The fact that I love outsider heroines isn't something I've really thought about before. However, it struck me the other day as I read a review of Hunting Ground by Patricia Briggs by Janine on Dear Author.
Janine is someone whose reviews I enjoy. Her reviews are clearly articulated and I've realised from reading them that we share certain reader preferences so I'm always interested in what she likes. The review I read the other day is actually a review of the third book in the series but it prompted me to buy the first one. Here is how Janine described the heroine:
Anna.... is an omega werewolf, which means that she is outside the pack structure. She cannot be commanded by anyone, but she also lacks the alphas’ aggressive tendencies. Instead, her presence has a calming influence on dominant wolves. Anna is a relatively young werewolf, only in her twenties. The pack Anna originally belonged to abused her and assaulted her sexually, and Anna’s recovery from those attacks is an ongoing process.
Immediately, I was interested.
Then Janine mentioned that she had read the first book seven times. Seven. Times. Oho!
Then I got to the end of the review where Janine's bio is. This reminded me that Janine's favourite romance is To Have And To Hold by Patricia Gaffney. Of course, I already knew this thanks to Jessica at RRR's very interesting posts about THATH and Janine's comments thereon but nevertheless, my eye drifted down over the bio and I noticed it.
At this point, my tiny brain went ::click:: Why? Because THATH has the ultimate outsider heroine. And here, a reviewer who cites THATH as her favourite romance, has directed my attention to a book with an outsider heroine whose description I find Immensely Appealing and which she considers to be so good that she has read it seven times.
Needless to say, I ordered it.
Having done that, I began, in my on-the-bus/while-making-tea/ in-the-shower way to muse over outsider heroines.
Having done that, I began, in my on-the-bus/while-making-tea/ in-the-shower way to muse over outsider heroines.
So what do I mean by outsider heroines? Well, to me, it is the heroine who does not belong to whatever society or norm prevails in the novel in question. She may simply exist outside this, but more often, she will actually be in some sort of sub-class. In the description above, Anna is not only a werewolf who exists outside the pack structure, she is one who has been mistreated. In THATH, Rachel is a convict who has recently been released from prison.
Another very common example of the outsider heroine is the servant. Governesses are common but I can also think of housekeepers and maids and - in contemporaries - office cleaners. It might be argued that secretaries/PAs can meet the definition, depending on execution/context. Prostitutes are another kind of outsider. As are heroines with disabilities and/ or gifts.
Some of my other favourite outsider heroines (this list reflects my historical bias) are:
- Emily from Silent Melody by Balogh (deaf mute)
- Lily from Lily by Gaffney (maid)
- Anne Jewel from Simply Love by Balogh (teacher and unmarried mother in regency times)
- Viola from No Man's Mistress by Balogh (prostitute)
- Fleur from The Secret Pearl (prostitute AND governess)
- Lily from Lily by Gaffney (maid)
- Anne Jewel from Simply Love by Balogh (teacher and unmarried mother in regency times)
- Viola from No Man's Mistress by Balogh (prostitute)
- Fleur from The Secret Pearl (prostitute AND governess)
- Carrie Wiggins from Sweet Everlasting by Gaffney (mute)
- Emma from A Hunger Like No Other by Kresley Cole (halfling vamp/valkyrie)
- Emma from A Hunger Like No Other by Kresley Cole (halfling vamp/valkyrie)
And of course I shouldn't omit the classics. I wouldn't count Austen's Mansfield Park or Jane Eyre as favourite books but they both feature classic blueprints of the outsider heroine in Fanny Price (poor relation) and Jane (governess).
There are plenty of books in which it is the hero who is the outsider, but interestingly, I tend to find they don't tend so often to inhabit a sub-class. They tend rather to be proud loners. Think of Wild at Heart by Gaffney (wild man) and The Proposition by Judith Ivory (self-emplyed rat-catcher). Broken Wing by James is something of an exception having a prostitute hero. I've really enjoyed these outsider hero books but must admit that the outsider hero doesn't resonate with me so forcefully as his female counterpart.
