And Only to Deceive (Lady Emily, #1) by Tasha Alexander

Emily hastily agrees to marry London's most eligible bachelor in a desperate attempt to get out from underneath her overbearing mother. Before she even has a chance to get to know her groom, he dies on a hunting expedition. Feeling guilty at her lack of grief (she barely knew the man), she begins to discover him through his journal, stories from his friends and family, and by learning more about his interests and hobbies, like art and antiquity. In the process, the young widow begins to discover herself too, and eventually, uncovers her late husband's potential involvement in a crime. Who was he really? And which of his friends can she trust?

Coincidentally, this bore some resemblance to "Silent in the Grave (Lady Julia Grey #1)" by Deanna Raybourn - a young and headstrong widow in Victorian times discovers some threatening notes in her late husband's books and papers and realizes he wasn't the man she thought he was. Since I read them almost back to back, I can't help but compare them. Alexander's novel is certainly slower paced and earns the tagline of "a novel of suspense" but I found it a touch more realistic. Emily doesn't go pursuing an investigation, teaming up with a P.I., and barreling headlong into dangerous situations like Julia did, in fact she largely ignores the clues that drop in her lap until she can't deny them any longer. While amateur sleuthing novels are fun, they can come across as somewhat fabricated sometimes and this one didn't feel that way.

Although slow paced, I really enjoyed watching Emily discover herself through her discovery of her late husband. With a few amusing stumbles and a touch of pretension, Emily evolved from a naive blank slate to a fully formed independent woman - and, oh yeah, uncovered and righted a crime too.

Review: I, Eliza Hamilton by Susan Holloway Scott

Release date: September 26, 2017

This novel about the wife of Alexander Hamilton felt like it was missing something. I think it was the fact that there was no real antagonist or any main trial or obstacle for the protagonists to overcome. There were interesting events and hardships that cropped up but they were quickly resolved. I understand real history doesn't always lend itself to a clear antagonist or the arc of a good story line, but it's still necessary for a captivating novel.

I also felt there was too much "telling" and not enough "showing" which I felt made it more difficult to really connect with the characters.

It was well written though, and there were some very good scenes I enjoyed. I also couldn't help but picture Eddie Redmayne as Alexander for some reason, I guess because he had red hair in Pillars of the Earth, which certainly helped increase the enjoyment factor. But ultimately, I felt like portions of the book dragged, and the duel with Burr wound up rather anti-climatic.

Advanced review copy from publisher via NetGalley. My opinions are my own.

Review: Blood Debts (Leonidas the Gladiator Mysteries) by Ashley Gardner

Retired gladiator and his slave investigate the murder of a money-changer in ancient Rome.

The time period is certainly a change of pace for this author. I enjoyed it, and I think the new series has definite potential, but I'm not looking forward to it quite as much as I am the Kat Holloway series, another new mystery series from the same author. I'll certainly be reading both though!

One thing I noticed though, I don't think time keeping in ancient Rome was as precise as down to the half hour, or even hour. But I liked the characters and the plot, even though it was only a short novella. I normally feel like they don't allow for enough character development, but I am finding that's not the case with this author.

Review: The Turncoat by Donna Thorland

Set in colonial Philadelphia, a sheltered Quaker girl turns worldly spy for Washington after her brief encounter with a British officer.

Let me preface this by saying I love Philadelphia history. I am from the Philly area myself and I have a long family history there dating back to early colonial times (like the founding of Germantown... like one of my ancestors immigrated along side Francis Daniel Pastorius). So I am going to be bias for any novel set in colonial Philadelphia. But that doesn't mean I don't have some criticism.

My main criticism was of the initial characterization of Peter Tremayne. He is self-admittedly a former plundering rapist until he meets our heroine and does a complete 180. And this is all based on spending one evening with her. I just found it hard to believe. At least in Thorland's other novels, the hero may be a bit of a rogue but he's not a rapist who is immediately reformed after one day with the heroine. Maybe it's because this was her first novel, maybe she learned from this and went on to form more believable main characters.

That aside, I loved everything about this novel. As usual, the historical politics, espionage, and historical figures really bring it to life. Easy to read with great dialogue and a fast paced plot, I am finding I can always rely on Thorland for a quick, fun novel that is steeped in local history.

Review: The Rebel Pirate by Donna Thorland

Sarah Ward, daughter of an infamous pirate, wants nothing to do with piracy or the rebels. James Sparhawk, established British naval captain, wants only to get revenge on his father. When their paths collide amid the beginnings of a revolution, they find themselves reassessing their priorities and which side of the oncoming war they will be on.

Unlike some romance novels, this one is actually fleshed out with a complex story, interesting characters, and descriptions that make the historical setting come alive. The only thing I initially had trouble getting on board with (no pun intended) was the romance. The attraction between the two main characters is instantaneous, before we even really know enough about each character to understand why they are so attracted to one another. I prefer to see a romance grow as two people bond and get to know each other. It seemed a little unrealistic that two people who just met days ago would be risking so much to help one another. But the good thing about this book is that there is plenty more going on in the story than just the romance so it didn’t bother me nearly as much as it could have if there wasn’t more to keep me interested. And by the end, I was on board with the romance, it just took some time to get passed the initial “love at first sight” idea.

I really enjoyed the atmosphere of a building rebellion and reading about the characters who got caught up in it.

Review: The Forbidden Queen by Anne O'Brien

Advanced review copy from publisher via NetGalley.
US release date: January 28, 2014

This biographical novel about Katherine of Valois, queen consort to Henry V of England and later the wife of Owen Tudor, is well written but doesn't have much depth and there is a lot more "telling" than "showing".

It's primarily a romance and though I enjoy some good romance, when there seems to be little to nothing else going on, it feels flat and grows tiresome and dull. It was entirely about Katherine's romantic relationships, even though there was plenty of opportunity to develop a more multidimensional story, it never took fruit. For example, Katherine's childhood is very quickly brushed over. Growing up, her only friend in the whole world is her sister, Michelle, but when Michelle leaves the convent they are being raised in to be married off, it barely gets a mention. What should have been a huge and difficult change and loss for Katherine only gets commented on after the fact, almost as in afterthought. I also found it very convenient (i.e., unrealistic) that Michelle happened to live close enough by to make regular trips to visit Katherine. Even so, Katherine should have missed Michelle a lot more than we get to see, if not when Michelle is married than certainly when Katherine is married and leaves France for England.

There also could have been a lot more development in showing Katherine adjusting to life at the English court and trying to fit in. While she does make a few friends, we don't see much of them. I would have liked to see more of her dealings with her "damsels", especially in the beginning, because they would have been a huge part of her life, regardless of whether her relationships with them were positive or negative. But we really only see few glimpses of this because the focus was so centered on her romantic relationships. Later, we see a little more involvement but no more than is necessary to move the romantic stories forward.

According to Katherine, in her time as an English queen, she makes it a point to learn about the political affairs going on at the time but we don't really get to see that growth, we just have to take her word for it. As time goes on, she only proves just how poor her understanding of politics is and that she clearly did not learn much during her reign as consort.

Most annoying of all was how whiny, immature, and self-absorbed Katherine was. I could excuse it in the beginning because she was young and starved for attention and love. But she never seemed to grow up. While her time with Henry was short lived, I grew frustrated when she could never accept the fact that when you're married to a king, certain things will take priority over you. She could not see beyond her own little world. Her happiness seemed entirely dependent on attention from men, which made her seem shallow and vapid, in addition to immature and self-absorbed. At one point, Katherine even asks herself: "Was every woman as driven to embrace misery as I, when faced with a man who had no desire for her?" The answer, of course, is "no". No, Katherine, not every woman feels that way and the fact that you do is actually rather pathetic. I won't pretend rejection is a barrel of laughs but the degree of misery that it sunk her into was certainly pathetic.

Also annoying was when, by her own admission, she knew nothing about Owen Tudor beyond the fact that he was good at his job, and yet claimed to have fallen in love with him. How can you love someone you don't even know? Even after she professed to have grown up and been wiser, she is still resorting to an immature ideal of love.

The quality of writing is not bad and the characters, though mostly unlikable or underdeveloped, were believable, as was their dialogue. But the story was one-dimensional and Katherine in particular was not a likable main character, which was made all the more annoying by the fact that it was told from her first person point of view.

CW's Reign

Ad for 'Reign' showing the fictional
'Bash' character and inaccurately
portrayed Dauphin Francis.

I intended this to be a book review blog but after just watching the CW's pilot on Mary, Queen of Scots, I had a few things to say about it. It does contain a few spoilers, I've written it on the assumption of those reading this have already watched the first episode.

The show opens with a teenage Mary living in a convent in France and, after an assassination attempt, is sent to live at the French court, where she briefly had spent some time before when she'd first arrived in France as a child. This of course is inaccurate, the real Mary never lived in a convent, she grew up at the French court after arriving there at five years old. I could excuse this though, it made some sense to introduce the audience to the story at the same time that Mary was being reintroduced to the French court. It means that we learn things about the court as Mary learns them, which helps us empathize with her. Although she knows many of the people at court, she is learning about them as an adult and therefore, in a way, she is new to the court and still settling in. It's a good starting point, even if not true.

When Mary arrives at the French court, we discover that she is betrothed to the Dauphin of France, the heir to the throne, Francis. Understandably for a teen show, it centers on romantic intrigue when Francis is already involved with a random pretty girl at court, complicating his feelings for Mary, while Mary herself finds some emotional refuge with Francis' half brother, the king's bastard 'Bash' (short for Sebastian). Meanwhile, the romantic interest of one of Mary's ladies fills a sub-plot while another of her ladies gets involved with the king himself when he encounters her masturbating after covertly watching a princess of France lose her virginity on her wedding night. While it's true that the consummation of royal marriages often required witnesses, the idea that the maiden Queen of Scotland and her ladies could sneak a peek from behind a screen is pretty far-fetched. Even more far-fetched is the idea that one of them would masturbate in the middle of a stairwell. The scene was heavily edited down and is really only suggestive, you're left not entirely confident that's what she was doing because apparently, the show's producers felt that showing a young woman discovering and exploring her sexuality on her own is more controversial than a teenage girl having an affair with an grown, married man.

