[Shiara]

A note from Branderson:

Quote

I'm happy to announce that The Way of Kings is out in paperback.I'm ridiculously pleased with this book, as it's the end result ofyears and years of work. The paperback was released last week, andshould be in stores now.

I realize that many out there might be hesitant about startinganother big series, with the Wheel of Time as of yet unfinished. I promise I'm working as fast as I can on that (see the next item).However, I also promise you won't be disappointed in The Way ofKings. It is thick, meaty, and epic; however, it does come to asolid conclusion on its own. While there are promises in the novelfor what is coming in future books, I took great pains to write itso that it would be satisfying as a single novel.

Tor took a big chance with The Way of Kings. In an era wherepublishers are tightening belts and keeping costs way down, theylet me publish a book at five or six times the regular lengthbecause I believed that made for the best novel. They paid forexpensive printing to better display the beautiful interior art.They went all out on the design and cover. So, I want to doeverything I can to help the book be successful.

[MecnunK]

Just finished it and went out to buy book 2 ..oops!

I had had it lying around for a few months before I remembered that there was something to read, anyhow I am impressed as it is much better setup and written than mistborn. A little slow and deliberate at times and you feel like shouting get a move on!! Its not a smack you in the face wow i cant put thois down book but it grows on you and towards the end I really began to enjoy it. Overall the narative is well planned, the connections will come later, there is plenty there to explore in terms of history, motivations, races, poltics and power structures. A rich tapestry indeed and if I had one criticism it is character developnment, I feel apathy, I dont really care much about any of them whereas in great fantasy series of the past I have enjoyed I loved hated or had certain admiration for characters. Maybe it will come in future books. Kaladin is ok but one dimensional , I mean nobe as noble gets , inhumanly almost. Syl is beginning to grow on me and so is Adolin who is more of balanced person. Good start 7/10.

[QuickTidal]

MecnunK, on 02 June 2011 - 09:54 PM, said:

Just finished it and went out to buy book 2 ..oops!

Yeah, I wish! LOL. I am crossing my fingers it might be out late 2012...but that's kind of wishful thinking considering AMOL is coming first in Jan 2012...I guess that depends on how much of Book 2 he's written by then....but most places I've read have said late 2012-early 2013.

[Cobbles]

QuickTidal, on 03 June 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

MecnunK, on 02 June 2011 - 09:54 PM, said:

Just finished it and went out to buy book 2 ..oops!

Yeah, I wish! LOL. I am crossing my fingers it might be out late 2012...but that's kind of wishful thinking considering AMOL is coming first in Jan 2012...I guess that depends on how much of Book 2 he's written by then....but most places I've read have said late 2012-early 2013.

The good thing is, once Sanderson gets WoT out of his way, that should put a boost on his 'own' output.

[Macros]

I read the first 20 or so posts in the thread, then decided I just had to pitch in.

its ok.
definately not "oh wow omg brilliant" type of novel.

Its a solid footing to start what should be a decent series (although I will be interested to see how it can be stretched to ten books, I assume there will be some major plot developments and twists in book 2 because at the minute I can't envision much more than 4 books for this tale)

Kaladin is a great character, believable with great motivations that clearly relate to his actions.
Blackthorn is a bit preachy but solid and likeable enough.
The truthless is a good character also, and an interesting prospect, almost like a window into the blades mind, assuming a sword had a mind. Helplessly involved in calculated slaughter, his change from sympathy to disgust for his victims is well worked.
The final character I liked was only revealed in his dastardlyness at the end, I think we know who I mean.

Rest of the cast? meh.
some were well fleshed out, some just annoying, but thats acceptable some characters are meant to be disliked.
My biggest gripe with this world is Sanderson went down the ballache route of retarded stereotypes.
People from here, do this.
People form there do that.
it's horseshit, every nation on earth has its basic mindset, yes, but they're formed by such a myriad of other characteristics and individuals it just pisses me off to see this Eddings bullshit still exists.
And as for the men don't read it is TEH GHEY women read for them, come ON ditch this shit, it dragged the book down for me as much as the failure of the aram in wise man's fear.

The world is well realised, I don't know if its a totally new idea with the highstorms and spheres and all that jazz, but its new to me so it made for good reading, building up this mental image of an almost brutal and bleak world that only opens up for a moment as the storm passes.

