D+
Genre: Historical: European, Romance
The first book in the Debutante Diaries series felt underwhelming and, at times, aggravating. This Regency engagement-of-convenience story did have elements that could have made it stand out: the heroine proposes to the hero, the heroine is a talented artist, and the hero has a warm, close relationship to his grandmother and values her intelligence and wisdom. Unfortunately all of that is lost to some uneven plotting, a lack of internal conflict, and a dash of casual racism.
CW/TW: I don’t discuss it in the review, but I do want to issue a content warning that this novel does contain a graphic depiction of a suicide.
Fiona Hartley is in a pickle. She’s received a letter from an unknown blackmailer informing her that if she doesn’t pay an exorbitant some of money he/she will reveal to the public that her sister, Lily, is actually the bastard child of a notorious madam. Fiona is an heiress, so she figures she needs to find a husband who needs money and convince him to let her keep a little bit of her large dowry. She sets her sights on David Gray, Earl of Ravenport. Ravenport is broke and his family estate, jokingly called The Fortress, is falling apart. Fiona figures that Ravenport is desperate enough to agree to her proposal and that his status as an earl will also provide some protection for herself and Lily.
Ravenport is taken aback when Fiona proposes to him because that’s just not how it’s done. He has no intention of marrying her. So in order to prove that to her he invites her, Lily, their mother, and some of her friends to a house party at The Fortress because…reasons, I guess.
I tend to think that inviting someone to spend a couple of weeks living with you isn’t the best way to prove to them that you’re completely disinterested in them romantically, but I’m not an earl.
So of course Fiona and Ravenport develop feelings for each other when they’re together. Of course the blackmailer is also in attendance at the house party. Of course Ravenport’s grandmother, whom he adores, loves Fiona.
And that was really the problem. There wasn’t a good reason to keep Fiona and Ravenport apart. Things might have started off poorly for them, but they had plenty of good reasons to get married. It would be an advantageous marriage for both of them, and now that they’ve started falling for each other, it makes even more sense.
About two-thirds of the way through the book, the internal conflict was gone. All that was left was an outside party ruining Fiona’s chances of being with Ravenport, and that conflict,
…wasn’t sufficiently strong to warrant the couple being split up. There’s also a lot of action that’s packed in at the end, making the narrative feel uneven.
I did like the whole “blackmailer at the house party” bit, especially when Fiona tries to suss out who he/she is. The idea of a mystery being solved while everyone is at a house party in a crumbling mansion is kind of my catnip. Honestly, this book would have been better if it had a murder in it to really liven things up.
To be fair, the number of things I think would be better “if there was a murder in it” is pretty large (and possibly alarming now that I think about it) so I know that’s an unrealistic expectation.
Anyway, to really sour me on the book, we get a racist gypsy reference too. Ravenport is explaining to Fiona how The Fortress got so run down:
But after the space of several heartbeats, he said, “My father inherited the earldom when he was younger than I. He didn’t take his duties to the estate or his tenants seriously. Since he and my mother preferred to live in town, they closed up this house. Over the course of three decades, it fell into disrepair. Thieves broke in and stole some of the furnishings. Gypsies and other vagrants took shelter here for extended periods. Storm-force winds battered the roof and walls; nature had its way in the garden and fields.”
That one small sentence is just so offensive. Let’s lump an entire ethnic group of people in with “vagrants,” shall we? “Gypsies” just crapped the place up by their very presence there, huh? Can’t have a nice house once the gypsies have stayed there.
Fuck this noise. Can we just stop having racist references to the Roma people now please?
Anyway, this book did have some elements that I appreciated. I liked that the hero’s grandmother was an important part of his life, and not portrayed as doddering or as a burden to him. He seeks out her input and values it. I also liked that the heroine had close female friends and a good relationship with her sister. Her talent as an artist was also a nice touch.
None of that was enough to get past the uneven pacing, the lack of conflict and the awful reference to gypsies. In the end First Earl I see Tonight frustrated me far more than it entertained.
This book is available from:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
We also may use affiliate links in our posts, as well.
Thanks!
Dang. I liked the cover for this one.
The model here looks like she’s part water elemental.
Is nomad or Roma a proper term to use instead of the G word? I’ve been listening to Gogol Bordello, so I’ve been enjoying his music and his re-claiming of the word. Or is it re-appropriating a term?
Nomad Rock or Roma Rock sounds cool. I can use that if you think I should do that.
Supertheory of Superverything and Start Wearing Purple are my favorite tracks of his works.
@Nicolette: Roma as a noun, Romani as an adjective, various other terms by region that outsiders may or may not be welcome to use. “Nomads” is a generic term that erases the culture of the group to whom it’s applied, which may be most fitting if using a group of people as a mere plot device, since using any specific group of people as a plot device is unconscionable writing. People who’ve face forced migration, forced sterilization, had their children stolen, and in other ways been the victims of genocidal regimes are more than words to be tossed on a page lightly (and stereotypically) as story seasoning.
In the case of this book, “Vagrants took shelter here” would have gotten the same point across without the casual racism. The mention of “Gypsies” was completely unnecessary.
In other stories where they are actual on-page characters who play a larger role than an unnecessary G-bomb, they deserve the same development as other characters rather than being used as “exotic” props. Don’t use stereotypes as shorthand. For instance, Roma are extremely conservative about female chastity, and the portrayal of them as “seductresses” is racist propaganda to justify high rates of violence, rape, and murder performed against them by primarily white men (as has also been the case with enslaved and indigenous women the world over forever). Awareness of stereotypes and the reasons they came to be goes a long way toward curtailing offensive writing.
If you’re not going to do the research behind the history and culture of people you want to write about (and this includes fantasy with made-up names that are obviously coded as ethnic groups), it’s less offensive to populate your traveling attraction with white Europeans. “This is very white” is much less harmful to everyone than “This is wildly racist,” so really examine your motivations and limitations when writing far outside your own lane and make honest decisions about whether what you feel like writing is the right thing to write.
DISCLAIMER: I am neither Roma nor the writing police. I speak only as an imperfect ally about what I’ve learned so far in my effort to do better.
he invites her, Lily, their mother, and some of her friends to a house party
Please tell me that, formally, his grandmother invites et cetera. Or his mother. (Has he got one?) Or his maiden aunt who acts as his hostess. Or some distant female relative who arrives at his house half an hour before the other guests but they don’t need to know that. Or, or, or.
@Ren Benton
It’s okay. I do appreciate you talking out what you learned.
I have a complicated family history and Objibwe relatives, so I do appreciate the politeness study sheet about Romani peeps.
If you want to share books you’ve read about Romani people, I can share a book that was promoted in my hometown. Anton Truer is a cool dude.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9457741-the-assassination-of-hole-in-the-day
Basically it’s a book about how Hole in the Day had connections with other tribes in relation to his death.
@Ren Benton
It’s okay. I do appreciate you talking out what you learned.
I have a complicated family history and Objibwe relatives, so I do appreciate the politeness study sheet about Romani peeps.
If you want to share books you’ve read about Romani people, I can share a book that was promoted in my hometown. Anton Treuer is a cool dude.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9457741-the-assassination-of-hole-in-the-day
Basically it’s a book about how Hole in the Day had connections with other tribes in relation to his death.
Dagnabbit. I double posted.
I have had far too many historical romances ruined with super obnoxious and racist Roma characters. I’m glad to see it being pointed out more and more recently. There are so many fully enjoyable historical romance that don’t have this in it.
(side note: this is also my gripe when Silent in the Grave is recommended, but that book still has a huge amount of good will)
I have had far too many historical romances ruined with super obnoxious and racist depictions of Roma characters. I’m glad to see it being pointed out more and more recently. There are so many fully enjoyable historical romance that don’t have this in it.
(side note: this is also my gripe when Silent in the Grave is recommended, but that book still has a huge amount of good will)
In the UK, ‘Gypsy’ is still an official category on the census, and the main advocacy group for the British Romany (Romanichal, as distinct from more recent arrivals from Eastern Europe and the Irish Travellers) is called the Gypsy Council. The Romanichal I knew personally while living in England referred to themselves as ‘Gypsies’ to distinguish themselves from the Europeans. It is not an offensive word in itself within the context of Great Britain (in the way that ‘tinker’ and ‘pikey’ are racial pejoratives, for example – and I would not recommend using either word within earshot of any of the travelling communities.)
I really, really recommend looking through this website if you’re interested in the current battles which British Gypsies are fighting, none of which are centred on nomenclature:
http://www.nationalgypsytravellerfederation.org/
It’s worth noting that the Gypsies of Britain, the Irish Travellers and the recent Roma arrivals from the EU all tend to suffer the same kinds of discrimination and get lumped under the same umbrella, but they’re all pretty distinct groups who’ve evolved different cultures and traditions over the centuries.
The best analogy I can come up with for Americans is whether you choose to use the word ‘Indian’ or ‘Native American’. I would personally use ‘Native American’, but if I came across a NA individual who called themselves ‘Indian’, I would not inform them that this word was offensive or call it the ‘I-word’. Nor would I be automatically offended if a character in a nineteenth century novel used the word ‘Indian’ rather than ‘Native American’ because the latter would be anachronistic.
That said, the reference in this novel is clearly offensive, not least because Romanichal have meticulous and careful laws about purity and I can’t see them moving into a great house and trashing it. I mean, WHAT? Why in the world would they do that?