Another rec: I’m really liking Kelly Hunter’s M&B Moderns. They are published here as HPs, so you may already have read them. I just reread Bedded for Diamonds, which is the second in a series, and liked it as much as the first time. The first was pretty good but fell apart for me in the later stages, plotwise. I’m still keeping the third of the series in reserve. I think Lynne Connolly reviewed Hunter’s latest at Sybil’s place and liked it a lot.

@Liz Fielding: I’ll have to pick up The Ordinary Princess. I did see some initial similarities (and convinced myself it had to be related when her name was “Annie”).

I also think that Fielding does aristocratic/rich/famous heroes and heroines particularly well; they conform to the HMB requirements but they have a lot of depth and richness of characterization.

I’m glad you enjoyed it.

I just saw this “If literature can’t manage to drag a reader away from trashy romance novels, that’s certainly not the reader’s fault. It’s literature’s fault.” This is a direct quote and I saw it here: http://www.therejectionist.com/

And I’m posting it here and spreading it around because I think it’s time romance lovers showed these types what we’re all about. One romance writer already left a comment about the Princeton Symposium, setting this guy straight. Be nice if a few more did, too.

The blog post also mentioned a decline in book reviewers.

Sorry for hijacking this way, but I thought romance readers and writers might be interested. But I did read your the review and I liked it…

I’ll be sure to check this one out.