Okay, let's get a few things straight.
1. I don't read Traditional Regencies.
2. I. Don't. Read. Traditional. Regencies.
3. Dude, really? You need a third set of criteria? I just used 'dude' in a sentence like it's a real word!
(In case someone comes along and wonders why I did read this book well, I bought it because of Megan's blog and when she found I had it she said I had to read it. I promised!)
Cindy Blurb - We meet the heroine as she is leaving her lawyer's office where she has discovered that her father left all his money to 'another woman' thus leaving her and her brother in financial ruin. Her only recourse is to land a rich husband. (Let's just throw a Hail Mary up for not having the will say 'you must marry to have the money'. I was terrified at first and was pleased that Ms. Frampton didn't fall into that scary place)
On her way out of the office she literally bumps into Edwin the hero who has just returned from America a rich man. He is keeping this a secret since 5 years ago a woman tried to marry him for his money thus, he no longer trusts a woman to love him without his money.
Conflict? You got it.
I liked Titania in the beginning. She was definitely a 'no holds bar' kind of heroine. Sit and whine? No thanks, I need to get some stuff done. I liked this about her. I also liked the hero who had a 'hail fellow fairly met' kind of personality.
The beginning of the story was a wee bit slow because Titania had to set up house and get herself situated within society so that she could get invitations to the right places. I'm figuring this is probably common to most regencies. My problem with this section is that Titania didn't like anybody she met (except for the hero and those in her employ) and well, I guess it had to be firmly established that no one was going to help her and her brother.
Also, Titania seemed to be removed from many of the situations. The man who makes her heart beat all sloppy, kisses her and puts his hand on her breast and she doesn't gasp or jerk or even really think. In fact, I don't think she reflected on what happened until a few scenes later. I was all, 'uh, he put his hand on your breast in the middle of a park in Regency England!!'. I appreciated that she wasn't a ninny but seeing as how she had probably never had anyone stroke her breast before I'm thinking her knees giving out or something would be appropriate.
I was glad that Titania came to a certain conclusion (you know, this would be spoiler stuff) before all her troubles were solved. The solution to one problem though? Highly unlikely even with the most gracious of people. Hey, I'd like to think I could be that high minded but even I would be thinking about returns and dividends and such. And I'm considered the Bank of Cindy!!
So, what's great about this book?
The writing and the banter between the characters was top notch. I was actually able to understand all the double entendres which was a nice change of pace for me. Neither the hero or heroine were perfect and they each made their share of mistakes. Also, there wasn't a sense that they saved each other from anything overly sinister. These are two people who could have existed and made a mash out of their courtship. At least they were able to find their way towards each other in the end!
8 comments:
Woo-woo!
Thanks for reading it--I was wondering if that was what you had to read before Cold As Ice. Thanks for the review, I agree with your thoughts on the book (too slow in the beginning, some improbable reactions, and of course, the wit).
Hopefully at some point you'll be able to read more of my stuff. Sigh.
Phew! I was worried.
Hey, is that a voodoo doll your holding? NOT THE FACE!!! ;)
I know I will be able to read more of your stuff - your published! and you will do so again! Hey, you wanna write a paranormal werewolf story? Do ya? ;)
Cindy
Can I ask a question? What is the difference between Traditional Regencies and well, I guess, non-traditional regencies? and can you name examples?
OK, so what's a traditional regency? I am so lost. LOL.
Nath and Mailyn had me stumped even though I know the difference I wasn't sure I could say what it was.
There's a friggin' Wiki definition!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Regency_romance
Basically, these are books with witty dialogue and next to no sex. Megan's had a sex scene but normally it's kisses only.
If you look at the cover of the book, most Trads have this appearance. So, for someone like me who doesn't like kisses only books I can immediately spot these and not buy them. Also, these stories are strict in the historical content. Every detail is captured and the characters live the rules of the ton. In other books the rules of the ton can be stretched or all together forgotten but in these books the characters live within these rules. And they are strict. I find it hard to relate to these kind of characters because they seem so stiff but then that is because of the society they are from.
Single Title Regencies are every where. I think Julia Quinn does them, Kleypas, etc. The difference in these is that the language is not as strict and formal, there may be stress about societal position but it is overcome and well SEX!!! Women dress like men and show up at Whites (I think this did happen in reality maybe once but I would definitely have to check my facts). They ride astride (gasp, never!). They have familial relationships much like our own where we are more familiar with our mothers and fathers. (I don't know if this was the case in the upper classes at this time)
Anne Gracie and Carla Kelly are very well known Traditional Regency authors. I have read Anne Gracie and the book was excellent but I didn't keep it because - NO SEX!!
A horrible Trad Regency I read once was by Nottie St. George. It was supposed to be a romp and really it was but when the hero and heroine kissed each other at the end of the story I was completely icked out. Why? Because up until then they had been acting like a brother and sister bickering at each other. I think I was shocked when they decided they were in love. This book was very well received over at AAR but I have no inclination to buy another book by her.
So, did that answer you questions or make things worse?
Cindy
Hey Cindy :D
Nope, that cleared up my question :D I really didn't know... I guess it's because I haven't read traditional regencies at all :P
I'm with Nath. I don't think I've ever read a trad either. :-)
Hey guys:
Traditional Regencies are shorter with more emphasis on being true to the Regency period. A lot of folks think that trads don't have sex in them, but a lot do--Mary Balogh's trads do, and more recent ones like Sophia Nash and Janet Mullany do.
Regency-set historicals are usually longer and have more sex, and you don't have to know the period cold to write one--Julia Quinn writes great wallpaper historicals, where she mentions a ball or a high-waisted gown every so often, bu the book isn't immersed in history.
Does that help? It is confusing, hence the reason very few publishers publish trads anymore. But some of today's most well-known authors: Jo Beverley, Mary Balogh, Mary Jo Putney, Edith Layton, started out as traditional Regency authors.
Post a Comment