I liked the book, overall its still on the plus side of the sliding scale, lets say 6 to 7 ish out of ten. bearing in mind I've yet to read a ten.
Changing a few things, like the stereotyping and other stupidity in the peoples make up and characteristics would make it really good, but its too late for that now, books been published and the tone set, which is a shame, I'd like to meet the editor that lets that bollocks slide in this day and age.
and the snotty bitch with the fabrial, I forget her name, blackthorns niece or daughter or something, puts me too much in mind of an aes sedai to be forgivable.


Macros - would love to be a surgebringer, to punch out sadeas and all the other whining highlords

eta - good point about adolin, a much more balanced character than his daddy, but the king is a twat

This post has been edited by Macros: 19 July 2011 - 10:45 AM

[Morgoth]

I must agree with Macros. I just finished the book and enjoyed it, but was by no means blown away by the story nor the characters Sanderson brings forth.

First and foremost, the book was very very predictable. In a quick action yarn like the Alloy of Law (another Sanderson book for those who don't know) predictability is not a big weakness. Much like most action movies for example. When you're making a ten book epic of ridiculous size predictability becomes a serious problem. Sure, I didn't expect the end revelation about that guy you all know, but that was in all fairness a fairly minor point in relation to the book as a whole. Every character moved along a predictable and well worn path. You knew what they were, who they'd become and how they'd get there pretty much from their first chapter. Knowing all that and still having to read through all the insecurity and confused inner monologues quickly became grating to me. Let's use Dalinar as an example: His development is one we've seen dozens of times before within the fantasy and sci fi genre. It was perfectly obvious where he would end up as a character and as such the long period of insecurity just made me want to yell at the author to get to the fucking point. Had Dalinar not moved along such a predictable path the steps in his development would on the other hand have been interesting.

Same with the two other characters. Every time I saw a x years previously I groaned. Kaladin's youth is something we've seen so many times one has to wonder whether there's a flow sheet being passed around amongst fantasy authors detailing the development of small village boy to HERO. Again, if this had somehow provided an interesting window to his early years it would have been great, but it was just another standard fantasy background. We've seen it all before and it's not particularly interesting to read it again.

Action was solid though, as it generally is in Sanderson's books. Few can write as brilliant and vivid action scenes as he does. World building was also good, but as Macros mentioned, the whole each nationality is defined by very rigidly set traits got annoying when Eddings used it 20 years ago and it's not grown more interesting since. To me that sort of thing is a short cut for authors who feel they do not have the time, or skill, to provide believable, individual cultures outside of simple stereotypes. His biosphere thing was pretty cool though.

And finally, Sanderson cannot write sexual tension to save his life. I mean, the aging general finally gives in to his lust and kisses his brother's widow. And that's it? He's now going to spend the rest of the series courting her? Come on! I've never been one who enjoyed an overuse of sex in fantasy, but simply making the reader aware that there is sex going on in this world now and then would everything a little more believable and feeling a little less like the Disney channel. The general's son is dating a new girl every other week yet it seems he dates them only to send flowers and presents, perhaps listen to them speak now and then. He's about as believable as a Goodkind character, though less preachy thankfully.

All in all Sanderson seems to me to be on the fast track to becoming Terry Brook's spiritual successor, rather than that of Jordan, Martin or Erikson.

I'll rate this book a 3 failed attempts at sexual tension out of 6.

[QuickTidal]

When I see people talk about a book or a plot or character development being "predictable" it kind of baffles me.