There are plenty of books in which it is the hero who is the outsider, but interestingly, I tend to find they don't tend so often to inhabit a sub-class. They tend rather to be proud loners. Think of Wild at Heart by Gaffney (wild man) and The Proposition by Judith Ivory (self-emplyed rat-catcher). Broken Wing by James is something of an exception having a prostitute hero. I've really enjoyed these outsider hero books but must admit that the outsider hero doesn't resonate with me so forcefully as his female counterpart.
An absolutely key part of the outsider heroine storyline is that it usually up to the hero to restore (or assimilate) her into the society that she is excluded from. Is my preference for female outsiders related to this? Is it because I want the hero to rescue the heroine and I find heroines rescuing heroes less compelling? I don't think it's that. The best outsider stories usually subvert the idea of rescue anyway: in THATH, Rachel saves Sebastian from himself. No, I don't think it's that.
Here's an interesting thing though. How are outsider heroines restored? It's almost always through marriage. I don't mean, incidentally, that the outside heroine is not a strong character who can't cope without the hero, rather that she is only restored to her proper status in society through marriage to the hero. There's a fairytale tone to all of this, Cinderella, Donkeyskin. The prince discovering the true princess under the rags.
The outsider hero is quite different. In the three examples given above - Wild At Heart, The Proposition and Broken Wing - the hero restores his own status through a mixture of his own actions and some luck. Sometimes he will be supported in this by the heroine but he rarely seems to find it through her offices alone. In Wild At Heart, the heroine helps Michael the wild man to acclimatise to life in the world but it is the discovery of his true identity - a chance discovery - that restores him. Similarly with Mick in The Proposition. In Broken Wing, Gabriel makes his fortune at sea before returning to the heroine. I am not saying these heroes don't need the heroine, but their restoration of status is earned or inherited independently of her. Funnily enough, this also has a fairytale tone - all those enterprising lads who make their own fortunes and the win the princess.
And I think that's the story: women are prizes. Prizes hidden under rags to be discovered by princes. Prizes on thrones to be won by brave men doing brave deeds.
Posts
28 comments:
I'm not sure Jane Eyre really fits that scheme, because she becomes wealthy in her own right, and it's only after that, and after Rochester's been injured and his house has burned down, that we get to the "Reader, I married him."
That clicks for me. Meg was an outsider. Ada is an outsider. They both get reintegrated through twu wuv. I should go check out your recs now, I think.
Way to make me think on a Saturday morning, woman! I need more coffee to ponder this properly...
Have you read Annie's Song by Catherine Anderson, by the way?
I actually don't consider Rachel from THATH an "outsider heroine." Yes she was married to a monster and was wrongly imprisoned for his murder, but she got her HEA with a viscount! Not to mention the fact that there was no real taboo for her pairing with Sebastian. 1) she was from a good background 2) he wasn't from an upstanding, respected background and 3) she was English. Had Rachel been lower-class, had Sebastian been an upstanding gentleman, and had Rachel been Irish or Jewish or Indian, her re-integration with society would have been more conflicting. Plus, their entire story took place in a small hamlet--Rachel wasn't Sebastian's housekeeper in full view of London society.
On that note, I'd consider Anne more of an outsider heroine as she was a largely agnostic, abandoned woman in the extremely religious mid-Victorian era, at the height of the period's placement of women on a pedestal. I'd even consider the villainess of THATH more of an outsider: what happened to her was horrific and even today sets you apart from others physically and mentally.
In reality, most "outsider heroines" (and even heroes) are largely superficially considered an outsider. The construct of the romance genre ensures us that the hero or heroine will be return into the fabric of society once they get their HEA. When was the last time you read a historical where the hero married a courtesan and they lived happily ever after in exile? Or even a true cross-cultural romance that ends with the knowledge that the h/h will have some cultural issues to deal with?
In a way, the romance genre is about man versus society. On one hand, it does show that family can be constructed and is not limited to blood relations, but on the other hand, it says there is no such thing as existing outside of society (or the society in which you were born). All social conflict is mended in the end of each romance, the HEA being not only the h/h finding common ground, but the h/h each finding common ground with society, when IRL, that isn't always true.
I think the outsider heroine clicks for me because it is something I can identify with. I think most people have had some experience being on the outside, even if it's only fleeting or a matter of perception rather than reality. When I married my own personal hero I felt "not on the outside" (if that makes sense) in a way I'd never felt before.
