Romance, Historical, Contemporary, Paranormal, Young Adult, Book reviews, industry news, and commentary from a reader's point of view

REVIEW: Trouble at the Wedding by Laura Lee Guhrke

Dear Ms. Guhrke:

In a way I wish I had read Trouble at the Wedding before the first two books in the Abandoned at the Altar series. The Edwardian setting, pairing of the bourgeois heroine from the American South and the titled but impoverished English duke, and mixed cocktail of the marriage for money and the reformed rake plots add up to an ambitious vision. But I’m not sure whether my expectations were set higher after the first two books, or if what struck me as fresh earlier now seems a bit worn, but whatever the reason, I found this third installment to be a bit of a kitchen sink of tropes and clichés, more interesting and successful in the concept than the execution.

Trouble at the Wedding Jana DeLeonAnnabel Wheaton may have catapulted from near poverty to great wealth, and from Gooseneck Bend, Mississippi to New York City, following the death of her father, but she still feels like the “poor white trash” she’s been called most of her life. A smart, independent, business-minded young woman who has already been burned by what she thought was true love, Annabel is determined to marry into the British aristocracy, trading her money for a respected title and a sedate and secure life overseeing her husband’s English estate and raising their children. The man she has chosen, Bernard Alistair, Earl of Rumsford, is not particularly exciting, but then that’s the point. Annabel has had her fill of exciting men, and she frankly doesn’t trust them. Instead, she’s looking forward to a life of security, which she is certain will more than compensate for a lack of passionate romantic love.

Not everyone is on board with Annabel and Bernard’s upcoming wedding, however, which is set for six short days away on the ocean liner Atlantic, a compromise solution to the problem of whether to hold the ceremony in New York or London. One of the dissenters is one of Annabel’s trustees, her uncle Arthur, who believes that Annabel deserves a better match and is determined to get Annabel to see how ill-advised her choice of husband is. Which brings Christian Du Quesne, the handsome, rakish, and nearly broke Duke of Scarborough into the mix, hired by Arthur to talk Annabel out of the wedding in exchange for a half a million American dollars, a sum that will substantially rehabilitate the family estate, which fell into deep debt under the control of his older brother Andrew, whose death has brought the ignominious and unenthusiastic second son into the title.

Christian does not have to stretch the truth in articulating his disdainful view of life in England, especially for the dissolute aristocracy, and once he makes the acquaintance of the lushly beautiful Annabel, his attraction to her, combined with his dislike of Rumsford, generates an urgent personal interest for Christian in convincing Annabel that she doesn’t want what she thinks she wants. Annabel, who is well aware of her tendency to fall for the bad boy, doesn’t want to believe the things Christian is telling her about the unsuitability of life as an English countess, and especially as the Countess of Rumsford, but because Christian promises her he will tell her all the unwritten rules of the life she is choosing, she cannot stay away from him long enough to remain immune to either his charms or his admonitions.

As is the case in many Romances featuring two outsiders, Christian and Annabel have a rapport that is evident to both of them, despite their mutual insistence that they would never suit as a couple. Still, that rapport creates a kind of fast friendship, which tolerates a great deal of mutual honesty and fosters a powerful mutual attraction. Christian tells Annabel of his own past, married to a young heiress who killed herself after miscarrying their baby, while Christian was traveling and partying with friends. Annabel tells Christian of her own humiliation at the hands of the town rich boy, who took Annabel’s virginity and then unceremoniously dumped her.  Which makes Annabel even more determined to go through with the wedding and take the life she wants, and even as Christian admits defeat and drinks himself into a stupor, he inexplicably finds himself standing up at the wedding and calling it a “farce and a lie,” humiliating Annabel a second, devastating time and necessitating, in Christian’s mind, a proposal to save Annabel’s reputation.

But Annabel isn’t going to meekly accept Christian’s loveless sacrifice, and instead she engineers a strategy by which Christian will retroactively become one of Annabel’s trustees, thus making his wedding protest one of avuncular protection rather than scandalous insinuation. And in the meantime, Christian’s sister Sylvia volunteers to bring Annabel more fully into London society, where she can make an appropriate match and ultimately resuscitate her original ambition.

In many Romances, all of this set-up would have occurred in the first quarter or third of the novel, with the remainder of the story dedicated to unraveling Annabel and Christian’s true feelings for each other. Actually, many novels would likely turn the plot into one of marriage of convenience between the protagonists. That this particular plot occurs at the halfway point of the novel is indicative of its ambition, as does Annabel’s incredibly independent focus and resolve:

 

“First of all, let me say I owe you my most sincere apologies. My conduct was reprehensible”

“Which part?” she asked in a tart voice. “The part where you agreed to take money for talking me out of marrying Bernard? Or –“

“You know about that?”

