Before this review is launched in earnest, let this reviewer start by pointing out that she had not embarked on this review with any intention of reacting so emotionally. Fortunately or otherwise, she did and it might well be to the credit of author Sarah Stuart that she did. Let’s hope this review doesn’t turn into a rant or some literary analysis!
This reviewer started reading Illicit Passion without the foggiest idea that it was part of a series. What seemed like incomprehensible behaviour on the part of the characters and the nonchalant attitudes they had towards issues which were quite serious made this reviewer grit her teeth and do the only thing possible, read the first book Dangerous Liaisons as well.
With that in mind, readers should understand the plot summary below relates only to Illicit Passion (IP), though arguably the plot of Dangerous Liaisons (DL) is largely rehashed sufficiently in IP for most readers not to be too lost.
Title: Illicit Passion (& Dangerous Liaisons)
Author: Sarah Stuart
Plot in a snap:
Broadway star Lisette Marsh makes a desperate escape from her abusive companion Kevin Tyrone, who it turns out is blackmailing her with the threat of exposing the incestuous affair she had with her father, superstar Michael Marsh, almost 20 years ago. Tyrone is out for blood and money as Michael Marsh was behind a move that ended his budding career all those years back. The Marshes dealt with the threat of scandalous rumours that threatened to expose and discredit their business and reputation by registering the result of that incestuous affair, Harriet, as one of a set of twins born of LIzzie, Michael's wife and Lisette's mother. In present day, an elaborate plan is hatched by Michael Marsh to revive and discredit speculation surrounding the nature of his relationship with Lisette, thereby neutralising Tyrone’s hold over Lisette. Thus begins a series of musical performances across Europe dogged by feelings of guilt, fear and lust as Tyrone renews his threats and Michael confronts the consequences of his incestuous affair and the impact it has had on his wife and family. Can Michael save his career, family and reputation? Can Lisette escape the clutches of a man who has tormented her for close to 16 years? Can Lisette and Michael resist the temptation to rekindle their incestuous affair? Will history repeat itself?
What worked:
The Drama and Elements of the Supernatural
The storyline, while carrying echoes of Harold Robbins and Jackie Collins, is intriguing and Stuart has managed to draw from both the main plot and the subplot of the Book of Hours, a book that traces the tumultuous love lives of a line of (often illegitimate) female descendants from Margaret Tudor all the way to the present day females in the Marsh family, to create an intriguing plot. However, as some reviewers have noted, there needs to be clearer signposting of parts where the Book of Hours comes in and the relevance or parallels its narrative has for the present female owner and the Marsh family females. It's clear that the Book of Hours is more sinister than it appears, having influenced Lisette and Harriet in ways that have proved destructive and pushed them firmly beyond normal social boundaries. Yet, this sinister influence is not fully fleshed out, which is a pity since it is an excellent plot device. And this reviewer has a question for the author if she happens to read this review: why does the interpretation of the coded messages in the Book of Hours appear to be dependent on its reader - if it is meant to be a plot device, could this be linked to the mental/psychological state of its reader?
What didn't work too well:
What didn't work too well:
Normalising Taboos
Taboo subjects, particularly one as culturally sensitive as incest, is always hard to handle. It could be because of the reading history of this reviewer, having been exposed to the VC Andrews pantheon from a young age. However, where Andrews manages to handle the subject without condemnation or affirmation, creating instead an awareness of the potential horrible consequences of such a taboo act, Stuart seems to have, as another reviewer on Goodreads puts it, made it normal and even romanticised it to some extent.
Now, let the reviewer qualify this by saying she had not read the first book, having purchased IP on Kindle without knowing it was part of a series when a friend pointed her in the direction of an interesting read. Yet, based on what is described of Michael and what Lisette says of her incestuous affair, it is hard to see any remorse, guilt or discomfort with the breaking of the taboo. Lisette says at one point, when her father Michael lies in a coma in a hospital bed, and she is trying to bring him out of his coma by talking to him, that she recalls the time when their lovechild, Harriet was conceived in love and how she recalls his precaution of taking off the crucifix (that he has on even in that hospital bed) that hung around his neck for fear that it would bruise her. She goes on to recall (aloud) that there were also times where he couldn't take it off in time because they were so desperate for each other. Seriously? She's saying this when he's ostensibly on his deathbed and the consequences of their incestuous affair is what has kept her under the control of a monster like Tyrone for over 15 years? And in the hearing of nurses or medical staff in a hospital ward when rumours of the incestuous affair are spreading like wildfire?
