Lucien’sFallbyBarbaraSamuel

by SB Sarah Monday, December 18, 2006 at 11:39 AM
Our Grade:
B+
Title: Lucien's Fall
Author: Barbara Samuel
Publication Info: HarperCollins 1995, ISBN: 0061083623
Genre: Historical: European

When I first wrote down my notes to review this book, I had downgraded it to a C- and mentally subtitled it, “A Review that Will Make Candy Stomp Her Foot at Me.” But since it was a Candy-recommended read, and because I know she enjoys a book that she can ruminate over for a good while, I figured I should let the plot simmer in the back of my mind for awhile and come back to it.

Sometimes, this is called “procrastination,” which is coincidentally my worst habit. Sometimes, it’s called “Sarah gets a lesson in reevaluating books” because after a week of thinking on it and writing down all the things that frustrated me, I realized that what bugged me was precisely what made the book good. And not “good” in the sense of, “Oh, it wasn’t so bad in comparison to some things I’ve read.” It was good in the sense that the author took risks and made real characters so that instead of villains that were cardboard and easily dismissed, I had secondary characters, fully-developed foils for the protagonists, and actions that were disruptive to the progress towards a happy ending, but that were driven by understandable motivation, not simple evil.  It was so good, in fact, that the grade was elevated after rumination to a B+. 

More,more,more!>
Picture of {name}
13 comments1 trackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSSadd to sk*rt
Categories: Reviews by Author, Q-SReviews by Grade: B

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Comments

Picture of Robin Robin said on...
12.18.06 at 12:46 PM |

**********SPOILERS BELOW***************
**********SPOILERS BELOW***************
**********SPOILERS BELOW***************

I totally agree with your characterization of Lucian, Sarah, as well as your appreciation for the way Samuel is playing with the Romance stereotypes in those two characters. Lucien may seem stereotypical by today’s Romance rake standards, but like Balogh’s Notorious Rake, IMO he’s more in the prototype category, a man who would prefer to live his life as a “type” than open himself up to the pain he suffered because of his artistic nature.  And I was a total sucker for the music thing, and felt the scene in which he and Madeline play (and its aftermath) was one of the most sexy and erotic I’ve read in a long time.

I also adored the secondary romance in this book between Juliette and Jonathan, especially the way Juliette needed pain to enjoy her sexuality.  I thought that was a very daring aspect of the plot, especially because of the way Jonathan had difficulty with it and wanted a more normal relationship with her.  That Samuel portrayed Juliette as a woman who was trying very hard to make her relationship with Jonathan anything but romantic was so intriguing to me.

I had a slightly different take on Madeline, though.  I felt she was very up front with Charles the whole way through their relationship, clear with him about her feelings and honest in her fears that Lucien is wresting her attention away from him.  So I didn’t see her as selfish, but more as torn between two imperfect situations.  I thought it was somewhat unrealistic that Charles was such a good sport about it all, but he did have a very realistic sense of who he was and what interested him, and it seemed plausible to me that he worried that his disposition and lifestyle would be a challenge for Madeline.  If he had truly loved Madeline, though, I would have expected some hurt feelings on his part.

I like the way you articulated your response to the ending, because I kept wondering how Madeline would have decided if Juliette had not softened her heart and other circumstances had not made Lucien more acceptable.  That external circumstances effected their eventual HEA was a bit of a letdown for me, especially since Samuel had done so much to show us WHY these two were attracted and to track so carefully the way they came to know each other as people as not as types.  I totally agree with you that Madeline’s growth was not as pronounced as Lucien’s, but I was very grateful that she wasn’t the one to “save” Lucien.  I also think her most interesting transformation was one in which she no longer needed the orderly takes of gardening and the ordered world of her estate and could accept that her own emotionally volatile nature wasn’t a curse but a valid part of who she was.  In less skilled hands, Madeline would, IMO, have been one of those heroines who is transformed into a sex kitten after her requisite 20 orgasms the first night she spent with the hero.  She wasn’t as complex as Leda from Kinsale’s Shadow and the Star (another heroine who loved order), but at least she didn’t devolve into a temptress, either.

Picture of Therese Walsh Therese Walsh said on...
12.18.06 at 01:39 PM |

Great review of a book I adore. Lucien stripped of his defenses and the fine line he rides between love and madness (for music and Madeline) made this book special for me. The unforgetability factor earned it a place on my keeper shelf.

Another fabu romance by Samuel is A Bed of Spices, though it’s somewhat hard to find now. Really great Romeo and Juliet tension; very memorable.

Picture of Lisa Lisa said on...
12.18.06 at 05:08 PM |

I remember when I first read Carla Kelly’s Libby’s London Merchant I hated it because the heroine didn’t end up with whom I thought she would. I felt the ending made no sense, all that build up had been for nothing, shoddy characterization, etc.

But then I re-read it a year or two later, this time knowing where it was going, and I found myself liking it much much more, particularly the previously despised ending which I now thought of as a brilliant solution.

I think my problem is that when I read romance novels, I read them with the understanding that certain things will happen during the course of the story (most imporantly, the two main characters will fall in love and live happily ever after) and that I will enjoy that. When a book doesn’t stick to the formula, I feel like it betrayed the contract. Only after I have re-formed my idea of what the book is going to be can I like it for what it is.

...Not that I can’t enjoy a good twist ‘n’ turns tale or anything, it’s just that I have to know that’s what I’m getting into.

I feel so shallow.

Picture of meardaba meardaba said on...
12.19.06 at 04:34 AM |

Ahhh, the beauty of pushing boundaries.  I’ve started off hating so many books, only to actually THINK about them later and fall in love.  That’s one of the reasons I don’t think I could ever be a writer - I just can’t make those boundaries waffle by myself.

Picture of Liz Liz said on...
12.19.06 at 09:18 AM |

I need to read Barbara Samuel.  I like books that push the envelope.  I partiuclarly like three dimensional bad guys.

Picture of Liz Liz said on...
12.19.06 at 09:18 AM |

I also need typing lessons…

Picture of Kalen Hughes Kalen Hughes said on...
12.19.06 at 12:40 PM |

Ok, bitches! I just ordered this book (and a couple of others by her, too). I’m really looking forward to reading it.

Picture of DS DS said on...
12.19.06 at 03:02 PM |

The one thing that bugged me about this book was the era.  If it had been set about 40 or 50 years later in the era of muscular Christianity I could have more willingly suspended my disbelief.  As it is I have a hard time accepting that it would have been all that big a deal since gentlmen were expected to have accomplishments.

Picture of Wry Hag Wry Hag said on...
12.19.06 at 09:27 PM |

Oh, boy.... 

Don’t stone me, but those snatches of dialogue were pluperfectly awful.  I don’t think I could slog through an entire novel’s worth of that stuff.  And the narrative portions didn’t seem much better.  I mean, maybe the characterization is exceptional...but damned if I wouldn’t end up tossing the book into my dog’s food dish after reading some of that stilted prose and a few of those conversational exchanges.

Maybe I need more of an education in the preferred diction of historical romance.  (Do they ever say “fuck”?  Huh, do they, do they?) On second thought, I’m sure I do.

Again, my apologies.  Now I shall take my shit-stirring self into the moonswept night.  (Or is it moonlit?  Or windswept?  Or neither or both or...?)

Picture of Candy said on...
12.20.06 at 10:57 AM |

Wry Hag: Y’know, maybe it’s because I’ve been indoctrinated into the godawful stiltedness of dialogue in 19th-century novels, but Barbara Samuel’s diction doesn’t throw me off at all. Many historical authors have voices that sound far too modern and, well, too American to me. Not that it’s a deal-breaker, necessarily, it’s just that when somebody captures the feeling properly (not that we can know for sure how people in the 18th and 19th centuries REALLY sounded like, though I suppose letters and the like can give us some idea--what I’m seeking is a reasonable facsimile that FEELS right rather than being a note-perfect imitation, and dear lord how post-modern am I getting here, and how much longer can I drag on this parenthetical comment?), I’m happy as a motherfucking clam.

Now, my question is: which historical romance authors do you think write dialogue that doesn’t make you want to kick puppies to pieces? Just so we have a baseline for comparison.

Picture of Liz Liz said on...
12.21.06 at 12:27 AM |

Candy:  I was brought up on 19th century novels—was there anything else in 50s Europe?—and I’ve been seriously put off American historicals by the cosy modernity of the language.  The “milk and cookies” Regencies.  Apart from anything else, the way they write down to the reader is downright patronising.

I’d welcome a list of American historical writers who I could safely risk my hard-earned on, since I can’t get these from the library and give them a test run.

Picture of Candy said on...
12.21.06 at 12:41 PM |

Liz: Loretta Chase and Laura Kinsale come to mind. Barbara Samuel is pretty good, too. Most other American historical authors tend to fall more towards the milk and cookies side of the divide. (Love that phrase, by the way. Am going to shamelessly steal it.) I’m trying to think of others--surely there must have been others--but none are coming to mind at the moment. Drat.

Picture of Liz Liz said on...
12.21.06 at 01:43 PM |

Help yourself and enjoy, Candy!  Thanks for the tips.  I’ve been told Laura Kinsale is great.  Let’s hope Santa is generous with the book tokens.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: