What do you think?
Rate this book
Friends and Lovers
David Bosworth is a penniless undergraduate at Oxford with a head full of dreams.
Penelope Lorrimer is the pretty daughter of a wealthy Edinburgh family; they have plans for her, but their ambitions do not match hers.
When they fall in love the odds are against them, but the opposition they encounter draws them closer than any love more easily won - and the bond between them is stronger,more durable than the one between mere friends and lovers...
Penelope Lorrimer is the pretty daughter of a wealthy Edinburgh family; they have plans for her, but their ambitions do not match hers.
When they fall in love the odds are against them, but the opposition they encounter draws them closer than any love more easily won - and the bond between them is stronger,more durable than the one between mere friends and lovers...
319 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1947
36 people are currently reading
186 people want to read
About the author
Helen MacInnes
71 books265 followersHelen MacInnes was a Scottish-American author of espionage novels. She graduated from the University of Glasgow in Scotland in 1928 with a degree in French and German. A librarian, she married Professor Gilbert Highet in 1932 and moved with her husband to New York in 1937 so he could teach classics at Columbia University. She wrote her first novel, Above Suspicion, in 1939. She wrote many bestselling suspense novels and became an American citizen in 1951.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
December 31, 2013
How terribly confusing this is. This book was published in 1947 and, at the time, was considered nothing more than romantic fluff. It is, however, more complexly written than most of today's drama fiction. I'm willing to bet there are people today who would have a hard time getting through this merely because it's well above a 6th grade reading level. Yes, that's insulting to a lot of modern readers, but we need to face reality; modern literacy is an abysmal embarrassment.
Having that out of the way, I really liked this book. Its pace was rather plodding by today's standards, and the romance wasn't overwrought and drawn out in order to maintain maximum tension in the reader, but it still kept me hooked. I wanted to see things end happily for Penny and David, not because there were enemies out to destroy them or outside circumstances threatening to tear them apart, but because I'd come to love them so much through MacInnes's writing. There's a distinctly beautiful lyricism and poetry to the prose that one would be hard-pressed to find in much of today's dramas, much less any of its romances, and a philosophy that makes you think.
"'At a time when we have enough hot blood to enjoy life fully, we are surrounded by a conspiracy of age to settle the rules and regulations as if love were a game or a business. It isn't. It's a state of being. With it, you're alive. Without it, you exist.'"
"Marriage, as he was picturing it, sounded like freedom. Perhaps that was the way you should think of it: if it weren't freedom to be with each other, if being with each other wasn't the most important thing in your lives, then you shouldn't even think of marriage."
There's no explicit sex in this book, but it's not needed. The romance is beautiful, the dialogue is moving, and the characters are real and sympathetic. I was surprised by how well I liked it.
Having that out of the way, I really liked this book. Its pace was rather plodding by today's standards, and the romance wasn't overwrought and drawn out in order to maintain maximum tension in the reader, but it still kept me hooked. I wanted to see things end happily for Penny and David, not because there were enemies out to destroy them or outside circumstances threatening to tear them apart, but because I'd come to love them so much through MacInnes's writing. There's a distinctly beautiful lyricism and poetry to the prose that one would be hard-pressed to find in much of today's dramas, much less any of its romances, and a philosophy that makes you think.
"'At a time when we have enough hot blood to enjoy life fully, we are surrounded by a conspiracy of age to settle the rules and regulations as if love were a game or a business. It isn't. It's a state of being. With it, you're alive. Without it, you exist.'"
"Marriage, as he was picturing it, sounded like freedom. Perhaps that was the way you should think of it: if it weren't freedom to be with each other, if being with each other wasn't the most important thing in your lives, then you shouldn't even think of marriage."
There's no explicit sex in this book, but it's not needed. The romance is beautiful, the dialogue is moving, and the characters are real and sympathetic. I was surprised by how well I liked it.
August 27, 2021
This is one of those books that I am rating five stars because, on a deep and personal level, I really love this book but can't explain why. It's not a spy novel, which makes it really unusual as far as MacInnes goes. She has two books that she wrote that are really just straight up romance novels - this one and Rest and Be Thankful.
Having said that, I don't recommend this book to anyone because it's such a personal thing to me. I will be crushed if people I like read it on my recommendation and hate it. So, don't do that, lol.
Friends and Lovers was published in 1947, but it is set in 1938, right before WWII broke out in Europe, and it refers to the rise of nationalism in Germany. I am not sure, but I suspect, that it is a semi-autobiographical love letter to her husband, Gerald Highet, who was a classicist and a scholar. It tells the story of David Bosworth, a working-class and intellectually brilliant young man from a poor neighborhood in London (Chiswick, I think) who has won a scholarship to Oxford, and Penelope Lorrimer (Penny), the daughter of an affluent Edinburgh lawyer who comes from a much higher social class. They meet, fall in love, and marry - despite their families having different plans for each of them.
That's it. That's the story.
Within that story, though, MacInnes spends a lot of time talking about the political ideas of the day. She also shares her ideas about the relationships between men and women, which are, in many ways, very regressive. At the same time, Penny is a great character - resourceful and independent. She stands up to her family and figures out a way to support herself when they demand that she leave London, where she is studying art at the Slade, because they have learned of the attachment between Penny and David. David's family is no happier about this than Penny's family is - his sister, Margaret, has plans for his future that include him supporting her, and there's no room for him to have a wife (or for that matter a life) of his own.
Anyway, I first read this book as a teen. My dad had a number of the MacInnes spy novels on our bookshelves, and I devoured all of the books that he had. Once I got through those, I checked out everything that I could find by MacInnes from the library. It was the 1980's, height of the cold war, and her discussions about totalitarianism resonated with me. In a lot of ways, they still do. Anyway, one of the books that I checked out was this one.
I had no idea that it would be a romance - I assumed it was spy fic like the rest of her books. But I was completely charmed by Penny and David and their romance. London in 1938 (Penny's boarding house was on Gower Street, in the center of Bloomsbury) was a wonderful setting. I have a life-long romance of my own, with literary London, and this book is part of the reason. The perspectives are those of young people who are, unknown to them, waiting for a war that will change everything, to break out (I wish that MacInnes had treated us to a follow-up about Penny and David, even as a mention in one of her later spy novels. They are so real to me that I hope they did well). This is almost YA.
So, I've loved this book for probably thirty years. I read the library book, and I loved it so much that (this is a shameful admission) I never returned it. I paid the fine and read the covers off the book. It went with me to college, just a bundle of glued pages. I eventually lost it in one of many moves but have never forgotten it. When Titan Books began republishing MacInnes, I was delighted, but I didn't expect that they would reissue this one as well, because it is such an oddity.
But here we are, three decades later, and I can read it on my kindle. Anytime I want to.
Having said that, I don't recommend this book to anyone because it's such a personal thing to me. I will be crushed if people I like read it on my recommendation and hate it. So, don't do that, lol.
Friends and Lovers was published in 1947, but it is set in 1938, right before WWII broke out in Europe, and it refers to the rise of nationalism in Germany. I am not sure, but I suspect, that it is a semi-autobiographical love letter to her husband, Gerald Highet, who was a classicist and a scholar. It tells the story of David Bosworth, a working-class and intellectually brilliant young man from a poor neighborhood in London (Chiswick, I think) who has won a scholarship to Oxford, and Penelope Lorrimer (Penny), the daughter of an affluent Edinburgh lawyer who comes from a much higher social class. They meet, fall in love, and marry - despite their families having different plans for each of them.
That's it. That's the story.
Within that story, though, MacInnes spends a lot of time talking about the political ideas of the day. She also shares her ideas about the relationships between men and women, which are, in many ways, very regressive. At the same time, Penny is a great character - resourceful and independent. She stands up to her family and figures out a way to support herself when they demand that she leave London, where she is studying art at the Slade, because they have learned of the attachment between Penny and David. David's family is no happier about this than Penny's family is - his sister, Margaret, has plans for his future that include him supporting her, and there's no room for him to have a wife (or for that matter a life) of his own.
Anyway, I first read this book as a teen. My dad had a number of the MacInnes spy novels on our bookshelves, and I devoured all of the books that he had. Once I got through those, I checked out everything that I could find by MacInnes from the library. It was the 1980's, height of the cold war, and her discussions about totalitarianism resonated with me. In a lot of ways, they still do. Anyway, one of the books that I checked out was this one.
I had no idea that it would be a romance - I assumed it was spy fic like the rest of her books. But I was completely charmed by Penny and David and their romance. London in 1938 (Penny's boarding house was on Gower Street, in the center of Bloomsbury) was a wonderful setting. I have a life-long romance of my own, with literary London, and this book is part of the reason. The perspectives are those of young people who are, unknown to them, waiting for a war that will change everything, to break out (I wish that MacInnes had treated us to a follow-up about Penny and David, even as a mention in one of her later spy novels. They are so real to me that I hope they did well). This is almost YA.
So, I've loved this book for probably thirty years. I read the library book, and I loved it so much that (this is a shameful admission) I never returned it. I paid the fine and read the covers off the book. It went with me to college, just a bundle of glued pages. I eventually lost it in one of many moves but have never forgotten it. When Titan Books began republishing MacInnes, I was delighted, but I didn't expect that they would reissue this one as well, because it is such an oddity.
But here we are, three decades later, and I can read it on my kindle. Anytime I want to.
August 13, 2017
I'm a fan of Helen MacInnes' action adventure/spy novels and I've been re-reading her novels in the order in which they were written. This seems to be her first attempt at a romance novel and it fell flat for me. Long stretches of dialog of the "Oh, Dave, I love you so!" variety, interspersed with philosophizing. ZZZzzzz. Close to a DNF since I skimmed to the end.
May 25, 2025
Predictable. Boy and girl meet. Boy and girl fall in love. Families put up resistance. Boy and girl overcome resistance, get married and hopefully live happily ever after.
March 10, 2015
I’ve read books by Helen MacInnes before, but spy/international intrigue kind of plots - I didn’t realise she wrote romance. And so that’s what I was expecting this to be. Nevertheless, it was an enjoyable read. The copy I borrowed off my aunt had very small print, so while the book looked quite small, it still took a while to get through! Some of it was a little over-sentimental, but I think that probably was to be expected, given when it was written (and I probably noticed it all the more, given that I was expecting a spy-thriller-action-packed kind of read!).
July 7, 2013
Unlike most of Ms. MacInnes' books, Friends and Lovers has no espionage and no action/suspense. The story is about two young people who fall in love and wish to make a life together despite the expectations of family and society.
There is a lot of philosophizing in this book (mostly by the characters' internal musings). The actual action/plot is minimal.
I found it somewhat sexist in terms of the expectations for women but interesting in terms of the depiction of class society in Britain. When characters discuss living on three hundred pounds per year, I wondered how that translates in today's money (the book was written in 1947).
There is a minor anti-gay theme, but I didn't pick up on that until this re-read.
There is a lot of philosophizing in this book (mostly by the characters' internal musings). The actual action/plot is minimal.
I found it somewhat sexist in terms of the expectations for women but interesting in terms of the depiction of class society in Britain. When characters discuss living on three hundred pounds per year, I wondered how that translates in today's money (the book was written in 1947).
There is a minor anti-gay theme, but I didn't pick up on that until this re-read.
May 24, 2024
It's a good thing MacInnes mostly wrote spy novels - this was a lackluster endeavor. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed her writing style a lot. And it was fascinating to see her attitudes and values so clearly displayed, even when I didn't always agree with them. But the plot was frankly dull and I never really cared very much about David or Penny. There were times they broke out a bit and I found myself caring about them, but then they'd go back to spouting their platitudes and become boring mouthpieces without a bit of personality again.
So, I guess it was worth reading, as I've read pretty much everything else she wrote, but I'm glad this book was handed to me for free. I'll hand it back and return to enjoying her regular books instead.
So, I guess it was worth reading, as I've read pretty much everything else she wrote, but I'm glad this book was handed to me for free. I'll hand it back and return to enjoying her regular books instead.
June 25, 2010
not like her other books - no suspense, no intrigue, but an interesting, very British, romance
September 19, 2018
I prefer her thrillers. But I learned a lot about British mores pre-WWII.
May 13, 2008
Although this purports to be a thriller, it is really more of an involved love story. Two college students fall in love in the year just before WWII. The plot takes us through their infatuation to a more mature relationship in which they learn from all the trials they have encountered along the way.
August 2, 2010
No espionage, no spies, no cold war, just two people, from very different backgrounds, coming to love each other. I'm convinced this is her own story, slightly fictionalized.
October 6, 2019
Quality Rating: 3/5
Personal Enjoyment Rating: 2/5
I may be a feminist, but even I won't say no to the promise of a romance novel. There are many criteria it has to fill, however, before I consider it feminist-friendly, or even enjoyable. For example, the hero should not sexually assault the heroine, especially if what he does meets the legal definition of rape. Forbidden romance is lovely, but the appeal turns to disgust when the "forbidden-ness" involves an adult-minor relationship, incest, or an otherwise abusive relationship. (My problem with "Fifty Shades of Grey" was NOT the BDSM, for example.) I also don't like the shaming of women who have any kind of sex that the heroine doesn't care for, whether it be casual sex, sex outside of marriage, or sex for money. (Even some of the most progressive stories will have the heroine throw a tantrum if she's mistaken for or compared to a sex worker.)
In some ways, "Friends and Lovers" fills most of those criteria, but in other ways, it reminds me of just how much things have changed since the 1940s.
I'm not sure why it's called "Friends and Lovers," since there doesn't really seem to be much focus on friendship. Both Penny (the heroine) and David (the hero) have friends, but they secretly judge them for their lifestyles; Penny is particularly terrible in this case. In fact, every female character that isn't Penny is portrayed as either a bitter man-hater or a sad, old-looking (Heaven forbid!) slip of her former self.
How is Penny special? Well, for one thing, she thinks it's okay to want to be pretty. All the other female characters put various things--fun, ambition, family duty--above their need to be pretty, and that's just inexcusable. At one point, Penny admires herself in a mirror as she thinks about how nature wouldn't have made female bodies pretty if they weren't meant to be admired. (Because male bodies are just ugly as sin, I guess.) At another point, David is horrified as he realizes that some women might look pretty with makeup on, but they might not look pretty when they take it off.
Another thing is that Penny is "gay." I don't mean "gay" as in "attracted to members of the same gender," but as in carefree, lighthearted. I say "gay" and not "happy" because there is a slight difference in connotation. "Gay" is a simple kind of happiness, where one's problems are either nonexistent or not consciously acknowledged. When Penny is unhappy, she forces herself to be "gay" for her boyfriend, so that her worries won't become his. It kind of reminds me of that bit of advice from the (probably fake) "good wife guide":
Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.
The idea is that women need to take care at every step of the way to not bring their men down. To be fair, David also does this, to an extent. In both cases, there is sexist reasoning: either that women exist to provide peace and comfort to their male companions (and that their own emotions are unimportant), or that women are simply too fragile to hear about the complicated problems that men face.
And this is where I have a problem. "Friends and Lovers" isn't the most egregious example of wife-beating, woman-scorning misogyny I've ever encountered--even among stories written by women. It's more subtle than that. It's sprinkled everywhere with ideas of how a woman should be--and what she should be, of course, is pleasing for men to look at and speak with. Margaret, David's selfish and untalented sister, is too thin. Her friend, Florence, is too big (and her laugh too "booming," apparently). They are not likable people, but the correlation is obvious. Penny's mother and sister are treated more sympathetically (although still someone negatively), because one used to be pretty, and one is almost as pretty as Penny (and probably would be as pretty, if she weren't so morose).
There are, of course, still some hints of how times were changing, even then. Sex is discussed somewhat frankly, and David and Penny both agree that sex before marriage is acceptable. Penny's close friend, Lillian Marston, is one of the more likable characters (although still portrayed as "wrong" in the way she deals with men), has probably been around the block at least a few times. And there is a character, Bunny (!?) Eastman, who I'm pretty sure is gay-coded (and this time, I do indeed mean "attracted to the same gender"). Aside from a little bit of condescending amusement (and no character is spared this, even our near-perfect heroes), he is portrayed positively (although another "good" character finds him repulsive). Still, there was plenty of finger-wagging at women who fail to make themselves attractive for men. Remember, ladies--it's important to have fun (Don't be a prude!), but only the kind of fun that men approve of and benefit from.
The characters, however, were enjoyable to read about. Even nameless characters, such as a waitress at a restaurant and a guard at one of the tourist attractions, are given a point of view for the reader to learn more about them. Sometimes, the reader is even privy to things that the main characters do not know. I found this to be Helen MacInnes' biggest strength.
The story takes place in the 1930s, with talk of a depression and World War I (but not World War II, although there is discussion of growing unrest in Germany and brief mentions of the Nazi party). These talks, however, are not the main focus of the story. They play the role of garnishes, something that makes the main course look a little more filling and palatable. I was disappointed that the "forbidden love" angle wasn't fully played out; Penny's parents are simply opposed to her marriage to David because they're "too young." Yawn. I was also irritated that the book made a point of having Penny state that she's "backsliding" from feminism because all of her ambitions have melted into being with David and making him happy. Look, lady, no one cares if you want to be with the love of your life. But the fact that you get all coy about it, like, "Oopsie, I made a feminist boo-boo, hee-hee, well, maybe I was never a feminist after all!" just makes you look immature and obnoxious. I get it, MacInnes. You think feminists are crazy man-haters.
There's a bit about David, too, thinking that his sister just has an axe to grind against men--now of all times, when women can make their own living and all! Yes, David. It's not like there's a wage gap or anything (and I do NOT want to hear any arguments about this, it's the 1930s). It's not like she'll get fired if she becomes pregnant, or even just gets married. Nope, everything is completely equal, feminism is over, yada yada.
At first, the story is a little interesting, but everything resolves very quickly, and most of the "action" consists of Penny and David talking about how awful they are and how they don't deserve their partner. Their partner will then, like clockwork, assure them that they are the most precious thing in the universe, practically perfect in every way, and then they kiss. Occasionally, David will say something creepy or "joke" about beating her with a poker, and Penny will giggle. Whenever he's sad about something, Penny thinks to herself that she's the cause of his sadness, and berates herself for not being the perfect girlfriend. And each is the other's sole reason for existing.
Objectively, that's the biggest problem here. I might get huffy about sexism, but sometimes, I can forgive the occasional "men are GRR MANLY and women are *faints because my frail lady brain can't deal with the raw emotion of this sentence8" gender essentialist crap if the story is strong. But it really isn't. There are several things that are either left untied or wrapped up in an unsatisfying manner in the final chapter. I'm a bit peeved that the jacket summary states that Penny's "father was an Edinburgh lawyer, a lowlander who had muffled his highland wife until she was more staid and conventional than he." I didn't see a hint of that in the story; just that the mother thought she was doing everything for her husband, but her husband was just sick of all the drama. The blame is laid mostly on her shoulders--for not being "gay" enough, I guess.
I got this book from a "free" table at the library where I volunteer. They say you get what you pay for. Maybe this novel was better liked in the 1940s. One can only hope.
Personal Enjoyment Rating: 2/5
I may be a feminist, but even I won't say no to the promise of a romance novel. There are many criteria it has to fill, however, before I consider it feminist-friendly, or even enjoyable. For example, the hero should not sexually assault the heroine, especially if what he does meets the legal definition of rape. Forbidden romance is lovely, but the appeal turns to disgust when the "forbidden-ness" involves an adult-minor relationship, incest, or an otherwise abusive relationship. (My problem with "Fifty Shades of Grey" was NOT the BDSM, for example.) I also don't like the shaming of women who have any kind of sex that the heroine doesn't care for, whether it be casual sex, sex outside of marriage, or sex for money. (Even some of the most progressive stories will have the heroine throw a tantrum if she's mistaken for or compared to a sex worker.)
In some ways, "Friends and Lovers" fills most of those criteria, but in other ways, it reminds me of just how much things have changed since the 1940s.
I'm not sure why it's called "Friends and Lovers," since there doesn't really seem to be much focus on friendship. Both Penny (the heroine) and David (the hero) have friends, but they secretly judge them for their lifestyles; Penny is particularly terrible in this case. In fact, every female character that isn't Penny is portrayed as either a bitter man-hater or a sad, old-looking (Heaven forbid!) slip of her former self.
How is Penny special? Well, for one thing, she thinks it's okay to want to be pretty. All the other female characters put various things--fun, ambition, family duty--above their need to be pretty, and that's just inexcusable. At one point, Penny admires herself in a mirror as she thinks about how nature wouldn't have made female bodies pretty if they weren't meant to be admired. (Because male bodies are just ugly as sin, I guess.) At another point, David is horrified as he realizes that some women might look pretty with makeup on, but they might not look pretty when they take it off.
Another thing is that Penny is "gay." I don't mean "gay" as in "attracted to members of the same gender," but as in carefree, lighthearted. I say "gay" and not "happy" because there is a slight difference in connotation. "Gay" is a simple kind of happiness, where one's problems are either nonexistent or not consciously acknowledged. When Penny is unhappy, she forces herself to be "gay" for her boyfriend, so that her worries won't become his. It kind of reminds me of that bit of advice from the (probably fake) "good wife guide":
Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.
The idea is that women need to take care at every step of the way to not bring their men down. To be fair, David also does this, to an extent. In both cases, there is sexist reasoning: either that women exist to provide peace and comfort to their male companions (and that their own emotions are unimportant), or that women are simply too fragile to hear about the complicated problems that men face.
And this is where I have a problem. "Friends and Lovers" isn't the most egregious example of wife-beating, woman-scorning misogyny I've ever encountered--even among stories written by women. It's more subtle than that. It's sprinkled everywhere with ideas of how a woman should be--and what she should be, of course, is pleasing for men to look at and speak with. Margaret, David's selfish and untalented sister, is too thin. Her friend, Florence, is too big (and her laugh too "booming," apparently). They are not likable people, but the correlation is obvious. Penny's mother and sister are treated more sympathetically (although still someone negatively), because one used to be pretty, and one is almost as pretty as Penny (and probably would be as pretty, if she weren't so morose).
There are, of course, still some hints of how times were changing, even then. Sex is discussed somewhat frankly, and David and Penny both agree that sex before marriage is acceptable. Penny's close friend, Lillian Marston, is one of the more likable characters (although still portrayed as "wrong" in the way she deals with men), has probably been around the block at least a few times. And there is a character, Bunny (!?) Eastman, who I'm pretty sure is gay-coded (and this time, I do indeed mean "attracted to the same gender"). Aside from a little bit of condescending amusement (and no character is spared this, even our near-perfect heroes), he is portrayed positively (although another "good" character finds him repulsive). Still, there was plenty of finger-wagging at women who fail to make themselves attractive for men. Remember, ladies--it's important to have fun (Don't be a prude!), but only the kind of fun that men approve of and benefit from.
The characters, however, were enjoyable to read about. Even nameless characters, such as a waitress at a restaurant and a guard at one of the tourist attractions, are given a point of view for the reader to learn more about them. Sometimes, the reader is even privy to things that the main characters do not know. I found this to be Helen MacInnes' biggest strength.
The story takes place in the 1930s, with talk of a depression and World War I (but not World War II, although there is discussion of growing unrest in Germany and brief mentions of the Nazi party). These talks, however, are not the main focus of the story. They play the role of garnishes, something that makes the main course look a little more filling and palatable. I was disappointed that the "forbidden love" angle wasn't fully played out; Penny's parents are simply opposed to her marriage to David because they're "too young." Yawn. I was also irritated that the book made a point of having Penny state that she's "backsliding" from feminism because all of her ambitions have melted into being with David and making him happy. Look, lady, no one cares if you want to be with the love of your life. But the fact that you get all coy about it, like, "Oopsie, I made a feminist boo-boo, hee-hee, well, maybe I was never a feminist after all!" just makes you look immature and obnoxious. I get it, MacInnes. You think feminists are crazy man-haters.
There's a bit about David, too, thinking that his sister just has an axe to grind against men--now of all times, when women can make their own living and all! Yes, David. It's not like there's a wage gap or anything (and I do NOT want to hear any arguments about this, it's the 1930s). It's not like she'll get fired if she becomes pregnant, or even just gets married. Nope, everything is completely equal, feminism is over, yada yada.
At first, the story is a little interesting, but everything resolves very quickly, and most of the "action" consists of Penny and David talking about how awful they are and how they don't deserve their partner. Their partner will then, like clockwork, assure them that they are the most precious thing in the universe, practically perfect in every way, and then they kiss. Occasionally, David will say something creepy or "joke" about beating her with a poker, and Penny will giggle. Whenever he's sad about something, Penny thinks to herself that she's the cause of his sadness, and berates herself for not being the perfect girlfriend. And each is the other's sole reason for existing.
Objectively, that's the biggest problem here. I might get huffy about sexism, but sometimes, I can forgive the occasional "men are GRR MANLY and women are *faints because my frail lady brain can't deal with the raw emotion of this sentence8" gender essentialist crap if the story is strong. But it really isn't. There are several things that are either left untied or wrapped up in an unsatisfying manner in the final chapter. I'm a bit peeved that the jacket summary states that Penny's "father was an Edinburgh lawyer, a lowlander who had muffled his highland wife until she was more staid and conventional than he." I didn't see a hint of that in the story; just that the mother thought she was doing everything for her husband, but her husband was just sick of all the drama. The blame is laid mostly on her shoulders--for not being "gay" enough, I guess.
I got this book from a "free" table at the library where I volunteer. They say you get what you pay for. Maybe this novel was better liked in the 1940s. One can only hope.
October 13, 2019
I have to be honest, I picked this up assuming that it was, like most of Helen MacInnes's novels, an espionage/mystery novel with a romantic subplot... meaning that I spent most of the first chapter wondering when a Soviet submarine was going to surface in the loch, the elderly professor was going to reveal a code-breaking past, or a suspicious tourist was going to suddenly topple, dead, off the ferry. None of this happened. It's a romance novel, the heroine is nineteen years old, and I was bored. I love Helen MacInnes's books, but not this one.
June 13, 2009
I liked this book a lot, but it should be titled "Lovers". I couldn't figure out where the "Friends" came in, because the lovers weren't necessarily friends and they didn't really have any outside friendships of importance, either. They were just nice kids in love. Aaaaaw.
August 30, 2011
No spies, intrigue or plotting just romance - not for me
April 13, 2013
The style is definitely dated (not that that is necessarily a bad thing) but if you can see past that this is a bit of a gem on account of its ultra dry wit.
July 3, 2017
I would give this ten stars if I could! I think everyone should read this book. Helen MacInnes is one of my new favorite authors. I can't wait to get my hands on more of her books.
July 26, 2025
I found this book at an antique store having no idea what it was about or who the author was and I was thoroughly surprised. This book has become one of my favorites.
I feel it’s hard for me to connect with a lot of books especially romance ones but this one seemed to be so relavent to me, not in plot but in the emotions and the thoughts.
I’ve never connected more with a book about romance and the different feelings. I felt like I’m finally not alone in some of my ways of thinking and feeling and felt I could connect with almost every character in some way.
This is the kind of love one stays awake at night dreaming about.
I feel it’s hard for me to connect with a lot of books especially romance ones but this one seemed to be so relavent to me, not in plot but in the emotions and the thoughts.
I’ve never connected more with a book about romance and the different feelings. I felt like I’m finally not alone in some of my ways of thinking and feeling and felt I could connect with almost every character in some way.
This is the kind of love one stays awake at night dreaming about.
September 4, 2023
A wholly different kind of MacInnes book- a romance only- but a well written one with compelling characters and lots of tension. While I wished this book had some suspense of action in it, it was still an enjoyable read. The book’s only real fault is that it is a romance novel, and I had hoped to read a romance/suspense/spy novel mash-up (as many of MacInnes’ other novels are that type).
June 15, 2025
This was a sweet romance chronicling the lives of a couple in 1932-1933 England as they face the challenges of young love and the obstacles of the time to their marriage (family and university and jobs). My favorite part is the glimpse into social mores and politics of the time as well as observations about everyday life that still feel accurate 90 years later.
February 15, 2023
More than a love story, filled with wise words.
April 13, 2023
A pleasant, if a bit slow, read. Interesting to consider the similarities and differences in the way romantic relationships develop these days compared to a century ago!
August 6, 2023
Not what I expected from MacInnes, but a pleasant read.
September 14, 2023
One of two MacInness novels that is straight romance.
September 7, 2024
Read years ago.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews