Good Words Gone Bad: A Few Thoughts About Titles

A Post About Romance Novel Titles in Two Parts

(1) I was chatting with my one female colleague yesterday. She told me she actually looked into the Supermarket Bin of Romancey Goodness, the charity used book bin at our local market chain, featured in this post. This is progress for someone who only reads Holderlin. In German.

But, she added, “some of those titles, they’re so ridiculous!” Before launching into a treatise on Inverse Proportionality of Romance Novel Title Excellence to Romance Novel Content Quality, I asked what any sane romance reader would ask: “Which titles?”

“Well”, she continued, “there’s this one about wind, and it shows this guy’s butt…”

Dear reader, you know what happened next. Yours truly was sifting through that bin — at a supermarket clear on the other side of town — within the hour. And here’s what I found:

Orwig

I bought it, naturally (only fifty cents!) and in the process of seeking the cover for this post –thank you, RomanceWiki — I found another windy 1980s era Bantam Loveswept:

strong-hot-winds-1

I wonder how many romance novels today contain the word “wind”, thanks to its close association with flatulence. Here’s one:

37850050

I don’t know if it helps or not that the heroine’s hands are on the hero’s butt.

There’s “Ashes in the Wind”, and, of course, “Gone with the Wind”, but, Ms. Green’s title notwithstanding, not many contemporary titles with “wind” in them. I wonder if “wind” has succumbed to its prurient/negative connotation,  i.e. flatulence/hot air, as in A Mighty Wind, Christopher Guest’s 2003 mockumentary about folk singers.

There are plenty of old Harlequin titles with words  or phrases you wouldn’t use today because they’re offensive, like “The Half Breed”, “Half-caste”, or outdated, like “Miss Doctor”, or liable to be taken in the wrong way, like “The Doctor on Elm street” or “The Web” or “Gay Canadian Rogues” (some of these are mystery or thriller, and written by men. Harlequin didn’t specialize in romance its first few years out of the gate.).

One of the Loveswept titles had a hero named “Dick”, again, not something you’d be likely to see today.  Can we read a title like (and the following are all Harlequins, circa 1960) “Nurse Lynnette’s Release” and not think of the big O? “Two for the Doctor?” “The Golden Peaks”? “Stiff Competition”? “Stallion Man”? Could we use these titles non-ironically today?

Another Loveswept title had the word “melancholy” in it. I wonder if the connection to depression — so much better known and understood today — would rule that one out?

How many good words — even something as simple as “come” — have been tainted by the ironic, cynical and sex-saturated mentality of Gen X and Gen Y/the Millenial Generation?

(2) Reusing Titles

In writing the first part of this post I was amazed to see how many romance novel titles have been recycled.

“Mr. Perfect”, “Dream Man, “Sizzle”, “Black Ice, “The Rogue”, “Practice Makes Perfect”, “Indiscreet”, “Slightly Scandalous”, “Into the Storm”, “Wild Rain”, and “Someone to Watch Over Me”, are not just, as I know them, books by Linda Howard (2), the first Jennifer Crusie, Anne Stuart, Celeste Bradley, Julie James, Carolyn Jewel, Mary Balogh, Suzanne Brockmann, Christine Feehan, and Judith McNaught, but also all Bantam Loveswept titles from the 1980s and early 1990s.

I tried to think of song titles and movie titles that are recycled in the same way, and found it much more difficult to do. Although, in music, you’ll have a traditional song which is redone many times, often with different titles (like “Stagger Lee” or “Shady Grove”), and in film, one movie can be remade two or three or four times (”Hound of the Baskervilles”, for example, or “Halloween”, or “Dracula”)

Recently, I saw a new Brenda Joyce paranormal called “Dark Lover”.

Knowing that “Dark Lover”, is the first title in J.R. Ward’s iconic, bestselling Black Dagger Brotherhood series, which is still going strong, I wonder why some other — any other– title could not have been chosen (by the editors? publisher? author? team of marketing execs?). Ward’s Dark Lover only came out 4 years ago, after all.

JRWard-BlackDaggerBrotherhood01--1400000000000000166930_s4

What do you make of the title recycling? Why is it routine practice in the romance genre? And does it matter?

