Musings on The Windflower & The Old School

ETA: Kristie has posted some fascinating thoughts on this topic over on her blog. Scroll down one below the SYTYCD post.

As The Windflower makes its way around the world, more readers are weighing in...and the reaction is distinctly negative. Ana found pretty much nothing redeeming about the book whatsoever. Carolyn was conflicted on it, as she admired the prose but thought the hero was an asshat. Kmont didn't finish it she disliked it so much.

So. That gets me to wondering -- why does the book work for me on almost every level? I'm thinking back to 2000, when I first read the book.

#1 - I love the prose. While I think it's striking a lot of readers as overwrought and purple, but similes and metaphors work for me almost every time, and for the most part the writing was such that the story unfolded for me very much like a movie. The descriptors used evoked the scenes for me so that I ended up being completely captivated and could see the scenes clearly.

#2 - The heroine. This is what strikes me about Merry, she begins quite sheltered and innocent. And yes, for much of the story, she's a victim, but I felt like her inner monologue helped me understand why she was the way she was. I accepted that she did what she could to defend herself under pretty extreme duress. She tried to escape, she fought Devon (with her tiny ineffectual fists), for an innocent who really understood very little, I admired her willingness to hop into a boat and try to row away. OK, so she nearly drowned and yes, had to be rescued again. But for someone who had almost never been beyond the walls of her home, this struck me as courageous. To the extent that I laughed out loud when she punched Devon in the face when he proposed. It is Merry, in fact, who makes the book for me. She's what I love best.

#3 - The secondaries. I love Rand Morgan. I consider him to be one of the most intriguing secondary characters ever written. He lives by a code that I can't relate to, and he remains shrouded in mystery to me. But he's smart, he's self-entitled, and he's ruthless. In his own way, he loves those in his care, but he's not above making them suffer. I desperately wanted him to have a happily ever after. Was the story of a young girl scampering amongst bloodthirsty pirates preposterous? Sure. But no more so that The Gift by Julie Garwood. And for my money, The Windflower is better written.

Those are the things I love best about The Windflower. Funny. Devon doesn't even factor in. At no point in the story did I yearn for Merry and Devon to get together. I realize now that I approach the book much more as a coming of age story for Merry than for her romance with Devon. But then, I've probably read the book 15-20 times. So to me, I guess the romance is almost incidental. Which seems ridiculous now. It's a romance novel. But for me, it's the wonder of Merry's evolution that makes the book -- not her romance with Devon.

So why does this book not work for other readers? I'll say this first. The women who have read The Windflower so far are all ridiculously smart, articulate women whose opinions I very much admire and who review regularly and approach books with a strong bent of literary criticism, which I think is probably how you're supposed to review. For me, very often I have a hard time articulating why a book works for me. When I first read Dark Lover by JR Ward, I was very hard pressed to say why it was that I connected with the book. The hero is literally a KING. He's bossy and autocratic, he's presumptive. He has a ridiculous name. But the chemistry between he and his heroine is incendiary. And it worked so well for me, I've read it probably 10 times since the first time. I don't have a bunch of smart answers why the book works. Just that it does.

But I do know this. The first romance I ever read, Irish Thoroughbred by Nora Roberts featured a practically despicable hero. He was bossy and authoritative, occasionally dismissive of the heroine's feelings, frankly a sexual harasser (she worked for him after all). But the story worked for me because I love reading about falling in love. As I moved along reading "adult" romance (I was 12 when I started reading romance), I found that most of the heroes written in the 80s were asshats. They varied, sheikhs (Captive Bride by Johanna Lindsey) and dukes (Whitney, My Love by Judith McNaught), but the overarching theme of them was that they were overbearing and bossy and presumptive. The books featured forced seduction to what we would now-a-days call outright rape. But you know what? They also were what was available. In 1985, you didn't have Connie Brockway and Lisa Kleypas heroines. Most heroines were victims of circumstance. And most heroes were dickheads. And I ate them up. I loved them.

Now romance has evolved. Most heroines in historical novels are bluestockings or hoydens (and yes, that's a generalization), but very often heroines are in unique circumstances far from the norm of the times. The heroes tend to be more evolved, less autocratic. And romances still work for me.

Maybe it's because I did start reading romance in the early 80s, but forced seduction has never really bothered me. And yes, I realize that many readers consider it rape. Many readers don't appreciate a hero who makes unilateral decisions for their women. And readers don't appreciate women who don't fight back. But the Windflower World Tour has forced me to examine my reading preferences and I'm beginning to truly believe that a readers tastes most certainly ARE influenced by when they started reading romance.

It's been really good for me to have a chance to examine my reading habits and to examine why I feel the way I do about old school romance. I'd imagine as this exercise goes on, I'll continue to refine my thoughts. But I have to say, I've appreciated the opinions of everyone who has read The Windflower on its tour. I hold out hope that sooner or later someone is going to read it and really love it.

In the mean time, my love and affection for the book remains true.