AAR

[dick]

Yulie wrote: It seems to me as though TSTL is often used here as shorthand for behavior that is irrational or merely of the "something I wouldn't do" variety. And I don't think those three categories necessarily overlap.

I think so also, and it bothers me that a character's characterization is given short shrift, as if the author didn't know what she was doing, and if she did, made an error in doing it. Characters in fiction, I think, have to be taken as they are created, not as a reader wishes them to be.

[Eliza]

[ChrisReader]

Dick said

[ChrisReader]

Yulie said

[Natalie]

Once again, what actions endangered the people on the estate that were not forced on her by her family? She'd be TSTL if she loved the hero, trusted him and wanted to marry him and still didn't tell him anything. But she was forced to marry her family's enemy whose motivation was suspect. It might have taken her longer to finally take his side that I'd have preferred, but at least I can understand why she did what she did.

[jaime]

[Eliza]

[Yulie]

[dick]

@ChrisReader: What I was objecting to was labelling the heroine stupid (tstl) because the author characterized her as being overly loyal to her brother. That loyalty led her to do things that, in some sights, looking at her actions from the distance of a reader, appeared "foolish." But within the characterization she is given and within the story her actions are, although perhaps desperate, neither "foolish" nor stupid, within the context of the character the author created for her. It seemed to me that those readers who labelled her TSTL, were taking her out of that context.

We often see heroines in contemporaries who exhibit such loyalty, especially in suspense, wherein the heroine, despite all logic and common sense refuses to believe that the hero or brother or sister or father is guilty or vicious or whatever.

[Lynda X]

I wonder if lots of the objections to her behavior is because it's frustrating to read about a heroine who really is terribly caught and endangered because of a political quarrel that, to most of us, seems foolish. Plus, we all know who wins, so it casts the losers in the category of "stupid," not gallant. Those of you who think she was stupid, what would you have had her do? Don't just say she should not have done this act or that. What would YOU have done? Not only does she love her foolish brother, she also is dependent on him. Would YOU have trusted your old boy friend who, years before, acted dishonorably--from the 18th century point of view--and one who is alternately cold, cool, seductive, and rejecting, with an occasional glance of appreciation. I wasn't sure, when I read that he wanted to save her from herself, whether to believe him or not. After all, just a few pages earlier, he had given his men orders to rough up the brother, when caught.

Can someone clear something up, historically for me? I thought that it was mainly Catholics and Scots who objected to the Hanover line, who were the rebels. Why is the brother backing James and not George, anyway? He's not Catholic, Scottish, and somehow, "he's the legitimate king" doesn't wash with me, not considering everything he risks. And why is his father forced to flee the country? What did I miss? Why IS this family rebelling?

[Eliza]

[jaime]

[Lynda X]

Thanks for that clarification, Eliza. Then, did many Protestant noble houses join the rebellion?

[stl_reader]

Up until finishing this book today, I have avoided all discussion of AYP, not wanting to be influenced one way or the other.

Now that I've finished it, I have to say it's the first Meredith Duran book that left me BORED. And I say this as someone who thinks that Bound by Your Touch was brilliant.

I liked the time period, as well as Duran's usual attention to details. I always feel that her sentences and word choices are thoughtfully selected, whether I agree with them all the time or not.

But how many times do I have to read about Nora's analysis of her conflicting feelings? I felt like the author carried it on, or drew it out, whatever, way too long. For the better part of the book, Nora goes round and round about her feelings and her loyalties. She wouldn't love him. She shouldn't love him. Or did she? She couldn't be loyal to him, and yet what was this feeling? But hadn't David abdicated his responsibility and placed them in danger? But could she abandon her family?

I felt like I kept reading this same analysis again and again. And each time Nora would suddenly have an epiphany--and I would think, Hallelujah, now we can move this story along, she's seen the light--it would almost be discarded in favor of "fresh" new analyses...She could not submit, she could not enjoy the pleasures of Adrian/marriage, or maybe she could, but she wouldn't, but why not? Okay, she'll stay married but she won't love him, but she has these feelings, yes she loves him, but she's so conflicted, yada yada yada.

I didn't really care much for Nora, although I appreciate the predicament she found herself in as a woman with little power in a man's world. I kept wishing she would have a real heart-to-heart with Adrian, not just a sleeplessness-induced confession or a few stilted conversations here and there. I wanted a more protracted conversation--an adult conversation--about her dreams and fears. I just didn't feel I got enough of that.

Regarding the cover art--the body was perfect, but the face, IMHO, was totally wrong. From the novel: The marchioness was too dark and small, her black brows too heavy and her jaw too bold, to qualify as beautiful. But her body was a spectacle: it would have done a barmaid proud, even in this prim gown the color of blood.

So, okay, I wasn't exactly thinking Frida Kahlo, but where are the heavy eyebrows and bold jaw? Or just the heavy eyebrows? Like I said, the body was great, and the cover is pretty--it just doesn't look like I pictured Nora looking.

If I were grading this, I'd give it a B-.

[Eliza]