Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.95 AVERAGE
3.95 AVERAGE
Sylvester is not the usual book I'd pick up. Regency romances don't usually appeal to me – too Austenesque for my liking (I had a traumatic experience reading [b:Emma|6969|Emma|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1373627931s/6969.jpg|3360164] in high school that was not only worsened by watching the movie adaptation starring Gwyneth Paltrow). But the appeal of listening to an audiobook narrated by actor Richard Armitage quickly outweighed the worries I had associated with the book.
As a quick disclaimer: this audiobook is the abridged version and I currently have no intention of seeking out an unabridged version to read it. So, while I might criticise an aspect of the book, the flaw might lie in the abridgement rather than the actual writing.
Sylvester tells the story of the relationship between the titular character – an aloof, confident duke – and Phoebe, an awkward young lady who has few prospects. Their families want them married, they find nothing inspiring in the other until they are forced to spend time together, trapped by bad weather, and are then thrust into a series of misadventures – chief of which is the publication of Phoebe's novel in which the villain is based on Sylvester.
I quite like the basis of the plot – that these two individuals would start off disliking each other, but learn to get along after being stranded. The idea suggested a somewhat cosy imagery for me, which was reinforced when I learnt that it was because of heavy snow they became stranded in a small inn, and I was a little disappointed that it was so quickly over. I do think there's a really nice story there – two people who don't like each other becoming stranded and not only learning to get along and survive, but also falling in love – but one that's probably been written before.
The writing style, though probably quite fitting for the subgenre and context it was written in, left me a little wary too – it seemed to rely too much on exposition to explain almost everything, breaking that old rule of "show, don't tell". I think I could have enjoyed it more if we got more insight into the characters' personalities and thoughts, rather than just being told baldly what they were feeling.
Additionally, I thought there was too much of a focus on Sylvester wronging Phoebe. While the novel does acknowledge Phoebe's mistakes and flaws, it is quick to excuse her from blame and instead casts the fault of all the misadventures on Sylvester. And yes, at times, Sylvester is at fault and there are times his behaviour could have been better, but at other times it smacked of victim blaming.
For example – Phoebe has written novel with a villain based on Sylvester – she wrote it before she knew him, and to her credit, attempts to change the novel before publication – but it is Sylvester's own fault for being cast as the villain because he wasn't warm and welcoming to Phoebe at first meeting (we later learn that he holds himself at a distance to everyone due to his grief over his twin brother's death). In another sequence, Sylvester airs his grievances to her over the book but when this provokes an upset and angry reaction from her and wrecks her reputation, it's Sylvester's fault for daring to be upset with her.
I just don't understand it.
I did like the characters of both Sylvester and Phoebe and part of my frustration with the writing style is that they were rich and complex characters, but the writing didn't really allow that complexity to come across.
The ending also felt a bit unsettling, leaving me questioning whether Phoebe really did love Sylvester or whether she was merely tolerating his affections for her. With what comes before, I believe she did love him but the ending made me doubt that. Additionally, with Heyer describing his actions as "mad" or "depraved", I felt very uneasy about the way the two characters are left, even though I believe this was meant to be humorous.
Actor Richard Armitage narrates the audiobook, and seemed to have been fully invested in bringing to life each and every one of the characters and the setting of Sylvester. Armitage is easily the best narrator I've heard in my (limited) experience of audiobooks. He provides each character with such a unique voice it is often easy to forget that it was Armitage voicing all the characters. Furthermore, Armitage is the only male narrator I've come across who doesn't fall into the trap of going for an obviously forced, high-pitched, breathy voice for the female characters. I wouldn't go so far to say that he makes you believe you're listening to a woman, but at the least he doesn't sound like he's a man putting on a feminine voice. It just feels natural.
Armitage's narration is most probably the real reason I enjoyed Sylvester as much as I did. I liked aspects of Heyer's work, but would have probably found the book – abridged or not – somewhat of a chore to get through. The story itself I'd probably rate 3 stars, but I can easily see it being lower if I'd actually read the book. With Armitage, Sylvester was nothing but a joy to listen to, however, and easily worth 4 stars.
As a quick disclaimer: this audiobook is the abridged version and I currently have no intention of seeking out an unabridged version to read it. So, while I might criticise an aspect of the book, the flaw might lie in the abridgement rather than the actual writing.
Sylvester tells the story of the relationship between the titular character – an aloof, confident duke – and Phoebe, an awkward young lady who has few prospects. Their families want them married, they find nothing inspiring in the other until they are forced to spend time together, trapped by bad weather, and are then thrust into a series of misadventures – chief of which is the publication of Phoebe's novel in which the villain is based on Sylvester.
I quite like the basis of the plot – that these two individuals would start off disliking each other, but learn to get along after being stranded. The idea suggested a somewhat cosy imagery for me, which was reinforced when I learnt that it was because of heavy snow they became stranded in a small inn, and I was a little disappointed that it was so quickly over. I do think there's a really nice story there – two people who don't like each other becoming stranded and not only learning to get along and survive, but also falling in love – but one that's probably been written before.
The writing style, though probably quite fitting for the subgenre and context it was written in, left me a little wary too – it seemed to rely too much on exposition to explain almost everything, breaking that old rule of "show, don't tell". I think I could have enjoyed it more if we got more insight into the characters' personalities and thoughts, rather than just being told baldly what they were feeling.
Additionally, I thought there was too much of a focus on Sylvester wronging Phoebe. While the novel does acknowledge Phoebe's mistakes and flaws, it is quick to excuse her from blame and instead casts the fault of all the misadventures on Sylvester. And yes, at times, Sylvester is at fault and there are times his behaviour could have been better, but at other times it smacked of victim blaming.
For example – Phoebe has written novel with a villain based on Sylvester – she wrote it before she knew him, and to her credit, attempts to change the novel before publication – but it is Sylvester's own fault for being cast as the villain because he wasn't warm and welcoming to Phoebe at first meeting (we later learn that he holds himself at a distance to everyone due to his grief over his twin brother's death). In another sequence, Sylvester airs his grievances to her over the book but when this provokes an upset and angry reaction from her and wrecks her reputation, it's Sylvester's fault for daring to be upset with her.
I just don't understand it.
I did like the characters of both Sylvester and Phoebe and part of my frustration with the writing style is that they were rich and complex characters, but the writing didn't really allow that complexity to come across.
The ending also felt a bit unsettling, leaving me questioning whether Phoebe really did love Sylvester or whether she was merely tolerating his affections for her. With what comes before, I believe she did love him but the ending made me doubt that. Additionally, with Heyer describing his actions as "mad" or "depraved", I felt very uneasy about the way the two characters are left, even though I believe this was meant to be humorous.
Actor Richard Armitage narrates the audiobook, and seemed to have been fully invested in bringing to life each and every one of the characters and the setting of Sylvester. Armitage is easily the best narrator I've heard in my (limited) experience of audiobooks. He provides each character with such a unique voice it is often easy to forget that it was Armitage voicing all the characters. Furthermore, Armitage is the only male narrator I've come across who doesn't fall into the trap of going for an obviously forced, high-pitched, breathy voice for the female characters. I wouldn't go so far to say that he makes you believe you're listening to a woman, but at the least he doesn't sound like he's a man putting on a feminine voice. It just feels natural.
Armitage's narration is most probably the real reason I enjoyed Sylvester as much as I did. I liked aspects of Heyer's work, but would have probably found the book – abridged or not – somewhat of a chore to get through. The story itself I'd probably rate 3 stars, but I can easily see it being lower if I'd actually read the book. With Armitage, Sylvester was nothing but a joy to listen to, however, and easily worth 4 stars.
I don't know what happened here, it was well written I just could not truly connect with the main characters.
It started out promising and then it got boring.
Unfortunately, I did not feel much of a connection between the two leads.
It started out promising and then it got boring.
Unfortunately, I did not feel much of a connection between the two leads.
*3.5 stars
I read this on recommendation from my boss (thanks Sarah) and had a great time with it! It was a classic Regency-era slow burn, as was to be expected, but I actually enjoyed the relationship dynamic a lot more than I was expecting?? It was an enemies/unhappy acquaintances-to-lovers dynamic where he fell first, and it was actually a great time. It was really fun to follow the plotline of Phoebe's book and the fallout from that, that was such an interesting story! As is my usual peeve with Regency-era books, the romance came RIGHT at the end and then the book was just over. I would have liked at least an extra chapter with the main couple properly in a relationship rather than just ending with a kiss. Very, very few authors can do that like Jane Austen can in my books, so it's hard to impress me there. I had a fun time with this, though!
I read this on recommendation from my boss (thanks Sarah) and had a great time with it! It was a classic Regency-era slow burn, as was to be expected, but I actually enjoyed the relationship dynamic a lot more than I was expecting?? It was an enemies/unhappy acquaintances-to-lovers dynamic where he fell first, and it was actually a great time. It was really fun to follow the plotline of Phoebe's book and the fallout from that, that was such an interesting story! As is my usual peeve with Regency-era books, the romance came RIGHT at the end and then the book was just over. I would have liked at least an extra chapter with the main couple properly in a relationship rather than just ending with a kiss. Very, very few authors can do that like Jane Austen can in my books, so it's hard to impress me there. I had a fun time with this, though!
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
emotional
funny
hopeful
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
medium-paced
emotional
funny
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
One of Heyer's most wayward, convoluted, and melodramatic plots. There are likable moments but the pacing is extremely uneven and Sylvester is absolutely repulsive and needs his mom to solve his problems. Phoebe has some great dialogue towards the end and when she sets Sylvester down, but on the whole her character is a tale of competing forces that never really square: she's shy, easily intimidated, thoroughly emotional with her heart on her sleeve, a horse nerd and melodrama author, but also clever, confrontational, direct, and incisive. She's a bundle of conflicting, contradictory forces left to follow wherever a meandering plot takes her. And this isn't to say she's complex like a person or any such apologist reply to her overloaded personality, but contains features that simply don't work together.
The novel-writing plot point and forced contact during the snow storm also seemed so overblown and ridiculous that I could never really take the story seriously. Heyer's books, while occasionally strewn with fun-loving action and drama, usually ground themselves in realism and the bounds of what might happen, but the sensationalist big drama moments and fate-y coincidences of this are just too shamelessly melodramatic for an author so renowned for period specificity and grounding of her novels in a historic mode. The novel acknowledges the concept of fate and the absurdity of its conflict, but just being self-aware isn't an answer to features that are on the whole poorly executed and thoroughly contrived.
The novel-writing plot point and forced contact during the snow storm also seemed so overblown and ridiculous that I could never really take the story seriously. Heyer's books, while occasionally strewn with fun-loving action and drama, usually ground themselves in realism and the bounds of what might happen, but the sensationalist big drama moments and fate-y coincidences of this are just too shamelessly melodramatic for an author so renowned for period specificity and grounding of her novels in a historic mode. The novel acknowledges the concept of fate and the absurdity of its conflict, but just being self-aware isn't an answer to features that are on the whole poorly executed and thoroughly contrived.
Entertaining on the first half, lost me with the last half. Cute and quirky couple but not mature for my tastes