AAR

[Jean Wan AAR]

(No spoilers ahead, because everything is made pretty clear within the first few chapters.)

Okay, so I didn't love it, but there was nothing horribly wrong except one thing, and I'd really like to make sure I didn't miss something crucial.

Anna, the heroine, is unmarried. She's not a widow. She's not a prostitute or a courtesan. She used to be engaged to a baron or something, her sister is married to an earl (or something), and her father, if I remember correctly, is also an aristocrat. She is a member of the ton.

So why the hell has she been having affairs, and how the hell has she been getting away with it? These are two things (especially the last) I just could not understand because they seem incredibly inconsistent with the realities of the period. Yes, she's financially and personally independent, (ETA) and almost thirty. But is that reason enough? Apparently, she has been having discreet, but known affairs. She isn't promiscuous, but everyone knows, and more or less still accepts her. She's known as "seductive", but no one shuns her.

Uh, okay. This makes no sense to me. What did I miss?
_________________
Jean AAR
Reviews Editor

[JaneO]

If it is as you described, you are right, it makes no sense and I will avoid reading it.

I hate historicals that are simply contemporaries with long dresses and horses.

[Jane A]

Ugh. I wonder why she doesn't just write contemporaries.

[Elaine S]

[PatW]

After reading this post, I read the Amazon reviews to get an idea of the plot. One of them mentioned that the heroine had inherited a fortune that allowed her to "leave her father's house" - oh really? I bet she didn't live with the obligatory older chaperone type, preferably an indigent cousin! She would have been whispered about for living alone, never mind the love affairs!

I won't be reading this one either!
_________________
When in doubt, read.

[JMM]

Geez. Why not just make her a widow?

[Jean Wan AAR]

The book did have its good points (see Rike's review, link at the bottom), but unfortunately this was a huge sticking point that I simply couldn't get past, and more or less ruined the book for me.

JMM, you asked why not make her a widow - well apparently, the heroine doesn't want to lose her independence (said inherited fortune) and marry, presumably because she's been under her father's thumb for a long time. Okay, I'll accept that.

And I'll accept the premise that she wants to break the rules of society, for whatever reason. It's been done before - Eloisa James, Barbara Samuel, Madeline Hunter, and Lisa Kleypas all wrote similar heroines - but the big difference is that in all the books I'm thinking of, there were consequences to stepping outside the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour for unmarried, never-been-married ladies.

And as far as I remember (because I've returned the book by now, and I can't verify anything), Ms. Kent never addresses this issue. Now that I think about it, some hostesses may have cooled towards her. But she's still able to contract an engagement to a viscount or something, before she decides to break it off -- after (****minorspoiler****) they've slept together.

Look, I know romance novels are full of inconsistencies (very few aren't), but this was a biiiiiiiiiiiiiig one that simply took me aback. Way, way aback.

Just my two cents, and I'd love it if those who have read the book also decided to weigh in.

http://likesbooks.com/cgi-bin/bookReview.pl?BookReviewId=8252[/i]
_________________
Jean AAR
Reviews Editor