I’m sorry I’m so late, so I hope you’re subscribed to this thread still. I’ve read almost every one of Anne Stuart’s books from the 70s to the present. I love her anti-heros like a fat kid loves sweet potato chips.

From my list, the three that are most “modern” in feel, that showcase her dark hero, are:

Nightfall
Moonrise
Ritual Sins

These three books encapsulate all of Bastien’s qualities in their main male protagonists. I love these books most of all of my AS collection. They were published by Onyx and when they first came out, many romance fans were shocked at how amoral the heroes were. Onyx didn’t request a fourth bk from AS.

I’m always amazed at how AS’ dark hero could do the most horrible things and I still like him. Don’t know why. One of my most memorable shocking moments was when she snuck in a few lines suggesting the hero, in the middle of the story, slept with the heroine’s bitchy sister in one of her categories. It should be a dealbreaker in a category romance but the few lines went by so fast, I had to reread the scene a couple of times to make sure .

But can you explain the extra “sub” here?

Jessica, I was basically referring here to the fact the even within the sub-genre of romantic suspense, there is a great deal of variety. To me, Stuart’s Ice series is in the action-packed, fast-paced, larger-than-life, rattling good adventure part of the sub-genre – they’re books where, as with a James Bond movie, we’re happy to go along with the implausability of plots because the over-the-top-ness of spies and secret committees is part of the appeal.

Not all romantic suspense can be described in the same way Just as the crime genre can include the cosy, the hard-edged, gritty realism, dark noir, or humour, and thrillers can range from realistic and taut psychological thrillers to action-packed roller-coaster rides that are pure entertainment, the romantic suspense sub-genre can combine any of those crime/thriller sub-genres, and weave a romance through it – which can, in it’s own turn, be gentle, or gritty, or sweet, or hot and steamy, or paranormal, or whatever. The romance can also play a greater or lesser role in the story.

So, with that huge diversity, I think readers probably gravitate towards their preferences even within the sub-genre, and I know that for myself, where I mentally ‘place’ a book as I’m reading does affect the role my inner critic plays as we go through. Does that make sense?

Thanks for answering my question about Stuart’s voice across subgenres. I guess I found the prose in this book quite spare, and I thought that woudl not work well for historical, or at least I cannot think of a historical romance whose prose I would describe that way.

To clarify, her voice (Hi, Ms. Stuart) is somewhat different in her historicals, but personally I find her contemporary voice more suited to the contemporaries, if that makes sense.

Just wanted to say that I definitely wanted to shag the Sheik as well. “Must I be your valet as well as your lover?” Be still my heart.

Janine :

I’m not sure what you mean by “it isn’t rape-rape” as applied to romance. Do you mean it isn’t rape because it is written as a forced seduction, where the heroine feels too turned on to refuse, even though part of her wants to? Or do you mean “it isn’t rape-rape” because we know it is the protagonist (hero or “hero”) doing it and therefore we as readers consent to it, knowing it will all end happily?

That’s a good question. I think it can mean either… to me, it signifies any sexual situation in a romance novel where there’s force or coercion that in real life, we would probably be appalled by, but that as romance readers we might let slide or even enjoy reading. I have read reader reviews of books that justifiy even what seemed to me like blatant, completely unmistakable rapes. (A Penny Jordan title comes to mind, I can probably dig it up if anyone cares.) So to that reader, somehow, for some reason, (which may or may not be the reason they give) that scene isn’t “rape-rape.”

I actually understand why Chloe went back to the apartment and didn’t think of it as TSTL. Instead, I always view Stuart’s heroines as undergoing a modified Hero’s Journey—in that Chloe had to return “home” in order to make her next step in the journey. While it makes sense to all of us to head to the Embassy, it doesn’t make sense in the world Stuart has created. Chloe’s journey is that she has to reject “normalcy” (such as oh, you don’t have to worry about getting murdered every day) and strike out with Bastien to (hopefully) survive, of which I have doubts of.

