Scan barcode
cleheny's review
2.0
I wish I liked this story more, but four things bothered me. I did like some aspects of the hero's backstory. The son of a tradesman who, essentially, becomes an investment banker, Peter is handsome and intelligent but also caught between two worlds. The aristocratic elite of NYC's Gilded Age don't truly accept him, though he's wealthy and helps make them money, and many of the working class, particularly the police, appear to have rejected him, too. Also, the circumstances leading to his first wife's death and his son's blinding, while not his fault, stem, at least in part, from his insecurity about failing as a self-made man. His alibi for the night of his wife's murder is true but disreputable (drunk and coming very close to infidelity with a servant girl). He is, of course, a good man, but not without his failings.
The heroine, Sarah, is okay, but irritating. She is the cousin of his late wife, and, because she disagreed with her cousin marrying anyone, she severed relations with her cousin, Mary, before the marriage. Having never met Mary's husband or child, she is devastated by Mary's death, and is convinced by the tabloid press' coverage that Peter must be guilty. So, of course, she plans to somehow inveigle herself into his life, prove he's a murderer, and then raise her motherless, blind nephew. She eventually does so by pretending to be a blind tutor who can teach Braille to her nephew, Christopher. Of course, she doesn't actually need to be blind to secure the position, but she also hasn't learned Braille well enough to pass herself off as a competent instructor, so she needs the presence of an "aide," her widowed, sighted friend, Mel Frank, who, conveniently was married to a blind man and appears to have spent much of her life among the blind.
And there was my first issue with the book--I have a real problem being asked to empathize with someone faking a significant disability in order to ruin a man with an alibi--which would lead to the death penalty (hanging)--and take away his blind son. And she doesn't actually know Braille well, though she's had 5 years to study it, so her value as a teacher is fairly limited.
Second, I didn't like the depiction of feminism in the book. Both Sarah and Mel say disparaging things about men as a whole. But Mel was, apparently, happily married, so the general prejudice against men as useless doesn't make sense. And Sarah just comes off as the stereotypical idealogue who, fortunately, will encounter a man who will show her how wrong she is. And the villain's motive is misandry. Also, for an author who has decided that her heroine should be part of the 1880s women's movement, there is absolutely no further development of that theme except to use Sarah's supposed feminism as the excuse for why she struggles with acknowledging her feelings. No meaningful reflection on the limitations of women's action or freedom--no encounters to justify Sarah's dislike of men. Her feminism comes off as nothing more than immaturity and an absence of real, meaningful interactions with others.
Third--and this is not unique to this author--Christopher is just a perfect child--wise beyond his 6 years, patient, understanding, mischievous, etc. I really wish romance writers would write children who aren't perfect darlings. Even great kids can drive you nuts sometimes, but Christopher is another in the long line of children without flaws. He's a bit more interesting than children in other romances because his disability isolates him but also enhances his use of other senses.
Finally, Peter's acceptance of Sarah, when the truth comes out, is a bit hard to believe. She's lied her way into his home, with the intent of doing him harm and separating him from his son, but he gets over that in no time because he's fallen in love with her. I could understand him, on reflection, being able to forgive her, but I'd think it hurt some.
The heroine, Sarah, is okay, but irritating. She is the cousin of his late wife, and, because she disagreed with her cousin marrying anyone, she severed relations with her cousin, Mary, before the marriage. Having never met Mary's husband or child, she is devastated by Mary's death, and is convinced by the tabloid press' coverage that Peter must be guilty. So, of course, she plans to somehow inveigle herself into his life, prove he's a murderer, and then raise her motherless, blind nephew. She eventually does so by pretending to be a blind tutor who can teach Braille to her nephew, Christopher. Of course, she doesn't actually need to be blind to secure the position, but she also hasn't learned Braille well enough to pass herself off as a competent instructor, so she needs the presence of an "aide," her widowed, sighted friend, Mel Frank, who, conveniently was married to a blind man and appears to have spent much of her life among the blind.
And there was my first issue with the book--I have a real problem being asked to empathize with someone faking a significant disability in order to ruin a man with an alibi--which would lead to the death penalty (hanging)--and take away his blind son. And she doesn't actually know Braille well, though she's had 5 years to study it, so her value as a teacher is fairly limited.
Second, I didn't like the depiction of feminism in the book. Both Sarah and Mel say disparaging things about men as a whole. But Mel was, apparently, happily married, so the general prejudice against men as useless doesn't make sense. And Sarah just comes off as the stereotypical idealogue who, fortunately, will encounter a man who will show her how wrong she is. And the villain's motive is misandry. Also, for an author who has decided that her heroine should be part of the 1880s women's movement, there is absolutely no further development of that theme except to use Sarah's supposed feminism as the excuse for why she struggles with acknowledging her feelings. No meaningful reflection on the limitations of women's action or freedom--no encounters to justify Sarah's dislike of men. Her feminism comes off as nothing more than immaturity and an absence of real, meaningful interactions with others.
Third--and this is not unique to this author--Christopher is just a perfect child--wise beyond his 6 years, patient, understanding, mischievous, etc. I really wish romance writers would write children who aren't perfect darlings. Even great kids can drive you nuts sometimes, but Christopher is another in the long line of children without flaws. He's a bit more interesting than children in other romances because his disability isolates him but also enhances his use of other senses.
Finally, Peter's acceptance of Sarah, when the truth comes out, is a bit hard to believe. She's lied her way into his home, with the intent of doing him harm and separating him from his son, but he gets over that in no time because he's fallen in love with her. I could understand him, on reflection, being able to forgive her, but I'd think it hurt some.