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

I’m actually reading this book right now, so it was cool seeing this right up at top. I discovered Loretta Chase through this blog and the great pimping of her books, and she’s become my favorite historical romance author. I’m also unhealthily obsessed with Venice (I have a shelf nearly full of books about the place) so the combo was a match made in heaven for me. I’m still pretty early in so I couldn’t read your whole review- I’m terrified of spoilers- but so far I love it. Even though I’m pretty new to the romance genre and VERY new to historicals, I haven’t read a book with the heroine being an out and out whore. It’s awesome, and the fact that she CHOOSE that life and is proud of it is wonderful, and a refreshing change from virginal country girls who can barely emote for fear of being labeled an unmarriageable slut.

Anyway, thanks for the review and being so pro-Loretta Chase from the get-go, I can’t wait to read your review all the way through. ;)

Reviews like this are precisely why I am a Candy and Sarah devotee. Having read ‘Your Scandalous Ways’, I must concur that it was incredibly refreshing to have a whore for a main character. Trashy books abound featuring men who gain their fortune through whoring in their younger years, and that seems perfectly acceptable. So FINALLY, here is a book in which the heroine is not pure-as-the-driven-snow or slept-with-an-asshole-once, or some other version of innocent.

Is this the best book ever? No. Is it the best Loretta Chase ever? No. But it’s still much better than most and it presents a familiar plot with some well-written twists.

I must also thank the Smart Bitches for clueing me in to Loretta Chase.  I haven’t had a chance to read all of her books, but I have enjoyed what I have read.  This one was good, but not my favorite (and for the same reasons it’s not Candy’s favorite).  That said, Loretta Chase at her “worst” is lot better than the “bests” of many other authors.  Read and enjoy!

I’m trying to save this book for my vacation over July 4, but I don’t think I’m going to make it.

Did you see the videos of Ms Chase posted on You Tube?  There are five clips of her discussing the characters etc.  I can’t remember where I found out about them, so my apologies if I heard it here first :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qVyzbH5FmlQ&feature=related

Loved Francesca and James. Agree about the ending. It was way too neat. I have no problem with them getting married, that’s expected, but she had to throw in some titles and respectability as well?

This is the first Loretta Chase novel I have read—I’m just getting back into historicals after a LONG hiatus, and this looked good from the review at DA.  Obviously I can’t compare it with her other books, but I enjoyed it and look forward to reading some of her back list.

I like James a lot as a hero, and I loved Francesca!  For all the reasons Candy said (very good review, thanks).  I liked her, I believed her, I understood her, and I really enjoyed seeing how traditional romance elements work with a heroine who is more like a conventional hero.  I particularly liked how the sex was handled—it’s refreshing to have a central couple who both understand sex and enjoy it, but who then find that it can be even better with someone who really loves you.

I wanted to love this book so hard it was ridiculous. Everything you said in your review is on the money, at least for me, but the book was missing that spark, the ZING of a “Most Favorite Book of All Time”. Maybe it was that Francesca said she was a whore so often and I felt like we already got it, but she kept saying it. It was shown enough that I didn’t need to be told. And I wanted to see more of James, I felt like I didn’t get my hero fix.

So I wanted to give it an A+, and I really think it deserves a grade in the A range, but because it was missing that indefinable crazy spark, I gave it a B+. And thats still pretty awesome in my book.

Note: I have not read this book.

However, I don’t generally like books about high-paid, glamourous whores because they ignore what being a sex worker includes for the majority of women which includes physical abuse and rape. Many of the women were sexually abused as children and, as I understand it, the median age for entering sex work is 14.

Again, I haven’t read the book, and Chase may well take the most sensitive tone on the issue ever, but I don’t see it in the review.

My verification is history81. Prostitutes didn’t fair well in history either.

I just finished this one, and while I enjoyed it a lot, it left me rather unmoved compared to, say, Lord of Scoundrels, which had huge dollops of emotional resonance as well as an exciting plot. 

I get what Chase was doing here:  James Cordier = James Bond, Quentin = Q and so on, and I think that’s why, for me anyway, these characters, while entertaining, didn’t fit comfortably into a happy-ever-after scenario.  I just couldn’t picture James and Francesca growing old together; in a best case scenario I think they’d have 2 or 3 good years and then happily part ways by mutual agreement. 

However, I loved some of the twists and turns of the plot and how Chase turns many of the conventions of the genre on their heads - for instance, Francesca’s elderly “lover” turning out to be something else entirely (trying not to be spoilery here.)  Her being a “magnificent whore” didn’t bother me in the slightest; in fact I found it refreshing.  I hope Chase makes her BFF Giulietta into a protagonist some time in the future, as I loved that character and the interaction between the two.  And I figured out where the package was hidden long before James did. :)

And did anyone else think James was going to resurrect his campy Spanish gigolo character after marriage, to ensure Francesca didn’t get bored with him?

this is in my tbr pile, so I will have to wait until I get home from vaca to dig it out. I am looking forward to reading it now. I love the premise of a whore who don’t give a crap!

I haven’t been reading a lot of historicals myself either. I got bored with the good girl image that they always portrayed. zzzzzzzz No excitement. Formulaic even.

I enjoy cleaver repartee myself. Snarky conversations make me laugh and I love to laugh, even a little giggle or snort snuck into a book is good.

I wish someone would write blurbs on the backs of books the way you did- I can only imagine how many we would sell then!!

...feeling I might be opening a can of worms:

Many of the women were sexually abused as children ...

As were many of us who have not become sex workers. Are there comparative statistics on the level of childhood sexual abuse for sex workers vis a vis that for non-sex workers?

... as I understand it, the median age for entering sex work is 14.

Whereabouts? I’m not saying that statistic may not be true, but I’d be interested in knowing what community(ies) it relates to.

I’m not trying to be disingenuous here - most people who get into sex work do so because they feel it’s the only way they can make money (no skills, drug addiction, and, yes, sexual abuse or abandonment). But it’s not all like that.

Leaving all that aside, it’s escapist fiction. There aren’t many romance books written from the perspective of the Irish skivvy either… and I’m sure there aren’t any that have the skivvy remaining the skivvy. The aristocracy was (and is) only a tiny minority of the population, after all.

But if you find a glamorous whore too much of a clanger to enjoy reading about, it’s understandable. I wouldn’t enjoy reading about a religious wife who found the way to deal with her husband via true faith, and the HEA coming about through her “reforming” him. We all have different squicks.

Oh, and as a possible model for the book, Veronica Franco. While her later life is unknown, she seemed to have had a stimulating, happy and successful time for most of it. Unlike many female members of the aristocracy at the time.

A gratuitously happy ending is presented to us in an epilogue, wherein I almost expect rainbows to start shooting out of people’s asses, it’s that sappy-shiny-perfect (even if it does have some clever repartee), and I really wish romance novels will stop with that shit, already—but that deserves a separate rant of its own.

LMFAO!
So true… and I’m probably guilty of that myself. :)

I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of Francesca and James. Their love story was splendid and to me, the best part of it was how she WAS an unrepetant courtesan. Very refreshing.

Excellent review, as always.  You managed to put your finger on the things that bothered me about this book, as well as pointing out why it was such an enjoyable read. 

Loretta Chase is still an autobuy for me, simply because even on her bad days she’s better than 90% of us who write historical romance.

I might have to get this book, if just to see how the whore aspect is handled (and because the last historical I bought on SB recommendation was The Spymaster’s Lady, and it was indeed teh awesome).

As I understand it, this is Venice (although I’m not sure about the period—I’m assuming C18th heyday?), where a high-class whore wasn’t just a whore, but a courtesan—beautiful, educated, desired for her company out of bed as much as in it.  And, most importantly, not a woman forced into prostitution because she had no other way of supporting herself, which is a terrible thing—but a woman who enjoys sex and makes money from it.  Because who wouldn’t want to make money doing something they love?

Of course, I’ve written about a woman who became a courtesan for the same reason, so I may be biased.  But to me, a high-class courtesan is as different from a downtrodden sex worker as a lady-in-waiting is from a scullerymaid.

Candy: God yes. The rushed quality of most romance novels bugs me. Even when I love the book and the story and the characters a part of me is scoffing that it all happened in a week or even just a month. I just read Tell Me Lies and I think that was 6 days but at least Crusie established a prior relationship even if it was 20 years ago. That’s why I like stories where the hero and heroine know each other already because I don’t have to worry that they’re doing the whole HEA thing after a week when they don’t really know any thing about each other.

I just don’t understand why current romance authors don’t want to have their characters spend more than a month with each other.

I’m about 1 chapter away from the end of this book and I find it completely refreshing to have a true courtesan heroine.  She is a powerhouse and I like that.
I hate the double standard that exists in so many romance novels - ok not so much in the romance novels themselves to be honest, but in the exclamations of horror that comes from some romance readers when they see this type of heroine!!  Do they cry in horror when the hero is the one with experience?  I think not.
Francesca is unapologetic for what she is and I really like that fact.

I have to admit, I had given up on romance novels altogether for many years, after finishing too many of them feeling like the author must really, really hate women (including authors whose books I enjoyed on every other count, including, I hate to say it, La Nora). However, having recently discovered - and devoured - this site, I decided to go pick up a few of the authors recommended here. The only Loretta Chase they had at the small library I visited was Not Quite a Lady, which I finished yesterday. I have to say, I was impressed merely by my lack of hatred for the heroine. If it’s one of her worse attempts, and in fact the others are better put together and you actually get to know the characters, and like them (as opposed to simply not hating them), I’m definitely checking out her earlier works.

Happily,  I read one of La Nora’s yesterday as well, and didn’t hate any of the women in it.

spam word: usually28. I usually have 28 more cups of coffee before posting to a new board for the first time. I’m sure I’ll regret the sentence structure later.

I read this book two weeks ago and LOVED IT.  A whore?  Awesome.  A female character who has sex even after meeting the male character?  Awesome.  A strong pair of female friends that still lack the feeling of sequel bait?  Awesome. 

I only picked up Loretta Chase because of the Mr. Impossible being reviewed on this site.  And I picked up LoS, and I was actually disappointed with that one- I liked the majority of the book, but the whole part about the son and Cherry was so completely unrealistic, and Jessica’s reactions were so goddamn cheerful that I was completely irritated.  I don’t want a mopey heroine, but is a little bit of disappointment in her husband’s actions alright?

Here, I felt the characters were more believable.  Jessica is an awesome heroine, but I don’t know that I ever believed her. 

I also want to add, if anyone is interested in real-life courtesans, read Courtesans by Katie Hicks.  This book did not strike me as incorrect about what the life of a courtesan was like.

This book is in my TBR pile, so I have no immediate comment about a courtesan as a heroine other than “how refreshing.” 

But ...but…  I just have to say how much I’m looking forward to grown-up Olivia, Peregrine and Pip stories.  Olivia, in particular (from “Lord Perfect”) was instantly memorable.  Indelible, really. 

(begging)
Ms. Chase??

I think a lot of the readers who are shocked by having an “unrepentant” courtesan as a heroine are reading from a really anachronistic viewpoint. The majority of women in early 19th-century Europe were not ladies, and prostitution was a common career. Moreover, the high-class courtesans, when they were at the peak of their success, were some of the most financially successful and independent “career” women around, certainly doing an awful lot better than those who worked as maids or other serving girls. (Although sadly many of them ended VERY badly, when they didn’t make financially sound decisions and had no pension to live off after their careers ended.)

This novel was set in the 1820s, pre-Victorian morality, and while a courtesan wouldn’t have been allowed into the salon of an elite European hostess, she would have had her own opera box and been treated with respect by European gentlemen. It’s not as if these women had the opportunity to be doctors or lawyers to support themselves in a more “moral” fashion…so I’m not sure where the shame for their job is supposed to have come from?

Wonderful review, Candy. I’m a relative noob to Loretta Chase, but what books I have read by her are superb.

Also, for anyone interested in getting your hands on a copy of this one, over at The Book Smugglers we are giving away 3 free copies of Your Scandalous Ways in conclusion of our Loretta Chase Appreciation Weekend.

I get what Chase was doing here:  James Cordier = James Bond, Quentin = Q and so on.

Elizabeth, the first one sounds about right, but I thought it was Lord Quentin from Captives of the Night, and kept hoping he’s leave James on his own for a few days to go deal with Ismal. Now that would have been a welcome cameo.

Moreover, the high-class courtesans, when they were at the peak of their success, were some of the most financially successful and independent “career” women around, certainly doing an awful lot better than those who worked as maids or other serving girls.

As I understand it, they were also better off than many wives, including those in the upper classes. I don’t think YSW glamorizes prostitution; at no time did I get the feeling that Fransecsa was meant to be representative of all women involved in the sex trade at the time - if anything Chase went to great lengths to show that she was among a very select few.

Anyway, Candy’s review is pretty much what I thought except much funnier.

but I thought it was Lord Quentin from Captives of the Night, and kept hoping he’s leave James on his own for a few days to go deal with Ismal. Now that would have been a welcome cameo.

THAT would have been awesome.

With regards to the the life a courtesan leads, Loretta Chase based her character in real life Courtesans and I quote from an interview we did with her: 

A number of factors contributed to Francesca’s character. When I thought of creating a courtesan heroine, the first thing that came into my mind was the aria “Sempre libre”—“Always free”—from the opera La Traviata. I had an image in my mind of Violetta—but without TB—before she falls in love, before the big heartbreak and self-sacrifice. I envisioned a glamorous woman, free to choose the man she wants, and men vying for the privilege of being with her. I remembered the start of Regency-era courtesan Harriette Wilson’s memoirs, and her unrepentant attitude. It reminded me—again—that a courtesan, unlike a common prostitute, had a degree of freedom that other women of the time could only dream of (if they could even conceive of that level of freedom or dare to dream of it). And an important nudge came from Susan Holloway Scott’s Royal Harlot, and her view of Lady Castlemaine as a woman who relished her sexual freedom.

I find fascinating to learn about what inspires the writers and to learn that such a fantastic heroine came to life based on real-life people was even better - her actions sound even more real to me.

I loved this book and yet I wanted it to be a little more than it really was.

To me, it seemed as if Francesca didn’t totally accept (mentally) that she was whoring for her money. She referred to herself as a big ol’ whore all the time and felt like the putti (baby angels) on the walls were judging her. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of her new livelihood.

Also, the big reveal of her elderly lover being not quite who we think he is…I thought that was terribly disappointing because it really took the ‘teeth’ out of Francesca being a whore. It was like we were getting the cleaned up version of a whore heroine. I wanted it to be a bit more realistic, I guess.

I loved me some James, though! And after I got over the exaggerated Italian speaking, I enjoyed the Venetian setting. Giulietta stole the show, IMO.

I’m pretty much with you on this review, Candy.  Even though I really liked the book and the characters in it, for some reason James and Francesca’s relationship seemed to be missing that certain spark that was in LC’s earlier novels.  I tried not to, but I couldn’t help comparing it to Captives of the Night or Lord of Scoundrels, two of my favorite books eva. 

I thought the whore thing would bother me before I started reading the book.  It’s not conservative Christian thing or anything like that—I just don’t consider having sex for money to be terribly romantic.  But Chase took care of that problem by making Francesca’s most recent “protector” not really her protector, and we don’t meet, see, or hear about any of her other clients, so there wasn’t that ick factor in the book.

One of the things I found fascinating about Your Scandalous Ways was the focus on jewelry (actually, I wrote a whole essay about it for my blog, but we don’t need to go there).  It’s interesting because two of the female characters in the book are obsessed with gems, and English women in the 18th and early 19th centuries couldn’t own jewelry—unless of course they’d foresaken all ties with their family and respectable society, i.e. became courtesans.  So you could say the gemstones in the book are a symbol of financial independence and freedom from society and the control of men.  Just an idea… I’m probably over thinking it.  :)

Please remember I’m saving this book for my vacation, so I have not yet read it.

I thought the whore thing would bother me before I started reading the book.  It’s not conservative Christian thing or anything like that—I just don’t consider having sex for money to be terribly romantic.  But Chase took care of that problem by making Francesca’s most recent “protector” not really her protector, and we don’t meet, see, or hear about any of her other clients, so there wasn’t that ick factor in the book.

Maybe this is why the book seems so rushed to a lot of people?  If the book had taken place over a longer period of time,  wouldn’t Francesca have had to spend more time with clients?

Did you see the videos of Ms Chase posted on You Tube?  http://youtube.com/watch?v=qVyzbH5FmlQ&feature=related

SusanL—these are really great clips, thanks for sharing!

If the book had taken place over a longer period of time, wouldn’t Francesca have had to spend more time with clients?

Good point, I didn’t think of that.  Also, James’ job is to get the letters asap, so that probably contributed to the story taking place over a short period of time, too.

I have a feeling that the shiny, shiny epilogue is to try to clear the palate of people who didn’t like the heroine being a whore—although I would think someone who was that upset would have quit reading long before the epilogue. 

Could you tell me if there was any other nonsense included to justify the actions of the hero and heroine?

Example.  A book where the heroine is a cat burgler but she only steals from people who renig on promises to charity—as if that makes stealing ok.  I would rather read about someone who makes no apologies.

Candy,

I do think you’re right, and I think with Francesca’s background, that there probably wasn’t any other way to write her. But my hopes were for someone a little more Giulietta and a little less Francesca.

I could be amongst the unpopular opinions though. I liked Not Quite A Lady immensely and disliked Lord Perfect and Miss Wonderful.

Hm. Sounds like the more rakish the hero, the more my interest. That sounds about right. ;)

A gratuitously happy ending is presented to us in an epilogue, wherein I almost expect rainbows to start shooting out of people’s asses, it’s that sappy-shiny-perfect (even if it does have some clever repartee), and I really wish romance novels will stop with that shit, already—but that deserves a separate rant of its own.

Bring on the rant. This is something that frosts me, particuarly in my own Christian romance niche. Give me some light and dark, for pity’s sake! Life is like that.

I remember the masterful COMING HOME TO YOU, in which the late Fay Robinson wrote the epilogue to describe how the hero, in the midst of his happy ending,  couldn’t find out about the toddler he’d loved and longed to adopt—the state had placed the baby with a family and could not, by law, tell him where. Now that’s an ending!

Realistic HEAs, please!

And I picked up LoS, and I was actually disappointed with that one- I liked the majority of the book, but the whole part about the son and Cherry was so completely unrealistic, and Jessica’s reactions were so goddamn cheerful that I was completely irritated.  I don’t want a mopey heroine, but is a little bit of disappointment in her husband’s actions alright?

Oh, me too! When the book got to the part about the son my eyes started rolling like the slot machine windows. Yeesh! Still pretty fun, though.

Judith Ivory, to me, has the worst history of tacking on ridiculous Epilogue endings to her stories. So unnecessary!

Trix, in response to your question:

As were many of us who have not become sex workers. Are there comparative statistics on the level of childhood sexual abuse for sex workers vis a vis that for non-sex workers?

Apparently “More than 50% of prostitutes were sexually abused as children.

(Silbert & Pines, 1981; Bagley & Young, 1987; Pithers)”

Got the info from here: http://www.theannainstitute.org/wchac-stats.html

I remember in a Rolling Stones article, of all things, reading that the number of people who are sexually abused as children might be one number, let’s say 5% of the population, but of that 5%, like 60% become sex workers. Those numbers are just an approximation, though, since I don’t have the article with me. But basically what it means is that of those who are sexually abused as children, a very high number go on to prostitution/sex work.

One statistic is that one in four girls are sexually abused as children, and one in six boys are abused as children. (From here: http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp)

And PBS has a quick little list of child abuse statistics:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terror/
tracking/statistics.html
(I broke the link in half so it wouldn’t mess up this page.)

Now I’m all depressed. I think I’ll go read “Your Scandalous Ways” and somehow ironically feel better about life.

Argh, there’s a mistake in my last comment, just above: while around 5% of the population has been sexually abused, something like 60% of sex workers were sexually abused as children, not that 60% of women who were abused become sex workers. The percentages are still only approximations, though, too.

I, like others, so wanted to love this book.  I got really excited when I read Jane and Janet’s review on Dear Author a few days before release.  They were raving about it, and I got it on release day and read it immediately.  I love, or really like, pretty much everything Loretta Chase has ever written.  But this was probably my least favorite book of hers.  For me it wasn’t so much the whole heroine whore thing, because I thought it was made very clear that they were both whores, and I didn’t have a problem with that premise, it was the them being together HEA that I found difficult.  Individually I liked both James and Francesca, but together they never really did anything for me, and while I can appreciate the depth of her scars, I didn’t really get the transition for Francesca from not letting any man close to being in love with James. 

I also have to bring up an issue that I might be alone in, but that bugs the hell out of me, and that is when over halfway into the book and far along in the progression of the romance Francesca suddenly sleeps with the prince, mainly to punish James and knowing that her friend likes the prince.  I am not a reader who believes the main characters can only sleep with one another to the exclusion of anything that makes any sort of sense, but once the romance has progressed to a certain point it does bother me and makes me question the validity of the romance.  Jo Goodman, another author whose books I actually really like, will halfway through some of her books, have the male protagonist sleep with some random woman and it bugs me. (it ruined the otherwise wonderful “A Season to be Sinful” for me)  I am reading the book for the romance between the two main characters.  I didn’t have a problem with James sleeping with the woman in the beginning (whose name I can’t remember), because it made sense in the context of the story, and even if Francesca had been sleeping with other men when she met James or had slept with the Prince earlier that would have been okay with me, but to have James and Francesca at the point they were and for that to happen threw the story off for me, and it never really got back on track, particularly as a romance.  And I so wanted to love this book.

I also have to bring up an issue that I might be alone in, but that bugs the hell out of me, and that is when over halfway into the book and far along in the progression of the romance Francesca suddenly sleeps with the prince, mainly to punish James and knowing that her friend likes the prince.

My impression was that she didn’t sleep with him, she just invited him over for breakfast to make it look like she slept with him to annoy James… but maybe that was just me.

Candy, the link to my blog entry is:  http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/2008/06/22/a-woman-is-only/

I agree that the ending of YSW was a little too purty-perfect, but it wasn’t unbelievable by the standards of Romance Land.  As far as I’m concerned, there’s no such thing as a “realistic” HEA—that would be, “They lived together in relative peace, she doing the laundry and dusting, he washing dishes and taking out the trash.  Occassionally they fought over who would water the grass.  The End.”  Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not terribly romantic.

I didn’t think she sleep with the prince either. I was under the impression she faked it to tease James.

Ditto to Ana and Kukulcan girl - I was pretty sure that she’d set it up to look like she’d slept with the Prince, and James fell for the deception. From the way the Prince actually acted, though, and especially how easy it was for Giulietta to get him so quickly afterwards, it seemed clear they hadn’t actually slept toether.

I haven’t read the book, but from the review and the comments here some bits sound awfully similar to No Man’s Mistress written by Mary Balogh.  Not the plot so much, but the HEA and the protector who wasn’t.

Candy - not true. I know what the hell is wrong with you!  Just kidding.  I think Not Quite a Lady had a personal impact on me and therefore it maybe clouded my judgment of the book overall.  I know Robin is less than enthralled with NQaL as well.  You are not alone in the wilderness.  I think that there are a couple of others with you.

As for Your Scandalous Ways, I agree with your assessment of Francesca’s ambivalence toward her livelihood.  After all, she was engaged in this constant oneupmanship with her ex husband.  Everytime she had sex with a man for money, I wondered if she felt the personal degradation of being thrown away by her ex.  There was a duality there and I think one that is very insightful.

For me, Your Scandalous Ways, even with its Care Bear ending (tm Mrs. Giggles), was the book of the year so far.

I enjoyed this book, but I had some issues with it.  Candy said:  Her current style doesn’t quite flow in the same way it used to, and I miss that. I also wanted more book. I wanted more detail, more depth of emotion, more details on what Francesca went through during and right after the divorce, and James’ (mis)adventures.  This is something I noticed when reading Claudia Dain’s The Courtesan’s Daughter.  She told me that she wrote that as a pure romp, that it wasn’t supposed to be deep and emotional, and I got that feeling from YSW as well.  Written as a romp and it skimmed all the feelings.  I like angst, personally, and there could have been deeper evaluation Francesca’s divorce, or of James’ feelings about whoring himself out or being tortured, but everything was very surface instead.  Now, that might be more realistic than the Angsty McAngst of, say, Phury in the latest Ward that I’m not reading, but I like me some angst, so this bothered me.  Esp. since Chase CAN do angst so well.

My other huge problem:  Jill Myles said:  Also, the big reveal of her elderly lover being not quite who we think he is…I thought that was terribly disappointing because it really took the ‘teeth’ out of Francesca being a whore. It was like we were getting the cleaned up version of a whore heroine. I wanted it to be a bit more realistic, I guess.  And Kukulcan girl said:  But Chase took care of that problem by making Francesca’s most recent “protector” not really her protector, and we don’t meet, see, or hear about any of her other clients, so there wasn’t that ick factor in the book.  Yes, Francesca was a dirty dirty whore, but not, like, really.  Because we don’t hear the names of any of her lovers, we don’t see them (like we do with James in the Prologue).  All we see are her jewels and her thoughts about the fact that she’d been doing it for less than five years.  So while, yes, she was a whore, I feel we really get gypped out of believing it.  And the big reveal about Magny bugged the shit out of me.  It would have made it much better if he HAD been her protector.

Lacey said:  Francesca suddenly sleeps with the prince, mainly to punish James and knowing that her friend likes the prince.   If she HAD, that would have fixed my problem above, but I didn’t read it like that.  I’m with the other commenters who say it was all a hoax to piss off James.

I have not read the book, or anything by Loretta Chase - yet. I have over 100 books in my TBR pile, so maybe sometime next year.

I did note in the review that you were unhappy with the HEA. Maybe some of you would be interested in reading a highly acclaimed, non-fiction book that might clear things up called Other Powers by Barbara Goldsmith.

The central figures in the above book are Victoria Woodhull and her sister, Tennie C. The backdrop is Victorian America, spiritualism, the woman’s movement (and split), the sensational trial of Henry Ward Beecher, prostitution, etc. If you know anything about these two women you will know that Tennie was sold into prostitution by her father, Victoria may have dabbled in it when it suited her needs (she knew that her father intended to sell her into prostitution as well but married a doctor at the age of 15 thinking she would be safe, alas, not so). Both women defied conventions and moved in the highest circles of New York society. Victoria ran a campaign for President in 1872 with the smear of Free Sex dogging her, spiritualism supporting her. Eventually she had to take Tennie and flee the country, to protect her sister from arrest. They landed in England, both would eventually marry very rich men (one had a title) and Victoria , ostensibly gave up spiritualism and became a Roman Catholic.

So what I am saying is, basically, it doesn’t sound like the outcome of Chase’s book is all so remote a possibility when judged against the reality of some very strong-minded women!

P.S. I much prefer the idea of a strong-minded courtesan who calls the shots, than that of women being raped, which forms the background of so many historical novels by authors I won’t name.

This book was a big disappointment to me.

While I have no problem with heroines who are whores and (as a reader), I am also able to suspend my ‘real world’ disbelief far enough to accept a storyline that says being a whore is just a huge bag of empowering fun for the women involved, this particular book just didn’t have me believing in Francesca. I thought she was all talk and no action, and it got old fast.

She simply couldn’t hold her own against James. The End. James got the upper hand every time. So I naturally compared this duo to Jessica and Lord Dain; now, THEY were great equals in word and deed. James and Francesca? Not so much. Francesca was the so-called greatest courtesan in Europe, yet she lost her emotional and sexual footing over and over again to the same man? (James had it bad too, but he kept his composure, etc. By contrast, Francesca? Well ... I like to think that a woman who could earn such an amazing reputation for whoring would, for example: a.) win ANY sexual bet put forth in a gondola and b.) not start crying in a public place because it’s all so! beautiful! in the moonlight!)

Yeah, I thought Francesca’s side of things was actually fairly sad to read.

Plus, the whole “damning and important papers” plot device was dull and repetitive—and if I’m caring about the plot in a romance novel, it must be because the romance isn’t interesting me very much.

Please don’t throw anything at me: this was my first Loretta Chase book. I thought it was a wonderful introduction to her writing, and I absolutely loved Francesca and James. I had absolutely no problem with her day job (or night job, as it was). The dialogue was fantastic and I thought that the strength of Francesca was fantastic. She was brilliant, and Ms. Chase showed us that brilliance.

However, I was sorry we didn’t get more of Francesca’s villainous ex-husband because I thought he was infinitely more interesting than Marta Fazi. She vagely reminded me of something out of James Bond, and if her name was more like Darea Gioiello I might have fallen over laughing.

I also was not happy with the cute-overload wrap up. Yes, I know that bunnies and puppies weren’t involved, but it was too much anvil over the head for me.

I am now delighting in Mr. Impossible and will definitely read other Loretta Chase books.

Candy, great review.

I love Loretta Chase and expected to love this book…but didn’t.  I’m still trying to figure out why.  I probably need to read it again to really get it all.

Most of the people who rave about this book in online reviews say they love it because Francesca was an unabashed courtesan who loved her life, embraced her sexuality, etc.  I never believed that F. loved her life, and a lot of that came out in the comparison of her to Giuletta.  I don’t think Francesca liked her “job” - though she may have liked that it brought her some financial security.  I thought one of the more telling moments was when Giuletta said that F. didn’t like men while G did - and how true that rang.  I also thought that Francesca started weeping in that tower because she couldn’t choke back her pain any longer.  The beauty triggered the release.  I did not read that as a happy moment for her at all.

Like Candy, I think all her statements about being a whore were defensive in nature - say it before someone else can.  Actually, Candy, your review was very helpful.  I do think Francesca was very ambivalent about her life and lifestyle - while Giuletta came across as really liking it.

In some ways though, I think the hero and heroine would be happier if they did NOT return to England to live.

FWIW - I LOVED Lord Perfect.  I can’t think of a novel by Loretta that I didn’t like on at least one level.

I picked up Lord of Scoundrels because of this site and fell in love with Loretta Chase.  Consequently, I picked up every Chase novel on the shelf at my local Half-Price Books (all of three, but still) and Her Scandalous Ways was one of them.  I just finished it and didn’t even realize until sometime last week that it was just released.

I agree that it wasn’t as strong as LoS or Not Quite a Lady, but I did enjoy it very much.  I agree with your review, Candy, pretty much point for point. 

One, it rushed the meet to romance to HEA.  Okay, I get that in some cases, between some people, they just know in a very short period of time that this is the one for him/her.  But there were some fairly serious issues that stood between these two, like his early deceptions and disguises and his intent to worm his way into her life to steal the letters.  This is a woman who was incredibly betrayed by the only two men she’d ever loved and, yet, she got over what she considered a huge betrayal by James in ridiculously short order.  And you can’t overlook the fact that she is notorious and that having her as his wife should have made it so that he was not only banished from Society, but made into a laughingstock, as was the case for Bathsheba’s first husband in Lord Perfect.  Seriously, Bathsheba only came from a notorious family and had never actually done anything scandalous herself—Francesca is actually a whore.  Shouldn’t it have given James some pause that he wouldn’t ever really be able to go home again?  (Yes, that is all neatly tied up in the epilogue, but the characters weren’t supposed to know that it would be, right?) 

Two, it doesn’t really delve to much into the emotional landscape of the characters.  We’re told that this happened or that happened because it passes through the character’s mind, but we don’t really see how any of these past issues affect them and, given the traumatic nature of some of the issues, shouldn’t there have been a little more of that?  This is very unlike how it was with Lord of Scoundrels, where what happened to the hero in his past informed every interaction that he had with people and, only because he began to allow himself to see some of these issues through more the objective and loving eyes of the heroine, did he begin to let go of the pain and heal.  That’s what made that book so satisfying for me. 

Three, the HEA was over the top.  They get together and all is right in the world and no one dares to insult or impugn her because she has a title now, etc etc ad nauseum.  Meanwhile, the one thing I did want to see, read, and/or know about—James’s mother’s reaction to the news that her son is marrying a Great and Notorious Whore—is not even hinted at other than his besotted assurances that mama will love her.  I don’t see why they couldn’t have married, loved each other deeply, and been mostly happy even though they were not considered respectable (at least to British society) and his mother never really warmed up to her, even if she had more manners than to say so openly.  That would have seemed much more realistic to me.

All that said, I still would give this book an A-, too.

Re Francesca’s clients, or lack thereof, she does discuss one of her previous lovers with G in one of the first chapters (a marchese, I forget the name). I don’t think it was necessary to actually have a scene which shows her with one of them - it’s clear that the Count was not the only man she’d been with since the divorce (and she did have an affair while married, as well). As I read it, she was in the process of deciding which of several men to choose when she first ran into James. I fel she was a believable courtesan as well as an ambivelant one; the story would not have worked for me otherwise, I think, because it would have been much more difficult to buy into her choice to give up that life if she’d truly enjoyed it was Giulietta did.

The epilogue should have ended with them happy in Venice and enjoying the company of G, the prince and the putti. The England stuff was excessive.

but I’m wondering what the differences would be for Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Sexual abuse no doubt existed back in the day, but I’m wondering if poverty, period, was more the driving force.

From what I vaguely understand, with the extremely limited options for employment for women, even the (lower-class) working women often couldn’t afford to live unless they had a protector of some sort, and the type of protector they had limited their career options further (no sluts can be a scullery maid in MY respectable house!).  The only women who could be even slightly analagous to a modern single career woman would be courtesans.

Francesca, as a divorced woman (alimony? in 1820-something?) with no family to fall back on, had the option of becoming a high-class courtesan or starving (leading her to becoming a low-class prostitute).

Governess? Companion? Teacher in a respectable school for girls?  Chatelaine for a respectable family?  Not for a divorcee.  She could only be dependant on friends or relatives, and hope their generosity extended until her death.

Tina C: In your points one and two, I think you’ve expanded on what I was feeling after reading this book.