This is a great theory. you’ve convinced me (you and Janine).

@Niveau: Hello, and thank you for coming, whenever you could get here!

I don’t think Bastien’s amoral. I agree with what Stuart herself said: “My heroes aren’t honourable men, at least, not by conventional standards. They have their own moral code that they wouldn’t break, and of course half the interest in the book is making him break that code, which is usually the one thing he holds on to.” I think this describes Bastien perfectly: he has his own set of rules, rules which are destroying him, and Chloe is the catalyst which allows him to break free of them and start to become a complete person again.

I guess, I would call that a kind of personal code, but not a moral code. I am not saying it is not a moral code just because it differs from conventional morality, though. Rather, I think a moral code by definition cannot be personal. To take the moral point of view is, by definition, to get out of your own skin. But my point of view on this, while very common to humans of my ilk, is probably idiosyncratic to nonphilosophers.

But I don’t think that she’s in love with Bastien, or that he’s in love with her. I think he sees her as his salvation, but he doesn’t know her as a person. He knows what she’s like morally, and how she reacts in a crisis, but he doesn’t know her, and I don’t think that he wants to. As I said earlier, I think her role in his life is as the catalyst for his internal change. She causes his growth, which is great, but it isn’t love. I don’t think it’s love on her side, either. Bastien does all his growing in Black Ice, and I finished the book feeling like Chloe’s growth was about to begin. I think that she’d outgrow him. She’d soon reach the point where being the instrument through which Bastien reclaimed his humanity wasn’t enough for her anymore. She’d need to be a person he cared about, too, and I don’t think that they have that kind of relationship.

This is a pretty damning critique of a romance, but what you say makes sense. It;s something people have been circling around throughout the whole discussion, and I think it’s the issue — more than his amorality, or the rape or believability of the suspense — that divides readers of the book.

Anyway, I’ve written way too much, so I’m now cutting myself off. I really loved reading all the comments and hope that this is only the first of many book discussions!

Thank you! I hope so too!

@Kat:

I liked it, despite the fact that it skirts some romance dealbreakers for me. Like Niveau, it wasn’t so much the rapey scene that got me but Bastien’s failure to acknowledge what he did. I also disliked the over-the-topness of the baddies and the suspense plot in general. That said, I found some of the scenes/dialogue between Bastien and Chloe romantic enough to keep the book indefinitely.

Hey Kat! thanks for coming by.

Yeah, the baddies were caricatures.

I love the way you put that …” indefinitely”.

@Victoria Janssen: Hi Victoria!

They aren’t about the man a real-life woman would necessarily want to marry; they’re about the fantasy of the deadly dangerous man who is brought low by a woman, and the action-movie rollercoaster fun of imagining What If. Or for another analogy, I read them like I read comics/manga, and consider them to have different “physics” than a regular contemporary novel. Cartoon Physics.

this raises the question of whether we shoudl even be evaluating such a book in terms of believability, or what kind of believability counts in this case. Is it more like Mission Impossible? where we enjoy it, but don’t need to believe Tom Cruise can hang on to a speeding train?

@Marianne McA: Hi Marianne! I am sorry it was not to your liking.

The contrast between being a good readable writer but not being able to write believably is an interesting one.

@willaful:

many of us as romance readers do frequently make a (conscious or unconscious) distinction in our heads about what is “allowable rape” and what isn’t. Do we accept what Bastien did because it wasn’t “rape-rape”?

Yeah, there is a very complex set of moral calibrations that go on when romance readers interface with forced seduction and rape in romance fiction. I am not even close to understanding it at all.

And you did NOT kill it!!!
@Janine:

Honestly, in this case, I don’t think I was captured by the story until they went on the run, so I don’t think I looked at it as not being rape because it was the hero.

I agree about that being a turning point in my interest as well. And also about Chloe’s realistic reaction, which made for some painful reading.

@Niveau: For me, I had to start looking at romance as sexual fantasy to understand female readers’ reaction to rape in it.

