European Royalty discussion

Please discuss Parts I and II here.

So far, what makes this read the most interesting is the historical setting. The Restoration period is fascinating for its color and king, and I love reading about London during this time. The author is good at painting pictures of this time and the people. But Amber is no heroine I can admire. She's a poster child for how women screw up their lives. And yet the book leads me to believe she will survive and thrive and so I'm driven to read more. I just keep wondering what stupid thing she will do next. This book reminds me of the "Angelique" series which was written during the French counter-Reformation period. The heroine relies on her looks and slutiness to survive a very rough life...

Sorry if this is a spoiler but it's in the very beginning...

How realistic is it for a man to be happening through a town and wisk a girl he just met the day before off to London with him? I know she's pretty and willing to sleep with him so he was infatuated but I'm sure a handsome man could find that from other women who he wouldn't have to 100% financially support (even if it was temporary) after knowing for only ONE day. And I know he didn't want to take her with him at first but how realistic is it that he would give in so easily to her pleading? Is this actually common practise and I'm just ignorant of the times? I felt it was a pretty flimsy way of explaining how she wound up in London - if they'd known each other for more than one day, I'd find it more believable.

Robin wrote: "Sorry if this is a spoiler but it's in the very beginning...

How realistic is it for a man to be happening through a town and wisk a girl he just met the day before off to London with him? I know ..."

That actually is a really good question. I've been reading a lot of novels set on the Civil War itself leading up to this period and it was pretty much a country torn apart. The soldiers (on both sides) pretty much took what they wanted, including women (although I don't know if they just took them and left them behind or took them with them).

Robin wrote: "who he wouldn't have to 100% financially support (even if it was temporary) after knowing for only ONE day"

I'm up to Part 4 of the book, and I've come to the conclusion that Amber and Bruce are one of a pair. Most reader ire is directed at Amber, but he's not lily white by a long shot. (Hmmm, that old double standard?) They have such a sickness for each other, although Bruce is more of the mindset that as long as she's giving the milk away, it'd be a shame to pass it up. His willingness to cart Amber off to London and support her might seem financially idiotic in the beginning (it did to me, too - I thought, "Woah, that was sudden!"), but at the point of the story where I am, it seems like he just can't help himself when it comes to her - all against his better judgment. Her impulsiveness feeds his own, though he has the mantle of responsibility of being 1) an aristocrat and 2) a privateer. Amber can't stay away from him, and when he's around her, he never walks away without a tumble. He's a very obliging guy in that regard, and both of them seem to thrive on riding that fine edge of Propriety Disaster.

But then I tell myself, "You're thinking about it too much." The book has such a bouncy flow, almost like it barely went through an editor, so I'm just going along with the current and enjoying the ride.

Robin wrote: "Sorry if this is a spoiler but it's in the very beginning...

How realistic is it for a man to be happening through a town and wisk a girl he just met the day before off to London with him? I know ..."

I think Amber has that certain something, that quality that makes men want to possess her. And Bruce is the type of man who picks up women all over the place and then discards them when he's done, so I don't think this is out of the ordinary for him.

And yes, Deb, Amber will drive you crazy but you just can't stop reading about her!

Heh, and don't all the men want to possess her?

Misfit wrote: "Heh, and don't all the men want to possess her?"

Yep, and most of them get to, for a little while!

I know this book was banned and labeled as porn back in the day, but if those prudes could see today's mainstream romance, they'd appreciate Winsor's coy way with words. This bit from Part 2 really stood out.

(**Spoilers, if you care!)

After Amber charges Buckingham 250 pounds for a night and he tells her that she will "be more surprised by the night's business than I," the fade-in line is:

"Amber was surprised; it was her first experience with perversion. And it would, she swore, be her last if she starved on the streets."

Makes the imagination run riot, doesn't it? Better than having it all graphically spelled out by the author. I have no problems with graphic smut, but I do like being treated like I'm intelligent - or perverted ;-) - enough to come up with my own imagery.

Karla wrote: "I know this book was banned and labeled as porn back in the day, but if those prudes could see today's mainstream romance, they'd appreciate Winsor's coy way with words. This bit from Part 2 really..."

I know, I remember that and I was dying to know what her idea of "perversion" was! The mind does run wild...or at least mine does, anyway.

I do appreciate an author who can write in a sex scene and let the readers know what's going on without all the play by play details.

*gets on soapbox*

That's what drives me nuts about today's romances - the covers are deceiving and the reviews from Harriet and her ilk really won't tell you - then when you complain there's too much sex you get a snark from something saying its romance what should you expect?

I like a bit more intelligence in my story and less graphic sex on every page. Especially when it would be believable i.e. medieval times.

*gets off soapbox*

I agree, it's far sexier to leave some details to the imagination, but I do like the author to lead me into it, take me up to a point and then let my imagination take over from there!

Jenny wrote: "I agree, it's far sexier to leave some details to the imagination, but I do like the author to lead me into it, take me up to a point and then let my imagination take over from there!"

Yeah, because when unskilled authors "go there," we often get honey volcanos and leakages that sound like a doctor should be notified and antibiotics dispensed.

If I want to read bad graphic porn, I can find that in fanfiction for free.

Misfit wrote: "I like a bit more intelligence in my story and less graphic sex on every page. Especially when it would be believable i.e. medieval times...."

You and me both, Misfit. I'm not a prude, but I'm just not interested in reading about descriptive sexual antics. I know what sex entails, thank you very much, and I prefer the active, participatory approach to it rather then the passive, reading approach :)

For my own soapbox rant, I've lived long enough to see a marked decline in writing skills for genres that I enjoy (i.e. historicals, suspense, gothic, etc.). I've heard all the arguments that "times change" and that I need to "get with the times", but when did "getting with the times" come to mean that I should learn to enjoy inferior writing and the addition of gratuitous sex at the expense of creating good characters and engrossing plots? Yes, there are exceptions, but in general, I'm not impressed with the current crop of bestselling authors out there.

<>

Gad Karla, you had to remind me of the volcano of honey book didn't you? And I'm eating my lunch FGS. I suspected this book would make for lively discussions.

Those who are enjoying FA and Winsor's writing I do recommend her Wanderers Eastward, Wanderers West. Set in old NY and Montana. Not quite five star material but if you're interested in that period and don't mind flawed heros and heroines (no Mary Sues that I can recall) it's worth hunting down.

Thanks for everyone's input on my questions and comments. I agree Bruce was infatuated with her and based on how he managed his money, he seemed reckless and irresponsible... but I guess I didn't really feel as much passion on his end as I thought would be necessary for a guy to wisk her off after knowing her only a day. Although he initially didn't want her coming along, when he agreed to it, it was like he was indifferent to it.

I also agree it's kind of laughable to think this book was once banned. I think the most graphic it's been so far is when someone briefly grabs a breast. But there are some crude sexual references in the dialgue - one of which I'm not sure I would have even picked up on had I not recently read in a nonfiction book that the term "belly" was often slang for a woman's genitals. I wonder how much else I've missed by not understanding the slang!

I don't mind graphic sex as long as the rest of the writing is quality but I'm not sure how much you can get of the same in one book. And I just think if you're going to call a book "the original bodice ripper" on it's cover, it should probably live up to that name even by modern standards - which is hasn't.

On another note, what is part 1 and 2? Do I just divide the amount of pages by 6 to get each part? I'm up to page 220 so I'm not into part 3 yet, right? Sorry, I'm new to the readalongs!

**Spoilerish, I'm not sure where these instances first occur in the book**

When I first read this I looked it up on Wikipedia and this is what I found:

"Fourteen U.S. states banned the book as pornography. The first was Massachusetts, whose attorney general cited 70 references to sexual intercourse, 39 illegitimate pregnancies, 7 abortions, and "10 descriptions of women undressing in front of men" as reasons for banning the novel. Winsor denied that her book was particularly daring, and said that she had no interest in explicit scenes. "I wrote only two sexy passages," she remarked, "and my publishers took both of them out. They put in ellipsis instead. In those days, you know, you could solve everything with an ellipsis."

I particularly liked her comments about ellipsis!

I'm reading the 1945 (2 columns per page) edition which has 652 pages, and Part 2 starts on page 91 with Amber in Newgate Prison.

Plastering it as the original bodice ripper on the cover is just cheap marketing. It's not even "bodice ripper" by Woodiwiss standards, IMO. It'd be more correct to say "Where the bodice ripper got started"

Robin wrote: "Although he initially didn't want her coming along, when he agreed to it, it was like he was indifferent to it."

I think he expected her to see reason eventually and he'd have his fun in the meantime & she'd have hers. There is a scene, in Part 3 I think, where he pretty much lays out the blunt truth of their future and it seems to be a shock to Amber that he could feel that way. For all the boinking they do, they don't really meet at any point. LOL

For all of Amber's teasy pretensions, she's really a very provincial and traditional girl...at least when it comes to Bruce.

Ah, I've just realized this book has it's own "parts" - but my version is 972 pages and Part 2 begins on page 137, Part 3 on 331. I'm on page 220 and Bruce is long gone.

Robin wrote: "Ah, I've just realized this book has it's own "parts" - but my version is 972 pages and Part 2 begins on page 137, Part 3 on 331. I'm on page 220 and Bruce is long gone."

The typeface in this old edition is small, but with 2 columns it speed-reads down the page. Vrooooommmm.....

Even when Bruce physically leaves, he's never really gone! :P

Oh no, Bruce is never gone for long, he keeps coming back like a bad penny.

Lol on OTT sex scenes. I recently read one that had what I assumed was a nasty typo until I looked up the word and found it was one - ungulate. You do not want to know, you do not want to know.

Why is there always a pot of honey in these books? Is that something they teach in romance 101?

The ungulate book,

(LIBRARY ONLY)

OK, I had to look up ungulate and I can't possibly imagine what it was doing in a sex scene!

And I have a book on writing romance and "honey" never came up! Maybe they all went to the same seminar!

Sawyer wrote: "I guess I've been on the same soapbox more than once, I'm tired of blow-by-blow descriptions, altho the ellipses intrigue me more than they probably should...."

LOL - sympathy gimp leg pains!

I love ellipses. They allow me to imagine anything I want to. It's not the size of the ellipse that matters, but what the author does with it that counts :)

It's so tempting to hijack the thread with "List Your Favorite Lulzy Romance Euphemisms" but I'll just say that I'm glad Ms. Winsor didn't graphically acquaint us with Amber's "mossy love grotto." (h/t to Bertrice Small, bringer of honey pots and honey ovens. Sometimes she reads like Winnie the Pooh porn.)

Karla wrote: "It's so tempting to hijack the thread with "List Your Favorite Lulzy Romance Euphemisms" but I'll just say that I'm glad Ms. Winsor didn't graphically acquaint us with Amber's "mossy love grotto." ..."

Karla, there is a purple prose thread here at this group. Feel free to use it.

Hanna, as for ungulate if you go to the newest Ammy reviews "someone" has addressed the issue and claims it's a typo. How an average Joe reviewer would know that for a fact is beyond me.

OK -- I just got to the duel... am I the only one who thinks this woman is clueless? There's even some hint that Bruce is completely disgusted with her for running after him as Rex lays dying. She's making the classic female mistake of wanting the man who doesn't want her. Now, I guess I must remember that she's only about 18 years old at this point? The book is not really clear about her age at this point, but it seems she's lived several lifetimes already. :)

Deb wrote: "am I the only one who thinks this woman is clueless?"

By the end of the book, she's 26 but the same as she was when she was 18. Brace yourself for the long haul!

I don't think she's clueless - just foolish and in love. She knows her choices haven't been the best but she feels like she can't help it.

I agree, it feels like she's lived several lifetimes already. I was thinking about it an where I'm at, I counted about 8 totally different lives.

Robin wrote: "I don't think she's clueless - just foolish and in love. She knows her choices haven't been the best but she feels like she can't help it.

I agree, it feels like she's lived several lifetimes al..."

By the end, I felt she was totally clueless. Her final ploy to keep Bruce with her could only have been done by someone who had paid absolutely no attention to everything around her for 10 years.

I don't think she's clueless. She's resourceful enough to manage to come out on top every time she gets knocked down, or knocked up, as the case may be. She just has a one-track mind when it comes to Bruce and she is convinced he is the only one. But I was yelling at her, too, when poor Rex died. That was awful.

Thank you so much dear readers all, for saving me from having to read Forever Amber again.
This way I get to enjoy your funny, clever comments and don't have have to wade through the actual book again, getting cross !

I am about half way through the book and to be honest, there are moments when I just would like to slap Amber! Sometimes I find her quite selfish, immature and I think clueless. Bruce had made it very clear from the start of their romping, that he had no intention of ever marrying her and reminds her of this each time they romp again.

It saddened me to see her risk everything she had with Rex for another fling with Bruce.

I don't like her at all, yet for some reason I keep reading it - perhaps in hope that she will get it together one day!

Andrea wrote: "I don't like her at all, yet for some reason I keep reading it - perhaps in hope that she will get it together one day!"

I'd love to see a show of hands from 1944 onward of people who've thought the same. I know I did.

It's probably the most addictive book I've read in over 10 years.

It's like watching a freight train - awful but you can't stop until the end.

Misfit wrote: "It's like watching a freight train - awful but you can't stop until the end. "

And then when it does end, you're like Noooo! This can't be the end! At least that's how I was!

That ending was a keeper. Just desserts and all. I'm still early on in a reread (taking it into the gym while doing cardio) but it's just as much fun. When I read it a few years ago I had virtually no knowledge of the Civil War and/or Restoration period so it will be interesting this time as I've read a lot more on the period. At least I know who Cromwell is now :)

Misfit wrote: "At least I know who Cromwell is now"

My knowledge of Cromwell remains that Richard Harris movie we saw in high school history class. I have no idea if it's factual or not - but Harris' drunken hamming was entertaining.

I seriously thought the last few pages of my copy were missing at first when I got to the end and boy was I mad when I realized that actually was the end! But then I had time to think about it and it really was a great ending.

I had read a book about Nell Gwynn before I read this, but that was about it. I actually didn't like the chapter about Nell in this book, I thought it was pointless, but then I found out that the original manuscript was 2500 pages and had to go through massive edits before publication, so I'm assuming at some point Nell must have had a bigger role in the book.

Jenny wrote: "I found out that the original manuscript was 2500 pages and had to go through massive edits"

Yeah, I'd love to know what was in the original manuscript. There was stuff that felt like it was out of place (like Nell), but was probably left in because she is one of the most famous names of the era. Considering how long it was originally, it's amazing it's not a Franken-book. It's held together pretty well, with some exceptions.

I'm looking forward to Wolf Hall: A Novel. I wonder if there are any other good novels about this time period?

Jenny wrote: "I'm looking forward to Wolf Hall: A Novel. I wonder if there are any other good novels about this time period?"

Jenny, are you looking for Tudor books or books on Restoration England?

Misfit wrote: Jenny, are you looking for Tudor books or books on Restoration England?"

Restoration. I'm not a big Tudor fan!

Jenny wrote: "Misfit wrote: Jenny, are you looking for Tudor books or books on Restoration England?"

Restoration. I'm not a big Tudor fan!

"

Here's a list with some ideas but it does contain novels on the Civil War which is prior to the Restoration (interesting stuff though).

http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/37...

I loved the Pamela Belle books and recommend them. The last in the Moon in the Water trilogy, Alethea, is set in London during the Restoration period.

The Stella Riley books are excellent but darned hard to track down. (big thanks to Claire for loaning me her copy)

Thanks, Misfit!

Jenny wrote: "Thanks, Misfit!"

have you read Restoration by Rose Tremain?

Laura wrote: have you read Restoration by Rose Tremain?


No, but I just looked it up and my library has it. I'm putting it on my list!

Misfit wrote:

Here's a list with some ideas...

My library has Wintercombe and Rebels and Traitors was already on my list. So with Restoration that gives me three to start with while I wait my turn for Wolf Hall!

I loved Wintercombe. Rebels and Traitors was on the hold shelf today for me, but I'm so buried in book and it's so large I decided to wait for another day.

I wish we could see more books on 17C England, it's a fascinating period and so many stories to be told. And not just on court life either, the effects on the country side by civil war is just horrific.

Just finished parts I and II. I love her and hate her. I stopped reading yesterday just after finishing part II (Rex's death scene). I was so frustrated with Amber that I left off thinking I would take a couple of day's break. But then I couldn't get to sleep last night because I was thinking about her! I've can't wait to get back to her. . . whoever likened her to a train wreck is spot on!