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.

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

    Deleted

  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.

  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.

  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?

  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…

  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.

  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.

  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’.

  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*

  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?

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

    Um…. the cover’s cute?

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

    Dear God.

  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.

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

    Umm Wow :D

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

  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.

  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…

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

    :shock:

    I’m… for once, I have no words.

  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.

  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.

  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.

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

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

  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.

  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.

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

    Thanks for taking one for the team.

  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.

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

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

  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.

  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?

  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.

  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!

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

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

    How very predictable.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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

  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.

  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.

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

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

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

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

    Warp speed, Mr. Sulu!

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

    *falls off chair laughing*

    pain… nothing but pain…

    *chortles*

  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.

  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…

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

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

  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!

  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!

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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?

  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

  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’.

  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…

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

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

    @karmelrio:

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

  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.

  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.

  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

  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

  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…

  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.

  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.

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

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

  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.

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

    @Jayne:

    “She can’t take anymore Captian” – Scotty

  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

  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.

  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?)

  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.

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

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

    :P

  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?

  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!

  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?

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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….

    ;-)

  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.

  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!

  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).

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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!

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

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

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

    Ye Ghads, the monstrosity! *flushes eyes out*

  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

  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.

  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.

  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.”

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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?

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

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

  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.

  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??!!

  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…

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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!

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

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

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

    Maybe they were Creole/Cajun gangbangers?

  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.

  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.”

  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?

  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.

  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!

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

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

    Cap’n Codpiece,

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

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

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

  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.

  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?

  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?

  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.

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

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

  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.”

  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

  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!

  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.

  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 :)

  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.

  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.

  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/

  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?…

  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.

  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).

  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.

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

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

  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?

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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”

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

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

  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.”

  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.

  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.

  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.)

  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.

  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?)

  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…

  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.

  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…

  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.

  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?

  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!

  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.

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

    Cap’n Queeb?… Mutiny on the Booty?

    I’m sorry, I’ll stop now.

  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…

  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.

  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?

  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…

  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.

  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…

  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.

  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.

  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!

  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!

  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…

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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!

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

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

    Moby Prick?

  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.

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

    Theo…you too. Does this make me easy?

  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.

  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. :-)

  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.

  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…

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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*

  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…

  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

  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!

  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….

  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

  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’.

  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?

  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.

  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**

  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.

  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.

  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.

  201. K. Z. Snow
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:45:01

    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.

    That’s what I meant by “ineptly rendered camp,” Jane. Something meant to be funny ends up being funny in an unintended way, or ends up being downright offensive . . . which, in a skewed way, is funny in and of itself (the degree of ineptitude, I mean, not the offensive content).

  202. EC Sheedy
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:46:58

    This just has to be repeated! Thank you, Cap’n Codpiece. Hilarious!

    _____________

    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.
    _____________

    And in conclusion, if the author of the piece didn’t know a codpiece was an article of clothing, did she think it was a bit of fish?

  203. A New Writer
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:48:31

    Jane,

    I totally agree. There are authors who can write dialogue that reflects the various ethnicities quite well. There seems to be so many things wrong with this book (from the excerpts) that I’m tempted to write to Ravenous. However, if this is how Ms. Hughes sees the world, and especially African Americans dialect, who am I to stifle creative freedom…obvious Ravenous had no problem putting this out for public consumption. And this is will be one more reason why I’ll continue to try to perfect my own multicultural writing. This isn’t a book, it’s a terrible joke.

  204. DS
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:50:12

    I have been told by a contractor that a nice verdigris affect can be achieved by urinating on unprotected copper or brass. I wonder how Lord Verdigris got his?

  205. Ruth Smith
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:50:30

    After reading this review and thinking about it for a while I decided to check out a few book sellers to see if there were any other reviews for this author and the book in question. Fictionwise.com has nine reader ratings and they are range from great to ok. Not one “poor” rating noted. Her other works had decent ratings too.

    Then I was really curious, because I’ve read a few books from ravenous, and I went over to amazon and checked out her books and the reviews there. They were all decent, too.

    I was also curious about how a few of ravenous romance’s other books faired on fictionwise and amazon, and looked up several. They all had decent customer ratings too. There were a few poor ratings for some, but that’s to be expected. One doesn’t sway my opinioin. Ten bad ones would.

    I haven’t read the book, but after this review I’m curious. And after reading the comments I had to double check to see if paying customers agreed. So far, from what I’ve read, there’s a huge gap between this review and what other people on amazon and fictionwise think. So now I’m going to have to read the book and decide for myself. You’re either right and everyone else is wrong, and I’m wasting my money, or you just don’t like this darn book at all :)

  206. JulieLeto
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:52:02

    Robin, I wasn’t trying to convince you of anything! I was agreeing with you!

  207. Ruth Smith
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:52:07

    After reading this review and thinking about it for a while I decided to check out a few book sellers to see if there were any other reviews for this author and the book in question. Fictionwise.com has nine reader ratings and they all range from great to ok. Not one “poor” rating noted. Her other works had decent ratings too.

    Then I was really curious, because I’ve read a few books from ravenous, and I went over to amazon and checked out her books and the reviews there. They were all decent, too.

    I was also curious about how a few of ravenous romance’s other books faired on fictionwise and amazon, and looked up several. They all had decent customer ratings too. There were a few poor ratings for some, but that’s to be expected. One doesn’t sway my opinioin. Ten bad ones would.

    I haven’t read the book, but after this review I’m curious. And after reading the comments I had to double check to see if paying customers agreed. So far, from what I’ve read, there’s a huge gap between this review and what other people on amazon and fictionwise think. So now I’m going to have to read the book and decide for myself. You’re either right and everyone else is wrong, and I’m wasting my money, or you just don’t like this darn book at all :)

  208. K. Z. Snow
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 18:54:51

    By the by, I do have to give RR props for its titles, which can’t be construed by anybody as coy: Dirty Hollywood, Blood and Sex, Sweaty Sex, Toast Bitches. They certainly have no qualms about putting it right out there, eh?

    Please excuse me for being tickled by this whole discussion. It’s been a while since I’ve allowed myself to feel superior, and I’m sure the opportunity won’t arise again anytime soon. :-)

  209. Anion
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 19:08:10

    Yes, Ruth, but how many of those positive reviews are posted by the author’s buddies?

  210. Ruth Smith
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 19:11:44

    I’m curious about that too, Anion. It’s not a great system at all, the way the reviews are set up. I really don’t know.

  211. DS
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 19:12:00

    Sooooo, did anyone else check the 5 star review for the Naughty Nurse book?

    This is a very funny thread.

  212. Robin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 19:12:26

    @Julie Leto: LOL! I was like ‘what the hell?’ until I went back and read my response to your post. I didn’t mean ‘you’re’ as in you, Julie, I meant it as an abstraction. Sorry about that! I was just sort of taking off from your example of “Curtis” to the whole issue of cultural critique. Geez, maybe Knight Moves has some kind of mind-bending properties, because I feel like I’m trying to talk through water, lol.

  213. time traveling knights go horribly wrong « Books to the Sky
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 19:17:11

    […] are just no words for this book, I think, but somebody found some. Jane at Dear Author reviews an erotic novel about a time-traveling knight and it sounds like it might be more awesome than some classics I’ve read (involving […]

  214. ev
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 19:19:48

    I am going to blame Smart Bitch Sarah for making sure I never, ever go into a men’s room at a concert again. No matter how badly I have to pee.

  215. Anion
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 19:20:14

    @Ruth Smith: I suspect most people with taste saw the excerpt for this and didn’t buy it, thus skewing the review sample to, um, people whose standards of good writing are not quite what ours are.

  216. Sandra Cormier
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 19:22:35

    @K. Z. Snow:
    The Toast Bitches was a title I had in my head before I ever heard of Ravenous Romance. It came from a group of women who spent their tea breaks making toast and torturing co-workers with the delectable scent. A male co-worker dubbed them “The Toast Bitches.”

  217. Elf
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 19:22:45

    Ruth:
    I definitely believe in checking things out for yourself if you aren’t familiar with the reviewer – not every reviewer is going to have the same taste as you, the reader. Just like all readers have different tolerance levels for different things; and Dear Author is a reader site for readers, not a ‘professional’ review site (and happy about it, I believe? I know I am :-)
    However, I just took a peek at the Fictionwise ratings, and the grand majority of the ratings for this book are “OK,” which is a two of four rating (above Poor, but below Good or Excellent). A majority “OK” review is by no means a recommendation. When I see overwhelmingly just-OK reviews, I avoid those titles as much as I do those titles which receive overwhelmingly “Poor” reviews. I think most people tend to avoid the lowest grade out of an urge to be fair (like, “it’s not the worst book I ever read”) or not-hurtful, at least.
    And note that Fictionwise requires you to purchase the title before you can review it. So these are reviews of folks that have shelled out and remembered to go back to their bookshelves to review. Just thought I’d clarify.

  218. Shannon Stacey
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 19:35:25

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

    Irrelevant at this point, but I stand corrected. My Samhain editor is listed.

  219. Denise
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 20:13:05

    There are just no words.

    I used to review erotic romance, but just had to stop because some of it was getting too painful and my risk taking was decreasing rapidly. (Now I just review certain authors and leave the rest untried. Sad, but true.) I’m wondering if some pubs or writers believe that it should all be sex, sex, sex… plot optional. And RELEVANT plot, truly optional.

    It would be nice to see a publisher grab the bull by the horns and produce incredibly high quality erotic romance with characters with depth, conflicts that evoke the reader’s emotion, plot that compels the reader to turn the page and sex that provokes passion instead of revulsion.

    OK, a girl can dream.

    Jane, thanks for the heads up. You truly took one for the team.

  220. K. Z. Snow
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 20:25:19

    The Toast Bitches was a title I had in my head before I ever heard of Ravenous Romance. It came from a group of women who spent their tea breaks making toast and torturing co-workers with the delectable scent. A male co-worker dubbed them “The Toast Bitches.”

    Ah, I get it, Sandra. Is it a British reference, then?

    I do love provocative titles. However, I also like to see some skill and substance behind them. (Please don’t take that personally. It’s by no means a comment on your book. I haven’t even read an excerpt, just noticed the title.)

  221. Shiloh Walker
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 21:00:22

    @Stevie:

    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…

    Oh, I’d disagree. Some cops might chuckle over a woman being in a man’s bathroom but it isn’t a crime. Some strange guy shaking his penis at me and inviting me to grope him is a different matter.

    Going into a bathroom is to pee isn’t really propositioning somebody-so that why shouldn’t a complaint be taken seriously?

    Although from what I can tell, you’re purposely taking an oppositional point on view on almost everything you can so I doubt your comment is worth much attention.

    If you need to argue your point of view, feel free, but when you take opposition to every last, little bitty detail-or the very big details of sexual harassment-then your viewpoints aren’t going to hold much weight.

    Perhaps I should say…especially when you take opposition to something like sexual harassment.

    One of the lawyers would have to clarify for me, but I’m pretty sure some guy flashing his penis at a woman and inviting her to touch it, regardless of where they are, could constitute as harassment.

  222. Shiloh Walker
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 21:02:46

    Crud. I just went and typed up a comment and now it’s gone…i think the spam filter is eating it.

  223. Cindy
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 21:12:07

    Oh. My. God. I suddenly don’t feel so bad about my writing. I’m feeling inspired now, lol.

  224. Shelli Stevens
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 21:24:47

    The pee dripping off the codpiece just kills it for me in a romance (erotic or not). And speaking of codpiece, the term is making me think of sex using fish and chips… greasy and gross. And I agree with this sounding like a male author posing as a chick.

  225. Sandra Cormier
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 21:53:49

    @K. Z. Snow:

    I guess you could call it a Canadian reference. Don’t they have toast in the States? Or is it the tea? :)

  226. Courtney Milan
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 22:03:54

    @Robin:

    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.

    I am not an editor, but I believe I could have rescued this book. One single line:

    “I’m sorry, but we cannot accept this for publication.”

    This is why I am *most* wary of Ravenous–their much-touted release schedule makes me think that even if they do get good authors, they’re going to be contracting people to write, lots, fast, and if quality is not delivered on the contract, they won’t have time to make their abundant release schedule if they say “no, sorry, not good enough.”

    Even if there are good authors, it is a flawed process to say the least.

  227. Anita C.
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 22:22:20

    “Gangbanger” is a racial term? Not my area of expertise, but I’ve never thought of it as having any ethnic overtones. Just a whole bunch of MALES behaving very badly.

  228. Robin
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 22:58:24

    @Courtney Milan: That may be the biggest laugh I had in this thread.

    @Anita C.: You’re correct in pointing out that the term “gangbanger” has connotations beyond race; it also refers to the perpetrators of a group rape.

  229. kirsten saell
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 23:12:11

    Just wanted to say, “disappointed” is not an adjective I ever like to see applied to genitals, male or female, in an erotic scene.

    And pee? So not sexy. Even “urine” or “piss” would be better, although as with pussy farts, I’d prefer no mention at all, thanks.

    All I gotta say is bluh. Poor word choice can take a potentially hot, dirty scene and reduce it to the level of a 10 year-old’s potty mouth. I don’t mind a little filth, but ffs, the quoted bits are about as sexually appealing as Peter Griffin of Family Guy fame.

  230. Catherine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 23:13:13

    1. gang banger 320 up, 70 down love ithate it

    Someone who is a gang member
    “Yo this guy is a gangbanger.”
    by Joel White Jul 19, 2005 share this
    2. gang banger 151 up, 161 down love ithate it

    1. someone engages in group sex, preforming it on an individual, and not on everyone.
    yo let’s you, me, and my boys go hit this broad off? nah, i ain’t no gang banger
    by oba Aug 9, 2005 share this
    3. gang banger 83 up, 159 down love ithate it

    some one who bangs(kills) gangster’s
    That fool over there killed someone from the crips, he’s a gangbanger
    by ice99 Feb 22, 2005 share this

  231. Catherine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 23:13:45

    From the Urban Dictionary. :-)

  232. Catherine
    Mar 05, 2009 @ 23:16:45

    I meant to edit out all the extraneous stuff, but accidentally hit ‘submit.’

  233. Kaetrin
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 00:29:20

    Great Review Jane! This definitely rivals “In ur ass saving ur life” (tm, Smart Bitches).

    @ Anon. I loved your reworking of the text.

    “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.

    Can we have some more please?

    Thanks also to Cap’n Codpiece. LOVED the reference to the “ill-mannered garden slug”!!

    As to the “spinning“. Sadly, I’ve been trying to picture it (what does this say about me?). From what I read, she was bent over the bench and he was standing up, yeah? So, did she kick Lord Verdigris in the face on every go ’round? Just askin’….. I’ve got the song “you spin me round like a record baby” in my head but it’s punctuated by pics of Lord Verdigris’ head repeatedly knocked backwards by Lady Louise’s flying feet. *snort*

  234. Bookdragon3
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 03:15:12

    My reading tastes are, shall we say, a trifle eclectic. (my spelling, however, sucks like a tornado, so my apologies in advance.)
    I’ve read romance, romantica, erotic romance, erotica, jerk stories, and plain old porn (among various other genres). Based on the above samples, this book makes even the most obviously one handed stories at Literotica look good. At least they put some thought into it. I’m not exactly sure Ms Layne was thinking. I’ve also read stories by male authors writing as alleged females: y’all owe them an apology. Laura London, Tori Carrington, and Leigh Greenwood NEVER wrote this bad.

    By the way, I think someone got gangstas and gangbangers confused. One could make the case that a bunch of alleged gangmembers talking in the weird words is an attempted racial stereotype. But gangbangers, in the assorted nasty writing, come in an assortment of ethnicities. According to the stories, all that’s needed are painfully large pricks connected to overfilled balls, and a willingness to stuff them in any available opening without regard to personal safety or survival.

    Shi: no, the cops and the courts don’t take invading the other sex’s bathroom seriously (witness the guy who sued over being humiliated when women invaded the men’s bathroom at a San Diego Charger’s football game. His case was dismissed.) Ex-Senator Craig is proof that it all depends on who hears you make the offer or who tries to take you up on it.

    DS: I think he got the name by dribbling on his brass cojones.

  235. Stevie
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 03:33:36

    Oh, I'd disagree. Some cops might chuckle over a woman being in a man's bathroom but it isn't a crime. Some strange guy shaking his penis at me and inviting me to grope him is a different matter.

    Going into a bathroom is to pee isn't really propositioning somebody-so that why shouldn't a complaint be taken seriously?

    Although from what I can tell, you're purposely taking an oppositional point on view on almost everything you can so I doubt your comment is worth much attention.

    If you need to argue your point of view, feel free, but when you take opposition to every last, little bitty detail-or the very big details of sexual harassment-then your viewpoints aren't going to hold much weight.

    Perhaps I should say…especially when you take opposition to something like sexual harassment.

    One of the lawyers would have to clarify for me, but I'm pretty sure some guy flashing his penis at a woman and inviting her to touch it, regardless of where they are, could constitute as harassment.

    It’s a gentleman’s bathroom.

    It is impossible to use an urinal without exposing the penis.

    Exposing the penis whilst urinating in a gentleman’s bathroom does not constitute ‘flashing’.

    And if you are going to object to the gentleman’s behaviour then I would have thought that abducting a woman, with or without a time portal, is a rather more important matter. But maybe that’s just me…

  236. Sir Fytte of Lampreys
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 04:45:28

    And such a clever title too. Knight Moves. Makes you think of intrigues, because knights in chess move in a funny way. And it sounds like Night Moves, which makes you think of sex, because that happens at night. Apparently. And the main character is a… hang on, he’s Lord Verdigris, not Sir Something Verdigris, which makes him a Baron or an Earl or something. Or maybe a Viscount. Perhaps he only dresses up, or down, as a knight to go time-travelling.
    I really want to read this book.

  237. Elle
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 06:44:18

    Those excerpts of her book were about the most terribly written things I’ve read in a long time-maybe ever. The prose, the scenario, the dialouge, the racial thing- the whole thing is 50 kinds of ridiculous. I went between laughing and cringing. My dad is from Philly but according to this author maybe not because ” he don’t sound like he no from Philly” sheesh. How the heck did this ever make it to publication? What an embarassment for RR.

  238. Jane
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 07:08:26

    @Stevie Yeah, I doubt that would rise to the level of any criminal act.

  239. Sir Fytte of Lampreys
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 07:23:22

    @EC Sheedy: It might not be fish, but she liked the smell…

  240. Anon
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 07:24:02

    Courtney Milan makes a good point:

    I am not an editor, but I believe I could have rescued this book. One single line:

    “I'm sorry, but we cannot accept this for publication.”

    I don’t know the frequency by which books are transformed completely by editorial hands, as Robin said, though I guess it’s not particularly common. Editors are more likely to simply reject the novel if it’s too problematic, even from “famous” authors (The Nanny Diaries writers’ second book springs to mind) and some famous authors will refuse editorial input entirely as their renown grows. (The reason why sometimes super famous authors’ books keep getting longer and longer.)

    Editors can sometimes be lifelines into a book’s problems, but they are more likely to say “XYZ is problematic” and then it is up to the author to figure out how to fix it. So it’ the author’s work, with the editor’s supervision and guidance. Same as any other industry, I imagine.

  241. Linda
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 07:43:06

    The um erotic content aside, (because my students don’t write about that so I can’t compare), I have read better writing from my third graders during our daily Writer’s Workshop.
    From the portions provided, this book is bad enough without even taking the sex into account, put the sex in there and it’s even more horrendous.
    There is nothing sensual or sexy about this – nothing erotic, nothing titillating, noting heartwarming. Nothing compelling in the story line.
    Not written well enough for purple prose satire.
    I’m usually a “whatever floats your boat” kinda gal as far as looking at books. What I like is not what my best friend likes and I don’t judge what she reads or the authors who wrote it. I’m glad for the variety so all can be happy satisfied readers. I’m not into ripping writers’ work apart. But this, this is so terribly written, terrible in design and execution, I couldn’t keep quiet.

  242. theo
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 08:25:09

    My comment must have been eaten by the spam filter so if this double posts, sorry!

    @Stevie:

    It's a gentleman's bathroom.

    It is impossible to use an urinal without exposing the penis.

    Exposing the penis whilst urinating in a gentleman's bathroom does not constitute ‘flashing'.

    I don’t know that anyone would disagree with the basic idea of a man urinating as not ‘flashing’ however, when he takes it, turns toward the woman, and shakes the pee off in her direction while making a lurid comment about how he knows she really wants to go for a ride on his codpiece (to paraphrase), I’m guessing that is.

    As far as the abduction goes, most are probably not considering it an abduction since she went willingly, but really, you’re talking apples and oranges there. She could have gone willingly through a phone booth with him too. Probably would have made for a better scene than the men’s bathroom.

    Well, no, never mind. It’s impossible to make anything in this book better short of burning it.

  243. Christina Cross
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 08:47:25

    Oh. My. Gawd.

    Nothing I can add to all of the comments above, but please let me thank everyone for the best belly laugh I have had in months. I was crying, hooting, snorting and basically making every noise except a queeb. Scared the HELL out of my dog.

    Jane, as others have already said, thanks for taking one for the team. I don’t think I could have made it past the bathroom scene.

  244. A New Writer
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 08:50:10

    Anita wrote: “Gangbanger” is a racial term? Not my area of expertise, but I've never thought of it as having any ethnic overtones. Just a whole bunch of MALES behaving very badly.

    *Anita, that is why I put in a previous post the choice of the writer’s (and I use that term loosely) dialect or slang for these particular group of males. Once she decided to use:

    “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 have to question why?
    Gangbangers come in many racial groups, so why the lousy, fairly ignorant dialogue? I hate to say this, but it’s almost Amos and Andy like. And it reads as someone’s idea of what that racial group sounds like to them. It’s demeaning and disrespectful, imho.

    Unfortunately, instead of being truly creative she chose a sterotypical speech pattern. Please understand, since others have already given responses on the other aspects that are so wrong in this book, I thought I’d post about this, since, for me, it was one of the top things I found sadly revolting about her excerpts.

  245. Jackie Barbosa
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 09:01:47

    @Courtney Milan: Totally agree, this does not sound like a book that could have been fixed by editorial input. Well, short of saying, “You can keep the toll booth supervisor and the fact that it’s her birthday. That’s not too bad.”

    Also, when I first heard of this publisher’s aggressive release schedule, I had exactly the reaction you did: How can they acquire enough high quality manuscripts to meet that demand? The answer would appear to be, they can’t.

    @Bookdragon3: I want to make it clear that I don’t think Jamaica Layne is a man writing as a woman, or that men can’t write good romances, because I don’t believe either to be true. What I meant was that it sounded to me as though this book was written by a woman to APPEAL to a particular type of (usually) male reader. Unfortunately, even on that level, I don’t think the book works, at least to judge from the excerpts.

    @K.Z. Snow: I want to have your babies. Captain Queebqueg is simply priceless.

  246. Anion
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 09:25:15

    Why do my comments keep disappearing?

    @Jackie Barbosa:

    What I meant was that it sounded to me as though this book was written by a woman to APPEAL to a particular type of (usually) male reader.

    And funnily enough, Jackie, this was one of the concerns Emily Veinglory and myself expressed when Ravenous first announced it would be opening; that they did not seem to have experience in the erotic romance ebook world, and therefore did not know what sorts of stories and content readers of that genre in that format expect.

    This is why we mentioned repeatedly that having experience in erotic how-to coffee table books/visual pornography did not and does not automatically translate into the ability to judge and sell written erotic romance of the sort that doesn’t turn people’s stomachs.

    It’s why we mentioned repeatedly that the owners of the company did not appear to have done ANY research into the world of erotic romance ebooks–one of the company’s principals didn’t even know that “Romantica” was a trademarked term as it related to or described erotic romance ebooks (it’s a trademark of Ellora’s Cave Publishing, for those unaware) and used it herself on her blog before being corrected. That’s the sort of thing even the most casual and basic research would reveal, so it was quite surprising.

    It’s why the excerpts from their first free story were brought up several times, with the point being made that they were not particularly graphic, erotic, or enticing, and were nothing at all like what the other companies publish–and not in a good way, but in a “Do they even know what the standards of the genre are?” kind of way.

    In other words, it didn’t appear they understood or had bothered to find out what it was readers want and expect from erotic romances.

    I’m willing to bet that none of the management at RR actually thought this was sexy and well-written; without putting down anyone’s kinks, I can’t imagine a woman who is turned on by a penis dripping urine or a publishing professional who thinks this is quality work. What I am willing to bet, though, is that they don’t have anything to compare it to, and figured readers would go for it simply because it’s “porn”; in other words, they don’t know what people normally get when they buy erotic ebooks, so they thought this must be it. Which is contemptuous of readers, which is what we said and thought back in the beginning.

    Having said all that, though, I do think it’s unfair to judge ALL Ravenous authors by this. I’m sure they have some talented writers who deserve better; I hope they find it.

  247. A New Writer
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 09:35:54

    I also see that the main character’s dialogue, to show just how “down” she is, decided to speak to the “gangbangers” like this (or should I say thusly)

    “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?”

    Verily, to add insult to injury, she makes this observation:

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

    *The slapping of hands is so old school. What are these gangbangers? Circa 1970’s or 80’s?

    “We always got time for a game o' Yo' Mama. Which one o' y'all gonna start?”

    Oh…there are no words. Yes, this is like some bad sitcom from the 70’s.

  248. Jackie Barbosa
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 10:29:00

    Anion wrote:

    …they did not seem to have experience in the erotic romance ebook world, and therefore did not know what sorts of stories and content readers of that genre in that format expect.

    I remember agreeing with the tenor of that conversation at the time, however, I also remember that Ravenous seemed at pains to say that they weren’t trying to entice the existing market of erotic romance/erotica ebook readers, but to create a NEW market. If this book is any indication, I’m guessing they were hoping to find at least some of that new market in consumers of men’s magazines.

  249. Stevie
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 10:32:55

    Yes, this is like the old sitcom's from the 70's.

    Well, it is a time travel book…

  250. Anne S.
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 10:42:12

    @ jackie

    From what I read and recall, RR is trying to go for the same market and using the same techniques as the NY pubs. They aren’t marketing toward the current established e-book buyer who reads Loose-id or Samhain. They do seem to be modeling themselves on EC, that’s for sure, including the emphasis on far-fetched sex, but EC has seen readership erode, in response to the content of recently pubbed books.

    If RR does it right, they will have the ‘new e-book reader’ market that used to buy print, and that could translate into huge sales. But they need the quality to get people to buy more than one book. And with Knight Moves they are not building a loyal readership the way they should. But if they get a million people to try just one book, then maybe it doesn’t matter… Go wide, not deep?

  251. Stevie
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 11:02:07

    …to paraphrase…

    I think if you are going to object to an author’s use of language you need to object to the language.

    In other words, paraphrasing is not an acceptable critical option, and since the heroine had already explicitly stated:

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

    before the knight swings his giant cock in her direction, it is difficult to see how we can successfully charge him with sexual harassment.

    He might have a slightly better case against her, up until the point when he says ‘“You look like a fair maiden in need of a good visit from the codpiece,” though a good lawyer might be able to argue that he was a poor victim from a simpler time, unused to the ways of a fast paced world, who was clearly deranged because of his inability to distinguish between a codpiece and what goes in it.

    Having sex with someone who is clearly deranged is a lot worse than sexual harassment, so I’m assuming we might be talking big bucks, and a long prison sentence, but since it turns out that the guy is a villain of the darkest hue his chances of successfully suing the heroine are pretty slim.

    That leaves us with only one question; does using a time portal to transport the heroine constitute an offence under the Mann Act?

  252. Jackie Barbosa
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 11:04:13

    Anne S. wrote:

    From what I read and recall, RR is trying to go for the same market and using the same techniques as the NY pubs.

    Given the degree to which the NY erotic romance/erotica market has been “seeded” with authors who got their start in epublishing, it seems more than a little absurd to ignore the established readers of the genre, whatever their preference when it comes to delivery format (paper vs. e). Which is why I was under the impression that at least part of their strategy was to entice people who didn’t read “traditional” ER/erotica to their books. And whatever else one can say about Knight Movies, the excerpts suggest that it would probably not appeal to the majority of traditional ER/erotica readers.

  253. theo
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 11:12:19

    @Stevie:

    Are you for real? Do you split hairs for the fun of it?

    Okay, how’s this? She didn’t (according to the punctuation in Jane’s example) say out loud that she needed to get laid. The knight on the other hand turned to her and verbalized his thoughts while he “jiggles his giant cock in [sic] direction.”

    There, not paraphrased. And still a lurid comment and flashing in my book of etiquette.

    That said, it really is too bad it’s an ebook. Would make a great bonfire.

  254. lil
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 11:14:30

    When did the Dozens become known as the “Yo Mama game”?

    I’m not up on slang as much as I used to be, but I have never heard it referred to as anything other than the Dozens, at least by the people who play it.

  255. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 11:21:26

    @lil: Why, that’s what clueless, racist white people who write bad epr0n call it. Because a person who has black folks talking like something out of Amos and Andy is certainly not going to bother looking into what the actual thing is called.

  256. Robin
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 11:37:35

    By the way, I think someone got gangstas and gangbangers confused.

    Yeah, but I’d argue it’s the author. Had she used “gangsta,” at least there would have been racial consistency to the racial stereotyping (or failed attempt at ironizing racially-loaded humor, whatever), for whatever that might be considered a virtue, either narratively or ideologically. Beyond that, I think anyone is going to be hard-pressed to argue effectively that there the word “gangbanger” is not overtly and overwhelmingly freighted with racial connotations, even if those connotations extend beyond young urban black men.

    Yes, this is like some bad sitcom from the 70's.

    At least many of those sitcoms were able to communicate a self-conscious irony in their use of racial stereotypes.

  257. SandyW
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 11:39:04

    That leaves us with only one question; does using a time portal to transport the heroine constitute an offence under the Mann Act?

    Well, if she ended up in a castle somewhere in Europe, they definately crossed some state lines. And there would appear to be plenty of immoral purposes.

  258. Robin
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 11:42:21

    And whatever else one can say about Knight Movies, the excerpts suggest that it would probably not appeal to the majority of traditional ER/erotica readers.

    Maybe they were going for Bob Seger fans?

  259. A New Writer
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 11:44:55

    To Anon Y. Mouse

    And also the Amos and Andy type play on intelligence with this exchange:

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

    ***Wait for it***

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

    ***Cue laugh track for the hilarity.

    As a reader, I wonder if Ravenous even cares if this old style joke could offend a potential group of consumers, not to mention other authors writing for the epub.

  260. Lizzy
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 13:17:41

    Based on how many people have commented on this thread and seem to be enjoying it, I think Jane and DA should make a special feature each week where they deliberately review the shittiest book they can find. The results are thrilling.

  261. lil
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 13:30:31

    Anon Y. Mouse wrote:
    Why, that's what clueless, racist white people who write bad epr0n call it. Because a person who has black folks talking like something out of Amos and Andy is certainly not going to bother looking into what the actual thing is called.

    That’s what I was afraid of but then, I thought – Hey, maybe that’s what the kids are calling the Dozens today. Maybe I am the one who is out of touch. Maybe the author is the one with the finger pulse on modern urban society.

    Heh, I’m kidding, of course. And I kid because it is so friggin depressing to read something like that and realize that not only does the author think it is a realistic depiction but that her editor and publisher must have thought so too.

    It’s not the pee or the codpiece or the lady-softness that will keep me from ever reading anything by this author. I’ve read plenty of bad romances filled with bad writing and redonkulous sex and gone back for more. But I just can’t stomach racist stereotypes. So Ms. Layne is on my list of Authors-I-Will-Never-Read-Because-They-Write-Bullshit-Ethnic-Stereotypes-And-Think-They-Are-“Keeping-It-Real.”

    And here’s the really sad thing. She’s not the first one to go on this list. In fact, there are a couple of popular authors on my list who are decent storytellers. They just have an unfortunate habit of defining their non white characters solely by their ethnicity.

  262. Jane
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 13:58:05

    @Lizzy Problem is that we don’t want to read the worst books out there. But someone did suggest to me privately to post a log of my DNF books but not identify the book by name, merely genre.

  263. Shiloh Walker
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 14:14:53

    It's a gentleman's bathroom.

    It is impossible to use an urinal without exposing the penis.

    Exposing the penis whilst urinating in a gentleman's bathroom does not constitute ‘flashing'.

    And if you are going to object to the gentleman's behaviour then I would have thought that abducting a woman, with or without a time portal, is a rather more important matter. But maybe that's just me…

    No, you can’t use a urinal without exposing a penis…but exposing a penis at a woman and inviting her to touch it sounds like harassment-NOT urinating.

    Some guy does that to a small boy, he can get arrested, yes? If he goes flashing it at another man and asking the man to touch it without any invitation, he’s likely to get his face smashed in. Some guy does that to me, I’d send his balls up into his throat.

    A man sure as hell CAN use a urinal without asking a woman to fondle him, that’s my point, I believe you know that, but you’re purposely being obtuse.

    I have to wonder why you’re being deliberately obtuse, though. Do you think it’s winning any points for the book, the author…?

    From where I’m sitting, all it’s doing is adding fuel to the fire (ie: your arguments are just more reason to laugh) and people are amused enough. But feel free to continue-it’s gotten very entertaining. Not sure if that was your intention, but I guess it doesn’t matter-we all need a good laugh every now and then.

  264. Jane
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 14:42:43

    @Shiloh Walker There’s a difference between legal harassment and being uncouth. This was uncouth. Legal harassment rising to the level of criminal behavior, this is not.

  265. Novelist
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 15:40:40

    I think this book could turn out to be the “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” of erotica.

  266. Lori
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 16:12:13

    So if one is a writer who had a piece rejected by Ravenous Romance would that be considered an honor? Or should that person pack away their pen for time immortal?

  267. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 16:18:54

    @Lori: I’d consider it a close call. It’s pretty clear these people don’t know the first thing about erotic romance. If you had something rejected from them count your blessings and submit to someone who knows the genre they’re trying to sell in.

    They keep claiming erotica is the same damn thing as romance. I’m still baffled by the complete cluelessness of a company who doesn’t understand that calling themselves Ravenous ROMANCE and labelling their stories as ROMANCE (which they do, just check out their main page and the descriptions under each genre caegory, everything is called such and such romance) and then selling porn and erotica and wank material (depending on which story you buy) is going to piss everyone right off.

  268. Kendal
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 16:38:00

    I’m pretty picky how and where I spend my reading budget. So sorry, Ms. Layne and RR is off my list. There is too much really good reads out there to take the chance on this writer (I use the term with caution) and this publisher.

  269. Denise
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 16:55:15

    After reading these excerpts and running for a bucket, I dragged my spouse in to the study so he could read and share the misery. Once he managed to pull his eyebrows down from his hairline, he stated very flatly “I’d bet money that’s a male author.”

    Who knows? Maybe so, maybe not. Either way, I applaud you, Jane. I don’t think I’d have the fortitude to read beyond the urinal scene.

  270. Jeanne Barrack
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 17:01:15

    Good thing I was warned before I started reading or I would have p*** my pants!
    Thanks for sharing…I needed a good laugh!

  271. Miki
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 18:34:46

    No, you can't use a urinal without exposing a penis…but exposing a penis at a woman and inviting her to touch it sounds like harassment-NOT urinating.

    I’m not trying to be argumentative or to feed the trolls, but…

    …if I walked into a men’s restroom (and didn’t scurry right back out), and a man turned a waved his brains at me, … well … I wouldn’t call that harrassment.

    Crude, yes. Juvenile, even (think junior high school boy). But I walked into his bathroom where there would be a reasonable expectation he’d be exposed. I think most women nowadays know that mensroom urinals are not in protected stalls.

    Maybe my opinions come from growing up with four younger brothers who had no trouble waggling their brains at me if I entered their territory (aka “bedroom”) unannounced…

    It would be different if he actually touched her – at all – but I’d put it in the same league as the stereotypical construction worker catcalling to the women walking by.

  272. Shiloh Walker
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 19:43:54

    Miki, it’s not the exposing-penises are exposed in a men’s room. Can’t pee without doing that.

    But asking a woman to touch it? Different story.

  273. Shiloh Walker
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 19:47:00

    @Jane: Understood on the differences, Jane~ thanks.

    Of course it still doesn’t change my opinion in the matter. A woman in a men’s bathroom is going to see a penis.