Tags:

Don’t Same Sex Couples Deserve an HEA?

No, and here’s why…

(A special guest post by Wayne Kerr)

Same sex marriage is unnatural, and therefore immoral. Because, clearly, everything “unnatural” is bad, and everything “natural” is good. Like … antibiotics and automobiles are bad and earthquakes and hemorrhoids are good.

And, of course, being sexually attracted to the same sex is totally unnatural. That’s why those who are gay go to special camps. I’ve heard it takes years to brainwash someone into being gay.

Anyway, it’s definitely unnatural in the sense that nonhuman animals don’t do it. And that’s bad, because … we always take our behavioral cues from nonhuman animals. For example, instead of tossing bugs I find in my kids’ hair, I eat them. And my boys have gotten super adept at lifting their legs when they pee into the neighbors’ bushes.

And if — as some so called “scientists” are discovering — there is actually quite a lot of same sex sexual behavior among nonhuman animals? It’s not adaptive. It’ll be the ruination of their species! So what if evolutionary biologists are finding out that such behavior can help colonies who, for example, have more females, by allowing them to share parenting, or provides more stability to the offspring of males? Data can lie, and I bet that data does, too.

Look, we know same sex relations are unnatural because so few people are actually gay. I mean, really, anything so few people choose to do is obviously “unnatural”, and thus morally problematic. I was just saying this to my spouse as we were watching a documentary on Mount Everest climbers. But — she argued, as she turned off the DVD player and put in a CD of Tuvan throat singers — mountain climbing is healthy and being gay is most certainly not!

Think of “gay sex”. You know what that means. Using your sexual organs in a way they were not meant to be used. Which is unhealthy and dangerous. Which is why heterosexuals absolutely never, and I mean never, perform oral sex, have anal intercourse, or do any of those “gay sex” acts.

Consider the human mouth. It is so clearly meant to function in one way — to feed us! All this other stuff we do with our mouths, like breathing, talking, singing, and kissing — especially if it’s same sex kissing — is so clearly morally problematic. Nature has determined the function of each of our organs, and if you doubt me I will simply remind you that ears are only for listening, not for adornment such as piercings, nor for holding back your (probably gay) long hairdo.

Also, when we look at the purpose of marriage, the reason most of us want the get married, it is clear same sex couples cannot participate in it. I got married because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with the person I love. I wanted someone on my side, a companion I could count on. Same sex couples don’t function that way!! I don’t know why, but I am sure they do not.

Studies show that heterosexual marriage is really good for us, healthwise, and emotionally, and financially. And it is good for society — it encourages stable unions, which are good for raising children, and which tend to curb destructive self-interested behavior, especially among males. Why would we want to allow same sex couples to get in on that? Why can’t they just do their own thing? So what if domestic partner laws offer only a fraction of the protections and benefits of marriage laws? So what if the proliferation of various forms of “marriage lite” is actually confusing the issue of which relationships deserve special social sanction and which do not?

I do not support discrimination against gays, I really don’t. It’s just that I don’t think they should be equal to heterosexuals before the law.

Look, same sex marriage is not “inherently procreative”. It doesn’t matter if some heterosexuals choose not to, or cannot, have children. The symbolism is there in the heterosexual union. Marriage contains within it important norms which are passed on from generation to generation, and they are related to the procreative function of the intimate opposite sex pair bond. Marriage is about engendering respect for the transmission of human life.

Same sex couples cannot procreate. Oh sure, there’s adoption, and IVF, and surrogacy, and many many other ways same sex couples can become parents. But what I really mean is that they cannot have them the proper way, by having sex with each other. This is why heterosexual couples who are infertile are not allowed to have kids, or even get married. Or shouldn’t be.

But the real point is not whether actual heterosexual couples have or don’t have kids. I admit, we don’t make them promise to have kids when they marry, and many heterosexual marriages are happily child-free. But the point is that there’s a societal interest in keeping nuclear families intact, and this is not something same sex couples (or singles) can enjoy. This is why no one in America, least of all Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, or Sheryl Crow, is allowed to have kids unless they are married.

