Romance, Historical, Contemporary, Paranormal, Young Adult, Book reviews, industry news, and commentary from a reader's point of view

REVIEW: Knight Moves by Jamaica Layne

Note: In order to express my full opinion, I will need to share spoilers.   So beware.  

Dear Ms. Layne:

knight_moves_496b826d62db0When Ravenous Romance first appeared on my radar, I blogged about it and you were quick to come to inform us readers that this new epress would “blow the competition out the water from very early on.”   Given that you were also elevated from writer to editor in a short time, I thought it might be worthwhile to see exactly what was the force behind all the eruption.   Knight Moves is a time traveling story featuring New Jersey toll booth supervisor,  Louise Jackson, and the time traveling knight,  Lord Verdigris.   

For her birthday, Louise Jackson is dragged to  Medieval Worlds: Dinner and Tournament by her best friend.   Deciding the wait for the woman’s bathroom is too long, Louise slips into the men’s room in hopes of relieving herself quickly.   There she is assailed by the stench of the men’s room and the sight of the gorgeous man at the urinal:

And the sight of the huge cock the knight is holding in his right hand as he shakes  off the last few drops of pee is even more dazzling.

The sight is so dazzling that Loiuse’s pee dries up and is replaced with moist desire.  

I don’t need to pee any more. Now I just need to get laid.

The knight gives me a knowing smile, and jiggles his giant cock in my direction.   "You look like a fair maiden in need of a good visit from the codpiece," he says.

Frankly, I don’t know of any visual more attractive or seductive than a guy dressed like a knight in a tacky dinner theatre waving his post pee schwizzle stick around.   Louise is clearly a woman of discerning taste.   She also is one who doesn’t worry about any kind of hygiene issues because she is not at all concerned when pee shaking man hands grab her and whisk her to the last stall in the bathroom that turns out to be, yes, a time traveling portal.   Oh, if Bill and Ted only knew that the phone booth wasn’t the only way to break through the space time continuum.

Louise is barely phased  (or fazed) by the travel from the filthy men’s urinal where she was ready to “take a ride on a knight’s codpiece” to the knight’s castle.   She is ready for the knight of no name “to  fuck [her] brains  out.”   

I don’t even know what century I’m in right now. And I don’t care. All I care  about is getting Gorgeous Mystery Knight’s giant codpiece up my twat in a hurry.

The knight who has yet to wash his hands whisks her upstairs to engage in coitus of a very romantic and sexy nature. I quote the liberally from the first sex scene to give the proper flavor:

Another couple flicks of my knight’s supple wrists, and I find myself naked and  thrown headfirst over the wooden bench, my ass sticking straight up in the air. Gorgeous  Knight, fully clothed, spreads my butt cheeks wide, whips his giant cock out of his  breeches, and takes me from behind.

We continue to fuck doggy-style over the bench for several minutes. . . .  I buck up against him hard mid-thrust, tipping him off  balance. Once he’s lost his footing, I pull myself off his cock – my cunt makes a  disappointed queeb sound as we separate…I come two more times when I  spin myself around and around on his cock like a top, and take the last few strokes down  from the rear.

Excuse me while I insert a crude joke here.   You are blowing something out of the water, but I’m not certain it’s your competition.   Back to the story.   After the aforementioned erotic sex scene (and by erotic, I mean sex so terrible that even the idea of my parents’ coupling is preferable to revisiting this), we are treated to some post coital love talk:

  

"Everything you see and feel is real, milady," my knight says, caressing my bare  back with his hands. "That, I promise you. If you desire proof, you only need consider  the three very real climaxes you just had in your lady-softness."

My eyes fly wide. "How did you know I came three times?"

He grins wider. "Your lady-softness told me herself when she was wrapped  round my codpiece."

  

Mystery knight, however, is not entranced by Louise’s lady softness for long because he soon escorts her to the Hall of Harlots where he keeps the women that he’s captured from all over the world, through many centuries.   Even though Louise is initially shocked at being stuck in the Hall of Harlots, she is reassured by Lord Verdigris, Master of the Hourglass, that being a whore for him and his knights is really an honor.   She’ll be well cared for and reside in luxury and in exchange, she just needs to open her legs to whomever desires her to do so.

Update: Someone asked me if there was a plot to the story and there is. Lord Verdigris is not the nicest guy and Louise, with the help of one particular lover from the Regency period and another knight with vengeance quest against Verdigris, challenge Lord Verdigris’ hold over the captives of his court.

Louise is a plucky heroine and decides that she’ll be the very best harlot in the Hall of Harlots despite Lord Verdigris having   “tasted the pleasures of harlots and courtesans from every age in the  Known World’s history, from ancient Greece and Rome to the Renaissance to the farflung  future.”   Somehow, despite Lord Verdigris’ vast experience and extensive travel, Louise manages to come up with a sexual expertise that Lord Verdigris has never experienced.   Louise becomes a dom for Verdigris and all his knights and becomes the court favorite despite having over seven hundred “competitors” based on techniques that she remembered from the Story of O.      Her ability to wield a paddle on the “Cross of Satisfaction” is unparalleled and soon, Lord Verdigris is beckoning her:

And "tis time for us to partake of Pleasure’s fruit again, milady. My codpiece has desired your lady-softness all day long."

Which is good, because then we get to find out that he sweats buckets of happy juice:

His erection is enormous – pointing at an almost 90-degree angle up towards his chin – and his glans is sweating buckets of happy juice.

These are two big secreters.   Her crotch turns to cream  (“turning my crotch to cream”), she leaves a trail of juice down his chest (“I slide down his chest, leaving a trail of  my nectar on his skin”), her vulva is liquified (“my vulva is sweating a sea of slick salt water”); her, well, ladysoftness is “wet, dripping.”   Besides the overwhelming amount of fluid expulsion there was also the outsized genitals.     His was ten inches and her clit was so large that, well, let me just quote it:

  

The walls of my vag vibrate and pulse at warp speed, and my labia  are so swollen, they pound out a drumbeat as they slap up and down against the length of  Lord Verdigris’ cock.  

  

I’m not sure what I found most far fetched in this story.   Was it the instant acceptance that Louise had of being swept through the urinal time traveling portal?   Was it ease at which Louise decides being a whore is something to embrace?   Was it the ridiculous love scenes that included “queebs”, references to “lady softness”, “lady fingers”, her “volcanic crotch”?   Was it the fact that there was some weird editing glitch wherein Chapter Five included the words “Page Break” at the top.   It could have been the fact that her hoo haa was so powerful it could make people immortal.   Perhaps it was the scintillating dialogue that include, “‘Unnnnnnuuuuuhhhhh,’ I moan, completely losing control. I come so hard, I see  stars.”   Or perhaps it was the casual declaration of lesbian love that she embraces at the Harlot’s Hall when she gets her first fisting treatment.   

  

I’m suddenly beginning to appreciate the saying, "once you’ve gone lesbo, you  never go back." . . .  Just when I think it can’t get any more intense, Mabel plunges her arm into me  well past her wrist….I’ve got ladyfingers stuck up both ends. And I’m loving it.

  

She turns her back on the lesbian love when she finds out its all a plot to reduce her position from Lord Verdigris’ favorite.   

Or was it the finale where Lord Verdigris and Louise engage gangsters in Philly in a “yo momma” challenge where the dialogue is vaguely insulting to the people of color.   It’s hard to say.   

"As a matter of fact we do," I say. "My friend over here" – I point at Lord  Verdigris – "is from Philadelphia, and he and I have a bet to settle before we scope out  any property for Mr. Trump. And I’ve decided that we’ll settle the bet with a game of  Yo’ Mama. Winner takes all. I need some street-smart guys to judge the game. Y’all up  for that?"

The gangbangers laugh, slap hands, and nod. "Hell, yeah," says their leader.

"We always got time for a game o’ Yo’ Mama. Which one o’ y’all gonna start?"

  

Lord Verdigris holds up his hand. "I require no explanation, Lady Louisa. We  play a version of this game in my own time. The game "tis as ancient as the Romans."

The gangbangers stare at him. "Damn, dat dude talk funny," one of them says.

"He don’t sound like he from no Philly, neither," another says.

  

If this is not the worst book I’ve read, it comes close.   I’m actually not sorry I bought it.   I now know what being blown out of the water feels like and can be prepared the next time someone makes a claim about their work in such a way.   F.

Best regards,

Jane

I encourage everyone to buy this e-book at Ravenous Romance at the low price of $4.99. I’ve left out some choice group scenes and the “Yo Mama” fight between Lord Verdigris and Louise. You know you want to read it.

Jane Litte is the founder of Dear Author, a lawyer, and a lover of pencil skirts. She spends her downtime reading romances and writing about them. Her TBR pile is much larger than the one shown in the picture and not as pretty. You can reach Jane by email at jane @ dearauthor dot com

379 Comments

  1. Evangeline
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 04:21:23

    I’m seriously choking to death with laughter at 2 am in the morning. I don’t think I would survive actually purchasing and reading this book.

    ReplyReply

  2. Mireya
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 05:31:55

    Deleted

    ReplyReply

  3. Mora
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 05:36:06

    Wow. I actually had to check the date to make sure it wasn’t April 1st. But, no. Still March. And I’m still kind of…flabbergasted from those excerpts. I don’t even know what to say. Just wow.

    ReplyReply

  4. Sparky
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 06:10:22

    Sweet gods of mercy. I think this was epublished because paper would spontaneously combust in sheer horror if this was printed on it. Still, I fear for my computer screen just reading the quotes.

    ReplyReply

  5. Kristen
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 06:17:30

    I've got ladyfingers stuck up both ends.

    Am I the only one getting a mental image of cookies?

    ReplyReply

  6. Stevie
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 06:24:01

    Well, the nurse warned me that the yellow-fever vaccination has some side effects, but if they include hallucinating this then I’m going to sue…

    ReplyReply

  7. Dawn
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 06:32:11

    Wow. I’m wiping away tears of laughter, trying to see the dang monitor. All I know is I can’t believe this is work from one of their editors. Especially since this is the same lady who continues to try and drum up authors for Ravenous Romance on absolutewrite. If this is an example of some of their best writing…

    Just wow.

    ReplyReply

  8. JXJ
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 06:33:46

    I had to stop eating my lunch due to a mix of hysterical laughter and disgust.

    Please, please, PLEASE tell me that ‘Lord Verdigris’ is not the character’s real name. OMG.

    And ‘lady-softness’… I have a new favourite word.

    ReplyReply

  9. Ashwinder
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 06:48:21

    “He don't sound like he from no Philly, neither,” another says.

    Neither do the gangmembers. Just sayin’.

    ReplyReply

  10. rebyj
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 06:49:35

    LOL! Can you imagine listening to the audio version?
    I never did try any of RR’s books for various reasons. Not the least of which is constant email advertisements even after multiple attempts to unsubscribe. I was afraid if I actually bought a book the emails would multiply even more.

    I had to google Verdigris…

    Verdigris is the common name for the green coating or patina formed when copper, brass or bronze is weathered and exposed to air or seawater

    *snort*

    ReplyReply

  11. Christine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 07:16:26

    Priceless.

    And people wonder why erotic romance gets a bad rap. What would you think if this was the first book you picked up from that genre?

    ReplyReply

  12. Anon
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 07:20:39

    Um…. the cover’s cute?

    ReplyReply

  13. Karen Scott
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 07:22:27

    Dear God.

    ReplyReply

  14. joanne
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 07:26:31

    Well hell. This was my first DNF review.

    Or not. I think I blacked out after the Knight started sweating ‘happy juice’.

    I did read the entire review but I had to stop reading the dialogue at “Yo mamma”. You’re a much better woman then me Jane. Hearty congratulations and stars in your crown for finishing this book.

    ReplyReply

  15. Has
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 07:33:04

    Umm Wow :D

    This sounds like it surpasses Ben’s Wildflower by Carol Lynne LOL

    ReplyReply

  16. rebyj
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 07:36:14

    Anon I agree the cover actually is very nice.
    She doesn’t look like she has a big floppy vagina, but I guess if it can take Mabel’s fist……. LOL.

    ReplyReply

  17. Stevie
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 07:39:28

    …as he shakes off the last few drops of pee

    Just what we always wanted, the dripless fuck…

    ReplyReply

  18. Nonny
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 07:46:03

    :shock:

    I’m… for once, I have no words.

    ReplyReply

  19. SandyW
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 07:50:39

    Okay, ‘Verdigris' was bad enough. (Rust? She named her hero Lord Rust?) But then he refers to his penis as his ‘codpiece?' Really?

    From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
    codpiece : 1460, “a bagged appendage to the front of the breeches; often conspicuous” [OED], from O.E. codd “a bag, pouch,” in M.E., “testicles.”
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=codpiece&searchmode=none

    Sigh. Codpiece is an article of clothing. You use that word so much. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    This really doesn't sound like it works very well as erotica (or comedy). It is definitely not romance. Jane, you should get some sort of medal for this.

    ReplyReply

  20. mysterious
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 07:57:52

    have any of you actually _read_ erotica before? a lot of this type of language is standard for that level of heat. And if you think this is crazy, pick up a book by NYC bestselling author Zane sometime. Zane’s stuff makes this look tame.

    I think you might be posting too many excerpts to be considered “fair use,” too. Just saying.

    I’ve seen the term “happy juice” used in Katie MacAlister novels more than once.

    ReplyReply

  21. Nonny
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:01:09

    mysterious, I’ve read a fairly extensive amount of erotica. It’s not the “heat” of the language, it’s the way it’s put together. “codpiece”? “lady-softness”? “ladyfingers up both ends”? I’ve read plenty of historically-set erotica that didn’t come across anywhere near as silly as this.

    ReplyReply

  22. mysterious
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:04:06

    To each their own, I guess. Apparently this is one or RR’s better sellers.

    ReplyReply

  23. Fae
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:05:19

    And Mysterious? Ravenous doesn’t claim to sell erotica. They claim to sell romance. It’s their name, after all. If it’s erotica (which I don’t think excuses the…horrific quality of the writing), what’s it doing being labeled romance?

    That’s certainly no romance I’ve ever read.

    ReplyReply

  24. Missy
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:05:27

    Now I have to go buy a copy for myself to see if it is as bad as you say it is. I read Market for Love and liked it. I can’t imagine this book of hers being so different.

    ReplyReply

  25. Jia
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:05:57

    Thanks for taking one for the team.

    ReplyReply

  26. Corrine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:07:46

    This review should have been labeled NSFW. Of course, had I been working and not reading this, I probably wouldn’t have gotten the strange looks that I did from my co-workers.

    ReplyReply

  27. Kathy
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:07:50

    I have not laughed so hard in a while – so thank you – thank you – thank you!

    ReplyReply

  28. Lusty Reader
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:08:35

    As a long time lurker, the heinousness of this review is finally prompting me to comment. I have paid more than $4.99 for satirical story lines in books, movies, or SNL DVD’s, so I could enjoy the irony and parody, but the fact that Ravenous Romance was NOT KIDDING when they wrote/epublished this is cruel and unusual punishment to those of us looking for quality erotica.

    ReplyReply

  29. elissa21
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:09:17

    Jane hates Jamaica Layne and hates Ravenous. It’s only clear she would hate anything Jamaica Layne writes, too.

    Aren’t reviewers supposed to be unbiased?

    ReplyReply

  30. JXJ
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:09:18

    I’ve read plenty of erotica, thanks, mysterious. But none of it was as badly written or as laugh-inducing as this. Call a cock a cock and a twat a twat, I don’t need any of those ridiculous euphemisms.

    ReplyReply

  31. Elf
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:13:22

    Okay, Kristen, your cookies reference officially Killed Me Ded. Thank you.
    Now, I may be a plebian, for sure. Could it be possible that this is ummm…
    I’m working here. Umm, a sarcastic commentary on the state of the Erotic Romance? You know, like – you think this is bad… Yo Mamma!
    No?
    Okay. How about this. Is it really fair to defend the novel then in the next breath say that it’s not fair to quote it? I’m pretty sure that Jane is familiar with fair use.
    To be fair, I have read a Not So Bad Ravenous Romance, so I have nothing against the publisher. And I’ve read probably way more ER than is healthy for a person, so I may be officially bent. But wow, there is positively nothing erotic or romantic about “queeb.” I’m sure of that. In fact, I think it’s one of those things that astute lovers are supposed to ignore, not write home about.
    Thanks for the review!

    ReplyReply

  32. Nonny
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:21:25

    … and now the obligatory “The reviewer’s just biased” arguments come out.

    How very predictable.

    ReplyReply

  33. » Baaaaaaad books.
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:22:29

    [...] wow. Sounds like Dear Author may have found a book as bad as this [...]

  34. Fae
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:24:05

    @Nonny: Of course she’s biased! Jane likes good books. Shame on you Jane, discriminating against not good books like that.

    /sarcasm

    I’ve read this book and believe me, Jane is kinder than I would have been had I written the review.

    ReplyReply

  35. Anon
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:25:10

    I have also read and enjoyed plenty of erotica and erotic romance that use rough language, as well as books that use euphemisms. The words themselves aren’t the problem, here. The way they are put together is.

    “We continue to fuck doggy-style over the bench for several minutes” is not evocative writing, and it wouldn’t be if it were “We continued to make love in an unorthodox manner on top of the carved teak settee until the tea bell rang” either.

    ReplyReply

  36. azteclady
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:27:34

    @elissa21:

    Jane hates Jamaica Layne and hates Ravenous. It's only clear she would hate anything Jamaica Layne writes, too.

    Aren't reviewers supposed to be unbiased?

    First, aren’t you attributing feelings to Jane that you have no way of knowing are there? Hatred is a rather powerful emotion, isn’t it? In reading quite a bit of the exchanges between Jane and Jamaica Layne, I didn’t perceive anywhere near such a level of investment from Jane.

    Second, are we back to the mythical absolute objectivity from reviewers? Really?

    Reviewer = reader.
    Reader = person.
    Person/people = opinions
    Opinions =/= absolute objectivity.

    Oh, and the bit about “too much quoted for fair use”? Priceless. Truly.

    ReplyReply

  37. Sabrina
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:28:11

    BEST REVIEW EVER!!!

    LOL!

    Thank you for making my morning with this review! I’m definately going to buy it as a gift for the husband! It sounds exactly like what he *thinks* all romance books really are!

    Thanks!

    sabrina

    ReplyReply

  38. Kristen
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:29:43

    Okay, Kristen, your cookies reference officially Killed Me Ded.

    Sorry, Elf. Between you and me, it’s going to be a looooong time before I can make tiramisu again.

    ReplyReply

  39. SB Sarah
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:29:51

    sex so terrible that even the idea of my parents' coupling is preferable

    That may be the new F-line for erotica. If you’d rather think about your parents gettin’ it on ’till the break of dawn, then you are reading bad erotica.

    ReplyReply

  40. Shannon
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:30:40

    @Kristen: I’ll never eat a ladyfinger again.

    ReplyReply

  41. Jayne
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:31:43

    The walls of my vag vibrate and pulse at warp speed,

    Warp speed, Mr. Sulu!

    ReplyReply

  42. Sheryl Nantus
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:32:03

    *falls off chair laughing*

    pain… nothing but pain…

    *chortles*

    ReplyReply

  43. Sela Carsen
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:33:09

    Starts to dip biscotti into coffee. Examines it. Decides it looks too much like a ladyfinger.
    Damn. Now I need to switch to doughnuts.

    ReplyReply

  44. Nonny
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:33:47

    Sandy, that’s what I was thinking. I’ve only ever heard “codpiece” used to refer to clothing, but thought I might be missing an obscure reference…

    ReplyReply

  45. MissInterpreted
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:34:18

    Wow. That is like a 14 yr old boy’s wet dream in eprint.

    ReplyReply

  46. ldb
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:49:04

    And as someone who has bought books only because of the cover, I thank you for what is also a tale of caution!

    ReplyReply

  47. Lori S.
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:54:23

    *blinks*

    Wow. Just…wow.

    This book sounds like a badly written letter to Penthouse. Thanks for the warning, Jane!

    ReplyReply

  48. Shannon Stacey
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:55:00

    I’ve spent the last few minutes trying to imagine how one would spin like a top on a…codpiece (unfortunately) but all of my mental scenarios ended with the poor sap attached to the codpiece screaming in pain. Perhaps I’m just cursed with poor balance and spinability, but I don’t think that’s actually possible.

    Maybe the sequel can be set in the bathroom of a sports bar, with “codpiece” replaced by “jockstrap”.

    I shudder to imagine the audio version.

    ReplyReply

  49. Ghetto Diva
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 08:58:43

    I actually thought that the worst book I’ve ever read was Ben’s Wildflower by Carol Lynne.

    Now not having read Knight Moves- and just by going on your review alone, I can possibly say that Jamaica Layne has that distinct award.

    Carol Lynne you’re off the hook.

    Now whatever will Jamaica Layne come up with next to top Knight Moves.

    I can hardly wait.

    ReplyReply

  50. Jaci Burton
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:00:58

    I come two more times when I spin myself around and around on his cock like a top.

    You spin me right round baby right round like a record player round round round round.

    Now I have that song in my head and it won’t go away. Thanks.

    ReplyReply

  51. Kristen
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:02:42

    I shudder to imagine the audio version.

    Do you think “queeb” would be read or sounded out?

    ReplyReply

  52. Nonny
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:10:05

    Oh gods. I don’t think we’ll ever see an audio version.

    … I think the reader would be laughing too hard for it to ever be recorded. :P

    ReplyReply

  53. Lauren Bethany
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:10:46

    That’s so bad it took me a while to realize those were actual book quotes and not snarky bashing.

    I’d be embarrassed to have my name on that cover. Just sayin’.

    ReplyReply

  54. Lori S.
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:11:25

    You spin me right round baby right round like a record player round round round round.

    ROTFLMAO! Thanks, Jaci, now my co-workers want to know what I’m snorting about. Now I need to come up with an alternative scenario before I get stuck in HR for the next hour…

    ReplyReply

  55. Sandra Cormier
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:12:37

    I don’t suppose there’s a chance in Hell that you’d read another RR book… would you? I’m up to the challenge.

    ReplyReply

  56. Kalen Hughes
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:15:42

    Jane hates Jamaica Layne and hates Ravenous. It's only clear she would hate anything Jamaica Layne writes, too.

    Aren't reviewers supposed to be unbiased?

    Are you telling me you were able to read the excerpts and honestly think Wow, how can Jane be so biased as to miss the evocative lyricism of the seductive, brilliantly rendered prose? Add on the absurdity of the hero/villain's name (just wtf is he, shall we settle on protagonist?), the even more absurd and historically inaccurate euphemisms (codpiece, ladysoftness?), and the general descriptive level, which I would have guessed to be written by a man for a pervey pulp novel back in the 70s (We continue to fuck doggy-style over the bench for several minutes) and I have to say that Jane appears to have been fairly forgiving.

    ReplyReply

  57. Louisa Edwards
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:16:12

    Sweet bug-shagging MOSES, that’s insane. Also? I’m never referring to my pelvic region as anything other than lady-softness ever again.

    ReplyReply

  58. karmelrio
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:16:19

    I can think of only one possible reason to read this book: to learn how NOT to write erotica.

    ReplyReply

  59. Lauren Bethany
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:20:26

    @karmelrio:

    The sheer joy of uncontrollable laughter wouldn’t be enough for you?

    ReplyReply

  60. Shannon Stacey
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:21:43

    Oh gods. I don't think we'll ever see an audio version.

    … I think the reader would be laughing too hard for it to ever be recorded.

    They have pages of their books in audio, including this one. You can listen to an excerpt, as well.

    ReplyReply

  61. karmelrio
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:31:44

    It’s like the author purposely set out to write something that fulfills every negative stereotype people have about erotica. I can’t validate this…product with my money. Not even for the LULZ.

    ReplyReply

  62. Dee Tenorio
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:38:38

    Oh Jane, I remember you reading this on Twitter and having the tears rolling down my face then! And I don’t think you reused a single quote! I can’t tell you how I needed this laugh!

    Dee

    ReplyReply

  63. Sheryl Nantus
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:42:12

    hmm… well, if this is what they want…

    *looks at cat*

    hey, Mitchell – wanna write some erotica?

    :D

    ReplyReply

  64. Ciar Cullen
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:43:56

    Oh my. Queeb.

    Look, I’m off exit 7A of the turnpike, and I’m just sayin that this in no way reflects what happens in New Jersey. Well, there was that governor…

    ReplyReply

  65. Lynn M
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:49:00

    Between this review, those horrendous excerpts, and the hilarious comments posted, I’ve got tears streaming down my face. So thanks to all of you for a great laugh to start my day.

    ReplyReply

  66. Emily
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:52:20

    Argh. I wasn’t even able to get through the full review of this book, let alone actually attempt to read it.

    I won’t be buying any Jamaica Layne, but are any of the Ravenous authors any good? Is it possible that they’re all this bad? Inquiring minds want to know.

    ReplyReply

  67. Sandra Cormier
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:54:46

    I submitted a copy of The Toast Bitches for the Ja(y)nes’ perusal.

    ReplyReply

  68. Lizzy
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:59:02

    Well, I haven’t been able to eat ladyfingers for YEARS, not since I read a Stephen King short story where a man was stranded on an island and resorts to self-cannibalism as an alternative to starving. He ends the story by chanting “ladyfingers, ladyfingers” as he eats the fingers of his left hand. I find this story’s use of “ladyfingers,” then, flirty and refreshing in comparison. (I think …)

    Whoever wrote the bit about the unorthodox sex over a table is right on. Just strong or hot language does not good erotica make. I like it when authors take risks with language — but intelligent risks, risks that make sense. Not just dumping a hot mess on a page, that is, and seeing what shakes out.

    ReplyReply

  69. Kendra
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 09:59:56

    @Jayne:

    “She can’t take anymore Captian” – Scotty

    ReplyReply

  70. Sara, Ms. Adventures in Italy
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:01:40

    I can’t even begin to explain to my colleagues why I was laughing so hard, or translate the passages into Italian as I’m sure codpiece or love juices won’t translate well!! hahahahhahahhah

    ReplyReply

  71. Shae
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:05:06

    Codpieces weren’t just a bit of decorative clothing, they were used to hold syphilis medication…which makes this whole thing just that much more disgusting. So if the guy is bragging that he has a huge codpiece that means he has severe syphilis.

    Serious ew.

    ReplyReply

  72. theo
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:07:05

    This is the best laugh I’ve had in a long time! But I am NOT going to explain to my 22yo daughter sitting next to me why I’m laughing. I’m just glad I didn’t have a mouthful of coffee.

    Thank you, Jane, for sacrificing your sensibilities in an effort to enlighten us all.

    (and why am I not surprised this is exactly the kind of stuff Ms. Lane would write, after reading her comments here previously?)

    ReplyReply

  73. Anion
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:09:35

    I am now picturing the MC flapping the lips of her labia like wings and taking off. Like Dumbo. Only so, so much grosser.

    Oh, and ditto Kalen. The quotes speak for themselves.

    ReplyReply

  74. theo
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:12:46

    Thanks, Anion! I’ll never be able to look at Dumbo the same way again…

    :P

    ReplyReply

  75. Anji
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:14:22

    *blink*

    Wow – this books sounds painful – and unintentionally amusing. I can’t believe you actually stuck with it to the end!

    I have a question – is it ever explaining why Lord Verdigris is time traveling? And why is actually collecting women – because he can? And is there a romance (and relationship) plot involving Louise and Verdigris/some one else, or is it all about the Hall of Harlots and the love scenes?

    ReplyReply

  76. Jia
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:15:12

    @Anion:

    I am now picturing the MC flapping the lips of her labia like wings and taking off. Like Dumbo.

    Okay, I could have done without that mental image myself. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyReply

  77. katiebabs
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:16:58

    Buckets of happy juice?!?
    First time I heard of the phrase- “Pleasure’s fruit”. Would that be a cherry jubilee?

    ReplyReply

  78. Jane
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:27:07

    @Anji Lord Verdigris was the Master of the Hourglass and had access to time traveling portals. It’s a bit of a spoiler, but through high sexual energy, Louise was able to create her own time portals. (Once she created it by jacking two guys off). He collects women because he can, but he collects men, too, to avail themselves of the Hall of Harlots.

    There is a love story (and I use that term loosely) between Louise and a guy from the Regency period called Pembroke. She likes his looks and I guess that is why they fall in love. Louise’s “yo momma” duel with Lord Verdigris is, in part, how she and her lover (and her maid and another lover) escape the clutches of Verdigris.

    ReplyReply

  79. Shiloh Walker
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:28:40

    @elissa21:

    Jane hates Jamaica Layne and hates Ravenous. It's only clear she would hate anything Jamaica Layne writes, too.

    Aren't reviewers supposed to be unbiased?