Going into reading a book and attempting to guess a character's path as something you've seen before just so you can say "Look, I am right! There are enough tenuous threads that connect this to something I've seen before that it's boringly predictable!" is strange. If you are doing this as a reader, then to me it seems like you are stealing your own enjoyment out of the book. I read a book not expecting to recognize any similar traits on purpose (like all the parallels and similarities between Weeks Night Angel series and Jordan's WOT wasn't apparent to me until long after I read Weeks), I just read along as if I've never read any other fantasy book before. That's naturally just my opinion. But you will notice that in the reviews I post on my blog that I try to never use the word "predictable". Why? Because it's a lazy way to dismiss something out of hand, since I am pretty sure you couldn't lay a mylar version of Dalinar or Kaladin on top of another fantasy protagonist and have EVERYTHING line up. You just couldn't. Now that said, are there similarities? Sure there are. Are there a lot? Indeed, possibly (depending on the book). The problem with breaking things down like that is that you could hand me ANY fantasy book and I could find similarities (or even mirror flips) of that protagonist against any other one. We could call Karsa Orlong a typical barbarian...but he isn't....though if I laid him on top of Cnaiur, or Conan I am sure I could draw oodles of parallels. It would take an especially original book to not tramp through some familiar territory, especially in the fantasy genre, as so much has already been done. So what authors have to do is attempt to make their character unique enough to stand out a bit while he does a lot of stuff that might seem like you've seen before. Kaladin's youth, for example, I feel Morgoth you may have missed something on. The stuff that was similar to other fantasy tropes was not the point of them. There were little nuggets and facts buried within those passages that seemingly hint at oddities and overall series arc within the world. So while the shadow show went on in front of the curtain that bore resemblance to something you've seen before, there was a second show to see behind the curtain whenever the wind wavered and you could peek back there. If you are "not interested to read about" tropes you have seen before then you will likely have to dismiss a largish chunk of the fantasy genre I'm afraid.

Quote

flow sheet being passed around amongst fantasy authors detailing the development of small village boy to HERO

Sorry, what are the other options? Who else exists to become the hero? Nobles? (been done) Royalty? (been done) City dweller? (been done) Beggar kid? (been done) It's ALL been done before. There are only so many "types" of characters to start with in the genre. Name me a type of character progression for a hero that hasn't been done before...

The sexual tension. There was a time in our world when a stolen kiss WAS the height of sexual tension in fact. It wasn't even that long ago. Louisa May Alcott (in the 1800's) and even Jane Austen wrote about that sort of thing and it was considered a bit scandalous. Hell, holding someone's hand was at one time considered awfully forward. But then so was using words like "Damn" or "Blast" at the time. So it's hard for you to believe that Sanderson would add an aspect to his world that our own world experienced less than 200 years ago? It's certainly NOT a Disney channel thing, it's a culture building thing and I for one thought that was excellent, as you don't often see someone mimicking that time period for fantasy when everything was so guarded and chaste. Remember that this is a world where modern women cover up one hand as it would be scandalous to show their skin on that hand otherwise and women certainly would never be seen fighting...and then Sanderson shows us the distant past and the fact that women were once warriors, surgebinders and even members of the Knights Radiant themselves, fighting the good fight. So I actually think he has done the sexual politics/culture angle in this book AMAZINGLY well, in that he is currently showing us a society that treats even the slightest sexual gesture as explicit...even if it evolved from one that didn't think that way at all. Not very far from the evolution of our own culture in fact. I can actually see it playing out in future books as something like the last 200 years have done for us as society slowly reduces such norms and mores to reflect a changing society.

Quote

All in all Sanderson seems to me to be on the fast track to becoming Terry Brook's spiritual successor, rather than that of Jordan, Martin or Erikson

What? The obvious first response is that this guy will have legions (legions!) of fans simply by having finished the WOT series. Seriously, the majority of WOT fandom will gravitate to the man that finished their series so strongly (or seems to be doing as of TOM at any rate). Secondly, I don't WANT Sanderson to be Erikson or Martin. If I want to read Erikson or Martin I'll read those authors. It's called diversity. I like having authors doing something different from the status quo...and right now dark, gritty fantasy IS the status quo...Lastly, Why on earth do we need to compare him or call him successor to anyone? Why can't he just be Brandon Sanderson? Oh and Terry Brooks does not debut on the NYT hardcover fiction Bestseller list (with a previously unknown series starter book) in the 7th spot.

Sorry, the use of words "predictable" and "lazy" both rankle me when it comes to writing, since the amount of effort that goes into writing a book is staggering and those two words are offensive at the highest order to someone who puts that much effort into something. A man who spends more than a few years writing a book does not deserve someone basically saying he phoned certain things in.

Not meaning any of this in a particularly harsh or nasty way though Morgoth, hope you don't interpret it as such.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 03 November 2011 - 02:14 PM

[Morgoth]

Thanks QT, for a long and detailed explanation of your views. I certainly did not feel you were particularly harsh towards me and I understand much better how you came to like the book now. Still, being my regular contrary self, I can't help but disagree with most of it.

First and foremost I find it rather preposterous to dismiss complaints of predictability as somehow intellectually lazy. You seem to want to approach every story as if it somehow has been created in a vacum. In my opinion, considering a book, especially a massive series like this, without taking into account what came before is the lazy option. In essence ignoring the lines of inspiration -and repetition for that matter- to make way for a simpler review. I doubt many readers approach a book with the specific intention of tearing the story apart as some sort of autopsy. We are however, as a species hardwired to look for patterns and it comes natural to pretty much everyone to spot previously seen patterns in a new story. We typically call them clichés and most people would agree that too many of them at once takes away from the enjoyment of the story.

Now and then a writer comes along with a gift for prose so profound that the plot and characters are rather inconsequential. Joyce is a typical example, but within the fantasy genre I'd say Wolfe (though his plots and characters are equally superb in my opinion) and Hal Duncan qualifies. I've yet to hear a single person, no matter how devoted a fan, describe Sanderson's prose as anything more than decent. Reading The Way of Kings I knew from very early on more or less the exact path of development the three main characters would follow. Why then is it interesting to read? It's not original. It's not made a pleasure through the power of the author's prose. It's simply something you have to get through to advance the story. I didn't actively seek this understanding, it simply appears intuitively as a result of previously having read a substantial amount of fantasy.

When characters are predictable they are simply not interesting. They become tools for the progression of the story and nothing else. As a result much of what takes place within their heads becomes rather irrelevant outside of how it directly affects the progression of the plot. Take that girl for instance, I can't remember her name, who came to on a secret quest. It was obvious from the very start that her quest would not only fail but that she'd remain with her guardian. All this back and forth about guilt didn't create any sort of tension, or interest for that matter simply because it was clear that it didn't really matter. This is very different from how authors like Martin, Erikson, Abercrombie and so on do things. The development of a character is important and interesting because you do not know where it will lead.

In that regard it's interesting that you bring up Karsa. It is true that at the bottom of things you'll generally always find the same character archetypes. Karsa is a variation of the Conan archetype for sure, yet he moves far away from his literary beginning. Karsa, by the end of HoC is something very different from Conan. They share origin, but little else. Another example is Logan, who equally became interesting because his development as a character defied our expectations.

Now, in books like the Alloy of Law character development becomes less of an issue in the same way that the character of John Matrix in Commando is rather irrelevant outside of him being a badass. The focus is a simple plot to make way for lots and lots of excellent action and it works very well in such a short book. A ten book epic, or a single tome like The Way of Kings for that matter, cannot on the other hand sustain itself on action alone.

All three of Sanderson's major characters shared the same fault. It was obvious where they would end up and what paths they would take to get there. A thousand or so pages of that is not something I'd describe as excellent reading.

Right.. umh, that ends the first path, I'll tackle the whole Victorian England thing later.

[Morgoth]

Then let's look at the sexual tension.

It's surprising that you bring up 19th century England in this context. It seems maybe that your idea of the time has been coloured by BBC produced Jane Austen dramas.

You see, Jane Austen could be scandalous with a kiss because that sort of thing was considered immoral to put out in the public space. Yet a kiss was by no means the height of sexual tension in regular human interaction. Instead of reading the sort of glorified, culturally limited portrayal that the times forced upon writers like Jane Austen, instead try to read more historic descriptions of the times. You will find a society quite different from what you seem to think it contained. There is a reason why syphilis was so prevalent amongst the upper class, along with a number of other STDs. Why prostitution was such a big industry and why it was generally overlooked by the authorities.

The culture of that time was one of appearances. The idea of the English gentleman and the English lady was incredibly powerful, and it became necessary to keep up the facade to retain social standing. Yet, like so many other aspects of society at the time, the facade hid a very different society altogether. You notice and undercurrent of that in Dickens and Collins writings for instance.

What I'm trying to say is this. Sanderson writes as an omnipresent narrator, and as such he shows us not only the facade but what hides behind. Or, that is what he is supposed to do. Instead he presents it as if the facade is all there is, which is rather absurd. There has never been a sizable society where the upper classes did not partake in outrageous amounts of non-marital sex. It's the way we are as a species. Sanderson's choice to avoid this sort of behavior in his world makes it at all seem childish, which is why I chose to describe it as reminiscent of the Disney channel.

