I hope you enjoy the book! Please feel welcome to post your thoughts when you have read it. I would be interested to hear more opinions.

Hi Evangeline. Could you clarify what kind of comparison? In terms of the premise, the prose, the characterization?

I just meant in terms of what Rolland’s amnesia meant for the plot and the romance. Was Rolland ever shown/told of who he was before the accident?

I could see her putting him in a kind of emotional jeopardy as the book went along, and I kept wanting this to be averted.

Ah! Now I see. I think I’ll try this book because it does sound interesting. Thanks for the review!

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Um, to be equally oblique, yes and no. If you email me, I will explain further.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Trying to phrase this obliquely but I get the distinct impression from the review (not to mention the title) that this is reminiscent somewhat of Putney’s DEARLY BELOVED. Is that the case? I have to say that those sorts of plots are a guilty pleasure of mine so will probably lap this up.

Could you compare this to Flowers From the Storm (except, you know, a contemporary)?

Hi Evangeline. Could you clarify what kind of comparison? In terms of the premise, the prose, the characterization?

I haven’t yet read the book, but I’m interested in the amnesia aspect. Historically, amnesia in romance is treated the way it is in soap operas–simple memory loss–rather than a true “mental disorder.”

The treatment of the amnesia and Rolland’s characterization were my favorite aspects of this book. I loved that it wasn’t just a convenient knock on the head that removed memories and nothing else, but that it had other side effects as well, and was a mental disorder.

Also, was the unethical part that bad that it soured the reading experience? I can’t help but acknowledge that a few best-loved romance titles deal with unethical premises (hello Nobody’s Baby But Mine! and definitely This Heart of Mine!), rather than the plot segueing into unethical territories.

This is hard to answer fully without giving spoilers, but I’ll answer to the degree that I can. I think it was a combination of unethical and unprofessional behavior (and BTW I’m not fond of Nobody’s Baby But Mine either, because from what I know of physicists, which is considerable, one would never go about trying to produce an average intelligence child in such a completely unscientific way! I have not read This Heart of Mine), but that’s not all.

Because I thought Rolland was wonderful, I hated to see some of what he went through as a result of Melanie’s actions. I could see her putting him in a kind of emotional jeopardy as the book went along, and I kept wanting this to be averted. The effects of the brain injury made Rolland very innocent, and he was trusting and big-hearted, too. I felt that Melanie’s actions were a betrayal of that trust. As an occupational therapist, she was unprofessional and unethical, and as a woman who loved Rolland, she was unfair to him, until quite late in the story.

My reading experience wasn’t totally soured BTW. I think the reason Melanie’s choices didn’t totally ruin the book for me was that I was able to look at this not so much as a flaw in Melanie’s personality (because as I say, she seemed like a nice, caring woman in all other regards), but as a flaw in the premise of the plot.

I haven’t yet read the book, but I’m interested in the amnesia aspect. Historically, amnesia in romance is treated the way it is in soap operas–simple memory loss–rather than a true “mental disorder.”

Also, was the unethical part that bad that it soured the reading experience? I can’t help but acknowledge that a few best-loved romance titles deal with unethical premises (hello Nobody’s Baby But Mine! and definitely This Heart of Mine!), rather than the plot segueing into unethical territories.

ETA: The use of compass was so Rolland wouldn’t get lost. His sense of direction was affected by his injury, if memory serves.

@SonomaLass: I agree that Melanie’s boss sending Melanie and Rolland to live in his summer home felt contrived. To the degree that I enjoyed the book, it was because of Rolland’s sweetness and the way the author used his brain injury to shape his character.

B
I
G

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I was trying to avoid giving spoilers away in the review.

Re. the omissions from the POV, I’m not sure if having those POV thoughts revealed would have helped. In some ways I think it would have made Melanie even less sympathetic (since she was knowingly withholding important information), but it could have also led to a good kind of complexity. I can see pros and cons to both approaches, but the bottom line for me is that either way, Melanie’s role as Rolland’s therapist was inappropriate when she was romantically involved with him at the same time. I think this story might have worked a little bit better for me had Melanie been a volunteer at the Ryder center, instead of Rolland’s therapist, but even with that, I can see ethical problems.

“She is to teach him things like how to use a compass, how to write numbers, and how to cook.”

I’m thinking I need an occupational therapist, too. I’ve got that writing numbers thing down(barely), but I could sure use those other lessons.

Despite the flaws I’ll probably give this book a try. It certainly won’t be my first imperfect read.

I think part of the problem I had identifying with Melanie (because yes, Rolland was a big old sweetie) was the incomplete POV I got as a reader. In order to keep THE SECRET, a lot of what Melanie must have been thinking wasn’t actually revealed to the reader, and that made it hard to really like her or feel that I understood her.

That’s what occupational therapists do (well, the writing and the cooking–the “use a compass” is outside the usual remit).

And, yeah, this plot is a Festival Of Professionally Unethical Behavior.