Audible:  https://www.audible.com/ep/Romance-Package?source_code=SNGGBWS1031170027

The cost:  $14.95 or $6.95 for KU & Audible subscribers. Supposedly it has a catalog of 10,000 romances and you can listen to as many as you can consume (update from Audible: This service would be similar to Kindle Unlimited and you would be able to borrow up to ten books at a time and keep them for as long as you want. You can also swap them out whenever you are ready.) Sounds intriguing and I say FINALLY and friggin' yay (and we need one for horror) but the articles coming out today are pissing me off. Apparently Audible has added a new feature that allows one to type in terms to bring you to the good parts; sexy bits, witty banter, etc. It sounds unnecessary and like click-bait to me but it's brought out the misinformed who think romance readers are nitwits only reading for the sex. Dum dums. That's what Monster-porn is for. I totally read that stuff for the story.

Idiot #1:  https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/audibles-new-romance-audiobooks-service-uses-machine-learning-to-jump-to-the-sex-scenes/?ncid=rss

"Let’s admit it: you probably aren’t reading that romance novel for the plot. Or its literary value. Audible knows this, and is today launching a new collection of romance-themed audiobooks that come with a handy feature that lets you skip right to the action. Called “Take Me To The Good Part,” the feature will fast-forward you to the steamy sections of the audiobook, says Audible."

Idiot #2:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/11/01/audible-romance-takes-you-steamiest-parts/819212001/

"You devour romance novels to get to—ok, admit it—the steamiest parts."

Seriously, are we still in the 80's?! Do horror readers read horror only to skip to the gory bits, mystery readers to the murder? This makes me so incredibly mad and I don't even read a lot of romance (but when I do it IS for the plot and characters you presumptuous snobs!). 

I mean terrible. 

Besides the the hero forgiving the heroine immediately it turned into a schmaltzy love must conquer hate! mess. It drove me nuts. And of course it was all coming from the asshole heroine. OMG, let him go, for us, our love must overcome his hate, nevermind he'll keep coming after us OOPS he kidnapped me again! Argh!

Then, of course, a ton of time was spent with the hero and heroine together being all lovey-dovey like I give a good god damn. The man list eight years of his daughter's life I WANT TO SEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FATHER AND DAUGHTER!!!!! Instead she was barely in the rest of the book.

*SEETHES*

Seriously, it is the worst trope out there. The only thing I can think of that is worse is the falling-in-love-with-her-rapist trope. I would like to take all the secret baby books, put them in a pile, and make a huge bonfire.

The heroines in these stories are flaming trash piles, with few exceptions. Terrible human beings, and yet I'm supposed to believe in an HEA let alone root for one?

The heroine in this book is no different. Terrible excuses for not telling the hero when she could. And had the nerve to sleep with him before being forced to come clean! Coupled with the heap of other lies she was keeping. I know I'm supposed to be horrified that the villain knocked her the fuck out. But seriously I was just glad someone did what I had been aching to reach through my speakers and do. Because that'll be the only comeuppance she gets. 

Of course, much like all the other heroes in these stories he comes up reasons to forgive her. He understands her lame-ass reasons, and even takes blame upon himself. Gaaaaahhhh! *rips out hair* All so they can end up together when they shouldn't. I always wish the heroine would die or just fuck off in some way that the hero can claim his child and they can live happily ever after.

I hate this trope so much. HATE. The story for me becomes all about what the hero has missed in his child's life. He never gets any justice for that. It's never an HEA for me.

New rule: I flounce the hell out of secret baby books instead of trying to power through. The rage isn't worth it. I may stick around long enough to ascertain what the heroine did to try and find/notify the hero. But if it's not enough, or later she doesn't tell him when she has the opportunity I'm out.

To add insult to injury in this book the sex was so graphic. I liked this series because they were decent romantic suspense, light on sex and not graphic. Actual romance sex scenes. Then somewhere between the second and third book "cock" became Naughton's favorite word —judging by how much she uses it in her PNR series — and so now it is said constantly in this book. It's obnoxious as fuck. Romance doesn't need such graphic euphmisims. 

I don't like to be one of those people who looks at someone's review of something (which is a personal, subjective thing) and think "Wow, you are just 100% wrong" (except maybe in the case of some Austen analysis). But I saw a review on GR today (written by a dude, no less) that said the Rat Queens comic--specifically volume 1-- was "misogynistic" and "degrading" and was just the male writers "masturbating." I've read this volume multiple times; hell when I first picked it up, I expected to be disappointed with an all-female cast written by a 30-something male writer. But I think it's great- full of female characters with agency who don't get punished for being sexual, but also don't get treated like constant eye candy. It may have some cheesiness in it, but it felt intentional and made it fun. Did anyone else who read it have any opinions about this? This doesn't just feel like a different opinion; it feels like a deliberate misreading based on what this particular reviewer was already planning to see, with a touch of mansplaining as to what should and should not be considered sexist.

(I do have an issue with the behavior of the artist for the first 5 issues, Roc Upchurch, who is a domestic abuser. But that has nothing to do, in this case, with the content of the work.)

Because I want to shout this right now but can't, I'm posting it here:

An anthology of short stories is not "a book of samples."

GAH.