Lord Sin by Kalen Hughes
May. 12th, 2007 07:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmc_bksLord Sin by Kalen Hughes
This backblurb is actually fairly accurate, at least until the melodramatic ending. Ivo didn’t have to risk anything to save Georgianna.
It has taken me forever (well, a week) to write this review, in part because I have such mixed feelings about the book. The first time I read it, I was fairly pleased with the book, thinking it was a solid B read. Good pacing, fluid writing style, great sexual tension between the hero and heroine. Not necessarily a keeper, but certainly worth the price (which was $3.99 since Zebra was promoting the book as one of their special values) and good enough to make me check out whatever Ms. Hughes’ next release may be.
But the second read through revealed a lot of small things that niggled at me and reduced my enjoyment of the book. Most of them are related to the initial establishment of the relationship between Georgianna and Ivo and to their characters. A few are stylistic. These may all be matters of taste, though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Stylistically speaking, the head hopping drove me slightly crazy. Unsignalled POV shifts occur several times early in the book, then stop through the middle, then occur again late in the book. I don’t mind shifts of POV generally, but bouncing from Ivo to George within a single scene and not marking the shift? Irritating as hell.
Also off-putting is Hughes’ habit of offering leading hints and never following up on them. Ivo asks one of Georgianna’s friends if he knew how the two of them met. No, and it is never explained in the book. It may have been the night of the duel, or it may have been earlier; the nature of their meeting is never revealed, although George thinks once that he had disturbed her from their first introduction. And after the duel, Lyon (Georgianna’s husband) apparently looked at her differently. Did this influence their marriage? Did they have problems? The reader is never told. At one point, Georgianna muses that she doesn’t depend on men as permanent fixtures because they always leave. Which begs the question: who left her? Her husband died young, but more is implied by that thought. And how did her husband die? The suddenness and shock of it is noted by her best (male) friend, but never explained. Why bother to mention any of these things if they are never going to be explained? What was the point? How were they relevant? [I wonder if his death was supposed to be at the hands of the Bad Guy.]
A small editing note: a character is introduced as Lady X, then addressed as Mrs. X in the same passage, which seems inconsistent. Of course, I know little about titles, so maybe that’s accurate. ::shrug::
The suspense subplot? Meh. Of course the Bad Guy is twisted and insane and EVIL.
The premise for the relationship between Georgianna and Ivo was one that fell flat for me on a second reading. The duel he fought? His choice; she admits she could’ve dealt with the over-amorous flirt but Ivo went overboard. Why does she “owe” him anything? His exile was his own damn fault. Man up and own your mistakes, whatever they are. I felt quite impatient with the idea that either of them thought she owed him anything, even if it was an excuse they were using to indulge in an affair.
The characters established by Hughes made me wonder if their HEA was long-lasting or even likely. Georgianna is described as “outrageous” on several occasions. Ivo seems to think that her outrageousness is because she’s unhappy and if she’s happy she won’t be outrageous anymore. Eh, whatever. G’s back story indicates otherwise. In fact, her best friend warns Ivo that he can’t change her and shouldn’t try.
Hughes calls Georgianna “George”, like Elizabeth Hoyt did recently in her historical The Leopard Prince. I’m wondering if the use of the masculine nickname is just another form of RomanceLand shorthand. George = straight-forward, not simpering misses. Short-hand that they are charming and fashionable and “cool” in the eyes of their male contemporaries? Short-hand that they are females who are unconcerned with the female conventions?
On that note: George is a pretentious hypocrite in some ways. She’s outrageous…and she looks down upon anyone who chooses to live within the rules as either stupid or provincial. But then she is offended when those same people look down on her. Not a very attractive trait, IMO.
And Ivo seemed like a whiney bully to me. He wants what he wants, therefore he should have it.
Historical question: Ivo killed someone and felt it necessary to disappear to the Continent for six years. Does the mere ascension to an earldom (courtesy only as heir to marquisate) mean that he’s no longer a criminal? Why is he received now? Has the fact that he murdered someone been mitigated by his title? Are there no consequences, social or otherwise?
SPOILER: And I’m sorry, the public proposal? Where the hell did that come from? Inconsistent with relationship to that point and with the character of Ivo. [Plus – and this is just me – public proposals are just wrong. Two people are involved, not the whole world, so ask the one person, not her entire family.]
Basically, I finished the second read through thinking that in a couple of years, after the sexual haze wears off, George will be bored and chomping at the bit to ride and shoot and be outrageous, while Ivo will be a pretentious prig with a bit on the side. C+
Six nights of pleasure…
Georgianna Exley’s passionate nature has always been her undoing, and for this reason the beautiful young widow allows her lovers only a single night in her bed. But Ivo Dauntry has come home to England, and for him she’ll break her most sacred rule: granting him six nights of sensual bliss, one for ever year he’s given up for her…
Six years to wait…
As a gentleman born, Ivo risked his reputation and his life in a duel to defend Georgianna’s honor. Now, returned from exile, Ivo discovers that she has proven to be less than a lady…and soon, his daring seduction becomes a sensual contest of wills. But the long-ago duel that bound them forever has fueled the hatred of a madman determined to make Georgianna pay for her misdeeds with her life, and once again, Ivo must risk everything to save the woman he loves…
This backblurb is actually fairly accurate, at least until the melodramatic ending. Ivo didn’t have to risk anything to save Georgianna.
It has taken me forever (well, a week) to write this review, in part because I have such mixed feelings about the book. The first time I read it, I was fairly pleased with the book, thinking it was a solid B read. Good pacing, fluid writing style, great sexual tension between the hero and heroine. Not necessarily a keeper, but certainly worth the price (which was $3.99 since Zebra was promoting the book as one of their special values) and good enough to make me check out whatever Ms. Hughes’ next release may be.
But the second read through revealed a lot of small things that niggled at me and reduced my enjoyment of the book. Most of them are related to the initial establishment of the relationship between Georgianna and Ivo and to their characters. A few are stylistic. These may all be matters of taste, though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Stylistically speaking, the head hopping drove me slightly crazy. Unsignalled POV shifts occur several times early in the book, then stop through the middle, then occur again late in the book. I don’t mind shifts of POV generally, but bouncing from Ivo to George within a single scene and not marking the shift? Irritating as hell.
Also off-putting is Hughes’ habit of offering leading hints and never following up on them. Ivo asks one of Georgianna’s friends if he knew how the two of them met. No, and it is never explained in the book. It may have been the night of the duel, or it may have been earlier; the nature of their meeting is never revealed, although George thinks once that he had disturbed her from their first introduction. And after the duel, Lyon (Georgianna’s husband) apparently looked at her differently. Did this influence their marriage? Did they have problems? The reader is never told. At one point, Georgianna muses that she doesn’t depend on men as permanent fixtures because they always leave. Which begs the question: who left her? Her husband died young, but more is implied by that thought. And how did her husband die? The suddenness and shock of it is noted by her best (male) friend, but never explained. Why bother to mention any of these things if they are never going to be explained? What was the point? How were they relevant? [I wonder if his death was supposed to be at the hands of the Bad Guy.]
A small editing note: a character is introduced as Lady X, then addressed as Mrs. X in the same passage, which seems inconsistent. Of course, I know little about titles, so maybe that’s accurate. ::shrug::
The suspense subplot? Meh. Of course the Bad Guy is twisted and insane and EVIL.
The premise for the relationship between Georgianna and Ivo was one that fell flat for me on a second reading. The duel he fought? His choice; she admits she could’ve dealt with the over-amorous flirt but Ivo went overboard. Why does she “owe” him anything? His exile was his own damn fault. Man up and own your mistakes, whatever they are. I felt quite impatient with the idea that either of them thought she owed him anything, even if it was an excuse they were using to indulge in an affair.
The characters established by Hughes made me wonder if their HEA was long-lasting or even likely. Georgianna is described as “outrageous” on several occasions. Ivo seems to think that her outrageousness is because she’s unhappy and if she’s happy she won’t be outrageous anymore. Eh, whatever. G’s back story indicates otherwise. In fact, her best friend warns Ivo that he can’t change her and shouldn’t try.
Hughes calls Georgianna “George”, like Elizabeth Hoyt did recently in her historical The Leopard Prince. I’m wondering if the use of the masculine nickname is just another form of RomanceLand shorthand. George = straight-forward, not simpering misses. Short-hand that they are charming and fashionable and “cool” in the eyes of their male contemporaries? Short-hand that they are females who are unconcerned with the female conventions?
On that note: George is a pretentious hypocrite in some ways. She’s outrageous…and she looks down upon anyone who chooses to live within the rules as either stupid or provincial. But then she is offended when those same people look down on her. Not a very attractive trait, IMO.
And Ivo seemed like a whiney bully to me. He wants what he wants, therefore he should have it.
Historical question: Ivo killed someone and felt it necessary to disappear to the Continent for six years. Does the mere ascension to an earldom (courtesy only as heir to marquisate) mean that he’s no longer a criminal? Why is he received now? Has the fact that he murdered someone been mitigated by his title? Are there no consequences, social or otherwise?
SPOILER: And I’m sorry, the public proposal? Where the hell did that come from? Inconsistent with relationship to that point and with the character of Ivo. [Plus – and this is just me – public proposals are just wrong. Two people are involved, not the whole world, so ask the one person, not her entire family.]
Basically, I finished the second read through thinking that in a couple of years, after the sexual haze wears off, George will be bored and chomping at the bit to ride and shoot and be outrageous, while Ivo will be a pretentious prig with a bit on the side. C+
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-13 03:45 pm (UTC)Lesson learned
Date: 2007-05-14 11:20 pm (UTC)