How much sex was there in Memoirs Of A Geisha?

Not much. It was all pretty much "...and then they had sex."

IIRC.

That's what I thought.

AP described the movie thusly:

"Memoirs of a Geisha" - Rob Marshall ("Chicago") directs this adaptation of the novel about an orphan girl (Zhang Ziyi) who becomes a queen-bee madame kept in style by powerful men. Sex, sumptuous sets, exotic locales, a beautiful leading lady poised for a breakout role. Sex.

And it worried me.

Isn't Zhang Ziyi Chinese, not Japanese?

And the sex is there, so it's not like "...and in the film, Tom and Huck make wild monkey love in Injun Joe's cave!"

It's more like the book just said "sex" and the film added the nude athletic bodies. In silk-sheeted beds. With pretty clothes beforehand.

I liked "Memoirs" pretty ok, but basically what it made me do is check out a bunch of books on geisha from the library, and from there I tangented to big fat photo anthologies of hookers in Storyville, which was even cooler, so I'm ok with it, as long as Zhang isn't a catsuited SuperGeisha Who Fights Crime.

a beautiful leading lady poised for a breakout role.

I thought that was Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Or do they just mean in this country?

[eta: Or are they not talking about Zhang Ziyi? Either way, I feel I'm missing something.]

And the sex is there, so it's not like "...and in the film, Tom and Huck make wild monkey love in Injun Joe's cave!"

I'd have not noted so much if they hadn't put the second "sex". Like sex is going to be the primary draw.

Well, lots of (most?) Westerners hear geisha and think "HoTt Asian SEXX!!!" so I'm not surprised that Hollywood is juicing that part for all it's worth.

Although if they focus on sex to the exclusion of the arts and manners and such, THAT'S bullshit, because that isn't what the book focused on at all.

Which is what you're saying.

Duh. I"m really dim tonight. Mea culpa.

One of the books I got at the library book sale was "Wizard's First Rule" by Terry Goodkind. I've heard decent things about Goodkind, and I figured I'd give it a shot. Nice thick book, first of a series, something to get my teeth into, well-reviewed on the cover by people I've heard of.

Oh, gods. It certainly reads like a first novel. It reads like something aimed at a young adult audience. The writing is weirdly juvenile, which may just be the effect of it being a first novel, but he gives credit to an editor, and I'm wondering what the editor did.

This is why I so rarely try new authors. There are fanfic writers I follow whose stories have more grace and dexterity of narrative than this book.

Fortunately, I also got Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum." I trust Eco.

Going back a bit (I just got caught up on the past few weeks worth of posts), I think it's great that Harlequin is looking to expand the usual romance timeframes. I'd love to see a romance set in, say, Jazz Age NYC or Chicago, or Civil-War England (British Civil War, I mean).

I just noticed over at Amazon that one of my alltime favorite romance authors Loretta Chase has a new book out! Considering she's written a grand total of about four books (outside of the traditional Regencies, which are no longer in print) in 15 years, this is good news for me.

If you're a historical romance fan and you've not read Lord of Scoundrels yet, you simply must! One of the best romances I've ever read (and I've read a hell of a lot).

I just put Lord of Scoundrels on hold myself, because I keep hearing so many people rave about it. For someone who writes this stuff, I was very narrowly read until recently. I had a few favorite authors, and I read their books.