Forum - View topicREVIEW: Midnight Secretary GN 1
|
Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Buster Blader 126
 Posts: 1206 Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada |
|
||
|
I bought Vol. 1 on a whim and despite my friend not liking it (she likes most of Ohmi's other works) I really enjoyed it. Kaya's really likable, not to mention one of the stronger female characters I've seen in female-oriented manga in a while.
The tropes are so entrenched in me that in the last chapter of the book, I'm thinking in my mind "wait for it, wait for it..." and as soon as Kyohei makes his appearance, Ohmi delivers on what I expect, and want. 
|
|||
|
|||
|
Utsuro no Hako
Posts: 1034 |
|
||
|
The romance is okay, but I found myself wishing the plot would focus more on the corporate espionage and boardroom politics.
|
|||
|
|||
sailorsarah
 Posts: 189 Location: Texas |
|
||
|
You've convinced me to check this out. I enjoy a good romance novel from time to time.
|
|||
|
|||
Msag
 Posts: 50 |
|
||
|
Ah Midnight Secretary! The manga sooo many women on the internet recommend to one another...
I'll give this manga one thing. Its probably the most exciting spoiler[dysfunctional] relationship I've read. You can't help but get hooked to it. Other than that, I completely agree with you. Kyouhei= jerk. Kaya= awesome. |
|||
|
|||
Agent355
 Posts: 5113 Location: Crackberry in hand, thumbs at the ready... |
|
||
|
Well, he sexes the ladies up so that his bites will hurt less. At least he's considerate!
My library got Butterflies, Flowers, so I'm hoping they'll get this, too. This sounds much better than that series, with its super aggressive (rape-y) boss. If not, your review convinced me I might even want to buy it. Thank you! |
|||
|
|||
|
Hellfish
Posts: 391 Location: Mexico |
|
||
|
I honestly can't believe this got licensed... I was completely unable to take it seriously... I asume the value in this is it's trashyness but honestly I don't see myself buying it... to each it's own I guess.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Princess_Irene
ANN Reviewer
 Posts: 2606 Location: The castle beyond the Goblin City |
|
||
I suppose that's true - but it really isn't trashier than your average romance novel. If you don't like those, you probably won't like this, but given how well bodice ripper romances do, I'm not all that surprised that this got licensed. Even Kyohei being a jerk is part-and-parcel with the basic bodice ripper - the hero and the villain are often the same person in the genre, a la "Beauty and the Beast." I'm glad my review encouraged some of you to check it out!
|
|||
|
|||
sunflower
 Posts: 1080 |
|
||
*sigh* Why do people insist upon perpetuating this ignorant stereotype? The *only two* qualifications for a novel to be qualified as genre romance is that the relationship has to be central to the story, and it has to have a happy ending. That's like saying mystery novels follow a very set formula with few variations because the crime is central to the story and it's solved at the end. Oh, but no one ever says they're cookie cutter books that are trashy. (I don't even know what calling books trashy is supposed to mean- that they're no better than trash? How could someone delegate a whole genre to a trash bin? I'd never say that about books just because I don't like the subject matter.) I'd recommend going over to DearAuthor (d0t) com and see how many variations there in prose romances. From my experience with the genre, there are as many variations in how two people form a relationship in books as there are successful relationships in real life. That's a lot. I'm not saying there aren't formulaic romances out there. Of course there are. Midnight Secretary is certainly one in manga form. And Harlequin is notorious for it in both novel and manga. But seriously, those are a drop in the romance novel bucket. If you want recommendations for different kinds of romances novels, I'd be happy to expand your horizons with a few. |
|||
|
|||
|
Princess_Irene
ANN Reviewer
Posts: 2606 Location: The castle beyond the Goblin City |
|
||
|
I am sorry that you disagree with my assessment of the genre in its simplest form, which does not come from simply reading the books, but rather from simplifying research and teaching several courses on the formula romance novel. Certainly if we examine the romance in a historical context, it is far greater than the Harlequin or Avon stereotype, which is where I would guess you took issue with my statement - while romances by authors such as Jane Austen, Mrs. E.D.E.N. Southworth, and other masters of the genre in the 19th century certainly share superficial similarities with the average book by Elizabeth Hoyt or Amanda Quick, you're right: they are not formulaic. (Although if we trace the genre back to what several scholars feel is its root in the "Beauty and the Beast" story, AT425C, formula is an early part of the romance due to its folkloric nature, at least according to Aarne and Thompson.) In fact, I personally often make the distinction between "romances" (formula) and "love stories" (focused on a romance but not following genre conventions).
Long story short, I did not think that a book review on ANN was the proper place to go full-out academic about the genre, particularly not for a book that does, in fact, follow the generic conventions. Incidentally, if you are interested in the genre and haven't read Dangerous Men, Adventurous Women edited by Jayne Ann Krentz, I recommend it as an interesting and enjoyable read. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group