Comments on: REVIEW: Secrets of Surrender by Madeline Hunter

By: Meanne

Meanne — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:31:13 +0000

I guess I’m one of those people who “get” Madeline Hunter’s books because I enjoyed this one. Not as much as I enjoyed her “Rules of Seduction” which I’ve reread twice in the past year alone inspite of my daunting 1,000+ TBR books ( mostly ebooks thank goodness!! ), but still, it’s a quality book as Jane describes it, and I was thoroughly engrossed in the hero and heroine’s journey to falling in love…

By: Michelle

Michelle — Sat, 31 May 2008 17:07:37 +0000

I really enjoy Madeline Hunter and have read all her books. Naturally, I like some more than others, but they are always well written. I do think she writes a more nuanced heroine or at least not the stereotypical sweet young thing kind of heroine that can be the center of a lot of historical romances. (I did have a hard time warming up to Portia in the previous novel, but the end of her arc/journey was so much more satisfying for it) Although that can make it harder to “like” and feel empathy/sympathy for the heroine initially, I appreciate it. They feel more real and more interesting and somehow more historic - warts and all. It gives them stronger journeys/arcs.

In terms of feeling a distance from the heroines, I don’t think she does deep POV (point of view) as well as some other authors and that can make the reader feel that distance. I actually didn’t feel that distance in this book though - and it’s kind of an ironic criticism since she talks about that kind of distance between the hero and heroine.

I just really liked this book. Found it very moving and thought it had a deep understanding of human dynamics. In some ways, I think her last few 19th century novels have been as satisfying as her first three medievals - which were my favorite novels by her for a long, long time.

By: Linn

Linn — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:16:11 +0000

Devon said:

But I don’t like her heroines a lot of the time, and in general feel a kind of distance from the characters

Well put. Kyle was tepidly appealing (a bit too perfect and understanding), the instant hot sex was mystifying (ahem — Norbury?), and Roselyn was simply offputting.

By: Devon

Devon — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:38:08 +0000

Her heroines don’t always start off with redeeming qualities. They can seem entitled and naive and take a significant amount of the book to exercise sense over sensibility. However, I think her heroines seem more human for this reason.

Bookboor, you nailed it. It’s a risk, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

By: BookBoor

BookBoor — Thu, 29 May 2008 01:33:42 +0000

Rules of Seduction is a keeper for me. I didn’t read Lessons of Desire because the heroine was introduced in RoS and she rubbed me wrong so I decided to avoid it. However, I did read this one and I admit that I wouldn’t want to be friends with her either. I agree with Devon’s comment about Hunter doing something unique. Her heroines don’t always start off with redeeming qualities. They can seem entitled and naive and take a significant amount of the book to exercise sense over sensibility. However, I think her heroines seem more human for this reason. I occasionally find myself scoffing while reading books I absolutely love because the heroine takes it on the chin whenever an obstacle is thrown her way. She dons her martyr cap and endures, dignity intact. I’m usually thinking she’s better woman than me. Hunter’s heroines don’t always receive their circumstances with grace and/or dignity. They rail and despair or become indignant. It’s almost like a 12 step program or something. When she pulls it off, it really works and you feel completely satisfied. When she doesn’t you kind of feel like you went through all these emotions and didn’t achieve nirvana.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:56:01 +0000

I’ve read the first two in this series and think Hunter’s style is very smooth and polished. But I find her characters oddly unengaging, and the Longworth family with its weak, self-indulgent men and petulant, rather clueless women is particularly unsympathetic. Maybe I should look for some of her earlier medievals and see if they impress me more favorably.

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:51:20 +0000

I have to confess that it does my heart a bit of good to see I’m not the only one who has a hard time connecting to Hunter’s books. I’ve really struggled in the last two books and have felt like I’m a bit dim for not seeing what she is trying to get at but I do appreciate that she is trying to do something different and I won’t stop reading her.

By: Devon

Devon — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:46:46 +0000

I think quite often Hunter is trying to do something different with her books, which I admire and I’m intrigued by. But I don’t like her heroines a lot of the time, and in general feel a kind of distance from the characters. Does that make sense? Guess I don’t get them either.

By: Marg

Marg — Wed, 28 May 2008 08:46:11 +0000

I really loved Rules of Seduction when I read it last year. I was less enamoured by Lessons of Desire when I read it a few days ago, and just ordered this one today. Maybe I should have held off!

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:04:36 +0000

I really, really enjoyed Rules of Seduction but I agree with the sentiment regarding “getting” her or feeling bewildered by her books. I often feel like I am missing some nuance or some reading into the character particularly when I am presented with characters that I feel like I should like.