If that doesn't throw readers into a spin, more is to come.
Pendulum Characters and the Definition of Selfish
It is the characterisation that has the reviewer questioning this book. The writing is pretty good, the plot is intriguing but the characters have me going ?? Of all the characters, Michael is clearly supposed to be the lead hero of course. Yet this hero can't seem to control his urges. This is a man who is described to be a faithful and devoted husband, one who never betrayed his wife despite his obvious charms and superstar status, till that incestuous affair with his own daughter, Lisette. Again,having not read the first book at that point, the reviewer was baffled at a hero whose his behaviour and thoughts in this book betray a man who feels no guilt or compunction about the fact that he has fathered a child who is both his daughter and granddaughter and seems eager to thwart Tyrone's plans as much because of the hurt it would cause Lisette as the impact it would have on his status and fortune. The narrative of IP is littered with instances where he's tempted to resume the incestuous affair with Lisette as they tour Europe on performances.
It is the characterisation that has the reviewer questioning this book. The writing is pretty good, the plot is intriguing but the characters have me going ?? Of all the characters, Michael is clearly supposed to be the lead hero of course. Yet this hero can't seem to control his urges. This is a man who is described to be a faithful and devoted husband, one who never betrayed his wife despite his obvious charms and superstar status, till that incestuous affair with his own daughter, Lisette. Again,having not read the first book at that point, the reviewer was baffled at a hero whose his behaviour and thoughts in this book betray a man who feels no guilt or compunction about the fact that he has fathered a child who is both his daughter and granddaughter and seems eager to thwart Tyrone's plans as much because of the hurt it would cause Lisette as the impact it would have on his status and fortune. The narrative of IP is littered with instances where he's tempted to resume the incestuous affair with Lisette as they tour Europe on performances.
Sure, guilt in relation to his wife Lizzie creeps in in between scenes but it seems ameliorated by the fact that he barely refrains from having full on sex scenes with his daughter. The plot device of stage kisses and offstage kisses worsens everything and gives the storyline that shade of implausible.That the plot device was essentially recycling one used in DL (where the blurring of lines because of a performance that involved Michael and Lisette acting as lovers and exchanging kisses and having nude scenes) that drew out the incest plot in that first book made me even more leery of it.The upshot of the taboo plot is that Michael, in one last offstage scene, kisses Lisette passionately and shows her how desirable she is (presumably, by pushing his arousal against her stomach) in order to get her confident enough to fight for a man who loves her, one who is not a family member, Brian.
Really? And did the reviewer mention that the hospital scene with Lisette was also after Lisette considered Brian as a potential lover and life mate.
And it gets worse. Harriet, the product of incest, not only inherits the Book of Hours, which certainly did not improve her personality, goes on a self-destructive rampage after finding out the truth behind her parentage. All this after she basically engages in incest herself, sleeping with her twin, Kit, before she found out he was not her twin but still a relative of sorts, a half-uncle. Kit himself is hardly a sympathetic character, since he mopes around, thinking he is unappreciated (as does Harriet) because his parents' attention are focused on his youngest sister, Greta. And this is before he finds out he's actually the child of an adulterous affair between Lizzie and her former employer Clement who so happens to be Michael's best friend, having been a force behind Michael's rise to stardom. Coincidentally, it was also Clement (another faithful lover who after 50 years of faithfulness to his dead love Kathleen, sleeps with a married employee and fathers a child with her) who decided to cast Lisette with Michael in the performance that led to the incestuous affair.