    I don’t think Jane’s ever claimed to be an unbiased reviewer. However, I also don’t think she hates Jamaica Layne-I’d imagine Jane is probably more amused by her than anything. That’s just my take, but there ya go.

    @SB Sarah:

    sex so terrible that even the idea of my parents' coupling is preferable

    That may be the new F-line for erotica. If you'd rather think about your parents gettin' it on 'till the break of dawn, then you are reading bad erotica.

    Man, both of these need a spew alert.

    And now I’m signing off because Shannon and Jaci have SCARRED me for life with images of tops. I’m going to make sure my toddler doesn’t have any because if I see her spinning a top, I just might die trying not to laugh.

    ReplyReply

  80. Has
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:35:11

    I am surprised there was a time portal in the heroine’s magical hoo haa and exit only gateway, since Ms Ladyfingers manage to enter those orifaces very easily.

    ReplyReply

  81. Jaci Burton
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:35:37

    And now I'm signing off because Shannon and Jaci have SCARRED me for life with images of tops. I'm going to make sure my toddler doesn't have any because if I see her spinning a top, I just might die trying not to laugh.

    Yeah, but do you have that song in your head now too? Cuz it’s driving me crazy….

    ;-)

    ReplyReply

  82. Shiloh Walker
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:43:57

    Yeah, but do you have that song in your head now too? Cuz it's driving me crazy….

    ;-)

    Choke…sputter…man, Jaci, you are a bitch. Whimper. Don’t need that song and the images in my head. If I didn’t love you, I just might hate you for that torture.

    ReplyReply

  83. Anne S.
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:46:05

    are any of the Ravenous authors any good? Is it possible that they're all this bad? Inquiring minds want to know.

    I won a copy of an m/m book from Ravenous, Sex, Lies & Wedding Bells, and I thought it was great. The plotline was realistic, the sex was tasteful and hot, and fit perfectly with the relationship developing between the two MCs. It was more romance than erotica, but I would definitely read more by that author, E.M. Lynley.

    So, I would say that I don’t think all the Ravenous authors are as bad as Knight Moves sounds… but reading those excerpts make me enjoy m/m scenes so much more!

    ReplyReply

  84. roslynholcomb
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:50:32

    Okay, so why did they have to bring Zane into this? I’m not a fan of Zane’s, but her prose is far more lyrical than this! Zane brings the heat, but it doesn’t sound like Penthouse Letters circa 1975. And what in the all living hell is a ‘vag?’ I swear I’m going to print a thesaurus of acceptable euphemisms for vagina and I promise that one won’t be in there.

    Oh, and the yo mama jokes: The only thing worse than leaving black folks out of contemporary fiction is including black folks in contemporary fiction. Especially when they’re gangbangers who tell ‘yo mama’ jokes. Suffice it to say, I’ve been a person of color for nearly 45 years and I’ve never heard a black person tell such a joke (except on tv of course).

    ReplyReply

  85. Lettie Johns
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:50:42

    So it wasn’t the best book on the site. You can’t argue that point. But I have read others at Ravenous that are much better. They seem stronger in the M/M department for some reason.

    And I’ve read some really bad erotic romance all over the place, to be fair, so it’s hard to single out an entire group of writers just because one book sux.

    But the review was funny as hell.

    ReplyReply

  86. Carrie
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:50:53

    I swear I remember another top spinning incident in Kearney’s “The Challenge” but it involved psionic abilities and permanent space suits that absorb bodily wastes. I don’t have the book any more to verify, though.

    ReplyReply

  87. Louisa Edwards
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:53:31

    I know, right? If those passages don’t turn you off het sex, you have a stronger constitution than I do. Maybe this book is an ingenious plot to increase readership of m/m romance!

    Works for me. Except I think I’ll browse Samhain or Loose Id for some good Emily Veinglory or K.A. Mitchell.

    ReplyReply

  88. Anji
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 10:53:43

    @Jane: Thanks for letting me know! I’m glad that there is some form of explanation.

    I’m still stunned by that yo momma duel (well, I’m also stunned by a whole lot more in that review). And oh, the imagery!

    ReplyReply

  89. Has
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:02:32

    @Carrie – yep you are right about Kearney and the spinning- That scene made me LOL :D

    ReplyReply

  90. Louise
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:06:59

    Ye Ghads, the monstrosity! *flushes eyes out*

    ReplyReply

  91. Leslie Dicken
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:19:56

    Oh. My. Gawd.

    (warning: shameless self-promotion ahead)

    For something to erase your mind of those excerpts, try a little of my upcoming story over at Writers At Play:

    http://www.writersatplay.com/wordpress/?p=977

    ReplyReply

  92. LindaR
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:20:39

    @SB Sarah:

    sex so terrible that even the idea of my parents' coupling is preferable

    That may be the new F-line for erotica

    Putting the rot in erotic.

    ReplyReply

  93. Claudia
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:23:27

    I think I’m going to check this out because I don’t think I’ve ever read about a time travelling medieval pimp that doesn’t charge.

    ReplyReply

  94. Nifty
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:25:23

    I’m another reader who has read TONS of erotica in her lifetime…and not just this new hybridized “erotica romance” with the obligatory HEA that’s so prevalent today. As I read the review and the snippets from the book, my first thought was to wonder if the writer is really a guy. It’s just that I’ve read erotica written by men and erotica wrtten by women, and they do often have very different “voices.”

    ReplyReply

  95. Cat Grant
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:31:28

    Thank you. I haven’t laughed so hard in weeks. I’m almost tempted to buy a copy, if only to dissuade a couple of friends from submitting to Ravenous.

    ReplyReply

  96. HeatherP
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:34:01

    Frankly, I don't know of any visual more attractive or seductive than a guy dressed like a knight in a tacky dinner theatre waving his post pee schwizzle stick around. Louise is clearly a woman of discerning taste.

    I’m pretty sure that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever read. ahahahaha omg.

    ReplyReply

  97. Jackie Barbosa
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:35:48

    I have to admit, the sheer volume of bodily fluids and complete lack of emotion in the excerpts Jane so kindly (I think) shared make me wonder if Ravenous’s strategy for “blowing the competition out of the water” isn’t to appeal to those readers of letters to Penthouse Lori S. mentioned earlier. For reasons I’ve never been completely capable of grasping, guys seem to dig loads of splurgy wetness and don’t demand much in the way of feeling in their erotica (or should I just be honest and call it porn?). To me, this just reads like it was written for men, not women. (I can imagine a GUY thinking that the sight of himself shaking urine off his huge male member would be sufficient to induce instantaneous lust on the part of women everywhere, but I have a much harder time imagining the same for women.)

    That said, I certainly don’t want to be accused of judging all of Ravenous’s list based on my impressions of this one book. That said, I did read some excerpts on the website and came away underwhelmed. Oh, none of the stuff I read was horrifically bad (and there was no sex in any of the excerpts I found), but nothing jumped out at me as being qualitatively better on average than books from any other reputable epublisher. (They do have nice cover art, though. I’ll give ‘em that.)

    I didn’t check out the m/m area, though, and it sounds like that may be where their strength lies.

    ReplyReply

  98. Hortense Powdermaker
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:36:07

    for more large ladysoft labia lulz, read the Jenny the Bloggess post titled This is like a “What I did over the summer” essay except it's about giant labias.

    ReplyReply

  99. Catherine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:38:14

    I’ve read Haunted Seductions by Morgan James and The Toast Bitches by Sandra Cormier. Both were well written and nary a mention of Lady Softness anywhere. I’m currently reading Sex, Lies and Wedding Bells (someone mentioned that in a comment above), the first m/m I’ve tried, and so far it’s a fun read too. So far M/M sex doesn’t do a lot for me in terms of personal turn-on, but the sex is well written, the characters and plot are engaging, and it’s definitely a romance.

    “waving his post pee schwizzle stick around.”

    Jane, that was cruel. I have tea on my keyboard after reading that.

    ReplyReply

  100. Radish
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:58:10

    Sounds like it was written by a frustrated twelve-year-old boy who’s read way too many Penthouse letters from the 1970′s.

    And, seriously, now,… the knight’s name is ‘Lord Verdigris’? Yeah, I get it, the ‘knight in shining armour’ is tarnished. But for something to be clever, it must first be subtle.

    Just yikes, man.

    ReplyReply

  101. LauraB
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 11:58:28

    This review had me at queeb! I am definitely posting a link to this on my Facebook page.

    Which is worse this book or that satyr book you read last year?

    ReplyReply

  102. Teddypig
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 12:20:26

    Was Betty White reading this in the Peterotica episode of The Family Guy?

    ReplyReply

  103. Kimberly Van Meter
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 12:21:10

    Wow. I’m at a loss. Seriously. Queeb? Ladyfingers? *shudder* I just don’t even know what to say aside from thanks for the heads up. I think it’s safe to say I am not the right reader for this book.

    ReplyReply

  104. Robin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 12:26:51

    The gangbangers stare at him. “Damn, dat dude talk funny,” one of them says.

    “He don't sound like he from no Philly, neither,” another says.

    I realize that everyone has been — understandably — fixated on the horrendous sex descriptions here, but OMG WTF with the racial caricatures here??!!

    ReplyReply

  105. Evangeline
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 12:42:58

    @mysterious: I’ve read Zane occasionally, but despite the crazy antics of her characters and the bluntness of the sex, it always seemed steeped in some form of “reality” for me. This–particularly the “Yo Momma” part, just seems like everything and the kitchen sink thrown in to link together sex scenes.

    @Robin: I left that alone because I’m just too incredulous by it. I have this picture of the author flipping on the TV and turning to BET and thinking “Oh yeah, black folks!” and it just makes me shake my head…

    ReplyReply

  106. Anion
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 12:46:38

    @Robin: I have to admit that as the day goes on it’s the racism that’s really sticking in my head. Having bought and read her MARKET FOR LOVE I expected her other work to be just as bad (MARKET was actually better than this, but that’s like saying it’s better to be burned to death than it is to be ritually flayed and then burned to death; both are painful and awful), and MARKET had some offensive stereotypes in it as well, but the racism in this is just… Wow. Really.

    ReplyReply

  107. » Ebook Publishers and Erotica Romance
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 12:52:25

    [...] today Jane from Dear Author came out and reviewed Knight Moves by Jamaica Layne. I have not had a chance to read the ebook yet, but I am understandingly [...]

  108. SandyW
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 12:57:54

    I realize that everyone has been -’ understandably -’ fixated on the horrendous sex descriptions here, but OMG WTF with the racial caricatures here??!!

    Because badly-written sex can be hilariously snark-worthy, but racism just isn't that funny? Honestly, I have no idea what to say to that part.

    ReplyReply

  109. A New Writer
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 12:58:00

    I’m extremely offended by the racial caricatures, and surprised at Ms. Laine, and also Ravenous. I don’t know who edited this ebook, but Ravenous had and has stated they wanted quality in their storylines and in their writing. I also saw Ms. Laine’s posts on Absolute Write, and I was giving her the benefit of the doubt that her passion for writing matched her fire for defending Ravenous. I hope she understands that while I do believe she was trying to be humorous, I find her “Gangbanger”dialogue was in poor taste and this novel is not worth reading even if it was ever offered for free on the site, imho.

    ReplyReply

  110. Melani
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:00:26

    OMG. Thank God the boss wasn’t here when I opened up DA to read on my lunch. I ended up laughing so hard, several co-workers came to see if I was okay. So I shared.

    Best lunch we’ve had in a long time. Thanks for the laugh!

    ReplyReply

  111. Darlene Marshall
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:12:23

    I am in pain from the laughter. Thank you. I needed this today.

    ReplyReply

  112. rebyj
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:16:03

    Maybe they were Creole/Cajun gangbangers?

    ReplyReply

  113. Goldie
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:22:29

    Damn. It’s been stated before, but I think I need to say it again.

    Thanks for taking one for the team.

    ReplyReply

  114. *sighs*
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:33:08

    I’m not sure whether to be offended, disgusted, or amused.

    What I am definitely NOT is impressed by Ravenous Romance, the “new standard in romance.”

    ReplyReply

  115. laura
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:34:20

    I agree with the other poster who stated this sounds like it’s written by a man. Anyone ever seen if Jamica L. is a woman?

    ReplyReply

  116. KMont
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:38:08

    *clasps hands in prayerful repose*

    I want to thank you, sweet baby lord, for enabling me to wake up today and read this review. I’d also like to thank Dear Author for finally giving me another visual for “warp speed”. I’ll never look at Star Trek the same way again. Final frontier, my ass. Yo mama’s ass? Whatevs, I’m just blown away.

    ReplyReply

  117. Cap'n Codpiece
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:42:11

    As a MALE reader – and occasional editor – of romantic fiction, I just have to get my two cents in here on a couple of issues.

    First: Any ladysoftness I sink my codpiece into that makes a “disappointed queeb sound” when I withdraw from it will not, under any circumstances, be sunk in to again. The ladies of the board may consider this a high-quality dating tip: disappointed queeb sounds are a deal-breaker.

    Second: I am most impressed with the percussive abilities of Our Heroine. “Hi, I’m Louise, and these are my labia, Tito and Puente.”

    Third, and more seriously: I’m a guy. I also read. A LOT. Everything from King and Lovecraft and Poe to Heinlein and Niven to Nora Roberts and Patricia Cornwell. Without being too graphic about it, I’m also well-acquainted with erotic writing, from the oft-mentioned Penthouse Forum to ASSTR.

    This is not “erotic writing.” It can’t be – it’s neither erotic, nor is it writing. This makes John Norman’s “Gor” novels look like masterpieces of feminist sensitivity, and the “yo’ mama” dialogue brings the execrable, plagiarized screed of Cassie Edwards up several notches on the quality scale by virtue of its very existence. This isn’t just bad – it’s pathetic and disgusting. There are quality writers of both romance and erotic romance who actually deserve publication. The writer of this book is not one of them. Period.

    Fourth: Any woman who “spins round and round like a top” on My Favorite Appendage is going to find herself presented with a mechanical device on which to spin. OUCH!

    ReplyReply

  118. Jane
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:44:54

    @LauraB: Yes, I think that the Satyr book was better. I even think Carol Lynne’s Ben’s Wildflower might have been slightly better.

    ReplyReply

  119. LynnS/AAR
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:48:34

    LOL! Oh, reading that review was just what I needed today. I don’t think I’m going to be able to stand seeing the words “lady” and “softness” in the same sentence for a while.

    I’ve been longing for a good medieval, but this isn’t quite what I had in mind.

    ReplyReply

  120. A New Writer
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:49:38

    Laura,

    Ms. Layne is indeed female, on Absolute Write she posted an article that a newspaper ( I believe it may have been the Chicago Tribune) had done on her a few months ago. The article was flattering and mentioned she was an author. I hope they don’t review this book.

    ReplyReply

  121. Lauren Bethany
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:55:31

    I’m interested in hearing opinions on what publishing this kind of book could do to RR as a whole.

    Personally, this would put me off buying from RR. While others have noted there are decent books there, how can I count on getting a quality story and a good read if they also publish this… I don’t even know what to call it. I can’t see spending my hard-earned dollars at a company that has no apparent bottom on the acceptable quality level.

    As a writer, I’d be running the other direction. I had been watching RR as a possibility for future stories, but honestly, after this– I wouldn’ want to be associated wth them and if I had submitted anything, I would be pulling my manuscripts after reading these excerpts.

    I can see it as anything other than a very poor choice for a new and supposedly upcoming company to put out this level of writing.

    ReplyReply

  122. Sherry Thomas
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 13:57:54

    Cap’n Codpiece,

    Ooh, first time I’ve seen ASSTR mentioned on a romance site.

    ReplyReply

  123. Randi
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:03:55

    Cap’n Codpiece: You’re my new hero!

    ReplyReply

  124. A New Writer
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:12:52

    To Lauren Bethany,

    I believe there are some good writers at Ravenous, however in the future, the company might want to take a closer look at the product they’re putting out, especially since they’re touting the quality of their books. No matter how they try to spin this, someone let this particular novel slip past quality control.
    At the very least, the editor should have questioned the supposed minority dialogue. I’m also disappointed in Ms. Layne, because I went to check her blog that she uses under her real name, and it states she majored in English and has been a journalist among other positions. As I stated in a previous post, her attempt at ethnic humor is lost on me, though I realize this is apparently a “fun” timetravel ebook.

    ReplyReply

  125. Karen Scott
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:13:54

    Jane hates Jamaica Layne and hates Ravenous. It's only clear she would hate anything Jamaica Layne writes, too.

    Elissa21, you’re an idiot.

    Aren't reviewers supposed to be unbiased?

    So you think that reviewers who read books and form form their own opinions based on what they’ve read are supposed to be unbiased? Are you high?

    ReplyReply

  126. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:16:15

    For everyone asking why the editor let this slip past? That’s because Ms. Layne *was* the editor, she edited her own book and Ravenous let her. She also edits lots of other books and anthologies for Ravenous.

    Does anyone really believe the person who wrote *that* book is qualified to tell anyone else how to write?

    ReplyReply

  127. karmelrio
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:18:29

    a new writer said:

    I believe there are some good writers at Ravenous, however in the future, the company might want to take a closer look at the product they're putting out, especially since they're touting the quality of their books. No matter how they try to spin this, someone let this particular novel slip past quality control.

    I have to admit that after reading this review I wondered whether RR was a vanity publisher.

    ReplyReply

  128. Jane
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:19:19

    @Anon Y. Mouse Srsly? She edited her own work?

    ReplyReply

  129. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:26:41

    @Jane: That’s what I’ve heard several different places from a couple different people. But, as I have no solid proof, I really should have said “I heard she edited it herself.”

    ReplyReply

  130. Diane/Anonym2857
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:35:56

    I wonder, that spinning thang … for those who watch Grey’s Anatomy, is this perhaps how Little Grey ‘broke’ McSteamy?

    Snerk.

    Diane :o)
    wondering what other earworm can possibly get the round, round record player music out of my brain

    ReplyReply

  131. No way
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:43:37

    No. There is no way that person is qualified to edit anyone else’s work. She obviously can’t even self-edit.

    That’s the kind of writer who shouldn’t be giving anyone advice about writing or publishing.

    Cap’n Codpiece, LOLOL! Best comment award goes to you!

    ReplyReply

  132. Nonny
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:54:19

    Yes, the fact that this author actually edits for RR… discredits them quite a deal in my eyes.

    “New standard in romance”. Hah.

    ReplyReply

  133. Cap'n Codpiece
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 14:56:09

    @Sherry Thomas –

    I’d have left ASSTR out of my remarks, but I’ve seen FAR better euphemisms for sex acts and organs there than I’m getting from this drivel.

    I like a good bit of erotica as much as the next guy or gal (and maybe more, even), but man…”vag?” “Disappointed queeb sounds? Labial drumbeats?!

    Maybe I’m just getting old, but the idea of John Bonham or Keith Moon or someone popping out of my partner’s genitals to perform a solo on MY genitals just doesn’t strike me (no pun intended) as particularly “erotic.”

    Not to mention more liquidity than the top ten US investment banks…maybe I’m getting prude in my old age, but I’m just not interested in even imagining an amorous coupling with an explosive (and apparently quite roomy) drum-playing “vag” that spins during sex acts and leaves “trails of nectar” on my chest like an ill-mannered garden slug. I’m not the least bit shy or squeamish about sex, but….ew. Just ew.

    If it weren’t for her being a “known quantity” I’d suspect this whole thing was a prank by a fifteen year old boy.

    A fifteen year old VIRGIN boy.

    @Randi –

    Thanks ;-)

    @anyone-i-might-be-missing-who-says-nice-things-as-I’m-writing-this: thanks, also :)

    ReplyReply

  134. Carole Carbone
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:00:08

    Personally, this would put me off buying from RR. While others have noted there are decent books there, how can I count on getting a quality story and a good read if they also publish this… I don't even know what to call it. I can't see spending my hard-earned dollars at a company that has no apparent bottom on the acceptable quality level.

    I’d hate to see other writers be penalized for one bad apple, pardon the cliche. It sounds to me like this author we’re talking about knows how to work the PR angle, but isn’t quite ready for anything else. I don’t know. I didn’t read the book.

    But I’ve read a few things on ravenous I liked. And I just read a free sample of something I really liked. The M/M section is strong there, but the free short story I read is more het than anything else. I thought it was relevant and written well.

    ReplyReply

  135. Catherine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:00:26

    I think in the interest of fairness, I’m going to read one of the anthologies Ms. Layne has edited. I’m not excusing ‘lady softness’ or the never-lasting image of those last drops of pee, but since it’s not verified she did, in fact, edit her own work, I’d like to check out the stories she selected and edited. There might be more objectivity when editing other authors’ work.

    ReplyReply

  136. LS
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:01:40

    I can’t find any site other than the publisher with an entry for this book. The publisher doesn’t list the editor on the product’s page. I checked Worldcat.org, LibraryThing.com and Amazon.com and since there’s no entry for the book there is no copy of the verso matter to verify who the listed editor is. It is also not listed on her various blogs & websites, such as http://www.jillelainehughes.com/

    ReplyReply

  137. Catherine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:01:43

    And Cap’n Codpiece, please come with a spew alert next time.

    Ooh…that came out really badly, didn’t it?…

    ReplyReply

  138. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:09:58

    I can't find any site listing this book other than the publisher with an entry for this book. The publisher doesn't list the editor on the product's page. I checked Worldcat.org, LibraryThing.com and Amazon.com and none of them list the verso mater to verify who the listed editor is. It is also not listed on her various blogs & websites, http://www.jillelainehughes.com/ claims to be the same person.

    Jane, you have the book itself, right? Does it list the editor there? Most epubs do list the editor on the page with the copyright info. If in fact the rumors are true and she did edit it herself, that would certainly explain why salt water cunts and drumming labia at warp speed managed to make it to the final cut.

    ReplyReply

  139. Jane
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:14:58

    @Anon Y. Mouse No, it’s just the title page, the copyright page, the book, and then one last page with the name of the author and her other work and a link to Ravenous Romance. (Oh, and the “PAGE BREAK” notation on chapter 5 which I find very funny).

    ReplyReply

  140. Eirin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:17:35

    This book was sold as Erotic Romance? If I were an unsuspecting reader who’d spent money on this dreck, I’d be likely to go after the author with a verdigris spoon. And quite possibly the publishers too.
    Didn’t we “just” have a discussion about mislabeling erotica as romance in order to cash in on the lucrative romance marked.

    And I can’t say I have a lot of confidence in a publisher (or editor) who’d accept this offensive-on-so-many-levels crap. Of course every tradehouse have good and not so good publications, but this bad? It’s not just a matter of taste, really. That there be some seriously bad writing, yo.

    ReplyReply

  141. Jane
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:19:16

    @Eirin It’s classified as a paranormal romance. Their category name is “Fantastica”.

    ReplyReply

  142. Emily
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:19:41

    I don’t believe Ms. Layne edited her own work. I know she “edited” a couple short story compilations, but that means picking the stories from the submissions. “Editor” in the acquiring sense, not in a line editing or copy editing sense.

    …Right?

    ReplyReply

  143. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:21:38

    @Jane: I can’t believe they left edit notations in the final copy. Jeez. And I find it interesting that there’s no editor listed for this book. I know all of my publishers list editors somewhere in the frontmatter pages.

    ReplyReply

  144. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:24:40

    @Emily: I honestly don’t know which is worse, a publisher allowing an author to edit their own work or, alternately, that an actual editor let this book through as is. Both are fairly horrifying conclusions, in my opinion.

    ReplyReply

  145. Cap'n Codpiece
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:27:56

    @ Catherine – I can’t find a way to play on that innuendo that doesn’t sound cocky. As much as I’d like to push it farther and see what I can get in to, I don’t want to get out of hand and blow it prematurely.

    @ Lizzy – the King piece you referenced was the first story in “Skeleton Crew,” and was titled “Survivor Type.” The bit you reference (“ladyfingers they taste just like ladyfingers”) is the closing line of the story. At least one fan site alleges that there’s a short film in pre-production this year, although how in the world any independent film-maker would be able to afford the special effects involved in a one-character story about a shipwrecked man eating his own body one small piece at a time to survive is beyond me.

    ReplyReply

  146. Jane
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:30:31

    The GMail text ad for the comment thread in my inbox is “101 Cookbooks – Nut and Seed Biscotti”

    ReplyReply

  147. Catherine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:36:45

    Damn it, Cap’n Codpiece…I’ll just have to suck up my disappointment.

    ReplyReply

  148. KM
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:40:05

    I posted this at another blog and it seems relevant here too, so I’ll repost. Granted, Jane’s review was hilarity in its purest form, and she made her opinion clear, but as a reviewer that’s her duty. She backed up her assertions with facts – i.e., examples from the text.

    “I have to disagree with the assertion that Jane is “out to get Ravenous Romance,” but even if she were, I don't think this review could be construed as a personal vendetta in any way.

    If I were to completely ignore Jane's commentary about the book and base my opinion solely off of the excerpts provided, I would still find it to be offensive, disgusting, poorly-written, and not in any way, shape or form erotic OR romantic.

    The writing speaks for itself, and the writing fails. Period.”

    ReplyReply

  149. Ruth
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:42:37

    Dear. Sweet. Baby. Jesus.

    My cousin and I have been chatting about bad fanfic this week, really bad fanfic, and she asked if I’d checked out today’s post. You know, I think this fits in the conversation perfectly. It’s a bit better-written than most, but dear god. The only thing from making this a badfic is that it’s not actually in the fanfic category. Damn.

    Loved the comments, I’m really glad that I’m one of the last people at work tonight because between Ja(y)ne, the book, and the comments there were a couple times I couldn’t help laughing really hard.

    ReplyReply

  150. Jenna Bayley-Burke
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:43:17

    You know a review is going to be bad when the reviewer has to quote from the book…because no one would believe it! At Celebrate Romance last weekend a reviewer had us all laughing at a book that comes out this month…from Kensington. It wasn’t this bad (good gravy, what is?) but it was comical when it didn’t mean to be.

    ReplyReply

  151. Shannon Stacey
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:46:30

    My Samhain titles don’t list my editor in the front, though my EC books do.

    You spin me right ’round, baby, right ’round…

    (Just in case some of you had managed to shake it.)

    ReplyReply

  152. Lauren Bethany
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:49:41

    @Carole Carbone:

    “I'd hate to see other writers be penalized for one bad apple, pardon the cliche. It sounds to me like this author we're talking about knows how to work the PR angle, but isn't quite ready for anything else. I don't know. I didn't read the book.”

    Forgive me, I don’t know how the quote boxes work on this site.

    That is just one troubling aspect of this. On one hand, surely there is something good there, but on the other, I don’t want to risk my limited income weeding out the bad books. The authors lose out in the end. RR may have lost some major house-building talent by allowing this title through.

    Are upcoming authors with talent going to move on, not wanting to be associated with this house and (from what I see) editor now? I said I’d pull any sub I had, I’m sure I’m not alone.

    How many who have been rejected elsewhere will now see this as a pub with potential now that this has been produced under the RR banner? Will RR be flooded with sub-par offerings? The standard and reputation of the entire house cold drop very quickly.

    Really, other than internet face-time for an author who seems to revel in rolling in it, I see no positives for anyone here. I question the decision to allow this book to be published, and in the even it is self edited as seems to be the case, I question the house wisdom in allowing it. I hope, for the other authors’ sake, RR can put this behind them quickly.

    ReplyReply

  153. JulieLeto
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:54:13

    As Susan Kearney’s critique partner, I think it’s important for me to point out that in the spin like a top scene in The Challenge, they were in a no-grav environment. Pesky things like gravity can get in the way otherwise, not to mention wooden benches.

    And for some reason, Cap’n Codpiece has me thinking this book deserves a one-way ticket on the Fail Boat.

    (Is anyone else a big Sister Salad fan?)

    ReplyReply

  154. MissusFinkle
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 15:57:08

    I can’t begin to describe what I’m feeling right now. Hysteria comes close, but it’s still not right. I will be forever tormented by the idea that a woman was turned on by a random guy shaking his pee covered dick at her, refering to her ‘lady softness’ and his ‘codpiece’. I could hardly see through the tears from that first quote onwards – but I managed.

    I can honestly say that if it was me who was cornered in a restaurant bathroom by a freaky guy holding his big ol’ dick in his hand, shaking piss off the end of it, and then asking me if wanted to touch it… Just call me Speedy Gonzalez, but you wouldn’t see me for dust, in between screaming for the police, I’d be outta there.

    Similarly – I’d like to take the time to say that I (used to) watch Star Trek with my dad. Not anymore. So thanks for that.

    On the upside though chaps, if something like that can get published then there’s certainly hope for the rest of us!

