Cynthie Taylor gets a job acting in a big motion picture alongside Jack Turner-Jones. Things are great except that Jack is a dick and they have to fake a romance to promote their film. Thirteen years later, Cynthie is in a bit of a career crisis after the director of her previous film creates a scandal around her. The solution: have another fake romance with Jack and make a sequel to their wildly successful first film.
Interesting characters: Sure. I like these two, actually. This is a rare romance where the male lead is more developed than the female lead. She's a bit flat and I don't get her motivations, but Jack's past and motivations are super clear. Their banter was fun, too.
Believable conflict: Yes, for sure. This is a series of miscommunications that could (and should) be talked out, but since that's not going to happen, all the misunderstandings make sense. I mean, would I let this go on for thirteen years? Probably not.
Emotional tension: Eh. I mean, no. Let's be honest. They're both hot for each other and I never really felt like there was a potential for them to NOT get together. However, it was a fun read despite this lack.
Happily ever after: Yes! This was great. There's not random pregnancy or marriage. They're both just happy with each other and with how their careers are going. Perfection in an ending to a romance novel.
In general, I thought this was a good book. The dialogue was a particular high point. But I am over romances about rich people. Decisions about careers and where to live do not feel particularly fraught when it doesn't really matter if either person ever works a day in their lives again. I understand that a lot of people want to read about rich people and rich people's romantic lives, but the stakes of this felt really low to me. No one was going to lose their home if the job didn't work out.
This is maybe a larger critique of the romance novel industry. I want books about regular people going through regular things, but finding that love wins in the end. There are some authors that do this well (Carrie Ann Ryan regularly writes about blue collar families), but most of them do not.
Regardless, this was fun. 4/5 stars
Lines of note:
Surprise, surprise, Jack Turner-Jones is a very experienced rider who looks incredible on a horse. Apparently, it's one of many skills his parents deemed necessary from a young age. These, I have discovered in the last couple of weeks, also include fencing, speaking fluent French, and playing the violin.
This is quite a contrast to the special skills that Hannah and I mastered in our early years - performing a flawless Macarena; being able to play Britney Spears's "Toxic" on a recorder (self-taught); knowing all the words to "The Real Slim Shady." (page 97)
This is what it's like in my house. My husband golfs, plays tennis, and studied Latin. I can sing every song to you in the Bon Jovi and Garth Brooks oeuvres, get the smell of skunk out of dog fur, and discuss the merits of various crop rotations depending on soil.
"I love that film," I exclaim. "I went to see it four times at the cinema."
"Wow," Brooke says, solemnly. "I wish I could have seen it on the big screen, but it came out the year before I was born." (page 223)
Thing I looked up:
architrave - (in classical architecture) a main beam resting across the tops of columns, specifically the lower third entablature
So this led me to look up entablature - a horizontal, continuous lintel on a classical building supported by columns or a wall, comprising the architrave, frieze, and cornice
So what's a lintel? - a horizontal support of timber, stone, concrete, or steel across the top of a door or window
Confused? Here's a picture.
Hat mentions (why hats?):
pulling off the hat and wig (page 43)
the rakish tilt of his hat (page 97)
takes off his sunglasses and hat (page 154)
I recognize it at once as Fred Astaire singing "No Strings" from Top Hat. (page 231)
not wearing a hat (page 319)
******************
Do you want to read books about millionaires? Do you think books about middle-class people can be sexy and romantic?


It's funny how everyone has different tastes. I just don't get the allure of romances- but I'm sure a lot of people would say the same about the mysteries that I love. So- to each his own!
ReplyDeleteNot every genre is for every reader. I love the idea of an actual happily ever after and that is what draws me to romances.
DeleteIn college and grad school, I read a lot of romances like Harlequins. But one series - Loveswept , I think, was often about normal people with typical jobs, which my friends and I really enjoyed. I read the millionaire type too, but the other ones were a more cozy diversion when a major project was due.
ReplyDeleteImagine me frantically googling Loveswept...
DeleteContemporary romance about rich millionaires doesn’t quite do it for me either. Though I do read a lot of historical romance and those people are always rich. Or at least usually have some title and veneer of not worrying about money. But I do prefer my contemporary romances to have people be a little more stuck in the daily grind.
ReplyDeleteMy 13 year old, though, LOVES billionaire romances. Whenever I try to convince her to read a romance novel about nice average people with 9-5 jobs, she is very uninterested.
I mean, a 9-5 job cannot possibly seem romantic to a teenager! I get it!
DeleteAny book can be sexy and romantic, even if the protagonists are dirt poor!
ReplyDeleteEh, I don't know. Having to worry about where your next meal is coming from or if your roof is going to collapse does not really appeal to me.
DeleteI prefer more everyday people in romances but it does seem harder to find. In general I will usually pass if one of the characters is a celebrity or a billionaire.
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to feel this way a little bit. I still read an occasional celebrity romance, but I do find the "it's so hard to be a celebrity" trop exhausting.
Delete