In 1661, Matthew is kidnapped and shipped to Virginia as an indentured servant, leaving behind his young son and his wife Alex, a time-traveler from 2005, who journeys from Scotland to the New World in search of her husband.
This book is the second in a series, and I haven't read the first one. I don't think that reading the prequel is absolutely necessary, but I can see that it would have helped in some areas. The author expects us to be aware of Alex's time traveling, and doesn't outright state this fact until a bit later. Personally, I was pretty shocked, as I hadn't known that this was a time travel story until that point. After figuring this out, I found very little back story about how everything had come about. The book simply plunges in, with little character introduction, either.
Well, I have a particular disliking for time travel books. But I would have certainly set this preference aside for a short time if the book had been good enough. However, it was not to be.
The plot was pretty clumsy, and I was annoyed by characters tossing the word "aye" into any sentence that didn't already sound historical enough. For seemingly no reason, Alex tells a man she has only known for a few days about her time traveling, when she has kept this a secret from even her most trusted servants - and he believes her without hesitation. Characters are conveniently killed off when their time to exit the story comes up. Matthew tells us, in one chapter, that it has been three years since he has seen his wife, but a few chapters later she tells us that she hasn't seen him for one year.
I couldn't warm up to any of the characters, either. Alex seemed like the typical modern girl thrown into a historical setting. She has the excuse of being from the future, but that didn't make her any less irritating. And she abandons not one but two of her children in the course of the book.
The justification? When she is considering leaving her son and setting out to save her husband, she thinks about taking the boy with her. But then she reasons "But if he died, the estate would go to his greedy uncle, and Matthew wouldn't want that."
Um, what about not wanting your son to die, maybe?
Much about this book reminded me of Outlander, and I don't mean that in a good way.
Like the cartoonishly 'good' hero of that story, Matthew also accepts punishment by flogging for someone else, though he himself is innocent.
Alright, nothing wrong with that.
Time travel and the setting of Scotland - again, fine.
Lots of wince-inducing, exasperating, bad sex - not so good.
And finally, the same things that so disturbed me about Outlander were present here, too.
The author's promotion or take on sex seemed skewed at best, and deeply unsettling at worst. My first hint that she, like Gabaldon, was leaning in this direction came when Alex was on board her ship. She meets a Spanish man who seems some sort of reincarnation of a man she knew in the future. Because this man looks exactly like him, Alex introduces herself, and they proceed to share a flirtatious friendship. But a bit later, she tells us that the man he seems a body double for was her rapist! So she sees her rapist in another time period and immediately heads straight toward him to flirt? What is this?
Belfrage also puts Alex in a situation where she is forced to allow herself to be raped (it's either that or her husband's life).
And later on, unforgivably, Matthew rapes Alex. There is no mistaking it for the couple enjoying themselves. It is rape, and Belfrage makes this very clear. Thus, I was shocked when a few moments afterward, the two are cozily cuddling in bed, making jokes and laughing together. My shock quickly turned to disgust and outrage as the story moved on, and the incident is never brought up again.
In another scene not so long afterward, the two get into an argument. Alex angrily attempts to walk out, but Matthew violently grabs her, throws her down on the bed, and rapes her. Again, no mistaking this. Alex repeatedly, clearly says "NO." She resists. But everything is glossed over with the idea of "Sure, she said no at first, but that was before she started enjoying it!" Because eventually, Alex stops resisting, as if watering the assault down like this makes it all alright. Afterward, Alex assures the reader that she loves Matthew, and again, the incident never comes up again.
This flippant view of rape, blurring it with consensual sex, is just not right. Does Belfrage believe that rape within a marriage cannot occur? That rape isn't that big of a deal? That most of the time women are overreacting? That rape is okay if a woman only minds at first?
This was a huge issue for me, and though I think it should be for everyone, it is sadly the sort of thing that I see in many books these days. Many readers will most likely react to these scenes with the same nonchalance that the author writes into them, or perhaps hardly even notice anything other than another sex scene.
I certainly will not be looking for the other book in this series. Disappointing.
Thanks nevertheless to Troubador Publishing / Matador and NetGalley.com for providing me with an advance review copy of this book.