I recently got hooked on Lynn Viehls Darkyn series, and I think it’s a similar deal with Brooks. For that series I had the first two and gave up. I went back re-read them and now I’ve gobbled up the rest!

As readers I think we sometimes get used to a certain set of rules, and then someone comes along and turns those all around. I love it!

Still, her world-building is unique and her characters incredibly complelling. I agree with you that an A or A+ book is certainly something to be expected in future.

I have to completely agree with Janet’s assessment of the genre. It’s unfortunate, but I feel that the editors are pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence. Or perhaps the authors feel that all you need is some artifical conflict and a boatload of testosterone to make readers happy.

I think that the issue that MB had with DA was that certain explanations and conversations lacked clarity, to the point that I had to stop, re-read, think for a moment and then it hit me what was going on. I don’t mind having subtexts in a book that need to be mulled over at a later date, but I feel that I shouldn’t be confused by the flow of a conversation.

“…Demon Moon is a credit to the genre, a smart book that illustrates how possible and potent it is to have an intellectually rich book that is still emotionally passionate and sexually hot.”

I couldn’t agree more with the comments on how spot on this review is. I also agree with the comments about Ms. Brook assuming her readers are smart. I actually love that about the book. Rivieting, complicated, intense, I couldn’t put the book down. Great review Janet. It captured my feelings perfectly even the flaws.

http://romancereadingmom.blogspot.com/2007/05/demon-moon-by-meljean-brook.html

A friend of mine read Meljean’s book and said that Meljean starts with the premise that readers are smart and that we can follow the bouncing ball. Sometimes, the ball gets away from her and us but as she grows as a writer, I feel like we will all solidly be in the same place.

I recently read an historical by an established author, and that book was downright painful to read, from awkward writing, to inconsistent copyediting, to contradictory characterizations, to artificial conflicts, to a love story as deep as a puddle. Sometimes I feel that Romance has become so filled with shorthand that it’s like reading Romance mad libs. I know that sounds harsh, but when I read a book like DM I get mad all over again at what has happened to the genre as a whole and how little is expected of readers these days. I understand that not everyone wants to ponder the nature of the universe when they read. That’s fine with me. I know that sometimes Brook’s prose is opaque and somewhat clumsy, which has turned some readers off (and made them feel like deep is being confused with unclear). I can see that. But as you said, Jane, just the way Brook weaves the memories of Ramsdell and Emily through the story, the loss Colin suffered, the parallels between his relationship with Savi and Emily’s relationship with Anthony — it is just one more layer in an already multi-dimensional book. I. Want. More. Romance. Like. This. PLEASE.

I realize what bothers me about “paranormal� romances–the back to basics or back to the cave instinctual recognition of life partners function in lieu of plot and character and relationship development.

Speaking of caves, look who crawled out of hers! Yes, your point is just another example of what I call Romance shorthand, and with shorter and shorter page counts, more frequent releases, etc. it’s become the norm, IMO, and I truly think it’s injuring the genre.

I thought those were particularly deft writing touches, making the memories of Ramsdell and Emily so much more than just filler but actually providing foreshadowing and layering to the book.

I agree that there was probably too much talking but I would so much have the clever dialogue than the ham fisted hand of the author directing my thoughts thither and yon as if I don’t have a brain in my head.

A friend of mine read Meljean’s book and said that Meljean starts with the premise that readers are smart and that we can follow the bouncing ball. Sometimes, the ball gets away from her and us but as she grows as a writer, I feel like we will all solidly be in the same place.

Ro and Janet, you are both so insightful on the character of Savi. It was hard to pinpoint just what I liked about her so much but she did feel very modern, very of this age without being too l33t or as if the author was trying too hard to portray a modern woman.

Savi was a perfect match for Colin. One thing that I liked was that I never doubted, for a second, the desire and longing the two had for each other and that provided such great tension as the story moved forward.

After reading your review and the thoughtful comments of Aoife et al, I realize what bothers me about “paranormal” romances–the back to basics or back to the cave instinctual recognition of life partners function in lieu of plot and character and relationship development. I think that MBs first book takes no shortcuts and I’m looking forward to reading this one.

Thanks for a wonderful (as usual) review.

Rosario: I really like what you said in your review about how Savi is a combination of modern and traditional; it’s so rare, IMO, that heroines, especially, are allowed to be multicultural, multiracial, and super smart to boot. For all of Savi’s issues, she’s not a neurotic nutcase (the tradeoff for being super smart in Romancelandia) and perhaps that’s partially because of her grounding in her mother and grandmother’s cultural traditions. She’s not super self-conscious about it, but her Indian culture is very much a part of her daily life, even as she’s functioning at an incredibly high level of technological savvy (hah: Savvy — Savi).

Tara Marie: Have you read DM yet? I know you’ve been busy with Romantic Advances, but I’m looking forward to your comments on the book, too.

After I wrote my review I went around reading everyone else’s, and I love all the things people have to say about the book. It’s a complex enough read that everyone has taken a little bit different approach and talked about some different aspects of the novel, which is rare, IMO. Jaci Burton, I think, commented on the “hip” writing, and I have to say that I had a moment of reflection on how nice it was to read a book that was really modern in its writing but not schmaltzy or over the top. DM really reminded me of how much I crave more Romances that build solidly on those “old fashioned” elements of plot and character and relationship development.

Janet, I think this is one of the best reviews I’ve ever read. Thanks for helping me see many things about the book in a different light (and isn’t it great that DM is complex enough for that?)

My exact thoughts–great minds Rosiaro

Your review really did justice to Demon Moon, and I hope it inspires a lot of readers to give this one a try.