I’ve read more romance novels in the past couple years than I had since middle school (thank you, Smart Bitches, Trashy Books). Some of them have become favorites, but a large number of them, even though well-written, don’t do anything for me. This book is helping me articulate why.There are a lot of really good things in this book. Angel and Hawk are interesting characters, as are the secondary characters. The descriptions of fishing and of stained glass work are fascinating. The storyline is generally plausible; the characters’ interactions make sense based on their histories. I kept reading because I wanted to see how the couple would overcome their differences and get together.So what don’t I like about it? I don’t like reading characters when they’re thinking excessively about their emotions. I don’t like the author’s telling me what the character feels instead of showing me. I especially get annoyed by passages to the effect of “she instinctively knew that he felt more for her than he was showing”. It drives me up the wall when the author says, “See? Here’s what this character’s feeling. You in any doubt? Okay, I’ll reiterate!”. And in the romance genre, these things are acceptable parts of the style, so I run into a lot of books that annoy me.The romance authors I enjoy the most seem to be the ones who do the least of this, who are writing a story about a relationship but showing me the growing love between the leads rather than insisting that the love is there. And when the characters think about their feelings at all, they do it in unique voices; they sound like themselves, not like any of a hundred other characters. Lowell has a few passages where Angel thinks of her feelings in terms of stained glass or Hawk in hunting metaphors, and that works for me, but when they think in more generic terms, I start skimming. That’s probably the biggest thing right there, actually. If your characters must spend paragraphs being introspective, at least make them think in their own voices, not thoughts that could be cut and pasted into another novel without editing.
Angel is a stain glass artist, who lost her parents and fiancé in a car crash. Hawk is a former car racer turned businessman, who doesn't believe in love bacause in his past experience all women have been liars. Hawk is interested in purchasing land Angel part owns with her deseased fiancé's younger brother, Darry. Hawk is an ass, without knowing Angel he makes assumptions about her character and says hurtful things to her. Angel mostly ignores his insults. She is a good person, struggling to live after a traumatic, life changing event. Just as his behavior was getting on my nerves, Hawk's traggic past is revealed and he finally sees Angel for the wonderful person she is. Very old school romance, with lyrical prose that worked for me.
What do You think about A Woman Without Lies (2002)?
I usually prefer historical romances to modern, but I really enjoyed this book. Elizabet Lowell is a great author. Her historical romances are unique. "Angel" is a glass artist who's best friend is injured. Hawk makes his living buying and selling real estate. He is visiting the injured friend's property deciding whether or not to purchase it. He has been hurt in the past and decides to show Derry (the friend) that his girlfriend is a cheap whore. They make love and then Angel is crushed when she finds out he thought she was lying about just being friends.
—Autumn
