I thought it was okay. I wasn't blown away by it. Anyone read this series? Should I try the second book? Do they get better?
The characters get more and more developed as the series goes on.
For me the series shows how one person can rationalize each individual step away from who they were.
It's a fun read... the characters are complex... and the way they are developed is good. be prepared for a lot of sex and toward the end of the series some BDSM.
I liked the writing better than the 50 shades series.
Thanks for the input. I'll keep reading and see where it takes me!
DD(21), DS(18, PDD-NOS)
6 Furkids - 4 dogs, 2 cats
WXH (serial cheater, 12+ OW)
Legally married 18yrs, together 16.5yrs
I edit often for clarity.
[This message edited by WakingFromADream at 9:40 AM, January 23rd (Wednesday)]
Don't make anyone a priority when you are only an option.
Thanks for the other suggestions.
I also love the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon (time travel, nothing with vampires or other things that go bump in the night) and am thinking about re-reading the first three. I stopped during book four; I'm not sure why.
I have read all of the Sookie Stackhouse novels; does anyone know how many novels are left?
The last Sookie book comes out this May. I believe the title is Dead Ever After. I read that the author has started a new series and the character Quinn from the Sookie series will be in it.
Love, love, LOVE the Sookie Stackhouse series. I was, however, disappointed that the price on the ebooks went from $7.99 to $11.99 with the last book...
Kim Harrison...omg...I'd forgotten her, but her books are really good. I'm going to have to jump back into her books since I'm sure there have been new ones since I last read her.
50 Shades of Poorly Written and Trite
I don't have any problem with 70% sex, 30% plot. I think of it kind of like with musical theatre. Pre-Oklahoma, musicals were segmented. Like, now we shall stop and sing! Now we shall dance! with no plot or character development going on in the actual musical parts of the musical, which is why so many old musicals center around show business, since that gave a reason for irrelevant musical numbers.
But Oklahoma, there the songs and the dances to move the plot/characters forward. Since then, that's the overwhelming norm for musical theatre.
So, I think even with 70% sex or sex-adjacent scenes, it's fairly easy to work in character and plot, since in reality, all the sex we have contains characters and plot. Sex is really just an action scene, and action scenes can either be gratuitous where nothing really happens or they can be much more.
However, the Anita Blake series is not 70% sex, 30% plot.
Now, let me say that I stopped paying attention to the AB series around #10 and then had stopped entirely by Narcissus in Chains, which I could not even finish, so this is based upon those books.
My breakdown of everything past #6 except OB is:
5%: Introduction of someone/thing villainous.
5%: Talking about having sex.
5%: Talking about who is/not going to have sex (because Anita is a cockblocker#).
5%: Arguing about who is/not going to have sex (because Anita is a cockblocker).
5%: Negotiating about who is/not going to have sex (because Anita is a cockblocker).
5%: Negotiating about where sex is going to be had (because Anita is a cockblocker).
5%: Inventing arcane rules about where people can place themselves relative to one another upon whatever surface they've agreed will be the location for the sex (because Anita is a cockblocker).
2%: Anita interrupting the sex to insist people reconfigure their positions relative to one another (because Anita isn't just a cockblocker, she's a buzzkill)
10%: Descriptions of what Anita is wearing, which will consist of either:
A. A red polo/t-shirt with matching socks/scrunchie and jorts (typically) or jeans (sometimes), or
B. Some black minidress that Jean Claude ordered from a Frederick's of Hollywood catalogue from 1985 and black heels/boots.
10%: Descriptions of the eye and hair color and hair length (which is always LONG) of the 15 or so guys being juggled at any given time. This suffices for characterization except in the following cases:
A. Huge penis haver.
B. The one with short hair who is the only male character in the series who doesn't want to have sex with Anita. He deserves to be rescued by Tuesday Next for that last bit. Maybe later in the series he started to want to have sex with her but nobody tell me, I can't stand it.
C. Jailbait with ankle-length hair who wanders around wearing satin bootie shorts with white stripes on the sides.
10%: LKH punishing characters based upon various IRL members of the St. Louis LARP and Rec Room BDSM Party scene (because LKH is butthurt)
5% Some sort of participation by one of the three female characters who are not Anita. One is evil, one is a jellus cow, and one literally wriggles on her tummy and kisses Anita's feet every time she sees her (because Anita is a cockblocker and LKH is butthurt)
10%: Dialogue in which Anita is neither clever nor funny nor incisive nor successfully cutting.
10%: Anita being told how clever or funny or incisive or successfully cutting she just was.
5%: Villain being defeated by another sexual superpower Anita just gained like 5, 10 minutes ago.
# Cockblocking, in this sense, can happen to anyone, even if they don't actually have a penis.
[This message edited by ladyvorkosigan at 11:03 AM, January 25th (Friday)]
All I could do is wonder if a heroin addict who is also a sex addict wrote the book, because the book is all about addictions that are "prettied up" with vampire mythology. Or if the author had known addicts in her time, because this is all about appetites for destruction.
[This message edited by Heavy Sigh at 12:59 PM, February 8th (Friday)]
~Honey, don't try to make sense out of nonsense...you'll drive yourself crazy in the process ~ my momma :-)