#i just think the ravenels was written with the idea of appealing to people who don't go hard w historicals basically

[mermaidsirennikita]

saw the "who's your most underrated Kleypas hero" question getting bandied about (again) today, and I must say, the only answers I'll accept are:

--John McKenna/Again the Magic (I'd argue that AtM is not the DEEP CUT newer Kleypas readers think it is; before I read it, it was definitely upheld as a classic of hers, but people who want the softer boys she writes in the Ravenels... may not like this one; however, McKenna fucks RIDICULOUS lbr)

--Alex, Lord Raiford/Then Came You (yes... he calls her a bitch.... and I'll be real this made me love him more... he carried her over his shoulder outta Craven's and bought her a bear I'm VERY confident in this choice)

--Kev Merripen/Seduce Me at Sunrise (thought he'd kill Win with his massive dick, tied her up and took her to his fuck cottage, is Heathcliff if Heathcliff wasn't horrible basically)

--Leo Hathaway/Married by Morning (fun bout wounded king, "haha" in the streets and "oh shit" in the sheets, notable for making Catherine ask him to touch her pussy in explicit and specific language)

[mermaidsirennikita]

I miss the Lisa Kleypas from the Wallflowers and The Hathaways, The Ravenels are such a let down for me, don't get the hype (minus Marrying Winterborne, love Rhys)

I.... personally think the Ravenels is a series that works more for people who a) haven't read much of Lisa's backlist and b) often haven't read much historical romance at all c) are not open to the nuances of older historicals and the manner in which ~problematic content can appeal to some romance readers (and that's okay!).

(Caveat-ish: personally, I approach problematic~ content on a case by case basis. A lot of the time, things like consent issues, misogyny which often exists to be conquered, and sexualizing the heroine in general is not a super big negative because in part I think that allowing readers to experience safe fantasies of behavior and dynamics they otherwise would condemn in real life is part of why romance existed in the first place. Ironically, the reason why so many older romances have dubcon or noncon is because, in the very very early days of romance, it WAS less acceptable for women to be seen enjoying scandalous encounters in fiction, or publicly in real life. Cloaking these enjoyable encounters in a "I didn't want to want it" dubcon/noncon veil was a sly workaround and become encoded in the genre for a long time. And I don't think it's wrong for readers to still want that. I PERSONALLY have a harder time with light contemporaries featuring this behavior because it rings way too true to life, it's not a fantasy for me, but it is to others and that's okay.

In contrast.... racism and homophobia, for example, are not fantasies. So I don't find that acceptable in these books, unless, when handled with care, they are expressed by villains and confronted. Even then, I don't want to see a white writer approaching racism in their book, even if it's presented as a bad thing.)

ANYWAY.

I find a lot of Ravenels readers who read like, one older Kleypas book and couldn't stand how problematic it was, or maybe just read a scene or two. The Ravenels are watered down for the more recent readers. That's why you get things like St. Vincent getting a spotlight, but way toned down and Very Remorseful. Even if it feels OOC.

I think the idea that a book being problematic = low quality... really limited. There are problematic aspects to Dreaming of You, for example. The villain (a crazy woman who is insane because Derek dumped her, which, I wouldn't have gone as far as she did but I would in fact go somewhat insane if Derek Craven dumped me) is dated. Her threat to assault Sara in order to see what Derek was so stuck on is... problematic.

However, I do think that it's important to recognize the context and legacy Lisa was writing within at that time--and I also think that Joyce was at the time a more progressive version of this common villainess than say, the villainess of The Bride by Julie Garwood. Joyce's trauma from being married off to a monster when she was basically a child is referenced. (I personally read into it the idea that Joyce a) doesn't know how to develop or express healthy affection and b) she over-attached to Derek because nobody had really given her that kind of pleasure before and she interpreted it as meaning more than it did. Also, Derek is Derek. And gets it DONE.)

And anyway, a book can be problematic and have a great story. It can be problematic and be well-written. At times, the problematic content can be intentional and can contribute to that quality.

The Ravenels, to me, is very repetitive and very toned down. Even Marrying Winterbourne, in my opinion, gets a lot of work done by being very well-written, very romantic, and very character-based. If Rhys did not say "not five fucking minutes", would the book be as popular? I don't know. It is a really good book, EASILY the best Ravenels book... But even MW is not THAT original, you know? Rhys does owe a lot, imo, to Derek Craven and Simon Hunt--he's just a little softer.

Whereas Tom, whose book I do need to relisten to, is straight up from what I remember a watered down version of Harry Rutledge (just like West is a watered down version of Leo Hathaway). Maybe I'll feel differently when I read it again. The watering down seems essential. West, going back to a hero whose superior version I'm reading right now, isn't nearly as aggressive towards Phoebe, either as a challenger or as a lover. That element of pushy domination Leo expressed towards Catherine isn't there, because the Ravenels just don't go there. (The closest they got was really Rhys's "you want a bit o' rough?" scene, which, HOT, but wasn't even expressed to Helen... and sorry, it should've been.)

Like what you like, I just question the taste of those who think the Ravenels are outright SUPERIOR to books like Dreaming of You, The Wallflowers, and The Hathaways. Like, it seems as if people are really stuck on low-conflict, low-edge = better.