The Particulars: Historical Romance, Harlequin Historical #126, 1992, out of print, available digitally (self-published reprint with additional material added), first book in series
Why Was It In Wendy's TBR?: Reavis is a favorite and has both historical and contemporary romances in my keeper stash
The Review: I have had a used copy of the original Harlequin Historical edition in my print TBR stash for a very long time - where it languished, as books tend to do in my TBR, until finally here I am many years older with really crappy eyesight. So when I decided that this was the book I was going to read for this month's Unusual Historical prompt, I downloaded the self-published edition available via Kindle Unlimited with the extra "lost chapters." This is definitely an instance where 1) I would have liked this book better as a baby, less jaded, less cantankerous reader and 2) where the lost chapters should have truly stayed lost. More on that in a moment...
The book opens in 1865, during the final gasping days of the Civil War. Union Captain John Howe has been in a hellhole prisoner of war camp in Salisbury, North Carolina, where conditions not great to begin with have rapidly deteriorated. He's near starvation, sick, desperate and makes a run for it via a tunnel the prisoners have dug - his best friend getting left behind and presumed dead when said tunnel collapses. He has to make it to a house in town where there's a local war profiteer that will provide him with passes and a disguise to get north - except John picks the wrong house and gets saddled with a pretty young captive as a grand prize.
Amanda Douglas lives with her emotionally abusive minister father and loving stepmother. Long story short, Amanda is paying for the sins of her mother. She's home alone when John Howe breaks in and Daddy Dearest walks in on a situation that looks compromising enough that he jumps right to the conclusion that she's a whore no better than her mother. Stuff happens, they eventually land at the profiteer's house, and now John and Amanda are on the run despite not liking or trusting one another even a tiny bit. Basically it's get me north to my family and I'll make sure you're not hung out to dry - and really, other than her stepmother, there's nothing for Amanda in North Carolina. She reluctantly chooses John.
First, let's start off with the good. Reavis has a way of painting pictures with words and creating a world that as a reader I can fall right into. It's richly drawn without spending too much time in the weeds. Her characters are also, generally, very interesting. There's a number of secondary characters I really liked in this story, an army doctor and Amanda's stepmother being the most interesting to me. Also, having read the second book, The Bride Fair, many years ago (and I loved it back then) - it was great to finally read about the guilt and baggage that the hero in this book has in regards to the hero of that second book.
So what's the problem? Well, Amanda and John are what I call hot-and-cold-running characters - which means mood swings. A lot of them. Which yes, makes some sense given the circumstances of how they meet - but that doesn't make it any less exhausting. Also, for a book with "lost chapters" included, the timeline of when John is delirious from sickness and fever and Amanda has to prop him up, lug him around through their travels, jumps ahead in time and leaves quite a few blank spaces. I was disappointed that none of the lost chapters addressed the gaps in that timeline.
There's also the small matter that this is a Civil War book and it's strangely apolitical. John refers to Amanda as "Reb" but Amanda is about as political as a potted fern - which honestly, I could almost buy into given she had lived her entire life up to that point in a home with an emotionally abusive father. When that is your life, are you really going to think of much else outside of that bubble?
Eventually John gets home, Amanda finds out his family is kind of a big deal, there's a misunderstanding perpetrated by his overbearing mother (that John, even though he KNOWS what kind of woman his mother is, doesn't suspect she just might be behind the third act separation when Amanda runs off? Like really John?! Like, really?!?!??!). Then there's a reunion, more drama, and then what is quite obviously the original final chapter.
Original cover |
Look, do you know what Southern pride got us in this country? Jim Crow among other things. Apolitical was better, thanks.
So where does that leave us? Well, I'd probably give the original version of this book somewhere around a C+ maybe? John and Amanda just didn't really work for me as a romantic couple, but Reavis' world-building and secondary characters were on-point. The lost chapters section? Ugh, probably a D. They should have stayed on the cutting room floor, because if anything they made me believe less in Amanda and John as a viable couple. Plus the politics in this section annoyed me.
Final Grade = Oh, who the hell knows, let's say C
9 comments:
We have talked before how much when (in our lives as much as in calendar time) we read something, I can't help thinking that the last oh, eight years have affected most people in the U.S. in very significant ways.
Beyond which, I have mostly negative feelings about authors revisiting older books.