PS - I can see you've read Silent Melody now Tumperkin - what did you think?
Laura - you're right re Jane Eyre on the restoration point but I still count her an outsider heroine in general terms.
Carrie - yes indeedy. And I did like Meg. Is book 2 out very soon?
A-lady - I haven't read it but I'll check out your link after this.
Kaetrin - I loved Silent Melody. It was interesting reading a Balogh Georgian too.
Evangeline - I vehemently disagree re Rachel. For me, she is the most raw outsider heroine I've ever read. I don't think that her shared class and ethnicity with Sebastian are relevant at all. As a convict she is a complete outcast with no means of supporting herself and still subject to the whims of the penal system. Her ordeal has changed her physically and mentally - she is an abomination amongst people she once moved freely among.
I hear what you say about the outsider-status of romance heroines being fabricated and too easily overcome so as to reconcile not only H/H but society too. I don't really disagree that that is what happens, but nor do I think that is necessarily a bad thing. I think the point I was trying to make was that the tale of the reconciliation of H/H and Society is clearly one that readers find compelling.
I suppose I ask myself this: do I really want to read about a H/H that embrace outsider-status and go off and live in happy exile, or do I prefer them to be reconciled with society? And if I'm honest, I prefer the latter scenario.
The tenor of your comment suggests to me that you possibly think that the romance genre is somehow lacking by not providing enough happy exile HEAs but it may rather be that the romance genre is rather very good at recognising the tropes that readers respond and that this is one such trope.
I wish I could clearly articulate exactly why it is I like certain types of stories and characters - I don't honestly think it's one easy explanation, rather a collection of rather complex triggers that I continue to try to get to the bottom of.
Another Gaffney book I've been meaning to read for ages and ages but just haven't! I can certainly identify with an outsider heroine, OMG. I couldn't have been any weirder in jr. high. Outsider heroes tend to work for me as well. I love that dynamic.
Loved this post. The disenfranchised outside hero or heroine really works for me.
You make an Interesting observation and a connection I'd never noticed when you mentioned heroines either gaining acceptance or having their status restored through the hero. Do you think this is because you mostly noted historicals?
Although, I think this is still true to a great degree in real life so why wouldn't fiction mimic life?
Wonderful thought provoking post. I also take Janine's recs very seriously, and yet I could not get into Alpha and Omega. but I own it, so I will try it again.
On the outsider thing...I also like heroines who are what I would call "unconventional". Although not all unconventional heroines are outsiders.
Not all heroines who are rejected by the community are outsiders. Social groups actually need insiders to reject, to maintain hierarchy. Kind of like that one "loser" who hangs out with the popular crowd in high school. I think a lot of rakes fit this bill.
It's an interesting point that rather than the outsider drawing the insider out, and together rejecting their social group, you usually have it the other way.
I agree that readers, including me, prefer it, I think because I want my h/h to succeed, and going on in their society is part of that.
But I wonder if it's another point for the inherent conservatism of most romance.
Lots of interesting food for thought. And I have got to read Lily.
Jessica said, "I want my h/h to succeed, and going on in their society is part of that"
Exactly! I think it's important not only that the h/h find happiness with each other, but that they triumph over those who "did them wrong" (i.e., mock them, ignored them, etc.)
Now that I put it in words it comes across as a bit childish, doesn't it? But still.
Excellent post, thank you.
I also think of Laura Kinsale's MIDSUMMER MOON -- very much an outsider heroine.
Just finished Joan Wolf's A London Season and I want to say -- think I should say -- that the hero, David Chance, the horse-trainer, is the ultimate outsider. But even though the ending is the obligatory everything works out magically, Wolf makes it clear that the heroine, Lady Jane, would have married him in any case and they would have had a great life, breeding horses and being together.
Just like Jo Beverley's "Hazard". Lady Anne, a duke's daughter, marries an illegitimate gentleman -- and the author goes out of her way to show the heroine interrogating ladies who "married down" and guess what, they were all uniformly happy. In this case, one is left with the impression that Race de Vere will raise up to Anne's level.
Lastly and I can't remember much, a book by Elizabeth Fairchild about an earl's daughter marrying "Her Man of Business". Pretty unusual except at the end the reader is convinced she is about to marry the eventual head of the Bank of Scotland.
