Convincing Arthur (London Legal, #1) in Q&A with Erastes

Aug 03, 2009 Elisa Rolle added it

If Leopold was a woman, it would have been the classical heroine who no romance author chooses as main character. Usually a widow, or a fallen woman, in the Regency romance they are friends, mistress (usually abandoned at the beginning of the story), housekeeper. Some daring romance authors made them the main heroine, but seldom, and usually with no much success. And so that Ava March decided to write the story of a corresponding male version it's quite original, and daring as well. In the few M If Leopold was a woman, it would have been the classical heroine who no romance author chooses as main character. Usually a widow, or a fallen woman, in the Regency romance they are friends, mistress (usually abandoned at the beginning of the story), housekeeper. Some daring romance authors made them the main heroine, but seldom, and usually with no much success. And so that Ava March decided to write the story of a corresponding male version it's quite original, and daring as well. In the few M/M historical romance you can find around, the men are strong and dominant figures, full of sense of honor, or innocent young boys, the male version of the damsel in distress. If the man is a rake, it's probably due to a poor childhood, to a lack of love that made him aloof.

Leopold instead is "weak" to the pleasure of flesh since he is basically easy to fall into temptation. At 19 years old, when he was starting to realize that he preferred men, he fell in love with Arthur, the nephew of his father's solicitor. While Leopold was a noble man, the fourth son of a Viscount, Arthur, even if middle class and wealthy, was on a different level. To Leopold that didn't matter, but he was really young, and as I said, not so strong, neither then. He let pass too much time to make clear his feelings with Arthur, and the man chose another. Falling in despair, Leopold spent the following ten years drinking stupor his pain, and sharing his favors with everyone was willing. Not a good way to prove to Arthur that he did the wrong choice.

Where Leopold could care less of the society, his father's title and money protecting him, Arthur has to be discreet; his position depends from his job, and his job from his reputation. A relationship with a discreet man, albeit cold, it's better than an hot affair with a young man apparently unable to be low profile. But even if sure, the relationship is also unsatisfying, and when it ends, for natural death, Arthur is tempted to accept an invite for a brief stay at Leopold's country home. Leopold's intentions are clear, and Arthur is willing to surrender, only for few days.

While Arthur is the hero you are expecting from a man on man Regency romance, as I said, it's Leopold who wins my sympathy. Leopold is not a strong man, without Arthur's love he is no one, not "man" enough to resolve his self-confidence issues by himself. Basically Leopold is a spoiled child, as fourth male child, his father doesn't expect to much from him, but loving him, he gave everything to his child. Not having the bear his father's expectation, Leopold is free to live his life as he wants, but on the other hand, he has no real purpose. I don't feel as Leopold charges of something his father, he is a beloved child, and he expects to be loved. When Arthur doesn't do that by himself, Leopold his willing to help him to take the right decision, to let him taste what he is missing. From the unconditionally love of his father, Leopold wants to pass to the unconditionally love of Arthur: it's only natural, why someone shouldn't love him?

Said like that, it could seem that Leopold isn't a nice character, and it's absolutely wrong. Ava March describes him in a way that the reader is all for Leopold, and when Arthur, with right, states his perplexity, the reader only thinks that he is not right with Leopold, that he should be more flexible and understanding. Leopold is an easy man to love (no pun intended).

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002UNN84A/?... ...more

6 likes · Like · see review

May 11, 2010 Erastes rated it really liked it

Shelves: gay-historical

Leopold thinks he’s been stood up, and he drinks and paces in his study.

This book starts promisingly Leopold is quickly introduced and we get a measure of the kind of man he is, one that will sleep with anyone, male or female. He blew his chances with the man he’s been obsessed with, Arthur Barrington, ten years ago and now Arthur has broken his his lover of ten years, he’s hoping to get him at last.

Leopold then goes on to mentally castigate his rival, Amherst: the man who has been with Arthur f Leopold thinks he’s been stood up, and he drinks and paces in his study.

This book starts promisingly Leopold is quickly introduced and we get a measure of the kind of man he is, one that will sleep with anyone, male or female. He blew his chances with the man he’s been obsessed with, Arthur Barrington, ten years ago and now Arthur has broken his his lover of ten years, he’s hoping to get him at last.

Leopold then goes on to mentally castigate his rival, Amherst: the man who has been with Arthur for ten years and whom Leopold finds objectionable because Amherst has loose morals. At least Leopold has the grace to realise that this is a little bit of the Pot calling the Kettle black!

Her research and detailing is impressive, solid and convincing. There’s no extraneous description, to my eyes, just enough to give a feel of the rooms and the decoration without a list that sounds like a Gillow’s catalogue. Little touches like game shooting in November. I’ve seen books where the men go grouse shooting in June! There’s a nice smattering of language of the time too, but it explains itself in context, so you aren’t forced to rush off to find Grose’s Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue.

He recognized the name—Madame Delacroix’s, a decadent West End brothel with a near-endless supply of beautiful women, and according to rumor, a handful of handsome, accommodating men as well. At least Randolph had the good sense not to go to some nunnery in the stews. Those places were rife with diseases.

Ava March writes well, and I’ve enjoyed her other historicals that I’ve reviewed on the site–my major gripe would be one that I’ve said many times before, that I feel a little cheated with a story of a mere 80 pages, and this story particularly deserves more to do it justice. The author goes to great pains to explain that these two men have a history, have known each other for ten years, and that Arthur trod the virtuous path while Leopold was gobbled up by a corrupting London and they went their separate ways. We are told details about Arthur’s relationship with Randolph and I’m left thinking “But I’d like to KNOW about this, not just get told about it!” There’s more than enough material here for a novel.

Because we are told, not shown, all this detail – the story folds in on itself and was for me, little more than a PWP–and that takes the pleasure out of the journey for me. They are at it like bunnies in chapter two, in fact. And three….

But that aside, it’s well written and the personal longing for a big meaty novel from Ms March doesn’t stop her smaller works being an auto-buy for me. ...more

2 likes · Like · see review