The only thing I can think of to compare it to, history-wise, for my level of not-caring, is troop movements on the battlefield. But I don't have to think about that when writing historical romance. I kinda need to know something about clothing, though my books are still not going to satisfy people who love clothes porn. Though I do like jewelry, so I do dwell on that a little, so maybe that will make up for it.
( ETA I think I know why this is an issue for me )
Number one peeve: when someone in a "hero" role has done terrible things doesn't have to acknowledge fully how terrible those things are, and is pronounced redeemed with very little effort.
Number two peeve: when someone in a "hero" role beats himself up his whole adult life for doing terrible things, and the author keeps hinting that he's done truly terrible things, but eventually we find out he did NOTHING MORALLY WRONG WHATSOEVER.
Come on, when the title calls the hero a "Duke of Dark Desires", I expect some kind of actual darkness he's perpetrated in the past. I am deeply unsatisfied.
But that novel did have Julian, who was awesome, and this is his novel. So far, it's amusing me. I mean, it's called The Duke of Dark Desires, I don't think I'm supposed to take it terribly seriously. Plus Julian continues to be hot, even if he is somewhat selfish. He's a little whiny for my taste, but I guess that's always been a Thing, and unlike the douche in the last book, he has a sense of humor that saves him. And he has more reason for angst. And, centrally, he takes responsibility for his own bad decisions. Plus: not abusive. (Fingers crossed that he stays that way.)
( Read more... )
They're behaving like royalty, you mean? People should be required to read some 18th-century broadsheets before starting gossip sites.
In the dream book, the chief of police, who had been a good friend and mentor to Anita through many books, was murdered. This character does not actually exist, but I think he was an expy of Zebrowski (sp?). The second-in-command who "inherited" his role -- which I think is not how it actually works -- was Richard-as-a-cop. Anita had a strained on-again/off-again thing with Richard, a realistic and not hugely obnoxious relationship where you knew they would eventually end up together but meanwhile were each other's best friends and irritated each other constantly.
( The penis parade was gone )
1) Heroine who is down on her luck and knows nothing about the fashionable world, yet explicitly separates men into "gentlemen" and "farmers and etc.," and it never crosses her mind that the latter are people to whom she could be attracted. (Hi, I'd like to introduce you to Robert Martin and Gilbert Blythe, but they're too good for you.)
2) Heroine sleeps the sleep of the dead until she's groped.
3) Hero is a massive grouch who sleeps around with women he explicitly does not respect, and he looks down on women who sleep around.
4) Hero supposedly prefers well-padded women, but cannot stop thinking about how slim the heroine is.
5) Heroine is given a huge amount of money and a personal stylist, but she doesn't want any of those things, oh deary me no, because, as the hero says, she is "not like most girls."
6) Sentence fragments! They're not my bane usually, but there are SO FUCKING MANY like MORE THAN IN TWILIGHT my kingdom for a complete sentence!
7) Showing, then telling, then explaining what's been told. Okay, she wanted to lengthen the novel, I can dig it. Maybe she should have tried complete sentences; those work pretty well.
8) Everyone in this book, including the side characters, is obnoxious in a way that makes me dislike the author.
9) Aren't the hero and heroine supposed to be avoiding each other? So why are they not avoiding each other? The hero despises the heroine and said he wanted them to stay out of each other's way, yet he finds her and starts conversations with her. There's no outside force pushing them together. They seem to be talking to each other because they're the hero and heroine of a romance novel, and that's it.
10) I revoke the author's right to use the word "rustic" and any variations thereof.
It's not badly written, exactly, and it's not massively offensive, precisely, and I'm laughing enough at the cliches and absurdity that I think I'll finish it, but argh.
Sooo... who else suspects Frank Churchill poisoned his aunt? He has a huge fight with Jane and rides home quickly. Mrs. Churchill "had not lived above six-and-thirty hours after his return. A sudden seizure of a different nature from any thing foreboded by her [Mrs. Churchill's] general state, had carried her off after a short struggle."
Person (almost always a girl or woman): X is maybe being shitty and making me feel shitty and I've told them the problems and they won't change. *lists examples of X being incredibly terribly shitty to the nth degree* Are they actually being shitty or should I stop having any feelings at all, because I have been raised to believe I am disallowed from having feelings?
Me: X is being so shitty. SO shitty. Your feelings are more than justified.
Person: More about X being shitty, worry about having feelings/being "irrational".
Me: X is being shitty. You are more than justified in your feelings and are totally rational.
Person: Okay, but I should let X continue to be totally shitty toward me because I don't want to hurt their feelings.
Me: *looks up how to make an earthquake machine*