(SPOILERS BELOW)

*
*
*
*
*
*

These are the things that had me guessing it was Tristan:
* The author used the phrase “hint of wickedness quirked his lips” once while describing Tristan. Considering the title of the book, it made me wonder why the author chose that exact wording to describe Tristan. Made me wonder if she would use the same phrase at some point to describe Garrett.
* The impression that Sophie’s relationship with Tristan better suited her desire for a “hint of wicked” than her relationship with Garrett.
* The impression that Sophie and Tristan’s marriage was more mature and more equal partners than Garrett and Sophie’s marriage.
* The impression that Garrett was not very likable, especially early in the book, which might make it easier for readers to “root” for Tristan.

One of my favorite scenes in romance novels is where the hero and heroine get to do something together, something that shows us how much stronger and better they are together than apart.

And I liked that the three of them had to put aside their differences to try to save Becky.

I liked this book a lot more than you did, Jennie. Maybe that’s biography talking — I had a LOT of empathy for Sophie.

I enjoyed how this book turned some standard romance devices around and made them work for me. I was thrilled that Sophie was really torn and that I failed to predict the ending. That is SO rare for me in romance, and I was amazed that Ms. Haymore made it work so well. I was rooting for Tristan, but as Garrett became more sympathetic, I fully expected the story to end up with the initial marriage being saved. That it wasn’t, and that it wasn’t easy for anyone, was a pleasant surprise for me.

One of my favorite scenes in romance novels is where the hero and heroine get to do something together, something that shows us how much stronger and better they are together than apart. In this book, all three of them got to act together — and yet, they failed to save Garrett’s sister (leading to sequels, hurrah!). Another great device, IMO, was having the villain be smarter and better than usual — they found him out in time to save Garrett, but not in time to save Becky, and he didn’t “get his” in a quick resolution scene at the end. I’m actually looking forward to seeing how Garrett goes after him and seeing that played out over more pages.

This book worked for me, and I frankly wasn’t expecting it to — at least, not as well as it did. I was joking earlier in the summer that I had a lot of “one bare leg” covers in my TBR pile. I’m thinking I may have to pick up Sleepless In Scotland now, because so far the bare-legged ladies of 2009 have been excellent!

Now I’m wondering, though, about the question of the Dukedom and whether Garrett renounced that. I don’t think that was brought up but I need to reread the ending to confirm that. I guess it’ll be resolved in Garrett’s story.

And I have to admit to major curiosity now with regards to how the ending came about legally after reading the spoiler because I cannot figure out how they could have come to that conclusion with the laws as they were.

Was it just that it didn’t end as you thought it might or was the legal aspect a reason for your disappointment with the solution as well?

I might have to finish reading it after all now… lol

Growlycub, I actually didn’t have that much of a problem with the prose, and I consider myself picky about prose. I guess it just goes to show that tastes in prose are very individual and what strikes one person as unacceptable might not bother another reader.

Tamara, thanks for the info on Gary as a name. Okay, I won’t argue with Heyer…

Susan/DC, that issue was not addressed, I don’t think. Hmm. It’s a good question, though.

Moth…

SPOILER
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Sophie ends up with Tristan. I would’ve preferred a true menage ending, which was the direction I thought the author was going in. It would’ve been more interesting to me, personally, even if not entirely believable from a historical POV (though didn’t the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire have some sort of similar arrangement with one of his mistresses? Of course, that would’ve been two women and one man; that may have been viewed differently).

I enjoyed this book a great deal until the villain truly emerged. Then I tuned out and started skimming to find out who Sophie ended up with. But I am interested in reading the sequel after reading the preview for it.

Both of the child characters jarred me, too, but I don’t have kids so am not qualified to comment.

I see your point re Garrett and the villain but can’t say more without spoiling. Actually by the end I had a better understanding of Garrett – unfortunately for most of the book he just made me mad. Preventing Sophie from reading her own mail? Grrr..

With this book, I actually found myself analyzing the sentence structure to figure out what was annoying me so much and noticed that many are of the same length and cadence with a ‘clunk’ at the end.

And I don’t care how badly shocked and still recovering Garrett is, his behavior is totally unacceptable. Locking people into their rooms and posting guards? There’s no way I can see this guy as the hero, if indeed he is. I didn’t look to see with whom she ends up in the end.