The real Francis and Mary

The other two major inaccuracies I spotted were the introduction of a fictional character, Bash, and the portrayal of Francis. I don't mind storytelling involving fictional characters, even some of the best historical fiction authors make use of them, such as Sharon Kay Penman and Bernard Cornwell. It allows the storyteller greater creative freedom and often creates additional sub-plots, giving the story a more complex and multi-dimensional feel. The danger zone of fictional characters in a historical story is when they get too involved with the main historical characters. If taken too far, it becomes unbelievable that a historical figure had quite so much involvement with someone who never existed, unless there is a good reason they never appeared in the history books despite being a pivotal player. We'll see if 'Reign' goes down that path or not but for now, I can understand why they've created a fictional bastard of the king and his mistress, Diane de Poitiers (historically, Diane had no children by the king, only two daughters who could not have been the king's since they were born around the same time he was). Not only does it involve Diane more in the family politics but Bash also serves as an alternate love interest for Mary, which I guess is practically a necessity when your target audience is teenage girls. In reality, though there's no speculation that Mary was ever involved with a king's bastard, for the sake of a good story, Mary would have been in a prime position to find love elsewhere than with her fiance, not because he was already sleeping with other women, or because he felt it politically unwise to marry her, as the show would have you believe. No, in reality the reason would have been much simpler, though admittedly also much less sexy, because the historical Francis was an underdeveloped, sickly little boy. Already a year younger than the developing and tall Mary, Francis' growth was stunted by his health problems and made the age difference between them seem even greater. Though by all accounts, Mary got along with and cared for Francis, it was probably more as a little brother than as a passionate lover. So it's not unreasonable that a fictional story would speculate on Mary finding love elsewhere, I just don't fully understand the need to make Francis a healthy, handsome, strapping young man when he was anything but. Apparently, everyone in this TV show must be attractive and I find it difficult to believe that today's young women are quite so vain that they couldn't appreciate a well portrayed, if unattractive, character. A beautiful young queen and a handsome forbidden bastard evidently isn't enough, pretty much the entire court must be good looking. Even Diane, who as a mistress of the king you might except to be beautiful, is played by an actress in her 30s when in reality she was 20 years the king's senior and approaching 60 by this point.

Scene showing some of the more inaccurate dresses

Appealing to modern young women brings me to my next complaint, the costumes. Apparently, the CW believe that today's teenagers won't be interested in anything even remotely resembling historically accurate costumes. Strapless dresses? Really? Need I say more?

Another romanticized element of this is how much time Mary conveniently gets to spend alone, which of course allows her to have private conversations with Francis and Bash. For the very reason that, in the show, Mary's reputation was nearly ruined when a young man is found in her bed, she equally would not be able to spend so much time wandering around on her own, running into handsome and dashing young men who, of course, fall hopelessly in love with her. In this way, it is more like a fairy tale than history.

While the show might appeal to many for purely entertainment purposes, it's unsurprisingly an epic fail on historical integrity. Still, I can still the appeal as a guilty-pleasure and I support any mainstream entertainment that encourages people, especially young people, to develop an interest in history. If this show gets young women wanting to learn more or picking up books, even novels, about Mary Stuart or French royalty, I hope it runs for a very long time. Perhaps, in that way, it will do for young people what The Tudors did for so many adults, a show that I admittedly loved and that partially sparked my own interest in royal history, despite it's own numerous inaccuracies. Sometimes, a story doesn't have to be historically accurate to be enjoyable and let's hope 'Reign' proves this to be true. I, for one, will continue to watch it if only to see Torrance Coombs' alarmingly beautiful blue eyes again. I never said I was above a bit of eye candy...

Review: Letters from Skye by Jessica Brockmole

This is an endearing novel made up of fictional letters between the main characters, which I won in a giveaway. It’s a somewhat unique approach to tell a story entirely in letters but it tells a story of a long distance romance between a woman in Scotland and a man in Illinois during the early 20th century, around the time of WWI. It also consists of letters between the same woman and her daughter and others during WWII and through them pieces of the past are put together. I wasn’t sure how I’d feel about this approach but it wound up working really well, the scenes manage to come alive as the characters recall and reminisce to each other.

Due to the format of the storytelling, I didn’t quite get a sense of the historical setting. The book description says “full of captivating period detail” but I’m not sure I’d fully agree with that. Apart from talk about the world wars, the history didn’t really come alive for me.

But on the other hand, the relationship between the two main characters really struck a chord with me since my English husband and my American self met online, first communicating by email, then “instant messenger”, then phone, and then finally meeting in person. The letters reminded me of the emails between my husband and I - the feeling of knowing someone so well before you’ve even met them in person, feeling so connected to someone who is so far away, eagerly awaiting the next letter from them, the thrill of meeting them in person for the first time.

It was a little bit predictable but that’s okay because the end game isn’t what this book is about, it’s about the characters and their relationships and their journey, which was really well done.