This is my third Judith Ivory, after Beast and Black Silk, and I am well on my way to falling madly in love with this author. I listened to this one on audio (click the link to listen to a sample), and if you are thinking about trying romance on audio, this is the place to start. I usually don’t like male narrators with third person romance (they make women sound shrill), but Steven Crossley did a terrific job, getting perfectly the Cockney-Cornish working class accent and dialect of the hero, and gradually changing them to a gentleman’s tones. Although Ivory’s writing conveyed the different voices, I believe the audio enhanced my experience of the book in this case.
Although the audio version is available, this book is out of print and not available for Kindle. I purchased my paper copy from a USB.
The book opens in a dress shop in Kensington. Mick Tremore, a virile rat catcher with a big bushy mustache who attracts the attentions of gentle ladies looking for a little “mud”, catches sight of a great pair of legs. Eventually, he finds out they belong to Lady Edwina Bollash, a buttoned up blustocking spinster, a linguist and expert in social graces and polite behavior who lives alone and gets by tutoring young ladies. The “proposition” of the title refers to Emile and Jeremy Lamont, brothers who make a bet against one another whether Lady Bollash turn Mick into a gentleman in 6 weeks. One brother thinks being a gentleman is all about behavior and comportment, while the other thinks it’s in the blood. The test will be Mick’s attendance at the annual ball held by Milford Xavier Bollash, 5th Duke of Arles, who happens to be Edwina’s uncle, a man who left her virtually penniless when he inherited her father’s estates. Both Edwina’s pride and the chance to pull one over on her uncle motivate her to accepts the challenge. For his part, Mick is offered 100 pounds, a tidy sum that will help him support his many siblings back in the country.
Mick moves into Edwina’s townhouse for his instruction and that’s where they stay until the last part of the book. This is one of my favorite kinds of romance: low conflict, lots of face time, liberal doses of humor, and the joy of sexual awakening and first love. Mick is a very confident, centered, smart man whose observational skills and pragmatism make him a quick study. He can appreciate the poshness of Edwina’s hospitality without lapsing into self-pity or an out of character rant about class injustice. Mick lives in the moment: he loves life, loves sex, and loves his ferrets and his dogs (I actually thought the bits about rat catching were very interesting, and I have a dread fear of rodents). He has no internal conflict about Edwina. What begins as lust and like (having seen those long gams in the dress shop, he’s not fooled by her plain buttoned up exterior) very naturally becomes true love.
While his exposure to Edwina’s lifestyle motivates a bit of reflection about whether rat catching is the best he can do, and while his clothing, toilette, speech, and mannerisms undergo radical changes, Mick Tremore’s character arc is shorter than Winnie’s. This incorrigible man is perfect for Edwina, and the reader can see this immediately. The real journey has to be taken by the heroine. Edwina is all head, no heart. She’s was dealt major blows as a child, essentially outcast from society when her Uncle abandoned her, and is now emotionally closed off, especially afraid of rejection by men (they’ve never shown an interest in her). Like Mick, though, she’s not “damaged”, and she doesn’t need “saving”. Her pragmatism is less about healthy acceptance, and more about fear of change and fear of failure. Her life is also “pretty good” but it could be so much better if she opened up to Mick and his invitation to seize the day.
If you like sexual tension, this is the book for you. In some ways, the entire book is Mick’s amusing, sincere, and loving attempt to seduce Edwina. But to give one example, Edwina decides early on that Mick’s mustache has to go. In exchange, Mick wants her to lift her skirts to show a bit of leg. The working out of the details of the wager (How much leg? How long? May he touch?) and its execution take a few chapters.
Ivory has a way of taking a thing and making it a kind of motif throughout the book. In Black Silk, it was .. er… black silk. In Beast, it was the ambergris. In this one, it’s Mick’s mustache, a symbol of his virility, his class, his larger than life personality. So much is happening beyond the sexual when he and Winnie battle over that facial hair.
The class distinctions are important to the book, but not a heavy handed imposition. It’s probably fair to say poor country folk are portrayed as being closer to nature and to the body, less worked up about sex. Edwina hides behind her role as Mick’s teacher, which doubles as her role as upper class lady, when she needs to put distance between them, as in this exchange:
He asked bluntly, “Do you want me to kiss you?”
“No” she said instantly. Thought he shock in her face, he would’ve guessed was more for having her mind read than form the idea.
He turned her loose, pushing her away. “fine. If you ever do, just remember I like a little participation. A little share in the responsibility, Miss Bollash. If you want me to kiss you, it’d be right damn nice if you’d say so. Otherwise” — he reverted intentionally — “you ain’t havin’ a kiss from me.”