And it gets worse. Harriet, the product of incest, not only inherits the Book of Hours, which certainly did not improve her personality, goes on a self-destructive rampage after finding out the truth behind her parentage. All this after she basically engages in incest herself, sleeping with her twin, Kit, before she found out he was not her twin but still a relative of sorts, a half-uncle. Kit himself is hardly a sympathetic character, since he mopes around, thinking he is unappreciated (as does Harriet) because his parents' attention are focused on his youngest sister, Greta. And this is before he finds out he's actually the child of an adulterous affair between Lizzie and her former employer Clement who so happens to be Michael's best friend, having been a force behind Michael's rise to stardom. Coincidentally, it was also Clement (another faithful lover who after 50 years of faithfulness to his dead love Kathleen, sleeps with a married employee and fathers a child with her) who decided to cast Lisette with Michael in the performance that led to the incestuous affair.
So guilt abounds, Lizzie feels guilty for having broken her vows through her affair with Clement, Michael feels guilty that he betrayed his wife by having an incestuous affair with Lisette. He also feels guilty that Harriet, his lovechild (and with all the signs in the book, his favourite child who he loved the minute she was born, incest notwithstanding) is in danger because of Tyrone. But, and it is a big but, the guilt is flimsy, Michael does not seem to regret the incestuous affair, he does not even regret having a lovechild from that incestuous affair because that would mean regretting Harriet, his favourite child. What he regrets seems to be the potential impact of fallout from the affair upon his reputation and business. Granted, his feelings of guilt towards Lizzie is tempered by the fact that they both broke their vows, but it counts for nothing whenever he recalls the affair with Lisette and the joy he finds in Harriet. He swings like a pendulum in his emotions and behaviour. His lack of shame where Harriet is concerned contrasts with Lizzie's conflict when it comes to Kit, who she keeps a distance from because he is a constant reminder of her infidelity and the guilt she feels because as she tells Michael, she loved Clement. In fact, a scene in DL where she mourns the dead Clement refers to Clement as a man she loved too much. For scenes meant to be touching and emotional and characters whom readers are supposed to understand and empathise with, it didn't quite work. As a reader, there was an impulse to say, "seriously, don't bother, Michael loved and still loves Lisette, has no guilt over Harriet, so why should you?" For all the professions Michael makes of his love for Lizzie, there is no real proof. Even if it were simply Lizzie and Michael, there’s so much pendulum motion that readers might feel like the cat in the picture below.
So clearly, the biggest problem this reviewer has with this book is characterisation. For me, what clinches the case is the characterisation of Harriet. How does a supporting heroine like Harriet evoke such ire? Well, from the start, she's whiny. She whinges constantly about how spoiled and pampered Greta, the youngest child, is from the start of the novel and waxes lyrical about her affair with Kit. Then she goes on some mad rampage after discovering her parentage, blames Lisette and even Lizzie for perceived coldness and distance but never blames Michael. It was however, her nonchalance and refusal to help when they finally discover why Tyrone keeps sending messages about having Lisette's daughter in his clutches and demanding ransom when Harriet is clearly with the rest of the family - the fact being that he had kidnapped the wrong girl and was torturing Greta - that outs her firmly as a selfish b*tch. Even when Kit turns on her for her attitude, it doesn't help. And Michael's reaction condemns him too : he collapses from a heart attack when he thinks Tyrone has Harriet but is all calm and rational when he discovers Tyrone has Greta, refusing to allow Lisette (who in a break from the normal programming, steps forward to volunteer returning to Tyrone in exchange for Greta) to make sacrifices. Seriously?? This reviewer didn't wonder at Lizzie's urge to attack him at that point. And he goes on to claim that he would give his life to get Greta back for Lizzie if nothing else. Someone get some help for this man.
After all that messed up behaviour, the reviewer was no longer surprised when Michael started comforting Harriet by telling her that she should pursue her happiness even if it meant conducting an incestuous affair with Kit in the shadows. All this even when Harriet was perhaps the coldest person alive when it came to the hodgepodge plot to rescue Greta. Oh and Michael, after his heroic rescue of Greta (sans emotion sans guilt though Greta, the most innocent member of the messed up family, was captured and tortured by a psychopathic and abusive man almost entirely as a consequence of his incestuous affair), actually thinks he didn't deserve the offhand and distant attitude with which Greta treats him.
