Lust Bites - Good Review Bad Review..
Mar. 18th, 2007 04:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
erastesI shall be reminding you all tomorrow, but I have a guest spot on "Lust Bites" tomorrow, which I'm pretty excited about, as it's a lovely community full of great erotica writers. So please pop over and post a question or a comment or anything you like. I'd particularly welcome questions about Standish - or anything, of course.
Let's talk about sex, baby.
Talking of Standish -![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rosie_red73 loved it - which I'm very happy about, of course. Thank you, Rosie.
I'd been debating whether to actually tell you guys this, because I was pretty ARGH! about it, but Standish got a pretty scathingly bad review from Mrs Giggles. I think the main problem was that she didn't actually get that it was a gentle pastiche on the Regency novel, and she didn't like the "black and white" of my characters. Meh. But anyway, it was a milestone - the same way that "the first book" "the first review" "the first translation" is - "the first bad review" milestone has been passed, and lookit me, ma. I survived to tell the tale! *proud* For one who thinks that everyone should have opinions, I'm quite happy for Mrs Giggles to have hers.
Now. Talking of GOOD Reviews (or rather reviews of good books!) I'd like to extol
"The Phoenix" by Ruth Sims. m/m Historical
What a joy to read this book proved to be. From the very first page I was drawn in with the action, was instantly attracted to the characters and was very impressed how with so few strokes of her pen, Sims managed to draw the situation, the era, the environment and the characters. Language is certainly Sims' gift but she doesn't drown you in it. It's an intelligent read, but steers clear of being a morass where the words become more important than the story itself.
Jack Rourke and his sickly twin brother Michael live by the river in London, picking a living any way they can, (which in Jack's case means a bit of stealing) while they wait for sporadic visits by their father, away at sea. As the boys grow they dread his visits more and more, as Rourke is increasingly violent, both to them and to their mother. Matters come to a head with such a violent visit that Jack is forced to flee, and friends he has made in local theatre take him in.
The book is marginally longer than some of the books I've read recently, but there are points (like this early section) where I'd like it be even longer. I felt it - wasn't rushed, exactly - but I'd have like to have seen more of this early life explored in the same lush detail that Sims goes on in other sections of the book. Jack's (soon to renamed Christopher, and then Kit - and yes, this is important) rise from guttersnipe to an heir of a small fortune and a damned good actor could have been padded out and I wouldn't have minded a bit. He had a worrying tendancy to be a little Sue-ish, or tainted with "Woman-of-Substance-itis" but I overlooked that for he does have faults, and these are brought into sharp relief when he meets Nicholas, a dour doctor - brought up in a strict religious environment who has fallen quite in love with Kit without Kit knowing.
It's a lovely seduction and love affair, Kit's licentiousness is contrasted starkly with Nick's puritanical ideals and when the invevitable happens and both behave far too much like themselves for either of them to forgive each other..... Well - I don't want to do too many spoilers, but this is where the book really kicks in.
Characterisation: Is great. I could really get under the skin of both main characters without any problem. Even when she shifted between one and the other, it was so starkly contrasted - the difference in their characters - that you simply thought as one then the other. While Nick's choices made me want to brain him, they made perfect sense in the world he inhabited, and that's the true test of a good homosexual historical for my money. Ruth doesn't stick modern day characters in Victorian clothes, everything they do, even the much more openly shocking Kit - is coloured by what society thought and what society would and could do. It wasn't quite as dangerous for men in 1890 as it was in 1820 - you weren't hanged: but you still risked prison, disgrace and being exiled from polite society - even more rigid than it had been 150 years before. Sims shows the "salons" of the aesthetes - where the only safe place for a gentleman of a certain persuasion to meet others was in the drawing rooms of his friends.
Kit is larger than life throughout, and that's perfectly in character, even when his life spirals out of control, it's in a wonderfully tragedian way with Nick hardly able to keep up.
Period Feel: Wonderfully done, with no Dan Brown tub-thumping explanations of what is going on and the politics of the time. Sims doesn't talk down to her reader. For someone who self-admittedly has rarely ventured from her own corner of the USA, to be able to recreate Victorian slums is pretty impressive.
I only saw one major anachronism which I'd suggest getting edited for the next edition, and that was a mention of O and A levels, which didn't get introduced until after WW2. There was a little incursion of American-isms in the English sections, such as railroad, but they were only there because I was looking for them, didn't spoil it at all.
Sexual Level. Warm and erotic, without being graphic in any way, a true lesson to me in less is more.
Summing Up. Very highly recommended. Certainly the best written gay historical I've read since At Swim Two Boys, and a book that convinces me that I can do better with my own prose. This is not a "romance" btw, chaps - so while I'm giving no clues to the ending, I adored it, because it left me guessing right up until the very last chapter. It's a real keeper.
Four and a Half out of Five
Excerpts here
Let's talk about sex, baby.
