It’s hard to say precisely “what” was the similarity. But I just felt, when I read ATHKH, that she was very much striving for TSATS.

Sometimes it’s in Emma’s character and emotional responses that I felt it. Perhaps this is unfair to Emma as a character, but romance heroines are not, on the whole, a very proper bunch. So an excruciatingly correct heroine like Leda really stands out from the pack, and it’s hard not to compare another proper secretary to her.

Sometimes it is in the way LLG structures her language–I think I notice that because I admire the way Kinsale conveys emotions with tremendous restraint in her words and I think LLG is going for the same.

Here’s LLG’s list of historical romances everyone should read: TSATS topped her list.

Sherry: TSATS was set a few years before the Guhrke book (IIRC the Kinsale book was set during Victoria’s Jubilee, which would have been in like 1886 or 7?), but it felt SO MUCH more late Victorian to me than the Guhrke book did. I didn’t want to mention the recollection in my review because I thought maybe it was only me, lol, but obviously it’s not (and I’ve only read TSATS three times).

I have absolutely no idea if Guhrke was “inspired” by the Kinsale book, but her book suffered by the comparison I drew, largely because of the way each book presented the late Victorian atmosphere. I mean, MOVING PICTURES were already invented by the time Guhrke’s book takes place, electric-lighted homes were less than a decade away. And despite the presentation of a “thoroughly modern” Prudence, the book itself didn’t have that aura of modernity that the last years of the 19th century introduced. I know it’s not such a big deal to other readers, but for me it really shaped the way I received characters living in LONDON in 1894 (i.e. the way the middle class characters viewed the aristocracy or the way Prudence’s class status is handled — let alone the way her naivete is presented).

Since you mention Leda’s work as a secretary, I assume that Emma was a secretary in And Then He Kissed Her? What were the similarities to TSATS you noticed in that book, Sherry?

the bar for late Victorian stories about seamstresses was set for me with Kinsale's The Shadow and the Star, and I did have a few moments of comparison-making as I read Guhrke's book

Now I know I’m not alone in seeing Kinsale’s influence. And of course Leda from The Shadow and the Star was first a seamstress, and then a secretary.

I think the thing with Ryhs past was that it kept being reffered too, but never telling you what happened until he tells Prudence, and that was spit out and over with. You really don’t know that much of Thomas? other than he was molested by their uncle and killed his self. I thought that it should have at least mention more of what he was like other than what happened to him.

I agree that Prudence’s character seemed flatter than Rhys. Which is what did bother me… and when he proposes I laughed, well, because it was funny how cheesy what he said was.

Over all I read it in one setting so though it wasn’t as good as her other novels, I enjoyed it. I also liked the epilogue I thought it a little this for that, hah, which made it much better.

Vanessa: I understand what you’re talking about, and who knows what makes some authors click with readers and others not. For example, I love Jo Goodman’s books, even though she takes on some of the most-employed Romance characters in the genre. Her books always feel fresh and emotionally authentic to me, so I don’t mind the “types” (in fact, I grow to appreciate them a bit more, I think).

But I didn’t have that big love for Guhrke’s prose — both for the reasons I explained in my review and because of those elusive “style” and “taste” factors that always come into play when we read.

Also, Prudence felt less developed to me than Rhys, and while I agree with you that her strengths were more subtle, she still felt flatter to me. Plus, the bar for late Victorian stories about seamstresses was set for me with Kinsale’s The Shadow and the Star, and I did have a few moments of comparison-making as I read Guhrke’s book (even though the stories are very different) that I think influenced by response to TWWoaD.

And maybe because Guhrke made an effort to include certain tidbits of her time period I was even more aware of what I registered as historical dissonance in the book. As much as she tried to make the timing right, it just wasn’t, IMO, and its persistent presence made it even more ‘off’ to me, if that makes sense. That I graded the book anywhere in the B range really speaks to how readable I found it, despite all the things I didn’t really dig.

Also that depth of character you mentioned added to freshness for me. I appreciated that Rhys was the unrepentant real deal rake and that Prudence wasn’t in any way shape of form ‘feisty’ or ‘sassy’ or ‘tstl’. She had dignity and vulnerability, she had stars in her eyes and was giddy with first love. She avoided confrontation, not because she was spineless, because she couldn’t be bothered. She was hurt and angry but didn’t become embittered or weepy.

Ironic to say it felt to me like LLG took chances in making her characters so real and not conform to the romance genre expectations so they’d be more likable (particularly Rhys.)

I do see what you’re saying about the whole tragic childhood thing, but well-adjust characters rarely make for interesting reading. There needs to be changer/growth/self-awareness. In that way it’s best to have a well-adjusted character who'll have the rug pulled out from under them and then the story is overcoming this obstacle, or having them deal with another character who has a lot of baggage and then the story might have much to do with compromise or having values shaken, etc.

The opposite of having (too much) romance childhood baggage clichés is the Perfect perfect! character everyone loves, who is good and kind and rides around on My Little Pony doing good deeds all the live long day. wow. gag. I’d rather read the love story of Anguish McAngst and Lamoana Despairie.

And oh boy did I get waaay off topic! So, ermm… yeah, read And Then He Kissed her. lol.

Yeah, I agree about the ending, but what really dinged it for me was the combination of 1) no novelty, 2) time period distortion, and 3) the Romance cliche salad bar feeling. But it was so *readable* it got pushed back up to the low B range, rather than the C it would have been otherwise.

I enjoyed the first book in this series, An Then He Kissed Her, enormously.

Yes, that one seems to have been very well received. I might have to read it now that I’ve read this one. I soooooooooo wish that the time period felt right, though, because I lurve the late, late Victorians. I mean, think about it — this book is supposedly set a mere six years before Theodore Dreiser’s novel Sister Carrie and only twenty years before WW! It’s set during the period of modernism and is on the cusp of the modernist literary tradition, as well.

I think you hit the nail on the head here for me. Although, unlike you, I did get swept away to a degree bacause as you said LLG has the “ability to create a vivid portrait of characters who are standard Romance types brought to credible life”. If I were to grade this, I’d give it a B. The resolution in the last Act was a little too smooth/easy and this dimmed my satisfaction a bit.