Gaffney, Patricia - Another Eden

[oyceter]

It was very odd reading this in conjunction with Lois McMaster Bujold's Komarr. as both of these books are about very unhappy marriages and the temptation to stray from them.

Sara Cochrane is a lovely, well-bred British aristocrat who married Ben Cochrane, a wealthy American with no class at all. Alex McKie is the architect in charge of designing and buiding Ben's dream house, Eden, which is, of course, absolutely monstrous and a hideous display of wealth. Ben and Sara's marriage is portrayed as awful, with Ben constantly keeping Sara under his thumb with their son Michael. Of course, Alex and Sara end up falling in love, blah blah romancecakes.

I started out liking this a lot because I could feel Sara's desperation, and Gaffney was managing the marriage in a way that didn't make me feel like I was being bludgeoned over the head. And I could understand why Sara was staying in the marriage, given the time and place and her own circumstances; getting a divorce in turn-of-the-century New York was probably extremely difficult, humiliating and socially unwise. Also, there's the whole financial thing to think of.

I also liked Alex to start out with, including his un-niceness. He's not an alpha bastard, though he's got the requisite tortured past that he must confront.

Unfortunately, as the book goes on, Gaffney starts pitting more and more against Sara, so much so that when one person in the book turns into a grasping, evil jerk, I was rolling my eyes in exasperation. Only Alex understands Sara! She is so delicate and well-bred! Witness how these people who only want money are! She's so misunderstood by the people at her charity! Ugh.

Also, Ben becomes a complete monster. I don't know. While Henry James does the poor, aristocrat British person having to marry a rich, boorish American very often, Gaffney doesn't do it a quarter as well, particularly since she's concentrating more on the romance than on the social commentary. Yes, of course we all know that the nouveau-riche had no taste. But it just seems anvillicious to have Ben demand a giant confection of a house, plus want to socially climb the ladder to eat with the Vanderbilt's, plus have Sara's delicate and oh-so-aristocratic sensibility, plus have Ben be so grasping that he invests money unwisely. It feels like a giant stereotype put into place just so Gaffney could have Sara and Alex get together without the reader feeling any guilt over the betrayal of wedding vows.

This is why I hate romantic triangles!

Anyhow. I was doing ok with this until scenes later in the book, where Alex starts pressuring Sara to run off with him. There are arguments, and of course he takes her refusal to mean that she doesn't love him. Also, when the circumstances change, while it does feel like she's somewhat making excuses, I think given the time and place, they're perfectly reasonable excuses. I wanted to bash him over the head for telling her that "if she really loved him, insert action here." Jeeeeeeeerrrrrrkkk!!! And of course (I hope this is not spoilery) she caves and goes back on her word and says she was just making excuses because *gasp* she was afraid of being happy.

EW.

Ok, thinking about this is making me want to chuck the book against a wall, so I'm stopping now.

Comments

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

Step away from the book slowly, and find something less inflammatory to play with. Matches for instance.

Gina

[oyceter]

*snork*

Exactly! Sigh... when Gaffney's on, she can be very good, but other times, she has a great fondness for tropes that make me want to chuck the book.

[cofax7]

This is an interesting review, not because I think I'd like the book, but because I recently got into a conversation about romance tropes, and about the one where people who do Bad Things in the name of love rarely end happily. Romeo & Juliet, Titanic, The English Patient, etc. all come up as stories where the subordination of (conventional?) morality to all-powerful love means that the lovers go unrewarded at the end. I pointed out that no series romance ever has the leads actually betray their marriage vows, even if the marriage is an unhappy one--betrayal must be punished.

You've read Dunnett, yes? "Every woman since Eve," Lymond says, "wishes to be loved before honor. Except you." And thus the story ends happily because they place honor first.

Hmm. Thinky thinky.

[oyceter]

Oh that is interesting! You know, I never thought about the punishment aspect, because usually I'm being driven crazy by the whole "We defy society! Our love is so pure and good that it exists outside of moral bounds!" attitude of the lovers.

The thing about this book is that marriage vows actually are broken (i.e. they have sex before the marriage is broken), but I wasn't too surprised, given the whole romance novel factor. Can't have all that tension without release ;). But I guess Gaffney tried to mitigate that by having the husband be an absolute jerk.

Hrm. Now want to think of more examples, except the whole romantic triangle thing makes me so sporky that I can never finish these things!

[cofax7]

Hmm. Is this a series romance? Or just a one-off that happens to be a romance? Or is it more of a literary novel? Cause I think that genre conventions would definitely come into play here, particularly if the publisher has a romance "line" it fits into.

As for the triangle, I don't even see it as much of a triangle, because she's not honestly torn between the two men by your description: she's torn between her love and her vows. I can respect honest triangles, where both men are portrayed fairly and it's a believable, realistic conflict. This sort of thing stacks the deck, though, and the end is somewhat foregone if the husband is an outright asshole.

[oyceter]

It's a historical romance? So... not a series romance and not a book with romance elements, but definitely in the romance genre. Which is probably another reason why there were betrayed marriage vows and etc. without the tragic ending, since romance generally doesn't have tragic endings. Also... Gaffney was pretty much doing all she could to make it ok, from having the husband be a jerk and Sara being misunderstood to having the husband be the one committing most of the affairs anyway.

It really isn't a romantic triangle in terms of affection, but I absolutely hate the stacking of the decks, particularly when I feel the author is using it just to get a dramatic, socially forbidden romance. Actually, as a whole, I hate romances that have been forbidden at a societal level; it's this weird squick of mine and it just makes me nidgy and really uncomfortable.