In 1893 America, an anthropologist gets custody of the "Ontario Man," who was found running wild and seemed to have been raised by wolves. Thrilled at the thought of discovering the nature of humanity untainted by civilization, he locks the man up and begins performing psychological experiments on him. Meanwhile, the anthropologist's family-- including his young widowed daughter Sydney -- begin to realize that there's more to the Ontario Man than meets the eye.

Considering that this is genre romance, the potential for this story to be sappy, squicky, or embarrassing seemed high. It's actually great: sweet, funny, touching, well-characterized, and with some serious exploration of what would really happen in such a scenario. The supporting cast is given plenty of time and attention, leading to a lot of intriguing secondary relationships. I especially liked the interaction between the heroine's little brother Sam and her older brother Philip with the man whose name, they eventually discover, is Michael. Michael himself is a great character, a feral child re-discovering human interaction, and sentimentalized as little as possible.

The prose is good, too, and the sex scenes are both hot and based on specific character interactions. I don't know anything about this period so I have no idea if its portrayal is accurate, but it was vividly evoked (the World's Fair! The scientists arguing philosophy!) and felt real within the book, at least.

Like many romances, the book has some third-act problems such as Michael's parentage being a total cliche and, more importantly, his relationship with Sydney getting lost for a while. Sydney starts out a very strong, interesting character, and while she doesn't exactly become less strong, she does become less central for portions of the book than I would have liked.

Nevertheless, I loved this a lot and it rekindled my enjoyment of the genre. Has anyone read anything else by Gaffney? What would you recommend?

Wild at Heart

From: [identity profile] asakiyume.livejournal.com


I don't read much romance (I only read it by accident, I think), but I'm interested in what you say about third-act problems. Are romance novels in particular prone to them? Do you mean problems in tying up plot threads, or something more specific?

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


Really a lot of genre romance novels introduce contrived plot twists in the third act in order to keep the hero and heroine apart, physically or emotionally.

From: [identity profile] asakiyume.livejournal.com


*nods* Okay: in movies, what my younger daughter calls the Hollywood betrayal. "What? You mean you only dated me that first time because your friend bet I'd never say yes? Well that completely negates the six months of friendship and blossoming love that developed between us; I now believe you care nothing for me and this was all nothing more than a wager with a friend!"


From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


Yes, exactly.

Though not in this particular case. In this book, there's a perfectly reasonable plot-related complication, but also the heroine becomes somewhat randomly convinced that OH WOES IT CAN'T WORK OUT for unrelated reasons that don't make a whole lot of sense.

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


In the case of at least three Laura Kinsale novels I've read, there is a revolution in Act III. Not that I actually object to that.

From: [identity profile] asakiyume.livejournal.com


So for her revolutions are maybe just a natural part of plotting, like having rising action and whatever. Oops, chapter 24--time for the revolution! And sure, what's not to love about a revolution?

From: [identity profile] rachelmanija.livejournal.com


Kinsale's plotting tends toward the baroque. I reviewed a number of her books, so you can find her in my tags.
.

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags