Where do You Want to Live When You Grow Up?

I found a new-to-me web site called www.findyourspot.com. The website administers a quiz that results in a list of 24 cities that match your answers. I took the quiz twice, first asking for cities from all over the U.S., then asking for regional results from the mid-Atlantic states, including Virginia. I should not be living in Virginia! There was not a single match for VA, but within the region both Charlestown WV and Frederick MD were named, and I agree with those selections. Providence RI and many cities in Oregon were named on both lists. It is interesting that when I was transferred back in 1994 I had stated that Virginia or Oregon were equally acceptable to me.

Oregon is a much more liberal state than is Virginia, and probably would have been a better match for me. But since my family is in Virginia, that is where my heart is as well. Which is not a bad place to be stuck, although I hate the hot, humid summers. The town where I live is poor and has a boarded up city center, two small libraries, and a lack of cultural activities. I live in what was once the exclusive part of the town, which has nice homes and quiet neighbors. It is also 45 minutes away from the capital of the state, so I have the best of both worlds, in a sense. Just wish there were more used book stores!

Current reading: "Earthly Joys," by Philippa Gregory. Touchstone Book (Simon and Schuster) 2005. ISBN 0-7432-7252-8

What Do Women Want?

Recently on the Reader's Roundtable Board on the "Romantic Times" web site, someone posted looking for "politically incorrect romances" that were about weak and fearful women dominated by an alpha male. Well, gag me! I thought that type of book was totally on the way out...the bodice ripper, purple prose romance that gave the entire genre a bad name, a black eye, whatever you want to call it, back in the '70s and 80s. And to add insult to injury, someone suggested that Diana Gabaldon's "Outlander" series was in this category because of the second most infamous scene in the first book, when Jamie takes a strap to Claire. I would say, however, that those of us who were appalled at that scene did come to understand why Jamie felt the strapping was necessary -- and it was congruent with the time period of the book. Plus, "Mrs. Jamie" is hardly a weak and fearful wimp.

Why WOULD anyone want to read a story about a weak and fearful woman dominated by an alpha male, unless at the end of the book the female "worm" suddenly turned and went for his balls, so to speak (and not in a way he would enjoy!)? This must be one female fantasy that I have totally by-passed , or if I ever had it, it must have been so long ago that I have forgotten it(say, maybe when I was 15 or 16). I want stories about strong women, women who know their own mind, have a sense of self that doesn't depend on a man to validate it, who may have suffered but who don't let it turn them to jelly. I gave the example of Jane Eyre, who is on my mind due to the group read on the Barnes and Noble University web site, as a heroine whom many see as a waif, but who is the farthest thing from a victim as one can imagine. From the time she is a small girl, Jane holds her own. She tells the Reverend Brocklehurst that she intends to avoid hell by not getting sick and dying. She has the strength to leave her true love, seemingly forever, because she will not compromise her beliefs, and turns down another proposal of marriage which she knows would kill her soul.

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to the appeal of a passive, weak heroine. Is it a longing to be dominated, but within the safety of a book? Is it a backlash against feminism in general? Or is this just something I will never understand?

ROMANCE READING SLUMP

I admit it, I am in a slump when it comes to reading romances! A couple of weeks ago I reported that I was going to tame the TBR pile by reading only from that mountain of books and not making any further purchases until I made a dent in the pile. It has been easy to keep the second promise of not purchasing any more romances, but actually cracking one open has seemed like a chore this month. The only true romance I have read so far is the disappointing "Blood Moon over Bengal," which I reviewed on July 9th (see post below).

I was also disappointed in Diane Chamberlain's "Kiss River," which is a book that could either be considered a romance or a member of the more mainstream category of women's fiction. I loved the first book in the series, "Keeper of the Light," and have read it several times over the years, but "Kiss River" just never rang true for me. One reason was that much of the book was in the form of a "diary" written in 1942 by a 14 year old girl, and Ms Chamberlain never caught the voice of a teenage girl. The "diary" sounded as though it was written by an adult woman recollecting memories of 60 years ago, which I am sure was not the intent of the author. The second reason I found the book disappointing was that the male and female protagonists were strangers at the beginning of the novel (which took place over about a 5 week period) and were madly in love and getting married by the end. The hero was a recent widower whose marriage had been less than perfect, but even then the declaration of love and the plans to be married were too quick for my taste.

The group read of "Jane Eyre" on the Barnes & Noble University website has been a great experience. We have been discussing feminism at length, as the instructor specializes in that subject area, and has written books on feminism in the 19th century British novel. I've also been reading the first book in the Harry Potter series, and while I found it to be more of a children's book than I anticipated, my understanding is that the rest of the series is aimed as much at adults as at children. Eventually, I intend to read the entire series. As we enter the dog days of summer, the thought that it is only two more months until Diana Gabaldon's "Breath of Snow and Ashes" is keeping me going -- I only hope that it keeps up the promise of the earlier books in the series!

Current reading: "Jane Eyre," by Charlotte Bronte.
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerers's Stone," by J.K. Rowling.

Projected reading: "Beyond Temption," by Mary Reed McCall.
"Howards End," by E.M. Forster.

"I WANTED TO LOVE THIS BOOK, BUT....."

"I wanted to love this book, but...." How many times have you said or thought that about a book, one you had just purchased or one that had been sitting in your TBR pile since God knows when? I found myself in that position this week, when I set aside "Blood Moon Over Bengal," by Morag McKendrick Pippin. I purchased this book through amazon.com at the end of June, based upon several positive reviews posted on that web site and others. One woman had even stated it was her "favorite book of all time!" Even discounting that bit of hyperbole, I decided to order the book as it had a setting that has long fascinated me: India in the last days of the British Raj.

Set in 1932, "Blood Moon Over Bengal" is the story of newly-wealthy Englishwoman Elizabeth Mainwarring and Major Nigel Covington-Singh, half-Indian, half-English prince, who used his father's influence to obtain a commission in the regular British army. It is also the first published novel by Ms Pippin, and thereby lies the main reason I set the book aside: I found it typical of some first romance novels, awkwardly written, with short choppy chapters (2-4 pages in length), and cliche characters. In my mind's eye I could see the "movie version," with C. Aubrey Smith as Colonel Mainwarring, Tyrone Power as Covington-Singh, David Nevin as his friend Harry Wordford, and so on...

I read half the book before setting it aside. The characters never came alive for me, the dialogue was stilted, and Covington-Singh apparently had a perpetual erection straining the fly on his uniform pants from the first moment he beheld the beautiful Ms Mainwarring. That he was still able to carry on is a tribute to good old British pluck! I have a problem with novels where the hero instantly pictures the heroine writhing on his bed -- it is not that I discount the male libido, but it is such a cliche that I moan (and not with passion) when I read those passages. On the positive side, I do believe that Ms Pippin has talent, especially with building up suspense (the story involves serial murders of native and English women), and it is possible that I may go back to "Blood Moon Over Bengal" at sometime in the future to see "who done it."

Anyone want to share any similiar experiences with "I wanted to love this book, but" situations?

Write What You Know?

A few days ago a post appeared on the Historical Message Board at the Romantic Times website requesting information on writing a "Medieval/Regency"! It was apparent from her posts that the writer had no idea of time periods involved, and admitted as much when I responded (I gave her a down-and-dirty briefing on the dates of the Georgian, Regency, and Victorian periods). I also (gently, I hope) suggested that if she truly knew nothing of the period(s) that she might want to consider a different setting, unless she was willing to spend months researching, especially as readers of Regency romances are generally quite knowledgeable about the period.

The thought that kept running through my mind was why would someone want to write about a period of history without having at least some basic knowledge on which to draw, including the dates? Obviously, if an author is writing an historical novel they are not writing about events that they have experienced or witnessed, so "write what you know" would be confined to the inner life of the character (what it feels like to fall in love, for example, or miss one's family, or to grieve over the loss of a loved one), and would translate well to a contemporary setting, involving much less research. And the Regency period is such a well-trodden pasture for romance writers that finding a fresh spot of grass would be difficult even for someone who was well-versed in that era.

One of my big quarrels with Julie Garwood's historicals, for example, is that they smack of superficial reseach. It is possible that I am doing Ms Garwood an injustice, but I read her books on the Middle Ages and leave with the impression of a clean, neat, sanitary Medieval period with ditsy heroines doing cutsey things (actually I don't read her any longer, but when I did...etc). Is that the result of an inadequate knowledge of the period, or a desire to write a certain type of book, or both? Whatever else you might think of Diana Gabaldon's "Outlander" series (and some Scottish readers have big issues) she has researched, even if she modifies history for the sake of the storyline. In addition, one can almost smell the streets of Paris, Jamie when he has done a hard day's work, and the baby spitup on Briannna. Marsha Canham is another author who extensively researches the historical background of her books.

So my question is, was my advice to the poster who wanted to write a "Medieval Regency" spot on, or should I just have minded my own business? What do you think of "writing what you know?" Overrated or ???

TAMING THE TBR PILE

The TBR pile of books that we just couldn't resist but never seem to read is a favorite topic of conversation on blogs and other websites. I wonder if this is primarily a problem of women readers? My son, who is a great reader, has a modest TBR pile, which is regularly supplimented by books I think he might enjoy but would not necessarily buy for himself -- such as James Hilton's "Lost Horizon." My son keeps ALL of his books, and has turned the bonus room of his home into a real library. He says he tries to keep less than ten unread books available at a time, and often re-reads his favorite books, such as the Patrick O'Brian series. My grandson is also starting to collect books as well -- Harry Potter, Star Wars, and the Redwall books. He has a very modest TBR pile consisting of the unread books in the Redwall series.

Unlike my son, I don't keep all of my books. I give away many romance novels to co-workers, and many more to the local Goodwill Store. As I no longer live near a good UBS, I can't recycle the books for credit. I do keep non-fiction, hardcovers, the classics, some favorite mainstream and women's fiction, as well as the works of my favorite romance authors. But my TBR pile has turned into a mountain! I finally decided at the end of last month that I need to put the breaks on the spending, as I think it has gotten out of hand. I have given myself a much-reduced set dollar amount to spend on books each month. I am determined to stick with it. It would be easier if my local library had a better selection of books, but the city budget is so limited that the library is lucky to have any new acquisitions. Mainstream and women's fiction gets short shrift, and most of the money goes to the computer lab and books for children and young adults.

The TBR pledge on the Romantic Times website has helped somewhat in taming the TBR pile, but one of my problems, as indicated in an earlier posting, is that I find it difficult to read more than 8-10 books a month. And new purchases just go straight to the TBR pile!

Well, wish me luck! I will keep you posted on my progress. Let me know how you are doing as well if you are also trying to curb spending and reduce the TRB pile.

Currently reading: "A Room with a View," by E.M. Forster.
Next books: "Blood Moon over Bengal," by Morag McKendrick Pippin & "Jane Eyre," by Charlotte Bronte, for the July group read at the Barnes & Noble website.