After both Grant books that I finished, I had the same thought "I'm so sad that I only get to meet three of her heroines." It is such a tragedy to me After both Grant books that I finished, I had the same thought "I'm so sad that I only get to meet three of her heroines." It is such a tragedy to me that she only wrote three historical romances!
Perhaps the only thing that I wish had been different is that I wanted to spend even more time with Will and Lydia together, which is why A Lady Awakened probably edges this one by a hair. Just the nature of the plot is that Martha and Theo have to spend every day together, even as they doing a slow burn (which I am sensing is Grant's preferred romance method, given the peak I had at the next book in the Blackshears series).
There's one plot, which while important to set up of emotions of the characters, I wondered if we totally needed, just given the wandering way it took some of the chapters. It also makes me wonder about Grant's writing process--this one felt more like "where are the characters going??" instead of "this is how the characters get here" compared to Martha and Theo's story.
Still--I loved Lydia Slaughter. I am sure lots of people don't like lots of things about her--sleeping with another man, enjoying sleeping with another man, pushing the hero away, saying cruel things to the hero. But she's honestly a new litmus test for me. How can you not love her? Like the whole project of a romance novel is about pressing the limits of how can anyone have a happy ending, even a "a woman so beautifully broken she could love a soulless man."
Of course Lydia IS beautifully broken and Will IS soulless, but also she is resilient and he is honorable? Like within both of them house all these contradictions and Lydia knows she needs to be the one who refuses to blink!
Merged review:
After both Grant books that I finished, I had the same thought "I'm so sad that I only get to meet three of her heroines." It is such a tragedy to me that she only wrote three historical romances!
Perhaps the only thing that I wish had been different is that I wanted to spend even more time with Will and Lydia together, which is why A Lady Awakened probably edges this one by a hair. Just the nature of the plot is that Martha and Theo have to spend every day together, even as they doing a slow burn (which I am sensing is Grant's preferred romance method, given the peak I had at the next book in the Blackshears series).
There's one plot, which while important to set up of emotions of the characters, I wondered if we totally needed, just given the wandering way it took some of the chapters. It also makes me wonder about Grant's writing process--this one felt more like "where are the characters going??" instead of "this is how the characters get here" compared to Martha and Theo's story.
Still--I loved Lydia Slaughter. I am sure lots of people don't like lots of things about her--sleeping with another man, enjoying sleeping with another man, pushing the hero away, saying cruel things to the hero. But she's honestly a new litmus test for me. How can you not love her? Like the whole project of a romance novel is about pressing the limits of how can anyone have a happy ending, even a "a woman so beautifully broken she could love a soulless man."
Of course Lydia IS beautifully broken and Will IS soulless, but also she is resilient and he is honorable? Like within both of them house all these contradictions and Lydia knows she needs to be the one who refuses to blink!...more
I picked this up because I loved The Devil's Web so much and wanted an older Balogh. Plus it helped that multiple people referred to the heroine as "uI picked this up because I loved The Devil's Web so much and wanted an older Balogh. Plus it helped that multiple people referred to the heroine as "unlikeable." (Spoiler: she is an abuse victim and all her decisions make total sense with that background!)
Only when I got to the denouement did I realize: I had definitely already read this. I think maybe I read it right after The Devil's Web to get more context for James and Madeline? But still-I enjoyed it a lot! It is interesting to see how Mary Balogh spells out of her family reconciliation stuff here in this earlier series, where the family reconciliation doesn't really work.
Alexandra Purnell is sheltered and abused by her father (physically until she is 16, spiritually after that) and when she goes to London for a season prior to a prearranged marriage with a Duke (this is one part that is unclear--why does the Duke want to marry Alex? Her family is not particularly wealthy. The only possible explanation is that Alex's abuse at the hands of her father would make her more willing to accept the planned abuse of her husband? Maybe no one will let their daughters marry the Duke?). In a prank turned kidnapping that really doesn't have any mal intent, somehow, Alex ends up spending the night tied up in the home of the Earl of Amberley.
The Earl and his brother Dom, responsible for the prank, have a (metaphorical) pissing contest over who will have to propose to Alex to save her reputation. The Earl wins out after he suggests to the ton that he is courting her to help save face after a group has given her the cut direct. Alex feels trapped by the marriage. This I think is the part that readers might have the hardest time understanding. Alex seeks freedom from her abusive father, but was ready to enter into the marriage with the Duke, but not with the Earl (Edmund) who is really nothing but sweet to her.
But Alex's former almost betrothed and her father have similar modes of control and Alex understands that. When Edmund invites her into the decision making for the relationship, she feels like he is granting permission or giving her conditional freedom, given that she felt like she had no choice to accept the proposal.
Alex goes to Edmund's family home and they spend a few weeks attempting to form a connection. Edmund really is only ever incredibly sweet to sex-anxious Alex, but Alex is having rational responses to her feelings, given the puritanical worldview her father gave her. On the side, Dominic is concocting harebrained plans to steal Alex away from Edmund because he thinks owning the scandal himself will be a sign that he has matured and he is confused at the idea that Edmund has genuine feelings for Alex.
It wasn't until (view spoiler)[Edmund allows Alex to break the engagement, despite the potential ensuing scandal and then they sleep together. After they sleep together, Edmund is prepared to be noble, until Alex goads him into dropping his saint like persona in order to fight for her to stay. (hide spoiler)] that I realized that I had definitely read this book already!
