Lucky Loser
by Yolanda Wallace
Pages: 288
Date: November 1 2011
Publisher: Bold Strokes Books
Series: N/A
Review
Rating: 5.5 out of 5.0
Read: February 23 2016
My second book that I have read by Yolanda Wallace. I was both somewhat nervous about trying another book by this author, and excited to do so. Both feelings developed for the same reason – the first book I had read by Wallace had been one that I had read recently and had felt to be a rather solid 5 star book. And so, we turn to ‘Lucky Loser’, or, this book here.
[Inserted after the fact: I lost this review rather early on, so, I’ll note up here – I loved this book. A lot.]
It’s somewhat unfortunate that I ended up somewhat ill right around the time I had read this and roughly 5 other books (well, that’s awkward – I was ill-ish from about Friday of last week until, say, this morning). Unfortunate in that I could read, but doing things like writing reviews was a tougher thing to tackle. Though I still did, mostly. But for three books. And the first of those is from before this ill time. So . . . this is boring. Let’s get to the book.
This book opened in such a way that I almost beat it with a stick and ran screaming away from it. Or, in other words, it opened with the lead character (well, there are two points of view, but Sinjin Smythe’s portion seemed vaguely larger) being unable to keep from being wrapped around another woman’s finger. A nasty bitchy woman who loved to undermine her and was doing Sinjin a very bad turn – both career wise and relationship wise. I really didn’t want to read a book wherein the two somehow overcame the obstacles to find that they were each other’s true loves. That would have been really annoying and sickening. But, before I set the book on fire and never looked at it again, I reconfirmed something I thought I had seen in the books description. The name of the two women in the opening part did not match the name of the women in the book description that were supposed to be the main characters. And so . . . I put the lighter fluid away and actually gave the book a chance. Since the book was supposed to be about Sinjin Smythe and Laure Fortescue, not Sinjin Smythe and . . . um, whatever and however you spell Victoriaovich’s name (Viktoriya Vasilyeva).
A funny thing happened along the way. Despite the lowish rating this book enjoys, both in terms of overall rating, and in terms of just the average rating of those who are on my list of friends, I found myself rather drawn into this book and story.
To a limited extent, I think I know why there are certain books I like while others kind of dislike (or not love), books I kind of dislike (or not love) while others like/love them, and while there is this third category wherein everyone, including me, love the book.
That was an awkward sentence.
I’ll put what I originally wrote behind spoiler tags, not because it spoils anything in this specific book here, but because I do not yet have the ability to convey my specific thought I desired to convey, and probably won’t find that ability any time soon.
To a limited extent it boils down to emphasis. The main thread/theme of the book. For example, ‘Course of Action’ is a book about an actress and a rich woman with many businesses (for the sake of simplicity, I’ll call her the executive producer, since she is also that – of the film the actress wants to act in). There are ‘other stuff’ going on in the book, but the book is mostly a ‘relationship’ book – seen through the lens of having both internal and external pressure being brought to bear onto the relationship. The most important thing, basically is what I’m driving at, is the relationship. That and plenty and lots of sex. The ‘other story’ type stuff was there, just not as important. Personally I was looking for more of the ‘other stuff’ – including the stuff about the movie. Therefore I was vaguely disappointed. Of course I’m probably reading into what others liked and disliked the book. On the other hand – ‘Give Me A Reason’ had as one of the main themes this ‘relationship’ thing, but that was neither the main nor only theme. The book was a mixture of themes (relationships, family, PTSD, teaching, crime, sex, etc.). Hmms. I think I’m wasting mine and everyone else’s time. I could probably have written this review twenty years ago, but my brain doesn’t function any longer. Or something. Well, I supposed I’ll finish up since finishing up involves the book this review was supposed to be about anyway – the emphasis, the main point, of this book, ‘Lucky Loser’, is not the relationship, but . . . um . . . I don’t think it’s specifically ‘overcoming yourself’ but saying ‘sports’ seems limiting.
The long and short of all that I hid behind the spoiler tag above is that this specific book has less of an emphasis on relationships, and more on an elusive ‘something else’. I won’t attempt to define this ‘something else’, though I suspect it has something to do with ‘sports’. I did have a thought while reading this book – using a sports theme can add tension to a relationship, the good and bad kind of tension, and potentially side step some of the somewhat overused clichés used in ‘other’ books (though there was an awkward moment there between the two). While at the same time side stepping one of the hurdles that a different type of romance book uses to add tension – external threats like big evil men/the environment/etc. Side stepping ‘knowing’ what’s going to happen. Like, say, reading a James Bond book – there’s lots and lots of danger, but it’s a James Bond book – the reader ‘know’s that whatever tension and danger exists, Bond will still triumph (in actuality, he doesn’t always, but I’m trying to make a point here, so let’s pretend ‘not dying’ is good enough). As opposed to a sports book. You can have a great riveting; uplifting sports book . . . and not know the ending. Know that, of course, x is going to do y. Sure, Rocky eventually won, but not in the first movie. Basically is what I mean.
Shesh, I keep adding these ‘extra’ little side things. I should have just done one of my reviews where I have ‘character’, ‘romance’, ‘plot’, etc. sections. Instead of me bouncing around like crazy.
The book opens with Sinjin Smythe watching as her girlfriend of the time (and that might not be the correct word to use – the girlfriend one) wins the US Open. Doesn’t help matters that Sinjin had been her opponent in the champion match, but those things happen. An important thing, though, is what happens afterwards – Sinjin and Viktoriya ending up in bed together that night. After Viktoriya basically saying that doubles tennis doesn’t matter (or words to that effect) – which is important because Sinjin is in the champion match for that one as well . . . tomorrow. But Viktoriya wants to celebrate her own singles championship right then and there – or at least that night. No matter that this will make Sinjin tired. And stuff. Because . . .even more than ‘doubles doesn’t matter’ is that Sinjin’s feelings don’t matter, what matters is what makes Viktoriya happy. Yeah, see, this is why I wanted to set this book on fire. Gah, I thought, No way I wanted to read something like this here. Luckily I had noticed something – the book moves from here to three years in the future. And is not about the bitchy Viktoriya and the easily lead (at least by Viktoriya) Sinjin.
Three years later Sinjin is attempting to recover from a mid-season knee treatment procedure. And is attempting to qualify for Wimbledon. I should probably note, now, that Sinjin is British (mother is from Nigeria, I believe, and I don’t know where father is from). This is important. Because Wimbledon, if you the reader of this review don’t know, is in England. And they haven’t had an English winner in a ton of years (I forget now how many is mentioned in the book, 34?). Of course they don’t really expect Sinjin to be the one to do it – at least not any more. She’s fallen so far down the standings she isn’t really on them any more (ranked in triple digits). And has to go through qualifying matches to get into the tournament. To which she loses. See, this is like Rocky! Okay, so this book was about 22 pages in length and is about how Sinjin failed to . . what’s this? Oh, someone pulled out, and so Sinjin is that ‘Lucky Loser’ that’s on the front of the book. A lucky loser because she lost her last qualifying match but was had done well enough that when someone pulled out; she was at the top of the list of those waiting for someone to pull out.
Also involved at this tournament is Viktoriya, but she’s both important and not important. Or, in other words, she isn’t the other point of view of the book. No, Sinjin has her point of view, as does Laure Fortescue, of France. Laure had had her own little burden to carry – in the similar manner had the weight of Wimbledon on her back (English – 34 years), Laure had the French title weighing her down. But she begins the Wimbledon portion of the book without that specific weight. She’s interested in winning Wimbledon, though, again.
The book proceeds following both women as the move through the tournament – both on and off the court. Helping each other get ready, and helping giving tips about competitors. (A point is made that the women’s side is more helpful and stuff, with exceptions (like Viktoriya) than the men’s side of tennis).
Well, I really messed up this review so I’ll just flee with a few closing thoughts. I, unexpectedly, loved the book and seriously considered some way to convey that fact more than just having it on a 5.5 shelf. I’m still seriously considering putting this even higher than that, even though there is nothing higher among my shelves, as of yet. Ah, this switch over to only being able to convey my rating in full stars (or artificial half stars). Long ago were the days when I could rate something 4.433 and be able to tell it apart from a book I rated 4.421. Basically, I mean, this book would have used to have been a solid 5 star book. But because I have to include everything I’d have rated 4.65 up to 5.0 in the past as 5 stars, I have to add stuff to show that a specific book is ‘more than’/’better than’ etc. *Shrugs* Just feels weird to have a book that I want to rate 4.65 stars up at the 5 star level; even worse if I put it down at the 4 star level (ah, where art thou, ½ stars?). 4.65 star books resting uneasily next to 5.00 star books on the 5.0 star shelf. Mmphs.
February 25 2016
