![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatTook the day off and accomplished a few things - such as finally getting my taxes filed. Gets more and more complicated the older I get. Can't quite decide if that's because the government has added more rules and regulations, or the general state of my finances. I do them myself - it would be silly for me to spend oodles of cash a tax accountant, when there is such a thing as Turbo Tax.
Also finished Wicked Intentions by Elizabeth Hoyt which pretty much reads like a first novel. In this case a first novel that was reworked from, ahem, a Spuffy fanfic.
[A brief caveat - Nothing against fan fiction or fan fic. I happen to appreciate fan fiction. Some of the fan fiction that I've read and reviewed in this journal in much the same way that I've reviewed novels, is as good if not better than many of the published novels that I've read - for one very good reason, a metaphor blind publisher hasn't been able to get their dirty/grimy hands on it. Okay, maybe not so brief caveat...was watching the JD Salinger Documentary while doing my taxes this morning, and found it interesting how Salinger hated to get his work published. He continue to write 40 years after he stopped publishing his stories. In part because he didn't like what happened to his stories when they got published. One story that got published in Cosmopolitian Magazine, when it was still a literary magazine and not the fashion mag it is today, had the title changed. Salinger told the editor - he would permit them to publish his story on one condition - nothing could be changed, not one word. They changed the title. Now this may not seem that big a deal to some folks out there - but as a writer, I sympathize. Titles are important.
A writer often sweats over a title. Salinger's original title.."Scratchy Needle on a Phonograph Record" was changed to "Blue Medley" - the story was a tragic tale of an African-American Jazz Musician. The original title had poetry, it meant something. The change was a slick marketing device that made the story sound trite. Salinger was apoplectic when he discovered they'd done it. And the editor apologetic for not catching it.
There's a purity of voice in fiction, music, film that has not been touched by a distributor's marketing team's sticky fingers. I read recently about a musician who said the best performances and best music often occurs by accident in a rehearsal or in dive bar or amongst friends or apropos.
The critically claimed television shows - haven't been tinkered with by networks, they left them alone. The one's that aren't - have been. How do I know this? I read the interviews with the writers who tell us. Examples? Whedon stated that he was largely left alone on Buffy. The WB just had a list of things not to do, and made a few suggestions, but that was it for both Buffy and Angel. The UPN was even less involved, pretty much anything was permitted, except slamming potential advertisers. Vince Gilligan, David Milch, the writer of the Sopranoes, and Nic P of True Detective - also largely left alone by the network brass.
Not all that much tinkering.
Lost on the other hand? Tinkering. Once Upon A Time? Lots of tinkering. You can sort of tell, which ones have been tinkered with - just by looking at the casting choices. And which network it is on. (ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS tend to tinker - although CBS has left The Good Wife alone. The cable networks don't tinker - AMC doesn't at all.)
The TV series Nashville - is doing a marvelous job of slyly commenting on how tinkering in the music industry destroys music. In this week's episode, Juliette decided to nix all the big deals she got and go hat in hand to Rayna, who she knew would at least "respect" her as an artist and "respect" her artistic choices and not try to refashion her music into something else. Each musician on the series has run into this block - where the great corporate label wants to redesign or repackage their music to reach a mass audience.
Watering it down in the process.
JD Salinger had much the same reaction. The publishing industry wanted another Catcher in the Rye, but Salinger had other stories to tell. He didn't want to churn the same thing again. Or be repackaged.
The lovely thing about fan fiction - is it is a reaction to an original work, but it doesn't repackage it, so much as reinterpret it. It's an interaction. And some it can be quite good.
I grow weary of critiques on Good Reads, LJ, and Amazon which state - "God, it reads just like fan fiction!" Or this has the same quality as fan fiction. Or I've read better fan fiction than this. As if, something has to have a price tag attached to it - in order to be worthy? Seriously? Are we that money obsessed - that the only art that is worthwhile is art that is commercial? Shouldn't it be the exact opposite? Art for art's sake often has a joy, a vigor, a purity to it...that a commercial product does not. Or at the very least both?
Neither extreme? Reminds me of a Joni Mitchell song..."Played Real Good For Free".]
Anyhow - I've gotten away from my review and that was not a brief caveat. More a lengthy rant. Wicked Intentions is a romance set in the Regency period, at least I think it's the Regency period. Early 1700s? Which period is that? I guess I could Google it. No, not the Regency, King George I - is that the Georgian period? There appears to be a lot of King George's...so hard to tell. Maybe that's why it was called the Georgian Period - short-hand to handle all those King George's? [As an aside, I have not quite forgiven the US educational system for not focusing more on World History. I did get snatches of it - in Honors World Geography (which I adored) and in 5th and 6th grade social studies. Oh well, I could always study it now, I suppose.] And is it just me or were the British aristocracy not all that creative when it came to naming their offspring?
The thing about historical romance novels is the historical period tends to be less than accurate. If you are looking for an accurate accounting of history in a romance novel - you are most likely going to be disappointed. I tend to hand-wave it. Historical novels - I expect it, because hello, it's a historical novel...what's the point otherwise? Sure you can embellish here and there, but some historical accuracy is appreciated. In a historical romance, the romance is the point, the history is just there to make it possible or give it flavor.
So, the fact I could not tell which period this book was set in did not bug me all that much. I knew it was in England, somewhere in the distant past, when the aristocracy ruled everything, and wealthy men wore silly powdered wigs everywhere as some sort of deluded fashion statement. I think it was only Europeans who did this. [ETA: And Europeans who immigrated to the Americas and brought the silly idea with them, even if it was vastly impractical in the new world.]Possibly due to the fact that they seldom bathed and their normal hair was greasy? I have no idea why this was considered fashionable. (History experts? Or rather any historical fashion experts out there?)
The plot wanders a bit, because the writer is setting up her world and setting up multiple threads along with the central romance. So we have four subplots in addition to the central story. The central plot focuses on Lord Caire, aka Lazarus Huntington, a noble, no clue what his ranking is - we're not told. He's just a Lord. He's described as having sapphire eyes (it's a romance novel thing - people always have eyes that resemble jewels in romance novels), sliver hair (although we're told his eyebrows, chest, and pubic hair are black or dark brown...so either he bleaches it like Spike did, or it's just a genetic fluke - we're told a genetic fluke since his mother also has silver hair), and wears a long black coat or cape, and carries a stick that he fights with. Lord Caire believes he can't feel empathy or love. That he is incapable of it. And can't stand human touch - or can't feel it without pain. Except from the heroine. As a result of this difficulty he hires prostitutes to have sex with. He ties them up, puts a blind-fold on them, and has his way. His most recent mistress was murdered a few months back - found gutted in the rooms that he'd set her up in. So he's prowling the streets of St. Giles, a particularly nasty ghetto of London, hunting the murderer. It's on these streets that our less than noble, Lord Cair, stumbles upon Temperance Dews, a widow. Temperance runs a foundling home with her brother Winter Makepeace, who may or may not be the mysterious Ghost of St. Giles that haunts the streets at night saving the helpless. Winter is a variable saint, but a likable one, kudos to the writer for that - that is hard to pull off. Temperance is a bit of a martyr, or at least that's what Caire calls her.
Temperance stumbles upon Caire taking a baby home, a baby she's rescued or rather bought from the dastardly Mother Heart's Ease. Caire follows her home and requests that she aid him in his inquiries. Stating that she knows the area better than he does and the people better. But in actuality, it's just an excuse to get closer to her. Which he manages to do...with relative ease, since Temperance is a lusty widow, harboring a guilty secret. She agrees to help him in order to get aid for her foundling home, which is in desperate straits.
Caire and Temperance have a lot of sex, some of it kinky, in various locals, including his carriage. The sex is explicit (it is a romance novel). I liked it better than Judith Ivory, but it's not as good as Courtney Milan or Sherry Thomas. A wee bit repetitive and melodramatic for my taste. They also talk a lot about having sex and their issues. Not that much about the murder mystery, which sort of gets lost in the shuffle, then jumps back in again towards the end - although I did figure out who the killer was early on. That did track. It just was hard to care, since I'm not sure the characters really did.
Caire's conflict is he believes that he is a soulless bastard who is doomed to be alone and unloved due to bad parents, a loving if neglectful mother and a horrific father. Plus he lost the one person who did appear to love him unconditionally at an early age - so he fears reliving that. There's quite a few passages about his discovery that whoa, he can finally feel empathy for someone else - even if its just the woman he's having a rather passionate affair with. And whether or not Temperance has it in her to love a monster like him. (I found this rather unconvincing, since he's hunting his Mistress' killer, shows compassion towards his friend's situation, clearly feels anger towards his mother, and calls Temperance on her issues. The writer spent far too much time showing us how nice he is, and not enough building up the soulless monster with evil tendencies. Which is why I'm wondering if this was once a fan fic - because in fan fic, you can get away with that. )
Temperance's conflict is that she's lusty. She likes sex. Unfortunately her first husband did not like sex and had moral issues regarding sex. He was, not exactly a prude, just felt it was a holy experience that shouldn't be done that often. I guess he was being kind and caring, considering there was no birth control back then. (Which begs the question? Is Temperance sterile or just not very fertile?) As a result, Temperance, naughty girl that she is, was busy having a fling with the next door neighbor - when he husband was hit by brewer cart and killed. Crushed with guilt, she is punishing herself by working at the home, not allowing herself to love anyone, and as Lazarus comments having kinky sex with him. He accuses her of using him for sex. That's all he is to her - an instrument to punish herself with. And he can't handle it any more.
This did not work for me. In part because we spend half of the book with Lazarus pursuing Temperance, actively seducing her, and lusting after her. He also has long interior monologues about how he's a hawk and she's his prey. So now that he's fallen in love with her, despite his better judgement, he's decided because she's enjoying sex with him and doing the kinky stuff - that oh god, she's using him? Please. To his credit, he does state it's karmic. Or ironic. It may well be - but I didn't buy it. And his statement was rather insulting. Poor Temperance - he's spent all this time pushing her to admit her guilt, her secret, her shame, using sex to get it out of her - and when she finally does, he twists it around on her? (This bit made me think the writer had some unresolved S6 and S7 Spuffy issues.)
This splits them apart, and we're back to the murder mystery. Which gets resolved, but not before the home, a foundling that Temperance loves (Mary Whitsun) and all she holds dear is put in jeopardy. Realizing that Lazarus almost died for her, she declares her love. He declares his. They have a lot of sex. And get married. The foundling home
Okay that's the main story: the subplots -
1) Is the fairy tale that heads off each chapter - which I rather enjoyed and does work as an over-arching theme. It's about King Lockedheart who doesn't know what love is and learns that love is when you care enough about someone or something that when you set it free, you trust it will some day return to you.
2.) Temperance's sister Silence's plight. Silence's plight is built over the course of three books, the third one, it will be the central focus. It's a slow build. Silence is married to a merchant seaman, who upon his return leaves his cargo to be with his young wife. When he returns to his ship - the cargo is gone. Turns out that the dock pirate, Charming Mickey, took off with it - to teach the owner a lesson. Silence's husband wasn't the owner, just the shipper. But Mickey's actions could result in Silence's hubby going to jail, in either event, he's ruined. Desperate to save him, Silence bravely (if somewhat foolishly) decides to confront Charming Mickey in his palace on the docks (and it is a palace), and negotiate a deal of sorts to get the cargo returned. Charmed, Mickey agrees if Silence will spend the night in his bedroom, and when she leaves the next day, to completely un-string her boddice, and let down her hair - so it appears to all that see her that they slept together, even though they didn't. In short - she ruines her reputation to save her husband, and if he truly loves her - he'll believe she never slept with Mickey. Silence's hubby, shockingly, fails the test. But to his credit, so does everyone else. Her sister and Lazarus believe she was raped. Her brothers, the older two, think she whored herself and won't speak to her.
Anyhow, Silence's husband chooses to ship out, instead of work on his marriage. And someone leaves a baby on Silence's door-step.
3.) The Ghost of St. Giles. This is a guy in a harlequin costume, wearing a half-mask with a big nose, and using two knives, who prances about St. Giles at night. (He reminds me a bit of Scaramouche - another, but earlier take on the Scarlett Pimpernel.)
* Temperance thinks the Ghost might be her brother, or at least Nell does. Since her brother gets injured. And the Ghost looks a bit like him.