This is also why couples with children are not allowed to divorce, or hardly ever. I mean, if you have kids, and you want to divorce, you have to come up with really good reasons, like “irreconcilable differences”, and those are very hard to come by. Just ask the Gosselins.

Remember how I said before that so few people are gay that it must be an unnatural morally problematic aberration? Well, this is why I think allowing that small minority to marry will ruin marriage for the majority who are heterosexual. Think of how devastating the effects on the 90-95% of the population that is not gay will be of allowing the 5-10% of the population that is gay to marry!! It will be way worse than no fault divorce, which was responsible for the dramatic (40%) increase in the US divorce rate in the 1970s. If you doubt me, just look at the terrible effects of legalizing same sex marriage in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont.

Marriage has been our tradition. Oh, I know it may look like marriage has changed a lot over time. For example, arranged marriage for economic reasons, not romantic love was once the norm. And men were once legally allowed to rape or kill their wives, or to take multiple wives. And women were once expected to stay home to raise kids, with men as the breadwinners. But those are just surface changes. Once you have already decided, like I have, that marriage is essentially about the union of a vagina with a penis, you see that marriage has not changed at all in thousands of years!

A good argument if I ever heard one for not changing laws is that they have been our laws for a long time. I mean, a law is a law, and a tradition is a tradition, for a reason, right? Best not to tamper with them!  I can not even think of a bad law in US history, as long as I don’t think about slavery, segregation, rape laws, forced sterilization, restrictive property laws, capital punishment, voting rights, or a host of others.

But the worst is the effect of same sex mariage on the children. Studies show that one effect on kids raised in same sex households is … and this is very upsetting, but bear with me … that they are more tolerant of homosexuality. We can’t allow this! Because being tolerant of homosexuality is the first step to actually being gay. (And this argument is not circular. At. All.) I’m sure of that, even though there is no data to suggest that children of same sex couples are more likely to identify as homosexual. Data can lie. And in this case, it sure does.

I also think it would be really bad for religious freedom. Oh, yes, I know the law says explicitly that religious leaders who perform marriages cannot be forced to carry out marriages contrary to their beliefs. But just because religious protections are written into our US constitution, our state constitutions, and the same sex marriage laws, doesn’t mean anything. I just know there’s a secret loophole, the same one that will force my rabbi to marry a Catholic couple.

You might notice that I haven’t said anything about effects on same sex couples of allowing them to marry. It’s because I don’t care.

Despite the fact that, legally, marriages in the US, as long as they are between two consenting adults, one male and one female, are pretty much anything the couple wants them to be — including the kind where “you live in New York, I will live in L.A, and I will see you every other year” — I am telling you, because I know, that the “essence” of marriage is the “symbolism” of the procreative union.

These other values which supporters of same sex marriage keep trumpeting — social stability, companionship, love, tolerance, acceptance, openness, equality, fairness, safety — are … really not important.

Are they?

Monday Morning Stepback: Drama for this Momma and the Acheron Effect

1. Links of interest

A. Keishon has a great new look. Check it out!

B. Tumperkin is talking about Author Life Cycles, or Hitting Your Stride

C. I don’t understand the Twitter lists, but this guy seems to.

D. Go see what Karen Scott is totally, completely wrong about.

E. Romanceland is Pissed Off, and I am Too Lazy to Link

There are too many kerfuffles to count. Dear Author has been producing controversial posts at an unusual rate, on race in romance, ebooks, piracy, and whether “your kink is not my kink” means “don’t ever say anything negative about my kink”. TeddyPig has weighed in on the last on his own blog. At Smart Bitches Trashy Books, an open letter to MacMillan by Sarah has somehow turned into a piracy thread which rivals that at DA (along with some “help” to Sarah on the grammar and wording of a letter she’s already mailed. That kind of help? I will never ask you for.) A couple of nitwits on the AAR boards keep dissing blogs in the disingenuous, “who me?” way some women have when they think their audience is very stupid, and neither Wendy the Superlibrarian nor Mrs. Giggles is having any of it. Katiebabs questioned RT for not reviewing same sex romances, and KMont got mad at someone who accused book bloggers of lacking integrity because they take ARCs (not me. I dodged a bullet!). Holly of Book Binge ranted against bloggers stealing other bloggers’ ideas. Sarah Tanner, apparently sick of all this seriousness, questioned, in all seriousness, the derogatory use of the term “filler” post.

