Saturday, February 27, 2010

Cover questions

I want to post about Sunshine and Shadows by Tom and Sharon Curtis (contemporary - in 1987 - romance between Amish woman and a jaded film director) which I simultaneously adored with every fibre of my being and had the teeniest tiniest most miniscule reservation about....

But not now. It deserves a bit of time devoted to it, that post. And just now, I'm terribly preoccupied by my current read, Bitten by Kelley Armstrong. It's a few years old now (2001) and successful book by a successful author who'e published many books since. I've been aware of it for a while, but only bought it the other day.

I'm two thirds of the way through Bitten. I doubt I'll do a standard review type post on it, but there are two things I'd like to post about in the fullness of time. The first is the central relationship between Elena and Clay and the second is the depiction of werewolves and how that compares to other werewolf worlds I've read about. I have to admit to finding werewolves the most compelling of the paranormal spectrum.

But before all of this: covers. As a popular book that has been printed and reprinted in a variety of territories, Bitten has a number of covers. I've posted some below. My copy has the fourth cover.

I have a number of thoughts on these covers - what I like, what I don't, what seems to reflect the story best - but I'm not going to say at this point. I'm curious to know what others think first - from both those that have and those who have not read this book.

If you have read it, does your view of what a good cover is change with your knowledge of the story? Is there a difference between what appeals to you and what best reflects the story? Which is more important to you as a reader? Of the covers you like best, what is it you like? If you don't like a cover, why? If you haven't read this story, what do these covers say to you about what this book will be like?













Friday, February 26, 2010

Friday music - another unusual love song

I love this song, Gina Lollobrigida, by a great but not very well-known band, Cinerama.

Sadly, hardly any of Cinerama's oeuvre is on You Tube. Other favourite and unusual love songs by Cinerama include Superman (a man's plea to his girlfriend - what she wants from him sounds more like a job for Superman) and Sly Curl (man cautions his ex-girlfriend against her new love: He didn't close his eyes when he kissed you).

This one is a soft hymn to a woman's beauty and it's just lovely and intimate. I urge you to listen and to bear with it. When you get to the refrain (Like Gina Lollobrigida... in "Belles de Nuits") it's so worth it.



ghj;

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Stressed? Moi?



This is one of those times when I just use this blog to unload.

I've just had a week's leave from work at a very busy time. I knew a lot could happen while I was away but it's worse than I imagined.

When I started as a lawyer in practice, we barely looked at computers. Urgent communications were sent by fax - but only urgent ones. Normal correspondence was sent by post. There was an acceptance that things took time. Now, everything is email. Everything is immediate. Everything is now. A client sends me an email asking for advice on something complex and wants in an answer in ten minutes time.

Swiftness has become the measure of everything. In my absence from the office, I've had a three day full hearing set down for next week. There is no time to reflect. It's all very well reviewing all the documents, precognoscing all the witnesses and understanding what the client's case is. But sometimes, you just need some time to ponder that. Sometimes, your clients just need to calm down.

But that's not even it. That's not why I'm typing this post. That's just being busy and trying to fit shit in. That's understandable. So what is it?

Just that (I know, I'm whining, it's unattractive and really I'm lucky, I know this; I do) this is not how I expected life to be. At the absurdly young age of 17 when I enrolled for the LLB degree course, I actually believed the 'women can have it all' myth. Time has proved otherwise.

You can't have it all. Really, you can't. You are always compromising something. Wow, there's a revelation. I bet no-one reading this post ever thought that before.

Life is ungovernable. Emails pour into inboxes like effluent. They branch off into myriad related and unrelated replies. Is this making life easier? Or the office paperless? We're bombarded by neverending knowledge alerts. There is always more and more information of less and less quality to absorb, and there's more and more concern - ridiculous, pointless - about capturing knowledge. Like it's nothing to do with people. Like you can shove a memory stick in the your ear'ole and download it all.

We don't need more of anything. We need less.

Are there any bright spots?

Just this: these days, the phone hardly ever rings.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Dinner conversation


Mr Tumperkin and I went for dinner last night, utilising gift vouchers we were given at Christmas by my in-laws. Thai food which we love.

We had an interesting chat, comparing romance and other genres. My current obsession, to which I have alluded before, is that in a romance, almost everything is setting against which the particular love story of the particular characters is played out, like variations on a theme. I have a vague recollection of a post/comments thread over at RRR in which I made a terribly erudite comment about this but I can't be arsed to find the link. Happily, the remembered quote is far more erudite in my memory than it probably was in actuality.

I do not intend to set out the fascinating particulars of our dinner conversation. Suffice to say that my husband came out with something that I found wildly fascinating. In our discussion of the thriller genre - with particular reference to the Bond and Bourne franchises - Mr T posited that my assertions regarding everything in a romance being setting (e.g. vampires, Amish-ness etc.) for the characters to play against, were almost reversed for certain thrillers. In certain thrillers, he argued, the character is setting against which the tech and the political are played out against.

We finessed this assertion at length over banana fritters and rolled home feeling very content with ourselves.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Valentine's Day Friday music on a Sunday

Me loves Rufus - this song in particular.

I adore love songs and poems that are focussed on something prosaic. One Cigarette and Strawberries by Edwin Morgan are favourite poems. This is a favourite song. And a lovely live version

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

At last: my review of Lightning That Lingers....



Such excitement. I've been promising this review forever and ever. And it's lo-o-o-o-ong.

Be warned, there be spoilers here. Since the book was first printed in 1983, I take the view that spoilers are absolutely allowed but if you think you'll ever read it, you may wish to stop reading .... now. Because I pretty much cover everything.

This novel is a Loveswept, which is a US category brand I'm not familiar with. As I said, it was originally printed in 1983 (though my copy is a 1991 reprint) and is one of a handful of novels written under the name of Laura London, a pen name for Tom and Sharon Curtis. Tom and Sharon's couple-portrait graces the inner cover of the book. With their warm woolly jumpers and wholesome hairdos, they look a pair of Canadian figure skaters from the 1980 Olympics. Which is nothing to the point, but a detail about the book I greatly enjoyed.

In a nutshell, LTL is the story of Jennifer Hamilton, shy librarian, and Philip Brooks, male-stripper-cum-environmental-scientist. The characters are so very particular in this book that it seems only fair to give them some individual attention in this review:

The heroine

Jennifer is in her early 20s. A recent college graduate, she has recently left home to strike out on her own as the a librarian in a small town in Wisconsin. She is described as having a Dorothy Hamill haircut and eyes the colour of burnt honey and as being variously gentle, shy, vulnerable, wary and hopeless with men. We discover later that she is 'exquisitely pretty' through an overheard conversation; the fact that that information is not offered up through the parts of the text that are written from her own POV is significant. I like to think that the authors deliberately described Jennifer in a way that would bring to mind the baby owls that Philip is looking after.

Dorothy Hamill around the time that LTL was first printed.




Otus asio (Eastern screech owl)

There is something in Jennifer's life that has contributed to, though not perhaps wholly caused, her wariness and vulnerability. She is (brace yourselves) illegitimate.

This shameful circumstance caused Jennifer childhood grief and made her disinclined to trust others. Of course, I'm laughing at this from a 2010-perspective, but looking at it through the 1983 lens (see previous post on vintage books) this is not that ludicrous. If Jennifter was 23 in 1983 then she was born in 1960 and illegitimacy would have certainly been a reasonably big deal then.

The hero

Philip Brooks comes from old money. His family were of the Vanderbilt order of things but have lost shedloads of cash over the last few decades. All that is left of the old grandeur, for Philip, is the huge house he lives in. He's an environmental scientist with a passion for wildlife and the grounds of his house are a sanctuary to various wild creatures. Since the state have declined to take it on as a wildlife reserve, he is supporting its continued existence by earning lucrative sums as a stripper. At the start of the book, he takes his two newest hangers-on, two baby owls, back to the house to the look after them.

Philip is both ridiculously beautiful and unusually unmoved by beauty. Although the reader is given to understand that Jennifer is pretty, he doesn't see her in that way as such but more simply, as his mate. Nor does he doesn't recognise 'normal' sexual mores. As he sees it, if he and Jennifer want each other, they should simply be together.

The plot

The story starts with Jennifer being dragged to a male strip show by her new friends, all unsuspecting as to the nature of the show in question. When she realises, she is mortified. The show is described in great and quite excruciating detail. Before Philip comes on stage, Jennifer sees him at the sound console and they share a strangely intimate look. Later she sees him on stage. Philip's act involves him stripping then inviting women on-stage to kiss and touch him. Despite coming under considerable pressure to go along with this, Jennifer refuses, even when Philip himself tries to persuade her.

