the ask@AAR: Can you handle a con?
We have an entire romance tag dedicated to “cons and frauds,” people who are in some way faking, and a number of those books have DIKs. Con artists give me the absolute hives.
Surely, you might say, I could be okay with a hustler on the side of good? Ainslie Paton’s Confidence Game series features Robin Hood hustlers, who swindle the corrupt rich for charity.
Tried it. Couldn’t. Nothing wrong with the book; the entire concept just made me completely uncomfortable. Similarly, I’ve abandoned multiple books about fraudulent mediums if it turns out they’re less than utterly altruistic (using their frauds to bring peace). Taking money from the grieving is a huge no from me.
By contrast, Lorraine Heath’s The Earl Takes All also features a hero committing a con: the younger twin of the deceased earl pretends to be his own elder brother to support the countess through a difficult pregnancy. This con, I could handle. I loved this book.
What about you? Can you handle a con?
Generally I prefer romance novels that don’t have lying or conning as a central plot element, but it is not something that would make me automatically skip a book.
I’ve found it harder to handle if one of the love interests is conning the other than if one of them is lying or conning someone else or if it’s reciprocal and both are aware of it. I am less uncomfortable if at the end of the book the question the protagonist with a lying/conning partner has to face is: ”Can I be with a person who has done this and/or does this?” rather than ”Can I be with a person who did this to me and abused my trust thus.”
I’ve also had to face the fact that I feel differently if a character in the books steals money from some random person who’s then left completely destitute or if they steal money from a neo nazi organization, for example.
I know none of this is morally sound or even particularly logical. Lying is lying and stealing is stealing, period. And yet I just can’t help feeling the way I do.
“I know none of this is morally sound or even particularly logical. Lying is lying and stealing is stealing, period.”
Actually, I disagree.
I wish it were like that, but that is not life, I believe.
Moral soundness applied to life means messy compromises of all kind.
Skip examples below, maybe, if you prefer, I am blunt here:
Deciding whether it is more important to say the truth or be kind. Whether killing a villain is justified. Whether taking care of a spouse who is a vegetable means no sex with anyone else until spouse is dead. Whether abortion is ok when the life of the mother is in danger, or when a minor gets raped. And on and on…
I wish for authors to tell me those stories and convince me of the choices their characters make. I may disagree with the choices, or the author. But I wish to read those people’s stories.
which is far from the light hearted con stories of Jennifer Crusie. But, there, too, the author needs to convince me of the choices made, and of the moral compass being good enough, in the mess. Because irredeemable rogues may be faithful lovers. Or reform.
I think you’re absolutely right. Life is filled with compromises and difficult decisions, but if an author can convince me that a character has a good reason for lying within the context of a story, then I’ll go along with it – it’s not a dealbreaker for me.
I have a problem with taking things too literally and saying things in a too literal way. I think I perhaps I used English wrong to say something too literally.
I am well aware that there are always circumstances, motives, reasons to both lying and stealing – lives are full of shades of gray. When I said lying is lying, stealing is stealing, I meant that whether the reason for your lying is to be kind or to manipulate someone, you are still lying. Lying to be kind might make it more understandable and generally acceptable, but it is still a lie. So motives, reasons, circumstances, behind these acts chance, and I’ve found my own reactions changing according to those, but even a lie for a good cause or made out of desperation etc. is still a lie.
I wasn’t sure about using the term morally sound, clearly that was a mistake too. What I meant was that how I view lying and stealing is not objective but in fact quite subjective and emotional since the above mentioned motives, reasons and circumstances affect my response to them so much. By which I do not mean to say that people should be objective in these matters. Only to state that I am not and that I struggle with my own responses and reconciling my own values with them.
I am saddened that I managed to imply that I wouldn’t wish the kind of stories you refer to be written or to read them. All I can say is that it wasn’t my purpose and I find those type of stories important.
Perhaps we still disagree or perhaps I managed to misunderstand you, but whatever the case I hope I was able to clarify my previous comment at least a little bit.
Annik, I am sorry!
Actually, I was trying to say that I agree with you, that I understand why you like such characters and why you need to make judgment.
I was only disagreeing with your self – criticism where you said that your attitude is not logical because it is not morally sound. I actually believe that your attitude is morally sound, and logical, because you make a judgment based on detail, and do not just accept the sentence “Lying is lying and stealing is stealing”.
