Eh...Wed Reading Meme..
Dec. 3rd, 2014 10:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWill state one thing, reading all these romance novels is making me feel better about my own novel, which, ahem, I've been editing at work. Doing a lot of second guessing.
I really need a good line editor - commas, semicolons, and colons are my nemesis. Not helped by the controversy regarding - when to put a comma before "and". Some people believe you don't in a line, others that you do. Depends on whether you were a English major or a Marketing major. I pretty much know the rules intuitively, but there are places where they make no logical sense. Math is similar - the rules that make logical sense to me, I remember, the one's that don't, I don't remember. But how to find a good line editor - that doesn't cost an arm and a leg? Should I just go through Create Space and use theirs? Book is 92,624 words. Anyone know of any good betas?
On the book front, my mother and I discuss books over the phone. Let's just say that I come by my eclectic reading tastes naturally. She just finished Phillip Meyer's August Rust (which she doesn't recommend, The Son is a heck of a lot better). And The Rosie Project, which she didn't like as much as everyone else seems to, including Bill Gates of all people. The Rosie Project interestingly enough started out as a screenplay, when it didn't get picked up, the writer turned it into a novel. My mother's issue with it was that it relied heavily on "embarrassment humor", which makes us both cringe. We both associate embarrassment humor closely with bullying which is why we hate it. Did give me an epithany regarding bullying; I can't help but wonder if most bullies are just bad practical jokers? They don't really see themselves as bullies so much as just making a joke, albeit at someone else's expense?
Humor can be cruel and sadistic, after all.
1. What I just finished reading?
Bound to Your Touch by Meredith Duran - it's okay. I like Duran's writing style - mainly because her focus is on character, and usually their internal lives and voice. Often using the plot as a way to examine their familial and personal hang-ups. In this case both characters have to find a way to forgive themselves for being duped by relatives that they loved deeply, and who either betrayed or disappointed them. The plot, which is largely in the background, is the heroine's father, an Egyptologist as is the heroine, who was educated - it's the Victorian era, is smuggling gems through his antiquities shipments. The antiquities shipments that are frauds. He's doing it to fund his expeditions and his daughter's livelihood. The heroine feels rather betrayed by this and can't bring herself to forgive at the end of the book. Yet, she is somehow able to finally forgive or at least understand why her sister stole her beau. So progress. The hero is forced to come to terms with why his sister has chosen to stay in an insane asylum. For most of the book he believes his father is behind it all. But no, it's her choice. The sister had gotten into a rather abusive marriage. I like what Duran does here - she comments on the Alpha male/domineering romance trope - the sister thought she could change her husband, that he would get better after she married him, even though her brother strongly warned her against it. But no, instead he beat her, until she stabbed him in self-defense. She left him once, her father sent her back (the time period), but her brother did offer to help her get out of the marriage - but she denied his aid.
The brother blames himself for what happened. But the sister, and this is interesting, tells him that he had no control over what happened. She entered into the relationship against his advice. She knew what her husband was. And when she had an opportunity to leave him - she didn't. She has to figure out why that is - before she can trust herself out in the world again. I found that bit intriguing.
2. What you are Reading now?
Written on Your Skin by Meredith Duran - in some respects this is better than Bound to Your Touch, in other's its slower or drags more. Odd. But there it is.
This is the sequel to Bond, Phineas and Mina are initially introduced in Bound, and various Amazon reviewers were disappointed in how they are portrayed in the sequel.
I wasn't. I actually find these two characters more complex and interesting than the one's in Bound, and more subversive. Mina - for all appearances is the society dame, a feather-brained, bubble-headed classic damsel in distress - tiny, doll-like, fragile, blue-eyed, plantium blond hair...but in reality this all just a facade which she uses to her advantage. She's calculating and ruthless. She has to be. And she fears becoming her mother - a victim, a frail butterfly who depends on abusive men.
Mina - wants no part of men, marriage, or dependency. She's her own woman. She decides to lose her virginity to a man in New York - in order to be "ruined", so that men will stop asking for her hand in marriage, and people will stop asking when she will get married. She runs a successful business, and has little patience for the British aristocracy or class system. Phineas...was born poor, studied and aspired to become a map-maker, got roped into becoming a spy against his will - because he had a talent for it, and finally got out of the spy business when he inherited his cousin's Earldom. He fears becoming his abusive, alcoholic father. On the surface, he appears to be your typical Alpha Male Rakish hero, but in reality..that too is just a facade. The two of them lead a marry dance as they ride across the countryside in search of Mina's kidnapped mother.
Reviewers on Amazon disliked the story because it didn't have enough "romance" (I'm guessing hearts and flowers) and the characters are rather abrasive and prickily for a romance novel - while I'm rather enjoying it for well those reasons. This happens to me a lot with reviewers - I often love a book for all the reasons they hate it, and hate a book for all the reasons they love it. At times, I think, my taste appears to be at odds with the general populace at large. Hmm.
3. ) What I'll be reading next?
Eh, no clue. Whatever the spirit moves me to read, I expect. Certainly have picked up enough to choose from. Latest group? Prince of Moonlight or Midnight (can't remember which) by Laura Kinsale, about a legendary highwayman, who has become a bit of a recluse with a wolf for a pet and the lady who seeks him out to obtain revenge - gets disappointed, and decides to do it without his help - but he falls for her, and decides to help, regardless. (Hmmm...did the writer watch LadyHawk prior to writing this?), then there's her novel about an absent-minded but brilliant inventor and her knight in shining armor who is having one devil of a time keeping her safe, mainly from herself. (Moonlight something or other). Talk Sweetly to Me by Courtney Milan which features a black heroine. Then..the Lori Brighton ones with the male prostitutes..and female madam.
I honestly think by the end of this year, I will have managed to have read every possible romance novel out there.
Considered trying a Pulitizer prize winning one by Laurie something or other, entitled Foreign Affairs, which I never heard of. But it sounded rather dull - about academics. This is the problem with a lot of literary writers - as my father once stated - they, like all writers, tend to write about what they know - and all they know is academia. Which is okay, if you are into reading books about academia.
As you can see - while my reading taste may be largely eclectic...at the moment it doesn't appear to be, but if you've been reading this blog since 2003 or thereabouts, you'll realize it is, the one consistency is that I am into characters. It's how I write as well. I care most about characters. I build their inner lives in my head.
The plot generates from them or flows as I write, but the characters are first.
If a story doesn't have characters that appeal to me on some level or speak to me, I'm out of there. They don't have to be likable, which is largely subjective and for me, at least, mood based anyhow, but they do have to be interesting.
I really need a good line editor - commas, semicolons, and colons are my nemesis. Not helped by the controversy regarding - when to put a comma before "and". Some people believe you don't in a line, others that you do. Depends on whether you were a English major or a Marketing major. I pretty much know the rules intuitively, but there are places where they make no logical sense. Math is similar - the rules that make logical sense to me, I remember, the one's that don't, I don't remember. But how to find a good line editor - that doesn't cost an arm and a leg? Should I just go through Create Space and use theirs? Book is 92,624 words. Anyone know of any good betas?
On the book front, my mother and I discuss books over the phone. Let's just say that I come by my eclectic reading tastes naturally. She just finished Phillip Meyer's August Rust (which she doesn't recommend, The Son is a heck of a lot better). And The Rosie Project, which she didn't like as much as everyone else seems to, including Bill Gates of all people. The Rosie Project interestingly enough started out as a screenplay, when it didn't get picked up, the writer turned it into a novel. My mother's issue with it was that it relied heavily on "embarrassment humor", which makes us both cringe. We both associate embarrassment humor closely with bullying which is why we hate it. Did give me an epithany regarding bullying; I can't help but wonder if most bullies are just bad practical jokers? They don't really see themselves as bullies so much as just making a joke, albeit at someone else's expense?
Humor can be cruel and sadistic, after all.
1. What I just finished reading?
Bound to Your Touch by Meredith Duran - it's okay. I like Duran's writing style - mainly because her focus is on character, and usually their internal lives and voice. Often using the plot as a way to examine their familial and personal hang-ups. In this case both characters have to find a way to forgive themselves for being duped by relatives that they loved deeply, and who either betrayed or disappointed them. The plot, which is largely in the background, is the heroine's father, an Egyptologist as is the heroine, who was educated - it's the Victorian era, is smuggling gems through his antiquities shipments. The antiquities shipments that are frauds. He's doing it to fund his expeditions and his daughter's livelihood. The heroine feels rather betrayed by this and can't bring herself to forgive at the end of the book. Yet, she is somehow able to finally forgive or at least understand why her sister stole her beau. So progress. The hero is forced to come to terms with why his sister has chosen to stay in an insane asylum. For most of the book he believes his father is behind it all. But no, it's her choice. The sister had gotten into a rather abusive marriage. I like what Duran does here - she comments on the Alpha male/domineering romance trope - the sister thought she could change her husband, that he would get better after she married him, even though her brother strongly warned her against it. But no, instead he beat her, until she stabbed him in self-defense. She left him once, her father sent her back (the time period), but her brother did offer to help her get out of the marriage - but she denied his aid.
The brother blames himself for what happened. But the sister, and this is interesting, tells him that he had no control over what happened. She entered into the relationship against his advice. She knew what her husband was. And when she had an opportunity to leave him - she didn't. She has to figure out why that is - before she can trust herself out in the world again. I found that bit intriguing.
2. What you are Reading now?
Written on Your Skin by Meredith Duran - in some respects this is better than Bound to Your Touch, in other's its slower or drags more. Odd. But there it is.
This is the sequel to Bond, Phineas and Mina are initially introduced in Bound, and various Amazon reviewers were disappointed in how they are portrayed in the sequel.
I wasn't. I actually find these two characters more complex and interesting than the one's in Bound, and more subversive. Mina - for all appearances is the society dame, a feather-brained, bubble-headed classic damsel in distress - tiny, doll-like, fragile, blue-eyed, plantium blond hair...but in reality this all just a facade which she uses to her advantage. She's calculating and ruthless. She has to be. And she fears becoming her mother - a victim, a frail butterfly who depends on abusive men.
Mina - wants no part of men, marriage, or dependency. She's her own woman. She decides to lose her virginity to a man in New York - in order to be "ruined", so that men will stop asking for her hand in marriage, and people will stop asking when she will get married. She runs a successful business, and has little patience for the British aristocracy or class system. Phineas...was born poor, studied and aspired to become a map-maker, got roped into becoming a spy against his will - because he had a talent for it, and finally got out of the spy business when he inherited his cousin's Earldom. He fears becoming his abusive, alcoholic father. On the surface, he appears to be your typical Alpha Male Rakish hero, but in reality..that too is just a facade. The two of them lead a marry dance as they ride across the countryside in search of Mina's kidnapped mother.
Reviewers on Amazon disliked the story because it didn't have enough "romance" (I'm guessing hearts and flowers) and the characters are rather abrasive and prickily for a romance novel - while I'm rather enjoying it for well those reasons. This happens to me a lot with reviewers - I often love a book for all the reasons they hate it, and hate a book for all the reasons they love it. At times, I think, my taste appears to be at odds with the general populace at large. Hmm.
3. ) What I'll be reading next?
Eh, no clue. Whatever the spirit moves me to read, I expect. Certainly have picked up enough to choose from. Latest group? Prince of Moonlight or Midnight (can't remember which) by Laura Kinsale, about a legendary highwayman, who has become a bit of a recluse with a wolf for a pet and the lady who seeks him out to obtain revenge - gets disappointed, and decides to do it without his help - but he falls for her, and decides to help, regardless. (Hmmm...did the writer watch LadyHawk prior to writing this?), then there's her novel about an absent-minded but brilliant inventor and her knight in shining armor who is having one devil of a time keeping her safe, mainly from herself. (Moonlight something or other). Talk Sweetly to Me by Courtney Milan which features a black heroine. Then..the Lori Brighton ones with the male prostitutes..and female madam.
I honestly think by the end of this year, I will have managed to have read every possible romance novel out there.
Considered trying a Pulitizer prize winning one by Laurie something or other, entitled Foreign Affairs, which I never heard of. But it sounded rather dull - about academics. This is the problem with a lot of literary writers - as my father once stated - they, like all writers, tend to write about what they know - and all they know is academia. Which is okay, if you are into reading books about academia.
As you can see - while my reading taste may be largely eclectic...at the moment it doesn't appear to be, but if you've been reading this blog since 2003 or thereabouts, you'll realize it is, the one consistency is that I am into characters. It's how I write as well. I care most about characters. I build their inner lives in my head.
The plot generates from them or flows as I write, but the characters are first.
If a story doesn't have characters that appeal to me on some level or speak to me, I'm out of there. They don't have to be likable, which is largely subjective and for me, at least, mood based anyhow, but they do have to be interesting.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Grammar
Date: 2014-12-08 07:40 pm (UTC)Michael Drout has an interesting Audible lecture on it. (He does lots of Audible lectures. He has one on English language, debate/rhetoric, Tolkein, Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature, and the Anglo-Saxonx, etc.)
But, yeah, Latin grammar was introduced at Oxford because they wanted to fomalize English and because there was a bias for thinking that Greek and Latin trumped something as bastardized as English. Therefore we've ended up with rules that sometimes have nothing to do with the way the English language developed. One example is ending a sentence with a preposition. In Latin you literally cannot end a sentence with a preposition. In English you can. Not only can you, but sometimes you have to torture a sentence so as NOT to end it in a preposition. That's because in the base languages that English developed from, ending in preposition was not a problem. This is a rule that came only in the last couple of centuries, and did not evolve from the language, but from taking rules and simply imposing them.
It's been a while since I listened to the lecture, but it was quite interesting.
Re: Grammar
Date: 2014-12-08 11:53 pm (UTC)Ah. My pain in trying not to end sentences with prepositions is now explained. Well, not all the time.
Right now, I'm having fun with these critters:
Semicolon
Colon
Comma
Hyphen
Have actually gotten better at it - most likely all those years writing precise legal contracts, memos, technical statement of works, financial justifications, and business letters at work. Also, blogging helps - I have a lot of pedants who pop up on my flist. LOL!! Made me a wee bit self-conscious.