Imo, Simon realize that Christian’s dad (who’s name I CANNOT remember) did what he did for his family–the same justification Simon has used for his actions. Neither are right, they’ve both chosen to go down terrible paths for a questionable reason. To me it was a sort of mirroring. And by not killing him, Simon reclaims his humanity.

I also thought that being sent off to the colonies would have been a very big deal to a man who had worked his whole life to gain entree into the ton and who had pinned his hopes on his children being accepted by society.

As for Rosalind and Pocket, I don’t see how that could ever be ‘resolved’. Once you’re tainted by the ton, that’s it. And I thought that was the point. There is no magic bullet and that’s pretty damn realistic, imho.

Anyhow, that’s my two cents. Isn’t it amazing how differently we can all interpret the same thing? Humanity.

And even though they would have supported him, undoubtedly — because he hated what it was doing to him, I don’t think he wanted them to be tainted by it as well.

As if this was abhorrent to him but that he couldn't live with himself if he didn't follow through.

Just want to say, yes yes — and I loved this conflict, and Simon’s character really made the book for me. I loved that he didn’t feel indestructible, as so many heroes often do — that he felt his mortality and age so deeply.

I had a few minor frustrations toward the end, but overall, I thought this was a freaking fantastic book. I was emotionally engaged from about the second that Simon opened his eyes, wasn’t the least bit bothered by the violence (no surprise there, I guess) and I believed in their HEA. It won’t be an easy one, but one they’ll both work toward. Definitely a keeper for me.

[14:39] Jayne: I did also wonder why would Simon have not used de Raaf as his second for all the duels? I could see why he wouldn't use Pye as Henry wasn't a nobleman but why not use de Raaf? Yeah, okay for the plot but it still doesn't make sense to use someone Simon has just gotten to know over an older friend.
[14:39] Jane: I thought it was the “sequelitis� coming into play. It should have been de Raaf

I think the reason Simon gives, that his new-happily-married-and-expecting-babies bosom buddies are far too valuable to potentially harm rings true. Although, being me, my immediate thought was, hmmm, so it’s okay for you risk the life of that boy you just met and to take advantage of his hero worship? I heart Christian Fletcher though. Imagine, a sequel that begins in *colonial America* and shows him somehow fighting his way back to England. or not.

As for the dueling = murder/justice aspect, I guess in retrospect it is very modernistic, as I was nodding my head along with Lucy saying, yes, yes, murder is wrong, I too would be freaked if my new husband was out at all hours inciting people to violence.

Hey, if I’m subscribed via email to one DA column & discussion does that mean I’m subscribed to all new ones? Cuz I was surprised to see the email alert for this entry pop up. But glad I clicked on it because TSP is now one of my all-time favorites and I love to talk about it :)

I wanted to comment on this:

I could understand Lucy being more worried over the state of Simon's soul before I'd go for her blathering on about murder. In the eyes of mid 18C Europe aristocracy, it wasn't murder -’ it was justice.

Increasingly, this was coming to be untrue. Already by mid-century there are instances of upper-class men being convicted by trials of their peers. Frequently, the determining factor was whether or not the duel took place in the heat of the moment; the law tended to be much more lenient on unpremeditated duels. If you killed someone as the result of a fight, you could only be charged with manslaughter. If you killed someone as the result of a premeditated duel planned out for some time after the offense, you could be convicted of homicide and so could your seconds. As the concept of the man of sentiment and the middle-class mentality became more prevalent and powerful in the culture, the act of dueling began to be seen more and more as an aristocratic vice, not a way of ensuring justice (hence the prevalence of dueling in “Dangerous Liaisons” as part of de Laclos’s satire of the ancien regime).

So for Lucy in particular, who seems to be gentry but not upper class, dueling would have seemed like murder, I think. That said, I thought the violence in TSP really worked because it cut through my own inclination to think of dueling as an honorable pastime (at least within the context of an historical romance novel).

What did you think of the ending and the fate of the villain. Jane and I discussed it but we edited those bits out to keep from revealing spoilers. I still can’t believe that Simon didn’t have the villain sign some kind of confession. After all, that was the whole reason Simon sought revenge, to restore the reputations ruined by what was done. And once again! the villains get shipped of to America. Thanks England, we’re delighted to take your evil ne’er do wells. But then being banished to “the Colonies” was probably viewed as a fate worse than death then. ;)

And I don’t know which one I like best of the two. Maybe the Leopard Prince though, I’m always a sucker for the’still waters run deep’ kind of hero and Harry was just the best kind of hero there is. But the blend of wit, humor, darkness and angst in the Serpent Prince got to me also. So it’s a difficult choice!

Kuddos to Hoyt for really showing the gruesome side of duels. Like mentioned in the review, it’s not often that you see this in a romance novel. What got to me the most was the vision of the severed fingers. Powerful stuff. And when Lucy got sick when she saw Simon kill his opponent. I was actually amazed that we didn’t get much of a follow up on what she had seen. Sure, she went away, but I know that had I been in her place the sight of the sword going through the eye of that man would have stayed with me for a long while. So maybe the ending was a bit rushed for me. Of course she loved Simon, but I would have thought she’d need a bit more time to get over it.

Still this is only a nitpick. Like you, J&J, I really loved this protrayal of a man dressed in satin, lace and red-heeled shoes who was deadly and dangerous. The contrast is very striking and erotic and that’s one the reasons I love this period in history so much.

I also loved what Hoyt did with the secondary characters, especially ‘papa’. I couldn’t stop laughing at his scenes with Simon.

Lucy’s turn about at the end didn’t strike me as odd or coming out of the blue. She didn’t feel overly religious to me. I thought that her leaving was a long time in coming, it couldn’t be avoided. I could see myself acting exactly in the way she did. And the fact that she came back almost at once is very telling.