Only With Your (Rapey, Creepy, Adulterous) Love

[dangermousie]

Oh, Lisa Kleypas, why?I am fast coming to the conclusion that I don't care for any of Kleypas' stuff outside of her Hathaways and Wallflowers series. How one woman can write two series so good and the rest so not, is a mystery

Comments

[anonymous]

daaang. spittin' fire! hahaha.

[dangermousie]

That book was something else :)

[dangermousie]

LOLOL I didn't think about the teeth! You are right!

Re: hero's illnesses - I think anything set in Medieval times and earlier would be OK even if the hero slept with everything that moved because it was pre-syphilis etc, but Georgians and Regencies (and even Victorians) seem utterly blind to the probability that if the hero sleeps around, he has a few permanent gifts from it. I only remember two bookswhich mentioned it -in one, the hero's friend slept around and had STDs, in another it was a bad guy - and I thought, finally! (Though of course hero had nothing wrong at all...)

[manwevaire]

OMG, crotch lice... ROFL!!!

I haven't read everything of hers, and this book seems to be one of her earlier works... doesn't sound like her present style... xD

In your Kleypas list, have you read sugar daddy? so far it's that one and dreaming of you that I've really liked...

what's next in your book list? :)

[dangermousie]

Yeah, if it didn't have her name on the cover, I'd have never guessed it was hers.

I am going to check out Sugar Daddy

[cleobulle]

I remember having the same reaction re-Vintage Kleypas books. It doesn't feel like they were written by the same author. After reading about 1/3 of one I immediately got rid of the whole bunch I had on my Kindle.

IIRC, the only author whose "vintage books" don't make me want to gouge my eyes out is Connie Brockway.

[dangermousie]

I don't read many romance authors who wrote prior to 2000s (well, unless you are talking really old-school like Heyer) so I rarely come across that dychotomy - the few older authors I enjoy, like Virginia Henley, I know what I get when I go in, so it's no shock. But I had Kleypas as one thing in my mind only to discover another and that was jarring. Also, leaving aside morality out of it, that book was BOOOOOOORING! A cardinal sin.

[cleobulle]

Yeah, 2000s Kleypas doesn't prepare you for Vintage Kleypas. At all.

Quite a few of my all-tilme faves were published in the 90s and don't have that bodice-riping thing though. It was a time before everything was about series and sequel baits and before almost everything felt formulaic and "Avonized".

Don't be afraid to dip more into the 90s. The 80s stuff is truly attrocious for the most part but the 90s were a golden age for many romance authors.

Re-boring. I hear you! I can finish a book that makes my blood boil (it's the watching a trainwreck to the bitter end effect) but a boring book gets put aside pretty quickly. I have way too many books to read on my TBR pile to waste my time with soporific tales. And I do remember that Kleypas book well-enough to confirm it was boring.

[dangermousie]

I tried some 90s romances - I was in college in late 90s and my best friend was a big romance reader - and none of them clicked. I happen to prefer series anyway :P I think the one 90s author I am fond of a lot is Tina St John.

I am kinda fond of some of 70s/80s alpha-alpha-alpha stuff (Virginia Henley, Katherine Woodwiss) in a rather bemused way. I happen to prefer medievals to anything else and at least there was a ton of them back then. Nowhere near as many now.

I love trainwrecks actually - how do you think I made it through Duke's Captive or Lothaire or or or - I can deal with horrid, I just can't stand boring.

[scanky_chops]

I read that one recently and er.. yeah, it wasn't very good at all. Did you get round to reading Leo's story in the Hathaways series?

[dangermousie]

I am hoarding it :)