She glared and pressed her lips so hard together, they turned white. Her face was full of havoc, vexation, bewilderment — for what had just happened.
Then the mean witch of a woman said, “Instead of right — right nice or right fine — you should say quite or rather or even ratherish.”
He gave a snort. He wanted to hoot. “I’m not saying ratherish.”
Then he wanted to laugh outright. Here they were, him and Winnie, going at it again. Jesus, the woman was thick. Didn’t she feel it? Hell he wanted to shove her against a wall between the bridle straps, pull up her skirts — Or no, maybe in the carriage, flat out on the seat or — Jesus, he couldn’t think how to do it or rather, he could think of a hundred ways he wanted to. He wanted to have her, just have her — maybe the floor would do, if the dogs and ferrets didn’t mind.
He made himself ask instead, “What do you want me to say? What was the rest?”
She corrected him again. “Pardon. Remember, you’re supposed to say pardon when you want someone to repeat themselves.”
He raised his brow with theatrical impatience and said, “Pardon, Miss Bollash? What the bloody foke do you want me to day instead of right damn fine?”
She stared fixedly. “Quite fine. Or rather fine.”
“Rather,” he repeated. Rather. Mick could hear himself saying it right. He looked at Winnie. She waited for the whole phrase. Stupid woman. She was happier fixing him than admiring him. It was her way of connecting, her way of shagging him blind. “Rather fine, Miss Bollash.”
Toward the end of the book, Mick gets Edwina out of the house. This is really the climax of the book, literally and literarily. They have a series of adventures beginning in a tea room, moving onto a trolley, and finally a tavern. I think it’s one of the most fun and joyful stretches of romance I have ever read.
The book ends with the ball, of course, and the resolution of the external barrier to their relationship. What I say next contains spoilers.
Longtime romance readers could predict that Mick will not end the book a ratcatcher. It turns out that Jeremy and Emile are conmen who are trying to pass Mick off as the long lost grandson of the Duke, stolen as a baby by his wetnurse and taken to the country. Of course, Mick actually IS the long lost grandson. The Duke of Arles falls ill, he and Edwina make up, at least somewhat, and when he dies, our ratcatcher becomes the wealthiest and most powerful man in England. I had no problem with this — it’s a romance novel after all, and there aren’t many HEAs for poor heroes — but the narrative lost steam for me once Mick and Edwina fell in love and consummated their relationship. So the final bits with the Duke almost read to me like an epilogue: nice, smile-inducing, but not gripping.
In each of he three Ivory books I have read, there is some feature that I found so historically or factually problematic, I had to work hard to not think about it. In this one, it’s the idea that Lady Bollash would have a man stay in her home, especially upstairs on the same floor where she sleeps, when her sterling reputation is what makes her attractive to clients. Also, she attends a ball with three single men. The book is set in Victorian London, not Regency, so perhaps it’s ok? I found it a bit jarring.
Ivory has becomes one of my top five romance writers. I highly recommend this book in print or audio. And if you like Judith Ivory, read or reread Black Silk and join us for a discussion of it Sunday December 6.
You’re making me want to revisit these novels. Which I try not to do too often, since there aren’t many of them.
She’s making me shake in my books she won’t love Untie My Heart — my fave of all. But you’re right, my reading book du jour is going to star a ratcatcher! Thanks for a wonderful review: I hope Ms. Ivory sees it
Is this the one where he sings her the plant song in the end? I love love love Judith Ivory too!
Wow – I’ve never read Judith Ivory but now I really, REALLY want to read this book! It sounds wonderful!
That being said, it’s paper all the way. My ADD makes audiobooks near impossible to pay attention to all the way through.
@Booklover1335: Yes, but it’s actually near the beginning.
@AnimeJune: You won;t regret it!
Sold! I mean, if only I didn’t have to read Henry VIII & the Tempest & Stanley Fish & Shelley & all the . . . In any case, this book sounds great. I love bluestockings in Romance.
I have no idead what Victorian mores were. I feel like I know from literature but maybe that’s not historically accurate. In the late Victorian era did spinsters still need chaperones? If I remember correctly Lily Bart was always doing things by herself but maybe I’m imagining that.
Mick is one of the most happy go lucky heroes I ever read! I found the ending a bit too eye rolling but it was cute. This book was just so darn cute!
I miss Ivory
She was a true star of the historical romance genre.
I found this at my library after you said you were enjoying it. I think I’ll have to start it this weekend. Looking forward to the Black Silk discussion, too. (You don’t have to answer this comment
)
What a superb review of Ivory’s work, Jessica. You make me want to re-read this book. Unfortunately, it’s weeded out from our library. Where did you buy your copy from?
