NightPleasuresbySherrilynKenyon

by SB Sarah Thursday, April 07, 2005 at 08:43 AM
Our Grade:
D
Title: Night Pleasures
Author: Sherrilyn Kenyon
Publication Info: St. Martin's 2002, ISBN: 0-312-97998-3
Genre: Paranormal

For the seventh day in a row, I am sick. I have more phlegm than I care to think about, and I am over being tired. Moreover, I am cranky because being sick is the suck and I can’t figure out the right combination of pharmaceuticals to at least hide my symptoms. So I sit and cough and sneeze and make disgusting wet noises with my throat and wish I could go home and snork and wheeze in the privacy of my own home with my own dog who doesn’t care if I make nasty old people noises so long as I rub his belly while I do it.

So I’m in a pretty foul mood, and I probably shouldn’t write a review in this magical state, but to hell with it. I’m going to bust out the cranky and let you all in on some things I hate when I read romance of any genre.

1. I hate stupid heroes and stupid heroines.
2. I hate Big Misunderstandings.
3. I hate plotlines that are so over-mined for originality that they are predictable. I am close to calling the strip mine of vampire romance closed because there are no more gems to be found in this post-Buffy world.

That last one is what gets me with the book I just finished, “Night Pleasures” by Sherrilyn Kenyon, part of the Dark-Hunter series. I have the feeling that yet again I have stumbled into the middle of the much-loved and long-adored series – and once I give a big hearty, “WTF?!” folks will come out of the woodwork to tell me how very, very wrong I am. Like when I tried to read “Outlander” and couldn’t get through the melodrama.

Normally, if I weren’t congested and cranky, I would be more diplomatic: “Perhaps it is because I entered in what is obviously the middle of a series.” “Perhaps I am missing some of the key plot elements because it is a series and I didn’t start with the beginning.” “Perhaps I am not in the mood right now for paranormal romping.”

Oh, horse-fuck-pucky. I understand that trilogies are beginning-middle-end of a larger story arc and I understand that to best appreciate them, I should start at the beginning. But novels that are part of a series, or involve recurring themes and sets of the same characters or family members, yet are expected to also stand alone as individual fiction should damn well stand on their own and not lean on the books alongside it. It’s one thing if you’re reading Sweet Valley High and have to go through the introduction of who the eternally perfect Wakefield twins are. It’s another when you are still thinking, “Huh?” thirty pages into the book and are annoyed that you’re being treated by the author as a gate crasher at the exclusive club of her fiction.

So imagine my surprise when I realize I am reading the first in the series, and I still feel like an outsider. There’s a prequel of sorts, but this is indeed the first of the Dark-Hunter series. There’s plenty of exposition but not nearly enough to explain the motivations, and I still got the feeling that I didn’t Get All of It.

Pah.

Secondly, vampire romance, it is getting old. Perhaps I OD’d on Buffy and those crazy Carpathians, along with Anita Blake, and several series about immortals, but I’m beginning to suspect that everyone is churning out vampire paranormals that are far short of memorable. Paranormal vampire romance: has it jumped the shark?

More,more,more!>
Picture of {name}
17 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSSadd to sk*rt
Categories: Reviews by Author, H-KReviews by Grade: D

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Comments

Picture of Meljean Meljean said on...
04.07.05 at 12:20 PM |

Thanks for this review—although I absolutely love paranormal/vampire novels, I haven’t picked up any of this series. The mythology of it sounds fascinating, but I’m actually afraid of disappointment whenever I see a series forming, and I try to stay away (unless I’m already familiar with the author; in that case I’ll be more likely to try it out).

I don’t know if vampire romances have jumped the shark, or if they have just become so common that wading through the offerings for a really good, original paranomal is as difficult as finding an excellent Regency. My problem stems from the overwhelming number of alpha/tortured vampire heroes—at times, they are done exactly right, but at other times, they are too overbearing. And too similar—there are times when I’m reading a vampire novel, and I’m like: “wasn’t this hero just in that other book?” (I guess that explains the vain, penny-pinching, Food Network-watching metrosexual vampire in my latest WIP, hmm? :D )

Of course, I have some personal reason for not wanting to say that vampire romances have jumped the shark--but I do think that many books would do better to concentrate on character, instead of the world-building. Instead of coming up with the most original idea in the universe (vampires are really the reincarnated souls of puppies that have been killed by giant evil cats) developing unique characters would serve the subgenre so much better.

Picture of Sarah Sarah said on...
04.07.05 at 12:46 PM |

Meljean, I am with you: less world building, more characterization would be key in preventing vampire romances from jumping the shark, if they haven’t already. I hope for your case they have not. I personally would love a vain, cheap Foodie vampire to read about.