Anyway, I'd recommend it for anyone who loves my favorite Baloghs (Someone to Hold, Slightly Scandalous, Only Enchanting, The Devil's Web). Excited to read Dominic's book because even though he was so annoying the whole time in this book, Balogh generally does a great job of making me like incredibly frustrating characters once they are the romantic leads.
Maybe my platonic ideal for a Hoyt novel. She really gets out of her own way, and she frontloads the buh??? class politics she sometimes engages in asMaybe my platonic ideal for a Hoyt novel. She really gets out of her own way, and she frontloads the buh??? class politics she sometimes engages in as a part of the heroine's development.
I still think there was some narrative callousness toward some of the side female characters that goes unchallenged and is even endorsed. But maybe my favorite one that I have read! I was rereading Notorious Pleasures for the podcast today and thought "oh I should read a Hoyt." And she is just very good at what she is good at (murder and sex). ...more
Macaulay Connor : You've got all the arrogance of your class, haven't you? Tracy Lord : What have classes to do with it? What doWell I could just die.
Macaulay Connor : You've got all the arrogance of your class, haven't you? Tracy Lord : What have classes to do with it? What do they matter except for the people in them? George comes from the so-called lower class, Dexter, the upper. Well? Macaulay Connor : Well... Tracy Lord : Mac the night watchman is a prince among men, Uncle Willie is a... pincher. Upper and lower my eye. I'll take the lower, thanks. Macaulay Connor : If you can't get a drawing room. Tracy Lord : What does that mean? Macaulay Connor : My mistake. Tracy Lord : Decidedly. You're insulting! Macaulay Connor : Sorry. Tracy Lord : Oh, don't apologize! Macaulay Connor : Well, who's apologizing? Tracy Lord : I never knew such a man. Macaulay Connor : You wouldn't be likely to, from where you sit! Tracy Lord : Talk about arrogance. Macaulay Connor : Tracy. Tracy Lord : What do you want? Macaulay Connor : [pause] You're wonderful.
More to come! I have to write about Emma and The Philadelphia Story and this book for the newsletter. ...more
1. I can't believe I loved this almost as much/as much as To Have and To Hold. 2. I can't believe how different they were, in so many ways. 3. I thoug1. I can't believe I loved this almost as much/as much as To Have and To Hold. 2. I can't believe how different they were, in so many ways. 3. I thought while I was reading "...should I make a Spotify playlist for Anne and Christy?" So that's is its own level on endorsement.
Update: . I limited myself to three Taylor songs and three Florence songs. you're welcome.
I read Lessons in French earlier this year and it really made me realize how much I value *not* knowing things about characters and instead having to trust the information the author is giving me through their minds. For a less-skilled author, this comes across "wait where is this coming from," but if it works, and you trust the author, it actually makes more sense that being inside someone's brain, you don't get a literal one-to-one reportage of their thoughts. Lessons in French accomplishes through a second-chance couple without any real, substantive flashbacks.
To Love and Cherish the tension comes from the POV structure. I talk about interesting perspectives a lot. I have a formalist tendre for discussing it--I just think when it is done well, it makes the whole novel sing and it is fun to find out *why* it works well.
In this book, we have Christy Morrell (the best man to ever exist) and Anne Verlaine (newly arrived viscountess of Seton Park, currently married to Christy's former best friend, who is a wastrel with a dark secret). The structure is pretty standard, dual POV, third person, except that Anne keeps a diary, obviously in the first person.
A large portion of the book is given over to Anne's diary and large swathes of time are covered by her diary. She does have traditional third person POV as well. So lots more time passes in this book than some romance novels. I've never read a romance with this conceit before and the experience was closest to an epistolary novel.
Unlike an epistolary novel, Anne has no audience for her writing other than herself. So you might think this is going to be like a normal first person POV, with total access to information in her head. but the diary plays into this other tension that makes total sense--you don't write down everything in a diary. So the tension is not between a two characters writing letters, but between Anne's thoughts and her documentation and working through those thoughts on the page.
This structure is so interesting and novel, I feel like any histrom reader would get something out of this book, even if they didn't really like the characters.
But! the characters are WONDERFUL. The dynamic is one I feel is usually flipped the other way along gender lines, where one character, usually the man, feels fallen from grace, or inherently bad and is "saved by"/"corrupts" the literally holier-than-thou, gentle, perfect character. (Or maybe I am just thinking about Flowers from the Storm
I could see someone struggling with the discussions of faith in this book and Anne's relationship to her atheism and eventual questioning of that stance. I found the discussion to be really redeeming and assuring, but my relationship with Christianity and God is not everybody's!
I cannot wait to read the third book now.
also tw for rape. it isn't a bodice ripper, so the MMC is not the rapist, but it is there....more
I loved this so much? I kind of suspected that I would think less of it than the first two Blackshears, if only because I had imagined some frustratioI loved this so much? I kind of suspected that I would think less of it than the first two Blackshears, if only because I had imagined some frustration with the plotting is why Cecilia Grant stopped writing historicals (the way you can see Sherry Thomas sort of get frustrated with the amnesia plot in Tempting the Bride). But this was lovely!