After the show, Philip comes across Jennifer again by accident. He recognises her and decides he wants her. Because the POV around this point of the novel is all Jennifer's, we don't get to understand how he comes to this view, only his later certainty about her. My only quibble with the book is that I'd have liked to understand how he came to this certainty and precisely when. (Was it during the strip show, or only later when he saw her an Abraham Lincoln costume while fundraising? Or only when she insulted him?)

Philip sets about a campaign. He waits for Jennifer outside the library and sends her friend home so he can drive her home; he takes her to the grounds of his house and introduces her to the wildlife he loves; he goes to her library and watches her pretend to be animals with the children. She's drawn to him, yet resistant.

There's a scene where Philip dissects Jennifer's reaction to his stripping and her objections to it.

"It's because I strip, isn't it?"....

..."Jenny, Jenny, why do you have to make this a problem?...... Alright then, let's explore your inconsistencies," he said. "If I posed nude as an artist's model, would that disturb you?"

Knowing that she was going for a baited hook, yet not able to resist the temptation, she said, "I'm not sure, probably not as much."

"I see. You like a high culture tag on your exposed skin. What if I was an artist who painted nudes?"

..."That would be different."

"High culture," he repeated dryly, "and you prefer to the exploiter to the exploited. Smart."

"Now just a - "

"What if I were a doctor and spent the day examining naked bodies?"

Exasperated, and yet enchanted by him, she said, "Doctors at least don't kiss their patients."

At the end of the scene, he tells her to come and find him when she's ready.

All of this action is conducted against a bitterly cold Wisconsin winter: needle-like snow; crystalline air; brittle ice-crust; icy water like frigid poison. This winter transcends mere setting and becomes almost a character when Jennifer decides to go and find Philip and give herself to him. Her car breaks down and she manages to lock herself out. She has to walk to his house in minus 60 weather and when she gets there, he's not in. By the time he arrives, she's collapsed outside the house and hypothermic. (I cannot tell you how much I love the sick-heroine story trope. Nor can I tell you why. I feel it is almost a shameful thing, like a love for processed cheese.)

Jennifer recovers quickly. She is introduced to Chaucer, Philip's grumpy and charming pet screech owl, and the baby owls. He tells her about his privileged childhood and his present life as a stripper. He takes her up to the attic and they dress in decades-old finery and dance together. He tells her he loves her. At length, she does what she went there to do and gives herself to Philip.

One of the charming things about the book is the occasional letters that pass between Jennifer and her mother. These disclose a deep, affectionate relationship between mother and daughter, so rare in romance. Yet cleverly, Jennifer's mother is part of the major conflict/ black moment in the book. She writes to tell Jennifer that she is coming to visit - she and some friends are going to the Cougar Club where Philip strips, a decision that was directly influenced by Jennifer's letter to her mother after she went to the Cougar Club at the start of the book and told her that the most beautiful man in the world was there.

Jennifer can't bear the thought of her mother seeing Philip stripping and heads off for the Cougar Club herself. She sees Philip dancing and kissing other women and is distraught. She goes to his dressing room in tears. His friend tries to persuade her to leave and discloses that Philip has been drinking in order to be able to dance. There's an excruciating scene when he finally comes to the dressing room. He's bleeding from his hip, and when he sees her register this, he says:

"Another paper cut. Brand new dollar bills are fierce."

It's an ordinary enough observation yet poignant, bringing vividly to mind the women that have come to see him, filling their purses with cash they will later push on him. Then he looks at her.

... the short tidy hair, her clean fingernails, the long, immaculate eyelashes, each separate and satiny.... fragile mouth, fragile eyes. Neat, bright fastidious you, he thought; soiled me.

Isn't that a lovely last sentence?
They argue - and here comes one of the very best declaration climaxes I think I've ever read.

She began to shake. "Philip, I love you. But it hurts too much."

..."Don't love me then," he said. "You want me, you desire me, then use me. If you've started to love me and it hurts too much, then stop loving me and use me instead. Let me worry about the love. Whatever you do,
stay in my life!"

Of course this is not the end. Jennifer goes home and her mother is there. Their talk decides Jennifer not to give up. She goes looking for Philip in his forest. Without the stripping money, he can't save the forest or the wildlife, but he will have her, and she will help him. (And there's a pleasing little epilogue that lets them have their dreams after all).