    Having a man ask if she wants to touch it is just an invite for that penis to be fed to him on a stick.

  274. Joyce
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 20:06:51

    This book was so badly-written that I can’t stop laughing.

  275. Jane
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 20:38:25

    @Shiloh Walker Still not a criminal act. Asking someone to touch it isn’t even an assault let alone a battery.

  276. Anion
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 21:03:16

    Legally harrassment or not, it’s a sleazy and repulsive thing to do; certainly not the behavior of a man I’d consider a hero in any way, shape, or form.

    And I’m definitely not someone who needs her heroes to be billionaire industrialists who give money to the homeless and don’t smoke or whatever.

  277. Dana
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 21:15:56

    I know I’m days late but your review seriously made my week. I’m actually laughing so hard I’m crying. Hell I might even get six pack abs out of this.

  278. Sonya
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 21:46:39

    And whatever else one can say about Knight Movies, the excerpts suggest that it would probably not appeal to the majority of traditional ER/erotica readers.

    Maybe they were going for Bob Seger fans?

    Hey now! Don’t go dragging Bob Seger into this hot mess!! LOL!

    :: Runs off to play “Hollywood Nights” on Guitar Hero::

    :: Must beat back the ‘sit and spin’ images ::

  279. Janine
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 22:13:48

    Based on how many people have commented on this thread and seem to be enjoying it, I think Jane and DA should make a special feature each week where they deliberately review the shittiest book they can find. The results are thrilling.

    I don’t know about Jane, but I’m not altruistic enough for that.

  280. kate r
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 22:36:31

    Anyone ever read Choke by Palahnuik? That has great sit and spin sex–very first sex scene in the book and it takes place in a bathroom as well. One of the best sex scenes I’ve read all year–by best I mean funniest.

  281. K. Z. Snow
    Mar 06, 2009 @ 22:40:37

    Wait a minute, wait a minute. Read what you’ve been writing here! Youse guys have actually, soberly discussed the behavioral abnormality inherent in and the legal ramifications of Sir Humpsalot swinging his schlong and flinging his “dazzling” droplets at a time-traveling ho! Look what this author has reduced you to!

    Reading this book is like wearing a perfectly coiled dog-turd turban on your brain.

    There. Done.

  282. Areader
    Mar 07, 2009 @ 02:19:34

    Good grief, I’ve read better stuff at literotica. I’ve read much better M/NC17 fan fiction.

  283. kate r
    Mar 07, 2009 @ 07:58:15

    Robin’s right: there must be something there for some readers. Over at fictionwise, where you can’t grade a book unless you bought it there, Knight Moves has 9 ratings and none of them are bad.

  284. theo
    Mar 07, 2009 @ 08:54:23

    @kate r: She has 9 friends? She bought books for nine people and they were so grateful not to have spent their hard earned money on it they thanked her for it by saying it was an okay book? Nine people got together at a bar and concocted this over drinks?

    Sorry, I’m sorry, but…come on…

  285. kate r
    Mar 07, 2009 @ 09:21:18

    ….and there are NO negative reviews. (Or there weren’t any when I checked.)

  286. Robin
    Mar 07, 2009 @ 13:56:53

    re. negative reviews: I am much more apt to leave a positive review than a negative one at sites like Fictionwise, not because I’m concerned about hurting the author’s feelings or anything like that, but because I’m more likely to want to expend the effort to leave feedback for a book I liked.

    In terms of KM, who knows whether friends or merely fans left the positives (at Fictionwise, all you have to do is hit a button, so it’s not so hard), but in general, I’ve yet to see a book get universal praise or pans. So even though I tend to see my own taste as unimpeachably perfect — ; ) — I’ve had to accept that not everyone shares it, lol. And let’s face it, you tend to see the most logically inexplicable splits in opinion on books aimed at the erotica/ER/pron markets (think of the fetish niche markets, for example, and what people are looking for there). I personally don’t get it with KN — I mean, did the author actually *think* that stuff was sexy when she was writing it?? — but I wonder if editors might acquire books on that same basis — that they don’t find it appealing, but someone sure enough will.

  287. Karen Scott
    Mar 08, 2009 @ 06:27:31

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

    You do know that with a click of your mouse, you can end the pain of reading comments on this thread, don’t you?

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

    YOU ARE ALL NAZIS, THE LOT OF YOU!, and you all deserve to be forced to read all of Jamaica Layne’s books, until your lady-softness sweats buckets of happy juice!!

    ALSO, YOU ARE ALL JEALOUS OF HER! You are! She has more talent in her little finger than all of you put together!!! SHE WRITES FOR RAVENOUS ROMANCE PEOPLE! THE BEST DAMNED PUBLISHER IN THE WORLD!

    and there are NO negative reviews. (Or there weren't any when I checked.)

    This is usually what happens when the writer herself, or her pals write the reviews in the first place.

  288. the erotic debate « Tripping Along the Stumbling Blocks of Writing
    Mar 08, 2009 @ 15:21:56

    […] course, the lines often blur. Based on the excerpts of a poorly written “erotic romance” in this review, I’d say it bordered more on porn than erotica or erotic romance. But that’s just my […]

  289. anonymous
    Mar 08, 2009 @ 17:00:18

    I would just like to say this book would never have been accepted at Phaze! Kathryn Lively would have torn it apart.

  290. Lex Valentine
    Mar 08, 2009 @ 19:24:52

    It’s really rather amazing that the same 80’s song popped into my head as did Jaci’s… or maybe not. The author’s words just brought that song to life. Oh, and E.M. writes well. She’ll do fine wherever she pubs, but I’m thanking my stars that I decided to wait and see how Ravenous did before subbing anything there. I think I’ll stick to the places I’ve been subbing to.

    Thanks for an entertaining review. I’m gonna go wash my hands now.

  291. mizzadamz
    Mar 09, 2009 @ 15:10:52

    When a man propositons me by saying I look a triffle “Ensconced”, then waves his pee pee at me I know that my roast beef curtians are not going to get moist.

    I must say I have gotten this to listen to, for the pure joy/ horror of it all and this little tidbit was more than my sides could take.

    I’m laughing so hard I hurt.

  292. needs to remain nameless
    Mar 09, 2009 @ 15:15:36

    @mizzadamz

    you’re kidding, right? how on earth did someone record this as an audiobook and not laugh his/her ass off? please tell us how it sounds!

  293. mizzadamz
    Mar 09, 2009 @ 15:22:04

    @needs to remain nameless:
    SHEER PROFESSIONALISM,
    I applaud Julia Duval, but I’m scared to learn how many takes it took to read this out loud.

    There is some interesting “accents” and a bit of acting (so it isn’t just straight reading) thus far it is good.

    But still can’t listen beyond the “You’re looking a triffle ensconced”.

  294. Seressia
    Mar 09, 2009 @ 17:33:54

    If all you know about black people you learned from watching BET or the evening news, you need to get out more.

    Black friends, don’t let your white friends write stuff like this. Please.

    But am I the only one who didn’t wonder:
    a) why white the white chick from Jersey didn’t know better than to approach some gangstas in Philly
    b) why she thought she’d get in good with them by trying to relate by speaking their language
    c) why they didn’t immediately get shot for approaching the gangstas and asking them to judge a game of “Yo Mama” Dozens in the first place?

    If you’re trying to keep it real, I mean…

  295. Kathleen
    Mar 09, 2009 @ 18:18:32

    Uh… you guys have made this a best-seller, according to Ravenous Romance’s twitterings!
    http://twitter.com/ravenousromance

  296. Anon Y. Mouse
    Mar 09, 2009 @ 18:23:02

    @Kathleen: Yeah, bestseller on *their* site. Which means precisely jack. I see all the time authors proclaiming to be best sellers who were, like, top seller on their tiny epub’s site for a day or two. If they’re not on one of the big lists, it really doesn’t count for anything to anyone.

  297. Kathleen
    Mar 09, 2009 @ 19:39:48

    Oh, I know that… I’m assuming that sales have gone up (however much that may or may not turn out to be) simply from everyone wanting it for a laugh!

  298. Carolan Ivey
    Mar 09, 2009 @ 20:32:41

    Catherine wrote:

    Cap'n Queeb?… Mutiny on the Booty?

    I'm sorry, I'll stop now.

    No, please. Don’t stop. Please don’t stop…

  299. A New Writer
    Mar 09, 2009 @ 21:03:38

    Seressia wrote:

    But am I the only one who didn't wonder:
    a) why white the white chick from Jersey didn't know better than to approach some gangstas in Philly
    b) why she thought she'd get in good with them by trying to relate by speaking their language
    c) why they didn't immediately get shot for approaching the gangstas and asking them to judge a game of “Yo Mama” Dozens in the first place?

    Seressia, I know those very questions entered my mind. But another one to ponder is while reviewing this ebook for submission, if this passage did not raise any flags (or any other passages of this sort). What does it say about how the overall company views errors or badly written sections in a book.

    Do they believe there are none?
    Or as long as something’s submitted, its good to go?

    Perhaps there are no quality controls actually set in place at Ravenous, and its quantity first. That would be a shame, because they may have writers able to produce a real jewel of a novel. It’s too bad they have to share space with this poorly written ebook.

  300. Nonny
    Mar 09, 2009 @ 21:37:00

    I had a story at one of my pubs that was a “best seller” when it had sold about 25 copies.

