Jane and the (I-Couldn’t-Give-A-)Damned
So I just finished my review of Jane and the Damned. Obvs, from the title here, it wasn’t a keeper for me. Which made it hard to write a review that wasn’t excessively mean. But because I don’t care about maintaining a level of niceosity here, here are some outtakes that didn’t make it into the review:
My biggest biggest biggest problem with this book was I had a hard time caring about Jane throughout the novel. I think I was supposed to like Jane based on the strength of her real world success, but since I have never read a Jane Austen novel - the only two I know are Pride & Prejudice and Sense & Sensibility (and it took me 2 days to remember the second one) - I didn’t have the Austen hard on that I think was supposed to carry the day. Was Jane and the Damned interesting? Yes. Did I need to read 300+ pages of it? not nearly. I probably would have been happy with a novella.
- While Jane and the Damned certainly isn’t the worst book out there - - it’s a perfectly acceptable way to spend an afternoon on the couch - - it’s not the best book I’ve ever read either. The lure of Jane Austen as a vampire may be enough to entice you to pick up the book, but ultimately it’s not enough to save what is ultimately…
- There were a fair amount of things I didn’t understand in Jane and the Damned. While never a fan of the infodump, there was very little information given about these vampires and how their world worked. Much like Jane was left in the dark after her turning (her sire was a deadbeat dad), the reader is as well. All we know is that there’s a vampire etiquette that Jane keeps violating…
- How much you like or dislike Jane and the Damned, is likely directly related to how much of a Jane Austen fangirl (or fanboy) you are. As someone who’s read about 7 pages total of Austen, I am solidly in the non-fangirl camp. Therefore, as far as I was concerned Jane was just another heroine; she could have been named Charlotte Holbrook for all I was attached to her. But because she was the inimitable Jane Austen, Mullaney didn’t really bother to develop Jane as a character. All I really know about her is that she likes to write and she has a strong sense of family.
- I think the reliance on the world’s familiarity with Jane Austen allowed Mullaney to phone in the character development.
- …it causes me no pain to see the beloved Jane Austen turned into a vampire. However, perhaps because I’m not a Jane Austen fan, I know missed some of the easter eggs that would a true Austen fan would have caught.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think it’s specifically the fact that she’s Jane Austen that I object to. Had the protag been Charlotte, like I named her above, I suspect I wouldn’t feel nearly as strongly about the book as I do. I truly feel like I don’t know anything about Jane - everything that I’m supposed to know about her, I apparently was supposed to bring to the party myself. BYOC(haracterization). I know I’m in the minority, but I just didn’t like it. I did like George. I would have happily read a whole book about him.
I have mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, I took this to review on the strength of her Immortally Sexy series (Date Me Baby One More Time, et al), and Kiss At Your Own Risk is in many ways a reiteration of DMBOMT & Friends. I mean that it a good way, mind you. All of the crazy, zany, bizarre things that made the Immortally Sexy world so much fun to read about are present in KAYOR. However, there was an element of world building in DMBOMT that’s completely missing from KAYOR. I literally have no idea what’s going on.