* Lazarus is convinced it's Godric St. John - his good friend.
That is until the fire - when The Ghost basically catches the murderer, while both Winter and Godric watch. (Knowing what I know about the future novels in the series, and the fact that the Lady Hero explains how her brother the Duke of Wakefield is currently out of town - I'm willing to bet money that in this novel it was the Duke. Also the Ghost's actions in the last part fit the Duke's personality, he's a bit stand-offish, and doesn't help with the fire, just the capture of the murderer.) The Duke hasn't appeared yet, that's in the next book. I also think all three may have been wandering about in this novel.
At any rate - both Winter and St. John get insightful bits...we learn more about the failing Clara, who St. John is enamored, but is desperately ill, and Winter's self-sacrifice.
I'd say the book is helpful in how it sets things up. But unless you have unresolved issues regarding the whole Spike/Buffy - you are using me for just sex bit/god you are a soulless monster...the main romance might not work for you. Also, I hate to say this - but this trope doesn't quite work here - like it did in Buffy or various fanfiction that I've read, mainly because Lazarus doesn't come across as evil or soulless, and Temperance doesn't quite come off as a martyr or holier than thou. Nor does she appear all that ashamed of Lazarus, who is above her in the class heirarchy anyhow and male in the 1700s, so has all the power here.
So, not sure I'd recommend or if so, with the above mentioned caveats.
Also finished Wicked Intentions by Elizabeth Hoyt which pretty much reads like a first novel. In this case a first novel that was reworked from, ahem, a Spuffy fanfic.
[A brief caveat - Nothing against fan fiction or fan fic. I happen to appreciate fan fiction. Some of the fan fiction that I've read and reviewed in this journal in much the same way that I've reviewed novels, is as good if not better than many of the published novels that I've read - for one very good reason, a metaphor blind publisher hasn't been able to get their dirty/grimy hands on it. Okay, maybe not so brief caveat...was watching the JD Salinger Documentary while doing my taxes this morning, and found it interesting how Salinger hated to get his work published. He continue to write 40 years after he stopped publishing his stories. In part because he didn't like what happened to his stories when they got published. One story that got published in Cosmopolitian Magazine, when it was still a literary magazine and not the fashion mag it is today, had the title changed. Salinger told the editor - he would permit them to publish his story on one condition - nothing could be changed, not one word. They changed the title. Now this may not seem that big a deal to some folks out there - but as a writer, I sympathize. Titles are important.
A writer often sweats over a title. Salinger's original title.."Scratchy Needle on a Phonograph Record" was changed to "Blue Medley" - the story was a tragic tale of an African-American Jazz Musician. The original title had poetry, it meant something. The change was a slick marketing device that made the story sound trite. Salinger was apoplectic when he discovered they'd done it. And the editor apologetic for not catching it.
There's a purity of voice in fiction, music, film that has not been touched by a distributor's marketing team's sticky fingers. I read recently about a musician who said the best performances and best music often occurs by accident in a rehearsal or in dive bar or amongst friends or apropos.
The critically claimed television shows - haven't been tinkered with by networks, they left them alone. The one's that aren't - have been. How do I know this? I read the interviews with the writers who tell us. Examples? Whedon stated that he was largely left alone on Buffy. The WB just had a list of things not to do, and made a few suggestions, but that was it for both Buffy and Angel. The UPN was even less involved, pretty much anything was permitted, except slamming potential advertisers. Vince Gilligan, David Milch, the writer of the Sopranoes, and Nic P of True Detective - also largely left alone by the network brass.
Not all that much tinkering.
Lost on the other hand? Tinkering. Once Upon A Time? Lots of tinkering. You can sort of tell, which ones have been tinkered with - just by looking at the casting choices. And which network it is on. (ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS tend to tinker - although CBS has left The Good Wife alone. The cable networks don't tinker - AMC doesn't at all.)
The TV series Nashville - is doing a marvelous job of slyly commenting on how tinkering in the music industry destroys music. In this week's episode, Juliette decided to nix all the big deals she got and go hat in hand to Rayna, who she knew would at least "respect" her as an artist and "respect" her artistic choices and not try to refashion her music into something else. Each musician on the series has run into this block - where the great corporate label wants to redesign or repackage their music to reach a mass audience.