Most of those are good discussions, for which I had little time or energy (If only Romanceland would schedule these bursts of conflict in time with my work schedule.). But I do have to wonder how I am going to retain my smug sense of superiority if you all keep posting about important topics in such earnest? Sheesh!

2. The Acheron Effect

Is it just me, or is that last book in a series, you know, the one about the “leader” or “patriarch”, or “illusive figure” who has appeared in all the previous books, pretty much always a let down? I think this is true regardless of subgenre. I could not get through Acheron, although I had been really interested in his story while reading several of the prior books in Sherrilyn Kenyon’s Dark Hunter Series. I also like Keiran, Lord Rothewell, in Liz Carlyle’s recent trilogy, but Never Romance a Rake was a bit meh. I enjoyed the glimpses of the “slutty brother” in Kathleen O’Reilly’s Blaze trilogy about three brothers a couple years back, but when he got his own book, it was my least favorite. Meljean Brook has set us up big time for Michael’s book in her Guardians series, but I fear for him, I really do.

I think I may prefer it when the leader gets his HEA in the first book, as in Stephanie Laurens’ Devil’s Bride, Julia Quinn’s Bridgerton series, Lara Adrian’s Midnight Breed series, JR Ward’s Dark Lover (although I think the Vishous suffered from the build up to his book) and Shannon Stacey’s Devlin Group.

It’s very hard to fully meet expectations created over several books, especially about a hero who has been the leader of the group. Can you help me with counterexamples? Who has done this really well?

3. Same sex marriage. My state is voting tomorrow on whether to overturn our new state law allowing same sex couples to marry. I’ve already voted “no”, and I’m crossing my fingers that we will be the first state to have approved same sex marriage both via the legislature and via the ballot box. I am writing a post on the topic, so if you don’t like politics, stay away tomorrow.

4. I have taken to what @sonomalass calls “book mugging“, and my latest victim is my new hair stylist. After 6 years of the same exact cut and color every five weeks, my old stylist apparently couldn’t take the monotony and fled to another salon without leaving me her number.

But … I found out yesterday that my new stylist has read all of Sherrilyn Kenyon’s Dark Hunter books, as well as all the Sookie Stackhouse books. Getting dumped never felt so great!

Alas, when I inquired about JR Ward, Kresley Cole, and a few others, said stylist had no clue. How can this be? You finish with the Dark Hunters, and think, “Oh well. I guess that’s it for paranormal romance until Sherrilyn writes another one.”

Clearly, I have a lot of work ahead of me. But at least my hair looks good.

5. This post was fueled by Mary J. Blige, who offers a musical tonic for every conceivable ill. Tired of the kerfuffles? Put on those headphones and play No More Drama. Want to feel that sisterhood with your rom peeps? A Family Affair is what you want. Need to a little feminist-lite spiritual uplift? I dare you to listen to Just Fine without putting your hands in the air and and a smile on your face.

Happy Week!

Where I Get My Books: A Photo Essay

Wendy the on-blogging-FIRE Superlibrarian asked not too long ago where we get our books, so I thought I’d answer.

Depending on how you define “piracy”, almost every one of the following sources could be considered “piratical” –  to use a term the genre first introduced to me, and which I inject into every possible conversation, much to everyone’s irritation.

1. The library. Our town has about 30,000 people, and our library’s circulation is over half a million books per year. I’m told that’s really high. (See the bottom of this post for a picture of the home of the famous author who built the addition on the right side of the main building.)


public library

I can often be found here, in the new fiction room, although I have never seen those flowers. They must reserve them for special patrons.

fiction room

2. Used book store. There are only two in town. One of them eschews genre fiction. This one has a huge section of romance, although much of it is categories circa 1985.

IMG_4496

3. Borders, near the mall.

IMG_4500

Notice how close the Romance section is to the Literature section. I approve!

IMG_4499

4. The supermarket. They have a table of used books for charity, fifty cents for a paperback, $1.00 for a hardcover. I have gotten very lucky with this one, even if my family wonders why the ice cream is always melted by the time I get home. (I bought the Janice Kay Johnson, BTW).