    And I have to say, I’m really contemplating giving her those five bucks just to get the full effect for myself.. At the same time, I just can’t justify paying to read something which 1) glorifies ‘happy juice’, 2) involves a contortionist vay-jay-jay, and 3) makes excessive (yes, EXCESSIVE) reference to ‘codpieces’ [which isn't even the right WORD!] and ‘lady softnesses’ (can you even pluralise something like that!?)

    I have officially replaced ‘love muffin’ with ‘lady softness’ and I can’t wait to tell all my friends, they’ll just love it!

    … My god, what’s the world coming to…

    ReplyReply

  155. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:01:25

    @MissusFinkle: Well, Ravenous *does* have that money back gaurantee. If you’re not completely satisfied in the quality, they’ll refund you. So everyone should buy with confidence, enjoy the horror, then get back the money this book doesn’t deserve.

    ReplyReply

  156. MissusFinkle
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:04:06

    ‘Enjoy the horror’

    Bahaha, says it all !! We’re a masochistic bunch here aren’t we. We know it’s awful, and yet, are drawn to it… But maybe that’s just me…

    ReplyReply

  157. Anne S.
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:06:07

    Just curious…did anyone actually buy a copy of it yet? I admit I’m reading these comments and I honestly don’t need to spend a cent to get entertained.

    ReplyReply

  158. Eirin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:12:02

    Has anyone taken this to Weepingcock yet?

    It’s every bit as hilariously bad as the Im in ur ass – savin ur life thing.

    Will there be LOLPorn?

    ReplyReply

  159. Scarlett
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:12:31

    This review was the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time.

    It should come with a NSFW warning, though. Not for the language, but the laughter. I had to close my office door I was laughing so hard. I’ve read plenty of erotic romance in my day, but nothing that can rival this. The excerpts speak for themselves.

    “Lady softness” has been added to my vocabulary, pronto. That will be sure to impress my partner when he asks for the dirty talk. If he can stop laughing, that is.

    Cap’n Codpiece: I appreciate the dating tip. No disappointed queeb sound, check!

    ReplyReply

  160. Sherry Thomas
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:16:10

    Cap’n Codpiece,

    Fourth: Any woman who “spins round and round like a top” on My Favorite Appendage is going to find herself presented with a mechanical device on which to spin. OUCH!

    I’m pretty sure this came straight out of the Kama Sutra. My friends in college had a copy and we were speechless over this particular fashion of lovemaking. If I remember correctly, the man is on the bottom, and the woman is supposed to keep her legs up and wide in order to spin.

    We used to call it the helicopter position!

    And kids that we were, we’d take every opportunity to ask each other whether anyone wanted to go for a spin.

    Not to mention more liquidity than the top ten US investment banks…

    Good line.

    ReplyReply

  161. Catherine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:17:00

    Cap’n Queeb?… Mutiny on the Booty?

    I’m sorry, I’ll stop now.

    ReplyReply

  162. Stevie
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:23:18

    I can honestly say that if it was me who was cornered in a restaurant bathroom by a freaky guy holding his big ol' dick in his hand, shaking piss off the end of it, and then asking me if wanted to touch it… Just call me Speedy Gonzalez, but you wouldn't see me for dust, in between screaming for the police, I'd be outta there.

    You might have some difficulty in persuading the police to take you terribly seriously since you had deliberately chosen to go into the gentlemen’s bathroom, where it is pretty common to find gentlemen using the urinals. Or so I’m told…

    ReplyReply

  163. MissusFinkle
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:29:26

    You might have some difficulty in persuading the police to take you terribly seriously since you had deliberately chosen to go into the gentlemen's bathroom, where it is pretty common to find gentlemen using the urinals. Or so I'm told…

    Yea, but you see what I’m trying to get across here, it’s not exactly what you’d call erotic, or romantic. ;)

    “You look like a fair maiden in need of a good visit from the codpiece,” he says.”

    No matter where I was, I’d be running from that. I think she should just go the wholehog and capitalise this gigantic member; The Codpiece shall reign supreme.

    ReplyReply

  164. MD
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:33:34

    When Ravenous Romance stated they were going to be the new standard in romance, did they specify high or low?

    ReplyReply

  165. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:35:21

    @MD: Good point! Maybe by “blow them out of the water” they meant blow chunks? I am feeling kind of nauseous…

    ReplyReply

  166. Janine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:36:45

    Aren't reviewers supposed to be unbiased?

    No, they are not. Show me an unbiased human being. Everyone has biases.

    ReplyReply

  167. Stevie
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:39:38

    Yea, but you see what I'm trying to get across here, it's not exactly what you'd call erotic, or romantic. ;)

    The alternative is even worse, surely?

    I suspect that Jamaica Layne was punning very, very badly on Erica Jong’s ‘zipless fuck’, but it obviously doesn’t work if the reader/reviewer doesn’t get the reference, and/or hates puns.

    The author has been published by Black Lace, who demand that their writers know a lot about the history of the erotic novel; Fear of Flying is a seminal text…

    ReplyReply

  168. Robin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:43:15

    The GMail text ad for the comment thread in my inbox is “101 Cookbooks – Nut and Seed Biscotti”

    That is an absolute crime against humanity — or at least against the wonderful Heidi Swanson, who runs 101 Cookbooks, which is one of the absolute best food blogs out there.

    And I can’t believe that in 165 (oops, 167, now) comments, no one has been reminded of “Lady Humps ” (“all that junk inside your trunk”), what with all the ladyfingers and lady-softness!

    As for whether Layne edited her own work or not, isn’t it enough that she wrote it this way? It seems kind of unjust to think that a book like this could actually be rescued by an editor and makes me wonder whether and how many books are transformed by the editorial hand, with readers believing it is nothing but the author’s pure, singular genius.

    ReplyReply

  169. Robin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 16:58:02

    have this picture of the author flipping on the TV and turning to BET and thinking “Oh yeah, black folks!” and it just makes me shake my head…

    The only place I’ve ever seen anything like that from a black filmmaker is in the context of making fun of the way whites view blacks — not as any direct depiction of blacks, especially urban blacks.

    But as Sandy W said, the race issue isn’t funny, and to echo Anion, it’s what has stuck with me after reading the review.

    I personally find the sexually-related text Jane quoted to be decidedly unerotic, unsexy, and just bad euphemism, but I realize that’s all subjective. While I cannot imagine how the author thought she was writing sexy, I know that’s my subjective opinion.

    But the racial caricatures (and from what I understand it’s much much more extensive in the book than in the review) are IMO *objectively offensive* and have the potential to move the discussion to a much more serious place. I realize, of course, that such a thing would deprive us of some genuinely great belly laughs, but I’m still kind of speechless and yet, ironically, bursting with a frustrated excess of reaction, about how really, really offensive that *I don’t even know what to call it* is. And I thought the grunting, inarticulate “Savage Indians” in Romance were bad.

    ReplyReply

  170. Janine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:09:52

    Cap’n Codpiece — I laughed so hard at your admonitions against disappointed queeb sounds, I have tears in my eyes!

    And Sherry,

    We used to call it the helicopter position!

    LOL!

    ReplyReply

  171. K. Z. Snow
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:12:28

    Another tear-impaired reader here. OMG, I’m wheezing trying to suppress my giggles, since the men in the house think I’m actually working in front of my computer.

    I can’t help but believe all this camp, no matter how ineptly rendered, is intentional. Surely no editor or author familiar with erotic romance thinks this kind of awful offal should be taken seriously. It makes the stuff at Literotica look like Pulitzer-worthy fiction!

    And here comes the nitpickin’, which does seem like a colossal exercise in futility, under the circumstances. Isn’t it queef instead of queeb? And isn’t a codpiece a portion of an article of clothing? I don’t write historicals, but I’ve always been under the impression that a codpiece is a leather or cloth flap that covers the junk; it isn’t a synonym for the junk itself.

    Okay, now I can go back to laughing. Damn, it feels good!

    ReplyReply

  172. Stevie
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:15:37

    But the racial caricatures (and from what I understand it's much much more extensive in the book than in the review)

    I think that before you accuse someone of perpetrating ‘racial caricatures’ it would be advisable to read the book.

    That way it doesn’t look as if you are leaping upon any stick you can find to hit the author with…

    ReplyReply

  173. JulieLeto
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:16:18

    I’m appalled by the racial stereotyping in the book, Robin, and I’m sure everyone else is, too. But it’s hard to take the author seriously when so much of the book seems so wacky. I can honestly say that even when I was teaching in public school and heard my students of African American persuasion talking to each other, I never heard them once say any insults about their mothers.

    HOWEVER, I will point out that in the comic strip, Curtis (which is written by a black man, Ray Billingsley,) this happens all the time with Curtis’s nemesises (nemisi?), Derek and Onion. I do hope that the author’s research for cultural truths is not coming from comic strips. Because, you know, they’re not like…real. Funny, yes. Curtis is a favorite of mine. But real? Um, no.

    ReplyReply

  174. K. Z. Snow
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:17:09

    Cap'n Queeb?… Mutiny on the Booty?

    I think it’s Queebqueg, the harpooneer from (you guessed it) Moby-Dick.

    ReplyReply

  175. Robin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:21:33

    I think that before you accuse someone of perpetrating ‘racial caricatures' it would be advisable to read the book.

    That way it doesn't look as if you are leaping upon any stick you can find to hit the author with…”

    Because this isn’t enough?

    Lord Verdigris holds up his hand. “I require no explanation, Lady Louisa. We play a version of this game in my own time. The game ’tis as ancient as the Romans.”

    The gangbangers stare at him. “Damn, dat dude talk funny,” one of them says.

    “He don't sound like he from no Philly, neither,” another says.

    How is that *not* perpetuating racial caricatures?? Frankly, I think I could have stopped cold at the word “gangbangers” and made the same criticism.

    ReplyReply

  176. Elf
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:25:34

    As for M/M at Ravenous, since it has been mentioned several times as a healthy alternative upstream here, their catalog in that area is a bit sparse. Be warned, purists, that their “Panamour” line (i.e. contains m/m) also includes F/M/M menage, and this limits the field of pure m/m considerably. ‘Sex, Lies & Wedding Bells’ is probably the best of the bunch. The other two I read (not naming names to protect the guilty) was *at best* a 3 of 5 on my grading scale.
    Enjoy, and good luck!

    ReplyReply

  177. theo
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:25:57

    @K. Z. Snow: Are you sure you don’t mean…

    Moby Prick?

    ReplyReply

  178. Catherine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:26:03

    I think it's Queebqueg, the harpooneer from (you guessed it) Moby-Dick

    HAH!!!!!! K.Z., I think I love you.

    ReplyReply

  179. Catherine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:27:05

    Theo…you too. Does this make me easy?

    ReplyReply

  180. Anion
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:30:01

    Yeah, sorry Stevie, but the minute you bring a Stepin Fetchit character into your book and we’re all supposed to laugh…there is an issue, no matter how long the scene is or how you might try to explain it away later or whatever. And I’m not going to apologize for finding racist stereotypes offensive.

    ReplyReply

  181. K. Z. Snow
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:49:37

    Catherine – I think it makes you a sucker for old English majors with a sick sense of humor. In my case, anyway. :-)

    ReplyReply

  182. Jia
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:50:28

    I think that before you accuse someone of perpetrating ‘racial caricatures' it would be advisable to read the book.

    Because it’s somehow better in context? For some reason, I seriously doubt that.

    ReplyReply

  183. Stevie
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:51:32

    How is that *not* perpetuating racial caricatures?? Frankly, I think I could have stopped cold at the word “gangbangers” and made the same criticism.

    I note that you feel no need to read the primary text before drawing conclusions from it but I think you would have considerable difficulty in persuading a judge that the term ‘gangbanger’ constitutes a racial caricature. You may feel that your personal response to the term constitutes a normative mode but the law thinks otherwise.

    Incidentally, the selection you have quoted is a classic example of a form of humour which gets its effect by reversing the expectations of the listener; Damon Runyan would have been happy to provide the punchline ‘He don't sound like he from no Philly, neither’

    I do appreciate that you may be wholly unfamiliar with the development of humourous writing in the USA and elsewhere, but the stuctrure can be found in Sigmund Freud’s book on jokes. He didn’t manage to explain it, but it has been around for a very long time.

    The joke is on Lord Verdigris, and the guys are the ones making the joke on Lord Verdigris, thus putting themselves in the dominant position. If you object to black guys being dominant then perhaps you should re-examine your own racial caricutures…

    ReplyReply

  184. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:57:56

    @Stevie: I think you would have considerable difficulty in persuading a judge that the term ‘gangbanger' constitutes a racial caricature.

    I’m sorry, were we taking anyone to court? No judge required, we the readers will judge for ourselves and I do believe the verdict is: This sucks. Like a freaking hoover.

    ReplyReply

  185. Robin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 17:59:27

    @Julie Leto: Well, and isn’t there a world of difference between ironizing racial stereotypes for the purpose of cultural critique and using them unself-consciously *as racial stereotypes*? And there’s no way you’re going to convince me that a book wherein the heroine spins on the hero’s “codpiece” (noting previous comments that the euphemism isn’t even correct), performs with percussive labia, registers foreplay as the “hero” shaking pee off of his cock, et al, is ironizing racial stereotypes for the purpose of cultural critique.

    This is definitely the kind of situation where I wouldn’t be bothered getting worked up over the time travel elements or the historical inaccuracies, because, as you said, it’s kind of difficult to take that seriously in the context of everything else, but the race stuff ticks me off.

    ReplyReply

  186. joanne
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:02:52

    do appreciate that you may be wholly unfamiliar with the development of humourous writing in the USA and elsewhere, but the stuctrure can be found in Sigmund Freud's book on jokes. He didn't manage to explain it, but it has been around for a very long time.

    The joke is on Lord Verdigris, and the guys are the ones making the joke on Lord Verdigris, thus putting themselves in the dominant position. If you object to black guys being dominant then perhaps you should re-examine your own racial caricutures…

    Oh for God’s sake. Are you trying to be stupid?

    And yeah, that Dr Freud, he never could explain anything. geeze.

    ANYWAY:
    I wanted to see what else this author had written and found an excerpt from her 2008 release on R.R.

    It’s 28 pages so a fair example of her writing. I’ve Been A Naughty Nurse

    I ain’t gonna say nothin’ cause I don’t want to upset her fans … Really, they have enough problems.

    ReplyReply

  187. Robin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:08:09

    @Stevie:: Yeah, that’s me, wholly ignorant of the use of racialized humor for the purposes of cultural subversion. And of the levels of judicial scrutiny and standards of proof required in court.

    ReplyReply

  188. Barb Ferrer
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:10:17

    @Louise Edwards:

    Sweet bug-shagging MOSES

    Okay, that’s just been added to sweet zombie Jesus as my new favorite epithet.

    And dammit Jaci, now I’m impossibly earwormed. Just for that…

    A little giftie…

    *evil grin*

    ReplyReply

  189. Stevie
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:12:25

    I'm sorry, were we taking anyone to court? No judge required, we the readers will judge for ourselves and I do believe the verdict is: This sucks. Like a freaking hoover.

    Right, I get it. You’re going for the lynchmob.

    Probably wise because it would be thrown out of court…

    ReplyReply

  190. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:14:39

    @Stevie: Of course it’d be thrown out of court…because while it’s a crime against good writing everywhere, the book’s not exactly illegal.

    Did you have a point or are you just fapping away over there feeling self-righteous?

    Jamaica, is that you? XD

    ReplyReply

  191. Lori
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:16:25

    Right, I get it. You're going for the lynchmob.

    On the count of three, everyone….

    YOU’RE ALL SUCH A BUNCH OF MEAN GIRLS! Mean, mean, mean!

    ReplyReply

  192. theo
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:18:59

    Freud wrote a book of jokes? o_O OH! Wait…a book ON jokes…well, since everything in his repertoire pertains to having inappropriate sex with one’s mother, he would probably enjoy this book.

    Let’s just leave this one in the reader’s court of opinion, shall we? Since in many cases, they’re smarter than any court. My case in point, the 52 million dollar pants lawsuit….

    ReplyReply

  193. Stevie
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:19:04

    Oh for God's sake. Are you trying to be stupid?

    No. But I see that you’ve had a lot of experience

    ReplyReply

  194. K. Z. Snow
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:21:23

    This is definitely the kind of situation where I wouldn't be bothered getting worked up over the time travel elements or the historical inaccuracies, because, as you said, it's kind of difficult to take that seriously in the context of everything else

    I don’t think any of us are too worked up, Robin, except in our funny-bones. Alas, most of us haven’t had the dubious pleasure of reading “everything else.” And, if we value our sanity as well as our bank accounts, I doubt we ever will.

    Sorry, I don’t mean to speak for every poster. I’m just (as the saying goes) sayin’.

    ReplyReply

  195. Jackie Barbosa
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:22:05

    Right, I get it. You're going for the lynchmob.

    On the count of three, everyone….

    YOU'RE ALL SUCH A BUNCH OF MEAN GIRLS! Mean, mean, mean!

    In the name of sweet zombie Jesus, would someone please mention Nazis so we can invoke Godwin’s law?

    ReplyReply

  196. Keishon
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:23:23

    You’ve got to be kidding me. Really. I thought you were giving this book away or something, looking at the number of comments to this review. After reading this review, you couldn’t give this book away even if you wanted to. Ye gods. This was awful. I need a mind sweep.

    ReplyReply

  197. Lori
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:25:56

    In the name of sweet zombie Jesus, would someone please mention Nazis so we can invoke Godwin's law?

    Oh, what the heck…..

    You’re all such a bunch of malicioius, nazi, mean girls! Mean, mean, mean!

    **comment made with tongue firmly planted in cheek**

    ReplyReply

  198. A New Writer
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:27:07

    Respectfully Stevie,

    There’s no way this isn’t offensive. To counter your reasoning, notice that the Philly gangbangers speak in broken english, and the type of slang that only someone who has observed but never had a real conversation with indivduals of this lifestyle believe they speak. Even the term “Yo mama” would make a supposed “gangbanger” cringe. Ms. or Mrs. Hughes, from her photo looks to be in her late thirties or forties. I doubt she’s immersed in the lifestyle. If it was supposed to be funny, it wasn’t. It’s OFFENSIVE.

    “He don't sound like he from no Philly, neither,” another says. So I ask you, why aren’t the gangbangers speaking oh, Russian or Cockney English? Because Ms. Layne has decided Philly (predominately AA) and gangbangers equals fun!
    Also, your attempts to justify this strikes me as offensive also.

    ReplyReply

  199. Jane
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:36:15

    I think that Layne tried to be funny, probably unknowingly is perpetuating a stereotype that has racial overtones, but that she’s so bad at doing everything that it reads super offensive to some.

    ReplyReply

  200. Robin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:39:01

    I don't think any of us are too worked up, Robin, except in our funny-bones. Alas, most of us haven't had the dubious pleasure of reading “everything else.” And, if we value our sanity as well as our bank accounts, I doubt we ever will.

    No, I was just responding to Julie’s point that it’s difficult to take seriously anything in a book like this. For me it’d be *almost* anything. My point was more like ‘why aren’t more people worked up about the racialized images — whether they be wholly unreflective stereotypes or some (IMO failed) attempt to ironize those stereotypes, as Stevie suggests (and is there a difference between those two things, or is the second actually more problematic?)’. So, yeah, I’m not at all concerned that anyone is too worked up, lol.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply


+ 1 = 2

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

%d bloggers like this: