Yet More Books Read in February

My final count for the number of books read in February is nine. In addition to the books listed in previous postings, I read:

"The Duchess's Next Husband," by Terri Brisbane. This was a delightful Regency by an author previously known to me as strictly a writer of books set in the Middle Ages. Ms. Brisbane always seems to have mixed reviews in publications such as "Romantic Times," but I enjoy her books. She captures the feeling of the time periods in which she writes, and in this book created a heroine who went from passive pawn to heroic lady fighting for her man in a believable fashion.

"The Face of a Stranger" is the first in the William Monk mysteries by the great Anne Perry. If you enjoy mysteries that keep the solution until the very end, and an author who faithfully recreates a by-gone era (in this case early Victorian England), you cannot do better than Ms Perry.

"Dragonwyck," a reissue of the beloved Anya Seton classic from 1944. This is truly lovely cover art, is it not? This Gothic novel deals with murder, and includes subtle hints of sexual sadism (but nothing to put you off your feed), drug use, and a cast of characters that includes Edgar Allen Poe.

"The Mystery Kiss," by Judith Landsdowne. A fun Regency mystery with a cast of very appealing characters, including a doormouse! Not my usual cuppa' but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Cover Art -- Again!

Oh why, oh why, oh why saddle a perfectly delightful book with such a dismal cover? Amanda reviewed this book, "The Mystery Kiss" by Judith Landsdowne, in depth on her Bookwormom blog a few weeks ago, and based upon her review I ordered the book from a secondary seller on amazon. I agree with Amanda's assessment of the book -- it is a well-written and enjoyable romance novel, although normally not the type of book that catches my fancy (a rather lighthearted Regency that includes children, but does have slightly dark undertones, due the fact that the heroine was mistreated by her late husband prior to the opening of the story).

But the cover, ladies! What was the publisher thinking when first someone said, "Let's put gold foil figures on a purple background?" Ick! Romance readers are divided into several camps on cover art: some, and I am one, like covers that depict the characters in some fashion (I enjoy cover art that is a reproduction of a famous work of art, or a photograph that is from the time period of the novel), and if it is a "clinch cover" I like the stepback cover format. Other readers enjoy flowers and fans on their covers, or symbols, such as those that grace Diana Gabaldon's "Outlander" books. There are a very few who enjoy the cartoon covers, covers that started out only on chick-lit, but since have migrated to Regencies as well (although with the demise of the Zebra Regency line it is possible we will see fewer cartoon covers on historicals). But I know no one who likes covers with stylized foil characters!!

For one thing, one of the pleasures of reading a romance novel is holding a book with an attractive cover, whether it depicts an embracing couple, a lovely face, a manly chest with plenty of what Amanda referred to as "man titty," or something more generic and abstract. Second, I find that when a book has an attractive "couple cover", I will often pause in my reading and look back at the picture, to get a refresher as to the appearance of the hero and heroine. While sometimes the author and the artist part company on details such as eye and hair color, the best cover art conveys the essence of the story and adds to the emotional aspect of the reading experience. The cover of "The Mystery Kiss" is a big zero -- it does not convey in the slightest the magic of the hero and the heroine, the awakening of the heroine to the idea that she can find love again after her marriage to a wife-beater, nor the charm of a hero with big ears (someone like Clark Gable, is my take).

"The Mystery Kiss" was published about five years ago, and I have to admit I have seen fewer foil covers since that date, with the horrible exception of the latest "Outlander" book, "A Breath of Snow and Ashes." If, indeed, the trend is away from cartoon and foil covers, I applaud that trend and hope that it holds.

Two Frustrating Hours & Still No Links!

I managed to change my template to what I feel is a more attractive format, but am unable to create embedded links on this site. I spent two hours this morning trying to follow what appeared to be very clear step-by-step instructions from another site, and still am unable to create links to other blogs and websites. Obviously I have no idea what I am doing! If anyone can guide me through the process step-by-step I would appreciate it.

My Worthless Blog!

Amanda (Bookwormom)posted today that Technorati has a feature which allows you to determine the monetary worth of your blog (her Bookwormom blog, which I never miss, had $0.00 value). If her's was deemed worthless I knew this blog hadn't a prayer!! Sure enough, I went to www.technorati.com and got the bad news, hence the title of this posting.

