juca's review against another edition
funny
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
courtwhales's review against another edition
3.0
3.5 stars... not as good as the first one, but good enough for mindless Corona reading.
rhodesee's review against another edition
3.0
Well, I was all over the place with this book. I loved, loved, loved Bringing Down the Duke so I was so excited to read this. That may have led me to judge it unfairly but I really liked the beginning and then somewhere along the way it took a turn where I just started to hate the male lead so much that I honestly did not think he would be able to be redeemed by the end of the book. He was just infuriating with no redeeming qualities whatsoever for soooo much of this book! Usually when you have the point of view of both characters it allows the reader to overlook the shortcomings that each character sees in the other because for the most part they come down to misunderstandings and when we are inside the head of the other we can see that it is in fact, a misunderstanding and not a true character flaw. That was not the case with Tristan! His pov did not redeem him because being a war hero who loved his mother was not enough to overcome the way he treated Lucie and that is really all we had to go on to get us to like him. I'll admit that the author did give us more in the end, but it was literally in the end! It is just very difficult to get the bad taste out of my mouth that I had through so much of this book with a few throw away lines in the last 10% of the book. If this had been the first of the series I don't think I would've read the second.
jessenreadsromance's review against another edition
2.0
Lady Lucie, the leader of the suffragette movement in Oxford, has big plans that involve becoming the new owner of a popular publishing house. Its broad reach and target demographic is perfect for her darkhorse plan to finally call attention to the injustices that married women face. Before she can sign on the dotted line, a familiar and unwelcome face becomes her new co-owner - Tristan, Lord Ballentine.
I really struggled with the “enemies” aspect of this book since it was very much one-sided. Lucie has misjudged Tristan from the first when they were just children. She fails to recognize the sensitive, romantic nature of the boy, and refuses to believe that he is anything less than despicable today. For more than half of the book I didn’t think that Lady Lucie was interested in a relationship at all. She never came across as feeling like something was missing and she definitely didn’t yearn for a man in her life.
I was frustrated with Lucie’s one-sided hatred of Tristan that by the time some chemistry starts to build in the final third of the book, I was just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Don’t get me wrong, once Lucie lets down her guard and is open to seeing Tristan in a new light, the chemistry was electric. But it was sidelined until the final hour and felt completely unbalanced as a romance.
>>Edit<<
I've adjusted my rating from 3.5 stars to 2 stars. The issues that I referenced in my Youtube video continued to nag me and I decided to elaborate on what bothered me so much about the way these characters were handled.
Be warned, I'm going into more detail and there will be spoilers!
SPOILERS
Like I mentioned in my video, Lucie equates strong feminist leadership with eschewing anything that is associated with traditionally feminine things. She doesn't care about the latest fashion (valid), she only wears grey because it's easy to choose outfits in the morning. Fine, but it's not because she has no interest in colorful things. She later wears a gorgeous crimson dress that she loves! She is depriving herself of enjoyment because she doesn't want to appear like she is falling in line with what men expect of a gently-bred lady. Why can't she have both? Pretty things and the reputation of a badass.
Then she accuses her friend of being less supportive of the suffragist cause because now she has a husband who she enjoys spending time with... WHAT?! Annabelle has been nothing but supportive, but now she is being accused of not doing enough now that she is married. I get that this was a weak moment when Lucie was stressed, but come on! Don't alienate the people who have always been supportive of you just because they view marriage in a positive light.
Lucie repeatedly mocks Tristan for his earring (more on this little nod later) and she also laughs at his love of romantic poetry calling it "pretty, empty things" that "don't hold [her] attention". I couldn't help but draw parallels to those that mock romance as a genre. It left a bad taste in my mouth to think that Lucie would belittle a man for liking poetry.
Tristan is repeatedly described as having "girlish" attachments to poetry and pretty things (wears an earring which his father hates). Does the author ever lean fully into Tristan being bisexual? No, she doesn't. The clearest reference we get is when he visits Blackstone and reminisces about "passing through Sodom and Gomorrah" in his youth. Which I think does a disservice to his character.
Tristan's sexuality also has weight in another plot device that I loathe. Lord Arthur Seymour takes on the "evil gay man" role and continually pursues Tristan. He claims he's in love with Tristan. Why? Oh because Tristan is a beautiful man and Arthur was invited to play voyeur while Tristan was with a woman. When will authors stop using a gay character that is obsessed with another man who has no interest in him and as a result participates in some petty revenge scheme to get back at the object of their affection? Lord Arthur Seymour decides to team up with Lucie's cousin and proposed fiancé, Cecily, in order to trap Tristan into marriage. If Arthur can't have Tristan, then neither can Lucie.... Mind Blown!
There is also a matter involving his tattoo and a "gotcha plot twist" that wrongly misuses a Hindu deity. Check out Aarya's review of this book. She explains very well why this is wrong on Evie Dunmore's part and details Tristan's background as a soldier and why that makes him an undesirable hero. (To clarify, this is not the part of the story that I mentioned in my video review. I was referring to Lucie discovering Tristan's planned betrothal to Cecily, her cousin, at the St. Giles Fair.)
So, a heroine who equates feminism with being anti-feminine, a contrived "enemies" relationship established at the beginning, unbalanced romance and plot elements, Tristan's unexplored sexuality, and an "evil gay man" all put this book firmly in my problematic pile.
I really struggled with the “enemies” aspect of this book since it was very much one-sided. Lucie has misjudged Tristan from the first when they were just children. She fails to recognize the sensitive, romantic nature of the boy, and refuses to believe that he is anything less than despicable today. For more than half of the book I didn’t think that Lady Lucie was interested in a relationship at all. She never came across as feeling like something was missing and she definitely didn’t yearn for a man in her life.
I was frustrated with Lucie’s one-sided hatred of Tristan that by the time some chemistry starts to build in the final third of the book, I was just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Don’t get me wrong, once Lucie lets down her guard and is open to seeing Tristan in a new light, the chemistry was electric. But it was sidelined until the final hour and felt completely unbalanced as a romance.
>>Edit<<
I've adjusted my rating from 3.5 stars to 2 stars. The issues that I referenced in my Youtube video continued to nag me and I decided to elaborate on what bothered me so much about the way these characters were handled.
Be warned, I'm going into more detail and there will be spoilers!
SPOILERS
Spoiler
Like I mentioned in my video, Lucie equates strong feminist leadership with eschewing anything that is associated with traditionally feminine things. She doesn't care about the latest fashion (valid), she only wears grey because it's easy to choose outfits in the morning. Fine, but it's not because she has no interest in colorful things. She later wears a gorgeous crimson dress that she loves! She is depriving herself of enjoyment because she doesn't want to appear like she is falling in line with what men expect of a gently-bred lady. Why can't she have both? Pretty things and the reputation of a badass.
Then she accuses her friend of being less supportive of the suffragist cause because now she has a husband who she enjoys spending time with... WHAT?! Annabelle has been nothing but supportive, but now she is being accused of not doing enough now that she is married. I get that this was a weak moment when Lucie was stressed, but come on! Don't alienate the people who have always been supportive of you just because they view marriage in a positive light.
Lucie repeatedly mocks Tristan for his earring (more on this little nod later) and she also laughs at his love of romantic poetry calling it "pretty, empty things" that "don't hold [her] attention". I couldn't help but draw parallels to those that mock romance as a genre. It left a bad taste in my mouth to think that Lucie would belittle a man for liking poetry.
Tristan is repeatedly described as having "girlish" attachments to poetry and pretty things (wears an earring which his father hates). Does the author ever lean fully into Tristan being bisexual? No, she doesn't. The clearest reference we get is when he visits Blackstone and reminisces about "passing through Sodom and Gomorrah" in his youth. Which I think does a disservice to his character.
Tristan's sexuality also has weight in another plot device that I loathe. Lord Arthur Seymour takes on the "evil gay man" role and continually pursues Tristan. He claims he's in love with Tristan. Why? Oh because Tristan is a beautiful man and Arthur was invited to play voyeur while Tristan was with a woman. When will authors stop using a gay character that is obsessed with another man who has no interest in him and as a result participates in some petty revenge scheme to get back at the object of their affection? Lord Arthur Seymour decides to team up with Lucie's cousin and proposed fiancé, Cecily, in order to trap Tristan into marriage. If Arthur can't have Tristan, then neither can Lucie.... Mind Blown!
There is also a matter involving his tattoo and a "gotcha plot twist" that wrongly misuses a Hindu deity. Check out Aarya's review of this book. She explains very well why this is wrong on Evie Dunmore's part and details Tristan's background as a soldier and why that makes him an undesirable hero. (To clarify, this is not the part of the story that I mentioned in my video review. I was referring to Lucie discovering Tristan's planned betrothal to Cecily, her cousin, at the St. Giles Fair.)
So, a heroine who equates feminism with being anti-feminine, a contrived "enemies" relationship established at the beginning, unbalanced romance and plot elements, Tristan's unexplored sexuality, and an "evil gay man" all put this book firmly in my problematic pile.
whatemilysreading's review against another edition
5.0
I'm basically obsessed with the world and characters of Dunmore's A League of Extraordinary Women series. I love the women she writes, the men are dreamy, and her characters grow in natural ways and it's just delightful. I enjoyed this book more than Bringing Down the Duke - I think I connected with Lucie more than Annabelle - I still loved BDTD but I think there was more humor in this than the first. I adored the chemistry between Lucie and Tristan, and I always love it when the two love interests have more of a history. A meet-cute is always appreciated but its SO satisfying to have a character look back on their life with a fresh perspective, having gotten to know someone a bit more.