Candy and I were talking about the marked number of vampire alphas who are so tortured and miserable by their vampire status. I suppose that makes them easier to “redeem” by restoring their souls, if that’s the goal of the writer, but it does make for some monotony. I can understand being ticked off at humans if I were immortal. The humans sit around and destroy the planet and then die before they have to pay for it, leaving the immortal to deal with the mess, but otherwise? I can see some perks here and there!

But like grunge rock, all this vampire angst cannot be sustained for ever.

Picture of Nicole Nicole said on...
04.07.05 at 12:56 PM |

Even though I thought you hit things right on...I still love this series.  I am NOT a rabid fan, though.  *cringe* Somehow, I just sit down and enjoy the ride, even when I know what I’m reading is stupid. 

I’d like your take on Lynn Viehl’s If Angels Burn new vamp story.  I liked it, but I love to see books from someone else’s perspective.  Especially when they can dissect them with such wonderful snarkiness.

Picture of Irysangel Irysangel said on...
04.07.05 at 03:11 PM |

All I have to say is:

Thank CHRIST I wasn’t the only person that hated ‘Outlander’. 

I just don’t understand the appeal.

Picture of Sarah said on...
04.07.05 at 04:07 PM |

I liken ‘Outlander’ to a soap opera, and I don’t like soap operas, either. Eventually, maybe the two characters you love might get married, but you don’t really know, and the story just stretches out into perpetuity without a happily ever after in sight and I just can’t take it.

I’m the type of person who is tormented by cliffhanger endings until I find out what happened, though. So a neverending saga is just not for me. I do know people who adore the series, but I sure am not one of them. Nice to know I have company!

Picture of CindyS said on...
04.08.05 at 12:13 AM |

First, Outlander - I made it to where they got married (early in the book) and then put it down.  My friend wailed in pain and said ‘but you haven’t gotten to the best part and after that you’re in!’ I’m a little worried about trying again although I remember everything up to this point in the story so *maybe* I will try to read it again.  I was expecting some deep relationship between Claire and ... but it seemed kind of *gasp* boring.

Second, Vampire romances.  I have not read the Carpathians, I only watched the last 2 years of Buffy (huge Spike fan) and I have enjoyed LKH because there are so many monsters to pick from.  LKH’s vamps also seem quite content as vampires.

I think Maggie Shayne in her Twilight Trilogy (would have to get used) showed vampires who were quite happy with who they were.  Yeah, sucking blood can be crappy, no sunlight could bring on a major depression but that is if you are human and....Crap, who cares, you’re an immortal - get happy!

I am currently enjoying MaryJanice Davidson’s Undead series so I do believe there is room out there for vampires but, like someone said it’s all in the characterization.

CindyS (who loves reading your reviews - I end up laughing constantly so I don’t have a drink while I am reading.)

Picture of Sarah Sarah said on...
04.08.05 at 05:19 AM |

CindyS: you’re right that there is certainly room for characterization - and LKH does write some vampires who are perfectly content to be vampires and all that entails. Ditto the Sookie Stackhouse series from Charlaine Harris.

And a hearty “oh yeah” on the Outlander/boring thing. I have friends that are shocked that I, a big fiendish hoarder of romance, am not totally into the series, but it just didn’t do it for me.

Picture of AAR Rachel said on...
04.08.05 at 05:54 AM |

OMG, I HATED this book.  I can still remember the torture of having to finish it for review.  It was like being dripped on for hours on end only not with water, with lust think.

I definitely got flak for my opinion, since this series has a ton of vocal fans, but I don’t regret a word of it.  Night Pleasures sucked up the wazoo.

And I don’t like Outlander either.  Another heresy in the Romance Community!

Rachel Potter

Picture of white raven said on...
04.08.05 at 08:39 AM |

Do you think it could be oversaturation of the market?  It seems like a lot of people are writing vampire paranormals.  Has the romance reading crowd burned out on them?

When I used to work in a bookstore I saw this same phenomenon with Indian romances and Fabio book covers.  They were leaping off the shelves when we first started stocking them.  People didn’t care who wrote them as long as an Oglala Sioux brave in a loin cloth the size of a postage stamp was on the cover, or a cover with Fabio in a black wig posing as same brave.

Picture of Sarah Sarah said on...
04.08.05 at 08:52 AM |

Rachel P: I think “sucked up the wazoo” sums it up nicely - indeed it left a lot to be desired, when, as a fan of paranormal romance, I had such big hopes for it.

And I think you are possibly right, white raven - oversaturation might be part of the problem. Everyone is writing vampire romances - it makes me wonder where it started. Anita Blake? Is this a long-overdue response to Anne Rice?

