But, hey, I’ve never given Doctor Who a try and now I definitely will. Thank you! :)

As for the other discussion re: homosexuality and feminism, how fascinating. You commenters are the reason that this is a fun place to visit.

Glad to be of service, Jane! Thank you guys for providing such a great site and such insightful reviews.

And re: Nicole and the Mahabharata; I think that was such a neat idea to use these tales as the basis for some of the events of the book. I love reading historical romance that takes place in different parts of the world, about different histories (other than the U.K.) and different cultures. I learned a little about the Mahabarata when I took a Religions of the East course and now I’m tempted to go brush up on it before reading this book. Great creativity! :)

And Chicklet thanks for the Whoiverse round up. I need to catch up with Sarah Jane Adventures. The others I have watched– all out of order of course.

I wanted to shoot the writers of Torchwood when they decided to pull an almost complete 180 on their main character for the new season.

I interpret Jack’s turnaround as a function of his dealings with The Doctor from Doctor Who. Jack was introduced in the first season of the DW and spun off into Torchwood. He’s always been presented as bisexual and in his earliest appearances on Doctor Who was extremely outgoing and charming. However, at the end of Season 1 of DW, The Doctor (and Rose) unknowingly left Jack behind, thinking he was dead (he always revives, due to science-fiction technobabble. *g*). At the beginning of Season 1 of Torchwood, he had been living/dying/reviving for more than 100 years, trying to reunite with The Doctor and Rose, while watching every friend he made grow old and die. So he was rather dark through Season 1 of Torchwood, but at the end of it crossed back over to Doctor Who and had his reunion. As a result, he was much happier in Season 2 of Torchwood — more like his previous, Doctor Who, self. It’s not a function of his character’s sexuality; it’s a function of the character’s interactions with other characters.

Because of all of the crossover between Doctor Who and Torchwood (and the Sarah Jane Adventures, too), I recommend watching the entire “world” of the new Doctor Who, which started in 2005. There are things you miss if you watch only one of the shows. (To get the full effect, the viewing order should be: S1-2 of Doctor Who, S1 of Torchwood, S3 of Doctor Who, S2 of Torchwood, S1 of Sarah Jane Adventures, and then S4 of Doctor Who. All of these are available from Netflix for easy rental.)

Thank you for your reply to my comment and for sharing your thought process here. Now that I see where you’re coming from, I totally agree with your approach.

As for the other discussion re: homosexuality and feminism, how fascinating. You commenters are the reason that this is a fun place to visit.

The authors (and the editors) hope that the readers who recognize the influences will be pleased to be able to enjoy the story on an additional level, just as we hope that readers unfamiliar with the source material will be able to enjoy the story on its own.

I love this approach. It’s a lagniappe for a reader who does know, an Easter egg, perhaps. For the readers who don’t, they aren’t made to feel inadequate for not knowing the source material.

Hi Nenena, your question is a good one and one that the author and myself had to really think about while writing the front matter for the book.

We considered whether or not to make some note about the various homages to the Indian classic text, but, after looking at other books that are homages to older stories, like Shakespere and Biblical stories, we realized that no one ever does that. The authors (and the editors) hope that the readers who recognize the influences will be pleased to be able to enjoy the story on an additional level, just as we hope that readers unfamiliar with the source material will be able to enjoy the story on its own.

We were also both concerned that Ms. Amara story not be construed as a retelling of the Mahabharata, since the ending and ultimate meaning are completely different and we wouldn’t want to be thought to be misrepresenting a holy text from a living religion.

BTW, kudos to you for having enough familiarity with the Mahabharata to even be able to make this comment. I knew nothing of it before beginning my edit of this text. I’m glad to have come to know it, though.

Cheers,

Nikki

PS– Thank you so much for your review, Jia!

Although I didn’t like the way that Ajani was portrayed, I think it’s important to point out that she was one of two important women in the book. The other was Suraya, who really wasn’t demonized or stereotyped at all. And in fact, Suraya had a lot more screentime, so to speak, than Ajani did. In terms of characterization, Suraya was pretty much all-around awesome.

I think my problem with Ajani’s portrayal is not so much that she was demonized or stereotyped, but that she was just tossed aside by the narrative. I wasn’t bothered by the way that she appeared to cling to Keshan – after all, she was his wife, and she was starved for attention and affection. Her reactions seemed perfectly natural and sympathetic to me. She was just as much as stupidly head-over-heels in unrequited love as, say, Tarek was. I don’t think she came across as irrational, either, but rather sometimes she was just plain clueless. (She wasn’t so dumb that she didn’t realize that Keshan was sleeping around, though.) What *bothered* me about Ajani, though, was how nonchalantly the narrative treated Keshan’s abandonment of her. Never once did Keshan, whom we’re supposed to be rooting for, really stop to reflect on how he was treating his wife. At *most*, it was Jandu who actually pointed out that he was “stealing” Keshan, and only once, and that particular line of thought was quickly abandoned and never taken up again.

I disagree that Ajani’s “ugliness” was used by the narrative to justify her abandoment. Because I don’t actually see any of that ugliness. Her character came across as realistic and sympathetic to me. But, the casual way that Keshan abandoned her still rankles.

Definitely. Such stereotypes are found in straight literature too, but I try to avoid them no matter where they are.

Definitely agree with you there, Susan. I’ve always felt the gay movement is such a strong ally to feminism because they’re both based on the idea that we cannot be defined by or denigrated for our gender or sexual orientation or shoved into narrow, stereotypical categories. And then artists or even people who call themselves feminists and pro-gay turn around and start pulling these negative stereotypes out of their ass and it’s so ridiculous. Not to mention counter-productive.

I wanted to shoot the writers of Torchwood when they decided to pull an almost complete 180 on their main character for the new season. I didn’t see the first season but my mom did and told me about how impressed she was that they made the main character gay (or revealed that he was at the end of the first season). Not only that, but his character also sounded very interesting. He’s the head of this secret extra-terrestrial organization, immortal and the other characters don’t know much about him; he’s the mysterious, dark, brooding type. And then viewers learn that he once had a lover who died and they shared a romantic waltz at the end of the season and… then this season rolls around and he’s suddenly cracking jokes, and smiling affably, and I swear to God… acting flamboyant! I want to kill whoever came up with the decision to change his personality because I strongly suspect it’s because they decided to make his character gay at the end of last season.

Just grrrr!