Two Particularly Pleasing Things About This Book

Thing the First: Owls and cougars

As I said earlier, I like to think that Jennifer was deliberately described so as to call to mind the sort of baby owl that Philip is nursing, with her fragile eyes and Dorothy Hamill prettiness. As for Philip, it's no accident that he dances at the Cougar Club. In some ways, he is hunter and she is prey.

For a moment, she was painfully open, her unguarded sensitivity carrying the simplicity of a line drawing - Tweetybird in a tough predicament..... He had a sudden unsettling vision of himself as a predator - the puma holding a small struggling creature under one paw.

Hunter/ prey; experienced/ innocent; soiled/ pure. And as is often the way in romance, it's the big-eyed baby owl, who ends up standing on top of the puma, blinking innocently down at its exposed belly.

Fanciful? Moi?

Thing the Second: Not a word wasted

Sometimes, novels contain sentences, paragraphs, pages even, of wasted words. This novel didn't feel like it contained a word that didn't serve some purpose. For example, there is a repeated motif of temperature. The brutal winter is a strong element of the setting and a crucial plot element, but it tells us about the characters too. It's not an accident that Jennifer almost dies of cold and is saved by Philip; nor that at the end of black moment (the scene in the Cougar Club) Philip puts his muffler round Jennifer's neck as she leaves and says to her these two words:

Keep warm
.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

The joys of vintage romance



I'm going to be reviewing a fantastic vintage (1983) romance very soon: Lightning That Lingers by Laura London (aka Tom and Sharon Curtis) but I'm just letting that particular book 'settle' in my mind before I tackle the review. However, with that book in mind and with a nod to my last post about the Angelique books, I thought I'd do a brief post about vintage romance.

Vintage romance - for me - is romance written in the relatively recent past. For present purposes, I'd classify that as from about the early 90s back to about the 50s/60s. Anything earlier than that is getting into classics territory (though 'forgotten' pulp fiction might also qualify) - we're not talking Pride & Prejudice here. Not even Georgette Heyer.

What fascinates about vintage romance is that you read the 'timeless' romance trope through a different lens. It's easy to read a 19th century writer and get that difference. When you read something written 15, 25 or 35 years ago, it's much more subtle and often instructive about the time it was written in, particularly regarding sexual and gender-related attitudes. A further 'layer' on the lens might be the age of the author at the time of writing e.g. a 50 year old author writing in the 1970s might more accurately represent the general mores of the 1950s. When you get a 50 year old author writing in the 1970s about the 1820s, you get quite an interesting mix.

Some might say that the lens shouldn't be there because 'good' writing is timeless. I don't buy that. Author world-view/ outlook inevitably creeps in. Whatever the POV situation with the characters, that author lens is there in some form, an almost invisible thing that is nevertheless present, like a ghost. I think that is particularly so with a romance in which sympathy for the characters is vital - that means representing those characters in a way that will meet (ultimately) with reader approval. (Which presumably is why so many 'modern' Regency heroes have an intimate appreciation of the finer points of cunnilingus).

It's fascinating to read old romance novels and notice what has changed and what has stayed the same. Many of the elements we bloggers report enjoying are little altered. Tortured alpha heroes with an inability to communicate are endlessly popular. But those heroes are now unlikely to visit casual violence - slaps, spankings and general physical brutality - upon the heroines. In short, the basic ingredients are still the same but perhaps the quantities and cooking time have changed a little.

Lightning That Lingers was particularly interesting to me in that it has both a modern and a dated feel to it. The heroine feels like she's from the 1950s but the male-stripper hero doesn't recognise the sort of sexual mores that belong in a romance novel from the early 1980s. He just falls for her, wants her and decides to set her free from her inhibitions. In this scene, he's just asked her to spend the night with him:

"It doesn't matter," he said in a kind tone, "there are other ways to do these things. For example, we could date. If you think that would be reassuring."

....."Date?"

"Date. That phenomenon of human group behaviour where you devote a goodly amount of time to wondering what to wear and fixing your hair and I empty the McDonald's cartions out of my car and we both make sure we've had showers and sprayed ourselves with all the appropriate chemicals that the advertising industry assures us we can't do without...."

This monologue goes on for another page, by the end of which you're totally with Philip: dating is ludicrous.

Do you read vintage romance? Do you make allowances for the time at which the book was written? How do you feel about vintage romance that seems to espouse a set of mores or attitudes that don't meet your own world-view?