Jane Elliot (1)

Jasper Swinton and Brian Stark are among my favorite couples, cause, well, Jasper is so unlikable that you cannot avoid to love him. Jasper is really an unpleasant man, bad not for wanting but cause he is so insensitive he doesn't realize when he is hurting people. In this second enstalment, the author has already explained who Jasper is and so he doesn't really do any arm, but maybe it's also due to the good influence of Brian, who is basically the opposite of Jasper, a good man with a show more great heart and a sensitive soul.

The story centers around a prank war between the two of them, trying to outdo each other. They are clever but innocent pranks, and in the middle of them, Jasper and Brian enjoy a lot of sex and good friends. There is a moment of climax, no pun intended, just a touch of drama, but truth be told, I didn't need it much, to me the story as it was had already satisfied my needs.

One complaint? Barney the cat wasn't so much on the stage as I would have loved too, he is a kitten, still in that moment in life when he is totally cute cause there is no second intent in his actions.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JD35XJ8/?tag=elimyrevandra-20 show less

This unusual Old West-era love story between an outlaw and a homesteader takes risks in the name of realism with the accepted romance formula. It includes male-female-male sex scenes in which the two buddies hire a prostitute together in the same businesslike way that modern guys might go get their oil changed and tires rotated before a fishing trip. I thought it showed a very realistic transition for how two men of the time could gradually evolve into a sexual and romantic relationship with show more each other.

Other things to praise include both men, who are complex and appealing, the day-to-day detail of their ranching duties, and the homesteader’s amusingly unexpected new career as a writer of dime novels, featuring his lover’s past exploits. The novel’s weakness is in how it fizzles out on a happy note. Throughout, the narrative builds suspense toward what you might expect – that the outlaw’s past will catch up with him and the two lovers will have to fight for their lives. However, this never happens. Perhaps, it was intended for a sequel. Even so, this novel is unusual, atmospheric, and worth reading.

The story opens with homesteader Will sheltering John who shows up on his ranch, wounded in a shooting. He has no idea that John is a train robber until his family is threatened, and John helps to save them. When the two men meet three years later, circumstances have taken a toll on Will’s life. Alone and disabled, he struggles to keep his ranch going, and John moves in to help him in what starts as a temporary friendship, but evolves into much more. Both men seem bisexual with John much closer to the gay side of the equation. Will’s exploration of a same sex love affair is pragmatic, low on introspection, and believable. The steady pacing and complex personalities make it a treat to read about how their life together takes shape.

Val for AReCafe show less

This is the first book I've read by Jane Elliot and I like her style of writing. The writing has a spareness about it that suits the characters and the setting. I'm looking forward to reading the next book about in the series.

In the past I've always eschewed reading M/M books with girlie bits. Through this book I realized it's not the girlie bits I mind so much. This book contains 2 such scenes and I really didn't mind because... Ah Ha moment here... there was no emotional involvement show more between the 2 main heroes and the two women. The connection was totally between the two men. I love finding out new things about myself. :) show less

What most surprised me of this historical romance was the “unromantic” perception of the main characters, and bear in mind I’m saying it in a positive way and I will explain why: this is a western romance set in 1864 in the then wild territory of Montana; while one of the men had the chance to live in the city, the other grew up in a sheep ranch where he still is and probably will ever be, and has never once left his home. Red knows he is an inverted, he has always known, but to him, show more that means he loves sex with men; at the time it was already difficult for a man to understand what love means towards a woman, most of the time marriage was a convenience and completed with the first available woman, loves towards a man is not a possible concept. On the other side Henry was raised by missionary parents, he knows he doesn’t want to marry a woman, but again, the concept of a family with another man is not something he is considering. So no, there aren’t romantic feelings between Red and Henry, and till the end, love is something that maybe is becoming tangible between them, in their own way to approach it, but it’s not what drives them together. Sex, passion, that is the protruding force, and what they both understand, being experienced like Red or naïve like Henry. I found this approach believable and very much in line with the time.

And now, the second “unromantic” element: Red and Henry are not exclusive. Actually Henry is, more or less, but basically cause he hasn’t the same sexual drive as Red, while on the other side, Red is willing to renounce to have sex with other men, but only if Henry is able to fulfill his needs, and Henry isn’t. Again, not a romantic concept, but probably a very true approach to the matter.

Is it believable that not only two men like Red and Henry meet and fall in love, but also that they are living in a place where Red is able to go and find willing recreational partners? I think so, cause, it’s pretty much similar to what happened in real life with George Merrill and Edward Carpenter: this is one of my favorite real life romances, Carpenter, English socialist poet, philosopher, anthologist, and early gay activist met and fall in love for Merrill, a working class man. It was England, not Montana, but again it was the meeting of two very different souls, who mated for life, 37 years, and the two died little more than one year apart from each other. That was love, not question, but historic records attest Merrill and Carpenter weren’t sexually exclusive; nevertheless, no one is possibly questioning their love for each other.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FI7KK14/?tag=elimyrevandra-20 show less