If there is a hero in this story, it probably has to be James by default, Michael's son with Lizzie. Though even here, there's some messed up. Never mind that some mix up with the phones means he's out of the loop where information about the whereabouts of Harriet is concerned and results in wasted valuable time tracking down the wrong victim. What sticks in the craw is his blasé attitude towards his messed up parents' affairs as well as his messed up siblings both half (Kit and Harriet) and full (Lisette) in both books. Which is matched by his obsession with the au pair which leads him to easily ignore the fact that his youngest full sister had been missing. It's ironic when the entire family seemingly thinks Greta is the spoiled youngest child always getting into trouble and clamouring for attention that it takes forever for them to notice she's missing. And James seems to be the only one who even feels guilt when he realises how neglected Greta really is. The family's cavalier attitude towards Greta after the ordeal she suffers compared to the excessive concern they have for Lisette and Harriet in comparison is what potentially puts readers off from connecting with the characters.
Michael, in particular, doesn’t look too good in contrast. Where he had been worried about the psychological impact and scarring for Harriet when he thought Tyrone had her held as hostage is noticeably absent when it comes to Greta. He spends more time comforting Harriet, who's the drama queen and who had gone off on a revenge jag than he does the daughter (Greta) he claimed to have been willing to give his life to save for Lizzie. And who he himself notes is another (arguably the most) innocent victim of those stolen weeks of the incestuous affair he had with Lisette. He even says he wants Greta to go look at Bob and Isla when they return because it would do her good to see others have suffered.
The clear preference he has for the child born of incest makes his claims of love for Lizzie and his other children that much more suspect.
If there were any illusions that the first book would offer more palatable characters, they were fairly quickly dashed. After reading DL, this reviewer had even more jaundiced view of Michael, Clement (and male characters in the book generally) and Lisette as well as Lizzie. Generally, Lizzie's motivation for having an affair with one of their oldest friends seems rooted in not just loneliness but also, one suspects, a curious sense of wanting to punish Michael. And that is before she found about the incestuous and adulterous affair. Lisette's motivation seems more complicated, mixing idol worship of the superstar that Michael is and also a sense of wanting to prove her own desirability in addition to punishing and rivaling her mother.
On the other hand, Michael and Clement seem to have embarked on affairs almost as a way to relieve stress associated with their career/artistic productions, the artist plea so it would seem. But more disturbing is how coincidentally, both men's second sexual encounters (there could have
been more but this reader's memory only extends to two detailed encounters being described)seem connected to punishing women; Clement in punishing James for his infractions through his command(no other description seems apt) to Lizzie to get into bed with him ; and Michael where he takes Lisette repeatedly on a night where it is revealed that Lizzie had turned up for the debut performance of the musical for Clement's sake but seemingly snubbed Lisette and him. In that one act, Michael and Lisette get back at Lizzie more effectively than would otherwise be possible.
If there were any illusions that the first book would offer more palatable characters, they were fairly quickly dashed. After reading DL, this reviewer had even more jaundiced view of Michael, Clement (and male characters in the book generally) and Lisette as well as Lizzie. Generally, Lizzie's motivation for having an affair with one of their oldest friends seems rooted in not just loneliness but also, one suspects, a curious sense of wanting to punish Michael. And that is before she found about the incestuous and adulterous affair. Lisette's motivation seems more complicated, mixing idol worship of the superstar that Michael is and also a sense of wanting to prove her own desirability in addition to punishing and rivaling her mother.
On the other hand, Michael and Clement seem to have embarked on affairs almost as a way to relieve stress associated with their career/artistic productions, the artist plea so it would seem. But more disturbing is how coincidentally, both men's second sexual encounters (there could have
been more but this reader's memory only extends to two detailed encounters being described)seem connected to punishing women; Clement in punishing James for his infractions through his command(no other description seems apt) to Lizzie to get into bed with him ; and Michael where he takes Lisette repeatedly on a night where it is revealed that Lizzie had turned up for the debut performance of the musical for Clement's sake but seemingly snubbed Lisette and him. In that one act, Michael and Lisette get back at Lizzie more effectively than would otherwise be possible.