Talking of Standish -
rosie_red73 loved it - which I'm very happy about, of course. Thank you, Rosie.I'd been debating whether to actually tell you guys this, because I was pretty ARGH! about it, but Standish got a pretty scathingly bad review from Mrs Giggles. I think the main problem was that she didn't actually get that it was a gentle pastiche on the Regency novel, and she didn't like the "black and white" of my characters. Meh. But anyway, it was a milestone - the same way that "the first book" "the first review" "the first translation" is - "the first bad review" milestone has been passed, and lookit me, ma. I survived to tell the tale! *proud* For one who thinks that everyone should have opinions, I'm quite happy for Mrs Giggles to have hers.
Now. Talking of GOOD Reviews (or rather reviews of good books!) I'd like to extol
"The Phoenix" by Ruth Sims. m/m Historical
What a joy to read this book proved to be. From the very first page I was drawn in with the action, was instantly attracted to the characters and was very impressed how with so few strokes of her pen, Sims managed to draw the situation, the era, the environment and the characters. Language is certainly Sims' gift but she doesn't drown you in it. It's an intelligent read, but steers clear of being a morass where the words become more important than the story itself.
Jack Rourke and his sickly twin brother Michael live by the river in London, picking a living any way they can, (which in Jack's case means a bit of stealing) while they wait for sporadic visits by their father, away at sea. As the boys grow they dread his visits more and more, as Rourke is increasingly violent, both to them and to their mother. Matters come to a head with such a violent visit that Jack is forced to flee, and friends he has made in local theatre take him in.
The book is marginally longer than some of the books I've read recently, but there are points (like this early section) where I'd like it be even longer. I felt it - wasn't rushed, exactly - but I'd have like to have seen more of this early life explored in the same lush detail that Sims goes on in other sections of the book. Jack's (soon to renamed Christopher, and then Kit - and yes, this is important) rise from guttersnipe to an heir of a small fortune and a damned good actor could have been padded out and I wouldn't have minded a bit. He had a worrying tendancy to be a little Sue-ish, or tainted with "Woman-of-Substance-itis" but I overlooked that for he does have faults, and these are brought into sharp relief when he meets Nicholas, a dour doctor - brought up in a strict religious environment who has fallen quite in love with Kit without Kit knowing.
It's a lovely seduction and love affair, Kit's licentiousness is contrasted starkly with Nick's puritanical ideals and when the invevitable happens and both behave far too much like themselves for either of them to forgive each other..... Well - I don't want to do too many spoilers, but this is where the book really kicks in.
Characterisation: Is great. I could really get under the skin of both main characters without any problem. Even when she shifted between one and the other, it was so starkly contrasted - the difference in their characters - that you simply thought as one then the other. While Nick's choices made me want to brain him, they made perfect sense in the world he inhabited, and that's the true test of a good homosexual historical for my money. Ruth doesn't stick modern day characters in Victorian clothes, everything they do, even the much more openly shocking Kit - is coloured by what society thought and what society would and could do. It wasn't quite as dangerous for men in 1890 as it was in 1820 - you weren't hanged: but you still risked prison, disgrace and being exiled from polite society - even more rigid than it had been 150 years before. Sims shows the "salons" of the aesthetes - where the only safe place for a gentleman of a certain persuasion to meet others was in the drawing rooms of his friends.
Kit is larger than life throughout, and that's perfectly in character, even when his life spirals out of control, it's in a wonderfully tragedian way with Nick hardly able to keep up.
Period Feel: Wonderfully done, with no Dan Brown tub-thumping explanations of what is going on and the politics of the time. Sims doesn't talk down to her reader. For someone who self-admittedly has rarely ventured from her own corner of the USA, to be able to recreate Victorian slums is pretty impressive.
I only saw one major anachronism which I'd suggest getting edited for the next edition, and that was a mention of O and A levels, which didn't get introduced until after WW2. There was a little incursion of American-isms in the English sections, such as railroad, but they were only there because I was looking for them, didn't spoil it at all.
Sexual Level. Warm and erotic, without being graphic in any way, a true lesson to me in less is more.
Summing Up. Very highly recommended. Certainly the best written gay historical I've read since At Swim Two Boys, and a book that convinces me that I can do better with my own prose. This is not a "romance" btw, chaps - so while I'm giving no clues to the ending, I adored it, because it left me guessing right up until the very last chapter. It's a real keeper.
Four and a Half out of Five
Excerpts here
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 04:39 pm (UTC)Please remind me of this when I'm gnashing teeth, sobbing and ranting over my first (and second and third) bad review a few months from now.
Go, you, with the maturity and objectivity!
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 04:47 pm (UTC)Hee hee. If that were true, I'd have airily mentioned it on the day concerned. As it is I haven't even dared to put the link to the horrible thing.
I printed it off to go in the folder, but if truth is told, I havent even read it all the way through!
*pwuk puk puk* Is A Big Fat Chicken.
And I shall Pat you in a comradely way if you get a bad review, but I am quite sure you won't. *huggles*
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 04:44 pm (UTC)I love this book, too. For all its flaws, which are minor (Sims' economy of language was a bit too economical in a few places where I felt required much more), I really enjoyed it. And Bronwyn wasn't demonized, huzzah!
I got your email, by the bye (thank you!). I'll send you the second part later on. I'm about to leave for my nephew's first birthday party. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 04:50 pm (UTC)I thought she was barmy too, but - there are women like that. I had a lovely gay friend in the 80's and I swear all the time we were friends I hoped that he'd eventually look at me and SEE my tongue hanging out. Sigh. I was very pleased however, when they DID go to bed, he couldn't actually perform. Hee hee.
And Yes, I think Bronwyn was nicely handled, and I think she lasted slightly longer than I anticipated, actually.
And yay! more pls!
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 05:29 pm (UTC)For someone who self-admittedly has rarely ventured from her own corner of the USA, to be able to recreate Victorian slums is pretty impressive.
I read somewhere that it took her twenty years to write this book. I've written to her, and she was nice enough to write me back (though I've yet to hear from her again since I happily responded to her email, and it's been a couple of weeks now, at least), but I forgot to ask her about that. My bad. So I can't really say for sure if that "twenty years in the making" is, indeed, true.
Okay, am going out the door now. ^^;
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 04:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 05:12 pm (UTC)No, not yet, but I intend to work on it this year...
:)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 05:15 pm (UTC)They aren't so cheap on amazon.com but cheap-ER.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1932133402/ref=sr_1_olp_1/102-1983150-2489760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174238008&sr=8-1
Will be on line later, btw
bad reviews
Date: 2007-03-18 05:06 pm (UTC)Erastes,
Bad reviews are still good publicity for your work. Some readers never agree with a certain reviewer and buy books they criticize figuring that they should like it since so and so reviewer didn't. I'd use it. Either way, it still gets your name and your work out there for the reader to find.
Chin up,
Ellen
Re: bad reviews
Date: 2007-03-18 05:16 pm (UTC)I'm not at all influenced by review sites, never refer to them, I use Amazon and my friends recs...
Thanks!
*chins raised*
xxx
Re: bad reviews
Date: 2007-03-18 06:22 pm (UTC)Re: bad reviews
Date: 2007-03-18 07:41 pm (UTC)*shredded*
*looks sorrowfully at her baby...*
Re: bad reviews
Date: 2007-03-18 07:56 pm (UTC)But Giggles is notorious for shredding books. It hurts to read it (hell, it hurt *me* to read the Standish review, and it's not my baby), but I doubt it will do you more harm than good. You might get a few people who decide not to read it as a result, but you'll also have people who now know that the book exists, and might be their cup of tea.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 06:49 pm (UTC)Honestly, I didn't see Standish as a pastiche of Regency, either--more like the dark side of same because the Regency romance I've read is generally lighthearted and Standish is very grim. Which is not a criticism.
But it is good to get the lousy review over and done with. I keep scratching my head at that dingbat on Amazon who natters about how Ransom's not really a romance, then goes on about how 'some women will like it.' (Duh? Dear, who do you think read most romances?) I think she (or he) wanted a rape-fic and was pissed off that it turned out to be something else.
I got the black-and-white crit in that, too--and, damn it, I personally am sick of characters who're so screwed up there's no discernible difference between the good guys and the bad. Most of my friends are good people--not perfect people, but basically decent. And there are genuinely bad people in the world--those who have no concern for the welfare of anyone but themselves. Sorry, but they do exist. Having and adhering to a code of ethical behavior is not often easy and the effort to do so can be heroic.
And anyone who can pigeonhole Rafe as good or bad is not paying attention; he's not a bad person, but he's damned thoughtless and the results of his behavior are often (however unintentionally) pretty awful. But he's not a deliberately evil person, just thoughtless and damaged himself. He's doing his best and has enough good in him that the reader wants him to do better.
I don't read Mrs. Giggles--I looked at a few of her reviews awhile back and shrugged. Don't forget Dorothy Parker's cut at Hepburn--the ingenue stage performance that Parker claimed "ran the emotional gamut from a to b." It devastated young Kate, but Parker later admitted it had nothing to do with the performance--she was just so pleased with her own cleverness she simply had to use the phrase. I think that happens in reviews more often than it should, often by reviewers less clever than Parker.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 09:03 pm (UTC)Aw thank you. Yes, you are right, really. It started out as an homage to The Regency Romance (blonde fragile but feisty heroine turns into blond ditto hero) and then transmuted into Grim. :)
And yes. The thing I suppose is that (apart from Achille, who knew he was utterly without morals - and couldn't care less) everyone else thought they were doing The Right Thing - even Mauvaise, and Goshawk Snr. And poor Quinn and Francis, they were both steam rollered.
You only have to look at the Right Wing to see people who are terrifying for Doing The Right Thing in their own estimation!
Thanks hun!
xxx
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 09:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-19 08:25 am (UTC)Thank you!
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 09:51 pm (UTC)Just wondering if you've read Point of Hopes and Point of Dreams by Melissa Scott & Lisa A. Barnett?
They're set in the Middle Ages but completely AU. Anyway, the queer aspect is incredibly minimal, but a lovely addition to what are otherwise really interesting fantasy novels.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-19 08:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 10:37 pm (UTC)I've had a couple for short stories lately, and they sting. I can't imagine how badly a bad novel review would hurt.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-19 08:26 am (UTC)*G*