Lara Adrian's Breed series

[jmc_bks]

Based on the recommendation of my Non-Romance Reading colleague, I picked up Lara Adrian's two books at the library on Sunday. (I must roll my eyes, because even though she derides genre romance, she's reading it and giving me recommendations. I think the absence of the Fabio cover has confused her. No man titty --> not romance.)  

I really liked the first book; the second was okay. The series reminds me a lot of Ward's Black Dagger Brotherhood, but with less name/label-dropping and without the complicated theology -- no Scribe Virgin whose world-place will be altered when the author writes herself into a corner.

But a throw away line in the first book is really bothering me. The hero was looking at Bad Guy's record in their internal database and musing on how he'd been restrained and tortured, and that it was necessary even though torture was wrong. Okay, uh, no. Torture is wrong. Full stop. Nothing makes in necessary. Not in real life and not in fiction. I don't care how heinous that Bad Guy was, or what evil deeds he committed. Good guys don't torture. 

Comments

[tinyluv.livejournal.com]

The third book is so much better, in my opinion, than the first two. I really wonder what you will think of it.

As for the concept of torture, in Joanna Bourne's The Spymaster's Lady, she presents that sort of idea as well - that torture is wrong and she shows both sides doing it. I like the even handed nature of that commentary.

[menage-a-kat.livejournal.com]

I've heard of the Adrian/Ward similarity. Is it worth trying this series, if I'm already into the BDB? I'm a little series weary...

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

I like it better than the Wards -- similar structure, yes, annoying names, name-dropping, and miraculous intervention by the SV, no. I think they're definitely worth it.

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

The similarity with Ward's world is a surface one -- groups of vampires who aren't human, with their own history, etc., fighting for their "race's" survival. Otherwise, their conflicts are quite different. And they seem less like caricatures than the BDB to me. Given a choice, I'd probably stick with Adrian. But I'm pretty sure I'm not going looking for either series. Series-ed out.

[dogzzz2002.livejournal.com]

Nuts, I got this author confused with Keri Arthur so I don't believe I had bought any of her books. So my question is, are they romance? The Arthur book wasn't and didn't claim to be.

It's amazing how some of us (yeah, me) are brought up in a kind of innocence that leaves us stumbling when are eyes are opened. I *thought* I believed that abortion was wrong but it was as I grew up and realized that the right to our own bodies should be first and foremost.

So I'm with you on torture. I wish and believe that we all could have the right to say what happens to our body. No one should be able to do anything to us without our permission.

I guess we could get into a discussion on fear. I don't understand how someone can believe in torture and not wonder or foresee a future in which they become the person being tortured. Since I can see that and fear it I can't ever say it's right. I wonder if the people who see a place for it would be as understanding if they were the ones to be tortured.

CindyS

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

These are romance. The Breeds have destined mates and monogamy once committed to said mate.

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

These are definitely romance. HEA for a primary couple at the end of each book.

Good guys don't torture

[janetmcc.livejournal.com]

t's probably a defect in my personality, but any flat statement about writing, such as "Good guys don't torture" or "You can't do *that* in a story" makes me want to go out and do it immediately.

F'rinstance, a good guy might be driven to torture against his will and beliefs because there was no other way to get the information needed to, say, save his kids. Or save other people's kids. He knows the kids have done nothing wrong. He knows the woman in front of him is the kidnapper's confederate, and knows where they're being held. The woman just won't talk.

The kids are his next-door neighbor's. He knows that the oldest is seven years old, the youngest six months. The oldest is autistic. The 4-year-old needs meds every 6 hours. Without them, she has at most two days to live, and perhaps one to avoid brain damage.

Does he live by his principles, or save the kids?

(if this posts more than once, apologies. I got a bunch of error mesasges.)

Re: Good guys don't torture

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

To my mind, saying that torture is okay depending on the circumstances is an extremely slippery slope. What's the dividing line for acceptable and not? Who is the arbiter?

For me, good guys don't torture. But that's just me. YMMV.

Re: Good guys don't torture

[janetmcc.livejournal.com]

I suspect that the most slippery slopes could make for the most compelling conflict. -

In the case I outlined, the conflict might be between the protagonist's soul and the children's lives.

Re: Good guys don't torture

[janetmcc.livejournal.com]

Make that "saving the protagonist's soul and saving the children's lives."