Review: All Smiles

I'm debating whether or not to review this book, because I did not finish it. I fully intended to plow through to the very end, despite the fact I wasn't enjoying it, for the sake of a full and and fair review. However, on page 285, I realized I had at least another 150 pages to go, and I gave up.

I don't think it's a bad book, exactly. I think it just might not be my type. I hate the way it's written, and I especially hate the dialogue. It is not believable (cumbersome and overly complex, with what some people may call the "Dawson's Creek Effect": as in, nobody really talks like that). Information the reader needs in order to understand the narrative is included in ways I consider amateur and cringe-worthy. The relationship is too open, too soon -- there is little angst in the first 2/3 of the book, and while I expect there may be some in the last third, I generally prefer the opposite (angst first, happy resolution at the very end). Overall, I didn't find the book dark enough or powerful enough to really capture my emotions. Then there is the matter of a ghost named Spivey that narrates some mini-chapters, which quickly became unbearable and warranted skipping, and the fact that All Smiles is a terrible pun on the surname of the heroine (Meg Smiles). I read this book in April and I'm still cringing at the memory of it as I write this. No more Stella Cameron for me, until I have reason to believe that she explores darker themes in her other novels. Also, I'm also a little disappointed in Amanda Quick a.k.a. Jayne Ann Krentz for writing such a glowing review of such a lackluster book. But perhaps that is only more proof that for the right person, this could be good.

Let's Talk Romance: Falina's Current Top Five Angsty Love Songs

I'd hate for anyone to think that I confine my love of romance purely to literature. I'm hoping to eventually review films here, and right now I'm going to list my current favourite love songs, with my favourite quotes from them. So, in no particular order...

1. Hinder - Lips of an Angel

My girl's in the next room,
Sometimes I wish she was you

That line is pretty much the only reason I like this song. I used to really be bothered by the concept of infidelity, in films and lyrics and otherwise, but I'm beginning to consider it a useful plot tool.

2. John Mayer - I Don't Trust Myself

No I'm not the man I used to be lately
See, you met me at an interesting time
And if my past is any sign of your future
You should be warned before I let you inside

Hold onto whatever you find baby
Hold onto whatever will get you through
Hold onto whatever you find baby
I don't trust myself with loving you

Oh, John Mayer and I have had a torrid relationship. I loved his early live stuff, hated the CD versions, hated him, his image, and his last couple of albums, and now I'm loving some of his newer stuff, like this (I'm assuming it's new) and "Slow Dancing in a Burning Room." He just got a sexy new haircut that makes him look vaguely like a cross between James Dean and Johnny Depp, too. I have the live version of this song, and I love his sexy, smoky voice.

3. Tegan and Sara - My Number

He grabs me by the hand, drags me to the shore
And says 'Maybe you don't love me, or you'll grow to love me even more'
And I, I'm not surprised

I'm currently trying to find some older and less tinny songs by Tegan and Sara. I don't enjoy their "Walking With a Ghost" style. I prefer their more earthy tunes, like this one, "Hype," and "Divided."

4. Chris Isaak - Wicked Games

And I don't want to fall in love
No I don't want to fall in love, with you

This song is a classic, and so angsty. I read Isaak's interpretation of this song described as "bewildered", and I like that. Bewildered and tortured. Mmm.

5. Ani Difranco - Your Untouchable Face

To tell you the truth I prefer the worst of you
Too bad you had to have a better half
She's not really my type, but I think you two are forever
And I hate to say it, but you're perfect together

So fuck you, and your untouchable face
And fuck you, for existing in the first place
And who am I, that I should be vying for your touch
'Said who am I, I bet you can't even tell me that much

I fell in love with Ani Difranco just a few hours ago...I hadn't really heard anything by her before tonight. She's brilliant. Her voice is so vibrant and colourful, and her lyrics are some of the best I've ever heard.

Let's Talk Romance: The Romantic Hero and Universalism

I'm feeling my way through this topic without any formal academic understanding of Postmodernism itself, but I think it's an important point, at least one that's caused a couple of heated discussions between me and my "Po-mo is the Mo-fo" boyfriend.

When I talk about the Romantic/Byronic hero, I tend to make references to mythological/literary male characters that existed before the Romantic Period - Cain and Milton's Satan are two of my favourites. Jon's argument is that one can't look back with modern perceptions and label something that would not have been labeled at the time. The analogy that he uses, and one that makes sense to me, is to look at, say, ancient Greece and call the men homosexuals. Homosexuality as a term did not exist until thousands of years after this period; homosexuality itself did not exist until we defined it. So to look at, say, Cain, and define him as a Romantic hero does not really work, because Romantic heroes didn't exist until the Romantic Period.

I have trouble wrapping my head around this in some ways, because I know a Romantic hero when I see one. I recognize the combination of characteristics, the "character type" and I don't care whether the character was created thousands of years before Byron started writing or not. At the same time, this argument has made me realize something important -- the Romantic hero is not a thing. The Romantic hero is a perception. That's why I can look at Cain and see a Romantic hero and others in different time periods, including the one in which the Bible was written, can see him as a monster. He's the same character, with the same characteristics, but he can be perceived in different ways. Therefore, what I am interested in is the perception of characters -- Cain, Satan, Lestat, and so many others -- in a certain way, not in whether or not they written deliberately as such or whether there is something inherently "Romantic" in their makeup. It's modern perception that I'm interested in, and possibly Nineteenth-Century perception as well (since that is when the Romantic hero became a noticed a popular thing, and people began to actively create them). Maybe I'm interested in perception starting in the Nineteenth-Century and moving up to Contemporary. I'm really not sure of anything yet, but it's all so damned exciting!

Review: Full Moon Rising

I'm not sure how to feel about this novel. I'm considering reading the next one in the series, but I don't know whether it's because I like the plot and care about the characters or simply because it ends with a blatant "To Be Continued..." I feel angry at such a cheap trick -- the next three novels in the series were scheduled to come out once a month, which indicates that they were all written in advance and designed to sell as a series. The next book in the series probably has an ending similar to this one, and so on until you've bought all the books in the series. Basically, the end of Full Moon Rising is an attempted guarantee that the next book in the series will be read, because it isn't a complete novel in itself. It's an effective lure, but it annoys and offends me. I much prefer J.R. Ward's method -- she effectively ends each character's story, she makes each novel complete in itself, but leaves the reader fascinated by peripheral characters so that they'll want to read the next books when they are published.

Besides the sneaky non-ending, I'm also not sure I believe in or like any of the characters in Full Moon Rising, including the male romantic interest. For a novel to have an unlikeable male hero is, to me, absolutely unforgivable. Also, because sex is so open, some (most...all?) of the angst is removed from the sexual encounters.

So why, despite all this, am I considering reading the next novel? Well, the series might improve, right? The writing itself isn't terrible, and there is a possibility that the next novel might be more to my liking. I'd hate to think that I'm aware of the "To Be Continued..." but still unable to resist its lure. Also, I understand that writing a series is the most effective way for a romance writer to make sure his or her books stay on the shelf -- the most recent book is on the shelf, and because it's part of a series, all the other books are up there, too. There is such a rapid turnover rate for romance novels that this is really the only way to make sure your books are represented at bookstores for more than a month or two.