IMG_4491

5. Amazon.com. The bulk of my reading is on the Kindle, and my purchases are through Amazon. Shopping is so much easier on my laptop than on the Kindle itself, that, unless I know exactly which title I want, I usually purchase on my laptop. the Kindle downloads it wirelessly the next time I turn it on.

IMG_4501

6. The house, a few blocks from mine, which I mentioned in #1 — belongs to a writer whose books are perfect for Halloween.

IMG_4497

A closeup of the gate:

bat

All except the first two pics are my own, which I probably didn’t need to tell you.

Happy Sunday!

Monday Morning Stepback: Guess the fake fan letter

1. Quiz (ponder to the tune of Lady Gaga’s Paparazzi, or The Carpenters’ – or Sonic Youth’s – Superstar)

fans

Some folks had fun last week guessing “the real rant”. So I have another challenge. In the early days (waaaay back in 2007), I did not have a blog, or even know about your blogs. So I did the old fashioned thing and directly emailed authors whose books I loved. But one of these is a fake! Which of the following did I not send a fangirl email to?

a. Megan Hart, for Dirty

b. Lara Adrian, for Kiss of Midnight

c. Barbara Dunlop, for The Billionaire’s Bidding (Silhouette Desire)

d. Diana Gabaldon, for Outlander

2. Links of interest

funny-pictures-cat-sees-cat-made-of-tinsel1

*I am going to be completely shameless and pimp the discussion of Anne Stuart’s Black Ice we started here last night, which is still ongoing. Thank you so much to everyone who participated, and I invite any of you who haven’t jumped in to do so — and no, you don’t have to read all 100+ comments  first. If you are interested in romantic suspense as a subgenre, in feminism in romance heroines, in amoral heroes, or in what love is, you’ll enjoy the discussion.

*Do you ever have trouble keeping track of your comments on various blogs? I do, so I started using http://www.cocomment.com. All the discussions I have participated in are listed, with the latest comments, and links back to the blogs. So convenient! You can leave your account open for others to see where you’ve been commenting, or you can keep it private.

*Sarah Frantz, Captain in the Army National Guard (now medically retired), posted on the military and romance at Romancing the Blog.

*SuperWendy is asking readers to share where they get their books. She has even invited folks to write posts on their own blogs about it. I am going to try to post a photo essay later this week.

*Not romance, but Joanne Lipman wrote an op-ed on women’s status (and why we may be partially to blame for it) for the New York Times, which is very interesting. Or perhaps, as Gawker proclaims it “inaccurate, intellectually offensive, and gratingly pompous.”

*And again, not romance, but something I think about often: do you feel safe posting pictures of your children online? The New York Times looked at this issue yesterday. A bunch of women in my ‘hood locked their “family blogs” after a convicted child molester moved in to our neighborhood. But does it matter if the pedophile lives next door, or across the state?

3. Post Dramatic Stress Syndrome

I won’t have time to give it it’s own post, but I find lately that when I read romance, I sometimes think I know that the author is going to do something … bad. and I know this, because another author has led me down this exact same path, and I got burned.

Sometimes I am actually so worried about impending literary doom, that I don’t enjoy what’s in front of me. No, I don’t mean fear that the hero or heroine will be hurt, because that’s a good part of romance, a kind of dread lets you know the story is working, if it can make you fear those emotionally wrenching moments. I mean when you know the heroine or hero is going to do something stupid, or there’s going to be a big misunderstanding, or someone is going to tell an incredibly unhelpful lie, or deny something totally obvious, or get jealous for no reason, etc., just because the author needs it to happen, even if it makes no sense at all for the character or plot or setting.

Usually, I am thrilled with the knowledge I have gained of the tropes and techniques of the genre. It helps me to appreciate the genre so much more, because I recognize things I used to miss. Kind of like when you look at Michelangelo’s David after taking an art history course. But the price is that I have also tasted of the fruit of evil, and I remember it — the disappointment, the book hurling, the “no fucking way!” that had my spouse come running from another room. I have been burned and the ashy taste is sometimes  still in my head when I read a new book. For better and for worse.

