Review - "A Lady's Code of Misconduct"
Apr. 15th, 2017 09:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWhile reading this novel, I read a few reviews on Amazon. I've been avoiding reading reviews lately, because they don't tend to tell me one way or another whether "I" will "personally" like or love or hate a book. They do a splendid job, however, of telling me what some stranger that I've never met and possibly wouldn't like all that much if I did, and may even have a world view that is the polar opposite of mine, thought of it. Hardly helpful. But highly entertaining, at times.
You ever feel like we live a world that is overly concerned with flinging its opinion at you, regardless of whether you want it? And insisting, like a blind Lemming, you follow along? Maybe its just me.
Anyhow, the review I read basically despised this book because they felt it wasn't "romantic" enough and didn't spend enough time on the "romance". Since I was a midway through the book at the time I read the review, I questioned it, "wait, what book did you read? And are you certain you are leaving a review for the right book?" Because I've just read some heavily romantic scenes, and there is a lot of "I'm not sure we can be together" and "will she still love me when she figures out..." or "will he still love me when I tell him this.." Not to mention at least three explicit and beautifully written sex scenes. Duran is good at sex scenes, she's also of the "less is more camp" and doesn't feel the need to get overly graphic to the point that you feel like you are reading a manual on the act. And, she doesn't do that many, so it doesn't feel like the book is well, mainly about the erotic sex scenes and everything must lead to them. (Otherwise known as porn with plot, which was my quibble with a few others that I've read.) But she is romantic. The reviewer, felt that too much attention was spent on "politics" and she didn't want "politics". And while there was politics in the book -- the hero is a politician, an MP during the Victorian Age or the Romantic Age, can't quite tell which. You never can in these books -- they don't necessarily provide dates. But Disraeli is mentioned and it is after the India Revolt, so I'm thinking Victorian -- that's when Britain was colonizing India. (They were trying to do to India what they did to the US, Canada and Australia, it did not work. The Europeans did that a lot. They kept trying to acquire everyone else's property. ) Anyhow, while there's politics -- the romance takes precedence. The politics is just the motivating factor or what brings the characters together, and provides them with a puzzle or problem to solve -- in this case the penal system. Making me think that maybe the reviewer's issue was that either she disagreed with or was uncomfortable with the political issue being discussed/resolved and resented being forced to think about it. All she wanted was two people worrying about whether they will live happily ever after, and isn't that what the genre should be about?
Well, no. And there are plenty of books out there that are only about that. This isn't one of them. Which is among the reasons, I gave it four stars. If it had only been a romance, with none of the other, it would have gotten three stars. But I also agreed with the writer's world view and felt that her discussion of the penal code in the Victorian Age, where petty thieves received the same treatment as murderers was timely. It's unfortunately been a problem since BC, Jesus was crucified on the cross with petty thieves, political prisoners, people who disagreed with the government, enemies of the state, and murderers. We're still doing that today. It's a worthy issue to look it. It permeated Victorian Society much as it does our own. I applaud the writer for discussing it, and doing it in an interesting and somewhat innovative way. She wasn't over-the-top about it. And I felt she wove the plot, this issue, the themes of the story rather well -- making it more about the characters themselves than the plot. At no time, were the characters secondary or plot devices. In that way, I thought this book was far better than the last two romances that I read. (It's hard not to compare them in your head.)
Both characters are passionate and political creatures, they are complex, and struggling with their perceptions of themselves and the perceptions others have of them. When we first meet them, they are at odds. Crispin is pushing the heroine, Jane, to spy for him and to copy a letter regarding one name "Elland". In return, he'll give her the means to escape her horrible Uncle and Aunt, who are basically bleeding her for cash. She'd inherited her father's wealth, but it is held in trust until she marries, with a monthly allowance. They are stealing the allowance. They do come across as cardboard villains, one of my quibbles with genre stories is a tendency towards card-board villains.
Although Duran does try to flesh them out more than most --- these were more interesting and complicated than Ashe's villains. It's the services of an archbishop who is willing to forge a marriage certificate -- all she need do is supply the name. When he gets clobbered and falls into a coma, she puts his name on the certificate. Unfortunately, he comes out of the coma...there is where the story begins.
The story is an in-depth examination of these two people and their complicated relationship with one another and those around them. The penal code issue is used to examine them further. The writer also, through her story, comments on the idea of HEA, stating that there is no "happy ending" per se, but a series of little ones, followed by conflicts, and sweet beginnings. That life is a continuous cycle of coming together and apart, and it is love and loyalty that hold people together. Trust.
A lot of people are under the impression that romance is all about the HEA, that's the goal. But I've read a lot of romance novels over the years, and none of them really end "happily ever after". What we often get is a wedding, a baby, or years later the couple sitting by a tree reminiscing, and one dies in the others arms. Only fairy tales state that, and they are bit snarky about it. I mean you have to realize that a novel is a snippet of the character's lives, rarely their entire life. We get a portion of it.
The rest is left to our imagination. I have no idea what will happen next in Crispin and Jane's lives after the end. Any more than I know that answer in most novels. The ending of the characters lives - will be death, for they are mortal. That's the only ending that is certain.
So I enjoyed the novel for the reasons above and recommend it. With the caveat that it is a bit overly romantic, so may not be for folks who don't like that sort of thing.
You ever feel like we live a world that is overly concerned with flinging its opinion at you, regardless of whether you want it? And insisting, like a blind Lemming, you follow along? Maybe its just me.
Anyhow, the review I read basically despised this book because they felt it wasn't "romantic" enough and didn't spend enough time on the "romance". Since I was a midway through the book at the time I read the review, I questioned it, "wait, what book did you read? And are you certain you are leaving a review for the right book?" Because I've just read some heavily romantic scenes, and there is a lot of "I'm not sure we can be together" and "will she still love me when she figures out..." or "will he still love me when I tell him this.." Not to mention at least three explicit and beautifully written sex scenes. Duran is good at sex scenes, she's also of the "less is more camp" and doesn't feel the need to get overly graphic to the point that you feel like you are reading a manual on the act. And, she doesn't do that many, so it doesn't feel like the book is well, mainly about the erotic sex scenes and everything must lead to them. (Otherwise known as porn with plot, which was my quibble with a few others that I've read.) But she is romantic. The reviewer, felt that too much attention was spent on "politics" and she didn't want "politics". And while there was politics in the book -- the hero is a politician, an MP during the Victorian Age or the Romantic Age, can't quite tell which. You never can in these books -- they don't necessarily provide dates. But Disraeli is mentioned and it is after the India Revolt, so I'm thinking Victorian -- that's when Britain was colonizing India. (They were trying to do to India what they did to the US, Canada and Australia, it did not work. The Europeans did that a lot. They kept trying to acquire everyone else's property. ) Anyhow, while there's politics -- the romance takes precedence. The politics is just the motivating factor or what brings the characters together, and provides them with a puzzle or problem to solve -- in this case the penal system. Making me think that maybe the reviewer's issue was that either she disagreed with or was uncomfortable with the political issue being discussed/resolved and resented being forced to think about it. All she wanted was two people worrying about whether they will live happily ever after, and isn't that what the genre should be about?
Well, no. And there are plenty of books out there that are only about that. This isn't one of them. Which is among the reasons, I gave it four stars. If it had only been a romance, with none of the other, it would have gotten three stars. But I also agreed with the writer's world view and felt that her discussion of the penal code in the Victorian Age, where petty thieves received the same treatment as murderers was timely. It's unfortunately been a problem since BC, Jesus was crucified on the cross with petty thieves, political prisoners, people who disagreed with the government, enemies of the state, and murderers. We're still doing that today. It's a worthy issue to look it. It permeated Victorian Society much as it does our own. I applaud the writer for discussing it, and doing it in an interesting and somewhat innovative way. She wasn't over-the-top about it. And I felt she wove the plot, this issue, the themes of the story rather well -- making it more about the characters themselves than the plot. At no time, were the characters secondary or plot devices. In that way, I thought this book was far better than the last two romances that I read. (It's hard not to compare them in your head.)
Both characters are passionate and political creatures, they are complex, and struggling with their perceptions of themselves and the perceptions others have of them. When we first meet them, they are at odds. Crispin is pushing the heroine, Jane, to spy for him and to copy a letter regarding one name "Elland". In return, he'll give her the means to escape her horrible Uncle and Aunt, who are basically bleeding her for cash. She'd inherited her father's wealth, but it is held in trust until she marries, with a monthly allowance. They are stealing the allowance. They do come across as cardboard villains, one of my quibbles with genre stories is a tendency towards card-board villains.
Although Duran does try to flesh them out more than most --- these were more interesting and complicated than Ashe's villains. It's the services of an archbishop who is willing to forge a marriage certificate -- all she need do is supply the name. When he gets clobbered and falls into a coma, she puts his name on the certificate. Unfortunately, he comes out of the coma...there is where the story begins.
The story is an in-depth examination of these two people and their complicated relationship with one another and those around them. The penal code issue is used to examine them further. The writer also, through her story, comments on the idea of HEA, stating that there is no "happy ending" per se, but a series of little ones, followed by conflicts, and sweet beginnings. That life is a continuous cycle of coming together and apart, and it is love and loyalty that hold people together. Trust.
A lot of people are under the impression that romance is all about the HEA, that's the goal. But I've read a lot of romance novels over the years, and none of them really end "happily ever after". What we often get is a wedding, a baby, or years later the couple sitting by a tree reminiscing, and one dies in the others arms. Only fairy tales state that, and they are bit snarky about it. I mean you have to realize that a novel is a snippet of the character's lives, rarely their entire life. We get a portion of it.
The rest is left to our imagination. I have no idea what will happen next in Crispin and Jane's lives after the end. Any more than I know that answer in most novels. The ending of the characters lives - will be death, for they are mortal. That's the only ending that is certain.
So I enjoyed the novel for the reasons above and recommend it. With the caveat that it is a bit overly romantic, so may not be for folks who don't like that sort of thing.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-15 03:18 pm (UTC)But there was a point where HEA meant just that. I'm talking the old, old books. The couples got together, there was a wedding, a kiss -- and that was the end of the story. It was implied that they went on in bliss forever. Now, more and more, folks are writing stories where you get the feeling there are lives going on outside of what we see and some readers don't like it and are annoyed the writer isn't telling the tale "properly." Others cheer on the broader depth, that not everything is focused soley on the "Do I get the guy/girl?" Personally, I like the depth.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-15 08:03 pm (UTC)But there was a point where HEA meant just that. I'm talking the old, old books. The couples got together, there was a wedding, a kiss -- and that was the end of the story. It was implied that they went on in bliss forever. Now, more and more, folks are writing stories where you get the feeling there are lives going on outside of what we see and some readers don't like it and are annoyed the writer isn't telling the tale "properly." Others cheer on the broader depth, that not everything is focused soley on the "Do I get the guy/girl?" Personally, I like the depth.
Yeah, I like and prefer the depth as well. And tend to be more critical of the ones that shy away from that.
Someone asked me today why I sought out romance novels, particularly when I'm feeling lousy and depressed. (I tend to read them when I get depressed or frustrated. I read science fiction and fantasy, when I'm happy.)
Was it the HEA?
No. not really. I mean it is to a degree -- I like the happy ending. Knowing things will work out and the hope. But it's a combination of factors -- I like watching two people who think they'll never find love or love is impossible, finding it. Two wounded souls being healed through their love of each other, and handling the craziness around them.
There's something comforting about that. So, yeah, I need a happy ending of sorts, but I also need the wounded and troubled souls hunting it, and a bit more depth and plot going on in the background.
The Georgette Heyer novels which are more social critiques or comedies of manners, in the same vein as Jane Austen...work a little, but often lack some of the depth I need, also there's no sex in them...and ahem, I like the sex. ;-)
[ETA: I don't know why this keeps happening, but I've been noticing that I keep skipping over words when I write posts. I read the sentence after I've posted it, and think oops, a word is missing. How did I do that? I thought the word. But for some reason my fingers refused to type it.]
no subject
Date: 2017-04-15 09:11 pm (UTC)The Georgette Heyer novels which are more social critiques or comedies of manners, in the same vein as Jane Austen...work a little, but often lack some of the depth I need, also there's no sex in them...and ahem, I like the sex. ;-)
I know what you mean. ;) I've also had certain people tell me that there hasn't been a "true" Regency since Georgette Heyer, whom they preferred to Jane Austen. When Regency historicals came in, which allowed there to actually be, y'know, sex in the stories, there was much pearl clutching among that crowd.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-15 11:05 pm (UTC)I could never remember the plots or stories of the Regencies, I know I read them. But for the life of me I can't remember them. Now, Austen, I can remember. There was a bit more depth to the characters in her books -- you also had to work a bit more to read them. You don't have to work all that hard to read Heyer. Hence the gobbling.
Rosemary Rodgers pretty much changed the romance field. Along with Kathleen Woodliss (sp?), Fern Michaels, and several others whose names I forget, but I liked much better. The characters were better developed and dialogue was less stilted. They were also much more violent, graphic, all the action happened on the page, and lots of angst. And lots and lots of banter. (And ahem, "rape" or "seduction" that could be interpreted as rape...).
Although I think The Story of O and Erica John's Fear of Flying shocked a lot of people in the 60s and 70s. Sort of like what 50 Shades of Gray did a few years back, although 50 Shades was fairly tame in comparison to the stuff I read in the 1970s and 80s. Heck it was tame in comparison to 98% of the Spuffy fanfic I'd read.