Laurie R. King Virtual Book Club discussion

Some readers particularly love Russell and Holmes, while some are mad for Martinelli and Hawkin. And some of us are bananas for both detecting duos. In the The Art of Detection, Our Fearless Leader elegantly bridges the two series and arranges for a "meeting" of favorite detectives across time, with elements of Sherlockiana and San Francisco history woven into the puzzles the detectives must solve. It left me with a dream scenario of Holmes going forward to work on a case with Martinelli, and Hawkin going back to the 20s to work on a case with Russell--or vice versa. How do you think they'd manage?

I liked this one a lot, as I recall—even without time travel....

This one ranks as my favorite LRK, possibly tied with Justice Hall.
Overall I don't like the Martinelli stories as much as the Russell/Holmes ones, mostly because they are too 'harsh', if that makes any sense. Nasty irreparable things happen, too much like real life for my literary taste. But this one is different. The Holmes crossover; the story within a story; the fandom; the compassion for the characters; and the ending, one of the most beautiful and delightful endings I've ever read anywhere. This book is a treasure and a treat.

I would love a time-travel crossover. That would be seriously entertaining. :)

Art of Detection was such a great melding of the two series. Everything from Kate's puzzlement over the Sherlockians, the good humored jab at the Sherlockians themselves, and Holmes' time in San Francisco.
Also, this line never fails to make me laugh: 'I believe,' I said slowly, 'that I need to find a male prostitute.'

I enjoyed Ledbetter trying to shock Holmes by taking him to disreputable places. And the comment that the young don't often realize 'that the former generations had flavours of sin that were not so very different.'

This kind of tied the two detectives together for me, despite being separated by a generation, Kate and Holmes are seasoned pros at navigating all classes of society while pursuing criminals. And this explored a side of the Great Detective that is generally glossed over in the original Canon, since Watson always received the information gleaned from such excursions after the fact, while they were sitting in an arm chair at Baker Street.

The mystery in this one was really great. In a genre where seemingly every possible plot has been explored, LRK gave us a very unique mystery (or at least the exploration and setup are unique; the motivations are classic, but that's what makes mystery, really). Pastiche within a mystery!

I have to say, though, that after such a long gap between the Kate books, I was really hoping for a bit more info on our favorite characters and how they've been doing in their lives. I've been wanting an interaction between Kate and Jules since the end of With Child. And I was totally taken aback by Al's lack of role in this one. I know the years have gone by and he's probably reaching retirement age, but I missed him.

I didn't even notice that Al was missing. I think because I read them back to back. But that's a good point Erin.

I think that's an issue with character-driven novels. We love the characters so much that we just want to read about them interacting and give them as much page time as possible. LOL, I felt like this while watching STTNG. I just wanted to see the crew interactions, because I had fallen in love with them so much.

When reading writing articles and whatnot, everything says to cut stuff out that doesn't move the plot forward, or that a writer must keep the pace fast and everything must be action. But when readers read a book because they love the characters, I don't think this applies. We want longer books and more character interaction! Like the Inspector Gamache series... I love the sections where he is talking with his wife and family.

Totally off topic, but this happens a lot in movies too. They cut stuff out for time, but end up giving the movie a rushed feel. One of the things I liked about the Avengers movie, was that they took time to give all the characters screen time and have pointless, but hilarious interactions. Peter Jackson does this with LOTR and Hobbit too and it totally works.

Sabrina wrote: "Totally off topic, but this happens a lot in movies too. They cut stuff out for time, but end up giving the movie a rushed feel. One of the things I liked about the Avengers movie, was that they took time to give all the characters screen time and have pointless, but hilarious interactions. Peter Jackson does this with LOTR and Hobbit too and it totally works. "

I'll join you in the tangent ;-) I'm sure I'm the only person here who's watched it, but this was totally my big gripe with The Legend of Korra (Nickelodeon animated series follow-up to Avatar: The Last Airbender). The network only gave them 13 episodes with no indication of whether they'd get a second season, so they rushed the storyline. Where we had plenty of "fluff" episodes that did nothing but built characters and developed relationships in Avatar, Korra was all plot movement and it really suffered from that.

Taking that back to books, I think it's a fine balancing act. Got to have enough plot movement to keep the book going, but enough character exploration to keep the character readers happy. And I often wonder if the author is maybe not really interested in giving me followup on the characters that I'm interested in. I've always wanted an epilogue to LRK's A Darker Place, for example (though Laurie did say in one Q&A that she's thought about bridging this book into the San Juan Cycle right after Keeping Watch, which would be really interesting). And I'd love to know more about some of the characters left behind in Tana French's books. Though she basically picks a new character that she's just introduced us to peripherally and gives them a whole book of there own, which is really unique and cool, I still loved Cassie from her second book and would have liked to follow her a bit more.

And then there are those books that are entirely about following the characters around without being bogged down with a need for plot movement. Or plot movement that isn't pushed along by character anyway. Like Diana Gabaladon's Outlander series.

Glad I'm not the only one, Erin! You're correct in regards to the balancing act though. Character development isn't for everyone, but I personally just gobble that sort of thing up. I'm pretty sure I could read whole chapters of Holmes and Russell doing nothing more exciting then walking the Downs and eating breakfast, lol.

That's interesting about Keeping Watch and A Darker Place. The latter is the only LRK book I haven't read. It's in my growing TBR pile. But I really liked Keeping Watch. The descriptions of Vietnam were like listening to a war veterans experiences. And of course it had some nice interactions with Rae!

I haven't got around to the Outlander series yet. I keep picking it up, then I read the blurb about her having to decide between two men, and I get irritated without even opening the book.

Sabrina, I fully support you in not reading Outlander. I got halfway through book 1 and I will never again touch anything with Gabaladon's name on it. (Not even to check if I'm spelling it right.)

I am looking forward to Folly, however. It sits atop my 'owned-unread' pile at home, waiting for the library pile to diminish. :)

Elisabeth wrote: "Sabrina, I fully support you in not reading Outlander. I got halfway through book 1 and I will never again touch anything with Gabaladon's name on it. (Not even to check if I'm spelling it right.)
..."

Oh, that really worries me, Elisabeth. What turned you off to the books?

I've had a lot of people recommend the books, but I just have no patience for wishy-washy love storylines. If you have to wonder if someone is right for you then they're not. It's like wondering if you were struck by lightning.

Also, I loved Folly. It was sort of depressing at the get go, but it cheered up.

Sabrina wrote: "Elisabeth wrote: "Sabrina, I fully support you in not reading Outlander. I got halfway through book 1 and I will never again touch anything with Gabaladon's name on it. (Not even to check if I'm sp..."

Where do I begin? ;)

To be fair, I don't like romance. I'm not interested in other people's sexual fantasies. The person who recommended this book to me pushed the time travel element, but the time travel was just a device for sex with Scotsmen. That said, even if I did like romance, I still wouldn't like this one, because I don't consider partner abuse romantic. In addition, the relationship between the so-called lovers was pathetically flimsy and contrived, no attempt being made to make them sympathetic or believable. The main character was an idiot; I was quickly sick of her whining and didn't care what happened to her. I felt bad for the husband left behind and would have liked some of his side of the story. (THAT would make a romance - loving partners separated by centuries, struggling to return to each other!) But no, I hear the author twisted him around to be the bad guy, so as to justify her 'heroine's' lousy behavior. What. Ever.

I know many disagree with me, but I feel strongly on the topic & compelled to bring it up when people mention this series. :)

Elisabeth wrote:That said, even if I did like romance, I still wouldn't like this one, because I don't consider partner abuse romantic. In addition, the relationship between the so-called lovers was pathetically flimsy and contrived, no attempt being made to make them sympathetic or believable. The main character was an idiot;

*sighs* Let me guess, she was utterly helpless and cried the entire beating, then he said he was sorry and she forgave him, demonstrating this by making sweet, gentle love to him?

Have abusive relationships always been a part of romance novels? Or is this a fairly recent thing? I just don't get it.

I admit, I like a good sex scene, but I've come across very few and now that I think about it, they're probably considered PG-13 love scenes. And even those have mostly been from Fantasy novels that I've read, where the participants are equals and anything bad happening is from the outside. Romance is never the entire plot though, it's a natural side-effect of the plot and its exclusion would leave a gaping void in the narrative.

I know there a lot of members who loved the Outlander series, so come and defend your book. :D Maybe there was a good reason for the abuse? Like uhm...they were really Klingons, or erm...they were trying to infiltrate a barbaric clan and had to blend in to save a bunch of children. I suppose there's aways the standard excuse of... she deserved it.

I know there a lot of members who loved the Outlander series, so come and defend your book. Why should readers feel they have to defend a book they liked? (that sounds snarky, but it really isn't.) I mean, we all like some of the same books or we wouldn't be here on the LRK reading group, but we are going to have different opinions on other books and I don't think people should feel the need to defend their reading choices. I know intelligent, strong women who like fluffy romance novels, I know scientists who like alternate reality, I know teenagers who like graphic novels. All of those genres are looked at with derision or scorn upon occasion, but I say, hey, read what you like! Like what you read! Enjoy!

That was probably more of a polemic than you were expecting, Sabrina, and I really don't want to seem like I'm attacking here, because I'm not. I think I've gotten over-sensitized by critics sneering at genre fiction.

And in the Outlander series, I think the abuse is a combination of true to the times in which they were set and a bit of liking for S&M by the author. Not an excuse, just an explanation.

Karen wrote:I mean, we all like some of the same books or we wouldn't be here on the LRK reading group, but we are going to have different opinions on other books and I don't think people should feel the need to defend their reading choices.

Definitely, Karen, and no worries. It's fun when we don't all agree on a book though! Tends to generate discussion. Since I've had so many good recommendations for Outlander, and this is the first time I heard about these elements in the series, I was surprised. I was hoping for some discussion between two parties who have read the book.

Sorry if I came across as sneering at the genre, it's more that physical and sexual abuse aren't elements that I associate with romance, but seems to be a common plot ploy. This puzzles me.

farmwifetwo wrote: Having to defend my reading habits was the main reason to leave this board.

I've been reading a lot of m-m romance lately. Been reading a lot of mysteries too. There are a lot of excellent stories, in many genres, and I read them all.

Sherri, it's nice to hear from you and I apologize if I contributed to you leaving in any way. I just have strong opinions against sexual and physical abuse and I should probably stay away from the subject.

You are really well read, so you are a perfect one to answer my question: are these abusive relationships something new to the romance genre or is it pretty much a long standing tradition?

I was actually looking forward to reading Outlander...

Karen wrote: "And in the Outlander series, I think the abuse is a combination of true to the times in which they were set and a bit of liking for S&M by the author. Not an excuse, just an explanation."

Whoa, time travel, a love triangle, massive swords, AND some Scottish whip-smacking... can't go wrong with that recipe.

Agreeing with Karen that the "abuse" is a true to times kind of thing. As I recall, it ran along the lines of a husband in that time being held responsible for dishing out punishment to his family members when they've done something out of order. Including his wife. And Claire is far from a tearful, weak heroine. Given the circumstances (suddenly finding herself out of time with no one believing her and really limited ability to go off on her own to fix things given the time and culture), I thought she handled herself pretty admirably, actually. Claire becomes pretty kick-ass by the end of the book; verbally anyway (she doesn't take up sword fighting or anything).

I won't lie, there are definitely some eye-roll worthy moments in Outlander. And it's really hard to explain what I found interesting about it. I was really into the story while reading it, despite the occasional eye roll. Just an adventure book with lots of wonderful cliches. And I actually really liked the fictional look at the time period; I thought Gabaldon did a good job with the historical fiction aspect of the book.

Sabrina wrote: "Whoa, time travel, a love triangle, massive swords, AND some Scottish whip-smacking... can't go wrong with that recipe."

That was basically my review!

But perhaps we should relocate Outlander to it's own thread, since we've kind of thread-jacked this one ;-)

Eek, now I'm even more conflicted, Erin. I think this one will be a library rental. And I don't know, the thread did start out with a time-travel discussion. I think it was doomed from the beginning. :-D

Sabrina wrote: "I don't know, the thread did start out with a time-travel discussion. I think it was doomed from the begin..."

Ha! Good point! =P Go where the discussion takes us, I suppose.

I have to say one last thing on this point, because this discussion reminds me yet again that any two people can agree on one book or author and yet be polar opposites on another. A very close friend introduced me to the historical novels of the late Dorothy Dunnett, whom I consider to be truly THE mistress of the art. (And yes, I understand that some people find them just too overtly scholarly and hard to trudge through and I am not picking arguments with them, they are entitled to that view.) The very same friend subsequently discovered the Outlander series and said she found it comparable. I skimmed the first one and had the same reaction as the other nay-sayers here. But I was just flabbergasted that she found them comparable. Huh?, I said. I enjoy a vigorous defense of a book I am not going to pick up, and I don't mind people criticizing the books I like either. But I shake my head in wonderment when we agree so closely on one and then disagree so vastly on another. A true mystery of the human species.

At my advanced age the extended bed scenes became a bit boring so I just skipped ahead or fast forwarded to get on with THE STORY which was pretty good.
I've managed to wade through most of the Outlanders. I thought the view of pre War of Indepence times in the Carolinas was interesting and not prettied up like what I learned long ago in elementary school in American history.

Lenore wrote: I enjoy a vigorous defense of a book I am not going to pick up, and I don't mind people criticizing the books I like either. But I shake my head in wonderment when we agree so closely on one and then disagree so vastly on another. A true mystery of the human species.

So true, Lenore. I love a good book discussion too. My husband and I rarely agree on books, so whenever the topic comes up in our house, we both roll of our figurative sleeves and prepare for some mental fisticuffs. I'm always a bit disappointed when we agree on a book.

I've been away from this discussion for a good while, so will comment on two points:
1) I too love character-driven books and at times would be content to have my favorites forget the mystery and write on and on about the interaction of the characters.
2) I often enjoy both romance and eroticism, but one book of the Outlander series was more than enough for me. At 83 it's been a long time since I've had a sexual partner. I felt that Gabaldon was using a naked sexuality to manipulate (?) entrap (?) readers with desires I for one had no means of gratifying. I felt used. Besides, I didn't like her people.

Thanks for pointing me towards the Dorothy Dunnett books, Lenore. I'll give them a try.

At the risk of stepping on toes, I'm going to attempt to tie our discussion topics of the Art of Detection, time-travel, and Outlander together. If you liked Outlander, then that's totally fine! I'm not attacking your tastes, just using it as one example among many books with similar content.

One of my pet peeves about books is when the female protagonist is toted as being strong and independent, but then the writer fails to have them act in such a manner. Which is one of the things that always draws me to Mary Russell and Kate Martinelli. Despite the stories being set in different eras, they behave as strong women. They both have vulnerabilities but they know their minds, respect themselves, and are decisive.

The protagonist in Outlander is supposed to be a strong, independent woman who served as a WW2 war nurse. Yet, according to the reviews of the book (even the 5 star ones) the male romantic lead 'beats her half to death with a leather strap' and then confides that he enjoyed it and nearly raped her afterwards. They then say (even the 5 star reviews) that she forgives him and later admits that he had good reason to discipline her.

In any era, even now, there are cultures who find it perfectly acceptable to beat a woman when she 'misbehaves'. I don't care how attractive the man is… this is not romantic to me and an independent woman who respected herself would not stand for being treated like a dog's favorite humping stuff-animal.

I'm not just picking on Outlander here. I hear a lot of comments about different books regarding what was acceptable during the time period in which it is set.

So let's use Sherlock Holmes and the Victorian age as an example. He was born in an era when it was perfectly acceptable to discipline your wife, because women were treated on the same level as children. In fact, the age of consent was 12, and then 13 for most of Holmes' life. It was not raised to 16 until 1885. So in a sense, many wives were children. A man's home was his castle. A wife's duty and sole purpose was to look after the needs of her husband. Women were raised to know their place.

Now, here we have two strong female lead protagonists and two men (Sherlock Holmes and Jamie) born in times when such behavior was acceptable. The thought of Sherlock Holmes disciplining his wife for misbehaving is ridiculous, let alone employing such brutality--the mere thought is obscene. Even if he did, Mary Russell would never stand for such treatment. Why, because they love and respect eachother, themselves, and other human beings.

I would like to think that in any era and culture, despite what is acceptable, that there were men who cherished and honored their wives. Because the moment a man raises his hand against a woman, no matter how attractive he is, he becomes a cowardly piece of slime in my eyes. Whatever the time period, present or past, I want to read about people who are not commonplace. Because let's face it, even now, abuse of women is commonplace in today's world.

Now, just for fun, let's pretend Kate steps through a time-traveling portal. It's not hard to imagine how that particular strong, independent woman would react to such treatment.

Sabrina wrote: "...At the risk of stepping on toes, I'm going to attempt to tie our discussion topics of the Art of Detection, time-travel, and Outlander together..."

As usual, I mostly agree with Sabrina. Let me just tweak a couple of points in a very MINOR way:

1. I think the appropriate comparison is not Holmes and Jamie, but Russell and Claire. That Claire could admit that this treatment was justified -- that physically abusing another adult and enjoying it could be justified -- is what makes her so disappointing compared to Russell. One might forgive Jamie as a product of his time if he came to regret his action, but that Claire could come to rationalize his action is the aspect that turns me off. (And parenthetically, this is what I have against 50 Shades of Grey, that anyone finds physical abuse or subjugation erotic. Maybe I'm just too straight, but sex and flirtation are erotic and physical abuse is just sadism.)

2. Thinking about Kate in this context -- as opposed to Russell -- is a little misleading; as Kate is a lesbian, she would never come around to the notion that a man being turned on by beating her is OK even if she were a shrinking violet. But, Kate being who she is, I would enjoy watching her disarm Jamie and break his arm for trying it. ;)

True, Lenore. The Russell and Claire comparison is more apt. I guess I was trying to illustrate the differences in characters as far as being a product of their times. It's not so much the time period but the integrity of the character.

I wish there was a separate genre for 'men you shouldn't date'. It seems like so many romantic leads are the sort that would end up as criminal suspects in the mystery genre.

That was the main reason I couldn't stand Game of Thrones, the characters were so unlikable. I want heroes and heroines and good vs evil. If I wanted all the shades between, I can just turn on the news.

Sabrina, this may be the first major disagreement we've had. :) Although I, too, usually don't like books where all the characters are unlikable, GoT is the exception. First, there really are a few likable characters, mostly Ned Stark (who is knocked off early in the game) and his descendants, but also Tyrion and, as the books wear on and he grows as a person, Jaime. And poor deluded, goodhearted Samwell Tarly, who thinks he is a coward but is actually unbelievably brave. But secondly, and the real reason I like GoT, is that Martin can really plot! You almost never know what will happen next.

The real problem with GoT is not the characters themselves, but that unless George R.R. Martin stops fooling around with alternative projects and starts writing, we are never going to know what happens to them, because he's not getting any younger and he has a long way to go before finishing Vols. 6 and 7.

Oooh, let me roll up my sleeves here. :D

I remember picking up GoT when it first came out, I was looking for a book to fill the gap between books in The Wheel of Time series. It started off awesome, then BAM, the only likable character is killed. I really liked Ned Stark.

And then everything just fell apart and the author started following these horrible characters and throwing even more unlikable characters at the reader. About 75% through the book... I just stopped reading, because it seemed like the author didn't care about his characters, so why should I? LOL, I believe that was the first book I did not finish.

I know alot of people like Tyrion, but I just remember him as being exceptionally crude. It's been a good 15 years though, so maybe my memory is off and of course I never went on to read the rest so I have no idea about his plotting ability. I do appreciate the overall theme of the power struggle between kingdoms and the ruthless maneuvering. The books were well named.

And yeah... I hope what happened to The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan doesn't happen here. The never ending book series that afflicts fantasy authors until their deaths. Though I gave up on that series after book six.

Might I suggest Tad Williams' 'The Dragonbone Chair'? He's a wonderful writer, storyteller, and excellent plotter. He takes his time telling a story, breathes life into his characters, and ties every single loose thread into one breathtaking knot at the end of the series. His books influenced my own fantasy style of writing.

I just stumbled across this. Since it is along the lines of discussion and I know there are many Patrick Stewart fans, I'll share the link:

http://www.upworthy.com/a-brave-fan-a...

This is the kind of man I want in my romance novels! A true gentleman and knight (and also really hot).

Sabrina wrote: "I just stumbled across this. Since it is along the lines of discussion and I know there are many Patrick Stewart fans, I'll share the link:

http://www.upworthy.com/a-brave-fan-a......"

Oh, yeah!! Top-notch romantic fantasy material!!

Lenore wrote: Oh, yeah!! Top-notch romantic fantasy material!!


And that's why the romance genre frustrates me. I open up a book expecting Patrick Stewart and instead I get the creepy son from 'Letters of Mary' who Russell wisely incapacitated (in a most satisfying manner).

It is true that in the Middle Ages, the 16th century, the 17th century, the 18th century, and even the 19th century in many places, wife beating was not only common and not a crime but actively encouraged (women were not supposed to have two brains to rub together and were, in any case, daughters of the wicked Eve who had lured man into temptation, so they "needed" male guidance of the most brutal kind—or so the theory went). That creates a major problem for writers of historical fiction, and especially historical romance, since the average medieval male makes about as appealing a hero as does a walrus with fangs. But Claire is supposedly a modern woman; to allow her to be beaten and then embrace the man who does the beating as an acceptable mate does indeed send a very disturbing message. And like others here, I found the Fifty Shades of Grey phenomenon astonishing for the same reasons. Even with medieval heroines, I personally find acceptance of abuse a real turnoff in a novel.

In my own books, I just make the heroes anachronistically humane in their treatment of the heroines. They may assert their authority or demand obedience (although the heroines rarely comply), but only villains actually raise a hand against any woman, and that is one sign of their villainy.

Some readers may complain, but it's fiction, after all. I do my best to make a book historically accurate in every other respect, but that's one line I refuse to cross.

As to The Art of Detection, which appears rather to have gotten lost in this thread, I certainly agree that the man who tried that on Russell or Kate Martinelli would not try it twice!

What did everybody like about The Art of Detection? I haven't read it in a while, but I especially enjoyed the dovetailing of present and past—and any book that includes the voice of Holmes à la King is a winner, in my view.

I applaud and agree wholeheartedly with this discussion and would extend it to treatment of children. Mistreatment of children teaches the very behavior parents say they want to correct. Certainly young children must be removed from danger and restrained from doing hurtful things, but most children can begin very early to understand how they should behave and will want to please adults they love (rebellion comes later).

I expect there have been good marriages in every era. An interesting study would be how women have dealt with dominating men, though such data may be hard to find. Being placed in a subject position leads both women and subject peoples to be manipulative, secretive, and underhanded, but very often quite successful in achieving their ends. I have also read of incidents in more primitive societies where a husband known to be excessively abusive did not wake up one morning and the community made no inquiry into the cause of his demise.

C.P. wrote: "It is true that in the Middle Ages, the 16th century, the 17th century, the 18th century, and even the 19th century in many places, wife beating was not only common and not a crime but actively enc..."

Ooh, do you write historical romance, C.P?

To go along with your comment about how your readers complain... I feel that people often fail to see individuals in the broader spectrum of history. They take a stereotypical idea and run with it. Much like saying that certain races are all bad drivers, or all the men of some cultures beat their wives, or that all Germans during WW2 supported the Nazi party. Just look at all the misconceptions people have about the Victorians. I swear, some people seem to think they didn't have sex or laugh.

As time passes, generations lose sight of the individual and the fact that despite thousands of years, we share the same emotions as our distant ancestors. Human emotions have not changed. A child beaten in Egyptian times would be just as traumatized as a child beaten in present day. A woman raped in Roman times was just as degraded and humiliated as she would be today. Parents loosing a child to death grieved just as deeply 2000 years ago as present day.

Yet throughout history, there have been exceptional people, ones who were willing to go against the grain and stand up to indecencies or change popular thinking. There's so many examples of this, ie: despite it being commonplace, it took a male reporter (although his methods were a bit drastic) to bring attention to the child prostitutes in London and in the end his efforts upped the age of consent from 13 to 16. Or we have Florence Nightengale and her advanced ideas for nursing despite what was popular at the time.

Without these people, there would be no change, no reformations, no progress. History remembers the exceptional, not the commonplace, and I applaud you for writing male characters with integrity.

Really, I feel that this was one of the messages in Art of Detection. We have two murders set in different generations, both for similar reasons. And then we have Holmes' comment about entertainment through the ages, how the Romans were likely entertained by the same sort of display as his generation and Ledbetter's.

While the setting and costumes might change, when it comes down to it, History keeps repeating itself. There is truly nothing new under the sun.

I write historical fiction. There is a considerable romantic component in all my books, but I don't list them as historical romance because they are not spicy enough for contemporary readers of that genre. If you like LRK and/or 1940s romantic comedies, though, you will probably love them....

Agreed on The Art of Detection.

C.P. wrote: "I write historical fiction. There is a considerable romantic component in all my books, but I don't list them as historical romance because they are not spicy enough for contemporary readers of tha..."

I will check them out!

Thanks! Hope you enjoy them.

That, indirectly, is how I came to interview Laurie (we even talked very briefly about The Art of Detection, but mostly about Holmes and Russell). I had two books published; I needed to get the word out; I became host of New Books in Historical Fiction; and Laurie was gracious enough to grant me an interview....

C.P. wrote: "Thanks! Hope you enjoy them.

That, indirectly, is how I came to interview Laurie (we even talked very briefly about The Art of Detection, but mostly about Holmes and Russell). I had two books publ..."

I listened to your interview and really enjoyed it, C.P. You have a great 'radio voice'.

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. Laurie's a wonderful speaker, so our conversation was a lot of fun for me.

C.P. wrote: "Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. Laurie's a wonderful speaker, so our conversation was a lot of fun for me."

I know there was a link to the interview somewhere on this site, but I can't find it now. Repeat, please?

It's in the Announcements thread, but here it is again: http://newbooksinhistoricalfiction.co....

It's a free podcast. You are welcome to listen, download, subscribe to future interviews, link on your blog, whatever.