Watering it down in the process.
JD Salinger had much the same reaction. The publishing industry wanted another Catcher in the Rye, but Salinger had other stories to tell. He didn't want to churn the same thing again. Or be repackaged.
The lovely thing about fan fiction - is it is a reaction to an original work, but it doesn't repackage it, so much as reinterpret it. It's an interaction. And some it can be quite good.
I grow weary of critiques on Good Reads, LJ, and Amazon which state - "God, it reads just like fan fiction!" Or this has the same quality as fan fiction. Or I've read better fan fiction than this. As if, something has to have a price tag attached to it - in order to be worthy? Seriously? Are we that money obsessed - that the only art that is worthwhile is art that is commercial? Shouldn't it be the exact opposite? Art for art's sake often has a joy, a vigor, a purity to it...that a commercial product does not. Or at the very least both?
Neither extreme? Reminds me of a Joni Mitchell song..."Played Real Good For Free".]
Anyhow - I've gotten away from my review and that was not a brief caveat. More a lengthy rant. Wicked Intentions is a romance set in the Regency period, at least I think it's the Regency period. Early 1700s? Which period is that? I guess I could Google it. No, not the Regency, King George I - is that the Georgian period? There appears to be a lot of King George's...so hard to tell. Maybe that's why it was called the Georgian Period - short-hand to handle all those King George's? [As an aside, I have not quite forgiven the US educational system for not focusing more on World History. I did get snatches of it - in Honors World Geography (which I adored) and in 5th and 6th grade social studies. Oh well, I could always study it now, I suppose.] And is it just me or were the British aristocracy not all that creative when it came to naming their offspring?
The thing about historical romance novels is the historical period tends to be less than accurate. If you are looking for an accurate accounting of history in a romance novel - you are most likely going to be disappointed. I tend to hand-wave it. Historical novels - I expect it, because hello, it's a historical novel...what's the point otherwise? Sure you can embellish here and there, but some historical accuracy is appreciated. In a historical romance, the romance is the point, the history is just there to make it possible or give it flavor.
So, the fact I could not tell which period this book was set in did not bug me all that much. I knew it was in England, somewhere in the distant past, when the aristocracy ruled everything, and wealthy men wore silly powdered wigs everywhere as some sort of deluded fashion statement. I think it was only Europeans who did this. [ETA: And Europeans who immigrated to the Americas and brought the silly idea with them, even if it was vastly impractical in the new world.]Possibly due to the fact that they seldom bathed and their normal hair was greasy? I have no idea why this was considered fashionable. (History experts? Or rather any historical fashion experts out there?)
The plot wanders a bit, because the writer is setting up her world and setting up multiple threads along with the central romance. So we have four subplots in addition to the central story. The central plot focuses on Lord Caire, aka Lazarus Huntington, a noble, no clue what his ranking is - we're not told. He's just a Lord. He's described as having sapphire eyes (it's a romance novel thing - people always have eyes that resemble jewels in romance novels), sliver hair (although we're told his eyebrows, chest, and pubic hair are black or dark brown...so either he bleaches it like Spike did, or it's just a genetic fluke - we're told a genetic fluke since his mother also has silver hair), and wears a long black coat or cape, and carries a stick that he fights with. Lord Caire believes he can't feel empathy or love. That he is incapable of it. And can't stand human touch - or can't feel it without pain. Except from the heroine. As a result of this difficulty he hires prostitutes to have sex with. He ties them up, puts a blind-fold on them, and has his way. His most recent mistress was murdered a few months back - found gutted in the rooms that he'd set her up in. So he's prowling the streets of St. Giles, a particularly nasty ghetto of London, hunting the murderer. It's on these streets that our less than noble, Lord Cair, stumbles upon Temperance Dews, a widow. Temperance runs a foundling home with her brother Winter Makepeace, who may or may not be the mysterious Ghost of St. Giles that haunts the streets at night saving the helpless. Winter is a variable saint, but a likable one, kudos to the writer for that - that is hard to pull off. Temperance is a bit of a martyr, or at least that's what Caire calls her.
