Such an interesting post! I have a similar love-hate relationship with Kleypas, mainly because of her conservatism. But I find her compulsively readable, and I've been reading one or another of the Ravenel novels on and off since they began appearing. I haven't revisited any novels earlier than the Wallflowers in recent years. Reading your post, and following West Ravenel's journey, has made me want to return to the Hathaway series to see how closely Leo's through line parallels West's. Even with my distance from the series, I can think of some differences (e.g., their origin stories), but I wonder how significant they are structurally.
Her conservatism is such a good point that I didn't really bring up here directly, but I think about that all the time when her heroines are sometimes listed as "feminist" romance novel heroines (especially in the Ravenels, with Garrett and Pandora both working, is where I see it the most. Though she has working heroines earlier as well!) But an author whose project seems who so strongly values land as home and the sheer number of her heroes who "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" by stepping on the heads of the less fortunate seems really rooted in a conservative worldview. A book I don't mention here where I think she questions some the availability of an individual to work within a system is Lady Sophia's Lover, which to me, is a real outlier in her books on so many levels.
I saw this on GR on my lunch break today, but had to save it until I got off work so I could properly read it, because this is so precisely my jam. I've also thought so much about the parallels of these two sets of sisters leaving and coming to England/America, but I love the thought of Stony Cross specifically as the touchstone. A couple of stray thoughts:
1) I think part of the reason Kleypas is able to take up so much space in the histrom world is because she, more than anyone else, straddles the line between old school and contemporary histrom perfectly As you say, she has been writing so long, and I think, by the time she started writing the Wallflowers, she had learned to pull of some of those problematic old school alpha tricks (McKenna forcing himself into Aline's room, as you point out) in juuuuuuust the right way that many modern reasons (me included) can read them mostly guilt-free but still find them satisfying on some deeper, id level. By the early 2000s, she started to almost always know when to pull back. And honestly, she does it even better in the Ravenels. Winterbourne is richer than god and can take care of you, but also Winterbourne employs women and pays them equally - whereas McKenna, published over a decade before, is maybe - probably - just a slumlord.
2) As far as Again the Magic being the only book Kleypas structured like a prequel, I suspect that she really didn't intend for it to be that when she was writing it. I saw an interview with her once where she said she didn't conceptualize Marcus as a hero until she was writing AtM and wondered if readers would really accept him as a hero because he's not super tall (facepalm). Based on the pub dates, I imagine it was possible she was already contracted for the Wallflowers books, but maybe didn't imagine them as so deeply connected to AtM as they are, given this. Perhaps Stony Cross was originally supposed to be just the vague way to connect her worlds, as unrelated to AtM as Worth Any Price. I'm pretty sure that, on her website, AtM is listed as a stand-along, which makes me really think that's how she originally thought of it, and it always stuck in her brain that way.
I bring this up because, to your point, I wonder if it was only when writing AtM or after that she began to realize that Stony Cross could indeed be such a symbol/anchor, and Aline's/Livia's stories were strong enough to ground it as such, and she decided Marcus himself was sufficient enough to be Stony Cross's keeper. Thinking about it this way might help me understand why I like Marcus so much better in just about every book than in It Happened One Autumn, I think I just enjoy looking at him as a solid symbol in the background than I do having to interrogate up close what he stands for.
3) This makes me also think about how she has also said that Cam was supposed to be Daisy's hero, but she couldn't make it work. I wonder, could she not conceptualize Daisy with someone who, to use your point, was not in some sense a landlord? Daisy has that whimsical quality, and Kleypas, per your point, believed her story should be about her finding someone more "solid" (per Kleypas's definition) to build a home with, someone who literally came from her home and wanted to buy her a big house and Cam, as she conceptualized him, could fundamentally not fulfill that purpose for Daisy. There could be no "restoration" in your language, because Daisy and Cam would have had to build something fundamentally new. And so naturally when Cam does get a book, he and Amelia do have to build (quite literally) something new to them.
Okay I read this yesterday and have been thinking about it basically nonstop since (unsurprising, i knew this would be excellent and have been proven correct). I loved these bits -
-"I think a more useful way of thinking about the sisters is Aline and Livia as the collective questions and Lillian and Daisy as the collective answers for Stony Cross Park."
