The Flame and the Flower by Katherine Woodiwiss

Skeptic scale: ♥♥ 
The Queen of Bodice Rippers

It's hard to talk about this book without mentioning its context in the history of the genre. Especially since it was the book that actually helped define the genre. It must have been so thrilling/shocking to have picked this book up in 1972. Imagine being a young Skeptic, having never before read an explicit sex scene in a romance novel, picking this little piece of goodness up and being faced with a rather full-on rape scene in the first 40 pages! 

It's stupid to try and "judge" the material in today's context, but let me just say this thing reads ... interestingly... this second time around, after having read all the generations of historical romance that have been written since. It's hyperbolic (sex scene: stars, heaven, bursting, shattering), and expansive (poor orphan, horrible abuse at the hands of men, journey across the high seas, introduction to an untamed new world) and if it wasn't the Classic it is, it's a pretty horrendous read.

I don't mean any disrespect to the Duenna of the grand tradition of the historical romance as we know it, so I'll doff my hat and drop a curtsy to her right now before I begin outlining the wtfs that had me rolling my eyes in my journey.

1) The Hero and heroine were tres idiotique and never, ever COMMUNICATE like adults: Granted that the heroine was 18 when they meet, but having been 18 myself, I would have bloody well said something like, hey dude - I'm not a prostitute, I'm actually just lost, so you should probably not try to have sex with me. And I get that he's horny and not thinking clearly, but surely he had the company of his right hand for all those months at sea, and unlike a lion or a horse or a wombat who couldn't possibly take care of matters by themselves, this dude could have behaved a little less like a ravening beast and more like a dude who just wanted a little female company. 

And worse than the actual rape (ACK!) was the hero's rather amused reaction when he realizes his mistake. I mean, what the WHAT THE WHAT???? I get that times may have been "rougher" then, but surely he might have spared a moment's regret at having basically hurt and ruined this chick! What a dummy.

2) Fake tension: After the weird rape scene, there is about 80% of the book where the hero behaves like a chaste little choirboy. A moody, irritable little sh!t in other words. God, that guy was the WORST. He's mean and silly and seems unable to communicate like an adult man. And then, when they eventually DO get it on after this torturous almost-year of frustrated chastity, he's kinda nice. So all the aggression and black humor was just a case of extreme sexual frustration?? Again, something that could have been solved in about 100 seconds of him getting cozy with his hand. C'mon bro.

I wonder if their not sleeping together while she is pregnant had more to do with some sort of squeamishness from the audience at the time than something the author necessarily wanted to show? These days, romances seem to have gone the opposite direction with couples going at it like bunnies while she's preggers. Which I don't know if I'm totally into either...

3) The heroine has zero personality: Unless you call being young and hot a personality. She's a scaredy puss in her every interaction with "danger" or intimidation. Fine, she's young. She shows the occasional flash of temper but then it subsides at the first sign of conflict. Ok, she's young and has had a hard life that have left her gun shy. She doesn't seem to have any interests (except taking baths - there are like 25 bath scenes in this book - I appreciate the nod to cleanliness, but c'mon.) People either hate or like her because of her beauty. Her husband basically falls for her because of her ravishing figure and pretty face. But apart from the beauty thing and the youth thing, there doesn't seem to be much going for her.

Maybe this is a way to make the heroine's character more of a "vessel" into which the reader can pour in her own personality and feel all the events with more sympathy? I dunno. I just thought she was lame.

4) Two-dimensional characters: The baddies are BAD. And there are SO MANY BADDIES. Her abusive aunt. Her aunt's lecherous brother. The rapey villain. The hero's jealous lover. The hero for most of the book. The hero's horse was kinda of a d!ck too, come to think of it. I'd have enjoyed a 3rd dimension on some of this stuff.

Anyway, I'll stop there. Would I read this book again? Never. Should you read it? Obvi, sisters. Obvi. It's part of the canon. And when you read a romance novel with the passion that many of us do, you need to know where the genre has come from. Think of it like reading Othello or Moby Dick or some other tedious read that you somehow convince yourself is "art" and clever and enriching.

Skeptic's last word: My recommendation would be to read it aloud, in the company of other Skeptics. In fact, I wish I had read this aloud with my husband and watched his reactions. It would have been a great experience to be able to explain my way through some of the riduculosity that was going on. Ooh. Maybe I WILL read it again, after all!

Lady Louisa's Christmas Knight by Grace Burrowes

Skeptic scale: ♥♥

I think Ms. Burrowes is a superb writer so it pains my to say how incredibly bored I was by this book. Usually, I cannot WAIT to take myself and my book to a quiet place where I can read in peace, but I found that I actually avoided opening my kindle because I knew I had to finish this thing and it was just too dull a prospect to bear. Sigh...

Anyway, now that I have finished it, let me explain why I was so underwhelmed. But first, a short summary.

He: A knight who has come back from fighting the war (bravely and honorably) with a limp. He isn't from a grand family, and only became knighted because of his performance in the war. In fact, he was so impressive he is endorsed by the great man himself - Wellington. Oh, and he's in line for a "proper" title of Baron but he really doesn't want it.

He has some secrets. Lots of illegitimate children that he has fostered. There is some attempt to make it seem like they are actually his bastards but that was SUCH a weak attempt at mystery that I won't even bother to keep the spoiler a secret. Because you'll see through it anyway in half a second if you do read this. Anyway, he's a decent, honorable chap who reads poetry to his pig and has long rambling chats with his horse. 

She: Daughter of a powerful duke who is just bored. With everything - society, her life, her routine. She's supposed to be quite a polymath - poet, mathematician, strategy expert, bruising horsewoman and excellent dancer. She's beautiful and kind and everything genteel and proper. With a hidden passion, that he uncovers, of course. 

She's got this terrible secret, that if exposed, will destroy her reputation so she stays away from men in general.

What was nice:

1) The writing is very Georgette Heyer-ish. There is a keen sense of time and place and absolutely correct usage of Regency language. 

What I did not like at all:

1) The pace was slumberous. I mean, it took 15 pages for ONE thing to happen. I think I've gotten used to more "modern" historical romances that are written with quicker pacing, with a structure that gives the characters more "tension".

I think we were supposed to feel urgency due to the fact that these two characters had these secrets that they were withholding from each other. But then it turns out they both find out about each other's terrible secrets before actually the other reveals it to them. Then we see that they're both just ok with those secrets. I mean, what was the point then? Where's the tension? What do they really have to overcome?

They have these made up internal struggles and then everything falls flat like a badly made souffle in this big "reveal" scene with a villain (who was a weak, pathetic person who had no real power over anyone). I felt a bit cheated that I struggled through the whole series of (extremely slow) events only to be treated to this weak climax scene.

2) Dull sex scenes. It's all just too proper to be really hot. Again, I think this is because I'm used to raunchier language in the more recently written historicals, but these two talk like they are at a tea party while doing it. In fact, there's just too much TALKING. Long, witty sentences that are fine when they're building the tension, but then when we're supposed to feel their passion, there is all this noise from their yammering that I was like SHUT UP AND DO IT ALREADY!

The weird thing is that the proper talk is juxtaposed with this incredibly clinical description of his bits and her bits and their bits mashing together. It just felt really strange and not very sexy at all. Like sex between the Queen (forgive me, Your Highness) and her consort. Shivers.

3) No tension. At all. None. And that was surprising. I mean there was a duel, some improper behavior, clandestine smooches, scandalous secrets in both their pasts, a villain... but it all was like a bunch of milky porridge with no texture or grit or sense of urgency. I just didn't give a fig by the end of it. Maybe the pace was intentional since this was a "Christmas" romance and maybe there was the feeling that readers want a nice, slow read for the winter days but I would have been annoyed if I wasted my Christmas break on this.

Skeptic's last word: I still think Grace Burrowes is a solid writer and I'm definitely reading her again. This one was simply too slow for me. Also, I need to be more strategic about when I read her. I need to be in the mood for a Heyer-type read with lots of fun language and less romp.

How to Deceive a Duke by Lecia Cornwall

Skeptic scale: ♥♥

The heroine is a redhead. That is all. 

Oh, you need more? No, you really don't. Because the color of her hair tells you EVERYTHING about her personality. She's fiery, independent, unique...see? You knew everything already when I said the word "redhead". 

On behalf of my redheaded friends and probably most other people with hair color that has become synonymous with "independence" and "tempestuousness" - please, pretty please, can we just STOP with this cliche. I'll do anything. Just make it stop.

He: Nicholas has only recently inherited the duchy of Temberlay when his brother passes away in what seem like mysterious circumstances. He is a hardened man, after seeing war and a general lack of familial affection all his life. His grandmother, the Dowager Duchess seems to have had it in for him since he was a child and seems to spend a lot of her time trying to express her general lack of approval of him. He has a reputation for being a rake (don't they all) and a reprobate (obviously).

She: Marguerite (or Meg, as she is more prosaically known) is the less beautiful sister of the woman who is tapped to be Nicholas' wife and duchess. When the pretty (but featherbrained) sister absconds because she can't bear to be married to such a man, Meg steps in to take her place. Well, clearly she's the only one with any fire in her to withstand such a man. She's a redhead, you see.

Conflict: His grandmother basically goes out and "buys" a wife for Nicholas and then blackmails him into marrying her. The bait is that Nicholas only gets to his grandmother's wealth to restore the family coffers if he weds (and beds) this bride that she's chosen for him. He's not that keen on a wife, especially since he's being forced to marry her. Also, he's on a mission to discover the reason for his brother's death so he doesn't need the distraction.

Issues:
Oh, the NUMBER of soggy, overcooked tropes in this story...

1) Rakish/angry hero who seems to have no trouble charming and seducing ladies but can't seem to be moderately nice to his own wife. Also, he fancies himself to be some kind of sexual savant, felling ladies right and left with his mastery. Worst of all, he boasts about it to her. Puhleese. A real man doesn't need to say anything. He shows. 

2) Red-haired heroine who has (gasp) a spine of steel and doesn't let people push her around. Except she does get pushed around. Quite a lot actually. 

3) A mysterious death the hero's  family that needs to be solved so that the hero can have some closure/vengeance.

4) Caricatur-ish side characters: The villain is a one-dimensional evil-doing hobbit, Meg has a is a trusty servant who has known her since birth and warns everyone not to trifle with her feelings because she's such a gem, the hero's nicknamed Devil, the hero's horse is a magnificent, powerful creature totally devoted to him and many, many, many other such stereotypes. 

5) All the women in the book (save our red-headed Meg) are the WORST. Either frivolous (Meg's beautiful but spoiled sister), stupid (Meg's extremely annoying mother), weak and needing to be saved (a woman who committed an indiscretion and now needs someone to save her and her baby), greedy (the hero's mistress) or controlling (the grandmother).

It was like there was a random cliche generator and we just read a long list of tired, overused tropes in the story. I was pretty wrung out by the end so even though the writing was ok and the heroine was a commendable, if not terribly original, character, I just didn't think there was anything in here that I have not read before a thousand times. Should I try another of Lecia Cornwall's? Maybe I just picked wrong...