Back cover gets the hero's last name completely wrong
What the Lady Wants (excerpts and buying info here) was published in June 1995, and was named 1995 AOL Best Category Romance Novel (Remember AOL?)
Literary Times Outstanding Contemporary for 1995.
Here are some of Crusie’s notes:
Original Title: Whatever MaeBelle Wants
Writing Note: This book was born when an editor and I discovered we both loved the Thin Man films, and I started wondering how Nick and Nora might have met. After that, I lost my grip on the original idea as usual, but it was a fun way to begin. I almost cut the pipeline scene, because it didn’t move the plot or develop character, but wiser heads prevailed.
The book opens in classic detective movie fashion: the private eye sitting at his messy desk in a seedy part of town, the sweltering heat, the hot babe who strolls in asking for help. He’s one paycheck away from bankruptcy and she’s trouble, but attractive trouble, so before he knows it, Mitch Peatwick is off and running as Mae Sullivan’s boy Friday. Mae’s Uncle Armand has died, and she thinks he’s been murdered. Luckily, Armand kept a diary which should be chock full of cluses, but of course it’s gone missing. Mae hires Mitch to help her find it.
Of course, nothing is as it seems. Armand died in his sleep, and Mitch is actually a stock broker pretending to be a detective on a bet. But there is lots of money at stake, the Sullivan family is quite terrifying, Mae’s ex husband shows up, there’s a beautiful mistress named Stormy Weather, and a genuine, if slightly goofy, mystery surrounding the diary and what it may reveal. Mae and Mitch’s attitude towards marriage, the overcoming of which is the main obstacle to love for both of them, are made clear in chapter one:
Mitch: “You’re thirty-four?”
Mae: “I’m thirty-four.”
Mitch: “You don’t look thirty-four.”
“That’s because I’m not married.” Mae’s smile felt as if it were set in concrete. “Marriage tends to age a woman.”
“Doesn’t do much for a man, either.”
“Actually it does. Married men live longer than single men.”
“It just seems longer.” He leaned back in his chair and surveyed her with patent cynicism.
Mae’s family is actually pretty interesting. When she was young, her parents died in a car crash and she was sent to live with her Uncle Armand, a real bastard — by which I mean a recognizably real one, not the sinister eeeevil fake kind. The housekeepers are her surrogate parents, and Mae just wants to find the missing money to help take care of them (“they raised me. They need me. they count on me. I owe them.”). I’m finding a consistent antagonism to accumulating wealth for wealth’s sake in early Crusie, making Mae’s noble goal consistent with this author’s moral universe. All of the characters, from Mae’s brutish, lustful cousin Carlo, to her cold, “fish eyed” Uncle Claud are fun to meet.
There are gunshots, but never any real danger, and the tone is quite zippy and light throughout. Trademark Crusie, many scenes have several talky characters coming in and out, slapsticky action taking place, interruptions, talking while trying to do other things, bam bam bam pacing.
Mitch’s back story is less interesting: he became a detective almost a year ago on a dare, and if he ends the year in the black, he will have won the bet. He’s mostly just a really good guy. To be honest, neither Mae nor Mitch has much growing up to do outside of jettisoning their wrong ideas about love so they can fall in love with each other. Mae had been married once (older heroine, has a real romantic past) and now swears off love, while Mitch is allergic to commitment for no apparent reason (“I think marriage is sacred, which is why I never do it.”).
Like many Crusie heroes, Mitch’s only flaw is immaturity about love and woman. He spouts biological theories as to why men must “explore the West” (a funny euphemism for sleeping with a lot of women) and women always want to settle down. His “perfect” woman is always available for sex and never argues. They begin by being strongly attracted to one another, but, certain that’s a bad idea, they move towards love almost by accident.
A persistent theme in this book is the tension between being interdependent and being dependent. Mae thinks, “for me, love is a partnership”, and even Mitch knows that “Mae would go ballistic at the thought of anyone taking care of her”. Eventually Mitch abandons the librarian fantasy, recognizing the benefit of loving “somebody who would meet him toe to toe, for the rest of his life, on her own terms.” Mae learns to separate unhealthy dependence from healthy interdependence, too: “It was the way he took care of her by not taking care of her, the way he trusted her to take care of herself.”
I enjoyed this one. I liked both Mae and Mitch, I thought the plot was interesting and funny without being ridiculous, the sexual tension was definitely there, and Mae and Mitch grew from like to love in a believable way.
Related posts:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jessica Tripler. Jessica Tripler said: Review: What the Lady Wants, by Jennifer Crusie – http://tinyurl.com/2b6ww8k [...]
This was my first Crusie. I actually ordered Faking It first but it was taking too long to arrive by mail so I drove to the bookstore and bought this one. (Patience is not my strong suit). I read this book in one sitting, in one night and it was an auspicious start to my Crusie addiction.
I really enjoy the chemistry between Mitch and Mae and the scene where he’s driving to get to her house is hilarious. This book is full of great scenes like that.
Personally I prefer the original title “Whatever MaeBelle Wants.” So much so I have on occasion forgotten what the real title of this book was.
As I’ve been reading these posts, I a) have surfed to the library to put some e/audiobooks on hold, and b) have kept thinking about how JC and Nora Roberts are similar. (a and b are probably related–both these authors are well-served by audio, in my experience, and my library has a lot of both among a fairly limited selection).
I think what’s niggling at me is this:
And what you said in an earlier post about Crusie not being very emotional, which I’ve also felt about the Roberts I’ve encountered–maybe because of audio, which I find somewhat distancing.
The NR I’ve listened to is mostly romantic suspense, and what’s struck me is how her heroines tend to be really strong and independent. The heroes have to respect that–be able to help/support but not get too alpha over-protective–and the heroines have to learn that they can accept help and companionship without being weak. You can want someone, and be better off with them, without needing them and being unable to survive without them. Though Crusie’s heroines often seem goofy and disorganized on the surface, they seem to me to have that same independence. They’d be OK on their own, even if they’re happy to find love in the end. I like that about both these writers.
I think maybe that’s where the “not very emotional” part comes from. In really angsty romances, I find the characters often seem co-dependent, not inter-dependent. Maybe the opposite of Crusie is a classic Harlequin Presents, with its alpha/doormat pairing. I’d have to think about this a lot more to know if I really believe it.
Happy New Year, Jessica! Your blog has been one of my great pleasures in the past year.
Or he says so, anyway. I find one of the interesting aspects of Crusie books is tracking who’s saying things that are bluster, who’s knowingly saying things they don’t mean, and who’s saying things that reveal something they haven’t figured out for themselves.
@RfP: Yes, absolutely!