Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

whu…..what? WHAT?

I don’t even know anymore.

Holy Mary mother of…oh wait…

Am I the only one seeing phallic symbolism in the fiery church tower?  Sweet baby J… um.  Yeah.

Um, that is so awesome I don’t have the words. I must find this book and read it.

Am i the only one who read the title as “Mary *had* twins” (cue 70’s porn music)?  As opposed to “Mary had twins” (cue nursery rhymes)?

Why is Father Ralph from The Thorn Birds coming to mind? 

This would be fun to read, hehe.

What Bethy said.

Thank you for the warning. I was safely finished eating. Although now my husband thinks I am insane.

Oh… hurting now.

Is this gem still in print?

and I can’t resist. My word…. fall54 -

He remembered he had fallen on the 54th day of the year. As his collar dangled from his hand, she beckoned him closer… Her pearls clicking suggestively over her heaving bosoms….

Mary looks a little evil to me.  Maybe she is supposed to be the devil that tempts the “man” of God away from the Church and into sin?  Also, she kinda looks like my Aunt Kerri.

I took it as a Dan Brown sorta thing, like Jesus had a twin. Is that what everyone else is getting? Or is this a modern evil-looking slut type who just happens to be named Mary?

I had to look up the pub date on this gem.  1983… in hardcover!

@ Liz.
I don’t know…  Given the way the bloke is studiously ignoring the obviously up for it woman behind him, I think he’s looking for a “man of God” of his own.

Oh, also - where are those women’s breasts?

@Liz

Mary looks a little evil to me. 

A little evil?  Understatement.  She looks like some Heather Locklear character from a 1980s television show.  Bad to the bone and ready to play hide that communion wafer with Father Naive.

@ Quizzabella
I took that look to be more like he wasn’t expecting a woman to want him and pondering whether he should drop the cassock and go for it.  And you’re right, Mary has no breasts, making her look like a teenage boy…which leads us to a whole other set of questions about the priest,

The best part of this is the quote. There’s a whole lotta backstory there.

Is this book trying to be like The Thorn Bird? Cause that is no Richard Chamberlain on the cover.

I just checked on Amazon - used copies are available starting from 1 cent. A bargain, methinks!

Is this book trying to be like The Thorn Bird? Cause that is no Richard Chamberlain on the cover.

He looks more like Ron Howard circa Happy Days to me.

She does look kinda drag doesn’t she—it’s all in the jaw-line.  No breasts, no curves—hmmmmmm—

Word: hard37—need I say more?

OMG, The New York Times reviewed it!

The review doesn’t mention a woman at all… I think the cover was indeed to capture the interest of fans of The Thorn Birds &tc;.

Actually, on the drag-worthiness of the female…if you wax the guy’s eyebrows and throw on a wig and makeup, I think you have the woman.

Maybe part of the tag line got cut off: When his clerical collar comes off, a priest is a man…when the pearls go on, a man is a woman.

And if the church spire is indeed a phallic symbol, why is it on fire????  Syphilis perhaps?  The mind boggles.

Mary had twins and a pearl necklace.  Two, even!  For shame, Father Hotpants!

A novel written by a Catholic Priest? And one that - if one judges by the cover - might - possibly - be classified as a Romance??????

One thing that (if one judges by stuff on authors’ websites, authors’ posts on blogs and chat boards and similar venues etc etc) is that personal experience gives depth to the author’s writing.
And the sort of “personal experience” for those with this job (which has at times been featured in the news) is of a kind that gives loooong prison sentences. If they were brought to the courts.

Which means one of two things to me: The foxy lady and the toothsome priest were a marketing device to make women who read and love romance novels buy this book. Which makes it a book I shouldn’t bother with.
Or it is a book I do not want to read.
(The chains of reasoning leading to these two conclusions are _not_ the same!!)

Andrew Greeley is a great author who is priest and I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, some of his books have romance. I think they may be a bit on the subtle side.

There are so many things wrong with this cover it amazes me that it made it to the shelves. And the NYT short review did not make any more sense. An older cousin, Mike? Hmmmm.

First of all, that woman behind the priest is no woman, it’s a man, baby, a MAN! Yes, Mike had a sex change and is now known as Mary. And that flaming phallic symbol in the background is represents a different kind of flaming. In the words of Urban Dictionary: So gay, that the gayness radiates from you. And that radiation set the church on fire.

That’s the real miracle of this book. Former priest turned woman “immaculately conceives” twins. (Though we all know it was his fellow priest that did the real work.)

That’s soo awful! Terrible - thanks for the drink warning I would indeed have choked on it. Heh.

Definitely a “Thorn Birds” bit there. And I loved ‘The Thorn Birds’ by the way, a great forbidden love-story though I thought Bryan Brown was tons hotter than Richard Chamberlain- (Obviously Rachel Ward felt the same way- last I heard she and Bryan Brown were still married.)

I used to read Andrew Greely and though he’s a Catholic priest his characters had s-e-x outside of marriage.

HOLY Inappropriate-ness Batman!

Yet another example of the models on the cover not resembling the characters on the pages.  If Mary had twins, why is that cover woman so flatchested?

Priestly romances at the holidays—new meaning to things coming on a midnight clear.

The NYT review makes me want to read this to enjoy the true fuckery of the schizo plot. Sadly, it seems the cover copy and pic are likely a zillion times better than the book :I

OMG, I’m so….........uh, I dunno?  Holy shit, he/he. 
WTFery is RIGHT!!

The New York Times review makes this book sound much less interesting than the WTF cover and blurbs. There is no Mary except for the obvious virginal one, the twins aren’t real twins, there is no forbidden love either (unless it involves cousin Mike) and no mention of a church spire in flames either.

Definitely a case of packaging that is way more interesting than the content.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, like i needed another reason to question my religion…..

I think I might have actually read this as a teenager! EGAD…if only I had known.

And did you get a load of the man hands twirling those pearls? Definitely a Mark turned into a Mary.

And if this guy were as popular as Father Greeley, where is he now? I think this was a one hit, WTF moment for him.

I will make sure to read this book at Mass tomorrow.  I hope they don’t excommunicate me hahaha!  I may get a few padre’s numbers…heeeey.

No, really, I’m not a priest, I dressed this way as a joke.  “APRIL FOOLS!  got a cigarette?”.

@ SheaLuna

Did you notice that on the exploding penis, I mean church, that the name “Sergio” is carved on the bottom? HMM….Some one has a lot of explaining to do when he gets home *snap, snap*

::sigh:: Remember when books were $3.95?

It added so much to the experience that I had to start at the top blurb and slowly scroll down…

Flat chest + man hands + resemblance to our favorite naive priest= Cousin Mike has some explaining to do.

I am so surprised that the Catholic Church would allow this book to be published with that cover. I mean they hide the files on pedophile priests in the Vatican so the only way anyone can get their hands on them is to create an international incident (I’m catholic so i can say this), but they allow this syphilitic, phallic, drag queen cover out?

@Rhonda…  I missed it!  OMG, I can’t believe I missed that.  That is SO many levels of awesomeness I can hardly stand it!

OMG - I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth!

Wow. Just…wow in terms of cover art and text. My mind boggles.

From the NYT review it sounds like a hot mess of a book. But at least you learn about the “twins.”

Best line from review: “The meticulous detailing of the Catholic background and of Dennis’s experience notwithstanding, this is not a well-made commercial novel.”

And the review has no mention of a romance so who the flip is that woman (?) with the man hands, no ‘twins’ present under that sweater, and the same hair I had circa 1983?

One presumes they weren’t his twins.  I think.

Gah, the title makes no sense at all once you find out what the book is about. I mean, yes, I get what they mean, but it is really just a bait-and-switch title.

I totally want to buy my brother the priest a copy.

Hate to break it to you, but with that collar, the minister is NOT a Catholic Priest.  I do with that people would take the time to get the small details correct.

Either way - that cover is a definite fail.

*wish*  I do wish people….

stupid typos.

Um, lol, but how is this NSFW?  I guess I missed the punchline.

Ohh, this is so wrong, so many ways. I finished laughing and then read this, in the NYT review.
the shock waves of Vatican II’s liberal reform are vibrating through the Roman Catholic Church

I’m not sure but probably should mention it during my next Confession.

One question:  Who is Sergio?  And why is his name written on the church (?) wall?

Wow, having read the review, that book looks a lot less interesting.

Words fail me.  This is a flaming mass of WTF covered in oozing WTF goo.  Pardon me while I remove my brain and put it in a bucket of bleach.