In the Mask of Night discussion a few weeks ago, there were quite a few comments about Isobel and Oliver. A number of readers found Isobel much more sympathetic than Oliver. Which intrigued me, because I confess while I was quite sympathetic to Isobel as I planned the book, when I actually wrote it, I had a hard time with her. I’m not sure what it was precisely. But though I felt sorry for her, it was though her coolness held me at a distance as well. I often found myself sympathizing more with Oliver. Perhaps because he’s an outsider? Mostly, though, I felt sorry for both Bel and Oliver and the way their marriage eroded. In any case, I was intrigued and quite relieved by the reaction of these readers to Bel, because it means that even if I had trouble sympathizing with her myself, she didn’t come across as unsympathetic the way I wrote her.
Princess Tatiana in Vienna Waltz was something of the opposite case. I didn’t particularly sympathize with her when I plotted the book, yet I found myself sympathizing with her more and more as I wrote it and saw sides of her beyond the schemer. I also found myself quite sympathetic to Talleyrand, despite the fact that he was a schemer par excellence, with questionable motives both in the novel and in the historical record..
I recently got revision notes from my editor on Imperial Scandal (“the Waterloo book”, the sequel to Vienna Waltz). There’s one action of Suzanne/Mélanie’s she suggested I take out, because she’s afraid it goes too far and could destroy reader sympathy for her. I confess I was worried myself that that scene pushed the envelope too far. I’m glad I got to write it the way I did (and that’s the way it happens in my mind), but I don’t mind changing it in the revisions.
All of which goes to the question of what makes a character sympathetic and what destroys reader sympathy for a character. What makes a character sympathetic to you? What makes a character lose your sympathy? What are some characters you’ve found particularly sympathetic? Are there seemingly admirable characters you’ve found yourself not sympathizing with? What actions have made characters lose your sympathy?
I’ve just posted another Fraser Correspondence letter containing reactions to Princess Tatiana’s murder, this one from Raoul to Lady Frances about Tatiana’s murder.
Tracy Grant - Novelist 
May 17, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Oh, that’s a hard question to answer.
I admit, I am more “sympathetic” towards flawed female characters than male.
(Unlike a lot of readers who demande perfection, sweetness and light from them – while male characters are usually excused from consequences).
I prefer characters who are not hypocritical. Who are at least honest with themselves. They know they’re not perfect and they don’t pretend to be.
I don’t know why I’m so mad (still) at Oliver and I have so much sympathy with Melanie. Because he’s a guy? Perhaps.
The thing is, for all Oliver knew, he could have had what he wanted (Sylvie) without spying on his friends if he had been willing to give up the idea of having “everything”. Instead, he spied on his friends for a man whose ideals he disliked.
But he seems (in chapter 39) not quite willing to admit his own complicity in what happened.
May 17, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Thanks for tackling the question, JMM. I’m more sympathetic to Mélanie than to Oliver, too. For one thing, Mel spies for a cause she believes in. Oliver does it for money and in fact goes against his ideals as you say. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s as simple as that he could have had Sylvie. Sylvie made it clear she wasn’t willing to marry a penniless man (in fact, Carfax was blackmailing her to marry St. Ives, but Oliver doesn’t learn this until the end of the book). And Oliver wanted more than Sylvie. He wanted a position so he could work for the things he believed in. That doesn’t justify what he did, but I do think it makes his choice more interesting and complex (it’s modeled in some ways on Sir Robert Chiltern’s past history in “An Ideal Husband”).
What in Chapter 39 gives you the sense Oliver isn’t willing to admit his complicity?
May 17, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Perhaps it’s just “chemistry”.
Two people can read a book and come away with two completely different views of it. I loathe Wuthering Heights; some people consider it fantastic.
In other words, Oliver just bugged the hell out of me. 🙂
This is just MY opinion, here.
When Carfax mocks Sylvie for her “star-crossed lover” portrayal and points out that Oliver enjoys the priviliges he has as a MP, I had to laugh. I don’t like Carfax, but he makes no real effort to hide that he’s a SOB. He has his beliefs and wrong as I think they are, he at least seems to adhere to them.
Oliver seemed (In my eyes) to feel… aggrieved. Victimized, almost. Even his apologies came off as self-pitying. “You’ll never forgive ME.” “Look what *I* have lost.” He made his bed and he didn’t want to lie in it.
Sure, he had less money than his friends. He had a lot more than most; a lot of men would love to be educated and well-fed and connected to the rich and powerful.
And to find out that he betrayed his friends for someone so petty and selfish and rotten as Sylvie… a woman who deliberately set out to harm an innocent Isobel out of jealousy… grrr…
I love your books! They make me react!
BTW, who did the cover design? Who does covers for Kindle and other ebooks.
May 17, 2011 at 6:47 pm
I too find it fascinating how readers can react so differently to different characters. (I think Wuthering Heights is a powerful book, but I don’t much like Heathcliff or Cathy; Heathcliff lost all my sympathy when he more or less allows his son to die).
I confess I didn’t intend Oliver to come across as aggrieved or victimized when I wrote those scenes. I’ll have to reread them and see how they might come across through a different lens.
He was, as you say, better off than most people in Britain at the time. But again, he didn’t betray his friends for Sylvie. (He wasn’t really wealthy until he married Isobel). He did it because of his political ambitions, which were to a large degree idealistic. Which I don’t think excuses what he did, but I do think makes the picture more complicated.
Carfax is quite good at seeing through people-I like that in him, different as his beliefs are from mine (not to mention his methods).
May 17, 2011 at 6:56 pm
“You were spying on us,” David said. The words seemed to stick in his throat. “My father was paying you to report our activities?”
“Yes,” Oliver said.
“Why would you-”
“Because he wanted to marry Sylvie de Fancot,” Isabel said.
Oliver met his wife’s gaze. “Quite.”
Chapter 27. Was Bel wrong? Was Oliver lying because he didn’t think she’d ever believe him?
May 17, 2011 at 7:19 pm
You’re right, JMM! I’m getting the sequence muddled. Oliver started spying for Carfax at Oxford, when he was quite young and still thought he had a chance to marry Sylvie. He wanted to go into politics as well, and later, after he knew he couldn’t have Sylvie, that became his driving ambition. Thanks for correcting me!
May 18, 2011 at 2:12 am
Thanks again for catching my error, JMM–feeling very foolish! Thinking some more about your comments, it occurred to me that I actually feel quite sorry for Sylvie in some ways (without in any way condoning what she does). Carfax started manipulating her when she was a teenager and she’s been his pawn ever since. And I think part of the reason I’m sympathetic to Oliver is that he too was quite young when he first went to work for Carfax.
May 18, 2011 at 8:35 am
Underdogs always win my sympathy – the weakest link in a love triangle, the hero or heroine’s less dynamic friend, even the antagonist at times. When I read ‘Pride and Prejudice’, I care more about Bingley and Jane Bennet then star cross’d Darcy and Lizzie, and I must admit that TSP wouldn’t have been half as enjoyable without Chauvelin! (I felt so sorry for him every time Sir Percy evaded capture!)
May 18, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Ms. Grant,
I recently read Vienna Waltz. It was the first of your books that I have read and I LOVED it! I can’t wait to dive into the other books in your Charles/Malcolm and Melanie/Suzanne series. Do you recommend reading them in a particular order?
Also, I’m sure you must’ve answered this before, but what inspired you to change the names of the two main characters of the series?
Many thanks!
May 18, 2011 at 3:13 pm
I can’t warm up to a bully. Or a hypocrite. Fanatics, especially of the religious persuasion, also trip my “do not want” button when it comes to fictional characters.
Other qualities that fail to engage my sympathies are spite,l selfishness, malice, and self-righteousness. Lacking a sense of humor doesn’t help the character’s cause either.
That being the case, a skillful writer can often persuade me to take a second look at a character with any of the preceding traits. I still might not end up liking or sympathizing with the character, but I could end up finding him or her interesting in a train wreck sort-of way.
One of my most hated, loathed, Oh-God-isn’t-he-dead-yet? villains has to be Gabriel of the Lymond Chronicles. All the damage he did before he was finally taken out … ::shudders::
For the most part, I don’t find too many monsters in Vienna Waltz or The Mask of Night. Although I developed a strong aversion to selfish, feckless, dishonorable Christopher, who doesn’t even appear onstage in VW. A more worthless object of sacrifice can scarcely be imagined, and I found myself hoping he’d end up on the business end of a bayonet at Waterloo, at the very least. Also disliked the malicious Jason Radley, and wished an equally unpleasant fate for him.
Bel and Oliver are “greyer” figures, and I found myself sympathizing with both to some degree. Bel’s a hard one to read, being so cool and self-contained, but I felt bad for her because the one time she stepped out of bounds to reach for the emotional intimacy she felt she was missing in her marriage, she ended up being royally played by two selfish users, Sylvie and Arthur. And I did feel some sympathy for Oliver, if only because he did decide to honor his marriage vows and felt genuine hurt when his wife did not. At the same time, I did find him lacking in backbone, to let Carfax manipulate him against his better instincts for so long and for largely mercenary reasons. It will be interesting to see if the Lydgates manage to salvage something from their relationship, or if they’ll end up leading essentially separate lives.
I stop short of calling Arthur a monster or a villain, but my word, he’s a selfish one! His sense of entitlement, after a lapse of so many years, was mind-boggling, and I can’t really feel that his end was undeserved. His resurrection would have hurt so many people, and benefitted no one but himself in the end.
May 18, 2011 at 5:00 pm
I just had more time to scan through your site. Found the FAQ, so disregard my question two posts above. Looking foward to the reading adventure!!
May 18, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Sarah, underdogs win my sympathy was well. I think as I said in the post that part of my sympathy for Oliver is because he’s an outsider (though as JMM very correctly pointed out, he’s still better off than the majority of people in Britain at the time). I feel sorry for Chauvelin at times as well. Particularly at the end of the 1982 film when he’s fighting Percy but surrounded by Percy’s men. It’s not like they’d let him go, even if he killed Percy. He’s lost the dauphin and Marguerite and the game…
May 18, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Bleyers, thanks so much for posting, and I’m so glad you enjoyed Vienna Waltz and want to read the other books! It sounds like you’ve got answers to your questions about reading order and the names, but briefly my new publisher wanted new names. Now that’s you’ve started with Vienna Waltz (which I think is a good place to start), I’d read Beneath a Silent Moon, Secrets of a Lady, and The Mask of Night. Do let me know what you think. I’m particularly interested in the reactions of readers who come to the series through Vienna Waltz.
May 18, 2011 at 5:33 pm
I intensely disliked Gabriel too, Stephanie – and it’s not as though he ever really shows a more vulnerable side to engage one sympathies or seems to have principles (as Chauvelin does). Christopher and Frederick Radley are more petty types of villains, driven by their greed and selfishness but not grand master plans. I have to say, I’m rather pleased you had such a strong reaction to them just I’m pleased JMM had such a strong reaction to Oliver (it’s always nice when readers react strongly to characters, positively or negatively).
When I began Mask of Night, I intended Oliver and Bel to reconcile at the end. Writing the book, I realized that would be way too fast, and I also liked leaving one of the three central couples “unsettled.” I’m not sure, now, exactly where the two of them will end up. It will be interesting to explore.
My psychologist parents wouldn’t thank me for throwing about diagnoses, but I think Arthur is a sociopath, possibly even a psychopath. As a teenager he was willing to betray his country and send men (including a childhood friend) to their deaths because of his jealousy of Christopher Pendarves. He kills, as Raoul describes, without compunction, and seems to treat life like a game, with his only objective winning.
May 18, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Thanks so much for taking a moment to reply! I am especially glad because I was debating on whether or not I should hold out and read Imperial Scandal next. It’s difficult to be patient when those other books are out there dangling like carrots! 🙂 So, I believe I’ll do as you suggested and plow ahead with Beneath a Silent Moon.
I confess that I downloaded Secrets of a Lady to my Nook the other day and have read the first few chapters. As with Vienna Waltz, I was hooked right away. Some quick feedback from one who started with Vienna Waltz: When I read “Charles and Melanie Fraser”, my mind says “Malcolm and Suzanne Rannoch”. There is no doubt that they are the same characters, but having become attached to Malcolm and Suzanne, I seem compelled to make that translation. I do think keeping Colin’s name makes it a bit easier to acknowledge that Chas. and Mel are Malcolm and Suzanne. But even if you had changed Colin’s name as well, it is not difficult to recognize that Charles and Melanie are the same characters I fell in love with in Vienna Waltz.
I’m curious to know what readers of the earlier books think of the name change. Maybe I would feel differently if I hadn’t started with Vienna Waltz, but to me it seems that the names Malcolm and Suzanne are more fitting for the strong, intriguing characters that they are.
Looking forward to reading other’s observations and sharing more of my own.
May 18, 2011 at 5:56 pm
p.s. to JMM
Got so caught up in Oliver and Bel that I totally forgot to answer your question about the Mask of Night cover. My agent’s incredibly talented assistant, Natanya Wheeler, who runs the digital publishing side of the agency, designed it. Some authors who self-publish ebooks hire designers, some design the covers themselves.
May 18, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Glad you’re going ahead with reading the books, Bleyers. You could also read Secrets of a Lady next and then Beneath a Silent Moon, since that’s the order they were written in, but as you’ve started with the first chronologically, I think it might make more sense to read Beneath next (you can get it on your Nook too). I think you’ll be fine reading Imperial Scandal “out of order” when it’s published, as lots of readers have read Vienna Waltz after reading the later books.
I’m very glad Charles/Malcolm and Mel/Suzanne seem like the same people to you. And I’m very intrigued by your comments about the names. I confess to me they remain Charles and Mélanie, so I’m pleased that to you Malcolm and Suzanne seem like more appropriate names for them. I’d love to hear from other readers on this. How do you feel about the names? Do Charles & Mélanie seem like more appropriate names if those are the ones you started with?
Btw, as you’ll see eventually in Secrets of a Lady, Suzanne and Malcolm are Charles and Mel’s middle names.
May 18, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Self-righteousness. Hmm. That’s a good point, but it’s not always black and white.
Partially OT:
I have a confession to make – I always had a soft spot for The Prodigal Son’s Brother. Whenever I hear the story, I want to point out the fact that he is right, in a way. He does the right thing; he works hard, he honors his father – and pretty much gets **** on for it, while the brother who ran off and pissed away HIS inheritance is fussed over.
It seems in entertainment that a LOT of characters are rewarded for NOT doing the right thing, and characters who do are the butt of jokes. Laughed at.
A responsible heroine (and sometimes hero)will sometimes end up carrying the full weight of their lazy/addicted/criminal siblings/parent/friend. If they don’t, other characters (or readers) often find them “unsympathic”.
I want to see the heroine/hero scream at the top of her/his lungs, “I’m sick of this! I’m not doing this anymore!”
May 18, 2011 at 6:47 pm
With the names, I admit every time I read Malcolm or Suzanne in VW I was thinking Charles & Melanie in my head. I think of them as Charles & Mel, and they are just using an alias or something.
May 18, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Tracy, I can’t explain why but knowing that Charles and Melanie’s middle names are Malcolm and Suzanne makes me very happy. I like the idea of aliases but, for some reason, I like the middle name notion better.