I first encountered this with several old Elizabeth Lowell's categories, which she had repackaged as full length stand alone novels with a new title, and without making this clear anywhere in the re-issue. All the new text? Padding. There was so much repetition, it was... ::insert frustrated noises here::
However, there are authors who revisit and reissue books fixing issues introduced by the original publisher (restoring a secondary character's sexual orientation, say), while making it clear to readers that this is what they're doing.
All this to say: gah!
YIKES ON BIKES, sorry you had such a bad time when dipping into the HH line! Mercifully I had the exact opposite experience with my choice - I picked "My Fair Concubine" by Jeannie Lin, which hit ALL of my squee buttons. It was unusual in a lot of ways: setting, non-noble characters, masquerades, My Fair Lady trope. It hit 1000% right for me and that is a rarity, indeed!
Considering I bowed out last month because I had enough baggage of my own to stand reading about anyone else's for the TBR Challenge, I was a little hesitant about jumping back in this month, but I really picked a winner (for me). I have quite a few of Lin's HH novels on my TBR and I'm glad I do.
AL: Timing, as they say, is everything. Even as cranky and jaded as I am now - the original text is probably floating somewhere in that nebulous B- / C+ range - but the lost chapters really take it all down a few pegs. I'm wildly speculating here, but I think Reavis probably originally envisioned this as "romantic historical fiction" because the "lost chapters" all feature life for the couple after they're married. Unfortunately they fall back into bad habits (led by grief and poor communication...) and I was like, "Is she just going to run away every time the going gets rough because if so these two are doomed."
Eurohackie: OOOOH, you picked a great book this month! My Fair Concubine is my favorite Lin to date. It's quieter than her other HH's (which lean a bit more towards action/adventure) but the YEARNING! THE SWEET, SWEET YEARNING! Such a good book.
There is a reason we have editors... So these lost chapters - they are added at the end, but are part of the earlier story? Why not merge them into the timeline? It seems confusing.
I absolutely dislike a constant string of misunderstandings. I recently read a book like that and nearly didn't finish it. It's not my jam. I much prefer the couple work together on external conflicts. But I'm just me.
Jen: Sorry, I realize didn't make that entirely clear in my post. The lost chapters are all at the end of the original final chapter because they're a continuation of the story. The war is over and they detail events of John leading the occupying forces and troubles in the couple's marriage (the marriage happens in the final couple of chapters of the original published book).
Unfortunately we get yet another misunderstanding and yet another separation. In the original published book you could delude yourself into thinking the couple learned their lesson and will move on - only to be confronted in the lost chapters with another misunderstanding, the heroine running away yet again, yada yada yada. Any hope I had that they could make it work long term got knocked down a few pegs.
I didn't finish my unusual historical in time, but I'm reading it and it is good! Yay! It's not been a good romance reading year for me.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of authors going back and revising their books. I don't think there's anything wrong with re-releasing something and saying clearly "this is a reprint and I would do some things differently today" but things are of their time. If it can't stand on its own two feet as a piece of work now, then . . . then maybe it shouldn't be reprinted? If you are honest to goodness embarrassed of it and you can pull it from the market, do. That may sound harsh in a world where so many things can stay in print forever and of course, from a library/archivist standpoint, it makes sense to hold on to things.
But from a commercial standpoint? Eh. Sometimes a writer has truly improved in their craft, but sometimes they've just changed in voice.
I think an author and (the author's audience) is better served by the author really reflecting on their craft and taking whatever they felt was missing on the old book and pouring that aspect into something new.
You can't Frankenstein your way into a book that is going to always stay relevant and fresh. Just my two cents!
@Jill: You can't Frankenstein your way into a book that is going to always stay relevant and fresh
This is exactly it! Especially if/when your current writing voice is different from the one you had when you wrote whatever it is you are trying to 'fix' or 'complete'.
Jill (and AL): I'm a big believer in "things are of their time." Fiction (heck, any piece of art) is a reflection of the time and space it was created in, where the creator was at that moment in their lives etc. etc. etc.
I'm a big fan of older books getting reprinted because when I find a writer I like I tend to be a completist and I find it interesting to go back, read those older works, and reflect on the "growth" arc of the writer as a writer. I'm also a huge fan of author notes. Just reprint the thing with an author's note slapped in front of it and be done with it. Or don't reprint it at all.
In the case of this book the lost chapters definitely read like excess the author trimmed when the book sold to Harlequin Historical.
@Wendy: Author notes for the win, for real.
Post a Comment