Adding to the cauldron of the “unbelievable spell” is the calm, almost coldly rational way in which everyone who comes to know of the acts of mutual betrayal carried out by Lizzie, Clement, Michael and Lisette react to the situation. Michael's reaction to Lizzie's revelation of adultery on her part is understandable since he's done worse. It's Lizzie's, Margaret's and James' reactions that are baffling. It's partly these reactions that seem to romanticise the taboo of incest in this series and make it seem acceptably normal. To a certain extent, the fuss-free reaction of James and Michael to Lizzie's adulterous affair and the fact that she bears another man's child as a result of that affair also normalises adultery. Something completely incompatible with a story focussed on love one would think. The almost surreal nature of this aspect of the books may be summed up as:
The drama is not in the betrayals but the fact that society's "normal" reaction becomes something abnormal and everyone is pitching in to cover things up and act normal because god forbid their reputation should be destroyed and they should lose everything for having broken such taboos and norms. This is about as much as this reviewer can make sense of the spirit of unity that seems to power this family. Subversion of norms and conventions seem to be the key technique employed.
The drama is not in the betrayals but the fact that society's "normal" reaction becomes something abnormal and everyone is pitching in to cover things up and act normal because god forbid their reputation should be destroyed and they should lose everything for having broken such taboos and norms. This is about as much as this reviewer can make sense of the spirit of unity that seems to power this family. Subversion of norms and conventions seem to be the key technique employed.
There’s only one term that sums this up perfectly: clusterfuck. It’s so twisted, it defies a pretzel, so here’s the best visualisation the reviewer could find:
Gender Inequality
That last point brings this reviewer to the next observation: Though the men are equal partners in crime so to speak, neither Michael nor Clement actually lose anything. The women, however, suffer to varying degrees. Lizzie is haunted by guilt over her affair and never manages to get close to Kit who is a constant reminder of her adultery, worsened by the fact that she declares she loved Clement (though, in a typical pendulum mode, she also declares variously that she loves Michael and that she is never sure if Clement ever loved her or just Kathleen through her). And Lisette of course goes through hell for 15 years to protect Michael and the secret of the lovechild their incestuous affair produced. That is balanced by the fact that through Clement, Lisette also comes into fame and fortune via the career he launches her into and also the estate she inherits upon his death.
Harriet is perhaps an exception as she largely suffers from the anguish of the secret of her parentage, yet is largely set on a destructive trajectory not by Kit but her own desire (to punish those who helped conceal her true identity) and her selfishness. Of course, even she has to accept the harsh condition of being denied the joys of parenthood because of her potentially scandalous and incestuous relationship with Kit.
The men? They escape largely unscathed. Sure Michael suffers a heart attack but that is a result of his guilt complex with regards to Harriet and Lisette. He doesn't seem to suffer the same anxiety towards his other offspring. Clement dies but not as a result of his affair and also seems to have suffer nothing despite having betrayed the woman he ostensibly loves beyond death and of course the friend whose wife he has an affair with and even gains an heir through that affair.
The men? They escape largely unscathed. Sure Michael suffers a heart attack but that is a result of his guilt complex with regards to Harriet and Lisette. He doesn't seem to suffer the same anxiety towards his other offspring. Clement dies but not as a result of his affair and also seems to have suffer nothing despite having betrayed the woman he ostensibly loves beyond death and of course the friend whose wife he has an affair with and even gains an heir through that affair.
Seen in a more cynical light, the characters are downright awful. Clement is a selfish, manipulative bastard who doesn’t hesitate about using emotional blackmail and his power to get who or what he wants. Lisette is an immoral and selfish bitch addicted to competing with her mother and securing a powerful older man as mate, always wanting what she can’t have. Lizzie is a weak, fickle and insecure woman who has no time for her kids or husband and has an unhealthy desire to depend on a stronger older man. Michael is the randy goat who, despite professing profound love for his wife, has no compunction or regrets in indulging in an incestuous and adulterous affair, using various excuses and his surfeit of emotions to justify his behaviour and inability to restrain himself.
Theatricality
The one thing that developed really well in DL which became a little muddled in IP was the element of theatricality. DL intentionally or otherwise, reminded this reviewer of scenes from a play, where confrontations seemed like set pieces of a drama or musical. In essence, DL was a little like Into The Woods where the fairy tales flourish quite well in the first half but disintegrate into a disturbing, almost ugly mess of dysfunction in the second half.
