Kate > Recent Status Updates

If anyone touched me on my “nape” as much as the characters in these books do, I would start hitting them. Why did we need to shorten “the nape of her neck” to “her nape” anyhow? Is there some geographic area where it is normal to call it “his nape” full stop?

Unpleasant shiver.

What happened to this easygoing book? First it got boring boring boring and now this sentence:
“Val waited, even as he knew the female gears in her mind were whizzing about, perfectly recalling every God’s blessed word he’d ever uttered about making furniture or any other damned thing of the smallest relevance to his latest admission.”

The FEMALE GEARS IN HER MIND??

Oh, my, do I hate these characters and the lack of historical attitudes here. The men are all-knowing and hyper protective, they apparently know all about the rhythm method and discuss menstruation constantly, the women have vast stores of guilt and talk to eachother as though they live in a modern town where everyone belongs to the same cult and women know how they desperately need men to get by.

Spoilers

I am assuming this mystery will be The Lady Vanishes, with an added plot where we relieve Stoker of his affection for his ex.

I’m not sure I can manage how much character reinvention happens book to book. They are somehow both boringly static and weirdly unrecognizable. This may be the result of reading three in a week. I liked the characters in the first book, but I’ve liked them less every page.

Enough of my friends’ parents stole their identities to open credit cards or take out loans to make me very suspicious of where this is heading.

Not that much a fan of books narrated by animals.

35% on and I am utterly mystified that THREE characters, including our heroine, hero, and a character we know to be sensible, have suddenly decided that a man in love has 0 control over his actions with a beautiful woman. The desperate attention to whether a woman is “compromised” seems absurd and far more Victorian than Regency. Completely, weirdly nonsensical.

Being so far away in time and place from the Troubles, and so young when they ended, I had managed to forget what the news accounts were like. This is more intensely personal than those 1980s and 90s accounts were, which focused on people living in a war zone rather than on those fighting the war. Much grief and I’ve only just finished part I.

I didn’t remember the sharpness of the satire, the objectification of women so completely, nor how deeply I loathed some of the characters, but to be fair I believe I read this last as a teenager.

Short version: Rich people are awful.

Oh ha. Men can’t even THINK of what to cook. Blerg gender essentialism.

I’ve read a lot of light romance with a Xian bent, but this one betrays a really destructive theology. The female characters ALWAYS defer to male characters. Just being Xian proves that one is a good person. You know, I can’t imagine someone saying that to me if I were scared of someone. What a terrifying response to a fear.

Continues bizarre, and with some Very Odd assumptions. How will a son turn out if his father disappears? Clearly This Is a Terrible Danger! Character fears working for a large man because she won’t be able to fend him off? Reassure her, male authority figure, that man is a Xian! He totally is no threat!

This is so awful I’m not sure even Barbara Rosenblat can save it. Historically inaccurate and full of bizarre elements that seem like possible dogwhistles. Yikes.

How aware was Dickens of his depictions of abuse? It seems like he was intending those played straight, but it is terribly hard to tell with the ones played for humor.

I was always fond of a locked room mystery, but this is a locked room romance and is Much Less Acceptable.

Theory: readers looking for this kind of possessive jerky protagonists actually believe that sexism is totally best. Gross gross gross.

Wow, it’s a good thing these heroes assert “I’m going to make you mine” lest the heroines think they still own themselves and have independent thoughts, feelings, and lives despite having had sex, she said sarcastically.

Oh goody. A hero who starts by kissing someone he believes to be a maid and proceeds to try to ambush her when he discovers she is part of the Ton. Argh.

I had forgotten just how readable Fraser’s prose is. How can I stop once I’ve begun?

And...and...WHAT IS UP WITH CONTINUALLY CALLING ELIZABETHAN TIMES “MEDIEVAL”???? Was there no editor? It’s so BIZARRE.

There are 4 hours left and it continues to be utterly horrible. I feel like I MUST FINISH but I’m not sure I want to be with these unpleasant people much longer.

And omg to I hate hate hate the “but women want to be Taken Care Of secretly in their inner hearts” junk. Glamorizing historical sexism. Blech.

Hey authors? “S/He let out a breath s/he hadn’t even known s/he had been holding” is overused AND nonsensical. Hmm. Perhaps this author is AI-generated? An algorithm would totally explain these crappy heroes.

If I had a friend in a relationship with this hero, I’d have to gently point out how Very Impressively he was able to make EVERYTHING her fault even when they were clearly his crap decisions. He seems nice-ish but actually is a giant creep. My friend would not believe me, and her family would love him, and I would check on divorce law.

Second chance for this author. I’m finding the hero very childish, selfish, and unpleasant. The heroine keeps pondering whether he’s right when he says stupid things to her, and I wish to shake her. He’s not right, he’s a jerk.

Author uses a lot of repetitious phrases between the book and the one I DNFd.

Man, this is a solid story! It’s silly and nonsensical but had POTENTIAL. But I cannot at ALL imagine ANY heroine who forgives this being held down and having to SCRAMBLE AWAY. WTH, do these authors choose historical so they can portray their creepy mens-cannot-control-themselves beliefs? I feel ICKY

THIS HEROINE BETTER REJECT THIS HERO WHO HAS 0 RESPECT FOR HER VARIED NOS

GRRRRRRRRRR STOP WITH THE RAPEY HEROES WHO’VE NEVER HEARD OF THE ENTHUSIASTIC YES

How many times does the author intend for characters to say “marry for material considerations”? It’s awfully clunky for so many characters to use the exact phrase. Was it a common Victorian usage? Those wacky historical peeps couldn’t say “money”?

Um...wut? Our hero is contemplating his ex-mistress and prostitutes because he can’t have our heroine?

I’m forgiving this cuz love story but I totally blame L M Montgomery for making me enjoy hate-to-love relationships.