What makes the difference between a blog that has monetary worth and one that doesn't? I haven't solid clues, but I have some theories. I think the name of the blog may have something to do with it and I know that mine is pretty bland -- I was thinking of changing it to "One Old Broad's Views of Life, Love, and Literature," which is probably closer to the mark than "Romance Novel Corner." I will have to check out whether it is possible to change the name but keep the blog intact (I'm a little website challenged, to say the least). I think the layout may also contribute -- Tara, whose romancereadingmom blog has monetary worth, is much more lively than mine. She also posts photographs of her adorable son -- not fair! My family will not allow me to post snapshots of my grandchildren on the internet, so y'all will have to wait until I get my poodle next year.

I also think that in addition to being dull, the title of my blog is misleading, as I do not confine my reading to romances, and often review other types of literature. And, working full time leaves me little free time to interface with other bloggers, let alone update my blog every day. I was disappointed that several recent posts resulted in 0 comments from readers...that is if anyone even looked at them. Jeeze, I'm starting to whine, and I hate it when I do that!!! I need to rethink this blog, because as much as I enjoy posting on it, I also like the interaction with anyone who takes the time to look at it (although I can do without the merchants selling trusses who like to post as well).

If anyone reads this, please take a couple of minutes to offer feedback: good, bad, ugly. The Old Broad can take it -- after all, I am a survivor of the Political Forum on the Romantic Times Bookclub Magazine website, so you know my hide is tough.

More Books Read This Year

Since finishing "The Kitchen Boy" at the end of January, I have read:

"Angel Falls," which I reviewed in an earlier post.

Parts of "The Metamorphoses" by Ovid (interesting retelling of Greek and Roman myths) as part of a book discussion group on the Barnes and Noble University website.

"Unmasked," which I reviewed in an earlier post.

"A Mortal Bane," by Roberta Gellis, the cover of which is shown above. I was somewhat disappointed in "A Mortal Bane," although I loved the premise: a madame with a heart-of-gold helps solve cozy-style mysteries in the England of Steven and Maud (familiar to those who love the mysteries of Ellis Peters). The problem was that by the time I got to the end, it was more with a sense of relief that the convoluted mystery was solved, which meant that the book was over, rather than due to any real interest in who did what to whom. The characters are wonderfully drawn, and the author's historical scholarship is, as usual, impressive, but the book could have been shorter by at least 1/3 in order to keep my interest at a peak. I will read the other books in the series, as I want to find out what happens to Magdalena and her whores, all of whom are interesting women.

According to an e-mail I received from the author in response to a question I had about her new publisher, the books never really caught on with readers in the way of her previous novels. Hence TOR decided not to publish the fourth book in the series, which is previewed on amazon. Horrible cover by the way, and a cause of much distress to the author, per her website and e-mail. Ms Gellis is a very lovely woman who responds quickly to fan "letters," which is what I have found to be the case with most authors.

"Unmasked" was Ultimately a Disappointment

A beautiful cover does not a great, or even good, book make! The problem I had with this book is entirely due to the hero and heroine, as the rest of the book, including a wonderfully drawn Charles II, was excellent. As usual, Ms Henley's research into the historical background of the novel, early Restoration England, was outstanding. History is never just wallpaper in her novels. It was interesting to read of her Charles II, and contrast that strong, dashing figure to the effete fop created by the author of the also newly-released "Lady Anne's Dangerous Man," which was reviewed here as well. Both novels were set in around the same year of Charles II's reign, but from everything I have read about Charles, Ms Henley's Charles seems to be the more accurate of the two.

As to the hero and heroine: Ms Henley kept piling misunderstanding upon misunderstanding upon misunder...well, you get the idea. She had trust issues, he had trust issues...and they never learned from one incident to the next, until suddenly, at the end, "all better!" By the time each decided that the other was trustworthy, I no longer cared. But the cover was an eye-catcher.

Not My Usual Read but...

I enjoyed this lovely book far more than I anticipated. Kristin Hannah's "Angel Falls" is unusual,in that it is women's fiction, but told almost entirely from the male point of view. The plot is fairly straight forward: woman has accident, goes into coma, husband finds out that woman's first husband was famous movie star, when woman reacts to mention of first husband's name, present husband contacts the exH to see if he can bring wife out of coma. Sounds like a soap opera, but not in the hands of Ms Hannah! The principal male characters are real people who hurt, feel guilt, feel love, perform heroic acts of everyday bravery. The children are real children who want to go to the prom, have trouble seeing their mom in the hospital, write on the walls, and love their parents.

