he struggled for air…His black hair was disheveled and a lock fell over his forehead. His clothes were crushed and damp with sweat.

These happen to be recent reads but it’s something I’ve noticed a lot over the last couple of years.

So is sweat: a turn on or off? Good writing should invoke all of senses, yes? So does a description of a hot and sweaty man make you think: Hmmmmmmm or yuuuuuuurrrrrrrrgh?

The science supports the turn-on theory. An experiment in 2000 asked female students to judge the looks of various men in pictures. The first time, this was done with no stimulants present. Then a cloth soaked in male sweat was placed in the room and the experiment repeated: men judged unattractive the first time were scored higher the second time around. Even those judged the least attractive in the first viewing benefited from a higher score.

But how does this translate to the reading experience? Speaking personally, if the writer is talking about the smell and look of sweat, I’m pretty cool with it. I think it probably does invoke the right senses and heighten the atmosphere for me. However, if the words concentrate overmuch on the feeling of wetness, I find it a lot less appealing. Funny isn’t it? Invoke one sense and I’m right there, invoke another and you lose me.

What do you think?

20 responses so far

Older posts »