Happy week!

dog-headpiece-cat-pilgrim-costumes-1

Book Discussion: Anne Stuart’s Black Ice

bookclub

Welcome to my first attempt at discussing a book here on this blog. I’m interested in what you think.  Did you like it? hate it? Keeper shelf?

Please, have your say. Thread is open indefinitely.

No rules, other than the basic rules of civility. Respond to others’ comments as they interest you.

I am interested, personally, in the first sexual encounter between Bastien and Chloe, in Bastien’s amorality, in the balance of suspense to romance, and the development of their relationship under stressful conditions.

And if anyone can provide a long view of Stuart’s career and where Black Ice fits in, I would love it.

Thank you!

BLACK-ICE-copie-1

Review: Phaze Fantasies IV, anthology

c27674

I had never heard of Phaze before I read this collection of stories, nor had I heard of any of the authors.  Here are quick reviews of 3 of the 4 stories:

I purchased this for my Kindle. The formatting was terrible, almost unreadable, and there were words missing and “extra words” as well as typos (like “of” for “if” etc.).

1. And Then there Were 5, by Vivien Dean

This is an urban vampire story about two vamp hunters who fall in love.

Ten years prior to the action of the story, Ryan’s life was saved from vamps by world renowned vamp hunter Tala — at Purdue University, naturally — inspiring him to follow in her footsteps, and giving him a serious crush in the process.  A big vamp meeting is about to take place in New York City … at Grand Central Station.  I guess the vamps were using the old reverse psychology trick (“No one will think of looking for us there! Yeah, and let’s do it at midnight. No one expects vamps at midnight!! High five!), but it didn’t work, because Ryan and Tala and three others are there to await them, knowing all about the meeting, and also knowing full well that the vamps are climate change savvy, and ride public transportation to their big meetings. Things go awry — specifically, the vamps use the super secret vamp trick of turning out the lights!!! –and the hunters get disoriented and split up. This gives Ryan a chance to come on to Tala in the bathroom of the station, a good time and great place for their first hookup if there ever was one.

The vamp part of the story is a complete fail. I knew Ryan was no Einstein when he attempted appear “casual” by whistling and looking at a wristwatch he doesn’t wear. Yeah, that NEVER raises suspicion, does it? I lost complete confidence in his character, though, when he took a few minutes before the big showdown to visit the loo, and considered using tap water to fix his hair. He reminds his vain self sternly that “He wasn’t here to look good. He was here to stake vampires … “. This reprieve from Ryan’s narcissism is all too brief, however, for he concludes, “His hair was only going to end up looking worse by the time the night was through.”

The final stake in Ryan’s heroism (har har) was this line, “I spent half my day arming up.” Hmm. Let’s look at the results of Ryan’s half day of work, shall we? “Stakes were strapped to each calf and more tucked into his jacket. A bevy of sharpened pencils [Hello? Street cred? Can't you at least call them "mini stakes"?] were hidden in an inside pocket, and the breath spray he carried held holy water instead of minty freshness [my god, that's brilliant!].” I rest my case.

By relatively early on, I was so put off by Ryan’s character and the plot, that other things bothered me even more than they might have. Lines like “His fingers jumped across her skin, the flawless canvas broken by irregular bumps and valleys.” made me wonder whether “flawless” was really the right word choice there. I would read, “Her hard nipples scraped across his chest” and think “Uh oh. Someone needs Lansinoh!”.

I liked it that Ryan was the junior mousketeer, I liked the set up, the sex scene was fine, if very run of the mill, and the author gets points for thinking of unique ways to describe dark eyes (really!). But there was just too little time (one day) for a relationship to unfold or for the plot to start, never mind finish. Tala was not developed, even a little, which meant that when I read lines like “When she squeezed around his cock, harder than she had yet, a ragged groan came from his throat” I realized Tala’s diligence with the Kegels may be the only thing I really knew about her.

At the end, when Tala buys Ryan a plane ticket to show her love (shades of an early Bachelor season, anyone?), Ryan gushes that “Everything I am is because of you”. Tala’s tepid response, “I look forward to hunting with you.” pretty much summed up my enthusiasm for their affair.