You express yourself clearly and well, and I picked one sentence because it touched my doubts and feelings about all this. So your expression and explanation is all good – I just like to debate.
Do not doubt yourself and your contribution because of what I wrote – I am happy to discuss and to read your ideas, no need to be sad or to be sorry!
Yes, I see more clearly that we actually mostly agree, you also wish to read such books and see the subjectivity of reconciling values in a specific example.
Thank you for sharing and discussing and clarifying!
Oh, so I did misunderstand you after all, pretty badly, it seems. I’m sorry. Truly. Your clarifications make everything make so much more sense to me.
This might sound weird, but in a way I am glad for the misunderstanding because it made me realize that I needed to clarify my first comment for I still maintain that I used English language wrong. I should have chosen a different term, used the same words differently and simply used more words to properly convey my thoughts.
I still find it saddening how easy it was for me to say something I didn’t mean to say without realizing it. I would have evidently missed this one too had your comment not helped me to see it, and I cannot help but wonder how many times the same has happened before. There’s obviously no way to know, but it is not a comfortable thought. I had not considered this matter before and besides paying more attention to the way I use the English language and hoping for the best there’s really nothing I can do about it, but it does make one think. My admiration for people with partners and/or other close relationships with people who speak a different language keeps growing by leaps and bounds.
I am glad that we had this conversation. Not all conversations are as easy as others and I certainly wish I hadn’t misunderstood you, but untangling a misunderstanding is a part of the conversation process too, right? I’ve learned a lot and am looking forward to future discussions.
Thank you so much for your patience and conversation! :)
Aw, don’t feel too bad, annik. I’m a native English speaker who has an unfortunate tendency to bungle what I’m trying to say, which sometimes causes controversy and ire.
Speaking of language skills, how did you learn English so well? Did you mostly do it through reading? I ask because I have always had a love of languages and can muddle through but certainly not to the level at which you write.
Thank you for your kind words, Nan De Plume! I am painfully familiar with bungling my words in my own language, so I can definitely empathize. The problem hasn’t fortunately been nearly as bad here, because my writing process is so slow and challenging that there’s always, perforce, more time to consider what I’m trying to say, but in a real life spoken conversation where I can’t take an hour or two to think about what I’m going to say – it’s bugles galore.
I studied English language from the 3rd grade to the 9th grade at school. (We start school in the year children turn 7 here in Finland.) I had a lot of problems at school and English was always a terribly hard subject for me. And that was over 20 years ago. I think it’s safe to say that I wouldn’t have been able to teach myself to read fiction in English without having learned what I did in school, but had I not made the decision to learn to read books in English after it became clear that I wouldn’t be studying English anymore, there would not be much left of my English skills today. My Swedish, which admittedly was weaker to begin with, is totally gone now, and since I’ve only spoken English only a few times while traveling since school, I can barely utter a sentence. It has been kind of astonishing to realize how hard it is to learn languages and yet how easily they just sort of disappear if you don’t use them.
You’re welcome, and thanks for sharing your language learning journey.
You might enjoy reading the blog Fluent in 3 Months by Irish polyglot Benny Lewis. He didn’t speak a second language until he was in his early twenties. His strategy is to learn languages by speaking and immersion (reading too).
The late Kato Lomb, Hungarian polyglot who worked professionally in 16 languages- most of which she didn’t learn until she was in her 40s- highly recommended learning language through reading lots of pulp fiction (romance, thrillers, mysteries, etc.).
It seems like there are lots of ways to learn and maintain languages. I think it’s a matter of finding the strategy that works best for each person rather than one size fits all.
Benny Lewis’s blog looks fascinating – thank you for the tip! And I am in awe of Kato Lomb! People can achieve such amazing things in their lives. I will never tire hearing stories like that – thanks for bringing Kato Lomb to my attention!
I whole-heartedly agree. Everyone is a different learner and people also have time and need for different things in their lives. For someone the first priority might be learning to speak a foreign language fluently and for someone else the first priority might be acquiring the ability to write scientific text and official documents with ease in a foreign language, for example. For me the first priority was to learn to read fiction novels in English. I reckon that besides using the method that works best for each of us in general for immersing ourselves in as much of our chosen language as possible, there are also different things each of us should do to strengthen the area of language we most wish to work on.
