The discussion here of subjective/objective tension made me think about Sherry Thomas's Not Quite A Husband, a text where the difference between the 'objective' plain facts of the matter and the 'subjective' look from inside her head is additionally burdened by it happening repeatedly over what seems to be a series of weeks (or months?), while being (in my opinion) unacknowledged by the text. As a reader, I read all up and down the spectrum for coercion -- from situational/economic to physical, and I have generally high tolerance for both seducing, manipulative heroes and straight-out rapist villain-heroes, but that was a book where I just could not process the presentation and could not accept it, ultimately.
I do feel differently about that book! I haven't written about it directly here, but here's what I wrote on Goodreads (I do think quoting myself is a little uncouth, but it has been a minute since I read that book and my contemporaneous thoughts are probably more accurate than whatever I could construct.) But I reference Cold-Hearted Rake in the review because I also saw the connection between how Kleypas writes these and what happens in that book, like you did!
"I don't know if Thomas meant to write this as a bodice ripper book. I'm not interested in parsing a binary definition of (these acts in these books are assault) and (these books in these books are not assault). I think this flattens a lot of books unfairly, while ignoring problematic consent dynamics in books that basically get away with it because a lack of information given to the reader/considered by the author. (Cold-Hearted Rake is my big example of that, and I like Cold-Hearted Rake!)
What makes me think that Thomas is thinking about bodice ripper elements is how simultaneously complicated and clear Bryony's reactions to Leo are. Bryony and Leo both articulate the witching hour couplings were the most successful (and maybe honest?) of their marriage, despite Bryony's morning time boundary setting. It does remind me of To Have and To Hold where boundaries are reformed every time the couple are together, sometimes on the side of "better" and sometimes on the side of "worse."
I think like Sebastian in To Have and To Hold, Leo is attempting to be a battering ram at Bryony's armor. And her physical reactions are giving him encouragement to continue that method! Of course a lesson of both books that is that doesn't work and was never going to.
I also think there is an element of fairy tale taboo here, with the symmetry of the couple visiting each other for sex while sleeping. Fairy tales, culturally, serve the discussion and working through of taboos. I'm mulling over exactly what to do with that thought, since I'm in the process of writing something right now about Beauty and the Beast, Donkey Skin and Stormfire. But the book prior to this one is the series in a Cinderella re-telling and has requires a heightened suspension of disbelief to even follow the plot. So I think there might be something there. Pondering!
The other book this reminds me of the most is The Countess Conspiracy, both in terms of relationship dynamic (younger man has been in love with prickly scientist woman since they were children, intervening societal elements and misinterpretation lead to a delay in their happiness.) But Sebastian in that book takes the tactic of uncovering Violet to the other extreme--denying her sex as an act of inquisition/act of discovery. I get that that is more comfortable to read, but I do think it is interesting that those acts function similarly in these related books."
That being said, I fully understand more discomfort with those scenes! I never mean to tell someone what they should or not accept in a book. I do have a major soft spot for Sherry Thomas and would like to revisit this book (I mention writing about it in that review and then never did, so thank you for that future inspiration!)
This was such a thoughtful and thorough analysis! I wonder what work, if any, Kleypas has done to better understand consent and sexual assault over the years of her career since she started out steeped in bodice ripper culture.
One thing I was surprised by (and maybe I just missed it, though I did look!), what how quiet the edits were to It Happened One Autumn. There is no author's note on new editions (present in something like Whitney My Love that underwent similar edits that I don't quite think "solve" the problem, mostly because I don't think of depictions of sexual assault as a baseline problem.") Her website has no mention of the new editions and I've seen no interviews explaining the process.
I don't want to ascribe motivation to her for doing that, but it is not the approach that I prefer authors take. I think, generally, books should be left as is. But if changes are made, they should be really clear to a reader that they are reading an edited text!
I would prefer books to be left as is but for new editions to include some sort of intro that acknowledges the problem. I'm extremely uncomfortable with whitewashing older work in order to preserve an unearned reputation of the author, like say Georgette Heyer or Roald Dahl. Who does it hurt to say they wrote some messed up stuff? Sure, some readers might opt to stay away but that's their right. In Kleypas's case, she could write the intro herself. That would be so refreshing!
Thank you for this series. I am enjoying it!
Also - somewhat on a tangent -
The discussion here of subjective/objective tension made me think about Sherry Thomas's Not Quite A Husband, a text where the difference between the 'objective' plain facts of the matter and the 'subjective' look from inside her head is additionally burdened by it happening repeatedly over what seems to be a series of weeks (or months?), while being (in my opinion) unacknowledged by the text. As a reader, I read all up and down the spectrum for coercion -- from situational/economic to physical, and I have generally high tolerance for both seducing, manipulative heroes and straight-out rapist villain-heroes, but that was a book where I just could not process the presentation and could not accept it, ultimately.
I do feel differently about that book! I haven't written about it directly here, but here's what I wrote on Goodreads (I do think quoting myself is a little uncouth, but it has been a minute since I read that book and my contemporaneous thoughts are probably more accurate than whatever I could construct.) But I reference Cold-Hearted Rake in the review because I also saw the connection between how Kleypas writes these and what happens in that book, like you did!
"I don't know if Thomas meant to write this as a bodice ripper book. I'm not interested in parsing a binary definition of (these acts in these books are assault) and (these books in these books are not assault). I think this flattens a lot of books unfairly, while ignoring problematic consent dynamics in books that basically get away with it because a lack of information given to the reader/considered by the author. (Cold-Hearted Rake is my big example of that, and I like Cold-Hearted Rake!)
What makes me think that Thomas is thinking about bodice ripper elements is how simultaneously complicated and clear Bryony's reactions to Leo are. Bryony and Leo both articulate the witching hour couplings were the most successful (and maybe honest?) of their marriage, despite Bryony's morning time boundary setting. It does remind me of To Have and To Hold where boundaries are reformed every time the couple are together, sometimes on the side of "better" and sometimes on the side of "worse."
I think like Sebastian in To Have and To Hold, Leo is attempting to be a battering ram at Bryony's armor. And her physical reactions are giving him encouragement to continue that method! Of course a lesson of both books that is that doesn't work and was never going to.
I also think there is an element of fairy tale taboo here, with the symmetry of the couple visiting each other for sex while sleeping. Fairy tales, culturally, serve the discussion and working through of taboos. I'm mulling over exactly what to do with that thought, since I'm in the process of writing something right now about Beauty and the Beast, Donkey Skin and Stormfire. But the book prior to this one is the series in a Cinderella re-telling and has requires a heightened suspension of disbelief to even follow the plot. So I think there might be something there. Pondering!
The other book this reminds me of the most is The Countess Conspiracy, both in terms of relationship dynamic (younger man has been in love with prickly scientist woman since they were children, intervening societal elements and misinterpretation lead to a delay in their happiness.) But Sebastian in that book takes the tactic of uncovering Violet to the other extreme--denying her sex as an act of inquisition/act of discovery. I get that that is more comfortable to read, but I do think it is interesting that those acts function similarly in these related books."
I get the idea of "inquisitional" rape from Angela Toscano's piece A Parody of Love: the Narrative Uses of Rape in Popular Romance (https://www.jprstudies.org/2012/04/a-parody-of-love-the-narrative-uses-of-rape-in-popular-romance-by-angela-toscano/) that has really informed how I think about bodice rippers and assault in them narratively, as a part of the structure of the fictional story.
That being said, I fully understand more discomfort with those scenes! I never mean to tell someone what they should or not accept in a book. I do have a major soft spot for Sherry Thomas and would like to revisit this book (I mention writing about it in that review and then never did, so thank you for that future inspiration!)
I love Sherry Thomas, and hope very much that you will write about any of her romances, including Not Quite a Husband!
edit typo: *while it being rape (in my opinion) is unacknowledged...
This was such a thoughtful and thorough analysis! I wonder what work, if any, Kleypas has done to better understand consent and sexual assault over the years of her career since she started out steeped in bodice ripper culture.
One thing I was surprised by (and maybe I just missed it, though I did look!), what how quiet the edits were to It Happened One Autumn. There is no author's note on new editions (present in something like Whitney My Love that underwent similar edits that I don't quite think "solve" the problem, mostly because I don't think of depictions of sexual assault as a baseline problem.") Her website has no mention of the new editions and I've seen no interviews explaining the process.
I don't want to ascribe motivation to her for doing that, but it is not the approach that I prefer authors take. I think, generally, books should be left as is. But if changes are made, they should be really clear to a reader that they are reading an edited text!
I would prefer books to be left as is but for new editions to include some sort of intro that acknowledges the problem. I'm extremely uncomfortable with whitewashing older work in order to preserve an unearned reputation of the author, like say Georgette Heyer or Roald Dahl. Who does it hurt to say they wrote some messed up stuff? Sure, some readers might opt to stay away but that's their right. In Kleypas's case, she could write the intro herself. That would be so refreshing!