2. Scorpion’s Orchid, by Eva Gale

This was the novella for which I purchased this collection. It’s steampunk romance, and it’s the first one I’ve read. It is set in a future New York, after the Sand Wars.

We figure out very quickly it is steampunk, because there are references to clothing and accessories like “bowler hat”, “duster”,”carpet bag”,  “aerogoggles”, “timepiece”, “handlebar mustache” and to “skeleton keys”, “brass coat tree”, “Pullman”, “steam engine” etc. I have to be honest: it read to me as if there is a Master Checklist of Steampunk Elements, and the author had to find ways to work them in. I did not feel like I got the “steampunk experience” despite the presence of many steampunk nouns. Better connections forged between the Sand Wars, the new totalitarian government, and the technological and fashion elements would have helped, but in a short novella, there isn’t time.

I knew it was going to be different when I learned the hero’s name was “Dr. Martin Detweiller”. Brave. But I wasn’t sure I was ready for steampunk when I read this line, two paragraphs in: “Martin raised his fist to slam the table but pulled back just short of hitting it, unwilling to waken the boy who slept in the corner cage.”

What’s this?? Did I stumble upon the holy grail of trendy romance tropes — m/m, BDSM, and steampunk — spiced with a new, transgressive, and illegal element, pedo-rom?

Fear not, dear reader. The boy, Xavier, is an orphan afflicted with a disease, the Scorpicus — the original of which is never explained — which turns him into a spider or scorpion (I know. these are not the same thing. I never could figure that out.). Dr. Martin Detweiller is on the case, but he needs orchids to perform his experiments. Besides the boy in the cage, and the orchid extract in beakers, there is a squid, and a dog named Canine, and a housekeeper who smells of sugar cookies. I have no idea how it all fits together. I think it’s supposed to be a Sherlock Holmes vibe.

The lovely Katerina Metrenko smuggles orchids (private ownership of plants is illegal) to make money to run a safe house for 13 orphans, but the corrupt police have been bribing her and threatening her. Dr. Martin Detweiller meets her at Grand Central Station, and, in a surprise move to both the heroine and the reader, proposes to her, claiming that it would help them get the police off her back and “provide a more secure living arrangement for the orphans.”

I have no idea why a flower thief would think marrying a wealthy doctor would get the greedy police off her back, rather than supplying them with a more lucrative target, but what really stuck me was the second reason. I was alerted to what turned out to be a very “hit you over the head” kind of conservative, Christian morality which pervades this text. For example, although religions have been abolished, Kat carries a saint charm, insists on visiting a (ruined) church to sanctify the marriage, and considers this marriage of convenience to a man she doesn’t know a  “covenant”. When they visit the state offices to obtain their marriage license, we hear that there is no reproductive freedom in the future, but the way the text reads, it means not that the full range of reproductive choices has been removed (including the choice not to conceive, and the choice not to bear a conceived fetus), only that abortions are forced on women.

The contrast between Good Kat and Martin on the one hand, and Sinful everyone else, was just too much. They were just too perfect for this reader. For example, Martin talks a lot about the Hippocratic Oath. But the Oath is a few hundred words long. It provides absolutely no guidance to physicians in the absence of a lot of practical judgment and experience. And Kat is so perfect just because she has these orphans. Well, people with very large families are often motivated by a complex set of desires, not all of them altruistic, some of them downright selfish or evil. I hardly need to mention Octomom. I have no problem with religious, or really principled heroines (Devout Quaker Maddie from Flowers from the Storm is one of my all time faves), but this was all too facile.

Consider the scene in which Martin is forced to masturbate in order to marry Kat. His semen must be checked by the state. Now, I am all for wide reproductive freedoms, but if there was a significant chance that my spawn could turn into a destructive giant scorpion when he hit puberty (and the connection of the “turning dangerous” to dawning sexuality was definitely not coincidental, given the moral vision that runs through the rest of the text), I would actually be in favor of a little state regulation.

Making the moment even more humiliating for Martin, the nurse (as a state employee, she is, naturally, eeeevil) insists on staying, to get a little voyeuristic satisfaction. Martin struggles mightily with his choice, thinking, “Katerina may never forgive him, but it was for those he meant to save. He had to keep his mind on WHY he was doing this.”

Now, I don’t know about you, but keeping my mind on 13 orphans is probably not the way to get me hot.

Katerina, recognizing that Martin is “sacrificing his pride to help others”, offers to “help”, and, instead of thinking, “hot DAMN, I accidentally married an exhibitionist. Yes! [leer]“, Martin thinks, “there she went again, trying to save people from the harshness of life.”

It turns out that Kat doesn’t wear any panties. Not because she’s a slutty slut slut slut, of course, but because she uses the material to make clothes for the orphans. Are you guys too young to recall the phrase “gag me with a spoon”?

In terms of plot, I had a big problem with the resolution of the Xavier storyline. The boy Xavier is Martin’s one close human connection, someone he considers a kind of son. There are about 100 instances of the name “Xavier” in the text (much of this is a repetition of the same basic statements,  “Xavier doesn’t have much time. I must find the cure.” ), and only 60 of Kat’s. Yet, the book ends with Xavier turning into a spider and running away. Martin looks for him for 3 hours, and then happily returns home. But this time, Kat and the housekeeper have gotten the kids washed and bathed and dressed in their best clothes, and made a cake. If you have seen The Sound of Music, you have a good idea of the concluding scene.

Of note: This is the first romance I have read in which the word “gah” was used positively in the middle of a sex scene. And “obsidian” is used once.

3. Railroad Standard Time by Philippa Grey-Gerou

This story is about a businesswoman named Dani who sees a strange but hot man on the platform of Grand Central Station (starting to see a theme in the collection?) who leers at her. One day, unbidden, he rattles off an array of details about Dani’s workplace, home, and background.

Naturally, Dani is turned on and intrigued.

They have a few nonsensical, violent interactions like this one:

Dani: I just want you to leave me alone!”

Trevalyn (yes, Trevalyn): “Fine.”

His jaw tightened in resolution. “In that case…”Before she could react, he caught her arm, knocking her papers to the floor again as he jerked her to him, crushing her mouth with a demanding searing kiss that drove everything from her mind. She struggles briefly, but he was unrelenting, his arms banding around her…”

When Dani resists, Trev says, “What’s the matter? Haven’t you ever had a man express sexual interest in you before?”

Of course, since this is erotic romance, Dani “weakens”, “relaxes”, and then “invites”.

She has sex with barebacked rapist stalker against a cement wall in a train station and she likes it, dammit.

And besides, Trev is such a gentleman. After pulling out and zipping up, he asks, “You going to be ok getting home?” So sweet.

On her way home, Dani thinks, “This must be what insanity felt like. Knowing something was completely crazy and doing it anyway.”

Uh, no Dani. This is what it feels like to be Too Stupid To Live. But enjoy those orgasms!

It turns out Trev is from the future — we can tell because he has magnets instead of a zipper for a fly — but by this point I was done with this story and done with this collection. In case you are interested, the fourth story is  “Beneath the surface”, by Cat Johnson.

Tags:

Join us for a discussion of Anne Stuart’s Black Ice

Begins Sunday (tomorrow) October 25 at 7:00pm EST. Open thread until it peters out!

BLACK-ICE-copie-1

“An American book translator in Paris, Chloe Underwood, longing for some excitement, gets more than she bargains for when a new assignment immerses her in a deadly world of murder and illegal arms, forcing her to go into hiding with a mysterious stranger.” Click on the book for an excerpt.

Please join me in my experiment to see if a blog can work as a book discussion platform. This will be a spoiler discussion, so if you haven’t read Black Ice and don’t want to be spoiled, stay away.

I’ll put up a post which will not be a review. It may have a few questions to get things going, one of which will definitely be: were initial physical relations consensual, and if not, does it matter? Another may be, “can we cheer for an amoral hero, and if so, why didn’t we cheer for the hero in Linda Howard’s Death Angel?”

If I get more than 5 participants and 10 comments, I will consider it a success, and do another one in a month or so.

So please, if you’ve read it, pipe up!

Thanks!


Tags: ,

© 2008-2009 Racy Romance Reviews All Rights Reserved