Willaful recommended this to me as a possibility for a
medieval romance by Ms. Dodd one day when I was looking specifically for that. My library had it and I checked it out. I haven't
read very many medievals partly because the time does not interest me very much
and partly because generally the novels are so thick with correct but archaic
language that it's too much of a slog.
Lady Saura is too ancient for marriage at 21. She's beautiful and
accomplished and has some property in her own right, but she was born blind
(sounds like mama had measles) and she has lived in very uncomfortable
conditions with her dirt bag step-father who treats her poorly and would have
her in his bed if he thought he could get away with it.
A storm blows in one Sir Peter, an elderly man in his
forties, who is quite taken with Saura. Apparently she is so accomplished that
you would never know that she is blind. Peter arranges, with Saura's consent,
for her to come back to his castle with him, because his beloved son, William,
a knight of great honor and courage, has been blinded by a blow in battle and
isn't coping well. They will keep Saura's blindness a secret from William. She
will be the housekeeper, and the woman-less castle needs one, no doubt.
So this is a romance between Saura and William. Saura's
mother's approach to blindness was very modern, in that she more or less forced
Saura to cope, to get things done. Saura does the same with William.
This was a little different. I think I've mentioned before
that I'm a sucker for a blind character, especially a blind hero. William
really hasn't had time to come to grips with his loss of sight, but there isn't
time for him to cope because England is in turmoil and no one is safe. (A few
references to Henry II, I believe.) There's some serious history info-dumping
at the beginning, set out as getting isolated people caught up on events, which
is probably a better way than most to get modern readers halfway up to speed on
this world.
There's also a lot of information on how people lived in
castles then, and it's a little bit better presented here and there as Saura
gets the castle into decent order. But there is a lot of dumping, including
bits on being seated below the salt, having knives and forks and trenchers that
were shared, articles of clothing, bathing habits - you name it, it's in there.
The characters were exceptionally appealing. I liked Saura,
William, Peter, and the rest. There's a lot of love in that family and it made
them very appealing. The villains were easily identifiable, though they smiled
and smiled. There's a really good dog. However, after a major and totally predictable
turn of events, when William regains his sight, the heart went out of the book. The book became due when I was
at about the 43% mark, and I didn't renew it - maybe someday when Mt. TBR is a
little smaller.
Kindle formatting fine, grammar fine. She doesn't overwhelm
us with words like mayhap and yesternight the way some authors do (annoying, my
opinion). There's some humor, cute. The sex is moderately
explicit and I imagine would be considered hot. Up to the 43% mark there had
been no real violence, nothing described, so nothing on the ick scale. I can't
speak to what may be after that. There's one sex scene between William and
Saura that is very close to rape and made me uncomfortable a bit, but I think
it was true to character and time and it wasn't … horrible, more like coerced
consent. Probably standard for something written in 1991.
I don't know enough about this period to know whether the
book is correct in its major assumptions, but there wasn't anything that rang
horribly false to someone like me whose background in the time is strictly from
10th grade World History.
I enjoyed it. I can see it as a comfort read. Certainly for
a first novel, and one written 20 years ago, it was pretty well done all in
all. See, there I am: blind hero, good dog, I'm all yours. C-plus: well worth
the time I spent reading it, and I do plan to finish it when I'm not under so
much pressure.
This was more a "best thing to try by Dodd" recommendation than a Medieval recommendation. For that, I would really go with Madeline Hunter, Jo Beverley or Laura Kinsale. They're the writers who really use the period to find stories that you couldn't write in a different setting. The only one who really gets archaic and difficult is Kinsale, but it's worth it to make it through.
ReplyDeleteSorry, just now saw this. You're right, and that's different from what I said.
DeleteWhen things calm down a little bit, I'll try the other authors. Thanks for the clarification.