My more natural take is to look at it as literature, not as a vehicle for any specific physiological or emotional response.

Hey, thanks again everyone. What a treat to read all of these comments!

Believe me, I am the stunned beneficiary of the magic woo-woo effect:

This is too funny! On the one hand, I think the phrase was meant to convey a problem in the narrative, a shortcut. On the other, as Angela intimates, and Sherry says, there IS something magical, or at least irrational, or at least inexplicable, about loving a particular individual.

@willaful:

Thank you for the links!

@jillsorenson:

Jill, I am sorry I missed you! but I am glad to hear someone shares my unease with the first sex scene.

@Janine:

And speaking of her voice, the evolution of it over the years is one of the things I find most interesting. It’s become tighter and leaner and for me, more satisfying than it used to be.

Thanks for answering my question about Stuart’s voice across subgenres. I guess I found the prose in this book quite spare, and I thought that woudl not work well for historical, or at least I cannot think of a historical romance whose prose I would describe that way.

It may or may not have been rape, but either way, it was at least near-rape, and well, I just don’t know how many women would never try to get away from a man who violated them in a way they found devastating and sickening, even if their lives depended on him. I think sometimes there are very powerful emotions that take over and override all rational sense, and that is what I saw happening when Chloe went back to the apartment. IMO it is different from stupidity, because I find it human and understandable.

And I appreciate you connecting these two things so helpfully.

@heidenkind:

Anyway, I think the appeal of amoral heroes like Bastien is that, if they do something good or that’s not completely self-serving, you know it’s because the influence of heroine. That gives one the warm fuzzies.

I definitely think this is part of it. That fantasy of femininity, instead of making women victims to men, actually gives women power over men, to make them better.

@willaful:

This made me think of a personal theory I have, that much of the appeal of vampire romance is the appeal of having your own monster. Someone terribly dangerous who would never hurt you. In that interview, Stuart says she thinks of her heroes as being vampire-like.

I had lingered over that line too!!

And I think your analysis is right on. AND connected to Tasha’a point, which I just quoted.

@Sherry Thomas:

This book is all about the hero. Just about any pretty, scared, non-evil woman would do as the heroine. That non-specificity bothers me.

That’s what I expect from Hollywood movies, where men and stories about men are the norm. Where men get character arcs and women are just lures/obstacles/inspirations and completely interchangeable. Even in a movie as adorable as UP, the late wife was still this ideal of perfection, no character growth there.

But in books written by women for women, I really wish the heroines received some more TLC. That authors–good authors especially–don’t lavish all their attention on the hero and stop at “good enough” for the heroine.

I have been feeling lately like hero-centrism is a threat to the liberatory potential of the genre, but I don’t want to say too much about it because I worry about becoming a crank!

Of course, we want herocentric books, and when ti works for the story great, but there is a difference between a heroine whose character arc is less dramatic or shorter, and a 2 dimensional female stereotype (a la JR Ward’s heroines, or many heroines in paranormal series, with Meljean Brook’s being a very important exception).

@Bronwyn Parry:

The improbability of the plot did pull me out of the story a number of times. I can merrily suspend disbelief, but only to a certain extent before the internal critic starts commenting. However, I don’t really expect totally realistic plots in this sub-sub-genre corner of romantic suspense.

Welcome ! thank you for visiting! And I agree. But can you explain the extra “sub” here?

When I got to the end of the book, I did feel somewhat dissatisfied about the resolution. While I didn’t disbelieve the connection between Chloe and Bastien, I’d be far more convinced of a HEA if Bastien had gone off and worked on an Arctic icebreaker (or something similarly isolated and mentally and physically challenging) and if Chloe had finished a Master’s degree or worked for the UN or an NGO and generally gained a bit more experience of life – ie, if they’d both had time to understand themselves better and come to the relationship mature and mentally healthy.

I think this would have gone some way to making the HEA more believable, but I wonder if the starkness of Bastien’s character would have been sacrificed?