Now come on, you know what this is right? Right. It's a socio-political contemplation of the paradigm of sensuality versus autonomy as prevelant in modern culture versus feminist theory.
And you thought it was just a silly clinch cover, didn't you?
There seems to be a lot of brainy types discussing romance nowadays and elevating it to the levels of intelligensia masterbation as they've done to Hemingway, Faulkner and Flowers in the Attic.
Boy meets girl. Boy loses girl. Boy gets girl back. Happy ending.
Viscount seduces maid. Maid loses head. Viscount marries Lady who has secret sensual side. Happy ending.
Girl meets vampire/shifter/immortal being. Girl and vampire/shifter/immortal being fight. Vampire/shifter/immortal being turns girl immortal. Happy ending.
Romance is simple. It has a happy ending. It has people falling in love. Sometimes someone saves someone else. Sometimes they're funny and sometimes they're both men. Sometimes there's a world built and sometimes they wear crinoline.
Carolyn expressed dismay to me the other day. "I didn't know you need a college degree to read romance," she cried. "I barely got through sixth grade."
Oh Carolyn, I know what you mean.
Currently I'm finishing Lord Perfect by Loretta Chase. (So I can read Last Night's Scandal by Loretta Chase.) It's sigh worthy wonderful. The characters are brilliantly drawn out, the story moves at an excellent pace, the writing is approachable and studded with humor. If you haven't read Loretta Chase, stop reading this blog post and go order her. NOW!!
However, I'd be really pretending to see any way one could take this novel and turn it into a socio-economic treatise of feminine mystique versus masculine meandering.
Can't we just read a book because it's a wonderful form of escapism written by some talented women who just get it?