I wish this kind of Regency was still published today. I discovered the works of Diana Brown recently, and I strongly recommend her works (at least in traditional Regency). Some of her books were published by St Martin's Press, others by Signet and so forth.

The story and the premise were intriguing enough to provoke a debate on a Regency readers group in which I participate. One of the major questions asked (of a reader of Regency romances) is: "What constitutes a lady's honor? Should it be judged on the same grounds as a man's? Or does her honor constitute solely of her reputation, which is based in turn of her birth, her connections, her dowry, her marital status, and of course, her chastity?" Another question to ask while you are reading this book is "What is worth sacrificing, and for what?" The hero and heroine of this novel (for it is indeed a novel) answer these questions differently, as do people around them. I had a different take from another reader as well, in that I agreed with neither the hero nor the heroine.

The synopsis: Lord Chalmsforth (not Lord Peter Chalmsforth, as in the book) is considering marriage at the start of the novel, because his middle brother has died unmarried and his younger and only surviving brother is too young and also too immature. To this end, Peter Chalmsforth visits his mother (a lady of impeccable tastes), and discusses his plans with her. At the end, he sets out to waylay his brother to prevent an unsuitable marriage to the conniving daughter of a country clergyman. He arrives in the country, only to discover that the lady in question is actually quite respectable, but that his brother's attentions have shifted to the sister of his friend - who is also desired (or found attractive, at any rate) by Chalmsforth himself. Chalmsforth makes a huge blunder (or a couple of blunders) that will henceforth color the heroine Fiona Guthrie's impressions of him and his expectations, and determine their futures.

Fiona Guthrie is a young lady of great determination, remarkably attractive but sadly penniless thanks to the financial imprudence of her father, a man of ancient lineage who did not survive his late wife for long. She is nevertheless determined to hold her parents's marriage (for love) as her example, and she will not marry without love. Fiona is also passionately attached to her childhood and family home, a historic house connected allegedly to Mary, Queen of the Scots (who Fiona views as superior to Elizabeth I). She is co-owner of this home with her scapegrace gamester brother, Niall. Unfortunately, Niall does not take this fact and others into consideration when he plays cards with a notorious rake, loses the sum of seven thousand pounds, and then compounds with a moneylender, using the estate as collateral.

To save her brother from debtor's prison and worse (he has misrepresented the estate as larger than it is, and has failed to mention that he is only part-owner), Fiona Guthrie seeks out her mother's sister, a rather vulgar lady despite her good birth. This lady and her husband will not lend the money without any collateral. Fiona refuses to either give them the abbey (which she feels is worth more than the sum of her brother's losses) or to sell the abbey outright. She departs their house in high dudgeon, but remembers an interesting conversation with Lord Chalmsforth who had admired her greatly.

The rest of the story contains spoilers, so I will discuss it in a separate review. Fiona is a remarkable heroine, whatever you might think of her actions or her feelings about love and marriage (not to mention her house and her family pride). She ends up not married to a highly eligible suitor, but running a school or academy for girls with her friend (the clergyman's daughter, thrown over by Chalmsforth's brother). And yes, there is a Happily Ever After ending, with Chalmsforth and Fiona married to each other, and the friend finding her own suitable and loving husband.

The focus of this story is the complicated relationship of Fiona (Guthrie) and Peter (Chalmsforth), made even more complicated by certain facts. Fiona has a sense of her honor that is quite unlike that of the usual Regency lady (or lord). For her, honor in a woman is on par with honor for a gentleman. Keeping your word is important. Marriage to someone you do not love is prostitution - permanent prostitution. These are somewhat advanced but not unusual ideas. (She has read Wollstonecraft, I believe). The question is - Does the hero agree with her? Will Fiona change her mind, and if so, when and why? And how would you interpret the actions and motivations of hero and heroine.

There is an icky (but not too icky) villain who gets something of a comeuppance - although life being what it is, he manages to create a problem for the hero. His motivations are generally quite credible, although I had little understanding of why he chose to fleece young gentlemen in the first place. [But we can guess why - losing could be very expensive].