Nifty review of what was my fourth favorite Ivory (I would have to reread them all to see if the rankings still hold).
SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I recall that in conversation with Judith Ivory on the AAR boards at the time this book came out, she said that she was trying to be subtle about it, but her aim with the ending was to leave it open to the reader’s interpretation whether Mick was actually the long-lost heir, or whether he actually assumed that role as he had assumed the role of a gentleman under Edwina’s tutelage, even though it wasn’t his by birth.
I should add that even though that was the author’s intention, my interpretation was the same as yours, and from what I observed most people interpreted it similarly — that Mick truly was the heir. I would have loved it if I had had the other interpretation, because the ending, the way I interpreted it, felt a bit too traditional for such a fresh and different book.
I think I had this book at one point, but I must have sold it or gave it away or something. I definitely do not remember reading a romance with a ratcatcher for a hero.
Oh, I love this book. It’s interesting that Edwina’s character journey/ transformation is the more profound of the two since Mick is in the Galatea/Eliza Doolittle role in this Pygmalion fable. (I also made much of the tash/legs negotiation in my review… such a wonderful scene – and so sustained!)
And the ending! Janine’s comment is interesting – I also read it that Mick was the real deal and there was no dubeity over that in my mind. And that was the one letdown in the book for me. It felt to me as though the subtext was that the reason Mick was fabulous was because of his blood – a suggestion that comes up a lot in historical romance novels and that I dislike. I wish the uncertainty over that had come across more strongly.
Janet – I find it difficult to commit to an absolute Ivory favourite but if I had to decide, Untie My Heart is possibly it. Stuart Aysgarth (sigh).
@Janet W: I am pretty sure Untie My Heart is among the half dozen Ivory/Cuevas books I just bought. Looking forward to it!
@katiebabs: Does anyone know why she stopped writing?
@Phyl: One of the things that marks a really good romance writer is the ability to write such different books (not saying that those who stick to a ceratin kind of book are therefore NOT good writers, though). the other author, besides Ivory, who does this is Kinsale.
@Angela/Lazaraspaste: Stanley Fish. Yuck. good luck with that.
@Janine: The AAR review suggests the ending is ambiguous. I would like to see the evidence for that, or rather, put that scant evidence up against the mountains of evidence for the unambiguous interpretation.
@heidenkind: Yeah the ratcatching is kind of memorable.
@Tumperkin: Great point about the way Ivory kind of upends the Pygmalion story. I will hie myself over to IIR to read your review!
If I had to rank the three I have read, I guess it would be Black Silk, Proposition, Beast. Although I enjoyed Proposition the most.
I believe Ivory became ill. Her last book took a long time for her too write because of her illness.
@katiebabs: In one of her AAR interviews (I think it was the historical roundtable interview), she mentioned back problems as the reason for the delay in finishing the book she was working on. And then she just dropped away from the romance community, according to what I heard.
Bought it Jessica, used, from Amazon Marketplace.
Because, My Fair Lord highly recommended by you? I am so, so there. This will be my first Ivory. I am excited.
and on a different note: that spoiler banner is hilarious! where did you get that?
Ana — I don’t know where I found it, but it cracked me up too. Someone probably deserves credit (bad Jessica). I hope you enjoy the Ivory, especially given your recent historical romance slump. I think this is a great Ivory to start with. Let me know what you think!
We lost us a good ‘un mate, when she stopped writing. I’ve read just about all her books and she added a depth of character to her heroes & heroines that we don’t always see. My favourite book of hers is actually one she wrote as Judy Cuevas – Bliss. Sadly, it’s a very hard to find book and as far as I know, hasn’t been reissued. But if you ever do run across a copy of it – it’s very well worth reading.
So many problems did I have with this book.
But on the plus side, I also had a fabulous time with the tavern scene. The feel of it reminded of a scene in that movie with Tom & Nicole did about Irish immigrants.
As an aside: Although Winnie doesn’t need to be saved she does get rescued at the end and the plot arc belongs to Mick.
It’s interesting to me that Winnie’s character is given so many handicaps, as a fan of Pygmalion and a hater of My Fair Lady, I would’ve appreciated a stronger character who hadn’t put in such a position of weakness (no female friends, no family, no support network, money issues, separated from society, etc., etc., etc.), especially given that pulling off a scam of this magnitude would’ve required a lot more work (and for Winnie to be much more than she was) than anything Prof. Higgins was or did for Eliza. If Winnie had come from that position of strength, I think this story would’ve had a better chance of working for me.
As it was, I found the story cute (if rather fluffy since it’s a take off of Shaw’s Pygmalion). I also appreciated the slow sensual journey the leads went on –it was a fun seduction for the sexual side of Winne as well as the live in the moment aspect missing from her life.
And that’s all I have to say since anything more is just being a wet blanket at a great party.
@KristieJ: Bliss is $18 plus shiiping, so I did not buy it in my recent glom of Ivory (although I did get Untie My Heart, Janet, as well as The Indiscretion and Sleeping Beauty). I will have to see if the library can get it for me.
@AQ: Yes, Far and Away, and also the scene in the Titanic where Kate Winslet danced.
Seriously, I would love to know what didn’t work for you. I won’t be offended or upset at all.
Let’s see how I rank my Ivory books. At the very bottom, STARLIT SURRENDER/ANGEL IN A RED DRESS–not so much proto-Ivory as barely Ivory. Near the bottom, THE INDISCRETION. Finished it. Nice prose as always–but the purple heather on the moor did not enthrall me as much as the purple lavender field of Provence.
At the top is BEAST. Sigh. Le Sigh. Truly a thing of beauty.
Near the top are BLISS and BLACK SILK.
And then there is the rest of the Ivory books, which do not rank in the bottom but also do not quite work as well for me as the top tier books for various reasons–mostly Ms. Ivory’s own fault since BEAST was as close to perfection as humanly possible.
I enjoyed THE PROPOSITION. No doubt about it. I think I would very much enjoy it still were I to read it again.
The thing about it is that it is Ivory’s most beloved book. It won a Rita. It was popular. It was uncontroversial in anyway except for possibly the Snape killed Trinity bit at the end–which was rather ludicrous.
I’m not sure it was quite Ivory enough for me. I expect a certain amount of outre to an Ivory book. I expect a certain twistedness in the psyche, a certain philosophical exploration of the most uncomfortably human parts of the soul. Mick and Edwina are both too nice, too unperverted, too straightforward.
So I don’t have any real complaints about this book other than that it is too normal–beautifully, gorgeously executed, but still too normal. And if I liked normal I wouldn’t be reading Ivory, would I?
@Jessica:
I sent you 2 e-mails instead here. I went a tad long. Okay, very long on the first. Remember wet blanket. You have been warned. LOL
What’s Love Got to Do With It? Looking into romance heroine: Winnie
(Part 1)
Winnie is an interesting character in that her character composition doesn’t make sense to me. Here’s the underlying tension I have with her.
If Winnie is the woman from the her part of her first scene and she wanted revenge on her cousin, she’d have it. If she wanted to not be a spinster, she wouldn’t be. She also wouldn’t have money problems. Why? Because she understands the world of appearances / comportment. She knows that to wield power you must act the part and her position in the world (high level peerage) is such that why wouldn’t she use that realization/underlying truth to her advantage. And because she’s high ranking peerage and it’s a very small circle of people (I believe the author got this wrong but maybe someone with more knowledge can clarify and shift the tension for me)
If Winnie is the self-conscious hidden away spinster, then she’s not teaching other women how to wield power, she’s not interacting with Mick without any class consciousness and she’s not allowing him such familiarity from the moment they meet. Actually they wouldn’t have met because she wouldn’t have intervened.
If she’s truly in love with her vocation, then she’s out in the field expanding her knowledge base, she’s comfortable with her power (she’d have to be to break out of the expected female cultural role) and wouldn’t hide her face away from commoners. Unfortunately given her father’s academic concentration on upper class speech, there’s no way Winnie could have knowledge of Mick’s accent without leaving home. And since she wasn’t close to her father, the knowledge she has is book learned from his research gained in the eleven years after his death. A difficult task at best that would require her to rather obsessive about the topic and yet that studiousness doesn’t carry on to any other part of her life. If Winnie has broken the stereotypical female cultural mold of the time period (and there are many real life examples of women who did), why is her knowledge base so very tiny and specific? She knows nothing of male centric topics and can’t balance her bank statements. Actually I don’t think she’s very smart at all.
If Winnie believes she’s so content with her life then Mick can’t make her feel so much discontent within 24 hours of meeting him. Pricks of awareness? Definitely. But if Mick’s able to make her feel so much so fast wouldn’t she have already been shall we say itchy, almost ready to pounce on anything that crossed her path?
See, what you’ve done to me, Jessica? I’m trapped in the swirling tangents of my mind by your commentary. There’s a thread I’m trying to pull apart I hope you and your audience will be kind enough to help and bear with me since I won’t be trying to make a cohesive argument as much as discovery inquiry.