“Uncle Arthur told me. Needless to say, he’s not feeling inclined to pay you that money now, so is that what you’re apologizing for? Hoping he’ll give it to you anyway? Or maybe it’s breaking up my wedding that you’re sorry about? Or maybe it’s because you called it a farce and a lie, and hurt my reputation? Or maybe it was the fact that you hauled off and kissed me last night? Which of those reprehensible things is the one you’re apologizing for?”

. . .

“We should become engaged.”

. . .

“Thank you for your gallant effort to save the day,” and the sweet drawling sarcasm in her voice told him his hope of an easy solution was rather out the window. “I appreciate it so very much, Your Grace. But I think I’ll pass.”

“You’re saying no?” He supposed he shouldn’t be surprised. No doubt she felt a bit let down by the idea, for he knew he hadn’t made any effort to put a romantic gloss on it. Nonetheless, she couldn’t really refuse. “But we have to become engaged. It’s the only way to avert a scandal.”

“It’s not the only way. It’s the simplest way, and the easiest way for you because it doesn’t affect your life at all.”

 

I really liked this Annabel. I was even willing to overlook the sitcom sorghum character of her Southern accent and idioms, as well as the cliché-ridden prose and conversation. I liked the fact that the book took a somewhat unexpected turn at this point and that Annabel seemed to be the engineer of her own rescue.

Then it all fell apart for me. Annabel and Christian find themselves in that push-pull of attraction and resistance, with Annabel literally begging Christian to stay away and then feeling disappointed when he complies. Christian is torn between doing “the right thing” and pursuing his own desires, even as he knows he doesn’t want another marriage to a woman who supposedly deserves better than a rake like him. Rinse and repeat.

I have recently been thinking about certain Romance character pairings where you have an almost unresolveable conflict. For example, a heroine who deserves to be loved for who she is and a hero who is destined to let any woman who loves him down. As often as we see these kinds of conflicts, I’m not sure they’re usually resolved by means that don’t seem almost supernatural, often in the form of a crisis that clues the hero in to how much he loves the heroine and wants to be the man she deserves. I have, of late, been pining for more realistic resolutions to these complex conflicts, and one of the things that frustrated me about Trouble at the Wedding was the way in which the dramatic tension in the second half of the novel is generated in part by Annabel’s increasing desolation over the depth of her feelings for Christian and his inability to love her in return.

Not only does this dynamic weaken Annabel’s character and undermine her independent resolve, it accomplishes this by manipulating the reader into desperately hoping that Christian will come to his senses and accept his own feelings are more than simple lust. It became a problematic dynamic for me in this novel because I kept feeling like I was put in a position where I had to depend on Christian for Annabel’s happy ending, which contravened so much of what appealed to me about her character. While that is typical Romance form, it was constructed at the expensive of a character who, for me, at least, was appealing to Christian for that precise independence that the romantic trajectory of the novel undermined.

Part of the issue may have been the relatively short time and page frame in which the second half of the novel proceeds. But I also think there was a difficult pairing of plot and character ambition and genre mimesis that went too far out of balance in the second half of the book. I also felt that there was more infodump in this novel than in the previous two, with passages that sounded almost like they were powered by cinematic adaptations of Edith Wharton novels or Wikipedia:

The door banged again and the young woman below looked back over her shoulder. “There you are at last!” she exclaimed as a girl about ten years old came into view, her age evidenced not only by her more diminutive stature, but also by the shorter length of her skirt, the sailor motif of her dress, and the fact that her dark hair was not put up.

As much as I appreciated the details provided, their integration didn’t feel as easy as in previous novels set during this same time, and that added to the kitchen sink feel of the novel for me. Still, had Annabel’s happiness not depended so very much on Christian’s change, I think I would have overlooked so much else in the novel. But that substantial disappointment made other elements seem more pronounced, undermining my appreciation and enjoyment of the more unexpected and ambitious elements of the novel. C

~ Janet

Goodreads | Amazon | BN | Sony | Kobo

isn't sure if she's an average Romance reader, or even an average reader, but a reader she is, enjoying everything from literary fiction to philosophy to history to poetry. Historical Romance was her first love within the genre, but she's fickle and easily seduced by the promise of a good read. She approaches every book with the same hope: that she will be filled from the inside out with something awesome that she didnʼt know, didnʼt think about, or didnʼt feel until that moment. And she's always looking for the next mind-blowing read, so feel free to share any suggestions!

9 Comments

  1. meoskop
    Jan 17, 2012 @ 14:17:13

    I disliked the first two in the series and felt this was more in line with what I wanted to read. My forgiveness of Annabel was somewhat rooted in her romantic history. The way she always sold herself short made her doing so again for Christian easier to take. Annabel struck me as a woman who lives in hindsight – great on revenge, poor on self actualization. She was only taking true control of her life when she was putting the screws to someone else.

    Overall I agree, for me the book was strongest on the boat, weakest when on land.

