Q&A with Josh Lanyon discussion

So... let's read and discuss Catch a Ghost by S.E. Jakes in November!

The discussion starts on Saturday, November 23rd.

Johanna wrote: "So... let's read and discuss Catch a Ghost by S.E. Jakes in November!

The discussion starts on Saturday, November 23rd."

This should be interesting because Catch a Ghost has a lot of the same/similar elements as High Concept... but, (IMO) it gets them right. : }

Not too similar, is it?

I didn't read High Concept, so no problems here with anything similar. But all the same, for those who did, I hope it's different enough.

Not having read the other, I find it interesting that you comment this one gets them right. That makes me curious.

Can't wait to buy and read this! Now I just have to find time to slot it into my reading schedule that doesn't exist. lol.

Cool! I'm going to try and join in here -- although I stopped reading again. Can't seem to stay awake at night!

Josh wrote: "Cool! I'm going to try and join in here -- although I stopped reading again. Can't seem to stay awake at night!"

Sounds to me that is a GOOD thing after insomnia... :-)

Johanna wrote: "Not too similar, is it?"

Not really. Similar tropes, but very different execution. So I think it also be an interesting compare-and-contrast for those who've read/are reading both. Definitely worth a read. : )

Karen wrote: "Johanna wrote: "Not too similar, is it?"

Not really. Similar tropes, but very different execution. So I think it also be an interesting compare-and-contrast for those who've read/are reading both...."

ok, sounds good. :-)

Karen wrote: "Johanna wrote: "Not too similar, is it?"

Not really. Similar tropes, but very different execution. So I think it also be an interesting compare-and-contrast for those who've read/are reading both...."

Sounds great! I'm really looking forward to read this one. Although I'll have to finish Brandstetter #5 first. *off to sofa to read that one* :-)

Johanna wrote: "Although I'll have to finish Brandstetter #5 first. *off to sofa to read that one* :-)

I finished #4 this morning. I'll post to that conversation in a bit. : )

Karen wrote: "Johanna wrote: "Although I'll have to finish Brandstetter #5 first. *off to sofa to read that one* :-)

I finished #4 this morning. I'll post to that conversation in a bit. : )"

Cool! I look forward to reading your thoughts on that one, dear. :-)

Ooooooooooh, y'all are in for it... in the best way.
You may want to make sure and have the next one ready to read right after you finish CAG - just sayin'. ;)

*sigh* Tommy 'n Prophet.

Andrea wrote: "Ooooooooooh, y'all are in for it... in the best way.
You may want to make sure and have the next one ready to read right after you finish CAG - just sayin'. ;)

*sigh* Tommy 'n Prophet."

Uh oh. Alright. I'll do my best to remember that... and to read faster the other books I'm trying to get finished before the end of the month.

Jordan wrote: "Andrea wrote: "Ooooooooooh, y'all are in for it... in the best way.
You may want to make sure and have the next one ready to read right after you finish CAG - just sayin'. ;)

*sigh* Tommy 'n Proph..."

You'd better do that, miss Discussion leader. LOL. ;-)

Johanna wrote: " You'd better do that, miss Discussion leader. LOL. ;-)"

That made me chuckle LOL :)

Have fun reading, everybody! :)

I re-read this right before Long Time Gone (next in the series) came out recently and it was just as fab the 2nd time.
Re-read LTG a few days ago, too and just... *sigh*

Uh oh. What did I get myself into here? ;-)

*key to lips*

*mumbling* I'm saying nothing further. ;)

Jordan wrote: "Uh oh. What did I get myself into here? ;-)"

:-D

Jordan wrote: "Uh oh. What did I get myself into here? ;-)"

LOL. :-)

Maybe I need to re-read this one. I thought it was kind of a mess. But I was intrigued enough to read Long Time Gone and I enjoyed it a great deal. :-)

Valerie wrote: "Maybe I need to re-read this one. I thought it was kind of a mess. But I was intrigued enough to read Long Time Gone and I enjoyed it a great deal. :-)"

I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't think I would have persisted if it hadn't been a BOM. I'll re-read just before the 23rd.

ETA - just re-read your post: Is Long Time Gone better that Ghost, or was it just that you'd tuned into the characters?

Hj wrote: "Valerie wrote: "Maybe I need to re-read this one. I thought it was kind of a mess. But I was intrigued enough to read Long Time Gone and I enjoyed it a great deal. :-)"

I'm inclined to agree with ..."

IMO it was much better. Easier to follow and I thought the story was more interesting.

Thanks Valerie!

It's kind of a hot mess (IMO), my favorite kind. ; )

Karen wrote: "It's kind of a hot mess (IMO), my favorite kind. ; )"

The beginning of LTG certainly was that, LOL! *wowza*

Karen wrote: "It's kind of a hot mess (IMO), my favorite kind. ; )"

Right on, Karen!

Valerie, I agree that the second one had a stronger story.

I started this a few days ago and I'm LOVING it!!!

DNF. Too much macho BS. There was nothing else to these guys. They spent a lot of time saying FU to each other because, you know, they're tough guys with a capitol T. I didn't like or care about either one of them. Did they like or care about each other? I don't know, couldn't tell. But I don't know why they would. And it felt like a lot of rehashing & little movement forward. I certainly didn't see much in the way of investigative skills from two supposedly highly trained ex-military, ex-federal agents. It became a chore to read & I was constantly checking the progress bar so I quit at 71%. In the middle of a sex scene. So that tells you how good those were.

Jax wrote: "DNF. Too much macho BS. There was nothing else to these guys. They spent a lot of time saying FU to each other because, you know, they're tough guys with a capitol T. I didn't like or care about ei..."

Lol. Oh d d d dear!

I liked it. Somehow it is the kind of book I like without really knowing why :). The writing is good on one hand, on the other hand, the story line is a little choppy, like the author doesn't quite tell us everything she knows. I'm not sure whether it's intentional or not, but it makes it hard to follow all that is going on.

But great characters and great sex scenes, more about sensations and emotions than technicalities, just the way I like them. There were many of them, but they fit the story.

It was a rollercoaster ride ;)

I'm a little over 60% last I checked.

Yeah, they do swear a lot and there is a lot of sex, but so far it's still working for me. I should have this finished by tomorrow at the latest. We'll see.

Jax wrote: "DNF. Too much macho BS. There was nothing else to these guys. They spent a lot of time saying FU to each other because, you know, they're tough guys with a capitol T. I didn't like or care about ei..."

I like that although a lot of us share "likes" here on Q&A, we also have distinct personalities and preferences. (Jax and I correlate at 82% on 39 shared books, not a surprise since we both rate Josh's work highly.) This book was a 5 for me — enjoyment factor, not literary virtues. It inspired me to create a "hot mess" shelf in my GR library. I have a soft spot for certain kinds of over-the-top stories, not one I can explain easily, or one I'm inclined to justify. It's a one of those "know it when I see it" things. I love Finn Marlowe's A Thread of Deepest Black, yet can list its "flaws" in detail.

After I read this one I was inclined to move High Concept down to a 2. I'll try to explain that when we get more into the discussion. But then I set aside Long Time Gone about 30% into it. Maybe too much sweet excess in a short time? ; )

Karen wrote: I like that although a lot of us share "likes" here on Q&A, we also have distinct personalities and preferences. (Jax and I correlate at 82% on 39 shared books, not a surprise since we both rate Josh's work highly.)

That comparison feature is very cool. I'm always fascinated when I have such a different reaction from someone I usually agree with.

There are some books that don't work for me, but they don't bother me enough to rate & review. I just mark them read & unrated. This was one of those that annoyed me enough to share my opinion.

But it's also the type of book that makes me stop & think about whether I should be reviewing the quality of writing or my overall enjoyment level. The writing was not as bad as some others I've rated 2 stars, but ultimately I decided that the author's choices in regards to character and plot development were bad enough to merit the rating.

Of course we all have different ways of rating books and I'm probably not consistent within my own "rules" anyway. It's a gut reaction thing.

I imagine your "hot mess" shelf might be akin to my "guilty pleasures". I don't actually have a shelf named that, but you know what I mean. These are books that might have non-PC tropes or are riddled with cliches. They may even include a "big misunderstanding", but I still enjoy the heck out of them.

I knew I would be in the minority on this one given the reviews on its GR page. But c'mon, don't leave me hanging here. Anyone? Bueller?

Jax wrote: "I knew I would be in the minority on this one given the reviews on its GR page. But c'mon, don't leave me hanging here. Anyone? Bueller?"

I don't necessarily think you'll be in the minority on Q&A. In the world of flashing gifs? Likely. : )

I was definitely on board with your review of High Concept, and yes, my "hot mess" shelf is definitely for "guilty pleasures." Nicely described, BTW.

I wasn't sure about this book given I have another by this author on my kindle that I haven't finished yet. That usually means I got fed up with it and couldn't be bothered to read any more.

However, I loved Catch a Ghost. I like macho guys who say 'fuck you' while trying not to act on their attraction for each other. The banter kept me amused and the story kept me turning pages.

I liked the book, even though it was a bit choppy (though I liked the 2nd book better, a much smother story), but I’m drawn to characters that have a lot of baggage, that are scarred and damaged in some way and have to fight and struggle to overcome it. One of the things that did bother me is that they are both supposed to be these highly trained specialties, especially Prophet who is supposed to be so scary, army of villains will run from him, but the bad guys just keep getting the upper hand on them -easily. With Tom, it was kind of explained way because if his temper, but Prophet is supposed to be a stone cold killer. I liked that the 2 damaged souls were drawn toward each other, even though they fought the attraction they eventually are able to help each other with starting to overcoming their personal demons -though that might be more in the 2nd book. I read both books back to back so some of the events are blending a little. I found Tom the more likable and easier to understand character of the 2, though Prophet did improve in the 2nd book. I also found the Cillian thing confusing, did he let Prophet steal his stuff or was Prophet just that good? How did he know everything Prophet did, if he had the building wired how did Prophet not know that since he was such a bad ass specialist?

DeniseE wrote: "I also found the Cillian thing confusing, did he let Prophet steal his stuff or was Prophet just that good? How did he know everything Prophet did, if he had the building wired how did Prophet not know that since he was such a bad ass specialist? "

My impression was that Prophet and Cillian have a pretty good idea what each other are up to, that it's a game of uber-spy skills between them to see who can outwit/out-tech who. And also a form of flirtation, which of course will needle Tom. I suspect that Cillian will get his own book.

Cillian's book is coming up in January, I think. It's called Dirty Deeds, I think.

Hmmm there is also a book from Rhys Ford called Dirty Deeds coming out soon, #4 in her series.

I'm still reading. I find my mind wandering. . . I hope it picks up

Susinok wrote: "Cillian's book is coming up in January, I think. It's called Dirty Deeds, I think.

Hmmm there is also a book from Rhys Ford called Dirty Deeds coming out soon, #4 in her series."

... done dirt cheap? ; )

Just finished this this morning.

It was good, but definitely don't expect an HEA at the end of book one.

I feel like I'll need to read book 2 in order to get an understanding of the overall plot and characters because there was a lot going on from Proph's past.

Jax wrote: "Karen wrote: I like that although a lot of us share "likes" here on Q&A, we also have distinct personalities and preferences. (Jax and I correlate at 82% on 39 shared books, not a surprise since we..."

I'm finding your comments fascinating, but I'm afraid to look at this until I finish Kick Start. I don't want to be influenced.

I will say that the stuff that bugs Jax is likely to drive me up the wall. :-D But we shall see what we shall see.

The thing is, there are Alpha males and then there are ALPHA! males. I prefer quiet strength & competence to the hit-you-over-the-head variety.

But any way I talk about this reveals my bias. The question is, is this well done ALPHA! male or not? Maybe it is. Probably it is because so many people like it.

Jax wrote: "The thing is, there are Alpha males and then there are ALPHA! males. I prefer quiet strength & competence to the hit-you-over-the-head variety.

But any way I talk about this reveals my bias. The q..."

Well, that's an interesting question. My impression is that people read and enjoy romance for reasons other than realistic depictions of men and male relationship dynamics. So I think the real question is not, is this book remotely realistic? (Even without reading it, I can tell you the answer is no.) ;-) But rather what is it about this kind of story and these kinds of characters that so appeal to readers?

Because that's the thing that so often trips up writers (men in particular) writing for this genre. So many men struggle with this idea of writing true-to-life male characters and the gay male experience. And writing m/m romance is no different than writing any other kind of romance. Are Harlequin romances true-to-life depictions of the female experience?

I guess it's possible that a certain percentage of readers WANT to believe that these men and these stories are somehow based in reality, but this is genre fiction.

So for me as a writer always hoping to learn and improve my popularity (if not my craft) I find myself asking what is it about these characters and this story/series that grabs you guys? What do you so like about it?

What makes this stand out over similar books?

Josh wrote: "My impression is that people read and enjoy romance for reasons other than realistic depictions of men and male relationship dynamics. So I think the real question is not, is this book remotely realistic? (Even without reading it, I can tell you the answer is no.) ;-) But rather what is it about this kind of story and these kinds of characters that so appeal to readers?

That's a good point. Because I do tend to look for more realistic depictions of men (even to some extent in scifi and fantasy), I forget the appeal of the big, muscle bulging larger-than-life guys that have been the norm in romance books. I guess I prefer my fictional men to behave closer to the men I know in real life. Like the men that you and writers like Sarah Black, Kaje Harper, Harper Fox, Jordan Castillo Price, Astrid Amara, Nicole Kimberling, and Ginn Hale write so well. It seems many people can enjoy both kinds of romance hero, but the ubermale doesn't work for me.

Those kinds of books are far from realistic, guys like that would probably annoy me immensely in real life. Somehow it is fun to read about them anyway, although I usually go for more realistic descriptions too. But once in a while it is fun to just drown in extravaganza. One short book at the time is enough, though, like having eaten too much sweets in one go, you need something savoury to balance it. Too much, and you feel bloated and full, but still unsatisfied.

I think why this one works better than"High concept" is that she keeps it a little simpler, not so many loose endings that went nowhere, and also because the book doesn't take itself too seriously, it is a little more tounge-in-cheek, which becomes such books.

Josh wrote: "Well, that's an interesting question. My impression is that people read and enjoy romance for reasons other than realistic depictions of men and male relationship dynamics. So I think the real question is not, is this book remotely realistic? (Even without reading it, I can tell you the answer is no.) ;-) But rather what is it about this kind of story and these kinds of characters that so appeal to readers? ..."

Totally! This book is not remotely realistic but you have to just go with it and have fun with it.

There are days when I want more true to life fiction and sometimes I want fantasy. Alpha male gay spooks are definitely fantasy.

I agree. Most of the time I want reality. Sometimes it's nice to sit back and ignore what's not realistic about a story. The thing about that, however, is that it's got to be done well, and believable. I have to be able to believe this could still happen.

This story, grammar-wise was well done, so there, it already topped Cut and Run for me by about 100 points! And C&R is the only comparison I could think of that I've at least tried to read with similar characters.

Anne, referencing this convo in the What We're Listening To thread said something I completely agree with.

There's the people we like in reality, but that we wouldn't ever want to read about because they'd be so boring! She's talking about Bryce from I Spy, but I think it's true. No one would want to read a book about me either. My life's boring. That's why I read so much. To escape into other worlds and go on adventures I wouldn't be able to do, or wouldn't want to do in real life, but would want to experience.
These tough guys are fun to read about, when done right, and when we tire of them we can simply put the book down and read something else.

Jordan wrote: "Anne, referencing this convo in the What We're Listening To thread said something I completely agree with.

There's the people we like in reality, but that we wouldn't ever want to read about beca..."

Exactly :)