I also noticed many words/idioms that seem very modern which on top of the prose issues really made me go ‘how on earth did this get published’? The bit I read looked like a very early rough draft to me.

Additionally, I couldn’t help but think about the possible comments the author might have gotten if she had submitted a ‘First Page’ here and wondered how an editor didn’t notice the writing flow issues and anachronisms.

Too bad. I was very intrigued with the story concept and it’s interesting that the concerns I had about the resolution of a triangle in a traditional (non-erotic) romance ended up not being what made this a no-go for me.

There were a couple of other anachronistic elements that jarred me slightly – one comes when it's suggested that Sophie could obtain a divorce on the basis of her husband's adultery, which as far as I know was not a possibility at that time.

I think you’re referring to a scene in chapter 7, which I believe is the only place where divorce is mentioned. In this scene, Tristan is brainstorming with the lawyer about their options, and the lawyer is very negative about the potential of Sophie legally splitting from Garrett. He begins to tell Tristan that Garrett’s desertion in combination with his adultery might be enough for Sophie to form some sort of argument for a bill for divorce (he could use Scottish laws of the period to back this argument), but he's not very excited about the prospect. He's not suggesting that it will be a piece of cake for Sophie to obtain a divorce that way, and he's especially not suggesting that Sophie can obtain a divorce solely on the basis of adultery. Tristan, however, knows that Sophie would never publicly accuse Garrett of either desertion or adultery, and nips the idea in the bud.

I found no cases that explicitly addressed Sophie and Garrett's situation, but these were years in which the laws about marriage and divorce were being heavily debated prior to the reforms of the 1850's. Around that time, many English lawmakers were arguing for desertion as a valid reason for divorce. I felt it was conceivable that the nearly eight years in which Sophie was forced to live without Garrett could be viewed as desertion and thus used as part of a suit initiated by Sophie for legal separation or, ultimately, divorce, hence creating a precedent for a desertion/divorce scheme in England. (Note, however, that Garrett's desertion wasn't willful or malicious, which further decreases the likelihood of that particular argument working for them.)

Thanks again, and I hope that my next book will read a bit more smoothly for you!

No problem, since that's exactly what would happen, even if Sophie preferred to stay married to Tristan. Because Garrett has been declared dead she wouldn't be charged with bigamy, but she is still legally married to Garrett, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Yeah, Tristan gave it the ol’ college try on fighting it, but common sense seemed to indicate that the marriage with Garrett would take precedence.

I would tend to agree, but there's no hard and fast rule for how people raise their children (then or now). Most families would have left the children to dine in the nursery, but that doesn't mean all of them did, or that exceptions wouldn't have been made now and then. Depending on how it was done, this wouldn't bother me.

Yeah, I would not even have tripped on that if I hadn’t already been getting the wallpaper sense from the book. Once I get that feeling, I become a lot more nitpicky about little details that don’t feel right.

Trish, I had a problem with “Gary” too – it just did not feel remotely like a 19th century English name. I have no idea about the etymology of the name, though.

It’s interesting to hear that others didn’t like Sophie because I found her pretty sympathetic. Miki, I guess I saw Sophie inconsistent behavior with Garrett as somehow realistic – she didn’t like the autocratic Garrett who was trying to control her, but she still felt for the boy/man she had known and loved for so long.

Sherry, I actually gave Garrett more of a pass for being clueless because he was still recovering his memories and perhaps didn’t have a great perspective on everything. Tristan really came off as doltish at times. The whole business in the theater with the “doctor” was so obvious, and yet Tristan is just like, “hmm, that’s odd – wonder what that’s about?” I really couldn’t believe he wasn’t putting two and two together at that point.

Gail, I almost complained in my review about how unlike a 7-year-old Madeline seemed. I may or may not notice anachronistic phrases like “in denial”, though as mentioned above, once I start to notice those elements I’m more likely to continue to notice them and to question things that I might otherwise not have questioned.

I still plan to read it, of course, but I can’t help wishing I had waited for your review before buying it. I paid full price, and now it’s available as $1 e-book!

BTW Jennifer Haymore is the pseudonym of Dawn Halliday.