Learning, regardless of the subject, has always been awfully challenging to me and I regard the ability to read and less satisfactorily write English as one the greatest achievements of my life. Back at school, sweating and crying over my schoolbooks, I never could have imagined that this could be possible. And considering what a lifeline reading has become to me especially during the last ten years, it has been a huge thing to me not being stuck with just translations and Finnish authors because the selection of books in English is SO much bigger.
Annik, yes, I agree!
I learn best by making mistakes and fixing them.
and yes, it is so hard to say clearly what you mean, especially on topics like this one, that are ambiguous.
I am happy you feel that way.
and yes, we will continue conversations on this site.
Hi annik, believe me when I say it’s all too common to interpret something incorrectly or to have someone misinterpret something you wrote online differently than you intend. It happens whether it’s your first or your fifth language. It certainly happens to me.
Probably it’s compounded by the fact that there is no way to show inflection or tone when someone writes something which is why I find myself putting a goofy little “lol“ after stuff I write so people can tell when I’m joking or being silly.
A lot of times it ends up leading to an even more interesting discussion in the end.
Yes, I reckon it must happen quite a lot. There’s no reason why stuff that happens when we’re communicating face to face wouldn’t also happen when we’re communicating online, right? And it probably doesn’t help that all the information that can usually be read from facial expressions, body language and, like you said, voice is unavailable. I am not very good at reading nonverbal communication and I have APD (Auditory Processing Disorder) which doesn’t exactly help, but I’m not totally hopeless and their absence does affect me.
To be honest, I’ve been a bit uncertain how to use “lol” in my comments. I tried googling it but the answers were inconsistent and did not seem to apply to the contexts I often saw the acronym used in. I’ve still used it every now and then, but I’ve never been sure if I’ve actually done it right or just made things even more confusing. I know it stands for laugh out loud, but I’ve also come to understand that it has evolved to mean something else as well, which I feel like I had sort of grasped but perhaps not quite. I’m glad you defined when to use “lol” in such a clear and simple manner. Besides when something is actually laugh out loud funny, I’m going to use ‘lol’ to indicate when I’m joking or being silly from now on. Or to least I’m going to try my best to do that.
That is a very good point. While misinterpretations certainly make conversations challenging, they can also sometimes lead to ultimately better, more thorough and thought-provoking conversations.
Thank you for everything you said – I really appreciate it!
“I’m going to use ‘lol’ to indicate when I’m joking or being silly from now on. Or to least I’m going to try my best to do that.”
Actually, “lol” is used more for commenting about something you found funny that somebody else said or did. It’s shorthand for something like, “that comment made me laugh out loud” or “what you said was so funny!”
I think the abbreviation you’re looking for is “jk” for “joking” (which I don’t see used that much anymore) for when you are the one making a joke or being silly. Then there’s “/s” for clarifying that the comment you made is sarcastic.
Hope this helps!
I though “jk” was for “just kidding”- meaning I’m not being serious or I’m being sarcastic.
Gee, no wonder we get confused sometimes when someone posts. I’ve seen so many people online think acronyms were for different things (myself included). I think we are all using stuff to generally mean the same things but with slightly different meanings/nuances.
If I’ve contributed to confusing anyone I apologize!
Well, there’s another infamous Nan De Plume blunder, for you. I should have realized from the obvious acronym that “jk” means “just kidding.”
It reminds me of a segment on Ellen when someone wrote LOL on an obituary thinking it meant “lots of love.” Talk about a faux pas!
I’ve heard the lots of love one too. I remember a million years ago having to look stuff up because I didn’t know what ROTFL or it’s variant ROTFLMAO was.
I’d say I had to Google it but that was before google. I probably searched for it on Altavista or something.
I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of how to use ”lol” to indicate that I find something someone else says funny. But I often see ”lol” used in a way that seems like it’s a reaction to the writer of the comment themself, not the other party. For example, I just saw these two sentences: ”But I could be wrong, lol.” And: “I was disappointed lol”. That’s the kind of stuff that makes me confused and uncertain.
I read through your discussion, made more google searches and from what I was able to understand there seems to be no one simple rule to how to use ”lol”. People seem to use it to mean different things depending on the context.
I don’t think I’ll ever be able to master this! How on earth can one little ”lol” be so complicated? And I’d never even heard of “/s” or “jk” before now – it’s like I’ve been living under a rock – and the more I learn the more difficult everything gets. I guess I’m just going to have to muddle along and do my best to understand others and make myself understood. Hopefully that’ll be enough.
Thank you both, Nan De Plume and Chrisreader, for taking the time to ponder on this matter and help me!
I often use lol to indicate gentle sarcasm or that I’m laughing at myself. Acronyms can be a minefield, and they can certainly make you feel stupid. Someone used KWIM? the other day and I had to ask about that one!! It means Know What I Mean? just in case you don’t know either!
When you don’t have facial or auditory cues to help you interpret a statement it can get tricky for all of us! Luckily this seems to be a space where folks welcome questions and are willing to elaborate on comments so that we’re all on the same page. There are no stupid questions, so I just ask when I’m uncertain.
I love such books.
Let me be clear:
They are hard to write well.
This is a difficult area to get right. A big disappointment where it goes into serious fraud, or taking from sweet old ladies, or having no moral compass at all.
But to me, all those law abiding hard types – military, police, secret agents, spies – who feel justified in causing a huge amount of collateral damage, lying to the heroine (or hero), accepting damage to bystanders, all for the good cause, are much more problematic.
Jennifer Crusie is a perfect example, for me.
That’s a valid point!
I’ve been reading a lot outside of my preferred genre these days and have discovered I’m totally willing to buy in to a gray area if I believe it he character can be and will be redeemed in some acceptable fashion. If an MC is conning someone, I need to know he or she will either have an organic (but plot-supported!) change or heart or get some version of comeuppance that causes a change of heart, and/or has an external motivating factor that makes the questionable actions understandable if not always morally right. I think what I’m trying to say is I’ll read anything if it’s well-written?
I definitely don’t seek out books with any kind of criminal protagonists. As with all plot points, what an author does with it is the final determinant of whether I can enjoy a story, but in general I don’t want to spend time or head-space focused on criminality. This is part of why I read a lot of romances and very few mysteries, and romantic suspense is my least sought sub-genre of romance.
I wouldn’t say the con is a character type I avoid, but I also don’t go looking for it. A ‘good con’ character for me, in a romance (and I’d include the Vicky Bliss books by Elizabeth Peters here as Chrisreader mentioned) tends to be one who’s a) capable of self-defense but b) essentially nonviolent; AND deceiving the other MC in a way that is both c) fairly transparent and d) not personally damaging.
I have not seen it done well very often. :-) And the very best one I’ve read completely torpedoes all those caveats in paragraph 1.
The book that springs to mind is ‘Any Old Diamonds’ by KJ Charles, in which one MC is an unrepentant criminal and the other is embarking upon a criminal deception of his own family. Another would be ‘Amberlough’ by Lara Elena Donnelly.
Like anything else, it comes down to the writer for me. If I can be brought to care about the MCs within the first 10% of the book, to the point that I really want things to work out for them, I’m going to forgive them just about anything.
Depends on what a person is in the mood for TBH. The Ocean’s movies have really big fandoms, and people LOVED White Collar, so it depends on the author.
Jennifer Crusie’s Trust Me On This has a screwball vibe where the main characters (law enforcement and a woman pretending to be a mark) are trying to bust a conman. So if people like the action/plotting fun of a con but worry about cheering on the “bad guy” that might be a good fit.
Ohh no, one of my top problematic favorites! I love con artists, spies, and cases of mistaken, false, or hidden identity. With this trope, I enjoy how romance authors give explicit shape to the constant implicit performance of identity. We wear masks all the time and there’s an instinct to do so in love too, but meaningful connection demands we shed our masks, reveal ourselves, and open up to vulnerability, and these characters are dealing with that directly. This is also a trope that usually delivers a lot of conflict or angst, which I prefer.
Of course, the trope can go sideways quickly. If an author uses this conflict incorrectly or mistimes it, it has a tendency to read as one-dimensional duplicity or narcissism on the part of the con artist, spy, or identity thief. Sometimes, authors get too caught up in the second-degree glee of tricking other characters and they lose the theme of identity and in those cases, it’s a hard pass for me. Dubious or non-consent is also sometimes a tricky balance with this trope; I’m generally more comfortable when characters know who they’re consenting to have sex with.
And yes, I’m a huge fan of Lorraine Heath’s The Earl Takes All too!
I strongly suspect that my general financial anxiety ruins many instances of this trope for me (I’m someone who was nauseated and shaking and had to withdraw from a poker game with a $2 buy in).
But “a helping you by defrauding you” fraud like in The Earl Takes All that is grounded in loving/caring/helping/loyalty to a cause feels totally different and I can enjoy those.
That’s a great point! I’m alternatively giddy over risk and wrecked by the anxiety of its ramifications. I try to avoid gambling in real life because I can sense how deeply and immediately exciting it is for me, as well as potentially addicting and self-destructive. Fictional cons or schemes give me a good place to work those thrills and fears out.
I also think this is a question of the subgenre; I mostly read historicals so the cons don’t feel as “real” as ones perpetrated by characters in a contemporary romance.
Yes, totally agree, the “helpful frauds” are some of the best.
One of my favorite tropes is mistaken or hidden identity, especially ones where (usually the heroine) pulls a “Sleeping With The Enemy” and takes a new name and creates a new life for herself due to danger, an unhappy past etc. Nora Roberts’ book “Dance Upon The Air” is one of my favorite comfort reads. Roberts magical version of Martha’s Vineyard/Nantucket is just so much fun.
Wow, I’m not sure I’ve read that kind before!! Dance Upon the Air sounds like great fun. I grew up going to Martha’s Vineyard for Thanksgiving so I’ll have to check that out.
I love MV too. I can’t prove that Nora Roberts based her book on it but I strongly suspect she did. You will definitely recognize the vibe if you read it.
I’m not sure I have a strong feeling about this trope. I think it would “all depend.” However, I do hate manipulation as a trope in books (not necessarily con-artist, but just family and friends’ manipulations) so I think I’d probably not like books in this category that center around that. Spy type tropes probably work best for me here. I’m much more certain about heroes/heroines involved in criminal activities–that has rarely worked for me (a few exceptions when the protagonist turns away from the life). I just don’t care if criminals get their HEAs.
It’s interesting that today a Rachel Van Dyken book, Stealing Her, is on sale on Kindle (also KU and free audiobook is you have KU) and deals with a twin brother who is strong-armed into standing in for his twin in a coma to save the family business. Of course, he also has to stand in as his twin with the fiancee. I’ve been trying to decide if I wanted to give this a try. The manipulative family is as big an obstacle as deceiving the fiancee for me.
I liked STEALING HER (and loved the companion book, FINDING HIM). The manipulation comes from the father. The twin goes along with it to help his very sick mother (you need to read the book to get the entire backstory). Of course, the fiancée is also being lied to—but the hero hates himself for doing it. Sometimes it’s not the plot, but how the writer makes it work that counts—and I think Van Dyken does a great job with the “wrong/right twin” trope in these two books—along with the angst of having to lie when you don’t want to.
I picked both of them up,with the audiobook free,through KU! Thank you!
I hope you enjoy them. I found them angsty catnip (especially FINDING HIM, which had a beautifully melancholy undertone that I always love).
I don’t usually like the ‘wrong twin’ trope, but I read Stealing Her and Finding Him on your recommendation and enjoyed them. I agree it was because it was the father who was the manipultor rather than the hero.
My favorite con romance is Rachel Gibson’s fabulous True Confessions. It’s one of Gibson’s very best and the (kinda) con–making up stories for a tabloid–is brilliantly done.
I think it depends on the book and the character. I used to love Elizabeth Peters’ Vicky Bliss series with the rakish, urbane John Smythe as foil and romantic interest to Vicky. He was always involved in something shady but came through for Vicky in the end and (spoiler) eventually goes straight for her.
My big problem with Courtney Milan’s book Proof By Seduction was that the poor fortune teller heroine actually did a lot of good and basically saved a man who was suicidal by giving him hope but the rich and incredibly entitled hero thought because she was a “swindler” he had the right to bully and harass her. She even buys into this mindset.
I understand the problem with deceit as I can’t enjoy a lot of “spy” characters when the other person doesn’t know that the other character’s life or identity is a big lie. I do love Joanna Bourne’s Spymaster Books however because the most of the main characters know exactly who and what the other people are.
Anyone who is ripping average people off for no good reason is a real turn off and a deal breaker but people fighting corruption or just trying to survive get a pass from me.
This is key for me.
Come to think of it, I don’t recall reading any romances with con artists as main characters.
“…most of the main characters know exactly who and what the other people are.” An example of this that worked for me is The Music Man, which portrays a con artist in a delightful fashion. Marian only falls in love with him after she proves he is a fraud.
As for con artists in general? I’m with The Nostalgia Critic who gets annoyed with what he calls “the liar revealed trope,” because once one of the main characters figures out the other person is a fraud, the two of them usually spend the last third of the story “moping and doping.” So in general, no thanks to con artists for me unless it’s very tongue-in-cheek or both characters are somewhat justifiable crooks fighting corruption a la Zorro or Robin Hood (actually those characters fall more under the secret identity/vigilante category, but still…) In certain types of dark comedies, I could also possibly handle partners in crime turned lovers depending on how it’s handled. In category romance though? Probably not unless there’s a context that necessitates or justifies it.
Yes, that whole “I don’t know if I can trust you business” is necessary in that kind of a plot but super boring for the reader.
I don’t mind books when one main character is forced to try to steal something or infiltrate a place to save someone’s life. They aren’t deceiving for personal gain or because they like tricking people and they are usually working against their own moral code.
I think that’s why Forbidden Rose works so well for me and parts of Spymaster’s Lady don’t. Both Doyle and Maggie start off giving each other fake names and personas but they immediately see through the other’s facade. Adrian and Justine are practically living mirrored lives even as pre-teens. They sum each other up pretty much the moment they set eyes on each other.
Grey and Annique always felt like an unequal power balance to me. Not only is he years older than her with a background in the army as well as spying (and she has a physical disability when they meet) he “tricks” her again in England (which I found hard to buy). (Annique doesn’t even know her own history so even her Mom is tricking her). Grey also seems almost completely invulnerable whereas with Doyle, Adrian and Sebastian we see their vulnerabilities. And I love that Sebastian is known as being “soft when it comes to women”.
Grey and Annique are not my favorite.
Me either. Of all the couples they are the least equal and the age difference just adds to it. I know that Jess and Sebastian have a big age difference (especially) for her age but somehow she seems more of his equal in every way. They have a lot of shared life experiences and she has the authority of basically running an incredibly successful and powerful shipping company. Poor Annique though supernaturally talented, seems like a lot of people’s pawn.
My favorite con man is Davy Dempsey who is a supporting character in Jennifer Crusie’s Welcome to Temptation and the lead in Faking It.
I loved Davy Dempsey but was kind of let down with Faking It. It was an OK book when I was hoping for stellar. In Welcome To Temptation every scene with Davy was electric. I wish Faking It had captured the same magic.
Totally agree with this. In W2T Davey was magnetic and compelling, with an undertone of danger (not physically menacing, but rather mysterious and unpredictable). In his own book, he was attractive but rather more of a standard romance hero.
Not a trope that appeals to me. There is so much fraud in the world these days since the event of online banking, internet shopping, mobile phones, etc. that I would rather not read about it in my pleasure reading as there’s enough about it in real life in the news. There’s probably a place for it in other genres but not romance please. I agree with what KesterGayle had to say – a good analysis.
I wonder if the rise of internet fraud has had something to do with the popularity of this trope. After reading about older people being scammed out of their life savings in multiple ways, it’s a bit difficult to think of con artists as bold and dashing types who stick it to The Man.
Nope. Don’t care for cons. But I did like Judith Ivory’s “Untie My Heart”
It may seem odd, given the fact that I read quite a bit of crime/mafia/mob romance, that I say I’m not fond of con artists (fictional or otherwise)—but it’s the betrayal of trust that makes me dislike the character. In a standard (if there is such a thing) crime boss romance, no one is dissembling or lying about who they are. In fact, one of the almost de rigueur scenes in a crime romance is where the hero (soi disant) tells the heroine essentially, “this is who I am, this is the life I lead, if you’re going to be with me, that’s the reality.” (I think Michael Corleone says something similar to Kay in The Godfather.) Con artists, regardless of their motivation or the perceived nastiness of their victims, work by getting people to trust them and then betraying that trust. No, I just can’t. A couple of years ago, I read Lilliana Anderson’s FOOL ME TWICE where the heroine gets conned not once but twice (hence the title) by the hero and ends up getting an HEA with him! And the whole thing is played for comedic effect! Excuse me if I don’t find sleeping with a woman then slipping a date-rape type drug in her drink and clearing out her apartment (twice!) amusing in any way. Con artists are a hard no for me.
Not the only book where the hero secretly sedates the heroine twice (the other one is Anne Stuart’s BLACK ICE).
Personally, if I knew someone had slipped me roofies, I would never accept anything to eat or drink from them again.
This is one reason I’m not sure I will ever read the Ice series by Stuart again. I loved them the first time around,but I’m not sure, 9 years down the road, I would enjoy them as much.
Doesn’t her drug her to keep her from being horribly murdered in Black Ice?
The first time he drugs her, it’s so he can search her belongings and ogle her half-naked body. The second time, it’s to make her stay out of the way while he kills the bad guys. Personally, even that’s not a good enough reason for me. I just wonder if he knows what the right dose of sedatives is and whether the woman in question will have an adverse reaction to whatever chemicals he secretly slips her.
WHHHHHHHAT?!?! Oh my gosh, Anne Stuart is the Queen of Bananas.
I like her writing style, which is crisp and fast-paced, and her dialogue. Her sex scenes are great too. But some of her heroes are extremely abusive (by my standards) and their heroines rarely if ever seem to be able to stand up to them.
It’s not something I’d buy into in real life, that’s for sure.
There’s a third I know of: PRISONER by Skye Warren & Annika Martin, a VERY DARK story of a prisoner who escapes from prison, grabbing the woman who teaches weekly lessons there on his way out. Unlike FOOL ME TWICE, the roofie-ing is not played for laughs. I actually ended up liking PRISONER (and the follow-up, HOSTAGE),but they are both extremely dark.
I don’t like either of the MCs to be less than honest, even if they are jewel thieves supporting orphanages. Con artists are especially problematic since they rely on manipulation to con others. That begs the question: Can they then be straightforward straightforward with their partner? Isn’t there a risk that they will attempt to manipulate that partner from time to time? About the only exception to dishonest behavior is if s/he grew up in extreme circumstances and turned to criminal behavior to survive. But as an adult, they have to hate it and be striving to change.
When I was younger, I used to be fine with fictional con artists. They always seemed clever and daring and glamorous.
But eventually I got tired of the reasoning that it’s okay to swindle people if they’re rich, or if they’re unpleasant in some way, or if they just don’t live up to a certain standard. One such book says that an ambitious victim hoping to profit from the con artist’s scheme “was an atheist, but he found himself praying”. As an atheist myself, I don’t feel this would justify anyone stealing from me.
Fraudulent mediums are another pass for me. I’m nearly always on the side of the grieving relatives, so the fact that they’re being lied to, and that someone is profiting from this, just doesn’t work for me.
That said, I love stories about shrewd trickster characters, especially when they’re underdogs. The parts of Watership Down that featured El-Ahrairah, the rabbit prince who conned everyone from a watchdog to a king, are my favorites. Maybe what works for me is when the con is for purposes other than money, or when the whole point of the deception is to help another person. In George R. R. Martin’s A Storm of Swords (spoilers ahead), Sam Tarly pulls off such a con at the end of the book, and I loved it. When an author succeeds in making me care about such characters, the stories are often wonderful.
Have you read KJ Charles’ An Unnatural Vice? One of the MCs is a fraudulent medium,. and it’s one of my favourite books; he’s a self-confessed shitbag, but an incredibly well-fleshed out character. I’m not saying it will change your minds about all such characters, but KJC makes it work and then some.
If anyone can pull this off, K. J. Charles can, but I think I’d still want to know in advance if the medium gives it up eventually, and if he ever regrets swindling people whose only fault is being gullible.
It’s the middle book in the Sins of the Cities series – the whole set is well worth reading and IMO, it’s the best of the three.
Thanks, Caz! I’m going to check it out.
Sam Tarly is great and his con is in service of the greater good not just for the men of the Night’s Watch but for the realm as well. I think that’s why we can all get behind it. It’s clever and what seems right. In contrast with Tywin Lannister’s machinations which are genius but immoral, horrifying (and traumatizing to the reader).