Wednesday Reading Meme
Feb. 12th, 2014 11:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxWhat I've just finished reading:
Unclaimed by Courtney Milan
It's a gender swap of 'the rake and the innocent redeeming angel' trope with a Dangerous Liasons-like premise of a courtesan playing the Valmont role of accepting a wager to seduce an undisputed paragon of honor and virtue. (And while writing that down, I suddenly understand why there needed to be a duel near the end).
I was wary of the premise but intrigued. After reading the previous book in the trilogy, I wanted to know 'what happened next' enough that I dove right in to the second. I ended up loving "Unclaimed". It does a good job of showing what's so appealing about the trope (the scene where the hero chooses to lose his virginity to the heroine is moving and beautiful. She'd be soul-dead if she hadn't fallen in love with him by then) and where the trope falls apart (As wonderful as love may be, it doesn't 'fix' you.' One person cannot 'save' another. Someone else does not redeem your weaknesses. YOU have to do that.)
I was discombobulated by the ending during the first read because it felt like it should have ended a couple of chapters earlier. Traditionally it would have. Why tear them apart after what would usually be the denouement? But re-reading the last few chapters, I was so very wrong. It had to go that way. The second part was important. I was missing the bigger picture (made more clear by reading the entire trilogy, because the trilogy makes this point again and again): Love, as wonderful as it is, as redeeming as it may be, does not 'fix' things. The only person who can do that is you.
So even after the couple confessed mutual love and tried to make a go of it, things fell apart. But... it would have, wouldn't it? Her self-esteem issues were real, her hurts were huge, and her coping patterns well established. There was a point where the hero's middle brother told the heroine that she displayed the decision-making skills of a lizard. She was offended. Who wouldn't be? He tells her that she misunderstood him. He wasn't saying that lizards were unintelligent. Their behavior makes perfect sense. When presented with danger, they run. That's what he did, and what she did too.
That was why what would traditionally be the point of 'happily ever after' wasn't in the novel. Yes, yes, the hero and heroine loved one another. They truly did. And yes, the hero had confronted the villain. And, no, that wasn't the ending, because you cannot 'fix' someone else. Love -- while wonderful -- doesn't do that. At least not love alone. You cannot (truly) 'rescue' another person, not from themselves. It's actually quite patronizing to think that you can. In the first read, I was as despairing as the exhausted hero when he realized the truth of that. The same scenario would just keep happening again and again because he couldn't make things okay for her.
SHE has to vanquish herdemonsvillains. She has to reclaim herself. If someone is going to fight for her honor, it is going to be her.
I don't remember the exact quote, so this is only an approximation, but I loved the moment when the hero said that he couldn't be her white knight because (paraphrase) "You have always been your own knight, riding to your own rescue. I'm just the man lucky enough to admire how you shine (Love him!)
ETA: Passage from the book:
It's the second book in the Turner Brother trilogy, and I think it may be best to read the trilogy in order because it's developing characters and themes along the way. It works alone, but much better in context (and the only way to get the full breadth of the characters is to read the various POVs of all three brothers.)
But, yeah, this novel worked for me. It worked for me quite well.
What are you reading now?
Nothing. I'm contemplating. I'm a bit angsted out.
What are you reading next?
Don't know.
Unclaimed by Courtney Milan
It's a gender swap of 'the rake and the innocent redeeming angel' trope with a Dangerous Liasons-like premise of a courtesan playing the Valmont role of accepting a wager to seduce an undisputed paragon of honor and virtue. (And while writing that down, I suddenly understand why there needed to be a duel near the end).
I was wary of the premise but intrigued. After reading the previous book in the trilogy, I wanted to know 'what happened next' enough that I dove right in to the second. I ended up loving "Unclaimed". It does a good job of showing what's so appealing about the trope (the scene where the hero chooses to lose his virginity to the heroine is moving and beautiful. She'd be soul-dead if she hadn't fallen in love with him by then) and where the trope falls apart (As wonderful as love may be, it doesn't 'fix' you.' One person cannot 'save' another. Someone else does not redeem your weaknesses. YOU have to do that.)
I was discombobulated by the ending during the first read because it felt like it should have ended a couple of chapters earlier. Traditionally it would have. Why tear them apart after what would usually be the denouement? But re-reading the last few chapters, I was so very wrong. It had to go that way. The second part was important. I was missing the bigger picture (made more clear by reading the entire trilogy, because the trilogy makes this point again and again): Love, as wonderful as it is, as redeeming as it may be, does not 'fix' things. The only person who can do that is you.
So even after the couple confessed mutual love and tried to make a go of it, things fell apart. But... it would have, wouldn't it? Her self-esteem issues were real, her hurts were huge, and her coping patterns well established. There was a point where the hero's middle brother told the heroine that she displayed the decision-making skills of a lizard. She was offended. Who wouldn't be? He tells her that she misunderstood him. He wasn't saying that lizards were unintelligent. Their behavior makes perfect sense. When presented with danger, they run. That's what he did, and what she did too.
That was why what would traditionally be the point of 'happily ever after' wasn't in the novel. Yes, yes, the hero and heroine loved one another. They truly did. And yes, the hero had confronted the villain. And, no, that wasn't the ending, because you cannot 'fix' someone else. Love -- while wonderful -- doesn't do that. At least not love alone. You cannot (truly) 'rescue' another person, not from themselves. It's actually quite patronizing to think that you can. In the first read, I was as despairing as the exhausted hero when he realized the truth of that. The same scenario would just keep happening again and again because he couldn't make things okay for her.
SHE has to vanquish her
ETA: Passage from the book:
He took a step closer to her. "I promised you once that I would be your knight, willing to do battle for you. But I don't think that's what you need of me. You've always been your own knight," he said, "riding to your rescue. I'm just the man who came along and saw how brightly your armor shone." [/ETA]
It's the second book in the Turner Brother trilogy, and I think it may be best to read the trilogy in order because it's developing characters and themes along the way. It works alone, but much better in context (and the only way to get the full breadth of the characters is to read the various POVs of all three brothers.)
But, yeah, this novel worked for me. It worked for me quite well.
What are you reading now?
Nothing. I'm contemplating. I'm a bit angsted out.
What are you reading next?
Don't know.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-02-12 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-12 07:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-12 07:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-13 12:25 am (UTC)It also reminded me of the way that The Duchess War's hero's bachelor party consisted of reading Mary Woolstencraft! Hee. I'm guessing Milan herself is a feminist. :)
no subject
Date: 2014-02-13 01:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-13 02:43 am (UTC)Particularly this:
Love -- while wonderful -- doesn't do that. At least not love alone. You cannot (truly) 'rescue' another person, not from themselves. It's actually quite patronizing to think that you can.
This was my problem with a lot of romance novels I've read. Often the heroine or hero is saving the guy or gal...their love redeems him/her or saves him/her from their demons. And while love can help to a degree, it can't fix you.
Too many people believe it can - that they can save people.
And it's a rare to show the male hero not being able to save the heroine.
Or fix her. Too many novels have the guy doing just that. Milan once again is playing with that trope. She also plays with it in the Duchess War, Heiress Effect, and Countess Conspiracy...in all three, the characters have to fix themselves. Those novels are less angsty though.