DakotaDreamin’

by Candy Friday, April 22, 2005 at 06:37 AM

Another Friday, another personal ad! Guess the character name, title, and author correctly, and find yourself the proud owner of a lovingly-crafted, 100% dairy-free and heart-healthy Smart Bitches title.

SWF, 35 y.o., all alone and hopelessly on the shelf looking for a sexy, hypothermic stranger to pass out on my door. Good-looking illegitimate gunslinger/private investigator with overdeveloped sense of chivalry preferred. I have small farm, cozy house, some livestock; you have requisite equipment to take care of my virginity because damn, I’m sick of this hymen and nobody in the Dakota Territories wants it. Commitment would be nice, but one-night stand also acceptable.

p.s. Am willing to assist in any sort of investigation you’re involved in. I won’t get in the way, I swear.

Addendum: OK, since nobody’s gotten it yet thus far, I offer these hints:

- It’s a book written by a fairly popular author who’s written only historicals with American settings; the worst grade she’s ever gotten at AAR was a C.

- This particular book was published by HarperCollins in 1997.

Ringing any more bells?

Picture of {name}
9 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSSadd to sk*rt
Categories: Guess That Lonely Heart!

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

ThoughtsonFriendship

by SB Sarah Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 07:16 AM

MelJean’s musings on homosocial and homosexual under-and-overtones (heh heh) in romance made me ponder the friendships between men, which usually center around common painful childhoods (see: Putney), family connections (see: Quinn) and opportunity for somewhat goofy nicknames for circle of friends (see: Putney, Laurens), and common social habits, i.e. clubs, hunting groups, hooker-hunting groups, gambling, and/or bonding while suffering through endless balls, dances, and social events.

What about friendships among women? I know there are more than a few series wherein older matrons bond together and interfere - sorry, lovingly involve themselves - in young hero and heroine von romanticshire’s lives. But it seems to me that friendships among men, which according to some feminist theorists serve to reinforce heterosexuality and patriarchy, are much more common than true, multi-novel lasting friendships among women. There are a few exceptions that moved beyond “elder character from previous novel giving sage advice to young virgin heroine,” such as The Wallflowers in Kleypas’ Secrets of a Summer Night, the friendships that follow through Julia Quinn’s two early works, Splendid and Dancing at Midnight though there is some of that in each novel. Perhaps there’s an imaginary line that heroines cross when they have sex and settle down into married bliss, because I have much clearer recollections of heroines from previous novels appearing decades older and somehow unable to connect with the younger, virginal crowd anymore, than I do of heroines retaining their personalities and remaining merry friends with heroines of other books in a related series.

What does that mean, from a critical perspective? Is the underlying emphasis of romance novels the reaffirmation of the heterosexual patriarchy, and thus the friendships and homosocial collectives of men are of more importance than the friendships of women, which do little to support that patriarchy, and, in fact, undermine it?

However, as has been established, my memory for these things is quite poo. Do y’all challenge my recollection of female friendships? Shall I stop flexing these flabby fem-crit brain muscles?

Picture of {name}
28 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSSadd to sk*rt
Categories: Random Musings

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

AllromancenovelheroesareTEHGHEY

by Candy Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 08:35 PM

And Meljean has constructed rock-solid arguments on why this is so.

Please. Read her article. It will open your eyes--and heal your gout, too, should you be gouty, that is.

Picture of {name}
10 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSSadd to sk*rt
Categories: The Link-O-Lator

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

APolemiconPurpleProse

by Candy Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 02:36 PM

Candy’s Part of the Rant:

I have to thank Rebecca Brandewyne for writing the column on purple prose today because I had nothing to talk about; I was planning on quietly working on a few things like, ohhhh, actual WORK, but now I have something more fun to play with.

Purple prose. I hates it, precioussssss. And for those of you who read my comment in Romancing the Blog, I distinguish between lyrical writing and purple prose, which is a pejorative term. It wasn’t originally, but hey, gone are also the days when “gay” was used primarily to mean “lighthearted and happy,” and “anti-semitic” means “hatred of Jews” even though many, many Jews aren’t semitic and many semitic peoples aren’t Jewish and are, in fact, anti-semitic themselves.

Whoops, I digress. Back to discussions of purpleness.

More,more,more!>
Picture of {name}
24 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSSadd to sk*rt
Categories: Ranty McRant

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

TheLoveliestShadeofLavender

by Candy Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 06:42 AM

Rebecca Brandewyne wrote a piece about how much she misses purple prose on Romancing the Blog. Go check it out; I left a long-ass comment that I probably should’ve posted here, and I have even MORE I want to say, so I’ll weigh in later with even more words. Whee!

Picture of {name}
6 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSSadd to sk*rt
Categories: The Link-O-Lator

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Page 406 of 432 pages « FirstP  <  404 405 406 407 408 >  Last »