There are tons of Balogh marry up to match up $$ and class. Usually not without their painful moments :) Her upcoming Christmas novella, "A Matter of Class" covers this same ground.
Lastly, the most hearbreaking Heyer ever, "A Civil Contract" -- the aristo who has to marry money and what happens to them. I've always found it to be the most bittersweet of her books.
One thing about "Lily" by Gaffney. Why does she have to have them marry AFTER the birth of their son. He'll never be able to inherit! That always upset me.
Tumperkin, I just found this post. Thanks for saying all those nice things
and linking to my Hunting Ground review. And especially for
mentioning Gaffney's To Have and to Hold. I love that book more than
words can say, and I've hoped for ages now that someone would notice me
pimping it in my bio at DA, but you're the first person I know of who has.
At this point, my tiny brain went ::click:: Why? Because THATH has the
ultimate outsider heroine. And here, a reviewer who cites THATH as her
favourite romance, has directed my attention to a book with an outsider
heroine whose description I find Immensely Appealing and which she considers
to be so good that she has read it seven times.
Needless to say, I ordered it.
I hope you enjoy it. The Alpha and Omega series is pretty different from
To Have and to Hold but there are a few things they have in common and
the heroines' outsider status and traumatic pasts are among these.
Evangeline - I vehemently disagree re Rachel. For me, she is the most raw
outsider heroine I've ever read. I don't think that her shared class and
ethnicity with Sebastian are relevant at all. As a convict she is a complete
outcast with no means of supporting herself and still subject to the whims of
the penal system. Her ordeal has changed her physically and mentally - she is
an abomination amongst people she once moved freely among.
I agree completely. As I recall, among the many horrors she suffered, in
prison Rachel's name was taken away from her and she was given a number to
take its place. To me, she was the 19th century equivalent of a
concentration camp victim in post WWII Europe. The ultimate outsider.
Even as a countess, I don't feel her outsider status will completely go away
because most people she interacts with have no concept of the experiences
that shaped her life for ten years. IMO she will never take basic things
like food and freedom for granted and people who do so will probably always
seem a bit alien to her.
Wonderful thought provoking post. I also take Janine's recs very
seriously, and yet I could not get into Alpha and Omega. but I own it, so I
will try it again.
The response to my original review of Briggs' Alpha and Omega and
Cry Wolf has been really interesting. Some of the posters have read
these books even more times than I have -- their copies are falling apart.
But there have also been a couple of people I've heard from who, like you,
don't really get the fuss. I think that's perfectly okay, but I also wonder,
Jessica, if you might not enjoy Cry Wolf more than Alpha and
Omega, since Cry Wolf grapples with moral issues in a way that
Alpha and Omega does not, and also delves more deeply into the
characters' issues.
I posted that last comment at Janine's request as she was having trouble getting the word verification to load.
Jill - people who were weird at school are invariably more interesting adults. Or in prison. I am sure you are in the former category.
Rosie - I don't doubt that the historical bias does affect my view and would be interested to see if anyone feels a different dynamic emerges from different subgenres.
Jessica - as always you make an interesting point - about the insider-outsider and yes, amongst the outsiders I've cited are characters of this type; close to the boundaries, but not yet beyond the pale, along with those - like Rachel - who are firmly beyond it. As to the 'inherent conservatism' of romance, it cannot be denied. It perturbs me sometimes that I find it so endlessly appealing!
A-lady - I think you just summed up very simply one of things I love about this type of book most. That moment when you go HA!THAT SHOWED YOU!
Victoria - I love Midsummer Moon. I love Merry. That was one of those books I always intended to review but didn't get round to it (and BTW on the subject of comment-problems - I've tried to leave messages at your blog numerous times - but it doesn't like me and never lets me!)
Janet - oh my goodness! I think we must be twins separated at birth. I don't recognise all the books you mentioned (*scribbles down names on TBB list*) but you are plainly a Balogh-fan and I ADORE A Civil Contract (am forever pimping it whenever someone posts about Heyer). As you say, it's so very bittersweet. As for Lily, I usually square these things in my head by deciding that someone like Devon - being such an arrogant swine - probably just falsifies the marriage register and it all turns out alright.