Temperance stumbles upon Caire taking a baby home, a baby she's rescued or rather bought from the dastardly Mother Heart's Ease. Caire follows her home and requests that she aid him in his inquiries. Stating that she knows the area better than he does and the people better. But in actuality, it's just an excuse to get closer to her. Which he manages to do...with relative ease, since Temperance is a lusty widow, harboring a guilty secret. She agrees to help him in order to get aid for her foundling home, which is in desperate straits.
Caire and Temperance have a lot of sex, some of it kinky, in various locals, including his carriage. The sex is explicit (it is a romance novel). I liked it better than Judith Ivory, but it's not as good as Courtney Milan or Sherry Thomas. A wee bit repetitive and melodramatic for my taste. They also talk a lot about having sex and their issues. Not that much about the murder mystery, which sort of gets lost in the shuffle, then jumps back in again towards the end - although I did figure out who the killer was early on. That did track. It just was hard to care, since I'm not sure the characters really did.
Caire's conflict is he believes that he is a soulless bastard who is doomed to be alone and unloved due to bad parents, a loving if neglectful mother and a horrific father. Plus he lost the one person who did appear to love him unconditionally at an early age - so he fears reliving that. There's quite a few passages about his discovery that whoa, he can finally feel empathy for someone else - even if its just the woman he's having a rather passionate affair with. And whether or not Temperance has it in her to love a monster like him. (I found this rather unconvincing, since he's hunting his Mistress' killer, shows compassion towards his friend's situation, clearly feels anger towards his mother, and calls Temperance on her issues. The writer spent far too much time showing us how nice he is, and not enough building up the soulless monster with evil tendencies. Which is why I'm wondering if this was once a fan fic - because in fan fic, you can get away with that. )
Temperance's conflict is that she's lusty. She likes sex. Unfortunately her first husband did not like sex and had moral issues regarding sex. He was, not exactly a prude, just felt it was a holy experience that shouldn't be done that often. I guess he was being kind and caring, considering there was no birth control back then. (Which begs the question? Is Temperance sterile or just not very fertile?) As a result, Temperance, naughty girl that she is, was busy having a fling with the next door neighbor - when he husband was hit by brewer cart and killed. Crushed with guilt, she is punishing herself by working at the home, not allowing herself to love anyone, and as Lazarus comments having kinky sex with him. He accuses her of using him for sex. That's all he is to her - an instrument to punish herself with. And he can't handle it any more.
This did not work for me. In part because we spend half of the book with Lazarus pursuing Temperance, actively seducing her, and lusting after her. He also has long interior monologues about how he's a hawk and she's his prey. So now that he's fallen in love with her, despite his better judgement, he's decided because she's enjoying sex with him and doing the kinky stuff - that oh god, she's using him? Please. To his credit, he does state it's karmic. Or ironic. It may well be - but I didn't buy it. And his statement was rather insulting. Poor Temperance - he's spent all this time pushing her to admit her guilt, her secret, her shame, using sex to get it out of her - and when she finally does, he twists it around on her? (This bit made me think the writer had some unresolved S6 and S7 Spuffy issues.)
This splits them apart, and we're back to the murder mystery. Which gets resolved, but not before the home, a foundling that Temperance loves (Mary Whitsun) and all she holds dear is put in jeopardy. Realizing that Lazarus almost died for her, she declares her love. He declares his. They have a lot of sex. And get married. The foundling home
Okay that's the main story: the subplots -
1) Is the fairy tale that heads off each chapter - which I rather enjoyed and does work as an over-arching theme. It's about King Lockedheart who doesn't know what love is and learns that love is when you care enough about someone or something that when you set it free, you trust it will some day return to you.