    Just sayin’.

  301. Eirin
    Mar 10, 2009 @ 00:51:04

    Hmm…

    I can’t find this “bestseller” on Amazon. Must be on the secret list.

  302. Seressia
    Mar 10, 2009 @ 11:08:47

    A new writer said:

    Seressia, I know those very questions entered my mind. But another one to ponder is while reviewing this ebook for submission, if this passage did not raise any flags (or any other passages of this sort). What does it say about how the overall company views errors or badly written sections in a book.

    And this is why I won’t be able to buy a book from this company. I cannot trust that they won’t put out something else so widely viewed as offensive and stereotypical.

  303. P!
    Mar 10, 2009 @ 11:37:07

    Denise wrote:

    Once he managed to pull his eyebrows down from his hairline, he stated very flatly “I'd bet money that's a male author.”

    That was my take on it too. All comparisons to Penthouse Letters aside, I’ve perused the authoritive tab at Nifty and this bears a striking resemblance to 98.7% of what I’ve seen there.

  304. Chloe
    Mar 10, 2009 @ 20:05:32

    I read both Penthouse Letters and Penthouse Variations, and based on the exerpts posted, I have to say that I’ve never read anything as bad as that in all the many issues I’ve read.

  305. Mai
    Mar 11, 2009 @ 21:56:57

    Will it go ’round in circles… Sorry, that spinning thing is still making me giggle. And Cap’n Codpiece and KZ and Catherine – y’all are just too funny!

  306. mdon
    Mar 12, 2009 @ 00:47:06

    Louise is barely phased by the travel

    Fazed. FAZED! Christ, look it up. If you’re going to rag on bad fiction (a noble calling to be sure), get thine own house in order first.

  307. mizzadamz
    Mar 12, 2009 @ 04:42:58

    @mdon: I think it may have been a pun, using tachyon to time travel and all that.

    If it wasn’t; it should have been then it would have made the review all that more punny. (And truthfully more in keeping with the book there are mistakes like this through out the ENTIRE thing)

  308. Romance Novels « The Life and Times
    Mar 12, 2009 @ 16:22:29

    […] { March 12, 2009 @ 5:22 pm } · { Uncategorized } Today, some of us wasted their time by nearly having an asthma attack from laughing so hard at romance novels. I saw some terrible things, but nothing quite as terrible as this. […]

  309. Aim
    Mar 13, 2009 @ 11:04:59

    This, Twilight… they’ll publish anything now a days won’t they?

    I feel like handing a crayon to a six year old and telling them to write a story and then getting it published; seeing Knight Moves and Twilight, I’d say it will.

    But this review had me in tears! I laughed, I cried, it was better then Cats.

    This is so awesome and definately made me laugh, and made my day. I’m putting this on the top of the ‘Books to Avoid’ list for sure!

  310. aninsomniac
    Mar 14, 2009 @ 02:36:49

    Just to add some information, Knight Moves was the name of a movie released in the 90s starring Christopher Lambert (aka the orig Highlander guy) and had a plotline involving chess and serial murders. I loved it when I first saw it and thought Lambert was a total hottie.

    Also, anyone who has read the book can tell something about the other knight? The one whom the female-prota falls in “love” with? If he is as one-dimensional as Knight Codpiece, I would feel very insulted on behalf of the menfolk.

    And if anyone waves their “codpiece” at me, I’d hit it with my chastity belt surely.

    (And I say chastity belt because I don’t know any other undergarment that women wear that is made out of metal. Anyone knows of any?)

    -anin

  311. Jen
    Mar 14, 2009 @ 06:03:45

    Dear god …
    I have read some zane, various romantic fiction, erotica and even that slippery slope of fan faction which involved erotic stories occasionally written by people who have never had sex or a decent dictionary.

    But I have never read anything close to this level of tongue in cheek horribleness. Maybe she was trying to push for the worst book she could possibly do? Or maybe she was just trying to fill pages?

    I thought romance is suppose to make you sigh over the perfect love on paper and erotica is suppose to deliciously entice and titillate you. This didn’t even make me laugh … it made me cringe. And wonder if ebook publishers really have no writing standards?

  312. kr
    Mar 14, 2009 @ 06:34:19

    according to a bunch of tweets over at twitterdom, Ravenous Romance was interviewed by the New York Times yesterday about ebooks. Huh.

  313. Eirin
    Mar 14, 2009 @ 06:37:37

    (And I say chastity belt because I don't know any other undergarment that women wear that is made out of metal. Anyone knows of any?)

    Clearly, you’re not familiar with Chicks in Chainmail :)

    I pity the man who waves his codpiece in their vicinity.

  314. SuzieQ
    Mar 15, 2009 @ 10:33:33

    Just read this through a link on a friend’s blog and can’t stop laughing. Ravenous Romance? Sorry, this just makes me want to upchuck. Setting a new standard for erotica? Only if it’s at the bottom of the barrel. To be honest, I rarely read erotica. There are only so many ways to describe body parts and the sex act and keep me interested. After hearing all for the hundreth time in two chapters, I’m bored. This author didn’t even come close–sorry, no pun intended. Jane, you are a hero to reviewers everywhere for having the guts to read this nonsense to the end.

  315. Kai
    Mar 16, 2009 @ 22:18:10

    Just for The Sake of Science, I copied and pasted all of the excerpts into the Gender Genie. The Gender Genie believes that the author was male.

  316. M. Jules Aedin
    Mar 17, 2009 @ 08:22:51

    @Cap'n Codpiece: Oh my God, I think I love you. If I weren’t solely interested in my own sex (and really, irresponsible fister Mabel, no self-respecting lesbian would touch that…) I would be propositioning you. As it is, would you like to go out for beer and wings sometime? The conversation would be awesome. ;)

    And I have one more thing to point out: Dear Author, not only was O nowhere near being a dominatrix, but The Story of O is not something on which to base responsible BDSM. IIRC, and I may not as it’s been years, O begs for death at the end.

    Kind of like I think Jane was close to doing with this review.

  317. LaTessa
    Mar 17, 2009 @ 08:49:31

    This is the FUNNIEST thing I have read this year. Oh my goodness, I am literally crying laughing, and my co-workers think I’ve lost it. My concentration is now shot for the day.

    This books looks and sounds sooo bad, that I think I may be compelled to buy it, just so I have a game plan of what NOT to do in my own writing.

    Seriously, I need this laugh today. I have shared this link with my critique group, so they could get a good laugh as well.

  318. Random Traveler
    Mar 17, 2009 @ 19:03:54

    @Stevie

    Kudos to you, sir. Successful troll is successful.

    After reading the review and the first set of comments, I up and bought the audiobook ($13?!) to enjoy with my friends. We know of no better way to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day than to sit down with a few brews and listen to horrible “romance” audiobooks.

    My initial listening has left me very much impressed with Julia Duval. Kudos, kudos, kudos to her for having the wherewithal to actually voice the whole thing.

    Time to go; chapter 4 awaits!

  319. Layla Aaron
    Mar 19, 2009 @ 10:19:32

    *blinks* *snickers* *blinks again* *chortles*

    After a brain-melting day at work yesterday that has carried over into today, I needed the laugh from this. As a writer aspiring to be published, this helps on many levels. As a reader, I am morbidly fascinated that something like this is available for purchase. As a former newspaper copyeditor, I’m mortified that something like this is available for purchase. Will I purchase it? Only if The Welshman and I want to piss ourselves laughing. Based on the few excerpts, the sex is far from erotic and the gangbanger racial caricature saddens me.

    Thanks again, Jane, for the much-needed laughter.
    ~ Layla

  320. ifunew
    Mar 19, 2009 @ 22:59:17

    Well, if this wasn’t the worse book you have read; try J Pop Love Story by Shiree McCarver. You know it’s bad when the author screws up their plot line and can’t even spell her characters’ names properly half the time. J Pop had the potential of being a great story… I just wish someone else had written it…

    As for Knight Moves, I’m 99.999% sure (as Maury says) that your review is much better than the book… I won’t waste my five bucks, that’s two and a half gallons of gas…

    Thanks for the for the laugh :)

  321. jake
    Mar 20, 2009 @ 14:49:38

    Hello first of all I am a male librarian and I also order books for our collection my collection development participation involves the bodice rippers. This particular genre was “thrust ” upon me by my now few years retired assistant manager she thought it would be good for me. So I have read some of the bodice rippers for “collection knowledge”
    I have read certain euphaminisms for certain portions and parts of the body. Typically for the woman it is floral allagories “lady softness” is a new one to me, too bad the lady softness could not have been “coupled” with the “manly turgid hardness” but oh well where is ” Nora Roberts when you need her?
    But on a great author to read for modern romance try Vicki lewis Thompson and her “Nerd Series” they are fun to read and yes steamy and an enjoyable read.

    Just one question for the ladies here responding..if a guy was to seduce a woman for her pleasure.. tell me would he want to read a few passages from this book?
    That was a joke there.. not even serious..

  322. spuffyduds
    Mar 20, 2009 @ 16:09:53

    Wow, I’m glad the author specified that it was a disappointed cunt-queeb. Otherwise I might have mistaken it for an ennui-laden cunt-queeb, or, you know, one of those cunt-queebs that’s meant to express a sort of existential despair at the inevitability of mortality.

  323. Jacqui
    Mar 21, 2009 @ 08:26:55

    I laughed so hard I cried. literally tears came to my eyes. this is the worst piece of writing I have even seen. How can this even get published?

  324. Dents to my wallet, Neil Gaiman, and review snark « I ♥ Paperbacks
    Mar 22, 2009 @ 11:52:43

    […] The lovely people at Dear Author have recently reviewed two books that I will not be reading anytime soon. Go there, read the reviews, and try not to […]

  325. Links « Stuff
    Mar 25, 2009 @ 03:57:06

    […] I started a new book over at bookbitching, so if you want to drop by, you’re very welcome to. It’s the exciting story of a cruise ship tycoon, his mistress and their twins. [And that might be my next book.] […]

  326. Cobalt Praetorian
    Mar 27, 2009 @ 12:46:40

    This “author” – and I use the term loosely, at best – has set a new gold standard for drek… a task not easily accomplished.

    I can write better than this with one hand tied behind my back and my eyes closed… which I would guess it what this woman was doing if she thought this was even halfway decent.

    You deserve serious respect for finishing beyond the first few paragraphs, much less the whole thing. I would say keep it for posterity, as a lesson to show how NOT to write, but I’m afraid it would corrupt everything else on your shelf!

    I also have to wonder if at some point this woman didn’t look at this “writing” and say “Seriously? I get paid to do this? Woohoo!” because there is no way I can believe that someone ostensibly smart enough to use a computer to write this would think it was at all even marginally decent.

    Good grief; I weep for the state of literature.

  327. Julie
    Mar 28, 2009 @ 10:20:59

    I actually bought this book before your review came out, and I think it was one of the most horrible things I’ve read in any genre.

    Since I’d only recently started reading erotica and erotic romance, there was a scary moment when I wondered if this is what most of the books were like, and I’d just gotten lucky on the first several I bought!

    Glad to know it wasn’t just me.

  328. Random Traveller
    Mar 28, 2009 @ 11:27:06

    Wow. That is… a winner.

    However, you said, “If this is not the worst book I've read, it comes close.”

    I was recently told of another novel that may be even worse than this. Give it a go:
    http://vandonovan.livejournal.com/1088311.html
    It’s amazing what gets published sometimes.

  329. Lori
    Mar 28, 2009 @ 11:45:51

    I was recently told of another novel that may be even worse than this. Give it a go:
    http://vandonovan.livejournal.com/1088311.html
    It's amazing what gets published sometimes.

    Sweet, baby Jesus. That is, indeed, hideous. My eyes are burning.

  330. Rave
    Mar 30, 2009 @ 02:50:38

    Oh dear God. Anyone know if e-books qualify for the Bad Sex award? :D

    Random Traveller: That is indeed hideous. And I thought I was bad for dipping into purple descriptions for my own amusement…that guy went beyond dipping and used the whole entire pond. Yeesh.

  331. Claudia
    Mar 31, 2009 @ 11:27:21

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

    I can’t stop laughing about this. The mental image makes me cringe and burst out into hysterics.

    I’ll rather stick to Joanna Lindsey.

  332. Johnny B Goode
    Mar 31, 2009 @ 20:15:08

    @MissInterpreted:
    Please! As a former 14-year-old boy, I can tell ya, that’s WORSE.

  333. Fer-de-Lance
    Apr 03, 2009 @ 00:16:42

    What disturbs me most?

    The fact that, by the time I reached the sentence, “His erection is enormous – pointing at an almost 90-degree angle up towards his chin – and his glans is sweating buckets of happy juice,” I was actually relieved.

    I was starting to think the author seriously believed that “codpiece” meant penis, rather than an article of clothing penis is kept in. It was like some kind of bizarre clothes-kink; I kept expecting the narrator’s “panties” to start throbbing.

  334. MJones
    Apr 04, 2009 @ 15:02:57

    I really want to say something witty and interesting, but I’m laughing too damn hard, and it’s making it difficult to type.

    Codpiece? I always thought that was a wig made out of fish scales.

    Thanks for the laugh!

  335. szaleniec
    Apr 07, 2009 @ 09:50:31

    “Queeb” sounds like an 8-bit video game sound effect. If my partner’s genitals make a noise like that I’m out of the door as fast as I would be if I found someone who actually finds this dross a turn-on. And the rotary shagging? No, just no. I have better things to do when having sex than be kicked in the head every 360 degrees.

    Speaking of degrees, wouldn’t it be a 180-degree angle if it’s pointing at his chin? My back hurts just thinking of the position you’d have to be in to have your dick pointing at your chin at a 90-degree angle. This isn’t just IKEA Erotica, it’s IKEA Erotica that didn’t follow the assembly instructions.

  336. There are no words… « Are you me?
    Apr 08, 2009 @ 13:44:28

    […] 8, 2009 For how awful this book […]

  337. Amanda
    Apr 08, 2009 @ 14:03:16

    I’m going to guess this book was satire. No?

    Well, shoot. I got nothin’.

    Wow. Just…wow.

  338. Kat
    Apr 10, 2009 @ 10:54:52

    First, Random Traveller, thank you SO much for that link. Now we know what happens when you combine Viagra with LSD and then try to write about the naked female form…

    Second, OMFG. I write, not published yet, but I do write. Mostly fanfiction, granted, but also some original stuff. And I’ve turned out some really terrible stories in my time. Craptastic sex-scenes and utter crack!fic sometimes. I’m quite ashamed to have produced some of it sober (and reasonable ashamed to have produced some of it NOT so sober). But none of it comes close to this… whatever this is, ’cause it ain’t a book and I can hardly bear to dignify it with even the title “story”. If I sent anything HALF this bad my Beta’s way, she would print it out, roll it up, and smack me upside the head with it. And rightly so. I don’t know what editor let this get past them, but they need to be taken out back and shot.

    But this review and the responses to it have really made my day :) I have some GREAT mental images to play with, a new-found aversion to Ladyfingers (“Survivor Type” is, btw, one of King’s finest — most disturbing — works in my mind; it GETS to you), and a certain song stuck in my head. I’m fairly sure that the “spinning top” technique is an almost certain recipie for penile fracture…

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

  339. Katie
    Apr 10, 2009 @ 10:57:35

    Ya know, “Knight Moves” was the first RR book that I bought. I read through the post and comments about RR that eventually spawned *this* post, and was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, assuming that the books couldn’t all be like this, so I’ve been trying their free shorts/free books, seeing if I could find something that I like.

    The free book today is the first in a series – they’re trying to entice you to buy the other two. Fair enough. I buy lots of erotic romance e-books. But even this book that they are featuring is riddled with editing errors. Keep in mind that this example is simply the one that made me give up the book. There are verb tense errors, malapropisms, grammar and punctuation errors, etc. all the way through. Got to this one and I was done.

    About 1/3 of the way through, he started “lathing” her breast. “After lathing one breast until her nipple…”

    “Lathing” works two different ways – a lathe is a machine that rotates and cuts away parts of wood or metal, the kind of tool they use to make table legs. Ouch. Lath is a building material (usually just a strip of wood) and lathing in that context is “the act of applying lath.” Ouch again. And no, this isn’t an S/M book. Pulled me right out of the story.

    RR, I surrender. I don’t think it’s necessarily Knight Moves, as bad as that is. I think it’s RR.

  340. Katie
    Apr 10, 2009 @ 11:04:08

    OMG. Now he just lathed her clit. OUCH! I’m closing this file right now. Really this time.

  341. Labluegirl
    Apr 13, 2009 @ 02:46:07

    OMG!!!!!!

    Truly this is, well words can’t express, how much I have laughed at this horrendous book. Hell, I’m going to have a t-shirt made:

    “My hubby plays with my Lady Softness, and its soooo good”

    Rofl…….. The husband is not amused at Lady softness, however I can’t stop laughing or using such a ridiculous moniker for my privates. That and “queeb farts” pretty much takes the cake. Self publishing is the only way to go with such a pile of dog poo.

  342. Alex
    Apr 18, 2009 @ 00:35:08

    OH JOHN RINGO NO!” Except this stuff is so bad it makes John Ringo look like great literature; it’s really down there with this garbage.

  343. Nora D.
    Apr 19, 2009 @ 16:23:21

    So, I work in a bookstore, and I have to admit, I love the romance section. It’s fun, especially the historical.

    That said, Romance seems to attract some amazing writers, and some horrific ones, and I enjoy the aweful writing almost as much as the good ones, although not for the same reasons. I don’t think I’ve ever read something quite this bad, though.

    Wow.

  344. Lisa J
    Apr 29, 2009 @ 22:29:46

    I dont know what to say but thanks. Seriously, have NOT laughed like that for sometime. I sure hope that Ms Layne has another day job….

  345. Dee
    May 24, 2009 @ 09:16:21

    I’m a little late to the party but what the hell. Now that my laughing has subsided, and since I am a man. I have another discrepancy to point out.

    If a man shakes the urine out of his wicked wonder, he would have urine on more than his hands. It would go everywhere. Unless his faceplate was up, it might even land in his mouth and hair. I can’t speak for all men, especially knights from an unknown century and location, but I squeeze the urine out like squeezing a tube of toothpaste.

    Then again TP hadn’t been invented yet.

  346. Mark
    May 27, 2009 @ 00:38:59

    @laura: It doesn’t sound like it was written by a man. It sounds like it was written by a teenage boy.

  347. D.D.
    May 30, 2009 @ 00:24:16

    Well then, Jane I tip my hat to you. I really do.

    As a fantasy erotica/romance writer, I can’t help but find this amusing. Oh goodness. Oh dear, Louise. I am sure you jump into teleporting urinals every other weekend. That is the only way you can make sense of her selfless act. The woman was a really giving person. I mean, to just throw her self into prostitution like that (which means she was a complete whore and considering she didn’t even charge money, she was also a dumb whore). That takes a piece of your heart that not any sane woman could give.

    Really, it warms my heart to know that there is someone writing things even worse than me. Of course I am going to purchase the book. To read it? Not even if all the seven hells united and decided to become a world filled with butterflies, cotton candy and ice cream. No, no, it is there for me to stare at on my bookcase. So whenever I am feeling a bit down, I can look at it and say, “Well, damn. I’m fucking Stephen King.” And continue my writing.

    Haaa.

    So, again, I tip my hat to you.

    Sincerely, Your Mysterious Stalker.

  348. gin
    May 30, 2009 @ 09:03:25

    @elissa21: Aren’t published works of fiction supposed to be moderately readable? fail.

  349. Beth
    May 31, 2009 @ 10:48:28

    There are no words to describe just how much this made me laugh.

  350. Vener
    Jun 03, 2009 @ 17:18:59

    You’d think with the amount of times she uses the word “codpiece,” she’d at least know what it meant. Which is most definitely not a penis. I quote: “a flap or pouch that attaches to the front of the crotch of men’s trousers to provide a covering for the genitals.” Although it has something to do with genitals, it is not one.

  351. The Writer’s Life « Twenty Palaces
    Jun 11, 2009 @ 00:02:14

    […] here’s a NSFW review of some time-traveling erotica. Um, yeah. Has to be seen to be […]

  352. Amy
    Jun 15, 2009 @ 11:28:07

    Wow. It’s as bad as the people on audible said it was (yes, someone wasted time to record this story). Awesome.

    The phrase “steal this book” never seemed more appropriate.

  353. How not to write a romance « Yet another tentacled thing
    Aug 11, 2009 @ 09:08:19

    […] Queeb. […]

  354. Destinee
    Aug 18, 2009 @ 21:52:15

    Ma’am, you are hilarious. I almost want to buy the e-book just to see how bad it gets. However, it does not appear to be the worst book I would ever read. Read any book by CT author Jean Marie Rusin. She has a romance novel out, Love Lust Sex Pleasure. I have not read that one yet, but I have read a few others, including Father and Son Hobby Shop, Dreams Do Come True: Gary Joe Story. The latter book made myself and my co-workers laugh so hard we couldn’t even speak.

  355. Terry Karney
    Aug 25, 2009 @ 13:54:34

    OH MY GOD!

    She wan’ts his codpiece? She is into fucking pieces of clothing?

    The mind reels.

  356. hamletta
    Aug 25, 2009 @ 23:36:30

    Oh, my.

    I guess I’m late to the party, but damn!

    I’m left kinda wondering if this author has ever had sex, at all.

    I’ve never known my labia to flap. Have I been missing something all these years, or am I unpatriotic?

    Color me confused.

  357. rea
    Aug 27, 2009 @ 07:52:27

    You know, Sponge Bob did this plot better:

  358. OK
    Sep 22, 2009 @ 16:08:08

    Ahaahahhahhahaha. Oh. my. god.

  359. Ecliptor Calrissian
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 22:06:54

    All I can say is…

    Someone. Got. Paid. MONEY. For. This.

  360. Jane
    Oct 07, 2009 @ 22:56:23

    @Ecliptor Calrissian yes, this is true.

  361. Noah
    Oct 18, 2009 @ 12:46:32

    I’ve seen the “14 year old boy’s wet dream” argument used near the top of the comments. Let me just say that I was a fourteen-year-old boy once (I’m nineteen now) and none of my squickiest desires could possibly live up to this shite.

    I just sort of stumbled on this site through TVTropes, and while I don’t intend to read this sort of thing, even the good ones, I like snarky reviewing. This was an excellent review, Jane, keep it up!

  362. Kittypie070
    Jan 01, 2010 @ 22:52:13

    I’m…..

    I’m, I’m, I’m…….

    Bumfuzzled.

  363. Mel
    Jan 10, 2010 @ 12:33:21

    @Shae:

    Codpieces were developed to cover the join in hose when doublets shortened, so guys wouldn’t be hanging out and shocking people. There’s no solid evidence for any syphilis connection, and knowing 16th century reenactors, I think it’s doubtful–a codpiece sits on the abdomen, well above a guy’s junk.

    That said, as a euphemism for penis…I don’t know WHAT.

    But I’m still stuck on “queeb”. QUEEB?!

  364. REVIEW: Knight of My Dreams by Delilah Devlin | Dear Author: Romance Novel Reviews, Industry News, and Commentary
    Jan 16, 2010 @ 12:01:15

    […] After reading this book, I am vowing not to read another book with “Knight” in the title. Knight of My Dreams was suggested to me by a friend and I had heard that you appeared on several ebook bestseller lists. From the opening chapter, I knew I had found a book that might rival my other favorite Knight story. […]

  365. “Let me count the ways.” «
    Jan 24, 2010 @ 11:11:50

    […] purple prose comes from this, the funniest book review I’ve ever seen. I dare you not to giggle when “lady […]

  366. Lorelei Sikorski
    Feb 02, 2010 @ 11:40:58

    This sounds like a man wrote it and is using a female pseudoname. No real woman would use these euphamisms to describe her body parts, especially the “C” word. This can’t turn any real woman on. What a crock!

  367. Feliz
    Mar 24, 2010 @ 13:55:22

    Hallelujah! I think you can’t do worse than with this book. Thanks for the review, Jane, wonderfully snide.

  368. Glen
    Apr 04, 2010 @ 15:12:24

    I laughed ’til I coughed out a lung. This is so on my want list now.

  369. Katie
    May 08, 2010 @ 17:10:10

    Just for the record… yeah, the spinning top thing is NOT a good thing to do to a man. An ex-boyfriend and I tried it once. Got halfway and he was almost in tears from the twisting. Never again!

  370. june
    Aug 07, 2010 @ 14:47:48

    @rebyj:
    I actually bought this book through itunes. I had to take a road trip alone. I put this in the last few hours and it was hysterical. The reader reads like a comedian. She made it as if it were written as a Mel Brooks play. I have to say I was entertained and lol for those last few hours of the trip. The thought did cross my mind as I was listening “she’s making fun of ER” and it made me laugh even harder! It takes a good sense of humor to find this far fetch fantasy worth listening to because it cant possibly be anything other than a comedic joke geared toward all of us that read romance and erotica. I bought it because Ravenous audios through itunes are $10. For the price I wasn’t disappointed because it got me through a long day behind the wheel and made the time fly by. I had no other expectations with the purchase other than a Historical Romance (not).It should be advertised as a comedy so you know what your getting. The cover needs to be changed to something like “Fiona and Donkey” from Shrek…Well, maybe not Donkey but you know what i’m getting at.

  371. mizging
    Nov 04, 2010 @ 13:20:22

    “Mabel plunges her arm into me well past her wrist…”

    OMG,if this was supposed to turn anyone on, I think it missed the mark. Gives a new vision to “tickled my tonsils.”

    Thanks for the laughs, Jane. You did a wonderful job

  372. Jane
    Nov 04, 2010 @ 14:29:04

    @mizging It’s kind of an amazing book if you think about.

  373. What are you reading right now thread - Mortal Online Forums
    Apr 22, 2011 @ 05:36:09

    […] thing I've ever read, truly. Anyway, here is a piece of literature we can all appreciate: http://dearauthor.com/book-reviews/r…jamaica-layne/ All I can say is "codpiece" and "squeeb" __________________ Formerly known […]

  374. Verdie
    May 10, 2011 @ 08:08:09

    This never gets old!

  375. Jane
    May 10, 2011 @ 09:54:41

    @Verdie Have you read the Gingerbread Tryst review here or the Pleasure 2035? Two words: nipple USB

  376. Alhazred
    Dec 20, 2011 @ 13:49:42

    I’m convinced Jamaica Layne is a psuedonym for 4chan.

  377. EVENT: Raunchy Romance Storytime 2012 - Transcript
    Mar 10, 2012 @ 10:14:07

    […] genre can produce some godawful prose—moist channels, nubs, turgid manhoods and, my favourite, lady-softness—romance also includes some of the most heartbreaking and emotionally exhausting books that I’ve […]

  378. Self Publishing. Unleashing the illiterate to the world. | Louise Order Sewell
    Nov 18, 2012 @ 10:17:22

    […] here is just about the best of the worst reviews I’ve ever read. Truly the concept of self […]

  379. LucianiFan
    Apr 02, 2013 @ 15:39:07

    I have seen many weird and wonderful words used in erotic fiction (is it wrong that I want a tee-shirt with the word Mancarrot written on it?) but Queeb is just… Indescribable. What does a disappointed Queeb sound like?
    Though I have to say, Volcanic Crotch sounds like a great name for a band.

%d bloggers like this: