Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘RachelKiwi’

The Book Club of Two Presents:

Welcome! We’ve got an extra-special Book Club of Two this month. We’ve decided to be all literary and take on a re-read of Wuthering Heights. A book that I disliked the first 2 times around and RachelKiwi enjoyed but found it wasn’t her favorite.

Now we’re breaking it down 8 chapters at a time and asking all the tough questions like “Why is Lockwood such an idiot?!” Yep. The good stuff.

What makes this re-read even more special (besides the classic content) is that we’re joined by another childhood friend, LindszerWest. LindszerWest doesn’t have a blog so I’ll be posting her responses. But you may be asking yourself why we allowed her into this exclusive club for the re-read…Well, I’ll explain…

LindszerWest is not only a lifelong reader, she is a nook owning, bad-boy lover who saw the post announcing Wuthering Wednesdays and just had to jump in! Seriously, she was blasting my Facebook page with Heathcliff quotes *very fangirl*.

And while I’m making all these exceptions…I’ve decided to be nice to everyone for this re-read and instead of posting embarrassing pictures of awkward high school years I’m including pictures of us on our most beautiful day…Our wedding days 😉

RachelKiwi and Mr. Kiwi

LindszerWest and Mr. West

TheLibrarian and Mr. Librarian

This way you also have a visual of all the men who bought us our Nooks; and who love us enough to sit through hours of reading time while we completely ignore them in favor of the bad-boys of literature…Like Heathcliff…

So, Without Further Ado…The Responses

TheLibrarian’s Responses

RachelKiwi’s Questions

1. Why do you think Bronte uses Lockwood as the narrator of the story and then (narrator-within-narrator) Nelly Dean instead of Heathcliff or Catherine?

I think there needed to be a reason to use Nelly as a narrator. We needed to introduce the Grange as a location, and given all of the surviving members of the cast are living at Wuthering Heights we needed a current view of the Grange as well. Bringing a curious and complete outsider into the tale gave excuses to question and experience all sides of the history. I don’t know that Nelly herself has a reason to recount the story without being asked.

2. At this point–through Chapter 8–what are your feelings toward Heathcliff? We already see him as the haughty and gruff man he has become, but we also see him as the bedraggled and abandoned boy he once was.

I hate Heathcliff. Baring that one moment of pure emotion when he chases Cathy’s ghost, I dislike the man. I know people love him as a bad boy…but right now I just see bad and miserable. I think later I might see a more passionate side…but right now I just want to slam the door in his face.

However, when I think of that poor child. The one brought into a foreign home, raised above his station, and then thrown back into servitude and hatred…I do feel for him. Not that he makes an overly sympathetic character. Heathcliff’s reactions have always been so defensive! He never gave anyone an opening to care for him. But still, you have to weep for that child.

3. Lockwood is a bumbling idiot! I never realized that until this read. Heathcliff clearly doesn’t want him to come back after his first visit, but he does! As Heathcliff’s tenant, would you have ventured back to Wuthering Heights after his initial chilly reception? Out of curiosity? Fascination with your dark and stormy landlord? Social ineptitude?

Oh my gosh, Lockwood doesn’t have a clue!!! But I think that’s the point. Anyone with half a brain would have kept their distance from Wuthering Heights and it’s band of grumps. Lol, Lockwood is such an idiot he keeps returning! And not just returning, he projects rational upon each character forgiving and explaining their faults. Needless to say of our two narrators Lockwood is the least reliable. His existence is only a way to flesh out the story…not to add to it.

TheLibrarian’s Questions:

1. In this section we see explanation for Heathcliff’s personality…But what about Cathy? How was her mean girl attitude formed? Does the lack of explanation point toward Joseph’s religious belief of women’s innate wickedness? Or do you see circumstances that caused Cathy to be such a b*tch?

I’m inclined to see a bit of the time’s religious view. Cathy was just a bad apple. Sinful and wicked from the start. True, losing her parents at a young age probably didn’t help. The way her brother finished raising her, in such a strict and irrational manner made insolence an easy way out. Maybe we can even say that her natural beauty and wit caused her to be spoiled…

But it’s obviously more than that. Cathy has meanness inside her and it’s been there from the start. I think an argument could be made for the religion factor…but without delving too deep I’d say that it’s important to note that Cathy’s wickedness is a natural trait.

2. The names, woe is me…the names! Lockwood being stuck in that medieval torture chamber of a bed surrounded by all those names *shiver* You’d think out alone on the moors they’d want some variety in their names! Are we supposed to be confused? To see them all as one person? Too early to tell?

Ok, one of the reasons why I dislike this book…beyond all the miserable people…is the names. EVERYONE is named the same thing! So hard to keep track. I’m never sure if it’s supposed to be all about seeing them as one person, as a genetic family…am I supposed to follow personality traits through the generations? Or is it just a mode of gothic writing…making everything a little creepier and a little more complex.

*blah*

I just know it’s my least favorite part. Seriously, my mind get so mixed up even poor Hareton Earnshaw becomes confusing…everyone is someone’s father/mother/sister/in-law/cousin/child. Any book that needs a family tree to keep everyone straight needs to be revised!

3. How do you feel about the narrator within the narrator Nelly? Like her? Trust her? Wonder how long this woman has been talking? Thoughts…

Ok, I like Nelly the best of everyone I’ve met. But it always bothers me that she is so whishy-washy. She likes Catherine, she hates Catherine. She hates Heathcliff, she feels for him, she hates him again. While I trust that what she’s telling me is close to the truth…I don’t know that I’m lining up to use her as a character witness. I just wish she seemed a little more steadfast…not like a servant who poked her head where it didn’t belong…

LindszerWest’s Responses

RachelKiwi’s Questions:

1. Why do you think Bronte uses Lockwood as the narrator of the story and then (narrator-within-narrator) Nelly Dean instead of Heathcliff or Catherine?

While the use of Lockwood and Nelly as narrators is one of my biggest frustrations about the beginning of Wuthering Heights (when I just want to jump into the action and become immersed in the story,) I can appreciate the usefulness of employing a narrator who keeps us at arm’s distance — particularly because the characters of Catherine and Healthcliff are so very passionate, and we also change our sympathies toward each several times. In the first eight chapters, I went from detesting Heathcliff, to feeling sorry for him, to understanding him a bit more… whereas my feelings for Cathy were exactly opposite.

2. At this point–through Chapter 8–what are your feelings toward Heathcliff? We already see him as the haughty and gruff man he has become, but we also see him as the bedraggled and abandoned boy he once was.

Heathcliff is so amazingly larger-than-life in the first chapter (“…his black eyes withdraw so suspiciously under their brow, as I rode up, and when his fingers sheltered themselves, with a jealous resolution, still further in his waistcoat…”) that I couldn’t help but feel that a description of such Dickensian proportions would have to hide something a bit more nuanced underneath. I’m pleasantly undecided about how I feel about him right now though – I WANT to like him and understand better why he’s so sulky (particularly now I know about his childhood), but still can’t completely justify his behavior toward his household

3. Lockwood is a bumbling idiot! I never realized that until this read. Heathcliff clearly doesn’t want him to come back after his first visit, but he does! As Heathcliff’s tenant, would you have ventured back to Wuthering Heights after his initial chilly reception? Out of curiosity? Fascination with your dark and stormy landlord? Social ineptitude?

Perhaps because he IS a bumbling idiot?! He also likes to flatter himself by thinking he and his bad-boy landlord have something in common, in that he’s fascinated with the magnified parts of his own personality – he admires the part of Heathcliff who is “more exaggeratedly reserved than myself” and later says “…I bestow my own attributes over-liberally on him.” I think he has a slight crush on the amplified character traits he see in Heathcliff (which are just so much more bad-boy on the dark and stormy landlord than on Lockwood, who I see as a fat and pasty meddling Englishman).

TheLibrarian’s Questions:

1. In this section we see explanation for Heathcliff’s personality…But what about Cathy? How was her mean girl attitude formed? Does the lack of explanation point toward Joseph’s religious belief of women’s innate wickedness? Or do you see circumstances that caused Cathy to be such a b*tch?

Cathy has those inclinations in her from the beginning, as she is described as an impish and mischievous child — it’s just more endearing when she’s running around like a wild child on the moors with her equally wild Heathcliff, thwarting the dour Joseph or her imperious brother. When she gets older, her “high spirits” turn into teenaged petulance and conceit – not nearly so forgivable, particularly when she has less of an inclination to help and include the now-banished Heathcliff.

2. The names, woe is me…the names! Lockwood being stuck in that medieval torture chamber of a bed surrounded by all those names *shiver* You’d think out alone on the moors they’d want some variety in their names! Are we supposed to be confused? To see them all as one person? Too early to tell?

Ugh – this is one of the reasons I didn’t like the book my first time through – and probably one of the reasons I don’t remember it well either — I got so sick of the names that I skipped through them! (Thank goodness for my Kindle – I literally bookmarked that page to go back and reread). Bronte is obviously playing on the romantic notion that Catherine is scrawling all of the possible iterations of her name in the book in some kind of romantic reverie – and it works in that it makes us realize that she’s torn between them, even in the early days, but not entirely necessary. I’m actually not sure how I feel about it yet – beyond the fact that it irritates me.. *** (PS – that bed is WEIRD! I read that description several times and still didn’t quite get it)…

3. How do you feel about the narrator within the narrator Nelly? Like her? Trust her? Wonder how long this woman has been talking? Thoughts…

I suppose she is the most unbiased narrator possible in the household at this time (except for maybe Hindley’s wife, had she lived longer), but I find her pretty dull and unoriginal. She tells the story, yes, but puts a filter on it that I’d rather have been removed in a first-person telling.

Remember to Check Out RachelKiwi’s blog for her thoughts…she’s always much funnier 😉

Read Full Post »

Welcome to the Book Club of Two

One of my best friends from High School (RachelKiwi…the one on the right) happens to share my own addictive love of reading…She even owns a Nook and everything so we share and trade and do lots of texting about bookish things while we should be working. Every so many weeks we get an itch and decide to do a book together. Our reading abilities are about the same so there’s no problem with finishing the text in a day or two…we both read that fast. Since RachelKiwi is a great gal I thought I’d give you guys a little peek into our exclusive club 😉

We did The Last Letter from your Lover awhile back and had this massive rambling conversation about it…feel free to follow along. As a warning there are *SPOILERS* because it’s not a good breakdown unless you’re spilling the dirt!

If you’d like to read a review instead you can find RachelKiwi’s Here and Mine Here.

Without further Ado…The Convo…

*Spoilers*

The Librarian: This book’s plot had so many twists and turns…missed chances…did you ever guess correctly? Was there a time when you were way off?

RachelKiwi: The missed chances killed me! I was breathing erratically half the time I read this, wanting to jump into the book and intervene to bring the lovers together. My guesses were off… probably because I’m always swept along on the wings of romance, because I’m basically a hopeless-romantic-on-steroids. I hoped that Jennifer’s child was Anthony’s… even though the dates were way off for that to be the case! But I was totally blown away by the fact that there was a child. I didn’t see that coming and being the reason she couldn’t run off with Anthony. I thought that maybe Jennifer and Laurence couldn’t have children, because the issue of kids came up several times.

The things I suspected: I knew there was something fishy about the car crash, because of Laurence’s reaction to it every time they discussed it. I don’t think I ever really believed Anthony had died in it, though. And I wondered what Moira’s role was in the story. She seemed like such a peripheral character, until she reappeared to provide the means for Jennifer to leave her husband.
What about you? Were you surprised or did you have some things figured out? What did you think about the entrance of the new storyline/characters in Part III? At first I was distracted by it, but then I ended up liking what it added.

The Librarian: I was constantly surprised by the twists! The baby surprised me, that she followed him to Africa got me. Though I wasn’t shocked that Anthony wasn’t in The Congo…I thought the secretary at the news room gave that away. Also, I guessed that Anthony was the librarian…it was odd that Ellie didn’t know his name after she mentions not knowing the staff names and begins to pay more attention. Oh, my other shock was that Anthony’s ex-wife died, I though the cancer was a little rushed. Even a quick cancer death still would have been weeks in the making, Anthony would have been informed earlier. Moyes should have gone with some type of accident.

Ok, part 3 came out of NOWHERE for me! Lol, I swear I thought the synopsis said that a modern-day writer finds the letter and through all the first part of the book I kept waiting for one of those time changes to hit 2003…I was distracted by the expectation of it..Then , BAM Part 3. When it finally hit I was almost annoyed. Ellie’s love seemed shallow and annoying and why she didn’t just hit up Rory was beyond me. But then I did grow to like her and I loved meeting Jennifer again, hearing the rest of the story… *sigh* …cried at the park scene…

Have you ever been totally distracted by love like Ellie and Jennifer? And have you ever received a love letter? (dear John letter perhaps, lol)

RachelKiwi: I totally didn’t see that the librarian was Anthony. I just wondered why they kept making references to the fact that she didn’t know names and that he was such a great guy. So yeah, I was really surprised when his son said that Anthony still worked there… and had for 40 years.  Oops!

Yes, i loved Rory. he sounded great! Did you notice she didn’t do much with physical descriptions for anyone? I wanted to know what Ellie and Rory looked like. She didn’t describe Anthony either. Jennifer got the most description, we know she’s beautiful with blonde hair and “deliquescent” eyes. I looked that word up. I thought it was interesting how she threw herself into going after her lover and thought it was Reggie. And that word was what made her realize that he couldn’t possibly be her lover.

I thought Jennifer aged so well… so dignified. I loved the park scene too. anyway…

Distracted by love? of course! I blame Nathan for my lowest GPA of my life… the semester we started dating in college. And of course, I did have the raging hormones and obsessive crushes in high school. A relationship can consume you completely if you let it, and Ellie let it happen to her in a bad way. The beginning of love is always intoxicating, but I think you have to stay grounded, which Anthony and Jennifer managed to do even in the wake of passion and devastation. Ellie lost herself to her relationship, whereas A and J found themselves and got stronger, even through pain. I was almost out of patience with Ellie for her pathetic devotion to an idiot.

And I remember the first letter Nathan ever sent me, I practically memorized it and almost slept with it under my pillow. And read between the lines, just as Jennifer and Ellie do. Although Jennifer didn’t really need to read between the lines… Anthony laid his heart bare. I can’t imagine getting a “last letter” though.

i was gonna ask you this next:

What was the impact of Anthony’s  letters on Jennifer’s life? On Anthony’s life?

I was intrigued by the fact that even though she had amnesia, in reading the letters, she yearned for the writer of them. They made her believe in love, that someone out there loved her, and that she allowed to herself to be loved in a beautiful way.

It was interesting how she “couldn’t find words” for so much of their relationship, and then at the end, he lost his. Symbolizing her strength, that she found herself and her words? And that he had lost so much, felt so much pain at not being able to be with the woman he loved that he lost his faculty with writing?

The Librarian: The fast progression of the relationship didn’t bother me. I think that both of them were wounded by their choices in life, and in love. Both characters seemed to be floating through their lives…not really happy with anything. So when they found that connection they jumped on it. Plus I think there’s always something to be said about the forbidden aspect of the love. That always pushes things along faster. Like latching on to a crush in high school (you really did have a few major crushes!) it seems so enormously part of your mind, your thoughts because you really can’t have it so you begin to obsess over it. I suppose this rule goes for Ellie too. She can’t let John go because he’s what she can’t have. She knows she can have Rory so she lets him sit on the side untouched…kind of like a second choice.

As for the impact of the letters on Jennifer’s life. I think that their love had a better chance after the accident than before. Seeing her options, either stay with her husband or move onto Anthony, without the filter of her previous life choices just throws onto display how bad a match Larry is for her. I think when you’ve played a role for so long…faking the marriage with Larry till they make it, it’s hard to let go of the weight of it. With the amnesia Jennifer can clearly see the right choice and go for it. Had she not had the accident I think their love affair would have ended.

So after a book-long quest for love…Do you think Moyes ended it well? Did the end live up to the letter’s expectations?

RachelKiwi: no comment on the adolescent crushes. I claim insanity.

I don’t know. she clearly was trying to leave larry to be with Anthony when the accident happened. i mean, larry humiliated her and berated her. she knew she wasn’t happy with larry–amnesia or no. but you’re right, i think the years of separation that the accident caused made both of them realize the importance of that relationship. to Anthony, Jennifer was irreplaceable, and Jennifer was mourning the loss of a man she loved and barely remembered. so when they were reunited, it was that much more powerful of an experience.

the ending:

the last reunion: i liked how the reader doesn’t hear what the two lovers are saying… we see it through Ellie’s eyes, so we see only a touch. it’s too private a moment for us to “eavesdrop” on.  it was a very satisfying ending, everything wrapped up neatly and happily-ever-after for all those involved. after years of missed chances, they finally connect.  sometimes there is something secretly pleasurable in an ending where the lovers are torn apart by life and never get their happily-ever-after. sometimes it seems that to be real, a book has to end with that kind of sundering. but in this case, their entire adult lives had been lived separately, so a happy ending was very satisfying.

I kinda love the story of a playboy who never thinks he’ll settle down, until he meets the one woman who cures him of his philandering ways. i was nervous at first to read Anthony’s letters, knowing Jennifer was falling hook-line-and-sinker for the flowery words of a notorious womanizer. but he meant them. His love and longing for her survived distance and separation. The story’s happily-ever-after lived up to the letter’s promises. 

Read Full Post »

Welcome to The Book Club of Two!

One of my best friends from High School (RachelKiwi…the one on the left) happens to share my own addictive love of reading…She even owns a Nook and everything so we share and trade and do lots of texting about bookish things while we should be working. Every so many weeks we get an itch and decide to do a book together. Our reading abilities are about the same so there’s no problem with finishing the text in a day or two…we both read that fast. Since RachelKiwi is a great gal I thought I’d give you guys a little peek into our exclusive club 😉

We’ve been waiting for The Wild Rose FOR EVER, lol. We did the first two in the series together and you couldn’t stop us from tackling this one together either. When we were finished we traded 4 questions…RachelKiwi asked me 4 and I asked her 4. Watch out these answers contain MAJOR *Spoilers*. But if you’ve done The Wild Rose you’re gonna love our breakdown…We covered all those nagging questions you’ve been dying to talk to someone about!

With out further ado…The Questions…

RachelKiwi Asks, TheLibrarian Answers…

1. I read on Donnelly’s blog that Willa is the character that she has created that she identifies most with, because she isn’t perfect, she’s damaged and broken. of the heroines of this series, Fiona, India, and Willa, who do you identify with most and why?

I’ve always been a Fiona girl. I think the way that she responds to the trials in her life is the same way I would. I mean, I suppose I’m probably not starting a worldwide tea industry or anything. But the way she picks herself up. Fiona doesn’t wallow in her losses, she makes the best out of her situations…she remains happy with what the world has given her. I like that response better than India’s resignation and Willa’s depression and addiction. I’m more of a deal with it and move on kinda gal. 

2. I don’t think either of us were satisfied with Wild Rose, compared to the way we passionately adored the other two books. What do you think Donnelly did differently this time? what would you have changed to make this a 10/10 read for you?

I think it was huge that Donnelly started Willa and Seamie’s story in The Winter Rose. The beginning of The Wild Rose felt like we were halfway through a story. A single book didn’t start with the love that the other two had. So for 99% of the book we were stuck in that lost period where each character lives their separate life. In the other two stories only about a third of the book was spent apart. Because we saw the two characters fall in love in the beginning. It just made The Wild Rose a little more depressing for the bulk of the book. 

To make it a 10/10 I would have like to either see Donnelly mix up her plot patterns or given her main characters a few more happy breakthroughs. Maybe they could have come together (not in an illicit affair) for a bit during Part 1 before losing each other again. They could have found a happy relationship, or more happiness in their accomplishments. Even the beautiful photos Willa takes, or the achievements Seamie makes in the Navy are brushed over in a way that makes them seem meaningless to the characters. Like a shoulder shrug instead of a huge grin. There just needed to be a little more “happy” in this book. Even the ending is a quiet coming together. No big, hug/love/kiss/shebang. 

3. what do you think of the ending with Max von Brandt’s 11th hour confession that he was a double-agent working for the British? satisfying? believable? unforgivable? or no?

This felt very rushed to me. It was almost like I was waiting for someone to jump out of the closet and disprove his innocence. NOTHING in the rest of the book gave any merit to his double-agent status. There wasn’t one scene that proved he was good…not even a situation where his actions could have been for the good. I kinda felt like Donnelly pulled that out of her you-know-what. Wouldn’t the ending have been smoother if Albie had saved the day and taken in Max for the war criminal he was? Why did they even let him go?…heck, Joe and the head of the Navy were arrested earlier in the novel and they had identification on them. It seemed a little too easy and made me feel worse about loosing Gladys, Maud, and Jennie under the circumstances we did. Their deaths are now in vain! None of them had to die. Even Maud could have been dealt with had Max explained himself. Jennie died thinking she was righting a wrong, now we find that in those last moments she was actually hindering a good spy. Poor Gladys had a horrible life alone because of Max, who sent the picture that caused her to commit suicide? Then who was this spy master we searched the whole book for? Why did Donnelly drop that hint that Max was back in town to mend his chain?

UGH!!!!! The more I think about it, the more I really needed Max to be a villain to right all of these wrongs…and these plot points! What was the point of him if he really wasn’t a bad guy…

4. Seamie and Willa’s love is defined by several people in the book as being destructive… destroying everything and everyone it touches. do you think that is true?

I don’t know that their love destroys. Honestly, I think Willa was the destructive person. There I said it. Had she been more in tune with her feelings; Had she stayed and had a conversation with Seamie all could have been righted. I think the difference from the first two books was that these two didn’t have to lose each other. No one was escaping a murderer or the law like in the last two books. They were pushed apart by Willa’s stubbornness. And held in that position because Willa is a depressive addict. She really did wrong them as a couple and the repercussions of her inability to accept a lost leg rippled and ruined how many lives?! Jennie, Albie, Max…etc. Willa is a little too prideful for my taste, and selfish, there I said it. I just didn’t agree with her viewpoint on life. Had she softened a bit think of how many more good years she and Seamie would have had…

xxx

TheLibrarian Asks, RachelKiwi Answers…

1. How do you feel about the Seamie/Jennie relationship? Neither was honest – but they didn’t have the success of Fiona and Nick or the tragedy of India and Freddie…Do you think Seamie and Jennie’s marriage was a working plot point or a fail on the part of Donnelly?

It was hard to see Seamie pick such a sweet girl to marry. It’s easy to condone adultery in characters when they are married to horrible people. But for him to cheat on Jennie was hard to watch. Even though she wasn’t honest with him, either, it was out of love for him. She was scared of rejection, and rightfully so, cause she ended up being rejected anyway when he turned to Willa. I think their marriage was a device to keep Willa and Seamie apart… again. If she was gonna use it, which she did, obviously, I think she needed to develop it more. Pretty much as soon as Willa came back, Jennie disappeared from all plots involving Seamie. I wanted to see inside their marriage… see it deteriorate, or see the tension there. Seamie didn’t love Jennie at the beginning, but he respected her and liked her and was attracted to her. Next we know he’s thinking about how he doesn’t love his wife and what a horrible man he is. How did we get there? I would have loved to see Seamie and Jennie fighting… or giving each other the silent treatment, or whatever. We don’t know what happened there, because Donnelly didn’t show us and I think that was a mistake. 

2. Did you think there was a moment in the end of the book where Max could have been the better choice for Willa?

Oh I hate your question, because yes. Seamie never felt “wild” to me like Willa was. They talk about how they are such a destructive force together, but they weren’t… they just shared a common passion. Max, however, is as broken and wild and untamed as Willa is. Life has hardened both him and Willa. I don’t know if that makes for a better choice for her, though. Maybe Seamie can gentle her, free her from everything that torments her. But I do think Max and Willa could have had a good connection if Seamie had really died. I wanted the ending to be where Max saved them, not because he was a double agent and a “good guy” after all, but just out of selfless love for Willa and still be the “bad guy.” I thought that might be more compelling than throwing in this espionage twist at the end.  

3. Why do you think Donnelly chose to make this tale so much darker than the two previous? Yes, the other couples had hardships but they were allowed moments of happiness as well…Why do you think Seamie and Willa had none? Or do you disagree…did you see happiness in their lives?

I don’t think Seamie and Willa had moments of happiness after the accident on Kilimanjaro. Even when they were reunited in London 8 years later, those hours together were tainted by guilt and secrecy. Even at the end, when they are together with no more obstacles, it isn’t a joyous ending like the endings of the previous two books. It’s like a tentative happiness… one where they know that at least they are together, but there is this “terrible love” and life to be conquered. But I appreciated this grimmer book. The other two, though I loved them to death, were like unbelievable fairy tales: people coming back from the dead multiple times, secret love children, rags to riches. The Wild Rose felt more like real life. There were still the close brushes with death and the improbable encounters in the deserts, but there was loss and pain and addiction and selfishness… on the part of the good guys. So maybe she was just going for a harsher dose of reality this time. Maybe she wanted to make characters that weren’t so perfect and courageousness and right all the time. And I think the books before had themes of perseverance and redemption and forgiveness and all this mushy good stuff. This theme is something grittier. I don’t know. Survival? That’s what I felt at the end. That I could finally just exhale, that everyone had survived.  

4. Of all the side plots did you have a favorite? Which one and why…

I loved anything with India and Sid. I miss them and wanted to see more of them. I absolutely adore Sid. I like seeing him further into his transformation from head gangster  into loving husband and father. And I loved Fiona and Joe’s feisty daughter, Katie. Her own book, please, Jennifer? 

RachelKiwi’s review of The Wild Rose Here

TheLibrarian’s review of The Wild Rose Here

Read Full Post »