BTW, the title of the video is “Tip/Wag-Marvel Comics”
Categories: Reviews by Author, L-P • Reviews by Grade: C
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
Ah, the infamous elephantits cover, from our cover snark on gay romance illustrations. It’s quite difficult not to judge a book by its cover, when the cover is so completely outrageous, AND when the man with the basket-balls appears on BOTH the front AND the back cover. I am usually not at all bothered by the appearance of what I read on the bus, but this could have raised some serious eyebrows with the homeland security folks on the subway. I mean, what IS he hiding in his trousers?
But my quest was not to evaluate the cover - we already did that. My job was to read the content, and really, it’s a shame this book has such a bizarre depiction on the front because as a romance, and as a gay romance, and as a historical, the cover does not exist on the same planet as the quality of the story and of the writing.
crap, I want to read it now just to find out what happens lol
Ya know, I’m actually not very fond of reading reviews unless I’ve read the book - I have an extreme definition of and aversion to spoilers. So I usually only read the review after I’ve read the book.
But I read this one because I couldn’t help it. Sarah, you sucked me in. Not into the book, but into the review. Seriously, man, you’re REALLY good at this. Really, just very well done.
Thanks for the compliment - I try really, really hard not to put spoilers in reviews, and if I do I try to make it so you can skip the spoiler section without missing anything. And sometimes it is difficult to describe what did or didn’t work for me without giving away too much - so I’m glad you liked the review!
Thanks for the thoughtful review. And for encouraging me to click on your “Gay Man-Titty Cover Snark” so I could experience it all over again.
I read this book a month or so ago because after seeing the cover snarked here I just had to know what it was about. I actually checked out Pearson’s website first and the got the book from Amazon. I pretty much echo what SB Sarah says in her review. I enjoyed the story but would have also liked to see more character development of both Stephen and Jamie. I thought that the “climax” (tee hee) was a little over the top but I still felt tension as to how it would ultimately work out. I also enjoyed the secondary characters as the rounded out Stephen and Jamie’s little family.
I believe from Pearson’s website she is working on another book. I don’t know if it’s a sequel or not. But regardless, I would definitely read another of her books.
Stephen’s admission of feelings for another man lead to a real and, I am led to believe, historically accurate social penalty. Even though there is a happily ever after, the reader receives that HEA while knowing there will be real difficulties ahead for the protagonists.
I’m stuck on how you can have a HEA if the Earl is a known homosexual and suffers the historically accurate consequences? Homosexuality was a capitol offense during the Regency (until 1828, in fact). Death would tend to put a real damper on the HEA. And knowing that Homosexuality was a capitol offense, it makes my crap-meter go off when I read that the big external conflict is about a contract for homosexual favors? WTF? Who would be stupid enough to put that in writing? Even Lord Hervey—that famous “amphibious thing”—was always careful to phrase his letters to his lover Ste in obscure terms.
The illegality of homosexuality is addressed, but not so much in the context that Stephen fears punishment by death. But his contract with Julian does not specify sexual favors. I believe the terms are for “private performances” in exchange for monetary compensation and use of the earl’s home.
The HEA is certainly not guaranteed in light of the known obstacles for the heroes, since there are numerous social challenges aside from their gayness, such as their unequal social status, etc. But then, if you think about it, is a HEA guaranteed for anyone in a Regency, what with the higher rates for disease, infant mortality, and the coming Industrial Revolution and reversals of fortune facing the upper classes?
Historically, my understanding - and correct me if I’m wrong - was that homosexuality was marginally tolerated as long as the homosexuals in question were discreet and didn’t force acknowledgement from other members of society. So while Stephen faces social censure, which his character wouldn’t care about much anyway, I’m not sure there’s much evidence that the ton would haul him to the gallows. Might make them look bad. Or soil their ascots. And ruffle their mullets!
Historically, my understanding - and correct me if I’m wrong - was that homosexuality was marginally tolerated as long as the homosexuals in question were discreet and didn’t force acknowledgement from other members of society. So while Stephen faces social censure, which his character wouldn’t care about much anyway, I’m not sure there’s much evidence that the ton would haul him to the gallows.
Absolutely. Especially an Earl. There was a large and vigorous (hehe) homosexual sexual underclass for those dissolute noblemen. So, yeah, he’s more likely to get outcast for the class issue than the homosexual one. After all, Byron was thrown out of society for his affair with his half-sister, not for the gay affair he had.
Historically, my understanding - and correct me if I’m wrong - was that homosexuality was marginally tolerated as long as the homosexuals in question were discreet and didn’t force acknowledgement from other members of society.
Isn’t it ironic that homosexuality was less taboo in actual Regency England than it has been in Regency Romance? From what I understand, Emma Holly was among the first writers of historical Romance to render an overtly gay character in positive terms.
The earliest gay/lesbian Regency that I know of by an established author is Pembroke Park by Michelle Martin, published by Naiad Press in 1986. It’s billed as “A bit of a departure--the first lesbian Regency novel.”
Martin wrote a number of mainstream Regencies during the ‘80s, and some of them are still favorites of mine, especially The Adventurers.
Pembroke Park wasn’t bad, and the ending was realistically worked out. Not her best work, but an interesting effort.
Dammit, you sucked me in too! Now I have to get this book, and DAMMIT, I just bought a puppy (purebred German Shepherd, can you see the dollar signs? whimper) and I’m BROKE! Sigh… gotta go check under the couch cushions for book-buying change…
This really is a lovely little book for those of us with a slashy bent, but the cover’s horrible. My husband looked at it and said, “Is he hiding a trout down there?”
I know this is a year old, but I wanted to comment anyway.
I’ve often lamented the lack of gay romance. I’ve told my friends that I want to be able to go to the romance paperback area in the library and know that I can pull out a book that will have some real appeal to me in terms of the romance itself, not just the plot. But until I found this book review, I’d never heard of a real m/m romance, at least not one I’d actually consider asking my library to buy and shelve with the rest of the romances. (And despite the, um, rather overblown look below the waist there, this cover really is no different than an average classical romance cover. Instead of the heroine’s breasts threatening to burst/fall out of her dress, the hero’s tackle is doing the same with his pants.)
Thank you so much for reviewing this. Now I just have to see if my library will classify this as a romance. (I’d love to hear their argument if they don’t.)
03.16.06 at 12:31 AM |