Similar elements of theatricality appear in IP from intermeshing scenes of stage performances, songs and thoughts/speech and action as well as the use of flashbacks and memories that blend past and present. It's enhanced by the parallels that are disturbingly close between the Book of Hours and the overarching saga of the Marsh family. When Greta is instructed to act in the farce after she's rescued, the theatrical family takes literal shape. The reviewer can't help but wonder if the characters know if they are truly in love or acting the part. Michael's constant vacillation between the temptations of lust and loyalty to his professed one true love, Lizzie becomes so frequent and could degenerate to the comic vacillations of the fool in Shakespeare's comedies, which surely acts as unintended counterpoint to the references to the tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra in DL. That Lizzie and Lisette's names are so similar that they could be easily mistaken worsens the bathos of this plot device in the latter part of DL.
Similar elements of theatricality appear in IP from intermeshing scenes of stage performances, songs and thoughts/speech and action as well as the use of flashbacks and memories that blend past and present. It's enhanced by the parallels that are disturbingly close between the Book of Hours and the overarching saga of the Marsh family. When Greta is instructed to act in the farce after she's rescued, the theatrical family takes literal shape. The reviewer can't help but wonder if the characters know if they are truly in love or acting the part. Michael's constant vacillation between the temptations of lust and loyalty to his professed one true love, Lizzie becomes so frequent and could degenerate to the comic vacillations of the fool in Shakespeare's comedies, which surely acts as unintended counterpoint to the references to the tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra in DL. That Lizzie and Lisette's names are so similar that they could be easily mistaken worsens the bathos of this plot device in the latter part of DL.
The whole theatrical feel and plot devices allow for the blurring of lines between acting and real life, onstage and offstage. Part of the whole difficulty for Lisette and Michael seems to be their ability to cordon off onstage and offstage. Lisette, in particular, seems to suffer from the inability to get out of method acting as there are indirect revelations that she has dated other leading men that she's starred with, including a married co-star whom she went out with in the US.
What is Love?
What pushed the ludicrous factor was the repeated insistence of the narrative on the fact that both men were utterly in love with their wives; Clement even defends his affair with Lizzie as a few
weeks after years of loving Lizzie while being faithful to his dead Kathleen and that he'd hoped Michael would never find out because he simply needed Lizzie because he needed to get through all the obstacles in the way of his producing his final and best tribute to his dead love. Seriously, so he fucks his best friend's wife to produce a musical that bears testimony to the everlasting love he has for his Kathleen, one that goes beyond the grave.
weeks after years of loving Lizzie while being faithful to his dead Kathleen and that he'd hoped Michael would never find out because he simply needed Lizzie because he needed to get through all the obstacles in the way of his producing his final and best tribute to his dead love. Seriously, so he fucks his best friend's wife to produce a musical that bears testimony to the everlasting love he has for his Kathleen, one that goes beyond the grave.
Then there's Michael who spends a whole lot of time in both books professing his great love for his wife but physically and emotionally cheats on Lizzie with their daughter Lisette. Makes this reviewer wonder: Do they ever listen to themselves? And if they do, do they really believe what they profess? Do these people even know what love and fidelity mean?
Who does Michael really love? If he truly loves Lizzie, could he have had real love for Lisette? If he has real love for Lisette, which seems implied in his favouring of Harriet (guilt complex included), what does that say of Michael's alleged endless love for Lizzie? Or is he hopelessly confusing Lisette and Lizzie as could perhaps be inferred from the scene when Margaret calls him to inform him that Lisette is in labour though arguably he has to conflate the two since no one else is supposed to know Lisette is pregnant.
Lizzie is equally complicated in relation to Clement. Why did she decide to sleep with Clement after rejecting his advances? Apart from loneliness, was it a matter of getting back at Michael? And why would she want to keep Clement's child, apart from religion, which is a flimsy excuse since adultery is a sin itself. And referring to the fact that she indulged in adultery and produced an illegitimate child as an "odd hiccup" in a love that goes beyond the grave is liable to make most choke with disbelief.