[Macros]

Throughout history the "nobles" have been a bunch of randy bastards.
I thought this was well known, and there was an entire history channel (I think) series devoted to the Victorian's being filthy brutes behind closed doors.
I forgot all about the dreadful sexual tension.
Now that I think back on it, Dalinar's actions could (possibly) be put into the context of him being a repressed madman who is convinced somehow that men are honourable and should behave so. But the build up to that moment on the woman's part was basically her saying she wanted him, acting outside accepted public protocols and generally painting the image of that worlds equivalent of a wanton harlot. she should have been throwing herself at him in a fit of uncontrollable lust

[Sinisdar Toste]

Macros, on 03 November 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:

Throughout history the "nobles" have been a bunch of randy bastards.
I thought this was well known, and there was an entire history channel (I think) series devoted to the Victorian's being filthy brutes behind closed doors.
I forgot all about the dreadful sexual tension.
Now that I think back on it, Dalinar's actions could (possibly) be put into the context of him being a repressed madman who is convinced somehow that men are honourable and should behave so. But the build up to that moment on the woman's part was basically her saying she wanted him, acting outside accepted public protocols and generally painting the image of that worlds equivalent of a wanton harlot. she should have been throwing herself at him in a fit of uncontrollable lust

ok, that just made me laugh. really? i hope your joking. i thought navani had a bit more respect for herself than that.

also, who's to say that all the other nobles aren't getting up to the depraved and lewd sexual acts you seem to want from them? we only get point of views from dalinar's family, who, let's face it, are considered decidedly gauche and prudish by the majority of alethi. sadeas seems like a guy who likes a good whore.

lastly, and, call me judgemental if you wish, but i always figured that the lack of any explicit sexuality in Brandon's books was due to his being a mormon.

[Macros]

Narvani is always pushing at dalinar, both in private and public. girl wants some of the good loving

[Obdigore]

Macros, on 04 November 2011 - 05:11 AM, said:

Narvani is always pushing at dalinar, both in private and public. girl wants some of the good loving

She wants a relationship and most likely a marriage, not just sex.

And do you honestly think with how Dalinar is, that if Navani walked into his command tent, took off all her clothes and jumped at him, that he would have sex with her? I doubt it.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 04 November 2011 - 05:45 AM

[amphibian]

Obdigore, on 04 November 2011 - 05:44 AM, said:

And do you honestly think with how Dalinar is, that if Navani walked into his command tent, took off all her clothes and jumped at him, that he would have sex with her? I doubt it.

There are no characters in Sanderson's books - other than Mat - who would have sex with a naked person walking into their tent.

[Macros]

So his characters are all moral heroes?
lets take a sample group of 100 characters, assuming mat is one of them that's one in a hundred that will jump at the chance of a bit of buddly. Take a sample group of 100 people pretty much anywhere in the world bar a nunnery and I'll eat a hat made out of razors if you get that response. Wise up. Navali or whatever her name is is a forward woman, in not disparaging it, a healthy sign but she should have responded more in character when dam went apeshit and kissed her

[Obdigore]

Macros, on 04 November 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

So his characters are all moral heroes?
lets take a sample group of 100 characters, assuming mat is one of them that's one in a hundred that will jump at the chance of a bit of buddly. Take a sample group of 100 people pretty much anywhere in the world bar a nunnery and I'll eat a hat made out of razors if you get that response. Wise up. Navali or whatever her name is is a forward woman, in not disparaging it, a healthy sign but she should have responded more in character when dam went apeshit and kissed her

I'm pretty sure its been pointed out that nearly all the other nobles probably have their men acquire them whores every night. They are all his characters too. I would bet the king in Way of Kings (I dont remember his name atm) visits brothels regularly.

I bet in that sample of 100 people pretty much anywhere in the world and some of them would not have sex as soon as possible with the first willing person they find attracted to, especially when they are looking for a long term relationship.

Wise up.

[Macros]

She wasn't the first attractive person.
Unless I read the book entirely wrong ninavie was mad about dal for years and regretted marrying the king. He also had feelings for her evidenced by him being uncomfortable in her presence and forward nature. It wasn't me brought up random naked people, I just disagreed with that particular arguement, and I beg to differ on the naked attractive people front

[amphibian]

Obdigore, on 04 November 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

Macros, on 04 November 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

So his characters are all moral heroes?
lets take a sample group of 100 characters, assuming mat is one of them that's one in a hundred that will jump at the chance of a bit of buddly. Take a sample group of 100 people pretty much anywhere in the world bar a nunnery and I'll eat a hat made out of razors if you get that response. Wise up. Navali or whatever her name is is a forward woman, in not disparaging it, a healthy sign but she should have responded more in character when dam went apeshit and kissed her

I'm pretty sure its been pointed out that nearly all the other nobles probably have their men acquire them whores every night. They are all his characters too. I would bet the king in Way of Kings (I dont remember his name atm) visits brothels regularly.

I bet in that sample of 100 people pretty much anywhere in the world and some of them would not have sex as soon as possible with the first willing person they find attracted to, especially when they are looking for a long term relationship.

Wise up.

Let's look at Sanderson's real characters. Not the faces in the crowd, but the people he takes the time to set up and do things with.

Way of Kings: The dead king wouldn't have. Love of life and alladat. The current king has a queen and even if he's up for some extra-marital action, he's so paranoid that he'd only do it with people he absolutely trusted. Kaladin is sexless. Shallan is a noble and almost kissed the priest - but that got blown to smithereens and she's now basically sexless too. Her teacher lady ain't boinking anybody for fear of losing status. Adolin is a flirt, but only walks around and talks. No actual boinking. He's almost the Captain Kirk of this series - except Kirk got real action twice in the series. Hoid is sexless. Szeth is sexless.

Mistborn (put under spoilers for those who haven't read those books):

Spoiler

Vin and Elend are bound to each other. They get it on, but only with each other. Spook almost, but not quite. He's too moral. Zane just wants pain. Kelsier is obsessed with revenge for his dead love. Dox is sexless. Marsh becomes an insane monk. Ham has a wife and kids who he's completely faithful to. Breeze is a flirt, but only walks and talks. It's unsure whether he actually gets it on with that princess. Lord Ruler - possible, but off-screen if at all. Clubs is sexless. The shapeshifters are sexless. The orc things reproduce without sex. Cett is aged out of any action.

Essentially, Sanderson only allows boinking within the marital bounds. It's always off-screen and any on-screen interaction is fantasy Victorian courtship stuff. Compare this to other authors and you see that even the most traditional romantic of them still have more loose attitudes towards boinking. Orson Scott Card is a Mormon and he has teenagers getting it on. Not sure about Tracey Hickman or Stephanie Meyer. The Dragonlance stuff doesn't feature a whole lot of real, three-dimensional characters and I've heard that the Twilight series is this weird ode to battling back lust until the marital bonds are in place. Then KABOOM - boinkin' floodgates released!

So... out of the 100 some real characters in Sanderson's books, I think the number of people who'd boink a naked person in their tents without being in a marital bond is way, way lower than any Western world situation.

[QuickTidal]

Obdigore, on 04 November 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

Macros, on 04 November 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

So his characters are all moral heroes?
lets take a sample group of 100 characters, assuming mat is one of them that's one in a hundred that will jump at the chance of a bit of buddly. Take a sample group of 100 people pretty much anywhere in the world bar a nunnery and I'll eat a hat made out of razors if you get that response. Wise up. Navali or whatever her name is is a forward woman, in not disparaging it, a healthy sign but she should have responded more in character when dam went apeshit and kissed her

I'm pretty sure its been pointed out that nearly all the other nobles probably have their men acquire them whores every night. They are all his characters too. I would bet the king in Way of Kings (I dont remember his name atm) visits brothels regularly.

I bet in that sample of 100 people pretty much anywhere in the world and some of them would not have sex as soon as possible with the first willing person they find attracted to, especially when they are looking for a long term relationship.

Wise up.

Indeed, and I think whoever else said it upthread about us only getting the court-setting view was likely right, just because we don't see the sex up front doesn't mean it doesn't go on behind closed doors, it's simply we have no need to see it to know it is going on.

There is also, I'd like to point out a distinct difference between love and lust. The two CAN mix of course, but they are also completely separate entities.

Let me put it into further perspective: If you were in love with a woman. Like deeply loved her (a friend perhaps that you've never moved into the relationship zone with yet) and found yourself alone with her and brave enough to let her know your feelings...what would you do? Jump her bones then and there? Come on! that is SO not going to happen (at least not in real life). You'll get close, probably kiss her and that would electrify you. Most times a kiss is MUCH more intimate, especially as a show of love (not lust) than anything further.

[Macros]

Pretty sure id be be going for the jump bones option