saw it as distraction (total focus elsewhere, lol),

Okay, I’ll have to give you that, as far as the scene in the truck goes. Though I would argue that she was both distracted and going all in. *snicker*

And I forgot to mention. This:

She’s not shy about telling Ben what she likes in bed which happens to turn Ben on.

“Happens to”. Ha.

Is one of the funniest things I’ve read today. Poor Ben.

I’m totally enjoying this conversation, because it never occurred to me that Molly was clutzy. And yet, of course, there are a few incidents of clutziness in the book. I think, for me, it’s more about her not being careful with herself, if that makes sense. She just goes all in, physically. (Though not emotionally.)

Robin, what do you think?

I saw it as distraction (total focus elsewhere, lol), but I get how someone can see it as klutzy because of the pseudo-slapstick quality to some of the moments.

But in any case, it certainly doesn’t indicate lack of intelligence or shallowness to me. As Jane reminded me earlier, one of the reasons Molly’s driving her Mini around is that she’s waiting for the truck dealer to give her the deal she wants. And then, of course, once she knows Ben hates it, she kind of revels in it, lol. But again, IMO that comes from a kick-back response to those who underestimate her.

If klutziness makes a woman too stupid to live, then someone dig me a grave!

Ha! Add one for me. I’ll fall in.

I’m totally enjoying this conversation, because it never occurred to me that Molly was clutzy. And yet, of course, there are a few incidents of clutziness in the book. I think, for me, it’s more about her not being careful with herself, if that makes sense. She just goes all in, physically. (Though not emotionally.)

Robin, what do you think?

When I’ve read a klutzy heroine, I’ve seen it used as a way to show the heroine as real and human and not perfect and maybe a little uncomfortable in her skin. I wish I could think of a good example now, but my mind isn’t working. I personally have never written a klutzy heroine. But then, I don’t write humor.

I know humour’s very subjective. I really don’t think I’d find it funny to read about someone who’s physically clumsy. In fact, I’d probably feel concerned rather than amused if someone kept tripping up or dropping things. If it came across as slapstick, however, it would neither make me laugh nor make the character feel real to me. It’s probably yet another area where different people can have very different reactions to, and interpretations of, the same scene, and a lot will also depend on an individual author’s skill and how they depict the character.

(and FWIW, Molly knows what she’s doing with that — it’s intentional, a costume, a shtick). It’s a bit ironic, really, because so much of Molly’s character is about (intentionally) daring people to see beyond the surface, lol.

As you say, that does indeed seem ironic.

in romanceland I have the impression that a lack of perfect coordination sometimes gets used as a way of showing that the heroine is cute but/and needs someone to look after her, which sometimes ties in with her being TSTL and needing to be rescued by the hero.

Which is ironic, because Molly’s one of the most independent heroines I’ve come across in a long time. IMO you could argue that this trait gets her into a situation she can’t control (which is part of why I would give TMD a B+ instead of an A-range grade), but I have a really hard time seeing the TSTL argument for Molly. I like Julie Leto’s distinction regarding the woman and the burning building, because it highlights the difference between illogical idiocy for the sake of comedic effect or conflict and errors/mishaps/bad decisions that anyone can make given the right set of circumstances.

There’s definitely a point in the book where I became frustrated with Molly’s stubbornness, and I can see a strong argument against this plot point. But what accounts for Molly’s shallowness in the AAR review? I get the sense that it isn’t really her decisions as much as her sexual forwardness and showy, sexualized exterior (and FWIW, Molly knows what she’s doing with that — it’s intentional, a costume, a shtick). It’s a bit ironic, really, because so much of Molly’s character is about (intentionally) daring people to see beyond the surface, lol.

in romanceland I have the impression that a lack of perfect coordination sometimes gets used as a way of showing that the heroine is cute but/and needs someone to look after her, which sometimes ties in with her being TSTL and needing to be rescued by the hero.

When I’ve read a klutzy heroine, I’ve seen it used as a way to show the heroine as real and human and not perfect and maybe a little uncomfortable in her skin. I wish I could think of a good example now, but my mind isn’t working. I personally have never written a klutzy heroine. But then, I don’t write humor.

So it’s rather more subtle than the RT comment Dahl reported, in which the heroine was referred to as “a dog in heat,” because someone who hasn’t read the novel isn’t going to know what is or isn’t being “yanked totally out of context.”

