tamabam

I always thought I liked gothics.

I mean, I love historical romances, love dark, brooding alpha heroes, love spine-tingling horror novels. I love the covers - pretty English women in filmy white nightgowns, running about foggy castle grounds in the dark. I used to read Victoria Holt, Phyllis A Whitney and Mary Stewart (my parents subscribed to Reader's Digest Condensed so I also read Jaws, Airport and The Boys from Brazil way too young, but what can I say?). So when I saw the blurb for this book I was pretty enthused. A gothic! With sex! Yeehaw!

Uhmmm....

Well, it has all the requisites for a good gothic: "heroines alternately swooning over or being terrified by scowling Byronic men in possession of acres of prime real estate and the appertaining droit de seigneur" (thank you, wikipedia!)

But seriously.

The story is pretty standard gothic (widower, hires governess, needs wife also, creepy hijinks ensue), it's just the execution that perhaps isn't very good. It's in the first person, which, although I think is normal for these books, I don't care for. I wonder if it isn't harder to do than the regular third person.

This book felt choppy and abrupt, and I kept backtracking to see what I had missed. The dialogue seemed stilted at times and the characters, well, you have the Brooding Lord and Master, the Virginal Maiden, the Creepy Servant, the child, the Slutty Neighbour with Designs on the Lord and Master and the Russet-Haired Ghost (dead wife? secret sister?). It's a novella rather than a full-length novel, and it's a cliff-hanger! Sometime in August one can buy the second part on Amazon, if one were to want to find out what happens.

Gianetta is hired as a governess, sight unseen, by Gawain. She travels to his home and on her first night there she is woken by the Creepy Servant and taken to meet her new boss. He talks about his wife, who has died two months hence (GRRR. Glaring editorial error, one of many and more on this later). This happens a few more times, they never speak more than for him to make creepy pronouncements and tell her she will be his wife and she needs to be taught the same way she will be teaching his daughter. Then we meet the Slutty Neighbour with Designs on the Lord and Master and there is a quickie wedding. Gianetta (I think) falls in love with Gawain, although for what reason I can't imagine - except that she will be homeless and destitute if she leaves. Then some gothicky occurrences, then the cliffhanger.

I'm not sure what to say about the sex in the book. I think this author also writes erotica, which is fine, but when you throw sex like that into a book like this, where there is no tension, no chemistry, just some weird middle-of-the-night summonses, a quickie marriage and a creepy introduction to Gawain's cock, it didn't work for me. (After he's stuck it right in her face, he wants to know what she thinks of it, urges her to touch it, "hold it in your hands. Do as you will with it," to take her time, see if she likes it. Then of course, "Now darling, I want something more from you. Take me into your mouth." She's a virgin and they've never done more than kiss. She's all panty and wet and calling him "husband" while she goes down on him, but...)

Blech, blech, icky icky blech.

Which brings me to my final bit, and this is what might have made me review this book so critically.

This book is set in 1782. I read a lot of historical romance, and there is a certain flow to the language that you use when setting a story in that period.

Here's an example from page 7: "Either he eschewed a wig, or had just taken his off for the evening." Ooh, old word, I thought -- she's been doing research!

Until I got to page 8: "Do you know my wife, Eleanor, died two months hence?" HUH? Doesn't hence mean in the future? Aww, she's just throwing these words around, she hasn't researched this at all.

And again at page 24: "Oh I'm Elsie, miss. I'm a fairly new maid here and sort of have to float around at Greta's command" Fairly new? Sort of? Float around? WTF???

And another at page 70: "I think you're okay..." Who the hell said okay in 1782?!?!?

And the big one, page 71: "Master says he is taking Willa into town for the day and that she will stay with a cousin tonight for a sleepover." Not just the word (which wasn't used before 1965 FFS, and if I could find that out in 5 seconds why couldn't the author have looked it up as well!?!?!?) but the action -- I dunno how many English children got schlepped over to their cousin's place to spend the night.

And again, page 96: "It's okay. I'm going to make you want it. You're mine, after all."

I would say that I don't care enough to buy the second installment, but I am vaguely curious whether she got a better editor for the second one.

Maybe I'm just not meant to read gothics. I'm waiting for someone else to review this book (with words, not just stars) so I can see what they thought.

1 star.


Original entry August 7/11: Going to start a new shelf called "Stinkers", I think. Review to come.