It's possible I liked Marina even more than Jasper. She was tough in the most appealing way, and she had a sense of humor about herself

I agree, Jennie. I liked Jasper a lot, but Marina made the book for me. I really enjoyed her sense of humor, particularly her sense of the absurd.

All the heroines in the four Rosenthal works I've read have some toughness to them, and I have to say I really appreciate that too. There's something heroic about resilience, and not that many authors take advantage of that, at least when it comes to heroines.

Yes, I like that resilience as well. I have read the same four Rosenthal stories as you, Janine, and it is interesting that in each case the heroine has been disillusioned by love and romance at a young age (through betrayal by a husband, being essentially sold into the sex trade, or some such devastating loss of innocence), yet she manages to survive and ultimately live her life on her own terms. Marina is a tough woman because she has had to be in order to cope with what live has given her.

I really appreciate the richness and complexity of Rosenthal’s stories and characters, particularly in this book and in The Slightest Provocation. The characters in both books are memorable to me in part because of their unsympathetic traits–such as Marina’s cynicism, Jasper’s stodginess, Anthony’s callowness, and Miss Hobart’s sense of superiority.

I loved the way that Marina would ruthlessly suppress her romantic feelings such as in this passage:

In any case, the damage was done. By making her love him, he’d taught her who she was and what she wanted.

The frightening question was whether he could bear to know it as well.

The answer didn’t seem likely to be yes.

She felt something go hard within her. Felt it, heard it: the dull, hollow echo of a gate slamming shut.

Nonsense. She’d heard nothing and she’d say nothing. For what, really, could one say of the foolish fancies she’d been entertaining?

See, the fancies were gone already. She felt nothing at all.

I love the realism that Rosenthal injects into her stories, even though it sometimes comes at the expense of the Romance (that with the capital R, in any case.)

Jennie, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that done before.

In any case, I’m glad you enjoyed Almost a Gentleman, and hope you like this book just as much.

I've had friends of mine complain to me about books where the hero did not dispatch the villain, for example, and the villain died by some other means, so I understand that to some readers, that kind of justice is very important, but I don't usually feel that way myself. Mercy is as valuable to me as justice, and I enjoy writers who have that kind of expansive compassion for human weakness -’ everyone from E.M. Forster to Judith Ivory to Anne Tyler to Alisa Kwitney, and I definitley include Pam Rosenthal in that group.

I generally agree. I think the only time I object to mercy shown to a villain is when it’s done to show how good and sweet the heroine is. I still remember a book I read years ago in which there were male and female villains (a married couple) who absolutely tormented the heroine. The male villain ended up getting killed, but the heroine graciously arranged to have the female villain let go and exiled. Now, I don’t believe in capital punishment, so it’s not like I would’ve wanted to see her hanged or anything, but I couldn’t help but think how nice it was of the heroine to inflict this vicious and psychopathic villainness on some other unsuspecting community. It really did annoy me there because I felt it was done purely to show us how very good the heroine was.

I’m in the middle of something else, but I know what’s next…

I loved this too. One of the very frustrating things I find about romance in general is the simplistic moral approach. As Miss Prism says, “The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what fiction means.”

LOL. Oscar Wilde at his best. I agree with you; I get frustrated with the simplistic moral approach as well. I’ve had friends of mine complain to me about books where the hero did not dispatch the villain, for example, and the villain died by some other means, so I understand that to some readers, that kind of justice is very important, but I don’t usually feel that way myself. Mercy is as valuable to me as justice, and I enjoy writers who have that kind of expansive compassion for human weakness — everyone from E.M. Forster to Judith Ivory to Anne Tyler to Alisa Kwitney, and I definitley include Pam Rosenthal in that group.

What I really liked in the way Rosenthal handled his character was that I felt there was an implication there that even people who behave horribly may be suffering or tormented, and that at our best, we can be generous enough to extend our compassion to them. It's not that the villain deserves that compassion because he isn't really that villainous -’ it's that we are all human beings, we all have commonalities, and being compassionate makes us better human beings. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I love that the book makes me think along these lines.

I loved this too. One of the very frustrating things I find about romance in general is the simplistic moral approach. As Miss Prism says, “The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what fiction means.”

I just finished this book.

Overall, I am left with a fond wish that the author will write the sequel, where Jasper and Marina actually meet in daylight and get to know each other.

Then I could believe in a HEA. Right now, I feel the readers know each of them better than they know each other.

I know that Janine had that sense a bit too. I really didn’t, but I’m not sure why. I think good writing tends to give me confidence in the HEA, if that makes any sense. I think I assumed that Jasper and Marina did *some* talking during those nights, too.

Interesting, considered that she's considered an erotic author (isn't she?). Do you know why you don't find them hot? (This may be an impossible to answer question; I find it hard enough to articulate why I find something hot, never mind why I don't.)

Yeah, I don’t know if I can articulate why, but the heat level feels mild to me. What turns us on or doesn’t is so individual that it’s hard to put a finger on.

As someone who prefers unconventional romances, I've just added another author to my to-buy list -’ thanks, Jennie & Janine!

You’re welcome, Chicklet! I hope you enjoy the book.

REG — I know what you mean, but I still enjoyed the book very much. I’m sorry it didn’t work better for you.

Overall, I am left with a fond wish that the author will write the sequel, where Jasper and Marina actually meet in daylight and get to know each other.

Then I could believe in a HEA. Right now, I feel the readers know each of them better than they know each other.

I think you would really like the courtesan heroine from Rosenthal's “A House East of Regent St.,” too.

I really do need to track that down. I’d kind of forgotten about it, but after reading this, I am very enthused about trying it.

I didn't feel that any blame was being placed on Marina by Jasper at all. I just felt that he understood Rackham's twistedness because it was motivated by wanting Marina rather desperately, and that was the emotion that Jasper could relate to. On the whole I found that very refreshing.

No, I really didn’t feel Rosenthal was placing the blame on Marina. It was just where my mind went, and it bugged me a tiny bit. Again, if Rackham had been more sympathetic or complex to me, I don’t think I’d have had any issue with it.

Hmm… I see what you are saying, but I don't think I would want Rackham any different. What I really liked in the way Rosenthal handled his character was that I felt there was an implication there that even people who behave horribly may be suffering or tormented, and that at our best, we can be generous enough to extend our compassion to them. It's not that the villain deserves that compassion because he isn't really that villainous -’ it's that we are all human beings, we all have commonalities, and being compassionate makes us better human beings. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I love that the book makes me think along these lines.

No, that’s a good point. Bleeding-heart me usually thinks more along those lines. Maybe I had a stronger negative reaction to Rackham because I felt so engaged by Marina.

This didn't bother me, and I think the reason why was that there were two levels to what was being overheard. There was the information the character who did the overhearing gleaned, and there was also the information that that character could not know, but which we readers gleaned. I loved the way the character who overheard that conversation saw it in a larger context, and I loved that yet there was an even larger context than that character was aware of. And I also loved the way Rosenthal (through that character) spun that into a meta-commentary and metaphor. If it hadn't been for all that, I might agree with your assessment, but since there was all that substance there, that scene was magical to me, and one of my favorites in the book.

I can see that. I think it would have worked better for me with just a little tweaking, so I didn’t focus on the unlikelihood of the dialogue and appreciated the cleverness of the scene (and it was clever).

I enjoy Rosenthal's love scenes for how lifelike and real they feel, but I don't actually find them that hot. They are still good reading -’ they hold my interest, and are very revealing of the characters, but I can't say I read them for the heat.

Interesting, considered that she’s considered an erotic author (isn’t she?). Do you know why you don’t find them hot? (This may be an impossible to answer question; I find it hard enough to articulate why I find something hot, never mind why I don’t.)

I can see that. I think I'm just so starved for heroines like Marina – Jasper was unusual, too, but tough heroines are really hard to come by. And when they do come along, perversely, I find myself sometimes put off by them. So the fact that Rosenthal was able to make Marina tough but sympathetic really made me love her.

All the heroines in the four Rosenthal works I’ve read have some toughness to them, and I have to say I really appreciate that too. There’s something heroic about resilience, and not that many authors take advantage of that, at least when it comes to heroines.

I think you would really like the courtesan heroine from Rosenthal’s “A House East of Regent St.,” too.

I'll have to think about that. I think what bothered me (and it really only bothered me very slightly), was the sense that Jasper's identification with Rackham put them both in the category, at least a bit, of “victims of their love for Marina”, which in a sense puts the blame for Rackham's actions on Marina. I realize that's a bit of a stretch, but it's the connection my mind made.

I didn’t feel that any blame was being placed on Marina by Jasper at all. I just felt that he understood Rackham’s twistedness because it was motivated by wanting Marina rather desperately, and that was the emotion that Jasper could relate to. On the whole I found that very refreshing.

I do like a complex villain, and I can see liking Jasper's atypical reaction. I wish I'd been able to see Rackham's complexity a bit more for myself.

Hmm… I see what you are saying, but I don’t think I would want Rackham any different. What I really liked in the way Rosenthal handled his character was that I felt there was an implication there that even people who behave horribly may be suffering or tormented, and that at our best, we can be generous enough to extend our compassion to them. It’s not that the villain deserves that compassion because he isn’t really that villainous — it’s that we are all human beings, we all have commonalities, and being compassionate makes us better human beings. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I love that the book makes me think along these lines.

I just wish it hadn't hinged on a character randomly overhearing a conversation in which another character expositioned just enough to make some things clear to the reader. I liked the idea; I just found the execution a little clumsy.

This didn’t bother me, and I think the reason why was that there were two levels to what was being overheard. There was the information the character who did the overhearing gleaned, and there was also the information that that character could not know, but which we readers gleaned. I loved the way the character who overheard that conversation saw it in a larger context, and I loved that yet there was an even larger context than that character was aware of. And I also loved the way Rosenthal (through that character) spun that into a meta-commentary and metaphor. If it hadn’t been for all that, I might agree with your assessment, but since there was all that substance there, that scene was magical to me, and one of my favorites in the book.

I don't think we got around to mentioning that. They were. I've become all jaded and stuff about love scenes, so to have one (or several) stand out for me is something of an accomplishment.

I enjoy Rosenthal’s love scenes for how lifelike and real they feel, but I don’t actually find them that hot. They are still good reading — they hold my interest, and are very revealing of the characters, but I can’t say I read them for the heat.