Christine’s review of The Flame and the Flower > Likes and Comments

11 likes · like
Comments (showing 1-10 of 10) (10 new)    post a comment »
dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Dina (new)

Dina Excellent review, Christine. I might have enjoyed this book back in the 80's - hey, bodice-rippers were all the rage back then, LOL - but there's no way I could appreciate them now.


message 2: by Christine (new)

Christine I basically posted this same review, slightly edited, in the Kathleen Woodiwiss thread of the historical romance group. That provoked some impassioned defenses. Someone actually linked me to the wikipedia article though, which was really interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flam...


message 3: by Rane (new)

Rane Christine wrote: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flame_a..."


I think that's pretty cool they made a wiki page at least, my fave part of the plot summary was "The charges against Brandon are dropped, and he and Heather live happily ever after." Aww...After he makes her life a living HELL

I've never been a huge fan of Kathleen E. Woodiwiss, but I think you got it when you said it was the first romance many romance readers read that started them on the (HR) romance book they still read today.


 Danielle The Book Huntress (Angels Weep For Goodreads) Christine, we had similar issues about this book, but I ended up liking it. I can totally see why you didn't, though.


message 5: by Dina (new)

Dina From the Wikipedia article: "The initial rape was used as a plot point to overcome the societal norms which frowned on premarital sex."

So it was OK to rape a woman but not to make love with her. Interesting, to say the least.


message 6: by Christine (new)

Christine Yes, Dina! That was the point that stuck out at me too! You're still a good girl if a handsome guy rapes you and you hate it (but then you secretly want him to do it again), but if you have consenting sex, well then over 60% of women in 1972 just can't be behind that. Anyway, it's worth reading almost for a historical/ academic perspective on the history of the romance genre.

Lady D, yeah... It pains me to admit this, but had it not been for that last 'joke' about the rape i probably would have given this book a higher star rating, because by then I was emotionally invested in the story. But reading that last exchange was like cold water being poured on my head, and I felt like I was waking up from a kool-aid induced stupor with a sour taste in my mouth, wondering how i let myself be manipulated into caring.


message 7: by seton (new)

seton Christine wrote: "I basically posted this same review, slightly edited, in the Kathleen Woodiwiss thread of the historical romance group. That provoked some impassioned defenses. Someone actually linked me to the ..."


"impassioned" is too polite a term for it. C***'s defense that Heather "secretly wanted him" just set Women Sexuality back 50 yrs. I intend to steer away from Teh Cwazy from now on.


message 8: by willaful (new)

willaful I'm increasingly freaked out by the number of romance readers who refuse to call an obvious rape a rape. I have no problem at all with people enjoying stories with rapes in them, for whatever reasons, but if they have to twist things in their mind so that it wasn't "really rape," that's scary.


message 9: by Christine (new)

Christine Seton LOL, yeah.... I just didn't have anything to say to that... Well, I take it back, I had A LOT I wanted to rant about, but i refuse to get in a pointless debate. Instead, I complained to my bf about it, haha.

That Wench, yeah, I mean, call a spade a spade. I can't help but wonder about the dysfunction that must surely go hand in hand with having this be an ideal of man/woman relationship...


message 10: by Violet (new)

Violet What a great review, Christine! Well said.


back to top