My only issue was with the minor character of the MIL -- I felt that after being a part of the second husband's life for ten years, there would be a closer relationship, as there was no indication that there had ever been bad feeling between the two. I felt it was a rather awkward handling of the fact that the MIL was Mexican-American. She was "this close" to a cliche, with her jumble of English and Spanish, which wasn't realistic considering there was never an indication that she was anything but U.S. born and raised. The character of the second husband was well-drawn and very two dimensional, although he liked to live his life as a cardboard cutout of a "bad boy" movie star. The wife doesn't appear until the last 1/4 of the book, and the remainder of the novel is taken up with "will she or won't she" stay with her current husband, of whom she has no memory.

All in all, every well handled contemporary novel that could have been a tear jerker and nothing more! I look forward to reading other books by this author.

Books I've Read So Far in 2006

1. "Roselynde," by Roberta Gellis. A- (romance)

2. "Conspiracy of Paper," by David Liss. A- (historical novel)

3. "Lady Anne's Dangerous Man," by Jeane Westin. B+ (romance)

4. "The Magnificent Rogue," by Iris Johansen. C+ (romance)

5. "The Constant Princess," by Phillipa Gregory. B+ (historical novel)

6. "Prince of Fire," by Daniel Silva. A+ (contemporary spy thriller)

7. "The Kitchen Boy: A Novel of the Last Tsar," by Robert Alexander. A for originality, quality of writing, and mood. C+ for the rushed ending which tied up loose ends too quickly. All over rating B+ (historical novel)

Current read, as shown in previous post, is a romance, "Unmasked," by Virginia Henley. Tomorrow the new Barnes and Noble University group reads start. I am signed up for a discussion of "The Metamorphoses," by Ovid, and I need to at least read the introduction today (before the Super Bowl). I've read sections of "The Metamorphoses" in the past but as poetry, not prose.

Cover Art Again!

I'll confess: I bought this Virginia Henley book due to the cover. I have been a fan of Ms Henley since the 1990s, but for some reason I stopped reading her books a few years ago. It was just recently that I started reading her books again, with "Undone." I started reading "Unmasked" today, and have to say that "so far, so good." I wasn't sure how to deal with a heroine named Velvet, as that seemed a little too precious, as in affected, until I realized the character changed her name from Elizabeth at the age of seven. Think I will have to go back and check out the Henley titles I have missed over the past few years -- yep, I'm a sucker for a good cover!

Must Every Review Be a Fan Letter?

I have reason to believe that my honest review on amazon of Phillipa Gregory's latest novel, "The Constant Princess," is being given "Fan Girl" treatment. The review has received 3 negative votes and 0 positive votes since I posted it earlier this week. I asked Amanda (Bookwormom) to do a sanity check for me, as I wondered if the review was not as balanced, fair, and honest as I believe it to be. Amanda agreed that the review was what I perceived it as being. I respect her opinion, and would have pulled the review if she indicated that it was not fair, balanced, and honest: to me, those are the keys to a helpful review, and is the standard that amazon asks its readers to use. The reviewer should give the reasons for their opinions clearly and intelligently. Being or not being a fan of the author should not be the standard used in reviewing a review! I made both positive and negative comments, gave examples, and rated the book a 4 with reservations, which were clearly spelled out.

It is not impossible that those who disliked the book gave my review a negative rating, but having dealt with some members of Ms Gregory's fan base in another forum (Barnes & Noble University Book Discussion Group), I know that there are some readers who cannot see any flaws in her writing, and take her historical novels to be totally accurate. Ms Gregory herself is a very gracious woman who, from my experience being in two discussion groups with her, is always open to questions from those who disagree with her premises. We had an interesting discussion about "The Virgin's Lover," as I disagreed to the end with her premise that Elizabeth I and Robert Dudley consumated their relationship. She gave her reasons for believing Elizabeth I was not the Virgin Queen and I gave mine for supporting the more traditional view. There were some participants who were outraged with those of us who found the slightest fault with the work, not seeming to understand that her books are works of fiction.

Will this negative trend keep me from posting reviews on amazon? In a word: No. I do not have time to post reviews there on a regular basis -- I can hardly keep up with this blog! -- but if I feel strongly about a book, I will still offer my comments. And it is not the first time that I have had negative votes on my reviews and do not want to appear that I am whining -- I'm an adult and I can take criticism, but for the right reasons.