Alexandra's Reviews > Glamour in Glass

Glamour in Glass by Mary Robinette Kowal
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
4780341
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: read-in-2012, female-author-2012

** spoiler alert ** It's fair to say that I adored Shades of Milk and Honey, and was really looking forward to reading the sequel. I did not love it quite as much as the first, but I think that's mostly because it wasn't new - the joy in Shades was in its being so new and full of the discovery of glamour and how that changed, or didn't, the Regency period in England. Also, and yes I know I'm a terrible romantic, but the thrill of boy-meeting-girl-meeting-boy, and the trials and tribulations that follow, make for a very different story (hopefully) from that about a married couple. Not better, just different.

Anyway, the premise here is that Vincent and Jane are married - yay! - and working together - yay! Their first big commission is a huge drawing room do for the Prince Regent (... who gets called Prinny by his friends, apparently. I mean, really?). I loved that they work together, and while she is quite nervous and a bit unsure of her place and feels overwhelmed by Vincent and his experience, his attitude is entirely embracing of her and her contributions.

From there, it's off to the Continent for them, because the Ogre - aka Napoleon - has been sent off to his island retreat, and it's safe to go visit France, I mean Belgium, I mean the Netherlands. Vincent has a fellow glamourist to visit, and this will also serve as a honeymoon. Of course, things do not progress as expected. Vincent gets all distant, which has Jane naturally worried; even in this alternate world Napoleon quickly escapes his island and attempts to regain the imperial crown; and Jane gets pregnant. Boo, hiss, yay. Right?

Boo: absolutely. Vincent is a total prat at various times in this novel, and I was totally with Jane is being bewildered and upset with him. I was pretty sure Kowal wouldn't turn this into an adultery plot, and even Jane doesn't worry that that's the problem. In fact, it's directly related to...

Napoleon (hiss). Ah, Napoleon. I wish we had met him in this novel, but he stays off stage. I thought Kowal did a really good with depicting the tension felt in Belgium in the immediately post-Napoleon period; it was such a contested piece of territory, and showing that some people feel violently pro-France/Napoleon, while others are decidedly anti, was done very nicely. I think this could have been explored more deeply, but then - it wasn't really the issue for Jane, outsider that she is. More of an issue for her is...

Pregnancy. Which, it turns out, is not so much a 'yay' here, or at least at this time, because when you're pregnant you're not meant to do glamour. The one big disappointment for me in the whole novel is that why is never explored or explained. I had really hoped that Jane would discover that this was a great big lie, but alas... no. In fact, she may actually confirm it, because - spoilers! - she miscarries directly after using glamour in desperation to save Vincent. Now, it's not clear that there is a causal relationship here, and Jane herself can think of various other reasons for it, but nonetheless. There it is. And I think this is a very interesting, and potentially problematic, aspect of the whole novel.

Now, never having been pregnant myself, it may be presumptuous of me to make any comment here. But anyway: firstly, I say again that I wish there were some explanation for why no glamour when up the duff. The fact that it's so heavily a female art makes this particular issue an additionally... interesting one. And frustrating. Moving on to Jane's case, though, I thought Kowal wrote her reaction to pregnancy really well. Jane herself is unsure whether she's happy about it or not: partly because she's not sure what Vincent's reaction will be, and partly because it will mean giving up the work that she loves and loves undertaking with him. And not being able to work takes quite a toll on Jane's self confidence, and on her perception of her relationship with Vincent, too. This seems quite realistic, to me, and feels neither melodramatic nor purely done for plot reasons. And then she miscarries, and this too is problematic - not just for the obvious grief reasons, but because Jane feels guilt, for two reasons: for having done glamour, which might have contributed, and also because one of her first reactions is relief because she can work again. Which of course sets off its own cycle of guilt, at appearing (to herself) to be cold and hard-hearted. And this too seems quite realistic to me. I do have experience of grief and it does do weird things to the head, and I totally understand having such a mixed, involuntary, reaction. So... yeh. Interesting stuff. Certainly interesting stuff to address in what seems like a fluffy just-add-magic, Regency romance.

I really, really hope the third book - which I think is coming out this year too - has ongoing repercussions for the miscarriage, since that would be the realistic thing to do.

It is, overall, a great novel - very fast paced and mostly intriguing characters. Also, the physical product is a bit quirky: I couldn't find the info on the type, but I'm quite sure it is (or based one) the sort of type used in 'olde style' Austen novels, which is nice and certainly helps it feel like it came out before 2012! I've read a few complaints about it not dealing with race and class and... well, yes. That's true. The race aspect doesn't fuss or surprise me: this is set in 1815, so it doesn't amaze me that Jane has no experience of black people, as slaves or servants or even in the abstract, like through abolitionists or whatever. She's not the most worldly of people, and she's not in London or another major city most of the time, either. As for class, it's true that her attitude towards servants is entirely that of a woman of the lower gentry, accustomed to service. She is conscious of feeling overshadowed by fancy titled ladies, but not of her own position above others. Yet... I dunno. It didn't bug me much, to be honest. There's not a whole lot of ordering servants around and lording itself over others, precisely because she's not in that overwhelmingly powerful position and neither are most of the people she associates with. So this could certainly have been a more complex novel, problematising all sorts of issues from the Regency period. But it also doesn't pretend to be that novel. And I think that's ok.

One final irk: working glamour may be a feminine art, but who are the preeminent glamourists who get the commissions? Men. Yah.
11 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Glamour in Glass.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

July 31, 2011 – Shelved
July 14, 2012 – Started Reading
July 14, 2012 – Shelved as: read-in-2012
July 14, 2012 – Finished Reading
December 16, 2015 – Shelved as: female-author-2012

Comments Showing 1-2 of 2 (2 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Emily (new)

Emily Whetstone Nice review. I am spoiling myself to see whether I should continue in this series, and this allows me to give it a qualified "yes." (The qualification being, can I get it for free from the library?)

As for your last point, though, while irksome that doesn't seem unrealistic. The "great" painters have been men, but it was women who were expected to paint and play and adorn the home in Austen's day.

I spent several years in Japan studying the tea ceremony and flower arrangement, and while the vast majority of practitioners are women, the heads of all the schools are men.

If a position comes with enough renown and power, men will compete for it even if it is in a "female" realm. And in a sexist society, which the Regency definitely was, they will win.


Alexandra As for your last point, though, while irksome that doesn't seem unrealistic. The "great" painters have been men, but it was women who were expected to paint and play and adorn the home in Austen's day

I know - I'm an historian by training. Doesn't mean it's not irksome!


back to top