Q&A with Josh Lanyon discussion

I think there are a lot of things in this book that aren't what they seem, especially with Robert, who seems a very complex guy. For example, he's death on nobility - except he falls in love with the painting of Michael's ancestor, he researches all sorts of historic nobility and he's perfectly happy hanging out with the aristocracy. It's actually one of the things I really like about the book, the people are as complex as real life.

lol, complex for sure. But that's a really good thing. Cardboard cutouts are so boring.

Anne, that's so the truth. It was wicked cute to see them bickering, then one say something sweet, and the other not knowing what to say in return. An old married couple for sure. Or maybe The Odd Couple. lol.

It's like, with their crankiness towards each other, they were testing the idea as to whether they, themselves, are worth the other one loving them unconditionally, just because. I think they are each set in their ways, and used to being alone. They keep pushing the other person away to see if the other thinks they are worth coming back for.. I like 'The Odd Couple' comparision..

I really enjoyed this book.
It wasn't perfect (yes, the transitions are a bit ... hinky ... and time went fast and slow without any warning), but the way the writer portrayed Michael and Robert was brilliant. I loved how all their emotions were in the little things, how their devotion to each other was in the little things.
I loved the way life went on around them, with them, and Michael's wonderfully strange family.

And yes, they are set in their ways cranky, stoic men, but somehow they just fit and make you go: awwww.

Great reccomendation, Josh :)

I don't think they're both cranky men. Robert certainly cultivates an air of crankiness, very useful for a writer since it keeps people out of your hair. But Michael's as nice and easy going as they come - which is why he can live with and love Robert.

I'm not sure Robert's crankiness is to be taken quite at face value, either. Michael and Robert, I think, exaggerate their respective attitudes for effect. I think this because neither really takes the attitude very seriously. Robert, in particular, reminds me of certain parts of my family who use insults as terms of endearment. Hearing the conversation from the outside, I'm sure others would be aghast; it's not how we hear it from the inside.

One of the things I particularly like about the book, though, is that quite a lot of what's really going on is unwritten. (Oh, to be a brick in M & R's bed!) Reading along it was a little like catching a bit of someone else's phone conversation ... and one moving along at a fair clip... and needing to infer what must be behind what was said. A little puzzling sometimes, and something that forces the imagination to fill in the details. Cunning, really, since we'll all come up with slightly different details.

I agree about face value, John - and there are several times when Michael says something that implies he'd worry about that if he thought Robert was serious and Robert implies the same - "I do go on sometimes, don't I?" or "Forgot how touchy you were about such things." It's part of what makes this such a funny book.

John wrote: "I think this because neither really takes the attitude very seriously. Robert, in particular, reminds me of certain parts of my family who use insults as terms of endearment. Hearing the conversation from the outside, I'm sure others would be aghast; it's not how we hear it from the inside."

Exactly, and that's what made reading it so much fun.

@Dev: maybe I should have written 'come across as'. Michael certainly has his cranky moments

Actually ... and I could be reading too much into this. I don't normally analyse, I just read and enjoy.
I think Michael dealing with his family all is life is what made it easy for him to live with Robert. (although the attraction between them will, I think, always be the main reason - they just can't stay away from each other)
I also think living with Robert made Michael feel free to not be the nice easy going man everyone else saw all the time and just ... be.

All of that makes perfect sense. Yeah, they were cranky, but not cranky cranky. lol. They got on each other's nerves because they could and yes, to test each other a little bit.

I think they both let each other just... be. Not just Michael, but Robert too. Michael was unhappy with Robert when he moved to London to write for awhile, but he did let him go. He let Robert be cranky when he needed to be.

And Oh! To be a brick in their bed. What a line. And it's sooo true. It was like listening in on a fast one-sided phone conversation.

Oh good. I haven't entirely missed the discussion. I came down with a crashing head cold on Boxing day and have been mostly cocooned with books and tissue ever since. But I'm finally feeling pretty much back to normal today, so I'll start reading through the comments.

Poor Josh. I'm so glad you're feeling better - it's finally getting to that sabbatical that did it. When the deadlines disappear the poor abused body finally lets go. Should be smooth sailing now that you got that over with.

I think Larton is the ultimate demonstration of romantic subtext. :-)

That said, yes, I agree it does have its flaws and it is certainly idiosyncratic, much like its characters.

I love the sense of place. Larton itself is based on an actual village and apparently certain features remain to this day. (I wish I could remember the name of the village -- we could Google Earth it!)

I love the characters both main and supporting. There are a number of eccentrics, and they're funny but still human. In fact, one thing Anson does very well, I think, is demonstrate how odd we ALL are to anyone peeking through the window. We all have our eccentricities, our tics.

There's such a gentle, witty understanding of human nature, I think. And we see how people and relationships change over time, the inevitable ebb and flow. It all feels very natural, very real.

As for Robert and Michael I think Anson does a wonderful job of showing us exactly who these men are without giving us almost any backstory, and that is quite an achievement.

I think I'm especially appreciative of it having recently read so many books with clumsy info dumps of backstory. Would I have liked a little more backstory? Sure! I love these men. But I don't feel the book suffers because the story is a romance and a romance begins with the meeting of the principals. And because we have such a clear, vibrant illustration of who these men are through the clarity of focused and alternating POV.

Oh -- and here is someone who can actually appropriately use omniscient POV. Again, I'm impressed by this after reading a couple of awful books where the author falls back on omniscient POV out of laziness.

In fact, reading some really awful demonstrations of omnicient POV have led me to speculate that omniscient is most effective when the omniscient narrator/POV actually develops its own "voice." Like, it's very effective for comical or philosphical observations, and least effective when the author throws it randomly in because he's too ham-handed to know how to indicate what the non-POV character is thinking and feeling without coming right out and saying so.

Transitions are rough in patches, yes. I could certainly have used a little more exposition as far as getting us from point A to point B, both logistically and occasionally emotionally.

I think the sense of humor is the thing I most adore about this book. That dry English wit, sometimes gentle, sometimes pointed, but never cruel or snarky, despite the fact that Robert himself is rather snarky.

As many times as I've read this (probably about ten times by now) it always makes me chuckle at certain parts. The description of Robert's hangover -- the whole "separation" scene in fact. A couple of you mentioned how exhausting Robert and Michael would be, but I'm not so sure because I think a lot of it is comfortable and familiar and neither takes it very seriously. And perhaps that's part of why they do split up briefly.

I guess most of the humor comes from Robert and his general irascibility (his malicious comments on publishing and other writers always entertain me -- partly because they tell us so much more about Robert than they do the authors he so disdains).

And yet as amusing as this book is, I think it has one of the most touching scenes -- the segment when he believes Michael has died. That bit where he goes outside and is talking with the stableman. There's nothing in what they say and yet the ordinariness of it just makes your chest ache.

Dev wrote: "Poor Josh. I'm so glad you're feeling better - it's finally getting to that sabbatical that did it. When the deadlines disappear the poor abused body finally lets go. Should be smooth sailing now t..."

I know! I have a horrible habit of getting sick during or right after the holidays. There's usually that little let down before it all starts again, and I use the opportunity to feel like hell. :-P

But I got it over with lightning speed this time, so maybe things are changing for the better!

Dev wrote: "I think there are a lot of things in this book that aren't what they seem, especially with Robert, who seems a very complex guy. For example, he's death on nobility - except he falls in love with t..."

Yes. I agree. Robert has a decidedly romantic streak that I think he's mortified by. :-D

Josh wrote: "the segment when he believes Michael has died. That bit where he goes outside and is talking with the stableman. There's nothing in what they say and yet the ordinariness of it just makes your chest ache. "

Oh, yes. That was just so heart breaking.

Anne wrote: "Pender wrote: "Lou wrote: "I honestly don't see the book as dialogue heavy at all. What sticks out to me is the shocking lack of transitions in certain spots. Like this example (repeated from my fi..."

Yes. Totally disarmed by the other. :-D

I also think living with Robert made Michael feel free to not be the nice easy going man everyone else saw all the time and just ... be.

Yes, I think there is a real feeling of equally matched, and each strong enough to take the temper of the other -- and of course both of them grown up and civilized enough to stick to throwing crockery and not punching each other.

In fact, that's another thing I liked -- that this is a story about grown ups. They have their occasional flashes of jealousy and whatnot, but the real problems between them are the kinds of thing that really DO cause trouble in a relationship. There's no dramatic return of a lost love or a kidnapping, it's just the wear and tear of living with another strong-willed human.

(Oh, to be a brick in M & R's bed!)

LOL

Josh wrote: "I also think living with Robert made Michael feel free to not be the nice easy going man everyone else saw all the time and just ... be.

Yes, I think there is a real feeling of equally matched,..."

That's one of the things I kept thinking about. There was a beginning, but no real climax, unless maybe that was that heartbreaking scene where Rob thought Mike was dead. But no real ending. The story just kind of kept going at the same pace throughout. And yeah, it bothered me, but by the end, it was ok, because it was showing that they would just keep going together no matter what.

Yeah, I almost cried when he thought Mike was dead. Such a sad scene. Well written for sure. It was another one of those "wow" scenes that leaves you speechless, you know?

Josh wrote: "the segment when he believes Michael has died. That bit where he goes outside and is talking with the stableman. There's nothing in what they say and yet the ordinariness of it just ma..."

Yes.

And I love that the romance goes on and on over years and seems to get deeper because of the difficult times - it seems to me that's how real love ought to work.

Jordan wrote: "There was a beginning, but no real climax, unless maybe that was that heartbreaking scene where Rob thought Mike was dead. But no real ending. The story just kind of kept going at the same pace throughout..."

That was one of the things I liked about the book. It was sort of a slice of life piece. As if the reader was along for the ride for a while and then dropped back to let Robert and Michael continue on alone. I didn't feel as if the characters winked out of existence the minute I stopped reading.

I'm in awe of how skillfully so much information was provided through subtext. Sure there were some clunky bits, but I was so enthralled by the humour and picturesque village life that I barely noticed.

I'll definitely be rereading this book.

Yep, a slice of life book. Definitely an apt description.

Josh wrote: "...but the real problems between them are the kinds of thing that really DO cause trouble in a relationship. There's no dramatic return of a lost love or a kidnapping, it's just the wear and tear of living with another strong-willed human. ..."

Frankly, what's refreshing about The Larton Chronicles is the ordinariness of the characters. I don't mean they are without their quirks and fiobles - there's a lot of fun to be had with that. But neither Michael nor Robert is some superhuman cartoon character, perfect of form and flawless in reason, leaping tall buildings in a single stride. They're "folks". They are (like most of us) in turn funny and irritating, insensitive and kind, stubborn and forgiving. They also (like the rest of us) bumble through the minefield that is a loving relationship with no more magical power than human affection to get them through it. Now that I've arrived at the "old fart" stage of life, I find that enormously encouraging.

And I must say, I have never read a story that so clearly illustrates how essential relentless nattering is to a successful relationship.

JOhn wrote: "They also (like the rest of us) bumble through the minefield that is a loving relationship with no more magical power than human affection to get them through it."

Exactly! And beautifully put.

Definitely well put John. And I couldn't agree more.

As for the backstory that we didn't get, I only wanted to know about Rob's leg really. Anything else that may have happened to them didn't matter. Only his leg, for some reason. Maybe because we were set up for it, like John said. I don't know. But yeah, Josh, you're right, the back story just doesn't matter here at all. Except that leg, darnit. lol.

I was thinking this morning about Michael's suicide attempt. I think Robert's feeling that he needed to go check on him NOW is one of the first signs of how connected they are. At that point they're not even lovers (and they wait another 6 months? That's sweet but it's part of what makes it feel like a different time). I love how close they are as friends before they become lovers.

I'm also thinking about what makes me forgive bits of clunkiness in a book. Many of you talked about the transitions, and I guess I can see that there are moments that are less than graceful in the narration, but I didn't focus on them either time I read the book. I think it's partially because the characters are so fully developed (I actually had a conversation in which someone was talking about horses and I almost said, "I have a friend who..." and then realized he was a fictional character). The other thing she does well is that she writes subtly. I think I'll forgive almost anything for some subtle writing. Mystery writers have to master subtlety or the mystery fails, but as romance writers we tend to get pretty heavy handed. It's something I'm always aware of and don't always achieve in my own writing, the need for a light touch and I really appreciate it in others. The few odd transitions are something a good editor could help out with, but you can't really edit someone else for subtlety.

It felt like the author respected my intelligence enough to assume that I could catch all of the subtlety and fill in the blanks on my own. I like that.

See, that's why I'm reading a book on how to write subtle stuff. Cause I'm waaaay too heavy handed. And I really do love it when something is subtle in a book. It's amazing how well those types of things turn out. And this book was not short on it for sure. It definitely was one of the best parts about it.

Dev, that's great that you tried to call them friends. I've felt that way about a few characters. Right now, though, it's mostly about my own characters just cause they've been in my head for so long!

I'm coming late to the discussion after a family-heavy Christmas, and there's not all that much left for me to say.

This is a book I have read half-a-dozen plus times, and I keep finding new things to giggle at. I love this.

And yes, due to those missing transitional scenes, there are things I didn't understand until well after the first read. Actually I love this vagueness, this having-to-work-it-out, too, for some reason. Like somebody else said, the author takes us seriously as readers and expects us to understand what's going on.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet and that really appeals to me (and often to my sense of humour) is the use of verbs and particularly adverbs.

These men yell, growl, sigh, roar, whisper and even more interestingly, though they mostly "say" things, they do this happily, cautiously, sadly, encouragingly, shortly, reverently, wrathfully, blithely, hastily, gloomily, bitterly, bracingly, heartily, cravenly, smugly, bleakly, grimly, hopefully, etc-ly. Wonderful-ly.

Of course every time Michael says something sadly, it immediately conjures up his blue eyes. Clearly to Robert, too: Michael has him wrapped round his little finger. And whenever Rob yells and roars, Michael takes no notice whatsoever.

Dev wrote: "I was thinking this morning about Michael's suicide attempt. I think Robert's feeling that he needed to go check on him NOW is one of the first signs of how connected they are. At that point they'r..."

Yes. I love the lack of drama and the realistic way love grows between them.

Rachel wrote: "It felt like the author respected my intelligence enough to assume that I could catch all of the subtlety and fill in the blanks on my own. I like that."

Yes. God! Having gone through a streak of books where authors felt compelled to spell out the obvious -- and then restate it a couple of times. It's such a relief to find a story where I'm allowed to fill in a few blanks.

Okay, I wouldn't have minded one or two added details at certain points, but in general, I'd prefer to be left wondering than be hit over the head with the obvious.

Of course every time Michael says something sadly, it immediately conjures up his blue eyes. Clearly to Robert, too: Michael has him wrapped round his little finger. And whenever Rob yells and roars, Michael takes no notice whatsoever.

:-D

Jordan wrote: "Definitely well put John. And I couldn't agree more.

As for the backstory that we didn't get, I only wanted to know about Rob's leg really. Anything else that may have happened to them didn't m..."

Someone mentioned the story's fandom origins. What I find fascinating is there is absolutely NOTHING of the fannish origins in the story other than the way the characters look. Maybe Robert's temper a tiny bit and the fact that he's got a law enforcement background, but nothing else is from fandom. So the leg is a puzzle, but this particular writer gave this character a lame leg quite often. Something that must have appealed to her, I guess. Never much of a fuss made of it, but just something she saw.

I find that kind of thing fascinating.

Josh wrote: "So the leg is a puzzle, but this particular writer gave this character a lame leg quite often. Something that must have appealed to her, I guess. Never much of a fuss made of it, but just something she saw."

Of course Michael carries his battle scars as well, doesn't he? I guess I just assumed that Robert had been invalided out of the Met. That Michael carried his share of bumps and bruises sort of made them a matched set.

John wrote: "Josh wrote: "So the leg is a puzzle, but this particular writer gave this character a lame leg quite often. Something that must have appealed to her, I guess. Never much of a fuss made of it, but j..."

In the series the character is shot in the heart but suffers no lasting ill effects. :-D 70s/80s TV at its best. (And I say that with genuine affection.)

I'm very fond of main characters with heart problems.

Dev... I second that to the highest degree possible! <3

lol, Josh, I'd forgotten about that leg so many times. It was a refresher from that other cowboy book where the leg just got in the way all the time.

When writing, I struggle so hard not to hit people over the head with ideas. I want them to see what I'm seeing, so I try to spell it out. And I know I shouldn't to the extent that I do. But it's a hard thing to rope in and control. Larson was a fantastic example of a good book that controls that urge... if ever there was one with her. lol. I'm insanely jealous!

Josh wrote: "Rachel wrote: "It felt like the author respected my intelligence enough to assume that I could catch all of the subtlety and fill the blanks on my own. I like that."

Yes. God! Having gone thr..."

ROFL-- When I started reading DSP,MLRP,Samh....etc I wondered if this type of detail was a writing style I had been unaware of (my training in modern lit is sad). It took me awhile to figure out it was the dynamics of this writing world. LOL

Enjoyed this so much! I will be re-reading this frequently. I started to highlight passages I loved, but that much yellow looses impact, I had to abandon that idea.

This is the kind of humor I love! Being able to give voice to the absurd all around us. So much of life is a paradox of the poignant and the absurd, to be able to communicate that is a wonderful gift. =D

Dev wrote: "I'm very fond of main characters with heart problems."

Yes. I have a softness for them as well. ;-)

Jordan wrote: "When writing, I struggle so hard not to hit people over the head with ideas. I want them to see what I'm seeing, so I try to spell it out. And I know I shouldn't to the extent that I do. But it's a hard thing to rope in and control. Larson was a fantastic example of a good book that controls that urge... if ever there was one with her. lol. I'm insanely jealous!
..."

That's because all writers to a certain extent are control freaks. We create the world and the people in it and the temptation is to control every single thing the reader experiences.

lol, you got that right Josh. ;-)

That's very true Lou, about readers finding what you want them to and what you didn't even notice was there. I just have to somehow learn to let go, so that can happen. I want it too, but it's hard to let go and just let a piece of work simply "be".

Lou wrote: "I like to think I'm not a control freak, or at least try not to be. Coming from a visual arts background, I developed the philosophy that the creative process is is completed by the viewer/reader, and not the creator. Consequently, the piece means something a little different for everyone. You try to get something across, and when you succeed that's a treat, but when they viewer/reader finds something you didn't even thought of, that can be a pleasant surprise."

That's a good approach.

I think readers first pointed out to me that nearly all my stories are about second chances and forgiveness. It wasn't something I was consciously writing. At least at that point.

Of course sometimes readers get it wrong, depending on the selection of stories they come across -- like the readers who write to ask why all my characters are physically disabled. Or why all my romantic leads are cops.

Depending on the order of stories, yes, it could look that way.

That's where that spreadsheet of Lia's on my website is so useful.

Josh wrote: "That's where that spreadsheet of Lia's on my website is so useful...."

Of course now I've had to rush off to make sure it's reasonably up to date, though the publishers column is a little in flux at the moment...

lol, funny thing, I just reprinted a copy of that the other day, so I could figure out what I don't have yet and get it on my Kindle. Yeah, it'll need some updating, but not much I think. All I've been able to do so far is to mark off what I already own. lol, reading this other book is taking all my time away from other things, but I promise, soon as I can, I'll be making up for it!

I like cop leads. In fact, the idea I just came up with, has a cop for a lead, but the twist is that he's not the strong one of the couple, and his lover won't be a cop either. lol, I fall into that category (at least it seems so) where both lovers are cops a lot. And I love that this idea is a little different.

I like guys with disabilities in my stories though. It makes them more human, and might even give a little hurt/comfort which is nice.

Jordan wrote: "I like cop leads. In fact, the idea I just came up with, has a cop for a lead, but the twist is that he's not the strong one of the couple, and his lover won't be a cop either. lol, I fall into tha..."

Jordan, have you read A.M. Riley's Bill Turner series? Amor En Retrogrado is the first, but the second Death by Misfortune is even better. The cop is not really the lead, he's the character tying the books, but he's flawed and troubled and I don't want to say he's weak and his love interest is strong, but definitely the love interest (who's a teacher) has a lot of patience. Love that series A LOT!

Nope, I haven't read that series... yet. lol, thanks for the rec! I'll definitely check them out, they sound fantastic.