2 Stars
Oh God I'm so behind on my reviews and I haven't been doing any reading at all lately. Maybe it's for the best - I can deliver a more concise and streamlined review because only the cleanest and strongest impressions of this book still exist for me.
It's just your run of the mill romance novel with a second rate "who stole the family jewels" mystery with a superficial, sugary icing exterior of "hey kids let's put on a show". In the case of this book, the “show within the show” framework is a documentary being shot in the inherited mansion of our heroine. And it has all of the nuance of a book report, as there are random info dumps regarding the documentary film-making process. There was something kind of forced about the documentary interview scenes as a means for the hero (the documentary film maker/ interviewer) and heroine (interviewee) to come to a mutual understanding of one another. I wanted that moment of mutual insight to really ping and it just seemed trite and obvious. Hero realizes how strong, beautiful, insightful and womanly the heroine is – heroine begins to see the thinking, feeling, person under the asshole disguise. This is usually the point in a romance novel that I enjoy the most (besides the sex scenes where the woman comes until her eyes vibrate out of her sockets) – the conversation, the recognition – oh, I know who you are, the attraction and connection. This book didn't really do it for me...that way.
But that is not the reason for the 2 stars. This is actually a pretty well written romance - one I would normally give the obligatory - all encompassing 3 stars - love-hate tension between hero and heroine that ultimately becomes love, frisky banter, heroine's obligatory emotional growth and conquering of self esteem issues, fun sex scenes. The book hit all of the marks that you would expect in a contemporary romance novel - it should have been 3 stars all the way...
The basic premise of how the lovers first meet - it set my teeth on edge. The hero and heroine (sorry I can't remember their names) are long time childhood acquaintances that went to school together forever. In their senior year of high school, their childish name calling and bickering becomes something more. Of course, in her high school years the voluptuous and buxom heroine was out and out pudgy. And of course, heroine loses her virginity to hero, who it turns out was setting her up for a bet. His creepy friends bet him $200.00 to get him to take her virginity. And of course it all unravels in a dramatic scene in the lunchroom. And I really appreciated how the author handled this scene and brought us into the heroine's head. We clearly see how badly she has been traumatized by this situation, but still, she doesn't allow herself to become a victim.
This scene is the first chapter. These are the 2 lovers who end up together, for whom I'm supposed to be rooting. Uugh. Sorry, I just felt that the emotional betrayal of the bet was too much for the couple to overcome. Not that I feel that the heroine should hold a grudge or not get over this...yes – please forgive, reconcile and move on with your life – but 15 years later re-unite in a steamy sexcapade ….ooooo – really not for me. This set up totally bummed me out and jarred me from the lighthearted mood of the romance. That the hero actually had sex with the heroine for the bet– that was the line in the sand for me. Make the bet be that he had to kiss her or record her admitting her undying love – or even take her to the prom and dump pig's blood on her – those are situations from which I can lightheartedly believe that the couple can resurrect a healthy and positive sexual relationship – not the sex bet – ick, yuck.
So that's what I have to say about the book – the rest of this is going to be a tangent about author/ reader relationships on Goodreads – so if you're not interested feel free to move on – can't say you haven't been warned.
A lot of very recent and public ill will between authors and the reviewers who didn't like their books has seriously bummed me out and made me very deeply ponder this whole writer/ reviewer relationship (or even if there should be one) here on Goodreads. And I'm bringing this up here with this book, because this is a book I didn't particularly like – and I tried to imagine Ms. Andersen coming across my slightly snarky, little review and tried to put myself in her shoes. Would I want Ms. Andersen to then come after me on my own thread? How would that make me feel, if here I was writing my glib little review – thinking that I was only one of a very small group of people to actually read this review – just shouting into the wind and then the wind bitch-slapped me in response (and let's be honest any kind of author response – even benign or cordial would make me piss my pants)? Thinking all of this, I suddenly felt very uncomfortable and some of the pleasure of reading my books and writing my little book reviews eeked away from me.
Why am I here? Why do I do this? ( I seriously wish it were for the money – did anybody else read about that guy on the yahoo news feed who writes glowing reviews for authors for a fee and then posts them on Amazon and the ilk – he was making $28,000/ month). For me, I originally came to Goodreads to find a kind of on-line book club – time and transportation prevent me from participating in real life ones. That isn't exactly what I found. I completely understand the Facebook loneliness epidemic now. There's nothing more gloom and loneliness inducing than the entity of internet social media. If you're not careful ,I could see how it could just totally reinforce your feelings of being a molecule of piss in a broiling, uncaring ocean. It's not as if you just jump on here and people are just automatically interacting and commenting on your reviews – like you suddenly become a literary Norm at a bookish Cheers. And while I have not been trolled, I have had my fair share of friend collectors and publishing house interns try to glaum onto me to form their no-cost/low-cost focus groups. So it wasn't the on-line book club of which I fantasized; or the on-line interaction that I hoped – I still do really find a great deal of pleasure in being here reading books, writing my reviews, and reading other people's reviews. Sometimes I will make comments, but only occasionally - passively from the sidelines. I like the creativity of writing my little reviews here. It forces my brain to work and remain nimble. I also like the aha moment of discovering someone else's review and realizing that they felt the same way about a book that I did – and of course I've also found some really cool authors and books that I wouldn't have otherwise. So, in this way, the internet does shrink a little bit for me.
How should authors and reviewers/readers interact? IMO – as little as possible. I think I would be just as embarrassed by an author's response to one of my glowing, gushy, total nerdy fan-girl reviews as I would be to an author's response to one of my negative/ snarky reviews. I believe that it is Goodreads responsibility to create programs and forums and formats that allow for positive author/ reader interaction and to help bring attention to some of the truly great undiscovered authors floating around out there. In the same way that I don't think that an author deserves to be trolled or harassed on their own website ( I do believe that they have the right to block or delete unflattering comments – even if that may seem vain – they have the right to preserve the tone and atmosphere of their own piece of the internet )I don't think that it is very cool for an author to drop deus ex-machina style into a thread of someone else's review of their work. Goodreads can only be seen as a marketing tool for its authors; I sincerely hope none of them are taking writing advice from any of us rabble here at Goodreads. I would wish for any author a group of true-blue, scathingly honest, yet gentle editors and readers for that purpose. Because good, bad, or indifferent – we're just the rabble – and the noise we make about an author's work – good, bad, or indifferent only serves to bring attention to that work. I'm also a firm believer in the idea that once that movie, play, book, work of art is put out there – it really doesn't belong to just the author or artist anymore – it belongs to anyone who comes across it and experiences it. It's like jazz – the author just gives us the first few notes and we are all just riffing here. So good, bad, or indifferent – our reviews have got to be flattering right – it's an honor to be talked about even if it is unflattering – better than feeling like a molecule of piss in a broiling ocean, right? So my advice to authors (as if anybody cares) is to ignore those little pesky author dashboards and to just rise above. Because while there is no such thing as bad press, bad behavior will be seen and judged for as long as there is an internet -meaning – for all intent and purposes – forever.
My responsibility as reviewer: I can only speak for myself here; I would never presume to impose my views on any other reviewer and I will defend the right of any reviewer to say anything they like about a book – snarky, self-serving, gushy sycophantistic, or apathetic. But for myself, I really agonized about this. What right do I have to say anything about anybody else's work? Also, I didn't like the idea that my words would either purposefully or involuntarily cause someone else pain. Because, let's face it, it's far too easy – far too much fun to get all quippy and condemning... and that's just a slippery slope. I've read many funny, terribly caustic and scathing reviews of books here on Goodreads, but they were all of really well-known, very successful authors. I would hope that Stephenie Myers is not ever here, skulking about reading her reviews on Goodreads, but if she were – I would think the cash from her multiple best sellers and block bluster movies would cushion the blow to her pride. Besides she probably doesn't have time to loll around Goodreads; she's probably way too busy counting her money in her special money counting room. My hubbie and I had a whole long conversation about this – and it all came down to that addendum to the Golden Rule – don't say anything about anyone on the internet that (given the right circumstances) you wouldn't say to their face. And I took a long hard look at what reviews I've written – and I feel pretty comfortable. So here are my personal rules for reviewing
1)try to always back up my comments and criticisms with sort of specific examples (but let's be real – these aren't English papers and I'm leaking short term memory like a shot up dinghy).
2)Even if my review is drifting off into snarksville – try to be balanced and fair – try to find the positive and not make too much fun of the negative – this is a really hard one.
3)Remember who the author is – if this is a new or under-reviewed author, maybe wear the kit gloves and err towards the positive - if this is a mega, best selling author - the gloves can come off.
Sorry Ms. Andersen to hijack your review – but this is what I think – if anyone cares.