Why I read it: I bought this one a while ago and dug it out of the TBR of Doom when Willaful was rhapsodising about how good it was. (I have chronic FOMO – fear of missing out). Here review is up (I haven’t looked yet, but you can read it here).
What it’s about: (from Goodreads) England, 1904. Two years ago, Captain Archie Curtis lost his friends, fingers, and future to a terrible military accident. Alone, purposeless and angry, Curtis is determined to discover if he and his comrades were the victims of fate, or of sabotage.
Curtis’s search takes him to an isolated, ultra-modern country house, where he meets and instantly clashes with fellow guest Daniel da Silva. Effete, decadent, foreign, and all-too-obviously queer, the sophisticated poet is everything the straightforward British officer fears and distrusts.
As events unfold, Curtis realizes that Daniel has his own secret intentions. And there’s something else they share—a mounting sexual tension that leaves Curtis reeling.
As the house party’s elegant facade cracks to reveal treachery, blackmail and murder, Curtis finds himself needing clever, dark-eyed Daniel as he has never needed a man before…
Trigger warning: Racial and Anti-Semitic slurs are used by some of the characters in this book. My sense was the narrative wasn’t approving but YMMV. h/t to Willa, Sunita and Janine for reminding me about this.
What worked for me (and what didn’t): What a delight this book was. I loved the Edwardian setting and the references to the (2nd) Boer War and the wonderful sense of place the story had. I enjoyed watching Archie begin to truly see Daniel and not just the facade he displays. I liked how Archie, through Daniel, came to question things he’d not before even really thought about. Archie is a stand up guy but he’s not a deep thinker. It’s not until the second sexual encounter he has with Daniel that he even questions his sexuality. He’s had a sort of “what happens at school/during the war, stays at school/on the field” kind of sexuality.
Because the story is told entirely from Archie’s point of view, we see his gradual awareness of Daniel, his sexuality and the people around him. Daniel is cynical and sly and wears a mask (not a real mask) because it is easier to laugh at people before they laugh at you. It is easier to project an identity for people to laugh at or sneer at that protects the real you underneath the facade. The barbs can’t damage as much if they are misdirected, yes? Daniel is a character of wonderful depth and I enjoyed very much his slow reveal of character throughout the story.
The first sexual encounter between Archie and Daniel is vaguely (or, not so vaguely) non-consensual. I wonder how I’d have read it had I not known going in that it was a queer romance? That’s a question. If Archie had been Alice, and Daniel went down on her to avert suspicion I think readers would be fairly up in arms. I felt vaguely uncomfortable but the thing that saved the encounter for me was that I was in Archie’s head (er, perhaps I should clarify: his brain) – there were things I didn’t know about him at that point in relation to his sexuality but I knew he understood their peril and understood that the suggested course of action was just what was required in the circumstances, even as I knew there was a simmering attraction between the two men. But I do think that gender played a part of my view and I’m still examining that in my head because I think I’d have reacted differently if Archie had been Alice. Which probably says all kinds of things about me and about which I need to ponder more.
There is a definite mystery/thriller aspect of the story and it subsumes the romance in many important (and good) ways even as it provides the vehicle for the romance to blossom. It could easily be seen that without their shared quest, Archie would never have taken a serious look at Daniel. There was a part in the story where I was almost holding my breath waiting for Archie to catch up already! and work something out that was crucial to Daniel’s well being. (I hope that is vague enough to be non-spoilery). There is genuine risk for Daniel and Archie – the villains have a lot at stake and no scruples.
The story is tightly plotted and all the things need to be there – there are no extraneous bits, even if you might think there are as you first read on by. Later on, those things will click into place and voila! the puzzle begins to take shape. It’s a book that sneaks up on you in many ways. I’m trying to think why I originally graded this book at a B+ because I can think of little to say that’s negative about it. I’ve talked myself into an A- just writing the review. On reflection, I think it’s because the book has a kind of quiet British cosy air to it even at the same time it is deadly serious as well. The subtleties can appear, at first glance, to be… too quiet and unexciting when that’s actually not the case. The book doesn’t take work to read – that’s not what I mean. More, I found it to be a book that has an sub-layer which reveals itself slowly and even beyond the reading of it.
Also, it’s a rescue story (WHY DID NOBODY TELL ME THIS IS A RESCUE STORY??) which is kind of my catnip. And in the best Pretty Woman style, they rescue each other in various ways.
What else? Archie has a physical disability – he lost his right middle, ring and little fingers when guns he and his troop were testing exploded – and he was one of the lucky ones. It has been two years since those events and Archie has learned to live with it. He still feels some embarrassment to show his bare injured hand in public and has a specially made leather glove which he wears almost all the time. I found this very much in keeping with Archie’s character. Another character may have felt differently (I once worked in a law office which handled a claim for injury from a man who had been seriously burned in a plane crash. He never covered up (unless it was medically required). His character and personality were such that he “forced” those around him to see him and deal with him as he was. He had multiple injuries including missing fingers and lots of scar tissue on his right hand but he always put his uncovered right hand out to shake when he met new people. There was a kind of defiance to it. I had to respect it. In practical terms it had the effect of making people get over any discomfort quickly and get on with it. He would not hide or deny his reality for other people’s comfort. I always thought he was very brave because I’m more like Archie I think – more apt to cover up and hide.) but Archie would not want others to be uncomfortable. Also, he disliked dealing with the feelings of others about his disability (and this makes perfect sense too) and he dislikes social confrontation and awkwardness. He still grieves his loss but enough time has passed that he has mostly got used to it in a personal, physical sense. He struggles to do up buttons but he has learned and adapted. His libido shut down after the incident which maimed him and killed friends and comrades and it is with some delight that Archie finds it reawakened upon meeting Daniel. (This was another thing which helped temper my discomfort at their first encounter – part of Archie’s thinking was relief that his dick worked again.) Archie is at a loss from a professional point of view as well and I very much enjoyed the way the story gave him purpose.
There’s a world of fascinations in the book and there you go, now I’ve talked myself into an A.
Grade: A
BUY IT:
AMAZON KOBO
I reread this last night and really, an A grade is the least it deserves.
But I have one nitpick – the knee. I get the whole psychosomatic thing, but a bullet to the knee is not going to leave you fully healed. From an engineering perspective, the knee is horribly badly designed, and that’s why we have so much trouble with them. If he got a bullet *to* the knee, and the bone or long muscles were involved, even with modern medicine – let alone Victorian/Edwardian doctors – he will still have a real injury there, and probably lifelong pain. It’s not impossible that he would regain most of his strength, but if it was bad enough to cause him a serious limp to begin with, then he will have permanent damage (I am not a doctor I just know my knees 🙂 ). If he had a bullet to the *joint* it’s likely he would limp and have serious pain, and serious arthritis later, for the rest of his life, and there’s no way the doctors of that era would be able to be certain about the kneecap or the ligaments behind it etc without modern x-rays and arthroscopy.
But. It’s a nitpick not a serious flaw. I loved it more the second time around, and think it’s superior to Charles’s already superior Magpie books. I want more of these guys 🙂
@Ann Somerville: Yes, that was a little unbelievable. The bit about moderate exercise being helpful however is entirely true. I work in injury management and the adage “move it or lose it” is an adage for a reason. Many people find it difficult to distinguish between “good pain” and “bad pain” – good pain (as you probably already know) is the reasonable result of effort but causes no lasting damage and in fact helps improve fitness and function. Bad pain is the kind that causes damage and that is to be avoided. I think Archie was falling into a bit of a common trap I see in my work – if it hurts it needs rest. That’s not always the case and I think he found that out. But yes, an actual bullet to the knee would cause lasting damage, weakness, restriction and pain and definitely lead to arthritic changes.
(also, I feel very privileged because you commented on my blog. Allow me a moment to quietly squee.)
“Allow me a moment to quietly squee.”
Oh you 😉
I’m delighted to come and read your review, because it looks like we pretty much had the same reactions to the book.
As far as the nonconsensual aspect of the first sexual encounter… it’s interesting that you compare it to a het scene and figure that people would be up in arms in that case. While I think to a certain extent–maybe even in the larger part of the readership–that is true, I also think that’s trope that goes back decades and has a certain kink or affinity from some readers, the “it’s not MY fault, nobody can blame me for this” aspect of an act that otherwise the character would be compelled to reject. Back in the day, any sexual act outside of marriage could fit the bill, thus the “good girls would never do this” gets erased by “it’s not my fault that I’m having mind-blowing sex, thus I can enjoy it without guilt!” I think on that level this is a very common romance trope, even though it’s not so popular any more. Which means those readers who get turned on by it don’t want to admit it. [wry grin]
“this is a very common romance trope”
Fuck or die is also an extremely common and popular slash fanfiction trope too 🙂
Yes, and I like it. Judge me if you will, but I love intense conflict and angst, and that can definitely stir the pot well.
To clarify–I love pairings that by their very existence bring conflict into the mix. Romeo and Juliet are just the starter course. And when you have to people who simply Can Not Fall In Love Or Else… catnip.
@Patricia Burroughs [aka pooks]: I read a lot of forced seduction (aka rape) books in the past and I’ve seen the theories about it being an “acceptable” way for female pleasure to be achieved but I think we’ve mostly moved on from that reasoning now. And I think women are less inhibited IRL about reading about sexual agency. That’s not to say there is no audience for it but these days in mainstream releases, rape/sexual coercion (esp by the/a hero) tends to be given the side-eye and this includes by me.
I’ve read a few “fuck or die” books too – there was a Mary Jo
Putney one I remember fondly. No judgement! 🙂 In those cases the coercion is external to the main protags and that makes a difference to me.
I’m not sure I could really enjoy a rapetastic hero anymore. But that’s just me. I know there is a sub genre of “dark romance” which is popular right now but it’s not my thing I’m afraid. The only exceptions to a rapey hero are likely to be rare re-reads of older historicals, where I may be able to scrape by on the remembered pleasure of reading it before I really even knew what rape was. (I read many of these books when I was in my early teens. I had no idea.)
Getting back to *this* book; I was thinking about whether I’d view things differently if it was Alice instead of Archie and reached the somewhat uncomfortable conclusion that I think I would. I’m still trying to work through why that is to be honest and I’m not entirely sure my conclusion speaks well of me.
For me, that first scene read more as a “fuck or die” scenario than a forced seduction – because Daniel isn’t doing it for his pleasure, he’s doing it to keep both of them alive. And I think that’s why it didn’t bother me that much. For me, I don’t think making Archie into Alice, or making Daniel into Daniella, would make a difference in my reading of the scene. There’s still an external threat and no obvious better solution than quick, pragmatic sex. I do think there’s a vibe between Daniel and Archie that you don’t often see in m/f – because both Daniel and Archie think that Archie is straight and he’s not.
Honestly, the last scene, where Archie kisses Daniel to force him to acknowledge that he wants him and to convince him to give them a chance, bothered me more. I hate those overpowering, you know you want me, type kisses.
“For me, that first scene read more as a “fuck or die” scenario than a forced seduction – because Daniel isn’t doing it for his pleasure, he’s doing it to keep both of them alive.”
Agreed. Honestly, it was just a more extreme, but just as necessary, version of what Natasha Romanov does to Steve Rogers in the Captain America II movie.
“I hate those overpowering, you know you want me, type kisses.”
Yes, but I saw this as Charles introducing her beloved D/s dynamic, and it worked for me. Not least because Archie using his physical powers was such a riposte to the idea that his injuries meant he was now ‘useless’.
I’m convinced Daniel has sekrit ninja fighting skills despite his pacificism, and if he hadn’t wanted the kiss, Archie would have walked out with his nuts in a bag 🙂
@cleo: Yes, I suppose it could be read that way and, to be honest, I probaby did, at least in part, and that’s why it only made me a little uncomfortable. Still, I bet there was another option (not that I can think of one) that didn’t involve sex. In the Mary Jo Putney I read they had to have sex, that was the ONLY option. In this case, I thought getting busy certainly worked but I didn’t feel it was their only option so it was sort of fuck or die for me but not completely, if that makes sense.
@Ann Somerville: I agree that Archie and Daniel are equals where it counts, and I didn’t feel that Daniel was actually coerced into doing anything he didn’t want to. And it makes a nice symmetry with their first sex scene, where Daniel was more aggressive. It still just kind of viscerally bothered me. I think that Charles was probably consciously playing with romance tropes here – I just really dislike that trope, even when it’s mm and not mf, even when the recipient is a secret agent.
Interesting point about the D/s dynamic. Now that I think about it, I’ve actually had this problem with almost every KJ Charles I’ve read – for me, the D/s dynamic sometimes seems to come out of nowhere, without the couples talking about it ahead of time but just intuitively sliding into their roles, and I’m not always ready to go along with it.
@Kaetrin: I can see that. I’m not sure that there was a good, non sexual solution, but the blow job probably wasn’t required.
@cleo: LOL. I realise it’s pretty easy for me to sit at the sidelines and say, there might have been another way. Especially because I’ve completely failed to come up with one.
As for the D/s dynamic, I’m kind of hoping it doesn’t go there for Archie and Daniel. I think it works fine for Crane and Stephen but I’d prefer to see something else for this pair. JMO.
@cleo: YES.