Looking for Feedback on Lisa Kleypas Contemporaries

utoeid · Joined: 05 Jun 2007 Posts: 109

Hey all,

Has anyone read the 2 Lisa Kleypas contemporaries (Sugar Daddy and Blue Eyed Devil)?

She is one of my favorites but I can't get into how she has written in that whole first person perspective thing. Confused

Kass · Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 722 Location: under a cockatiel

Sugar Daddy really, really sucked IMO. I thought it was like a very bad country song, except no one killed the heroine's dog or married her sister.
_________________
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

My blog: http://www.thoughts.com/allergywoman/blog
http://www.shelfari.com/o1517440994

RichMissTallant · Joined: 06 Jun 2008 Posts: 148 Location: Washington, DC

I haven't read Sugar Daddy, but I posted about Blue-Eyed Devil in its thread. There was something a bit off about it that I still can't put my finger on; it's almost like there were times when I was expecting it to be an old Western or 80s contemporary. Strange character names, stilted dialogue, a truly awful ex-husband who became a little too cartoon-y villanous for me... I was definitely underwhelmed.

xina · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 6630 Location: minneapolis

Loved, Sugar Daddy. I bought Blue Eyed Devil weeks ago and will...finally, be starting it in the next few days after I've finished the books I'm reading now. I have to admit, I was a skeptic, thinking that a very successful historical romance author couldn't write a contemporary setting, but I was wrong...the writing was lovely, and I was impressed. I'm very anxious to start Blue Eyed Devil.

Vanessa · Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 64 Location: New York

I was pretty hesitant about reading her contemps because I'm such a huge fan of her historicals. I just didn't believe I could deal with the transition AND, I usually can't stand first person POV. However, I took the plunge and was pleasantly surprised. They were both enjoyable but I can't say they come close to her historicals in terms of the depth of emotion. While I think her writing is still excellent, I think that has more to do with the fact that we only see the story through one person's eyes (which is my main problem with first person books).

I tried Sugar Daddy when it came out in paperback, because I didn't want to dive into the unknown at the hardcover price, but once I finished it I bought Blue Eyed Devil in hardcover lol

So this whole long story comes down to: maybe you should try Sugar Daddy from the library? Or since its in paperback it wouldn't hurt so much if you buy and dislike than if it was in hardcover? I thought they were ok Smile

Lindareads · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 87 Location: Pennsylvania, USA

I thought Sugar Daddy was just wonderful. Probably one of the best books I've ever read. It hooked me from the first page and that doesn't happen very often lately. I started it one evening and finished it up the next day.

I was expecting more from Blue-Eyed Devil, after loving Sugar Daddy. I didn't like the heroine, who had no backbone, the evil EX was way over the top, and I thought that Hardy deserved a much better match.

Can't wait for the next Kleypas contemporary though. I love her writing.

Linda

sanalayla · Joined: 21 Jan 2008 Posts: 280

I was hesitant, at first, but ended up buying the paperback of "Sugar Daddy" because I was bored and wanted something to read one weekend.

I was blown away. I loved it. However, I should tell you - upfront - that it's not a typical romance novel. It reads more like chick-lit. The story starts when Liberty (the main character) is about 14 years old and gives her whole life story from that point onwards. There's some romance, but the primary focus is just on how Liberty survives and what's going on in her life. The hard-core romance and sexual tension doesn't start until the last 30 pages or so.

I read a lot of chick-lit and I've been kind of burned out on romances lately, so it worked for me. I liked Liberty, so I enjoyed reading about her outside of her romance issues.

Now, after how much I loved "Sugar Daddy", I went and splurged on "Blue Eyed Devil" in hardcover. I regretted it. I HATED it. I thought it was a very cliche contemporary romance. You know the kind - the main hero/heroine are all about the sex. If "Sugar Daddy" didn't have enough sex and was not enough of a romance novel, "Blue Eyed Devil" makes the mistake of focusing too much on sex and striving to be too much of a romance novel. The hero is a very generic romance hero. At times, it almost read like a Harlequin in first person narrative. The girl is guilty of the "To Stupid to Live Syndrome" and is a door mat. Very much a damsel in distress. It's weird when you're reading a book in first person and you can't stand the narrator. But that's what happens in this book.

I don't regret reading "Blue Eyed Devil" because I did want to continue the story I started with "Sugar Daddy". And Kleypas, for the most part, is a decent enough writer that you want to finish her books even when you're not happy with them. But I DID regret putting down the $$ for hardcover. I wish I had gotten it from the library.

But, you know, if she writes a book on the next sibling (Joe), I'll be first in line to buy it if it gets good reviews. Because I liked that character and I think that Kleypas did, as well. She wrote him well, so I'm interested in reading more about his story.

Anyway, those are my $0.02.

mamaofthree1963 · Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 139

Loved Sugar Daddy, intensely disliked Blue-Eyed Devil.

I agree with the lady above in her synopsis of the heroine in the follow-up. Not much there to dislike but neither was there much to like. Sorta struck me like a wet dishrag. Blech.
_________________
...He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep...

panthercrawl · Joined: 28 May 2008 Posts: 404

Its funny you should ask this. I tried once again to get through the first chapter of Sugar Daddy this weekend and couldnt do it. This is my third attempt. I am honestly bored by it. I know in the end I will suck it up and make it through because I love LK. But it definately isnt grabbing me at the start.

Tee · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 4062 Location: Detroit Metro

I agree with the people here who say they loved Sugar Daddy, but definitely did not like Blue-Eyed Devil. The first book was full of characterization; the second one failed that miserably, IMO, of course. In previous threads, some have mentioned that the second book was more of a romance. That may be so, but it still was not one that kept me wanting to come back for more. The way Kleypas set up Sugar Daddy was a story that kept drawing me in and wanting more. And it had romance enough for me.

xina · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 6630 Location: minneapolis

And it had romance enough for me.[/quote]

Yes, me too Tee, but I find romance in general fiction as well. I thought Sugar Daddy was a remarkable effort for Kleypas. Well, now I'm a bit nervous to start Blue-Eyed Devil. I'm planning on taking it out tonight and starting it. Interesting views on it...I'll have to see.

Tee · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 4062 Location: Detroit Metro

MarianneM · Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 374 Location: Houston, Texas

Going to have to disagree with you commenters above. I thought that Sugar-Daddy was a bit "off" and only liked it a little, but I was impressed and charmed by Blue-Eyed Devil, which tackled the difficult subject of spousal abuse and handled it very well, I thought.

Also, I just plain liked Hardy Cates. I've met men like Hardy Cates and he rings true as a character. If I were 20 years younger, I wouldn't mind having my own Hardy Cates. So there!

MarianneM

Tee · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 4062 Location: Detroit Metro

nikkiphilton · Joined: 25 Mar 2007 Posts: 193 Location: El Paso

LK is one of my favorite historical writers so I, too, was hesitant about reading her contemporary novels. But I really like both of them and found them to be fast reading and interesting. I wasn't bothered by the 1st person POV. The only complaint I might voice would be that I would have wanted the heroine in Blue-Eyed Devil to be a little stronger.