lutra, I suggest you google Moff´s Law.

Then we had all of those choppy sentences. I like flowing sentences, so that turned me off too. They felt incomplete to me and jerked me out of the story. Once I discovered it was the next month, I was stalled in the middle and only taking it along to doctor appointments, I gave up. The customers at the store and people on message boards are raving. I would have probably have given it a D if I had forced my way through.

And why the hesitation about living together? If you’re going to fuck him like a bunny then you’re already swimming in sin, ya know?

my. sentiments. exactly.

Alright, so I’ve read book #1 finally (Logan), and it seems quite similar in the ‘wholesome’ family, let’s make babies kind of way. Also Logan is RETIRED rodeo, and there’s not a hint of the rodeo life that I so badly wanted to see here. I also was bummed that all the beautiful descriptive language used in the first third kind of goes away and then the stuff with her ex gets weird and at times I couldn’t figure out all her reasoning.

Yes, yes, yes. I wanted to see this too. I’m on a rodeo kick lately which is what initially got me interested in trying Dylan’s book. I ended up feeling like a child promised a treat that ultimately didn’t materialize.

It hit a few hot buttons – including the ‘insta-love’ (engaged within week or two) because… she wouldn’t want to live with him out of wedlock. She’ll bang him on his couch after a few days of knowing him, but living ‘in sin’ would be wrong?

I hate insta-engagement. Insta-lust I can believe in but being ready to commit my life to someone I’ve just met? Ummmm, no. Give me a little while to get to know his quirks and life views. And why the hesitation about living together? If you’re going to fuck him like a bunny then you’re already swimming in sin, ya know? At least living together would show you’ve got a tentative committment.

Thought I’d mention as I appreciated the freshness of this approach and know these kinds of books tend to be few and far between. It might be worth a look for those interested.

I hope if you read it that you review it here, because I’d love to read your thoughts.

It hit a few hot buttons – including the ‘insta-love’ (engaged within week or two) because… she wouldn’t want to live with him out of wedlock. She’ll bang him on his couch after a few days of knowing him, but living ‘in sin’ would be wrong?

Despite some snark-attack moments though I did like it, and of course some of the unresolved plot lines (who trashed Briana’s place? Will the brothers buddy up??) have my fingers itching to see this trilogy through.

I also would have liked more closure on the relationship between Jim and his ex-wife who seemed to be moving a bit toward reconciliation.

So we don’t even get that? WTF? Then why even hint at that in book 2? Sigh…I would have been looking for that when I read book 3.

What I’d be interested in knowing, from the authors, is if they’re getting pressure from the publishers to include marriage and kids in their HEAs…

I do recall that in the discussion of one of Jane’s reviews, more than one author said she had been pressured by editors to include children in the story because that’s what the readers want. I can’t remember which review it was off the top of my head but I’ll poke around tomorrow and see if I can locate it.

I get that, because I’ve read books that basically said that if you choose to stay home with your kids and not pursue a huge career, then there is something wrong with you and I’ve bristled at that. So, if you are being told your choice is wrong you will bristle too. It’s not the kids per se, it’s the attitudes surrounding them in the book. Just like I don’t mind women having high powered careers, but just don’t tell me there is something wrong with me if I don’t aspire to that.

That’s awful too. I have two friends who are stay at home moms. That’s what they wanted to do and I’m thrilled for them that they can do just that. Putting someone down for a choice they made about their life just makes no sense to me.

I can skip baby filled, overly goopy epilogues if they annoy me and be fine with the knowledge that a couple is having them and are over the moon when the children arrive in their lives. But…and this is what really got me in this book, I don’t want to be judged as being bad, sad, pathetic, insert whatever negative word you care to, because I don’t have children and don’t want them. And that was the feeling I got from this book. Plus the fact that Dylan’s ex-lover who doesn’t want their child became a negative character.

Miller could have taken her and portrayed her as a woman who wasn’t cut out to be a parent, realized it and did the right thing by signing over custody to Dylan and Kristy who will love the girl and be great parents. Instead, Sharlene becomes a shallow, money grubbing whore who – seemingly – thoughlessly gives up her child for cash (after having milked Dylan for money througout the child’s life so far).

As for the Sheriff thing, in the first book, there was this dire psychic warning to Logan (I think) to stay uninvolved in the election, and it seemed like there was going to be some confrontation regarding more racist elements of the community. The events that caused the other guy to drop out didn’t seem to warrant the way the warning was framed, so it didn’t really make sense to me. I also would have liked more closure on the relationship between Jim and his ex-wife who seemed to be moving a bit toward reconciliation.

Edited to add: On Amazon, the third book is getting brutal ratings. I think some of the reviews are a little on the hysterical side, but I can’t say I really disagree with the overall ratings. I read it because I’m a “clean your plate” kind of gal – it’s hard for me not to finish a series, but I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

we are destined to burn in hell if we don’t want to become mothers.

Whoa! Sorry someone ever made you feel that way. That thought process is scary!

I get that, because I’ve read books that basically said that if you choose to stay home with your kids and not pursue a huge career, then there is something wrong with you and I’ve bristled at that. So, if you are being told your choice is wrong you will bristle too. It’s not the kids per se, it’s the attitudes surrounding them in the book. Just like I don’t mind women having high powered careers, but just don’t tell me there is something wrong with me if I don’t aspire to that.

Thanks for explaining it to me. I don’t know why I didn’t see it like that before because that makes total sense to me now. I must have been undercaffeinated earlier! LOL

Tracey: It’s a concern for me because I’ve started to see a resurgent trend in contemporaries for the HEA to include marriage and kids. I kind of feel like we’re starting to backslide into the 50’s, where a woman’s worth (in Romancelandia anyway) is strictly weighed on her marriage and number of children. While that may NOT be the norm of the people reading romances, and maybe not even romance authors, I think it still behooves us to discuss the issue, because it’s there; or at least picking up steam.

What I’d be interested in knowing, from the authors, is if they’re getting pressure from the publishers to include marriage and kids in their HEAs…