I have a theory that we, the audience, like paranormal romance as a reflection of our own fears, and I can’t believe I forgot to talk about this when Candy and I were discussing it earlier. Off to write a quick addendum!

Picture of Jennifer Jennifer said on...
04.08.05 at 09:10 AM |

I actually liked the Outlander series...until The Fiery Cross, or whatever the last title is. Because it was long and dull, and nasty things happened to a character I like, and Jamie had some sort of near-death scene for absolutely no good reason, and.... um, it needed more plot for the length of the dang thing. Oy.

Picture of Sarah said on...
04.08.05 at 05:52 PM |

So perhaps a more appropriate question in this comment thread would be, for those of you who liked it, has the Outlander series jumped the shark as well?

I mean, how much drama and angst can one couple endure? Unless they are John and Marlena on Days of our Lives, as I hear from a fan of the show that they can endure anything, even demonic possession.

Picture of Kristin Kristin said on...
05.06.05 at 05:17 AM |

I wish I had remembered this review when I visited my local library yesterday.  I picked up two of Sherrilyn’s most recent novels in this series...how did these books pass muster with the editor?  In the first 2 chapters I encountered obvious grammatical errors and horrid sentence syntax to the point where sentences were so confusing, I had to read them several times to make sense of what was happening.

I like the new trend toward paranormal romance.  It poses some very interesting conflicts.  But you need to be a good writer to pull it off.  Can someone suggest to me some paranormal romance authors that are worth reading???

Picture of Ashley said on...
10.13.05 at 09:18 AM |

Uhh. I really like this series. I also like the Carpathain series, though I realize it is crap. Probably because I only read romance novels that don’t overly involve my thought process.

Kristin questioned how this book got by the editors and I find myself surprised by how much gets past the editors. More and more books have glaring grammatical errors. Unless it’s absolutly horrendous, which I didn’t think this book was, I’ve found that I can ignore it.

Picture of TimeCube Cubic Awareness TimeCube Cubic Awareness said on...
02.12.06 at 04:25 PM |

Knowledge is a crystal that has fallen beneath a sea of murk. Like
an anchor thrown from a ship, it’s stuck down there, and will remain
stuck until we do something about it.
At the moment, there’s a lot of confusion. What’s going on with
that anchor? Could it have magnetically fused with the rocks in the
seabed? Thus do the sailors conjecture, little knowing that they
could be right.
On the other hand, they could be religious zealots who blindly
believe fiction. Blindly believing, they would deserve the ignorance
to which they had been bound. Moreover, they think that vague,
error-prone religious scriptures are evidence in support of their
faith.
Well, Occam’s razor speaks differently. Occam’s razor is a
rational principle. It tells us what not to believe: thus it protects our
rationality.
But when fantasy and reality merge together, and when the
dangerous thrill of the unknown seizes upon everything that at
present lives--then, only, can change occur. Then, only, can
evolution take place!
Evolution is in contrast to nihilism. It’s in contrast to leaving that
anchor down there forever. Having made that clear, it is now time
to raise the anchor. It is now time--to think rationally.
Is God real? We must conclude the negative--for Time Cube’s
proven true, therefore a 1-corner God cannot be.
Time Cube, however, has four corners. Four corners.

Picture of Tina said on...
01.19.08 at 04:41 PM |

It’s so good to hear that someone else publically admits to not liking the Outlander series.  I thought I was the only one that thought it was long, drawn-out, and boring.  In the same vein, I don’t like Sherrilyn Kenyon’s writing style and Kim Harrison’s series that references various famous movies in the titles (I don’t know what, if anything, they are collectively referred to) bores me only slightly less.  They seem to be everywhere and anyone that likes paranormal romances seems to like them, but I can’t figure out why.  My personal theory is that there is currently such a proliferation of that genre, people gravitate towards them because they recognize the name. 

As for whether or not the genre as a whole has jumped the shark, I’d say, “Not necessarily”.  It’s just that when a particular genre takes up 1/3 of the rack in a store, you have to figure that 50-70% of that particular genre is complete suckage, 25-45% is somewhat suckage, and 5% is original, gripping, and highly entertaining.  The more popular it is, the more they put out, regardless of quality.

Picture of HealerAriel said on...
05.14.08 at 01:56 PM |

I actually really enjoyed the first… five or so books in the Dark-Hunter series, but it was mostly because I was deeply in love with the supporting cast of characters. The heroes and heroines I could usually take or leave, which is precisely why I stopped reading the books when my favorite character was “promoted” from Wisecracking Sidekick to Future Main Character. I love him too much to watch as that happens…

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: