corniebooks - Tumblr blog

[corniebooks]

Prince and Assassin by Tavia Lark

Assassin pretends to be the Prince’s loyal guard and falls in love with him even though he is supposed to kill him. There’s some kink and weird plot stuff, but the romance was amazing.

okay so. booktok/bookstagram friends ( bc idk if there's even a term for tumblr ) i need your help !! i am looking for books with a specific romance trope/dynamic and do not know where to start looking so i am throwing this into the internet in hopes of gathering recs.

i am looking for historical fiction or fantasy books with a king/knight romance, or something along those lines of a dynamic, if that makes sense. think, like, merlin or bodyguard au but fantasy/medieval (and preferably queer) okay. my soul is craving this.

please share around so i can gather from a larger group !!

[corniebooks]

ive drawn over 100,000 fish and i’d like to know if anyone beats that.

[corniebooks]

i had new thoughts about the validity of DNF book reviews and i want to share them

Something a friend said reminded me of A Book Review Incident I was involved in a while back, wherein a DNF review I wrote made some people angry both for a) not finishing the work, and b) what I had to say about the part I did read.

I'm not going to dredge up the review itself or name the book, that's not important. But thinking about it again while doing dishes (dish-thoughts is the new shower-thoughts) made me realize there's distinction between types of review and the expectations people have for them, and thus why some people absolutely cannot stand DNF reviews.

How I see it now, the problem is the gap between two styles of book review:

An analysis and examination of the work itself on its own merits;

A review of the experience the reader had reading the book.

For the sake of brevity, let's call these the "scholarly" and "product" reviews.

Back when I was a college student, even when I was not formally tasked with a book "review," I was expected to read the assigned material fully and engage with all of its content, in order to discuss it in class, or use it as a basis for a paper, or whatever else the class required. I could not not finish the reading and present my frustration with it as a valid form of participation for grading purposes. (I tried that once with a particularly difficult book in a particularly annoying class, and to no one's surprise, it did not go well.) This is what I mean by the scholarly review type: DNF reviews are unacceptable.

Product book reviews, on the other hand, are functionally like the review of any other product. I recently bought a handheld vacuum, and I read the reviews of several models before I chose one. I looked to see how many one-star reviews there were, and judged the reasonableness of the complaints. If Vacuum A was prone to weak suction or didn't charge quickly, while Vacuum B had attachments that were hard to fit to the nozzle, I wanted to know these things in order to make my decision. Likewise, if many readers of a certain book I might be interested in didn't like it, I want to know why, and DNF reviews are perfectly valid in this case, because not wanting to finish the book is a true experience the reviewer had, that gives me information about my possible enjoyment of that book.

To be honest, many reviews are some of both. I know I write both kinds, either on their own or combined, depending on the book. Most reviews I read are both types combined as well, generally weighted more towards product than scholarly, but still with aspects of each.

My galaxy-brain moment came when I realized that DNF-review haters want scholarly reviews when they're actually getting product reviews.

No, if I didn't finish the book, I can't credibly talk with someone about the full plot, its themes, the deeper meanings. I don't possess that information. But yes, my experience of not finishing the book is still potentially valuable to someone else who might be saved the trouble of reading it themselves because my review pointed out some poor qualities of the work, or potential unmarked triggers about sensitive subject matter, etc etc.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind with this or significantly alter the state of book review discourse--for the most part, people don't even interact with book reviews much, it's rare for me to get more than a few likes, barely ever a single comment or reply, and The DNF Review Incident only happened that once, quite memorably.

Also, I'd have to be posting reviews, which I'm not, again. I am still reading. I may start writing reviews at some point.

But I had these thoughts, and the way my brain works, they required expressing, and I decided to do it here in case my realization helped someone else understand (possibly) why the haters gonna hate.

[corniebooks]

I think the why is less important than showing it before for an inconsequential plot point.

It needs to be something low-to-no stakes and the more frequently you can fit it in the better. Like they saved the last slice of cheesecake from something and put it in the fridge for their crush but don’t tell them until it is a rotten blue glob in the fridge when it is their crush’s turn to clean the fridge.

Hopefully this will change the reader perception of the failure to communicate trope from author-enforced to add conflict to inevitable choice of a flawed character.

seeking thoughts on a type of character behavior

Starting with a behavioral question to see if this is Relatable ™:

Have you ever found yourself refraining from telling the truth or hiding information because you’re afraid of what the other person will think, even though you know that delaying the inevitable will only make it worse?

Maybe you’re afraid they’ll be mad, or will think less/differently of you. And you know that you can’t hide the truth from them forever, but you still immediately default to simple lies like “I’m fine” or “everything’s fine” or “I definitely am not planning on being possessed by a spirit during a concert you’re going to attend.”

Real talk, irl I know someone who does this all the time (not the plant part, the other part). Has for his whole life. It’s like clockwork. “Hey it’s nice that you’re confiding in me about this, but you should tell X about this, too.” “Yeah, I will.” (doesn’t do it, X gets mad months later when they find out). Every single time.

Now, if I have a character do this, here’s my fear of what the reader will say:

That’s so dumb. Why didn’t he just communicate? Why didn’t he just tell them? This is just manufacturing conflict because he didn’t tell the truth. Doesn’t he know that they’ll be made if he doesn’t tell them?

And just like irl, the answer is: yes!! he does know!! of course he knows, but this is a deep brain pattern and he’s fighting an instinctual fear of shame linked to his low self-worth!! and his arc is to work through that and confide in people again!! It’s psychological internal conflict! Man vs self, babey!

So, I guess my question is: if you were a reader, would you find this sort of behavior/arc annoying, dumb, or angsty? Or would you relate to this character’s behavior?

Book-specific context below the cut if you’re curious, but it does contain spoilers for both book 2 and book 3:

Keep reading

[corniebooks]

Ownvoices was powerful in letting minorities realize they could write stories about people like them and be successful. They didn’t have to worry about making it marketable to the mainstream audience if they were able to put the ownvoices label on it. It’s a marketing gimmick that has nothing to do with the merit of the material, but it was really good at getting more people to tell their own stories.

That said, just because you are writing an ownvoices story does not mean that you can’t perpetuate and include harmful tropes and inaccuracies. Society is what teaches them and because we all live in society we are influenced by them. It is better to look at a work and point out the flaws independent of the author’s identity because ownvoices will not be free and clear of issues.

Plus the idea that only people like you can understand what it is like to be in your shoes is a way to isolated and disempower minorities groups. You are the only one who can speak against oppressors, you are the only one who can determine what is and isn’t fair, nobody feels the same way you do, etc that’s prime rhetoric to groom you for abuse and keep you from feeling like what you do will have any effect in ending oppression.

it's transmisogynist of you to assume you can say something is or isn't "TERF rhetoric" when neither of you are transfem.

come at the problem from a different angle

Since the beginning of this project, I have made a point not to discuss my own life in depth. You have no way of knowing my gender, whether I am cisgender, transgender, genderfluid, or nonbinary. You also know almost nothing about the gender of Dean, the editor of this project. This assumption that both of us are cisgender is not harmless.

Remember Becky Abertalli? She is the author of Simon VS. The Homo sapiens Agenda, well I want to quote something she wrote:

"Having your book adapted to a film brings a lot of notoriety and attention, especially online, and it’s not always the fun kind. Unsurprisingly, there was quite a bit of discourse about my identity — how could there not be? Love, Simon was the first gay teen rom com to be released widely by a major film studio, and it was based on a book written by an allocishet woman. Yes, the film’s director was openly gay. No, not everyone cared (frankly, a lot of people still don’t know Love, Simon was based on a book). But in many online spaces, my straightness was a springboard for some — legitimately important — conversations about representation, authenticity, and ownership of stories. And for some people, my straightness was enough to boycott the film entirely.

Then Leah on the Offbeat came out about a month later, and the discourse exploded all over again. There were thinkpieces based on the premise that I, a straight woman, clearly knew nothing about being a bi girl. There were tweets and threads and blog posts, and just about every single one I came across mentioned my straightness. And when Leah debuted on the NYT list, authors I admired and respected tweeted their disappointment that this “first” had been taken by a straight woman. Of course, Leah wasn’t the first f/f YA book to hit the New York Times list. And maybe people were wrong about the other stuff too. But the attention and scrutiny were so overwhelming, and it all hurt so badly, I slammed the lid down on that box and forgot I’d ever cracked it open.

At least I didn’t remember I remembered.

I deleted the sexuality labels from my website. I declined to answer certain questions in interviews. I’d get quietly, passionately indignant when people made assumptions about other authors’ gender identities and sexualities. And I’d feel uncomfortable, anxious, almost sick with nerves every time they discussed mine.

And holy shit, did people discuss. To me, it felt like there was never a break in the discourse, and it was often searingly personal. I was frequently mentioned by name, held up again and again as the quintessential example of allocishet inauthenticity. I was a straight woman writing shitty queer books for the straights, profiting off of communities I had no connection to.

Because the thing is, I called myself straight in a bunch of early interviews.

But labels change sometimes. That’s what everyone always says, right? It’s okay if you’re not out. It’s okay if you’re not ready. It’s okay if you don’t fully understand your identity yet. There’s no time limit, no age limit, no one right way to be queer.

And yet a whole lot of these very same people seemed to know with absolute certainty that I was allocishet. And the less certain I was, the more emphatically strangers felt the need to declare it. Apparently it was obvious from my writing. Simon’s fine, but it was clearly written by a het. You can just tell. Her books aren’t really for queer people.

You know what’s a mindfuck? Questioning your sexual identity in your thirties when every self-appointed literary expert on Twitter has to share their hot take on the matter. Imagine hundreds of people claiming to know every nuance of your sexuality just from reading your novels. Imagine trying to make space for your own uncertainty. Imagine if you had a Greek chorus of internet strangers propping up your imposter syndrome at every stage of the process.

The thing is, I really do believe in the value of critically discussing books, particularly when it comes to issues of representation. And I believe in the vital importance of Ownvoices stories. Most of the identities represented in my books are Ownvoices. But I don’t think we, as a community, have ever given these discussions the care and nuance they deserve.

Consider the origin of the Ownvoices hashtag. It was created in 2015 by author Corinne Duyvis, with the purpose of highlighting stories written by authors who share the same marginalized identities as their characters. But Corinne has always emphasized caution when it comes to using Ownvoices to determine which authors can tell which stories. And she’s been incredibly clear and emphatic about not weaponizing the term to pressure authors to disclose private aspects of their identities.

So why do we keep doing this? Why do we, again and again, cross the line between critiquing books and making assumptions about author identities? How are we so aware of invisible marginalization as a hypothetical concept, but so utterly incapable of making space for it in our community?

Let me be perfectly clear: this isn’t how I wanted to come out. This doesn’t feel good or empowering, or even particularly safe. Honestly, I’m doing this because I’ve been scrutinized, subtweeted, mocked, lectured, and invalidated just about every single day for years, and I’m exhausted. And if you think I’m the only closeted or semi-closeted queer author feeling this pressure, you haven’t been paying attention.

And I’m one of the lucky ones! I’m a financially independent adult. I can’t be disowned. I come from a liberal family, I have an enormous network of queer friends and acquaintances, and my livelihood isn’t even remotely at risk. I’m hugely privileged in more ways than I can count. And this was still brutally hard for me. I can’t even imagine what it’s like for other closeted writers, and how unwelcome they must feel in this community.

Even as I write this, I’m bracing for the inevitable discourse — I could draft the twitter threads myself if I wanted to. But I’d rather just make a few things really clear. First, this isn’t an attempt to neutralize criticism of my books, and you’re certainly entitled to any reactions you might have had to their content. Second, I’m not asking you to validate my decision to write Simon (or What If It’s Us, or mlm books in general).

But if I can ask for something, it’s this: will you sit for a minute with the discomfort of knowing you may have been wrong about me? And if your immediate impulse is to scrutinize my personal life, my marriage, or my romantic history, can you try to check yourself?

Or how about this: can we all be a bit more careful when we engage in queer Ownvoices discourse? Can we remember that our carelessness in these discussions has caused real harm? And that the people we’re hurting rarely have my degree of privilege or industry power? Can we make space for those of us who are still discovering ourselves? Can we be a little more compassionate? Can we make this a little less awful for the next person?"

Hello, I am the next person. I am the author who isn't lucky enough to disclose every single one of their marginalizations on social media, and I deserve better than this.

If you have a problem with any of the points I made, feel free to share that, but you do not get to assign me an identity just so you can attack me for it.

[corniebooks]

The Golden Spoon, by Jessa Maxwell

2.0

Bake Week is a low intensity reality tv show hosted by Betsy, but the prologue lets us know that someone will be dead at the end of the third day. That said it is much more a mystery than a thriller even though you go back in time from the beginning to get to that point.

It’s a great concept and the setup was fun, but it failed to pay off, which is significantly more important in mystery/thriller. It compares itself to clue, but nobody had a motive and nobody seemed particularly murderous. There were plenty of motivations that make great motives for murderers, but they didn’t go with them. The second murder doesn’t actually happen in this timeline and felt like such a cop out. But I think knowing that it isn’t a locked-house thriller/murder mystery like Clue will significantly improve the reader’s enjoyment of the book.

Spoiler

Motives that would be better motivation for killing:

-trying to take over a show, assuming you can make the death look like an accident or simply incapacitate her so you keep her brand while not having to fully deal with her. (Melanie or Archie to Betsy)

-trying to keep it a secret that you plan on incapacitating Betsy and take over the show (Melanie or Archie to anyone)

-trying to prevent murder (Gerald to Melanie and Archie)

-revenge for taking over the show or taking too much control when it doesn’t belong to you (Betsy to Archie and Melanie)

-covering up a scheme to prove that you are also an heir of the mansion (Lottie to anyone)

-revenge for killing your mother, after knowing about it and dwelling on it for years (Lottie to Betsy)

-being a murderer and trying to cover it up (Stella or Betsy to anyone)

-accidentally killing someone while bored and then trying to cover it up (Pradyumna to anyone)

And part of the intrigue in murder mysteries is understanding what drives someone to kill and both murders were lack luster in that regard. A temper-tantrum turned deadly because it happened to happen where someone could fall and die? There is no closure there, especially since I doubt Betsy would’ve been arrested for it because 1) she is rich and powerful and 2) who is going to arrest a kid (12) for having the misfortune of having a fight with an adult where falling down would be deadly.

And then I doubt Hannah’s retelling of how she and Stella killed Archie because rich and powerful men don’t have to do anything to silence their victims. Unless he is black and losing favor, society and their fans do it for them. It was such a let down, especially since Archie wasn’t even the one to drug and rape someone (that would’ve been much more satisfying and motivating to be more violent, especially if Stella’s evil boss had been replaced by Archie). It made me go from being intrigued by Hannah, Stella, and Archie to seeing them as poorly constructed plot devices. As you can see, the setup gave me plenty of ideas that would’ve been more interesting than what was delivered.

How can you have blood on the cover and deliver this? This feels like a book that is afraid of being a murder mystery/thriller and so it fails.

[corniebooks]

Gideon the Ninth, by Tamsyn Muir

4.0 / 5.0

Gideon wants to get off her planet and join the war so her life will be more than her rivalry with Harrow (heir/princess necromancer of the planet). Instead Harrow tricks her into staying and requesting that she should serve as her cavalier during her attempt to become a Lyctor (a more powerful version of a necromancer).

Together they arrive at the planet of the first (from the ninth) along with representatives from the rest of the planets, each only having a necromancer and a cavalier. The only rule to not enter a locked door without permission. In an ancient castle with ancient laboratories they must master the necromancer-cavalier bond and survive whatever it is that wants to prevent them.

The beginning was rough. I was intrigued, I liked the characters, but it was rough to get myself to keep reading. Once I got past 16% it was much better, then it was all about not wanting to deal with the gore and weirdness of the necromancer stuff as bones and necromancy isn’t my jam. I still enjoyed the story. It was intriguing and interesting and engaging.

There was violence, but there was enough severity that it didn’t feel gratuitous. There was a little bit of a mystery as to who/what was doing the killing and then infighting. Then the ending dragged on a little bit. It felt like it would be more interesting as a movie ending than a book ending. It didn’t have the right emotional hook and it was basically twiddling your thumbs until Gideon did what you knew she was going to do once you had all the pieces of the puzzle.

[corniebooks]

A Taste of Gold and Iron, by Alexandra Rowland

3.0 / 5.0

Prince Kadou feels like he messes everything up and then his latest mess causes the death of two kahyalar and he knows he is in trouble. Counterfeit coins, a break-in at the shipbuilders guild, the Sultan’s consort is being a pest to him for no reason. Evemer gets assigned to take care of Prince Kadou right after the disaster and hates him for killing off two of his kahyalar mentors and then somehow it turns into a romance…awkwardly.

For a prince falling in love with his “guard”, this story is not the best story to fit that fancy. The romance is a bit chunky, meaning it doesn’t feel like a romance book until there are pages of them waxing poetic late in the book. It’s not quite a full fantasy either because of the romance. It awkwardly sits as almost a fantasy romance. I was not shipping them even though I knew they were supposed to be the leads.

The mystery was a little heavy handed, as in not very mysterious and very transparent. I don’t even think there was a red herring. A lot of the book was Kadou fighting himself on whether or not to do things and second guessing everything, which yes is mental health representation, but it really hurts the fantasy and romance aspects of the book. Like this book isn’t a fantasy romance, it is a book about a character struggling with a mental health issue with a serving of fantasy and romance. But that wasn’t what I expected going in.

Characters are strong. There are some fun action sequences. Some of the romance doesn’t feel heavy handed. But I hate the way the author handled Tadek, especially in the beginning. The elite guard makes some pretty obvious dumb mistakes. And I honestly didn’t really ship the romantic pair, so maybe if you do they won’t be as awkward for you.

Oh and speaking of awkward, they author decides to make all the awkwardness of high schoolers demanding to know your romantic/sexual past and other very awkward situations that were miserable because of all the second-hand embarrassment. I tolerate that stuff in YA because it is high school when you figure out how to handle that, but it just feels so wrong for a group of adults.

[corniebooks]

The Girl from the Sea, by Molly Knox Ostertag

5.0

Morgan has a plan. Stay in the closet until she can get out of her small town and be her true self. This plan is complicated when she almost drowns and kisses her mysterious rescuer. Her mysterious rescuer is a selkie who takes on her human form full-time due to true love’s kiss.

Absolutely adorable. Great art.

[corniebooks]

A Rival Most Vial: Potioneering for Love and Profit, by R.K. Ashwick

5.0

Received an ARC copy in exchange for a review.

Ambrose is an expert potion brewer. The best of the best and the only potion store in town until Eli moves in across the street to open his own potion shop. When misunderstandings and competition reach its greatest height, the only way for them both to stay afloat is a commission from the Governor. From there, they begin to mend the hurt feelings and become friends.

Found family story as the shopowners of the street are a family who help and care for each other. Eli is on a self-discovery mission. And while these characters aren’t adventurers themselves, it’s still a dangerous world.

It’s an excellent balance of story and romance. The hatred felt over the top at the time, but after diving more into the character histories it made sense. It reminds me of the board game bargain quest a little, mostly as the accounting and store business aspect isn’t as in-depth as I would’ve liked. Of course that is likely a positive trait for everyone else, but really it was the perfect story for some good accounting conflict.

All in all, an enjoyable read.

[corniebooks]

The Dead Romantics, by Ashley Poston

4.5 / 5

Florence is a ghostwriter for a famous romance author who hasn’t been able to finish the fourth and final book of her contract ever since she broke up with her last boyfriend. She wishes to delay her deadline with the new editor, but when she goes in to meet with him for the first time, he refuses any further extensions.

Later that day she gets news of her father’s passing and she returns home after being run out for solving a murder by speaking with ghosts. To her surprise, her editor’s ghostly apparition follows her there. It’s a gender swapped “Just Like Heaven” where I wish we had more time in the man’s character arc.

This one is definitely a lot cheesier than her other books. I complained about there being too little resolution on the Cinderella retelling, but this one had a bit much after a really weird third act. It felt choppy going into the resolution.

But this book had great heart and sincerity and a blast while the love interest was a ghost.

[corniebooks]

I’m reading the physical book so I don’t have percentages but my bet is on the professor as to who is going to betray them later.

Starting to read Moon is a Harsh Mistress and I’m hating the pretend future moon grammar the narrator has going. Please put those small words back in, it’s hurting my brain.

[corniebooks]

World Building Wednesday

Docket 936591

Basic concept is liberal moon city (Agate) and conservative planet (Fetid, according to MC’s). There is also an ice planet that is inhabited, but it is less important to the story.

Pick a planet and pick a category and I will give some random tidbit of information.

History

Culture

Economy

Religion

Language

Government

[corniebooks]

100%

Yep. They went with that. It’s not cool or clever or interesting and it makes you dislike the characters you grew to love, which maybe was the point.

Except the point of the murder mystery is about the violence and an active choice to harm someone to such a degree. Instead we have a child having a temper tantrum turned deadly over her parents getting divorced and a revenge fantasy about it being self-defense to kill someone just being an asshole in relationships. Archie was not revealed to have raped anyone and Hannah’s hand wasn’t really forced so it really falls short of feeling justified (I definitely don’t trust the year later retelling from Hannah’s POV).

I was enjoying the story, but the ending sucked. And I had thought it was going to be a locked house thriller where the killer kills again, but that definitely didn’t happen. Inheritance questions, sabotage of a show, attempting to corner out someone else are all intriguing premises to be pushed too far, but were completely ignored in the violence and resolution.

Maybe if I hadn’t been deceived about what I was getting myself into I wouldn’t feel so let down.

Just starting the Golden Spoon by Jessa Maxwell. Here are my predictions based on the six character descriptions.

Gerald: the one murdered for noticing what is going on

Hannah is 100% based on Jenna from Waitress and therefore will be discovered to have violent past but will be innocent

Stella is not who she seems, either murdered to get her way in and stand in as the person or identical twin trying to figure out why her sister was murdered á la glass onion

Peter and Pradyumna are either going home before the murder starts or only guilty of self-defense violence

Which leaves Lottie the old lady as the culprit unless it is the co-host or one of the staff.

Don’t tell me how wrong or right I am until I’m done with the book. Spoilers will happen as I read along, I will try and put the percentage of how far in the spoiler happens before revealing it.

[corniebooks]

80%

Sigh, really. They are really going with this.

Just starting the Golden Spoon by Jessa Maxwell. Here are my predictions based on the six character descriptions.

Gerald: the one murdered for noticing what is going on

Hannah is 100% based on Jenna from Waitress and therefore will be discovered to have violent past but will be innocent

Stella is not who she seems, either murdered to get her way in and stand in as the person or identical twin trying to figure out why her sister was murdered á la glass onion

Peter and Pradyumna are either going home before the murder starts or only guilty of self-defense violence

Which leaves Lottie the old lady as the culprit unless it is the co-host or one of the staff.

Don’t tell me how wrong or right I am until I’m done with the book. Spoilers will happen as I read along, I will try and put the percentage of how far in the spoiler happens before revealing it.

[corniebooks]

68%

Not that I’m an excellent baker, but I’m pretty sure that you it wouldn’t be obvious that a cake fell apart, especially after sculpting and cutting (which you would change your plan). However the texture is likely to be off if it did fall apart, which would be a reason to be dinged. Just a nitpick.

Just starting the Golden Spoon by Jessa Maxwell. Here are my predictions based on the six character descriptions.

Gerald: the one murdered for noticing what is going on

Hannah is 100% based on Jenna from Waitress and therefore will be discovered to have violent past but will be innocent

Stella is not who she seems, either murdered to get her way in and stand in as the person or identical twin trying to figure out why her sister was murdered á la glass onion

Peter and Pradyumna are either going home before the murder starts or only guilty of self-defense violence

Which leaves Lottie the old lady as the culprit unless it is the co-host or one of the staff.

Don’t tell me how wrong or right I am until I’m done with the book. Spoilers will happen as I read along, I will try and put the percentage of how far in the spoiler happens before revealing it.

[corniebooks]

63%

I know this isn’t a book with a happy ending, but it would be a nice ending to have Lottie revealed as a Grafton and then she and Betsy can work together to preserve the mansion and be friends in their old age, sustained by the profits of selling a book about the drama between their mothers.

Just starting the Golden Spoon by Jessa Maxwell. Here are my predictions based on the six character descriptions.

Gerald: the one murdered for noticing what is going on

Hannah is 100% based on Jenna from Waitress and therefore will be discovered to have violent past but will be innocent

Stella is not who she seems, either murdered to get her way in and stand in as the person or identical twin trying to figure out why her sister was murdered á la glass onion

Peter and Pradyumna are either going home before the murder starts or only guilty of self-defense violence

Which leaves Lottie the old lady as the culprit unless it is the co-host or one of the staff.

Don’t tell me how wrong or right I am until I’m done with the book. Spoilers will happen as I read along, I will try and put the percentage of how far in the spoiler happens before revealing it.