Most of the secondary characters are beautifully done, including an attractive but not cutesy young girl. The mores and manners of the period are generally well-adhered to in this book. And apart from the small error with the hero's title and style, there are no major bloopers in the author's understanding of how British aristocratic society worked. The book is beautifully written, imaginative, and well-constructed. That I disagree with the heroine's actions is neither here nor there.

Do yourself a favor, and pick up this book or almost any other by this author.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

and the kind of Regency that I wish were still published today. I discovered the works of Diana Brown recently, and I strongly recommend her works (at least in traditional Regency). Some of her books were published by St Martin's Press, others by Signet and so forth.

The story and the premise were intriguing enough to provoke a debate on a Regency readers group in which I participate. One of the major questions asked (of a reader of Regency romances) is: "What constitutes a lady's honor? Should it be judged on the same grounds as a man's? Or does her honor constitute solely of her reputation, which is based in turn of her birth, her connections, her dowry, her marital status, and of course, her chastity?" Another question to ask while you are reading this book is "What is worth sacrificing, and for what?" The hero and heroine of this novel (for it is indeed a novel) answer these questions differently, as do people around them. I had a different take from another reader as well, in that I agreed with neither the hero nor the heroine.

The synopsis: Lord Chalmsforth (not Lord Peter Chalmsforth, as in the book) is considering marriage at the start of the novel, because his middle brother has died unmarried and his younger and only surviving brother is too young and also too immature. To this end, Peter Chalmsforth visits his mother (a lady of impeccable tastes), and discusses his plans with her. At the end, he sets out to waylay his brother to prevent an unsuitable marriage to the conniving daughter of a country clergyman. He arrives in the country, only to discover that the lady in question is actually quite respectable, but that his brother's attentions have shifted to the sister of his friend - who is also desired (or found attractive, at any rate) by Chalmsforth himself. Chalmsforth makes a huge blunder (or a couple of blunders) that will henceforth color the heroine Fiona Guthrie's impressions of him and his expectations, and determine their futures.

Fiona Guthrie is a young lady of great determination, remarkably attractive but sadly penniless thanks to the financial imprudence of her father, a man of ancient lineage who did not survive his late wife for long. She is nevertheless determined to hold her parents's marriage (for love) as her example, and she will not marry without love. Fiona is also passionately attached to her childhood and family home, a historic house connected allegedly to Mary, Queen of the Scots (who Fiona views as superior to Elizabeth I). She is co-owner of this home with her scapegrace gamester brother, Niall. Unfortunately, Niall does not take this fact and others into consideration when he plays cards with a notorious rake, loses the sum of seven thousand pounds, and then compounds with a moneylender, using the estate as collateral.

To save her brother from debtor's prison and worse (he has misrepresented the estate as larger than it is, and has failed to mention that he is only part-owner), Fiona Guthrie seeks out her mother's sister, a rather vulgar lady despite her good birth. This lady and her husband will not lend the money without any collateral. Fiona refuses to either give them the abbey (which she feels is worth more than the sum of her brother's losses) or to sell the abbey outright. She departs their house in high dudgeon, but remembers an interesting conversation with Lord Chalmsforth who had admired her greatly.

The rest of the story contains spoilers, so I will discuss it in a separate review. Fiona is a remarkable heroine, whatever you might think of her actions or her feelings about love and marriage (not to mention her house and her family pride). She ends up not married to a highly eligible suitor, but running a school or academy for girls with her friend (the clergyman's daughter, thrown over by Chalmsforth's brother). And yes, there is a Happily Ever After ending, with Chalmsforth and Fiona married to each other, and the friend finding her own suitable and loving husband.

The focus of this story is the complicated relationship of Fiona (Guthrie) and Peter (Chalmsforth), made even more complicated by certain facts. Fiona has a sense of her honor that is quite unlike that of the usual Regency lady (or lord). For her, honor in a woman is on par with honor for a gentleman. Keeping your word is important. Marriage to someone you do not love is prostitution - permanent prostitution. These are somewhat advanced but not unusual ideas. (She has read Wollstonecraft, I believe). The question is - Does the hero agree with her? Will Fiona change her mind, and if so, when and why? And how would you interpret the actions and motivations of hero and heroine.

There is an icky (but not too icky) villain who gets something of a comeuppance - although life being what it is, he manages to create a problem for the hero. His motivations are generally quite credible, although I had little understanding of why he chose to fleece young gentlemen in the first place. [But we can guess why - losing could be very expensive].

Most of the secondary characters are beautifully done, including an attractive but not cutesy young girl. The mores and manners of the period are generally well-adhered to in this book. And apart from the small error with the hero's title and style, there are no major bloopers in the author's understanding of how British aristocratic society worked. The book is beautifully written, imaginative, and well-constructed. That I disagree with the heroine's actions is neither here nor there.

Do yourself a favor, and pick up this book or almost any other by this author.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Penelope Bransome had learned how thoroughly unpleasant love could be during her brief marriage. She was little more than a girl when wed, and by the time her husband's death released her she was a young woman determined never to be ensnared by a man again. Handsome, Lord Charles Mortimer had more adoration than he could possibly want as England's greatest hero and as the favorite of London's most ravishing lady, the beautiful, blue-blooded Georgina Staverton. Clearly Lord Mortimer could have not interest in retiring Penelope. Then they were thrown together and suddenly nothing was clear except certain feelings that both of them did not dare admit and that neither could ignore.

". . . presents the perspective of artists who defend the value of thinking and talking about art without diminishing the educational importance of the creative act itself. It thus should give [Discipline-Based Art Education] credibility with artists and also should help educators and theorists who work with artists communicate more effectively." -- from my review for the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53 (Summer 1995), pp. 323-324

I cannot say that I liked this Diana Brown as much I liked a previous book DEBT OF HONOR, or even THE EMERALD NECKLACE (with its hard-to-like heroine). The problem was not with Ms Brown's writing or her descriptions, but rather the turn taken in the book between the first and second half. How to write a spoiler-free review? Difficult, given what happens.

The story is about a young woman, Alexandra, who is in love with the neighbor's son Darius Wentworth, future Lord Bladen. She has a number of problems. Firstly, her family (especially her autocratic father) are staunch Tories; the Wentworths are and always have been Whigs. Secondly, she has virtually no dowry - her father economizes hugely on his daughters, and even on his younger sons. Without a good dowry, she cannot marry well. Thirdly, she is much too young for Darius, who treats her as a younger sister.

Alexandra's childhood infatuation for Darius grows into a teenage adoration, which persists through his marriage to an earl's daughter (who dies in childbirth). She owes her education and her ability to write well to the Wentworths - Darius's father Lord Bladen has allowed her the run of his library and recommended books for her to read. She is serious by nature, so much so that she considers Maria Edgeworth frivolous. Unfortunately for Alexandra, things change. First, her mentor Lord Bladen dies, followed shortly by his widow Lady Bladen. Alexandra cannot, with propriety, visit the house of a widower (Darius, the new Lord Bladen). But she spends time with his delightful son who is complelely ignored by Darius. Why?

Alexandra believes it is because little Crumpet (the name she gives John Frederick Wentworth, the baby) cost his mother her life. But then there is a cousin who pays attention to Crumpet (while ignoring and belittling all other children), there is the strange dislike between Darius and his cousin.

Darius is not perfectly admirable. He has an affair with a widow, and brings her to stay in his house. Alexandra, frustrated with jealousy, realizes that Darius still does not love her. She however manages to turn away many eligible marriages, and then finally runs away to London to lead her own life, escaping a marriage arranged for her.

I have left some crucial events in the middle out, because they are major spoilers. Suffice it to say, that Alexandra's writing skills are now honed, and they pay off handsomeley. Yet, they also eventually cost Alexandra her reputation. I am omitting information on the entire second half, apart from the reference to Alexandra's writing career, because there are so many secrets revealed by the end.

The reason that I could not quite like this book, is because the heroine makes a remarkably stupid mistake in the middle. When offered the chance of a marriage (even though not of love) to the man she loves, she turns it down by lying about something. At this point, it is not that she is innocent. She is immature in many respects, not having considered possible consequences. And the consequences could have been very dire for her indeed.
Her reason (as stated to the hero at the end) did not move me in particular, especially since she had made further stupid decisions to prove her independence.

Darius is not perfect. That is the beauty of the story. He is having an affair with a widow; he is indifferent to his baby son; he is not fully cognizant of how far Alexandra's reputation could be ruined by the time they spent together.

Alexandra is not perfect either. She is a strong-willed young woman, determined not to marry without love (even the man she loves). She is also determined to pursue her own career. She does not however think ahead, and she often makes TSTL (too-stupid-to-live), or at the very least, unreasonable decisions. She is convinced that by adopting a nom-de-plume she will be able to live the life of a free-thinker. However, she has not learned fully from the lives of Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin and Mary Godwin Shelly - in that she understands the principles, but not the consequences such freedom of expression can have on her personally. She is also too willing to believe a certain character, despite any reason to trust him - simply because he was kind to poor little Crumpet.

I felt so frustrated with this book. Alexandra's life as an independent writer in London did not ring true, given what I know (admittedly not much) about the position of women writers in the Regency or much later. I admired her willingness (upto a point) to carry through on a word, even in a despicable bargain. {Despicable, that is, for her future]. But on the other hand, I felt her attitude towards her second match totally unrealistic. Surely, she realized how dependent she would make herself as a married woman, given all her prating on the point earlier. That, along with her blind belief in the man she agreed to marry, was what turned me off this book.

One last comment. The title for this book (unlike that for DEBT OF HONOR) did not describe the plot very well, nor the issues and motives driving the heroine to act as she did.

Rating = 3.9 (rounded to 4)
Summary = compelling first part, compelling in parts after that. Character of heroine credible internally, but not consistent with the time-period. Heroine makes some ill-judged decisions.

A wonderful peice of scholarly work! This book researches Umbanda (as practiced in Southern Brazil) and the socio-politics associated with it from the 1930's to 1970's.

This book is wonderful for the seasoned and culturally competent person whom has a firm working knowledge of Brazil and Afro-Brazilian religions, but does not offer much for those interested in the various rites and rituals associated with the religion.

Overall, a good purchase......one of the very few works done on this most fascinating truly Brazilian religion.

I just picked up this book since having Dr. Schwarzbein referenced in Suzanne Somers' books and writing reciprocating forwards/testimonials for one another. Yet, even though I have not completely read Principle II, I have found this info to be confusing because it is the opposite principles compared to the Suzanne Somers' principles I have been strictly/religiously following since January 2003. I wanted to read this book to get the details on how Suzanne Somers' way of eating really works at the cellular level. Now I find that the two women's philosophies contradict each other. Can anyone explain how both claim to work and be so opposite??? It's hard for me to review this book since it's now telling me everything I'm been doing for almost six months is wrong and harmful to my health. Confused in Marion.

I purchased Diana Schwarzbein's first book (THE SCHWARZBEIN PRINCIPLE) a few years ago when it first hit the shelves and LOVED it. It is a fabulous book - I consider it the best health book out there. It is very well written and FULL of useful information that actually works! And it's not a diet book...it explains how to completely revamp your eating for better health and to increase your energy. So of course, I picked up Dr. Schwarzbein's second book when it came out just a few days ago. But, I feel like I'm reading the same thing again. It has the identical information as her first book. I returned The Schwarzbeing Principle II because it has very much the same info as the first copy. Don't waste the money if you already have the first one.

I just finished the this book and really loved it. I thought that although it rehashed the basics from the first book (which I expected, for new readers) it was much more thorough. The five steps were great and breaking it down into programs for different metabolism types was also great. One size does not fit all. I was frustrated because I wasn't losing and sticking to the plan. Now I know why. Her explaination about cortisol was particularly revealing for me. I would recomend it to anyone. I had been recomending the first book but my advice now it to skip that one and read this one.