You said:
We’re told that this happened or that happened because it passes through the character’s mind, but we don’t really see how any of these past issues affect them and, given the traumatic nature of some of the issues, shouldn’t there have been a little more of that?

And I agree, even beyond the emotional issues. This was, for me, one of those books where you got told, not shown.

I wrote that I just didn’t believe Francesca was believable as a great courtesan; I hope it’s clear that this is NOT because I didn’t see her in bed with the prince or some other client. I understand that’s unlikely stuff in a romance novel. The believability was lost upon seeing her with James, who seemed to immediately reduce the internal world of this “great courtesan” to absolute turmoil. Based on all the verbal buildup, I expected her to be made of stronger stuff; she wasn’t. (Consider: Jessica Trent is an almost spinster who collects antiques. She shoots a man. Francesca Bonnard is a famous courtesan with a tattoo. She ... has a good cry in a tower? Oh.)

But maybe I’m being too harsh!

it left me rather unmoved

Ditto. I was excited at the premise. I love the idea of a courtesan heroine, but the execution seemed very fluffy and farcical to me. I just wasn’t feeling a depth of emotion, and by the end I was skimming to finish. I recently purchased this book along with several highly recommended Regencies (or almost Regency period like To Taste Temptation by Elizabeth Hoyt, which is pretty good). I hope that Private Arrangements by Sherry Thomas and The Slightest Provocation by Pam Rosenthal will suit me better.

I loved this book.  I had no problem with her being a courtesan. If she had been sexual abused and demeaned, I would have a problem.  Seriously, you cannot take this character out of the historical perspective. A lot of women became courtesans because they were ambitious, not because they had been sexually abused. You can’t take her role out of the historical context. Jane Aiken Hodge in her book on regency women was surprised at the friendship and companionship shared by the courtesans. Sophie Wilson, Harriette Wilson, actually married her aristocratic lover. On romancing the blog, there is a great article about an actual courtesan, Kitty Fisher. She flaunted her wealth and independence. She also married into the gentry.  Lady Emma Hamilton had risen from prostitute to wife of the British Envoy to Naples. She was the famous lover of Lord Nelson and had two of his children.

Already labeled a whore by her divorce, Franscesca fought back by becoming a whore. She was proud. She was very selective about her lovers. They had to be attractive as well as well. She is a woman who refused to defeated by society’s rules. Bravo.

Your Scandalous Ways was not my favorite Loretta Chase romance.  That doesn’t actually say much, however, considering that she’s one of my few autobuy authors.  But I did love that in YSW the jaded, cynical, seen-it-all hero is redeemed not by a virginal girl but by an actual woman who can hold her own with him.  From Georgette Heyer’s Avon in “These Old Shades” to Eloisa James’ Mayne in “Pleasure for Pleasure” we’re asked to believe that only innocence and purity (preferably in a barely post-pubescent body) can rescue the tortured hero.  I love me Ms. Chase who dares to say that strong men not only can deal with strong women but may actually prefer them.

The only L.C. book I ever read (the only one I could find at a UBS actually) was Lord Perfect. It was enjoyable enough that I would give it a B+, but not enough to catch must-glom-her-entire-backlist fever. I see most reader sites, here included, rave over her and don’t really get it. But, then again, I don’t get another favorite of the majority of reader sites, Emma Holly’s Menage, either.

Here are a couple of links from Loretta Chase’s group blog, Word Wenches.

On the subject of why some women actually became courtesans, loot under the heading The Fallen Woman

http://wordwenches.typepad.com/word_wenches/loretta_chase/page/2/

On the subject of Francesca’s jewelry, look under More Scandalous:  A Girl’s Best Friend
http://wordwenches.typepad.com/word_wenches/loretta_chase/page/3/

There is also a 2 part interview on

http://wordwenches.typepad.com/word_wenches/loretta_chase/page/1/

It’s interesting because two of the female characters in the book are obsessed with gems, and English women in the 18th and early 19th centuries couldn’t own jewelry—unless of course they’d foresaken all ties with their family and respectable society,

Do you have an accessible reference where I could learn more about this?  I am aware of sumptuary laws in earlier periods of course, but I assume that what you mean here is simply the issue of female ownership of property generally.  More information would be gratefully received.
:-)

Thanks for some numbers, Willa. So 60% of (predominantly female) sex workers have experienced sexual abuse as children, and then there is the loose estimate that 25% of girls have been abused. I don’t know where the 5% figure you mention comes from, if it’s 1/4 girls and 1/6 boys (which would make 20% of the overall population) that have been abused.

I’m sure there’s some kind of gnarly way to analyse those number statistically, but we can say that sex workers are more than twice as likely as the rest of the population to have been sexually abused. That doesn’t surprise me at all. But what is the cause? Are people of a lower socio-economic status who are more likely to end up in sex work (than the skilled working class or middle classes) because of the money also more likely to be abused (as members of the lowest class stratum)? Perhaps, although I wouldn’t think that would be significant. Is it likely that people who have experienced sexual abuse are more likely to develop addictions (to drugs or alcohol), and require that kind of work to pay for it? I think that’s a likely component. Do people who have been sexually abused feel so degraded that they no longer care about the sovereignty of their bodies, and feel they are only worthy of being whores? I’m sure that’s likely for some.

Those are the kind of questions I’d like to see answered, if possible, rather than the lazy assumptions that tend to go on when asking why some people choose to become sex workers (because those who have been coerced or trafficked into sex work are another kettle of fish). I also tend to look at the existing statistics with a jaundiced eye, given such discrepancies as 20% or 5% for the incidence of sexual abuse.

I think statistics on the personal backgrounds and motivations of women who earn a living by selling sex are meaningless unless some very precise definitions are set out at the start.  The type of prostitute matters above all (in virtually all societies, there have been numerous different classes, from the wealthy woman, employing her own servants and moving at least on the fringes, if not within the upper echelons of society, to the employed ‘middle-class’ working girl, down to the poverty-stricken lowest level of street-walker), but also the general social context, including the position of women and the attitudes to sexuality, which often involve religion, the exact definition for the ‘sex trade’ within that context, temporal and geographical, the definition that is being employed for ‘sexual abuse’ and even the definition of ‘childhood’, which varies enormously in different times and cultures.  The ancient Greek hetaira would certainly not have regarded herself as a ‘sex worker’ of any kind;  she was a cultured, educated non-Greek woman who took part alongside men in social activities that were denied to respectable Greek woman, who lived in something approaching purdah.
I am surprised that nobody has yet mentioned the stereotypical working girl of fiction - Fanny Hill.  She was by no means at the top of her profession, but she was also a very long way from the bottom, which at all places and periods has been a grim place to be.

I started writing more about HEAs, realistic, non-realistic and otherwise, and it’s starting to grow out of control. I’ll be posting something about this later today. Commenters: some of your comments will be excerpted, and if I disagree with you, please know that I’m not picking on you, I just want to explore your ideas further and poking at them to see what falls out.

Candy, did you ever finish writing this and, if so, when are you going to post it?  (I’ve been looking for this post since I read your intentions to do it)

Just finished this.  Hallelujah for a heroine with some sexual swagger.  Also for the hot-potato quickness with which the upper hand was passed back and forth.  I lost count of the times one of them would deliver a line that could easily have been the Last Word, the scene capper, only to have the other come back and top it.

However, as others have noted, it seemed like Francesca’s bravado evaporated once they actually got into the sexxoring, and that made me a little sad.  For example, the bath scene.  She’s getting ready to take a bath; she observes that he needs a bath too (they’d both jumped into the canal), and he asks how big her bathtub is.

“I’m a great whore,” she says.  “What do you think?”  Yes!  You go, Francesca!

Only… it develops she does not actually entertain gentlemen in her big whorish bathtub.  It’s her private sanctuary, and James is the first guy ever allowed in.  Which is okay, except then why did she even make the connection between her profession and the size of her tub?  I felt a little faked out.

Also, maybe this is just me, but I was totally skeeved by “You’re a bad girl” and the variations thereon.  Francesca was a grown woman who owned her sexuality.  When he called her a bad girl, or naughty; when he shook her by the shoulders and said “Don’t ever do that again” (on two different occasions), it kinda made my skin crawl.

Unfortunate, because on the whole I love Loretta Chase and I love the risks she took here with subject matter.  Much more satisfying than Not Quite a Lady.  Also a big step up from Lord Perfect.  Not up to the level of Mr. Impossible, but then, I don’t know if anything ever will be.

I found it disappointing myself. 

The whole hero/heroine as whore was not so much an issue for me.  I have read and liked Mary Balogh’s books dealing with this issue.  They were wonderful!  But for this book, I’d give it a B.  Disappointing, because I truly like and admire Loretta Chase and usually love her books.  But there were little or no feelings—no emotional depth—no growth—no changes to these characters.  Boring!  They were superficial—everything was on the surface.  Their previous lives should have led to more angst and played out in the novel, but curiously, never did.  The villainness was rather pathetic, the big scary ending was just silly, and the stupid epilogue was totally improbable and an insult to the reader’s intelligence.

But…still…it is a Loretta Chase, so I’d give it a B.  Not as good as her previous books though.

I thought Candy’s review on Your Scandalous Ways was right on.  I read the book yesterday.  Even though I had read the review before purchasing I bought it because I loved Lord of Scoundrels.

Personally this book rocked for me (even with the minor flaws) and James and Francesca are among my top h/h favorites…especially Francesca.  The refreshing change in historical land was a rush for me.  I loved the humor and exchanges between James and Francesca and especially the equality factor (and I don’t give a shit about the era).  I’ve lived far too long to get whacked out by “labels” so I don’t.

I’m a book a day reader and this one was so delicious for me that I whooped in joy….Nancy:)

Submit:  Nearly 64 HA.

I actually like the smarmy ending.  I think it could be approached from another angle, though rather than rainbow shooting asses.  In the socio/political atmoshphere of the day there were clear roles people were “supposed” to play.  Poor people were slovenly, stupid, and lazy.  Rich people who had no titles? Upstarts and mushrooms.  Nobility were leaders, innovators, gaurdians of the moral rectitude (blah, blah, blah).  Perhaps one could view the granting of a title (and fortune) to our two non-conformist heros as a way for the high muckity mucks to realign the “rightness” of their actions vs. their place in society.  Far more comfortable than admitting that they (the aristocracy) didn’t actually have a monopoly on the best character.  Oh, and yes, I’m a Disney ending kinda gal anyway.  If I want reality, I’ll watch the news. 

P.S.  I’d have been hoping for a fluke meeting of the toddlers new parents in the book “Coming Home To You” mentioned above, or maybe a photo on a desk, like my father found of a child we fostered.  Even in real life, sometimes there IS a happy ending.

Totally late to the game here… I’ve found it interesting to read the article and the comments—obviously there’s quite varied reaction.

Unfortunately, I’m one of the readers who didn’t particularly like the book. Chase often has a light touch (and I adored Mr. Impossible and Miss Wonderful), but here I felt the touch was too light, and the book was all surface, no depth. I ended up bored by the characters despite the intriguing set-up.

Yet others were engaged, so I guess in part it’s what the reader brings to the book.

It didn’t help that I read this directly after Laura Kinsale’s Seize the Fire, which certainly plumbs the depths of that romance.

Too light, all surface and no depth…

That was exactly my reaction to this book.

I was disappointed, because I expect “feelings” in a Loretta Chase novel!  She is so good at character development and relationships!  But it just wasn’t there in this book.

I totally agree, I was expecting more from her.