Goodreads giveaway for TRUE PRETENSES

I’m doing a giveaway for the paperback edition of True Pretenses. Check it out!

(US/Canada only, sorry readers who live elsewhere.)

Goodreads Book Giveaway

True Pretenses by Rose Lerner

True Pretenses

by Rose Lerner

Giveaway ends August 01, 2015.

See the giveaway details
at Goodreads.

Enter to Win

Night Owl Reviews Scavenger Hunt!

Hi guys! I’m excited to be a sponsor of the Night Owl Reviews February Scavenger Hunt. This is an awesome event where you basically read book blurbs and do fill-in-the-blanks, and you learn about new books and are entered to win e-books and gift cards. (OMG that $500 Amazon card is calling to me, singing its siren song. “Boooooooooooks,” it croons seductively. “Boooks books fa la la booooooooooks.”) And since I’m a sponsor, one of the e-book prizes is True Pretenses!

You can use this Rafflecopter form to enter, or go here.

a Rafflecopter giveaway

Happy reading!

Welcome Theresa Romain and her awesome books!

Readers, thanks for visiting! Today, Theresa Romain and I are chatting about our January historical romances, which both feature heiress heroines theresa romain author photo(mine: True Pretenses, and hers: Secrets of a Scandalous Heiress). But as we talked, we discovered many more things we wanted to talk about—everything from character casting to mall singers to “manflirting” as an aristocratic cultural marker.

This is part 2 of 2 of the chat. You can find the beginning on Theresa’s blog. And please stick around to comment, because we’re offering a book giveaway on each site!

When last you saw us on Theresa’s blog, Theresa was talking about the silly plans romance heroes make…

Continue reading “Welcome Theresa Romain and her awesome books!”

A PENNY earned

I’m trying to get my website all prettied up for release week, so…I will mail a copy of IN FOR A PENNY to the first five people who can find an error, typo, or broken link on my site!


1. I will update this post with errors as they’re found, errors must be as-yet-unfound to qualify for a book.

2. Links in blog posts older than 6 months don’t count.

3. Open internationally.

4. These copies are the Dorchester mass market paperbacks.

5. Reply to this post or email me at lerner (dot) rose (at) gmail (dot) com.

6. One book per person, but for each additional error you find, I’ll include a Sweet Disorder pinback button of your choosing. 🙂

Thank you for your help!

Error #1: Anne spotted some hyphens where there should be em-dashes on the Bookshelf page. Thanks Anne! 4 books to go.

Error #2: Theresa Romain pointed out that 3:10 to Yuma is in quotes when all other titles are in italics. But she’s generously forgone her book, so…still 4 to go!

Error #3: Anne, who is a rockstar, also noticed that the newsletter subscribe page has the line “all required fields marked red” which is a LIE. Anne is already getting a book though so…still 4 to go!

Error #4: diva-viva pointed out that the “Contests” link is broken on the Newsletter sign-up page and that “e-mail” is not hyphenated consistently.

Error #5: teatotally spotted that the A is capped on the Books page (In for A Penny) and on the “About the Author” page, there’s a double dash instead of an em-dash.

Error #6: Kim saw that on the bookshelf page, there’s an R and a comma missing in the Sweet Disorder research and extras link. 1 book left! You guys are amazing.

Unveiling the blog tour prize package!

ETA: Our winner is Elaine. Congratulations!

My blog tour is coming up soon!

3/14 – bookworm2bookworm
3/16 – Risky Regencies
3/19 – Heroes and Heartbreakers
3/21 – Smexybooks
3/24 – Samhain blog
3/26 – History Hoydens


At each stop in the tour, I’ll be giving away a free Sweet Disorder e-book to one lucky commenter (in the format of their choice). Plus, at the end of the tour, I’ll choose one commenter at random from the entire tour to receive a special prize package! The package includes:

– free e-book of Sweet Disorder
– signed promotional postcard
– rosette (in your choice of colors)
– 5 1″ pinback buttons (to see the rosettes, buttons, etc, look here)
– 4 bacon-scented votive candles from Kittredge Candles (yes, it’s relevant to the book, you’ll see why when you read it!)
– William Blake’s Songs of Innocence and Experience, complete with reproductions of Blake’s original hand-tinted prints. One of these poems is the subject of my Smexybooks guest post.
– melt-in-your-mouth coffee caramels (probably these, but Seattle has a lot of great local chocolate companies so I’m keeping my options open), similar to the coffee-cream bonbons Mr. Moon serves Phoebe.
– $10 gift card for B&N or

Yay! 8 days to Sweet Disorder!

Welcome: guest author Cecilia Grant!

I’m thrilled to welcome Cecilia Grant to my blog!

Ceci is a wonderful friend and a wonderful writer, witty and awesome with great taste in TV. Her debut historical A Lady Awakened is fantastic and fresh and charming and sexy, and if you don’t believe me, just ask Smart Bitch Sarah Wendell, who named it a 2011 Must Read!

Newly widowed and desperate to protect her estate—and housemaids—from a predatory brother-in-law, Martha Russell conceives a daring plan. Or rather, a daring plan to conceive. After all, if she has an heir on the way, her future will be secured. Forsaking all she knows of propriety, Martha approaches her neighbor, a London exile with a wicked reputation, and offers a strictly business proposition: a month of illicit interludes…for a fee.

Theophilus Mirkwood ought to be insulted. Should be appalled. But how can he resist this siren in widow’s weeds, whose offer is simply too outrageously tempting to decline? Determined she’ll get her money’s worth, Theo endeavors to awaken this shamefully neglected beauty to the pleasures of the flesh—only to find her dead set against taking any enjoyment in the scandalous bargain. Surely she can’t resist him forever. But could a lady’s sweet surrender open their hearts to the most unexpected arrival of all…love?


RL: You changed your hero’s name because the original name wasn’t popular among the upper class during the Regency.  Tell me more about the class connotations of first names!

CG: Theo was “Christopher” for a long time, because it’s a name that happens to please my ear. But it’s not, I found out after a little investigation, a name that a class-conscious Georgian baronet would have given his firstborn son. I know, because I paged through all the baronet listings in the online Peerage, and the only Regency-era Christopher I found was a new creation, probably in reward for military distinction.

The Georgian aristocracy (which baronets were a step below, but close enough to want to follow the same naming conventions) overwhelmingly tended to name their heirs – the eventual Regency aristocracy – after the past few hundred years of kings. Lots of Georges, Jameses, Henrys, Williams, Edwards, and Charleses. Occasionally you come across a more novel name that’s been in a family for generations, like Hungerford (or Theophilus, as I eventually re-named my hero), but for the most part, Regency peers were christened out of that small pool of fashionable names – which almost nobody addressed them by, anyway. Theo would be “Theo” to his brothers and sisters; “Mirkwood” to pretty much everyone else.

As a reader, I don’t mind a little creative liberty in hero-naming, but as a writer, I want to be respectful of those readers for whom it is an issue. Changing the hero’s first name to something historically plausible (in fact, verifiable) was a sort of low-cost no-brainer, so I did it.

That said, I have to mention that the other week I got an email from someone asking the derivation of the hero’s last name, because Mirkwood didn’t look English to her. And I had to say, “Uh, actually that’s just a play on the kind of surname historical-romance heroes always seem to have, all dark and threatening. No historical basis.”

So there you have it. My commitment to historicity lasts just until the next opportunity for a meta-textual joke.

RL: “Murkwood” isn’t nearly as pretty-looking, is it?

The sex in your book starts out awkward and complicated (the hero is into it at first, but the heroine is just doing her duty and won’t allow herself to enjoy it for quite a while), but I thought it was a very hot, almost kinky scenario.  Was it fun torturing your hero that way?

CG: I love that you thought the bad sex was hot! You’re the first person who’s said that, and now I’m going to have to go back and re-read it and see whether I mightn’t agree, just a little.

Torturing Theo was tremendous fun, both sadistic and masochistic. (I identify with whoever I’m writing at the time, so when things were going bad for him, and I was in his POV, I was feeling his pain.) There’s this one early scene in particular where things between them just go to hell in a handbasket and I was sure, while writing it, that any eventual editor would tell me I had to cut it or heavily revise.

That would have been a dealbreaker for me–literally, I promised myself I would walk away from a publisher who wouldn’t let me keep that scene, not so much because of the merits of the scene itself, but because it’s eminently representative of the kind of romance I want to write.

And then of course nobody – neither agent nor editor, though both had plenty of revision requests – raised any objection to that scene at all. So much for my pretensions to radical envelope-pushing!

RL: I can’t really be the first, can I? Come on, let’s see a show of hands, who else thought that was hot like burning?

It used to be that every romance I read had an unhappy, tightly emotionally controlled hero and a heroine who helped him open up. When I first started developing the idea for Lily ten years ago (which flips those roles), it was a very unusual book. But now I’m thrilled to see more and more of that type of romance being published: Meredith Duran’s Wicked Becomes You, Sherry Thomas’s Not Quite a Husband, and Courtney Milan’s Unclaimed are a few stand-outs for me, but there are plenty more!  Why do you think this type of romance is becoming more popular, and what drew you to writing it?

CG: This is something I spend a lot of time thinking about, and I’m not sure my thoughts have jelled into a cohesive answer. But I’ll give it a try.

The non-nurturing woman is a fascinating character to me for a lot of reasons, probably beginning with the fact that she transgresses against one of the bottom-line social expectations for her gender.

Have you seen the toilet-paper commercial where a bunch of women address the camera about how important toilet-paper-related cleanliness is for themselves and their families? I can’t imagine anyone ever shooting that commercial with a bunch of men, even though men, too, have families, and presumably put just as high a value on that sort of cleanliness as women do. There’s just this assumption that women will be the ones to “own” that concern, since it can fit under the Nurturing umbrella.

In that societal context–even aside from the whole question of whether or not nurturing ought to be women’s sphere–the non-nurturing woman is automatically an arresting figure.

And I’m not alone in thinking so. Look at all the people gobbling up those books about Lisbeth Salander. Look at the ratings for Revenge. Thorny, emotionally unavailable heroines are interesting, and why wouldn’t romance join the rest of pop culture in recognizing that fact?

The obvious challenge, for the writer, is figuring out to what degree you can integrate a character like that into a romance without either diminishing the character (I’m starting to think I’d rather not see Emily Thorne soften up and fall in love with anyone. Stay strong, Emily! Eyes on the prize!) or writing something that’s not true to the fundamental precepts of romance.

But that sort of challenge is invigorating. Between Lisbeth Salander, and the feistiest historical-romance heroine you can name, is a big swath of characterization territory just begging to be mucked around in. So I hope we’ll be seeing a greater and greater incidence of “difficult” heroines alongside the more-traditionally-accessible kind.

RL: Tell me about the coolest book you read for research for ALA.  (And bear in mind, one of my favorite research books is The Genesis of Modern Management: A Study of the Industrial Revolution, so “cool” doesn’t necessarily preclude “obscure”!)

CG: I wish I could say I’d read Theo’s bête noire pamphlet, The Utility of Agricultural Knowledge to the Sons of the Landed Proprietors of England, &c &c, by John Claudius Loudon. But I never did succeed in tracking it down–I’m not sure the text has survived–so to get the general flavor I read some of Loudon’s other agriculture-themed work, in particular his posthumous publication (get ready)–

Self-instruction for young gardeners, foresters, bailiffs, land-stewards, and farmers; in arithmetic and book-keeping, geometry, mensuration, and practical trigonometry, mechanics, hydrostatics, and hydraulics, land-surveying, levelling, planning, and mapping, architectural drawing, and isometrical projection and perspective: with examples, showing their application to horticultural and agricultural purposes.

It’s a dry book, as you can imagine, but the context makes it kind of sweet: you can picture an ambitious, disciplined boy whose parents can’t afford a Rugby education working his way through the pages, memorizing how many gallons make up a firkin, and learning how to solve problems like the following:

If 12 roods of grass be cut down by 2 men in 6 days; how many roods will be cut down by 8 men in 24?

Of course I also picture the breeches-clad Beavises and Butt-heads of the era confronting the title with bug-eyed outrage, or falling asleep and drooling on the pages.

RL: What’s your favorite TV or movie romance of 2011?

I’ve talked elsewhere about my love for like-minded government wonks Ben and Leslie on the show Parks and Recreation. So instead of repeating myself I’ll put in a word for a non-romantic TV relationship I loved in 2011: Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson on the BBC’s Sherlock!

It’s not a slash-fiction thing, I swear. I don’t want to see them kiss, or silently yearn for each other, or anything like that. [RL: Well, that makes one of us!] (In fact I’m totally down with Sherlock meeting his match in a female adversary, as I hear is going to happen in season 2.) I just get a lot of the same enjoyment out of that relationship that I do out of a good romance. See, you’ve got Dr. Watson, back from the war, at loose ends, not quite sure what’s missing in his life–and little does he suspect that the cure for what ails him is a rude, brilliant, high-functioning sociopath who’s going to be constantly dragging him into danger!

(Isn’t it just like the setup for an excellent romance? That person who seems like anathema to you is, it turns out, exactly what you need! A lot of their dialogue, too – impatience and exasperation with a side of insuppressible respect – wouldn’t be out of place in a good romance. God, I can’t wait for season 2.)

In movies, although I had some issues with the movie itself, I thought Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone were insanely adorable together in Crazy Stupid Love. In the back of my brain I was thinking, “Eww, I hate this trope of the player who meets the One Special Woman who makes him change his ways” (Like you, I always feel bad for all the previous women who weren’t Special enough), but the actors’ combined charm just mowed down my resistance.

RL: What’s your favorite non-romance historical fiction book?

CG: Two spring to mind. Jennifer Donnelly’s YA novel A Northern Light, set in the early-20th-century Finger Lakes region of New York, is sort of an anti-romance – you’re rooting hard for heroine Mattie to break her engagement and take that scholarship to Barnard, and when she does, it’s hugely exhilarating–while also being a deeply romantic account of how a girl with the odds against her finds her voice and forges her own future.

And Geraldine Brooks’s March, an imagining of the Little Women father’s experiences in the Civil War, stays with me for a lot of reasons, but chiefly for one pivotal moment in which the protagonist fails, in utterly craven fashion, to step up and stand with the former slaves among whom he’s been living. I have a thing for stories of people who fall short of what they’d like to be/ought to be, and this was a particularly vivid one.

Wow, I will definitely be checking those out, especially the Donnelly book. I love early-20th-century coming-of-age stories SO MUCH. Thanks for visiting, Cecilia!

What was your favorite TV or movie romance of 2011? Cecilia will be giving away a copy of A Lady Awakened to one lucky commenter (in the US or Canada)!

See a Penny, pick it up

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but after being unavailable as a print book for a while except from Dorchester’s website, In for a Penny is now readily available in trade paperback!

There are more buy links on the bookshelf page, but here’s Amazon and

I’ve also put up deleted scenes for A Lily Among Thorns (WARNING: they contain spoilers!). You can find them here.

In honor of the occasion, I’m giving away a signed copy of the new Penny trade and one of A Lily Among Thorns to two commenters chosen at random. Let me know in your comment which book(s) you’re interested in.

Remember, you can read the first chapter of Penny here, and the first chapter of Lily here.

ETA: Mo won Lily, and Kim won Penny! Congratulations, guys.

New contest, Favorite Thing EVER, and a rant

This month I am giving away a signed copy of Jasper Fforde’s The Eyre Affair! Check it out! I love that book a LOT, and the series just keeps getting better.

Promo photo of Thursday with her car

I just started his new book Shades of Gray, too.

I also made my second post over at Favorite Thing EVER, on The Online Etymology Dictionary. I also talk about Regency words for blowjob and how I CAN’T FIND ANY GOOD ONES.

I am reading a biography of Ann Yearsley, the working-class poet “discovered” by Hannah More: Lactilla, Milkwoman of Clifton by Mary Waldron. I’m really enjoying it; the author has the perfect mixture of affection and humorous clearsightedness about her subject and it’s got lots of great information about smalltown life in late 18th century England. But it just said this:

Few even of the agitators for political reform or supporters of the American revolutionaries would have contemplated doing without their servants. Most people–even, it must be said, many of the poor themselves–would have agreed with Bernard Mandeville, writing in 1723 about the charity school movement, which had begun in 1699: “Going to School in comparison to Working is Idleness, and the longer Boys continue in this easy sort of Life, the more unfit they’ll be for downright Labor, both as to Strength and Inclination. Men who are to remain and end their Days in a Laborious, Tiresome and Painful Station of Life, the sooner they are put upon it at first, the more patiently they’ll submit to it for ever after.”

I just don’t think that’s a fair transition. I agree completely that very few people (maybe no one) were free of class prejudice in Georgian England. (But then, the same is probably true of modern America.) But unless you’re going to get argue we should get rid of social class altogether and redistribute the wealth, which this author doesn’t seem to be doing, saying that having servants was unprogressive seems to me to completely ignore the reality of 18th (and 19th) century life.

1. They didn’t have vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, washing machines, microwaves, sewing machines, central heating, food processors, electric lighting, or much in the way of processed/prepared food. Very, very few people had any kind of indoor plumbing.

Chardin's 'The Laundress'

Maintaining even a small middle-class family home was a full-time job for more than one person. Doing without servants entirely would have meant turning the women of the household into unpaid drudges who worked every minute they weren’t sleeping and slept five hours a night. How progressive!

Even women who had servants spent huge amounts of time in household chores. Even the Lucas girls in Pride and Prejudice (a VERY upper-middle-class home, with presumably more servants than most) helped in the kitchen (or so Mrs. Bennet says with some degree of plausibility, even if she’s being catty).

2. Domestic service was a huge part of the economy. Not employing servants meant depriving working-class people of jobs without, as far as I can see, empowering them in the slightest.

3. There’s no connection between employing servants or not and supporting mass education or not. Servants can go to school as children just like anyone else.

Anyway. Sorry, awesome biography author! I do love your book.