2.) Temperance's sister Silence's plight. Silence's plight is built over the course of three books, the third one, it will be the central focus. It's a slow build. Silence is married to a merchant seaman, who upon his return leaves his cargo to be with his young wife. When he returns to his ship - the cargo is gone. Turns out that the dock pirate, Charming Mickey, took off with it - to teach the owner a lesson. Silence's husband wasn't the owner, just the shipper. But Mickey's actions could result in Silence's hubby going to jail, in either event, he's ruined. Desperate to save him, Silence bravely (if somewhat foolishly) decides to confront Charming Mickey in his palace on the docks (and it is a palace), and negotiate a deal of sorts to get the cargo returned. Charmed, Mickey agrees if Silence will spend the night in his bedroom, and when she leaves the next day, to completely un-string her boddice, and let down her hair - so it appears to all that see her that they slept together, even though they didn't. In short - she ruines her reputation to save her husband, and if he truly loves her - he'll believe she never slept with Mickey. Silence's hubby, shockingly, fails the test. But to his credit, so does everyone else. Her sister and Lazarus believe she was raped. Her brothers, the older two, think she whored herself and won't speak to her.
Anyhow, Silence's husband chooses to ship out, instead of work on his marriage. And someone leaves a baby on Silence's door-step.
3.) The Ghost of St. Giles. This is a guy in a harlequin costume, wearing a half-mask with a big nose, and using two knives, who prances about St. Giles at night. (He reminds me a bit of Scaramouche - another, but earlier take on the Scarlett Pimpernel.)
* Temperance thinks the Ghost might be her brother, or at least Nell does. Since her brother gets injured. And the Ghost looks a bit like him.
* Lazarus is convinced it's Godric St. John - his good friend.
That is until the fire - when The Ghost basically catches the murderer, while both Winter and Godric watch. (Knowing what I know about the future novels in the series, and the fact that the Lady Hero explains how her brother the Duke of Wakefield is currently out of town - I'm willing to bet money that in this novel it was the Duke. Also the Ghost's actions in the last part fit the Duke's personality, he's a bit stand-offish, and doesn't help with the fire, just the capture of the murderer.) The Duke hasn't appeared yet, that's in the next book. I also think all three may have been wandering about in this novel.
At any rate - both Winter and St. John get insightful bits...we learn more about the failing Clara, who St. John is enamored, but is desperately ill, and Winter's self-sacrifice.
I'd say the book is helpful in how it sets things up. But unless you have unresolved issues regarding the whole Spike/Buffy - you are using me for just sex bit/god you are a soulless monster...the main romance might not work for you. Also, I hate to say this - but this trope doesn't quite work here - like it did in Buffy or various fanfiction that I've read, mainly because Lazarus doesn't come across as evil or soulless, and Temperance doesn't quite come off as a martyr or holier than thou. Nor does she appear all that ashamed of Lazarus, who is above her in the class heirarchy anyhow and male in the 1700s, so has all the power here.
So, not sure I'd recommend or if so, with the above mentioned caveats.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-03-10 06:07 pm (UTC)And, yeah, Hoyt seems to write all of hers (I've read to date) during the Georgian period.
I tend to keep it straight in my head primarily through having taken a crap-load of History of Art and Architecture courses in college {I was like one credit short of a double major. I was the type who took history for electives}. As well as through remembering the movie "The Madness of King George" which showed the way that King George III had severe mental issues, one of the manisfestations of which was his obsessing over the loss of the American Revolution (thus giving me an easily contextural set of dates to associate). Years after the Revolution George III was declared incompetent, with his son assuming the control of the country while George III was still alive (hence it being a "Regency" as the country was being controled by the Prince Regent rather than the King).
Er... yeah, I took a metric ton of history in college (World history, Tech and Civ, Art History, Architectural History, Interior Design History, etc.) Plus, I still tend to read a crap load of history. It's one of the reasons I think I gravitate toward historical romances. I don't expect historical accuracy by any means (and laugh when people do so) but I do enjoy the various 'locales' as it were.
Hoyt does consistently graphic sex. All of her books have very highly graphic sex scenes... but I like them, so :shrug: (In two of them I noted that she really followed the axiom of some link I used to have of "how to write a sex scene" where the advice was that the scene shouldn't come after resolving an issue but should the PROCESS of resolving an issue. Two of my favorite love scenes (in two different books) were text book examples of the love scene being the method of resolving an issue and that therefore making it work better as a scene.
whether or not Temperance has it in her to love a monster like him. (I found this rather unconvincing, since he's hunting his Mistress' killer
I'm trying to remember what book I read it in (I do not think it was a Hoyt book) where there's a passing thought re: a hero who 'cannot love' where the heroine concludes that he's got it wrong. It's the IDEA of love that he balks at and rejects because she notes that as far as the actions of love (being attentive, listening, giving, etc.) He performs all the time without thought. So it was more a mental barrier than a real one. (Don't have any idea who wrote that though.)
I can see from your summary why I haven't read this particular one of her novels. It doesn't sound like it is really one of my preferred tropes (which if it's Spuffy-inspired is funny since I'm such a Spuffy. Spuffy means so many different things to different people. That part of Spuffy wasn't what really got to me. :) The souless monster debate feels meta. Parsing that was a fandom thing for years, but soulless Spike never thought of it. In his own eyes, he was a die-hard romantic. Prior to the Seeing Red Clem crypt-scene, I don't think Spike gave it a single (serious) thought. -- no matter how much cyber-ink fandom spilled over it. For him, it was a blind spot.)
I may yet get around to this book someday, but I may take a while, though.
As it stands, my favorite Hoyt novels have been Winter's story, Lord and Lady Vale's story, and the "Beast" story.
no subject
Date: 2014-03-10 06:57 pm (UTC)Yep, felt much the same way at the end of House.
I don't mind something being 'like fanfiction' if it's good fanfiction.
Feel much the same way. I don't think this book was necessarily good fanfic. (ie. I've read the same set-up better elsewhere. I think unbridled_brunette did it better...can't remember. It was either her or herself_nyc or rarihah who did it.) Anyhow, it didn't quite work for me here - and I'm not completely sure why. I think there was something lacking in the characterization. Too much telling not enough showing - which happens a lot with fanfic. In which the writer relies on the viewers knowledge of Spike and Buffy's backstories, so doesn't feel the need to show all that? That's sort of what it felt like - like I was missing a portion of the story?
Two of my favorite love scenes (in two different books) were text book examples of the love scene being the method of resolving an issue and that therefore making it work better as a scene.
I know exactly what you're talking about. [Caveat - I tend to like explicit sex scenes in books. Certainly read enough of them (grins).] Prefer it when it's done in a way that furthers the characters and plot, and resolves an issue. As opposed for just titillation purposes. (I've read both). Here? She tries to use it to resolve an issue, but I'm not quite sure it works. But again I think this may be one of her first novels? It feels sort of rough in some respects.
It's the IDEA of love that he balks at and rejects because she notes that as far as the actions of love (being attentive, listening, giving, etc.) he performs all the time without thought. So it was more a mental barrier than a real one.
Yes, to a degree, that's the idea I think the writer was playing with.
Except the hero has idealized love - he wants the poet's take on love, and sees it as an expression not necessarily an action.
His mother puts it to him best, and I rather liked this statement:" Keep in mind that just because someone doesn't always express their love for you, doesn't mean they don't necessarily feel it." (Or something along those lines.)
In this book - the heroine can't tell him she loves him or express her feelings for him. So he assumes she doesn't. She finally does tell him and then expresses it via a kinky sexual act, which she'd previously asked him to perform on her - and had sort of broken them up, because he decided she had him do it to punish herself for being lusty (ie sleeping with another man (not the hero) while married, and having her husband die while it happened). The kinky sex act is that he ties people up, covers their eyes, and has sex fully clothed, while they are naked. She expresses her love for him, by tying him up, having him fully naked, with a blindfold, and doing to him what he'd done to her. (The hero has an aversion to being touched, it causes him pain - she figures out that this is a mental block or coping mechanism and relates to trust.) What I'm not certain of - is that this expression really was what the hero needed? It was sort of contradictory in that the hero had previously figured out that this sexual kink no longer worked for him with the heroine, that he preferred that they both see each other and both touch while making love. And they'd been making love by touching and both being naked. So why all of a sudden?
I've seen this trope oddly enough...done better in 50 Shades of Grey, where the hero can't bare being touched, and he ties the heroine up for sex always. Makes it impossible for her to touch him. Until she begins to force the issue and get across that he has to trust her in this way or there's no future. While Shades of Grey is by no means a good book and the hero/heroine are definitely more relateable/layered and likable in Hoyt's novel - the writer did do a far better job of resolving this issue sexually and handling it. I'm not sure Hoyt handled it well.