As a young woman, I've come to realize that there is a distinct pattern in contemporary "chick lit" these days. While this may be stating the obvious, after reading different stories by different authors, they all tend to follow these rules:1)the main character is an attractive idiot. She is more concerned with her appearance and overall happiness than her job security, financial status, and peace of mind. Inevitably some part of the book will deal with her buying a new outfit, which instantly makes everything better. The contemporary chick lit heroine is self-centered and comes to grips with her lack of intelligence at a crucial moment in the book...only to forget this flaw or have it forgiven later. 2)there are always two guys fighting over her. One is her boyfriend, who is usually dull as dirt, and the other is a 'bad boy,' a temptation of sorts. The heroine always flirts with him and occasionally kisses/has sex with him, only to be remorseful moments later. She might confess all to the boyfriend in the hopes of being instantly forgiven, only to be terribly shocked when the boyfriend gets mad, promptly dumps her, or suggests a break. If any of these happen, a few pages later the boyfriend will be falling all over himself to win back her favor. The bad boy usually disappears from the story without a truly logical explanation. In the rare case that the heroine happens to be married, her husband fulfills one of these roles; most of the time, it is the boring part. 3)the heroine's job is always in an office setting. Following that, the office job usually has her coworkers hating her or -gasp!- dumping loads of work on her. The heroine spends most of her time not doing work at work, and thus hates it when she has to actually do work. She's also ridiculously computer savvy when it comes to email, yet somehow manages to be clueless about any software related to her job. Occasionally the heroine will be rewarded within her story, either by saving the company, getting a better job, or will get fired, only to get a better job days later. 4)there is always a best friend (or friends) whose purpose is to serve as a prop to the heroine's qualities. She may be a rowdy slut, a liar, blunt, or a drunk, but whatever the chosen aspect, the best friend will always pale in comparison to the heroine. The best friend is always honest and tells the heroine what she needs to hear, only to be brutally rejected for being a good pal. Usually the best friend is welcomed back into the heroine's good graces, and trips over herself with happiness and gratitude when such happens. 5)any family members who appear in the book are painted as the comic relief. There's usually a mother who serves as a blithering idiot and has some quirky trait that makes her hysterical (examples: believes in alternative medicine, is a vegetarian, is a sex addict). The father or stepfather is the straight man in the couple, sagely ignoring his wife's silly behavior and always offering some kind of unbeatable advice. Often, when the heroine enlists the help of her parents, it's the father who saves the day, after the heroine and mother's scheme backfires. If there are any siblings, they are painted as lesser figures in comparison to the heroine, often being younger or having unsavory qualities (being -gasp!- married with kids, stealing, unable to handle having a successful older sister). 6)the title of the book is some short, quirky little blurb of cuteness. This is a minor complaint, as a catchy title makes for a sale or checkout, which is good. At the same time, the title often plays on a well-known phrase or name.To be fair, "The Nanny Diaries" and "The Devil Wears Prada" are two exceptions of the standard chick-lit book following these rules, but they still manage to be enjoyable reads. The "Bridget Jones" series gets an honorable mention for having the parents wise-up and try to help the heroine in a realistic fashion, along with letting the heroine having realistic relationship problems. All of that said, "When in Rome" is one of the worst chick-lit books I've read. The title is ridiculously misleading; less than 1/4 of the book actually takes place in Rome. The majority of the story is set in London, and either in the heroine's office, her home, or out on the streets of London. Based on the cover description and illustrations, I expected a fun adventure that was set in Rome. If you want that; look elsewhere.As far as the characters go, Georgie is a terrible heroine. I know her flaws were supposed to be funny, but I never laughed. It was also highly irritating how she was so 'flattered' to be going back and forth between her ex, Mike, and her current boyfriend, David. Any woman with common sense will tell you this never ends well. At the end, when things are rapidly going downhill for her boyfriend, all Georgie can do is assume he's lying to her and that his whole tearful speel about getting arrested and losing his job is just a way of demonstrating his jealousy over Mike. I wanted to slap the living daylights out of her for that. I suppose that's why I enjoyed her realizing how she had screwed up and was an idiot. Moments later, though, Georgie was annoying all over again because her first thoughts were along the lines of "I want my boyfriend back, waaah!" instead of "I screwed up; I should try to fix things for his sake, not mine." Yes, it's human nature to react like that, but at the same time, given the severity of the situation and her involvement, throwing a pity party for herself does nothing for Georgie's likability. The other characters weren't entirely too bad, but they all pretty much fit the descriptions I listed above. I did enjoy how the book took a darker turn as far as the conflict and entanglement; besides the silly relationships, there was actually something serious at stake in "When in Rome." Also, the two guys didn't hate each other for the sake of hating each other over the girlfriend; they had legitimate reasons that actually didn't include her. Awesome. After all of this, you're probably asking, 'well, if you dislike chick-lit so much, why read it?' The thing is, I don't hate chick-lit. As previously mentioned, I enjoyed "The Nanny Diaries," "The Devil Wears Prada," and the Bridget Jones books because they were well-written and actually funny without trying too hard. I keep giving plenty of books within the genre a chance, simply because I like discovering new authors (which is how I found the examples, along with hearing word-of-mouth). The problem is, most of the books just aren't entertaining, or they try too hard to be funny. Or maybe my expectations are too high. Either way, I like chick-lit books as a light-hearted means of escape from time to time. All in all, skip over "When in Rome." Go watch the movie, "Roman Holiday," which supposedly inspired this book, instead. I plan to, given the intriguing descriptions within the book.
I don't know what to say about the book.First of all , I absolutely hated George..I mean seriously how can anyone be that Stupid, self-centred, annoying bitch. Am sorry but she was. I don't understand why girls go crazy over these things, I mean hello, one bump and you think he wants you back ? Are you freaking kidding me. Just because of this challenge I read that whole book without skipping, otherwise would have skipped part. Second is David.. an accountant by profession, I don't understand why it was shown an accountant is no fun. It was totally wrong, I mean it was him That was boring not his job, this whole story was baseless, useless and freaking timewaste... Third was Oh! So handsome and sexy mike . Urghh, he was the height , seriously , seriously I wanted to punch him straight on face for his behaviour not to mention his arrogance. I am not wasting my time writing much about him cause he is worthless...That was about characters... Now plot...There was no plot et all, for some freaking moment I thought this could turn into some serious mafia kind of plot, where the hero:( wait here please be carefull I mean David and NOT mike ) turns up as a secret agent, but nope it was plain and stupid. And there was so nothing in Rome, I mean they did went to Rome and all but it was ROME for goodness sake, Atleast a detailed view could have saved the day, but no... It was all about George George and George... It felt like a personal diary of a freaking 16 year old lovesick teenager than a novel.....Am sorry but i have nothing more to say..and if you are so bothered about what I wrote then what can I say , patting on your back for such a nice taste in a book ~~~~>>>. >*that was sarcasm my dear *
What do You think about When In Rome... (2005)?
This has been on my to-read list since 2008 - and recently the list reached 600 books. Decided I needed to do something about it, and since I can now request books from my library on line (I have to get most of my reading from ILL since my library no longer buys such outmoded things, preferring to concentrate on DVDs and graphic 'novels' and the latest dystopian money spinners.) The 'she has a perfectly nice handsome boyfriend who treats her well but craves excitement with a bad boy' genre might have amused me better some years ago but I found it flat, now - I may be too old. I have started 'Learning Curves' and find the premise more exciting...
—Deb
Not a bad book, my second by Gemma Townley. I found Georgie was a bit too daft and a bit too 'head in the clouds' sort of personality, I loved David's character and I wish we could have seen a more dramatic end to the whole embezzlement thing, and have him sweep Georgie into his arms with more gusto and romance. That being said, it's a lovely light hearted read that is totally relaxing and enjoyable, but Townley isn't in the league with Sophie Kinsella (sister in real life) who's books you can never put down and are the type you laugh so terribly out loud!
—Tiffany
I think I'd really give this one maybe a 2.5. Cute, entertaining story -- after plodding along reading it in pieces during the work week, I flew through the rest of it on my day off yesterday. But the heroine, Georgie, is just a little too dim-witted for me to find her sympathetic. She makes one bad decision after another, when the right answer is staring her in the face all along ("should I go to Rome with my sleazy ex-boyfriend, while leaving behind my charming, upstanding current boyfriend? Hmmmm..."), then proceeds to whine her way through her predicaments, feeling sorry for herself rather than taking responsbility for her actions. She finally transforms herself within the last 20 pages, suddenly becoming adult and responsible and learning to stand up for herself; but it's not a gradual transition, and instead smacks the reader over the head, and we're expected to believe that she has completely changed her ways and will live happily ever after. I'm a fan of Gemma Townley's books, but this one just isn't quite up to par with the rest of hers.
—Jen B