Janine - as you've said, Rachel has lost her very identity in THATH. She's a lost person. I think the rare joy of THATH is that she finds herself again, and within herself, albeit through Sebastian. Her restoration to society through marriage to Sebastian makes good her unwarranted exile but her restoration of self doesn't require that. So I see it as working on two separate levels: first Rachel's restoration of her sense of self and secondly her restoration to society. That richness/ layering is one of the reasons I love THATH so much.
Great post, and great discussion!
I think that Loretta Chase goes out of her way to write outsider heroines, as does Madeline Hunter-- particularly Phaedra Blair in Lessons of Desire.
Jenny Crusie talks about the women-as-prizes in her fabulous essay Let Us Now Praise Scribbling Women.
I think when you talk about the outsider heroine re-integrating into society via marriage, you have to start talking about the power dynamic. Chase's most recent novel wasn't my favorite, but it's a great example of the hero forcing society to accept the outsider heroine through sheer force of power -- both explicit, as a Duke (or was it Earl? I forget) and social-- power granted to him by his peers as the "it guy".
Single unmarried women didn't have much power beyond the ability to catch a good man in an awful lot of historical settings -- choose any regency, western, or-- oh! GWTW is another fabulous example of an outsider heroine. So I guess it's not surprising that historical romances use that imbalance as a realistic-feeling device to bring the heroine back to her rightful -- or emotionally just, in Crusie's vernacular-- position.
Made a mistake, it was (from the Good Ton website): Her Man of Affairs. Berkley, 1980; reissued by Jove, 1986 and 1996.
Characters: Mr. David MacKenzie & Lady Theo Fairchild
Summary: Lady falls for her man of affairs. Rating: very good
So, I am immensely thrilled with your "Lily" theory. I'm sure that's exactly what that forceful alpha hero did! He had everyone falsify the records. Now let's get Gaffney to write an epilogue :D
Thought of another book: "An Unwilling Bride" by Jo Beverley -- illegitimate dd of a duke marries a duke's son. Yep, they made up a backstory for her ... and the fur really flew in that story!
I love the outsider heroines,too, but also the heroes.
But I wanted to comment on the acceptance by society. Balogh was mentioned but not yet her regengy A Precious Jewel where the heroine Priscilla actually was a 'working' prostitute - an outsider par excellence. The two marry in the end and the reader KNOWS that they never will be accepted in society. In some way reading about these two confronting a quite solitary life made me sad for them. In another book (It was a Chrismas themed regency) Balogh brings back these two people who love each other very much but indeed are lonely. Some solution was brought in this second book. Perhaps some readers made Balogh do that because the equally were sad?
I vehemently disagree re Rachel. For me, she is the most raw outsider heroine I've ever read. I don't think that her shared class and ethnicity with Sebastian are relevant at all. As a convict she is a complete outcast with no means of supporting herself and still subject to the whims of the penal system. Her ordeal has changed her physically and mentally - she is an abomination amongst people she once moved freely among.
Ah well, c'est la vie. We diverge in opinions, but we share love of the genre.
I agree completely. As I recall, among the many horrors she suffered, in prison Rachel's name was taken away from her and she was given a number to
take its place. To me, she was the 19th century equivalent of a
concentration camp victim in post WWII Europe. The ultimate outsider.
Ah...but did the book express this? I can see the parallel between a person imprisoned in a concentration camp and Rachel's experience in prison now that you mention it, but I never felt that while reading the book. Maybe because I consider jail to be, at best, temporary. Rachel wasn't a slave, she was not considered chattel, a piece of meat to be moved this way or that. She was treated as subhuman because she was a prisoner, but she never--before and after prison--was treated like a soulless nothing.
Even as a countess, I don't feel her outsider status will completely go away because most people she interacts with have no concept of the experiences
that shaped her life for ten years. IMO she will never take basic things like food and freedom for granted and people who do so will probably always seem a bit alien to her.
This also wasn't expressed in the book (to me). In Wycherley, she has the heroines and heroes from the other two books to be her "friends" (esp Anne and Christy). The entire concept of the romance genre is that the HEA allows the h/h to exist within society without depending upon it. So because Sebastian accepts Rachel wholeheartedly, this sort of life experience is rendered moot within the frame and context of TH&TH. In fact, Rachel was damaged, but the story was of Sebastian's redemption rather than her rehabilitation. It was his abuse of her that brought about his healing--then he saved the day by helping discover the truth behind the murder (another peeve...she didn't save herself).
Nic - thanks for the link! I will check that out. I am itching to read more Cruisie - I think I will tackle Bet Me next.
Janet - happy to oblige!
Anon - I think the follow up to Precious Jewel was in A Christmas Promise - the story of the APJ-hero's stepmother. I haven't read APJ but I found the added epilogue in ACP unconvincing - although Balogh doesn't fully restore the h/h to society - just to the sympathetic circle of people in that particular book. We are led to believe that this inner-circle will accept them and they won't be a lonely twosome anymore. I would rather have had a deliriously happy exile HEA on that particular one I think.
The restoration Balogh devises in No Man's Mistress for Viola (also a prostitute) is also a major stretch but I enjoyed that one more.
Evangeline
Ah...but did the book express this? ...she was not considered chattel, a piece of meat to be moved this way or that. She was treated as subhuman because she was a prisoner, but she never--before and after prison--was treated like a soulless nothing
Actually, I thought the book did express this, and very clearly too. There was a whole thing about the fact that Rachel hadn't heard her name for years and years that made the point beautifully. I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between 'sub-human' and a 'soulless nothing' but for me those terms, whilst not quite synonyms, are on the same spectrum.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one!
You said: "Anon - I think the follow up to Precious Jewel was in A Christmas Promise - the story of the APJ-hero's stepmother. I haven't read APJ but I found the added epilogue in ACP unconvincing - although Balogh doesn't fully restore the h/h to society - just to the sympathetic circle of people in that particular book. We are led to believe that this inner-circle will accept them and they won't be a lonely twosome anymore. I would rather have had a deliriously happy exile HEA on that particular one I think."
The book is "A Christmas Bride" and I have to disagree. And "Precious Jewel" is being reprinted this fall so everyone will be able to read about Gerald and Priss for themselves ... OK, my theory. A deliriously happy exile was not in the cards for them because before Edgar rescued them, they only went to church and they saw Miles and his wife Abigail (an earl) only when his family wasn't around. They were totally alone at Christmas. Their son Peter had no social life -- there was no future envisioned where Peter could join his peers: and that hurt them very deeply. I agree, it was a small circle who welcomed Gerald and Priss warmly but if the circle includes a duke, a marquess, an earl, a duke's son -- who were immensely popular in society -- Gerald and Priss were back in the sunlight of society again. True, perhaps tongues would forever wag but they would not be shunned.
Contrast this to the solution posed in Joan Wolf's His Lordship's Mistress (a fabulous book, by the way!). She really was his mistress and he planned to marry her. He asked the leading political aristos to help smooth the way. But for true acceptance, his sister's (herself the daughter of an earl) and the close friend of all the ladies who ran Almacks, entree was needed to smooth away the grey lines. Plus the mistress was a gentlewoman by birth. We're back to that again :)
Can you tell I loved your blog?
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Betty
http://illinoislottery.info
Thanks Janet. And for returning the favour I did you on Lily by 'squaring the circle' on Gerald and Priss for me *g*. I'm glad APJ is being reprinted - I'm keen to read it. I'm hoping for more re-releases from Balogh - I only discovered her a couple of years ago and would love to read her whole back catalogue but most of them cost a fortune second hand!
I think the outside heroine works for me too but I can't particularly articulate why. I don't necessarily need to see the hero "save" the heroine but I think it just makes the stories so much more interesting.
I'm currently reading Renegade by Sarah Parr and she's more than a bit on the outside. I'll hold off final judgment until the last page though. :)
Great post Tump.
The word verification is showing up today, so I don't have to ask Tumperkin to post my response.
BIG SPOILERS for To Have and to Hold in my post below:
Ah...but did the book express this? I can see the parallel between a person imprisoned in a concentration camp and Rachel's experience in prison now that you mention it, but I never felt that while reading the book.
I thought the book expressed very powerfully just how dehumanizing and concentration-camp paralleling Rachel's experience in prison was. First, she was not allowed legal representation in the court and had no real opportunity to prove her innocence. Second, not only was her name replaced with a number, but most of her hair was shorn and when she was released, she was much too thin. She was kept in isolation and not allowed to speak to any of her fellow prisoners or even look at them. She was stripped of her clothes and examined. And she was completely abandoned by people from outside. She was robbed of her humanity in just about every possible way.
The power dynamics between the prisoners and their guards were also similar to concentration camp accounts.
Maybe because I consider jail to be, at best, temporary.
But in Rachel's case her imprisonment lasted a decade, her entire adult life, and its effects were felt afterward in everything but the fact that no one but Sebastian would hire her (and he only hired her as someone he could experiment on!) to the fact that she averted her eyes from people, and had, as Sebastian put it, "erased herself." She was very much in danger of being sent back to prison (for vagrancy!) for most of the book. She had also decided that she would commit suicide rather than go back, so clearly, in her mind a return to prison represented death.
Rachel wasn't a slave, she was not considered chattel, a piece of meat to be moved this way or that.
Sorry, I disagree. What else was she to Sebastian in the beginning? In fact, he thinks that "She was in his power, a virtual slave." Her freedom -- which to her was her life -- was in his hands.
She was treated as subhuman because she was a prisoner, but she never--before and after prison--was treated like a soulless nothing.
I think whether she was treated as a soulless nothing by Sebastian and his London friends could be argued either way. She was certainly treated as a soulless nothing by the prison guards in prison, and by a justice system which was willing to send her back to such a dehumanizing place even after she had served her entire sentence, simply for vagrancy.
To be continued in my next post...
Continued from above...
SPOILERS for To Have and to Hold
"Even as a countess, I don't feel her outsider status will completely go away because most people she interacts with have no concept of the experiences
that shaped her life for ten years. IMO she will never take basic things like food and freedom for granted and people who do so will probably always seem a bit alien to her."
This also wasn't expressed in the book (to me). In Wycherley, she has the heroines and heroes from the other two books to be her "friends" (esp Anne and Christy). The entire concept of the romance genre is that the HEA allows the h/h to exist within society without depending upon it. So because Sebastian accepts Rachel wholeheartedly, this sort of life experience is rendered moot within the frame and context of TH&TH.
I couldn't disagree more. I think it was expressed beautifully that Rachel had been permanently marked by her prison experience, in everything from the silver streak in her hair to the way that even in the third book, Forever and Ever, Sophie muses that "For her part, Lady Moreton was always quiet and reserved... the horrific nature of Rachel's past excused caution in the present." [ellipses mine] And "But it was her manner that fascinated, the gravity behind her smiles, the barest hint of melancholy that still lingered in her eyes even when she laughed."
In fact, Rachel was damaged, but the story was of Sebastian's redemption rather than her rehabilitation.
While it is true that Sebastian is a flashier character, I felt that the book was just as much about Rachel's healing process as it was about Sebastian's redemption. Sebastian even notes milestones in her progress like the first time she laughs.
It was his abuse of her that brought about his healing--then he saved the day by helping discover the truth behind the murder (another peeve...she didn't save herself).
Sebastian didn't have anything to do with that. It was a Lydia's aunt who wrote a letter on her deathbed revealing the truth and gave the letter to Christy, who showed up with it in the courtroom in the nick of time. In fact, Sebastian's attempts to save Rachel (by claiming that they were betrothed) failed completely.
It sounds like we had completely different reading experiences with this book.
Janine, I can't even express how much I agree with you and how much I appreciate your point by point annotation of the earlier comment. Especially the last point -- Sebastian not only could not save her in the last harrowing court scene, his words, his actions, his fuming and not-at-all contained frustration was making things even worse for her.
There was nothing he could do. Nothing. And he knew if she was swallowed up in the prison system again that he would lose her forever.
I always sensed a certain reserve and bone deep distance between the countess and everyone in the village, with the exception of a very few people. Can you imagine being punished for making eye contact with another human being, like she was in prison? Wasn't that something in The Story of O that the -- is she a heroine -- couldn't do? Couldn't look at the men? How would all the money and love in the world ever totally reverse such soul destroying anonymity?
So, Jessica, are you going to share the reactions of your class to studying this book? Without intruding on their privacy, of course, but I'd love to hear how it goes.
Thanks, Janet! I can't wait to hear what Jessica's students think of the book too.
Post a Comment