Lizzie is equally complicated in relation to Clement. Why did she decide to sleep with Clement after rejecting his advances? Apart from loneliness, was it a matter of getting back at Michael? And why would she want to keep Clement's child, apart from religion, which is a flimsy excuse since adultery is a sin itself. And referring to the fact that she indulged in adultery and produced an illegitimate child as an "odd hiccup" in a love that goes beyond the grave is liable to make most choke with disbelief.
The fact that Lizzie herself refers to her thoughts of Michael and Lisette’s incestuous relationship as making love, an echo of how Michael and Lisette themselves reference their relationship, points to how the characters live in their own fairy tale, where their standards and perspectives prevail. Yet the flimsy, delusional quality of that world is constantly highlighted by the fact that they have to hide these secrets, that their “love” must be hidden away. If it is true love and true love is priceless, then go public with it, suffer the consequences of flying the flag of true love, stop vacillating and hiding, true courage is being upfront about true love. If true love goes beyond the grave and characters are willing to give up their lives, what is public condemnation, being thrown in jail, being disgraced and losing fame and fortune? To do otherwise and agonise over how they can’t openly love is simply indulging in a bout of narcissistic masochism -
The reviewer is tempted to pose the following questions to the main characters:
Michael - If you had to choose one love and lose all others, which would you choose? Lizzie or Lisette? No vacillating and whining about how unfair it is that you had to choose.
Lizzie - Knowing what your moment of weakness and bouts of infidelity result in, would you stop yourself from indulging in adultery, even if it meant killing Clement and or Kit?
Michael - If you had to choose one love and lose all others, which would you choose? Lizzie or Lisette? No vacillating and whining about how unfair it is that you had to choose.
Lizzie - Knowing what your moment of weakness and bouts of infidelity result in, would you stop yourself from indulging in adultery, even if it meant killing Clement and or Kit?
History repeats itself
This motif is not merely operating in relation to the parallels between the stories in the Book of Hours but also in terms of the different generations of the Marsh family. Harriet is perpetuating the pattern of incest and Michael and Lisette’s blasé attitudes merely extend the similar lack of reaction from Lizzie and Margaret in DL. This arguably sets the stage for history and tragedy to repeat itself.
Conclusion
Conclusion
The conclusion of both books ends almost as a repetition, focusing on Lisette, a character that the reviewer felt was one of the hardest to stomach in the series, and her hopes for the future. There seems to be little grounds for optimism for the Lisette and Brian pair up. Not only does her past and Harriet hang over her future with Brian, the closing scene in IP hints at the lingering echoes/shadows of Michael. Add to that what Lizzie said to Margaret in DL about how if Lisette's child turned out to be a girl, it would mean that Lisette would never love another man as much as she loved Michael. But frankly, Lisette has improved as a character. There were times in the series where this reviewer’s impression of Lisette’s character was such that there would have been little surprise if she had gone psycho and killed Lizzie or anyone standing in the way of her and Michael. While the reviewer is aware that the author has professed that part of her motivation in tackling the taboo of incest was to convey the message that people should not be so quick to condemn that which is beyond the bounds of social norms, yet, the excesses of the characters may well sabotage the cause.
If anything, there was a sense that this was a book about a surfeit of love and the tragedy that ensues from not understanding love is. Love, despite what the characters may espouse, does not excuse everything. Perhaps it is too old-fashioned but surely decency, loyalty and fidelity are qualities compatible with love. And qualities desirable even in contemporary society.
This reviewer hopes some sense of sombre reality will prevail in the final(?) book (Dynasty of Deceit) in the series. The Book of Hours and its cursed/tragic influence upon its current owner could be a way to bring this very strange drama to a poignant end. Tragic arc or not, Michael needs to be clear who he really loves and what love really is or entails - that is, take off the mask, exit the stage and enter real life Marsh family!
Amazon rating: 4*Blog rating: 3*
Please note blog ratings are in line with average rating being 3 and awesome being 4.
Reviewed by VReads
Amazon links for Illicit Passion and Dangerous Liaisons
In return for the emotional toil (LOL) suffered by this reviewer, there is an additional post coming up which offers a potential ending for the series - watch for it!
No comments:
Post a Comment