Maybe not quite an Emma-Woodhouse-Experiences-a-Consequence book (Someone to Hold, Slightly Scandalous or The Earl I Ruined) because you never really rooting for Kate to learn a lesson so that you can keep on loving her. Her vanity is incredibly pragmatic and tailored to her situation. Even Nick doesn't see her as silly for thinking so highly of her charm, it is just a truth about her that she is trying to make the best with.
Two little bits wrecked me: "He hadn't known his paper was wanting for quality." and "When she married, she would never see her husband do this. Some maid or maids would be responsible for all the household’s fires, and she and the man she married would sit in tasteful chairs at a comfortable distance from the flames. Never side by side on the bricks."
So sad to be done with this trilogy, even though I love all of these books. Cecilia write another book!! I would do so much word of mouth for her. ...more
Getting it out of the way: I loved this book. I think the Charlotte Street series shows some growing pains of pacing and plotting that don't exist in Getting it out of the way: I loved this book. I think the Charlotte Street series shows some growing pains of pacing and plotting that don't exist in The Rakess, but I think Peckham has indeed grown out of them because The Rakess is basically perfect. So I'm more than happy to look past them, especially because it doesn't take her any time to learn how to craft characters and conflicts.
Constance Stockwell is one of the worst heroines I've ever read. Or one of the worst people who happens to be a heroine in a romance novel that I've ever read. The precipitating act that creates the conflict is BAD. Like truly unforgiveable. (Of course, this means I loved her).
But that's the whole of the genre, isn't it? Or at least part of the whole of the genre. I think defining romance novels using the RWA guidelines is a little bit of a hollow exercise. Talking to anyone who doesn't read romance, I would emphasize those (HEA and romance is the central story). But to me, that's not really how genres work, definitionally! I think it makes more sense to think of the definition not as an elements test, but as a multivalent factor test. Think of a genre like film noir: there is a visual style that clues you in (can a noir be low contrast?), there are structural elements (the use of flashbacks, VO narration), a central focus on some sort of sordid crime with alienated characters, a pessimistic world view. None of these things necessitate something being a film noir, but it does paint the edges of where a noir is or is not.
It is also a genre that parodies itself pretty early in its history--creators are aware of the conventions of film noir before film noir has a name.
I think this is more useful way of defining Romance! Especially HR, which is my only real experience with Romance. And I'm not definitely not an expert. But I think it is okay if the definition is messy and has edge cases--that is how genre works. Defining it this way would also reconcile the distance between a lot of ur-Romances and modern publishing romance (as much as people in my TikTok comments want to argue--modern Regency romance is not! structurally similar to Jane Austen and I feel crazy when they suggest these novels are built in ways that model her story telling).
Some offered definitional factors: style (setting it in one of the heavy hitter aesthetic periods, Regency, highlands, medieval, or a period where similar nostalgia can be cultivated), structure (dual POV! again, as much as contemporary romance readers might want to argue with me here, I think dual POV is kind of an structural edict of HR! Obviously not having dual POV does not make it NOT a historical romance, but it is used so prevalently and widely), the idea that marriage representations a reconciliation of multiple layers of connection (yes, of course the love has to be there in a HEA, but the money has to work to! the duty has to work!).
And I think a potentially defining tenet of at least HR (which I would also argue...might be a totally different genre than contemporary romance) is one character doing a harm to another. (I talk a little about this in review of Flowers from the Storm). This is the plot of a bodice ripper, right? It starts with the hero committing violence to the heroine and ends with a HEA and the question of the book is the journey in-between. The scales of this conflict can be much, much smaller in a lot of romance novels (sometimes, the harm done is just not being honest about feelings you didn't know you had! but most often, the hero is the one doing the main correction).
In The Earl I Ruined, the bad act, that is not directly, literally violent, but edges on something I think we could call a type of violence now in 2022 with ease, is committed by the heroine.
The journey toward understanding why she would do this, or think it was remotely okay to do, is done by the hero. Much like The Proposal, this book is really about intersecting power dynamics. Constance is much richer than Julian, moves with society with much more ease, seemingly is more comfortable in her own skin. But Julian is a man, older than Constance and has full information available to him about the precipitating conflict, that he hides from Constance (though for good reason!).
So I could see how the dynamic that mostly involves Julian apologizing to Constance could grate some readers--she did the way worse thing! But the way I am reconciling is this: Constance *does* bad things, while Julian *says* cruel things (or doesn't say nice things). His injuries to Constance need to be coupled with a verbal apology, which he gives freely based on his remorse, not conditional on Constance figuring out how to behave more compassionately. Constance's verbal apologies are kind of hollow. But her actions are what shifts and she swings big, so there are bigger missteps that Julian's verbal barbs.
I thought Peckham handled these ever shifting power inequities expertly AND it coupled with the sexual dynamic well, which was maybe my biggest issue with The Duke I Tempted, where the Duke's interest just so happened to align with Poppy's sexual tastes that she has no idea that she wanted before he explains it to her.
Constance is similarly innocent to ways of Charlotte Street, but I thought Peckham did a better job of provided scaffolding in her characterization up to and beyond her understanding and aligning with Julian's preferences.
Anyway I loved the book, but now I'm going to do some meta-discourse and there will be spoilers below!
Okay, so for all my justification above explaining how I managed to enjoy Constance, even though she did a really terrible thing (planting a rumor that is only based in a half truth regarding Julian's sexual proclivities that threatens to ruin him and his family, when he is much much less financially stable than Constance. And the fact that the portion of the rumor that is true is connected to his sex work. 18th century doxxing is still doxxing! It is terrible! And I think Peckham clearly means for it to be terrible and a metaphor for the threat of exposure that comes with sex work, through doxxing or revenge porn), I was SO surprised by reading the reviews here.
I was so prepared to defend Constance, in my beloved category of bitchy, Emma Woodhouse like heroines. But NOPE, most of the reviews seem GLOWING toward her. They hate Julian! There are different levels of distaste for his sex work, but so many of the reviews place the burden on him in rhetoric that mirrors how he is talked about in the book, that is disproven in the book!
I'm disappointed to see so many reviews not quite grasp the precarity of sex workers. Other reviews took issue with his lack of shame around sex work, as ahistorical or immoral. I actually think his view makes sense, that the main issue for the ton might actually be that he is WORKING for money, not the having sex part (especially because his sex work is confined, I believe?, to servicing women? I actually would have liked Peckham to explore the potentially more realistic dynamic where he is a man primarily interested in sleeping with women, who works with men.)
I think this captures something that Peckham was so good at in The Rakess, that societal distaste has an angle and a perspective. It is not that you are in or out, it is these complex layers of in with who and out where.
Anyway, if you are a SWERF, why are you even reading historical romance? The publication of the genre as we know it is dependent access to information and art that some people want to censor because they are scolds and because they want power. We owe sex workers for being on the front lines of abuse from that direction. Additionally--the genre is obsessed with depicting sex workers, because, I suspect, a lot of readers view it is a salacious layer of the genre they read for salacious reasons! I get it, to be a human is to enjoy on some level of voyeurism into other, unknown ways of life.
But if you are going to read HR, where the history is so parallel to sex work, the least you can do it is not be disrespectful to sex workers in a GOODREADS REVIEW.
I saw Serendipity in 2001 (the movie with John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale, one of our last pre-9/11 rom coms. it was released two days after, so obvioI saw Serendipity in 2001 (the movie with John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale, one of our last pre-9/11 rom coms. it was released two days after, so obviously produced and promoted completely before) and the proceeded to watch it probably once a week for three years. Incidentally the woman who tells John Cusack at the beginning of the movie that they don't have a backroom or basement played Marian the Librarian in my dad's high school production of The Music Man. This combination of forced exposure to John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale leaving their perfectly nice fiances for each other based on nothing other than coincidence and the coincidence of Ann Talman's presence in the film has me bought into the dual/mirror/opposing concepts of serendipity and fate, especially in relationship to my consumption of media.
I also recognize that some of this is a cognitive distortion and a human impulse to narrativize things that happen to us, even if they are actually random.
I have a Sagittarius stellium (sun, mercury, mars) which suggests forward movement, to the detriment of assessing the present, which can manifest in a lack of self-awareness. But it is also a fifth house stellium, the house of the creative mark and the inner child, the house of self-lore. I think some of my self-narrativizing, externalized through reading meaning into the serendipity of my media consumption, comes from this.
This is all to explain: I think there is great meaning that I read The Rakess immediately after Seven Nights in a Rogue's Bed, a book I hated. I think there is meaning that Beth made a TikTok saying "just read The Rakess instead" in an unfavorable review of another book, spurring me to finally read this, though I have had it on my TBR for so long.
Seven Nights pushed me to dislike something that I had never really paid much attention to in HR because I think it would alienate me from most books: the discussion of safer sex. I know this is often a hard line for contemporary readers! But what is HR without pregnancy plot? But in Seven Nights, the heroine really really does not want to get married, so she really really does not want to get pregnant. She *suggests* pregnancy prevention devices and the hero dismisses them as ineffective. She is a virgin and he is not. They have penetrative sex without coitus interruptus almost exclusively.
This annoyed me! As trite and patronizing as the Kleypas move of "I'll make sure you're still a virgin on your wedding day" can be, at least it demonstrates a 1. knowledge of how sex works 2. an interest in protecting a woman's interests from the more knowledgeable party.
The Rakess was totally counter to this and went even beyond that and really encouraged me to rethink what I expect from sex scenes and discussion in romance novels.
Sera Arden has adopted the title The Rakess and leaned into her notoriety as a fallen woman to help her book sales for her philosophical works about the rights of women. There are maybe a dozen little moments that demonstrate her knowledge of sex as a human function: she tracks her period, she can tell when men are attracted to her, she teaches the hero about some sex acts. Despite all the historicals that I read, my impulse is always to question when the baseline of some behavior is a book is "well women just didn't DO that" or "didn't KNOW that." What is more innate of an interest than awareness of your body? Just because a world is conservative does not mean women were somehow totally sequestered from this information all the time. And especially in historical romance, I think we can question how much of our sense of propriety is historical and how much of it comes from Georgette Heyer's conservative world view.
One of the reasons that I was so excited for this book is the amount of reviews who hated Sera: her cruelty, her drunkenness, her casual relationship to sex. These opinions aren't announcing themselves as misogyny, but Peckham addresses this her introduction (which I also loved!) that the idea of a Rakess has built into it different reactions than a Rake. Romance novel readers love a rake who reforms. One of the most popular characters of all time is Sebastian from Devil in Winter, who kidnaps! a heroine to marry her in the previous book.
Sera's not afforded the same chance at reformation, in-universe or as a character. But as much as she takes the title of Rakess, what she need to reform? It isn't her seduction of innocents (all of her affairs involve enthusiastic participants it seems). Her primary change is centered on her alcoholism, which many a rake deals with, but often the alcohol is strongly connected to carousing and they stop the moment they meet the right woman. Meeting Adam does not spur Sera's sobriety, her being really cruel to him does and the level of embarrassment she suffers when she realizes what she has done. I loved that her decision was separate from Adam's familial history with alcohol.
Related to Sera's knowledge as the Rakess and the discussion of sexual health, the sex in this is great! I joke about the perfunctory moments of sex in so many historical romances novels, where there are predictable beats of the order of the sex acts ("oh, well he went down on her last time, so now she is going to independently invent the idea of a blow job.") Nothing about Sera and Adam's sex life is perfunctory--it is perfectly suited for them and is different than anything else I have ever read.
Something else I loved was Peckham lack of distinction between other sex acts and penetrative PIV sex as sex. I'm not actually sure of the historicity of this distinction, but I don't really care? I think the holdover of holding up PIV sex as "real sex" is 1. homophobic 2. antiquated. And just because you are writing set in the 1790s, you are writing a book in 2020 for 2020 readers. You don't have to replicate harmful notions about sex for your book to feel historical. So brava to Peckham for that.
The books that this reminded me of the most were Sherry Thomas, mostly for the focus on the abject and bodily function, but surprisingly, I also thought a lot about Devil's Daughter by Lisa Kleypas.
Kleypas would never ever write a heroine like Sera (Aline in Again the Magic is maybe her cruelest heroine. the only one I would consider a bitchy heroine). Kleypas heroines are sassy and cheeky and spirited and they can give as good as they get. But they aren't really ever bitchy.
But the discussion of Sera's adoption of the Rakess title reminded not for one of her heroines, but Cousin West. Cousin West Ravenel is my favorite Kleypas hero (probably my favorite HR hero ever) and is the reason I can't quite quit Kleypas as my baseline, as much as I think the most interesting things happen when HR as a genre pushes past where Kleypas got us. But Cousin West is NOT really a rake. I always imagine him as a Chris Farley type. Making jokes at his own expense, to the detriment of his health and self-image. West characterizes his time pre-Ravenels series as one of buffoonery, where he was too drunk to ever keep a mistress. Also his cruelest moments comes when he is drunk (to Kathleen in Cold-Hearted Rake).
Sera and West are both on the edges of the rake-trope/type. Neither is a member of the aristocracy, both struggle with substance abuse. They experience some of the rakishness and the pleasure of that, but also feel the consequences of it more acutely than say, someone like Sebastian in Devil in Winter.
I loved this book--I am thrilled to have found an author who is CURRENTLY PUBLISHING BOOKS that I adored. I need everyone to read this one, get hyped for The Portrait of a Duchess because if we run her out into high fantasy, I'll perish....more
”You opened the window," he couldn't help but point out.
He expected a defensive, sarcastic response such as, "You would have just broken it
Passage 1
”You opened the window," he couldn't help but point out.
He expected a defensive, sarcastic response such as, "You would have just broken it anyway."
But she said nothing before pulling back a space, eyes meeting his in the faint light. "Yes," she whispered.
"Why?" He internally kicked himself for asking. He didn't need to know an answer to that question, dammit. She was the one who wanted to know why, why, why. He simply coaxed and took what he wanted. And here she was on a candlelit tray. Who cared why?
Passage 2
"The force constantly pushing and pulling within her between external bravery and internal vulnerability. But there a little of that in everyone. Even in the man standing behind her."
cw: parental abuse, the hero is also part Romani, but very very vaguely, and it is honestly does not play into the plot at all. your tolerance may vary with that. The only character trait that is ascribed to it is an "intuition" and I think it is only mentioned once. So it is othering, but not negative and certainly never rises to the level of fetishization that goes on in something like Mine Till Midnight.
I've read four Anne Mallory books in four days and this is the best one so far and the first I would recommend unreservedly, even though I have immensely enjoyed all of them.
I knew immediately when I started with Mallory what made her special was her dialogue, but I couldn't quite capture what it was. I couldn't point to list of quotations that somehow made her rise above other romance novelists--though I love lots and lots of quotations from all of her books. I knew it was something structural that she was doing that I couldn't quite name or grasp at that was changing how I was experiencing the dialogue that changed my reaction, not a preternatural ability to turn a phrase.
This is her most conversation heavy book out of the four I have read, and that is saying something. The premise has *talking* built into it. Roman Merrick, sort of vague all powerful criminal man (he runs a gaming hell and gameplay is important to the plot/romance, but he has fingers in lots of pies and the mechanics of his business are less explicated than something like world of Sarah Maclean or something) has been intrigued by Charlotte Chatsworth for ages. But she's of the ton and he can't quite contrive a way to meet her properly.
Her father is a gambler and one of her suitors, who is not quite titled enough to satisfy her father's desire for perfect, blonde, icy Charlotte to marry a Duke/Marquess/Earl, are playing a card game at Merrick's hall when the suitor wagers 10000 pounds against one night with Charlotte. Her father leaps at the opportunity to have more blunt in his kit and figures that at the very worst case scenario, Charlotte marries a slightly less titled man, though he really believes he won't lose.
But Roman had not yet exited the game and maneuvers (read: cheats) to win the hand, so that he wins the night with Charlotte.
Charlotte has her own reasons for not throwing a fit when this is revealed--her father loathes her younger sister (whose sin is basically...being 15 and a little noisy? this part, tbh, was a little underdeveloped. Though maybe it shows her father's irrationality when he comes to his daughters). She worries that if she does not marry perfectly, her father will marry the sister off to the first detestable man available, if that man is willing to pay the father's debts.
Additionally, the suitor who initiated the bet is so interested in marrying Charlotte (he sees her as an entry into the ton for political power because she will be such a perfect hostess), insinuates that even if Charlotte loses her virtue during her one night with Roman, he will still marry her.
This is the part that felt the most like an homage to bodice rippers--Roman winning Charlotte in a card game without her consent, her resignation to the situation at hand, the manipulations of all the men. And Mallory does not balk at making Roman lascivious. He makes it clear to Charlotte that he did not win her only in order to save her from the suitor who initiated the bet, but because he wants her, unequivocally.
But they do not sleep together that first night. Instead they play chess, Roman's wager being that he will earn another night in the future if she loses. And she'll get to settle one of her father's outstanding debts if she wins. The real game of chess is Roman's picking of games. Throughout the book, he is wagering and setting terms and teaching Charlotte rules. The undercut of the bodice ripper threat is less in anything Roman says and more immediately in the game he lets Charlotte choose? Chess? Not something that has quick game play? And Charlotte actually notes that Roman slows the game play down. They finish one game this first night--Charlotte does lose, but first Roman fall asleep before he coup de grace move, which he completes in the morning.
So Charlotte has to give Roman another night. This conceit does not extend perpetually throughout the book, though they are consistently inventing or contriving new debts to each other. I initially described this as Scheherazade like, which I think it must be connected to in Mallory's mind in someway, but it is like...a mutual Scheherazade.
Because Roman actually ends up wiping away the debt of the night before Charlotte is able to deliver to him--she initially thinks that this is freeing from the debt, but Roman (and Mallory in her narrative structure) understands that the freeing and entanglement are not mutually exclusive. Charlotte does not become less obligated to Roman when she no longer owes the debt of a single night, she becomes more obligated because her wants and needs for him are available to develop organically and rapidly toward him and he her.
This more plot premise than I usually include in my reviews--but I think Mallory is really playing to her strengths here, where the concept of the couple's romance really involves them talking. And boy howdy, do they talk. I said in a mid-way point Tiktok that when we finally get to the first sex scene, I was stunned. I really thought we had already gotten one! But actually what had happened was conversation after conversation that was just electric between Roman and Charlotte.
(Also just a note about that first sex scene. I think it is the only sex scene that I have ever read that 1. does not flip perspectives 2. even if that isn't true, I feel like it is the only one that does it totally from the MMC's perspective, and even if THAT is somehow not true, 3. I feel like it is the only first time sex scene from the MMC's POV with no flip. I'm obsessed with this structural decision).
I pulled the two quotations that I did from the book because I think they finally capture what I am talking about when I mean Mallory is doing something different with her dialogue structures.
Something that I could see being a criticism of Mallory is that sometimes, her dialogue can actually be a little hard to track! She relies less on dialogue tags and I sometimes found myself rereading passages of dialogue to figure out who was talking. Additionally, a thing that will happen is that a character will say something and then there will be a few long paragraphs describes either the speaker's inner thoughts or the listener's inner thoughts. So many paragraphs that there were multiple times that I had to scroll back up to see what the first character had said.
This might sound either like a criticism or an annoyance, but I think it is actually reflective of my experience as a reader of romance novels and discomfort (and the accompanying excitement) with reading something structured differently.
I think a sandwich metaphor works here to explain what I see as Mallory's priorities.
Typically (not always of course, but typically) I would think of a FMC/MMC conversation like this.
POV character's inner thoughts-->POV character's dialogue-->non-POV character's dialogue (repeated however many times needed for the conversation)-->POV character's inner thoughts based on the new information provided in the conversation.
What happens in Mallory, again not always, it would become unreadable pretty quickly if she always did this, but I think she utilizes as often as she can, is this sandwich structure.
Character dialogue-->inner thoughts of responding character, sometimes taking up multiple paragraphs-->response to the dialogue
For Mallory--the dialogue is the bread of the sandwich! It isn't easy to pull character quotations ("I burn for you." "Brace yourself.") It is the frame, the bounds, the form of the relationship.
I think in Mallory, I've felt the greatest tension (captured in that second quotation I included above) between what a character can articulate and what a character is thinking. And for Mallory, it isn't something it going to be resolved hyper neatly. And so often, that's the character question, especially for heroes, in historical romances novels. How will he be able to articulate that he loves her, which we the readers KNOW, because we can hear his thoughts? When the external and the internal reconcile, that's resolution in so much of romance.
But in Mallory, it doesn't feel like then they need to match! And how can they, if they are in constant tension? The external bravery and the internal vulnerability. She doesn't need those two concepts to be aligned and overlapped, but in equilibrium and in balance.
That's what I mean when I say I am obsessed with her dialogue.
Last thought: favorite moment in the whole book, immediately rocketed to the top of my "little romantic moments that made me scream" (spoiler alert if you want to be surprised)
”In the course of events, her coiffure had lost its shape, and one of the short locks around her face kept slipping into her eyes. She finally gave in and brushed it away, trying to tuck it behind her ear. Without looking away from his cards, Roman reaching into his pocket and handed her a fresh clip. It was one of hers, likely forgotten at some point in the past. He always had one handy."
Okay, I am generally wary of romance novels that are a girl-bossy and this one does almost almost cross the line of what I would be willing to put up Okay, I am generally wary of romance novels that are a girl-bossy and this one does almost almost cross the line of what I would be willing to put up with. But so so much saves it.
So here's a list of the things that are making me eat my own hard line of "no girlbosses" 1. the "he's been secretly in love with her the whole time trope." Nothing makes me weaker. 2. Milan's dialogue, always incredible. There were multiple times when my mouth was agape the lines people said to each other 3. the (view spoiler)[violet (hide spoiler)] lecture. My mouth literally involuntary opened and stayed open for two to three minutes when that happened. It is so to a T what I love about romance novels and I can't believe that 150 of these books in, I didn't see it coming. But I don't want to spoil it for anyone else because it was such a moment of pure joy for me. 4. How much of the conflict came from misunderstandings of the two main characters with people from outside the main relationship. This is not quite a miscommunication plot as much as two people who are totally unable to articulate how they feel, to anyone! So their slipping by one another and not being able to land on a relationship makes so much more sense and is less frustrating when each one is also dealing with their immediate family. It was so emotional to watch Violet insist how much she loved Lily and how that relationship was useful for her and the same with Sebastian and Benedict. 5. Despite being a capital-W Woman in STEM, with the plot about her prior marriage, allows for her journey to be an internal one and not just a woman against the machine plot.
A few little things felt maybe a little *unearned* namely the plot with Violet's mother and her character reveal. But no matter. The entire time I was reading, I either had a huge smile plastered on my face or my whole body was strung like a bow I was so stressed.
ALSO: This book specifically sort of captures a frustration/interest that I have with these 19th century romance novels with "hot girl hobbies." Sometimes I feel dismissive calling them that, but the integration of them in the books and the women's lives is so often kind of surface-level. They give the author a space to flex some historical research and a structure for the metaphors the couple is going to use to express their love to each other. I love reading hot girl hobbies, but this book pushes that trope and turns into temporary anguish. Because of that astute interrogation with a through thread, I can tolerate a glossy and rosy "she gets accepted by the world at large" ending.
I will also say for Milan: her heroes and heroines all have amazing gaps in their personalities, makes each book a really individual romance. I know exactly what a Kleypas hero is or a Dare hero. But each couple across the Brothers Sinister is so unique to me!...more
May 1, 2024: the meanest married couple in all of Europe. It's The Philadelphia Story!!
Gigi is definitely now in my canon of unlikable, bitch-y romanMay 1, 2024: the meanest married couple in all of Europe. It's The Philadelphia Story!!
Gigi is definitely now in my canon of unlikable, bitch-y romance novel heroines that I adore. All the descendants of Emma Woodhouse, along with Mary Balogh's Camille from Someone to Hold and Freyja from Slightly Scandalous and Lisa Kleypas' Aline from Again the Magic. I loved her. (view spoiler)[I especially loved the plot of her suitor attempting to kill her and that changing her methods for getting a husband and how it was something that Camden knew about her early on, but we watch him not quite grasp how that could have changed her approach to the world and her sense of value of herself. (hide spoiler)]
I will say--I sped through this. Like to the point where I should honestly read it again because I am sure I missed something. I really didn't want to read a high angst book at this moment and these two are MEAN to each other for while. However, I really really loved a few things about it.
Particularly the pacing of the two timelines--sometimes parallel stories in a remarriage story like that save the Reveal of the Trouble from the first time for way too late in the story, so then even if the reconciliation takes years for the couple, the reader only gets 1/10 of the book to wrap their head around the forgiveness and redemption. Also the all the missed connection! Who are we and why are we in a David Lean movie?
And I liked the secondary love story and I understand it's necessity for the thrust of the main couple and second chances, but it's inclusion is what made me speed through the book. I had to get to resolution because Gigi and Camden were KILLING ME.
I loved it and I'm having a great time with Sherry Thomas!...more
June 6, 2022 update: The gap between this and some of Balogh's books is so astronomical! I'm going to reread Slightly Dangerous next, probably, and atJune 6, 2022 update: The gap between this and some of Balogh's books is so astronomical! I'm going to reread Slightly Dangerous next, probably, and at the time that I read that, I thought I maybe liked it better, but I certainly think about this book more.
It is wild to me that this and Someone to Hold are so close to each other. That is the kind of thing I normally get annoyed with--I noticed a few different times in Sarah MacLean books where she repeated language or scenes and groaned at the formula of it, despite having a good time.
But Balogh's reiteration does seem like an intention. Asking the question when she was writing StH "what is Freyja Bedwyn was disinherited? what happens if that woman doesn't have money?" which is an interesting question in this genre (of course Balogh resolves it with...two inheritances.)
I minded the winding nature of the setting less this time--I think I have a better grasp of how Balogh uses setting now. She loves a return to home, literal or figurative. And Joshua and Free are both away from home at the beginning of the book and need to do their returns in order to get to each other.
I do need to read the prequel with Kit and Lauren. I know it is the reason that a lot of people don't like Freyja, so that would be a journey, to read a book where my favorite character is the villain.
tw: sexual assault, incest
I knew I was going to love this one because of all the reviews that called Freyja things like a "bitch" and a "cow."
I LOVED her. She reminded me of my other favorite Balogh heroine, Camille Westcott. She's like Emma Woodhouse, but if Emma Woodhouse was slightly less beautiful and had had to live through a Persuasion like fiance-trauma. But with villains like Fanny and Lucy from Sense and Sensibility, who had even more of a gothic twist.
I can't believe there's a review on here who said that Freyja punching the aunt was a bridge too far? The aunt is one of the worst secondary villains I've read in a non-Gothic, non-bodice ripper! Totally cruel and the worst kind of manipulative. And she excused her son's sexual abuse of her disabled daughter. She definitely deserved to be punched! I guess Prue has Down Syndrome? But I liked that she has a romance! So often disabled characters are sweet and written into being protected and just kept in a house, as a grace instead of an asylum, in these books. But of course disabled people get married and fall in love. I'm glad Joshua was on board with her feelings for Ben and simply asked her what she wanted and helped support her that way.
Perhaps the only downside of this book is how MUCH plot there is--it was wild reading the end and thinking about how many settings and twists it took to get us to Cornwall. But the big takeaway is that this book helped me understand Bath, in a way that even Persuasion didn't help me understand. Freyja going to place where her identity has a sort of slippage between who she is supposed to be and who she wants to be, all while existing in this upper crust world. I loved that she totally understands exactly her place of privilege, as a daughter and sister of a duke, and demands a certain kind of treatment because of that. That's what reminded me of Emma and the journey isn't to suddenly be a more magnanimous person to everyone and become a sickly sweet romance novel hero, but to find the right place (romantically, geographically) for her. That she does whatever she afraid of, including saying yes to proposal.
Also--when someone uses a nickname so much that the ACTUAL NAME is what is special--wreck me, kill me.
Taylor Swift songs Freyja: Jump then Fall "The bottom's gonna drop out from under our feet, I'll catch you, I'll catch you, When people say things that bring you to your knees, I'll catch you" Joshua: New Romantics "We team up, then switch sides like a record changer, The rumors are terrible and cruel, But honey, most of them are true"...more
March 4, 2025 Update: Wrote a long piece about Balogh's vision of forgiveness and justice and why it makes me think about prison abolition. Live now oMarch 4, 2025 Update: Wrote a long piece about Balogh's vision of forgiveness and justice and why it makes me think about prison abolition. Live now on Restorative Romance
March 28, 2022 Update: This book is very important to me!
The theme of Camille thinking she has earn love through goodness is wonderfully stretched throughout. I love how un-neat her reconciliation with Anna is by the end--it becomes about the effort at the beginning. It reminds me of the end of The Irishman (why am I like this?) with the priest saying "We can be sorry, even when we don’t feel sorry. For us to say, to make a decision of the will, ‘God, I am sorry. God, forgive me."
It also! reminds me Silence and theme of self-harm as piety.
It is less that Martin Scorsese has a lot of say about romance novels and more than my only framework for the world is Catholicism and I'm not actually Catholic, so when I read romance novels, I think of Scorsese instead of God.
Camille and Freyja Bedwyn from Slightly Scandalous exist in parallel to each other and it's great to see basically the same plot play out in Balogh's universe where the difference is access to funds/social cache.
On Joel's end, the theme of shifting perspectives/views is a sweet way of connecting his profession to his consideration of Camille.
Also a Balogh strength here is juxtaposing scales of action; I was struck re-reading this how miniscule the proposal/love declaration felt compared to either the individual plots of the couple with their families or the feelings that they were feeling. In that way it reminded me of The Proposal, where I thought there would be another couple chapters of Big Confrontational Ending. But Balogh is not Lisa Kleypas! The romances are so understated and matter-of-fact, that I think maybe what happens sometimes is that the couple is kind of boring! But when the couple works as well as Camille and Joel, she doesn't need the decorative trappings. I think this is why Balogh either hits or doesn't for me. Her couples are laid bare in way that you have to either like their connection or not!
October 28, 2021: Adored it. Basically what all the other reviews said--I couldn't believe that I loved Camille's book so much.
Taylor Swift songs
Camille: "Gorgeous," And you are so gorgeous it makes me so mad, You make me so happy it turns back to sad, There's nothing I hate more than what I can't have" Joel: "Holy Ground," "Tonight, I'm gonna dance, For all that we've been through, But I don't wanna dance, If I'm not dancing with you"...more
October 3, 2022 Update: I wrote about this in-depth in my
This may be my favorite Wallflowers iteration, which is surprising because it pOctober 3, 2022 Update: I wrote about this in-depth in my
This may be my favorite Wallflowers iteration, which is surprising because it predates the series in story and publication, but oh my god. I loved both sisters and the heroes so much! I think the only Wallflowers proper that comes close is Scandal in Spring, which makes sense because of my weakness for "enemies to lovers, but he's been secretly in love with her the whole time," which is kind of going on here and also with Matthew and Daisy in Scandal.
It also made me like Marcus even more! Now I want to reread It Happened One Autumn again.
Fully wept.
Taylor Swift Songs
McKenna: We Were Happy, Aline: right where you left me Gideon: this is me trying, Livia: Daylight...more
Loading...