-"The preceding parallel romance necessitated incomplete treks to wish fulfillment destinations that don’t work anymore and outside the bounds of Stony Cross Park’s doors. But Matthew and Daisy can throw pins into the well and use the stairs."
I know you aren't as fond of Devil in Winter but this essay is making me think about how Evie and Sebastian are also sort of restored by the magic of Stony Cross Park? Or at least it becomes the site of assessing their restoration from beginning to end of the series. After Sebastian is responsible for the kidnapping of Lillian from Stony Cross Park, he and Evie return there after breaking bread with Westcliff/Lillian in the epilogue. I think in the Christmas Novella, it's also the place where we find out (Daisy realizes when Sebastian brushes Evie's stomach discreetly in the entry hall and she notices and it's also in one of Evie and Sebastian reunion in the novella) that Evie is pregnant and that he's reflecting on his upcoming fatherhood in proximity to a recent visit with his own lazy, uninvolved father (which feels salient after his earlier and quite callous "you should probably let me give you a baby, at some point"). And then in Mine Til Midnight, we meet Sebastian and Evie as parents of Phoebe for the first time again when they come to visit at Stony Cross Park while Amelia and Cam are there recovering from damage at their estate. He's every bit the doting, "girl dad" archetype he would've mocked three books ago and that his father wasn't/couldn't be to his now-gone older sisters.
ANYWAYS this was really so excellent and had me thinking about so much and also wanting to revisit Scandal in Spring, which I've always liked but not always loved, alongside Again the Magic.
Thank you and thank you for the comment! This is exactly why I wanted to do this in a newsletter format--to go long and hopefully have people go long at me. I definitely need a break from Kleypas for a minute, but you have me wanted to revisit Mine til Midnight and those early marriage moments for Evie and Sebastian. I can get frustrated with Sebastian's presence, but with an author of this scale, I still find it interesting to work through Kleypas' normative truths. Even if I don't fully buy his redemption, Kleypas and the universe do! And that's as interesting to think through.
Maybe this is too academically minded, but it becomes easy to allow my interest in those in-universe norms to subsume my initial emotional reactions. Which is its own tension that I imagine a lot of us work through! But Kleypas is such a commonality for HR readers, I try to revel in the shared language, even as my personal taste don't quite line up.
Such an interesting post! I have a similar love-hate relationship with Kleypas, mainly because of her conservatism. But I find her compulsively readable, and I've been reading one or another of the Ravenel novels on and off since they began appearing. I haven't revisited any novels earlier than the Wallflowers in recent years. Reading your post, and following West Ravenel's journey, has made me want to return to the Hathaway series to see how closely Leo's through line parallels West's. Even with my distance from the series, I can think of some differences (e.g., their origin stories), but I wonder how significant they are structurally.
Her conservatism is such a good point that I didn't really bring up here directly, but I think about that all the time when her heroines are sometimes listed as "feminist" romance novel heroines (especially in the Ravenels, with Garrett and Pandora both working, is where I see it the most. Though she has working heroines earlier as well!) But an author whose project seems who so strongly values land as home and the sheer number of her heroes who "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" by stepping on the heads of the less fortunate seems really rooted in a conservative worldview. A book I don't mention here where I think she questions some the availability of an individual to work within a system is Lady Sophia's Lover, which to me, is a real outlier in her books on so many levels.
I saw this on GR on my lunch break today, but had to save it until I got off work so I could properly read it, because this is so precisely my jam. I've also thought so much about the parallels of these two sets of sisters leaving and coming to England/America, but I love the thought of Stony Cross specifically as the touchstone. A couple of stray thoughts:
1) I think part of the reason Kleypas is able to take up so much space in the histrom world is because she, more than anyone else, straddles the line between old school and contemporary histrom perfectly As you say, she has been writing so long, and I think, by the time she started writing the Wallflowers, she had learned to pull of some of those problematic old school alpha tricks (McKenna forcing himself into Aline's room, as you point out) in juuuuuuust the right way that many modern reasons (me included) can read them mostly guilt-free but still find them satisfying on some deeper, id level. By the early 2000s, she started to almost always know when to pull back. And honestly, she does it even better in the Ravenels. Winterbourne is richer than god and can take care of you, but also Winterbourne employs women and pays them equally - whereas McKenna, published over a decade before, is maybe - probably - just a slumlord.
2) As far as Again the Magic being the only book Kleypas structured like a prequel, I suspect that she really didn't intend for it to be that when she was writing it. I saw an interview with her once where she said she didn't conceptualize Marcus as a hero until she was writing AtM and wondered if readers would really accept him as a hero because he's not super tall (facepalm). Based on the pub dates, I imagine it was possible she was already contracted for the Wallflowers books, but maybe didn't imagine them as so deeply connected to AtM as they are, given this. Perhaps Stony Cross was originally supposed to be just the vague way to connect her worlds, as unrelated to AtM as Worth Any Price. I'm pretty sure that, on her website, AtM is listed as a stand-along, which makes me really think that's how she originally thought of it, and it always stuck in her brain that way.
I bring this up because, to your point, I wonder if it was only when writing AtM or after that she began to realize that Stony Cross could indeed be such a symbol/anchor, and Aline's/Livia's stories were strong enough to ground it as such, and she decided Marcus himself was sufficient enough to be Stony Cross's keeper. Thinking about it this way might help me understand why I like Marcus so much better in just about every book than in It Happened One Autumn, I think I just enjoy looking at him as a solid symbol in the background than I do having to interrogate up close what he stands for.
3) This makes me also think about how she has also said that Cam was supposed to be Daisy's hero, but she couldn't make it work. I wonder, could she not conceptualize Daisy with someone who, to use your point, was not in some sense a landlord? Daisy has that whimsical quality, and Kleypas, per your point, believed her story should be about her finding someone more "solid" (per Kleypas's definition) to build a home with, someone who literally came from her home and wanted to buy her a big house and Cam, as she conceptualized him, could fundamentally not fulfill that purpose for Daisy. There could be no "restoration" in your language, because Daisy and Cam would have had to build something fundamentally new. And so naturally when Cam does get a book, he and Amelia do have to build (quite literally) something new to them.
Okay I read this yesterday and have been thinking about it basically nonstop since (unsurprising, i knew this would be excellent and have been proven correct). I loved these bits -
-"I think a more useful way of thinking about the sisters is Aline and Livia as the collective questions and Lillian and Daisy as the collective answers for Stony Cross Park."
-"The preceding parallel romance necessitated incomplete treks to wish fulfillment destinations that don’t work anymore and outside the bounds of Stony Cross Park’s doors. But Matthew and Daisy can throw pins into the well and use the stairs."
I know you aren't as fond of Devil in Winter but this essay is making me think about how Evie and Sebastian are also sort of restored by the magic of Stony Cross Park? Or at least it becomes the site of assessing their restoration from beginning to end of the series. After Sebastian is responsible for the kidnapping of Lillian from Stony Cross Park, he and Evie return there after breaking bread with Westcliff/Lillian in the epilogue. I think in the Christmas Novella, it's also the place where we find out (Daisy realizes when Sebastian brushes Evie's stomach discreetly in the entry hall and she notices and it's also in one of Evie and Sebastian reunion in the novella) that Evie is pregnant and that he's reflecting on his upcoming fatherhood in proximity to a recent visit with his own lazy, uninvolved father (which feels salient after his earlier and quite callous "you should probably let me give you a baby, at some point"). And then in Mine Til Midnight, we meet Sebastian and Evie as parents of Phoebe for the first time again when they come to visit at Stony Cross Park while Amelia and Cam are there recovering from damage at their estate. He's every bit the doting, "girl dad" archetype he would've mocked three books ago and that his father wasn't/couldn't be to his now-gone older sisters.
ANYWAYS this was really so excellent and had me thinking about so much and also wanting to revisit Scandal in Spring, which I've always liked but not always loved, alongside Again the Magic.
Thank you and thank you for the comment! This is exactly why I wanted to do this in a newsletter format--to go long and hopefully have people go long at me. I definitely need a break from Kleypas for a minute, but you have me wanted to revisit Mine til Midnight and those early marriage moments for Evie and Sebastian. I can get frustrated with Sebastian's presence, but with an author of this scale, I still find it interesting to work through Kleypas' normative truths. Even if I don't fully buy his redemption, Kleypas and the universe do! And that's as interesting to think through.
Maybe this is too academically minded, but it becomes easy to allow my interest in those in-universe norms to subsume my initial emotional reactions. Which is its own tension that I imagine a lot of us work through! But Kleypas is such a commonality for HR readers, I try to revel in the shared language, even as my personal taste don't quite line up.