…there were things in the novel that were not farcical, and the way the farcical elements met with the non-farcical ones created dissonance for me as a reader.

It is true that farce must be played out, or in other words, consistent. Otherwise, the reader (or viewer) is in a quandry. One of the main reasons pantomime works so well is the expected drag.

If a tale is written with a serious tone, I am inclined to agree that unless the author makes the assumed gender believable with conducive surroundings and assurance in the heroine’s disguise, it would be difficult to swallow.

Catherine: Thank you for bringing up that last argument, because it’s one of the things I didn’t dwell on in the review but that also frustrated me. I got the sense that James was trying to set up Jem’s Game as the counterpart to Benjamin’s chess, but you (and FanLit) bring up a very good point about how Harriet was unwilling to accept from Jem what she expected OF him. I was actually able to buy Harriet’s insecurities because of her husband’s suicide, but where that whole conflict got me was in the way she worried desperately about scandal surrounding her disguise, a concern that apparently disappeared once Jem hightailed it to her estate to grovel. That made her worry feel contrived, and yet it had been so persistent throughout the book (and likely warranted, especially because she was a woman). And honestly, I was pretty bored by then, and found the whole argument very anti-climactic and not emotionally compelling.

FanLit: I think your point about Harriet relishing her freedom as a man and then expecting Jem to hook himself to her duchy is compelling. Again, it comes down to that issue of character consistency that has plagued my experience of both this book and the previous one in the series. Also, it was strange (har har) that Harriet ended up in the position of the righteous one, with no apparent reason to apologize. Her deception *was* unfair, IMO, and, as Catherine said, she ends up betraying Jem despite the fact that betrayal was one of her big issues with her husband. Of course, she had also thrown herself at Villiers when she didn’t feel wanted during her marriage, so she definitely had a passive aggressive streak, IMO.

I like having the characters all tied together in a series because it makes me anticipate their story even more, but that doesn’t mean I want to focus on them until it’s actually their book. The last one in this series that I read (besides this one) was Desperate Duchesses. So much time was devoted to Jemma that it drove me insane. I resented the intrusion of the other characters in such prominence when it almost made the actual leads seem like shallow caricatures.

I actually liked this book although I had to severely suspend my disbelief at the fact that no one saw through her disguise. I would have found it more believable if she didn’t seem so girly whenever a so called ‘man’ topic was brought up. I kept expecting her to titter and every retarded male around her to excuse it because her/his mother coddled her/him.

I think the one thing that really irritated me about this book was the argument that led to the separation of Jem and Harriet. Now I admit that the lifestyle Jem led wouldn’t appeal to me in the long run but I still thought she was wrong for demanding he change for her. Because she has some issues about her first husband if Jem doesn’t follow along with her plans then he doesn’t love her enough and is choosing something else over her? What? That drove me insane and I thought it was so asinine. When she started having her little drama about how ‘no one loves her best’ all I could think was… Aren’t you doing the same thing to him? Does that mean you don’t love him best because you won’t accept his life how it is? Then of course her leaving leads to the realization that she’s right and he does need to change. Bleh. Worst part of the book for me. It dropped it from a B down to a C- for me.

Robin, you might try the Essex sisters books; I liked those best of what I’ve read so far in her backlist.

I was thinking of recommending Much Ado About You (the first book in the Essex sisters series) to Robin. I’ve only read that one, which I liked pretty well and would give at least a B, and then Kiss Me Annabel, which didn’t work nearly as well for me. But I’d be curious to hear your opinion of Much Ado About You, Robin.

Robin, you might try the Essex sisters books; I liked those best of what I’ve read so far in her backlist. I agree that she tends to juxtapose almost farcical humor with life-threatening (or at least reputation-threatening) drama, and I can see why that irks you. I do like the way she writes secondary characters, some of whom eventually become central in later books, and her characters and relationships are consistent over the series, which is a problem for some authors.

MC: I agree with you about the way in which these devices seem well suited to dramatic performance (see my comment above for a more general response to the farce aspect of the book). There were obviously elements of farce, but as I said in my review, there were things in the novel that were not farcical, and the way the farcical elements met with the non-farcical ones created dissonance for me as a reader. For me, reading James is like listening to a song that’s just a bit off key. Everything is a near-miss. For example, there is a line at the end of the book about Jem being on his knees ‘because that’s where a man should be,’ and I knew I was supposed to laugh, but instead I felt pandered to (even as I admired the more woman-centric world James is trying to imagine). Plus, when I start looking closely at her books, things break down, and I’m not the kind of reader who can ignore those things unless I’m really entertained. And obviously, I’ve not been really entertained in the two books of hers I have read. I still might try an older book, but I suspect that those things that interest James about the genre are not the same things that interest me.

Jill M: the reviewer at AAR liked the novel quite a bit, as well, so I’m clearly not in the majority here. There was enough to interest me about An Affair Before Christmas that I wanted to like this one (especially because I like some of the secondary characters, especially Jemma and Villiers, whose stories I am sure will be last, lol).

raveonette: People talk all the time about how funny James is, but I am clearly not the best subject for her wit. And that’s the thing about hunmor — it works or it doesn’t, despite our intellectual understanding.

Other than that, thoroughly enjoyed it and can’t wait for the next one. :)