I’m breaking new ground! This novel is an unrealistic American contemporary romance instead of an unrealistic English Victorian romance. Progress?!
This book made its way on to my Kindle owing to Malin’s excellent review in which she gives a lovely summary and an accurate evaluation of the book. Set in Chicago, Love Irresistibly is the story of Cade Morgan and Brooke Parker who meet cute during a criminal investigation. They are both ambitious, driven attorneys who have been recently jilted because neither really makes time for personal relationships. There are subplots involving criminal investigations, long-lost family, and football. It was a light, quick read. Julie James is a fun, mostly competent* writer who moves things along well, and has some really nice moments. If this novel were to my taste, I’d seek out more of her books.
Next comes the part where I invent a literary term. If you know the real one, please pipe up.
If the book was reasonably well-written (caveat: for the genre), why don’t I want to read more James? It had a contemporary setting. When I read a nineteenth century romance, I know that it is not historically accurate, but, my love for the clothing aside, what I get from the period aspect is “narrative distance” (Not bad, eh? I made it myself). This genre is escapist at heart: Two people meet, fall in love, and find their way to a happy ending. There will be an obstacle, and maybe even some sturm and drang, but ultimately, love, a fabulous woman, and a gorgeous desirable man all win and move forward together in their lives, safe and warm in their pair bond. It would seem that, for me at least, when the time frame is moved forward to one I recognise, I lose that lovely haze that surrounds the story. It breaks the fourth wall and my extremely willing suspension of disbelief. Also, and I’m not nearly so unhappy as this makes me sound, the financially-secure, upwardly-mobile young professionals serve to remind me that things could have turned out better in my career and life choice arenas which, as you can well imagine, entirely defeats an act of escapism.
For the love of freakin’ god, what person living in this century and culture, and with an EDITOR to spot such things, thinks that you need a CORKSCREW to OPEN a CHAMPAGNE BOTTLE?
I had some qualms about the legal formalities and timelines portrayed, or more specifically glossed over, while reading. Granted, these qualms are based on my tenuous education in jurisprudence at the hands of movies and network television, but I found myself thinking “shouldn’t things be a lot more paperworky?”.
I do realise that these complaints are akin to watching Gilligan’s Island and wondering why Lovey had so many hats for “a three hour tour”.