    ReplyReply

  2. Robin/Janet
    Jan 17, 2012 @ 14:24:53

    @meoskop: I understood her psychological dynamics and accepted them, I think. What frustrated me was the way the overall construct of the novel ended up betraying Annabel’s character, IMO, by forcing me, as a reader, to depend on Christian for Annabel’s happiness. And that seemed completely contrary to what we were supposed to root for in her character. I’m not sure I’d even characterize it in terms of a character failure, since it was more the machinations of the novel’s dramatic arc on the characters, although I’d probably put the fault on Christian’s character rather than Annabel’s.

    ReplyReply

  3. meoskop
    Jan 17, 2012 @ 17:57:31

    To be honest, I never warmed up to him. He’s really not all that she deserved, but since she was unlikely to demand more from a man I was ok with them as a couple. (Again, not disagreeing at all!)

    ReplyReply

  4. GrowlyCub
    Jan 17, 2012 @ 18:01:01

    What I remember most about the first 2 books is that while I liked them both I was disappointed that both heroines gave up something for the hero that was essential to them up to that point; that was their dream around which their life had revolved up to that point. When I was reading this review, it seemed to me that this is yet another example along those lines. I’m having a hard time articulating this, especially since I haven’t read this book and from the blurb wasn’t that excited about it either; but I’m starting to feel there’s a theme in LLG’s work about women only deserving happiness if they subsume their demands/dreams to their partners’ vision of the future.

    ReplyReply

  5. swati
    Jan 17, 2012 @ 23:54:40

    I was disappointed with the first book, it started off well but then it just fell apart; hated the second; loved the third till the time Annabel reached england and then it just went downhill

    ….. like you said, the engagement happened when we are more than half way through the book …… after that, i felt the author just rushed through …. i understood the attraction, how they jumped from that to love i never understood ….. A few more pages, giving the two more time and the book would have been an A for me …… I loved how Annabel refused to let Christian decide her future, i loved how Christian was tortured with guilt and there were no magical discoveries that absolved him of the blame ….. most authors would do that like maybe his wife was having an affair ….. here he had to accept that he ruined someone’s life ….. The author built it all up so fabulously and then it just went kaput from there … She should have given them time to strengthen their friendship rather than harping about the attraction …..

    ReplyReply

  6. Robin/Janet
    Jan 18, 2012 @ 00:03:26

    @meoskop: Yeah, of all the LLG books I’ve read, the heroines are much more memorable for me.

    @GrowlyCub: Interesting point. I’ll have to go back to the first two books and thank about what you’re saying. I definitely noticed it here, but don’t remember so much noticing it in the first two books. Although in the past I’ve definitely had a problem with the way LLG “reforms” the heroes for the heroine. Was is the baker girl bachelor who was paired up with a total alphahole? Hmm, gotta give this some thought and think back to those first two books int he series.

    @swati: Yes, like @meoskop said, the book was just so much better when the characters were confined to the boat. It’s as if the boring life Christian predicted for Annabel in England was also the fate for the second half of the book. Also agree re. the way the first book rushed to resolution. In fact, this book did the same thing, although in this case it was the hero who had the last minute change of heart, not the heroine (IIRC, the two heroines were the ones who basically gave in at the end). Good to know I’m not the only one who was disappointed by this one.

    ReplyReply

  7. arnique
    Jan 18, 2012 @ 04:51:59

    This was the first Laura Lee Guhrke book that I could not finished. I read to about Chapter 11 then just had to put the book down. I just wasn’t interested in either of the cookie-cutter characters. I felt like I could predict exactly where the story was going and I was right (checked the last two chapters). I’ve read Guhrke’s entire backlist and the latest series is a far cry from the rest in terms of quality—the characters and plot are very predictable; the prose is not bad, just boring. :(

    I’m disappointed, especially since I loved her old books! They were funny, the characters lively and three-dimensional (I could tell the heroines apart, which is more than I can say for the leads in the Abandoned at the Altar series), and premises interesting (Girl-Bachelors! She’s No Princess!). For the sake of Guhrke’s past body of work, I’ll read her next novel but my expectations for it will be much lower.

    ReplyReply

  8. Robin/Janet
    Jan 20, 2012 @ 11:40:34

    @arnique: I can see how LLG’s books might become a comfort read for some, because there is a sort of “cookie cutter” quality to them, as you put it. I don’t always dislike that quality if the book draws me in, but I tend to get more frustrated if I’m intermittently pulled in and disappointed, as I was with this one. Still, I wish more books were set in the early years of the 20th C, since so many interesting changes occur at the turn of the century, in both European countries and the US.

    ReplyReply

  9. Author on Vacation
    Jan 20, 2012 @ 14:16:55

    Robin/Janet: I think I need to check this book out for myself. It sounds “so quirky I just might like it.”

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

%d bloggers like this: