The killed a tree for this? Book rant

[dangermousie]

I tried to read Mary Gentle's "A Sundial in the Grave," largely because on the back it said "in the tradition of Alexandre Dumas and Dorothy Dunnett."

Well, unless Dumas and Dunnett were obsessed with graphic and pointless instances of heterosexual anal sex and some weird humiliation sex games and had protagonists that weren't likeable OR too bright, then I am afraid it's false advertising. Of course, I could have been reading wrong Dumas or Dunnett? Right? Right????

The author also tries to be clever and do a AS Byatt "Possession" trick of this being a real manuscript found somewhere. Uh-huh. Nothing can save this wreck of a book, which has one of my least favorite cliches ever: girl crossdresses as a boy and the man is aroused but straight because his body or subconscious recognizes she's a chick.

Setting the book in 1610 does not make it like Dumas. Giving a hero a shady past makes it nothing like Dunnett (this man and Lymond? Separate universes). Making the hero 25 years older than the heroine does not Heyer's "These Old Shades" make, which is the vibe the author was going for the most, as she even mentioned Heyer in her intro. Leonie is brave and lovable and fun. Avon is ruthless and charming and clever and haughty. Neither of the two "heroes" of this sorry tale are anything of the sort. Makes it nothing but tripe, if the book is this particular one.

Spare me.

Comments

[thelana.livejournal.com]

I tried to read Mary Gentle's book about the Joan or Arc type heroine, Ash, (with a dose of scifi computers and golems) and I just couldn't get through with it. It felt well researched enough and I liked the style but the whole book just had a dirty type of bleakness about it, I just couldn't take it.

Yes, my definition of what I consider too depressive and dark to be enjoyable is probably slightly skewed, but somehow this book fell into it. Or maybe it just wasn't too well written enough to make me overlook the weird vibe it had.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

a dirty type of bleakness about it, I just couldn't take it.


Exactly. Also, she has a bizarre rape fascination it seems. Ugh.

[thelana.livejournal.com]

Well the Ash book had her immediately falling deeply in love/lust with the guy she had sex with at age 12 and who humilated her by peeing on her afterwards in front of his friends? I believe that counts?

Seriously I usually don't mind edgy, dark or disturbing (I read most of American psycho, I read King and Oates), but it just seemed so pointless.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

O-kaaaaaaay. Now that she seems to repeat the motif in other books? Yikes.

I really don't want to know about your kinky fantasies, author!

[thelana.livejournal.com]

Wait, are you saying that this book had exactly the same thing? Or just something similarly disgusting?

Because I kinda assumed she was the type to write in out there stuff just to come across as being oh so deep and edgy.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Something similarly disgusting and of a similar "sexual type" thing. Yuck.

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

Making the hero 25 years older than the heroine does not Heyer's "These Old Shades" make, which is the vibe the author was going for the most, as she even mentioned Heyer in her intro.

Along with badVMfic writers, any writer invoking the name of The Great Heyer should be dipped in honey and molested by mongeese. To paraphrase the dude who laid the smackdown on Quayle but whose name I have since forgotten: "I have read Georgette Heyer. You are not Georgette Heyer."

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I have read Georgette Heyer. You are not Georgette Heyer.

Word. Wordy McWord Word. Heyer would have hated that book. Forget everything else, the characters are really anachronistic. You never get the sense these are people of another time, but are just modern people in play-acting clothing.

[linaerys.livejournal.com]

Huh, I didn't hear it compared to either of those two, so when I read it I wasn't comparing it unfavorably. I kind of liked that both the main characters were unpleasant because then they get to learn and grow, which they do. Also, I read that we're supposed to think Rochefort is a bit of a prat and a dumbass for thinking he's only attracted to Dariole because she's a woman. After all, he has liasons with men in his past.

Also, it becomes one of the most tortured romances I've ever read. And according to Sex in History heterosexual anal sex was more common before there was reliable birth control because it was a very reliable way of avoiding pregnancy.

I'm not saying you should stick with it if you hate it, but I ended up enjoying it on its own terms.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I've read most of it, actually (had nothing else to read, and it's a quick read).

Still think it sucks :) The characters remain unlikeable (God, I wanted to throttle Dariole and kept hating R for not getting rid of her early on), but most unforgivably, they are stupid and contrivances are ridiculous, i.e. come on, I have no respect for R's sense if he didn't get rid of Dariole on the flight from Paris (i.e. why didn't he slit her throat when they slept?)

As to romance, I got no "love" there or passion, just the fact that "yay, you got a chik who gets off on humiliating you and you like to be humiliated." Hardly a match made in heaven.

I didn't like the characters, didn't care for them, didn't respect them.

Anal sex? Fine with me. But do I have to read pointless graphic descriptions of it? Ugh. That book made me want to take a shower.

*oops, ranted again. This book really bugged me*

[crumpeteer.livejournal.com]

she even mentioned Heyer in her intro

Oh no she din't. *snap snap snap*

See, the thing with Dumas, Heyer and Austen are that they were all able to write flawed characters that were still extremely likable and romance without superfluous sex. Personally I find superfluous sex to be lazy writing unless there's a specific reason for it (like Crimson Petal and the White). If I'd wanted to see porn I would have opened those spam emails that SOMEHOW find every account I've ever had.

And you just can't say that Dumas's characters are dumb. Count of Monte Cristo proves that. It was only the characters made stupid by desperation that their misdeeds would catch up to them who acted foolishly. And Edmund was just twisted genius. He is SO my evil fictional boyfriend.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I have no objection to sex in books if it serves a purpose: One of my all time favorite books ever is Jorge Amado's "Tereza Batista, Home from the Wars" and it has some explicit and some unsettling sex, but it really is necessary for the story.

And yes, characters are only as bright as the author, and thus, even though we are supposed to believe the characters here are bright. They are NOT.

[crumpeteer.livejournal.com]

I've always hated books where I could see what was coming a mile away yet none of the characters seem to. Books like that seem to insult my intelligence. I get that "was that supposed to confuse me" feeling in some of them. Poorly written mystery books and nearly every "crank them out as fast as we can" romance novel leave me feeling that way.