If it weren’t for the fact that they will be known as Malcolm and Suzanne in future books, I might try to shift and embrace them as Charles and Melanie. I’ll have to see what happens as I proceed through the existing books. I have a feeling I’ll stick with Malcolm and Suzanne. Despite the fact that I know they are complete opposite of these characters, the names Charles and Melanie call to my mind the image of Mr. and Mrs. Banks from Mary Poppins.
Interesting how “just a name” can be so meaningful.
May 18, 2011 at 10:12 pm
I’ve always felt sorry for the prodigal son’s brother too, JMM. I’m all for forgiveness, but I think the brother who stayed home and was a loyal son should vet recognition too.and i always want long suffering characters to stand up for themselves.
May 18, 2011 at 10:18 pm
That’s how I think of it too, Susan. Charles and Mel have so many adventures that I think it’s not surprising so e of them are chronicled with aliases. I still write the books calling them Charles and Melanie, though I do think of them as Malcolm and Suzanne a bit more now. I’ve almost got to where I don’t notice the difference.
May 18, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Glad you like that Malcolm and Suzanne are their middle names. It ales it easier for me to connect the characters too. LOL on Charles and Melanie among you think of Mr. and Mrs. Banks. It’s so funny the associations we have with names.
May 19, 2011 at 6:37 am
For me, what makes a difference is the issue of justice and not so much the qualities of the characters. Especially when it involves systematic injustice, even for the wrong-doers, if an author could convince me that there is little else they could do to redress the situation. I may not approve of their actions or agree to their reasoning, but I could feel sorry or pity for them when I could see where they are coming from. It’s for that reason that I am sympathetic to Tatiana despite what she did/planned to do. (Social rules or laws that make children suffer for their parents’ sins are systematic injustice in my book.) I don’t feel much for Talleyrand because I feel that if he suffers from anything, much is his own making since he is an active participant of the system.
Strangely, I’ve recently re-watched Les Miserables the musical a few times and found myself feeling somewhat sorry for Javert, too, even though he is also an active participant of the system. I think the difference is that I perceive Talleyrand benefits from the system while Javert doesn’t really.
For similar reasons, I no longer feel too sorry for the elder son in the story of the prodigal son after I learned that by virtue of being the firstborn, he receives double shares in inheritance. In that light, his hard works seem to me more out of self-interest, to preserve a system that grants him special privileges, and not so much out of loyalty. 🙂
May 19, 2011 at 7:10 am
That’s a fascinating way of looking at it, Sharon. I too tend to feel for characters who suffer injustice, but I can like characters who don’t. I too feel for Javert, not because he suffers injustice, I think, but because he’s a prisoner of his own mind and his own rigid code. On the other hand, I like Talleyrand quite a bit more, because he has tolerance (which Javert sorely lacks) and a sense of humor and because there seems to be some core of concern for France buried in his self-interest (though of course no one can know precisely what drove him). Also because his feelings for Dorothée seemed to make him genuinely vulnerable (again a matter of debate, but the comments of those who observed him seem to support this).
Fascinating insights into the prodigal son story. I confess I don’t know the bible well, and I didn’t realize the firstborn received double shares. You’re right, that does shed an interesting light on his work to support the family holdings :-).
May 19, 2011 at 5:36 pm
True about the double share. But it doesn’t erase the fact that younger son threw his *father’s* money away and got a party while the elder worked his butt off and never got any recognition at all.
And it drives me insane in novels to see characters (often heroines) who are just the punching bag for family and friends. I like to see justice in fiction. I want to see a hero/heroine who kicks an abuser/parasite to the curb instead of forgiving them over and over and enabling their behavior.
May 19, 2011 at 5:40 pm
I always like it when that type of character (the sort who’s been the drudge/caretaker of family and friends) stands up for her/himself.
May 20, 2011 at 3:26 am
I’m not overfond of the enabling older sibling trope either, which is one reason I take such a dim view of Fitz’s actions regarding Christopher in Vienna Waltz. He’s essentially ruined his life, Eithne’s, and his children’s to protect a selfish, parasitic wastrel who’ll likely never know of his sacrifice or appreciate it if he did. And who’ll probably continue his irresponsible ways unless/until forcibly stopped.
So I always look forward to the moment when the martyr/enabler character finally stands up and says, “No more! Get yourself out of this mess!” Unfortunately, those moments tend to happen far too late in the story or, worse, not at all.
May 20, 2011 at 3:49 am
I like those moments, too, Stephanie. I was thinking about Fitz in light of this post. I’m able to feel sympathy for him and his situation, but I certainly don’t in anyway sympathize with the choice he made. On the other hand, I think a lot of people protect those they see themselves as responsible for at great cost to their other loved ones and themselves.
May 22, 2011 at 10:46 pm
I’m a little late to the party but I have a comment about the third paragraph on pushing the envelope re Melanie/Suzanne. What I love most about your books (aside from Charles of course) is Melanie’s strength of her convictions. In Secrets I believe she even admits that she might do do it all the same given a chance to do it over again. So few women characters (at least in Romanceland) act out for principles over and above Love. So few act “badly”, especially in regards to sex, for a greater good although Romance Heroes are allowed to sleep indiscriminately before they meet the heroine. In an earlier comment section you promised that we would find out in the next two books whether or not Melanie was faithful to Charles after their marriage. And, in one letter on this site we actually see Melanie spying on Charles. I find both ideas tantalizing – so unusual and daring! I hope that neither of these are what you are changing! No matter what it is I vote for pushing the envelope – if Melanie’s doing it for something more than love.
May 22, 2011 at 10:59 pm
I just want to add that one of Charles’ qualities that I love the most is that he wasn’t a rake pre-Melanie (“Not that I had much of a [sexual] career”). It added piquancy to the tease about whether he and Tatiana were lovers and it made his reaction to Melanie’s offer of a little “tie-me-up” endearing.
May 22, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Thanks for chiming in, Jeanne! I love that about Mel/Suzanne as well. It’s why I find her endlessly interesting to write about and why I think there are so many possibilities for interesting stories about her and her relationship with Charles. In Imperial Scandal,you definitely see her spying actively, and inevitably on Charles. It was fascinating for me as a writer to explore that. The thing my editor worries pushes the envelope too far doesn’t directly involve spying or anything else she’d do for principles. It’s more personal, though it does address the other question you raise.
Pretty major spoilers…
After Waterloo, Mel/Suzanne goes to Raoul and tells him she’s done spying. They’re both completely devastated by the battle and its outcome. In the original version, she goes to Raoul, walks into this arms, and makes love to him, then tells him she’s done. To which he replies “What did what just passed between us mean if not goodbye?” It’s also clear that this is the only time they’ve slept together since Mel’s marriage (which doesn’t necessarily answer the question of whether or not she’s slept with anyone else). That’s what my editor thinks could destroy reader sympathy, and I think she may be right. Though I’d love to hear reactions from anyone who’s read beyond the spoiler warning. At the moment, I’m thinking Raoul may be the one who stops things short of actual sex. In any case, once the book’s published, I’ll post the original version of the scene.
May 22, 2011 at 11:06 pm
I like that about Charles too, Jeanne. He’s about as far from a rake as one could get. I love that moment in Mask when Mel says he could tie her up if he wanted to, and he looks appalled.
May 23, 2011 at 1:10 am
*************Spoiler Warning*********************
I read past the spoiler and I think your editor is right, although for different reasons. I just don’t see Melanie sleeping with Raoul to say goodbye (if I understand the scene correctly.) I think she would see that as a betrayal of the very commitment to Charles that she’s making by quitting spying.
I do see her trying to seduce Raoul while she’s still considering her commitment to Charles. To quit spying is only one-half of the decision. To stay married to Charles, to accept the life of economic and social privilege that marriage to Charles brings, to live her life in the roles of wife and mother rather than as an active participant in public life (we are in the 19th century after all) – those have got to be tough decisions as well for Melanie. Sleeping with Raoul might be an attempt to avoid making those decisions or just a way to deny the decision she has already made in her heart. And, of course, Raoul will see her attempt to seduce him for what it really is and gently turn her down and help her see it too.
So, it isn’t really sympathy for Melanie that would be damaged, in my thoughts, it would be sympathy for Raoul. He knows her too well and loves her too much to let her make that mistake.
Sigh, now I’m feeling badly for Raoul. Maybe someday he could have someone of his own? It would be very cool to have a mature woman in a love affair with Raoul (and no epilogue with a baby 😉
May 23, 2011 at 2:03 am
Spoiler warning
****************************
Thanks, Jeanne, it’s great to have your perspective. I actually still can see Mel making love to Raoul, not only as a way to say goodbye, but as a way to drown the despair she’s feeling at that point (a despair she can really only share with him). But I do think–and I actually worried about this before my editor’s comment–that Raoul would stop her. For her own sake and even more than that for Charles (which is the main reason I realized they wouldn’t have slept together since she got married; he wouldn’t do that to Charles). I justified it in my own mind by the fact that he’s drowning in despair too (and in fact in the original scene he resists at first), but I think having him be the one to stop her will work well.
As to Raoul, yes, he is going to have someone of his own. Someone who’s actually already appeared in the series in fact. And…
further spoiler warning
******************************
no epilogue with a baby, but he may not be done having children…
May 24, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Hmm, I’ll be honest. Melanie will drop a few notches in my respect if that happens with Raoul. It’s true that the two of them share a very strong bond, but to me that doesn’t justify it. I suppose it will depend on what she does afterwards. If she feels any regrets, what her state of mind was at the time, that sort of thing. She never struck me as a ‘one last hurrah’ type, especially because of her past.
But perhaps I am looking at it from only one angle, and am missing some important info that won’t be revealed until the book comes out.
May 24, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Thanks so much for chiming in, Susan! It’s great to get readers’ takes on this. When I wrote it I saw it more as reaching out in desperation (as I said above she’s feeling really desperate and hopeless at the time and he’s the only one she can share it with). But I’m going to take the sex out of the scene, so hopefully Mel/Suzanne won’t be hurt in your eyes :-).
May 26, 2011 at 12:00 am
All right, I gave up. I resisted asking about Melanie in the new book, but I couldn’t resist reading the spoilers once they are posted. 🙂 On the one hand, I think I could see it happening, considering the despair that both of them would be feeling at the moment. But I have to agree that Raoul would have “come to his senses” at some point, not just for his love for Charles (I get from Secrets that perhaps Raoul has never loved anyone more than he loves Charles) but also for the control that he has imposed on himself for so long. He considered running off with Elizabeth but didn’t. He considered giving all up for Melanie but didn’t. So even the despair may momentarily distract him, I just couldn’t see him entirely let lose of himself at that time. Therefore, the issue has less to do with sympathy for the characters and more to do with what I’ve learned of them and the driving forces behind their actions, I think. (Well, at least for me it is so.)
May 26, 2011 at 1:39 am
Glad you read the spoilers, Sharon, because I really appreciate your input. As I said above, it was the thought that Raoul would pull back that troubled me the most about the scene originally. For all the reasons you said, and because he’s older and more experienced and has dealt with despair more in the past, so I think he’s better able to cope with it than Suzanne/Mel. I think in the revision he’ll be the one who stops it. Btw, I’m really glad you got “from Secrets that perhaps Raoul has never loved anyone more than he loves Charles” because I think that is so true and becomes more true as the series goes on (including in Imperial Scandal).
May 28, 2011 at 4:38 am
Guh. Now that I’ve read the above, I’m not sure that it matters that Melanie doesn’t technically sleep with Raoul. It still makes her seem much less sympathetic, because it’s a gratuitous sort of betrayal. “I feel really crummy because my political and social vision for the future has crumbled, so I’m going to cheat on my husband now” just doesn’t seem a very reasonable response, although as someone above mentioned context will be important.
The funny thing is, in the beginning of the series Melanie seems more sympathetic than Charles because of the horrible that have befallen her in her past, but with each new book it seems that Charles gets far more than his fair share of deception and treachery.
May 28, 2011 at 5:39 am
Thanks for posting your thoughts, MKP. I guess I didn’t see it as a conscious decision to cheat but more a desperate reaching out and attempt to blot out thought. It’s certainly not what I’d call an admirable action, but then I rather like writing about characters who do problematic things. But I’m actually not even sure at this point that she’ll almost sleep with Raoul–she may just go to him to say goodbye (the main point of the scene is that it’s the moment she stops spying). It’s definitely good to get your take on it.
I am curious about what you see in the other books as Mel betraying and deceiving Charles (beyond the revelations in Secrets). Or do you mean that Charles is betrayed and deceived by other people close to him (which is certainly true)?
Thanks again for posting!
May 28, 2011 at 12:39 pm
***Spoiler for Vienna Waltz (?) ***
Since I have only read Vienna Waltz, I was hesitant to comment. And considering that I don’t know anymore about Raoul that what I’ve read from this thread, I feel a bit “unqualified” to respond. However, I just can’t resist throwing my two cents in.
When I first read MKP’s comment, I disagreed with the idea that Melanie would still seem much less sympathetic if she “almost” slept with Raoul. I, too, was recalling a previous comment about the importance of context. But, then I found myself thinking about how I felt about Malcolm/Charles before I knew that he and Tatiana were siblings and not lovers.
Before the big revelation, I found myself looking for reasons to “be okay” with the idea that Tatiana had been his lover. I kept coming around to thinking that I could forgive Malcolm as long as Tatiana was his FORMER lover – that he had not continued the affair after his marriage to Suzanne (even though he and Suzanne were supposedly not in love with each other when they married). But, even if it had turned out that they had been FORMER lovers, the tremendous grief he felt over her loss would’ve haunted me. I call to mind your description of how Suzanne felt hearing Malcolm cry out in grief in the study.
So, while I still agree that the context will be critical, I find that I DO agree it would probably make me less sympathetic toward Suzanne/Melanie. If I was going to feel pangs over Malcolm’s feelings about a lover he had before his marriage, how could I not be frustrated with Suzanne for caving in a moment of weakness during their marriage?
However you decide to rewrite the scene between Melanie and Raoul, I will still be very interested in reading the original scene!
May 28, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Spoilers
******************************
Thanks so much for chiming in on this Bleyers. I was a little worried about how you’d feel about seeing spoilers, but hopefully you’re okay with it and they were labeled enough you could have avoided them (personally I love spoilers, and I also end-read books). It’s good to hear from someone who’s only read “Vienna Waltz,” because probably a number of people who read this scene in print will only have read “Vienna Waltz” and “Imperial Scandal” (where you do get to know Raoul quite a bit).
I hadn’t really thought about the parallel to Malcolm/Charles having possibly been Tatiana’s lover, but that does make sense. I do think romantic betrayal is a complicated thing with both a physical and an emotional component. Of course Malcolm/Charles’s grief even for an ex-lover would hurt Suzanne/Mel, but Malcolm couldn’t be blamed for feeling it. Suz/Mel’s feelings for Raoul are complicated, but I think it’s pretty clear, even in “Imperial Scandal” that’s in love with and committed to Charles. On the other hand, whatever happens in this particular scene, she would have been grief stricken if Raoul had died at Waterloo.
Btw, I’m thrilled to hear you believed Tatiana might have been Malcolm/Charles’s lover. It’s so hard to know how something like that comes across as the writer, when one knows the truth perfectly well.
I’ll definitely post the original scene when the book comes out, and I may post some other different versions as I struggle to get it “right” (I did one revision yesterday, but I’m gong to do another today, taking it in a different direction).
If anyone else who’s reading this has thoughts on the Mel/Suz & Raoul scene, I’d love to hear them. It won’t necessarily determine how I ultimately handle the scene (I have to find what for me works best for the characters and story), but it’s really helpful to get the takes of different readers.
May 28, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Re: Charles’s betrayals – definitely the fact that many of the people in his life are quite duplicitous, and each new book seems to bring more revelations.
I think I understand what you mean about the idea of a last goodbye – still, in my view an unsavory decision (although it is much more interesting to read that way!). It just seems much easier to accept Melanie using sex as a method of espionage while married to Charles than to see her emotionally betraying him, sex or no sex (and I do believe her going down that path with Raoul is an emotional betrayal, regardless of where it did or didn’t lead).
Since you say that Melanie is already deeply attached to Charles by the time of Waterloo, what would she have done if the French won the battle and the war? It seems to me that her decisions at that point would be much more difficult, and her hypothetical decisions at that juncture would reveal a lot about how things “really” played out between her and Raoul.
May 28, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Thanks for elaborating on your thoughts, MKP–I really appreciate it! Charles does have a lot of people round him do duplicitous things. I think it’s partly a result of the fact that he’s a quite honest person in the midst of the espionage game, where he’s naturally surrounded by people whose work and lives involve being duplicitous. And partly that it’s more interesting if people close to the protagonists are involved in intrigue and they’re in Charles/Malcolm’s world more than Mel/Suzette’s (though I think I would love to do a book that focused more on people she’s close to).
Spoilers
************************
You’re right that Mel even intending to sleep with Raoul is problematic and unsavory. And also more interesting, which is why I think I wrote it that way to begin with. Good people are capable of doing problematic things and that’s something I find interesting to explore as a writer.
I’ve now written two new versions of the scene between Mel/Suzette and Raoul, one where she kissed him with desperation and basically says “You don’t want to do this, you’ll hate yourself” and one where she simply goes to him and says “I’m through” and they have a tearful, nonromantic farewell. I’m still not sure which one I’ll use, and whichever it is I’ll undoubtedly tweak it some more. But eventually I’ll post the two alternates (the original version and whichever of the new ones isn’t in the published book) so people can compare.
Suzanne/Mel actually thinks in “Imperial Scandal” about the future if the French win. She’s definitely committed to staying with Charles as his wife. She’s ready to evacuate to England with Colin if the French march into Brussels. And when Raoul says he can help her if the French take Brussels, and she can’t get out in time, she says no, because she won’t risk anything that might expose her French ties to Charles. She even at one point considers the possibility that if the French win and the British re-establish diplomatic relations with Napoleon, Charles could be sent to the French court as a diplomat. I think that’s best “best case scenario.” And I can’t see her making love to or even kissing Raoul after the battle if the day had gone to the French. The way I picture the scene, it was purely born of her desperation.
May 28, 2011 at 10:50 pm
How nice of you to express some concern! I’m totally okay with spoilers. It is nearly impossible to avoid blogging about things that could spoil a story for others anyway, right? I do appreciate seeing the warnings, though. They allow me the opportunity to choose whether or not to read them. Generally, I try not to read spoilers because I so enjoy discovering the truth on my own. But I do read them from time to time.
Oh yes, I absolutely believed in the possibility of Tatiana being Malcolm’s lover. And although the uncertainly was KILLING me, I wouldn’t have dreamed of flipping ahead to find out. It was much more important to me that I journey through the emotional turmoil, feel what Suzanne was feeling, let the story unfold.
Yes, even if M & T had been ex-lovers, one certainly could not have blamed him for feeling grief. But – though technically it wouldn’t have been a betrayal, the depth of his grief still could have caused emotional uncertainty on Suzanne’s behalf (at least, in my mind). It would’ve left me unsettled in much the way I am about a similar situation in another historical series I read. Hmmm . . . maybe I’m projecting!!
Don’t get me wrong – I like the idea of both Suzanne & Malcolm having romantic complications thrown their way. I am very intrigued by Raoul and will be thrilled to see how it plays out. I love Malcolm and Suzanne and don’t want to see either betray the other, but as MKP said, it does seem easier to accept Suz/Mel using sex as a method of espionage while married to Malcolm/Charles than to see her emotionally betraying him. Would sex with Raoul be an emotional betrayal? For me, yes. But a kiss, an embrace with Raoul could be acceptable, forgivable. And, to me, if Suz/Mel’s feelings for Raoul are as complicated as they sound, it seems that a physical gesture upon their parting would be “necessary” to really honor to the desperation you say she feels.
May 28, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Thanks, Bleyers! The spoiler issue is tricky, because it’s really impossible to have a good discussion of a book without them, and in a series it becomes even more complicated because of course one needs to talk about the whole series.
Spoilers
***********************
If Malcolm had been in love with Tatiana (whether or not he’d been her lover after he married Suzanne) it would definitely have caused problems. I don’t think it would have precluded him loving Suzanne eventually and Suzanne coming to terms with Tatiana’s past place in his life, but I can’t see them getting to the point they get to at the end of “Vienna Waltz” so quickly after Tatiana’s death. It was an interesting challenge to write the early part of the book and be truthful and honest, particularly in Malcolm’s POV, but still keep open the possibility he and Tatiana had been lovers.
Have to say I’m intrigued by the other historical series you mention. Can you say what it is?
I’ll be interested to see what you think of Raoul. He’s one of my favorite characters (though certainly not more so than Malcolm/Charles and Suzette/Mel). I think you’re right. Some sort of farewell gesture between Suz/Mel and Raoul seems necessary. Which is the one thing that bothers me about the “tearful farewell” version of the scene I wrote. I’m afraid it’s a bit tame. It needs something stronger–not in terms of sex but of emotion. Pondering some more…
May 29, 2011 at 12:35 am
Well, I think you did an excellent job of being truthful and honest while maintaining the mystery of the nature of M & T’s relationship. I LOVED it!! And I have tremendous confidence that you will craft a most satisfying farewell between S/M and Raoul. Happy pondering!!
I don’t know what the etiquette is regarding mentioning other authors and their works, but since you asked and since you acknowledged this author in Vienna Waltz, I don’t think I’ll get in trouble. 🙂
In my previous post, I was specifically thinking of Emily, Colin and Kristiana in Tasha Alexander’s Lady Emily Series. Oh, I have a terrible fear that we haven’t seen the last of Krisitana! I hope I am very wrong.
And while I’m name dropping, I hope it’s alright that I mention I am a huge fan of another author you acknowledged – Deanna Raybourn. I feel quite fortunate that I have the worlds of Emily & Colin, Julia & Brisbane and now Malcolm and Suzanne to get lost in!
May 29, 2011 at 12:51 am
That’s very cool that you read both Tasha and Deanna! I’m honored to be in their company. They’re both wonderful writers and incredibly nice people, and they were so nice about giving me quotes for “Vienna Waltz” (I got to meet Tasha and her husband Andrew Grant at Bouchercon last fall, which was very fun).
I see what you mean about Kristiana, but I never doubted where Colin’s heart lay (though I could understand Emily’s anxieties). But Kristiana died in “The Fatal Waltz.” Do you think perhaps she’s not really dead?
I have to say, in an ongoing involving a couple, I think to a certain extent one does need to keep the reader slightly unsettled, at least at times, and to throw new challenges at the characters to keep the story interesting and the relationship growing and developing. Which I think is realistic. Just because two people are in love and even married doesn’t make all problems and conflicts go away. Quite the reverse in some instances. I think both Tasha and Deanna handle that dynamic really well.
May 29, 2011 at 2:25 am
Oh, I completely agree with all that you said regarding an ongoing involving a couple. If it’s just “the happy couple”, it doesn’t take long for things to get boring . . . and unrealistic. Even though it can be gut-wrenching at times, the emotional rollercoaster is a wonderful ride!
Just one book in and I can see that you, too, handle those relationship dynamics very well.
And speaking of gut-wrenching, I was a wreck through most of “A Fatal Waltz”. Like you, I don’t doubt that Colin’s heart is completely with Emily and, obviously, understand Emily’s anxieties. But to answer your question, yes, I am skeptical as to whether or not Kristiana is truly dead. If I recall correctly, Colin got word of her death. He didn’t actually witness it, nor did he see her body. Thus, the beginning of my skepticism (probably the result of watching too many soap operas as a teen). 😉 Then, two books later in “Dangerous to Know”, Emily had a moment where she thought to herself that Kristiana should’ve married Colin. And, if I recall correctly, there was another mention of her – or maybe its that the one mention was lengthy enough to fuel my thoughts.
Ultimately, I figure the reference was made:
a) to demonstrate just how self-doubting Emily was at that moment.
b) to show that Emily still has a way to go in coming to terms with Kristiana’s place in Colin’s life (even though he openly grieved for her by Emily’s side).
OR
c) as a foreshadowing of Kristiana coming back on the scene.
Clearly, I have issues with Kristiana – LOL! I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that she taunted Emily so.
Shifting gears, do you have any hint to give as to when “Imperial Scandal” will be released?
Many thanks!!
May 29, 2011 at 2:38 am
Excellent points about Kristiana. I have to go back and look at what is actually said in “A Fatal Waltz,” but yes, I don’t think the reader (or Colin) actually sees her death. And that triangle is much too interesting for Kristiana to be gone. As you point out, I suspect that even if she really is dead, she will play a role in the books, as Emily comes to terms with Kristiana’s place in Colin’s life.
“Imperial Scandal” is scheduled for April 2012, which means it will be out the last week in March. I’m about to post another teaser for this week’s blog.
May 29, 2011 at 2:57 am
[…] what you think of Cordelia and the excerpt. Also, as a follow up to the wonderful discussion on my sympathetic characters post, I’m curious to know how many of you who read Vienna Waltz believed Malcolm/Charles might […]
July 11, 2011 at 12:47 am
[…] scene involving Mélanie/Suzanne that my editor wanted me to change. I discussed this scene in the comments on my post on sympathetic characters a few weeks ago and found everyone’s comments very […]
April 17, 2012 at 6:24 am
[…] I was working on the Imperial Scandal revisions, I mentioned that there was a scene my editor asked me to consider changing. It’s a scene after Waterloo, where Mélanie/Suzanne […]