I wondered how the reviewer had reacted to other books, but as I haven’t read enough of the same books, it’s not really possible for me to spot any patterns. I did notice that she didn’t much like Crusie’s Crazy for You and said that “I just did not get a feeling that Quinn liked Nick as a man – actually I didn’t think Quinn liked men as men. She just was not all that comfortable with ‘guy things’ like sports (come to think of it, all the men in the story who were involved in sports were real Neanderthals).”

Molly’s general klutziness was in no way indicative of her intelligence or common sense (when did perfect coordination become indicative common sense?)

It isn’t in real life, but in romanceland I have the impression that a lack of perfect coordination sometimes gets used as a way of showing that the heroine is cute but/and needs someone to look after her, which sometimes ties in with her being TSTL and needing to be rescued by the hero.

The scene sounds funny to me, too–and very believable.

I think that TSTL label gets thrown around a whole lot more often than it should, IMO. If a heroine runs back into a burning building to save her Prada handbag and her Gucci shoes get caught in a grate, making the hunky fire-fighter hero attempt to save her, but she fights him off because his sooty hands will ruin her Caroline Herrera suit, then yeah, she’s TSTL. But honestly, if she’s running out of the burning building and her heel gets caught and she can’t undo the clasp on the shoe before she passes out from smoke inhalation, then no, she’s not.

The fact of the matter is that women are bitches to other women. We judge each other much more harshly than we judge men, which is why this character’s sexual confidence is probably rubbing some reviewers wrong, IMO.

Because just to take the example of the siren — they were in Ben’s truck, and she was, well, in the throes, and I’m not sure how that scene could be chalked up to stupidity, unless we are in the habit of giving IQ tests in the midst of the big O. While you’re in a cramped truck. That has all sorts of controls for sirens and lights and you have two working arms. Anyway, I thought the scene was funny, and that it was intended to be funny. And that Molly’s general klutziness was in no way indicative of her intelligence or common sense (when did perfect coordination become indicative common sense?). I frankly expected the last line of the review to read ‘if Molly weren’t so sex-starved maybe she’d be smarter.’ JMO, obviously.

Re AAR and RT: ARE THEY KIDDING??!!

OMG I get so FRUSTRATED when a smart, sex-positive, well-composed book gets these kinds of reviews. And it’s not just the grades, either, but the rationale. *deep breath*

The rationale the AAR reviewer gave was that in her opinion the heroine is “Not only [...] shallow, but she comes across as not very bright either.” When I read that, I assumed that the reviewer meant that the heroine was TSTL, which is a fairly common condition afflicting romance heroines. One of the examples the reviewer gave, of the way the heroine “accidently turns on [the hero's] car’s siren” gave me the impression that perhaps the heroine was one of those clumsy heroines who keeps knocking things over, and that that was part of why she could be considered TSTL. You’ve read the novel, though, Robin and from what you say, it seems as though you think the AAR reviewer’s using the words “shallow” and “not very bright” as codes for something else. Is that right?

Honestly, every time I see a review that is like, “F minus minus! The heroine LIKES SEX and KNOWS IT!” I want to immediately buy the book.

I have also spread the word: http://www.loveromancepassion.com/to-do-list-save-the-world-win-a-contemporary/

OMG I get so FRUSTRATED when a smart, sex-positive, well-composed book gets these kinds of reviews. And it’s not just the grades, either, but the rationale. *deep breath*

Well, they’re wrong, wrong, wrong. WRONG (shakes fist and stutters in irritation).

Oh, I so hope Dahl outsells all the 4 star DIK books either site reviews (well, except for the ones I like, too ;) ).

so it’s either love or hate, and not much in the middle, as far as reviewers go?!

Interesting! I’d be interested to know ages on the reviewers and upbringing/political outlook to see if there’s a correlation.

But I’m still taking AAR off my Twitter. Don’t cross me, ladies, or you will feel my Twitter wrath.

Courtney, it’s not true! I’m still writing historicals! In fact, I am up to my ass in deadlines right now. Historical novella out with Kensington this February. Full length historical out in August. Another novella in September. Then there is the 2nd contemp out in July. And a contemp novella in June. Basically, I’m trying not to go into the light at this point. *g*

But one more time… THANK YOU, DEAR AUTHOR!!!

I’m very much looking forward to her contemp, but I also love her historicals. :(